 |
(Dissociated Press) Former President Bill Clinton was honored last week as "Father of the Year" by the National Father's Day Council. The Council honors fathers whose "lives are dedicated to family, citizenship, charity, civility, responsibility and reverence.”
In keeping with his role as Father of the Year, the former Chief Executive announced today his adoption of three Ukrainian ex-children (photo above). Mr. Clinton said he was moved by the girls' long struggles in foster care, and said that he intends to provide a loving and nurturing home for them in his one-bedroom apartment overlooking Riverside Park in Manhattan.
Previous recipients of the National Father's Day Council's Father of the Year Award include (I'm not making this up) David Petraeus, John Edwards, and Hulk Hogan.
A previous Father of the Year Award winner was John Edwards. That's kind of like Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize. Oh wait...
ReplyDeleteTRISH
Or Henry Kissenger.
Deletebach:
DeleteThat Allende thing still pisses you off, huh.
Or Barack Obama.
DeleteAdmiral Boggs: I was going to say that. You stole my thunder. Did you know that Barack Obama has launched more cruise missiles than any other Noble Peace Prize winner?
DeleteJQ
Michael,
Delete'That Allende thing still pisses you off, huh'.
No. What makes you think that? Kissinger got his Nobel Prize for the Vietnam debacle, which included the Cambodia bombing and incursion, weakening the American backed Cambodian dictatorship and setting off the civil war resulting in the Khmer Rouge taking power and the Killing Fields.
The Cambodian bombing and incursion was needed to attack the bases and supply routes of the NVA, who were totalitarians waging aggressive war on the people of South Vietnam. Enemy aggressors have no claim to immunity from attack just because they violate the neutrality of a non-combatant nation (Cambodia).
DeleteThe Khmer Rouge were merely a claque of commies of the sort that you obviously have considerable sympathy. Our military operations against the NVA troops illegally on Cambodian territory were completely legal and morally justified. In fact, if we hadn't, we could be credibly accused of not taking adequate measures to protect our troops.
The commie scum caused the war in Vietnam, and they created a characteristic totalitarian hellhole when we allowed them to win the war. A million people died in South Vietnam after your team won. You never decry that.
And why would you condemn the Nobel Prize awarded to Kissinger, who carried out an entirely justifiable policy, and remain silent about the Nobel Prize awarded to Le Duc Tho, a member of the North Vietnamese Politburo and a totalitarian apparatchik who prosecuted an aggressive war of conquest against the South and was an integral cog in the holocaust in the South that followed the NVA conquest?
Michael,
DeleteLe Duc Tho declined the Nobel Peace Prize.
The Vietnam War should never have happened. The Americans should never have allowed the French to return in 1946. They should not have been supported in the '50s. Vietnam is one country. It was partitioned as an interim measure before country wide elections resulted in unification. The election didn't happen because it was thought that the Communists would win.
The difference between dictatorship in North Vietnam and dictatorship in South Vietnam isn't obvious, besides the southern dictatorship being supported by America.
Anyone who looked at Vietnam before the escalation in the war under Johnson recognized that it couldn't be won. Not without at least a million American troops and many years fighting.
In retrospect, it would have been better to have abandoned the exercise in the early '60s at the latest, and avoided the cost in lives and resources.
The foreign affair experts hadn't realized that the Vietnamese communists were nationalists, and weren't going to throw their lot in with the Chinese - Vietnam's traditional enemy.
And no. I don't have any sympathy for the Khmer Rouge. I do have sympathy for the Vietnamese for invading Cambodia and getting rid of this genocidal regime.
The North Vietnamese were (are) communist totalitarians. They were not "nationalists". They were communists, which is an utterly foreign ideology to the Vietnamese. They prosecuted a war of aggression against the South, and they won because of sympathizers in the West like you.
DeleteOn conquering the South, they carried out a program of terror and oppression that just fell short of that of their ideological comrades in Cambodia. After the communist totalitarian victory in South Vietnam, upwards of three quarters of a million people were killed in executions, reprisals, concentration camps, and fleeing the terror at sea. In other words, in Vietnam communists did what communists do.
After 4 years of an even bigger bloodbath in Cambodia, North Vietnamese commies invaded and killed Cambodian commies. Commies kill commies, which is what commies do.
One can question the wisdom of tactics used by the US in Vietnam. It was however an utterly moral endeavor, an effort to save a nation of innocent people from the most vile ideology on earth.
