Carl in Jerusalem:
With Mitt Romney at his side, Prime Minister Netanyahu blasted President Obama’s reliance on sanctions (which Obama opposed) to stop Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon.
Speaking with presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney at his side, Netanyahu said a “strong and credible military threat” was needed on top of the sanctions to get Iran to make a change.
“I think it’s important to do everything in our power to prevent the Ayatollahs from possessing that capability,” Netanyahu said. “We have to be honest and say that all the sanctions and diplomacy so far have not set back the Iranian program by one iota. And that’s why I believe that we need a strong and credible military threat coupled with the sanctions to have a chance to change that situation.”
Romney’s campaign outlined a nearly identical positionearlier in the day, criticizing those who call the talk of military action irresponsible as making peace less likely.
For those who think that Netanyahu has overstated the case, I challenge you. Show me one way in which Iran’s nuclear program has been slowed down by the sanctions
What the MSM robots won’t tell you. The black messiah would have a cow!!
Sanctions aren’t the whole story, are they?
Repeated cyber attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities seem to have set them a bit behind schedule. While the most recent didn’t wreck another thousand program-critical Iranian centrifuges, it was certainly amusing. I hope they enjoy AC/DC.
What has recently come through on schedule is the Pentagon’s new 30,000-pound bunker buster.
Feel free to connect the dots.
The difference between President Obama and Mitt Romney is that the President is actually applying a foreign policy. He’s been doing so for the past three and a half years.
Mitt Romney, on the other hand, doesn’t even seem to have worked up a detailed theory.
Yes. Please go on . . .
And he has. Onward, to Poland!
@Greg: And just what is that O’blamo foreign policy greg? — does it have anything to do with the MoBroHo? – hummm?
So — please enlighten us all here at FA — just WHAT? was Obie’s “worked up detailed theory” in 2008? — humm? — inquiring minds WANT, NEED, EXPECT, and DESERVE to know! — Just what was/is “THE OBAMA DOCTRINE” — come on now squeeze it out —
Obama’s foreign policy speech of Wednesday 16 July 2008.
Has Mr. Romney made any comparable statement?
@Greg: That was Obie’s teleprompter’s speech — I scanned through it and just saw the usual Boosch bad – Boosch wrong – bs — I will read through it later and may have more comments to make – but that teleprompter speech does not change the fact that Obie was/IS an ANTI-American, anti-western, ANTI judeo-christian — SOB
Mitt Romney almost always uses a teleprompter. He still needs a bit of practice.
@Greg:
Boy, howdy! That Obama guy is really a whiz kid when it comes to foreign policy, isn’t he? Anyone remember his first foray into foreign diplomacy? Hello, Honduras? You know, tiny little Honduras that threw out its corrupt president according to the Honduran constitution and Obama sided with the opposition, namely Castro and Chavez? How about that whole “Arab Spring” policy? Wonder how the Coptic Christians in Egypt feel about Obama now that they are seeing their churches bombed and their fellow Christians murdered in the streets of Cairo? Lybia? Wow! What a success that has been. Nevermind that Obama didn’t know who the hell the dissidents were. Back them anyway and throw out the dictator that keep the Muslim Brotherhood at bay.
Greg, it must really put a strain on your small, progressive mind to have to try to find ways to make excuses for a man who is going to go down in history as being worse than Jimmah Carter.
@retire05, #9″
It wasn’t only Barack Obama who objected to the coup. It had virtually no international support. Manuel Zelaya’s removal was condemned by the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and the European Union. The OAS suspended Honduran membership by unanimous acclamation.
Egypt wasn’t the doing of the Obama administration. I remember howls from the right because he wasn’t getting involved. We only announced a position late in the game. Like Syria, it was a good one to stay out of.
I remember hows on the right because Obama wasn’t taking any action in Libya. They instantly turned into howls of outrage over our involvement the moment he did. I don’t know what the hell the right wanted, besides some reason to howl. Maybe Obama was supposed to support a known sponsor of international terrorism?
At this point, the right has no credibility whatsoever on foreign policy. It has become abundantly clear that anything they say will be motivated by partisan politics. Everything they think, say, and do revolves around Barack Obama and the November elections.
North Korea and Sunshine Policy. STFU.
Greg,
Just to address Honduras: Regardless of who or what entities condemned the Hondurans actions, the fact is that the action was conducted in accordance with their Constitution – it was an internal national matter, not an international matter. We would have (and should ) told those entities to pound sand on any such matter – you know, Presidential impeachment and/or succession matters – covered by our Constitution. The UN, the European Union, et. al., had no business even entering the discussion. Neither did we. This was a Honduran sovereignty issue, pure and simple. Our President was wrong.
I doubt if you’d get an affirmative from Netanyahu on your characterization of his remarks, “That he ‘blasted’ Obama”—although I’m sure your readers enjoyed it.
@MikeW, #12:
While it might have been an internal matter, there’s reason for international concern whenever a nation’s democratically elected government is forcibly removed by that nation’s military forces. Things very often don’t go well for people when an orderly, constitutional process breaks down. I think the United States and the international community were more concerned about that possibility than about propping up Zelaya. There were some tense moments. Fortunately things eventually worked out well.
I don’t see why anyone would object to the fact that Obama stated a U.S. position, or to U.S. efforts to support a resolution of the crisis through negotiations. I suspect it comes down to the simple matter of opposition to Obama himself. There are people who won’t support the President on anything, regardless of his position.
Greg,
I appreciate your position, but I believe you have missed the salient point about the matter. The fact is that the military arrested the President on the orders of the elected legislature (members of his own party agreed with that action) – again that provision is a part of their Constitution. And the government was not forcibly removed, just the President – and to repeat, in accordance with their Constitution. From all that I read about the issue at the time it occurred, Zelaya was truly trampling on his citizenry, but I suppose the elected leaders and the citizenry must simply grin and bear it. That’s what they were effectively told and/or for which they were chastised.
In short, their orderly Constitutional process didn’t break down; it worked exactly as it was defined and intended. So, if that was what concerned all those internationalist views, they were quite frankly wrong to interfere, regardless of how or why. Whether we liked it or not, whether we agreed with their methods or not, it is their Constitution; and they as a country officially and properly adopted it as such. They do not have to conform to our form of government. And our President did not just state a position, nor just support a resolution; he took definitive actions, including as I recall, sanctions on the government unless and until the President was restored to his seat.
Whew!
Far afield!
Let’s get a bit closer to the thread title….if a bit off the path….
I was wincing at poor Jay Carney the other day when he was asked what the capital of Israel is.
He just could not/would not answer.
Obama, at 30 seconds into this video did.
Loud and clear.
Same as Romney.
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel.
Same as the 2008 Democratic Party Platform which read: “Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.”
Sorry. Let the emotion slip above. Got to work on that. Will self ban for a couple days.
First – It obviously pisses me off with this whole appeasement and dialogue thing. We tried that with NKorea and what did that get us? It ended exactly how I thought it would. And the world is not a bit safer. Now we want to have dialogue with the Iranians, the world sponsor of terror – that’s not going to work. Baffles my brain.
Mitt sure does love that Israeli health care system.
I wonder if anyone has bothered to tell him that Israel mandates the participation of every citizen in a uniform benefit system established and controlled by the central government? The Israeli system is about as socialistic as a health care system can get.