Saturday, April 30, 2005

Wrong then, wrong now.

Today represents the 30th anniversary of the fall of Saigon. In commeration I post these quotes of those on the left shortly before that sad day. Even to this day they cannot admit their wrong or the untold suffering that they, and those like them brought about through their naivete and leftist ideology.

"Vietnam should teach us an important lesson. Hanoi [is creating] a collectivist society . . . likely to produce greater welfare and security for its people than any local alternative ever offered, at a cost in freedom that affects a small elite." -- Stanley Hoffman
The New Republic
May 3, 1975

"The greatest gift our country can give the Cambodian people is not guns but peace. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now." -- Rep. Chris Dodd (D., Conn.)
Congressional Record
March 12, 1975

"It is ironic that we are here at a time just before Vietnam is about to be liberated." -- Producer Bert Schneider
Academy Awards
April 8, 1975


beakerkin said...

Thirty Years of repression and misery. In the end the protesters and the Vietnamese and Cambodian people lost.

The sad part is few people talk of the Montagnards. I will try to find the article but they are suffering.

If you get a chance try this link

The behavior of the protesters made me a Republican.

Jason_Pappas said...

I’ve made mistakes in my life and have great regret. But it is amazing how notable people – writers and senators – said such stupid things and were so deadly wrong but still show no signs of regret.

In addition to Vietnam the New Republic has a sorry record going way back. All through out the 1930s the New Republic was an apologist for Stalin. Here is a sample of some of my favorites (from the book “Liberals and Communism”:

The New Republic’s [view was that the] basic belief that a workers’ state was nonimperialist and nonaggressive because it had eliminated the principal cause of war under capitalism – the profit motive. Russia, the editors said, was ‘no longer an imperialist power,’ but the ‘world’s first communist state.’”

The editors of The New Republic wrote: ‘Stalin is not and never has been a dictator in Russia, in the same sense in which a Mussolini … is a dictator.’” “Instead, there was a dictatorship of the Communist Party; Stalin, according to Davis and Bruce Bliven, could be deposed any time the Party was dissatisfied.”

The editors of The New Republic were willing to temporize earlier. Bliven and Soule did not like the absence of civil liberties, but they refused to make any outright condemnation of Russian justice.

“By mid-February 1937 The New Republic had firmly established its official ‘know-nothing’ attitude [with regards to Stalin’s “Great Terror”]. … only speculation was possible. … Although both The New Republic and The Nation adopted this position, neither was truly ‘agnostic.’ The Nation tended to give the benefit of the doubt to the government … “

“The New Republic coupled its plea for suspended judgment with a plea for unity. Refusing to see in the trials any evidence of a violation of civil liberties requiring liberal protest, … [Feb 1937] … ‘we do not know enough … we should turn our attention to matters near at home.’”

“In the twenties the editors of The New Republic had regarded Trotsky as a fanatical dogmatist and Stalin as a pragmatic and flexible leader, capable of adjusting his ideas to changing circumstances.”

Warren said...

Thank you Jason!
Much appreciated.

You once again prove, there are some things so stupid only an "intellectual" would believe them. Even if you do have to taken the definition of intellectual downward.

And many of them still believe the tripe they publish in the face of reality. Of course, some of them don't really believe.

But you'll never make a good Marxist if you have a problem with lying and "The New Republic", has historically been, full of good Marxists.

(sigh), Another book I have to read.


drummaster2001 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.