McCain attacks Obama over Iran comments

#1

OrangeEmpire

The White Debonair
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
74,987
Likes
60
#1
My Way News - McCain attacks Obama over Iran comments

CHICAGO (AP) - Republican John McCain accused Democrat Barack Obama of inexperience and reckless judgment for saying Iran does not pose the same serious threat to the United States as the Soviet Union did in its day.
McCain made the attack Monday in Chicago, Obama's home turf.
"Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama's inexperience and reckless judgment. These are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess," McCain said in an appearance at the restaurant industry's annual meeting.
He was referring to comments Obama made Sunday in Pendleton, Ore.: "Iran, Cuba, Venezuela - these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying, 'We're going to wipe you off the planet.'"
[FONT=Verdana,Sans-serif](AP) Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks at a town hall meeting in...
Full Image
[/FONT]A video clip of Obama making the comments was distributed Monday by McCain's campaign.
McCain listed the dangers he sees from Iran: It provides deadly explosive devices used to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq, sponsors terrorists in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East and is committed to the destruction of Israel.
"The threat the government of Iran poses is anything but tiny," McCain said.
Responding to McCain, Obama told a town hall rally later Monday in Billings, Mont., "Let me be absolutely clear: Iran is a grave threat." But the Soviet Union posed an added threat, he said. "The Soviet Union had thousands of nuclear weapons, and Iran doesn't have one."
Obama said the threat from Iraq had grown as a result of the U.S. war in Iraq. "Iran is the biggest single beneficiary of the war in Iraq," he said. "John McCain wants to double down that failed policy." If McCain is elected, Obama said, "We'll keep talking tough in Washington, while countries like Iran ignore our tough talk."
The alternative, Obama said, is to follow the example of Presidents Kennedy and Reagan who negotiated with the Soviet Union. Obama called for "tough, disciplined and direct diplomacy. That's what Kennedy did; that's what Reagan did."
At the heart of the dispute between the candidates is Obama's assertion that, as president, he would meet with leaders of these rogue countries without preconditions. Obama insists that direct engagement with the Soviets helped prevent nuclear war and, over time, helped to bring down the Berlin Wall.
McCain strongly disagrees with Obama's position; he argues such a meeting would lend international prestige to U.S. foes.
"A summit meeting with the president of the United States, which is what Senator Obama is proposing, is the most prestigious card we have to play in international diplomacy," McCain said.
"An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically, when he is very unpopular among the Iranian people," McCain said.
His remarks were interrupted for several moments by three protesters from the Code Pink anti-war group, one of whom yelled, "No war in Iran!" as she was hustled from the room.
McCain prefaced his speech to the National Restaurant Association with the attack on Obama but then focused mostly on economic issues. He said Obama and his Democratic rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, would raise taxes and regulate businesses "more than ever."
"That's their idea of 'change,' but it sure sounds familiar to me," McCain said. In addressing the restaurant industry, he was speaking mainly to small businesses, an engine of the U.S. economy.
The Arizona senator has been trying to counter the allegation by Democrats that McCain would continue Bush administration policies.
Yet McCain's arguments on Monday - on tax cuts, trade agreements and farm subsidies - mirror those of President Bush.
McCain said that letting the Bush tax cuts expire, as the Democrats would do, would raise taxes by a trillion dollars or more. And he said Obama was wrong to oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement, a pact that, though still controversial after more than a decade, resulted in an estimated $17 billion dollars in exports from Illinois alone.
McCain said farm subsidy payments, like those in the farm bill Congress recently sent to Bush, are the biggest obstacle to global trade deals. Like McCain, Bush dislikes the bill and is threatening to veto it.
"Here we are at a time when food prices are at historic highs, and farm income is up by 56 percent in just the past two years," McCain said. "Yet even now, the Congress has voted to give billions of dollars in subsidies to some of the biggest and richest agribusiness corporations in America."
The Illinois Farm Bureau and other farm groups point out that high energy prices have driven up the costs farmers pay to produce their crops.
"Farmers are in the middle of planting the most expensive crop in history," Illinois Farm Bureau President Philip Nelson said last week.
Acknowledging he was in Obama territory, McCain said he agreed with Illinois Democrats that Obama is the right choice to be their senator. "I couldn't agree more, and I promise to do everything in my power to help him finish his first term in the United States Senate," McCain quipped.

Thoughts?
 
#2
#2
Both right and both wrong.

I do agree though that direct, no condition talks are a diplomatic prize. Jumping right to that leaves little room to do anything else (slight advantage McCain).
 
#4
#4
I find it ironic to hear a Republican candidate use "reckless judgement" as political ammo right now...
 
#5
#5
If the message you want to send is that we are listening, fine. We can do that through diplomatic channels. No need for a face to face. We do not negotiate with terrorists or those who help them. If you have a face to face with any such nation it should be reserved for serious discussion towards an end. If no headway is made you suspend those talks until you have more leverage.
 
#7
#7
That is reserved for politicians in general..... The GOP is simply in trouble because of their high moral ground stance.......

The GOP has been caught with their pants down plenty enough!
 
#10
#10
Touche.

I'm not comparing McCain to Bush; I'm just testing the strength of his acusation.

Well then we have to look at what they have done so far during the campaign since neither is president and leader of the free world. Obama has had the Wright incident. Poor judgment for a presidential candidate not to distance himself when the campaign kicked off. Saying he would meet with state terrorists states with no conditions shows a lack of judgment IMO.
 
#11
#11
Obama said the threat from Iraq had grown as a result of the U.S. war in Iraq. "Iran is the biggest single beneficiary of the war in Iraq," he said. "John McCain wants to double down that failed policy." If McCain is elected, Obama said, "We'll keep talking tough in Washington, while countries like Iran ignore our tough talk."
The alternative, Obama said, is to follow the example of Presidents Kennedy and Reagan who negotiated with the Soviet Union. Obama called for "tough, disciplined and direct diplomacy. That's what Kennedy did; that's what Reagan did."


Ever hear the expression, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"??

I agree that dialogue will only benefit our situation. Some might argue that we shouldn't give them a leg to stand on. That path, however, will only lead us directly into another costly war (a war that will make Iraq seem like a school yard scuffle).
 
#12
#12
Obama said the threat from Iraq had grown as a result of the U.S. war in Iraq. "Iran is the biggest single beneficiary of the war in Iraq," he said. "John McCain wants to double down that failed policy." If McCain is elected, Obama said, "We'll keep talking tough in Washington, while countries like Iran ignore our tough talk."
The alternative, Obama said, is to follow the example of Presidents Kennedy and Reagan who negotiated with the Soviet Union. Obama called for "tough, disciplined and direct diplomacy. That's what Kennedy did; that's what Reagan did."

Ever hear the expression, "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"??

I agree that dialogue will only benefit our situation. Some might argue that we shouldn't give them a leg to stand on. That path, however, will only lead us directly into another costly war (a war that will make Iraq seem like a school yard scuffle).

Why do we have to fight that war?
 
#13
#13
Stupid political mumbo jumbo!

This election is going to get nasty no matter what McCain says!

If McCain tries to take the high road and not respond to Obama it will be a mistake. His silence will be seen as confirmation by those undecided voters. If he comes off too hard he will look like he is trying to bully Obama which is very dangerous for him. Either way you look at it McCain is going to have to run a very deliberate campaign. It is said that McCain has a temper but I will venture a prediction, it will be Obama who has a little spat. I have watched Obama closely and I am convinced he has a pretty good temper himself.
 
#14
#14
If McCain tries to take the high road and not respond to Obama it will be a mistake. His silence will be seen as confirmation by those undecided voters. If he comes off too hard he will look like he is trying to bully Obama which is very dangerous for him. Either way you look at it McCain is going to have to run a very deliberate campaign. It is said that McCain has a temper but I will venture a prediction, it will be Obama who has a little spat. I have watched Obama closely and I am convinced he has a pretty good temper himself.

Obama is a ticking Howard Dean.... I mean time bomb. I also think McCain is also. McCain seems like the type who would take his ball and go home when things didn't go his way.

Furthermore, it is just a matter of time before Obama says something crazy about GOP white people wanting to keep blacks on the plantation ala Howie Dean.

You can bank on it!
 
#15
#15
Why do we have to fight that war?

Higher energy costs are going to continue to make Iran a more valid player in the world economy (they have the world's 4th largest oil reserve).

As demand for oil keeps increasing, we will either be forced to negociate with them or take them out.
 
#16
#16
Why do we have to fight that war?

we don't have to fight Iran at all. Continue their isolation, both diplomatically and economically, continue to foment unrest among the populace and support expatriate groups who desire to turn Iran into a stable democracy of sorts.

Iran can be beaten without firing a shot and without the political spectacle of a President Obama landing in Tehran to begin unilateral, unconditional talks with the political and religious leaders.
 
#17
#17
Higher energy costs are going to continue to make Iran a more valid player in the world economy (they have the world's 4th largest oil reserve).

As demand for oil keeps increasing, we will either be forced to negociate with them or take them out.

Seriously, why do we have to take them out?

Why not turn isolationist and let Israel have at it?
 
#18
#18
Higher energy costs are going to continue to make Iran a more valid player in the world economy (they have the world's 4th largest oil reserve).

As demand for oil keeps increasing, we will either be forced to negociate with them or take them out.

there are huge oil deposits in North America, but the left has continually prevented us from exploiting our own resources.
 
#19
#19
we don't have to fight Iran at all. Continue their isolation, both diplomatically and economically, continue to foment unrest among the populace and support expatriate groups who desire to turn Iran into a stable democracy of sorts.

Iran can be beaten without firing a shot and without the political spectacle of a President Obama landing in Tehran to begin unilateral, unconditional talks with the political and religious leaders.

So if we really get down to it.....

Obama = Anti - Christ?
 
#21
#21
The latter choice (evading Iran) would likely not bode well with China, Russia, and other non-U.S. allied countries.

If there is going to be another World War, it will be the energy crisis(oil) at the center of the conflict.
 
#22
#22
The latter choice (evading Iran) would likely not bode well with China, Russia, and other non-U.S. allied countries.

If there is going to be another World War, it will be the energy crisis(oil) at the center of the conflict.

Have you been playing Front Line Fuel of War again?
 
#23
#23
we don't have to fight Iran at all. Continue their isolation, both diplomatically and economically, continue to foment unrest among the populace and support expatriate groups who desire to turn Iran into a stable democracy of sorts.

Iran can be beaten without firing a shot and without the political spectacle of a President Obama landing in Tehran to begin unilateral, unconditional talks with the political and religious leaders.

True. If we can weather the current generation in power the younger demographic in Iran will shed some of the more unsavory aspects of the past to move toward a more "westernized" country like many of the wealthy oil producing nations have.
 
#25
#25
Which is mind boggling to say the least.....

All under the environmental banner which doesn't make sense at all. If you want to keep the earth clean then you should want the process to be as clean as possible. In other words you would not want your oil produced in a country with little or no standards while they could be sure it would be done cleanly as possible here.
 
Advertisement

Back
Top