Bush=FDR?

[Pryderi]

Heard this on Ed Schultz. I didn't see it here

Strategies or diversions?
By Peter Schweizer
Critics have assailed President Bush for his strategy on terrorism, calling the war in Iraq a diversion from the main task of defeating al-Qaeda. But just days after the 60th anniversary of victory in World War II, it is striking to note how Franklin D. Roosevelt faced very similar critics and how President Bush has adopted a grand strategy very much in the Roosevelt tradition.

With a logic that Bush would find familiar, FDR was lambasted by his critics for his WWII military strategy of defeating Germany first before focusing on Japan. They considered Germany a diversion. Wasn't it Japan and not Germany that had attacked us at Pearl Harbor, asked Sens. Arthur Vandenberg and A.B. Chandler? One foreign minister called the idea "suicidal heresy."

By 1942, American generals were complaining that precious resources were being diverted to fight Germans in North Africa, hardly a direct strategic concern. All of this should sound familiar in the debate over Iraq and the war on terrorism.

Conspiracy theories abounded then as they do today. Jon Meacham, in his book Franklin and Winston, writes about how FDR's critics believed that his Germany-first strategy was a result of excessive British influence. It wasn't a conspiracy involving Israel-loving neocons back then, but Anglophiles, who were manipulating the White House to serve British ends.

more here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-08-16-bush-strategy-edit_x.htm

[kweerwolf]

1. Maybe Bush really does = FDR ...

... assuming, of course, that FDR is the acronum for "fuckin' dumbass Repugnantcan"

[K-W]

2. That is hillarious. EOM

[Bob3]

3. this is just insane jabbering

I am sure there were some mossbacks in the GOP who didn't want to go to war with Germany. But honestly how many were there? As sure as hell not 55% of the public.

But they will keep trying to compare this doomed attempt to establish a colony in the middle east with World War II.

[Pryderi]

10. I can't believe USA Today published such tripe!

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

4. Wow, now I've seen it all.

[YOY]

5. I can see the connection:

FDR: New Deal, Gave hope and helps his nation in financial turmoil!

Bush: Raw Deal, Snorted dope and rapes another nation of their oil!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[newscott]

6. Good one

Give yourself a pat on the back. That was pretty damn funny!

[leyton]

7. The comparison is faulty.

Germany and Japan were formal allies in a pretty straightforward war. What's more, Europe was in grave danger of being completely overridden by Germany and Italy, while Japan wasn't really in a position to sustain a war of aggression against the United States.

The ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, if they exist, are loose at best. While both are enemies of the United States, Al Qaeda is in a position to do more damage than Japan (because it can, at a low cost, sustain attacks against the West, as we have seen with London and Madrid). Saddam Hussein, on the other hand, was not going to attack us.

Furthermore, a U.S. invasion at Normandy did not attract Japanese Kamikaze fighters. Other than the Fascists we were aiming at - the Germans and the Italians - there were no third parties coming in to harass us and to bog us down. As we see in the news every day, that is not the case in Iraq today.

(Not that anyone at DU is really going to think Bush approaches FDR in terms of competence. Just saying...)

[Paganini]

8. Unlike Iraq, Germany declared War on the US

On December 11 1941- both Italy and Germany declare war on the US.

[The Traveler]

9. A very important point

Also, FDR was aware of German investment in rocket and A Bomb technology. Germany fielded the first jet fighters, and they kicked ass ... but there weren't enough of 'em. Had we not gotten the daylight precision bombing thing going, things might have indeed turned out differently. Also, strategically, we needed to take the heat of Britain who has getting their ass kicked by both the Japanese and the Germans. (The Japanese had basically crushed the British Asian naval force.)

They were, also, different wars, tactically. The war in Europe was an air/land war. The war in the Pacific was a Naval war.

As a consequence, we had minimal naval assets in the Atlantic. Control of the Atlantic was principally Britain's problem. If Britain had folded, we would have been truly fucked.

In FDR's case, there was honest debate over the strategy. In Bush's case, it has yet to be proven that there IS a strategy. FDR made clever but tough decisions with the odds against us. Bush has blundered our way into an unwinnable war.