The Churchill Series - Nov. 15, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

November 30, 1927 was Churchill's fifty-eighth birthday. As Chancellor of the Exchequer, he spent part of the day reviewing the budget he'd soon submit to Parliament. Among its thousands of details, he was surprised to notice one that taxed people temporarily residing in the United Kingdom.

The tax fell mainly on wealthy Americans who came over for fox hunting. Churchill had previously rejected it in very strong language.

To the bureaucrats charged with budget preparation, Churchill dictated :

Two years ago, I examined the question of the extension of taxation, i.e. Americans temporarily resident in this country.

I expressed very strongly the view that it was to our interest to facilitate the use of this country for the temporary residence of wealthy Americans as it brought very substantial sums of money into the rural areas, especially in the sporting counties.

Churchill reminded the bureaucrats of why he opposed the tax:

a considerable number of wealthy Americans, who used to spend very large sums of money (in fox hunting areas)and elsewhere (will) sell their horses and quit the country, while no doubt others are being deterred from coming.

As a countryman who enjoyed riding to hounds, steeple-chasing and shooting parties, and as a sensible person, Churchill understood how a tax that drove away "wealthy Americans" would also reduce the incomes of the maids, cooks, butlers and stableman who served hunting parties; and the woodcutters, greengrocers and butchers who filled orders from the great houses where the parties stayed; and the incomes of many others in the "sporting counties."
______________________________________________________
Details of Churchill's actions on Nov. 30, 1927 can be found in Martin Gilbert, Churchill and America. (p.107)

Churchill's appreciation for how taxes on the wealthy can affect other economic classes is well-documented by many of his biographers as is his understanding and love of country life.

Blogging resumes tomorrow afternoon

I'll resume blogging tomorrow afternoon with a Churchill Series post dated Dec. 15.

It been a long week, and I need a good night's sleep.

Like most of you, I'm glad Iraq's election day was largely trouble-free and the turnout was heavy.

Please visit tomorrow afternoon.

John

Anti-Semite Conflicts and Agreements

David Boyd links to a Jay Nordlinger NRO article that contains this:

One thing that always amazed me is that many Middle Eastern elites couldn't decide whether to deny the Holocaust, celebrate it, or lament that it didn't go far enough.

I don’t doubt that Anti-Semites everywhere suffer from deny or celebrate conflict syndrome. Certainly, all the ones I've known have had the syndrome to a greater or lesser degree.

On the other hand, there are many things that don't cause anti-Semites conflict. They find it easy to hate the United States, for instance. And while they speak of the "pain" they feel for "the suffering Palestinian people,” they become delirious when a Palestinian kid kills Jewish kids by blowing himself up.

One other thing about anti-Semites: Have you noticed they don't get very upset if you kill other people so long as your long-term goal is too kill Jews. So for instance, al-Qaeda can kill Hindus and Christians in Bali and Muslims across the Middle East, and that's all OK with anti-Semites because they know al-Qaeda really wants to destroy Jews.

With anti-Semites for friends, it’s no wonder the Palestinian people are suffering. Think what our lives would be like if we had anti-Semites for friends.

Another reason not to trust the NY Times

Folks,

I don't think the following email letter to the New York Times editor will appear in the paper. But I hope you'll read it, and share it with friends.

Thank you,

John
___________________________________________________________
To the editor:

Re: "Saudi Prince Gives Millions to Harvard and Georgetown" (news article, Dec. 13)

You report that among Prince Alwaleed’s previous money gifts, “a $10 million check he gave Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani in October 2001 for the Twin Towers Fund (backfired):”

Mayor Giuliani returned the gift when he learned that a news release quoted the prince as calling on the American government to "re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause."

Actually, as you reported at the time (Times' article available only to paid subscribers), Mayor Giuliani returned Alwaleed’s check after he learned Alwaleed had issued a statement saying in part:

''However, at times like this one, we must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack. I believe the government of the United States of America should re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance towards the Palestinian cause.'' (Bold added – JinC)

You quoted Giuliani's response:

''I entirely reject that statement. There is no moral equivalent for this act. The people who did it lost any right to ask for justification for it when they slaughtered 4,000 or 5,000 innocent people. And to suggest that there's a justification for it only invites this happening in the future. It is highly irresponsible and very, very dangerous.''

Why, in your Dec. 13 report, did you fail to mention Alwaleed’s “address …issues that led to such a criminal attack” statement? It was, after all, the despicable moral equivalence of that statement that led Giuliani to condemn it and return the check.

But readers are told nothing of that.

Given what actually happened, the Times seriously misleads readers on this important matter when all you say is:

Mayor Giuliani returned the gift when he learned that a news release quoted the prince as calling on the American government to "re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause."

You've just given readers another reason not to trust the Times.

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com

The Churchill Series - Dec. 14, 2005

In 1906 Churchill's two volume biography of his father, Lord Randolph Churchill, was published in both Britain and America to mostly favorable reviews.

One American saw some merit in the biography but cared not at all for either Churchill. "I have been over Winston Churchill's life of his father," President Theodore Roosevelt wrote a friend. "I dislike the father and I dislike the son so I may be prejudiced" TR said both the biographer and the subject had "real farsightedness." But they both possessed "such levity, lack of sobriety, lack of permanent principle, and an inordinate thirst for that cheap form of admiration which is given to notoriety, as to make them poor public servants."

TR was closer to the mark with Randolph than with Winston.

A big part of appreciating Winston is recognizing how much he did enjoy what TR called the "cheap form of admiration;" and also how much he wanted political office and the esteem of people he respected; and yet was repeatedly willing to take unpopular stands on important issues.
_____________________________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Churchill and America. (p. 50)

Pundit: Dems Showing "Bad Faith" on Iraq?

The Washington Times' Tony Blankley takes aim at Dems who whine when criticized for demanding "immediate withdrawal from Iraq" or for telling our troops and the terrorists that the idea America can win there is "just plain wrong." Blankley wants Americans to have a serious discussion about the consequences of what those Dems are saying.

For his launch pad, Blankley uses remarks by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright:

Last Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," former Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright said: "There is not one Democrat who wants us to fail in Iraq. There is not one Democrat that doesn't want our troops to come home safely or wants our homeland to be properly protected or let Iraq develop a democracy and operate within the region. And I have to tell you, to be maligned or as not patriotic or undercutting the effort, I think is unacceptable."

There are some, I'm sure, who heard that and were ready to say, "Gosh, Madam Secretary, let me give you a hug." But not Blankley who responded:

I suppose it depends on what the meaning of "wants" is. I'll give her the second want: that our troops come home safely. I don't doubt that even the most fanatical antiwar Democrat wants our troops to come home safely, and he or she could honestly argue that an immediate withdrawal of all our troops from Iraq could best effectuate that want.

But as to the first, third and fourth wants (wanting us to succeed in Iraq, to protect our homeland, and wanting Iraq to develop democracy and operate within the region), I have to take exception to the former secretary of state's claim. There are several elected Democrats (I won't hold Mrs. Albright's assertion to include rank-and-file MoveOn.org types) who actively support policies that objectively undercut those three wants.

What are rational people to make of Howard Dean's statement that "the idea that we're going to win the war is an idea that, unfortunately, is just plain wrong." In what sense does he "want" us not to fail in Iraq?
...
Certainly as to the third point (bringing democracy to Iraq) no sane person can believe that intentionally loosing the war by immediately bringing our troops home is rationally calculated to attain that goal.
...
Democratic Party officials, such as Mrs. Albright, who assert that they support both democracy in Iraq and immediate withdrawal can and should be called on such baldly false assertions.
...
Democrats (and, for that matter, Republicans) who call for immediate withdrawal should be accused of objectively threatening our national security. Let's have that debate. Politicians who call for immediate withdrawal should not be entitled to claim, as Mrs. Albright does, that they are acting in the best interest of our national security -- whatever they may subjectively think.

Blankley ends with this:

Once upon a time, the French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre shrewdly and stingingly criticized self deceivers with the charge of bad faith (mauvaise foi): the self-deceptive motives by which people often try to elude responsibility for what they do.

Now would be a good time to review the applicability of such bad faith to the politicians who claim to have our national security at heart even as they call for surrender and retreat.

You can read Blankley's column here.

The Churchill Series - Dec. 13, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Vanity Fair's July 10, 1900 issue contained a character sketch of one of the heroes of the Boar War, twenty-five year old Winston Churchill.

On publication date, Churchill was aboard ship returning to England from South Africa, and planning at least two books and a campaign for a seat in Parliament.

Churchill's son and biographer, Randolph Churchill, shares this from the Vanity Fair sketch:

(Churchill) is a clever fellow who has the courage of his convictions.
...
He can write and he can fight.
...
(He has) hankered after politics since he was a small boy, and it is probable that his every effort, military or literary, has been made with political bent. He is something of a sportsman who prides himself on being practical rather than a dandy.

He means to get on and he loves his country. But he can hardly be the slave of any party.

Vanity Fair knew its man.
________________________________________________________________________________ Randolph S. Churchill, Winston S. Churchill: Youth. (following p. 440)

More Bad News for White Flag Dems

Political Musings has a post that begins: We're still winning in Iraq.

It includes this from the Washington Post:

As Iraqis nationwide prepare to go to the polls for the third time this year on Dec. 15 – this time for a new parliament – candidates and political parties of all stripes are embracing politics, Iraqi style, as never before and showing increasing sophistication about the electoral process, according to campaign specialists, party officials and candidates here.

Take a look at the post which links to the WaPo article.

Jeb Bush for US Senate in '06?

Florida-based political pro Thomas Croom at Peer Review considers the possibility Governor Jeb Bush might challenge incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson for his Senate seat in ’06.

If Jeb Bush gets in the race then it’s over the day he announces. After repeated denials of any interest for post Governor positions, he is still leading Nelson by double digits in hypothetical polls.

Hands down, Jeb Bush is the most popular and strongest GOP candidate in the state. If he jumped into the Senate race he would win, and he would practically guarantee victories for every GOP candidate down the ticket. The base would rally, the state would support him and everybody benefits (except dems). Jeb would continue to be the most powerful elected official in FL and continue to direct money to whomever he wishes … and FL dems would continue to be flecked and unimportant in state politics.

The first part of Croom's post, Bush wins, Bush wins, is too “Florida insider” for this Tar Heel. But once I got to Bush and the Senate race, I couldn't stop reading.

And when Croom goes on and considers what Jeb Bush might do once he gets to the Senate, it’s “Watch out Hillary” time.

Take a look here.

Great Leaders and DNC Chair Howard Dean

In his column today, Paul Greenberg recalls the words and actions of great leaders who have stood for freedom. A few examples:

"When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him." — Franklin D. Roosevelt, Fireside Chat, Sept. 11, 1941

"Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never . . . ." — Winston Churchill, Oct. 29, 1941

"With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounded determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph, so help us G-d." — Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dec. 8, 1941

"OK, we'll go." — Dwight D. Eisenhower, June 5, 1944, D-Day minus one

"In war there is no substitute for victory." — Douglas MacArthur, April 19, 195

"Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women." — Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address, Jan. 20, 1981

"Inspired by all the courage that has come before, we will meet our moment and we will prevail." — George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States, Oct. 11, 2001

And then, Green reminds us, there are also leaders like this:

"The idea that we're going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong." — Howard Dean, chairman, Democratic National Committee, Dec. 5, 2005

It’s hard to believe Howard Dean is the best person to represent the Democratic Party. But he must be. Why else would Democrats elect him their chairman?

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

The Churchill Series - Dec. 12, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

By age fifteen, Churchill had already impressed his Masters and schoolmates at Harrow with his knowledge of history. He'd won a prize for Roman History and twice won prizes for English History.

Then Churchill began to excelling in another subject. He later said he had Robert Somervell to thank for that.

Somervell was Churchill's English Master. Churchill remembered him as 'a most delightful man to whom my debt is great."

Martin Gilbert records:

Somervell's method, Churchill recalled, was to divide up a long sentence into its component clauses 'by means of black, red, blue and green inks', and teaching it almost daily as 'a kind of drill'; by this method 'I got into my bones the essential structure of the ordinary British sentence - which is a noble thing.'

____________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Churchill: A Life. (pgs. 22-24)

Polipundit's Iraq Post -election predictions

Polipundit offers a very interesting set of predictions about what will happen in Iraq after the election. It's worth reading.

Stay healthy and prevent credit card theft

Interested in "18 Tricks to Teach Your Body" and "22 Ways to Foil Credit Card Thieves"?

Craig Newmark has them and more in his Dec. 9 post (scroll down).

His blog, Newmark's Door, is always worth a visit.

The Churchill Series - Dec 11, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

During his long life, Churchill witnessed extraordinary changes. The gas lamp gave way to the light bulb, the horse carriage to the automobile, and the ocean liners he loved were replaced by four-engine planes.

But not everything changed. Churchill, for example, was harried throughout his public career by egocentric and ill-informed newspaper editors.

Here's part of what his biographer, Martin Gilbert, tells us about a Feb. 14, 1932 Washington Post editorial written when Churchill was in Washington during his American lecture tour that year:

As for Churchill's call for "a working agreement between Great Britain and the United States," (the Post) was hostile.

"Not many years ago." it declared, "political and economic unity with the Yankees would have been repulsive to British statesmen."
...
"Now the tables are turned and Mr. Churchill is trying to flatter the United States into taking over some of Great Britain's (World War I debts)."
...
"What contribution has Britain to make to the cooperative bond that Mr. Churchill suggests for the two countries?"

A few years later, the Post's editorial writers began wondering whether the Royal Navy was doing enough to make sure Britain would be able to protect neutral American ships in the Atlantic in the event of a "European war".

In 1939, as First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill was responsible for making sure Britain could make that "contribution ...to the cooperative bond" between our two nations.

Do you think Post editorial writers in 1939 remembered the editorial of Feb. 14, 1932?

I doubt it, unless editorial writers are wiser today than they were then, and I really doubt that. How about you?
____________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Churchill and America. (pgs. 140-141)

Dean, Clinton, Pelosi? Sure, but don't forget Abizaid.

We've heard lots about Iraq from Democratic Party Chairman Howard "America can't win" Dean. Also, from Senator Hillary Clinton, Representative Nancy Pelosi and so many of their MSM reporter and editor allies.

Now, let's get an idea of what the General in charge of fighting the insurgency in Iraq, John Abizaid, thinks is going on there.

Abizaid recently spoke at the Naval War College. He reported in detail on the situation in Iraq. He explained how he thought it was likely the forces of democracy and civilization could win in Iraq, but he also explained how we could lose to the terrorists.

MSM seems to have missed Abizaid's speech; maybe because it was so busy trying to discover who "outed" the CIA employee after she'd been driving every day for 6 years to her job at CIA headquarters. MSM can't do everything, can it?

Anyway, Right in Raleigh has posted a detailed set of notes taken while Abizaid spoke. Wow! The notes are nothing like Democratic Party experts Dean, Clinton, Kennedy, etc. are telling us. Take a look for yourself right here.

Then go to David Boyd, where you can read what he thinks are the most important parts of the report on Abizaid's speech. Compare what David thinks with what you think.

NYT's "Dumbest Ever" Piece? It's a Tough Call

The dumbest New York Times piece ever?

Michelle Malkin makes a very strong case for Michael Crowley's Sunday NY Times magazine piece about the influence of conservative vs. liberal blogs. But Crowley has a lot of tough competition.

I'm sending Malkin this post, New York Times Editor Offers Explanation for Falsehoods. It contains NYT Op-Ed page editor David Shipley's email to me in which he claims that when the Times listed five famous generals, and immediately followed their names with a sentence that begins, "Having endured the horrors of World War I trenches, these men...," the Times wasn't saying the five were actually "in" the trenches. The Times, Shipley says, was just speaking figuratively. And that was clear, he says.

I'm also sending her my response to Shipley, Op-Ed Fiction From the New York Times.

The Times' willingness to distort the military services of Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and Lucian K. Truscott Jr in order to bolster an op-ed charging the Army lies to West Point cadets and officers may not belong in the "Dumbest Ever" category.

But it surely deserves some recognition. It needs a correction, too.

I hope Malkin can help get that done.

I'll keep you posted.

Self-righteousness v. Taxpayer Billions

( Welocme visitors from Mudville Gazette open post. )

Attorneys for thirty-six law schools and faculties were in The Supreme Court this week arguing that while they have a right to ban military recruiters from their campuses because they object to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward gays, the federal government has no right to enforce a law that denies federal funds to any school that denies military recruiters the same access to students that any other employer enjoys.

The schools want the law declared unconstitutional so they can have both their self-righteousness and the taxpayers’ money; although they don’t state it quite that way in their briefs and oral arguments.

Anyway, George Will's written a wonderful column on it all: 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Hypocrisy. He provides his usual “cut to the chase” analysis including in this case some questions and comments by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices O’Connor and Scalia.

Here’s Will’s closing paragraph:

Today's schools bristle with moral principles that they urge upon the -- so they think -- benighted society beyond their gates. But as Roberts blandly reminded the schools regarding their desire to bar military recruiters: ``You are perfectly free to do that, if you don't take the money.''

The Churchill Series - Dec 10, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Until a few years ago, whenever I thought of Churchill's magnificent leadership during 1940, it was always in terms Britain surviving Dunkirk, standing alone, facing the threat of invasion, fighting the Battles of the Atlantic and Britain, and carrying on during the Blitz.

I'd never thought much about, or understood, the courage, genius, and consequences of Churchill's decision after Dunkirk to dispatch most of Britain's army to North Africa and the Middle East.

But historian John Keegan has. Here's what he said about that decision, part of a Churchill profile Keegan wrote in April, 1998:

Following the total defeat of France, Britain truly, in his words, "stood alone." It had no substantial allies and, for much of 1940, lay under threat of German invasion and under constant German air attack.

He nevertheless refused Hitler's offers of peace, organized a successful air defense that led to the victory of the Battle of Britain and meanwhile sent most of what remained of the British army, after its escape from the humiliation of Dunkirk, to the Middle East to oppose Hitler's Italian ally, Mussolini.

This was one of the boldest strategic decisions in history. Convinced that Hitler could not invade Britain while the Royal Navy and its protecting Royal Air Force remained intact, he dispatched the army to a remote theater of war to open a second front against the Nazi alliance. Its victories against Mussolini during 1940-41 both humiliated and infuriated Hitler, while its intervention in Greece, to oppose Hitler's invasion of the Balkans, disrupted the Nazi dictator's plans to conclude German conquests in Europe by defeating Russia.

_____________________________________________________
John Keegan, Winston Churchill: A Profile. (April, 1998)

The Churchill Series - Dec 9, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

At a critical time during World War II, an American military leader Churchill trusted set in motion plans to thwart something he felt the Prime Minister was planning. It sounds ominous, but if you read on I think you'll say things worked out for the best.

Just before Pearl Harbor, Churchill sacked Britain's Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Field Marshall Sir John Dill. It was arranged that Dill would finish out the war in a backwater post.

Following Pearl Harbor, Churchill decided to go to Washington to develop a joint American-British war plan. He knew the British would need Dill's knowledge at what would be complicated and contentious planning sessions.

So Dill was brought along with Churchill's party to give what he had, and then be shuffled off.

But it came about that he stayed on in Washington in a new position; one in which he made a vital contribution to the war effort.

How so?

Well, since the American and British chiefs of staff would jointly plan Allied strategy and allocate scarce resources; and since the joint chiefs would meet only occasionally for planning sessions; there was a need for liaison between the two nations' chiefs between meetings.

That difficult task was given to Dill.

It was agreed he could best fulfill it in Washington with direct access by cable to each of the British chiefs and right to attend the American chiefs' meetings.

Dill performed splendidly. The late historian Stephen Ambrose said no one surpassed Dill in explaining to the chiefs of each nation the ideas, needs and temperaments of the chiefs of the other nation.

But during the first months of 1944, with D-Day approaching, Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall feared both countries' chiefs would lose Dill's service because Churchill felt Dill was tipping too much in the Americans favor. Marshall thought Churchill might recall him.

Marshall wanted to convince Churchill that Dill was so well thought of in America that recalling him would harm Allied relations.

So Marshall hatched a scheme.

What if Harvard gave Dill an honorary degree, he asked an aide. Wouldn't that impress Churchill? The PM wouldn't want to pull such a man out of the States, would he?

The aide was dispatched to Harvard whose president said he would like to but there was so much that went into an honorary degree, he didn't see how it could be done.

The aide duly reported back to Marshall.

"Try Yale," Marshall barked.

Yale had some of the same problems with an honorary degree as Harvard. But its President, Charles Seymour, said Yale could award Dill the Charles P. Howland Prize.

And what was that?

It was awarded for outstanding contributions to international understanding.
The award ceremony, the president said, would include mace, academic procession, anthems, etc.

Marshall thought that would all be just fine.

The War Department informed the press that the Chief of Staff would be taking time from his very busy schedule to travel to New Haven to attend this most important award ceremony. What's more, Secretary of War Simpson and Asst. Secretary of War Lovett were also planning to attend.

The press reported on the ceremony with what Simpson later called a big "splash." Marshall stayed long after the ceremony talking informally to the press and posing for pictures, actions not typical of the General.

Soon other colleges and universities, including The College of William and Mary and Columbia University awarded Dill honorary doctorates.

Marshall later told the aide he'd heard Churchill had said, "Dill must be doing quite a job over there."

Of course, there was no more talk of recall.
___________________________________________________________________________
Forrest C. Pogue, George C. Marshall: Organizer of Victory. (pgs. 336-337)

Naval aviation mystery: 60 years ago this month

Bill at Florida Masochist reminds us of that this December marks the sixtieth anniversary of one of aviation's great mysteries: The disappearance of Flight 19.

Five Navy torpedo bombers took off on Dec. 5 from what is today Fort Lauderdale airport on a training flight. Shortly thereafter, they disappeared without a trace.

Bill has details concerning what we know about the planes' flights, and theories about why they disappeared. Bill even offers his own explanation.

I think sailors, and aviation and Bermuda Triangle fans will especially enjoy the post. It's here.

El Baradei to Iran: Stop or we'll keep talking

The Associated Press tells us today:

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mohamed El Baradei said Friday the international community is losing patience with Iran over its nuclear program. El Baradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said he hopes the outstanding nuclear issues with Iran will be clarified next year.

"They are inching forward and I'm asking them to leap forward," said El Baradei, who shares the award with the IAEA.
...
He encouraged European negotiators to continue talks with Iran.

Surely El Baradei knows Iran is leaping forward: Right toward development and deployment of nuclear weapons.

But look at what he proposes:

"The parties need to sit together, discuss their grievances and reach a solution," he said. "If we can do that without escalating the problem, all the much better."

Interesting advice. Talk, so long as you don't escalate the problem.

And if talks seem to escalate the problem? Why you break them off, and wait six months.

Then resume the talks, calling their resumption "progress toward a solution."

When those talks seem to escalate the problem, you start another cycle of break-off and resumption.

Enough of those cycles and you've made so much "progress toward a solution" that, like Mr. El Baradei, you're awarded the Nobel Peace prize.

He'll receive the prize Saturday at a glittering ceremony in Oslo.

The leaders of Iran's nuclear weapons program won't be able to attend. For them, Saturday is just another work day.

The Churchill Series - Dec 8, 2005

(Readers Note: I missed yesterday's daily post because of Blogger and travel problems. Sorry. - John)

Although we're a day past the Pearl Harbor anniversary, I want to tell some of Churchill's actions and thoughts that Dec 7, 1941.

At noon London time, Churchill asked America's Ambassador to Britain, John Winant: Would the United States declare war on Japan if it attacked British forces in Asia?

Winant said an American declaration of war was a matter for Congress to decide. He could give no assurance President Roosevelt would ask for a declaration if Japan attack only the British.

Like many others who'd studied the matter, Churchill thought it would be in Japan's best interests to launch a first strike at British, and only British, forces.

By delaying a strike against American forces, Japan could first defeat the British and their Commonwealth allies, and then attack the Americans.

The hours of December 7 passed into the afternoon and then early evening.

Churchill dined with Winant and Roosevelt's aide, Averell Harriman. At 9 PM they listened to the news, and heard a report of a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Winant at once phoned Roosevelt, who confirmed the news of Japan's attack. "We are all in the same boat now," he added.

Churchill immediately set in motion the steps necessary for Great Britain's declaration of war against Japan.

As the day ended, what were Churchill's thoughts?

Here's part of what Churchill later recalled:

No American will think it wrong of me if I proclaim that to have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. I could not foretell the course of events. I do not pretend to have measured accurately the martial might of Japan, but now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all!

Yes, after Dunkirk; after the fall of France; after the horrible episode of Oran: after the threat of invasion, when, apart from the Air and the Navy, we were an almost unarmed people; after the deadly struggle of the U-boat was - the Battle of the Atlantic, gained by a hand's -breath; after seventeen months of lonely fighting and nineteen months of my responsibility in dire stress, we had won the war.

England would live; Britain would live: the Commonwealth of Nations and the Empire would live.
...
One again in our long Island history we should emerge, however mauled or mutilated, safe and victorious. We should not be wiped out. Our history would not come to an end.

__________________________________________________ Martin Gilbert, Churchill and America. (pgs. 244-245)

Blogger problems

I had some probems with Blogger last evening and early this morning. I am travelling home today and posting will resume tonight.

The Churchill Series - Dec. 6, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts on the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

On Dec. 6, 1923, Churchill lost his seat in the General Election of that year. Many said the defeat marked the end of his political career.

It didn't, of course, and 18 years later to the day found him Prime Minister.

On that Dec.6, 1941, Churchill was spending a quiet weekend in the country with the American Ambassador John Winant and President Roosevelt's aide, Averall Harriman, who was charged with overseeing the delivery of military and other supplies from the then still officially neutral United States to Britain and Russia.

The three men would naturally discuss the supply delivery situation. They would also listen for any news of the talks going on in Washington between the Japanese and American governments aimed at avoiding a war between the two countries.

When they went to bed that evening, nothing significant had been reported from Washington.
____________________________________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Churchill: A Life

Traveling - Blogging resumes this evening

I'll be traveling for the rest of the afternoon. I'm not one of those folks who can blog at 30,000 ft.

Blogging will resume this evening.

Have a good afternoon.

John

Thomas Sowell's book recommendations

Thinking about book gifts to give or receive?

Thomas Sowell at Realclearpolitics.com offers a short list with brief comments about each book.

David McCullough's 1776 heads the list. It's an excellent book.

But the one I'm going to give to a family member so I can borrow it right back is Bernard Lewis' What Went Wrong. Sowell says:

With the world preoccupied today with the terrorism coming out of the Islamic Middle East and spreading around the world, we need to understand what has led up to this fanatical destruction and self-destruction.

Some believe that it is something that we have done, or that Israel has done, which has provoked such lethal hatreds. But the roots of all this go back long before the modern state of Israel was founded and before American involvement in the Middle East.

"What Went Wrong?" is the title of a brilliant and readable capsule history of the evolution of Islamic civilization in the Middle East by the preeminent scholar on that subject, Professor Bernard Lewis of Princeton. This little book is an education in itself on a subject where education is very much needed.

Read about the rest of Sowell's selections here.

The Churchill Series - Dec. 5, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Today I saw one of America's finest, this one in Army uniform, enjoying a beer.

She brought to mind Ben Franklin and Winston Churchill.

It was Franklin who said, "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

And it was Churchill who on October 21, 1944 flew from Cairo to Naples where he met with Allied military leaders, including General Harold Alexander, commander of British troops in Italy.

Alexander pressed Churchill with many requests. One was for more beer for British troops.

Churchill promptly sent a minute to the Secretary of State for War, saying in part:

The Americans are said to have four bottles a week, and the British rarely get one. You should make an immediate effort, and come to me for support in case other Departments are involved.

Let me have a plan with time schedule for this beer. The question of importing ingredients should also be considered.

The priority in issue is to go to the fighting troops at the front, and only work back to the rear as and when supplies open out.

I think Churchill and Franklin would have got along splendidly, at least most of the time.

And wouldn't we have loved to join them for dinner. Or even just a beer, if they were busy.
______________________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Road to Victory. (p. 1036)

How low will a major network go?

The major networks are always talking about "news standards."

At NBC, their "news standards" apparently allow the network to hype terrorist propaganda.

Rantingprofs has the story, and calls NBC out for its disgraceful conduct.

Hat Tip: Lorie Byrd at Polipundit

The Churchill Series - Dec. 4, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

From the introduction to Martin Gilbert's latest book, Churchill and America:

Churchill was proud of his American ancestry. During a discussion at the Truman White House in 1952, to standardize the type of rifle to be used by the two countries' armies, the following exchange took place between Churchill and the senior British officer present:

Field Marshall Slim: "Well, I suppose we could experiment with a bastard rifle, party American, partly British."

Churchill: "Kindly moderate your language, Field Marshall. It may be recalled that I am myself partly British, partly American."

Blogging resumes tomorrow

It's been a very busy day.

I've had many contacts concerning the New York Times posts (Just keep scrolling down).

Thank you to everyone who is spreading the word.

Blogging resumes tomorrow morning.

MSM and gas prices

In early October the price of a gallon of regular gas in central North Carolina was over $3.00. At some stations it cost as much as $3.19.

MSM was in full “blame-Bush” mode, with front page stories saying high gas prices would not only help sink his presidency, but damage Republican chances in the ’06 congressional elections.

On Nov. 6 I posted that a gallon of gas in central NC had dropped to $2.54 at many stations but the major networks were actually continuing to talk about rising gas prices.

Now on Dec. 3 I see gas stations selling regular for $2.05.

Any MSM front page stories about how the sharp drop in gas prices will help President Bush and the Republican’s chances in the ’06 congressionals?

If they’re out there, I can’t find them.

If you want to learn more about how one MSM newspaper, the liberal trending further left Raleigh News & Observer, reports economic news visit Scott Pierce at Right in Raleigh. He regularly catches The N&O spinning economic news.

The Churchill Series - Dec. 3, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

On the night of October 14, 1940 Churchill was dining at 10 Downing Street when a German bombing raid began.

A part of the Treasury Building, not fifty yards from Number 10, suffered a direct hit before Churchill and aides could get to a shelter.

Churchill refused to remain for long in the shelter. He soon went to the roof of the building that housed the shelter, and there witnessed the raid. He later wrote:

The night was clear and there was a wide view of London. It seemed the greater part of Pall Mall was in flames. (There were) fierce fires...in St. James Street and Piccadilly. Farther back over the river in the opposite direction there were many conflagrations. But Pall Mall was the vivid flame-picture

Pall Mall was then as now the location of many of London's private clubs , including then but not now its most prestigious, The Carleton Club, whose membership has traditionally included the leaders and other important members of Churchill's Conservative Party.

Churchill was given an eye-witness account of the club's destruction by a Member of Parliament:

He was in the club with about two hundred and fifty members and staff.
...
The whole of the facade and the massive coping on the Pall Mall side (fell into) the street obliterating his motor-car.
...
The smoking-room had been full of members, and the whole ceiling had come down upon them.
,,,
However, by what seemed a miracle, they had all crawled out of the dust, smoke, and rubble, and thought many were injured not a single life was lost.

While to Churchill the survival of his Conservative Party colleagues "seemed a miracle," Laborites had another explanation, which Churchill duly recorded:

(In) Cabinet, our Labour colleagues facetiously remarked, "The Devil looks after his own."

_______________________________________________________________
Winston S. Churchill, Their Finest Hour. (pgs. 346-348)

Op-ed fiction from the New York Times.

(Welcome visitors from Betsy's Page, David Boyd, Interested-Participant, Polipundit, Room 12A and others I may have missed.)

Readers' Note:

My reply to New York Times Op-Ed page editor David Shipley's recent email follows this note.

The rest of this note is for readers not familiar with matters that led to Shipley's email, a full text copy of which is contained in this post.

On June 28 the New York Times published an op-ed that charged the United States Army systematically lies to young West Point cadets and graduates.(''The Not-So-Long Gray Line,'' full text of op-ed available only to Times Select subscribers)

With one exception, what the Times offered to support the "Army lies" charge was anecdotal and so poorly sourced as to be unverifiable by independent means. The single exception to that concerned five distinguished generals, about whose careers the Times made statements in such a way as to bolster the "Army lies" charge. But the Times' statements were false.

Beginning on June 29, I requested through the office of public editor Byron Calame corrections and an explanation for the false statements. After further attempts (here and here and here), I received on Nov. 28 an email from the Times' Op-Ed page editor. David Shipley. The full text of the email is in this post.

My reply to editor Shipley follows. I'm sending a copy to editor Calame along with a link to this post.
____________________________________________________________________

Dear Editor Shipley:

When I read your email I thought of the growing number of Americans who say that when pursuing an agenda, the Times often makes little or no distinction between fact and fiction.

I requested corrections of false statements in the following paragraph, a part of your June 28 op-ed charging the Army systematically lies to West Point cadets and young officers:

There was a time when the Army did not have a problem retaining young leaders - men like Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and my grandfather, Lucian K. Truscott Jr. Having endured the horrors of World War I trenches, these men did not run headlong out of the Army in the 1920's and 30's when nobody wanted to think of the military, much less pay for it. They had made a pact with each other and with their country, and all sides were going to keep it.

Your response? The Times never meant the statements to be factual. It published them as fiction. What's more, you believe that was as clear in June as it is now.

(It) seemed clear at the time -- and seems clear to me now -- that (op-ed author Lucian Truscott IV) was speaking figuratively. Mr. Truscott did not, for example, say that these men had been "in" the trenches.

So you're saying when the Times lists the names of five distinguished American generals, points out that its op-ed writer is the grandson of one of them, and follows the generals' names with a sentence beginning: "Having endured the horrors of World War I trenches, these men did not run headlong out of the Army…," none of that means the Times is telling readers the five men actually served "in" the trenches.

And that was all as clear in June as it is now.

Editor Shipley, what you're saying is unbelievable.

But that doesn't give you or the Times pause, does it? The Times is going "to continue to give (Truscott) the license to use this language figuratively."

So we should expect, for example, that the Times will again use "language figuratively" to tell readers that as a young officer General of the Army Omar Bradley endured the horrors of WWI's trenches, even though the Times knows that in his autobiography, A General's Life, Bradley describes his many failed attempts to get assigned to the trenches in France; and calls his failure "the most frustrating ( part of my) early Army career? (p. 44-45)

I object to the Times using "language figuratively" to first, invoke the names of Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and Lucian K. Truscott Jr., and then to distort their military service; all to bolster your op-ed charging the Army lies.

While it may seem a hopeless effort, I will continue to pursue a correction and explanation through public editor Byron Calame. Apologies to the memories of five great Americans are also due.

If people don't speak up, the Times will only get worse.

It's sad to recall, Editor Shipley, that your newspaper was once The Journal of Record.

A few final words.

I shared your email with two journalist friends.

One called it "sophistry." The other said, "What you got here is Shipley practicing Sulzberger journalism."

My word for your op-ed and email is shameless.

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com
__________________________________________________________________________

Many bloggers and readers are helping to call attention to this matter and joining in the request for correction and explanation.

I plan to publish a list Monday of bloggers who are posting, linking and helping in other ways. Bloggers involved, please let me know of your help. I don't want to miss anyone.

Thanks to readers for great support. If you haven't let public editor Calame know what you think of the falsehoods and Shipley's fiction explanation, Calame's email address is: public@nytimes.com

If enough people call attention to what the Times did and how it's excusing it, we may get a correction and explanation.

The Churchill Series - Dec. 2, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Having been blamed during World War I for the failure of the Dardanelles campaign and forced out of office, Churchill elected to serve in the trenches. He was given the rank of Lt. Colonel.

After arriving in France, and while waiting for permanent assignment to a unit, he volunteered to go to the front and serve on a temporary basis with a Guards regiment.

Soon thereafter he wrote Clementine:

I keep watch during part of the night so that others may sleep. Last night I found a sentry asleep on his post. I frightened him dreadfully but did not charge him with the crime. He was only a lad, & I am not an officer of the regiment. The penalty is death or at least 2 years.

Churchill found a way to justify his failure to report the young sentry.

But what if Churchill had been an officer of the regiment. Would he then have reported the young sentry? I doubt it.

I can't recall an instance where he pressed a court martial charge. Do any of you know of one?

Churchill was later recalled from France and served for the remainder of the war as Minister of Munitions. __________________________________________________________________________________
William Manchester, The Last Lion. (pgs. 578-579)

Response to New York Times delayed

My response to New York Times Op-Ed page editor David Shipley's email will appear tomorrow. Sorry for the delay.

If you want to read his email, you'll find it in this post.

Your suggestions and comments are welcome.

The Churchill Series - Dec. 1, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Who was the first American President to write Churchill a letter?

If you answered, "Roosevelt," you're right provided you meant President Theodore Roosevelt.

TR and Churchill first met in Dec., 1900, when Roosevelt was New York's Governor and America's Vice President-elect.

TR hosted Churchill at dinner in the Governor's Mansion in Albany. He later told a friend, "Although (Churchill) is not an attractive fellow, I was interested in some of the things he said."

Nine years later, President Theodore Roosevelt was preparing to pass the duties of office on to his successor, William Howard Taft. Afterwards, he would embark on a lengthy hunting trip to Africa.

When Chuchill learned of TR's plans, he sent him a copy of his latest book, My African Journey, which had been serialized on both sides of the Atlantic. The front cover contained an engraving of Churchill, gun in hand, standing over a rhinoceros he'd shot.

TR responded:

My dear Mr. Churchill:

Thru (Ambassador) Reid, I have just received the beautiful copy of your book, and I wish to thank you for it. I had read all the chapters as they came out, and with a great deal of interest; not only the chapters upon the very difficult and important problems of the Government itself, but also the hunting chapters and especially the one describing how you got that rare and valuable trophy, a white rhinoceros head. Everyone has been most kind to me about my proposed trip to Africa. I trust I shall have as good luck as you had.

Again thanking you, believe me,
Sincerely yours,

Theodore Roosevelt

December 13, 1909.
______________________________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Churchill and America. ( pgs.36, 50-51)

Important questions about heroes and MSM.

Mrs Greyhawk asks:

How often do your hear heroic stories told of our troops... on say CNN or read about them in the New York Times?

Try searching "Hero" in any of the MSM's search window. Try searching "Hero" in Google News or Yahoo news and see what you find.

Can the everyday American (who hasn't been exposed to milblogs) name a single Hero of this war? No. Why? Because in the MSM's eye's, the epitome of a hero is ...a sports figure.

How is it, the headlines are filled with the casualties of our warriors but having none honoring their heroism?

Well, for one thing, if we start honoring our heroes we may start paying attention to what almost all of them are saying about Iraq: It's not a quagmire; we're not losing; and "cut-and-run" will only lead to civil war, and the failure of so much of what our military and our allies have accomplished there.

Listening to our heroes won't be good for the Democrats who dominate MSM or their fellow partisans in Congress and their interest groups. They want us to believe what they're telling us: things are bad and only getting worse; "It's another Vietnam." If enough of us believe them they think we'll elect more Dems to Congress in '06 and a Dem as President in '08.

Mrs. Greyhawk pushes aside MSM fig leaves:

They list them only as a veritable number. And if our warrior should so live thru a ferocious battle committing heroic deeds, they do not even get a mention of their valor.

Why does it take someone like Bruce Wllis to make a hero out of our heroes.

I'm astounded daily by the MSM's representation of our troops.

Mrs. Greyhawk, you're too nice. It's MSM's daily misrepresentation of our troops. But you're wonderful to share some examples of our service men and women's heroism with us:

Here are just a few of our latest heroes, honor them by remembering their names :

Spc. Andrew “Doc” Suchanek

Spc. Suchanek provided immediate life-saving treatment for an Iraqi police officer under heavy enemy fire. “I didn’t have time to think about it,” said Spc. Andrew “Doc” Suchanek, 1st Battalion, 87th Infantry, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division. “I just knew I didn’t want that guy to get hurt even worse. I just reacted.”

While on a routine patrol in west Baghdad, Suchanek and other Soldiers of C Company, 1/87 Infantry responded to assist Iraqi Police who had come under fire from automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades. Encountering a critically-wounded police officer, Suchanek began immediate life-saving treatment.

Then a terrorist suddenly fired an RPG at both of them. Without hesitation, Suchanek threw himself on the police officer, shielding him from danger. The grenade exploded harmlessly and Suchanek continued treatment to save the life of the policeman. As his fellow Soldiers secured the area, Suchanek coordinated evacuation for his patient to a local hospital.

Read more here.

New York Times Editor Offers Explanation for Falsehoods

(Welcome visitors from Betsy's Page, Confederate Yankeee, David Boyd, Peer Review, Right in Raleigh, and Mudville Gazette.)

Many of you know that on June 28 the New York Times published an op-ed that claimed the United States Army systematically lies to young West Point graduates.( ''The Not-So-Long Gray Line,'' full text of op-ed available only to Times Select subscribers)

Here's part of what the Times published:

The lies became embedded in the curriculum of the academy, and finally in its moral DNA.
...
The mistake the Army made (at the time of Vietnam) is the same mistake it is making now: how can you educate a group of handpicked students at one of the best universities in the world and then treat them as if they are too stupid to know when they have been told a lie?

Despite the gravity of the claim that the Army systematically lies, the Times offered readers no facts they could independently verify other than this paragraph:

There was a time when the Army did not have a problem retaining young leaders - men like Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and my grandfather, Lucian K. Truscott Jr. Having endured the horrors of World War I trenches, these men did not run headlong out of the Army in the 1920's and 30's when nobody wanted to think of the military, much less pay for it. They had made a pact with each other and with their country, and all sides were going to keep it.

The claims in that paragraph are false. Eisenhower, Bradley and Truscott never served overseas during WWI; Marshall was in France as a staff officer; and only Patton saw combat. I know of no historian who’s ever claimed the five future generals made any sort of pact with each other.

Begining on June 29 I called the falsehoods to Times public editor Byron Calame's attention. I cited sources refuting what the Times had published. Other bloggers (Betsy's Page, Michelle Malkin, Right in Raleigh, and Blackfive helped press the matter. If I've missed other bloggers, let me know and I'll correct).

Now from Times Op-Ed page Editor David Shipley comes this email response to which he attached a portion of correspondence from the author of the op-ed, Lucian Truscott IV.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

>Dear Mr. Matthews,
>
>Many thanks for your note, which only recently found its way to me.
>
>You have a point. Mr. Truscott should have been more careful with his
>language and we should have been more careful in editing his language.
>That said, it seemed clear at the time -- and seems clear to me now --
>that he was speaking figuratively. Mr. Truscott did not, for example, say
>that these men had been "in" the trenches. A response from Mr. Truscott is
>pasted below. Given his answer, I am inclined to continue to give him the
>license to use this language figuratively.
>
>Thank you again for being in touch.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>David Shipley
>Editor, Op-Ed page
>
>Here's a portion of Mr. Truscott's note:
>
>>>I knew that about grandpa, Bradley, et al., but rather stupidly used the
>>>"trenches" thing as a metaphor. The "pact with each other" was made not in
>>>a literal sense, but in the sense that all of these men shared a sense of
>>>duty-honor-country that THEY took literally -- a dedication to their
>>>country, the army, their mission, and its rightness. It was the kind of
>>>dedication that didn't have to be talked about around a table -- although
>>>most of them spent many, many hours around tables of various kinds together
>>>between the wars.
>>>
>>>Lucian
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I plan to respond to Editor Shipley in a day or two. Meanwhile, I'd like to hear your thoughts and suggestions. I hope other bloggers will link to this post as well as my first post to Public Editor Calame (It's here).

I recall in the days of Senator McCarthy he said some pretty reckless things about individual members of the Army. But I don't recall him ever making the broad charges of institutional lying that the Times published on June 28 with no verifiable evidence whatsoever, if you now accept Editor Shipley's claim that the statements about the five generals are really just figures of speech.

Alarm bells should be ringing all across this country.

The Churchill Series - Nov. 30, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Most of you know Churchill was born on November 30; many of you know the year, 1874.

That you know either or both facts suggests an interest in Churchill's life, the study of which has convinced millions they owe him something very important: their freedom.

They're right, of course. Churchill's unflinching opposition to Nazi barbarism always, and especially in the desperate days of 1940, was essential to Freedom's victory over the terrorists of his time.

In tribute this day to Churchill, here's part of historian William Manchester's appreciation of him and the long odds he faced in 1940.

The French had collapsed. The Dutch had been overwhelmed. The Belgians had surrendered. The British army ... fell back toward the Channel ports (centered on Dunkirk).
...
It was England's greatest crisis since the Norman conquest, vaster than those precipitated by Philip II's Spanish Armada, Louis XIV's triumphant armies, or Napoleon’s invasions barges massed at Boulogne.
...
It had been a thousand years since Alfred the Great had made himself and his countrymen one and sent them into battle transformed.

Now...confronted by the mightiest conqueror Europe had ever known, England looked for another Alfred, a figure cast in a mold which, by the time of (Dunkirk), seemed to have been forever lost.
...
(If England were to prevail, its new leader) would have to stand for everything England's decent, civilized Establishment had rejected. They viewed Adolf Hitler as the product of complex social and historical forces.

Their successor would have to be a passionate Manichaean who saw the world as a medieval struggle to the death between the powers of good and the powers of evil, who held that individuals are responsible for their actions, and that the German dictator was therefore wicked.

A believer in martial glory was required (who) could rally the nation to brave the coming German fury.

An embodiment of fading Victorian standards was wanted: a tribune for honor, loyalty, duty, and the supreme virtue of action: one who would never compromise with iniquity, who could create a sublime mood and thus give men heroic visions of what they were and might become.

Like Adolph Hitler he would have to be a leader of intuitive genius, a born demagogue in the original sense of the word, a believer in the supremacy of his race and his national destiny, an artist who knew how to gather the blazing light of history into his prism and then distort it to his ends, an embodiment of inflexible resolution who could impose his will and his imagination on his people.
...
(He would be a leader) who could win victories without enslaving populations, or preaching supernaturalism, or foisting off myths of his infallibility, or destroying, or even warping, the libertarian institutions he had sworn to preserve.

Such a man, if he existed, would be England's last chance.

In London there was such a man.

For the life of Winston Churchill, let us give thanks, and use our freedoms wisely and, when necessary, bravely.
_______________________________________________________________________________
William Manchester, The Last Lion. (p. 3-4)

The Churchill Series - Nov. 29, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

It was March 29, 1944 and past 2 AM in London.

The Prime Minister had just refused a resignation offer from a Cabinet Member who had failed to win Parliament's support for a crucial bill. They would turn things around in the morning, Churchill assured him. Then he prepared for bed.

The next morning he read documents, received and made phone calls, dictated memos and minutes, and at 9:30 met with Lord Cherwell. By 11:30 he was in Commons for Prime Minister's question time. Afterwards, he made a statement on an education bill and planned strategy for its passage. Then he left Commons for a 1:30 formal luncheon with prominent guests.

After the luncheon, Churchill continued to read, dictate, and take calls while he prepared for a 3 PM meeting with American Air Force General Ira Eaker. Eaker's Eighth Air Force bombers were at that time carrying out raids intended to cripple the Germans' ability to reinforce the Normandy beaches after the Allied invasion, then just weeks away.

Following his meeting with Eaker, Churchill took a nap; and then resumed work.

At 8:30 that evening he dined with General Bernard Law Montgomery, who would command Allied ground forces on D-Day.

On that March 29, Churchill was one day shy of age 69 years and 4 months. In the preceding three years, he had suffered at least two heart attacks and three bouts of pneumonia.
___________________________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Winston S. Churchill: Road to Victory, VII. ( See pg. 720-21 for events of March 29, and the index for other documentation)

Boyd goes for the money quotes

One reason I enjoy visiting David Boyd is his talent for spotting and highlighting money quotes at other blogs.

Here's an example he pulled from a Powerline review of Mary Mapes' book, in which she casts herself as the real victim of the 60 Minutes' Bush-basher she produced using forged documents:

It is a deeply dishonest book that takes advantage of the ignorance, gullibility, and derangement of its target audience. It depends on its readers complete ignorance of the record in general, and of the Thornburgh-Boccardi report on the 60 Minute broadcast segment in particular.

Sounds like just the book for a Moveon.org friend.

Be sure to visit David.

Letter to NY Times Public Editor Calame.

Readers' Note: Below is an open email letter to NY Times public editor Byron Calame. John in Carolina regulars know the background. Newcomers will quickly pick it up from the letter and links.

If after reading the letter, you wish to send a message to Calame his email address is: public@nytimes.com

I hope you'll contact him.
______________________________________________________________

To: Byron Calame
Public Editor
NY Times

Five months ago the New York Times published an op-ed charging the Army systematically lies to young West Point graduates ( ''The Not-So-Long Gray Line,'' June 28). (Full text of op-ed available only to Times Select subscribers)

Only anecdotes were offered to support the lying charge. With one exception, they can’t be verified because names and other necessary identifying information aren’t provided.

The exception is this paragraph:

There was a time when the Army did not have a problem retaining young leaders - men like Dwight Eisenhower, George Patton, George Marshall, Omar Bradley and my grandfather, Lucian K. Truscott Jr. Having endured the horrors of World War I trenches, these men did not run headlong out of the Army in the 1920's and 30's when nobody wanted to think of the military, much less pay for it. They had made a pact with each other and with their country, and all sides were going to keep it.

As you surely know by now, the claims made in that paragraph are false.

Eisenhower, Bradley and Truscott never served overseas during WWI; Marshall was in France as a staff officer; and only Patton saw combat. I don’t know of any historian who’s ever claimed the five future generals made any sort of pact with each other.

On June 29 I sent you a lengthy email that noted the false claims and cited widely respected and available sources that leave no doubt the claims are false. I requested a correction and explanation for why the Times published such blatant falsehoods

I posted the email at my blog, www.johnincarolina.com

On July 7, I sent you an updated email/post after the Times’ acknowledged on July 6 that one of its editors had inserted material into an op-ed that the op-ed author hadn’t intended to be there.

Following the Times July 6 acknowledgement, I thought it would move quickly to correct and explain the falsehoods in its June 28 op-ed because readers would now be asking not only why the Times published false statements about the generals but who had in fact authored them.

I received from your office formal acknowledgements of receipt of both emails but nothing more until Nov. 17, when Betsy Newmark, guest blogging at Michelle Malkin, posted on the falsehoods.

On the day Newmark’s post appeared, I was able to speak twice to your Associate, Joseph Plambeck. He was familiar with my requests and assured me you would take a close look at them and be back in touch within a few days.

I've heard nothing.

I was happy to give you a few days more but don’t you agree five months are now time enough?

Editorial Page Editor Gail Collins recently assured readers the Times corrects “all errors.” She added:

We want to cultivate the reflex that automatically fixes any inaccuracy, without whining. But mistakes of significance are much more urgent than minor ones. They need to be corrected quickly, and in a way that guarantees the fix is seen by as many people who read the original piece as possible.

If Collins and the Times are credible, why haven't we had a correction and explanation of blatant falsehoods in a Times op-ed accusing the Army of lying?

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com

The Churchill Series - Nov. 28, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

Most Churchill Series posts are narratives to which I sometimes add a brief comment.

Today’s post is different: I mean to knock down nonsense some British newspapers are spreading about Churchill.

Example: The Nov. 21 London Daily Telegraph online headlined: Churchill 'had his plane sabotaged to protect code secret.'

If you're not familiar with the British press, the Telegraph in not a London tabloid; it styles itself "a serious newspaper."

The Telegraph begins its Churchill "sabotaged" story:

Winston Churchill told his bodyguard deliberately to sabotage his aircraft to foil a Luftwaffe assassination plot, according to a television documentary.

Churchill's order instructing Walter Thompson, the detective who was his constant companion for 18 years, to immobilise his private aeroplane has remained secret until now.

But the makers of a documentary, Churchill's Bodyguard, believe that they have uncovered new evidence suggesting that Churchill dreamt up the elaborate scheme, because the cracking of the enigma code had provided him with intelligence saying there was to be an attempt on his life.

What new evidence? The Telegraph informs us the program:

is based on newly discovered memoirs written by Thompson recounting Churchill's numerous brushes with death.

So the new evidence is a claim by Thompson that Churchill told him “ to deliberately sabotage his aircraft, etc., etc?”

That’s a reasonable conclusion given how the Telegraph reports, especially it’s “Churchill's order instructing" statement.

But the Telegraph story is really puff-and-powder makeup. Thompson didn't claim that Churchill ordered any sabotage.

For its story, the Telegraph relies on a claim by Thompson's 90 year old son, that his father :

told me he took the rotor from the distributor cap. I have no doubt he did it. Dad knew his engines.''

The Telegraph apparently did not ask Harold Thompson why he is only telling his tale now, just as a 13-part TV series based on his father's memoirs begins its run on British television. Or ask why his father didn't mention the episode in his memoirs.

There's much else the Telegraph doesn't call to readers attention.

For instance, while on the ground at any time during WWII, Churchill's plane would have been heavily guarded. That was especially true in Feb. 1943 in Algiers, where a few weeks before a French leader, Admiral Darlan, had been assassinated(Churchill stayed in what had been Darlan's villa). Anyone tampering with any of the plane’s four engines (it was a converted B-24 Liberator bomber) would have been visible to the guards; and drawn immediate and intense attention.

I think the Telegraph and the documentary producers are hyping. I'm sorry the son's involved.

Blogging resumes Monday. Then lots.

Today, Saturday, Nov. 26, and tomorrow are travel days.

Blogging resumes early Monday, Nov.28.

Monday's first post will be part of the Churchill Series. I plan to challenge some unsubstantiated reporting concerning Churchill that appeared today in the London Telegraph. Your comments are very welcome.

By 8 AM Monday, I'll post an open letter to New York Times public editor Byron Calame.

John in Carolina regulars know the letter will concern false information the Times published concerning World War II Generals Bradley,Eisenhower, Marshall, Patton and Truscott.

There'll also be a post providing another example of the Raleigh News & Observer's liberal trending Left news bias.

And more will follow those posts.

See you Monday.

The Churchill Series - Nov. 25, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about the life of Winston S. Churchill.)

In 1902 Churchill, already at 27 a Member of Parliament, had yet to marry. But he set out to change that.

William Manchester in The Last Lion says Churchill began courting a beautiful 24 year-old American actress then performing in London. They often dined together at Claridges. He showered her with notes and flowers; and invited her to visit his ancestral home, Blenheim Palace. Some time after that, he proposed.

Ethel Barrymore said no. She told Churchill she “would not be able to cope with the great world of politics.”(p.361)

At the Churchill Centre, we learn Barrymore was a guest in August, 1925 at the Churchill’s home, Chartwell, in Kent. She signed the guest book.

Martin Gilbert, in his newly released Churchill and America, reports that in 1932 while visiting Washington, D.C. as part of a lecture tour, Churchill learned Barrymore was performing in the city. He sent her flowers and a note.(.140)

Krauthammer and America's Devotion to Liberty

Charles Krauthammer writes today about America's Unique Devotion to Liberty.

Don't miss it.

David McCullough, TR, and reading

A few years ago, historian David McCullough, spoke to a university graduating class about the importance of reading. Naturally, he illustrated his theme with references to great men and women who read often and widely, sometimes under difficult circumstances. Here’s one example:

Once upon a time in the dead of winter in Dakota territory, with the temperature well below zero, young Theodore Roosevelt took off in a makeshift boat, accompanied by two of his ranch hands, down-stream on the Little Missouri River in chase of a couple of thieves who had stolen his prized row boat. After days on the river, he caught up and got the draw on them with his trusty Winchester, at which point they surrendered. Then, after finding a man with a team and a wagon, Roosevelt set off again to haul the thieves cross-country to justice. He left the ranch hands behind to tend to the boat, and walked alone behind the wagon, his rifle at the ready. They were headed across the snow covered wastes of the Bad Lands to the rail head at Dickinson, and Roosevelt walked the whole way, 40 miles. It was an astonishing feat, what might be called a defining moment in that eventful life. But what makes it especially memorable is that during that time, he managed to read all of Anna Karenina.

Read McCullough's entire address here.

From William Bradford's Journal

From the journal of William Bradford, Pilgrim leader and second Governor of Plymouth Colony:

"Being thus arived in a good harbor and brought safe to land, they fell upon their knees & blessed ye God of heaven, who had brought them over ye vast & furious ocean, and delivered them from all ye periles & miseries therof, againe to set their feete on ye firme and stable earth, their proper elemente. And no marvell if they were thus joyefull, seeing wise Seneca was so affected with sailing a few miles on ye coast of his owne Italy; as he affirmed, that he had rather remaine twentie years on his way by land, then pass by sea to any place in a short time; so tedious & dreadfull was ye same unto him.

But hear I cannot but stay and make a pause, and stand half amased at this poore peoples presente condition; and so I thinke will the reader too, when he well considered ye same. Being thus passed ye vast ocean, and a sea of troubles before in their preparation (as may be remembred by yt which wente before), they had now no friends to wellcome them, nor inns to entertaine or refresh their weatherbeaten bodys, no houses or much less townes to repaire too, to seeke for succoure. ..

Let it also be considred what weake hopes of supply & succoure they left behinde them, yt might bear up their minds in this sade condition and trialls they were under; and they could not but be very smale. It is true, indeed, ye affections & love of their brethren at Leyden was cordiall & entire towards them, but they had litle power to help them, or them selves; and how ye case stode betweene them & ye marchants at their coming away, hath already been declared.

What could not sustaine them but ye spirite of God & his grace? May not & ought not the children of these fathers rightly say : Our faithers were Englishmen which came over this great ocean, and were ready to perish in this willdernes; but they cried unto ye Lord, and he heard their voyce, and looked on their adversitie…"

Will pays tribute to William F. Buckley

George Will pays tribute today to William F. Buckley. With recollections, humor and grace, Will reminds us of what the young Bill Buckley saw at the start of his more then half-century of public service and what he decided to do about it. America is much the better for it.

Buckley, for whom the nation should give thanks, turns 80 on Thanksgiving Day, and National Review, the conservative journal he founded in the belly of the beast -- liberal Manhattan -- turned 50 this month. It is difficult to remember, and hence especially important to remember, the slough of despond conservatism was in 1955.

Ohio Sen. Robert Taft, for more than a decade the leading conservative in elective office, had died in 1953. Joseph McCarthy had tainted conservatism in the process of disgracing himself with bile and bourbon. President Eisenhower had so placidly come to terms with the flaccid consensus of the 1950s that the editor of U.S. News & World Report, the most conservative newsweekly, suggested that both parties nominate Eisenhower in 1956.

.Read Will's entire column here.

Thank you, Bill Buckley. Many more happy and productive years.

The Churchill Series - Nov. 23,2005

On November 28,1999, the last Thanksgiving of the 20th Century, CBS newsman Bob Schieffer asked: to whom do we owe the most?

Schieffer didn't elaborate on the question. He knew we would understand he wasn’t talking about who we owed the most for material wealth or miracle medicines that keep many of us alive. He knew we'd know he meant owed the most for our freedoms?

Schieffer said there were two we owed most: Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt.

As we think back on the "good war" that America fought, it is easy enough to forget that even after Hitler had built the greatest war machine the world had ever known, some, even in Great Britain, still believed a way could be found to coexist with the Nazis.

And to many in America, Europe and its problems seemed no threat to a country an ocean away.

Yet those two men saw what so many others did not: They recognized that it was not the weapons the Nazis assembled that posed the danger, but the hatred that fueled their cause.

They understood the world would be plunged into a New Dark Age if the Nazis went unchecked, and so they asked what leaders seldom ask of their people any more: they asked for sacrifice.
<...>

(In) an age when so much of life - from the products we buy to the decisions our leaders make - is so heavily influenced by polling and public opinion surveys, when we so often confuse celebrities with heroes, let us pause to remember two men who followed their inner lights and may have saved the world.

May we forever stand in awe of their skill and greatness.

Bill Buckley's wonderful sense of humor

When I paid tribute to William F. Buckley's many contributions to America, I didn't mention his great sense of humor, but it's surely another wonderful Buckley contribution.

Four sample follow: two from memory, and two from a Jeff Jacoby column.

Buckley once said that given a choice between being governed by the Harvard faculty or a Congress composed of the first 500 people listed in the Boston phone directory, he'd opt for the phone directory.

He received a letter from an irate National Review reader telling him in great detail what a miserable editor he was. The letter ended with "cancel my subscription."

Buckley wrote back that he certainly had shortcomings and would try to do better. But as for canceling the subscription, he told the reader, "Dammit, cancel it yourself."

When asked why Robert Kennedy was refusing to appear on his Firing Line interview program, Buckley asked "Why does baloney resist the meat grinder?"

A National Review editorial comment began: "The attempted assassination of Sukarno last week had all the earmarks of a CIA operation. Everyone in the room was killed except Sukarno."

Bill Buckley, a great American and a very funny guy.

William F. Buckley: A tribute.

William F. (Bill) Buckley is a great American whose contributions to our country span more than half a century.

In 1950, he came to public attention when he wrote God and Man at Yale, which warned that ideology was pushing scholarship aside on university campuses. How prophetic he was.

Five years later, Buckley founded National Review at a time when, as former NR staffer Chris Weinkopf said, “the world considered conservative intellectuals a genetic impossibility. Just nine years later, NR would prove instrumental in Barry Goldwater's rise to the GOP nomination for president. In 1980, Goldwater protégé Ronald Reagan won the White House, and made National Review mandatory reading for his entire staff."

President Reagan often said it wouldn't have been possible for him to become President without Bill Buckley and NR.

Except for far-right extremists who still resent Buckley's attacks on the conspiracy-driven John Birch Society, is there a conservative or libertarian group active today that doesn't acknowledge a debt to Bill Buckley? Young Americans for Freedom was literally founded in his home. The many important research and policy proposals of The Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute are part of Buckley’s legacy.

With words, ideas, and actions, Buckley has unapologetically championed the American creed, often at times when few others were doing so. Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby recently wrote an appreciation of Buckley which included this:

I was a 17-year-old college sophomore when I discovered National Review. A quarter-century later, I no longer recall where I came across my first issue, or what was on its cover. What I do recall, vividly, is the thrill of encountering words and arguments that gave shape and coherence to my own inchoate political beliefs. The importance of individual freedom, the dangers of a too-powerful government, the blessings of a free market, the imperative of fighting communism, the indispensability of faith -- these were themes I encountered again and again in the pages of NR. And, in those pre-Reagan days, almost nowhere else.

Bill Buckley is 80 years old on Nov. 24, 2005. Let us give thanks for his life: and wish him many more fruitful and happy years.

A Googlepalooza: What's that?

Until this morning I never knew what a Googlepalooza was. How about you?

I just learned there's a lot of interesting information and opinion in a Googlepalooza. And lots of links, too.

I read a New York Times claim that Google is making the Web safe for advertising. I’m not sure I believe that.

I read an expert’s prediction Google will soon be the Net. I doubt that.

The Washington Post is proclaiming that Google's main focus is to be a bull in a china shop.

A bull in a china shop? Now there’s an odd corporate goal.

You can read about all of the above and much more at Newmark’s Door’s Googlepalooza.

I learned a lot.

Traveling Nov. 22 - No blogging

I'll be traveling to New York City today to join family and friends for Thanksgiving.

Blogging resumes tomorrow, November 23.

I'll also blog on Thanksgiving Day.

John

The Churchill Series - Nov. 21, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about Winston S. Churchill.)

October 30, 1930 saw the publication of Churchill's autobiography, My Early Life. It sold well and was translated into many languages. His biographer, Martin Gilbert, has called it " a gentle, witty account of (Churchill's) school and army days, with many reflections on life and politics."

Churchill's childhood is like something out of Dickens. His parents treated him with indifference and ridicule. He was bullied at school and beaten unmercifully by masters, in one case so badly that his governess had to treat and dress his wounds for days.

Given all of that, I wonder how Churchill could write "a gentle, witty account" of his school days?

But since I've not read My Early Like, and because, like so many of you, I have extremely high regard for both Churchill and Gilbert, I'll pass on the question until I know more.

When I know enough to hazard an answer, I'll share it with you. Can any of you provide information now? It's welcome. Please speak up.

Meanwhile, here's a paragraph from My Early Life that caught my eye. The Churchill Centre included it in its Action This Day series, but did not cite a page.

We find Churchill digressing from the autobiographical to counsel parents. To fully appreciate what he is saying, imagine that Winston Churchill is visiting America to promote his book.

He's guesting today with Oprah.

An audience member stands and says she' s worried. Her teenage son wants to ride horses. She thinks that's dangerous. She wants to tell him he can't ride them but is afraid doing so will shatter his self-concept and lower his SAT score.

What advice does Churchill have for her and other parents in her predicament?

"And here I say to parents, especially to wealthy parents, 'Don't give your son money, give him horses.' No one ever came to grief - except honourable grief - through riding horses. No hour of life is lost that is spent in the saddle. Young men have often been ruined through owning horses, or through backing horses, but never through riding them; unless of course they break their necks, which, taken at a gallop, is a very good death to die."

What do you think? Will Oprah invite him back?
_________________________________________________________________
Martin Gilbert, Churchill: A Life. (p. 496)

The Churchill Series - Nov. 20, 2005

(One of a series of daily posts about Winston S. Churchill.)

From the first joint Anglo-American war planning conference in Washington in late Dec. 1941 and Jan. 1942, almost until the June 1944 Normandy invasion, the question of when the Allies should launch a cross-channel attack divided the British and American leaders. The British consistently argued for later dates; the Americans for earlier ones.

Their differences led to frequent arguments, usually loud and fierce. Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Marshall Alan Brooke, recorded in his diary that one planning session between American and British chiefs of staff led to "the mother and father of all rows."

At times, leaders of each nation questioned the good sense and motives of leaders of the other nation. But that said, it must always be remembered that when the die was cast, the two nations stood together.

Now let's get Churchill in here.

Of course, Churchill argued for delay. He feared an attack before Germany was near collapse would mean the channel would "run red with blood." Roosevelt pushed for as early a date as possible. His military leaders, especially Army Chief of Staff George Marshall, supported him.

In those contentious circumstances, a joke began circulating among the Americans.

It seems that late one night, the telephone rang at 10 Downing Street.

A young operator, new to the job, answered. Someone with a gruff voice demanded to speak to Churchill.

The operator was intimidated and put the call through without asking who the caller was.

But Churchill immediately recognized the caller's voice.

"Ah, Marshall Stalin, how's everything in Moscow?"

"I don't know. I'm here with my army in Calais."

Is the AP a responsible news organization?

The Associated Press just provided thoughtful people with another reason to ask whether it’s any longer a responsible news organization.

The AP is reporting:

A man once imprisoned with Iraq's most feared terror leader said Sunday that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was tortured regularly by Jordanian prison officials in the late 1990s and was held six months in solitary confinement.

Offering possible partial clues as to why the Jordanian-born al-Qaida leader chose Amman for triple hotel bombings earlier this month, the former cellmate, Yousef Rababaa, said: "He hated the intelligence services intensely, and the authorities didn't know how to deal with his new ideology."

In its report, the AP acknowledges Rababaa provided no evidence to back his claim.

The AP fails to say whether it asked Rababaa why he didn't make his claim years ago or why he's only making it now.

The AP doesn't even say whether it made at least a token effort to verify Rababaa's claim. Absent assurance that it did, the AP very likely didn't. In any case, the AP offers no independent verification of Rababaa's claim.

The AP knows its unverified torture story will engender, in many quarters, sympathy and support for a terrorist who daily kills innocents at prayer, weddings and schools. The AP knows its story will also make more difficult and deadly the work of all those protecting the innocent in Iraq and seeking to bring peace to that country.

Knowing all that, the AP rushed Rababaa's claim onto its wire.

Who is not asking whether the AP is any longer a responsible news organization?

Mark Steyn answers a letter writer

If you regularly read columnist Mark Steyn, you know he's smart and funny; and doesn't suffer fools gladly or any other way.

But James Baxter mustn't know any of that because he wrote Steyn:

Boy, it’s not hard to become an Anti-Semite with people like you around.

Seldom have I seen such classic Jewish opportunism, warmongering, hatemongering and Jewish racism.

James Baxter

_______________________________

For his effort, Baxter received from Steyn the following:

Well, don’t let me stop you becoming an anti-Semite if you’re that eager to. It’s a free country, unless you’re writing from Saudi Arabia or Syria.

Here's a place where you can read more Steyn.