Was FDR grilled after Pearl Harbor?

Didn't Al-Queda declare war against us a long time ago?

 

FDR would not be elected president today (no style, crippled) and Bush would not have been elected in the 30's and 40's (no substance, not a good debater). So, who cares?

 

I hesitate to get involved in this because it is another case of stupid historical analogies (see the Kennedy tax cut) that the defenders of this administration put forth to try and confuse the issue. There has been a strong and consistent attempt to wrap the Administration's actions in the glory of WWII and tap into the sentiment of Pearl Harbor. Perhaps if the administration allowed these kinds of investigations, what little "grilling" there is by the knee-bending press would cease. For the record, here are the investigations after Pearl Harbor...



From Weblog American Idealism...

Let’s look at the evidence. How long did it take for a Democratic-controlled Congress to investigate a Democratic administration’s conduct with regard to Pearl Harbor? Answer: 11 days. On December 18th, 1941 the Roberts Commission convened in order to “provide bases for sound decisions whether any derelictions of duty or errors of judgment on the part of United States Army or Navy personnel contributed to such successes as were achieved by the enemy on the occasion mentioned, and, if so, what these derelictions or errors were, and who were responsible therefore.” Can anyone imagine our government even posing, much less following up on such a question today?

A second question: how many Congressional investigations were launched into the circumstances surrounding the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor prior to the end of the Second World War? Answer: 5. In addition to the Roberts Commission, there was the Hart Investigation, (2-6/44) the Clarke Investigation, (8-9/44) the Clausen Investigation, (1-10/44) and the Hewitt Inquiry (5-7/45). In addition, the military launched three separate investigations into the events of December 7, including the Knox Investigation, (9-14/12/41) the Army Pearl Harbor Board, (7-10/44) and the Navy Court of Inquiry (7-10/44).

In repeatedly lobbying against any investigation of the events surrounding 9/11, the Bush administration offered the self-serving justification that it would “take resources away from the War on Terror.” This is a callow, butt-covering maneuver that should be dismissed with contempt rather than cow towed to. In acceding to it, we must believe that we are more imperiled today than during a Depression and a hot war in Europe and the Pacific. This is a fiction of course, for the only peril we face is that of some unspecified “future threat” which may or may not materialize. It is this unknowable element however which allows the administration to amplify paranoia with their frequent warnings of elaborate doomsday scenarios. It has and will continue to provide them cover from scrutiny unless vigorously challenged.

There are additional, crucial differences between the two days of infamy and all of them indicate the need for greater investigation of 9/11 than had been the case for Pearl Harbor. On 9/11, our economic, political and military centers were struck, not a far flung colonial outpost that wasn’t even an American state at the time. When men and women put on the uniform of any land, there is a recognition that they may one day be involved in hostilities; the same can’t be said for folks who just showed up for work one morning. Finally, America in 1941 had a puny military and intelligence establishment which did not respond to an attack of hundreds of fighters for a number of remarkable reasons. America in 2001 spent nearly a combined $350 billion on “intelligence” and “defense” and yet, in spite of numerous warnings, could not anticipate beforehand or on the fateful day even respond to 4 hijacked jumbo jets.

At least people in power in World War II America actually attempted to parcel out accountability and, dare we say the unmentionable word in 21st Century America, when it comes to the powerful, “blame.” Admirals Kimmel and Short who served at Pearl Harbor were removed, unfairly it turns out in retrospect for accountability lay with the President, but nevertheless a public assessment was ventured and action was taken. The lack of accountability after 9/11 is more striking since no high profile firings or resignations have resulted. This comes remember from a President who campaigned on his “national security” bona fides, not to mention endless demands that people follow the Republican example and take “personal responsibility.”

 

Wow, I had no idea about that Rimrocker. You just pearl harbored this entire silly thread.

 

Truer words were never spoken.

 

Rimrocker,

How many of those were public investigations? Many of those clamoring for investigation cite the 'public's right to know,' and as far as I can tell only the last of those you cited might have been public, and that was five years after the fact.

 

I find it really hard to swallow that politeness and gentility should be our primary concerns when we have a report that shows our supposed allies Saudi Arabia may have been culpable in some way for 9/11 and the administration chooses to suppress this information, continuing a friendly relationship with a country that not only harbors terrorists but may have financially aided the very ones who committed the act. While doing everything they can to hide information regarding a true threat to the US, they do everything they can to prop up an Iraq connection to terror which is tenuous at best and a flat lie at worst. And the concern here is that the press is TOO hard on the president?

FDR wouldn't have covered for Saudi Arabia and he wouldn't have pretended Iraq was a greater threat to our nation's security. When you bring him up, you only remind us how far we have fallen in what we're willing to accept from a president.

FDR declared war on the country which attacked us. He didn't go looking for an easier fight somewhere else. And, to the best of my knowledge, he didn't seek to continue relationships with countries which aided our attackers. But I don't really know that for certain. If there were a report which suggested he'd behaved that way, I'd certainly want to see it -- gentility be damned.

I'm really having a hard time believing any supporter of Bush's post-9/11 policy would think it a good idea to remind us of the way FDR responded. I'm with rimrocker. I would like to return to the glory of that great generation as well. That won't happen under the dishonorable, disingenuous policies of this president. Blind support of a president who not only continues relations with a country which has been tied to 9/11 but hides that information from the victims' families and the rest of the country is not the way to return to that glory. Investigating his administration and their shady protection of SA, kicking them out of office and restoring honor and dignity to the White House is.

You say wouldn't it be nice to live in a time when the press went easier on the president. I say, with this president, the press has been far too easy.

 

FDR wanted to get the United States into World War II long before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Even when he was asked about his feelings on the matter, he lied and said he wanted the US to stay out of it.

Pearl Harbor allowed him to do what he believed was the right thing all along.

 

Yeah, I'm starting to think that giddyup is confusing the press with this BBS.

 

That analogy doesn't hold water. You're trying to justify Iraq somehow here and they weren't even involved. Iraq was an enemy of human rights, yes. So's Saudi Arabia. One difference is that one of these nations had troubling ties to the 9/11 guys and the other didn't. We attacked the one that didn't and that, further, wasn't even allied with the one that did.

I've wanted the US to do something about the Taliban, whose abuse of women was well known and well ignored by the US for a long while, and Saudi Arabia for a long time. 9/11 gave us the excuse to do so, but instead we're protecting SA and spending enormous amounts of American dollars and lives to fight a paper tiger.

Meanwhile we suppress the evidence of SA's involvement in 9/11 as well as their human rights abuses (which Amnesty International ranks even with or worse than Saddam's). Kindly provide FDR's analagous bad behavior.

The initial question boils down to 'is the press too hard on the president.' If FDR had behaved in this fashion, I would certainly hope he would have been "grilled" on it.

 

I don't think Bush has been grilled, but he has gotten different treatment from the public. Of course, that is well deserved because FDR was the kind of man who gained the public's respect while Bush isn't.

------------------------------------------------------------------
looks like I just hit 4000 posts, i thought i had one more to go, oh well.

 

...another difference is that the House of Husssein doesn't have longstanding social ties to the House of Bush as does the House of Saud. Generally, when Uday and Qusay were in town, they didn't bunk with the Bushies like Prince Bandar does. Nor, unfortunately do they have any dealings with the Carlyle group. ALthough I guess they've indirectly helped them make money.

 

No, it's not a surprise. What is a surprise is that 9/11 did not. The Pearl Harbor investigations, at least in part, led to a strong OSS in the hopes that intelligence would provide us with the means to ensure something like Pearl Harbor would not happen again. Surely, you support real investigations to identify any weaknesses in our intelligence and command systems that may have seeped into place during the 50+ years after Pearl Harbor? I might also point out that the Clarke Investigation revolved around the intelligence questions, including the gathering, distribution, and use of classified information.

There were definitely politically-motivated persons on the Congressional side. FDR was not a favorite of Republicans or some of the more conservative Dems. Still, they did not go so far as some would go today... the war and the standards of the time prevented that. Furthermore, some of the reports, while not directly criticizing FDR, imply that his administration bears some of the burden.

For instance, these findings from the Army Pearl Harbor Board...

"c. We turn now to responsibilities:

1. The Secretary of State -- the Honorable Cordell Hull. The action of
the Secretary of State in delivering the counter-proposals of November
26, 1941, was used by the Japanese as the signal to begin the war by the
attack on Pearl Harbor. To the extent that it hastened such attack it was in
conflict with the efforts of the War and Navy Department to gain time
for preparations for war. However, war with Japan was inevitable and
imminent because of irreconcilable disagreements between the Japanese
Empire and the American Government.

2. The Chief of Staff of the Army. General George C. Marshall, failed
in his relations with the Hawaiian Department in the following
particulars:

(a) To keep the Commanding General of the Hawaiian Department fully
advised of the growing tenseness of the Japanese situation which
indicated an increasing necessity for better preparation for war, of
which information he had an abundance and Short had little.

(b) To send additional instructions to the Commanding General of the
Hawaiian Department on November 28, 1941, when evidently he failed to
realize the import of General Short's reply of November 27th, which
indicated clearly that General Short had misunderstood and misconstrued
the message of November 27 (472) and had not adequately alerted his
command for war.

(c) To get to General Short 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.

(d) To investigate and determine the state of readiness of the Hawaiian
Command between November 27 and December 7, 1941, despite the impending
threat of war.

3. Chief of the War Plans Division, War Department General Staff, Major
General Leonard T. Gerow, failed in his duties in the following
particulars:

(a) To keep the Commanding General, Hawaiian Department, adequately
informed on the impending war situation by making available to him the
substance of the data being delivered to the War Plans Division by the
Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2.

(b) To send to the Commanding General of the Hawaiian Department on
November 27, 1941, a clear, concise directive; on the contrary he
approved the message of November 27, 1941, (472) which contained
confusing statements.

(c) To realize that the state of readiness reported in Short's reply to
the November 27th message was not a state of readiness for war, and he
failed to take corrective action.

(d) To take the required steps to implement the existing joint plans and
agreements between the Army and Navy to insure the functioning of the
two services in the manner contemplated.

4. Commanding General of the Hawaiian Department, Lieutenant General
Walter C. Short, failed in his duties in the following particulars:

(a) To place his command in a state of readiness for war in the face of
a war warning by adopting an alert against sabotage only. The
information which he had was incomplete and confusing but it was
sufficient to warn him of the tense relations between our government and
the Japanese Empire and that hostilities might be momentarily expected.
This required that he guard against surprise to the extent possible and
make ready his command so that it might be employed to the maximum and
in time against the worst form of attack that the enemy might launch.

(b) To reach or attempt to reach an agreement with the Admiral
commanding the Pacific Fleet and the Admiral commanding the 14th Naval
District for implementing the joint Army and Navy plans and agreements
then in existence which provided for joint action by the two services.
One of the methods by which they might have become operative was through
the joint agreement of the responsible commanders.

(c) To inform himself of the effectiveness of the long-distance
reconnaissance being conducted by the Navy.

(d) To replace inefficient staff officers."
_________
Can anyone imagine a comparable investigation today, led by perhaps the CIA, naming such influential positions and their faults?

 

Plus, FDR was actually elected (4 times no less).

 

Please don't quote Oliver North. I can't believe this guy isn't in a prison somewhere. Let alone painted as a hero.

Tell you the truth, there is a lot of information that would point to the fact that FDR maneuvered the Japanese into attacking us at Pearl Harbor. Shutting off their oil supply. Pushing them into a corner and leaving them there. Japan was in the thrall of its militarists, so probably felt compelled to attack.

FDR believed the attack would come at Pearl Harbor or in the Phillipines. It actually happened in both places. Clark Field in the Phillipines was home for many U.S. planes/bombers and was wiped out; an even bigger debacle than Pearl Harbor because it happened on the same day, 6 hours or so later, when General Macarthur had full knowledge of Pearl Harbor. Japanese bombers had to wait til the sun came up over Clark Field. Then they swooped in and smashed it.

At the time of Pearl Harbor, Hitler had run roughshod over Europe and was about to take over Iraq (which would have kicked out the British in favor of the Germans; not a wise move but oh well, one ruler to another). Japan was pushing toward India. They could very well have met up in the middle; and then we would have been f***ed. Germany and Japan would have controlled much of the world's natural resources.

But fully 82% of Americans wanted no part of war. Most thought we would eventually have no choice but to get in; still, FDR had to use every means at his disposal (finding every loophole in every treaty, then driving a truck through each) to get weapons (Lend-Lease, declaring planes and ships to be "surplus" and shipping them out) to Great Britain and to Russia.

George W. Bush wrote in his diary before turning in on 9/11/01, "today the Pearl Harbor of the 21st Century occurred." Indeed.

Now, it might make a good argument to say, Why was Pearl Harbor OK and 9/11 not?

You could argue that the actual-history Axis (Japan and Germany in particular) had certainly shown their expansionist ambitions, their military strikes against China (I mean, the Japanese were real monsters in China; who knows how many people they killed?) and Poland and England and France....you didn't have to make a case of the Axis threat.

To hypothesize that the administration knew 9/11 was coming but turned a blind eye (hypothetical, hypothetical) would mean that the neoconservatives who had long since pushed for aggressive military campaigns against U.S. potential "enemies" (specifically named: Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria) managed to get their way. One of these men is Wolfowitz. Rumblesfeld is another. Richard Perle, aka "the Prince of Darkness," recently commented during the last election that "it was clear that [George W. Bush] didn't know much but was eager to learn." My interpretation of that is, He was an empty golden vessel and I was eager to fill'em up.

Certainly Wolfowitz and Rumblesfeld see enemies wherever they turn. The former believes you can just transplant U.S. democracy and it will take root and all the natives will fart freedom and queef sunshine.

Now, there are people who believe that Iraq posed a serious military threat to the United States, and that the other countries I mentioned do as well. Me? The opinion makes me wonder, given the fact that Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have proven themselves more of a "threat." Saudi Arabia has close business ties and relationships with our administration, though; a lot of oil; and Pakistan has The Bomb already. So....

I don't advocate bombing a country to create next generation's terrorists, though.

So, one may ask, why does the press generally stay quiet about what it may know? Even if getting definitive proof (Pearl Harbor, 9/11) is tough, there certainly is plenty to make big headlines.

These days the media is fairly corporate controlled. But then and now, who in the media would risk breaking such news? Who wouldn't get squashed? Have his family threatened? Lose his job? How much damage to the U.S. and its credibility if such news ever came out? The U.S. would be a pariah. The criminal charges would be astounding. Economic fallout? Devastating. Damage to the all-precious military that we have garrisoned around the world? God knows. Impeachment? If FDR/GWB were lucky.

 

I won't say FDR's pre-war actions were like Bush's. Obviously, Bush crossed the line into pre-emptive war and FDR did not. I guess I was just making a narrower point, that when involved in warfare, sometimes the President doesn't reveal his true intentions, because it would not be in America's interest. Like Bush, FDR tried to push the country to war through the political means at his disposal. Some would argue that Bush didn't wait for another Pearl Harbor (or the "one vial"), others would say that Bush went in much too quickly, without convincing evidence of an "imminent threat."

I'm not sure how much you can blame Bush for the Saudi Arabia situation. After all, we were allies with them far before W. was elected. I don't know if it would make sense to reveal everything now and possibly make things worse. Bush seems to be aware of the problem, as he has moved our troops out of the country.

 

What is the "House of Bush." Do you mean the United States government or just the 2 Bush administrations? Didn't Clinton keep up ties with Saudi Arabia?

And if we have social ties to Hussein, wouldn't that make us less likely to attack them?