Roosevelt talked to Hitler and Tojo?

[radioguy]

Roosevelt talked to Hitler and Tojo?
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.

Link (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/07/video-roosevelt-talked-to-hitler-and-tojo/)

[bairdi]

Roosevelt talked to Hitler and Tojo?
May 7, 2008
by Ed Morrissey


Putting aside the “labeling and name-calling”, leaving a war without winning it is, in fact, surrender. How else would anyone describe it?
Fighting an endless war without defining what winning is amounts to a type of insanity. The mission that was authorized by the joint resolution has been accomplished.

The speech by Obama last night was one of the most eloquent and inspirational speeches that I have heard in quite some time. He certainly has you guys pegged pretty good rg.

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.
I trust the American people to realize that while we don't need big government, we do need a government that stands up for families who are being tricked out of their homes by Wall Street predators; a government that stands up for the middle-class by giving them a tax break; a government that ensures that no American will ever lose their life savings just because their child gets sick. Security and opportunity; compassion and prosperity aren't liberal values or conservative values -- they're American values.
Most of all, I trust the American people's desire to no longer be defined by our differences. Because no matter where I've been in this country --- whether it was the corn fields of Iowa or the textile mills of the Carolinas; the streets of San Antonio or the foothills of Georgia -- I've found that while we may have different stories, we hold common hopes. We may not look the same or come from the same place, but we want to move in the same direction -- towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.
That's why I'm in this race. I love this country too much to see it divided and distracted at this moment in history. I believe in our ability to perfect this union because it's the only reason I'm standing here today. And I know the promise of America because I have lived it.

[radioguy]

Fighting an endless war without defining what winning is amounts to a type of insanity. The mission that was authorized by the joint resolution has been accomplished.

Why is it, you all on the left can't seem to remember what our goals are in Iraq? How come you can't understand that we committed ourselves to remain in Iraq until they have a stable government, and enough trained forces to both police the country, as well as protect the government from outside forces?

Why is it so hard to remember that?

All that aside, I'm curious why it is you didn't address the subject of this thread?

[Independent Harry]

Why is it, you all on the left can't seem to remember what our goals are in Iraq? How come you can't understand that we committed ourselves to remain in Iraq until they have a stable government, and enough trained forces to both police the country, as well as protect the government from outside forces?

Why is it so hard to remember that?

All that aside, I'm curious why it is you didn't address the subject of this thread?

I didn't commit to anytihng in Iraq. In fact, I was against the war from the beggining. So I have no problem with leaving...

[bairdi]

Why is it, you all on the left can't seem to remember what our goals are in Iraq? How come you can't understand that we committed ourselves to remain in Iraq until they have a stable government, and enough trained forces to both police the country, as well as protect the government from outside forces?

Why is it so hard to remember that?

All that aside, I'm curious why it is you didn't address the subject of this thread?
Why is it that those of you on the right can't seem to remember that the use of force was authorize for 2 reasons, one of which never existed and the other, for all extent and purposes, has been met. In other words, the authorization for US troops to be to be in Iraq, even though it was conceived and passed using some very questionable tactics, is over and done.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

As for why I did not address this right wing blogger's rather simplistic and insipid blather is that it is just more of the same old shit that the right has been shoveling for the past 12 years. In the final analysis, Barrack is correct, it is not weakness to talk to your enemies. As an American, I understand what he is saying and agree completely. To say that "Talking with implacable tyrants leads to appeasement, which leads to either war or more implacability of the tyranny in question" is pure hogwash.

[Moby]

Why is it, you all on the left can't seem to remember what our goals are in Iraq? How come you can't understand that we committed ourselves to remain in Iraq until they have a stable government, and enough trained forces to both police the country, as well as protect the government from outside forces?

Why is it so hard to remember that?

All that aside, I'm curious why it is you didn't address the subject of this thread?
Why is it that you can't do the basic math. We committed 65 Billion Dollars and 6 months worth of military conflict.

Aren't we way just a little beyond that now?


So, if you were building bridge and the budget was $100,000 and you committed to building it in 6 weeks then that's a goal. When the project is 10 times past do and your 10 times over budget and there's no end in site, do you consider that a success?

[radioguy]

Why is it that those of you on the right can't seem to remember that the use of force was authorize for 2 reasons, one of which never existed and the other, for all extent and purposes, has been met. In other words, the authorization for US troops to be to be in Iraq, even though it was conceived and passed using some very questionable tactics, is over and done.

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

As for why I did not address this right wing blogger's rather simplistic and insipid blather is that it is just more of the same old shit that the right has been shoveling for the past 12 years. In the final analysis, Barrack is correct, it is not weakness to talk to your enemies. As an American, I understand what he is saying and agree completely. To say that "Talking with implacable tyrants leads to appeasement, which leads to either war or more implacability of the tyranny in question" is pure hogwash.

Very nice Bairdi, but those were the reasons for using force, not the conditions for withdraw.

And you still haven't made any comment on the subject of the thread... Should I take it that you only commented at all to change the subject?