Unspun Logo

Hanoi War Crimes Museum Honors Stupid Republicans

Posted by Rick · September 29th, 2004 · 3 Comments

Yesterday, I noted that Republicans are stupid. Among other things, I pointed out that half the rocks on the planet were more intelligent than Republicans. Some people may have been confused by that. I did not mean to say that one Republican was smarter than half the rocks, collectively. I meant that half of all the rocks on the planet each, individually, was smarter than all the Republican rank-and-file, collectively.

To prove my point, Paula, a Republican, emails me about John Kerry’s photo, which is said to hang in the Hanoi War Remnants Museum (sometimes deliberately and misleadingly reported by Republicans as being the Hanoi War Crimes Museum).


Ms. Paula tells me, in an email whose “Subject” line states, “You are as BLIND as the mainstream media . . .”,

The picture DOES exist and if you haven’t been there (in Hanoi) you don’t know crap. Email from Ms. Paula, who either doesn’t know, or wouldn’t provide, her last name.

She also provides a link to a website with more pictures, which I’ll discuss in detail below.

Now I have to assume that what inspired Ms. Paula to write to me is that she has read at least one article on this topic on my website. In order to justify my belief that only half the rocks on this planet are smarter than Ms. Paula, I’m going to assume she read this article. In that article, I point out that there is no “war crimes room” in the Hanoi museum. I did not in that article, deny that the picture exists. In fact, I noted that

[T]he picture was taken when Kerry was part of a delegation of veterans’ groups visiting Vietnam partly to find out what happened to soldiers still listed as “missing in action[.]” Rick Horowitz, Hanoi War Crimes Museum, Unspun™, ¶ 4, (August 21, 2004).

So Ms. Paula’s assertion that “[t]he picture DOES exist” is, apparently, either a non sequitur or meant to indicate she’s too stupid to read. Which fits my theory about the rocks.

Similarly, although I’ve never been to Hanoi, I know quite a few things. Another non sequitur? Since she’s a Republican, it could have just been a spontaneous expression of gas.

The link Ms. Paula sends me to prove that the picture which I already had said in August existed existed is interesting in and of itself. To fully appreciate the rock-like intellectual capabilities of Republicans like Ms. Paula, you’ll want to spend some time looking at the page at the end of that link.

Personally, I love that page. It provides even more substantiation for other articles I’ve written, such as The Failure of Intelligent Political Discourse, in which I noted that the Republican “political leaders create a lie and the marketing arm of the party drills it into the people” or Pestilence: We Can Do Better, in which I noted that “Adherence to the truth is irrelevant to the Bush Administration” and pointed out that “Not only has Bush routinely lied to the American people . . . he has also worked to re-write history.” The fact is that the only thing not rock-like about Republicans is their integrity. It’s as solid as the vapor coming off dry ice.

The article Ms. Paula pointed me to — as those of you who took my advice and viewed it will recognize — is an attempt to show that a) the Kerry photo much argued over actually exists and b) the Communists placed that photo where they placed that photo in order to “honor” Kerry for succor he allegedly gave to them by (again, allegedly) working on their behalf.

The web page appears to go to great and truly impressive lengths to document these “facts.”

The first point, of course, is irrelevant. Not only have I never denied the existence of the Kerry photo, I’ve actually written about it in more than one blog article. So the only potentially-interesting point is that the photo, or perhaps the placement of the photo, is intended by the Communist Vietnamese to honor Kerry.

So what evidence is offered on this web page to prove that point?

First, we have a picture proving the photo exists. But, as they would say in a court room, we’ve already stipulated to that. Next, we are shown via translation of the placard beneath the photo that “Mr. Do Muoi, Secretary General of the Vietnam Communist Party met with Congressmen and Veterans Delegation in Vietnam (July 15-18, 1993)” — remember those dates. But, again, it not only was never denied (by Unspun™, anyway!) that this was how the photograph came into existence, we’ve actually written about that more than once!

So far no proof of either Kerry’s providing succor to the Communists, or of his being honored for so doing. This photo, however, will be a significant factor in this interesting mess of Republican dishonesty. So, if you haven’t already done so, please do go look at it!

Next, we have a photo of Jane Fonda displayed in “the Women’s Museum” in Saigon. Apparently, George Bush isn’t the only Republican who is geographically-challenged. I mean, weren’t we looking at photographs of Kerry in the Hanoi museum? Maybe it’s a typographical error. Maybe they’re just confused trying to figure how they’re going to spin this story into another convincing Republican lie. So are we really in Hanoi? And are “the Women’s Museum” and “the Hanoi War Remnants Museum” the same museum?

An uninteresting problem, really. Let’s pretend for the moment that Jane’s photo is in the Hanoi War Remnants Museum. Somewhere. Maybe even in the same “room” as John’s photo. (It’s not clear, though, that there really are individual “rooms,” even though the KerryLied.com makes a big deal out of the fact that all the photos presented are purportedly in “the same room.” From what shows in these photos, it looks like the entire museum might be one large room, like in a warehouse or gymnasium or even a quonset hut with display boards scattered throughout which may indicate some sectioning. Perhaps Kent will tell us — oh, yeah, you might want to remember that name, too. So now you’re keeping track of the first Kerry picture on the KerryLied.com page and Kent’s name.)

After Jane, we get a string of photos showing anti-war posters from various countries and war protesters burning draft cards. Photos 5, 6 and 7 are deliberately intended to show the layout of the “room” where Kerry’s picture purportedly hangs. Sadly, they do not show — although they state — where Kerry’s photo is in relation to them. Not that it matters much. It just seems that since they make such a big deal of providing photographic proof for their allegations, they’d want to photographically demonstrate proximity, rather than just leave us to take their word for it. I mean, they do indicate that the purpose of the page is to destroy the view that they’ve made much ado about nothing by showing that all they’ve said is true. Instead, we are told that these photos are “on the opposite side of the room,” which, from appearances is the same as saying “on the other side of the building.”

That’s not what really got my attention, though. And I hope I’m not the only one who caught this.

On September 4, 2004, I wrote an article titled Kerry “Honored” by Hanoi War Crimes Museum. In that article, I quoted one of our readers, Kent (yep!), when he said,

I have seen the contents of the exhibit in question. Right next to the picture in question is a picture of Lt. General Michael Ryan, assistant to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at the time and member of the delegation. On the other side of that picture is a picture that has all 4 leading members of the Veterans Groups were on this very trip.Rick Horowitz, Kerry “Honored” by Hanoi War Crimes Museum Unspun™, ¶ 6, (September 4, 2004).

Okay, for those who need a picture to understand this comment, observe. Remember the first photo on KerryLied.com, showing the newspaper with next to Kerry’s photo?

Map of Missing Photo Layout

Hmmm . . . . What was that Kent said again? Oh yeah . . .

Map of Photo Layout

Well, I’ll be danged! You think there’s a reason that after all the trouble they went to over at KerryLied.com, they forgot to show us what was on the other side of the Kerry photo? How about maybe the Republicans are lying again and they realize if you see all the photos it will prove that? (Now you know why I made the kind assumption that Ms. Paula read the other article and not the one with Kent’s comment!)

And why didn’t they show the translation of the placard beneath the General Giap photo that they do show next to Kerry’s photo? Are those Americans on either side of General Giap? (They appear to be.) Are they Americans­Who­Are­Not­John­Kerry? Could they be Americans­Who­Are­Not­John­Kerry­And­Are­Not­Communist­Succor­Providers? If they are these things, what does that do to the KerryLied.com argument?

The fact is, it shows just how disingenuous KerryLied.com has been and how truly stupid the Republican rank-and-file that buys these lies can be. We aren’t told what the placard below General Giap says. I’ve tried enhancing it in Photoshop to read it and the best I can make out is that it might — and I stress that I can’t make this out clearly — be a photograph taken contemporaneously with the visit of the Veterans’ Groups which Kerry had accompanied. If so, this reinforces the apparent point of these photos that, rather than honoring Kerry in some way, the display in which Kerry’s picture appears is completely devoted to “‘Members of Congress and representatives of veterans groups [which] traveled to Vietnam to press for the goal’ of resolving the fate of American service personnel who did not return from Vietnam” rather than being placed “to honor the service John Kerry rendered to the Vietnamese communists with his anti-war protest activities.”

But that view just won’t cause enough people — including potential voters — to be pissed off at Kerry now, will it?

And when it comes to telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help them G-d, Republicans would rather swear (on their Bibles, no doubt) to the veracity of a lie than take a chance that someone might actually vote for Kerry.

Frankly, it makes me sick. And not just because there are Republicans who would prefer to lie and mislead rather than let Kerry win — after all, their model is a President who lies to convince us to send America’s sons and daughters to go die in foreign wars so his oil buddies can get no-bid contracts worth millions. No, what makes me sick is that the Republican rank-and-file is dumber than half the rocks on this planet and that they foist this stupidity on the rest of us by managing to roll themselves into a voting booth.

Special thanks to “Paula” for being too stupid to realize I’d see through this sham and expose it.

Categories: Politics-In-General

Tags:

3 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Jerry VanHise // Nov 2, 2004 at 10:16 am

    I personally don’t care about all of your side issues of translations, smae rooms or different,
    placards below up, down or to the side.Who visited which month, year … was it raining when they visited? Did someone have a bowel movement
    when the picture was first hung? This is all a bunch of psycho-babble bullshit double-talk. I recognize it as such because it’s what the commies do when the truth cannot be refuted. The fact that the damn picture is there is enough for anyone with 1 brain cell not to vote for a communist
    sympathiser for president! Sheeeesh!!! Enough bullshit already. Please come to your common sense that you hopefully were born with. :-))))

  • 2 Rick Horowitz // Nov 2, 2004 at 10:32 am

    So, Jerry, let’s see if I have this right: You’re saying that the fact that spending loads of energy and money to detail the layout of the museum — except for what refutes their ideas about Kerry — is the truth. Why? Because apparently it was done by people who think Kerry is a communist sympathizer. (Since the real story doesn’t matter, according to you, it can’t be any other reason.)

    And why do they think that? Uh, because someone told them this was true. And to prove it was true, they lied to them. They showed them pictures of everything they wanted them to see and deliberately hid the part that would reveal they were being deceitful.

    Kind of like weapons of mass destruction, yes?

    And “the commies” who “cannot refute the truth” are just spitting out “psycho-babble bullshit double-talk” because they do what? Oh, yeah, that’s right. Because they insist on showing you what the other side left out of the picture.

    Now I get it. So what you’re saying is that the right thing (pun intended) to do is to lie about something in order to get people to believe it. And if someone else shows you the truth, then you say they’re only doing that because they can’t refute the truth.

    Well, at least on that last part, I agree with you: I couldn’t refute the truth. So instead of trying to hide the truth, I drew a picture to show everyone what it really looked like. 😉

    You can’t have your cake and eat it, too, dude. Republicans can’t say that the picture of Kerry there proves Hanoi was honoring him, while at the same time hiding the pictures of other respected people whom you would never accuse of that.

  • 3 Josh // Feb 25, 2005 at 11:40 am

    I would have to say jerry is part of that half thats inferior to rocks. Try reading about the bush family history, then lets see who the real loser is! Mr. bush has links to nazi’s, and hasn’t done one thingto help this country, but oh ya, god made him president so it must be good right? A president who takes the biggest surplus and turns it into the biggest dificit ever needs a nice pat ont he back, or maybe an impeachment? what would happen to clinton had he lied to the public numerous times everyday about critical information?

Leave a Comment

CommentLuv badge