Political Punch

Obama's full context of what he said was so very clearly minimizing Iran's threat to us... I don't see how anyone can read and hear what he said and not come to that conclusion, unless their so partisan that they are going to here what they WANT to hear, no matter what is actually said!

And whoever wrote this article claiming Obama never said these things or he really wasn't saying that Iran is a far less threat to us than Russia, and it was taken out of context, simply MUST be a partisan.

Seems apparent to me Obama has figured out that wasn't a popular answer and like he's done with so many things, he's now trying to act like it never happened and he didn't mean what he said so clearly at the time... and it appears the Obama cheer leading media is TRYING to help him along in erasing the perception of what he actually said , despite the reality that he so obviously did say it!

This complaint is without foundation.
The writer admits Barack Hussein Obama said, and he quotes him as saying, “I mean, think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela — these countries are tiny, compared to the Soviet Union.” Then he attempts to say Obama didn’t say that. He quotes Obama saying Iran “doesn’t pose a serious threat,” then he claims Obama didn’t say it. My ethics by which I raised my five children call that lying.
Actually, this is exactly the kind of double talk the entire Barack Hussein Obama campaign is known for. It doesn’t make sense, ergo, Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t make sense. Not as a spokesperson for the Democratic Party, not as a U.S. Senator, and certainly not as an American President. As President he would have to say what he means. As campaigner for that office he keeps claiming he did not say what he said. How stupid are we supposed to pretend to be?

scary that you have so many posters who can't see that mccain's ad is a lie, and that obama's statement, taken IN CONTEXT, makes sense. s'why i generally stay away from these blogs.

and this after the "sex education" lie. mccain should hang his head in shame.

To those who pointed out my misinformation regarding Canada's possession of nuclear weapons: mea culpa. I was wrong. Canada has no nukes, though they did share nuclear weapons with the U.S. pursuant to NATO until 1984.

Here's the thing, though: my point was the small number of countries in the world that could possibly hope to kill 100 million Americans, which a previous poster had breathlessly claimed Iran had the capability to do. I was overly generous in my estimation, so the number of countries is even smaller than I posited...which actually makes my point about the rarity of that kind of offensive power a stronger point, not a weaker one. Had I left a major nuclear power off of the list, my argument would have been weaker.

I have no problem admitting factual error. I stand by my analysis, however: there are only a handful of countries in the entire World that have the kind of destructive power that the previous poster attributed to Iran.

Let's keep things in perspective: we have the firepower to literally incinerate every square inch of the planet 10 or 12 times over. We spend more than any other country in the world on our military, and we can project force almost anywhere in the world in a very short amount of time.

Against our capabilities, which countries pose a viable threat? Russia and China, certainly. Both have the nuclear arsenals and the conventional armies that would be necessary to credibly challenge the U.S. After them...who?

Countries that have a handful of nuclear weapons pose enough of a threat that we can't act capriciously against them, because we could ultimately lose a city. But those same countries also know that if they were to use their nukes, we would use ours, and ours are plentiful enough to melt them into slag.
All of our potential adversaries know full well the enormous scale of our repsonses to Pearl Harbor and to 9/11. A nuclear attack would trigger a far more vehement response. So far, there isn't a country in the world that has shown itself to have leaders irrational enough to disregard our nuclear arsenal, and that includes Iran.

As for the risk of a rogue state giving nuclear weapons or know-how to terrorists, the A Q Khan network in Pakistan show that that's a genuine risk. But note that Pakistan gave technical data to another fringe state, North Korea, not a non-state militant group. The unpredictability of militant groups makes it unlikely that any state would willingly give one of them nuclear weapons: the militant you arm today could well turn those arms against you in the future. It happened to us when the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan became the Taliban and used weapons we had given them against our troops in defense of al Queda. It's one thing to have a crate full of Stinger missles used against you...but nuclear weapons are an entirely different risk.

We need to stop hyperventilating in response to every conceivable threat. We need to have a level-headed approach, as well as having some confidence in our own military abilities.

"...we can't even condemn Russia's invasion of Georgia (without being branded arrogant hypocrites), given our invasion of Iraq... or DO anything about it right now - and they KNOW it (with the troops being tied up there and in Afghanistan)."

Wow. Why does Putin have to say anything when Sheribaby can make his talking points for him right here? (Please see under Useful Idiot)

Btw, the real constraint on our use of military force in response to Russia's invasion has little to do with our ground forces being "tied up." We have more than sufficient air and naval assets to have forced the Russians to reconsider their actions, if it had been in our interest to do so. The interdiction of supply lines and the blockadeing of Black Sea ports would have been the preferred course of action if a military response had been required.

Just curious, but if Russia had conducted this invasion in, say, early 2001, with most of our troops in garrison and not commited to an active theater, would we have deployed the 82nd Airborne to Gori? Of course not; our national interests did not and do not require the injection of ground forces into that scenario.

You know, these utterly fallacious arguments that our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan precludes (and has precluded) the use of an effective military deterent in other regions (i.e., N.K., Iran, Georgia) are really growing old.

Feliz and Art Mach... ditto post to Rob. The point is that if we could keep from going to war with a Cold War Russia (U.S.S.R.) with its vast nuclear arsenal (which is where many in the Middle East are getting theirs from now, and Obama is working with legislation in the Senate to stop nuclear proliferation, but that's another story), then SURELY we can get Iran to stand down without having to nuke them, when the threat that Soviet Russia posed then was GREATER. Maybe you disagree that Soviet Russia was a greater threat then than Iran is now. But, apparently, an elemantary education for you is not what it used to be.

Then, Rob, if you can't understand how conteext is everything, you are utterly clueless. I could say that a 5-year-old girl is small I comparison to a 25-year-old woman; but, if I put that 5-year-old in a romm full of 2 month olds and call her small, I would look like an idiot. The RELATIVITY gievn in the orioginal context is crucial to understanding both the meaning of small and the intent behind calling them "small" (the relative significance of the threat posed). The McCain camp knows that it was trying to push the GOP talking points of Obama ignoring the threats of foreign opponents (i.e being naive and unrepared on foreign policy), when they actual speech says just the opposite (that we would crush them militarily, but as a last resort). If you can't see how that's misleading, then I can't help you. Like Bill Clinton said at the DNC Convention, America does more by the power of our example, than by the example of our power. E.g., we can't even condemn Russia's invasion of Georgia (without being branded arrogant hypocrites), given our invasion of Iraq - who didn't commit 9/11 and had no WMDs - or DO anything about it right now - and they KNOW it (with the troops being tied up there and in Afghanistan). And good for the update, because that ad IS playing in MO. I've seen it more than once here.

"Iran got nuclear power plants going with major help from U.S. Republican administrations."

And so? What's your intended point? The only power "plant" (not plants) in question was a "tiny" research reactor (5Mw) provided to Iran in the 1950s via the Atoms for Peace program. (BTW, this program was continued over the course of three democratic administrations, as well).

There is absolutely zero evidence that this reactor was used for anything other than it's intended purpose, which was to help Iran develop a civilian nuclear power generating capability.

If you are attempting to imply that we put Iran on the road to nuclear weapons development (and I think that you are), you are grossly mistaken.

I don't see the issue. Obama clearly stated that Iran, as well as Cuba and Venezuela, is tiny, and doesn't pose a serious threat to us. The only thing the McCain camp left out was Obama's comparison to the Soviet Union, who was bigger and posed a bigger threat. How is that "not even close" to what Obama said? Merely stating that it's a misrepresentation doesn't make it one.

As a ten year veteran and a conservative, I am disgusted with the McCain lying ads. George Bush and Rove put our party into the gutter, and I was hoping that McCain would get us out of it, and make us proud to be republicans again. Not to be. McCain has decided that lying, spinning and having the dregs of humanity like Rove,Limbaugh, Hennetty, Liebermann etc. is the way to go. As a 65 year old white vet I am supposed to vote for McCain according to the 'talking heads'. Well, here's one white senior that will be voting for change.

The political game seems to be a lot of back and forth about statements that were said and not enough about Americans checking out what the candidates ACTUAL plans and positions are. We're so easily manipulated, but we can do better than this.

Looks pretty accurate to me. Obama is clearly underestimating Iran. If Iran gets nukes the termoil they can cause will be immeasurable.

JAMAICA is a tiny country. Iran is NOT a tiny country, and if they end up taking control of the Shi'a side of Iraq after Obama pulls the troops out, they'll be a very large country with a ton of oil assets.

Obama apparently spent a very TINY amount of time in GEOGRAPHY class. This isn't the first stupid thing he's said--he thinks the US has any number of states but fifty, after all.

I'm a Democrat, but I think this guy is overrated. He can't talk without a teleprompter, and he says incredibly DUMB things...like "Iran is a tiny country."

It's down to a choice between DUMB and DUMBER--and Obama comes off as DUMBER.

Ok. So, what's John McCain's SPECIFIC plan for getting Iran to stand down on nukes? His web page states that he will increase military presence in Iraq to protect our troops there from Iran, but it says nothing tangible about nukes.

JOHN McCAIN IS A LIAR, THAT IS JUST A FACT!!! THAT WHY EVEN REPUBLICANS DON'T TRUST A WORD HE SAYS!!!

The Iraqis . . .wait, the Iranians are coming!

Above, Obama also states,

"If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."

So, those of you who are criticizing Obama's other statement, do you also disagree with this statement?

Careful how you answer, you wouldn't want to be seen as "unpatriotic."

Peter from Dover NH:

"I recall Obama claiming that John McCain wants to have a war for 100 years. Smear and Fear..."

McCain said he'd be willing to stay as much as 100 years. Was that just more of his sense of humor?

John McCain says that the economy is ok... Smear and Fear...

He said it.

" 'He doesn't remember how many houses he ownes any more...' That's a distortion that throws fear and age bigotry into the mix."

"Obama got into politics by disqualifying everyone running against him."

Whereas Republicans never seek to do that. They only disqualify voters.

"His technique over and over is to do the same [Smear and Fear]"

What is the principle here? If it's not OK for anyone to do it, then target the Republicans too. If it's OK for Republicans to do it, how can you expect the Democrats not to play the game too?

Baloney! How big was Osama bin Laden's country, (hint - he really didn't have one!). Likelwise, what difference does the lopsided comparison of Iran's military to the USA's military have to do with Iran nuking Israel? (hint - NOTHING)

We've BEEN 'talking' to them collectively, through the UN for years trying to get them to STOP their nuke program. They ain't listening and Obama has NEVER said what EXACTLY he would have to say to them to break the stalemate. IF he truly had some sort of brilliant plan to conduct talks with Iran - THEN WHY IS HE NOT PRESENTING IT RIGHT NOW??? HMMMMMM?

Actually, Albatross, Obama wants to INCREASE the military. Don't assume just because he's a democrat, that's what he wants. I suggest you actually read his position on the military.