E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSWill war-weary voters embrace the GOP hawkish rhetoric on Iran?... Striking foreign-policy rhetoric at Saturday’s GOP debate… Obama fires back at Romney comment on Iran… And Obama on China, Super Committee work, and hot-mic episode with Sarkozy.
*** On the warpath? Earlier this debate season, some of the Republican presidential candidates -- including Mitt Romney -- began striking dovish notes on national security. “It’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, consistent with the word that comes to our generals that we can hand the country over to the … Afghan military,” Romney said at the June 13 debate in New Hampshire. “I also think we’ve learned that our troops shouldn’t go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation.” But at Saturday night’s debate on foreign policy, Romney turned much more hawkish, saying he would take military action to stop Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. “If all else fails, if after all of the work we've done … then of course you take military action. It is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”
*** Will war-weary Americans embrace hawkish rhetoric on Iran? Romney wasn’t alone. Newt Gingrich openly advocated assassinating Iran’s nuclear scientists. “Maximum covert operations to block and disrupt the Iranian program, including taking out their scientists, including breaking up their systems, all of it covertly, all of it deniable,” he said. And Rick Santorum suggested partnering with Israel to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability. “We should be working with Israel right now to do what they did in Syria, what they did in Iraq, which is take out that nuclear capability before the next explosion we hear in Iran is a nuclear one and then the world changes.” The question is whether an increasingly war-weary public -- last week’s NBC/WSJ poll showed seven in 10 Americans agreeing with the decision to remove all U.S. forces from Iraq by December – will embrace hawkish rhetoric toward Iran.
*** More striking rhetoric: And that Iran talk wasn’t the only striking rhetoric at Saturday’s GOP debate. “[U]nder Barack Obama, he is allowing the ACLU to run the CIA. (Anwar Al-Awlaki’s family might disagree with that.) Rick Perry said all foreign aid -- even for Israel -- should start at zero. “[I]t makes sense for everyone to come in at zero and make your case [for more money].” And Romney said that re-electing Obama means that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon. “If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if we elect Mitt Romney, if you elect me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon.
*** Obama fires back: At President Obama’s news conference in Hawaii, White House reporters got the president to react to that last line by Romney. “I am going to make a practice of not commenting on whatever is said in Republican debates until they've got an actual nominee. But [if] you take a look at what we've been able to accomplish in mobilizing the world community against Iran over the last three years and it shows steady, determined, firm progress in isolating the Iranian regime,” Obama said. “Now, is this an easy issue? No. Anybody who claims it is, is either politicking or doesn’t know what they're talking about.” In an earlier question, Obama didn’t take the military option off the table when it comes to Iran, but his rhetoric was much softer than Romney’s.
*** Obama on China, Super Committee work, and hot-mic episode: Also at his news conference, Obama had tougher rhetoric when it comes to China (which has been the entire theme of his trip so far). On the Super Committee’s work, he stopped short of issuing a veto threat if Congress tries to change the military-cut triggers. And on that hot-mic episode with Sarkozy, he argued that he was pushing back at France at siding with Palestinians on their bid to join UN entities. “The primary conversation I had with President Sarkozy in that meeting revolved around my significant disappointment that France had voted in favor of the Palestinians joining UNESCO, knowing full well that under our laws, that would require the United States cutting off funding to UNESCO,” he said.
Leave a Comment:
War?
What is it good for?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
What I saw Saturday night was a whole bunch of saber rattling, a return to the good old days of TORTURE & some of the most pitiful political posturing I've ever witnessed!
The Teapublicans are not happy unless they're invading sovereign nations, blowing @!$%# up and killing human beings...
Blood is what keeps their finely tuned money machines running smoothly - can anyone say Halliburton?
Good Morning Feisty:
Those Republicans sure do enjoy war, torture, blowing things up. That's how they treat people who don't agree with them.
Feisty, when I first heard them talking about wars and torture, my first thought was the defense contractors bottom line must be hurting.
So true Feisty. This Radical Right is a bad joke on America.
Good thing I skipped it and watched decorating shows instead.
Although, I confess that Donna Decorates Dallas IS a little like torture. ;-)
@ Feisty -- Yes, I can say Halliburton. And now, if you'll excuse me, I'll adjourn for a lovely eucalyptus soap oral rinse.
I thought we got enough of that in the last administration to last a lifetime. Evidently not.
The GOP are nothing but a bunch of war mongers as was clearly shown during the debate. Why don't they take the effort they put into planning to bomb Iran into kingdom come into job creation here in America?
I must have been missed something. Did Iran invade Iraq? Did Iran kill thousands of innocent Iraqi's? Is Iran now demanding that Iraqi's pay for that war? The war that Romney WANTED and every other republican in this country. So now it's time we move on and play war mongering with Iran. Right on cue.
And don't let it be forgot that even though Romney didn't get into the waterboard debate the other night, his staff member said after the debate that Romney didn't believe waterboarding was torture.
He also doesn't believe in helping people with foreclosures. He doesn't believe in helping the auto industry.
President Obama and our First Lady since DAY ONE have been so supportive of our veterans. He is assisting companies in trying to help veterans find jobs. President Obama has put together policies to help those with their foreclosures. President Obama as we all know believed in the auto workers.
President Obama believes in America and all we are capable of achieving.
Romney is a sick man. His priorities are up his you know what. That's actually the problem with the entire Republican Party of the last 30 years.
They are bad bad people.
Good Morning Ron, Pat, Phinephancy, Anna Molly & Job1,
I couldn't agree more with your observations!
How sick & twisted the current GOP candidates must be to believe Americans want MORE WAR...
Pandering to the blood thirsty is all their doing - I think the majority of this country is, if, anything, WAR weary!
PS: Anna Molly your oral rinse soap sounds delish! ;o)
But, you notice, that by and large, in these wars that the Republicans are so fond of...their sons and daughters are conveniently too occupied to serve! Right, Mitty?
Glad you like the sound of that, Feisty. Along with appropriately spiked eggnog, I'll be serving Eucalyptus rinse on Christmas night to all the Bears fans who will need it after all the expletives they will be uttering during the game.
Seriously. ;-)
I have come to the conclusion that the GOP has never seen a war they didn't like. Maybe, when they vote for war, rather than stay at home, waving the flag and taking away veteran benefits, they should be required to go fight on the front lines themselves!
Not so fast Missy! lol
Did you see what my Bears did to the Lions yesterday?
*OUCH*
newdayDAWNING - Bingo. There's nothing worse than politicians and media pushing for wars that they nor their children will ever fight in.
Good morning Feisty, Anna, Ron and everybody. It's a gorgeous day here in MA. Gorgeous. You should all go over to The Obama Diary (I'm unable to cut & paste) and look at the beautiful photos of President Obama in Hawaii with all the leaders. They're breath taking. I am so so so proud he is our President. No matter where they goes, people seem to genuinely like both him and Mrs. Obama.
