Friday, May 23, 2008

Obama, Iran, Kennedy, Kruschev "He treated me like a little boy, like a little boy.' "

Fyodor M. Burlatsky, a speechwriter for Khrushchev said at a meeting held in 1987 assessing the Cuban Missile Crisis that the reasons Kruschev installed the nuclear weapons in Cuba was due to a belief that the US was going to invade and (from the NYT here),

"'Mr. Burlatsky stressed that Khrushchev, who met Kennedy in Vienna in 1961, believed that the American President was ''very young, very intelligent, but not very strong.''"

That's a generous recollection of the meeting, a meeting which convinced Kruschev that the American President was a chump, full of his own arrogance. The President himself was much less generous about his own performance at the meeting that had no preconditions (here),"...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.”

The fallout?
"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."

From The Swamp here:

Historian Robert Dallek, in his eminently informative and entertaining Kennedy biography "An Unfinished Life" says the Soviet general secretary's "behavior irritated and frustrated Kennedy, since Krushchev did a good job of seeming somewhat unhinged, at turns, congenial then bellicose with the young president.

As Dallek writes:

"A British journalist who saw (Kennedy) as he escorted Krushchev to his car thought (Kennedy) looked 'dazed.' Pacing the floor of his bedroom in the embassy, (Kennedy) exclaimed, "He treated me like a little boy, like a little boy.' "

And where is Barack Obama on the issue of Iran? Would he be treated like "a little boy, like a little boy?" (meant in the way Kennedy meant it and NOT racial slur, so save your breath hatas). Well, the American Thinker here goes through Obama's changing, correcting, recorrecting, ever changing opinions, beliefs---who knows--on Iran:

Obama in 2004:

"...us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.

"On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. . . . And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point."

Obama taking back what he said in 2004 in an interview with his big fan Nicolas Kristoff:

Even when at one point he seemed to indicate an openness to looking at military options to deal with Iran's nuclear program, he quickly eviscerated that option by stating that it did not even exist. He unilaterally has taken off the table an important bargaining chip. What a negotiator! He is quoted, " And I think the exact quote at the time was, you know, If there was a way of disabling a nuclear facility without any collateral damage, then that would certainly be an option we'd want to take into account. You know, I don't think that's a particularly controversial statement. But the - but those options don't exist." Now you see it now you don;t. The endless shell game that is Barack Obama.
And last week in Oregon:
Iran, Cuba, Venezuela-these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet.

And the next day:

"Iran is a grave threat."

39 comments:

u∃∃l!∃ said...

Can a country be a "grave threat" and still be tiny enough to not pose the same level of threat as the Soviet Union posed in the 60's?

Scottiebill said...

Obama, given his extremely limited time in the U.S. Senate, is a Little Leaguer playing with the pros. He has more opinions on the same things relating to foreign policy than John Kerry did. ("I was for it before I was against it"). If Obama gets to be President look for two things to happen: The country will be in for a far rougher ride than it had when Jimmy Carter was President. And look for Obama to be impeached for gross malfeasance by the end of his second year in office. One can only hope that he picks a good running mate.

And has anyone noticed that whenever anyone disagrees with anything he says, it is "racist". It does not matter whether it is in foreign policy, the national economy, farm problems, the Second Amendment, the war in Iraq, whatever, it is always "racist" to challenge him on his opinions. And, of course, he is always criticizing President Bush and his administration for just about everything, you had better no criticize him or you will be branded a "racist".

Poor Barry Obama! He can dish it out but he can't take it.

Lew Waters said...

Can a country be a "grave threat" and still be tiny enough to not pose the same level of threat as the Soviet Union posed in the 60's?

Who do you think was the larger threat, Eileen, the Soviet Union or Japan in 1941?

Geographical size has nothing to do with a "grave threat," as we saw throughout WW2.

A major matter he misses - The Soviet Union did not desire to die, Iran would be willing to sacrifice a large number of lives to defeat the west.

Obama made a major gaffe on this one.

u∃∃l!∃ said...

Lew,
Which do you think is the larger threat:
- Soviet Union in the 60's
- Iran Now?

No size is not always the determining factor, technology plays a major role.

Do we have the technology and power to control Iran if they should decide to attack us?

How does this compare to the lead we had over the Soviet Union in the 60's?

My point?
It is possible that the two statements made by Obama, were not necessarily as contradictory as some would want them to be.

But I am fully expecting a lot of Obama bashing from the Right.
When it comes election time, the masses, those who do not really follow that closely, who vote based on name familiarity, will probably vote for Obama.

(Still hoping for a viable Independent candidate to enter the race.)

Scottiebill said...

Eileen: Go to danegerus.com/weblog/Right.asp

Danegerus is spelled correctly for the site. Obama is the focus of the biggest part of the weblog. You might learn something about Obama if you read it through.

BEAR said...

Attempting to mitigate a 180 degree flip-flop is typical lefty drivel, eileen. You demean yourself by even engaging in such transparent games.

The obamster doesn't have a clue about what he believes, or why. You cannot do his 'splainin' or excusin' for him. He must show the voters how grown-up he is, and so far he has flunked adult. In my opinion, he has flunked American, as well.

As far as "controlling" an islamo-fascist nation, good luck. Ahmadinajerk has stated his intention to start a nuclear war. The 12th imam has instructed him. His proxies (hamas and hezbollah) have just announced that Israel shall be annihilated by May 24, 2014. The obamster and his lefty pals had better reach adulthood before then. But you just keep those rose colored glasses super-glued to your face and continue to hum kumbaya. I'm sure things will work out for you. You might want to pick out your burkha now, and avoid the rush.

Lew Waters said...

Eileen, two statements, 180 degress apart, cannot share any consistency.

The Soviet Union, as opporessive and dangerous as they were, had no stomach to die themselves.

Iran, on the other hand, is ruled by Religious zealots who see sacrificing the lives of their citizens as morally right.

Obama, in spite of his clean cut image, charistmatic speech and near Messiah like woship from his followers, is just another cheap politician who will say whatever a crowd wants to hear in order to get votes.

We need leaders who stand on their values and speak of them, not pander in order to grab power.

u∃∃l!∃ said...

scottiebill,

That site is blocking a lot of ip addresses, I tried getting in from multiple ip addresses, and each time it tells me that my IP address has been blocked.

I am not likely to vote for either Obama or McCain anyway.
I am very disappointed in the Republicans for not coming up with a decent candidate. I really expected much better from that group.

iago said...

I want a president I can depend on, not one who needs Depends.

Lew Waters said...

I am very disappointed in the Republicans for not coming up with a decent candidate. I really expected much better from that group.

You are not alone, Eileen. Given my choices this time, I haven't even decided if it is worth voting yet. Either of the three will be bad for the country, in my estimation.

u∃∃l!∃ said...

well Lew,
It is your party.

Would you even be willing to vote for a non republican if they were the best candidate, even if you thought they had no chance of winning.
Or would it come down to the excuse of it being more important to prevent someone else from wining?

How can a political party have a Presidential candidate that was not born in the US, as does the Socialist Workers party (not to be confused with the Socialist party).

I had no idea that the Prohibition party was still active, and had a candidate for President.

When did Ralph leave the Green party?

I just don't keep up.

Scottiebill said...

Eileen, Go to Daniel is Right on the right side of Victoria's site. The scroll to the Danegerus site on the right side of his site. It should come right up for you.

Klatu said...

http://www.danegerus.com/weblog/Right.asp And check out Rightwingsparkle
Lew told me about this Site. Good one

Lew Waters said...

Would you even be willing to vote for a non republican if they were the best candidate, even if you thought they had no chance of winning.
Or would it come down to the excuse of it being more important to prevent someone else from wining?


Eileen, I am a conservative much more than a Republican. I was raised a Democrat and like Reagan said, they abandoned me.

My focus currently is on keeping mre conservative leaning people, or electing more conservative leaning people in Congress. I've all but written off the presidential election this time.

Will I vote for someone else? You bet, if they represent my values. In fact, I met and talked shortly with Brian Baird today. I thanked him for his getting behind the Troops and the Mission they are on and told him that even though I am a Republican, he will most likely receive my vote this time.

His Republican opponent, Michael Delavar, will not receive my support due to his alliance with Ron Paul and the desire to pull the rug out from under our Troops.

Lew Waters said...

How can a political party have a Presidential candidate that was not born in the US,

Eileen, the constitution says, "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Children born to Military parents stationed on Foreign Soil are "natural born citizens."

My oldest daughter was born while I was stationed in Germany. She has a State Department Birth Certificate as well as we had to file a Report of American Citizen Born Abroad through the American Embassy in Munich.

cnskate said...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html
Sorry, off topic, but this is important stuff, if anyone is interested in the Alaskan Oil fields

Klatu said...

CNS: So have you called Senator Ted Stevens
at 1-202-224-3121 and told him to drill
at ANWAR? And your thoughts about Maxine Waters
letting the Cat out of the Bag that the
Democrats want to Socialize the Oil Industry?

u∃∃l!∃ said...

It is no worse that those who should just join the socialist party, stay in the Democratic party; than it is that those who belong in the Constitution party insist on staying in the Republican Party.

Suppose people actually picked the political party that best represented their views, instead of insisting on choosing one of the two most powerful parties.

Keith Moore said...

If people picked the candidate that represented their beliefs (as opposed to just sticking with a party label), the nation would be better off, Eileen.

Keith Moore said...

As to the post that started this little bruhaha, I want to take this opportunity to agree with Eileen. Yes, yes... I'm agreeing with her, don't have a stroke people. :P

Let's examine what Obama said, as quoted by Victoria. To be honest, Obama started off by saying something irrelevant. He explained that three countries are smaller than a nation that stretched over 12 time zones; I desperately hope he didn't have to study a map to figure that out. But it's irrelevant; their respective sizes have nothing to do with how much of a threat they pose.

But going beyond the first dumb-sounding statement, the rest of his points were consistent and valid. In fine, Iran Cuba and Venuzuela don't pose a threat to us in the way that the USSR did; there is simply no comparison. The USSR was a gargantuan nation with significant resources (even if they didn't use them), an immense military machine, an espionage organization on par with the British SIS/SS and American CIA, and the ability to attack any spot on the planet with a scientifically-calibrated atomic weapon by pushing a button. Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela are nothing like this so Obama was entirely correct to say so. Iran can still be a "grave threat" and not pose a serious threat to us in the same way that the USSR did. I may disagree with his implication that the motivition for talking to Iran/Cuba/Venezuela is the same as the motivation for talking to the USSR but his statements are correct and consistent.

Klatu said...

Keith Moore said: but his (Obama) statements are correct and consistent.

Klatu said: No there not and America doesn't need a Second term
of JIMMA Carter. What a Weakling Barack Appeasement Obama is and our Enemies Know it.

Keith Moore said...

Klatu, it doesn't matter whether you like Obama or not. If someone you hate says something that's correct, the correctness of his statement isn't diminished by the fact that you don't like him. Opinions can't change facts, as much as many people wish they could.

Klatu said...

Keith - Bull _ _ _ _. Defending Obama again are we. Tell me Keith what Liberal out there can say a nice thing about George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, Richard M Nixon. Answer None. They hateeeeee all of them. Pick a Party and a Candidate Keith. Mine is John McCain the lesser of the two Evils.Either get on board with McCain or Obama.
And if you start defending Obama.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.

PS: Keith maybe your cup of tea is Ronny Paul or Bobby Barr.

Keith Moore said...

Klatu, do you ever understand my argument or are you just shooting your mouth off without a clue about what I'm saying? My original purpose isn't to defend Obama but to point out that his statement wasn't inconsistent. If you are incapable of understanding the difference, I have no intention of giving you the time of day.

u∃∃l!∃ said...

Klatu,

I pick the letter "S"

When I was a kid, my Dad (who is further Left than I am) used to say something about wanting to see Richard Nixon on a Postage Stamp.

Does that qualify as "nice".

Have you ever seen the
world's Smallest Political Quiz

I was thinking of coming up with a Klatu Version, for you to put on your blog. Instead of the 5 categories and the grid, it would have two Categories.

Rhubarb said...

I like the way "boy" was worked into the topic of the post. Not exactly subtle, but effective just the same.

jonny said...

Oh Victoria, Do you really think Obama is an America hating racist muslim who secretly plans to put pissers over memorials? Give me a break, I know you don't even think thats true!

Keith Moore said...

So you know why she said no such thing, jonny... because she doesn't believe it's true! How utterly magical!

Keith Moore said...

I love this little political quiz, Eileen. I first took it years ago and am pleasantly surprised to find that I always get the same result from it: Conservative Libertarian. So where do you fall, if I may inquire?

And I'd like to see Nixon on a postage stamp too. Maybe they could get a photo of him in the early 1950s... the pictures from that period (and a little earlier) depict a mildly handsome young man as opposed to the somewhat long and heavily-joweled face that he had by the time he became president.

jonny said...

--the pictures, Keith

Keith Moore said...

I think, jonny, that you might be projecting your own beliefs onto Victoria because I do not see this expression of belief in those pictures. Yet you do. Interesting, eh?

u∃∃l!∃ said...

Keith,
Nixon did finally make it onto a postage stamp.
I may have some of the stamps, they came out many years after my dad made this statement.
(What I didn't mention, was that he later explained to me that one had to be dead to be on a postage stamp. I am pretty sure that is no longer true, as anyone can now get their own image onto a postage stamp).

The last time I took that quiz I was on the line, that divides centrist and libertarian, just slightly left of the center.
But I am very left on a few issues, and right of center on a few others.

A Klatu version would be easier.
All I would need are Klatu's answers as a baseline.
Then either one agrees or does not.
One dot for Klatuism, and the rest for "rhino/communist/socialist".
(If you are interested, Klatu, let me know, this could be fun to write.)

Klatu said...

Klatuism? No eileen its called Conservatism.

PS: Oh and eileen My Dad once said to me All Democrats believe in SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM, redistribution, Big Government, since you brought up your DAD.

PPS: Your Right of Center eileen on some issue's? Ha your on the left edge of the spectrum on everything.

Klatu said...

Keith said: Klatu, do you ever understand my argument.

Klatu said: I "hardly ever" read your extremely longgggggggggggg Ronny Paul, Libertarian, Posts keith. Ronny Paul is a space case. Just like 0-BOMB-A is a SPACE CASE. Karl Marx would be proud of O-BOMB-A though. But you seem like a Ronny Paul Supporter.

PS: I recently helped evict some Ronny Paul Supporters out of Republican Headquarters in Corvallis because we didn't have Ronny Paul Literature and they were being _ _ _ _ _ _ _. Felt good to do it. And I'll do it again. That headquarters gets invaded every two years. Were use to it.

jonny said...
This post has been removed by the author.
jonny said...

Hmmm isn't it obvious? Why do you think Victoria assembled those (inflammatory) pictures? It conveys a
message- albeit untrue. Research shows that millions of people still think Obama is a muslim. That picture is designed to perpetuate that myth. The Rev wright picture is intended to project Wrights image onto Obama. Michelle Obama was only trying to say she was proud of her husband and her country- but it only came out wrong (big deal). The no hand on heart during the pledge of allegience? Actually it was the national anthem. Protocol is that you do not put your hand on your heart during the anthem, only the pledge. He had know idea what the other candidates were doing (incorrectly) behind him. Its all meant to distort truth and shape perception. Victoria is well aware of what she is doing. So I am calling her out on it!

Keith Moore said...

Calling her out on your personal interpretation of a series of pictures. Clever of you.

jonny said...

I really do not mind it when you disagree Kieth. But honestly I think that sometimes you disagree just to disagree. I mean, are you honestly saying that you think Victoria was just innocently trying to find random pictures of Obama to put up on her site, and thats what she came up with?

Ive seen all those same pics before too. All of these pictures represent manufactured controversies. Oh, and I forgot to mention that Obama is the antichrist.

Keith Moore said...

I disagree because it's you, jonny. No, seriously... I express disagreement because I genuinely disagree with your conclusions. I didn't say that Victoria went around finding the most neutral pictures she could but, rather, that your accusations are your own interpretation instead of what is actually being expressed. It's fine to interpret something but not fine to use your interpretation to level accusations. You need a higher level of evidence before accusing people of things.