SENATOR LEAHY’S BLOODY PAST: During Roberts Confirmation Hearing, Leahy Boasts That He Cast Deciding Vote to Abandon Vietnam
|
by Richard Poe Tuesday, September 13, 2005 4:28 pm Eastern Time |
Archives 47 Comments |
Senator Patrick Leahy boasted this morning that he personally condemned South Vietnam to Communist rule with a single vote. The Vermont Democrat did not describe his achievement in quite those words, but his meaning was clear (via Rush Limbaugh).
While grilling Supreme Court nominee John Roberts in confirmation hearings this morning, Leahy noted that a single vote in the Senate Armed Services Committee ended U.S. aid to South Vietnam on April 17, 1975. That vote was Leahy’s.
As a result, a war that cost 58,000 U.S. lives was lost. The victorious Communists slaughtered more than 3.4 million innocent civilians in Vietnam and Cambodia. From this morning’s transcript:
LEAHY: I’ll give you a hypothetical. Congress passes a law for all U.S. forces to be withdrawn from the territory of a foreign nation by a set date. The president vetoes the law. The Congress overrides that, sets into law, You must withdraw by a certain date. Now, is there any question in your mind that the president would be bound to faithfully execute that law?
ROBERTS: Well, Senator, I don’t want to answer a particular hypothetical that could come before the court, but I’m happy to comment on the memorandum that you’re discussing.
LEAHY: No, wait a minute. I mean, isn’t this kind of hornbook law? I don’t know of any cases coming before the court; I mean, this is kind of hornbook. The Congress says to the president, You got to get out, and pass a law which is either signed into law by the president or you override a presidential veto. Why wouldn’t the president have to – charged as he is under the Constitution to faithfully execute the law, why wouldn’t he have to follow that law?
ROBERTS: Well, Senator, that issue of – and similar issues have, in fact, come up. There were, for example, lawsuits concerning the legality of the war in Vietnam; various efforts. And certainly the arguments would be made on the other side about the president’s authority. And that may well come before the court.
LEAHY: Judge, with all due respect, the cases in Vietnam were not based on a specific law passed by Congress to get out. I mean, Congress did cut off the funding…
ROBERTS: Right.
LEAHY: … in April, 1975, by a one-vote margin in the Armed Services Committee. I know because I was the newest member of the committee at that time – voted to not authorize the war any longer. But are you saying that Congress could not pass a law that we must withdraw forces?
ROBERTS: No, Senator, I’m not. What I’m saying is that that issue or issues related to that could well come before the court, and that’s why I have to resist answering a particular hypothetical question.
The Paris Peace Accords of January 17, 1973 ended the Vietnam War in America’s favor. Had the treaty held, South Vietnam would have prospered under a shield of U.S. protection, much like South Korea. But a Democrat Congress withdrew that protection.
by Richard Poe
September 13, 2005 04:28 PM ET
Cross-posted from MoonbatCentral.com 09.13.05
Comments
47 Responses to “SENATOR LEAHY’S BLOODY PAST: During Roberts Confirmation Hearing, Leahy Boasts That He Cast Deciding Vote to Abandon Vietnam”Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying about this post...What a grandstanding buffoon Leahy is. The man is so proud of enabling the spread of genocidal communism he can barely contain himself. A more disgusting display I cannot recall.
-MZ
Wasn’t that Leahy that V.P. Cheney told to go intercourse himself? At any rate, I never could stand him anyway! Typical of the left, anything to destroy America.
That this elected representative is proud of his actions – resulting in mass murder and enslavement – in the name of a “political cause” is the concise and quintessential description of the American left, past and present.
Over 2 million Cambodians murdered and 800,000 Vietnamese. Good work, Senator. We should call you Senator Slaughter, yes?
Keep an eye on these lefties, lest you and I suffer the same fate. I think this clown who tries to pass himself off as a senator and an American would sign a “treaty” with the Islamofacists and crucify us all! He’s ALMOST as big a slime-ball as that murderous Kennedy.
Mikie writes: “Over 2 million Cambodians murdered and 800,000 Vietnamese.”
According to political scientist Rudolph J. Rummel, the Vietnamese Communists slaughtered 1,040,000 civilians after U.S. withdrawal, while the Cambodian Khmer Rouge murdered 2,400,000, for a grand total of 3.44 million dead.
What a magnificent world we’d live in if only Nixon had won the 1960 election, or rather, if he didn’t concede defeat in the face of known JFK / LBJ election fraud.
Thanks for the Rummel reference. Very interesting.
But please note that he includes the casualties of the Vietnam-Cambodia war, which was started by our own Pol Pot, whom we supported at the time.
Treachery is modus operandi for Leftists!
Treachery? Leftists? Does that include LBJ, accused of fixing the 1960 elections?
Pol Pot was supported by North Korea and China, as well as receiving aid from Thailand.
s1ciavo,
The US did not support Pol Pot at that time. Spare us the tired leftist canards and read a history book.
Sick little alias you have there.
s1ciavo writes: “Thanks for the Rummel reference. Very interesting. But please note that he includes the casualties of the Vietnam-Cambodia war, which was started by our own Pol Pot, whom we supported at the time.”
Actually, Rummel does not count casualties of war in the conventional sense. He counts what he calls “democides,” by which he means the murder of unarmed civilians by governments for political reasons.
The passages from which I drew my figures were these:
I can’t find your reference to casualties of the Vietnam-Cambodia war. Could you please point it out to me?
Mr. Bargholz writes: “s1ciavo… Sick little alias you have there.”
What does his alias mean?
It has been my observation over the years that our leftist politicians, following the dictates of their feminist colleagues and constituency, have definitely found their feminine side. Many of the women of the left have more balls than they have. The masculine side of males such as Leahy, Kennedy, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry, is so far regressed that it may not be recoverable. But no fear. Our women will protect them.
The way I remember it is that Carter ordered the Pol Pot regime be supported diplomatically at the United Nations. The militarized refugee camps were intentionally kept and financed at the border, where Pol Pot could control them. Thailand was ordered to allow the passage of Chinese weapons. Sounds like support to me.
s1ciavo writes: “The way I remember it is that Carter ordered the Pol Pot regime be supported diplomatically at the United Nations.”
The way you remember it? No source? No link?
Also, I previously wrote to s1ciavo: “I can’t find your reference [in R.J. Rummel] to casualties of the Vietnam-Cambodia war. Could you please point it out to me?
Just a reminder. 😀
Yessir, in those days it was accepted that the Khmer Rouge was the legitimate government of Cambodia. They were a bit extreme, but still our guys. We officially supported recognition of their regime at the United Nations, and financing of their camps. I have no reference. Just check Time or Newsweek of 1979.
Rummel says: “Finally, I can calculate the overall democide of Vietnam in the post-Vietnam War period (lines 762 to 764). This amounts to 346,000 to 2,438,000 Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians, probably about 1,040,000.”
It was my assumption, perhaps wrong, that he included the casualties of the Sino-Vietnamese war and of the Khmer Rouge-Vietnamese war. If he did not, his figures are meaningless. Anyway, to seek an average figure between 346,000 and 2,438,000 seems very odd to me.
Back tomorrow.
s1ciavo writes: “It was my assumption, perhaps wrong, that he included the casualties of the Sino-Vietnamese war and of the Khmer Rouge-Vietnamese war. If he did not, his figures are meaningless.”
Since you have not bothered reading the above-cited chapters from Prof. Rummel’s book, and since it is clear that you neither know nor care what he wrote, what possible interest could we have in your arbitrary judgment that his work is “meaningless”?
s1ciavo writes: “I have no reference. Just check Time or Newsweek of 1979. … Back tomorrow.”
Sorry. We are not running a free reference service here for lazy soapbox orators. Bring your own references, or resign yourself to being ignored.
Poe writes: “What does his alias mean?”
“s1ciavo” appears to be a variation of “Schiavo”.
You can find quotations and sources here.
Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Carter 1977-1981: “I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. I encouraged the Thai to help the Khmer Rouge. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him. But China could.”
Of course, I understand that Brzezinski and Carter did it out of kindness. All they wanted to do was help the poor Cambodians, who are now spiritually richer, after we gave them ten more years of war and 100 more years of landmines.
Making sure that massive Chinese military aid would reach Pol Pot was covert U.S. policy. Maintaining Pol Pot’s status in international bodies was official U.S. policy. That’s how we voted at the United Nations Security Council.
Financing the refugee camps controlled by Pol Pot, and from which Pol Pot’s soldiers were drafted, was official U.S policy. Do I have to list date and time of such votes?
How can we deny that we supported Pol Pot? I guess we do deny because we can.
s1ciavo asks: “Do I have to list date and time of such votes?”