And Michelle's dresses are to die for. She is lovely.
btw, did you catch that singer who sang an Occupy Hawaii song in front of these leaders? He wasn't arrested. He wasn't dragged away. He was allowed to go on.
Now that's democracy!!!!
So, Obama's failures on Iran are to be disregarded and the focus put on GOP "war mongeriing"? Good luck with that.
Actually, the focus of an awakened media is not on war- but on corruption. Not this site, of course- they are not "up" on the "scandal du jour"- unless, of course, it is about a republican. Then, they are on it like a duck on a June bug. The rest of the media- ABC, CBS, and even some of the print media, seem to be answering the question:
How much corruption will it take before the last of the Obama worshippers leave the cult?
This week, a new book entitled "Vote Them All Out"will hit store shelves- just in time for holiday gift giving. It is a chronicle of corruption in Obama's Energy Department- where the Dollars for Donors program originated. Newsweek is running an excerpt
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/11/13/how-obama-s-alternative-energy-programs-became-green-graft.html
It is the epitome of wishful thinking to believe that all the corruption of this administration lies in that one department. The LA Times quickly dispels such fanciful thoughts, with this
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-smallpox-20111113,0,4293298.story
I only wish there were a mechanism by which the taxpayers could recoup the billions Obama has lavished on his donors. As it is, we will be forced to pay for this corruption for years.
One would have to be willfully blind or totally stupid to vote for this president again.
Will war-weary voters embrace the GOP hawkish rhetoric on Iran?... Striking foreign-policy rhetoric at Saturday’s GOP debate… Obama fires back at Romney comment on Iran… And Obama on China, Super Committee work, and hot-mic episode with Sarkozy.
FR: Mark & Chuck Of course, voters embrace the GOP rhetoric that they get from radio Rwanda.
http://www.originalplumbing.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/fauxnews.jpeg
You'd better believe I did. And all it accomplished is that you made it okay for the Packers to lose on Thanksgiving Day, which they inevitably will. LoL
p.s. Good morning, Pat and everyone else. Even you, no joe. If you don't mind, I won't pick a fight with you today.
Oh, all right, maybe just one little fight. To vote for this president again, one could also be completely awake and totally aware, and scared to death of the Republican monsters under the bed.
Literally scared to death, apparently.
One more time NJNB!!!
Go find someone elses porch to leave your crap on will ya?
You are NOT welcome on mine!
Sounds like the tea people GOP republican candidates have been taken over by the neo-cons again. I guess when you don't have any ideas you go back to the Cheney/Bush years.
If only we cut taxes for the wealthy, they will create jobs. (Pause for a moment.) Now, the jobs they create for the war machine will be put to use for destruction. (Pause.) Creation equals destruction.
Of course, we will now have to rebuild. So it will be necessary to re-create what the creators have destroyed.
Obviously, we will have to cut taxes.
phinephancy-4252115
Feisty, when I first heard them talking about wars and torture, my first thought was the defense contractors bottom line must be hurting.
That was kinda my first too. Then I thought they're all crazy.
I was like yeaaa, thanks Ron Paul & Jon Huntsman for smacking down the war mongers over the torture question. Though I still think Ron Paul is an ole kook .
I'm sure that cost them both to lose numbers on the FAUX polls; uh huh, and other polls too.
How is it Herman Cain who can't even put together a comprehensible, convincing, sentence about foreign policy (or women), think that President Obama is doing everything wrong?
Remember Cain did even know who was the President of Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan?
Another Chuck Todd Propaganda DISGRACE joke of journalism.
Gee, you would think it MIGHT be NOTEWORTHY on VETERANS DAy WEEKEND to mention the ONE WAR VETERAN candidate who takes the ONLY NON-WAR position on Iran.
But again, since NBC profits from WAR they are not allowed to say the name RON PAUL.
You are a COWARD Chuck Todd... a COWARD or a SLIME BALL... maybe both.
Opps CORRECTION:
Cain did NOT even know who was the President of Ubeki-beki-beki-stan-stan?
How soon we forget. FDR who promised to keep America out of Europe's war versus a variety of war mongering Republicans. Would Hitler have been so quick to spread war had he known that Roosevelt was willing to enter the fray? Truman versus war mongering Republicans. Would North Korea have invaded the south had Truman not sent mixed messages about America's willingness to fight them? Johnson versus war mongering Goldwater. Who was it that escalated the Vietnam War?
How many times are you going to be fooled by the old canard that Democrats are the peace makers while Republicans are the war mongers?
Now watch what happens next year. Obama will need an event to bump his approval ratings in time to win the election. What to do? Fix the economy? No, everything he's done there has only exacerbated the problem. Fix the jobs situation? Again, no. He's proven that he can't do that. But everytime he acts beligerent (or appears so) his approval ratings go up. Bin Laden dead, ratings up. Arab Spring, ratings up (though, of course, that is more likely the result of events in Iraq prior to Obama's ascendancy).
What to do? Let's take out Iran's nuclear capability!
Just wait and watch. You're going to love it, aren't you?
The "Fiscally Conservative" tea party wants to take this country to a deep financial end with their policies. Easy to be the "tough guy" when all you do is talk BS rhetoric about going into war.
Has anybody told those idiots how much we hated George Bush for taking us into a stupid war for 10 YEARS? Are they THAT DUMB that they can not see how tired we are from their "happy trigger" policies?
Someone please educate these morons!
President Obama, according to a new poll released today, is up to 50% approval.
I'm curious. Doesn't anyone know what JFK's approvals were when he was shot in '63? I seem to recall reading a long time ago that it wasn't a given that he was going to be re-elected. That it was going to be a tough road for him in '64.
I'm sure Chris Matthews would know - he is suddenly the self-proclaimed expert on all things Kennedy!
Watching him pimp his book all over the place has been painful!
I wouldn't buy it for the mere fact, Chris comes across as a know it all!
Mr. Rogers.
Gee, you would think it MIGHT be NOTEWORTHY on VETERANS DAy WEEKEND to mention the ONE WAR VETERAN candidate who takes the ONLY NON-WAR position on Iran.
But again, since NBC profits from WAR they are not allowed to say the name RON PAUL.
You are a COWARD Chuck Todd... a COWARD or a SLIME BALL... maybe both
Mr. Rogers, thinking of slime, things must be pretty grimy in your neiborhood.
Still I think Ron Paul is an ole kook. He'd be so much more credible if he just runs as one of those libertarians since he hate Government so much.
But, he's crazy. What does he know about being anything besides war?
Remember this is the fool who wants us to wheel barrow all our coins to the bank because he wants to change the currency.
It's funny we have the killing machine President in office right now yet we rip on the repubs.
War what is it good for?(great song by the way) Let's see our revolutionary war...good or bad?
Our civil war? Good or bad? I'm glad I'm a free man today.
WW1? Good or bad?
WW2? good or bad? I'm not a big Hitler fan, I'm fairly certain the Jewish community didn't like him either.
Afghanistan and Iraq? too much money,but I'm glad Saddam Hussein is dead.
Which war wasn't good?
Hillary 202
Pat Boston MA.
I think you can get graphs of presidential job approval for all former presidents going back to Eisenhower at Gallup.com. I seem to recall that Kennedy was experiencing sagging poll numbers in 1963. He was certainly reviled by the 1960's equivalent of today's teabaggers in Texas. His UN ambassador, Adlai Stevenson, was spat upon and struck on the head by a right winger in Dallas a couple weeks before Kennedy was killed there. Kennedy was killed by a far-left Castro sympathizer, but the intense hate for Kennedy in Texas helped keep alive the conspiracy theories about the far right being behind his death.
Feisty, have you seen that Stephen King has a new book out that is about if JFK had not been killed? Now, that's a book that I would be interested in. As for CM, I think he is romanticises his time in the Peace Corp and JFK's involvement with it.
Herman Cain says water-boarding is not torture (like his lame debating). Lets have him water-boarded with Gloria Allred asking him questions about his harassment hey better than a lie detector.Anyone remember the reason we invaded Panama or how we saved that bastion of democracy of Kuwait and while we're at it were are those WMDs. Great foreign policy war as a first option.
Thank you Houston for that. I'm going to go take a look. As far as Texas goes, I don't remember who it was - I seem to recall it was John Connelly's wife who turned around to JFK in the limo and said something about being in "nut country" now. I do remember reading about Adlai Stevenson being struck in Dallas. I think he was adamant that JFK not go to Texas. But all in all, other than Oswald of course, it looks like JFK and Jackie were warmly received in Texas for the most part. They got huge crowds along the route.
Feisty, I know. I don't generally buy books by people who have their own tv shows. I don't think it's right that they try and sell their books like that. However, I will buy books from guests on these shows if I feel they have something interesting historically they're writing about.
JFK. I can't believe there is anything new in this book. Everytime I buy a new book or see a new documentary on JFK, it's the same old stories I've been hearing for 40 years. So I've stopped buying them.
Little known story - after JFK's trip to Dallas, he and Jackie were going to LBJ's ranch for a cook out. I don't like stories I read about how JFK treated LBJ.
William Manchester's book - Death of a President - gives you a minute by minute account of that entire tragic weekend of all those who were there. And the JFK people do not treat LBJ kindly at all in the book. I never cared for their treatment of LBJ.
TimeforTruth says, "Hillary 202"... Dude, she is NOT that old.
Feisty says, "Watching him pimp his book all over the place has been painful!" Ah, cut him some slack, he is trying to sell a book, that is what pundits do when they try to sell books. At least his book is about something other than himself, a trick Bill O'Reilly never did manage to pull off. But yeah, I do tend to agree that Tweety is pushing his tome with hard intent.
Talkingtoyou55 - No, torture is wrong, even if the person being tortured doesn't believe the technique is torture. While it might be fun watching Cain change his opinion of torture within 3 seconds of the water starting to fall, it still wouldn't be right. If you really want to see a know-noting wingnut radio personality be water boarded I'd advice googling "Mancow Water Boarding." I think Mancow made it all of 1.5 seconds before squealing, "It's Torture!"
Yes, it looks like his approval #'s (JFK's) were slip sliding away in 1963. Interesting.
nisl- thats my point exactly, seen and heard Mancow when he did it. Just making flippant remarks about the torture and war first mentality of these candidates. Thanks...
.
Ugh, the "ignore" switch is off again. Luckily I caught it before I actually read some of that garbage. Would somebody fix the switch or take out the garbage? PUHLEEEEZE.
I find myself humming the old Dylan tune, "Only a Pawn in their Game" this morning.
That's all any of us are you know. We are pawns of the rich and powerful. We strut our stuff and have our say and pretend that our opinions count. But, at the end of the day, we are nothing but pawns. Self-delusional pawns.
The 1% and their lackeys on both sides of the aisle in Washington name the tune and we don't even get to dance. And the final insult is, we have the pay the band.
War, the ultimate discriminatory act. The rich get richer and the poor fight and die. Yep, I can see the GOP all over that idea.
Ya know what? I agree, we need a war, a class war, to level the playing field and redistribute the wealth so that everybody gets a piece of the pie.
Yeah, a class war is a terrible thing and I think it's just about time we had one.
The system is broken, if it ever worked at all, and we need to start over, from scratch. NOW!
I'm just not good at monitoring that timer...
NJNB,
"I only wish there were a mechanism by which the taxpayers could recoup the billions Obama has lavished on his donors."
Here here! And while we're at it lets use the same mechanism to recoup the billions lavished on donors of the last admin and solve our debt/deficit problems.
On another note, would it be better to have a full scale war before or after Iran builds a nuke or two and sets one off triggering market sell-offs and mayhem across the globe? If there were an exchange triggered by Iran hitting say Israel with one our troops operate in a potentially radioactive environment.
nisl
Feisty says, "Watching him pimp his book all over the place has been painful!" Ah, cut him some slack, he is trying to sell a book, that is what pundits do when they try to sell books.
nisl
Check out what tweedy bird said in 2009...
MSNBC's Chris Matthews said that Kennedy had "turned the ball over to Barack."
"Barack is the last [Kennedy] brother," Matthews said on NBC's "Today" Show.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/08/26/msnbcs_matthews_barack_is_the_last_kennedy_brother.html
Also, JFK distanced himself from Sammy Davis Jr for political reasons.
Although Davis had been voting Democratic, he felt a lack of respect from the John F. Kennedy presidency. He had been removed from the list of performers for Kennedy's inaugural party (hosted by Davis' close friend Frank Sinatra) because of Davis's recent interracial marriage to May Britt on November 13, 1960, in order to quell any controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sammy_Davis,_Jr.#Marriages
Chris needs to get his facts straight if he wants to pimp his book as history.
I have been a fan of King since his beginning.
This premise sounds fascinating & I'm sure will be worth the time to read! ;o)
Bingo Bev!
Chris's non-stop comparision between JFK & President Obama is what I find so offensive!
This country & the world are not the same as it was 50 years ago...
WTF?
What are you talking about? What exactly do you expect the President to do in regards to Iran? Sorry, the majority of our Nation are against bombing or killing people who have not attacked us.
So it looks like Newt's your man if you think plausible deniability and water boarding is what you want the United States to stand for. I think we can do better than that, njnb.
Also, Dean Martin (one of the rat packers along with Sammy, Lawford, Sinata, Bishop) refused to attend JFK's inaugeration festivites because of the Kennedy family's treatment toward Sammy Davis Jr.
And I say - good for him!
And for all the help Sinatra gave JFK, when JFK went to CA, Joe Kennedy said JFK could not stay at Sinatra's house because of his mafia connections. So JFK stayed at Bing Crosby's house. (Do I have this story right? I think so. I think it was Bing's house.)
I was watching some old youtube interviews with Jerry Lewis and in one of his interviews he talked about playing golf with "Jack" in Hyannis. I never had heard that these two were friends that I can recall. But Jerry did in fact call the President "Jack".
Oh, and one more thing.
Jerry Lewis couldn't stand Bing Crosby. But I don't remember why.
Okay, I'm done. LoL.
Could someone in IT help skip out by either fixing the "Ignore" function, or at least show him how to use the scroll bar? It appears his eyes have observed an opinion different than his, and that obviously has been been very disconcerting for our dearest skip.
I would have to disagree with those that opine that the Democratic Party is hesitant to go to war, or that they are weak on national security matters.
Exactly the opposite is true.
WWI, Woodrow Wilson, Democrat
WWII, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Democrat
WWII/Atomic Bomb, Harry S. Truman, Democrat
Korean War, Harry S. Truman, Democrat
Cuban Missile Crisis, John F. Kennedy, Democrat
Vietnam War, John F. Kennedy, Democrat
Escalate Vietnam bombing, , Lyndon Baines Johnson, Democrat
Execute Osama bin Laden, Barack Hussein Obama, Democrat
The difference?
Democrats declare war for defense.
Republicans declare war for profit.
Republicans just love to plan and conduct wars. Their business counterparts all make money, and are always ready to slip some of it to their political fronts. Problem with all this though, while they do like their wars as a source of supplemental incomes, the republicans are very poor at that trade.
All I know is that I hope we don't use those "enhanced interrogation techniques" here in the USA.
Folks, torture is torture. You can die from waterboarding. Will the interrogators be liable for charges of murder then?
Conservatives -- Study what makes a Super Power. The US needs to focus first and foremost on retaining economic superiority right now, and that means no more deficit spending on wars. A Super Power must also have military superiority, but cannot even maintain this if stretched too thin as we are now.
Ever since terrorism guerrilla warfare, the nation state and conventional war has less importance. Ever since the advent of a global economy, military strength has become secondary to economic strength. Personally I believe in MAD (mutually assured destruction) as a deterrence, and that goes for rogue states as well. Look at countries even more radical than Iran that have nukes, like N. Korea. The fear that nukes in the Middle East (e.g., Pakistan) will fall in the hands of terrorists is understandable. But the better approach is to invest in securing nukes--Not repeating the failed Bush doctrine of unilateral preemptive strike with huge loss of life and treasure.
If Iran had nukes, in reality it would have little if any impact. Ahmadinejad is just a show captain with limited power. Iran is much stronger and more sophisticated than other countries in the region like Iraq or Libya. They are not going to sell WMDs any more than N. Korea, Pakistan, etc.--They want nukes for themselves, for deterrence.
The better approach is to continue supporting the people of Iran who really were the original Arab Spring movement, but are too oppressed like Syria. The majority sentiment of the people is not with these strong-armed autocrats. Finding a way to let the people over-throw these governments is really the answer.
Do NOT elect Teapublicans. They will not only further destroy our economy with failed voodoo economics, but will also destroy our country with more unnecessary and costly wars.
What is obvious is that you bunch of merry men here did not even listen to the debates but elected to pick apart the Republicans for your daily dose of s h i t mongering.......I will laugh very heartily when Obama is thrown out next year I do hope you fools will still be on here so I can say told you so!
Teapublicans undervalue the Arab Spring. For example, if we did as Newt suggests and assassinated Iranian scientists, that would damage support from the Iranian people and put more hard-liners like Ahmadinejad in power. These guys are incapable of learning anything from history, and that's because they are incapable of objective research, critical thinking, and using the Rule of Reason in general.
We need to focus on our economy right now. When the GOP/TP start to talk about China's shenanigans or unfair trade agreements and how we need to get tough and level the playing field, they get my attention -- Then just as quickly lose my attention by talking about repatriation of profits with no taxation, no taxation of corporations, etc. Solutions to stop the off-shoring of American jobs and loss of revenue from businesses making record profits is NOT something you will hear from these bozos.
Not to further digress from the topic of the article for this thread, but that's debatable. The investigation that followed the assassination was suspect with omitted information, inconsistency, and most of all primarily reliant on the FBI rather than less biased agencies and use of field investigators. I'm also not into conspiracy theory (yes, we went to the moon), but many believe Oswald was an FBI informant and suspect FBI Director Hoover:
With McCarthyism and other right-wing extremism going on during the general time frame, Hoover, a conservative Hawk, is my first choice for being behind the assassination. Whether Watergate or what have you, the only time I don't trust government is when conservatives are in control.
Did we learn NOTHING from our involvement in Iraq?
What the involvement in Iraq taught the Candidates is the WAR can make you very wealthy. They want their turn at turning a huge profit on the backs and lives of our troops.
Every GOP candidate should have to experience Water Boarding before they render an opinion.That would be the intelligent thing to do.
And don't forget that Michelle Bachmann wants Iraq to pay us back for bombing their country to even further ruination than it was, for killing and maiming hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who happened to get in the way. Yes, poor darling, we did go to war to make money and take their oil, but guess who gets the profits? Halliburton, Cheney, Bush....Xe! Many others. US taxpayers? Not so much. Poor Michelle, there is really nothing that can fix her.
There is an irony to Bachman being on the intelligence committee, I do have some suggested reading material. World history between world war 1 and through world war 2, focus on the rise in power of Hitler. She may grasp why reparations are paid, but doubtful.
In other news, America will cut off all funding to UNESCO, a program that helps millions of impoverished people, because scary old Palestine wants to join the club. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
And for what? So Israel can keep hiding behind Uncle Sam's coattails and throw spitballs at everyone else?
From LA Times
"The Obama administration has decided to cut off funding for UNESCO because it approved a Palestinian bid for full membership.
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland says Monday's vote triggers a long-standing congressional restriction on funding to UN bodies that recognize Palestine as a state before an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is reached . . .
Nuland went on to say the U.S. would refrain from making a $60 million payment it planned to make in November."
_______
US policy was already dictated. We must remember that Israel is surrounded by their enemies, countries the US only supports because of their oil reserves. Despite Israel's poor treatement of the palestinians, national defense against armed agression, terrorism and threats to its national existence is still Israel's right.
By the way, Israel is not throwing spitballs and has never hid from anyone. Ask the Iraqis or any other of her other neighbors. Let us hope that Israel doesn't decide to use its heavy hitting arsenal. I agree with Ron Paul and others, not worth the saber rattling and escalation. Reports have been going since the 80's that the iranians were close to a nuke program.
I propose cyber attacks on their systems and sanctions over any other type of attacks by Israel or the US.
Conservatives -- Study what makes a Super Power. The US needs to focus first and foremost on retaining economic superiority right now, and that means no more deficit spending on wars. A Super Power must also have military superiority, but cannot even maintain this if stretched too thin as we are now.
Ever since terrorism guerrilla warfare, the nation state and conventional war has less importance. Ever since the advent of a global economy, military strength has become secondary to economic strength. Personally I believe in MAD (mutually assured destruction) as a deterrence, and that goes for rogue states as well. Look at countries even more radical than Iran that have nukes, like N. Korea. The fear that nukes in the Middle East (e.g., Pakistan) will fall in the hands of terrorists is understandable. But the better approach is to invest in securing nukes--Not repeating the failed Bush doctrine of unilateral preemptive strike with huge loss of life and treasure.
If Iran had nukes, in reality it would have little if any impact. Ahmadinejad is just a show captain with limited power. Iran is much stronger and more sophisticated than other countries in the region like Iraq or Libya. They are not going to sell WMDs any more than N. Korea, Pakistan, etc.--They want nukes for themselves, for deterrence.
The better approach is to continue supporting the people of Iran who really were the original Arab Spring movement, but are too oppressed like Syria. The majority sentiment of the people is not with these strong-armed autocrats. Finding a way to let the people over-throw these governments is really the answer.
Do NOT elect Teapublicans. They will not only further destroy our economy with failed voodoo economics, but will also destroy our country with more unnecessary and costly wars.
Interesting points true patriot.
Let's see them come up with the money to pay for the war . Tax the wealthy ? I doubt it .
Of course not. It's eliminate ALL social programs including SS, Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps, WIC on and on. While continuing to give the Corporations and Rich 1% a free pass.
We are so screwed if one of these people get in.
I'm waiting for some Republican to tell us that their war with Iran will pay for itself out of Iranian revenues, just like the one with Iraq did......oh, wait a minute......those Iraqis never did get around to paying us, did they?
Steeler and David -- War pays for itself, of course, how could I have missed that! One would be correct if they think this is the job plan behind the republicans.
To all above regarding the cost of the wars, from here on out, if it isn't clear and present danger or prevention or genocide, "boots on the ground" should be paid for with War Bonds, and the draft should be reinstated.
Dont_carry_it_all -- Good old neocon Wolfowitz, the only person to be consistently wrong on everything -- Listen to tape of him talking about how the invasion of Iraq would be paid for with oil, and with a little critical thinking it quickly becomes clear what an asinine claim this was. And irony of all ironies is how people like Wolfowitz are actually hired, when his career in policy of any kind should have been soundly ended.
Yes- MORE WAR! NOW!!
I mean, who cares about human life, right?
Right???
They only care about cell division.
The truly ironic part is that they actually all claim to be "pro-life"!!!
And a woman's uterus.
don't forget birth control and stem cell research.
More from the pro-life crowd. Kill Kill Kill. that's what they do best. Cheer for torture, cheer for the death penalty, boo an active military man because he's gay, cheer for someone to die because he doesn't have health insurance, and this is what the tea people GOP republicans want for president.
GOP/TP People always seem to forget that Pro-Life is a three pronged belief structure including anti-abortion, anti-Death penalty and, you guesed it, anti-WAR.
My conclusion is that the GOP is against birth control and abortion, especially in 3rd world developing countries, because they want to have people to kill in the future. Why else would they promote population growth in countries that can't even feed the people it has already?
As a person who does not favor abortion because in my view it cheapens human existence. To start saying that something is not a living being because it is not yet outside the womb seems to reduce it to the status of a commodity that can be thrown away. I can fully support active education and provision of proper birth control, so that we don't have to have the debate about what constitutes a human being with rights. For all of you who say that we have no business fighting wars overseas, because it isn't right that we impose our way of life and ideology on other people's and nations, you can't have it both ways....we cannot go into those nations advocating birth control and abortion either. You want to pick and choose the types of controls that you will allow one people to have over another. I have an issue with abortion becoming an arm of birth control due to ignorance and irresponsibility. Would I advocate the death of a mother who already has other children dependent upon her if she were to try to carry a child to term....no, but I also would allow her to make the final determination of what is important to her and her family, I wouldn't impose the abortion option on her. Would I force somebody, a victim of rape or incest, to carry the child....no, but once again, the ultimate decision would lie with the mother and her family and her church/beliefs.....Those scenerios do not comprise the largest portion of elective abortion. It is OK to treat fetuses as farms for stem cells? In that case, you have decided that one human life is more important than another. Yes, people need treatments and cures for illness, but at the expense of another person? Perhaps that should lie within the conscience of an individual as well, to make that determination....I think that for the sake of making your position sound more palatable, you choose the most extreme examples of topics and label all conservative thinkers by those extremes. The world is certainly not completely black and white, but there has to be some guidelines in place so that the gray areas do not become chaos and a no man's land.
It comes down to a basic question of whether we ought to be the global police. There are arguments to be made on either side of that debate, but it is the central question.
If we're not the global police, what place is it of ours to determine whether Iran can or cannot have a certain type of weaponry? But if we are the global police, then Iran with the bomb might be a situation that police force would want to avoid.
Once that question is answered, we should address a more pragmatic question of whether we are only kidding ourselves that we can manage the spread of this capability.
I agree that the United States being world cop is a fraught issue, but I would like to see us withdraw from policing the world. When I think of all the money and blood spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, that could have been so much better used here at home, my blood boils. I am tired of war. Let the rest of the world deal with themselves - we have a lot of healing to do here at home.
It's not so much that GOP/TP panders to the warmongers - they pander to the corporations that profiteer off war. And fill their campaign war chests.
Paul M,
The answers from Newt, Romney, Perry at the debates Sat evening were not about being global police. Their answers were about being the Gangsters of the world: how the US can assassinate Iranian scientists, the value of torture...
Dr. Paul has answered that question numerous times Paul M. The answer is NO, but the he just gets called an isolationist.
The late 19th and early 20th century Great Britain was the world cop. It didn't go so well for them either. They too ran up the bills for their expeditions to other countries, colonies.
That's because he is an isolationist. On the issue of Iran, he happens to be correct --the right is trying to set Iran up as the latest bogeyman we have to fear, as an excuse for continuing the endless war in Iraq-- (but you know that old saying about even a broken clock being right some of the time).
He is not an isolationist he said if we're going to go to war we'd better have a damn good reason, get the okay and go in and get the job done and get out.
I think 1sg that Paul will find the same rude awakening that Obama had with foreign policy and campaign promises. Its just not as simple as that, and sorry we don't need another Clinton ignoring real threats to our national security, and we don't need another Bush that uses war to fight terrorism. I wonder why anyone would be surprised by this debate, Paul said what people want to hear, Huntsman stayed his moderate self and the rest catered to the tea party war monger attitude. Or at least their perception that its what the tea party followers want, I somehow doubt it.
As long as we participate in the UN and are on the Security Council.....we leave ourselves open to the obligation of being world police.....And for all of you who don't believe that is good for the US, please enlighten me as to whom you would prefer to fulfill that responsibility, whom you would trust, because ultimately, our security and safety will be at issue as well.
Paul said what people wanted to hear?? Obviously you don't know anything about Dr. Paul, that made me lol for real.
Dr. Paul has been consistent for the last 30 years, he tells the truth whether we want to hear it or not.
I am trying to think of the words to describe my feelings on this group of candidates for the GOP/TP nomination. All I can think of is "Are they all nuts?"
Yes.
yes x2
Are they nuts? Well, let's see .. did Bachmann use China as a great society we should aspire too? Well, by George, she did. They don't have social security or medicare which makes them the greatest society. According the welfare queen, we should eliminate those programs so that we can achieve their greatness.
Did she forget to mention they are Communist nation? or that China fully supports abortion? Or that they...
Please, please, please don't let Huntsman sneak into the nomination. He has the hair to win.
We can be sure none of the clown boys, and girl will be there to fight and die...just wave the flag and spew nonsense..
Yeah, like "Mission Accomplished!"
China does not "support" abortion....they use it as birth control as family size is strictly limited. Infanticide is incredibly high in the more rural areas of China. Medical care is not much more modern for most Chinese than the old West Barber shops where the barber was also the dentist and the podiatrist etc.
I think every intelligent American is getting tired of the war ma$$heen.
This is one issue I totally support Ron Paul on.
Get out, get out right now, don't go back.
We have neither the moral authority nor the resources to continue to be the "world's policeman".
However, How can you support his call to legalize all illegal drugs?
On the basis that freedom requires one is FREE to do as they please as long as they do not harm someone else in the process.
Once you start regulating what people can consume or eat with their own bodies you will fall down a slippery slope of tyranny. We are already there with the FDA conducting ARMED raids on local food markets for people buying raw milk, which humans have consumed for thousands of years.
The United States of America imprisons more people per capita than China or Cuba and more than 50% for victimless crimes... or crimes that harmed no one. Of course the cost of this is ridiculous in terms of both money AND human cost in tearing parents from their children ect. This system also unfairly punishes minorities while turning local police forces into para-military swat teams who break down doors, shoot dogs, and every now and then accidental kill a child searching for weed.
Also, nearly every challenge to the Bill of Rights has been in the name of fighting the drug war, yet alcohol, one of the most dangerous substances is legal.
I could go on but this is a good summary.
The is a good article on Alternet.org by Norm Stamper (from LEAP) on the SWAT team raids on people for possession of small amount of marijuana, etc.
So a neighbor could open a drug house up the street so the neighborhood kids could buy drugs? Don't say that wouldn't happen either. Totally, why Ron Paul is suffering from Alzheimer's! Sounds like you maybe too?
Really, clwyd? don't be silly.
"So a neighbor could open a drug house up the street..." - no more than your neighbor will open up a moonshine still and sell his hooch to your kids. Or, another possibility, who's to say your neighbor hasn't already opened up "a drug house" and is selling his wares to your kids now?
If it were legalized, the stuff would be sold like liquor. It would be regulated and taxed.
Clwyd...don't look now but...oh you looked! There's a drug house down the road selling to local kids. And it's still illegal. So what's the diff?
the diff is that crack house can and will be harrassed constantly by police. Simplistic, absurd answer to all crime: legalize it and pretend it's not there...whoosh...(Paul's answer to drugs, prostitution, etc.) These are not "victimless" crimes no matter how hard you look away.
Do now what has ruined so many families and lives would be legal and out in the open would make it right? Are we so hard up to collect tax dollars Paul's way? I pray to God not! i pray to God not Ron Paul either!
clwyd, Because Ron Paul dosent get much coverage in the media, very few people know that he spoke at the John Birch Society last month to celebrate their 50th anniversary. Mr. Paul supports the JBS and he named his (idiot son) Rand after Ayn Rand. Paul is not the man for the job and, Rand Paul should be voted out in his next election.
A few months back, you moonbats were cheerleading Obama's bombing in Libya. And unmanned drones killing targets and anyone unlucky enough to be nearby..
You are principled in your opposition. Your principle is to cheerlead your hero Obama no matter what he does , and insult the opposition no matter what they do.
And you have a problem with this?
OMG You figured out Advanced Liberal Trick #3. However did you unlock our liberal secrets?
Maybe it's because those are really YOUR secrets. LoL
Good morning, Bobby. Welcome to Anna Molly's School.
Take a seat in the front row, and grab a big glass of eucalyptus rinse.
Really, I am a dyed in the wool liberal living in perhaps the bluest state of all (MA.) and no one I know wanted to add Libya to our list of wars.
You said it Bob, we had no business getting involved with Libya and flushing several BILLION down that toilet while trying to fugure out how to get the money to keep our government running. Ron Paul is the only one serious about stopping war out of the idiots and that includes our current idiot in cheif.
So, the limited intervention in Libya, which cost no American lives is equivalent to a war with Iran, which would move Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq from the stupidest foreign policy blunder in American history to the second-most stupid. The Iraq war cost 4,000 American lives and is projected to cost three trillion dollars once the medical care for the horribly wounded veterans is added in. The cost of the Iraq misadventure will pale in comparison to the one Mitt Romney wants to start with Iran.
It's amazing how teabaggers will contort themselves into making ridiculous attacks on Obama no matter how successful his policies have been, and his policy on Libya has been a success.
The GOP is just upset they couldn't make the big bucks off of Libya. With an all out war with Iran, they could make money hand over fist.
Gw96, and Ron Paul is just another idiot that wants to legalize all illegal drugs! Republicans need to be stopped before we get more wars and billions down the drain along with 7,000+ wasted American lives!
phinephancy-4252115
Some of the GOP warmongers such as John ("Bomb Bomb Iran") McCain did attack Obama for not getting into an all-out war with Libya. And Newt Gingrich flip-flopped from being for the Libya intervention until Obama did intervene, when he suddenly transformed into a peacenik.
clwyd, I don't disagree with you that legalizing all drugs is a bad idea, however, to call Ron Paul a Republican is crazy. He's only registered Republican so he has even a snowball's chance. Paul is about as libertarian as they get...economically conservative, socially liberally. So to say
and point it at Ron Paul is silly.
Houston, that's why they are mad at the President over Libya. If we had gone in guns blazing and taking over their oil, well, since it was President Obama, they still would have been ticked off, but their defense contractor friends would have been MUCH happier.
Phinephancy,
There's contractors over there right now, just not American contractors, cleaning up the oil fields. So instead of an American company, it's a foreign company. Does it really matter?
I can't figure out where Bob stands, here.
he's FOR coddling terrorists or NOT for coddling terrorists??
Involvement in Libya BAD, but in Iran GOOD???
Yo, Bob- y' last name isn't Romeney, by any chance, is it?
Bob, this is what feisty told Joe:
"One more time NJNB!!!
Go find someone elses porch to leave your crap on will ya?
You are NOT welcome on mine!"
Obviously she runs this forum, and us conservatives are not allowed to participate. So much for the liberal B.S. about diversity, free speech, and inclusion.
Matt: Ron Paul is hardly a social "liberal" just because he wants to legalize prostitution and drugs. He would prohibit women from any choice over their own bodies and criminalize abortion. He is merely a libertarian when it suits him (women's rights to privacy apparantly do not suit him.)
How did all you libs get out of jail? I keep reading where all you nut jobs keep getting arrested at the occupy protests and your on the vine spitting out more garbage? Except may nasty redwig always glued to her government bought pc to be the first one to blab her nonsense.
"On the warpath"?
Really, MSNBC?
Did you use this rhetoric about the President when he bombed Libya?
No Bob, they took it from Palin 101 at the nearby community college from the course list:
"Putting your enemies in the CROSSHAIRS".
Hey Bob, the bombing in Libya was a NATO led operation, an operation that went quite well, unlike the endless quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan, you know Bob the ones your republican neo-con "smart" guys blundered into, I'm sorry Bob but the candidates the repubs are offering suck, their plans suck, nobody wants to go back to where they want to take us, I don’t even think you do Bob.
Bob,
Iran is not Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan either!
Interesting the conservie crowd hates Obama for assisting NATO with Libya at the cost of 1.1 billion, but they loved the idea of invading Iraq/Afghanistan at a cost of several trillion and are rabidly jumping at the idea of declaring war on Iran because of suspicious intelligence of WMD production.
Bob has trouble getting his head around something that worked, like Libya and a competent President. He's used to Cheney/Bush where everything they did was a disaster.
That is right.
Liberals only support wars where the national interest of the US is not at stake.
Yeah, Liberals don't want to go after non-existant WMD's and to ally with a slime bucket country like Pakistan so that we can bomb a stoneage country like Afghanistan back to the ... What came before the stoneage?
Go Obama! Get us out of that Republican boondogle. Get re-elected 2012!
Bob-1887910
The national interest wasn't at stake in Iraq. What was at stake was the business interest of Dick Cheney's cronies in the oil industry.
Libya may not have been in the United States' vital "national interest" (whatever that means). But it certainly helps when a US president does something that increases the respect for American in an Arab country like Obama has done in Libya rather than generating hatred for America like Bush did in Iraq.
Really, Bobbie?
The horrifying Civil War was fought for the national interest of the United States, wasn't it? Those states that wanted to secede in response to the election of President Lincoln(R) are the republicans of today just as much as Lincoln was a liberal for his time. No need to delve into the later Dixiecrat aspects. In my opinion, very parallel to the election of President Obama and the subsequent civil war/class war/political war brewing currently. I only hope this one isn't bloody....
Obama/Biden 2012
d
President Obama:
For every single GOP presidential candidates with the exceptions of Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman, the correct answer is "both of the above." Romney sounds as ignorant as Rick Perry and Herman Cain. None of them know what they're talking about and they're all of course, just saying whatever they think will rile up the teabag base in their own favor.
It is a good thing that the GOP/TP is not smart enough to look at Jon Huntsman. He is the only intelligent candidate they have on that stage that might appeal to the middle of the country. Of course, no one said the GOP base was very smart.
He's not to smart either! Hes' a republican't!
Phinephancy, haven't you learned over the last 40 years, the tea people GOP republicans don't want a candidate that's smart, the dumber and less informed the better they like him.
@Mo
That's why the GOP/TP wants to get rid of the Dept. of Education. They want to dumb down the rest of the country to their level.
Dumb people are easier to deceive. Just look at a large part of the GOP base right now - low to moderate incomers who want to cut taxes on the wealthy and raise taxes on the low income and/or cut benefits to the low income. THEMSELVES !!!
STFU about Huntsman. The only candidate with the hair to win.
IMHO hey Rick Perry has the hair to win! He just doesn't have a good memory or grasp on issues....he really should go back to Texas. However Huntsman has the intelligence and experience to win too, he would be a threat to Obama.
The only reason Mitt looks like an "alternative" is that he is standing next to moral and intellectual midgets on those debate stages. When he's standing next to President Obama he will also look like the moral and intellectual midget without a soul!
Republican don't realize that America and Americans are sick of 10 years plus of wars and that their hawkish actions could lead us into even more wars. The republicans don't deserve your vote! I thank God that GW Bush is gone and that I hope cooler heads will appear than these 8 loony tunes running for president who also want to bring back torture!
*** Obama on China, Super Committee work, and hot-mic episode: Also at his news conference, Obama had tougher rhetoric when it comes to China (which has been the entire theme of his trip so far
You miss the part where he said we had gotten too lazy in the past decade to attract businesses here?
Probably not- you just like to pretend he never says such things- cause, ya know, it doesn't make him look good.
There is a point at which spinning things to make a politician look good becomes something else- lying to make a politician look good.
You crossed that line four years ago.
This article is only meant to rile up a bunch of hatred. The media is a much responsible for the division in our country than anybody. When the moderators asks "Would you every consider taking military action against Iran?", wtf do you expect anybody to say? Only an idiot would say "No". It's a question meant to divide.
I'm not going to defend the merits of any one of these candidates. I think there are one or two who might push for military action faster than others. BUT if you publicly remove military action from the table, what kind of message does that send to Iran?
last time there was a war monger was goldwater and he rec 3 elctorial votes?
romney is another war monger and we are sick and tired of murdering our children and the children of the countries we attack!
war cost lives and monies, neither of which we have to spare!
A nuclear weapon designed specifically for the destruction of a whole nation costs lives and monies too. Does the world let them build it?
You people all seem to be missing the point that Iran has vowed to wipe one of our biggest allies off the map, and als attack us if they get the capability. So the answer is to ignore them? Allow then to get the weapon and then deal with them?
It iwll be irrelevant soon as Isreal WILL take a pre-emptive strike and we will be forced to either back them or turn our back on them. BHO has a history of turning his back on Isreal, but will reluctantly side with them as it will be politcally prudent to not alienate the Jewish vote any more than he needs to.
So you can rail agains the GOP candidates as much as you like on this for now. But soon you will change your position as BHO will be forced to join in a strike against Iran by Isreal. It will become his choice to enter this to save his hide, and you will all switch sides and say what a great thing it is.
Dont worry, I will remind you when it happens.......
ABO 2012
If you care about Israel, at least spell the name of the country correctly: ISRAEL.
Exactly. It's one thing for North Korea to get one (which is still not a good idea). I really doubt NK would ever use one though. They are too dependent on their immediate neighbors for survival.
How do you let Iran develop a weapon when they have vocalized the intent to eliminate a whole nation? NK wants to flex muscle. Iran wants world domination.
And kate, who cares? I wish Newsvine had a "spelling and grammar police d-bag" tag.
Matt-1145746
No one in the Iranian government ever vocalized any such intent to eliminate a whole nation. Several of Iran's leaders, starting with Ayatollah Khomeini did say that Israel would be "wiped from the pages of history," which is is essentially the sort of thing that US politicians said about the USSR and the Russians said about the US during the Cold War. An assertion that a nation will eventually collapse or be destroyed is not the same as declaring the intention to do the destruction. That may be a fine point, having leaders that understand that point may keep us from entering a war that's far worse than the horrendous quagmire G.W. Bush created in Iraq.
Iran getting a bomb is probably much less a danger to the world than the fact that Pakistan ALREADY has a bomb and a lot of people who are willing to use it in their holy war against the West, some of them with the Pakistani intelligence agency. The Iranian leaders aren't going to commit suicide by starting a nuclear war with Israel (which has had nukes for decades). Pakistan has plenty of would-be suicide bombers who would be willing to detonate a small nuclear bomb that couldn't be traced back to the people in the Pakistani government who ordered the attack.
Houston, I give you credit. You make a very valid point in your first paragraph. I disagree with the point of your second paragraph. Pakistan or Israel having a nuclear bomb is NOT an argument FOR Iran to have one.
I haven't been able to paste links (even though I've been a member for 2 yrs), but Google, "Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb". It makes a very compelling argument on how nuclear bombs have contributed to relative world stability...like maybe we shouldn't worry about it. I don't know, though. I think it worries everyone that all it takes is one crazy to end everything.
Houston,
The leadership in Iran believes they would be starting the return of their messiah by triggering attacks on Israel. Their leader is an unstable nutjob. If they had somewhat sane leadership their having a weapon may be of little concern. But the current leadership is either totally nuts, or wishes us to believe he is totally nuts, neither of which are good.
Allowing the current political forces in Iran to get their hands on a nuke is not worth the chances. It is very likely they would not be concerned with the consequences of launching an attack on Israel. Suicide bombers never seem to be concerned with consequences are they? And they feel their actions will force all countries in this area to take side and bring about the return of Muhammad. They view starting armegeddon as a good thing.
They have said as much in many interviews and in thier dealing with Hezbolla. (I know, I probably mispelled it...) He has made speaches with vitiolic hate at the UN and other worldwide events. They make no pretence that the desire to remove Israel from the map is not their overwhelming goal. Allowing them to have a weapon capable of such is just not an option.
And just because one danger has a nuke does not mean we should allow another to have one. And Israel is concerned enough to attack to eliminate the chances. Obviously the stance of the Iranians is something to be taken seriously.
You cannot reasonably compare the regime of most other countries with that in Iran and come to the conclusion that allowing them to have a nuke is acceptible. When the leadership is as unstable as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is you must believe what they say they will do, no matter how preposterous it sounds to a sane person.
ABO 2012
Obama: “I am going to make a practice of not commenting on whatever is said in Republican debates until they've got an actual nominee. "
He then comments on what is said in GOP debates. Obama is understandably very sensitive and prickly to criticism. Obama is already running scared, obviously.
"steady, determined, firm progress in isolating the Iranian regime,” Obama said. Sounds just like Jimmy Carter, doesnt he? This "steady progress" isnt preventing Iran from developing a nuke.
What is delaying them is CIA covert action!
you misspelled your name bob it's two o's,,,,,finish two wars your guy couldn't troops from iraq home christmas from our longest war who's war.....wrong war....5716 dead....100,000 innocents one trillion dollars....afghan next year done....bin laden and all the key leaders dead khaffi dead....no loss of american lives in his missions.......one billion no ground troops in libya...no conparison from the bull in the china closet bush admin....smart and tuff and something new effecitive....no body ever said that about bush and cheney...
Don't you all know, war IS the Republican jobs plan.
It employes lots of contractors at pay over what someone in the military would be paid to do the same jobs.
It gobbles up some of our up and coming youth, usually from rural areas, where the Republican constituants are very common - so it employs the youth of the GOP base. Others get jobs in factories making war supplies.
It also thins out the workforce (less workers, less jobs that are needed) with the dead.
There is very little polical cost as who is going to argue against patriotism and supporting the troops.
Feisty---couldn't get on the thread above but I totally agree with you---I am so tired of Chris Matthews hawking his book at every opportunity. I would almost like to send him whatever royalty he would get if I bought a copy just to make him go away with this. He played himself on The Good Wife last night in a subplot about a political scandal, and I was waiting for him to mention the book.
Congrats on da Bears victory yesterday.
Thanks SF - revenge is always a dish bet served cold! lol
x
re; but his rhetoric was much softer than Romney’s.
But, we clearly need belligerent rhetoric. How else can the GOP bait gullible Americans into another decade long war? The Iran war - aka - WMD's part II.
From what i can tell mr grover & the gop & the rushbo are sandbagging. Because more and more i hear the name of mr grover mentioned. And how he had all these thousands in the gop signed his binding secret pledges. People talk about the country's founders.
"People talk about the country's founders." According to the Texas School Board and Perry, himself, it is the right to alter and change History, especially those early years of the Nation, to fit what they believe in to the children of Texas. Jefferson is almost completely written out of History in the new Texas School History Books. And this is only one example.
Will Republicans start WWIII? Very possible. Will they use "First Strike? Very, very possible. Will it be Nuclear? Very, very, very possible as we may not hit all of the targets at the same time.
Worried about a delivery system? It can be as small as a suitcase, or as large as it needs be. If a conventional war occurs, they will have time to secure an appropriate delivery system from another country if need be or the radioactive material can be processed to a fine dust for making dirty bombs.
Do we go along with the Hawks, the Defense Contractors, and other Big Corporations that are eager to start anew, or do we speak softly but carry that Big Stick. Your vote may well be the determining factor.
think they meant the nation flounder's
Obama is understandably very sensitive and prickly to criticism. Obama is already running scared, obviously.
^ I didn't detect any of that. He can only answer the questions of reporters or ignore them. It's a fine line to address the issue without being baited.
No one fears the GOP circus clowns. Get real. More likely *you're afraid* they'll open their mouths again, and more humiliating stupidity will come out. Isn't that so?
Yeah, they're nuts. They're all such selfish, spineless jellyfish they scarcely realize how Democrats have brainwashed and manipulated them. Obama has bent them so far to the right they've become borderline lunatics.
borderline??
you voted for bush twice and are complaining about obama's foreign policy you should be thanking him for finishing the two wars,,,killing bin laden and the other heads,,,,and putting nato on khaffi.......bush the worst pretender in the white house ever couldn't finish the wars couldn't find bin laden...just absolute bull@!$%# from the party that is nothing more than bull@!$%# for about 30 years.wow,,,you've really lost your way guys...can't even admit the obvious
really he's leader of the free world and he's worried about romney perry and cain....please don't confuse obama with someone like sister sara who couldn't handle alaska for a full term.... a black president yes im sure he's never had to deal with critisism before do you even think about this guys history before making comments like this amounts to a proverbial hill of beans in his life....obama who ordered 18 seals into patiskstan compound to kill bin laden...and basically gave the dead or alive to khaffi... wow,,,,he's had tuffer head colds than these guys...