Democratic debate video where Obama is asked if he would meet unilaterally and unconditionally with the leaders of Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Iran and Syria within the first 12 months of his new Presidency. He sez "Hell yea!" lol.
Is this guy a total idiot or what?
Listen to Hillary's answer afterwards, for the correct response.
VIDEO
After seeing that, how can anyone vote for this naive, starry-eyed rube?
He's going to accidentally get us into World War III with nonsense like this coming out of his mouth.
PS - the Left Wing crackpot who asks the question states that Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel in 1982 to forge a lasting peace with his longtime enemy. Funny, because Sadat was assassinated in 1981 in Egypt. Was this a setup question?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 59
Anybody?
First of all, Obama has no foreign policy experience, so how's he thinking he's going to pull this magic act off?
Second, Nixon had Kissinger paving the way for him for years, setting up the China deal. Barry just wants to show up one day in Pyongyang and say "Surprise!"
Why is it a move in the right direction?
Most of these countries want to kill us on sight.
"Most of these countries want to kill us on sight."
Prove that statement.
Would they shoot him on sight?
Case closed.
Would they shoot him on sight?
Case closed. "
That's your opinion, not proof, but that's fairly typical of you, isn't it? You make some stupid, pointless, unbased statement that based on nothing but your ignorant, factless opinion, then, when challenged by some credible source to provide documentation to back your statement, you simply provide more of your usual bullshit and attempt to scurry away from the discussion.
Just ONCE, I'd like to see you be honest enough to admit that you were overstating things, and that you really don't have the facts to back your idiotic nonsense. Just ONCE, it'd be nice to see you show a tiny shred of integrity in discussion.
But, that's asking too much, isn't it? The only case that's closed is any hope of you being seen as credible on any subject whatsoever. You're simply overflowing with bullshit nonsense, and the whole world gets to see it on a daily basis. Now, we'll get to watch you spin, twist, change the topic, change the meaning of your statement, etc., in a desparate effort to distance yourself from yourself. You're truly pathetic. You'd think that at some point, you'd learn from your stupid mistakes, but you keep insisting on making them, even when you consistently get pummeled over your empty head with them.
Our soldiers have been shot in the past when they step over into Cuba.
Are you really this dense?
Just admit you were wrong, Lefty.
Our soldiers have been shot in the past when they step over into Cuba.
Are you really this dense?
Just admit you were wrong, Lefty. "
This is your "proof" that "most of these countries want to shoot us on sight?" That's pathetic, even by your pathetic standards of pathetic.
I'm sure you saw the movie "A Few Good Men", Clark. Well, it was a good movie partly because everybody knows that we have a heavily armed military base there. Why do you think we have armed guards along the perimeter there, Clark? It isn't because the Cubans want to have a pillow fight with us.......lol
Obviously you ARE this dense.
I just hope you aren't one of Obama's military advisers............
McCain's Foreign Policy advisors are FAR worse; Jim Woolsey and his buddy on that same Committee on the Present Danger, Randy Schoenberg. PNAC people.
Link!
But attention seekers like yourself LOVE these wars, so the thought of attacking Syria makes good sense, right? Iraq was like a gateway drug to these people . . . and as the rush dies down they salivate at the thought of taking Iran and Syria might be the way to get into Iran . . . and whatever manufactured excuse they use...regardless of how often they have to change it...they'll have people like you 100% supporting it, regardless of what it does to our country.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
To unilaterally talk to our enemies isn't treason..............but it is stupid. This greenhorn Obama just keeps stepping in rookie cow-pies like he's never even been to Iraq. Oh wait, he hasn't been there, has he?
I saw your article on Woolsey. Interesting read. He's a smart guy, and a tactical guy.
A few points on your article :
1) The Iranian Revolutionary Guard IS a terrorist organization. So the Woolsey-led Committee on Present Danger got that one 100% correct.
2) Sorry, I don't have the same misgivings about Woolsey representing a huge number of defense firms as a consultant or a board member. He's legally free to exploit his impressive resume of Defense-related knowledge. No law binds him to your moralistic outrage.
3) Woolsey is 100% correct in his assessment that Iran is the puppet-master and Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas are its puppets.
4) Allowing Hezbollah a cease-fire to regain its strength, proved to be a tactical error on the part of Israel. Even the Israelis admit this now. So once again, Woolsey was 100% correct.
5) Woolsey was the CIA director under Bill Clinton. He's a sharp guy, as Bill Clinton praised his knowledge repeatedly. So why would a former Democrat go along with the McCain agenda and sign up as his National Security and Energy adviser? :
"John McCain has the resolve to push for advanced technologies that will lead to greater energy independence for America," Woolsey said. "As president, he will foster innovation and entrepreneurship in the diversification of our energy supply."
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/woolsey-joins-mccain-camp
-as-security-adviser-2007-04-23.html
Wow, and from a former Democrat too. Maybe I'll have to take another look at this McCain fellow. LOL
You nailed it exactly. And that is why diplomacy hasn't worked on Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela or North Korea.
Talking only works when the other country wants to find a solution.
Oh I saw the sarcasm. However, you happened to be exactly right even with the sarcasm.
Talking to a dictator or a dictatorship only lends credibility to them. Isolating them is what has worked in the past. Besides, as we already know from most of our Liberal brethren, these rogue nations tend to use visits to Syria by Nancy Pelosi, for example, as PR tools to make us look foolish. Pelosi was foolish, and has vowed not to legitimize Syria any more with any trips or talk.
You see, those pariah nations don't want change. They want conflict. Except that they know that democracies have one flaw they can exploit : we don't like going to War without a really compelling reason. So they use us like tools. Nancy Pelosi is the latest "tool" to be used as a "useful idiot", as Lenin used to refer to such naybobs.
Don't be sorry. It explains a lot. War profiteering is as old as war. Interesting that it doesn't bother you one bit that a person who can profit immensely from war is the same person who will be integral in deciding whether or not to GO to war . . . and already solicits war with Syria (even absent an attack by them). He's a smart guy all right.
I can't imagine you have a source for number 3 but just for shits and giggles . . . do you?
As to 5 . . . he's a former Democrat? I wasn't aware he changed parties. He's been a Conservative Democrat all along, to my knowledge. Funny you don't know that . . . but not a shock. He's a war hawk, but Democrat on everything else (economic, social, etc.). As to working for Clinton, "Never once in his two-year tenure did CIA director James Woolsey ever have a one-on-one meeting with Clinton. Even semiprivate meetings were rare. They only happened twice. "
"So why would a former Democrat go along with the McCain agenda and sign up as his National Security and Energy adviser?"
SEE: Number two, PNAC and war profit potential
Excellent point. Look at Cuba. It only took 50 years for our strategy to take down Fidel Castro.
How do you know what they want if you don't talk to them?
have you seen the news anytime in the past 5 years?
Bret : "Isolating them is what has worked in the past."
Joseph : Excellent point. Look at Cuba. It only took 50 years for our strategy to take down Fidel Castro."
And it didn't cost us anything more than we would have already spent. Castro's regime just withered on the vine...........atrophy. No war, no invasion. We just withdrew support. 50 years isn't anything for us...........we just waited. And in the end the Cuban Communist government fell apart.
Bret : "Rogue nations don't want to change."
Joseph : How do you know what they want if you don't talk to them?"
If they want to change, they'll speak up, Joseph. A good example : Libya. After their foreign minister saw what we had done in Iraq, they were so terrified that this could happen to them, that they unilaterally surrendered their nuclear program to the UN.
They know our phone number, Joseph. They'll call when they're ready.
Bret : "we don't like going to War without a really compelling reason."
Joseph : have you seen the news anytime in the past 5 years?"
Are you trying to tell me that a potential nuclear program in the hands of one of our most hated enemies isn't a good enough reason for you? Man, what would it take then?
"I can't imagine you have a source for number 3 but just for shits and giggles . . . do you?"
#3 : Woolsey is 100% correct in his assessment that Iran is the puppet-master and Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas are its puppets.
Here's the backup you seek - from General Michael Hayden :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCN9EH_uM-w&feature=related
"The UN was in the process of searching the entire country when the US invaded. Their inspection was not complete. If Dubya wasn't so hell-bent on war, the UN would have concluded what the US concluded. There were no WMDs. No nuclear program. No nuthin."
The UN "was in the process of searching the entire country" since 1993. We got it done a little faster with the invasion. I'm glad Mr. Bush decided to invade. It was about 8 years too late. Saddam screwed us around far too long.
"4000 US soldiers would still be alive. The US could have spend the billions and billions wasted in Iraq on things like schools and roads and health care."
Congress can try to get money for schools and roads and health care regardless of whether there's a war going on. Why don't they just do that on their own. War spending and the issues you mentioned are mutually exclusive.
"Screwed us around how?
Well, the Oil for Food program immediately comes to mind. He screwed us around there............as well as the UN.
Saddam's missiles targeted and fired upon our fighters enforcing the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones repeatedly over the years. So he screwed us around there too.
Saddam rarely let the UN inspectors into highly classified sites because he was trying to pull the wool over Iran's eyes and convince Iran that Saddam had nukes, so they'd be afraid of him. His scam worked. Virtually every intelligence agency in the world thought he had a nuclear program. Do you not remember all this from the run-up to the invasion, Joseph?
He screwed us around again.
I could go on, but I think you get the picture : Saddam loved screwing us around. Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long for the regime change.
What did he do that was worth everything this war has cost the US?"
Pissing us off is all it takes.
I'm sure he thought he had to do more to provoke our anger. But 13 years of BS was enough.
Edward Zehr
"I do remember the run-up. The UN inspectors had complete freedom to go anywhere they wanted to go."
If that were the case, then why did the Iraqis even post guards at their secret facilities?
Why were we never able to see inside the Tuwaitha plant?
Or how about the implosion-device research labs at Al-Atheer?
How about the uranium enrichment facility at Al-Sharqat?
We never got into Al-Farat to examine their gas centrifuge enrichment project, either.
They rarely let us into any of their truly sensitive sites, Joseph. And that is what finally irked us to the point of invasion.
Exactly right. They were almost finished when Booshie, fearing the truth would come out, warned them to leave and indicated if they did not their deaths would be on them.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Obama has said he'd go to Pyongyang and deal with Kim Jong-il without any preconditions.
These are clearly the words of a naive, starry-eyed rube.
Mr. Bush would never do this...............and has never done it. The only way we deal with North Korea is as a participant in the Six-Party talks.
Only Clinton was stupid enough to deal with the North Koreans one-on-one............and they made a fool out of him.
By trusting the North Koreans AFTER giving them money seems kinda stupid now, doesn't it?
I think its VERY clear that Mr. Bush's tactic of not trusting the North Koreans a second time has proved far more intelligent. By dealing with them through the Six-Party talks is the only way they'll ever accede to the worldwide demand for them to decommission their nuclear plants. Using the empirical evidence available to us - Mr. Bush's plan is superior.
Nixon did not promise to go to China without precondition in the first year of his administration and meet with Chairman Mao in the same way that Obama said : "I'll go to North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, and Iran without precondition in the first year of my administration".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1dSPrb5w_k&eurl=http://
littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29896_Obama_Changes_His_
Unconditional_Position_-_Update-_Video_Added
Nixon's visit had plenty of preconditions and had been set up by at least 3 years of pre-negotiation between Henry Kissinger and Chinese Premier Cho En Lai.
For Obama to say something incredibly stupid and naive like this is without precendent and extremely dangerous for our country. Is this guy really this much of a naive, starry-eyed rube?
How did Nixon give away the store?
I think you're confusing Nixon in China with Clinton in North Korea. Now THAT was the epitome of "giving away the store".
"Bret "seems kinda stupid now..."
To trust the North Koreans after they've already screwed us IS stupid now, Dave. Just ask Bill Clinton how he feels about it now. LOL
I didn't see a response to what I said, just a pull-string action-figure recording:
Bret/Woody: "They've poisoned the well!"
Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill went to North Korea to discuss when the North Koreans would be returning to the negotiating table, Dave. The Six-Party Talks are the only way to get anything substantive from them. Hill wasn't there to negotiate.
"I have no doubt that Obama will assemble a diplomatic team that outshines the clowns currently destroying America's position as a world leader."
Not likely.
North Korea already knows our position on the nuclear issue. North Korea knows the Six-Party position on the nuclear issue. What do you think Obama is going to say that hasn't already been said, Dave?
The only thing different that Obama could do is give North Korea exactly what it wants as a pre-condition to us getting what we want. Everything else has already been tried. And of course, Obama would be showing his naivete in foreign affairs if he did that.
Just "talking" to North Korea isn't enough.
We need to get results.
How do you think Obama would do that?
Hey, you just asked a real question! You deserve a cookie.
" "To trust the North Koreans after they've already screwed us IS stupid now, "
And that doesn't apply to the Bush Regime how?"
It doesn't.
We do our negotiating with North Korea through the Six Party Talks. You've heard of those, right?
Obama is a candidate. He doesn't represent anyone..........yet.
President Bush represents ALL Americans............even you. Whatever he says is the current administration's policy............on anything. And the current policy on North Korea is to deal with them through the Six-Party Talks...............not "going it alone" like Obama has foolishly suggested.
Obama clearly showed his naivete on this issue. Now McCain is making him eat those words..........and rightly so.
That is why Obama looks like a buffoon on this issue. Do you really not see that?