August 28th, 2007

On the Ho Chi Minh trail, then and now

To continue with the theme of the last few days, this article that appeared in The American Prospect back in February is edifying in describing exactly how an increasingly antiwar Congress pressured Nixon back in the late 60s and early-to-mid-70s to end the Vietnam War, and what effect it had on our strategy and prosecution of that war.

It’s edifying in several ways, not the least of which is the tone of the author, who clearly approves of Congress’s actions then, and hopes that by describing them in detail now he can provide guidance to those who wish to act similarly today in pressuring Bush (or any possible hawkish successor) to withdraw from Iraq. The author considers Senators Church, Case, and Mansfield, et. al. to be heroes, Davids who stood up bravely against the Goliath Nixon (and the unbridled power of the Presidency) and felled him, even before the final self-delivered blow of Watergate.

I’m offering it mostly, though, as a summary of Congressional antiwar measures of the time, for those who are interested. I do not share the author’s assumptions that all these things were for the good, and his ignoring of the negative consequences of the antiwar movement’s actions, but I find his views representative of most liberal thought now. Certainly they were representative of majority public opinion in America at the time—including mine.

Contrast to this interview with Bui Tin, a former colonel on the general staff of North Vietnam’s army. He received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975, but later defected to France after becoming disillusioned with the course Communism took after the takeover (ah, another changed mind).

Bui Tin describes the other side of the picture. From the start, the North Vietnamese read the American public well and were aware of what their strategy needed to be:

Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, “We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.”

And then there’s this:

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.

Read the rest for an interesting take on how the enemy’s strategy followed its knowledge of the American psyche. Ho proved to have been correct then. The important question is whether his words still ring true.

[ADDENDUM: The antiwar movement’s words still have an effect.]

100 Responses to “On the Ho Chi Minh trail, then and now”

  1. Anon Says:

    You mean the liberal American Prospect, not the conservative American Spectator.

  2. Ken Larson Says:

    I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak. I believed another Vietnam could be avoided with defined missions and the best armaments in the world.

    It made no difference.

    We have bought into the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). If you would like to read how this happens please see:

    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/spyagency200703

    Through a combination of public apathy and threats by the MIC we have let the SYSTEM get too large. It is now a SYSTEMIC problem and the SYSTEM is out of control. Government and industry are merging and that is very dangerous.

    There is no conspiracy. The SYSTEM has gotten so big that those who make it up and run it day to day in industry and government simply are perpetuating their existance.

    The politicians rely on them for details and recommendations because they cannot possibly grasp the nuances of the environment and the BIG SYSTEM.

    So, the system has to go bust and then be re-scaled, fixed and re-designed to run efficiently and prudently, just like any other big machine that runs poorly or becomes obsolete or dangerous.

    This situation will right itself through trauma. I see a government ENRON on the horizon, with an associated house cleaning.

    The next president will come and go along with his appointees and politicos. The event to watch is the collapse of the MIC.

    For more details see:

    http://rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com/2006/11/odyssey-of-armaments.html

  3. Anonymous Says:

    I agree with everything you say about our enemies’ use of the North Vietnamese strategy to defeat us in conflicts when traditional strategies won’t work. It begs the question: “Who really is responsible for what is happening in Iraq? George Bush or anti-war protesters?”

    BTW, I have looked everywhere, in vain, on this site for the last parts of your description of your “conversion”. Have also looked for the real story behind those two pictures that did so much to sway public opinion against the Vietnam War. Could you give me a hint where to find them?

    Thanks

  4. stumbley Says:

    Anonymous, 2:07 pm:

    See here: http://www.pwhce.org/textvnhr.html

    Money graf: “The Vietcong shot by General Loan had, not long before this picture was taken, led a team of communist terrorists in a killing spree, killing the whole family of a South Vietnamese officer in the process – including his 80 year old mother, his wife and his small children.”

    The story of Kim Phuc (the little girl fleeing the napalm) is in the following paragraph.

  5. Tatterdemalian Says:

    “We have bought into the Military Industrial Complex (MIC).”

    Ah, so the real problem is that the MIC, in growing large enough to build satellite systems, nanotech-engineered materials, and GM foods that could end world hunger if the environmentalists would let them be exported, has grown TOO large. We obviously need to tear the whole thing down, and go back to living in quaint pre-industrial age communities where we are guaranteed to die of any disease that can’t be cured by leeching or lancing. Big Pharma would have to go too, after all.

    Not on my watch.

  6. The Unknown Blogger Says:

    What’s your point here Neo?

    Never express disagreement with the government when it decides to go to war, because the enemy is listening?

    Surely not.

  7. neo-neocon Says:

    Anon: corrected.

  8. stumbley Says:

    First of all UB, one has to believe that the enemy is the enemy. For those of you on the left, the left is never the enemy. For those who pay attention to history, the left is rarely a friend.

  9. neo-neocon Says:

    Anonymous: Sorry about not having followed up with that essay on the photos, and on newer installments in the series. Other things always seem to intervene, and I want to give it the time it deserves. I have definitely been neglecting “A mind is a difficult thing…” in the last year. I hope to get back to it soon.

  10. Richard Aubrey Says:

    unknown.

    Words have an effect. That’s it. You may insist on your rights. You may insist on your moral purity. You may insist on the patriotism of dissent.

    None of that matters. The other side is listening and making judgments and nothing in the preceding paragraph changes that.

    Some of those judgments might be, as Hanoi correctly deduced, to hang on until the American left can provide them a victory. If that’s what you mean, then speaking in certain terms will do it. If it’s not what you mean, speaking in those terms will do it, too.

    Effects are independent of intent and of references to freedom of speech.

    Now, having been warned a number of times, if you continue to speak in ways that encourage the enemy, the logical conclusion is that you wish to encourage the enemy.

    Not that the rest of us would be surprised, or anything.

  11. stumbley Says:

    UB: Piggybacking on what Richard Aubrey has said, I direct your attention to the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, which in brief states that “language conditions the way you think.” For example:

    “A more Whorfian approach is represented by George Lakoff, who has argued much of language is essentially metaphor. For instance, English employs many metaphorical tropes that in one way or another equate time with money, e.g.:
    spend time
    waste time
    invest time
    A Whorfian interpretation would be that this usage influences the way English speakers conceive the abstract quality of “time”.

    For another example, political arguments are shaped by the web of conceptual metaphors that underlie language use. In political debates, it matters a great deal whether one is arguing in favor of the “right to life” or against the “right to choose”; whether one is discussing “illegal aliens” or “undocumented workers”.”

