Tag Archives: Harry Truman

national news, political news

The buck still stops in the Oval Office … doesn’t it?

There once was a time when presidents of the United States took the heat when things went badly.

President Harry Truman had that sign on his Oval Office desk that declared “The Buck Stops Here.” He knew, for example, that his firing of Army Gen. Douglas MacArthur from his command post in Korea would be political dynamite at home. But he did so anyway as a statement of support of civilian authority over the military.

President John F. Kennedy fell on his grenade in 1961 when the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba — which sought to overthrow Fidel Castro  — went badly. He told us that “Victory has a thousand fathers while defeat is an orphan.” He took responsibility for the failure of the mission.

Other presidents have assumed responsibility for missteps, mishaps and outright tragedy.

The current president is not wired that way. Donald John Trump’s first and last instinct is to blame others.

The commando raid in Yemen in which a brave Navy SEAL died was the fault of the “generals” who put the mission together, Trump said.

Then came the failed effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Trump is not taking a lick of responsibility for the failure to cobble together a political alliance that would institute something called the American Health Care Act.

Oh, no! He said first it was the fault of Democrats who didn’t sign on at all with the AHCA. Then it became the fault of the conservative Freedom Caucus of the House GOP. After that, the president tossed a barb at Republican moderates who hated the AHCA as well.

Where, oh where is the president’s responsibility?

Leaders step up when matters go awry, just as they bask in the reflected glory when matters go well. They take the bad along with the good.

If only the current president could actually lead. He simply cannot fulfill a basic tenet of the office he occupies.

Presidents Truman and Kennedy are spinning in their graves.

national news, political news

Obama and Trump: no longer BFFs

That didn’t last long.

President Barack Obama pledged to do all he could to ensure a “smooth transition” to the presidency of Donald J. Trump.

Now we hear that the men are at each other’s throats. They’re sniping from lecture podiums and over social media.

Trump has been sniping at the president over his decision to forgo a U.N. Security Council veto of a resolution that condemns Israel for its construction of settlements on the West Bank. The president, meanwhile, is talking out loud about the dangers of isolating the United States from the rest of the world.

How will all of this — and more — affect the transition? No one can yet determine how the men’s staffs will work together. Indeed, that’s where the transition must occur without a hitch. Chiefs of staff need to talk constructively to each other, along with other White House staffers. National security experts need to talk candidly about the threats to the nation.

Even though I shouldn’t give a damn how this affects the two men’s personal relationship, I feel compelled to recall an anecdotal story I heard some years ago about two earlier presidents.

Harry Truman left the presidency after Dwight Eisenhower was elected in 1952. The two partisans despised each other. Truman, the Democrat, couldn’t stomach the idea that Eisenhower, the Republican, would occupy the Oval Office. They barely spoke to each other during the transition.

The men reportedly set aside their personal antipathy at the funeral of another president a decade later. President Kennedy was gunned down and Give ‘Em Hell Harry and Ike managed to patch up their personal relations as they joined the rest of the country in bidding farewell to JFK. Did they realize at that time that life, indeed, is too short to harbor grudges? Perhaps.

No one really expects Obama and Trump to become BFFs. Given the mercurial temperament that Trump exhibits — describing his meetings with Obama as “terrific” and “terrible” in the same week — one cannot predict how the president-elect is going to respond.

President Obama has spoken eloquently about the graciousness extended to him and his staff by President George W. Bush’s team in 2009. The transition from President Clinton to Bush in 2001, as we have learned, wasn’t quite so smooth with reports of keyboards missing the letter “W” and other pranks being pulled.

The stakes are much greater, of course, when rocky transitions involve heads of state instructing their staffs to undermine the other guy in this troubling and unsettled time.

Barack Obama and Donald Trump have three more weeks to put this campaign behind them. Let’s get busy, gentlemen.

national news, political news

Can the candidates keep a secret?

nsa-logo1

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Donald J. Trump — the Democratic and Republican candidates for president, respectively — are set to receive briefings from President Obama’s national security team.

The question keeps bugging me: Will they both receive identical briefings and will they get information that is at matching levels of security clearance?

Trump’s penchant for shooting off his mouth has become somewhat legendary as he campaigns for president. Clinton, too, has problems — allegedly — with protecting national security information.

Of the two, my sense is that Clinton — given her troubles over her use of personal e-mail servers while she was secretary of state — is going to be extra careful with any information she gets from Obama’s national security team.

Trump? I’m not so sure.

This has been a custom dating back to the 1952 when President Truman’s team decided to share this information with Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson, the candidates who sought to succeed Give ‘Em Hell Harry.

The intent is to avoid the new president from getting too much of a surprise when he or she takes office. Harry Truman took office in April 1945 and wasn’t told until 12 days after being sworn in after President Roosevelt’s death that, um, we had been doing research on a secret weapon in New Mexico that might end World War II in a hurry.

It was the atomic bomb!

I’m going to assume — yes, I know that’s a dangerous thing to do — that the information given to Clinton and Trump will be given in the strictest confidence. That means the people giving it will be sworn to secrecy, as well as the people receiving it.

Are they bound by any rule that requires them to give Trump the same intelligence briefing they give to Clinton?

More to the point, can the intelligence briefers and the candidates keep it all of it a secret?

International news

Did we make a ‘mistake’ in Hiroshima?

2 Comments

90

I am drawn by a particular passage from remarks President Obama made while visiting Hiroshima.

“We’re not bound by genetic codes to repeat the mistakes of the past. We can learn. We can choose. We can tell our children a different story,” Obama said in remarks at the memorial that commemorates the dropping of the atomic bomb on the Japanese city on Aug. 6, 1945.

To be sure, the president did not deliver an apology for the decision one of his predecessors, Harry Truman, made in seeking an end to the bloodiest war in human history.

Nor should he.

But the statement seems to imply that the decision was a “mistake.”

I beg to differ, Mr. President. I think many of your fellow Americans beg to differ as well, particularly those of us who are descended from those who were participating in that theater of operations at the end of the war.

The president’s speech was far-reaching and it spoke to a “moral awakening” that the event brought to the world. Indeed, it did, and for that awakening we should be grateful. The world saw first hand in 1945 just destructive these weapons can be.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/obama-hiroshima-visit-223645

President Truman, who took office upon the death of Franklin D. Roosevelt, felt at that moment he had to make a decision that would (a) end the war quickly and (b) change the world forever.

It did both. President Truman said late in his life that he never regretted the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and, three days later, on Nagasaki.

For me personally, he might have saved my own father’s life. Dad was in the Philippines serving in the Navy and well could have taken part in the campaign against the Japanese homeland. The bombs prevented that campaign from occurring.

Those of us who have this connection with what happened that at the end of World War II perhaps see the event with a different form of clarity than others.

I’m glad President Obama has spoken out about the need to remain alert to the tragedy of these terrible weapons.

Was its use in Japan a “mistake”?

No. It was not.

 

International news, military news

Now … about dropping that nuclear bomb

bomb

It’s been called the “elephant in the room.”

Barack Obama is about to become the first sitting U.S. president to visit Hiroshima, Japan. The question of the day: Will he apologize for a decision one of his predecessors made to order the dropping of a nuclear bomb on the Japanese city? A corollary question: Should he apologize?

The late-May visit so far doesn’t include remarks from the president that amount to an apology.

Here’s some unsolicited advice, Mr. President: Don’t do it. There is no compelling need to apologize for a decision that President Truman made as a way to end the bloodiest conflict in human history.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/10/politics/obama-hiroshima-visit-japan/index.html

The president said early in his time in office that he wanted to visit Hiroshima, which was targeted on Aug. 6, 1945 as the place where the United States would drop this then-secret weapon.

Many thousands of civilians died in that horrific blast. Are there regrets today for what happened then? Yes.

Let’s set this in some context.

Nazi Germany had surrendered in May 1945 to advancing Soviet, American, British and Allied troops. The war in the Pacific Theater was still raging, although Japan had retreated from all the territory it had claimed. The U.S.-led onslaught had brought the war to Japan’s homeland.

President Roosevelt died in April 1945 and the new president, Harry Truman, was briefed immediately about a project of which he knew next to nothing during the brief period he served as vice president.

He made the decision to use the weapon to persuade Japan that its continuing the fight would be futile.

Knowing what he knew at the moment, President Truman made the correct call.

My hope is that the current president, 71 years later, will recognize that his predecessor did what he believed at the time he had to do, which was to use the weaponry at his disposal to end the world’s bloodiest conflict.

Let me be clear about one more point …

I have a direct interest in President Truman’s decision. My father, who saw intense combat while serving in the Navy in the Mediterranean theater of operations from 1942 through 1944, had arrived in The Philippines in early 1945 and quite likely would have taken part in the effort to invade and conquer Japan.

I cannot prove this, but there’s a decent probability that the president’s decision to drop The Bomb on Hiroshima and later, on Nagasaki, might have saved my dad’s life.

For that reason, I say: God bless President Truman.

 

national news, political news

Join the club of former shoo-ins, ‘Jeb!’

Dewey beats Truman

John Ellis “Jeb” Bush is feeling hurt at this moment, more than likely.

The former Florida governor was thought to be a shoo-in for the Republican presidential nomination. Then he ran into some fierce — or ferocious — opposition.

On Saturday night, Jeb suspended his campaign.

He was flush was cash. He had collected more than $100 million for his campaign war chest. He spent a lot of it on TV ads in Iowa, New Hampshire and then South Carolina. He got next to nothing for his investment.

He’s not the first formerly prohibitive favorite to fall on his face, as political science professor John Zeitz notes in a Politico essay.

It’s one of the “epic fails” of presidential campaigning.

The most recent example of such a “fail” is the 1980 campaign of GOP candidate John Connally, the former conservative Democrat who sought the Republican nomination, only to fail to win a single delegate.

Big John also was well-funded. He had a huge name familiarity as a former Texas governor, former Navy secretary and a victim of collateral damage on Nov. 22, 1963, when he took one of the bullets intended for President Kennedy on that horrifying day in Dallas.

We have heard much during this campaign about how “big money” corrupts the electoral process. The infamous Supreme Court “Citizens United” decision of 2010 has become a favorite target of Democrats running for the presidency seeking to roll back the effect of the court ruling that gives corporations virtually unlimited spending authority in these campaigns.

Jeb Bush was well-heeled, all right. It didn’t do him much good.

Rest assured that Bush won’t collect much solace in realizing that other big-name, sure-fire “winners” fell by the wayside.

All he needed, it now appears, was a message.

 

International news, military news

Why we must avoid the next real ‘world war’

The world is pausing this week to look back on a pair of events that occurred 70 years ago.

On this date in 1945, a B-29 U.S. Army Air Corps bomber took off from Tinian Island in the Pacific Ocean, flew to Hiroshima, Japan, and dropped an atomic bomb on the city.

Roughly 70,000 lives vanished in an instant.

Three days later, another B-29 took off en route to Nagasaki. That bomb did even more damage.

It was near the end of World War II. On Aug. 14, 1945, Japan surrendered. The war was over.

The nuclear age had been brought to bear in the most horrible fashion imaginable.

I remain committed to the notion that President Harry Truman made the correct call by dropping the bombs. Declining to do so would have resulted in the invasion of Japan by U.S. and allied forces, likely killing many more thousands of lives than were lost in those two blasts.

So, the president had to kill people to save people. It’s a terrible irony, to be sure.

But this look back also brings to mind something that one of the creators of this terrible weapon once said.

It comes from Albert Einstein, who noted: “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

May we never forget.

International news

Truman faced a monumental choice … and never looked back

1 Comment

Seven decades ago, President Harry Truman — newly sworn into office upon President Franklin Roosevelt’s death — faced a choice no commander in chief should have to face.

Does he deploy a bomb he knows will kill tens of thousands of civilians but possibly spare the cost of many more tens of thousands of soldiers and sailors — on both sides — in a costly ground war?

The president chose to drop The Bomb. It was a nuclear weapon that exploded over Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945.

It ushered in the nuclear age. A second bomb would detonate over Nagasaki three days later.

And about a week after that, the Japanese Empire waved the white flag of surrender. World War II came to an end.

Knowing what we know now about The Bomb, would the president have done it all over again? Truman said he would. He never wavered in his belief that he made the right call.

I happen to agree with him.

My late father, who was among the forces garrisoned in the Philippines when the bombs fell, could have been among those who died in the effort to subdue Japan using conventional means. Do I know that to be true? Of course not. He was a sailor who’d seen his share of combat in the European theater before being reassigned to the Pacific.

It never came to that, of course. Dad came home, got married and produced his family.

Because I am here today, I say without reservation: God bless President Truman.

military news, national news, political news

Mr. President, you see … we have this bomb

I posted earlier today a blog item about how Franklin Roosevelt’s death changed the vice presidency for the better.

Vice President Harry Truman became president upon FDR’s death in April 1945. He took office, asked his Cabinet to pray for him and then set about finishing off the Axis Powers as World War II came to an end. Nazi Germany surrendered just about three weeks after FDR’s death. The Pacific combat remained to be fought.

But he knew next to nothing about the secrets that FDR took with him to the grave. One of them involved the Manhattan Project. Imagine the conversation taking place between Secretary of War Henry Stimson and the president of the United States.

Stimson: Uh, Mr. President? I’ve got something to discuss with you.

Truman: Sure, Henry. What is it?

Stimson: Well, sir, we’re developing this bomb out in New Mexico. We’ve been working with really smart fellow: Bob Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, Albert Einstein, to name just three.

Truman: Bomb? We’ve got all kinds of bombs. We dropped them by the thousands every day in Europe and we’re still doing so in the Pacific.

Stimson: But Mr. President, this bomb is a big one. Really, really big. It’s an atomic bomb. I mean, when it explodes, it registers enough firepower to equal several thousand pounds of dynamite.

Truman: Holy s***, Henry. One bomb equals all that power?

Stimson: Yes sir. We’re going to detonate one of them in July out in Alamogordo. It’ll be the first one. If it works, we’re going to propose something quite dramatic.

Truman: And that is … ?

Stimson: We think we ought to use it on Japan. Send them a message that if they keep fighting we’ll use it again and again. Mr. President, we don’t think the Japanese will have the stomach for many of these.

Truman: OK, Henry, we’ll wait to see how the test blast goes and then we’ll make that call.

***

The test went off successfully. Less than a month later, President Truman issued the order to bomb Hiroshima. The Enola Gay took off on Aug. 6. Three days later, Nagasaki was demolished by the second A-bomb — and the rest is history.

God bless President Truman.

International news

What if the bin Laden mission had failed?

You hear this on occasion from conservative critics of President Obama.

The president “had nothing to do” with the killing of 9/11 terror attack mastermind Osama bin Laden.

Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly repeated the preposterous notion this week on an edition of his “O’Reilly Factor” talk show.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/03/18/oreilly-obama-had-nothing-to-do-with-the-killin/202957

I’ve heard it from others on the right, many of them right here in the Texas Panhandle, where the president is about as popular as … oh, let’s see, bin Laden.

O’Reilly said the Navy SEALs had everything to do with killing bin Laden in May 2011. Well, yes they did. The brave men risked everything by flying into Pakistan on a moonless night, landing their helicopters in bin Laden’s compound, looking for bin Laden, finding him, killing him and then hauling his corpse out of there.

However, to say that a commander in chief who issues the order “had nothing to do” with its success ignores the truth of what would have happened had the mission failed.

Did President Carter have “nothing to do” with the mission to rescue the Iran hostages in April 1980, the one that failed, costing eight American lives in the middle of the desert? He wasn’t at the controls of any of the helicopters that crashed. But he certainly got the blame — chiefly from those on the right — for the mission’s failure.

Did President Truman have “nothing to do” with ending World War II when he issued the order to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What if the Enola Gay B-29 bomber had crashed on its flight over Japan? Give ‘Em Hell Harry would have caught plenty of hell himself.

This ridiculous notion that presidents don’t risk enormous political capital when they make these difficult decisions is the stuff of nonsense.

Barack Obama had to weigh the risks of sending in the commandoes when he ordered the hit on bin Laden. He could have ordered air strikes that could have killed innocent civilians. He didn’t. He could have passed, deciding the risk was too great. He didn’t do that, either.

The president did what presidents get paid to do. He made the difficult call.

Thus, he, too, had everything to do with the success of the raid to kill Osama bin Laden.