Of all JK's lies, this one is the most disturbing: "The President Is Not Asking You To Go To War"

[cali]

It's disgusting. And to me it's unforgivable.

John Kerry's Lie: 'The President Is Not Asking You to Go to War'


Sources familiar with U.S. planning for a strike on Syria have told CNN that "strikes on command bunkers, airfields or the artillery batteries and rocket launchers used to fire chemical projectiles are among the possibilities being considered."

In other words, acts of war.

War is the word for when one military gets powerful explosives, fires them at adversaries in another country, and destroys their military hardware and weapons. If any country on earth struck American bunkers, airfields, or artillery batteries, virtually every last American would understand that as an act of war.

Yet Secretary of State John Kerry has gone before Congress and said this:

When people are asked, do you want to go to war in Syria? Of course not. Everybody, 100 percent of Americans would say no. We say no. We don’t want to go to war in Syria either. That’s not what we’re here to ask. The president is not asking you to go to war, he’s not asking you to declare war, he’s not asking you to send one American troop to war. He is simply saying we need to take an action that can degrade the capacity of a man who’s been willing to kill his own people by breaking a nearly 100-year-old prohibition, and will we stand up and be counted to say we won’t do that. That’s not -- you know, I just don’t consider that going to war in the classic sense of coming to Congress and asking for a declaration of war and training troops and sending people abroad and putting young Americans in harm’s way. That’s not what the president is asking for here.


<snip>

Adding to the absurdity of Kerry's position is his previous statement that the United States faces a "Munich moment" in Syria. That analogy that never made much sense, but that makes even less sense when the person who is making it then insists that he isn't calling for war. I guess Neville Chamberlain's Britain needn't have declared classical war against the Nazis, just "degraded their capacities," like the Japanese did to us at Pearl Harbor, where they didn't put "boots on the ground."


<snip>

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/09/john-kerrys-lie-the-president-is-not-asking-you-to-go-to-war/279362/

I can't say precisely what I think of John Kerry here because someone or more than someone would alert on me, but I can say that NEVER have I regretted a vote more than the vote I cast for him for President.

[DirkGently]

1. If not a lie, it's a horrendous conceit.

The premise that America's military might is such that it can be magically wielded, not as an implement of destruction and death, but as a scalpel or a feather duster or a punishment paddle, has been carefully constructed for decades.

We would accept no such framing of the use of force on the U.S. or its allies, not for a heartbeat.

War is war. There is no half war or punishment war or regime change war.

War is war.

[cali]

3. It is a lie. It may be a horrendous deceit but it's also a flat out lie

[DirkGently]

15. Not deceit. Conceit. Likely both.

Kerry's not the only one selling the idea that Team USA can bomb things and kill people to do all kinds of things other than destroy.

We've holding on to premise since Vietnam and before. What's so gobsmacking is that Vietnam vets like Kerry and McCain would still argue we can destroy the village in order to save the village.

I don't argue that spinning and omission and circuitous talk isn't part of the program.

But the core idea -- that all this excess military capacity we're holding onto can be used not merely for defense, but to shape the entire world to our liking -- is not a new one or exclusive to Kerry, and the nature of the "lie" is a lie to self.

It is a fantasy.

[cali]

16. oops. slip of some kind. wouldn't call it freudian, but definitely a slip

meant to write 'conceit".

I think you make an excellent, thoughtful point, but a lie to self is still a lie, particularly when projected onto the entire world.

[hfojvt]

42. "war is war"

that is just tautological nonsense.

Compare "an act of war" to an actual war.

act of war - assassination of archduke Franz Ferdinand, one dead prince

actual war - World war 1 - Germany, Austria, Turkey vs. France, England, Russia. Germany - 2.4 million dead, France - 1.6 million dead Austira - 1.5 million dead, Russia - 3.3 million dead, Turkey - 2.9 million dead, England - 1 million dead

act of war - Sinking of the Lusitania, 1,195 dead

actual war - 117,000 Americans dead in WWI

act of war - bombing of Pearl Harbor, 2,402 dead

actual war - WWII - 2.6 million Japanese dead, 415,000 Americans dead

An "act of war" may or may not be used as an excuse to goto war - for examples - bombing of the USS Cole, attack on marines in Beruit, hostages taken in Iran

Nope, not all wars are created equal. There's death and destruction and then there is DEATH and DESTRUCTION on a truly massive scale.