Dates, UN Resolution numbers and appropriate links would be extremely helpful. Thanks! 😀
Carter supported him? The biggest failure to be president in the history of this country? The biggest moonbat of all? The one who was attcked by the killer bunny? The one who gave the malaise speech? And finally, the one who lost to President Reagan when the people in this country rejected his crazy ass philosophy and inept governance?
December 25, 1978, after suffering border raids for years, Vietnam invades, in a situation akin to to that between Israel and Egypt in 1956. Pnom Penh falls January 7. On January 15, 1979 the Soviet Union vetoes Security Council resolution S/13027, which supported the deposed regime of Pol Pot. Even though totally crushed in the field, Pol Pot is enabled to continue the war, thanks to massive Western financing and Chinese military aid, .
Background:
http://idl.stanford.edu/104/lectures/notes10.html
* Sihanouk attempted to maintain independence from US, China, USSR…
* Key moment, 1965: Sihanouk assumed North Vietnam would win war against South, allowed North to move troops and supplies through Cambodia into South Vietnam…
* 1970: US-supported coup deposes Sihanouk, installs government in Phnom Penh…
* 1975: Khmer Rouge victorious
o Brutal reign saw famine, disease, and genocide
* Vietnam decides to stop Khmer Rouge, invades Cambodia in 1978 and installs new government in Phnom Penh
o International community views invasion from geopolitical, not humanitarian standpoint. Thailand, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), China condemn Vietnamese invasion
o Khmer Rouge takes hostages, receives international aid; gains diplomatic recognition by US; Khmer Rouge able to regroup and resume war against SOC [State of Cambodia]…
* 1982: US and China resurrect Sihanouk, create a coalition between Sihanouk, KPNLF, and Khmer Rouge recognized by the UN as the legitimate government-in-exile
Mr. Poe,
I assumed “s1ciavo” was a twisted play on Terry Schiavo and slave. (“Schiavo” is the Italian word for slave.) I assumed he spelled it wrong either because he didn’t care about her family’s pain enough to check the correct spelling or for some dorky personal reason. I may be wrong. You could ask him but I don’t have much faith in his honesty.
s1ciavo,
the US had no love for Vietnam (Carter did,) but they never sent Pol Pot a single penny. They didn’t give him any weapons, either. If you’re suggesting that the naive Carter and his misguided Security Adviser gave him their moral support (doubtful,) then you need to make that distinction. You quote Brzezinski as saying they “could never support him.”
Spare us any exaggerations about covert US policy to ensure Chinese weapons reached Pol Pot and the implication that the US supported genocide. The Chinese didn’t receive or require US permission to arm the Khmer Rouge.
Carter wanted the Chinese to help Pol Pot aid the Cambodian people, not give him the means to kill them. The Us did not endorse Pol Pot through the UN or any other way when it became clear that he was committing genocide.
You’re very selective in the facts and dates you provide. It’s the information you omit that tells the story.
When it comes to your personal opinions, facts don’t even enter the picture. Ten years of war, Chinese landmines and recruitment of soldiers are all attributed to the US. You also have intimate knowledge of “covert” US policy. You never miss a chance to demonize America, do you?
Tell us what your alias means. I’m sure it’s something completely innocuous.
P.S., Brzezinski is still a misguided dreamer but at least he’s honest.
Paranoia makes us see dark intentions in others’ innocent behavior. Paranoia makes us imagine dark twisted insulting plots, all directed against “me,” “my party,” “my people,” “my nation, “my Leaderr.” It’s an evil world out there. Wisps of smoke from a chimney become the castle of the necromant. Don Quixote Bergholz hears, suspects, investigates, charges into the necromant’s castle. Whispering winds and creaking doors are investigated and are determined to be dark secret spells.
Why should anyone care what a sequence of letters, meaningless in English, really means? But to rest the soul of Mr. Bergholz, I will confess that “s’ciavo” means “hi”, literally “I am your servant” in the Venitian language. In Italian it became the word “ciao.” Yahoo does not allow apostrophes, and “1” has some shape similarity to an apostrophe. Thus s1ciavo.
Paranoid “party patriotism” makes us silly. We spend valuable time investigating phantoms, while the enemies of freedom, such friends as our imposed strongmen of–sometime open–Nazi sympathies, like Premiers Zahedi, Saddam, Ky, Lon Nol, or Hekmatiar, to say nothing of Pol Pot, binLaden and al-Zarqawi , are armed, trained, financed, and sent out to destroy the world.
