Bring It On!

By SteveIL on Jun 27, 2007 | Reply

How many Americans were killed during the three years of the Korean War that Truman got us into?  38,000, right?  And that doesn’t count the wounded.

By ken grandlund on Jun 27, 2007 | Reply

And that has what, exactly, to do with this particular quote? If you’re saying we had no business fighting in Korea, you won’t get much argument from me, but as always, you’re comments have nothing to do with the post at hand.

The point I was making with this post (since you clearly have a reading comprehension problem) is that today’s politicians don’t understand the concept of public stewardship in any real way, and instead live in a bubble where everything is about them. And that includes politicians from BOTH parties.

By Liberal Jarhead on Jun 27, 2007 | Reply

Harry Truman was the last good president this country had - Ike was too passive and too willing to cave in to the McCarthyists, and we’ve been going downhill since.  Gotta figure it’s got something to do with the growth in the role of TV and other beauty contest/short-attention-span media, and the money that drives them; nevertheless, can you picture any recent president saying “The buck stops here” and meaning it?

By steve on Jun 27, 2007 | Reply

How true Ken,

1980-1988…  The greatest presidency ever.

LJ, you must have been born in 1989. 

“can you picture any recent president saying “The buck stops here” and meaning it?”

I can picture only one candidate that would say that in the current field:  Fred Thompson.

By SteveIL on Jun 27, 2007 | Reply

Ken Grandlund said (about what I said in my first comment): 

And that has what, exactly, to do with this particular quote?

Absolutely nothing.  It does, however, have everything to do with the line you followed it with:

Ahhh, back in the days when leaders knew the difference between the two.

Ken Grandlund said:

If you’re saying we had no business fighting in Korea, you won’t get much argument from me,…

Considering that a genocidal madman, Kim Il Sung, tried to turn the whole of the Korean peninsula into what North Korea is today, supported by two of the worst perpetrators of genocide ever (Josef Stalin and Mao TseTung), and Truman (and the generals) stopped it, and considering the prosperity and modernity enjoyed by the South Korean people and what they produce (which our country has benefitted from), I respectfully disagree with you.

Ken Grandlund said:

…but as always, you’re comments have nothing to do with the post at hand.

As I pointed out, my comment was most certainly on topic.  Especially when you consider what you followed all that up with:

The point I was making with this post (since you clearly have a reading comprehensio n problem) is that today’s politicians don’t understand the concept of public stewardship in any real way, and instead live in a bubble where everything is about them. And that includes politicians from BOTH parties.

Oh really?  When was that?  Have you read the 17th or 18th Amendments?  How about the Jim Crow laws in the South?  

And speaking of Truman (and Eisenhower) and the Korean War, did you know that Congress never did declare war on North Korea, nor did it offer any type Authorization for Use of Military Force as Congress did with Al Qaeda (in 2001) and Iraq (in both 1990 and 2002)?  Back in 1950, there was no War Powers Resolution that allowed Congress to stab the American military, including the President as Commander in Chief, in the back.  Of course, Congress doing the backstab thing wasn’t unusual, even when Truman was President.  It was one of the reasons why he lost the Youngstown Steel decision in 1952.  From the syllabus [highlighted emphasis in bold]:

To avert a nation-wide strike of steel workers in April 1952, which he believed would jeopardize national defense, the President issued an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Commerce to seize and operate most of the steel mills. The Order was not based upon any specific statutory authority but was based generally upon all powers vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States and as President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The Secretary issued an order seizing the steel mills and directing their presidents to operate them as operating managers for the United States in accordance with his regulations and directions. The president promptly reported these events to Congress; but Congress took no action. It had provided other methods of dealing with such situations and had refused to authorize governmental seizures of property to settle labor disputes.

Yet, there had to be appropriations for everything that was needed to fight it.  Strange, don’t you think, especially since Congress was asked by President Bush, and did authorize, the use of the military (and not by false means as so many like to think) twice.

By SteveIL on Jun 27, 2007 | Reply

Ken Grandlund said (in response to my first comment):

And that has what, exactly, to do with this particular quote?

Absolutely nothing.  It does have everything to do with the line you followed the quote with:

Ahhh, back in the days when leaders knew the difference between the two.

That is part of the topic, isn’t it?  And when was this?  Have you read the 17th, 18th, and 22nd Amendments?  All were short-sighted add-ons, and the country is still suffering from the effects of these amendments.  Or maybe you were thinking of the Jim Crow laws of the South?  Or, better yet, those Presidents who allowed other politictians to benefit from keeping and expanding slavery (which some could argue is what the nanny-state Stalinist Democrats and Wall Street Yankee Trader Republicans are doing now)?

Ken Grandlund said:

If you’re saying we had no business fighting in Korea, you won’t get much argument from me,…

No, I’m not saying that.  Truman and Eisenhower stopped a genocidal maniac, Kim Il Sung, from turning the entire Korean peninsula into what North Korea is now, and he did so with the backing from two of history’s worst perpetrators of genocide, Josef Stalin and Mao Tse Tung.  Add that because of that action, the South Korean people enjoy the benefits and freedoms that resulted, and so has America with their trade with South Korea.  I have to disagree with you here.

Ken Grandlund said:

…but as always, you’re comments have nothing to do with the post at hand.

As I’ve pointed out, my comment was entirely spot on.  Especially when you followed your line with this:

The point I was making with this post (since you clearly have a reading comprehensio n problem) is that today’s politicians don’t understand the concept of public stewardship in any real way, and instead live in a bubble where everything is about them. And that includes politicians from BOTH parties.

I don’t think I’m the one with the comprehension problem, as I noted above. 

By kip152 on Jun 28, 2007 | Reply

Seriously, Steve. Ronald Reagan? Iran-Contra? Mr. “I don’t remember”? The whole point Ken was making about politicians being Media-Stars-In-Chief is glaringly obvious in Reagan’s case.