What lies? It’s clear FDR wanted to nudge us into the war, but he didn’t make Japan attack Pearl Harbor or the Germans sink our transports and escort vessels.
Your point about not consulting the people about “every tactic and strategy used” fails in the case of Vietnam because the people were told that the war would not be expanded into Cambodia and Laos, which was a lie, and such an expansion of the war had never been approved by Congress in the first place.
Do you really think I’m moving leftward?
I don’t. I just think that with the Obama administration in power, there’s more opportunity for subjects to arise where my view falls towards the left. I could of course be blind to my own subtle shifts in position, but my best guess is I’m not really moving that much in any direction. Admittedly, there have been several epihany moments here that have moved me left, but I regard those as sudden shifts, not gradual slides.
Whether anybody else in the entire fucking world was a fucking traitor or not has nothing to do with the fact that Robert Novak was, and that the country is better off with him dead.
When Ellsberg dies, discuss all you want whether he was a fucking traitor or not. In this thread, who gives a microshit?
Looks like somebody’s been taking correspondence courses at the Der Trihs School of Hyperbolic Rhetoric.
Why bother? You already know the answer:
Try imitating the way an honest person would ask the question and you might get an honest answer, instead of the simple dismissal that is more than yours deserves.
Vinyl Turnip, if you have even a different POV to offer, much less a rebuttal, kindly offer it.
How about the trade of American destroyers for British bases in the Caribbean and in Newfoundland in 1940 in violation of the Neutrality Act? How about the explicit coordination with British military following the Lend-Lease Act, kept secret from the American people while Roosevelt was promising he wouldn’t send our soldiers overseas? These meetings were kept secret from Congress, for heaven’s sake. How about our occupation of Iceland in 1941? How about the order to American naval vessels to shoot at German subs on sight - in September 1941!
Come on.
Extremely analogous to FDR’s pre-WWII actions.
Where was the lie?
Granted
The British did that.
Cite if true, and again where was the lie?
You don’t even know the difference, do you?
He didn’t say it specifically about Bob Novak, but it applies:
“I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors.” George H. W. Bush
Robert “The Most Insidious of Traitors” Novak 1931 –2009
Yes, let’s be a little more careful about hurting US interests, worthy or not, valid or not, sane or not.
:rolleyes:
Sorry, I’m having a hard time getting too worked up about that one.
BUT, I’m still crying rivers over all the harm that the end of slavery did to the South. 
Okay, so it’s not a given that Elsberg’s action were in the best interest of the country. So what? Who said it was? Doesn’t change the fact that his actions probably were in the best long-term interests of the country. In fact, with what we know now, it is perfeclty reasonable to conclude so through evaluation.
See, the problem with your objective standard is that it is incomplete, failing to account for nuance* thus rendering the “traitor” verdict the hollow sum of the elements of the offense. Sure, in the strictest sense, Elsberg and Novack were traitors. So were Washington and Jefferson and Hamilton, all having violated the letter of a treason law.
*yes, “nuance,” the bogeyman for those to frightened or indifferent to think.
Are you’re suggesting that Elsberg and Novack had no possible way of assessing the outcome of their decisions? I know it’s common to say “no one can predict the future,” but c’mon, it’s done succesfully all of the time. As a rule, the decisions we make are governed by our assessment of the outcome. When we make a harmful decision based on a poor assesment, we call this a mistake. People who make lots of mistakes will hopefully find themselves less called upon to make important decisions. When we make a harmful decision in spite of a good assessment, we call this a misdeed. It is to be hoped that chronic misdoers are punished.
We examine our decisions in hindsight in part to evaluate our forsight. Those with forsight, we call good decision makers.
Traitorous in the strictest sense, yes; wrong, this is not a given.
Hardly. At best he made a harmful decision based on a poor assesment. At worst he made a harmful decision intentionally.
Easy, because they are the same thing in only the most superficial and unexamined way. Look beyond the superficial and techinical similarties.
I think Bricker’s got a good point. Which is that, despite common usage, the word “traitor” is value neutral. Not all causes are deserving of loyalty, after all.
And Bricker’s upset that FDR may have been unfair to Hitler…
Okay, so it’s not a given that Elsberg’s action were in the best interest of the country. So what? Who said it was? Doesn’t change the fact that his actions probably were in the best long-term interests of the country. In fact, with what we know now, it is perfeclty reasonable to conclude so through evaluation.
See, the problem with your objective standard is that it is incomplete, failing to account for nuance* thus rendering the “traitor” verdict the hollow sum of the elements of the offense. Sure, in the strictest sense, Elsberg and Novack were traitors. So were Washington and Jefferson and Hamilton, all having violated the letter of a treason law.
*yes, “nuance,” the bogeyman for those to frightened or indifferent to think.
Are you’re suggesting that Elsberg and Novack had no possible way of assessing the outcome of their decisions? I know it’s common to say “no one can predict the future,” but c’mon, it’s done succesfully all of the time. As a rule, the decisions we make are governed by our assessment of the outcome. When we make a harmful decision based on a poor assesment, we call this a mistake. People who make lots of mistakes will hopefully find themselves less called upon to make important decisions. When we make a harmful decision in spite of a good assessment, we call this a misdeed. It is to be hoped that chronic misdoers are punished.
We examine our decisions in hindsight in part to evaluate our forsight. Those with forsight, we call good decision makers.
Traitorous in the strictest sense, yes; wrong, this is not a given.
Hardly. At best he made a harmful decision based on a poor assesment. At worst he made a harmful decision intentionally.
Easy, because they are the same thing in only the most superficial and unexamined way. Look beyond the superficial and techinical similarties.
I just want to say one thing:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort”.
And that doesn’t mean, “anything that comforts our enemies is treason!”, you fucking tards. It means providing actual assistance to the enemies of the United States.
So revealing state secrets is not treasonous, unless you hand those state secrets to an enemy of the United States. Publishing state secrets in a newspaper gives those state secrets to the American public. It is absolutely and incontrovertibly wrong to say that the open publication of secret documents is treasonous.
The British occupied Iceland originally, in May of 1940, but in July of 1941, it was turned over to the US, and about 40,000 American troops were stationed on the island.
And it may not even be illegal, which is what the Pentagon Papers case showed.
So Novak may have been an asshole but there’s no way what he did could be considered treason.
The Ellsberg comparison didn’t *exist * here until he brought it up. That wasn’t an effort to pick apart anybody’s belief, or even to perform “questioning”. There is no reason to see it as anything but yet another of his precious Gotchas.
Okay, but where’s the FDR lie?
No. I’m not remotely upset about FDR; I think he acted correctly.
But it’s inescapable that he lied to the American people. So I mention his actions to show that lying to the American people is not a sine qua non of wrongness.