Presidential Criticism

The Theodore Roosevelt Association ^ | May 7, 1918 | Theodore Roosevelt

[NMC EXP]

Recently several people have written to ask us about a viewpoint TR had on criticism of the presidency. This quote was part of an editorial he wrote for the "Kansas City Star" durning World War I.

"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the Nation as a whole.

Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

"Roosevelt in the Kansas City Star", 149
May 7, 1918

[NMC EXP]

After our recent discussions in which the patriotism of those critizing the president's decision to declare war on Iraq was questioned, I thought you would find this enlightening. It was written by a president who actually led troops on the ground in combat.

My opinion of Teddy Roosevelt is that he was a patriot and a straight talker.

What is yours?

Regards

J.R.

[NMC EXP]

FYI

[William McKinley]

I believe that Theodore Roosevelt was a man with good points and bad points. He was exceedingly moral, which was good. He also greatly, more than any other President save FDR, expanded the power of the office of the Presidency, which was bad. He almost single handedly provoked war with Spain, a war that we kicked butt in and that I am grateful for the spoils of but still was probably a war that could easily have been avoided. And he gave the Presidency over to Woodrow Wilson, with tragic results for the entire world.

Suffice it to say that while I do appreciate the second Vice President of my namesake for the virtues he had, I also realize that he also had some rather sizeable negatives, and on net I think he did more harm than good.

[NMC EXP]

Suffice it to say that while I do appreciate the second Vice President of my namesake for the virtues he had, I also realize that he also had some rather sizeable negatives, and on net I think he did more harm than good.

I agree. Given the pending imperialist war with Iraq I find these comments by TR (another imperialist) ironic.

Wasn't the Monroe Doctrine applicable only in the western hemisphere? The Bush Doctrine however is global.

Welcome to his daddy's "new world order".

Regards

J.R.

[highpockets]

In this modern world in which we live is it possible for a nation whose economy is the engine which powers every other government ever able to not think globally?

[William McKinley]

Sorry, I do not buy into the imperialist war nonsense.

[William McKinley]

I think my reply there may have been unintentionally ambiguous.

Sorry, but I do not agree with the "imperialist war" propagandizing that you are selling.

[NMC EXP]

In this modern world in which we live is it possible for a nation whose economy is the engine which powers every other government ever able to not think globally?

"Think globally" is a cute little sound bite catch phrase. What does it mean?

Of course, a nation must be aware of it's surroundings...both threats and opportunities and be ready to respond to both within the framework of a rational, Constitutional foreign policy.

If you include "nation building", "nurturing democracy", acting as "globocop" and engaging in imperialism within your definition of "thinking globally" then we disagree.

Regards

J.R.

[kayak]

Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."

I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. Now if we could just get the media and the 'rats to tell the truth about the President!

To criticize the President, any President, is good and necessary ...... but to attack him and use outright lies to do so is quite another matter.

Btw, the dictionary definition of imperialism is (per Merriam-Webster): the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas; broadly : the extension or imposition of power, authority, or influence

President Bush has said repeatedly, in speech after speech, that our intent is not to conquer and dominate but to liberate.

[Long Cut]

I am a great admirer of TR. That said, I find it reprehensible that you would use the words of this great patriot (who would have, in the wake of Black Tuesday, probably ordered the destruction of every major Arab and Muslim city, such was HIS seriousness of purpose) to further impugn and attack those patriots here who, while having endless patience for the free exercise of speech, know when such speech crosses that line into sedition.

I notice that you've begun to use the old "imperialist" and "globalist" buzzwords of the vile Leftists who tried to rip apart our country in the past. They are as wrongheaded and nonsensical now as then, if not more so.

If you're so convinced that our cause is so evil, why are you not now at the side of Saddam, ready to rescue him and his nation from the Conquerors? Why have you not chained yourself to the gates of one of his palaces, to protect his weapons?

I think we both know the answer. It has to do with the courage of one's convictions.

To all,there is nothing here of interest.

[NMC EXP]

Sorry, but I do not agree with the "imperialist war" propagandizing that you are selling.

That is quite all right. I do not buy the unsubstantiated allegations that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks or that it poses a threat to the US.

It is a fact that Iraq contains the worlds second largest reserve of oil.

Go figure....

Regards

J.R.

[NMC EXP]

I am curious. Are you an officer?

Regards

J.R.

[William McKinley]

As far as I have heard, no one from the administration has claimed Iraq was behind 9/11. And as to why that should be considered the bar is difficult for me to understand.

As for if Iraq is a threat or not, I think that answer is obviously yes. As is North Korea (hey, look at that, another Aix of Evil country just showed why we do need to address these things).

As for the fact that they have a lot of oil, so what? We get a lot of oil from them already. We could continue getting oil from them without too much of a fuss, and certainly without going after them.

The people who should be using force to get at the oil, by the way, are the Iraqi people, who live in poverty and without food and medicine while Saddam gets rich off of his oil profits.

Do you realize that you sound like someone who should be at the first showing of "Bowling for Columbine", a typical Michael Moore sycophant?

[woofie]

Your quote is actually from William Randolph Hearst

[Miss Marple]

When I see the use of the term "daddy's" I immediately understand where you are coming from, and therefore choose not to getinto a futile discussion. As has been pointed out to you, the policy of this government is not imperialism.

And the fact that Iraq has oil is an accident of fate. Do you you want to tell me that oil countries get a free pass on their behavior, because of their oil?

[COB1]

"If you include "nation building", "nurturing democracy", acting as "globocop" and engaging in imperialism within your definition of "thinking globally" then we disagree."

How about if we just call it "war on terrorism"?
Wouldn't that be a kick?

[Long Cut]

Someone with some MILITARY EXPERIENCE could look at my homepage and tell you the answer to that.

[Long Cut]

Is that right? Well, call me surprised.

I've seen that quote OVER and OVER on FR, posted by the Saddam Supporters repeatedly, attributed to TR every time. Are you saying that they're LYING?!?!(gasp!)

I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED!

[COB1]

I think I've read nearly all, if not all, of the threads on FR about our upcoming struggle with Iraq.
I've not seen one George Bush supporter say that we should never criticize our President.
We all have some points of contention with him.
BUT.......in this war on terrorism we are behind him 100%, not only because we think it's the best route, but also because we have men and women in harm's way at this very minute whom we must support.

[NordP]

This guy is absolutely right.

That said...if he said any thing bad about President Bush, IMHO, I think he's wrong. End of story....wouldn't find his editorials worth my time, either.

If I felt really bad about the whole thing...I'd probably go out and do some community service, as my wonderful President suggested we do. Combating good with evil is always a great thing...AND, as a bonus...YOU will feel much better because of having done so!