Views expressed in guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media.
Visit the complete Guest Column archives.
November 22, 1963
Guest Column | By Alan Caruba | November 23, 2008
I doubt that most Americans will recall that, 45 years ago, on November 22, 1963, the President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated in Dallas, Texas.
Clearly, part of the reason is that a lot of Americans have been born since then, but the other part of the reason is that, according to a newly released study, most Americans simply have not been successfully taught American history or civics since the 1960s. They have no real knowledge, facts, dates, events, to call upon.
That is no accident. There has been a deliberate effort to “dumb down” Americans to a point where they literally do not know how their government came to be and what its guiding principles, embodied in the U.S. Constitution, permits, proscribes, and limits.
Assassination is the ultimate act of treason. It renders the entire electoral process null and void despite the rule of succession that elevates the vice president to the position of chief executive. Only once in our history, the accession of Theodore Roosevelt to the presidency, has an assassination produced a President of truly great stature.
I recall hearing the news of JFK’s assassination. I was working in Miami at the time, a callow youth of 26, well educated, but lacking any real insight to the event. Two other things happened that day. Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as the new President and I quit my job and returned home. Shortly after, I became a journalist.
What would follow in fairly short order would be the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy while campaigning in Los Angeles against a first full term for Johnson and the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. At that point, the nation was engulfed in the turmoil of the Civil Rights movement and, with the election of Johnson, would find itself mired in the Vietnam War. The streets of Washington, D.C. would fill, time and again, with Americans protesting that war.
Johnson would decide not to run for a second term. The nation would elect Richard M. Nixon twice, only to see him disgrace the office with the Watergate scandal and become the first President to resign.
In a very real way, all of these events began on November 22, 1963.
I was struck by the adulation, the exuberance of the huge crowds that turned out during President-elect Barack Obama’s campaign. It reminded me a great deal of the same response the then-youngest President, John F. Kennedy, engendered. Rumors would circulate after his election that the Chicago machine, led by then-Mayor Richard J. Daley, had stuffed the ballot boxes to ensure his victory.
The reason it is essential to know something of the history of the nation is the ability to draw lessons from it. As popular as JFK was, he quickly blundered into the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, having won office in 1960. This was redeemed only by the standoff with the Soviets that forced them to withdraw their missiles from Cuba in 1962. A year later, JFK was dead; the victim of what some have said was an extraordinary feat of marksmanship attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald, a leftist malcontent.
The election of Barack Obama has been hailed as historic and, as the first Afro-American President, it surely qualifies, but history has a relentless repetition to it.
I am not suggesting the President Obama will fall to an assassin’s bullet, but I am suggesting that whoever holds the office of President will determine whether America continues to lead the world economically, militarily, culturally, and—yes—physically. If 9/11 was just a taste of what the Islamofascists have in mind for us, we are surely as threatened today as ever in history. Taking a longer view, we need to be mindful of the military buildup in China.
That is why it is essential to pay attention to Obama’s expressed views on homeland security and defense issues. President Ronald Reagan said that there was no evidence in all of human history that a nation was attacked because it was too strong. Even the ancient Romans knew that truth. “Si vis pacem, para bellum.” If you want peace, plan for war.
That’s why, as we commemorate the loss of John F. Kennedy to an assassin’s bullet, we need also to ask why an Arizona Governor, Janet Napolitano, is being considered for Director of Homeland Security. If she could not or would not defend the border of her State with Mexico against illegal aliens and drug smugglers, why should we expect her to do this and more for the entire nation?
President-elect Obama is already on record saying, “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear systems.” It can be argued that nuclear weapons have deterred a fourth world war and conflicts between nations that possess them.
Leaving America defenseless or at least greatly weakened in a dangerous world is a suicidal policy.
It is said that Obama sees himself as some kind of national and international “transformative” figure. History will write the final chapter on that.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, “Warning Signs”, posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center. His book, “Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy”, is published by Merrill Press.
Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.
32 Comments | Post a Comment
Caruba’s comment:
” ... most Americans simply have not been successfully taught American history or civics since the 1960s. They have no real knowledge, facts, dates, events, to call upon.”
Absolutely true. And a very sad circumstance.
(Although, I don’t sure don’t see any logical transition from the author’s lead paragraph to the final four conclusions of his article ?!?!?!)
In the 60’s there was widespread revolt, carried out by (mostly) young people who knew their rights. My guess is that the powers that be said ‘we better stop this’. So they “accidentally” killed four kids at Kent State and, mysteriously, basic civics kinda disappeared from the curriculum.
My my…
Pete must be quite young. I was on the Kent State campus about two weeks before the shooting. The windows of the campus book store had several communist magazines and books on display. Known communist youth radicals had visited and spoken on the campus before and after my visit. After my visit, older communist thugs came down from Cleveland and elsewhere and trashed Main St., breaking store windows and stealing goods. Gov. Rhodes declared marshal law and sent some state militia to the campus. Students foolishly gathered in mobs to taunt the malitia. Then the communist thugs, locking arms, shoved the students toward the militia seeking an incident. They got one. I wasn’t there that day but read about it from what I considered good sources.
Frank V.
frank v is, in the jargon of those in the know, full of crap.
Pete Zahria, Post 5;
I agree.
The truth is, the youth protest movement in the ‘60s was all about “anti-war”, “anti-militarism” and “anti-establishment”.
We got involved in Vietnam in the early ‘50s as an assist to France (Vietnam was then known as French Indochina) in France’s attempt to save its Michelin rubber plantation interests there.
Then, “Domino Theorists” insisted we needed to fully engage militarily (in what many thought was essentially a civil war) in order to prevent (Chinese) “Communism” from ostensibly taking over all of SE Asia.
The “anti-” movement was just that: “anti-“war, “anti-” militarism, and “anti-”(D.C.)establishment. It was NOT a “pro-” communist movement. And, it was largely based on Eisenhower’s earlier warning to the American populace to - “beware of the military-industrial complex”.
Frank’s “communist thugs” were really “peaceniks”.
(It’s still amazing to me to see how much of Joe McCarthy’s destructive and pathetic political paranoia is still alive and kicking.)
TK’s history is the liberal version undiluted. He wouldn’t believe anything written by an anti-communist of those days. I suppose the only way to punch one’s self out of the paper bag of liberal propaganda is to thoroughly research or, better yet, be a participant or an eyewitness of a news event, and then see how it is written up by liberals and by conservatives. You may discover that way that the conservatives are the truth-tellers. That’s how I learned.
Frank Vosler, Post7;
I learned by BEING THERE, Frank! For me, it was “life” - not “history”!
And, Frank, getting your underwear all in a knot over “communism” today is - PRE-historic! It’s about as sensible and real-world as bitching and moaning about all the tax you’re going to have to pay when you win the Powerball lottery!
And, if anyone sounds like they’re in the bag, it’s you! Have you EVER been able to take a NON-partisan, NON-ideological breath in your whole life, Frank?
(In case you hadn’t noticed - all the dinosaurs are long-gone.)
“You may discover that way that the conservatives are the truth-tellers. That’s how I learned.”
one should have at least one serious belly laugh every day. It’s good for the soul. Thanks, Frankie, for giving us our daily guffaw!
TK- as far as your assessment of Frank, you are CORRECT, sir! Frank’s the one who, on another award winning AIM thread, said that we still don’t know if Obama is a Muslim.
I feel that the controversy over the anti-war crowd during the Vietnam era emanated from rogue elements within the movement consisting of pro-Communists and anarchists who distorted what the movement was supposed to be all about; namely legitimate opposition to a suspiciously drawn-out and nationally unpopular conflict that had been reduced to a brutal war of attrition with no end in sight.
As a paleo-conservative, I would have been a non-violent participant in those demonstrations had I been old enough at the time during the late ‘60’s when a majority of the American people started ‘smelling a rat’.
Frank Volser is correct in pointing out the acts of vandalism on stores in the Kent State area during the demonstrations, which ended up counter-productive, and gave the anti-war movement a bad reputation.
From what I’ve heard about the Yippie-led demonstrations at the ‘68 Democrat Convention in Chicago, some of them were throwing nail-embedded objects at the police in order to instigate a violent confrontation.
