Outraged Democrats are on the attack (http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0508/Pelosi_strongly_condemns_Bush_speech.html) over Bush's speech to the Knesset in which he said this:


Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

The Obama campaign issued a statement in which he said, "It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack

"George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicisation of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally, Israel."

I guess that isn't a problem since Obama "reframed" his position (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29896_Obama_Changes_His_Unconditional_Position).

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino responded:


"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case."

I think Bush and Perino were both right. And you?

I say if the shoe fits wear it .

He can reframe it all he wants to . His initial instinct was to say he would engage in unconditional dialogue at the Presidential level with any rogue and thug jackbooted dictator .

He can reframe it all he wants to . His initial instinct was to say he would engage in unconditional dialogue at the Presidential level with any rogue and thug jackbooted dictator .

Didn't I remember something about an Obama advisor "with tire tracks on his back" over meeting with Hamas? I guess everyone has also already forgotten about that idiot Jimmy Carter and his visit with Hamas last month and Pelosi's Syrian adventure. Seems like the left is already knee deep in their "foolish delusion" of negotiating with terrorists.

Hello:

I don't know when diplomacy became a dirty word... I don't know why you guy's think we shouldn't talk to our enemy. I mean talkings good, no?? I mean, how're you going to find out what it's going to take to make peace??

Oh, I understand your thinking... We'll just blow them the hell up and then we'll NEVER have to talk to them...

But, Mr. Righty, it ain't working. We DON'T seem to be able to blow them the hell up - even with the billions George spent...

So, we can't blow 'em up, and we ain't going to talk... That doesn't sound very smart. Actually, it makes NO sense at all. That's right - NONE.

I'm a believer in what Ariel Sharon said. "Talk to them like you're not fighting them. Fight them like you're not talking to them".

excon

Please tell me a case where a President had unconditional meetings with enemies. I can't recall one instance when Roosevelt had a sit down meeting with Hitler or Hideki Tojo .As far as negotiating with terrorists ;which was the basis of Bush's comments despite Obama's paranoia, negotiating with terrorists and their enablers only confirms their sense of the effectiveness of terrorism... Grovelling in Damascus in a burka like Madam Mimi did is not effective diplomacy.

Regarding Ariel Sharon :
Ironically it may have been Sharon who in fact inspired Bush's comments to the Knesset.

After the 9-11 attacks Sharon advised President Bush Not to appease the Arabs at Israel's expense.
Sharon Invokes Munich in Warning U.S. on 'Appeasement' - New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C01E2D6163CF936A35753C1A9679C8B 63)

''Don't repeat the terrible mistakes of 1938, when the enlightened democracies in Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a comfortable, temporary solution. [Israel] will not be Czechoslovakia.''

In the speech to the Knesset Bush made it a point to praise Sharon ;and using the reminder during his speech was more a tribute to Sharon rather than a admonishment of the increasingly paranoid Obama. It is Obama who has in fact politicized the President's speech.

Ex,

You guys make it sound so noble, "I dunno when diplomacy became a dirty word.... I dunno why you guy's think we shouldn't talk to our enemy." Diplomacy implies relations, it doesn't work when it's one sided, and the people (which may be a stretch) Bush is referring to aren't interested in relations - they've proven it over and over again.

People that strap bombs on and blow themselves up in a market full of innocent shoppers, at a hotel full of Jewish vacationers, strap explosives on young girls or someone's handicapped son aren't interested in relations. When they decide to join the civilized world perhaps a dialogue can be opened that may lead to "relations," but Bush is absolutely right - appeasement benefits the enemy and weakens us. As Aesop said, "we often give our enemies the means of our own destruction."

In his latest column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503577.html) Charles Krauthammer wrote it in a way you should understand:


You rarely hear about Israel's terrible suffering in that 1948-49 war. You hear only the Palestinian side. Today, in the same vein, you hear that Israeli settlements and checkpoints and occupation are the continuing root causes of terrorism and instability in the region.

But in 1948, there were no "occupied territories." Nor in 1967 when Egypt, Syria and Jordan joined together in a second war of annihilation against Israel.

Look at Gaza today. No Israeli occupation, no settlements, not a single Jew left. The Palestinian response? Unremitting rocket fire killing and maiming Israeli civilians. The declared casus belli of the Palestinian government in Gaza behind these rockets? The very existence of a Jewish state.

One constantly hears about the disabling complexity of the Arab-Israeli dispute. Complex it is, but the root cause is not. Israel's crime is not its policies but its insistence on living. On the day the Arabs -- and the Palestinians in particular -- make a collective decision to accept the Jewish state, there will be peace, as Israel proved with its treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Until that day, there will be nothing but war. And every "peace process," however cynical or well meaning, will come to nothing.

How many more demands should Israel meet? How many demands should we?

The really telling part of this story is that there were no names mentioned or even remotely suggested in the statement from President Bush.

But who is it that started yelling the loudest, yeah, it is the Guy who told us that he would meet with these barbarians without pre-conditions.

I still agree with the statement, and I am paraphrasing here, where do you begin talking to someone who calls Israel a "rotting corpse", or who denies that the holocaust ever even happened, or who believe that God has given them the order to destroy us?

I like Mike Huckabee's comment this morning, he said when you throw a rock over the fence, it is the yelling dog that got hit.

Obama should have let this pass, without comment, but no, he was insulted by the comment, even though he pointed his own finger at himself in doing so.

Obama should have let this pass, without comment, but no, he was insulted by the comment, even though he pointed his own finger at himself in doing so.

Yeah, expressing outrage is what Dems do best. I personally think they're acting like arrogant, spoiled little brats. It would be nice to see some grownups in Washington next year...

Just remember one thing... the architect is no longer at the White House so it is not plausible that this episode is a diabolical plot to provoke Obamamania into a melt-down.

A dog yelping ? It sounds to me like the whole pack is braying at the moon.But Jimmy Carter has been conspicuosly silent ;which is surprising since his second term is at stake here.

Just remember one thing... the architect is no longer at the White House so it is not plausible that this episode is a diabolical plot to provoke Obamamania into a melt-down.

A dog yelping ? It sounds to me like the whole pack is braying at the moon.But Jimmy Carter has been conspicuosly silent ;which is surprising since he second term is at stake here.

I suppose Biden's response wasn't "beneath the dignity of the office"


“This is bullsh.., this is malarkey.”

I think it's funny that Hillary would be critical considering the remarks her hubby made in Dubai (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/16/politics/main1048605.shtml) back in 2005.

Back in 2001 on Crossfire, Tucker Carlson was asking Paul Begala about a memo written by James Carville, Stan Greenberg and Bob Schrum that called 9/11 "a moment of opportunity for Democrats (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/07/cf.00.html)." Begala responded with "politics stop at the water's edge. But on our side of that water."

The outrage today is amusing.

If this isn't funny enough, I just heard the punch line!

President Bush finally admitted today that in deed, his remarks were intended for someone specific.

Former President Jimmy Carter.

OK Mr. Obama, you may now remove your foot from your mouth.

If I were out only to steal someone's oil, land and whatever else I could get my hands on, I wouldn't want to face them, let alone talk to them. I would Demonize them by telling everyone that they are animals that cannot be reasoned with. Non-Humans, not worth my breath nor my time.

If I were out only to steal someone's oil, land and whatever else I could get my hands on, I wouldn't want to face them, let alone talk to them. I would Demonize them by telling everyone that they are animals that cannot be reasoned with. Non-Humans, not worth my breath nor my time.

These people, and I do use the term loosely, don't need any help with being demonized, they do a great job of demonizing themselves with their idiotic beliefs.

Why don't some of you terrorist appeasers tell us, what is the first question for the man who denies the holocaust even happened and has a mission to eliminate Israel from the face of the planet?

What do you think YOU could say that will make him go "holy crap, you are right, I've been wrong all along"!

Negotiate with terrorists. That is a most moronic idea, being pushed by, well, morons.

Hello again:

I don't know. I suppose you just don't understand what diplomacy is. Not surprising...

You don't negotiate with your enemy to change his mind. You negotiate with him to make a deal. He doesn't have to like you or agree with you in order to make a deal with you. You don't really think we've been agreed with or liked by all the countries we've made deals/treaties with throughout the world, do you?

Well, I suppose according your what you're saying now, you think they all just love us. I don't know how guys think.

It's like I said. You don't really understand the art of diplomacy. Neither does anybody in your party.

excon

OK. What did I say that would make you believe, that I believe, that "they" love us?

Just the opposite, they wish to eliminate everyone who does not share their beliefs, from the face of the earth.

If the idea is not to make them change their mind, but to make a deal, what kind of deal do we make with people who believe that they are on a mission from God, to destroy anyone who does not believe the same things that they do?

Do you really believe that there is a diplomatic solution to that?

What would you offer that could beat all those virgins when they get to heaven?

Hello again progunr:

Again, I don't think you understand the nature of our enemy. HE'S not the guy strapping bombs on his body. He's not the guy who's dreaming about virgins.

HE'S the guy who SENDS the guy with bombs strapped to his body. Our enemy is living a good life. HE USES fanatics to do his dirty work. But you shouldn't believe for a minute that he's fanatic himself. HE can be negotiated with.

excon

Here is diplomacy at it's best . Reagan came in and called the Soviets the Evil Empire and for years would NOT negotiate with them . And the libs complained that he would not talk to the Soviets even though his predecessors had.

Instead he built up our strength... and the libs complained ; then he began forward deployment of Pershing Missiles. And the libs complained. Then he began research in what was derided as "star wars " technology and the libs complained that he was starting a new arms race

Then and only then did he agree to meet with the new Soviet leader who was committed to reform ;after many hours of their diplomatic corp hashing out an agenda .They met with preconditions and with a reasonable chance that an agenda could be achieved . THAT is Diplomacy.

Tell me what basis does Israel have for meeting with Hamas ? The Israelis gave away their bargaining chips when they walked away from Gaza . For their gesture they are subject to daily rocket barrages from Gaza.

Reagan came in and called the Soviets the Evil Empire and for years would NOT negotiate with them .Hello again, tom:

It's good right wing spin. It's just not true. Reagan wouldn't talk with them true, but WE HAD DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THEM. Our DIPLOMATS were talking, and talking PLENTY. There was a RED telephone connection between the Kremlin and Washington, DC. even if it wasn't used.

THAT isn't what we have today with BUSH'S enemy's. When he says he's not talking, he's not talking. We have NO embassy's - no diplomats - nothing.

To my way of thinking, it's just plain stupid. It IS what I expect from the dufus in chief, though.

excon

OK Excon,

Negotiation sounds good, but I'm still looking for an answer to the questions:

What do you offer the bully who just wants to beat you up everyday, your milk money?

OK, then, that's not enough, now he demands your lunch money AND your milk money!

Soon, that is not enough either. By now, he is well aware of just how afraid of him you are, so where does it end?

It ends when you stop trying to buy or bribe him to leave you alone, and you stomp the living crap out of him instead. Much like Tomder55's post about how Reagan dealt with the former Soviet Union.

Just exactly what do you "negotiate" with these dictators anyway? What would YOU offer to try to get them to leave us alone?

OK. What did I say that would make you believe, that I believe, that "they" love us?

Just the opposite, they wish to eliminate everyone who does not share their beliefs, from the face of the earth.

If the idea is not to make them change their mind, but to make a deal, what kind of deal do we make with people who believe that they are on a mission from God, to destroy anyone who does not believe the same things that they do?

Do you really believe that there is a diplomatic solution to that?

What would you offer that could beat all those virgins when they get to heaven?

You're right by golly. So we better force democracy down their throats as quickly as possible and for the ones that won't swallow it... kill them! If they don't believe like we believe they deserve death! By Golly!

SFGate: Blogs: The Ross Report (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/foreigndesk/sso_detail?blogid=16&entry_id=26593)


"Barack Obama is not the only one who should be taking offense at President Bush's insistence that anyone having truck with terrorists is no better than Neville Chamberlain and, furthermore, ignores the lessons of the Holocaust.

According to an opinion poll last February, 64% of Israelis -- many of them Holocaust survivors or their relatives and descendants -- wanted their government to talk directly to Hamas.

Many Israeli analysts and senior military officers have long felt the same way. For example:

Hamas is not going to disappear," says Shlomo Brom, a former Israeli military chief of strategic planning. "They're not Al Qaeda; they're a national political movement." Brom, who favors indirect negotiations with Hamas, says he believes a dialogue could help moderate the Islamists. (Newsweek, March 7, 2008)


Appeasers all, in President Bush's world view (and John McCain's, apparently -- although it differs with what McCain said about Hamas a couple of years ago)

As for Iran, also the focus of Bush's and McCain's appeasement wrath, here is Bush's own Defense Secretary:

In a speech given to a group of former American diplomats, Robert Gates, the US Secretary of Defense, stated that his country needs to seek dialogue with Iran. He advocated engaging Tehran diplomatically, rather than simply attempting to intimidate it. (The National, Abu Dhabi, May 16, 2008)"




Obama Calls Out McCain, Bush

Obama Calls Out McCain, Bush - Political Machine (http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/05/16/obama-calls-out-mccain-bush/)

By Tommy Christopher
May 16th 2008 5:30PM


"Senator Barack Obama responded today to George W. Bush and John S. McCain's double-team attacks from Thursday, which likened Obama to a Nazi appeaser. Obama points out that Bush is using speeches to foreign governments to campaign for John McCain, and challenges Bush and McCain to a debate on protecting America:

'If George Bush and John McCain want to have a debate about protecting the United States of America, that is a debate I am happy to have any time, any place.'


The White House, meanwhile, did its level best to back away from the attack, playing the wide-eyed schoolgirl. From the NY Times:

During the White House press gaggle today in Saudi Arabia, Dana Perino and Ed Gillespie expressed shock (!) over the widespread Democratic outrage toward President Bush's remarks to the Knesset in Jerusalem yesterday.
Missing from the White House's shocked reaction was a repudiation of McCain, who did specifically mention Obama.

It's a little gutless, if you ask me, but then again, so is having a diplomatic strategy that involves negotiating only after your adversary has capitulated to the demands you wish to negotiate for:

Tucker Bounds, one of the spokesman, said:

'There should be no confusion, John McCain has always believed that serious engagement would require mandatory conditions and Hamas must change itself fundamentally – renounce violence, abandon its goal of eradicating Israel and accept a two state solution. John McCain's position is clear and has always been clear, the president of the United States should not unconditionally meet with leaders of Iran, Hamas or Hezbollah.'

So, once all that is done, they can sit down and negotiate what? A pre-nup?

Obama's response was right on the money. If the press isn't going to challenge the ridiculous notion that the Bush/McCain foreign policy has made America safer, perhaps it is best if Obama did it, face-to-face. Looks like the Bush administration, at least, doesn't have the stones for that fight. We'll see about McCain."

What do you offer the bully who just wants to beat you up everyday, your milk money? What would YOU offer to try to get them to leave us alone?Hello again, prog:

We're just not on the same page with what we think diplomacy is, who you do it with and why...

Diplomacy isn't giving stuff away. It's isn't coddling the enemy. It isn't done with fanatics. I don't know where you get your ideas. Rush Limprod maybe??

excon

PS> What about offering a way for him to make his own milk money?

Hello again, tom:

It's good right wing spin. It's just not true. Reagan wouldn't talk with them true, but WE HAD DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THEM. Our DIPLOMATS were talking, and talking PLENTY. There was a RED telephone connection between the Kremlin and Washington, DC., even if it wasn't used.

THAT isn't what we have today with BUSH'S enemy's. When he says he's not talking, he's not talking. We have NO embassy's - no diplomats - nothing.

To my way of thinking, it's just plain stupid. It IS what I expect from the dufus in chief, though.

excon

Er, I know this is a dumb question, but since terrorism has no country, just where would be a good place to have an embassy?

Hello again, tom:

It's good right wing spin. It's just not true. Reagan wouldn't talk with them true, but WE HAD DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THEM. Our DIPLOMATS were talking, and talking PLENTY. There was a RED telephone connection between the Kremlin and Washington, DC., even if it wasn't used.

THAT isn't what we have today with BUSH'S enemy's. When he says he's not talking, he's not talking. We have NO embassy's - no diplomats - nothing.

To my way of thinking, it's just plain stupid. It IS what I expect from the dufus in chief, though.

excon


I'm wondering if any of the Soviets were stupid enough to be homicidal bombers?

Maybe that is why MAD worked.

These radical jihadists want D and they don't care about the MA.

If I were out only to steal someone's oil, land and whatever else I could get my hands on, I wouldn't want to face them, let alone talk to them. I would Demonize them by telling everyone that they are animals that cannot be reasoned with. Non-Humans, not worth my breath nor my time.


Think about this

If Bush and the Neocons truly wanted to "steal someone's oil and land" and they do not care what the rest of the world thinks as the msm always says; don't you think that after shock and awe the US military is fully capable of an Operation Anaconda in Iraq. Seal the borders so insurgents and supplies from Syria and Iran could not keep up an insurgency, shut out all media, have a slash and burn policy, anex the oil fields for our use, and establish a military dictatorship?

What has gone on?
Our military helps build the infrastructure, the Iraquis have their own elections and government, the US does not have their oil fields and we are paying $4 a gallon for gas.

"the Bush/McCain foreign policy"[/B]

I thought it was the Bush/Rove/Cheney foreign policy. Now the left has shifted the responsibility to McCain?

THAT isn't what we have today with BUSH'S enemy's. When he says he's not talking, he's not talking. We have NO embassy's - no diplomats - nothing.

Ex, if you're talking Iran, um... isn't that what started those whole mess? What was it, 444 days? Led in part no less by the guy we're supposed to negotiate with?

You guys want us all to think there have been no negotiations and there have - direct or not. The EU3 negotiations, how did that go? How about this from May 2006 (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/world/middleeast/01iran.html)? "After 27 years in which the United States has refused substantive talks with Iran, President Bush reversed course." What happened there? Oh yeah, the Six - the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China - proposed negotiations and Iran rejected them, right?

In April of this year (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/04/17/europe/EU-GEN-Germany-Iran-Nuclear.php), "The U.N. nuclear watchdog's director urged Iran on Thursday to resume negotiations over its disputed nuclear program with the U.N. Security Council's permanent members and Germany."


German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said that following a January meeting of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — the six countries that have led efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear ambitions — Tehran had increased cooperation with ElBaradei's organization but continued to shun negotiations.

"We have the statement from the Iranian side that they will speak with the IAEA, but not with the member states," Steinmeier said.

Takes two sides to talk, ex. Then we can negotiate, work things out and build "relations" that are necessary for "diplomacy." But that Dipstick in Iran that helped seize our embassy and hold hostages for 444 days that wants to wipe Israel off the map so he can bring his 12th Imam out of the well isn't worthy of an audience with the free world, let alone an inkling of trust.

So let's get the WHOLE story straight. Now that we have a puppet government in Iraq, ( American Client State to be exact) It will soon be time to move on to the next conquest... Iran. This is how it is really done... in the real world.

In 1953, the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated a coup d'etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran. The government of Mohammad Mossadegh. The aftershocks of the coup are still being felt.

In 1951 Prime Minister Mossadegh roused Britain's ire when he nationalized the oil industry. Mossadegh argued that Iran should begin profiting from its vast oil reserves which had been exclusively controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The company later became known as British Petroleum (BP).

After considering military action, Britain opted for a coup d'état. President Harry Truman rejected the idea, but when Dwight Eisenhower took over the White House, he ordered the CIA to embark on one of its first covert operations against a foreign government.

The coup was led by an agent named Kermit Roosevelt, the grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt. The CIA leaned on a young, insecure Shah to issue a decree dismissing Mossadegh as prime minister. Kermit Roosevelt had help from Norman Schwarzkopf's father: Norman Schwarzkopf.

The CIA and the British helped to undermine Mossadegh's government through bribery, libel, and orchestrated riots. Agents posing as communists threatened religious leaders, while the US ambassador lied to the prime minister about alleged attacks on American nationals.

Some 300 people died in firefights in the streets of Tehran.

Mossadegh was overthrown, sentenced to three years in prison followed by house arrest for life.

The crushing of Iran's first democratic government ushered in more than two decades of dictatorship under the Shah, who relied heavily on US aid and arms. The anti-American backlash that toppled the Shah in 1979 shook the whole region and helped spread Islamic militancy.

After the 1979 revolution President Jimmy Carter allowed the deposed Shah into the U.S. Fearing the Shah would be sent back to take over Iran as he had been in 1953, Iranian militants took over the U.S. embassy–where the 1953 coup was staged–and held hundreds hostage.

The 50th anniversary of the coup was front-page news in Iranian newspapers. The Christian Science Monitor reports one paper in Iran publishing excerpts from CIA documents on the coup, which were released only three years ago.

The U.S. involvement in the fall of Mossadegh was not publicly acknowledged until three years ago. In a New York Times article in March 2000, then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright admitted that “the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.”

OK, so you back the war mongers because you love war. Have you ever thought of seeking help for that cause it really ain't normal.

"Most Peace-Loving of Nations"

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson stated (without cracking a smile):
"We go to war but grudgingly and then only when compelled by the requirements of restoring peace, justice, and good order, for we among all the peoples of the world comprise the most peace-loving of nations."
Funny thing is, when President Wilson made that statement, he failed to mention that from the country's inception, the United States has been involved in some military conflict nearly every year.

Since 1917, little has changed. Here is a chronology of American conflicts since President Wilson made his speech. Tell me how "peace loving" we really are...

1917: Marines land in China to influence an American friendly outcome to a Chinese political crisis.

1917: U.S. enters the Great War (World War I)

1917-21: American troops are used to break up a mining strike in Butte, Montana.

1918-19: U.S. army invades Mexico a total of nine times.

1918-20: U.S. sends troops to Panama to oversee an election (This was about the fifth or sixth time the U.S. had sent troops to Panama).

1918-20: Marines land in Vladivostock, Soviet Union to support counter-revolutionary forces in Siberia. Soon, the marines are joined by 7,000 army personnel. Another 5,000 troops are sent to Archangel to combat the Soviet forces (500 Americans die). A separate marine unit participates in a Marine landing on the Murman Coast of the USSR.

1919: American troops land at Trau, in Dalamatia to "maintain order" during a dispute between Italians and Serbs because of the threat the dispute poses to American commercial interests.

1919: Marines land in Constantinople, Turkey during a Greek occupation.

1919: Marines land in Honduras (again!) during yet another attempted revolution there.

1919: Troops are used to put down an AFL general strike in Seattle. Martial law is used.

1920: Troops are sent to Guatemala to quell labor unrest.

1920: Marines land in Kiukang, China to put down a riot threatening American commercial interests.

1920-22: A marine garrison is set up near Vladivostock to protect a radio facility.

1920-1922: The army is used to break strikes in ten states.

1921: Naval forces are posted on both sides of the Panamanian isthmus to influence a border dispute between Panama and Costa Rica.

1922: Troops sent to the city of Smyrna to "preserve order."

1922-23: Marines go ashore five (5) times in China to protect American interests in China.

1924-25: Troops are sent to Honduras (again) to oversee elections.

1924-25: Marines land in Shanghai to settle political disputes.

1925: Marines land in Honduras (again) to counter popular rebellion against the outcome of the U.S. supervised national election held a year earlier.

1925: Army intervenes in Panama (again) to put down a national strike which threatens American interests.

1926: Forces are put ashore in Hankow and Kiukiang, China to protect American business interests.

1926-33: Marines are dispatched to Nicaragua to reinforce the pro-American government against a popular uprising and coup d'etat attempt.

1927: Increased naval forces are sent to numerous Chinese port cities. Americans fire upon Chinese troops.

1932: Marines land in Shanghai (again).

1932: 600 troops are used against impoverished American veterans of World War I (the "Bonus Army") peacefully encamped in Washington D.C. The veterans were seeking payment from the government for unpaid bonuses owed unto them.

1933: Naval forces dispatched to Cuba to help prop American puppet in Cuba, Gerardo Machado.

1934: Marines land in Foochow, China to protect American property.

1937: A U.S. gunboat is sunk by Japanese forces in China.

1940: "Lend Lease" air and naval bases are established in Newfoundland, Bermuda, St. Lucia, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Antigua, Trinidad and British Guayana.

1941: U.S. troops occupy Greenland, Iceland, and Dutch Guyana. Navy engages in antisubmarine operations against Germany even though the two nations are not at war.

1941: F.D.R. violates the Posse Comitatus Act by using federal troops at an aircraft plant in Los Angeles in order to break up a strike.

1941-45: U.S. participation in World War II.

1945: U.S. drops atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

1945: U.S. troops occupy Trieste.

1945-46: Troops are garissoned in Iran and China to counter the Soviets.

1945-52: War Department (Department of Defense) arranges for impoverished Navajo Indians to receive small business loans to become self-employed uranium miners in New Mexico and Arizona. Information concerning the extreme health dangers associated with the radon gas naturally emitted by uranium ore is intentionally withheld from the Navajos. Lung cancer mortality among the miners eventually nears 100%.

1945-54: Military conducts radioactive tests in the atmosphere, harming the civilian downwind populations (cancer) Thousands of troops exposed to the direct radiation of nuclear blasts so that the DoD can assess the "effects on combat efficiency attending committment to the atomic battlefield."

1945-54: In Alaska, DoD researchers coerce indigenous Inuits to swallow capsules of pure uranium in order to "study the effects of massive contaminationon the human organism."

1945-58: Using the "trust authority" it had asserted over the Marshall Islands after World War II, the U.S. converts its "protectorate" into a test range for nuclear weaponry. The islands of Bikini, Kwaljalein, and Enewetak which had been inhabited were rendered uninhabitable thereafter. Moreover, residents of nearby islands Utirik and Rongelap are essentially used as human lab rats so that the DoD can study the fallout effects (horrific mutations occur in these islands as a result).

1945-2002: After what was supposed to be a temporary partition of Korea after WWII, America installs an American friendly regime in South Korea, backed with 50,000 troops. After numerous (2,617) troop incursions in the North, a war ensues when North Korea finally invades South Korea. A three year war takes place, ending in stalemate. American troops remain in South Korea to this day.

1946: U.S. deploys troops to Turkey.

1946-54: U.S. troops coordinate a counter-insurgency campaign in the Philippines. U.S. gains 23 military bases in the Philippines.

1946-73: The U.S. backs the army of Chaing Kai-shek with material assistance and 100,000 American troops. This army wages a bitter but unsuccessful counterinsurgency war against Chairman Mao's "people's liberation army." Chaing's forces take refuge on the island of Formosa (now Taiwan). Thereafter, CIA and American clandestine military forces conduct an array of operations against China, lasting until at least 1973.

1947-48: The CIA subverts free elections in Italy by threatening "another world war" if the communist party were to win at the Italian polls. The subversion results in the defeat of the communists, but vicotry for a corrupt anticommunist party.

1947-51: U.S. wages counterinsurgency campaign against Greek communists. Greece eventually is pushed into an anticommunist dictatorship.

1947-57: The CIA uses guerilla soldiers from Baltic states (many of them former nazis) to fight guerilla wars against Soviet troops. 80,000 Soviet troops are killed in these guerilla wars.

1948-49: U.S. deploys combat units to Berlin.

1950: Strategic planners prepare a secret study known as NSC-68, outlining the requirements for turning the U.S. into a fullblown "National Security State." The document calls for curtailment of political expression, comprehensive indoctrination of the general public against communism. NSC-68 shamelessly suggests falsifying data to serve its purpose.

1950-2002: The U.S. violates the Treaty of Ruby Valley with the Shoshone indians, thereby confiscating and using Shoshone land to detonate over 1,000 nuclear devices for testing purposes.

1953: The CIA overthrows the democratically elected government of Mossadegh in Iran and installs the anti-democratic Shah of Iran. Military is immediately sent into Iran to consolidate and control Iran's future as an American client state.

1953-54: CIA overthrows the democratic government of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala and replaces it with a military dictatorship "friendlier" to American business interests.

1953-54: Military airlift to supply French troops in Dien Bien Phu.

1954-55: CIA attempts overthrow in Costa Rica.

1954-55: U.S. military advisors sent to Laos. CIA personnel sent to South Vietnam.

1955-61: CIA and Special Forces troops create and lead and indigenous guerilla force in Tibet to liberate the country from China.

1956: Troops sent to Morocco.

1956: Troops sent to Egypt.

1956: CIA helps instigate an armed revolt in Hungary but then abandons the insurgents, resulting in the deaths of thousands.

1956-57: CIA attempts (and fails at) overthrowing Ba'athists in Syria.

1956-57: Military troops sent to Thailand and train Thai troops to invade Cambodian border areas.

1957-58: The CIA attempts eight (8) separate overthrows of the Nasser government in Egypt.

1957-58: The CIA sets out to assassinate the president of Indonesia, but fails. Then, the CIA supports a coup d'etat against the same government in Indonesia. That too fails.

1957-1988: The US government enters into an agreement to build nuclear reactors for the racist government of South Africa. South Africa finally begins production of nuclear weapons in 1979, thanks to American assistance. The US supports South Africa until the regimes collapse in 1988 despite a UN embargo.

1958: 14,000 marines land in Lebanon to "keep order" during the nation's civil war.

1958: The CIA coordinates a coup d'etat in Laos.

1959: Special Forces begin secret combat operations in Laos.

1959: Marines land in Haiti to prevent the overthrow of a ruthless and brutal (but American-freindly!) regime.

1959-79: The U.S. enters into an agreement to build nuclear reactors for the Shah of Iran. The reactors fall into the hands of the anti-American revolutionaries in 1979.

1959-2002: Troops land in Cuba to bolster a pro-American Cuban dictator. The dictator, however, is eventually overthrown in 1959 by Fidel Castro. CIA soon begins organizing what will become known as the Bay of Pigs invasion against Cuba. It fails. Over the years, the CIA attempts numerous assassinations of Castro. The CIA also uses bacteriological and chemical warfare against Cuba.

1960: CIA coordinates and backs a coup d'etat in Laos.

1960: The CIA leads, trains, and arms guerillas in Guatemala and puts down a popular insurrection meant to restore the democratically elected government.

1960-63: The CIA quells a leftist guerilla movement in Ecuador via a counterinsurgency campaign.

1960-64: The CIA deliberately causes a civil war in the Congo by exacerbating rivalries and ideological differences. The Congo's leader is assassinated.

And this is only half of it!

It's good right wing spin. It's just not true. Reagan wouldn't talk with them true, but WE HAD DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THEM. Our DIPLOMATS were talking, and talking PLENTY. There was a RED telephone connection between the Kremlin and Washington, DC. even if it wasn't used.

THAT isn't what we have today with BUSH'S enemy's. When he says he's not talking, he's not talking. We have NO embassy's - no diplomats - nothing.



That is not the situation at all

We have had plenty of contact with Iran through lower levels . That is not what the President is talking about and not what the Obamination has said.


Again... read President Bush's comments
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.

That has been the long time policy of the United States . Tell me... what was our diplomatic contacts with Cuba during Kennedy's administration. Where was our embassy located ?

Now to repeat Obama's position... He said in the debate and on his web site that he would meet with terrorists and terrorist enablers with no pre-conditions.

"Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions...."
Barack Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Foreign Policy (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/)


The correct response to th ePrseident's address would have been "I agree with the President. The last thing we should do is give away something for nothing to our enemies ;and we need to make it clear that our support for Israel AGAINST these terrorist and their enablers is unwavering. "
His over sensitivity to Bush's comments
;which were probably directed at Jimmy Carter and his showboat private "diplomacy"since Carter had recently hugged Khaled Mashaal in Damascus and insisted that the US should open a dialogue with Hamas;shows his dangerous inexperience in foreign relations.

It is really amazing how far some would go to defend his gaffe . You know that the Israelis do not talk to Hamas... now the elected leaders of Gaza because there is no basis for it while they continue to kill Israelis.
Here is an editorial in the Seattle paper where in an effort to defend Obama the author excuses Hitler's goals at the Munich meeting with Chamberlain.
Ed cetera | Bush, and His Use of "Appeasement" | Seattle Times Newspaper Blog (http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/edcetera/2008/05/bush_and_his_use_of_appeasemen.html)

You see ;Hitler was just misunderstood ! Forget the fact that Hitler had already published his blue print for conquer. Forget that the Mahdi-Hatter has made no secret about his plans for Israel's destruction either . The comparison is right on ! There is no basis for a face to face with Ahamadjihad.
.

So Tom, it doesn't matter that in 1953, the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated a coup d'etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran?
Or, are you just going to FAUX NEWS that fact out of existence?

Or, according to the NeoCon version, maybe it really didn't happen at all? Or, we were threatened then as we are now by the vicious, animalistic bastards with too much oil.

What really happened? Go ahead... FAUX NEWS me one more time.

I thought it was the Bush/Rove/Cheney foreign policy. Now the left has shifted the responsibility to McCain?

McSame... the name says' it all!

LOL! Kind of like the new McRib, the McSame ole crap just in a different package and a different sauce.

So Tom, it doesn't matter that in 1953, the CIA and British intelligence orchestrated a coup d'etat that toppled the democratically elected government of Iran?
Or, are you just going to FAUX NEWS that fact out of existence?

Or, according to the NeoCon version, maybe it really didn't happen at all? Or, we were threatened then as we are now by the vicious, animalistic bastards with too much oil.


I don't know where the overthrow of Mohammed Musaddiq is relevant to this particular debate . However ; it is not something that the 'neo-cons ' would've supported. It was the product of realpolitik. You know realpolitik don' t you ? It is the foreign policy that position that has gained popularity as opposition to the Iraq policy grew. It is the policy that would oppose democratically elected governments like Musaddiq's in favor of strong armed dictators if they serve our interests.You know;the policies that people like Henry Kissinger advocates.

As far as Obama's proposals to meet unconditionally with the Mahdi Hatter ;the question remains ,what could Obama expect to achieve?Since negotiating by definition involves give and take, that is, offering quid pro quos, what would he give and what would he take? A President Obama would have to offer the terrorist state of Iran concessions in order to gain concessions, much like Chamberlain offered the Sudetenland to Hitler after Hitler promised to leave the rest of Europe alone. Would Obama conceed Isreal ?

Yes, I fully understand the policies Henery Kissinger advocate. The old Toad Kissinger first used food as a weapon. The toad will stop at nothing to further the American-Zionist or NeoCons, whatever you wish to call them. Doesn't Kissinger back John Wayne McCain?

You do know that supporting the coup had nothing to do with Israel don't you ? Is everything filtered through a Jewish conspiracy in your eyes ? No ;it was pure "realist" cold war calculations .

McSame...the name says' it all!

I see you're a disciple of the DNC/Obama pitch, "Bush third term." It's funny, you guys complain that we can't judge Obama by the company he keeps while simultaneously judging McCain by Bush's actions. I wish you guys would make up your mind on what the rules are.

I see you're a disciple of the DNC/Obama pitch, "Bush third term." It's funny, you guys complain that we can't judge Obama by the company he keeps while simultaneously judging McCain by Bush's actions. I wish you guys would make up your mind on what the rules are.


Maybe you're not aware that McCain's courting all the Bush Republicans?? Or that Dubya gave a special press conference just to endorse McCain?? Or the recent use of the Knesset as platform in an attempt to campaign for McCain against the Democrats?? This is not rocket science. :rolleyes:

It was Obama's paranoia that made President Bush's speech an issue. If you read or heard the whole thing then you would realize that it had nothing to do with him and that you actually agree with most of the sentiment of the address.
President Bush Addresses Members of the Knesset (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080515-1.html)

So Bush's ideology is consistently in agreement with Democrats during an election year? :rolleyes: Twilight zone!

Just to get back to the theme of the posting

THE NY Slimes published this OP-Ed today :

May 22, 2008
Op-Ed Contributors

Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed
By NATHAN THRALL and JESSE JAMES WILKINS

IN his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy expressed in two eloquent sentences, often invoked by Barack Obama, a policy that turned out to be one of his presidency's — indeed one of the cold war's — most consequential: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.” Arthur Schlesinger Jr. Kennedy's special assistant, called those sentences “the distinctive note” of the inaugural.

They have also been a distinctive note in Senator Obama's campaign, and were made even more prominent last week when President Bush, in a speech to Israel's Parliament, disparaged a willingness to negotiate with America's adversaries as appeasement. Senator Obama defended his position by again enlisting Kennedy's legacy: “If George Bush and John McCain have a problem with direct diplomacy led by the president of the United States, then they can explain why they have a problem with John F. Kennedy, because that's what he did with Khrushchev.”

But Kennedy's one presidential meeting with Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet premier, suggests that there are legitimate reasons to fear negotiating with one's adversaries. Although Kennedy was keenly aware of some of the risks of such meetings — his Harvard thesis was titled “Appeasement at Munich” — he embarked on a summit meeting with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, a move that would be recorded as one of the more self-destructive American actions of the cold war, and one that contributed to the most dangerous crisis of the nuclear age.

Senior American statesmen like George Kennan advised Kennedy not to rush into a high-level meeting, arguing that Khrushchev had engaged in anti-American propaganda and that the issues at hand could as well be addressed by lower-level diplomats. Kennedy's own secretary of state, Dean Rusk, had argued much the same in a Foreign Affairs article the previous year: “Is it wise to gamble so heavily? Are not these two men who should be kept apart until others have found a sure meeting ground of accommodation between them?”

But Kennedy went ahead, and for two days he was pummeled by the Soviet leader. Despite his eloquence, Kennedy was no match as a sparring partner, and offered only token resistance as Khrushchev lectured him on the hypocrisy of American foreign policy, cautioned America against supporting “old, moribund, reactionary regimes” and asserted that the United States, which had valiantly risen against the British, now stood “against other peoples following its suit.” Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to warn Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated and that it was “very unwise” for the United States to surround the Soviet Union with military bases.

Kennedy's aides convinced the press at the time that behind closed doors the president was performing well, but American diplomats in attendance, including the ambassador to the Soviet Union, later said they were shocked that Kennedy had taken so much abuse. Paul Nitze, the assistant secretary of defense, said the meeting was “just a disaster.” Khrushchev's aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

Kennedy's assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the “roughest thing in my life.” Kennedy went on: “He just beat the hell out of me. I've got a terrible problem if he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won't get anywhere with him.”

A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam's pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them.

If Barack Obama wants to follow in Kennedy's footsteps, he should heed the lesson that Kennedy learned in his first year in office: sometimes there is good reason to fear to negotiate.


Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed - New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/opinion/22thrall.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin)