WASHINGTON – Senator John McCain of Arizona used a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby, to lambaste Senator Barack Obama on two fronts: he charged that Mr. Obama’s calls for diplomacy with Iran were misguided and insufficient, and that his proposal to begin withdrawing United States troops from Iraq would lead to chaos in the region and endanger Israel.
In remarks that Senator McCain planned to deliver in a cavernous room here at the Washington convention center, he dwelled on the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose – and criticized the positions of Mr. Obama, his likely Democratic rival.
“The Iranians have spent years working toward a nuclear program,’’ Mr. McCain was to say, according to excerpts from the speech provided by his campaign. “And the idea that they now seek nuclear weapons because we refuse to engage in presidential-level talks is a serious misreading of history,’’ he added, noting that previous overtures by the Clinton administration had failed.
“Even so, we hear talk of a meeting with the Iranian leadership offered up as if it were some sudden inspiration, a bold new idea that somehow nobody has ever thought of before,’’ he said in the advance text of his speech, which was provided by his campaign.
“Yet it’s hard to see what such a summit with President Ahmadinejad would actually gain, except an earful of anti-Semitic rants, and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks before frenzied crowds about starting another. Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents, as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly acquire the appearance of respectability.”
Mr. McCain was returning to a familiar line of attack on Mr. Obama – who has made a point of saying that he would use diplomacy even with countries that disagree with the United States — for his statement during a debate last summer that he would be willing to meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea without preconditions.
The Obama campaign countered swiftly. “John McCain stubbornly insists on continuing a dangerous and failed foreign policy that has clearly made the United States and Israel less secure,’’ Hari Sevugan, a campaign spokesman said.
“Here are the results of the policies that John McCain has supported, and would continue. During the Bush Administration, Iran has dramatically expanded its nuclear program, going from zero centrifuges to more than 3000 centrifuges,’’ he said. “During the Bush Administration, Iran has expanded its influence throughout a vitally important region, plying Hamas and Hezbollah with money and arms. During the Bush Administration, Hamas took over Gaza. Most importantly, the war in Iraq that John McCain supported and promises to continue indefinitely has done more to dramatically strengthen and embolden Iran than anything in a generation.’’
Mr. Obama and his campaign have stressed that while the Democrat would depart from the Bush administration’s policy of refusing to meet with certain nations that fail to meet preconditions, he would not necessarily engage in presidential-level talks with them.
Mr. McCain – who has taken a hard-line stance on Iran, and who joked early in the campaign by suggesting renaming the Beach Boys song “Barbara Ann’’ as “Bomb Iran” – referred in his speech here to creating “real-world pressures’’ on Iran.
He called for the United Nations to impose tougher political and economic sanctions, and saying that if it fails to do so that the United States should lead “like-minded countries” in imposing their own sanctions, including some sanctions that he said would “impose a heavy cost on the regime’s leaders, including the denial of visas and freezing of assets.’’ And he spoke of spearheading a worldwide divestment campaign, modeled on the one that helped pressure South Africa to end apartheid.
And Mr. McCain reiterated his call for applying sanctions to “restrict Iran’s ability to import refined petroleum products, on which it is highly dependent.’’
He also criticized Mr. Obama for opposing an amendment he had supported that called for designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization responsible for killing American troops in Iraq. “Over three quarters of the Senate supported this obvious step, but not Senator Obama,’’ he said.
And he argued that Mr. Obama’s calls for withdrawing troops from Iraq could endanger Israel. “You would never know from listening to those who are still caught up in angry arguments over yesterday’s options, but our troops in Iraq have made hard-won progress under General Petraeus’ new strategy,’’ he said. “And Iraqi political leaders have moved ahead slowly and insufficiently, but forward nonetheless. Sectarian violence declined dramatically, Sunnis in Anbar province and throughout Iraq are cooperating in the fight against al Qaeda, and Shia extremist militias no longer control Basra the Maliki government and its forces are in charge. Al Qaeda terrorists are on the run, and our troops are going to make sure they never come back.’’
“It’s worth recalling that America’s progress in Iraq is the direct result of the new strategy that Senator Obama opposed,’’ he said. “It was the strategy he predicted would fail, when he voted cut off funds for our forces in Iraq. He now says he intends to withdraw combat troops from Iraq one to two brigades per month until they are all removed. He will do so regardless of the conditions in Iraq, regardless of the consequences for our national security, regardless of Israel’s security, and in disregard of the best advice of our commanders on the ground.’’
“This course would surely result in a catastrophe,’’ he said. “If our troops are ordered to make a forced retreat, we risk all-out civil war, genocide, and a failed state in the heart of the Middle East. Al Qaeda terrorists would rejoice in the defeat of the United States. Allowing a potential terrorist sanctuary would profoundly affect the security of the United States, Israel, and our other friends, and would invite further intervention from Iraq’s neighbors, including an emboldened Iran. We must not let this happen.’’
From 1 to 100 of 193 Comments
This is why Hillary needs to be our nominee! Obama is weak on the Middle East. Only Hillary Clinton has the experience to deliver change on Day One! McCain could never say any of this stuff about Hillary. I bet he is afraid of facing her. He probably will concede the election as soon as she becomes the Democratic nominee!
Hillary MUST be our nominee!
— GwenDear Hillary:
I certainly know that quitting is not in your DNA…and it is one of the reasons I have supported you from the beginning. I voted for you for Senate…and you proved me right…you have represented New York as I would want from my Senator.
I, like so many other of your backers would never have believed what has transpired since you announced.
But, that is politics…and of all people, I know you understand the ebbs and flows of the game.
I have a lot of questions that I do not know the answers to about Obama…But I consider myself very lucky to be in a no lose situation…when it comes to who will be my next President.
For the first time in years, my feeling is that the next Democratic nominee will be our next President. It must hurt for you to think about that…I know if I were you, I would.
I feel proud…and will continue to be proud…to call you my Senator.
I also feel that I don’t want anything mucking up our chances to take back the White House and I hope Congress as well.
Unlike some of the pundants, I do not believe that your staying in the fight will automatically defeat the Democrats…I’m just old enough to remember Conventions where candidates were actually chosen.
But I think it is getting to the point where time is of the essence, and every day we can reinforce the fight against the Republican candidate, we will edge closer to our goal, as Democrats.
The times have changed. Conventions are no longer staged to choose; they exist to coronate and officially start the campaign. With the speed information is disseminated today one day is like a week of campaigning back before the days of YOUTUBE, CNN and MSNBC.
