Posted on 08/29/2007 6:02:53 PM PDT by SJackson
Something tells me that President Bush did not write the speech he delivered last week at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Kansas City. For one thing, it was relatively coherent. For another, it was steeped in historical references that, while run through the ideological wringer of the neoconservative spin machine, displayed a historical breadth not frequently associated with the most intellectually disengaged president since Andrew Johnson.
But the one section of the speech that made me certain that Bush had nothing to do with its preparation was its attack on journalist I.F. Stone.
Comparing the current quagmire in Iraq with the Korean conflict of more than half a century ago — as part of a new PR campaign designed to build support for maintaining a long-term U.S. military presence in the Middle East, and to cynically portray himself as a principled wartime leader — Bush told the veterans, "After the North Koreans crossed the 38th Parallel in 1950, President Harry Truman came to the defense of the South — and found himself attacked from all sides. From the left, I.F. Stone wrote a book suggesting that the South Koreans were the real aggressors and that we had entered the war on a false pretext. From the right, Republicans vacillated ... and (the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate) later said 'it was a mistake originally to go into Korea because it meant a land war.' "
Anyone who seriously believes that George Bush is familiar with the writings of I.F. Stone and the long and complicated history of U.S. military activity on the Korean Peninsula will surely be among that dwindling percentage of Americans that is convinced weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.
If Bush was familiar with the Korean conflict, he would know that the war eventually became so unpopular that Americans elected a candidate who promised to end it. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, the former supreme commander of the Allied forces in Europe, ran on a promise that he would go to Korea personally with the purpose of putting a stop to the folly that had come to be known as "Truman's war."
Eisenhower did just that. By the following summer, a rough peace was achieved. Unfortunately, more than half a century later, the U.S. continues to spend billions of dollars annually to maintain a massive military presence in the region.
Bush did not criticize Eisenhower in his speech to the VFW, presumably because he is no more familiar with the 34th president than he is with I.F. Stone. But if he does actually develop an interest in that period, the current president might be intrigued by some of his predecessor's statements from the era. "When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war. ... War settles nothing," explained the old military man.
Eisenhower rejected the argument that keeping up the fight in Korea was necessary to protect America, and he counseled that a permanent commitment to fighting abroad would cost America dearly.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed," Eisenhower declared in the spring of 1953, as he was dialing down the Korea conflict. "This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. ... This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."
John Nichols is associate editor of The Capital Times, Wisconsin's progressive daily news source, where his column appears regularly.
Au contraire, look at how productive and peaceful the Germans and the Japanese have become after getting a righteous smackdown.
Scumbag.
A short quote from a speech he gave in Canada. If I can find a transcript without too much trouble I'll post a link, I suspect the context and conclusion is, well, different than the authors.
Not surprising. Bush majored in history at Yale, and earned better grades than the dissipated einstein John Kerry. News-hacks, by comparison, are essentially incontinent (and incompetent) when it comes to historical truths.
Second of all... The Trial of Socrates was enough reason for anybody to not consider reading anything else from I. F. Stone.
Thirdly, and lastly, the incessant defining of the circumstances in Iraq as a “quagmire” is nothing less than an example of biased reporting by so called “journalists” who have been anti Bush since way before even 9-11 happened, and by no means should these imbeciles ever be considered seriously.
Duh, maybe the fact that the White House employs a staff of speech writers? (And did so, long before GWB.)
Seriously, no senior politician writes their own speeches; that’s why they employ word-smiths. They do, however, determine the message, edit, and have final approval.
If he actually said it, then I think that pretty much HAS to be the case. Eisenhower certainly knew better.
Oh yeah, what an impressive set of credentials. Associate Editor.Thats slightly more than a minimum wage job. The guy is a zero with an agenda. I suppose he’s a big deal in the left community within Wisconsin. If he plays his cards straight, maybe he can be come an Assistant to the Assistant Associate Editor in, lets say, San Fran.
I happen to be in that "dwindling" portion of the informed public that does believe that Mr. Bush is familiar with Stone's putrid scribblings and that WMD's were found in Iraq. Nichols' sneering doesn't change the facts one bit, and the latter aren't subject to a majority vote.
Exactly, Plus if you taske his statement in context. The 1st WW was settled with the Treaty of Versaille. Which LED to WWII. Actually, that is the exact reason we MUST put these Islamofascist in a grave. Anything less is considered a sign of weakness by them.
Frankly, I don’t want our Soldiers stuck in Iraq for another 50 yrs “keeping the peace”
I am deeply embarrassed, please accept my sincere apologies.
papa Moderators, please pull this terrible mistake. Thank you.
From what I can tell, this is a bogus quote.
I did find that purported quote on some loony-left websites, but the only attribution that I found was to Eisenhower's January 10th, 1946, speech in Ottawa; however, in looking at the text of that speech, the quote does not appear there.
I then did a search of http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org (the official website of Congress's Eisenhower Memorial Commission and which has copies of President Eisenhower's speeches), and that exact string of words doesn't appear there either.
We didn't start the Korean War but we didn't go into it to win (thanks to the newly minted United Nations) and we're still paying for it over 50 yrs later.
I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. Yet there is one thing to say on the credit side - victory required a mighty manifestation of the most ennobling of the virtues of man - faith, courage, fortitude, sacrifice; if we can only hold that example before our eyes; moreover, if we can remember that the international cooperation then so generously displayed points the sure way to the success of the United Nations Organization, then the war can never be regarded as a total deficit.
“I.F. Stone was a flaming Communist who was in the pay of the KGB”
Yep, they financed his paper. I’m sure the author of this article knows nothing about that, or would prefer to pretend that it didn’t happen.
“By the following summer, a rough peace was achieved. Unfortunately, more than half a century later, the U.S. continues to spend billions of dollars annually to maintain a massive military presence in the region.”
Have they ever concluded a peace treaty regarding this war? And the military presence was there to keep the North from overrunning the South, which is what they tried to do in 1950. The author neglects these historical details.
Yes, he does. I believe the President majored in history.
What a relief to have a President with a history major for a change instead of a lawyer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.