The Western financing of Pol Pot’s “refugee camps” was done through the U.N. at our orders. We voted for it. We paid. Our military attaches in Thailand met with theirs. Massive shipments of Chinese arms could not pass through our satellite Thailand without our direct orders, but any unpleasant data are denied by repeating the mantra “didn’t.”
The record of our vote at the United Nations is denied as if it were jam on our face. The half-empty jar of jam is no evidence. The crowd sees the jam on His face and cries out: “There is no jam on the lips of the Wise Leader.”
A person who is lacking candor said: Why should anyone care what a sequence of letters, meaningless in English, really means?
When it comes from someone who is evading questions with coy, childish games, the words and letters do indeed seem rather meaningless.
-MX
Dear s1ciavo:
If this is your best evidence, your argument is poor. The same argument could be used to blame America for Stalin’s purges of the 1930s. After all, we later came to Stalin’s aid during World War II.
Here’s your Cambodia timeline. I took the liberty of restoring certain portions which you omitted in your earlier post. It reads:
According to this timeline, the US did not offer support to Pol Pot until after Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1978. The Khmer Rouge genocide took place earlier, between 1975 and 1978.
So what exactly is your point?
Mr. Bargholz writes: “Brzezinski is still a misguided dreamer but at least he’s honest.”
Mr. Bargholz, you’re starting to worry me. First you tell me that you have a fondness for John McCain, and now you say Zbigniew Brzezinski is honest.
If Brzezinski were anything like the committed anti-communist he once pretended to be, why did he never manage to find a perch in any Republican administration? Plainly the GOP sees something in Dr. Brzezinski which you have overlooked.
s1ciavo writes: “We spend valuable time investigating phantoms, while the enemies of freedom, such friends as our imposed strongmen of—sometime open—Nazi sympathies, like Premiers Zahedi, Saddam, Ky, Lon Nol, or Hekmatiar, to say nothing of Pol Pot, bin Laden and al-Zarqawi , are armed, trained, financed, and sent out to destroy the world.”
Hmmm. I’m trying to discern a pattern in your rogue’s gallery, but it’s eluding me.
Let’s try to approach this from the opposite direction. You have made very clear whom you oppose. Now tell us whom you support.
You have named eight Third-World leaders whom you despise. Please name eight Third-World leaders whom you admire.
s1ciavo writes: “Paranoia makes us see dark intentions in others’ innocent behavior. … It’s an evil world out there. Wisps of smoke from a chimney become the castle of the necromant.”
Judging from your posts, s1ciavo, this passage seems to describe your own state of mind better than it does Mr. Bargholz’s.
Anyone who views the USA as the fount of all evil is plainly looking through some very dark glasses. America may have its faults, but it is hardly the “castle of the necromant” you make it out to be.
You’ve been hanging around too many Costa-Gavras film festivals.
The U.S. is not the source of evil. On the contrary, our country was the first to enshrine basic human rights, and has a blessed tradition: great Americans, from Thoreau and Lincoln to Mark Twain and H. L. Mencken have openly opposed foreign adventures. President Adams opposed the stupid war the Democrat-Republicans wanted, at the cost of being re-elected. I do not know of a European leader with such a record.
As predicted by the Founding Fathers, humans still do not take well to power. That’s why I cannot give you the names of one leader worthy of admiration, whether from the Old World, the New World, or the Third World.
Those eight guys I mentioned, they all came to power thanks to us. Some were particularly damaging. Would it not be nice if we had not financed binLaden or al-Zarqawi? We did not put in power Robert Mugabe. That’s good, then we are not responsible. Would you not feel a little sick now if we had put him in power?
When we go abroad to hunt democracies, the results are always bad. We are not the only ones who do it. The French do it, the Brits do it, the Russians did it. Promise to quit crushing democracies and we’ll vote for you.
We agree, the U.S. did not support Pol Pot when he was in power in Pnom Penh. We supported him afterwards, and thanks to us and Chinese landmines he was able to control the border areas and the refugee camps and bring destruction upon his own people for a dozen years more. Yes, it was pretty dumb to give Stalin enough trucks to overrun Eastern Europe. Yes, it was pretty dumb to demand unconditional surrender from Germany.
s1ciavo writes: “I cannot give you the names of one leader worthy of admiration, whether from the Old World, the New World, or the Third World.”
I see. So you’re against anyone who ever did anything bad, or whoever helped or made common cause with anyone who later went on to do something bad – except for Presidents Lincoln and Adams, who did all the above, but who have nevertheless escaped your censure, for some reason.
