Check These Out: Buddy Finder | Videos | SpouseBUZZ | My Friend Network | News | Military Equipment


Military.com    Military.com Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Coast Guard Discussions  Hop To Forums  The Soapbox    FDR vs Bush - American Defense
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
  Login/Join 
Member
Posted
Sixty years to the day of the World Trade Center bombing on 9/11, 1941, FDR gave his "Shoot-on-Sight" speech.

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/7-2-188/188-29.html

I found it remarkable the similarities in Bush and FDR's reaction. Below are selected excerpts with comment:

quote:
Address over the radio concerning the attack upon the destroyer GREER,
September 11, 1941

My fellow Americans:

The Navy Department of the United States has reported to me that on the morning of September 4 the U. S. Destroyer GREER, proceeding in full
daylight toward Iceland, had reached a point southeast of Greenland. She was carrying American mail to Iceland. She was flying the American flag. Her identity as an American ship was unmistakable.

She was then and there attacked by a submarine. Germany admits that it was a German submarine. The submarine deliberately fired a torpedo at
the GREER, followed later by another torpedo attack. In spite of what Hitler's propaganda bureau has invented, and in spite of what any
American obstructionist organization may prefer to believe, I tell you the blunt fact that the German submarine fired first upon this American
destroyer without warning, and with deliberate design to sink her.


Of course Bush was dealing with a direct attack on American soil of the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and White House.

quote:
In the face of all this, we Americans are keeping our feet on the ground. Our type of democratic civilization has outgrown the thought of feeling compelled to fight some other nation by reason of any single piratical attack on one of our ships. We are not becoming hysterical or losing our sense of proportion. Therefore, what I am thinking and saying does not relate to any isolated episode.

Instead, we Americans are taking a long-range point of view in regard to certain fundamentals and to a series of events on land and on sea which must be considered as a whole-as a part of a world pattern.

It would be unworthy of a great nation to exaggerate an isolated incident, or to become inflamed by some one act of violence. But it
would be inexcusable folly to minimize such incidents in the face of evidence which makes it clear that the incident is not isolated, but
part of a general plan.

The important truth is that these acts of international lawlessness are a manifestation of a design which has been made clear to the American people for a long time.


FDR considered it "inexcusable folly to minimize such incidents" yet the left continues to do so.

quote:
It is time for all Americans of all the Americas to stop being deluded by the romantic notion that the Americas can go on living happily and peacefully in a Nazi-dominated world.


Substitute terrorist for Nazi.

quote:
His intention has been made clear. The American people can have no further illusions about it.

No tender whisperings of appeasers that Hitler is not interested in the Western Hemisphere, no soporific lullabies that a wide ocean protects us from him can long have any effect on the hard-headed, farsighted, and realistic American people.


Are you lefties listening to your boy from 67 years ago?

quote:
Because of these episodes, because of the movements and operations of German warships; and because of the clear repeated proof that the present Government of Germany has no respect for treaties or for international law, that it has no decent attitude toward neutral nations or human life, we Americans are now face to face, not with abstract theories, but with cruel, relentless facts.


quote:
And I am sure that even now the Nazis are waiting to see whether the United States will by silence give them the green light to go ahead on this path of destruction.


Isn't "silence" and/or withdrawl what the left wants us to do?

quote:
The Nazi danger to our western world has long ceased to be a mere possibility. The danger is here now-not only from a military enemy but from an enemy of all law, all liberty, all morality, all religion.


Again, substitute terrorist for Nazi and go WOW!

quote:
There has now come a time when you and I must see the cold, inexorable necessity of saving to these inhuman, unrestrained seekers of world conquest and permanent world domination by the sword, "You seek to throw
our children and our children's children into your form of terrorism and slavery. You have now attacked our own safety. You shall go no further."


Amen FDR! Wait, didn't Bush say something like that?

quote:
Normal practices of diplomacy-note writing-are of no possible use in dealing with international outlaws who sink our ships and kill our citizens.


Take not Senator Obama!

quote:
One peaceful nation after another has met disaster because each refused to look the Nazi danger squarely in the eye until it actually had them by the throat.

The United States will not make that fatal mistake.


We will if the left has their way!

quote:
I assume that the German leaders are not deeply concerned by what we Americans say or publish about them. We cannot bring about the downfall of nazi-ism by the use of long-range invectives.

But when you see a rattlesnake poised to strike you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him.


Remember now, this is FDR speaking, not Bush.

quote:
Do not let us split hairs. Let us not ask ourselves whether the Americas should begin to defend themselves after the fifth attack, or the tenth attack, or the twentieth attack.

The time for active defense is now.

Do not let us split hairs. Let us not say, "We will only defend ourselves if the torpedo succeeds in getting home, or if the crew and
the passengers are drowned."

This is the time for prevention of attack.

If submarines or raiders attack in distant waters. They can attack equally well within sight of our own shores. Their very presence in any waters which America deems vital to its defense constitutes an attack.


The above quote speaks for itself; again FDR, not Bush.

quote:
My obligation as President is historic; it is clear. It is inescapable.

It is no act of war on our part when we decide to protect the seas which are vital to American defense. The aggression is not ours. Ours is
solely defense.


For FDR it's defense. For Bush, the left calls it treason and murder.

quote:
I have no illusions about the gravity of this step. I have not taken it hurriedly or lightly. It is the result of months and months of constant thought and anxiety and prayer. In the protection of your Nation and mine it cannot be avoided.

The American people have faced other grave crises in their history- with American courage and American resolution. They will do no less today.

They know the actualities of the attacks upon us. They know the necessities of a bold defense against these attacks. They know that the
times call for clear heads and fearless hearts.

And with that inner strength that comes to a free people conscious of their duty and of the righteousness of what they do, they will-with
Divine help and guidance-stand their ground against this latest assault upon their democracy, their sovereignty, and their freedom.


The sad thing is that we are no longer an United people. FDR had the people behind him, Bush does not. There lies the difference in a strong American then and a weak America now. It's not the POTUS, it's the people.
 
Posts: 1266 | Registered: Mon 04 June 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Experienced Member
Picture of Hooligan1790
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Of course Bush was dealing with a direct attack on American soil of the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and White House.


Of course Bush's response was to invade a country not involved in that attack 6 months later.

quote:
FDR considered it "inexcusable folly to minimize such incidents" yet the left continues to do so.


I disagree. I believe the left would have supported a war which actually focussed on the perpetrators of 9/11.

quote:
Substitute terrorist for Nazi.


Are all terrorists of one persuasion such as Nazism?

quote:
Are you lefties listening to your boy from 67 years ago?


Are you saying Iraq has designs on the Western Hemisphere?

quote:
Isn't "silence" and/or withdrawl what the left wants us to do?


No.

quote:
Again, substitute terrorist for Nazi and go WOW!


Are we speaking of Iraq or terrorists/terrorism?

quote:
Amen FDR! Wait, didn't Bush say something like that?


Yes and then hamstrung the effort in Astan in order to tip windmills in Iraq.

quote:
Take not Senator Obama!


I think you meant take note. So are you saying that if Obama (not my candidate of choice) had the opportunity to attack the actual perpetrators of 9/11 he would negotiate instead?

quote:
We will if the left has their way!


I have no answer for this except BS.

quote:
Remember now, this is FDR speaking, not Bush.


Yes, and when FDR went after the Nazis he bombed and invaded Germany not New Zealand.

quote:
The above quote speaks for itself; again FDR, not Bush.


Yes, as long as you are striking someone involved in the issue.

quote:
For FDR it's defense. For Bush, the left calls it treason and murder.


I think FDR actually attacked the Nazis, not so Bush with the terrorists.

quote:
The sad thing is that we are no longer an United people. FDR had the people behind him, Bush does not. There lies the difference in a strong American then and a weak America now. It's not the POTUS, it's the people.


Actually, FDR did not have the people behind him until after Pearl Harbor which, by the way the Nazis had nothing material to do with. He did, by some accounts, allow Pearl Harbor to happen in order to enter the war against Germany.
 
Posts: 6186 | Registered: Sun 22 May 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Experienced Member
Picture of MeatUSCGRetired
Posted Hide Post
As I recall, FDR went right after the people who bombed Pearl Harbor and stayed after them until he defeated them.

How's Bush doing with that "We'll get him dead or alive" thing with Bin Laden, Mazski?

Bush, speaking about Bin Laden on March 13, 2002, only six months, almost to the day, after the World Trade Center attack:

quote:
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him...to be honest with you... I truly am not that concerned about him."


Oh, yeah, he compares VERY favorably to FDR. Roll Eyes
 
Posts: 3202 | Registered: Wed 24 November 2004Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Highly Experienced Member
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hooligan1790:
quote:
Of course Bush was dealing with a direct attack on American soil of the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and White House.


Of course Bush's response was to invade a country not involved in that attack 6 months later. We didn't invade a country...We removed Saddam followingwhat was outlined in Resolution 1441. We stayed and helped the nations people.

quote:
FDR considered it "inexcusable folly to minimize such incidents" yet the left continues to do so.


I disagree. I believe the left would have supported a war which actually focussed on the perpetrators of 9/11. I disagree with your disagreement...as you were one that stated at the time we went to Afghanistan that too many would die.

quote:
Substitute terrorist for Nazi.


Are all terrorists of one persuasion such as Nazism? Nope...convenient for them isn't it...It gives them support from the likes of you.

quote:
Are you lefties listening to your boy from 67 years ago?


Are you saying Iraq has designs on the Western Hemisphere? Nope, Silly.... The extremists do. Just listen to them.

quote:
Isn't "silence" and/or withdrawl what the left wants us to do?


No.

Again wrong. The left wants us to tuck tail and apologize for being so mean that they needed to attack us.

quote:
Again, substitute terrorist for Nazi and go WOW!


Are we speaking of Iraq or terrorists/terrorism?

Terrorists..as in those that behead for effect...Those that strap bombs on their chests and walk into markets, those that bomb trains and barracks and embassies.

quote:
Amen FDR! Wait, didn't Bush say something like that?


Yes and then hamstrung the effort in Astan in order to tip windmills in Iraq. Nice deflection...It clearly reveals your biased political leanings.

quote:
Take not Senator Obama!


I think you meant take note. So are you saying that if Obama (not my candidate of choice) had the opportunity to attack the actual perpetrators of 9/11 he would negotiate instead?

quote:
We will if the left has their way!


I have no answer for this except BS. BS right back at your politically motivated opinion.

quote:
Remember now, this is FDR speaking, not Bush.


Yes, and when FDR went after the Nazis he bombed and invaded Germany not New Zealand. More deflection...Now had Hitler been hiding in New Zealand...

quote:
The above quote speaks for itself; again FDR, not Bush.


Yes, as long as you are striking someone involved in the issue. The lefties deny the fact that removing Saddam is/was a part of the war on terror. So?

quote:
For FDR it's defense. For Bush, the left calls it treason and murder.


I think FDR actually attacked the Nazis, not so Bush with the terrorists. No, but the left today is simliar to the British ignoring Winston Churchill when he warned about Hitler and the Nazi's (in the 30's)....They actually called Churchill a war monger....Ironic eh?

quote:
The sad thing is that we are no longer an United people. FDR had the people behind him, Bush does not. There lies the difference in a strong American then and a weak America now. It's not the POTUS, it's the people.


Actually, FDR did not have the people behind him until after Pearl Harbor which, by the way the Nazis had nothing material to do with. He did, by some accounts, allow Pearl Harbor to happen in order to enter the war against Germany. Why does this response not surprise me?
 
Posts: 8358 | Registered: Fri 20 April 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Highly Experienced Member
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by MeatUSCGRetired:
As I recall, FDR went right after the people who bombed Pearl Harbor and stayed after them until he defeated them.

How's Bush doing with that "We'll get him dead or alive" thing with Bin Laden, Mazski?

Bush, speaking about Bin Laden on March 13, 2002, only six months, almost to the day, after the World Trade Center attack:

quote:
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him...to be honest with you... I truly am not that concerned about him."


Oh, yeah, he compares VERY favorably to FDR. Roll Eyes


WE AGREE! Big Grin
 
Posts: 8358 | Registered: Fri 20 April 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Highly Experienced Member
Posted Hide Post
quote:
As I recall, FDR went right after the people who bombed Pearl Harbor and stayed after them until he defeated them.



Psst... the bad guys wore uniforms. Eek


Wink
 
Posts: 9716 | Registered: Mon 24 September 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Member
Posted Hide Post
Ironic too that FDR fought a largely Republican Isolationist movement to re-arm America and trick the isolationists into helping arm Britain via "lend-lease."

There is an allied effort in Afghanistan, but a dwindling one in Iraq.

Justified to shutdown Saddam? Sure plenty of UN resolutions allowing that. Remember if Saddam had beaten Iran and invaded Kuwait, he would have controlled about 1/3 of the world's oil reserves. Not something the Saudis (our very good friends and bastions of civil rights) would tolerate.

Going into Iraq without a viable occupation plan and support from a multi-national force to take over? Pure incompetence, or is is arrogance, or both?

Bush I got Gulf War I right. They were advised to not destabilize Iraq; an "artificial" country created by the Brits. If they had listened to the Generals, and Rumsfeld was not trying to prove that he could do a lean war (aka McNamara), they might have just pulled it off.

MacArthur told Kennedy not to get involved in a land war in Southeast Asia. Schocroft tried to do the same for Bush's son. Negative results.

Hey how 'bout them Iraq borders, have we secured them yet?
 
Posts: 882 | Registered: Wed 15 March 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Experienced Member
Picture of Hooligan1790
Posted Hide Post
Eddie,

quote:
We didn't invade a country...We removed Saddam followingwhat was outlined in Resolution 1441. We stayed and helped the nations people.


Many Iraqis would not agree with this statement.

quote:
I disagree with your disagreement...as you were one that stated at the time we went to Afghanistan that too many would die.


I'm still waiting for you to show us that post. I said many would die. Many have died. However, many more have died in the misdirection of Iraq.

quote:
Nope...convenient for them isn't it...It gives them support from the likes of you.


Are you saying I support terrorists? Careful former grasshopper those are libelous words. Show me one statement I have made that supports terrorists.

quote:
Nope, Silly.... The extremists do. Just listen to them.


So we are in Iraq because extremists somewhere have designs on the Western Hemisphere?

quote:
Again wrong. The left wants us to tuck tail and apologize for being so mean that they needed to attack us.


In a word, bullshit.

quote:
Terrorists..as in those that behead for effect...Those that strap bombs on their chests and walk into markets, those that bomb trains and barracks and embassies.


Again the question is are these Iraqis that did all this to us before we invaded their country?

quote:
Nice deflection...It clearly reveals your biased political leanings.


So you are saying we did not lose sight of the objective by sending 90% of our forces to Iraq instead of sending an adequate amount to Astan to surround AQ and put them out of commission.

quote:
More deflection...Now had Hitler been hiding in New Zealand...


Well Einstein, bin Laden and/or the AQ that attacked us on 9/11 were not hiding in Iraq at the time we invaded that country.

quote:
The lefties deny the fact that removing Saddam is/was a part of the war on terror. So?


Please post a single non-political viewpoint that states that premise. Please show one article by an expert in the field of terrorism/counter terrorism that shares your view and is not beholding to GWB and the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. My apologies to the late great Jimmy Breslin.

quote:
No, but the left today is simliar to the British ignoring Winston Churchill when he warned about Hitler and the Nazi's (in the 30's)....They actually called Churchill a war monger....Ironic eh?


yes, history showed Churchill to have the correct opinion of what to do with Hitler. However, you ignore the historical record that clearly shows Britain would have lost had they declared war in 1938. They almost lost even declaring the phony war of 1939.

quote:
Why does this response not surprise me?


Because it is an historical fact?
 
Posts: 6186 | Registered: Sun 22 May 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Highly Experienced Member
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hooligan1790:
Eddie,

[QUOTE]We didn't invade a country...We removed Saddam following what was outlined in Resolution 1441. We stayed and helped the nations people.


Many Iraqis would not agree with this statement. Many Iraqi's?..How many have you talked to?...How about those that went to the polls for the first time in their lives, turning out in greater percentages than we do...Again a liberal using an isolated fact and trying to use it as an accusation.

quote:
I disagree with your disagreement...as you were one that stated at the time we went to Afghanistan that too many would die.


I'm still waiting for you to show us that post. I said many would die. Many have died. You said thousands and thousands...and your tone was much different than you try to imply now...for political reasons - you can keep waiting...trying to pull up a post that old...You know the odds and you're banking on it. No problem.... I remember it, and I now save the best posts for future reference..Things like how you are an eternal optimist..ya know. However, many more have died in the misdirection of Iraq.

quote:
Nope...convenient for them isn't it...It gives them support from the likes of you.


Are you saying I support terrorists? Careful former grasshopper those are libelous words. Show me one statement I have made that supports terrorists. I'm saying the same thing I've said for the entire time...The terrorists consider our free speech a weakness that can be exploited...your words against your nations leaders are something the extremists count on. The more we are divided the more they become emboldened. And it's not libel..It's my free speech to say I believe your words and your methods border on treason....Certainly no worse than meat's accusations...If you want to be considered objective maybe you would be offended when MeatUSCG states that those that support the war on terror are complicit in murder. So take your careful line and....you know. It's not one line that I need to find...simply check your recent posts bashing the President, arguing about the war on terror verses the "war in Iraq" that supports the terrorists (our enemy) efforts.

quote:
Nope, Silly.... The extremists do. Just listen to them.


So we are in Iraq because extremists somewhere have designs on the Western Hemisphere? YEP!....We are there because of the war on terror...because Saddam did not fulfill what the UN said he must, We are there because of those states that support terror....Saddam's Iraq being one of them

quote:
Again wrong. The left wants us to tuck tail and apologize for being so mean that they needed to attack us.


In a word, bullshit. Yeah...dress it up anyway it tastes better...But leaving Iraq the minute a democrat takes office will send a real clear message to those that wish to destroy this nation...bit by bit, piece by piece, innocent by innocent they will be emboldened to dig in and defeat the Satan they believe we are....After all, as a Professor you should understand how the extremists view nations that embrace usury.

quote:
Terrorists..as in those that behead for effect...Those that strap bombs on their chests and walk into markets, those that bomb trains and barracks and embassies.


Again the question is are these Iraqis that did all this to us before we invaded their country? Again your question defies logic...A Non sequitur...because we did not invade the nation of Iraq to tear it down, we went to Iraq and removed a murderous dictator that defied the UN one too many times. We stayed, defended them during elections and the constitutional process, rebuilding of infrastructure and are there now trying to get them to stand on their own

quote:
Nice deflection...It clearly reveals your biased political leanings.


So you are saying we did not lose sight of the objective by sending 90% of our forces to Iraq instead of sending an adequate amount to Astan to surround AQ and put them out of commission. I think we should have sent in 300,000 troops (Iraq) and totally squashed any form of resistence...but the crying, whining liberals would have had a hay day with that....As it was we did more, in less time than any previous conflict to date, with less lives lost...but that would not appease the whining, crying, soft liberals bent on anything anti-Bush.

quote:
More deflection...Now had Hitler been hiding in New Zealand...


Well Einstein, bin Laden and/or the AQ that attacked us on 9/11 were not hiding in Iraq at the time we invaded that country. Nice try...no game though...If Hitler was hiding in New Zealand...we would have went there...If Saddam was hiding in Iraq, that's the logical place to go if you want to remove him...but you knew that, you're attempting to play cute deflection debate games because your argument is flat.

quote:
The lefties deny the fact that removing Saddam is/was a part of the war on terror. So?


Please post a single non-political viewpoint that states that premise. Please show one article by an expert in the field of terrorism/counter terrorism that shares your view and is not beholding to GWB and the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. My apologies to the late great Jimmy Breslin. The objective portion of your post is red...do you notice that you tried to use logic, but inserted your personal feelings instead...that pretty much wipes out any chance you would receive the news that many supported this effort...because the EXPERTS you would consider EXPERTS...would only be those that you already agree with, concerning...how did you say? oh yeah.. "beholding to G.B. and the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight"

quote:
No, but the left today is similar to the British ignoring Winston Churchill when he warned about Hitler and the Nazi's (in the 30's)....They actually called Churchill a war monger....Ironic eh?


yes, history showed Churchill to have the correct opinion of what to do with Hitler. However, you ignore the historical record that clearly shows Britain would have lost had they declared war in 1938. They almost lost even declaring the phony war of 1939.

quote:
Why does this response not surprise me?


Because it is an historical fact? It is????...You are saying that this is unwavering, documented, unequivocal historical fact? Who do you know that told you first hand what went on behind closed doors in FDR white House... Here is what you are now saying is in fact an unequivocal historical fact: by some accounts, allow Pearl Harbor to happen in order to enter the war against Germany. What pray tell liberties are you using to determine that SOME ACCOUNTS creates historical fact? [QUOTE]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: scrounge,
 
Posts: 8358 | Registered: Fri 20 April 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Experienced Member
Picture of Hooligan1790
Posted Hide Post
quote:
You said thousands and thousands...and your tone was much different than you try to imply now...for political reasons - you can keep waiting...trying to pull up a post that old...You know the odds and you're banking on it. No problem.... I remember it, and I now save the best posts for future reference..Things like how you are an eternal optimist..ya know. However, many more have died in the misdirection of Iraq.

quote:
The objective portion of your post is red...do you notice that you tried to use logic, but inserted your personal feelings instead...that pretty much wipes out any chance you would receive the news that many supported this effort...because the EXPERTS you would consider EXPERTS...would only be those that you already agree with, concerning...how did you say? oh yeah.. "beholding to G.B. and the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight"


quote:
The objective portion of your post is red...do you notice that you tried to use logic, but inserted your personal feelings instead...that pretty much wipes out any chance you would receive the news that many supported this effort...because the EXPERTS you would consider EXPERTS...would only be those that you already agree with, concerning...how did you say? oh yeah.. "beholding to G.B. and the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight"


So you are saying the only true support you can find is from Bush a$$ kissers.

quote:
It is????...You are saying that this is unwavering, documented, unequivocal historical fact? Who do you know that told you first hand what went on behind closed doors in FDR white House... Here is what you are now saying is in fact an unequivocal historical fact: by some accounts, allow Pearl Harbor to happen in order to enter the war against Germany. What pray tell liberties are you using to determine that SOME ACCOUNTS creates historical fact?


Good Eddie. When you have no actual substance ask me if I went to see FDR, a man that died six years before I was born. You are certainly a piece of work. Read the history and you will find it. Wishing it were not true or wishing something was true does not make it so. Take for example your defense of GWB's every move. That doesn't make them right.
 
Posts: 6186 | Registered: Sun 22 May 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Member
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Read the history and you will find it. Wishing it were not true or wishing something was true does not make it so. Take for example your defense of GWB's every move. That doesn't make them right.


Then you may find this tidbit about FDR very interesting.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html

quote:
Franklin Roosevelt often lied to further his goals. In a radio address broadcast to the nation on 23 October 1940, for example, he gave "this most solemn assurance" that he had not given any "secret understanding in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any government or any other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any war or for any other purpose." But American, British and Polish documents (mostly released many years later) proved that this "most solemn assurance" was a bald-faced lie. Roosevelt had, in fact, made numerous secret arrangements to involve the U.S. in war.


quote:
Of all his speeches, perhaps the best example of Roosevelt's readiness to lie is his 1941 Navy Day address broadcast over nationwide radio on 27 October.


quote:
The President began his Navy Day address by recalling that German submarines had torpedoed the U.S. destroyer Greer on 4 September 1941 and the U.S. destroyer Kearny on 17 October. In highly emotional language, he characterized these incidents as unprovoked acts of aggression directed against all Americans. He declared that although he had wanted to avoid conflict, shooting had begun and "history has recorded who fired the first shot."What Roosevelt deliberately failed to mention was the fact that in each case the U.S. destroyers had been engaged in attack operations against the submarines, which fired in self-defense only as a last resort.


quote:
It's doubtful if any of Roosevelt's great contemporaries, including Stalin, Hitler and even Churchill, ever delivered a speech as loaded with falsehoods as brazen as those in his 1941 Navy Day address. On at least one occasion, Roosevelt privately admitted his willingness to lie to further his goals. During a conversation on 14 May 1942 with his close Jewish adviser, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau, Jr., the President candidly remarked: "I may have one policy for Europe and one diametrically opposite for North and South America. I maybe entirely inconsistent, and furthermore, I am perfectly willing to mislead and tell untruths if it will help us win the war."


The biggest difference between FDR and Bush is that FDR was shrewd. FDR also recognized the power of the press and post Pearl Harbor regulated what was published and broadcast for the duration of the war. Becasue he had the entire nation behind him, WWII only lasted 4.5 years.

Now Bush, like FDR, played the game but his honesty and pandering to the U.N. and the left hog tied the administration and the war effort. He could not limit or regulate the press as FDR had. Public opinion of course turned. So now 5 plus years into the war on terror, there is no end in sight due to the fractured American people.

We, the American people, elect the POTUS to represent ALL of us. Obviously things are done at that level that we ALL don't agree with. That is why the POTUS is the toughest job in the world. I say let the POTUS and congress do their jobs under the system put in place by our forefathers and stop analizing every single move they make. It may also be time to start once again showing a bit of resepct for not only our leader but the leader of the free world.
 
Posts: 1266 | Registered: Mon 04 June 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Experienced Member
Posted Hide Post
quote:
We, the American people, elect the POTUS to represent ALL of us. Obviously things are done at that level that we ALL don't agree with. That is why the POTUS is the toughest job in the world. I say let the POTUS and congress do their jobs under the system put in place by our forefathers and stop analizing every single move they make. It may also be time to start once again showing a bit of resepct for not only our leader but the leader of the free world.


I say not only is he NOT the leader of the Free World, he is only the leader of a Clown Parade. You could line up the world's leaders, and you couldn't find ten guys to pizz on George Bush if he was on fire.

Not only do we need to analyze every move he makes, we should maintain indescribable pressure via the media to torment and second-guess his every breath. That is the penalty he should face for his ineptitude in first implementing and then mishandling a conflict with Iraq.
 
Posts: 3470 | Registered: Wed 06 April 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Member
Posted Hide Post
quote:
I say not only is he NOT the leader of the Free World, he is only the leader of a Clown Parade. You could line up the world's leaders, and you couldn't find ten guys to pizz on George Bush if he was on fire.

Not only do we need to analyze every move he makes, we should maintain indescribable pressure via the media to torment and second-guess his every breath. That is the penalty he should face for his ineptitude in first implementing and then mishandling a conflict with Iraq.


It's well thought out, constructive comments as these that bring the war on terror to a rapid close, boost morale, and get the troops home. Well done!

Applause
 
Posts: 1266 | Registered: Mon 04 June 2001Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Experienced Member
Posted Hide Post
Yah, well, truth hurts ... "leader of the free world" ... what turnip truck did you fall off of?
 
Posts: 3470 | Registered: Wed 06 April 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Experienced Member
Picture of Hooligan1790
Posted Hide Post
Maz,

I agree with your assessment of FDR as far a his misleading ways. No doubt about the fact that he had to mislead many in order to save the world.

The difference is/was he actually got it done.
 
Posts: 6186 | Registered: Sun 22 May 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete Message
Member
Posted Hide Post
quote:
I agree with your assessment of FDR as far a his misleading ways. No doubt about the fact that he had to mislead many in order to save the world.

The difference is/was he actually got it done.


Then in a historical sense, what is the difference between FDR and Bush? Given what the left has accused Bush of they are both liars, mislead the country, and fabricated evidence.

You say that FDR "had to mislead many in order to save the world". Who is to say Bush isn't trying to do the same thing? For all we know Bush is taking some pages out of FDR's playbook.

It comes down to the POTUS, whomever he may be (SOC), is the leader of the free world and has an obligation to protect and defend this country at any and all costs. We as a people elect him to do this and should support him in what he does whether we agree or disagree with the methods. Our forefathers wisely put in the checks and balances to ensure the people are represented and not abused.

Let me ask this; what would have happened during WWII to American obstructionists and people voicing their dissent against the war? What happened to American hero Charles Lindberg?