What are George Bush and John McCain afraid of?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Obama in Billings, Montana:

“John McCain, yesterday, decided to attack me for saying that Iran does not pose as great of a threat as the Soviet Union did. And so if we were willing to talk to Gorbachev, if we were willing to talk to Khrushchev, then there's no reason why we shouldn't talk to Iran. Seems like common sense.

“So John McCain, he said, ‘Oh, Obama doesn't understand the threat of Iran.’ I understand the threat of Iran. But what I know is that the Soviet Union had the ability to destroy the world several times over, had satellites spanning the globe, had huge masses of conventional military power all directed at destroying us, and so I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave, but what I’ve said is that we should not just talk to our friends, we should be willing to engage our enemies as well, that's what diplomacy is all about.

“So let me be absolutely clear. Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program, it supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq, it threatens Israel’s existence, it denies the holocaust. But this threat has grown, primarily – and this is the irony - the reason Iran is so much more powerful now than it was a few years ago is because of the Bush-McCain policy of fighting an endless war in Iraq and refusing to pursue direct diplomacy with Iran. They're the ones who have not dealt with Iran wisely. Make no mistake, Iran is the single biggest beneficiary of a war in Iraq that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged. Thanks to George Bush's policies, Iran is now the greatest threat to the United States and Israel and the Middle East for a generation; and John McCain wants to double down on that failed policy.

“And John McCain is right that the greatest threat we’d face is a terrorist with a nuclear weapon; that's why when he was busy supporting a war against a country that had no nuclear weapons, I was busy in the Senate working with Republican ####### Lugar to pass legislation to secure loose nuclear weapons and loose nuclear materials around the world. That's why I’ve made it clear that I'll secure all loose nuclear materials around the world during my first term. But when you're running for George Bush's third term, it's hard to make a case on the merits. So John McCain’s using the same George Bush textbook that we've seen year and after year after year. Anything other than continuing a war in Iraq has been called -- that has been called the greatest strategic blunder in recent American history, he calls naive. Anything but their failed cowboy diplomacy that’s produced no results is called appeasement.

“Here's the truth: the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't have a single one. But when the world was on the brink of nuclear holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba. Why shouldn't we have the same courage and the confidence to talk to our enemies? That's what strong countries do, that's what strong presidents do, that's what I'll do when I'm president of the United States of America.

“So, you know, for all their tough talk, one of the things you have to ask yourself is what are George Bush and John McCain afraid of? Demanding that a country meets all your conditions before you meet with them, that's not a strategy; it's just naïve, wishful thinking. I'm not afraid that we'll lose some propaganda fight with a dictator. It's time for America to win those battles, because we've watched George Bush lose them year after year after year. It's time to restore our security and our standing in the world.

“And you can vote for John McCain and nothing will change. We'll keep fighting a war in Iraq that hasn't made us safer. We’ll keep talking tough in Washington while countries like Iran ignore our tough talk. Or we can turn the page. We can restore the tradition of tough, disciplined and principled direct diplomacy that we've always used to protect the American people and advance America's interests. That's what Kennedy did, that's what Reagan did, and that's what I will do as president of the United States of America. That's a fundamental difference between myself and John McCain.“

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/050..._afraid_of.html

[GaryC 7]

Obama in Billings, Montana:

“John McCain, yesterday, decided to attack me for saying that Iran does not pose as great of a threat as the Soviet Union did. And so if we were willing to talk to Gorbachev, if we were willing to talk to Khrushchev, then there's no reason why we shouldn't talk to Iran. Seems like common sense.

“So John McCain, he said, ‘Oh, Obama doesn't understand the threat of Iran.’ I understand the threat of Iran. But what I know is that the Soviet Union had the ability to destroy the world several times over, had satellites spanning the globe, had huge masses of conventional military power all directed at destroying us, and so I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave, but what I’ve said is that we should not just talk to our friends, we should be willing to engage our enemies as well, that's what diplomacy is all about.

“So let me be absolutely clear. Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program, it supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq, it threatens Israel’s existence, it denies the holocaust. But this threat has grown, primarily – and this is the irony - the reason Iran is so much more powerful now than it was a few years ago is because of the Bush-McCain policy of fighting an endless war in Iraq and refusing to pursue direct diplomacy with Iran. They're the ones who have not dealt with Iran wisely. Make no mistake, Iran is the single biggest beneficiary of a war in Iraq that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged. Thanks to George Bush's policies, Iran is now the greatest threat to the United States and Israel and the Middle East for a generation; and John McCain wants to double down on that failed policy.

“And John McCain is right that the greatest threat we’d face is a terrorist with a nuclear weapon; that's why when he was busy supporting a war against a country that had no nuclear weapons, I was busy in the Senate working with Republican ####### Lugar to pass legislation to secure loose nuclear weapons and loose nuclear materials around the world. That's why I’ve made it clear that I'll secure all loose nuclear materials around the world during my first term. But when you're running for George Bush's third term, it's hard to make a case on the merits. So John McCain’s using the same George Bush textbook that we've seen year and after year after year. Anything other than continuing a war in Iraq has been called -- that has been called the greatest strategic blunder in recent American history, he calls naive. Anything but their failed cowboy diplomacy that’s produced no results is called appeasement.

“Here's the truth: the Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't have a single one. But when the world was on the brink of nuclear holocaust, Kennedy talked to Khrushchev and he got those missiles out of Cuba. Why shouldn't we have the same courage and the confidence to talk to our enemies? That's what strong countries do, that's what strong presidents do, that's what I'll do when I'm president of the United States of America.

“So, you know, for all their tough talk, one of the things you have to ask yourself is what are George Bush and John McCain afraid of? Demanding that a country meets all your conditions before you meet with them, that's not a strategy; it's just naïve, wishful thinking. I'm not afraid that we'll lose some propaganda fight with a dictator. It's time for America to win those battles, because we've watched George Bush lose them year after year after year. It's time to restore our security and our standing in the world.

“And you can vote for John McCain and nothing will change. We'll keep fighting a war in Iraq that hasn't made us safer. We’ll keep talking tough in Washington while countries like Iran ignore our tough talk. Or we can turn the page. We can restore the tradition of tough, disciplined and principled direct diplomacy that we've always used to protect the American people and advance America's interests. That's what Kennedy did, that's what Reagan did, and that's what I will do as president of the United States of America. That's a fundamental difference between myself and John McCain.“

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/050..._afraid_of.html

Kennedy didn't talk to Khrushchev, it was all done through back channels. Not once in the Cuban missile crisis did they talk in person. Reagan only talked to the USSR from a position of strength. He had a "take it or leave it" attitude with them. Obama needs to study American history a little more.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think he's quite right to say that the Iraq war has basically given Iran a big leg-up.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

"From a position of strength"....

So what kind of position do you think an American president is in? A position of weakness? We are the worlds only superpower, for fukcs sake.... simply being an American president is "a position of strength"

[GaryC 7]

"From a position of strength"....

So what kind of position do you think an American president is in? A position of weakness? We are the worlds only superpower, for fukcs sake.... simply being an American president is "a position of strength"

Obama will go there, hat in hand, and beg them to play nice. Obama is a wimp.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

"From a position of strength"....

So what kind of position do you think an American president is in? A position of weakness? We are the worlds only superpower, for fukcs sake.... simply being an American president is "a position of strength"

Obama will go there, hat in hand, and beg them to play nice. Obama is a wimp.

Because you say so, of course

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

"From a position of strength"....

So what kind of position do you think an American president is in? A position of weakness? We are the worlds only superpower, for fukcs sake.... simply being an American president is "a position of strength"

Absolutely - but slightly the position is slightly less strong these days, due to the damage the current lot have done to this country's reputation abroad.

[GaryC 7]

"From a position of strength"....

So what kind of position do you think an American president is in? A position of weakness? We are the worlds only superpower, for fukcs sake.... simply being an American president is "a position of strength"

The UN, a supposed spokesman for the world, has tried to talk to Iran. They have passed resolution after resolution in an attempt to get them to give up their ways. Obama seems to think that he can, single handedly, get them to change. He has delusions of grandeur.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The UN is weak and pathetic. The United States is not.

Gary, are you suggesting if the UN can't do something that we can not? Is your opinion of the power of the United States really that low?

[GaryC 7]

The UN is weak and pathetic. The United States is not.

Gary, are you suggesting if the UN can't do something that we can not? Is your opinion of the power of the United States really that low?

No, I am suggesting that some countries can't be reasoned with. Until Iran changes its leadership, talking to them is useless.

[HAL 9000 96]

So invade them instead?

[GaryC 7]

So invade them instead?

There you go again. Isolate them, punish them economically and if they make any overt move on their neighbors attack them.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The UN is weak and pathetic. The United States is not.

Gary, are you suggesting if the UN can't do something that we can not? Is your opinion of the power of the United States really that low?

No, I am suggesting that some countries can't be reasoned with. Until Iran changes its leadership, talking to them is useless.

I am suggesting that your line of reasoning is weakness.

[HAL 9000 96]

So invade them instead?

There you go again. Isolate them, punish them economically and if they make any overt move on their neighbors attack them.

And there you go again... who's going to pay for that adventure? You or all of our grandkids?

I think its safe to say that if they were to make overt moves on any of our allies they'd be receiving a couple of cruise missiles anyway so what's the deal with punishing if there is no proof of them doing anything wrong? Oh, right... Bush says they are part of the axis of evil so that must mean they are up to no good. If anyone should be punished its those that are rushing to hunger for war. I think the majority of the American electorate already learned one lesson in Iraq. Strange to see that McCain is trying to tone down the rhetoric on one side while trying to appease the more fanatical wing of his Party with talk of National Security ala being internationally offensive.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So invade them instead?

There you go again. Isolate them, punish them economically and if they make any overt move on their neighbors attack them.

With what?

Paper darts made out of the IOU letters?

Strong language?