Posted on 01/13/2009 8:58:03 AM PST by John Semmens
Although he once labeled Iran a tiny country posing little threat to the United States, President-Elect Barack Obama pointed out that he also said Iran was a genuine threat. This cautious policy straddle during the campaign is now reflected in his announced strategy for how his administration will deal with that country.
“We should be willing to initiate diplomacy as a mechanism to achieve our national security goals, and my national security team, I think, is reflective of that practical, pragmatic approach to foreign policy,” Obama said. “I faced bullies in high school. I found then that if I gave them my lunch money and agreed to perform other services they left me alone. I see no reason why a similar compromise can’t be reached between us and Iran.”
In related news, it has been disclosed that Barack’s 71-year-old mother-in-law, Marian Robinson, will be residing with him and his family in the White House. “I’m going to keep an eye on him and try to make sure he doesn’t go smoking crack or hang out with hoodlums like he did in Chicago,” Robinson declared. “After all, he is president now and a lot more people will be out to make him look bad and bring him down.”
(Excerpt) Read more at azconservative.org ...
“We should be willing to initiate diplomacy as a mechanism to achieve our national security goals”.....
Shades of Jimmah C. doncha know?.....Cut-off American heads rolling around on Y-tube is just a distraction to his brilliant diplomacy mechanism....
Obama probably feels the urge to put on dirty pajamas, buy an RPG, and take up arms against America.
ooooooooo, that’s tooooooo good. He’ll go to Iran? Oh, pleae tell me he’s going to go to Iran to talk to the Mullets! Tell me he’s going to Iran to talk to “Stinky” their diminuitive puppet president. Yes, and if they are bright enough to take him hostage, we can call up Jimmy Carter to orchestrate a rescue mission.
LMAO
After that, he’ll give a rabid pit bull a bath.
Well he just already got his answer. They burned him in effigy
That’s all very well if you’re involved in an accident, or a paramedic, but we’re talking about terrorism and the ideology that drives it, not a freakin’ accident scene.
This is why military officers do not coordinate strategic planning with paramedics.
“I have no doubt he will fail at almost everything he undertakes, especially in view of the hoard of incompetents he’s amassing for this administration but I plan to give him a chance.”
You doubt his administration, but will give him a chance? Also, you’re suggesting (”...especially in view of the hoard of incompetents he’s amassing...”) he is competent.
Your reasoning is faulty.
I didn’t say I approved of it, I just offered one possibility. Excuse me for daring to write something that you don’t agree with. My apologies.
You’re right, I don’t trust him and I’m a complete ass for giving him a chance. What do you in your infinite wisdom suggest I do? Treat him like George W was treated. That did real well for everyone didn’t it.
Yes I did, but I seem pretty powerless right now to do much about it. I worked my ass of to keep him from getting elected, even risked damage to my car by having another candidate’s bumper sticker, but alas I did not prevail.
So now I’m faced with letting someone make my life miserable or looking at it from different ways, not because I approve but because it gives me something to do.
Fact is, I’m pretty sure he will buy some silly plan for peace, it seems to be a common problem in that area.
Maybe you should have said.....anyone on the LEFT...gave GWB.
fwiw-
Words or phrases cannot begin to explain how angry I am with those who started out weeks before the inauguration and didn't let up for eight years in their determination to prevent him from accomplishing anything.
“What do you in your infinite wisdom suggest I do? Treat him like George W was treated.”
Who said that’s the only option. I say treat him like someone who should be treated with his lack of experience and questionable history.
“Excuse me for daring to write something that you don’t agree with. My apologies.”
No need to apologize. FReepers are free to disagree.
“You’re right, I don’t trust him and I’m a complete ass for giving him a chance.”
Well that’s self refuting. You can’t trust someone and not trust someone at the same time. Your comment contradicts itself. You stated that you do not trust him, and then said you’ll give him a chance. Giving an individual a “chance” requires trust.
It’s no different than entrusting a convicted felon with all of your valuables.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.