Skip to content

West Point “Days of Rage”: Speaking Lies to Power

December 3, 2009

In 1969 a brilliant law student stood in a park in Chicago and gave a speech about Vietnam.  Her friends burned flags and hurled obscenities at the U.S. Military.  The United States fell prey to this Marxist propaganda, and millions of our fellow human beings were slaughtered or enslaved when we abandoned the Vietnamese people.

Forty years later, a brilliant lawyer from Chicago, now our President, stood before the U.S. Military and gave the same speech about Vietnam.  He did outline his plan for the War in Afghanistan, but Obama’s most important message for our soldiers at West Point was an echo from the park, from the Days of Rage:

“There are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of forty-three nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our actions. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad based popular insurgency. And, most importantly, American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan and remain a target for those same extremists plotting along its borders. To abandon this area now would significantly limit our ability to keep the pressure on Al Qaida and create an unacceptable risk of added attacks on our homeland and allies.”

These four simple statements contain the myths that led America to betray her fundamental opposition to the Revolutionary ideology that was at the heart of the Vietnam War. 

“Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of forty-three nations that recognized the legitimacy of our actions.”

The President believes that our War to halt the spread of Chinese-backed Communism in Vietnam was not supported by the world.  Free countries not already influenced by pro-socialist propaganda recognized the dire necessity of the War. The statement reveals Obama’s detestation of an independent and non-contingent America.  He implies that our military decisions are not justified unless the global community bestows its blessing on them.  The world must check and balance the “often arrogant Superpower.”   Obama wishes to instill in Americans the sense that they have no right to act independently.  This perpetuates what David Horowitz refers to as our “national self-doubting,” that followed the Vietnam War.

“Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad based popular insurgency.”

The mothers who begged U.S. helicopter pilots to take their babies to America, three million Vietnamese “Boat People” who fled to the sea with nothing, and two million victims whose bones bake in the sun of Pol Pot’s killing fields, all these cry out against Obama’s perversion of historical truth.  The people we told to take responsibility for their own country were ground beneath the heel of the President’s non-existent “popular insurgency.”

“American people were viciously attacked in Afghanistan …to abandon now would create an unacceptable risk of added attacks on our homeland.”

It is true that no American buildings fell at the hands of Vietnamese terrorists on American soil.  The President is wrong, however, that we were not viciously attacked.  The essential War of our times, the war between the global gulag and liberty is first a war of ideas.  The enemy that overran Vietnam had indeed attacked America by spreading its subversive ideology.  The Anti-War movement led by Bernadine Dohrn, the student in the park, was proof of that insipid intellectual corruption  within American educational institutions. Communism is an ideal.  The implantation of this ideal in the hearts and minds of a nation is the first and most significant attack we suffered by those who invaded Vietnam.


 Surrounded by American Flags, the President hurled no obscenities at our soldiers. Yet, with four short statements, he profoundly insulted the valiant predecessors of those to whom he spoke.  He declared that the War they died for in Vietnam was illegitimate because America stood alone, immoral because unprovoked, and useless because the threat it pretended to avert was nothing but a phantom.    We cannot be surprised by his condemnation of any war on the Revolution, given his own affinity for devotees of Mao.  But, for Bernadine, hearing the President deliver her own Day of Rage speech in “the belly of the beast,”  was something  even she could hardly have had the audacity to hope for.

  1. David Forsmark permalink
    December 3, 2009 3:13 pm

    Great call on this one. I was furious about the Vietnam reference, too, but this speech was a target rich environment!

    • politicalmoxie permalink
      December 3, 2009 8:25 pm

      Bill Ayers + Bernadine Dorhn =’s what my family calls…Water seeking it’s own level!

      Just think, these two lunatics are well thought of and highly popular on the Chicago social scene. Forgive me , but I can not picture myself driving to a social event and saying, “I hope Bill and Bernadine are going to be there tonight, they’re so much fun.

  2. David permalink
    December 3, 2009 3:23 pm

    When a speaker uses the word “I” almost three dozen times, we know what the real subject of the speech is now don’t we. In this case, the speaker’s worldview simply won’t allow him to see the truth.

