Who Is Your Most Respected Politician?

Who is your most respected politician? Around Independence Day, I would normally look to those amazing Founders of this great nation to answer that question, but not this year. The politician I most respect is a presidential candidate who was never elected to that highest office.

Prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, American intelligence agencies - still in their infancy stages of development - were able to begin deciphering the Japanese diplomatic code. They called this code “Magic.” Amazingly, the Japanese never changed their diplomatic code throughout the war; consequently, being able to decipher it was of immeasurable help to the Allied war effort. More than once during the course of the war, Allied use of Magic was almost compromised. One of those incidents occurred at the time of the Presidential election in which President Roosevelt was seeking his unprecedented fourth term. Here is where the story of a truly patriotic politician is found.

The Republican candidate, and my most respected politician, opposing President Roosevelt was Thomas E. Dewey. The Republicans running the Dewey campaign intended to use their knowledge of pre-war intelligence to attempt “to discredit Roosevelt and show that he must have known beforehand about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (Lee, p. 244). In other words, the Republicans accused the President of “rushing America to war” by not preventing the Japanese attack and providing the rationale for immersing America into the European conflict on the side of England. The Republicans had no accurate concept of the vital part that Magic was still playing in the war effort. So critical was the need to prevent Magic’s compromise that General George C. Marshall wrote to Dewey explaining its significance. Dewey rejected the letter without reading it completely. General Marshall wrote again on September 27, 1944, begging that Dewey “‘say nothing during the campaign’ about the fact that U.S. government authorities had been reading Japanese codes and ciphers before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Not only was the information true, Marshall tells Dewey, ‘but much more important were the facts that (1) the war was still in progress; (2) the Japanese were still using certain of the pre-Pearl Harbor cryptosystems; and (3) the U.S. government was still reading highly secret Japanese messages in those systems, as well as highly secret messages of other governments. Therefore, it was absolutely vital that Governor Dewey not use the top-secret information as political ammunition in his campaign.’” (Lee, p. 245)

The action General Marshall took to implore Dewey not to use this information in his campaign was unprecedented. In his letter, he promised Dewey that only nine other people knew about the letter. President Roosevelt was not one of them. Marshall wrote, “I am persisting in the matter because the military hazards involved are so serious that I feel some action is necessary to protect the interests of our armed forces.” He explained that there was no reference to Japanese intentions toward Pearl Harbor until the last message, which did not reach the hands of the U.S. military until December 8. Marshall explained that the Allies were breaking both German and Japanese codes and emphasized: “Our main basis of information regarding Hitler’s intentions in Europe is obtained from Baron Oshima’s message reporting his interviews with Hitler and other officials to the Japanese government.” Marshall spelled out completely to Dewey how Magic won the battle of the Coral Sea, won the battle of Midway, and provided the sinking of Japanese merchant shipping by providing the sailing dates and routes of Japanese convoys. (Lee, pp. 245-246)

Dewey was the first person outside of Roosevelt and the high command to know the full story and importance of Magic. Because of Marshall’s letter, Dewey determined that “the Republicans cannot take the risk of losing American lives, or prolonging the war, by revealing the Magic secret.” Dewey returned to his campaign and never mentioned the subject. Many Republicans in Congress came to believe that Dewey’s sudden failure to make the pre-war intelligence about the Pearl Harbor attack a campaign issue cost them the election, and they determined to seek revenge. “As a result… just before congressional Pearl Harbor hearings open in November 1945, the Republicans on the committee blithely release the news that before and during the war the British and the Americans had broken both the German and Japanese codes. This breach of national security is done after Marshall begs the committee to keep the secret. The committee refuses, publishing Marshall’s correspondence with Dewey. Thus, our Congress gives our former enemies the first knowledge that their codes had been broken, to say nothing about breaching America’s diplomatic confidence with the British.” (Lee, pp. 246-247)

Thomas E. Dewey demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt true political patriotism and earns the distinction of being my most respected politician. Instead of attempting to redefine patriotism, he took so seriously the damage to the war effort and to the military personnel themselves that disclosing information about Magic would cause that he sacrificed a possible successful political campaign against Roosevelt. Given the current climate of political dissension and compromise by media of classified programs successfully tracking down high ranking terrorists, which contemporary politician or reporter can we imagine giving up a political advantage or reporting scoop for the sake of shortening the length of the war and protecting American lives? Given the current debate, I unfortunately have a difficult time imagining even a few, if any, accepting such a patriotic challenge. Sadly, our politicians and reporters today seem intent to follow the damaging self-interest blueprint of the 1945 Republicans in Congress.


Source cited:

Marching Orders: The Untold Story of World War II, Bruce Lee, New York: Crown Publishers, Inc., 1995. (This Bruce Lee is a historian, not a former martial arts star).

Where Is the Outrage?

The deaths of two American soldiers, PFC Kristian Menchaca and PFC Thomas Tucker, were barbaric. Captured by Islamic jihadists, these uniformed members of the American Armed Forces should have been treated as POWs in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Instead, they were tortured and mutilated so much that DNA samples were required for positive identification. Among other brutal acts carried out on them, their hearts were cut out. The jihadists claiming responsibility have said this is retaliation for the death of al-Zarqawi. Al-Zarqawi was killed in an attack on a known enemy headquarters during a war in which he was a leading enemy figure. Menchaca and Tucker were not merely killed; they were tortured in excruciating fashion. Their deaths were not the result of combat, but the result of barbaric treatment as captured POWs.

My thoughts here are not a call for revenge of any kind. They are a call for the expression of outrage that should be accompanying every report about these atrocities. Yet, American mainstream media and human rights organizations remain hauntingly silent about this brutality. At the same time, Americans are filled with the daily parade of accusations of "torture, war crimes, and various human rights violations" by Americans. This, too, should fill us with outrage.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has called the Iraq war "illegal." Was it America that filled mass graves with hundreds of thousands of murdered Iraqi citizens?

In May, Human Rights Watch accused the U.S. of "brutalizing Muslim suspects in the name of the war on terror," How many Americans have strapped bombs to their chests and detonated themselves in crowds of civilians?

Amnesty International highlights America's use of "torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment " against jihadist captives (POWs). How many prisoners have Americans brutally beheaded, mutilated, mangled, and tossed back on a deserted street?

Even though these brave soldiers' barbaric deaths came at the hands of brutal murderers, not combatants, this is again not a call for revenge. It is not even a call for these particular Islamo-fascist murderers (practioners of the "religion of peace") to be hunted down and "brought to justice." This is a war, not a police action.

My call, then, is two-fold: First, and most important, this is a call for victory. This is a call for our leadership, both political and military, to prosecute this war as necessary, and within the rules of engagement directing our forces on the ground, to achieve an overwhelming victory over those who have made themselves enemies of humanity. Documents captured from al-Zarqawi convincingly demonstrate that the Islamo-fascists in Iraq are deeply concerned about their ability to continue the battles there. Finish the task, then, by both enabling the Iraqis in their self-defense and by militarily defeating these inhumane enemies. Second, this is a call for equal treatment, at least, by our own media and by human rights organizations. In the absence of any "Ernie Pyles," at least report evenly to the American people about the atrocities perpetrated by the Islamo-fascists on American soldiers and Iraqi citizens. If this simple act of doing your job cannot be accomplished, then quit blowing smoke about your so-called "objective reporting." Quit labeling Americans as torturers when POWs in our care are given better care than many had as combatants, including the freedom to exercise their practice of the "religion of peace." Quit whining about being called unpatriotic when you provide free sources of propaganda for al-Jazeera and our enemies.

Message From the Front

One of America's brave soldiers sends his latest experiences from Iraq:

Hello everyone-
Man have I done some really interesting and exciting things since the last e-mail. My squad has picked up some new IP stations and we have been checking on things there. We are seeing how they stand on situations and other things. One of the places we go to is pretty close to the Tigris River. This is really crazy because a lot of the things around here have been here since the very first Bible was written from actual events. Well anyways, I have some beautiful pics of me and my battles right on the shore of the river with tress and the mountains and other things in the background. I even have a pic of me in a fisherman's little boat floating on the Tigris. While we were there there was a 15 year old teenager who had a horrible gash in his right heel. He should have seen a doctor as soon as it happened. But as always they don't really do that around here. He had a cotton ball stuffed in the gash with a piece of cloth tied around it. It was deep and about 3 inches long. You could see about almost an inch of tissue, both dead and alive. I cleaned up his wound with alcohol and removed his cotton cloth that had fused almost to the wound. He was a trooper. We explained it would hurt but he said he could handle it. I had to swipe out all the puss and dirt from the wound with the alcohol swabs. I wrapped it properly and told him not to walk on it because it will just split back open and not heal properly. I also gave him some Ibuprofen for the pain. He and the other 25 kids watching were amazed with what I was
doing and they kept saying "Doc" and stuff, I just laughed. It made me feel really good. The day before yesterday we went to Kurdistan. Technically its not a country but they feel that it is. Its like 97% Kurdish people, and they all hate Sadam and his evil cruel ways. They are very thankful for us helping them now and back in the early 90's. We were in a green zone so we were allowed to take our gear off and walk around the town of Dohuk. We walked through the market and people stopped us to get pictures with us and say thank you and hello. We ran into some people from Canada and Norway. Kinda funny. We sat down at a Kurdish restaraunt and had lunch. We had so much food to eat and it was only 6 bucks. I have tons of pictures and video of our trip. Well I am going to get off here for now. Thanks again for everything everyone... Love all you guys and God Bless. Maa elsalama, <----good-bye> -- Josh

Thank you, Josh and all in your unit, for defending America and bringing freedom to an oppressed people. God bless all of you!

Separation of the Church and the State

For some odd reason, I receive the publication Church and State published by Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU). Either someone believes that I need to receive this, or I am on their mailing list. Either way, I never complain about receiving such things at no cost to myself.

The back cover of some issues contains an unreferenced quote attributed to James Madison: “The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State.” The organization’s pitch then follows: “James Madison and other founders of the United States strongly believed that church-state separation preserves the integrity and vitality of religion, ensures freedom of conscience for all people and prevents government meddling in matters of faith. So do we!”

Research affirms that the quote attributed to Madison is from Madison. It is found in a letter to Robert Walsh dated March 2nd, 1819. Madison’s letter is in response to a February 15th letter from Walsh concerning “misrepresentations propagated abroad” about Negro slavery, moral character, religion, and education in Virginia. http://www.constitution.org/jm/18190302_walsh.htm

European governments historically supported an established Christian sect and clergy. As with other portions of the great American “experiment,” they believed that religion could not survive without this support. Madison replied that, instead of withering away, all [Christian] Sects in Virginia were making great gains.

Reading Madison’s quote in the full context of the letter makes the AU use of it suspect. The AU’s application of “the total separation of the Church from the State” cannot be found in the context of Madison’s letter or the context of volumes of other historical documents by the Founding Fathers. The separation referred to by Madison was that the federal government not favor any particular Christian sect. The separation referred to by AU is to remove from the public arena all references to the Christian faith and America’s Christian heritage. They especially oppose any policies promoted by the so-called “religious right,” whom they oppose with a particularly vicious fanaticism. I find it alarming that an organization that claims to stand on the truth of Constitutional rights attempts to be so deceptive with its use of the intentions of Founding Fathers like James Madison.