Obama's "Very Serious Deficiencies for an American President"

What is so frightening about this is, Obamacide is telling the American people what they want to hear, what they would like to believe to be true. Anyone that has been paying attention to the actions and the words of the axis of evil,  know we are up against a dangerous and serious enemy.

If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn't mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least, we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks, Pendleton, OR, 5/19/08)

Roger Kimball: Obama believes that, even if Iran has been acting “irresponsibly,” its behavior “reflected its anxiety over the Bush administration’s policies in the region.” Got that? Iran helps kill American soliders in Iraq and is busy developing nuclear weapons and it’s our fault.)

In Obama's vision, face-to-face summits with Gorbachev ended the Cold War.

You know, Iran they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military.

Jim Geraghty of NRO: Again, in an era of asymmetrical warfare, a group's budget and spending do not necessarily reflect the scope or danger of the threat. The 9/11 Commission report stated the attacks cost somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to execute, plus the cost of training the 19 hijackers in Afghanistan; the short-term costs alone to the U.S. from the attacks are estimated at $27.2 billion.

John McCain on Obama's Iran Comments

l

Senator McCain made the following remarks during a speech today in Chicago…

“Before I begin my prepared remarks, I want to respond briefly to a comment Senator Obama made yesterday about the threat posed to the United States by the Government of Iran.  Senator Obama claimed that the threat Iran poses to our security is “tiny” compared to the threat once posed by the former Soviet Union.  Obviously, Iran isn’t a superpower and doesn’t possess the military power the Soviet Union had.  But that does not mean that the threat posed by Iran is insignificant.  On the contrary, right now Iran provides some of the deadliest explosive devices used in Iraq to kill our soldiers.  They are the chief sponsor of Shia extremists in Iraq, and terrorist organizations in the Middle East.  And their President, who has called Israel a “stinking corpse,” has repeatedly made clear his government’s commitment to Israel’s destruction.  Most worrying, Iran is intent on acquiring nuclear weapons.  The biggest national security challenge the United States currently faces is keeping nuclear material out of the hands of terrorists.  Should Iran acquire nuclear weapons, that danger would become very dire, indeed.  They might not be a superpower, but the threat the Government of Iran poses is anything but “tiny.”

“Senator Obama has declared, and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the President of Iran without any preconditions, likening it to meetings between former American Presidents and the leaders of the Soviet Union. Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment.  Those are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess. An ill conceived meeting between the President of the United States and the President of Iran, and the massive world media coverage it would attract, would increase the prestige of an implacable foe of the United States, and reinforce his confidence that Iran’s dedication to acquiring nuclear weapons, supporting terrorists and destroying the State of Israel had succeeded in winning concessions from the most powerful nation on earth.  And he is unlikely to abandon the dangerous ambitions that will have given him a prominent role on the world stage.

“This is not to suggest that the United States should not communicate with Iran our concerns about their behavior.  Those communications have already occurred at an appropriate level, which the Iranians recently suspended. But a summit meeting with the President of the United States, which is what Senator Obama proposes, is the most prestigious card we have to play in international diplomacy.  It is not a card to be played lightly.  Summit meetings must be much more than personal get-acquainted sessions.  They must be designed to advance American interests.  An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically when he is unpopular among the Iranian people.  It is likely such a meeting would not only fail to persuade him to abandon Iran’s nuclear ambitions; its support of terrorists and commitment to Israel’s extinction, it could very well convince him that those policies are succeeding in strengthening his hold on power, and embolden him to continue his very dangerous behavior.  The next President ought to understand such basic realities of international relations.”

NRO: Let's look at those nations Obama describes as "tiny."

Iran: Effectively demonstrated the impotence of the Carter Administration and humiliated the United States for 444 days. Killed 19 American servicemen when they sponsored the bombing of Khobar Towers. Sponsored and supported Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic jihad. Manufacturing IEDs to use against American troops; runs training camps for insurgents.

Finally, I note the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission: "While it found no operational ties between al Qaeda and Iraq, the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has concluded that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network had long-running contacts with Iraq's neighbor and historic foe, Iran."

Venezuela: Chavez's sponsorship of FARC and destabilization of the region. From a House hearing: "Venezuelan passports can be forged with ''child-like ease'' and that the United States is detaining at our borders an increasing number of third-country aliens carrying false Venezuelan documents. According to a 2003 U.S. News report, ''Thousands of Venezuelan identity documents are being distributed to foreigners from Middle Eastern nations, including Syria, Pakistan, Egypt and Lebanon. There are other worrisome reports of radical Islamist activity in Venezuela. State Department officials have expressed concerns about ''groups and individuals'' in Venezuela with ''links to terrorist organizations in the Middle East.'' The al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah cells in South and Central America are tied to fundraising and to so-called charity and transnational criminal networks that are key to terrorist mobility."

Cuba: Ask Jimmy Carter about the Mariel Boatlift, and whether a "tiny" country can have an enormous impact on the daily lives of Americans in Florida.

UPDATE: More thoughts from Jen Rubin and the guys at RedState.

ANOTHER UPDATE: A reader wonders whether Obama would have said the Taliban in Afghanistan "don't pose a serious threat to us" on September 10, 2001, because they were a tiny country with limited military spending...

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Some genius lefty blogger:

Apparently Jim Geraghty at NRO has downgraded "serious threat" from one that could kill 90% of the population to one that can kill less than 0.0001%. Seriously, what in the phrase "Mutually Assured Destruction" does this guy not get? In another two decades Geraghty fully expects a "serious threat" to be defined as "I might get a papercut"

Hey, 9/11, no big deal. It's only 0.0001 percent of America's population. Almost a paper cut, really.

 

Comments

[Barbara]

Is anyone thinking seriously of NOT voting for McCain?

I will be working hard for McCain in NYC.
We all have to do this.

Please Atlas Readers, think about the "other choice"

As Pamela says..OMG !!!!!!!!!!!

[photoncourier.blogspot.com]

People often underestimate a new threat because it doesn't *look like* the old threats. In the early 1930s, military aircraft didn't look very impressive compared with battleships, and only people with real vision could see their potential for sinking ships. But after Pearl Harbor (and the sinking of two major British warships near Singapore) only the most obtuse could fail to grasp the reality of the threat.

From the standpoint of the danger posed by asymmetrical warfare and rogue states, 9/11 *should have been* the equivalent of the sinkings at Pearl Harbor and off Singapore.