« Contextual harassment | Main | Northwest Airlines Flight to India Forced Back to Amsterdam »

Truman clings to a lost cause in Japan

( To understand the context of this article, please check Joan Vennochi's incredibly insulting attack on the effort in Iraq. That Vennochi does not understand the cause or progress of the war is not so surprising, but the continuing attempt by Vennochi and similar cowards to sway the public to accept defeat is appalling and shameful )

Harry S Truman sounds increasingly like one of those young punks you hear about more and more often. The punk won't obey his parents, and Truman won't quit Japan. The president's latest news conference was another installment of rebel with a cause that a shrinking number of Americans believe in. "We're not leaving so long as I'm president", promised - or threatened - Truman.

Acknowledging that public support for the war continues to wane, the president said, "America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and unbeatable determination to do the job at hand." But as Senator Lyndon B. Johnson correctly pointed out, "If one little old general in shirt sleeves can take Saigon, think about 200 million Chinese comin' down those trails. No sir, I don't want to fight them."

Truman, the stubborn, won't leave Japan. And even worse, he won't admit mistakes relative to getting us there in the first place, or military miscues since, when it comes to carrying out the mission, he dooms us to travel the same misguided path as long as he remains in the White House.

Asked why he would spend so much on a war we don't need to fight, Truman answered, "It's a lot better to have a strong national defense than a balanced budget."

What's a nation to do? Ground the commander in chief for the rest of his term and take away his car keys? Truman - or rather James Forrestal - wants Japan to be the defining debate in upcoming elections. He and Truman's men are making no effort at all to cooperate with their enemies. Said President Truman when asked why he won't seek a bipartisan effort; "I don't like bipartisans. Whenever a fellow tells me he's bipartisan, I know that he's going to vote against me."

The presidential rationale for staying in Japan is the same old, same old. People know it and are weary of it. Japan just is not ready for Democracy, they've never had one and now is not the time to hope we can sell it on them, or to believe that Japan will become an ally or even a stable country because of what we are doing there.

And, we see the faces of young soldiers cropping up much too frequently in our newspapers and on our TV screens. The lucky ones are maimed, but alive; the unlucky ones are dead, never again to defy their parents by leaving piles of dirty laundry on their bedroom floor.

Taken cumulatively, the images make it hard to imagine politicians of either party anxious to embrace Truman's approach in Japan. US Senator Arthur Vandenberg was right to oppose the war before the Pearl Harbor attack, even though he later agreed that the U.S. had to fight. Vandenberg's insistence that the United States should seek international solutions and not "go it alone" has put him at odds with President Truman, who is determined that the United States will pursue its goals whatever other nations think.

When it comes to Japan, Truman, the rebel with a lost cause, continues to defy one thing above all: logic.

[ NOTE - the Truman quotes in this article are all real quotes by Harry Truman ]


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Truman clings to a lost cause in Japan:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with The Buzz: Not connecting dots

Comments (26)

Bush's comment "'We're n... (Below threshold)

Bush's comment "'We're not leaving so long as I'm president" came one day before Britain announced it had developed a timetable for the withdraw of their troops. Bush knew of Britain's decision before his announcement, and it is clear that his stance is motivated by political greed for his party rather than for the safety and security of Iraq and of our forces stationed there. No wonder he's concerned about protection from war crimes prosecution.

I thought this was pretty w... (Below threshold)
jack oneil:

I thought this was pretty witty, good post. Now Lee's was typical, nice jab at the end there - guess you could not help yourself.

Still polishing the turd I ... (Below threshold)

Still polishing the turd I see...You must live to be contrary to anything and everything posted here. You got it(BDS)bad dude!

Of course, if today's lefti... (Below threshold)

Of course, if today's leftists had been there and in charge during WWII, they would have urged a "timetable" to withdraw after the "disaster" of D-Day "mired us in the quagmire" of Normandy, so there would have been no question of managing Japan.

The only question would have been whether Germany or Japan conquered the US.

Thankfully, during WWII, our country was united and committed, despite the tremendous sacrifices of our military and our citizens. Had the likes of Murtha and Code Pink spouted off back then, the public would have collectively told them to stuff a sock in it.

Rationed gas and tires, limited stocks of food, scrap metal drives . . . the problem is that freedom and capitalism have made us so wealthy we've forgotten, and we now indulge the seditious nonsense these morons spew to the point it is actually taken seriously by the less cognizant among us.

"If today's leftists had be... (Below threshold)

"If today's leftists had been in charge in WWII...blah, blah, blah.. More empty rhetorical exercises that avoid addressing the issues. One has to be taking a whole lot of medication to honestly call the current Iraq situation anything but a failure at this point. Iran is stronger. The Israel-Hizbollah conflict is the latest illustration of the increasing instability and volatility of the region. Our invasion and regime change in Iraq has created more problems than it solved, and those you attempt to demonize as "leftists" are simply those that realize this and are advocating for a change of strategy. Last time I looked it was a whole lot more Americans than those who think we're doing fine.

The real cowards here are the chickenhawks running the show.

It's interesting how most A... (Below threshold)

It's interesting how most Americans are now "leftists," since multiple major polls show that most Americans want to see a definite timetable for withdrawal.

Bush is correct to claim that we can still win. But we can only win if we send in 400-500,000 troops, and we can only do that via a draft. Trouble is, Bush doesn't have the guts to do that (someone might ask him why the twins aren't there), which is why we're better off leaving now.

Bush thought he could run this war like it wasn't really a war. Big mistake.

Another lame apples to oran... (Below threshold)

Another lame apples to oranges comparison by desperate far right ideologues.

Lee-Honestly what ... (Below threshold)


Honestly what is your rational or faith in the success of announcing a "timetable"?

I.Just.Don't.Get.It.{You were making this same argument with a different spin last night.}

Why don't you tell me when you will stop posting the "timetable" argument? What's your deadline? When will you stop posting to a thread?

Then I can wait for your self imposed timeltable and-have the last shot...

DJ's post brings up some interesting analogies.

Lee-did you think WW II was a "just war"? At the time there were Isolationist like you-who did not want FDR to help England survive by implementing The Lend Lease Program -they fretted that might make the terrorists-whoops!-

H-I-T-L-E-R really,really angry...

When The Lusitania was sunk-by the Germans- there were Loose Change and Barrett-like conspiracy nuts back then that insisted that America had sunk the boat as a manipulation to anger the American public enough to go to war.

PEARL HARBOR-There again the conspiracy. FDR "allowed" it to happen....It's all very familiar.

As for the Liberal Timetable Mantra-Lee-guess what we have HUGE bases of forces guess where?

Japan and Germany.

Still. Those are the Democrats "unended force allocations".

Joan, after the mullahs han... (Below threshold)

Joan, after the mullahs hand you a burka, we'll talk.

As usualy this post is righ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

As usualy this post is right on the money D.J.

The thing that gets me about lefties like Vennochi is how they use LIES to make their points:

"And even worse, he won't admit mistakes relative to getting us there in the first place, or military miscues since"

"During the news conference, Bush acknowledged that Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."

When you need to use lies to prove your point, your point must be false...

But she wouldn't be a "democrat" were she not also a hypocrite:

"They scare the country"

Can you say "An Inconvenient Truth", Ms. Vennochi?

Listen guys,old "pucker pus... (Below threshold)

Listen guys,old "pucker puss" (lee lee) has a plan like all lefties--turn and run with thier tails between thier legs so you can see the yellow stripe down thier back. (the French will be running along side carrying the white flag)

The only reason that there ... (Below threshold)

The only reason that there is trouble with insurgents in Iraq is because we faought a humane war, sparing a million innocent civilians as well as most of Iraq's crumbling infrastructure. You may note that no oil wells were set on fire this time, nor were thousands and thousands of American soldiers killed in the initial assault. If Iran gets feisty and ups the ante by nuking or gassing Israel, you can bet the gloves will come off. Then Farsi will only be spoken at U Berkeley and Persian will refer only to rugs (soon to be antiques) and, of course, the 'Great Persian Wasteland'.

P. Bunyan:You said... (Below threshold)

P. Bunyan:

You said, "During the news conference, Bush acknowledged that Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks." When you need to use lies to prove your point, your point must be false...

And you shouldn't have said that, but, being a neoconservative, you don't know the truth from a cheese sandwich. The *actual words* (as you bloody well know, but here in the Republican echo chamber, we have to manufacture the truth on a daily basis, or risk being called a liar) the actual words were, "Nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the (September 11) attack."

That's pretty close to saying that Iraq/Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack.

And you would know this, if you weren't expending all your energy convincing yourself that the sun rises and sets in Bush's butt.

You are all wrong about Lee... (Below threshold)

You are all wrong about Lee. He (or she) actually dreams and plans to cheer on and accompany the victorious Islamists as they march into Washington. He dreams of a position of power and influence.

He is not going to run. He is going to shoot American soldiers. In the back.

First one the Islamists will slaughter is Lee. They have no more respect for traitors than I do.

Mr. Bunyon wrote:Whe... (Below threshold)

Mr. Bunyon wrote:
When you need to use lies to prove your point, your point must be false...
Read where Bush says Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11:
Watch a video of him saying it:
Like many of my FELLOW Republicans, you got confused because of dated information from Dick Cheney:

(Shakes head) Honestly guys, we have to do better than this. As Republicans, we CAN, but when many of us can't even listen to George W. Bush HIMSELF, what hopes do we have of looking halfway intelligent?

I don't remember the Japane... (Below threshold)

I don't remember the Japanese performing suicide attack on American soldiers and government personnel after the cease-fire was signed.

Oh wait, that's because there is no connection between Turman in Japan and Bush in Iraq. Silly me for thinking there was going to be a point to all this.

You know the ironic part of... (Below threshold)

You know the ironic part of your last link, Fyd?

The 911 Commission came out and disputed the story you linked to that very same day.

I notice --- you didn't mention that.


Deal with it: Bush never once said, nor did any of his cabinet say, that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. There were ties between AQ and Saddam, like it or not, but Saddam was not behind 9/11 as far as anybody can tell.

That's pretty close to saying that Iraq/Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack.

Which, stunningly, is what his administration said. The closest you had to "Saddam was behind 9/11" was Cheney saying "We don't know" --- which, at the time, was correct.

What's with the new strateg... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

What's with the new strategy of lefty-socialist commenters pretending to be conservatives on this site.

I read the transcript of the news conference long before I made the post in this thread.

1. Saying that Saddam did not order the attacks is A LOT different than saying that Irag had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. It's all about rogue states (Irag and Afganistan) that pose a terrorist threat. They are related and that's what Bush heas said repeatedly and correctly.

2. The President and the Administration have repeatedly admitted that mistakes have been made. What they haven't said was that it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place (because that would not be true) which is a lie that you lefty-socialists want them to say.

I stand by my statements.

Plus as more and more documents are being translated, more and more ties between Hussein's government and Al Quaeda are being demonstrated.

In the future we will see once and for all who was right and who was wrong here.

For everyone here who still... (Below threshold)

For everyone here who still supports this Iraq occupation, here is a little video for you to think about today. This is what our boys and girls are going through every single day! Hope you can sleep well tonight in your safe, warm beds. War is hell.

Bush said: "... nobody has ... (Below threshold)

Bush said: "... nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq."

We know Saddam/Iraq gave support, money and sanctuary to terrorists. We cannot prove they requested or ordered 9/11 or anything like it.

Only an idiot would think 9/11 'just happened', y'know, like the bumper stickers/T-shirts...'sh*t happens'.

If you house and feed mad dogs, do not express surprise when people get bitten. If my neighbor has mad dogs and lets them roam the neighborhood I am entitled to kick his ass and kill the dogs.

[email protected]: For ev... (Below threshold)

[email protected]:
For everyone here who still supports this Iraq occupation, here is a little video for you to think about today. This is what our boys and girls are going through every single day! Hope you can sleep well tonight in your safe, warm beds. War is hell.

I'm glad you came around to see that it won't be easy winning over there. That's why we cannot give up. Tasks that are easy are very rarely worth doing. :)

[email protected] what the cou... (Below threshold)

[email protected] what the country would be like with cowards like you to protect it? Like this--bend over and I will kiss your ass before you kill me. Asshole

Yeah, Bush is Truman. Poor... (Below threshold)
Big D:

Yeah, Bush is Truman. Poorly spoken. Considered stupid, a hick by elites. Tough as nails. Barely electable. And surprisingly the right man for the job.

Re. the timetable. What exactly is the point of the timetable anyway? Let's see...if we make a timetable for withdrawal, but the violence escalates, will we still withdrawal? Anyone got an answer? And if we still withdrawal, as the violence is escalating, then won't that be considered a...retreat? A failure? A humiliation?

Or let's say we make a timetable for withdrawal, but before the timetable says we should withdrawal violence starts to decrease significantly. Do we hang in there, because, you know, we have a timetable to follow?

In reality we will withdrawal when the time is right. If violence is decreasing then we withdrawal. If violence is on the up tick we stay. Pretty simple to comprehend plan.

The Democratic timetable talk is just code for "I wish we never went and can this unpleasantness please be over with now?"

By the by, anyone else notice the trends? Iraqi casualties are down 40% this month. Coalition casualties are down to nearly their lowest level since the start of the war, their fourth straight month of decline.

But hey, hang in their Jihadis. Lee has got your back.

Isn't it awesome how every ... (Below threshold)

Isn't it awesome how every American Military action can be paralelled to WWII?

I mean, Fallujah- tell me that wasn't the battle of the bulge all over again!

Remember the German insurgency? Hellloooo, Berlin was a freakin' carbon copy of Bhagdad.

Even the premises were the same! After all, we only invaded Iraq after Saddam annexed Poland.

The cause is indeed lost if you have to compare it to WWII to make it seem justified. No one seems to be pointing to Iraq as a model of righteous war. See also the use of the term "Islamofascism".

What kind of a sick freak w... (Below threshold)

What kind of a sick freak would compare a great President like Truman to the current village idiot in the White House now? How despicable and truly disrespectful to believe that Dubya belongs in the same category as a legendary President like Truman. Disgusting!

First of all, we had enough troops committed to the theater of WWII. Secondly, when Pearl Harbor happened and we committed to the engagement, military enrollment went beyong spiked to sky-rocketing levels. The War in Iraq had the unfortunate opposite effect. We actually had qualified and educated and experienced people with the theater of WWII. The war in Iraq was started and being run by a bunch of draft-dodging, pink-team pansies who have not seen one single second of combat or credible military experience in their entire collective lives. Stuck on stupid!!! Stay the course with Truman meant something because he was a man with integrity while the current village idiot lied about WMDs, ties to 9/11 and ties to Al Qaeda and Lord knows what else.

And to all you with the whole anti-liberal,anti-lefties thumb-sucking childishness (Mongo like candy) going on, just remember:

It is the will of the people....

Oh, did I mention that when... (Below threshold)

Oh, did I mention that when we went into the theater of WWII...WE ACTUALLY HAD A PLAN!!!!






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy