Hayworth: 'In My History' U.S. Didn't Formally Declare War On Nazi Germany (VIDEO)

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

May 24, 2010 1:40 PM in reply to mcc

OBVIOUS ANSWER:

Apparently it already is.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

minnesconsin

May 24, 2010 1:55 PM in reply to AJM

And by extension, pretty soon, will be taught in most of the rest of the country.

Just as soon as we get those textbooks cleaned up.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JEP07

May 24, 2010 5:29 PM in reply to minnesconsin

Didn't Hitler offer Texas a deal if they would attack America from the south??

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

LonewackoDotCom3

May 24, 2010 7:06 PM in reply to minnesconsin

If I asked you a question about something fairly arcane (like whether there was a formal declaration or not) that happened even a few decades ago, and I did that in a public forum without you having access to the web, what are the chances you'd get it right?

It might be helpful to step back and see what Eric Kleefeld is trying to do: generate anti Hayworth buzz over what's at most a disagreement over an arcane historic fact.

Then, ask yourself, "why?" Could it have something to do with the fact that Hayworth more strongly opposes than McCain the massive illegal activity that the Dems hope will give them power?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

William Burden

May 24, 2010 8:34 PM in reply to LonewackoDotCom3

I think the reasonable person in that situation would admit they don't know, and then follow up. Hayworth isn't alone in trying to present a version of history that supports his assumptions (or prejudices), but it's one indication of how dogmatic minds will seek ways to make reality fit their preconception (and I just have to point to much of what Ms Palin says as an illustration of this tendency).

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Kyle H

May 25, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to William Burden

Is that not exactly what Hayworth did when he got a little pushback from the questioner? "I think we should check into it" sounds pretty noncommittal to his own figuring.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JBL1955

May 25, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to Kyle H

He may have been trying to be polite. One might say something like that if one understood it wouldn't be politically advantageous to say, "You're wrong!"

However, he was wrong.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Scalfin

May 24, 2010 8:39 PM in reply to LonewackoDotCom3

That argument would make sense if Hayworth hadn't made the claim unprompted. The only question he was asked about WWII was someone asking if he was sure about his claim.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kenga

May 24, 2010 8:58 PM in reply to LonewackoDotCom3

what are the chances you'd get it right?

Whether or not the US declared war against Nazi Germany, in World War Two, is NOT a "fairly arcane" piece of information.
That was a blatant attempt by someone who didn't actually know the history trying to favorably compare the Bush Administration with Eisenhower's. It was a legitimate question, of deep Constitutional significance, and a bullshit answer.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

LonewackoDotCom3

May 24, 2010 10:15 PM in reply to kenga

That was a blatant attempt by someone who didn't actually know the history trying to favorably compare the Bush Administration with Eisenhower's.

I think my point has been proved.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kenga

May 25, 2010 5:48 PM in reply to LonewackoDotCom3

I'm sure you do. To be frank, though, I'm not sure whether it was that Hayworth is as ill-informed as many guys who didn't pay attention in class, or that his "tough on crimigrants" schtick absolves him of it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Susan from 29

May 24, 2010 11:26 PM in reply to LonewackoDotCom3

That is not an arcane question. Hell, even I know that FDR was unable to ask for a war declaration against Germany, as much as he wanted one. It was only after Pearl Harbor that he could get the declaration against Japan which he knew would, by treaty, trigger Germany's declaration against the US so we could formally get involved in WWII.

To those of us old enough to remember Vietnam, that was an undeclared war, and Korea was a "police action" under the authority of the UN.

But, no one asked Hayworth if we declared war on Germany. He claimed it all on his own. One really shouldn't do that unless one knows what one is talking about. He was asked about current military conflicts without war declarations that can only be made by Congress.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

SchoolyT

May 25, 2010 9:26 AM in reply to LonewackoDotCom3

It might be arcane but for the fact that the subject of the banter between them means that they must assign it a stronger point and purpose. If it is in fact arcane to their conversation, then why are they even talking about it at all?

Whether it is arcane or not, it reveals (yet again) an important point that Kleefeld and others are correct to point out - if you do not know your history, you may have a tough time approaching policy in the correct context or be doomed to repeat the same mistakes. The really sad truth is that we have around half of our voters that seem to show outright disdain for those that possess knowledge and embrace those who seem particularly weak in that area. I would think you want a leader with brains (and, of course, supports the policies that you feel are important). Otherwise, when the chips are REALLY down, say, a disaster has occurred or is imminent, you'll find out real quick if they are a problem-solver or merely took 1st place in the beauty contest, er, election.

You can live to see another day or end up dragging out famous last words.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

smartalek

July 20, 2010 12:39 PM in reply to SchoolyT

Amen.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

SometimesElla

May 25, 2010 8:48 PM in reply to LonewackoDotCom3

He wasn't asked a question about something that happened decades ago. He was asked a question about the present. He offered unsolicited information about something he incorrectly thought didn't happen decades ago.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Richardxx

May 24, 2010 2:22 PM in reply to AJM

I have a Texas education. We fought against Germany?

[Seriously though, there were so many German speakers in Texas that Hitler thought they would rise up against the American government and help the German forces. A lot of Germans and Bohemians (from what later became Czechoslovakia) colonized large swaths of Texas farmland after the European revolutions of 1848. What actually happened is that they were among the first to volunteer to fight against Hitler. It's only been since the rise of television that German and Czech ceased to be spoken or written very much here.]

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to Richardxx

Everyone knows that we fought against Soviet Russia in WWII, and that we and Germany were allies.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hotspur

May 24, 2010 2:59 PM in reply to commie atheist

I have met people who think this.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

oleeb

May 24, 2010 4:33 PM in reply to commie atheist

I thought we were fighting Fascism in WWII: Islamo-Fascism right! They hated our freedom.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

boo_lala

May 24, 2010 5:31 PM in reply to commie atheist

This reminds me of a conversation between my (Colorado) high school American History teacher and the daughter of Christian activist parents who objected to his teaching:

STUDENT: My parents say that a lot of what you are teaching us is just wrong.

TEACHER: Well, your parents (or any parents) are welcome to come to my class and present their opinions and we can have an open debate in front of the class.
What, specifically, do they object to?

STUDENT: Well you said the most people who died in WWII were Russian, but my parents say it was Germans.

TEACHER: Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know. You're parents are stupid...I'm afraid I'm going to have to rescind that invitation.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 6:04 PM in reply to boo_lala

Re conversation that never happened:
The phantom teacher was right by a matter of millions. And that includes the enormous number of German soldiers captured by the Russians who were never heard from again. Sorry.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 8:47 PM in reply to boo_lala

After my first response re mythical student-teacher conversation, I did some checking via WikiPedia, which I should have done in the first place, and found that, including military and civilian deaths combined, Germany had almost 9,000,000 dead, Russia 26,600,000 dead.

retired teacher

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 8:49 PM in reply to boo_lala

After my first response re mythical student-teacher conversation, I did some checking via WikiPedia, which I should have done in the first place, and found that, including military and civilian deaths combined, Germany had almost 9,000,000 dead, Russia 26,600,000 dead.

retired teacher

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sleek

May 24, 2010 5:48 PM in reply to commie atheist

If Russia attacked Turkey from the rear, would Greece help?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 6:01 PM in reply to sleek

KY jelly would probably help. Or so I've been told.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

kuvasz

May 24, 2010 9:11 PM in reply to commie atheist

If only Robert E. Lee had taken Stalingrad how different the world would have been

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Matthew

May 24, 2010 3:37 PM in reply to Richardxx

I maybe wrong in this, but I beleive you are mixing the first and second world wars up. I know that before WWI the German language was widely spoken in in the upper Mid-west, WI, IL and MN, and that there existed many German language newspapers and magazines. However, it is was my understanding that the speaking and writing of German was banned in the lead up to WWI and never really resumed after the armistice. Like I said though, could be wrong on this.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

blkblt

May 25, 2010 12:36 AM in reply to Matthew

German spoken in the upper midwest? German papers and magazines? But I thought all the European immigrants instantly learned English and assimilated within hours. Not like those Mexicans who always want to speak Spanish everywhere.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Blue Girl

May 24, 2010 4:04 PM in reply to Richardxx

I can attest to a similar phenomenon in my home community in the northern tier of Missouri. My grandparents are buried in the Bohemian Cemetary, fer cryin' out loud. My dad was one of those Bohemian boys who volunteered and fought. He stayed in and we grew up brats - but I still mastered my Grandmother's Kolache recipe all those summers spent back on their farm.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jaycal

May 24, 2010 4:11 PM in reply to AJM

You're right, although it appears the real genesis for New and Improved History seems to come from Arizona... the state that now makes Texas look downright moderate.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Mooser

May 25, 2010 11:16 AM in reply to mcc

Obviously, JD Hayworth was educated at Wheaton College!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 1:38 PM

How do you not know something like that and serve in the U.S. Congress?

By the way, J.D., the United States also declared war on Italy (December 11, 1941).

Moron.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Marinus van der Lubbe

May 24, 2010 2:31 PM in reply to eratosthenes8

He went to Bluto Blutarsky University.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

larsvanness

May 24, 2010 3:15 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

Way to go, Marinus, way to go!!!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

chameleon

May 24, 2010 3:43 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

LMAO!!! You don't miss much do you??? That was good

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

agio

May 24, 2010 4:19 PM in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

That's Senator Bluto Blutarsky, I do believe.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dms106

May 24, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to eratosthenes8

Are you kidding? Several years ago, perhaps during Clinton's presidency, the Republican response to a Democratic speech was delivered by a chosen Republican who admitted, during his response, that he didn't know what GOP stood for--he had to look it up.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Richard L. Adlof

May 24, 2010 5:30 PM in reply to dms106

Grumpy Old People?!? Cuz they ain't grand or a party and at the time the nickname was framed they were pretty damn new.

RICO statues would define them as a criminal organization is our present Attorney's General would do his farging job.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

smartalek

July 20, 2010 12:44 PM in reply to Richard L. Adlof

Gross Old Perverts

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dogger

May 24, 2010 5:49 PM in reply to dms106

Greedy Oligarchs & Plutocrats.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Given Up

May 25, 2010 1:11 PM in reply to Dogger

Given recent scandals I am partial to Gay Old Party, with apologies to homosexuals all around, i don not mean to affiliate you with these people unless you want to be.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dave

May 24, 2010 6:12 PM in reply to dms106

That was former NLF receiver Steve Largent. I couldn't believe he admitted that on tv.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dave

May 24, 2010 6:13 PM in reply to Dave

That should be NFL receiver

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

deoll

May 24, 2010 8:49 PM in reply to Dave

NLF = Viet Cong?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JBL1955

May 25, 2010 3:32 PM in reply to dms106

Then there was the GOP VP candidate who didn't know what the job was.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tom Dibble

May 24, 2010 6:27 PM in reply to eratosthenes8

It's not that he didn't *KNOW* something. The Big Deal is that he MADE UP something and used that as JUSTIFICATION for something else.

It's like me saying that Cruel and Unusual Punishment doesn't cover bamboo shoots under toenails; if you know your history, you know that that has been the customary punishment for misdemeanors since 1792 when George Washington himself declared it the standard punishment for telling a lie.

That is very different from knowing or not knowing if Mr Washington was in favor of bamboo shoots under toenails.

It's not ignorance.

It is a lie.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

EnnuiDivine

May 24, 2010 1:42 PM

In Hayworth's history, I bet we never dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, either. They did to themselves in an ill-fated kamikaze attack.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 2:09 PM in reply to EnnuiDivine

As a neat way to sum up what happened, "did it to themselves through an ill-fated kamikaze attack" has its merits. Voluntarily starting unwinnable wars against powers that are more technologically advanced than oneself is a recipe for nasty surprises.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to sagesource

To say that WWII was "unwinnable" for the Axis powers is a pretty large exaggeration.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 4:10 PM in reply to Geoff Johnson

I wasn't talking about the Axis powers. I was talking about Japan. Starting a war with someone when you have essentially zero chance of attacking their homeland successfully is a lunatic move, and even some of the Japanese high command were aware of that.

But even "Axis" in general.... how on earth would Hitler or Tojo have been able to conquer North America? Especially given the way Hitler felt about "Jewish science."

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ljdramone

May 24, 2010 7:46 PM in reply to sagesource

... Starting a war with someone when you have essentially zero chance of attacking their homeland successfully is a lunatic move, and even some of the Japanese high command were aware of that.

IIRC the Japanese were happy to launch the Russo-Japanese War in 1904 with a surprise attack on Port Arthur even though they had no realistic way to attack the Russian homeland (Port Arthur was a Russian colonial port in China.)

I guess it's possible the Japanese were just off their collective rockers for the entire first half of the 20th century. I think it's more likely, though, that in 1904 Japan calculated that a war to drive Russia out of China was a good idea.

A quick survey of military history might tell you that countries start wars for all sorts of limited goals that can be accomplished without attacking their opponents' home country.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Firefly M4A4

May 26, 2010 12:45 AM in reply to sagesource

Read history more closely and you will find that Japan did successfully attack the U.S. mainland on multiple occasions. However, they were not successful in capitalizing on those attacks or holding the U.S. possessions that they bombed/shelled and/or seized.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ZeraLee

May 26, 2010 3:51 AM in reply to sagesource

As I recall it (history, not personal knowledge) the Japanese plan was to eliminate the Pacific Fleet and threaten the west coast to force the U.S. into a treaty.

Pearl Harbor was not intended to be a surprise attack from a state of peace. Japan had sent an encrypted message to their ambassador stating their intentions to withdraw from negotiations and begin hostilities. The message was to be presented just before the attack, but the Japanese embassy had trouble decrypting the message and delivered it late.

Or maybe I am not as smart as a fifth grader...so to speak.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

EnnuiDivine

May 24, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to sagesource

Japan didn't attack us at Pearl Harbor because they wanted to conquer America. They weren't expecting the response they got, though.

As far as the rest of the Axis powers...their mistake wasn't in declaring war on us. It was declaring war on the Soviet Union. There's been one constant in history since the 15th century: no power invades Russia and wins. If we never entered the war, the Soviets would've lost about 50,000,000 people, much of Europe would've been in ruins, Japan would've been reduced to rubble...and just about every country in the Eastern Hemisphere would be under Communist control...but the Axis would've still lost.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

maxlongstreet

May 24, 2010 4:17 PM in reply to EnnuiDivine

I strongly recommend Richard Overy's 'Why the Allies Won'. In it he deflates the myth of inevitability sometimes given by historians to the Allied victory in WW2. In it, he points out that it was something of a miracle that the Russians prevailed over Germany - it began the war with inferior technology, inferior generalship and strategy, and, contrary to popular belief, vastly inferior industrial capacity.

The miracle is that Russia managed to literally transport much of its industrial capacity east over the Urals before it was destroyed, rebuilt it on frozen ground, and then outproduced the greatest industrial economy of Europe. They did this because they focused on mass production and few models, while Germany believed in multiple models and craftsmanship, which along with political/industrial infighting, hindered production significantly.

The will to survive also played a big part - Russian production demonstrated a national will to win by any means necessary that wasn't just reflective of Stalin's desires - Red Russia wasn't all that popular in the eyes of most citizens, but Germany so mistreated the occupied population that most Russians embraced Stalin and nationalism.

Those believing that 'Russia always wins', citing Napoleon and Hitler, tend to conveniently forget that Russia definitively lost in WW1.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Max Thrax

May 24, 2010 9:46 PM in reply to maxlongstreet

Numbers game. The USSR just had more men to die. The Germans lost about 3.5 in WWII to Russia's 10 million.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 4:17 PM in reply to EnnuiDivine

There was one way that Germany could have won in Russia. It was the same way that Japan could have won in South and Southeast Asia: pose as liberators from oppression, Stalin's in one case, and the Western imperialists in the other.

Fortunately, fascists can't even fake such a role successfully for any length of time. The "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" was not exactly a convincing construct, and most of the time, due to his racism and assorted other delusions, Hitler didn't even try. Even so, he had quite a few Russians fighting on his side right up to the end.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Pierce R. Butler

May 25, 2010 6:43 PM in reply to EnnuiDivine

From Ian Kershaw, Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions That Changed the World, 1940-1941 -

[In June 1941] The United States War Department advised President Roosevelt that Hitler’s forces would conquer the Soviet Union within a period of one to three months. British military authorities took a similar view. They thought Hitler’s eastern campaign would be over in six to eight weeks.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

May 24, 2010 2:36 PM in reply to sagesource

I don't think the Americans who fought against the Japanese in the Pacific thought an American victory was a slam dunk.

It was a stroke of sheer luck that the Japanese didn't wipe out our entire Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor. The war with Japan was touch and go in the beginning, and who knows how it might have turned out if we hadn't managed to crack their codes?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Marinus van der Lubbe

May 24, 2010 10:51 PM in reply to slb

Great book by Eddy Layton, Admiral USN (deceased) called "And I Was There" that's specifically about breaking the Japanese Codes prior to the attack and employing musicians from the navy bands who were out of work after their ships went down on Dec. 7 as cryptologists as they displayed an aptitude for it. It highlighted the struggle between DC naval politicians and those in Hawai'i who broke the Midway codes.
On Dam Neck Base, the Navy Intel School building is called 'Layton Hall.'

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dean L. Surkin

May 24, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to sagesource

I respectfully disagree with you about the relative military technology of Japan and the U.S. in December 1941. Japan had superior aircraft and vastly superior aircraft-launched torpedoes. U.S. torpedoes were notorious for being duds. Nevertheless, by 1944 and definitely by 1945, the U.S. had the most advanced military technology in the world (though the German Panzer Mark V was superior to Allied tanks, and Germany also had the V2 rocket and rudimentary jet planes by the end of the war), and without a doubt the most advanced manufacturing capability in the world.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Lovelynina

May 25, 2010 11:01 AM in reply to sagesource

As I recall MY history, Japan, this "technologically challenged" sovereign, was quite capable of using her maritime superiority to dominate the Pacific theater in the early stages of the war.
Let's just face facts and admit that the vast majority of Americans don't know their history, and that opportunists like Hayworth are in the exploitation business. Calling them out is our only recourse.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Sayne

May 24, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to EnnuiDivine

Now now now. We all know who REALLY dropped the bomb on the Japanese: http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/254177

Dolphin... and Whale!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluestatedon

May 24, 2010 1:43 PM

Wow. These GOPers really do create their own reality.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

twirling fartknocker

May 24, 2010 1:46 PM in reply to bluestatedon

Boy howdy

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

tchamp77

May 24, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to bluestatedon

This is in response to the left telling them they are "not entitled to their own facts." As a workaround, now Hayworth is using his own "history."

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Measure for Measure

May 24, 2010 1:44 PM

I will generously interpret the campaign's response as a retraction.

We all make mistakes. But that's an odd one.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Helpcomputer

May 24, 2010 2:08 PM in reply to Measure for Measure

Basic rule of PR flackdom: Say as little as you can with as many words as you can. Obfuscation is a defining principle with these guys.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluestatedon

May 24, 2010 1:44 PM

Wow. These GOPers really do create their own reality.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ariseatex

May 24, 2010 1:45 PM

As much as I detest Hayworth, this seems like a pretty honest mistake. After being called out on it, his campaign appears to be affirming the real history (rather than attempting to rewrite it like they are on Birtherism).