Was the Iraq no-fly zone the same as the invasion of Iraq - both being wars or acts of war?

"In the aftermath of Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, Iraq announced it would no longer respect the no-fly zones and resumed its efforts in shooting down Allied aircraft. Saddam Hussein offered a $14,000 reward to anyone who could accomplish this task, but no manned aircraft were ever shot down by Iraq. Air strikes by British and American aircraft against Iraqi claimed anti-aircraft and military targets continued weekly over the next few years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_no-fly_zones

"weekly air strikes" and yet without hundreds of thousands of casualties and millions of refugees.

[DirkGently]

50. The logical fallacy is yours. It is not

argued anywhere that all wars are equal. What is argued, which is indisputable, is that one country launching bombs and missiles at another IS war, in every case, and that there are substantial reasons to oppose that in every case.

It is indisputable the proposal before us is to attack another country militarily.

It is indisputable the proposal is to kill those who have not attacked us.

It is indisputable the U.S. would consider any such upon itself or its allies an act of war.

It is indisputable that past claims of limited war have segued into much larger war.

Your premise that not all wars are worldwide conflagrations is the tautology. So, what -- it's not a military conflict? It's not violence, expense, death? We would treat it as something short of "war" if inflicted on us?

No one thinks that.

[hfojvt]

62. the phrase "war is war" does argue that all wars are equal

"we would treat it as something short of 'war'".

Well, people, especially politicians, will hype many things in order to acheive some purpose.

"war" does not officially happen until war is officially declared.

Sure, if Syria bombed us, the media and politicians would be all about declaring it an act of war and pushing for us to retaliate and demand vengeance and reparation and such. But it is that hyping which would lead to the actual war, not the original act itself. In a more rational world, in a less violent world, the first act could lead to simple negotiations - and if it did, both sides would be better off.

your list of indisputables is indisputably incomplete. I could easily add at the end of them

"but not as much as would be involved in an actual war", but you want to pretend there is no difference. That escalation does not matter. That 100 bombs are the same as 100,000 bombs.

Limited wars have not always segued. Reagan bombed Libya (probably without Congressional approval) - there was no larger war with Libya. Clinton bombed Serbia (and without Congressional authorization). There was no larger war with Serbia.

[DirkGently]

73. Nonsense semantic dodging. Vietnam was never declared.

You want to argue it wasn't a war on the basis that official declarations are the definition of war?

Go ahead. Good luck getting anyone to think that's an honest position.

You can make all the distinctions you want between big wars and little ones, world wars and regional wars.

What you can't successfully do is pretend that silly semantic distinctions render a military attack by one country upon another something other than war.

More importantly, you cannot honestly maintain that the objections to the premise of war don't apply except to where you want them to. The U.S. military attacking a foreign country is something people take universal exception to on common grounds.

We will be killing people in a violent military attack.

We will be putting American lives and interests at risk.

We will subject the country to judgment on the basis that it IS war to conduct a military attack on a sovereign nation.

We will be expending resources and personnel and committing the same to an unknown future, which in past exercises claimed not to be war, such as Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, have proven to not only be "war," but to be large, costly, badly chosen wars.

Your argument boils down to "War is only sometimes war, and we'll let the people conducting violent military attacks define when that is."

Death is death.

Blood is blood.

War IS war.

[tavalon]

75. Almost without exception,

children die in wars. More children than have died in this over 2 year old civil war. Give humanitarian aid, not bombs.

[reusrename]

81. I just want to point out that war is a legal construct.

Sure, there may be all sorts of definitions of the word war, but in this context we are (or should be) talking about a legal construct.

War is the legal killing of human beings. What makes it legal? It's simple; the rules of war are what makes it legal.

If war is supposed to be the legal killing of human beings under a set of rules, then we'd best start enforcing the rules.

The US and the international community each have specific laws on the books about war crimes. We here in the US have a whole bunch of admitted war criminals running around flouting the US War Crimes statutes (18 USC § 2441).

So then the argument becomes: "Shouldn't we punish some of our own guys who have admitted to war crimes before we go punishing people who deny it?"

(Odds are good that these same war criminals are the ones behind the gassing of the Syrians anyhow.)

[Bluenorthwest]

2. He also sat there and told Chris Hayes that both he and Hagel opposed the Iraq War

when in fact they both voted for it and Kerry spoke strongly about the need to depose Saddam because of his WMD being a threat to our security. 21 Democrats actually voted No. So did one Republican and one Independent. Hagel and Kerry both voted Yes, and Kerry now lies about it.

