I have generally been in agreement with comments by nearly all the GOP presidential candidates that any one of them would be better than the current occupant of the White House, Barack Hussein Obama.
That is, until I watched the ABC News version of a "debate" Saturday night, which actually was an ABC News version of "gotcha," and was generally worthless except to expose Jon Huntsman as a consummate insider with an 60's era anti-military bias. (It should be noted that Huntsman's last job was Ambassador to China for none other than Barack Hussein Obama which essentially disqualified him from consideration in my mind anyway.)
Huntsman's attitude toward the military was revealed during one of the most asinine exchanges of the night - which really is saying something - over whether an American president should be a military veteran to be an effective commander-in-chief of the armed forces. The question served as a vehicle to attack Newt Gingrich, and to showcase the military service of Ron Paul and Rick Perry.
Mr. Paul was drafted soon after he received his medical degree and served as an Air Force flight surgeon from 1963 to 1965, well before the US committed major forces to Vietnam, and then did another three years in the Texas Air National Guard from 1965 to 1968. OK, he did two years performing flight physicals on pilots and air crew members to clear them for flight status, not exactly hazardous duty, but still, he was in, and then he did three more years of the one weekend each month and two weeks in the summer bit.
But Paul also has called Mr. Gingrich a "chicken-hawk" because Gingrich, who grew up in an Army family, and lived his entire childhood moving from one army base to another, didn't get drafted to serve in the military during Vietnam. Now, that is a low blow to begin with, and not worthy of true debate on the issues facing America, but this is where Huntsman got into it and lost my vote forever.
Gingrich was saying something about requiring leadership in the position, not necessarily military experience and how the commander in chief has to rely on his military leaders to give him the advice he needs to make the right decisions. Gingrich has a point since I doubt a flight surgeon, even one who may be an outstanding doctor, knows very much about the order of battle.
Up jumps Huntsman with a snide comment about the advice the American military gave to the president in 1967, an obvious reference to the oft-repeated and wholly inaccurate media claims that the military didn't know the Tet Offensive which the communist's launched on Jan. 31, 1968 was coming. In fact, the South Vietnamese military was on reduced alert because they had trusted the communist leaders who offered a cease fire so both sides could observe the traditional New Year.
Obviously the communists lied, which should have surprised no one, but it didn't matter because American forces - aided by South Vietnamese who were on duty and others who made it back to their units - responded magnificently and handed the communists their worst defeat of the war to that point. The liars on the American side were politicians, like Huntsman, and the media, like the stooges at ABC "news" who moderated Saturday night's alleged "debate."
(I think the most laughable issue of the night was a question by George Stephanopoulos who is famous for revealing in the 2000 elections that he didn't know the Florida panhandle is in the Central Time Zone, about whether states should have the right to ban contraceptives. Mitt Romney handled that one very well ... No states want to so what's your point?)
We don't need to re-fight the Vietnam War here, history will be the final judge, but the American military never lost a single major engagement in that war. While we lost 58,000 troops trying to prevent world communism from taking over all of Southeast Asia, the communists lost by their own admission more than one-million troops, some sources say it was more like 1.5 million, and the Viet Cong guerrilla forces were wiped out.
Vietnam didn't fall until people that Huntsman probably thinks of as heroes forced the South Vietnamese to sign the absolutely worthless Paris Peace accords in 1973, and then the US Congress passed the Case-Church resolution which ended all aid to the south, economic, military and humanitarian. Two years later the communists invaded the south, which fell, and then went on a five-year rampage of torture, slaughter and butchery that left millions dead and millions more displaced.
That was not the fault of America's military, it was 100 percent the fault of America's interfering politicians ... guys like Huntsman, and a media that was so biased in favor of the communists there should have been treason trials. So in my opinion, you vote for a guy like Huntsman, you are voting for Obama all over again. Hopefully Huntsman will be gone soon enough.
As far as the posturing about military service I would advise Mr. Gingrich that the next time he encounters that crap he should point out that less than 10 percent of all living Americans are serving or have served in the military. But that doesn't negate the service of tens of millions of other Americans who have honorably served in other ways - and support the military in any way they can.
In fact, the original question and the responses quite frankly are an insult to those Americans. Gingrich should point that out and Mr. Paul should stop posturing as some kind of hero. The fact that he served should be enough.
Sunday, January 08, 2012