sometimes his ignorance is rather astounding [rquoter]Obama Needs a History Lesson By Jack Kelly In his victory speech after the North Carolina primary, Sen. Barack Obama said something that is all the more remarkable for how little it has been remarked upon. In defending his stated intent to meet with America's enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said: "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did." That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit. I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender. FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb. Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman's response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops. Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so. When Stalin's designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman's response wasn't to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece, ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea. Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961. Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit. "There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy's measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions," Mr. Abel wrote. "There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America's power. He questioned only the president's readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are 'too liberal to fight.'" That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs," Mr. Reston wrote. "He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed." It's worth noting that Kennedy then was vastly more experienced than Sen. Obama is now. A combat veteran of World War II, Jack Kennedy served 14 years in Congress before becoming president. Sen. Obama has no military and little work experience, and has been in Congress for less than four years. The closest historical analogue to Sen. Obama's expressed desire to meet with no preconditions with anti-American dictators such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to negotiate "peace in our time" with Adolf Hitler. That didn't work out so well. History is an elective few liberals choose to take these days, noted a poster on the Web log "Hot Air." The lack of historical knowledge among journalists is merely appalling. But in a presidential candidate it's dangerous. As Sir Winston Churchill said: "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." [/rquoter]
First, the article basically starts with a deception. The USA was in direct, one-to-one talks with Japan right up until the Japanese broke them off a few days before Pearl Harbor. FDR didn't directly visit Tojo in his home, it is true. But when Obama talks about FDR's diplomacy, he is contrasting it with dubbya's refusal to have any one-to-one talks with Syria, or Iran or similar 'bad people'. FDR did a pretty damn good job of talking to and working with our other enemy, Stalin, and temporarily turning him into a friend of sorts. Dubbya would have just said, "I won't talk to evildoers", and stuck his tongue out at Stalin while the Nazis completed the invasion of the USSR and prepared to finish off our allies at their leisure. This article is just more of the same neocon masturbatory mythologizing of the 'great struggle' of WWII as some mythic, uncompromising battle of absolute good vs. absolute evil. You and the article author should go watch 'Saving Private Ryan' for the 500th time and let the adults talk amongst themselves.
In defending his stated intent to meet with America's enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said: "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did." ____ "breathtaking ignorance of history ... or deceit" -- Jack Kelly ____ What an absolutely terrible bit of writing. Basso there are many legitimate issues regarding Obama -- you couldn't do better than this tripe?
Jack Kelly & basso - don't know much about history. This is the only thing that stands in the way of the United SUPERSTATES of the universe, streching from the US to Mars. If not for cowardly Roosevelt or Truman, who bumbled through WWII........ This is embarrassingly stupid.
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/r7Yd80tXs_4&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/r7Yd80tXs_4&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> OUCH
This is a gem. Truly. You combine racist and psychotic warmonger into two small sentences. Wanna throw in some comments about Jews, homosexuals, and women and try to hit for the cycle?
You'll have to excuse ROXRAN - he is eithar a hardcore Truman supporter, and he is disappointed that democrats of the day have retreated from Truman's foreign policy, which was considered soft and unpatriotic by reactionaries of the day, and from his committed New Deal social interventionist policy - or he's just a challenged goofball.
Actually I think the strategy is wrong to go progressive based, i.e. the platform of Obama...Harold Ford Jr. is more of the type of candidate resembling Truman,...But because you guys associate moderate positioning with weakness, a good thing is left behind...
ROX, Ford lost his election. Had he won, I wouldn't doubt that he'd be in this political mix, one way or another. I've gotta say that referring to Obama as "Hussein" isn't helping your argument. Impeach Bush.
I'm not sure whose positions you are more ignorant of - Ford Jr or Truman. Let's just call it a tie then get you a pretty rabbit to pet!
You are right. I will refrain from the emphasis. I was just annoyed...For all those who haven't followed Ford Jr., this guy is more of a uniter because of his moderated values...Just like Truman, he is known for strong decision making ability...Maybe it's me but I just don't see it with Obama. Obama changed his tune dealing with the Wright situation, and even on his positioning on the lapel pin....I know the reply may be that he has handled himself in manuevering through these through explanation, but the fact remains to me of a lack of sound decision making from the start... and that is important. I know Ford Jr. lost, but man I can't get over his qualities compared to someone as great as Truman,....With Obama, I just don't see it...
Truman's unwillingness to negotiate with a reactionary republican congress and willingness to stake out extreme left-wing positions on the New Deal and civil rights mean that history looks fondly upon him when his contemporaries do not. I only hope after Obama is elected president he can stay true to the progressive agenda, just like Harry Truman. He didn't ditch the New Deal after the Depression or the republicans seized congress - he valued principle over compromise. I hope Obama is the same. If so I will bring you some hossenfeffer.
That is awesome. So only conservatives take history courses now? And history is an elective? Dumb. Churchill didn't say that. Santayana did and it is not even a direct quote at that. Learning is fun.
You think Obama is closely associated to the progressive theme of Truman, but it was a different basis of progressive ideolgy than what is featured today...I will expand on that later...gotta go to a meeting. I may put this in a thread starter to explain why Ford Jr., as more moderate in postioning is closer....
You're right - the New Deal as conceived by Truman was far more comprehensive than anything featured today.
