Thursday, November 30, 2006

C-Span and Letters to Mahmoud

Sometimes I enjoy watching C-Span, and other times I don't. The hosts are unapologetically leftists and seem to enjoy quoting the New York Traitor (a.k.a. Times) in all it's attempted America-destroying glory.

This morning, however, I appreciated listening to Bing West. Bing served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs in the Reagan administration. You can read much more about him at his website.

He shared something today that I had not previously been aware of. He said that the one thing over in Iraq that angers our military, the Iraqi military and police, and the Iraqi people is the "catch and release" habit when perpetrators are discovered planting bombs. They generally only get 4 months in prison and then are released! I thought that was absolutely crazy! Why release these people so soon...they will only do it again! But then he shared the reason why. Because of the media firestorm and over-blown reporting of the Abu Ghraib incident, no one on the ground there wants to get involved in prolonged imprisonment.

This is nuts, people. Our MSM here generated that over-blown fiasco ( needed to be reported but come on! The extreme hype was totally unnecessary!) and they can now be considered responsible (IMO)for many of the additional deaths of our soldiers, the Iraqi soldiers and police, and the Iraqi civilians!!

I know. You visitors who are on the opposite side of this war and the issues surrounding it are probably gonna blast me for saying that. But I don't care. It is absolutely true.

In fact, I believe that history will one day show how the war protestors, the MSM, and the Vietnam era naysayers who have openly and harshly opposed our brave military's efforts in this war will one day be exposed for what they are. Cowards and enablers of the terrorists! This is whether they believe it or not.

Bing West had many great things to say during his 20 minute interview. Some of the callers had sensible things to say, too. Other callers just spewed their regular hate mantra for President Bush and exposed (to me, at least) their ill-conceived notions that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place (get over it!!) and that we should pull out (in other words, they don't care if we win), and worst of all, their ignorant and false illusions that the terrorists might just leave us alone if we did so.

Contrast Mr.West with the next guest on C-Span, Wesley Clark.

I couldn't believe my ears when he said that we should enter into talks with Iran and Syria regarding Iraq.

When Wesley Clark recommended that we should negotiate with terrorist enablers, he lost all credibility with me on this subject.

*[Update: While viewing Michele Malkin's blog, I found another reason to doubt Clark's credibility. ]

**[Second update: In a related matter, check out Malkin's latest eye-opening blogpost that reveals rumors and reporting in Iraq.]

According to the responses to Ahmadinejad's letter to the American people, it seems to me that even the most ordinary Americans understand how foolish and unwise such an endeavor, as Clark poses, would be!

Here are some of the best responses:

Dear President Ahmadinejad:

Thank you for realizing that we are, indeed, "Noble Americans." We want peace, equality, and freedom of speech for everyone. We are willing to fight for it, even to die for it. We boldly show our brave faces in combat, proudly wearing the uniform of democracy and freedom. You, on the other hand, wish destruction on God's people, and deny equality to many and freedom of speech to all. You support fighters who, like the cowards they are, hide in the shadows to attack innocents at opportune moments, only to retreat into the shadows when faced with the brave soldiers of the Coalition forces. You, sir, are not noble and do not have the right to count yourself among the ranks of those of us who are.

Robbins, NC

Dear Mr. President,

You are apparently not a student of the United States, or you would realize that the incoherent rant you spew in your letter serves only to galvanize Americans. While Americans disagree on many subjects, so do the citizens of your country. The difference is, Americans are afforded the liberty to say so, while oppressive rulers such as yourself cower at the thought of free thought in your own country

If you expect to be taken seriously, to be treated more than a little man with a Napoleon complex then you will need to start with excluding the religious zeal from managing your country and your foreign policy.

If you care about the people and country you lead, learn to become part of the world community, and you will have an impact.

— John (Grand Rapids, MI)

Dear Mahmoud,

This is great stuff! I really mean it! Have considered trying out as a contestant on "Last Comic Standing?" As long as you brutally repress freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of conscience in your country, please allow me to laugh at your criticisms our political process.

Keep it up!

— Noel

President Ahmadinejad,

I may not be on the same side as our president on some things, like his being too weak on the Mexican border issue. But my biggest compliant is that he hasn't gotten rid of you!

— Kathy (Atlanta, TX)

Dear President Ahmadinejad,

A major difference between the West and the Middle East is the value of "truth." The U.S. values the truth and expects our leaders to also. What you have given us is propaganda that you would expect your people to believe because they do not know otherwise. Sir, please do not confuse me with your own subjects. We might not like what our leaders do sometimes but we know the truth because we have access to alternative opinions. Because we hold the truth and liberty in high regards, we can freely challenge our leaders, both religious and political, without the fear of reprisals.

— Tim (Texas)

Dear President Ahmadinejad,

Your letter to us, the American people, is filled to the brim with pure propaganda. Your actions in promoting sectarian violence and fundamentalist beliefs keep your women as third class citizens, mock God who is love, and fly in the face of truth itself. We saw your actions in holding Americans captive in our embassy, promoting and supporting terrorists who regularly rocket civilians in Israel, holding back truthful and honest news so it cannot reach your people, inhibiting all free expression in your own country, among so many other negatives. Our letters to you will, no doubt, never see the light of day in your country, because you fear truth. Your letter to us, the American people, is widely circulated and readily available, because we have true freedom of the press.

— Jim (Brooksville, FL)

Dear President Ahmadinejad,

If you truly believe we true-blooded American people can be influenced by the likes of you and your letter, it is just a fabrication of your sick mind.

— Bob (Nevada)

Dear President Ahmadinejad,

I, like most Americans, will not believe your propaganda and your feeble attempt to turn us against our own country. You say you are pained by the sufferings and afflictions in the world, but you blatantly allow the training of individuals who carry out the most inhuman actions against mankind. How do you condemn terrorism while empowering it? Count your blessings you are still there. Don't send us anymore of your lies.

— E.C.

Dear President Ahmadinejad,

Your letter to the American people, in the same vein as your letter to President Bush, is absolutely transparent and seeks to play on apparent factions and weaknesses here within America. As you will see from some of the posts on this site, there are those who are ready and willing to take the bait. They are supposed patriots, who play right into your hands and point to liberals and Democrats as the opposition and the enemy. Luckily, as our nation's history has proven time and time again, when faced with an external threat such as the very real one that you and your brethren present, we will unite and be triumphant. The talking heads and pundits do not speak for your average American, and we see straight through your gimmicks and lies.

— Chris

Dear President Ahmadinejad,

Reading your letter was the funniest thing I've heard all year, and my opinion is you're scared to death. Why? Because you're next!

— Jay

Dear President Ahmadinejad,

President George W. Bush is a leader and a man of integrity. You are not a leader, because you are not truly leading your people to peace and prosperity. Your letter reveals what we already know — that you have no integrity. If you continue to push the Western world, we may see whether you are a man or a mouse like Saddam, who had to be pulled from his rat hole.

— Jon (Tennessee)

Dear President Ahmadinejad,

You are crazy, and you should stop trying to make people think you aren't. You should know, as a former terrorist, who held our citizens hostage for 444 days, that this type of letter only makes the American people have more resolve to finish our job in Iraq with honor. I, as an American and a God-fearing person, can only pray that you fall prey to the same terror that you support!

— G. P. (California)

Dear President Ahmadinejad,

You are over-playing your hand. You are the president of a repressive third world nation. We do not take you seriously, and you embarrass yourself each time you behave as if the free world actually cares what you think.

— David

President Ahmadinejad,

Your letter to the American people is a lie and an abomination! You must realize that the American people are not fools or idiots and will not heed a word of it ! You have wasted your time. The atrocities you have committed clearly speak for you. Obviously, your letter is a piece of propaganda for use in the Islamic community in an attempt to convince Muslims what a great and worthy person you are. You will make your letter available for all Iranians to read, but would you allow a letter from President Bush or the American people to be read? No, of course not and we know that. I pray that the time will come, when you are just a bad piece of Iran's history. I hope that time comes soon!

— Angela (San Francisco, CA


You say the violence in Iraq is the responsibility of the United States when it is you who are instigating the killing through your radical Shiite proxies. Americans are not so stupid as to fall for your lies.

— Craig (Houston, TX)

These letters are all good, but this one has to be my favorite so far:

Mr. Ahmadinejad:

The day you stop having rallies calling for the destruction of America, the day you stop funding terrorists who seek to kill and destroy Americans, the day you stop threatening America with "the sword" if we don't convert to your twisted religious doctrine, then I MIGHT think there's some credibility in your letter. Until then, your letter will serve best in various restrooms across the USA.

— Sam

As I was reading through your letter to the American people, I could not help but to think of our past service men and women that had to listen to the same rhetoric from Tokyo Rose during WWII. I do not believe for a minute that the Iranian government has our best interest at heart. I believe that you and your government are a sponsor of world terrorism and that the Iranian government is a major player in the suffering that is being happening to the people of Iraq at this moment. I have no dislike or hatred of the Iranian people. I believe that they are as peace loving as we are. You cannot call for the destruction of free countries such as the U.S. and Israel and the annihilation of a race of people and still call yourself peace loving.

Your letter to the American people was ill conceived, disrespectful and insulting to myself and many other Americans. Yes, I disagree with some of the policies of our own government. But unlike the people of Iran, I have the freedom to voice my opinion. Thank God for that.

— Jim (Barberton, OH)


Dear Mahmoud,

Let’s see… Violent revolution and hostage taking in the 70’s, atrocities in the 80’s (war with Iraq – we watched you two use mustard gas on each other and maul one another’s POWs), religious police, persecution of non-Muslims, funding of killers (Hamas, etc.), death threats against world leaders and whole countries (your speeches on your TV station, bub) … need I go on? We have a popular saying here in the US: “set the crack pipe down and step away slowly”. No, maybe we’re not a perfect country. However, we sure as hell have your madcap delusions of martyrdom beat. Hey – you know, I’ll bet you could give Borat a run for his money doing standup over here!

— Steve (Venice, CA)

Nice try Mahmoud. We Americans are much smarter than you think. Deep down inside you won’t be happy until you overtake us. However, we will never be forced to live under Dictators... You are the crazy man in the attic and freedom always perseveres. We still haven’t paid you back for taking the hostages. I wouldn’t sleep well at night if I was you. We see you for what you are, a fruitcake who will eventually do himself in. Nighty night.

— Nicholas

[NOTE: Glad to see the "Dear President" salutations are gone!!]

There are many more good letters at the site. I'm sure that the list will grow as the day goes by. For now, I will end this post with this letter:

To the Iranian President,

Tens of millions have been freed under the actions of the United States since the 1940’s. No other nation can make this claim. We stand on the side of good. The actions of the U.S. are honorable. If not, why do so many flee your country and come to ours for freedom? Why does your country vow the destruction of Israel if you are God fearing and promote peace!

You are a coward…this we all know!!!!

*TrackBack URL for this entry:

**TrackBack URL for this entry:

Update at 11:57 a.m. PT: Another great blog post with links telling us to Wake Up America: Enemy Propaganda From Our Media! This excerpt from the post reiterates my thoughts about the traitorous, treasonous NYTimes:

A good point and one the AP should heed.

We will end up following rumors instead of hunting terrorists and criminals.

This comment is very telling, the AP in their carelessness and refusal to admit that their longtime source is either entirely made up, or a fraud at best, is endangering the mission in Iraq. Once again as I pointed out about the NYT, this should be considered treason.

In law, treason is the crime of disloyalty to one's nation or state. A person who betrays the nation of their citizenship and/or reneges on an oath of loyalty and in some way willfully cooperates with an enemy, is considered to be a traitor.

These media outlets should be held accountable when they endanger American soldiers lives.


ebsfwan said...

One of the interesting things I've learnt from reading your blog is that both sides think the media belong to the other side.

Here in NZ we bemoan your right wing press who refuse to ask hard questions of your administration.

I guess it depends on where you are sitting.

4 months for setting a bomb...shouldn't it be 40 years?
I think it is disingenious to refer to over-blown reporting of the Abu Ghraib incident. I actually thought that that incident highlighted that America had some morals left. People were outraged at the prisoner abuse. What I think was very unethical was that only the low level people got sacrificed. No higher up put their hands up and said 'we got it wrong.'

I feel really sorry for the ordinary American soldier over their in Iraq. I'm sure that most of them are just trying to do their best and they don't get enough support from home.

limpy99 said...

Actually, ebsfwan, the vast majority of us support all of the troops. We just differ in how we do it. I support them by supporting leader who would bring them home. Christine supports them by urging others to call for a sustained effort until we've achieved victory. As always, Christine, correct me if I'm wrong or putting words in your mouth.

In a related note, I would ask Christine what she would consider victory in Iraq.

Christinewjc said...


Do you get Fox News Channel in NZ? If you did, you could see The O'Reilly Factor. He has been very critical (and does ask the hard questions!) of the mistakes made in Iraq. The difference is, he isn't a shrill for the left-wing loonies who only want to continually mock, put down and lambaste President Bush. He supports our military whole-heartedly and is a deep critic of the New York Traitor Times that has been largely responsible for extremely biased reporting (not to mention the classified document leaks that harm our security!!) lack of printing the conservative side of issues, and their relentless hate aimed at our government. Yes. We have free speech here. But when such speech is constantly used to denigrate and debase one's own country, to me, that can be seen as borderline treasonous!

About Abu Ghraib. Like I said, it needed to be reported. It was a terrible incident and the soldiers who were involved were tried and punished for their actions. Don't believe everything you read in the MSM about "higher ups" needing to be punished, too. These individual soldiers were most likely disturbed individuals who probably didn't belong in the military in the first place. It would be interesting to find out if they were liberal, secular-progressive types or conservatives. From the looks of their abhorrent sexually charged and demeaning antics towards the prisoners, we do know that they were obviously of the permissive type.

Another thing that Bing West mentioned is that he has been over there several times, in the presence of the young Marines who are fighting so valiently. He said that these men are truly diverse (white, black, middle class, upper class, rich, poor and everything inbetween etc.), yet each are honorable and noble when it comes to serving their country.

Unlike John Kerry's stupid rant about our soldiers and their perceived "lack of intelligence" for being over there, West stated that these men know exactly why they are there. They believe in their Presidend and know that Bush did the right thing, deposing Saddam and giving the chance at freedom and democracy to people who have never had such an opportunity. Many that Bing met with shared that they volunteered to return to Iraq, several times in fact, and steadfastly believe in the mission and goal.

All this despite what the anti-war mongerers at home are spewing about them and the mission. I'm sure they hate to hear the naysayers already claiming we lost...get out now, yet they never share the anti-war mongers doubts about whether or not we can win. They KNOW we can, and will win. Especially because President Bush isn't a wishy-washy leader like Gore or Kerry would have been if they had been elected president. (I still thank God for Bush's victories in the elections!)

The soldiers get support from all the traditionalist conservatives (silent majority?) here at home. They know that our support for them far outweighs the crap that the liberal left spew about the war. The soldiers take the high road and ignore the verbal bomb spewers!!

Time and again, when an Iraq War veteran gets to speak about the war, they agree with President Bush's message:

But there is one thing I am not going to do. I am not going to pull our troops off the battlefield before the mission is complete. The battles in Iraq and Afghanistan are part of a struggle between moderation and extremism that is unfolding across the broader middle east. Our enemy follows a hateful ideology that rejects fundamental freedoms like the freedom to speak, to assemble, or to worship god in a way you see fit. It opposes the rights for women. Their goal is to overthrow governments and to impose their totalitarian rule on millions.

They have a strategy to achieve these aims. They seek to convince America and our allies that we cannot defeat them and that our only hope is withdrawal and abandoned an entire region to their domination.

The war on terror that we fight today is more than a military conflict. It is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century. And in this struggle, we can accept nothing less than victory for our children and our grandchildren.

limpy99 said...

Soooo, what exactly would you consider victory in Iraq?

Christinewjc said...

Sorry, I was out most of the day.

I think that victory would mean several things.

1. Al Quaida would be destroyed and/or forced to leave.

2. The rule of law would triumph through the Iraqi government when they are equipped enough to handle the sectarian skirmishes on their own, through the use of their military, police force, and judiciary.

3. Perhaps a NATO alliance of troops could be there as back up (similar to Afghanistan).

I also think that Al Sadr needs to be arrested, jailed, and tried for the murders he is guilty of committing. Things would be a lot further along (IMO) if he was no longer inciting the Shiite/Sunni hatred; which, unfortunately, has a long history in that country.

ebsfwan said...

Hi folks. When I said the troops didn't get enough support I meant government support - not public support. It seems I'm reading stories about how they don't have enough equipment - armour plating and the like in Iraq. Also I read stories about congress passing laws that cuts Veterans aid etc. Seems a strange way to support your troops.

I hate to break it to you Christine but most of the world thinks that Fox news is extremely unbiased. Try watching another channel for a month or so. :)

Linking the Abu Ghraib abuses to liberalism is a stretch even for you. ;)

Christinewjc said...

The lack of armour etc. was a problem that was solved years ago. It's strange though, John Kerry and several other liberals voted against the bill! Actually, I think he "voted for it before he voted against it." That's what helped him earn the label of being a "flip flopper."

Ebsfwan said, "I hate to break it to you Christine but most of the world thinks that Fox news is extremely unbiased. Try watching another channel for a month or so. :)" (bold mine)

Freudian slip there?? te he!

It's funny...most of America thinks that CNN IS THE BIASED NEWS SOURCE! (ALONG WITH ABC, NBC, AND CBS!)

I did watch another channel when I was up in British Columbia. They didn't have Fox News Channel (typical for liberal-only broadcasting places!) I couldn't stand it!! It was horrid! I watched because I wanted to know the details about the London flight to US bombing attempt. Even through that successful prevention of a terrorist attack, CNN still found ways to attack President Bush!! They are hopeless over there...

You also said, "Linking the Abu Ghraib abuses to liberalism is a stretch even for you. ;) "

Here's what I said, "It would be interesting to find out if they were liberal, secular-progressive types or conservatives. From the looks of their abhorrent sexually charged and demeaning antics towards the prisoners, we do know that they were obviously of the permissive type."

Was it unfair to wonder if the abuses were possibly linked to conservatives, too?

tsk tsk...your bias is showing!!

Mike said...

"Cowards and enablers of the terrorists! This is whether they believe it or not."

First of all, I think you could start by asking Cheney and Bush why they didn't feel the call to serve (or why virtually no children of our leaders are in Iraq). Coward would seem apt for anyone who had "other priorities"

But that would require honest examination of the people who spout this nonsense. Seems unlikely.

Christinewjc said...


Here is the entire paragraph as it was originally written:

"In fact, I believe that history will one day show how the war protestors, the MSM, and the Vietnam era naysayers who have openly and harshly opposed our brave military's efforts in this war will one day be exposed for what they are. Cowards and enablers of the terrorists! This is whether they believe it or not."

Yes. The "cut and run" protestors, the Main Stream Media, and the Vietnam era naysayers (which includes the despicable likes of Jane Jihad Fonda) DO act and broadcast their jibberish in a cowardly way. They are enablers of the terrorists!

Just like when Hanoi Jane spouted her treasonous rhetoric during the Vietnam era, those who oppose the war today are inflicting great harm upon our brave, fighting for freedom and the safety of our nation troops in Iraq.

The Vietnam war could have been won by the US. However, the protestors (including that liar, John Kerry) got the best of President Johnson who pulled troops out too soon, then Nixon (who resigned in disgrace because of Watergate), and then disasterous President Ford who didn't know what he was doing! Ford mistakenly pulled the troops out before the job was done. Plus, the Tet offensive wasn't handled properly.

There is an article of an interview of a former North Vietnamese military man who admits that the pull back from the Ho Chi Minh trail (if I am recalling from memory properly) surprised them. It would have devastated the other side if that military plan had gone through. When I locate the article, I will post it here.

Bush served in the national guard. It's not his fault that he wasn't called up to serve since there wasn't a need at the time.

Cheney has a serious heart condition and was obviously exempt from military service.

Your animosity towards our president and vice president is highly apparent. It's too bad that your contempt for them causes you to make stupid statements like you did.

Your comment that "no leaders" children are involved in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is not only a lie, but also a tired old argument. You think that just because Bush's two daughters and Cheney's two daughters aren't serving in the military, it negates their ability to lead this country? Such a silly argument.

There are many congressmen and senators who have children serving. Duncan Hunter's son immediately comes to mind.

You wrote:

"But that would require honest examination of the people who spout this nonsense. Seems unlikely."

I'd give the same advice to you, mister!

Found the article. Here is a copy:

Kerry Gave Aid and Comfort to the Enemy

It is unfortunate that the Democrats chose John Kerry as their nominee. I know that you like him and his left-wing political leanings, but there is more to it than that.

You have the saying, "Dissent is the highest form of patriotism." That could be true in some circumstances, but it is definately NOT TRUE when we are at war. When John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Jim McDermott and other Democrat Party leaders publicly condemn the U.S.-led campaign to liberate Iraq, what effect does this have on the course of the war and the safety of U.S. troops?

Before you even attempt to answer that question, please read the following article. It is an excerpt from the archives of (April 26, 2004 issue) which discusses a truly stunning interview with the Wall Street Journal (August 3, 1995). Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, confirmed what many Americans had suspected for years: The antiwar movement (of which John Kerry was a leader!!) had everything to do with America's defeat and communism's victory in South Vietnam.

Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism. He was interviewed by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist.

How North Vietnam Won The War
By | April 26, 2004

What did the North Vietnamese leadership think of the American antiwar movement? What was the purpose of the Tet Offensive? How could the U.S. have been more successful in fighting the Vietnam War? Bui Tin, a former colonel in the North Vietnamese army, answers these questions in the following excerpts from an interview conducted by Stephen Young, a Minnesota attorney and human-rights activist [in The Wall Street Journal, 3 August 1995]. Bui Tin, who served on the general staff of North Vietnam's army, received the unconditional surrender of South Vietnam on April 30, 1975. He later became editor of the People's Daily, the official newspaper of Vietnam. He now lives in Paris, where he immigrated after becoming disillusioned with the fruits of Vietnamese communism.

Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,

"We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?

A: Keenly.

Q: Why?

A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.

Q: How could the Americans have won the war?

A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.

Q: Anything else?

A: Train South Vietnam's generals. The junior South Vietnamese officers were good, competent and courageous, but the commanding general officers were inept.

[Note to Mike: President Bush learned from history and was determined not to make the same mistake.]

Q: Did Hanoi expect that the National Liberation Front would win power in South Vietnam?

A: No. Gen. [Vo Nguyen] Giap [commander of the North Vietnamese army] believed that guerrilla warfare was important but not sufficient for victory. Regular military divisions with artillery and armor would be needed. The Chinese believed in fighting only with guerrillas, but we had a different approach. The Chinese were reluctant to help us. Soviet aid made the war possible. Le Duan [secretary general of the Vietnamese Communist Party] once told Mao Tse-tung that if you help us, we are sure to win; if you don't, we will still win, but we will have to sacrifice one or two million more soldiers to do so.

Q: Was the National Liberation Front an independent political movement of South Vietnamese?

A: No. It was set up by our Communist Party to implement a decision of the Third Party Congress of September 1960. We always said there was only one party, only one army in the war to liberate the South and unify the nation. At all times there was only one party commissar in command of the South.

Q: Why was the Ho Chi Minh trail so important?

A: It was the only way to bring sufficient military power to bear on the fighting in the South. Building and maintaining the trail was a huge effort, involving tens of thousands of soldiers, drivers, repair teams, medical stations, communication units.

Q: What of American bombing of the Ho Chi Minh trail?

A: Not very effective. Our operations were never compromised by attacks on the trail. At times, accurate B-52 strikes would cause real damage, but we put so much in at the top of the trail that enough men and weapons to prolong the war always came out the bottom. Bombing by smaller planes rarely hit significant targets.

Q: What of American bombing of North Vietnam?

A: If all the bombing had been concentrated at one time, it would have hurt our efforts. But the bombing was expanded in slow stages under Johnson and it didn't worry us. We had plenty of times to prepare alternative routes and facilities. We always had stockpiles of rice ready to feed the people for months if a harvest were damaged. The Soviets bought rice from Thailand for us.

Q: What was the purpose of the 1968 Tet Offensive?

A: To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year.

Q: What about Gen. Westmoreland's strategy and tactics caused you concern?

A: Our senior commander in the South, Gen. Nguyen Chi Thanh, knew that we were losing base areas, control of the rural population and that his main forces were being pushed out to the borders of South Vietnam. He also worried that Westmoreland might receive permission to enter Laos and cut the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

In January 1967, after discussions with Le Duan, Thanh proposed the Tet Offensive. Thanh was the senior member of the Politburo in South Vietnam. He supervised the entire war effort. Thanh's struggle philosophy was that "America is wealthy but not resolute," and "squeeze tight to the American chest and attack." He was invited up to Hanoi for further discussions. He went on commercial flights with a false passport from Cambodia to Hong Kong and then to Hanoi. Only in July was his plan adopted by the leadership. Then Johnson had rejected Westmoreland's request for 200,000 more troops. We realized that America had made its maximum military commitment to the war. Vietnam was not sufficiently important for the United States to call up its reserves. We had stretched American power to a breaking point. When more frustration set in, all the Americans could do would be to withdraw; they had no more troops to send over.

Tet was designed to influence American public opinion. We would attack poorly defended parts of South Vietnam cities during a holiday and a truce when few South Vietnamese troops would be on duty. Before the main attack, we would entice American units to advance close to the borders, away from the cities. By attacking all South Vietnam's major cities, we would spread out our forces and neutralize the impact of American firepower. Attacking on a broad front, we would lose some battles but win others. We used local forces nearby each target to frustrate discovery of our plans. Small teams, like the one which attacked the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, would be sufficient. It was a guerrilla strategy of hit-and-run raids. [looks like a re-writing of history with the benefit of hindsight]

Q: What about the results?

A: Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.

Q: What of Nixon?

A: Well, when Nixon stepped down because of Watergate we knew we would win. Pham Van Dong [prime minister of North Vietnam] said of Gerald Ford, the new president, "he's the weakest president in U.S. history; the people didn't elect him; even if you gave him candy, he doesn't dare to intervene in Vietnam again." We tested Ford's resolve by attacking Phuoc Long in January 1975. When Ford kept American B-52's in their hangers, our leadership decided on a big offensive against South Vietnam.

Q: What else?

A: We had the impression that American commanders had their hands tied by political factors. Your generals could never deploy a maximum force for greatest military effect.

The Iraq war doomsayers will one day be similarly found guilty of causes untold deaths (like Kerry was for Vietnam - see article below) during the Iraq war because of their protests.

an excerpt from the new book, "Unfit for Command." Here is a particular passage that is most disturbing:

Kerry built to his conclusion with a question that has become the

most repeated part of the speech: “How do you ask a man to be the

last man to die for a mistake?”

The argument presented by Kerry was based on viewing the Vietnam

War as a mistake. If one saw the war as an important step in the

Cold War determination to stop the spread of Communism (a view

held by President Johnson and President Nixon), then asking men to

die was consistent with President Kennedy’s pledge that we would

pay such a precious price to preserve liberty in a free world.

Perhaps this is the question that needs to be asked by the American

people and answered by John Kerry: Who was the last American

POW to die languishing in a North Vietnamese prison, forced to listen

to the recorded voice of John Kerry disgracing his service by dishonest

testimony before the Senate?

Paul Galanti, a Navy pilot who was shot down over Vietnam in

June 1966 and then spent seven years in Communist captivity as a

POW, remembers Kerry’s antiwar rhetoric all too well. Galanti told

the Los Angeles Times in February 2004 that during torture sessions

his North Vietnamese captors had cited antiwar speeches as “an

example of why we should cross over to [their] side.” As far as Galanti

was concerned, “Kerry broke a covenant among servicemen never to

make public criticisms that might jeopardize those still in battle or

in the hands of the enemy.” Galanti’s criticism of Kerry was particularly

biting: “John Kerry was a traitor to the men he served with.”

Now retired and in his sixties, Galanti refuses to abandon his anger

A Testimony of Lies 107

at Kerry. “I don’t plan to set it aside. I don’t know anyone who does,”

he was quoted as saying. “The Vietnam memorial has thousands of

additional names due to John Kerry and others like him.”2

Still, Senator Kerry refuses to consider that his testimony caused

more deaths and prolonged the war in Vietnam by undermining support

at home and contributing directly to a Vietnamese Communist


Here is a quote from John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address:

The contrast with John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address was clear:

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall

pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend,

oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Kerry characterized the Vietnam War not as an effort to save

the country from Communism but as a civil war or, possibly, a war

waged in an effort to free the nation from colonialism, a war in which

our allies, the South Vietnamese, were not defenders of freedom.

Source: "Unfit for Command" by John O'Neill and Jerome L. Corsi; 2004; Chapter Six pp.107 - 108