PDA

View Full Version : FDR's grandson on Bush.


slugshooter
10-30-2004, 03:01 AM
What Is a War President?

Franklin D. Roosevelt's grandson assesses George W. Bush's performance

AP
By James Roosevelt Jr.

NewsweekOct. 29 - Last May, I walked through the magnificent new World War II Memorial that was soon to be dedicated on the National Mall in Washington. The architecture, sculpture and carved quotations were impressive. But it was the faces of the retired veterans and the depth of feeling in the eyes of their wives and widows that was most moving. As I watched them read the words of inspiration from the war's leaders etched into the stone walls, I thought of my father, who served during the war as a Marine in Carlson's Raiders. His father, my grandfather, was making his own contribution: as president of the United States.

Today, I remember the words etched into that memorial while I read the news from Iraq. The contrast is stark. This summer, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's name and legacy were invoked by almost a dozen speakers at the Republican National Convention. But George W. Bush is not, and never will be, a president like FDR.

In the White House today is a man who for the first time in our nation's history invaded another country without our first being attacked and without the support of a global alliance. The real leadership of FDR, by contrast, was the skill with which he solidified our alliances and made winning the war a truly global effort.

At home, FDR mobilized American industrial power to provide the needed equipment for our forces and those of our allies. His fireside chats focused on calls for national sacrifice, but his concern for the troops was also very personal. My father and all three of his brothers were on active duty—in combat—in the Marine Corps, the Navy and the Army Air Corps. Their sister, Anna, and their mother, Eleanor Roosevelt, ministered to the soldiers and sailors with the American Red Cross. They shared the common sacrifices with ordinary Americans both in uniform oversees and in factories, homes and offices all over America.

Where are George W. Bush's personal sacrifices? Where are the inspirational words meant to mobilize America now?

Most importantly, Dr. Win the War (as FDR was called) met with the leaders of the Allied nations throughout the war to plan the peace. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, together with Joseph Stalin and sometimes even Charles DeGaulle, knew that military victory leading to an unplanned peace was hollow and potentially disastrous. Iraq today proves that their fears were well founded.

Americans old enough to remember the 1940s—and those of us who learn from history—have a model of a War President. He is one who builds true cooperation with our foreign friends. He is one who is never the aggressor, but once attacked, involves even those closest to him in an all-out effort to win. And he is one who has a plan for the peace such as the Marshall Plan in Europe or reindustrialization in Japan.

A War President isn't self-proclaimed. A president becomes a true War President by leadership that inspires followers at home and abroad. And most importantly, a War President never loses sight of the goals of true peace with honor.

For Bush to grant himself this title is an insult to my grandfather and the inspired leaders who led this country in wars that were just. To put it simply, George W. Bush has not earned the right to be called a War President.

Roosevelt is a former associate commissioner of Social Security for Retirement Policy

© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.

johnf
10-30-2004, 10:58 AM
I don't remember any history lessons about Germany, Italy, Vietnam, or Korea attacking us. Further more, Bosnia, Somolia never attacked us in our time. From what I remember they didn't even threaten us. Why did we go there? Must have been for the oil.

As far as the globel alliance, right. Have you not heard about the oil for food thing. There was never going to be a global alliance. When the leaders of the world are un-Godly corrupt people who care nothing for what is right, but are only looking out to makethemselves a few bucks there is never going to be any "global alliance" and there will be no passing of a global test.
Sometimes you have to do what's right just because it's right and world opinion be D@#ed. If someone has a gun pointed to my head and I've got one too. Somebody's gonna get a bullet in the head, and I'm not waiting around to see who shoots first.

Bush is not FDR, I don't think there has ever been a comparison untill you pointed it out. This is not the world of that time, and this is not the same war. This is a war of ideologies and theologies. Plain a simple we are at war with a religion who teaches beliefs contrary to our way of life. Not a specific contry nor, besides BinLadin and other financers of terror, any specific man.

As far as G.W.B.'s personal sacrifices. Wah, he's got two daughters and this aint 1944. Get over it.

No war pres. is the agressor? What about George Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy, Johnson, and yes even Clinton, when were we attacked when they went to war?

A war president is one who is president in time of war. So then how is GW not a "War President" I didn't realize it was a right, I thought it was a statement.

Much like John Kerry being called a "soldier". Many people would like to argue that point to. Fact is he was in the military. That made him a soldier. It's a title.

We have had war declaired on us. We were attacked. We are fighting.

GWB is a war president by definition.

slugshooter
10-30-2004, 12:02 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Bush is not FDR, I don't think there has ever been a comparison untill you pointed it out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't point it out, talk to FDR's grandson.


[ QUOTE ]
No war pres. is the agressor? What about George Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy, Johnson, and yes even Clinton, when were we attacked when they went to war?

[/ QUOTE ]

When did Washington serve in time of war, he wasn't President during the Revolutionary war, and Lincoln, well, the Civil War started when Confederates started firing on Federal troops at Fort Sumter, Kennedy did send troops to Vietnam, but it was Johnson who escalated it into the war it became. And we never really had a war per se under Clinton, he sent peacekeeping troops into areas to try and put down a dictator, but we never had a full scale invasion under Clinton.

oldksnarc
10-30-2004, 02:07 PM
A week or so ago I watched a program on the History Channel that was showing the period after WWII when we were trying to establish peace. It was just as chaotic and dangerous as the actual war. German patriots were using unfound, unsecured munitions and explosives against Allied soldiers and bombing and killing everything they could to defeat the transition to peace.

It was obvious there was no plan for peace as maintained by the above letter. Except for being black and white footage, the insurgents being German, and the uniforms different, it could have been a depiction of what we are seeing today in Iraq.

FDR may have been a great president, but history as evidently forgotten certain facts. Big difference today is it's in our face where as in WWII it took us a while to get our news and we took it at face value. We didn't have pundits telling us what it meant and shaping our thoughts.

Peace is harder to maintain than the war is to fight.

slugshooter
10-31-2004, 05:50 PM
[ QUOTE ]
We have only been attack in America on American soil three times, the American Revolution, The War of 1812, and 9/11. The attacks of Pearl Harbor don't count because Hawaii wasn't a state till after it happened (either late 40's or early 50's).

[/ QUOTE ]

Go ahead and tell those survivors of Pearl Harbor that what the Japanese did to them didn't count. The Japanese didn't attack Hawaii, they attacked the US Naval Fleet stationed there. I think you need to take a history class and apologize to everyone who lived through that day and those families who lost someone in the attack. And, we didn't start out in Europe, we started in the South Pacific, fighting the Japanese and when it came apparent that England, Russia and France couldn't stop Germany, we went there also.

markyj987
11-01-2004, 07:11 AM
Great points made by all here.

I did hear the GOP invoke the name of FDR a number of times, just as they said JFK this and JFK that. Kerry has also compared himself to another great president--Ronald Reagan.

This is just NORMAL presidential politics. Presidential candidates ALWAYS try to compare themselves to great presidents from other parties. FDR is a Democrat icon as is Reagan to the GOP. It's just politcs as usual and an attempt to use historic greats to gain a political advantage. Considering how ignorant most are about history, it really has little to no effect on how people vote. That said, I don't think the article is newsworthy, though FDR's grandson definitely has the right to point out what he feels is a misrepresentation.

oldksnarc makes the best point of all. It was JUST as chaotic in Germany after WWII--probably even moreso. This war is a different animal altogether.

As far as Hawaii's statehood is concerned, it became a state actually on August 21, 1959, nearly twenty years after Pearl Harbor. However, it became a U.S. territory on August 12, 1898. Pearl Harbor DEFINITELY was an attack on U.S. soil.

fisherguy
11-01-2004, 09:23 AM
Maybe its just me, but who cares what FDR's grandson has to say? What has he done, to me he is just another individual trying to weasel his grandfathers influence and fame to further his beliefs.

ZooBear
11-01-2004, 09:55 AM
Remember Billy Carter!!LOL

johnf
11-01-2004, 12:01 PM
Billy Carter and Roger Clinton have about the same political clout as FDR's grandson.

Texan_Til_I_Die
11-01-2004, 02:16 PM
I've never been a fan of FDR and have never heard of anything his grandson has done to distinguish himself, but as the son of an Army veteran who was in the D-Day invasion, who was seriously wounded by shrapnel that he carried until the day he died, who went back into combat after 6 months in a hospital, and who was highly decorated for his service and bravery, I'll say this. I'm proud of President Bush and the job he's doing to fight global terrorism. His vision and goals are far superior to anything that Sen. Kerry is capable of evening imagining. I will vote for President Bush tomorrow.

wtnhunt
11-02-2004, 08:55 AM
Who? Really could care less what FDR's grandson has to say. Will make my own decisions based on my own thoughts.