Morons Are Writing for the Atlantic

Quick...Atlantic editors...Andrew Sullivan is letting morons write on his blog with your endorsement. Why? I don't get it.

It is a discussion about how to evaluate the worst President ever.

Quote, "My feeling is that the Hiroshima bomb was clearly justified and I think Truman was right to use it. But I have always had problems with the Nagasaki bomb, especially since it came so soon after the first bomb. I think a strong case can be made this bomb constituted unnecessary overkill. Therefore, one might reasonably say that Truman killed 74,000 Japanese unnecessarily.

I hate people that say things like this. First off, it's rooted in stupidity. The guy didn't bother to read about why Truman decided to drop the 2nd bomb. The logic was that if we dropped another bomb the Japanese would think we had more, when we in fact, only had two. If we dropped only the Hiroshima bomb, the Japanese might've stuck with their calculation that if they simply never surrendered, we would eventually give up. But this guy "feels" like in hindsight (60+) years later that he might've not done what Truman did even though he doesn't even quite know how Truman came to his decision. And then the jump...to say Truman was responsible for 74,000 unncessary Japanese deaths.

...but what's worse is that history has proved Truman RIGHT. The Japanese surrendered, saving perhaps 1 million American lives by not needing to invade. And yet here we have a writer for the Atlantic seconding guessing a 60 year old decision. WTF?

This is the equivalent of saying, I never agreed with Tommy LaSorda pitch hitting Kirk Gibson in game 1. The man couldn't even run. Maybe they would've still won the game without him.

Sometimes I long for premodern times when it was simple - if you won in war, you got glory and that was all that mattered. None of this revisionist hindsight bullshit.