Obama Tells 75,000 Oregonians Iran is ‘not a threat’ to US
Rick Moran - May 19, 2008
American Thinker
Barack Obama has tried his best to conceal the fact that underneath all the soothing rhetoric about “change” and being a new kind of politician, he is nothing but a 1960’s style liberal with some incredibly naive views about American foreign policy.
Yesterday in front of 75,000 adoring fans, Obama really let his inner liberal take over and made one of the most outrageously stupid comments of the campaign to date. If the GOP were smart, they would take this comment and run it from now until November.
-
This remarkable bit of footage from Barack Obama’s appearance in Oregon last night is now floating around on YouTube. It might be useful as an undergraduate course exam: how many errors can you spot? Obama apparently believes that Iran and other rogues states (he lists Iran, Cuba and Venezuela) “don’t pose a serious threat to the U.S.” Iran, specifically, he tells us spends so little on defense relative to us that if Iran “tried to pose a serious threat to us they wouldn’t . . . they wouldn’t stand a chance.”
So, taken literally, he seems not much concerned about Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, its sponsorship of terrorist organizations, its commitment to eradicate Israel, its current actions in supplying weapons that have killed hundreds of Americans in Iraq, and its role in eroding Lebanon’s sovereignty through its client Hezbollah.
Echoes of the ’60’s to be sure. At that time, even the Soviets weren’t considered a threat because they would never start a war due to their losing 20 million in World War II. Of course, it is never brought up that the Soviets were perfectly willing to assist Hitler in starting the war by making a secret pact with the Nazi dictator that carved up Poland and deliniated spheres of influence for the two powers.
And we know now that the period from 1983-85, Soviet leaders were actively contemplating a first strike against the United States before our conventional military build up was complete.
So it should come as no surprise that Obama - a man whose associations with 1960’s radicals is documented and who has immersed himself in liberal dogma his entire adult life - should come out and say something so ridiculous that it is going to cost him considerably at the polls.
How many more gaffes like this does the candidate have in him? Let’s hope there are several between now and the election.
Ed Lasky adds:
-
Going beyond Jennifer Rubin’s valuable comments about Barack Obam’s benign view of Iran, why are we just hearing these views said so explicitly now? Could it be that Barack Obama, on the cusp of securing the Democratic Party nomination, no longer has to cover his true views?
Furthermore, there has been a spate of articles the last week speculating that he feels secure in being able to capture enough of the Jewish vote (whcih is not necessarily pro-Israel) in key states that he feels he can dismiss concerns about Iran and Israel. How does that relate to his early supporters who all but shilled for him regarding his “love for Israel”, the steadfastness of his support for the nation? Will he be as dismissive towards them going forward as he has been towards Israel?
He seems all but ready to ignore the entire region-including regional allies-whose views towards America may be less than perfect but whose cooperation going forward will depend on their feelings that America will be alert to the threat posed by Iran and form in resisting, if not rolling back, Iranian imperialism run amok. Beyond these concerns, his naivete is remarkable. Pollyanish attitudes are perilous for a President to have; Hope is not a foreign policy. It is a Hallmark Card sentiment and a campaign slogan.
Rich Baehr agrees that “this is exactly what is going on- he has won, and is now basking in the love of his partisans on the left, who have won control of the Democratic Party.”
If so, it will be interesting to see how the press plays this dramatic shift leftward.
See video Obama and the Military Budget
This person is beneath contempt. I would loath to call him a man.
Comment by Ed D — May 19, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
Would Obama negotiate with Osama Bin Laden? Has anyone asked him? If Iran is not a threat then why is Alqueda a threat? 19 men and some box cutters. Iran is building a nuclear weapon.
Comment by Happy-balagan — May 19, 2008 @ 5:44 pm
[...] are up in arms over Senator Obama’s comments that the threat from Iran is “minuscule” [...]
Pingback by Seriously | Comments from Left Field — May 19, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
how ridiculous comparing himself to Reagan. Reagan “negotiated” with the Soviets from the condition of we intend to win the cold war (see )
Reagan negotiated in order to reduce the chance for nuclear obliteration. he never intended to give the Soviets credibility or legitimacy or pretended the were anything but the “evil empire”. Barry is so ignorant of foreign policy and diplomacy it is frightening.
Comment by aprpeh.comments — May 19, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
How much does a nuclear bomb cost, and how much would Iran have to pay terrorists to detonate it in an American city? I think the bomb costs less than a few million dollars (if they can get the fissile materials, which is the chief barrier).
Comment by Bill Levinson — May 19, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
If JI and FGW are correct, then he is telling the truth (not that I’m an Obama fan). Iran is an enemy of Israel, or the US. It’s hard for me to fathom that Iran is an enemy of both, particularly after noticing the friendly reception Ahmadinejad gets in the US and in US media.
Comment by jrob — May 19, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
A future President Obama will be an isolationist and an appeaser.
He is the logical successor to a GOP reign that people are tired of not because of the war but because of incompetence, manipulation, a lack of professionalism and the dearth of real objectives and targets in the endless war.
For instance, the US did not finish its work in Afghanistan before moving on to Iraq. Iraq was a deserving target but Iran, Hamas, the PA, and Hezbollah should have been next in line as they are the true terrorists - Iraq was another dangerous dictatorship strangulating its own people and out to get its neighbors. For that they deserved regime change but not a six year war conducted badly, with too much troop exposure, at great massive expensive to the US and with winning the hearts and minds as the objective rather than a full force deployed to do the job quickly, install American leadership and secure oil supplies to pay for the expenses and reconstruction.
There was a definite two or three-tiered approach by the US to terrorist groups – those who directly attack America were considered the worst; those who targeted Israel and the Balkans were treated as political pawns and not quite as dangerous. We could negotiate and do business with them as required. We could even allow them their own recognized countries carved out of our allies’ homelands.
It amazes me to hear people on the left say that they support Obama. Obama is the over-reaction candidate, the one who is out to punish those who view terror as a real threat and want to fight against it. Obama thinks that siding with the enemy and speaking sweet words of wisdom will somehow allay their violent tendencies and hatred.
Obama, once in office, will find that his policies of appeasement - ignoring or carving up true allies will really isolate America. China, Russia and others will fill the void with their particular brands of self-serving politics and dogma. Iran will have its nuclear bombs and Pakistan’s arsenal will be in danger of a takeover by even more dangerous Islamists.
Comment by Gary — May 20, 2008 @ 6:46 am
jrob
The position of Belman, Gordon and Levinson is most clear. They have pushed Israpundit into the hands of the NeoCons and so are pushing Jews into terrible dangers.
The total emphasis on attacking Obama, quiet about Clinton, but their promotion of McCain proves this, because McCain is the candidate of the NeoCons.
These guys are going to have a lot to answer for.
There is every chance that McCain will choose Lieberman as a running mate and so he should because they were joined together in the Imperialist destruction of Yugoslavia out of which they promoted TWO Islamofascist states in Europe.
There is not a cigarette paper to choose between these three candidates. Clinton and McCain (with Lieberman) however are the ones who have much Serb blood on their hands, including the beheading of Serb peasants by Islamists from Arabia.
Belman in his promotion of McCain/Lieberman has forgotten all of this. He is now actively hiding this.
It is quite a disgusting episode in the history of Jewish blogging.
I have long ago asked Ted to remove my name from the list at the top of Israpundit. Last time I checked it was still there right beside Levinson and that causes me great concern.
Jrob I just find it hard to get my head around the nature of this treachery.
If Belman thinks that McCain Lieberman will not give the same medecine to the Jews of Israel that they gave to the Serbs in their promotion of Islamist states in Europe he is way off mark. Of course they will.
The correct approach was to expose Obama, expose Clinton who was behind her husband and to expose both McCain and Lieberman all for what they did to the Serbs.
Comment by Felix Quigley — May 20, 2008 @ 10:30 am
Not everybody is asleep though. This is an extract from an article by one Cliff Kincaid, (who on most things I do not agree with)
He writes:
McCain Supports Radical Muslims In Kosovo
By Cliff Kincaid
March 27, 2008
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/ckincaid/2008/ck_03271.shtml
Comment by Felix Quigley — May 20, 2008 @ 10:34 am
Felix, as it turns out I don’t know how to remove you. I am working on it.
Secondly, I attack Obama because he is the the worst of the lot. I have much criticism of Hillary and McCain but I chose McCain over the three of them. You advocate I should attack all of them. To what end.
When I write an opinion piece it is clear that no candidate is going to do what I recommend. I just want to avoid pressure on Israel. That’s the litmus test.
Comment by Ted Belman — May 20, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Let see Felix you have taken as a litmus test Serbia and Kosovo and how the Bad Americans and Europeans did a very bad thing against Serbia. Well so what, Where were your guys when America was fighting in Nam and SE Asia against some very bad Trotskyite Types who murdered before America and after America some millions of Vietnamese? Where were Your guys when America almost alone fought the N. Koreans and Chinese under another pseudo Trotskyite Mao. Or those nice guys in Cuba, and lets not forget the Sandinista? You guys preaching revolutions while you are safe and sound always replace bad people with even worse bad people. You want world revolution get the hell out of safe Spain and go to where you can inspire and direct your revolutions. Why are you not siding with your Basque neighbors They have at least as much rights as the Serbs? Could it be it is too close to Home for you and you might not be appreciated by the Spanish Authorities?
Comment by yamit82 — May 20, 2008 @ 10:59 am
Hussein and his cult followers ought not to count their chickens before they are hatched. The punk hasn’t secured the nomination.
This guy proves more and more every day how extremely dangerous he is to this country. He must be stopped at all costs.
Comment by Laura — May 20, 2008 @ 3:28 pm
I now laugh at the idea that the Iranian President is a threat. The greatest threat facing the Presidency of the United States of America is now the new face of terrorism: Obama!
Comment by sunstartmf33 — May 20, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
Felix & Ted,
I appreciate both of your views. Basically, I concur w/FGW and JI (please note that they have no relationship to each other, lest I upset JI), that Iran is not enemies with the US. IMO, this big ‘fight’ with Iran is kayfabe (pro-wrestling histrionics). When it’s all said and done, it will probably just be another attack on Israel (stripping Israel of nukes or something similar).
I view all 3 candidates as anathema, though I do think that Obama is the most odious. This the nadir of US history–the elevation of an open, out of the closet Husseini/Sharpton type to the highest office in the land. The Dulles brothers, the Henry Fords and their ilk are getting their ultimate revenge.
Comment by jrob — May 20, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
Ted
Why attack the 3 candidates? Your question! To what end!
To the end that it is vital to have all aspects of the truth cone out in this election.
And you are giving McCain and Lieberman a free pass in this election. You cannot do that and be credible or honourable. in another thread Levinson seems to again be economical with the truth. I oppose all 3 of these cadidates and thus any suggestion I am easy on Obama is false.
But there is a direct line between Yugoslavia and the Middle East. Clearly there is. If anybody denies this and denies the links I made between McCain/Lieberman, Bosnia, Izetbegovic, Bin Laden in Bosnia and Kosovo, acquiring his base and 9-11, then I know I am talking to frauds.
On that issue there is NO difference between the Democrats and McCain.
The most vital issue in this US election is being left under the carpet.
As always the vital questions are being hidden by a ruling class elite and Media cabal. Jews will not win on that track. It will come back to haunt you.
Comment by Felix Quigley — May 21, 2008 @ 9:31 am
In most democracy’s The so called ruling classes are the ones who control the politicians not the idiot politicians. These ruling classes or big vested interested parties will vary from country to country but be assured people in most democracy’s are manipulated and few realize that, mostly because vested interests back both sides so they can’t loose. Obama said something I think in his speech in Oregon that Americans cannot consume 40% of the worlds natural resources and 25 % of the worlds energy resources. In the world today at some point those have not nations are going to get awfully pissed off at America and when that happens , it will make Iraq like like child’s play.Why for example should the American tax payer support those crooks in PA who will and have stolen the bulk of American aid for themselves. ergo America supports corruption and corrupt systems and leaders with billion and can show little positive results from most of these giveaways?
Comment by yamit82 — May 21, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
Yamit82
You really are a political fool and an ignorant one at that. You know nothing about history or you would understand something of the history of the Trotskyist movement in both China and Vietnam. Also my Serbian friends will note that everything you write about the Serbs expresses your scorn.
About myself and try to grasp this is quite independent of you Yamit82, we use our own name and we put our name on the line in support of Israel and the Jewish national home.
You do not seem to like that. Well too bad. A political incompetent like you is not going to stop me personally.
You just do not like the idea that an atheist and a communist can be a supporter of Israel do you.
But if you do not want to debate the points I made above about the links between McCain/Lieberman and Bin Laden that is ok but do not start some kind of witch hunt.
YOU IGNORED EVERY SINGLE POINT I MADE ABOUT HOW MCCAIN FACILITATED BIN LADEN IN BOSNIA AND KOSOVO.
You think that is of no importance. Wise up.
People like you will do enormous damage to Israel.
Comment by Felix Quigley — May 22, 2008 @ 10:35 am
Felix, I am not clear on what you mean when you say:
Please elaborate. Thx.
Comment by Bill Narvey — May 22, 2008 @ 10:55 am
What threat is Iran to the U.S.?
Comment by Michael Ejercito — May 22, 2008 @ 11:44 am
This is another problem Americans will have with Obama.
The resources do not belong to the world as a whole. For the most part, Americans have purchased these resources that they import.
Comment by Michael Ejercito — May 22, 2008 @ 11:59 am
Bill
Let me amend…many things..but I was thinking of the McCain support for Izetbegovic in Bosnia and in Kosovo at the same time Izetbegovic and his Bosnian Governemnt was providing the physical base for Bin Laden, which he used to build his organization over many years, and that made possible 9-11
Comment by Felix Quigley — May 23, 2008 @ 5:47 am
Felix, I believe it is at least useful, if not vital that America revisit the issue of whether they chose the right side under the Clinton administration as regards the Serb-Muslim Balkans war of the 1990’s. We can only learn from history, so getting history right can be instructive on current policy and on choosing the path forward.
Your castigating McCain for his support of Izetbegovic during that war, serves no useful purpose. The American position in that regard was under the Clinton administration. Assuming you are right that McCain gave unequivocal support to the Muslims during the Balkan wars, so did the Democratic party under Clinton.
In the result, none of the 3 candidates are about to re-examine America’s position and roll in that war, especially since that piece of history is not a pressing issue of concern to American voters. What is of concern is the American economy, immigration and specifically the issue of what to do about illegal immigration and illegal immigrants, Iraq of course and America’s foreign policies, especially in the Middle East generally speaking.
I therefore disagree that it is of vital importance to the American Presidential campaign to re-examine America’s position and role during the 1990’s Balkan wars. That is an issue that might be taken up by the next President, if Serbs and persons who share your views and beliefs can get them to deal with it. That I think most likely could be accomplished if the Main Stream Media were to make that an issue.
Comment by Bill Narvey — May 23, 2008 @ 10:24 am
McCain with his “League of Democracies” approach is a new name for the “Transformational Diplomacy” of Condoleezza Rice and NATO transformation plan of James Jones, the whole Bush administration idea of nation-building and creating democracies like the Hamas led PA, Kosovo, Iraq, all over the world and in the Middle East as the way to defeat terrorism. Now interestingly, the Constitution of the Iraqi “democracy” enshrines Islam as the state religion and while saying it’s a democratic nation, says that nothing that contradicts Islam is allowed — so democracy is limited, it’s really a theodemocracy. Interestingly, one of the people who worked on that Constitution is the infamous M. Cherif Bassiouni (Felix probably knows who I’m talking about), and just a few weeks ago Bassiouni won a major victory in pushing the U.S. to agree to the International Criminal Court (ICC)–which lays the groundwork for Israel to be tried for crimes against humanity, and I do believe (given Bassiouni’s writings and that he is a top legal jihadist who goes around training CAIR, for ex), that such an attempt will be made. McCain would accelerate all of this, going full speed in the wrong direction–he’s openly stated his approach.
Comment by soren — May 23, 2008 @ 11:17 am
Well Bill
You want to know about McCain or you don’t!!!
If you do then his whole history is in the frame and there is no part of it that shows his poliitcs more or better than his role with Lieberman in Yugoslavia.
OK then elect a man who with Clinton worked with Iran and created TWO Islamofascist states in Europe.
Comment by Felix Quigley — May 24, 2008 @ 8:10 am