Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You can be a real asshole sometimes.

Penske just doesn't understand that babies are born without hats.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
We devoted EIGHTY PERCENT OF OUR RESOURCES ON THE EUROPEAN THEATER AND ONLY TWENTY PERCENT ON THE PACIFIC THEATER. This policy decision, besides making Macarthur and Chang Kai Scheck apoplectic, showed that our goal was always Europe.

Doesn't this have to do with the fact that the war in the Pacific was a naval war, and did not require as many ground forces? You can only build so many ships (and we did).

And but not for the unexpectedly early coming of VJ Day, I'm sure that number would have been closer to 50/50.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
could you imagine the liberal outcry if W tried a court packing manuever?

It might be like the outcry that ended FDR's court-packing manuever.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Implicit in your diatribe here is some belief that I have smiled upon whatever misstatements FDR may have made. I don't think I ever said that, so you are wasting a lot of effort. But I also don't think that the single sentence that Penske dug up carries the weight that you two are trying to put on it. E.g., I can easily imagine that FDR said that it would be a catastrophe for the nation if all of Europe were to succumb to Nazi Germany, but that he also would do all he could to stay out of the war. If so, I think any listener would have understood that he was both trying to assist Britain and keep out of the war. And in light of what actually happened -- that we assisted Britain, and ended up in the war only when attacked by Japan -- if he said that, you'd have no complaint.

So, I'm willing to believe that FDR lied to the public and should be condemned for it, but before I accept that it happened, I need to see more than a single sentence pulled from a 1940 speech.

Meanwhile, I don't understand how you can accuse FDR of lying -- and me of hypocrisy -- on so slender a basis while absolving the current administration of everything. Have you read the 1940 speech that Penske was quoting? Do you know what FDR was saying to people? If you're willing to conclude that FDR lied on the basis of what's above, that looks an awful lot like a double standard. I'm willing to accept that FDR might have done something wrong, so why are you an apologist for W.?

1) I don't think he did something wrong. If his opponent had won we may have never gone to war with Germany.

2) This is just not a theory I have come up with. I can't believe that you have not heard it before. It is pretty much conventional wisdom (not that that is evidence of its truth) that FDR lied in the 1940 election. It is also conventional wisdom that he pushed the envelope to get us in the war. Before posting on this board I had never heard anyone argue against that idea. Most of the experts that I have heard expound this theory are big FDR supporters. They justify his deceit because after the war, when people saw how awful the Nazi were, it was clear he was right. I agree. But unlike you, when it comes to foreign policy, I expect Presidents to lie, just not when they are under oath.

It is this conventional wisdom that has led to the conspiracy theory that FDR knew about the Pearl Harbour attack but did not warn Hawaii because he wanted to make sure the damage was bad enough so he could go to war with Germany. I don't believe that. But believing that is just about as realistic as thinking FDR in 1940 wasn't going to do everthing in his power to keep us out of the war.

3) As far as Bush is concerned I am convinced he thought there were WMDs. He may have favored the evidence that backed up his belief but that is a far cry from intentional lying - like FDR did. I actually would have minded it so much it he did lie (as long as it was not under oath), but I don't think he did.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Penske just doesn't understand that babies are born without hats.

I don't understand this? Is it politics of personal destruction? Ty, your better than that.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But I also don't think that the single sentence that Penske dug up carries the weight that you two are trying to put on it.

Meanwhile, I don't understand how you can accuse FDR of lying -- and me of hypocrisy -- on so slender a basis while absolving the current administration of everything. Have you read the 1940 speech that Penske was quoting?

This is politics of personal destruction. As Spanky later explained (I STP'd for once), Rooosevelt's anti-war lies and manipulation of the electorate are well known historical fact.

I would like the above post deleted for offensive content.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It might be like the outcry that ended FDR's court-packing manuever.

did crazy republicans camp out at the entrance to Shangri-La?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
He doesn't listen to me. His office just complains to me and tells me to fix things. For some reason they feel this press release is somehow my fault and I am supposed to fix it. I don't know why his office thinks these people will listen to me but I will give it the old college try.

Here is what they are angry about:

Convicted pedophiles part of Arnold-endorsed event

Governor praises 'gay pride' festival that has sex offenders as volunteers


July 7, 2005
WorldNetDaily.com

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is taking heat on the Internet for endorsing San Diego's "gay pride" celebration slated for later this month, with critics pointing out two of the men helping to stage the event are convicted pedophiles.

In his letter of greeting to all who will gather July 29 for the homosexual-themed parade and festival, Schwarzenegger writes, "I am pleased to extend warm greetings to all who have gathered for this year's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Celebrations.

"California is proud to host events that celebrate diversity and support active civic participation. I applaud your efforts to foster ties within your community and to promote cultural and social acceptance in our Golden State. …

"Your efforts serve to raise awareness and advocate civil rights for all individuals, regardless of sexual orientation."

While this was not the first time the governor has commended a homosexual event in the Golden State, it is the presence of two convicted pedophiles on the event's volunteer staff that has traditional-values advocates upset.

On page 47 and 48 of the "gay pride" event's program, which is viewable online, two members of the staff are listed – both of whom also appear on California's Megan's Law website as convicted pedophiles.

Warren Patrick Derichsweiler was convicted of "lewd or lascivious acts with a child under 14 years with force," according to the government website, and Daniel Reiger is listed as having committed "oral copulation with a person under 16 years."

"There is simply no excuse for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to honor an event that is using dangerous pedophiles," stated the James Hartline Report e-mail newsletter, which first discovered the background of Derichsweiler and Reiger.

The same newsletter pointed out that at the San Diego event, "young people will be exposed to a multitude of pornographic images and S&M leather products as they walk around the gay pride festival."

Freelance reporter Allyson Smith, who is based in San Diego, says a staffer for the governor told her the chief executive "supports gay and lesbian rights and that he does not have time to check out the backgrounds of every single person involved with every pride event in the state of California."

Said Smith: "I told [the staff member] it is reprehensible that Schwarzenegger, a professed Catholic and so-called Republican, would put the special rights of perverts above the protection of innocent children."

WND was unable to reach a Schwarzenegger spokesperson by press time.

He needs to fall on the sword on this one. No pun intended.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It might be like the outcry that ended FDR's court-packing manuever.

Seems to me that outcry by anyone, liberal or no, has no impact at all on this administration, so what the fuck does it matter?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) I don't think he did something wrong. If his opponent had won we may have never gone to war with Germany.

Here is where we disagree, then. I don't see a whole lot of virtue when political leaders mislead people to do something that they think is wise policy but which they know the people oppose.

And it's not at all clear to me that the GOP had much chance of winning in 1940.

2) This is just not a theory I have come up with. I can't believe that you have not heard it before. It is pretty much conventional wisdom (not that that is evidence of its truth) that FDR lied in the 1940 election. It is also conventional wisdom that he pushed the envelope to get us in the war. Before posting on this board I had never heard anyone argue against that idea. Most of the experts that I have heard expound this theory are big FDR supporters. They justify his deceit because after the war, when people saw how awful the Nazi were, it was clear he was right. I agree.

I have heard it before, e.g. from Penske, and I didn't say it was wrong. I just said that I'm not convinced that FDR was misleading people, and I'd want to see more of what he said before I reached that conclusion.

But unlike you, when it comes to foreign policy, I expect Presidents to lie, just not when they are under oath.

That's too bad. Is there a principled reason why you think this is OK, or are you just used to presidents who will not live up to your principles?

3) As far as Bush is concerned I am convinced he thought there were WMDs. He may have favored the evidence that backed up his belief but that is a far cry from intentional lying - like FDR did. I actually would have minded it so much it he did lie (as long as it was not under oath), but I don't think he did.

I think I have been pretty clear about this. I don't think Bush knew that there were no WMD and decided to mislead people. But I also am convinced that his senior advisors presented him a picture in shades of grey. They extrapolated from what we'd known in the past, they gave him their best guess about intel, etc. Some of the expressions of ambiguity have made it into the public record -- e.g., this -- and yet Bush and his advisors shared none of these doubts with the public. Thus, Tommy Franks tells him that they've been looking for WMD for years and have never found them, and Bush turns around and says that we know Hussein has WMD. I think we can agree that if he'd said the same thing under oath, he'd have a problem.

There is no doubt that during the run-up to the war, the intelligence agencies were being pressured to produce information and conclusions favorable to path Bush was inclined to reach -- i.e., to help him make the case for war. Did this happen because Bush was trying to snow people? I don't think so. But the administration was trying to sell its policy, and an accurate picture of the ambiguity of the intel would not have been helpful, so this was not shared with the public. Instead, you have an administration that was pushing the envelope at every turn -- e.g., including statements about uranium from Niger in presidential speeches when our own intelligence officials said they shouldn't be in there. The administration was picking and choosing what intel to use, and representing it as fact.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Seems to me that outcry by anyone, liberal or no, has no impact at all on this administration, so what the fuck does it matter?

The power of the mandate is hard to argue with.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Doesn't this have to do with the fact that the war in the Pacific was a naval war, and did not require as many ground forces? You can only build so many ships (and we did).

And but not for the unexpectedly early coming of VJ Day, I'm sure that number would have been closer to 50/50.

Absolutely not. You are just way off here. Sometimes you need to think before you post. Now you are just disputing undisputed facts for WWII. I am sorry the facts don't favor your argument but that is life.

The Japanese were in New Guinea and were poised to invade Australia. Marshall recommended to Macarthur that he fortify Australia and wait for the Japanese because we were not going to send him the resources to attack. Macarthur, and the army, was in charge of Island hopping in the western pacific, and the navy and the marine had the central pacific islands. You can't take islands with Ships. As any marine will tell you taking islands is manpower intense. Macarthur, even though he didn't get the resources attacked anyway.

Both the European war and the Pacific war started of with amphibious invasions. Landing men in the solomons and New Guinea for the Pacific and landing men in North Africa for the European theater. The overwhelming bulk of men, supplies, ships, planes and everything else was devoted to the Invasion of North Africa. After the successful invasion of North Africa the focus was then on assualting France. So the majority of supplies were sent to England, the rest to North Africa and then the Pacific got the scraps.

There were massive arguments over this strategy between Macarthur and Marshall. Macarthur never forgave him and his "Eurocentric collegues". That is one of the reasons there was such tension between Macarthur and the Truman administration. Marshall was the secretary of state an pretty much ran foreign policy and defense.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
This is politics of personal destruction. As Spanky later explained (I STP'd for once), Rooosevelt's anti-war lies and manipulation of the electorate are well known historical fact.

I would like the above post deleted for offensive content.

Been hitting the sauce early today? NTTAWWT.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Here is where we disagree, then. I don't see a whole lot of virtue when political leaders mislead people to do something that they think is wise policy but which they know the people oppose.

And it's not at all clear to me that the GOP had much chance of winning in 1940.

I have heard it before, e.g. from Penske, and I didn't say it was wrong. I just said that I'm not convinced that FDR was misleading people, and I'd want to see more of what he said before I reached that conclusion.

Keeping the peace was a major part his platform. Wilkies main political tactic was to accuse FDR of warmongering. Which FDR consistently denied. Meanwhile he was working out ways of getting us into the war and already had Marshall preparing European invastion strategies.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's too bad. Is there a principled reason why you think this is OK, or are you just used to presidents who will not live up to your principles?



I think I have been pretty clear about this. I don't think Bush knew that there were no WMD and decided to mislead people. But I also am convinced that his senior advisors presented him a picture in shades of grey. They extrapolated from what we'd known in the past, they gave him their best guess about intel, etc. Some of the expressions of ambiguity have made it into the public record -- e.g., this -- and yet Bush and his advisors shared none of these doubts with the public.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Shared doubts with the public. ARe you kidding me. That is what you are ubset about. He didn't lie or even mislead he just didn't share all the intel.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Thus, Tommy Franks tells him that they've been looking for WMD for years and have never found them, and Bush turns around and says that we know Hussein has WMD. I think we can agree that if he'd said the same thing under oath, he'd have a problem.

No he wouldn't. Clinton lied directly under oath and people argued that it was not perjury. Can you imagine trying to prove he intentionally lied by not sharing all the facts. No way. Beyond a reasonable doubt - no way.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop There is no doubt that during the run-up to the war, the intelligence agencies were being pressured to produce information and conclusions favorable to path Bush was inclined to reach -- i.e., to help him make the case for war. Did this happen because Bush was trying to snow people? I don't think so. But the administration was trying to sell its policy, and an accurate picture of the ambiguity of the intel would not have been helpful, so this was not shared with the public. Instead, you have an administration that was pushing the envelope at every turn -- e.g., including statements about uranium from Niger in presidential speeches when our own intelligence officials said they shouldn't be in there. The administration was picking and choosing what intel to use, and representing it as fact.

Like this is something new. Using arguments and facts that support you policy decisions. That is standard operating procedure in every white house.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Absolutely not. You are just way off here. Sometimes you need to think before you post. Now you are just disputing undisputed facts for WWII. I am sorry the facts don't favor your argument but that is life.

Your Hank-described humility is overwhelming me.

This exchange about WWII is interesting to me because I like me a little bit of military history, but it has nothing -- nothing -- to do with any argument we are having. Whatever the reasons for our entry into World War II, the allocation of resources to various theaters has precious little to do with it.

And where did you get the 80/20 number?

The Japanese were in New Guinea and were poised to invade Australia. Marshall recommended to Macarthur that he fortify Australia and wait for the Japanese because we were not going to send him the resources to attack. Macarthur, and the army, was in charge of Island hopping in the western pacific, and the navy and the marine had the central pacific islands. You can't take islands with Ships. As any marine will tell you taking islands is manpower intense. Macarthur, even though he didn't get the resources attacked anyway.

All of what you say is true, but the numbers of soldiers on the ground in the Pacific were still much smaller than what was in the European and African theaters.

Both the European war and the Pacific war started of with amphibious invasions. Landing men in the solomons and New Guinea for the Pacific and landing men in North Africa for the European theater. The overwhelming bulk of men, supplies, ships, planes and everything else was devoted to the Invasion of North Africa. After the successful invasion of North Africa the focus was then on assualting France. So the majority of supplies were sent to England, the rest to North Africa and then the Pacific got the scraps.

At the risk of stating the obvious, because I know Hank doesn't like it when I do that, it took many fewer troops to occupy Guadalcanal than it did to invade Northern Africa. A little time pondering a globe should suggest why this was true.

There were massive arguments over this strategy between Macarthur and Marshall. Macarthur never forgave him and his "Eurocentric collegues". That is one of the reasons there was such tension between Macarthur and the Truman administration. Marshall was the secretary of state an pretty much ran foreign policy and defense.

OK.