No word on how this "new realization" of his will affect his stance on the question asked (the fact we go to war without declaring it nowadays). Probably won't.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

SBG

May 24, 2010 1:54 PM in reply to ariseatex

An honest mistake by an ignoramus.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

minnesconsin

May 24, 2010 2:00 PM in reply to ariseatex

BUT - if you don't know the facts, don't make them up. He made them up.

Sweet baby Jeebus - does it come down to "I am/am not a Maverick" Reverse Ace McCain and "I make up my own facts" Hayworth? Holy sh*t, the Arizona GOP is wandering in the shallow part of the IQ pool.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

donquijoterocket

May 24, 2010 2:15 PM in reply to minnesconsin

wandering or floundering with their brain dead governor and Caribou Barbie as life guards? Even more amazing than the totally ignorant nature of the remark is their expectation that no one will ever check on the accuracy of what they're blathering.Hayworth is almost the prototypical repcon ignoranus.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DwH

May 24, 2010 3:27 PM in reply to donquijoterocket

Did no one in the room when he made this statement have an iPhone or laptop in their possession? I have sat in meetings and performed fact-checking on faleshoods and lies even as a speaker is making them.

Why does no one ever question these guys with their "my history" statements?

My theory? Journalists and writers have no better grasp of history than their interviewees and are afraid to look like fools, so they just let this bullshit wash over them. Then, when confronted with someone of superior intelligence, like the president, they get all coy and add "some people say..." .

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lotl

May 24, 2010 5:20 PM in reply to minnesconsin

He does deserve a wee bit of credit, though, for admitting that what he said might be inaccurate and need research. You certainly don't hear Palin, McCain et. al. doing that.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

SkippyFlipjack

May 24, 2010 2:01 PM in reply to ariseatex

I don't think that's what's happening here. Note that they put RECOGNIZE in all caps, as if to stress that Roosevelt didn't ask Congress to "declare" war, just "recognize" it. I think the end of that excerpt noting that Congress ended up declaring war was added by the TPM staff, since it isn't in quotes. I think it should probably be outside that callout box.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

May 24, 2010 2:42 PM in reply to SkippyFlipjack

Yes, I had the same interpretation of that capitalization of RECOGNIZE.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to SkippyFlipjack

I think maybe you should click the supplied link before making a moron out of yourself. According to the U of Okla School of Law the Resolution read:

"The War Resolution

Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same.

Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America:

Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States"

Not a lot of wiggle room there.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

calbearinillinois

May 24, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to Bruce Webb

There is no wiggle room in the declaration, but the staffer's odd capitalization does suggest a motive to obfuscate - even though it was exactly the same request FDR made relative to Japan after Pearl Harbor.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to calbearinillinois

Agreed. J.D.'s PR flack is trying to create room where it doesn't actually exist. Which makes him the liar and J.D. the moron.

Thanks.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

alyoshakaramazov

May 24, 2010 7:58 PM in reply to SkippyFlipjack

it IS in quotes. get new glasses.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

calbearinillinois

May 24, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to ariseatex

Yeah, but the all-caps on "RECOGNIZE" suggests they are trying to create weasal space, even though that is exactly the same request FDR made in his Pearl Harbor statement "recognize that a state of war exists" based on the fact our ships had been blown up.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

denim

May 24, 2010 5:22 PM in reply to ariseatex

Funding the action is implied declaration...as if anybody cared about such fine points of literalism.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Sailormarlowe

May 24, 2010 1:46 PM

Maybe he means the USA shouldn't have declared war on Nazi Germany.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 1:55 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe

Why not? Nazi Germany declared war on the United States.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

SqueakyRat

May 24, 2010 2:17 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe

Maybe that's what you mean, SailorMeat.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jeffgee

May 24, 2010 2:19 PM in reply to SqueakyRat

Do tell.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bluestatedon

May 24, 2010 1:46 PM

Goddamn Facebook popups are irritating me to the point that I'm double-posting. Sorry, but TPM really needs to get rid of them. I don't even go on fucking Facebook.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

big jonny

May 24, 2010 2:23 PM in reply to bluestatedon

I concur. Although I use Facebook, I do not desire to utilize the crossover function. Is there an opt out configuration so I can avoid this in the future?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Boidster

May 24, 2010 3:59 PM in reply to big jonny

For what it's worth, the combination of Firefox, AdBlock Plus, and NoScript (all free) seems to prevent pretty much all unwanted Flash, popups, mouse-over ad-explosions, etc. for me.

I try to enable ads on sites I like and visit frequently (on the off chance that I might actually see an ad I want to click, thereby giving the site some revenue), but if the ads are intrusive then it's easy to block 'em all.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dr Zaius

May 24, 2010 1:51 PM

It is interesting that the USA did not declare war on Germany at the same time it declared war on Japan but instead waited until after Hitler had already declared war on the USA.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Powkat

May 24, 2010 1:55 PM in reply to Dr Zaius

My guess is that we knew it was inevitable that once we declared war on Japan Germany would declare war on us. It was all a formality anyway, since we were supplying the British and Roosevelt knew it was just a matter of time before the US got into the actual fighting.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Michael A

May 24, 2010 2:05 PM in reply to Powkat

Germany did not attack us. Japan did. That's why war was declared against Japan. After we declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on the US. On December 11, 1941, the US declared war against Germany and Italy.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

It's Pat

May 24, 2010 2:38 PM in reply to Michael A

That's not what my Texas textbook say.
;-)

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/triparti.asp

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jasper47

May 24, 2010 2:53 PM in reply to Michael A

Diplomatic History - Tripartite Pact

FYI

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Michael A

May 24, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to Jasper47

I am familiar with the tri-partite pack. What's your point?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Powkat

May 24, 2010 7:10 PM in reply to Michael A

that's what I said.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

minnesconsin

May 24, 2010 1:57 PM in reply to Dr Zaius

Not really. Germany had taken no overt action against us. Japan had.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

tinsk

May 24, 2010 2:56 PM in reply to minnesconsin

Not exactly true. Germany had been sinking US merchant ships and killing American citizens by the hundreds for years prior to war declarations.

As for Japan, if we were to take the Bush / Cheney / neocon theory of the Preemption Doctrine and roll it back to 1940 as justification for waging war, an argument can be made that Japan, by attacking the US Navy at Pearl Harbor was a justifiable defense. The US had an active embargo on Japan and we had already been actively in a shooting war with Japan in China through the AVG (American "Volunteer" Group a.k.a. the Flying Tigers).

Now, I don't believe it was justifiable. However, it just goes to show the stupidity of believing in a war of preemption. What goes around will surely come around.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 8:55 PM in reply to tinsk

You are absolutely right on every point you make. I love people who know what they are talking about, especially where it concerns history.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Firefly M4A4

May 26, 2010 12:51 AM in reply to tinsk

The U.S. did enforce an embargo against Japan. General Chennault’s ‘Flying Tigers’ were primarily American flyers engaging in combat missions against Japan, and yes, FDR did extend the Lend-Lease Program to China. Yet suggesting U.S. foreign policy provoked Japan to attack is wrong. The diplomatic goal of the U.S. was to thwart Japan’s militarism in Asia and thereby prevent further rapine destruction of China. It would have been morally reprehensible for FDR to do anything different.

Ultimately, Japan did launch a pre-emptive attack against the U.S. at Pearl Harbor. The historical consequences of that attack, as you infer, seem to suggest that Japan made a bad decision. However, it is important to remember that Japan was only three ships shy of being completely successful: the Yorktown, the Lexington, and the Enterprise.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leon Kowalski

May 24, 2010 3:33 PM in reply to minnesconsin

Oh? Google: "USS Ruben James" (DD245)

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Frex

May 24, 2010 2:06 PM in reply to Dr Zaius

Even after war had broken out in Europe there was a very strong isolationist lobby, primarily but not exclusively in the Republican party that did not want to get the US involved in Europe, which was bolstered by public opinion at the time. Pearl Harbor put a serious crack in the isolationist argument and the German declaration shattered it.

One of America's myths regarding WWII is that we leaped to the defense of our allies. Roosevelt had desired to engage in Europe for months, but the country wasn't willing to follow.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

renet

May 24, 2010 3:07 PM in reply to Frex

Jasper 47, According to Walter Karp's the "Politics of War," Woodrow Wilson tried desperately to get the U.S. into WWI far earlier than 1917 but the American public was dead set against it by like 90%. Germany bent over backward to avoid getting the U.S. involved even giving in to ridiculous demands such as; Wilson's demand that U.S. citizens be allowed to travel on British merchant and passenger ships that were armed and destroyed many German submarines that were required to surface to make sure no Americans were traveling on them. Roosevelt certainly wanted to get into WWII sooner but again, Isolationism was strong in this country. It's amazing to me that in my lifetime (71 years) the U.S. has been at war with somebody or other nearly 50% of my life. So far. Yet even today, with Iraq and Afghanistan, most Americans are opposed to those wars but our leaders continue to ignore us. The Neocons were apparently right, we are an Empire hooked on war. And we will fall by History's wayside just as all the other Empire's have.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

zonk

May 24, 2010 2:15 PM in reply to Dr Zaius

That's why I'd give Hayworth a pass on this -- while he's technically wrong (i.e., the U.S. actually did reciprocate with a DoW, but only after the other 2 main members of the tripartite pact declared war... interestingly enough - the US did NOT declare war on other minor members of the Axis - Bulgaria and Hungary and I think Romania, until the following year) -- and we might consider it a done deal in retrospect, but for a few days, it was not certain that the US would get involved in Europe.

While Pearl Harbor certainly quieted the isolationists - there was still a rather sizable portion of the US that didn't think we ought to be fighting what was still seen as Europe's war.

