E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSRepublican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum today called President Obama a “paper tiger," accusing him of “appeasing” countries such as Iran.
"[T]he Iranians, they are moving full-scale forward with their nuclear program,” Santorum said on ABC. “They know the president is not going to do anything to stop them. He has been a paper tiger and they are an existential threat to the state of Israel, and the Israelis know it and the Americans know it. And this president has not stepped forward and done anything to stop that threat.”
Indeed, the Israeli news website Ynetnews has reported that “the Iranian regime is closer than ever before to creating a nuclear bomb, according to RAND Corporation researcher Gregory S. Jones” In fact, at its current pace, Tehran could have enough enriched uranium to make its first bomb within two months, according to Jones’ report. Jones goes on to argue that nothing short of military occupation can stop this nuclear development.
After years of frayed relations between Iran and the George W. Bush White House, Obama devoted his energy in 2009 to engaging Iran diplomatically. But when Tehran rejected an offer for an interim solution -- under which it would ship some uranium out of the country for enrichment -- Obama imposed strict sanctions against Iran, with the help of the United Nations.
Obama has recently vowed to “keep up the pressure” on Tehran to prevent its obtaining nuclear weapons.
Leave a Comment:
Anyone that thinks the Israelis will allow Iran to go nuclear just isn't thinking much at all.
Obama and the Israelis will take out the Iranian Nuclear program in October of 2012 at the latest.
Obama won't have anything to do with it.
The Israelis can't do it without us...............anything they do geopolitically requires our consent, if they want our continuing support. We would get the blame anyway, despite our weak denials...............
Paul-977599
Obama and the Israelis will take out the Iranian Nuclear program in October of 2012 at the latest.
That's so so funny ain't gonna happen. First of all, Bibi is crying wolf to suck up to the Likud party.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Never mind the European media, whether British, French or German, even U.S. mainstream commentators tell a very different story than Bibi's spin doctors. Their analyses all boil down to one point: Netanyahu has made it clear that there is no use in the Palestinians returning to the negotiating table, because there is no one to talk to. And nobody buys Bibi's line that the Palestinians are to be faulted for the breakdown of negotiations.
The concerns Israel has about an attack on Iran have less to do with the chances of the success of the long-range action, and more to do with what would happen on the home front: Thousands of rockets and missiles launched by Hezbollah, Iran, Hamas and perhaps Syria as well, would hammer residential and economic centers, air force bases and Ben-Gurion airport. The economy would be paralyzed, there would be many casualties and the war could last for years.
Okay blame it on George Bush for creating Hamas.
Santorum says, "The Iranians, they are moving full-scale forward with their nuclear program." Santorum is an ignoramus and is just talking nonsense. The 2011 US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) just came up with the conclusion that there is no evidence that Iran is building nukes. So, where does Santorum get his information, Israel? Well, the Israelis have been saying for about 12 years that Iran will have nukes within six months. Is there a time when you say the little boy has called wolf too many time?
Rick:
Don't let the facts get in the way of your manufactured talking points.
Credibility problems, Rick? Check. Especially after this bungled statement about John McCain:
he doesn't understand how enhanced interrogation works. I mean, you break somebody, and after they're broken, they become cooperative.
What exactly do you know about torture? You never even served in the military.
A paper tiger. Wow, are we talking about a redo of Bush diplomacy? Perhaps his plan is to bomb the Iranian nuclear plants? Maybe overthrow the Iranian government? That's just what we need again, a holier than thou unilateralist who will intervene anywhere and for any reason.
God help us all if he is elected.
The guy who got Osama bin Laden is a paper tiger? The guy who just got the #2 guy in Al Qaeda is a paper tiger? The guy who first suggested a timeline for Iraq, which the Iraq government decided was a good idea, and then George W. Bush fell into line behind? The guy who favored using drones in Pakistan while Bush was still dithering in Iraq? The guy who said concentrate on Afghanistan and not Iraq? The guy who waited out the Indian Ocean pirate crisis patiently until the moment was right, and then gave the order to get those guys?
THAT guy's the paper tiger? LoLoL
Santorum is starting to talk about Iran just like George W. Bush did until Admiral William Fallon went public and stopped what was a probable invasion. Funny thing, but I haven't noticed Iran seizing the moment since Obama's election to drop the big one on Israel. They must not think he's such a paper tiger. Sheesh.
Someone needs to ask Santorum just exactly what happened to those weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE2y3js2OQ4
How embarrassing that a guy like that is taken seriously as a presidential candidate.
|The guy who got Osama bin Laden is a paper tiger? The guy who just got the #2 guy in Al Qaeda is a paper tiger?|
You can't be serious..... it took 6 months of effort from Leon Panetta to get Obama to 'pull the trigger on OBL' after they located him! That sounds more like a paper tiger than a decisive decision from a CIC!
Of course when I stripped 75 years of wall paper off my living room,...I used a Paper Tiger. It had about 10 razor blades and did a HELL of a job,...
So I guess that's not as insulting as telling John McCain he doesn't know @!$%# from shinola about torture.
What a frothy comment.
"Paper Tiger"
Paper tiger is a literal English translation of the Chinese phrase zhǐ lǎohǔ (simplified Chinese: 纸老虎; traditional Chinese: 紙老虎), meaning something that seems as threatening as a tiger, but is really harmless. This Chinese colloquialism is similar to the English phrase "its bark is worse than its bite".
The phrase is an ancient one in Chinese culture, but sources differ as to when it entered the English vocabulary. It is found translated to English as early as 1836, in a work by John Francis Davis.[1]
In a 1956 interview with the American journalist Anna Louise Strong, Mao Zedong used the phrase to describe American imperialism:
“
In appearance it is very powerful but in reality it is nothing to be afraid of; it is a paper tiger. Outwardly a tiger, it is made of paper, unable to withstand the wind and the rain. I believe that is nothing but a paper tiger.[2]
”
In Mao Zedong's view, "all reactionaries are paper tigers"[3] — superficially powerful but prone to overextension leading to sudden collapse. When Mao criticized Soviet "appeasement" of the United States during the Sino-Soviet split, Premier Nikita Khrushchev reportedly pointed out, "the paper tiger has nuclear teeth."[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_tiger
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Quoting MAO? That's not exactly the way to cement your conservative street cred, is it?...
Plus this guy has less chance of snagging the nomination than, well MAO...
I could've loaned him my Little Red Book, but he obviously has one of his own.
Very interesting background info thank you.
While it is a given that Obama is clueless and completely out of his league in foreign relations, his first priorities lie here at our home.
Since he and Hillary are so inept in dealing with other countries, his best move would be to play turtle and crawl back into his shell. The liberal media will protect him from too much criticism, and he can act as though he is soooo busy here that he just didn't have the time to deal with all those dirty little mid-east governments.
Meanwhile, here at home, between golf games and vacations, he can help produce all the attack ads that he will need for his 2012 campaign. This is all he can do in a campaign, and he has to spend as much money as he can on it.
Edward:
Nice post...totally fact free. 100% opinion.
Imagine your surprise in November 2012 if things don't go your way. I'm thinking you'll be pretty desperate...
Thank you biwheeler.
There are 22 Democratic Senators up for re-election this cycle. The Republican Party only needs a net win of three seats in the Senate to gain control. This will remove Harry Reid from his position of Senate majority leader.
I expect the Republican party to win a lot more than just three seats, but we'll see. If Obama loses, he will drag down many congressmen and women who carry the dreaded "D" after their names. Some who, I know, are mostly innocent bystanders who got sucked into the political maelstrom that they had no part in. Too bad. This is called guilt by association.
If you want to check out who is up for re-election and what their voting records are, go to Project Vote Smart.com
bilweeler, apparently you haven't viewed this blog much.... very little facts come from the left here but they do occassionally have interesting insults against anyone slightly right of their beliefs.
This blog is more of a bashing board for anyone who doesn't have far left tendancies..... facts? You're not gonna get them here. I'm only visiting to get feisty to admit she wears wigs.... and I also sell chocolate covered cherries... one of feitsy's favorites!
miked,
If you look at the timing of Feisty's posts, it is obvious that she doesn't work. Probably surviving off the big Government tit like the rest of her kind.
Yes- everyone KNOWS no one that posts on a message board is RETIRED, for God's sake!
A paper regarding Iran's efforts to produce nuclear materials has been erroneously referred to in some media reports as a RAND study. It was written by Gregory Jones, a part-time adjunct staff member, on his own time and was published by the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center. The paper was not related to a RAND project and not reviewed for quality and objectivity by RAND.
Some media outlets have gone so far as to suggest that RAND via the paper advocated an attack on Iran to halt its development of nuclear materials. RAND has done no such thing. RAND is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to rigorous research and analysis, and we believe it is important to correct such errors in coverage.
Santorum: "I want to play with The Toys!"
Santorum is clearly out of touch with the realities of world politics. As president, he would be extremely dangerous. At least GW Bush had the brains not to take on nuclear powers. Santorum could actually get us all killed.
Just another Republican/TP
That wants another War, must be those Defence Contractors pushing him for more Profts and Defence Spending
Again another Republican/TP that will say anything to get elected, then do nothing
Just like 2010 they ran on JOBS JOBS and now that they have the HOUSE not one Bill for JOBS
Nothing but Bill for taking away Women's Health Care, Voting to keep Big Oil Tax cuts, and plenty of Bills that will go nowhere.
Yes thats the Republicans say anything to get elcected then do nothing but NO
The "weak on national security" crap that Santorum is slinging just isn't going to work anymore. Not after the way President Obama directed the operation to get Bin Laden.
My paper has been misinterpreted by you and several others who have written about it. First, it was done by me for the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, not as a part of my activities at the RAND Corp., where I am a part-time adjunct staff member. Based on IAEA reports, I calculate that Iran could produce within two months the amount of enriched uranium needed to make one nuclear weapon. I said nothing about when Iran might produce a nuclear weapon itself. It is uncertain if Iran has the ability to put that material into a bomb, although it seems likely Iran is working on that technology. The goal of this work, which I’ve been doing for several years, is to highlight Iran’s nuclear ambitions, not to be alarmist. I have not proposed that the U.S., Israel or any other country invade Iran. Rather, I am pointing out that since there is no concrete way to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, the U.S. must develop policy options based on a clear understanding of Iran’s capabilities.