Iran Threat: "Tiny"

I guess Obama sees only a few million dead as "tiny" compared to total annihilation.

Sen. John McCain Monday faulted Sen. Barack Obama for downplaying
the threat from Iran and again called the Democratic front-runner's
judgment "reckless," the latest jabs in a foreign policy fight that
could continue to the general election.

Obama's
willingness to sit down with the Iranian president demonstrates Obama's
lack of understanding of international relations, McCain said during a
speech in Chicago, Illinois.

"Such a statement betrays the depth
of Senator Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment," McCain said.
"Those are very serious deficiencies for an American president to
possess."

Obama quickly responded during a speech in Billings,
Montana, asking why the presumptive Republican presidential nominee was
afraid to talk to Iran and that it was the "Bush-McCain" war policy in Iraq, not diplomacy, that would make Iran stronger.

"Make no mistake, Iran
is the single biggest beneficiary of a war in Iraq that should have
never been authorized and should have never been waged," the
front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination said.

"Thanks to George Bush's policy, Iran is the greatest threat to the
United States and Israel and the Middle East for a generation. John
McCain wants to double down on that failed policy."

McCain said Obama did not have an appropriate grasp of the danger Iran poses to the U.S.

"Senator Obama claimed that the threat Iran poses to our security is
'tiny' compared to the threat once posed by the former Soviet Union,"
McCain said during a speech in Chicago.

So do tell Mr. Obama, you obviously aren't backing down from your statements, a rarity if I've ever seen one, but do tell me how you plan on getting Iran to drop their ambitions, and deal with the other Arab nations who are trying to get their nuclear programs up and running directly because of Iran?

Obviously, the Boston Globe has their lips tightly wrapped around your cock with fluff pieces like this one:

This time, he shot back: "Strong countries and strong presidents
meet and talk with our adversaries," Obama said at an Aug. 19 debate.
"We shouldn't be afraid to do so. We've tried the other way. It didn't
work."Not only did Obama not flinch, but he turned the dispute
into a staple of his stump speech, suggesting that Clinton shared
Bush's reluctance to meet with leaders of hostile nations.So
when Bush himself, during a visit to Israel last week, compared the
notion of talking to countries that support terrorism to England's
failed appeasement of Nazi Germany, Obama wasn't going to give in.The irony, of course, is that these attacks, whether from Clinton,
Bush, or McCain, aren't really cheap: They're legitimate differences of
opinion with Obama's own stated policies.But Obama's ability to
deflect his opponents' best shots - not by disputing them, or firing
back with a charge of his own, but by standing up firmly for his
position - will be the most important measure of his future success.


So, what to do when they tell you "no"? Of course, if Obama does pull it off, I'll be the first to sing his praises.....as long as he doesn't cave to everything under the sun and "appease". But it does show one thing. If Obama is elected President, AND he fails in getting Iran to back off of their nuclear program, it paints the Iranians in an extremely bad light.

Right now, Obama is the golden boy who can do no wrong. If he becomes President, he then has to find out, hopefully not the hard way, that the buck stops at his desk. He can't vote "not present", or avoid a tough decision.


You've already been absent about one critical issue, the 'flying imams lawsuit immunity vote', I hope that if you do become President, you don't think that you can avoid responsibility.

On that assumption that you win, Democrats will control both houses of Congress AND the White House. If they can't get things done in a "perfect storm" of that scenario, they don't deserve to hold office.



Travis
travis@rightwinglunatic.com