Posted on 05/09/2008 9:34:22 AM PDT by Starman417
In this earlier thread I commented on the incredible ignorant statement by Obama that FDR and Truman talked to our enemies:
The other side can label and name-call all they want, but I trust the American people to recognize that it’s not surrender to end the war in Iraq so that we can rebuild our military and go after al Qaeda’s leaders. I trust the American people to understand that it’s not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but our enemies – like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.
Its a breathtaking quote and one that should not be glossed over. Not only is he completely wrong on his history (maybe the result of 20+ years of lessons from Rev. Wright), he is basically telling us what his policy will be once gaining the White House. To sit down and discuss our differences with our enemies. Let me see. With Iran we've talked to them, cajoled them, placed many carrots in front of them, and begged them....results left much to be desired.
Iran is one enemy, al-Qaeda is another. Talking to AQ is akin to madness and treason.
But there it is, in black and white, the evidence that this man would sit down with those who deserve no sit-downs.
As far as the history goes Jack Kelly slaps the messiah down a bit:
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at Flopping Aces ...
he is going to give us even better ammo than Kerry did in 2004. Hopefully 51% of the people are smart enough to see what a fruitloop Obama is.
Obama’s ignorance and naivete really are staggering. And yet the Dems just continue to move in his direction. Amazing.
I think re Roosevelt that Obama probably meant Yalta - a clear loss for the West.
And yes, if this is what he meant then Obama has no more than a superficial relationship with history.
The Obamas, Baraq and Michelle, got their diplomas through affirmative action. Now they believe they did it on their own. (Some deserving kid with high SAT’s didn’t get into Princeton to make room for Michelle with her low SAT’s.)
Yes, Lucifer has created a golden tongued closet Muslim in his own image. It will take an army of us Republicans to prevent him from the oval office and out of control of “THE SUPREME COURT JUDGE APPOINTMENTS”
Ask Obama, who was Neville Chamberlain. He probably has no idea who he was. Maybe, a great basketball player.
Quote from Barack Obama’s book, Dreams Of My Father:
“THE PERSON WHO MADE ME PROUDEST OF ALL, THOUGH, WAS MY [half brother], ROY..HE CONVERTED TO ISLAM”.
From ‘Dreams of my Father’, “IN INDONESIA, I SPEND TWO YEARS AT A MUSLIM SCHOOL” “..I STUDIED THE KORAN..”
From ‘Audacity of Hope: “LOLO (Obama’s step father) FOLLOWED ISLAM....”I LOOKED TO LOLO FOR GUIDANCE”.
From ‘The Audacity Of Hope, “I WILL STAND WITH THE MUSLIMS SHOULD THE POLITICAL WINDS OF WAR SHIFT IN AN UGLY DIRECTION..”
From The Audacity Of Hope, “WE ARE NO LONGER JUST A CHRISTIAN NATION, we are also a Jewish nation, a MUSLIM NATION, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”
HATRED OF WHITES:
From Dreams of My Father, “ I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER’S RACE”. Barack Hussein Obama
From ‘Dreams of my Father’, “The emotion between the races could never be pure, even love was tarnished by the desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, the other race (WHITE) would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart.” Barack Hussein Obama
From Dreams Of My Father: “That hate hadn’t gone away,” he wrote, BLAMING “WHITE PEOPLE — some CRUEL, some IGNORANT, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives.” Barack Hussein Obama
From ‘Dreams Of My Father’, “There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs,” he wrote. “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on,to show your LOYALTY TO THE BLACK MASSES, TO STRIKE OUT and name names” Barack Hussein Obama
THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!
A WHITE CANDIDATE WOULD HAVE BEEN CRUCIFIED FOR MAKING SUCH STATEMENTS!!!
.
.
http://www.examiner.com/a-536474~_Trapped_between_two_worlds_.html?cid=dc-article-obama
COMMONS VOTES ROME PACT; CHAMBERLAIN EXTOLS DUCE AS HITLER STARTS FOR ITALY (Real Time + 70 Years)
***************************EXCERPT INTRO*****************************
The British House of Commons delivered a salute to Premier Mussolini as Chancellor Hitler was on his way to Rome, ratifying the Anglo-Italian treaty, 316 to 108. Praise of Italian good faith by Prime Minister Chamberlain brought furious attacks from Labor and Liberal leaders. Revelation was made that Italy had agreed to cease agitation in Palestine.
Hitler left Berlin for Rome after a great popular demonstration. The press and semi-official sources emphasized that his visit would deepen the ties between the two nations and that there would be a vigorous reaffirmation of the Rome-Berlin axis.
All stations in Italy through which Hitler will pass were decorated and the populations were bidden to cheer him. A fairy scene of splendor was ready in Rome. Extensive precautions were taken in the capital to safeguard the visitors.
Foreign Secretary Halifax of Britain told the Czechoslovak Minister his country must make more concessions to the Germanic population.
Neville Chamberlain, without the umbrella
******************************EXCERPT*************************
posted at 10:00 am on May 9, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
After the win in North Carolina, Barack Obama fulminated about what the victory meant for America. On foreign policy, Obama said, it was a recognition that the US should talk to its enemies, in the same manner as FDR, Truman, and Kennedy did. At the time, I noted the strange claim and its complete ignorance of history, and today, Jack Kelly continues the history lesson for a constitutional scholar who clearly skipped 20th-century history:
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.**********************************snip**************************
Given the importance that Obama places on this approach to foreign policy — he seldom fails to mention it as an example of the “change” he’ll bring to Washington — one wonders why the media hasn’t pressed him on this rationalization. Obama isn’t merely saying that he’ll reinstitute diplomatic relations with Iran, which would emulate our relations with the Nazis and the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor. Obama wants to have meetings without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has publicly spoken of his desire to annihilate a key ally of the US, as well as Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and any number of thugs and tyrants. When did FDR, Truman, and Kennedy do that? Answer: never.
As I pointed out on Wednesday, even diplomatic contact didn’t help FDR with Japan and Germany. The Japanese used diplomatic negotiations as a stalling maneuver to get its Imperial Navy in place to destroy our Pacific Fleet in 1941. Our diplomatic relations with the Nazis only encouraged America Firsters and Nazi sympathizers like Charles Lindbergh to claim that Hitler had no animus towards the West and that he could be a bulwark against Bolshevism.
Maybe Obama could ask the Czechs how well unconditional talks worked for them during Munich. Neville Chamberlain insisted on holding peace talks to avoid war in Czechoslovakia, which could have defended itself as long as it held the fortifications in the Sudetenland long enough for Britain and France to beat Germany from the rear. Instead, Chamberlain carved up Czechoslovakia without its permission, and six months afterward, Hitler swallowed the rest of it whole. FDR, meanwhile, remained steadfastly neutral diplomatically until 1939, when he began clandestine support for the UK.
Negotiations with tyrants almost always leads to appeasement, which only postpones war until the tyrant is strong enough to wage it most effectively. It results in many more deaths and far more destruction because it gives the initiative and the timing to the tyrants, while building their credibility at home. William Shirer noted that the Germans were astounded when Hitler repeatedly bluffed the West during the years from 1935 to 1939, figuring each bluff would be called and Hitler destroyed as a political force. By the time he rolled into Poland unopposed except by the outmatched Poles, who expected actual military assistance from Britain and France, Germans would follow Hitler anywhere, convinced of his invincibility.
That’s what Obama’s “new approach” to foreign policy promises. It’s Neville Chamberlain without the umbrella. It certainly isn’t FDR or Truman.
Jimmy Carter, born a generation too late.
Video: Roosevelt talked to Hitler and Tojo?
******************************EXCERPT***********************
posted at 1:10 pm on May 7, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
During Barack Obama’s victory speech in North Carolina last night, he offered an argument about his much-criticized assertion that he would hold talks with America’s enemies without preconditions. Obama claimed that he would only be following in the footsteps of FDR and Harry Truman with this kind of openness. For a history buff such as myself, this sounds more than a little puzzling:
The other side can label and name-call all they want, but I trust the American people to recognize that it is not surrender to end the war in Iraq so that we can rebuild our military and go after Al Qaida’s leaders.
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.
Putting aside the “labeling and name-calling”, leaving a war without winning it is, in fact, surrender. How else would anyone describe it? “Quitting” and “running away” come to mind, but both are synonymous with surrender. Leaving when the new strategy has made great progress in bolstering the elected government in Iraq is especially egregious, but in any case retreating while engaged with the enemy is surrender by any definition of the term.
I’m particularly bemused by the references to FDR and Truman. Both men ended up having to conduct massive wars that outlasted their presidencies, and in FDR’s case in no small measure because Western nations insisted on talk rather than action. While we maintained diplomatic contact with Germany and Japan until Pearl Harbor, FDR did not meet with Hitler and Tojo. And that diplomatic contact didn’t stop war from coming; indeed, it make it much worse than it otherwise would have been, at least in Europe, had the US, UK, and France had taken the appropriate steps to disarm Hitler when he started his Versailles Treaty violations.
Truman met with Joseph Stalin during and after World War II, but that didn’t stop the Soviets from blockading West Berlin or ringing down an iron curtain across eastern Europe, enslaving those nations for almost 50 years. If Potsdam and Yalta are Obama’s idea of successful foreign policy, then he obviously hasn’t studied 20th century history. Talking with implacable tyrants leads to appeasement, which leads to either war or more implacability of the tyranny in question.
We need to have a thread every day pounding on this incredible statement from Obama...otherwise more than 51 % of the Americans...will fail to see the connection...
********************************
**************************EXCERPTS********************
The physical structure of the cold war was put into place at the end of World War II. Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin agreed in Febrary of 1945 at Yalta to divide Germany into four occupation zones. It was agreed that the Soviet Union would have the greatest influence in eastern Europe, where Soviet troops were concentrated. They already occupied Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and parts of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, and it would have been difficult to come to an agreement which involved removing these troops. Roosevelt agreed because he had little choice. Finally, it was agreed that independent governments would be established in these lands, and that elections would be free, but the governments would be "friendly to the Soviet Union." This is the beginning of what Winston Churchill would later call the "Iron Curtain" which divided Europe for 45 years.
Someone ought to read Sen Obama a bit of FDR’s 9/11/41 radio address:
*********************************
“When You See a Rattlesnake Poised to Strike, You Do Not Wait Until He Has Struck Before You Crush Him”
-President Franklin Delano Roosevelt Fireside Chat to the Nation, September 11, 1941
http://www.usmm.org/fdr/rattlesnake.html
It was an authorization for the use of force against Hitler months before Pearl Harbor (let’s ignore the pre-Pearl Harbor formation of the Flying Tigers or American squadrons fighting the battle of Britain for the moment).
Oh yeah, FDR was all about talking to enemies
NOT
scottm on May 7, 2008 at 6:13 PM
TERRIFIC Litte Article
1. Cuban Missle Crisis Khruschev assessed Kennedy as
weak at their Summit. In reality he WASN’T , but
perception led to it.
2. Reality Obama IS WEAK, trust the Russians, Red
China etc. would test him 100% guarantee
1st 100 days (IF?)which could lead to Nuclear
conflict???
Mason Dixon
Yet there are some amongst us at this site and other conservative oriented sites that would propose to allow for this SOB or the Hildabeast to become CIC. Where the hell are their brains at.
Thanks Ernest_at_the_Beach. I’m still looking for states 51 through 57...
Obama’s Alinsky jujitsu
BrookesNews.Com | Monday 14 January 2008 | Kyle-Anne Shiver
Posted on 05/09/2008 2:03:11 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2013753/posts
THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT...An Analysis of the Alinsky Model
[billionth posting on FR?]
GOPublius | May 2, 1969 | Hillary D. Rodham
Posted on 04/30/2008 5:17:09 PM PDT by Eye On The Left
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2009432/posts
Commons Votes Rome Pact;
Chamberlain Extols Duce As Hitler Starts For Italy (Real Time + 70 Years)
Microfiche-New York Times archives | 5/3/38 | Ferdinand Kuhn Jr.
Posted on 05/03/2008 6:15:27 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2010657/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.