To me, it’s a shame that a noble effort was given a bad rap because of the acts of a ‘few bad apples’.
“I feel that the controversy over the anti-war crowd during the Vietnam era emanated from rogue elements within the movement…”
The term “anti-war crowd” has a decidedly pejorative connotation, don’t you think? It’s the kind of term deep thinkers like Bill O’Reilly are fond of using. Those against the VietNam war, just as those who opposed the Iraq war, deserve better. They were, and are, on the right side of both arguments.
“From what I’ve heard about the Yippie-led demonstrations at the ‘68 Democrat Convention in Chicago, some of them were throwing nail-embedded objects at the police in order to instigate a violent confrontation.”
‘nail embedded objects?’ Is that a joke?
The “Protest Movement” of the ‘60s was NOT a singular, monolithic thing - and neither was there any kind of singular, effective, hierarchical organization and/or leadership. And, of course, there were those groups whose demonstrative conduct was often “violent” (usually in the form of property destruction), as there were also those whose primary principle was to carry out “non-violent” protests.
And, there were almost as many DIFFERENT issues being protested as there were “protest groups”. So, generally-speaking, making broad and/or generic generalizations about the issues and motivations of those protesting back then is usually misrepresentative of the actual reality.
In terms of “violent” protests - the gays and lesbians protesting in San Francisco today by over-running and disrupting religious services, while demeaning the church-goers, their services, their beliefs and their faiths - are, with only a few exceptions that I can recall, generally, just as bad as most of the so-called “violent” protestors and protests of the ‘60s.
(Of course, ‘60s urban riots generated over civil rights issues were often very violent, but weren’t generally connected to the “anti-war”, “peacenik”, “anti-establishment”, “Hippie”, “Flower-Power”, “pot-and-acid” type demonstrations carried out by largely college-aged students. And, of course, there were some college students and others (both young protestors and otherwise) who were enamored with the utopian communal lifestyle that they believed existed in the philosophies of Marx and Engel.)
Sue Nommi,
I’m sorry you were offended by my use of the term “anti-war crowd”, but believe me, no offense intended. I just wanted to make clear in this forum, the reference to the clash between them and the Chicago police, or in the case of Kent State, the Ohio National Guard.
Maybe I should have used the term “protesters”? You tell me.
In either case, I would have been among them during that era in protest against an unconstitutional, undeclared conflict which was later to be revealed, us getting involved with under false pretenses. (Gulf of Tonkin). I must say, though, that I would have kept my distance from the likes of the Chicago 8.
I wish I could give you the reference to my “nail-embedded objects” remark, but it’s one of those things that’s been permanently etched into my mind
from watching a documentary on TV many years ago about the ‘68 Democrat Convention. I remember a Chicago policeman was being interviewed after the demonstrations and held in his hand what looked like a tennis ball sized piece of putty that had nails sticking out of it. He explained that they, and other objects were being thrown at the cops.
I never forgot it.
TK - “The “Protest Movement” of the ‘60s was NOT a singular, monolithic thing - and neither was there any kind of singular, effective, hierarchical organization and/or leadership”.
I certainly agree with that. I was just concentrating on the protests of the Vietnam conflict. That would only represent part of the whole spectrum concerning ‘60’s political movements.
A great point you brought up concerning Church disruptions in San Francisco by gay/lesbian activists. In fact, those events make me very suspicious as to their real motives. After all, Islam is much more intolerant of their lifestyle compared to the Catholic Church, yet they never seem to disrupt services held in Mosques.
As far as peaceniks and hippies; most wouldn’t harm a fly. This is evidenced by such successful and memorable events such as the Monterey Pop Festival and Woodstock.
pizcaj - -
Honestly, in spite of a lot of the off-base rhetoric I often hear about the various protest movements of the ‘60s - including those who insist it was carried out by “Communist agents” and who use the word “violent” as though it meant “terrorist”-style murder and mayhem (as opposed to the somewhat more benign (although still inexcusable) breaking of windows and throwing around of fake blood) - I think that the gay/lesbian protest movement in the San Francisco area pretty much accurately replicates the worst of the anti-war protests and rallies of the ‘60s that I saw.
I think the hostility level, the property damage involved, the disrespect shown, the general ‘civil rights’ claims being made and the anti-establishment attitude of the gay/lesbian activists is just about a duplicate of the “anti-draft” protestors of the ‘60s.
???
pizcaj-
I wasn’t offended (I don’t offend easily), just opining that the phrase ‘anti-war crowd’ has a connotation that is quite pointed. You are clearly in league with those who protested the war, as am I, but that phrase makes it sound not so much.
Frank V’s posts are sad; he neatly ties everything to “commies”, as if that justifies the shooting of four college kids. Joe McCarthy lives!
TK (post #15) - “I think the hostility level, the property damage involved, the disrespect shown, the general ‘civil rights’ claims being made and the anti-establishment attitude of the gay/lesbian activists is just about a duplicate of the “anti-draft” protesters of the ‘60s”
I fail to see what the two elements had in common. I feel that the majority of anti-draft protesters (vandalism aside) had a legitimate cause. Most of the public had already turned away from supporting our continued involvement in Vietnam around the same time young men were burning their draft cards. I feel the public had wised up to the government propaganda by that time, and could sense that our troops were being set up to not win for various clandestine reasons.
On the other hand, I feel that the gay/lesbian activists who disrupt Church services are totally evil entities, and cowardly at that. Why won’t they touch Black churches and Mosques?
I agree with you that labeling the Vietnam protest movements as being “carried out by “Communist agents” is simplistic; just as labeling the government forces who instigated our involvement in Vietnam as representing the ‘Red, White, and Blue’ and American patriotism would be simplistic. In fact, in reference to the Johnson and Nixon administrations, it was outright false.
My trepidation concerning a tiny percentage of communist and anarchist forces existing within the movements has to do with my fear of them turning the American public away from those movements, and sympathizing with the government. Therefore, the breaking of storefront windows and subsequent looting of those stores in the Kent State area, the owners of those stores, by the way, having nothing to do with our involvement in the war, served to detract what the movement was all about. That small element, which gave the illusion of being a larger element than they actually were within the demonstrations, is what concerned me. A few bad apples can really muck things up.
I feel that the small minority of thuggish elements who vandalize storefronts, loot, or break car windows is pretty frightening and much more dangerous than the San Fransisco church disruptions. Can you imagine being a nearby resident during those ‘Main Street’ acts of vandalism?
pizcaj, Post 17;
Your comment:
“I fail to see what the two elements had in common.”
My point:
The anti-war protestors of the ‘60s and the gay lesbian protestors of today are, to me, similar in the following ways:
1. Similar level of hostility evident during their protests;
2. Similar level of property damage caused during their protests;
3. Similar level of disrespect evidenced during their protests;
4. Similarly claiming that their respective “civil rights” were being violated;
5. Showing similar antipathy towards their respectively applicable traditional “establishment”.
Simplified: I find a “commonality” in the conduct, demeanor, style and intensity of their respective protests.
Obviously, the two basic ISSUES being protested by each group have no commonality!
Sue Nommi,
I have to confess to being a McCarthy admirer, at least at this time. I intend to be reading up more about him to see if my instincts about the man are correct.
I noticed that most of the hostility towards McCarthy comes from Hollywood, however, I wonder how they would have felt about him had he exposed Nazi sympathizers or White Supremacists within the government and entertainment industry. I personally detest all three. Although when you think about it, White Supremacy, during the 1950’s, was pretty common within the Southern White faction of the Democrat Party.
When such tragic events as the Kent State shootings and violent confrontations between the Chicago Police and demonstrators at the ‘68 Democrat Convention are debated, guess what, there will never be an end to such debates.
There will never be a simplistic answer regarding the Vietnam protests in regards to who were generally the good factions and who were the bad factions. This is because the whole debate centers around a tragic and greatly-flawed event which escalated under false pretenses; namely, our involvement in Vietnam. Only bad things can result from such a faulty policy, and in fact, builds upon itself in the form of tragic after-effects. You can’t build a stable house on such a flawed foundation. This would include 58,000 dead patriots who thought they were doing the right thing as lied to them by their own government, and the manifestation of a permanent political division within our country based on suspicion and distrust. The latter of the two points just mentioned, in my opinion, is just one of the many clandestine reasons for our government involving us in Vietnam.
Having been born in 1960, I suppose it’s easy for me to assume my theoretical non-violent opposition to Vietnam had I been old enough to be drafted back then. After all, while it’s easy to classify the likes of Abbie Hoffman and Steve Rubin as clownish, thuggish, mischief-makers, I kind of admire their call for revolution against a corrupt government much as our Forefathers did in Colonial times against George III. In fact, both had made reference to our Forefathers in glowing, reverend terms and thought that they were doing what Washington would have done had he been around in the late sixties. (This would exclude the two as being Communists or Anarchists).
After all, the violence that resulted from clashes with police and the National Guard was minuscule in comparison to the violence our brave, heroic soldiers faced in an unnecessary, unending conflict. Our current government, along with our government during the 1960’s, was every bit as evil and un-American as the British Monarchy under George III was. In fact, in this country, we’ve had our own George IV, eventually followed by his bumbling son, George V.
So, when I think about it, Abbie Hoffman and Rubin might have been on to something. I’d sure as hell would rather mix my political thoughts with them, rather than with Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon.
TK - “Obviously, the two basic ISSUES being protested by each group have no commonality!
I wasn’t making reference to commonality of the issues in my Post #17, rather, I was referencing the hidden motives between the two groups as you made in your five points you listed from your Post #18.
Where I differ from you is the percentage of evil intent within both entities. In the case of the gay/lesbians, their unspoken, underlining motive is based on their hatred of Christianity and its teachings, as well as the 10 Commandments. They are pure, unadulterated evil, while only a small fraction of the 1960’s Vietnam protests were infiltrated by destructive neanderthals who served to tarnish their legitimate cause.
Another words, a very small percentage of war demonstrators had evil intent, while the gay/lesbian protesters who disrupted church services have 100 percent evil intent.
pizcaj, Post 19;
You gotta’ be kiddin’?!?!?
For starters, I was alive, well and very aware during the days of Joe McCarthy - and with one of the earlier TVs in the neighborhood - and a career commissioned Army uncle keeping me from straying - I watched every televised minute of the Army-McCarthy hearings - and read and watched all the other news involving McCarthy - and I’ll tell you that there are not too many more revolting American politicians than one Sen. Joseph McCarthy!
He was a true scumbag and your ‘admiration’ is sorely, SORELY misplaced!
And your ‘instincts’ about McCarthy are about as far off as anyone’s can possibly be!
Geez!
BTW: The first year of the Vietnam draft - I drew Lucky #33 - so - that era was “life” for me, NOT “history”!
TK,
Over-the-top indignation such as you just exhibited, along with Hollywood’s consistent negative reaction at the mere mentioning of McCarthy in a positive light, is what got me curious and ultimately very interested in reading more about him.
I’ll certainly let you know of my final thoughts about him when I’m through researching from various political perspectives.
TK - “BTW: The first year of the Vietnam draft - I drew Lucky #33 - so - that era was “life” for me, NOT “history”!”
So what was it that I said, in my Post #19 to Sue Nommi, that has raised such an indignant reaction from you in regards to my perspective on the Vietnam era and the protests that took place?
It’s past midnight and I spent a half hour, including a bit of research, writing a contribution to the discussion. I then clicked on “submit” and got the message that I didn’t copy the code word right. The system setup also deleted everything I wrote. I know that I should have done it on MSword first; but I’m too busy to put up with this, so I’m bailing out. But before I go, anyone who is interested in Sen. Joseph McCarthy can go to http://www.nightvisionbyfrank.org and read Night Vision #155 dated 11-13-08.
pizcaj-
“Most of the public had already turned away from supporting our continued involvement in Vietnam around the same time young men were burning their draft cards.”
Draft card burnings were largely in the mid to late 60’s when support for the war was strong. The public still had a “America: Love it or Leave it” mentality.