[cali]

4. He's a liar. fuck his lies.

[blkmusclmachine]

41. Kerry was for it before he was against it,

or was he against it before he was for it?

[hfojvt]

58. two different things - in his mind

As he said in the 2004 campaign - his vote for the IWR was a vote to give the President the authority to invade. Yet just because the President has the authority, or Kerry believed the President should have the authority, does NOT mean that he has a green light to invade.

A better question would be, how did Kerry vote on the following two resolutions?

http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/lpnufp/conversations/topics/55

"Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVA) introduced S. Res. 28 "expressing the sense of
the Senate that the United Nations weapons inspectors should be given
sufficient time for a thorough assessment of the level of compliance by the
Government of Iraq with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441
(2002) and that the United States should seek a United Nations Security
Council resolution specifically authorizing the use of force before
initiating any offensive military operations against Iraq." S. Res. 28
currently has six co-sponsors: Senators Bingaman, Boxer, Feinstein, Inouye,
Kennedy, and Sarbanes.

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) introduced S. Res. 32 "expressing the sense of
the Senate with respect to the actions the President should take before any
use of military force against Iraq without the broad support of the
international community." The Kennedy resolution instructs President Bush
to obtain explicit Congressional authorization for waging war on Iraq."

Okay, I see they both died in committee with no vote. I thought there was a Byrd amendment opposing invasion that came much later, but I cannot seem to find it.

[Why Syzygy]

60. omg..

The IWR WAS the 'authorization' for the Iraq war. It was the worm vote. And now someone is trying to worm their way out of supporting the Iraq war in the only way possible at the time, the IWR vote.

[hfojvt]

66. no it was NOT

because the IWR required Bush to get approval from the security council of the UN.

There was some hope at the time that the security council, which included Syria, would say NO.

However, Bush got around that by lying to the security council - told them that their first vote did NOT authorize an invasion without a 2nd vote. Then when BushCo realized the 2nd vote would not pass, they simply opted to not have the 2nd vote and to invade anyway.

Kerry would argue, and I believe HAS argued that the IWR vote gave Bush the muscle to enforce inspections. Which is why he said he did NOT regret his vote.

Yet I would said that it was that kind of hair-splitting that kept him from winning in 2004. That Kerry did not, even looking back from the year 2004, take a strong stand against the invasion.

[Why Syzygy]

68. What I find interesting

is that the community of DU is still not getting it. I find much more enlightened participants at facebook. That is, many of us have stopped lying to ourselves.

[hfojvt]

72. what I find interesting

is when people make sweeping statements about how people with other points of view are either "unenlightened" or "lying to themselves".

[Maven]

63. Yes and it was bullshit then too.

Fact is he succumbed to the same fear and groupthink as every other weak kneed moderate. In the Senate you get a yes vote or a no vote. There's no 'yes but only if' vote. He knew who he was dealing with and how the authorization would be used. Voting yes was a vote in support of the war, all of his nonsensical claims of 'nuance' notwithstanding.

[Little Star]

80. I almost fell off my chair when I hear him tell Chris Hayes that........

I must say that even my children, when they were little, could lie better than John Kerry did to Chris Hayes.

[jsr]

5. He's a flat out liar.

[cali]

6. and a multiple repeat offender.

[reformist2]

7. Kerry is dancing so much like a puppet, I can almost see the strings!

[cali]

9. I don't think anyone is manipulating him

I think this is who he is.

[MNBrewer]

8. I guess Iraq, according to Kerry, wasn't a "classic" war either

Congress never declared war on Iraq.

For that matter, neither was the "war" he was involved in. Congress never declared war on Vietnam.

[karynnj]

22. No Iraq is a war where TROOPS invaded

You can disagree with his wording, but in his explanation the key was committing troops. That was part of Iraq from the get go -- and it is NOT the intent of this action.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

28. It's a lie for Kerry and anyone else to say that war does not start until boots are on the ground:

[grahamhgreen]

37. Great point. Pearl Harbor was just a "surgical strike" from the air...

[MNBrewer]

29. Well, there's THIS

That’s not -- you know, I just don’t consider that going to war in the classic sense of coming to Congress and asking for a declaration of war and training troops and sending people abroad and putting young Americans in harm’s way. That’s not what the president is asking for here.

