Big Dogs Weblog

Obama Flip-Flops on Danger Posed by Iran

Jun 4, 2008 Political

While working to secure the Democratic nomination back in May B. Hussein Obama said that Iran was a tiny nation that did not pose a threat because it is smaller than the Soviet Union.

“Iran, Cuba, Venezuela? These countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don’t pose any serious threat to us.” WND

To B. Hussein (at that time), Iran was a small nation that did not pose a serious threat to us and therefore we should get them to the table and talk out a solution, without preconditions, of course.

Amazingly, B. Hussein has now taken a different approach to the tiny country that posed no serious threat:

“The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat,” Obama said in a speech to a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby group. Newsmax

In May Obama took heat for his statements and John McCain used those words to point out Obama’s inexperience. This must have resonated with Obama because now he is talking more like a hawk than a dove. The question is, what changed in the last few weeks to move Iran from no serious threat to one that is grave?

Perhaps it is that Obama was speaking to an Israeli group. Obama has been losing support among the Jews because of his indifference toward Israel so he took the opportunity to talk about the grave threat and how he will stop it. He did not make this claim a few weeks ago. Back then he made light of the threat. He claims to be a different kind of politician but he panders like the rest of them. He talks of change but the only thing that has changed here is his message based upon his audience.

The other reason might just be that we are moving into the general election phase and there is no way Obama can match McCain on national defense. McCain spent more time as a POW than Obama has as a Senator and McCain understands the threat and what we face. Obama simply lacks any experience in this area and his inability to see the Iranian threat early on is proof of that.

I also wonder what he means by “eliminate this threat.” Does this mean that the military option is on the table? Does it mean he will talk to Iran and see if he can negotiate with them to get them to stop building nuclear weapons? If negotiations fail will he use force?

All of these questions need to be answered but the first one that he must address is why he changed positions on the threat posed by Iran. This is a guy who voted against a Senate Resolution designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization but in his speech he said that very organization had been rightly labeled as a terrorist organization. Which is it Mr. Obama? Were you against terrorist labeling before you were for it? [NPR]

Obama claims to be about Hope and Change but hoping that Iran will change direction on nuclear weapons will not make it so.

* Obama said that Iran was not a serious threat but then said the danger is grave. One fo the definitions of grave (and the one he intended) is significantly serious. I guess he was against serious before he was for it.

Related item:
Wake up America

Tags: flip flop, Iran, Obama, threat

Obama Sounds Like George Bush

May 4, 2008 Political

Barack Obama has made a lot of noise about his opposition to the Iraq war and he has chided Hillary Clinton for her vote on the matter. He has also told America that Clinton (and John McCain for that matter) are part of the old politics in DC and that he was the candidate of change. Obama touts himself as a DC outsider who will do things differently. Today he stated that Hillary Clinton sounded a lot like George Bush because of a statement she made last month.

Hillary Clinton was asked what she would do, as president, if Iran attacked Israel. Clinton stated that the US would attack Iran in retaliation and she stated that they should know we would obliterate them. At the time Iran claimed that her words were a violation of UN charter. Seems that when Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the map that is not a violation but when we threaten to do the same it is. Typical Muslim thinking.

Obama also took a shot at Clinton for her proposal to suspend the gasoline tax for the Summer (it was actually McCain’s proposal with which Hillary agrees). Obama said that this was a classic Washington gimmick that would only save people $28.

Now I understand Mr. “I was always against the war” and his platform of non aggression. It took him 20 years to realize his pastor was an aggressive man who hated white people so I can understand how he is slow to recognize threats. However, Obama said that Clinton sounded like George Bush with her statement about obliterating Iran because, of course, it involves aggression.

But if Clinton sounds like George Bush for her statement then who does Obama sound like with this statement?

Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama said. al Reuters [emphasis mine]

Here is Obama saying that if we have actionable intelligence he would attack inside another nation with or without permission. Sounds a bit like what he accuses the Bush administration of doing in Iraq. Also sounds like what he chastised Clinton for. I would think Iran attacking Israel is “actionable intelligence” and that attacking Iran in that instance is certainly more appropriate than just invading Pakistan.

Therefore, Obama advocates the same policies that he has castigated since he decided to run for office. Using his own standards, Obama sounds just like George Bush.

As for the gimmick of gas taxes. I agree that a suspension of them will hardly make a dent in anything especially since the states will still tax and most tax at a higher rate than the feds. I see that Obama though, has taken issue with his opponents and mentioned that they are engaging in a clasic Washington gimmick. So where was Obama when Nancy Pelosi sponsored the Economic Relief Package that redistributed income in America?

This is the bill that sends out $600 checks to people up to certain incomes in order to stimulate the economy. This is the bill where people who paid absolutely no income taxes whatsoever will get money from the government while those above certain incomes will not get one red cent. This is a typical Washington gimmick. It is an election year and politicians fell all over themselves to send money to people in hopes that it will curry favor at the polls in November. This package will do nothing for the economy.

The economy is not as bad as people are saying it is and many economists said that it would be improving by the time the checks even went out. The only thing that this bill did was get Democrats to admit that it is better if you are allowed to keep your own money and that they tax too much. They were conceding that taking your money amounts to forcing you to work for free for part of the year and that is true. While they were having this epiphany, they seemed to miss the fact that the money will not stimulate the economy. The market should be allowed to run the economy free of government interference. Government is the reason things get broken in the first place.

If they would learn to keep their work confined to running government and let businesses run themselves free of encumbering regulation things would be a hell of a lot better. Cheesy gimmicks like tax rebates will not help the economy any more than a gas tax holiday will (though they could repeal the gas tax all together and I would be happy).

Oh, and how did Obama see the rebate issue? He, like Hillary Clinton, did not vote on it. Both are listed as “not voting.” They were probably posturing to play gotcha. However, given Obama’s avoidance of controversial votes, he probably just avoided it to keep safe. That is not true leadership.

This guy is a lightweight. The funny thing is he keeps saying he is an outsider but he acts like the rest of them. He, like Clinton, will say anything to get elected. He also seems to ignore his own actions while criticizing others for doing the exact same thing.

Perhaps he should leave the glass house before throwing any more stones?

Sources:
My Way News

Tags: Bush, Clinton, gas tax, holiday, Iran, Israel, mcccain, Obama

Don’t Let Facts Get in the Way Little Moonbat

Dec 18, 2007 Political

Meatbrain has not been to my site (well at least he has not commented here) in quite some time. For those of you unfamiliar with him, he is a left wing lunatic who finds fault with everything and his only method of debating is to demand proof of something and then call people a liar. I recently wrote a post about leaving Iran alone and Meathead took issue with it. He wrote a post at his site asking that I answer 3 questions. I am not going to answer them in his comments because no matter what I write he will call me a liar and then things go down hill from there. I will answer the 3 questions here so that they are put forth without all the drama associated with his site. He can either read it here or he can just sit in his mother’s basement eating Hot Pockets and drinking Mountain Dew. Those who do not know him (I do not link to his site) just think of the annoying gnat named Billy Joe and you will know Meathead. The only difference is that, at least, BJ made good arguments sometimes no matter how wrong he was. However, Meathead is just as annoying and degrading.

Q: Who in the intelligence community, specifically and by name, has indicated that Iran does not pose a threat?

A: I cannot answer the question as it is posed because it asks for the name of one person. The National Intelligence Estimate was prepared by a number of people and the press release on it was written by Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Dr. Donald M. Kerr. The NIE is comprised of information provided by many intelligence analysts so naming one specific person is something I cannot do. The question also takes the original post out of context. I was writing about nuclear weapons and said “Basically, according to the intelligence community, Iran does not pose a threat.” The logical conclusion of the statement is …to make nuclear weapons (and I indicated they might later but not now). The report states that Iran has not been working on nuclear weapons since 2003 (emphasis should focus on the fact that they were prior to that despite their denials) and that they have not since then and there is no indication they will but if they do it will be well into the next decade (well into the next president’s watch).

UPDATE: I found this while searching for something else:

They are Tom Fingar, formerly of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research; Vann Van Diepen, the National Intelligence Officer for WMD; and Kenneth Brill, the former U.S. Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

I have already shown that the report indicates they are no threat “to build nuclear weapons.” That is what the subject is about.

Q: In what previous NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) report did “the intelligence community” state unequivocally that Iran was developing nuclear weapons?

A: I never stated that the intelligence community stated anything unequivocally. Check the post and see if the word is even in there. The exact quote is “Never mind the fact that this is the same intelligence community that said Iran was working on nukes…” From the November 2007 NIE; “We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.” This is also is pointed out in the key differences between the previous NIE and this one in the summation. United for Peace also questions the differences by stating; ” The assessment does not explain — unless it is addressed in more than 130 pages still marked classified — how the May 2005 conclusion that Iran was still pressing ahead with a nuclear weapons program went awry.” Therefore, the May 2005 NIE stated that Iran was working on developing nuclear weapons. Since the 2005 report has not been declassified I cannot cite it directly.

Q: How do you reconcile your claim that the intelligence community “missed 9/11 completely” with the fact that the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing, which was titled “Bin Laden determined to strike in US”, specifically noted that Osama bin Laden intended to conduct terrorist attacks on U.S. cities, that members of his Al Qaeda operatives had traveled to or lived in the U.S. for years, that bin Laden had previously expressed a desire to hijack an American aircraft, and that “FBI information since that time indicate[d] patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York”?

A: First of all, the PDB which you cite does indeed have that title and the information contained after the title is old news that had been passed from the previous president. It was the ongoing stuff and if you look it clearly indicates that the information is from as far back as 1997 and it was prepared because Bush had been briefed about the desire of OBL to attack inside the US. Bush wanted to know if we had any new information. This was the historical portion. What the briefing did not say is that bin Ladin was an imminent threat. Specifically, the PDB stated “The only recent information concerning possible current activities in the PDB related to two incidents. There is no information that either incident was related to the 9-11 attacks.” The only recent information was about two possible activities. The PDB does not give any information that indicates an attack was imminent. The entire PDB has not been released but the fact sheet on it summarizes the information. The report does not address all the items you outline in the question and many of them are suppositions since the entire report has not been released (the 1998 PDB to Clinton did. More on that later).

Now for my assertion that the intelligence community missed 9/11 completely. It has already been established that the PDB had no information regarding imminent attacks on 9/11 or any other date. The information citing intelligence failures comes from the 9/11 Commission Report. This report is the Bible all libtards hold up when they claim the President was totally at fault despite the fact the report lays blame in a number of directions and reaches back prior to the Bush administration and to the Congress:

Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean says the report cites government wide “failure of policy, management, capability and, above all, failure of imagination,” but not government neglect. Fault is spread broadly: The intelligence community is harshly chastised but so is Congress for poor oversight of intelligence collection. Chemical and Engineering News

I realize that it is inherent in the design of moonbats to hate President Bush and blame everything on him. Meathead would have you believe that the intelligence community reported the late breaking news that bin Ladin hated us and was planning something and we are supposed to believe that the inaction of the president was the problem. If we were to take that at face value then we would have to blame President Clinton first. This is from his PDB in 1998:

The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President William J. Clinton on December 4, 1998. Redacted material is indicated in brackets.
SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks

1. Reporting [—] suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh ‘Umar ‘Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq ‘Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama’at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for RESPONSES TO AL QAEDA’S INITIAL ASSAULTS 129 an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin, but that the operation was on hold. A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon thereafter to discuss options—perhaps including an aircraft hijacking.

• IG leader Islambuli in late September was planning to hijack a US airliner during the “next couple of weeks” to free ‘Abd al- Rahman and the other prisoners, according to what may be a different source.
• The same source late last month said that Bin Ladin might implement plans to hijack US aircraft before the beginning of Ramadan on 20 December and that two members of the operational team had evaded security checks during a recent trial run at an unidentified New York airport. [—]

2. Some members of the Bin Ladin network have received hijack training, according to various sources,but no group directly tied to Bin Ladin’s al-Qa’ida organization has ever carried out an aircraft hijacking.Bin Ladin could be weighing other types of operations against US aircraft.According to [—] the IG in October obtained SA-7 missiles and intended to move them from Yemen into Saudi Arabia to shoot down an Egyptian plane or, if unsuccessful, a US military or civilian aircraft.

• A [—] in October told us that unspecified “extremist elements” in Yemen had acquired SA-7s. [—]

3. [—] indicate the Bin Ladin organization or its allies are moving closer to implementing anti-US attacks at unspecified locations, but we do not know whether they are related to attacks on aircraft. A Bin Ladin associate in Sudan late last month told a colleague in Kandahar that he had shipped a group of containers to Afghanistan. Bin Ladin associates also talked about the movement of containers to Afghanistan before the East Africa bombings.

• In other [—] Bin Ladin associates last month discussed picking up a package in Malaysia. One told his colleague in Malaysia that “they” were in the “ninth month [of pregnancy].”

• An alleged Bin Ladin supporter in Yemen late last month remarked to his mother that he planned to work in “commerce” from abroad and said his impending “marriage,” which would take place soon,would be a “surprise.”“Commerce” and “marriage” often are codewords for terrorist attacks. [—] [Pages 128 and 129 of the 911 Commission Report]

Notice how much this PDB from 1998 looks like the one Bush received in 2001? As I stated earlier, the Bush PDB was a rehash of old material. However, this begs the question, if moonbats hold Bush accountable for 9/11 based on the 2001 PDB why do they not hold Clinton accountable for not acting on the same (and in some cases more detailed) information? The Clinton 1998 PDB actually said that it was going to happen in a couple of weeks so it was certainly imminent at that time. I would not hold my breath waiting for Meathead or any other moonbat to lay the same blame on Clinton that they have been laying on Bush.

In any event, I answered the questions and they are well sourced. This will not stop Meathead from calling me a liar, demanding facts and generally smearing me in his comment section. This is all I am going to say with regard to addressing him though I welcome comments and will respond in kind. I answered the questions so that readers who followed his trackback (but don’t waste your time) would know that I did not ignore him and that I had the facts in the case, so to speak.

BTW: If you are unfortunate enough to end up at Meathead’s site, there is a commenter named Dan. He wrote an ignorant comment posing as me until Meathead changed it. Dan also accuses me of threatening to get my military buddies to track him down when I was on WAR. I never said that and he is lying about it. I never threatened this guy on the air and I do not recall saying I would get anyone to track him down. It would not be worth my time or anyone else’s. I will give credit to Meathead for writing that the comment did not come from me and asking Dan to comment under his own name.

Tags: 9/11 commission report, Bush, Clinton, Iran, nuclear weapons, pdb

Let’s Leave Iran Alone

Dec 17, 2007 Political

The report is out and the intelligence community has weighed in on Iran and it has determined that Iran has no nukes and that while they might acquire the capability to build them, they are not yet at that state. Basically, according to the intelligence community, Iran does not pose a threat. Never mind the fact that this is the same intelligence community that said Iran was working on nukes and never mind the fact that Israel has a vastly different opinion. We should also ignore the fact that Iran stopped working on its nuclear program and then started back up without anyone knowing and that they deliberately took actions to keep from being detected. We should also forget that the people telling us Iran is not a threat is the same community that missed 9/11 completely.

I think we should just leave them alone and let them do whatever they want because if we try to stop them now then everyone and their brother will scream that they had no nukes or no WMD. We will be looked at as aggressors rather than the liberators that we have been throughout history. People have used the “we found no WMD” mantra to question the validity of the war in Iraq despite the fact that WMD constituted a very small portion of the resolution for going in there and people seem to forget that Hussein actually used WMD on his enemies as well as his own people. Iran has shown that it cannot be trusted but that should really be none of our business. No matter what they build it is unlikely it can reach the US or that they can get it here so we should be safe.

Let the Russians and the Europeans worry about the fallout from a nuclear blast, should Iran develop a nuke. If they never develop one then it was prudent not to go after them and if they do build one then those who said they would were right and those affected can pay the consequences for not listening. However, any person (or nation) who opposes interfering with Iran and its nuclear ambitions now will have no right to blame their development of nuclear weapons on George Bush. Any member of the US Congress that does should be immediately taken to Gitmo and left there until they die. Any nation that has the audacity to blame it on him should be cut off from the world. This scenario is not beyond belief. Bill Clinton gave nuclear technology to the North Koreans and then Bush was blamed for “taking his eye off them” when they ended up testing a nuclear device.

I say the hell with Iran and let’s just ignore them. We will have proof of their nuclear ambitions when they announce they have the weapon (they wouldn’t lie, now would they) or when they launch one. In any event, we will then have the provocation we need to send about a hundred thousand Tomahawks toward their country and wipe that miserable place off the map. I bet then the naysayers will want action.

Of course, this all assumes that Israel is going to play the wussy games that the US is playing and sit idly by while Iran develops a weapon that will be used to destroy that country. If Israel gets fed up Iran might not exist too much longer.

Tough sanctions are needed right now and without them the world will be getting what it asked for. We need members of the UN Security Council to sanction Iran and we need the damned Russians and Chinese to get on board with the program instead of selling the Iranians what they need to make war.

I believe we should try diplomacy first but sine the diplomats are cowards and will not go practice diplomacy we are left with few choices should things get dicey.

The old Goodwrench commercial used to say; “You can pay me now or you can pay me later.” If we don’t do something now (like sanction Iran) then someone will pay for it later. It will be harder, of course, because Iran looks at the latest intelligence report as a declaration of surrender.

The only way to deal with Muslims is to be tough and to never back down. Thanks to the spineless people in our intelligence community and the greedy rulers of Russia and China, we will have a tougher road to travel from this point forward.

Tags: china, Iran, Iraq, nukes, russia, war, WMD

Is Ahmadinejad a Tutored Mouthpiece?

Sep 28, 2007 Uncategorized

Recently, I wrote an item about Iranian President Ahmadinejad and how he was “insulted” at his Columbia University speech. He might have felt insulted but how he felt was nothing compared to how many in this country felt about he appearance. A regular commenter, Patsy, made an interesting observation:

I’ve been thinking about something recently, and I’d like to run it by you. The PR moves Ahmadinejad has been making, related to his recent United Nations trip, look and seem like they’ve been choreographed by MoveOn.org’s public relations department. Is it possible that George Soros, or rather whoever/whatever is behind Mr. Soros, is advising Iran and Iran’s President? After hearing him speak, seeing his lack of magnetism or auctoritas [sic], it doesn’t appear that the moves he’s making or the words he’s speaking are his own.

When I listened to I’m a dinner jacket speak on 60 Minutes I felt he was parroting the talking points of the left. He used phrases and discussed things that are right in line with their game plan and while I might dismiss his rhetoric as his desire to align with the left against President Bush, when he mentioned Katrina, I could not dismiss his rants that easily.

It was evident that Ahmadinejad was here to bolster the anti war crowd and to ensure it was harder to attack his country, a prospect that has him trembling, despite his claims that Iran will beat us. Just prior to his trip to New York his country had a huge display of military weapons that are supposed to scare us but many know that the Iranians are no match for us in the arena of technologically advanced weapons. He can hit Israel and our troops in Iraq and we can hit his country from our continent. I think we have the advantage and I think he knows it. The Syrians and the Iranians are in fear because Israel attacked a military target in Syria, one that was well into Syria, and they did it undetected. None of the advanced anti aircraft weaponry that Syria uses (which is the same Iran uses) even detected the intruders. They all realize that the bluster they managed has been dampened bu the fact that they are not as protected as they thought they were. Couple this with the reports that the US had a hand in silencing those weapons and there is reason for those sponsors of terror to cower.

But did Ahmadinejad have help with his appearance? We might never know because the media only reports secrets the US government is trying to keep. It would not be surprising to find out that George Soros or his minions had a hand in helping the Iranian President craft his appearance. They are against this country and are actively working for our defeat so helping the enemy would be right up their alley. Soros spent a great deal of money in an attempt to give John Kerry a win in the last presidential election and Kerry consorted with our enemies in the past. Ted Kennedy met secretly with the Russians in an attempt to derail the goals of Ronald Reagan and a number of our members of Congress have been to the Middle East and bashed our country, its policies, and our president so the Democratic Party is no stranger to aiding and comforting the enemy.

How could anyone, though, not see that Ahmadinejad was disingenuous? He claimed that Iran had no homosexuals and we know this to be a blatant lie. What Iran actually has is no openly gay people, or at least none who are openly gay for very long because they are executed by their government. He claimed that the women in his country were the most free in the world and yet they are arrested if they fail to cover themselves. They are jailed or killed if they are victims of rape and the testimony of a man is superior to the testimony of a woman. I am willing to bet that very few “free” people in his country would be in good shape if they protested him in the fashion our people did. Ahmadinejad talks of wanting peace and that there will be no war but his country is shelling Iraq. His military is shelling deeper and deeper in order to harass and kill the Kurds. These are provocative acts and I would like to see a few projectiles head in the other direction. Perhaps if we ended up killing a slew of their military forces they might think twice before shelling. Maybe not, Hezbollah and Hamas don’t seem to learn every time their get the snot kicked out of them. They still lob rockets into Israel.

There was a lot of talk about Ahmadinejad’s appearance and how he was entitled to free speech. This, of course, is ridiculous. Free speech in this country is for those who are citizens. We are not required to give any non citizen a platform from which to speak (except under treaty at the UN). We are not required to invite them here or to allow them any time to say anything. We do not have to give them a place to speak or to allow them access to our media. These things are for our citizens. I dare say, none of us would enjoy such freedoms in his country. I also think he and all these other despots who think they rule the world should consider giving their people back home the freedoms that they enjoy when they visit here. As I stated, they are not free to speak and we are not obligated to give them a venue but, our citizens and organizations are free to invite whomever they wish.

I have to believe, lacking any evidence, that no one officially helped Ahmadinejad with his visit. It is more likely that the reason he sounded like a Democratic mouth piece because he and the Democrats have common goals. They want the US to lose in Iraq, they want President Bush to suffer defeat, and they want Iran not to be attacked.

Assisted, No. Common ideologies and goals, Yes!

Tags: Ahmadinejad, Democrats, Iran, mouthpiece, Political Commentary, Soros, traiters, tutor, war, Wide Awakes Radio