William Katz has had a long and varied career, as an assistant to a U.S. senator; an officer in the CIA; an assistant to Herman Kahn, the nuclear war theorist; an editor at the New York Times Magazine; and a talent coordinator at The Tonight Show. He is the author of ten books, translated into 15 languages. He admits to degrees from the University of Chicago and Columbia. When I asked him if he'd ever written about his various careers, he said that he hadn't but that he would be happy to do so. His reflections on his work for the Tonight Show are here and here. He took a look at the film industry in the posts "Hollywood, hurray for?" and "Hollywood, hurray for? The sequel." His most recent post (on his beginnings as a comedy sketch writer) is here. Today he writes:

Aside from death, taxes, and Al Gore winning Hollywood trophies, there is one other certainty in life – that presidential candidates will quote great American presidents, in the hope that they'll sound like them. They won't, but it's a nice hope.

But be aware: The quotes are often wrong, distorted, and misleading. Quoting presidents is a pastime. Quoting them accurately may be, considering its rarity, some kind of sin. Please think of this as a cautionary guide.

When I was growing up, the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt were in the air, although he'd died years earlier. He was still, to my elders, the president, the central leader of their lives. All school kids knew "a date that will live in infamy." Many knew the Four Freedoms. But there was one line that stood out. John Edwards recently invoked it as a contrast to what he called President Bush's fear mongering. You've probably guessed it. The line is, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," from Roosevelt's first inaugural, delivered in 1933, during the depth of the Depression. You'll be hearing it again in coming months.

But wait. Is that all FDR said? Must've been a very short speech. No, it isn't. And when you look at the rest of the address, you realize how those words have been twisted and misused. For moments after reciting the now-revered line, Roosevelt also said this:

Values have shrunk to fantastic levels; taxes have risen; our ability to pay has fallen; government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income; the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade; the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side; farmers find no markets for their produce; and the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone. More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment.

My, talk about fear! The fact, of course, is that Roosevelt knew that he had to level with the American people, lay out the reality they saw in their own lives. One could strongly argue, from reading that blunt excerpt, that President Bush, far from fear mongering, has not laid out the reality, especially regarding the nature of our enemy. He has been mild, even soft, compared to Roosevelt. Taking the one famous line from FDR's speech - "The only thing we have to fear..." - is a distortion. Adding the rest is a guide to how to present the facts of a national crisis. And presenting the facts bluntly is not fear mongering.

The second presidential speech that gets a regular workout is one I watched live, on January 17, 1961. I was curled up in a living-room chair, gazing at a 20-inch black-and-white CBS television set. (Yes, CBS once made TVs.) President Eisenhower, ending his second term, was delivering his farewell address. It became famous for one line: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex."

For 46 years the left has rhapsodized over that line because Ike had been a five-star general, and here he was warning about the military. He could have qualified for a lifetime membership in MoveOn.org.

Well, sorry to burst the leftist bubble, but that line doesn't quite tell the whole story. Let's put it in full context. This is what Dwight Eisenhower actually said:

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

In other words, Eisenhower was saying that we needed an industrial-military complex - "We recognize the imperative need for this development" - but that it carried with it risks that had to be watched. How radical! In fact, it was actually a fairly standard conservative warning about misplaced power, well stated. And thoughtful generals of the period, including Ridgway and even Douglas MacArthur, often cautioned about military excess. The famous line wasn't quite as unique as we've been led to believe.

I prefer to think that the most urgent thing Eisenhower said was that "we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense." Think of our condition now.

By the way, later in the speech, Eisenhower said this: "Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." There's some wisdom we can use in the debate over global warming. But, oddly, that line is never quoted.

So, I urge you to be careful. When someone quotes a president, go back and read the whole speech. You may find that the president's words have been hijacked, and attached to thoughts the great man never intended.

Presidential speeches are on the internet. It's not too much of a chore, and you'll maintain your political purity.

ADDENDUM: The reader sees that I often use history as the basis for my comments, and admire writers who use history well. With that in mind, may I alert you to a new book, The Iranian Time Bomb, by Michael Ledeen, one of the most important books I've read in years. Ledeen knows more about the Iranian challenge than almost anyone, and he writes about it with economy and precision, basing his arguments on a buildup of documented facts about the Iranian-American relationship, the beliefs of the regime, and conditions inside Iran. This is a book we'll look back on in ten years either with thanks, if Ledeen's advice is followed, or with sadness, if it is not. If you think the Iranian threat is a mirage, or something cooked up by the infidel neo-cons and their Israeli girl friends, The Iranian Time Bomb will set you right.