  3. Paul permalink
    December 3, 2009 3:56 pm

    I hate the people who believe Afghanistan or Iraq is exactly like Vietnam.

    This is the completely difference between Afghanistan and Vietnam. First off, we were attacked by the Al-Qaeda, who called home in the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. In Vietnam, we weren’t attacked by the North Vietnamese. We’ve been in Afghanistan for 8 years. We were actually in Vietnam for 30 years (from 1945-1975, 1945 was when the French were losing French Indochina a.k.a. Vietnam and other areas and in 1945, Truman started to put advisers in Vietnam). In Afghanistan, there is no true central government, no infrastructure, hardly any LEGAL economy, in Vietnam, there was a true central government, some infrastructure, and some economy. The biggest part of that difference, the central government.

    Alright, this is the difference between Iraq and Vietnam. In Iraq, the leader was a guy who killed over 750,000 of his own people in genocide and the Iraqi people hated Saddam. In Vietnam, people actually liked, or loved, Ho Chi Minh because he was freedom fighter. Iraq was MUCH more of a central government. Tell me what tanks, helicopters were built by Vietnam, Iraq, on the other hand, built a lot. How many wars did Ho Chi Minh and Vietnam go into? Saddam Hussein was in the Iran-Iraq War (an insane war that would make ANY WWI veteran died of pure shock (they used mustard gas, heavy trench warfare, bayonet charges, barbed wire across no mans-land) and the First Gulf War when they invanded Kuwait and he pushed them out (easily, and if we really wanted to, could have invaded and took over Iraq in full, buttt, people didn’t want that). Did Ho Chi Minh die less than 5 years of the war starting? No, but Saddam Hussein did. And Iraq was won, their central government is no longer. And in place is a democratic (hopefully) government, instead of a Facist government (Saddam Hussein himself was a facist, who called himself that).

    Biggest difference? The deaths.

    Vietnam: 58,159 American Soldiers dead.
    Iraq: 4,370 American Soldiers dead.
    Afghanistan: 930 American Soldiers dead.

    So… 5300 is the same as 58,159 (for those wanting to know, thats about 11 Vietnam deaths, to one Iraq and Afghanistan death combined).

    • David Forsmark permalink
      December 3, 2009 9:54 pm

      Ho may have fought the Japanese and had some broad support, but he was also installed by the Comintern. Read the book Mao by Jaing and Halliday, which Dave Horowitz also endorses. There is a bit on how the North Vietnamese had a Cultural Revolution style purge, and the absolute face that Ho was installed by popular acclaim.

    • Jonathan permalink
      December 4, 2009 5:19 am

      I think you should study the history of the Vietnam War a little more. SEATO. Do you know what that word was?

      Do you see that photo of the helicopter up top, and the line of people trying to get to it?

      Those people didn’t think Ho was such a great guy. Neither did the thousands of boat people who came to the US over the next few years.

      The Vietcong used to go into villages suspected of collaborating with the US. They might force the village chieftain to rape his own daughter in front of the villagers. Or perhaps force his wife to shoot her own children one by one. The Vietcong would throw babies on the ground and nail their heads to the ground by hammering wooden stakes through their ears. This was official government policy for the Communists.

      The last president of South Vietnam settled in Pennsylvania after he fled the country. Till the day he died, he lamented the loss of his country. And he asked again and again, “why did the Americans abandon us?”

  4. Carterthewriter permalink
    December 3, 2009 4:08 pm

    The sad reference to that ill-conceived war brings back the memories of the complete lack of political resolve to win the battle.

    Now, we watch as a new set of idiots in Congress postulate, gestulate, and just make damned fools of themselves and our country.

  5. Theodore Blunt permalink
    December 3, 2009 5:55 pm

    If anyoue wants to look back, it was the democrats that suffered hemofecalimia in Viet Nam too/

  6. Sam Deakins permalink
    December 4, 2009 4:25 am

    I think the word “brilliant” was used at least once too often in the article.

  7. Sam Deakins permalink
    December 4, 2009 4:26 am

    Maybe twice too often?

