Christmas Eve with Grandpa

[Missy Vixen]

I was just thinking about the conversation I had with our grandpa on Christmas Eve. Grandpa is a pretty remarkable person. He fought in World War II; he then took a job with the FBI. He evidently wanted a career change, so he went to work as a journalist. He has 35+ years of sobriety. Grandpa is also the only moderate Republican in our family. To say that I adore him would be an understatement. He teases me about my political "obsession", but the other night, we had a conversation I'm still thinking about.

Grandpa does not believe that the Bush administration is doing anything worse than previous administrations. When I brought up the idea that Nixon's transgressions look like a Sunday School picnic in comparison with spying on citizens with no warrant, outing a CIA agent (and compromising our national security,) as a political payback to her husband, that we'd had 52 separate intelligence warnings prior to September 11th that bin Laden was determined to strike in the USA using airliners, Grandpa commented that there is now evidence that FDR had advance information of Pearl Harbor and did nothing.

I'm wondering what this administration will have to do to convince people like our wonderful grandpa that they don't have our best interests at heart.

Julie

[trotsky]

1. I think most Americans really don't want to believe

that their leaders are capable of such evil acts.

Or that things might look bad, but it's only because they can't tell us the whole story of how they're protecting us from evildoers.

Now, how are Nick and Jessica doing?

[dflprincess]

3. I think it's especially hard for members

of the "Greatest Generation" to think that way. As much as my mom hates Bush, she has a hard time believing 9/11 could have been an inside job (she even has problems with LIHOP). It took mom a long time to question the Warren Commission as well. However, thanks to the fact that a friend her age recently told her that she's begun to think Bushco planned the attacks, Mom has started thinking maybe that is the case - and not just some of my ravings. (Strangely, though, she has no qualms about believing Bush had Wellstone killed - and she came to that decision on her own.)

[Aimah]

6. I agree

I've been in debates with conservatives and pretty much through everything including the kitchen sink at them that pertains to Bush's problems. It usually ends with them saying something to the effect of "I just don't believe that it's malicious" or "I don't believe our President would do that". But that's before they call me "Anti-American" or "Unpatriotic".

[Missy Vixen]

8. I got sent home with six issues of "The New Yorker"

>Now, how are Nick and Jessica doing?<

There's a question. Grandma is a charter subscriber to "Mother Jones". She said the only thing she wanted from me last Christmas is that I would go to a demonstration with her. ;-) They're the two that were at the WTO "Battle in Seattle" protest. Grandpa was the official photographer when Grandma and one of her friends dressed as "women in black" for an anti-war protest earlier this year. Grandpa and Grandma don't watch much TV; I'm fairly sure they don't even know who Nick and Jessica are. They were very happy to learn that I watched the vast majority of the September 11th hearings on C-SPAN, though.

I know that there are many DU'ers lucky enough to have grandparents like ours. It's my goal in life to make them proud of me ;-).

Julie

[Cha]

2. With all due respect to

your Grandpa..there are any number of republicans who don't like what bush is doing in the name patriotism.

Two in his own cabinet..Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil.

If bush is impeached maybe others will sit up and take notice.

And I don't believe that about FDR..that sounds like rush limpbaugh propoganda.

[BlueStateBlue]

11. My employer is a devout Dem with a degree in history from Columbia

and he agrees that FDR had advance notice about Pearl Harbor.

[seabeyond]

20. who cares? who cares about fdr. we are talking TODAY about

what bush is doing TODAY. i am so tired of people talking about bush, and taking me back to 6 fuckin decades ago. wtf cares? i want to deal with what bush is doing today instead of talking about 6 decades ago to change the subject and allow bush to continue what he is doing, destroy our , my, america

[Cha]

21. Exactly right..even if FDR

did that it doesn't take away what bushco did..two wrongs don't make a right.

Time to stop it.

If FDR did do that I would condemn him for it..but I need more info than heresay.

[Auntie Bush]

26. I remember reading somewhere(?) that it was proved that FDR

didn't know about the Pearl Harbor attack ahead of time. That it was just rumor/propaganda. Probably Republican rumor.

[Cha]

27. Oh yeah, it's sooo easy for

the republicCONS to lie..and so hard for them to tell the truth(impossible).

Thanks for this..I find it hard to believe that a man like FDR would do that..call it instinct.

bush on the other hand is made from a different mold.

[Missy Vixen]

13. There's an idea

I own Richard Clarke's and Ron Suskind's book about Paul O'Neill. Maybe I should pack 'em up and send them as an after Christmas gift ;-). I know Grandpa was pretty interested when I told him that I very much respect Richard Clarke. He's the only one who apologized to the families that lost loved ones on September 11th.

Julie

[TallahasseeGrannie]

4. I'll be honest here

If I didn't hang out on DU I would think that Bush was just a gung-ho jerk who needs his leash jerked on.

However, I am now open to the possibility that this is something unique.

Like your grandfather, I have never had a good opinion of politicians. Any politicians.

Personally, I think if Bush attacks Iran the country will go nuts and he'll be arrested.

[Zen Democrat]

5. Grandpa sounds like a dyed in the wool Republican

To go back 64 years to compare with Pearl Harbor is an old conspiracy theory of the Republicans. We know Roosevelt put Japanese-Americans in internment camps. So ... just because Roosevelt made mistakes does that absolve Bushco of Constitutional breaches?

I hate the tit for tat arguments. Usurping the Constitution by Democrats or Republicans is wrong and dangerous. Period.

[MichiganVote]

7. The Roosevelt connection is very weak. Just proves Rep's have not evolved

[Catherine Vincent]

9. Maybe Fitz will convince him!

:evilgrin: :hi:

[Missy Vixen]

10. I wonder if he wants to make a trip to West Seattle?

"Grandpa, please meet Patrick. Patrick, could you please explain to Grandpa exactly why what happened to Valerie Plame and her network was so bad?" :evilgrin:

:blush:
Julie
president for life of the PFEB

[pitohui]

12. you can't help the helpless

what is there to think abt, if yr grandpa's idea of an argument is to attack FDR then he has no argument, it's sad, but everyone gets old & loses brain function

[Missy Vixen]

14. Maybe you should meet our grandpa

>it's sad, but everyone gets old & loses brain function<

I don't think he's "losing brain function". I don't think he honestly believes that any President would have the capacity to perpetrate these acts on the American people.

The only thing Grandpa's lost is some of his hearing.

Julie

[Catherine Vincent]

15. hmmm....

"...that any President would have the capacity to perpetrate these acts on the American people."

I wonder if he would think Clinton would? I know a lot of republicans would. In fact, they did believe he did a lot of sinister and evil things during his presidency.

[Missy Vixen]

16. Grandpa likes Bill Clinton

>In fact, they did believe he did a lot of sinister and evil things during his presidency.<

He didn't like NAFTA, and he wasn't overly impressed with the impeachment debacle, but he liked Bill Clinton. He and I had several conversations about the odious Kenneth Starr.

Grandpa's a moderate. I would call him a conservative Democrat, if there is such a thing.

Julie
president for life of the PFEB

[pitohui]

18. but he thinks FDR did

i don't get yr argument

i'm pretty sure FDR was an elected president at some point

maybe I'M losing brain function, there's a noticeable decline even at my age if you ask me

you said I don't think he honestly believes that any President would have the capacity to perpetrate these acts on the American people.

[omega minimo]

22. Ask G if FDR's industry pals looted the treasury, set policy, wrote laws

and made war to benefit themselves.

Ask him about the Culture of Corruption.

[seabeyond]

17. my father, very good man, moderate, integrity up the ying yang

he would be sittin right with your grandpa. my father, a man that has walked life in honesty, owning what he did, being responsible, doesnt see it either. never in my imagination could i believe my father wouldnt be furious with this. and he is right with your grandpa.

i know

[pitohui]

19. well hell my dad sees it

i doubt he wants his age mentioned but he's in the same age group

to a certain extent, we have to accept that sometimes people who are kind and wonderful believe awful things, you can't be a white person living in the south and not learn this, some people treat individuals they see close at hand w. great love and concern yet are full of hate for the imaginary people they hear abt on hate radio

[grasswire]

23. John Eisenhower's letter could be useful.

Remember? He wrote a letter to the editor of a New England newspaper telling why he opposes Bush. I'll see if I can find a link to it.

Edit: here it is.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=181

[pitohui]

24. it's ike's son, john and here's the letter

http://webarchive.unionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=44657

sample quote:

The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.

Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.

In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.

hey jinx we posted the link at the same time, enjoy!

[grasswire]

25. Eisenhower letter

Why I will vote for John Kerry for President - by John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower


by John Eisenhower / The Union Leader

THE Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3½ years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.

Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “always have.” We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.

As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.

The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.

Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.

In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.

Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, “If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.” I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.

The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.

The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.

Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.

I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.

John Eisenhower, son of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, served on the White House staff between October 1958 and the end of the Eisenhower administration. From 1961 to 1964 he assisted his father in writing “The White House Years,” his Presidential memoirs. He served as American ambassador to Belgium between 1969 and 1971. He is the author of nine books, largely on military subjects.

[Tactical Progressive]

28. The FDR-knew thing is total bullshit

Don't believe it for a second.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor was a VERY closely-held assault, done in radio silence. FDR was half-way around the world without any possible way of knowing outside of either human intelligence or satellite tracking, and there was neither.

Those men in the Pacific knew that us getting into the war was a serious probability. There was a World War going on and we were already halfway into it. They knew that they might be attacked, and while they weren't on red alert, they were watching out. They knew there were Japanese fleets in the Pacific. When the first Japanese Zeros flew over Hawaii they thought it was a returning patrol. If anybody would have, or could have known that there was a possible imminent attack on Pearl Harbor it would have been those patrols from Hawaii. THEY would have told Washington about a major Japanese fleet in the area if they'd spotted them. That's the only way Roosevelt would have known outside of inside information.

FDR wasn't receiving intelligence about an imminent attack. There were no Japanese turncoats divulging an attack. He was negotiating with the Japanese at the time in good faith when they attacked. There wasn't any satellite imagery back then. Those are the only ways he could have known. A totally secret assault and bad weather is what gave the Japanese a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.

George Bush and Dick Cheney had scores of warnings from intelligence agencies around the world that a major terrorist attack on American soil was coming, including from our own CIA, along with warnings from within their own administration, high-level people from the outgoing administration and the Hart-Rudman report. It took all that he and Cheney and Condoliar could do to ignore them all and do nothing.

FDR had nothing like that barrage of intelligence coming in regarding any kind of Japanese plan to attack Pearl.

I can't believe the number of Dems here willing to immediately accept whatever Republican bullshit is shoveled their way. Things like 'well even if he did, that doesn't make Bush right for doing it in 2001' is tacit acceptance of their bullshit. Don't give them that credence.

There is only one American president that ever let us get attacked.