Ben Stein on "The Lynching of the President"

The American Spectator ^ | January 25, 2007 | Ben Stein

[seanmerc]

The Lynching of the President By Ben Stein

So there I was, lying in my bed in Malibu with my dogs, watching Mr. Bush's State of the Union speech. I thought it was darned good. Realistic, gracious, modest, sensible. I happen to think we should get out of Iraq yesterday, but I thought Mr Bush put forward his case well. And Congress responded graciously and generously on both sides of the aisle.

Then, whaam, as soon as the speech was over, ABC was bashing him, telling us how pathetic he was, how irrelevant he was, how weak he was, how unrealistic he was.

Right after that, Jim Webb gave a very short speech biting Bush's head off -- but not making any concrete proposals about anything. No network person mentioned how simple minded and unrealistic he was.

Then, tonight, the next night, I walked into the kitchen where my wife had left the radio going with NPR to amuse the cats. NPR was having a call-in show talking about the State of the Union. The first speaker I heard was a country music legend, Merle Haggard, who said he had never seen things so bad in this country. Then a legion of anonymous callers chimed in with similar thoughts.

And suddenly it hit me. The media is staging a coup against Mr. Bush. They cannot impeach him because he hasn't done anything illegal. But they can endlessly tell us what a loser he is and how out of touch he is (and I mean ENDLESSLY) and how he's just a vestigial organ on the body politic right now.

[Lewite]

Reply to post #42
I sure hope we can find some men who are conservative, honest and "clean" to run for us. We do not need any more liberals taking up space in the White House.

[Puddleglum]

Stein has clear and amazing insight.

Yes, he says in a few words what my brains has been fulminating about. He is smart and REASONABLE.

[Eroteme]

People aren't tired of the war, they're tired of what they are hearing about the war. They're tired of the media.

A most concise and insightful analysis. Exactly.

[amchugh]

"Pussied out in Cuban Missile Crisis, giving Krushchev our missiles in Turkey and Italy in return for dismantling Russia's in Cuba."

You really think we could've won that one without concessions, and/or going nuclear? What's in it for the Soviets?

[amchugh]

I think his preoccupation with the deficit/debt is what fuels his anti-tax cut rhetoric. I could almost agree with him, as an increase in government borrowing makes tax relief into something more like tax suspense. However, the government loaning money into the private secter should theoretically boost the economy *fingers crossed*. What I'd prefer is a reduction in government spending across the board, but I don't think that's likely under any administration. Particularly big government neo-con.

[alwaysconservative]

Thanks for posting this WONDERFUL article; I agree that Mr. Stein is a national treasure!

[JOE6PAK]

left the radio going with NPR to amuse the cats.

I do the same thing whenever we take a weekend trip.The libs prattle on and on to no end.

To the cats, it sounds like the kids home for dinner.

[Eagles6]

Actually, Ben does seem to be saying that the war is a huge mistake. I'll still keep reading his columns, but...

[dsc]

Thanks.

[dsc]

"MacArthur should have been fired months before, when after the Inchon landing he failed to cut off the North Korean army from fleeing north. Instead of driving across the penninsula, MacArthur wasted weeks taking Seoul. "

Let's not forget that one argument against the Inchon landing was that troops had to be pulled out of the Pusan Perimeter. We were still desperately undermanned and undertrained, thanks to the "cuts to the bone" of the Truman administration. After that, there was fierce resistance in Seoul. The fighting was house-to-house, and slow. Gunfire could still be heard in the background when Mac flew to Seoul to "officially" return the city to Rhee.

I very much doubt that logistics could have been arranged to allow us to fight all the way across the penninsula at that time. But for Mac's genius in pulling off the Inchon landing **at all** when nobody thought he could, that war might have taken 5 years just to fight northward from Pusan to the 38th parallel.

"Then, he further screwed up by disobeying orders and advancing all the way to the Yalu River. "

I always have to think about the possibility that someone has information that I don't, but my take on that is, I don't think Truman ever ordered him directly and clearly not to advance to the Yalu. If the Chinese had *not* come into the war, Truman would have endorsed Mac's actions.

That said, Mac should have known that the Chinese were telling us they would come into the war if we advanced to the Yalu. The signs were clear. I blame Willoughby, Mac's intel officer and one of the Bataan Gang to whom Mac was unfailingly loyal.

Scuttlebut is that it was Willoughby who kept intel from getting to Mac telling him that the Korean War was imminent, and that the entry of the Chinese was a virtual certainty. Even so, Willoughby was of course Mac's subordinate, so the buck stops there.

My opinion is that the main problem was that a mediocrity like Truman simply could not abide a great genius like MacArthur.

[dsc]

"Indeed, didn't Einstein abhor war?"

