| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2004/3/15 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:29870 Activity:nil |
3/14 1971: Kerry negotiates with Viet Cong for US surrender...
from the Congressional Record
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1097828/posts
\_ Think about how many more US lives we could have saved if
we'd pulled out four years earlier.
\_ Tell that to South Vietnam, which was free for 2 years,
and the millions of Cambodians slaughtered by Communists.
\_ Cambodians? Cambodians were mostly slaughtered
by the Khmer Rouge, which the Vietnamese overthrew
not long after South Vietnam was no more.
\_ Khmer Rouge were formally known as the
Communist Party of Kampuchea. Saloth Sar and
his coterie established their Marxist
credentials in Paris and Eastern Europe.
North Vietnamese were Communists aligned with
the Soviets.
\_ all patriots need to read the following masterpiece by a blonde hot
kinky conservative knockout and you will get a hard on exposing
the true faces of liberals around you -- http://tinyurl.com/2vx63
\_ Just out of curiousity, does anyone think Ann Coulter is
anything but psychotic? "Liberals relentlessly oppose the
military, the Pledge of Allegiance, the flag, and national
defense..." Does anyone truly believe any single portion
of this sentence? -scotsman
\_ w00t! |
| 5/25 |
|
| www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1097828/posts Congressional Record ^ | March 15, 2004 | John Kerry Posted on 03/14/2004 11:09:52 PM PST by 8 Hon The Vietnam Veterans Against The War (VVAW) sent several delegations to Paris to meet with the representatives of the National Liberation Front (AKA Vietcong) and North Vietnamese in 1971. John Kerry went on at least one of these trips and met and "negotiated" with representatives of the VC and the government of North Vietnam. Present: Senators Fulbright, Symington, Pell, Aiken, Case, and Javits. Do you support or do you have any particular views about any one of them you wish to give the committee? My feeling, Senator, is undoubtedly this Congress, and I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but I do not believe that this Congress will, in fact, end the war as we would like to, which is immediately and unilaterallyand, therefore, if I were to speak I would say we would set a date and the date obviously would be the earliest possible date. But I would like to say, in answering that, that I do not believe it is necessary to stall any longer. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points it has been stated time and time again, and was stated by Senator Vance Hartke when he returned from Paris, and it has been stated by many other officials of this Government, if the United States were to set a date for withdrawal the prisoners of war would be returned. The Congress cannot directly under our system negotiate a cease-fire or anything of this kind. Under our constitutional system we can advise the President. We have to persuade the President of the urgency of taking this action. We can, of course, express ourselves in a resolution or we can pass an act which directly affects appropriations which is the most concrete positive way the Congress can express itself. But Congress has no capacity under our system to go out and negotiate a cease-fire. We have to persuade the Executive to do this for the country. Chairman, I realize that full well as a study of political science. I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties and I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera. I don't think we can turn our backs on that any longer, Senator. Source Here are all eight of Madam Binh's points (Binh was the Foreign Minister for the Vietcong) spelled out in the "People's Peace Treaty" that Kerry and the VVAW and signed, and which they demanded the US sign with North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front: Joint Treaty of Peace Between the People of The United States of America, South Vietnam and North Vietnam Preamble Be it known that the American people and the Vietnamese people are not enemies. The war is carried out in the names of the people of the United States and South Vietnam, but without our consent. It drains America of its resources, its youth, and its honor. We hereby agree to end the war on the following terms, so that both peoples can live under the joy of independence and can devote themselves to building a society based on human equality and respect for the earth. In rejecting the war we also reject all forms of racism and discrimination against people based on color, class, sex, national origin, and ethnic grouping which form the basis of the war policies, past and present, of the United States government. They will enter discussions on the procedures to guarantee the safety of all withdrawing troops. The Americans pledge to end the imposition of Thieu-Ky-Khiem on the people of South Vietnam in order to insure their right to self-determination and so that all political prisoners can be released. The Vietnamese pledge to form a provisional coalition government to organize democratic elections. All parties agree to respect the results of elections in which all South Vietnamese can participate freely without the presence of any foreign troops. The South Vietnamese pledge to enter discussion of procedures to guarantee the safety and political freedom of those South Vietnamese who have collaborated with the U. The Americans and Vietnamese agree to respect the independence, peace and neutrality of Laos and Cambodia in accord with the 1954 and 1962 Geneva Conventions and not to interfere in the internal affairs of these two countries. Upon these points of agreement, we pledge to end the war and resolve all other questions in the spirit of self-determination and mutual respect for the independence and political freedom of the people of Vietnam and the United States. Pledge By ratifying this agreement, we pledge to take whatever actions are appropriate to implement the terms of the People to people Treaty and to insure its acceptance by the government of the United States. Sometimes, it is more courageous to withstand the attacks of a bully and fight back, than to forever be cowed and beholden to the bully. All AQ wants is for us to leave the Middle East and for Israel to be destroyed. All the North Vietnamese (and the USSR and China) wanted was for the US to leave South Vietnam (and SE Asia in general) so that they could have all of Vietnam and the surrounding areas. Don't you just wish someone would ask him that question? He'd prostitute the USA, selling us out & giving away our freedoms. Supposedly, Marvin Kalb will be providing some background on the times. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works. |
