Letters to the Editor

FDR defended

December 21, 2011

Advertisement

To the editor:

Regarding the O’Connell letter (Public Forum, Dec. 12), I have to ask if Roosevelt was so incompetent, why was he elected to four terms as president? The decision to move the Pacific fleet to Pearl was to discourage Japanese imperialism whose aggression had already carved up most of the Far East. The attack on Pearl was meant to slow down our Pacific fleet and buy time and delay our military interference.

Fortunately our carriers were not at base at the time. If not Pearl, San Diego would have been attacked resulting in more casualties! If anyone was to blame, Admiral Kimmel, head of the Pacific fleet at Pearl, deserves some. Knowing of an imminent Japanese attack he was totally unprepared, leaving fighter planes bunched together, making it easy to attack them and harder for pilots to get airborne!

As for the Lend Lease Program, the Allies would have fallen. France had fallen and Britain was against the wall. Supplying Russia resulted in a second front against the Nazis, leading to a pincer movement shortening the war. The Lend Lease Act saved thousands of American lives and resulted in victory for the Allies instead of sure defeat. The world would be a much different place had we had not supplied the Allies. President Roosevelt is regarded by historians as one of the greatest American presidents! I have talked to many seniors who lived in that time period and most regard him as an American hero!

Comments

Jimo 3 years, 7 months ago

How curious it is that LJW faints with alarm if commenters say much beyond "booh" to each other but then turns around and chooses to republish slanderous piffle against a long dead President that reads like some low grade 'alt history' work by Newt Gingrich (or birth certificate analysis by Orly Taitz).

O'Connell's warped, delusionary, staggeringly bad, rank-smelling malarkey has about as much intellectual coherence as Santa Claus Conquers the Martians has artistic merit.

cato_the_elder 3 years, 7 months ago

This semi-coherent rant is brought to you by someone who, not surprisingly, has previously said on this forum that "The only feudalism we have in America is the concentration of the nation's wealth in the hands of a few."

Jimo 3 years, 7 months ago

Yep. You still the last one to not puzzle that out, Chuckles?

MarcoPogo 3 years, 7 months ago

Listen buddy, don't drag classic cinema into this sandbox fight.

Peter Macfarlane 3 years, 7 months ago

More likely that the preceding Republican presidents were pretty awful.

tomkimmel 3 years, 7 months ago

Craig, Your comment: "If not Pearl, San Diego would have been attacked resulting in more casualties! If anyone was to blame, Admiral Kimmel, head of the Pacific fleet at Pearl, deserves some. Knowing of an imminent Japanese attack he was totally unprepared, leaving fighter planes bunched together, making it easy to attack them and harder for pilots to get airborne!, " needs review.

Kimmel's predecessor Richardson wanted the Fleet moved to San Diego to better prepare it for war. FDR fired Richardson & replaced him with Kimmel.

Kimmel had no fighter planes--they were all on the carriers--and no authority over Short whatsoever, who was charged with defending the fleet while in Pearl Harbor. The carriers were sent away form Pearl on missions initiated in Washington.

Short was ordered by Marshall to prevent sabotage & report measures taken. He did & no one corrected him in spite of the fact that Washington held secret indications from MAGIC of the time, place, reason, and deceit plan to cover the attack.

No "Alert" was sent to Kimmel or Short before the attack. Regards, Tom Kimmel

jayhawklawrence 3 years, 7 months ago

Thanks Craig for giving another side to the story and defending a beloved President who led this nation through the darkest times in our history.

I also have spoken with many people who lived during the Roosevelt years. We are fortunate to have had such a leader in spite of the fact that our nation was (and still is) far from perfect. The Roosevelt years were a time of transition to a far different role for the United States, a role we are still struggling with today.

Jimo 3 years, 7 months ago

It's just the typical KarlRove tactic --- take your opponent's greatest strength (competent war leader) and attack directly on that point. Usually, the tactic is a total failure but will work on occasion (see John Kerry, war hero or total fraud?)

dcap 3 years, 7 months ago

Right-wingers will do anything to try and slight FDR. Like you mentioned he was elected four times, he also defeated the two countries with modern militaries at the same time, and he created Social Security, the most popular and important government program ever. FRD is without a doubt the greatest president ever who was not named Abraham.

tomatogrower 3 years, 7 months ago

Sorry, the South lost and the Nazis lost. Get over it.

mom_of_three 3 years, 7 months ago

I think its a little hard to judge if lincoln was a bad president, considering it was a time of civil war, which NO OTHER president has had to deal with.

Jimo 3 years, 7 months ago

You can always count on Lib -- and Newt Gingrich -- to say the most unstable, attention-getting things, usually with just a kernel of fact lying at the heart of the crappola.

Treason by definition is war. Its fruits are death, destruction, and misery. Its reward is execution. Lincoln did not "choose war" but rather recognized existence of rebellion at the hands of the South. Lincoln's actions were little different then those of Washington when the U.S. military also suppressed rebellion in 1789. (Much like Lincoln later, most of the traitors were pardoned rather than hanged.)

You confuse effect with cause. It's not "peace" to seize government property violently. It's not "peace" to violently subjugate loyal citizens against their will. It's not "peace" to fire on American soldiers. It's not "peace" to negotiate with foreign military powers for their intervention in the United States.

Off-hand, it's difficult to think of any U.S. President who hasn't (by your definition) "chosen war." I suppose William Henry Harrison, who was President for (what?) 29 days. Adams? War. Jefferson? War. Madison? War. Surely Monroe? Nope, more war. John Quincy perhaps? Nope, advocate of war with Spain over Florida. Jackson? ROFL - warmonger. Van Buren? Trail of Tears. Tyler? Nope, sent federal troops to suppress another treasonous rebellion. Polk? War. Taylor? You mean war hero General Taylor? And on and on and on and on. Congrats Lib - you just denounced every American President as "bad."

Isn't there some camp of lunatics in Idaho where you're supposed to be hanging out playing sovereign citizen instead of wasting our time from your mother's basement?

Shelley Bock 3 years, 7 months ago

Liberty, which provision of the US Constitution allows a state to withdraw from the Union?

Shelley Bock 3 years, 7 months ago

Sorry Lib-One, but I disagree with your argument. The US Constitution was in question, not the Declaration of Independence. Each state approved the Constitution upon admission to the Union. There was no "exit clause"; you come in and you are always part of the Union. If you want out, you become a "rebel".

Shelley Bock 3 years, 7 months ago

I have never, ever heard that States prior to 1861 considered entry into the Union as a revocable act. Which States were these and what documentation do you rely upon? Was there debate about the potential for secession as the various States adopted the US Constitution? Texas was an independent country for a short period of time, but there wasn't any pre-condition allowing for secession as a part of the Texas entry into the Union. Wondering which States you are referring to in your comments.

Shelley Bock 3 years, 7 months ago

I've read your cite to the Virginia ratification of the US Constitution. Unless you have a specific clause to refer to, it does not indicate reservation of the right of secession from the Union.

I did some of my own investigation. It appears that secession was clearly a minority opinion. At various times, it was considered by Massachusetts and South Carolina. Jefferson once commented to the effect that if they want it to go it alone, have at it. Secessionist thought died. Jackson, on the other hand, let South Carolina know during the "Nullification" crisis, that it couldn't reject Federal rule. The potential thought of secession diminished through compromise.

Apparently secession was bounced around anytime individual States felt they were harmed by Federal policy or action. But, where the Constitution preamble states "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union", withdrawal from the Union was definitely a minority, and not popular, position.

I've not found any reservation by a State of the right to secede. Thus, I see Lincoln as preserving the Union, not forcing the Southern States to rebel, but seeking to maintain the relationship. I would further add that the right to secede appears to be "dead as a door nail" in the present day.

Shelley Bock 3 years, 7 months ago

Lib-one, I don't see that preamble statement as preserving the right of secession. On that point we disagree.

Anti-session opinion appeared to be the majority, as demonstrated by Jackson in his disagreement with South Carolina years before Lincoln and evidenced by the resignation of Vice-President Calhoun of South Carolina.

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of Lincoln being the instigator of the Civil War. Preservation of the Union was the argument by those of the time, not myself. The prevailing view was enforced and the Union was maintained. I do not see any reason to question "Why the Union?" It has survived and provided the United States.

To blame Lincoln, I believe, is a revisionist historical perspective which I do not share with you. No further discussion will change your or my opinion. I am most certain that we are the only two following this discussion. End of story.

Shelley Bock 3 years, 7 months ago

I have throughout this discussion treated with you with respect. I have not used labels when I disagreed with your position. I have not described your positions as being "close-minded or ignorant" as you seem willing to do. I have not indicated that you are full of yourself and have an unwillingness to admit or recognize things with which you disagree.

I have done some research independent of your comments because this issue was something I hadn't realized before. I have found commentary both pro and con. I learned that the "secession" concept was held by various individuals for a minority opinion during the early days of the country. Yet, I remain convinced that my position is correct. I further realize that anything I say will not be respected in the same manner that I have afforded your comments. Any discussion with you will be unproductive unless I acknowledge the correctness of your wisdom.

I have respectfully tried to understand your position and follow up with your pronouncements. I attempted to find out what you thought and how you came to your conclusions. I have sought out your single resource for "reservation of secession" and acknowledge it's existence. I have asked where you obtained your factual positions, but you have failed to provide such. I still respect differences of opinion.

Yet, I am the one who is accused of being closed minded, ignorant and refuse to acknowledge the correctness of your argument? Such are not the words of an observer, commentator or debater. Rather, they are the dogmatic outbursts of an individual who cries out that all those who can't understand his / her wisdom are worthless disbelievers.

I had hoped that you would not resort to derisive comments. To that end, it appears that you are not capable of avoiding such.

As a disbeliever of yours, I still wish you a Merry Christmas.

average 3 years, 7 months ago

There were a not-inconsequential number of people in the US enamored of scapegoat fascism in 1932 (who else took power in the first quarter of 1933, amid the same global economic meltdown?). There were also a fair number interested in the distorted picture of Bolshevism they were hearing from the east (although they were generally less influential people than the admirers of fascism).

FDR kept enough hope in the nation that we didn't go down either of those paths. Which is why both sets of my grandparents had his picture framed on their walls.

George Lippencott 3 years, 7 months ago

There were a lot of errors in fact in both articles. tomkimmel (anonymous) corrected those related to the actual attack.

As far as rating the various presidents - what a waste of time and computer power!!

MarcoPogo 3 years, 7 months ago

You mean like...oh, never mind.

Occupy LJW Boards!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.