Ken Burns Roosevelt Documentary

[gipper]

Like Lincoln, FDR faced challenges not faced by Presidents before or since. Each rose to the challenge, and made this a better nation. Had Eisenhower had these kinds of challenges, I believe he had the character to also became one of the very great Presidents.

Agreed he had the character but he did not have the political savvy of Roosevelt. Just to be president, you must be smart, tough, and driven but to be a great president, you must have a clear vision, confidence to the point of arrogance, and the ability to manipulate people. Roosevelt had all this and more.

Eisenhower was pushed into the presidency. He had no desire to be president. Roosevelt on the hand was planning on being president when he enter politics.

IMHO, Roosevelt was seriously flawed as a person. He was not a dedicated husband, father, or friend. In person, he was often distant but in public he inspired confidence and loyalty. In his fireside chats, he came across as as a trusted friend but in reality he used those chats to manipulate public opinion.

What politician doesn't??

So then, FDR's manipulations of the American people are acceptable, in your mind. Is it acceptable because he was so much smarter than the American people and thus had to use manipulations (lies and misinformation) to force the American people to do what he wanted?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is there absolutely not bottom to your ignorance????

Not only do you know nothing and appear proud of same....
...but you will simply make things up!!!!

There was no Roosevelt 'military buildup' in the 1930s.



FDR did very little for the Army either with its size or weapons and during the 1930s, his defense budgets were cut to the bone.

Typical PoliticalChic misinformed and distorted ideas. She knows less than nothing about the topics and ideas she attempts to promote.

I just produced a fact.....

And you replied with.......


......nothing.




It should be clear as to which of us know about the 'topics.'

You base your assertion on a comment made by Marshall. He made that comment you use as your fact, but he made it knowing FDR had prepared the nation by developing and readying the production of the most sophisticated and technologically advanced weapons in the world. After developing them he produced limited numbers of them, but enough so that the producers were ready to swing into mass production as soon as funding became available. Marshall didn't have to deal with that facet of building up the military.

All three Yorktown Class carriers were built under FDR's administration, Yorktown CV 5, Enterprise CV 6 and Hornet CV 8. Not satisfied with these new carriers, FDR put the Navy to work in development of the Essex Class carrier and began producing them. Three would be built, the last, the would be started only six days before Pearl harbor. The important thing about this is that the ship building yards were ready to swing into production after having built the first ones. As soon as the funds became available the began producing more of them, 19 more to be exact. They are what gave us control of the Pacific.

Cruisers were advanced and the development of the New Orleans Class cruisers were added to the fleet. Seven of them were built under FDR ready for the War. Add to this the Farragut Class destroyers. Six of them were produced. Once again, the importance of producing these warships was secondary to getting the ship yards prepared to mass produce them.

Apparently building six modern aircraft carriers, seven modern cruisers and six modern destroyers is doing "nothing" to some. How convenient it must be to be able to omit and disregard facts when attempting to rewrite history.

FDR prepared for war and created a military doctrine that is used to this very day. Develop and produce the most sophisticated and technologically advanced weaponry in the world. When you send your forces off to war, send them with the best weapons and support possible. Send them with weapons that out class and out shoot the enemy.

FDR did the same advanced development and limited production method of preparing with everything from the Sherman Tank to the M-1 Garand. The B-17's and B-24's and B-26 as well as the fighters like the P 38 and P 51 and the Navy/Marine F4U Corsair all went through FDR's method of development, limited production and eventual mass production
with industry prepared to meet the challenge of arming the nation as soon as they were asked to do so. And they did.

"You base your assertion on a comment made by Marshall."

1. So....the quote is accurate..."George Marshall's words to FDR in May 1940: "If you don't do something...and do it right away, I don't know what is going to happen to this country"...

Well....either Marshall knew what he was talking about....or you do.

And you, being regularly revealed to be a Roosevelt boot-licking dunce....leaves little in the way of puzzlement.



2. Once the veracity of Marshall's statement is seen.....the absurdity of your attempt to shield Roosevelt from well deserved vituperation is risible.

Your claim is that, yes, Marshall said it...but FDR was already taking care of business.
No...he wasn't....that's why Marshall said that to him....you dope.

Marshall made his statement in May of 1940 and FDR finally got congress to approve over a billion dollars to fund the military at the same time. Over a billion dollars was being appropriated to prepare for the war and Marshall wanted a say in how it would be spent. He wanted it to build US forces in specific ways, and not to be used assisting the British with aircraft and equipment. FDR took his advice. In addition he accomplished what most thought was impossible, he got the draft approved by Congress four months later.
You use the Marshall comment to seem like he was asking for funds and action and FDR was ignoring him. Marshall's comment and the funding as well as FDR's implementation of measures to grow the military all came at the same time.

Your playmate....even dumber than you are....went on about how FDR was gearing up militarily throughout the "1930s."

Marshall's plea for FDR to wake up was May 1940.

I win.

You lose.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There was no Roosevelt 'military buildup' in the 1930s.

1939
January: FDR's State of the Union address requests nearly $1.5B for defense (in national budget of $9B) and says arms embargo is unfair and must be reformed: "the frontiers of the United States are on the Rhine," he tells a Senate committee, to "stony silence."

I just LOVE it when you contradict yourself!

You imbecile....that was some one else's post.


Foot in your mouth again, huh?

It's not from one of your links?

I've already exposed how 'galactically stupid' you are....and now you've added 'totally dishonest' to your resume.

I did not write what you claimed I did.

The proper response would have been an apology, and a correction.
Who taught you manners?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is there absolutely not bottom to your ignorance????

Not only do you know nothing and appear proud of same....
...but you will simply make things up!!!!

There was no Roosevelt 'military buildup' in the 1930s.



FDR did very little for the Army either with its size or weapons and during the 1930s, his defense budgets were cut to the bone.

Typical PoliticalChic misinformed and distorted ideas. She knows less than nothing about the topics and ideas she attempts to promote.

Then how does she manage to make a fool of you every time?

By quoting history deniers and Right-Wing revisionists?

If she is correct - on any of this - why isn't it taught in universities, and why does she only have single sources, none corroborated?

"....why isn't it taught in universities,....."


You know so little that it hardly surprises that you are unaware that Liberals run the universities.....and indoctrinate, rather than teach.

You, of course, are a case in point.

Ahh, so the "Liberal Media" has kept YOUR version of history quiet for 75 years?

I'd call you a dingbat, but that would insult Edith Bunker.

So...now, rather than try to contend with the facts that I post.....now it's about me?

1. I'm not a 'dingbat.' Mommy had me tested.



2. And, yes....there is no doubt that Liberals control the dissemination of information.
Imagine how different the political landscape would look if a Republican had the sexual assault record that Bill Clinton does.

a. “The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.” Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 51

b. "The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.”
Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.


c. This, of course, applies to almost all universities:
O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp



How lucky you are that I came along.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then how does she manage to make a fool of you every time?

By quoting history deniers and Right-Wing revisionists?

If she is correct - on any of this - why isn't it taught in universities, and why does she only have single sources, none corroborated?

"....why isn't it taught in universities,....."


You know so little that it hardly surprises that you are unaware that Liberals run the universities.....and indoctrinate, rather than teach.

You, of course, are a case in point.

Who runs the colleges?

We all knew she would get around to the "Liberal Media" nonsense sooner or later. It's the last grasp at the straws when wingnuts are getting their asses kicked with facts.

I am guessing where she supposedly went to college it was a conservative or religious one...

One must be reduced to 'guessing' when one is the possessor of such a vast dearth of knowledge.

 

[PoliticalChic]

'There is no doubt whatsoever that it would have been to the interest of Britain, the United States, and the world to have allowed and indeed to have encouraged-the world's two great dictatorships to fight each other to a frazzle.'

We could have either backed the USSR against Germany or backed Germany against the USSR.

Since Germany was the one that was invading peaceful democratic countries and killing their people, not the USSR, I think we made the correct choice.

And BTW - before we got involved, the USSR was fighting Germany, yet Germany was still invading those countries and bombing England. So "the world's two great dictatorships" fighting each other wasn't solving a thing.

And it's very telling that you are quite willing to use the New York Times as your source when you think they are championing your cause.

1. "We could have either backed the USSR against Germany or backed Germany against the USSR."
I just showed that that was incorrect....why keep muttering it?


2. "Since Germany was the one that was invading peaceful democratic countries and killing their people, not the USSR,..."

Every time I judge you to be the most ignorant person ever.....you manage to compound the ignorance.
a. Hitler and Stalin were allies. Stalin provided the materials to support Nazi troops, and taught them how to run concentration camps.
.

b. They both invaded other nations....
September 1, 1939, Hitler attacked Poland....on September 17, Stalin attacks from the East. The Soviet radio transmitter in Minsk guided the Nazi bombers attacking Polish cities. Newsreel footage showed the Red Army in Nazi helmets, marching side by side with the SS. One photo shows the hammer and sickle along side the swastika.

The Soviet press depicted the battle as a fight against Polish fascism, with the peace-loving Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union fighting aggressive Polish fascism.

Hitler and Stalin signed secret protocols to divide up Europe. First, Stalin moved against Finland, November 1939....for the aggression, the USSR was expelled from the League of Nations. Hitler attacked to the West.

Norway was invaded with the direct help of the Soviet Union, providing the Soviet naval base near Murmansk. "German Admiral Raeder sent a letter of thanks to the Commander of the Soviet Navy, Kuznetsov."


c. Stalin killed far more of his own citizens than Hitler.....in fact, of all the nations, only the USSR produced over a million soldiers that joined the enemy because of Stalin.



Frankly, I love the way you exemplify the result of government schooling.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Typical PoliticalChic misinformed and distorted ideas. She knows less than nothing about the topics and ideas she attempts to promote.

I just produced a fact.....

And you replied with.......


......nothing.




It should be clear as to which of us know about the 'topics.'

You base your assertion on a comment made by Marshall. He made that comment you use as your fact, but he made it knowing FDR had prepared the nation by developing and readying the production of the most sophisticated and technologically advanced weapons in the world. After developing them he produced limited numbers of them, but enough so that the producers were ready to swing into mass production as soon as funding became available. Marshall didn't have to deal with that facet of building up the military.

All three Yorktown Class carriers were built under FDR's administration, Yorktown CV 5, Enterprise CV 6 and Hornet CV 8. Not satisfied with these new carriers, FDR put the Navy to work in development of the Essex Class carrier and began producing them. Three would be built, the last, the would be started only six days before Pearl harbor. The important thing about this is that the ship building yards were ready to swing into production after having built the first ones. As soon as the funds became available the began producing more of them, 19 more to be exact. They are what gave us control of the Pacific.

Cruisers were advanced and the development of the New Orleans Class cruisers were added to the fleet. Seven of them were built under FDR ready for the War. Add to this the Farragut Class destroyers. Six of them were produced. Once again, the importance of producing these warships was secondary to getting the ship yards prepared to mass produce them.

Apparently building six modern aircraft carriers, seven modern cruisers and six modern destroyers is doing "nothing" to some. How convenient it must be to be able to omit and disregard facts when attempting to rewrite history.

FDR prepared for war and created a military doctrine that is used to this very day. Develop and produce the most sophisticated and technologically advanced weaponry in the world. When you send your forces off to war, send them with the best weapons and support possible. Send them with weapons that out class and out shoot the enemy.

FDR did the same advanced development and limited production method of preparing with everything from the Sherman Tank to the M-1 Garand. The B-17's and B-24's and B-26 as well as the fighters like the P 38 and P 51 and the Navy/Marine F4U Corsair all went through FDR's method of development, limited production and eventual mass production
with industry prepared to meet the challenge of arming the nation as soon as they were asked to do so. And they did.

"You base your assertion on a comment made by Marshall."

1. So....the quote is accurate..."George Marshall's words to FDR in May 1940: "If you don't do something...and do it right away, I don't know what is going to happen to this country"...

Well....either Marshall knew what he was talking about....or you do.

And you, being regularly revealed to be a Roosevelt boot-licking dunce....leaves little in the way of puzzlement.



2. Once the veracity of Marshall's statement is seen.....the absurdity of your attempt to shield Roosevelt from well deserved vituperation is risible.

Your claim is that, yes, Marshall said it...but FDR was already taking care of business.
No...he wasn't....that's why Marshall said that to him....you dope.

Marshall made his statement in May of 1940 and FDR finally got congress to approve over a billion dollars to fund the military at the same time. Over a billion dollars was being appropriated to prepare for the war and Marshall wanted a say in how it would be spent. He wanted it to build US forces in specific ways, and not to be used assisting the British with aircraft and equipment. FDR took his advice. In addition he accomplished what most thought was impossible, he got the draft approved by Congress four months later.
You use the Marshall comment to seem like he was asking for funds and action and FDR was ignoring him. Marshall's comment and the funding as well as FDR's implementation of measures to grow the military all came at the same time.

Much of the resources was going to the Philippines, Guam, Wake and Midway..

Hmmm. That's a funny way of saying you're sorry and admitting you were wrong, but I'll take it. Bet you were surprised by all those facts and history, huh?

Now stop your hero worship, and quit spreading those lies. Teach your children and grandchildren the truth. Investigate what is REALLY going on in the Middle East right now. The lies and misinformation are being repeated once again for the benefit of those who rule, generation after generation at the expense of all mankind.

Only peace, freedom, free markets, and a government not involved in banking or commerce will keep the people from being slaves. Anything else inevitably leads to a monoply on violence and war.

So now you support ISIS and other extreme terrorist groups....Peace and free markets ain't worth shit if you have disruptions in the whole system by those that seek to destroy it..

Where did you get THAT from?

No, if you bothered to read any of the information I posted, you would see that the political elites always manipulate events so that the desired outcome always favors US commerce, industry, banking and trade on Wall street. It has absolutely nothing to do with "national security."

One would have to be obtuse to believe that ISIS poses any significant threat to America. Just as one would have to be daft to believe that either the Germans or Japanese posed any serious threat to America. The intelligence services would have known long before they would have had sufficient navel power to invade either the East or West coast. Hell, Germany didn't have the Navel power to invade England. It sure as hell didn't have what it would have taken to get across the Atlantic.

And Japan? Forget about it.

By the time either Axis nation even came close to getting up the strength to invade, the US would've been prepared.

As far as ISIS? The US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar MADE ISIS. With out help from the CIA and Turkey, and with out the cooperation of the global markets? ISIS would wither away and die next month. ISIS was created to help achieve a goal. The US and it's allies are playing both sides.

Just as it FDR played the Americans to get them into WWII, OBAMA is playing them to get them to fund an effort to redraw the whole middle east to make it more suitable for American corporations to develop and create American proxy governments friendly to Israel and Western business interests.

Google: Project for a New Middle East, if you don't understand yet.

WWII was the Anglo-American world bankers plan to set up the UN and international financial markets, the middle East game is about a global rearrangement of the energy deck chairs.

If you can't see the bigger picture? Don't come whining to me.

More BS.

Members of both the House and the Senate
periodically called upon Roosevelt to declare war on Japan

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 22 November 1941, p. 1.

"Much of the resources was going to the Philippines, Guam, Wake and Midway.."

Roosevelt couldn't have cared less about our forces in that theatre.....not as long as Stalin called for his attention.

1. What was the cost of FDR's unswerving dedication to the Soviets? One example, found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore."
Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.

a. Singapore fell February 15, 1942.

6. "He (FDR) left no doubt of the importance he attached to aid to Russia. 'I would go out and take the stuff off the shelves of the stores,' he told [Treasure Secretary Henry] Morganthau on March 11, 1942, 'and pay them any price necessary, an put it in a truck and rush it to the boat...Nothing would be worse than to have the Russians collapse."
George C. Herring, "Aid to Russia," p. 42,56.

a. Be clear as what 'nothing' meant. Japan attacked 151,000 Americans and Filipinos stationed in the Philippines. Think Bataan and Corregidor. The 200 modern fighters originally meant for Singapore would have been there...but were in Russia.

b. Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.


When one begins to consider FDR's 'Russia Uber Alles' policy, evidence form KGB archived, opened in 1991, and the Venona Papers, sheds dispositive light on the reasons for said policy.


Was FDR a dupe of Soviet influence?


No doubt.

_________________________________________________________________


Japan attacked 151,000 Americans and Filipinos stationed in the Philippines. Think Bataan and Corregidor. The 200 modern fighters originally meant for Singapore would have been there...but were in Russia.


In July, 1942, a supply convoy called PQ-17 was sent to supply the USSR at Murmansk. Only 11 of the 35 merchant ships in the convoy survived German attacks. Robert Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins: An Intimate History," vol.2, p.634-645.

Could an attempt to supply MacArthur have cost more men and material?

The explanation: an unnoticed, unimagined crime of Communist penetration and influence on American policy, not only during the war....but after.

There was the infamous "betrayal at Yalta" that handed Eastern Europe to the Soviet.

Perhaps a greater betrayal was the besmirching of America's shining moment: at the end of WWII when our leaders allowed the lesson of our great moral and noble achievement to sink from memory to be replaced by postmodern doubt and multicultural division. West, "American Betrayal," p. 48.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Even before Bataan fell, MacArthur had bulldozers working around the clock to build 4 airstrips in the Philippines, and 9 on Mindanao...he believed Roosevelt would send help. Generald Hap Arnold told an RAF commander that if 80 nB-17s and two hundred p-40s could get to the islands, he believed 'we could regain superiority of the air in the theater.' "American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880 - 1964," William Manchester

 

[PoliticalChic]

Like Lincoln, FDR faced challenges not faced by Presidents before or since. Each rose to the challenge, and made this a better nation. Had Eisenhower had these kinds of challenges, I believe he had the character to also became one of the very great Presidents.

Agreed he had the character but he did not have the political savvy of Roosevelt. Just to be president, you must be smart, tough, and driven but to be a great president, you must have a clear vision, confidence to the point of arrogance, and the ability to manipulate people. Roosevelt had all this and more.

Eisenhower was pushed into the presidency. He had no desire to be president. Roosevelt on the hand was planning on being president when he enter politics.

IMHO, Roosevelt was seriously flawed as a person. He was not a dedicated husband, father, or friend. In person, he was often distant but in public he inspired confidence and loyalty. In his fireside chats, he came across as as a trusted friend but in reality he used those chats to manipulate public opinion.

What politician doesn't??

So then, FDR's manipulations of the American people are acceptable, in your mind. Is it acceptable because he was so much smarter than the American people and thus had to use manipulations (lies and misinformation) to force the American people to do what he wanted?

A more sinister 'proximate cause of our numbness when it come to Soviet crime' is the lies that Franklin Roosevelt told the public in support of Stalin.
Loy Henderson, State Department Russian expert said: "Russia does not fight for the same ideals as the United States."

Roosevelt swore to the American public the exact opposite: he declared that Stalin fought for the same ideals!
FDR was lying!


September 30, 1941, FDR claimed that there was freedom of religion in the USSR. "The claim that Stalin's Russia allowed religious freedom was the first step in a massive pro-Soviet campaign that the White House coordinated for the duration of the war."
"Caught between Roosevelt and Stalin: America's Ambassadors to Moscow," by Dennis J. Dunn, p. 137





Yet, hordes of self-proclaimed intellectuals practice what of what Aquinas called 'ignorantia affectata - a cultivated ignorance'.

For them...and there are several who have made an appearance in this thread, nothing could be worse than revealing the truth about FDR....

 

[MisterBeale]

Pfft. I don't have hate blinding me. You have years and years of indoctrination and cognitive dissonance blocking your willingness to consider any other facts. YES, I have heard the official government narrative.

But the FACTS are something quite different. Professional historians have since uncovered and unearthed NEW facts. You have heard of something called the freedom of information act? Did you know that there are even STILL some documents from that time period, that FOIA not withstanding, they STILL won't declassify because of how they are afraid it will tarnish the government's, the presidents, and US's legacy of that time period? But we have enough facts now to KNOW that the official story we all learned as kids IS WRONG. They tell us half truths, it's called misinformation, so that when we discuss and argue like this, people who WANT so badly to believe our hero stories, can believe that the truth isn't what it actually is. Calling something a "conspiracy theory," ignoring the documented facts, keeping your illusions, and moving on with your life is so much easier. That way you can justify you jingoism while our armies and corporations pillage and steal the world's resources. Isn't that nice now?

That documented facts are, the Japanese were manipulated into attacking Pearly Harbor, and the US establishment knew when and where it was going to come. They also knew that they had the resources and man power to beat them, or else they wouldn't have lured them into the attack. The war was over before it began. STOP BEING SO OBTUSE. Stop spreading disinformation. Your piece of evidence comes close to the truth, but it leaves A LOT of very important details and relevant facts out of the picture. That's the beauty of misinformation, isn't it?

Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not
Pearl Harbor Hawaii Was Surprised FDR Was Not

Roosevelt's intentions were nearly exposed in 1940 when Tyler Kent, a code clerk at the U.S. embassy in London, discovered secret dispatches between Roosevelt and Churchill. These revealed that FDR — despite contrary campaign promises — was determined to engage America in the war. Kent smuggled some of the documents out of the embassy, hoping to alert the American public — but was caught. With U.S. government approval, he was tried in a secret British court and confined to a British prison until the war's end. . . .

. . . . During subsequent Pearl Harbor investigations, both General Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, and Admiral Stark, Chief of Naval Operations, denied any recollection of where they had been on the evening of December 6th — despite Marshall's reputation for a photographic memory. But James G. Stahlman, a close friend of Navy Secretary Frank Knox, said Knox told him FDR convened a high-level meeting at the White House that evening. Knox, Marshall, Stark, and War Secretary Stimson attended. Indeed, with the nation on war's threshold, such a conference only made sense. That same evening, the Navy Department received a request from Stimson for a list of the whereabouts of all ships in the Pacific.

On the morning of December 7th, the final portion of Japan's lengthy message to the U.S. government was decoded. Tokyo added two special directives to its ambassadors. The first directive, which the message called "very important," was to deliver the statement at 1 p.m. The second directive ordered that the last copy of code, and the machine that went with it, be destroyed. The gravity of this was immediately recognized in the Navy Department: Japan had a long history of synchronizing attacks with breaks in relations; Sunday was an abnormal day to deliver diplomatic messages — but the best for trying to catch U.S. armed forces at low vigilance; and 1 p.m. in Washington was shortly after dawn in Hawaii!

Admiral Stark arrived at his office at 9:25 a.m. He was shown the message and the important delivery time. One junior officer pointed out the possibility of an attack on Hawaii; another urged that Kimmel be notified. But Stark refused; he did nothing all morning. Years later, he told the press that his conscience was clear concerning Pearl Harbor because all his actions had been dictated by a "higher authority." As Chief of Naval Operations, Stark had only one higher authority: Roosevelt.

"17. In light of the warnings and directions to take appropriate action,
transmitted to both commanders between November 27 and December 7, and
the obligation under the system of coordination then in effect for joint
cooperative action on their pan, it was a *dereliction of duty* on the
part of each of them not to consult and confer with the other respecting
the meaning and intent of the warnings, and the appropriate measures of
defense required by the imminence of hostilities. The attitude of each,
that he was not required to inform himself of, and his lack of interest
in, the measures undertaken by the other to carry out the responsibility
assigned to such other under the provisions of the plans then in effect,
demonstrated on the part of each a lack of appreciation of the
responsibilities vested in them and inherent in their positions as
Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet, and Commanding General, Hawaiian
Department."

FDR goaded the Japanese to attack?

[35] Tensions between the United States and Japan had been increasing.
President Roosevelt had taken steps to freeze Japanese assets in the
United States, and US oil shipments, accounting for most of Japan's
supply, had ceased. [36] Members of both the House and the Senate
periodically called upon Roosevelt to declare war on Japan.

Forewarned against Japanese attacks the Admiral was

General Short received a similar message on November 27, 1941:

"Negotiations with Japan appear to be terminated to all practical
purposes with only the barest possibilities that the Japanese Government
might come back to offer to continue. Japanese further action
unpredictable but hostile action possible at any moment. If hostilities
cannot, repeat cannot, be avoided the United States desires that Japan
commit the first overt act. This policy should not, repeat not, be
construed as restricting you to a course of action that might jeopardize
your defense. Prior to hostile Japanese action you are directed to
undertake such reconnaissance and other measures as you deem necessary
but these measures should be carried out so as not, repeat not, to alarm
civil population or disclose intent. Report measures taken. Should
hostilities occur you will carry out the tasks assigned in Rainbow Five
so far as they pertain to Japan. Limit dissemination of this highly
secret information to minimum essential officers."

The Admiral had his ship movements and was awaiting attack..from the warning on the 27 of Nov..

It has been argued that this "war warning" language is ambiguous. [63]
Yet the actions of all the parties in Pearl Harbor indicate that they
took the warning seriously and responded with vigor. Admiral Kimmel
issued orders to the fleet to "exercise extreme vigilance against
submarines in operating areas and to depth bomb all contacts expected to
be hostile in the fleet operating areas." [64] Indeed, the first shots
on December 7 were fired not at dawn by Japanese aircraft but well
before dawn by Admiral Kimmel's aggressive antisubmarine patrols.

Halsey, then Commander, Aircraft Battle Force, placed his carrier task
force on a war footing, instituted aircraft patrols with orders to
"shoot down any plane seen in the air that was not known to be one of
our own." [66] On receiving the Army war warning message, which was
ambiguously worded, General Short ordered Alert Number 1 -- an alert
against sabotage. [67] Thus, the Hawaiian commands on December 7 were
ready to meet almost any attack -- except one arriving quickly from the
air

and the plot thickens

Additionally, Admiral Kimmel knew three things that General Short did
not know. First, he learned on December 1, 1941 that the Japanese Navy
had unexpectedly changed its call signs. [68] This information was not
shared with General Short. Second, Admiral Kimmel learned on December 2,
1941 that the location of four Japanese carriers was unknown. [69] This
was because the carriers had not engaged in radio traffic for between
15-25 days. [70] This apparent radio silence, however, also was not
passed to General Short, because Admiral Kimmel assumed that the
carriers remained in home waters. [71] Third, Admiral Kimmel learned on
December 3, 1941 of the existence of "Purple" machines [72], and that
the Japan had ordered certain consulates and embassies to destroy their
codes. [73] Admiral Kimmel, however, did not view the code destruction
"of any vital importance . . ." [74] and did not tell General Short
about it. [75] Yet code destruction suggested that hostilities were
imminent since communication between Japan and her overseas officials
were at an end.

and the real kicker..

By his actions, General Short assumed he would have at least four hours
warning of an air attack. [77] Since he employed none of his assets in
reconnaissance or surveillance, he could get that warning only from the
Navy or from Washington. Under the agreement in place in Hawaii, the
Navy was responsible for long-range reconnaissance. Admiral Kimmel
conducted no long-range air reconnaissance out of Oahu. Thus on December
7th he could get warning only from Washington

Tsk, tsk, not utilizing his tactical abilities himself..

Thus, as a practical matter Admiral Kimmel effectively
placed total faith -- and the security of the forces in Pearl Harbor
against air attack -- in Washington's ability to obtain and provide to
him timely and unambiguous strategic and tactical warning from the Magic
and other intercepts alone. This faith was not justified, nor was it
consistent with his assessment of other technological developments of
the time, or since. Even with today's satellite intelligence and
instantaneous world-wide communication, it still is not prudent to
depend exclusively on Washington for timely and unambiguous information.

That ones gotta hurt..Mr Conspiracy theorist..

Advocates for Admiral Kimmel and General Short argue, in effect, that
the failure of Washington officials to provide the critical intercepts
to the Hawaiian commanders excuses any errors made in Hawaii. It does
not. No warfighting commander ever has enough information or enough
resources. It is the job of the commander to carry out his or her
mission as best he or she can with the information and resources
available to him or her. Indeed, placing exclusive reliance on
Washington for tactical as well as strategic warning of air attack was
an act of misplaced faith.

I reset my case...
DORN REPORT PART THREE

It's rather long, hope you can keep up..

And fuck your indoctrination BS..I am a scholar and an unbiased one...I learned history before I was ever able to vote or give damn about politics..So I have a neutral position, my only concern is for discovering the truth.

Nice. The problem with government commissioned reports is that they are always commissioned by those in power to place blame of cover-up, evidence of negligence, or proof of misdeed by those in power somewhere else.

Name for me ONE, just ONE government investigation that has brought to bear any accountability to those in high power and brought about fundamental change. (And nothing fundamentally changed after Watergate. If anything, it got worse.) Yeah, there you go. Don't be so obtuse.

I had posted previously that my information is much more current and up to date then the official government findings, but you REFUSED to consider it. The truth, I know is hard to face.
THIS

Second, Admiral Kimmel learned on December 2,
1941 that the location of four Japanese carriers was unknown. [69] This
was because the carriers had not engaged in radio traffic for between
15-25 days. [70] This apparent radio silence, however, also was not
passed to General Short, because Admiral Kimmel assumed that the
carriers remained in home waters.

Several documents and unbiased, independent research have borne this out to be false. Both the British and the leadership in D.C. KNEW where the fleet was. They purposely kept our fleet from accidentally running into it. But you didn't read anything I posted, did you?

I can see we are not going to come to any resolution. You have sunk to being disrespectful now, and have begun throwing out ad hominem attacks. I suppose it is my fault for making the observation that you have been conditioned to believe in propaganda. Nobody likes to hear they have been brainwashed. But, there you go and offer up a government report. What else is there to say? I don't really feel the need to continue. We just don't see eye to eye. I really appreciated this exchange though.

 

[Unkotare]

Like Lincoln, FDR faced challenges not faced by Presidents before or since. Each rose to the challenge, and made this a better nation. Had Eisenhower had these kinds of challenges, I believe he had the character to also became one of the very great Presidents.

That fucking scumbag FDR "rose to the challenge"? Rose to the challenge of prolonging the Great Depression? Rose to the challenge of saddling future generations with unsustainable economic obligations? Rose to the challenge of lying to the American people - and his own wife? Rose to the challenge of undermining the basic foundations of our Republic in order to gather power unto himself? Rose to the challenge of throwing over 100,000 innocent people into his concentration camps - including a great many of the bravest and most loyal US citizens? Rose to the challenge of surrendering half the world to communist oppression?

Yeah, a real fucking peach.

 

[MisterBeale]

I just produced a fact.....

And you replied with.......


......nothing.




It should be clear as to which of us know about the 'topics.'

You base your assertion on a comment made by Marshall. He made that comment you use as your fact, but he made it knowing FDR had prepared the nation by developing and readying the production of the most sophisticated and technologically advanced weapons in the world. After developing them he produced limited numbers of them, but enough so that the producers were ready to swing into mass production as soon as funding became available. Marshall didn't have to deal with that facet of building up the military.

All three Yorktown Class carriers were built under FDR's administration, Yorktown CV 5, Enterprise CV 6 and Hornet CV 8. Not satisfied with these new carriers, FDR put the Navy to work in development of the Essex Class carrier and began producing them. Three would be built, the last, the would be started only six days before Pearl harbor. The important thing about this is that the ship building yards were ready to swing into production after having built the first ones. As soon as the funds became available the began producing more of them, 19 more to be exact. They are what gave us control of the Pacific.

Cruisers were advanced and the development of the New Orleans Class cruisers were added to the fleet. Seven of them were built under FDR ready for the War. Add to this the Farragut Class destroyers. Six of them were produced. Once again, the importance of producing these warships was secondary to getting the ship yards prepared to mass produce them.

Apparently building six modern aircraft carriers, seven modern cruisers and six modern destroyers is doing "nothing" to some. How convenient it must be to be able to omit and disregard facts when attempting to rewrite history.

FDR prepared for war and created a military doctrine that is used to this very day. Develop and produce the most sophisticated and technologically advanced weaponry in the world. When you send your forces off to war, send them with the best weapons and support possible. Send them with weapons that out class and out shoot the enemy.

FDR did the same advanced development and limited production method of preparing with everything from the Sherman Tank to the M-1 Garand. The B-17's and B-24's and B-26 as well as the fighters like the P 38 and P 51 and the Navy/Marine F4U Corsair all went through FDR's method of development, limited production and eventual mass production
with industry prepared to meet the challenge of arming the nation as soon as they were asked to do so. And they did.

"You base your assertion on a comment made by Marshall."

1. So....the quote is accurate..."George Marshall's words to FDR in May 1940: "If you don't do something...and do it right away, I don't know what is going to happen to this country"...

Well....either Marshall knew what he was talking about....or you do.

And you, being regularly revealed to be a Roosevelt boot-licking dunce....leaves little in the way of puzzlement.



2. Once the veracity of Marshall's statement is seen.....the absurdity of your attempt to shield Roosevelt from well deserved vituperation is risible.

Your claim is that, yes, Marshall said it...but FDR was already taking care of business.
No...he wasn't....that's why Marshall said that to him....you dope.

Marshall made his statement in May of 1940 and FDR finally got congress to approve over a billion dollars to fund the military at the same time. Over a billion dollars was being appropriated to prepare for the war and Marshall wanted a say in how it would be spent. He wanted it to build US forces in specific ways, and not to be used assisting the British with aircraft and equipment. FDR took his advice. In addition he accomplished what most thought was impossible, he got the draft approved by Congress four months later.
You use the Marshall comment to seem like he was asking for funds and action and FDR was ignoring him. Marshall's comment and the funding as well as FDR's implementation of measures to grow the military all came at the same time.

Much of the resources was going to the Philippines, Guam, Wake and Midway..

Hmmm. That's a funny way of saying you're sorry and admitting you were wrong, but I'll take it. Bet you were surprised by all those facts and history, huh?

Now stop your hero worship, and quit spreading those lies. Teach your children and grandchildren the truth. Investigate what is REALLY going on in the Middle East right now. The lies and misinformation are being repeated once again for the benefit of those who rule, generation after generation at the expense of all mankind.

Only peace, freedom, free markets, and a government not involved in banking or commerce will keep the people from being slaves. Anything else inevitably leads to a monoply on violence and war.

So now you support ISIS and other extreme terrorist groups....Peace and free markets ain't worth shit if you have disruptions in the whole system by those that seek to destroy it..

Where did you get THAT from?

No, if you bothered to read any of the information I posted, you would see that the political elites always manipulate events so that the desired outcome always favors US commerce, industry, banking and trade on Wall street. It has absolutely nothing to do with "national security."

One would have to be obtuse to believe that ISIS poses any significant threat to America. Just as one would have to be daft to believe that either the Germans or Japanese posed any serious threat to America. The intelligence services would have known long before they would have had sufficient navel power to invade either the East or West coast. Hell, Germany didn't have the Navel power to invade England. It sure as hell didn't have what it would have taken to get across the Atlantic.

And Japan? Forget about it.

By the time either Axis nation even came close to getting up the strength to invade, the US would've been prepared.

As far as ISIS? The US, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar MADE ISIS. With out help from the CIA and Turkey, and with out the cooperation of the global markets? ISIS would wither away and die next month. ISIS was created to help achieve a goal. The US and it's allies are playing both sides.

Just as it FDR played the Americans to get them into WWII, OBAMA is playing them to get them to fund an effort to redraw the whole middle east to make it more suitable for American corporations to develop and create American proxy governments friendly to Israel and Western business interests.

Google: Project for a New Middle East, if you don't understand yet.

WWII was the Anglo-American world bankers plan to set up the UN and international financial markets, the middle East game is about a global rearrangement of the energy deck chairs.

If you can't see the bigger picture? Don't come whining to me.

More BS.

Members of both the House and the Senate
periodically called upon Roosevelt to declare war on Japan

Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 22 November 1941, p. 1.

"Much of the resources was going to the Philippines, Guam, Wake and Midway.."

Roosevelt couldn't have cared less about our forces in that theatre.....not as long as Stalin called for his attention.

1. What was the cost of FDR's unswerving dedication to the Soviets? One example, found in Paul Johnson's "Modern Times," 'included 200 modern fighter aircraft, originally intended for Britain's highly vulnerable base in Singapore, which had no modern fighters at all. The diversion of these aircraft, plus tanks, to Russia sealed the fate of Singapore."
Johnson, Op.Cit., p. 386.

a. Singapore fell February 15, 1942.

6. "He (FDR) left no doubt of the importance he attached to aid to Russia. 'I would go out and take the stuff off the shelves of the stores,' he told [Treasure Secretary Henry] Morganthau on March 11, 1942, 'and pay them any price necessary, an put it in a truck and rush it to the boat...Nothing would be worse than to have the Russians collapse."
George C. Herring, "Aid to Russia," p. 42,56.

a. Be clear as what 'nothing' meant. Japan attacked 151,000 Americans and Filipinos stationed in the Philippines. Think Bataan and Corregidor. The 200 modern fighters originally meant for Singapore would have been there...but were in Russia.

b. Roosevelt: "I would rather lose New Zealand, Australia or anything else than have the Russian front collapse."
Robert Dallek, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy, 1932-1945," p. 338.


When one begins to consider FDR's 'Russia Uber Alles' policy, evidence form KGB archived, opened in 1991, and the Venona Papers, sheds dispositive light on the reasons for said policy.


Was FDR a dupe of Soviet influence?


No doubt.

_________________________________________________________________


Japan attacked 151,000 Americans and Filipinos stationed in the Philippines. Think Bataan and Corregidor. The 200 modern fighters originally meant for Singapore would have been there...but were in Russia.


In July, 1942, a supply convoy called PQ-17 was sent to supply the USSR at Murmansk. Only 11 of the 35 merchant ships in the convoy survived German attacks. Robert Sherwood, "The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins: An Intimate History," vol.2, p.634-645.

Could an attempt to supply MacArthur have cost more men and material?

The explanation: an unnoticed, unimagined crime of Communist penetration and influence on American policy, not only during the war....but after.

There was the infamous "betrayal at Yalta" that handed Eastern Europe to the Soviet.

Perhaps a greater betrayal was the besmirching of America's shining moment: at the end of WWII when our leaders allowed the lesson of our great moral and noble achievement to sink from memory to be replaced by postmodern doubt and multicultural division. West, "American Betrayal," p. 48.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Even before Bataan fell, MacArthur had bulldozers working around the clock to build 4 airstrips in the Philippines, and 9 on Mindanao...he believed Roosevelt would send help. Generald Hap Arnold told an RAF commander that if 80 nB-17s and two hundred p-40s could get to the islands, he believed 'we could regain superiority of the air in the theater.' "American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880 - 1964," William Manchester

I can go with this. Conditionally of course.

There is NO WAY, absolutely NO WAY FDR was ever going to get Hitler to attack us. Sure, he didn't give two shits about Japan. But Japan was his meal ticket. He knew that around nearly 80% of the public didn't care about the war, and rightly so.

The war had nothing to do with us, and it wasn't a threat to us. It was an opportunity for profit only. Germany had been goaded in so many ways and just hadn't taken the bait.

During World War II's early days, the president offered numerous provocations to Germany: freezing its assets; shipping 50 destroyers to Britain; and depth-charging U-boats. The Germans did not retaliate, however. They knew America's entry into World War I had shifted the balance of power against them, and they shunned a repeat of that scenario. FDR therefore switched his focus to Japan. Japan had signed a mutual defense pact with Germany and Italy (the Tripartite Treaty). Roosevelt knew that if Japan went to war with the United States, Germany and Italy would be compelled to declare war on America — thus entangling us in the European conflict by the back door. As Harold Ickes, secretary of the Interior, said in October 1941: "For a long time I have believed that our best entrance into the war would be by way of Japan."

But he knew that the Japanese high command might be stupid enough to think they could take the US on. The Germans tacticians had already learned their lesson in WWI, had publicly written in journals and war colleges, and Hitler and stated as much.

On balance, FDR sold out American interests, was a Globalist shill, just like the idiots we get today.

In contrast to President Hoover, who believed that the Depression arose from international circumstances, Roosevelt believed that the nation's economic woes were largely home-grown. As a result, FDR rejected Hoover's numerous entreaties (delivered during the period between FDR's election and inauguration) that the incoming administration support Hoover's approach to the upcoming London Economic Conference. Hoover hoped that in London the United States and other leading industrial nations would devise a currency stabilization program and pledge its support for the international gold standard.

In rejecting Hoover's approach, FDR essentially embraced a form of economic nationalism and committed the United States to solving the Depression on its own. He scuttled the London Economic Conference in the summer of 1933 and devalued the dollar by removing the United States from the international gold standard. With this latter maneuver, Roosevelt sought to artificially inflate the value of the American dollar in the hope of putting more currency into the hands of cash-poor Americans. Unfortunately, this measure further destabilized the world economy. Roosevelt soon recognized his mistake and his administration worked with England and France to stabilize the international economic system, negotiating monetary agreements with those nations in 1936.

Despite his early approach to foreign economic policy, FDR quickly demonstrated his internationalist leanings. In 1934, FDR won passage of the Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, which allowed him to grant "most favored nation" trade status to countries with which the United States worked out trade agreements. In 1933, Roosevelt dramatically altered America's relationship with the Soviet Union, establishing official ties between the two nations. FDR hoped that improved relations with the U.S.S.R. would expand American trade opportunities and deter Japanese expansion. Ultimately, the agreement accomplished neither. Another indication of FDR's commitment to international cooperation came with his unsuccessful fight in 1935 for U.S. membership in the World Court.
. . . . .

Roosevelt's sympathies clearly lay with the British and French, but he was hamstrung by the Neutrality Acts and a strong isolationist bloc in American politics. Upon the outbreak hostilities in September 1939, FDR re-asserted American neutrality, noting, however, that he could not "ask that every American remain neutral in thought as well." He did his best, then, to nudge the United States towards supporting Great Britain, supplying that nation with all aid "short of war." This strategy had three main effects. First, it offered Britain both psychological encouragement and materiel aid, though often more of the former than the latter. Second, it bought the United States time to shore up its military preparedness, which was inadequate for a world war. Finally, it made the United States an active, if undeclared, participant in the war.

In the fall of 1939, FDR won a slight revision of the Neutrality Act, which now allowed belligerents to buy arms in the United States, but only with cash and only if they transported their purchases themselves, a provision called "cash and carry." Nearly one year later, the United States and Great Britain struck a deal in which the Americans loaned the British fifty mothballed destroyers in return for the use of eight British military bases. And in March 1941, FDR won enactment of a Lend-Lease program that allowed the British and other allies continued access to American arms and supplies despite their rapidly deteriorating financial situation. The huge sum of $7 billion that Congress appropriated would eventually reach more than $50 billion.

The war took a vital turn that same year. After failing to subdue the British through the air—the so-called "Battle of Britain" in which the Royal Air Force emerged victorious over the German Luftwaffe—Hitler made two fateful decisions. First, he launched a massive invasion of his former ally, the Soviet Union. Second, he tried to conquer the British by choking that island nation from the sea, ordering Nazi submarines to attack British shipping in the North Atlantic. The two decisions only drew the United States more deeply into the war. FDR extended lend-lease aid to the Soviets. More important, he ordered the American Navy to the North Atlantic first to "patrol" that region and then to "escort" British ships. This latter order allowed the Navy to fire on German subs at sight. By the fall of 1941, Germany and the United States were at war in all but name.

American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt Foreign Affairs

 

[MisterBeale]

By the time either Axis nation even came close to getting up the strength to invade, the US would've been prepared.

Yet had the Axis powers had not been stopped they would have taken out vital resources for the US, we did not have every resource for every material made in the US...In the USA..

Oh, do tell, what would those be?

 

[MisterBeale]

......and then bigfoot landed on earth by way of UFO, he tried to tell FDR about JFKs assassination but he ignored the warnings. Damn that FDR.

Hmmm. That's a funny way of saying you're sorry and admitting you were wrong, but I'll take it. Bet you were surprised by all those facts and history, huh?

Now stop your hero worship, and quit spreading those lies. Teach your children and grandchildren the truth. Investigate what is REALLY going on in the Middle East right now. The lies and misinformation are being repeated once again for the benefit of those who rule, generation after generation at the expense of all mankind.

Only peace, freedom, free markets, and a government not involved in banking or commerce will keep the people from being slaves. Anything else inevitably leads to a monoply on violence and war.

No, you misunderstand my meaning in much the same way as you misinterpret history to fit an extremely narrow point of view.

My point of view isn't narrow. It is yours that is narrow. My mind is freed. Did you even bother to read my evidence? Did you even bother to try to post something that refutes it? NO.

You have been bested. Historical FACTS are on my side. All you have is a tantrum and saying NO NO NO.

Sorry your cognitive dissonance is so strong. But it is time to face the truth. You have been schooled.

You seem to be confusing facts with speculation and opinion.

Birch society members, gotta love em...

Sure do, with out them, the Global Socialists would be running rough shod over American freedoms. Wouldn't they now?

 

[Discombobulated]

Typical PoliticalChic misinformed and distorted ideas. She knows less than nothing about the topics and ideas she attempts to promote.

Then how does she manage to make a fool of you every time?

By quoting history deniers and Right-Wing revisionists?

If she is correct - on any of this - why isn't it taught in universities, and why does she only have single sources, none corroborated?

"....why isn't it taught in universities,....."


You know so little that it hardly surprises that you are unaware that Liberals run the universities.....and indoctrinate, rather than teach.

You, of course, are a case in point.

Ahh, so the "Liberal Media" has kept YOUR version of history quiet for 75 years?

I'd call you a dingbat, but that would insult Edith Bunker.

So...now, rather than try to contend with the facts that I post.....now it's about me?

1. I'm not a 'dingbat.' Mommy had me tested.



2. And, yes....there is no doubt that Liberals control the dissemination of information.
Imagine how different the political landscape would look if a Republican had the sexual assault record that Bill Clinton does.

a. “The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.” Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 51

b. "The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.”
Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.


c. This, of course, applies to almost all universities:
O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp



How lucky you are that I came along.

Another conspiracy theory nut job on the loose.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then how does she manage to make a fool of you every time?

By quoting history deniers and Right-Wing revisionists?

If she is correct - on any of this - why isn't it taught in universities, and why does she only have single sources, none corroborated?

"....why isn't it taught in universities,....."


You know so little that it hardly surprises that you are unaware that Liberals run the universities.....and indoctrinate, rather than teach.

You, of course, are a case in point.

Ahh, so the "Liberal Media" has kept YOUR version of history quiet for 75 years?

I'd call you a dingbat, but that would insult Edith Bunker.

So...now, rather than try to contend with the facts that I post.....now it's about me?

1. I'm not a 'dingbat.' Mommy had me tested.



2. And, yes....there is no doubt that Liberals control the dissemination of information.
Imagine how different the political landscape would look if a Republican had the sexual assault record that Bill Clinton does.

a. “The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.” Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 51

b. "The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.”
Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.


c. This, of course, applies to almost all universities:
O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp



How lucky you are that I came along.

Another conspiracy theory nut job on the loose.

Another "is not, is not" vapid post by the board's bloated bladder of bilious swill.

 

[Discombobulated]

By quoting history deniers and Right-Wing revisionists?

If she is correct - on any of this - why isn't it taught in universities, and why does she only have single sources, none corroborated?

"....why isn't it taught in universities,....."


You know so little that it hardly surprises that you are unaware that Liberals run the universities.....and indoctrinate, rather than teach.

You, of course, are a case in point.

Ahh, so the "Liberal Media" has kept YOUR version of history quiet for 75 years?

I'd call you a dingbat, but that would insult Edith Bunker.

So...now, rather than try to contend with the facts that I post.....now it's about me?

1. I'm not a 'dingbat.' Mommy had me tested.



2. And, yes....there is no doubt that Liberals control the dissemination of information.
Imagine how different the political landscape would look if a Republican had the sexual assault record that Bill Clinton does.

a. “The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence.” Robert H. Bork, “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” p. 51

b. "The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities…They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. “…they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism…I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover.”
Collier and Horowitz, “Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties,” p. 294-295.


c. This, of course, applies to almost all universities:
O'Sullivan's First Law: All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing. I cite as supporting evidence the ACLU, the Ford Foundation, and the Episcopal Church. The reason is, of course, that people who staff such bodies tend to be the sort who don't like private profit, business, making money, the current organization of society, and, by extension, the Western world. At which point Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy takes over — and the rest follows. http://old.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback-jos062603.asp



How lucky you are that I came along.

Another conspiracy theory nut job on the loose.

Another "is not, is not" vapid post by the board's bloated bladder of bilious swill.

I wonder why you need to spend more time telling people how you beat them with your alleged arguments than you ever do in actually making those alleged arguments.

 

[Discombobulated]

Like Lincoln, FDR faced challenges not faced by Presidents before or since. Each rose to the challenge, and made this a better nation. Had Eisenhower had these kinds of challenges, I believe he had the character to also became one of the very great Presidents.

That fucking scumbag FDR "rose to the challenge"? Rose to the challenge of prolonging the Great Depression? Rose to the challenge of saddling future generations with unsustainable economic obligations? Rose to the challenge of lying to the American people - and his own wife? Rose to the challenge of undermining the basic foundations of our Republic in order to gather power unto himself? Rose to the challenge of throwing over 100,000 innocent people into his concentration camps - including a great many of the bravest and most loyal US citizens? Rose to the challenge of surrendering half the world to communist oppression?

Yeah, a real fucking peach.

Based on what childish standard? Perhaps you can name the Presidents who didn't lie to the American people on a regular basis. See if you can name even one.

 

[MisterBeale]

Typical PoliticalChic misinformed and distorted ideas. She knows less than nothing about the topics and ideas she attempts to promote.

Then how does she manage to make a fool of you every time?

By quoting history deniers and Right-Wing revisionists?

If she is correct - on any of this - why isn't it taught in universities, and why does she only have single sources, none corroborated?

"....why isn't it taught in universities,....."


You know so little that it hardly surprises that you are unaware that Liberals run the universities.....and indoctrinate, rather than teach.

You, of course, are a case in point.

Who runs the colleges?

We all knew she would get around to the "Liberal Media" nonsense sooner or later. It's the last grasp at the straws when wingnuts are getting their asses kicked with facts.

It's not so much a matter of "liberal media," as globalist media. On the whole, globalists tend to be Socialists, using foundations through universities and NGO's, redistrbuting everything, creating a massive world government control scheme. International Communists. With them at the helm. Everyone's equal except them of course. This media is far from unbiased. They are the ruling class journalists. The Annenberg elites. Believe it or not, Fox news is among them as well. A lot of times, it isn't just how they report a story, but which stories they report on. Fox news may spin stories differently than MSNBC, but they are still covering the same damn stories. That's CFR controlled propaganda for you. You don't get all the information you need when that happens. That is by design, not chance.

Elites Push Government-funded "Public" Media
Elites Push Government-funded Public Media

It goes on and on. Another significant voice in the government-media merger choir is Geoffrey Cowan (CFR), co-author of the USC/Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism 2010 study, Public Policy and Funding the News. Cowan, who headed the Voice Of America under President Clinton, is director of the Center on Communication Leadership & Policy, dean emeritus of the USC Annenberg School and USC University Professor, and holds the Annenberg Family Chair in Communication Leadership.

The CFR's "Profile of the Membership" in its 2008 Annual Report lists 398 members as journalists, correspondents, and editors. That includes members such as:
Michael P. Hirsh (Newsweek)
Jim Hoagland (Washington Post)
Fareed Zakaria (Time, CNN)
Thomas Friedman (New York Times)
Erin Burnett (CNBC)
Ethan Bronner (New York Times)
Paula Zahn (Discovery cable channel)
Heather Nauert (Fox News)
Norman Podhoretz (Commentary magazine)
Tom Brokaw (NBC)
Lesley Stahl (CBS)
Andrea Michell (NBC)
Elaine Sciolino (New York Times)
Diane Sawyer (ABC)
Deroy Murdock (Scripps Howard News Service and National Review Online)
David Ignatius (Washington Post)
Alan S. Murray (Wall Street Journal)
Jim Lehrer (PBS)
Margaret Warner (PBS)
Judy Woodruff (PBS)
Christopher Dickey (Newsweek)
Mortimer Zuckerman (U.S. News & World Report)

The above list barely scratches the surface of the elite media folks tied to Pratt House, the New York headquarters of the Council, located at 58 East 68th Street in Manhattan. The nearly 400 "Journalists, Correspondents, and Editors" counted on the CFR rolls does not include the many additional CFR members who are the executive officers of major media corporations. They may or may not be publicly well known but they are the bosses of the more visible members of the Fourth Estate. These include CFR members such as:

Michael Bloomberg (Mayor of New York City, founder/owner Bloomberg L.P.)

Rupert Murdoch (chairman, CEO News Corporation)

Jeffrey Bewkes (Chairman, CEO of Time Warner, in which capacity he oversees Time, CNN, TNT, HBO, TBS, Warner Bros., etc.)

Christopher Isham (CBS News vice president), and Barry Diller (IAC/InterActiveCorp and Washington Post).

In addition to the above-mentioned individual members there are CFR Corporate Members, which are major financial supporters of the CFR and its programs and agenda. The media organizations that have become CFR Corporate Members include Time Warner, ABC Inc., Bloomberg, News Corporation, General Electric (NBC Universal), Google, Thomson Reuters, and the Washington Post.

The Washington Post's ombudsman and columnist Richard Harwood detailed the CFR's domination of his own profession in an October 30,1993, column tellingly entitled "Ruling Class Journalists." In what was a rare admission (and/or boast) from a CFR establishment journal, Harwood characterized CFR members as "the nearest thing we have to a ruling establishment in the United States."

Harwood wrote:

In the past 15 years, council directors have included Hedley Donovan of Time Inc., Elizabeth Drew of the New Yorker, Philip Geyelin of The Washington Post, Karen Elliott House of the Wall Street Journal, and Strobe Talbott of Time magazine...

The editorial page editor, deputy editorial page editor, executive editor, managing editor, foreign editor, national affairs editor, business and financial editor and various writers as well as Katharine Graham, the paper's principal owner, represent The Washington Post in the council's membership.

The executive editor, managing editor and foreign editor of the New York Times are members, along with the executives of such other large newspapers as the Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times, the weekly news magazines, network television executives and celebrities, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and Jim Lehrer, for example, and various columnists, among them Charles Krauthammer, William Buckley, George Will and Jim Hoagland.

Harwood noted that the CFR's Ruling Class Journalists (CFR-RCJ) "do not merely analyze and interpret foreign policy; they help make it." And not only foreign policy, of course; they have also had (and continue to have) a huge hand in making domestic policy as well. They are not content, however, with the illicit power they already wield. They are upset that millions of Americans refuse to accept their direction and continue to seek news and information from sources beyond the control (as yet) of the CFR-RCJ thought cartel. So they are trying to build a fake public consensus in favor of taxing the American public to provide the CFR-RCJ cartel with tens of billions of dollars in government funding to force us to hear and see and read what they think is important for us. Get ready for more barrages in this propaganda campaign. And, in the meantime, you may want to blunt the momentum these folks are trying to build for this campaign by contacting your Senators and U.S. Representative and letting them know that you oppose all subsidies and bailouts for the media.

 

[gipper]

Like Lincoln, FDR faced challenges not faced by Presidents before or since. Each rose to the challenge, and made this a better nation. Had Eisenhower had these kinds of challenges, I believe he had the character to also became one of the very great Presidents.

That fucking scumbag FDR "rose to the challenge"? Rose to the challenge of prolonging the Great Depression? Rose to the challenge of saddling future generations with unsustainable economic obligations? Rose to the challenge of lying to the American people - and his own wife? Rose to the challenge of undermining the basic foundations of our Republic in order to gather power unto himself? Rose to the challenge of throwing over 100,000 innocent people into his concentration camps - including a great many of the bravest and most loyal US citizens? Rose to the challenge of surrendering half the world to communist oppression?

Yeah, a real fucking peach.

Based on what childish standard? Perhaps you can name the Presidents who didn't lie to the American people on a regular basis. See if you can name even one.

Okay then, you agree that FDR was a liar. You are making progress, albeit much too slowly.

Yes all presidents lie. Some more than others. Does it matter to you that some are constant liars, and others are less likely to lie? Or is it that since all of them lie, it really does not matter the extent of their lies?

FDR has to be up with Big Ears, as the greatest of all lying presidents.

 

[Discombobulated]

Like Lincoln, FDR faced challenges not faced by Presidents before or since. Each rose to the challenge, and made this a better nation. Had Eisenhower had these kinds of challenges, I believe he had the character to also became one of the very great Presidents.

That fucking scumbag FDR "rose to the challenge"? Rose to the challenge of prolonging the Great Depression? Rose to the challenge of saddling future generations with unsustainable economic obligations? Rose to the challenge of lying to the American people - and his own wife? Rose to the challenge of undermining the basic foundations of our Republic in order to gather power unto himself? Rose to the challenge of throwing over 100,000 innocent people into his concentration camps - including a great many of the bravest and most loyal US citizens? Rose to the challenge of surrendering half the world to communist oppression?

Yeah, a real fucking peach.

Based on what childish standard? Perhaps you can name the Presidents who didn't lie to the American people on a regular basis. See if you can name even one.

Okay then, you agree that FDR was a liar. You are making progress, albeit much too slowly.

Yes all presidents lie. Some more than others. Does it matter to you that some are constant liars, and others are less likely to lie? Or is it that since all of them lie, it really does not matter the extent of their lies?

FDR has to be up with Big Ears, as the greatest of all lying presidents.

Oh I see, not a matter of principle then, just one of degree.