ProStockJunkie
Nitro Member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2006
- Messages
- 4,406
- Age
- 79
- Location
- New Jersey, USA
Obama Blames America First
Posted Monday, November 05, 2007 4:20 PM PT
If elected president, the freshman senator promises to "engage in aggressive personal diplomacy with Iran." This means he'll squeeze Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hand really hard when he gives away the store.
In an ironic sense of timing, the former Illinois state legislator made that pledge just days before the supporters of Iran's delusional dictator celebrated the 28th anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on Nov. 4, 1979.
The 52 hostages held for 444 days were the direct result of Jimmy Carter's "aggressive" human rights agenda that deposed a staunch ally, the Shah of Iran, and brought to power the first leader of an Islamofascist state, the Ayatollah Khomeini.
We suspect Obama's foreign policy would be no different — except for the sweater — than Carter's, and just as successful. We get that impression after reading Obama's interview in Friday's New York Times.
He opined that Iran's support for terrorists and jihadists in Iraq reflected its anxiety over President Bush's policies in the region and its fear that we might attack it over its nuclear program.
Would that be the nuclear program Ahmadinejad is pursuing to usher in the age of the 12th Imam and complete Hitler's dream of a final solution by wiping Israel off the map? What about our anxieties, Sen. Obama? And Israel's?
Why would we attack such a regime when, in exchange for not killing American troops with explosively formed penetrators, we can "aggressively" reward them with membership in the World Trade Organization, as Obama suggested in the interview?
Certainly anyone would be paranoid over Bush's policy of liberating Iraq from the clutches of the mass-murdering dictator Saddam Hussein and Afghanistan from the medieval rule of the Taliban and then surrounding Iran with the greatest threat of all — democracies.
Obama, who has said he thinks "it's a disgrace we haven't talked" to the likes of Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Bashar Assad, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, thinks our difficulties with these thugs are all America's, and George W. Bush's, fault. Most recently, he objected to the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, which it is.
As its Quds force kills Americans in Iraq, another wholly owned subsidiary, Hezbollah, when not provoking war between Israel and Lebanon, plots the downfall of that multicultural democracy. Before 9/11, Hezbollah was the No. 1 killer of Americans on the planet, including the bombing of our Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 servicemen.
Former Clinton guru Dick Morris thinks Obama is in fact "a Jimmy Carter, running for president on his personal moral outlook, his background and making a virtue out of his limited knowledge of how American government works." Or American foreign policy. We all know how the Carter administration turned out.
We're reminded once again of remarks by John Howard, the Australian prime minister and staunch ally in the war on terror, who reacted to Obama's candidacy, and his plan for an early troop withdrawal, by saying, "If I were running al-Qaida in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."
Well, al-Qaida in Iraq may be pretty much toast, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad still has his hopes high.
In the interview at his Chicago campaign headquarters, Obama said, "We are talking about certain assurance in the context of showing them some good faith."
We have to show them good faith? According to Obama, "it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, but expect changes in behavior."
This reminds us of the anti-war left's arguments that Iraq and the world would have been better off with Saddam still in it. The sanctions would have worked eventually, you know. Obama says that "there are both carrots and sticks available to them for those changes in behavior."
We know about the carrots. Just what would the sticks be, Senator? And olive branches don't count as a stick.
Posted Monday, November 05, 2007 4:20 PM PT
If elected president, the freshman senator promises to "engage in aggressive personal diplomacy with Iran." This means he'll squeeze Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hand really hard when he gives away the store.
In an ironic sense of timing, the former Illinois state legislator made that pledge just days before the supporters of Iran's delusional dictator celebrated the 28th anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran on Nov. 4, 1979.
The 52 hostages held for 444 days were the direct result of Jimmy Carter's "aggressive" human rights agenda that deposed a staunch ally, the Shah of Iran, and brought to power the first leader of an Islamofascist state, the Ayatollah Khomeini.
We suspect Obama's foreign policy would be no different — except for the sweater — than Carter's, and just as successful. We get that impression after reading Obama's interview in Friday's New York Times.
He opined that Iran's support for terrorists and jihadists in Iraq reflected its anxiety over President Bush's policies in the region and its fear that we might attack it over its nuclear program.
Would that be the nuclear program Ahmadinejad is pursuing to usher in the age of the 12th Imam and complete Hitler's dream of a final solution by wiping Israel off the map? What about our anxieties, Sen. Obama? And Israel's?
Why would we attack such a regime when, in exchange for not killing American troops with explosively formed penetrators, we can "aggressively" reward them with membership in the World Trade Organization, as Obama suggested in the interview?
Certainly anyone would be paranoid over Bush's policy of liberating Iraq from the clutches of the mass-murdering dictator Saddam Hussein and Afghanistan from the medieval rule of the Taliban and then surrounding Iran with the greatest threat of all — democracies.
Obama, who has said he thinks "it's a disgrace we haven't talked" to the likes of Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong Il, Bashar Assad, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, thinks our difficulties with these thugs are all America's, and George W. Bush's, fault. Most recently, he objected to the designation of Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, which it is.
As its Quds force kills Americans in Iraq, another wholly owned subsidiary, Hezbollah, when not provoking war between Israel and Lebanon, plots the downfall of that multicultural democracy. Before 9/11, Hezbollah was the No. 1 killer of Americans on the planet, including the bombing of our Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 servicemen.
Former Clinton guru Dick Morris thinks Obama is in fact "a Jimmy Carter, running for president on his personal moral outlook, his background and making a virtue out of his limited knowledge of how American government works." Or American foreign policy. We all know how the Carter administration turned out.
We're reminded once again of remarks by John Howard, the Australian prime minister and staunch ally in the war on terror, who reacted to Obama's candidacy, and his plan for an early troop withdrawal, by saying, "If I were running al-Qaida in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats."
Well, al-Qaida in Iraq may be pretty much toast, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad still has his hopes high.
In the interview at his Chicago campaign headquarters, Obama said, "We are talking about certain assurance in the context of showing them some good faith."
We have to show them good faith? According to Obama, "it is important for us to send a signal that we are not hellbent on regime change, but expect changes in behavior."
This reminds us of the anti-war left's arguments that Iraq and the world would have been better off with Saddam still in it. The sanctions would have worked eventually, you know. Obama says that "there are both carrots and sticks available to them for those changes in behavior."
We know about the carrots. Just what would the sticks be, Senator? And olive branches don't count as a stick.
