To Make War, Presidents Lie

LewRockwell.com ^ | 1 October 2002 | Robert Higgs

[.30Carbine]

I make no bones about what this article lies about. It lies about my president. I don't cotton to that. Do you?

Does the author of the article lie about my president because he is a liberal? a democrat? or just deluded?

How about you? Voting Republican this November?

[Poohbah]

Pearl Harbor could have been properly warned, and the damages significantly reduced and MANY, MANY lives spared, not to mention saving most of not all of the fleet, but hey, then the people might not have been angered enough to jump into the war.

This is where your argument implodes.

When Pearl Harbor was attacked, the US and Japan were at war, solely by Japan's choice. Are you telling me straight-faced that the US public would NOT have gone to war after the following sequence of events?

• 300+ aircraft (what later became known as an "Alpha Strike") on the US fleet base, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii Territory
• Attack on the US Commonwealth of the Philippines
• Attack on the US Territory of Wake Island
• Attack on the US Territory of Guam
• Germany and Italy declare war on the United States

Are you SERIOUSLY arguing this point? Are you really saying that after Japan initiated a large string of attacks on US territories and forces, AND the Germans and Italians declared war on the United States, the American public would NOT fight a war?

[AmusedBystander]

I would like to see a conservative deal in which war with Iraq is traded for withdrawal of U.S. forces from some of the dozens of countries we protect.

I do agree with you that it is time for most of our troops to come home from many countries, but President Bush made his case for stopping Saddam and I happen to agree with him for many reasons which go far beyond what we are seeing in the press. Long term world peace and stability will be served best by getting rid of these wildcards one at a time.

For now, it is time to rally behind our elected leaders who have a larger vision for the future and have selected Saddam as the next domino. Had the last administration stood up to Saddam in 1998 with the same backbone that Bush has displayed, there probably wouldn't have been near as many terrorists thinking that the USA is tired of the fight.

I say finish him off now before he DOES force us into WWIII later. Weakness in the face of organized crime only leads to more organized crime with better weapons.

[ET(end tyranny)]

Pearl Harbor could have been properly warned, and the damages significantly reduced and MANY, MANY lives spared, not to mention saving most of not all of the fleet, but hey, then the people might not have been angered enough to jump into the war.

This is where your argument implodes.

Which part of the above do you disagree with? Are you saying that the same damage and death would have occured even with plenty of warning? Not likely.

What is the timeline for your series of events? Did Pearl Harbor occur first? Had Pearl Harbor not occured but been prevented, perhaps the other events would have been averted as well. What we do KNOW is that Pearl Harbor did NOT have to happen. But, FDR and his cronies made sure that it would.

[palmer]

help to vote in a Republican majority or you are complicit with the Democrats.

I would like to help the Republican party in some other way than supporting a preemptive attack on Iraq. I would argue that the pro-attack faction is helping the democrats by driving away conservatives.

[MeekOneGOP]

What exactly did Higgs LIE about?

He implies in this that George Bush is lying.
I suppose that is an opinion, but one that I don't agree with.
Certainly, given a choice to believe Higgs or to believe Bush, I go with Bush....

Now President George W. Bush is telling the American people that we stand in mortal peril of imminent attack by Iraqis or their agents armed with weapons of mass destruction. Having presented no credible evidence or compelling argument for his characterization of the alleged threat, he simply invites us to trust him, and therefore to support him as he undertakes what once would have been called naked aggression.

Well, David Hume long ago argued that just because every swan we've seen was white, we cannot be certain that no black swan exists. So Bush may be telling the truth. In the light of history, however, we would be making a long-odds bet to believe him.

[Poohbah]

What is the timeline for your series of events? Did Pearl Harbor occur first?

Yes, but in some cases it was only a matter of hours.

Had Pearl Harbor not occured but been prevented, perhaps the other events would have been averted as well.

Hypothesis contrary to fact--the Japanese plans were going to go forward no matter what the outcome of the Hawaii Operation was. (Most Americans forget that Pearl Harbor was not the principle Japanese operation at the outset of the war--grabbing the East Indies and its oil was the decisive operation that dictated all else. Right up to the moment of its success, a sizable chunk of the Combined Fleet's flag staff thought the Hawaii Operation to be a waste of scarce carrier assets on a long-shot gamble, an attitude also held at Imperial General Headquarters.)

What we do KNOW is that Pearl Harbor did NOT have to happen. But, FDR and his cronies made sure that it would.

