Is it any wonder Hamas endorses Barack Obama for President? The man is soft as jello:
So, its fine and dandy to invade an ally, ie Pakistan, but if Iran nukes Israel its not fine to attack Iran?
Yes, yes…he doesn’t say he wouldn’t attack Iran. Just that he doesn’t think the rhetoric is a good idea but you know what? When your asked a straightforward question like “what would you do as President if Iran nuked Israel?” its a good thing sometimes to get a straightforward answer….like Hillary gave.
What in the hell is going on in this world when someone comes along that makes Hillary look sensible?
“Why would I have any regrets?” she asked in an exclusive appearance on a special edition of “This Week” from Indianapolis, Ind. “I’m asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally, a country that many of us have a great deal of, you know, connection with and feeling for, for all kinds of reasons. And, yes, we would have massive retaliation against Iran.
“I don’t think they will do that, but I sure want to make it abundantly clear to them that they would face a tremendous cost if they did such a thing,” she added.
She’s completely wrong on Iraq, on the economy, and in her love for Socialism….but on this she is right. They HAVE to know if they were to do anything stupid we would respond strongly. And not a strongly worded letter like Obama would apparently respond with.
But the fact of the matter is, I don’t believe for one minute Hillary would nuke Iran. Unless the polls tell her to of course.
See author page
Obama has already been getting the wink and nod from Iran:
And with Rev. Wright damning Israel almost as much as the U.S. it’s no wonder the crazy Iranians and Hamas like Obama too.
ONCE AGAIN, REDPLANETCARTOONS COMES THROUGH!
“…we would respond forcefully and appropriately on any attack against Iran.” say what? I thought the question was if Iran attacked Israel? Does he mean he would defend Iran if Israel attacked it?
“…when Iran is able to go to the UN and get some sympathy, that’s a sign that…” …the UN is an enemy of world peace, and nothing less.
What a BS artist!
Is it racist to start calling him a p***y now?
BHO just doesn’t want to get pinned down on anything it seems; it’s like he doesn’t want to be forced to have a position. Saying we will act “forcefully and appropriately” just doesn’t carry the same weight as saying we would “obliterate” Iran in the event that they launched a nuclear attack on Israel. Mainly because it introduces an element of doubt about our response; after all what is BHO’s idea of “appropriate” anyway?
The other irony here is that what BHO calls “saber rattling” has a proven history of working when backed up by action in U.S. foreign policy. The last milk-toast President who wrung his hands over being TOO tough and “cowboy” like in his foreign policy was Jimmy Carter, and his foreign policy was a positive DISASTER. On the other hand, Presidents who have always remembered to have T.R.’s proverbial “big stick” on hand have managed to handle gunboat diplomacy very well. John F. Kennedy (handling the Cuban Missile Crisis, not the Bay of Pigs) and Ronald Reagan immediately spring to mind; and let’s not forget that the reason that Libya completely abandoned and destroyed their nuclear program was because they were afraid of being the next Iraq. The fact that BHO believes that the U.N. stamp of approval is a GOOD thing also frightens me very much…
Also, I’m just feeling the need to rant a little, so bear with me if I get a tad incoherent here. I’m actually beginning to feel a little sorry for Hillary – it’s like the MSM believes that BHO is entitled to as much positive puff coverage as the legitimate negative coverage he’s been getting. Latest case in point: “Obama seeks to rebrand patriotism” over on MSNBC. Every time that something comes along which would sink any other candidate, it’s MSM to the rescue with an “Everybody Loves Barry” article. I might expect this when we get into the general election, but the MSM is showing it’s bias for one candidate so early, and so strongly that it just stuns me… End of rant.
It is precisely the waffling kind of comments Barrack advocates which encourage dictators to start wars. Wasn’t it some lukewarm remark by someone in our State Department that made Saddam think there would be no serious consequences if he invaded Kuwait?
No yonason, If you followed the whole interview you would understand Obama made a mistake and said Iran. He said earlier in the interview Israel is our most important Allie in the region.
I’ll give barryboy the slip up on “defending iran” – BUT I care a whit what the UN says – I would fall out of my chair if ahmanutjob complained to them and the UN sided with us!
Wow, thanks Sky!
I understand it perfectly now.
When McCain mis-speaks then it’s because of “old age”, but when the Obamessiah mis-speaks, it’s a “mistake”.
Laughable.
By the way you still haven’t properly addressed your misinformation campaign regarding the madrassah issue in the other thread.
Right on Aye Chihuahua!
I almost feel sorry for 55110. He/she/whatever is clearly in over the head.
“… we will act forcefully and appropriately …”
Is this how you support your ally? Is this how you defend your interests in the region? No. It’s a recipe for disaster. The “measured response” hasn’t worked in the past, it will not work in the present and future.
To concrete thinker 55110 in the sky with zircons
“If you followed the whole interview [no, I just knew right were to go to find his blunders and BS, skipping all the rest] you would understand Obama made a mistake… [mistake, blunder – you say tomato, I say tomahto…]”
The point was, …can you say “Freudian Slip?”
“…we would respond forcefully and appropriately on any attack AGAINST IRAN.”
“He said earlier in the interview Israel is our most important Allie[sic] in the region.”
Yes, but he doesn’t believe that. He’s only saying it in order to fool all the people he wants to vote for him who DO believe it. He’s a liar. His sympathies are with our enemies, as he shows in other words and by his actions. The Paleostinians suffer because of their own perfidy, and the aid raised for them by their sympathizers is used to kill Jews and Americans What else can I say?
And, yes, this is where Bush is also mistaken, though his error isn’t malicious. He really, though foolishly, thinks that by giving these savages self-determination at Israel’s expense, it will make them better and more peaceful people. And it doesn’t help that Israel’s Leftist “leaders” believe that, as well.
However, while Bush thinks abetting them will eliminate the enemy. O’Bomber thinks the evil they commit is justified, and doesn’t even see the need for them to change. And that makes him indistinguishable from them in kind, if not (yet) in degree.
Israel has 200 nukes Iran has none. Why does anyone think that they would need our help ?
American Jews are one of the firm bases of the modern Democratic Party in 2006 87% of the Jewish vote went to the Democrats. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/US/H/00/epolls.0.html
The only way that governments can get people to pay taxes is through 2 ways either through services ( what some call socialism) or through fear that some boogie man is going to get them (like the commies are going to come and take our TVs and cars remember the Domino theory?)
Israel having 200 nukes, and Iran having none is an excellent balance of power in the region. Heck, Israel having 200 nukes, and the entire Middle East having none is an excellent balance of power. Plus, as much as Iran has been trying to develop their missile delivery systems, they also have their proxy in Hezbollah. So, a nuclear attack may very well come in a terrorist form, rather than at the tip of a missile. That could mean that Israel’s 200 nukes might very well get taken out in the proverbial “first strike” by Iran’s proxy. In such a case, it would be the U.S.’s duty to back-up our ally and retaliate massively against Iran.
Yes, American Jews have a history of voting Democratic (which in recent years has been particularly mind boggling). But, that doesn’t change the fact that Israel is our most important ally in the Middle East; not to mention the only true democracy in the region. The continual claims that Israel engages in some sort of “apartheid” are farcical at best, backhanded attempts to undermine Israel’s security at worst.
Machiavelli is correct. It doesn’t matter how powerful an arsenal someone has, if his ability to use it is compromised.
As to American Jews voting Democratic. That’s an embarrassment. Their behavior seems to be rooted in the same folly of peace with savages that Israeli Leftist “leaders” have come to embrace, and which even President Bush has been seduced by. So, if a mostly conservative leader can be fooled, then I guess it’s no surprise that dreamers and wishful thinkers are even more susceptible? Very frustrating, though not hopeless.
“BHO just doesn’t want to get pinned down on anything it seems; it’s like he doesn’t want to be forced to have a position. ”
Isn’t that the truth Machiavelli? I was going through an old transcript with Obama on Meet the Press from 2006. It’s filled with waffles, indecision and lies. Worth the read. Looking for the video.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10909406/
A few little gems from the article:
MR. RUSSERT: The question is, here at home what are the politics, and you said this according to the Chicago Tribune. “It is arguable that the best politics going into ’06 would be a clear, succinct message, ‘Let’s bring our troops home.’…It’s certainly easier to communicate and I think would probably have some pretty strong resonance with the American people right now.” Why do you think that’s the best political message?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, you know, one of the things that I think in politics you’re always looking for is contrast, and obviously that gives a sharp, clearly-defined contrast to administration’s policy. Keep in mind, though, that that quote was presented in me explaining that that’s actually not the approach that I’m pursuing. My position has been that it would not be responsible for us to unilaterally and precipitously draw troops down regardless of the politics, because I think that all of us have a stake in seeing Iraq succeed. We need to get the policy right, and it’s inappropriate, I think, to have politics intrude at this point in such a critical stage in the development of the Middle East.
SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.
MR. RUSSERT: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?
SEN. OBAMA: I will not.