Obama says Iraq war makes Iran stronger, but U.S. and Israel less secure

Only hours after securing his party’s nomination, Obama tied his Republican opponent, John McCain, to the Bush administration’s Middle East policies, which Obama described as disastrous.

But Obama, you're tied to Jimmy Carter's policies. Your supporters may be too young to remember how disastrous they were, but I'm not.

" “As president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security,” "

Liar, liar, pants on fire. Obamas ignorance about the Middle East and bias against Israel is the single biggest reason why the election of this man is incredibly dangerous.

WhiteHawk,

It's been 28 years since Carter was President and since then the situation in the Middle East has spiraled downward.

I don't see how Obama is tied to Carter's policies. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate. Even if he were, however, whatever we have done since Carter has not worked. Perhaps the shift away from diplomacy was not such a good idea.

WilliB,

What bias against Israel would you be talking about?

And as for ignorance about the Middle East, Obama's vote against giving Bush the license to give free display of his ignorance of the Middle East is looking like a good call.

It's popular now to blame Jimmy Carter for not supporting our ally the Shah. I'm not sure what type of support would have made a difference to this terminally-ill autocrat, his heir was still a teenager when the old man kicked the bucket in 1980, making it highly unlikely he could have held on to power. Dynasties came and went in Persia; this one was founded in 1923 by Reza Pahlavi, the father of the man who fled. The previous shah had been all of age 9.

The question remains whether we could have brought the Islamic Republic onboard to overthrow the Taliban and Saddam, regimes that were both loathed by the mullahs in Tehran. Today they find the presence of U.S. troops in two border countries more threatening and are doing their best to cause trouble.

I've always felt the Iran Contra fiasco under Reagan made subsequent administrations extremely risk averse to thinking out of the box as far as Iran is concerned. John McCain has suggested tightening sanctions. The thing is, sanctions have had no effect on reigining in the behavior of Iran. They do, however, make life more difficult for ordinary people while presenting opportunities for profiteering to the elite.

Obama said Wednesday there is no greater threat to Israel than Iran," Wait, that is going counter to die hard Obama supporters here on JT who feel Iran is all in the right - sushi, Adaydream,

which “supports violent extremists” and “pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race.” This too, I have been told countless times that their pursuit is for peaceful purposes by Sushi and Adaydream. Why does Obama have it right now? All those threats were known in 2002, he said, yet the Bush administration “ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq.” This is almost like saying we should have went into Iran instead of Iraq.....

I am amazed at how western leaders place so much importance on Israel's security, its always at the top of the list. Actually, I know why the leaders do it, what truly amazes me is how the public in western countries go along with it.

The Iraq war certainly did remove the threat Saddam posed to Iran ( anyone remember the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war? ). But otherwise Obama doesn't know what he's talking about. Anyone who thinks having Saddam in charge of Iraq made the U.S. and Israel more secure doesn't know what he or she is talking about.

Sorry Sarge, The Israelis sold weapons to Iran in the 1980s because they saw Saddam and his pan-Arabism as much more threatening to the survival of their state. Jerusalem really has a much better feel for all the ancient rivalries than most Americans who can't tell one Muslim from the next. Israel recognized the Persians are not well liked by Arabs since the former look down on the latter as having no culture.

As for Ahmadinejad's threat to wipe Israel off the map, he doesn't have the power to put that into effect. The role of the President is akin to the VP in the US (prior to Dick Cheney). That isn't to say Israel shouldn't feel threatened, only that neighboring Arab states feel more threatened by the ascendance of Iran which they blame on the policies of the GWB administration.

Betzee - What are you sorry about?

"the ascendance of Iran"

Have they been ascending? In spite of all their awl, their economy sucks.

sarge, you are the one who don't know what you are talking about. Give me a break! Who was Saddam's ally in this war? who supplied him with weapons?

Proffesor - We did! But that was before Saddam invaded Kuwait. Any other questions?

So, Iran has gone from no threat to a grave threat in Obamaland. This after he accused hillary of sounding like Mr. Bush when she said essentially the same thing months ago.

What's next from a person who'll say anything he thinks the voters want to hear just so that he will get elected? Start complaining that Mr. Bush hasn't invaded Iran.

RR

I am amazed at how western leaders place so much importance on Israel's security, its always at the top of the list.

Why would you be amazed? When talking about China, western leaders voice concerns about Taiwan's security. Are you amazed then? When talking about North Korea, western leaders talk about Japan's security. Are you amazed then? Is it only when Israel is mentioned that you suddenly become 'amazed'.

