June 6, 2014

Remembering FDR’s D-Day Prayer

The following is a radio address given by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt on D-Day, the massive Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied France on June 6, 1944. The majority of the text is a prayer, composed by Roosevelt himself, for the success and safety of the 73,000 American soldiers who had just taken the first steps on a campaign that would ultimately end the threat of the Nazi Empire for good. The text was printed in major newspapers across the country so that Americans on the home front could pray along.

Popular presidential historian Jon Meachum has called the D-Day prayer “one of the largest mass prayers in human history,” and estimates that 100 million Americans tuned in (over 70% of the population). In recent years, the prayer has received a resurgence in popularity as radio stations have begun a tradition of rebroadcasting the prayer every year on D-Day. IRD President Mark Tooley and I have previously detailed the political battle over a proposal to add a plaque commemorating the prayer to the National World War II Memorial.

On the 70th anniversary of D-Day, I pray you take a moment to honor the lives lost, cherish the freedom won, and remember the prayers of the past:

My fellow Americans: Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our Nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest-until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men’s souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and good will among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home — fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas — whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them–help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the Nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too — strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us Faith. Give us Faith in Thee; Faith in our sons; Faith in each other; Faith in our united crusade. Let not the keenness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogancies. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister Nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God.


56 Responses to Remembering FDR’s D-Day Prayer

  1. Ann Pierce says:

    I thank God for FDR, who recognized the Author of our freedom and led the nation in that crucial hour. I pray that we will again have a leader with the humility and wisdom to recognize our Christian heritage and to encourage Americans to turn to Him, our only Hope.
    In opposing inclusion of FDR’s prayer in the World War II memorial, people are dishonoring the One Who from the beginning Has guided this exceptional nation. They are also dishonoring the brave men who sacrificed so much that we might live in freedom.

  2. Alan says:

    Opposition to the legislation does not in fact oppose FDR’s prayer. It opposes the wording of the legislation, which cites “Judeo-Christian heritage” and the “power of prayer,” words not in FDR’s carefully non-denominational prayer. The legislation is just an attempt to co-opt FDR’s effort to unify the nation for divisive political gain. Ignoring that allows you to rattle the cage of right-wing reactionaries who have never met an opposing viewpoint they could tolerate, but it is dishonest. Thankfully, as poll after poll shows us, this intolerant group is mostly aging out of politics. They are vituperative but increasingly inconsequential. Nevertheless, misleadingly rattling their cages is a disservice to the country and a violation of basic reportorial integrity.

    • John Spain says:

      Wading through the language of inclusion, moderation and tolerance – “rattle cage”, “right-wing reactionaries”, dishonest”, “intolerant(!)”,”tolerate(!)”, “vituperative(!)”, “inconsequential” [there’s an argument!], “dishonest”, “violation…of integrity” – what difference does the legislative language make to the sponsors’ solution?

      • Alan says:

        This is just the kind of thing I was talking about: “their president”. An incredible lack of patriotism, wrapped tightly in the flag no doubt — so tightly it has all life squeezed from it.

        And let’s be clear: it is not a “personal attack” to point out intentionally misleading and divisive reporting. Nor is it “deflection” to call it out when legislation attempts to exploit a unifying speech for divisive purposes. Nevertheless, I hope that this insincere call to respect FDRs vision of a unified country pulling together for common purposes — regardless of creed (or lack thereof) — might actually cause a few people to wonder if that might not actually be a good idea.

        • John Spain says:

          Needless to say, Alan’s riposte didn’t address, nor soften, the mean-spirited nature of his original message. Also, it didn’t address “what difference does it make”? “Their president”, of course, as Alan well knows, is not directed to whether he is the acknowledged (editorial: worst) president of the United States – it addresses the apparent slavish devotion to whatever Obama says or does. As Norm ably pointed out, it is difficult for Alan’s like to come to grips out loud with the real issues or to speak on any divisive subject without calumny – exactly as HIS president invariably does. Obama always has to attack his demons, and, thus, leads his flock by bad example. This is not an aside; it’s perhaps a partial explanation for why Alan et al. are always on the incivil attack.

          • Alan says:

            Nice try John, but your “their president” comment already spilled the beans. Until I hear the worlds “my president” from you, you stand accused of a lack of patriotism.
            And again, it is not “mean spirited” to call out the mean spirited. It is a civic duty.

    • Norm says:

      Ridiculous post, just another pathetic attempt at deflection. Can’t libs ever argue substance instead of always resorting to name calling and personal attacks?

  3. bonniewheeler says:

    I was in High School at the time FDR died. The classes filled the auditorium to present a program in his memory. Our Class President brought forth a very powerful rendition of “Oh Captain, My captain. That memory will stay with me for a lifetime, right up there with the Dec 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor.

    FDR’s policies changed America. He did not intend for the changes to be as severe as they have become now – I think he would be turning over in his grave at this time, so would JFK. Thank God for George W. Bush, who never forgot the values and principles that this great nation was founded on

    • Alan says:

      I did not realize that falsifying the case for a war of choice, bankrupting a nation that had been running a surplus, and relying for foreign policy on smooth-talking ideologues instead of the well-informed warnings of his own State Department constituted “the principles this great nation was founded on”.

      • bonniewheeler says:

        You w had to be there – remember I was only 14 at the beginning and 17 or 18 when it was over. I did wise up by the time I was 30, however. FDR was considered so wonderful because everyone thought he had put an end to the depression, The truth is, it was Japan who ended the depression for America by bombing Pearl Harbor. (put us way in debt) I lost many friends, relatives and classmates. That was a time when Americans loved their country. I do know that FDR did not want to go to war. As a matter of fact if he had gone in earlier. we would have lost fewer men. He and PM Chamberlain did all they could to stay out of that war. Chamberlain licked Adolph Hitler’s boots according to Edward R. Murrow, radio commentator. If you want a true picture, read Winston Churchill’s “Gathering Storms”.

        U will have to admit, however, that FDR never allowed God to be taken out of the public arena. He relied heavily on God as did all the preceding Presidents. I know my history, Alan – I lived it. And I did not leave the Dem party. They left me. My ideology has not changed just my party. They left me standing with the same ideology and principles that I have had all my life.

        Now who is it that can not tolerate an opposing viewpoint?

        • Alan says:

          That’s just dodging. If you think that falsifying the case for a war of choice, bankrupting a nation that had been running a surplus, and relying for foreign policy on smooth-talking ideologues instead of the well-informed warnings of his own State Department constituted “the principles this great nation was founded on”, then you did leave your party. Indeed, like many others, you left careful thinking behind in favor of ideological purity, and the country has suffered terribly as a result. It’s time to stop thumping that Bible and start reading it — all of it, not just the parts you like.

      • bonniewheeler says:

        President Clinton Feb. 4 1998: One way or the other, we are determined to denty Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missles to deliver them. That is our bottom line”
        Madeline Albright, Feb18, 1998: “Iraq is a long way fro here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security thereat we face”
        Sen. Ted Kennedy: “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction”
        Sandy Berger, 1998: “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
        President Bush was urged by many to take action. Did President Clinton, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, Nancy Pelosi, Sen Hillary Clinton, John Kerry , etc. all lie to President Bush who was new in office and still relying heavily on the word of these very experienced leaders.?

        • Alan says:

          Of course, nobody wanted Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction. That’s why there were sanctions, which were working. Remember?
          What did Bush’s State Department say about invading Iraq? Remember? How did ignoring their warning turn out? Who was he listening to instead? Remember. Don’t twist history to make your case.
          And how about the spending decisions. We were running a surplus, remember? What happened to it? Was bankrupting our nation a good way to plan for the future?

          • bonniewheeler says:

            . Clinton raised taxes, even on me, a widow. Therefore, the debt did not increase as much under Clinton. We’ve never had a surplus except under Andrew Jackson and I believe we just broke even there. I don’t believe we had much of a surplus, even then.

          • Alan says:

            Again, you do not get to just rewrite history. Look at any chart of the federal deficit over time, e.g.,

            http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/downchart_gr.php?title=Federal+Deficit+as+Pct+GDP&year=1950_2010&chart=G0-fed&units=p

            It is true that in order to pay its bills the government must collect taxes. That is just what Bush did not understand: he ran up new bills with increased spending and then *cut* taxes, turning a surplus into enormous deficit. The result: debt my kids will have to pay off.
            Now if you would like to say government spending should decrease, I am all for that. I would start with per-person spending limits on Medicare, along with an end to farm and oil subsidies. But of course, Bush did the opposite there as well.
            Here is how basic governance should work: save for a rainy day. (Genesis 41) That is the opposite of what Bush did. He squandered our good times and left us dangling when the financial crisis hit.

          • bonniewheeler says:

            Government – Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 1950 – 1999

            Government – Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 1950 – 1999 Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
            1950 – 1999 * Rounded to Millions Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc. View on http://www.treasurydirect.gov Preview by Yahoo

          • Alan says:

            Subsequent data are available, so you can look at the Bush years too. Please do.
            I deduce that you would rather quibble about whether the standard definition of the budget deficit is fully adequate than acknowledge the enormous increase in the deficit under Bush. I find it really sad when people try to rewrite history for ideological reasons.

          • bonniewheeler says:

            No, just saying that our government has spent too much money on doing things that each individual should be doing for himself. I believe in helping the individual but not to the extent that it takes away his inclination to help himself .

          • Alan says:

            But Bonnie, pretty much *everyone* believes that. The whole question is the hard one of where to draw the line. For example, we did not always have free public education. Now we take it for granted. Nobody claims this removes the incentive for individuals to help themselves. Just the opposite: it gives individuals the opportunity to help themselves.
            That said, it is clear that Social Security and especially Medicare — originally good ideas — are unaffordable as currently structured. Benefits are too high, but seniors keep voting for more at the expense of the next generation.

          • bonniewheeler says:

            Whatever Bush did, it helped me immensely. I still think he didn’t cut enough. I believe each individual should be responsible for his own lifestyle and that includes having babies our of wedlock or other irresponsible actions. Welfare only enables them to stay in the same situation, year after year – generation after generation. I think George Bush should have cut welfare immensely, which he did not do. Responsible individuals should never have to pay for the irresponsibility of others. That’s Socialism and Communism and too much governmental control

          • Alan says:

            That’s just the kind of thinking that got us into this mess. You want your taxes cut and you’ll let the next generation worry about the budget mess. Sad.

            And be careful, Bonnie. That “them” is kind of a give away, you know. How many of “them” do you know? How much real charity work have you done with the poor kids whose parents fail to provide a home and support? How you have hardened your heart. It is more blessed to give than to receive.
            (Acts 20:35)

          • bonniewheeler says:

            I believe in giving to charity, and I do, but i do not believe in enabling immorality and irresponsibility. Our children have to realize, as did i as a child, they can’t have everything they want. No one should be forced to give if they choose not to.
            And if one is enabling immorality and laziness that helps no one. It enables the continuance of those things that motivate the individual to stay in poverty. Most of those who live in poverty are single mothers.

            Star Parker is a good example for others.

          • Alan says:

            You are still not accepting your responsibilities here. Of course we have to give even if we do not want to. Imagine if we funded highways or the public schools on voluntary donations!
            And nobody wants to “enable” immorality and laziness. That is why we got Clinton’s welfare reform. The problem is, real children are involved. Go out and meet some of them. It’s not too late.
            I certainly agree with you that the rise in single-parent households has been and is bad for children. I would like to see stepped up enforcement of child support payments and better access to birth control. But it is just cruel to insist that children suffer because their parents behaved badly, so we have to share the burden of rescuing them as a society.

          • bonniewheeler says:

            nope, I don’t think we should punish success and encourage laziness or a lackadaisical attitude. We should not discourage success and encourage poverty . We should not make those who are wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income than those who make a lower income. Clinton did pretty good in that dep’t. He made the poor pay just as much as the wealthy- I don’t believe in federal taxes anyway – I came up in a world that did not have Federal income taxes on salaries but that was way back when we had the best schools in the world and the best economic system and our nation was the strongest and most feared in the world and a time when God was always welcome in our society. Under Obama we’ve become a laughing stock. You know we are pretty bad off when Putin will call criticize our president for not having much intelligence. He never liked President Bush but he never called him stupid. Obama’s stupidity is what got us into this mess – not Bush. Bush has been out of office almost 8 years now. When are you gonna quit blaming him?

          • Alan says:

            Bonnie oh Bonnie, This is so sad. I almost missed this post of yours, where you cite as factual a well-known satire:

            http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/dec/05/facebook-posts/facebook-meme-says-vladimir-putin-accused-barack-o/
            That is just the kind of thing I am talking about. *Any* story that bolsters your ideological fantasies becomes a “fact”, no matter how evidently bizarre it is.
            You claim to be religious but have such blatant disregard for the truth. How do you reconcile that? Would it be so frightening to untether yourself from the ideology that is blinkering you?

          • robertthomason says:

            The surplus disappeared on 9/11/2001, thanks to Osama. The nation is no more bankrupt today than when LBJ was president. Just because you hate George W. Bush you should not let your uncontrolled rage influence your interpretation of history to make your case. You might also want to find some new talking points. The ones you’re using are about ten years old now. By the way, just in case you missed it, Bush left office five years ago.

          • Alan says:

            Again, you do not get to just rewrite history to fit your ideology. That is not how it happened. Look it up instead of just making it up. Bush turned the Clinton surpluses into enormous deficits by cutting taxes and raising spending; it is simple arithmetic.
            And by the way, I do not “hate” George Bush. In fact I think he is mostly a pretty nice guy, aside from a creepy fondness for the death penalty. I just recognize he was no more competent as a president than he was as a businessman, and this was disastrous for the nation. And actually, he slowly learned his job, so he was much better by the end of his second term.
            And by the way, in case you missed it, I was not the one who raised the topic of Bush.

          • robertthomason says:

            The increased spending was a result of the 9/11 attacks which was an act of war. War costs a lot of money and the president doesn’t spend money unless Congress appropriates it. Clinton created nothing except the famous stain on the blue dress. And I don’t care what you brought up or who. By the way, disagreeing with your talking points is not rewriting history. Also take your own advice instead of making it up try thinking for yourself and quit relying on ten year old talking points. Since I lived through the events we are discussing I don’t need to look it up.

          • Alan says:

            Oh, but you do need to look it up, because it is wrong. You are confusing your lived experience, colored by your ideology, with the facts of the matter. You clearly have no idea about the causes of the Bush deficits but rather have bought into an ideologically convenient but factually incorrect story about them. And your crude assessment of the Clinton presidency also proves that you have no real interest in history or facts. You just want a comforting bedtime story that won’t ask you to actually think for once in your life. I’m afraid you are going to have to rely less on your faulty memory and vivid imagination and more on historians. They will remind you why it is said of Bush that he never met a spending bill he did not like.

          • bonniewheeler says:

            I think I made my point – There has not been a president who hasn’t had a debt increase – And common sense tells you that when you go to war it costs even more money and when someone cuts defense it does decrease the money that would be spent if we kept our military and defense strong but at what price? It would make us easy target for a world that hates America. It spells danger to decrease the strength of our armed forces.

          • Alan says:

            Come on, Bonnie, you are just being silly now. The debt increases under Clinton became minuscule. By standard measures, the surplus was large. Under Bush the debt increases immediately became enormous. By standard measures the deficit was huge. Don’t pretend dissimilar things are similar. That is just a dishonest defense of ideology, not an attempt to find the truth. “Having eyes, see you not? And having ears, hear you not?”

          • robertthomason says:

            Gosh Alan, I didn’t realize you had the ability to read minds. Your assertions prove nothing just as your slavish devotion to the myths surrounding Bill Clinton prove you are not a very critical or original thinker.

          • Alan says:

            It is not a matter of reading your mind. It is a matter of reading what you wrote. And clearly, you *still* did not bother to look it up. No surprise. The worship of Ignorance remains widespread, and we can no longer count on people to remember that they are commanded to “speak the truth to one another”. (Zechariah 8:16)

            I welcome you to specify a “myth” and provide point to the data to back up your point. At least Bonnie tried to do that. (Badly and misleadingly, but at least she started discussing the data.)

          • robertthomason says:

            Well Alan, this is not a court of law or a classroom and I don’t need to prove anything to you or anyone else here. Hiding behind random quotes from scripture taken out of context doesn’t negate your resort to ad hominem attacks on me and others. Here’s some factual data that is not a “myth.” Bill Clinton was found in contempt of court by Susan Webber Wright for lying in his deposition. He paid a fine and gave up his law license. He gave his lawyer, Bob Bennett, a false affidavit. Whether he raped Jaunita Broderick or not, only he and Ms. Broderick know the truth. We do have the blue dress and, yes, that’s the truth. At least no one died in his car.

          • Alan says:

            Well Robert, The strategy of “when exposed as ignorant change the topic” may be an old one but it still lacks integrity. And it is not ad hominem to point out that you lack intellectual integrity. It is an observation of fact, proved by your rhetorical strategies. You need to understand that difference as well.
            When you show some interest in the actual facts under discussion, we can debate them. (But you will have to look them up, which you seem to find to be too much work.) Until then, you remain exposed as an ideologue who cares more about believing his demonstrably false but ideologically comforting stories than about the truth of the matter.

          • robertthomason says:

            Why in the world would I want to debate someone who is as closed minded as you are?
            Why would I want to debate events over ten years old? Why would I debate someone whose argument is based on me being lazy and ignorant? I’m really not interested in feeding your self important, superiority complex by enduring more pompous revelations from you.

          • Alan says:

            Now now, don’t get all flustered just because your BS is exposed. And please notice that your accusing others of being “closed minded” is, well, let’s just say ironic.
            Naturally I cannot know why you would want to debate such things. But you started doing so and made some false claims, which I called BS on. Then you tried to hide that by changing the subject, so I called BS on that strategy. I am not assuming you are lazy and ignorant, but that is quite clearly all you have displayed in this thread: no grasp of the facts, and no willingness to fix that by looking them up. Feel free to prove otherwise. Look things up so that you can stop substituting your imagination for memory. If you have something to prove here, it is to yourself, because it is clear that you want to believe you are a serious guy.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Dear Robertthomason,
            Whether the talking points are ten years, or thirty years old, they are still factually true!

            Why do the “religious right” still defend the worst President to serve in recent time?

            All the facts proved Bush to be, not only wrong, but his actions proved

            disastrous for the Iraqis, and our economy!

            Lest we forget..!

          • robertthomason says:

            Talking points are not facts. Your continued obsession with proving you are correct and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong is evidence of a serious mental problem. You are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitled to your own facts. I don’t know the answer to your question regarding the “religious right.” Why don’t you submit your inquiry to someone who belongs to the religious right.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Facts cannot be denied, unless one is an Ideologue who has been watching FOX News for information.
            I’m not trying to prove myself ‘right’ and all others ‘wrong’. I’m simply stating facts that are available to those who resist or deny reality.

          • robertthomason says:

            Ad hominem attacks are a poor substitute for facts and logic. You continually use these to discredit me and yet you do not follow your own suggestions. I could make the same silly argument you make and cite MSNBC, CNN and the DNC as your source of information, but I don’t because logic is meaningless to someone like you who is consumed with blaming Bush for all the mistakes of our government for the last 13 years. By the way, I don’t watch FOX News or any of the others as they provide dated, stale information already available. I use other credible sources, like the British press who still do real investigative reporting. I seek many soucres of information, including those that don’t fit my views. You should try it sometime. You may learn something you don’t know.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            That makes two of us that rely upon other sources for our information.
            I always follow logic.
            Many follow emotions, but those are not reliable for truth seeking.
            If we deny history, ie: Bush-Cheney’s injurious behavior, then we will surely repeat our follies.
            I love ya brother!

          • robertthomason says:

            I love you too. Next year in Jerusalem.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            What’s happening in Jerusalem?

          • bonniewheeler says:

            MarcoPolo – You can please some of the people all the time, All of the people some of the time, but you can never please all the people, all the time. George Bush was my kind of president. I’ve been here 86 years and I know a little about history – lived most of it. I know what works and what doesn’t. The president that you think is the worst, I think was great. He was more like our founders, not as much like them as I would like but much more so than the current one. The president that you like (Obama) in my opinion, took Carter off the ‘worst president list’ by replacement.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Dear Bonniewheel,
            I respect your duration on this plane, and I realize that you and my father-in-law share the same opinion. That said, I still don’t see what there was to like about Bush!
            His arrogance was not Christ-like, his simple-mindedness was astounding for a current day President.
            Sorry to afront you, but I think differently than you.
            Peace!

          • bonniewheeler says:

            I suppose what I like about Pres. Bush was his ability to make decisions , self-confidence (which you call arrogance), his love of country and his honesty (both of which the present administration lacks) and his compassion for others. I also like his boldness to promote a special day for prayer which the current president abolished as soon as he took office. . John Jay, first Chief Justice who knew the law very well promoted it. “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Former President George W. Bush didn’t show much compassion for the Iraqi people when he launched his “Shock & Awe” attack!
            And still we’re paying for his blunders!
            We need someone like Dr. Martin Luther King for President.
            Or a Buddhist rather than a Baptist!

          • bonniewheeler says:

            What he should have done was to allow them to take nation after nation until they got to USA and then we should have surrendered and enjoyed being under the control of their strange gods.

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Interesting how you feel that others’ Gods are strange.
            They might think yours is strange too!

          • bonniewheeler says:

            your response is non-sequitur – mine was sarcasm in response to your attitude that we are not supposed to defend our nation and other nations that are supporting us. We should also be sending those little behinds back every time one crosses the border into our country. This will soon no longer be America. that’s what our president is striving for so he’ll never send back the foreigners that are trying to get here to turn our nation into one just like the one they left. misguided compassion has gotten many people into trouble,

          • MarcoPolo says:

            Bonnie, We are not defending OUR Country when we invade another sovereign Country. So don’t conflate the two.

            Your other points deal with Immigration.
            Your hreo, George W. explained that those who cros our borders are simply seeking “GOODER JOBS” (his exact words).
            Astonishing that a person in such a high office would use such crude and stupid language!

            Technically, only the Native Americans have original rights to be here, so by your standards, everybody except they, should be deported.

  4. bonniewheeler says:

    Alan, I believe that’s what I just said,. However, Clinton downgraded our military to an unsafe level and President Bush had to rebuild it. That took money. I have just learned that Clinton and Hillary were penniless when they went into office. LOL

    • Alan says:

      Clinton did not “downgrade” the military. Military spending remained about where GHW Bush left it. And as under other presidents, US military expenditure continued to be by far largest in the world (and in fact about three times the size of Russia and China combined).
      Again, you don’t get to have your own facts. And do not forget, there are profits to be made by persuading people that our huge military expenditures are still not huge enough. Don’t get played for a sucker.

      • bonniewheeler says:

        Alan I would think that removing  305,000 employees  from the federal payroll, with  286,000 (or 90%) being military cuts would have grossly weakened our defense The Army was cut from 18 divisions to 12. The Navy was reduced from 546 ships to 380. Air Force flight squadrons were cut from 76 to 50.  I believe I have that correct.   Check it out

        • Alan says:

          Bonnie, You need to stop relying on Free Republic for your understanding of the world. Cutting payroll in the military and spending more on technology has long been advocated by the military as a way to greater strength. Remember Rumsfeld pursuing payroll cuts to fund missile defense. And you avoided discussing the fact that Clinton maintained his GHW Bush’s level of expenditure. *And* you avoided addressing the size of US military expenditures relative to the rest of the world. Please make some effort to demonstrate that you care about the truth of the matter, not just in defending an ideological perspective.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *