Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patsfanin Philly, Jul 1, 2010.
RealClearPolitics - (Even a Few) Words Matter
I was intrigued, as I am a fan of words, but not enough to click a link without at least a summary of why I am clicking said link.
The author's premise ( I didn't want to bias anyone with my own opinions- I know a first) was that in diplomacy, when words are said that project weakness, such as apologies for transgressions, both real and imagined, enemies have throughout history taken advantage. He lists Neville Chamberlin, and others and how what they perceived as innocent comments such as (to paraphrase) South Korea is outside the US' sphere of protection, it makes the world a more dangerous place, not a safer one....Adversaries misjudge an anticipated response based on those comments.
Secretary of State Dean Acheson gave a comprehensive address to the National Press Club in early 1950. Either intentionally or by accident, he mentioned that South Korea was beyond the American defense perimeter. Communist North Korea, and later China, agreed. War broke out six months later.>>>>
Read it, liked it, agreed with it!
It is an intriguing piece, but none of what he alleges is born out by any facts.. if you click on the supposed document source.. all that comes up is real clear politics..
We have discussed some of the before, and remember one instance where Dennis Erikson sais Obama apologized for something, after further review it was found that the apology was taken out of context..
50 years ago Nikita Kruschev took off his shoe in the United Nations and banged in on the podium.. on other words taking selective comments to fit a specific argument are pretty useless..
So April Gillespie didn't say that???? So Acheson didn't say that at the Press Club and the Koreans didn't invade six months later? What wasn't borne out by the facts??
Right after the US Embassy officials were taken hostage in Tehran in 1979, President Jimmy Carter ruled out the use of the military to either free the hostages or strike at Iran to send a message. That statement led the miltants to believe that there would be no recriminations for the hostage taking and as a result they were held in captivity for 444 days..do you believe Carter's words contributed to their captivity???
Do not know, but you cite a source that says Obama apologized for this and that without qualification.. to accept an article like this shows nothing...
The Tehran thing was more complicated than that, and it was an early foray into this whole extreme muslim thing.. there may have been a different outcome if Ronnie Raygun was not secretly negotiating behind the scenes (illegally) with the Iranians... do you believe that the day he was elected that they were so afraid they would just release them.???. if you do you are a complete fool...
In 1983 Raygun did not retaliate after the attack on the marine barracks in Lebanon and 241 marines were killed.. there was no serious retaliation for the Beirut bombing from the Americans, besides a few shellings. In December 1983, U.S. aircraft from the USS Enterprise (CVN-65) battle group attacked Syrian targets in Lebanon, but this was in response to Syrian missile attacks on planes, not the barracks bombing. Multi-service ground support units were withdrawn from Beirut post attack on the Marine barracks due to retaliatory threats... this is credited with giving rise to the Hexbollah.. did Raygun cause Hezbollah to become emboldenened????. it may have been a factor, but there are many other factors associated with anything that happens..
Many things have been said in the last 50 years, and to take three items and find cause and effect is at best, folly.... you could say the when Ronnie Raygun said tear down this wall he caused it, but it was much more than that.. the soviet union really had no choice as their country was falling apart apart..
Every president and sec. of state has said certain things and things have then happened, is it because they said it??? It is much more than that.. to believe it is any less or to accept an article that says Obama apologized for this or that without any corraborating documents is idiotic...
Nice deflection but the article, if you read it was on things said by others, not Obama and the ramifications, from Chamberlin, to Acheson to Gillespie. Do you deny those events???
As for Reagan and the hostages, when Carter made his comments in November 1979, Reagan was not the nominee and in fact had not even won a single primary so it was not a foregone conclusion that he would be the Rep, nominee. To blame hm is revisionist history...
Cherry-picking bullsh!t. World leaders throughout history have said lots of things. None of them were perfect. Some of the things they said caused bad things to happen and some caused good things to happen. Bush said Saddam Hussein had WMDs and his chickenhawk advisors said he had something to do with 9/11.
This is all partisan hackery as the OP knows, and the article was aimed at Obama Bashing and left out every example of Republican stupidity, including the bumbling of Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. Not a mention of any of them. The truth is that all leaders say things that work out well and work out poorly, but either way, it's usually because of circumstances beyond their control. To say otherwise is misleading at best, but that's the point, isn't it?
Not to hold him partially responsible is folly and ignorance, Carter is made mucho mistakes, but was not helped by the back door shenanigans of Reagan.. if Reagan were pres today, with the internet and all of its hysteria, he would probably have faced impeachment...
Do you deny that because Raygun did not retaliate against Hezbollah after the attack on the Marine Barracks that killed 241 Marines, that it emboldened them and turned them into a major political factor in the middle east??
I do not deny any of the comments.. but in reality thousands of comments have been made.. some led to positive things and some less so.. to cherry pick three comments and say this is what happened because is faulty logic.. you would have to increase the sample size exponentially to allow any semblance of credibility.
The article goes on and says Obama apologized with no corraboration.. that is all. It the author does not take the time or energy to qualify what he says it needs to be dismissed. Just because an article says Obama is bad, does not give it instant credibility... for lazy folks maybe, but for most not.. it is just another partisan article that means absolutely nothing..
here is a maxim learned to live by a while ago, "If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is"
Separate names with a comma.