Video: Obama ducks question on whether U.S. should have nuked Hiroshima

posted at 7:44 pm on November 13, 2009 by Allahpundit

Why bother answering? We all have a pretty good idea what he thinks. Including the lefty hawks at TNR:

But given his longstanding views about nuclear weapons, I’m actually not certain that Obama agrees with the decision. And I can also imagine him thinking that Hiroshima was the right and necessary thing. But also that Nagasaki–which as I understand it was bombed when serious talks about surrender were already underway within Japan–may have been gratuitous. (A view apparently shared by Dwight Eisenhower, if this source is reliable.)

Not that we’d be very likely to hear that from him, either.

Actually, the fact that he ducked the question here and is skipping a visit to Hiroshima on this trip only makes me more confident that he’d never let KSM go, irrespective of the district court verdict. He knows what the public reaction would be if he apologized for the A-bomb; he knows full well how it would bolster the image of him as being soft and less a defender of American actions abroad than some quasi-neutral arbiter who’s trying to be “fair” to all sides. Freeing the mastermind of 9/11 would be orders of magnitude worse. If he’s unwilling to risk the fallout (no pun intended) from apologizing to a country we’ve been closely allied with for decades, he’s not risking the nuclear backlash (again, not intended) that would come with Khaled Sheikh Mohammed being dropped off in Kandahar and promptly organizing a new squad of 747s to hit American office towers. It would be an electoral Jonestown for Democrats. Click the image to watch.

o-hiroshima


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Dean, I’m just curious. In your mind, has anyone… ever… in history, actually legitimately attacked us and / or deserved to have us attack them?

Dark Eden on November 13, 2009 at 8:35 PM

This is nothing–he has called people like Hawkdriver a rapists, he disparaged our soldiers so badly, I thought he would get banned. Evidently you can only get banned if you insult Michelle Obama…

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2009 at 8:42 PM

Physics fail.

exception on November 13, 2009 at 8:29 PM

Yep, big time. Just ignore the troll he’s trying to rewrite history and repeal physical laws all at the same time.

Oldnuke on November 13, 2009 at 8:43 PM

Dean, I’m just curious. In your mind, has anyone… ever… in history, actually legitimately attacked us and / or deserved to have us attack them?

Dark Eden on November 13, 2009 at 8:35 PM

Now, the Second World War era Japanese and the 9/11 hijackers are bad people who have done bad things. But the fact of the matter is that they would not have done what they did if not for U.S. meddling. That doesn’t make what they did right. It’s simply the bottom line that these things could have been avoided with better U.S. policy that respects freedom and peace instead of wanting perpetual war all the time.

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:29 PM

It’s not that US civilians deserve to be attacked, but it is inevitable because U.S. Government need to meddle in the affairs of the world and yes, there is going to be a reaction to that.

Wasn’t one of the arguments made here a while ago that if Obama releases photos of either Abu Ghraib or us torturing people, then that will inflame anti-American sentiment? Well then how is us actually bombing civilians and non-military personnel not going to do the same?

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:44 PM

If the men that dropped those devices on the empire of Japan had no problem doing it, I have no problem with it.. War is obama oh, hell.

huckelberry on November 13, 2009 at 8:45 PM

The Dean
We have trolls, and then we have dispicable trolls, sometimes we even have dispicable trolls that are a$$holes…consider yourself in this last catagory.

lovingmyUSA on November 13, 2009 at 8:46 PM

I’m not asking if you think Al Queda and the Tojo-era Japanese are bad, I’m asking if you think we have ever legitimately been attacked by someone.

From what I gather, you think both 9/11 and Pearl Harbor were faked by the US.

So the simple question is, do you believe there has ever been an actual attack on us.

Dark Eden on November 13, 2009 at 8:46 PM

Secondary question, do you think there’s anyone that actually deserves to be attacked by us.

Other than Israel of course, since anti-semitism seems to be like a required feature for nut ball conspiracy theorist trolls.

Dark Eden on November 13, 2009 at 8:49 PM

maybe I am too cynical.. was his joke to give Rahm and Axelrod time to send his answer via special presidential blackberry?

cubbieblue25 on November 13, 2009 at 8:49 PM

私はここにいる

(’present’, or “I am here” in Japanese)

fred5678 on November 13, 2009 at 7:50 PM

いる would normally be enough. The Japanese tend not to use pronouns if they can at all be inferred from context.

Count to 10 on November 13, 2009 at 8:51 PM

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:29 PM

wormer, right.

huckelberry on November 13, 2009 at 8:51 PM

From what I gather, you think both 9/11 and Pearl Harbor were faked by the US.

So the simple question is, do you believe there has ever been an actual attack on us.

Dark Eden on November 13, 2009 at 8:46 PM

I haven’t said that either of these attacks was faked.

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:52 PM

The enemy wouldn’t even have been in North America if the U.S. government hadn’t gotten into Japan’s affairs. And it all stems from U.S. involvement in the First World War, but that’s for another post.

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:26 PM

History fail.
Japan was expanding into Asia, and the US was getting out of their business by not selling them the oil and steal to do it with. That is why they hit Pearl.

Count to 10 on November 13, 2009 at 8:54 PM

Maybe this was going through his mind…

Seven Percent Solution
Or maybe this.

Grow Fins on November 13, 2009 at 8:00 PM

Or maybe this.

profitsbeard on November 13, 2009 at 8:56 PM

It’s not that US civilians deserve to be attacked, but it is inevitable because U.S. Government need to meddle in the affairs of the world and yes, there is going to be a reaction to that.

Wasn’t one of the arguments made here a while ago that if Obama releases photos of either Abu Ghraib or us torturing people, then that will inflame anti-American sentiment? Well then how is us actually bombing civilians and non-military personnel not going to do the same?

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:44 PM

This is such crap it is hard to believe someone would say it. There are so many things wrong with it, it is almost impossible to respond to it.

