’)
For me, Franklin Delano Roosevelt is the Greatest President Of All Time (G.P.O.A.T.). Last weekend I walked around the tidal basin to check out once again his fitting memorial in Washington. Really beautiful (and I’m biased because I live in the area and am a native of Maryland, but people, please come see your capital, it is a truly spectacular city and worthy of our nation). One of the things I like about FDR was his clear lack of timidity. Right when America needed a leader to pull it out of a spiral, that sort of attitude was just what the doctor ordered. Check out this justification of his for why the Pentagon should be five-sided:
“You know, gentlemen, I like that pentagon-shaped building,” Roosevelt said. “You know why?”
“No,” the commissioners replied resignedly.
“I like it because nothing like it has ever been done that way before.”
You can almost see him clenching his cigarette between his considerable chompers and giving a jaunty laugh after that exchange.
From all of I’ve read and watched of FDR, that’s how he tackled the big trials of his time. The Depression? We will defeat it. The Nazis and the Japanese Empire? We will win.
And we did.
Greatest President of All Time?
Despite his rhetoric, his economic policies largely failed.
FDR hates Okies. He completely failed to stop the Dust Bowl and failed to provide any substantial support to starving Oklahoma and Kansas farmers and their families.
He got the US tangled up in the European war by openly selling arms to England, when we were supposed to be a neutral country.
He lied about Germany posessing nuclear weapons and was personally responsible for instigating the nuclear arms race.
While forcing us into war, he utterly failed to modernize our military, thus costing the US several humiliating military defeats and wasting tens of thousands of young American lives.
He utterly failed to stop the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, even though it has been thoroughly documented that his administration had foreknowledge of a secret attack.
He put American citizens in concentration camps.
He singlehandedly laid the foundation for the Cold War by giving Stalin all of Eastern Europe at Yalta.
I could go on and on, but you get the point.
At least that’s how Roosevelt would look if judged by the same standards as George W. Bush.
Think about it for a while.
And what’s comedian Rush Limbaugh’s view of FDR?
“Roosevelt is dead. His policies may live but we’re in the process of doing something about that as well.”
What a lovely human being Mr.Oxycontin is, eh?
And yet they want to put Reagan on our money.
madhatter: This just in: FDR is on our money.
For much more of the kind of stuff Mike was talking about, Read Flynn’s “The Roosevelt Myth”
Having a D by FDR’s name makes all the difference in the world to drink-from-the-Democratic-trough like Oliver and his psychophants.
Rheinhard,
What’s so offensive about suggesting there’s something that ought to be done about FDR’s policies? Many of them provided the foundation for Big Government to operate. Including the poster child of all government programs gone amok, Social Security.
FDR’s also responsible for the employer-paid health insurance environment that we are, in some ways, suffering from today.
One other reason to love visiting DC – it is very dog-friendly. Sure, you can’t go to the Smithsonian or other museums with a dog in tow, but you can visit almost all the memorials. (Jefferson and Lincoln let you up to the top of the steps.)
[ Oddly, when I was last there, the handicapped parking was blocked by workers setting up for Ford's funeral. My stepmom was irate that she couldn't get a handicap parking spot at the FDR memorial... ]
I love it when Frank comes out with book recommendations. In today’s edition, he recommends John Flynn’s “The Roosevelt Myth,” which is actually a very interesting book, but one that directly contradicts Frank’s perception of the nature of the critique.
Flynn was anti-statist, to be sure, but he was equally and importantly anti-militarist, opposed to American foreign entanglements generally. He was your classic paleoconservative.
He would look at people like Mike and Frank as hugely dangerous and misguided, but hey Frank, thanks for the recommendation. Now please go read the damn book.
“Including the poster child of all government programs gone amok, Social Security.”
You realize Social Security works, and has for 70 years. And even if nothing is done, it will work for another 30 some years.
Considering the massive changes in how long people work and live, this is pretty amazing.
Zadura: I don’t recall saying I agreed with everything in the book. What I said was that there more things like the stuff Mike pointed out in that book.
Now, is that true or is it not?
Take off the blog policeman’s badge.
I notice you contributed nothing but a criticism of me.
Bully for you.
Yes, that social security, we should just throw our old folks out over the cliff when they hit 65. Social security is so bad for America, we readily rushed to privatize it as the president wanted to. Oh, wait.
FDR is like GWB in that both were white male American presidents. The similarities end there. FDR set the country to work by government intervention after a Republican too beholden to big business, Hoover, did nothing. FDR aided our European allies and rallied an entire nation to arms after Pearl Harbor. FDR said sacrifice for your nation’s survival, GWB said to go shopping.
Was FDR perfect? No. He was morally wrong on Japanese internment and foot-dragging on racial advancement. But of the 43 president’s we’ve had to date, he is by far the greatest.
No amount of standard issue conservative historical revision is going to change that.
Tell you what, you wingers work at dismantling FDR’s legacy, and we’ll work at dismantling Reagan’s. We’ll see who is recognized as the greater loser in 50 years, OK?
fd: this just in -
No shit FDR is on the money…. and they want to put Reagan there…. in his place.
please check your attention span, and I don’t mean check it at the door. thanks.
madhatter: Who’s “they”?
Try Google sometime.
6/1/04: Ronald Reagan’s face could one day adorn the $10 bill or half the dimes minted in the country, if fans of the late president get their way.
On Tuesday Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) confirmed that he is considering sponsoring legislation in the Senate to have Reagan’s image replace that of Alexander Hamilton, the nation’s first treasury secretary, on the $10 bill.
Meanwhile, an effort is underway in the House of Representatives, led by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), to put Reagan’s face on the $20. And Rep. Jeff Miller (R-Fla.) wants to swap Reagan for John F. Kennedy on the 50-cent piece.
While forcing us into war, he utterly failed to modernize our military….
…yet suceeded in deafeating two aggressively evil expansionist empires, doing so in less time than it has taken George Bush to make a total hash of invading one downtrodden middle-eastern country.
Sadly, Mike has no clue how misguided his comparison is, and probably never will.
Frank, I don’t consider myself a blog policeman but when I see bullshit, I call bullshit. You claim to have read books that are part of my library and then contradict precisely what they wrote.
“At least that’s how Roosevelt would look if judged by the same standards as George W. Bush.”
No, that’s how he looks viewed through the prism of the whiny little baby who can’t cope with the concept of anyone actually rationally having anything against his President.
George DID force us into war. FDR did not.
George’s economic policies DID fail. FDR’s largely succeeded.
FDR, in his first hundred days, authorised wide-ranging governmental support for the victims of the Dust Bowl. When Katrina hit,George W. Bush played guitar, did a couple of photo ops, and then left and never came back.
So you see how the comparison doesn’t really work there.
Try Google sometime.
You’re kidding, right? I’ve been asked to back up the simplest of statements with links since I got here, and now you want me to research things for mad hatter?
Besides, what you found says that only half the dimes might, might have Reagan’s face, and makes reference to the $10 bill, and the $20 bill.
Do you expect me to look up evidence that supports my point, and evidence that refutes your point before you provide evidence that supports your point?
zadura: From the flyleaf of my copy of “The Roosevelt Myth”: “Says Mr. Flynn of this book”
See here ["No wonder he provoked War"] for more on Flynn.
For many readers’ reviews by people who read my copy. see here
I can’t leave the subject without Adam Young’s glowing tribute to John T. Flynn
“You claim to have read books that are part of my library” makes it seem like I make a regular habit of it. Yet I recall only two such cases, and in this case, you are completely wrong.
Put the six guns away, Sheriff…
Ollie:
“FDR aided our European allies and rallied an entire nation to arms after Pearl Harbor.”
You forgot one: FDR went after the enemies who actually perpetrated Pearl Harbor. GWB used 9/11 as an excuse for renewing his Saddam family feud.
“they” are people – nobody specific- who prefer Reagan to FDR.
As in:
“FDR is the GPOAT”
And yet they want to put Reagan on our money.
Is it SO hard to grasp?
I’m not asking you to research anything… I’m letting you know that some people want to put Reagan on the money. In place of FDR.
If you were less cranky I might engage further to prove my point.
Doesn’t seem like a good use of my time. It’s apparently in your best interest to be daft… so, good luck with that.
Frank N. Feuhrer said:
“Put the six guns away, Sheriff…”
The sheriff doesn’t even need his guns, little one. It’s useless to wage an intellectual gunfight with an unarmed man…
mad hatter: Who mentioned Google? Was it you or me? No, it was Oliver. And it was to him that my remark was addressed. Is it SO hard to grasp?
Oliver’s “research” indicated that one plan is to replace half of the dimes with Reagan’s image, so you were wrong, anyway.
I don’t have to be cranky for you to be wrong, and you can be wrong without being cranky.
While forcing us into war, he utterly failed to modernize our military….
They had been doing some serious island hopping since the teens and early twenties but in the early thirties the Japanese Empire exploded. For the next decade plus, Japan practiced conquer and destruction on a scale that rivaled and at times surpassed anything the Nazis ever did. And they had no intention of stopping. FDR knew that. Trying to stop their oil had to come sooner than later.
Besides Pearl Harbor was their idea.
As for modernizing the military, we won didn’t we? Fighting the two best military forces in the world at the same time.
USA! FDR!
You can’t, though.
Heh heh. Lively discussion here.
My first post was derived from a simple premise: Franklin D. Roosevelt was an evil and incompetent man, and a warmonger. Based on that assumption, I simply pulled a few selected items from his tenure as president, tweaked the language a little, and voila, the worst president in history.
Congradulations Nimrod. You can pull the hook out of your mouth now.
This whole exercise simply illustrates that the way we view any person is largely independent of actual events and heavily dependent on a preconceived notion of how “good” or “bad” that person is supposed to be.
Was FDR evil? Democrats certainly will answer “no.” His mistakes were simply human error or bad choices based on misunderstandings.
Is George W. Bush evil? Certainly the Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers think so. Therefore, Bush will always be the worst, most incompetent, most evil president in the history of the US, because they have never seen him as anything else, since Jan. 21, 2001. He is never given the benefit of the doubt. There are no bad decisions made with good intent. There are only global conspiracies and cold, calculated evil.
I suppose that is what is so disheartening about politics these days. We have lost the ability to simply have conversations that give opposing factions the benefit of the doubt. It’s all good vs. evil now. Conservatives are just as guilty of this as liberals.
Some say that there is a fine line between genius and insanity. I also think that there is a fine line between passion and absurdity. And only when our misguided passions generate absurdity can we understand how far off the path of civility we have travelled.
You’re not as clever as you think you are. I recognised the premise and pointed out that it was bollocks because Bush really is, objectively, that bad.
Mike said:
“Is George W. Bush evil? Certainly the Bush Derangement Syndrome sufferers think so.”
Same damn thing applies to Clinton (both of ‘em) Derangement Syndrome and the GOP. Or Pelosi DS. Or Reid DS. Or Carter DS. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum…
After 2000, I believed Bush was an unelected idiot. When 9/11 happened I said, ok, not my choice but you’re the president. Lead. He invaded Afghanistan, and I approved.
And then… yes, clearly Bush Derangement Syndrome caused the invasion of Iraq.
yes, clearly Bush Derangement Syndrome caused the invasion of Iraq.
If you are acknowledging that BDS exists, that is all that matters.
It means simply that you (and by “you” I mean liberals afflicted with the disorder) have lowered the bar on loyalty to the President to “I will only approve of the President if he is elected in a way I approve of, and only if all policies are approved of by me.
“Otherwise, I will hate him, mock him, ridicule him at every opportunity, accuse people loyal to him of treason,stupidity and insanity, and even say vile things about his and his family’s personal lives”.
Is this the political atmosphere you have chosen for the future of this country?
What if John Edwards becomes President in 2009?
Shall he be treated like that from January onward by the people who didn’t vote for him?
There is a lot of revisionist history there, chum, and a few outright lies. None the less, there is nothing comparable in FDR’s record to the sheer incompetence of the Bush record. FDR was winning wars on two fronts, Bush is losing two wars in adjacent areas. There is no evidence of a Pearl Harbor warning, there were numerous warning about Al Qaida to strike in the US. And there is New Orleans, still not rebuilt.
Bush Derangement Syndrome is characterized by overwhelming sycophancy to an incompetent, inarticulate leader who institutes policies inimical to his country’s interest and welfare. Those suffering BDS, as it is commonly called, are able to make a statement defending their leader on moment, and argue the exact opposite the next. Indeed, most of those afflicted with this bizarre disease are incapable of cognitive functions when involves their Dear Leader.
