Too easy to imagine. Germany didn't attack us (well, there was that unfortunate incident with the Ruben James, but that's a matter for law enforcement, and anyway, what's a piddly little four-stack destroyer in the grand scheme of things?) and didn't pose a threat; the war in Europe diverts resources from the Pacific; FDR was tricked into it by the neocons and Jews and British sympathizers infesting his administration; there's no evidence that Hitler has any weapons of mass destruction; besides, Adolf's in favor of abortion and the right to die so he must be a swell guy anyway . . . .

Is it worth noting that the mission of the German spies was to sabatoge railroads and war factories? In that it didn't even occur to the NAZIS f'r criminey sakes that the random, wholesale murder of civilians for the sheer sake of murdering civilians might be an acceptable war aim?

Not even the Nazis came up with that one.

Mike Morley, your comments are not too far off the mark from what the Republicans and conservatives were actually saying before, during, and after WWII.

There is one thing of importance I have not noticed anyone mention. It is easier to accept the government having more discretionary power when people know that the powers are for a limited duration. WWII could not last forever. Eventually there'd be peace.

We have no such limit nowadays in regards to terrorism. We need to talk about three related items:

1) What greater powers does the govt need to defeat Al Qaeda?

2) What constitutes a sufficient victory against Al Qaeda that will see the end of these powers?

3) What does the govt need to protect against a future general, vague terrorism while safeguarding civil liberty?

It is a shame on both parties that these issues have not been addressed, much less resolved, by now. Our political elites are failing the people.

Chris:

Only before Pearl Harbor did Republicans opposde entering the war.

Why would the power to intercept terroirist communications ever end?

Why are you just focusing on AQ?

Chris: When I composed that, I was thinking of the parallel between what Charles Lindberg said to the America Firsters in the summer of 1941 and what Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore say today. The America Firsters were just as wrong, morally and intellectually, as the Moore/Sheehan Axis of Moonbattery is today.

However, at least Lindberg had the decency, after Pearl Harbor proved him wrong, to support the war effort. (Ditto for nearly all the isolationists.) Not true of the moonbats, not by a long shot.

Why was Lindbergh wrong?

OJ, have you ever read Lindbergh's address to the America First rally on (portentious date) 9/11/41?

The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration. . . . Let us consider these groups, one at a time.

First, the British: It is obvious and perfectly understandable that Great Britain wants the United States in the war on her side. England is now in a desperate position. Her population is not large enough and her armies are not strong enough to invade the continent of Europe and win the war she declared against Germany. . . .

That simply has to be the most delusional revisionist statement of the origins of World War II in Europe ever made.

The second major group I mentioned is the Jewish. It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race. No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences. . . . Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government. . . .

Now, Brother OJ, I submit to you that the preceeding is 100% certified organically grown Grade-A Cindy Sheehan-Michael Moore-Jimmy Carter-Ramsey Clark-Daily Kos-Professor Ward Churchill-stormfront.org-David Duke anti-Semitic moonbattery. You could give that part of the speech to a modern day antiwar rally, and nobody would think it out of place. As Lou Gots pointed out here not too long ago, anti-Semitism is really anti-God-ism.

A little later on, he even hits the "crushing of dissent/questioning my patriotism" trope:

. . . They planned: first, to prepare the United States for foreign war under the guise of American defense; second, to involve us in the war, step by step, without our realization; third, to create a series of incidents which would force us into the actual conflict. These plans were of course, to be covered and assisted by the full power of their propaganda.

Our theaters soon became filled with plays portraying the glory of war. Newsreels lost all semblance of objectivity. Newspapers and magazines began to lose advertising if they carried anti-war articles. A smear campaign was instituted against individuals who opposed intervention. The terms "fifth columnist," "traitor," "Nazi," "anti-Semitic" were thrown ceaselessly at any one who dared to suggest that it was not to the best interests of the United States to enter the war. Men lost their jobs if they were frankly anti-war. Many others dared no longer speak.

Before long, lecture halls that were open to the advocates of war were closed to speakers who opposed it. A fear campaign was inaugurated. We were told that aviation, which has held the British fleet off the continent of Europe, made America more vulnerable than ever before to invasion. Propaganda was in full swing. . . .

OJ, I understand your argument that, in a geopolitical sense, the US didn't have a dog in the European conflict. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I would strongly agree with you that in the conduct of the war and its aftermath, we were too solicitous of the USSR and functionally stabbed the Poles in the back.

However, as I think I've mentined here a time or two before, my father's division took down a concentration camp. Liberating concentration camps, and knocking down brutal pagan dictatorships, and setting people free are moral acts. I can accept a little geopolitical disadvantage as the price of doing the right thing. Staying back, and wringing hands, and letting mass murder and repression go on when you have the power to stop it (i.e., practicing Brent Scowcroft-style "realism") is not moral. As you so often point out here, it's not even "realistic."

Charles Lindbergh was the Brent Scowcroft or Michael Moore of his age . . . well, maybe that's not fair to Lindbergh. Lindbergh had a conscence, after all.

Sure, Scott Berg covers it well in his excellent biography.

Britain did declare war on Germany as required by its treaty obligations, no?

And the Brits and Jews had the greatest interest in our intervening against Germany, no? And FDR wanted a war that few Americans were interested in.

I agree the notion that Jews and bankers and the rest controlled anything is asinine and Lindbergh came to regret believing something so stupid, but the rest is quite accurate.

Recall, Scowcroft and Moore aren't wrong about our national security, only about our moral obligations, as was Lindbergh.

I think the best way to compare Moore and Lindbergh is in terms of what they did after the bell rang, not before.

After December 7th Lindbergh actively suported the war effort. Although FDR kept him out of the military, he managed to make his way to the Southwest Pacific where he flew combat missions.

After September 11th Moore opposed every aspect of the war effort, referred to the Iraqi insurgents as patriots, and said that they will win.

Both men made misjudgements but one saw the error of his ways and climbed into the pilot seat of a P-38. The other continued his anti-American ranting, then took a seat next to Jimmy Carter at the 2004 convention.

Lindbergh also personally toured a concentration camp after the war. Think Moore'll go visit Saddam's torture chambers?

OJ:

Tell him there are Snickerdoodles behind Plastic Shredder #3.

Lindbergh flew in the South Pacific as and assisted in developing techniques for engine and fuel managment for long range patrols. This almost makes up for his pre-war antics.