[karynnj]

32. That;s what he meant about not committing troops on the ground

and training troops and sending people abroad and putting young Americans in harm’s way. That’s not what the president is asking for here.

I can highlight too!


That is exactly what he was saying the difference is.

[MNBrewer]

34. Whether we put troops on the ground is irrelevant

to this discussion IMO. Our attack is illegal, unwise and dangerous.

[karynnj]

35. The question is whether there was a lie

Given that Kerry defined what he meant when he said it was not a war. There is no lie.

You can argue his definition was wrong - and attack that, but- given he explained what he meant - it is hard to argue that it is a war.

[MNBrewer]

36. I guess that depends on what the definition of "is" is and when a "lie" isn't really a lie.

[karynnj]

45. At minimum it has to be giving false information that they know is wrong

From this statement it is clear that Obama (and Kerry) are supporting a limited action that they have defined as excluding US troops on the ground.

A disagreement over whether the word "war" is valid is not the same as conveying information that is not true. It is fine to disagree and ignore many precedents where the word "war" was never used - ie Clinton striking Iraq.

[mazzarro]

47. Well his definition is wrong and you may accept what he meant, I do not

What he and the administration is asking for is still WAR! There can be no dicing of that issue.

[karynnj]

54. Even under your definition, Kerry's response is wrong - but not a lie

The fact is that if the only thing you had was Kerry's full response here, you would know they are asking for and would be able to say that you are against it. Therefore, verbiage aside, there is no false INFORMATION given here.

[Why Syzygy]

65. Everyone

equates "war" with an attack on other people . or drugs, or poverty or or or ... It's a series of actions that are performed with the intent of destroying something that doesn't belong to you. It's a crime on every level, from throwing bricks through a neighbor's window or shooting big explosive things at people and buildings.

So the 'lie', or misleading statement does amount to a false statement, if that is your criteria for the single word, "war". The false information is really the TRUTH .. as in, we are going to go blow up, destroy, perform other war like actions on other people and their physical assets. But we're not calling it a "war", in this case, because then everyone would get up in arms and be opposed to the idea.

What? Do you write legislation for some lobby?


But it is a WAR! It's a godam war on chemical weapons! ... I think he could have gained more ground if he had framed it that way. WAR ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS. Then people would be in favor.

[enlightenment]

46. Making up brand-new definitions

for words is a very modern thing, and very popular with those who don't care for truth smacking them upside the head, but the definition of war does not depend on a declaration - or "boots on the ground".

We will never declare war - we haven't since 1941 and we're not going to start now - so that's out. As for "boots", what do you call the sailors and the airmen who will be involved in this action? Wind-up toys?

At the start of the 19th century, the rifled musket was invented. It took longer to load, but it allowed soldiers to shoot people from much farther away than the standard musket. Technically, this meant that a rifleman was in a safer position than other soldiers, because they could discharge their weapons from a distance that a musket ball couldn't reach.

If you had suggested that they were not engaged in war because they were not eyeball to eyeball with the enemy, they would have spit in your face.

Distance is not a measure of conflict. When an "operator" at Creech AFB, Nevada guides a drone over Yemen and pushes the button to drop a bomb, he or she is involved in a war against an "enemy" in a sovereign nation.

When a sailor pushes the button to launch a Tomahawk missile at Syria, they may be "safe" in the Mediterranean - but they are still at war.

[sibelian]

51. So the London Blitz was an act of WHAT?

Let me know so I can tell my mum.

[cali]

10. waiting for the first bullshit

"you disagreeing with Kerry doesn't make him a liar" craptasic response.

[grahamhgreen]

40. HAHAHA! The very next post!!! ROFL... See below

[NuclearDem]

76. It was uncanny.

[ProSense]

11. "Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a fiery rebuke to...Sen. Rand Paul’s line of questioning"

"Of all JK's lies, this one is the most disturbing: "The President Is Not Asking You To Go To War""

Again, just because you disagree with Kerry, doesn't mean he's telling "lies." He stated his case in context, and you choose to ignore it.

Secretary of State John Kerry delivered a fiery rebuke to Republican Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s line of questioning at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on possible U.S. engagement in Syria Tuesday. Kerry said Americans were not going to be declaring war “in the classic sense,” and that “100% of Americans would say no to such a scenario.

“We don’t want to go to war. We don’t believe we are going to go war in the classic sense of taking american troops and America to war,” Kerry said to Paul. “The president is asking for the authority to do a limited action that will degrade the capacity of a tyrant who has been using chemical weapons to kill his own people. It’s a limited action. It’s limited.”

Kerry continued, abated, by Sen. Paul saying, “if your goal is not to win you shouldn’t be involved.”

“Senator, when people are asked do you want to go to war in Syria? Of course not. Everybody, 100% of Americans will say no, we say no. We don’t want to go to war in Syria either. It is not what we are here to ask. The President it is not asking you to go to war. He is not asking you to declare war. He is not asking you to send one American troop to war,” Kerry said.

Kerry, making the case that action would be limited, said action was needed to degrade Assad’s capacity to use chemical weapons. Arguing again it wasn’t war in the “classic” sense.

“He is simply saying we need to take an action that can degrade the capacity of a man who has been willing to kill his own people by breaking a nearly 100-year-old prohibition, and will we stand up and be counted to say we won’t do that,” Kerry added. “Ya know, I just don’t consider that going to war in the classic sense of coming to congress and asking for a declaration of war and training troops and sending people abroad and putting young americans in harms way. That is not what the president is asking for here.”

- more -

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/john-kerry-we-are-not-going-to-war-in-the-classic-sense

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10023590177

[cali]

12. bwahahahahaha. I thought it would be you

He LIED. That's not an opinion. It's an irrefutable fact.

[ProSense]

18. Bullshit, but then again you think all your opinions are "irrefutable" facts.

LOL!

[cali]

20. yes, yes, pro. pretend that numerous people

aren't calling out that man on his lies. It's only my opinion.



you really are a marvel, pro.

[karynnj]

24. No, He didn't -- you can disagree with his definition of what is meant by war

but Prosense gives the full quote.

Do you dispute that there is a difference between a "limited strike" and a war? Do you have the same problem with Howard Dean supporting a "limited strike"?

Ask yourself if you ever heard Clinton's strike on Iraq -- or his strike on Sudan -- or Reagan's on Libya, called a war. I read as extensively as you do and did in those time periods as well and I never heard them called "war". All of these are closer to what Obama said he wanted to do.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

31. Educate yourself. See post #28.

[grahamhgreen]

43. HAHAHAHA! By your def, Pearl Harbor was a "limited strike":)

[NuclearDem]

69. A "limited strike" is just doing with advanced long-range technology

What a hundred years ago we would have had to do with troops on the ground.

Just because the technology keeps boots off the ground doesn't make it any less of a war.

[Comrade Grumpy]

70. Can we do some "limited strikes" in your neighborhood? It won't be war, I promise.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

30. Too funny.

[grahamhgreen]

49. Pearl Harbor was "limited action that will degrade the capacity" of the USA,

So absurd it's unbelievable to me.

[RetroLounge]

56. Just like Pearl Harbor!

Wargasm!!!!

RL

[gulliver]

13. Acts vs. states of war.

You can have an act of war without being in a state of war. Mystery solved.

[cali]

14. balls you can

that's what's know as a distinction without a difference.

[gulliver]

19. Nope, a state of war is quite different.

The question of whether something is an act of war or simply an act of aggression is one of semantics. A state of war or "being on a war footing" or being "in a war" are vastly different. Most people know the difference and can make the distinction. Knowing the difference and not making the distinction is dishonest.

[cali]

21. even if I cede that point, you can bet your ass that the lying JK

is not calling military strikes on the part of the U.S. an act of war.


It's still a distinction without a difference and he's still a liar. And that isn't the only lie he's spewed of late.

[karynnj]

27. Gracious concession there

You suggest you might concede - and you are wrong, but then restate what you are conceding to call Kerry a liar.

[ctsnowman]

25. For todays doublespeak

It's only war if they attack back. Of course we will call it terror though so that doesn't count.

[karynnj]

26. Did you ever hear the word war used with:

- Clinton's attack on Iraq
- Clinton's attack on Sudan
- Reagan's attack on Libya in the wake of the downing of the Pan Am flight

or internationally

- Israel's atack on the Iraqi nuclear plant
- Israel's attack on Entebbe Uganda to free hostages.

there are things that fall short of war. Secretary of State Kerry served in war and his definition clearly involves an extended commitment of US troops. You can dispute his definition - and say the definition should include all military action, but - given the he defined what he meant when he said it, it is not a lie. Even if the definition is wrong.

[mazzarro]

52. Well if the countries that were attacked had taken the action first

Against the countries that attacked them, I'll bet you that the description of the incidents would have been different - it will be called WAR in each and every case!

Western countries and their MSM have a way of hypocritically claiming the moral high-ground whether merited or not.

[grahamhgreen]

53. Was Pearl Harbor an act of war? Yes or no, please.

[karynnj]

55. An act of war that then led to war between the US and Japan

[sendero]

17. Except..

.. acts of war almost always lead to states of war.

[MNBrewer]

33. We've been in a state of war since 9/11

Global War on Terra

[grahamhgreen]

44. Committing an act of war puts you in a state of war, duh

[fredamae]

23. It isn't a Lie if

you listen to what he Didn't say-he stated: The POTUS is not asking you to go to war"-which is true-he's never uttered those words.
For me: It's what he did Not say: (but he's asking for authorization of actions that may Lead to war-cuz we don't know what's next if he's authorized under current requests)

At least that's what I heard.

[blkmusclmachine]

38. JK, War Hawk

?!

[Countdown_3_2_1]

39. What if the Syrians fire back?

They have Russian made missiles. They could sink an American ship if they wanted.
Result: Boots on the ground, and another war.

You don't go bomb people and expect nothing in return.
Bombing a nation that is not threatening you IS an Act of War.

If the Administration forces an unwanted war on a war-weary nation, just how will that affect the 2014 vote?
--Ignore the will of the people at your own peril.

[truebluegreen]

48. "The President is not asking YOU to go to war..."

Fixed it for ya.

[another_liberal]

57. I am also very dilsappointed, and more than a little worried, however . . .

Having Willard (Mitt) Romney in the White House would be far worse. President Romney would have started a war with Iran in his first one hundred days. By now he would be building new jails just for anti-war protesters and considering a declaration of nation-wide martial law. What he would have done to our social safety net and the evironment is too awful to contemplate.

Yes this President is wrong on attacking Syria, the NSA and etc. But never doubt that a Republican would have been immeasurably worse for our country.

[doc03]

59. Ah John if another country bombed the USA that wouldn't be war? n/t

[polichick]

61. That was a doozy, alright.

[Schema Thing]

64. If someone referenced "Clinton's taking us to war Iraq"....

I think most people would respond with "wait, what? You're thinking of Bush".



So you are saying that Clinton took us to war in Iraq?



That Israel has been at war with Syria for several years?


That Israel went to war with Iraq many years ago?

[Why Syzygy]

67. I wonder if

JK gets as big a thrill contemplating military action as does his predecessor.

[polly7]

74. Well that was nauseating. nt.

[woo me with science]

71. There is no war, and there is no spying,

and 2 + 2 = 5.

Big Brother loves you.

[orpupilofnature57]

77. " We need to keep millionaires happy " would ring better .

[felix_numinous]

78. It is wordplay, we are being played

in order to make us compliant. They need soldiers and for us to remain calm and under control, like children. The only thing missing is the Jedi hand wave.

[Heywood J]

79. John Kerry's world:

Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 — a date which will live in infamy — the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked degraded in capacity by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.

The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.

Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing capacity degrading in the American island of Oahu, the Japanese ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to our Secretary of State a formal reply to a recent American message. And while this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or of armed attack capacity degradation.

It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack capacity degradation was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time, the Japanese government has deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.

The attack capacity degradation yesterday on of the Hawaiian islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. I regret to tell you that very many American lives have been lost. In addition, American ships have been reported torpedoed degraded on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.

Yesterday, the Japanese government also launched an attack a capacity degradation against Malaya.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked degraded the capacity of Hong Kong.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked degraded the capacity of Guam.

Last night, Japanese forces attacked degraded the capacity of the Philippine Islands.

Last night, the Japanese attacked degraded the capacity of Wake Island.

And this morning, the Japanese attacked degraded the capacity of Midway Island.

Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive capacity degradation extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday and today speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our nation.

As commander in chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense. But always will our whole nation remember the character of the onslaught capacity degradation against us.

No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.

I believe that I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost, but will make it very certain that this form of treachery world policing shall never again endanger us.

Hostilities World policing exists. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.

With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph — so help us God.

I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack capacity degradation by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war degraded capacity has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire.