For the Record
 

Huh?

For the Record
 

Can we start with the TVA?

For the Record
 

OK. Unusual choice for a place to start, it seems, but that's fine. What about it?

For the Record
 

I had forgotten that you are a big fan of the snail darter.

I understand that many of you will never forgive FDR for introducing socialism. What I don't understand is the rogue meme about FDR and our entry into World War II. (I recall that Penske is bent out of shape that FDR said he wouldn't lead us into the war, and thinks that FDR's failure to immediately surrender to Germany on December 8, 1941 makes him a liar. Whatever.) The thought seems to be, Democrats think FDR is a great president, and FDR was president when we went to war, and W. was a president when we went to war, so therefore even Democrats should admit that W. is a great president. Anyone who got a good enough score on the LSAT to get into law school should be able to see what's wrong with this reasoning, which is probably why you guys keep hinting at it instead of just saying it outright.

For the Record
 

Every time I see read one of your posts I laugh because I picture your Avatar saying it. I think if we all had muppet Avatars things would get a lot less testy around here.

For the Record
 

Spank said he's an expert at some parts of politics but would never claim to be an expert at other areas. Since he actually works in Politics he could claim to be an expert in all areas- but he is too humble to do so.

Ty on the other hand claims to know everything, even though objectively he has no real knowledge of any area in politics. Yet he is forever implying Spank doesn't know what he is talking about, as an example. He could use a bit of Spank's humbleness.

If you really couldn't follow that you might want to stick to FB.

For the Record
 

We tried that once. Everyone wanted to be Oscar.

For the Record
 

As usual you have totally missed the point. We (or at least) I don't blame FDR for manipulating us into WWII. I think it was a good thing. But we find it hypocritical that you get all up in arms for Bush allegedly lying to get us into war when that is exactly what FDR did. From documents and memos from his administration it was clear before the 1940 election FDR was really worried about Hitler and wanted to help England but most Americans, being encouraged by Lindberg and Kennedy, didn't want any part of it. FDR, in the election of 1940 promised to do everything in his power to keep us out of the war in Europe. And then he did everything he could to get us involved. Even though we were neutral Roosevelt had U.S. destroyers escort U.S. and British cargo ships that were bringing ammunition to England. They escorted these ships half way across the Atlantic and if any German U boat showed up we fired on it.

We pretty much gave an entire fleet of old destroyers to England. We did get to lease some bases we did not need, but England got supplies that were clearly critical to the war effort. Right after he was elected he instituted the largest peacetime draft in US history and jacked up military spending immediately in preparation for war.

And he had strategy meetings with Churchill all time. He pretty much made us an alley of Great Britain in everything but name. If FDR had not used US destroyers to protect British shipping, had not done the Lend Lease act, and sold goods to any ship that showed up at a US port - as a true neutral should - Germany probably would have not declared war on us.

But when FDR in the 1940 campaign said that he would do everything in his power to keep our sons and daughters at home, he knew was going to do the opposite. In other words he lied. But I for one am glad that he did. If he hadn't done what he did we might all be speaking German right now.

For the Record
 

None on this issues. Just pointing out that Germany's declaration wasn't completely groundless.

For the Record
 

My WWII history is severely lacking, so I'll defer to the rest of you historians on this -- but if the trigger to our jumping into the war as an active participant was Pearl Harbor, then wouldn't the rest of the actions you describe above be characterized as secretive support of Britain instead of the "opposite" of keeping our sons and daughters at home?

For the Record
 

Actually, I will never forgive him for failing to go as far as the Europeans.

For the Record
 

Democrats aren't capable of independant thought and their leaders would never tell them to think W is a good president?

For the Record
 

Roosevelt definitely lied.

Also interesting is that Joe Kennedy was a Nazi sympathizer and his last living son is an al Qaeda sympathizer. Now that the Kennedys have lots of money (from illegal sources at its foundation) wouldn't they be happier back in Ireland, instead of here hating America by supporting those who seek to destroy our way of life?

For the Record
 

2.

For the Record
 

I don't think they were very secret. The Germans knew all about these activities and they were the ones that really counted. I think FDR was trying to provoke the Nazis into sinking our ships and eventually the US public would get so angry they would cry for war (and as SHP pointed out it was working). Or the Nazis would get so peeved that they would declare war. However, the public mood wasn't changing. I don't think FDR or anyone else really believed the Japanese would really attack us. We just didn't consider them that much of a threat.

Roosevelt just got lucky when Hitler declared was on us on December 8, 1945. I think Hitler thought we were going to be so caught up with the Japanese we would not be able to focus on him. He was very mistaken. If the war was all about revenge for Pearl Harbor our strategy did not show it. 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. FDR, and Marshall, just used Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war, as an excuse to get Hitler out of the way. Which by the way was the right choice. I have a lot of respect for Macarthur but he was wrong on this one.

For the Record
 

And although Bush has been called a "fascist", a "dictator" and the like, wasn't it FDR who:

1) Threatened to destroy the judicial branch by "packing" the Supreme Court

2) Broke 150 years of executive precedent by running for four terms

and etc.

For the Record
 

Au contraire

For the Record
 

could you imagine the liberal outcry if W tried a court packing manuever?

http://www.52761.com/~bblog/media/4/...ocrat_seal.jpg

America's biggest Terrorist: Mother Sheehan
 

The grieving mother says "It got out of hand and just turned into a media circus.”

http://198.65.14.85/Art/NewsArt/cindy02/8haircut.jpg


Ad for a rally at SanFranStateU that Sheehan spoke at in May. How is this not treasonous? How sad that this is taxpayer supported. Spanky can't you get Arnold to do something about this.

http://www.studentsforacademicfreedo...s/image004.jpg

separated at birth?
 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/hipaatwo/cin.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2.../gilligan2.jpg

separated at birth?
 

You can be a real asshole sometimes.

separated at birth?
 

I didn't realize that you were such a big Bob Denver fan.

America's biggest Terrorist: Mother Sheehan
 

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.

separated at birth?
 

Annie's Song? Take me home, country roads?

Who isn't?

For the Record
 

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.?

separated at birth?
 

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

For the Record
 

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.

For the Record
 

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

For the Record
 

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.

separated at birth?
 

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

For the Record
 

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.

For the Record
 

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

America's biggest Terrorist: Mother Sheehan
 

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

For the Record
 

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?

For the Record
 

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.

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. 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.

For the Record
 

The power of the mandate is hard to argue with.

For the Record
 

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.

For the Record
 

Been hitting the sauce early today? NTTAWWT.

For the Record
 

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.

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.


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

For the Record
 

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?

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.

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.

OK.