Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Amid outlandish and perhaps... pitiful gaffes such as confusing the name of the Justice who swore him in only a day earlier, miscalculating the number of letters in a three or four letter word, and the possibly Vice Presidential precedent setting gaffe containing two misstatements in a single sentence, claiming first that FDR was President when the stock market crashed, and that he didn't go on the TV and simply "didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed", apparently unaware that the TV wasn't available to the general public at that time. Among the hysterical proclamations regarding relatively a, thus far, relatively innocuous out of season flu, and even after the self-deprecating statements regarding his inferior qualifications for the Vice Presidency relative to other possible candidates, even Joe Biden, however infrequently, offers us a bit of wisdom from time to time. What could I possibly be referring to (Source)?

Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions.

Biden was right; Obama has been tested, he's been tested multiple times in fact. Unfortunately for the United States, his response to each crisis has been ineffectual, and ultimately have presented a posture of weakness to rest of the world. Let's examine a few specific instances.

Shortly after taking office Obama indicated that he was willing to re-establish diplomatic relations with Tehran if Iran would "unclench its fist". This is in stark contrast to GWB's policy with respect to Iran; he refused to hold talks with the the "axis of evil" nation until it suspended enrichment of uranium. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded by launching a tirade against the United States, demanding apologies for its crimes against Iran, and stated that he expected "deep and fundamental" change from Obama. Ahmadinejad further stated that "[Obama's] request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed..." he further added that "Negotiation is secondary, the main issue is that there is no way but for (the United States) to change...". Tehran has subsequently violated the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty that it signed and announced that they have successfully mastered all the steps essential to enrich uranium, and is now in possession of enough to construct a nuclear weapon. Despite these statements and clear violations of a treaty that Iran signed, Obama still believes he can trust Iran's word, or at least should trust it for the near short-term:

President Obama said Monday that he expected to know by the end of the year whether Iran was making "a good-faith effort to resolve differences" in talks aimed at ending its nuclear program, signaling to Israel as well as Iran that his willingness to engage in diplomacy over the issue has its limits. "We're not going to have talks forever," Mr. Obama told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel after a two-hour session in the Oval Office.

Iran has made it abundantly clear in the past that they have no intention of ceasing uranium enrichment or ending their pursuit of nuclear weapons; this was affirmed again this week when Iran rejected an offer to stop all nuclear work in return for no new sanctions. Iran also ruled out any further talks with major powers on the issue.

In other words, Iran doesn't want to talk, Iran will continue to develop nuclear weapons, while Obama waits until the years end to see if Iran is in compliance by ending its nuclear program - which it has already clearly stated it will not do. Iran's actions clearly indicate - and they've more or less stated - that their nuclear program won't end, but Obama wants to see if they'll make a good faith effort to end it.

Huh? Faith in what?

What scintilla of evidence exists that Iran has any intention of ceasing these activities, or that Iran has even a shred of respect for what Western Leaders think about this issue.

That was of course a rhetorical question; there is no evidence. Indeed, all available evidence suggests that the exact opposite is true.

The situation with North Korea is far worse, and is, in my opinion, much more scary. On April 5 of this year, the North Koreans fired a rocket over Japan that, fortunately, landed harmlessly in the Pacific Ocean. Firing of this missile was carried out in direct defiance of UN Security Council Resolution 1718, which holds that North Korea end all ballistic missile activities. North Korea maintains that this was part of their peaceful space program and that this was merely a communications satellite launch. Many nations, including the United States, South Korea, Japan, and a number of other countries believe that the launch was a long-range missile test.

In fact, since Obama took office this year, North Korea has fired nearly half a dozen missiles - including one that may have the capability of hitting Alaska, Hawaii or the West Coast of the US. Negotiations with the North Koreans have never been productive, and have always been undermined and/or ignored by the North Koreans. GWB learned this the hard way; when GWB re-engaged in diplomatic relations with Pyongyang instead of increasing the pressure on the regime, he not only re-legitimized the North Korean regime, but provided more time to 'bargain,' which apparently when translated to the North Korean dialect means "construct weapons of mass destruction."

North Korea has further defied the world, and indicated that negotiations with the regime are not an option; Negotiations now, as they have in the past, will simply result in the advancement of North Korea's nuclear program. This is supported by the fact that two days ago, on May 25, 2009 North Korea announced they had successfully carried out an underground nuclear test. This announcement was confirmed by geological sensors in South Korea that were able to detect the blast as an artificial tremor. The Russian Defense Department, determined that the blast yield of the second bomb was between 10 and 20 kilotons, which is comparable to the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of WWII, but significantly more powerful than North Korea's previous test in 2006.

North Korea obviously has no intention of ending their nuclear weapons program, and appears to be scaling it up. Obama, meekly, responded with the following: "North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community... "North Korea's behaviour increases tensions and undermines stability in north-east Asia." Obama is a masterful wordsmith; it's one of the primary things that got him elected. One of the qualities that makes him a great speaker is his preternatural calm.

He is always calm.

It's somewhat counterintuitive, but this ability to always be calm, to be calm under all circumstances is not necessarily a good thing. It's certainly a good thing to be able to maintain your cool, but it's also a good thing to be able to express yourself in a strong and forceful manner. Sometimes this is the only posture that an adversary will respect.

Let's face it Ahmadinejad does not respect Obama as a leader, and perceives this calm, his desire to negotiate as weak.

Recall that JFK had a similar experience with Khrushchev, which in all likelihood started the Cuban Missile Crisis. Like Obama, JFK was eager to negotiate with his enemies, in this case, the U.S.S.R.. Recall Kennedys quote regarding this issue: "Let us not negotiate in fear; but let us not fear to negotiate." Kennedy and Khrushchev met in June of 1961. Following the meeting, JFK stated that this had been the "roughest thing in my life. He just beat the hell out of me. I've got a terrible problem if he thinks I'm inexperienced and have no guts." Khrushchev recorded in his notes that Kennedy was "too intelligent and too weak."

An intelligent and weak leader... hmmmm... sound like anyone we know?

Khrushchev responded by closing the previously open borders between East and West Berlin. The Kennedy administration responded to this by engaging in "polite protests" against the Khrushchev's actions; Khrushchev responded by building the Berlin wall. Kennedy's weak and ineffective responses emboldened Khrushchev such that he assumed he could get away with placing nuclear missiles in Cuba.

Recall how both the Cuban Missile Crisis and the division of Berlin were resolved; they were resolved by negotiating from a position of strength. Kennedy resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis by exerting strength, not a willingness to further negotiate. Kennedy initiated a naval blockade on Cuba, backed with the force of U.S. war ships that threatened to fire on any ship that tried to subvert the blockade. It was only after this show of strength that Khrushchev backed down. Recall that Ronald Reagan, with his hardline stance against the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War was able to not only reunite, but Berlin, but was able to end the Cold War and Soviet Communism.

In short, Obama's policy of negotiating with megalomaniacal dictators is ill-conceived, and stands in opposition to well-established historical facts and precedents. In addition to the above examples, we have the experience of Chamberlain and Hitler. Chamberlain was British prime minister from 1937 to 1940. Having lived through the 'Great War,' Chamberlain was determined to avoid involving Britain in another war. His policy of Nazi appeasement resulted in the Munich Agreement, which ceded the Czech region of the Sudetenland to Germany. Believing that he appeased Hitler, Chamberlain left Munich feeling that he had assured 'peace for our time'. Hitler of course responded by annexing the rest of the Czech lands, Bohemia and Moravia, and rendering Slovakia a German puppet state. Nearly 6 months later, Hitler invaded Poland. Chamberlain was forced to respond declaring war on Germany.

Each of these examples should serve as a lesson to President Obama; we can prevail only from a position of strength. We do not negotiate with dictators and tyrants; history proves that this is an ineffective way to deal with evil. We prevail only when we firmly communicate our position, and firmly communicate that we will utilize whatever means are necessary to obtain our goals, and maintain our national security. Khrushchev taught JFK, and indeed the world a invaluable lesson; despite what Kennedy naively believed, sometimes we must in fact fear to negotiate.