    It’s why the Women’s Movement lobbied so hard to remove gender identifiers from words like “chairman” and “fireman” to replace them with “chairperson” and “firefighter”, so that people would not automatically think of those occupations as exclusively male.

    When the media constantly defines Ba’athist holdouts, AQI terrorists and Mahdi Army thugs as “insurgents,” it relays a false impression to the public of who these criminals really are.

    Likewise, when one disagrees with the government’s position on the war in Iraq with statements like “quagmire” and “unwinnable,” one conveys to both one’s enemies and the public at large reasons to continue resistance and protest…even though facts on the ground in theater might be in total opposition to those positions.

  12. Ymarsakar Says:

    I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak. I believed another Vietnam could be avoided with defined missions and the best armaments in the world.

    It made no difference.

    We have bought into the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). If you would like to read how this happens please see:

    Of course it made no difference. Your problem was with people, not systems or institutions.

    You were wrong about defined missions and better armaments avoiding another Vietnam, and you’re wrong about the Military Industrial Complex.

  13. Ymarsakar Says:

    The important question is whether his words still ring true.

    useful idiots are still useful and idiotic, Neo. That hasn’t changed.

  14. Al Fin Says:

    Every mission that the US launched against the NVA and VC was telegraphed to the enemy by spies within the South Vietnamese government and military. There was never any chance for the US military to be as effective as it could have been against the North. The US left behind a large military infrastructure and armaments to equip one of the world’s largest armies. But the victory for the North was Pyrrhic, and for world communism only fleeting.

    In Vietnam, the difference between fighting until 1968 and fighting until 1972 hurt the US economy, and the US national spirit, but it hurt the long wave of communist expansion even more. Almost 60,000 American soldiers died in bloody fighting over a few years time in Vietnam. The US sank into a malaise that lasted until Ronald Reagan’s presidency. But the country rebounded. World communism, on the other hand, wallowed through Cambodia’s killing fields, Vietnam’s million person purges, and rushing forward on false bravado, sailed onto the reef of Afghanistan, gasping its death in 1989, 1990, 1991.

    Even at its lowest, the US was always the largest economy in the world, the most influential culture. With Reagan, the US was twice as booming, twice as dominant, and has never really turned back–despite attempts to re-enter the malaise years from late 1992 to late 1994.

  15. Talkinkamel Says:

    As far as the American malaise goes, I don’t think we’ve ever really snapped out of it. As for Communism—-was any Communist leader officially executed, or put on trial, as the Nazis were in Nuremburg? Was there any worldwide repudiation of it, and jail time for those who aided and abetted it—-the fifth columnists and the secret police? Does anybody remember or mourn the victims? And isn’t Putin, Russia’s new leader, rather creepily trying to bring it all back?

    Some victory.

  16. Jason D Says:

    Ken:
    Have you ever seen a movie called “The Cube?”

    Tatterdemalian:
    I agree with your general point, but I can’t support you on GM foods ending world hunger. There are serious health problems associated with their consumption which are not only beyond our current technology to repair, but may simply be endemic to genetic modification.

  17. r4d20 Says:

    Every mission that the US launched against the NVA and VC was telegraphed to the enemy by spies within the South Vietnamese government and military.

    Shhh!

    We’re trying to blame everything on the hippies and we don’t need you pointing out that events in Vietnam weren’t just a sideshow to the political fight in America.

    Say it with me now: “It doesn’t matter who we are fighting or where. It doesn’t matter what we do or what our enemy does. We could send 10 naked guys with rubber bands to fight the entire Iranian army and we will win because we are America and we cannot lose unless we are stabbed in the back by liberals!”

    Keep saying it till it doesn’t seem completely stupid.

  18. DonkeyKong Says:

    Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

    Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said, “We don’t need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out.”

    More proof, if any was needed, that the only way to keep South Vietnam from collapsing, was to make it the 51st state.

    Throughout the war the South depended on US logistical support. American advisors were constantly amazed that after they would turn their duties over to ARVN or the South Vietnamese Airforce, everthing would rapidly breakdown. Part were sold, things would’nt get done.

    It wasnt the army or the airforce personnel’s fault. Saigon set the tone. US official, political and military turned their back.

    I think the real story of the War in Vietnam doesnt fall into your childlike Left Bad/Right Good narrative Neo holds to her chest like a stuffed animal.

    OK, release the “booger flickers” Ymarskar, TalkinKamal, stumbly, have at it!

  19. DonkeyKong Says:

    “In Vietnam, the difference between fighting until 1968 and fighting until 1972 hurt the US economy, and the US national spirit, but it hurt the long wave of communist expansion even more. Almost 60,000 American soldiers died in bloody fighting over a few years time in Vietnam. The US sank into a malaise that lasted until Ronald Reagan’s presidency. But the country rebounded. World communism, on the other hand, wallowed through Cambodia’s killing fields, Vietnam’s million person purges, and rushing forward on false bravado, sailed onto the reef of Afghanistan, gasping its death in 1989, 1990, 1991.”

    Well said Fin, what if we had done Vietnam “right.”

    In other words, no Watergate.

    Invade the North and occupy the country until Saigon could establish control over the entire country. Ronald Reagan as governor favored this. How long would that take? We would have doubled or tripled our troops on the ground? Doubled or tripled the cost?

    When the Khmer Rouge took power in Cambodia after expanding the war there, would we invade to depose them? Logistically what would that take?

    We would have 1/3rd to half of our Cold War forces in Southeast Asia if we had done that.

    Notice Neo never brings up what should have been done. The answers are not so simple.

    Then along comes the Oil Embargo, and we lose the Cold War.

    The fact is, the Right has always been the real enemy. Not because they are wrong, but because they are stupid.

    So on to war in Iran.

    Will they ever learn?

  20. Howard Says:

    What does it prove that North Vietnam knew they could out-last us?

    They were simply right, they could. It was a civil war, a guerrilla war. We couldn’t achieve a military victory, nor a political victory.

    Now we are suppose to take from that bit of history that we shouldn’t make the same mistake in Iraq, by leaving too soon ?

    The mistake in Viet Nam was that we went in at all. The second mistake was that we stayed so long.

    If you believe otherwise you are like a Japanese soldier, still alive and alone, on a remote island, sixty years later, still fighting the allied forces.

    Vietnam War -

    Ran from 1959-1975
    Estimated 4 million Vietnamese civilians killed
    1.1 million communist fighters killed
    200-250,000 South Vietnamese troops killed
    58,200 US troops killed or missing in action

  21. r4d20 Says:

    besides the argument for staying in Vietnam is seriously undermined by the fact that the South Vietnamese were able to hold their own as long as they had American air support. Yes, we should have continued to supply them with money and arms, but if they could hold their own with only airsupport there was NO need to keep tens or hundreds of thousands of soldiers there.

