DING DING DING DING DING!!!!! -13.... How High can this go???
Unfortunately Mike, the only evil in Sen. Obama's lexicon is that perpetrated by President Bush and Sen. McCain.
He is unfit for the office he currently holds, much less President.
I believe you've quoted Ms. Glick before, and it is important to remind readers that, her primary allegiance is, naturally, to the interests of Israel, not the interests of the United States. In the end American voters will make their choice on the latter basis.
They will also make their choice on the simple question, "Have George Bush's policies resulted in Iran's growing weaker or growing stronger?" The answer is clear.
Voters can see through the hysteria about "appeasement." Maintaining channels of communication is not incompatible with continuing a resolute stance, retaining military readiness or options. Secretary Gates already has said as much. Talking does not equal concession. Arguments such as those made by Ms. Glick and yes, by the President, insult the intelligence of the American people. Talk about your elitists!
I see Phillip asks us to completely ignore what Glick has to say because, according to him, she works for Israel. He does not offer any kind of proof of this, just that he says so.
Where have I heard such rhetoric before? Oh yes, people who talk of the Jews controlling the media. That the US is being run by the ZOG.
The first accusation coming from the likes of the President of Iran while the second from people who follow David Duke within the United States.
Sorry Phillip, try again.
John McCain said:
“I believe that it’s not an accident that our hostages came home from Iran when President Reagan was president of the United States. He didn’t sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in Iran, he made it very clear that those hostages were coming home."
Well, actually the President Reagan administration did sit down in a negotiation with the religious extremists in the Iran-Contra Scandal, which President Reagan admitted:
On March 4, 1987, Reagan returned to the airwaves in a nationally televised address, taking full responsibility for any actions that he was unaware of, and admitting that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages."
And this:
"Though he came closer than ever before to admitting that his Administration had been trading arms for U.S. hostages, he stopped far short of the apology that some of his staunchest supporters had suggested. Indeed, without ever mentioning that weapons sales had been involved, Reagan proclaimed defiantly, "Certainly it was not wrong to try to secure freedom for our citizens held in barbaric captivity." Six sentences later, with no apparent awareness of inconsistency, he pledged that the U.S. will never "yield to terrorist blackmail." It was not so much the lack of an "apology" that was disconcerting; it was the lack of any sense that he understood why a secret scheme to trade arms for hostages was a mistake, and one that he had made.
Now THAT'S what appeasement is. Giving the enemy something to attain a desired action--trading arms for hostages. And Reagan did it.
So why are you criticizing what Obama has NOT done?
Anna: Ms. Glick writes for the Jerusalem Post. Each of her columns is a demonstration in the clear headed lucidity that is so often lacking in this discussion of complex Middle East issues:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/
Sat...ShowFull#recent
But I find it somewhat disconcerting that Phillip is so free in dismissing her and questioning her "allegiance." After all, in Obama land, are we not all one world, one people? Apparently that only applies when leftists and socialists from overseas are cited.
Also, in answer to Phillip's question about Iran stronger or weaker, I would ask if he believes that his Democrat buds would have handled Iran any better? If so, point to their success in that field during the Clinton years when Iran was killing Americans.
The problem is and has been that Democrats have consistently refused to support the "talk soft, but carry a big stick" or the "peace through strength" models that have been proven by history to be the correct path to achieving results.
It was Democrats who fed Iran's lust for blood in Iraq by insisting we pull out when Iran's Shiite backed terrorists started killing Americans and fomenting sectarian violence.
Just as it was primarily Democrats who insisted we pull out of Lebanon after the Iranian backed suicide bombing that killed 283 Marines.
And most important of all, let's not forget that it was Democrat Jimmy Carter who abandoned Iran as America's ally under the Shah and allowed the mullahs to take over and spread their Islamic revolution while holding our US Embassy personnel hostage for 444 days.
Sorry Phillip, but I cannot allow you to simply say Bush made a mess of things without showing who would have done better and list for me the practical, effective alternatives you have in mind. Please don't repackage what Bush is already doing. We've seen that trick before in Iraq.
P.S. Shaw: As usual, your attempt at contrived moral equivalence is unconvincing.
But again, it is nice seeing how so many of you have suddenly realized what a great President Reagan was. Remember, when Obama cites Reagan as an example, he ignores the most critical part of Reagan's policy: PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH!
Which also explains why Hamas has endorsed Obama. They see in him the appeaser who will bow to them as Neville Chamberlain bowed to Hitler.
Barack Hussein Chamberlain appeaser and idiot!
Mike: Shaw has yet to defend Obama's position, having only the ability to resort to the moral equivalence argument.
Shaw: Please explain how Obama will keep us safer that McCain. You seem to be able to criticize everybody else, but have yet to explain the Obomnanity policy.
As far as I am concerned, if I was a despot trying to make my mark, I'd be salivating for Obama and scared of McCain.
Anna, to further clarify what Mike mentioned, Ms. Glick was a former advisor to Netanyahu and remains closely allied with him. I suppose it would be more precise of me to say that her allegiance is to the hawkish wing of Israeli politics; certainly there are many many Israelis who disagree with some aspects of her point of view.
Mike, interesting jujitsu again to pin the withdrawal from Lebanon after the bombing there solely on the Democrats. I thought Reagan was the Commander-in-Chief, the Great Communicator, the "Decider" in his time. Surely he was not scared of congressional opposition. Even W would have him beat on that front, then!
Anyway, Fareed Zakaria has just written a piece that expresses what I'm trying to say more artfully than I can.
Money quote: "It's not just Hizbullah. In dealing with many such groups—Hamas, the Taliban—the Bush administration has adopted a macho, exclusively military approach. All three of these groups have a political base in their societies that is deep and enduring. Denouncing them as evil and promising to destroy them will not change that; in fact, doing so only adds to their mystique of resistance and struggle. What we need is a political strategy to combat, contest and weaken the appeal of these groups or to marginalize their violent factions. Such a policy would naturally involve some contact with their leaders, but as part of a much broader effort to engage all groups in these societies politically."
In other words, I believe Mike that you and many of your readers possibly watch too much NFL and too many Michael Bay movies. Foreign policy is just a little bit more complicated than that. It requires many diverse tools. Peace through strength is correct, but so is strength through smarts, strength through creativity, strength through cleverness, strength through "thinking outside the box."
What will be surprising to many of you is that when Obama takes office next January, there will not be some gigantic change-of-direction on Iran. There may be some more contacts, some incremental changes, but we will still be maintaining a position of opposition to a nuclear Iran, as we should.
Miller dissembles again-Unilateral disarmament?
That would mean getting rid of all nukes. Reagan's program is still unworkable.
I notice Phillip doesn't say Israel should be denuked. Well then, Iran will get the bomb and should.
And all the Bush fans will hear it again from me--your man and his Israel-first coterie blundered their way into a no-win war without which Obama could not have beaten the pro-war Hillary. Blame yourselves for whatever good or bad he does.
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_...t/
JE21Ak02.html
The mullahs in Iran are laughing their asses off alright-at Bush's Mideast policy being in tatters.
"True, oil and nuclear proliferation make a serious mix. But they form only one facet of the breakdown of the Bush administration's Iran strategy. The breakdown is comprehensive. During his tour, Bush kept trying to secure support for his containment policy toward Iran. However, the regional countries remain circumspect. Iraq's Arab neighbors refuse to get involved in the quagmire in that country despite their constant wailing that Iranian influence in Iraq has reached an intolerable level. They won't allow themselves being lined up with any further efforts by the Bush administration to confront Iran. While criticizing Iran in private to their American interlocutors and urging US counter-measures, they hedge their bets, factoring that the next US president might well engage Iran in unconditional talks.
The piece also documents Bush's failure in Lebanon vis a vis Syria and Lebanon and in the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, now dependent on Syria and Iran.
Phillip: I don't watch the NFL and have no clue what movies you are talking about.
As for foreign policy: that was the centerpiece of my grad school education with former National Security Advisor Brzezenski.
And I note again that you offer only criticism of Bush efforts and propose no practical, effective alternative.
As I said, it's easy to criticize, but could a Dem Administration do better?
How?
Robert Gates and John McCain, among a host of other Republicans have stated the necessity of sitting down and talking with the Iranians.
Chicago Sun-Times
March 3, 2007
BY DAVE NEWBART Staff Reporter
Sen. Barack Obama said Friday the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran, which he called "a threat to all of us."
You ought be satisfied you still have Phillip in your deteriorating corner
vis a vis Iran's coming nukes, Mike.
No one in power no matter their druthers, will be able to lift a finger against Iran with Russia and China backing them, and good on them.
I see the Cuckoos have checked in for the night.
Obama thinks it would be equally effective to handle Iran the same way he does his children:
"Now, you need a time out. I'm counting to 3 and you better go. 1. 2. 3... okay, then, I'm counting to 10 now..."
Obama's idea is for a committee of international appeasers to deal with Iran and the others of the evil intent. Obama is not a leader he is just another manager ready to screw things up. It's a shame he's in politics he would be a good manager over at Wal-Mart.
For years and years we had an international committee called the "EU3" composed of representatives from Britain, France and Germany negotiating with Iran.
It was a good idea to let the Europeans take the lead and not just sit back and complain about U.S. leadership but they go nowhere with Iran.
And the reason is that Iran is determined NOT to give up it's nuclear ambitions and will certainly not do so in negotiations, no matter who with.
No one has asked Obama what he would negotiate with Iran. Maybe that's because he has said he would have no preconditions, like a plan or objective in mind. So, it would just be a chat for the sake of chatting.
As meaningless and empty as his promises for change.
Hoop, I do think Israel should renounce WMD's also and am hoping that in the next few years this will come to pass. As far as Iran goes,I don't want ANY country that doesn't already have nukes to develop them, and certainly not one whose leader embraces religious fundamentalist views whereby the "end of the world" is not necessarily that big a deal. No thanks.
Mike and others, besides Sec'y Gates' comments, here's some video of another conservative grownup who gets it.
Phillip: You continue to MISS the point ENTIRELY!
First of all, you don't negotiate from a position of weakness, but one of strength. Secretary Baker would be the first to tell you that. Obama would gut Dept. of Defense programs that are essential if we are to "speak softly but carry a big stick."
Second, you continue to ignore the difference between a Secretary of State talking to some Syrian or Iranian nutjob and a presidential visit.
Again, Secretary Baker would be the first to tell you that you don't put the President into a situation like that and you certainly do NOT do it without preconditions.
These distinctions are important Phillip and they are something that the "grownups" have clearly thought out even if you have not.
I expect better of you Phillip.
P.S. I was all set to provide you with further erudition at your web site. But why do I have to register?
Well Philip, that is what I get for typing while not fully awake.
After looking at your other arguments, well I find you of the Obama mentality. No preconditions and you earnestly beleive you can persuade a man who leads a country that is very intent on obtaining nculear weapons and wiping out Israel whom he calls a stain.
Anna: We do have to take into account that Phillip is only being served up one side of the story.
His reference to Secretary Baker is a case in point. All his lib sources have been touting Baker's remarks, just as they have Reagan's negotiations with the Soviets.
I've pointed out that neither Baker, nor Reagan would EVER negotiate without preconditions and BOTH would insist on negotiating from a position of STRENGTH, which Obama clearly does not understand.
I'm trying to help Phillip here and I hope he can see it in that light. A few of his condescending comments cause me to wonder if he appreciates the service or not.
Mike,
'How sharper than a serpent's tooth is that of an ungrateful child'
How ungrateful are some, as one of your posters prove he wants the US to be conquered. It really helps one's appreciation of human beins and the world to bounce around other countries while living among them. To know their desires and dreams, to see what they see, and in some cases to understand the fear engendered when existing under a truly authoratarian government. Then one truly appreciates how wonderfully prosperous and free the United States is.
Commenting by HaloScan
