Top Neo-con: Obama Can Save His Presidency By Bombing Iran

[actinanass]

Originally Posted by QueEx

But,

Lets say either Iran, or Syria does something really, really horrific, and President Obama steps up as a leader. It would be really hard to focus on the economy, gay rights, ect if America is in a war-like situation. President Obama would gain the independents back because they are the more susceptible to NOT go away from a President that's doing the right thing in a bad situation.

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by actinanass

This is politics. Obama cannot effectively run on his record

If you say so.

Can Romney "effectively run on his record "?

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by actinanass

Lets say either Iran, or Syria does something really, really horrific, . . . and President Obama steps up as a leader

Why make-up "something really horrific" ??? YOU and LAMAR have insinuated that the Iranian nuclear situation and the Syrian unrest are the makings of some wishful, October Surprise.

If the President (as you say) "stepped up as a leader"

• How much would he gain from the "Anybody but Obama" crowd if, as you say, the President "stepped up" ??? Not shit. but,

• How much would he lose from his liberal base and, perhaps, independents, if he "stepped up" and engaged the fragile economy in an expensive treasury-busting war ???

This is simple arithmetic mayne, but why you and Lamar would engage in wishful thinking . . . hoping the President would somehow self-destruct to help your respective candidates (Romney or Paul) to win in November escapes me.

Originally Posted by actinanass

It would be really hard to focus on the economy, gay rights, ect if America is in a war-like situation. President Obama would gain the independents back because they are the more susceptible to NOT go away from a President that's doing the right thing in a bad situation.

What sense does this make ???


`

[actinanass]

Originally Posted by QueEx

Why make-up "something really horrific" ??? YOU and LAMAR have insinuated that the Iranian nuclear situation and the Syrian unrest are the makings of some wishful, October Surprise.

If the President (as you say) "stepped up as a leader"

• How much would he gain from the "Anybody but Obama" crowd if, as you say, the President "stepped up" ??? Not shit. but,

• How much would he lose from his liberal base and, perhaps, independents, if he "stepped up" and engaged the fragile economy in an expensive treasury-busting war ???

This is simple arithmetic mayne, but why you and Lamar would engage in wishful thinking . . . hoping the President would somehow self-destruct to help your respective candidates (Romney or Paul) to win in November escapes me.





What sense does this make ???


`

1. Being from the "anybody but Obama" crowd, it would really be hard for me to go against a black president that shows some damn balls. President Obama actually got some props from me for stepping up, and getting Bin Laden. Remember, I'm the one back in 2010 saying the things Obama can do to get my vote.

2. Listening to the far left is the reason Obama might be a one term president. I'm starting to think that Thoughtone is Axelrod from how he respond to opposing views. Most independents are worried about jobs. No jobs, no independents... That's good math for ya.

3. Leadership solves a lot of issues politically. I'll end this with that...

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by actinanass

I'll end this with that...

. . . meaning you totally bullshitted around the questions

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by QueEx

. . . meaning you totally bullshitted around the questions

QueEx;, haven't you learned yet?

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by actinanass

This is politics. Obama cannot effectively run on his record *thus the negative assault on Romney*, so what else can he run on? The best distraction any incumbent president can play is the war distraction. We already have the narrative of Syria's military killing their own citizens playing out.

Democrats do start wars too.

Don't miss: Obama’s Bain Capital attacks may be working with battleground state voters

[actinanass]

Originally Posted by QueEx

Don't miss: Obama’s Bain Capital attacks may be working with battleground state voters

Let me guess, there's a poll saying it's working?

You still having faith for the Almighty poll....

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by actinanass

Let me guess, there's a poll saying it's working?

You still having faith for the Almighty poll....

If they were going your way you would be all over it.

[Lamarr]

U.S. Moving Submersibles to Gulf to Oppose Iran

WASHINGTON — The Navy is rushing dozens of unmanned underwater craft to the Persian Gulf to help detect and destroy mines in a major military buildup aimed at preventing Iran from closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz in the event of a crisis, U.S. officials said.

The tiny SeaFox submersibles each carry an underwater television camera, homing sonar and an explosive charge. The Navy bought them in May after an urgent request by Marine Gen. James Mattis, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East.

Each submersible is about 4 feet long and weighs less than 100 pounds. The craft are intended to boost U.S. military capabilities as negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program appear to have stalled. Three rounds of talks since April between Iran and the five countries in the United Nations Security Council plus Germany have made little progress.

Some U.S. officials are wary that Iran may respond to tightening sanctions on its banking and energy sectors, including a European Union oil embargo, by launching or sponsoring attacks on oil tankers or platforms in the Persian Gulf. Some officials in Tehran have threatened to close the narrow waterway, a choke point for a fifth of the oil traded worldwide.

The first of the SeaFox submersibles arrived in the Gulf in recent weeks, officials said, along with four MH-53 Sea Dragon helicopters and four minesweeping ships, part of a larger buildup of U.S. naval, air and ground forces in the region aimed at Iran.

The U.S. already has sent two aircraft carriers and a squadron of F-22 fighters to the Persian Gulf, and is keeping two U.S. army brigades in Kuwait. Though much of the buildup has been publicly acknowledged by the Pentagon, the deployment of the submersibles has not been publicly disclosed, apparently to avoid alerting Iran.

The SeaFox is small enough to be deployed from helicopters and even small rubber boats, but it also can be dropped off the back of a minesweeper. It is controlled by a fiber optic cable and sends live video back to a camera operator.

It can be used against floating or drifting mines, which Iran has used in the past. It operates up to 300 meters deep, and moves at speeds of up to six knots. But the $100,000 weapon is on a what amounts to a suicide mission. The “built-in, large caliber shaped charge” it carries destroys the mine but also the vehicle itself.

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by Lamarr

U.S. Moving Submersibles to Gulf to Oppose Iran

WASHINGTON — The Navy is rushing dozens of unmanned underwater craft to the Persian Gulf to help detect and destroy mines in a major military buildup aimed at preventing Iran from closing the strategic Strait of Hormuz in the event of a crisis, U.S. officials said.

The tiny SeaFox submersibles each carry an underwater television camera, homing sonar and an explosive charge. The Navy bought them in May after an urgent request by Marine Gen. James Mattis, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East.

Each submersible is about 4 feet long and weighs less than 100 pounds. The craft are intended to boost U.S. military capabilities as negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program appear to have stalled. Three rounds of talks since April between Iran and the five countries in the United Nations Security Council plus Germany have made little progress.

Some U.S. officials are wary that Iran may respond to tightening sanctions on its banking and energy sectors, including a European Union oil embargo, by launching or sponsoring attacks on oil tankers or platforms in the Persian Gulf. Some officials in Tehran have threatened to close the narrow waterway, a choke point for a fifth of the oil traded worldwide.

The first of the SeaFox submersibles arrived in the Gulf in recent weeks, officials said, along with four MH-53 Sea Dragon helicopters and four minesweeping ships, part of a larger buildup of U.S. naval, air and ground forces in the region aimed at Iran.

The U.S. already has sent two aircraft carriers and a squadron of F-22 fighters to the Persian Gulf, and is keeping two U.S. army brigades in Kuwait. Though much of the buildup has been publicly acknowledged by the Pentagon, the deployment of the submersibles has not been publicly disclosed, apparently to avoid alerting Iran.

The SeaFox is small enough to be deployed from helicopters and even small rubber boats, but it also can be dropped off the back of a minesweeper. It is controlled by a fiber optic cable and sends live video back to a camera operator.

It can be used against floating or drifting mines, which Iran has used in the past. It operates up to 300 meters deep, and moves at speeds of up to six knots. But the $100,000 weapon is on a what amounts to a suicide mission. The “built-in, large caliber shaped charge” it carries destroys the mine but also the vehicle itself.

Nice try. GW would have attacked already.

[actinanass]

Originally Posted by thoughtone

If they were going your way you would be all over it.

I rarely cite polls unless it's about an issue.

[Cruise]

I've been seeing reports that Obama and Romney have made an agreement not to talk about nor antagonize the Iran situation.

The Obama Administration has made it clear to Israel not to do anything until AFTER THE ELECTION!

I will admit, the Baby Boomers aren't completely stupid. Anyone with any sense knows that any attack against Iran will mean the end of the United States, as anyone currently recognizes it.

That is why I am preparing as best as I can for this insanity.

Neocons like Bush, Obama, and Romney LOVE WAR! But, they are too cowardly to actually fight in one.

That attitude is what is going to finally destroy the United States.

[Lamarr]

White House Claims ‘Cooperation With Israel Has Never Been Closer’



The White House on Friday dismissed statements made by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Thursday that the Obama administration had “thrown allies like Israel under the bus” regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

“Cooperation with Israel between our military and intelligence communities has never been closer” under the Obama administration, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters.

“Assistance provided to Israel by the United States has never been greater than it has been under President [Barack] Obama. We have an extremely close relationship with Israel, which is appropriate given our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.”

Romney, speaking the night before at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Florida, had criticized Obama’s stance on Iran. “In his first TV interview as president, he said we should talk to Iran,” Romney said. “We’re still talking, and Iran’s centrifuges are still spinning.”

Regarding Iran, Carney reiterated previous statements asserting the president’s “firm commitment that we must prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.” He pointed to Obama’s record of forging “an international consensus — a consensus of approbation directed at Iran” for refusing to give up its nuclear program.

“When President Obama took office, the world was divided on this issue, and Iran was united; the opposite is now true,” Carney said.

“It is the president’s belief that the best way to ensure that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon is to achieve that goal through a diplomatic solution and a choice by Iran to forgo its nuclear ambition,” he said.

Carney did not mention the president’s previous assertion that the United States is keeping all options on the table — a veiled reference to the potential use of military force should diplomatic stratagems fail.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by Lamarr

The White House on Friday dismissed statements made by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney on Thursday that the Obama administration had “thrown allies like Israel under the bus” regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

“Cooperation with Israel between our military and intelligence communities has never been closer” under the Obama administration, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters.

“Assistance provided to Israel by the United States has never been greater than it has been under President [Barack] Obama. We have an extremely close relationship with Israel, which is appropriate given our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.”

And the Libertarian's conclusion ?

[Lamarr]

no conclusion, but I got my popcorn ready. Just watch how it plays out

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by Lamarr

no conclusion, but I got my popcorn ready. Just watch how it plays out

So, the post was POINTLESS

[lerri]

Originally Posted by QueEx

Perhaps, its time for Ron Paul to rescue his movement, again?

I don't believe that Paul's "rigid" approach, however, is realistic. I wouldn't mind taking a look at NAFTA and I wouldn't object to an audit of the FedRes, but does ditching either solve any of our problems ???

I think simply ending the two wars is simply unrealistic. I believe (1) they need to be ended for financial reasons, if for no other; and (2) they must be wound down responsibly. While I think going into Iraq was serious error I believe it would be wrong to just pull up and pull out (by pulling out earlier we would have left that country in serious peril -- all at our hands). I believe we had every right and reason to have gone into Afghanistan. The problem there, as I see it, is we turned our attention away from accomplishing our objectives to deal with money drain called Iraq.

I have problems with aspects of the Patriot Act that unreasonably impinge on individual liberty and those need to be re-written so that security goals are obtained with the least possible impact on liberty and with realistic judicial oversight to protect against governmental abuse. But, scuttling the Act, without putting something in its place or adjusting the existing Act would be foolish.





Stated more correctly, It wasn't until was because Pres Obama got into office that the movement was hijacked. I am convinced that those opposed to the president, many of whom have made it abundantly clear that they want to the President to fail, have borrowed from Brother Malcolm: they will and have used every means available to attack, discredit and limit President Obama.


On the topic (Top Neo-con: Obama Can Save His Presidency By Bombing Iran): Daniel Pipes, by his own admission, is simply attempting to place the President in a damn if he does, damn if he doesn't position. If Pipes' views prevail, if Obama seriously contemplates bombing Iran (without 'compelling' reasons so to do) the left and much of the center wouold pull the rug out from under Obama's feet; conversely, appearing weak against Iran because he won't seriously consider bombing Iran could build momentum right of center against the President. Pipes isn't seriously proposing a way to save Obama's presidency at all; he's slyly proposing another way to try to ruin it.

QueEx

Ron Paul aint even got a shot in the dark to win the presidency even if he did revived his liberation movement.....Ron Paul is merely a wing man for Mitt Romney at best,thats pretty much been discovered already with Ron Paul's son Rand Paul fully endorsing Romney........no establishment here in the US is going to back a Ron Paul presidency the reasons are to obvious to the why's.read this thread for more on Ron Paul.http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=686793

[Lamarr]

Originally Posted by QueEx

So, the post was POINTLESS

you shouldn't be confused! The point is, as I've always said, Obama's policy towards Israel is no different than Bush's. When those Zionists tell him to jump........he will, just watch.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by Lamarr

White House Claims ‘Cooperation With Israel Has Never Been Closer’
“Assistance provided to Israel by the United States has never been greater than it has been under President [Barack] Obama. We have an extremely close relationship with Israel, which is appropriate given our unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security.”

So, I guess that counteracts this talking point:


Cantor tells AIPAC Obama is sending 'mixed messages' to Israel's enemies


You right wingers!

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by Lamarr

you shouldn't be confused! The point is, as I've always said, Obama's policy towards Israel is no different than Bush's. When those Zionists tell him to jump........he will, just watch.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it

Originally Posted by QueEx

So, the post was POINTLESS

I've always said, Obama's policy towards Israel is no different than Bush's

...which is no different than Clinton's, Bush 1's, Reagan's, Carter's, Ford's...!

Originally Posted by QueEx

So, the post was POINTLESS

What Lamarr should be worried about is how is own party kicked his boy to the curb!

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by Lamarr

you shouldn't be confused! The point is, as I've always said, Obama's policy towards Israel is no different than Bush's.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it

I thought it was the other way around, Isreal the servant, and the U.S. the master ? ? ?


.

[thoughtone]

Originally Posted by QueEx

I thought it was the other way around, Isreal the servant, and the U.S. the master ? ? ?


.

Notice he disappears. Gotta check with Dick Armey in order to respond.

[QueEx]

Originally Posted by actinanass

1. Being from the "anybody but Obama" crowd, it would really be hard for me to go against a black president that shows some damn balls. President Obama actually got some props from me for stepping up, and getting Bin Laden. Remember, I'm the one back in 2010 saying the things Obama can do to get my vote.

2. Listening to the far left is the reason Obama might be a one term president. I'm starting to think that Thoughtone is Axelrod from how he respond to opposing views. Most independents are worried about jobs. No jobs, no independents... That's good math for ya.

3. Leadership solves a lot of issues politically. I'll end this with that...

Wrong on all points.

[COINTELPRO]

The entire history of the United States has been subjugating Native Americans, blacks, Hispanics to white domination or rule. I was listening to stories on the radio of Native Americans being sent to boarding schools, forced to adopt Western culture. You look at what is going in Iraq and Afghanistan, the people are undergoing the same process.

These conflicts with Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, North Korea, and Afghanistan is a continuation of this process. Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries are vehemently resisting this process.