-
Barack Obama & Jimmy Carter?
- May 21, 2008 at 5:24 AM
- By
- Comments (5) Total Views (199) Everyone can see this journal post.
I found this on Yahoo news and found it very interesting...
here is the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20080520/bs_ibd_ibd/20080520issues01
Ibd Tue May 20, 6:55 PM ET
Mideast: He views Iran's nuclear threat as "tiny." He'd meet with its leader, who is pledged to Israel's destruction. His adviser wants Israel to disarm. Clearly, Barack Obama is running for Jimmy Carter's second term.
If we've been particularly hard on Sen. Obama in recent days, it's because he's a gift that keeps on giving. He consistently demonstrates his lack of qualifications to be commander in chief based on experience, worldview and judgment.
His latest foray into dangerous naivete came while campaigning Sunday in Pendleton, Ore. He told the assembled multitude: "Iran? Cuba? Venezuela? -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us."
He went on to defend his policy of "aggressive personal diplomacy" and called for "tough, disciplined and direct diplomacy. That's what Kennedy did. That'd what Reagan did."
Well, not quite.
Kennedy in his inaugural address pledged that "we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." That doesn't sound like Obama's policy on Iraq or anywhere else.
Yes, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev. But the Soviet leader came away from that summit so unimpressed with the young and untested American president that the following year he put nuclear missiles in Cuba targeted on American cities. Kennedy was forced to blockade Cuba and risk nuclear war.
We can't risk that with Iran. As John McCain points out, Iran, unlike the Soviet Union, is directly and daily involved in the killing of Americans through training of Iraqi insurgents and arming them with deadly improvised explosive devices. It is a state sponsor of terror that supports Hezbollah in its attempt to turn democratic Lebanon into an Islamofascist state.
Obama said that Reagan's "direct negotiation" with Gorbachev "over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall." What brought down the Berlin Wall, and the Soviet Union, was Reagan's unrelenting resistance to and confrontation with the "evil empire" based on his strategy of "we win, they lose." That was how Reagan "negotiated" with Gorbachev.
Yes, Reagan talked with Gorbachev. But he resisted the Soviet advance from Nicaragua to Grenada to Afghanistan. He put Pershing missiles in Europe. He launched the Strategic Defense Initiative and said "nyet" when Gorbachev wanted us to deal it away. When Reagan said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," the end of the Cold War already was a fait accompli.
Would Obama have done or said any of this?
Obama wants to talk with Iran. But the question he refuses to answer is what he'd tell Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Obama dislikes being called an appeaser. But would he say to Iran: No deal unless you disown and disarm Hezbollah? We doubt it. More likely he'd sacrifice a country such as Lebanon to Tehran's ambitions in a modern-day Munich.
In his book, "Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons," Obama adviser Joseph Cirincione, director of nuclear policy at the center for American Progress, says he favors Israel giving up its nuclear weapons to ensure Iran doesn't obtain nukes. That's called appeasement.
Cirincione also was quoted in 2006 calling Israel's 1981 raid on Iraq's nuclear reactor a "failure." But the raid on Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor was an unqualified success that kept the Iraqi dictator from having a nuclear weapon when he invaded Iran a decade later.
McCain said that Obama's view of Iran as a "tiny" threat, a view not shared by the Israelis, "betrays the depth of Sen. Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess." Indeed they are.
Obama responded during a campaign stop Monday in Billings, Mont.: "The Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons, and Iran doesn't have one." And he'll probably believe that right up to the moment the phone rings at 3 a.m. and he hears: "Mr. President, Tel Aviv has been nuked."
Comments:
Sorry, I somehow hit send before I was finished or did a spell check. So let me go ahead and apologize for the crappy spelling.
Back to the giggly school girl thing. These were women who appear to have it together. They look like they could be great mothers. How can they support a candidate that has no record of achievement? Let me put it this way. If my child needed surgery, and I had to choose between two Drs. One that had given great speeches, even taught in the field, but had never before performed the surgery. This Dr. is telling me that he can save my child's life. He won't tell me how, he's just telling me to believe. The 2nd Dr. has been operating for 30 plus years with great success. This Dr. doesn't bother with trying to impress me. This Dr. just shows me her record of success. I would not think twice about my choice! I can't imagine taking a chance on the unknown and unproven. That's the way I feel about our country. I'm not willing to take a risk and I'm mad as hell that anyone would.
Already a member? Click here to log in
This is so scary! The mear fact that Obama would state that Iran, such a volitile country poses a tiny threat, is just crazy!
So why are people voting Obama? Is it because he says he'll bring the troops home? He started his campaign saying that all troops would be home within a year if he is elected. Then, after he won those 12 state primaries, he let it be known to the British that 3 years would be a "best case sernario". Lets say he does bring them home. With the fact that leaders from that region see him as a weak leader willing to bend to their demands, what makes anyone believe that we won't find ourselves in another war?
As far as the economy goes, we need only remember Jimmy Carter! At least McCain admits that he is no expert in the economic field and would require and enlist the help of those that are experts.
Healthcare? Unless it covers everyone, it's not going to work. It will never work unless it is mandatory. W've beem listening to the chant of change for a long time now and we still have no real way to gage what sort of change he's talking about.
Obama has run the most divisive, sexist, and double talking campain I've ever seen. Still last night, I sat in front of my TV watching him enter into the roonm for his Iowa speech. It literally made me ill to see the blind faith of my fellow Americans. I saw women with adoring smiles on their faces that made them look like giggly school girls.
- goldmother
Message Friend Invite