| tinyurl.com/2vx63 -> www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400050308/qid=1079339776/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1_xs_books_i1_xgl14/002-2361655-7551251?v=glance&s=books Process: A Student's Guide to Graduate School in the Sciences by Dale F. Our Customers' Advice See what customers recommend in addition to, or instead of, the product on this page. Speaking with conviction, as well as a touch of dry humor, the conservative Coulter contends that liberals have been wrong on every foreign issue and have, in fact, consistently distorted history. She builds her argument, touching on issues such as the Cold War, McCarthyism, the Reagan era, the Gulf War, and our current war on terrorism. Not one to mince words, this smart, fast-paced item is sure to offer substance for debate, always important in a democracy. AudioFile 2003, Portland, Maine-- Copyright AudioFile, Portland, Maine --This text refers to the 89 Audio CD edition. With the fate of the world in the balance, liberals should leave the defense of the nation to conservatives. Reexamining the sixty-year history of the Cold War and beyond--including the career of Senator Joseph McCarthy, the Whittaker Chambers-Alger Hiss affair, Ronald Reagan's challenge to Mikhail Gorbachev to "tear down this wall," the Gulf War, and our present war on terrorism--Coulter reveals how liberals have been horribly wrong in all their political analyses and policy prescriptions. Hiss turned out to be a high-ranking Soviet spy (who consulted Roosevelt at Yalta). Reagan, ridiculed throughout his presidency, ended up winning the Cold War. Bush, also an object of ridicule, has performed exceptionally in responding to America's newest threats at home and abroad. Coulter, who in Slander exposed a liberal bias in today's media, also examines how history, especially in the latter half of the twentieth century, has been written by liberals and, therefore, distorted by their perspective. Far from being irrelevant today, her clearheaded and piercing view of what we've been through informs us perfectly for challenges today and in the future. With Slander, Ann Coulter became the most recognized and talked-about conservative intellectual of the year. Treason, in many ways an even more controversial and prescient book, will ignite impassioned political debate at one of the most crucial moments in our history. I'd be willing to bet most of them never even read the book. It's more likely that they are conservative bashers who routinely come to this site to bash any book written by any conservative. You'll notice each of their negative reviews lacks one very important element: facts to back up their claims. For this, he sacrificed his life, his reputation, his name. Bush during the Republican primaries, my friends warned me that I was going to have to eat my words. There's nothing like horrendous physical pain to quell anger. A couple of well-aimed nuclear weapons got their attention. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. The lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers enlist. And of course there are the 39 million greedy geezers collecting Social Security. Newt caught and admitted in multiyear affair with young aid, while leading the attack on Clinton, finally served his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital dying of cancer. Coulter states that Max Cleland wasn't even in the battle of Khe Sanh. She does not speak for conservatives or any other group of rational human beings. She does, however, speak for "compassionate conservatives"--spewing their hate. Coulter lays out the facts, which cannot be found in any public school texts, and puts together an airtight case against the elitist liberal crowd. If you value truth, you will find this book indespensible. Yes No 6 of 9 people found the following review helpful: 1 out of 5 stars She is very angry, April 28, 2004 Reviewer: Joe from Hiding from evil liberals Anne Coulter seems to me to be someone that learned very early, that hate is a great tool at rallying people behind you. That calling attention to certain people and blaming them for everything makes money. Hey, I am not some bleeding heart that says love your neighbor. She expresses her anger but she does not really back it up. I don't want to be ugly, even though this book can work you up, whether you like it or not. But this just seemed to me like hanging out with someone that is angry and after awhile you either hate with her or put it down. All of the usual logical fallacies are included, along with emotional appeals, conveniently omitted facts, sweeping generalizations, baseless attributions, quotes with reversed context, opinions disguised as facts, and others that haven't even been named yet. As with its intellectual ancestor, Jonathon Swift's "Gulliver's Travels," many readers of "Treason" aren't aware that the book is satirical. Hopefully this won't lead to any bloodletting by McVeigh-types seeing Miss Coulter as their Messiah. The book should reinvigorate our resolve to resist fascist tendencies, however. Yes No 6 of 13 people found the following review helpful: 5 out of 5 stars Liberal Treason Exposed, April 27, 2004 Reviewer: 98 Britt Gillette (see more about me) from Chesapeake, VA United States As she did in her first two books, Ann Coulter writes a tome of brilliant page-turning political commentary in her controversial book "Treason: Liberal Treachery From The Cold War To The War On Terrorism". Those who have the joy of reading it from cover-to-cover will not be surprised that it has liberals screaming in desperation. Because just as "Slander" exposed an entrenched liberal media bias, "Treason" exposes liberal attempts at history revisionism and the stark reality that many liberals do not side with America in her fight for survival. The book begins with a brief overview titled "Fifty Years of Treason" and works its way toward modern times with a stunning array of detail and factual evidence to back up Coulter's opinions. Those of us who have been brainwashed to view Senator Joseph McCarthy as a demagogue orchestrating the Salem Witch Trials of the 1950s will be forced to rethink our positions and challenge our prejudices. Along the way, the author exposes the liberal attempts to revise the history of the Whittaker Chambers/Alger Hiss affair, Ronald Reagan's fight against the Evil Empire and his challenge to tear down the Berlin wall, the Gulf War, and the current war on terrorism. Regardless of whether such action is the result of conspiracy or incompetence, Ann Coulter reveals how liberals have been horribly wrong in their assessment of modern day political policy. With a full erudite wit on constant display, an expert grasp of the English language, and an easy-to-read style of political prose, Ann Coulter has no doubt established herself as the book world's preeminent conservative political commentator. Britt Gillette Author of "The Dittohead Guide To Adult Beverages" Was this review helpful to you? |