“I feel the public had wised up to the government propaganda by that time, and could sense that our troops were being set up to not win for various clandestine reasons.”
Eventually. But not as neatly, cleanly or as early as you seem to imply.
As far as admiring Joe McCarthy, I can’t see that, unless to say “hey, I admire the fact that he could drink so much and not fall down.”
He was little more than a particularly ugly blot on American history, Ann Coulter’s revisionist history notwithstanding.
Sue Nommi - “Draft card burnings were largely in the mid to late 60’s when support for the war was strong. The public still had a “America: Love it or Leave it” mentality”
Actually, support for the war dropped drastically after the Tet Offensive in 1968 and subsequent misreporting of it by the MSM as a major American military set back, when in reality, the North Vietnamese were the ones who took the brunt of casualties and were held back.
Evidence of the reversal of public support for the war was Johnson not seeking or accepting of his Party’s nomination for a second term later that same year.
You’re probably right about public disapproval of draft card burnings during the mid to late sixties. While my grandfather, who along with his two brothers, fought in Italy in WW2, nevertheless, took a disliking to images on TV of students burning their draft cards, even though they loathed the Vietnam War along with the rest of my very Conservative family.
Funny coincidence concerning the ‘nail-embedded’ objects we discussed the other day. I just finished watching the 10th season opener of the PBS series “Independent Lens” entitled “Chicago 10”. It was a thorough, and I believe fair, accounting of the ‘68 Democrat Convention demonstrations and subsequent trial of the Chicago 8.
At the 63 minute point of the documentary, the demonstrators were gathered in the park across the street from the Hilton (Convention site), and a police lieutenant or captain was asked by a reporter if there had been any violence so far. The policeman stated that about “7 golf balls, or practice balls, that had many spikes through them” were thrown at the police from the crowd. As he was telling the reporter this, both were looking down at one of these exhibits just described that the policeman was holding in his hand, but the cameraman didn’t display it to the viewer. Of course, this differed from the documentary I saw years ago which did show what was in his or some other officer’s hand.
The fact that only seven of these objects were thrown at the police illustrates my belief that a few bad apples should not be tied in with the vast majority of legitimate demonstrators at that particular event.
I was absolutely awestruck at the sheer courage that the protesters exhibited in attempting their denied right to march by Mayor Daley. Tears welled up in my eyes last night as I watched them boldly confront a massive, heavily-armed police and National Guard force, getting their skulls cracked open so that not only they, but early 1960’s baby boomers, such as myself, were spared from a possible draft which would likely have remained law by the time I was eligible during the late ‘70’s.
I look at them as every bit as heroic as our military.
Sullivan, Post 27;
I especially agree with your comment: ”... either you offer a preposterous argument or that you are a liar?”
Unfortunately, the person of whom you speak, besides being an inveterate namecaller (and, lately, a liar, at least regarding comments he made about me), NEVER seems to deal with a well-intentioned, rational, reasonable “message” but, rather, does nothing but make incessant ad hominem attacks on the “messenger” - the same affliction that Richard Nixon seems to have had.
(Think he might be one of those Dallasites who jumped for joy back in November, ‘63, because he subscribed to the concept that JFK “got what he deserved” ???)
Servo fides.
Frank Vosler,
Thanks for the link you provided in post #24.
Although I’ll be referencing various political perspectives on McCarthy, I’ll use your link as a launching pad.
Mr. Sullivan,
When you mentioned ‘North Vietnamese’ in the first sentence of your reply to me, did you think I was making reference to North Vietnamese civilians?
If so, I apologize for the error, as I was using that phrase as a sort of loose reference to mean the Communist-led North Vietnamese military forces (Vietcong).
This is why, as dramatic and over-whelming the Tet Offense started out as, partially due to the fact that it occurred during one of their holidays, your fellow servicemen held them back admirably. From what I understand, the number of casualties suffered by the Vietcong almost equaled the amount of combatants who had initiated the Offensive. It was indeed a major defeat for them.
Dear pizcaj,
Since my previous entry on this subject was erased and you may not have seen it, I recapitulate here - in abbreviated form.
