How Bush blew one of Bill O’Reilly's questions
Bill O’Reilly has just broadcast the first installment of his interview with President Bush. During this interview O’Reilly asked a question that Bush should have not only knocked out of the park but also could have used to disembowel Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and the quagmire-callers in the Democrat elite.
The context of the question pertained to the conflict between the goals of an Iraqi national election in January 05 and the ongoing guerrilla war waged by the insurgents.
Me: OBJECTION! Assertion had bogus premise!
Judge: Please state the bogus premise. (Where’d he come from? –ed)
Me: O’Reilly’s aside incorrectly implied that South Vietnamese valor was the primary cause of North Vietnam’s victory.
Judge: Objection sustained. Please bloviate about the actual cause of North Vietnam’s victory.
Me: With pleasure.
By 1975, the year of North Vietnam’s victory over South Vietnam, the U.S. had withdrawn from South Vietnam. The U.S. was still an ally of South Vietnam and was committed by treaty to provide both supplies and support—including air power—to help South Vietnam to defend itself from North Vietnamese aggression.
In August 1973 US Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment which prohibited US naval forces from sailing on the seas surrounding, US ground forces from operating on the land of, and US air forces from flying in the air over, South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Case–Church was in effect an unconditional guarantee, by the US Congress to the North Vietnamese communists, that the United States would no longer oppose their efforts to conquer South Vietnam. This act effectively nullified the Paris Peace Agreements. The communists had won on the floors of the US Congress what they couldn’t win in either negotiations or on the battlefield.
Senator Edward Kennedy—true to form—was unsatisfied with merely selling-out our ally to the North Vietnamese. Senator Kennedy further compromised our ally’s ability to defend itself by forcing the U.S. to welch on critical military support promised to South Vietnam by passing a $266 million cut in supplemental spending for Vietnam.
North Vietnam, on the other hand, was well supplied and financed by two of the U.S.’ superpower enemies: the USSR and Mainland China. In 1975 North Vietnam assaulted South Vietnam; not with a guerilla army but with a conventional army. The North Vietnamese army, which was made up of seventeen conventional divisions and supported by a host of regular army logistical support units, overran South Vietnam. This totally conventional force (armed, equipped, trained and supplied by Red China and the Soviet Union), spearheaded by 700 Soviet tanks—burning Soviet fuel and firing Soviet ammunition—launched a cross border, frontal attack on South Vietnam and conquered it in the same manner as Hitler conquered most of Europe in WW II.
The South Vietnamese had only 352 US supplied tanks and—due to US Congressional action— South Vietnam was critically short of fuel, ammunition and spare parts.
O’Reilly’s assertion that the South Vietnams didn’t fight is false: South Vietnam’s 18th division destroyed three North Vietnamese divisions before being overrun by six North Vietnamese divisions later. The 18th division fought effectively in spite of the handicaps imposed by congressional Democrats.
South Vietnam fell. The Case-Church Amendment, which prohibited the U.S. from supporting South Vietnam while doing nothing to discourage the USSR and China from supporting North Vietnam, sealed its fate.
The irony is that this Warsaw pact style army was exactly the type of army that the U.S. trained, equipped and organized to defeat. The only thing that prevented the U.S. army from saving South Vietnam from communist aggression—and inflicting yet another crushing defeat on North Vietnam—were the congressional democrats led by Ted Kennedy.
Judge (impatiently): Please bring your statements to a conclusion.
Me: In conclusion, it was the Democrat controlled congress—rather than South Vietnam willingness to fight— is the primary cause of our loss in South Vietnam.
Consequently O’Reilly’s assertion,which Bush inexplicably—and unfortunately—verbally concurred with, is false.
The only obvious parallel between Vietnam and Iraq occurred when Senator Edward Kennedy— the same Senator Kennedy who contributed to our loss in South Vietnam by deliberately under funding her defense—also voted against the $87 billion required to support our troops in Iraq.
Bush should have disputed O’Reilly’s assertion and assigned responsibility for South Vietnam’s defeat to the Democrat controlled 93rd congress (i.e., the congress that was in session in 1973). He should have then described Senator Kennedy’s 1973 pro-enemy activism and equated it—and its logical consequences—to our current struggle in Iraq.
Postscript:
This post is heavily based on Vietnam: Looking Back - At The Facts by K. G. Sears, Ph.D.
I endeavored to find the congressional roll call votes on the 1973 Case-Church amendment that sealed South Vietnam’s fate. My intent was to unequivocally assign responsibility for our defeat in Vietnam to the McGovernite wing of the Democratic party. I was unsuccessful because—as far as I can determine—online records of congressional roll call votes before 1981 are unavailable. I’m asking anyone who knows how to how to access these records to email me on where I can find them.
The context of the question pertained to the conflict between the goals of an Iraqi national election in January 05 and the ongoing guerrilla war waged by the insurgents.
O’REILLY: But can they vote when people are being blown up,
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah.
O’REILLY: And these guys are threatening them, then they vote,
PRESIDENT BUSH: That's when you're supposed to vote. You’ve got to stand tough with these terrorists. You cannot allow the terrorists to dictate whether or not a society can be free or not. Do you remember what happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban pulled the four women off the bus and killed them because they had voter registration cards? I think there had been about three million Afghan citizens who had registered at this point in time. A lot of people said, well, the elections look like they’ve got to be over in Afghanistan, because the Taliban is, too violent to allow the elections to go forward. Today ten million citizens, [OVERLAPPING VOICES] in that country have registered to vote, forty percent of whom are women, which is a powerful statistic.
O’REILLY: The South Vietnamese didn't fight for their freedom, which is why they don’t have it today.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yeah.
Me: OBJECTION! Assertion had bogus premise!
Judge: Please state the bogus premise. (Where’d he come from? –ed)
Me: O’Reilly’s aside incorrectly implied that South Vietnamese valor was the primary cause of North Vietnam’s victory.
Judge: Objection sustained. Please bloviate about the actual cause of North Vietnam’s victory.
Me: With pleasure.
By 1975, the year of North Vietnam’s victory over South Vietnam, the U.S. had withdrawn from South Vietnam. The U.S. was still an ally of South Vietnam and was committed by treaty to provide both supplies and support—including air power—to help South Vietnam to defend itself from North Vietnamese aggression.
In August 1973 US Congress passed the Case-Church Amendment which prohibited US naval forces from sailing on the seas surrounding, US ground forces from operating on the land of, and US air forces from flying in the air over, South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Case–Church was in effect an unconditional guarantee, by the US Congress to the North Vietnamese communists, that the United States would no longer oppose their efforts to conquer South Vietnam. This act effectively nullified the Paris Peace Agreements. The communists had won on the floors of the US Congress what they couldn’t win in either negotiations or on the battlefield.
Senator Edward Kennedy—true to form—was unsatisfied with merely selling-out our ally to the North Vietnamese. Senator Kennedy further compromised our ally’s ability to defend itself by forcing the U.S. to welch on critical military support promised to South Vietnam by passing a $266 million cut in supplemental spending for Vietnam.
North Vietnam, on the other hand, was well supplied and financed by two of the U.S.’ superpower enemies: the USSR and Mainland China. In 1975 North Vietnam assaulted South Vietnam; not with a guerilla army but with a conventional army. The North Vietnamese army, which was made up of seventeen conventional divisions and supported by a host of regular army logistical support units, overran South Vietnam. This totally conventional force (armed, equipped, trained and supplied by Red China and the Soviet Union), spearheaded by 700 Soviet tanks—burning Soviet fuel and firing Soviet ammunition—launched a cross border, frontal attack on South Vietnam and conquered it in the same manner as Hitler conquered most of Europe in WW II.
The South Vietnamese had only 352 US supplied tanks and—due to US Congressional action— South Vietnam was critically short of fuel, ammunition and spare parts.
O’Reilly’s assertion that the South Vietnams didn’t fight is false: South Vietnam’s 18th division destroyed three North Vietnamese divisions before being overrun by six North Vietnamese divisions later. The 18th division fought effectively in spite of the handicaps imposed by congressional Democrats.
South Vietnam fell. The Case-Church Amendment, which prohibited the U.S. from supporting South Vietnam while doing nothing to discourage the USSR and China from supporting North Vietnam, sealed its fate.
The irony is that this Warsaw pact style army was exactly the type of army that the U.S. trained, equipped and organized to defeat. The only thing that prevented the U.S. army from saving South Vietnam from communist aggression—and inflicting yet another crushing defeat on North Vietnam—were the congressional democrats led by Ted Kennedy.
Judge (impatiently): Please bring your statements to a conclusion.
Me: In conclusion, it was the Democrat controlled congress—rather than South Vietnam willingness to fight— is the primary cause of our loss in South Vietnam.
Consequently O’Reilly’s assertion,which Bush inexplicably—and unfortunately—verbally concurred with, is false.
The only obvious parallel between Vietnam and Iraq occurred when Senator Edward Kennedy— the same Senator Kennedy who contributed to our loss in South Vietnam by deliberately under funding her defense—also voted against the $87 billion required to support our troops in Iraq.
Bush should have disputed O’Reilly’s assertion and assigned responsibility for South Vietnam’s defeat to the Democrat controlled 93rd congress (i.e., the congress that was in session in 1973). He should have then described Senator Kennedy’s 1973 pro-enemy activism and equated it—and its logical consequences—to our current struggle in Iraq.
Postscript:
This post is heavily based on Vietnam: Looking Back - At The Facts by K. G. Sears, Ph.D.
I endeavored to find the congressional roll call votes on the 1973 Case-Church amendment that sealed South Vietnam’s fate. My intent was to unequivocally assign responsibility for our defeat in Vietnam to the McGovernite wing of the Democratic party. I was unsuccessful because—as far as I can determine—online records of congressional roll call votes before 1981 are unavailable. I’m asking anyone who knows how to how to access these records to email me on where I can find them.
posted by johnh | 7:39 AM
<< Home