Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49

Thread: Barack Obama: Gaffe machine

  1. #31
    Silver Member tamjo54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    386

    Default

    Not true. Get your facts straight Grimm. Just because you want us to lose in Iraq doesn't mean we are.

    U.S.-Backed Offensive Weakens Basra Militias

    May 20, 2008 · A government offensive in the southern Iraq city of Basra has met with success. Initially, U.S.-led Iraqi forces met with stiff resistance from Shiite militias. But after two months, Basra's streets are clear. NPR's Steve Inskeep talks to NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro.

    We are winning in Iraq you just don't want to believe it. The media has manipulated people into believe we are not winning.

  2. #32
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    LOL no, the media has not manipulated anything.

    you're not winning. 1 offensive in one area cleans it out, and as soon as US troops leave it's right back to where it was. That's the established pattern.

    The iraqi army after 6 years is still not capable of functioning

    the "surge" which was supposed to reduce violence in order for political reconciliation to occur has failed.. the iraqi government is mroe fractured than before and unable to function.

    the only downtick in violence occured when the Mahdi army declared a ceasefire for 8 month, which was spectacularely called off a little while ago and 4 US soldiers immediately died.

    The green zone is shelled every day by 'insurgent' forces.

    Your own government agencies (CIA, Pentagon) admit that no progress has been made.

    Iraq has bled, and continues to bleed you dry. You're a trillion dollars in debt because of it. It's the modern day Vietnam.

    This is all basic information.

    btw, isn't NPR some right wing thinktank publication? Try more unbiased sources, it helps.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  3. #33
    Silver Member tamjo54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    386

    Default

    I love how we have become completely off topic, because no one wants to defend Obama's stupidity.

  4. #34
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    I love how you're dodging.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  5. #35
    Silver Member zebracakes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SSDiva View Post
    Oh isn't this a beautiful thought. It amazes me that 400 years of racism against blacks should now be forgotten(like it still doesn't happen) because some crazy old black dude can't stand white people. There are 40% of white people who said they won't vote for someone based on the color of their freaking skin. There are no black people running for the GOP this election cycle(maybe they regained their common sense). People still hang nooses to try and scare us.

    Do you know that there are some dumb people who think that once Obama become President that he will enslave white people, now how stupid and racist is that!
    Where in there did I say that racism against blacks no longer counts? Racism against any group is evil.

  6. #36
    Elite Member lurkur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5,351

    Default

    Ok, let's address them.

    -- Last May, he claimed that tornadoes in Kansas killed a whopping 10,000 people: "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died -- an entire town destroyed." The actual death toll: 12.
    Gaffe- Dumb mistake, maybe he misspoke 'died' instead of 'displaced?' I don't know the details of the tornados. At least he over-estimated the damage rather than under-estimating it, like when Bush & Co. pretended like Katrina wasn't even happening.

    -- Earlier this month in Oregon, he redrew the map of the United States: "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."
    Gaffe- Oopsies. I guess he should have been wearing his flag pin so he could count the stars.

    -- Last week, in front of a roaring Sioux Falls, S.D., audience, Obama exulted: "Thank you, Sioux City. ... I said it wrong. I've been in Iowa for too long. I'm sorry."
    Gaffe- OMG, he confused Sioux Falls with Sioux City -- clearly not fit to be prezznit. I still get Bill Paxton and Bill Pullman's names confused and I've seen several of their movies several times

    -- Explaining last week why he was trailing Hillary Clinton in Kentucky, Obama again botched basic geography: "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle." On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois?
    Gaffe- Geographically, definitely not, but culturally, I think Kentucky and Arkansas are more closely aligned than Kentucky and Illinois, esp. when you get into the Red/Blue state categorizations. If someone asked "Kentucky, Arkansas, and Illinois: Which one does not belong?" which would you pick??

    -- Obama has as much trouble with numbers as he has with maps. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Ala., he claimed his parents united as a direct result of the civil rights movement:

    "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Ala., because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born."

    Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was "speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole."
    Gaffe- Hahah, so his parents fucked before they crossed the bridge instead of after. He should have kept track better.

    -- Earlier this month in Cape Girardeau, Mo., Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by homing in on a lack of translators: "We only have a certain number of them, and if they are all in Iraq, then it's harder for us to use them in Afghanistan." The real reason it's "harder for us to use them" in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi or other non-Arabic languages.
    I don't think this is a gaffe. The military trains translators, decide what languages they want specialists in, and where they send them. But if they barely have funding for resources needed one war, how are they gonna fund two?

