Dan Carlin is the host of two podcasts, "Common Sense with Dan Carlin" and "Hardcore History," both of which have gathered strong cult followings. In our third interview, he talked about Pat Buchanan, Barack Obama and the Bush legacy.
Well, let me start by saying that I have not read the book. I can only discuss the point you bring up in your question.
That having been said, I am not sure how Churchill could have drawn the Nazis into war when he wasn't in power until the war was well underway. That's probably a point Buchanan addressed, and I would be curious to hear how he explained it. On the surface, it's hard to see how that would have happened.
As far as the Japanese situation, well, I do believe that we were pushing the Japanese into a corner with things like embargoes (and with other, perhaps unintended, slights like the lower fleet size limits they were restricted to in inter-war treaties). But I think we thought they would just sort of cave in to our pressure over, say, the situation in China. I don't think we thought they would go to war. It was an incredibly stupid decision on Japan's part to attack the U.S., and I don't think many of our people thought that would be the road they would choose. We sure misunderstood their whole sense of pride and whatnot (and how far we could push them without them losing too much face). Perhaps if we took that more into account, something else could have been worked out. But, I doubt we could have gotten them out of China.
The embargoes that pushed Japan to make a choice over their foreign expansion or avoiding the cut off of raw materials, I think, were justifiable. The things Japan was doing in China were appalling by any standards, and the embargoes were partially an attempt to alleviate the suffering of the Chinese. But those moves by the U.S. certainly played a huge role in pushing Japan towards war.
Did WE want war with the Japanese? I don't know the answer to that question.
Recently, Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki said that he would like Americans to draw up a timetable for withdrawal. When presented with this, John McCain seemed to illustrate that he wouldn't go that route. Does this illustrate a disregard for the Iraqi leadership's wishes on McCain's part?
Well, I addressed something like this in our most recent show. These sorts of sticky situations are going to be inevitable if Iraq tries to achieve any sort of real independence from the U.S. Government in the near term. If they want to control their own oil (and the contracts for its sale) things will get sticky. If they want U.S. troops completely out of the country, things will get sticky. If the people there elect leaders who are too friendly to Iran, things will get sticky. Is McCain disregarding the leadership wishes of the Iraqis? Well...that might be saying too much. There is a lot of room to "talk things over" and find ground between Maliki and McCain where they can perhaps find a way to reduce troop levels at a rate and amount everyone can live with (maybe with conditions and milestones to act as checks on the pure timetable approach).
That's a good question. I myself am curious how much traction (or lack of traction) such an issue would have right now nationally. Has enough of the popular culture embraced the idea of homosexuality in general, or gay marriage in particular to a point where it is a losing political issue? Or is McCain just not the sort of Republican candidate to make an anti-gay/traditional values campaign work? I am sure that approach would play in some localities, but I wonder if we aren't seeing the decline of this as any sort of national political issue. I doubt it will be a factor in this campaign.
Alot of uproar occurred when Obama was portrayed as a terrorist on the cover of the New Yorker. President Bush and Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain are regularly ridiculed and satirized. Is Barack Obama being treated with kid gloves?
Well, I think the New Yorker thing was silly. It was a funny, provocative cover. That's what the New Yorker has always done. It was such an obvious joke, and the ironic thing is that the joke was on the people who act as though Obama IS a Muslim terrorist and that his wife IS a Black Panther/Angela Davis type. THAT'S THE JOKE!! BECAUSE IT IS NOT TRUE! IT'S NOT FUNNY IF IT IS TRUE!! Talk about an uproar that makes everyone mad about the issue look like a fool. If you are mad about that cover artwork, you don't understand the humor (this includes some in the Obama campaign!). I actually heard some commentators who completely understood all this, and who based their argument on the idea that most people are too stupid to realize it is a joke, and so the cover was irresponsible because so many Americans would misunderstand it. Like it is the New Yorker's fault that so many people don't get their jokes.
Well, I think the New Yorker thing was silly. It was a funny, provocative cover. That's what the New Yorker has always done. It was such an obvious joke, and the ironic thing is that the joke was on the people who act as though Obama IS a Muslim terrorist and that his wife IS a Black Panther/Angela Davis type. THAT'S THE JOKE!! BECAUSE IT IS NOT TRUE! IT'S NOT FUNNY IF IT IS TRUE!! Talk about an uproar that makes everyone mad about the issue look like a fool. If you are mad about that cover artwork, you don't understand the humor (this includes some in the Obama campaign!). I actually heard some commentators who completely understood all this, and who based their argument on the idea that most people are too stupid to realize it is a joke, and so the cover was irresponsible because so many Americans would misunderstand it. Like it is the New Yorker's fault that so many people don't get their jokes.
Is Obama being treated with Kid gloves? Yeah, I think a bit. And McCain is running such a boring, inept campaign that the temptation must be enormous to focus even more on Obama, just for interest and excitement's sake. The Press will turn on Obama eventually. It's the normal pattern. Whether this happens before November's elections are over is anyone's guess.
There hasn't been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. How does this reflect on the Bush legacy?
Well, at first I was going to say: "It's better than if an attack HAD happened". But, on second thought, I am not so sure. Perhaps if another catastrophic event such as 9/11 had happened again, many of the policies that make the President so unpopular with people like, well, me for example, may not have looked so unnecessary or heavy-handed. It is an interesting thought to ponder: Could a terror attack after 9/11 have actually made this President look better? I will have to think about that one for a while.
Bush's legacy will depend on what happens over the next 20 years. That's when we will see how this all plays out.
Thanks!
You are always welcome!
You are always welcome!
Comments
Write New Comment ▼
Write New Comment
Sorry! This knol's owner(s) have blocked you from editing, making suggestions, or commenting here.