Obama Considered Iran a Major Threat
May 22nd, 2008 at 09:11am Mark Noonan
Until he was running on the kook-left platform for the Democratic nomination - from Best of the Web Today:
Blogger Lance Adams unearths a 2004 Chicago Tribune article depicting Barack Obama–then a candidate for U.S. Senate–striking a much more hawkish tone toward Iran than he has done recently:
“In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he said.
“On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. . . . And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.” . . .
Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently.
“With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain,” Obama said. “I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations. . . .”
This is quite a contrast to Obama’s recent comment, which we noted yesterday:
“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela–these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we’re going to wipe you off the planet.”
Perhaps Obama, running in the primaries, is cynically appealing to the faction within his party that is reflexively sympathetic to America’s enemies. Or perhaps he reckons that the public mood has changed since 2004 and Americans in general are more skittish about military action.
Taranto goes on to note that Obama, installed as President, might just flip-flop back to “Iran is a threat” - but, to me, the whole thing is just another indicator of how Democrats are entirely irresponsible these days…they just don’t care. You get the distinct impression that figures that, come what may, they’ll remain rich and powerful, so everything is subordinated to the goal of greater wealth and power, and who cares what happens to America and the world? Appeasement is bad, but worse is someone who blows hot and cold - as Bill Clinton did with his periodic outbursts of military action followed by lethargy in matters of national security, the ultimate result being our enemies holding us in contempt. I’d still vote against Obama is I were sure he’d appease, but my worry is that he’ll start a war if the polling indicates that it will help him and his party go better at election time. Obama is the sort of clueless man who throughout history has generated massive wars simply by failure to understand what is happening around him.
America is too precious a bulwark of liberty to be placed in such incompetant hands as Obama’s - we need a President who will have the sense to see things as they are and the courage to do the right thing no matter what the latest poll is saying.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, War on Terror
44 Comments Add your own
1. Danish Artist | May 22nd, 2008 at 9:49 am
Remember the 75,000 people who showed up for “obama’s rally”?
Okay, we get it. At first we were a it amazed that 75,000 people would show up in Portland, Oregon to see the Obamessiah. Turns out that there were some other acts on the schedule. It wasn’t all for Barack.
It turns out, you see, that many (perhaps a majority) of these people didn’t come to see the stud, they came to see a rock concert. Not just any concert either. This particular band likes to play the Soviet national anthem.
So let me ask you this … which one is worse: The fact that 75,000 people showed up to hear a presidential candidate make a speech or the fact that 75,000 showed up to hear some longhairs who see something glam in the old Soviet Union? Oh .. and by the way, considering Barack’s past self-admitted affinity for Marxism, isn’t this choice of rock bands and their music somewhat perplexing?
Some would call this false portrayal of attendence for Barak - propaganda.
2. RogerThat | May 22nd, 2008 at 12:23 pm
“It turns out, you see, that many (perhaps a majority) of these people didn’t come to see the stud, they came to see a rock concert.”
The majority? The concert was before the rally and lasted about 45 minutes. People would have left if they didn’t want to hear Obama speak. There were 60,000 inside and 15,000 outside! Furthemore, the band is a local indie band that could only dream of pulling a quarter of that many people at a concert. Play it down all you like but the MAJORITY were there to see Obama.
3. RogerThat | May 22nd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
McCain has flip-flopped on so many different issues since starting his campaign it’s mind boggling. Obama and McCain are both guilty of changing their tune.
4. Aztec | May 22nd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
“Obama is the sort of clueless man who throughout history has generated massive wars simply by failure to understand what is happening around him.”
It must be Obama’s fault that we’re in Iraq.
5. Sunny | May 22nd, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Face it neocons, you are just sick you do not have a presidential candidate that can draw crowds like Obama does. Quit you whinning!
6. BARRASSO | May 22nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
“he’ll start a war if the polling indicates that it will help him and his party go better at election time.”
Now you are accusing him of being as stupid as Bush, we all know that’s not true.
7. Sunny | May 22nd, 2008 at 2:31 pm
“America is too precious a bulwark of liberty to be placed in such incompetant hands as Obama’s - we need a President who will have the sense to see things as they are and the courage to do the right thing no matter what the latest poll is saying.”
So what is you point? We have survied the last eight years at the hands of a very incompentant president. The thought of an intelligent president is so refreshing that I can hardly wait to see if the next one, regardless of who it is, can get us in any bigger mess than we are in right now. I just don’t think that is possible. It is going to take the next president his/her first term just to straignten out the mess of the last eight years. Don’t be afraid Mark - it can oly get better.