    -- Over the weekend in Oregon, Obama pleaded ignorance of the decades-old, multi-billion-dollar massive Hanford nuclear waste cleanup:

    "Here's something that you will rarely hear from a politician, and that is that I'm not familiar with the Hanford, uuuuhh, site, so I don't know exactly what's going on there. (Applause.) Now, having said that, I promise you I'll learn about it by the time I leave here on the ride back to the airport."

    I assume on that ride, a staffer reminded him that he's voted on at least one defense authorization bill that addressed the "costs, schedules, and technical issues" dealing with the nation's most contaminated nuclear waste site.
    He should know about it and should have a clear opinion about it. I wouldn't call this a gaffe either, just typical sleazy politician tactics. Which is not an excuse.

    -- Last March, the Chicago Tribune reported this little-noticed nugget about a fake autobiographical detail in Obama's "Dreams from My Father":

    "Then, there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians."
    Gaffe or just memory?- Who cares? It may have been a different mag. Either way, people have tried, often with devastating effects, to whiten their skin, and it's disturbing to hear stories about it! I can see why this would be significant to him even if he doesn't remember the mag title. I remember information from when I was 9 even if I don't remember the source I got it from.

    -- And in perhaps the most seriously troubling set of gaffes of them all, Obama told a Portland crowd over the weekend that Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us" -- cluelessly arguing that "tiny countries" with small defense budgets can't do us harm -- and then promptly flip-flopped the next day, claiming, "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."
    Frankly, along with the nuclear waste issue, these are the ONLY two "seriously troubling set of gaffes." He does need to take a stand on Iran about what HE thinks about it. The rest are essentially flubs with numbers. And honestly, at least Obama's gaffe is from trying to satisfy both sides (playing politician again, ugh), rather than McCain's Iran gaffes where he KEEPS SAYING AL QAEDA IS IN IRAN.

    Barack Obama -- promoted by the Left and the media as an all-knowing, articulate, transcendent Messiah -- is a walking, talking gaffe machine. How many more passes does he get? How many more can we afford?
    Oh please. Obama is no Messiah, and the only ones who call him that are the ones who want to discredit him. I don't think the guy is perfect, but if you're going to criticize Grim for attacking the person rather than the issues, that's exactly what is going on here. As if Obama accidentally saying we had 57+1 states has cost the country so much that they can't AFFORD his mistakes anymore.

  7. #37
    Silver Member tamjo54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    386

    Default

    Other than the fact that we haven't been attacked on US soil, since 9/11. Here are some other facts:


    The most conspicuous part of today's op-ed on Iraq by Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack is that it comes off as such a revelation. Here we have two of the harshest critics of the Bush administration's execution of the war reporting back with a tone of wonderment at the progress we're making on the ground in Iraq:
    Viewed from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration's critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place. Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
    Kudos to the New York Times for printing the piece, because it's ipso facto proof that the American public is getting a distorted and overly negative view of what's going on there - thanks in large part to the MSM's coverage, including the Times' itself. If two of America's most well respected experts who follow this stuff closer than anyone are surprised by the positive progress in Iraq, just imagine how surprised the average Joe would be.

    The other interesting thing, of course, is the potential political ramifications of such a high-profile declaration of progress. Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, for example, Chris Wallace asked Newt Gingrich why Democrats want to begin pulling troops out of Iraq before General Petraeus has a chance to issue his progress report in September. Gingrich responded:
    The left wing of the Democratic Party is deeply opposed to American victory and deeply committed to American defeat. [snip] We are faced with evil opponents. Those opponents need to be defeated. And if General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker come back in September and say, "We actually can win this thing," I want to understand the rationale that says, "No, we don't want to let America win. Let's legislate defeat for the United States."

    And, to highlight the contrast, Senator Russ Feingold appeared on FNS immediately following Gingrich and said he's convinced the surge is already a failure and that there's nothing that would make him change his mind about wanting to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. Here's the exchange with Chris Wallace:
    WALLACE: And, Senator, we want to give you a chance to respond to Speaker Gingrich. You don't want to wait till General Petraeus issues his progress report in September to start pulling U.S. forces out. But the fact is that so far this summer, the number of American troops killed this month of July is down. Shiite death squad activity is down sharply. And in Anbar province, some of the Sunni sheiks have broken with Al Qaida.

    Are you, in fact, ignoring some signs of success, some signs that the surge is working?

    SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D), WISCONSIN: And I'm happy to acknowledge any signs of success, but the truth is since this surge began, we've had some of the highest numbers of American deaths and some of the greatest tragedies in Iraq of the entire period.

    I do not buy the notion that the surge is working. I do not buy the notion that somehow Petraeus is going to be able to tell us that things are moving in the right direction. And in fact, he'll come back in September and he's going to say, "Let's wait till the end of the year."

    So this is an endless game that continues this tragedy, and I think it's just the opposite of what Speaker Gingrich said. The truth is this is draining America's strength. It is costing us $12 billion a month.

    We're losing over 100 people almost every single month, and it is hurting us in the fight against those that attacked us on 9/11. So this disaster has to end.

    And a number of Republicans, of course, now have voted saying, "We can't just wait till September. We've got to get this done."

    WALLACE: So I want to make sure I've got this clear, Senator. If General Petraeus comes in September, issues his progress report and indicates, obviously, not that we have a Jeffersonian democracy, but that things are better on the ground in Iraq, are you willing to change your position, or is your mind already made up?

    FEINGOLD: Well, I'll listen to whatever he says. But he's not going to be the only person I consult with. We've heard from the White House and generals before about how there's no civil war, about the insurgency is in its last throes, and time and again it proved not to be true.

    So I'll give all the respect to General Petraeus' remarks that are due, but every indication I get -- and I'm on the Intelligence Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, so I get a lot of information on this -- suggests that it is virtually impossible that he's going to be able to give the kind of rosy scenario that you've concocted here.
    Despite the fact the war remains unpopular, there is political risk for Democrats in ignoring signs of progress in Iraq - something that today's op-ed by O'Hanlon and Pollack makes clear.

    Also McCain has come out today saying that he can win the war in Iraq by 2013.

    If anyone is dodging the question it is you Grimm by not being about to discuss the true topic at hand. How could you even think about voting for a president that thinks that there is 58 states? That is pretty sad.

  8. #38
    Elite Member lurkur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5,351

    Default

    We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily "victory" but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with.
    You realize that "in military terms" success can be rated according to death count? Oh yeah, we were totally winning in Vietnam because we logged in so many kills!! The war just keeps getting better and better!

    What are the "gains"? They re-occupied towns that had been taken over by insurgents the last time they left the city and will be taken over again as soon as they charge the next.


    And Grim can't vote for the Prezznit because of his citizenship, I bet a lot of people are glad that part of the Constitution hasn't been raped and pillaged yet! lol Maybe if we had people from other countries voting in our elections, the US would be better. They can't choose any worse than Diebold has!

  9. #39
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    1) Did you suddenly forget that 9/11 occurred on Bush's watch? That him and his staff ignored warnings left by the Clinton administration?

    1) Just because nothing has happened in the last 6 years doesn't mean Bush prevented any of it. How many 'terrorists' have been charged with anything? About 1% of everybody they scooped up. Who turned Iraq into a terrorist training ground? Bush. Who forgot to mop up in Afghanistan? Bush. WHo invaded a sovereign nation and then by that invasion suddenly bolstered the military and influence appeal of Iran? Bush.

    2) They don't even have electricity or reliable water sources after 6 years of occupation in Iraq. The militias still hold sway in large swaths of the country. The Mahdi army and the Sadrists have been quiet the last 8 months on their own terms, not because the US imposed any kind of actual control.

    3) The government still does not function. The "surge" was supposed to reduce violence in order for that to take place. THe drop in violence coincides with the Sadrists and Mahdi army declaring a ceasefire. Since that was called off, US deaths have risen sharply again. There has been no progress made for political unification.

    4) The fortified green zone, which is supposed to be the center of calm in Bagdhad is shelled pretty nmuch almost daily. Military flights in and out of the city are constantly fired upon with ground to air shoulder fired missiles and RPG's.

    5) the Iraqi army, after 6 years of training, is still unable to function as a cohesive force. The units left to their own devices simply scatter or join the militias.

    6) Women are more oppressed now than under Saddam's rule due to fundamentalist religious fervor with the militias. Women are killed merely for being single or other vague "unislamic" virtues.

    7) Despite protestations otherwise, McCain had to "tour" the area around the green zone with 2 apache attack helicopters, 2 blackhawk helicopters, a number of heavy armor vehicles about about 100 soldiers in full battle dress, not to mention wearing full body armor.

    8) There are no plans for a US military drawdown any time soon, soldiers are being sent back for 3 and 4th tours, the national guard is still over there.. amazingly, one would think had their been any improvement they would be coming home in sections.

    Need i go on? LOL
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  10. #40
    Elite Member louiswinthorpe111's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Middle America
    Posts
    11,923

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tamjo54 View Post
    Guaranteed you will be a slave to Obama if he is elected. A slave to taxes. He is proposing some of the largest tax increases in our countries history. All his proposed government programs will have to be funded some way.
    Um, you do realize that the taxes have to go up to pay for the war we are "winning" in Iraq. You do realize that the US has the largest deficit in history and it has to be paid for somehow. Or, you could act like the rest of the average citizens that let their credit card balances ride and not pay them off. Heaven forbid, as a country we'd want to be debt free.

    If you were a true Republican, the amount of taxes you pay wouldn't matter, because you would be making your financial decisions based on the greatest tax benefit you would receive, thus lowering your tax liability.

    Quote Originally Posted by tamjo54 View Post
    Not true. Get your facts straight Grimm. Just because you want us to lose in Iraq doesn't mean we are.

    We are winning in Iraq you just don't want to believe it. The media has manipulated people into believe we are not winning.
    As well as the conservative media has manipulated you into believing we are winning. Just like they said about Vietnam. I bet you believed Iraq had WMD's too.

    Quote Originally Posted by tamjo54 View Post
    Other than the fact that we haven't been attacked on US soil, since 9/11.

    Also McCain has come out today saying that he can win the war in Iraq by 2013.
    FYI, not sure if you realized this, the only time the US was attacked on it's own soil PRIOR to 9/11 was Pearl Harbor. So to say we haven't been attacked is due to the US being in Iraq is BS. If (and when) the terrorists (not Iraqis) attack us again, it will because they've been planning it for years and they want to destroy us, which they wanted to do LONG before Iraq. The two are not related, although the conservative media would like you to think so.

    And, McCain says we can win the war by 2013? Are you fucking serious? How does he know, is he psychic? Alot of shit can happen between now and 2013. That's like me saying I'm going to be a millionaire by 2013.
    RELIGION: Treat it like it's your genitalia. Don't show it off in public, and don't shove it down your children's throats.

  11. #41
    Super Moderator Tati's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Your Pocket
    Posts
    17,998

    Default

    Other than the fact that we haven't been attacked on US soil, since 9/11. Here are some other facts:...
    Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
    Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
    Homer: Thank you, dear.
    Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
    Homer: Oh, how does it work?
    Lisa: It doesn't work.
    Homer: Uh-huh.
    Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
    Homer: Uh-huh.
    Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
    [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
    Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock


    *cough*
    If you reveal your secrets to the wind you should not blame the wind for revealing them to the trees.

    - Kahlil Gibran

  12. #42
    Elite Member lurkur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    5,351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tati View Post
    Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm!
    Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
    Homer: Thank you, dear.
    Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
    Homer: Oh, how does it work?
    Lisa: It doesn't work.
    Homer: Uh-huh.
    Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
    Homer: Uh-huh.
    Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
    [Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
    Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock


    *cough*

    HAHAH, this is what immediately sprang to mind when I read the OP!

  13. #43
    Silver Member tamjo54's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    386

    Default

    No one will change my mind about the war in Iraq, like I won't change yours either. I have alot of friends that have served and are serving over in Iraq and their take is alot different than what is being portrayed by the media. They think that they are making many strides and accomplishment that aren't being reported. We have alot invested in this war, just to cut and run. I don't think it would be fair to the Iraqi people and would create a haven for terrorists.

    I just don't understand why liberals have trouble talking about their own candidate and why they always have to switch a discussion to the vitriol of Bush. Does anyone remember the title of this thread? I came hear to discuss that topic, but had to defend my stance on the war.

  14. #44
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    1) 85% of the idiots over there thought they were in Iraq to avenge Saddam flying planes into the WTC

    2) None of what I listed has gotten any better, so there's no improvement in any of those areas. That's a pretty fucking comprehensive list.

    3) Iraq is already a haven for terrorists, Bush made it that way. There werent any before he trashed the country. He also did the same with Afghanistan. You cannot win, you will continue to be bled dry just like Vietnam. It's the same damn scenario except this time you have religious sects thrown in to make it worse.

    4) Iraq isn't even a real country, it was stiched together by the British 100 years ago from 3 distinct tribal/ethnic/religious lines. The only way it was ever held together was with an iron fist of a dictator. The country is fracturing along those same lines and will continue to do so. It's not something you can fix.

    5) What do you have invested in this stupid war, exactly. What are the goals? What were the reasons for invading in the first place? Why are you there now? What is the end result that is sought?

    Wars are fought for 4 things: Money, Power, Control, Resources. That's it. there's no fucking altruistic reason for a war. Even WW2 was about CONTROL, not 'defeating evil'.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  15. #45
    Hit By Ban Bus!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    556

    Default

    Obama's Metastatic Gaffe

    By Charles Krauthammer
    Friday, May 23, 2008; A17

    When the House of Representatives takes up arms against $4 gas by voting 324-84 to sue OPEC, you know that election-year discourse has entered the realm of the surreal. Another unmistakable sign is when a presidential candidate makes a gaffe, then, realizing it is too egregious to take back without suffering humiliation, decides to make it a centerpiece of his foreign policy.

    Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chávez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."

    After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.

    Should the president ever meet with enemies? Sometimes, but only after minimal American objectives -- i.e., preconditions -- have been met. The Shanghai communique was largely written long before Richard Nixon ever touched down in China.

    Yet Obama thinks Nixon to China confirms the wisdom of his willingness to undertake a worldwide freshman-year tyrants tour.

    Most of the time you don't negotiate with enemy leaders because there is nothing to negotiate. Does Obama imagine that North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela are insufficiently informed about American requirements for improved relations?

    There are always contacts through back channels or intermediaries. Iran, for example, has engaged in five years of talks with our closest European allies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, to say nothing of the hundreds of official U.S. statements outlining exactly what we would give them in return for suspending uranium enrichment.

    Obama pretends that while he is for such "engagement," the cowboy Republicans oppose it. Another absurdity. No one is debating the need for contacts. The debate is over the stupidity of elevating rogue states and their tyrants, easing their isolation, and increasing their leverage by granting them unconditional meetings with the president of the world's superpower.

    Obama cited Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman as presidents who met with enemies. Does he know no history? Neither Roosevelt nor Truman ever met with any of the leaders of the Axis powers. Obama must be referring to the pictures he's seen of Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta, and Truman and Stalin at Potsdam. Does he not know that at that time Stalin was a wartime ally?

    During the subsequent Cold War, Truman never met with Stalin. Nor Mao. Nor Kim Il Sung. Truman was no fool.

    Obama cites John Kennedy meeting Nikita Khrushchev as another example of what he wants to emulate. Really? That Vienna summit of a young, inexperienced, untested American president was disastrous, emboldening Khrushchev to push Kennedy on Berlin -- and then nearly fatally in Cuba, leading almost directly to the Cuban missile crisis. Is that the precedent Obama aspires to follow?

    A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs' isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements -- undermining the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he would employ against Iran.

    As every seasoned diplomat knows, the danger of a summit is that it creates enormous pressure for results. And results require mutual concessions. That is why conditions and concessions are worked out in advance, not on the scene.

    What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?

    Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of unconditional presidential negotiations -- and then having compounded the problem by elevating it to a principle -- Obama keeps trying to explain. On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet standards Iran and others "don't pose a serious threat to us." (On the contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was not.) The next day in Billings, Mont.: "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

    That's the very next day, mind you. Such rhetorical flailing has done more than create an intellectual mess. It has given rise to a new political phenomenon: the metastatic gaffe. The one begets another, begets another, begets . . .

    Obama's Metastatic Gaffe

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Barack Obama [President of the USA]
    By sweetrebel in forum Hot Guys
    Replies: 186
    Last Post: May 9th, 2009, 09:40 PM
  2. The truth vs. Barack Obama
    By witchcurlgirl in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2008, 08:37 AM
  3. Barack Obama pal is an enemy too
    By witchcurlgirl in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 1st, 2008, 09:34 AM
  4. Barack Obama set to appear on The View
    By CherryDarling in forum Latest Gossip
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: March 20th, 2008, 07:44 AM
  5. Barack Obama wins Wisconsin; Wis. exit poll: Obama with broad backing
    By january in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: February 20th, 2008, 09:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •