24 July 2007

When People Die Democrats Lie

This is a cleaned up and embellished copy of an email I sent some so called "progressive" relatives, who have immediate family who are refugees from the Communist takeover of Vietnam.

+++++++

I simply cannot get this OpinionJournal.com piece out of my head. (Link below.)

I will accept that it is a reasonable position to hold that George Bush lied about Iraq. (I disagree, but I will, for the purposes of this post, stipulate that it is a reasonable position to hold.)

However, no matter how much one may believe that he did so knowingly, it is hard to prove.

Here is demonstrable proof that the other side will say whatever it takes to gain some political advantage. What is most striking to me about this is that this is a matter which affects your own family directly, and yet no one seems unhappy with it.

First, Senator Russ Feingold (D-Mooland) had this to say on Meet the Press yesterday:

MR. RUSSERT: You were—used the word redeployed. John Burns, the bureau chief in Baghdad for The New York Times, who’s lived there for some time, offered these words this week: “It seems to me incontrovertible that the most likely outcome of an American withdrawal any time soon would be cataclysmic violence. And I find that to be widely agreed” among “Iraqis, including Iraqis who strongly opposed the invasion.” Is—are you concerned that we leave behind violence, catastrophe, genocide?

SEN. FEINGOLD: Let’s be clear what we have now. We now have cataclysmic violence. That’s the status quo. It is possible that things would get worse if we left; it is possible that things would get better.[Emphasis added.]

(I'll ignore the fact that the violence, as terrible as it is, is nowhere near cataclysmic.) Never mind, most of all what the people on the ground have to say, says Senator Feingold, I believe something else is possible!

And the person on the ground is a New Orc Times employee. The NYT is hardly a neo-con war-mongering publication.

But it does not stop there! To prove that the Lower House can lower the bar of caring for our fellow man too, my own congressman, David Obey, had this to say last week:
But many acknowledged that Iraq could first plunge into vicious sectarian fighting much like the kind of ethnic cleansing that consumed Bosnia a decade ago and is now afflicting Sudan's Darfur region. Yet they flatly rejected the use of U.S. troops to stop the killing. "I wouldn't be surprised if it's horrendous," said House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey, a Wisconsin Democrat who has helped lead the drive against the war. "The only hope for the Iraqis is their own damned government, and there's slim hope for that."
There will be horrendous killing, but it is not our problem, even though we have the troops there now to stop it. (And there is evidence that the "surge" is working.)

You want to know why the Arab street and much of the brown-skinned world thinks white America doesn’t care about them? Because the Democratic leaders make it clear that they do not.


Given the utter lack of Democratic objection to the commitment of U S troops to Kosovo by then President Clinton, it does all beg the question, why does the left only seem to care about the deaths of white people?

Perhaps the answer lies below. Senator John Kerry does not, apparently, consider the deaths of a couple of million people in Cambodia, South Vietnam or Laos as even having happened! I guess when the Democrats are doing the counting, brown people don't count unless they are going to vote.

This is from OpinionJournal.com.

'It Didn't Happen'
We suppose it was inevitable: Four and a half years after Congress authorized the liberation of Iraq, some observers are comparing the situation there to Vietnam, where America lost a war after its will faltered. It turns out at least one congressman actually served in Vietnam, so he ought to be particularly qualified to help us determine the lessons of that conflict for this one.

Meet John Kerry, junior senator from Massachusetts. Some say he looks French, others call him haughty. But everyone agrees on one thing: He served in Vietnam.

After returning from a tour of duty that lasted an astonishing four months, Kerry also became an antiwar activist. In 1971 Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the Vietnamese were a simple people, too simple to care about freedom or oppression:

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart.

Kerry's side prevailed. In 1973 the U.S. withdrew its troops from Vietnam, and in 1975 Congress, its Democratic majority expanded by the post-Watergate election of 1974, voted to cut off aid to the South Vietnamese government. That year Saigon fell to the communists.

What happened then? Not much, according to Kerry, quoted in the Chicago Tribune:

"We heard that argument over and over again about the bloodbath that would engulf the entire Southeast Asia, and it didn't happen," Kerry said, dismissing the charge out of hand as he argued that the American presence only makes the situation worse every day.

In 2001, California's Orange County Register published an investigation of communist re-education camps in postwar Vietnam:

To corroborate the experiences of refugees now living in Orange County, the Register interviewed dozens of former inmates and their families, both in the United States and Vietnam; analyzed hundreds of pages of documents, including testimony from more than 800 individuals sent to jail; and interviewed Southeast Asian scholars. The review found:

* An estimated 1 million people were imprisoned without formal charges or trials.

* 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's re-education camps, according to published academic studies in the United States and Europe.

* Thousands were abused or tortured: their hands and legs shackled in painful positions for months, their skin slashed by bamboo canes studded with thorns, their veins injected with poisonous chemicals, their spirits broken with stories about relatives being killed.

* Prisoners were incarcerated for as long as 17 years, according to the U.S. Department of State, with most terms ranging from three to 10 years.

* At least 150 re-education prisons were built after Saigon fell 26 years ago.

* One in three South Vietnamese families had a relative in a re-education camp.

According to John Kerry, "it didn't happen."

Things were even worse in Cambodia, as the Christian Science Monitor reported in 2005:

When the Khmer Rouge victoriously entered Phnom Penh 30 years ago, many people greeted the rebels with a cautious optimism, weary from five years of civil war that had torn apart their lives and killed hundreds of thousands of Cambodians. . . .

During the nearly four years following that day--April 17, 1975--Cambodia was radically transformed. . . .

Everyday freedoms were abolished. Buddhism and other forms of religious worship were banned. Money, markets, and media disappeared. Travel, public gatherings, and communication were restricted. Contact with the outside world vanished. And the state set out to control what people ate and did each day, whom they married, how they spoke, what they thought, and who would live and die. "To keep you is no gain," the Khmer Rouge warned, "To destroy you is no loss."

In the end, more than 1.7 million of Cambodia's 8 million inhabitants perished from disease, starvation, overwork, or outright execution in a notorious genocide.

But don't worry. According to John Kerry, "it didn't happen."

Last week, as we noted, Kerry's colleague Barack Obama opined that genocide in Iraq would be preferable to America's continued presence there. But John Kerry has shown the way. If genocide, or some lesser horror, does occur in the wake of a U.S. retreat, Obama can simply assert: "It didn't happen."

Prominent Democratic officeholders are willing to deny or countenance crimes against humanity in order to justify a popular political position. Doesn't this shock the conscience of Democrats?

Of course, as I have pointed out before, Kerry is not the first prominent Dem to try historical revisionism so he can ignore the inconvenient truth that our troops are doing good in Iraq.

++++++++++++++++

So, dear friends and family, you want to know why I am a Republican voter now? One big reason is because when people die, Democrats LIE. Especially to cover up the fact that it was we Dems who abandoned them in 1973-5.

No comments: