Speak Out: obama Praises Ho Chi Minh

Replies (77)

• Everyone needs a hero.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jul 25, 2013, at 6:22 PM

• The greatest insult to Vietnam Vets are the politicians who sent them to a foreign land to die for no reason other than politics and the U.S. government's desire to support a corrupt South Vietnamese government.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jul 25, 2013, at 8:15 PM

• The Japanese were writing letters to FDR and staff right up to the time the bombs were on the way to Pear Harbor.

  Only Obama would take a letter to Truman from Ho Chi Minh as cue to equate communist agression with the pricipals of the American Revolution.

  -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 25, 2013, at 8:25 PM

• The letter asks for President Truman's help in preventing the French from re-colonizing Vietnam, and allowing them to gain independance.

  Sounds similar to what Franklin might have communicated to the French in 1775 to request their assistance in helping us gain independence from England. The anti-colonial spirit in America then was not very different from the anti-colonial feeeling in Vietnam in 1946.

  Another detail that could be applicable is that when Ho Chi Minh was a student in Paris, the only organization that was willing to help him in his anti-colonial efforts was the student communist party. Had Truman convinced the French to abandon their colonies in Southeast Asia, Ho Chi Minh may not have turned to the communists again.

  Just for the record I was in Vietnam from 1969 to 1970, and two more times in 1972 and 1973. I strongly supported the US military efforts then and now. The political decisions made in the US Embassy and in Washington is essentially what doomed the Vietnamese people.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 25, 2013, at 9:02 PM

• Didn't/don't agree with Ho Chi Minh's politics, but have to respect him for doing what any patriot would do, fight to defend the country he loved against foreign invaders. (Not to mention, he kicked both invader's @sses, French and American)

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jul 25, 2013, at 9:29 PM

• "...kicked both invader's @sses, French and American..."

  That's not quite true. He died before the end of the "American war." Furthermore, the US military withdrew from the war by politcal direction rather than being expelled or forced out by the North Vietnamese army.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 25, 2013, at 10:02 PM

• Call it what you will, fact is, little bitty Ho Chi and his tiny country defeated the French and the world's most advanced and biggest budgeted military in the world. N.Vietnam 2, foreign invaders 0.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jul 25, 2013, at 10:10 PM

• Somehow I missed the NVA marching down Pennsylvania Avenue and taking possession of the White House and the Capital.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 25, 2013, at 10:41 PM

• In my lifetime there has never been a societal rift in this country like the Vietnam War years until now.

  -- Posted by bothedog on Thu, Jul 25, 2013, at 10:43 PM

• "Had Truman convinced the French to abandon their colonies in Southeast Asia, Ho Chi Minh may not have turned to the communists again."

  I'm not well versed in the history of that era. Thanks Common for pointing that out.

  Sounds like another time a democrat president was on the wrong side.

  You said "again". When did Ho Chi Minh turn to the communist before?

  -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 25, 2013, at 10:57 PM

• Somehow I missed the NVA marching down Pennsylvania Avenue and taking possession of the White House and the Capital.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 25, 2013, at 10:41pm

  Exactly. The NVA never had a desire nor ever threatened the U.S.A. Hence, the U.S. government had no reason to send our military to Vietnam to be shipped home in body bags. Well, maybe so. The military industrial complex did reap billions in profit off that war.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jul 26, 2013, at 6:12 AM

• As someone here says frequently,I am a bit mix fused. Assumptions are something I rarely make but I found myself making one. I made an assumption about common when he posted about going to college and working part time on a farm. I assumed at that point he was rather young. I believe someone even referred to his young age. I don't think he confirmed or denied that. Another assumption. I guess a 60 something can still be a college student,so my bad. Why 60 something? If he was in the service in 1969 that would not be an assumption. I apologize for being confused.

  One other thing,though, if common served a tour in Vietnam in 1973 why was he going when most were coming home in March of that year?

  -- Posted by bothedog on Fri, Jul 26, 2013, at 9:58 AM

• "..Vietnam from 1969 to 1970, and two more times in 1972 and 1973.

  A year from March 1969 to March 1970 as a construction engineer. November - December 1972 with the advisory group to the VNAF, and back again in January 1973 in the same job. I did not say I served 12 months during the last two trips. Sorry about the "mixfusion."

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 26, 2013, at 11:22 AM

• No problem common. Appreciate the clarification.

  -- Posted by bothedog on Fri, Jul 26, 2013, at 11:37 AM

• Just one of many links by those unable to use Google.

  http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/07/25/Obama-Praises-Communist-Dictator-A...

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jul 26, 2013, at 12:05 PM

• "by"

  Make that 'for'.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jul 26, 2013, at 12:28 PM

• A big part of the problem with the author of these quotes is that they appear to know next to nothing about the history of Vietnam. The buzz-words always seem to be "evil communists" and in many cases this is not far from the truth. In the case of Vietnam and Ho Chi Minh, nationalism and freedom from colonialism came first and communism second.

  While we fought in Vietnam to engage communism, the Vietnamese were fighting for freedom just as our "founding fathers" had done. The US military operated in Vietnam under externally imposed restraints, and our efforts constantly needed to be exercised through the Army of Vietnam soldiers. A conclusion drawn by a senior advisor could easily have been...

  "With respect to our working with the South Vietnamese military, we concluded that the biggest single cause of the failure of the ARVN is that their government was unsuccessful in convincing their soldiers that they were fighting for something that they, the soldiers themselves, valued. Telling them that they were fighting worldwide communism meant nothing to them. They could see they were only fighting other Vietnamese. The VC and NVA on the other hand, were convinced that they were fighting for the freedom of Vietnam. The difference in motivation between opposing sides was unparalleled."

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 26, 2013, at 1:08 PM

• So Common, what are you trying to say... that Ho Chi Minh was a "Good" communist?

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Jul 26, 2013, at 1:23 PM

• "...what are you trying to say..."

  Exactly what is stated above. He was a nationalist first, and a communist second. Nothing was said about "good."

  They were fighting for freedom from colonial rule and occupiers, and to determine their own future.

  Incidently, the Vietnamese have been independent for almost 5000 years, interrupted by long periods of Chinese domination. One of the earliest insurgencies began during the Chinese Millennium (111 BC -- 939 AD).

  The Chinese conquest of Vietnam is their foremost concern and has been since 1428 when the Chinese were last expelled from their country, which left them free for about 300 years until the French showed up.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 26, 2013, at 2:34 PM

• Rick, I often wonder why FDR and his government never put people of Italian and German ancestry in internment camps.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jul 26, 2013, at 5:59 PM

• -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 26, 2013, at 1:08 PM--

  Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 26, 2013, at 2:34 PM

  Great points. Well said.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jul 26, 2013, at 6:01 PM

• So he was fighting for freedom from colonial rule and occupiers, and to establish his own rule as a communist style dictater?

  Why didn't the south end go along if it was all about keeping themselves out from under foreign rule?

  -- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 26, 2013, at 11:22 PM

• In the south, the Viet Minh and later the Viet Cong were doing exactly that.

  Since President Truman was unable to convince the French to grant Vietnam Freedom, they came back and were eventually left after Dien Bien Phu.

  But before leaving, the French established a separate government in the South, inspite of the requirement that the 2 halves of Vietnam were supposed to have a free election to determine their future. An election that Ho Chi Minh would have won handily, as he was their leader in opposing the French, the japanese and then the French again.

  When the country-wide elections were not held and the non-communist government was threatened, they appealed to the US for help. And to avoid the communist "dominos" from falling throughout SE Asis, we plunged in.

  Clearly, the complete history is far more complicated, but this is the basic story.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 27, 2013, at 7:38 AM

• "Since President Truman was unable to convince the French to grant Vietnam Freedom, they came back and were eventually left after Dien Bien Phu."

  Common,

  It sounds like you are trying to "sanitize" history again. I was young and certainly no expert on Vietnam, I never remembered Truman trying to talk the French into leaving. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

  The following excerpt from an article I read, doesn't seem to back your suggestion that Truman had much to do with the French leaving or even asking them to.

  "Ho had sought American support throughout his struggle against the French. In 1943, he initiated contacts with U.S. intelligence agents in southern China and the Viet Minh, it was reported, helped rescue American pilots downed behind Japanese lines, and may have even received light armaments from the Office of Strategic Services [OSS]. Just as he had approached Woodrow Wilson at Versailles, Ho wrote letters to President Harry S Truman in 1945 seeking friendship and assistance, but Washington D.C. never even acknowledged his overtures."

  http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/fbb2.htm

  ????

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Jul 27, 2013, at 9:12 AM

• "...trying to "sanitize" history again."

  What is being "sanitized?"

  President Truman being unable to convince the French to leave Vietnam is correct. It actually started with FDR. Recall that the US was a very early "anti-colonial" power.

  "During the Second World War, President Roosevelt and Ho Chi Minh had been united in their desire to end French colonial rule. Ho was convinced that the US would support his fight for the freedom they had battled for in 'their own heroic struggle for independence'. Roosevelt had been determined not to let the French take back the colony they had lost to the Japanese. Like many Americans imbued with a strong sense of anti-colonialism, he disliked the 'poor colonizers' who had 'badly managed' Indochina, and felt that it was time for the US to accept the forces of nationalism in Asia, while preserving access to the region's wealth of raw materials."

  "Washington needed French co-operation in the reconstruction of Western Europe along US policy lines, and this requirement made it impossible for the US to condemn or attempt to alter French policy in Indochina."

  http://www.historytoday.com/sami-abouzahr/tangled-web-america-france-and-indochi...

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 27, 2013, at 11:16 AM

• I think a Google search of "Obama anti-colonialist" will bring up plenty of insight to why Obama made the remarks.

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 27, 2013, at 11:30 AM

• Did we go to war in Vietnam for oil?

  From one site:

  "It depends on who you believe. Many claim it was an attempt to stop the spread of Communism from China. That seems naive, however, given the long history of oil corporations controlling governments and fabricating "reasons" for War. Specific to Vietnam was the study in the 1920's by future U.S. president Herbert Hoover in which one of the world's largest oil fields was discovered off the coast of what was then known as French Indo-China. General MacArthur supplied weapons to Ho Chi Minh in order to drive out the French, not the Chinese, and the war was just a coverup for a massive oil survey conducted by Rockefeller's Standard Oil company. After the war was over, various worldwide companies won bids for drilling, but Standard was the only one that actually struck oil. Only a deluded person would believe that was a coincidence."

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 27, 2013, at 12:06 PM

• "General MacArthur supplied weapons to Ho Chi Minh in order to drive out the French, not the Chinese..."

  You don't think the Japanese had something to do with this?

  - - - - - - - -

  "....worldwide companies won bids for drilling..."

  Yet, very little, if any oil was drilled for.

  - - - - - - - -

  "...search of "Obama anti-colonialist" will bring up plenty..."

  Try googling other "anti-colonialists" like Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, etc. Is being "anti-colonliaist" supposed to be a bad thing? I'd say the President Obama is in good company.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 27, 2013, at 12:28 PM

• "The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is being governed by a ghost."

  There have been innumerable asinine statements and quote posted over the years, but this has got to be the dumbest, or if not that, the second dumbest.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 27, 2013, at 12:33 PM

• Common, You start out making logical and informative posts then turn to your defend Obama no matter what mode.

  My recent post was not intended to be an attack on your idol. :)

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 27, 2013, at 1:02 PM

• While much of this discussion on the hows and whys of the Vietnam War may be "factually true," it is, at the very least, morally and politically problematic to throw Thomas Jefferson out as an "inspiration" to a man whose very name is shorthand for the slaughter of millions. You don't even have to know anything about history to know that the likes of Stalin and Ho Chi Minh are not on the list of people you should be tacitly praising. Sure, there are communist chic figures like Che Guevera who made it out of history with their crimes covered and their murderous legacies masked by cool t-shirts, but Ho Chi Minh doesn't even make it into that category. The ranks of the communist chic are a lot bigger in a tony, super-liberal, yuppy radical neighborhood like Hyde Park, but surely Obama learned to put such things out of his vocabulary better than this. Nope. My guess is this is where this comes from. He's speaking off the cuff, he's trying to be agreeable, and he reverts to a comfort zone of calmly stated professorial radicalism that was a-okay in the parlors of Hyde Park. He doesn't think about being utterly careless with the legacy of those who fought and died in Vietnam, those who perished at the hands of leaders like Ho Chi Minh, and those who escaped them but still suffer trauma. I lost six friends. Three in body bags and three more that still can't shake it off. They came back but are still there,so to speak. I have only won one lottery in my life,the first draft lottery, but somehow I still feel I cheated those six friends.

  -- Posted by bothedog on Sat, Jul 27, 2013, at 2:03 PM

• "of "Obama anti-colonialist"

  So what is that supposed to mean, particularly in light of our founding fathers being anti-colonialist?

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 27, 2013, at 3:10 PM

• "...to a man whose very name is shorthand for the slaughter of millions."

  I believe you would be hard pressed to show how and where Ho Chi Minh "slaughtered millions" as did the likes of Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Hitler.

  I did not praise him. My contention was that he was a nationalist first and sought freedom for his country.

  Frankly the majority of your post above seems to ramble. Hyde Park does not seem to have much to do with anything, other than being the birthplace of FDR and he was willing to support the Vietnamese in their struggle to free themselves from the French. I also lost friends in Vietnam, but understand why they were there and what happened.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 27, 2013, at 3:33 PM

• Common,the main point being,as much as the president loves to hear himself talk it would do him well to just shut up occasionally.

  -- Posted by bothedog on Sat, Jul 27, 2013, at 4:40 PM

• ".... particularly in light of our founding fathers being anti-colonialist?"

  I reckon 'in light of' is the same as 'in seeing that'. You are seeing that, not me.

  The founders didn't rebel because they were colonies, they rebelled because of taxation without representaton. The English establihed the colonies with Englishmen via a business deal, they did not colonize the natives.

  I see little evidence of Obama being in company with the founders, but I do see why he sees himself instep with Roosevelt and Lincoln. They too did things beyond their contitutionl authority.

  -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 27, 2013, at 11:34 PM

• "...they rebelled because of taxation without representation."

  That seems to be rebellion against being ruled from afar, without the right to determine their own future and government. Sounds like what the Vietnamese did.

  Do you really think that had King George allowed the colonies a seat in the House of Lords and one in the House of Commons, that this "representation" would have prevented the American Revolution and we would have continued to be contented little colonies like Canada, Australia, South Africa or India. I don't believe so.

  - - - - - - - -

  "The English established the colonies with Englishmen via a business deal, they did not colonize the natives."

  So the American Revolutionary War was not to found a new nation conceived in liberty, it was merely the result of a business deal gone bad.

  You may want to consider the fact that by 1775, people had been living in "the colonies" for over 150 years. They were the colonized natives. Granted the real native Americans did not make very good slaves or workers, since so many fought back, moved away, or were wiped out by disease. This is partly why they had to import black "natives" so as to have some to "colonize."

  - - - - - - - -

  "...being in company with the founders..."

  Whether he is or isn't was not argued. Upon someone accusing the President of being "anti-colonialist" I simply the the founding fathers were too, and it's a commendable trait.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 28, 2013, at 7:31 AM

• "...this was one of the links I cut and pasted , they are not my words."

  Rest assured that I never thought nor implied that you were "asinine." It was only the quote that was posted, and I knew it was "cut and pasted."

  - - - - - - -

  "...his each and every word is not the Gospel truth to me as it is to another."

  It is not to me either. Were you to go back to other posts, you find numerous instances where I disagreed with the President's positions and thought he should have acted differently.

  Fortunately, I can disagree with President Obama without considering him the "scum of the earth," or denouncing his every movement or statement.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 28, 2013, at 1:24 PM

• "...your Trayvon Martin posts are 'asinine,' so don't blame me for your own faults."

  So it is a "fault" of mine that I understand that no witness saw how the fight started. Based on that I believe that it is possible that Zimmerman shared responsibility for the conflict.

  I did not disagree with the not-guilty verdict for 2nd degree murder. So what is "asinine" about stating my opinions about those issues?

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 28, 2013, at 1:34 PM

• So what is "asinine" about stating my opinions about those issues?

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 28, 2013, at 1:34 PM

  I think this is the 2% that he was talking about. Perhaps it is the other 98% that are suspect.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jul 28, 2013, at 1:56 PM

• Simple

  It was a French war and we blindly stepped in. Lyndon Johnson decided they could simply whip them and leave so here goes operation Rolling Thunder. As usual the Democrats wouldn't look back at history and see that everyone that tried to whip them got sent home crying just as we did. HO was our friend at one time and as usual we turned on him as we do most of out allies.

  Obama liked him because he likes communist views.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jul 28, 2013, at 6:47 PM

• "...he likes communist views."

  That's just ridiculous and illogical.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 28, 2013, at 8:11 PM

• Common

  Easy to use the generic rebuttal............. Huh?

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jul 28, 2013, at 8:39 PM

• "...he likes communist views."

  That may wll be you opinion, but that's all it is. You have no proof of that whatsoever.

  The illogical aspect of it is that all you can base your opinion on is hearsay from conservative extremists.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 28, 2013, at 9:14 PM

• So maybe he had a professor once that claimed to be a communist, big deal. I have a close friend whose wife's grandfather was once the leader of the American Communist Party. What does that make her, or him, or me? There's absolutely no effect at all.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 28, 2013, at 9:19 PM

• Read many opinions on several blogs and websites about this meeting. Most seemed to be on par with the following piece from Politico. After what I read it does seem that any comment about the former Communist leader of North Vietnam by Obama was ridiculous,unwarranted and insulting:

  Vietnam has a terrible and worsening human rights record, marked by systematic suppression of freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, media censorship, and repression of labor rights. Increasingly nervous about its hold on power, the ruling Communist Party has stepped up its persecution of citizens who question the government's actions or call for democratic elections.

  Since 2008, the last time the White House hosted a Vietnamese leader, the government has jailed a growing number of dissidents, bloggers, and religious leaders, whom the party-controlled courts have sentenced to increasingly lengthy sentences. Convictions in political cases in the first half of 2013 have already overtaken the total in 2012, which in turn exceeded the numbers in 2011 and 2010.

  Worse, the crackdown on dissidents is but one facet of Vietnam's rights problems. Abuses include torture and killings by police, confiscation of land without due process and compensation, and persecution of underground religious groups and ethnic minorities. Motorists who argue with police are beaten. Farmers' land is stolen from them. People of faith are forced to renounce it. Ethnic minorities are persecuted for organizing to fight discrimination. Many Vietnamese struggle under this spell of unchecked brutality, either bloodied when trying to challenge it, or forced into quiet submission.

  The Obama administration knows what the problems are, and insists that it raises human rights issues in its dialogues with the Vietnamese government. And this is true. The U.S. Embassy in Hanoi routinely intervenes and presses Vietnam on human rights cases, and the State Department engages in a yearly human rights dialogue with Vietnam. The White House has given assurances to members of Congress and rights groups that human rights concerns will be "raised" during the visit.

  But it is not clear whether specific cases and problems will be raised, and whether they will be raised publicly. In his public remarks, will Obama mention specific cases, such as convicted dissident Cu Huy Ha Vu, the outspoken blogger Nguyen Van Hai (Dieu Cay), and the lawyer Le Quoc Quan, a persistent critic of the government awaiting trial on spurious "tax evasion" charges?

  Strong presidential statements are important. In May 2012, Obama mentioned Nguyen Van Hai in a statement on World Press Freedom Day, praising his courage amid a "mass crackdown on citizen journalism in Vietnam." The embassy has also raised concerns about Le Quoc Quan on several occasions -- interventions that probably had some part in his release from prison on a previous occasion. These public statements send a message to brave activists in Vietnam that the world stands with them, and put pressure on the Vietnamese government to change course.

  Ultimately, however, raising human rights issues is not enough. The real question is whether the administration is willing to put sustained pressure and take substantive measures to address Vietnam's broader human rights situation. A failure to address the bigger picture -- and go beyond intervention in specific cases -- may have the effect of emboldening Hanoi: letting its leaders think they can get what they want from the United States while paying only lip service to human rights.

  On July 24, the day before the visit, several U.S. unions and labor groups called on the administration to suspend Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade negotiations with Vietnam until key rights issues are addressed. Several members of Congress have asked the White House to consider this course as well.

  The administration's hope, several years ago, was that opening up trade negotiations and a military strategic dialogue with Vietnam would serve as an incentive for the government to make changes, and perhaps soften its authoritarian edge. It now appears that hope was misplaced.

  It is clear that U.S. policy needs to change -- the question is how. The United States needs to start linking its economic and other relations with Vietnam to specific human rights reforms. And the message on this should be clear and public. As a first step, Obama should order the U.S. Trade Representative to make its basic demands in the TPP process public, so that workers and citizens in Vietnam -- and the United States -- can determine that basic labor rights are being upheld.

  But the Obama administration should also be asking itself a more fundamental question: Should the United States continue to engage in business as usual with a government that criminalizes the act of calling for democracy, and shows no inclination toward reform?

  It's seems Obama only sought to praise and glamorize the man whose policies President Sang follows.

  -- Posted by bothedog on Sun, Jul 28, 2013, at 10:04 PM

• The illogical aspect of it is that all you can base your opinion on is hearsay from conservative extremists. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 28, 2013, at 9:14 PM

  Once again you have comprehension issues. Apparently you don't know the difference between "having a communist professor" and "choosing your communist professors as friends". From Obama's own book "Dreams of My Father" (a communist) - "I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos.The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists."

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jul 28, 2013, at 10:55 PM

• You clearly did a good job of copying Mr. Sifton's opinion, except for leaving out the first paragraph. Possibly Human Rights Watch might seek out the worst abuses and gloss over what improvements have been made.

  "...any comment about the former Communist leader of North Vietnam by Obama was ridiculous, unwarranted and insulting" except for the points made in the paragraph below. While human rights are important, so is the overall picture of our relationships with Asia.

  "President Barack Obama is hosting an uncommon visitor at the White House today: the president of Vietnam, Truong Tan Sang. Among the topics for discussion, the White House says, are trade and closer security and military ties. Human rights are also on the agenda, but as the administration pursues its Asia "pivot" or "rebalance," the question is how hard Obama will push the leader of the long-entrenched one-party state."

  The entire opinion piece could be re-written, substituting China for Vietnam and Chinese dissidents for Vietnamese dissidents and little else would have to change, yet "...we continue to engage in business as usual with a [Chinese] government that criminalizes the act of calling for democracy, and shows no inclination toward reform."

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 29, 2013, at 5:39 AM

• Soooo,common,the allmighty dollar trumps human rights. I just knew you were one of those dastardly Republicans in disguise. You have run around in a circle till you ran right up your own *ss.

  -- Posted by bothedog on Mon, Jul 29, 2013, at 6:13 AM

• As often before, you are somewhat confused, although it is gratifying to see that you recognize the republican's obsession with money.

  I said nothing about putting "the almighty dollar" first, I just pointed out that other factors have impact. Attempting to hold all other issues hostage for human rights improvements alone, has seldom been effective.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 29, 2013, at 6:55 AM

• What does "...choosing your communist professors as friends..." really mean? I have friends that are Catholic, but that does not make me one; I have friends that are Jewish, but that does not make me one; I even have a son and a daughter that are relatively conservative (not fanatical) but that does not make me one.

  Dug, are you by chance related to the former Senator Joe McCarthy? He also saw commies under every bed and was absolutely delusional about exposing non-existent, imaginary communists.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 29, 2013, at 9:06 AM

• "I even have a son and a daughter that are relatively conservative"

  Is it possible they take after their Mother, who is possibly the wiser in the household? ☺ ☺

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 29, 2013, at 9:23 AM

• Does putting a Professed Communist (who had to resign) in your cabinet mean anything?

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 29, 2013, at 9:24 AM

• Commons children must have had smart mother.

  -- Posted by bothedog on Mon, Jul 29, 2013, at 10:08 AM

• "...their Mother, who is possibly the wiser in the household?"

  Could be but she's more liberal than I am.

  - - - - - -

  Does putting a Professed Communist (who had to resign) in your cabinet mean anything?

  No. There are and have been republicans in the cabinet, nothing wrong with that (not that republicans and communists are the same.)

  - - - - - -

  "Communists put the state and party above the people."

  OK, but what does that have to do with the United States, or President Obama for that matter?

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 29, 2013, at 11:09 AM

• On the contrary, I think there are a number examples of both parties putting themselves "above the people," but it is not always the case.

  A recent example is the republican party vying to regain power by trying to make the current administration fail. They have clearly been doing what they feel is best for their party rather than what's best for all Americans.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 29, 2013, at 11:35 AM

• They have clearly been doing what they feel is best for their party rather than what's best for all Americans.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 29, 2013, at 11:35 AM

  And of course the current crop of Democrats aren't doing that. Give us a break Common, most of Washington are a bunch of self serving individuals, with their chief sitting in the White House. He tells us to tighten our belts and then spends millions of our money on vacations. He is a little King wannabe in the Marie Antoinette "Let them eat cake" style.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 29, 2013, at 12:07 PM

• "Vietnam will eventually become a capitalist nation through trade. It already on its way to becoming capitalist having its first billionaire."

  That is true. Communism doesn't work. Capitalism does work.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jul 29, 2013, at 7:15 PM

• That is true. Communism doesn't work. Capitalism does work.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jul 29, 2013, at 7:15 PM

  Has anyone informed the U.S. government of this groundbreaking news? Allowing capitalism to work just may be what the country needs to turn the economy around.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Jul 29, 2013, at 7:58 PM

• But the President likes Communism instead.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jul 29, 2013, at 8:51 PM

• Huh. Well, that's a shame. Personally I think we ought to at least give free market capitalism a shot.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Jul 29, 2013, at 9:07 PM

• FFF

  I would say it is too late. Too many people have found they can vote themselves largess from the treasury.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jul 29, 2013, at 9:30 PM

• So, for whom do I vote and how/where do I apply for my share of the treasury largess?

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Jul 30, 2013, at 6:11 AM

• Vote Democrat quit being productive and get on the bus.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jul 30, 2013, at 10:38 AM

• Can I sit on the front seat of the bus?

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Jul 30, 2013, at 6:54 PM

• That is reserved for Common.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jul 30, 2013, at 8:12 PM

• The back of the bus is full of republicans. No room. Can't sit in front. Reserved. Can I drive the bus?

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Jul 30, 2013, at 9:56 PM

• As Shapley has pointed out, don't matter where you sit or who is driving. The bus is headed the same direction, just a matter of speed.

  -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jul 30, 2013, at 10:25 PM

• -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Jul 30, 2013, at 9:56 PM

  Make sure its a head-on when it crashes.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Jul 30, 2013, at 10:30 PM

• Can I sue the bus manufacturer after the crash? Collect disability if I get a booboo? How does crashing the bus put free money in my pocket?

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Jul 30, 2013, at 10:38 PM

• Can I sue the bus manufacturer after the crash? -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Jul 30, 2013, at 10:38 PM

  Does the IRS/NSA show you donated/supported/voted for Obama's campaign? YES - you can sue.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jul 31, 2013, at 7:07 AM

• I bounced a check to the obama campaign. Does that count?

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Jul 31, 2013, at 7:31 AM

• Just as long as you voted for him it's OK.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Jul 31, 2013, at 8:06 AM

• Voted for him 12 times. Bonus points?

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Jul 31, 2013, at 8:15 AM

• Kinda like when Reagan honored SS soldiers.

  -- Posted by Spaniard on Wed, Jul 31, 2013, at 7:28 PM

  Spaniard, Some of us with a lesser degree of know it all may not be aware of that.

  I for one would like to hear you share more of that kinda like.

  -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jul 31, 2013, at 10:12 PM

• Well good for Reagan.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Aug 1, 2013, at 6:04 AM

• Did Reagan apologize to the Germans?

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Aug 1, 2013, at 7:55 AM

• "Did Reagan apologize to the Germans?"

  That's kind of silly. Why would he do that?

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Aug 1, 2013, at 8:46 AM