1) Who says we meddle? The US has fed, clothed, sheltered, provided more medical care for more people than any nation in history. We are the home of the United Nations, like it or not and the whole world comes here. I would say they meddle in our affairs more than we do theirs.

2) Panties on someone’s head is not torture. The United States did not kill anyone at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo and I doubt very much that in a world such as this one, anything that happened there can compete with the atrocities that take place on a daily basis somewhere else.

And as far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My Dad was one of the men who would have been in the first wave going into Japan if there had not been a surrender. They were looking at 90% casualties for those men. Millions of dead Japanese as well. My Dad was also at Nagasaki not long after the blast, he never got over it. But then again, 60 million people died in that war and the vast majority of them were not killed by Americans. So go lecture them.

Terrye on November 13, 2009 at 8:56 PM

Secondary question, do you think there’s anyone that actually deserves to be attacked by us.

We could have issued letters of marque and reprisal specifically targeting Bin Laden and the other high-level operatives responsible for 9/11. That would have been decent policy.

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:56 PM

I haven’t said that either of these attacks was faked.

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:52 PM

Maybe not but you have implied that some US action was responsible for the attack on Pearl Harbor.

It’s not that US civilians deserve to be attacked, but it is inevitable because U.S. Government need to meddle in the affairs of the world and yes, there is going to be a reaction to that.

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:44 PM

What, specifically, did the US do to precipitate that attack?

Oldnuke on November 13, 2009 at 8:57 PM

My point has not been to defend Axis powers.

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:26 PM

But that’s been your process, just as all day you’ve found way to somehow absolve KSM on other threads.

Liam on November 13, 2009 at 8:57 PM

The enemy wouldn’t even have been in North America if the U.S. government hadn’t gotten into Japan’s affairs. And it all stems from U.S. involvement in the First World War, but that’s for another post.

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:26 PM

You do not have any idea what you are talking about. The US and Britain had certain agreements in the region. And the Japanese knew that, and made a point of picking a fight with both nations. They also made a point of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians in countries like China, Burma and Indochina just to mention a few. As for WW1, if the Germans had not tried to drag the Mexicans into that war in an attempt to get them to attack the US, we might never have gotten involved at all.

Terrye on November 13, 2009 at 8:59 PM

That’s a lot of trouble and expense. If we wanted to be brutal they wouldn’t have food. That’s how the pros of the 20th century did it.

exception on November 13, 2009 at 8:28 PM

Ah, but after a 10 megaton yield, we found in the 50s we could add another megaton for 10 cents apiece.

Like with a good hooker: more bang for the buck!

(I’m being totally facetious here)

Liam on November 13, 2009 at 9:00 PM

Q :
Should US have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?

Answers
Bush 41 : Should Japan have attacked Pearl Harbor ?

Clinton 42 : Since it was Enola Gay, please don’t ask as I won’t tell

Bush 43 : You betchya we wre right

Obama 44 : Um er uhm I’m er ooh aah I luv sushi and used to drive a honda and my kids love pokemon

macncheez on November 13, 2009 at 9:02 PM

History fail.
Japan was expanding into Asia, and the US was getting out of their business by not selling them the oil and steal to do it with. That is why they hit Pearl.

Count to 10 on November 13, 2009 at 8:54 PM

The U.S. (along with Britain) froze Japanese assets, and also gave a ton of aid to China at the time.

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 9:02 PM

Obama just wanted to get back to the White Waffle House.

Tough questions that require historical information and a sense of morality and reality are above his insanely-inflated pay grade.

Barry should be making about $8.15 an hour.

And supervising nothing more complicated than a mop wringer.

profitsbeard on November 13, 2009 at 9:04 PM

We could have issued letters of marque and reprisal specifically targeting Bin Laden and the other high-level operatives responsible for 9/11. That would have been decent policy.

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:56 PM

What about the reverse?

If a foreign country contracted out for the capture of a citizen of the United States and a foreigner attempted to execute that letter of marque, do you think the government should defend it’s citizen? If so then it automatically is a state-state issue, not a state-citizen issue.

Spirit of 1776 on November 13, 2009 at 9:04 PM

FDR provoked the Pearl Harbor attack to justify US involvement in the Pacific Theater in the first place. Of course the U.S. shouldn’t have nuked tens of millions of civilians.

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:12 PM

I haven’t said that either of these attacks was faked.

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:52 PM

Playing semantics games here of course. You think that Pearl Harbor, and I’m going to go out on a limb and say 911, were ‘provoked’ as a way to say they weren’t the same as legitimate acts of war against us.

So let’s play the little semantics game. Has any power, other than Israel of course, ever attacked us without us being involved in a weird conspiracy to provoke them to attack us to serve our nefarious schemes?

We could have issued letters of marque and reprisal specifically targeting Bin Laden and the other high-level operatives responsible for 9/11. That would have been decent policy.

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:56 PM

So the only people who are legitimate targets are people who have already attacked us before or those directly responsible for them. Well at least that’s something of a consession! I wish you judged murderous jihadi’s working towards the Global Caliphate by the same harsh standard you judge the US.

Dark Eden on November 13, 2009 at 9:08 PM

It’s not that US civilians deserve to be attacked, but it is inevitable

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:44 PM

Then you have found your ‘moral’ parity.

OK, using your standard: Islamists slammed planes into the WTC. It’s now inevitable and safe we drop a 50kt nuke on Mecca during the height of Moslems’ time of pilgrimage there.

Thanks! I have been confirmed by a lib! All Hail Obama!

/SARC out the A$$

Liam on November 13, 2009 at 9:10 PM

Obama’s nuanced position is that we should have offered to share atomic technology with the Imperial Japanese and Nazi Germany. Then the world “would live as one”. I’m surprised he blew off this journalist.

wraithby on November 13, 2009 at 9:10 PM

The U.S. (along with Britain) froze Japanese assets, and also gave a ton of aid to China at the time.

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 9:02 PM

For Japanese aggression that was unwarranted–an aggressive war.

You show an amazing grasp of history. Are you a tenured college professor or something?

Liam on November 13, 2009 at 9:12 PM

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:26 PM

Guys, we have to cherish those who are special…

or find out where he went to school to get such an unacceptable history education and nuke that…

MarkT on November 13, 2009 at 9:14 PM

The U.S. (along with Britain) froze Japanese assets, and also gave a ton of aid to China at the time.

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 9:02 PM

Yes. That would be getting out of their business. The Japanese, on the other hand, wanted accomplices in its depredation, not bystanders. They attacked us because we shut down the trade they needed for their exploits.

Count to 10 on November 13, 2009 at 9:15 PM

FDR provoked the Pearl Harbor attack to justify US involvement in the Pacific Theater in the first place. Of course the U.S. shouldn’t have nuked tens of millions of civilians.

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:12 PM

That’s an extreme FDR-bashing myth totally debunked by history.

Are you a Righty like me. Not even I buy that BS line and never have.

Liam on November 13, 2009 at 9:16 PM

I lived in Japan from 1952-1954 as a grade schooler and had frequent contact with Japanese of various ages. We Americans felt no guilt about what had occurred, and the Japanese never suggested that we had gone too far to defeat them. And that included a boy my age who’s dad had been killed in the war.
Our politicians and scholars are bound to change history, and later in his presidency Obama probably will apologize for having dropped the bomb on Japan twice.

GaltBlvnAtty on November 13, 2009 at 9:18 PM

All this talk about the United States being responsible for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and more recently the terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001 are absurd. And those of you who truly feel this way are free to leave the United States on the next boat. There are plenty of other countries who would love to have you and the rest of your Jeremiah Wright nut-jobs!!!

galvestonian on November 13, 2009 at 9:19 PM

galvestonian on November 13, 2009 at 9:19 PM

+1000

Liam on November 13, 2009 at 9:21 PM

Well color me surprised. The dithering liar ACTUALLY did something (he ducked) when asked a legitimate question.
I’m… just … speechless.

Blacksmith8 on November 13, 2009 at 9:25 PM

+1000

Liam on November 13, 2009 at 9:21 PM

ditto

cmsinaz on November 13, 2009 at 9:33 PM

We cut off exports of oil and other necessities for the Japanese War Machine after they invaded China and Korea among other places.

If we hadn’t and they were successful in taking over more countries and consolidating their power and committing even more atrocities against civilian populations, I suppose you’d castigate the US for continuing to do business with a brutal warmongering nation.

This crap about we put Japan’s back to the wall so they had no real choice to attack us ignores what Japan was doing from 1932 to 1941. People here are not ignorant of history as The Dean seem to suppose.

Also – the constant harping on the rightness or wrongness of dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is pointless.

How many of you are aware there was single firebombing raid on Tokoyo earlier that wiped out 16 entire square miles of the city, resulting in over 100,000 deaths and over 100,000 more injuries?

And that was not the only fire bombing raid held on the Japanese mainland. They lost far more of their civilians and cities to the firebombs than they ever did to Fat Man and Little Boy.

Why didn’t they surrender then, if they were losing far more lives to firebombs? They seemed to think they could successfully combat this strategy over time, as it took entire air wings to fly over the cities and drop tons of bombs on targets. With improved fire-fighting methods, the Japanese seemed to think even though the toll from this was horrorfic, they could sustain it.

Not so with the atomic bomb. It was shown to them ONE plane getting through carrying one of these could hit a city with such a force that the Japanese imagination could not withstand it.

Only after the dropping of the 2nd bomb did Emperor Hirohito finally tell his advisers that ‘the unthinkable must now be endured’, and Japan surrendered.

Had the firebombings continued, and had Allied forces had to launch an invasion of the Japanese homeland, the civilian death toll would have been 2 or 3 times what it ended up being, if not more.

There is no doubt the atomic bombs shortened the war, compelled Japan to surrender, and by doing so saved countless Allied and Japanese lives that otherwise would have been lost in the ensuing months of firebombings and house to house fighting.

manofaiki on November 13, 2009 at 9:34 PM

FDR provoked the Pearl Harbor attack to justify US involvement in the Pacific Theater in the first place. Of course the U.S. shouldn’t have nuked tens of millions of civilians.

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:12 PM

Tens of what? Millions? Either you’re historically ignorant or you feel the need to pile on the corpses to make your point. Either way: FAIL

And FDR wasn’t “provoking” anything you historically illiterate troll, he was attempting to keep the Japanese from killing hundreds of thousands MORE East Asians.

And growfins, would have apparently rather seen the lady in his sad, sad picture bayoneted, or perhaps grenaded by American soldiers as they invaded the Japanese mainland and she attempted to kill them.

29Victor on November 13, 2009 at 9:37 PM

REPORTER: What is your understanding of the historical meaning of the A bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you think it was the right decision?

OBAMA: Now obviously Japan has unique perspective on the issue of nuclear weapons as a consequence of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You had one more question… And I’m not sure I remember it. What it North Korea?

REPORTER: No, it was that did you believe that the U.S. dropped the bomb..

OBAMA: No, no, no, there were sets of questions…out asked about… North Korea?

REPORTER: Yes, North Korea.

Obama reminded me of the Balloon Boy situation when the mother coached balloon boy on CNN…. “you DID??”

Here’s the video.

Amy Proctor on November 13, 2009 at 9:38 PM

There is no doubt the atomic bombs shortened the war, compelled Japan to surrender, and by doing so saved countless Allied and Japanese lives that otherwise would have been lost in the ensuing months of firebombings and house to house fighting.

manofaiki on November 13, 2009 at 9:34 PM

An unbiased scholar would have to agree with your assessment. Too bad most ‘scholars’ hold a liberal bent ahead of their degrees.

Liam on November 13, 2009 at 9:39 PM

How long will it until he travels to London to apologize for the revolutionary war?

RealityCheck4 on November 13, 2009 at 9:43 PM

Amazing the libs here forget the Japanese made sport of throwing Chinese and Korean babies in the air and catching them on their bayonets–in front of those babies’ mothers.

You libs think I’m lying? Talk to the Koreans I’ve met, and an occasional Chinese. Seventy years later, many of those people HATE Japanese. Why–because you truly believe they vote Republican?

Don’t you libs dare tell me about hate, because I met enough people from outside America who have been hurt by those you libs endlessly seek to absolve of wrongdoing, even decades past.

Liam on November 13, 2009 at 9:44 PM

Allow me to show you what kind of military the Japanese had circa 1932-1941, a period of time in which the United States went from trading partner to outrightly attempting to starve the Japanese into halting it’s aggession:

Japanese soldiers used live people for bayonet practice:

http://www.historywiz.com/bayonet.htm

http://www.historywiz.com/bayonet.htm

The rape of Nanking and other events:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/truth/genocide.shtml

Slowly, then with quickly accelerating alarm, the world watched Japan unveil it’s ‘new’ military in the 1930′s and then saw what they planned to do with it.

Not surprisingly, many of the nations of the world, after getting a look at the policies of the new military in Japan, decided to take their business elsewhere.

I suppose they should be commended for that instead of castigated.

Subsequent events of Japanese treatment of prisoners of war, and the treatment of civilians in places like Manila and Singapore only proved that cutting Japan off economically had been the right move. They were brutal beyond belief.

How anybody could attempt to say that the US was wrong and only ended up provoking Japan by refusing it trade is an act of monumental stupidity.

manofaiki on November 13, 2009 at 9:59 PM

Dean

Gee, if I am not mistaken, Japan was trying to add China or to be honest, parts of China especially Manchuria as well as the rich coastal lands to it’s empire. Also, British and American public opinion turned especially after the Rape of Nanking ,the Panay gunboat incident and well documented Japanese atrocities on both the native Chinese and the Western gaijin in China that forced the governments of Great Britain and the United States to freeze Japanese assets.

PS, the United States as well as many European powers had extensive Chinese holdings as well as expats living in China as missionaries, businessmen and diplomats along with their families in China. They had every reason to be pissed off against the Japanese when their citizens were being shot at, bombed at and oh yeah , being killed especially in supposedly safe areas which the Japanese and everyone knows that the place is a diplomatic mission.

DinobotPrime on November 13, 2009 at 10:02 PM

Dean successfully hijacks another thread, I see…it’s amazing what one anti-semetic PaulNut can do.

AUINSC on November 13, 2009 at 10:05 PM

Liam on November 13, 2009 at 9:44 PM

I spent time in the Philippines in the mid 60s only 20 or so years after WW II. The folks who lived through the Japanese occupation had not forgotten nor forgiven. The stories they told were enough to cause me nightmares. They harbored no doubts about the correctness of dropping the bombs.

Oldnuke on November 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM

We could have issued letters of marque and reprisal specifically targeting Bin Laden and the other high-level operatives responsible for 9/11. That would have been decent policy.

The Dean on November 13, 2009 at 8:56 PM

Sorry, but Bill Clinton’s Justice Department indicted bin Laden in 1998. They never did anything else later. Even when they had verified chances to take him out by a missile strike, and one time when he was actually offered to the US on a platter, Bubba refused. He then left Bush the 9/11 attacks, which bin Laden is on record as stating were in fact supposed to happen on Clinton’s watch.

To add insult to injury, as I have already noted a Federal Judge appointed by Bill Clinton in the same Court that will be trying these T-Words ruled in 2003 that Iraq played a role in the 9/11 attacks.

Of course, that Federal Court Ruling by a Clinton-appointed Judge in the same Court was dismissed as “irrelevant” by those on the Left, who are now calling this same Federal Court a fair legal venue.

Del Dolemonte on November 13, 2009 at 10:08 PM

Dean
By the way, the United States in the 1930s adopted an isolationist policy that was proven to be a big mistake a decade later.

DinobotPrime on November 13, 2009 at 10:11 PM

“Present.”

What a pic…anybody else think he looks rather like Mussolini?

Dr. ZhivBlago on November 13, 2009 at 10:19 PM

Oldnuke

Well, as someone who had grown and lived there. I could attest that many of the old folks still haven’t forgiven the Japanese for what they had done. Manila was never again the same when the Japanese navy and some hard core army units disobeyed Gen Yamasita to leave Manila as an open city . We lost a lot of our history when Manila was destroyed after the battle. Dean unfortunately is ignorant of what real history looks like. He only knows the PC version of history taught to him by his tenured leftists professors in an American college or university.

DinobotPrime on November 13, 2009 at 10:21 PM

A very unusual occurrance. Consider:

1. Obama is lucky he didn’t answer the question.

2. We are lucky Obama didn’t answer the question.

3. Japan is lucky Obama didn’t answer the question.

4. The Journalist failed at causing an international incident and embarrassment for a lot of people.

A most unusual confluence…

Meremortal on November 13, 2009 at 10:25 PM

“While I abhor the use of nuclear weapons, I think that there may be certain circumstances in which their use is justifiable. Hundreds of thousands of both American and Japanese lives were saved due to the use of the atomic bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to mention the ending of hostilities that if continued would have drained away precious national treasure. Yes, I believe the use of the atomic bomb during World War II was justified, and it is my sincere hope that the memory of the devastation will motivate us to continue to strive for a world in which the threats of nuclear war are diminished.”

