danivon wrote:I think you are projecting, just a tad.

If by "projecting," you mean putting things in context, then you're right. Otherwise, not so much.

The President has a long history of being enamored of socialists and communists. Ho is just one more.

Again with the need imply something not in evidence: 'enamored'

RJ, do you have a source for your impression that Ho Chi Minh pretended that he was inspired by the founders in order to gain influence with the US? Not arguing here, just out of curiosity.
I guess if I were arguing DF's position I would make the argument that when you say Ho Chi Minh was inspired by Thomas Jefferson, et al. you are in some sense implying that he was a good guy. If Hitler said he was inspired by Gandhi, you would see an obvious contradiction. Since I think the Founders overall furthered the rights of men, then one might see a contradiction in Ho Chi Minh saying he was inspired by the founders but then obviously did not follow many of their precepts by killing perceived opposition without due process.
So I guess, upon further reflection, I wish the president had chosen his words a bit more carefully to say that "he" (the Vietnamese president) said that Ho Chi Minh was inspired by the founders
rather than using the words "we discussed."However, since there was no praise for Ho Chi Minh, I still don't think his statement merits the harshness of the criticism it is getting from the Right.

freeman3 wrote:RJ, do you have a source for your impression that Ho Chi Minh pretended that he was inspired by the founders in order to gain influence with the US? Not arguing here, just out of curiosity.
I guess if I were arguing DF's position I would make the argument that when you say Ho Chi Minh was inspired by Thomas Jefferson, et al. you are in some sense implying that he was a good guy. If Hitler said he was inspired by Gandhi, you would see an obvious contradiction. Since I think the Founders overall furthered the rights of men, then one might see a contradiction in Ho Chi Minh saying he was inspired by the founders but then obviously did not follow many of their precepts by killing perceived opposition without due process.
So I guess, upon further reflection, I wish the president had chosen his words a bit more carefully to say that "he" (the Vietnamese president) said that Ho Chi Minh was inspired by the founders
rather than using the words "we discussed."However, since there was no praise for Ho Chi Minh, I still don't think his statement merits the harshness of the criticism it is getting from the Right.

Thank you for your honesty.

Freeman:

RJ, do you have a source for your impression that Ho Chi Minh pretended that he was inspired by the founders in order to gain influence with the US? Not arguing here, just out of curiosity.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/10/15/r ... tzget.html

He courted United States support through the O.S.S. officers he had cultivated during the war -- going so far as to offer the United States a naval base at Cam Ranh Bay.

From Wikipedia:

In April 1945 Ho met with the OSS agent Archimedes Patti and offered to provide intelligence to the allies provided that he could have "a line of communication with the allies." [25] The OSS agreed to this and later sent a military team of OSS members to train Ho's men and Ho himself was treated for malaria and dysentery by an OSS doctor.[26]

Following the August Revolution (1945) organized by the Viet Minh, Ho became Chairman of the Provisional Government (Premier of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam) and issued a Proclamation of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam.[27] Although he convinced Emperor Bao Dai to abdicate, his government was not recognized by any country. He repeatedly petitioned American President Harry S. Truman for support for Vietnamese independence,[28] citing the Atlantic Charter, but Truman never responded.[29]

Let's see . . . less than a year ago, he ran for reelection and said:

President Barack Obama has described al Qaeda as having been “decimated,” “on the path to defeat” or some other variation at least 32 times since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, according to White House transcripts.

Remember that?

Now, 22 embassies had to be shut down. Now, our consulate in Lahore (unrelated to the previous threat) had to be shut down.

Remember how he "saved Detroit?"

Detroit's in bankruptcy--or worse.

Remember when he (and Hillary) "reset" relations with Russia?

Remember when we heard Assad's "days are numbered?"

Remember "Recovery Summer?"

The comma is important: what, a leader?

Here's something I really have trouble with...
Bush was hated by the liberals similar to how conservatives hate Obama. Got it, makes sense!
But while Bush was being bashed by Libs, Conservatives were not all that enamored by him either. I know I had my problems with his fiscal policies as did DF, we did hear some criticism from Conservatives about Bush. No, they were not moaning and groaning but we were not all happy and made that known.

Yet here we have Obama in a similar situation, probably far worse if you ask me and the Liberals are either silent on their disagreements or even support the man, he can do no wrong!?
Why are liberals so darned quiet/supportive of someone who has screwed up, who has lied like no other, someone who is so incompetent? Fine, support the ideals you do agree with, fine you don't want to "trash" the guy, but support/silence is so un-liberal of you guys!

GMTom wrote:Yet here we have Obama in a similar situation, probably far worse if you ask me and the Liberals are either silent on their disagreements or even support the man, he can do no wrong!?

Crap. Firstly, silence is not the same as agreement. Secondly, there are vocal complaints about the continuation and escalation of tapping for a start.

And also, I don't actually recall much moaning from conservatives about Bush. Only towards the end when he was a lame duck, and the sudden financial crisis erupted did it really start. Where was the opposition to the Patriot Act from the right?

Doctor Fate wrote:Let's see . . . less than a year ago, he ran for reelection and said:

President Barack Obama has described al Qaeda as having been “decimated,” “on the path to defeat” or some other variation at least 32 times since the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, according to White House transcripts.

Remember that?

Now, 22 embassies had to be shut down. Now, our consulate in Lahore (unrelated to the previous threat) had to be shut down.

Well, they are not lying down - would you expect them to even if they were losing? They will want to do something to re-ignite things I would think.

But as yet they have not actually done what is feared they may - and indeed in Yemen there have been strikes against them.

danivon wrote:But as yet they have not actually done what is feared they may - and indeed in Yemen there have been strikes against them.

President Obama said they're on the run. Who is running now?

President Obama said, in May, the war on terror is, essentially, over. He's said Gitmo was their big recruiting tool.

Apparently, AQ didn't get the memo. They think Benghazi showed the US as impotent. They're staging prison breaks, planning attacks, and forcing us to respond.

The President is feared by no one other than the Tea Party and those who like their healthcare.

http://www.usvtc.org/us-vietnam/Chronol ... 6Jul10.pdf

As the document above shows: The normalization of affairs between the US and Viet nam has been going on for several decades. I fail to see how a relationship that both republicans and democrats (Bushes and Clinton) have sought to improve can be fodder for another round of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

In The Thousand Year War, by Joel Schlesinger, he clearly profiled the formative years of Ho Chi Minh who chose Communism only after being rebuffed by the OSA when he approached them for help in ridding Viet nam of the French at the end of WWII. Since the US simply took over the French position after the French left, as colonizers, (from the view point of the Viet namese.) it would seem to have been an appropriate choice.

rickyp wrote:http://www.usvtc.org/us-vietnam/Chronology/Chronology%20of%20US-VN%20Normalization%206Jul10.pdf

As the document above shows: The normalization of affairs between the US and Viet nam has been going on for several decades. I fail to see how a relationship that both republicans and democrats (Bushes and Clinton) have sought to improve can be fodder for another round of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

In The Thousand Year War, by Joel Schlesinger, he clearly profiled the formative years of Ho Chi Minh who chose Communism only after being rebuffed by the OSA when he approached them for help in ridding Viet nam of the French at the end of WWII. Since the US simply took over the French position after the French left, as colonizers, (from the view point of the Viet namese.) it would seem to have been an appropriate choice.

Ho Chi Minh was a nice man?

No one argued against normalization of relations with Vietnam. It's about Ho.

I had no "big" issue with the patriot act from the start and still have little issue with it so you would not have seen anything from me. But how about the liberals here and everywhere else who DID have a problem with it under Bush but suddenly are now quiet? They were hopping mad with it under Bush but now barely make a sound!

And Bush, I was NEVER accepting of his fiscal position, nope, never was.

Right, and any person seeking friendly relations with the US would seek to defame George Washington or the other founders of the constitution. In any discourse between nations there is a certain propriety. You don't quote jefferson in public and then and add in paranthesis ..BTW he was .a slaveholder who used his females slaves as concubines...

Ho Chi Minh is reverred by the Vietnames people as the father of their country. Without him they wouldn't have earned their liberty from the French or American colonial forces... The people who fought under the South Vietname government with the US are seen as traitors in the same way that American revolutionaries treated the loyalists . (Confiscated, murdered, raped ...)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 643AAnpohz

It didn't keep the British from normalizing relations with the US eventually and treating the American "fathers" with the dignity that Americans prefer.

rickyp wrote:Right, and any person seeking friendly relations with the US would seek to defame George Washington or the other founders of the constitution. In any discourse between nations there is a certain propriety. You don't quote jefferson in public and then and add in paranthesis ..BTW he was .a slaveholder who used his females slaves as concubines...

Ho Chi Minh is reverred by the Vietnames people as the father of their country. Without him they wouldn't have earned their liberty from the French or American colonial forces... The people who fought under the South Vietname government with the US are seen as traitors in the same way that American revolutionaries treated the loyalists . (Confiscated, murdered, raped ...)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 643AAnpohz

It didn't keep the British from normalizing relations with the US eventually and treating the American "fathers" with the dignity that Americans prefer.

He didn't have to defame Ho, but I've already said that.

Feel free to keep attacking arguments I've not made, Mr. Quixote.