ARTICLE: McCain: Obama's Iran remarks show inexperience, By LIBBY QUAID, AP, May 19, 2008
Good God! This is a stupid argument. Nobody in their right mind--strategically--would ever pretend to compare Iran's threat to that of the Soviet Empire.
Not even in the same f--king zip code.
Come on! We let our national discussion get reduced to this?
Nothing compares: not the strategic threat, not the support for terror, not the ideological threat, not the conventional threat, not the technology threat--none of that stuff from Iran comes anywhere close to the threat of the Soviet Bloc, and anybody selling that is either goofy or a fear-monger.
McCain has really got to rein it in, for the sake of his future and the future of this country--in case he wins.
| Permalink |
Comments (7)
this is an election year,and of course,normally in order to capitalize
on the powerfull jewish supports,the candidates bend backward to
appease them,and i may say rightfully,for have these powerfull force
be against you,your career definetly will be in jeaupredy.As the issue
of leverage on Iran goes,Thomas Friedman also mentions that,the
problem is not just Iran,rather,he sees that US is niether liked,or feared,or respected in the eyes of the masses of Arabs in the street.
and i may say unniversally.he states,US has to get a grip on the economic,education,infrstructure,and other domestical problems in order to gain that respect & leadership,only a strong America can be
support for Israel and he base his vote on that.if you look at the so called "missed opporunity" mentioned by Gates in 2005 or even before During Khatami,i think it was a deliberate policy to drive off the reform movement in Iran,by placing it in the axes of evil even though Iran was helping in Afganistan,and elsewhere, in order to strengthen the hardliners in Iran,and kill the mass reform movement.
so aside from politic of word exchanges,the hardliners both in the US,
and in Iran help each other.a good example is as soon the heat of US attack died down somewhat, the mullas were scared about the
people movement,and we can see how Bush and cheny want to come to thier rescue.
Posted by farhad | May 23, 2008 8:08 AM
When I heard McCain say that, my first thought was, "Is Tom's brain going to explode or are his eyes just going to pop out?"
Don't worry Tom, McCain won't get elected, he's a long time senator, and he's just getting warmed up on the galactically stupid statements.
Posted by Hugh | May 23, 2008 11:12 AM
Hugh, I'd like to nominate you for the Best and Most Insightful Comment of Election '08. And only an elegant 23 words long.
Posted by le0pard13 | May 23, 2008 3:33 PM
From the same piece: "McCain said farm subsidy payments, like those in the farm bill Congress recently sent to Bush, are the biggest obstacle to global trade deals."
I wonder if it's better to define him by his politics or by his economics?
Posted by Joe Blizzard
|
May 25, 2008 8:55 AM
define him by the wars he promises to start. The economics won't matter if he starts another war.
Posted by hof1991 | May 25, 2008 1:47 PM
If people believe Obama then they will believe John McCain.
Posted by Mike | May 25, 2008 3:21 PM
"hof1991" wrote:
> define him by the wars he promises to start.
Promises shmomises. Have you noticed how candidates Smoot and Hawley over on the D side still refer to a nuclear Iran as an intolerable threat when the're pandering to ill-informed voters? The only real difference is they don't put it to a Beach Boys melody.
Posted by Joe Blizzard
|
May 26, 2008 7:22 AM