Should FDR Have Reached Out To 'Moderate' Nazis?

Start Thinking Right ^ | March 10, 2009 | Michael Eden

[Michael Eden]

There's such a thing as a contradiction in terms: Obama's "adding more to the debt than all previous presidents -- from George Washington to George W. Bush -- combined" while preaching the message of "fiscal responsibility" certainly qualifies. Hence "Obama budget" and "fiscal responsibility" is oxymoronic. Another terrific new oxymoron that Obama has added to the lexicon is "moderate Taliban":

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Barack Obama is open to the idea of reaching out to moderate elements of the Taliban, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

"Moderate elements of the Taliban"?

Did FDR reach out to "moderate Nazis"? Did Truman reach out to "moderate Stalinists"? Did Martin Luther King go after those "moderate Ku Klux Klansmen"?

The strategy of co-opting a few of ones' enemies and turning them into allies is probably as old as warfare. And General David Petraeus (a genuine hero, by the way), who proved a master at identifying and separating factions of former enemy fighters in Iraq, has discussed employing a similar strategy in Afghanistan.

But when a professional soldier such as General David Petraeus talks about separating factions of Taliban from the rest of the herd, it's the opinion of a successful military strategist who has already proven he knows how to win wars. When Barack Obama - who criticized General Petraeus for his war-winning "surge strategy" - talks about "moderate Taliban," it's the opinion of an ignorant weasel who has already shown he would rather make friends with radical fundamentalist Muslims than attempt to defeat them before they kill even more innocents than they already have.

The quintessential element of an appeasing weakling is to identify "moderation" in one's enemies where none actually exists.

Petraeus I trust implicitly to do the right thing for the United States and for the forces under his command. He will pursue the best path to victory. Obama I also trust implicitly - to be a an appeaser who sees friends where only enemies exist so that he can talk of having won "peace in our time." He has already tried to prevent America from obtaining victory in Iraq by opposing the strategy that made that victory possible.

It was just short of two years ago that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said of Iraq: "Now I believe myself ... that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything." Obama joined with Harry Reid:

In Congress, Obama was one of many lawmakers who spoke against the plan. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Obama is able to plan the withdraw of United States combat troops from Iraq - not with their tails between their legs in defeat, but in victory - because Bush, Petraeus, and far better men than Obama made the right decision.

Whenever Obama talks about the war in Afghanistan - or anywhere else American troops are fighting, for that matter - let it be remembered that he vehemently opposed the surge strategy that brought us such tremendous victory in Iraq. And let us never forget that the man is in his heart an appeaser who will be all too embrace a short-term success even if it will lead to a long term disaster.

My biggest fear of all is not that Obama will demand that Petraeus find "moderate Taliban" whether they exist or not, but that he will find "moderate Hamas" in Palestinian-controlled territory and "moderate Hezbollah in Lebanon. Both are terrorist organizations that would like nothing better to exceed Hitler's tally of six million murdered Jews.

The best way to create "moderates" in the Taliban is to let them know in no uncertain terms that their alternative to becoming "moderate" is certain defeat and death.

[EagleUSA]

And FDR most certainly DID dally with Stalin in a way that drove Churchill nuts, as you point out.

Still, once war was on, FDR at least didn’t seek to “reach out” and “comprimise” with the Nazis.
::::::::::::
Yes, and we should keep very aware of our “foreign policy”. This nation has much more to be concerned about than they still have to realize....

[Michael Eden]

Right again, Eagle.

It SHOULD be the thing that a president is MOST concerned about. If there is ONE legitimate constitutional duty for a president and a federal government, it is defense.

Iran obtaining nuclear weapons will change the world. Even if they don’t attack Israel (which of course they ultimately would), you will see a massive increase in terrorism, and even the blocking of the Strait to sever the oil supply.

And what will we do about it? Attack them, and give them an excuse to start a nuclear war?

And that’s just ONE of many problems and developing crises.

I have never understood why FDR was such a popular president, given that his policies prolonged the depression, and he allowed this country to be totally vulnerable to attack.

Whenever I think Americans are intelligent - even in the generations that were FDR more intelligent than we are today - I think about FDR and realize we are and have been fools.

[EagleUSA]

Whenever I think Americans are intelligent - even in the generations that were FDR more intelligent than we are today - I think about FDR and realize we are and have been fools.
::::::::::::::
And what we (the American electorate) have put in our White House and Congress, is GLARING POSITIVE EVIDENCE of that fact. Elections have consequences and this one will be the worst in history, will certainly generate the least respected and most disliked president in history, and do more damage to the American Republic that can only be fearfully imagined at this juncture. God help us.