Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Barack Obama, A Student of History

Electing Barack Obama President of these United States is akin to giving your twelve year old child the keys to the car with a bottle of Jack Daniels.

When John McCain said he would be civil in his ad campaigns, (e.g. not use the reverend Wright as an issue against Barack Obama) – even though it showed Barack sitting in the pews for twenty years listening to his reverand spew anti-American rhetoric with his children – I thought McCain was going to lose the race. But, now I am not so sure. Barack Obama's nescience on just about anything of import is astounding as Michelle Malkin notes in her recent article in National Review

Michelle begins by writing:

All it takes is one gaffe to taint a Republican for life. The political establishment never let Dan Quayle live down his fateful misspelling of "potatoe." The New York Times distorted and misreported the first President Bush's questions about new scanner technology at a grocers' convention to brand him permanently as out of touch.

But what about Barack Obama? The guy's a perpetual gaffe machine. Let us count the ways, large and small, that his tongue has betrayed him throughout the campaign:

Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed." The actual death toll: 12. Continue Reading…

There is one huge gaffe that Michelle did not mention in her article. In Obama's Victory Speech after the North Carolina Primary, he stated , "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." He must be taking history from our public school system, because he didn't learn much or he was asleep.

Let's look at Roosevelt, Kennedy and Truman's negotiations with their enemies. Any Barack Obama supporter who is also a student of history must be embarrassed by now.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was in office when World War II broke out in Europe. Roosevelt rejected the 1930s Wilsonian neutrality acts which were currently in effect and kept the United States neutral from external conflicts. Roosevelt believed he should instead support his allies France and Britain. Roosevelt wanted to enter the war, but there was a liberal contingent in the United States that did not want to be drawn into the conflict. There were the Barack Obamas during World War II who wanted to negotiate with the enemy too. The inept Neville Chamberlain, Britain's, Barack Obama returned from Germany after speaking with Hitler during the Munich Conference and in a speech defending the Munich agreement, Chamberlain assured the Brits that the Germans promised peace, ""My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." The Munich agreement gave the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in exchange for peace; this is known as "appeasement" the act of granting some concession for peace. Well we know what Hitler did with his "appeasement."

Roosevelt did speak with Stalin but that was because Stalin had become an ally of the United States. It was Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill who defeated Hitler in the end. Roosevelt never negotiated with Adolf Hitler, Emperor Hirohito or Benito Mussolini, the enemies of the day, the Axis powers. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was the seminal event that brought the United States into the war. This also prompted Roosevelt to give his famous "Day of Infamy" speech.

In the speech, Roosevelt stated, "No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory."

After Roosevelt died, Truman assumed the presidency, and he did not negotiate with the Axis powers either. How did he help end the war? not through negotiation as suggested by Barack Obama but by dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. After, the first bomb, Hirohito did not believe we had another bomb. Every man, woman and child of Japan was trained to fight to the death according to the ancient samurai tradition. In order to reach mainland Japan, several strategic islands had to be taken first including the island of Iwo Jima, which caused 6,200 casualties. Iwo Jima was one of a myriad of strategic islands near Japan. Entering the Japanese mainland would have caused half a million deaths or more as some have estimated. The concern was how many American lives would have to be lost if we entered mainland Japan. The decision was made to drop a second atomic bomb on Nagasaki, again no negotiation.

In fact, towards the end of the war, Hirohito wanted a peace that was conditional. Japan was trying to secretly negotiate a peace settlement with Russia. It called for Hirohito to remain in power, but the message from the Allies known as the Potsdam proclamation was clear, "the unconditional surrender of all the Japanese armed forces." (U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the U.S., The Conference of Berlin (Potsdam), vol. 2, pg. 1474-1476). Imagine what Barack Obama would have done. This would be like leaving Hussein or Ahmadinejad in power. Do you think Japan would be the thriving economic democracy it is today? It was necessary to obliterate Japan first, so it could rise from the rubble and grow into the powerhouse economy it is today.

In a press conference May 16, 2008, Barack then talks about Kennedy and Khrushchev, "We were on the brink of war of nuclear war" in reference to the Kennedy and Khrushchev meeting in Vienna, Austria 1961. We were not on the brink of war.

The meeting between the two leaders was to discuss the peace in Eastern Germany. What followed the meeting was the Berlin wall. In reality, however, Khrushchev was testing the weakness or strength of President Kennedy. The United States was unaware of this, at the time, but Khrushchev cognizant of the debacle of the Bay of Pigs was testing Kennedy's resolve. This meeting actually emboldened Khrushechev. Khrushchev underestimated Kennedy, and 15 months later, he brought us to the brink of nuclear war. Obama missed the date by 15 months, because he thought that meeting was all about the nuclear war. It wasn't even on our minds. Obama thought we were on the brink of war at that meeting or so he said. We finally discovered missiles on Cuba by aerial photographs, and that caused the start of the Cuban missile crisis. Kennedy never negotiated with Khrushchev after that disastrous meeting; we gave him an ultimatum followed by a blockade.

If Obama studied the meeting between Kennedy and Khrushchev, it would have been a reason for Obama to get out of the race. Kennedy had vastly more experience than Obama, yet Krushchev thought him weak. There is a reason Hamas came out in support of Obama. The one difference between Kennedy and Ahmadinejad is any meeting between the two, Ahmadinejad will not underestimate Obama. He will see Obama as weak, and he will be correct. Who do you think Hamas thinks is the weakest of the candidates?

A good read on the subject is the New York Time's piece, "Kennedy Talked, Khruschev Triumphed." In this article, Nathan Thrall and Jesse James Wilkins describe how Kennedy was advised by George Kennan not to rush into a high-level meeting with Krushchev, Dean Rusk, Kennedy's secretary of state said, "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?” This was not an example Obama should have used to support his contention for holding negotiations. It should have done just the opposite.

It would not be that difficult to splice footage of these gaffes by Obama, followed by clips of the actual history. Clips could also be used where he claims Iran is not dangerous because it is a small country. Barack makes gaffe after gaffe, and then he tries to spin what he said the following day. And there is no doubt; this lightweight will keep on doing it. There is enough viable footage for television ads that McCain should find suitable. Who needs Reverend Wright when you have Barack Obama!

Get busy team McCain.

Neville Chamberlain Peace in Our Time 1938

Ever since I assumed my present office my main purpose has been to work for the pacification of Europe, for the removal of those suspicions and those animosities which have so long poisoned the air. The path which leads to appeasement is long and bristles with obstacles. The question of Czechoslovakia is the latest and perhaps the most dangerous. Now that we have got past it, I feel that it may be possible to make further progress along the road to sanity.
From Great Britain, Parliamentary Debates, Commons, Vol. 339 (October 3, 1938)

Sounds like Barack Obama

The result, estimated loss of human life 72 million including Six Million Jews dead, 47 million civilians dead, 20 million deaths as a result of famine and starvation, 25 million military troops dead, 61 million allies dead, 11 million of the Axis powers.

I wonder how many would have been saved if the world had not ignored Hitler for so long, and I wonder how many lives will be lost if Barack Obama is elected president.

1 comment:

DanielleV said...

Chamberlain's actual "peace for our time" quote reads "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time."

Republican Party Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory DeeperLeft member