    • December 4, 2009 4:56 am

      Well done, Sam .. deleting two brilliant’s is in itself brilliant!

  8. Freeme permalink
    December 4, 2009 5:36 am

    the Audacious Arrogant One by just showing up in front of the Cadets is morally disgusting. Ignorance has no match like a fool who thinks he knows everything by ONLY reading books and spouting ‘theories’ to a group whose lives will be devoted to ‘being there in REAL LIFE’…not just in theory.

    The ignorance of it all is repulsive…and that these brave cadets had to sit there and listen to the empty vessel rave on about self is vile. I applaud those who fell asleep…they didnt miss a thing.

    • betty boop permalink
      December 4, 2009 6:37 am

      Yes, that’s a great point. I have repeatedly had that feeling about representatives of this administration, from the “brilliant” Nancy Pelosi (sorry) to the “wicked smart” Obama himself. The attitude that you cannot underestimate the intelligence of the American public is from an old saw passed down from HL Mencken. My lefty relatives love to spout that one. But when you insist on denigrating the intelligence of the US Military, who indeed will bear the ultimate burden of representing our nation’s policies, for better or worse, you should at least offer them the truth. Obama is not the only guy out there walking around with his supposed “brilliant” IQ. Eventually even the slowest grunt will see through him. How does this help moral for those we’ve asked to serve? They deserve better.

      • betty boop permalink
        December 4, 2009 6:39 am

        oops. Morale, not moral.

  9. Rod permalink
    December 4, 2009 9:52 am

    Obama has no idea what America stands for. He is not American. He was raised as a Muslim. He is a left winging communist for all practical purposes as well as all his czars!

    • Jonathan permalink
      December 4, 2009 10:29 am

      Well, I think you might be mistaken, Rod.

      Obama has a clear idea. America stands for oppression, exploitation, materialism, consumerism, imperialism, militarism, nepotism, pollution, racism, sexism, ageism, masochism, dominism.

  10. Jonathan permalink
    December 4, 2009 10:33 am

    But, if we were listening closely, we heard the one Freudian slip where Obama admitted the truth to his own Marxist lie about America. That contrary to the Marxist picture, America is the strong fortress of peace in the world, that we have brought the modern world to fruition and that we have lifted millions of people out of poverty around the globe. We make the world a safer place and we on balance have done much more good for the world than otherwise.

    Thank you Mr. Obama. Now that you have admitted that, drop your Marxist thinking and become the next Ronald Reagan.

    Or, just continue on as you are and demonstrate to us all that those were just empty pointless words designed to fool people and generate applause.

    Either way, WE win. You Lose.

  11. Elaine B permalink
    December 4, 2009 5:19 pm

    Did the West Point cadets have an option not to be insulted by Obama by opting out of being present for his speech?

  12. Carbondioxide permalink
    December 4, 2009 11:23 pm

    Elaine: Did the West Point cadets have an option not to be insulted by Obama by opting out of being present for his speech?

    Tonight Jim Lehrer boasted that he is “not an entertainer”. One might say the same of the President in his speech on the Hudson. Not entertaining but apalling.
    No astute observations like many above, but this reminded me a bit of the Gloria Steinem night in an early 70’s Forrestal Lecture series at USNA. I am sure being lectured by the feminist icon at her zenith made us all better Naval officers.
    Midshipmen were allowed to bring a piece of fresh fruit from the mess hall following evening meal. She must have lacked confidence and understanding of the situation; she thought the hundreds of apples or whatever in the hands of the Midshipmen were to be thrown at her. Of course the Brigade of Midshipmen did nothing of the sort. She was very skinny, maybe that is why a Midshipman kindly offered her fruit afterwards during handshakes.
    It is strange how those schools are exploited as a safe place for a crappy speeches that “do a disservice to the truth” because of the strict accountability of those in the audience. That is an abuse of power. They are places quite unlike the halls of power in Washington.
    Pray for people in the military under this administration.


  1. Wax on Wax Off Waxman! A Media Eating Moonbat! « Moonbat Patrol

Comments are closed.