American forces and their S. Vietnamese, S. Korean and Australian allies fought two different enemy forces in the Second Indochina War. 1) The regular North Vietnamese Army (NVA) made up of conscripts from N. Vietnam, led by professional NCOs and officers; 2) The Viet Cong (VC) made up of S. Vietnamese Communists, mostly volunteers. In turn, the VC were divided among 1) main force units armed and equiped almost as well as the NVA; 2) VC provincial units who served as guerrillas within their home region and 3)village VC who kept villages under control and served as local guides, saboteurs and sources of intelligence for main force VC units.
It was the main force VC units that suffered most of the casualties in the Tet Offensive. Thereafter, due to such heavy casualties, while main force VC units officially were reconstituted, they consisted largely of NVA transferred over to keep well-known VC units in existence for propaganda purposes and to conceal the extent of their losses in 1968.
Brian R. Sullivan
TYPICAL COMMIE-STYLE “LOGIC” FROM CARUBA
It’s intereesting to note that Caruba, like many other AIM commentators use the type of double talk and logical fallacies routinely employed by the Communists during the Cold War. I will cite an example from above.
Note How Caruba begins: “I doubt that most Americans will recall that, 45 years ago, on November 22, 1963, the President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated in Dallas, Texas.” CARUBA STATES HIS UNCERTAINTY ABOUT SUCH A MEMORY. HE ADMITS THAT HE DOESN’T KNOW BUT IS ONLY GUESSING.
But he immediately switches from the possible to the certain: “Clearly, part of the reason is that a lot of Americans have been born since then, but the other part of the reason is that, according to a newly released study, most Americans simply have not been successfully taught American history or civics since the 1960s. They have no real knowledge, facts, dates, events, to call upon.” WHAT PREVIOUSLY WAS STATED AS A GUESS IS QUICKLY TURNED INTO A FACT. MORE TO HIS POINT, THIS LOGICAL FALLACY IS USED TO MAKE AN ATTACK ON THE WAY U.S. HISTORY IS TAUGHT.
What’s so reminiscent of Communist agit-prop techniques about this? Several things. First, one of Lenin’s favorite rhetorical tricks was to raise a hypothesis (for example “What if the Capitalists offered to raise the wages of the workers?”)Then to infer that the hypothesis is a fact (for example “But when the Capitalists do that, it will be a trick.”) Finally, building on his previous statements to tell an outright lie but one disguised as a common place, (for example “But as is a well-known fact, the only reason Capitalists raise wages is to cover up even higher price increases.”)
Why is the latter an outright lie? Because, as Henry Frod explained to other auto makers when he raised his assembly line workers wages to $5 an hour, “That way they can afford to buy the cars I build. I’ll sell so many and, thanks to the economy of scale and the advantages of mass production, I’ll make a hell of a lot more money in the long run.”
If you carefully read what Caruba and other AIM writers spew out, you will see that same Commie trick used over aned over.
See for yourself.
Mr. Sullivan,
Strange, but your post from last night has indeed been erased. I did, however, receive your post #30 which interestingly broke down the various fighting factions of our former Vietnamese enemy forces.
My post #26 to Sue Nommi where I stated “the North Vietnamese were the ones who took the brunt of casualties” was intended as a generic reference to Vietnamese military casualties and not meant to be interpreted as non-participating Vietnamese civilian casualties. From listening to the MSM as I grew up, and not having expertise knowledge of the war, I had assumed that the Tet Offensive was a military loss for our troops and served as a turning point in regards to public support in our continued involvement there. It was only in more recent years that I realized the scope of military casualties the enemy combatants suffered in comparison to our troops; I believe it was ten-fold the amount.
I intend to be doing more thorough reading on both the Vietnam and Korean wars.
In your last paragraph, when you stated “NVA transferred over to keep well-known VC units in existence for propaganda purposes”, how long was this particular propaganda scheme concealed before our government was made aware that it was propaganda and that the enemy’s casualty count was much larger than originally perceived by us?
November 24 at 3:24 pm | #1 | Link
Alan Caruba is right. This is no time to disarm. We are going to get hurt.
Frank