[WS:] You seem to consistently avoid addressing the point that Charles, SA and I are trying to make - namely, that "taking the fight" was a suicidal tactic - virtually certain to lose and create even more damage, and the decision to move slowly without provoking the other side going ballistic seemed a wise one, as it offered a greater promise of a successful outcome.
To counter this you (and others) need to demonstrate that there was a reasonable chance that "taking the fight" would have produced a desirable outcome in 2008-2010 or at least that a reasonable policy maker had a reason to believe that such a chance existed. Charles explicitly denied that by pointing to the balance of power, and I concur with his argument unless I see a proof to the contrary.
Quoting FDR in the 1930s does not offer such a proof because, as the French would say, these were autres temps, autres moeurs - or a very different power structure, both domestically and even more importantly - internationally (the 'specter of Communism' was very real back then.) And the fact that some liberals read more into what Obama was actually saying in 2008 is not a proof either - it merely indicates unreasonable expectations of some people.
Wojtek