Make Obama, Biden, Clinton And The Democrat Party Wear Nuclear Iran Like An Albatross Of Shame

I want you to go back to December 2007 and reflect on documented history:

THE NATION – Democrats rip Bush’s Iran policy
Presidential candidates say a new intelligence report shows that the administration has been talking too tough.
By Scott Martelle and Robin Abcarian
December 05, 2007

Democratic presidential candidates teamed up during a National Public Radio debate here Tuesday to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric.

While the candidates differed somewhat over the level of threat Iran poses in the Mideast, most of them sought to liken the administration’s approach to Iran with its buildup to the war in Iraq.

“I vehemently disagree with the president that nothing’s changed and therefore nothing in American policy has to change,” said New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. “We do know that pressure on Iran does have an effect. I think that is an important lesson.”

Delaware Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the new intelligence report indicated that Iran dropped its program before international pressure came into play.

“It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier,” Biden said. “Iran is not a nuclear threat to the United States of America. Iran should be dealt with directly, with the rest of the world at our side. But we’ve made it more difficult now, because who is going to trust us?”

The debate was aired without a studio audience over NPR, live from the Iowa State Historical Museum. It covered Iran, China and immigration, offering the contenders a chance to delve more deeply into subjects that often receive less detailed debate treatment.

Clinton and Biden were joined by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, Ohio Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson missed the debate to attend the funeral of Cpl. Clem Robert Boody in Independence, Iowa. Boody was a Korean War soldier whose remains Richardson had helped retrieve from North Korea earlier this year.

The National Intelligence Assessment report on Iran, released Monday, was the focus of the first third of the two-hour debate.

The assessment concluded that Iran halted its nuclear program in 2003 largely because of international pressure — reversing a conclusion made two years ago that the nation was aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons.

The Democrats used the issue to criticize each other as well as President Bush. Yet their own prescriptions for dealing with Iran are similar — and fairly close to the administration’s approach of increasing diplomatic and economic pressure to force Tehran to suspend enriching uranium that can be used for making nuclear weapons.

The leading Democratic candidates have differed over whether to negotiate directly with Iran. In a July debate, Obama said he would be willing to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a position criticized by Clinton and others. But front-runners Clinton, Obama and Edwards have all said they would not rule out military action against Iran.

For their part, Republican candidates have said that the new intelligence estimate did not change their view of Iran as a major threat to the United States — a view also held by Bush.

In the Democrats’ debate Tuesday, the focus on foreign-policy issues gave Clinton a chance to bring up what many people believe was the high point of her eight years as first lady — her speech at the 1995 U.N. Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing. In it, she castigated China over its treatment of women, arguing that women’s rights could no longer be considered separate from human rights. The Chinese government blocked the speech from being heard within China.

As at the Black & Brown Forum here Saturday night, the debate did not provide any landscape-shifting moments. Exchanges among the candidates were polite — but also at times direct, particularly over the recent bill sponsored by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) that unofficially declared the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Clinton was the only Democratic candidate to vote for the bill. When asked whether she thought the Revolutionary Guard were “proliferators of mass destruction,” she said “many of us believe that” and suggested that earlier comments by Obama and Edwards about Iran indicated that they did too.

Edwards and Obama responded that they believed Iran was a threat to stability in the Mideast but that the administration was moving toward an unnecessary war.

“What I believe is that this president, who, just a few weeks ago, was talking about World War III, he, the vice president, the neocons have been on a march to possible war with Iran for a long time,” Edwards said. “We know that they’ve prepared contingency plans for a military attack.”

Obama, who missed the Kyl-Lieberman vote in the Senate because he was campaigning in New Hampshire, also drew parallels to the Iraq war buildup.

Who – and which party – turned out to be right?  And who couldn’t have been more wrong???

Secretary of State Leon Panetta – serving as Obama’s attack poodle – spilled the beans on an Israeli attack on Iran:

Panetta believes Israel may strike Iran this spring
United States Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a growing possibility Israel will attack Iran as early as April to stop Tehran from building a nuclear bomb, according to reports.
7:03AM GMT 03 Feb 2012

The Washington Post first reported that Panetta was concerned about the increased likelihood Israel would launch an attack over the next few months. CNN said it confirmed the report, citing a senior Obama administration official, who declined to be identified.

“Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June – before Iran enters what Israelis described as a ‘zone of immunity’ to commence building a nuclear bomb,” Washington Post columnist David Ignatius wrote.

“Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon – and only the United States could then stop them militarily,” Ignatius wrote.
 
Ignatius did not cite a source. He was writing from Brussels where Panetta was attending a NATO defense ministers’ meeting.
 
Panetta and the Pentagon both declined comment on the Post report.

Israel, widely believed to possess the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal, views Iran’s uranium enrichment projects as a major threat and has not ruled out the use of military force to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
 
Iran says its nuclear program is solely for peaceful purposes.

The Post article said the postponement of a joint U.S.-Israeli military exercise that had been scheduled for this spring may have signaled the prospect of an Israeli attack soon.
 
Washington and the European Union imposed tighter sanctions on Iran in recent weeks in a drive to force Tehran to provide more information on its nuclear program.
 
Iran has said repeatedly it could close the vital Strait of Hormuz shipping lane if sanctions succeed in preventing it from exporting crude, a move Washington said it would not tolerate.
 
Israel’s military intelligence chief said on Thursday he estimated that Iran could make four atomic bombs by further enriching uranium it had already stockpiled, and could produce its first bomb within a year of deciding to build one.
 
But in his rare public remarks, Major-General Aviv Kochavi held out the possibility that stronger international sanctions might dissuade Tehran from pursuing a policy he had no doubt was aimed at developing nuclear weapons.
 
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said separately that “if sanctions don’t achieve the desired goal of stopping (Iran’s) military nuclear program, there will be a need to consider taking action.”

What if Israel had done something similar shortly before our Navy Seals went into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden???  We would have rightly blasted such treachery.

That said, Israel has no choice BUT to attack Iran because Barack Obama and the entire Democrat Party are traitors and cowards who put the United States and the state of Israel at grave risk by demanding we stick our heads up our asses and keep them there until it was too late. 

Re-read this sentence: “”Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon – and only the United States could then stop them militarily.”  And let me translate it for you.  Israel will attack Iran – and start a war in the Middle East – because it knows it cannot trust a pathological weakling like Barack Obama to stand up to evil.  They know they will have to do what Obama lacks the moral will or courage to do; and Israel’s attack will mark the failure not of Israel but of Barack Obama.

Obama despises Israel in his actions in spite of his devious rhetoric and the thought of that nation having the courage to protect itself in the face of his cowardice fills him with dread.

You can bet that Obama won’t launch an attack on Iran.  Bottom line: he is a pathological weasel.  What he’ll do is sit back like a trembling little coward and wait for Israel to do what any decent nation would do for not only its own survival but for the sake of sanity itself and attack Iran.  And then Obama will tut-tut naughty Israel for its aggression.

This is the most obvious train-wreck in human history.  In early February of 2009 I wrote about America’s enemies seeing a weakling in the White House and smelling blood:

When Iran gets its nuclear weapons, we will start seeing some hard-core “generated international crises.” Right up the wazoo.

I’ve written about Obama’s dilemma in dealing with Iran before (and see also) Given the fact that Obama opposed the war with Iraq due to what he claimed was insufficient evidence of Iraqi WMD, how would he be able to go to war with Iran when the evidence will likely be even more flimsy? I mean, we were IN Iraq for several years; we actually SAW their WMDs in the Gulf War. We know very little about Iran’s weapons programs.

That same month in 2009 I wrote It’s Official: Iran Will Have The Bomb On Obama’s Watch.

In November 2008 shortly after the election I pointed out and asked: President Obama Not Ready For Coming International Crisis. Are You?

And before the election I explained the interesting phenonema as to Why Islamic Extremists Support Democrats and Obama.

Oh, I also pointed out the fact back in 2008 that Biden Reported Stating Israel Must Accept A Nuclear Iran.

In August of 2008 I asked a question: Iran And The Bomb: What Are We Going To Do?

And I can go all the way back to April of 2008 in one of my very first blog articles titled Democratic Debate: Promising Armageddon in which I concluded:

Allow me to guarantee you that a Democratic administration will see a nuclear Iran. Given their policy on Iraq, it becomes an implicit campaign promise. And it will see a nuclearized Middle East. Democrats have spent forty years proving that they are cowards who will not stand by their allies, and their actions will come home to roost.

A Republican president can say to the Iranians, “We went in to Iran when we thought they might attack us, Iran. And I promise that will do the same to you if you continue your weapons program.” And no one can question that. A Republican president can say to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt, “We stayed with Iraq and defended them even when it was difficult, and we’ll do the same for you.” and no one can question that.

One of the things that I here point out is that even if Obama surprises me and actually attacks Iran, it will also be a shocking surprise to Iran that believes that Obama is a weakling and a coward based on his own words.  They would not have similarly believed that McCain was such.  Which is to say that even if Obama does the right thing and attacks Iran, it will be a war that didn’t have to be fought had we just voted with wisdom and courage in 2008.

Here we are now, on the verge of a nuclear Iran and a regional war involving Israel and Iran that the United States will most assuredly be drawn into at great economic cost (at a minimum) to ourselves.  Entirely due to the fault of Barack Obama and a treasonous Democrat Party.

When we voted for Barack Obama, we voted for a nuclear Iran.  We would accept nothing less.  We voted for the most expensive gasoline in American history.  We voted for an economy that would remain in shambles.

As I close this, I want to point out another FACT that history needs to remember.  I wrote a three part series in May 2008:

Iraq War Justified: Lessons from Saddam’s History (Part 1)

Iraq War Justified: What the Chronology Reveals (Part 2)

Iraq War Justified: Paralysis, Corruption at U.N. Made Truth Impossible (Part 3)

One of the primary points that I documented was that we had no choice to go to war with Iraq because three countries – Russia, China and France – blocked every serious international effort to prevent Iraq from developing WMDs which American foreign policy rightly concluded was unacceptable.  For the record, we are facing basically the same situation now with Iran and with Syria.  And how are we going to gain international cooperation when Russia and China can block any meaningful effort at international cooperation with their respective veto powers?

Three sites provide a list of statements that top Democrats made as they gave their support for the Iraq War before they treasonously turned on a president at war.  You can see that they talked as tough as “Dubya” EVER did about military action against Saddam Hussein; but when it came time for these cowards to put their money where their mouths were, well, that was when they cut and ran:

Truth or Fiction
Freedom Agenda
Snopes

I have repeatedly attacked the Democrat Party for its:

Opposition to the Iraq War (which 60% of Senate Democrats voted for, only to repudiate and claim Bush deceived them); opposition to the Patriot Act; opposition to Domestic Surveillance on calls from international terrorists; opposition to Gitmo, even though it is the only reasonable place to hold these people that no country wants; the demand for full legal representation in civilian courts for terrorists; opposition to even the reasonable use of profiling to weed out terrorists.  And I could go on and on.  It boils down to the fact that the left despise anything that help us win the war on terror or protect us from terrorism.

And to quote Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright who demonized America in his “No, no, no!  Not God bless America.  God DAMN America!” sermon, “Our chickens have come home to roost” for voting for this disgrace and this party of disgrace.

There is one person – Barack Obama – and one party – the Democrat Party – that are 100 percent responsible for the crisis we are about to face.

Hillary’s nuclear threat to Iran shows need for McCain

“CIA officials will tell Congress on Thursday that North Korea had been helping Syria build a plutonium-based nuclear reactor, a U.S. official said, a disclosure that could touch off new resistance to the administration’s plan to ease sanctions on Pyongyang,” begins a Los Angeles Times story dated today.

It’s really a pretty scary issue, when you stop and think about it. Why would Syria want a secret nuclear facility? What would they do with it?

Israeli aircraft bombed that particular geography in Syria into rubble because Israel isn’t going to take any chances over being exterminated by an Arab nuke.

The question is, how willing are we to play Russian roulette with a WMD attack?

North Korea under Kim Jong-Il; Syria under Bashar al-Assad; Iraq under Saddam Hussein. We don’t exactly have total transparency in such regimes. They do one thing well: keep the rest of the world in the dark.

When we went into Iraq, we did so because we knew for a fact that Saddam Hussein had possessed WMD in the past. He had repeatedly used it on his own people, in addition to Iran. And we knew that he was playing game after game with the U.N. inspectors.

An analogy might help here. During President Clinton’s administration, he had a state visit planned to Russia. Boris Yeltsin (who died a year ago today) had been ill, and was known to be in poor health, and there was a credible rumor that the man had recently died. It would have plainly been embarrassing had President Clinton made a state visit to see a man who was dead. So the White House contacted Russia, and demanded verification that Yeltsin was still alive. Yeltsin provided the verification, and the visit took place.

What President Bush did – in the hindsight of realizing that 9/11 would have been unimaginably worse had the terrorists possessed WMD – was demand that Saddam Hussein prove that he did not have any WMD. For whatever reason (possibly because he did not want his Arab neighbors to know he’d been defanged), Saddam refused. And so President Bush pulled the trigger and invaded.

And he’s been flat-out demonized for it by Democrats ever since.

Now, yesterday on Good Morning America, Senator Hillary Clinton followed up on a nearly identical statement made on 22 April 2008 on MSNBC’s Countdown the night before by saying,

“If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel what would our response be?” Clinton said. “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. That’s what we will do. There is no safe haven.”

“Whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they may foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

Well, maybe Hillary Clinton is willing to make Israel a proxy in her game of “Nuclear Chicken” with Iran, but an important question is, Is she willing to play with the United States at stake?  Israel, for its part, has made it official policy to state, “We aren’t playing games when it comes to our survival.”

Are we willing to sacrifice several million people, or do you think we should be willing to attack a country pre-emptively if we believe they possess WMD and plan to attack us?

Interestingly, given the fact that terrorists or a nation-state would prefer a large metropolitan city as its target – and since large metropolitan cities are largely populated with people who vote Democrat – Democrats are at essentially saying, “We are willing to put our lives on the line rather than follow the Bush Doctrine of preemption. If millions of us – or even tens of millions of us – should die, it is a far better thing than that we attack someone who may not have the weapons we think they have.”

Well, good for you, I guess.

But please don’t naively believe that a Democratic administration is going to be able to do a better job of ascertaining the intentions of a totalitarian dictatorship or theocracy. Even if they didn’t oppose the Patriot Act, the NSA domestic surveillance of international calls, terrorist detaining facilities such as “Gitmo,” aggressive interrogation methods, and other protective measures that Democrats have loudly protested. We just don’t know what goes on behind the closed doors of secretive, paranoid regimes. They love their secret evil schemes.

Only a fool doesn’t think that the terrorists would love to get their hands on a nuclear weapon and attack us with it. They would love nothing more than killing millions of Americans. We can know that.

Democrats are essentially saying, “Let’s pull out of Iraq and let terrorists have it. That way Iran will know we mean business.” “Let’s withdraw our troops from our commitment (remember the Iraq war resolution passed overwhelmingly in both the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate) to help Iraq become a stable government. That way, our allies will know that they can trust us to keep our promises.”

There’s a word my dad uses: Bullpuckey. Iran will not believe that Democrats who have screamed to get out of Iraq will be willing to go into Iran. And Sunni Arab states that will be fearful of a Shiite nuclear capability in the hands of Iran will not believe Democrats who are all for bailing out of Iraq will protect them. Under a Democratic administration, we will see a nuclear Iran, and we will see a nuclear arms race in the craziest region in the history of the planet. Guaranteed.

Iran suspended its nuclear program in 2003, according to our intelligence estimate. Many liberals used this information to cry that President Bush was wrong in his policies. But the question screams, WHY DID THEY STOP THEIR PROGRAM IN 2003? DID IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT WE HAD JUST ATTACKED IRAQ OVER ITS WMD PROGRAM IN 2003? A “yes” answer proves you have a clue.

Many European intelligence sources believe that Iran is hard at work again working on a nuclear ballistic missile delivery system, but it’s just so darned hard to know for sure.

What will the U.S. do in all the murkiness? Will Democrats act – and prove that they were totally full of “bullpuckey” throughout the Bush Administration? Or will they passively sit by and allow the most terrifying arms program in the history of the world to succeed because they couldn’t verify it until the mushroom cloud?

Who wants to play Nuclear Chicken with a theocratic Iran, or with the terrorists who could finally get their eager little paws on a nuke?

A President John McCain can assure the Iranians, “We attacked Iraq when we believed they represented a threat to us, and we will do the same to you. You seriously might want to rethink your plans.” A President John McCain can say to Sunni Arab states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, “We have stood by Iraq even when it was difficult, and we will do the same for you. You don’t need those weapons; the United States will be there for you.”