On Friday, this NewsBuster noted how Pres. Obama, questioned at a news conference in Japan, twice refused to say whether he thought the United States' dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was "the right decision."
Yesterday on Fox News Watch, Jim Pinkerton noted the NewsBusters nugget. The Fox News contributor and New America Foundation fellow observed that PBO's failure had huge implications for America's nuclear deterrent.
Video after the jump of PBO's duck-and-cover at the Tokyo press conference.
It was panelist Judy Miller's pronouncement about PBO's proclivity to jump on any airplane in sight that set things off . . .
JUDY MILLER: Why isn't the constant travel a story? Why isn't the fact that the man has never seen an airplane he doesn't want to get onto or a speech he doesn't want to give a story? I mean, where is the media skepticism that we're supposed to be expecting from all of us.
JON SCOTT: You've worked in the White House, Jim [for Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush]. Isn't it the case that when you've got problems at home you hop on a plane and go generate some headlines overseas?
JIM PINKERTON: That is totally true, although in the Reagan years when unemployment went to 10%, [the MSM] managed to find an angle every day. CBS News did a famous special called People Like Us, that was all about people suffering hour after hour.
I will say this, though: that when he goes overseas, you've got to watch him as well. Mark Finkelstein, I think, was the first to catch it, at NewsBusters, when he noted that Obama wouldn't answer a question: do you think that the bombing of Hiroshima by Pres. Truman that ended WWII back in 1945 was a good idea? And he dodged the question. This is huge in its implications not only for Pres. Truman's legacy, but also for our nuclear deterrent, which Obama clearly doesn't think much about.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
NoBama - NoBrains
November 15, 2009 - 08:24 ET by GeneralAlThis guy is the ultimate dufus! Eight years of hearing how stupid GWB was, how he was destroying our credibility abroad, and spying on us and look how they let this idiot off the hook! Perhaps the MSM is overcome with a tingle up their legs!
GeneralAl
November 15, 2009 - 11:24 ET by iveseenitall"This guy is the ultimate dufus!" -- hear,hear! You've hit the nail on the head.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
The moron is a kenyan.....
November 15, 2009 - 14:54 ET by Patriot IIwhat does he know or care about American history? If its not about him....it doesn't matter.....get it!!!
A shout out to Mark!
November 15, 2009 - 08:29 ET by BlondeI've been convinced for some time that Fox News has staff members that monitor NB....because I've seen numerous items here which later appear on Fox News.
It's nice that they gave you the credit this time, Mark.
Congrats!
That was a fabulous catch the other day, not many of the items here have comments going into multiple pages since Matt expanded our viewing options. Well done!
I hope he fails, too.
Thanks, Blonde. Of course
November 15, 2009 - 08:37 ET by Mark FinkelsteinThanks, Blonde. Of course the MSM essentially buried Obama's pitiful press conference performance. Hopefully we played a role in getting the story out.
I know you guys have influence...
November 15, 2009 - 09:50 ET by motherbeltOn occasion, I've seen things blogged here at midday and within 30 minutes Rush is talking about it.
He's not always so good at giving h/t's though.
True, MB
November 15, 2009 - 10:40 ET by BlondeI was driving back from Miami one day when Rush mentioned a NB article that Noel did.
I'm pleased to see this, though. the more the general population gets exposed to media bias, the faster they'll turn of the alphabets and learn to evaluate news for themselves, rather than through the prism of liberal media bias. (It took me a couple of years to get my mom to understand that....stubborn, I guess). As they say on my Gator boards, "the media is buyest".
I hope he fails, too.
History Question?
November 15, 2009 - 08:33 ET by HippopaulimusLiberals don't know History, they don't read History, and there decisions are never based on Historical fact. Why would anyone at this point, seriously expect Pres. Prompter to answer this question with any amount of informed reason.
Also, acording to liberals, it's all America's fault anyway! That's the only reason anyone would even think this is a legitimate question that needs answering.
White - does not mean racist
Heterosexual - does not mean homophobic
Male - does not mean sexist
I heard this fella mention
November 15, 2009 - 08:34 ET by ConservativeRexI heard this fella mention your name while I was watching at work. I told my buddies that were around that "hey, that fella is on the blog that I'm on". Now Mark, so far I've heard you on radio here in Houston, you got a high five on National TV, you may need an agent. ; )
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
The leftists both in and
November 15, 2009 - 08:36 ET by MidAmericaThe leftists both in and out of this country think that our wealth and super power staus is the main cause of strife in the world. They actually believe if they can drain the rich countries of their wealth by giving it to poorer countries and at the same time slash our military that the world will enter into a new era of peace. Yikes!! That is essentially setting us back to conditions prior to WWI where a lot of countries had parity. The 20th Century was a century of blood until the US and Russia emerged as superpowers. There have been wars but only regional ones not worldwide bloodbaths. If the nations of the world are again near parity the prospects of world wide confligation re-emerges.
Jump on a plane for a
November 15, 2009 - 09:05 ET by BKeyserJump on a plane for a week-plus trip to Asia, before making a decision on whether to offer aide to our fighting men and women; leaving the country before the planned big announcement by the AG that we're bringing America's worst enemy into the city of New York for a show trial; landing in Japan to bow to the Emperor and coddle about America's use of the bomb to end WWII; and ultimately punt the AGW distribution of wealth for another year.
Good trip so far Barry; I wonder how days 3 through 8 will play out...
Golf of course!
November 15, 2009 - 17:17 ET by JPR1He’s going to try and slip in a few rounds with Kim Jog Il, while the missus checks out the Haute Couture in Pyongyang.
Obama's education
November 15, 2009 - 09:56 ET by pbthinkerOne thing that struck me, during the campaign, was when they put out a list of the books Obama had read, or what he was reading. All of those books were from a liberal point of view with absolutely no balance. So now, we have a president that has, what I would call, a distorted view of history.
If they were to ask that question of President Reagan, he just might have asked them back if they thought the Bombing of Pearl Harbor was the correct thing or if the rape of Nanking was the correct thing. People are free to look back and ask all the questions they want but you have to have been there to put the decision in context.
The question to ask would be to the Emperor of Japan and ask him why it took so long to agree to surrender after the first bomb. The first impulse, of the Japanese government at the time, was to start making demands, i.e. we'll surrender of you do this or that. Not a good choice, especially when the allies had reiterated the words "unconditional" surrender.
Our president doesn't understand history because he's never read anything; but the Bill Ayers/Reverend Wright view of American history so how much can you expect from him. Just send him out, have him bow, and not answer questions. In 3 years, we'll have another president to straighten things out, just like Reagan did with Carter.
Election 2008-God's way of showing us that elections count.
pbthinker
November 15, 2009 - 13:10 ET by iveseenitallThank you for pointing this out. I'm an old-timer who has an "education". Believe me, Obama does not. His being "cerebal" is just another of the many canards coming from modern "jounalists" who themselves have poor educations. Truth be told, Obama would be like a deer in the headlights if he were questioned on any subject but basketball, baseball, football or golf. He certainly is not a "student of history" as he is so quick to tell us. We live in a phony world and he is the epitome of it.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
It's the Umbrella, Stupid
November 15, 2009 - 10:48 ET by slickwillie2001Look at this from Japan's point of view. Any sensible Japanese know that the bombs saved many Japanese lives, and while they might not be thankful for the bombs they would grudgingly accept that dropping them was the right thing to do.
Japan lives in the shadow of the nuclear power China, their arch-enemy through history. The US 'nuclear umbrella' protects them, and a few dozen other countries from China and Russia, and soon Iran. How much confidence do you have in America given this disgustingly weak President's performance? Do you really think the Bamster will put Chicago at risk to save Tokyo?
To be honest...
November 15, 2009 - 10:56 ET by kg333I probably would've dodged the question too...sure the bombs saved us what would have been a very ugly invasion of the Japanese mainland, with possibly more casualties than the bombs caused, but the fact remains that we killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. You can argue over whether or not it was the right decision, but either way, it's not a proud moment.
Actually the atom bombs
November 15, 2009 - 11:19 ET by MidAmericaActually the atom bombs were a humane end to the war. Previously we had firebombed Tokyo which resulted in numbers of dead comparable to the atom bombs. The atom bombs were quick while the raging inferno as Tokyo burned would have been a horrific nightmare to go through. War is hell.
Tokyo firebombing
November 15, 2009 - 14:35 ET by Ciampinokilled more people than the A-bombs did. It was horrific. Here is a graphic account by a French witness:
http://www.eyewitnes...
MID AMERICA...
November 15, 2009 - 14:47 ET by danybhoyBINGO!!!!!!!!!
Nuking Japan was not only the humane way to end WW2, but it was the last time the USA was serious about victory in war. Every war we've been in since has been left unresolved. Take Korea, the North Koreans are still a pain in the @$$. Iraq, we had to go back because we did'nt finish the job under Bush41. If we are serious about winning wars, we need to look back at what actually works, & not go to the UN to broker a stalemate that will need to resolved at a later date.
"...How blind can you be, don't you see...
...that the gambler lost all he does not have..."
Nightwish
Re Invasion
November 15, 2009 - 11:57 ET by slickwillie2001"...invasion of the Japanese mainland, with possibly more casualties than the bombs caused,"
Possibly more? You have to be kidding. A single island operation, the invasion of Okinawa, caused roughly equal numbers of Japanese and Okinawan deaths than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Estimates of Japanese deaths for a full invasion of the home islands ran as high as ten million.
Reposting...
November 15, 2009 - 14:10 ET by Tom1969caI posted this in the other "Obama ducked the question" thread, but only earlier today so most people won't have seen it...
I've seen it written that the Japanese resistance would've gone underground after the fall of their regular army, just as with Southeast Asia where America essentially defeated the NVA on the field of battle, but then lost to the Viet Cong. The Japanese would've done the same thing, and the "war after the war" would've lasted well into the 1950s, costing hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of lives long after Operation Olympic and Operation Downfall were completed.
