Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to
report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Would Obama have done or said any of this?
Obama wants to talk with Iran. But the question he refuses to answer is what he'd tell Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Obama dislikes being called an appeaser. But would he say to Iran: No deal unless you disown and disarm Hezbollah? We doubt it. More likely he'd sacrifice a country such as Lebanon to Tehran's ambitions in a modern-day Munich.
In his book, "Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons," Obama adviser Joseph Cirincione, director of nuclear policy at the center for American Progress, says he favors Israel giving up its nuclear weapons to ensure Iran doesn't obtain nukes. That's called appeasement.
Cirincione also was quoted in 2006 calling Israel's 1981 raid on Iraq's nuclear reactor a "failure." But the raid on Saddam Hussein's Osirak nuclear reactor was an unqualified success that kept the Iraqi dictator from having a nuclear weapon when he invaded Iran a decade later.
McCain said that Obama's view of Iran as a "tiny" threat, a view not shared by the Israelis, "betrays the depth of Sen. Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess." Indeed they are.
Obama responded during a campaign stop Monday in Billings, Mont.: "The Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons, and Iran doesn't have one." And he'll probably believe that right up to the moment the phone rings at 3 a.m. and he hears: "Mr. President, Tel Aviv has been nuked."
NOTHING HAS CHANGED!!!