The hard facts indicate to me, that (like it or not) the people have sided with Obama…and that’s not bad!
In spite of my uncertainty about many of his positions, I do feel certain that as a bright, capable and healing voice in our country and in the world…he, as I feel you would be, will bring us back from brink that this current administration has taken us. I want to be able to travel again and be proud of my Country…I’m tired of making excuses for it.
I am not a person who writes missives like this.
I am just tired of My Party snatching defeat out of the hands of victory.
For whatever it may be worth, I am asking you and your machine, to see the reality that does exist and put your weight and influence behind Obama and a Democratic victory in November.
You certainly will have MY vote…whatever you run for in the future.
All the best,
P.B. Shalleck
Just so you know my demographic:
— Peter B Shalleck63 year old, white male, Jew, NYC with a new business in Western Africa with a black Senegalese Muslim partner. I live in NYC.
So Obama offers an intelligent dialog with our international adversaries and McCain offers a goofy grin while he sings, bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran! America, if you like Bush, you will love McBush.
— MikeI remember as a kid how I supported the Vietnam war. This was because my leaders instilled fear in me that if we retreated from Vietnam, all of Asia would be over run by Communism. Of course we now know that it was all lies. Vietnam is at peace with all of it’s neighbors and thousands of fine young Americans died for nothing. Now McCain tries to instill this same fear in this generation. Again it is a lie. When we leave Iraq they will work out their own problems in their own way.
— KimHearing the Democratic politicians characterize a McCain Presicency as four more years of Bush has always made me cringe.
However, in reading the excerpts from his speech, it seems as if he is Bush-like in his fear mongering and confrontational approach to Iraq and Iran.
Furthermore, the McCain’s defense of his “pre-surge troop level” statement was painful ro hear and Bush-like.
I hope that those Clintonites who maintain their desire to vote for McCain should HRC not receive the nomination realize what a McCain White House could be like.
— PangaeaThe Clintonian attitude that you can change the rules in the middle of the game failed to impress most people. In addition, the math of selective counting of states to inflate her claim to total votes is another failure on their part. Let’s hope they get over and do what is best in American politics and congratulate Mr. Obama for winning by playing by the rules that all the candidates agreed. The nomination is based on the total number of delegates, the popular vote is a matter for the general election. The longer the Clintons hang to their claims, the more Mrs. Clinton’s reputation will suffer.
— Eddie ZalezWhatever happened to the kind of leadership that calms panic instead of stoking it up?
— Steve BolgerBrilliant McCain, why stop with marketing fear just at home when you can spread it internationally to foreign diplomats as well.
Brilliant McCain. As a nation becomes more of threat we should reduce our diplomatic options rather than expand them.
Brilliant McCain. you’re right that the idea of diplomatic meetings has been thought of before. But you forget to point out that we seldom follow-through with those diplomatic efforts as aggressively as we do with military efforts. But I guess that’s what we should expect from a war-generation politician such as yourself. Something about negotiating without a big hard gun in your hand just doesn’t feel quite right, huh?
— CBGod help my brothers in Israel if McCainBushCheney is their best hope. He’s an old fool who doesn’t even know his shiite from his sunni.
His bellicose warmongering is a clear loser in November.
Yes we can, without old fools.
— jeff PClinton or McCain 08 — no Obama no way not ever.
No more arrogant, inexperienced creeps in office — imagine that.
— joeIs the Caucus going to report on EVERY SINGLE speech McCain gives attacking Obama on Iraq and Iran? Seems like everyday it’s just the same story all over again with the names of the organizations and cities changed! Clearly this is now part of his stump speech. Is it really the policy of the NYT to write a full length article every time a candidates gives a stump speech?
On the other hand, GREAT. I really think John McCain should make this election as much about Iraq as possible. Go John, Go! You keep reminding those people of the horrid disaster the war your supporting has been!!!!
— Luke in SFit seems simple, really.
if you believe the bush’s foreign policy in the middle east has made the entire region and the world, [including the u.s. and israil], safer…then, mccain’s your guy.
if you think that bush’s policy only made things worse…then, obama’s your guy.
— JP, milltown, njDear American Voters,
Hon. Senator McCain and Obama, besides each having many attributes and characteristics. The critical differences in my professional, political, and personal opinion are as under:
1. Presidential “Temperament and Composer”.
2. Little Washington “insider Versus outsider” connectedness.
3. Vision and mission for our nation future rather than past.
4. American policies first USA centric than other countries centric.
In my professional opinion one senator has it and the other does not. We need one for our Greatgrand Nation to address our all these challenges with a fresh, clean and new slate.
God Bless America. its diverse people, and our Greatgrand Nation.
Yours truly,
COL. [retd] A.M.Khajawall
— COl.[retd] A.M.KhajawallForensic psychiatrist, Las Vegas NV
While we still crow about Iraq gains, Al Queda simply regroups elsewhere. They are loyal to an idea, not a country with borders. See the other story in today’s edition regarding the Taliban leader in Pakistan so brazen he holds a press conference in the open. Continually justifying staying in Iraq for the only reason not proven to be a lie, which is simply because we went, is hubris at its finest. Let the military go find Al Queda and wipe them out, but get out of Iraq and out of this idea that Al Queda is going to come to the area where our troops are in great numbers. Bad policy, bad military strategy, and worse, bad reasons for staying. By the way, where exactly is all the money Iraq has received for their oil exports?
— w williamsas much as i would like to agree with these american ideals. i cannot due to the very real facts of the war being in pursuit of wmd and none were found as is concreted in the un’s reptorts from 1998 of saddam’s weapons, and the facts we all know know that the premise was a farce,and had more to do with oil AND not the people of iraq, any ways go iraq and god bless to america because it is the only way they can ever hope to come out on top, for all that they believe and what they’re doin in iraq it can never suceed unlike ww2 where theyre was a clear goal of enemy this war has none of which we hold dear so the sooner its over the better, i want freedom the world wants freedom and its a thing people fight for it can’t be imposed by the gun and that is why it will fail. go the free and resist this blantant whacko n our lives and the free people of this world.!!
— sethIt is clear that if Obama is the Democratic nominee that McCaim has decided that he will pretend that he is running against Ahmadinejad. Meanwhile Obama and his surrogates in the media are already trying to pretend that he is running against Bush.
— MikeObama will have the tougher battle trying to dupe the voters that he is running against Bush particularly as Obama has much more in common with Bush than MCain. Both Obama and Bush share a history of substance abuse and botched efforts to embrace religion. Both have shown a willingness to override the democratic process and both have embraced the politics of smearing their opponents and have fostered division as a means of advancing themselves politically.
There is indeed a rich irony in Obama trying to paint McCain as Bush when Obama is almost a carbon copy of Bush.
This speech makes it so clear why Hillary Clinton needs to be the Democratic nominee.
— Dana GreenI miss the old John McCain…what ever happened to that guy?
— Jim“Here are the results of the policies that John McCain has supported, and would continue. During the Bush Administration, Iran has dramatically expanded its nuclear program, going from zero centrifuges to more than 3000 centrifuges,’’ he said. “During the Bush Administration, Iran has expanded its influence throughout a vitally important region, plying Hamas and Hezbollah with money and arms. During the Bush Administration, Hamas took over Gaza. Most importantly, the war in Iraq that John McCain supported and promises to continue indefinitely has done more to dramatically strengthen and embolden Iran than anything in a generation.’’
The above pretty much sums up what a McCain presidency will give us for another four years. More than likely, Iran’s nuclear capability will increase, Israel will be in more danger by terrorist attacks, Iraq will become a bigger quagmire, the Taliban will gain control of Afghanistan, Chavez politics will spread across all of Latin America, and a new Cold War with the Russian. Something to look forward to.
Again, what is wrong with negotiating with your enemies for a peaceful solution? Obviously, what has been going on hasn’t worked in foreign policy.
— NickI have worked for AIPAC and my father is a Holocaust survivor: I advise voting against John McCain.
— AdamIranian nuclear capacity has grown under Republican rule, as has their power in the Middle East. If McCain thinks sticking to a losing strategy is a good thing, than he truly is naive.
— BrendanJohn McCain is another Hillary, he will “pander” to anyone for votes…. A man with no principles or convictions except to become comander-in-chief a la GW Bush….
Forget about democracy, economy, peace, that is for the Liberals, he wants more wars, bloodshed and conflicts to “appease” his mentor Joe Liberman, the defence/danger industries and the evangelists!!!
— Hassan AzarmYou old broken record, talk about domestic policy for once as we are in an economic emergency here…oh yeah, you admitted you know nothing about the economy!
— AbbyMr. McCain stated in his speech that “this course (Mr. Obama’s Middle East policies) would surely result in a castrophe.” How dare Mr. McCain make such a claim when he has been a prime culprit in the duplicity of the Iraq invasion and the ongoing horror of the Iraq occupation! Mr. McCain’s rabid belligerence against Iran also speaks to Mr. McCain’s pathological obsession with “foreign” devils, moralistic militarism and the “demons” of Vietnam. Lastly, I have no idea what the AIPAC audience “actually” thought of Mr. McCain speech, but let’s make one thing perfectly clear, Mr. McCain is no real friend of the overwhelming majority of Israelis! (Nam 68′)
— David G. WardWithdrawing our troops from Iraq too swiftly would mean ignoring our responsiblity to the people of Iraq and putting their saferty in even more jeopardy. It is not surprising that Obama would be in favor of this since as we’ve seen in the past, he’ll toss anyone under the bus to pander to voters.
— katieGSenator McCain ignores the fact that other relevant political forces within Iran oppose the actual president. Recently, an opponent to the Iranian president was elected to a leading function in Iranian parliament. Iran watchers agree that the pendulum is moving towards a more moderate political environment.McCain’s hostility, if elected, will effectively reinforce the present Iranian system, wheras dialogue, as defended by Senator Obama, may well open a window towards greater rationality.
— Pedro da CunhaMost Israelis support Barack Obama. Most clear thinking, intelligent and wise American Jewish voters support Barack Obama. The Bush administration’s middle east policy has been a total failure. McCain’s would be worse.
— jimrakerMcCain’s argument boils down to: “If we withdraw from Iraq the Iraqis will decide who governs them, we can’t let that happen”
— Ed in TucsonCan we PLEASE just move on to the general election so Obama can debate this man face-to-face and make his position and mischaracterizations look as foolish as they really are?
— AaronMcCain is old enough to know that “Barbara Ann” was spoofed as “Bomb Iran” around 1980, in the midst of the US hostage crisis in Iran, isn’t he? I hope he didn’t try to pass that comment off as original McCain wit.
— Rick HollandUntil our political leaders stop pandering to these pro-Israeli groups, the US will never be perceived as having a balanced approach to dealing with events in the Mideast. Israel’s interests can not be the core of our foreign policy - America’s interest must be at the core of our policies. Yes, America’s committment to the security of Israel is very important. But to couch every aspect of our Mideast policy in terms of how it may or may not impact Israel is by necessity compromising our view of how that aspect impacts US policy and relations.
Only this week Israel has announced additional settlements in the West Bank, almost as a dare to the US on the eve of Olmert’s visit to the US. For the US to take the Israeli position that these settlements are somehow related to the security of Israel is not putting America’s interests first. We need to be take a very hard position on further Israeli settlements.
We need to stop the stranglehold of US foreign policy by the Israeli lobby if we will ever want to be able to be a partner in bringing peace to the Mideast.
— LouIt never ceases to amaze me that the fundamental basis for Republican campaign strategy is to fear-monger the electorate. Doesn’t that say something for their policies and implicitly imply that many of their signature policies are failing us and our allies? Israel may be less secure NOW but the real question is was Israel not MORE secure BEFORE we invaded Iraq and allowed for the Shia crescent to expand and thereby embolden Iran and Hamas? On this the evidence could not be more clear. In many ways John McCain, by continuing the Bush Middle East agenda, is not only appeasing the terrorists, but is abetting them; and, in so doing ultimately destablizing the entire Middle East and the security of Israel.
— Frank“He called for the United Nations to impose tougher political and economic sanctions, and saying that if it fails to do so that the United States should lead “like-minded countries” in imposing their own sanctions, including some sanctions that he said would “impose a heavy cost on the regime’s leaders, including the denial of visas and freezing of assets.’’ And he spoke of spearheading a worldwide divestment campaign, modeled on the one that helped pressure South Africa to end apartheid.”
McCain is an idiot!
The spearheading of sanctions and economic embargo on Iran has been a course the US has taken since the taking of the embassy hostages in the late 70’s. The current set of sanctions already prevent all domestic and most foreign financial institutions in doing any type of financial business with Iran, except for oil.
And is this all that McCain can talk about while the price of gas hits $4.05 a gallon, more than 32,000 jobs are lost in NYC alone, housing mortgage is sinking, and the price of milk is rising?
Considering how much attention McCain gives to Iraq - we might as all sign up and go to Iraq - at least, President McCain is willing to give anyone who goes to Iraq a job with constant pay and a better standard of living.
— NedIn other words, according to McBush or McThe Same, do not disturb the mess we have created. We should continue to waste a few more trillions, create more enemies, so we can justify to waste a few more trillions to support our previous chaos…till we reach victory…..receiving financial help from the real world.
— TexancanI simply have a huge problem with a potential presidential nominee who demonstrates contempt for the United States when he refuses to wear an American Flag on his lapel, or stand at attention with his hand over his heart when the National anthem is played. He really represent the interests of the US, doesn’t he?!
— Larry FSenator McCain’s cold war mindset and division of the world into armed and hostile camps helped undermine the reformist movement in Iran after September 11, brought Ahmadinejad to power, and encouraged their pursuit of nuclear weapons. He now says the attitude which created the problems is the one needed to solve those problems.
— Peter QuinceJohn McCain as President would engage us in wars so destructive and self-destructive that the worst days of Iraq would be considered a walk in the park.
And all the progress he touts in Iraq is years of toil and sacrifice in order to ameliorate the harm we caused by a war which was a mistake. It wa also a war he urged on the United States BEFORE September 11. When the greatest success he can claim is making our own destructive impact less severe, he is clearly out of touch and very, very dangerous.
Thanks.
Very interesting to know that GWB third term candidate has totally ignored the HRC’s decision to keep fighting till the convention for the nomination and is attacking only Obama.Is it that she is also considered as a part and parcel of the extention of the GWB’s foreign policy?
— Arun MehtaObama will be a disaster for Israel. He has already indicated he does not agree/support the Likud party’s approach in Israel, and given that Likud is almost certain to win the next elections in Israel, the only logical inference is that he will be at odds with the new government there.
He also has been very close throughout his career to anti-Isreal academics, such as the late Edward Said of Columbia, who once proudly threw a rock at an Israeli checkpoint.
Moreover, you have to wonder why Hamas is so comfortable with the idea of a President Obama. I for one would have been a lot happier if Hamas had said “We hate both McCain and Obama.” What makes Hamas so happy about Obama as President? Any thoughts?
Of course, I am a realist here. Most American Jews are liberals who never go to synagogue, have never been to Israel, and couldn’t care less about what happens to Israel. They are much more concerened about fashionable issues like saving the rain forest and abortion rights. So no matter what Obama says, he will get about 65% of the Jewish vote.
-A Zionist
— jackI agree with Peter Shalleck’s position (Posting No. 2). However, I’ll say more. I DON’T think conventions are redundant–it’s only the GOP that made it so with the obscene spectacle of its 2004 convention in Manhattan. They may very well continue to have a part to play in such a close race with two qualified candidates.
I agree that Democrats shouldn’t seize defeat from the jaws of victory. In view of the excesses of the last seven years, and a foreign policy that has made both the United States AND Israel less safe, it’s imperative to elect a Democrat and have a strong Democratic majority in Congress to reverse the way BushCheney trashed the Constitution.
A McCain presidency would mean only four more years of our decline. It’s ironic that a GOP mouthpiece, Bill Kristol, writing in his op-ed piece in Monday’s Times, criticized Mr. Obama for neither serving in our military nor urging such service in his Wesleyan graduation speech. Kristol NEVER served in the military. (Nor did Mr. Obama.) But what kind of “patriot” urges people to serve in an endless, ill-supplied, and unpopular war premised by orchestrated lies. And such a “service” ends in physical and mental injury that receives inadequate, cost-cutting care. Who in their right mind would sign up for that? And voting against expanding the G.I. Bill for returning veterans is hardly a way to honor our troops–but this is exactly what McCain did.
It is essential to elect a Democrat to the White House this year. While I, too, would prefer Hillary based on her pragmatism and experience, I think Mr. Obama would appoint knowledgeable people, consider advice from all sides, and make the necessary decisions to repair our national reputation and our deepening problems at home. And I know that if Mr. Obama is the candidate, Hillary will support him in the campaign ahead.
I also know that the GOP will throw every kind of slimy, obscene, libelous attack at the Democrats. But I can only hope that the voting public has learned exactly what the GOP promised–and has not delivered–in the previous thirty years and put them on the scrap heap of history.
— Carl Ian SchwartzAmerica, Europe and The World have voted for Harvard Scholar Senator Barack Obama’s message of HOPE and international friendship/cooperation instead of McCain’s messages of despair, hate and old conflicts.
Barack Obama will return Our Constitution to the American People.
Wall Street Super-capitalistic stealing from Our Treasury will be stopped and the Republicans will answer for their crimes against the American People.
Republican deceptions and crimes are over. Democracy will rule America once again.
Bush-Cheney-Rice-Clinton will answer to the International Court of Justice for the illegal Iraq War.
God Bless American and the World. Peace.
— ChristopheurThat Hillary offers policies indistinguishable from John McCain is not a good reason for her to be given the democratic nomination. First, those policies, in my opinion, are bad policies. Second, The election should offer a genuine choice, and the democratic nominee should not be the one who can best imitate republicans.
— DanielIs McCain running for president of Israel or the U.S. ?
— r harmonI don’t see why any of our presidential candidates should have to make Israeli security an issue - especially when it comes at a cost of compromising our own strategic and diplomatic goals. After all, Israel is armed to the teeth - and has nuclear weapons, and has a very capable foreign ministry. Why can’t they be responsible for their own security?
— jeffUnfortunately, it looks like McCain is going to target Jewish voters as potential swing. Makes me very uncomfortable in an election where:
-One candidate is an African-American
-Both candidates will be under pressure to prove who’s the better Christian
Not sure where this is going - stay tuned.
— thebigmancatput the kool-aide down and back away from the cup - while it may be fear-mongering by mcain - its the type of fear-mongering that has worked well in the past and stands a chance of defining the debate going forward. as was stated above, this is not a problem if senator clinton is the nominee. as outlined in a WSJ report today, senator clinton does have the best chance of defeating mccain and is not vulnerable to this kind of attack. if the DNC has an ounce of brains - and they have shown no indication in this primary process they have - they would nominate senator clinton and demand that obama be her VP so he could learn a little something over the next 8 years. its either that or we’ll get president mccain and a poltical mailer with the words to “bom iran” so we can all sing along.
in any event - if the DNC do not nominate senator clinton, and i cannot write her name in - i’m not planning on voting for a presidential canidate this next general election.
— shamanSounds like Senator McCain is running for president of the wrong country. Israel loves Bush, they’ll probably love his third term: John McCain with Lieberman, Kristol, and Kagan
— Steve in D.C.Israel = Tired, neo-con, right wing policies…
Barack should know that outside of NYC and Florida many of us could care less about the Israelis…There are far poorer and needy causes throughout the world than Israel and our blind allegiance and open pocketbook towards them has brought nothing but misery for this country.
— ThoamsAs one can see, Obama really has no plan and it shifts whichever way the criticism blows. If that’s what America wants, then vote Obama (Hillary is history!) But just because McCain sounds like Bush in this aspect doesn’t make him like Bush in every way. Obama has yet to inspire confidence that he can protect this country, and Hillary’s “obliterate Iran” is really no different from McCain. But at least McCain is a war hero, and I would sooner entrust him with my safety than either of the other two.
— stuartSteve Bolger at 10:14am gets it right.
Only when one steps back far enough from the propaganda perpetrated by these fear mongering politicians of the last 7 years will any semblance of sanity be found.
Whatever happened to, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself”? Instead, it’s been replaced with the Hollywood movie tag line, “be afraid, be very afraid”…
Israel can defend itself, they have the strongest military in the Middle East, and an impressive arsenal of nuclear weapons as well should the need arise. All nations in the MIddle East know this truth.
Why is it that we can all agree that we should be afraid of any blowhard’s rhetoric in the Middle East? Are we all a bunch of cowards? The so-called “war hero” McCain seems to think so.
And why all this pandering to Israel and Jewish voters? Why is the vote of 3% of the U.S. population so monumental to any candidate’s goal in a U.S. election? Asian Americans make up at least 3 times this, yet they have no political voice whatsoever. It makes no sense!
— Robert W.Dear Kim (post #4)
You say: “Of course we now know that it was all lies. Vietnam is at peace with all of it’s neighbors and thousands of fine young Americans died for nothing.”
Somehow you seem to have forgotten the violent repression by Pol Pot or the thousands massacered in Viet Nam after the US departed. Even now, Viet Nam it is not possible to speak your mind if you go to Viet Nam. Unfortunately, the reason that “fine young Americans died for nothing” is that the US lost it moral compass and walked away from Viet Nam.
— bobSo….lets see…McCain thinks that the President of Iran is actually the true leader of Iran…NOT..
So…lets see…McCain does not want to talk to anyone in Iran despite the late great Ronald Reagan always keeping lines of communication open to Iran and the former Soviet Union…so much so that infact we had that little Iran/Contra affair thing happen…
So..lets see…even his own Republican Brethern have commented on his temper (along with a friend of mine who used to brief McCain on Military issues)..
I’m a republican…but I am NOT going to vote for this guy!!! He has flipflopped on statements, flipflopped on his view with regards to Evangelical Right, and finally has shown that he does not understand or care to understand how other governments operate!
Finally…Obama never said that he would negotiate with the current president of Iran..he just said that he would negotiate with its leadership…guess what…Iran’s elections are in the not to distant future and Ahmadinejad is starting to lose favor with the true rulers of Iran. I like living in a nuclear radiation free world…im voting anyone but McCain.
— JohnAs an AIPAC member (from Boston) I have watched both Bush administrations develop and implement policy in the Middle East that was supposed to strengthen the US position and help Israel move closer to peace and securtity. A Bush/Cheney policy in the Middle East has proven incapable of achieving either objective. We would be foolish to continue this predictable failure under McCain. As Red Auerbach was found of saying, fool me once shame on you; fool me twice shame on me.
— Marc FentonObama, of course, is absolutely right. McCain, Bush, Cheney and the rest are wedded to the policies of the past that have failed to produce peace in the Middle East for 60 years. The United States needs a fresh start, and his willingness to talk to our and Israel’s adversaries is an option that has not been pursued. We cannot go on labeling Iran, Syria, Hamas and others as terrorists and enemies forever. It is costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars and we are getting deeper and deeper in the mud. At this point, we can fairly say that McCain doesn’t know what he’s talking about. We are no longer listening to his bombasting threats.
— CarferThis is really disappointing. I used to support McCain and felt he had charachter after he ran in 2000. This is a very sad time for America but it will be a lot sadder if we elect 4 more years of this rhetoric.
— Jessica in LAI hate to say, nothing hurts real American Jewish values than the aims of AIPAC - think hard: do American Jews really espouse their positions, on the while? You bet your life they don’t - look to the polls, the overall voting patterns, and the synagogue around the corner.
You’ll find that AIPAC and other powerful Jewish lobbies no doubt hurt the Jewish community in America. We need to change the culture in Washington. That includes the Jewish culture there. It’s a reality to be dealt with, America.
— A Proud American and a Jew, from MassachusettsMcCain is playing fast and loose with the facts again. Mr. Obama did not promise talks with Mr. Ahmadinejad, in fact he (astutely) questioned whether Mr. Ahmadinejad is in fact the leadership of Iran. As anyone even vaguely familiar with the country would know, it is in fact a theocracy. Mr. Ahmadinejad has a prominent position in the political structure of Iran, but he is not a member of the theocracy. McCain continues to put his ignorance on display but conflating these two centers of power in Iran, the same way he couldn’t tell a sunni from a shia
— KMNobody wants to see a woman in the Oval Office more than me, but I have to ask…Why do people continue to parrot that Hillary is the best prepared candidate to be president “On Day One” when she couldn’t win the primary against an unknown newbie and will leave her campain 20 million dollars in debt? Running a country is far more difficult than running a campain. Also, how can anyone convince themselves that Hillary wouldn’t galvanize the right and loose the general election? She is so divisive, she managed to divide her own party. There is a far more appealing, far more competent female presidential candidate out there and her name is not Hillary Clinton.
— Jerrod1965The process the DNC uses to choose a nominee is flawed. Let the votes choose, not the delegates. Obama still hasn’t come forth with any plans on anything. He’s all talk. And, the lobbyists and PACS have a hold on him, too. So, it’ll be politics as usual if he wins, although he denies it now.
— StanIt facinates me how John McCain and the war mongers in his campaign just keep on trying to scare, bamboozle, and stempede the electorate, and especially the Jews, into more and more military. (We spend $500 billion a year on military toys). All he can see is the kind of military inflexibility that has led us into this swamp.
The litany will be: “Ahtenssion!, Rahht Face! Fawhwaard Mach!”.
The result would be the same old splish splash until we all drown.
— roger millerJohn McCain is absolutely right about every thing in this speech. Those, mainly liberals and leftists, who oppose McCain views, are blinded by their ideology, and by Bush-bashing constant spins of the liberal media. They have put their own partisan unrealistic nostalgia of supposedly good-old-times with Clintons, and the rerun of the past with Obama, above that of the strategic vital interests of the US and Free-world.
— JohnThis is why McCain lost my support. He has pretended to support the current administration for so long that he has lost his own voice. We have heard this argument before people and it has NEVER worked. It has failed in South America, it has failed in Africa, and it has failed time and time again in the Middle East.
— LanaWe can not simply bomb and shoot our way to peace and it is disingenuous for McCain to suggest that Obama does not support the troops because he disagrees with this form of foreign policy.
McCain has lost that righteousness in the midst of chaos that I once admired. He is a parrot of the failed Bush Administration now and he should not be the next president.
So why are we so worried about Israel? I thought we were all Americans first. How about the rest of the world that may be damaged by silly fear mongering and more bushy logic?
— Ghalib“I remember as a kid how I supported the Vietnam war. This was because my leaders instilled fear in me that if we retreated from Vietnam, all of Asia would be over run by Communism. Of course we now know that it was all lies. Vietnam is at peace with all of it’s neighbors and thousands of fine young Americans died for nothing. Now McCain tries to instill this same fear in this generation. Again it is a lie. When we leave Iraq they will work out their own problems in their own way.”
———————————-
Several big differences of course. After JFK had been emasculated by Kruschev in their Vienna meeting because of his naivety in negotiations, resulting in the Berlin Wall and the installation of nuclear missiles in Cuba, JFK felt that he had to “man up” and demonstrate his foreign policy street cred. And Vietnam was his stance, totally ignoring the fact that the Vietnamese had just fought a war for independence from the French and that it also mistrusted the Chinese.
Will Iran be the next Vietnam? Who knows, but at the same time, it’s not in the nascent nation-building stages. Instead, it’s clearly trying to expand it’s sphere of influence, and that badge requires nuclear capability. From our point of view, nuclear weapons are a necessary evil, and proliferation should be prevented. From their perspective, is it ok for the US and Israel to possess that capability, but not them? Of course, not; after all, 60 years ago, an international community forcibly displaced millions of inhabitants to create a brand new country in the Middle East. And of course, our atrocities in Iraq did not help matters. So for us negotiations may seem idealist and the best solution, from their point of view, dialog does not in and of themselves advance permanent security. As Senator Obama is fond to mention, we did negotiate with China and the Soviet Union, but he fails to mention that the negotiations worked partly because both sides had the capability to obliterate the other side. Unfortunately for us, the only security that Iran sees may be the nuclear one.
— rDiplomacy is THE mark of civilisation - period.
— Mike SWhy aren’t we getting all of McBush’s comments? The media has again failed to publish his most recent blunders. The man doesn’t know what he’s talking about and can’t get his facts straight. McBush is another example of the party’s inability to put someone competent on their ticket.
— A. J. W.A new Gallup poll holds that 67% of American hold that it would be a good idea to talk with nations we consider to be our enemies. Further 59% of Americans believe it would be a good idea for the US President to meet with the President of Iran.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/107617/Americans-Favor-President-Meeting-US-Enemies.aspx
In addition, it looks like Ahmadinejad might be on his way out and will no longer be an excuse for not dealing with Iran.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKDAH12684220080601
— Courtney HThanks to the unintelligent Bush administration policies in the middle east, strongly supported by John McCain, the influence of Iran in the area has been greatly increased. We might keep in mind that the population of Iran which is overall quite young and tends to be pro-western is not particularly enamored of their hard line leaders but would certainly rally behind them in support of their country if we do something stupid and aggressive which seem to be the natural tendency in our current Republican foreign policy. Enough of the war mongering and declaring that Iran is an implacable enemy, etc., etc., etc. The Bush administration policies have created a monstrous mess in the middle east which McCain seems to be determined to continue. It will be our folly if we give him the opportunity.
— Joanne G.It is an outrage that American politians put Israel above the American national interest.
How many more proxy wars are we going to fight for Israel?
How many more American lives are they willing to sacrifice for Israel?
— DanDear jeffP (Item #9)
In terms of ignorance, it’s tough to top Obama. He seems to believe there are 57 states in the Union and that doesn’t even scratch the surface of his ignorance. We have yet to hear any coherent policies from him. Yes, he’s running for “change” and apparently “change” means crossing our fingers that dictators and tyrants play nice.
— bobIt’s good to see that people associate McCain with a 3rd Bush term. However, it is disheartening to see so much support for Hillary. We do not need a candidate who does whatever it takes to win. If Clinton cannot even abide by the rules of the Democratic Party, how can we expect her to uphold the Constitution as the leader of the executive branch is expected to do? Will she flaunt the laws of the land like the current president? If she continues to do whatever it takes to garner support just for her candidacy, how is that any different than what George W. Bush has done to start a war in Iraq? Hillary will just be a 3rd term Democratic W. Her health-care proposal may sound better, but with all her flip-flopping, how can she be trusted to deliver on her promise? She’s willing to do whatever it takes to win. Is she willing to change stances on her platforms for more votes or to win reelection? She’s willing to do whatever it takes to win–that definitely sounds like something W. would say about Iraq. I may not be a woman, but I would support her even less if she were a man.
— ZLObama’s naivete is unsettling. When asked point blank in the primary debates if he would meet unconditionally (as the president) with rogue regimes, he forcefully said he would.
Now as he starts to learn, he backs away, stating he might not on the “presidential” level and only after proper preparations.
Clearly, he needs to mature and learn before becoming the POTUS.
We don’t need an ingenue in the White House. Not at this time. Not at this moment!
We need either Clinton or McCain’s steady and wise hand at the helm.
God bless America!
— jacksonIt is an outrage that American politians put Israel first above the American national interest.
How many more proxy wars are we going to fight for Israel?
How many more American lives are they willing to sacrifice for Israel?
— SamIRAQ vs IRAN
Is McCain going to support indefinitely with American military and lives the same Iraq government that welcomed Ahmidinejad with the red carpet treatment and will not commit to an American military presence (even with a ‘wink’) like we have in the repressive government of Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries?
A functioning Iraq has shown government ties with Iran (all Shiite) although I hope most Iraqi’s remember the fight against Iran in the 80s that decimated their sons.
— njJeffIt’s policies like the ones we have followed the last 8 years that have inflamed the region and endangered Israel. With McCain, tensions in the region will just get worse.
— bogardThe constant outbursts from supporters of Hillary Clinton that they will vote for John McCain in November if she is denied the nomination they stubbornly believe is her’s by some inherent right says a lot about the character and motivation of these individuals.
It looks to me like McCain is trying to reprise the George W. Bush theme of 2004 - strength. But as has been shown in Iraq, strength or power without intelligence and knowledge is a recipe for disaster. If a meeting with President Ahmadinejad produces no results, so what? Nothing ventured, nothing gained.
And how would meeting with Ahmadinejad and pressing him on issues like nuclear arms and human rights weaken moderates in Iran? Would Bush, … er, … I mean McCain, want to take relations with China back to the trade blockade and zero communications stage because of Tibet and China’s growing military power, including nuclear arms?
— Rod SmelserGod help the men and women I had the honor to serve with Iraq if SNOBama is their best hope. He’s a fool who doesn’t understand that flag pins are no substitute for shared sacrifice in defending this nation and its constitution.
His advocacy of surrender will make a stretched military a defeated one, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis will suffer from returning to failed ‘light footprint’ policies that Rumsfeld and his incompetent lot in the Pentagon created for four years before we changed to a successful strategy advocated by Senator McCain and the commanders on the ground who understand the difficult situation in Iraq the best.
Yes we can, with resolve and perseverance, and a leader who is a genuine American Hero and demonstrated that national interest and selfless sacrifice are far more important than a single individual’s political ambition.
— ChrisMcCain is a like a broken record — yes, we know The Surge was a better tactic in Iraq than the under-manned efforts that preceded it. What he doesn’t understand is that the entire war was a huge mistake, predicated on lies.
McCain would be a fine Sec of Def in an Obama administration. He lacks the perspective to be president.
— JonIt is not surprising that Obama would be in favor of this since as we’ve seen in the past, he’ll toss anyone under the bus to pander to voters.
— Posted by katieG
_______
Katie,
may be the Iraqi Government should be thrown under the bus. Were you not offended at all by the ‘red carpet’ treatment when Ahmadinejad arrived to Iraq?
— Eva (in Florida)Instead of wasting time pandering to the Zionist AIPAC lobby, McCain should allow himself to be schooled in the way forward in the Middle East by his one-time friend Chuck Hagel. McCain is reading the tea leaves through his rear view mirror, establishing himself as the successor to Bush’s catastrophic losing strategy in the region. It’s just one more position he will have to flip-flop when he returns for Senate duty in November.
— Butch DillonMcCain has already demonstrated that he does not even have a grasp of the various forces at work in the region.
Why should anyone listen to him?
Peopkle with his ignorant views have maintained a half century of violence in the region.
It really is time to try something new.
Of course, what he is doing here is a “Hillary Clinton.”
— JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTOTHe mccain bush line thretaning Iran is ludicrous and unfounded. THe democratic movement has suffered in Iran because of Bush’s invasion/occupation of Iraq and threats of attack. this has caused the crazy right wing in Iran to expand power. Bush’s policies have pushed Iran closer to becoming a nuclear nation. At the same time, it has been IRAN that has agrred to and been in accordance with the nuclear non proliferation treaties while the US has failed to disarm any nukes since the 1980’s. Iran abides by the international treaty signed while Bush makes the US violate the laws when Bush tries to prevent Iran from gettign nuclear material for civilain power.
— tomNow mccain says the USA risks mid east civil war if it backs out? so the USA illeagally/aggressively invades a foreign nation. insights a civil war. kills thousands if not millions to quell violence. THe Iraqi government negotiates with militia leaders with the help of Iran to brocker a cease fire. and now if the USA leave there will be civl war again?
logic escapes mccain and the bush admin. their policies of fear have failed and brought ruin to the USA. failure to see these truths shows plain ignorance of truth. Liberty and justice have been under assault by the neocons and the media freely echos its sentaments. bush has made terrorists stronger. bush has been just as dangerous to our security and freedom as the hijackers of 9/11. he has consistently undermined the freedom’s protected by the bill of rights and used undeclared and undefined war as the rationale. playing to the fears of Isreal is a new low. it is one thing to propagandize US citizens but spreading the fear message abroad is a frightening expand of what authoritarians will do/say to attain and expand power.
commenters above who feignt worry about Iraqi security fail to understand the US presance insights voilence. Iraq is a soverign nation. if their government fails them and is over thrown it is their business as free people. currently they live under US oppression and occupation. the freedom to govern their own land is something they want.
Only HRC and McCain are realisitic about U.S. national security. Obama is an appeaser. He would make Neville Chamberlain look strong. Appeasement does not work. Obama could not handle world leaders. JKF could not take on Kruschev in their first meeting. Krushev thought JFK was weak, and so the Berlin Wall was built. I want tough, not happy talk. If cannot be Hillary, McCain is the only alternative for U.S. national security. A strong America is a safe America.
— Lisa DonohueMcCain like his father and grandfather before him has guns and ammo running through his veins. He’s been raised from Day One to think about how to use the American military to exert American influence around the world.
That’s why everything out of his mouth revolves around the fear we should feel for not being “tough” and yeah, paranoid about everyone who is not classified as an “ally”. Today he’s trying to scare up Jewish votes with a slanted half-truth spin on Obama’s purported foreign policy.
If there’s anything to be afraid of it is letting that military-minded, old-school Washington Insider get his hands on the reigns of American foreign policy.
— HinckleyYah, Like Israel is any safer today than it was eight years ago…
— Michael S, Oak Park, IlWe have to thank those like Perle, Wolfowitz, Dubya and AIPAC that have made it painfully clear that we need to change our approach in how we deal with the “other”. It’s just a pity that it took hundreds of thousands killed and a three trillion dollar cost to bring us to this realization.
The counter argument to McCain’s nonsense is pretty simple. McCain becomes president, we go to war with Iran.
— edzo2As per my post #33.
If this board is any indication, I am correct in thinking that the elevation of Israel and the Jewish vote to marquee status is not going to be in the best interests of the American Jewish community (of which I am a member). The Israel bashing has already begun and will only grow in intensity as the campaign heats up and competition for Jewish votes increases.
— thebigmancatRe:6.
June 2nd,2008 10:07 am
“The Clintonian attitude that you can change the rules in the middle of the game failed to impress most people. In addition, the math of selective counting of states to inflate her claim to total votes is another failure on their part. Let’s hope they get over and do what is best in American politics and congratulate Mr. Obama for winning by playing by the rules that all the candidates agreed. The nomination is based on the total number of delegates, the popular vote is a matter for the general election. The longer the Clintons hang to their claims, the more Mrs. Clinton’s reputation will suffer.
— Posted by Eddie Zalez ”
I agree with you 100% but aren’t you way off topic? Mrs. C is not even mentioned in the article. Shouldn’t you be aiming your ire at the Repugnant one & trying to unify your party?
— Ed in TucsonObama has a tough road to navigate with Iran. Demonizing Iran the way the Republicans do won’t cut it, yet being tough with Iran, that is, sticks with the carrots is necessary. He must transmit that message otherwise he will lose some of the Jewish vote. Maybe he can afford to be weak with that population if he has given up on FL but I think this is the policy that will most appeal to the American people.
— Ron MDear jimraker:
Most of the Jewish people I’m in contact with actually believe that our militia being in Iraq protects Israel.Furthermore, the propaganda travelling the web is powerful and frightening as it slanders Barack Obama and
portrays him as being ‘anti-semetic’….
I’m very worried about our country’s future,because people don’t take the time to learn the truth before they cast a vote.
— rosebowWhy is it that McCain and the republicans always love to make Israel out to be this vulnerable abused housewife? C’mon, Israel is a very powerful nation with nuclear capability and very much capable of defending itself. And its neighbors know that. Does McCain know he is running for president of the United State of America? I think he is losing his bearings :-)
— Kwame Boadu KissiMcCain is clueless on this. Because our army is embroiled in this pointless war in Iraq, we are in the worst possible shape to deter Iran right now. Indeed, we are losing the war on terrorism (which is being held in Afghanistan and Pakistan) because our forces are over-committed to this pointless Iraq side project.
The US needs to pull out and regroup, and rededicate its strategy to the real threats. Yes, Iran is one of them: but while our forces are busy playing police for Bush’s follies in Iraq, the Iranians really need not fear us.
Obama seems to be the only one who really grasps the nuances here. It should not be that tough: but nuance is never a strong point with people like McCain.
— Peter W.Why should the security of Israel be an issue in the U.S. presidential campaign? Israel was not a U.S. state the last time I looked. Israel is a small far away country, and should be left to its own devices. There are any number of small countries around the globe with security problems, and if U.S. foreign policy was based on real American interests, or a real concern for justice and human rights, rather than the interests of lobby groups, Israel’s fate would not be any more important than any of the others. The way U.S. foreign policy is warped away from the U.S. national interest by the power of the Zionist lobby is ludicrous, and it should just stop.
— Philip CroninRe:17.June 2nd, 2008
10:53 am
“This speech makes it so clear why Hillary Clinton needs to be the Democratic nominee.
— Posted by Dana Green”
By what tortured logic do you come to that conclusion? Mrs. C’s position on Israel Iraq, & the Middle East is almost identical to McBush’s. A vote for either one is a vote for the status quo.
— Ed in TucsonI don’t feel safer than before Bush-McCain. Why should I feel safer with the prospect of McCain-Bush?
— ETIts because Israel is America’s 51 st State. People are more worried about Israel than America’s own domestis issues. Sen McCain does not want to face the mess the Bush admin has left the country in. That is why he is talking about Iran and Israel……which are like continents away.
Left to Hillary Clinton, she will obliterate not just Iran but entire human race.
— gk“I simply have a huge problem with a potential presidential nominee who demonstrates contempt for the United States when he refuses to wear an American Flag on his lapel, or stand at attention with his hand over his heart when the National anthem is played. He really represent the interests of the US, doesn’t he?!”
Wow. And to think you’re voting - scary. How is it unpatriotic? Does wearing a lapel pin make YOU patriotic? Is that how define representing the interests of the US? Horrifying. Larry, I really hope you rethink your “prbolem”. It is a real problem you ought to honestly address. We’re all American here.
AiPAC isn’t in the interest of most American Jews, I have to say. By all accounts, we are moderate to liberal, wish for a relatively hands-off approach to Israel, and - by the press I’ve seen AIPAC is anything but. I think they hurt the public face of American Jews…McCain would need to stir them up, I’m sure. There’s NO WAY he’ll win in November. Obama will cream him. We need change, America.
— DeanThe Jewish Community in the US MUST play a constructive/vital role in this general election and force the issues of diplomacy, peace and an honorable resolution to the Middle East conflict.
The politics of fabricating enemies and flaming the fans of hatred are only going to cause more bloodshed, misery and poverty for all….
The religious and secular Jewish leadership in the US MUST become vocal and put an end to the failed and morally bankrupt policies of the extremists such as Henry Kissinger, Joe Liberman and the FOX News and their Neocon sponsors….
Peace is within reach, lets give it a chance.
— Hassan AzarmUnfortunately because of Bush’s manipulation of the facts in Iraq we will not distrust anything which is said to be negative of Iran. Bush is one of the worst Presidents in modern history.
Carter was REALLY successful in ending the Iran Hostage crisis even though he was in direct negotiations with Iran. Obama would be another Carter here.
Also, there is no indication that “diplomacy” will help us with the nuclear Iran issue. The French, Germans, and Russian’s have been in discussion with Iran for 4+ years now with no progress. Is there something which Obama knows that the French, Germans, and Russians don’t know??
The US cannot afford Obama.
NO-BAMA 08
— RayVObama is just like Bush in 2000 - completely clueless on foreign policy, trying to learn as he goes. We don’t need an academic with no real world experience in the White House. Obama will seek only to appease the far left. He portrays himself as a “uniter” but only carries the left’s party line. He claims the surge is not working, but like many academics, hasn’t bothered to visit Iraq and see what is actually happening on the ground. He’ll meet with the Iranian president, but not with Gen. Petraues….some leader.
— DudeClearly, Hillary needs to be the Democratic nominee, if you want someone smart enough to stand up to the Republicans.
Obama is too inexperienced to manage the seriousness that goes along with being the most sifinificant (or what used to be)country of the free world.
Obama has written two books and that’s it. The rest is simply rhetoric and idealism. That is not who I want dealing with this.
Hillary has a real grasp of the facts plus she will, can and does change depending on what is needed.
After all a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little men’s minds.
— Beth