?

Log in

Do Democrats Want To Drive Me To McCain?

If not, why the hell are you nominating this ignorant fool?  "Ignorant fool" is my charitable take on Obama.

UPDATE: Barry's version of the flag pin:

Comments

I've already commented about the states thing, but could you explain to me the ignorance of his quote at the link above? I am not aware that under Roosevelt or Truman we completely cut off diplomatic relations with any countries the way we currently have with Iran and Cuba. There's a difference between not actively corresponding with certain leaders (at least on a presidential level -- we still engage in diplomacy with North Korea despite the fact that we don't have an embassy there) and BARRING any dialogue entirely. Plus, the blog post in question doesn't discuss Truman at all. Please point me towards information regarding Truman or Roosevelt completely breaking off diplomatic relations with a country that we were not actively engaged in a war with.

Actually, if the author was to complain at all about that quote, it should be about Kennedy, not Truman or Roosevelt. It was during the Kennedy administration that we broke with Cuba, January of '61. However, Kennedy still met with Kruschev later that year. So, yeah, he was still willing to "meet with our enemies." I personally don't think Obama was completely talking out of his ass here.
I've already commented about the states thing,

In case it isn't obvious, I'm throwing in jokes about the 57 states stuff to counterbalance the sadness and anger I feel that this guy is as popular as he is. I don't want the tone of this blog to be unremittingly negative, and having a laugh at Obama's expense is one way I'm trying to make it less negative.

I am not aware that under Roosevelt or Truman we completely cut off diplomatic relations with any countries the way we currently have with Iran and Cuba. There's a difference between not actively corresponding with certain leaders (at least on a presidential level -- we still engage in diplomacy with North Korea despite the fact that we don't have an embassy there) and BARRING any dialogue entirely. Plus, the blog post in question doesn't discuss Truman at all. Please point me towards information regarding Truman or Roosevelt completely breaking off diplomatic relations with a country that we were not actively engaged in a war with.

Of course, we should be at war with Iran, North Korea, and Cuba, and it is only because of Bush's weakness that we have not crushed them yet. Sadly, in the face of such weakness, Obama says we are insufficiently weak and should therefore become even more weak by holding unilateral talks without preconditions with these regimes. The article linked to by Reynolds, which can be found here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/obama_needs_to_study_history_b.html

says:

"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."

The author is saying that Roosevelt and Truman kicked our enemies' asses and didn't engage in dialogue. Perhaps he's wrong--maybe he's making them out to be better (i.e. stronger) presidents than they were.

Actually, if the author was to complain at all about that quote, it should be about Kennedy, not Truman or Roosevelt. It was during the Kennedy administration that we broke with Cuba, January of '61. However, Kennedy still met with Kruschev later that year. So, yeah, he was still willing to "meet with our enemies." I personally don't think Obama was completely talking out of his ass here.

On Kennedy, Kelly says:

"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.
...
"'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."'"

I'm not sure if you read this piece, but Instapundit's first link was to this one, and this is the one I was most interested in.

Again, the Democrats cited may have in fact been the multilateralist dialogue-loving wimps that Obama is suggesting they were. But if that is true and if Obama loved America and wanted to defend it, he'd be repudiating them and advocating that we do the right thing: crush Iran, North Korea, and Cuba as quickly and completely as feasible. That he doesn't--and worse, that he thinks President Bush's weak foreign policy is too bellicose--shows that he would not obliterate Iran upon taking office. If you want to claim FDR, HST, and JFK for the anti-American cause, you can have them--I'm no great fan of any of them. I said I was being charitable when I accused him of ignorance. Perhaps he's not ignorant--perhaps he sees himself following in the footsteps of fellow wimps FDR, HST, and JFK. If so, then he's an evil monster who would have no problem letting this country be overrun by its enemies, and should be kept out of the White House at all costs.
"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."

Well, yeah. That's the point. Obama's not suggesting that if/when Iran bombs Israel we should then sit down for some tea. The point is to engage with them BEFORE such a military action occurs. I mean, obviously we're not going to agree about this strategy, you and I, but you can't really compare a military response to an actively aggressive action (what Truman did) to just a simple statement that it would be better for the president to engage in diplomatic action to avert the such events and the need for military response. And Obama has always made clear that he would be willing to engage in military actions if necessary. (Hence that nutcase at the Madison Obama GOTV session who started shouting "Don't Bomb Iran! Don't Bomb Pakistan! Obama wants to bomb Pakistan!" You read that post of mine, right?)

Anyway, I wasn't disagreeing with you on the actual specifics of Obama's foreign policy -- we already know that we diverge greatly on issues of miltary strategy and it's probably not worth arguing about again. My issue was with the post you immediately linked to and the idea that Obama is ignorant of American political history, which I don't think he is. You think he's ignorant of current political reality, and the need for aggressive militarism. That's not what the Instapundit link or the Tom Maguire piece linked within were really talking about. And if I read my Jonah Goldberg correctly, FDR and Mussolini were on pretty good terms there for a while, despite what John Kelly asserts in the other link. I can't keep track -- was FDR a righteous military leader who refused to talk to his "enemies", or was he a liberal fascist? :)

And joke away about the 57 states thing. It's certainly a gaffe worth laughing at.
Well, yeah. That's the point. Obama's not suggesting that if/when Iran bombs Israel we should then sit down for some tea. The point is to engage with them BEFORE such a military action occurs. I mean, obviously we're not going to agree about this strategy, you and I, but you can't really compare a military response to an actively aggressive action (what Truman did) to just a simple statement that it would be better for the president to engage in diplomatic action to avert the such events and the need for military response. And Obama has always made clear that he would be willing to engage in military actions if necessary. (Hence that nutcase at the Madison Obama GOTV session who started shouting "Don't Bomb Iran! Don't Bomb Pakistan! Obama wants to bomb Pakistan!" You read that post of mine, right?)

Okay.

Anyway, I wasn't disagreeing with you on the actual specifics of Obama's foreign policy -- we already know that we diverge greatly on issues of miltary strategy and it's probably not worth arguing about again. My issue was with the post you immediately linked to and the idea that Obama is ignorant of American political history, which I don't think he is.

Fair enough.

You think he's ignorant of current political reality, and the need for aggressive militarism. That's not what the Instapundit link or the Tom Maguire piece linked within were really talking about.

True. It was the Kelly piece I was focusing on specifically--I linked to Instapundit in order to show where I found the Kelly piece.

And if I read my Jonah Goldberg correctly, FDR and Mussolini were on pretty good terms there for a while, despite what John Kelly asserts in the other link. I can't keep track -- was FDR a righteous military leader who refused to talk to his "enemies", or was he a liberal fascist? :)

I'd call FDR a liberal fascist, but I wouldn't call him a weak leader. Much like his cousin Teddy and Woodrow Wilson, his liberal fascism was quite militaristic.

And joke away about the 57 states thing. It's certainly a gaffe worth laughing at.

:-)

January 2010

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      
Powered by LiveJournal.com