You really are a Lefty, aren't you, bach?
[Le Duc Tho declined the Nobel Peace Prize.]
DeleteWho cares. The fact is that this totalitarian apparatchik was awarded the Peace Prize, which in on a par with awarding it to Arafat.
What is it about totalitarians that you find so attractive, bach?
Michael,
DeleteI don't find anything attractive about totalitarians. And that includes the Catholic Church, when it had absolute power.
I'm a liberal. Not a conservative. Or a libertarian. Or a progressive. Although I do have some sympathy for libertarians, with their love of personal freedom.
You can argue that America's efforts to stop South Vietnam going communist was moral. But it also didn't succeed. And wasn't likely to succeed, short of using nuclear bombs.
America's support of Diem, who achieved power using electoral fraud and vote rigging Hitler would have been proud of, was ill-conceived. But, at least he was a good Catholic. Although, he was competent, and the American sponsored coup resulting in his assassination had the communists pleased.
The North Vietnamese won because they were utterly ruthless. There was no price they were unwilling to pay. Including the destruction of the Vietcong. The Tet Offensive of 1968 was a military defeat for the NVA. But it also destroyed America's willingness to continue. Nixon was elected with a promise to end the war with an undisclosed plan. And he failed.
The North Vietnamese were nationalists. They were also communists. In areas they controlled they instituted policies of land reform, taking land from landlords and giving it to peasant farmers. I suppose a very unpopular ideology to inflict on a largely agrarian society? And completely alien to the way Vietnamese peasant farmers would want to run things, if they had the choice?
Reasonable questions can be asked about the tactical and strategic choices made by the US. Perhaps Vietnam wasn't worth defending. Perhaps it was. Perhaps the fact that we delayed communist conquest prevented a worse outcome for the region. Lots of uncertainty.
DeleteNixon did end the war. We got a peace treaty with communist scum who violated it, and then when the media coup in the US deposed Nixon, Congress totally cut off South Vietnam and the totalitarians won.
If we had conducted the war with the intent of invading and occupying the North, we could have won the war in a short time. It is almost impossible to defeat an enemy if you declare at the onset that the enemy's territory will not be occupied.
[The North Vietnamese were nationalists. They were also communists. In areas they controlled they instituted policies of land reform, taking land from landlords and giving it to peasant farmers. I suppose a very unpopular ideology to inflict on a largely agrarian society? And completely alien to the way Vietnamese peasant farmers would want to run things, if they had the choice?]
DeleteBullshit. Communism is not "agrarian reform". It is an atheist totalitarian tyranny with European roots that yokes a civilization to an ideological rack. It has nothing whatsoever to do with traditional Vietnamese culture. Communism had no more to do with Vietnamese culture than Nazism had to do with Austrian or Czechoslovakian or Polish culture, or with Jewish culture for that matter.
Communism is a totalitarian ideology that is always forced on a nation.
Stop making excuses for commie bastards. It is the moral equivalent of making excuses for Nazis. You claim that you have no love for totalitarianism, but you persistently excuse it and root for it.
Michael,
DeleteI'll add knowing what the Vietnamese people wanted in the late '40s and '50s, after a century of French colonial rule (resulting from an invasion), to the list of subjects you're an expert in. Let's see; science, philosophy, history, the meaning of words, ...
A war can't be won if you declare at the outset that you won't be occupying the enemy's territory? Remind me again about how well that policy worked out in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I mentioned Henry Kissenger as an example of an unworthy Nobel Peace Prize recipient (and Tom Lehrer claimed that he retired from doing political satire upon hearing the news- not true, he'd already retired), and he wasn't. The Cambodian bombing and incursion was carried out at a time when the war had already been lost. It was an attempt to withdraw 'with honour'. It also weakened the American backed Cambodian dictatorship, allowing the Khmer Rouge to take power in the resulting civil war and the Killing Fields genocide.
It's hardly something to be proud of; starting an undeclared war in a neutral country and then proceeding to drop a greater tonnage of bombs than were used in WWII. Kissinger has to accept responsibility for the consequences of his actions.
And you don't think that Nixon shouldn't have resigned for his actions in Watergate? That the media shouldn't be investigating government actions?
When have I 'persistently' excused totalitarianism and 'root(ed) for it'? Provide instances please.
[A war can't be won if you declare at the outset that you won't be occupying the enemy's territory? Remind me again about how well that policy worked out in Afghanistan and Iraq.]
DeleteWhat do you mean? We've sent soldiers into both countries.
[Cambodian bombing and incursion was carried out at a time when the war had already been lost.]
Wrong. The incursions, in 1970, were militarily very successful. We were winning the war. We had essentially destroyed the Vietcong as a significant fighting force during Tet, and the Cambodian offensive removed remaining VC and NVA sanctuaries. We didn't lose the war until we withdrew our troops and support, at the insistence of lefties like you, who bear responsibility for the communist bloodbath that followed.
[It was an attempt to withdraw 'with honour'.]
It had nothing to do with honor. It had to do with sound military strategy-- the removal of enemy bases from a neighboring country that had already been invaded by the VC and NVA.
[It also weakened the American backed Cambodian dictatorship, allowing the Khmer Rouge to take power in the resulting civil war and the Killing Fields genocide.]
The VC and the NVA violated Cambodian neutrality (you ignore their illegal acts), and we attacked them for it. From Wiki:
"Documents uncovered from the Soviet archives after 1991 reveal that the North Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in 1970 was launched at the explicit request of the Khmer Rouge and negotiated by Pol Pot's then second in command, Nuon Chea.[25] "
[It's hardly something to be proud of; starting an undeclared war in a neutral country]
North Vietnam started the undeclared war in Cambodia, asshole. They were the cause for the American incursion. The American incursion was a response to the North Vietnamese invasion. Yet you never mention, let alone condemn, the North Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, nor do you attribute the civil war that followed to the North Vietnamese, who were invited in by the Khmer Rouge.
You sure boot-lick those commies.
[and then proceeding to drop a greater tonnage of bombs than were used in WWII. Kissinger has to accept responsibility for the consequences of his actions.]
We were trying to defeat the communists, not to help them, like you are.
[And you don't think that Nixon shouldn't have resigned for his actions in Watergate? That the media shouldn't be investigating government actions?]
Why didn't the media investigate Kennedy and Johnson, who were much more dishonest than Nixon? Kennedy was basically a mob-connected sexual predator, and Johnson is one of the most dishonest politicians to occupy the White House (his nickname was "Landslide Lyndon", because he was so prolific at voter fraud). Nixon was an angel compared to these bastards.
[When have I 'persistently' excused totalitarianism and 'root(ed) for it'? Provide instances please.]
See above.
Michael,
DeleteWell, we occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. We haven't had the results we'd expected. The Taliban is probably going to return to power. Iraq is probably going to come under the control of Iran. Both countries have Shiite majorities.
I'd noted that the North Vietnamese were utterly ruthless and willing to pay any price to win, including the destruction of the Vietcong in the Tet offensive. For America to have won, it needed to have been as ruthless as North Vietnam, probably including using nuclear weapons.
But then again, America wouldn't be America if it was that ruthless. If you think my calling North Vietnam utterly ruthless is supporting them, then you've got another thunk coming.
The North Vietnamese had a supply line in the border areas of Cambodia skirting the DMZ for years. And Nixon and Kissinger decided to bomb and invade Cambodia in 1970 when they were trying to get out of Vietnam? I don't make excuses for North Vietnam - don't forget, I called them utterly ruthless - but the bombing and invasion weakened the central Cambodian government and extended the conflict beyond the border areas. The Khmer Rouge won the civil war not the North Vietnamese.
I personally had nothing to do with America losing Vietnam. I was 13 at the time of Tet. Iraq was my major concern (good idea to get rid of Saddam Hussein, bad reason, disastrous plan).
Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. Johnson was elected to just one term (he declined to run a second time). Nixon was elected to 2 terms and the Watergate break-in was carried out in the course of the campaign for his second term - which he certainly would have won. You don't think that a coverup of criminal activities on the part of his staff is a serious matter?
John Edwards, by the way, conspired to have one of his children killed in the womb. Thank goodness Rielle Hunter said no. Edwards' public profile was more important than his child. Some dad.
ReplyDeleteJQ
John Edwards is one of the worst American politicians in memory. A pure scumbag. And a fellow the Democrats deemed superbly qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
DeleteOf course you'll notice that the words "Democrat standard-bearer" and "John Edwards" never appear together in any MSM discussion of the slimebag.