geojanes wrote:I don't even understand this forum. The declaration of independence of Viet Nam was influenced by the Declaration of Independence and Ho was a student of politics, including the founding fathers. Are you saying he wasn't? Or are you saying that because he was an enemy of the nation Obama shouldn't have acknowledged his influences? What is bothering you about his relatively mild, factual statement?

He was a butcher, a torturer of Americans, and a dictator. What is confusing?

He was no Thomas Jefferson. If influenced by him, it was not much. It's like saying I influence you.

I'm not as offended as Dr. Fate, but my understanding is that HCM pretended to be influenced by Thomas Jefferson to gain American support vis-à-vis the French. However, the historical evidence is that he was a butcher, often to his fellow communists..

Ray Jay wrote:I'm not as offended as Dr. Fate, but my understanding is that HCM pretended to be influenced by Thomas Jefferson to gain American support vis-à-vis the French. However, the historical evidence is that he was a butcher, often to his fellow communists..

I will grant that the impolitic and wrong thing to do would have been for the President to say, "Ho Chi Minh was a butcher."

In the bigger context, what offends me (and those on the right) is President Obama's persistent willingness, even eagerness, to side or identify with the most anti-American countries and leaders around the world. Some say he's "reaching out," but the evidence is in--Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, etc. There are no consequences for countries who stick their thumb in our eye. Whether it's hacking into our infrastructure or imprisoning someone who helped ID Bin Laden, the "less than friend of the US" nations know they can push President Obama around.

And, it's not just that. It's the persistent lying. "Phony scandals?"

Let's see:

1. Benghazi: 4 Americans dead, including the first ambassador to be killed since the late 70's. Promises that "justice" is coming. Yet, a news network interviews a potential suspect and the FBI hasn't? Many questions unanswered. Witnesses sworn to secrecy. We still have no idea what the President or Secretary of State were doing during the attack (compare to OBL raid).

1a. The cover-up. Intentionally lying to the American people about "the inflammatory video" and even having the maker of the video frog-marched.

2. IRS: President denounces the practice of singling out ideologies. Yet, Lerner takes fifth (why, since nothing criminal happened?). The trail now leads to an Obama appointee. We know it wasn't localized in Cincinnati, despite previous claims by the Administration. Carter Hull testified, as did others, that the orders came from DC. The IRS has leaked private tax info. They have wasted money in a myriad of strange ways. Democrats in Congress are now attacking the IG.

3. The President's right-hand man, AG Eric Holder, lied to a Federal judge in an affidavit concerning James Rosen (by implying he had criminal liability and was a flight risk). He lied to Congress (twice).

4. Kathleen Sebelius soliciting funds from companies she oversees.

5. Former EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, using a phony email address and an alias of "Richard Windsor." The only purpose would be to avoid scrutiny. It also happens to be illegal.

I could go on. Anyone is free to think this is a good President, or even a great President. I'm looking at what he has done and coming to starkly different conclusions, probably because I think the US is the best nation on Earth--not perfect, just the best.

Doctor Fate wrote:Because everyone knows the revolutionaries in America ruled by intimidation . . . Ho was no more inspired by the American Revolution than he was by Gandhi. He was a communist revolutionary who believed in doing whatever was necessary to win, without regard to its morality.

Well, what happened was that in France in the late 1910s he and other Vietnamese nationalists petitioned for greater rights for their countrymen, and that included citing the DoI when they tried to lobby President Wilson.

When that fell on deaf ears, he (and others) became more radical.

NB: Obama said, “We are going to fundamentally change America.”

Yes, and? My point is that all politicians are likely to want change, sometimes massive or fundamental.

"Once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it will end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world." Ronald Reagan

Reagan did not fundamentally change the country.[/quote]You may believe that (I think many Reagan supporters would beg to differ), but the point is that he meant to change a nation.

Please elucidate. Please show where he does that - mention or praise Ho Chi Minh's communism or his acts in power. It is not in the quote you supplied.

Come on, that's exactly why he said it--he was trying to ingratiate himself with the Vietnamese by lionizing a murderer. He might just as well have been talking about Stalin.

In what way does he 'lionize' Ho? He finds a point of common ground, but that is not the same. Perhaps you'd only be satisfied had he shouted at them and announced a reprisal of the War?

And you have given no evidence for 'why' he said it.

Did you agree with extendinng the Bush Tax cuts for those on less than $250,000?

I disagreed with the deal.

the deal being to extend them all in return for other things (and the deal got through because the overwhelming majority of Republican representatives voted for it, while nearly half of Democrats opposed it). But that was not what I asked. Did you agree with extending the Bush Tax cuts for those on less than $250,000?

Did you agree with continuing the development of cyberwar to stymie the Iranian nuclear programme? Which, through stuxnet, worked.

We don't know how much Obama had to do with it. It's a bit like OBL: listen to the White House long enough, and Obama developed the worm, flew to Iran armed with nothing but a flash-drive and took it down himself.

He could have cancelled the policy. He carried it on. He doesn't need to have been personally involved in things you don't like the government doing for you to lay responsibility at his door, does he?

If a government continues a policy of it's predecessor, it means that it becomes a policy of the new government too. It may not have been original or their own idea, but that is beside the point - they continue to pursue policy X, and so take responsibility for it.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Because everyone knows the revolutionaries in America ruled by intimidation . . . Ho was no more inspired by the American Revolution than he was by Gandhi. He was a communist revolutionary who believed in doing whatever was necessary to win, without regard to its morality.

Well, what happened was that in France in the late 1910s he and other Vietnamese nationalists petitioned for greater rights for their countrymen, and that included citing the DoI when they tried to lobby President Wilson.

When that fell on deaf ears, he (and others) became more radical.

So, he didn't murder people, torture them, or do anything of that sort? Or, are you suggesting that if he did such things he would be justified because the imperialist Woodrow Wilson refused to help his cause?

NB: Obama said, “We are going to fundamentally change America.”

Yes, and? My point is that all politicians are likely to want change, sometimes massive or fundamental.

"Once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it will end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world." Ronald Reagan

Reagan did not fundamentally change the country.[/quote]You may believe that (I think many Reagan supporters would beg to differ), but the point is that he meant to change a nation. [/quote]

Well, actually, he did not put into place programs and policies that were virtually impossible to reverse and led to an inevitable decline of the country. That's the "change" Barack Obama has brought to the US.

Reagan was speaking of the change from when he came into office, replacing the hapless Jimmy Carter. Of course, in retrospect and compared to the current President, Carter belongs on Rushmore.

Please elucidate. Please show where he does that - mention or praise Ho Chi Minh's communism or his acts in power. It is not in the quote you supplied.

In what way does he 'lionize' Ho? He finds a point of common ground, but that is not the same. Perhaps you'd only be satisfied had he shouted at them and announced a reprisal of the War?

I've said what he should have done. I know it's tough to imagine, but a "thank you" would have been fine. In any way comparing Ho to Jefferson or any of the Founders is an insult.

Following the Geneva Accords, there was to be a 300-day period in which people could freely move between the two regions of Vietnam, later known as South Vietnam and North Vietnam. More than 1 million North Vietnamese people fled to the South, while a much smaller number moved North.[49] It is estimated that as many as two million more would have left had they not been stopped by the Viet Minh.[50] Neither the United States government nor Ngo Dinh Diem's State of Vietnam signed anything at the 1954 Geneva Conference. With respect to the question of reunification, the non-communist Vietnamese delegation objected strenuously to any division of Vietnam, but lost out when the French accepted the proposal of Viet Minh delegate Pham Van Dong,[51] who proposed that Vietnam eventually be united by elections under the supervision of "local commissions".[52] The United States countered with what became known as the "American Plan," with the support of South Vietnam and the United Kingdom.[53] It provided for unification elections under the supervision of the United Nations, but was rejected by the Soviet delegation and North Vietnamese.[53]

In North Vietnam during the 1950s, political opposition groups were suppressed; those publicly opposing the government were imprisoned in hard labor camps. Many middle-class, intellectual Northerners had been lured into speaking out against Ho's communist regime, and most of those who did were later imprisoned in gulags or executed; this became known as the Nhan Van-Giai Pham Affair. Some prisoners died of exhaustion, starvation, illness (often having received no medical attention), or assault by prison guards. Political scientist R.J. Rummel suggests a figure of 24,000 camp deaths during Ho's rule of North Vietnam between 1945 and 1956.[54]

Hmm, not very Jeffersonian . . .

And you have given no evidence for 'why' he said it.

Good point--if I was his shrink. Evidence for 'why/' Talk about a stretch. How do you prove that? I guess I could point out all the communists in Obama's life, but that would be a 3-volume book series.

the deal being to extend them all in return for other things (and the deal got through because the overwhelming majority of Republican representatives voted for it, while nearly half of Democrats opposed it). But that was not what I asked. Did you agree with extending the Bush Tax cuts for those on less than $250,000?

It is what you asked because it was linked to other items. It was not an independent act. I'm not going to answer false hypotheticals.

He could have cancelled the policy. He carried it on. He doesn't need to have been personally involved in things you don't like the government doing for you to lay responsibility at his door, does he?

You don't know if he personally knew or approved, do you?

“Should we shut this thing down?” Mr. Obama asked, according to members of the president’s national security team who were in the room.

Told it was unclear how much the Iranians knew about the code, and offered evidence that it was still causing havoc, Mr. Obama decided that the cyberattacks should proceed. In the following weeks, the Natanz plant was hit by a newer version of the computer worm, and then another after that. The last of that series of attacks, a few weeks after Stuxnet was detected around the world, temporarily took out nearly 1,000 of the 5,000 centrifuges Iran had spinning at the time to purify uranium.

I'm not going to be boxed in on some mini-program begun under Bush. In the big picture, Obama's policy toward Iran has slowed them down, but it has not stopped them, nor convinced them to do anything other than press on.

If stuxnet were combined with other things designed to drive Iran to stop developing a nuclear weapon, that would have impressed me. As it is, Stuxnet is a speed bump.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Because everyone knows the revolutionaries in America ruled by intimidation . . . Ho was no more inspired by the American Revolution than he was by Gandhi. He was a communist revolutionary who believed in doing whatever was necessary to win, without regard to its morality.

Well, what happened was that in France in the late 1910s he and other Vietnamese nationalists petitioned for greater rights for their countrymen, and that included citing the DoI when they tried to lobby President Wilson.

When that fell on deaf ears, he (and others) became more radical.

So, he didn't murder people, torture them, or do anything of that sort? Or, are you suggesting that if he did such things he would be justified because the imperialist Woodrow Wilson refused to help his cause?

You see, this is the problem - you are inferring stuff that IS NOT THERE. I did not say Ho was justified in how he dealt with being rebuffed, or adopting communism. I certainly have not denied that he presided over a brutal and deadly regime. I never called Wilson an 'imperialist' Your questions are leading and frankly irrelevant.

The same applies to your analysis (such as it is) of Obama's words. He never justified Ho Chi Minh's communism or his violent acts.

And here is a basic lesson for you. Comparing A to B is not the same thing as Equating A to B. Neither is pointing out a relationship between A and B. Saying that Ho was inspired by a national revolutionary movement that achieved independence is not the same thing as stating that he is the same as Jefferson. That is all in your imagination, unless you can find some actual evidence this is what Obama is saying.

Well, actually, he did not put into place programs and policies that were virtually impossible to reverse and led to an inevitable decline of the country. That's the "change" Barack Obama has brought to the US.

Well, sure. If you ignore the trebling of the national debt. And the massive escalation of the costly and failing 'War on Drugs'. And wholesale changes to regulation that led to financial sector booms (and the Savings and Loan crisis).

Changes. Long lasting ones. Hard to reverse. A lot of what Reagan did is lauded (even venerated) by American conservatives as a fundamental shift. Suddenly you want to deny that for the purposes of not having him be anything like Obama. They are very different in many ways, but they certainly both sought office in order to make a change and break with the recent past.

I've said what he should have done. I know it's tough to imagine, but a "thank you" would have been fine. In any way comparing Ho to Jefferson or any of the Founders is an insult.

Comparisons are not insults. The dead do not feel insults.

I have read the same wikipedia page already. I know how bad he was. Jefferson owned slaves, but that is also by-the-by. The reference being made was to the Declaration of Independence, not to mass murder, or to slavery.

I repeat: comparing A to B is NOT THE SAME THING as equating A to B. Pretending that it is is disingenuous. Getting all precious about 'insults' is really silly. if Jefferson is actually insulted, I'm sure he'll let us know.

It is what you asked because it was linked to other items. It was not an independent act. I'm not going to answer false hypotheticals.

It was a specific policy. Meh.

What about reducing Corporation Tax?

He could have cancelled the policy. He carried it on. He doesn't need to have been personally involved in things you don't like the government doing for you to lay responsibility at his door, does he?

You don't know if he personally knew or approved, do you?

He maintained the policy, and that quote clearly indicates that he did personally know of the programme and on being given information, approved it.

I'm not trying to 'box you in'. I'm really wondering whether you actually do disagree with Obama's policies on their face value, or because they are Obama's (or his carrying them on).

If we could run a test using a mixture of actual Obama policies and fake ones, I wonder if you could (without research) tell which ones were his or not, and which you agreed with or not.

“And we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson,” Obama said. “Ho Chi Minh talks about his interest in cooperation with the United States. And President Sang indicated that even if it’s 67 years later, it’s good that we’re still making progress.”

From his speech of the declaration of independence from wikipedia:

All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.

Isn't it possible to be a bad guy, yet to be inspired by the words of good people? Obama's quote appears completely accurate. What am I missing?

geojanes wrote:Isn't it possible to be a bad guy, yet to be inspired by the words of good people? Obama's quote appears completely accurate. What am I missing?

The Commie-Librul-Muslim-Atheist conspiracy led by Barack Hussein Obama to destroy America through gentle diplomacy with emerging trading partners.

Obvs.

danivon wrote:Meh.

Meh.

What about reducing Corporation Tax?

He hasn't.

I'm not trying to 'box you in'. I'm really wondering whether you actually do disagree with Obama's policies on their face value, or because they are Obama's (or his carrying them on).

When a policy is packaged with several others that I oppose, that's not a valid analysis.

If we could run a test using a mixture of actual Obama policies and fake ones, I wonder if you could (without research) tell which ones were his or not, and which you agreed with or not.

Oh, I could tell you which ones I agree with. My politics are amazingly consistent.

What I won't do is say, "I agree with Obama on steak and am willing to eat manure in order to get it." Those are the kinds of choices a conservative gets when a liberal like Obama negotiates.

For example, his new "grand bargain" proposal is a manure sandwich with a side helping of extra strength fertilizer.

geojanes wrote:

“And we discussed the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson,” Obama said. “Ho Chi Minh talks about his interest in cooperation with the United States. And President Sang indicated that even if it’s 67 years later, it’s good that we’re still making progress.”

From his speech of the declaration of independence from wikipedia:

All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.

Isn't it possible to be a bad guy, yet to be inspired by the words of good people? Obama's quote appears completely accurate. What am I missing?

Except for a typo, this sums it up nicely:

In otherwise bland remarks made after his first bilateral meeting with Vietnamese president Truong Tan Sang, President Obama said the meeting concluded with a discussion of “the fact that Ho Chi Minh was actually inspired by the U.S. Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and the words of Thomas Jefferson.”

This is factually true. President Obama was likely trying to be polite to a visiting head of state – one who shared with him a letter written by Ho Chi Minh to Harry Truman in which Minh “talks about his interest in cooperation with the United States,” according to Obama.

Nevertheless, was it really necessary tacitcly to praise a man who killed approximately half-a-million people in an effort to consolidate his power, or to concede ideological similarities between the founding of the United States and modern Vietnam? In Sang’s translated remarks, the Vietnamese president doesn’t mention Minh at all and doesn’t hint at any remorse over his actions. Instead, he noted that he and Obama ”touched upon the war legacy issue, including human rights” and that the two “still have differences on issue.”

In other words, the President didn't HAVE to go there. He went there willingly.

You have not demonstrated 'praise'. Just a mention of discussion.

And even if Sang didn't mention it in his public (translated) remarks, does not prove what was or was not said behind closed doors.

This is like Salem in the 17th Century

danivon wrote:You have not demonstrated 'praise'. Just a mention of discussion.

And even if Sang didn't mention it in his public (translated) remarks, does not prove what was or was not said behind closed doors.

This is like Salem in the 17th Century

Whatever.

As I said, the President is venerated by some. You're just proving it. No, it's not "praise?" Well, what was it--a brickbat?

Doctor Fate wrote:Whatever.

As I said, the President is venerated by some. You're just proving it.

Again, demonstrate my 'veneration'.

No, it's not "praise?" Well, what was it--a brickbat?

Umm... neither. Is that the only choice?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Whatever.

As I said, the President is venerated by some. You're just proving it.

Again, demonstrate my 'veneration'.

Because you can't admit that he did not have to do what he did and, in fact, there was no call for him to do it. It's just as likely that he has some admiration for Ho Chi Minh as anything you've suggested.

No, it's not "praise?" Well, what was it--a brickbat?

Umm... neither. Is that the only choice?

No, it could also be the opening line right before he bursts into a song . . . from "Ho Chi Minh--the Musical"

Doctor Fate wrote:Because you can't admit that he did not have to do what he did and, in fact, there was no call for him to do it. It's just as likely that he has some admiration for Ho Chi Minh as anything you've suggested.

I'm not the one making accusations that his actions imply anything. If you want to back up your claims, please present more than mere supposition.

No, it's not "praise?" Well, what was it--a brickbat?

Umm... neither. Is that the only choice?

No, it could also be the opening line right before he bursts into a song . . . from "Ho Chi Minh--the Musical"

I guess middle ground is anathema to you, huh? Just because he is not condemning, does not mean he's praising.

I think you are projecting, just a tad.