8. Freedom1 | May 22nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
That’s right, Danish Artist.
Free Rock Concert Preceded Big Obama Rally in Portland - NRO
Barack HUSSEIN Obama, Marxist Communist. Associated with tens of thousands of Communists (not just the ones in his own Marxist church). Pathetic.
9. Freedom1 | May 22nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
vs.
Obama is such a worldclass liar! He’s screaming to everyone who will listen - including those “certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don’t make those same calculations” - that he will appease them. Arrgh!
Barack HUSSEIN Obama is dangerous.
10. Rich | May 22nd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
“Now you are accusing him of being as stupid as Bush, we all know that’s not true.”
Well President Bush knows how many states their are in our nation. So who is the dummy?
11. Rich | May 22nd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Woops should have read “there”.
12. neocon | May 22nd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I hope everyone realizes that just two days after Oregon he proclaimed Iran to be a “grave” threat in Montana.
So I am guessing that Iran is either a threat, or not a threat depending on the day and audience.
Good to know.
13. bongoman | May 22nd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Freedom1, why do you capitalize Obama’s middle name? I notice you do it in every post.
14. neocon | May 22nd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
It’s such a beautiful name, doesn’t it deserve to be capatilized?
Plus Obama has said that his name will help open doors to establishing dialogue with Arab countries.
Question is, why would it not be capatilized?
15. Tractatus | May 22nd, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Freedom1, why do you capitalize Obama’s middle name?
Because he’s scared of brown-skinned foreign-types.
16. neocon | May 22nd, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Tractatus,
Why do you point out their skin color? Is that significant to you?
17. bongoman | May 22nd, 2008 at 7:36 pm
It’s just a curious thing to do. Something tells me you’re scared.
18. neocon | May 22nd, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Pointing out skin color is a curious thing to do??
That doesn’t make sense.
19. bongoman | May 22nd, 2008 at 8:13 pm
No, capitalising someone’s middle name doesn’t make sense. I’ve never seen it done before.
20. bongoman | May 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
It smacks of fear, no?
21. neocon | May 22nd, 2008 at 8:56 pm
No. It smacks of disdain. Which he has every right to feel.
22. Gaijin | May 22nd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Mark & Freedom1,
Is it your position that Iran poses just a great a threat, or bigger, than the Soviet Union did? Now let’s see, one had about 10,000 nuclear warheads pointed at the US, the other hasn’t even been able to make nuclear power.
One had a standing army in the millions with some of the most sophisticated weapons ever made, the other has to buy arms from Russia and China.
Ya, I can see why the Iranians are so much more dangerous than the Soviets were. Hell, let’s bomb them right this minute! You guys need to get a grip.
Obama never said that there was no possible threat from Iran. He simply pointed out that the Soviet Union was a much bigger threat to the US than Iran and we talked to them. Furthermore, he suggest that the cold war scenerios don’t apply to today’s world. Man, the truth must burn your eyes. Can’t wait til November!
Peace, gaijin.
23. Mark Noonan | May 22nd, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Sunny,
Really, the tired, old canard of President Bush not being intelligent is a rather stupid position to hold…
24. neocon | May 22nd, 2008 at 9:33 pm
gaijin,
Your arguments are as hollow as your head. There has always been and always will be low level dialogue with the Iranians and other regimes. And comparing what Reagan did to what Obama is suggesting, is astonishingly ignorant. Do you remember that Reagan called them the “Evil Empire? Much to the chagrin of liberals. He told Gorby that we would out spend and out arm them and he walked out on Gorby in Iceland. Not exactly “unconditional”.
And Obama did downplay and then upplay the threat of Iran, depending on the day and audience, so I don’t know what he thinks to be honest. But the difference between Iran and the Soviets is that the Soviets were at least sane people. The radical elements of Islam have little regard for life, thus they propose and a serious threat.
Your signature is very interesting because the policies you support will bring nothing of the sort.
25. neocon | May 22nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
And the “cold war scenarios don’t apply to todays world”?
What a load of crap! First you use Reagan as an example for what he did with the Soviets and then you call him irrelevant.
Pre-conditioned dialogue is irrelevant?
Wow.
26. Mark Noonan | May 22nd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Gaijin,
The Soviets were a major threat, but their primary interest was in maintaining themselves in power - they would (and did) ruthlessly take advantage of any American weakness and they worked diligently to undermine us at home and abroad (a great deal of the “peace” movement in the US - yes, even that extant today - owes its original existence to Soviet support)…but when push came to shove it was unlikely they’d resort to hot war with the United States because of the risks to their own lives, power and wealth.
The Iranian leadership, however, is unstable - and I mean mentally unstable. We have no real assurance that they won’t lash out in a madman’s attack…it’d be nice if we could be sure, but we can’t. If we allow them to get nukes, then we will live permanently with the fear of a sudden nuclear attack - and not just on Israel…once you’ve made an intermediate range ballistic missile (which they have) you’re more than half way to an ICBM…which means America would eventually be under Iran’s nuclear threat…the next step would be the MIRV the ICBMs and, of course, put them on submarines…bingo, we’re right back to the Cold War with Looking Glass aloft 24/7 in order to ensure that if we’re hit, we hit them back even harder…nothing like contemplating the deaths of tens of millions, huh?
I don’t want that - and if you’d think about it, you’d not want it either…and right now we can take them out, just as we could have taken out Stalin in 1948 before the USSR got nukes, and that would have spared us a lot of trouble…
27. SEW | May 22nd, 2008 at 10:01 pm
“So what is you [sic] point? We have survied [sic] the last eight years at the hands of a very incompentant [sic] president.”
Incompetent lawyer or simply dumb?
28. Dennis | May 22nd, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Deleted - mindless insults
29. Willem van Oranje | May 22nd, 2008 at 11:47 pm
The Decemberists drawing crowds of 75,000?
Hahaha, they wished. Had any of you even ever heard of them before?
They played the Wonder Ballroom in Portland, OR a couple of weeks ago. It has a capacity of 778 (550 if chairs are used).
The day before that they played the Showbox in Seattle, WA. Capacity: 1100
Need I go on?
You guys are a hoot. Keep telling each other fairy tales and deny reality, that sure will help your chances in November
30. gaijin | May 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Mark,
Obviously no one wants to see Iran with nukes. Since you are the self certified history buff, I would like you to tell us the last country that Iran attack. You can’t use the hostage crisis being that we over through their democratically elected prime minister, then installed a ruthless, murdering dictator. The hostage crisis was a repsonse to the installation of our hand picked killing despot. So other than that, what was the last coutry they attacked? Do you know the answer, or do you need to google it to find out what century it was in?
PS Extra points if you can name the same amount of wars and conflicts we have been in while the Persians have been at peace.
Peace, gaijin
31. Rich | May 22nd, 2008 at 11:58 pm
How many troops of ours did the Soviets kill? If the answer is less than the Iranians (and it might be) then would you not say Iran poses a significant threat? Never mind a kook leader looking to release the Hidden Imam.
32. js | May 23rd, 2008 at 12:09 am
so how is it that america established ruthless, murdering dictators in all the place where bad things happen….reality is we backed a regime that represented democracy in the face of communism….we didnt install a ruthless dictator…we did nothing but oppose socialism and communism…so stop flying with the lies about it all….its gettin old…
33. Mark Noonan | May 23rd, 2008 at 12:17 am
Gaijin,
Our hand picked killing despot? You do realise that the Shah was in power when Mossadegh was Prime Minister of Iran? You do realise that the Shah exercised his constitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh, and that Mossadegh refused to step down and instigated an attempt to overthrow the monarchy, aren’t you? You do realise that Mossadegh was left alive by this supposed killing despot and that Mossadegh died of natural causes in 1967, right?
I know that your cartoonish, leftwing views are easier to digest, but you really should get at the truth of the matter. Especially the fact that the Shah ascended to the Iranian throne in 1941…
Anyways…
The last country Iran has attacked? Depends - though it might be a four way tie: Israel, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran has attacked all four - by proxy, but proxy is the responsibility of the party which set it in motion…and in Iraq, at least, it has been direct…we’ve captured Iranians who were assisting the enemies of Iraq and the United States.
You should think about that - knowing that we could decide at any time to take the fight to them, they yet risked their very existence on challenging us in Iraq…this is the act of insane people, and that is what is the Iranian leadership these days…lunatics. They threaten to wipe Israel off the map, knowing full well that Israel is a nuclear power which could wipe Iran off the map…crazy!
34. Dennis | May 23rd, 2008 at 12:33 am
Deleted - off topic.
35. Dennis | May 23rd, 2008 at 12:39 am
And I forgot to include - you speak in your original post of “the sort of clueless man who throughout history has generated massive wars” yet by your words about taking Iran out in post 26 demonstrate your willingness to be just such a person.
Care to explain?
36. Gaijin | May 23rd, 2008 at 12:50 am
JS,
Are you suggesting that the Shah represented democracy? I hope not because that would be the most humorous thing posted all day.
Peace, gaijin
37. Dennis | May 23rd, 2008 at 1:01 am
Deleted - off topic.
38. Gaijin | May 23rd, 2008 at 1:21 am
Mark,
Mossadegh threatened to nationalize the BP oilfields. The US and Britian used CIA and Kermitt Roosevelt, grandson of Teddy, to undertake Operation AJAX reinstating the Shah. Mossadegh was sent to prison. After his release, he spent the rest of his life under house arrest. The Shah went on to form KGB like institutions and torture and kill people. The US supported the Shah and was even building Iran’s first nuclear reactors. Sound about right?
“but proxy is the responsibility of the party which set it in motion”
If you want to use this rational, the US has attacked many countries, some of which were democracies through the CIA and convert opps. The US has supplied groups inside of Iran to try to overthrow the government, even before the Iraq war. By the proxy logic, the US was attacking Iran even before the war.
For what it’s worth.
Peace, Gaijin
39. Sung Tung | May 23rd, 2008 at 2:14 am
“so how is it that america established ruthless, murdering dictators in all the place where bad things happen….reality is we backed a regime that represented democracy in the face of communism….we didnt install a ruthless dictator…we did nothing but oppose socialism and communism…so stop flying with the lies about it all….its gettin old…”
JS,
Try doing some research about the Shah of Iran. By the way, under his “just” leadership was the Savak, also known as Secret Police. Are Secret Police used to keep democracy intact or to deter/intimidate opponents of dictatorships? Please tell me on average how many Iranians were arrested and tortured each month (During the Shah’s rule)? How many were killed?
Was the Shah installed in order to create democracy? Or was he put in power because his his predecessor, Mohammed Mosaddeq wanted to nationalize Iran’s oil, wresting its control from the foreign-owned entities? Example: Anglo Iranian Oil Company.. you may know it as BP.
JS, is the above true or am I, “…flying with the lies about it all…”?
40. Sung Tung | May 23rd, 2008 at 3:34 am
Mark,
Regarding post 33, “You do realise that the Shah exercised his constitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh, and that Mossadegh refused to step down and instigated an attempt to overthrow the monarchy, aren’t you?”
Interesting statement. From it alone, it appears that the Shah did indeed exercise his constitutional authority, as if there was no more to it.
Could you please explain the following statement attributed to Madeleine Albright in 2000?
“In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran’s popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran’s political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs.”
41. Mark Noonan | May 23rd, 2008 at 4:07 am
Sung Tung,
No one disputes that some Iranians made great play about it…but as most Iranians live in grinding poverty and fear of their own government, I doubt that much Iranian thought is given to a coup and counter-coup from 55 years ago, especially as only about 5% of Iran’s population has any memory of it at all.
What I was pointing out, however, is that Gaijin’s view of the event is puerile.
42. Mark Noonan | May 23rd, 2008 at 4:11 am
Gaijin,
See my response to Sung Tung…you really should drop the unthinking leftwing talking points and find out what was going on…you know, if Mossadegh were as popular as the left makes him out to be, then he would have won…but he was crushed in four days; this means that there was a substantial portion of Iranian society which didn’t want to play his game. The world is not a cartoon, its a real place where real things happen…
43. neocon | May 23rd, 2008 at 9:00 am
Mark,
Mossadegh fits in with their distorted liberal paradigm. It is again another liberal revision of history. And I don’t blame people like gaijin, he is simply regurgitating what he’s been taught - garbage in, garbage out.
As evidenced by is siganture, gaijin is void of any original thought. He is a programmed, mindless liberal, of which their are many.
44. Sung Tung | May 24th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Neocon,
“As evidenced by is siganture, gaijin is void of any original thought. He is a programmed, mindless liberal, of which their are many.”
How interesting…devoid of original thought? Doesn’t that apply to you.
Why don’t you argue any of Gaijin’s points? By the way, if no one agrees with your propaganda, they are automatically “liberals” or “lefties”?
A little clue on reality. I’ve met more people overseas who more or less agree with Gaijin’s types of views than with views similar to your’s. Try arguing his points…. or is name calling your only forte?
Leave a Comment
Please report any inappropriate or abusive comments to abuse@blogsforvictory.com. Please include the blog entry title and the comment number.
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed