"He [Obama] said a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a threat to both Israel and the United States." (Obama Defends Proposal for Iran- AOL World News)
Wait wait wait just a second....is this not the very same man who not but a few months ago made it quite public that he did not think of Iran is a serious threat, and would in fact sit down unconditionally at the table with the terrorist state and negotiate "diplomatically" with this unthreatening nation? Yet off he goes, sucking up to Israeli leaders in the hopes they'll believe his sincerity in defending their nation against attacks from Iran.
"I think that what I said in response was that I would at my time and choosing be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America."
I would really like to know how being "willing to meet" with a leader who has not only posed a threat to that surrounding area and the world in general, but who has continuously made it perfectly clear that regardless of any measures taken in regards to his nuclear program has no intention of backing down, could result in anything productive? I personally think that this would not only show the world that America has lost all concept of reality, but it would also show IRAN that all it has to do in order to continue straight on with any and every program that it wishes is to entice such a candidate as Barack Obama into thinking that talking diplomatically is a viable option. No one LIKES military action. No one gets up in the morning and says "Gee, I hope we get to bomb the heck out a country today!" No one hopes that one day their son or daughter will grow up to be shot down over a Middle Eastern desert! Of course not! Everyone, in a utopian world, should be able to solve anything and everything by bringing both sides to the same table. However, logically one must realize that in a world in which that would work, we wouldn't have a need for it anyway. Diplomacy is a good idea, when one is talking about the regular goings on between two civil countries, and not when one is not dealing with an unstable state run by a terrorist regime.
ANYWAY, I really got away from the point; which is, ladies and gentlemen- Obama's consistant love affair with the flip-flop! Amazingly this man has about 16 different positions on virtually everything out there, easily allowing him to take whichever one fits his current situation, be it geographically or politically; morally or, ...not. (whichever fits his mood) At the moment he is using this side of his rubber beach-going shoe :) to convince the state of Israel that her peaceful people will no longer be bullied by the constant Iranian threats aimed (literally!) in their general direction, while back home he maintains that "Iran doesn't necessarily pose a serious threat" to appease the anti-war crowd of Hollywood, Inc. and Associates. So which is it?
My favorite flip-flop thusfar from Obama's joke-of-a-tour has been Iraq. This guy is amazing! Kaiey Couric, of all people, backs him into a corner, trying FOUR DIFFERENT TIMES to get him to take a stand on his position on the surge, to no avail. This was the conversation in a paraphrased nutshell:
"So did the surge work?"
-"No."
"But violence is down, right?"
-"Well, yes. And Sunni leaders have started working with us instead of the enemy"
"So you agree that the surge had something to do with that?"
-"No."
"But you said violence in Iraq is down"
-"Yes but all the money we spent on the surge could have been used to boost the economy at home" (waaaay to go, Joe Politician)
"But the troop surge brought visible results, didn't it?"
-"Now Katie, you've asked me that four different ways and I've given you the same answer four different times."
GOOD LORD! The man must either believe that its better to save face than to admit his mistake, or he must literally be sitting next to General Petraeus in Iraq daydreaming about how to unscrew that ridiculous smile he had to paste on for the media roadies.
"But what I also said was that there is a difference between meeting without preconditions and meeting without preparation."
So, are ya gonna read Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's blog for a couple minutes prior?
"Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama defended his proposal to negotiate with Iran Wednesday and said he would use "big sticks and big carrots" to persuade the country's leaders not to develop nuclear weapons."
Apparently Obama thinks we live in a cartoon. And might I mention, (bless our ol' government's heart).......since the "big carrots" approach has worked soooooooo well with North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, AS WELL AS Iran, and other such totalitarian terrorist states, let's keep on knocking our heads against that same wall! Again I return to my "logic" post a few days back, where I said that you'd think if a person kept on trying the same method and saw that it wasn't working, that person would move on to plan B. Well, Mr. Obama (God help us if the Presidential title ever graces that surname), just try and talk to Iran, just for kicks...and let's see how far we get. It's amazing that I am even having this conversation just 7 short years after the most terrible attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, GENERATED by terrorists nations exactly (if not in part by) like Iran! Keep it up, Obama, as well as the rest of you lefties out there, and see how far we get.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment