Got any links documenting these "John Birchers calling Patti a stooge and dim-witted pawn of Ho"?

Whatever dude. All evidence is crammed into your belief system. FDR died before war's end, you might recall. I can't say for certain what his plans were any more than you can. I've read of reports from associates of his who said he felt injustice had been perpetrated in Indochina for some time.

But don't mind me. Go back to what you were doing.

LOL, A fine example of the application of Alinsky rule #4. Good show!!!

What?! Could you be a little more vague please? Links to follow shortly. And then I'm going to wonder why in the hell I'm doing research for a thankless brick thrower like our own Billybob.

Yeppers, it kinda does.

It wouldn't be the first time.

The quotes are yours. I don't keep a well documented record of everything I've ever read close at hand so I can stay on your good side.

Here's a piece by William F. Jasper, who from what I can gather, is/was a prominent member of the JBS:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1021097/posts

Here's a bit (I guess) verifying his association with the JBS:

http://www.jbs.org/index.php/component/myblog/William-F.-Jasper-Speech-January-23-2009-4393.html

Excerpt from the first link:

A corollary of this myth is that North Vietnamese dictator Ho Chi Minh was an ardent nationalist and only accepted Soviet and Communist Chinese assistance because the United States refused to help him fight the French colonialists.

This is the thesis propounded by, among others, Archimedes Patti, who as a young officer in the OSS (forerunner to the CIA) in the 1940s, was a big booster of Ho. Major Patti remained an ardent fan of "Uncle Ho" decades later. When PBS released its multi-million-dollar, taxpayer-funded propaganda monstrosity entitled Vietnam, A Television History in 1984, Archimedes Patti was one of the "stars" of the production. Patti stated: "Ho Chi Minh was on a silver platter in 1945. We had him. He was leaning not towards the Soviet Union; at the time he told me that the USSR could not assist him, because they just won a war only by dint of real heroism, and they were in no position to help anyone. So really, we had Ho Chi Minh, we had the Viet Minh, we had the Indochina question in our hand."

It was the same pro-Communist disinformation that Patti and other old OSS hands had been retailing for years. The fact is that by 1945, Ho Chi Minh (the best known alias of the man born as Nguyen tat Thanh, in 1890) had already been a committed Communist for two and a half decades. In 1920, he was a founding member of the French Communist Party. In 1922, he was off to Moscow. In 1924, his Kremlin masters sent him to China as translator and assistant to Mikhail Borodin, the Soviets' top agent in the Far East. In China, Ho recruited Vietnamese youth for training under Soviet instructors at the Whampoa Military Academy. Over the next 20 years, Ho helped spread the Communist revolution throughout Asia, traveling to Burma, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Macau, Bangkok, and elsewhere. Authorities throughout the region knew of Ho's criminal and subversive record.

During World War II, Ho and his Communist superiors began fabricating the myth that Ho was a great nationalist ally of the Americans against the Japanese. There is no evidence that he fought the Japanese at all, but abundant evidence that he collaborated with the Japanese, selling out genuine Vietnamese nationalists to the Japanese and the French for gold. This served not only to enrich his coffers but also to eliminate the competition. The American OSS showered him with money, arms, food, equipment, and information even though the agency knew he would use it against the French, our WWII allies.

The OSS, like the CIA which followed, was filled with dupes, leftists, socialists, and even Communists, and Ho was to their liking. With OSS hands like General Philip Gallagher, Colonel Edward Lansdale, George Sheldon, Major Archimedes Patti, and Major William Stevens helping him from one side, and Stalin helping from the other, Ho was in a very strong position to take on the French, who were weakened from the war and were undermined at every turn by the same pro-Communist forces in our State Department and the OSS who were at that very time preparing China for turnover to Mao Zedong.

Oh well. S'funny how some fellers feel emboldened to issue insults and derogatory remarks right and left on these web forums, remarks they would be very unlikely to have the stones to pop out with if dealing with their adversary in person.

My rule of thumb is to try to not type anything I wouldn't have the stones to say face to face.

You should try following your own rules....

linkee please

I've treated you plenty well. Never accused you of murder or treason.

And don't change the subject. Read the links I provided for the good Mr. Billybob and then s'plain to me how I was following Alinsky's rules. Else'n I'm going to lose respect for you.

Oh. Just did a search on your rule #4. Alinsky is not someone I've paid much attention to. Oh well, more static in lieu of substance from my Texarkana buddy.

Thanks for the clarification and the links! Rather than “John Birchers calling Patti a stooge and a dimwitted pawn of Ho’s”, a link to a single writer associated with the JBS article referring to Patti as big booster/ ardent fan/ "stars"/ dupes, leftists, socialists, and even Communists while offering his annotated counter argument to Patti’s claims. We all see what we want to see every reader will come to their own conclusion as to whether they see the same as you do.

It is very interesting to note that Jasper could almost be imagined to be speaking directly to you on virtually every point! I can see why you’ve taken such offence!

You need another refresher course in reading comprehension.






Oh, and I'm nowhere near Texarkana.......





.

Huh? Jasper a single writer associated with the JBS? No, he's got some serious clout there:

Mr. William F. Jasper joined the staff of The John Birch Society in 1976 as a researcher and soon became a contributing editor to the Society's magazines, American Opinion and The Review of the News. When those publications merged in 1985 to become THE NEW AMERICAN, Mr. Jasper continued to serve as a writer and contributing editor until 1990, when he was promoted to the position of Senior Editor.

Over the past three decades, William Jasper has researched and written extensively on foreign and domestic politics, national security, education, immigration, constitutional issues, the culture war, and most notably, the United Nations. His renown as an investigative journalist and insightful analyst on a wide array of topics has made William Jasper a frequent and highly sought guest on many radio and television programs.

This from the second link above.

My paraphrase was not too far off in spirit. Jasper is a lunatic extremist. He makes it clear that he believes that France was the rightful ruler of Vietnam around the end of WW2. France was to Vietnam much as Britain was to the American colonies in the late 18th century with one big exception. The Brits founded and peopled much of the American colonies whereas France just waltzed in and exploited Vietnam.

I'm glad you and Japser found each other. You should be grateful for my help.

My heartfelt apologies.

You got nothing. You thought I had no backup on the JBS and Patti bit and that Billybob had done b-slapped me. And now you evade the point.

And here I thought you were going to tearfully apologize, saying that I've been right about everything all along and your eyes have just now been opened.

Dude, put down the doobie and read it again.

I was congratulating BillyBob on his perfect application of rule 4 on you. The left's own tactics being used against them..... Get it now ???


Besides, you seem to be more of a rule 5 type of guy.....


.

I don't dispute his clout, he might be John Birch incarnate but he's still one man rather than the plural "Bircher's" you've claimed! He confronts and challenges Patti's positions and assertions he doesn't attack him personally, he doesn’t call him dim-witted. According to the dictionary there is a decided difference between a stooge “one who willingly plays a subordinate or compliant role to a principal" and a dupe “one that is unknowingly easily deceived or cheated

"He makes it clear that he believes that France was the rightful ruler of Vietnam around the end of WW2."

You find support for this assertion within the article you’ve provided?

“France was to Vietnam much as Britain was to the American colonies in the late 18th century with one big exception. The Brits founded and peopled much of the American colonies whereas France just waltzed in and exploited Vietnam.”

I can’t even imagine your point with this statement. Perhaps if France in the late 19th century 1860’s had depopulated the terrain of the indigenous population as had early Americans in the 17th and 18th centuries then they would have not “just waltzed in and exploited”? I would have though that someone of your delicate sensibilities would be championing the mere exploitation of Indochina over the extermination of native America?

Man, you have a real way of convoluting a train of thought.

The near extermination of Native Americans was indeed a sad and ugly chapter in world history. It was also sorta inevitable, I'm afraid. It wasn't just a clash of cultures, it was a clash of eras. I used to think it was a shame the Europeans couldn't have been more tolerant of native populations but I now see it wasn't going to happen. The natives required vast tracts of land for their nomadic life and land hungry Europeans and their superior weaponry were too, well, land hungry. Natives were not going to willingly cede the land they felt was there's.

Some think that many natives died from small pox, etc. without any tainted blankets being given them. Explorers reported finding empty villages, lived in not long previous. Some small contact with Euros years or months before had been enough to plant various deadly diseases which most Europeans had immunity to, unlike Natives.

France would have been unable to replicate the North American Euro example in Vietnam even if they'd wanted to. Vietnam's population was far, larger, French people were not emigrating in droves to Vietnam, and Vietnam had a much more cohesive culture than Native Americans, none of whom had even a decent written language. North America was a collection of warring tribes that would have made current Afg. look civilized.

Point being, the Americas under Britain were much different that Vietnam under the French. We find it perfectly fitting, proper, and laudable that our founders threw off the Brits, with whom they shared much culture, but many apparently don't get that the Vietnamese would be equally, if not way more eager to throw off the French who were utterly foreign.

Vietnamese atrocities as outlined by Jasper and others were awful, no getting around it. But some culpability is due the French, who provided an enormous irritant among nationalists, and divided the country into sympathizers and rebels.

As for Jasper being only one man, and not the entire JBS, oh golly, I'm a beaten man all right. He didn't get to be the senior editor of the JBS house organ for decades by being a loner. His words clearly had the backing of many Birchers, else he'd have been out long ago.

uno más tiempo, THE QUOTE MARKS WERE YOURS. I never claimed to be quoting anyone word for word. Such hair splitting is desperate. He denigrated Patti and his assertions. Is that better? Jeez . . .

As for Jasper's opinion on the French being the rightful rulers:

With OSS hands like General Philip Gallagher, Colonel Edward Lansdale, George Sheldon, Major Archimedes Patti, and Major William Stevens helping him from one side, and Stalin helping from the other, Ho was in a very strong position to take on the French, who were weakened from the war and were undermined at every turn by the same pro-Communist forces in our State Department and the OSS who were at that very time preparing China for turnover to Mao Zedong.

He's crying that the French were having difficulty hanging onto their most prized colonial possession. What, Vietnamese nationalists were villains for wishing to garner enough strength to oust the French? The French were brutal overlords in most all their colonies from what I can gather.

Jasper is a whack job lunatic supremacist - perfectly suited to be a high mucky muck and chief SPOKESDUDE for the Birchers.

That "liberals deny they are the extension of the progressives" sounds like some sort of Glenn Beck meme. I have no idea where you would get that idea, and I know of no educated liberal who would deny it, of course we are their idealogical heirs. In fact, it was the mass exodus of Republican liberals after the defeat of T.R.'s "Bull Moose" party to the Democratic Party that turned the Democrats left and made Franklin Roosevelt and Wilson possible. The truly great tragedy of today's Republicans is their loss of their historical place in this country, in fact, they were the "liberals" up until that time. Goldwater swung the GOP hard right, and Nixon and Reagan played the racial politics necessary to bring in the conservative Southern Democrats.

If anyone is in denial about their heritage, it is today's Republicans, who are doing everything they can to drive out the last vestiges of liberal Republicanism and complete their transformation to a Southern White People's Party who are not the idealogical descendent's of Lincoln's liberals, they are in fact the descendent of the Confederate Southern Democrats. They have turned themselves inside out. Given your stated views, you yourself may find yourself being pushed out.

Exactly right. Rrs seem to be on a mission to gain permanent minority status.

Again I agree with you. But it was here, on this very forum that I was taken to task by linking progressives with today's liberals. I was shocked by it. That is why my post starts with a mention that liberals HERE deny....

It seems that the R leadership has accepted a minority party status.
Leadership needs to have a vision and sell that vision to the rest of the party. The Repub leadership seems to have no clue as to how to do that, or even that it would be a good thing.