How hard would this have been, Mr. Obama?

jimmy2shoes on November 13, 2009 at 10:27 PM

The thread is about Obama’s non-answer, not fantasies about why we joined WWII. Ignore that idiot troll who has hijacked the thread.

Meremortal on November 13, 2009 at 10:30 PM

For Obama, very difficult. He have to vote present for that while he dithers for his answer which we will received tomorrow,the next day, months or years.

DinobotPrime on November 13, 2009 at 10:32 PM

How could he have possibly have given a coherent answer, there was no teleprompter.

Oldnuke on November 13, 2009 at 10:36 PM

I understand that 1M people, at least would have lost their lives if we had invaded mainland Japan. To try and make this into a “forward thinking” anachronism is a joke. A Democratic president dropped the big one and ended the Pacific war.

If the current Democratic presidential idiot was in charge, I’m sure he would have had no problem reversing the victory and sacrificing millions of American lives. He probably would have had to of weighed all the facts, met with his czars and had a pow-wow with his racist and domestic terrorist homies. So possibly if this was circa 1945, he might have come up with a troop deployment plan by 2008, maybe?

Hening on November 13, 2009 at 10:42 PM

Hmmmm….I looked at that pic of him and looked at my size 8 boot with a spike heel and I am pretty sure I could make it work.

proudteadrinker on November 13, 2009 at 10:55 PM

What I want to know is: Will Barry invite Bill Ayers to Thanksgiving Dinner.

Geochelone on November 13, 2009 at 11:03 PM

My hatred for this man is surpassed only by his hatred for America.

Daggett on November 13, 2009 at 11:08 PM

Those oh so sensitive Japanese are still hated in China, Viet Nam, the Phillipines, Malaysia and Thailand for the horrendous atrocities they committed during WWII. The story of the rape and forced prostitution of thousands and thousands of young Asian girls for the Japanese troops has yet to be told.

Dhuka on November 13, 2009 at 11:23 PM

RealityCheck4 on November 13, 2009 at 9:43 PM

The One will NEVER make a sorry speech to the Brits. They allegedly tortured his grandpa and they were a bunch of militaristic, white racists who were convinced of their own superiority. Ssshhhheeh! He would excuse killing them like germs!

I disagree with the gentleman above who said that the Japanese did not hold a grudge from WWII. I have incomplete information but had tapes compiled by WWII vets in the POW camps and some texts like The Rape of Nanking.

And here I go on the veterans, again:

No reparations were ever paid by The Empire of the Sun and the war makers for the many outrages to our soldiers or civilians. You clowns with the US flags in your Toyotas should try to rationalize this.

A Japanese soldier who admitted to eating the liver of a US Airman was elected to Parliament.

Few war criminals were prosecuted and several became execs for major Japanese firms. There crimes were far more brutal than you can imagine and many were “hands on” in commanding their ghouls.

Their textbooks never admit wrongdoing and the war results were seen mainly as a bad outcome.

And finally, on the A Bomb…the Japanese surrendered repeatedly in the final weeks of the war, then (after rolling the AA battteries into place, said that they did not mean it.

IlikedAUH2O on November 13, 2009 at 11:32 PM

Those oh so sensitive Japanese are still hated in China, Viet Nam, the Phillipines, Malaysia and Thailand for the horrendous atrocities they committed during WWII. The story of the rape and forced prostitution of thousands and thousands of young Asian girls for the Japanese troops has yet to be told.

Dhuka on November 13, 2009 at 11:23 PM

And don’t forget South Korea.

galvestonian on November 13, 2009 at 11:40 PM

Meremortal on November 13, 2009 at 10:25 PM

Sometimes evading speaking the truth is a lucky thing, too.

That does not make it the right thing except to stupid or sneaky people like you.

And frankly, we have far too many remarks like this from this lucky guy.

IlikedAUH2O on November 13, 2009 at 11:43 PM

Our current enemies make the Japanese, during WWII, look like choirboys. The Japanese, despite their horrific behavior during WWII, at least had the cajones to field an army we could see and defeat. Not like these bastards Obama is playing footsies with for his own personal gain.

AUINSC on November 13, 2009 at 11:51 PM

only makes me more confident that he’d never let KSM go,

Letting him go isn’t even the question. It was a choice between a straight forward conviction that all Americans could join together in having some closure.

And pursuing a petty, vindictive, political show trial instead.

The trial in New York shows Obama will use the trauma of 9/11 to punish Americans for being Americans. For loving our country. For trying to protect ourselves. We have no right to live. And Obama wants to make that clear. WE caused all the world’s ills. Everything is our fault forever and ever… shut up while I take all your stuff and give it to other people!

petunia on November 14, 2009 at 12:10 AM

An unbiased scholar would have to agree with your assessment. Too bad most ’scholars’ hold a liberal bent ahead of their degrees.

Liam on November 13, 2009 at 9:39 PM

Actually, unbiased scholars would have to disagree. We were destroying, via mining and submarine warfare, 10% of Japan’s merchant marine per month at the end of the war. Japan, a maritime nation, was bottled up, and with no natural resources, would have surrendered quickly without bloodshed. In any case, the threat offered by Japan was becoming inconsequential.

The sticker was “unconditional surrender”, which meant the possibility that the Emperor would be killed or jailed. Because we insisted on unconditional surrender, Japanese resolve was considerably stiffened. Had we insisted on something only a bit less (like what MacArthur did while he administered Japan), perhaps surrender would have occurred without the use of the Bombs. As is was, the Japanese tried to soften the terms of an eventual surrender by negotiation with Stalin as intermediary to the United States, but Stalin backstabbed them by declaring war on Aug 8th (two days after the dropping of the Hiroshima Bomb), seizing the northernmost islands, Manchuria, and Korea.

One wonders if Truman’s message in using the Bombs was for Stalin rather than for the Japanese.

In any case, we are the first and only country to use atomic weapons, and I’m sure the calculus associated with that use affects the way our enemies view us.

We can argue all we want over whether it was justified, but the fact that it happened is now in the books, and, for better or for worse, we get to deal with it and the resulting impression of the United States as favoring first use of nuclear weapons.

unclesmrgol on November 14, 2009 at 12:11 AM

Like I said before, when is this tool going to Dresden to apologize for carpet bombing the crap out of it? I want to see it. Maybe he can take a special trip to Dachau’s site and apologize to Germany for America daring to take part in WWII.

mjk on November 14, 2009 at 12:57 AM

Dropping the bomb saved many, many, many more lives, on both sides, than it took and probably saved Japan as a nation.

General LeMay killed more in one fire bombing raid over Tokyo than perished at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. His B-29 wing carried out fire bombing raids throughout most of 1945 and essentially burned most Japanese cities to the ground.

Besides, the Japs earned it.
Can we say “Pearl Harbor”?

Bubba Redneck on November 14, 2009 at 1:05 AM

Dresden was an RAF operation as I recall.

Obozo may be the One to the Libtards, but if bends over on the A-Bomb he’ll be essentially saying FDR (the Libtard’s One And Only) and Truman (hand picked by the One And Only) were war criminals; FDR for setting up the Manhattan Project and Truman for seeing it to its logical end. Can’t have that can we . . .

To all who want a reason we dropped the A-Bomb on Japan here are some:

1) For 1177 reasons for dropping the A-Bomb, go visit the USS Arizona memorial.
2) For ~100,000 more reasons, go read a list of US servicemen who died in the Pacific Theater in World War II.

On a side note only mildly related to the topic at hand: I know it was not done on purpose nor was it done for this purpose, but when President G. H. W. Bush threw up on the Japanese Prime Minister at a banquet in Japan back in the 1980′s, my first thought when hearing about it was, “Payback for shooting him down!!”. Did anyone else think that?

Bubba Redneck on November 14, 2009 at 1:25 AM

I know liberals think Obama possess such great rhetorical skills but listening to that lame,drawn out,stale dodge of the reporter’s question was about as interesting and informative as eating a brick sandwich.

Obama has done nothing but apologize and demean the sacrifice and bravery of Americans in spreading Freedom and aid around the world.

Would expect nothing less from a marxist.

Baxter Greene on November 14, 2009 at 1:53 AM

unclemrgol
There is one big problem that those unbiased scholars have forgotten, the Japanese in 1945 do not think the same way as they do and besides what do mean,”they will surrender without bloodshed”? Hello, they had an army trapped in Northern Luzon determined to fight to the death, they had an army in Formosa and they still had an massive army in China in which contrary to what you had read in history books, the Japanese were able to bring many of those men home to defend the Home Islands. What’s also shocking was this, they have adequate food supply hidden in caves to last them, particularly for the Japanese military,for at least another year or two . So in any case, your sea borne blockade would affect the civilian population more than the military . Death toll from hunger, higher than the combine total of the casualties from both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.And if Japan surrendered to the seaborne blockade, all of the tens of thousands of very weak and sickly Allied POWs in Japan would had been dead by then.

If the Japanese were given a conditioned surrender,it would had been a political victory for the Japanese because it justified their faith in their nation and their Bushido code and it would leave a very lasting impression on the Japanese that America in the throes of victory does not have in them to the lasting power to do what needs to be done to win the war.

Stalin did not back stabbed the United States, He was able through his intelligence agencies read the Japanese diplomatic overtures as well as the US political inner workings and their response to the diplomatic overtures through his moles in the United States government and he acted accordingly. If the United States decided to not drop the Atomic bombs and proceeded with the naval blockade. There is an excellent chance that the USSR would had invaded Japan from the north and we would had a Japanese version of Germany and Korea after WWII.

Again, nobody knew what the Atomic bombs were really capable of until they were dropped on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki for real and people saw the after effects of those bombs after the war had ended. Look at it this way, Truman made the command decision to drop those atomic bombs in the hope that it might save American and allied lives. He did not care about any moral calculus about the lives of the Japanese. His job was to win the Pacific war and get all his boys home alive and in one piece as victors. Screw what the future think. Your people and allies first and always and the front line veterans of the Pacific War were grateful for that. They get to go home alive.

DinobotPrime on November 14, 2009 at 2:18 AM

Even his ft hood eulogy could not leave alone the common sentiment about the “greatest generation”

Sonosam on November 14, 2009 at 2:29 AM

DinobotPrime on November 14, 2009 at 2:18 AM

If The One was a philosopher king instead of a empty suit, he would have been prepared for the question and answered with some cerebral and thought provoking points even while being sensitive to the feelings of His hosts.

Instead we have a superficial, weak and evasive answer from a leader and his staff who should have seized the opportunity which the question provided.

The answer showed little empathy for those bombed. The answer showed little appreciation for our nation’s glorious accomplishment in WWII. The answer showed no beacon or contrast of light from the dark distruction, bigotry and hate of WWII to the world of today.

We got fumbled talking points. We got President Bush sans backbone and a love of his country.

We have a dud who thinks He is God and the results of this presidency will be consistent with that sorry fact.

IlikedAUH2O on November 14, 2009 at 7:19 AM

He’d support nuking the teabaggers though. Those people are totally out of control.

Riposte on November 14, 2009 at 7:25 AM

If Hussein was President instead of Truman and decided not to use the bomb, then we wold have lost several million men and most of the navy when the Japanese brought out their hidden jets and rockets which we had no defense against.

But having won the war, Obama would have stood by as the Chinese came in and slaughtered every Japanese male over 10, raped and then killed all the women, removed all the children under 10 back to China, thus effectively eliminating the Japanese as a culture and a race.

Meanwhile only Russia would have bombs that worked, and would have used them in later years against US forces.

Friendly21 on November 14, 2009 at 8:38 AM

He is a strange ducker. Not in the same league as the AFLAC duck. He does althought give Daffy a run for his money.

bluegrass on November 14, 2009 at 9:02 AM

What is stupid here is that US didn’t see the attack coming. We should have had a build up in arms and attacked Japan first. We had American Mercenaries Fighter Pilots and ground crews, Flying Tigers, in China fighting the Japanese already.
They say hind site is 20 20 but this was criminal neglect. FDR should have been impeached.

Ed Laskie on November 14, 2009 at 10:08 AM

If there are real reporters left in America they would press Obama not only on whether it was right or wrong but whether it was a war crime against the Japanese and if so whether the US should pay reparations to the families of the nuked. Let him try to weasel out of a direct question. He could only do that because the reporter asked six questions of Obama and no one apparently followed up on this one. Of course we know what Obama thinks in his heart of hearts about Hiroshima/Nagasaki, but watching even a little bit of squirming as he tries to either hide that, or does in fact state that it was a war crime, etc would be worth the price of admission.

eaglewingz08 on November 14, 2009 at 10:12 AM

which contrary to what you had read in history books, the Japanese were able to bring many of those men home to defend the Home Islands. What’s also shocking was this, they have adequate food supply hidden in caves to last them, particularly for the Japanese military,for at least another year or two .

DinobotPrime on November 14, 2009 at 2:18 AM

I don’t think so. Suppose for the moment (I don’t) that the Japanese had sufficient food in caves for two years. Let them bring every soldier home to defend the home islands. Is their two year supply two years? A favored medieval trick for siege was to harry the countryside and drive the people into the walls. After everyone is safe, start the siege. If the Japanese truly did have military food for two years, it must have rotted in the caves after surrender — there was a lot of postwar starvation in Japan.

Again, nobody knew what the Atomic bombs were really capable of until they were dropped on both Hiroshima and Nagasaki for real and people saw the after effects of those bombs after the war had ended. Look at it this way, Truman made the command decision to drop those atomic bombs in the hope that it might save American and allied lives. He did not care about any moral calculus about the lives of the Japanese. His job was to win the Pacific war and get all his boys home alive and in one piece as victors. Screw what the future think. Your people and allies first and always and the front line veterans of the Pacific War were grateful for that. They get to go home alive.

You forget the Trinity test. The United States knew the explosive effect of Fat Man (a plutonium weapon using an implosion technique identical to the one exploded at Trinity), and had calculated the effects of Little Boy (the uranium weapon using gun technology to achieve criticality). Both weapons performed as expected.

The moral calculus you claim Truman didn’t do was not lives vs. lives, but money vs. lives. And the fact that he didn’t do that calculus certainly does not redound to his credit.

unclesmrgol on November 14, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Japan started the fight. We ended it. Japan is better off for it.

spmat on November 14, 2009 at 10:37 AM

I always enjoy reading statements from idiots making judgments about past events. Especially when they were not there. How easy it is to be pious when it wasn’t your ass on the line.

GarandFan on November 14, 2009 at 10:47 AM

http://www.veteranoutrage.com

Hell these leftist WAKOS now believe the bombing of dresden
was a war crime ..

The poor nazis were just innocent bystanders..

Sheesh frigging idiots..
i told you these leftists would betray all of us..

veteranoutrage on November 14, 2009 at 11:20 AM

Unclesmrgol & DinobotPrime have make good arguments regarding the determinations in using the A bomb in Japan. FWIW, I believe the issues were much more convoluted and heavily influenced by Stalin in alignment with a heavily infested w/Soviet stooges US State Dept vs the McArthur types. There is a lot of info available about this battle, starting with the State Dept’s useful idiots handling of Mao in China. Just like E. Europe, Yugoslavia & China our domestic Rats were trying to make sure Stalin would have his piece of Japan. I believe if FDR were to have been at the helm the use of Atomic weapons in Japan would not have occurred!

el Vaquero on November 14, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Get real; Obama doesn’t know anything about Hiroshima; He probably thinks that’s some kind of sushi!

Cybergeezer on November 14, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Obama’s thinking; “Do they microwave sushi?”

Cybergeezer on November 14, 2009 at 12:50 PM

Read up on Operation Downfall, the Allied plan for the Invasion of the Japanese Home Islands. Also read up on the casualty estimates.

The Invasion of Okinawa alone we lost 12,000 dead and 38,000 wounded, and another 30,000 non combat losses. Japanese military losses were a staggering 110K dead 7,400 to 10,755 captured. Civilian losses numbered as high as 150,000.

Iwo Jima. US Casualties numbered 6821 dead and 20,000 wounded out of a total force of 110,000. Japanese losses out of a force of 22,780 numbered 22,564 dead and only 216 captured.

Japanese preparations for the Invasion of the Home Islands included mass wave attacks of civilians, the use of biological and chemical weapons as well as suicide attacks from boats, aircraft and human anti-tank bombs.

Casualty estimates for invasion were 100,000 dead another 1,000,000 wounded for the US, and several million dead and wounded Japanese civilians and Soldiers.

All those who would’ve died, lived because the US took the lives of a few hundred thousand in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And this does not include the fact that we still had the Japanese in China to deal with.

Dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the end saved several million lives.

Holger on November 14, 2009 at 1:05 PM

“Equal partners?!?”

Then WTF are you doing bowing to THEIR Head of State?!?

THAT MAKES YOU AN UNDERLING!!!

F’in’ retard.

RedNewEnglander on November 14, 2009 at 1:14 PM

The United States manufactured 500,000 Purple Hearts for the Invasion of Japan. US Military casualties in the entire post war period has not exceeded that number, we are awarding Purple Hearts manufactured for the Invasion to wounded troops to this day, infact, we have 120,000 manufactured Purple Hearts in storage.

In the Battle of Okinawa, we lost 407 men for every 10 square miles of Okinawa we captured. If it took the same amount of troops dead to capture the same amount of land in Japan, US dead would exceed 5 and a half million.

Holger on November 14, 2009 at 1:24 PM

My grandfater was Army Signal Corps. Fought in the Phillippines and on Okinawa. He served in IX Corps 10th Army. He would’ve participated in the Invasion of Japan.

To this day, I am eternally thankful for the Crew of Bockscar and the Enola Gay, Colonel Paul Tibbits, the Scientists of the Manhattan Project and to President Harry S. Truman that dropped the bomb.

Had they not, I would probably not be here as my grandfather was slated to pariticipate in the Invasion of Japan and my father was a ‘Welcome Home Baby’.

Instead, Private Lynn Brooks landed on Hokkaido in Peace Time.

Holger on November 14, 2009 at 1:35 PM

“We, US Americans have been transformed into the nation of navel starers. We will not go forth and multiply nor prosper, until all of our sins have been acknowledged in multiple public confessions. The future is not important – it is what has been done by our ancestors that matters most. We will not accomplish anything until their crimes are revealed and remedied. I am proud to be apart of this neurosis.”

Fuquay Steve on November 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM

And to show his respect for Akihito, Obama gives him a miniature replica of the Enola Gay.

Cybergeezer on November 14, 2009 at 2:23 PM

I think he did a good job in not answering the question… that should not have been asked. He was not in Japan to discuss what happened 65 years ago.

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2009 at 4:14 PM

Correct answer:
“Every life lost in the bombings was an inexcusable tragedy. Yet, so was every life lost in the war before it, and so would have been every life lost in the war after it. Indeed, a great deal of lives would likely have been saved had Britain, Russia, the United States and the rest of the world simply decided to let Germany and Japan take us over. Does this mean we are to blame for the deaths, because we chose to fight for our freedom? Or are Germany and Japan to blame for starting it all”
“In the end, the answer is simple. Germany and Japan chose to start World War II. The United States chose to end it.”

remywokeup on November 14, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Personally, I think the Japanese need to get over it. If they had had the bomb, they would have surely used it. The list of Japanese war crimes is endless.

SC.Charlie on November 14, 2009 at 4:57 PM

Hell these leftist WAKOS now believe the bombing of dresden
was a war crime ..

The poor nazis were just innocent bystanders..

Sheesh frigging idiots..
i told you these leftists would betray all of us..

veteranoutrage on November 14, 2009 at 11:20 AM

I’m not a leftist, and I think that Dresden was a war crime. In addition, I think not raiding Auschwitz-Birkenau was a war crime too.

If you subscribe to the wisdom that, in war, it’s OK to kill the opponent’s civilians, then you are no better than the terrorists who struck on 9/11.

But the victor of a war defines what is and is not to be prosecuted as a war crime. Certainly what the Nazis did were war crimes, but we did our share too. Desden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki are our share.

unclesmrgol on November 14, 2009 at 5:06 PM

I’m not a leftist, and I think that Dresden was a war crime. In addition, I think not raiding Auschwitz-Birkenau was a war crime too.

If you subscribe to the wisdom that, in war, it’s OK to kill the opponent’s civilians, then you are no better than the terrorists who struck on 9/11.

But the victor of a war defines what is and is not to be prosecuted as a war crime. Certainly what the Nazis did were war crimes, but we did our share too. Desden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki are our share.

unclesmrgol on November 14, 2009 at 5:06 PM

You are wrong on so many levels. First, the Rules of Warfare do not prohibit the infliction of civilian casualties merely the infliction of undue civilians casualties. It is not illegal to attack the things the infrastructure of war. Military necessity is the rule.

Also, the civilian in the factory producing the arms of war is as valid a target as the soldier using those arms of war. If not more so as the civilian producing the arms can produce thousands of tanks, rifles, airfraft, artillery pieces or millions of rounds of ammunition every year.

The Firebombing of Dresden was perfectly legal for two reasons. 1. The crossroads and the railways there were aiding the Nazi war-machine. 2. That was the only way to attack those valid military targets and that was area saturation bombing, if the British had precision air-to-ground weapons and they firebombed it anyway, it is illegal.

So to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both cities were host to military infrastructure such as factories, military command centers, barracks, airfields, railways transporting troops and war material (oil, food, bullets, lubricants, gasoline) and in the later two cases it was done in the hopes that such complete destruction would bring the Japanese to the table, which it did.

It would’ve been a much bigger crime to Invade Japan at the cost of several hundred thousand dead and a million or more wounded Americans as well as several million dead and wounded Japanese when a chance of ending the war with a lot less bloodshed was available.

The Japanese were in no way contemplating surrender until Fat Man and Little Boy were used.

Holger on November 14, 2009 at 5:23 PM

Obama ducks question on whether U.S. should have nuked Hiroshima

Sorry, I don’t believe that he would pass on a chance to blame America for something. I just can’t wrap my brain around the notion.

darwin-t on November 14, 2009 at 5:34 PM

Addition:

Hiroshima was the location for the 5th Division Headquarters as well as Field Marshal Shunroku Hata’s 2nd General Army Headquarters which was in charge of the defense of all of Southern Japan. Had we invaded, the Japanese southern defense would be commanded from Hiroshima.

Infact, Hiroshima was situated very close to where the first Invasion would’ve occured.

Nagasaki was home to the Mitsubishi Steel and Arms Works which was producing war material. A Valid military target. Even a conventional strategic daylight precision (as precise as could be achieved in WWII) bombing raid against military targets would result in civilian casualties. Which it did on August 1, 1945 where six bombs landed at Nagasaki Medical School and Hospital. This was a godsend as the fear of further attacks lowered the population.

Was American strategic bombing targeting factories, railways, shipyards, refineries and other such valid military targets warcrimes because doing so resulted in Civilian Casualties?

Holger on November 14, 2009 at 5:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3