Obama: Cheney's terrorism stance 'great ad for anti-American sentiment'

Why hasn't he fixed the economy yet? Come on! It only toook Bush a few minutes to hunt, tack down and capture, Saddam Hussien the SOLE mastermind and perpatrator of the worst attack on American soil.

Another (edited version with WH oversight) soft-ball interview. Boring propaganda and campaign promises! If there are any tough questions they are obtusely answered. As for the Gitmo "gentlemen" they should remain "enemy combatants" until the "war on terror" is concluded. This PC nonsense and lefty cuddle about the danger of terrorism, Islamic terrorists (are there any Christians strapping on bombs and killing innocents in the name of God?), and the cruel, inhuman nature of the Taliban is a dangerous rhetoric and strategic blunder which will result in the deaths of Americans. Bush/Cheney kept us safe after 9/11. Terrorist declared war on America, so why should we play "kissy-face" to appease liberals. Kick a** and let the terrorists fear us. Give them their 72 virgins, those gents leave us alone.

During Cheney's tour as Sec of Defense, he and Rumsfield joined NeoCons outside the administration in writing a white paper outlining what they ended up doing in 2003. There are Republicans in career upper level jobs in the DOD and DOJ who are still Neocon true believers and live for the opportunity to do it all again. Cheney's out there talking to them, not us, saying, "We will rise again." . If you give nutjob Republicans like Cheney an opportunity, they'll always spell out the things they did (Iraq, Halliburton, Blackwater, KBR etc), why they did them, and sign off with a great big, "And I was right and I'd do it all again."

Former Republican Senator Phil Gramm gives Cheney a run for his money for the "most evil" title, the only difference is that Gramm is corporate raider Republican instead of a full throated Neocon. If it weren't for Gramm's tireless efforts to deregulate Wall Street, Wall Street would not have been able to Enron the whole country the last eight years.

It hasn't been Bush and Cheney's war-on-false-pretense that has bankrupted the country (only in reputation and admiration), it was Phil Gramm's stewardship of the worst legislation passed since the 1920's. Bush and Cheney's contribution to destroying the United States of America was ignoring everything but their pet phony wars.

Darth Cheney and Druggy Rush, the former and the current leaders of the Republican party. Two wimps that spent the 60's doing everything they could to "draft-dodge" the Vietnam War and then joined hips to become deceitful, neocon "war-mongers" for corporate profit, lots of mutual love and lots of money for themselves and their cronies.

Hey Obama the Unqualified the election is over, you won, get back to the job that you where hired to do! So far, you haven't produced any significant results on anything. What happened, thought you were ready "hitting the ground running". Yes sir, you really hit the ground, and spread all over. Get you act together or get out of dodge and give the Presidency to someone that can handle it!

Well, Barack, Bush and Cheney kept us safe from terrorism for seven+ years and did great damage to terrorism. Your cookies and crumpets belief will only get plenty of innocent people killed.
Last week, Eric Holder announced that many Gitmo detainees more than likely will be brought to the U.S. RELEASED on U.S. soil. This is something the corrupt media has largely ignored. I suggest these detainees should be released in the White House and kept there.

Well, Barack, Bush and Cheney kept us safe from terrorism for seven+ years and did great damage to terrorism. Your cookies and crumpets belief will only get plenty of innocent people killed.
Posted by: John D | March 21, 2009 6:43 PM
.....

Really? Shrub Jr and Darth allowed 9/11 to happen on their watch, you moron.

This is joke, right? Obama has the nerve to criticize Bush for providing the security and freedom that our men and women in the armed forces have beem fighting to preserve? It is wrong for Obama to speak this way. What happens if the US is attacked again. He will have lost all creditabality immediately. This was a very poor comment and it should be retracted. So far Obama has nothing to improve the quality of life for anyone. People are losing their jobs, their homes, and he is spending away or grandchildren's futures with his careless spending.

Dick Cheney's latest pearls of wisdom came last Sunday on CNN's State Of The Union when he voiced his concerns that President Obama was expanding the federal governments size and powers beyond what is meant to be. This came from a man who declared that the Office of the Vice President was neither part of the legislative or executive branch but could still claim executive privilege.

Apparent according to Cheney’s theory of government, the executive branch can completely ignore the Constitution in fighting/instigating terrorism but can not intervene to help citizens in a collapsing economy.
Republicans facing reelection in 2010 must be thrilled to hear that Dick Cheney is making these distinctions between his expanding of government powers and President Obama's. The more Cheney talks the harder it will be for Republicans to distance themselves from the bad memories of the Bush administration.

Why do people keep saying that Bush and Cheney kept us safe from terrorist attacks after 9/11? What do you call the people that died from envelopes of anthrax? And despite getting warnings about bin Laden's intentions, Bush-Cheney screwed up and let 9/11 happen, then did all they could to encourage more people to join the terrorists. Puhleeeze! Cheney's revisionist view of history is absolutely disgusting.

Little Dick Cheney should be sharing a jail cell with Bernie Madoff right now. He, more than anyone else, was the main cheerleader for the uncalled for, pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.

Eight long years and in the end little Dick Cheney left as one of the most disgraced Vice-Presidents EVER.
GOOD RIDDANCE!

Puff Puff, rah rah, blah blah nonsense.

Obama is a gutless wonder---his longest interview to date with a classic liberal outfit like east coast based, Israel loving 60 minutes.

Wake me when he finally agrees to have that beer and "discussion" with Sean Hannity or the debate with Rush--the proclaimed by Rahm and Obama as the new true leader of the opposition. I want the hard questions asked and answers followed up on..

Anything else is just more puff puff, what kind of dog are you going to get, Messiah nonsense.

We got an empty suit with this one and even the die hards are starting to see it....they just havent come around to admit it yet.

Enjoy----I'd rather devote the 60 minutes to watching the NCAA--oh wait, so too would Basketball Barry.

Well, we haven't been attacked yet, have we? And Cheney / Bush got how many of our kids killed looking for WMD's? Take a look at the Bush/Cheney Numbers! Now, let's see, couple thousand killed in the attack of 9/11 because they weren't on the ball, and another 4260, that's between 6 and 7 thousand Americans killed. Cheney and Bush kept us safe - FROM WHAT?

American Deaths
Since war began (3/19/03): 4260
Since "Mission Accomplished" (5/1/03)
4121
Since Capture of Saddam (12/13/03):
3798
Since Handover (6/29/04):
3402

DARTH AND BUSH ARE WAR CRIMINALS!
PROSECUTE THEM, THROW THEM IN PRISON AND THROW AWAY THE KEY, BARACK!
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9mYCU0mH7w

Cheney has got some nerve. What his former company Haliburton/KBR did in Iraq was beyond incredible. Was it good for national security to charge the US $100 a bag for the military's laundry? To blow up a truck just because it had a flat tire? Cause what the heck, with cost plus contracts they get reimbursed plus plus profit. I just blogged about this
today with links from the video "Iraq for Sale" and "The Great Iraq Swindle" by Matt Tabbi. Everyone should learn just how much advantage private contractors with links to Bush/Cheney took with U.S. tax payer dollars.
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=199346555&blogId=478172913

Kept us safe?!?

Who was it, decided to release detainees that have since gone back to terrorism?

Meanwhile, ex-Bush administration official Lawrence B. Wilkerson acknowledges that a lot of the people STILL IN Guantanamo, are innocents who were just at the wrong place, at the wrong time.

And the ones that ARE guilty, we're going to have a hard time prosecuting, because the evidence is tainted by their short-sighted approach (waterboarding, etc).

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld panicked, like rank amateurs. They mistook acting tough, for being tough; winning the battle, with winning the war; their own short-sighted stupidity, for thinking strategically.

Obama's completely correct on this issue. The sooner Guantanamo's closed, the better. Of course, at the same time, we need to do a better job than Bush did of reviewing each case & determining whether a detainee is a threat. However, to simply throw people into Guantanamo, torture them, and keep them for years without evidence against them, as Bush did, was unconscionable, against every civilized precept and against U.S. voters' demands. Guantanamo was, and remains, a symbol of ugly un-Americanism and is to anti-Americans what "Remember the Alamo" was to our own nation. One of Obama 's campaign promises was to close Guantanamo. Most of us are delighted that he's moving to keep that promise.
As to ridiculous complaints that he hasn't yet fixed the economy during his two months as president, plz remember that it took the Republicans eight years to run the economy down into the chaotic mess Obama's inherited from them. Republicans were more than patient while Bush was wrecking the economy, creating lack of employment, etc., etcc.

This guy's in la la land. He thinks being nice to terrorists is the way to go. How many terrorists have been brought to justice by the tactics of Bush and Cheney? Plenty, and most of them are in Hell standing on hot coals. Obama is weak and the bad guys know it.

GET THE FACTS BEHIND THE NEWS

While our immediate goal is to halt the present economic recession, we must be careful to be sure that the measures that are taken will lay a foundation for economic growth and prosperity.

Does name calling and political views of past events replaced good mangement
and sound planning?

Diogenes believes most people do not realize how far our economy slipped in relation to the other nations and economies we compete with.
.
Noted Harvard School of Business Professor Michael Porter believes” a series of policy failures have offset and even nullified “US “ strengths just as other nations are becoming more competitive”.

1) “An inadequate rate of reinvestment in science and technology is hampering our feeder system for entrepreneurship. Research and development as a share of the GDP has declined, while it has risen in other countries”. This is well recognized but policy makers have failed to act.
2) Our belief in competition is waning. “A creeping relaxation of antitrust enforcement has allowed mergers to dominate markets”. “We are seeing more interference in competition with protectionism and favoritism.”
3) US colleges and universities do not have a serious plan, such as GI Bill or National Science Foundation programs, to improve access to them. The US now ranks 12th in educational attainment for 25 to 34year olds. For 30 yrs we have not improved ourselves in this area. This is an “ominous trend in an economy that must have the skills to justify our high wages.”
4) At a time when job insecurity and turnover are high the US gov’t has not taken responsibility to provide a transition safety net for US working people. The job training system is ineffective and receives less funding each year. Pension security is declining. Social security is not being adjusted and strengthened. Access to affordable health insurance is a major worry to most people. The gov’t could equalize the tax deductibility of individuals purchasing insurance to assist those not covered by their employers, but has failed to do so.
5) The US is energy inefficient. Public policies fail to promote energyconservation.

6) “Trade and foreign investment are fundamental to the success of the US economy but the US has lost its focus and credibility in shaping the international trading system.” “With no strategy the US has failed to work with other advanced countries to assist poorer countries to feel confident about opening markets and internal reform.” “Our foreign aid is still tied to the purchase of US goods rather than the actual needs of countries.”

7) “The federal gov’t has failed to recognize and support the decentralization and regional specialization that drives our economy.

8) Lack of regulatory oversight combined with lack of a strategic plan has resulted in a hodge-podge of policies that have driven up the costs of doing business. TO SUM UP WE HAVE HAD POOR ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT.

9) Is a good strategic economic plan possible considering our political system?Tt requires political parties and private leaders to come together and chart a long term plan. Prof Porter recommends a bipartisan joint planning group to coordinate priorities,

Does the Stimulus Bill and mortgage programs help solve these problems.?

Sock it to 'em, Barack!

With all these TV appearances, you know BO and his handlers feel the sinking approval ratings. Wait to this whole truth behind the AIG bonuses unravel. Who will take the fall Dodd or Geithner?

Cheney should be quiet. It doesn't help for him to complain about the present administration when his was so unpopular. Especially so soon.
He should wait until he has something concrete to add or to complain about.

I think this was a soft interview of Obama. Hell Leno was harder on him. There are a lot of tougher questions to ask Obama. About his economic projections, already wrong. His inability to have a plan in place to deal with the banking crisis.

Perhaps Bubba will educate us as to when the "war on terror" will be over. there were terrorists long before there was a United States. There will always be terrorists as long as there are unhappy people willing to use violence to get what they want. So according to Bubba, we will be eternally at war and can forever throw out the rules.

Cheney should be quiet. It doesn't help for him to complain about the present administration when his was so unpopular. Especially so soon.
He should wait until he has something concrete to add or to complain about.

I think this was a soft interview of Obama. Hell Leno was harder on him. There are a lot of tougher questions to ask Obama. About his economic projections, already wrong. His inability to have a plan in place to deal with the banking crisis.

Cheney is a liar. If you doubt it, just ask former Rep. Armey of Texas.

Barack Obama is a dreadful cur who is also a hopeless megalomaniac. He will be taken down by the collective "Judas" in his own administration. No one likes to work with a megalomanic, and especially one with an arrested maturity caused by youthful drug abuse. See NIH studies on the topic.

Dick Cheney is an arrogant WACKO.
He and his oil cronies created the Iraq war for oil money.
Who cares what he thinks about the new administration?
Ignore this megalomaniac.

I hope that President Obama's new approach to counter terrorism will be effective. However, I believe that it will not--a softball approach to well-financed terrorists with an abiding hatred for us seems like the perfect recipe for disaster.

The Barack Obama Media Circus Tour 2009 continues.

Sorry, but Obama is on the wrong path and the public is turning.

His "grassroot organizations" are losing their luster and are being viewed as counterproductive. It seems that the thought is to keep showing "certain" members of the public as being angry and upset and protesting.

Keep it local and keep it national.

The unfortunate result of this is the turning away of the general public and the realization that these are planned activities through th base.

Faulty activity that doesn't survive in the technology world.

People are done with it.

~"There is no doubt that we have not done a particularly effective job in sorting through who are truly dangerous individuals...to make sure [they] are not a threat to us.''~
That's exactly what I am thinking as I read this!

Disgusted,
.
War on Terror will be over before the democrats War on Poverty

Well, Barack, Bush and Cheney kept us safe from terrorism for seven+ years and did great damage to terrorism. Your cookies and crumpets belief will only get plenty of innocent people killed.
Posted by: John D | March 21, 2009 6:43 PM
.....

Really? Shrub Jr and Darth allowed 9/11 to happen on their watch, you moron.

Posted by: Hulk SMASH! | March 21, 2009 7:24 PM

Yes -- but after that one time, where we got attacked three and almost four times in one day, we weren't attacked again, so YAAAAAAAY for ShrubCo (especially if you're a big fan of the "Post Ergo Hoc" logic fallacy)! And it's true that Bush et al killed mucho terrorists (as long as you don't count that his policies of aggression coupled with the mind-bending, dim-witted incompetence of Bush and his people during occupancy CREATED that many, plus interest, out of people who could well have been on our side had Bush not been such a total twit.) Apparently, the meaning of that is that Obama gets a major terrorist attack while he's President as a "gimme" and nobody gets to say anything about it.

Finally, "Not Bush's Terrorism Policies" NEVER meant "Tea and Crumpets," except to right-wing revisionists. The only people who bellieve it does are idiots. It made a clever turn of phrase and it was a bad image for Democrats, so -- BEHOLD! Truth (or "truthiness")! It goes along with "we don't have to worry about the loons because we have facts and logic on our side."

Figures don't lie, but liars are ALWAYS figuring.

obama is the worst of the worst. he has time to go on late shows, always talking about how bad it is a the whitehouse, and someone needs to do a intervention on him. his and wife dress is so distasteful, but did anyone expect differnt? no, nor did i. this is the most carefree, careless, and whinning president of all time. and did i mention, tasteless? yes i did!

I don’t believe that Cheney has a lot of credibility or place to speak, given that we failed to capture Osama Bin Laden on his watch or bring peace to either Iraq or Afghanistan. On the other hand, I am becoming equally convinced that Obama is really on the wrong path with his “Jimmy Carter” like approach to the question of terrorism.
.
“Reaching out” to the Taliban, as Obama has done or plans to do, is pointless. It would be like making peace overtures toward al Qaeda. They have been at war with us long enough to believe that friendly gestures from us are signs of weakness and a lack of will on our part. In any event, THEY don’t believe in making peace with “the enemy” unless it is on their terms, or as a means to allow them to regroup for future hostilities. It’s the way their religion has been taught to them that makes them think that way.
.
Likewise, look at how well Obama’s friendly gesture toward Iran was received. The Iranian leadership threw it back in his face, claiming he had “insulted” the Iranian people and that his views represent no “change” in policy from the Bush administration. After all, how dare he claim that Iran was involved in supporting terrorism or seeking nuclear weapons? Instead of Obama making ground with Iran, the Iranian leadership has simply used his message to whip up further anti-American sentiment. The exchange somehow reminds me of what Jesus said about not casting one’s pearls before swine.
.
No, Barack Obama hasn’t gotten anyone killed with his change in policy - whatever it may be; at least, not yet. On the other hand, he doesn’t seem to be getting any traction with all of his talk. At some point he will have to make it known that the U.S. still has the resolve to DO something in the event the talk doesn’t produce results. Jimmy Carter’s failure consisted of his inability to give up talking after it became obvious that it was pointless. I certainly hope Obama doesn’t follow that path.

The first time the Islamic radicals attacked us on US soil was when they bombed the World Trade Center a month or so after Clinton took office.
When Bush took over, Clinton's people told Bush's advisors that Al Quaeda was going to be his main worry. Bush's team laughed it off and eight months later, we had 9-11.

Arguably, Bush, if he had been paying attention could have done something about it, but in any event, he deserves no more credit than Clinton does for preventing Islamic terrorist attacks on US soil during his term in office.

When Bush took over, we were running a surplus, we were not fighting two wars(one of them entirely by his choice), the military was not stretched to the breaking point, the economy was in reasonably good shape, the government was running a surplus, and in general, the world thought we were the good guys. How things have changed!

I don't know how any sane and reasonably intelligent person could honestly say they think that George Bush did a good job.

Obama, on the other hand, hasn't been in office long enough to allow anyone to accurately judge his presidency.

flubba porter: When one makes a statement, one should learn to use facts and comments that make sense. You need to pry that bible out of your hand and open your eyes you fool. christians and protestants have been bombing each other for hundreds of years in Ireland. Our religious nuts here kill doctors, kill Native Americans, and lynch African Americans in their quest for supremacy and to carry out our own version of ethnic cleansing. Ignorant fools like you have also never read the bible from cover to cover either. I don't care if you want to keep on living in candyland, but don't blog about your ignorance here for the educated to roll our eyes at.

Xcell, you make another lefty distraction which I knew would be brought up. Bet you can't wait for the "brigades for Jesus" to start using highjacked planes and suicide bombers to attack Americans. Your lefty victimization propaganda does not apply here.

Posted by: John W. | March 22, 2009 12:18 PM

So what's your solution? Inavde Iran? A few well placed nukes?

Come on, you have the answers obvioulsy. If you think diplomacty is woirthless in this case, tell us what the solution is. You've never been shy before about sharing you great wisdom on all subjects.

How do you want us to "show resolve"? Bomb Tehran? How m many dead Iranian civilians will it take to "show resolve", tough guy? Do you honestly believe that every President must resort to military force to "show resolve"? Is three wars enough for you, or does Obama have to attack Syria, Pakistan, and Hamas to meet your tough guy, John Wayne standards of manliness?

Diplomacy takes time. It is NOT a straight road. I know you republicans love the percieved instant gratification of blowing up Muslims, but that isn't a real answer. One approach and one rejection is only a beginning. Try to put your blood lust aside for more than a few days, and let a more peaceful approach some time to flower.

* * * * *
Posted by: Salaam | March 23, 2009 11:08 AM
.
Salaam,
.
You are full of recycled hummus if you think for a second that I believe we should be out there gratuitously killing Iranians or other Muslims to pursue our political goals. I am not a fan of killing, and I find your stereotyping offensive. I have never believed the U.S. invasion of Iraq was either wise or warranted. As for Afghanistan, we should have finished pursuing the criminals who attacked us here at home - and then left.
.
And neither do I believe that the U.S. must always resort to military force just to show its resolve. However, to “show resolve” one may have to take all actions short of military force in order to convince people we are serious. As I see it, Barack Obama is just talking, and his talking isn’t going anywhere. If all he gets in the future is ridicule and criticism in response to his talk - as he has been lately - then talking is pointless and we won’t make any headway.
.
You are correct in stating that diplomacy takes time. Unfortunately, at the rate Obama is proceeding (which is to say, not at all), diplomacy will take forever. Obama has no respect among these people because of what he represents, rather than because of who he is. Even Hugo Chavez recently called him an ignorant fool. If Chavez thinks so, then you have to know that Chavez’ allies think so too.
.
In addition, we don’t have that much time before Iran becomes a serious threat to its Arabic neighbors and to the U.S. In case you didn’t know it, a number of Arabic countries have been seeking to arm themselves with nuclear weapons because they perceive Iran as a serious threat to their security. They believe Iran is looking to dominate the region politically and economically - which to them is unacceptable for both political and religious reasons. I don’t know about you, but I think the world would be a lot less safe if the Levant, Mesopotamia and the Saudi Peninsula were all strewn with nuclear missiles.
.
So, have a cup of qahwa, a smile and shut up.
.
Ma’a’salaama.

Posted by: John W. | March 23, 2009 1:51 PM

Gee, John, I guess you're right, Obama's had two whole months in office. Diplomacy clearly has failed. There's no hope. We tried once, there were not immediate results, so that's it. Time to move on. Let the bombing for peace begin!!!!!!!

By the way you right wingers were the ones who said that Obama and Chavez were socialist buddies that would see eye to eye. Perhaps Obama isn't the only ignorant fool around. Look in the mirror and maybe you'll see one looking back.

Do you think that the Muslim countries desire to have nukes might have anything to do with the fact that Israel has nukes already, rather than the threat of future Iranian nukes? Do you think it might have anything to do with the fact that the US has shown the will and determination to attack middle eastern countries at will? If you were in a mulim nation, wouldn't YOU want some deterrent against US and Israeli military action?

And I won't be bullied in to shutting up. That's so typical of the American attitude toward muslims. I have as much right to express my opinion as you, tough guy. I won't be silenced. Don't like it? Tough.

Peace.

* * * * *
Posted by: Salaam | March 23, 2009 3:06 PM
.
Okay, wise guy, tell me why you think Iran is going to change its mind any time soon? They have taken the first opportunity in which Obama has offered an olive branch to slap him in the face. Instead of suggesting we might have dialogue, they have responded by saying they aren’t going to talk to us until we drastically change our foreign policy to suit their tastes. This was in response to Obama!!!! How far do you think we should change our policies, and do you honestly believe they will favorably respond if and when we do? If you think they will change, then I think you are naïve in the extreme.
.
Again, I never suggested that we resort to bombing or killing. You keep coming back to that theme because you have pigeonholed all conservatives. That is your ignorance speaking. There are many conservatives who don’t believe in Bush’s aggressive and militaristic ways. I am one of them. Get off your high horse. Sanctions against Iran have a good chance of working if they persist in their support for Hezbollah and continue to seek nuclear weapons. Reminding them that we will respond in force against any aggression toward their neighbors might also work to some degree. Getting the rest of the world to cooperate in resisting their efforts might help too.
.
The answer to your next question is, “No.” I don’t believe that Arabic countries are only now seeking nukes because Israel has them. Israel has had nukes for more than 30 years. That hardly sounds like a reason to start asking for nukes within the past five years, considering that Israel hasn’t attacked anyone, including Lebanon, without first being attacked. In addition, if I were in a Muslim country, I would urge my government not to take a hostile or violent stance against any other nation, including Syria, Iran or Israel. Peace begets peace.
.
Finally, I never suggested that you shut up because you are a Muslim. I would never do that. I honestly believe that Muslims have much to add to the public dialogue. In your case, I suggested that you take a chill-pill and shut up because you are talking nonsense, and not because of your religious or ethnic background. I don’t care for trash talk from anyone.

Tell me John, Did you think the Soviet Union would ever change? South Africa? Countries do change over time, even "evil" Muslim countries, like Iran.

Are you unaware that Muslim countries have been working on nuclear weapons programs since at least the early 80's? Saying that this is a new development in the last 5 years jkust shows your deep ignorance of the region and it's geopolitics. Are you aware that the Iranian Nuclear program was actually started by the US in that country prior to the Revolution? You really must learn to get information from other sources than your right wing politicians and press sources.

John , Did Egypt attack israel in 1956? 1967? How about Iraq in 1981?

"In addition, if I were in a Muslim country, I would urge my government not to take a hostile or violent stance against any other nation, including Syria, Iran or Israel. Peace begets peace."

Right. Are you urging tthe US Government not to take hostile positions toward other nations? No, just the opposite. You want MORE hostility. You want MORE violence. Peace begets peace for everyone but the US, and Israel, right John? For them Hostility begets peace.

As to your last statement, I admit the possibility that I am in error. Perahaps You are not anti-muslim. You are instead a conceited blowhard who cannot handle any disagreement with your view. You are enraged when your ignorance is shown up by others. Perhaps you should take a "chill pill" before you ignorantly spout nonsense, such as the many statements of historical error as filled your last post.

* * * * *
Posted by: Salaam | March 23, 2009 7:29 PM
.
1. Within the last five years, Arab nations have tried to acquire nuclear weapons by purchasing them. That is what I was talking about. They may have tried to develop them for a longer period of time, as you suggest, but they’ve never been successful. Within the last five years, however, the desire of Arab nations to acquire nuclear weapons any way they can has become very urgent. The urgency has been created by Iran. Iran poses a threat to their existence. Israel doesn’t pose a threat to the countries that are now clamoring for nuclear weapons, and never has.
.
2. Blockading the port of another country is an act of war under international law. Egypt committed acts of war in both 1956 and 1967 against Israel by blockading the Straits of Tiran, thereby closing off Israel’s only Red Sea port. Those acts, by themselves, justified Israel’s response both times. In addition, in 1967, Egypt also lined up a very large army on the edge of the Sinai Desert at the same time it closed off the Straits of Tiran - thus adding to its warlike provocation and making it obvious to all but the deaf and blind that a full blown invasion was imminent. No one doubts or denies that an invasion from Egypt and Syria was imminent. And I’m supposed to condemn Israel’s actions in these instances? Think again. I will agree with you, however, that the 1981 attack on Iraq’s nuclear plant was wrong and deserved the condemnation of all civilized people. So, for that matter, were Iraq’s SCUD attacks against Israel (a non-combatant) during the First Gulf War.
.
3. You then suggest for a third time that I am in favor of urging the United States to become more militarily hostile. Nothing I have said up to this point, or at any time in my life, even begins to justify these idiotic ideas of yours. I do not like killing or war. I have always thought the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was an extremely foolish operation. Get it through your head. There are measures between talking and war that can be employed to coerce nations to comply with the laws of the community of nations. Given Iran’s presently hostile attitude, I don’t think that talk is going to work. Thus, some other method of coercion must be employed. What will not work is the Jimmy Carter method of talking while keeping one’s head buried in the sand. That is all I have ever said. YOU were the one who immediately assumed that I was talking about military action. That was YOUR mistake.
.
4. Finally, you have no place calling anyone a blowhard, Mr. Wind-tunnel. You have falsely accused me of being a war-monger and a bigot. Were it not for these accusations, I would never have bothered to reply to any of your inane dribble.

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.

Joannah

http://2gbmemory.net

Ignorant John, enlighten us about the many middle eastern countries that are trying to get atomic weapons out of their great fear of Iran. Be specific. Who's that afraid? Our friends the Iraqis? Our dearest allies the Saudis? How about the always scary military power of Bahrain? How about the Afghans?

Are you suggesting Syria is more afraid of Iran than Israel? If you are, then you are seriously deranged.

I stand by my statement that you desire greater hostility toward Iran. There are forms of hositility other than Military attack, as you clearly acknowledge. Your basic stance in this post is that Obama isn't being hostile enough toward Iran. You demand that he "show resolve". You demand economic sanctions (which differs from blockading a port in what important way John?). That's hostility John. You attack Obama for attempting to lower tensions, and ease down the hostility. You demand action to harm Iran. You demand punshiment. You deamnd hstility drip from every utterance than comes from Obama's mouth. You attack the very simplest moves toward a diplomatic solution. Talking is weakness to you. Diplomacy is wimpy to you, not worthy of the President of the United States. Hostility is your desire, nothing more.

Let me be clear here, Jonh. Unlike you, I don't think either side is wholly innocent, nor wholly evil. Both the US and Iran have made grave errors in their relationship over the past 30 years. Both sides are guilty of increasing the hostility. Both sides have resorted to unacceptable methods of international relations in regards to each other. However, as opposed to you, I don't believe the way out is by a continual ratcheting up of the rhetoric, as you do. I don't think further hostility, military or otherwise, is the solution, as you do. We must find a peaceful way to settle our differences. I don't believe constant rehashing of past wrongs gets us anywhere. We must bring down the level of hostility between our nations. In that effort, I believe the US, as a force for peace and justice in the world, must reach out to Iran and it's people. I believe we must patiently hold out the olive branch. We must be the example that there is a better way. We must not sucumb to irrational fears that diplomacy makes us look weak, as you have. We must know that we look the strongest when we stand for what is right, when we work tirelessly for peace and justice for every human being. As the Republican hero Ronald Reagan said, we must be that "shining light on a hill.", not just in rhetoric, but in action. We degrade ourselves, when we deny the ability for the better angels of our nature to work, as you have. We deny our own greatness, when we follow the path of anger and hostility, as you demand. I know you will say thats' all "insane dribble" and cling to your anger, cling to your hostility, and keep you faith in revenge, hostility and coercion as the only way, but I hope others can see past that false wisdom.

John, how's that list of middle eastern countries desperate to get the bomb out of fear of Iran coming? Is it so long that it's taking you this long to type it? I can't wait to see what you come up with! The delay couldn't be because you know any response will make you look like an ignorant fool, could it?

This morning the President spoke at length on the values that guide his foreign policy decisions, including the closing of Guantanamo. He began by speaking of the importance of robust national security efforts and upholding American’s core identity and Constitutional principles, explaining how each can enforce the other. Here is a copy of his speech. http://pfx.me/ey