Sure - Hayworth is technically wrong here, but I would argue he's more 'right' than this kerfuffle would have you think.

As much I think Hayworth is the about the only thing that can make John McCain look reasonable - this is a pretty silly line of attack against him.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

slb

May 24, 2010 2:48 PM in reply to zonk

The original question had to do with the fact that we are fighting undeclared wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's immaterial that we didn't declare war on Germany until they declared war on us. The fact remains that it was a declared war.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to slb

Bingo.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jasper47

May 24, 2010 2:56 PM in reply to zonk

No passes for Senatorial candidates who have their own history. That's why one should always have "peer reviews".

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to Jasper47

He made a mistake, and not even a particularly egregious one, all things considered. Look, I'm a million billion light years away from being even a tepid fan of Hayworth, but there are a lot more substantive things to go after him on than this, and I agree with others that this story seems a bit silly. On the other hand it's led to some actual discussion of history in the comments section here which I guess makes it worthwhile!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Stretch, PhD

May 24, 2010 5:07 PM in reply to Geoff Johnson

Although I see where you're coming from, the greater point is that J.D. Hayworth said something stupid. And this ain't just your garden-variety stupid; it's well-nigh colossal.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Kyle H

May 25, 2010 2:33 PM in reply to Stretch, PhD

Blah, your exaggerating his mistake is ten times more annoying and snarkworthy than the actual mistake.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Stretch, PhD

May 26, 2010 10:40 AM in reply to Kyle H

I respectfully disagree. There's such a thing as a simple gaffe, and then there's a gaffe that demonstrates an appalling lack of basic knowledge. Even in my past, when I was a registered Republican voting in AZ, I would've not voted for Hayworth because if he can't be trusted to get a basic -- basic! -- fact of history correct, then I can't trust him to make important decisions.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

larsvanness

May 24, 2010 3:30 PM in reply to zonk

In fact a formal declaration of war was issued by the Congress of the United States against the countries of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania on 5 June, 1942.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 2:50 PM in reply to Dr Zaius

Why give Hitler even the tiniest talking point? In his version of history Poland attacked Germany and not the other way around. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? What Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?

Somehow I don't think the Generals in charge of war planning were twiddling their thumbs between Monday the 8th and Thurs the 11th.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

zonk

May 24, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to Bruce Webb

Sure - in fact, immediately upon hearing of the Japanese attack, Hitler ordered the Kriegsmarine's U-boats to immediately breach American coastal waters and submarine warfare truly became unrestricted.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ewad

May 24, 2010 3:41 PM in reply to Dr Zaius

There was a significant number of Americans that wanted to stay out of both the war in Europe and in the Pacific.

When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor it was impossible to stay out of that war. There was still a large body that hoped it was possible to stay out of Europe's war until Germany declared war on the US. After Germany's declaration it was impossible to stay out of that war.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Stan_Black

May 24, 2010 1:54 PM

W. T. F. We declared war on Japan and Germany on the same day. These "politicians" need to wise up a bit if they ever want a vote.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 2:05 PM in reply to Stan_Black

Did you even read the article on which you are commenting? The U.S. did NOT declare war on Japan and Germany on the same day, quite famously so. You're even more wrong than Hayworth was.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 5:05 PM in reply to Geoff Johnson

You can't say Hayworth was wrong. He has his own history. Who are we to judge?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

zonk

May 24, 2010 2:16 PM in reply to Stan_Black

No - we very much did not.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jolly ranchero

May 24, 2010 1:54 PM

Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 2:10 PM in reply to jolly ranchero

The Germans did not bomb Pearl Harbor--the Swiss did. And it wasn't Pearl Harbor, it was Disneyworld. Get your facts straight!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 2:18 PM in reply to Geoff Johnson

Forget it; he's rolling.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

benjoya

May 24, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to eratosthenes8

i think geoff missed the reference.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

benjoya

May 24, 2010 2:27 PM in reply to benjoya

but good embellishment, geoff.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

big jonny

May 24, 2010 2:28 PM in reply to eratosthenes8

A pop reference that good deserves a link to a video clip: See Bluto's Inspiration Speech here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q47bpOCTcaY&feature=related

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

darkrhyme

May 24, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to Geoff Johnson

It is a small world after all.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

cwnidog

May 24, 2010 3:41 PM in reply to jolly ranchero

Of course not, Wild Bill Kelso hadn't put in his to cents yet.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jvwalt

May 24, 2010 1:58 PM

Anybody can make a factual error in a real-time conversation. But Hayworth was using his "fact" to support his point of view. In that case, he should have checked it out in advance.

A lot of modern-day Republicans have adopted a faith-based approach to history, and they should be called on it every single time.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

draftedin68

May 24, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to jvwalt

True, but it's not just "faith-based", it's often pull it outta your ass-based.

Can you say Glenn Beck?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Atomist

May 24, 2010 1:58 PM

"the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared"

Now class, who's doing the declaring here, Germany or the United States?

Ya gotta hand it to the Repoops. At the rate they're going this country's political discourse will be down at the kindergarten level where we'll be holding toxic national debates over whether it's spelled C-A-T or K-A-T (needless to say, anyone who opts for #1 is a Chablis-sipping Brie-nibbling elitist who hates Real Murkins).

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jsdc007

May 24, 2010 2:00 PM

In JD Hayworth's history books, the Nazis were all black and Mexican as well. They were merely wearing blond wigs.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Atomist

May 24, 2010 2:02 PM in reply to jsdc007

Not exactly Springtime For Hayworth, is it?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

draftedin68

May 24, 2010 2:00 PM

I can't help myself...

...but when blowhard J.D. opens his mouth, all I hear is blowhard Foghorn Leghorn.

The fact that they're both engage-mouth-before-turning-on-brain types probably explains it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ArchTeryx

May 24, 2010 3:49 PM in reply to draftedin68

It's come full circle, actually. Foglorn Leghorn was based on a Suthun' Senator Blowhard-type radio character called Senator Claghorn.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 2:01 PM

I'm a history teacher and grad student, but it's still hard for me to get too worked up about this. I mean of course he's wrong, but he quickly admitted it and I think I know what he was thinking. FDR wanted Germany to declare war first (and was happy when Hitler obliged him) since obviously Germany did not attack Pearl Harbor, and as such it was not necessarily a given for many Americans that war with Germany (as opposed to just Japan) was necessary.

I'm guessing Hayworth was remembering this point from "my history" and got it a bit confused. As far as public officials butchering an account of the past, I've heard far worse.

Of course this is not to say that Hayworth is gentleman and a scholar--quite the contrary.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

May 24, 2010 2:37 PM in reply to Geoff Johnson

It is not so much the mistake as the context of the mistake -- he 'remembered' precisely what he needed to 'remember' to make his point that it was okay to go to war without a declaration of war despite the Constitution because FDR had done in that way before. But FDR hadn't.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sam storm

May 24, 2010 5:42 PM in reply to AJM

Yeah, I suspect he is the type of person who remembers a lot of convenient facts.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Autobrand

May 24, 2010 2:04 PM

This is probably a matter of past wingnut talking points popping into his head. I seem to recall back in 2003, one of the rationalizations for the invasion of Iraq was that Roosevelt never had a declaration of war against Germany, and US forces fought in Europe anyhow. Therefore, Bush did not need a declaration of war against Iraq (because a Democrat did it first).

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Atomist

May 24, 2010 2:11 PM in reply to Autobrand

Besides we only went to war with Germany because the commie New Dealers wanted to bail out Stalin yadda yadda yadda.
Stick around long enough and you'll hear all the talking points if you're not too busy throwing up.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 4:20 PM in reply to Autobrand

Ah. Good remembering. I'm sure you're right. Old habits die hard.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 2:05 PM

The instinctive reluctance of anyone on the right (or should it be Reich?) wing to blame anyone but leftists for anything claims another victim.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Max Thrax

May 24, 2010 2:06 PM

We need to cut taxes and balance the budget just like Ronald Reagan! WMD were discovered in Eye-raq! The terrorists attacks of 9/11 happened under Obama's watch! Trickle down economics worked! The market is self regulating! The terrorist attacks of 9/11 happened under Bill Clinton's watch! We won the Vietnam War! Oil regenerates itself under the earth! The Enlightenment is dead.

Which one of the above statements is true?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Michael A

May 24, 2010 2:11 PM in reply to Max Thrax

That was funny. The alternative universe that repukes reside in is frightening.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 2:15 PM in reply to Michael A

The last one. Postmodernism killed the Enlightenment decades ago.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jasper47

May 24, 2010 3:02 PM in reply to Geoff Johnson

Where is Emile Zola when you need him?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

MichaelCaine

May 24, 2010 2:30 PM in reply to Max Thrax

Actually, Oil does 'regenerate' itself under the Earth, in the context of how you and the actual people who use the phrase mean it. What is misleading about the statement is not that Oil deposits 'regenerate' or more precisely reproduce in continuing process. Its that the period for it to do so spans millenia and the rate we are extracting it far exceeds the reproduction of it from decomposing organic matter locked within the Earth's crust at high pressures.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 4:28 PM in reply to MichaelCaine

non sequitur;
I have a Republican friend who is convinced that disposable diapers will turn into oil in 20 billion years.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Max Thrax

May 24, 2010 7:03 PM in reply to MichaelCaine

You must be incredibly annoying in real life.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Given Up

May 25, 2010 2:34 PM in reply to Max Thrax

He kinda has a point, though i suspect he is not aware that he is making it.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

MichaelCaine

May 31, 2010 5:34 PM in reply to Given Up

Actually, I'm very aware of it. That was the purpose of the post to begin with.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

markg8

May 24, 2010 2:08 PM

I'm sure whether we did or not there's something there to fault Obama for.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Veneita

May 24, 2010 2:08 PM

He must have gotten his history from a texas history book http://theweek.com/article/index/203288/texas-textbook-decision-warping-us-history

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Confoo22

May 24, 2010 2:10 PM

The initial story is kind of a non-story. Hayworth said something, then immediately admitted that it was necessary to do some more research into the subject. I find it weirder that the press release seems to be trying to vindicate him by emphasizing the word recognize.

I mean, tell me if I'm misreading this, but it kind of sounds like the release is saying that the US never declared war on Germany but instead recognized that we were already in a state of war because they declared war on us first.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Atomist

May 24, 2010 2:15 PM in reply to Confoo22

It does read that way, but we're not talking about the brightest crayons in the box here. These clowns probably don't even know what a declaration of war is, especially since the US hasn't actually declared one since, well, December 11, 1941.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 2:20 PM in reply to Atomist

Actually, the last time war was declared was June 5, 1942 -- against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

zonk

May 24, 2010 2:21 PM in reply to Confoo22

That's actually true -

If Hayworth wanted to fight on this silly point -- there is a technically difference between a declaration of war and a recognition of a "state of war".

Like I said - as much as I cannot stand Hayworth, I think he's actually closer to being right than TPM/Eric here... I have this vague suspicion this was a matter of "Hey, JD said something stupid!".... then discovering it wasn't quite as stupid as initially thought.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 2:25 PM in reply to zonk

there is a technically difference between a declaration of war and a recognition of a "state of war".

From the Declaration of War against Germany: "Resolved, etc., That the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany, which has thus been thrust upon the United states, is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States."

How is that NOT a declaration of war?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

zonk

May 24, 2010 2:45 PM in reply to eratosthenes8

You sort of skipped the first part of the declaration:

"Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the Government and the
people of the United States of America: Therefore be it "

FDR's request also was a recognition of a state of war, closing with:

I therefore request the Congress to recognize a state of war between the United States and Germany and between the United States and Italy.

I'm not saying it isn't silly semantics - but prior to WWII, the widespread idea of total war, etc - there were formal rules for such actions and I'm fairly certain that the Hague Conventions of 1907 make a distinction. I believe that Versailles, in fact, was made possible by the fact that Germany tipped the first domino in WWI by declaring war on Russia then on France.

You can say the debacle of Versailles happens anyway - to the victors go the spoils - but the fact that Germany was the aggressor by virtue of issuing the declaration was cited as a principle reason Germany was to be held responsible for costs.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to zonk

FDR's request also was a recognition of a state of war, closing with

Is this a serious argument?

The debate is over the responsibility of the Congress. What FDR requested IS NOT PARTICULARLY RELEVANT. FDR could have asked for a ham sandwich, for all it matters.

The Congress returned a DECLARATION OF WAR.

You are erroneously putting emphasis on the executive when the legislative branch is Constitutionally endowed with the power to declare war. That was the substance of the question asked of Hayworth. And, the former congressman was absolutely, unequivocally wrong. TPM is NOT exaggerating matters to say that J.D. completely failed in his historical recall.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

zonk

May 24, 2010 3:08 PM in reply to eratosthenes8

Look -

We're arguing two different point here.

My main point is that it was Germany that declared war on the US, and that in the realm of International diplomacy (war being the continuation of diplomacy by other means), that order of operations has specific meaning and has been used appropriately and inappropriately when it comes to signing peace accords. I'll again reiterate that in 1941, it could not be known what the circumstances in 1945 would be.

You're arguing that the fundamental issue here is that Congress holds the power to declare war (or recognize the existence of a state of war)... which is actually a point I agree with 100%.

All that said, and in complete recognition that Hayworth is a doofus -- I just think it's more historically accurate to say Germany declared war on the US, than it is to say that the US declared war on Germany.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to zonk

I just think it's more historically accurate to say Germany declared war on the US, than it is to say that the US declared war on Germany.

Both statements are technically (as you seem to like technicalities) correct.

The problem with your rationalization is that is NOT was J.D. said. He said, "if we want to be sticklers, the war that Dwight Eisenhower led in Europe against the Third Reich was never declared by the United States Congress."

That is simply and absolutely a false statement. There is just no way around it. The Congress didn't (as you initially claimed) just recognize a state of war...it affirmatively DECLARED a state war against Germany.

That is simply a fact.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mgmonklewis

May 24, 2010 3:01 PM in reply to zonk

Ditto what Erasthones said. Plus, your reading of the Congressional declaration seems inaccurate from a mundane grammatical standpoint. The "whereas" statements are all subordinate clauses leading into the main statement--the actual independent clause--which clearly states that "the state of war [against Germany]... is hereby formally declared." It's pretty cut and dried.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

zonk

May 24, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to mgmonklewis

As I said above...

I'm reading the situation from an international perspective - where the order matters.

I agree wholeheartedly with the US constitutional issues you're raising, but beyond our borders - strictly so far as the US as a nation, regardless of its mechanisms for declaring war - the fact that Germany issued the initial declaration of hostilities has meaning and it especially had meaning in December 1941 without the assistance of hindsight.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

May 24, 2010 10:45 PM in reply to zonk

Our Constitution was written well before 1907.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Glenn in NYC

May 24, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to zonk

I'm sorry, but what "technically" is the difference between a declaration and a recognition?

The text of the declaration of War on Germany is, by the way, almost identical to that of Japan, so I guess we didn't "declare" war on them either.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

zonk

May 24, 2010 2:51 PM in reply to Glenn in NYC

As I said above - that was pretty much the justification for Versailles... It may seem technically meaningless in hindsight, but in 1941, I don't think it's nearly so meaningless.

If WWII is settled in some fashion similar to how WWI (and really - virtually all previous conflicts beyond intra-national civil wars) was settled, the concept of the aggressor has real meaning.

You cannot employ the hindsight of what we know about Nazi Germany, Hitler, and the German/Japanese willingness to fight to the last drop of blood.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

hey norm

May 24, 2010 2:15 PM

At least he gave up when he was wrong instead of doubling down.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 4:38 PM in reply to hey norm

Talk about damning by faint praise........

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

jeffgee

May 24, 2010 2:17 PM

Hayworth has a career writing history textbooks for Texas waiting for him if this politics thing doesn't work out.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Smitallica

May 24, 2010 2:17 PM

Hey, give him a break. It's in this same supposedly undeclared war that Bill O'Reilly says we massacred German troops at Malmedy (it was the other way around), just before Ann Coulter says Canada fought with us in Vietnam (they didn't) and Hannity says Reagan singlehandedly won the Cold War (he didn't). With so many falsehoods pinging around the right-wing echo chamber, how can anybody be expected to keep their facts straight?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Atomist

May 24, 2010 2:24 PM in reply to Smitallica

Actually the Germans did fire on Ft. Sumter.
But it had NOTHING WHATEVER to do with slavery!!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

big jonny

May 24, 2010 2:21 PM

I live in Phoenix, Arizona. This battle between Hayworth and McCain is fast becoming a race to the bottom in absolute terms. The radio and t.v. spots are unreal. I actually cannot believe some of them are not SNL bits - they are that over the top and ridiculous.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Helpcomputer

May 24, 2010 2:28 PM in reply to big jonny

The two GOP primaries in CA are pretty good too. The 3 campaigns that can afford TV spots all have the same message: you're a secret liberal/I'm the real conservative. And the word "liberal" is used like the word "terrorist". And I haven't even mentioned the "Demon Sheep" ad.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

stehova

May 24, 2010 2:27 PM

Seriously, why is this even a story?

Hayworth's timeline is essentially correct. Other than the statement that the US did not declare war on Germany, what's the real transgression? He openly admitted he may be wrong, suggested fact-checking, and then actually did his own fact-check.

I think there are a few in political offices who want their version of revisionist history, but this is a stretch.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mgmonklewis

May 24, 2010 3:04 PM in reply to stehova

"Other than the statement that the US did not declare war on Germany, what's the real transgression?"

That's rather the point, isn't it?
"Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

acanuck

May 24, 2010 3:12 PM in reply to stehova

Agreed. There's plenty of valid stuff to criticize Hayworth for. But not this.
Off the top of his head, he came closer to the actual sequence of 70-year-old events than most congresscritters would. Certainly than the average citizen would.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

DwH

May 24, 2010 3:39 PM in reply to acanuck

A very good point and goes back to my question: why are there no journalists with iPhones, laptops, Blueberries, brains... anything that can FACT CHECK these statements in REAL TIME?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

May 24, 2010 10:49 PM in reply to DwH

Maybe the Congresscritter should have had an aide with one?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 3:21 PM in reply to stehova

Except that it plays into a several decades right wing talking point common among people in the Republican Party was that the War against Germany, or as they termed it at the time "Mr. Roosevelt's War", was the wrong war at the wrong time, and that we should have concentrated our efforts in our natural sphere of influence and conquered China while letting Germany take out 'Red Russia'.

It is the whole Paleo-Con narrative that transitioned smartly into 'Unleash Chiang-Kai Shek' and then Holocaust Denialism. You get it today with people like Buchanan still defending the actions of the Croatian Ustasche in WWII and during the breakup of Yugoslavia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ustaše

Hayworth is just dipping deep into the deep well of Birchism which was so important in the rise of the modern Republican movement, particularly in Arizona home of Barry 'Extremism is the Defense of liberty is no Vice, Moderation in the Pursuit of justice is not Virtue' Goldwater.

Scratch a Tea Partier and you reveal and unreconstructed 50s-60s era Bircher. Hayworth probably learned all this at his granddad's knee.

(Well maybe, maybe not, J.D.grew up in N. Carolina and his granddad was a ML Baseball Player, but the point remains, there is a toxic legacy left over from the 60s that occassionally gets tapped into by the Right).

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

SchoolyT

May 25, 2010 12:14 PM in reply to stehova

Among other problems, his direct "if we want to be sticklers" then attempts to be a stickler using false history. If you want to be a stickler on something, you really need to have your facts straight, otherwise, you lose the argument - falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

A bonehead statement like he made makes inquiring minds wonder what else is wrong under the hood. All others (non-inquiring minds) put much less emphasis on the onstage question and interview portions of the beauty contest.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/dec04.asp#germany

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jasper47

May 24, 2010 2:28 PM

I know JD didn't go to Yale, but he should have gone to school somewhere. International Affairs are a longtime area of study of mine, but when I did research at the Roosevelt Library I never thought I would live to see a day such as this. The gentleman wants to run for Senate?

Lord, have mercy.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Whenwillthisnightmareend

May 24, 2010 2:31 PM

It seems that most, if not all, teabagger candidates do not have one iota of knowledge of facts and prefer to make up whatever "facts" they need to make their argument (remember SP being able to see Russia). And it should also be noted that in this exchange, if it were not for the audience member challenging Hayworth about his ignorance that this fact too would go unchallenged, as is so common with today's mainstream media. If we didn't learn anything else from the eight years of the BUSH/ROVE/CHENEY years, we should have learned this: These neocon, GOP, and right wing nuts will make up facts, lie, prevaricate and obscure the truth to promote their true agendas. They must be constantly held to account.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 2:48 PM

The point of this story, which everyone is missing, is not that J.D. Hayworth knows less about history than he does about where to find his own asshole, but that he is justifying the fact that three Presidents (Johnson, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr.) have gone to war without a formal declaration of war from Congress. That seems to be the larger issue.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

calbearinillinois

May 24, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to commie atheist

If you include "minor" conflicts and international peace-keeping efforts, the list expands quite a bit. There is one school of thought, supported by neocons, that a declaration of war is no longer ever necessary. The theory is that such declarations are only necessary for offensive wars wihtout provocation and, of course, we never fight those (don't even think about bringing up Iraq - they were in plain defiance of obscure UN Resolution ASDFASDF). That theory also asserts the War Powers Act is unconstitutional as it impairs the Executive's right to conduct military operations as he sees fit.

It's crap, but Hayworth and others claiming an unwarranted pedigree for it doesn't help.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JohnW1141

May 24, 2010 2:51 PM

You people are blind. It wasn't Japan that attacked Pearl Harbor, it was Bill Clinton and he framed the Japanese for it.

A little over a year later I was in the Army, f**k you Bill Clinton!!!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 2:53 PM

Oh, what a world!
I see myself as an informed, educated, fair-minded person, above name-calling and/or demeaning remarks about those with whom I disagree. J.D. Hayworth's Tea Partiers have caused me to become the person I never wanted to be. Every time I read something like today's article a repressed notion comes sneaking back into my consciousness. My unspoken and rather shameful reaction when I first became aware of the Tea Party and saw the woman in the straw hat with tea bags hanging from it was, "These folks are a living version of Hee-Haw." Now, how mean is that? Maybe the hat reminded me of Minnie Pearl. Regardless, it was an elitist reaction that I thought unworthy of me. Today, I'm coming out of the closet. Granted, Rand Paul is no hayseed. He is a purist Libertarian, the best definition of which I have heard is "a rich anarchist". So, the best the Tea Party has to offer is a rich anarchist and today's version of Junior Samples. Whaddaya think about that?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FrJackHackett

May 24, 2010 3:19 PM in reply to Mary Alice

It's time to let that inner rage free. These people only understand force, and I don't mean physical violence, but getting their idiotic notions slapped down whack-a-mole style every time they pop up. And they will continue to pop up...forever. It is a sad fact that these ignorant and backward bozos have been with us before we were us and they'll always be inbreeding and multiplying, dragging down the gene pool. But that doesn't mean they should ever get any actual power.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jasper47

May 24, 2010 3:26 PM in reply to Mary Alice

Oh, Mary! You've gone to the dark side of the galaxy. You elitist, self-absorbed, wine-drinking, caviar-sniffing, upper-cruster you!

How would your mom feel about the way you turned out? (I bet she'd be the first to say - "You GO, Girl!)

You need to park yourself in Arizona!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 4:17 PM in reply to Mary Alice

That is what my mother WOULD say! And I lived in Arizona for almost 30 years. J.D. Hayworth was a jock radio announcer back then, not that there's anything wrong with that, 40 pounds heavier but just as clueless. And I agree with every word you wrote.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JohnW1141

May 24, 2010 3:02 PM

I don't like McCain or Hayworth, but I'd rather McCain in the Senate than the smug, right wing blowhard, J D Hayworth. I saw enough of him and his bloviating on C-SPAN when he was in the House.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Debra

May 24, 2010 3:08 PM

The wingnut teapartiers sure knows how to pick them.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

IDTT

May 24, 2010 3:10 PM

Another blow struck for the talibaggers in their teahad against knowledge and understanding. They fight so fiercely because the great Prophet Reagan has promised them 20 tax cuts for eternity if they die for the cause. TEAHAD!!!!!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FrJackHackett

May 24, 2010 3:15 PM

And it's the J.D. Hayworths on the Texas Bd. of Ed. who are currently tampering with history in their textbook requirements. Teabaggery and Wingnutteria glorify ignorance to such a degree that I have no doubt that they will codify ignorance of American history as a requirement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Babyhuey.JPG

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

biff diggerence

May 24, 2010 3:15 PM

In my history, Hayworth is Baby Huey.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dumdedumdum

May 24, 2010 3:16 PM

I for one hereby declare Arizona to be in a state of lunacy.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

GTFOOH

May 24, 2010 3:17 PM

Did Hayworth go to University of Texas?

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jasper47

May 24, 2010 3:20 PM

"Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of
Military Force: Historical Background and Legal
Implications
Summary
From the Washington Administration to the present, Congress and the President have
enacted 11 separate formal declarations of war against foreign nations in five different wars.
Each declaration has been preceded by a presidential request either in writing or in person
before a joint session of Congress. The reasons cited in justification for the requests have
included armed attacks on United States territory or its citizens and threats to United States
rights or interests as a sovereign nation..."

CRS 86, 87:
War with Japan 1941
(Act of Dec. 8, 1941, ch. 561, 55 Stat. 795)
[Chapter 561]
JOINT RESOLUTION
Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and
the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to
prosecute the same.
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war
against the Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore
be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and
the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States
is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to
employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of
the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to
CRS-87
bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are
hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
APPROVED, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m., E.S.T.
[Terminated by Treaty of Peace with Japan, entered into force Apr. 28, 1952. 3 UST
3169, TIAS 2490.]
War with Germany 1941
(Act of Dec. 11, 1941, ch. 564, 55 Stat. 796)
[CHAPTER 564]
JOINT RESOLUTION
Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the
Government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute
the same.
Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the
Government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the state of war between the United States and
the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is
hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to
employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of
the Government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and, to bring
the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby
pledged by the Congress of the United States.
APPROVED, December 11, 1941, 3:05 p.m., E.S.T.
[Terminated by [H.J.Res. 289] Act of October 19, 1951, ch. 519, 65 Stat. 541]

---

Wow, just got through "PACIFIC" on cable, now this! Wow!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Jackie

May 24, 2010 3:25 PM

Makes perfect sense. We now not only have our preferred science in the U.S. these days--there is no such thing as global warming. Now we have our own history too--let's not worry at all about what primary documents say. We can tell the story just the way we want to.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

budzilla

May 24, 2010 4:20 PM in reply to Jackie

We're #1! We're #1! We're #1! We're #1! We're #1! We're #1! We're #1! We're #1! We're #1! We're #1! We're #1! We're #1!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

AJM

May 24, 2010 10:55 PM in reply to budzilla

Hey, butt out: Rove has all the numbers.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tony C

May 24, 2010 3:28 PM

Who cares, christ Palin didn't even know if South Africa was a country and not a continent and if Edwards would have won the primary, she would be VP. I doubt half of Congress could tell you how many amendments to the Constitution there are. This is pretty petty non-sense.

There types of discussions are so fricken academic, so we never formally declared war on Vietnam, but 50,000 died, tell me it matters whether there was an actual declaration and why it matters in respect to becoming a legislature ?

Hayworth is weak in so many areas that attacking this is just plain lazy.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Max Thrax

May 24, 2010 6:57 PM in reply to Tony C

Frankly you haven't been paying attention. It doesn't matter that it's demonstrably untrue, the corporate media doesn't really care. Push back on everything.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

deuce

May 24, 2010 4:02 PM

While I hate to admit it, I'm with JD on this one. I've always recalled from "my history class" that Germany and Italy declared war on the US, after the US first declared against their Axis-ally Japan.

Not till this discussion had I been aware that the US formally replied, althouth that makes perfect sense in terms of observing the legalities of going to war.

Lots of other stuff to nail JD, but this isn't one of 'em.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Hornswaggle

May 24, 2010 4:16 PM in reply to deuce

Just because you and JD weren't taught that the US reciprocated with a declaration of War doesn't excuse JD from his deliberate obfuscation of the point.

JD is Libertarian conservative.

Libertarian Conservatives believe the government should only do what the Constitution directs frees it to do, i.e. engage in hostilities after Congress declares War.

If JD stood up for his principles, he would have to admit the Iraq and Afghan wars are illegal and he would have to call for the recall of our forces.

JD knows he cannot hold to his declared principles and hope to keep the votes of GOPers who support our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Therefore, JD clouds the issue with ignorance and jingoism.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

larsvanness

May 24, 2010 4:21 PM in reply to deuce

Why not? He has a degree in political science from North Caroline State University. This is basic U.S. history at that level. What did he do? Skip that particular class? Besides which I served under a very fine officer who had a degree poli/sci degree from NCSU and was a genious compared to this idiot.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 4:47 PM in reply to larsvanness

Don't saddle North Carolina State University with this goober. Remember, that while George W. had a Yale diploma, we can all agree that he certainly didn't have a Yale education. Same has to hold true for Hayworth and NCSU. You can lead a clod to college but you can't make him think.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

budzilla

May 24, 2010 4:14 PM

He's only half right. We did not declare war on East Germany.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 6:12 PM in reply to budzilla

:-)

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

GTFOOH

May 24, 2010 8:19 PM in reply to budzilla

He's only half everything!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

gtomkins

May 24, 2010 4:16 PM

Like arresting Hitler for jay-walking

Getting on Hayworth's case over not knowing whether or not there was a formal declaration of war with Germany in WWII, when the man is guilty of so many more egregious sins against Sense and Reason, shows a clear lack of any sense of proportion.

It's not as if it makes any difference whether or not there was a formal declaration. If a formal declaration of war were required to specify any useful or enforceable limits on the conflict that Congress is authorizing, then I would say, that, yes, observing the formality of a declaration of war, as opposed to some off-hand AUMF that didn't specify the aims or limit the scope of the war, would have some usefulness.

But there really is no practical, or even formal, difference between a declaration of war, and an AUMF. Congress could set limits with either equally well, but chooses not to exert any control, beyond the initial authorization, over that most consequential enterprise that any government can undertake, war.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 4:25 PM in reply to gtomkins

What's wrong with arresting Hitler for jay-walking? We got Capone for tax evasion, after all.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

budzilla

May 24, 2010 4:33 PM in reply to sagesource

It's hard to jay-walk when you're goose-stepping.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

gtomkins

May 24, 2010 7:39 PM in reply to budzilla

Goose-stepping while jay-walking makes it a double avian ambulatory offense, thereby bumping up the sentencing guidelines considerably.

But still not quite in mass murder territory.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

T Groan

May 24, 2010 4:20 PM

In my ignorance during the W years I used to think of TPM as a legitimate news site. One that was unbiased and fair. During the obama years it's obvious that this site is little more than a National Enquirer of republican hi jinx. There's little if anything newsworthy here. Obama's fuckups receive little if any mention.

Obama devotees here, who from their postings I would assume would kiss the promised ones feet, contribute nothing but hosannas and ignorance of the true state of affairs.

Place this site next to dailykos, crooks and liars, or the DNC website. This site has proven to virtually useless other than a lens into the ignorance of the dumbocrat devotees.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

budzilla

May 24, 2010 4:28 PM in reply to T Groan

Thank you for taking the time to comment on comments which don't appear in the responses to this article.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Mr. Pat

May 24, 2010 4:30 PM in reply to T Groan

I'm sorry T. Groan..... I think TPM tries to follow the facts.

They aren't trying to find the center between "George W." and Obama. They are trying to find the FACTS.

That sometimes ends up closer to one side or another...

That is what we were missing in George W's years.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Max Thrax

May 24, 2010 7:01 PM in reply to T Groan

A quick perusal of your comments reveals that your are a sad concern troll.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

yigroo

May 24, 2010 4:21 PM

Sometimes these politicians just totally crack me up dude.

Lou
www.complete-anonymity.at.tc

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Mr. Pat

May 24, 2010 4:22 PM

JD must have gone to school in TEXAS.

How's that Changing-the-facts-in-textbooks working for yah?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

absurdity 007

May 24, 2010 4:24 PM

We got a new maverick in town!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

johnnydoughey

May 24, 2010 4:41 PM

RE: Tony C
"There types of discussions are so fricken academic, so we never formally declared war on Vietnam, but 50,000 died, tell me it matters whether there was an actual declaration and why it matters in respect to becoming a legislature ?"

I may be wrong in this case, but I believe history (true history, at least) shows that if the responsible people (in this case we have chosen Congress to declare war) give up their responsibilities, others are very eager and willing to take ALL of there powers away and eventually, decide voting is no longer necessary.
In our new improved nation, we are apparently honored to see this historic truth beginning to repeat itself (I guess we are honored, since I do not see many folk protesting an firing those congressmen who have not been serving in their given capacities).

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

dustbunny44

May 24, 2010 4:43 PM

I confess to not knowing much about what the white power people are considering these days, but I wonder if this guy's revised version of the past - that we didn't declare war on Hitler's Germany - is one of those things that bodes even worse for this guy.
Just a mistake, or a glimpse of something deeper?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 4:58 PM in reply to dustbunny44

Any connect here and Rand Paul's vigorous defense of return to "Whites Only" signs in privately owned businesses like restaurants, lunch counters, stores, movies, gas station restrooms, et.? nahhhhhh. Couldn't be.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Ken

May 24, 2010 4:54 PM

I thought the Japanese bombed Pearl Bailey?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 5:02 PM in reply to Ken

Ask Hayworth. I'm sure he'll will be happy to tell you what his history says.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JBL1955

May 25, 2010 3:48 PM in reply to Ken

No, no, no. Get your facts straight, for heaven's sake. Pearl Bailey was bombed on Japanese rice wine. Sheesh.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

tropicgirl

May 24, 2010 4:56 PM

so what are you fake progressives doing here? pimping for McCain? you guys are stunningly off the mark. Where is that going to get you? what, you love the neocons now?

you are wasting time unless you face the fact that the right-wing, neocon warmongers, favoring disaster capitalism, are run by the same worldwide bank globalist interests as Obama and the neoliberal warmongers, who favor interfering, socialist government. They win either way and you are getting mad at actors.

Same people. Same game. Tell me you can't see it being played out on your tv every day now? Someday soon it will be mandatory for some of you to get a brain to save your lives...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

lotl

May 24, 2010 8:04 PM in reply to tropicgirl

Who are you addressing in the first paragraph? Anybody here who's criticizing Hayworth? Yeah, that means they're pimping for McCain and suddenly love the neocons. Seriously??? What does it matter if your own subsequent statement, that the same outcome is still achieved regardless of who you root for (or against), is true? What's your point?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Given Up

May 25, 2010 2:49 PM in reply to tropicgirl

Since i criticize Obama sometimes I must be shilling for Kim Jong Il!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

henryh

May 24, 2010 5:07 PM

Does it really matter what the blowhard says anyway? I am surprised people actually still listen to him speak or take what he is saying for truth. We have experienced enough of JD's lack of intelligence for years now. In fact, when he was in Congress, he was named the dumbest member. I suppose we should cut the guy some slack seeing how he is not dealing with a full deck...

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

just john

May 24, 2010 5:22 PM

I'm not calling Hayworth a mendacious nitwit, I'm just recognizing that the state exists.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Stratdude

May 24, 2010 5:36 PM

Hayworth or McCain — what a choice!

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dogger

May 24, 2010 5:51 PM in reply to Stratdude

No. There is another.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 24, 2010 6:03 PM in reply to Dogger

You mean the Democrats are actually running a candidate? Who'da thunkit - based on the press coverage, I thought McCain

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Max Thrax

May 24, 2010 6:58 PM in reply to Dogger

Too many old white people who can't accept responsibility to elect a Dem.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Dogger

May 24, 2010 7:01 PM in reply to Max Thrax

You can call them racists; there's no content filter here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuGIgf-ICHM

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

George

May 24, 2010 6:12 PM

Why do I get the feeling that in his head you declare war by yelling it out really loud like Micheal Scott declaring bankruptcy?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

bheartlib

May 24, 2010 6:59 PM

I haven't read every response in this issue, but the thing that stood out for me is that Hayworth said "Dwight Eisenhower led the charge in Europe against Hitler and the Third Reich". Chris Matthews showed this same clip on his show and also only talked about the declaration of war statement, totally skipping over the fact that Eisenhower did the Korean War, Roosevelt did WW2. Or, alternatively, I am insane. Oh, well. Could be.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

GayIthacan

May 24, 2010 7:25 PM

Actually, 90% of the credit for defeating Germany belongs to the former Soviet Union - but remember, we can never EVER praise those evil commie red bastards. :D :D

As in WWi, the United States arrived when the situation was pretty much decided. BUt we certainly helped with the mopping-up operations.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Max Thrax

May 24, 2010 8:05 PM in reply to GayIthacan

I had this very argument with a conservative. I gave him the numbers, the Russians losing around 10 million fighting the Nazi's on the Eastern front as opposed to our roughly 60,000 and he laughed...he thought war was scored like a game. I tried telling him that if the Russkies hadn't spent all those lives keeping Hitler from all that oil in the Caucasus, we might be speaking German. Blank look.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

GayIthacan

May 25, 2010 2:44 AM in reply to Max Thrax

I know the type. They have been raised on the 'Walt Disney' version of American history (or, as we would say today, using Texas Standards).

The fact that the Soviets lost 50 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE as the United States did - and had borne far more of the brunt of German aggression than France or Britain somehow seems to have escaped their notice - as well as the psychological force behind Russia desiring a buffer zone from Europe - Europe having invaded her TWICE within 130 years.