As well he should be. The March of Dimes campaign was a noble one.
The March of Dimes campaign was a noble one.
Imagine it’s 1930 and Bush has polio…
Would his wheelchair be kept a secret?
Would his attempt to popularize Sister Kenny’s method of “patterning” be viewed as innovative,or plagiarism?
Would the March of Dimes be viewed as a “noble campaign”, or as a cynical attempt to exploit America’s children to cure his own disease?
FDR went after the enemies who actually perpetrated Pearl Harbor.
Not Really. Right after Pearl, FDR sent our troops to … Algeria.
Let’s not forget:
Invading the Low Countries instead of heading for the Concentration Camps
Almost getting caught with our pants down in the battle of the Bulge.
I wonder what our Press Corps “Generals” would have made of those boo – boos?
Actually, FDR did catch hell for not going after the concentration camps. So, yea, there is that.
Not Really. Right after Pearl, FDR sent our troops to … Algeria
That’s because Hitler declared war on us, 3 days after PH. So, FDR was in fact responding to the crisis, not attacking the wrong enemy. As has been pointed out, FDR fought a two front war and won. Bush picked a different country than the one that attacked us, but he also picked one that had not done anything else. They weren’t Afghanistan’s allies, friends or any other connection. Therefore the statement that FDR attacked unrelated peoplejust like Bush doesn’t really work.
I simply pulled a few selected items from his tenure as president, tweaked the language a little, and voila, the worst president in history.
The fact that you think your cherry-picked and “tweaked” list of particulars against FDR is at all comparable to the long list of objective criticisms one could make against Bush is symptomatic of a inability to tell reality from fantasy.
That is the only “derangement syndrome” I see around here – The necessity of defending the indefensible in the Bush years has, sadly, driven many once-hard-headed conservatives to this particular form of dementia.
I look down on Bush because he looks down on me. For all their faults President Bush I and President Reagan did not act like this, that’s the whole point. You rule like you only care about the base, and only the base will tolerate you. I have no doubt the next Democratic president will be more of a leader if only because George Bush has set the bar so low. I also have no doubt you cons will try to have him or her forcibly removed from office, again.
A final word about the “fought two wars and won” myth. (Look up the definition of “myth” if my use of the word offends you.)
World War II was the last war fought by the US where we were committed to total victory over the enemy, regardless of cost.
Our enemies were ruthless, deliberately bombing civilian populations and slaughtering civilians as methods of terror designed to break the will of those they conquered and those they wanted to conquer. The Japanese were the worst offenders.
So we fought back in the same way. We knew the Japanese would fight to the death, so we slaughtered them down to the last man using weapons like flamethrowers to burn them alive.
We dropped incindiary bombs on Tokyo and Dresden. 250,000 to 500,000 civilians were killed in one night in Dresden. Over 100,000 civilians were killed in one night in Tokyo.
Then we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, which killed an estimated 210,000 civilians outright and left half a million more horribly burned or condemned to death from radiation poisoning or cancer.
Had America used that kind of destructive firepower in Iraq or anywhere else, I have no doubt that “victory” would have been swift and with a minimal loss of American life.
But the cost of WWII was so high that the US made a conscious decision never to fight a war in the same way again. MacArthur was relieved from his command in Korea for suggesting an invasion of China that would have resulted in fighting on a similar scale.
And ever since, we have been extremely restrained in our combat efforts, often putting soldiers and Marines in the line of fire in order to diminish possible civilian casualties.
Why don’t you tell me whether or not Bush would have been a “hero” if he would have ordered nuke strikes against Bin Laden or Saddam? Or if he ordered enemy fighters or insurgents to be slaughtered to the last man? Because that is the comparison that you are really trying to make when you envoke WWII and FDR/Truman.
God, cons are dishonest.
25,000 to 35,000 were killed at Dresden, not 250,000-500,000.
Approximately 140,000-150,000 were killed in the initial blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not 210,000. It is possible that a similar number died later from radiation exposure or other related diseases and injuries.
Next, naturally, when faced with a discussion about FDR, there has to be some effort to drag nukes into the story, so the con fable gets expanded to include Truman. Likewise, the firebombing of Tokyo didn’t happen on FDR’s watch either. This isn’t to say that he wouldn’t have ordered those strikes. He certainly presided over the Dresden attacks, but this thread is about his actual legacy, not Truman’s or some twisted fantasy where G.W. is a more compassionate leader than FDR.
Though I strongly disapprove of the Japanese internment camps, the Dresden firebombing, and a few other aspects of FDR’s presidency, on balance, he accomplished many amazing things. However, the con effort to liken Iraq to WWII in so many of these threads depends on ignoring one salient point on which all others depend. We were attacked and then we struck back in WWII. In Iraq, we invaded, in violation of international law. At this point, any comparison between FDR and Bush should grind to a complete halt.
Restraint over the use of nuclear weapons is as much a matter of pragmatism as anything else. Were we to use nukes indiscriminately to solve all our conflicts, we would run the risk of accelerating nuclear proliferation, not to mention possibly triggering a much larger exchange with a more potent adversary. There is also the increased likelyhood that any blowback in the form of terrorism would be that much worse than anything we’ve experienced to date.
FDR brought the people together in a time of fear and gave them hope in a time of despair. He represented the US in a manner that brought us respect on the world stage. He had leadership and statesmanship, two nouns that will never be associated with GWB in the history books.
25,000 to 35,000 were killed at Dresden, not 250,000-500,000.
Approximately 140,000-150,000 were killed in the initial blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not 210,000.
What a relief!
For a moment, I thought it was a lot of people.
Mike, you might want to look at the key important difference between Iraq and Japan. Namely, Japan invaded us, had the means to inflict major damage and had shown a willingness to kill civilians in order to advance their aims. Iraq had neither the means nor the inclination to invade and was certainly not capable of a concerted military enterprise. It may be your fantasy for us to start fire-bombing Iraq. Thankfully, you are in the minority.
I assume you think so because he moved the government to the left, but he:
1. Was an authoritaria-in a abad way.
2. Lied to the public, often.
3. Began many ineffective program
4. delayed the economic recovery.
5. Imprisoned Japanese needlessly.
Hey Nelson, if all you’re going to do is come on here and post the same foolish stuff Mike did at the top of the thread, at least proofread your post.
Quick quiz, Frank, what was my point?
Bill L: You’re kidding, right?
You made two points:
First: God, cons are dishonest.
25,000 to 35,000 were killed at Dresden, not 250,000-500,000.
Approximately 140,000-150,000 were killed in the initial blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not 210,000. It is possible that a similar number died later from radiation exposure or other related diseases and injuries.
It was to that point that I referred.
All the other stuff about nuclear restraint is not only irrelevant to the discussion about Iraq, it is also irrelevant to Mike’s point about seeking the total destruction of Japan.
I can’t and won’t speak for Mike, but we are not even fighting a “full – blown” conventional war against Iraq. This accounts for many of our difficulties — not Presidential incompetence, or the inability of the Iraqis to “play nice”.
Do I pass? (not that I care)
It’s not as if you read any of my posts.
I have this same problem with my 7 year old. She often thinks that simply regurgitating what she read passes for analysis. My point, which you never addressed because, I assume, your are studying at the Troy “Get Confident Stupid” McClure school of psychotherapy, was that Mike was trying to manipulate the debate by inflating the number of dead civilians attributable to FDR. To do so, he choose highly controversial events, specifically the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo and the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, distorted the death toll, and ignored the salient fact that it was Truman who presided over the attacks on Japan. It was a patently dishonest attempt to paint FDR as a brutal tactician who didn’t shy away from massacring civilians to stop the “terrorist” Japanese. Then he went one step further and insisted that Bush was actually being restrained in Iraq, and that were he allowed to go as far as FDR, the war would be over.
Putting aside the framing that we are at war in Iraq when in fact we are in the midst of an occupation, the whole proposition falls apart when you consider that Bush elected to go to war against a non-aggressor and FDR went to war in response to the actions of two potent enemies who were already engaged against our allies.
The “stuff about nuclear restraint” was in response to Mike’s suggestion that had Bush been free to use nukes in Iraq, we’d be done with the place by now. So it’s irrelevant in the sense that, again, you missed the point. Funnier still, you mention seeking the total destruction of Japan. When did that happen and how does that relate to my point about the need for restraint in the 21st century?
How would we fight a conventional war at this point of the occupation? We did the conventional thing when we rolled over Iraq’s forces in the fifteen minutes or so it took for the initial invasion.
Do I need to comment on the irony of insisting that I don’t read your posts when my query, “what was my point,” was made in response to one of your…wait for it…posts.
A post, I might add, that responded to mine by sighting casualty statistics for every country for all of WWII, effectively proving, well, nothing.
So, in effect, my question about whether you got my point was rhetorical, but you’ve established nicely that you not only missed my point, but most probably Mike’s as well.
A two-fer.
“Our enemies were ruthless, deliberately bombing civilian populations and slaughtering civilians as methods of terror designed to break the will of those they conquered and those they wanted to conquer.”
This is my favorite line from Mike’s post, by the way. Not because it isn’t true, the Japanese were ruthless and brutal, but because it so transparently tries to bridge the gap between WWII and the “War on Terror.” See, the Japanese used terror and we are fighting terrorists…sort of. It is just much simpler to enlarge the scope of the definition of terrorist to encompass anyone anywhere that opposes us. Except when we support you, then you’re a “freedom fighter,” like in Nicaragua or Afghanistan back in the 80’s with that swell bin Laden.
bill l. Cut the bullshit. This is not about you and me and your “two – fer”. Here’s a quiz for you: Are we at war, or not?
If no, should we stop all the annoying searches at the airports, send all our NG’s and ER’s back home, stop all our international surveillance and espionage?
To what degree shall we disengage from our attempt to prevent another 9/11?
And making fun of my school is really, really juvenile and stupid. Especially referring to a character from a cartoon show that outlived its novelty about 10 years ago.
No, we aren’t at war except in the fuzzy, uselessly broad scope of the word since it was co-opted for such nonsense as the “war” on drugs.
The “War on Terror” is political marketing and has been crafted for GOP theatrics like “orange alerts” and the “Fort Dix Six.” It exists to squelch debate by terrifying the public into surrendering to the GOP authoritarian agenda, and it worked for 6 years, but is now, thankfully, fading.
Virtually none of the procedures put into place by Bush and the DOHS have had any impact whatsoever on our safety. Our harbors are unprotected, thanks to lobbying from companies like Walmart that don’t want to cover the extra fees. Our airports routinely fail to pass security tests. Checking our shoes and restricting the amount of toothpaste we can carry has had no effect other than to increase waits and piss off travelers.
We are accomplishing nothing in Iraq other than draining our military’s ability to respond to genuine threats at home and abroad while simultaneously providing a terrific boost to organizations like al Qaida via increased recruitment and urban guerrilla training. We should pull out. Period. We can debate what to do with Iraq after that once it becomes a bit clearer where things are actually headed versus where we think they’ll go but can’t be sure because our mere presence is mucking things up.
Stop all international surveillance and espionage. Espionage? Do you mean covert ops, or are you going all Mission: Impossible on me? At what point did I suggest doing nothing? This is what I mean when I say cons can’t debate honestly. I can’t simply be opposed to the current administration and their methodology. I must be in favor of rolling over with my belly exposed, ripe for another “9/11!” (cue dramatic crescendo)
What we need to do (which I have stated in other threads, but here we go again):
1 – Stop interfering in Middle Eastern affairs as much as possible. No more propping up autocratic dictatorships like the Sauds, no more interfering in elections ala Iran (or more recently, Iraq, so much for the purple finger of liberty), funding extremists (Sunnis, no less, how’s that helping prevent another 9/11?), no more blocking progress toward peace between Israel and the Palestineans (and that means no more unconditional support for the hard right Likud, either), and so on. That includes dumping any more plans for permanent bases and scraping many that already exist. The U.S. has the most blatant “empire by proxy” network of military bases in the world, but nowhere does it do more harm than in the Mid East.
2 – Ramp up domestic and international use of police, F.B.I. and intelligence organizations. All the pieces were in place to prevent 9/11. We either ignored the warnings, allowed inter-departmental competition or antiquated regulations stop data sharing and analysis, or went fishing. Imagine if we bothered to increase airport security and provide a common database of suspected individuals to airlines when we were first warned in the Spring before 9/11, much less after the infamous PDB about bin Laden.
3 – Practice what we preach. By holding firm to our (supposed) principles of justice and equality for all, we undermine many of the talking points used by radicals to draw support against us. If we go the next step and, say, use the billions we waste on Iraq to enrich an elite few at the expense of the majority to instead, as the saying goes, raise all boats, we will “drain the swamp” and rob al Qaida, or another group of fanatics, of there life support. We will still suffer the occasional Oklahoma City, but the odds of anything on the level of a coordinated, multiple airplane attack on the U.S. will drop to virtually zero.
Your superficial understanding of my posts makes me wonder just how good your school could possibly be.
We do, however, agree on one point. The Simpsons hasn’t been great for nearly a decade. Of course, the Troy McClure bit I was referring to pre-dates that and that particular episode is still incredibly funny.
Your criticism of my school, whose name, purpose and reputation you don’t even know, devalues your comment considerably.
I wasn’t asking for a dissertation on the middle east’s foreign policy. And in terms of pure comprehension, one can’t get from a paragraph what wasn’t there.
Telling me what was on your mind afterward is no reflection on my reading ability.
Enough about me. Anyone can dream up a “future” for the “middle east”. That’s how liberals have ruined our foreign policy for decades all around the world.
Right now, the issue is that there is a dangerous group of people out there, trained, armed, financially supported and prepared to die.
They are in Iraq. Shall we go, and leave them there, or not?
If we stay, what shall we do that we are not doing? What should we stop doing that we are doing?
I don’t know why we don’t change radically our dealings with Saudi Arabia, but unlike you,I don’t favor throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I don’t know what we’re getting,but it’s more than oil.
You have no idea what the extent of our international operations are, because they are mostly covert. So you have no idea what “ramping them up” even means. And it doesn’t mean “you going all Mission: Impossible” on anyone. (There’s a serious point you found necessary to raise, because “cons can’t debate honestly”. But we can avoid snarkiness — it’s not an addiction for us.)
“Practice what we preach”, I’m sorry to say, is incredibly naïve. It has never worked, nor will it ever.
I can assure you that if you wish to continue the glib tone, snarkiness, and personal attacks, you will merely get back what you have given.
I have tried very hard to be patient.
fd10801 | May 30, 2007 4:31:52 AM
“I have tried very hard to be patient.”
The same patience we exercise with you, Frank, while you hijack virtually every thread you comment on.
Don’t bother, Squirrel, Frank is slipping into victim mode.
Notice he never takes responsibility for starting the snark-fest with his response to my response to Mike’s post? “What a relief!” right Frank?
Now he’s in full-on projection mode with “Anyone can dream up a “future” for the “middle east”. That’s how liberals have ruined our foreign policy for decades all around the world.” Given our current administration, I’ll let the irony of that statement speak for itself.
Besides, there’s no point in spinning my wheels on this for another 30 posts.
I don’t know what school Frank is associated with, but I’m sure it’s a worse place for having him there.
Anyone can dream up a “future” for the “middle east”. That’s how liberals have ruined our foreign policy for decades all around the world.
So what’s your plan, sparky?
Seems like Bill has some pretty valid points about our current situation, but I don’t hear any counter offers. Love those “air-quotes”.
Duros62: I make no pretense to being a State Department employee. I am in no position to make policy for the United States. And they don’t consult with me much.
As I said, anyone can dream up a policy — recognize this country, don’t recognize that country, but geopolitics is a wee bit more complicated than that. I’m sure even bill l realizes that, even if you don’t.
Bill l: If you want to get into, “He started it, no, he started it”, then fine. End your comments here. Fine by me. Please recall that I attempted to end it at May 29, 2007 7:18:45 PM
I don’t know what school Frank is associated with, but I’m sure it’s a worse place for having him there.
Thanks, jimmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Every once in a while it slips my mind what mean spirited trash you are, and I need reminding. I never have to wait too long to be reminded how disgusting liberals can be, despite their incessant mewling about tolerance and compassion
There is one point with which I must totally disagree:
1 – Stop interfering in Middle Eastern affairs as much as possible
That is not only bad advice; it has become impossible. The Middle East is in an internal crisis. They are trying to recapture a time when they were the scientific, commercial, and philosophical center of the world.
That era came and went in 1492, when Ferdinand and Isabella married, and Columbus set sail for the New World.
It can never be recaptured. It is like a mid life crisis. How they weather this storm will determine their future. We can’t stay out of it. We must not stay out of it.