Rich Lowry: The Limits of 'Talk'

RCP ^ | May 20th, 2008 | Rich Lowry

[The_Republican]

In their litany of American presidents who met with hostile dictators, supporters of Barack Obama cite John F. Kennedy and his meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna in 1961. They leave out how it went.

The earnest, young American president wanted to forestall any possibility of misunderstanding and to win Khrushchev’s commitment to the international status quo. The blustery, risk-taking Soviet premier wanted to bludgeon Kennedy into making concessions that would further the Soviet goal of global revolution. With such clashing objectives, the two leaders didn’t exactly hit it off.

When Kennedy thought he was being accommodating, Khrushchev thought he was being weak. He pocketed rhetorical concessions by Kennedy and demanded more. Afterward, Kennedy called it “the roughest thing in my life.” Kennedy adviser George Ball later said that Khrushchev had perceived Kennedy as “young and weak,” and Kennedy confidant Gen. Maxwell Taylor thought Khrushchev concluded he could “shove this young man around.” Vienna was the backdrop for Soviet assertion in the Cold War flash points to come.

Not all talking is created equal. Which is why it’s folly for a presidential candidate to make a blanket promise to negotiate personally with adversaries. Asked last year at the YouTube debate if he’d be willing to meet “without precondition, during the first year of your administration ... with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea,” Obama said “yes.” Since then, he’s tried to elevate his ill-considered improvisation into foreign-policy gospel.

So when, in a speech in Israel, President Bush characterized trying to talk adversaries out of their hatreds as appeasement, Obama and his supporters reacted as if he had been skewered to the core. The Obama Doctrine had been attacked! On foreign soil! They countered that the act of talking is, in itself, not appeasement.

[AU72]

I'm reading a book that analyzes summits from Munich to the present. The key is both sides not misunderstanding the fundamental issues of each other.

Barak will get the US creamed coming into any summit with his premises.

[cyberella]

Awesome video:

The same kind of terrorists who support Obama did this:
http://www.frugalsites.net/911/attack/
Never apologize for them.
Never appease them.
Never forget.

[Spok]

Kennedy’s dialog with Kruschev emboldened the Russians to attempt deployment of nuclear missiles in Cuba; not a shining example of diplomacy.

[arthurus]

One side goes into "talks" with "We are all reasonable people, can't we all just get along?"
The other side goes in intending to induce the nice guys side to give away the store. Which side will come out "ahead?" Which side will be harmed? What viewpoint will prevail in the world? How will "Peace" be affected?

[Grampa Dave]

Bush’s Fine Speech, and Obama’s Fine Whine

President Bush Blasts Appeasers: Hussein ObamaMessiaHamas Campaign Goes Ballistic!

Hysterical Whiner, Hussein ObamaMeshiaHamas cries/moans and screams that Bush falsely accuses him of appeasement and whines, “I’m not an appeaser!”

Obama: "I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems, ....I will not weaponize space... I will slow development of future combat systems... I will institute a 'Defense Priorities Board' to ensure the quadrennial defense review is not used ..."

Then, there will be peace in our time without the evil republicans causing war!

My change is good for Muslims, Islamofascists, Black Racists, and Chrislims. $crew the Christians and real Jews!