Was FDR grilled after Pearl Harbor the way the GWB and his administration has been post 9-11? Who knew what when, where and why? Fault-finding. Detailitis intending to put the administration in a bad light. All this haggling about the prosecution of the war in the aftermath. North indicates that FDR's political foes held back because of the high stakes while GWB's foes don't hold back and, perhaps, don't perceive the high stakes. Oliver North pointed out that such was not the case following Pearl Harbor, although the question has been raised by historians in the past few years. Is North's observation true? If so, what does it say about our politics today? If not, what happened to the grilling criticisms issued at the time?
Grilled? Bush hasn't answered a single question about Sept. 11, nor has there even been an investigation. I'm not sure if FDR was "grilled" after Pearl Harbor, but he definitely should have been.
I defy anyone to find a single example in the American mainstream press where George W. Bush personally answered a reporter's question about the government's responsibility (or lack thereof) in the Sept. 11 attacks.
I grill is my backyard occasionally. The idea of Oliver North having something of substance to say regarding FDR and grilling might have relevance in a culinary context. Is North known for cooking more than the facts? I had no idea.
Apparently no one wants to answer the question.... My question is not about whether GWB has personally answered any questions. My question seeks the truth about whether or not politicking over the post- 9-11 War on Terrorism is detracting from the effort whereas such politicking was not a factor in the post- Pearl Harbor War on Fascism. I've perused Oski's links and find very little of that aimed at FDR or his administration.
Opportunistic criticism by political opponents and overly critical treatment by the press is the issue. The assertion is that FDR did not have to face these obstacles which thwart the unity of the effort and so risk its likelihood of success.
Giddyup, It is a completely different situation. Pearl Harbor brought us into a war that was already being fought worldwide because a country attacked us. FDR was completely justified in committing all possible resources to defend the US and her allies because we were attacked by Japan, who was allied with Germany. Iraq is a war that was started by this administration, it wasn't being fought already. In addition, Iraq never attacked us, in fact we were given (at the very least) highly exaggerated information that led us (the American public) to believe that we could suffer an attack in the very near future. There are many that believe that Iraq was not a justified action, and therefore GWB and his administration are taking flak. A better analogy to WWII would be Afghanistan. This is a country that we attacked in response to 9/11 because they were hiding the leaders of the terrorist organization that planned and executed an attack on US soil. GWB took somewhere between little and no "grilling" over that action because we (the American people) saw it as justified. Iraq is a very different situation.
Different time Giddy. The press showed restraint back in the 1940s. The days of the press showing restraint ended 20 years ago.
<B>andymoon</b>: I can appreciate the point you are making but I think it somewhat tenuous. What did Germany ever do to the US? In fact, we stayed out of that war until Japan provoked us by direct attack. The attack on Pearl Harbor involved a military target. The attack on 9-11 involved civilians completely. North suggested that this War on Terror really began in 1983 with the attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon that killed some 250+ American marines as they slept mostly. Anyone remember the Arab terrorists that killed 11 (?) Israeli athletes and coaches at the 1972 Olympics in Munich? Maybe that's where it started?! Yemen. Kenya. Saudi Arabia. Afghanistan. Iraq. Arrests and foiled plots/plotters in Canada, Germany, Russia, Spain and the US and GB of course. Anyone left out? The Second World War involved the US, Great Britain, Australia, France, Belgium and who else (I'm not even sure which of those European nations were able to contribute troops to the fight) pitted against Germany and Japan primarily. I daresay that this War on Terrorism is more global in scale even though less focused. It is a war equally fought against citizenry as well as military. Damn, they attacked the UN who was trying to prevent the overtaking of Iraq by the U.S. If that's not rage out-of-control, I won't know it when I see it.
My "post" started out to be just about that, but the question has broadened and is really intended to include post-Pearl Harbor and post-9/11 and <b>all pertinent actions</b> that follow. <b>RocketmanTex</b>: I'm aware of the differences as regards the press. The question remains is that a good thing? Why is the statesmanship so evident post-Pearl Harbor not with us post-9/11?
No. It is a bad thing. I wish the press would show more restraint than they do, but in our instant news/instant answer/internet driven world, it is virtually an impossibility, because if one outlet showed restraint, they would immediately be scooped by another outlet. This contributes to the fact that politics has become a meat-grinder, and that the best qualified people to run for public office refuse to run simply because they do not want the press snooping around their personal lives and personal histories. And I don't blame them one bit.
Well, you got me on a technicality there! And a loose coalition of terrorists operating worldwide doesn't delcare war but perpetrates it on the sly... <b>RMTex</b>: What about the politicians? Are they just unable to resist the opportunity for sound bites to boost their careers? Why were the politicians post-Pearl Harbor able to show such apparent restraint?
Because there was more civil behavior in the 1940s than there is now. There have always been Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals in American politics. In the 1940s, the sides could disagree and put forth their own ideas in a civil, rational manner. Those days are over, and it is a reflection of 2003 society vs. 1940s society more than anything, IMHO. Civil discourse has gone out the window, leaving us with nothing but hystrionics on the airwaves and in the halls of Congress. Instead of voicing their case rationally and in a civil manner, talking heads and politicians seem to think that whoever screams the loudest gets their point across the best. I think they are dead wrong.
Different time, he wasn't grilled on his alleged extra marital affair either. Another thing, the whole country was engulfed by the War during that time and the media probably had all its resources focused on the war. Who knows what would have happened had F.D.R. lived past the end of the war.
