This is all based on the fact that Obama actually cares about or wants to be re-elected — he rather be a “good one term president”, he wants to be the folk hero to progressives in the history books.
Fogitaboudit. Obama isn't going to run. And the guy who goes after Iran will end up with Bush's 25% approval rating. The problem the country has is jobs, not Iran.
On the contrary. He is more likely to have a sit down with Imadamnutjob.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Hell no he wouldn’t. Those are his brothers.
A man with no balls, once beaten, still has no balls.
This is true for at least two reasons. First: traditionally, there has been far more unity between the parties on crucial matters of state than on domestic priorities. But also: in the past, our Presidents were required to have a decent grounding in foreign affairs as a means of achieving a minimum standard of electability.
Neither of these conditions currently exist in the America of 2010. The Democrat Party has increasingly signed on to a radicalized view of the world in which America is not even a potent but flawed force for good, but a international pariah guilty of multitudinous sins against the developing world, including colonialism, exploitation and racism.
And Barack Obama, for his own part, was nominated and elected to the most powerful office in the land and perhaps, still in the world without any demonstration of basic proficiency in international affairs, diplomacy or military doctrine. Instead, he displayed in the campaign (and continues to display, two years into his Presidency) a superficial and academic understanding of the world; one shot through with platitudes and left-wing shibboleths, but containing nothing that reveals either wisdom or the sort of instinct that might inform it.
This being the case, I find it doubtful that Obama would be willing to do anything of a military nature with regard to Iran except in the case of a direct attack on the United States, and even then - his visceral lack of comprehension when combined with ideological rigidity would almost certainly lead to paralysis. And do not think for a moment that our adversaries have not taken a measure of the man and, I would offer, come to similar conclusions.
Not a snowballs chance in hell in my opinion. This guy wouldn’t attack even if we were directly attacked. He’d apologize...
Oh dear Lord.
When I glanced at the headline, I saw this....
Would a Beaten Obama Attack Israel?
And I thought; Yeah. That could happen.
After the election, the much smaller surving Dem caucuses in Congress will be much more liberal, hard left, and anti-war..he’d be at war with his own party AND the GOP..
” and the natural choice would be to go after Iran. “
In which case, we might be treated to the interesting spectacle of a Republican Congress voting *against* a war declaration or authorization - and, perhaps, even invoking the (Constitutionally suspect) War Powers Act....
Obama wears mama-jeans... send a real man... send in the worms...:^)
I think he’s angling for Secretary General of the UN. His presidency is just his chance to show he’s qualified by proving he can run a world power like it’s a third world rat hole.
doing so would wipe-out whatever support remains from his leftist base, and would not gain him support from our side on any other issue.
This is exciting. Who’s going to beat him? Can we get on the list? (I’m sorry. I couldn’t help it.)
From the beginning it was quite obvious to me that W set up Obama with loads he could not carry. He was certainly doomed from the moment the first bailouts took place. There were two wars, one really, but to the left there were two.
My view stated here long ago, at the time of his election, was that Obama had only one shot at salvation...... a war.
With whom would the war be made? I did not know. I felt that he would allow events to take their course and allow the war with Iran to be between Israel and the Gulf States against Iran. I still believe that to be the case.
North Korea has cooled and the transition to who knows what is in progress. That seems not likely as a place for war either.
The recourse for no war is doom. There must be a Gulf of Tonkin provocation in mid ‘11 and the war over and won for it to effectively insure reelection. That event might occur in Lebanon or Afghanistan where Iranian involvement becomes overt and breaks the camel’s back.
With no war, Obama is de facto worst President in history
I somehow got an image of a million dollar missile attacking a 10 dollar tent and hitting a camel in the ass.
Wrong question. A better one is, what would a beaten Michelle insist on?
Not even if he was beaten with a baseball bat. He’d still want to set up a dialogue, like a little pansy @$$.