And, of course, over 80% of the concentration camps were liberated and their prisoners freed BY RUSSIA - not by the Western Allies.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Firefly M4A4

May 26, 2010 12:58 AM in reply to GayIthacan

Yes, Russia sacrificed millions of patriots, men and women, to defeat Hitler’s armies. But hundreds of thousands American Studebaker and Dodge trucks along with 2,000 U.S. built locomotives and 11,000 U.S. built railroad cars kept those Russian soldiers fed, clothed and equipped. How many T-34s would have reached Berlin were it not for the American military-industrial complex producing planes and trucks to haul the fuel and ammunition to support Stalin’s tanks? The U.S. also supplied them with over 4,000 M4 Sherman tanks. Admittedly, these M4s were not as good as their T-34s, but they were the best we had until late in the war. The U.S. made Bell P-39 Airacobra was the principal fighter plane used by the Soviet Air Force during WWII. The U.S. sent almost 5,000 of these fighter aircraft, and over 10,000 of other aircraft types, to the Soviet Union during the war. These are facts that are also often over looked in American history books. In Russia, knowledge and teaching of these facts are not just overlooked—they are frequently repressed. With out U.S. support, it is highly probable that those millions of dead patriots would have died in vain were it not for American made trucks providing logistical support for their country’s war effort.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 25, 2010 12:19 AM

Look the truth is the victors write the history books you are all claiming are the final word on this subject and nothing could be farther from the truth.
The actual events and truths are not tought in the victors countries or schools.
I will tell the true history which is now widely known but rarely about much less public knowledge.
Germany was ahead of any other nation in many respects and was blamed since ww1 for all the worlds problems including the great depression and the 1 and 2 world wars which to any historian who remains neutral is proposterious.
Great Briatan at this time was the controller of the world and had controlled more countries than anyother and also had fought a tremendous amount of wars compared to germanys.
the us and great britan sided with the true enenmy russia under the control of josef stalin who merdered and killed more of his own people than hitler. Land had been fought for for thousands of years between european powers but germany had more claim and money etc invested in this than any other country.Germany controlled the holy roaman empire (not to be confused with the roman empire) for a thousand years prior to napolean who conqered and forced this country to be spilt in pieces only for 80 years or so after this to be split again by the allies after ww1 which germany was not responsible for starting including the dissolving of the autro-hungarian empire and prussia which was given to poland after ww2 along with all other terrotories it owned which were given and spilt amoung numerous countries and then was forced to take the blame soley for the first world war.The allied powers commited the same and sometimes worse war crimes than the germans.Hitler tried to appease france and great britian before they declared war on germany with no succes.The biggest fear of any european country was communism taking over their countries.The red cross has changed the number of jews killed or maimed and now it is official the russians killed the polish generals and soldiers by the 1000 of thousands the germans were blamed for killing etc etc.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JBL1955

May 25, 2010 4:13 PM in reply to cindyrehkopf

"I will tell the true history which is now widely known but rarely about much less public knowledge."

What color is the sky in your world?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fkaZk0sm0

May 25, 2010 6:55 PM in reply to JBL1955

i think the the sky is swastika-colored in her world.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 26, 2010 11:06 PM in reply to JBL1955

Depends on the weather.
I see beleive everything your government tells you.
Sorry i refuse to do this.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JBL1955

June 1, 2010 1:03 PM in reply to cindyrehkopf

Nobody is saying one should always believe everything one's government says.

However, your rendition of history distorts a number of facts in order to make Hitler appear both reasonable and peace-loving.

So it's not surprising you would misrepresent the thoughts of anyone who disagrees with you.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 25, 2010 12:40 AM

The thousands of poles killed was the kaytn forest massacre which the russians only admitted when they had to.
If like many historians claim we went to war because of the jews (which happens to be a religion at this time not a nationality there is plenty of reference to polish jews,american jews etc. etc.) then why were the blacks still supressed far longer in this country than the supposed jews in germany than how about the allies killing only germans and japs is this not a holocaust? Words are very powerful along with propagnada and should be looked upon with extreme caution.German soldiers were slaughtered woman raped children starved to death and all this prior to and before during and after ww2.Hitler was time magazines man of the year in 1938 and germany was the envy of the whole world for its low unemployment and brillance in technology and its new monetary polocies after this man was elected.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

fkaZk0sm0

May 25, 2010 6:57 PM in reply to cindyrehkopf

If like many historians claim we went to war because of the jews ...

'many historians' claim this?? name one.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

GayIthacan

May 25, 2010 7:24 AM

"If like many historians claim we went to war because of the jews ..."

I do not know of a single reputable historian who holds this view. Not one.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Steven

May 25, 2010 9:42 AM

Is he saying that Dwight Eisenhower was president during world war II?

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Bryan

May 25, 2010 1:00 PM

Hayworth is obviously wrong. But he may have a point buried in there somewhere.

The US had been fighting the Axis by proxy via FDRs "Cash and Carry", Destroyers for Bases and Lend-Lease programs well before any formal declaration of war. The Germans viewed Lend Lease as the US entering the war, and used it a justification for attacking US ships well before there was any formal declaration of war on either side.

So while the US did not declare war on any of the Axis powers until after Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the US was deeply involved in the war for years before Congress actually declared war. Both the declaration against Japan and Germany were really just Congress belatedly recognizing that a state of war already existed between the nations. Which, I think, sorta plays to Hayworth's point.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Given Up

May 25, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to Bryan

Not really, Hayworth is using this to justify other undeclared wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan, while there is a factual point buried there it is entirely irrelevant to the context of the discussion. The US did not send troops until there had been a declaration of war, economic and indirect military aid notwithstanding.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Pierce R. Butler

May 25, 2010 6:39 PM in reply to Bryan

The Germans viewed Lend Lease as the US entering the war, and used it a justification for attacking US ships well before there was any formal declaration of war on either side.

Not really. The pre-(formal) war naval clashes between the US & Germany were actually 3-way fights where the US ships got involved in German-British action.

From Joseph E. Persico, Roosevelt’s Secret War: FDR and World War II Espionage -

For all FDR’s charges of a German threat, the truth was that Hitler still hoped to avoid a conflict with America. He had issued his navy strict orders against sinking American ships. He had no intention of attacking either North or South America. That spring [1941], his eye had turned in the opposite direction, toward the East.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

FDRdog

May 25, 2010 3:48 PM

There's a high probability that J.D.'s history will be added to the Texas text books and that J. D. will be footnoted as a notable historian.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

ColtonAron

May 25, 2010 4:27 PM

HA, THE BLOWHARD STRIKES AGAIN... Good to know that JD is the same miserable, unintelligent guy he has always been is still that same guy, reason 512 not to vote JD.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 25, 2010 7:46 PM

The united states was populated by stealing the land from the french,british,mexican and canadians by war and the senseless slaughter of the indians.
Great britan was constantly at war to aquire land,resouces,oil etc. Foward to 1939 when the germans could have whipped britan alone but hitler seen the british people as equal to his own and even admired the government for their succeses in war and other advances they had made and realized a strong british ally such as he had when chamberlin was prime minister was good for germany and did not want war with them much less to destroy their civialisation. These poor british who killed people of all nationalites now faced doom without the help from the us and france,iraq,australlia etc but that is what they would have deserved. If you are a bully do not cry for help when someone breaks your nose or blackens an eye.
Then we have poor france who 130 years before or so destroyed the first reich called the holy roman empire and was as brutal as any other man in charge of a large army.
Do not forget hitler tried to appease britian and france with land and war treaties even offering alace lorraine to the french for these two countries to stay out of the war with russia which he and the german people felt as a terrible threat in part do to the russians trying to spread communism and part do to previous wars such as the war of 1912 where the germans lost land and more to the russians.
Hitler up to the last minute tried to come to a deal with poland on the polish corridor which belonged to germany proir to ww1 but the poles and brits stubbornely refused any talks or deals whatso ever with the germans who were desperate to avoid the mistake of a war on two fronts to no conclusion.
So we can all judge germany but need to also look our own nations actions as long as others.
In ww1 the germans whipped the russians but did not steal half their country much less 15 other countries such as the russians were allowed to after ww2.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 25, 2010 8:07 PM

The russians attacked poland from the east the germans from the west and after this britan and france declared war on germany knowing full well that they were not strong enough to do this alone but did anyway even assuring poland before this played out that they would save them from this but in the end just gave poland along with numerous other countries to russia and these countries real fear was communism and the russians taking them over.
Most if not almost all russians would have welcomed a german army victory (or britan and france for that matter) to free them from communism and the horrid and terrifying grip that the murderous stalin had on their country.
The reason that the declaration of war by the united states is important is because the germans and numerous other nationalities and countries have been tried for war crimes that the allies commited and then lied about some worse than the ones commited by germany herself.
Bottom line we and the other allied powers helped russia spread communism thru europe and left these people to a worse fate then if germany had just been allowed to fight it out with russia and the allied powers not intervined at all.
If you accuse hitler and germany as being on world domination then what do you say about the soviet union or your own country which either has troops or is currently at war in 143 countries(this is the minumum figure) out of i beleive 195 countries in the world.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

JillArizona

May 28, 2010 4:18 PM

Hayworth was right:

Hayworth and McCain debate history in dueling press releases
http://tinyurl.com/32kyvjs

Why J.D. Hayworth Is Right
http://tinyurl.com/3aybkk7

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

May 29, 2010 9:28 PM

The united states had been suppling the russians and the british with weapons and money prior to germany taking any actions against these countries.
Right after the occupation of germany and the problems with russia on this point winston churchill and harry truman denounced russia as being on world domination and churchill lost the election and himself never lived down his errors and went as far to voice this himself along with a tremendous amount of american poloticians.

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Tosh

June 5, 2010 10:55 PM

If you include "minor" conflicts and international peace-keeping efforts, the list expands quite a bit. There is one school of thought, supported by neocons, that a declaration of war is no longer ever necessary. The theory is that such declarations are only necessary for offensive wars wihtout provocation and, of course, we never fight those (don't even think about bringing up Iraq - they were in plain defiance of obscure UN Resolution ASDFASDF). That theory also asserts the War Powers Act is unconstitutional as it impairs the Executive's right to conduct military operations as he sees fit.

It's crap, but Hayworth and others claiming an unwarranted pedigree for it doesn't help.

m65 kamagra