Posted on 10/01/2002 3:13:22 AM PDT by Greybird
When American presidents prepare for foreign wars, they lie. Surveying our history, we see a clear pattern. Since the end of the nineteenth century, if not earlier, presidents have misled the public about their motives and their intentions in going to war. The enormous losses of life, property, and liberty that Americans have sustained in wars have occurred in large part because of the public's unwarranted trust in what their leaders told them before leading them into war.
In 1898, President William McKinley, having been goaded by muscle-flexing advisers and jingoistic journalists to make war on Spain, sought divine guidance as to how he should deal with the Spanish possessions, especially the Philippines, that US forces had seized in what ambassador John Hay famously described as a "splendid little war."
Evidently, his prayer was answered, because the president later reported that he had heard "the voice of God," and "there was nothing left for us to do but take them all and educate the Filipinos, and uplift and Christianize them."
In truth, McKinley's motivations had little if anything to do with uplifting the people whom William H. Taft, the first Governor-General of the Philippines, called "our little brown brothers," but much to do with the political and commercial ambitions of influential expansionists such as Captain Alfred T. Mahan, Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge, and their ilk. In short, the official apology for the brutal and unnecessary Philippine-American War was a mendacious gloss.
The Catholic Filipinos evidently did not yearn to be "Christianized" in the American style, at the point of a Springfield rifle, and they resisted the US imperialists as they had previously resisted the Spanish imperialists. The Philippine-American War, which officially ended on July 4, 1902, but actually dragged on for many years in some islands, cost the lives of more than 4,000 US troops, more than 20,000 Filipino fighters, and more than 220,000 Filipino civilians, many of whom perished in concentration camps eerily similar to the relocation camps into which US forces herded Vietnamese peasants some sixty years later.
When World War I began in 1914, President Woodrow Wilson's sympathies clearly lay with the British. Nevertheless, he quickly proclaimed US neutrality and urged his fellow Americans to be impartial in both thought and deed. Wilson himself, however, leaned more and more toward the Allied side as the war proceeded. Still, he recognized that the great majority of Americans wanted no part of the fighting in Europe, and in 1916 he sought reelection successfully on the appealing slogan, "He Kept Us Out of War."
Soon after his second inauguration, however, he asked Congress for a declaration of war, which was approved, although six senators and fifty members of the House of Representatives had the wit or wisdom to vote against it. Wilson promised this war would be "the war to end all wars," but wars aplenty have taken place since the guns fell silent in 1918, leaving their unprecedented carnage -- nearly nine million dead and more than twenty million wounded, many of them hideously disfigured or crippled for life, as well as perhaps ten million civilians who died of starvation or disease as a result of the war's destruction of resources and its interruption of commerce.
And what did the United States or the world gain? Only a twenty-year reprieve before the war's smoldering embers burst into flame again.
After World War I, Americans felt betrayed, and they resolved never to make the same mistake again. Yet, just two decades later, President Franklin D. Roosevelt began the maneuvers by which he hoped to plunge the nation once again into the European cauldron. Unsuccessful in his naval provocations of the Germans in the Atlantic, he eventually pushed the Japanese to the wall by a series of hostile economic-warfare measures, issued clearly unacceptable ultimatums, and induced them to mount a desperate military attack, most devastatingly on the US forces he concentrated at Pearl Harbor.
Campaigning for reelection in Boston on October 30, 1940, FDR had sworn: "I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars." Well, Peleliu ain't Peoria. Roosevelt was lying when he made his declaration, just as he had lied repeatedly before and would lie repeatedly for the remainder of his life. (Stanford historian David M. Kennedy, careful not to speak too stridently, refers to FDR's "frequently cagey misrepresentations to the American public.")
Yet many, many Americans trusted this inveterate liar, sad to say, with their lives, and during the war more than 400,000 of them paid the ultimate price.
Among FDR's many political acolytes was a young congressman, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who eventually and, for the world, unfortunately, clawed his way to the presidency. As chief executive, he had to deal with vital questions of war and peace, and like his beloved mentor, he relied heavily on lying to the public. In October 1964, seeking to gain election by portraying himself as the peace candidate (in contrast to the alleged mad bomber Barry Goldwater), LBJ told a crowd at Akron University: "We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10,000 miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."
In 1965, however, shortly after the start of his elected term in office, Johnson exploited the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, itself based on a fictitious account of an attack on US naval forces off Vietnam, and initiated a huge buildup of US forces in Southeast Asia that would eventually commit more than 500,000 American "boys" to fight an "Asian boy's" war.
Some 58,000 US military personnel would lose their lives in the service of LBJ's vanity and political ambitions, not to speak of the millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians killed and wounded in the melee. Chalk up another catastrophe to a lying American president.
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.
Robert Higgs is senior fellow in political economy at the Independent Institute, editor of The Independent Review, and author of Crisis and Leviathan and numerous scholarly and popular articles on Congress.
Copyright © 2002 LewRockwell.com
Not at all he should just leave the military. It sounds like when PVT. Benjamin asked where the army in the brochures was and the condos. The Military is not a job.
And I did so even though, as with Congressional "fact-finding" ad infinitum going back to the Vietnam War days, I really don't give two hoots in hell about what, exactly, these posturing non-entities do when they go abroad. (I care much more about some of what they vote on when they come home, and what they say for the record about why.)
You asked, repeating it with a verbal pout, thus evidently forgetting that some of us don't sit around here all day waiting to add to FReeper threads -- since we have to find new clients or otherwise work for a living:
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) was recently in Iraq and said on national television that President Bush would "mislead" the American people about Iraq and war, and that we should take Hussein "at his word." Now, Greybird, I ask that you answer this one simple question with an up or down "yes" or "no": Do you stand with Rep. McDermott?
And I replied that I cannot answer any such question without first knowing his remarks more fully quoted and in context. Something you clearly disdain. Nonetheless, I decided to compensate for not yet having seen a news outlet that quoted him in reasonable context. Besides, the search interested me.
I suspected that the New York Times was a likely prospect. I had missed seeing the FR posting of the relevant story. FR does not have full-text search yet, and -- from long, sad experience -- I can trust neither the titles used, nor the story text, nor the keywords to be either accurate or helpful. Thus I had to find the story via Google News.
The following five excerpts from the on-line Times story seem to be part of a reasonably complete account, corroborated by wire-service and other reporting via Google News.
Oh, and by the way, I "stand" with no politician. Period.
[1] Speaking of the administration, Mr. McDermott said, "I believe that sometimes they give out misinformation."
Do I agree with him on this? Yes, if he means what I suspect. As I've heard with others, I suspect he is glossing the difference between "misinformation," for unintentionally misleading, and "disinformation," for deliberate deception. I sense McDermott's meaning is closer to the former, especially from what follows.
[2] Then he added: "It would not surprise me if they came up with some information that is not provable, and they've shifted. First they said it was Al Qaeda, then they said it was weapons of mass destruction. Now they're going back and saying it's Al Qaeda again."
Do I agree with him on this? Yes. It wouldn't surprise me, either -- since Bush's people already have done so. Iraq, like any despotism (even under a nominal republic), is certainly not transparent. And as to the side-shift, that has happened with Administration spokesmen on the same day, and is undeniable.
[3] When pressed for evidence about whether President Bush had lied, Mr. McDermott said, "I think the president would mislead the American people."
Do I agree with him on this? I can't say, because he's using a Clintonian weasel-word here. (Which is what I thought even after the few sound-bites of this I'd read in print, until this evening.) "Would" can suggest that Bush is capable of misleading. With that I would entirely agree, and that can be either deliberate or not.
"Would" can, however, also suggest a likelihood that Bush is misleading. With that I would disagree. I don't see any Machiavellian plan to do so. I don't think Bush is either venal or intelligent enough, frankly, to be capable of doing so consciously. I think some of his advisors are capable of it, though, from past behavior -- especially Rumsfeld, who's letting Wolfowitz and Perle run amuck.
[4] But he said he believed that inspections of Iraq's weapons programs could be worked out. "I think they will come up with a regime that will not require coercive inspections," Mr. McDermott said, anticipating meetings on Monday between Hans Blix, the leader of the United Nations inspection group, and Iraqi officials.
Do I agree with him on this? Yes. They certainly can come up with an arrangement. I wouldn't count on its being kept in force for long, though. It's giving another go-round for the U.N., but that's what Bush did in his speech, as well, so this government can hardly object. (Rationally, that is. Even Colin Powell got nearly rabid in his objections yesterday.)
[5] "They said they would allow us to go look anywhere we wanted," he said of the Iraqis. "And until they don't do that, there is no need to do this coercive stuff where you bring in helicopters and armed people and storm buildings." [Apparently referring to "coercive inspections," rather than an invasion, though this isn't entirely clear, either.]
Do I agree with him on this? No. An inspection regime that is not backed up with some minimal firepower is likely to be no improvement, from what I've read about how the rounds in 1996-98 failed. (That is, with how Clinton let them fail.)
So to sum up my agreement with five distinct statements, as I can reasonably see them in some context, from McDermott: Yes. Yes. He's too f%&!ing obscure to decide. Yes. No. ... About par as to obscurity and lack of a principled thread, when it involves words from anyone in Congress -- other than Ron Paul.
That's not as simple as you wanted, and it doesn't satisfy your tantrum, but if you're still put out by my reply (which is the last you either deserve or will get), I have four words for you: JOIN THE REAL WORLD!
I ain't takin' "NO" fer an answer...MUD
Let's vote out the Rats so we can all enjoy our God-given right to keep and bear arms!
It would seem that it will take another attack on our own soil to convince even those who live here.
I have heard the very same people blame the US for not taking action to prevent 9/11 also say that preemptive strikes are now uncalled for. It's either one way or it's the other. Either there was no way to prevent 9/11 or there is every reason in the world to believe we can prevent future attacks by those who hate America and all she represents.
“Oh, I understand now. Roosevelt lied. We weren't attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. He made it all up.”
I find it very difficult to follow your line of reasoning here. I stated that we went to war because of Pearl Harbor. You even repeated the phrase.
Why would you then follow my quote with “We weren't attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor. He made it all up.”?
That was the whole point of this article - cast doubt on President Bush, the Republican - and you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. Shame on you!
It is the lying democrats, those snakes who will do anything to stay in power, including cast aspersions upon a very good man, who are behind this tripe. Have you not been paying attention?
And if that doesn't work, don't get mad--get EVEN
Your mama's an astronaut, and your wife dresses you funny.
Besides, you seem to be one of my most devoted fans today, and I'd hardly want to disappoint kids like you forever {grin}
No comment.
And I did so even though, as with Congressional "fact-finding" ad infinitum going back to the Vietnam War days, I really don't give two hoots in hell about what, exactly, these posturing non-entities do when they go abroad.
Sure you do. You're responding, aren't you?
You asked, repeating it with a verbal pout, thus evidently forgetting that some of us don't sit around here all day waiting to add to FReeper threads -- since we have to find new clients or otherwise work for a living:
You should really speak on what you know to be a fact, but I digress.
And I replied that I cannot answer any such question without first knowing his remarks more fully quoted and in context. Something you clearly disdain. Nonetheless, I decided to compensate for not yet having seen a news outlet that quoted him in reasonable context. Besides, the search interested me.
Yes, we must make sure we quote Democrats in context.
I suspected that the New York Times was a likely prospect. I had missed seeing the FR posting of the relevant story. FR does not have full-text search yet, and -- from long, sad experience -- I can trust neither the titles used, nor the story text, nor the keywords to be either accurate or helpful. Thus I had to find the story via Google News.
Why, you should now go to the head of the class!
Oh, and by the way, I "stand" with no politician. Period.
We're about to find out.
Do I agree with him on this? Yes, if he means what I suspect. As I've heard with others, I suspect he is glossing the difference between "misinformation," for unintentionally misleading, and "disinformation," for deliberate deception. I sense McDermott's meaning is closer to the former, especially from what follows.
I figured as much. But let's see...
Do I agree with him on this? Yes, if he means what I suspect. As I've heard with others, I suspect he is glossing the difference between "misinformation," for unintentionally misleading, and "disinformation," for deliberate deception. I sense McDermott's meaning is closer to the former, especially from what follows.
Of course, you know the difference at all times. You genious, you.
Do I agree with him on this? Yes. It wouldn't surprise me, either -- since Bush's people already have done so. Iraq, like any despotism (even under a nominal republic), is certainly not transparent. And as to the side-shift, that has happened with Administration spokesmen on the same day, and is undeniable.
Extra-large tinfoil is needed here. There was no "shift." Al Qaeda is definitely linked with Hussein, which places them in the same camp. Not that that fact would deter you.
Do I agree with him on this? I can't say, because he's using a Clintonian weasel-word here. (Which is what I thought even after the few sound-bites of this I'd read in print, until this evening.) "Would" can suggest that Bush is capable of misleading. With that I would entirely agree, and that can be either deliberate or not.
Such a sly fox you are! You know to avoid quicksand, don't you?
"Would" can, however, also suggest a likelihood that Bush is misleading. With that I would disagree. I don't see any Machiavellian plan to do so. I don't think Bush is either venal or intelligent enough, frankly, to be capable of doing so consciously. I think some of his advisors are capable of it, though, from past behavior -- especially Rumsfeld, who's letting Wolfowitz and Perle run amuck.
I see. The President has no gravitas. And you're different from a Democrat how?
Do I agree with him on this? Yes. They certainly can come up with an arrangement. I wouldn't count on its being kept in force for long, though. It's giving another go-round for the U.N., but that's what Bush did in his speech, as well, so this government can hardly object. (Rationally, that is. Even Colin Powell got nearly rabid in his objections yesterday.)
So now you're a Saddam apologist. Would that everyone here in the United States could get the same benefit of the doubt from you. I won't hold my breath, however.
Do I agree with him on this? No. An inspection regime that is not backed up with some minimal firepower is likely to be no improvement, from what I've read about how the rounds in 1996-98 failed. (That is, with how Clinton let them fail.)
Inspections will fail, period. Thought you thought. But you'll still lend Saddam the benefit of the doubt.
So to sum up my agreement with five distinct statements, as I can reasonably see them in some context, from McDermott: Yes. Yes. He's too f%&!ing obscure to decide. Yes. No. ... About par as to obscurity and lack of a principled thread, when it involves words from anyone in Congress -- other than Ron Paul.
"Oh, and by the way, I "stand" with no politician. Period."
About par as to obscurity and lack of a principled thread, when it involves words from anyone in Congress -- other than Ron Paul.
"Oh, and by the way, I "stand" with no politician. Period."
About par as to obscurity and lack of a principled thread, when it involves words from anyone in Congress -- other than Ron Paul.
"Oh, and by the way, I "stand" with no politician. Period."
Huh?
That's not as simple as you wanted, and it doesn't satisfy your tantrum, but if you're still put out by my reply (which is the last you either deserve or will get), I have four words for you: JOIN THE REAL WORLD!
Actually, it was as "simple" as I thought it would be. Walking between the raindrops. You gave me those four words?
Okay, let me let you in on something. Go throughout this thread from the very beginning. I asked you a question. I didn't attack your person. I asked a question. But what do we have here in this reply? But I can take that. No biggie. Just know that when you swing at me, you'd better duck. And no more words from you? That's a pleasure. I hate conversing with traitors anyway.
So, I call your "four words" and raise you three more: GO TO HELL.
Cancel your subscription to the United Nations!
Join the Republican Party!
Vote the Rats OUT!
Bring it down a notch. How do you feel about people being convicted on 'suspicion'?
Let's say the weapons inspectors are equal to a search warrant. Granted this gets tricky because the UN determines 'probable cause', and the extent of the warrant.
To attack Iraq would be like sentencing/punishment, which occurs after conviction.
There is nothing about this Iraq mess that is clear cut. Any inspections, based upon the old resolutions are worthless. Yet the UN is the one capable of changing that, yet they drag their feet. I say we drop this cesspool at their feet and hold a fire under their feet at the same time.
Unfortunately, yes. Not to wish ill on anyone, but, IF that is what it takes, I sincerely hope that it is the hollywood elite that gets to experience their own 9/11. Some people need a real loud alarm clock to wake up!
I have heard the very same people blame the US for not taking action to prevent 9/11 also say that preemptive strikes are now uncalled for. It's either one way or it's the other. Either there was no way to prevent 9/11 or there is every reason in the world to believe we can prevent future attacks by those who hate America and all she represents.
Agreed. But, just as it is messy trying to determine for a certainty IF 9/11 could have been prevented, it is just as messy trying to determine if preemptive strikes are called for.
No difference. He gets his talking points from the NY Times.
So now you're a Saddam apologist.
Yup. A Saddamite!
Would that everyone here in the United States could get the same benefit of the doubt from you.
That's what burns me about these blame-America-first folks. Here they live in the greatest country in the world, living abundantly off the fruits of capitalism, liberty, and the rule of law, with the freedom to speak whatever they choose, and they choose to speak lies about great Americans and defend terrorist tyrants who would as soon kill them just for being a citizen of these United States.
Very much unlike Greybird the apologist, Saddam the terroist, Clinton the rapist, Hillary the health care specialist, Gore the ever-changing, Bob the Torch, Ed Kennedy the swimmer, KKK Bird, Reno the child snatcher, et al ad infinitum,
The point of the article was to make our president look like a liar. It was very transparent, as are all the dem talking points. They have failed to make one stick yet. This latest will also fail.
Your second LIE: To get them to look at the past so as to prevent a possible repeat.
If you wanted to look at the past in order to prevent a repeat, you would be willing to look back to September 11, 2001 and be willing to back your president in his efforts to prevent a repeat of that horror.
Your third LIE: To look at things from more than one viewpoint. To be better informed, instead of buying into the spoon fed pablum.
This entire article is based on one viewpoint, the RAT one. It does not inform, it spreads propaganda. It is spoon fed pablum from the party of RATS.
Were you at Ground Zero, Fresh Kills, the Pentagon, or that sacred field in Pennsylvania after
September 11, 2001?
On this point we can agree. This is exactly why I reject the implication of the author that "W" is lying to us.
After all, what is the point of his article if not to reflect on current events?
I believe Bush, Jr and his father to be honorable men and not to be liers. But even with that I still watch them with a cautious eye.
I for one am not swallowing this author's hook, line, sinker.... or his agenda.
Now, now...you two should get married.
I admit though, I haven't seen stepping this graceful since the Fred Astair/Ginger Rogers movies.
Y'all have a nice day.
It would appear the name of the game is "selectivity".
Much like many churches that accept only those scriptures that support their claims of authenticity.
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.