Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Obama: McCain Is “Obsessed” With Ahmadinejad And Iran

Personally, I’d say one of Obama’s biggest problems is that he’s not obsessed enough with Iran and all the other threats facing this country.

Obama added that his views on dialogue with Cuba and with Iran followed the same guidelines. “And what I’ve said is I would be willing to meet without preconditions, but with a lot of preparation — and this is the same argument that we’ve been having with respect to Iran,” he said.

“John McCain essentially wants to continue George Bush’s policies of not talking to leaders we don’t like and not talking to countries we don’t like. It has been a failed policy,” said the Illinois senator, adding that Iran had gotten stronger because President Bush “engaged in a war in Iraq that John McCain facilitated that has strengthened Iran.”

McCain suggested at a Chicago campaign event Monday that Obama doesn’t understand the “basic realities of international relations” and that engaging Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad diplomatically would only embolden him.

“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,” said McCain, who frequently criticizes Ahmedinajad on the campaign trail. “Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment.”

Obama said Tuesday that “this obsession with Ahmadinejad is an example of us losing track of what’s important.

Am I the only one thinking Obama’s preconditions/preparation distinction smells remarkably like the same sort of waffles that did John Kerry in?  And what are these preparations Obama would insist on?  And why didn’t he start talking about them until after he started taking heat on the issue of diplomacy with Iran?

Once again, with Obama all we’re getting is a bunch of nice campaign patter but not a lot of substance.

And by the way, Bush’s foreign policy has hardly made Iran stronger as Obama suggests.  What has made Iran stronger is weak-willed diplomacy from the UN and certain European countries.  They’ve been talking and talking and talking with Iran for years trying to get the country to stop its nuclear program and comply with international standards, but all it’s done is allowed Iran to drag its feet diplomatically and continue developing its nuclear technology.

I’d like to know what sort of talking Obama plans on doing that will be any different from all the talking other nations have done with Iran already.

Comments

What is sad is that so many people buy into this Obama mania. They are sadly misguided and deluding themselves, as they dismiss his connections with guy like the so-called Rev. Wright. He is back and forth on issues, demonstrating his utter lack of comprehension of even basic foriegn policy. He is nothing new, just a rehash of the past in a new package. Can you say William Ayers? Isn’t he also taking up the cause as put forward by Sal Alinsky?

How pathetic. Has the ND Dems picked a side? I am sure they will side with the Obama, but I am just wondering.

C.

Chris Brownell on May 20, 2008 at 05:17 pm

Never underestimate the desire for a free lunch by dysfunctional slackers!

Kevin on May 20, 2008 at 08:58 pm
Avatar for axt113

ummm, he’s pointing out that the Ayatollah is in charge, not Ahmadinejad.

Yeah i know facts, the worst enemy of the right wing

axt113 on May 20, 2008 at 09:16 pm

You don’t know very much then axt113. 

Who the president of Iran is matters in terms of how its foreign policy gets set.  The ayatollahs mostly act a capacity similar to our Supreme Court, they are the final arbiters of what is “legal.”

But they aren’t “in charge” in the sense of running the country.

Facts are the enemies of the ignorant.

Carrick on May 21, 2008 at 05:32 am

Hey ‘axt113’ could you explain how that changes anything? Doesn’t the fact that the Obama is willing to sitdown with a terrorist representitive and negotiate with out pre conditions, only serve to make the Obama look THAT MUCH MORE foolish and sophmoric?

Would it be better if the Obama went and negotiated with out preconditions with the Ayatolla and his ruling theocratic council directly as Neville Chamberlain did?

You are correct that facts do matter, but so does context. I know that liberals in North Dakota don’t enjoy taking the entire situation into context dealing with the facts, giving proper priorities to the important facts and making logical decisions which benefit this nation but that is what a president is supposed to do. It is what we as citizens are supposed to do.

Before you run about claiming conservatives don’t care about facts I would suggest that you take an unfettered look at your current circumstance and act accordingly.

C.
Tifosi1f1.blogspot.com

Chris Brownell on May 21, 2008 at 10:41 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.