By Ross Balano, Midwest Voices Columnist 2008
Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama gave a speech today at the Truman Memorial Building in Independence, MO in which he attempted to redefine the term patriotism.
In Obama’s mind patriotism means, in his words, “sacrifice” and “call to service.” These terms, translated, mean higher taxes and more government programs. Grab your wallets ladies and gentlemen.
If this all reminds you of Jimmy Carter you are not alone. Is this Obama’s idea of change? It sounds like more of the same Democrat playbook to me.
Webster defines patriotism as, “love or devotion to one’s country.” When I read that definition, Obama is not a person who comes to mind. In fact considering his pastor of 20 years preaching, “God d*** America,” his wife who says that for the first time in her life she can be proud of America and that America right now is a mean country. That just doesn’t fit the definition of patriotism. One great sign of patriotism is support of our troops and our country in time of war. A patriot doesn’t put blame on his own country nor does he advocate actions that will result in our defeat because it will benefit his political party.
I find it ironic that Obama chose the Truman Memorial Building to make this speech. Truman, after all, was the man who ordered the two atomic bombs dropped on Japan. This was the ultimate act of war killing thousands of innocent Japanese women and children. He didn’t even give them habeas corpus rights. Just BOOM and that’s all folks. Of course these actions did end the war and saved the lives of thousands of American soldiers. That’s patriotic, take the criticism, shrug it off and WIN.
Most Americans know instinctively what patriotism means and they know a patriot when they see one. We don’t see one in Obama.
Delicious
Digg
For those who care about loss of life
Maintaining ground costs fewer soldiers their lives than taking it or taking it back. That is a fact. Ask any soldier. A withdrawl will only save lives if we never go back. Obama says he will go back if need be. The overall death toll will be higher if that happens.
"In Obama’s mind
"In Obama’s mind patriotism means, in his words, “sacrifice” and “call to service.” These terms, translated, mean higher taxes and more government programs. Grab your wallets ladies and gentlemen.
If this all reminds you of Jimmy Carter you are not alone. Is this Obama’s idea of change? It sounds like more of the same Democrat playbook to me."
Are you serious? How does "sacrifice" and "call to service" translate to higher taxes? Never mind the fact that we have a billion dollar a day failed war in Iraq that has to be paid for somehow. What do you consider to be "patriotic?" Illegally spying on citizens? Secret torture prisons? Secret courts without representation? Don't those things sounds familiar to you? Those were the nasty tactics of the Soviets who we we assailed as villains for decades. And now you sit there and pretend those same disgusting and immoral tactics are somehow "patriotic" and complain that a "call to service" and asking young people to commit to public service is horrible because you might have to pay a small tax. You start a war and then don't want to pay for it. Who's going to pay for all of those veterans needs? Why not you? And me? You are exactly the type that wants to run around proclaiming to support the troops, but when it comes time to pay the real bills, you don't want to pay your share. You'd rather have some extra coin for a new flat-screen than help repair roads, bridges, schools, energy independence, or pay for this failed war that you have been cheerleading for 5 years.
Yea, you're a real freakin' patriot alright.
What a Silly Column
Its not even responding the the substance of Obama's speech but using it as a pretext to launch the standard "liberals will take you money and make you get a gay marriage" attacks.
Yes,
patriot in B Hussein Obama's mind = traitor, or big government bureaucrat, there being litle difference.
Nice Balano
Commend you on you inability to make your case.
You are exactly what your party does not need.
Truman? Truman's the reason
Truman? Truman's the reason we can't get an acceptable definition of 'terrorism' out of the U.N., because the U.S. won't sign off on any definition that includes Truman. Unfortunately, that's nearly impossible to achieve. Killing non-combatants to achieve political ends is exactly what Truman did.
Oh-the Department of War's assessment of the situation was that Japan was on its @$$, the number of American lives saved would be negligible, and all we had to do was stand off the shores of Japan until they surrendered or starved. Dropping the bombs wasn't to bring Japan to its knees, it was to scare the living shi'ite out of the Russians.
Par for the course-don't expect conservatives to read anything without lots of exclamation points and brightly-colored pictures.
With all due respect
Edith, what you say is simply not true. Historical records and in fact Truman himself said that the choice was between dropping the bombs or a full scale invasion of Japan.
Truman and the whole military brain trust were convinced that the Japanese would fight to the last man.
On August 9, 1945, Truman issued a statement in which he said, “We have used it (the bomb) in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.”
Prior to dropping the bomb, Truman wrote to his wife on July 20, 1945, "I have to make it perfectly plain to them [Russia and Great Britain] at least once a day that so far as this President is concerned Santa Claus is dead and that my first interest is U.S.A., then I want the Jap war won and I want 'em both in it.”
Did you read that? “my first interest is U.S.A.” Wow, when is the last time you heard a Democrat talk like that? I guarantee you won’t hear it come from Obama.
Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008
Thank you for making my
Thank you for making my point. TRUMAN said the choice was between dropping the bombs or a full scale invasion of Japan. The DoW analysis that he rejected was that there was no need to invade Japan AT ALL, since they were now incapable of feeding themselves and the Allies were perfectly capable of throwing an airtight blockade around the islands.
Truman's Chief of Staff, Admiral William Leahy, as well as Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur denounced the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the strongest possible terms. Leahy's denunciation was particularly scathing; I commend to you Leahy's remarks in his Memoirs.
Ooops! I forgot. Republicans don't read books. They repeat lies till they become true.
"My first interest is U.S.A.," so let's kill tens of thousands of women and children. Sounds to me like Truman was a closet Republican. I hope to Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior, that I never hear a Democrat talk in those terms.
You should expand your library
On the contrary, Edith, we DO read books but we just don’t read books written by anti-American conspiracy theorists like the guy you are reading, Gar Alperovitz.
Let me suggest a book, Weapons for Victory, by Robert Maddox, Professor Emeritus of history at Penn. State University. Professor Maddox did extensive research of official and non official documents and came to the following conclusion, “dissent from Truman's deadly decision among Truman's commanders at the time was, so far as we can tell from current documentary evidence, nil.”
The phrase, “at the time” is the key phrase here. Sure many like Ike and Leahy claimed opposition later (Ike in 1963 and Leahy in 1950) there is no evidence to show that either gave opposition in 1945, or any of the others either.
Back to Alperovitz; although he is the “patron saint” of the anti-nuke crowd, he is all but ignored by serious historians because of two basic flaws in his thesis. First, there is no evidence for it; and second, his use of source material is considered a scholarly disgrace.
The DoW analysis that you speak of is also a figment of someone’s imagination. I direct you to Secretary of War, Henry Stimson’s diary which you can read excerpts from at http://www.doug-long.com/stimson.htm.
Just a couple of quotes:
June 19, 1945, “But there was a pretty strong feeling that it would be deplorable if we have to go through the military program with all its stubborn fighting to a finish. We agreed that it is necessary now to plan and prepare to go through [with an invasion of mainland Japan], but it became very evident today in the discussion that we all feel that some way should be found of inducing Japan to yield without a fight to the finish and that was the subject of the discussion today.”
June 26, 1945, "At the meeting this morning of the Committee of Three, Forrestal, Grew and I were present with McCloy as recorder and Correa as legal adviser for the Navy. I took up at once the subject of trying to get Japan to surrender by giving her a warning after she had been sufficiently pounded possibly with S-1(the bomb). This is a matter about which I feel very strongly and feel the country will not be satisfied unless every effort is made to shorten the war. I had made a draft of a letter to the President on the subject and I read this to the Committee and a long thorough discussion followed. When we got through, both Forrestal and Grew said that they approved of the proposed step and the general substance of the letter. We then appointed a sub-committee consisting of McCloy for the War Department, [State Dept. Japan experts Eugene] Dooman and [Joseph] Ballantine for the State Department, and Correa for the Navy, to draft an actual [surrender] warning to be sent [to Japan] when the time came."
August 2, 1945, "Today I showed to Marshall the report on policy towards Japan which [Edgar] Crossman [of the Civil Affairs Division] had brought me. It had been written by [Air Force] Colonel [de Forest] Van Slyck. I told him that I did not know who the writer was but I thought it was a very good paper. Later I found from Marshall the General [Douglas] MacArthur [who was in charge of U.S. Army forces in the Pacific] has advised somewhat the same policy in dealing with the Japs."
No one will ever know how many lives were saved by the use of the atomic bomb in Japan but it certainly saved thousands of American lives and did end the war by causing Japan to agree to unconditional surrender.
Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008
It helps to actually read
It helps to actually read the books you cite rather than parrot the two review articles that you Googled, and regurgitate chunks of those articles as if they were your original thoughts. Quoting Stimson in support of your nonsense is like quoting Goebbels in support of the thesis that Hitler was actually a warm-hearted patriotic kind of guy. Moreover, are you suggesting that Eisenhower and Leahy lied about their roles later, perhaps to curry favor from pacifists? Or that they should have gone to the New York Times during wartime to expose Stimson's machinations?
Finally, those weren't Japanese soldiers killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those were women, children, and male noncombatants. That DEFINES terrorism.
You get paid to do this. I don't. Get back to defending the convicted criminal you helped put in office in 2000 and 2004.
Don't let hate blind you
First, I have many books on history in my home and more than a few of them are about WW2 and I have read them all plus many that belong to friends or the public library. I like to learn the real history and not just things that support my point of view.
Second, I don’t present anything I read as my own. You might notice that I site all of my sources.
Third, it was you that brought up the DoW, inaccurately I might add, so who better to relate what the Department of War was recommending than the Secretary of War at the time. He was there and he WROTE most of the recommendations. You are 100% wrong in your statement that the DoW analysis was against the bombings. Comparing Secretary Stimson to Goebbles is just plain way out there.
Fourth, please get out your copy of Webster’s Dictionary and look up the definitions of war and of terrorism. Read them both carefully several times and maybe you can learn the difference between war and terrorism. Perhaps you should also read up on how many people the Japanese killed both before and after Pearl Harbor.
Finally, I must have missed the trial, what crime was President Bush ever charged, tried and convicted for? You do realize that those things have to happen in order for one to be a “convicted criminal” don’t you?
Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008
You still here?
You still here?
The Coward In Chief was busted for DUI September 4, 1976, plead guilty, and the conviction was entered into record October 15, 1976. This gives him the distinction of being the only convicted criminal ever elected President. Since you're so fond of dictionary definitions, look up "criminal."
I've heard your nonsense from students many, many times: "Gee, it's just a coincidence that what I wrote and what was in Cliff's Notes are exactly the same." You Googled two review articles and used several phrases verbatim from them. I have considerably more objective evidence for that charge than your nonsense about Gar Alperowhatsis.
For God's sake learn to use the Google and stop hiding behind the dictionary. Wikipedia: "On March 17, 2005, a UN panel described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act."
Goebbels-Stimson: Stimson was not an objective witness, he was the initiator and chief proponent of dropping the bomb. You're in a hole: stop digging.
Finally, step up like a good apologist and tell me how many dead women and children killed deliberately and intentionally to shock the Japanese into capitulation are justifiable to save one, one thousand, or ten thousand American military's lives. Your childish wail that "well, THEY were doing it," is particularly unconvincing in the face of MacArthur's satisfaction with our ability to maintain the blockade.
No fun when the deer shoot back, is it, tough guy?
Edith, Edith, Edith….
The deer you speak of are shooting back with blanks.
Since when does being convicted of a misdemeanor traffic violation make one a criminal? If that were the case I would guess that most of the population could be considered criminals. That’s really a reach. I mean it’s not like he lied to a grand jury or anything like that and lost his license to practice law or anything.
Next you are going to tell me that Wikipedia is a better source than Webster? High school teachers won’t even allow Wikipedia to be used as a reference by students. And the UN, HA, what a laugh. That same group refused to call Yasser Arafat a terrorist for over 50 years. That same group now refuses to treat Al Qaeda as a terrorist group. That is truly a joke.
It makes no difference if Stimson was objective or not. You made the point that the DoW assessment advised against dropping the bomb and I refuted it by quoting the person who was the head of the DoW. Stimson’s diary shows that the DoW was on board enthusiastically for the dropping of the bomb proving your statement false.
Finally, I am not an apologist but in the case of WW2 where the Japanese killed hundreds with an unprovoked attack at Pearl Harbor and in the case of our present war on terror where we were attacked several times without provocation (World Trade Center 1993, USS Cole, “Blackhawk Down” among others) and culminating with the destruction of the World Trade Center and deaths of over 2000, I say UNAPOLIGETICALLY that I wouldn’t trade the life of even one of our brave men and women in the military for the lives of every person on the side of those aggressors. I, like Truman, love the U.S. first. If we would have had to kill every Japanese person to win that war then so be it. If we have to kill everyone on the side of the terrorists now to safeguard our country and our own innocent women and children then so be it. Nobody, not me, not anyone I know wants it to come to that but if that’s what it takes then that’s what should be done.
Anyone who would put the lives of the enemy as more important than that of one of our own soldiers is un-American and certainly not a patriot.
Put some real ammo in your gun (of course you probably don’t own one because you don’t believe in the second amendment either) or quit pulling the trigger.
Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008
READ THE DICTIONARY YOU LOVE
READ THE DICTIONARY YOU LOVE SO WELL-HOW DOES WEBSTER DEFINE "CRIMINAL"?
IT WAS A DUI, YOU FOOL. HE ENDANGERED HIS LIFE AND THOSE OF OTHERS.
WHAT OTHER PRESIDENT WAS ELECTED WITH AN ARREST RECORD?
WIKIPEDIA DIDN'T INVENT THE UN QUOTE.
Is any of this coming through?
STIMSON'S QUOTE "PROVES" NOTHING OF THE SORT. IT WAS HIS DIARY. HE WAS AN UNOBJECTIVE WITNESS.
THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR WAS AGAINST A MILITARY TARGET, AS WAS THE ATTACK ON THE COLE AND THE ATTACK IN SOMALIA.
Be aware, you fool, that you are now on record as advocating the murder of innocent civilian noncombatants to further U.S. interests. You can bet I've got the screen shot. How many other conservatives do you think are going to sign off on that one? You are a coward and a weakling. You can own all the guns in Christendom and it's not going to save you from your moral bankruptcy.
Again, watch your @$$. I own your quote about killing every Japanese person to win the war, you genocidal clown, and absent a public apology you're going to see that one again and again.
Threats now?
I’ve come to expect the name calling but now you threaten me? I believe that crosses a line Edith.
Still, I stand by my comments. You should be sure to quote me accurately and in context though.
Ross Balano Midwest Voices 2008
Do You Kill Them Quick, or Have Some Fun with Them First?
No, sweetie, you crossed a line. You explictly stated that you accept genocide as an unfortunate but possible strategy in wartime. Hitler was willing to confine himself to Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals; even your boy Schickelgruber never advocated murdering every Allied man, woman and child as a regrettable but potentially necessary contingency.
You needn't concern yourself with my accuracy, since, as noted, I have a screenshot of those remarks. You're now going to discover whether the Star, Republicans in general, conservatives in particular, and any Americans of Japanese descent among your readership think you're a swell guy whose remarks deserve commendation, or a public embarrassment to actual patriots.
Your numbers are way short...
The planned invasion of Japan was called Operation Downfall. The number of American deaths predicted, on the low side was 250,000 with a potential of over 1,000,000 casualties and deaths.
I'd rather they keep "conservatives" like Ross ...
if only to demonstrate how willfully stupid the right is on most matters.
Heckuva job, Baloney!
Oh Ross...
You're going to have the liberals screaming and demanding the Star fire you... again. LOL