"Today, I have spoken to my attorney general and consulted with our, uh, allies, er, to make sure that the Japanese regime is further isolated by the application of the, uh toughest sanctions possible....... The first step is to prosecute, er, those who carried out the attack........... This is further evidence that the Japanese government continues to act in ways that we would not like to see them, er do, which is outside the boundaries......"
President Obama continues to prove that stripped of his famous tele-prompter, he isn't very impressive behind the microphone. Today, in his joint press conference with South Korean President Lee, he gave a response on the latest Iranian terror plot that would have made Jimmy Carter proud.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/13/obama-us-will-make-sure-iran-pays-price-for-assassination-plot/
5 comments:
Why yes Gary, the parallels are obvious. All over the USA, when word got out that Iran had tried to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, married men with good jobs turned to their wife and said "I have to enlist in the army now." Popular demand for selective service was overwhelming. Citizens poured into the streets to buy U.S. savings bonds. Everyone in America is united in a determination to serve on the front lines of the invasion of Iran...
NOT.
So what exactly would you have said if you were president?
Were I president instead of Jimmy Carter, I would have gone in and wiped out the Iranian regime and removed it from the world's problems. Thus, there would be nothing to say today because there would be no Ahmadinejad or mullahs, and thus no terror plot.
You can call me a war monger all you want, but the day is fast approaching when we will have to deal with this regime once and for all.
Very nice Gary. I have an uncle by marriage (now deceased) who expressed the same sentiment over Thanksgiving dinner in the early 1980s. "I'm a Georgia boy" he began, and he was proud to see a former Georgia governor elected president. But he was disappointed that James Earl did not announce that unless the hostages were freed by a date certain, a nuclear bomb would be dropped on Tehran.
Let's assume that would have been sound policy. Jimmy Carter didn't do that ... an error by the Democrats. Ronald Reagan cut covert deals with the mullahs that if they kept the hostages until after the election, Reagan would sell them the missiles they wanted, and then the Iranians gave Oliver North the notion to use the money to aid the Contras in Nicaragua. (That means, if you hate the theocratic regime, of course you supported the Sandinistas).
OK, Reagan blew it. Bush, Clinton, and Bush have all failed to blow the regime off the map by any means necessary.
So, given that 1980 and 1981 did not follow the script you wrote in 2011...
... what would you do NOW Gary?
"... what would you do NOW Gary?"
Take out the Iranian regime. Do it now or have to do it in one-three years.
Overt or covert? Declaration of war, CIA, send in the Navy Seals? Do it all by remote control? Boots on the ground?
And, should the president ANNOUNCE all that in front of God and everybody, or keep his lips sealed, grin and bear the sniping from the blognoscenti, and show them all when the results come in?
I think I said this already, but I would be inclined to ask the CIA and the more specialized elite strike force commanders to offer a plan for a strike that would maul the Quds force, without doing significant damage to Iranian infrastructure or civilians, then observe the results, then develop the next step.
Taking out the nuclear sites might be one option, but it would take boots on the ground -- they have them buried too deep for air and missile attacks. Leon Uris wrote a novel about something along those lines. Would it work in real life?
Post a Comment