Transterrestrial Musings

« Diehard Macintosh Fans | Main | Desktop Manufacturing »

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

August 12, 1945

WASHINGTON DC (Routers) President Truman, just a few months into his young presidency, is coming under increasing fire from some Congressional Republicans for what appears to be a deteriorating security situation in occupied Germany, with some calling for his removal from office.

Over three months after a formal declaration of an end to hostilities, the occupation is bogged down. Fanatical elements of the former Nazi regime who, in their zeal to liberate their nation from the foreign occupiers, call themselves members of the Werwolf (werewolves) continue to commit almost-daily acts of sabotage against Germany's already-ravaged infrastructure, and attack American troops. They have been laying road mines, poisoning food and water supplies, and setting various traps, often lethal, for the occupying forces.

It's not difficult to find antagonism and anti-Americanism among the population--many complain of the deprivation and lack of security. There are thousands of homeless refugees, and humanitarian efforts seem confused and inadequate.

In the wake of the budding disaster, some have called for more international participation in peacekeeping.

A Red Cross official said that, "...the German people will be more comfortable if their conquerors weren't now their overlords. It makes it difficult to argue that this wasn't an imperialistic war when the occupying troops in the western sector are exclusively American, British and French."

The administration, of course, claims that, given the chaos of the recent war, such a situation is to be expected, and that things will improve with time. As to the suggestion to internationalize the occupying forces, the administration had no official comment, but an unofficial one was a repetition of the quote from General McAuliffe, when asked to surrender in last winter's Battle of the Bulge--"Nuts."

In an attempt to minimize the situation, a White House spokesman pointed out that the casualties were extremely light, and militarily inconsequential, particularly when compared to the loss rates prior to VE Day. Also, the attacks seem to be dying down with each passing month. But this statement was leaped upon by some as heartless, trivializing the deaths and injuries of young American men.

Many critics back in Washington seem now to be prescient, with their previous warnings of just such an outcome a little over a year ago.

One congressman said that "...it's time to ask whether the German people are better off now than they were a few months ago. Yes, a brutal dictator has been deposed, but at least the electricity and water supply were mostly working, and the trains running on time. After years of killing them and destroying their infrastructure with American bombs, it seems to me that the German people have suffered enough without the chaos that our occupation, with its inadequate policing, is bringing."

It's not clear how much support the Werwolf has among the populace, who may be afraid to speak their true minds, given the fearfully overwhelming "Allied" presence in the country. But it is possible that, like the guerilla forces themselves, the people have been inspired by Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels' pre-victory broadcasts, and those of Radio Werwolf.

"God has given up the protection of the people . . . Satan has taken command." Goebbels broadcast last spring. "We Werewolves consider it our supreme duty to kill, to kill and to kill, employing every cunning and wile in the darkness of the night, crawling, groping through towns and villages, like wolves, noiselessly, mysteriously."

While no new broadcasts of Goebbels' voice have been heard since early May, no one can be certain as to whether he is alive or dead, and continuing to help orchestrate the attacks and boost morale among the forces for German liberation. As long as his fate, and more importantly, that of the former leader Adolf Hitler himself, remains unresolved, the prospects for pacifying the brutally conquered country may be dim.

Although Grand-Admiral Donitz made a radio announcement of Hitler's brave death in battle to the beleaguered German people on the evening of May 1, some doubt the veracity of that statement, and there has been no evidence to support it, or any body identified as the former Fuehrer's. Rumors of his whereabouts continue to abound, including reported sightings as far away as South America. Many still believe that he is hiding with the "Edelweiss" organization, with thousands of Wehrmacht troops, in a mountain stronghold near the Swiss border.

Many have criticized flawed intelligence for our failure to find him, causing some, in the runup to next year's congressional elections, to call for an investigation.

A staffer of one prominent Senator said, "For months, starting last fall, we were told by this administration that Hitler would make a last stand in a 'National Redoubt' in Bavaria. General Bradley diverted troops to the south and let the Russians take Berlin on the basis of this knowledge. But now we find out that there was no such place, and that Hitler was in Berlin all along. And now we're told that we can't even be sure of where he is, or whether he's alive or dead."

For many, marching in the streets with signs of "No Blood For Soviet Socialism," and "It's All About The Coal," this merely confirmed that the administration had other agendas than its stated one, and that the war was unjustified and unjustifiable.

General Bradley's staff has protested that this is an unfair criticism--that the strategic decision made by General Eisenhower was driven by many factors, of which Hitler's whereabouts was a minor one, but this hasn't silenced the critics, some of whom have bravely called for President Truman's impeachment, despite the fact that most of these decisions were made even before he became president in April.

But some have taken the criticism further, and say that failure to get Hitler means a failed war itself.

"Sure, it's nice to have released all those people from the concentration camps, but we were told we were going to war against Hitler, even though he'd done nothing to us," argued one concerned anti-war Senator. "Now they say that we have 'Victory in Europe,' but it seems to me that if they can't produce the man we supposedly went to war against, it's a pretty hollow victory. Without this man that they told us was such a great threat to America, how can even they claim that this war was justified?"

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 28, 2003 12:31 PM

Comments

Thank God today's media and lefties weren't around during WWII, or we'd all be speaking German or Japanese!

Great piece, Rand. Have you considered submitting is a an op-ed?

Posted by Barbara Skolaut at July 28, 2003 12:46 PM

I don't know. I might use it as this week's Fox column. But I sent a link to NRO, so maybe they'd like it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 28, 2003 12:54 PM

1. Let's not forget the German weapons of mass destruction -- it was because of the supposed German A-bomb program that Roosevelt sepnt billions on the Manhattan Project, but when we occupied Germany, we found only a half-assed and theoretically handicapped program.

2. It's all about the coal.

Posted by Jim Bennett at July 28, 2003 01:16 PM

I wasn't sure how to bring in WMD, because the Manhattan Project was still secret up until we dropped the bombs on Japan a few days before this article was "published."

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 28, 2003 01:23 PM

WMD were already employed by Hitler. Don't forget the neo-ICBMs he was using against England in the form of the V-1 and V-2. And if exterminating millions of Jews by gas and other means is not "Mass destruction," then we should consider the death camps as something other than what they really were - another form of WMD.

Posted by Pop at July 28, 2003 01:40 PM

The V1s and V2s weren't WMD by current definition, unless they carried chemical, biological or nuclear warheads, and we were unaware of the gassing in the camps until fairly late in the war. It would be hard to argue, even in a parody, that they were the justification for it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 28, 2003 01:52 PM

And Truman, like Bush, was "unelected" as President, and chosen through "back-room" dealings, albeit not the Supreme Court.

Posted by Jeff at July 28, 2003 02:00 PM

Hey, where are the scare quotes? You can't write about an aggresive imperialist occupation without scare quotes!

Posted by George at July 28, 2003 02:11 PM

You're not satisfied with scare quotes on the word "Allies"? The rest of the descriptions, such as "brutally conquered," need none--they're obviously objectively true...

It would only be if the "Allies" "liberated" Germany, or if the Germans were "happy" to be "liberated," and considered that "good" news, that scare quotes would be required.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 28, 2003 02:19 PM

Just a few corrections to this "satire".
1) Churchill indeed knew about the nature of the camps because of Enigma de-crypts (the SS, etc, used Enigma coding for order cut to operate the camps), but to publicize that would compromise the intelligence edge we had. The Enigma machines were primarily used to route U-boat attacks.
2) The Germans did have extensive gas and bio weapons, but were deterred from using them by the fact we would retaliate in kind. They mistook nitrogen gas cylinders stockpiled for use with artillery as stockpiles of gas weapons, and refrained from using them.
3) The "lefties" were the vigorous proponents of the war against Germany, after June 22, 1941, when the Soviet Union was attacked. Previous to that, the official line was that the war was about a struggle against British "imperialism" (the official party line).

Posted by David at July 28, 2003 02:26 PM

Yeah, what David said! And if you are going to satireize the present situation by going back 50+ years, then you should scale back your definition of WMD. You know, just to keep it... oh well, it was a fun piece. And, not entirly unbelievable.

Posted by Pop at July 28, 2003 02:55 PM

What you fail to mention(and I am old enoughto remember) is that most of the world was being attacked by these countrys.They supported us in our endeavor.Unlike today where the world is terrified by our policies.Stop rewriting history.

Posted by ed jenovese at July 28, 2003 03:47 PM

David: I'm also told that Hitler, having served in WW1 as a Corporal, and having been gassed himself, didn't like the idea of using gas in war. (Using it to kill Jews was another matter, but Mr. Shickelgruber's neuroses on the matter of Jews are well known and irrelevant to the issue at hand.)

Posted by Sigivald at July 28, 2003 04:04 PM

I wonder why folks who don't put spaces after sentence-ending punctuation are so often moonbats.

Posted by Andy Freeman at July 28, 2003 04:18 PM

Man,

Wonder what this sounds like? Anyone, anyone, Bueller? I'll take the whiners and wolf criers from the media and Congress today about the alleged quagmire in Iraq for 500 Alex. Good piece Rand, wish more people could read this too see we were on the right side of history then too.

Posted by Chris Whittaker at July 28, 2003 04:41 PM

See The Command Post on this one. Also my blog.

Ah, if only I had your talent for satire.

Posted by Alan E Brain at July 28, 2003 05:54 PM

Awesome work, Rand. Dead on. Now if only enough people knew the history of what happened after 1945, we'd really be making some progress.

Posted by Bill Whittle at July 28, 2003 09:05 PM

I think at this time it would be appropriate to go back to the League of Nations to render our apologies for the unilateral actions taken against the peace loving nation of Germany, afterall it was Japan that attacked us. The "imperialist war" against Germany was simply to cover-up the sorry state of the economy and widespread unemployment. I say, "No War for Beer and beemers."
The Intergalactic Capitalist

Posted by StarBanker at July 28, 2003 09:59 PM

Awesome work, Rand. Dead on. Now if only enough people knew the history of what happened after 1945, we'd really be making some progress

...ummm, that would be 45 years of formal military occupation, coming within a gnat's private parts of Armageddon on several occasions, and the occupied nation's subsequent entry into the Axis of Weasels?

Not that there is anything wrong with that...

A couple of points:
1. The Nazis declared war on the United States - America didn't get much choice in the matter (unlike this occasion).
2. The U.S., the U.S.S.R. and the British and French Empires were the world in 1945 - you can't get much more international than that. In 2003 it is the U.S., the soon-to-be withdrawn United Kingdom, and 2,000 exploding Moroccan monkeys .

And a couple more points:
3. World War II ended in 1945 - and most people thought so at the time. Elvis, refrigerators, and big cars - enter stage right.
However, if you accept the neocon analysis, Saddam was just a speed bump - the real (vaguely defined) bad guys are still to be confronted. The War On Terror rolls on - with 3 brigades to spare.

4. And cripes, comparing the Baathists to the Nazis suggests a bit of a lack of perspective . One was a bunch of homicidal clowns; the other was a bunch of homicidal clowns armed with a superpower.

It's like comparing Carrot Top to Bob Hope.

Posted by Duncan Young at July 28, 2003 10:42 PM

And a couple more points:
3. World War II ended in 1945 - and most people thought so at the time. Elvis, refrigerators, and big cars - enter stage right.

That must be why we maintained and even increased our military strength through the fifties and sixties to fight the Cold War...

Posted by at July 28, 2003 11:29 PM

That must be why we maintained and even increased our military strength through the fifties and sixties to fight the Cold War...

As I alluded to at the start of my post (although the U.S. had to scramble in Korea in '50 - a bit of history I am worried might repeat)...

My point was that the Cold War was a different plate of beans (despite Patton's protestations at the time ) than WWII. Largely cold, for one thing. And a lot more complicated, for another.

Werewolfs notwithstanding, the war against the Nazis was over when it was over.

As opposed to, say, the Cold War, which did not end at the conclusion of Korea, Hungery, Malaya, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Vietnam, Angola, various Latin American fiacos, Grenada, etc. etc.

Is Gulf War II part of the War on Terror, or a self-contained setpiece?

If the former, implying things are going swimmingly (or otherwise, for that matter) because only one soldier is dying a day compared with the end of WWII is pointless - they are utterly different situations. History will not tell us for a long time. It took 45 years for the cold war to play out. This conflict, in the 9/11 context , cannot be critiqued or praised at the tactical level. At the stratigic level maybe - but trite historical comparisons don't help us there.

If the latter, you have my permission to gloat; however, it means you bought the idea that violation of U.N. WMD resolutions was the be-all and end-all of the Iraq invasion; and that you are touchingly naive.

And I don't think that is the case.

Posted by Duncan Young at July 29, 2003 12:25 AM

Cute article. I'm sure it was fun to write. But no implication of comparability can be taken seriously. I have heard no calls for the US to withdraw from Iraq, only to do a better job. And the war with Iraq was optional.

Posted by eb at July 30, 2003 04:50 PM

I suppose the war with Iraq was indeed "optional." Of course, so was the war with Germany. What the heck were we doing in Tunis in 1942? We were attacked by Japan.

Of course, options have consequences, as do their alternatives...

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 30, 2003 05:36 PM

Uh, Hitler pretty openly and formally declared war on the U. S. after Pearl Harbour. He took that option, not America.

The only robustly demonstrated offensive attack by Saddam on United State interests, between the Gulf Wars, was the Keystone Cops episode concerning G H W Bush.... (I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong)

Posted by Duncan Young at July 31, 2003 02:16 PM

No, you're not wrong, but I'm always amazed at those who profess to worship the UN, and whine because we didn't "get their permission" who don't notice that he was in continuous violation of over a dozen resolutions for over a decade before we actually went in and did anything about it.

Without their "approval."

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 31, 2003 08:23 PM

I recently received a copy of this satire from a highly placed Defense Department friend, who, in turn, got it from a Marine he knows. My friend probably forwarded it to hundreds on his mailing list, thinking it was legitimate. Somewhere along the way "Routers" was changed to the correct spelling, thereby seeming to authenticate it.

Congratulations--you have created an "urban legend" that is helping our Pentagon-based fighting men justify their wartime sacrifices.

Posted by Ima Merikan at August 26, 2003 04:06 PM

Ima,
You wrote in your comment about the article about the German's after WWII, "I recently recieved a copy of the satie from a highly placed D.D friend etc." To me, the way your comments started made me think that you are starting a erban legend. You know, a friend recieved this from a friend etc.
Frank Murphy

Posted by Frank Murphy at August 28, 2003 06:08 AM

Posted by Frank Murphy at August 28, 2003 06:09 AM

I love how Jim Bennett described the German's WMD as "half-assed and theoretically handicapped." Where it not for the defectors, Germany would have been the superpower in nuclear weapons, and, the American space program would be non-existant. Much of the technology we have today was from a foe of equal strength that took three fronts to conquer, not some has-been dictator that *we* helped into power.

Never confuse WWII for the second gulf war. The freedom of the whole world was at stake back then. The freedom of a few oil companies is all that's at stake today.

And, if many remember, it wasn't until WWII that we really became friends with the British. Much of the United States was made up of Germans who wanted to remain neutral, not "lefties and liberals."

Posted by at August 28, 2003 09:36 PM

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/quagmire.asp

Posted by Jeff at August 29, 2003 01:03 AM

Germany and Iraq are exactly the same, 50 years of history makes no changes and anyone who thinks otherwise is a liberal and a fool.

Posted by salvage at August 29, 2003 10:14 AM

Just thought I'd let everyone know that the above article is BS. As other posters have indicated, it has been proven to be false by snopes.com:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/quagmire.asp

Sorry pro-Iraq War guys, no ammunition here...

Posted by sorryprowarpeople at August 29, 2003 07:21 PM

>I have heard no calls for the US
>to withdraw from Iraq,

Well, maybe *you* haven't ...

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/132281_locke25.html

Posted by Alaska Jack at August 29, 2003 08:28 PM

Uhh...you do realize that Rand never claimed it was anything OTHER than satire right, as evidenced by his very FIRST reply. But that's ok, sorryprowarpeople, anti-war people rarely bother to read the whole story.

Posted by sorrysorryprowarpeople at August 31, 2003 12:07 PM

sorrysorryprowarpeople,

Satire isn't mythology.

Iraq is a hell of a lot worse than post-war Germany.

The comparison that Rand is trying to draw is specious.

However - he seems to have fooled Condi and Rummy.
(Congrats, Rand.)

See the article in Slate today.

From the official army book on the subject:
From the official army book on the subject:
"Except for black marketeering, some thefts of food and firewood, and petty violations of military government ordinances, the German civilian crime rate was low, sometimes almost disconcertingly low for the Army agencies charged with ferreting out and suppressing resistance. In October, after five months of occupation, Seventh Army G-2 believed Germany to be a "simmering cauldron of unrest and discontent" and claimed to have detected a "mounting audaciousness in the German population"; but as concrete evidence G-2 could only cite some illicit traffic in interzonal mail (then still prohibited), a "strongly worded" Werwolf threat to one military government officer in the Western Military District, and a protest against denazification from the Evangelical Church of Wuerttemberg. Patrols occasionally found decapitation wires stretched across roads, ineptly it would seem, since no deaths or injuries resulted from them. Military government public safety officers from scattered locations reported various anti-occupation leaflets and posters, some threats against German girls who associated with US soldiers, and isolated attacks on soldiers. Although not a single case was confirmed, possibly the most talked about crimes against the occupation were the alleged castrations of US soldiers by German civilians. When the commanding officer of Detachment E3B2, in Erbach, Hesse, was asked to investigate one such rumor, he reported that not only had there been no castration but that there had not been a single attack on US military personnel in over four months of occupation."

Posted by Duncan Young at September 1, 2003 01:04 AM

If we seriously want to compare the two postwar situations, I think it is important to remember that the US victory and occupation in WWII was followed by the Marshall Plan: a farsighted and magnanimous program to rebuild the conquered nations, which cost the US a *lot* of money but resulted in 50 years of peace and prosperity.

Only now (too late?) are a few people beginning to see the need for something like that in Iraq and Afghanistan (and that their oil isn't enough to pay for it), and the administration seems to be taking the attitude that we can only do it if other countries help pay for it. So I'm afraid in our desire to get in and out of there quickly, we may have created the kind of situation that existed in Germany at the end of WWI, rather than WWII. That is, chaos followed by a resurgence of belligerent nationalism and another, much greater war.

Posted by Chris Keavney at September 1, 2003 10:09 AM

I'm not sure you can call this satire - you're trying to compare a situation that genuinely exists today, to one that never did exist, and use this comparison as a way of justifying a laughable situation.

Sorry, it would only be laughable if it weren't causing the deaths of innocent US soldiers and civilians of all nationalities, and showing every indication of becoming worse and worse.

Just as in your earlier post, you are fantasizing about the situation in the mid-forties, and trying (albeit with some ability) to show it as a parallel to the current mid-east fiasco (with a typically blinkered look at only Iraq). Will you drop this thread as soon as someone exposes this feeble effort, as you did with the last one?

Posted by JohnM at September 2, 2003 04:01 PM

I questioned the credibility and authenticity of this article from the very beginning where the news agency Reuters is misspelled!

Posted by Wanda at September 10, 2003 02:47 PM

Good for you, Wanda. Anyone foolish enough to not be able to spot this as a piece of fiction should immediately send me all their cash, and I will explain the word 'gullible' to them.

I'm not criticizing the piece - the writing is pretty good, and this type of exercize in speculative fiction can provide a worthwhile starting point for intelligent thought and/or discussion, but no one with any knowledge of history should confuse it with fact.

Remember the old quote 'Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' (George Santayana) And this would not be the fantasy past that Rand likes to play with, but the real one. How about a government (with the most advanced military in the world) where the leader was not properly elected, and plunged the world into the worst nightmare of all time, by invading other nations on the flimsy pretext of 'they attacked us (or were going to)' with only faked evidence, while controlling the media and manipulating the populace through emotional pleas to their patriotism? See Germany (1935-1945), and compare with what is happening now.

Scary, huh?

Posted by JohnM at September 12, 2003 09:24 AM

Will you drop this thread as soon as someone exposes this feeble effort, as you did with the last one?

What are you talking about? I don't "drop threads." I simply move on to new posts.

Talk about "feeble effort"...

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 14, 2003 01:01 PM

Well, at least you're not a fanatic (someone who doubles their effort when they have lost sight of their target).

When your arguments are exposed as specious, Bush-league fantasies, you just quit. Sorry, 'move on to other posts'.

Posted by JohnM at September 16, 2003 06:14 AM

Well, at least you're not a fanatic (someone who doubles their effort when they have lost sight of their target).

Unlike you, who can't stay away from a month-and-a-half old post.

When your arguments are exposed as specious, Bush-league fantasies, you just quit. Sorry, 'move on to other posts'.

So how many weeks or months of my life am I supposed to spend arguing with repetitive ignorance?

Obviously, I can't win. Continued discussion makes me a "fanatic," and dropping it to move on to other topics means that I've "lost the argument," and "admit my error."

You're pretty funny.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 16, 2003 10:40 AM

A classic methodology of the incompetent - if you can't discuss the issues intelligently, attack the opponent personally.

I expected better of you.

TTFN

Posted by JohnM at September 23, 2003 06:14 AM

Amusing piece, but I'm appalled to see how many of the people commenting on it think this is based on truth! As satire it's very funny, but honestly anything that alleges the difficulties of the occupation of post-war Germany (total allied deaths due to resistance: zero) resemble the situation in Iraq requires a heroic stretch of the imagination.

Posted by Wendell at September 24, 2003 06:31 AM

Receipt of a (changed) copy of your "August 12, 1945" news release brought me to your weblog. Heard of weblogs, but this is my first contact. Clever script, and not your fault that someone changed the "Routers" to make it seem more legit. For a fact: several people I know bought it as real. Along the way I believe I uncovered the actual hostile losses in post WWII Germany occupation:zero. (43 in Somalia, 30 in Afganistan so far: looks like occupation is becoming more dangerous...)
Bookmarked your weblog.
Greg

Posted by Greg at September 25, 2003 09:13 PM

...attack the opponent personally

Someone would have to have a pretty thick skin to think that I've attacked them personally in this comments section.

Posted by Rand Simberg at September 29, 2003 02:00 PM

Well, I suppose some people would consider that referring to me as a 'fanatic' and 'ignorant' would be considered personal, but if you don't think so, that's fine.

By the way, the term is 'thin skin', not 'thick skin'.

Also, I see you have decided to only comment on my point that you would drop the post rather than try to deal with people who expose the glaring errors, than actually try to respond to the people who expose the errors (see the recent posts by Greg and Wendell), thereby proving my point.

Thanks.

Posted by JohnM` at October 8, 2003 08:32 AM

Well, I suppose some people would consider that referring to me as a 'fanatic' and 'ignorant' would be considered personal, but if you don't think so, that's fine.

When did I refer to you as a "fanatic"? Can you point it out?

And I didn't say you were ignorant. I said your comment was. I've no idea why you would make such a comment--perhaps you know better, and are just trolling, but criticizing your comment is not a personal attack. But I guess that it's easier to pretend to make yourself out to be a victim by feigning an inability to comprehend my own comments, than to address the issues.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 9, 2003 12:36 AM

In your post at September 16, 2003 10:40 AM, you quote my comment of "Well, at least you're not a fanatic" and respond with "Unlike you".

That certainly sounds like you referring to me as a fanatic.

On rereading your comment on 'repetitive ignorange' it is unclear as to whether you are referring to me, my comments, or all the comments posted that disagree with you. My point was that you do not discuss the apparently valid points that people make to dispute your statements. Your response of "So how many weeks or months of my life am I supposed to spend arguing with repetitive ignorance?" is effectively saying that you won't discuss the issues, but will dismiss them.

By the way, I love your last comment: 'I guess that it's easier to pretend to make yourself out to be a victim by feigning an inability comprehend my own comments, than to address the issues.'

That is exactly what you are doing, by, again, only commenting on a minor point, rather than actually trying to respond to the people who expose the errors (see the recent posts by Greg and Wendell).

If you think my comments are so 'ignorant', why do you persist in dealing only with them, and not with the valid, intelligent comments of others?

Posted by at October 9, 2003 10:42 AM

EARTHLINGS:

I want us all to remember the young Iraq boy running around with both of his arms blown off by me "an American" that was fooled by Presdident Bush into believing that there were weapons of mass destruction, being 1. Atomic Weapons; 2. Germ Weapons and 3. Chemical weapons. I whole heartedly through my support behind the war because of the lies that were forced upon the American People.........

Of which there were none. Even should some be found now they would be totally meaningless, the time that they would have been used was when they were initially attacked. We attacked a basicly helpless nation.

Go to Snopes "Hermann Goering", he describes very well the actions of The Presidents of the United States in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Iraq II and every other war we have been involved in since WW2.

Partially quoting Snopes' "Hermann Goring"

"Of course the people don't want war, but after all it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a Democracy, a Fascist Dictatorship, or a Parliment, or a Comunist Dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and the Athenia was attacked with Americans on board in WW2 to get us off of high center and force us into war.......since then the United States has become WARMONGERS as Eisenhowere preditcted in his farewell address to the NATION.

I was a Gunners Mate in the Navy during the Vietnam War. I volunteered after I was drafted into the Army in October 1966. I did not want to be taken off the farm with the only good prospect of returning to that same farm un-injured, so to speak ..... we were all injured, when the Viet-Cong could not do it the American Government dumped Agent Orange and other dioxins on top of us without our knowledge.......Hitler's Gas Chamber....what about America's Gas Chamber

The United States managed to exterminate 58,000+ Americans and if the Vietnames Body Count is correct and I doubt it, 2 million (2,000,000) Vietnamese.....

Posted by James Dixon Graves Jr. at October 9, 2003 12:52 PM

In your post at September 16, 2003 10:40 AM, you quote my comment of "Well, at least you're not a fanatic" and respond with "Unlike you".

That certainly sounds like you referring to me as a fanatic.

OK, I missed that one. Yes, since you seem to have latched on to this post like a dog to a (now meatless) bone, I will now, in clear conscience, declare you a fanatic.

No, sorry, I don't have infinite time (or interest) to continue to argue about a three-month-old post. Again, sorry, but I, unlike some people, have a life.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 13, 2003 10:14 PM

Regarding comment way above about George W. Bush being the 'unelected' president...(See post by 'Jeff' of July 28, 2003 at 2:00pm)

Three major Flordia newspapers here (all of them rather left-leaning) sued for access to the paper ballots that had been counted by the counties most likely to have turned in Democrat majorities. Those three papaers spent 4 months and millions of dollars manually re-counting paper ballots in all jurisdictions other than those that had historically turned in large Republican majorities. After all those months and bucks (and the hoopla surrounding their project), their final report received less-than-great coverage: George Bush carried Florida. That means he won the popular vote in Florida and all that states electoral vote.

Posted by Raj Prakhash at December 20, 2003 08:03 AM

Guess how far your article has traveled: all the way to the US Congress! Rep. Kennedy (no relation) of Minnesota used it on October 15, 2003, to justify additional spending for Iraq.

The references are on his Wikipedia entry (the come and go, depending on how quick his supporters (or staff) delete them. You can still trace it under 'history'.

Did this guy take Proofreading 101 or Factcheck 101? And now he's running for Senator. Great. What's next, using The Cat in the Hat to justify spending on child protective services???

Posted by John at October 3, 2006 07:32 PM

Post a comment