The Churchill Series - Mar. 20, 2009

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

On May 14, 1940, four days after Churchill became Prime Minister, one of the private secretaries he’d inherited from Neville Chamberlain’s office recorded in his diary a concern that Churchill was:

listening to the alarmist, and, I think untrustworthy opinions of Mr. Kennedy.

The secretary needn’t have been concerned.

Churchill listened to the American Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy as a matter of diplomatic courtesy. He knew Kennedy had been an appeaser and was now a defeatist who was predicting Britain would be forced to negotiate a peace on German terms..

Churchill deplored and distrusted Kennedy. Since shortly after he returned to government in September, 1939, he had bypassed Kennedy on important matters and corresponded directly with FDR. Churchill also met with American officials from Washington. Not only was Kennedy often not included in those meetings, frequently he wasn’t even given summaries of what was discussed.

By late October, 1940, when Kennedy returned to America, he was so angry that there was talk he might in the closing days of the presidential campaign publicly endorse FDR's Republican opponent, Wendell Wilkie.

Like Churchill, Roosevelt distrusted Kennedy. Unlike Churchill, FDR by 1940 had a dislike for Kennedy that bordered on hatred. But politics is politics and Roosevelt knew Kennedy's support would be important as he battled for an unprecedented third term. So Kennedy and his wife, Rose, were invited to dine at the White House with the Roosevelts and a few other “old and valued friends.”

Roosevelt biographer Conrad Black tells us a little about the evening:

Kennedy complained bitterly of the way he had been treated by the State Department, not informed at all of the destroyers deal, and left out while emissaries like [Asst. Sec. of State Sumner] Welles came through London without any consultation with the ambassador.

Roosevelt took up this theme, blasted the “officious men” responsible, and said Kennedy was being charitable. Only the war crisis had prevented Roosevelt from taking draconian measures against these insolent people, he said, and after the election there would be a “good housecleaning” to ensure the old and valued friends and the most important members of the administration like Kennedy were not treated in this way.

Roosevelt purported to accept Kennedy’s preposterous claims to absolute loyalty, to early and consistent support of the third term, and the virtual indispensability to Roosevelt and his family. The whole exchange was an allegorization of self-delusion by Kennedy and of cunning manipulation by Roosevelt.

By the end of dinner Kennedy had agreed to endorse FDR which he did two days later in a national radio address.

I don’t doubt the “dinner conversation” had something to do with that. More important, I think, was Kennedy’s awareness that a bolt to Wilkie would hurt the budding political career of his oldest son and namesake.

Shortly after the election, Kennedy resigned his post.

In August 1944 Joseph P. Kennedy Jr was killed in action while serving as a Navy pilot. He was posthumously awarded the Navy Cross.
______________________________________________________________
Conrad Black, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Follow the index for Churchill and Kennedy. The White House dinner is described on pg. 591. The diary entry by one of Churchill's private secretaries is found on pg. 339 of Martin Gilbert's Finest Hour: 1939-1941.

Should Obama’s Pick Make UNC Fans Nervous?

With tongue planted firmly in cheek, blogger and former N&O business editor Dan Gearino began a post today - - -

President Barack Obama has picked the University of North Carolina Tar Heels to win the NCAA basketball tournament.

Considering how well Obama has done with his other various choices since taking office, this should make the Heels very, very nervous.

For starters, the chances have just spiked up dramatically that we’ll learn UNC coach Roy Williams sort of, kind of forgot to pay his income taxes for a few years.

Then we’ll find out that UNC, a la AIG, quietly paid hapless former football coach John Bunting a million-dollar retention bonus — and did so last week, long after he’d actually left.

Also, don’t be surprised if, after Obama’s next mention of his plan for health-care reform, Ty Lawson’s ailing big toe falls off from fright. ...

There’s more in Gearino’s post here including his suggestion for how the Heels should handle their #1 pick by President Obama.

Obama's Iran Speech: We Saw - They Saw

At Something ... And Half Of Something comes a post - - -

"We saw... They saw" which begins:

I didn't bother to watch the TV clips of Obamessiah’s special message to Iran on the occasion of Nowruz, which I'm told is a holiday that celebrates the first day of spring and the New Year in many countries. I didn't watch because I don't think it's possible for me to care less and besides, I don't watch TV.