Actually, I know why the leaders do it, what truly amazes me is how the public in western countries go along with it.

Oh, never mind. It seems you are not 'amazed'. However, from what you often right, it is easy to see you actually have no facts to base your theories upon. Just more blaming 'media supposedly owned by your favorite religious group of people'.

sorry, having trouble getting my fingers to type correctly...

that should have been:

However, from what you often write, it is easy to see you actually have no facts to base your theories upon. Just more blaming 'media supposedly owned by your favorite religious group of people'.

Indeed, my apologies for apologizing, Sarge. Having an economy in the toilet is no deterrent to flexing your muscles via weapons, otherwise why would we care about North Korea? Nukes are a great equalizer and that's why so many want to acquire them regardless of whether their citizens have enough to eat.

During the Republican primaries earlier this year it seemed most candidates were vying to be the next Ronald Reagan. Yet RR never wrote off diplomacy as "appeasement." When he negotiated with Gorbachev, many on the Right thumped their chests and proclaimed, "We don't negotiate with evil we defeat it."

This seems to the the guiding motto of the GWB administration. Yet where has it gotten us? We find ourselves largely bereft of allies and sinking under a mountain of debt. No NATO member is going to put more troops into Afghanistan where Tehran is willing to back any insurgent group (and there are quite a few) to prevent the Karzai government from becoming too strong and a partner in any U.S.-initiated action against Iran.

Wow, the Republicans are now trying to blame the outcome of George Bush's policies - which have no doubt strengthened and emboldened Iran - on Jimmy Carter and Obama.

The Republicans' delusion gets funnier by the day.

Bush and co. - with the unthinking, ignorant and reckless backing of Republican supporters (including many who have posted on JT) - took out Iraq, Iran's worst enemy.

Suddenly Iran' sworst enemy isn't an enemy any more.

Is it any surprise Obama now says the Iraq war makes Iran stronger??

Obama is bang on the money.

What is it the Republicans don't understand about this????

And as Betzee rightly points out - "Yet where has it gotten us? We find ourselves largely bereft of allies and sinking under a mountain of debt."

America is now in the position where if it wants to do anything - fund the wars, pump the economy, donate food to China, etc. it has to borrow money off foreigners because of the totally inept financial management of the current executive team that has driven U.S. debt from $4 - 9 TRILLION dollars in the space of only 7 years.

Meanwhile, the few remaining Republicans who still support this fiasco have sunk to the level where we now see them angrily lashing out blindly against Obama, against 'Lefties', against Democrats, anything to prevent them from having to step up to the plate and do something they all dread

take responsibility for their actions.

Really, it's pathetic.

Proffesor - We did! But that was before Saddam invaded Kuwait. Any other questions?

So, Saddam was okay before he did that, was he? Never mind that while he was massing his forces near Kuwait he was told by U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie in July 1990,

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

They didn't try very hard to talk him out of it, did they?

As for Ahmadinejad's threat to wipe Israel off the map,

It was not a threat, it was a prediction... that the regime in Jerusalem would vanish, or something like that.

It was not a threat, it was a prediction..

The prediction was made by Bernard Lewis back in 2006:

....indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise.

What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (cf Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768

Ahmadinejad doesn't have the authority to order a strike on Israel. The mullahs, who have the power though they are not a monolithic bunch in outlook, want to remain alive and in power.

Obama can't wait to surrender.

“Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking,” Obama said. But if elected, he said, “I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing if, and only if it can advance the interests of the United States.”

Sounds good to me.

It's really interesting hearing Obama talk like this. I've always supported dialogue as a way to advance US interests, not as a way to legitimize the other party. But it ain't gonna be easy...

Obama addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee "only hours after securing his party’s nomination"!!! That says it all, don't it!

Sabiwabi:

" Obama addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee "only hours after securing his party’s nomination"!!! That says it all, don't it! "

Don´t worry sabi, he is just giving the joos a lot of Taqqiva. You should should really celebrate, you got your fifth column in the White House soon.

You can trust Obama to defend and support Israel.

He could no sooner disown, forsake or distance himself from Israel than he could his pastor, or his church, or his other pastor, or his chief fundraiser (indicted today) or his terrorist friends (Bill Ayers, aka Abu Zayd).

Because of the war in Iraq, he said, “Iran, which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq, is emboldened, and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation.”

This is a position from Obama that's hard for me to agree with. It's making a comparison of Iran in 2003 and Iran today and saying the war improved Iran's situation. What it's not doing is following a path from 2003 where the US doesn't invade, then making assumptions about where Iran would be today had the US not invaded Iraq.

If the US hadn't invaded then Saddam would still be in power in 2008. Now ask yourself this: With Iraq getting away with telling the UN to take a hike, do you think Iran would have been more or less "emboldened" with their own nuclear program? Not only would the UN and IAEA have set the precedent that they could be ignored, you'd have the added bonus of the precedent being set with Iran's enemy. And people think this would have produced a better result? People think Iran would have cooperated more in this reality? People think Iran would be less "emboldened" with Saddam sitting is his castles next door and an ineffectual UN?

If anything, having Saddam in power and a weakened UN and IAEA would have actually increased Iran's willingness to acquire nuclear technology, not reduced it. You can talk about the US's credibility from the invasion, but imagine the IAEA demanding inspections in Iran after Saddam got away with ignoring them. You'd have the combined reality of a useless UN with the increased threat from Saddam. Sure, that would have kept Iran in line.

Now imagine Iran going along as they are today with their nuclear program. What would Saddam's reaction have been? Aw, shucks? Too bad for us? Garbage. He would have tried to counter the threat from Iran. After throwing away the UN you'd be daft to think that he wouldn't have started his own programs again with Iran next door doing the same. We'd basically have a nuclear race between Iraq and Iran with the UN sitting on the sidelines.

But just like when discussing Saddam's rule, people only compare it by saying the war produced X consequences and without the war those consequences wouldn't have been realized. The aren't comparing it to the Y consequences of allowing Saddam to stay in power. It's always presented as "this wouldn't have happened," not "this would have happened instead."

well, let's see if goes after AQ first as he said, we took our eyes off of them. What is promised: out of Iraq go after AQ He said he is going to talk to Iran - let's see if he could talk some sense into them as they are going after Nukes Today, for the first time, I see he has a concern for Israel. Well, he said he would talk to Hamas - let's see if he talks sense into them.

In addition to the above, if one wants to talk about "emboldening" Iran, why not talk about the radical position of "Blame Bush for Everything"?

Iran captured British soldiers on a ship in international waters. They paraded them around on TV. They did mock executions. The basic response from some was "Bush shouldn't have invaded Iraq." There was little to no outrage over Iran's specific actions. Iran can literally count on a portion of the population from the country of the people they just captured to make a defense for them.

How's that for "emboldening?"

I'm sure that Tehran is well aware that they can get away with actions such as this since they understand that some in the West are simply unable to see past George Bush. They can count on Bush Derangement Syndrome deflecting anger over their actions. One could even argue that they can use situations like this to increase world anger at George Bush while they're free to go without consequence. Obviously there are a lot of moving parts to what motivates Iran, but I don't see why this should be ignored.

Hamas say they will no longer endorse Obama...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/06/hamas-un-endors.html

"Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and McCain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us, therefore we do have no preference and are not wishing for either of them to win."

With Iraq getting away with telling the UN to take a hike, do you think Iran would have been more or less "emboldened" with their own nuclear program?

Except that Ahmadinejad's predecessor, Mohammed Khatami, was a moderate who was willing to put Iran's nuclear program on the discussion table. The Clinton Administration didn't do much in part because Iran had destroyed on nearly destroyed two presidencies, that of Carter with the hostage crisis and Reagan with Iran Contra. Also, as many pointed out, the president of Iran doesn't have much power and negotiations with him may not yield changes in policy.

After Iran was put on the "axis of evil" list in the wake of 9/11 it undercut the power of the moderates in Iran who were accused by the hardliners of appeasement. And that, along with the fact the moderates had accomplished little in terms of improving the economy, opened the door for Ahmadinejad, the first non-cleric to hold the office of president since 1981, to to sweep into office after a second round of voting.

But just like when discussing Saddam's rule, people only compare it by saying the war produced X consequences and without the war those consequences wouldn't have been realized. The aren't comparing it to the Y consequences of allowing Saddam to stay in power. It's always presented as "this wouldn't have happened," not "this would have happened instead."

Except there's this thing called the international system which is predicated on respect for state sovereignty (which you never acknowledge in your posts). While it protects dictators, its function is to preserve world peace. As the secretarian conflict in liberated Iraq has threatened to bubble beyond its borders, it may be time to acknowledge the wisdom of the system.

"In addition to the above, if one wants to talk about "emboldening" Iran, why not talk about the radical position of "Blame Bush for Everything"?"

Because people who shriek on internet discussion forums are not quite the same as the people who physicaly removed Iran's main enemy (other than Israel) in the region by military force and actually turned this country that was once their foe whilst led by a secular sunni dicatator, into a promising land of allied fundiness with their shiite brothers.

Arguing that Iraq's implosion since the invasion, and the Islamic path they are sure to take in the future has not emboldened Iran or worldwide fundiness doesn't seem honestly possible IMO.

SezWho2:

It's been 28 years since Carter was President and since then the situation in the Middle East has spiraled downward.

Correction: It's been 31 years since Carter took office and since then the situation in the Middle East has spiraled downward.

Perhaps that will help you see the connection.

I don't see how Obama is tied to Carter's policies. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate.

That's easy. Get a blank sheet of paper and a pencil.

Ready?

Now list the differences between Obama's policies and Carter's.

Except there's this thing called the international system which is predicated on respect for state sovereignty (which you never acknowledge in your posts).

Didn't the sovereign nation of Iraq agree to inspections and full accountability of their chemical weapons program? And is it really your position that allowing the sovereign nation of Iraq to ignore said responsibilities would make the sovereign nation of Iran more likely to cooperate with the same world body?

Because people who shriek on internet discussion forums are not quite the same as the people who physicaly removed Iran's main enemy (other than Israel) in the region by military force and actually turned this country that was once their foe whilst led by a secular sunni dicatator

Do you really believe an alternate 2008 with Saddam in power and Iran seeking nuclear weapons would have actually been better? It sounds like you wanted the world's entire policy on Iraq to focus on making sure Iran didn't get anything out of it. I'm sure Iran loved seeing Saddam at the end of the rope. I'm sure they also enjoyed the ass kicking Iraq got during Desert Storm, but it doesn't mean the world should have let him get away with that as well just to make sure Iran didn't benefit.

Didn't the sovereign nation of Iraq agree to inspections and full accountability of their chemical weapons program? And is it really your position that allowing the sovereign nation of Iraq to ignore said responsibilities would make the sovereign nation of Iran more likely to cooperate with the same world body?

Saddam did give the inspectors trouble in the mid-1990s, but ultimately the invasive inspection system was shown to have worked since he was unable to re-arm, (something everyone can agree he would have liked to have done).

If the UN was dissatisfied with his compliance, it was up to them to sign off on an invasion. But in early 2003 their inspectors couldn't find any of the weapons the GWB Administration, based on information supplied by exiles such as Ahmad Chalabi, claimed were there which weakened the case for a "pre-emptive strke."

The other danger inherent in "pre-emptive strikes" is they encourage other governments to procure nukes as the only way to deter such an invasion. Such is the case with Iran (among others).

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/04/beck.iraq/index.html

Interesting, read, discuss

The other danger inherent in "pre-emptive strikes" is they encourage other governments to procure nukes as the only way to deter such an invasion. Such is the case with Iran (among others).

This argument is beyond silly. Countries such as North Korea and Iran started researching nuclear technology long before Bush came along. And it's equally absurd to look at both of those menacing governments and convince yourself that they would voluntarily choose against acquiring more powerful weapons. What exactly is it in their past that would lead you to believe that that would be the case? If anything, North Korea's recent cooperation, Libya's full cooperation, and recent reports showing Iran putting their nuclear project on hold since 2003 should slap you pretty hard in the face. But you're telling the world that Bush's policies actually encourage rogue nations to acquire nukes? What bizarro world are you living in?

Saddam did give the inspectors trouble in the mid-1990s, but ultimately the invasive inspection system was shown to have worked

Another utterly false statement. Saddam destroyed his chemical weapons program, but he refused to show verification of it. He wanted people to believe he still had them. In the end, that ultimately caused his downfall. The invasion created the verification, not the inspections. Allowing Saddam to skirt the inspections and stay in power in 2008 would have lead to an exponentially "emboldened" Iran. They'd have the precedent to ignore the UN plus the added threat of Saddam.

An utterly false statement by W: "I’m credible because I read the intelligence...All of the intelligence I looked at…the Congress looked at, said the same thing,” Bush said in 2004. Unfortunately, it seems that Bush only selectively “looked at” the intelligence:

Today, the Senate Select Intelligence Committee released the final two sections of its pre-war intelligence report. As Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said, the report concludes “that the Administration made significant claims that were not supported by the intelligence.”

In today’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Dana Perino was dismissive of the report, explaining that President Bush made false statements before the Iraq war simply because he was kept in the dark:

PERINO: That dissent amongst experts within the intelligence community at some level did not reach the president.

Of course the Iraq war has made Iran stronger--Iran tricked neocons into it. Remember Ahmed Chalabi?

WASHINGTON — Defense Department counterintelligence investigators suspected that a small group of Pentagon officials who'd collected dubious intelligence on Iraq and Iran from Iranian exiles might have "been used as agents of a foreign intelligence service . . . to reach into and influence the highest levels of the U.S. government," a Senate Intelligence Committee report said Thursday.

A top aide to then-secretary of defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, however, shut down the 2003 investigation into the group's activities after only a month, and Pentagon officials never followed up on investigators' recommendation for a more thorough investigation, the Senate report said.

The revelation raises questions about whether Iran may have used a small cabal of officials in the Pentagon and in Vice President Dick Cheney's office to feed bogus intelligence on Iraq and Iran to senior policymakers in the Bush administration who were eager to oust the Iraqi dictator.

Iran, which was a mortal enemy of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and fought a bloody eight-year war with Iraq during his reign, has been the primary beneficiary of U.S. policy in Iraq, where Iranian-backed groups now run much of the government and the security forces. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/40080.html

Another utterly false statement. Saddam destroyed his chemical weapons program, but he refused to show verification of it. He wanted people to believe he still had them.

Yes, he wanted his neighbors to believe he still had them. The inspectors were well aware of that since most of their "clients" are not cooperative.

What they couldn't verify in the run-up to the war was the GWB administration claims Saddam had a reconstituted nuclear weapons program which necessitated a "preemptive strike" owing to the specter of the mushroom cloud. We couldn't wait as Condi intoned.

Yesterday's Senate Intelligence Committee report made clear the intelligence they cited did not back them up on these claims. Saddam's nuclear weapons program had been destroyed by U.S. airstrikes during the first Gulf War and he was never able to revive it.

I read that CNN thing about how we can win if we stick with it. Nobody discussed the state of the Iraqi government which has made no moves to bring the Sunnis, formerly planting IEDS and now on Uncle Sam's payroll, into the government. To be blunt, they don't want 'em. So what happens after our payments end?

Invading the Middle East is the kind of imperial overreach that breaks the spine of great powers. Secretary of State Colin Powell tried to warn Bush against the magnitude of the undertaking with reference to the homespun "Pottery Barn rule"—if you break it, you own it. Did anyone go further and attempt to explain that Iraq was a seething cockpit of warring religions, political movements, social classes, and ethnic groups, many influenced by Iran? Did the President worry about the difficulty of occupying and rebuilding a country of nearly 30 million people with ancient scores to settle?

It appears that he did not. A better-read, more reflective man might have seen what was coming. Regretting adventures in the Middle East is one of the constants of history. The Greeks, the Romans, the Crusaders, the French, the British, and the Russians all sent armies and were forced in the end to bring them home again.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21431

This is exactly why the majority of Americans are distrustful of the information they are getting ("fool me once") form official sources which makes an exit from this mess more attractive:

In recent months, Gen. David Petraeus charged that Iran has supplied powerful rocket-propelled grenade launchers to Shiite militias in Iraq. But according to the U.S. government's own reports, there is no evidence to support that charge. In fact, the vast majority of RPGs in the hands of Shiite militants have come from either U.S.-purchased weapons intended for Iraq's new security forces, or from Saddam Hussein's old stockpiles, which the U.S. failed to secure when it took control of the country.

The Bush administration has long sought to create the impression that Iran has been playing a major military role in Iraq by supplying arms to Shiite militias, including the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's powerful Mahdi army. But to date, U.S. military officials have offered scant or even dubious evidence of Iranian military involvement in Iraq -- and Petraeus' allegation about the RPGs is a clear-cut case of unsubstantiated charges....

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/06/06/grenade_launchers/

WhiteHawk,

Thank you for your non-correction correction.

It has been a little less than 28 years since Carter was President. Since that time the situation in the Middle East has rather steadily deteriorated. Your attempt to blame the Middle East on the seizure of the US Embassy in Iran is noted, but your insinuation that Carter is to blame for the Middle East is partisan and false.

There is no single President who is to blame for the Middle East. We have mismanaged our involvement there from the time that we noticed it was important to be involved--and that predates the creation of Israel by a considerable span of years. Just as a single example, our continued support of autocrats has done considerable mischief and is one of the principal reasons that our good friends the Saudis created a state which gave radicals a cause to attack us on 9/11.

As for Obama continuing the policies of Carter, I believe that it was you who made that claim. Encouraging me to list the differences between the two is no substitute for your supporting that claim with the specific Carter policies that you think Obama will continue.

Obama is clueless about the Middle East; worse, he is a Carterite. Scary to think we might have Carter II in the oval office soon.

Betzee:

" The other danger inherent in "pre-emptive strikes" is they encourage other governments to procure nukes as the only way to deter such an invasion. Such is the case with Iran (among others). "

Reality check: Iran`s nuclear program precedes the Iraq invasion by long time. They had been working on it for years, while lying to the IAC. Sorry, I know it is tempting to blame GWB for every wrong under the sun, but reality is not that simple.

WilliB,

Whether or not Iran's nuclear program predates the Iraq invasion has no bearing on whether the preemptive strike against Iraq encourages Iran to procure nuclear weapons. "To encourage" means "to strengthen resolve", "to give heart to", "to urge on". It does not mean "to cause".

SezWho2:

There is no single President who is to blame for the Middle East.

Well, it must be the people of the Middle East who are at fault then. Or can someone point that out without being called a racist?

As for Obama continuing the policies of Carter, I believe that it was you who made that claim. Encouraging me to list the differences between the two is no substitute for your supporting that claim with the specific Carter policies that you think Obama will continue.

So you can't find any differences between their policies either. That's okay, neither has anyone else.

We have mismanaged our involvement there from the time that we noticed it was important to be involved...

That may be true, but no one else but george bush has been so arrogant that they would put together a portfolio of lies, fabrications and inuendos to attack a virtually defenseless country.

After 10 tears of "No fly zones" where we destroyed almost every weapon they own; then george bush wants to persuade the American people that they have WMD. And he did. his lies and his lie machine persuaded most Americans of the potential that Iraq didn't have.

And John McCain would keep the Americans in Iraq for another 100 years or more. He would like to see the Anerican/Iraqi pact signed so we could maintain permanent US bases in Iraq.

BRING THE TROOPS HOME!!!!! < :-)

WhiteHawk,

If no single President is to blame for (our problems in) the Middle East, it does not follow that it must be the people of the Middle East who are at fault. Or can one point that out without being too logical? I have no doubt that the people in the Middle East are part of the problem but we are there and we are a part of the problem too. Considering that they are at home and we are not, our part in the problem is significant--especially when a string of Presidents have mismanaged it.

Again, you made the claim that Obama's policies were the same as Carter's. Now you make the rather snarky comment that because I do not list the differences there aren't any. That slipper fits your own foot rather better, I think. Because you do not list the similarities there may not be any.

SezWho2, how about this for a start?

Carter like Obama, ran on a message of "change".

Carter, like Obama, thought people like the mullahs of Iran, and Hamas, and Hezbollah were reasonable people you could trust at their word and have a productive dialogue with and who had legitimate greivances.

Obama thinks americans eat and drive too much, Carter wanted us to "slip on a sweater, and turn down our thermostats."

Obama thinks the Oil companies are the problem, and wants to "go after them", likely followed by price controls (how else would confiscating their money not result in higher prices?), Carter tried price controls, it was a disaster.

Carter thought there was something inherently wrong with the American mindset (malaise), so does Obama and his wife. (clingers, meanspirited)

Carter eviserated defense programs, Obama has already promised to do the same.

Carter never met a tax he didn't like, and believed the government could do more to help people by "holding" their money for them. Obama? Well, I think you see the pattern already.

WhiteHawk,

None of the things you have listed are policies.

Furthermore:

McCain is also running on a message of change.

You do not know to what extent either of them thought the mullahs are reasonable. Additionally, the mullahs do have legitimate grievances and they are reasonable. It is whether those grievances can be resolved in a way that is compatible with our own grievances that is at issue.

Americans do eat and drive too much, the latter especially consideing the price of gasoline and its effect on the environment. (The current administration also thinks we eat too much and is concerned enough about how much we drive that it is looking into alternative fuel sources.) It would have been better had we turned down the thermostats and still is. Conservation is a good thing, but it is not a policy.

Obama does not think oil companies are "the" problem. He thinks they are "a" problem. "Likely followed by price controls" is your projection, not his plan.

To think there is not "something" wrong with the American mindset is to live in a state of denial. But the two mindsets you describe are different. The American mindset elected Carter. I'm sure some folks, possibly even you, think there must have been something wrong with that (stupidity perhaps?).

Carter cut back on some defense programs. Some of our current defense programs need to be scaled back or dropped. We spend too much on defense and too much of what we spend is spent in the wrong way.

Neither Carter nor Obama want to tax for the sake of taxation. They want to tax for specific reasons and their recommendations for taxation are different. Yes, Democrats like to tax (and spend) and Republicans like to give tax breaks which mostly benefit businesses and tout responsibility. But there is considerable difference among them. For example, instead of being a "small government and fiscally responsible Republican", Bush has been a "borrow and spend Republican".

Your list is simply a measure of how much you despise Obama and how willing you are to associate meaningless similarities to suggest that he would be as poor (or poorer?) a President than you consider Carter to have been.

Why are Democrats admitting at last that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein? Why did they release proof of these connections only hours after Hillary Clinton dropped out of race to be the Democratic nominee?

Why are the Democrats admitting something the Pentagon and the CIA have denied?

SezWho2:

None of the things you have listed are policies.

Excuse me? Those stated views of Obama's give no indication of the direction he would take as president? Then why did he state them? Didn't Carter's similar views shape his disastrous policies?

You do not know to what extent either of them thought the mullahs are reasonable. Additionally, the mullahs do have legitimate grievances and they are reasonable.

They both think that the mullahs are reasonable enough to have unconditional talks with them, these supporters of terrorism and murderers of American civilians and troops. Such a mindset is either reckless naivety or reckless ignorance, but it's reckless all the same.

Just what legitimate grievances do the mullahs have? That Israel still exists? That the entire planet doesn't adhere to Islamic law? That most of the rest of the world doesn't want Iran to have nuclear weapons? And what is your evidence that they are reasonable?

Americans do eat and drive too much, the latter especially consideing the price of gasoline and its effect on the environment.

Maybe we should have a smaller country. Maybe we should pack the entire country into stacked cities, creating mega heat islands with excessive traffic lights. Or instead maybe we should bring back the passenger rail service industry (which would be a private sector venture, not the government's responsibilty).

You might be a tad young to remember this, but cars didn't always create CO2 with their emissions. It used to be CO, carbon monoxide. But now they create CO2, which is still treated like a poison instead of what it realy is, what plants and trees breath in. There hasn't been a news report for years in the U.S. about acid rain, it's safer to swim in more U.S. rivers than ever before (even the Hudson is clean!), and yet it's still not enough. America must pay and sacrifice, while the increasing thirst and pollution of "developing" countries gets ignored by self-proclaimed environmentalists.

It would have been better had we turned down the thermostats and still is. Conservation is a good thing, but it is not a policy.

Voluntary conservation is one thing, but forcing higher energy prices (through "windfall profit" tax schemes and imposing restrictions on increasing existing energy supplies) on Americans in an attempt to make them conserve is policy.

Besides, I don't know a single person who keeps their thermostat at some ridiculous temperature. We have to pay our own bills, after all.

Obama does not think oil companies are "the" problem. He thinks they are "a" problem. "Likely followed by price controls" is your projection, not his plan.

No, that was his projection. Wait, you're not suggesting that he doesn't plan to follow through on his campaign promises, are you? ;)

To think there is not "something" wrong with the American mindset is to live in a state of denial. But the two mindsets you describe are different. The American mindset elected Carter. I'm sure some folks, possibly even you, think there must have been something wrong with that (stupidity perhaps?).

Okay, you've got me there. Yes, I think it was stupidity. After all, a taxpayer voting for a Democrat is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders, as the old saying goes. But you have to remember the times we were in. Carter ran after Nixon's resignation and Ford serving as the first unelected president in America's history. Karl Marx himself could've run on the DNC ticket and been elected, for crying out loud.

Oh, wait...

Carter cut back on some defense programs. Some of our current defense programs need to be scaled back or dropped. We spend too much on defense and too much of what we spend is spent in the wrong way.

Y'know, if you replaced "defense" with "welfare" or "entitlement" (same thing to a conservative like me), you would have one of my posts. Considering that Iraq is less than 7% of our budget and welfare/entitlement programs are 60%...

By the way, Clinton cut back on defense programs too. And like Carter, he did so in a reckless and ill-informed manner. All of which hurt us badly in 2001, and prevented a better, faster, more thorough response in Afghanistan. Do you trust Obama to cut defense programs in the best way? He certainly hasn't given me any reason to believe he would.

Neither Carter nor Obama want to tax for the sake of taxation. They want to tax for specific reasons and their recommendations for taxation are different.

Would you like me to name those reasons? No, you probably don't. It's not very flattering.

For example, instead of being a "small government and fiscally responsible Republican", Bush has been a "borrow and spend Republican".

No argument there, and you've listed just one reason why Bush fell out of favor with conservatives like myself.

Your list is simply a measure of how much you despise Obama and how willing you are to associate meaningless similarities to suggest that he would be as poor (or poorer?) a President than you consider Carter to have been.

Not true. What I presented was a list of similarities between Obama's stated views and plans, and Carter's proven views and policies. I have a separate list of why I despise Marxists and socialists. Would you like to see it? Why try to paint me as an Obama hater? Is it my fault that people like Obama, Clinton, Carter, Roosevelt and Wilson line themselves up with those tenets?

Oh, and SezWho2? I'm still waiting for your list of how Obama and Carter differ on policies.

WhiteHawk,

You are excused.

Yes, Obama's views give an indication of the direction he would take if he were President. Carter's views were similar in some ways. Carter's policies were hardly "disastrous", but I'll overlook your attempt to poison the well there.

The key point is that views that are similar in some ways do not translate to the same policies. I believe that your claim was that Obama is "tied to Carter's policies" and that you have suggested that there are no differences in their policies. This claim is your burden and you have not supported it.

What you do instead is use your unsupported claim as a political platform to express your own views. That is fine. It just has nothing to do with Obama's policies or to the alleged sameness between Obama's policies and those of Carters.

If you don't know the mullahs grievances, you haven't been paying attention. They, and many other Muslims are aggrieved, because of US military presence in the Middle East and because of patent US hostility toward Islam. Men in general are reasonable, although some are more willing to bend to some reasons than others. To say that the mullahs are unreasonable simply means that they are not willing to bend to our reasons. A lot of folks consider Bush to be unreasonable.

I don't know how old you are, but I'm 62. I think automobiles have always produced CO and CO2. Perhaps the proportion of CO2 is higher today because of advances in fuel utilization, CO being produced mainly by incomplete burning. But as an older guy I don't remember my chemistry all that well. You seem to think that there is no substantial threat to the environment from the burning of fossil fuels and that's fine, too. But you would be in the minority on that and all your arguments have been refuted elsewhere.

Everyone all the time sits somewhere on the scale of conservation. You don't know anyone who sets their thermostat at a ridiculously high temperature. I don't know anyone who sets their thermostat at ridiculously low levels. I agree that within the boundaries of what people can afford energy consumption should be voluntary--and it was under Carter. Encouraging people to conserve is still the right thing to do. Japan is an excellent model for that.

Windfall profit taxes do not force higher energy taxes if the taxes are imposed on what are truly windfall profits. I know that Obama has said that he favors taxes on windfall profits, but I don't know that he has said that he will impose price controls. With anti-gouging legislation we have price controls now, so the phrase "price controls" depends upon what specific measures you are talking about.

Ford was not the first unelected President in our nation's history. He may have been the first President who was not elected as part of a Presidential/Vice-Presidential ticket, but in recent memory Johnson served as President without being elected as such. Additionally, it's not as if Ford were plucked from a poli-sci department. He was an elected leader and the leader of the Republican minority in the House. However, it is not necessarily true that it was a given that Carter would defeat Ford. Many, including Ford, believed that he was sabotaged by Reagan's failure to campaign on his behalf. And even that is not the point. The point is about mindset and about your characterization that they believe Carter and Obama believe there is something inherently wrong with the American one. What I am saying is that they no more believe that than you believe it on account of Americans continuing to vote for folks like Obama, Clinton, Carter, Roosevelt and Wilson.

As for Defense spending, it doesn't matter what percentage of the budget it is. What matters is the opportunity cost. We spend 5 times as much per year as China and Russia combined. We spend more than the rest of the world combined. I would trust Obama to make intelligent cuts, yes.

Similarities between views still do not translate into identical policies. Carter and Obama have some similar views. However, Obama is not running against someone who is running against Carter. Obama is running against McCain and the test of Obama's views is not whether they are the same or different than Carter's (and the passage of 30 years alone is likely to produce a difference in actual policies) but whether his views are better or worse than McCains.

WhiteHawk,

And, by the way, I am still looking for some support as to how Obama is "tied" to Carter's failed policies.

Talk of Iran highlights the albatross that is still around the neck of the Democrats' braying mascot. Obama shouldn't be tied to Carter's failed policies just yet. That's not fair. Because until very recently Jimmy Carter liked to tell people that Barack Obama lacked "the proven substance or experience to be the President."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_Pg577wapw