“Reagan won landslides, he did not just squeak by. But it was a vote for the personality, not ideology, since his enormous votes did not translate into the Congressional elections.”
Yeah, and he also won when we had Jimmy Carter as president, and HE ended up winning over Gerald Ford earlier.
“Nixon’s last election was also a landslide and the Democrats ran an ex-bomber pilot. McGovern may have been many things but was not a traitor. Those days are nothing like now. Obama and Hillary would have been boo’ed off the stage by DEMOCRATS much less the American People.”
Actually, McGovern was of the anti-War crowd, and most of them WERE, directly or indirectly, pro-Soviet, certainly pro-Communist. And many of them don’t have ANY regret about the boat people even when that information became very apparent, OR what happened in Cambodia (though to McGovern’s credit, he did at least denounce the Cambodian Genocide when it became apparent, too bad he should have seen that coming beforehand). And just because he served as a bomber pilot for us in World War II doesn’t mean he’s pro-American. Do I really have to remind you of Howard Zinn? That guy ALSO served in World War II, as part of a bomber crew no less, and he turned out to be very anti-American (heck, I know a guy on PJMedia who indicated that Zinn only served in the Army Air Force to defend his true homeland of the USSR, and that serving America was more of a bonus).
“The Silent Coupe was perpetrated by forces we believed to be on our side: the FBI and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This is where the damaging Deep Throat information came from
I also believe the CIA was involved through the revelation that there were tapes (have no proof of this, it is just an opinion). This information was HANDED to the Left.”
Some of the tapes indicated that Nixon already knew that Deep Throat was Mark Felt when it happened.
“Walter Lippmann was a columnist and he was not a communist.
He was critical of the Cold War policy of “Containment” not because he underestimated or wanted to increase the danger of the USSR. His critique of “X” proposal was correct in that it took longer than estimated to bring down the Soviet Union, over twice as long as the estimated 10-15 years. He also believed Kennan’s theory would allow the Soviets the strategic advantage while we were playing defense. So they could decide when and where conflict would occur. That appears also to be true.”
If he was truly not a communist, please explain this NSA file making clear that he was a Soviet contact: https://web.archive.org/web/20090302060655/http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/venona/1944/9sep_lippman_views_churchill_roosevelt.pdf
And even Eric Altermann made it very clear that he also supplied information to the Soviets, arguably being a more valuable source of information than I.F. Stone, a confirmed KGB plant: http://prospect.org/article/stone-cold-untruths
Oh, and his own secretary, Mary Price, was a confirmed communist agent: https://web.archive.org/web/20090302034215/http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/venona/1943/8jun_dir_courier.pdf
And maybe he was right about the containment policy, but it STILL doesn’t change the fact that he most certainly acted as a Soviet agent.
“Cronkite’s love of One World government was not that unusual among idealists. Heck, Wendell Wilkie advocated one world government. Many idealists also believed that nationalism had failed and produced wars and pointed to the first half of the 20th century as evidence.”
Yeah, except Cronkite also went forward with trying to paint the Vietnam War as a stalemate even when a top-ranking general actually told him America was winning and gave him a lot of evidence about it, which is STILL disgusting no matter which way you cut it, especially when he KNEW we were winning, yet deliberately told audiences that we were losing the war or at best making a stalemate.
“The AWM’s leaders were primarily concerned about domestic issues and were not pro-Soviet. It was a discredited brand. The organizations were composed of hard-core Leftists, star-struck idealists and Useful Idiots and the Leftists were not that effective or popular. They had to suppress their ideology and concentrate on the popular issues: civil rights and war. There also would never win over the majority of our population and their actions led directly to the election of Nixon. After Chicago the Democrats had no chance, had that not happened Humphrey would have slaughtered Nixon.”
Not according to Nguyen Thi Binh, she most certainly considered them allies, and don’t forget, the Vietcong were BACKED by the Soviets. See this if you don’t believe me: http://dailycaller.com/2016/05/29/vietnamese-communist-leader-says-us-anti-war-activists-helped-their-victory/
And ask yourself this, if they were not pro-Soviet, please explain why they ONLY protested in front of American areas and not, say, Soviet embassies?
Also, this makes VERY clear that the Soviets definitely had at the very least infiltrated the anti-war movement in the early seventies: http://www.thewednesdayreport.com/soviet-infiltration-anti-war-movement-vvaw.html And considering a lot of the people in charge of SDS and later the Weather Underground were confirmed Communists, I’d say it’s been infiltrated even earlier than that.
Oh, and papers from Hanoi make clear that John Kerry, who during that time was an anti-Vietnam protestor, was getting orders from Hanoi, and most likely the USSR by extension: http://www.thewednesdayreport.com/soviet-infiltration-anti-war-movement-vvaw.html
And Canfield’s Comrades in Arms: How the Ameri-Cong Won the Vietnam War more than makes clear that the Communists, contrary to what was reported, had a very heavy hand in the anti-war movements, citing not only documents from the US military, FBI, and CIA, but even internal communist documents as well. You can read a skimnotes version of it here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2939112/posts
Most of those comments have little or no bearing on the fact that all the AWM people were not pro-Soviet. 90% of those participating in the marches did so because of reasons they felt were worth demonstrating for, they were overwhelmingly NOT pro-Soviet. Most were sickened by the inept political leadership and its lies and the continual widening of the war. Most were patriots concerned about the apparently endless war since was never clear to the people as to WHY it was fought. Demonstrations were held at American spots because it would have done no good to do so at Soviet facilities. They were trying to change American policy over which they believed they had some political control. Nothing strange or sinister about this.
Your excerpt shows nothing about Lippmann being a “contact” whatever that means it does not mean agent. However, Korea and Vietnam show the validity of his criticism of containment. Although there was plenty of evidence showing that we decided to fight there before the Soviets. Col. Prouty illustrates how it was started. Then, of course, is the fact that we refused to abide by the Geneva Convention which we had signed. It was clear to everyone that if an election had been held Ho Chi Minh would have been overwhelmingly elected because of his nationalist credentials and fight against the Japanese.
Altmann’s article really says nothing about Lippmann except that he met with Soviet press people and was never an agent.
His comment wrt Lippmann and Stone is on the order of “heck he got more information from WL than Stone indicating that Stone provided nothing of value even less that the staunch anti-communist Lippmann. It does not mean he provided anything of value.
You also have to remember that in 1943 the US was allied with the USSR. And McGovern was no Howard Zinn.