Politico hack Jonathan Martin posited the question: ”Is Rick Perry Dumb?” in his 29 Aug 11 column, and then went on to describe a complex highly successful politician that has been constantly underestimated by opponents – all at their own peril.
Perry is the ONLY candidate of either party that can boast of creating jobs while in political office! During the Obama reign, half of ALL jobs created in the US were created in Perry’s Texas while, according to the 19 Aug 11 Washington Post Fact Checker: “…. nearly 2.4 million jobs have been lost since Obama took office, the worst record of the modern presidency.” Does this sound like Rick Perry is Dumb?
According to a 21 Jun 11 USA Today: “Texas Wins in US Economy Shift” - with Gov Perry in charge “Texas became the USA's second-largest economy during the past decade— displacing New York and perhaps heading one day toward challenging California — in one of the biggest economic shifts in the past half-century.” Does this sound like Rick Perry is Dumb?
According to Bureau of Economic Analysis, “over the past decade Texas experienced the biggest economic increases in 50 years surpassing $1 Trillion in annual economic output. The state’s share of the US economy during the past decade gained nearly a full percentage reaching 8.3% in 2010 – a feat matched only twice in the past 50 years — by California in the 1980s and Texas itself during the 1970s. By contrast, California’s share of the national economy peaked in 1990 but shrank faster than all but three states from 2000 to 2010.” California is experiencing the death spiral of Higher Taxes to pay for Govt Unions and generous but unaffordable social program which attract more socially needy people looking for handouts -- driving businesses out of the State – requiring Higher Taxes to pay for Govt Unions and generous ….. “ The Death Spiral that Gov Perry has not allowed to happen in Texas. Does this sound like Rick Perry is Dumb?
As this country’s longest serving Governor (since Dec 2000) and the chief executive of our second largest state by both size and population, he presided over this entire decade of growth and is by far the best qualified and most experienced executive in all of US Government. Compare this to our present Commander-in-Chief who had never held an executive position in his life prior to becoming President. Also, Perry is the ONLY credible candidate with Military service. Commissioned in the Air Force in 1972, he completed pilot training and flew C-130s in the States, Middle East and Europe before leaving service as a Captain in 1977. I’ve heard a lot of adjectives used in connection with Air Force pilots but “dumb” has never been one of them. Does this sound like Rick Perry is Dumb?
Now “Dumb” is a relative term and I would suggest that any discussion of dumb politicians should compare them with the quintessential political idiot -- Good Old VP Joe “5 Draft Deferment” Biden – the “Consummate Gaff-mister.” Every time Joe speaks, I listen with anxious anticipation confident he will commit some “world-class” gaffs to provide comic relief. He is the reason every American should pray every evening for Obama's good health as he will surely go down in history as the dumbest and most inept vice president of all times; by comparison he makes Bachmann appear cerebral, Palin smart, Dan Quayle intellectual and Rick Perry absolutely brilliant. As for President Obama’s intellect, compare his record of achievements with those above for Gov Perry and draw your own conclusions. Does this sound like Rick Perry is Dumb?
Writing about political gaffs without mentioning Joe “the Gaff-mister” is like writing about politicians with illegitimate kids and failing to mention Edwards or Schwarzenegger. And remember, President Obama was the person that selected “the Gaff-mister” to be his Vice President and the person he thought was capable of running this country if something were to happen to the president. Now “is that Dumb?” Here are my two favorite “Biden-isms” that demonstrate how dumb he really is although there are so many of them they could fill a bookshelf.
- During the VP Debate with Palin, Biden said that "all the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch are laid out in Article I of the Constitution.” – Well Sorry Joe, they're not. Article I of the Constitution is the one on the legislative branch. Article II are where the Executive Powers are found. Joe's been chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a member of the Judiciary Committee in the Senate for 36 years, teaches constitutional law back in Delaware, and can't keep straight which article of the Constitution provides for the legislature and which provides for the executive. Maybe he should be taking instead of teaching Constitutional Law?
In a 22 Sep 08, CBS News interview with Katie Couric, Senator Biden said "Part of what being a leader does is to instill confidence is to demonstrate what he or she knows what they are talking about and to communicating to people .... When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, 'look, here's what happened.'" Two problems with Biden’s “history,” when the market crashed in 1929 Herbert Hoover -- not Roosevelt -- was president. Roosevelt wasn’t president until 20 April 1933 and Television hadn’t been invented yet…. Other than that Biden got it right.
In defense of Biden, he doesn't commit these gaffs on purpose; he just isn't bright enough to avoid them. Although Obama may have originally selected him as a running mate to fill that all important role of designated "butt of jokes" for the late night comedians -- a role for which he has proven ideally suited and eminently well qualified – his shtick is beginning to wear a little thin which is why Obama doesn’t let him out in public much any more and replacing him on the 2012 ticket isn’t all that much of a stretch. The Obama challenge is "Hidin Biden" until 2012! With his history of gaffs, plagiarism, explaining his draft dodging and other dumb stunts, I can't imagine what a Biden presidency would be like. Possibly more pronouncements like the ones on his recent China trip endorsing forced sterilizations and ninth month abortions.
If you really want a fuller picture of how dumb Old Joe “5 Deferment” really is, I have posted a compendium of "Dumb Biden-isms” on a 9 Oct 2010 Blog entry (below) entitled: Joe Biden - The Consummate Gaff-mister and Some of My Favorite “Biden-isms”
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Wikipedia - A Bastion of Liberal Misinformation & Distortions
A Call to Arms for All Fair Minded People to Become Contributors to Correct Liberal Tilting Wikipedia Entries with “Fair and Balanced” Factual Information
Wikipedia should come with a warning label much the same as cigarettes because relying on anything published in it “could be hazardous to your (intellectual) health.”
Most of the entries contain either factually inaccurate information or at least information culled from published sources that have greatly distorted or revised history. It appears most Wikipedia entries have a very liberal bent which is obvious to anyone that objectively reviews articles. Bios of Democrat politicians are normally much more laudatory in tone and either exclude or minimize derogatory information while Republican bios are routinely much harsher. Even subtle methods are often used to advance a liberal viewpoint. For example, in the entry on “Draft Dodger,” reference is made to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Mitt Romney and Bill Clinton as examples – three Republicans and one Democrat. Balance might have suggested using Republicans Bush and Cheney, and Clinton and Vice President Biden.” (although for the record, Bush flying antique Air National Guard Convair F-102s was probably in more danger than I was during an extended CIB-earning tour in Vietnam!)
Another even better example of subtle liberal bias is this passage in the John F. Kennedy Bio describing the Bay of Pigs Invasion: “Prior to Kennedy's election to the presidency, the Eisenhower Administration created a plan to overthrow the Fidel Castro regime in Cuba” thus implying that Kennedy merely inherited Eisenhower's flawed plan. “Documentation” for this fallacious accusation was the writings of Kennedy administration officials Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Theodore Sorensen; when, in fact, both men were writing to defend their boss from criticism by unjustly deflecting blame on Eisenhower. In fact, reputable scholars now acknowledge that Eisenhower wasn't even aware of the invasion plan and he even said so in an article published by the New York newspaper Newsday in 1965 titled "Ike Speaks Out: Bay of Pigs was all JFK's.'' Unfortunately, “inconvenient facts” are not welcome in Wikipedia.
