<p>
</p>
<p>What he made statements about was not just the value of the war, but also the lack of truth-telling used to foist that war upon the American people. As one of the chief propagandists, he’d be in a position to know. Of course, I never expected that you FundingF would see the truth staring you in the face if it was in physical form standing two inches from your face if that truth were, as it is in reality, “Bush ineptly pushed us into a strategically stupid war of choice.”</p>
<p>Thank you for your kind words. But, do recall that you were quoting McClellan for his opinion regarding the value of the war. My point is that McClellan has no expertise to make that opinion any more valid than your *opinion<a href=“not%20a%20provable%20fact,%20as%20you%20assert”>/i</a> that “Bush ineptly pushed us into a strategically stupid war of choice.”</p>
<p>I just happened across a great quote from Chuck Hagel, a very conservative Republican who is undoubtedly reviled by the Bushies and neocons these days because he agrees with Obama on “engaging” our adversaries before bombing them.</p>
<p>“It was President Reagan who, in 1986, almost reached an agreement with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to abolish nuclear weapons. President Reagan understood the need for America to engage, to understand our friends and our adversaries, to explore our options, to identify common interests. President Reagan understood that great powers engage because they are secure in their beliefs and purpose but humble and wise in their policies and actions.
We are living today at an historic transformational time in history. The great challenges of the 21st century will require U.S. leadership that is trusted and respected, not feared nor resented. America cannot project only military power. Inspirational leadership and confidence in America’s purpose, not imposed power, will be essential for world peace. If we fail, we will lose the next generation in Iran and around the world. This would result in a far more dangerous world than any we have ever known.”</p>
<p>fundingfather, your post is interesting because it seems well-reasoned on the surface but once one probes deeper, the arguments’ become more obviously incorrect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The amount of terrorist attacks against America may or may not, as you should well know, be good indicators of the number of terrorists in an organization (you say this yourself later in the post). More importantly, I didn’t say the US had created anything new, I said it had exacerbated the existing problem of terrorism (because while Islamic fundamentalists form the core of these organizations, there really aren’t enough of them to form a solid base, and so recruiting otherwise moderate people whose driving force is their hatred of America/the West is an important goal for al-Quaeda and its ilk).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not necessarily. All my thesis suggests is that what this change will reflect is a drop in US popularity, which has evidently occurred. Whether one specific terrorist group becomes more popular or not (when issues and consequences other than their opposition to the US are integral to their popularity) is not necessarily a key metric.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is the heart of the standard Republican belief regarding terror - that all of America’s enemies are implacable, angry, ruthless and evil Islamic fundamentalists who merely hate America because it is not an Islamic caliphate and will stop at nothing to destroy it. There is a kernel of truth, in that the leadership of most of these organizations is indeed radical Muslims, but the view is shortsighted in ignoring the very important factors that these terror organizations draw on for their strength in money, weaponry and recruits. No, one can never negotiate away the core of the spirit that leads such groups, but one can remove from them their ability to do damage. And that is not best done by further militarizing and destabilizing an area of the world that is already unstable and violent enough.</p>
<p>Hagel is doing what many people on CC do, cut and paste to fit their opinion.</p>
<p>Reagan did not sit down with Russia until 1985 and Gorbachev. He did not sit down with Brezhnev, or the two that followed after his death in 82. It was his 2nd term when Russia was in turmoil and Gorbachev rose to power that Reagan initiated talks prompted by Gorbachev…not Reagan</p>
<p>Let us also not forget the very powerful statement that Reagan made</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>He announced to the world what the US was demanding.</p>
<p>Notice the diplomacy in Reagan’s tone. He spoke first, thus bombing was never required.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On this latter statement we agree. However, while we may agree with these words, the way we implement this is 180 degrees at odds. You imply that if we are good citizens in the eyes of that Muslim world, that the monetary and human support for the radical leaders will evaporate. I think that this is naive. Recall that during the 90s we had just gone to war against a “Christian” leader in support of the Muslim population that he oppressed. We had also just come away from providing critical support for a Muslim uprising against a Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. We had also launched a humanitarian mission to save a starving, Muslim Somalia. Did any of this buy the US any good will and dry up support for bin Laden? If it did, it certainly did not keep him from recruiting enough jihadists to do 9/11 a hundred times over.</p>
<p>No, the only way to remove from them the ability to do damage is stepped up intelligence and keeping them from getting their hands on WMD.</p>
<p>Well, I opposed the war rather vociferously and I have been very displeased with the politics of not only this administration but of the Republicans in congress, as well. </p>
<p>Still, it is disingenuous to imply that what Barack is suggesting is anything remotely like what Regan did, or for that matter what any modern US president has done. </p>
<p>Barack made a mistake, what might even be called a rookie mistake. Saying that he would meet with the front line of tin-horn thugs and despots within his first year of office without preconditions was off the charts in US foreign policy history. </p>
<p>It would almost certainly be important to make some kind of overtures to some of these guys in the right circumstances, but not just as a matter of course, or because your gut tells you that you should. It was, apparently, President Bush’s “gut” that told him the US should wage war and occupy Iraq.</p>
<p>Perhaps at the time it seemed like a strategically good move, playing to the far left of Hillary; but it is a monumental blunder that will exact a heavy toll on his campaign in the fall and on his administration for the next four years if he should win.</p>
<p>He won’t do it. His senior staff would not let him. It would be best if he simply stepped away from this ill-considered “policy” now, rather than carrying this albatross into his presidency. </p>
<p>With all he has going for him, he did not need this hornet’s nest.</p>
<p>I agree, he made a large blunder and will be paying for it come the fall. Can we all see the 527 ad with pics of Castro, Chavez, Ahlmindejad, Kim Jong Il and little snippets of them speaking about the US in a negative manner? Followed by Obama standing behind a podium stating that he will meet with them in his 1st yr without pre-conditions.</p>
<p>It may be fear mongering, but it will make people question his ability/naivete if he is willing to speak to them</p>
<p>So was it a large blunder for Reagan to talk with Gorbachev, FDR with Stalin, Kennedy with Kruschev?</p>
<p>Well, the Republican spin machine says that Obama has been unqualified in saying he’d meet without preconditions. He’s clarified and fine-tuned his point. And Richard Haass, Council of Foreign Relations head as well as an official in two Bush Administrations says we are foolish and idiotic to set preconditions so high that no one we might talk to would ever meet with us.</p>
<p>Will this hurt Obama in the Fall? Does it hurt Bush that his Administration which was so adamant against talks with North Korea and criticized Bill Clinton’s Administration for same has ended up in talks with North Korea? What’s hurt Bush a lot more is his posturing that we are an all-powerful nation that doesn’t need to talk to other countries. We are now diminished as a nation internationally after 8 years of blundering and swaggering.</p>
<p>Two out of three got owned in those discussions.</p>
<p>It was not a blunder for Reagan to speak with Gorbachev, but he put it out there that the wall must come down, he forced Gorbachevs hand. Reagan did put preconditions down. Reagan dd not speak to Castro, Ghaddaffi or the Ayatollah.</p>
<p>As for FDR and Stalin are you discussing Yalta? He met with Stalin in Feb, and by Mar he was already sending him strong messages of I will not let you play me.</p>
<p>For JFK when he stated that Kruschev got the better of him and because of his inexperience we almost went into WWIII nuclear option (Bay of Pigs)</p>
<p>Yea, I do think there were blunders for talking and believing that our enemies mean what they say!</p>
<p>Afterall up to the day Pearl Harbor was bombed the Japanese were all smiles to us</p>
<p>"Does it hurt Bush that his Administration which was so adamant against talks with North Korea and criticized Bill Clinton’s Administration for same has ended up in talks with North Korea? "</p>
<p>The only problem with this statement is that it is fundamentally wrong. Bush was against bilateral talks such as what Clinton did but was strongly pushing for multi-lateral talks. He eventually was successful in accomplishing this and thereby was able to leverage China in pushing Kim into making a deal. Whether Kim honors it or not is another question, but if he doesn’t, as he did with Clinton/Albright, he will also be reneging on his key sponsor. This is the way diplomacy is supposed to be conducted.</p>
<p>Leave it to FundingFather to buy some specious party line that finds no fault at all with George W. Bush’s Administration and only with others who were criticized for Bush for essentially the same approaches:</p>
<p>[Bush</a> Faults Clinton Policy, But the Debate is Complex - washingtonpost.com](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101101793.html]Bush”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101101793.html)</p>
<p>This is a Bush “I was against talks with North Korea before I was for them.”</p>
<p>Fundingfather–From reading your posts, you seem smart and articulate, albeit argumentative and stubborn. It’s hard for me to believe you’re so blindly infatuated with someone like W.</p>
<p>Reagan and Gorbachev met for the first time in Geneva in November 1985, almost 2 years before the “Tear down this wall” speach, 4 years before the Wall came down. So much for preconditions.</p>
<p>“It’s hard for me to believe you’re so blindly infatuated with someone like W.”</p>
<p>The fact is that I’m not infatuated with him and I look forward to a new administration. However, so many dishonest and untrue claims are made against him, that it really isn’t much of a challenge to set the record straight. </p>
<p>As to stubborn, well, wasn’t it you, who, when confronted with documentation that refuted your views, that you admitted that you were indoctrinated by the media and the Dems that you opted to not believe the reports? Could that be viewed as “stubborn”?</p>
<p>Oh, fundingfather. Don’t you know facetiousness when you see it? If I’m indoctrinated by the “mainstream” liberal media, you must be indoctrinated by Limbaugh, Hannity, and Coulter.</p>
<p>I don’t recall seeing Limbaugh’s, Hannity’s or Coulter’s name on the official document that I cited. I never just echo Limbaugh, et al. I prefer to go to official sources without the filter provided by the media and commentators.</p>