The Minuteman gets results! OK, really the Rightosphere, but let me savor the moment. We have had some fun mocking Obama's ahistorical notion, offered as justification for his willingness to talk with Iran, that Roosevelt and Truman negotiated with our enemies (Stalin was still our ally against Germany at the time of Tehran and Yalta).
But in a statement reported today, Obama seems to have cracked open the old history books:
It is time to turn the page on eight years of policies that have strengthened Iran and failed to secure America or our ally Israel. Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like Iran and Syria.
Obama invoked Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy during a victory speech following his win in North Carolina - presumably, he calculated that neither the moment nor the audience was right for an invocation of Nixon and Reagan as two of his guiding lights, and how many of his young supporters were likely to spot the error, or care?
Since Obama majored in international relations back in his Columbia days, I will opine that he knew he was blowing smoke with the "Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy" triumvirate, but liked its audience appeal. That's new politics?
Truman had the formulation and beginning of the implementation of the Strategy of Containment, Ike had Covert Operations Diplomacy, JFK had a Bear Any Burden Foreign Policy, Reagan had the Struggle Against the Evil Empire Strategy, and B57O will have his "Sweetie Talk" Diplomacy sessions with Raul Castro, Hamas, et al!
Posted by: Thomas Collins | May 15, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Is it worth pointing out that neither Kennedy nor Reagan ever negotiated with anyone with whom we were at war, and that Nixon did so with North Vietnam only because he perceived the war as one not worth fighting anymore?
Actually, I suppose the answer to my rhetorical question is probably "no."
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 15, 2008 at 01:18 PM
Does this mean that Obama is ready to "negotiate with terrorists and radicals". Reagan, Kennedy and Nixon negotiated with nations.
Is Obama saying that Iran is full of "terrorists and radicals" or is a nation of "terrorists and radicals" ?
Bringing in Reagan is folly on Obama's part. Does this open the door for the return of North and Poindexter ? Is "arms for hostages" acceptable again ?
Posted by: Neo | May 15, 2008 at 01:21 PM
Does Obama have "a cake and a Bible" ready ?
Posted by: Neo | May 15, 2008 at 01:23 PM
Posted by: cathyf | May 15, 2008 at 02:21 PM
I'm prepared to entertain the hope that the Young Messiah has opened up a real can of worms for himself here. I think McCain, for all the many disagreements I have with him, is extremely well-versed on diplomatic and military history, and Obama clearly is not. I sense an opening...
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 15, 2008 at 02:25 PM
Posted by: Neo | May 15, 2008 at 03:02 PM
This hasn't already been posted on another thread has it?
Because I, I --oh hahaha heheeeheeeh hohohhoohooooooooboy -- can't stop laughing.
That thud you just heard was me falling to the floor.
Posted by: hit and run | May 15, 2008 at 03:12 PM
Obama may have hit the history books, but what he really needs is Logic 101. As an antidote to "tough talk and no action," he proposes "tough, principled, and direct diplomacy." Hearing a Democrat complain about no action certainly breaks new ground, and the way Obama talks about direct diplomacy and hammering folks like Canada on NAFTA, you'd almost think we've got a budding unilaterist on our hands.
Unfortunately, according to the NYTimes above, it looks like the secret weapon in Obama's arsenal of American power will apparently be his (auto!)biography:
If Bush was talking about Obama, he was being kind. The man simply makes no sense at all.
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 15, 2008 at 03:17 PM
God, what great fun! This Olbermann guy is truly full of himself, isn't he?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 15, 2008 at 03:18 PM
And Gregory isn't full of himself?
Posted by: clarice | May 15, 2008 at 03:54 PM
Sooner or later one of these bozos - Olberman, Matthews, Gregory, Maddow - are going to truly flip out on air. Wonder if any of them carry concealed?
Posted by: centralcal | May 15, 2008 at 04:34 PM
VIMH interprets the narrative for
NevilleBHO and the NYT.(I suggest rereading the excellent quote furnished by JMH closely prior to digging into Jeff's piece. Spending a few hours with Derrida and Foucalt wouldn't hurt either.)
Posted by: Rick Ballard | May 15, 2008 at 04:45 PM
Look, if Obama was so good at "tough, principled and direct diplomacy" how come Hillary's still in the race?
Seems to me that RW is an easier prospect for mediation than A'jad. A few kind words, a $21mm check and a speaking slot at the convention in prime time and she's out of his hair.
Posted by: LindaK | May 15, 2008 at 05:05 PM
Christ. Bush hands over Iraq to the mullahs, encourages Hamas to participate in the Palestinian elections, and it's Obama with the problem?
Gawd.
Posted by: mkultra | May 15, 2008 at 05:49 PM
"Christ. Bush hands over Iraq to the mullahs, encourages Hamas to participate in the Palestinian elections, and it's Obama with the problem?"
How many taerrorists say they are supporting Bush?
Posted by: Pagar | May 15, 2008 at 06:02 PM
taerrorists = terrorists
Posted by: Pagar | May 15, 2008 at 06:03 PM
Bush hands over Iraq to the mullahs . . .
Well, guess that doesn't really qualify as "clueless about history" . . . just not up on current events.
And yeah, Obamba-the-younger has a problem, and it's just like the man said:
Posted by: Cecil Turner | May 15, 2008 at 06:04 PM
Good point.Linda.
Posted by: clarice | May 15, 2008 at 06:12 PM
Rick-
Spending a few hours with Derrida and Foucalt wouldn't hurt either.
Deferred meaning and power/knowledge...maybe it is a good time for a drink. Stunned that they would elevate the speech to an election year controversy (much like Bush's VFW speech late last year) and mark themselves clearly with the pre-WWII appeassment label.
What is BHO going to campaign on-that HISH isn't designed around an elminationist anti-semitism, and when we negotiated with and ignored it last time millions were murdered. He thinks somehow this time its going to be different, or maybe he is hoping for more.
Posted by: RichatUF | May 15, 2008 at 06:18 PM
Obama is going to convince Iran to stop being the world's major supporter of terrorism by, among other tough diplomatic measures, conceding Iraq to Iran?
Moronic.
Posted by: Terry Gain | May 15, 2008 at 07:08 PM
I don't what the rest of you say behind his back, Rick you are a good man.
Posted by: hit and run | May 15, 2008 at 07:33 PM
'Well, guess that doesn't really qualify as "clueless about history" . . . just not up on current events.'
The new right wing talking point is that Maliki is playing the mullahs. The WSJ floated it a couple of days ago.
THAT qualifies as clueless about history and current events. While Saddam was battling it out with the mullahs in the 80's, Maliki was vacationing in Tehran on Khomeni's nickel.
And isn't it funny that Bush invokes the Nazis a day before new info is revealed about how his Grandad was doing business with the Krauts all the way into '42. Timing really isn't his thing, is it?
Posted by: mkultra | May 15, 2008 at 07:41 PM
I cannot let it stand that Nixon was negogiating surrender in Viet Nam. God, if they only taught history anymore. The truth is that we finally had that war won.
after all those years of LBJ not allowing our planes to bomb an outhouse without his OK Nixon turned the war over to the professional. By the time we were negotiating with the North, we had pulled our ground troops out and the South Viets were pushing the remnants of the NVA back. Then the Democrats in Congress stopped all aid, including the air and naval forces we were required, by treaty to provide. Congress also stopped all materiel so the South Viets had no ammunition, especially artillery shells.
The Democrats started that war, the Republicans won it and then the Democrats jerked victory away. Much like the war we are in. Remember, in 1998 it became official United States policy that we have regime change in Iraq. Poor Bush, he was dumb enough to believe that. And, as usual with Democrats, now that we finally have both AlQ and Sadr on the run, the Democrats are voting to lose, again.
Natually, since the Democrats own the media and the schools it will be another case of the Donks saving the world. But those of us who were there know.
Posted by: Peter | May 15, 2008 at 07:45 PM
While Saddam was battling it out with the mullahs in the 80's, Maliki was vacationing in Tehran on Khomeni's nickel.
It takes a certain flexibility of mind to argue simultaneously that the US is turning over Iraq to Iran, but Obambi would make it all better by pulling out and negotiating. Neither point is terribly persuasive, however.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | May 15, 2008 at 07:57 PM
And isn't it funny that Bush invokes the Nazis a day before new info is revealed about how his Grandad was doing business with the Krauts all the way into '42. Timing really isn't his thing, is it?
Is that more or less relevant than the fact that Obama's daddy was a Muslim?
Posted by: hit and run | May 15, 2008 at 08:17 PM
Posted by: Cecil Turner | May 15, 2008 at 08:21 PM
United States entered World War Two on December 8, 1941,after Germany and Italy declared war.My,that is a long way off 1942.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 15, 2008 at 09:16 PM
Rich,
Clarice has intimated that BHO's intelligence may be somewhat lower than I would expect of someone who had made the Harvard Law Review. I'm beginning to swing around to that assessment, based primarily upon the utter incoherence of his nonscripted statements. It's as if he has a chip running one of these implanted to handle response generation.
I'm sticking with 2/21 as his apogee. The wax melted and the wings have been shedding feathers ever since.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | May 15, 2008 at 09:31 PM
The slander about the Bush family has been disproved for decades but still lives in the lefty netherworld, which seems nevertheless to continue to ignore the irrefutable evidence of Joe Kennedy's footsie playing with the Nazis.
Posted by: clarice | May 15, 2008 at 09:45 PM
That's the astonishing thing, Rick; his apogee was three months ago and still, with the press blowing a favorable wind, he's continues to bury Hillary. I worry; the sick MSM may thrash in its agony and really be fundamentally destructive.
===========================
Posted by: kim | May 15, 2008 at 09:54 PM
Clarice, it's amusing and ironic to listen to today's analogues of Nazi sympathizers sneer at Nazis. Wait'll they stop sneering.
======================
Posted by: kim | May 15, 2008 at 09:56 PM
Rick-
HEH...I remember that link from somewhere else however, maybe over at pw.
Anyway, I'm stunned that the BHO campaign would go into overdrive on a statement of historic fact, which Rumsfeld included in a previous speech as well.
I wonder how loudly BHO is going to complain when Israel bombs the Beruit Airport (crater the runways so planes can't take off or land), when they go back into Gaza to dig out Hamas, and launch operations to dig out Hezbollah missles in Lebanon. One wonders if his brain trust realizes that the situation that Israel is faced with now is a direct result of the type of policy that Obama claims would bring "peace" to the region (hell the US has been the handmaiden for a good deal of it) and what he claims will be our policy in Iraq during his administration.
Israel negotiated in good faith with Arafat for a "comprehensive settlement" and it failed. They just picked up and left southern Lebanon and Gaza-without preconditions-and have been attacked constantly ever since.
BHO thinks just because he is our magical "Other" that he is going to move an eliminationist anti-semitic regime, which loves death more than life, and has been forged by the Basij child murderers during the Iran-Iraq War. BHO really is delusional, no wonder he was so offended by Bush's speech today.
Posted by: RichatUF | May 15, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Rich,
I think he is in a bit of a panic because of the Hamas endorsement and the Pali phone banks. I'm not in charge of meme generation but I believe the next logical step would be to tie high gas prices to the muslim members of OPEC acting on his behalf.
I wonder if we could get an endorsement out of OPEC's Secretary General? As a demonstration of BHO's ability to "bridge the gulf with the Other"? Of course, an endorsement followed by a price cut wouldn't be good news for McCain.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | May 15, 2008 at 11:13 PM
Rick: Derrida, Foucalt, and Communications from Elsewhere -- too perfect! LOLOLOL!
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 15, 2008 at 11:20 PM
Boris, that's not so weird. IIRC OBL virtually endorsed Kerry last time around and stole extensively from Michael Moore.
Rick, why don't we start a 527:Jihadis for Osama..and call voters all around the country at inconvenient times ostensibly from the ME.
Posted by: clarice | May 16, 2008 at 10:01 AM