08f5767bb125…

It was so bizarre and absent reason I naturally assumed it was you!

Perhaps you should study history instead of bloviating about stuff you know nothing about.

Read: The New Dealers’ War: FDR and the War Within World War II by Thomas J. Fleming.

Or try Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor by Robert Stinnett.

It is a FACT that on December 4, 1941, the anti-FDR Chicago Tribune revealed FDR’s war plans to invade German occupied Europe with 5 million men in 1943 and is prima fascia proof that FDR lied when he said he wasn’t planning for war with Germany. And it was a GOOD THING for America that he did, too.

Honora I’m sorry that was georgej! It was so bizarre and absent reason I naturally assumed it was you!

Actually, I enjoying debating you and for some reason I didn’t catch that it was someone else, it is quite early here and I was in hurry.

Umnumzana on August 22, 2006 at 10:19 AM

Right back at ya my friend!! And many thanks for not making fun of my quoting catastrophe!!!

Actually, I enjoying debating you and for some reason I didn’t catch that it was someone else, it is quite early here and I was in hurry.

Honora: I spoke in each post of FDR being reluctant and tardy about Europe and you tell me how he prepared for war with Japan, which I said he had done. Like a good liberal you simply change the subject, engaging in obfuscation.

I haven’t said jack about Japan.

Like a good right winger you insult me.blockquote>

Also, while you defend FDR by telling me he was making statements for public consumption against our entering the war in Europe and he was deliverately lying for purely partisan political purposes. But, like you said facts are stubborn things and I gave you a direct quote to support my assertions and you give me political analysis!

Umnumzana on August 22, 2006 at 9:45 AM

Let me get this straight: FDR was hiding his real intentions for purely partisan political purposes? And what purposes would those be? I thought he was keeping his intentions quiet because he was trying to position to go to war with Germany. By you this is

partisan

?

Holy moly!!!

Also, while you defend FDR by telling me he was making statements for public consumption against our entering the war in Europe and he was deliverately lying for purely partisan political purposes. But, like you said facts are stubborn things and I gave you a direct quote to support my assertions and you give me political analysis!

Does your wife know about this crush you have on W??
Honora, that was a cheap shot.

georgej on August 22, 2006 at 8:06 AM

georgej: lighten up. The tell tale sign of zealotry is a complete lack of sense of humor.

Entelechy: I know Bush had a terrific record of bi-partisanship in Texas, more’s the pity. As to having folks from the other side of the aisle in his cabinet, let’s talk about key positions, not something like heading up faith based initiatives. Clinton had little use for conservatives in his administration, and shame on him.

Does your wife know about this crush you have on W??

Honora, that was a cheap shot.

So, by his own words, was FDR or was he not, as I suggested, reluctant and even tardy in committing the U.S. to the war in Europe?

Facts are stubborn things. The war started on September 1, 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland. But even before that, in July 1939, FDR had cut off trade with Japan, an act that everyone knowledgeable about foreign policy at the time knew would have serious reprocussions. Those reprocussions ulitmately took the form of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

So, the answer to your question is “no.” What he said for public consumption in 1939 was belied by has actions in 1939, 1940, and 1941 prior to Pearl Harbor.

FDR, the consumate politician that he was, was steering a public middle course between the isolationist sentiment in America and his personal belief that the USA would be going to war, regardless of what the isolationists wanted.

In addition, 1940 was an election year and FDR wanted to get reelected. So, he was careful about his public utterances, as all politicians try to be.

I have never considered FDR a demigod. In fact, my parents and elder relatives totally despised FDR and I grew up listening to a catalog of his many sins. But objective credit should be given where credit is due. And the facts are that the pre-war posture of the United States was hostile towards the Empire of Japan and the Third Reich, and that in the 18 months prior to Pearl Harbor, the United States implemented steps that not only prepared the nation for war, by Presidential executive order and legislation, but the United States committed what under “internation law” would be considered acts of war against Germany.

So your characterization is false.

Like Bush, Lincoln was popular with the military. It is estimated he got 78 percent of the military vote. Now that is a landslide! Consider how many of his votes had already died on the battlefield.

The Democratic party convention of 1864 sounds like today’s DEMs. The platform called for cease-fire.

Like Bush, Lincoln was a religious nut. He ordered his troops to observe Christian Sabbath.

But then, look at how Churchill was accepted by the Brits before the war started licking their heels. And look at how he got the boot after the war was won and the appeasers got their courage back.

honora, there was bi-partisanship in support of the war, until things got tough. Your party is like rats, who abandon the ship at the first whiff of danger. I remember Mr. Bush negotiating so much bi-partisanship and U.N. bla, bla, that I thought I’d give birth to an elephant baby if the war wouldn’t start soon. The most joyful day was when the statue came down! Along with Lenin’s coming down sooner, and the German wall later :) I’m collecting them with joy!

To your question: Norm Mineta, as mentioned Mr. Kennedy in the beginning (Mr. Bush had a great bi-partisan record from Texas), a Roman Catholic Towey and a few others, some who came and left.

Before you come back with “so what”? Mr. Clinton had one so-called conservative, the ‘token’ Secretary of Defense.

As I have addressed, FDR was playing a cat and mouse game with an isolationist Congress, he couldn’t come out and say he was pro-war. Your laundry list of grievances against FDR is eloquent evidence of what is wrong with politics today: you can’t imagine a multi-faceted politician, one who is a combination of good and bad, it has to be all black and white. Democrat=evil.

As to your point about reaching out to Republicans during his administration, Stimson (Sect of War) and Knox (Sect of the Navy) were Republicans.

So, by his own words, was FDR or was he not, as I suggested, reluctant and even tardy in committing the U.S. to the war in Europe? Yes, after he made that commitment, he and Churchill formed a mighty alliance and it was through our efforts, with FDR as our President, that the allies beat Nazi Germany. I am not condemning FDR by suggesting he was reluctant and tardy, simply that he was not the demi-god many made him out to be, and he was by nature of his political philosophy, in the appeasement camp for some time prior to our direct involvement.

That being said, the Democrats of his day were nothing like the Democrats of our day. I should add three more things:

1. FDR was the leader of the infamous, unconstitutional ‘court packing’ scheme. 2. He was behind the incarceration of Japanese Americans. which also violated our Constitution. 3. I cannot recall his reaching out to the Republicans during his administration, quite the contrary he held them all in contempt.

Honora: Calling someone ignorant is NOT name calling or demeaning in any manner, it simply means a lack of knowledge or complete knowledge of a particular subject, in the opinion of someone else. As touching many matters, I am grossly ignorant.

I served with Force Recon in the Marine Corps, and I was attached to NSG in Da Nang!

Who are you going to vote in that “can make it happen?” Kerry? Hillary? Biden? I cannot think of any of them who will not immediately cut-and-run!

Reaching out to people in the other party? Bush did that many times and got stabbed in the back every time! He reached out to Ted “I kill my dates” Kennedy, and got his ass handed to him when Teddy boy accused Bush of deciding to invade Iraq for oil profits, before he even ran for the White House!

georgej: There was a strong anti-war element in the United States prior to WW-II and Churchill came with hat in hand many times and FDR was simply not interested in any fighting for Europe. Support? Yes! Our direct involvemen? No! While I don’t question your motives, I think your facts are being used to engage in some revisionist history!

Umnumzana on August 21, 2006 at 3:03 PM

Ok, again, facts please: examples with back up of Bush reaching out to the other party on Iraq? I need references, links.

Re FDR, I am afraid you are mistaken. There was a strong anti-war effort which FDR foiled at many junctures. He realized (now here’s a quaint notion) that he alone could not take the country to war and that his job was to use the power of the Presidency to persuade the country–Pearl Harbor of course made that all moot.

Again, read The Last Lion (Manchester’s excellent bio of Churchill and read what Churchill says on this matter) or No Ordinary Time, Gooden’s masterful portrait of FDR during the war and his extraordinary alliance with Churchill.

Who would I vote for? Why do you assume it would a Democrat? I would vote for McCain, Romney, Biden. Can’t say I have given it a lot of thought, so much changes in a couple years.

I served with Force Recon in the Marine Corps, and I was attached to NSG in Da Nang!

Who are you going to vote in that “can make it happen?” Kerry? Hillary? Biden? I cannot think of any of them who will not immediately cut-and-run!

Reaching out to people in the other party? Bush did that many times and got stabbed in the back every time! He reached out to Ted “I kill my dates” Kennedy, and got his ass handed to him when Teddy boy accused Bush of deciding to invade Iraq for oil profits, before he even ran for the White House!

georgej: There was a strong anti-war element in the United States prior to WW-II and Churchill came with hat in hand many times and FDR was simply not interested in any fighting for Europe. Support? Yes! Our direct involvemen? No! While I don’t question your motives, I think your facts are being used to engage in some revisionist history!

The hard truth is “trying” ain’t gonna cut it. He needs to make it happen, and if he can’t, let’s vote in someone who can.

My point is that both Lincoln and FDR reached out to the opposition in an effort to get the best minds and to attempt to lead the whole nation, not just their “base”.

And look what reaching out to Mr. Lieberman, who offered only a fraction of a finger to the opposing party brought him? A reached out hand needs to meet a willing one to actually shake hands. Not possible from your end. Harping, harping, harping, not from you honora, from your party. That’s the problem. Mr. Bush certainly tried in the beginning but it led to absolutely nowhere.

Oh so now I see how this is going to be…you’re going to resort to FACTS!

(Stunned silence)

As to FDR, ever hear of Lend-Lease?

Honora, your point that FDR was not only forward looking concerning WWII is not only correct, but understated.

FDR clearly knew that the USA was going to be involved in WWII in 1940. Starting in the last half of 1940, America began to prepare for entry in the war.

The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 was enacted and became the first peace-time draft, more than a full year before the attack on Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941.

In mid 1941, the government began drawing up plans for converting the US economy to a war time footing should WWII involve the USA. Within a month of Pearl Harbor, the War Production Board was established by executive order and began the transition of the economy from “butter” to “guns.”

In March 1941, the same month that the Lend-Lease Act was enacted, the Navy establishes the Support Force Atlantic Fleet to portect convoys in the North Atlantic and partnered with the Royal Navy in cross-Atlantic operations.

In the Pacific, the US Navy and Marines begin deploying assets during March 1941 in preparation for war with Japan.

Also in March, 1941, 850 German and Italian merchant marine seamen are interned with their vessels in US ports.

In April 1941, the USS Niblack (DD-424) rolls depth charges on a suspected German U-Boat while engaged in rescue operations after a Dutch freighter is torpedoed in the Atlantic in what is apparently the first US belligerant act against a German warship.

The US posture prior to Pearl Harbor was aggressive towards both Germany and Japan and a build up of the services and economic mobilization was in process.

FDR was NOT dragged “kicking and screaming” into WWII. In fact, his opponents were openly calling him a war monger and worse from 1940 on.

Further, the charges of personal incompetence in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor included a side show of charges of FDR’s duplicity in setting up the 7th Fleet for attack in order to drag the USA into WWII.

BTW, we see the same type of conspiratorial nonsense today with the morons who claim that Bush ordered the 9/11/01 and that the WTC towers were “imploded” and that the Pentagon was “attacked” by a US cruise missile and not a hijacked jetliner.

In any event, Pearl Harbor put an end to the dalliance over America’s involvement in the world war, which had started over 2 years earlier.