Perhaps the only thing that can save the repub party on a national level is even greater stupidity from the opposition party. Don't say that it can't happen.

How about some new R leadership that actually has a clue?

“Man, you have a real way of convoluting a train of thought.”

I’m just following where you are leading if the convolutions bother you stop making them!

So when you stated “He makes it clear that he believes that France was the rightful ruler of Vietnam around the end of WW2.”

You divined that from Jasper’s analysis that Ho’s position was enhanced by pro-communists and Stalin vis a vis’ that the French had been weakened from war?

I mean you’ve opined “He (Jasper) makes it clear that he believes that France was the rightful ruler of Vietnam around the end of WW2” and you’ve provided this excerpt, and now added “He's crying that the French were having difficulty hanging onto their most prized colonial possession.”:

“With OSS hands like General Philip Gallagher, Colonel Edward Lansdale, George Sheldon, Major Archimedes Patti, and Major William Stevens helping him from one side, and Stalin helping from the other, Ho was in a very strong position to take on the French, who were weakened from the war and were undermined at every turn by the same pro-Communist forces in our State Department and the OSS who were at that very time preparing China for turnover to Mao Zedong”

Reading the words in the excerpt you’ve provided is there any word or words that suggest the “clear” position you attribute to Jasper? Is there a single word that could be construed to mean that in Jasper’s mind there existed any thought of France’s position ruling Vietnam rightfully or not? What words can be construed to mean that Jasper was “crying” when he states that” Ho was in a very strong position to take on the French, who were weakened from the war and undermined at every turn”? Any honest reading of not only the literal wording but the overall tone shows that Jasper makes not a single comment on the value or lack thereof with regard to French colonial fetishes!

And when you further opined “France was to Vietnam much as Britain was to the American colonies in the late 18th century with one big exception. The Brits founded and peopled much of the American colonies whereas France just waltzed in and exploited Vietnam.”

Had nothing to do with the prior sentence in that paragraph and your contention of Jasper’s “clear” position on French rule. You where actually, simply and unrelated, attempting to juxtapose the perceived dichotomy of America colonial revolutionaries to Vietnamese colonial revolutionaries in the twisted minds of unenlightened Americans!

“Point being, the Americas under Britain were much different that Vietnam under the French. We find it perfectly fitting, proper, and laudable that our founders threw off the Brits, with whom they shared much culture, but many apparently don't get that the Vietnamese would be equally, if not way more eager to throw off the French who were utterly foreign.”

When you made the earlier statement “The John Birchers called Patti a stooge and a dim-witted pawn of Ho. I don't buy it. Patti wasn't the greatest writer (his book badly needed professional editing IMO, his daughter did it instead IIRC) but his account of Ho makes sense to me and rings true in the light of history.

You actually meant an article was written in a JBS publication where the author “denigrated” Patti and his assertions rather than “The John Birchers called Patti a stooge and a dim-witted pawn of Ho.”?


THE QUOTE MARKS WERE YOURS

No one ever assumed you where actually quoting anyone word for word, I placed quote marks around your words, mischaracterizations they have been shown to be.

From someone who has so often proclaimed such disinterest of politics and its players how would that make any difference to you?

Just my opinion. Politics is my favorite spectator sport and it's no fun when one side fails to show up, peggysue.

I believe the republican base is composed primarily of conservatives. They will not back any republican party "leader" who strays from the historic stance.
I think ( and hope) the recent trend to neo-con has run its course. They were a total disaster. The Republican party has had its best success when it took a conservative stand. It lost its way when it went neo. ( Compare republicans as led by Reagan and then Bush (both)).

I agree, they need to dump the neocons and get back to their real base. I just don't see anyone ready to fill that role.

Would you define the Tea baggers as "neo" or just plain "con"?

I know you love to laugh off the tea parties. Time will tell if they are for real, or just a flash in the pan. What I have heard from actual participants is VASTLY different from what you believe about the tea parties.

The republicans either need to contain those folks or fix their public image. As it stands now, the democrats should be funding them; then helping late night comics write the jokes.

Not sure how you got to be such a prevaricating lost soul. When I spoke of the American revolutionaries overthrowing a govt/a nation that had spawned them as opposed to the Vietnamese overthrowing a more foreign French body of overlords, you jumped to some notion that I thought or was implying that the slaughter of Native Americans was somehow good and laudable. The point I was trying to make was obvious, or at least would have been to someone interested in understanding communication. As opposed to fomenting endless partisan bickering.

You're a case dude. Go for it. I give you my blessing.

I am not sure that allowing the joke content of the late night TV hosts is, or even SHOULD be a determining factor.

The more I think about the characterisation of them as "tea baggers", the more I think that smirking comment is part of the problem. I understand that some tea party people referred to themselves as "tea baggers". However, just because they were not up on the latest sexual practices is no reason to bring that to the political arean. Its about the same as calling someone a racist or a Nazi. Its not intended to further the debate. Its intended to end debate.
Furthermore, I find it highly offensive. Would you, or anyone else be permitted to offend any other ethical/racial group in this country?
I think not.

Like I posted above, there is a hugh disconnect regarding the tea party people. The left ignores or laughs at them. However, from the conversations I have had with people who have attended some of these events, there is more resolve to them.
Time will tell. If they succeed in substantially changing the make up of Congress this next election, then who will be laughing?

I'm not saying it's a determining factor, but these folks have a public image that makes the party look like a joke. Even the fact that they didn't know the meaning of a term that everyone over the age of 12 immediately understands makes them look pretty silly. I'm just saying that the party leadership needs to round them up an send them back to the trailer park well before the election. They are doing more harm than good from a PR point of view.

Of course the republicans will pick up some seats in the mid-terms, the opposition party always does. In this case, the primary issue will be the economy. To a much lesser extent, Afghanistan and health care will mobilize some opposition.

It will be good to have two parties again, I hope the republicans actually have something to say this time, they can start by distancing themselves from the neocons and the religious crazies.

It was a serious question. Do you think these people fall in the category of Goldwater or Karl Rove conservatives? I find their message an incoherent babble of both.

Dude, there is a now-famous Youtube of some old white lady with numerous tea bags hanging from her hat. I'd call that a 'tea bagger' sexual connotation or not.

When I see them on a Constitution day float, with some of them holding signs proclaiming Obama a communist, and on the other side of the float, signing proclaiming him to be a Nazi, (I should have taken pictures, but I saw it), the message is pretty clear to me:


The doctor squeezed the forceps too hard when he pulled them out.

Anecdotes aside ( both yours AND mine), Election 2010 will tell the tale. If they cannot turn their passion into votes, and ultimately into seats in the House and Senate, they will be nothing but a small footnote in history.

I'm sure the republicans will pick up seats, as always. I suspect these folks will be a hindrance to their cause. I really dislike paying taxes, but I would not be willing to be on the same side of a ballot as these people.

And nothing will change, the lobbyists and special interests will continue to be the true rulers of this country..

AND the career bureacrats.

I agree, but that is just plane wrong....and WE ALL let it happen.

I wasn't wild about the 'tea-bagging' smirking by hip cats from the big city either. However, when you look at the over the top use of "Nazi," "fascist," "tyranny," etc. by the sign carrying teabaggers, my concern about them being smirked out fades a bit.

John Oliver, the British member of the Daily Show crew, puts it well when he says that the Brits really knew someting about tyranny and that the current bundle of Obama bashers are devaluing the term. He said something like, "You're calling it tyranny to return the Clinton era tax rates? No my friends, the Brits back in the day would screw your thumbs off for non-paymet of tribute to the Lord of the manor." Now that's tyranny.

Add to that life in a dank dungeon with just enough gruel to keep you alive for a prolonged misery, being broken on the wheel, your wife and family reduced to being sex slaves in some brothel, etc. for the sort of crimes that would land you in bankruptcy proceedings today, under the merciless Obama.

Republicans have lost their minds. Big time.