Bin Laden Death Vindicates National Security Democrats

“Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt

“So that there can be no possible misunderstanding, both Germany and Japan can be certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that America will continue the fight for freedom until no vestige of resistance remains!” – Harry Truman

“When I ordered our armed forces into combat, we had three clear goals: to enable the Kosovar people, the victims of some of the most vicious atrocities in Europe since the Second World War, to return to their homes with safety and self-government; to require Serbian forces responsible for those atrocities to leave Kosovo; and to deploy an international security force, with NATO at its core, to protect all the people of that troubled land, Serbs and Albanians alike.

Those goals will be achieved. Unnecessary conflict has been brought to a just and honorable conclusion.” – Bill Clinton

“Today, at my direction, the United States launched a targeted operation against that compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. A small team of Americans carried out the operation with extraordinary courage and capability. No Americans were harmed. They took care to avoid civilian casualties. After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body.” – Barack Obama

When the 2000 election was underway, national security wasn’t much of an issue. National security didn’t come up as a major issue until the 9/11 attacks, after which we were told – by the right and the media – that we should count our lucky stars that it was Bush, not Gore, who would be facing these challenges.

Bush proceeded to miserably fail at this most important of presidential tasks. His leadership allowed Bin Laden to escape from Tora Bora, and the wrongheaded invasion of Iraq was botched from its beginning. Thousands of people died as a result. And still, we were told, Democrats are soft on terrorism. Remember when Karl Rove said Democrats “offer therapy and understanding for our attackers”? That wasn’t a coincidence.

Nor was the 9/11 focused convention by the GOP in 2004. The message was hammered home time and time again: Democrats can’t be trusted to fight terrorism.

But they were wrong. Democrats have a very strong tradition of being the party that gets things done on national security. Including FDR and Truman in World War 2, or Clinton in Kosovo.

When Obama was elected, we were told time and again that he was too weak, that he would be the worst of liberal pacifism, that he was too “other”, too liberal to really take the fight to those who threaten us.

Those of us who prioritize national security on the progressive side knew those arguments were bunk. We knew Democrats have what it takes to be commander-in-chief. We know Democrats can take the 3AM call without a second thought.

We were right. Bin Laden is dead. He is dead as a result of the hard work of our men in the field who took the butcher down. He is dead because the commander-in-chief, Barack Hussein Obama – a member and the current leader of the Democratic party – made the final order.

Like Us On Facebook!

More on the Banter:

Upbeat President Obama Skips 'Naughty' TV Reporters In Year-End Press Conference

Upbeat President Obama Skips 'Naughty' TV Reporters In Year-End Press Conference

President Obama held his last press conference of the year today, and you'd never know he just got t[Read more...]
This Healthy Dog Will Die If a Dead Woman Gets Her Last Wish
MEMBERS ONLY: 'Redefining Beauty' Is a Great Idea Until You Actually Think About What It Means

MEMBERS ONLY: 'Redefining Beauty' Is a Great Idea Until You Actually Think About What It Means

The Huffington Post tried to "redefine beauty" at least a half-dozen times in 2014, but the effort i[Read more...]
North Korea Officially Named in Sony Hack as Hackers Gloat Over Victory (Updated)
Did Emperor Obama Really Lie About Not Using Executive Actions?

Did Emperor Obama Really Lie About Not Using Executive Actions?

USA Today, and now Fox News, are trying to make the case that President Obama pulled a switcheroo, c[Read more...]
  • Manju

    Or, it can be a response to moronic trolls who seem interested in discussing only examples of liberal racism, liberal authoritarianism, etc.

    How do I fit that bill? On this thread alone, I’ve complemented the Dems and credited them: See here:

    FDR followed with WWII and the major cold war doctrines like containment and MAD were largely democratic affairs. The Right Wing was hampered by isolationism and were generally Johnny-come-latelys to the Empire, including anticommunism.

    This is not unlike the data that demonstrates the Dems are the party of fiscal responsibility, despite republicans having a reputation for being the adults on the matter. Like foreign policy, this may also be a result of Dems being defined by their most extreme element, the socialist-leaning left.

    (The socialist-leaning left, btw includes the “new left”) In contrast, Oliver is more in line with what you call a “Moronic troll” since he is does not mention anything other than the positive.

    without ever acknowledging–even after it was pointed out to him–that Truman was motivated by the same realization, not to mention civil rights leaders themselves who recognized early on the powerful leverage that international attention brought them at home.

    I did not know about the Truman anecdote. I have however, complimented Truman in the past on this very blog. For example:

    thing to say when those very Northern Dems had all-out segregationists as their running mates. How are you supposed to separate them? From post civil-war up to and including JFK’s run, every democrat ran with (or were themselves, like Liberal icon Woodrow Wilson) active segregationists, with the notable exception of Truman. So credit where credit is due.

    Typically, the “real racist” phrasing only comes up when dealing with such obvious tunnel vision.

    But the term is itself a form of tunnel vision, since it posits a simplistic either-or scenario. That means the person who is using the term is narrow minded.

    The kind of keen eye for the complexity of Democrats–LBJ may have signed the 1964 civil rights act but he used the n-word all the time!

    Perhaps this is part of the problem. Rather than citing something I actually say, you made something up. I’ve never mentioned his n-word usage because that falls under the lesser category of personal racism. But yet you attribute it to me. Then you rail against the strawman you created. This might help explain your anger.

  • fafaroo

    It can only be one or the other.

    Or, it can be a response to moronic trolls who seem interested in discussing only examples of liberal racism, liberal authoritarianism, etc.

    You know, like the kind of troll who would write something like this:

    In contrast, Ike positioned getting rid of Jim Crow as a national security issue. You can’t be both anti-communist and pro segregation was his point.

    ..without ever acknowledging–even after it was pointed out to him–that Truman was motivated by the same realization, not to mention civil rights leaders themselves who recognized early on the powerful leverage that international attention brought them at home.

    Nope! It was all Ike’s idea!

    Typically, the “real racist” phrasing only comes up when dealing with such obvious tunnel vision. The kind of keen eye for the complexity of Democrats–LBJ may have signed the 1964 civil rights act but he used the n-word all the time!–that never seems to quite penetrate to the same depths of the Republican soul.

  • Manju

    “So Democrats are the real racists”

    This comes up a lot and no one has ever answered. Why do you always say “real racists.” It sounds to me like you think if one says Clinton ran a Sounthern Strategy aginst GHWBush, that means Bush did not. It can only be one or the other.

  • fafaroo

    So did the Clintons but they deployed the southern strategy. The most salient factor in Obama not deploying one is his race.

    So Democrats are the real racists because the only one of their presidential candidates that hasn’t used the Southern Strategy to win and the only reason why didn’t use it is because he’s black.

    Sheesh. You must be brain damaged.

    But while were at it, Manu, I’ll grant you Clinton’s Sista Souljah Moment as an example of the kind of dog whistles that are a part of the Southern Strategy but what else?

    I’d also be curious if you could fill us in on examples of the Southern Strategy as employed by Mondale and Dukakis. Got anything on the losing Dem candidates?

    Furthermore, the Clinton’s have always been a part of the Democratic center even when they were coming of age politically. Hillary was a “Goldwater Girl” for crying out loud. They were both instrumental holding the center and in moving the party back to the center from the left.

    Obama has obviously evolved toward the center as stepped more and more on to the national stage. I do not believe this was a cynical or deceptive evolution, it was a natural one. But the bottom line is that Obama is more shaped by New Left influences than the Clinton’s ever were.

  • fafaroo

    You appear to have contradicted yourself.

    No, you appear to have misunderstood what I said. There is no inherent link between “liberal interventionism” and “authoritarianism.” This is the link that you have been insisting on since the beginning despite obvious historical evidence to the contrary.

    You take the good with the bad in any situation but what you’re trying to do is argue that there is some aspect of “liberal interventionism” that so links it to authoritarianism, you cannot discuss one, without discussing the other, and so praising liberal foreign policy whether past or present must always be accompanied with hand wringing and regret over liberal “atrocities.” As I’ve said, this is a ridiculous argument.

    One could, on the other hand, argue that the much larger category of nationalism or jingoism or just plain fear has a link to authoritarianism but then one would have to jettison “liberalism” as the specific target of the critique. In such an argument, conservatives are just as prone to be authoritarian as liberals. As a matter of fact, I would argue that in the present moment, conservatives have allowed themselves to be wholly seduced by the seeming power and safety that authoritarianism offers from their embrace to racial profiling, internment, nuclear aggression, pre-emptive war, torture, domestic spying etc.

    Furthermore, it could be argued and has indeed been argued by me in this thread, that present day conservatives are more prone to the dangerous of nationalism than are modern day liberals, this because of the leftward shift that liberalism and the Democratic Party took in the 1960s as the result of the New Left’s influence. The right, on the other hand, has been drifting further and further right since Reagan driven by reactionary, nationalist forces.

    Liberals and democrats today are more ideologically distinct from their previous incarnations than are Republicans. For democrats, the shift began in the ruptures of 1968.

    With regards to warrantless surrviellance, Obama is pursuing a specific policy that was formulated by the right. A majority of liberals oppose this policy. A majority of conservatives support it. From 2006:

    Americans overwhelmingly support aggressive government pursuit of terrorist threats, even if it may infringe on personal privacy, but they divide sharply along partisan lines over the legitimacy of President Bush’s program of domestic eavesdropping without court authorization, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

    Nearly two in three Americans surveyed said they believe that federal agencies involved in anti-terrorism activities are intruding on the personal privacy of their fellow citizens, but fewer than a third said such intrusions are unjustified.

    At the same time, however, those surveyed are more narrowly divided over whether the federal government is doing enough to protect the rights of both citizens and terrorism suspects.

    Republicans offer far greater support for actions directly attributed to the Bush administration in the campaign against terrorism than do Democrats, who worry that the president will go too far and ignore civil liberties.

    Most Americans said they have paid close attention to the controversy over the program, and a bare majority of those surveyed, 51 percent, said it is an acceptable way to fight terrorism, while 47 percent said it is not. Beneath those overall findings, however, were sharp partisan divisions.

    Among Republicans, 75 percent said the Bush program is acceptable, while 61 percent of Democrats said it is unacceptable.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/10/AR2006011001192.html

    Go find me a poll that says the dynamic has shifted since Obama’s election with Dems offering greater support for domestic spying otherwise, shouldn’t you be arguing that Obama has allowed a strain of “right-wing interventionism” to lead him down the path toward “authoritarianism”?

    And even if you do find a poll showing that more Democrats supports Obama’s domestic spying program than Republicans, the shift in opinion only underscores that the authoritarianism you want to inherently link to liberalism is motivated by some other factor.

    Before you even get down in the reeds, your larger point and motivation for commenting on Oliver’s post is simply ridiculous. But then when you do get down to specifics, you’re wrong there too.

    As I keep saying, Manju, you’re an idiot.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    The last word is yours, Manju. Haul out the seltzer bottle and have at it.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    Summarizing:

    Manju’s assertion: “Democrats have long taken the lead in building the empire. Woodrow Wilson was the prototypical liberal-interventionist. FDR followed with WWII..”

    Manju’s justification: Two days of word games, citing various sources using the word “intervene” and equating that to “liberal interventionism.”

    Boring.

  • Willie Stark

    “So did FDRs intervention rise to the level of interventionism or not?”

    What’s you’re definition of interventionism?

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    “Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you have forgotten your aim.”

  • Manju

    You know what you did with Cole’s statement and now I do too. And you should be ashamed.

    In other words, you got nothing.

    Me: I’m not equating anything. Putting 2 differnt things in the same category is not the same as equating.

    Quaker: This bald sophistry.

    The Celtics and the Clippers are both basketball teams. But that doesn’t mean they will have the same record.

    Me: You appear to now accept that FDR was an interventionist but want to make a distinction between that and “liberal interventionism” based on the global nature of the former and presumably the single-state nature of the latter.

    Quaker: Whoa. Whoa. Are you the same Manju who just two freakin’ sentences ago insisted that putting two different things in the same category isn’t the same as equating them? If so, are you injured? Reversing course that quickly is likely to have some ill effect.

    Did you intentionally cut out the very next sentences that said I didn’t object to the distinctions? If so, that is dishonest. Here is again: Ok, if you want to create a separate category within interventionism that distinguishes Grenada from WWII, I don’t object.

    Look, you’re the guy who insists that FDR’s involvement in WWII fits a pattern of liberal interventionism. As proof, you point to various writers using the word “intervention” to describe US involvement in WWII.

    Why did you avoid mentioning the 2 sources that described his policies as interventionism? Are you intentionally avoiding addressing the stronger evidence?

    The act of “intervening” is not limited to an interventionist.

    Even if this is true, it simply dodges the debate. So did FDRs intervention rise to the level of interventionism or not? I presented you with a full narrative of FDRs actions that would trigger the interventionist category and found sources to confirm it.

    Just because something is possible, does not mean it is. In other words, I say Ali landed twice as many punches as Frazier therefore he won. You reply: he still could’ve lost. This is true. But the preponderance of evidence is that he won. You are not presenting any evidence to back up your claims.

    Me: The US “intervened” in the affairs of Germany?

    Quaker: Good god, man. The Germans were occupying France and dropping incendiary bombs on London. If FDR “intervened” prior to Pearl Harbor by shipping arms to beleaguered allies, that is NOT “building the empire” it is coming to the defense of a friend under attack.

    But was it interventionism in your view. And if not, why? What is your standard? Who else uses your standard?

    Indeed, given the moral phrasing of your narrative, you appear to have triggered the higher bar of liberal interventionism. Thanks.

  • Manju

    Me: Look, Obama is the first winning democrat not to deploy a southern strategy (yeah LBJ did deploy one in 64) so I’ll grant you that but it has little to do with the new left.

    Farafoo: What the hell are you talking about? Obama came of age and political awareness within a New Left context of grassroots, door to door, bottom up social activism. But he was not a Bill Ayers radical as much as the right would like to paint him as one. His politics are informed by a New Left sensibility but they are not dominated by it. He remains a liberal centrist.

    So did the Clintons but they deployed the southern strategy. The most salient factor in Obama not deploying one is his race.

    Obama is a liberal centrist and as such as been a big disappointment to a lot of the liberal progressives who voted for him. The liberal progressive wing of the Democratic Party and liberal progressives in general, have been roundly critical of Obama’s continuance of the Bush-era surveillance regime. So the left has been critical of Obama’s center left continuation of Bush’s policies.

    Ok, so now you have reservations about Obama. Yet, just a moment ago you asserted: “why bring up the dark side when it’s completely fucking irrelevant to the discussion?”

    LBJ may have spied on MLK but Nixon also spied on his domestic political enemies and the policies that liberal progressives are now criticizing Obama for were policies first formulated by the Bush administration.

    A moment ago you argued that my comment was “especially irrelevant when, in fact, it are the present day conservatives who have, by and large, advocated policies in the war on terror that emulate the horrific and tragic mistakes of the past.”

    Now all of a sudden you link Obama to the very present day conservatives whose policies “emulate the horrific and tragic mistakes of the pst” that were, just moments ago, irrelevant in the context of Obama.

    You appear to have contradicted yourself.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    (though I sense Quaker is on the verge of conceeding)

    Remember that “pedantic, patronizing dick” thing from yesterday? Double. Buy a dictionary.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    I referenced Cole because he is a left-leaning intellectual who characterizes FDR’s actions against the Axis powers as intervention, therefore substantiating my argument. Quaker use the McCarthyistic tactic of implying wrongdoing without demonstrating it. This allows an accuser to make allegations without proof.

    You know what you did with Cole’s statement and now I do too. And you should be ashamed.

    I’m not equating anything. Putting 2 differnt things in the same category is not the same as equating.

    This bald sophistry.

    Its hard to figure out what this new objection is about.

    Really? You need me to spell it out? Again?

    You appear to now accept that FDR was an interventionist but want to make a distinction between that and “liberal interventionism” based on the global nature of the former and presumably the single-state nature of the latter.

    Whoa. Whoa. Are you the same Manju who just two freakin’ sentences ago insisted that putting two different things in the same category isn’t the same as equating them? If so, are you injured? Reversing course that quickly is likely to have some ill effect.

    Look, you’re the guy who insists that FDR’s involvement in WWII fits a pattern of liberal interventionism. As proof, you point to various writers using the word “intervention” to describe US involvement in WWII.

    The act of “intervening” is not limited to an interventionist. A nation practicing selective engagement can intervene. A stone-cold foreign policy realist can intervene. Neocons can intervene. When you’re talking about “liberal interventionism” you’re describing an “ism,” a worldview that describes conditions when intervention is warranted and the likely outcome and benefits.

    The US “intervened” in the affairs of Germany?

    Good god, man. The Germans were occupying France and dropping incendiary bombs on London. If FDR “intervened” prior to Pearl Harbor by shipping arms to beleaguered allies, that is NOT “building the empire” it is coming to the defense of a friend under attack.

    Now stop playing your silly word games. They’re boring.

  • fafaroo

    The more hysterical and unhinged your general opinion of me is, the more credibility our agreements have.

    Right. And your increasingly desperate attempts to paint me as an ally says what about your confidence?

    Look, Manju, as I note above, regardless of the accuracy of describing FDR as an interventionist, your larger point that present day Dems can’t claim historic liberal foreign policy successes without also hanging their heads in shame over past failures is ridiculous.

    The number of errors, inconsistencies and oversights you commit in arriving at this ridiculousness makes you less than useless even as a troll.

    Time for you to pack it in.

  • Manju

    Right, even better. The more hysterical and unhinged your general opinion of me is, the more credibility our agreements have.

    You are like the Donald praising Obama for killing Osama. If even the Donald couldn’t think of a bad angle…well you get the gist.

    Keep up the good work.

  • fafaroo

    Yet you aligned instead.

    Uh, not how I would characterize my statement. Agreeing that a broken clock is right twice a day doesn’t change the fact that we should throw the whole thing out.

  • Manju

    As long as you’re going to use my opinion to support your claims, Manju, you should be honest enough to acknowledge that I also believe you’re an idiot whose numerous errors, oversights and discrepancies make your arrogant, pompous tone all the more irritating.

    Yes, I acknowledge and even welcome that. That’s what makes your opinion on interventionism all the more credible and noteworthy. You have no motive to lie and every motive to take a position against me. Yet you aligned instead.

    So now, every time Jaim calls me a fuckwit, stupid, or a liar in regards to this subject, by implication he is calling you or for that matter Juan Cole or the Churchill Centre one too. That of course doesn’t make him wrong. Its always possible that the 4 of us are indeed stupid fuckwit liars. But since there is no way for him to avoid that conclusion without contradicting himself, he’s effectively neutralized.

  • fafaroo

    Nonetheless, we can add you in with farafoo:

    As long as you’re going to use my opinion to support your claims, Manju, you should be honest enough to acknowledge that I also believe you’re an idiot whose numerous errors, oversights and discrepancies make your arrogant, pompous tone all the more irritating.

  • Manju

    Yes, he was an ‘interventionist’ in that regard

    Thanks, you are now the 2nd commentator to back up this viewpoint, albeit in a slightly watered down version). Nonetheless, we can add you in with farafoo:

    I don’t have a problem with describing FDR as an interventionist.

    FDR pledged repeatedly that Amercian troops would not be sent to a foreign war.

    Yes, but historians consider that to be largely a ruse, depending on when it was said. The PBS piece for example:

    Publicly, Roosevelt promised that America would not fight unless attacked…Privately, he prepared America for battle. Roosevelt dramatically increased the defense budget from 1939 on and began to convert America to a military economy.

    Yes, he was anxious to provide aid to Britain before Pearl Harbor.

    And he did provide aid before Pearl harbor, going as far as what historians consider a defacto declaration of war: the Atlantic Charter.

    What further point are you trying to make?

    None that’s it.

    You also cited Wilson and FDR as ‘empire builders.’ That’s what’s being disputed.

    Yes, but that’s not the main dispute. That came mush later. What is being disputed with great vigor by Jaim and Quaker (though I sense Quaker is on the verge of conceeding) is the intervention claim. See here:

    You intervene _in_ a war, fuckwit. FDR did not intervene in anything in 1941…The United States did not “intervene” in Japan or Germany, they retaliated…Your stupid continues to burn.

    You are stupid and/or a liar Manju

    Are you directly trying to cast US involvement in WWII as interventionism? Or just trying to baffle us with bullshit?

  • Willie Stark

    Wilson tried desperately to stay out of WWI until Germany’s policy of unrestricted submarine warfare forced his hand. FDR pledged repeatedly that Amercian troops would not be sent to a foreign war. Yes, he was anxious to provide aid to Britain before Pearl Harbor. Yes, he was an ‘interventionist’ in that regard. What further point are you trying to make? You also cited Wilson and FDR as ‘empire builders.’ That’s what’s being disputed.

  • Manju

    You intervene _in_ a war, fuckwit. FDR did not intervene in anything in 1941. After Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor FDR declared war against the Japanese.

    The United States did not “intervene” in Japan or Germany, they retaliated.

    Bill Clinton, for example, intervened in Somalia and Yugoslavia. This is not what happened for FDR and America in WWII.

    Your stupid continues to burn.

    Jaim, you appear a little slow and a more than a little emotional. So I’ll go veeeeery slowly for you. Stay calm and try to keep up. Here goes. Ready?

    You intervene _in_ a war, fuckwit.

    WWII was a war, Jaim. Got that? That’s not too hard to understand is it? Good.

    FDR did not intervene in anything in 1941

    Incorrect. In 1941 (before Pearl Harbor) FDR “gave the Navy permission to attack German submarines west of 25 degrees longitude”, placed “Greenland under American protection”, and “occupied Iceland.”

    “That same August day, the Atlantic Charter was made public. Signed during a secret five-day conference at sea between Roosevelt and Churchill, the charter called for national self-determination and stated that aggressor nations should be disarmed. If this was not a declaration of war, it was close. Roosevelt hoped it would provoke the Germans to war on America.”

    “On September 4, 1941, the first clash came. The Greer, a U.S. destroyer, spotted a German submarine and called in a British plane to bomb it. The sub and the destroyer exchanged fire, with little result. But Roosevelt used the incident to further his intention to get America into the war. On October 17, German subs attacked the U.S. destroyer Kearney as it escorted a British convoy. Several crewmen were injured. On October 31, Nazi subs sank the U.S. destroyer Reuben James, killing 115 men.”

    After Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor FDR declared war against the Japanese

    This is correct, Jaim. Very good. But we are discussing FDR’s actions prior to Pearl Harbor. Take a moment to grasp this. I know its complex. Don’t get flustered. Take deep Breaths. Now read this from the Churchil Centre:

    From Isolationism to Interventionism: America’s Entry into WWII Section I: Introduction This lesson plan shall examine American isolationism and the shift from isolationism to intervention to help the British before Pearl Harbor. Section II: Guiding Question Given America’s isolationist attitude in the pre-world war II years, why did America move from isolationism to intervention by 1940?

    Now, what are these silly little Brits talking about/ Here’s a good ol American to clear it up. Our own PBS.org.

    “The United States officially entered World War II in December 1941, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In reality, however, the United States had been fighting a war against the Axis powers for years. It was a war of words and a war of action, a war of secret meetings and public duplicity. And the prosecutor of this war was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States.”

    Are we there yet?

  • http://wetcasements.wordpress.com Jaim

    You intervene _in_ a war, fuckwit. FDR did not intervene in anything in 1941. After Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor FDR declared war against the Japanese.

    The United States did not “intervene” in Japan or Germany, they retaliated.

    Bill Clinton, for example, intervened in Somalia and Yugoslavia. This is not what happened for FDR and America in WWII.

    Your stupid continues to burn.

  • Manju

    Put it this way, Manju. If “FDR followed with WWII” is an example of interventionism, just what did the US intervene in?

    The US intervened in WWII.

    The affairs of Germany?

    Yes.

    The affairs of Great Britain?

    No, intervention is generally used as intervene against, not for, since one has permission to intervene for somebody.

    If you’re equating intervention in a global conflict with liberal interventionism, then you really are talking nonsense.

    I’m not equating anything. Putting 2 differnt things in the same category is not the same as equating.

    Its hard to figure out what this new objection is about. You appear to now accept that FDR was an interventionist but want to make a distinction between that and “liberal interventionism” based on the global nature of the former and presumably the single-state nature of the latter. Ok, if you want to create a separate category within interventionism that distinguishes Grenada from WWII, I don’t object.

    I don’t know why single-state interventionism is more liberal though. Perhaps you mean to distinguish between straight humanitarian interventions (like preventing genocide in Rwanda) from military, political, and economic motivated ones like WWII? The holocaust would problematize that as well as the moral argument against fascism.

    I think you need to elaborate your position.

  • Manju

    And, BTW, I followed up your quote of Cole. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

    I referenced Cole because he is a left-leaning intellectual who characterizes FDR’s actions against the Axis powers as intervention, therefore substantiating my argument. Quaker use the McCarthyistic tactic of implying wrongdoing without demonstrating it. This allows an accuser to make allegations without proof.

    Cole was arguing for liberal intervention in Libya. So, in an open letter to the Left, he references successful interventions that liberals supported throughout history:

    Leftists are not always isolationists. In the US, progressive people actually went to fight in the Spanish Civil War, forming the Lincoln Brigade. That was a foreign intervention. Leftists were happy about Churchill’s and then Roosevelt’s intervention against the Axis. To make ‘anti-imperialism’ trump all other values in a mindless way leads to frankly absurd positions. I can’t tell you how annoyed I am by the fringe left adulation for Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, on the grounds that he is ‘anti-imperialist,’ and with an assumption that he is somehow on the Left. As the pillar of a repressive Theocratic order that puts down workers, he is a man of the far Right, and that he doesn’t like the US and Western Europe doesn’t ennoble him.

    http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/an-open-letter-to-the-left-on-libya.html

  • http://wetcasements.wordpress.com Jaim

    “calling FDR’s WWII policies intervention / interventionist was a common phrasing”

    You are stupid and/or a liar Manju.

    Where did you get your history degree anyways?

  • Quaker in a Basement

    Put it this way, Manju. If “FDR followed with WWII” is an example of interventionism, just what did the US intervene in? The affairs of Germany? The affairs of Great Britain? If you’re equating intervention in a global conflict with liberal interventionism, then you really are talking nonsense.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    Here’s where we stand on intervention. You wrote:
    Despite housing the pacifist left, Democrats have long taken the lead in building the empire. Woodrow Wilson was the prototypical liberal-interventionist. FDR followed with WWII

    I still say it’s bullshit.

    And, BTW, I followed up your quote of Cole. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

  • Manju

    right, but you had no objection until it bacame apparant that calling FDR’s WWII policies intervention / interventionist was a common phrasing. Before you called it bullshit.

    So a new objection emerged adn I was suspicous. I’ll adress it. But first, Where do we stand on intervention?

  • Quaker in a Basement

    Yes, I noticed you began moving the goalposts to object to that as well.

    I’m “moving the goalposts” to your original premise? Good god.

  • Manju

    And you might be a pedantic, patronizing dick.

    Well, just look at this thread. I do get called names an awful lot right off the bat so I gotta push back a little. I try to wait until my pearl harbor is bombed before retaliation tho.

    I forget whether or not you are a name-caller so if I condescended toward you without you initiating I’ll stop.

  • fafaroo

    And you might be a pedantic, patronizing dick.

    There’s no “might” about it.

  • Manju

    And, if one is to take you seriously, empire building as well

    Yes, I noticed you began moving the goalposts to object to that as well. Before I go there, are we in agreement over liberal interventionism?

  • Quaker in a Basement

    You might be confused

    And you might be a pedantic, patronizing dick.

  • Manju

    THIS is what you’re offering as an example of a pattern of interventionism and empire building. Do I have that right?

    Ok, I see we did have a substantive argument not just one over definitions. You didn’t know about all the stuff above and thought there was just one incident. I have a longer post above which you seem to have missed so there is even more stuff there.

    So, we are in agreement now?

  • Quaker in a Basement

    This in short was liberal interventionism.

    And, if one is to take you seriously, empire building as well.

  • Manju

    And apparently I’ll continue waiting as you’d rather look for quotes containing the word “intervention” as a substitute for making sense.

    Where is the disagrement now? You claim you know what lend-lease is and when it occureed so I assume you know the rest of the story. That constitutes liberal interventionism, only you wish to define it as non-isloationism. So whatever you call non-isolationism is what me, Cole, Churchill, etc call intervention. Here’s the short version:

    While the US entered WWII officially in 1941, “in reality…the United States had been fighting a war against the Axis powers for years. It was a war of words and a war of action, a war of secret meetings and public duplicity. And the prosecutor of this war was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States.”

    This in short was liberal interventionism. At a bare bones minimum, it is fair to call FDR a liberal interventionist ideologically, since he intentionally stacked his cabinet with well-known interventionists to reflect that and his correspondence with Churchill indicates that this is what he became. That is certainly the position of Churchill and that is why his center promotes this narrative:

    From Isolationism to Interventionism: America’s Entry into WWII Section I: Introduction This lesson plan shall examine American isolationism and the shift from isolationism to intervention to help the British before Pearl Harbor. Section II: Guiding Question Given America’s isolationist attitude in the pre-world war II years, why did America move from isolationism to intervention by 1940?

    You might be confused because his public stand reflected the prevailing views of the American people, which were decidedly isolationist. But in time FDR bypassed that with lend-lease and cash carry and if those are not interventionist enough for you to call it interventionism, consider this:

    “In April, he gave the Navy permission to attack German submarines west of 25 degrees longitude. That same month, the U.S. and Denmark agreed to place Greenland under American protection. In July, the U.S. occupied Iceland. On August 14th, the Selective Service Act, which allowed a peacetime draft, passed Congress by a single vote.”

    “That same August day, the Atlantic Charter was made public. Signed during a secret five-day conference at sea between Roosevelt and Churchill, the charter called for national self-determination and stated that aggressor nations should be disarmed. If this was not a declaration of war, it was close. Roosevelt hoped it would provoke the Germans to war on America.”

    “On September 4, 1941, the first clash came. The Greer, a U.S. destroyer, spotted a German submarine and called in a British plane to bomb it. The sub and the destroyer exchanged fire, with little result. But Roosevelt used the incident to further his intention to get America into the war. On October 17, German subs attacked the U.S. destroyer Kearney as it escorted a British convoy. Several crewmen were injured. On October 31, Nazi subs sank the U.S. destroyer Reuben James, killing 115 men.”

    All that happened before Pearl Harbor. Ergo, FDR was a liberal interventionist.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    Just to be clear on what you think I’ve “conceeded,” here’s how I have it:

    Before the U.S. officially entered WWII, the Germans had conquered France and were wearing England down. England was running out of arms and short of cash. FDR found a way to circumvent existing law and provide aid to a free nation and ally.

    THIS is what you’re offering as an example of a pattern of interventionism and empire building. Do I have that right?

  • Quaker in a Basement

    I take it you’ve conceeded the point. probably the argument to authority worked. thats the least fallacious of all the fallacies.

    You can take it however you want. I’m still waiting around for an explanation of “FDR followed with WWII” as evidence for interventionist empire buidling. And apparently I’ll continue waiting as you’d rather look for quotes containing the word “intervention” as a substitute for making sense.

  • fafaroo

    Right. I should’ve went with Left and lost the New. Prior to the 60s, the dems still housed the leftwing of American politics since they were more economically interventionist. But there were tensions with the party’s aggressive anti-communist wing. The Nation mag for example was in Ukrainian famine denial mode as early as the 1930s.

    Holy christ. You’ve descended into complete gibberish. You’re telling me you meant to write “Left” instead of “New Left” when you wrote this:

    I’ve referenced the New Left here (“Despite housing the pacifist left”) but I thought I was doing you a favor by neglecting to go there otherwise. This is usually the first place RWingers go to attack Dems, and its genreally preceived as McCarthyism.

    Riiight. Because it’s really sucked having the right wing attack Obama for falling for all that popular front crap in the 1930s. You’re floundering, dude.

    Same for this:

    Look, Obama is the first winning democrat not to deploy a southern strategy (yeah LBJ did deploy one in 64) so I’ll grant you that but it has little to do with the new left.

    What the hell are you talking about? Obama came of age and political awareness within a New Left context of grassroots, door to door, bottom up social activism. But he was not a Bill Ayers radical as much as the right would like to paint him as one. His politics are informed by a New Left sensibility but they are not dominated by it. He remains a liberal centrist.

    Which is a distinction to remember when you re-read this:

    …the liberal progressive wing of the Democratic party of today would not and do not tolerate spying on Americans and wiretapping without a warrant.

    Obama is a liberal centrist and as such as been a big disappointment to a lot of the liberal progressives who voted for him. The liberal progressive wing of the Democratic Party and liberal progressives in general, have been roundly critical of Obama’s continuance of the Bush-era surveillance regime. So the left has been critical of Obama’s center left continuation of Bush’s policies.

    But again, you’re linking “liberal interventionism and authoritarianism.” LBJ may have spied on MLK but Nixon also spied on his domestic political enemies and the policies that liberal progressives are now criticizing Obama for were policies first formulated by the Bush administration.

    Finally, you come out with this:

    You want Obama to have hawkishness of FDR w/o the excess and the morality of the new left without the incompetence or communist sympathizing.

    You’re right. A politician who’s hawkish but not insane, progressive but not Stalin? This is an utterly impossible political formulation. What was I thinking.

    And like I said, Manju, you’re an idiot.

    …the liberal progressive wing of the Democratic party of today would not and do not tolerate spying on Americans and wiretapping without a warrant.

    Obama is a liberal centrist and as such as been a big disappointment to a lot of the liberal progressives who voted for him. The liberal progressive wing of the Democratic Party and liberal progressives in general, have been roundly critical of Obama’s continuance of the Bush-era surveillance regime. So the left has been critical of Obama’s center left continuation of Bush’s policies.

    But again, you’re linking “liberal interventionism and authoritarianism.” LBJ may have spied on MLK but Nixon also spied on his domestic political enemies and the policies that liberal progressives are now criticizing Obama for were policies first formulated by the Bush administration.

  • Manju

    I say fine. You want to characterize an act of intervention as a policy of “interventionism,” that’s okeydokey with me.

    Well, its not just me. Here is the Churchill centre:

    “From Isolationism to Interventionism: America’s Entry into WWII”

    You’re still insisting on the absence of any middle ground, that once a nation sacrifices the purity of isolationism, it can be nothing other than “interventionist.”

    The flaw in your argument is that this nuance can be captured by recognizing that there are degrees of intervention. Obama is intervening in Libya but he’s not sending ground troops. So he’s in the interventionist camp but not to the degree McCain is. For Ol Froth, Obama need to declare war on Libya before he triggers the interventionist label.

    For you, I guess you want to characterize FDR in WWII but b/f Pearl Harbor as non-non-interventionist or non-isolationist as opposed to simply interventionist. You want 3 categories instead of 2.

    But this is really an argument over definition. We are talking about the same thing but using different labels. They are not substantive arguments.

    It now sounds to me that you are not claiming that the US didn’t intervene before Pearl Harbor, just that this intervention should not be labeled interventionism. If that was your point, you could’ve just said “hey manju I understand that FDR intervened before pearl harbor but that doesn’t make him an interventionist in my definition”, and we could avoid this back and forth.

    And I say it’s hooey.

    I take it you’ve conceeded the point. probably the argument to authority worked. thats the least fallacious of all the fallacies.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    LBJ, I mean, not Obama.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    Look, Obama is the first winning democrat not to deploy a southern strategy (yeah LBJ did deploy one in 64)

    How’d that turn out?

  • Quaker in a Basement

    I don’t think you understand what the fallacy is. Referencing an expert who substantiates your argument is not a logical fallacy.

    Oh, stop it. Let’s rewind the tape:

    So, I guess your position is that Juan Cole’s argument is ridiculous?

    That’s as plain as appeal to authority gets. You followed by quoting Cole using the word “intervention” as evidence of your still unexplained thesis, that “FDR followed with WWII” is an example of liberal interventionism and empire building.

    Stop clowning.

  • Manju

    Appeal to authority.

    I don’t think you understand what the fallacy is. Referencing an expert who substantiates your argument is not a logical fallacy. I’ve laid out my case. FDR secretly wanted to intervene sooner and in fact did so before Pearl Harbour. So he was ideologically an interventionist and his actions prior to Pearl Harbor reflect that.

    Juan Cole backs this up.

    Here is one authority on the subject:

    There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism.

  • Manju

    That’s curious, because I don’t seem to recall the New Left’s involvement or even existence during WWI, WWII, the beginning of the Cold War and the first articulations of MAD or the beginning of our involvement in Vietnam.

    Right. I should’ve went with Left and lost the New. Prior to the 60s, the dems still housed the leftwing of American politics since they were more economically interventionist. But there were tensions with the party’s aggressive anti-communist wing. The Nation mag for example was in Ukrainian famine denial mode as early as the 1930s.

    Barack Obama is the culmination of that shift. He is the epitome of the post-LBJ, post-New Left liberal centrist.

    Look, Obama is the first winning democrat not to deploy a southern strategy (yeah LBJ did deploy one in 64) so I’ll grant you that but it has little to do with the new left.

    Now, afak the heirs to the new left is dead set opposed to his foreign policy, which is the major topic here (as well as his neo-liberal economic one but that is not the topic). But somehow you want me to calculate in their influence.

    This will result in Obama being positioned as FDRs heir in regards to competence and hawkishness but would also mean that any warning about his interventionism turning into excessive authoritarianism is unfounded and off-topic. Since he is of the New-left. Only the new-left is simultaneously opposed to his foreign policy.

    How else to interpret this than you wanting to have your cake and eat it too? You want Obama to have hawkishness of FDR w/o the excess and the morality of the new left without the incompetence or communist sympathizing.

    So, take for example this gem from you:

    While the centrists may be a little squishy on the subject, the liberal progressive wing of the Democratic party of today would not and do not tolerate spying on Americans and wiretapping without a warrant.

    Here you try to scold me for bringing up the historical connection between liberal interventionism and authoritarianism since present day lib-progressives “do not tolerate spying on Americans and wiretapping without a warrant.”

    Never mind that Obama describes himself publically as non-ideological and in private calls himself a Bluedog. And more importantly, this:

    Surveillance: As did Bush, Obama has maintained that the statute that granted immunity to telecom companies that helped facilitate warrantless wiretapping is beyond the scope of judicial review. Also, Obama recently signed a three-month extension of the so-called Patriot Act, which extends the ability of the federal government to set “roving wiretaps” on suspects, obtain business and library records and obtain wide eavesdropping approval on “lone wolf” suspects not necessarily linked to terrorist groups.

    But since the New left is now part of your coalition, this didn’t happen, or something.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    And by the way, Manju, I’m not letting your original premise go forgotten:

    Despite housing the pacifist left, Democrats have long taken the lead in building the empire.

    It was in that context that you referenced “FDR followed with WWII.” Still waiting for an explanation on how World War II was an interventionist exercise in building the empire.

    Go for it.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    What do you say to all these individuals and associations Quaker?

    I say fine. You want to characterize an act of intervention as a policy of “interventionism,” that’s okeydokey with me. You’re still insisting on the absence of any middle ground, that once a nation sacrifices the purity of isolationism, it can be nothing other than “interventionist.”

    And I say it’s hooey.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    So, I guess your position is that Juan Cole’s argument is ridiculous?

    Appeal to authority.

  • fafaroo

    I’ve referenced the New Left here (“Despite housing the pacifist left”) but I thought I was doing you a favor by neglecting to go there otherwise.

    You mean in the paragraph that went like this:

    This is an interesting historical post. Despite housing the pacifist left, Democrats have long taken the lead in building the empire. Woodrow Wilson was the prototypical liberal-interventionist. FDR followed with WWII and the major cold war doctrines like containment and MAD were largely democratic affairs. The Right Wing was hampered by isolationism and were generally Johnny-come-latelys to the Empire, including anticommunism.

    That’s curious, because I don’t seem to recall the New Left’s involvement or even existence during WWI, WWII, the beginning of the Cold War and the first articulations of MAD or the beginning of our involvement in Vietnam.

    It’s hard no know how the democratic party did these things “despite housing the pacifist left” when the New Left didn’t even exist at the time and actually came to be after the fact in opposition to Cold War policies, the Vietnam War and the civil rights movements.

    So you’ve got your chronology completely wrong. Nice try.

    Isn’t it also interesting that despite your belief in the complexity of history, you jump right to the childishly over-simplified history of the Democratic Party’s relationship with the New Left fostered by the right wing in defense of your significant historical errors: “Well, gosh, I didn’t bring up the New Left because I would hate to be accused of McCarthyism while I blame present day Democrats for Jim Crow!”

    As I pointed out above, the New Left was radical but that doesn’t mean it radicalized the Democratic Party. It did, however, have a significant influence in moving the party to the left and away from old school LBJ democrats during the 1970s and 1980s on a variety social, economic and foreign policy issues. During the 1990s, the party moved back to the center but it had long left behind the vestiges of the old school LBJ politics.

    Barack Obama is the culmination of that shift. He is the epitome of the post-LBJ, post-New Left liberal centrist.

    As for this:

    Sure, you are less repsonsible for Jim Crow since the far left’s record is rather good here, once we get out of the progressive era. But then I get to explore Sartre’s fellow travelling with the USSR. But i haven’t gone ther since I saw Oliver’s blog as a mainstream dem organization. So the anti-capitalist left wasn’t so relevant.

    Gosh! Thanks for admitting that the modern day Democratic Party is somewhat less responsible for Jim Crow than the Democratic Party of the 1950s! I guess if this gracious modification of history’s judgment comes at the cost of putting us all in bed with Stalin, well, it’s the price we have to pay.

    What an idiot.

  • Manju

    fafaroo:

    I’ve referenced the New Left here (“Despite housing the pacifist left”) but I thought I was doing you a favor by neglecting to go there otherwise. This is usually the first place RWingers go to attack Dems, and its genreally preceived as McCarthyism.

    Dems have gone to great lengths to distance themselves from the New Left. Socialism is not a respectable ideology anymore and they don’t want to be associated with anything to the left of keynes. Obama himself has made it clear that he’s a capitalist.

    On foreighn policy, i don’t see how it would be to your advantage for me to reference Noam Chonsky, who charges Clinton with war crimes in Kosovo. You are now talking aboput political ideologies well outside of the american mainstream as well as outside of liberalism itself.

    If you want to start owning the anti-globalization movement, anti-zionism and pacifist left we can go there. Sure, you are less repsonsible for Jim Crow since the far left’s record is rather good here, once we get out of the progressive era. But then I get to explore Sartre’s fellow travelling with the USSR.

    But i haven’t gone ther since I saw Oliver’s blog as a mainstream dem organization. So the anti-capitalist left wasn’t so relevant.

  • fafaroo
  • fafaroo

    (I can elaborate here with academic sources, but I’ll wait for a request since I know how much you guys hate civil rights history)

    How about if you just STFU instead? No one has a problem with Civil Rights history. We have a problem with you bringing it up every other day in order to attack present day democrats. See the difference?

    Oliver calls a current Republican state legislator a racist because of comments she made about legislation she wants to pass now and you drag out LBJ and the 1957 Civil Rights Act.

    As noted above, you keep leaving out key parts of the evolution of the Democratic party and the left in this country in order to make facile gotcha points: “But aha! LBJ is in ur civul rites histree messin with ur partee.”

    We get it. We knew it before. We didn’t need you to tell it to us all over again.

    But clearly you need to start reading some history books that don’t stop in 1965 because the left in this country and the Democratic has changed radically from the old school left of LBJ. Hell, by 1968 the Democratic part was no longer the part of 1964:

    By this time Johnson had lost control of the Democratic Party, which was splitting into four factions, each of which despised the other three. The first consisted of Johnson (and Humphrey), labor unions, and local party bosses (led by Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley). The second group consisted of students and intellectuals who were vociferously against the war and rallied behind McCarthy. The third group were Catholics, Hispanics and African Americans, who rallied behind Robert Kennedy. The fourth group were traditionally segregationist white Southerners, who rallied behind George C. Wallace and the American Independent Party. Vietnam was one of many issues that splintered the party, and Johnson could see no way to win Vietnam[67] and no way to unite the party long enough for him to win re-election.[85]

    The second and third groups are the groups that came to prominence in the late 1960s and 1970s and maintained their influence through the 1980s. It took along time for the first group, old school labor, to adjust, but eventually they got on board. The Democratic party moved left during this period, away from the LBJ democrats that the New Left rose up in opposition too. No doubt, the Democrat party, during the Clinton years, lurched back toward the center-left but it still has very little in common with the Democratic Party of 1964.

    You keep leaving this crucial piece of Democratic Party history out while suggesting that Oliver can’t criticize present day Republicans and conservative because of LBJ. It’s just ridiculous.

  • Manju

    You mean the bomb that ended the war?

    Thats the right answer, Oliver.

    LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed.

    Well, thats not mutually exclusive with with Ike positioned Jim Crow as a national security issue.

    However, I choose not to decontextualize this from the fact that he stopped a version of the 64 act from passing in 57.That after years of northern-dems in the WH, the fact that it took a southern segregtionist to get it done is one of history’s great ironies.

    And considerng that the entire southern bloc was agianst the bill (in the senate, the house was irrelevant) thaks for confirming that northern dems were indeed a problem that LBJ took care off. Of course, the real reasoon LBJ got it done is that he didn’t have to face, well, LBJ.

    (I can elaborate here with academic sources, but I’ll wait for a request since I know how much you guys hate civil rights history)

  • Manju

    And also presenting the ridiculous argument that “FDR followed with WWII” is evidence of a pattern of liberal interventionism.

    Talk around it all you want, Manju, you’re just unwilling to go back an fix your errors.

    So, I guess your position is that Juan Cole’s argument is ridiculous?

    “Leftists were happy about Churchill’s and then Roosevelt’s intervention against the Axis.”

    Is History professor Waldo H. Heinrichs in error?

    “President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Intervention in the Battle of the Atlantic, 1941”

    How about the standard bibliography of American foreign relations?

    “First Committee seriously affected the debate over FDR’s interventionist measures…”

    Or is the Winston Churchil Centre trying to “baffle us with bullshit”?

    From Isolationism to Interventionism: America’s Entry into WWII Section I: Introduction This lesson plan shall examine American isolationism and the shift from isolationism to intervention to help the British before Pearl Harbor. Section II: Guiding Question Given America’s isolationist attitude in the pre-world war II years, why did America move from isolationism to intervention by 1940?

    What do you say to all these individuals and associations Quaker?

  • http://www.oliverwillis.com Oliver Willis

    with Truman dropping the A-bomb
    You mean the bomb that ended the war?

    Ike positioned getting rid of Jim Crow as a national security issue
    LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed.

  • fafaroo

    I don’t have all day to scour the internet looking for things to comment on….Call me a clown if you like, but at least my default defense of every topic isn’t to discredit the person making a statement.

    Uh yeah. You don’t have to scour the Internet. The thread and the evidence of a conservative politicizing announcement before Oliver was provided to you. In the time it took you to type up your latest cringe worthy whining ( really, I’m getting embarrassed for you) you could gone over to Wizbang and scolded them for politicizing the event. So nice weasel there.

    As to your other point, you are indeed a clown if you don’t think this

    I knew you wouldn’t be able to wait for the corpse to cool before you made it political. Can’t let people share in something unifying for even 12 hours before reminding them they’re enemies on the same team… jeez.

    is evidence of a default defense to discredit Oliver. You didn’t even try to address his point. You chastised him for bad taste in even making it. That’s an attempt to discredit the person making the argument instead of the argument itself.

    Jesus the trolls here are dumb as bricks.

  • Willie Stark

    Old school – FDR, Truman, Stenvenson, JFK, LBJ, Humphrey doesn’t look too bad.

  • fafaroo

    Another thing, Manju. in all of your complex and nuanced history lessons, you always leave out the rise of “The New Left.” The New Left arose from the civil rights movement and student anti-war protests of the 1960s and 1970s. It was anti-capitalist, anti-colonialist, anti-racist and feminist in its leanings and while it had it’s radical, fringe elements, yes Bill Ayers, but it also had a major influence on the policies and politics of centrist Dems on issues of social, economic and foreign policy issues. Many of the anti-establishment types of the 1960s are now the establishment types of the democratic party today. The New Left is a key ideological dividing point between the Democrats of today and the old school Democrats of LBJ, JFK, FDR etc. etc.

    More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left#1960s_in_the_United_States

    The New left is why this statement:

    And thats becasue modern day dems are indeed the heirs to FDR, JFK, etc. We are not going so far back that the ideological alignment is different.

    is completely historically inaccurate.

    It’s also why many of us must endure every Thanksgiving the whining of our Reagan Democrat parents or grandparents that “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic party left me.”

  • Willie Stark

    I’m guessing Quaker knows what Lend Lease was.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    Quaker was completely unaware of this legislation before I bought it to his attention.

    Guesswork. And ad hominem. Fix your errors.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    Obviously if I believed in the cartoonish world of Quaker, I would not be posting such a narrative.

    Ad hominem. And it’s you who is presenting the false choice of interventionism and isolationism. And also presenting the ridiculous argument that “FDR followed with WWII” is evidence of a pattern of liberal interventionism.

    Talk around it all you want, Manju, you’re just unwilling to go back an fix your errors.

  • fafaroo

    And thats becasue modern day dems are indeed the heirs to FDR, JFK, etc. We are not going so far back that the ideological alignment is different….Do we credit FDR for WWII but simply leave the Japanese Internment out?

    The whole point is that ideological alignment of today is different. The liberal progressives and even the centrist Dems of today are not the Dems of FDR or even JFKs.

    The centrists Dems of today will and are prosecuting the war on terror with the same vigor that the Dems of the 40s prosecuted WWII but the Dems of the day would never round up a muslims and put them in camps. Hell, we don’t even want them specifically targeted at airports: And that’s a good thing!

    While the centrists may be a little squishy on the subject, the liberal progressive wing of the Democratic party of today would not and do not tolerate spying on Americans and wiretapping without a warrant.

    The other point is that there’s absolutely nothing wrong or aishonest by looking back and saying Obama’s action to get Bin Laden hark back to a long history of Democratic Presidents acting decisively and with resolve on issues of national security without mentioning Manzanar or spying on MLK because Obama is doing neither of those things and he would never do either of those things.

    My point is why bring up the dark side when it’s completely fucking irrelevant to the discussion? Obama is building on past successes not past “great atrocities.” He’s leading by following the positive side of history, the successes and not the mistakes.

    It is especially irrelevant when, in fact, it are the present day conservatives who have, by and large, advocated policies in the war on terror that emulate the horrific and tragic mistakes of the past.

    As I noted above, conservatives have embraced racial profiling and in some cases actual mass internment. They’ve embraced a reckless rhetoric of nuking any country that looks at us sideways. They’ve embraced torture, illegal detentions, domestic spying with a warrant and preemptive invasions.

    When conservatives talk about their successful record of keeping the homeland secure since 9-11 they get furious when we bring up 9-11 because it happened on Bush’s watch.

    It makes no sense to bring up Vietnam when talking about Obama’s handling of Bin Laden, because he was a fucking child when the war was going on and so far.

    Look, I don’t have a problem criticizing Obama’s foreign policy. His leadership in getting OBL doesn’t change the fact that this policy in Libya is, while well intentioned, a bad idea. I don’t think it’s a moral or just thing to be targeting Khaddafi for assassination as we so obviously are and quite frankly, I would have much rather seen Bin Laden captured and brough to trial here in the US than killed. But, I do not think that given the larger contexts, these two things rise to the level of “great atrocity.”

    The point being is that if you want to criticize Oliver and Obama, you don’t have to go back to Woodrow fucking Wilson to do it and criticizing Oliver and Obama via Woodrow Wilson et al doesn’t make any fucking sense at all anyway. You seem eager to impress us all with your historical knowledge. Great. You’ve read a lot of books. But knowing history and knowing how to apply historical knowledge are too different things and you get a straight F for the latter.

  • http://olfroth.blogspot.com Ol Froth

    I’ll get to addressing your points in more detail later

    Translation: Its gonna take me awhile for me to find a way to move the goalposts once again.

  • Manju

    farafoo:

    I’ll get to addressing your points in more detail later but just quickly, you are tryig to scold me for associating present day dems with the atrocities of past ones but don’t appear to have any objection to me, or for that matter Oliver, allowing you to own their success: like WWII intervention, the creation of cold-war doctrines, Keynesianism, etc.

    When success is noted there is suddenly no objection to talking about history. And thats becasue modern day dems are indeed the heirs to FDR, JFK, etc. We are not going so far back that the ideological alignment is different.

    Indeed, I opened my post more or less in line with Oliver, hailing Dems as the party of interventionist foreign policy. Its only when I bougt up the dark side that you object.

    So how do you suggest we dicuss the issue at hand? Do we credit FDR for WWII but simply leave the Japanese Internment out?

  • Buzz Killington

    The fact that you couldn’t bring yourself to offer the same criticism at even one conservative site when the link was provided to you, is enough for me to know that you’re just a clown incapable of real discussion.

    Actually, I’m just one person that checks blogs a few times while I’m at work. I don’t have all day to scour the internet looking for things to comment on. This is the only blog I post comments on with any regularity at all. Climb down off that horse.

    Call me a clown if you like, but at least my default defense of every topic isn’t to discredit the person making a statement. Have fun with your name calling.

  • Manju

    If FDR had declared war on Japan before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, you’d have a point.

    So you don’t.

    Regardless of the action taken, you are still left with the fact that FDR believed in intervention and his behavior up until America’s formal entry into the war reflects that fact. You appear to suddenly be conceeding that interventionism was his belief system, but now want to restrict analysis to those beliefs that he was able to implement. This seems like an artificial limitation.

    And even then, the idea that one must declare war on another nation before an action against that nation is considered intervention is an idea of your own making. That’s why you are incapable of providing any references that back up you opinion.

    In contrast, I’ve referenced multiple sources calling FDR’s actions intervention, Including a aminstream academic historian on the matter:

    “President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Intervention in the Battle of the Atlantic, 1941”

    Now, you have even farafoo weighing in:

    I don’t have a problem with describing FDR as an interventionist. He was in favor of getting involved in the European conflict sooner than 1941 and did indeed find ways to ensure our support of US allies as a compromise in the face of Republican isolationism

  • http://wetcasements.wordpress.com Jaim

    “Historians now know that FDR wanted to go to war even before Pearl Harbor. ”

    If FDR had declared war on Japan before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, you’d have a point.

    So you don’t.

  • fafaroo

    Manju, you have a curious and increasingly irritating habit of displaying your vast knowledge of the complexities of American history all in the service of making grossly reductive, shallow and empty-headed points about the American present.

    Case in point:

    To further the irony, many of the great atrocities related to foreign policy end up on the Dem side, despite the rightwing having the reputation for inhumanity. Wilson gave us the Espionage and Sedition Acts and segregated the Military. FDR gave us Tuskeegee and the Internment with Truman dropping the A-bomb. JFK/LBJ gave us the bay of pigs, Vietnem, and authorized the FBI to spy on Dr. King because they thought he had communist leanings. JFK tried to stop the march on Washington because he didn’t want American racism to be exposed in front of the USSR.

    In contrast, Ike positioned getting rid of Jim Crow as a national security issue. You can’t be both anti-communist and pro segregation was his point. His most fraught military adventure was sending the 101st airbourne to little rock to integrate their public schools as Gov Faubus stood in the doorway and as LBJ and others Dems demagogued the issue. All this going against his conservative reputation.

    So politics can be quite absurd sometimes.

    It sure can be, dude!

    Because you would be hard pressed to find any present day liberal or progressive who would defend FDRs internment of Japanese Americans during World War II in any context. It is the great shame of his presidency that most of us accept as part of his legacy as a reminder of the dangers of letting our fear overwhelm our principles.

    Since 9-11, however, we have seen the right wing embrace racial profiling and even the practice of mass internment (see Michelle Malkin) in response to the threat of terrorism. The one FDR policy that conservative actually embrace his most repugnant one.

    Similarly, you will find on the present day left a deep divide over the legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with many progressives who condemn Truman’s decision as a war crime, still others who recognize the grave moral ambiguity of the act and many who, while accepting it as a necessity refuse to offer unequivocal endorsement of it.

    Since 9-11, however, we have seen the right repeatedly and even gleefully propose that we nuke Iran or North Korea while attacking impugning the motives of any democrat who would take nukes off the table in any context. The lessons of Hiroshami and Nagasaki are completely lost on these savages. What happened when Obama announced our Nuclear Policy Review objective of “Reducing the role of nuclear weapons”? This:

    Limbaugh: Obama “has done a great job of undermining our national defense.” On his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh commented that Obama is sending “a message to the world that our conventional weapons is enough of a deterrent.” He concluded that Obama “has done a great job of undermining our national defense.”

    Beck: Policy is “the most dangerous thing I think I’ve ever heard a president say.” On his radio show, Beck said of the policy: ” ‘We’re never going to use nuclear weapons.’ That’s the most — that’s the most dangerous thing I think I’ve ever heard a president say.” Beck also characterized the new guidelines as “Barack Obama’s nuclear social justice chart.” He continued: “If you didn’t have a chance, because you don’t have enough money to make a lot of chemical or biological weapons — you just had the opportunity to make a little — well, then, we’re not going to fight unfairly.”

    Gaffney: “President Obama is compromising our deterrent to chemical and biological attacks on this country.” In a post titled “Disarmer-in-Chief” on National Review Online’s The Corner blog, Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney wrote: “Most Americans will be horrified that President Obama is compromising our deterrent to chemical and biological attacks on this country.”

    Geller: Obama is “leaving us bare naked vulnerable like a virgin slipped a Rohypnol on her first date with a Chicagoland gangsta.” On her Atlas Shrugs blog, Pamela Geller wrote:

    Obama says to our enemies, bring it on, we won’t fight ya — leaving us bare naked vulnerable like a virgin slipped a Rohypnol on her first date with a Chicagoland gangsta.

    Obama is removing nuclear defense at a time when Iran’s devout mullahcracy is building their nuclear arsenal with the global objective of a universal caliphate.

    The same goes for every other “great atrocity” you happily chalk up to the Democrats as if the Democrats of today are the same Democrats in 1940s, 50s and 60s.

    Tuskegee? Find me a liberal democrat or any democrat who doesn’t condemn it.

    The Bay of Pigs? Vietnam? Find me a right wing conservative who doesn’t think that both were the result of liberal incompetence and who wouldn’t love to travel back in time for a macho do-over on both, the “right” way.

    If you’re going to cite Vietnam as a tragic policy of the left, would you at least do us the favor of acknowledging that it was the left which presented the strongest opposition to the war? Oh, wait, I get it. Starting the war and opposing the war are both “great atrocities” for our side, right?

    Speaking of leaving pieces of the puzzle out, apparently, Eisenhower was the first president to come to the great realization that “You can’t be both anti-communist and pro segregation was his point.”

    No, Manju, that wasn’t his point. Almost immediately after the end of World War II the Soviets were using American racial unrest and segregation as part of their propaganda against the US. It was one of the reasons why Truman instituted the civil rights initiatives he did in the late 1940s, including the desegregation of the Army and the civil services and later required that all defense contractors had to be equal opportunity employers. While were quoting from PBS:

    One of Truman’s strongest arguments in favor of civil rights was that American and Russia were now locked in a deadly “Cold War” and the Russians were using America’s Jim Crow policies to win support from the rest of the world. Southerners replied that the civil-rights program was supported by Communists.

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_events_truman.html

    I’m wondering why, for all your insistence on historical complexity, you left this out? Oh, right. Because it didn’t fit your simple-minded narrative.

    The other thing is this:

    This is an interesting historical post. Despite housing the pacifist left, Democrats have long taken the lead in building the empire. Woodrow Wilson was the prototypical liberal-interventionist. FDR followed with WWII and the major cold war doctrines like containment and MAD were largely democratic affairs. The Right Wing was hampered by isolationism and were generally Johnny-come-latelys to the Empire, including anticommunism.

    I don’t have a problem with describing FDR as an interventionist. He was in favor of getting involved in the European conflict sooner than 1941 and did indeed find ways to ensure our support of US allies as a compromise in the face of Republican isolationism. But what the fuck with equating WWI and WWII with “building the Empire.”

    Hell, it’s like you think FDR got involved in WWII because James fucking Polk, a democrat!!!, got us California in the Mexican-American War. No doubt we’ll all now be treated to a disquisition on how racist Democrats are because Polk supported the idea of “Manifest Destiny” so Democrats now hate Native Americans. Oh wait, where did I hear that before? Oh right, Glenn fucking Beck:

    Manifest Destiny is, get out of my way, my way or the highway, because I’m on a mission from God. That is Manifest Destiny. That’s Woodrow Wilson. That’s Andrew Jackson. That’s not George Washington. It’s different.

    Now, Jackson I want you to understand — Manifest Destiny, was it named Manifest Destiny until 1845, but Andrew Jackson, I think, was the seed. He was the guy throwing the seeds in the ground.

    Manifest Destiny is less of walking humbly and praying for guidance. It’s mission from God stuff. We’re doing it whether you like it or not.

    Manifest Destiny — it was used to justify some unbelievably horrible things to people, such as Native Americans — Native Americans.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,599814,00.html#ixzz1LHWIzALM

    Because we can all find just droves and droves of present day democrats today who support the forced relocation and slaughter of Native Americans in the 1800s. Am I right?

    But invading Iraq for no fucking reason whatsoever? Oh, it’s Empire building all right, but Empire building clearly inspired by the original evil Democrat, Andrew Jackson!

    You’re an idiot, Manju. A complete idiot.

  • Manju

    You can set “entry” at any time you like. My point stands.

    What? Where you set the entry is the whole ball of wax.

    The simpleton narrative is entry occurs after Pearl Harbor, and that would make WWI justified even in the eyes of isolationists. But that’s the simple unnunced history. The real history is the Atlantic Charter, the Intervention in the Atlantic, lend-lease, repeal the Neutrality Act, and the “secret war.” All these actions, not fully known at the time, place FDR firmly within the interventionist camp during a time when he was trying to appear as isolationist as he could, due to popular sentiment.

    And that is arguably his greatest achievement (considering that WWII got us out of the great depression).

    Pray tell, where does “President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Intervention in the Battle of the Atlantic, 1941” stand in your narrative?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7709.1986.tb00463.x/abstract

  • Manju

    “Interventionism” is declaring war on a country that hasn’t threatened you, typically in order to aid allies _militarily_.

    Oh I see. You are going by Jaim’s own personal little 3rd grade definition. And predictably this definition is so unnuanced, placing so high a bar to trigger the interventionist label, that it hilariously includes the stipulation of “declaring war”.

    Pray tell, where does “President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Intervention in the Battle of the Atlantic, 1941” stand in your narrative?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-7709.1986.tb00463.x/abstract

  • Manju

    Manju posits a world in which there is no moral interval between isolationism and interventionism.

    I posited no such thing. Indeed, the very PBS narrative I posted details how FDR was forced to compromise, i.e. take a position between isolationism and full blown military intervention. Obviously if I believed in the cartoonish world of Quaker, I would not be posting such a narrative.

    Nonetheles, the secret correspondence between him and Churchill revealed how he was becoming increasingly interventionist. Thats why he put solid interventionists in his cabinet. Although he maintined a moderate public stand, it is now clear in retrospect that FDR was firmly within the interventionists camp while the famous isolationism vs intervention debte roared leading up to Pearl Harbor.

    The “lend lease” legislation he’s trying to use as evidence of the latter is, in fact, a rejection of the former.

    Quaker was completely unaware of this legislation before I bought it to his attention. So to save face he tries to say while its merely not isolationism, as opposed to being interventionism. However, the understanding of these terms during the time was that if something is not isolationist, it is interventionist…although there are degrees of intervention of course. As this handy pamphlet points out’

    Roosevelt was an interventionist—a person who did not reject the idea of political or military involvement in the affairs of other countries when it was necessary.”

    http://books.google.com/books?id=ErvY2vC1WXMC&pg=PA14&lpg=PA14&dq=franklin+%22roosevelt+was+an+interventionist%22&source=bl&ots=p008b0BeIz&sig=F1da-0Qej09z2Tby910T0xhKNys&hl=en&ei=DZW_TY-zCsbagQecp-TfBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=franklin%20%22roosevelt%20was%20an%20interventionist%22&f=false

    But this point is moot. Historians now know that FDR wanted to go to war even before Pearl Harbor.

    Manju elides the context of the situation, a global war in which a megalomaniacal, genocidal dictator was threatening all of Western Europe.

    Incorrect. manju adressed that head on by highlighting this piece and bashing poor Jaim over the head for failing to understand that FDRs war-greatness is dependent upon his interventionism, ie going to war even before being attacked:

    “But in no small way would the Allies’ eventual victory in the declared war be attributable to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s prosecution of the unofficial one. With years of public speaking, private maneuvering, political lobbying and presidential action, FDR had helped save Britain and perhaps the world from Nazi domination, all while his country remained at peace.”

  • LongHairedWeirdo

    I knew you wouldn’t be able to wait for the corpse to cool before you made it political. Can’t let people share in something unifying for even 12 hours before reminding them they’re enemies on the same team… jeez.

    He claimed that the success vindicated one side. He supported that statement with facts. Now, you want to complain that he dared remember all the shit that was thrown when it was proven to be shit.

    Well, saying the shit-throwers were wrong *is* unifying, to anyone who wants to end the shit-throwing. To those who want the shit-throwing to continue, without consequence, well, calling for unity with them is calling for disunity overall. You haven’t got a leg to stand on.

  • http://wetcasements.wordpress.com Jaim

    “Interventionism” is declaring war on a country that hasn’t threatened you, typically in order to aid allies _militarily_.

    America began WWII when it was attack at Pearl Harbor.

    And yes, America gave aid to her allies. This is not warfare.

    Just so fucking stupid.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    By “US entry” you appear to be trying to contextualize my words within America’s official entry.

    By announcing what I “appear to be trying” you are evading once again. You can set “entry” at any time you like. My point stands.

  • Manju

    In this bizarre world, the one where someone is trying to make the case that U.S. entry into WWII is evidence of “interventionism,” and then, when called on it, mumbles something about, “Well, yeah, but I’m right anyway.”

    By “US entry” you appear to be trying to contextualize my words within America’s official entry. But i nowhere said that. I said WWII full stop.

    Either way, the point is moot, as anyone who as studied this history past jr high scholol knows:

    “The United States officially entered World War II in December 1941, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In reality, however, the United States had been fighting a war against the Axis powers for years.”

    “And the prosecutor of this war was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States.”

    I feel like I’m revealing to kids that there is no Sant Claus. Why is this even controversial? I mean, it reflects well on FDR and WWII, being the good war, is the major argument for liberal-interventionism…since histoians have long argued that without this secret war, the allied powers would’ve lost.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    Manju posits a world in which there is no moral interval between isolationism and interventionism. The “lend lease” legislation he’s trying to use as evidence of the latter is, in fact, a rejection of the former. Manju elides the context of the situation, a global war in which a megalomaniacal, genocidal dictator was threatening all of Western Europe.

    But hey, I’m splitting hairs! Supplying arms to an ally under existential threat is all the evidence he needs for another of his “conservatives are rubber, liberals are glue” tirades.

  • Manju

    For America it did, yes.

    Historians disagree but the point is moot. I said WWII full stop. I didn’t not say the official American Entrance into WWII.

    I mean, let’s go back further — WWII _really_ started at the end of WWI, correct?

    No. WWII began in 1939. I have no problem if you want to reference events that predated WWII but nonetheless influenced it, but that was not what I was doing. I kept my analysis well within the confines of WWII, which began no later than 1939. From Wiki:

    The war is generally accepted to have begun on 1 September 1939, with the invasion of Poland by Germany and Slovakia, and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and most of the countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth.

    Listen dipshit, for Americans both historically and psychologically WWII begins with Pearl Harbor.

    For 3rd graders it does because they can only understand simple narratives. For adults, as PBS sums up:

    “The United States officially entered World War II in December 1941, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In reality, however, the United States had been fighting a war against the Axis powers for years.”

    Is this too complex for you little itty bitty mind? Do yo want be to speak slower?

  • Quaker in a Basement

    In what bizaare world is lend-lease and neutrtality laws a change of subject from WWII?

    In this bizarre world, the one where someone is trying to make the case that U.S. entry into WWII is evidence of “interventionism,” and then, when called on it, mumbles something about, “Well, yeah, but I’m right anyway.”

  • Manju

    But it’s kind of a far cry from the thread topic, don’t you think?

    No, this is the very subject. National Security Democrats. Oliver references FDR in his very post. But because of your ignorance of how FDR intervened before Pearl Harbor, you miss his great achievement. As PBS.org puts it:

    “With years of public speaking, private maneuvering, political lobbying and presidential action, FDR had helped save Britain and perhaps the world from Nazi domination, all while his country remained at peace.”

    I’m not referring to some esoteric scholar here, as I might do with civil rights, since that is history still being debated in academia. I’m talking about at best college level history. I can understand why one wouldn’t teach elementary schoolchildren about “a war of secret meetings and public duplicity” but someone debating politics on a blog should know this. History is important. If you are unawre of this stuff then your opinons are useless.

    The great irony of course is that you don’t even grasp why FDR is a great war president.

  • http://wetcasements.wordpress.com Jaim

    “But WWII didn’t beging at Pear harbor, did it?”

    For America it did, yes.

    I mean, let’s go back further — WWII _really_ started at the end of WWI, correct? And WWI _really_ started due to political machinations and economic competition between various European countries throughout the 19th century, yes?

    Listen dipshit, for Americans both historically and psychologically WWII begins with Pearl Harbor. Mince words all you want. Cut and paste ginormous swathes of text.

    As mentioned above, you’re nothing but a bullshit peddler and a tedious one at that.

  • Manju

    “And when you asked me about it I referenced FDR’s Lend-Lease policy and opposition to Neutrality Laws, both of which occurred before Pearl Harbour but during WWII. changed the subject.”

    In what bizaare world is lend-lease and neutrtality laws a change of subject from WWII? They are pieces of legislation directly related to the War. By Stalin’s estimation, without the former, WWII would’ve been lost.

    PBS.org referenced them both, in their section about…well…WWII.

  • Manju

    I just pointed out that once again you know nothing of American history. “Interventionism” is when you go to war without being attacked (a la Bush I and Bush II in Iraq, or Kennedy in Vietnam). Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, dumbass. It wasn’t the other way around.

    Right, Japan Bombed Pearl Harbor. But WWII didn’t beging at Pear harbor, did it? Neither did US involvement there.

    Allow me to demonstrate the simplemindedness of your narrative by using bland and basic history from pbs.org:

    “The United States officially entered World War II in December 1941, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In reality, however, the United States had been fighting a war against the Axis powers for years. It was a war of words and a war of action, a war of secret meetings and public duplicity. And the prosecutor of this war was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States.”

    As I mentioned, FDR opposition were antiwar isolationists:

    “Roosevelt condemned international aggression, but could do little else. The American public was decidedly isolationist and antiwar…In 1934, Congress passed the Johnson Act, which prohibited loans to nations behind on World War I debt repayment. The Neutrality Act of 1935 forbade the export of arms, ammunition or implements of war to belligerent nations; a 1937 amendment to the act forbade American citizens and ships from entering war zones or traveling on belligerents’ ships.”

    But FDR was decidedly interventionist:

    “In early 1939, Roosevelt asked Congress to repeal the Neutrality Act, so the U.S. could sell arms to the free European forces. Congress refused. In September, World War II began as Germany invaded Poland. Roosevelt spoke before Congress again, and on November 4, it approved the Pittman Bill, which allowed America to sell arms to nations who could pay for their weapons in cash.”

    The historical consensus is that he wanted to intervene, but did not want to appear hawkish:

    Publicly, Roosevelt promised that America would not fight unless attacked…Privately, he prepared America for battle. Roosevelt dramatically increased the defense budget from 1939 on and began to convert America to a military economy. Using powerful industrialists who could skillfully cut through governmental red tape, Roosevelt began to build the “Arsenal of Democracy.”

    His cabinet reflected his interveionists ideology:

    “In early 1940, Roosevelt stacked his cabinet with interventionists like Henry Stimson and Frank Knox, who took over the Navy and War departments. He named Harry Hopkins, an avid anti-Nazi, Secretary to the War Cabinet.”

    Roosevelt acted on his ideology, bypassing Congress, like Bush or Obama. Much of this was discovered later:

    “When France fell to the Nazis in May 1940, Britain stood alone. Roosevelt began a remarkable and voluminous secret correspondence with Britain’s prime minister, Winston Churchill. Although Churchill desperately needed American troops, he asked only for arms and ammunition. Roosevelt responded, using his presidential powers to circumvent the Neutrality Act. The U.S. swapped 50 aging U.S. destroyers in return for British bases in the Caribbean and Newfoundland. The British saw the trade as unfair. But Churchill needed all the help he could get.”

    He worked on the public to convince them that isolationism is wrong and interventionism the right thing:

    “The pact formally established the Axis alliance. Designed to enforce American neutrality, the pact had quite an opposite effect, increasing interventionist sentiment in America. FDR skillfully capitalized on this change.

    “In a December “fireside chat” on national radio, Roosevelt condemned Axis aggression, insisting that its objective was no less than world domination. He asked for military aid for Britain, which was rapidly running out of money to buy arms. Behind the scenes, FDR moved even closer to war. He secretly sent Harry Hopkins to London to plan an Anglo-American war against Germany.”

    “In March of 1941, Roosevelt persuaded Congress to pass the Lend-Lease Act. The act allowed the U.S. to lend the Allies war materials in return for repayment after the war. FDR, understanding Britain’s desperation, began Atlantic transshipment of materials days before signing the bill.

    “Using all of his political ingenuity, Roosevelt struggled against the constraints of neutrality. In April, he gave the Navy permission to attack German submarines west of 25 degrees longitude. That same month, the U.S. and Denmark agreed to place Greenland under American protection. In July, the U.S. occupied Iceland. On August 14th, the Selective Service Act, which allowed a peacetime draft, passed Congress by a single vote.”

    Historians agree that FDR wanted the Axis powers to attack the US:

    “That same August day, the Atlantic Charter was made public. Signed during a secret five-day conference at sea between Roosevelt and Churchill, the charter called for national self-determination and stated that aggressor nations should be disarmed. If this was not a declaration of war, it was close. Roosevelt hoped it would provoke the Germans to war on America.

    “On September 4, 1941, the first clash came. The Greer, a U.S. destroyer, spotted a German submarine and called in a British plane to bomb it. The sub and the destroyer exchanged fire, with little result. But Roosevelt used the incident to further his intention to get America into the war. On October 17, German subs attacked the U.S. destroyer Kearney as it escorted a British convoy. Several crewmen were injured. On October 31, Nazi subs sank the U.S. destroyer Reuben James, killing 115 men.”

    And all that happened before Pearl Harbor:

    “A little over a month later, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would overshadow America’s first Atlantic battles. The U.S. would declare war. But in no small way would the Allies’ eventual victory in the declared war be attributable to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s prosecution of the unofficial one. With years of public speaking, private maneuvering, political lobbying and presidential action, FDR had helped save Britain and perhaps the world from Nazi domination, all while his country remained at peace.”

    Got that. FDR waged a partially-secret war before Pearl harbor. This is basic history that everyone should know. Ergo, FDR’s behavior during WWII demonstrates that he was an interventionist.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/32_f_roosevelt/printable.html#foreign

  • Quaker in a Basement

    And when you asked me about it I referenced FDR’s Lend-Lease policy and opposition to Neutrality Laws, both of which occurred before Pearl Harbour but during WWII. changed the subject.

    Yr wlcm!

  • http://wetcasements.wordpress.com Jaim

    Actually Kennedy didn’t declare war on North Vietnam, but I won’t beat around the bush and deny that he’s the US president responsible for starting our engagement their re: sending troops.

  • http://wetcasements.wordpress.com Jaim

    “And Jaim demonstrates my point.”

    I just pointed out that once again you know nothing of American history. “Interventionism” is when you go to war without being attacked (a la Bush I and Bush II in Iraq, or Kennedy in Vietnam).

    Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, dumbass. It wasn’t the other way around.

    But it’s kind of a far cry from the thread topic, don’t you think?

  • unllaw

    THANK YOU…THANK YOU….THANK YOU!!! I made similar comments right after the POTUS speech was done. I didn’t waste time. What you are saying O is a reality. The tea party has preached and preached how ineffective Dems are/were in the war on terror. Oops. And this isn’t political? From the same people and party that made 9/11 a punchline?!? Give me a break. THANK YOU.

  • Manju

    as if WWII is somehow evidence of a pattern of interventionism. Let’s get beyond insisting that any ol’ crap we decide to throw down is evidence in support of our preferred narrative. Things aren’t that simple either.

    Right. And when you asked me about it I referenced FDR’s Lend-Lease policy and opposition to Neutrality Laws, both of which occurred before Pearl Harbour but during WWII.

    I understand Pearl Harbour made America’s declaration of war justifiable even in the isloationist framework, but that was not FDRs postion. Lend Lease is generally considered the end of American neutrality and Stalin himself said the policy was critical to Allied victory.

    I agree with FDRs policies but I don’t feel the need to push a 3rd grade narrative that US invovlement in WWII began with Pearl Harbour. i understand that bringinug up these facts makes one vulnerable to charges of seeing the world thru Japanese facsist lenses, as this could justify their attack. Ergo Jaim deploys, “Manju lives on a planet where the US sneak-attacked the Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbor.”

    And Jaim demonstrates my point. For better (interverventionism, fiscal responsibility) or for worse (Jim Crow, Nationalism) Dems are often better at behaving in a RWIng manner than the Right itself.

  • fafaroo

    Hey, ridiculous diversions are a lot easier than actual discussion. How about that…

    Well, gosh, Buzz, who do you think started the “ridiculous diversion” in this thread? You didn’t even try to engage Oliver on the point of his post. Instead you criticized him for even making it.

    The fact that you couldn’t bring yourself to offer the same criticism at even one conservative site when the link was provided to you, is enough for me to know that you’re just a clown incapable of real discussion.

  • Nimrod Gently

    These need repeating over and over:

    George W Bush on OBL March 2002 “I truly am not that concerned about him…. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.”

    July 2006, Bush administration closed its unit that had been hunting bin Laden.

    September 2006, Bush told Fred Barnes that an “emphasis on bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.”

    John McCain July 2008 “I’m not going to go there (to find OBL) and here’s why: because Pakistan is a sovereign nation.”

  • Randy Brown

    DA…that’s TWO “Animal House” references today that went completely over the heads of the Omegas at which they were directed!

  • Zython

    liberals wanted Gitmo closed and detainees tried in court (despite the huge risk they’d be found innocent and released)

    Why do you hate the U.S. justice system so much? Apparently, conservatives believe the Minority Report had some good ideas…

    all the anti-war loons on the Left who begged Barry to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan in ’08.

    You…you do realize that Bin Laden was found in Pakistan, right? Which I remind you, since you guys aren’t very good at geography, is an entirely different country.

    Face it, we’ve gotten far better results from 2 1/4 years of Obama’s foreign policy than 8 disastrous years of Bush’s policy of drunken rampage.

  • Marco21

    Thinkprogress has a good run down of the right wing bullshit tweeted and spoken today. They couldn’t show a moment of class if trapped under a crumbling high school.

    http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/02/right-reax-bin-laden/

  • isms

    I’m glad it’s political and that Obama won another round. Finally. Bush and pace maker Cheney “tried” for years, but failed. Two years on the job, and under Obama’s watch, mission accomplished. Country AND Party win. Doesn’t get better than that folks. After what the scumbags put him through, fuck them I say.

  • Burn

    When was the last time something happened anywhere in the world and the GOP didn’t try and take advantage of it politically?

    They’re all in very dangerous waters here. How do they feed their core base of slobbering racists a bone when this is clearly very good news for the US?

    Again it’s hysterical watching them all have to give props to Obama for this. They really really don’t want to but they have to.

    “Why did they do it sooner?” will probably be the lead whine.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    On a side note, the Republicans are the kings of politicizing things. When was the last time something happened anywhere in the world and the GOP didn’t try and take advantage of it politically?

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    Buzz: “So unless I post a similar comment on every such blog post on every site on the internet, I’m a hypocrite?”

    If one side starts something and the other responds, if you complain about the response while ignoring the initiating act, then yes, you are a hypocrite.

    OW didn’t politicize this, he’s responding to people who are politicizing this.

  • Buzz Killington

    And yet you criticize him but not the hack at Wizbang, or any of the many, many right hacks parroting the same lines all over the internet today in complete defiance of the facts as we know them.

    So unless I post a similar comment on every such blog post on every site on the internet, I’m a hypocrite? Going off the rails looks fun, so I’ll try it too: I have made a similar comment on every blog post on every site on the internet, but not necessarily under the same name.

    Hey, ridiculous diversions are a lot easier than actual discussion. How about that…

  • Burn

    Pop culture reference, Manju

    I always forget how ‘with it’ conservatives are.

  • Willie Stark

    Woodrow Wilson was the prototypical liberal-interventionist.

    Whatever a protypical liberal-interventionist is.

    And not until after the War. Remember, he was re-elected on the slogan, “He kept us out of war.” (And Teddy Roosevelt all but called him a pussy for it.)

    But yes, the Sedition Act and Internment were wrong.
    So were the Tuskegee experiments, but don’t know what they have to do with national security. Unless, you mean, like segregation, they damaged our international prestige.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    I understand that Peal Harbour changes the equation but lets get beyond jr-high-school level history:

    Hold up there. One of us (and it wasn’t me) wrote: Woodrow Wilson was the prototypical liberal-interventionist. FDR followed with WWII

    as if WWII is somehow evidence of a pattern of interventionism. Let’s get beyond insisting that any ol’ crap we decide to throw down is evidence in support of our preferred narrative. Things aren’t that simple either.

  • http://www.corporate-sellout.com/ Thad

    Fox News reports: black man confesses to murder of elderly homeless man.

    …seriously though, they DID stick a picture of Bush right next to the picture of Obama at the top of their website.

  • Manju

    “Are you directly trying to cast US involvement in WWII as interventionism? Or just trying to baffle us with bullshit?”

    I’m simply putting FDR on the interventionist side of the equation becasue he was. He oppossed the neutrality acts of the isolationists and Lend-Lease predated Pear Harbour.

    I understand that Peal Harbour changes the equation but lets get beyond jr-high-school level history: ie, Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour and Americans went to war. Things aren’t that simple.

    Real history is more complex. i forget when they start teaching youngsters the unsavory details, like tuskeegee, but bringing them up doesn’t mean you think America bombed the Japanese.

  • timmy

    Bin Laden’s body is not buried at sea, people! Obama secretly ordered his dead body be put on ice so that it can be buried under the 911 Mosque. So begins the “righteous caliphate of our umma.” It’s all part of the Muslim takeover of America that Obama is orchestrating.

    A nice meme. Now we need to give it a catchy name.

  • Marco21

    Here’s more reality, if anyone can stand it. Mountain Goat Pam Geller’svery first sentence on the topic yesterday.

    “Breaking -= FOX News is reporting that Muslim leader Osama Bin Laden is dead and that the US has his body. Obama to address the nation, I hope he doesn’t get choked up –”

    It only gets more hateful, wrong and gross from there on, but again, it started in shit anyway.

  • fafaroo

    So, are you agreeing with me, or suggesting that it’s ok as long it’s pro-democrat?

    I’m actually calling you a hypocritical clown for insisting that Oliver not politicize this event while failing to carry this message to your ideological comrades who were politicizing this event even before it was officially announced. I note that you have not cut and pasted your comment here and added it to the thread at Wizbang provided. Why not, Buzz?

    To your larger point, I do not have a problem with a discussion about who this event benefits politically. I just expect that discussion to proceed from reality.

    The hack at Wizbang was criticizing Obama as “missing in action” because the official announcement took longer to occur than he thought it should. Only a clown would use the phrase “missing in action” on the day that Obama was clearly closely involved in the actions that took place. In an update he then called announcement “pablum.” So now, praising our troops, honoring the victims of 9-11 and confirming America’s resolve in the pursuit of justice is “pablum”? Okey dokey.

    On down in the thread, the same hack wrote this in the comment thread:

    I don’t recall hearing that 0bama was part of the team that took down the compound. What I’m hearing is that the team got the go ahead ex post facto.

    Not only does he not cite a source for this information, it’s completely contradicted by everything that’s been reported so far. Once again, politicizing the event in complete defiance of reality.

    And yet you have not seen fit to scold this hack for his politicizing of the event long before Oliver posted his comments above. Why not, Buzz?

    As to Oliver’s actually post, there is no question that Obama’s decision to authorize this mission and its successful conclusion blows a huge hole in the right wing talking point that liberals and Dems are soft on terrorists. Here’s an example:

    Obama’s critics have said that he is a weak leader in general and in particular does not understand what must be done to combat terrorism. “They are very much giving up that center of attention and focus that’s required,” said former Vice President Dick Cheney in March 2009, in a typical remark. Yet what emerges from the details of Bin Laden’s killing (offered, like the heroic accounts of the Bush years, entirely by officials who work for the sitting president) is that from early in his administration Obama was focused on killing Osama Bin Laden and that he was involved in the process throughout.
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_05/029219.php

    Cheney’s attempts to politicize the hunt for Bin Laden was typical of everything the right has been saying for the last ten years and now we know it was all bullshit. All of it.

    In pointing this out, Oliver is basing his comments on reality.

    And yet you criticize him but not the hack at Wizbang, or any of the many, many right hacks parroting the same lines all over the internet today in complete defiance of the facts as we know them.

    You’re a clown, Buzz. A complete clown.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    Pop culture reference, Manju:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGIPCGyihxw

  • Manju

    “Manju lives on a planet where the US sneak-attacked the Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbor.”

    Its hard to figure out what this means? I suspect you think I’m criticizing FDR for entering WWII?

    Or are taking the postion that Tuskeegee and the Internment were justified by WWII, therefore it was unfair for me to bring it up?

  • Manju

    “Manju, was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?”

    was what over? Germans?

  • isms

    Bin Laden’s body is not buried at sea, people! Obama secretly ordered his dead body be put on ice so that it can be buried under the 911 Mosque. So begins the “righteous caliphate of our umma.” It’s all part of the Muslim takeover of America that Obama is orchestrating.

  • Christopher Foxx

    MyGreyGhost: liberals wanted Gitmo closed and detainees tried in court (despite the huge risk they’d be found innocent and released)

    a) Yes, it’s terrible when people who have been found innocent are released.
    and
    2) Such faith you have in the American justice system that you’re unwilling to even risk allowing it to work.

    It’s simple, folks. “Conservatives” don’t believe in or support America’s principles.

  • http://frankdisalleisadummy.wordpress.com/ The Dark Avenger

    Manju, was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

  • isms

    Another impeachable offense.

  • http://wetcasements.wordpress.com Jaim

    Manju lives on a planet where the US sneak-attacked the Japanese fleet at Pearl Harbor.

  • http://www.oliverwillis.com Oliver Willis

    something we like to call FACTS telling us that Clinton passed up a chance to kill him in ’96
    Except the 9/11 commission said there was “no reliable” information to back up that assertion.

    On July 20, ABC radio host Sean Hannity thrice repeated the false claim that former President Bill Clinton refused a 1996 offer from Sudan to hand Osama bin Laden over to the United States. Hannity has previously propagated this claim, for which the 9-11 Commission found “no reliable evidence to support.”

    As Media Matters for America has noted, the false claim originated in an August 11, 2002, article on right-wing news website NewsMax.com that distorted a statement Clinton made on February 15, 2002. While addressing the Long Island Association’s annual luncheon, Clinton said he “pleaded with the Saudis” to accept Sudan’s offer to hand bin Laden over to Saudi Arabia. Sudan never offered bin Laden to the United States, and Clinton did not admit to the Sudan offer in that speech or anywhere else.

  • Burn

    Manju, what fuckin decade do you live in? Every goddamn post I read from you is always 40 years too late.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    Woodrow Wilson was the prototypical liberal-interventionist. FDR followed with WWII

    Are you directly trying to cast US involvement in WWII as interventionism? Or just trying to baffle us with bullshit?

  • http://wetcasements.wordpress.com Jaim

    If Bush II had gotten ObL we’d have a Congressional push to put him on the one dollar bill.

    Your hypocrisy, Teabaggers, knows no bounds.

  • db

    Ghost:

    “liberals wanted Gitmo closed and detainees tried in court (despite the huge risk they’d be found innocent and released)”

    If there’s a “huge risk” anyone would be found not guilty of any crime, I don’t want him detained. If there’s a “huge risk” that means there is not sufficient creditable evidence to convince “12 good men & true” of the guilt of the accused. Which means there the accused is not a (whatever he’s accused of). i.e. he’s AN INNOCENT PERSON.

    If as you have asserted there is a “huge risk” that all of the Gitmo detainees would not be convictible under US law, then you need to release them as you have imprisoned them on your whim.

    Are you really suggesting that any US President ought to have the power to lock up someone on his own say so? Can we go back to the “original intent” of the Founders here?

  • Burn

    Wingnuts, feel free to thank President Obama and the troops for keeping you safe and bringing tyrants to justice.

    Never gonna happen. They cannot bring themselves to admit something so obvious because they still think Obama is one of THEM.

  • Marco21

    Is there nothing you won’t bitch about today, bayvile? No mountain too small, no river too shallow.

  • Manju

    This is an interesting historical post. Despite housing the pacifist left, Democrats have long taken the lead in building the empire. Woodrow Wilson was the prototypical liberal-interventionist. FDR followed with WWII and the major cold war doctrines like containment and MAD were largely democratic affairs. The Right Wing was hampered by isolationism and were generally Johnny-come-latelys to the Empire, including anticommunism.

    This is not unlike the data that demonstrates the Dems are the party of fiscal responsibility, despite republicans having a reputation for being the adults on the matter. Like foreign policy, this may also be a result of Dems being defined by their most extreme element, the socialist-leaning left.

    To further the irony, many of the great atrocities related to foreign policy end up on the Dem side, despite the rightwing having the reputation for inhumanity. Wilson gave us the Espionage and Sedition Acts and segregated the Military. FDR gave us Tuskeegee and the Internment with Truman dropping the A-bomb. JFK/LBJ gave us the bay of pigs, Vietnem, and authorized the FBI to spy on Dr. King because they thought he had communist leanings. JFK tried to stop the march on Washington because he didn’t want American racism to be exposed in front of the USSR.

    In contrast, Ike positioned getting rid of Jim Crow as a national security issue. You can’t be both anti-communist and pro segregation was his point. His most fraught military adventure was sending the 101st airbourne to little rock to integrate their public schools as Gov Faubus stood in the doorway and as LBJ and others Dems demagogued the issue. All this going against his conservative reputation.

    So politics can be quite absurd sometimes.

  • bayvill

    The piece of shit who orchestrated the murder of thousands of Americans is dead today. Yesterday he was enjoying air. That’s how today is better.

    Deep.

  • bayvill

    So much for “look forward, not behind”, eh?

  • Quaker in a Basement

    despite something we like to call FACTS telling us that Clinton passed up a chance to kill him in ’96,

    Good god! I know you like to call bullshit “fact” but that doesn’t make it so.

  • Enlightened Liberal

    Wingnuts, feel free to thank President Obama and the troops for keeping you safe and bringing tyrants to justice.

  • http://wetcasements.wordpress.com Jaim

    As Oliver said, the GOP made 9/11 political on 9/12, not to mention the idiotic “Mission Accomplished” stunt.

    Democrats = adults when it comes to national security (and the economy).

    Please keep shedding your hot tears of impotent rage for all of us to witness here.

  • Buzz Killington

    Which is why you’re posting the same comment at every right wing blog that’s been politicizing this since even before Obama’s speech, right?

    So, are you agreeing with me, or suggesting that it’s ok as long it’s pro-democrat?

  • Burn

    Let’s not forget that all the wingnuts said Obama ‘pals around with terrorists’ a little while back.

    Remember that one, dickheads?

    Of course you don’t.

    I love it. Obama does great by America, and they cannot fucking stand it. They won’t give him ANY credit at all, because they still think he’s some Kenyan Muslim Terrorist appeaser.

    Good luck in 2012, wingnuts. You will SO need it.

    Tell me again that you think Trump will make a good president?

  • Burn

    Ok GreyGhost, I know you’re pretty fucking dumb but here’s one simple little detail, mmmkay? Think you can keep up?

    A Democrat president gave the order to kill OBL. You do understand this much?

    Was it a Democrat who let OBL slip away at Tora Bora? Hmmm?

    Oh, and while you’re being schooled like the punkass bitch that you are, seeing how you’re full of impotent wingnut rage that’s all over the internets this morning, here’s a few blasts from the past.

    George W Bush on OBL March 2002 “I truly am not that concerned about him…. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.”

    July 2006, Bush administration closed its unit that had been hunting bin Laden.

    September 2006, Bush told Fred Barnes that an “emphasis on bin Laden doesn’t fit with the administration’s strategy for combating terrorism.”

    John McCain July 2008 “I’m not going to go there (to find OBL) and here’s why: because Pakistan is a sovereign nation.”

  • Marco21

    The President as candidate: We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda…”

    And as President, he does. GreyGhost and the right wing, including the NRO and Tea Party Nation? Unhappy a terrorist is killed because another talking point bites the dust.

    Sad. Un-American and sad.

  • MrGreyGhost

    So the Left (to no one’s surprise) will take all the credit for capturing killing bin Laden despite something we like to call FACTS telling us that Clinton passed up a chance to kill him in ’96, liberals wanted Gitmo closed and detainees tried in court (despite the huge risk they’d be found innocent and released) and its all the anti-war loons on the Left who begged Barry to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan in ’08.

    Facts aside, many thanks to our men and women in the armed forces and to our former President:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42853221/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/

  • fafaroo

    Explain again … how are things better today than they were yesterday?

    As per Marco, bin laden’s death doesn’t change anything except the fact that there is now no doubt that when the US says it’s going to bring terrorists to justice, it has the means, the will and the patience to make good on it’s word. There is no hiding from US justice. That’s a different world than the one two days ago in which bin laden was alive when some one could still say,
    “ah, you talk a good game but what about bin laden?” will that make a difference in the long run fight against political and religious extremism? Yes. Yes it will. If you don’t think so, then why hunt Bin Laden at all?

    Bayvill, you veered from “stop trying to politicize this,” to “who cares” so fast you must have given yourself whiplash. It’s patently obvious that you’re only thinking of this in terms of politics.

  • TheRealityBasedDave

    In bizzaro world, Bin Laden was killed only because of the ground work done by Bush.
    Meanwhile, in the reality-based world, Bush spewed out his concern in March, 2002: “..Terror is bigger than one person..So I don’t know where [Bin Laden] is..You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. …I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.”

    linky – http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

  • http://wetcasements.wordpress.com Jaim

    ObL was a symbol of jihad for muslim radicals. Our current president ordered the operation that killed him.

    And he did it without playing dress-up in a flight-suit.

  • isms

    We want out country back!

  • Farrod

    ‘Explain again … how are things better today than they were yesterday?’

    4 MORE YEARS!!! That’s how!!! BWAA HAHAHAH HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Marco21

    The piece of shit who orchestrated the murder of thousands of Americans is dead today. Yesterday he was enjoying air. That’s how today is better.

    Embarrassing.

  • Burn

    Explain again … how are things better today than they were yesterday?

    Keep on sulking like the little bitch that you are, you and all the other simpering cowards who think Obama isn’t one of us. Seriously, I knew the asshole wingnuts would do this shit.

    1 – Give all the credit to Bush
    2 – Start whining “How have things changed”

    This is your cheap snap reaction defense mechanism because you know goddamn good and well that this is a major victory for the US, and for Obama and you little brats cannot stand it.

    In your face, bitch.

  • bayvill

    Explain again … how are things better today than they were yesterday?

  • http://wetcasements.wordpress.com Jaim

    Nope, sorry ‘baggers but you will continue to be mocked.

    As noted in another thread, while Obama was pulling the levers of power to kill bin Laden, you were shitting yourselves claiming he wasn’t born in Hawaii.

  • Marco21

    College Republicans ran to the White House last night with signs thanking Bush. While most where shiocked and elated by the news, right wingers first thoughts went to save Bush’s reputation.

  • fafaroo

    In fact, the basis of my point was that this is good news for all Americans and it would have been nice to focus on that for at least half a day before using it as a political weapon.

    Which is why you’re posting the same comment at every right wing blog that’s been politicizing this since even before Obama’s speech, right?

    Feel free to post the same comment to the douchebags at Wizbang:
    http://wizbangblog.com/content/2011/05/01/breaking-osama-bin-laden-is-dead-and-we-have-the-body.php

    We’ll wait.

  • Buzz Killington

    These guys (Like Save, Buzz, and Dennis) will never be satisfied.

    The only dissatisfaction I expressed was with Oliver. In fact, the basis of my point was that this is good news for all Americans and it would have been nice to focus on that for at least half a day before using it as a political weapon.

    If that’s what you meant, then okay, but otherwise please explain.

  • Marco21

    Right, because everyone has proclaimed those things here, bayville.

    Just go to bed and close the blinds if you’re unable to be proud of your country today, teabaggers.

  • bayvill

    This is the kind of silliness to be expected from the “Progressive” Obama worshippers.
    All of our problems are solved. Mission Accomplished. The boys will soon be home from the Wars in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya and Syria. Unemployment will soon be back to 5% and home values will increase. And the banking heists are over.

    Geez.

    But remember gang…it’s them Teabaggers who iz stoopid.

  • Marco21

    “Time and time again they prove themselves to be petulent children, holding their breath until reality confirms to their demands.”

    So true. Like The Brood but not as adorable looking.

    Party before country, it seems. Sad.

  • http://olfroth.blogspot.com Ol Froth

    Had Bush managed to kill bin Laden while he was in office, he’d rightly be able to take the credit (even though he wouldn’t have been the person who actually pulled the trigger). As it is, President Obama is in office, he issued the directive to make getting bin Laden the top priority, and he issued the order setting the operation in motion. He therefore gets to take the credit.

  • Quaker in a Basement

    Faffer, FTW! At 1:52 this morning:

    It’ll be something along the lines of “Bush deserves most of the credit for having the courage to order the torture that got the initial intel five years ago that finally forced Obama’s hand to give his approval after the factto a military mission that was planned and executed without him.”

    Farris, you never disappoint. Or you always disappoint. Something.

  • fafaroo

    After reading a few right wing reactions–Hugh Hewitt couldn’t bring himself to write Obama’s name in his first post on the subject–I am more convinced than ever that conservatives are just assholes. Complete and total assholes.

  • Jen7

    He’s been buried at sea and already the nutters are claiming this was all faked. Even with the breaking news last night, FreeRepublic were attacking Obama. These guys (Like Save, Buzz, and Dennis) will never be satisfied.

  • http://wetcasements.wordpress.com Jaim

    America is safer when Democrats are in charge. And the economy does better to boot.

  • fafaroo

    Indeed. The right is now torn between congratulating Bush and the militarily to the exclusion of Obma and whining that, when you think about it, this is really no big deal.

    Time and time again they prove themselves to be petulent children, holding their breath until reality confirms to their demands.

  • Marco21

    Right wing shit bags can’t even listen to his speech let alone give the President any credit today. So sad when the world is rejoicing that a mass murdering terrorist is no more, the right is butthurt and concern trolling for the previous POTUS.

    Sad bunch of losers.

  • http://www.oliverwillis.com Oliver Willis

    Yes, if we had transferred Gitmo detainees to US prison, somehow we wouldn’t have this info. Or something.

  • fafaroo

    And here we go with the bullshit. Nice try guys.

  • SaveFarris

    Since we’re now “going there”…

    He is dead as a result of actionable intellegence we received from detainees at Gitmo. The same Gitmo that Barack Hussein Obama made it’s closure a top priority. Had he actually followed through on his own naivete, Osama Bin Ladin would still be alive today.

    Kudos to our President for not following his instincts! And to the men and women in the field who did the true heavy lifing.

  • http://www.oliverwillis.com Oliver Willis

    before you made it political
    The GOP “made it political” on 9/12/01.

  • Buzz Killington

    I knew you wouldn’t be able to wait for the corpse to cool before you made it political. Can’t let people share in something unifying for even 12 hours before reminding them they’re enemies on the same team… jeez.

  • C.S.Strowbridge

    I wonder if this will be enough evidence that Obama is working with the terrorists?

    On a serious note, I wonder if this will be enough to convince some potential Republican presidential candidates to give 2012 a pass.

  • http://olfroth.blogspot.com Ol Froth

    And a hearty congratulations to our brave soldiers who carried out the mission and brought bin Laden to his inglorious end.