Einstein was a signatory to the letter sent to FDR that precipitated the Manhattan Project. He was at least wise enough to see that it would be a disaster if the Nazis developed the a-bomb first, and that the thing to do was develop it before they did.

That said, I have heard him called "a moral idiot."

[dsc]

"You really think we could've won that one without concessions, and/or going nuclear?"

Yes.

"What's in it for the Soviets?"

Survival. Thanks mainly to the CIA, we consistently overestimated Soviet capabilities throughout Cold War I. The Soviets knew, though, that their missiles were inaccurate and their warheads iffy.

They probably would have been able to inflict some damage on us, but they would have ceased to exist...and they knew it.

[dsc]

Oh, I forgot to mention...the only reason Krushchev pushed things that far was that he knew Kennedy was his beeyotch.

[since 1854]

MacArthur should have bypassed Seoul to get across the penninsula. If he had the wherewithal for street fighting in Seoul then he could have gotten across the pennsinsula in time to cut off the North Koreans.

Don't overstimate MacArthur. He's the "genius" whose planes were destroyed on the ground the day AFTER the attack on Pearl Harbor. Also, he screwed up the retreat to Bataan so badly that he left behind in Manila the year's supply of food his troops were supposed to take with them.

[seanmerc]

Hopefully there's somebody following Webb with a video camera at every one of his public appearances.

[dsc]

"MacArthur should have bypassed Seoul to get across the penninsula. If he had the wherewithal for street fighting in Seoul then he could have gotten across the pennsinsula in time to cut off the North Koreans."

I really don't think that's true at all. Mac's supply line had to go through the port of Inchon. If he had bypassed Seoul, he would have left a NK stronghold athwart his supply line. His supply line would certainly have been seriously harassed, if not cut entirely, leaving whatever troops he had sent past Seoul completely surrounded with no supplies and no one to bail them out.

It's not like all the NK troops were south of the 38th. Any troops sent past Seoul could have been attacked from all four directions.

I don't know where you heard that idea, but I can't believe that anyone even remotely acquainted with military science would endorse it.

"Don't overstimate MacArthur. He's the "genius" whose planes were destroyed on the ground the day AFTER the attack on Pearl Harbor."

Actually, half were caught on the ground while refueling. This was just one of those fortunes of war to which all are subject.

"Also, he screwed up the retreat to Bataan so badly that he left behind in Manila the year's supply of food his troops were supposed to take with them."

Well, I don't know where you got that. Source?

[since 1854]

As for MacArthur's decison to get bogged down in Seoul rather than bypass it, What Would Patton or Rommel Have Done?

The plan had always been to retreat to Bataan, but MacArther decided at the last-minute to forget the plan and try to defend the beaches. When he realized it was impossible to defend the beaches he scrambled back to Bataan but there was no time to bring the stockpiled supplies from Manila. Anyone even remotely acquianted with military science would have known that.

Cheers,

[dsc]

"What Would Patton or Rommel Have Done?"

Patton and Rommel were cavalrymen, and the first rule of cavalry tactics is that you don't attack without infantry support.

They might have made raids behind enemy lines, but they wouldn't have let themselves get cut off and wiped out, which would have happened if Mac had bypassed Seoul.

"MacArther decided at the last-minute to forget the plan and try to defend the beaches. When he realized it was impossible to defend the beaches he scrambled back to Bataan"

Once again I find myself asking you to provide a source.

"Anyone even remotely acquianted with military science would have known that."

Anyone even remotely acquianted with military science would be acquainted with a specific detail of history?

Sorry, doesn't follow. To be effective, an insult needs to be at least logical.

[since 1854]

Here is an example of many such sources on the internet:

"When the Japanese landed at Lingayen, MacArthur abandoned the beaches plan within two days. Some strategy! MacArthur also wouldn't invoke the Orange plan WPO-3 until December 24th after the Japanese had landed in force at 9 points. He lost 500,000 rounds of artillery ammunition, and 3,400,000 gallons of oil and gasoline plus food, clothing and medicines on the beaches. At the single depot at Cabanatuan, he left fifty million bushels of rice, enough to feed all the troops on Bataan for four years. Just 70 miles from Bataan quartermasters found 2000 cases of canned fish but were ordered directly and repeatedly by MacArthur's headquarters to abandon them or face court-martial. Besides not supplying Bataan, MacArthur went to extraordinary lengths to make sure no food was taken there. He deliberately starved his men."

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/6315/bataan.html

[Purple GOPer]

Things have been real busy, So I haven't been able to keep up with the posts. Here is a good one

Ben Stein Ping!

This is an infrequent ping list for Ben Stein’s current articles.

Tell me if you want on or off.