Brian Williams: U.S. Is ‘The Only Nation to Have Used’ Nuclear Weapons ‘In Anger’

[RoosGirl]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/curtis-houck/2016/05/27/brian-williams-us-only-nation-have-used-nuclear-weapons-anger

MSNBC breaking news host and ex-NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams was allowed out on MSNBC’s airwaves early Friday afternoon to discuss President Obama’s visit to Hiroshima so he could resurrect a taped report that aired in 2005 on the 60th anniversary of the nuclear bomb’s dropping on the Japanese city. 

In the course of discussing the event afterward, though, Williams threw some shade in the direction of the U.S. military and then-President Harry Truman by complaining that “we’re the only nation to have used them in anger” against the horrifying Axis Powers member.

Leading up to that, Mitchell pointed out that the current President has shown an interest in nuclear disarmament since he took office but lamented has made little progress since the most recent conference in D.C. “because Vladimir Putin — the other great nuclear power and the other curb on proliferation after the Cold War was the Soviet Union wasn’t present, was boycotting because of other tensions, tensions over Ukraine.”

NBC News presidential historian Michael Beschloss compared the President’s Hiroshima speech to that of “John Kennedy at the American University — so close to where we are now in 1963 and that was given with the same motive which was that was a time when talks about a test-ban treaty had been installed.”

Asked by Mitchell to comment on the push by then-Senators Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) to curb the use of nuclear material, Williams initially praised them, but then took a swipe at the entire reason that Truman had the bombs dropped (which was to end the war):

It is and that is still the threat that people worry about that this material will fall into the wrong hands. If people have found the U.S. to be preachy in the years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki about the use of weapons, it’s because we’re the only nation to have used them in anger. Sometimes, I am amazed that the world has been without these weapons all the years since, but it is a point of, a great pride by the people who have seen to it. 

Exerpted

[RoosGirl]

Guess all the other times nukes have been used it was a prank? A practical joke?

[rangerrebew]

 Brian Williams: We Used Nuclear Weapons Against Japan ‘in Anger’
Posted By David Rutz On May 27, 2016 @ 4:19 pm In National Security | No Comments

MSNBC’s Brian Williams said the U.S. used nuclear weapons against Japan “in anger” Friday, an expression sure to upset those who recognize the decision potentially saved hundreds of thousands of lives by bringing about a swift end to World War II.

The decision by President Harry Truman to drop the atomic bomb is again under discussion after President Obama’s trip to Hiroshima this week. Obama is the first sitting U.S. president to ever visit the city. In a ceremony alongside Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe Friday, he laid a ceremonial wreath and gave remarks about putting diplomacy before warfare.

While Obama did not apologize for the U.S. using the atomic bomb, he did say “death fell from the sky” in Hiroshima.

In the clip flagged by NewsBusters, fellow MSNBC anchor Andrea Mitchell prefaced Williams’ commentary by praising former Sens. Richard Lugar (R., Ind.) and Sam Nunn (D., Ga.) for the bipartisan nuclear threat initiative they spearheaded, saying “I don’t think they get enough credit for it.”

“That they controlled, through a bipartisan act of Congress, controlled the spread of nuclear materials, non-state actors, materials even in this age of terror, all these decades after the end of the Cold War is just remarkable, and I don’t think they get enough credit for it,” Mitchell said.

“It is, and that is still the threat that people worry about, that this material will fall into the wrong hands,” Williams said. “If people have found the U.S. to be preachy in the years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki about the use of nuclear weapons, it’s because we’re the only nation to have used them in anger. Sometimes, I am amazed that the world has been without these weapons all the years since, but it is a point of great pride by the people who have seen to it.”

Mitchell said the network had “pride” in Williams “for helping us understand the context better.”

According to NewsBusters, Williams’ 60th-anniversary segment on Hiroshima in 2005 included him pressing Enola Gay pilot Dutch Van Kirk on whether he felt remorse over his actions.

While the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed more than an estimated 100,000 people, experts believe an invasion of Japan could have brought about casualties in the millions for the Allies and Japanese. Japan quickly surrendered after the atomic bomb that leveled Nagasaki, officially ending the global conflict.

Truman said he never regretted his decision to order use of the bomb, pointing out it ended the war.

Williams was formerly the anchor of NBC Nightly News before he was found to have fabricated or exaggerated multiple stories he had covered. He was suspended, lost his prestigious anchor job and was demoted to serving as an occasional daytime anchor on NBC’s left-leaning cable affiliate.

Article printed from Washington Free Beacon: http://freebeacon.com

URL to article: http://freebeacon.com/national-security/brian-williams-nuclear-weapons-against-japan-anger/

[rangerrebew]

No Brian, we used them with love in our hearts.  We showed them our love and appreciation for their sneak attack on Pearl Harbor which left thousands dead.  We showed our love for their abuse of POWs in which 37% of American POWS didn't survive while only 1% of those held by Germans and Italians died.  We showed our love for the Bataan Death March, the slaughters in Manchuria, and their use of Korean "comfort girls."  And we used our nukes before they could use the one they were developing to use on us as a token of our love.

[Mod1]

Merged two threads on same topic.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I'm not offended by this, he was saying we used them in war. There are real things to be offended by. Liberals are offended by every little thing, conservatives shouldn't.

[mystery-ak]

I'm not offended by this, he was saying we used them in war. There are real things to be offended by. Liberals are offended by every little thing, conservatives shouldn't.

Not offended, he's just an idiot

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Not offended, he's just an idiot

Well that's a given. He's also an outed liar.

[rangerrebew]

I'm not offended by this, he was saying we used them in war. There are real things to be offended by. Liberals are offended by every little thing, conservatives shouldn't.

It was the phrase "in anger" that I object to.  Used in anger during a war is a very redundant idea for a "professional" journalist like Williams. What was his REAL message since I can't imagine nukes being used to show how much a country is loved, though I can picture the religion of peace using them - in "love and tolerance"?

[mountaineer]

It was the phrase "in anger" that I object to.

"In anger" implies impetuousness. That certainly doesn't describe the decision making process during WWII. Would he use the words "in anger" to describe Muslims flying planes into office buildings, I wonder? Or something more soft and cuddly?

[rangerrebew]

Lurch would appreciate at least "kinder and gentler" destruction.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

It would not be ok with me is conservatives turned to their own version of political correctness, where you get offended at every innocuous little statement, even if said by a moron like Brian Williams. So tired of fake outrage in society, on both sides.

[Oceander]

The US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons, period.  And that use was wholly justified.  Anyone who thinks otherwise can deal with my wife's uncle, who had already made, and barely survived, three beach landings in the Pacific and who was preparing to make a fourth landing on Japan, a landing he almost certainly would not have survived. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The US is the only country to have used nuclear weapons, period.  And that use was wholly justified.  Anyone who thinks otherwise can deal with my wife's uncle, who had already made, and barely survived, three beach landings in the Pacific and who was preparing to make a fourth landing on Japan, a landing he almost certainly would not have survived.

My grandfather was in the Pacific as well, on a destroyer. He passed unfortunately in 2010. He was a great man.

[RoosGirl]

It would not be ok with me is conservatives turned to their own version of political correctness, where you get offended at every innocuous little statement, even if said by a moron like Brian Williams. So tired of fake outrage in society, on both sides.

Or maybe we've had so much fake outrage about insignificant things we have a hard time recognizing when we should be outraged.  The other article related to this regarding 50% of people thinking it was a bad idea to use the bomb on Japan is outrageous to me.  I am embarrassed to be in an age group that the majority believe we should not have used the bomb.

[PoloSec]

Brian Williams would also proclaim he is not an idiot he just plays one on TV!
It is increasingly evident that a vast host of these idiotic news readers are educated far beyond their intelligence.

[Suppressed]

"In anger" implies impetuousness.

No, it does not.

A quick Internet search shows that this age-old expression implies no such thing, and we're being overly sensistive (and surprisingly anti-traditional usage).  For example:

Verb
 
fire in anger
 1.(military) To fire a weapon with the intent of causing damage or harm to an opponent (as opposed to a warning shot or a practice shot). The Napier of Magdala Battery never fired a shot in anger: it never engaged in combat.

Usage notes Despite the use of the word anger, the phrase is not intended to describe the emotional state of the firer.

From https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fire_in_anger

[Oceander]

"In anger" implies impetuousness. That certainly doesn't describe the decision making process during WWII. Would he use the words "in anger" to describe Muslims flying planes into office buildings, I wonder? Or something more soft and cuddly?

I think it was intended to imply that, but the word itself doesn't require that interpretation.  Just another example how words can be abused. 

Anger can be justified, as was the anger of the US in world war 2.  And somebody who is slow to anger is usually given the benefit of good sense and judgment, and the US was certainly slow to anger. 

[bob434]

The puke brian williams most definitely meant used impetuously- he was ridiculing the US just as he always has- He's made his millions here and has always criticized the US- Everyone is fully aware that he using anger as a pejorative to disparage the ocutnry that has made him wealthy

[bob434]

Or maybe we've had so much fake outrage about insignificant things we have a hard time recognizing when we should be outraged.  The other article related to this regarding 50% of people thinking it was a bad idea to use the bomb on Japan is outrageous to me.  I am embarrassed to be in an age group that the majority believe we should not have used the bomb.

Exactly- the left whine about Everything=- outraged over everything- they see a cross in a cemetery and their knees go weak with anger and outrage- they see the 10 commandments in a school somewhere, and they fall all to pieces- they hear the government say anything religious and they begin a feeding frenzy- they hear someone oppose deviant immoral lifestyles, and they go absolutely ballistic- It's actually pretty funny when the left start complaining about something the right finds offensive-

[SZonian]

Hmmm, since Brian appears to be viewing this event through a 21st century lens, I'm sure that if we were invading the homeland of Japan and incurring the massive amounts of military and civilian casualties predicted, the left would have sued for peace without ensuring unconditional surrender.

Much like they've done all the others times.

They used our war dead in Vietnam, Iraq and Afcrapistan as political footballs in order to sway public opinion against achieving final and decisive victory.

I loathe leftists like Brian but I loathe him even more because he's a propaganda officer for them.  He knows that what he's perpetrating are lies and does so enthusiastically.

[mountaineer]

No, it does not.

A quick Internet search shows that this age-old expression implies no such thing, and we're being overly sensistive (and surprisingly anti-traditional usage). 

It's the difference between a definition and an implication. Sometimes the definition of a word means one thing, but  - in the vernacular - the word implies another meaning. That is how I interpreted (inferred, if you will) the remark.

[bob434]

[[I loathe leftists like Brian but I loathe him even more because he's a propaganda officer for them.  He knows that what he's perpetrating are lies and does so enthusiastically.]]

And what is even more loathesome is the fact that he does all this as a way to spit in the face of the country that made him wealthy- so it's doubly loathesome

[bob434]

It's the difference between a definition and an implication. Sometimes the definition of a word means one thing, but  - in the vernacular - the word implies another meaning. That is how I interpreted (inferred, if you will) the remark.

Exactly, well put- like i said in a previous post- everyone knows the kind of person brian williams is and knows full well that he was disparaging this country with that comment- only a liberal looking to insult this country would use the term the way he did when describing what happened- It's not too hard ot read between the lines when it comes to Anti-Americans like brian williams saying crap like that

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Remember when Perot got into trouble with the liberal protected class because he said "you people"? I see this as similar. Much ado about nothing.