Further, from a more philosophical (and impossible to prove) point-of-view, it is entirely possible that the fact that we're still here as a species is attributable to the atomic raids.
Absent the Second World War, nuclear weapons still would've been developed, although perhaps not as quickly as they were in the urgency of war; the US, USSR, Germany and even Japan were all tinkering with them from the 1930s forward, so it would've only been a matter of time until mankind possessed the power of the atom. However, if these weapons had been acquired in a world which had never seen their horrific effect on an urban population, our leaders may not have been so disinclined to use the weapons at a later time when both sides had significant numbers of them (say, during Korea or the Cuban Missile Crisis). Civilian politicians and military planners would've simply looked at them as "a bigger ka-boom".
So, in a very real way, I believe the examples of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved, not millions, but billions of lives .....
=====
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
-- William F. Buckley
Tom: We didn't lose to
November 15, 2009 - 15:24 ET by PooleTom:
We didn't lose to the Viet Cong.
The Viet Cong ("VC") were devestated by the Tet Offensive and their numbers were greatly diminshed.
Shortly afterward, General Creighton Abrams became commander of U.S. forces in South Vietnam. He changed the war strategy to one that was successful in reducing the power of the VC.
IN 1972, the NVA attempted an invasion of the South using tanks and artillery. They failed because the U.S. was able to use tactical airpower to blunt the attack and continued American logistical support to the South Vietnamese Army helpd to repulse the invaders.
In 1975, the NVA once again invaded the South. This time, the U.S. Congress had made it illegal for continued direct and indirect American support. No tactical air. No supplies. No ammunition. No intelligence support. It was Soviet made tanks of the NVA that captured the South Vietnamese Presidential Palace. It was the NVA that forced the evacuation of the American embassy in Saigon.
As to your larger point that an Allied invasion of Japan would have led to a long and bitter guerilla war - you are entirely correct.
The U.S. demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan as we had of Germany. We had learned the lesson of the First World War in which Germany was allowed a conditional surrender when most of the battlefields were outside of Germany. The German people began to believe that Germany had been betrayed, not defeated.
To occupy Japan would have required either an invasion, costing tens of millions of lives, or a total and complete surrender by its Emperor, which was the purpose of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. IIRC, the U.S. had used its entire nuclear arsenal in those missions and would have required months to generate enough fissionable materals for additional bombs.
Remember, that the Japanese had a Three Million Man army in Manchuria facing the Soviet Red Army which was being reinforced in preparation for its invasion of China. The Red Army would have been numerically and quantatively superior to the Japanese Army in all respects and would have rolled right over the Japanese. This would have left a post war Japan with 3 million less men for rebuilding their economy.
re: Vietnam
November 15, 2009 - 17:05 ET by Tom1969caPoole,
I humbly stand corrected re: the sequence of events in Vietnam. The "ca" in my name is intended to identify me as a Canadian, and as such we didn't spend a lot of time in school on this particular conflict, so the information I have is fragmentary at best; the Vietnam War was literally covered in a few sentences in just one of my high school history classes.
Thank you for teaching me more in three minutes than I learned in 12 years of Canadian public education.
=====
"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views."
-- William F. Buckley
To be honest---
November 15, 2009 - 12:56 ET by matthewdeankg:
The other day there was a very, very long thread on this subject, reference the nuclear devastation the U.S.A. wreaked on Japan.
The gist of it, as I saw it, was that people generally said it was necessary because the act(s) saved more lives than the bombs killed.
Even if, after factoring in Pearl Harbor, the numerous accounts of atrocities committed by the Japanese military, partly because of their adherence to the Code of Bushido, a person decides that the deaths of all of those innocents constitutes what is not a proud moment, I would not dispute their right to that conclusion.
What I found in the other thread, though, was that a few individuals, obviously of the blame America crowd, stated that the onus was entirely on the U.S.
The blame, or shame, of a "not proud moment" that occurred in Japan, during a time of, and because of, a war that was not initiated by the United States, must not be borne by America, but placed at the feet of the Japanese society and culture of the time.
MD
"There is no distinctly American criminal class - except Congress."
Mark Twain (1835-1910)
"o"bummer's silence on Hiroshima
November 15, 2009 - 11:51 ET by HuapakechiWith obama's upbringing and alleged "education" (what little we have documentation to verify, anyway) is there any wonder that he refuses to admit that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ultimately saved lives on both sides of the conflict? The greater crime according to his indoctrination is not the number of dead, but the fact that evil capitalism prevailed.
'give us a boy until the age of seven and we will have him for life.'
Jesuit teaching
Who, me? Take a stand?
November 15, 2009 - 12:08 ET by StarAZHe would have had to state a position--you know the man is almost incapable of that. Um, er.
Judy Miller
November 15, 2009 - 12:10 ET by StarAZJudy Miller with her nicey-nice, little girl crap gives me the shivers.
Re Judy Miller
November 15, 2009 - 12:26 ET by slickwillie2001There is something about her that's extremely irritating, what is it? Her arrogance? Voice? Appearance?