“In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.” –President Barack Obama, 2009
While reading Philip Taubman’s book The Partnership, a story about “five Cold Warriors and their quest to ban the bomb,” I was amazed by how he mentions President Obama in glowing terms—as a politician concerned and speaking out about the dangers nuclear weapons pose to the world at large—but refers to Iran as a one of those countries whose “nuclear program” the same world should regard as suspect and a veritable kindle stick to what has always been a volatile and preponderantly Muslim Middle East. He quotes President Obama who, during a visit to Prague in 2009, remarked, “In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up.”
Surprisingly, in light of the “Iran deal” recently orchestrated by Obama’s shamelessly sycophantic John Kerry, Taubman tells that it was the view of William Perry (one of the Cold Warriors) way back when that, “the intersection of terrorism and the weapons programs in North Korea and Iran will push nuclear threats out of control. ‘If Iran and North Korea cannot be stopped from building nuclear arsenals,’ he said, ‘I believe that we will cross that tipping point, with consequences that will be dangerous beyond most people’s imagination.’ ” He recounts that in 2008, during a presidential debate, Obama said that “…the biggest threat to the United States is a terrorist getting their hands on nuclear weapons.” So, I am not so perplexed by Philip Taubman’s blind and salivating support of Barack Obama as I am by President Obama’s complete repudiation of his professed convictions then about the dangers of nuclear weapons and the absence of what should have been, to date, a corresponding foreign policy as regards Iran. His recent imbecility, or, as it has become known, “the Iran deal,” has not only evoked the choler of his Republican opponents but also that of some of his fellow Democrats, including Robert Menendez and Chuck Schumer.
What kind of leader wilfully enables a professed enemy of the USA to produce nuclear weapons? Certainly not a leader known for patriotic rhetoric, and certainly not a leader known for telling the truth. This is the same Barack Obama who, during his first term as President, condemned Iran unreservedly, as though there was never any doubt that Iran was a rogue nation and a danger to the security of the entire world, let alone the Middle East: “I state clearly and with conviction America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” But now he’s given the green light to Iran to continue its “nuclear program,” as though Iran were a trusted friend and not a sworn enemy of the United States of America—as though the Republic of Iran has no intention of developing nuclear weapons. “I’m not naïve,” said President Obama back in 2009. Oh, but yes you are, Mr. President.
In his book World War IV, Norman Podhoretz pointed out back in 2007 that many members of the “foreign-policy elites” were coming to the conclusion that making compromises with the Republic of Iran was not a viable option simply because of the fact that this regime, even then, showed nothing but contempt for Western diplomacy and goodwill. “You can’t piss through an Ironwood tree,” as they say up here in Canada, and you can’t expect an Islamist regime like Iran to give up its enthralling dream of hegemony over all other nations in the Middle East when that same dream can only be realized by means of nuclear weapons capability. And you can’t expect Iran’s religious madmen to give up their lust for killing Jews when they’ve proudly ingeminated their public support of terrorists bent on the annihilation of the State of Israel for so many years now that it’s become an Islamic custom. Think Al Quds Day. Podhoretz recounts that even his unflattering political opponents eventually had to acknowledge his astute ascertainment about the religious madmen of Iran: “As one who had long since rejected the faith in diplomacy and sanctions, and who had been excoriated for my heretical views by more than one member of the foreign-policy elites, I never thought I would live to see the day when these very elites would come to admit that the carrot-and-stick approach would not and could not succeed in preventing Iran from getting the bomb.”
Mr. Podhoretz goes on to tell that, even though his opponents acknowledged his wisdom and foresight regarding Iran, “the lesson they drew from this new revelation was, however, a different matter.” Instead of “drawing the logical conclusion—namely that military action had now become necessary,” they opted for the “complacent idea that we could live with an Iranian bomb.” Promoting military action against Iran, Podhoretz argued that “deterrence could not be relied upon with a regime ruled by Islamofascist revolutionaries who not only were ready to die for their beliefs but cared less about protecting their people than about the spread of their ideology and their power. If the mullahs got the bomb, I said, it is not them who would be deterred, but us.”
And this, alas, this reversal of roles, from having some measure of control over our destiny to placing our destiny into the hands of our sworn enemies—is the irremissible fate foisted on us (and our children) by President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry. I am very distressed by the fact that the present government of the greatest superpower in the world (USA) has now given legitimacy (cheap though it may be) to a vicious regime whose mullahs have had ties to what Neil Kressel referred to as “worldwide holy war network,” to such Islamist savages as Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and Ramzi Yousef, and all because President Barack Obama obdurately insists that the West can “live with an Iranian bomb.”
This certainly is a strange turn of history, President Obama, but not because the “threat of global nuclear war has gone down,” nor because “the risk of nuclear attack has gone up,” but because you, in every grandiloquent speech you gave back in 2009, promised you would work toward creating a world free of the threat of nuclear war. Instead, because of your underhanded dealings with Iran, beyond the gaze of those who actually love and cherish the freedoms and security we enjoy here in the Western hemisphere, have made the world a much more dangerous place.
mortimer says
The problem is WHO has nuclear weapons…our allies or our foes. Iran’s mullahs are self-declared foes.
Dr. Divinity says
Is north Korea going to build the bomb for Iran???
Shane says
The Ayatollahs want to start WW3 so that the Islamic Anti-Christ will come and help to establish Islam as the only religion in the world, They are fanatics who cannot be reasoned with.
jewdog says
Let’s not confuse naivete and stupidity with malice. It’s entirely likely that Obama and Kerry actually believe in the efficacy of their actions, as did Neville Chamberlain after Munich.
One thing I notice about Obama is that he’ll take a position on something, and absolutely refuse to concede the slightest bit of legitimacy to any counterarguments. Opponents are not honorable and intelligent people who raise good points that need to be addressed, but are blinkered fools who should be dismissed. Thus, Israel is the only country opposing the wonderful nuclear deal with Iran, so that alone is enough to pooh-pooh them. The Affordable Care Act is so great, that its obvious shortcoming are simply ignored.
I think I pay enough in taxes to get a leader who at least makes a pretense of discussing more than his own side of an issue.
Linde Barrera says
To jewdog- The article’s author wrote: “This is the same Barak Obama who, during his first term as president, condemned Iran unreservedly…” So in light of what you wrote about Obama refusing to concede the slightest bit of legitimacy to any counter arguments, it is clear that President Obama is countering his original argument on Iran! So now we must ask: why? I think (I do not know) that he will be getting kickback money from this Iran deal. If I am correct, let us say he has agreed to 1/4 of 1% of the billions that Iran stands to receive, doesn’t that translate into a tidy sum for retirement? Remember, to most politicians, ‘We the People” are there to serve them! 52% of all people in the US Congress are millionaires! How does that happen unless our elected politicians are making deals for kickbacks? The salary alone of a US senator or representative will not make them millionaires. Would like to know your thoughts.
jewdog says
You are making the malice argument, in the sense that Obama has been bribed, but I disagree. I think that he was sincere about Iran being dangerous, and sincerely thinks that his deal will neutralize any threat, but this is purely speculative.
More formally in logic, you are engaging in “appeal to motive”, a form of “ad hominem circumstantial” argumentation which can be categorized broadly as an “informal fallacy”, in that there is no proof, only subjective guesswork.
Given the obvious weaknesses of the Iran deal, it can easily be criticized by prima facie examination.
Sometimes, the king has no clothes.
Linde Barrera says
To jewdog- Thank you for your 5:53 pm Aug 22 response to me. I checked my dictionary and looked up “ad hominem”- appealing to personal considerations rather than logic or reason; and “prima facie” – evident without proof or reasoning. So you conclude that I am incorrect in my assessment. This Iran nuke deal to me, in light of your response, is like a drug addicted, alcoholic woman who gives birth to a baby who is born alcoholic and drug addicted. Child Protective Services inform the mother that the baby will be placed in foster care until the mother can prove she is sober, which means going through a treatment program with at least 1 disinterested, third party witness who can attest that the woman really is sober through her participation and mental “buy in” of the program. Even if she tries to become sober on her own merits, but doesnt do the program with a witness to attest to the veracity of her state without alcohol, she will not get her baby back, and in most cases, the baby would be put up for adoption. So with Iran being the country that executes more of its citizens than any other, and also sponsors terror in other countries, in addition to chanting “Death to “America” and stating to John Kerry that Iran can inspect its own nuclear sites and doesn’t want or need outsiders to inspect, how much more proof do we need before we as a responsible, accountable nation say, “This Iran deal is nonsense for the US.”
spot on says
Linde and Jewdog, A few days ago, there was a major article about Obama now soliciting $1 Billion for his personal Presidential library fund. (Coincidence I’m sure.) How does one think he will raise all that money? The very nature of being a politician means that any politician must constantly have his hand out all the time and get used to doing it. Just look at Hillary’s fund raising fortune. That is a key part of a politicians job. Some are better than others. If Obama is as naive about Iran, like Neville Chamberlain as Jewdog stated, why wouldn’t he enjoy the best of both worlds and take the money for his library, which is indeed a kickback but is also indeed part of his job. We might call it a kickback and he would say, prove it because the money would come from a “too big to fail” bank with financial ties and accounts all over the world. The Middle East is a ripe source for our politician’s cash funds.
Roy C says
Jewdog: You somehow are utterly blind to the fallacy of your own argument. By inferring that Obama is simply naïve leaves the door wide open to believing Obama and his crowd are honorable folks who want the best for America and Israel. Given what is “prima facie” (your words) wrong with this mind boggling gift to Iran I find it incomprehensible that anyone could believe that this Islam coddling Israel hating leftist has honorable intentions. You come off like Bill O’Reilly who despite all evidence to the contrary still thinks Barak Hussein Obama is a decent man.
Shane says
No, Obama is hostile towards Israel and Christians because they are the enemy of his allies, the Muslims. Obama is bringing in hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees, but not as many Christians. He is a traitor to America and to Western Civilization, as most left wingers are.
Walter Sieruk says
The scholar and author, Thomas Sowell, when writing in the subject of Obama, Homeland Security and the threats and dangers of Islamic terrorism. Mr .Sowell had a good and valid point when he wrote “We will be lucky to get through the remainder of Obama’s term without a major catastrophe from with we might or might not recover.” Furthermore, early this year Brigitte Gabriel, who is the founder and head of actforamerica.org , was on television on Fox News and she was right on the mark when she said that “Obama is more interested in protection the image of Islam then in protecting the safety of the American public.”
spot on says
With Obama in charge, we are laid bare, inviting an attack. I am sure this is what Mr. Sowell is referring to. Mr. Sowell also has said that if we are attacked, Obama would likely surrender. That leaves us to wonder which country Obama would like to surrender to. Remember that only a few nukes can defeat our country, as Mr. Sowell has also said. I agree with Mr. Sowell’s assessment of the situation. I will celebrate if we get him out of office while we are still and intact sovereign country
Mirren10 says
Jewdog says;
”One thing I notice about Obama is that he’ll take a position on something, and absolutely refuse to concede the slightest bit of legitimacy to any counterarguments. Opponents are not honorable and intelligent people who raise good points that need to be addressed, but are blinkered fools who should be dismissed.”
Indeed. This is a characteristic of the left, (and muslims) as Mr Spencer has often noted. It’s part and parcel of the tactics of the Alynsky school, although of course it is also part and parcel of how a lot of common or garden thugs operate, when faced with someone who disagrees with them, and has *facts* to back up their arguments.
So is Obama a thug, or a disciple of Alynsky ? Both, I suspect.
One thing for sure, by his actions over Iran, he has, as Michael Devolin points out, made our world an immeasurably more dangerous place.
”Let’s not confuse naivete and stupidity with malice. It’s entirely likely that Obama and Kerry actually believe in the efficacy of their actions, as did Neville Chamberlain after Munich.”
It doesn’t make much difference, really, whether it’s stupidity or malice. obama and kerry have placed us all in terrible danger, and for what ?
Omar BEDDALI says
Obama works for american interests not especially for israeli ones!
jewdog says
Exactly. Obama is not swayed by the neo-cons who control the banks and the media. He is a patriot who realizes that the extermination of the Israeli infidels by the Master Faith is in America’s best interests.
Western Canadian says
I would suggest you reload your spell-check program…. Your post contains the word ‘american’ where it is very obvious that it should real ‘violent muslim’. An incredibly obvious error.
Either that, or you are a moron, lying muslim, or both.
Lia Wissing says
No, Mr Obama is not working for America. He’s selling America down the river to his muslim friends & advisors.
Walter Sieruk says
In August of the year 2010 at a lecture at a church about the subject of Islam, One of the speakers is a man who in the past was both a Muslim and a Hezbollah member but now is a Christian. After the lecture during the question and answer part he was asked “Is Obama a Muslim ?” The speaker answered “I don’t know if he is a Muslim but his deception is Islamic.” Furthermore the speakers also said of Obama that “Whenever he speaks he sounds lust like a Muslim.” Moreover, of Obama the speaker also added that “He is going to hurt this country.” As just stated above that was in the year 2010 and since then Obama has indeed hurt America through and by his words ,actions policies, politics
Ted Branin says
Obama’s legacy will be nuclear war. I can not imagine Israel subjecting itself to a possible second Holocaust.
Foolster41 says
Someone posted this in another thread, but this seems appropriate here too, perticularly the first part.
Lia Wissing says
Just watched the video you gave the link for. Clear & unambiguous.
SoCalMike says
Obama is a serially congenital liar and a traitor.
No brainer.
People in the public light are afraid to say it.
Angemon says
So Obama then.
Jay Boo says
The Orwellian magician
UP is DOWN
DOWN is UP
FREEDOM is SLAVERY
SLAVERY is FREEDOM
vlparker says
What kind of leader wilfully enables a professed enemy of the USA to produce nuclear weapons?
One who is also an enemy of the USA.
EYESOPEN says
Sorry all. I know this topic isn’t in the least bit humorous, but I simply couldn’t resist:
https://youtu.be/wuEhhPbAAdA
Cecilia Ellis says
EYESOPEN, LOL! 🙂 It is rather prophetic that this was uploaded on August 20, 2010 . . . and scary . . . Glad you didn’t resist!
Betty says
GREAT AND THE ISRAEL SOLDERS RAP WAS GOOD ALSO.