Presidential quotes

[bobstod]

This letter to the editor appeared in the Mobile Register this morning:

Now, some thoughts from our presidents

In honor of President's Day this month, I believe it fitting to remember a few of our leaders' words:

James Madison said, "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." He also said, "The means of defense against foreign danger historically have become the instruments of tyranny at home." Lastly, "The Constitution supposes what the history of all government demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it."

John Adams said, "America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy." He also said, "Power always thinks that it is doing God's services when it is violating all his laws."

Abraham Lincoln said, "Allow the president to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such a purpose -- and you allow him to make war at pleasure." He also said, "America will never be destroyed from outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

Theodore Roosevelt said, "Patriotism means to stand by a country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any official." He also said, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the president ... is morally treasonable to the American public." He finished by saying that "to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesman of the day."

Calvin Coolidge said, "No nation ever had an army large enough to guarantee it against attack in time of peace, or ensure it victory in time of war."

John F. Kennedy said, "War will exist until the distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." He warned, "Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind."

Thomas Jefferson said, "Governments constantly choose between telling lies and fighting wars, with the end result always being the same. One will always lead to the other." He added, "War is an instrument entirely inefficient towards redressing wrong; and multiplies instead of diminishing losses."

Ronald Reagan said, "Peace is not absence of conflict; it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means." He added, "People do not make wars; governments do. ... The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be the aggressor."

Jimmy Carter said, "We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children."

George W. Bush said, "I just want you to know that when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." He also said that "the role of the military is to fight and win and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."

Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war. ... War settles nothing. ... I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."

Eisenhower asked, "How far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without? We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security." When he stepped down, he warned us, "We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

I think these are wise words by those speaking from the voice of experience. Were the Founding Fathers around to see America today, I think they would be angered at how far executive privileges now extend at the expense of individual freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. I also think they would be enraged at how the United States has gone abroad on pretexts, later determined to be baseless, to bully other countries. I do not believe it was what they ever intended. Indeed, their quotes are full of insight and at times are prophetic.

LYNN SEEWER

Mobile

 

[NYBamaFan]

It sounds as though the tone has remained the same through time - at least, the rhetoric. It should be noted that many of those providing these cautionary quotes also led our country into or through wars. Man is a violent animal, and war will always exist.

Mutually assured destruction is only a deterent if both sides are willing to live life as it exists for them today. How does that apply in our world today?

 

[bobstod]

Man is a violent animal, and war will always exist.

What a sad, but true, commentary on the Human species.

Nevertheless, the truth of it does not excuse one from protesting against unjust wars, and pointing out that war is wasteful, brutal, and in the vast majority of cases, senseless.

And this statement: George W. Bush said, "I just want you to know that when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." He also said that "the role of the military is to fight and win and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place." calls into question our president's grasp on reality, and demonstrates his confidence (often rewarded) that anything he says will be accepted as wise truth by some.

There is wisdom in this old adage, which I quote from a bad memory and therefore beg pardon for if it is poorly stated: "When the only tool one has at hand is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail."

GWB's quote above on the role of the military is correct in its opening phrase. It runs into trouble in the next one, not only in the obvious illogicality but in its limited view of his own role in world affairs.

Bush, as Commander in Chief, fulfills only one of many roles that are the duty of the American president. He is also the chief civilian; in a country where civilian control of the military is a paramount constitutional imperative. As president he has a cabinet of officers at his disposal to help him fulfill his duties. One of those cabinet departments is specifically structured to help him with international affairs (Department of State).

He also has intelligence services, international spies, congress, the justice department, and access to all the best minds in all the universities and colleges in the nation.

With all that help, somebody ought to be identify some problems that don't look like nails.

 

[TexasTide]

It sounds as though the tone has remained the same through time - at least, the rhetoric. It should be noted that many of those providing these cautionary quotes also led our country into or through wars. Man is a violent animal, and war will always exist.

Mutually assured destruction is only a deterent if both sides are willing to live life as it exists for them today. How does that apply in our world today?

Unfortunately everything changes when fighting an enemy that has no respect for life, even their own. The Japanese military are the only ones we have fought on a large scale that were similar, but even they valued their own civilian population. I don't believe the same could be said for many Muslims.

 

[NYBamaFan]

He also has intelligence services, international spies, congress, the justice department, and access to all the best minds in all the universities and colleges in the nation.

With all that help, somebody ought to be identify some problems that don't look like nails.

Hmmm, most of those groups helped Iraq look more and more like a nail for a very long time before Bush took office. Since most of the world saw Iraq as a "nail" before we invaded, I would go even further, saying that most of the great minds that were tasked to determine the risks associated with Saddam and Iraq came to the same conclusion - world wide. In fact, most Muslim nations saw him as a threat.

No matter how you personally felt pre-invasion, most of the evidence supported this administration's decion to disarm and remove Saddam from power. Were these great minds all wrong? IMO, our only mistake was in waiting so long to do what clearly needed to be done that we gave him an opportunity to sell those weapons to other countries before we invaded. That mistake may cost us yet...

 

[NYBamaFan]

Unfortunately everything changes when fighting an enemy that has no respect for life, even their own. The Japanese military are the only ones we have fought on a large scale that were similar, but even they valued their own civilian population. I don't believe the same could be said for many Muslims.

Even then, we had to demonstrate our willingness to totally annihilate their people to get them to surrender. I suspect that something of that magnitude may be necessary to convince the Middle East to stop terrorist activity.

And, for those that think that these countries are not at fault - that this has to all be laid at the feet of these terrorist groups - I point out that these countries do not even attempt to police these groups unless they make attacks within their countries. Until we show these countries that we will hold them accountable, I expect that behavior to continue. They pretend to abhor the behavior, but sit by and watch it happen, providing a safe haven at a minimum, and financial and/or moral support in many cases...

 

[TexasTide]

Hmmm, most of those groups helped Iraq look more and more like a nail for a very long time before Bush took office. Since most of the world saw Iraq as a "nail" before we invaded, I would go even further, saying that most of the great minds that were tasked to determine the risks associated with Saddam and Iraq came to the same conclusion - world wide. In fact, most Muslim nations saw him as a threat.

No matter how you personally felt pre-invasion, most of the evidence supported this administration's decion to disarm and remove Saddam from power. Were these great minds all wrong? IMO, our only mistake was in waiting so long to do what clearly needed to be done that we gave him an opportunity to sell those weapons to other countries before we invaded. That mistake may cost us yet...

A lot of those "great minds" are not so great and were supporting the cause because it was popular at the time. Now it's popular to blame it all on Bush. I don't understand how Democrat voters can let their representatives get away with it. How soon they have forgotten Kerry, Clinton, and others supporting GWB invading Iraq. If it was so wrong why do you Democrats not protest and complain about them?

 

[bobstod]

Which logic justifies "preemptive invasion"? Does it include any nation that GWB considers a threat? Only those which 'world opinion' considers a threat?

My point above, and I believe it applies to the Iraq war, is that wars should be a last resort. They should only be entered into when every other avenue has been exhausted. "Just wars" are rare.

I don't believe, to this day, that GWB exhausted every option before invading Iraq. I don't believe he kept his focus where it should have been, and where he promised it would be: on finding Osama bin Laden and 'smoking him out of his hole'.

I don't believe that he sees his role as the leader of a free nation that prizes peace and justice above all other things. He sees himself as an avenging force. It is not a mature or statesmanlike policy. While pleasing to some, because it is masculine and aggressive, it has not been a prudent way to conduct foreign policy.

We currently spent a hundred thousand dollars a minute in Iraq, at a time when we are hemoragging red ink at a level never seen before, in a budget that doesn't even include Iraq!

Global warning is a myth. Stem cell research is murder. Tax money should go to pay tuition at private religious schools. Veterans' benefits should be cut. School loans curtailed. Programs for old people and children slashed to make way for tax cuts that benefit people in GWB's income range.

Our focus is not on these issues, or on alternative energy, or on government reform. It is on a foreign war that drags on, taking the lives of our soldiers and bleeding our treasury dry.

We need to end it, and end it soon.

We need new leadership.

 

[TexasTide]

Global warning is a myth. Stem cell research is murder. Tax money should go to pay tuition at private religious schools. Veterans' benefits should be cut. School loans curtailed. Programs for old people and children slashed to make way for tax cuts that benefit people in GWB's income range.

What a bunch of rhetorical garbage.

 

[NYBamaFan]

bobstod,

Everything that you just posted is personal opinion. You are entitled to yours, just as everyone else. Yours is neither more correct nor valid than anyone else's. It is an opinion. The thing that concerns me is your need to beat this drum every day. Yep, Bush has done a horrible job at some things, and a great job at others.

Are you sure that Gore would not have done something even worse had he been president during Bush's first term? Remember, Gore had a huge superiority complex. How would he have reacted to 9/11 and the attacks from his fellow Americans for not being prepared? Who knows what he might have done.

You can blame Bush for everything that he has done, but I don't know that either Gore or Kerry would have done better or produced better results.

What we need are better leaders in the future. We won't get that if we keep thinking like most on this board seem to - support my guy, tear down their guy, vote for whoever is willing to do the most for me, personally...

 

[TexasTide]

By the way, Bob, I was lower - middle income during Clinton's last term and GWB's first. Hardly the same tax bracket as GWB, but I benefitted from the tax cuts.

But, like everything else that contradicts what you choose to believe, I'm sure you will ignore this.

 

[bobstod]

bobstod,

Everything that you just posted is personal opinion. You are entitled to yours, just as everyone else. Yours is neither more correct nor valid than anyone else's. It is an opinion. The thing that concerns me is your need to beat this drum every day. Yep, Bush has done a horrible job at some things, and a great job at others.

Are you sure that Gore would not have done something even worse had he been president during Bush's first term? Remember, Gore had a huge superiority complex. How would he have reacted to 9/11 and the attacks from his fellow Americans for not being prepared? Who knows what he might have done.

You can blame Bush for everything that he has done, but I don't know that either Gore or Kerry would have done better or produced better results.

What we need are better leaders in the future. We won't get that if we keep thinking like most on this board seem to - support my guy, tear down their guy, vote for whoever is willing to do the most for me, personally...

Well said, and undeniably true, NYBF. I'm not sure that Kerry or Gore would have done better after 9/11 than Bush did, and I'm not sure that the Bush tax cuts have not provided some delayed stimulus to the economy.

I'm sure that if Kerry had been elected, the rhetoric from the right would be even more acidic than the rhetoric from the left against Bush. Just look at what it was during the campaign. Heck, look at what it was against John McCain, a Republican!

T-Tide, I also benefitted from the Bush tax cuts. I will do so again next year, because I sold a house that will count as a capital gain. Nevertheless, I think they benefit the wealthy at the expense of the poor; and I think they should be eliminated.

Just my opinion, as NYBF points out.

 

[goallinestand78]

IMO, our only mistake was in waiting so long to do what clearly needed to be done that we gave him an opportunity to sell those weapons to other countries before we invaded. That mistake may cost us yet...

This is the weakest post hoc rationalization for the invasion that I've yet heard. Where's the evidence that at any time since 1991 Saddam possessed WMOD? Where's the evidence that he sold them to other countries? With the capture of all of Iraq's ministries and most of its leaders, wouldn't we have found out if that was the case? After all, we were able to uncover evidence down to the level of bribes paid to George Galloway.

 

[NYBamaFan]

This is the weakest post hoc rationalization for the invasion that I've yet heard. Where's the evidence that at any time since 1991 Saddam possessed WMOD? Where's the evidence that he sold them to other countries? With the capture of all of Iraq's ministries and most of its leaders, wouldn't we have found out if that was the case? After all, we were able to uncover evidence down to the level of bribes paid to George Galloway.

"Where's the evidence?" What would it take for people like you? Films of Saddam testing the stuff on kids? Do you think that he just decided to end his programs because he had a change of heart?

:eek2: Wow!!! I mean, wow!!!! :eek2:

 

[bobstod]

"Where's the evidence?" What would it take for people like you? Films of Saddam testing the stuff on kids? Do you think that he just decided to end his programs because he had a change of heart?

Well, it would take evidence.

That seems reasonable to me, NYBF.

Your rejection of the idea of scientific evidence for truth reminds me of Bamabake's post on T Rex.

I doubt GLS78 knows why Saddam gave up on his WMD programs. There could be hundreds of explanations. I don't know. I just know that, after exhaustive attempts to find any, there has never been any evidence that he had WMDs after GWI, or that he sold them to anybody else...

 

[Bamaro]

Evidence! We dont need no stinkin evidence! Lets just start a war, get thousands of Americans killed, spend hundreds of billions. We dont need no stinkin evidence.

 

[bobstod]

One hundred thousand dollars a minute...

 

[doctorgonzo]

The evidence is in Tony Blair's plagarized speech he took from a college kid a decade ago. The evidence is in Colin Powell's "mobile weapons labs" or "unmanned aerial drones". The evidence is in Saddam's links to 9/11. The evidence is in Saddam's support of Al Qaeda.

Oh yes, the evidence speaks for itself.

 

[Tidewater]

In honor of President's Day this month, I believe it fitting to remember a few of our leaders' words:

Bob, with all due respect, it's not President's Day, the Federal holiday is Washington's Birthday.

 

[Tidewater]

We need new leadership.

And one way or the other, we'll get it in 2008.
However, if the Democrats insist on nominating another northeastern liberal, I would suggest you prepare yourself for another four years in political exile.