Actually, we don't, unless you're talking to doctrinaire FDR-hating cranks, who were in turn passed BS by some retired Navy brass in the early postwar era looking to cover up the Navy's dirty linen. The arguments advanced by these folks have only one teensy-weensy problem--they assume that the Department of the Navy's intelligence organs were working at peak efficiency. The facts on record make it very clear that (a) War Plans (RADM turner) was basically running his own intelligence shop (which was NOT his division's job) and actively interfering with all other intel efforts (including those conducted by the people who really DID have the intel job), (b) the Wegener brothers over in Navy Communications were cheerfully interfering with cryptographic and signals intelligence work work (this continued on well into the war), and (c) Admiral Stark did nothing to put an end to these shenanigans. In short, the Navy's intelligence gathering and analysis was broken by intramural feuding and empire-building.

[.30Carbine]

Open war is upon you whether you would risk it or not.

[palmer]

We definitely need to rally behind our leaders, that's for sure. Before that can happen we need a clear connection to 9/11 or an imminent threat, and a realistic occupation plan. In Afghanistan we had the connection and a plan (abbreviated because of the urgency of the situation).

We should also note that our non-war efforts to stop terrorism have been 100% successful AFAIK. The 9/11 failure turned into a massive wakeup call for the agencies which is a clear positive alternative to war.

But I don't believe that terrorists will be impressed by an attack on Iraq. Iraq is weaker since we beat them the last time so we aren't proving anything by attacking. If anything, terrorists will be looking to see if the majority of Iraqis cooperate with the occupation and we are able to effectively suppress internal attacks. That is difficult but would probably gain us some respect.

[ET(end tyranny)]

H.R.4205
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Engrossed Amendment as Agreed to by Senate)
SEC. 576. SENIOR OFFICERS IN COMMAND IN HAWAII ON DECEMBER 7, 1941.

(a) FINDINGS- Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel, formerly the Commander in Chief of the United States Fleet and the Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Fleet, had an excellent and unassailable record throughout his career in the United States Navy prior to the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor.

(2) Major General Walter C. Short, formerly the Commander of the United States Army Hawaiian Department, had an excellent and unassailable record throughout his career in the United States Army prior to the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor.

(3) Numerous investigations following the attack on Pearl Harbor have documented that Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short were not provided necessary and critical intelligence that was available, that foretold of war with Japan, that warned of imminent attack, and that would have alerted them to prepare for the attack, including such essential communiques as the Japanese Pearl Harbor Bomb Plot message of September 24, 1941, and the message sent from the Imperial Japanese Foreign Ministry to the Japanese Ambassador in the United States from December 6 to 7, 1941, known as the Fourteen-Part Message.

(4) On December 16, 1941, Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short were relieved of their commands and returned to their permanent ranks of rear admiral and major general.

(5) Admiral William Harrison Standley, who served as a member of the investigating commission known as the Roberts Commission that accused Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short of `dereliction of duty' only six weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor, later disavowed the report maintaining that `these two officers were martyred' and `if they had been brought to trial, both would have been cleared of the charge'.

(6) On October 19, 1944, a Naval Court of Inquiry exonerated Admiral Kimmel on the grounds that his military decisions and the disposition of his forces at the time of the December 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbor were proper `by virtue of the information that Admiral Kimmel had at hand which indicated neither the probability nor the imminence of an air attack on Pearl Harbor'; criticized the higher command for not sharing with Admiral Kimmel `during the very critical period of November 26 to December 7, 1941, important information . . . regarding the Japanese situation'; and, concluded that the Japanese attack and its outcome was attributable to no serious fault on the part of anyone in the naval service.

(7) On June 15, 1944, an investigation conducted by Admiral T. C. Hart at the direction of the Secretary of the Navy produced evidence, subsequently confirmed, that essential intelligence concerning Japanese intentions and war plans was available in Washington but was not shared with Admiral Kimmel.

(8) On October 20, 1944, the Army Pearl Harbor Board of Investigation determined that Lieutenant General Short had not been kept `fully advised of the growing tenseness of the Japanese situation which indicated an increasing necessity for better preparation for war'; detailed information and intelligence about Japanese intentions and war plans were available in `abundance' but were not shared with the General Short's Hawaii command; and General Short was not provided `on the evening of December 6th and the early morning of December 7th, the critical information indicating an almost immediate break with Japan, though there was ample time to have accomplished this'.

(9) The reports by both the Naval Court of Inquiry and the Army Pearl Harbor Board of Investigation were kept secret, and Rear Admiral Kimmel and Major General Short were denied their requests to defend themselves through trial by court-martial.

(10) The joint committee of Congress that was established to investigate the conduct of Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short completed, on May 31, 1946, a 1,075-page report which included the conclusions of the committee that the two officers had not been guilty of dereliction of duty.

(11) The then Chief of Naval Personnel, Admiral J. L. Holloway, Jr., on April 27, 1954, recommended that Admiral Kimmel be advanced in rank in accordance with the provisions of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947.

(12) On November 13, 1991, a majority of the members of the Board for the Correction of Military Records of the Department of the Army found that Lieutenant General Short `was unjustly held responsible for the Pearl Harbor disaster' and that `it would be equitable and just' to advance him to the rank of lieutenant general on the retired list.

(13) In October 1994, the then Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Carlisle Trost, withdrew his 1988 recommendation against the advancement of Admiral Kimmel and recommended that the case of Admiral Kimmel be reopened.

(14) Although the Dorn Report, a report on the results of a Department of Defense study that was issued on December 15, 1995, did not provide support for an advancement of Rear Admiral Kimmel or Major General Short in grade, it did set forth as a conclusion of the study that `responsibility for the Pearl Harbor disaster should not fall solely on the shoulders of Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short, it should be broadly shared'.

(15) The Dorn Report found that `Army and Navy officials in Washington were privy to intercepted Japanese diplomatic communications . . . which provided crucial confirmation of the imminence of war'; that `the evidence of the handling of these messages in Washington reveals some ineptitude, some unwarranted assumptions and misestimations, limited coordination, ambiguous language, and lack of clarification and followup at higher levels'; and, that `together, these characteristics resulted in failure . . . to appreciate fully and to convey to the commanders in Hawaii the sense of focus and urgency that these intercepts should have engendered'.

(16) On July 21, 1997, Vice Admiral David C. Richardson (United States Navy, retired) responded to the Dorn Report with his own study which confirmed findings of the Naval Court of Inquiry and the Army Pearl Harbor Board of Investigation and established, among other facts, that the war effort in 1941 was undermined by a restrictive intelligence distribution policy, and the degree to which the commanders of the United States forces in Hawaii were not alerted about the impending attack on Hawaii was directly attributable to the withholding of intelligence from Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short.

(17) The Officer Personnel Act of 1947, in establishing a promotion system for the Navy and the Army, provided a legal basis for the President to honor any officer of the Armed Forces of the United States who served his country as a senior commander during World War II with a placement of that officer, with the advice and consent of the Senate, on the retired list with the highest grade held while on the active duty list.

(18) Rear Admiral Kimmel and Major General Short are the only two eligible officers from World War II who were excluded from the list of retired officers presented for advancement on the retired lists to their highest wartime ranks under the terms of the Officer Personnel Act of 1947.

(19) This singular exclusion from advancement on the retired list serves only to perpetuate the myth that the senior commanders in Hawaii were derelict in their duty and responsible for the success of the attack on Pearl Harbor, a distinct and unacceptable expression of dishonor toward two of the finest officers who have served in the Armed Forces of the United States.

(20) Major General Walter Short died on September 23, 1949, and Rear Admiral Husband Kimmel died on May 14, 1968, without the honor of having been returned to their wartime ranks as were their fellow veterans of World War II.

(21) The Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Pearl Harbor Survivors Association, the Admiral Nimitz Foundation, the Naval Academy Alumni Association, the Retired Officers Association, and the Pearl Harbor Commemorative Committee, and other associations and numerous retired military officers have called for the rehabilitation of the reputations and honor of Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short through their posthumous advancement on the retired lists to their highest wartime grades.

(b) ADVANCEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL KIMMEL AND MAJOR GENERAL SHORT ON RETIRED LISTS- (1) The President is requested--

(A) to advance the late Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel to the grade of admiral on the retired list of the Navy; and

(B) to advance the late Major General Walter C. Short to the grade of lieutenant general on the retired list of the Army.

(2) Any advancement in grade on a retired list requested under paragraph (1) shall not increase or change the compensation or benefits from the United States to which any person is now or may in the future be entitled based upon the military service of the officer advanced.

(c) SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING THE PROFESSIONAL PERFORMANCE OF ADMIRAL KIMMEL AND LIEUTENANT GENERAL SHORT- It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) the late Rear Admiral Husband E. Kimmel performed his duties as Commander in Chief, United States Pacific Fleet, competently and professionally, and, therefore, the losses incurred by the United States in the attacks on the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, and other targets on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941, were not a result of dereliction in the performance of those duties by the then Admiral Kimmel; and

(2) the late Major General Walter C. Short performed his duties as Commanding General, Hawaiian Department, competently and professionally, and, therefore, the losses incurred by the United States in the attacks on Hickam Army Air Field and Schofield Barracks, Hawaii, and other targets on the island of Oahu, Hawaii, on December 7, 1941, were not a result of dereliction in the performance of those duties by the then Lieutenant General Short.

[jenny65]

OK...whay lie was told regarding the Gulf War?

Well, what about the claim that Iraq was amassing troops on the Saudi Arabia border after they invaded Kuwait and were ready to take SA? Commercial satellite images showed no troops on the border at all.

Since you asked.

[Poohbah]

Fine. You can cut and paste a Congressional resolution. Gosh. Too bad it doesn't prove your point.

The lack of intelligence information cited in para (3) was a product of the Turner/Wegener/Stark fiasco. Para (3) in no way proves your contention that FDR had advance knowledge of the attack.

[Poohbah]

Well, what about the claim that Iraq was amassing troops on the Saudi Arabia border after they invaded Kuwait and were ready to take SA? Commercial satellite images showed no troops on the border at all.

When were those commercial images taken? At one point, Iraqi troops had actually crossed into Saudi Arabia proper (right after they arrived in Saudi and got sent up to the border with Kuwait, some USMC buddies of mine found the tracks left by Iraqi T-54s).

[pfflier]

The reference to Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and Lyndon Johnson left out JFK. He involved us in the Cold War over a non-existant missile and bomber gap. These four have cost the US a fortune in resources and most of the loss of life in military action in the 20th century. Their combined actions have resulted in 34 cumulative years of war

The 20th century Republican Presidents that presided over initiating a war (George Bush and... well there are no others), cleanly won the war with minimal casualties and in two weeks. It seems one party, the war party of the Demoncrats sees war as an economic and political tool while the Republicans see war as something to be won.

[.30Carbine]

Neatly done. Bravo!

[ET(end tyranny)]

criticized the higher command for not sharing with Admiral Kimmel `during the very critical period of November 26 to December 7, 1941, important information . . . regarding the Japanese situation'; and, concluded that the Japanese attack and its outcome was attributable to no serious fault on the part of anyone in the naval service.

(7) On June 15, 1944, an investigation conducted by Admiral T. C. Hart at the direction of the Secretary of the Navy produced evidence, subsequently confirmed, that essential intelligence concerning Japanese intentions and war plans was available in Washington but was not shared with Admiral Kimmel.

(8) On October 20, 1944, the Army Pearl Harbor Board of Investigation determined that Lieutenant General Short had not been kept `fully advised of the growing tenseness of the Japanese situation which indicated an increasing necessity for better preparation for war'; detailed information and intelligence about Japanese intentions and war plans were available in `abundance' but were not shared with the General Short's Hawaii command; and General Short was not provided `on the evening of December 6th and the early morning of December 7th, the critical information indicating an almost immediate break with Japan, though there was ample time to have accomplished this'.

(16) On July 21, 1997, Vice Admiral David C. Richardson (United States Navy, retired) responded to the Dorn Report with his own study which confirmed findings of the Naval Court of Inquiry and the Army Pearl Harbor Board of Investigation and established, among other facts, that the war effort in 1941 was undermined by a restrictive intelligence distribution policy, and the degree to which the commanders of the United States forces in Hawaii were not alerted about the impending attack on Hawaii was directly attributable to the withholding of intelligence from Admiral Kimmel and Lieutenant General Short.

FDR knew. Pearl Harbor was the first in the chain of events. Had Pearl Harbor been averted, everything after Pearl Harbor becomes hypothesis because they could very well have been averted too. Proper warning for Pearl would have changed much! Sorry you can't see that. Dec 7's a day of infamy all right, but not quite for the reason FDR thought.... people are waking up and the truth is coming out.

[MeekOneGOP]

Wow, that is an excellent article. Thanks.
I posted it here.

[pfflier]

Thank you. I am also a fan of the .30 carbine.

[ET(end tyranny)]

I watched the recent RFK documentary, and was quite surprised that in that show RFK ADMITS that the KENNEDY's got the US into the Viet Nam war, that it was their fault. Couldn't believe that this admission was actually in there!