However, I did happen to catch an interesting post about it over at Mark Finkelstein's blog, not only did he watch it, Mark did a little research on it.

Turns out, the White House released more than one video of Obama's speech.

If you're an American and you watched it here in America, you would have seen Obamessiah looking like this:

If you're an Iranian, and you watched it over there in Iran, you would have seen Obamessiah looking like this:

Well. How do you like that?

The Obamessiah edited the video to make the American Flag completely disappear from the background before sending his message to the mullahs and Amadinejad, and not only that, but Obamessiah cropped it so close, so tight that the subtitles manage to cover up the American Flag lapel pin through pretty much all of the clip as well.

Seems like the Obamessiah went to an awful lot of trouble to wipe that video clean of all American symbolism to avoid offending his new friends.

What a shameful, cowardly and despicable thing for the President of the United States of America to do.

UPDATE: Just to be clear, for those of you who have asked "is it possible that Iran had the flag voided before transmitting the message rather than Obama's team doing it?"

I guess you didn't follow the link back to Mark Finkelstein's site. I put the link there because I meant for you to go to his site and read his post.

The rest of Something ... And Half Of Something's post is here.

Folks, the Louisiana Wise Man has been trying to get me to pay more attention to Finkelstein.

Something ... And Half Of Something's post has done that.

I'll look in at Finkelstein's blog every day for the next week, and often thereafter.

I hope you will too, and that you'll also give me a heads up on anything important you think I've missed at his blog.

In the meantime, let's see what President Obama's craven MSM flacks do with this story.

My bet on that question: The Obama White House will say nothing unless forced to by pressure from the "new media."

Stay tuned.

Hat tip: AC

Law Prof: Dodd Has No Excuse

At her eponymous blog, U. of Wisc. Law Professor Ann Althouse posts:

Christopher Dodd: "Had I known at the time that there were any A.I.G. bonuses involved..."

"... that this was somehow going to assist in that matter — I would have rejected it completely."

She follows that with four concise, spot on sentences:

An impossibly lame excuse. It's his job to know. He holds a public trust. Which he doesn't deserve.

__________________

Folks, Dodd’s a sleaze bag who's been ripping off the public for years.

Most of what we’re learning now isn’t new. It’s just that “the rock’s been lifted” when the public’s finally paying attention.

Btw - Take a look at Althouse’s post’s comment thread. It’s got some zingers on it.

Hat tip: Instapundit

Dem AIG "Freak Show;" Obama's Special Remark & More

A friend wrote me today - - -

Ed Morrissey has a pretty damning posting at Hot Air proving that Congress and the Administration knew all about the AIG bonuses as early as March 3^rd.

Ed comments:

This whole episode has been a farce perpetrated by Congress and the administration to stoke artificial outrage over contractual compensation obligations. It’s a freak show put on by Democrats. They’re giving us populist circuses in order to build a mob mentality — but for what purpose?

What purpose, indeed. Obama and the Dems seem to think they can get away with anything, and maybe they can if the MSM doesn’t start doing its job.

Which makes thisWaPo column even more absurd on its face. Watchdogs of government? If it weren’t for bloggers we might not know about this at all.

There’s also a new blog out that’s a hoot. Obama’s teleprompter has starting giving us “Reflections from the hard drive of the machine that enables the voice of the Leader of the Free World.” Even Peggy Noonan has picked up on it:

It's bummed that it has to work a news conference next week instead of watching "American Idol," it resents being dragged to L.A. in Air Force One's cargo hold "with the more common electronic equipment." It also Twitters: "We are in California! One of the interns gave my panels a quick scrub and I'm ready to prompt for the day." And: "Waiting for my boss's jokes to get loaded for Leno!"

As we saw on Leno, Obama’s gaffes are starting to become the stuff of legend. And if he weren’t poised to do so much damage, it would be fun to just sit back and watch. Apparently he was serious about charging wounded vets for treatment, and now there’s this.

It’s another classic example of the Dems taking a bead on the evil health insurance industry and hitting the Medicare generation (me in a couple of years) right between the eyes.

Petition Opposing Award To Rep. Murtha

Roger Simon posts - - -

When I read the following email, I clicked posthaste on the link to sign the petition. (I don’t think I’ve ever been number 4 on a petition before, but the outrage was immediate. I think when you read it, you will want to sign too. But if by some remote chance you dither, remember this video of the man our Navy has seen fit to celebrate. But read the email first. That should suffice.)

Friends,

Congressman John Murtha was recently awarded the Department of the Navy’s highest public service award for non-employees by the Secretary of the Navy. This is an outrage. As you probably know, John Murtha has been the worst of a bad lot in Congress who exploited those serving in combat for political purposes.

He was the most outspoken member of Congress in aggressively attacking Marines as “cold blooded killers” who “murdered women and children” after the Haditha incident in November, 2005, BEFORE AN INVESTIGATION WAS EVEN CONDUCTED. In fact, he slandered the Marines to such an extent, and with such disregard for the truth, that one of them sued him for libel (rumor says there’s another libel suit to come soon).

It is inconceivable that the Secretary of the Navy would give such an award to such a man, yet it happened not two weeks ago with muted response.

I have created an online petition to express our outrage and disgust and I’m asking you to join me in signing it.

Please use the link below to visit the petition and sign it; it will take less than two minutes.

Additionally, please send it on to everyone you know who cares about the reputation of our active duty military and combat veterans, we can’t allow this to pass by unnoticed. Once we receive enough signatures, it will be noticed. It is essential that you forward on the link to others, it’s the only way this will generate momentum.

Please take a few minutes to make sure that this petition doesn’t stop with you.

Fight Back

Semper Fi

The link to the petition is here
__________________________________

Folks, I signed the petition last night. It's an easy process.

While you must give an email address for verification, you can request it remain private.

When I signed there were already more than 6,000 electronic signatures.

I've posted often on Murtha- not only on his outrageous slanders of our Marines, but also his swimming for decades in the political scoundrel's sleaze pool

I'll post on Murtha and the petition drive again tomorrow.

A big thank you to the Anon commenter who was the first to alert me to the petition; to Instapundit for linking to Simon; and to Simon for his post.

AP's AIG Story Today Gives White House A Pass

The AP reports this morning - - -

The case of the missing AIG bonus limits has become a tale of political intrigue and Democratic infighting that could threaten the re-election chances of a top senator and the credibility -- if not the career -- of one of President Obama's top advisers.

As the House passed new legislation Thursday to crack down on the outrage-inspiring bonuses, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, the Banking Committee chairman, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner engaged in finger-pointing about who was responsible for Congress' failure to prevent them in the first place.

Dodd, a five-term senator, was already facing a tough re-election contest in 2010. He says the Obama administration insisted he modify his proposal to rein in bonuses at companies getting billions of dollars in financial bailouts so that it would only apply to payments agreed to in the future -- thus clearing the way for the AIG payouts.

It was that or have his executive pay limits dropped altogether from the $787 billion stimulus measure that passed last month, Dodd says.

He agreed to the changes "in order to preserve the amendment," Dodd told reporters Thursday. "They sought it; I didn't. They asked for the changes ... and so we agreed to those changes."

Geithner said Thursday that his staff merely pointed out that without the change, the government risked being sued by executives in line to get big bonuses from bailout recipients.

"What we did is just express concern about the vulnerability of a specific part of this provision, the legal challenge, as you would expect us to do. That's part of the legislative process," he told CNN.

The treasury chief also appeared to back away from the administration's previous assertion that Geithner first learned of the bonuses last week. Interviewed on CNN, Geithner said only that he "learned of the full scale and scope of these specific" bonus payments at that point.

Both men had positive things to say about each other despite the dispute over who watered down the bill.

"He has the president's support and backing and he has mine at this point," Dodd said of Geithner.

Geithner told CNN that Dodd "has played an enormously important leadership role in this, and he's doing the right thing." ...

The entire AP story's here.

The most notable thing about it?

It avoids any mention of President Obama or his top staffers' involvement in crafting the bonus loophole (or whatever you want to call it).

But you know a legislative veteran like Dodd isn't going to do what he did just at Geithner's request.

Dodd surely, either directly or through a member of his staff, checked with The White House to make sure this is what Team Obama wanted.

He'd do that not only for CYA, but to pick up a "big favor chip" of the kind only White House top staffers and President Obama could later "cash."

We don't yet know the half of what went on.

The Churchill Series - Mar. 19, 2009

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

In yesterday's post I quoted from Jon Meacham's Franklin and Winston something FDR is alleged to have said of Churchill in 1939:

“I always disliked him since the time I went to England in 1917 or 1918,” Roosevelt said to Joseph P. Kennedy, the American ambassador to Britain, in a conversation in 1939. “At a dinner I attended he acted like a stinker.”

Kennedy is the only source of that quote.

I can accept that Roosevelt may have said it, but if he did, I doubt he meant it.

FDR often told visitors what they wanted to hear. He knew Kennedy disliked Churchill intensely.

FDR had his eye on the 1940 presidential election and knew Kennedy’s support would be very helpful with Irish-American Catholic voters.

Now let’s consider some events which make me skeptical FDR meant what he may have said about Churchill.

In September, 1939 FDR did something extraordinary. He reached out to Churchill who had just been made First Lord of the Admiralty.

In a letter sent directly to Churchill, FDR said given their common experiences in WW I as administrators of their countries navies, he wanted Churchill to feel free to correspond directly with him on matters about which Churchill felt FDR should be informed and might be helpful.

As far as I know, it was a presidential act without precedent in the Anglo-American relationship.

America’s head of state bypassed the British head of state, King George VI; the head of British government, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain; Britain’s Foreign Office; our State Department and America’s Ambassador in Britain, Joseph P Kennedy; all to invite a member of the Prime Minister’s cabinet to correspond directly with him.

FDR knew Churchill had for years been the Prime Minister's and the Government’s fiercest and most outspoken critic.

FDR not only proposed direct correspondence with Churchill, he wanted it to be confidential, something the British government agreed to after discussions.

Later in September 1939 FDR was reading intelligence reports. He noticed one item suggesting German subs might be planning to attack a British passenger ship.

Normally such intelligence was passed to the British “through channels.”

But FDR decided in this case to do something unusual. He telephoned Churchill directly at his home and delivered the warning. I believe it was their first phone conversation.

There’s more I could cite, but I'm sure you can see why I’m skeptical FDR felt Churchill was a "stinker," although I would not doubt he led old Joe Kennedy to think he did.

What About All That "Adfad?"

This morning the post The Job Of A Journalist & The Duke Lacrosse Case began:

Former Raleigh News & Observer columnist Dennis Rogers recently made a number of false statements including claiming commenters here. See adfad adfad adfafda

Just after Noon today I changed the start of the post to:

Former Raleigh News & Observer columnist Dennis Rogers recently made a number of false statements concerning some of this blog's posts and its readers' commenters. See Former N&O Columnist Told: "Look To Yourself."

The change occurred because an Anon commenter asked, “What?”

I thanked the commenter on the thread and say “thank you” again for the question.

I also need to say “Sorry” to Ryan Paige who’s outstanding comment formed the bulk of today’s post and to JinC readers.

How did my stumble occur?

I rushed this morning to get the post up and did not properly proof.

And what was “See adfad adfad adfafda” about?

When I’m drafting a post in which I intend to link to a previous post I usually don’t have the link to that previous post at hand and often can’t recall its title.

All the “adfad” is a "blank" where I’ll later place the link and the post title.

There you are.

Thanks for your understanding.

This Made Me Smile

Mark Twain:

Homer is dead.
Shakespeare's dead.
And I myself am not feeling too well.

Barone: Dem-GOP Generic Ballot Gap Narrows

Blogging at U. S. News & World Report’s Thomas Jefferson Street, Michael Barone, one of America’s top political analysts, says Republicans - - -

have the lead in the generic ballot in the Rasmussen poll and are running even in that question in the latest NPR poll. The Republican lead in Rasmussen is 41-39 percent, with Democrats at the low end of the 39-50 percent range they've been over the past year and Republicans at the top end of their 34-41 percent range.

Is this just statistical noise? Quite possibly. But if I were chairman of the NRCC I would sure be looking at targeting a whole lot more races than I had imagined I would three months ago.

Rasmussen tells me that he has been tracking this question since January 2004 and that "Occasional polls may have shown the Rs ahead, but it's been a long time." He agrees that this may just be statistical noise, but notes that the gap between the parties has closed since the November 2008 election, and that that is more the result of the Democratic number sagging than of the Republican number rising.

The NPR poll similarly finds party identification today at 42-42 percent, as compared to 51-40 percent Democratic in October 2006. Note that this also represents a decline for Democrats, not a gain for Republicans.

The rest of Barone’s post’s here. It includes a caution for the Rs and more.

The Job Of A Journalist & The Duke Lacosse Case

Former Raleigh News & Observer columnist Dennis Rogers recently made a number of false statements concerning some of this blog's posts and its readers commenters. See Former N&O Columnist Told: "Look To Yourself."

Here, without any further comment from me, is what JinC reader Ryan Paige wrote in response to Rogers - - -

I was amazed at the cruelty and mean spirits exhibited by the News and Observer (and Dennis Rogers in particular) when it came to the Duke Lacrosse case.

The job of a journalist (columnists included) is to seek the truth. The truth. Not the convenient truth. Not the truth that serves the narrative you wish to call attention to. Not the truth only so far as it serves your world view or the story you want to tell.

Did you ever once consider what your casual disregard for the truth meant, not only to those who were falsely accused of a crime that never happened, but also to those who have to work that much harder to regain the public's trust that you so casually threw away with your blatant disregard for facts and reality?

Those people who work so hard for middle class salaries - who sweep the floors and drive trucks and do all the other things to bring the news to the public? They were all counting on you and other journalists at your paper to be honest, and you just couldn't be bothered.

And now the ship is sinking, and it's at least partially your fault, Mr. Rogers. Shouldn't you be crafting a heartfelt apology to them rather than chastising the lot of us for finding some degree of justice in the current mess your former paper now finds itself in?

Perhaps had you and your colleagues handled the story in an honest fashion (actually reporting rather than printing some half-remembered claim from someone who was provably lying); perhaps had you been appropriately outraged at the corruption in Durham during this case, maybe we'd all be joining in lamenting the precarious position the N&O now finds itself in.

Of course, maybe if the N&O had those kinds of reporters working there back in 2006, they wouldn't be in quite as precarious a situation now.

Ryan Paige

On AIG Dodd Points At Obama Administation

Politico last evening headlined - - "Dodd facing fresh political firestorm" – followed by a story which began:

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) looks like he may be facing a fresh political firestorm.

Dodd just admitted on CNN that he inserted a loophole in the stimulus legislation that allowed million-dollar bonuses to insurance giant AIG to go forward – after previously denying any involvement in writing the controversial provision.

“We wrote the language in the bill, the deal with bonuses, golden parachutes, excessive executive compensation that was adopted unanimously by the United States Senate in the stimulus bill,” Dodd told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer this afternoon.
“But for that language, there would have been no language to deal with this at all.”

Dodd had previously said that he played no role in writing the controversial language, and was not a part of the conference committee that inserted the language in the bill. As late as today, Dodd’s spokeswoman denied the senator’s involvement.

The rest of Politico's story's here.

It sure sounded like Dodd was the number one AIG "bad guy."

But then Dodd, who must know he’s in jeopardy of losing his Senate seat next year, released a statement that amounts to: Don’t blame me; I only did what the Obama administration wanted. And Obama can get that bonus money back from AIG if he wants to.

Dodd's statement follows in full as added to the Politico story as an Update.

“I’m the one who has led the fight against excessive executive compensation, often over the objections of many. I did not want to make any changes to my original Senate-passed amendment but I did so at the request of Administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG. Let me be clear – I was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until I learned of them last week.

“Reports that I changed my position on this issue are simply untrue. I answered a question by CNN last night regarding whether or not a specific date was aimed at protecting AIG. When I saw that my comments had been misconstrued, I felt it was important to set the record straight – that this had nothing to do with AIG.

“Fortunately, we wrote this amendment in a way that allows the Treasury Department to go back and review these bonus contracts and seek to recover the money for taxpayers. Again, I have led the fight to curb excessive executive compensation, and will continue to do so.”
___________________________________

Folks, there’s clearly a need for a thorough investigation of the AIG bonuses, the conflicting stories we’re being told, and so much more concerning the scandalous government mismanagement of billions of the bailout money.

But who would you trust in The White House or Congress to do the investigating?

The Churchill Series - Mar. 18, 2009

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

Yesterday we looked at some of what Jon Meacham said in Franklin and Winston about Churchill and Roosevelt's first meeting in July 1918 at a formal London dinner. FDR attended in his capacity as Assistant Secretary of the Navy and delivered a brief speech. Today, more about that meeting and some of what followed.

Here's more from Meacham:

In later years, Churchill would not recall meeting the American visitor. Roosevelt certainly recalled meeting Churchill, however, and long remembered Churchill’s brusqueness. “I always disliked him since the time I went to England in 1917 or 1918,” Roosevelt said to Joseph P. Kennedy, the American ambassador to Britain, in a conversation in 1939. “At a dinner I attended he acted like a stinker.” Roosevelt and Churchill would not be in contact again for another twenty-one years. When they were, Churchill, not Roosevelt, would be the one sounding the trumpet about the indispensability of an “intimate personal relationship.”

Every historian I've read on the subject says Churchill didn't remember their first meeting and FDR was bothered by that. I don't doubt what the historians say.

As to whether FDR told Kennedy in 1939 that he'd disliked Churchill for acting like "a stinker" at the dinner, I want to pause and consider with you.

Kennedy is the source of that remark, which FDR may very well have made.

The question is did FDR really mean what he said about Churchill, or was he perhaps doing a little play-acting for Kennedy?

We know Roosevelt wasn't above such things. In fact, we know that, along with his many admirable virtues, FDR frequently lied to people if doing so advanced his aims.

In 1939 Kennedy was an outspoken appeaser and critic of Churchill. FDR needed Kennedy's support in the 1940 presidential election. Kennedy was the country's best known Irish-American and Catholic.

You can see what FDR might have been doing.

Tomorrow I'll say some more about the interplay in 1939/40 among FDR, Joe Kennedy and Churchill.

For all Joe Kennedy's drive, intelligence, ruthlessness, and experience, he was no match for Churchill or for FDR, who used Kennedy 1940 for his political ends and then abandoned him.
_______________________________________________
The quote from Meacham's book can be found here.

But What About Obama, Dodd, Frank And The Rest?

Tonight the AP headlines:

Fannie Mae plans bonuses of up to $611,000 for 4 executives; Freddie Mac has similar plans

The story's here.

It's no surprise. We expect this sort of thing from our Democratic Party run government.

In fact, Dem Sen. Chuck Schumer recently assured his Senate colleagues "the American people don't care."

Question: Do you think Freddie and Frannie will leave enough in their piggy banks to shell out for President Obama's 2012 reelection campaign and Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank's 2010 reelection campaigns?

They'd better because Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi won't like it if they don't.

Then we'll see some real outrage from the leaders of the party of "the little people."

Obama’s Latest History-making

Britain’s Daily Mail headlines:

Obama to make history with Leno as he becomes the first sitting president to appear on chat show

It’s story begins:

Barack Obama will become the first sitting U.S. president to appear on a late night chat show tomorrow when he is a guest of comedian and writer Jay Leno.

While most of the people on The Tonight show will promote a film or record, Mr Obama will be pushing his economic rescue plan for America.

Critics accused him of dumbing down the presidency and of blurring the line between politics and entertainment….

The rest of DM’s story’s here.

Who’s really surprised by President Obama’s latest?

But if a year ago you’d said that less than two months into his presidency Obama would be guesting on Leno's show, the MSM Dem hacks would've called you a - - you know.

Hat tip: Drudge Report

WSJ’s Tribute To Ron Silver

Tony Award winner Ron Silver died from cancer Sunday at age 62. Today the WSJ paid tribute to him noting:

... Silver's most notable legacy was his real-life political activism. A self-described life-long liberal, Silver rallied to the defense of his country and his hometown, New York City, after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Three years later, he spoke at the Republican National Convention in New York, reminding his audience that "This is a war we did not seek. This is a war waged against us. This is a war to which we had to respond."

He had held similarly hawkish views during the Cold War, and he rebutted those who see America as little different than its enemies: "History shows that we are not imperialists."

By his own account, he suffered professionally for those convictions, but he sought no sympathy for whatever price he may have paid in Hollywood for his stand on the war on terror or his vocal criticism of the United Nations, about which he made a documentary in 2005.

In "Broken Promises," Silver held the U.N. to account for its failure to live up to its stated ideals, even as his acting colleagues derided President Bush for using military force against tyrants.

The entire tribute’s here.

I’m sure Silver paid a price in Hollywood where the bash-America first, most and always crowd dominates.

Ron Silver, RIP.

Will Obama, McCain, Dodd Return AIG Campaign Contributions?

An ABC News story begins - - -

AIG employees kept doling out donations to politicians, including presidential candidate Barack Obama, after getting bailed out with federal funds last year, raising the question of whether those politicians will now return the money.

AIG executives gave more than $630,000 during the 2008 political cycle even as the company was falling apart.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign finance reports, more than $120,000 of that money was donated after AIG received its first $85 billion in federal bailout funds in September. The company has since received a total of $170 billion in taxpayer cash to prevent its collapse.

Their generosity included more than $23,000 to Obama's campaign.

Both Obama and Republican presidential candidate John McCain raked in much larger sums from AIG earlier in the year. Obama collected a total of $130,000 from AIG in 2008, while McCain accepted a total of $59,499.

The rest of the story’s here.

It’s a reminder of how much of “the outrage” we’re hearing from politicians of both parties is just self-serving blather intended to fool the public. For most Washington politicians, AIG and other large companies are cash cows they milk often.

ABC’s story also reminded me of the myth the “Anything for Obama” MSM often peddled last year about how most of then Sen. Obama’s campaign funds were in the form of small contributions from ordinary citizens inspired by Hope and Change. (See Where's Obama's money coming from? - Apr. 6, 2008)

Former N&O Columnist Told “Look To Yourself”

In March 2006 Dennis Rogers was a news columnist for McClatchy’s Raleigh News & Observer when the N&O’s blatantly biased, racially inflammatory and sometimes deliberately fraudulent coverage ignited the Duke lacrosse witch hunt.

By late April 2006 sensible people realized that what was then called “the Duke lacrosse rape scandal” was, in fact, a frame-up attempt involving some Durham prosecutors, some of its police, and many others.

But Rogers was not one of the sensible people. As late as August ’06 he penned a column in which he made what he knew was a serious and false charge about the three innocent Duke students then under indictment for gang rape and other felonies. In the same column Rogers went on to smear the entire Duke Men’s lacrosse team (See A Look Back At Former N&O'er Dennis Rogers. )

That was then. What about now?

Lately Rogers has been making false statements and in other ways smearing those he says are responsible for the problems journalists like him and others who work at the N&O are now experiencing.

Along with his falsehoods, Rogers’ recent comments are noteworthy for the generosity with which he self-righteously lathers himself and his spews of anger, all he claims in defense of “N&O people.”

Rogers’ drive-by comments reveal no sense of responsibility for the problems he and journalists like him have helped bring on themselves and others who did nothing wrong but whose misfortune it’s been to work alongside them.

Here in full and italics is a comment Rogers recently left at this blog followed in plain by edited portions of a JinC commenter’s response to Rogers.

Dennis Rogers said:

I probably shouldn't be but I am nonetheless amazed at the cruelty and mean spirits displayed on this website.

You may or may not like the N&O, its employees or Melanie Sill but to wish them and their families the suffering and strain of unemployment is simply beyond the pale. I vehemently disagree with most of what appears on this blog, but I would never wish ill to those who support it.

N&O people are not privileged elites. They work hard for middle class salaries. Not only are they the writers and editors who work hard to throw crooks like Jim Black and Meg Scott Phipps in prison, they are people who sweep floors, take care of administration, drive trucks, maintain equipment and a hundred other skills. They're honest, hard working people who don't deserve to be thrown out to the cheers of those on this blog.

You should be ashamed of yourselves, but from what I've seen, I doubt you. And unlike you cowards, I will sign my name to my words, as I did for 31 years.

Dennis Rogers, N&O columnist 1976-2007

Well, there's Dennis Rogers.

Now Phil Smart responding from Johannesburg, SA:

Dear Dennis

I probably shouldn't be but I am nonetheless amazed at the cruelty and mean spirits displayed by the N&O, its editorial staff (Melanie Sill, John Drescher, Linda Williams Ted Vaden et al), its reporting staff (Anne Blythe, Samiha Kahana, Ruth “You Know, We Know You Know” Sheehan, etc) and in its columns and posts (Barry Saunders, Linda Williams, Ruth Sheehan, Melanie Sill, Ted Vaden and you, Dennis)!

I neither personally like nor dislike the N&O, its above mentioned staff, or its other employees, but I wish to point out to them and their families that the suffering and strain of unemployment that N&O employees are currently facing is in some significant measure the result of the N&O’s Duke lacrosse editorial and reporting cowardice and ideological bias.

I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with what appears on and in the N&O with the notable exception of its Duke lacrosse coverage, so essential to the frame-up attempt and the very great harm that’s been done to so many innocent people.

Dennis, you can only push readers so far, before they start pushing back and deserting you.

Look to yourself - Dennis, and the part you played in the N&O's demise, before excoriating those bloggers and commenters who are not so sympathetic to the current terminal writhings of the N&O.

This is not about the N&O people who are not the privileged elites. It is not about those who work hard for middle class salaries.

It is about the reporters, writers and editors who worked so hard to throw innocent (and demonstrably so) persons like Reade Seligmann, Dave Evans and Collin Finnerty in jail for a "crime" that never happened; that worked so hard to perpetuate the frame of those young men by former and now disgraced DA Mike Nifong and others at Duke and in Durham.

It’s about those who trashed and even now continue to trash the other Lacrosse players who are finally seeking justice through the courts.

I sympathize with N&O employees who sweep floors, take care of administration, drive trucks, maintain equipment and a hundred other skills. They're honest, hard working people who, I wholeheartedly agree, don't deserve to be thrown out on the street.

I agree with John there are honest, able reporters and editors at the N&O who did nothing to hurt the paper or the community.

I defy you to substantiate from any part of this blog, or any comment made here that supports your hyperbolic "to the cheers of those on this blog" statement. (What happened to dispassionate, subtle and nuanced reporting - Dennis?)

They are the collateral damage caused by years and years of pernicious socialist bias against the very system that allows you the "freedom of speech" you and your editorial and management colleagues have for so long hidden behind and abused.

You and most of the rest of the N&O editorial and news management staff should be ashamed of yourselves.

But from what I've seen, I doubt you or the N&O will ever apologise to your readers and those "middle management" staff and other workers whom you profess to hold so dear.

You call the people at JinC "cowards” and boast you sign your name to your words, as you’ve done for 31 years.

Well whoop de do - Dennis!

Phil Smart, Johannesburg SA.

Not an N&O columnist since 1953.

The Churchill Series - Mar. 17, 2009

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

Many people believe Churchill and FDR meet for the first time at the White House in December 1941; others believe their first meeting was at Placentia Bay, Newfoundland in August 1941 at what's come to be called the Atlantic Charter Conference.

As some of you no doubt know, their first meeting was at a dinner on July 29, 1918 at Gray’s Inn, London.

Jon Meacham, author of Franklin and Winston, tells us something about the event:

In the opening hours of a mission to wartime Europe in July 1918, Franklin Roosevelt, then thirty-six and working for the Navy Department, looked over a typewritten “Memorandum For Assistant Secretary” to discover what was in store for him in London. Reading the schedule’s description of his evening engagement for Monday, July 29, Roosevelt learned that he was “to dine at a function given for the Allied Ministers Prosecuting the War.”

Hosted by F. E. Smith, a government minister and good friend of Winston Churchill’s, the banquet was held in the hall of Gray’s Inn in London. It was a clear evening-the wind was calm-and Roosevelt and Churchill, the forty-three-year-old former first lord of the Admiralty who was then minister of munitions, mingled among the guests below a portrait of Elizabeth I. […]

The Gray’s Inn dinner was a glittering occasion, with high British officials going out of their way to pay homage to Roosevelt as the representative of their American ally. […]

Then Roosevelt — to his “horror,” he said-was unexpectedly asked to say a few words. He stumbled a bit as he began. Uncertainly, trying to find the right note, Roosevelt said he had been “given to understand that I should not be called upon to speak” and in his nervousness, looking around at the faces of his hosts, began to talk about the importance of the personal in politics and war.[…]

When they met again in 1941, Roosevelt reminded Churchill of their first meeting. Churchill couldn’t recall it, which irritated FDR.

But the two leaders got on with doing their work.

Tomorrow I’ll post again about the two statesmen’s first meeting and some subsequent events related to it.
_________________________________________
The passages from Meacham used in this post can be found here.