Political Punch

You can't nuke Iran, all the nuclear research is hidden deep in underground bunkers all over the country. We'd have to send in troops. I think Congress and the American people may want to have a say before we commit to these tangling alliances [..though Hillary already pledged US support if she is elected.]

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."
-Sinclair Lewis

OBAMA AND THE FLAG(s)

Does anyone recall, after all the posts about Obama's lack of patriotism in not wearing a pin and not placing his hand over his heart --- when Obama made his “Throw Grandma Under The Bus” speech about how Wright was not Wrong?

He stood on that podium immersed in about eight swirling American flags; I thought they were going to swallow him.

I thought too, that that was a cheap 'shot'.

As for his campaigning in Florida and denying them the right to be counted, it was unfair and unpolitical. He did campaign in Florida. He was on the Florida ticket. Their votes should count.

His tactics remind me of the ways Obama had leveled the playing field in his last two elections in Illinois.

You can read about them in back issues of the Chicago Tribune, among other papers.

OBAMA HAS TOO MANY CONNECTIONS TO TOO MANY TERRORISTS AND ANTI-AMERICANS. WE DON'T NEED HIM OR HIS ANTI-AMERICAN WIFE IN THE WHITE HOUSE!

NO OBAMA!

Why should we put American lives in danger for Israel?

Especially when they have the 6th largest nuclear arsenal, and a state that is based on discrimination against Christians and Muslims, Palestinians and Arabs.

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich were right on this. So was CIA analyst Michael Scheuer. Israel isn't worth a single American life.

So, you cite one security specialist who disagrees with her proposal. What are your qualifications in that area? I'm assuming you don't have any.

What about some balance here? If you think this subject is worth the space, then how about an expert that supports her position to back her up.

Her position sounds thoughtful to me. Of course I'm not a specialist in this area either. But, neither are you.

hilary wants to put a bigger united states FOOTPRINT in the middle east with an "umbrella" defense?

that is just NUTS.

not only is it more of the same from GW BUSH... but this is not something that you say.. and then NOBODY follows up with at least ONE MORE QUESTION!

NUTS!

Listen to the liberals whine when Obama gets asked tough questions that might give us a tiny insight to his character! All you cry babies out there are saying "We want them to talk about the issues!" Guess what? They have spoken about issues for 20 something debates. And we have heard nothing BUT let's hope, let's change, let's secure our borders, let's give everyone health care, let's stop the war, let's bail out those foreclosures, let's improve education and create jobs. Is this Polly Anna or what? There are very few specifics because, guess what? It all changes when a President walks through the doors of the white house and REALIZES his power is limited, things are so MUCH MORE complicated than he knew or even imagine AND HELLO, families cannot have everything they "want" on their budgets, so what makes us believe the government can do all this? What an overindulged party of complainers the Democrats have become. Is this really what my party is all about?

Obama states he will meet with terrorist. Well, the leader of Hamas wants Obama to be the nest President, told this in his meeting with Carter. I wonder what the American Jewish population feels about that. Carter has give now legitimacy to Hamas, wonder what Obama would give them. The teachings of Obamas church (Black liberation theology) and his pastor , Obama has made him proud. He just doesn't wear the flag pin!

dl sez: This is "Cowboy Diplomacy".

No, dl. It is a military strategy for a world where unreasonable people get access to power. It's called MAD and it is the ultimate Spy vs Spy. Neither side using it can be "The Good Guys" because the only result is death and destruction at scale.

According to the last CIA estimate, Iran can have a working nuclear weapon within two years of restarting their production lines. The pattern is very clear. Once India had it, Pakistan had to have it. Now both hold each others throats. That is nuclear proliferation.

We have nukes. Israel has nukes. Iran will have nukes. If you want this to continue down the straits, do nothing as you suggest. If you want to restrain it, guarantee the results of deployment.

One can *hope* for reasonable responses but as Teddy Roosevelt said, "A soft word AND a big stick..."

I admire dreamers. I don't vote for them to occupy the Oval Office. You are an Obama supporter. Fine. I am a Hillary supporter. Fine. The difference is my candidate has articulated sound plans and shown sound judgment and character. When it is time to make tough and unpopular decisions, she can do that competently. Your candidate will be writing a speech.

I'm no fan of Bush or unilateralism. Preemption is stupid policy. On the other hand, a weak hand played weakly loses every time and your position is one of hopeful weakness. I'm not trusting the future of my children to you because all you will have when it doesn't work out is an apology and another speech.

Say NO To Thugs.

It's disgusting when some of you once again "rise to the occasion" and instead of focusing on this whacked proposal from a candidate (John McCain would even say it was whacked because he is not a neo-con he just palys one on tv...)

because soem of you I think realize this is a scary a** proposal and not thought out with respect to cost, constitutionality, and our PR stance in the world (where the terrorists use this imperialistic image to recruit)...

so you turn and put some hogwash slander about someone Obama knew (and yes he WAS just a friendly acquaintance...what do these public candidates have 5000 of those?)...

this IS the issue not some slanderous stupid old politics trying to win.

I for one don;t want "cowboy politics" they will destroy us faster than Iran can...or they will help Iran destroy us.
That is what this election was supposed to be about.

Dogsoldier...we don't do this. That is common sense. Otherwise I would be voting for John McCain...John Mccain doesn't even want to protect all these countries...not only does it look like imperialism which the terrorists use as its strongest tool for recruitment but it is national fiscal suicide.

and the President has rules about "Massive Retaliation." there are checks and balances. Then again this is the woman who voted for those checks and balances to be removed.

This is "Cowboy Diplomacy".
Call it what it is and it has gotten us so far.

Lets see question the opponents patriotism and police the world.

what are these supporters doing they are being brainwashed by the same tactics of fear that got us here in the first place.

Mtrish

Are you implying that Obama had a closer relationship with some of the figures in his life?

Interesting how supposedly unimportant relationships in Obama's life are off limits for questions....yet it is fair game to ask Hillary or her daughter about her sex life.

I really don't care who anyone sleeps with....but I'm pretty sensitive to anti-American hate talk and people that blow up police stations and the Pentagon.

Let it sink in...Obama wants to be President of the United States and he can't stand criticism and has launched a negative whispering campaign through Axelrod.....This sounds like Bush 3 to me.

Hillary Clinton is all set to open a can of "massive retaliation" on Iran. The only thing she's not prepared to do is meet with them and talk. Why? Because she says that meeting the U.S. President is a reward and an honor that you earn for doing what America wants you to do. How patronizing is that?

I'll stick with Senator Obama. He's not too proud to meet with anyone. I'm confident that he will not send a single American soldier to their death until diplomatic solutions to conflicts have been exhausted.

As for Clinton -- she seems ready to jump right to that massive retaliation thing. Very uncool.

I did not like Hilary's comments to Obama talking about Rev Wright, Farakkan or other black figures that Obama happen to know.

Did he ask her about what her relationship with Monica Lowisky prior to her husband's affair with her. And in the white house at that. Where was she"

I think this is a brilliant idea from Hillary. We need a leader like her to be our president not a radical minded person.

Posted by: JACK | Apr 17, 2008 8:26:03 PM

Did you say brilliant idea? Did you really think about what she is saying? You think this is the opposite of radical? Oh, my. This idea is the kind of idea that the neocons would propose. What planet are you on?

I don't know enough about this subject to have an opinion. But I sure would trust Hillary before I would trust Barack.

"What will deter Bill Jefferson Clinton from creating another scandal with a barely legal intern?"

Hillary, the Secret Service and ALL of Chealsea Clinton's admirers which is pretty much all the straight guys in America and maybe more. No offense but in this season of identity politics, I only speak for mine. :-)

I get that S.B. They have to find it. It isn't a one time thing. Eventually, Iran will have their bomb. Even if bombed, they will buy. Expressed intent is the best predictor of behavior.

So guarantee the results of deployment so it will be costly. Reagan got that right. I know it's MAD. It works.

The dish: I am not afraid of Iran. I am wary of their sponsors. Guarantee the results. Otherwise, fear works.

