A Delayed Answer to Another Question
Over 2 months ago, in the comments to this article there was a discussion concerning diplomacy and idiocy. During that discussion, one of our frequent commenters took the position that “Trump supports Erdogan” because the POTUS recently sent Ergodan a congratulatory telegram. He also stated this opinion about the current President’s actions: “At best it was idiotic. At best. But I find it far more troubling than that.”
After reading that, I posed some follow-up questions to the individual:
So, do you consider JFK “choosing” to meet with an avowed enemy of the West and dictator (Khrushchev) in 1961 “diplomatic support” for the dictator and enemy? Does that make JFK an enemy of the US?
Or was JFK merely doing what US Presidents do – meet with foreign leaders, even those who are hostile, if the circumstances require?
Later during the same discussion, I rephrased the questions more simply:
Do you consider JFK an “idiot” for meeting with an avowed enemy of the West and dictator (Khrushchev) in Vienna in 1961? Was that “diplomatic support”? If the answer in either case is, “No” – why?
For some reason, I’ve never gotten an answer to those questions – even though I’ve reminded the individual concerned of them, repeatedly, over the past 2 months. Possible reasons why I’m not getting an answer are obvious enough to suggest themselves. But that’s not the point of my article here, so I’m not going to dwell on those possible reasons for sidestepping the questions.
Back on point: the fact that I’ve gotten no answer in 2+ months leads me to believe I never will get an answer from the individual. So I’m going to answer those questions myself.
. . .
BLUF: No, JFK was obviously not an “enemy of the US”. And no – in general, JFK was not an “idiot”. But IMO JFK was a fool to meet with Khrushchev at Vienna in June 1961. However, he was not a fool to send Khrushchev a congratulatory telegram in April 1961 following Yuri Gagarin’s manned spaceflight. And no, I’m not contradicting myself here; explanation follows.
Neither of those actions by JFK “showed support” for Khrushchev and his policies. They were both simply examples of Presidential diplomacy – just like Trump’s congratulatory telegram to Ergodan. They were simply diplomatic “business as usual”.
The claim that a POTUS sending a congratulatory telegram or meeting with an adversarial foreign leader “shows support” for that foreign leader and their actions is very obviously unadulterated male bovine organic fertilizer, AKA pure bullsh!t. Past US Presidents have routinely sent congratulatory telegrams to – and met with – leaders of adversary nations during the past 70+ years when circumstances warranted.
Want some examples? OK. In addition to Kennedy’s April 1961 congratulatory telegram to Khrushchev, we also have Eisenhower’s meeting with Khrushchev at Camp David in 1959; Nixon’s visit to China in 1972; FDRs meetings with Stalin at Tehran and Yalta during World War II; Truman’s meeting with Stalin at Potsdam; and any number of other meetings and telegrams attended or sent by various US Presidents over the years with/to foreign political leaders who happened to be US adversaries and/or rivals. All of those are merely examples of the POTUS doing what the POTUS is Constitutionally empowered to do: diplomatically engage foreign heads of state as a part of setting and directing US foreign policy. It’s an essential part of his job.
Very obviously, those other Presidential telegrams and meetings were not designed to be “expressions of support” for US adversaries or rivals either, or for their policies. They were merely routine Presidential diplomacy – in other words, the POTUS acting like the POTUS.
So, if sending Khrushchev a congratulatory telegram after Gagarin’s flight was merely diplomacy in action, why then was JFK a fool to meet with Khrushchev in Vienna in June, 1961? Wasn’t that simply Presidential diplomacy as well?
Yes it was. And JFK certainly was not “showing support” for Khrushchev or his policies by doing either. But he was nonetheless a fool to go to Vienna in June 1961 – for very different reasons.
In meeting with Khrushchev at Vienna in June, 1961, JFK was a fool because he was explicitly warned by leading US Soviet experts that meeting with Khrushchev at that point was a bad idea. Yet he went ahead and did so anyway.
When he was elected President, JFK was a young and still-somewhat-inexperienced politician with little experience in foreign relations or high-level diplomacy. As a legislator he’d become quite proficient at the US “wheel and deal” political process; he was charming, photogenic, a terrific public speaker, and charismatic. But he didn’t really know much about foreign policy, or how to deal with foreign leaders who were motivated very differently from US politicians – like Khrushchev.
He assumed he could “wheel and deal” (and charm) foreign leaders like he could US politicians. At Vienna, he found out the hard way he could not.
In meeting Khrushchev in Vienna in June, 1961, JFK went against the opinions of two different senior officials at the Department of State. Noted Soviet expert and US diplomat Charles Bohlen warned JFK that meeting with Khrushchev early in his first term was premature. Then-US Ambassador to the Soviet Union Llewellen Thompson concurred, believing that JFK had “underrated Khrushchev’s determination to expand world communism.” Yet JFK felt he was smarter than his Soviet experts – and disregarded their advice.
The result was predictable. In one-on-one meetings at the Vienna Summit, Khrushchev diplomatically manhandled JFK. JFK was completely out of his depth, and was unable to hold his own. JFK himself later referred to the experience by saying, “He (Khrushchev) beat the hell out of me” – and further described meeting with Khrushchev at Vienna as “. . . the worst thing in my life. He (Khrushchev) savaged me.”
Moreover, that meeting in Vienna also damn near had disastrous consequences. It’s widely believed that Khrushchev came to the conclusion after Vienna that JFK was shallow, weak, and irresolute – and that this perception emboldened Khrushchev to place nuclear missiles in Cuba the following year. That in turn led to the Cuban Missile Crisis – the closest the world has ever come to global thermonuclear war.
That is why JFK was a damn fool to meet with Khrushchev in Vienna in 1961. The reason isn’t because doing so “showed support” for Khrushchev and his policies; it did no such thing. That meeting was merely an example of routine Presidential diplomacy – just like the current POTUS sending Ergodan a congratulatory telegram was merely another example of routine Presidential diplomacy.
Rather, JFK was a fool to meet with Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961 because he intentionally disregarded warnings from his experts not to go – and in ignoring those warnings, walked directly into an ambush. The fallout from his choosing to ignore expert advice could easily have led to World War III. In fact, history shows that it damn near did.
Category: Foreign Policy, Historical
Das Commissar’s reply in 5, 4, 3…
*crickets*
Yeah? Well, “Boo hoo.”
He had two months – and repeated reminders – to get off his duff and answer the questions himself if he so desired. He chose not to.
He’s an agitator… does his usual drive-by postings and runs off when asked to back up his claims. Same tactics as certain “progressive groups” that we’ve been reading about for the last year or so. He’s a verbal “rock thrower”… shows up, screams and yells at us, then runs away.
We’re “little people” to him… not worthy of his time or effort. The only thing that most of us here have in common with him is our military service… and that’s all.
Trolls. They’re called trolls, Senior.
I miss Krushev….there hasn’t been a really good “shoe banging” in years!! 😉
Don’t forget Teddy Kennedy’s meeting with the KGB to try and bring Soviet leaders to the US to appear live on television to argue their peaceful intent towards the US in 1983. Teddy was stupid enough to think that the Soviets were less dangerous than Reagan. Or he was a communist… or the ultimate political hack without a conscience… take your pick.
It is also fascinating because he was utterly confident he would be able to get the media to do exactly what he wanted them to do.
http://dailysignal.com/2016/12/14/ted-kennedy-made-secret-overtures-to-russia-to-prevent-ronald-reagans-re-election/
Yeah, and it appears he got a pass on a fairly clear Logan Act violation as well.
Agree with it or not, the Logan Act is current Federal law. And if memory serves, it’s been upheld previously by the SCOTUS.
I’ll take “…ultimate political hack without a conscience.” for 1000, Alex.
Seems very short sighted and naive of Ted Kennedy to believe the Russians were less of a threat to the US than the opposition American political party.
Teddy personified the term “useful idiot.”
Option ‘d’, all of the above?
There was a song about this “The Sound of Silence”
Like this?
I prefer the new version, by Disturbed…
Either way, it describes the sound of Major Commissar, USAR, in this thread.
I like that one, too. The deeper vocals are more effective, I think.
yeah, like their style of music or not, that dudes got pipes!
I just listened to the version by Disturbed. I prefer the original as well as the Gregorian version. Both are “faster”, I guess my mind works fast. The version by the Gregorian group reminds me of old school Catholic mass. Not knocking Disturbed, that version is also good.
JFK was also advised to not go to Dallas during the week of Thanksgiving. He ignored the warning. He may have been charming, but I thought he was rather arrogant. He was not as bad as LBJ was, but just headstrong with enough conceit to ignore valid warnings.
But truly, Hondo, did you actually expect that LaLaLand Slacker to answer your question?
So was his arrogant brother Robert! when he was going thru Eureka Calif on his campaign, he told my Capt he didn’t want any police around, he didn’t need them! My Capt told him to f@#$% off! I guess L.A. listened to the idiot, worked out well for him too didn’t it?
I just want to know why I did not freeze to death on the 70’s…… he won’t answer that one either.
And why are you not dead of swarming heat that is sweeping the planet now?
well, in Houston today I feel like it. Hot and REAL humid. Soaked three t-shirs already.
When the humidity in my area reaches 80% by 9AM, that is worse than heat itself. The weather people make a bigger deal out of heat than they do about what may really send you into a slump, and that is excessive humidity, which prevents you from truly cooling off.
So far NEITHER the “New Ice Age” they predicted in the 70’s from hydrocarbon emissions blotting out the sun OR the global warming they were saying would wipe out 80 percent of mankind by 2000 (80’s eco-hype). the Eco-Doomsday kooks are ALWAYS predicting doomsday in the next five to ten years.
I doubt we’ll even get the usual “Shit and Run” from ‘ol Babbles McButthead, he’s likely doing THIS right now:
Thanks for the homework assignment. I will get back to it later busy this weekend.
I also need to reread the post you are paraphrasing.
Babbles McButthead, JUST quit dodging him and answer.
Idiotic excuses, Taylor.
Is that Bezerkley/Lars speak for “I need to pass it by the local party apparatus (aka: the Lubyanka Lesbian Labia Lickers) before posting an answer here that is long-winded and makes no sense?
Let me clarify. I am busy this weekend because I am eating butt in order to come up with enough crap to reply to you guys here. Mmmmmm Ass!
Sorry, there will be further delays to my answer to Hondo. Not just because I have to keep eating butt to get more argument, but I have to defend eating butt. Someone reviewed eating butt, and got lacerated by someone who doesn’t eat butt. So now I have to put my research into this homework assignment in the background as I come up with a defense against this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5pWm3z_Md8
I will say this: I would have no issue with Trump congratulating an prince who became king through their monarchical process even though I think monarchies are bullshit.
Kruschev took power through their established political process they way the Russians designed it to work.
Erdogan is a shitbag want to be dictator that intentionally underlined and corrupted andbsuppresse Turkey’s democratic process to seize more power. The election was so unfairly manipulated that it drew condemnation from most western democracies, the UN, and every major election monitoring organization in the world.
So Trump publicly congratulating Erdogan’s power grab through the use of massive voter suppression and undemocratic government intimidation is idiotic.
So I am unlikely to change my position even after reading the details of how Kruschev came to power.
The issue with Erdogan is he has and continues to do everything he can to destroy the democratic institutions in Turkey. Trump should not be responding with congratulations for Erdogan’s success at destroying Turkey’s democratic institutions.
So many typos. Hate posting using my phone.
I will get back to this long after the weekend.
The issue with Erdogan you cite is not on point and you know it.
Whether we consider him to be the legitimate ruler or not, whether we consider him to be a “shitbag” or not, he is the de-facto ruler of a NATO nation and therefore, our President will have to deal with him.
Typical of left leaning feelers, you confuse dealing in reality with some form of gift. That confusion leads to your Comrades hitting people with padlocks because they don’t like what they might say.
By the way I do not “owe” an answer to every post people direct at me. Most are idiotic bullshit. And I don’t bother reading most because it is usually not worth my time to sift through the mindless vomit of people like infidel and exph2 or the half a dozen twits that respond with halfwit accusations of me being a communnist.
Harumph!!!!
Sounds like what Treebeard says when the Ents go to war against Isengard.
A duck-and-dodge versus the usual “Shit and Run”.
It’s his “superior” Bezerkley training! He’s able to debate us with one hand tied behind his back!
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/06/30/berkeley-journalism-student-reveals-her-generations-entitled-arrogance/
No, Berkeley-boi. The reason you don’t answer people is you’re an arrogant twit with delusions of both superiority and infallibility. You think answering people’s questions is somehow beneath you, and thus you don’t deign to do so.
In reality, you’re nothing but a petty ideologue adhering to a discredited ideology that’s never worked whenever and wherever it’s been tried. Further, you’re either incapable of or too lazy to do your own homework – or think for yourself. Adhering to the party line thus saves you the trouble of doing so.
By the way, Khrushchev came to power much like Ergodan. He engineered a behind-the-scenes bloodless coup that deposed Beria, then had him executed. He then disposed of his allies similarly (though some of them weren’t executed, if I recall correctly). It’s precisely how Stalin came to power after Lenin’s death. The only political “legitimacy” either received was having the Soviet Politburo of their day ratify their ascent to power after-the-fact.
(Edited to add) Indeed, if anything Ergodan has a greater claim to political legitimacy as leader of Turkey than did Khrushchev did as leader of the Soviet Union. Ergodan has been Turkey’s leader since 2003; his party won Turkey’s general elections in 2002 in what amounted to a landslide, and the Turkish PM (and senior member of the party Ergodan led from behind-the-scenes) installed after that election restored his political rights. Ergodan became Turkey’s PM shortly thereafter through legitimate parlimentary processes.
“halfwit accusations of me being a communnist”
You seem to be courting them via your screen-name, no? I live in the BA and I understand that the thinking here is much different from most other places in this country. This is an area that looks at its collective navel and perceives universal truth. “We” get away with it -only- because of the big $$ here. If we were a poorer region, we’d have to face a bit more reality.
Major Commissar, USAR, aka Commissar, refuses to answer questions like the above, per the parameters set, as the correct answer destroys his argument. By avoiding the question, he gives himself the excuse he needs to keep arguing… After all, if he doesn’t do something to destroy his argument, he “can continue”. If he answers truthfully and factually, without dodging your question, there would be no point in continuing the argument.
You’re assuming he’s bright enough to realize all of that and adopt that strategy when he has a losing argument, thebesig. Based on what I’ve seen from him in his comments here, I’m not at all convinced that’s the case.
Major Commissar’s mode of operation is not that different from other liberals I’ve debated in the past 13 years. I’ve asked even more specific questions, simple questions with yes/no options, where the correct answer demolishes the oppositions main argument.
His response, about not owing a response, is his justification to remaining in debate. Let’s face it. If he were to answer your questions, per the parameters that you set, the argument would be over… he’d prove himself wrong with his own response.
He knows that, we know that, his actions prove it.
I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve got that “I skimmed over all the posts” or “I rapidly went through all those posts”, as well as the, “I don’t have to answer questions,” and yes, the, “I don’t owe you an answer,” in response to a series of posts where I had a simple yes/no question.
Major Commissar knows that he has a losing argument, otherwise he’d easily answer your question. Ignoring your question gives him justification to reply and continue an argument as a matter of narcissism driven control.
I’ve been debating these regressives for 13 years, I have them analyzed and categorized into specific psychological profiles. It’s like they’re passing the same playbook to each other.
Possible. I’m still not completely convinced he’s bright enough to realize when he has a losing argument and shut up – or capable of doing the latter.
The other point, as I’ve indicated above, is that he’s “mainstream” for this San Francisco Bay Area. Mainstream! People of his political persuasion don’t _have to_ diligently promote and back up their arguments with detailed reasoning. They are playing to the choir, and that choir deck is stacked. The much-publicized story of the Mayor of San Jose having given a “stand-down” order to police in the event of violence following the Donald Trump rally in June of last year is evidence of the entrenched mentality http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/07/14/trump-rally-attendees-sue-san-jose-mayor-liccardo-and-police-chief/ as were the recent episodes of violence in that “free speech” capital, Berkeley. They “own the place” and if they get their dopamine from their own environment, why should they bother responding to you in detailed fashion?
I don’t know much about JFK. He was before my time. But everything I have seen leads me to think he was not the brightess.
Perhaps he was the first example of the American people voting by appearance rather than consistency?
On the other hand, VP Nixon looks horrible in that live TV presidential debate.
One thing is for sure, he certainly had his way with the ladies. He thought it was bad for his health if he didn’t get some “strange” practically every day. I’ll bet our own SARC is a fan or at least and admirer of ol’ JFK.
If JFK had SARC’S biome, he might still be with us, banging away.
He displayed the same cowardly behavior after I exposed his bullshit when he tried to say that all Marines get a certificate for completing basic training.
As “proof” he posted a link to an ” acceptance letter” that delayed entry poolees get for meeting the standards to enlist. I pointed out that this was simply a recruiting tool used to encourage potential recruits, and there are several people who get them who never attend Boot Camp.
The second link that Lars the back-peddling snowflake posted was a copy of an “Honorman” certificate that is only awarded to the top recruit in a platoon.
Despite being given the correct information and a chance to admit he was misinformed he simply slunk off like he is apt to do.
Nothing is more despicable than someone who lacks the integrity and moral courage to admit they were misinformed.
I’m just glad he has been purged from the ranks of the military.
To pick a couple of nits, Yalta & Potsdam weren’t just “diplomatic” events, but conferences with an ally, since we were allied with the USSR during the second world war. Unless I’m reading something new into your statements. 🙂
Another good example is the trip to China, which created the aphorism “Only Nixon can go to China.” From what I’ve read from certain sources, Nixon courted mainland China with the specific goal of diplomatically isolating North Vietnam. Alas, by the time he took office in early 1969 the best he could do was delay the loss of South Vietnam.
Speaking of stupid leaders, surely LBJ holds a special spot for his strategy of “not losing” in Vietnam. The man had no idea on how to run a war, and just wanted to avoid another “who lost China” scandal for the Democrats.
It’s true that Yalta/Tehran/Potsdam were “conferences”. However, it would have been feasible for FDR or Truman to send representatives instead if he’d wanted to signal his displeasure to Stalin (Stalin wasn’t fooled – he knew the USG distrusted him, and he distrusted us as well.) Both chose to attend in person instead.
Regarding the opening to China being made primarily to end the Vietnam War – don’t think so. Nixon courted China primarily to use it as a counterweight against the USSR, which by the late 1960s had achieved strategic parity with the US and was thought to be potentially capable of achieving dominance. The end of the war in Vietnam was a secondary benefit.
The undeclared war between the USSR and the PRC along the Ussuri River in March 1969 exposed the depth of Soviet-PRC animosity. The US normalizing relations with China would both lessen a nuclear threat to the US and put pressure on the USSR to “play nice”. That was the main reason that Nixon went to China.
Nixon was no fool, and seized that opportunity. He had Kissinger approach China beginning in late 1970, and Kissinger secretly visited China a few months later. During that secret visit, Kissinger apparently agreed to the “One China” fig-leaf and to withdraw 2/3 of US forces from Taiwan after the end of the Vietnam War. Given historical animosity between China and Vietnam (approximately 2 millennia’s worth), that was likely enough for the PRC to decide it was in their best interest to force North Vietnam to negotiate an expedited end to the Vietnam War. (The Soviets were also getting tired of supporting North Vietnam by the early 1970s, wanting better relations with the West.)
Nixon visited China in Feb 1972. However, the Paris Peace talks remained effectively deadlocked until May 1972, when the US made the strategic blunder of conceding to Vietnamese demands for a “cease-fire in place”. After that, progress began. The terms of the eventual agreement were agreed to by the US and DRVN roughly 5 months later.