|
|
Saturday, May 07, 2005
|
|
| |
Digging up Yalta 
Roosevelt sold them out, Bush says
Bush: U.S. Had Hand in European Divisions
By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent 1 hour, 14 minutes ago
Bush said the lessons of the past will not be forgotten as the United States tries to spread freedom in the Middle East.
"We
will not repeat the mistakes of other generations, appeasing or
excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of
stability," the president said. "We have learned our lesson; no one's
liberty is expendable. In the long run, our security and true stability
depend on the freedom of others."
Bush singled out the 1945
Yalta agreement signed by Roosevelt in a speech opening a four-day trip
focused on Monday's celebration in Moscow of the 60th anniversary of
Nazi Germany's defeat.
In recent days Bush has urged Russia to
own up to its wartime past. It appeared he decided to do the same,
himself, to set an example for
Vladimir Putin, the Russian president.
Bush
also used his address to lecture Putin about his handling of the
emergence of democratic countries on Russia's borders. "No good purpose
is served by stirring up fears and exploiting old rivalries in this
region," Bush said. "The interests of Russia and all nations are served
by the growth of freedom that leads to prosperity and peace."
Bush
spent the day with the leaders of three Baltic republics Estonia,
Latvia and Lithuania. Many in the Baltic countries are still bitter
about the Soviet annexation of their countries and the harsh occupation
that followed the war for nearly 50 years. Acknowledging that anger and
frustration still linger, Bush said that "we have a great opportunity
to move beyond the past." His message here and throughout his trip
is that the world is entering a new phase of freedom and all countries
should get on board.
While history does not hide the U.S. role
in Europe's division, American presidents have found little reason to
discuss it before Bush's speech.
"Certainly it goes further than
any president has gone," historian Alan Brinkley said from the U.S.
"This has been a very common view of the far right for many years
that Yalta was a betrayal of freedom, that Roosevelt betrayed the hopes
of generations."
Bush said the Yalta agreement, also signed by
Britain's Winston Churchill and the Soviet Union's Joseph Stalin,
followed in the "unjust tradition" of other infamous war pacts that
carved up the continent and left millions in oppression. The Yalta
accord gave Stalin control of the whole of Eastern Europe, leading to
criticism that Roosevelt had delivered millions of people to communist
domination.
....................
This is
wrong. As a historian I once read said, the Red Army could have stopped
at the English Channel and there is nothing the US could have done
about it. This was a bullshit argument in 1950 and it is today.
Stalin
wanted to secure his borders over everything else. He had made the
mistake of trusting Hitler and he wasn't going to trust Soviet security
to petty dictators. Dictators who had turned on him in 1941.
People
who are inclined to be romantic about Eastern Europe know little about
it before 1939. It was dictatorships which were broke and barely
stable. Poland, Hungary, Greece, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, either kingdoms
or dictatorships reliant on Germany or France for political and
military support. Stalin's methods were criminal, but his impulse was
no different than the czars who took over Finland and Poland.
The
Polish government was divided between the Lubin Poles and the London
Poles, there is no way to know, in a free Poland, who would have won.
Of course, the AK attacked the Germans in a doomed offensive, while
Stalin lifted little to help them. Not only was his army clapped out
from the Destruction of Army Group Center, it wasn't in his interest to
save the London Pole run AK. Stalin had invaded Poland in 1939 to
secure his frontier. Is it fantasy to think he would allow free
elections in Poland according to US and British demands. What were they
going to do? Cut off his arms and support? Unlikely.
Roosevelt
agreed to Stalin's terms for a very simple reason: Japan. The
expectation was that in the fall of 1945, the British would have to
reconquer Malaya and the Americans would land on Kyushu. While Stalin
knew all about the bomb, funished by American spies, the Allies had
very little idea what the Japanese would do. The battle for Manila was
especially bloody and would be folowed by Iwo Jima in February and
Okinawa in April, while the Australians reconquered Borneo and the
British pushed the Japanese to the Thai border.
Roosevelt and
Truman were in no position to argue about Poland and Hungary when they
needed Stalin's help to attack the Japanese in Manchuria. Remember,
Stalin kept his word. His troops stopped in Eastern Germany and divided
up Berlin after 100,000 Russians died in the battle. The right forgets
that Stalin could have easily claimed that since Russian blood was shed
for the city, that they should be the sole administrators.
Stalin
acted badly, murdered those who opposed him and got away with it
because defeating Hitler was more important. The US made a deal: you
keep Eastern Europe, and we keep Japan. Because Stalin wanted to occupy
Hokaido and took over the Sahkalin islands. Thousands of Japanese
prisoners never returned from Stalin's gulags. This tacit understanding
keept the peace for 60 years. The right, never liking Roosevelt, feel
free to sneer at this, but the reality was that the Russians had enough
power to control all of Europe simply by rolling over the US.
This
argument was one of the Nazis final talking points: ally with us and
stop the Russians. They pitched this over and over as the allies
overran the concentration camps. They got Nuremburg instead.
Americans like to forget that the Russians won World War II with our help, not the other way around.
Bush's argument shows a stunning lack of historical knowledge, which is hardly surprising.
[Steve Gilliard's News Blog]
7:41:47 PM 
|
|
We worship Bush 
no democrats need apply
Church members say they were kicked out for being Democrats
By Andre A. Rodriguez
STAFF WRITER
published: May 6, 2005 6:08 pm
WAYNESVILLE
Nine members of a local church had their membership revoked and 40
others left in protest after tension over political views recently came
to a head, church members say.
Some members of East Waynesville
Baptist Church voted the nine members out at a recent scheduled deacon
meeting, which turned into an impromptu business meeting, according to
congregants.
Chan Chandler, pastor of East Waynesville, had been
exhorting his congregation since October to support his political views
or leave the church, said Selma Morris, a 30-year member of the church.
He
preached a sermon on abortion and homosexuality, then said if anyone
there was planning on voting for John Kerry, they should leave, she
said. Thats the first time Ive ever heard something like that.
Ministers are supposed to bring people in.
........................
Valerie
Thornton, a spokeswoman for the Internal Revenue Service, said she
could not comment on the East Waynesville situation specifically, but
noted that "in general if a church engages in partisan politics it
could put their tax-exempt status in jeopardy.
............
I
want people to keep something in mind. In the deepest part of red North
Carolina, people were incensed by this. People were deeply offended by
this stuff. I mean 40 people walked out of a church many of them had
been in for decades.
But my bet is that this is a new pastor
and he's got some screws loose. Pastors can tell you what they believe
in, even leave voting guides, but bouncing people because of their
politics is not only unwise, but illegal. You can bet this church is
going to have the IRS on their asses.
This is less a sign of
dominionist America than a reminder that Americans disliked being
bullied. Now he can have his cult, which won't last for long because of
the loss of tax-exempt status, and the former parishoners can find a
more welcoming church.
How dare he demand that they follow his
politics. That has nothing to do with his pastoral mission. This is
about his ego. The Democrats in his church left their politics at home,
he brought it in his church. Americans have the right to disagree and
this pastor forgot that, something his former parishoners didn't.
On
the Olbermann show one of the parishoners did an interview, and said
that the pastor told the congregation that they would have to vote how
he told them to and new members would have to sign a card stating that.
Then
he said something amazing: "you know I can't believe that the women in
that church stood up and applauded, after they fought so hard to get
the vote, to let a man tell them how to vote."
Sometimes we
forget that a lot of people may not agree with us on politics, this man
voted for Bush, but most of us like our freedoms. Which includes
keeping our politics away from Sunday morning.
[Steve Gilliard's News Blog]
7:54:54 AM
|
|
Threat or promise?.
What a shame: WASHINGTON, May 6 - The cost to protect materials for
nuclear bombs from terrorists is rising so high that the Energy
Department will need to close some weapons laboratories, or at least
consolidate the weapons fuel that...
[Majikthise]
7:19:18 AM
|
|
Oh, give me a break...
Republican Pond Scum.
John Stuart Mill was wrong. The conservative party is not the
stupid party. The conservative party is the bizarro mind-numbingly
extreme stupid party. Ezra Klein informs us of the Carpetbagger's
report on House Judiciary Committee Chair James Sensenbrenner: Ezra
Klein: Doesn't this sound more like... Saturday Night Live... than an
actual strategy tried out on the floor of Congress? About a week ago,
the House Judiciary Committee was prepared to approve the Child
Interstate Abortion Notification Act. Dem committee members offered
some fairly reasonable amendments to shield some parties from criminal
responsibility...For example, one amendment, offered by Rep. Bobby
Scott (D-Va.), sought to exempt "cab drivers, bus drivers and others in
the business transportation profession from the criminal provisions in
the bill." So, if an underage woman takes a bus to another state to
have an abortion, the bus driver, who probably wouldn't have any
knowledge of the abortion, couldn't be charged with a federal crime.
Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) not only
helped kill the amendment, he decided to rephrase it for the official
record: 'Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual
predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers, bus drivers, or
others in...
[Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal]
7:04:55 AM
|
|
FT.com / US - Dark clouds on US economic horizon.
Christopher Swann sees unhappiness about the macro outlook:
FT.com / US - Dark clouds on US economic horizon By Christopher Swann in Washington:
The administration of President George W. Bush has remained
relentlessly optimistic about the outlook for the US economy. Brushing
off the recent spate of weak data by arguing that a similar slowdown at
the same time last year was followed by a strong resurgence, Carlos
Gutierrez, the commerce secretary, told reporters on Monday that there
was "a very healthy momentum to the economy." But what initially seemed
to be a short-lived "soft patch" much like the blip in growth last
spring is now looking a little more ominous. Data released on Monday
showed that manufacturing activity slowed further in April, with the
Institute for Supply Management index sliding more steeply than
expected from 55.2 to 53.3. The index has fallen in eight of the nine
previous releases and is creeping perilously close to the 50 mark that
separates expansion from contraction. Particularly worrying was a sharp
fall in the new orders component of the index to 53.7 from 57.1, which
may point to weaker production in coming months. The figures continued
a pattern of fairly gloomy economic...
[Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal]
5:39:37 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2005
Michael Mussington.
Last update:
6/1/2005; 1:34:10 AM.
|
|
|
