<p>Stickershock, you might be less “alarmed” if you didn’t allow yourself to be fed propaganda from biased sources.
Go to Snopes and find out what Obama really said - not what your blogs tell you.</p>
<p>I did go to Snopes, Kluge. Thanks for directing me there because I found ANOTHER Obama lie. He claimed that it was the Kennedys who set up airlifts to bring Kenyon men to the US to study, thus allowing his dad that opportunity. But that wasn’t the case at all, as Snopes points out. The program was up & running & Omaba’s dad had already been in the US when JFK was approached for funding. He tries to create some direct link between himself & JFK with the twisting of the chronology. I give $$ to the Red Cross, Catholic Charities, and other causes; that doesn’t make me these organizations’ founder! Twisting facts & chronology to fit some new Camelot tale is dishonest. Not a good trait in a President.</p>
<p>Yes, his mentioning of the 1965 Selma march as the reason his parents got together was done for dramatic purposes while he was speaking there. His speech was “pandering” according to Snopes. At the very least, it was sloppy.</p>
<p>
At the time of the invasion, the UN inspectors said they were getting compliance and specifically asked for more time to complete their inspections. Saddam was voluntarily destroying his long range missiles to comply with UN requirements. It is likely that the “big stick” threat of war was useful to put pressure to cooperate with the inspections. If the US had simply complied with the UN determination and the request for a few months’ more time to complete inspections, there would have been no need for war.</p>
<p>Obama was guilty of no more than stretching the truth a wee bit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[snopes.com:</a> Say What, Barack?](<a href=“http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/saywhat.asp]snopes.com:”>Say What, Barack? | Snopes.com)</p>
<p>I don’t think he should be consigned to electoral hell or even purgatory for this, do you?</p>
<p>“Obama was guilty of no more than stretching the truth a wee bit.”</p>
<p>snipper fire anyone?</p>
<p>But Simba, there was NO sniper fire!!! And if she was afraid there would be, what kind of mother would she be bringing Chelsea along? That’s not stretching the truth, it’s telling an outright fib, and not just once.</p>
<p>Now, if anyone had ever shot at me at any point in my life, I would remember it and I would remember what I did. So not only was there no sniper fire, Hillary did not do any of the things she said she did as a response to it.</p>
<p>President Kennedy seriously underestimated the Soviets. This led him to think that professional diplomats in the State Department were wrong and that he could engage in direct talks with Soviet leader Khrushchev.</p>
<p>The Soviets consequently thought Kennedy weak, and began confrontational exercises that nearly led to nuclear war. Had Kennedy kept the Soviets guessing, such aggressive moves on their part would likely not have been tried.</p>
<p>Soviet leader Khrushchev was in reality a poorly educated person, but was a fierce, tenacious warrior who was a veteran of the Battle of Stalingrad and many internal power struggles in the Soviet government. Perhaps President Kennedy was influenced by the actions of Vice President Richard Nixon in the “Kitchen Debate” of 1959, where many thought Nixon out-debated the Soviet leader. </p>
<p>Kennedy’s attempt proved a terrible error. Obama has apparently not studied the history of direct negotiations…his willingness to engage in non-preconditioned direct negotiations (yes, he actually said he’d do this) is a terrible error.</p>
<p>A year ago, Obama was asked whether he would meet personally, without preconditions, with leaders of Iran and other hostile nations during the first year of his administration to resolve differences with the United States. Obama said he would.</p>
<p>See: [Obama</a> defends plans for direct talks with Iran – baltimoresun.com](<a href=“http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-obama0723,0,4438193.story]Obama”>http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-obama0723,0,4438193.story)</p>
<p>Non-preconditioned meetings are not the same as unprepared for meetings.The Bush administration has had to drop many of its preconditions for meeting with Iran and North Korea.</p>
<p>Parent2noles, you didn’t answer my question above – how old are you? Are you old enough to remember the Cuban missile crisis?</p>
<p>Sorry, I didn’t see the question. 
I’m old enough to retire. My wife is two years older than I am (yep, she robbed the cradle :D) and remembers the trains running constantly down to Miami with military supplies during 1962. I lived on the opposite coast.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Green Bay Packers, anyone?</p>
<p>^ haha, I remember the Hillary “sniper fire” youtube.com video. Hilarious.</p>
<p>Marite, it was a wildly dumb statement. His parsing it now does neither it nor him any good. He should admit it was a serious error born of inexperience and/or arrogance and be done with it. He’d then have a bit more credibility.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gee, doesn’t that sound familiar? Bush wouldn’t listen to the Iraqi specialists who told him the war would be misguided, but he went ahead and did it anyway – and we have nothing to show for it…</p>
<p>Stupid people do stupid things. The difference is that whatever Kennedy may or may not have done wrong, he was masterful and sage in getting us back from the brink. Obama’s that smart. George Bush – and John McCain, in my opinion – aren’t. They are full of empty bravado, particularly in Bush’s case. In McCain’s case, you have to respect the man, though not necessarily his particular abilities, IMO.</p>
<p>I would probably take Colin Powell as a Democrat over McCain.</p>
<p>None of these people are stupid. I think arrogant most of the time.</p>
<p>I couldn’t support Colin Powell unless he’s been off somewhere growing a backbone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I have studied diplomacy at the graduate level in one of the most prestigious institutions for doing so along with a bunch of people who negotiated for the US govt, and I can tell this is the biggest bunch of hogwash that you could write, and it is borne out by no diplomatic history worth its salt. Often, you don’t start talks with certain pre-conditions except to process. You just make sure that you don’t end the talks having given away the wrong things. Skillful negotiators can accomplish a lot of good at much less cost than war…</p>
<p>Take a simple issue. If you are arguing with your spouse about, let’s say, whether or not it’s okay to buy that $35,000 car, do you say “I’ll talk to you about this so long as you agree that there’s no way that we buy that car. If you can’t agree to this pre-condition, there is nothing to say.” Of course not. It’s a simplistic example, but it’s not far from what happens in crafty diplomacy.</p>
<p>Oh, and by the way, haven’t you noticed that the Bush administration which supposedly complains about diplomacy is engaging in it in all the fora where it said it wouldn’t do so without pre-conditions like Iran and North Korea.</p>
<p>p2n: which statement? these posts move too fast!</p>
<p>cartera: I agree about the lack of backbone. But see how many generals were fired until they agreed with Rumsfeld & co.</p>
<p>So with your statement you’re holding yourself out as an expert in diplomacy?</p>
<p>Great! I’m sure I have much to learn at your knee. :)</p>
<p>The example of JFK should be warning enough. If Obama ignores the reality of the result then this impugns his the quality of his character or suggests his other touted qualities are of minimal value.</p>
<p>p2n: Is post 618 directed at me? You did not answer the question I posed in 617 in which I asked which statement you wanted me to address.</p>
<p>
LOL!!!</p>
<p>
This is an interesting criteria for selecting a president – Sure he’ll make the inevitable screw-ups because of his inexperience & arrogance. But that’s ok, because he’s smart. He’ll fix 'em.</p>