Posted on 07/23/2008 3:13:39 PM PDT by tobyhill
SDEROT, Israel, July 23 (UPI) -- U.S. Sen. Barack Obama warned in Israel Wednesday a nuclear Iran could lead to nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists.
The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee told a news conference in Sderot after meetings in Jerusalem with Israeli leaders and in the West Bank with Palestinian officials such a scenario "is our single most important threat, both to Israel and also to the United States."
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
But I won't debate McCain..
About freaking what does he want to talk with Ahmadinejad? About his gramps “liberating Auschwitz” or the wreath he laid down at Yad Vashem!?
Exactly. He knows he will get his butt handed to him eithr way, and he know Imindeedanutjob will never talk to him anyway.
WoW...its true what they say, even a blind “squirrel” can find a nut...(especially when its written down in the palm of Obambi’s hand).
...we’ve already asked the Iranian “President” not to kill us and not to make bombs. He said “no” to both....
IN 52 SECS WHY BARACK OBAMA WON’T WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs
Well, DUH.
This man is a true idjit.
A Look at Iran
http://www.truthusa.com/IRAN.html
Can we send this guy to the UN - David Ha’ivri, what a great article.
First, his own supporters think this is dumb:
Richardson: “You don’t talk to Ahmadinejad”
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/21/richardson-you-dont-talk-to-ahmadinejad/
He’s just inexperienced
Cohen attributes Obama Iran statements to inexperience and naivete
http://redstate.com/blogs/soren_dayton/2008/may/26/castro_like_hamas_is_for_obama
He’s lied and flip flopped, AGAIN.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/busted-obama-cant-rewrite-history-when.html
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29896_Obama_Changes_His_Unconditional_Position
http://patterico.com/2008/05/10/obama-will-wont-talk-to-ahmadinejad/
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/busted-obama-cant-rewrite-history-when.html
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/10/history-re-written-obama-never-said-he-would-meet-personally-with-iran-without-precondition-says-advisor
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/another_day_another_obama_lie_this_time_about_the_teamsters
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/still_another_obama_untruth
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/the_audacity_of_prep
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/factcheck_org_agrees_dnc_takes_over_obamas_lies
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2008033/posts
http://www.redstate.com/stories/archived/obama_lobbyists_and_the_dnc
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29747_Obama_Calls_Bloggers_Liars_for_Accurately_Reporting_His_Words#rss
http://www.redstate.com/stories/elections/2008/still_more_distortion_rank_falsehood_seriously_misleading_statements_and_outright_lying_from_obama
In a weird twist... The Huffington Post claims that Obama did not call for talks with Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, but instead called for talks with the grand poobah and spiritual leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Khamenei.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/huffpo-blowing-hot-smoke-for-obama.html
“Keeping track of Obama’s positions feels like being a spectator at a table tennis match. First he wants meetings with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (among others) without preconditions, then he only wants them if they agree to stop sponsoring terrorism and funding militias in Iraq, which sounds a lot like a “precondition” to everyone but Barack Obama.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/18/nafta-dancer-now-says-he-used-overheated-rhetoric/
In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?
OBAMA: I would.
Obama pledged direct, presidential talks with the heads of states that support international terrorism, including that which kills American soldiers — without preconditions. Biden tries walking that back, too:
Sen. Obama is right that the U.S. should be willing to engage Iran on its nuclear program without “preconditions” – i.e. without insisting that Iran first freeze the program, which is the very subject of any negotiations. He has been clear that he would not become personally involved until the necessary preparations had been made and unless he was convinced his engagement would advance our interests.
No, in fact Obama was very clear that he would conduct talks with these leaders because the talks themselves would advance our national interests. Besides, why would we want to give presidential meetings to leaders who fund Hezbollah, Hamas, and FARC in proxy wars with our close allies without demanding an end to terrorist support first? Are we so weak that we have no standing to demand an end to their backing of international terrorism before we raise their standing with presidential summits?
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/23/bidens-disingenuity-on-talks/
Obama’s Nuanced Position on Ahmadinejad Nuances to the Point of Incoherence; Calls Question Yet Another “Distraction” the MSM Mustn’t Bother Itself With
No preconditions, but there will be “preparations.”
He’s reversed himself on meeting with Ahmadinejad (maybe), but will meet with “leadership” which may or may not include him.
He’s unwilling to say what he’s willing to concede to Iran.
He’s also unwilling to explain how his plan of diplomacy without threat of force will do any better than Bush’s six year strategy of diplomacy with threat of force. Gee, maybe it was just that big meanie Bush’s threat of force that made Iran so darn unreasonable. They felt bullied, you see.
And, whatever his current position may (or may not) eventually turn out to be, you shouldn’t question him too closely on any of this, because it all is, yes, once again a “distraction” from the things we should be talking about, which is to say, those issues for which Obama can offer gauzy generalities which have been focus-grouped to offend no one because they mean nothing.
posted by Ace at 04:35 PM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/263112.php
May 22, 2008
Yet more Obama positions on Iran
Ed Lasky
Barack Obama has a growing number of positions on how to deal with Iran. Yesterday, James Taranto in his Best of the Web column noted that blogger Lance Adams reported on Barack Obama expressing a different perspective toward Iran in a 2004 Chicago Tribune interview than he has expressed on the campaign trail.
Here was Obama in 2004:
“In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he said.
“On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran.... And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.” [....]
Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.
“With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain,” Obama said. “I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations.... “
Last week Obama said this:
“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela-these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we’re going to wipe you off the planet.”
In fact, Barack Obama has been backtracking from that 2004 Tribune interview for quite some time. In an interview with Obama supporter and New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof from early last year he was already disavowing his previous somewhat relaistic views towards Iran. . A matter of fact, he went into reverse.
Even when at one poin he seemed to indicate an openness to looking at military options to deal with Iran’s nuclear program, he quickly eviscerated that option by stating that it did not even exist. He unilaterally has taken off the table an important bargaining chip. What a negotiator! He is quoted,
“And I think the exact quote at the time was, you know, If there was a way of disabling a nuclear facility without any collateral damage, then that would certainly be an option we’d want to take into account. You know, I don’t think that’s a particularly controversial statement. But the - but those options don’t exist.”
Now you see it now you don’t. The endless shell game that is Barack Obama. Excerpt from Kristof’s Q and A:
Q. Tell me about Iran. I saw some sort of hawkish quotes that you gave, I think in 2004, to The Chicago Tribune. [He was quoted then as saying, “My instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran.”]
A. Yeah. You know, they - I have to say they got painted as much more hawkish than they were intended. I mean essentially what is said, which I think would be incontrovertible, is that, you know, Iran’s a developing country. A nuclear weapon is a problem for the future. And that we should preserve our military options. And I think the exact quote at the time was, you know, If there was a way of disabling a nuclear facility without any collateral damage, then that would certainly be an option we’d want to take into account. You know, I don’t think that’s a particularly controversial statement. But the - but those options don’t exist. And I said in the very same article that every assessment that I’ve seen suggests that even if you are predisposed to military action, those options are extraordinarily dangerous..... More to the point, in light of what’s happening in Iraq, I would hope that the administration has learned its lesson. I certainly hope Congress has learned its lesson - that being trigger happy or having a quick trigger finger when it comes to military actions without having exhausted our diplomatic options, and without, you know, I think, having a very clear sense of what outcomes we’re looking for is a recipe for disaster. So I’ve been consistent throughout this process in saying we should talk to Iran. I think we should talk to Iran without conditions....
Q. I think it was the same article - maybe a different one - where you also sounded a little hawkish on Pakistan....[The Tribune paraphrased him on Sept. 25, 2004: “Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses.”]
A. It’s a situation where I was simply saying things that I think, in Washingtonspeak, you use code for....What I said with respect to Pakistan was that, given that they’ve got a proven nuclear arsenal and that there’s been a history of their military not being as cautious as we would like them to be with respect to nuclear proliferation issues, and given the history of A.Q. Khan and what’s happened there, that you know if you had a coup in which Islamic extremists took over the Pakistani government, that would be a significant threat to U.S. security and we would want, again, to keep all our military options open. Now my hope is that we prevent that from happening or that we do everything we can to strengthen the forces of democracy and maintain good relations with Pakistan. Now, it’s a difficult thing because we have a genuine ally in Musharraf. It’s an imperfect partner. And. . . there are aspects of the Pakistani government and its relationship to its own people as well as its approach to dealing with al Qaeda and the Taliban that are real problems. And you know I guess I would probably like to see the administration send clearer signals to Pakistan that we want to work with them, we want to cooperate with them, we want to help them build their economy. We’re willing to put resources into Pakistan to improve the daily life of Pakistanis, which I think will in the long term strengthen Musharraf’s power. But in exchange, we have to be attentive to human rights, women’s rights. And we have to ask them to take issues like terrorism, nuclear proliferation, more seriously than they....
Posted at 11:47 AM
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/yet_more_obama_positions_on_ir.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2019407/posts
He flip flopped again about the Iranian threat
Obama displays profound ignorance of asymetric warfare
By stating that Iran isn’t a threat because they spend much less on defense than the US, Obama displays a complete ignorance of how asymmetric warfare operates. The AQ “defense budget” for pulling off 9/11, was by comparison to the US, essentially zero.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/262899.php
Barack Obama told supporters Iran is just a “tiny” country at a campaign stop in Oregon Sunday evening.
“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us,” Obama said.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/05/19/obama_iran_is_just_a_tiny_country
Our allies do not agree
http://redstate.com/blogs/soren_dayton/2008/may/23/international_allies_question_obamas_iran_policy
Europe fears Obama on Iran
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/06/22/europe-fears-obama-on-iran/
Europeans on cowboy unilateralism: “A hell of a way to start a presidential term.”
http://www.redstate.com/stories/foreign_affairs/europeans_on_cowboy_unilateralism_a_hell_of_a_way_to_start_a_presidential_term
More flip flops (today said all options on the table)
Obama Backtracks on Pledge to Consider Military Option Against Iran
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obama_backtracks_on_pledge_to.html
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=26836
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008/06/it-depends-on-t.html
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/05/john-bolton-lights-into-obama/
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTk0YWIzM2VkOTkwNDQ3ODk4Yzc4ZWNhOWJlOTNmZjE=
He’s not Reagan
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RichLowry/2008/05/19/the_talking_cure
Nor FDR (or history buff)
Columnist Rips Obama and Media Over FDR, Truman ‘Talked to Enemies’ Claim
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2008/05/10/columnist-rips-obama-media-over-fdr-truman-talked-enemies-claim
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/fruit-of-kennedy-khrushchev-meetings.html
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/149gqohu.asp
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020617.php
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/opinion/22thrall.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
Gaffes
Another... MAJOR FOREIGN POLICY GAFFE By Obama Campaign
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/05/another-major-foreign-policy-gaffe-by.html
**(Obama looking more foolish everytime he opens his mouth)**
LOL!
Watch out every time Barack begins to answer a question with “As I’ve said many times...” You just know an absolute 180 degree flip-flop is coming. It’s interesting that even Katie Couric is starting to recognize the routine. I suspect a growing portion of the US public is starting to recognize it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.