All very interesting.
So why did you select my post on Senator Patrick Leahy as your soapbox to deliver this quirky little sermon?
Because you asked me to give you the name of my heroes, and because you claimed that I saw “the USA as the fount of all evil.”
Somehow, Adams was strong enough to resist “the stirrings of martial impulse.” I think that was good for him, and good for America.
Good day, sir.
Baxun; or rather, back tomorrow, if I am allowed.
s1ciavo writes: Yes, it was pretty dumb to demand unconditional surrender from Germany.
I must be seeing things. I didn’t really just read this in a post above, did I? If so, someone please convince me why I shouldn’t let rip something awful on the author of the above quote.
-MZ
Richard Poe asked: “So why did you select my post on Senator Patrick Leahy as your soapbox to deliver this quirky little sermon?”
To which s1ciavo replied: “Because you asked me to give you the name of my heroes…”
When I refer to your “quirky little sermon,” I include all of your posts to this thread, beginning with your earlier efforts to minimize and spread the blame for the crimes of the Khmer Rouge.
What attracted you to this thread, in the first place? Was it the word “Vietnam” in my headline?
Did you come here to defend Senator Leahy from my charge that he sabotaged US interests and aided and abetted Communist mass murderers through his betrayal of South Vietnam?
Mr. Poe,
I’m sure you’re right about Brzezinsky. I know his foreign policy assessments and suggestions are unrealistic. (How unusual for a diehard leftist.) I’ve never had any of his deceit pointed out to me so I assumed he was honest. “Earnest” is probably a better description. I’ve read his work and references to it in “The National Interest” and other places.
Not my favorite magazine by the way, although it had some interesting stories. I remember a pair concerning the North Korean situation. One followed the Brzezinsky school of thought, the other one was practical. Those are the only stories that stand out in my mind, which is probably why I was never very enthusiastic about reading it.
By the way, s1ciavo attacks America every time he comments on this blog, regardless of the thread. I figure you’re right about him being attracted by the word “Vietnam.” Straight off, he tried to portray the Vietnamese commies as virtuous humanitarians fighting for justice against the evil United States and its puppet, Pol Pot.
His agenda is clear.
Slave, or “s1ciavo,”
nice try snowing us on the meaning of your alias. “S-ciavo,” or “s-ciao, is the Venetian word for SLAVE. It was originally used as a salutation by a SERVANT to his BOSS. It was also used as a very formal greeting among the aristocracy when rank was involved. The literal translation is: I AM YOUR SLAVE. Later, the s was dropped from “s-ciao” to form the modern Italian “ciao.” “s-ciao” is still used as an exclamation of resignation or submission in Venetian.
Once again, you’re very selective in the facts you provide. Your omission tells the tale.
You are a bald faced liar. Are you a muslim, a socialist or a Stalinist? Smarta$$ America haters usually fall into one of these groups.
It’s nice that you know your place. I’ll let you know when I need my car washed.
Yes, I did notice the word “Vietnam” in the headline. I read your comment and thought it opportune to mention the now forgotten closeness and sympathy between the Khmer and the Washington regimes.
s1ciavo writes: “Yes, I did notice the word `Vietnam’ in the headline. I read your comment and thought it opportune to mention the now forgotten closeness and sympathy between the Khmer and the Washington regimes.”
Let’s be frank. I took Senator Patrick Leahy to task for boasting about his complicity in one of the most dreadful mass murders of the last hundred years. This did not sit well with you. Why? Evidently because you sympathize with Senator Leahy’s anti-American position and approve of his vote of April 17, 1975.
In order to defend Senator Leahy and the ideology he represents, you used deceptive and selective historical references intended to whitewash the role of Senator Leahy and his fellow Democrats in abandoning our allies in Indochina, thus leaving the entire region to the tender mercies of Communist butchers.
By whitewashing, obscuring and attempting to spread the blame for the mass murders committed by Vietnamese and Cambodian Communists, you reveal yourself to be an apologist and defender of Communist butchery.
By still ignoring the post I made above (#35), I am going to assume that s1ciavo has retracted his outrageous statement regretting America’s forcing Germany into unconditional surrender in WWII. If he still somehow defends that insulting comment he can come out and do so, or remain silent and concede it was an incredibly stupid thing to say and that he entirely regrets writing it in the first place.
-MZ
I heard bits of the Galloway-Hitchens debate, and I found it quite embarrrassing: Galloway preferred making a great show of indignation and ad hominem attacks instead of debating. An approach similar to what we see here. The strongest argument is that of anti- or un-americanism, a concept that would appear ludicrous anywhere except in a faith-based socio-political environment.
Just imagine Prime Minister Aznar accusing his opponent Zapatero of un-hispaniolism, based on the fact that A is willing to go kill Arabs, while Z. is unwilling. The entire Spanish nation would collapse in laughter if they heard such nonsense.
Un-American revisionism. Un-Islamic thought. Anti-Soviet bourgeois deviationism. Yes indeed, I plead guilty to all ot the above.
I also stand accused of trying to slip a marked card into the deck. Actually, I am not smart enough to follow the statistics of Professor Rummel. Very impressive charts, but I still do not understand how or why the professor could or would have wished to exclude from his accounts the dead of the 1975-1990 war. It was waged by the Khmer Rouge and the Khmer rightists on one side and the Vietnamese and their Khmer allies on the other.
Harry Truman proposed that we help the Red Army if the Germans are winning and that we help the Nazis if the Russians are winning. I would not go that far, but I admit that slowing down the delivery of materiel to the Soviets, after they had entered Poland, would have been prudent.
Madzionist is a Jew, I presume, but he sounds quite young, a bit detached from history and the bad old days of WW2.
The Jews of Hungary were wiped out in late 1944. It would have behooved the Allies to save them and to save Eastern Europe from Stalin, by quickly negotiating the peace that men like Field Marshal Rommel had been aiming for. Instead, the absurd injunction of “unconditional surrender” crushed all hopes of the German opposition. The good officers who were plotting against Hitler were unable to argue for a coup and for peace, because the Allies were offering the choice of death in battle or death on the gallows.
FDR wanted to exterminate the German general staff. He wanted hangings. He wanted it so bad that he was willing to let the despised Jews die for it. He was quite generous, he was even willing to let Eastern Europe be enslaved, just for the sake of a cheap slogan.
Slave,
you’re unhinged in your anti-Americanism. Every action taken by America, past or present, is portrayed as American perfidy. I think you must be Canadian. If you lived in America your brain would thaw out in the Summer. Seeing as how Summer lasts about three days up there it’s no wonder you’re frozen in one place. “America bad, America bad, America bad,……..”
Richard Poe previously explained to s1ciavo: “Rummel does not count casualties of war… He counts what he calls `democides,’ by which he means the murder of unarmed civilians by governments for political reasons.”
To which s1ciavo replies: “I still do not understand how or why the professor could or would have wished to exclude from his accounts the dead of the 1975-1990 war.”
________________________________________
As I already explained, Professor Rummel excluded military casualties from his death figures because the subject of his study is the murder of unarmed civilians by governments for political reasons.
And, not incidentally, my charge against Senator Patrick Leahy had to do with the same topic – namely, the deliberate mass murder of unarmed civilians by the governments of Communist Vietnam and Communist Cambodia.
It did not have to do with military personnel killed in legitimate military operations.
If you do not even understand the topic under discussion here, why do you presume to participate in said discussion, much less attempt to dominate it? Only a fool raises his voice when he has nothing to say.
s1ciavo writes: “Madzionist is a Jew, I presume, but he sounds quite young, a bit detached from history and the bad old days of WW2.”
Madzionist, I commend you for the patience and forbearance you have shown toward s1ciavo. Your earlier impression of him is, of course, correct. He is the foulest of pigs.
He defends mass murder with lies and misdirection. He urinates on the graves of 58,000 Americans dead in Vietnam. He sugar-coats his bloodthirsty creed with humanistic platitudes in which he does not believe.
Madzionist, if you wish to respond to this man, feel free.
For what it’s worth, however, my feeling is that it is best not to give him the satisfaction of seeing your anger. Anger is nectar to people of this sort. As a mosquito is drawn to blood, wicked men thirst for discord and ill will.
s1ciavo, you are banned. Go spread your poison elsewhere.
Richard,
Actually, it was Shabbos when he left his vile comments, and I’m an observant Jew, so I didn’t read the noxious spewing of his until just now.
Thank you for banning this guy, as he clearly was either a Nazi sympathizer or a first class moonbat provocateur looking for a fight, but either way it was way over the top.
I will take your advice, therefore, and leave his objectionable distortions to dangle unresponded to. After all, being a “young and detached Jew” I have to show I’m better than this guy. 😉
-MZ