Yeah but the US presidents would say that - they typically have track records of wanton destruction that are rather easy to criticise. It is notable that Roosevelt was part of a generation of global political leadership that bungled their way into first an economic then a literal bloodbath, the magnitude of which the world has not seen before or since. And US policies had a major hand in setting up 50 years of communist ascendance across a big chunk of the globe. I think he might have nuked two cities on the way through too, don't recall if it was him [EDIT].
If those were events I was involved with, I too would be giving powerful speeches about the importance of disregarding critics. The decision makers only handled the situation well if you assume that the catastrophe of the early part of the century was a bit like weather, sort of coming form nowhere in a way no-one could foresee or really influence.
[EDIT] I checked, he set the program up but it was his successor that actually dropped the bombs. If Truman had any sense he'd also be talking about the importance of disregarding critics.
Oh yes, sorry. I was thinking FDR when I wrote the comment - but happily I can leave it unchanged since the same complaint applies to Theodore Roosevelt as well with only some minor tweaks. They weren't as bad as the Europeans, but the quality of the US leadership was not good given what they teed up in the early 20th century.
It is similar to the Bush family, but from an era where the internet wasn't around to let people compare notes. These political dynasties deserve criticism and should listen to it.
There is a lovely synthesis of A and B though - looking at the Wikipedia page for the right Roosevelt, he was involved in the Philippine–American War where they occupied the Philippines in the first place (or pacified, if you prefer, I suppose they'd probably already occupied the place in advance of the war). So if you're complaining about the Japanese conquering the Philippines you'd have to agree that Teddy Roosevelt deserved some criticism for also doing exactly that?
The criticism basically writes itself. These people are very easy to criticise, they were mostly horrible. Just saying, it is easy to see why there are speeches around about how the critics ought be discounted. The track record invites harsh criticism.
The thing with critics is that anyone can be one, it's easy, especially with hindsight.
What is difficult is being in the position of ultimate responsibility over the lives of many people, making a decision and living with it. Everyone thinks they know what is best or what they would do, I don't think so.
Criticism (IMO) should always have a response on what should have been done instead, given the information at the time. Otherwise it's just playing Monday morning quarterback.
Is supporting Philippine control of the Philippines a hard position to argue to? It is really easy to propose better strategies than almost anyone was going with in the early-mid 20th century, it is hard to overstate how badly the leadership of that era got it wrong. The US system did an amazing job of outperforming the Europeans and Asians, but it wasn't because the quality of its people was higher. The US presidents didn't suddenly become incompetent with Trump and Biden - they've consistently been not up to the task and it is just the visibility in the modern era is a lot better.
The only reason the US managed to look good coming out of the 1900s is because they were doing a much better job of limiting the government than the Europeans or Asians. Both of whom had significant authoritarian factions that managed to get embedded in the official power structures and refused to see sense for an embarrassing number of decades. Very much critics-don't-count people, the authoritarians. It is amazing looking back at the trials Europe had to go through to see out the monarchies.
"It is not the critic who counts..." was a great speech and there is a kernel of truth there, but it just so happens that there is a reason it is a US president who gave it. The reason the US does so well is it makes it as hard as possible for the president to do anything because the critics are shooting fish in a barrel when they start making legitimate, accurate and important criticisms of US president that certainly do count. It is a dream of the US presidents that the critics would stop reminding everyone that there are better options that said president should be choosing.
If those were events I was involved with, I too would be giving powerful speeches about the importance of disregarding critics. The decision makers only handled the situation well if you assume that the catastrophe of the early part of the century was a bit like weather, sort of coming form nowhere in a way no-one could foresee or really influence.
[EDIT] I checked, he set the program up but it was his successor that actually dropped the bombs. If Truman had any sense he'd also be talking about the importance of disregarding critics.