Myth 1:  Obama’s engagement with our adversaries weakens America.
Reality:  After eight years of diplomatic failure and ineptitude, conservatives fail to understand that diplomatic engagement is a forceful tool of American power that Obama has used to advance American interests.  In fact, there is bipartisan consensus from former Secretaries of State, military leaders and diplomatic leaders that after years of isolation engagement with countries such as Iran, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela is necessary.

Myth 2:  Obama is endangering America by eliminating torture, closing Guantanamo and cutting the defense budget.
Reality:  The President’s policies eliminate a major recruiting tool for our enemies, help us regain our moral standing, and actually increase the overall national security budget, preparing our government and military to deal with the problems of the 21st century instead of focusing on unnecessary and ineffective weapons systems. Numerous military and intelligence specialists have come forward to say that the Bush policies were not worth the cost. 

Myth 3:  Obama is just continuing George Bush’s policies, especially on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Reality:  For years progressives have been calling for an end to the war in Iraq and a greater commitment to Afghanistan, while conservatives have claimed that Afghanistan was already won and that our commitment to Iraq should be unlimited.  Now that Obama has followed through on this policy conservatives are attempting to claim it as their own.

Myth 4:  We should be using the American military more aggressively to solve our problems.
Reality:  As the Bush administration, the intelligence community, the military and the American public, realized long ago there are no good military options for dealing with North Korea or Iran and the cost of any military engagement would be much higher than any possible benefit.

Myth 5:  Obama is apologizing too much to the world.
Reality:  Obama has not apologized to anyone.  His more respectful tone is a rebuke to the reckless and failed conservative policies of the past eight years which kept the United States isolated.  This approach has already yielded material benefits such as an infusion of $1.1 trillion to the IMF at the G20 Summit, greater civilian and funding commitments from our allies for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and a new agreement with Russia to move forward on a non-proliferation treaty to reduce nuclear stockpiles.

MYTHS AND RESPONSES IN DETAIL

Myth 1:  Obama’s engagement with our adversaries weakens America.
Reality:  After eight years of diplomatic failure and ineptitude, conservatives fail to understand that diplomatic engagement is a forceful tool of American power that Obama has used to advance American interests.  In fact, there is bipartisan consensus from former Secretaries of State, military leaders and diplomatic leaders that after years of isolation engagement with countries such as Iran, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela is necessary.

• Conservatives attack Obama’s engagement with Iran, advocating more of the same or a disastrous military invasion.  But there is bipartisan agreement on the need for engagement.  Conservative pundit Bill Kristol described Obama’s outreach to Iran as a “message of weakness,” arguing that “Obama would like mutual respect--but the Iranians smell weakness… The question is, who in the world will have respect for President Obama?” The answer is, at least five former Secretaries of State respect Obama’s efforts, including three Republicans (Kissinger, Baker, and Powell). The AP wrote in September, “Five former U.S. secretaries of state said on Monday the next American administration should talk to Iran, a foe President George W. Bush has generally shunned as part of an ‘axis of evil.’” Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford, not only indicated that he “was in favor of negotiating with Iran,” but said that such negotiations should occur “without conditions,” and should “begin at a high level.”  Even neoconservative hawk Robert Kagan has conceded that engaging Iran diplomatically makes sense, “there is logic to the administration’s approach. After all, if the White House is going to give diplomacy and engagement a chance, it might as well do so thoroughly and aggressively. Pay Iran’s leaders the respect some of our Iran experts claim they crave. Put on the friendliest possible face. Remind the Iranians of all the international goodies they can get if only they take the necessary steps on their nuclear program. Draw the starkest contrast between the present benevolent U.S. administration and the evil Bush administration. What is the risk?... Either the friendly diplomatic approach works, and the Iranians actually cave and accept American and European demands, which would be good. Or the friendly approach doesn’t work, and the Iranians proceed on their present course, thus proving that even diplomacy sincerely pursued by a well-intentioned president has no impact on Tehran’s calculations. I honestly can’t see the harm in the Obama administration’s efforts. I hope they succeed.” [Weekly Standard, 3/30/09. AP, 9/15/08. ABC News, 9/15/08. Washington Post, 3/25/09]

• Conservatives attacked Obama’s efforts to “reset” relations with Russia, despite these efforts delivering results and former Republican Secretaries of State calling for engagement. Conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer attacked the Administration’s efforts to “reset” Russia policy, “Biden said in Munich that the United States wanted to ‘press the reset button’ on NATO-Russian relations. Not surprisingly, the Obama wobble elicited a favorable reaction from Russia.” Yet engaging Russia has delivered results, the AP wrote: “Obama also got a boost from the talks, which set a constructive new tone after years of growing acrimony between the U.S. and an assertive Russia. The price tag for both sides so far: virtually zero.” Additionally, more pragmatic realist Republicans such as Henry Kissinger, James Baker, and Colin Powell have refuted conservative calls for a Cold War era hard-line approach and have called for engagement. Henry Kissinger noted that “We have a number of common issues that we have to settle, if possible, with Russia… And it is helpful to cooperate with Russia not just on the [nuclear] question, but on the issues of energy.  It is an effort that should not be decided by what happened in Georgia.” Former Secretary of State James Baker stated, “Look at it in a strategic context and not tactically…we have some big-picture issues that we need to be conscious of when we think about our future with Russia, and we ought to cooperate with them where we can, where they fit, but we ought to also be willing to confront them where our vital interests are involved.” Former Secretary of State Colin Powell also concluded that “you have to treat Russia…in a straightforward, businesslike, objective way and not emotionally.” [Washington Post, 2/20/09. CNAS, 9/15/08. NPR, 9/23/08]

• After 50 years of failure Obama finally changes Cuba policy, despite outdated conservative opposition. Following the announcement that the Obama administration would lift the Cuba embargo, congressional conservatives attacked saying, “’President Obama has committed a serious mistake by unilaterally increasing Cuban-American travel and remittance dollars for the Cuban dictatorship,' said Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mario Diaz-Balart, both Republican Representatives for Florida, home to the largest Cuban exile community in the United States.” However there is wide bipartisan consensus that it is time for change. Richard Lugar explained that “After 47 years, however, the unilateral embargo on Cuba has failed to achieve its stated purpose of 'bringing democracy to the Cuban people,' while it may have been used as a foil by the regime to demand further sacrifices from Cuba's impoverished population.” Additionally, a group of 12 former senior military officials sent a letter to the President, explaining “As former senior officers of the United States armed forces, we are writing today to encourage you to support the Congressional initiatives to end the ban on travel to Cuba for all Americans.” [Reuters 4/13/09. Senator Richard Lugar, 2/23/09. NSN, 4/14/09]

• Conservatives say past American presidents didn’t shake hands with adversaries – but from Kennedy to Reagan, they did.  Following President Obama’s handshake with Hugo Chavez, Newt Gingrich said the following, “How do you mend relationships with somebody who hates your country, who actively calls for the destruction of your country and who wants to undermine you? Q: But we certainly have mended relationships with countries that have hated us in the past. Russia comes to mind, China comes to mind.  GINGRICH: But we didn't rush over, smile, and greet Russian dictators. We understood who they were.”  In reality, various presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, did in fact meet with Soviet leaders during the Cold War.  Nick Burns, one of America’s top diplomats who served as Undersecretary of State in the Bush administration, wrote in Newsweek that, “for the most part even our most ardent cold-war presidents—Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, none of whom was often accused of being weak or naive—decided that sitting down with our adversaries made good sense for America. They all talked to Soviet leaders—men vastly more threatening to America's survival than Ahmadinejad or Chávez are now.” Obama himself even brushed aside conservative attacks saying, “It's unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States.”  [Think Progress, 4/20/09.Nick Burns, 10/25/08. President Obama, 4/20/09]

Myth 2:  Obama is endangering America by eliminating torture, closing Guantanamo and cutting the defense budget.
Reality: The President’s policies eliminate a major recruiting tool for our enemies, help us regain our moral standing, and actually increase the overall national security budget, preparing our government and military to deal with the problems of the 21st century instead of focusing on unnecessary and ineffective weapons systems. Numerous military and intelligence specialists have come forward to say that the Bush policies were not worth the cost. 

• Conservatives continue to say torture and the detention center at Guantanamo Bay kept us safe, ignoring experts who say it was ineffective and cost thousands of American lives.  In regards to President Obama’s decision to end the use of torture and close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, former Vice President Cheney said,  “I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11. I think that's a great success story. It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles. President Obama campaigned against it all across the country. And now he is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack.” Meanwhile Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora, Counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke and the Senate Armed Services Committee have all said that torture, Guantanamo Bay, and Abu Ghraib have become powerful recruiting tools for al Qaeda and a danger to Americans.  Matthew Alexander, the Air Force Major and interrogator who extracted the information that led to finding Abu Musab al-Zarqawi without using torture, says that these programs are responsible for thousands of Americans’ deaths, “I listened time and time again to foreign fighters, and Sunni Iraqis, state that the number one reason they had decided to pick up arms and join Al Qaeda was the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the authorized torture and abuse at Guantanamo Bay. My team of interrogators knew that we would become Al Qaeda's best recruiters if we resorted to torture... The number-one reason foreign fighters gave for coming to Iraq to fight is the torture and abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo. General Petraeus agreed writing to his troops in Iraq in 2007, “This fight depends on securing the population, which must understand that we—not our enemies—occupy the moral high ground… Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary.”  [Dick Cheney, 3/15/09. Harper’s Magazine, 12/18/08.  Alberto Mora, 12/08.  Richard Clarke, 10/27/08.  Senate Armed Service Committee, 12/08.  David Petraeus, 5/11/07]

• Conservatives mischaracterize Obama administration defense budget as a cut that will hurt America’s security, willfully distorting reality and mischaracterizing the challenges of the 21st century.  Reacting to the Obama administration’s defense budget, conservatives have suggested that it constitutes a cut, which will harm the U.S.’ national security.  In reality, it is neither.  Thomas Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute wrote in USA Today that “The Obama budgets plot a Titanic-like course. We just don't know which iceberg will be fatal... President Obama wants to help finance his expansive and expensive domestic program by cutting military spending.” But, as Talking Points Memo’s Brian Beutler observes, conservative reactions mislead and distort.   Beutler writes: “the numbers tell a different story: Not counting supplementals, Congress last year appropriated $513 billion to the Pentagon. This year, Gates is asking for $534 billion. If he gets everything he asks for, that's an increase of $21 billion, and Congress could always increase the total beyond that.”  Other conservatives have railed that the budget leaves the U.S. unprepared for national security challenges. According to former John McCain advisor Kori Schake, “Gates is setting a course to focus on counterinsurgency that will likely come at the expense of other military capabilities when budget trade-offs need to be made…Rumsfeld denigrated the human element of warfare to focus on high-tech innovation. His successor is about to make the reverse mistake.” Secretary Gates responded to such attacks, “Some will say I am too focused on the wars we are in and not enough on future threats. The allocation of dollars in this budget definitively belies that claim. But it is important to remember that every Defense dollar spent to over insure against a remote or diminishing risk or, in effect, to run up the score in capability where the United States is already dominant is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in, and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk I will not take.” [Tom Donnelly, 4/8/09. Talking Points Memo, 4/07/09. Kori Schake, 4/04/09. Robert Gates, 4/6/09]

Myth 3:  Obama is just continuing George Bush’s policies, especially on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Reality:  For years progressives have been calling for an end to the war in Iraq and a greater commitment to Afghanistan, while conservatives have claimed that Afghanistan was already won and that our commitment to Iraq should be unlimited.  Now that Obama has followed through on this policy conservatives are attempting to claim it as their own.

• Conservatives try to take credit for Obama’s Afghanistan strategy, despite the fact that he has been calling for it since 2007 and progressives have been calling for it since 2002.  During that time, conservatives were declaring victory in Afghanistan and neglecting it for Iraq. Conservatives such as Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and Bob Kagan have all praised the President’s decision on Afghanistan, claiming that it is a continuation of the Bush policy with Boot writing that “if it makes Obama feel good to take a swipe at George W. Bush while essentially continuing and expanding his policy -- well, that's a small price to pay for a centrist foreign policy.”  But in reality, Obama has been calling for this strategy for years, and it is former Bush Administration officials who moved toward it.  In an August 1, 2007 speech on terrorism Obama said, “As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban.”  In 2002 and 2003 Bill Kristol was claiming that “The battles of Afghanistan and Iraq have been won decisively and honorably.”  And John McCain was arguing that we can “muddle through.”  At the same time Joe Biden was warning that “the very same conditions that enabled the Taliban to come to power in the mid-1990s are rapidly emerging again…Unless we take a serious look at our policy, I greatly fear we may be setting the stage for a tragic replay of recent Afghan history.”  And through 2005 and 2007 the Center for American Progress continued to call for additional troops to be redeployed from Iraq to Afghanistan while progressive leaders such as John Kerry and Harry Reid echoed that call.  [Max Boot, 3/27/09.  Bill Kristol, 3/27/09. Bob Kagan, 3/27/09.  Barack Obama, 8/1/07.  Bill Kristol, 4/28/03.  John McCain, 11/5/03.  Joe Biden, 2002.  Center for American Progress, 2005 and 2007.  John Kerry, 9/14/06]

• Conservatives claim that President Obama is continuing Bush policies in Iraq.  But it was Bush and the conservatives who wanted a permanent presence and were undercut by political reality in Iraq and the United States.  Robert Kagan wrote that Obama agreed “to a timetable for drawing down troops in Iraq scarcely distinguishable from what a third Bush administration (with the same defense secretary) might have ordered.”  Obama advocated this policy long before Bush and other conservatives, who were pushed to this point by Iraqis and American public opinion.  In 2007 Obama presented a plan for withdrawal that called for all combat brigades to be out within sixteen months, and he has kept that promise, putting in place a plan which has slightly pushed back the withdrawal based on recommendations from his commanders.  The reality is that conservatives such as John McCain and George Bush were calling for an indefinite occupation of Iraq with McCain arguing that we could be there for “100 years” and argued for the “Korea model,” which would have U.S. forces in Iraq indefinitely.  They were forced to change their minds when Prime Minister Maliki came out in support of Obama’s timeline.  As Maliki explained in July of 2008, “U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.” He added, “Whoever is thinking about the shorter term is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems,” and setting timetables would not be an “admission of defeat.”  Shortly afterwards, the Bush administration agreed to a timeline similar to the one outlined by the Iraqis.  [Robert Kagan, 3/9/09.  Barack Obama, 10/2/02.  Barack Obama, 3/07.  John McCain, 1/4/08.  Prime Minister Maliki, 7/20/08.  NY Times, 11/16/08]

Myth 4:  We should be using the American military more aggressively to solve our problems.
Reality:  As the Bush administration, the intelligence community, the military and the American public, realized long ago there are no good military options for dealing with North Korea or Iran and the cost of any military engagement would be much higher than any possible benefit.

• Conservatives advocate military action in response to North Korea’s missile launch using imaginary weapons, while Obama keeps his hand steady on the tiller. In an interview on FOX News Newt Gingrich said the following in regards to North Korea’s missile launch, “I don't think North Korea should be allowed to launch missiles. I think we should take whatever preemptive actions are necessary. The idea that we're going to suddenly be shocked one morning as one of these missiles has a nuclear weapon and does something that dramatically changes America I think is a very dangerous idea.” He even advocated blowing the missile by “delivering a laser.” But, rather than overreacting and beginning a third ground war in Asia that would likely dwarf either Iraq or Afghanistan, Barack Obama remained calm and acted in a responsible manner.  As Daniel Sneider writes in the New York Times, “This is the time to be calm and realize that time is not on the side of Kim Jong Il and his shaky regime. There is no reason to close any doors, but there is also no reason to panic and inadvertently aid a state whose main victims are its own people.”  [Newt Gingrich, 4/2/09. NY Times, 4/8/09] 

• Conservatives continue to advocate a militaristic approach to Iran, while Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen recognize that would be a disastrous policy. Conservatives continue to portray a military approach towards Iran as the only possible move ahead.  Bill Kristol said, “This was not the speech of a man who even contemplates the possibility of using force within the next year to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. This was not the speech of a man who thinks America needs to be reminded about the dangers out there in the world, because Americans might have to be summoned to deal with them.” But, as Secretary Gates, a holdover from the previous administration, told his Bush Administration bosses last summer, a war with Iran would be disastrous.  He writes, “Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need. In fact, I believe it would be disastrous on a number of levels.” Admiral Mullen echoed this statement when he said on FOX News, “right now I'm fighting two wars, and I don't need a third one.” [Bill Kristol, 2/24/09. Robert Gates, Summer 2008. Admiral Michael Mullen, 7/20/08]

• When pirates presented the administration with a crisis, conservatives like John Bolton argued to invade Somalia, while the Obama administration used the appropriate amount of force, rescuing the American hostage. In an interview on FOX News, John Bolton said he would advise the president to invade Somalia.  “FOX HOST: Ambassador, if you were serving in this administration, would it be your recommendation that they go in to, militarily with air strikes and/or boots on the ground, into these so-called feral cities, where these pirates are taking hold? Should we go in and take those people out, and take their installations out, now, militarily? Is that what you're suggesting? BOLTON: Yes. ... Unless we go in and really end this problem once and for all, we will simply see it grow over time.” Rather than rashly invade Somalia, President Obama took the strong and responsible approach.  The AP describes Obama’s response, “President Barack Obama's ‘no drama’ handling of the Indian Ocean hostage crisis proved a big win for his administration in its first critical national security test.”  USA Today says, “Had yesterday's rescue at sea gone badly, the political damage for Obama might have been severe. But aides said the outcome should be seen as a success. ‘This is the latest indication that the national security team is working well together,’ a senior White House official said last night. ‘These folks have spent a lot of time together, including with the president, in the first couple months, and they have a good working relationship [John Bolton, 4/13/09. AP, 4/13/09]

Myth 5:  Obama is apologizing too much to the world.
Reality:  Obama has not apologized to anyone.  His more respectful tone is a rebuke to the reckless and failed conservative policies of the past eight years which kept the United States isolated.  This approach has already yielded material benefits such as an infusion of $1.1 trillion to the IMF at the G20 Summit, greater civilian and funding commitments from our allies for Afghanistan and Pakistan, and a new agreement with Russia to move forward on a non-proliferation treaty to reduce nuclear stockpiles.

• Mistaking leadership for apologies, conservatives overlook the need to depart from eight years of failed policies.  The Bush administration left the U.S.’ image in miserable shape, making it critical that the Obama administration demonstrate a clean break from the past in terms of how America relates to the world.  However, conservatives have failed to recognize this.  Former Bush administration official and McCain-Palin advisor Nicolle Wallace exemplified this misbegotten approach when she criticized the President’s tone on his recent trip to Europe: “instead of spending some of his [Obama’s] abundant personal and political capital to deliver a clear and direct message that promoted and defended American values, he muddied the message by emphasizing occasions in which America had been “arrogant, dismissive, and derisive” toward Europe.”  And Jamie Kirchik writes about Obama’s “obsequious behavior” arguing that, “he is paving the way for America's decline.” Conservatives overlook the deep decline in positive perceptions of the U.S. brought on by the Bush administration, especially among our closest allies in Europe: Only 30 percent of Germans now have a positive view of the United States, down from 78 percent before Bush took office in January 2001. In Turkey, a Muslim democracy and NATO ally, only 9 percent now have a favorable view, down from 52 percent in late 2001. Most alarming is that just 51 percent of Britons – our partner in Iraq and our most reliable ally - now hold favorable views of the United States, down from 75 percent before the Iraq invasion.  But that image is changing thanks to the Obama administration.  As Vice President Biden’s actions at February’s European Security Conference show, Europe has already reacted positively to the Obama administration’s efforts to signal a change in tone.  The Deutsche Welle commented, “Biden's speech convinced every last doubter that the new US administration sees Europe as more than a pile of opinionated countries in which only a few qualify as loyal allies.” Additionally, NPR noted that there was a shift among European leaders as well. “In recent years, European leaders at the annual Munich Security Conference have roundly criticized American foreign policy. This year, things were different. Vice President Joe Biden's speech on Saturday unveiled a new caring, consulting and listening U.S. administration, promising sweeping changes in American foreign policy.”  President Obama laid out a strong rationale for his more conciliatory approach: “Countries are going to have interests, and changes in foreign policy approaches by my administration aren't suddenly going to make all those interests that may diverge from ours disappear. What it does mean, though, is, at the margins, they are more likely to want to cooperate than not cooperate. It means that where there is resistance to a particular set of policies that we're pursuing, that resistance may turn out just to be based on old preconceptions or ideological dogmas that, when they're cleared away, it turns out that we can actually solve a problem.”  [Nicolle Wallace, 4/08/09. IHT, 6/27/07. Pew Global Attitudes Project, 6/27/07. NY Times, 2/07/08. Deutsche Welle, 2/9/09. AP, 2/9/09. NPR, 2/9/09. President Obama, 4/19/09]

• Conservative commentators prefer to ignore results of Obama’s humble but strong leadership style.  Conservative critics have also derided the President’s efforts at reconciliation for not accomplishing anything, when in fact, his more humble leadership style has produced tangible results.  Conservative writer and blogger Ed Morrissey wrote: “Once again, we have the new President embarking on the “We Suck ‘09″ tour, kicked off in Europe, where he felt the need to apologize for the last administration’s efforts to defend America’s interests on the international stage.  Obama likes to call this “smart power” and tells us we’ll get more by appearing humble than by pursuing our interests in the normal fashion.  So far, the rest of the world has applauded Obama’s performance — and gone on to reject our requests for economic cooperation, combat troops for Afghanistan, partnership with Russia against Iran, and North Korean continuation of the six-party nuclear disarmament talks without launching long-range missiles over Japan.”  In actuality, thanks to Obama’s leadership, the U.S. pushed successfully for a global response from the G20 to the international economic crisis and $1.1 trillion for the IMF.  He also received substantive commitments to Afghanistan from European allies at the recent NATO, Tokyo and Hague summits.  Obama came to a strategic agreement with Russia that focused on achieving a new nuclear non-proliferation treaty by the end of this year that would reduce stockpiles and also included language on Iran.  [Ed Morrissey, 4/18/09. NSN Daily Update, 4/01/09. Max Bergmann and James Lamond, 4/06/09. Joint Statement by U.S. President Obama and Dmitri Medvedev, 4/01/09. President Obama, 4/05/09. AP, 4/14/09]