To perpetuate their liberal agenda, Wikipedia has appointed a cadre of “like minded progressive” volunteer “Administrators” who are editors trusted with access to restricted policing tools so they can “protect,” “delete,” and even “block” contributions by others who make edits that don’t conform to their liberal biases.
Bottom line: If you like getting your news from Newsweek, you’ll love getting your “facts” from Wikipedia! I wouldn't believe a Wikipedia Editor under oath!
So what’s the FIX! I’m calling on ALL Fair Minded people that believe Wikipedia ought to be providing “Fair and Balanced” treatment of all subjects to become contributors. Scour all entries, especially those prone for liberal distortions such as political Bios, and correct inaccuracies. Be diligent because the liberal Administrator/editors will throw in every conceivable roadblock to thwart your efforts. At times it will be frustrating but if enough fair minded people make the effort, it will eventually overwhelm their capacity to filter out the truth.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Who Exactly Are the “Better Off Among Us” Not Paying Their Fair Share of the Taxes?
The Progressive mantra as articulated by our President is: all we need do to sustain all the Federal give-away programs is to ask the best off among us to pay "a little more." According to the non-partisan Tax Payers Union, the top 1% already pay ~40% of the Federal Income Taxes and the Top 5% pay ~60% while over half the population pay NONE at all, so who exactly isn’t paying their “fair-share?”
When you have more people “in the wagon” than “pulling the wagon,” the incentive is to stop pulling and get in to allow the other dwindling minority to carry an even bigger load of dead weight. Is this what our Progressive President is advocating?
Some argue that those that don’t pay Income Taxes do pay other taxes, e.g. gas tax and payroll tax. That’s true but those are specific taxes for specific services; gas taxes fund roads, and payroll taxes fund Social Security and Medicare. Here low income contributors actually receive a disproportionally larger benefit than their contributions cover. Those that don’t pay income tax contribute nothing to the common functions of Government for which they also derive great benefit. These include National Defense, law enforcement and criminal justice, environmental protection, and hundreds of other common services. Those who don’t contribute but derive great benefits from these common services enjoy an equal vote about how they are delivered yet have no incentive to constrain costs or encourage efficiency. At a time of unsustainable deficits and debt does anyone really expect the people “in the wagon” to be in a position to weigh the benefits of “give-away programs” against their costs?
I believe the bottom line to this is we cannot go on forever borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend before the rest of the World that is “helping to pull our wagon” quits helping to pull or at least want a lot more money to help us. The inevitable result is the “wagon stops” and everyone, riders and pullers, are in trouble. This is a catastrophe that doesn’t have to happen if we get our house in order now but it will call for shared sacrifice. All Americans need to have some “skin in the game.” We should let all the Bush era tax cuts expire in 2013 (except for the inheritance tax which makes it impossible to continue to operate a small business S-Corporation or a family farm when an owner dies) and find a way to include that half paying nothing so they have a stake in the County’s future and an incentive to constrain costs. Americans have always been great at pulling together in emergencies so let’s lay out the facts and involve everyone in the “shared sacrifice.”
When you have more people “in the wagon” than “pulling the wagon,” the incentive is to stop pulling and get in to allow the other dwindling minority to carry an even bigger load of dead weight. Is this what our Progressive President is advocating?
Some argue that those that don’t pay Income Taxes do pay other taxes, e.g. gas tax and payroll tax. That’s true but those are specific taxes for specific services; gas taxes fund roads, and payroll taxes fund Social Security and Medicare. Here low income contributors actually receive a disproportionally larger benefit than their contributions cover. Those that don’t pay income tax contribute nothing to the common functions of Government for which they also derive great benefit. These include National Defense, law enforcement and criminal justice, environmental protection, and hundreds of other common services. Those who don’t contribute but derive great benefits from these common services enjoy an equal vote about how they are delivered yet have no incentive to constrain costs or encourage efficiency. At a time of unsustainable deficits and debt does anyone really expect the people “in the wagon” to be in a position to weigh the benefits of “give-away programs” against their costs?
I believe the bottom line to this is we cannot go on forever borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend before the rest of the World that is “helping to pull our wagon” quits helping to pull or at least want a lot more money to help us. The inevitable result is the “wagon stops” and everyone, riders and pullers, are in trouble. This is a catastrophe that doesn’t have to happen if we get our house in order now but it will call for shared sacrifice. All Americans need to have some “skin in the game.” We should let all the Bush era tax cuts expire in 2013 (except for the inheritance tax which makes it impossible to continue to operate a small business S-Corporation or a family farm when an owner dies) and find a way to include that half paying nothing so they have a stake in the County’s future and an incentive to constrain costs. Americans have always been great at pulling together in emergencies so let’s lay out the facts and involve everyone in the “shared sacrifice.”
Is Newsweek Magazine Trying to Go Out of Business on Purpose?
I noticed that Newsweek has switched format from News to Fiction. What’s next, replacing Editor Tina Brown with Oliver Stone? Here’s a bit of unsolicited business advice for Newsweek about why it is a dying weekly that probably wasn’t even worth the $1 it recently sold for and why it will probably go under within the next two years. Not only do they fabricate their “facts” but they routinely miss the big story of the Week that WILL SELL copies. Either Newsweek is tone deaf or just trying to go out of business on purpose (a la the movie “Major League”).
Case in point, the week the S&P Downgraded the US Credit Rating along with the Stock Market tanking, that story was on the front pages of every credible newspaper or weekly. What was the best Newsweek could do? Put a demeaning Photo of Michele Bachmann and a snarky caption on the cover! Given Newsweek already had covers with a Photoshopped Mitt Romney head on some kid’s body jumping and the Sarah Palin Runners World cover, one would almost believe they were trying to belittle Republicans and hence ensure they couldn’t sell to that market!
When I was retiring from the Army, Newsweek offered me a multi-year subscription that came out to be about a buck and a half ($1.50) a year and it doesn’t run out until April 2013. My wife will not let it in the house so I only flip through it as it moves directly from the mailbox to the trash. I’d cancel my subscription but I feel I’m performing a patriotic service as I’m confident it cost them more to print and mail my copy than I paid for it. Hence, Newsweek losing money on my subscription hastens their demise – and that’s truly a Public Service.
Newsweek Article Pays Tribute to “Hanoi Jane” Fonda – What’s Next? “Person of the Year” Honors?
Hanoi Jane Fonda Manning a NVA Anti-aircraft Gun
Newsweek’s 22 & 29 Aug 2011 Double Issue featured an extremely laudatory piece on Fonda but this was my favorite passage in this entire article: “….her perceived antipathy for veterans during the Vietnam War ….” If “Hanoi Jane’s” actions could be described as “perceived antipathy,” as a Vietnam Vet (actually extended there) I’d hate to be around if she were to ever really get pissed off at me.
For the record Fonda visited Hanoi in July 1972 and made several false anti-American accusations that the North Vietnamese used for propaganda. During her trip, Fonda made ten radio broadcasts in which she denounced American political and military leaders as "war criminals;" her most egregious accusation was she falsely accused them of deliberately targeting the Red River dike system which, if true, might have drown as many as 200,000 people.
A contemporary 7 Aug 1972 Time Magazine article “VIET NAM: The Battle of the Dikes”
(http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,8... ) refuted this allegation and contained this passage:
“During (Columnist Joseph Kraft’s) own current tour of North Viet Nam, Kraft reasoned that if the U.S. Air Force were "truly going after the dikes, it would do so in a methodical, not a harum-scarum way." Summarized Kraft: "I have to conclude from what I have seen that there is no deliberate American drive to bomb the dikes. But the dikes do run parallel to many roads. Some are close to railroad tracks and bridges." Inevitably, some dikes have been hit in error, Kraft believes, and the damage—also inevitably —has been exploited by the North Vietnamese for propaganda purposes.
Kraft's conclusion supported the US officials version, that the dikes were not being "targeted," but that a few dikes near military targets had been accidentally damaged. The State Department released the results of a photo-reconnaissance of the entire Red River Delta taken in mid-July which revealed bomb craters at only twelve locations in the dike system—ten of them near petroleum storage tanks, and all relatively minor. The evidence showed conclusively that there has been no intentional bombing of the dikes.
I would only point out that Joseph Kraft (1924-1986), a former John F. Kennedy speechwriter, and Washington Post and New York Times reporter with a syndicated column running in over 200 papers was in North Vietnam at the same time as Fonda and was NO friend of Nixon's or the War; he was even on Nixon's "Enemies List" and was highly critical of the Vietnam War. Kraft would have jumped on any opportunity to disparage Nixon or the War if something had been there. There wasn't!
During the visit, Hanoi Jane even had the audacity to be photographed manning an anti-aircraft battery and there are persistent rumors that some POWs were forced to meet with her and she spat on them, called them "baby-killers." Then, when some POWs attempted to sneak notes to her to let their families know they were alive she turned the note over to the North Vietnamese which led to the prisoners being tortured.
When cases of torture began to emerge among the returning POWs, Fonda called the returning POWs "hypocrites and liars.” In my opinion this is the moral equivalent of Hanoi Jane being a “Holocaust Denier.”
To be fair, in a 1988 Barbara Walters interview Fonda expressed regret for some of her comments and actions saying: "I would like to say something … to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did…. I was thoughtless and careless … I want to apologize to them and their families… I will go to my grave regretting the photograph of me in an anti-aircraft gun, which looks like I was trying to shoot at American planes…. It was the most horrible thing I could possibly have done. It was just thoughtless..."
Of course her apology came at a time when a group of New England Veterans had launched a campaign to disrupt a film project she was working on so Hanoi Jane's apology might ring a tad hallow and have been motivated more by self economic interest than remorse.
Friday, August 19, 2011
NEWSWEEK Changes Format to Fiction - Rewriting the Bay of Pigs History
Where Obama's “Blame My Predecessor” Political Strategy Originated
I hadn’t realized Newsweek had switched formats from News to Fiction until I read “The Untold Story of the Bay of Pigs” in this week’s (22 & 29 Aug 11 Double Issue) edition. What's next? Is Oliver Stone going to replace Tina Brown as their new editor? Anyone wishing to know the truth rather than this whitewash intended to relieve JFK of his richly deserved ‘credit” for the Bay of Pigs fiasco should access the C-SPAN website at: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PigsM to hear Professor Irwin Gillman’s excellent (and factual) presentation entitled “The Coming of the Bay of Pigs: Myth and Reality” which was most recently broadcast on C-Span just last week, 14 Aug 2011. Liberals would have you believe that Eisenhower had it all planned and left office leaving Kennedy “holding the bag.” In truth, Eisenhower wasn't even aware of the invasion plan and said so in an article published by the New York newspaper Newsday in 1965 titled "Ike Speaks Out: Bay of Pigs was all JFK's.''
The following is plagiarized almost verbatim from the C-SPAN Website:
Professor Gellman is the visiting scholar of history at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., and has written four books on U.S. and Latin American history, including "Secret Affairs: Franklin Roosevelt, Cordell Hull and Sumner Welles,'' published in 1995 and nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
The Professor points out that historians in recent years have tended to shift the blame for one of the greatest U.S. foreign policy disasters in the 20th century on Kennedy's predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower. They say Kennedy merely inherited Eisenhower's flawed plan to use Cuban exiles to invade Cuba and oust Fidel Castro. But they've got it all wrong, Gellman said, basing their scholarship on the writings of Kennedy administration officials Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Theodore Sorensen. Both men sought to defend their boss, who was assassinated in 1963, from criticism by fixing blame on Eisenhower.
"Sorensen wishes you to believe that Kennedy had no choice, that when Eisenhower leaves office, Kennedy was stuck. There was no option for the guy. And that's how history is written, and that's the story that's told,'' Gellman said.
Instead, Eisenhower wasn't even aware of the invasion plan and said so in an article published by the New York newspaper Newsday in 1965 titled "Ike Speaks Out: Bay of Pigs was all JFK's.''
According to Gellman, these are things many historians never take the time to read before thinking that Eisenhower was at fault for the plan.
"If you are a good liberal, do you go on the position that because Eisenhower initially started a movement to get rid of Castro, that makes him the player of the Bay of Pigs? Which by the way, anybody that reads the documents will tell you that there was no Eisenhower involvement. He wasn't even consulted,'' Gellman said.
The Bay of Pigs invasion was an unsuccessful attempt by the U.S. government to overthrow Castro. A group of about 1,400 Cuban exiles was assembled and trained by the CIA for several months to invade the Bahia de Cochinos, or Bay of Pigs, on April 17, 1961. But Castro was ready for the invasion and his 25,000 troops defeated, killed or captured many of the invaders, embarrassing the United States and causing Castro to form a closer alliance with the Soviet Union.
Gellman called the plan "crazy'' and marked by "stupidity,'' including lack of air support and leaving its execution in the hands of the CIA, an intelligence organization, not a military one.
But if there was going to be an invasion, Gellman argued, it would have fared better under Eisenhower, a decorated five-star general who was Supreme Allied Commander during World War II, whose maxim was “If you're going to use force, then you better win.” (End of C-SPAN Quote)
So if anyone is wondering where President Obama came up with his “Blame My Predecessor” strategy for his failure to fix the US economy, one need look no further than President Kennedy. Appears this has been in the Democrat’s political playbook for at least 50 years!
I hadn’t realized Newsweek had switched formats from News to Fiction until I read “The Untold Story of the Bay of Pigs” in this week’s (22 & 29 Aug 11 Double Issue) edition. What's next? Is Oliver Stone going to replace Tina Brown as their new editor? Anyone wishing to know the truth rather than this whitewash intended to relieve JFK of his richly deserved ‘credit” for the Bay of Pigs fiasco should access the C-SPAN website at: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PigsM to hear Professor Irwin Gillman’s excellent (and factual) presentation entitled “The Coming of the Bay of Pigs: Myth and Reality” which was most recently broadcast on C-Span just last week, 14 Aug 2011. Liberals would have you believe that Eisenhower had it all planned and left office leaving Kennedy “holding the bag.” In truth, Eisenhower wasn't even aware of the invasion plan and said so in an article published by the New York newspaper Newsday in 1965 titled "Ike Speaks Out: Bay of Pigs was all JFK's.''
The following is plagiarized almost verbatim from the C-SPAN Website:
Professor Gellman is the visiting scholar of history at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., and has written four books on U.S. and Latin American history, including "Secret Affairs: Franklin Roosevelt, Cordell Hull and Sumner Welles,'' published in 1995 and nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
The Professor points out that historians in recent years have tended to shift the blame for one of the greatest U.S. foreign policy disasters in the 20th century on Kennedy's predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower. They say Kennedy merely inherited Eisenhower's flawed plan to use Cuban exiles to invade Cuba and oust Fidel Castro. But they've got it all wrong, Gellman said, basing their scholarship on the writings of Kennedy administration officials Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Theodore Sorensen. Both men sought to defend their boss, who was assassinated in 1963, from criticism by fixing blame on Eisenhower.
"Sorensen wishes you to believe that Kennedy had no choice, that when Eisenhower leaves office, Kennedy was stuck. There was no option for the guy. And that's how history is written, and that's the story that's told,'' Gellman said.
Instead, Eisenhower wasn't even aware of the invasion plan and said so in an article published by the New York newspaper Newsday in 1965 titled "Ike Speaks Out: Bay of Pigs was all JFK's.''
According to Gellman, these are things many historians never take the time to read before thinking that Eisenhower was at fault for the plan.
"If you are a good liberal, do you go on the position that because Eisenhower initially started a movement to get rid of Castro, that makes him the player of the Bay of Pigs? Which by the way, anybody that reads the documents will tell you that there was no Eisenhower involvement. He wasn't even consulted,'' Gellman said.
The Bay of Pigs invasion was an unsuccessful attempt by the U.S. government to overthrow Castro. A group of about 1,400 Cuban exiles was assembled and trained by the CIA for several months to invade the Bahia de Cochinos, or Bay of Pigs, on April 17, 1961. But Castro was ready for the invasion and his 25,000 troops defeated, killed or captured many of the invaders, embarrassing the United States and causing Castro to form a closer alliance with the Soviet Union.
Gellman called the plan "crazy'' and marked by "stupidity,'' including lack of air support and leaving its execution in the hands of the CIA, an intelligence organization, not a military one.
But if there was going to be an invasion, Gellman argued, it would have fared better under Eisenhower, a decorated five-star general who was Supreme Allied Commander during World War II, whose maxim was “If you're going to use force, then you better win.” (End of C-SPAN Quote)
So if anyone is wondering where President Obama came up with his “Blame My Predecessor” strategy for his failure to fix the US economy, one need look no further than President Kennedy. Appears this has been in the Democrat’s political playbook for at least 50 years!
Honor All Vets But Reserve a Special Place for Those of World War II
In today’s Washington Post (19 Aug 2011) there was an excellent article: “World War II veteran remembers historic B-17 attack against Germany" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/world-war-ii-veteran-remembers-historic-b-17-attack-against-germany/2011/08/18/gIQAdipVOJ_story.html) and it got me to thinking, most Americans today don’t realize how costly in lives World War II really was, especially when compared to our present wars. Actually, the 8th Air Force alone in WWII sustained more than 27,000 killed; that’s more than the entire Marine Corps (24,500) lost in that war. Although they had the highest casualty rate, the 8th Air Force was only one of 16 numbered Air Forces in the War. Americans of today owe a real debt of gratitude to the WWII generation for their sacrifices.
Understand as a Vietnam combat Vet who spent 30 years in the Army (and was in Afghanistan as a civilian last year), I consider every service member’s life precious and I don’t wish to diminish the death of a single one but to put things into perspective, here are the stats from our most recent wars compared to WWII:
In the 10 years we’ve been in Afghanistan (Oct 2001-Today/Aug 2011), we’ve lost 1726 military killed from all causes in country and the surrounding regions (1192 Soldiers, 357 Marines, 84 Airmen and 93 Sailors). That averages less than ½ person lost per day.
In the 8½ years we’ve been in Iraq (Mar 2003-Today/19 Aug 2011), we’ve lost 4565 military killed from all causes in country and the surrounding regions (3283 Soldiers, 1022 Marines, 57 Airmen, 103 Sailors and 1 Coast Guardsmen).
Theoretically the Vietnam War lasted 10 years but 51,585 of the total 58,220 killed occurred during the real 5 years (1966-70) of the war when we were heavily engaged. At the height of the war in 1968 we were losing 50 a day killed!
The Korean War lasted 3 years and one month (Jun 1950 – Jul 53) and total US Killed was 36,516. That averages ~32+ killed a day
All these conflict pale in comparison to World War II where the US lost almost half a million men. The Battle of the Bulge alone lasted 40 days (16 Dec 44 – 25 Jan 45) with almost 90,000 U.S. casualties; 19,000 killed, 47,500 wounded, and 23,000 captured or missing. The 36-day Iwo Jima assault resulted in more than 26,000 American casualties, including 6,800 dead while the 82-day Battle for Okinawa lasted from early April until mid-June 1945 and U.S. (5 Army and 2 Marine Corps Divisions) casualties were over 62,000 with over 12,000 killed.
Honor ALL Veterans but reserve a special place for the Heroes from World War II!
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
"The One" for 2012 is Anyone But Obama! and Maybe Perry Will Be Ready in 2016.
It's unfortuate that Texas Gov Rick Perry self destructed so will not be the Republican nominee and next President -- this time around. The main issue concerning Americans for the 2012 election will be … In the words of VP Biden: “it’s a 3-letter word… JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! (Nobody ever accused Biden of being very bright).
Rick Perry was the ONLY candidate of either party, declared or undeclared, that could boast of creating jobs while in political office! During the Obama reign, half of ALL jobs created in the US were created in Perry’s Texas! Pretty impressive! By contract, according to the Fact Checker in the 19 Aug 11 Washington Post, "...job growth is measured from the start of a presidency. That would show nearly 2.4 million jobs have been lost since Obama took office, the worst record of the modern presidency."
According to a 21 Jun 11 USA Today article – “Texas Wins in US Economy Shift” – “Texas became the USA's second-largest economy during the past decade — displacing New York and perhaps heading one day toward challenging California — in one of the biggest economic shifts in the past half-century.”
According to Bureau of Economic Analysis, over the past decade Texas experienced the biggest economic increases in 50 years surpassing $1 trillion in annual economic output. The state’s share of the US economy during the past decade gained nearly a full percentage point reaching 8.3% in 2010 – a feat matched only twice in the past 50 years — by California in the 1980s and Texas itself during the 1970s oil boom. By contrast, according to the article California’s “share of the national economy peaked in 1990 but shrank faster than all but three states from 2000 to 2010.”
As this country’s longest serving Governor (since Dec 2000) and the chief executive of our second largest state by both size and population, he presided over this entire decade of growth and is by far the best qualified and most experienced executive in all of US Government. Compare this to our present Commander-in-Chief who had never held an executive position in his life prior to his election as President – and it shows. His 3 terms in the Illinois Senate and 4 years in the US Senate hardly prepared him to be a decision-maker and it certainly didn’t make him an inspirational leader or speaker – as evidenced by the market dropping almost 700 points almost while he was on the air speaking on TV trying to “inspire” the Nation and quell the markets during a recent almost 700 point drop.
I would also add that, with the exception of Ron Paul, Perry was also the ONLY candidate that has ever served in the Military which the President presides over as Commander-in-Chief. Perry was commissioned in the Air Force in 1972 out of the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets ROTC program and after completing pilot training, flew C-130 tactical airlift in the States, Middle East, and Europe. He left the Air Force in 1977as a captain. Ron Paul, a medical doctor, was an Air Force active duty flight surgeon from 1963 to 65.
With Gov Perry we would have gotten a seasoned decision-making executive and leader –and at least nobody would have needed to teach Perry how to salute or identify the insignias of rank.
With Perry we still need a Republican "The One" replacing "The Great Pretender" Obama.
Rick Perry was the ONLY candidate of either party, declared or undeclared, that could boast of creating jobs while in political office! During the Obama reign, half of ALL jobs created in the US were created in Perry’s Texas! Pretty impressive! By contract, according to the Fact Checker in the 19 Aug 11 Washington Post, "...job growth is measured from the start of a presidency. That would show nearly 2.4 million jobs have been lost since Obama took office, the worst record of the modern presidency."
According to a 21 Jun 11 USA Today article – “Texas Wins in US Economy Shift” – “Texas became the USA's second-largest economy during the past decade — displacing New York and perhaps heading one day toward challenging California — in one of the biggest economic shifts in the past half-century.”
According to Bureau of Economic Analysis, over the past decade Texas experienced the biggest economic increases in 50 years surpassing $1 trillion in annual economic output. The state’s share of the US economy during the past decade gained nearly a full percentage point reaching 8.3% in 2010 – a feat matched only twice in the past 50 years — by California in the 1980s and Texas itself during the 1970s oil boom. By contrast, according to the article California’s “share of the national economy peaked in 1990 but shrank faster than all but three states from 2000 to 2010.”
As this country’s longest serving Governor (since Dec 2000) and the chief executive of our second largest state by both size and population, he presided over this entire decade of growth and is by far the best qualified and most experienced executive in all of US Government. Compare this to our present Commander-in-Chief who had never held an executive position in his life prior to his election as President – and it shows. His 3 terms in the Illinois Senate and 4 years in the US Senate hardly prepared him to be a decision-maker and it certainly didn’t make him an inspirational leader or speaker – as evidenced by the market dropping almost 700 points almost while he was on the air speaking on TV trying to “inspire” the Nation and quell the markets during a recent almost 700 point drop.
I would also add that, with the exception of Ron Paul, Perry was also the ONLY candidate that has ever served in the Military which the President presides over as Commander-in-Chief. Perry was commissioned in the Air Force in 1972 out of the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets ROTC program and after completing pilot training, flew C-130 tactical airlift in the States, Middle East, and Europe. He left the Air Force in 1977as a captain. Ron Paul, a medical doctor, was an Air Force active duty flight surgeon from 1963 to 65.
With Gov Perry we would have gotten a seasoned decision-making executive and leader –and at least nobody would have needed to teach Perry how to salute or identify the insignias of rank.
With Perry we still need a Republican "The One" replacing "The Great Pretender" Obama.
Monday, August 8, 2011
The Newsweek Bachmann Cover - Are They Trying to Go Out of Business?
Here’s a bit of unsolicited business advice for Newsweek about why it is a dying weekly that probably wasn’t even worth the $1 it recently sold for and why it will probably go under within the next two years. When the biggest story going that WILL SELL copies this week is the S&P Downgrade of the US Credit Rating along with the Stock Market tanking and what is the the best they can do? Put a demeaning Photo of Michele Bachmann and a snarky caption on the cover! Given they already had covers with a Photoshopped Mitt Romney with his head on some kid’s jumping body and the Sarah Palin Runners World cover, one would almost believe they were trying to belittle Republicans. Is Newsweek tone deaf or are they just trying to go out of business on purpose?
When I was retiring from the Army, Newsweek offered me a multi-year subscription that came out to be about a buck and a half ($1.50) a year and it doesn’t run out until April 2013. My wife will not let it in the house so I only flip through it as it moves directly from the mailbox to the trash. I’d cancel my subscription but I feel I’m performing a patriotic service as I’m confident it cost them more to print and mail my copy than I paid for it. Hence, Newsweek losing money on my subscription hastens their demise – and that’s truly a Public Service.
When I was retiring from the Army, Newsweek offered me a multi-year subscription that came out to be about a buck and a half ($1.50) a year and it doesn’t run out until April 2013. My wife will not let it in the house so I only flip through it as it moves directly from the mailbox to the trash. I’d cancel my subscription but I feel I’m performing a patriotic service as I’m confident it cost them more to print and mail my copy than I paid for it. Hence, Newsweek losing money on my subscription hastens their demise – and that’s truly a Public Service.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Standard & Poor’s or Should It Be Renamed “Slander and Boor’s”
Anyone that follows my Blog knows I’m no fan of the Obama Administration’s financial policy but I have to agree with them this time in their assessment of the credibility of S&P with their downgrading of the US credit rating. Trusting an S&P credit rating is like accepting investment advice from Bernie Madoff. Both have proven to be equally unreliable over the past five years.
First, S&P is the only one of the Big Three credit-rating agencies (CRAs), (the other two are: Moody's Investor Service and Fitch Ratings), to take this unprecedented step to embarrass and slander the credit worthiness of the United States.
Second, what is the definition of the highest AAA rating from which the US was just downgraded from to AA+? AAA: best-quality borrowers, reliable and stable (many of them sovereign governments)
A trivia question: what do ALL the countries that still have an across the board AAA Rating have in common? Hint: They are Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (and separately Guernsey & Isle of Man).
Answer: They all depend on the United States for protection and it is that very blanket of protection that even enables their economies to exist yet they now enjoy a higher credit rating than the country that secures their very existence. Now that’s ironic.
So exactly which of these AAA Rated countries does S&P really believe is more “reliable and stable” than the United States? Also, why does S&P think the entire World flocks to US Treasury instruments as their safest investments in times of uncertainty? Is S&P really smarter than not only the other CRAs but also all the other investors in the World? Regardless of what’s been happening in Washington over the past quarter, does S&P really believe the US has a chance in Hell of defaulting on any of its debt obligations? The AAA Rating is supposed to evaluate the safety of the investment and nothing else.
With all this said, let’s examine the recent S&P track record. S&P has taken some well earned criticism in the wake of large losses beginning in 2007 in the collateralized debt obligation (CDO) market that occurred despite S&P assigning their top AAA credit ratings to large portions of even the riskiest pools of loans. Investors trusted the low-risk profile that an S&P AAA implies and purchased large amounts of CDOs that later became unsellable or those that could be sold took staggering losses. For instance, losses on $340.7 million worth of S&P AAA rated CDOs issued by Credit Suisse Group added up to about $125 million. To quote Time Magazine: S&P “granted AAA rating to Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) that were chock-full-of crap mortgages, thereby helping to precipitate the 2008 financial collapse” and The Washington Post put it a little more bluntly: "Standard and Poor's didn't just miss the bubble. They helped cause it."
Because companies pay S&P to rate their debt issues, S&P is beholden to these issuers so its ratings are not always objective. Now with this US downgrade, I believe S&P is causing further damage for its own agenda. Add to that S&P even acknowledges they made a $2 Trillion (that’s with a “T”) Math error in its justification for downgrading the US credit rating so I have to agree with the Treasury Department that "A judgment flawed by a $2 Trillion error speaks for itself." S&P is not only “The Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight,” they can’t even add straight yet here a bunch of “unidentified” company employees have made an arbitrary decision that could adversely affect the lives of 300+ Million Americans. Not only are they not elected by the public, they are not accountable for their decision making process, have a dubious track record to say the least and there is no appeals process against their credit-rating decisions.
I strongly urge Congress to hold hearing as soon as possible to examine the decisions of all the CRAs but especially S&P and while they are at it, the inquiry needs to be expanded to determine S&P’s liability in the CDO fiasco. I suspect the result will be they are as responsible for losses as any of the financial institutions that issued these worthless instruments so should be financially responsible to investor for losses resulting from any investment decision that relied on an S&P AAA ratings.
One final comment, S&P is a Division of McGraw-Hill and is run by Harold Whittlesey "Terry" McGraw III (born 1948) who is the chairman, president and chief executive officer (CEO). McGraw’s total 2009 compensation was $5,905,317 ($1,390,500 Base Salary +, $1,261,000 cash bonus + $924,060 stock granted + $1,854,583 option grants + $475,174 other compensation) while everyone else was losing their shirts over the CDO melt down he was responsible for causing. Where’s the justice? One final insult, born in 1948, “Terry” was of prime draft age during the Vietnam War yet was a successful Draft Dodger!
I can only deplore the slander heaped upon my Country by Standard & Poor’s so maybe they should be renamed: “Slander and Boor’s”
First, S&P is the only one of the Big Three credit-rating agencies (CRAs), (the other two are: Moody's Investor Service and Fitch Ratings), to take this unprecedented step to embarrass and slander the credit worthiness of the United States.
Second, what is the definition of the highest AAA rating from which the US was just downgraded from to AA+? AAA: best-quality borrowers, reliable and stable (many of them sovereign governments)
A trivia question: what do ALL the countries that still have an across the board AAA Rating have in common? Hint: They are Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (and separately Guernsey & Isle of Man).
Answer: They all depend on the United States for protection and it is that very blanket of protection that even enables their economies to exist yet they now enjoy a higher credit rating than the country that secures their very existence. Now that’s ironic.
So exactly which of these AAA Rated countries does S&P really believe is more “reliable and stable” than the United States? Also, why does S&P think the entire World flocks to US Treasury instruments as their safest investments in times of uncertainty? Is S&P really smarter than not only the other CRAs but also all the other investors in the World? Regardless of what’s been happening in Washington over the past quarter, does S&P really believe the US has a chance in Hell of defaulting on any of its debt obligations? The AAA Rating is supposed to evaluate the safety of the investment and nothing else.
With all this said, let’s examine the recent S&P track record. S&P has taken some well earned criticism in the wake of large losses beginning in 2007 in the collateralized debt obligation (CDO) market that occurred despite S&P assigning their top AAA credit ratings to large portions of even the riskiest pools of loans. Investors trusted the low-risk profile that an S&P AAA implies and purchased large amounts of CDOs that later became unsellable or those that could be sold took staggering losses. For instance, losses on $340.7 million worth of S&P AAA rated CDOs issued by Credit Suisse Group added up to about $125 million. To quote Time Magazine: S&P “granted AAA rating to Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) that were chock-full-of crap mortgages, thereby helping to precipitate the 2008 financial collapse” and The Washington Post put it a little more bluntly: "Standard and Poor's didn't just miss the bubble. They helped cause it."
Because companies pay S&P to rate their debt issues, S&P is beholden to these issuers so its ratings are not always objective. Now with this US downgrade, I believe S&P is causing further damage for its own agenda. Add to that S&P even acknowledges they made a $2 Trillion (that’s with a “T”) Math error in its justification for downgrading the US credit rating so I have to agree with the Treasury Department that "A judgment flawed by a $2 Trillion error speaks for itself." S&P is not only “The Gang That Can’t Shoot Straight,” they can’t even add straight yet here a bunch of “unidentified” company employees have made an arbitrary decision that could adversely affect the lives of 300+ Million Americans. Not only are they not elected by the public, they are not accountable for their decision making process, have a dubious track record to say the least and there is no appeals process against their credit-rating decisions.
I strongly urge Congress to hold hearing as soon as possible to examine the decisions of all the CRAs but especially S&P and while they are at it, the inquiry needs to be expanded to determine S&P’s liability in the CDO fiasco. I suspect the result will be they are as responsible for losses as any of the financial institutions that issued these worthless instruments so should be financially responsible to investor for losses resulting from any investment decision that relied on an S&P AAA ratings.
One final comment, S&P is a Division of McGraw-Hill and is run by Harold Whittlesey "Terry" McGraw III (born 1948) who is the chairman, president and chief executive officer (CEO). McGraw’s total 2009 compensation was $5,905,317 ($1,390,500 Base Salary +, $1,261,000 cash bonus + $924,060 stock granted + $1,854,583 option grants + $475,174 other compensation) while everyone else was losing their shirts over the CDO melt down he was responsible for causing. Where’s the justice? One final insult, born in 1948, “Terry” was of prime draft age during the Vietnam War yet was a successful Draft Dodger!
I can only deplore the slander heaped upon my Country by Standard & Poor’s so maybe they should be renamed: “Slander and Boor’s”
TX Gov Rick Perry & President Obama Both Invoke Their Faith into Their Politics … Yet It’s Perry That Gets Criticized?
What’s all the hoopla about Gov Rick Perry and his faith? Here’s what the papers reported about how President Obama addressed his faith yet not a peep was heard about him being a religious zealot by the press:
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said Thursday (3 Feb 11) that his faith has deepened during his two years in the White House … Speaking at the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, Obama said "I pray that God will show me and all of us the limits of our understanding and open our ears and our hearts to our brothers and sisters with different points of view, that such reminders of our shared hopes and our shared dreams and our shared limitations as children of God will reveal a way forward that we can travel together."
…and here is what Gov Perry said and he’s being portrayed as a religions fanatic:
HOUSTON - Texas Gov. and possible Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry led a crowd of roughly 30,000 Christians Saturday (6 Aug 11), asking God to help a nation he calls “in crisis,” at a Christian-revival event he organized “Father, our heart breaks for America, we see discord at home, we see fear in the marketplace, we see anger in the halls of government, …. As a nation, we have forgotten who made us, who protects us, who blesses us, and for that, we cry out for your forgiveness.”
I would opine that reporting on the religious proclivities of our politicians is a distraction from the real issue concerning Americans… In the words of VP Biden, it a 3-letter word… JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! (Nobody ever accused Biden of being able to count).
Rick Perry is the ONLY candidate of either party, declared or undeclared, that can boast of creating jobs while in political office! During the Obama reign, half of ALL jobs created in the US were created in Perry’s Texas! Pretty impressive! BY contract, according to the Fact Checker in the 19 Jun 11 Washington Post, “since Barack Obama has been president…there are 2.5 million fewer jobs.”
Also with the exception of Ron Paul, Perry is also the ONLY candidate that has ever served in the Military which the President presides over as Commander-in-Chief. Perry was commissioned in the Air Force in 1972 out of the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets ROTC program and after completing pilot training, flew C-130 tactical airlift in the States, Middle East, and Europe. He left the Air Force in 1977as a captain. Ron Paul, a medical doctor, was an Air Force active duty flight surgeon from 1963 to 65. At least no one would have to teach Perry how to salute or identify the insignias of rank.
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama said Thursday (3 Feb 11) that his faith has deepened during his two years in the White House … Speaking at the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, Obama said "I pray that God will show me and all of us the limits of our understanding and open our ears and our hearts to our brothers and sisters with different points of view, that such reminders of our shared hopes and our shared dreams and our shared limitations as children of God will reveal a way forward that we can travel together."
…and here is what Gov Perry said and he’s being portrayed as a religions fanatic:
HOUSTON - Texas Gov. and possible Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry led a crowd of roughly 30,000 Christians Saturday (6 Aug 11), asking God to help a nation he calls “in crisis,” at a Christian-revival event he organized “Father, our heart breaks for America, we see discord at home, we see fear in the marketplace, we see anger in the halls of government, …. As a nation, we have forgotten who made us, who protects us, who blesses us, and for that, we cry out for your forgiveness.”
I would opine that reporting on the religious proclivities of our politicians is a distraction from the real issue concerning Americans… In the words of VP Biden, it a 3-letter word… JOBS, JOBS, JOBS! (Nobody ever accused Biden of being able to count).
Rick Perry is the ONLY candidate of either party, declared or undeclared, that can boast of creating jobs while in political office! During the Obama reign, half of ALL jobs created in the US were created in Perry’s Texas! Pretty impressive! BY contract, according to the Fact Checker in the 19 Jun 11 Washington Post, “since Barack Obama has been president…there are 2.5 million fewer jobs.”
Also with the exception of Ron Paul, Perry is also the ONLY candidate that has ever served in the Military which the President presides over as Commander-in-Chief. Perry was commissioned in the Air Force in 1972 out of the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets ROTC program and after completing pilot training, flew C-130 tactical airlift in the States, Middle East, and Europe. He left the Air Force in 1977as a captain. Ron Paul, a medical doctor, was an Air Force active duty flight surgeon from 1963 to 65. At least no one would have to teach Perry how to salute or identify the insignias of rank.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
My Book Review: “Haunting Legacy: Vietnam and the American Presidency from Ford to Obama” by the Father-Daughter Kalb Revisionist Historians
Just because the father-daughter tag team of Marvin and Deborah Kalb say it in a book doesn’t make it true – especially when coming from one half of the Harvard-New York Times bred Bernard-Marvin Kalb elite team of revisionist historians. Such is the case here with the Kolb’s accretion that we “lost the Vietnam War.” Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t it Bernard that quit the Reagan Administration because he didn’t like how they were treating Libyan leader COL Gaddafi? As an extended tour Vietnam Vet, I don’t much like how the Kalb’s are spinning history to fit their thesis for their new book: “Haunting Legacy: Vietnam and the American Presidency from Ford to Obama.”
One only has to look at how the Kalbs participated in spinning what even the North Vietnamese considered a terrible defeat -- the Jan-Feb 1968 Tet Offensive -- into a U.S. loss and debacle to recognize they have an agenda here beyond selling books and making money. Even the Hanoi leadership was apoplectic over the outcome of their great gamble that ended in their dismal failure and defeat. In total, approximately 85,000–100,000 communist troops participated in the initial onslaught and the follow-up phases which resulted in 45,267 of them killed. In 1968 alone over 181,000 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops were killed and from that point on Hanoi was forced to fill one-third of the Viet Cong ranks with North Vietnamese regulars. It was only after the Communist leadership saw how the U.S. Press reacted to the Tet Offensive that they began to propagandize their "victory" and U.S. anti war newspapers like the Kalb’s own New York Times were only too happy to give voice to this communist propaganda.
Fast forward past the “Vietnamization” of the war to January 1973, and The Paris Peace Accords on "Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam." This agreement resulted in a cease-fire, release of U.S. POWs, the guarantee of the territorial integrity of Vietnam, national elections, and total withdrawal of U.S. forces. Although U.S. military forces withdrew from South Vietnam, North Vietnam was allowed to continue supplying communist troops in the South, but only to the extent of replacing materials that were consumed.
The communists had expected the ceasefire terms would favor them but Saigon, bolstered by a surge of U.S. aid just before the ceasefire, began to roll back the Vietcong. With U.S. bombings suspended, work on the Ho Chi Minh Trail and other logistical structures proceeded unimpeded and Logistics would be upgraded until the North was in a position to launch a massive invasion of the South by 1975.
But it was what happened in U.S. politics and a Democratic take over of both houses of Congress in the Nov 72 elections that ultimately contributed to the U.S abandoning our South Vietnamese allies. Although McGovern lost 49 of 50 states for Nixon’s reelection, many American voters split their tickets. In March 73, Nixon hinted he might intervene militarily if the communist side violated the ceasefire but the Democrat Congress reacted unfavorably and when during his June 73 confirmation hearings Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger stated that he would recommend resumption of U.S. bombing in North Vietnam if North Vietnam launched a major offensive against South Vietnam, the U.S. Senate passed the Case-Church Amendment on 4 June 1973 to prohibit such intervention. Then when Nixon resigned over Watergate and Ford became President in Aug 74, Congress cut financial aid to South Vietnam from $1 billion a year to $700 million. The U.S. midterm elections in 1974 brought in a new Congress dominated by Democrats who were even more determined to confront the president on the war and Congress immediately voted in new restrictions on funding and military activities to be phased in through 1975 and to culminate in a total cutoff of funding in 1976. It was this and NOT any U.S. Military defeat that doomed South Vietnam.
Buoyed by the Democratic Congress abandonment and in total disregard for the Paris Accords, the Communists resumed a full scale War. Then in Jan 75 when a provincial capital fell, Ford desperately asked Congress for funds to assist and re-supply the South before it was overrun. Congress refused and this finally sealed South Vietnam’s fate. This lack of an American response left the South Vietnamese demoralized but at the start of 1975, the South Vietnamese still had overwhelming military superiority over their Communist enemies but did face a highly determined and well-funded North Vietnam with material and financial support still pouring in from the communist bloc countries. Abandoned by the American military and Congressional denial of financial support, an embittered and tearful South Vietnamese President Thieu resigned on 7 April declaring that the United States had betrayed South Vietnam. By the end of April, the South Vietnamese military collapsed and by 27 April, 100,000 North Vietnamese troops encircled Saigon. Early in the morning of 29 April Sec Def Schlesinger announced the evacuation of Saigon by helicopter of the last U.S. diplomatic, military, and civilian personnel. In an atmosphere of desperation, as hysterical crowds of Vietnamese vied for limited space, the U.S. ambassador pleaded with Washington to dispatch $700 million in emergency aid to bolster the regime and help it mobilize fresh military reserves but to no avail. In the early morning hours of 30 April, the last U.S. personnel evacuated the embassy by helicopter as civilians swamped the perimeter and poured into the grounds. Many of them had been employed by the Americans and were left to their fate.
On 30 April 1975, North Vietnamese troops overcame the last resistance and captured key buildings and installations thus ending of 116 years of Vietnamese involvement in conflict either alongside or against various countries, primarily France, China, Japan, Britain, and America.
The responsibility for the ultimate failure of U.S. Policy and our withdrawal from Vietnam lies not with the men who fought, but with those in Congress. The U.S. Military was NEVER once defeated on the battlefield and left South Vietnam in a militarily superior position where they could have prevailed over the North indefinitely if they had continued to receive U.S. financial support at least equal to that being received from the Communist Bloc by the North.
By war's end, 58,220 U.S. troops were killed and more than 150,000 wounded with about 21,000 permanently disabled. Sixty-one percent of those killed were age 21 or younger. A total of 8.615 Million men served during the Vietnam era and of them 2.15 Million actually served in Country. Three-fourths of those deployed were from working families and poor youths were twice as likely to serve there than their more affluent cohorts although the vast majority of them were volunteers. Hence, socio-economic status was the greatest determinate of who actually served in Vietnam and of all the service members who served there, 88.4% were Caucasian (including Hispanics), 10.6% were black, and 1% other. At the time, Blacks represented 12.5% of the total U.S. population and 13.5% of the military age cohort, so they were under represented in the war zone. Casualty data shows 86.8% of those killed in action were Caucasian, while 12.1% were Black.
In 1995, the Vietnamese government reported that its military forces suffered a total of 1.1 million dead and 600,000 wounded during their conflict with the United States and the U.S. military has estimated that between 200,000 and 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers died in the war and Civilian deaths have been estimated to be about two million total in both the North and South.
With a U.S.-South Vietnam kill ration of about 4 to 1 against the North, a record of never being bested on the battlefield and a U.S. withdrawal leaving South Vietnam in a position to endure indefinitely only to be betrayed by a withdrawal of financial support by a Democratic Congress, should this be described as a U.S. defeat?
It was certainly NOT a defeat by the U.S. Military but it might be more accurately described as a defeat by a Democrat controlled U.S. Congress – possibly with an agenda to embarrass a Republican President Ford. In retrospect, the Kalbs might have inadvertently hit on a lesson for President Obama. Not the one they intended linking Afghanistan with Vietnam but rather the consequences of one party controlling Congress trying to embarrass a president of another party and the residual affects it has on the Country.
One only has to look at how the Kalbs participated in spinning what even the North Vietnamese considered a terrible defeat -- the Jan-Feb 1968 Tet Offensive -- into a U.S. loss and debacle to recognize they have an agenda here beyond selling books and making money. Even the Hanoi leadership was apoplectic over the outcome of their great gamble that ended in their dismal failure and defeat. In total, approximately 85,000–100,000 communist troops participated in the initial onslaught and the follow-up phases which resulted in 45,267 of them killed. In 1968 alone over 181,000 Viet Cong and North Vietnamese troops were killed and from that point on Hanoi was forced to fill one-third of the Viet Cong ranks with North Vietnamese regulars. It was only after the Communist leadership saw how the U.S. Press reacted to the Tet Offensive that they began to propagandize their "victory" and U.S. anti war newspapers like the Kalb’s own New York Times were only too happy to give voice to this communist propaganda.
Fast forward past the “Vietnamization” of the war to January 1973, and The Paris Peace Accords on "Ending the War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam." This agreement resulted in a cease-fire, release of U.S. POWs, the guarantee of the territorial integrity of Vietnam, national elections, and total withdrawal of U.S. forces. Although U.S. military forces withdrew from South Vietnam, North Vietnam was allowed to continue supplying communist troops in the South, but only to the extent of replacing materials that were consumed.
The communists had expected the ceasefire terms would favor them but Saigon, bolstered by a surge of U.S. aid just before the ceasefire, began to roll back the Vietcong. With U.S. bombings suspended, work on the Ho Chi Minh Trail and other logistical structures proceeded unimpeded and Logistics would be upgraded until the North was in a position to launch a massive invasion of the South by 1975.
But it was what happened in U.S. politics and a Democratic take over of both houses of Congress in the Nov 72 elections that ultimately contributed to the U.S abandoning our South Vietnamese allies. Although McGovern lost 49 of 50 states for Nixon’s reelection, many American voters split their tickets. In March 73, Nixon hinted he might intervene militarily if the communist side violated the ceasefire but the Democrat Congress reacted unfavorably and when during his June 73 confirmation hearings Secretary of Defense James R. Schlesinger stated that he would recommend resumption of U.S. bombing in North Vietnam if North Vietnam launched a major offensive against South Vietnam, the U.S. Senate passed the Case-Church Amendment on 4 June 1973 to prohibit such intervention. Then when Nixon resigned over Watergate and Ford became President in Aug 74, Congress cut financial aid to South Vietnam from $1 billion a year to $700 million. The U.S. midterm elections in 1974 brought in a new Congress dominated by Democrats who were even more determined to confront the president on the war and Congress immediately voted in new restrictions on funding and military activities to be phased in through 1975 and to culminate in a total cutoff of funding in 1976. It was this and NOT any U.S. Military defeat that doomed South Vietnam.
Buoyed by the Democratic Congress abandonment and in total disregard for the Paris Accords, the Communists resumed a full scale War. Then in Jan 75 when a provincial capital fell, Ford desperately asked Congress for funds to assist and re-supply the South before it was overrun. Congress refused and this finally sealed South Vietnam’s fate. This lack of an American response left the South Vietnamese demoralized but at the start of 1975, the South Vietnamese still had overwhelming military superiority over their Communist enemies but did face a highly determined and well-funded North Vietnam with material and financial support still pouring in from the communist bloc countries. Abandoned by the American military and Congressional denial of financial support, an embittered and tearful South Vietnamese President Thieu resigned on 7 April declaring that the United States had betrayed South Vietnam. By the end of April, the South Vietnamese military collapsed and by 27 April, 100,000 North Vietnamese troops encircled Saigon. Early in the morning of 29 April Sec Def Schlesinger announced the evacuation of Saigon by helicopter of the last U.S. diplomatic, military, and civilian personnel. In an atmosphere of desperation, as hysterical crowds of Vietnamese vied for limited space, the U.S. ambassador pleaded with Washington to dispatch $700 million in emergency aid to bolster the regime and help it mobilize fresh military reserves but to no avail. In the early morning hours of 30 April, the last U.S. personnel evacuated the embassy by helicopter as civilians swamped the perimeter and poured into the grounds. Many of them had been employed by the Americans and were left to their fate.
On 30 April 1975, North Vietnamese troops overcame the last resistance and captured key buildings and installations thus ending of 116 years of Vietnamese involvement in conflict either alongside or against various countries, primarily France, China, Japan, Britain, and America.
The responsibility for the ultimate failure of U.S. Policy and our withdrawal from Vietnam lies not with the men who fought, but with those in Congress. The U.S. Military was NEVER once defeated on the battlefield and left South Vietnam in a militarily superior position where they could have prevailed over the North indefinitely if they had continued to receive U.S. financial support at least equal to that being received from the Communist Bloc by the North.
By war's end, 58,220 U.S. troops were killed and more than 150,000 wounded with about 21,000 permanently disabled. Sixty-one percent of those killed were age 21 or younger. A total of 8.615 Million men served during the Vietnam era and of them 2.15 Million actually served in Country. Three-fourths of those deployed were from working families and poor youths were twice as likely to serve there than their more affluent cohorts although the vast majority of them were volunteers. Hence, socio-economic status was the greatest determinate of who actually served in Vietnam and of all the service members who served there, 88.4% were Caucasian (including Hispanics), 10.6% were black, and 1% other. At the time, Blacks represented 12.5% of the total U.S. population and 13.5% of the military age cohort, so they were under represented in the war zone. Casualty data shows 86.8% of those killed in action were Caucasian, while 12.1% were Black.
In 1995, the Vietnamese government reported that its military forces suffered a total of 1.1 million dead and 600,000 wounded during their conflict with the United States and the U.S. military has estimated that between 200,000 and 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers died in the war and Civilian deaths have been estimated to be about two million total in both the North and South.
With a U.S.-South Vietnam kill ration of about 4 to 1 against the North, a record of never being bested on the battlefield and a U.S. withdrawal leaving South Vietnam in a position to endure indefinitely only to be betrayed by a withdrawal of financial support by a Democratic Congress, should this be described as a U.S. defeat?
It was certainly NOT a defeat by the U.S. Military but it might be more accurately described as a defeat by a Democrat controlled U.S. Congress – possibly with an agenda to embarrass a Republican President Ford. In retrospect, the Kalbs might have inadvertently hit on a lesson for President Obama. Not the one they intended linking Afghanistan with Vietnam but rather the consequences of one party controlling Congress trying to embarrass a president of another party and the residual affects it has on the Country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)