breathless claims of anti-semitism? check.

sweeping attacks on liberal straw-men? check.

classic kirchick.

Two things:

I read Krauthammer's piece in my local paper this morning and found it nothing more than a rationalization for conflating Wright's rants with Obama's viability as a candidate. Second, Krauthammer imposes a double standard on Obama, one that is not applied to others, like Bush or McCain. Last, Krauthammer imposes his blinkered perception of what animates friendship and mentorship upon a person and a culture that he has very little undestanding. It is very telling - and predictable - that Charles Krauthammer would find nothing in Obama's speech. I have been exposed to his bacillus for a long time - god I recall when he, Barnes, and Kondracke polluted this magazine, a dark, dark epoch in tnr history - and, based upon this infectious exposure, I could have predicted his response.

And after reading the first two sentences of this post, I said "Kirchick" quickly scrolled down and bingo, there is was.

M.J. Rosenberg writes today in TPMCafe about someone named Charles Krauthammer:

-- It's no secret to any of my readers that I despise Charles Krauthammer. I never liked his writing. He is a neocon. He's vicious (he ridiculed Christopher Reeve for giving seriously disabled people "false hope). And his views of the Israeli-Palestinian question are repulsive. He hates the Palestinians and would fight to the last Israeli to defeat them.

-- And then there was that experience with him in my synagogue in 2001. It was Yom Kippur. The rabbi was giving his sermon only to be interrupted by a bellowing obnoxious Krauthammer who was shouting him down for expressing a hope for peace between Israelis and Arabs.

I wonder if this is the same Charles Krauthammer that Kirchick refers us to. M.J. Rosenberg continues:

-- In it he bellows at Obama for tolerating (Kraut's view) the racism of Rev. Wright, Obama's pastor.

-- The irony here is that Krauthammer is every bit as racially paranoid as Wright. He hates the Arabs and says so publicly and privately. He believes that Israel must triumph in every situation because it is innately right while the Arabs are innately wrong.. He views the world as divided between Jews and gentiles and it is us Jews who are always the victims.

tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../krauthammer_tucker_carlson_rev

Good observations all, and  here's one more: There are any number of preachers out there, some connected to other candidates, with equally imbecilic rhetorical records.  (One was even a candidate this season.  His sermons are still under lock and key.)

What is it about preachers anyway?

Dan

"In sum: does Obama believe Harry Truman was right to end the war with Japan the way that he did?  Why is no one in the media asking him this question?"

Maybe because he's not expected to be an historian on the level of an Ian Kershaw.  Or maybe because folks in the media have a limit to the amount of preening and posturing they wish to invite.

This kind of hyberbole and utter misrepresentation of candidates' views does little to advance the politlical dialogue.

"You see hints of this attitude in his wife's comments, and in Obama's inclination -- shared by many of his supporters -- to commence his presidency with a worldwide American apology tour, meeting unconditionally with our enemies all along the way."

Yes, there are many Americans, not just Obama supporters, who recognize that we've got a bit of an "image problem" internationally.  Many think that perhaps refusing to engage other countries in dialogue unless they comply with our demands is not the best way to rebuild that image. Thus, many people think we should be more open in dialogue with other countries. Some disagree, and that's a legitimate policy difference. But characterizing such a view as advocating " a worldwide American apology tour" is neither fair nor honest.

James, you are a brave soul, placing your neck on the chopping block in this den of Obamaphila. I predict that you will soon be consigned to the layer of hell reserved for Sean Wilentz and Judas Iscariot.

It's possible to believe that the Hiroshima A-bomb was justified but the Nagasaki follow-up was not.  It's also possible to answer that question in the positive while determining that the world would be a better place if it got rid of the nuclear threat.  It's also possible that the question would not be asked honestly, but as a way of implying that citizens who have moral qualms about strategic nuclear bombing aren't entitled to be president.

However, fwiw my impression is that Obama, if asked, would reveal his basic agreement with Truman's decision.

I know too much already.  As soon as I saw "CK has written", I knew who authored this post.  You could just enter your name - we all can tell what you think from that.  

Read the comments now and see that I must be correct.

Fair point on Truman. Although it's a question that only counts if the person answering it shows his work and explains why he feels the way he does. "Sure, nuke the sumbitches" is not an acceptable answer, even if it's the answer that produces the correct outcome.

As to describing a minister as, "... a man who calls upon his congregants to 'damn' America ..." this can only be said by someone who has neither read the Bible nor really listened even to the thin snippets of sermons shown online and in the media. If a person really takes offense that a preacher would "damn" his country for his country's failures to live up to God's laws, that person simply is not a biblical monotheist. When God speaks to the nations, it is never to say, "Hey, nation, good job. Well done. You rock." When God speaks to the nations, it is to warn, to condemn, and yes, to damn. Got a problem with that? Then you don't have a problem with Rev. Wright. You've got a problem with the Bible.

Its also worth noting that disagreement about dropping the A-bomb shouldn't be a disqualification for the Presidency. Plenty of people think it was right, and plenty think it was wrong. You don't get to lump them into a group that you dismiss as "nutty" (though the nation is a great magazine and Chomsky is brilliant) simply because you disagree with them. Einstein, who ya know, helped build the A-bomb, was vehemently opposed to its use.

That speech was phenomenal, but people read into it what they wanted. For people interested in race relations in this country, it was illuminating. For people already married to Clinton or McCain, it was atrocious that he "threw his grandmother under the bus." For undecideds, why don't you look at the daily tracking poll (which still doesnt include only results from after the speech). Clintons lead was 6 points yesterday, its 2 today.

Obama's point and the connection to Wright, although maybe too subtle for Kirchick and Krauthammer, is that these pathological views, of Wright specifically but as held by member of many groups affected by deep traumas or disappointments, is due to the nursing of grievances, and a political system that has encouraged Americans to nurse grievances against others rather than join together to solve the problems that cause their disappointments.  Obama accepts the legitimacy of the sense of grievance but sees holding onto it as self-defeating, not least because it sets one group of Americans against another.  Thus, he does not dismiss the man, Wright, although he sees his response to his injuries as pathological.

Come to think of it, the point is not really too subtle for them.  The just find it useful not to see it because that gives them what they imagine is a flail with which to whip Obama.  Too mean-spirited and curmudgeonly to say, "Bad speech."  Better to say, "Lovely speech, but I don't see any point to it."

Amen roidubouloi!

A couple of minor points of fact- he didn't "calli on his congregants to dman America." Rather, he was saying that God might do so. (I don't even know how a congregant would damn America).

Second, you, Krauthammer, and pretty much everyone else here, obamaphiles or not, assume that Wright preached like this every sunday, or most Sundays, or more often than not. Most of the people who would know claim that these statements were isolated and not in the usual pattern of the man's preaching.

I will also point out, on the topic of "unpatriotic" Black preachers, that Martin Luther King Junior preached that America had committed war crimes.

1 - The problem is not, and never has been, saying "God damn Amnerica."  Note that Wright was contrasting that with the unconditional call upon Americans to reflexively, in any and every instance, say "God *bless* America."  God's negative judgment on cities and nations is repeatedly stated in the Bible, as Wright noted and as right wing preachers have repeatedly cited in their condemnation of contemporary America.

Rather, the question has to be over what Wright said America should be damned *for.*   About that, you can have an argument.  Obama very clearly spelled out what he thought was wrong in Wright's view, namely that Wright's understanding of America is static, that Wright sees the racism he experienced as endemic and unchanging.  Obama rejected this in no uncertain terms.

2 - I have heard plenty, including conservative Roman Catholics, condemn Hiroshima and Nagasaki as against the laws of just war due to the deliberate killing of thousands of civilians.  (I believe we call that "terrorism" these days.) Their views of the nuking of Japan are no different than Wright's--not to mention the qualms that were expressed at the time by, among others, Eisenhower.

So the question should not be, was nuking Japan wrong.  I don't think it was--there is an obvious context for Hiroshima that is not the same as terrorist attacks today--but it's a closer call than Mr. Kirchik seems to think.  Rather, was it fair to compare it to 9/11?  Obama didn't specifically address this, but I suspect he would disagree with Wright here as well.

Should Obama have left his church?  Maybe.  I do think it is more complicated than some people are willing to acknowledge.  I believe that Obama did not directly address that question, but neither did he duck and weave.  Obama sayd that he condemned the YouTube Wright but would not disown the man he knew (and we don't) in full.  He said that the Wright of those YouTube clips is not the Wright he has known, and suggested that people should consider not simply the YouTube Wright, but also the Wright who, in all personal contacts with anyone of any race or background, was always respectful; the Wright who built a small church into an eight thousand member Chicago institution that brought Obama to faith and that lives up to the Gospel it preaches in numerous forms of outreach.

That said, does Obama then get a pass?  For me, not entirely.  I too wish that Obama could say that at some point he had spoken to Wright and said that some of his (Wright's) statements were factually more than a bit screwy.  But in giving the circumstances and pleading his case, I think Obama reduced his sentence from a moral felony to a moral misdemeanour--or in church terms, from a mortal to a venial sin.  And I can live with a venial sin or two in my politicians.

roidubouloi said:

Obama's point and the connection to Wright, although maybe too subtle for Kirchick and Krauthammer, is that these pathological views, of Wright specifically but as held by member of many groups affected by deep traumas or disappointments, is due to the nursing of grievances, and a political system that has encouraged Americans to nurse grievances against others rather than join together to solve the problems that cause their disappointments.  Obama accepts the legitimacy of the sense of grievance but sees holding onto it as self-defeating, not least because it sets one group of Americans against another.  Thus, he does not dismiss the man, Wright, although he sees his response to his injuries as pathological.

OK, my question then, even if he's not going to walk out on Wright - why not confront him?  Even in private?  Would it have been that hard for a man who wants to hold the position of the most powerful person on the planet, a person who is going to have to face down the Chinese dictatorship, the lunatic Kim Jong Il, the inconceivable mess in Iraq, the virulence of Hugo Chavez, the intractable problem of Israel and Palestine - among many other problems - to pull his own Reverend aside and give him a piece of his mind?

Obama can't really give a full explanation for why he stuck with his pastor - it was a political move. See Dick Morris' article: www.realclearpolitics.com/.../wrights_rantings_wont_sink_oba.html

And conflating Obama's views with Wright's as Jamie does is ridiculous. We know where Obama stands on the issues. He plans to get us out of Iraq, reverse tax cuts for the wealthy and give everyone affordable healthcare, while Jamie's candidate wants continued low tax rates for billionaires, continuation of a treasury-draining war, and for minimal changes in a healthcare system that results in 100's of thousands of people continuing to go bankrupt annually due to lack of health insurance.

I should add that, although Krauthammer was always (at least since I began reading him in the 80's) a neocon, his earlier stuff was far better than what he turns out these days.  Used to be he was interesting, even occasionally humorous.  Nowadays, he just seems angry, bitter, and determined to defend an outdated and dangerous worldview.

Come to think of it, that sounds like the development of a certain pastor . . .

James Kirchik wrote: “What concerns me is the sort of comment that Wright made about Harry Truman's ending World War II, that ‘We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.’ This smacks of the Howard Zinn/Noam Chomsky/Nation magazine wing of the American left that Democrats serious about this country's security (and winning in November) should not want within 100 miles of the next administration. You see hints of this attitude in his wife's comments, and in Obama's inclination -- shared by many of his supporters -- to commence his presidency with a worldwide American apology tour, meeting unconditionally with our enemies all along the way. While I know that Obama doesn't think the government created AIDS, I'm less assured that he shares a vision of American power that understands our singular role in the world. In sum: does Obama believe Harry Truman was right to end the war with Japan the way that he did? Why is no one in the media asking him this question? That seems to me an entirely fair query of man who wants to become Commander-in-Chief.”

First, I strongly oppose Truman’s decision to drop the nuclear bombs.  It was terrible.  There is good reason to believe that other steps could have been taken to end the war without dropping the bombs.  And doing so killed thousands and thousands of people.  I recommend Gar Alperovitz’s book The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.  Here is a link:

www.amazon.com/.../067976285X

Also, I subscribe to the magazine The Nation.  It is a good magazine.  I think it’s the best political magazine in the US today.  The vast majority of their positions are warranted, for example, they opposed the invasion of Iraq.  And the writing is clear.  They also deal with issues that other US magazines do not.  For example, in a recent issue, they had a detailed analysis and evaluation of Hugo Chavez’s presidency, including significant historical work on the presidency.  The article wasn’t as critical of Chavez as it should have been, but it wasn’t bad.  For example, it condemned his shutting down of news stations.    

In addition, I’m reading Howard Zinn’s book A People’s History of the United States.  It’s good.  Nearly all of his claims about which events occurred are reasonable and well-supported.  And he gives a perspective on US history that you don’t hear from many other historians.  Finally, his causal claims are, for the most part, not bad.  But there is a flaw in his historical work.  He tends to overemphasize one cause.  Often an event occurs because of a variety of other events.  And he focuses only on one cause, for example, he suggests that the only cause of the US entering World War I was rich capitalists wanting to get richer.  Moreover, in the book, he doesn’t do as a good a job as he should have with his ethical judgments.  He often fails to deal explicitly with whether a given decision was ethical, for example, whether the US should have entered World War II.  And when he does offer ethical judgments, they often are unclear.  For example, he deals with the question of whether World War II was “the people’s war.”  I don’t care.  What I want to know is whether the US should have entered it.  And when he does offer clear ethical judgments, he often fails to back them up with argument.  For example, Zinn seems to think that Woodrow Wilson should not have gotten the US involved in World War I, a reasonable position for sure.  But Zinn doesn’t really say why.  For a better book on the history of the 20th Century, I recommend Jonathan Glover’s Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century.  Glover is a philosopher.  He used to be at Oxford.  Now I think he is at the London School of Economics.  

However, I’m supporting Hillary Clinton for president.  I think she would be a better President over the next four to eight years.  She has better experience than Obama, and, overall, their positions on the issues, policy ideas and general commitments are roughly equal.  Also, her understanding of the health care issue is deeper than his.  I also see her being more apt to do well it today’s acrimonious political climate.  She knows how to withstand political attacks.  I also see her performing better in the general election.  For example, Obama might have a hard time beating McCain in Ohio in a general election.    

Why, I want to know, has Obama steadfastly refused to come to Shoeless Joe Jackson's defense?

Jackson and the other "Black Sox" were banned from baseball because of their participation in a scandal that surely enveloped not only 1919's version of the Chicago Eight, but much of the rest of the sport: during many of those years, most of baseball was awash in cheating, bribery, owner/media collusion, organized crime, gambling, and a host of behaviors that would make Roger Clemens blush. When the story broke, somebody (ABC: Anybody But Comiskey) had to take the fall.

Why, pray tell, hasn't Obama stood on the side of justice? This, a man with the temerity to serve in the Illinois state legislature.

Let us not also forget that the White Sox of 1919 were indeed white, as was the rest of the so-called "American" League, up until Branch Rickey and the National League dragged them into the 20th Century, nearly 40 years later.  Why hasn't Obama, the so-called racial healer, denounced such bigotry in his own city???

Obviously, this fatal flaw in his character--his failure to, to take one example, spit on the memory of Comiskey Park--negates any possible reason to elect him President of the United States. Forget his constitutional law background. Forget his inspirational oratorical skills. Forget his temerity in recalling Ronald Reagan's moment in history. Forget his ability to motivate millions of first-time voters to participate in democracy's most sacred process. Forget his stated desire to heal the various rifts that have turned the United States into a zero-sum tribal Altamont of cynics, know-it-alls, and holier-than-thou bloviators.

Barack Obama is obviously unfit for the job.

Another problem I have with the whole Reverend Wright post-9/11 video - I can see the Biblical rationale behind saying God is going to punish our country for past sins.  What makes the diatribe anti-American is that God is going to punish America for YOUR sins, not OUR sins - I mean, Reverend Wright certainly had nothing to do with any of the sins he listed, so presumably he's going to make out pretty good in the post-9/11 turning of the tables.

Plus the cheering in the congregation - I half expected to hear the old football chant "Hit him again! Hit him again! Harder, Harder!"  About the only thing they found tragic about 9/11 was that the fourth plane never made it to its final target.

Just move to the Weekly Standard already.  You'll be happier... we'll be happier... they'll be happier (well, maybe not...)...

How does the genius who unearthed Ron Paul's racist past and provided us with yesterday's wonderfully entertaining piece on Michael Lucas yesterday crank out such shit when he steps over to The Plank?

Keep your guns aimed at the other side, Jamie.

As usual Neil Mackenzie posts comments articulated by someone else. Irrelevant comments that attack the person instead of dealing with Krauthammer's precise analysis of Obama's speech.

This fraud of an "independent scholar" can't articulate a coherent thought on his own to save his soul which is why he needs to find someone, any one on the loony left to agree with him.

I too remember the days when the Kraut was here on the pages of TNR. It was when I let my subscription lapse.

I read a lot of political commentary across a pretty wide spectrum, including the more thoughtful conservatives at NR, WS, and RCP. I have learned never to read Krauthammer because there is too rarely any germ of truth or insight in his pieces. Increasingly I am feeling that way about Kirchick--I knew this was one of his pieces after reading merely one sentence. Join your nasty idiot-savant brethern over at NR please--you have become the Michelle Malkin of TNR.

i have listened to Rush's screeds about wright, and Im reminded that if we convicted soley on the basis of association, we would have to write off 1/3rd or more of talk radios listeners,who has more influence?  and i am also struck how these few clips are enough to condemn WITHOUT ever seeing the whole sermon or other sermons or the demonstrable good work Wright has done.  One need look no further than that.  My father is violently wrong about the war and torture, so we dont talk about...  and during Holy week, good to remember that even Jesus hung out with some wild characters BECAUSE God made them.  Do you James believe that Obama believes the worst of Wright's statements?  After reading his books, earing his speeches, seeing him work for a better America?  If not, then what are you complaining about, and if so,there's no hope for you.  And to answer your question, Obama opposes dumb war, not all war, and not even military strikes against enemys.

why didn't he leave the church? for the same reason I didn't leave the Catholic church during the whole priest pedophile crisis. Faith and fellowship is built on far stronger stuff than the lapses of a few ministers. Obviously Kirchick doesn't give a damn about the answer because the only answer he wants (Obama retroactively leaving the church) is impossible.

Is ndmackenzie the neil mackenzie who wrote a book about Ayyubid Cairo, or is that a supposition?  I have not been able to find any other book or ariticle written by the same.

you did not listen to a damn word Obama said.  Not a syllable.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."

Thomas Jefferson

I guess that would disqualify him and any other Jeffersonian from public office.

As a disinterested observer of US politics, I can only express bemusement at what is happening.  The US economy is in a meltdown, and we are worried about what some pastor said or says in a church and whether Obama was in the room or not?  Whether and to what extent he objected?  Whether he agreed with Truman dropping the bomb over sixty years ago?

As usual, Bill Yard got it right ...

buffaloboy,

In context, I don't find all that much about Wright to be offended by.  His rhetoric can get excited.  Sometimes it goes too far but that doesn't appear to be the norm.  I hear plenty of people who are passionate about something important get carried away sometimes.  I don't feel myself obliged to "correct" them when they do, particularly if it is someone in a respected position.   I think that is a rather silly and unrealistic expectation.  The entire controversy about Wright strikes me as pretty silly.  

Are you saying that this religious community of 8,000 black, upwardly mobile professionals in a mainline protestant church in Chicago are all racists and haters of American because they are not "rejecting and denouncing" their pastor all the time?  Seems to have nothing whatever to do with the normal course of human affairs.  What must really be borne in mind is that Wright was not exhorting his congregation to DO ANYTHING OBJECTIONABLE.  That is normally the point when it is time to take a public stand.

Withal, that's not the question posed by Kirchick and Krauthammer.  They just purport not to understand the connection between Wright and the Speech.  They are either deliberately obtuse or plain-old obtuse.

It's too bad that TNR posters have become so narrow-minded that they criticize anyone who has a contradicting view. Worse, that they feel they must call him names. You've all lowered yourself to the level of those you mock.

The central question regarding the Wright controversy is whether Obama should leave the Church. It's whether he believes the things Wright said. There is no evidence that he does. Therefore no more controversy. End of story.

And stop calling Jamie names. You jerks.

is this whole thing- your entire tenure at TNR, Jamie- a fantastically subtle, heart-wrenching piece of performance art?

I've been trying to come up with another explanation for your continued employment at this  fine institution.

It  can't simply be that you have pictures of Marty Perez and Stephen Glass having drinks together with Jayson Blaire and watching a Jeff Gannon film, can it?

Because, deary, we all have those lurid shots....

JK,

The back story on the Jeremiah tradition, from someone who seems to know the Bible and preaching history:  hnn.us/.../48425.html

So, can I rephrase my above comment," good obervations" to not so fast?

Dan

icarusr:  Yes!! Good call.  I knew there was something in the back of my mind that I just couldn't recall.  One can imagine the Fox commentary back in 1800:

It's all very well for Thomas Jefferson to claim that he wrote these comments 20 years ago -- but he's never really disowned them.  He gives a good speech -- and I don't deny that Notes on the State of Virginia is also a memorable and eloquent piece of writing -- but he needs to come out and deal with this.  Americans don't want a president who thinks that God isn't totally on their side at every single moment.  I mean, it's one thing to have reservations about slavery, but Jefferson was totally out of the ball park -- he implies that God's justice would be against us!  He's almost suggesting that some kind of violent coflict might take place in the U.S. if we don't solve the slavery issue.  That's unacceptable, I don't care what you say.

Irony: You need more BLOCK letters for all the shouting and two other morons talking over one another.  Don't know how you recreate spittle digitally, though.

TNR: Could you please put the authors' names or initials, or some sort of health hazard, in the little Plank Box?  I know to avoid The Spine; just warning to keep away from Mr. Kirchik's analses.  They are too bright for my weak eyes.

No Zac Cummings, the problem is not the "expression of contradictory views", how self-congratulatory that sounds!  

It's the expression of ignorant views that deliberately distort, ignore, simplify to the point of meaninglessness and claim to be brave and unique when they  are sheep-like.  

Jamie did not listen to this speech.  He may have *heard* it, but based on this post, he was so busy looking for Smart Guy Consevative Consensus that Charles K finally spoon fed him, he didn't bother to acknowledge the explantions Obama gave. How did Jamie managed to simply ignored the very specific cultural and personal history Obama was very clear about?.

Maybe just hammering the same tired self-righteous nonsense over and over has meaning to some people (but why didn't he just walk OUT?  UGH!  Well, welcome to African American Christian culture, where forgiveness is all, something I wish Obama would have emphasized - casting out is not part of that culture and forgiveness is a passion in case you hadn't noticed - do you think they loved Bill CLinton by accident? No - he was a friend who screwed up horribly in need of forgiveness and that was enough. You should try in some time).

Just because someone is contradictory does not mean that aren't accountable for being obtuse, partisan, silly.

ndmackenzie writes, "...He's vicious (he ridiculed Christopher Reeve for giving seriously disabled people "false hope)

Uh, since Krauthammer is seriously disabled himself, he at least has earned the right to his opinion, mackenzie.

guys, it is almost total anachronism to second guess Truman's decision to drop the atom bomb on Hiroshima.

It was a terrible event.  But, in grim terms of numbers, we killed many more people with our incendiary bomb raids on Tokyo (hundreds of thousands) than with the single bomb on Hiroshima.

It wasn't the actual number of people killed that brought the war to a halt.  It was the shock demonstration value to the Japanese leadership that one bomb from a lone plane could create such destruction.  The original "shock and awe".

Had the Big One not been dropped, the war would have continued at least for another year.  The raids on Tokyo and the other major cities would have continued and hundreds of thousands more civilians would have died.

This is without even going into the American lives that wold have been lost in an invasion.  

I realize that these are old arguments.  And I also realize that people of the stature of Eisenhower expressed opposition (although I think it was after the fact).

The bottom line is, the decision was a very difficult call, at least when pondered in moral terms now.  With 60 years hindsight.

But, it is much harder to imagine any American president in 1945, facing the prospect of vast bloodletting ahead, and a possible stalemate with Japan, it is hard to imagine any president in that position not using the bomb.

And, if he had not, and let American boys die by the hundreds of thousands, he would have been impeached, removed, and reviled for the ages.

Martin Peretz, Frank Foer, and Canadian Overlords:

I will buy 10 subscriptions of The New Republic--to be delivered to libraries of your choice--if you would fire James Kirchick and replace him with William Yard.

Hell, I'll buy 5 if you'd just hire Yard.

I imagine others would join my pledge.

ChanRobt wrote: “guys, it is almost total anachronism to second guess Truman's decision to drop the atom bomb on Hiroshima.

“It was a terrible event.  But, in grim terms of numbers, we killed many more people with our incendiary bomb raids on Tokyo (hundreds of thousands) than with the single bomb on Hiroshima.”

Shortly after the war, New York Times military analyst Hanson Baldwin wrote the following:

“The enemy, in a military sense, was in a hopeless strategic position by the time the Potsdam demand for unconditional surrender was made on July 26.

“Such then, was the situation when we wiped out Hiroshima and Nagaski.

“Need we have done it?  No one can, of course, be positive, but the answer is almost certainly negative.”

Moreover, shortly after the war, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported the following:

“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 Novemeber 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russian had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

Moreover, it might be that the US would have had to accept one condition to surrender in order for Japan to surrender, namely that the Emperor remain in place.  And Truman knew this.  The US had broken the Japanese code, and Truman knew that if the US allowed the Emperor to remain in place, the Japanese would surrender.  

Truman should have allowed the Emperor to remain in place.

ChanRobt, I'm a professional historian.  We "second guess" people like Truman all the time.  In fact, we second guess people who've been dead a lot longer than Truman, and with a lot less evidence.

It's what we do.

That said, I'm one of those (as I indicated above) who think Truman made the right decision.  The Japanese made it clear that they would not agree to *unconditional* surrendur, which was the only position the US could have or should have taken, without the bomb.  I'm just suggesting that disagreeing is not a fringe opinion, or one based on poor moral or strategic reasoning.

Just had a thought triggered by Rhubarbs' post from earlier today:

"When God speaks to the nations, it is never to say, "Hey, nation, good job. Well done. You rock." When God speaks to the nations, it is to warn, to condemn, and yes, to damn. Got a problem with that? Then you don't have a problem with Rev. Wright. You've got a problem with the Bible."

Exactly.  I wonder why we have heard such peculiarly indignant condemnations (!) of Wright's sermon and Obama's relationship to him when exactly that harsh prophetic tradition is so valued and embraced by evangelical conservatives in particular.  The Biblical relationship of the chosen people to God was marked by drifting away from the path of righteousness and, at times, being called to account and punished as a collectivity.  Not just as individuals.  Thus Sodom and Gomorrah were also filled with -- to put it this way for a moment -- white folks who never AS INDIVIDUALS did anything to blacks.

The narrative of potential divine punishment unless things are taken care of is deeply rooted in America.  There is at least one book (Sacvan Bercovitch's "The American Jeremiad") tracing back this threat/recognition/redemption frame to the earliest Puritan ministers in the Bay Colony  who felt it was their duty to remind the English settlers (and most of all the political leadership) that their good fortune only persisted under the patience of God, who could take a look at bad stuff happening and withdraw His blessing at any time.

Through the Revolution and the struggle against slavery and down to contemporary times, the long history of prophetic religion in America has sometimes been on the side of progress and sometimes of conservative reaction and sometimes in a complex relationship to both.  Today, black prophetic preaching can be, for example, good on combating poverty and awful on sexual freedom.  It can be inspiring and outward-looking and also hobbled by a navel-gazing parochialism.

But Wright's declarations were completely in an old American tradition that says -- watch out!  God sees all and is not impressed by worldly power and the justifications of sinners.

And his name is Jeremiah.

timteeter wrote: "That said, I'm one of those (as I indicated above) who think Truman made the right decision.  The Japanese made it clear that they would not agree to *unconditional* surrendur, which was the only position the US could have or should have taken, without the bomb. "

Why do you say that unconditional surrender is the only position the US should have taken?

And even that is true (and I strongly disagree that that is the position the US should have take) the US should have tried a demonstration bomb first.  They could have been invited quietly, through diplomatic channels, to witness a bomb going off, perhaps in the United States.  They could have brought physicists with them.  This demonstration also could have been combined with an invitation -- again quietly through diplomatic channels -- to negotiate peace.  It could have been said that surrender need not be unconditional, and that the Allies would not depose the Emperor.  

Truman should have allowed the Emperor to remain in place.

Uh, David52194, Truman did allow the Emperor to stay on his throne.  And did survived on that throne for another 40 something years.

The strategic analysis you quote may have been correct, although as the writer said himself, no one will ever know.

It is a fact that the Japanese government did not surrender even after Hiroshima.  Perhaps we ought to have waited longer until Nagasaki.  But, that was the coup de grace.  

It is easy to forget now how long, bloody, and costly that war had been.  400,000 plus American dead.  And, let's not forget, there was no ambiguity about that war.  The Japanese attacked us powerfully.  Without the declaration of war customary up to that time.

Americans were not of a mood to lose another son more than necessary.  It is all well and good to be totally rational and dispassionate now.

Few men in that office at that time would have been able to not employ a weapon that had the potential to end a long, savage war in a stroke.

By the way, David52194, you quote the commission:  "Moreover, shortly after the war, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey reported the following:

“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that...etc"

Yeah, the commission made these findings AFTER the war.  When they had plenty of time to comb the country, and interview Japanese leaders.

President Truman did not have the benefit of POST-war analysis.

We know from recent experience how dependable is intelligence not gathered on the ground.

David52194, noce again the anachronistic analysis.  

It was absolutely necessary to obtain unconditional surrender.  We had accepted less in 1918 with an armistice, and less then a generation later, we were embroiled in another world war.

Japanese militarism and imperialism had to be rooted out of Asia.  That nation needed to be reformed and democratized.  As it was under the viceroyship of MacArthur and the American mandate.

Japan has prospered because of it.  Asia has prospered because of it.  The world has benefited beyond reckoning because we insisted on the reformation of Japan under our direction.

Spiriting a Japanese physicist out of the country in the midst of total war.  Bringing him to New Mexico for a demonstration.  Expecting him and his fellow emissaries to convince the Japanese military government to surrender on their say-so, it's all an absurd fantasy.

This ivory tower speculation, sixty years after the fact, and in ignorance of the actual experience and reality of the war in the Pacific is nonsense.

I'm not saying we could not have won without dropping the bomb.  Even Eisenhower apparently believed so.  I'm saying, Americans were not of a mood to lose another son to those who had clearly started the war.

The destruction of the old regime and the reformation of Japan was the great redeeming eventuality that came out of a horror that we had not sought.

David52194,

I'm not an authority here, and I will happily submit to correction--but it is my understanding that the position of the Emperor was believed by the Allies to be, ever since the Meiji Restoration in 1868, too intimately woven into the fabric of Japanese militarism to allow the Emperor to continue.  (He was, after all, technically a god in Japanese theory.)  Allowing the Emperor to remain would have allowed a symbol of resistance, a belief that they (the Japanese) were never *truly* defeated.  That's why it had to be unconditional.  The Allies would not make the mistake with Japan that they had with Germany after the First World War.  Japanese militarism was to be abolished, period.  And after Pearl Harbor and some of the most hideous warfare and wartime experiences in history, anything less than unconditional surrendur would have been completely unacceptable to the American people who had fought or supported the war effort.  Conditional surrendur was a political non-starter.

Wrong, maybe, but that's what I understand.

One might also consider that, even after all that, the Japanese have never confronted their past in the same manner and to the same depth as Germany has.  There is still strong resistance in Japanese culture to the belief that Japan bears responsibility for the war, or to recalling the rape of Nanking, etc.

I am also not convinced that demonstration bombs would have convinced the hard core militarists to surrendur.  There were some who believed they should continue to resist even after Hiroshima.  In fact, to his credit, it was the Emperor himself who insisted on surrendur, if I recall aright.  But as I said, I am wide open to correction.

Obama should be required to take a loyalty oath before continuing his campaign in which her affirms various verities of American political life and denounce and rejects various outré theses.  Only THEN should he be allowed to continue.

I definitely want to know his views on the use of the atom bomb on Japan.  I also have questions about the Treaty of Paris, the Spanish-American War, the banking panics of the 19th century, the Gold Standard, silver, the Homestead Act.  You name it.

Slight correction: the emperor did not "resign."  He renounced his divinity in 1945, which had been a lynchpin of government authority under the Meiji regime.

The Wright/Obama connection is less interesting than the connection of Jodi Kantor to the whole enchilada.

Hannity broke the story? Just a head fake. As usual, smarter people are feeding the simpletons at FOX.

Kantor finishes up her puff piece on Chelsea then goes hammer and tongs in a frantic effort to re-jigger the Obama/Wright relationship into something frightful.

Ugly stuff. Richard Cohen, Jodi Kantor, what a crew at the NYT's. And then there's Charles Krauthammer. What is the big problem with a black man running for president?

Geesh. Calm down. Next thing you know they'll be looking into his passport files.

Ah, but roiddubouli, Jeremiah Wright declared that we bombed Japan and "never batted an eye."

If this discussion proves anything, it is that, in fact, plenty of Americans have batted eyes, whatever their final conclusions might be.

ChanRobt wrote: "Uh, David52194, Truman did allow the Emperor to stay on his throne.  And did survived on that throne for another 40 something years."

I'm not sure I see your point.  Could you elaborate on that?  

I'm not a big fan of Krauthammer, but his column was right on the mark.  Obama needed to sever connections with Wright much earlier.  Most of Kirchick's post was on the mark, though I disagree with him on Hiroshima and recommed Gar Alperovitz' wonderful book on the subject. Also see John Denson's terrific article at www.lewrockwell.com/.../denson7.html.

Why is it OK for there to be an entire block of voters called "angry white men" but not a single "angry black man?"  And before anyone starts talking about how the white men didn't say anything about God damning America, I remember many militias that think the government is so messed up that they have a right to separate from the US, by force if necessary, and try to do things like not pay taxes.

Can someone mark up a resume for Kirchick (maybe just of photocopy of this article will do) & send it over to NRO?  I'm sure the likes of Lucianne Goldberg's little boy would just be tickled to death to have him join them... or even as prnoonan, above, suggested: The Weekly Standard would be OK too - just please leave quietly but soon.

Timteeter wrote: “I'm not an authority here, and I will happily submit to correction--but it is my understanding that the position of the Emperor was believed by the Allies to be, ever since the Meiji Restoration in 1868, too intimately woven into the fabric of Japanese militarism to allow the Emperor to continue.  (He was, after all, technically a god in Japanese theory.)  Allowing the Emperor to remain would have allowed a symbol of resistance, a belief that they (the Japanese) were never *truly* defeated.  That's why it had to be unconditional.  The Allies would not make the mistake with Japan that they had with Germany after the First World War.  Japanese militarism was to be abolished, period.  And after Pearl Harbor and some of the most hideous warfare and wartime experiences in history, anything less than unconditional surrendur would have been completely unacceptable to the American people who had fought or supported the war effort.  Conditional surrendur was a political non-starter.”

My point is that the US should have agreed to let the Emperor stay and shouldn’t have dropped the bombs.  And they should have looked for other ways to have a negotiated settlement.  The Allies shouldn’t have gotten stuck on the idea of unconditional surrender.  

And they should have tried a demonstration bomb first.  It could have save thousands and thousands of lives.    

ChanRobt wrote: “Uh, David52194, Truman did allow the Emperor to stay on his throne.  And did survived on that throne for another 40 something years.”

My point is that the US should have agreed ahead of time that the Allies would not depose the Emperor.

“The strategic analysis you quote may have been correct, although as the writer said himself, no one will ever know.”

Maybe Hanson Baldwin didn’t know FOR CERTAIN that the war could have come to an end with something like a conditional surrender or demonstration bomb.  But that doesn’t mean that no belief prior to the dropping to the bomb was more reasonable than not.  The Japanese code had been broken, and the Japanese messages were being intercepted.  For example, on July 13, Foreign Minister Togo wired his ambassador in Moscow: “Unconditional surrender is the only obstacle to peace…”  Moreover, Martin Sherwin, after an exhaustive study of the relevant documents, concludes: “Having broken the Japanese code before the war, America Intelligence was able to -- and did -- relay this message to the President, but it had not effect whatever on efforts to bring the war to a conclusion.”

Was I really hoodwinked?  Obama, in no uncertain terms disavowed himself from Wright's controversial comments.   Now Krauthammer (and by association yourself) claims the speech in question served to  justify those comments.  Am I missing something.  Perhaps the mental gymnastics necessary to reconcile the reality from these flights of fancy are just too sophisticated for little ole me to comprehend.  Maybe these "hints" you speak of are just a shade too subtle.

I don't believe Obama will be able to recover in this campaign until he categorically rejects and denounces his wife.  Even if he disagrees with his wife, his long standing association with her shows, at best, poor judgment.  Why didn't he sever his ties with her earlier?  He should have done what any responsible politician would have done: drop the anvil on her.

His naive unwillingness to disown his wife shows that he's simply not ready for primetime.  Speaking of primetime, we know that Michelle Obama's favorite TV show is the Dick Van Dyke Show, a program well known for its anti-Americanism, a program which appeared on the Communist Broadcasting System right along with blame-America-firsters Edward R. Murrow, Rod Serling, and Walter Kronkite, not to mention noted zoophile Bob Barker.

We know that Obama has *said* that he prefers The Wire, but he misses the point:  What's his opinion of the Dick Van Dyke Show?  His speech on race, while eloquent, completely dodged the question of Capri pants.

More unanswered questions about Barack Obama.

So, have we required presidential candidates to fill out opinion surveys on historical events before?

Whether he agreed or disagreed with the decision to drop the bombs in WWII doesn't really tell us anything about what decisions he might have to make in the current context.

He has stated that his against dumb wars, but supports appropriate wars. And supports targeted military strikes when actionable intelligence about threats to the US are not acted upon by the sovereign government "hosting" the offending parties. Sounds pretty strong and clear-headed to me.

I've been waiting for punditry to solidly respond to these questions of Obama's security leadership potential by pointing out - as many times as they've "analyzed" the Wright relationship - that he was scoffed at last summer for his idea that we should strike in allied territory without authorization if said government is not addressing a threat to the US. Then several months later, this is exactly what the US did in Pakistan.

I don't hear anybody yelling and screaming that the action in Pakistan was bad strategically or tactically. But nor do I hear resounding acknowledgments that Obama got it right. That he seems to have good advisors and a good head about this stuff.

Of course, it's in the media's self-interest to keep this primary alive even if there is no chance of Clinton winning more pledged delegates. We'll just keep acting like it's really a contest and all be sitting with baited breath in front of convention TVs because that's what the media tells us to do.

Kirchick doesn't get what JOE SCARBOROUGH got, what Mike Huckabee got, what anybody who listened to it got, which is that Wright's particular experience and perspective account for a different view - not necessarily an accurate one but an understandable one - and we don't have to agree with it or share it, but it behooves us all to consider that before calling for someone's head. I can't believe I said "behooves".

Look:

obsidianwings.blogs.com/.../the-past.html

Open your heads a wee sliver - it is not going to kill you.

Some logic you have, jaunty, blue and the rest of the hate pack. You can't fault the post for what it is, so you attack its author ad hominem. Why? Because you have no arguments. What's more, you accuse Kirchick. How dare he expose a ducking anti-Semite and overall demented Jeremiah Wright?

Oh yes, for guys like you, its OK to be a fucking racist if you're black. Moreover, the bad person is somehow not that fucking racist Wright, but Kirchick who exposes him. Where do you write from - USSR, Iran?  Good old far Left, always reliable for some Chomskyan screed.

:""ChanRobt wrote: "Uh, David52194, Truman did allow the Emperor to stay on his throne.  And did survived on that throne for another 40 something years."

I'm not sure I see your point.  Could you elaborate on that?  ""

David52194, what does ChanRobt have to elaborate. You stated something factually wrong. Before he elaborates anything, I'll elaborate something: pick up a book so that you get to seventh grade level before you write here. If you had time to write that rubbish, you should have time to red a book or consult an online dictionary, two clicks away. Ignorance has no excuse, ever.

Timeteeter,

You're absolutely right.  Jeremiah Wright said something about the use of the atom bomb on Japan.  Therefore, the campaign should now be devoted to arguing over whether he was right of wrong.  I think we should also find out who else Obama may have been talkng to or listening to and find out what they think about, well everything, and then we can discuss that.

It all make sense to me.  Definitely.  Excellent thread above.  Whether we should have dropped the bomb on Japan.  The Emperor of Japan renouncing his divinity.  All good campaign issues.  But did he renounce it, or did he denounce and reject it?  That's something I'd like to hear more about.

FOX functions as the Jerry Lewis Telethon for Obama. They run the video, the angry white males spew their venom, and the donations come in - to Barack.

Obama's mentioning Ferraro, Talk Radio, and other demagogues almost daily. Because it's both the right thing to do and the shrewd thing to do. Nice when those things coincide.

In the last 24 hrs. the hate is flowing towards Richardson, calling him "Obama's Latino lap dog". More dough flowing to Obama.

Does white America really want to pick a fight with gays, blacks, latinos, moderates, pro choice voters, the youth vote, new immigrants...every "other" in the country?

Clinton's fundraising is anemic, McCain's is worse. After Obama's speech? He had a record day. Demography is destiny.

Best piece yet on Obama and the Jews: "Oybama" by Wieseltier. As he wrote in reaction to the "wild broodings of the Jewish blogosphere", "hold the kaddish, because in American presidential politics now there is not an enemy in sight."

Nice to see Obama and his associates bringing the nation together, moving us beyond the tired old controversies about race, US military interventions, other boomer pissing matches

roidubouloi,

OK, it was a tangent.  But I enjoyed it.  In fact, I enjoyed it a lot more than most (though not all) of the comments about Wright, which *really* seemed to me to say nothing new, or about Kirchik, whose place on the staff of TNR or NR or TWS is of no great interest to me either.

Sometimes changing the subject is a *good* thing . . .

I know, timteeter,

The thing is, the way in which the Wright controversy can quickly veer into an earnest discussion of WWII, just because Wright referred to it, is a terrific illustration of just how ridiculous the whole controversy is.  Why don't we just read sheep's entrails to figure out who Obama is.  No point in listening to what the man says or observing how he has used his time and effort in his life.

tep,

It is not possible for a single speech, or campaign, or presidency to move the country past its tired old controversies.  All you can do is make a good start and go as far as the public will permit you to go.  It goes without saying that reactionaries (both serious and light versions) will try to prevent the country from moving forward and that they will not be defeated without time and consistent effort.  You cannot blame Obama and his associates because there is resistance to change.

sleepyavl:  "Where do you write from - USSR, Iran?"

I don't know how to put this, sleepy, but if you do an internet search you'll discover that the USSR ceased to exist something like 17 years ago.  Regretted by some, of course, but unmourned by many more.  In any case, not here.  Gone.  Exit.  No longer available as a writing location.

But Iran -- wow, that hit home.  My left-wing beliefs about freedom, science, secular values, and the need for strengthening democratic and liberal values are, of course, beautifully represented by a regime of oppressive and paranoid clerics with dreams of nuclear intimidation.

sleep...

Always enjoy the joust with you but if you actually read my post, you will see that I commented on Krauthammer's article and as for Kirchick, I said that after reading the first two lines, I knew it was Kirchick.

I hardly classify that as ad hominem.  So, in other words my excitable friend, I haven't a clue as to what you're talking about in regards to my post...

And, I hardly think anyone has said that it was okay for Wright to be a bigot. I haven't said that nor has anyone else I can remember. If I may speak for most, what we have said is that it is idiotic to ascribe Wright's bigoted comments to Obama. Why, that would be like someone saying that just because i consider you an on line buddy, I too am a potty mouthed excitable, shoot from the hip provocateur..

now would that be fair?

Tep: I think I have mentioned it about a dozen times before - and I need to stress this before I say anything else, lest you consider me an Obama Associate :-) - I am not a supporter of either candidate in the Democratic Primary, so I carry water for neither camp.  As a non-religious person, I cannot even fathom how anyone would listen to any pastor - be it Wright, Pat Robertson, or the inane Archbishop of Canterbury - for a single "homily" let alone twenty years of weekly sessions.  As a confirmed Canadian Red Tory - which puts me slightly to the right of Canadian politics and firmly in the Left in the US - I have difficulty understanding what the issue is with Obama's religious leanings, even if anyone really knew.  After all, which is more dangerous to US society: a conspiracy theorist Wright or a Catholic Church that - with its eyes wide open - continues to preach the nonuse of condoms?  An Obama who willingly distances himself from the worst excesses of his pastor, and a McCain who willingly courts the worst elements of the US Religious Right for the sake of a few votes?

We the People - at least, You, the American People - have a chance to reverse course.  It has been a disastrous seven years.  With McCain, it will be another disastrous four.  You have that chance if only you allow yourselves not to be distracted.  Remember Gore and "Love Story"?  Gore and the Internet?  Gore and whateverelseMaureenDowdinventedtobashhim?  Remember the Swift Boat attacks?  This is a game of distraction: distracting the American voter from the issues that matter.  If the readers of this paper, generally liberal as you are and generally well-edcuated, cannot keep your eyes on the ball, then there is little hope for November.

It's the Economy; it's the War; it's the US infrastrcuture; it's the next Katrina; it's another generation of bitter recrimination over another Willie Horton moment.  

Who gives a flying fig whether the Japanese Emperor stayed on in '45?  JEEZ.

sleepyawl, I think you're seeing things that aren't there, and I think that you are doing what a lot of people - tep, I think too - seem to be doing with this whole thing - clinging to a grievance like a warm friend. Wright's youtube rants are like an uncovered sore - as Obama said, it's the stuff people think and don't say, and there's a lot of that everywhere. And there it is in glorious youtube, and you've suspected it - black people hate us! - and you've resented it, and the Wright thing is one big vindication of it, to you guys, so you cannot get indignant about it enough - it's just endlessly gratifying. And now anyone who isn't indignant about it gets the indignation too - it's like a firehose and you're either on one side or the other. Obama isn't Wright. Obama isn't Wright. He understands the grievance, the bitterness, denounces blah blah blah, but just wants people to put the firehose, and the flame thrower, and the cudgel, put the gun down slowly... that's nice... and anyone who can't see that is just gripping harder to the weapon and the grievance.

Sleepy:

Not to put too fine a point on it but: Iran was the only Muslim country in which, on the very eve of 9/11, there were impromptu candle-light vigils in memory of the victims.  And I mean the 3000, and not the 19.  The Government of then-President Khatami was also among the first - certainly the first Muslim government - to offer condolences.  Khatami has repeatedly pointed to this as one of the finest moments of his Government, transcending all that has gone before to share the US grief. (If you had lived in Iran in the early 80s, you would know why.  In 1982, I myself narrowly escaped being killed in a terrorist attack by religious zealots that killed over 600 and levelled an entire neighbourhood; my grandmother escaped another attack that destroyed entire city blocks.)  Iran was rewarded with the "Axis of Evil" moniker five months later.

In the event you are referring to the present Lunatic Occupant of Iran's Presidential Palace, he is a Messianic Born Again zealot, and has far more in common with Mr. Bush and Mr. Robertson than he does with Chomsky or anyone on the Fringe Left of US politics.  The mere fact that the current President of Iran and Mr. Chomsky might agree on some suspicions about 9/11 does not mean that anyone who has any doubts about 9/11 is also a follower of the one or the other.  Why, that might imply that Mr. Bush is in favour of cynical, dictatorial, genocial, racist, oligarchic, kleptocratic policies because he "looked into" Putin's soul and saw a man he could deal with.  

And for someone who objects to ad hominem attacks, you seem to be fairly liberal with them