Canceled.LTroll.29
Banned
As Churchill said, "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Regarding his intention to "dialog" with America's enemies without preconditions, 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."
This statement indicates ignorance of the past, or a studied attempt at deceit.
The enemies Roosevelt supposedly "talked to" were Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Hideki Tojo.
There is no record of FDR ever talking with any of them.
Truman did not chat with the Axis, either. He ended the war with two atomic bombs.
Truman was still president when North Korea invaded South Korea. Truman's response was not a chat with Kim Il Sung. He sent troops.
Perhaps Obama is thinking of the talks FDR and Churchill had with Stalin in Tehran or the Yalta and Potsdam conferences.
Few historians think Yalta and Potsdam, which condemned generations of Eastern Europeans to tyranny, are something we ought to emulate.
Eastern Europeans apparently don't think so either, as evidenced by the wholesale defection of the former Soviet bloc.
When Stalin's plans for world domination became clear to him, Truman ordered the Berlin airlift and set the Marshall Plan into motion.
Obama is on slighty firmer ground regarding Kennedy's willingness to "talk with our enemies".
Kennedy met Nikita Khruschev in 1961.
Elie Abel, wrote a widely-respected history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October). He wrote: "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," 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 judgment was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who was present. Reston wrote: "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs. 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."
If Krushchev disdained a man with Kennedy's resume, what will todays' enemies make of an invitation to chat with Obama, a man with little experience, who has been in Congress less than four years?
Regarding his intention to "dialog" with America's enemies without preconditions, 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."
This statement indicates ignorance of the past, or a studied attempt at deceit.
The enemies Roosevelt supposedly "talked to" were Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Hideki Tojo.
There is no record of FDR ever talking with any of them.
Truman did not chat with the Axis, either. He ended the war with two atomic bombs.
Truman was still president when North Korea invaded South Korea. Truman's response was not a chat with Kim Il Sung. He sent troops.
Perhaps Obama is thinking of the talks FDR and Churchill had with Stalin in Tehran or the Yalta and Potsdam conferences.
Few historians think Yalta and Potsdam, which condemned generations of Eastern Europeans to tyranny, are something we ought to emulate.
Eastern Europeans apparently don't think so either, as evidenced by the wholesale defection of the former Soviet bloc.
When Stalin's plans for world domination became clear to him, Truman ordered the Berlin airlift and set the Marshall Plan into motion.
Obama is on slighty firmer ground regarding Kennedy's willingness to "talk with our enemies".
Kennedy met Nikita Khruschev in 1961.
Elie Abel, wrote a widely-respected history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October). He wrote: "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," 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 judgment was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who was present. Reston wrote: "Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs. 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."
If Krushchev disdained a man with Kennedy's resume, what will todays' enemies make of an invitation to chat with Obama, a man with little experience, who has been in Congress less than four years?
Last edited:
