Obama's historical ignorance proves Bush's point

Obama also metioned Reagan meeting with Gorby. At that time the Soviet Union was staggering toward dissolution and Reagan knew it.

Better hope the newly registered Obama youngsters had all this about Kennedy in history class and got an A.

'it didn't hold in the '70s'
Really, Senator Obama? How about the stalled Paris Peace Talks, which stopped to be stalled only after the USAF bombed North Vietnam to hell?

The question is not whether Obama has lied about the history, but rather, what can we do about it? The "mainstream" media definitely will not mentioned that Obama is incorrect about what have happened in 1960s and 1970s. The rest of the Americans will remain ignorant of this. Perhaps we should write to our local newspapers' editors for the opinion page or something.

"The problem with Obama's contention is that it is a lie."

Indeed. Kind of like he was never in the pew when Wright was railing against America? Help me out here, haven't I heard something repeated by libs abut Bush lying? Obama wasn't under sniper fire or anything was he? The two Democrats are almost allowing McCain to look attractive. Almost.

Looks like I stumbled into an echo chamber. Well here's a dissenting opinion:
The U.S. continued to negotiate with the Soviet Union after the Cuban Missile Crisis. As a result of those negotiations, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed in August 1963. In fact, we never stopped negotiating with the Soviets. We can't travel to an alternate universe to determine the outcome had we failed to negotiate. But the outcome that did accrue as a result of negotiations was pretty favorable in my opinion.
Let's contrast that with the results of our current president's attitude toward foreign relations. Freezing out the enemy and fighting preemptive wars have produced some lousy results: Iran continues to pursue its nuclear program, Iraq is a failed state and a training ground for terrorists and is regarded by many historians as the biggest foreign policy mistake in our nations history, Osama bin Laden continues to vacation on the Afghanistan / Pakistan border, and the price of oil has shot through the roof.
I think McCain had better distance himself from Bush as soon as possible because it's a record that he really shouldn't try to run on. While he's at it, he might as well admit that he has previously advocated negotiating with Hamas. You know, I used to admire the guy but I'm afraid the straight-talk express has blown a tire. He's just another politician who will say anything and shift any position in order to get elected.

The reason the missles were in Cuba was because Kennedy was young and inexperiened and that is fact. We can't take chance on Obama

To the dissenter, John Gee:
The cost of oil has nothing to do with the war in Iraq, and everything to do with China and India developing booming capitalistic economies and a middle-class that eagerly seeks their version of the "American Dream". Meanwhile, the cost of gasoline in this country is directly related to the Left's zeal to not only limit, but to totally curtail the development of new oil fields, construction of new refineries, and a total ban on new nuclear power plants. Iran continues to pursue its nuclear program? Who's fault is that? The Western democracies have been negotiating with Iran for years, with absolutely no positive results. When Sec of State Rice met with Iran's rep's, she was rudely snubbed. Iran is hell bent on getting a nuclear weapon, and, unfortunately, nothing short of military force will deter them, so long as Russia, China, and many of our allies continue to sidestep the UN directed sanctions. The only time the Iranian effort in this drive was stalled, was when the U.S. had 160,000 troops, including 2 armored divisions, sitting in southern Iraq [per the less than honest CIA report that indicated Iran had ceased work on their nuclear program]. I wouldn't call Iran a "failed state", at least not yet. They have a democratically elected government, with more elections due in October. Remember, they had an 80% turnout under the threat of death, while here in the U.S. we seldom reach 50%, specially if it rains, is a bit windy, or if there is a police car parked too close to the polling center. Their military just won an unexpected and stunning victory in Basra, and Al Qaeda has, for all practical purposes, been routed. From the ground up, locally, the citizens of Iraq are taking control of their country, despite the best efforts of Al Qaeda, foreign fighters, Iranian terrorists, and the political Left in this country. Of the 17 so-called Benchmarks, only 2 haven't been implemented, and the "big one", oil revenue sharing, is presently being divided per province per capita. With the new elections, there will be a much larger Sunni representation. The so-called Civil War that the Left so proudly trumpeted as a reason to leave, never materialized. No, Iraq is not a failed state. And it is not yet decided if Bush's preemptive doctrine was a mistake; I suppose it will depend on who writes it! As for continued negotiations with the Soviet Union, those negotiations were successful only because of a strong military, and the belief on the Soviet's part that we would use it. One last point, regarding the Left's plan to bring universal health care to the U.S. Europe, Great Britain, and Canada all have a version of it, and all of them have horrible health care, and they are all financially broke because of it.

Does a day go by when this man isn't lying?

Soon as berry finishes campaigning in the 57 states?
Oh not including Alaska or Hawaii.

Look, can we talk? Obama has mentioned 3 or 4 Presidents that he says sat with our enemies and negotiated. FDR didn't meet with the Axis powers. Truman didn't meet with them or the North Koreans or Chinese during the Korean war. Reagan specifically ruled out meeting with the Iranians after the elections on the matter of the American hostages. Neither LBJ, nor Nixon met with the North Vietnamese. Only Nixon's mentor, Kissinger, met with the North Vietnamese. Reagan didn't meet with the Granadians. And on and on.

Now the question is, is Obama lying, or is he just totally ignorant of the actual specifics of history? A second question occurs also. Does any of it matter? Those in the media, in academia, in the entertainment community, in the societal elite, in the various dens of the radical left environs simply do not care, do they? I don't think so. Obama could decree that day was night and night was day, and they would all remark on his brilliance to understand what others could not.

@John Gee:

"In fact, we never stopped negotiating with the Soviets. We can't travel to an alternate universe to determine the outcome had we failed to negotiate. But the outcome that did accrue as a result of negotiations was pretty favorable in my opinion."

John, while I agree with you that McCain would be wise to distance himself from Bush, I would like to offer a comment about the process of negotiation.

First off, I don't think that any serious observers are recommending that negotiation not take place. Throughout the 230 year history of this nation we have consistently relied upon successful international negotiations to settle differences with enemies. You are completely correct in observing that negotiations can and generally do have favourable outcomes.

But there's a progression of stages to each negotiation that are necessary to reach that favourable outcome to which you refer. The two main objections to Obama's position about negotiating with terrorist states are, first that he wants to insert himself in the process long before it is advantageous for him to do so, and second, that he wants to do so without preconditions. These two positions of his are very problematic.

If you watch negotiated processes, from international agreements to labour contracts, you'll undoubtedly notice that the principals generally show up only when the end is in sight, no sooner. They depend on their staffs to slog through the real work of negotiation, and then both sides show up for the photo op. Any number of international negotiations have followed this pattern. The reason for this is that no credible leader is willing to stake his/her reputation and standing on the most perilous part of the negotiation process. This is the part of the talks in which lots of trial solutions and proposals are thrown around and the people who are throwing them around have no absolute certainty that they can "sell" any particular idea back home. This is the time that negotiations are susceptible to failure. No credible leader wishes to take ownership of an idea that isn't going to sell at home - instant disapproval will result. Furthermore, if the talks subsequently fail, that failure will stick to them like the stench of week-old corpse in the summertime. In the vast majority of cases, leaders, want to insert themselves into the process when there has been substantial agreement between the sides, and the leaders can come in for the dog and pony show of "resolving" the negotiations and then use that success for their own political ends back at home, and with other potential parties with whom they need to negotiate.

The second point about preconditions is just as important. In the process of negotiation, the face-to-face meeting is a carrot used to entice the other party to make preliminary changes to their behaviour or policies. Taking preconditions for a face-to-face meeting off the table, which Obama has done several times, means that he has stripped himself of the leverage that his appearance at a negotiation might otherwise have had. Those preconditions have been a powerful tool of international diplomacy for a long time. A common scenario is that a cease fire during a shooting war is a precondition for peace negotiations. With Hamas, for example, stopping the missile attacks on Israel is a reasonable precondition to a face-to-face meeting. That way, our President doesn't come away completely empty-handed. Meeting with them without some preconditions is a recipe for embarrassment, both personal and political. With Iran, for example, we would be wise to demand that Iran withdraw their support of Iraqi militants and cease their arms shipments to Iraqi militants before we get cozy with Mahmoud Amadinejad. He has weaknesses at home - he's been criticised by the most senior mullahs for some of his beliefs and actions, and he's tremendously unpopular with the people of Iran. If Obama, or anyone else isn't going to capitalise on that weakness, he'll never give an inch. That's where preconditions are useful and necessary.

Note that I'm not defending Bush or McCain in stating this. Personally, I think they're both seriously flawed politicians. But so too, do I think that Obama is a seriously flawed politician, especially with respect to the process of negotiated international agreements. His comments expose the lie that his contention that he's "more prepared" to negotiate than either Clinton or McCain. His comments prove that he hasn't a clue about effective negotiations on the international scale. He lacks the credibility of experience that most serious observers would expect of a US President.

What is sobering is if he were to be elected President he very possibly could be the most dangerous man in history. Nobody seems to know who he is.

Dear Mr. Dodd: bravo... I couldn't have said it any better.

And is it me, or does it appear that every time Senator Obama thinks someone is criticizing him, he has to stamp his little feet and lash out. Great, just who we need as President: Not only an inexperienced Senator, but an immature one who lies to boot. I really don't relish the thought of a 5 year old representing me as a United States citizen.

A few years ago my son turned me on to a band called Five Iron Frenzy who are now no longer together. They have a song called My evil plan to save the World. Now I never thought much about it until I heard some of BHO's rhetoric in his speeches. Here are the lyrics and to the moderator: If I am breaking any copyright laws by posting this please don't put this up.
I have an evil plan
to save the world for every man,
and I think it's better than the way it's being run.
Oh, the ground works laid,
no don't be afraid,
I'm sure that I can fix it,
when I figure out the physics.

>
My evil plan to save the world,
just you wait 'till it's unfurled,
it'll go down in history.
It's prophetic, no it's not pathetic.
I can't believe I made it up myself.

I have an evil plan, to save the world you understand,
the exemplary feat,
you'd think I'd have to cheat.
I'd make Voltaire proud, deep and furrow browed.
Uncanny and so clever,
it's 'Our Newest Plan Ever!'

Got tired of whining,
a grander scheme with silver lining,
for every boy and girl.
We can't be responsible,
for all that's wrong with this world.
Starving children in pain,
you can't believe in that God.
The world's not spinning your way,
does every dog still get his day?

Scary isn't it.

A few years ago my son turned me on to a band called Five Iron Frenzy who are now no longer together. They have a song called My evil plan to save the World. Now I never thought much about it until I heard some of BHO's rhetoric in his speeches. Here are the lyrics and to the moderator: If I am breaking any copyright laws by posting this please don't put this up.
I have an evil plan
to save the world for every man,
and I think it's better than the way it's being run.
Oh, the ground works laid,
no don't be afraid,
I'm sure that I can fix it,
when I figure out the physics.

>
My evil plan to save the world,
just you wait 'till it's unfurled,
it'll go down in history.
It's prophetic, no it's not pathetic.
I can't believe I made it up myself.

I have an evil plan, to save the world you understand,
the exemplary feat,
you'd think I'd have to cheat.
I'd make Voltaire proud, deep and furrow browed.
Uncanny and so clever,
it's 'Our Newest Plan Ever!'

Got tired of whining,
a grander scheme with silver lining,
for every boy and girl.
We can't be responsible,
for all that's wrong with this world.
Starving children in pain,
you can't believe in that God.
The world's not spinning your way,
does every dog still get his day?

Scary isn't it.

To dissenter John Gee - No one has said we should not negotiate. As you correctly point out we continued to negotiate with the Soviets, we have negotiated with North Korea, we have been negotiating with Iran. The point is that these negotiations are at various levels, some time through intermediaries, and always with the aim to gain leverage. At the same time, like with the Soviets - you sometimes have to show strength - like placing the Pershing Missiles in Europe, funding the Afghanis, launching SDI and launching the largest modernization of our military. Using the bully pulpit to put the world on notice how evil they were.

But sitting down president to president, without preconditions with these guys is what people have heartburn over.

Obama said the other day that Roosevelt did it (no, he clearly did not), Kennedy did it (and many historians point out that this inexperience president, after having botched the Bay of Pigs, looked like easy pickings & probably was one of the main reasons Kruschev decided to go ahead with putting missiles in Europe); and that Reagan did it (not without all of the prep work noted above).

John McGee (the dissenter):

The whole point of the article is not lower-level negotiation, it is the POTUS meeting face-to-face with leaders of our enemies. Lower-level negotiation goes on all the time, but having the POTUS meet with foreign enemies in an unconditional way is off limits because of the credibility it lends them. Read more carefully.

'The reason the missles were in Cuba was because Kennedy was young and inexperiened and that is fact. We can't take chance on Obama'
Before he was elected President, Kennedy has served in the Congress for 14 years (as with his rival Nixon). Before elected to the Congress, he has served with the USN for 4 years. Have you ever served in the Congress or with the US military, Po? Please tell us.

'The Western democracies have been negotiating with Iran for years, with absolutely no positive results.'

Yeah, and with North Korea too - and again, negotiations have proven themselves to be fruitless.

It should be noted that the U.S. had formal diplomatic relations with the USSR. Since we recognized the government, including a functioning Embassy, a meeting between the U.S. and the Soviets,or even of Germany circa 1937, would not be analogous to meeting with Hamas, Hezbollah, or even Iran, Cuba or North Korea. Senator Obama, as well as other Democrats seem ignorant of this "nuance".

Maybe GWBush was just referring to Billy Ayers?...

An effective and time proven strategem for conflict: While negotiating with the enemy, continue to press hard your military advantage. What advantage are we pushing? You can bet Iran will continue to pour weapons and insurgents into Iraq while continuing to pursue nuclear technology. Obama, you talk a lot about the carrot, but where is your stick?

In David Baldacci's new book, The Whole Truth, he quotes an annonymous source as saying: "Why waste time discovering the truth when you can so easily create it?" It is obvious Senator Obama is an adherent of revisionist history.

"Obama, you talk a lot about the carrot, but where is your stick?"

Don't be fooled. His stick is his all powerful, much feared, faster than a speeding terrorist, able to leap the tallest mullah in a single word diplo-fu, or is it diplo-fuul? Hmmmm.

I would ask O and his backers just how good can make a deal with bad and win... give them an inch and they will end up with a mile!

I would ask O and his backers just how good can make a deal with bad and win... give them an inch and they will end up with a mile!

It should surprise no one that it was Ronal Reagan that demonstrated that negotiations are useless, unless you have the courage to say no, and you show your opponent that you have the will to fight.

Sen. Obama should (but probably won't) learn the lessons from the 1986 Reykjavik summit. When Reagan refused to concede to Gorbachev's condition that the United States abandon SDI.

Reagan prevailed, the Cold War was won.

Obama may think he can solve any problem by just talking, this shows that he is either naïve beyond belief or that he lacks the fortitude of will that is required from a commander in chief. Either way, terrorists would win.

"Reeling from his inference of an accusation of being an appeaser to terrorists, Barack Obama..."
The one making the inference was George W. Bush. Bush was infering that some American politicians want to negotiate with terrorists based on Barack's statement that American should hold dialogues with our enemies. The inference doesn't belong to Barack. Then why the posessive "his?"

Barack did not even insinuate that meeting with adversaries is always successful in keeping the peace. What he said was that traditionally America has engaged its opponents in open dialogue. In fact the meeting between Kennedy and Krushchev lead to a greater buildup of American forces in Berlin, and a bigger wall. However, the wall may have kept the peace.

Jake,

I coulda sworn Bush was telling the Israelis (in their Parliament no less) that appeasing terrorists was a bad idea. Where did Obama get the idea Bush was talking to him? Guilty conscience?

"Appeasers" who have caught hell from the far right:

John F. Kennedy for promising not to invade Cuba if missiles were withdrawn by Russia

Dwight D. Eisenhower for inviting Khrushchev to the United States

Ronald Reagan for reaching arms control agreement with Gorbachev

Obama for even suggeting talking with our foes

"Appeasers" who have not caught hell from the far right:

George W. Bush for talking and negotiating with Libya, North Korea and Iran

Jake! You liberal scum. You should already KNOW that Bush is a christian and therefore always right!