Say NO to Thugs.

Clinton's nuclear umbrella? Matter of fact, Kuwait has already put feelers out to Israel to be included under their nuclear umbrella because of Iran. It is believed other Arab states are now looking at the nuclear question in light of the Iranian nuclear weapons program in order to protect themselves. For the most part I believe Israel is capable of defending themselves and with the Arrow 3, Israel's newest missile interceptor missiles system, is capable of intercepting balletic missiles even with evading capability which Iran now processes. The only problem, all intercepted nuke missiles, should Iran launch, will be intercepted over Arab territory.

Therefore, is Clinton's suggestion valid? At this stage of the debate I don't think this is a valid option for US forces even though I am a Clinton supporter. The rest of the world needs to answer this exact question. On the other hand, the spread of nuclear weapons is accelerating and its only a matter of time before most middle east states have to make decisions for themselves on the Iran nuclear weapons program. I suggest most middle east states will opt for a weapons program. Then what do we do?

Israel has done it before.

They have no problem doing it again.

I think this is a brilliant idea from Hillary. We need a leader like her to be our president not a radical minded person.

Obama said: Iran need understand, he said, "that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, ...one whose security we consider paramount, and ...that would be an act of aggression that...I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action."
Can we trust him for Israel, when him and , Ayers and had teamed up for three years on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charitable organization. Together, they voted to donate $75,000 of the largesse they controlled to the Arab American Action Network. The AAAN was co-founded by Rashid Khalidi, a longtime supporter of Palestinian “resistance” attacks against Israel, which he openly regards as a racist, apartheid state. Despite considerable evidence to the contrary, Khalidi peremptorily denies having been a PLO operative or having directed its official press agency for six years (from 1976 to 1982).

Which would make Israel part of the MAD compact.

And your point is?

Iran will NEVER have a nuclear bomb.

Trust me, and that's not an anti-semitic joke. Israel will bomb any nuclear capable facilities Iran develops, without permission, without concern, without hesitiation.

They will have the intelligence. They will execute the strike. That's what the Mossad does and they do it well.

Hillary knows this.

It is what will work. It makes Iran part of the Mutually Assured Destruction umbrella. Use it an lose it all.

Iran WILL build nuclear weapons.

The question is will their neighbors?

Guarantee the results of the deployment and ensure all parties understand the expense. It means commitment to deploy after first strike.

The problem is a rogue tactical nuke. Same answer: where there is a guaranteed response, the obligation to consider ensuring that DOESN'T happen is shared.

Is that smart? It is MAD. So far, it works.

so we sit back and let iran with the bomb threaten the whole region and play nuclear blackmail,or come up with a concise deterant plan for the region.sounds like the second one makes sense.also what your candidate should never be held to account for having his first political eposure at ayers house or continued to appear publically with him after 9/11 when ayers recent statement about not setting enough bombs became public.so if i follow all of the obamaites logic then it doesnt matter that he has numerous marxist connections and thus if he harbors any of thease ideas in private no harm will come of it.malarkey.

My, "I may have had too much wine with dinner" qualification is because unfortunately, the notion that other states in the region would defend Israel as an umbrella alliance in the event of an atttack by Iran is, "feeling the love' to say the least.

However, when I'm not feeling the love, I am aware, as is Hillary, that Israel will bomb any nuclear facilites that Iran develops.

End of story.

BKMC,
Can you rap that out for us? There's not a single person on this blog that has the sufficient depth to evaluate this proposal.
========================================
Obama and Bittergate, lest we forget.
========================================

eyes open, remeber that if it is about character assassination, Obama's campaign is not about that low politics. The real issue is what is the difference between making sure that Iran will not possess nuclear bombs as said Obama or build an "Umbrella of Deterrence" against a nuclear bomb as Hillary has said. It does not take to understand that Hill's judgement is a good question to be asked. Because it is not thinkable to build an Umbrella against a nuclear bomb. That is why Hill the Bosnian General is unelectable. God bless America and God bless Obama.OBAMA08.

An Umbrella of Deterance is not the solution rather make sure that Iran will not possess the nuclear arm, that is the correct way to make that region and the midleast safer as Obama has said it. Hill wants an umbrella against a nuclear bomb, that is amateurism at it best. Hill the Bosnian General has missed the point again, that is why she is unelectable, her good military experience was in Bosnia when she landed under snipers' fire in 1996. God bless America and God bless Obama.OBAMA08.

it as a something she tossed out for consideration..... a viable I D E A; a S U G G E S T I O N.

This was supposed to be a debate.

Obama just stood there with his arms dangling....

It was a "bold proposal". In order to form the coalition America would be increasing their ties and friendships within the region...and moderate Arab states would become at least in the "umbrella" allied with isreal in a positive way.

This is not reckless at all....it represents a change in attitude and a targeted diplomacy that Bush has never been able to acheive...and Obama is not capable of...not sure about McCain.

By the way...is the critic of the "Isreal community umbrella" a current Obama policy adviser? Because I doubt that this is a dangerous policy at all,,,,the coalition would take long term negotiating and would allow enemies to focus on common interests. Actually it is like many of Hillary's policies the "brave" road that would get America back on track in a region that continues to be unsable.

Especially with Hamas getting involved in American politics...meeting with ex-presidents and endorsing Obama.

When the country is already stretched to the limit with current commitments, an umbrella - and have no doubts that would require an alliance similar to NATO - is quite costly. It is also perhaps not the right solution for the Middle East as there is no "consensus" as in Europe.
Nice sound byte but with big repercussions.

BEWARE! OBAMA is the wolf in sheep"s clothing, "

Vanessa,

Please shut up!

Thank you, dear.

Clinton's right. That's why the US and others helped Kuwait in 1991. Of course it is a two way street and there would be conditions.

Okay you are now my favorite reporter lol... even when we disagree... finally someone starts asking what this answer meant...

I have been asking people this question all day.

Well thank You CD. Of course, since I blog, no one employs me to have such opinions and I may have had a little too much wine with dinner; but both arguements can be combined into one that works in MHO.

Obozo blew it and now his supports attack ABC.

Clinton showed an understanding of mid eastern politics and Obozo just gave the generic answer that he'd leave everything on the table.

Shallow Obozo, shallow.

"Watson, what's appropriate action if Iran is bombing the s*it out of Israel or friendly country???"

My criticism focused on the vagueness of "an attack" as part of what Clinton said. Israel itself has an incredible (also nuclear) striking force, so I don't the see the day arrive soon that Iran will start to bomb Israel or a neighboring country for that matter. But yes if Iran starts "bombing the s*it out " of anyone, I would propose we strike the Iranian military involved. But again, I dislike such hypothetical problems, and certainly their 'fixed solutions'. For what is ' massive retaliation'? We're not going to bomb Iranian cities because a corrupt Iranian regime is striking another country I hope. As it stands, we are and will be Israel's firm and mighty ally. IMO that alliance already creates an umbrella for the Middle East, and I see no good reason "to be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel" as Clinton proposes.

Once again, the Clinton fans don't talk about the article linked to the comment post....I turned to my husband during her 'umbrella' proposal and said,"Wow, that and permanent bases will certainly repair the damage of the Bush presidency." This is not the policy that we who opposed the war in Iraq are looking for. We do not need another president who throws around rhetoric like this. There are countries in the Middle East who have terrible human rights records. We need to sit down and talk to everyone and defuse the bomb WE lit going into Iraq. 9/11 is not the rationale for irrational policy proposals. Where were the ABC commentators follow up questions on this?

People, we use to be a Super-Power countries feared...we are no longer feared; that is something for us to fear and think about!
Goodnight and God Bless!

I think her plan is a dangerous plan. She clearly does not understand that region. One wonders if she would want to put those countries under the umbrella because they all gave to her husband's presidential library.

s.b; very nice articulate description!

This policy of protecting every Government in the Middle East is dangerous to be sure.

Can the US afford to be dragged into every squabble that is likely to come up. We have supported regimes before, like the Shaw of Iran where did it get us?
I am not sure what the answer is buit an
"Umbrella of Deterrence" largely dependent on the US military will keep us in the Middle East forever.

I thought Hillary was committed to get us out of Iraq? Assumming Iraq would be part of this umbrella, and knowing the history of Iraq and Iran, how will we ever get out?

Both arguements have merit. The nuclear deterent arguement is fraught with geographic complications.

If one were to "protect or defend" Jordan, Egypt, etc by deploying nuclear bombs on Iran, who has already bombed them, wouldn't that be throwing gasoline on a fire so to speak.

They are too close geographically.

It's one thing to threaten Japan (which actually happened) or the Soviet Union with a nuclear assault. It's quite another when the country is a close geographic neighbor.

The solution is to offer a non-nuclear unbrella but only to countries that join a non-agression pact themselves and promise to defend ALL members if attacked.

ie If Israel is attacked then Jordan must respond, or Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, if they are to have the umbrella of protection.

This has the added attraction of being an islamic country response to an islamic country's threat.

This is the only way such an umbrella could work.

The Obama way:

If you can't beat them, attack them personally. His followers sure have picked up on that.

ABC is awesome, both candidates got asked very tough questions; it was very revealing!!

I agree with Bandow and think our umbrella should never become so large that we get in a military commitment to countries that share only very few of our values and interests. And I think it's silly for Clinton to talk about if not promise "massive retaliation from the United States" on such a vague hypothetical situation as 'an attack' on Israel or other countries for that matter. Is she planning to throw bombs on the Gaza Strip? After all, Hamas is launching rockets at Israel...

To cut short things short, I don't think Clinton promises to be a good President and Commander-in-Chief. In comparison, Obama's 'appropriate action' and 'no options off the table' are IMO the right stand. NEVER show our cards, but always show readiness and options to strike if a situation would demand just that.

And the mudslinging and personal attacks on Clinton by Obama followers continue. Just because Obama proved to the world that he's a babbling idiot!

I hope ABC never gets another debate that was awful last night looks like the 2 people doing the asking were for nasty style debates. What happened to the questions that we want to know about like the economy, jobs, oil prices, etc. ABC should be ashamed of that debate and repremand the 2 people working for them. I am Independent and want to know what the substense of their plans not BS that ABC brought up. Thanks a lot you didnt help me to choose who to vote for next november at all

She uis owned by foreign power ,you should be scared>>>>>>

Take a look what's happening.

Obama supporters attack Clinton to deflect their candidates failure to muster reasons for his past lies. Add to that, their blame to ABC for exposing his ineptitude.

Go ABC!

How can Hillary supporters believe her? Can you imagine her running the white house?

The white house would be under sniper fires everyday.

Then she would "misspeak" once the 3am call comes in due to sleep deprivation

Hillary: Umbrellas aren't just for rain!

or

"It's raining nukes, allelulia, it's raining nukes..."

Obama 2008 -- Yes, WE CAN!!!

How can this guys supporters possible believe in him? Can you imagine him running the White house? Bush is certainly a better ad hoc speaker than this empty suit!

Oh, so a policy, even if it's a disastrous one, beats "no policy" (and I'm not agreeing with you that Senator Obama has not offered one)???

Let's all rally behind Clinton, just as they rallied behind Bush when he hatched the plan to invade Iraq!!!!

Obama 2008 -- Yes, WE CAN!!!

"Massive retaliation" is appropriate terminology to use. What do you want to say, "We"ll use sanctions," I don't think that will work...Super-Power and Moral-Authority that's what she is driving at!

Hillary sure opens her mouth without thinking.

What happens when there's nobody to pull a puppets strings? The puppet falls on his face!

Misstatements has such can lead to massive retaliation

I also noted on the comment

My exact thoughts were "What is she talking about???"

Big problem that has potentials of exploding

I think something has to be done in that region of the world and so far she's the only one with a plan!

Boy, reading the responses should leave no doubt about qualifications.

Obama - long on talk, short on substance.

I wouldn't worry about it. With her track record so far, some family member or campaign rep got paid a few hundred grand by a foreign power to make sure she flip-flops on this policy once she's in office.