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.