    The anti-war protesters could never have gotten us to stop material support on their own. What drove the public away from the war was NOT the anti-war protestors as much as it was anger over years of being told how well the war was going when it obviously wasn’t.

    You can’t lie for years and then expect people to believe you once you start telling the truth! Tet WAS a serious defeat for the commies but the reason people didn’t believe that was because they had been told the communists were on the verge of defeat for 3 years. It wasnt the fault of the anti-war types – it was the fault of those who had told so many lies that they were not longer trusted when they told the truth!

    Bush played it the same way – he was so afraid of “anti-war” opinion that, for 3 years, he insisted that the insurgency was in it’s “last throes”. Is it any surprise that people don’t have faith in the claims of progress regarding the surge?

    You can’t lie for years and then expect people to believe you once you start telling the truth! Also, any negative consequences caused by their not listening are you fault for giving them good reason not to trust you, not theirs for failing to see that you are finally telling the truth.

  22. r4d20 Says:

    I wish more people would apply basic common-sense and see that there is no free lunch:

    The more you lie to people to keep them happy – the more pissed they get if and when the truth comes out.

    Dont do the crime if you cant handle the time

    Fewer people are more pathetic than those degenerates who gamble and then whine about the consequences of losing. When the admin and its supporters decided to use the “last throes” talking-point, they bet that we could beat the insurgency fast enough for it to sound credible. They lost that bet. To now whine about the consequences of losing is beneath basic dignity.

  23. Ymarsakar Says:

    OK, release the “booger flickers” Ymarskar, TalkinKamal, stumbly, have at it!

    Why bother. You have already fallen on your sword, so there is nothing else I can do to you in addition to that.

    The anti-war protesters could never have gotten us to stop material support on their own. What drove the public away from the war was NOT the anti-war protestors as much as it was anger over years of being told how well the war was going when it obviously wasn’t.

    So you think Congress voted to cut funding and air support because they were miffed at the Lyndon Johnson administration in the Ford years?

    This to you is some kind of admirable and responsible decision making process?

    You can’t lie for years and then expect people to believe you once you start telling the truth!

    They believed Kerry. They believed Jane. They believed Hanoi. Don’t talk silliness about how people won’t believe the truth after lies on top of the other lies they believed in.

    It wasnt the fault of the anti-war types – it was the fault of those who had told so many lies that they were not longer trusted when they told the truth!

    The US is a republic and it was as a republic that they voted to cut the throat of the Republic of South Vietnam. It didn’t matter what the man on the street thought, for their Congressional masters chose their course for them. You think what matters is what people believe? No, what matters is what people are made to believe.

  24. Talkinkamel Says:

    The rather sad fact is, Donks, R2D2 & all, you seem to have a very hard time coming to terms with the guilt I suspect you feel for those who died after America voted to cut support.

    And as for lies. . . oh, please! As Ymar points out, Kerry, Fonda, Cronkite, the bogus “Winter Soldiers”, all lied to us. Like we’re going to start listening to you know, when you spout the same sort of stuff?

  25. sergey Says:

    I live in the the country (Russia) where MIC was essentially demolished during last two decades. And it resulted in effectually demolishing science as well. More than half of university graduates in science now have to immigrate in order to prolong their scientific career. As for GM products, there is no single bit of information of their harmful effects in peer reviewed literature, and even no plausible theoretical possibility of inflicting any harm. (I insist on this as a professional geneticist.)

  26. sergey Says:

    What USA should do instead what was done in Vietnam? Send B-29 or B-52 in demilitarized zone after first invasion of NV troops here, instead of copters to Saigon. Tank columns on march are very good targets for carpet bombing, and this would have been enough to discourage Hanoi from further adventures. And, of course, a single tactic nuke dropped at Hanoi would have been enough, too.

  27. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Tet was a shock. But so was the Ardennes Offensive of 1944. In both cases, impending victory was stuffed back into its box, with serious effects on our side.

    The lies, though, were whether Tet was a defeat for the VC. As r4d20 says, in his serious howler, it was a defeat for the VC. He then goes on to screw the pooch by saying the US public didn’t believe that because of all the lies told it earlier.
    Nonsense. Also false. Also, for anybody with a clue, a lie itself. r4d20 may not have a clue, I should say, to give him a negative kind of credit.

    The US public did not believe it was a VC defeat because the media reported it as a VC victory. The same was true of the anti-war folks, to the extent there was a distinction.
    That was the lie.

    When pressed later, the lefties say it was a political victory for the VC, as if they had nothing to do with its being falsely represented and thus a political victory for the VC.

  28. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Ref. the addendum.

    The reluctance of prudent Iraqis to stand with the US and the Iraqi government for fear of being abandoned is, for the lefties, a feature, not a bug. It’s a goal.

  29. DonkeyKong Says:

    “The lies, though, were whether Tet was a defeat for the VC. As r4d20 says, in his serious howler, it was a defeat for the VC. He then goes on to screw the pooch by saying the US public didn’t believe that because of all the lies told it earlier.”-Richard Aubrey

    First of all Dick, if I can call you that. If you can’t tell the difference between a conventional war and an insurgency, your not tall enough to get on the ride.

    The fact is Tet was a defeat of both the ARVN and American forces.

    It was a defeat for ARVN because the US did the lions share of the fighting. For the US because(see prior sentence.)

    Lastly, ARVN conscripted from the population of the South. The South got a front row seat of that disaster. It took a superpower using artillary parks, fighterbombers, B-52′s on a massive scale of destruction to defeat the Vietcong.

    I don’t romantisize the VC.

    Black and white footage of what they did in Hue City (5,000 civilians slaughtered in cold blood) confirms this.

    However, Tet confirmed, the invasion of Cambodia in 1970 reconfirmed, and the invasion of Laos in 1971 re-reconfirmed ARVN could not fight without us.

    At any given time the South’s Army could only summon 65% of their force. It just got worse after we left in 1973.

    “The US public did not believe it was a VC defeat because the media reported it as a VC victory. “-Dick

    The Vietcong wanted to provoke an uprising in the South, that did’nt happen.

    We wanted the ARVN to defeat the Vietcong and take over their war. To show it had the morale and capacity to defend the South.

    That did’nt happen either.

    So what we are left with is an insurgent wing of the North able to launch attacks across the South. Attacks that could only be stopped by US forces.

    And while the Vietcong were spent as a force. Their infultration of the government and military of South Vietnam was left intact.

    For all the sound and fury at home, troop levels in Vietnam reached 540,000 in mid-1969. A full year and a half after Tet. So much for “The Lefts(sound of pounding kettle drums) ability to hobble the policy in Vietnam.

  30. r4d20 Says:

    The US public did not believe it was a VC defeat because the media reported it as a VC victory.

    When you’ve been told for 3 years that the “victory is almost at hand” only to see the enemy, who you were told had ALREADY been defeated, launch a massive wave of spectacular attacks all over the country – its gonna look like a “victory”.

    When the army told the media “actually, we won” they weren’t believed because they had said “we’ve won” MANY times before.

    Tet was “the straw that broke the camels back”. If the gov’t had been more honest about the level of progress with the country from 65-68, instead of telling them “we’re winning and its almost over” then Tet would have been a lonely straw on a healthy camel.

  31. r4d20 Says:

    If FDR had spent 41-44 telling Americans “The war is almost over and Hitler is just about to surrender” the Battle of the Bulge might have killed public support for the war too.

    Luckily the leaders didn’t create phony expectations of imminent victory and so the people were not surprised and did not fall for the illusion.

  32. r4d20 Says:

    The media is part of the modern battlespace like terrain and weather. You can learn to adapt to it and win or you can whine about it. If you cant figure out how to use the media to your own advantage then you don’t have the skills to play the game to begin with.

  33. Richard Aubreyr Says:

    r4.

    WRT your last. V.D. Hanson has said the military has tried to figure out how to win a war before the media can lose it.
    The presumption is not that the media would be incompetent. The presumption–correct since the mid-Sixties and validated in the Eighties in Central American and elsewhere, and today, is that the media are on the other side.

    And Bill Roggio and Michael Yon have said as much about the commanders they have seen in action.

    Donkey. You’re right. The political atmosphere, promoted mostly by the left, turned the admitted military flaying of the VC into a political victory, primarily because the media reported it as a military victory. Had the media said,
    “Having been soundly thrashed, finished as fighting force, the VC’s attempt ought to convince us to go home,”, that would have been one thing.
    Instead the reporting was that the US lost militarily and THAT made it a political defeat.

    Happened to be talking to a professor the other day, asked him about a subject which I had encountered and, by a million to one chance it fit his work. “You a professor around here?” he asked.
    No, I said. “I did my post-graduate work at Ft. Benning.”

    I’ve got an idea or two about insurgency, and, due to forty years of experience, about lefties.

  34. Al Fin Says:

    Robert Kaplan has a fascinating article in atlantic online about the war behind the war in VN.

    It’s clear the l-trolls commenting here have no idea what they’re talking about. But if they keep saying it often enough, it makes them feel better.
    ;-)

  35. Xanthippas Says:

    And then there’s this:

    Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory?
    A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement.

    Read the rest for an interesting take on how the enemy’s strategy followed its knowledge of the American psyche. Ho proved to have been correct then. The important question is whether his words still ring true.

    This is tiresome. Of course the leaders of an insurgency/guerrilla movement are going to want to be informed about the will of the enemy to keep fighting. Since they cannot defeat us militarily, they can only hope to defeat us politically, which requires sapping the will of our country to continue fighting in their country. So yes, his words still “ring true”, as they have throughout human history and will do so as long as insurgencies and guerrilla wars are fought.

    Of course, I could ask in good faith what you and some of your commentators think we’re supposed to do, but I know the answer: shut up and support the war. Or at least, just shut up. This is of course highly convenient for supporters of the war, who can rah-rah about the rightness of a war to their hearts contents, ignoring any and all news of defeat as well as excusing any incompetence of strategy by the government carrying out the war, as this would only “embolden” the enemy. Consequently, we would continue fighting a war that’s going poorly until…well, forever.

    Here’s my idea instead: let the American people judge the correctness of a war. Where the war appears to be fought in our self-interest and is going well, expect the enemy to have to listen to reports of how high our will is to fight. When the war is fought for dubious reasons, goes on longer than anticipated, appears to harm our national security interests and kills American soldiers unceasingly, expect our enemies to hear reports about how we’re questioning our war efforts. This is the “price” we pay for living in a democracy, and it has nothing to do with traitorous Democrats or pansy liberals undermining the country.

    The greatest threat to our country isn’t unending war; it’s the deleterious effect unending war has on our democracy. Of course that effect is heightened by those who’d like to hurry the process along, but I won’t go so far as to call them traitors so much…just dangerous.

  36. Richard Aubrey Says:

    The problem with war since Korea is that the left has determined that the US should lose. The
    American people are judging a war as reported by those who want the US to lose.

    The reports from soldiers, from reporters embedded with the troops, and from the occasional pol who goes to see for him or herself inidcate a bit of disagreement with the standard reporting. IOW, the closer you are to the war, the worse the US and western media look. They’re liars.

    The exception might be regional papers which nobody outside their region ever heard of who send reporters to follow a local Guard or Reserve unit.

    The term “treason” is tightly restricted in the Constitution for good reason. That doesn’t mean that we can’t use the word in another sense.

    Those who work for the US to lose are committing treason, although the likelihood of prosecution seems remote. Still, that’s what they’re doing.

    When the traitors had a lock on the information–Viet Nam–they won. Today, it’s harder for them.

  37. Xanthippas Says:

    Richard,

    Your argument is nothing but ad hominem attacks, historical mis-reading, and media paranoia. That it’s common from so-called conservatives does not make it defensible or legitimate.

    Dissent is not treason. When are founding fathers narrowly defined the word, and built a robust Constitution capable of defending itself from those who would subvert it for the sake of power and war, they had people such as you in mind because you are exactly the type to support leaders who would do just such a thing, all premised on the need for “security”, of course. You’re not a traitor because you at least believe you have the country’s best interests at heart, but you won’t grant those who disagree with you the same respect. Frankly, you don’t deserve the democracy you have been granted because you are all too willing to throw it away.

  38. Occam's Beard Says:

    You’re not a traitor because you at least believe you have the country’s best interests at heart, but you won’t grant those who disagree with you the same respect.

    Most of them don’t deserve such respect. It’s not as if they approach the subject with an open mind, and propose a different course of action for the good of the American nation and people. They start with the presumption that America is evil, and should be overthrown and dragged through the mud. That’s not dissent – that’s treason, straight up.

    Try this test: ask a leftist to express his love (sans qualifications, reservations, or obfuscations) of America, of the American people, and of the ideals on which the nation was founded. (The ideals, not the practice; he shouldn’t have a problem with the ideals.)

    Watch the words stick in his throat (unless he manages to say them, in which case watch out for the lightning bolt that will fry his ass.)

    Case closed. The difference isn’t one of policy, but of loyalty.

  39. Xanthippas Says:

    Most of them don’t deserve such respect. It’s not as if they approach the subject with an open mind, and propose a different course of action for the good of the American nation and people. They start with the presumption that America is evil, and should be overthrown and dragged through the mud. That’s not dissent – that’s treason, straight up.

    Since I know of no “leftist” who feels this way, or would have trouble expressing their loyalty to the United States, your point is easily dismissed.

    Of course, perhaps you meant it in the sense of supporting this government and the war in Iraq, in which case you have no idea what loyalty to America or the Constitution really means.

    My argument is that “conservatives” such as yourself equate dissent with treason, are immune to reason or debate, find war to be the highest calling of the state, and have no interest in defending the Constitution that protects your right to smear your fellow citizens as traitors. As your comments illustrate, case closed.

  40. Ymarsakar Says:

    Benedict Arnold had the best interests of the US at heart when he wanted the US to loser sooner to the British. He’s still a traitor though. Just because you got “good intentions” doesn’t really mean anything.

    Your argument is nothing but ad hominem attacks

    You can’t even give any examples, because you’re off the deep end.

    Dissent is not treason

    Arnold simply disagreed with what was best for the United States. He believed that America by losing, would win more than they would win if they won against the British. That’s dissent, isn’t it.

    they had people such as you in mind because you are exactly the type to support leaders

    You’re not a mind reader and you aren’t old enough even if you were to read the minds of the FFs.

    Or at least, just shut up

    It is more like if you don’t have anything constructive to offer towards the war effort, at least shut up. You don’t have to agree with the causes of the war or how the war is going, to offer up material to end the war sooner in victory. The choice of losing the war sooner is not the same choice as winning the war sooner. X, you try to confuse people over this as if the only way to disagree with a war is to want to lose it for your side.

    When the war is fought for dubious reasons, goes on longer than anticipated, appears to harm our national security interests and kills American soldiers unceasingly, expect our enemies to hear reports about how we’re questioning our war efforts.

    The enemy doesn’t want to hear reports about people questioning war in America. The enemy already knows this, because they are the cause for why people are “questioning” the war in the first place. They only wish to hear the feedback on how well their efforts are going. It is not the opinion of the American people at work you hear, X, but rather it is the opinion of the enemy that Americans have been made to say.

  41. Ymarsakar Says:

    Since I know of no “leftist” who feels this way,

    Starting at the top. PillowC, Reid, Kennedy, Byrd.

    Just to start things off.

  42. Ymarsakar Says:

    Oh ya, Murtha. Can’t forget Murtha.

  43. Occam's Beard Says:

    Since I know of no “leftist” who feels this way, or would have trouble expressing their loyalty to the United States, your point is easily dismissed.

    I received my degree from Berkeley, and I know of no leftist who doesn’t feel that way.

    See, e.g., http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/

    Most leftists (I’m not talking about soft-in-the-head kumbaya-singing liberal useful idiots driving Priuses, but actual leftists) conform exactly to my description above. They cheer when America comes a-cropper, are glum when America succeeds, and lay awake nights trying to undermine our society (so they can build their socialist “utopia”).

    I think we can agree that these are not the acts of loyal citizens.

    I get the impression you are a loyal American, and for that I salute you. We can differ in our views on policy – that is a quintessentially American thing to do – and I have no problem with that.

    My problem is with those whom Zombie has characterized in his/her blog cited above, and whom I know only too well from my days in Berkeley. If you really believe that leftists are loyal Americans, then our difference of opinion arises from a difference of experience, and I hope that one day we will share the same perspective.

  44. Xanthippas Says:

    Benedict Arnold had the best interests of the US at heart when he wanted the US to loser sooner to the British.

    Arnold actually aided the British in their military campaign. He didn’t merely express the opinion that it would be better for the U.S. to lose sooner, something that would not have been treasonous except to your counterparts of the day.

    As for the rest of your comment, it demonstrates you didn’t understand anything I said.

  45. Ymarsakar Says:

    It took a superpower using artillary parks, fighterbombers, B-52’s on a massive scale of destruction to defeat the Vietcong.

    And while the Vietcong were spent as a force. Their infultration of the government and military of South Vietnam was left intact.-Donkabrains

    While most of this is proof of the sheer ignorance in insurgency warfare that is Badonadonk here, it should be corrected for the record nonetheless.

    If the gov’t had been more honest about the level of progress with the country from 65-68, instead of telling them “we’re winning and its almost over” then Tet would have been a lonely straw on a healthy camel.

    Bush has been more honest, but the media and the public still won’t believe him and Petraeus. Therefore proving that you don’t know what you are talking about. With an adequate propagand apparatus, it doesn’t matter how honest the government is, for even honesty and truth can be used in good propaganda operations.

    If you cant figure out how to use the media to your own advantage then you don’t have the skills to play the game to begin with.

    The military and we already know how to manipulate the media. It just happens to be that it is illegal to conduct psychological operations on Americans by military personnel, but it isn’t illegal for the media. If you don’t like how things are, r4, go change the law instead of complaining here that the military won’t do what is necessary. As for the Bush administration, we have already said that he is too soft on the domestic insurgency. He won’t crack down. He gives the Left deals and 7th chances and what not.
    ———————
    The Vietcong VC/Charlie were guerillas in the jungle, insurgents in the city, and terrorists targeting Vietnamese civilians everywhere there was one. They were more or less composed of cells, informants, and safe bases in the North as well as the South. Very similar to AQ in Iraq and Al Anbar before the Petraeus Surge. The NVA were the North Vietnamese Army, composed of regulars trained by Soviet advisers and what not. In US military terms, the NVA were the US Army and the VC were the SF.

    Both the NVA and the VC launched conventional attacks against US forces and firebases in Tet. VC assassins and saboteurs attacked the US Embassy guarded by only a few Marines, and the Marines slaughtered the attackers as a result. The NVA were probably thinking that if the VC could cause enough havoc and destabilization in the South, then they might pincer the US forces between VC forces in the south and NVA forces in the North. Neither occured because both forces were essentially annihilated.

    The NVA were no match for US soldiers or air power, as we saw in We Were Soldiers (movie/book).

    The VC’s advantage was in the shadows conducting hit and run attacks, for their numbers were very small compared to the NVA.

    Tet was a disaster more for the VC than the NVA, given that insurgents are hard to recruit and train. Not only the active operators of the VC were cleansed, but the networks were as well. This essentially destroyed most of the Viet Cong network in South Vietnam. Phoenix Program completed the rest of the destruction and made sure that the VC would never come to power again, except perhaps after North Vietnam won. But even then I think US assassination programs were still at work finishing the final revenge that were allowed.

    The reason why Tet was a disaster for the VC was because the VietCong’s cadres were destroyed. A cadre is a force of senior and skilled personnel you use to train up a specific kind of force, like insurgents. Without the cadre, the VC were essentially left with nobody to train the recruits even if assuming their network could find any recruits, given that the network was very patchy after Tet.

    The NVA’s cadres were the Soviet trainers, thus all the North Vietnamese had to do to regenerate the army was to go conscript some more peasants and let the Soviets train them. Which they did, resulting in Easter Day attack and afterwards the Fall of Saigon.

    Air power was used more against NVA targets than VietCong, since VietCong were essentially very small groups of active operators in cities or maybe the jungles. The power of the insurgent is that he doesn’t have to come out and face conventional power and be annihilated, as people saw when AQ tried to attack US bases. That is because so long as an insurgent can avoid decisive engagement with superior forces such as the US Army, they can still alive and terrorize defenseless targets like women and children.

    When the VietCong were ordered to conduct conventional attacks and semi-conventional sabotage attacks, they had to face US Army and US Marine forces. Which meant the VC were going to go bye bye. It didn’t even take bombs, for guerillas are not trained in small unit tactics and maneuvers as well as the US Marines. The US forces didn’t need bombs, for the VC were both essentially inferior in numbers and training to conventional US and Vietnamese forces.

    Air power is a force multiplier, and the VC already threw their force multipliers away after coming out in the open. Any guerilla insurgency force that comes out in the open to fight a pitched battle of any kind with conventional forces almost always lose.

    Any conventional force, including ARVN forces, could destroy insurgents once those insurgents come out from their human shields and what not.

    Donkabrains has spent too long dunking his brains in fake liberal propaganda to maneuver through military science. That stuff is not good for you, in my view. Spank snorted only some of it, and look what happened to him.

    In the end though, Tet was a great lesson in how to make use of psychological terror to defeat a superior enemy. The US is using little more than 1/10 of its maximum power specifically because the US refuses to use psychological warfare tactics designed to break targets that you cannot reach physically.

  46. Xanthippas Says:

    Oh ya, Murtha. Can’t forget Murtha.

    Murtha is a decorated veteran, and so it’s strange to me that he can be considered a disloyal “leftist” by someone even on the far right. Unless of course you are demonstrating once again that to people on the right, dissent from the government’s pro-war approach is equal to disloyalty and treason.

  47. Ymarsakar Says:

    As for the rest of your comment, it demonstrates you didn’t understand anything I said.

    Since you don’t understand anything that you have said so far, that would only follow.

  48. Xanthippas Says:

    Any guerilla insurgency force that comes out in the open to fight a pitched battle of any kind with conventional forces almost always lose.

    You demonstrate some understanding of military strategy, but the Vietnam war is proof alone that the truth of this statement is entirely irrelevant.

    In the end though, Tet was a great lesson in how to make use of psychological terror to defeat a superior enemy.

    Not really. What it demonstrated is that when your government tells you again and again and again that there’s a light at the end of the tunnel, and your enemy powerfully expresses itself to the contrary, then you have no more reason to trust your own government’s judgment or statements. This appears to be a lesson that some Americans have to learn over and over again, and that other Americans never learn at all.

  49. DonkeyKong Says:

    “Donkabrains has spent too long dunking his brains in fake liberal propaganda to maneuver through military science. That stuff is not good for you, in my view. Spank snorted only some of it, and look what happened to him.”Ymarkspunk

    After the Democrates took congress last November, I did some posting at Protien Wisdom.

    One poster thought it was a good idea to challege me to a fist fight, and gave out his email address.

    I responded, ok let’s do it. He backed off and made a lame excuse, while giving me the old “I know kara-teh!”.

    I told him, no if he really wanted me to push his face through the back of his head, I’ll make time to do that.

    Your challenging me to a fight sight unseen. I could be a 120lb IT geek or a 200lb landscape contractor. You just don’t know.

    Back came this response.

    “No, you know what? This is just stupid. I had downed an entire bottle of
    sake and several beers and went shooting off the mouth at something I
    should’ve brushed aside. Playing the “come say it to my face game” is
    idiotic and pointless–I live nearly 4,000 miles away–and I’ve always
    thought poorly of those who do it. Flying across the continent over a petty
    insult isn’t honorable in the least–it’s batshit crazy in fact. And my
    honor is better defended by admitting that I was being an asshole. I
    apologize.”

    Somehow I think this guy and Ymarkshurl are related. Tough talkers on the internets, sending real men and women to their deaths with one hand on the mouse and another in the cheeto bag.

    Ymarkshortbus, when your Mom told you that your “special”, she did’nt mean it in the way you thought.

  50. Ymarsakar Says:

    Just go back to the killing of puppies and people in boats (saipans?). You’ll feel much better.

  51. Ymarsakar Says:

    Murtha is a decorated veteran, and so it’s strange to me that he can be considered a disloyal “leftist”

    Haditha

    Just cause you got some medals in some war you were part of, doesn’t mean Benedict Arnold was our buddy.

  52. Lee Says:

    I also notice while Xanthippas “knows no one on the left who” hates America, the American people, or it’s ideals, any of that love asked for in Occam’s test has yet to be expressed by X.
    And Donks, if it’s a fist fight you’re looking for..
    I’m your huckelberry.
    Here’s my e-mail address: gourleyleland@yahoo.com
    Write, and I’ll tell you where I live. Feel free to stop by anytime.

  53. Occam's Beard Says:

    Lee, I’ve found that test to be an extremely useful shibboleth in sorting out those on the left with whom one can make common cause (even though differing in policy prescriptions) and those who are, frankly, our enemies, foreign and domestic, as recited in the oaths of office.

    It’s interesting to watch the contortions and prevarications of a true leftist to avoid saying the hateful words. Even though they may not have any compunction about lying in general, they find it hard to mouth that particular lie, which sticks in their throat.

    If only something more substantial would be stuck there too…

  54. Lee Says:

    Occam’s Beard,
    I’ve noticed. You should see the private e-mails I’ve been getting from Donk after accepting his challenge. Big, bold, intimidating letters; references to his “biker gang fight club”(baah..ha..ha..), and qualifiers, as opposed to his “anytime, anywhere” attitude.
    If he’s true to his word, we’ll be meeting at the Front Range Boxing Academy in Boulder, as opposed to “what’s your address, tough guy?”

  55. DonkeyKong Says:

    Did I know where you lived before I asked for your address LeAnn?

    I’m in Oakland,CA your in Boulder, CO. If you’re for real, you’ll work it out so we can do this. I asked if you leave CO.

    Instead of running around crowing, let’s make this happen. Are you for real?

    And it’s not a biker gang. It’s a club, East Bay Rats. BBQ, Beer and Fights. They’re good guys.

  56. Lee Says:

    Donks,
    Well, you sure know now…
    After demanding my address, which I provided, you qualified with some weasel words about a “legal trap” and asked for a public forum. I then provided you with one, to which you now weasel with some “why don’t you come out here” kinda crap. Seems to me, it should not be that difficult to get on your bike and ride, to prove your point.
    The more I accomodate you, the more qualifiers you put out. What’s it gonna be, boy?

  57. Lee Says:

    After all, it’s not my reputation on the line here.

  58. DonkeyKong Says:

    Your a poseur Lee.

    You challenged me to a fight and I asked you, where do you live.

    I’ll be in Boulder when I can, and we’ll meet at you’re gym. I asked if you were going to be near Oakland, CA so that maybe we could settle this sooner.

    You don’t respond.

    I’m attempting to treat you as an adult. If you want to do this, we can work it out. If not you won’t.

    What don’t you understand about that?

  59. Lee Says:

    Then it’s settled. You’ll be in Boulder “when you can” Be sure to let me know when you’re coming.
    I’ve gone out of my way to accomodate you all I care to. Tell you what: as a member of a “biker club”, I’m sure you travel to rallies such as Sturgis on a regular basis. Shouldn’t be much of a detour from California to South Dakota, just a few miles south of I-80. Let me and everyone know when you’re travelling through. I’ll still be here.
    Tomorrow, next week, 11 months from now, makes no difference to me. “Adult” enough for you?

  60. DonkeyKong Says:

    Wow, now that wasnt so hard now was it Lee.

    Sounds good to me.

  61. Lee Says:

    Easy enough for me, since I was the one offering any solutions to our dilemma. As I said before, “it’s settled”.
    See you in the ring.

  62. Xanthippas Says:

    I also notice while Xanthippas “knows no one on the left who” hates America, the American people, or it’s ideals, any of that love asked for in Occam’s test has yet to be expressed by X.

    I don’t take loyalty oaths provided by those who are interested in defining me as a traitor. I don’t need to prove my credentials to those who fail to understand how their own beliefs harm our country.

  63. Lee Says:

    “I don’t take loyalty oaths…”

    Most traitors don’t. At least you’re consistent, X.

  64. Richard Aubrey Says:

    So X has changed the story.

    Professing unqualified love for the nation is a loyalty oath.

    I think X has let it slip.

    Hell, you don’t need leftists who’d choke on that. Your basic moderate needs to show he or she knows better than the allpatrioticrednecks. Theso-called “moderates” choke, too. While they keep their gloating at a US reverse more or less under cover–not entirely–they do exude a quiet satisfaction that perhaps now we’ll be a better country.

    I’ve done the same thing, in another way. Never fails.

  65. Xanthippas Says:

    So X has changed the story.

    Professing unqualified love for the nation is a loyalty oath.

    Changed the story? In what way? Is not the purpose to “prove” my loyalty to the country, to your satisfaction?

    As I said, I don’t take loyalty oaths cobbled together by those who already believe I’m disloyal to my country. I have nothing to prove.

    I suppose it’s easier to change the subject to “oaths” however when history is quite clearly on the side of my argument.

  66. Xanthippas Says:

    Most traitors don’t. At least you’re consistent, X.

    Well now that’s just stupid. Of course a traitor would take a loyalty oath, if only to “prove” his loyalty to his nation so he could wreak more havoc when he betrays it.

    Of course, we hardly need traitors in this day an age, when we have so many who are so willing to destroy their country in a professed desire to defend it.

  67. Lee Says:

    X,
    Don’t get your logic. It’s an anonymous forum. Not saying you have something to prove, or gain. But you still balk, even when you have nothing to lose. Proving Occam’s point.
    You were asked what, exactly, you love about this country. It’s clear what you hate. It’s you who have twisted the question to some sort of “loyalty oath”.
    Enquiring minds want to know.

  68. James Seymour Says:

    x. Ref loyalty oath, or not.

    Don’t bother.
    Are you important? Is your opinion important? Is there a reason we should pay attention, other than the strength of the argument itself? No? Then there’s no reason at all.

  69. Lee Says:

    James,
    Exactly. Since there is “no strength to her argument”, we’ve asked for something of substance, for any measure of credence.

  70. Xanthippas Says:

    Is there a reason we should pay attention, other than the strength of the argument itself? No?

    Well, that’s actually what I’ve been trying to say. The only thing you should take seriously is my argument, not some ridiculous “loyalty oath” that I’m supposed to swear to in some anonymous comment on a two-bit blog.

    Honestly, is this stuff just a game to you people? Did you even understand that what you just wrote makes my point for me, before I made that clear just now? Or maybe you’re agreeing with me. Honestly, I can’t tell.

  71. Richard Aubrey Says:

    x. Got it then. Nothing about you is important. Whihc leaves the argument.
    Which means…nothing.

    There is, therefore, nothing to pay attention to.

  72. Ymarsakar Says:

    The “loyalty oath” is not valid.

    What would be valid is whether a person thinks that the United States is the greatest nation in the history of the Earth. Including now. That is a more accurate test.

  73. Xanthippas Says:

    What would be valid is whether a person thinks that the United States is the greatest nation in the history of the Earth.

    Is that a joke?

  74. Lee Says:

    No, X, it seems you’re the joke. I know I’m laughing at your twists, turns, and pirouetts. It really shouldn’t be this gd difficult. Even more hilarious is how much you come back, time after time, after time, to prove Occam’s truism.

    Here. Let me show you how it’s done:

    Occam’s Beard: “So, tell me Lee, what do you love about America?”
    Lee: “Well, gee, that’s kinda hard, since there’s so much to love…….
    What I love the most is that you can come from anywhere, be from any background, or any race, or any social status, and still become an American, and participate equally in the political process, and have equal opportunity for growth and advancement.”

    See, X? A direct answer to a direct question.

    Your responses: “Is this some sort of test?”
    “I don’t have to answer to ‘you’!’
    “I don’t understand what you want from me.”
    “This is a ‘trap’, huh?”
    “Is this your idea of a joke?”

    As I said, you’re the joke, X.

  75. Ymarsakar Says:

    Is that a joke?

    It’s a question. Do you mean to say that considering America to be the greatest nation in the history of the earth is funny or that thinking that America is not considered the greatest nation in the history of the earth funny?

    It’s a far more accurate standard upon which to judge people than simply listening to what they claim they are loyal to. As you yourself pointed out.

  76. Xanthippas Says:

    Well Lee, this torturous (at least for me) “debate” has allowed you to “prove” that you are capable of answering softball questions you set up for yourself. Here, I shall now engage in that approach.

    Q: “Xanthippas, do you find that being demanded to answer questions from people who appear to have a child’s understanding of both patriotism and America’s place in the world is both frustrating and amusing?”

    X: “Yes.”

    I have now made my point by quoting myself. Discuss.

  77. Xanthippas Says:

    Do you mean to say that considering America to be the greatest nation in the history of the earth is funny or that thinking that America is not considered the greatest nation in the history of the earth funny?

    No, I mean asking the question is funny. I had not thought that in the middle of a serious discussion of American foreign policy, I’d be expected to write a paragraph any 5th grader could put together about why I love my country.

    But for what it’s worth, I love my country because it is infinitely stronger than the simple minds who would destroy it out of some sort of misplaced love.

  78. Lee Says:

    FINALLY! A BREAKTHROUGH!

    See, Xanthippas, that wasn’t so hard, now, was it? You’re still alive; your tongue didn’t fly out of your mouth; you didn’t burst into flames.

    And yes, the country is stronger than your simple minded misplaced love.

  79. Lee Says:

    And, in fact, it was a “softball” question for you, too, Miss South Carolina.

  80. Occam's Beard Says:

    Just checking in, and saw you guys manage to almost extract the hateful words from X. The minor quibble, perhaps Clintonian, was his use of the phrase “my country.”

    Passing over the possibility that he’s not an American, he’s come close but still not quite recited the hateful formula:

    “I love the United States, its people, and the principles on which it was founded.”

    Period. No qualifications, caveats, mental reservations, equivocations, conditions, codicils, riders, prevarications, circumlocutions, what have you.

    Meanwhile, I’ll keep a weather eye out for a lightning strike. The lengths necessary to get him to come this far show that a lightning strike may be in order if he repeats the above.

  81. Ymarsakar Says:

    An instructor once told me that a lightning bolt went through his house. I mean literally through his house from one door to the other, and he saw it. Electronic engineers, they attract the weird stuff.

  82. Xanthippas Says:

    “I love the United States, its people, and the principles on which it was founded.”

    Good luck with that. I most assuredly do not love some of the people who occupy this country.

    Let’s parse “principles”; what do you mean exactly? Do you mean the Constitution? I do actually fully intend to swear an oath to the Constitution of this country before long, though I have a feeling that oath is about as effective as any other, given the number of lawyers who believe that defending it requires advocating torture, detention, and warrantless eavesdropping.

  83. Xanthippas Says:

    And yes, the country is stronger than your simple minded misplaced love.

    Hmmm…seems strange that you would so vehemently demand it then.

  84. Lee Says:

    Wasn’t “demanded” in any way, just “asked” if you had “any”.

  85. Lee Says:

    Once again, it must be pointed out that we were just simply “curious” if you had “any” love for “anything” about this country. It was you who twisted it to some “demand” for your “loyalty” to it.

  86. Occam's Beard Says:

    Good luck with that. I most assuredly do not love some of the people who occupy this country.

    Let’s parse “principles”; what do you mean exactly? Do you mean the Constitution? I do actually fully intend to swear an oath to the Constitution of this country before long, though I have a feeling that oath is about as effective as any other, given the number of lawyers who believe that defending it requires advocating torture, detention, and warrantless eavesdropping.

    So that would be a “no.”

    Thought so.

  87. Xanthippas Says:

    Once again, it must be pointed out that we were just simply “curious…

    Just curious? Methinks you doth protest too much.

  88. Xanthippas Says:

    So that would be a “no.”

    You didn’t answer my question.

    What are the principles you swear fealty to OB? Let’s find out exactly how much we have in common.

  89. Lee Says:

    No, really, just “curious”. Not a “test”, you could have “refused to answer to us”, easy enough to “understand”, and no “trap”.

    Methinks X is a joke.

    BTW, it’s “dost”…”thou dost protest too much”. Your grasp of English is as funny as your grasp of history.

  90. Occam's Beard Says:

    X, I’m not going to waste my time bandying words with you. I found out what I wanted to know.

    Lee, notice the twisting and turning, anything to avoid giving a straight answer (even a “no”). It’s like kryptonite to them, or wolfsbane, or a cross to a vampire.

    It’s amazing that even leftists who generally have no compunction about misrepresenting the truth cannot bring themselves to lie effectively on this issue. Perhaps our gracious hostess can shed light on the psychology underlying their reaction, but for some reason they just can’t say they love this country.

  91. Lee Says:

    Occam,
    Yeah, I guess if we had been “vehemently demanding an oath of fealty”, we’d still be riding poor X, as opposed to letting his(her?) non answer slide by.

  92. Lee Says:

    And laughing.

  93. Xanthippas Says:

    Lee, notice the twisting and turning, anything to avoid giving a straight answer (even a “no”).

    And:

    X, I’m not going to waste my time bandying words with you. I found out what I wanted to know.

    I apparently don’t even have to write anything anymore. You refute yourself.

  94. Xanthippas Says:

    No, really, just “curious”.

    And you say it a third time. In quotes.

    Protestations continue. I’m amused, but not laughing.

  95. Lee Says:

    “curious”

    Care to come for a fourth time to “characterize” it, for the lefties who didn’t get your spin the previous three times?

    Baah…ha…ha….ha…

  96. Lee Says:

    Not that I’m counting how many times you used “demand”, or “loyalty oath” or anything…

  97. Xanthippas Says:

    Baah…ha…ha….ha…

    You’ve descended into incoherence. I suppose that counts for a victory here Lee.

  98. Lee Says:

    At least you’re gracious in defeat, X.

  99. Xanthippas Says:

    At least you’re gracious in defeat, X.

    Well now you’ve finally said something that makes me laugh.

  100. Lee Says:

    Ah, yes. The typical liberal “dismissive giggle” when they have no argument left.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>






Monthly Archives



Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge