julia

You shillers need to get your facts straight!!

Time's Joe Klein has double-checked this so you fools that keep posting these lies are being used by the right-wingers and mouthing their talking points.

(Talking points-thinking optional, right? )

What a pity you can't think for yourselves.

Get a freakin clue.

Joe Klein, May 20

__________________
The candidate does not speak for the campaign.

julia

Here the link of the text.

Klein even asked McCain about this which is also in the link.

McCain Confronted With New Iran Gaffe, Gets Facts Wrong Again (VIDEO) - Politics on The Huffington Post

__________________
The candidate does not speak for the campaign.

babylonDon

Oh so NOW he's using the fact that he never said it to backtrack?!?!?!?!?

The man is SHAMELESS!!!!!!

__________________
“The irony of the Information Age is that it has given new respectability to uninformed opinion."-John Lawton

julia

Right, Krauth is trying to turn McCain's fuck-up into Obama's.

Low information voters miss the spin then inadvertently support the slam by absorbing the talking points-it seems?

__________________
The candidate does not speak for the campaign.

CosmicRocker

Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed

By NATHAN THRALL and JESSE JAMES WILKINS
Published: May 22, 2008
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

__________________

Traveling Wilburys (l to r)

Bob Dylan, Jeff Lynne, Tom Petty, George Harrison, Roy Orbison

centrino

I posted this in the other thread, before realizing a specific thread had been created. Not trying to "spam"

"In fact, Obama has repeatedly been questioned specifically about Ahmadinejad. At a press conference in New York last September, Obama was asked whether he still would meet with Ahmadinejad. He replied: "Yeah ... I find many of President Ahmadinejad's statements odious. ... But we should never fear to negotiate." In November on NBC's "Meet the Press," he defended "a conversation with somebody like Ahmadinejad." "

RealClearPolitics - Articles - McCain Won't Play by Obama's Rules

Jonesy

As people age, they lose their vision.

julia

[quote]Really?!
You cite a Robert Novak Opinion piece as a source?

Many would trust the TIME research department over a Rove water carrier.

When questioned specifically about Ahmandinejad of course he will answer about Ahmandinejad...?
When asked about Ahmadinejad he answers about Ahmadinejad...
Is that a crime? So he should not be answering questions?
Honestly, I don't think Ahmandinejad is named in Obama's platform but the right wingers would love to give the impression Obama has a problem with Jews, which you would know if you had bothered to read the first post of the thread.

While you candidate has no qualms to "obliterate Iran"? When during a debate she has previously chided Wolf Blitzer for asking her a hypothetical question, about Iran?

The last I checked is a comparison.

Please forgive me for putting "talk" instead of "negotiate" in the thread title.
I always try to keep thread titles simple.

Nice parsing, there.

Did you answer about Hrc invoking the RFK assassination, yet?

Or are you happy enough to parse and pick on the frontrunner?

Be happy I don't troll over on Hrc web sites, because I could very easily start to do so.

They would surely rip someone to shreds that cited Novak...!

Or whose side are you on, anyways?

__________________
The candidate does not speak for the campaign.

Jonesy

They aren't Kennedy's footsteps. Diplomacy did not originate with Kennedy or Obama. Nor are we currently in a cold-war. Two connections out of 1,000 is illegitimate. Doing that horseshit is how Bush tricked the nation into Iraq.

Sometimes there is good reason to fear negotiate. In other words, negotiating is fine as long as you are competent?

Crocker, the whole thing is nothing more than an attack on Obama. The policy of diplomacy stretches far beyond any one person. Guess what? No matter who was President, I would still advocate the path of defense and diplomacy, as I always have. This concept may be difficult for you, because like Bush, you cannot separate politics from policy. Rest assured, it is the correct path as anyone with 15 vision and far-sightedness (and a brain complete with a second-grade education), can tell you. You certainly shouldn't take my word for it, but eye-transplants are difficult and 15 vision is currently impossible to achieve through technological means (suck on that, bitches).

julia

This is another Opinion piece, CR.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/op...rssnyt&emc=rss

from the bottom of the page:
Nathan Thrall is a journalist. Jesse James Wilkins is a doctoral candidate in political science at Columbia.

The nyt has even published Opinion pieces praising The Surge which we now know is a failed policy since April 08 was one of the most deadly months there for US soldiers.

__________________
The candidate does not speak for the campaign.