Obama: Bush, McCain Should Explain Their Problem With JFK

Political Radar:

Sen. Barack Obama went one step further today in his pushback against presumptive GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain and President Bush on appeasement, suggesting that both Republicans have a problem with presidents past who have engaged in direct diplomacy.

"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 [Soviet leader Nikita] Khrushchev, or Ronald Reagan, 'cause that's what he did with [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev, or Richard Nixon 'cause that's what they did with [Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung]," Obama said in Roseburg, Ore. "That's exactly the kind of diplomacy we need to keep us safe."

Read the whole story: Political Radar

Comments

[MajorKong]

Khrushchev never really knew whether he should try to scare us or try to make peace with us. He was very concerned that if the hawks at the Pentagon found out just how weak the Soviet Union really was that we would attack them.

He actually preferred Eisenhower to Kennedy, because he believed that Eisenhower had a better chance of keeping the military under control.

[TheJibreelaMonsters]

Obama is NOT Kennedy. Obama is not Reagan. If he were either one, I might vote for him because I sure dont wanna vote for McCain however I have no other choice. Talking to your enemies and standing around the campfire holding hands and singing Kumbaya are two different things. He wants to have the Castros to the White House for tea, without them making any adjustments to their so called human rights practices. If Obama wants to compare himself to Kennedy, he needs to take note of how Kennedy dealt with Castro

[thegreatgiginthesky]

Why not just be honest and say that the reason you won't vote for him is because he is not white. Why bother with all this spin. We both know you would never vote for JFK.

[TheJibreelaMonsters]

All of you are sheep, nothing but sheep. You have no clue about JKF

[vippy]

You are wrong. How Bush1 dealt with Castro. It was him who orchestrated the Bay of Pigs and
because JFK did not respond the way he wanted him too he had to lose his life over it.
Castro was a milion times better than Batista. But then the US is known to always support
dictators. Castro had to have a strong hand because the interferrence the US would have had
otherwise. People in Cuba love Castrol, just watch when he speaks how many cheer him. Same in Venezuela, however, there are always those disgruntled ones, which we have to and they are
called those 28% Republicans who still think Bush is doing a good job.
OBAMA 08

[TheJibreelaMonsters]

Your digging deep when it comes to the Bay of Pigs and HW Bush? Damm, that like saying the JKF administration place Saddam and Company in Iraq. Look it up.

[Midnightrain]

No, you are right: Obama is not Reagan or Kennedy - but he is someone who is in tune with what the nation needs right now, unlike McCain. I sense fear in your post that Obama would outshine some of your most heartfelt heroes. Don't be blind-sighted by your own biases; whatever they are. In other words: Get over yourself.

[TheJibreelaMonsters]

What dose the nation needs: Leadership for just more "cradle to the grave" Liberalism?

[eej]

Stop listening to trash from the Hannity-Limbaugh crowd. The "kumbaya" line is all worn out.

[5thGenDem]

I'm curious as to how you've come to the conclusion that Obama is planning on "standing around the campfire holding hands and singing Kumbaya" with America's enemies, or inviting "the Castros to the White House for tea." You obviously haven't been listening to Obama,as he has repeatedly made it clear that this would not be the case. I suspect you've been spending too much time reading the right wing-nut blogs. For an accurate view of Obama's position on this issue go to http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

[TheJibreelaMonsters]

I dont sip the koolaid with the blinders on. The proof is right there when it comes to foreign policy. What is he really going to do about Hammas and Iran, really?

[Gma11]

Excellent, Barack!!

[riverhouse]

Good, sensible challenge by Obama. Presidents of both parties and all stripes have talked with and negotiated with our opponents. It's been proven to be a more effective way to deal with our adversaries than rote carpet bombing. The GOP hero of all heroes, Ronald Reagan, met many times in talks with our greatest and most serious enemy - the Soviet Union - and we avoided the devastating nuclear war that GWB and McCain keep pushing us towards with their childish chest thumping on behalf of Israel. This issue of refusing to talk to our adversaries should be a pertinent part of the general election debate and I have enjoyed watching McCain and his mentor GWB stumble into that mine field. McCain really is a spooky guy, what with his willingness to interject nukes into the discussion of Iran. That is so totally irresponsible. HIllary has joined that absurd threat posse of talking about obliterating Iran. It's stupid, stupid, stupid. I don't believe most Americans, even GOPers, want to see nukes in play over discussion.

[Byzantium]

The problem with JFK? Here's the problem, he was incompetent: Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis, 20x increase in troops in South Vietnam, overthrew the South Vietnamese government, obsessed over Castro.

Not to mention this "bear any burden" BS.

But hey, JFK looked good on TV and gave pretty sounding speeches.

[Gma11]

Don't forget to add that the invasion was planned by Nixon while the Eisenhower administration was still in progress. JFK had doubts. He learned the hard way. But he learned. I admire that in a leader.

[Byzantium]

He "learned" by almost triggering WWIII and by starting us down the long quagmire that is Vietnam.

JFK was one of the most belligerent Presidents we've ever had. I would have thought JFK would have been a negative role model for Obama; except he and his followers are too invested in the black Kennedy theme.

[PrObama29]

What about Nixon and Reagan?

[Midnightrain]

It's clear that you're stuck in dark ages. This is a democracy, not an empire. Byzantine is dead: stop trying to resurrect him.

[Byzantium]

It's clear you don't know anything about history.

Byzantium isn't a he, it's a place name. And a place name that was never used in the Dark Ages.

[SadButWiser]

This time it is different. Because this time the security of Israel that is at stake not the US. I thought Obama would have figured this out long time ago.

[dollars2donuts]

What do you mean--Israel's security is above our own? I don't understand your point....?

[Lagniappe]

Here is a brie excerpt from the most excellent "Expose':The Christian Mafia",Wayne Madsen.------------"-Leo Strauss, the father of American neo-conservatism and the mentor of such present-day American neo-conservatives as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. Strauss’s close association to the Nazi idea of telling the big lie in order to justify the end goals – Machiavellianism on steroids. Because he was Jewish, he was forced to emigrate to the United States, where he eventually began teaching neo-conservative political science at the University of Chicago. It is this confluence of right-wing philosophies that provides a political bridge between modern-day Christian Rightists (including so-called Christian Zionists) and the secular-oriented neo-conservatives who support a policy that sees a U.S.-Israeli alliance against Islam and European-oriented democratic socialism. For the dominion theologists, the United States is the new Israel, with a God-given mandate to establish dominion over the entire planet. Neither the secular neo-conservatives nor Christian fundamentalists seem to have a problem with the idea of American domination of the planet, as witnessed by the presence of representatives of both camps as supporters of the neo-conservative Project for a New American Century, the neo-conservative blueprint for America’s attack on Iraq and plans to attack, occupy, and dominate other countries that oppose U.S. designs."----------------------

[bygollymissmolly]

How about Israel fights their own battles. When did Israel become another state? Why is it up to us to defend Israel. Are they defenseless? Last I heard they had lots of nukes. Also, why is it that Israel didn't become one of the "coalition of the willing?" Where was Israel when Bush needed them?