Stabbed In The Back? Kevin Baker Is A Hack
Kevin Baker wrote ‘Stabbed in the Back!The past and future of a right-wing myth’, for the June issue of Harper’s. I have a bit of a problem with his theory!
Franklin Roosevelt and his fellow liberal internationalists had sounded the first alarms about Hitler, but conservatives had stubbornly”even suicidally”maintained their isolationism right into the postwar era.
To give you a bit of history here, this is a headline from December 4, 1941, the source for the author was the verbatim copy of Rainbow Five, the top-secret war plan drawn up at FDR’s order by the joint board of the United States Army and Navy:
On December 4, 1941, the Chicago Tribune headline was blazing with extraordinary news: FDR’S WAR PLANS! The story detailed a heretofore secret document prepared by the Army and Navy in which a ten-million man army would be raised, half of which would invade Europe in 1943. The Tribune reporter, Chesly Manly, even reprinted the cover letter of the plan, a note from the President authorizing its preparation. The public outcry was deafening. This from the man who had vowed during his fight for a third term that he would “never” send American troops to fight in Europe!
To give you more background, here are some quotes from the campain trail in 1940, quote that got him re-elected:
A cornerstone of FDR’s reelection effort in an increasingly isolationist United States, which had learned the hard lessons of Woodrow Wilson’s idealistic but hollow cry of making the world safe for Democracy, followed by the harsh years of the depression at home, was that he would not send American boys to fight in a foreign war.
At Boston Garden on October 29, 1940, Roosevelt said, “When I am talking to you mothers and fathers, I give you one more assurance. I have said this before but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.”
And then, three days later, in Buffalo, FDR declared, “Your president says this country is not going to war.”
Given the facts, you can imagine the outrage of the people. Their POTUS promised them there would be no war…but documents showed that FDR had plotted to enter the war. But how do you get into the war?
FDR’s overriding goal during the summer of 1940 was to recapture the White House for another four year term. That accomplished, he was free to concentrate on his two other main goals, both essential to saving the Western democracies of Europe. The first was to provoke a Japanese attack on the United States, followed by the more crucial goal of inducing Hitler to declare war on the United States.
According to Fleming, until the day before Pearl Harbor, polls showed that 80 percent of the American people did not want to fight either Germany or Japan. Yet, in August of 1941, a crisis was precipitated with Japan when the United States suddenly embargoed all oil shipments to Japan. The moral justification for the embargo just doesn’t stand up, the United States had been supplying Japan with 50 percent of that country’s oil for the previous three years while the Japanese army conquered much of China. Why had the United States been supplying oil to Japan, the aggressor, since that country went to war with China in 1937 if its actions were so egregious?
Time magazine captured the truth of the situation when it quoted the Japanese ambassador in Washington as saying, “All over Tokyo, no taxicab.” The implication was clear, Japan could either capitulate to United States demands regarding China, or fight for oil.
Of course, Time also correctly reported that the United States had no legitimate or moral response to Chiang Kai-chek’s observation that one drop of oil for Tokyo translated into gallons of blood for China.
So let’s recap here..you have 80% of the nation saying no war, their POTUS saying no war, but secretly plotting to get them in..and how about Burton K. Wheeler!
Returning to the Democratic Party Wheeler was elected to to the Senate in 1928, 1934 and 1940. In September 1940, Wheeler helped Charles A. Lindbergh and Norman Thomas (a founder of the ACLU) to form the America First Committee (AFC). I t soon became the most powerful isolationist group in the United States. The AFC had four main principles: (1) The United States must build an impregnable defense for America; (2) No foreign power, nor group of powers, can successfully attack a prepared America; (3) American democracy can be preserved only by keeping out of the European War; (4) “Aid short of war” weakens national defense at home and threatens to involve America in war abroad.
pfft….
July 15, 2006 - 12:28 PM on July 15th, 2006
FDR was no great hero and many have known or suspected for years that he was a fraud. This is one more nail in the coffin of his legacy.
July 17, 2006 - 09:38 AM on July 17th, 2006
FDR is probably the best president of the 20th century, having led the nation through the Great Depression and WW2.
I didn’t see anything new, exciting or explosive in the above. Rehashed old Right-Wing-smear-FDR theories with little credibilty or evidence. YAWN.
Maybe when your party grows up, YOUR side can have a president who is loved and respected by the world and by history.
I doubt it, but maybe…
July 17, 2006 - 09:41 AM on July 17th, 2006
FDR is the single WORST president of the 20th century, and that’s saying A LOT with the likes of Karter and Klinton around….
He single handedly gave the US the welfare state, causing the complete annihilation of the black family, the creeping entitlement mentality that is still sapping america of it’s creativity and work ethic.
Thanks alot, jackass.
July 17, 2006 - 10:05 AM on July 17th, 2006
“FDR is probably the best president of the 20th century, having led the nation through the Great Depression and WW2.”
Gosh, I thought you didn’t like Presidents who plotted to get us into war, especially when the public didn’t want war!
It’s all relative, isn’t it, SF? If it is Leftost-approved, it’s okay, no matter what it is: Corruption, whatever…
July 17, 2006 - 10:24 AM on July 17th, 2006
“Maybe when your party grows up, YOUR side can have a president who is loved and respected by the world and by history.”
Uh, yeah. You mean like Lincoln, and Reagan, for example? I’ll put Lincoln up against FDR any day, and regaan against Karter (heck, throw in Klinton too) any time too.
July 17, 2006 - 10:37 AM on July 17th, 2006
Let’s keep it in the past 100 years. After Lincoln, you guys got squat.
Reagan doesn’t really count; he isn’t loved and respected globaly as much as FDR is.
July 17, 2006 - 01:59 PM on July 17th, 2006
2- You mean the truth?
July 17, 2006 - 02:41 PM on July 17th, 2006
Peejz, history shows the truth and the Left are generally mutually-exclusive. As you start to move left from center, the truth quickly becomes a relative, situational thing. It isn’t the same for any two situations, and it generally depends on the desired outcome as to what constitutes truth. Go a little further Left, and the truth becomes something filtered through Liberal Religious Dogma, their version of the Truth, Orwell-style (there is no truth but their truth). Go even further, and there is no room for anything but dogma. Go all the way Left and there is no discussion, no room for truth at all.
July 17, 2006 - 02:49 PM on July 17th, 2006
I am now waiting for the Democriteic response to post 8, so here it is in advance: “That can be said about your side!”
So I’ll head that one off right now: No, because we are not traitors. We do not intentionally provide aid and comfort to the enemy. We don’t side with then enemy against our own military and LE agencies. Those forms of treason are the venue of the Left in America.
I’m not a big Ann Coulter fan but she nailed it in her book “Treason and the Left”.
July 17, 2006 - 02:52 PM on July 17th, 2006
Robert – I’m impressed, man! I love it, and what I love most about it is that IT APPLIES TO BOTH SIDES.
The further you move RIGHT from center, the truth becomes filtered through all sorts of dogmas – some religious, some secular.
Everything you said about moving left of center can be applied exactly the same for those who move RIGHT of center.
July 17, 2006 - 02:56 PM on July 17th, 2006
“No, because we are not traitors. We do not intentionally provide aid and comfort to the enemy.”
Ohhhhh, but then you lost me with this follow up.
That’s fucking STUPID, Robert.
I guess it’s to be expected with wackos posting on a rightwing blog, but I had hoped for better.
You accuse others of looking at things though filltered glasses, and then deny that your side does it too…
Sad & Pathtetic. Your nothing but a partisan hack, jack!
July 17, 2006 - 03:00 PM on July 17th, 2006
I’m not a big Ann Coulter fan but she nailed it in her book “Treason and the Leftâ€.
LOL…Ann Coulter is a riot!!
TOTAL entertainment.
Too bad she’s a plagiarist.
July 17, 2006 - 03:01 PM on July 17th, 2006
“No, because we are not traitors. We do not intentionally provide aid and comfort to the enemy.”
ad hominem.
Come on, at least TRY…
July 17, 2006 - 03:23 PM on July 17th, 2006
11-Too bad she’s a plagiarist Try to keep up..that was a lie..no truth to it according to the publishing house and writers syndicate!
July 17, 2006 - 03:26 PM on July 17th, 2006
Try? I been hittin’ ‘em over the fence all morning!:razz:
July 17, 2006 - 03:51 PM on July 17th, 2006
You don’t get it, do you? Do you even know what Ad Hom attacks are?
I don’t think so, because if you did, you wouldn’t use them in a discussion. They don’t help out your position, and they make you look stupid.
July 17, 2006 - 03:58 PM on July 17th, 2006
“Try to keep up..that was a lie..no truth to it according to the publishing house and writers syndicate!”
Sometimes beating up on Ann Coulter is about as easy as making a nervous little dog piss itself. (!)
Yeah, I’m sure there wasn’t any truth to the plagiarism charges against Man…I mean, Ann.
Here’s a couple of examples:
From Ann Coulter, talking about what taxpayers have funded: “A photo of a newborn infant with its mouth open titled to suggest the infant was available for oral sex.”
From The Flummery Digest: “The title of a photo of a newborn infant with its mouth open suggested that the infant was available for oral sex.”
From Ann Coulter: “A photo of a woman breastfeeding an infant, titled ‘Jesus Sucks.’”
From The Flummery Digest: “One otherwise tame photograph of a woman breastfeeding an infant was titled ‘Jesus Sucks.’”
From Ann Coulter: “A show titled ‘DEGENERATE WITH A CAPITAL D’ featuring a display of the remains of the artist’s own aborted baby.”
From The Flummery Digest: “‘Degenerate with a Capital D’…included ‘Alchemy Cabinet’ by Shawn Eichman, featuring the remains of the artist’s own aborted baby.”
From Ann Coulter: “Performance of giant bloody tampons, satanic bunnies, three-foot feces and vibrators.”
From The Flummery Digest: “[T]he performance art of Johanna Went…relies upon props such as giant body tampons, satanic bunnies, three-foot turds, and dildos.” (Hey, Coulter’s got a mainstream audience.)
Is this plagiarism? Coincidence?em>
July 17, 2006 - 05:44 PM on July 17th, 2006
I posted the dictionary of “ad hominem” a few weeks ago, so yeah, I know what it means. The problem for you is that I don’t care about it.
You make yourself look stupid every time you opine on a subject that you obviously understand very little about.
July 17, 2006 - 05:54 PM on July 17th, 2006
The dictionary definition, that is.
July 17, 2006 - 08:52 PM on July 17th, 2006
OK then. But just so you know, ad hom “attacks” are weak and UTTERLY ineffective. They may be good for venting frustration Robert, but they make the poster look like an amateur at best, and just plain stupid at worst.
But do as you please, of course.
July 18, 2006 - 07:08 AM on July 18th, 2006
SF,
Too bad she’s a plagiarist.
why the need to pick on Coulter for plagiarism, but not, say…..Michael King?
July 18, 2006 - 11:02 AM on July 18th, 2006
“why the need to pick on Coulter for plagiarism, but not, say:..Michael King?”
Because MLK is a national icon, a figure loved by millions across the globe…
Ann ‘Adams Apple’ Coulter is…revolting.
I don’t think Ann has her own national holiday or any monuments built in her honor over in D.C., either.
July 18, 2006 - 11:34 AM on July 18th, 2006
No, that communist fuckface, plagiarizing, womanizing fraud, MICHAEL KING is revolting.
and the only reason this fraud has a holiday is thanks to the white guilt of libs like you.
My mission is to expose this disgrace.
FUCK MICHAEL KING.
July 18, 2006 - 11:36 AM on July 18th, 2006
apparently, according to your logic, being a “national Icon” immunizes one from criticizm for lawlessness, fraud, deception, etc.
I guess O.J. is innocent, too.
July 18, 2006 - 02:19 PM on July 18th, 2006
If any of you want the Republican Party to attract African American voters, I’d probably recommend keeping Republicans like my buddy Mike Kilo away from a microphone or TV camera…..FYI.
————-
As for MLK’s “offenses”, I’d probably have to pull the greater-good card out on this one:
The good that MLK did for the non-violent Civil Rights movement and for helping to save the soul of our nation from bigotry, VASTLY outweighs any negatives on his part; be they womanizing, plagiarism, etc.
——————————–
MLK helped reshape the nation, for the better.
Being a dick about him puts you into a very small group of very sad people, Mike Kilo. You’d do right if you pulled yourself out of that funk.
July 18, 2006 - 08:13 PM on July 18th, 2006
FDR came up with a lot of good programs. I don’t think he intended them to be permanent though. I know Social Security wasn’t intended to be the entire basis for people’s retirement nor was it intended to be a stand alone program. In his initial plans, he included a privatized account nearly identical to what President Bush proposed and the Democrats ( who are actually enrolled in just such a plan) fought long and hard to defeat despite plenty of historical evidence that it would greatly benefit everyone who enrolled in it.
As for WWII, our involvement, as in the previous war and the current one, was late in coming and our preparation for it was inadequate. However, despite those set backs, our involvement was and is necessary. While the loss of life in any war is regrettable, there are times when war is absolutely necessary to prevent greater loss of life. Does anyone believe that if the US hadn’t entered WWII the Nazis wouldn’t have overrun Europe and eradicated even more than the millions that they did? While the use of the Atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki cost hundreds of thousands of lives, the estimates of casualties in the event of a US invasion were 5 million. 1 million US soldiers and 4 million Japanese.
While many feel/claim that because the stockpiles of WMDs that were believed to be in Iraq haven’t been found, the overthrow of the Hussein regime wasn’t necessary. Hindsight is always 20/20. However, some WMDs have been found as well as the means to produce more. With Iraq’s ties to terrorism, the loss of life was regrettable, but necessary to prevent those WMDs and technology from falling into the wrong hands and ending up on the streets of London, Tel Aviv, NYC or any other city. Considering we haven’t found the source for the envelopes of Anthrax sent to various victims in the early years of this century, who is willing to risk that a weapon of this type might become available to terrorists on a mass scale? BTW Anthrax is a reasonably common disease in the third world.
July 19, 2006 - 08:39 PM on July 19th, 2006
25- Non-violent Civil Rights Movement?
I want you to tell me why I am really disappointed with that statement! And don’t presume to know which way I am thinking…Say that sentence out loud 5 times and tell me it was an honest statement!