Sometimes a Hug Just Isn’t Enough

Hey, does anyone remember this?

July 10, 2009: Obama Gives Iran Deadline On Nuclear Program

President Obama said Friday that Iran faces a September deadline to show good-faith efforts to halt its nuclear weapons program, and said the statement issued by the world’s leading industrial nations meeting here this week means the international community is ready to act.

Ready to act…you know…sometime.

The president said the U.S. and its partners are ‘not going to just wait indefinitely’ while Iran works on a nuclear weapon.

So you all heard the news last September, right? About how Iran started working with the US to show good-faith? Remember how big of a story that was? No? Huh. Weird.

March 31, 2010: Obama Demands Deadline On Iran

President Obama on Tuesday said the international community needs to impose fresh sanctions if Iran fails to come clean on its nuclear program by this spring, injecting a new sense of urgency into the push to reel in that nation’s suspected weapons program.

Good thing he’s injecting a new sense of urgency. The old sense of urgency seems to have faded away. No doubt Ahmadinejad was impressed. Here’s what he had to say:

You should know that the more hostile you are, the stronger an incentive our people will have, it will double. … They said ‘we want sanctions on petroleum’. Why don’t you do it? The sooner the better.

It almost feels as if Iran doesn’t take us seriously.

On a totally unrelated note, let’s announce to the world that we are restricting our own nuclear options more than we have since the beginning of The Cold War.

Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions.

We can see how well that’s worked with Iran, for example.

[President Obama’s strategy] eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the Cold War. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons, or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Those threats, he argued, could be deterred with ‘a series of graded options’ — a combination of old and newly designed conventional weapons.

Our weapons exist to protect us. If we have weapons that are more powerful and effective than our potential enemies’ weapons, we are more protected. If aggressors believe that we have the ability (and will) to destroy them, they are less likely to mess with us. So why on Earth would our President overtly promise to limit his military options, even in the face of biological or chemical weapons? Is he concerned that a group who would attack us with biological weapons would feel we were responding unfairly?

Shock to no one:

The most immediate test of the new strategy is likely to be in dealing with Iran, which has defied the international community by developing a nuclear program that it insists is peaceful but that the United States and its allies say is a precursor to weapons. Asked about the escalating confrontation with Iran, Mr. Obama said he was now convinced that ‘the current course they are on would provide them with nuclear weapons capabilities,’ though he gave no timeline.

Timelines aren’t really his thing.

Is the situation with Iran entirely Obama’s fault? No, of course not. An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal summarized the predicament well:

President George W. Bush will share responsibility for a nuclear Iran given his own failure to act more firmly against the Islamic Republic or to allow Israel to do so, thereby failing to make good on his pledge not to allow the world’s most dangerous regimes to get the world’s most dangerous weapons. But it is now Mr. Obama’s watch, and for a year he has behaved like a President who would rather live with a nuclear Iran than do what it takes to stop it.



  1. HonestAmerican says:

    The problem here, IMHO, is that one of these terrorist whackos is going to set off 1 or more nukes on USA soil. I have several friends inside the intel community and every single one of them has informed me that there are at least 20 (repeat: at least 20) nuke suitcase bombs inside the USA right now and they can’t find them. Combine that with the Chavez weapon build-up with Putin and the assclown in Iran and America has some serious problems that the Communist mulatto in the White House doesn’t have a clue how to handle. With Congress busy lying and filing their pockets with our tax money and creating unConstitutional laws right and left; America, sadly, is in for some dark, dark days.

  2. Pvt Gump says:

    What do you expect from this generation:

    If you’re going to San Francisco
    Be sure to wear some flowers in your hair
    If you’re going to San Francisco
    You’re gonna meet some gentle people there

    Now all packed into this administration and congress

  3. Randy Wills says:

    A good summary of Obama’s (and Bush’s) dithering on Iran, virtually guaranteeing that Israel will either have to go it alone and launch a military strike against Iran or live in 24/7 fear of a nuclear attack.

    I fear that Bush led us into a war against the wrong country (Iraq), leaving us unable to confront Iran when it was possible to do it effectively. Israel had already proven its ability to disrupt Iraq’a nuclear ambitions, but Iran is now a much different problem and we have a “let’s give ‘em a hug” president in the White House.

    Great options, right? The least that the U.S. can do is get out of the way and stop hobbling Israel’s attempt to deal with Iran militarily before they become nothing more than a pile of radioactive rubble.


  4. William A. Rose says:


    The only thing that is gonna save the world is intervention by God, Himself. That time is soon coming. I, personally, can’t wait! That will be a great day!

    Osama Obama has to reach out to his Muslim buddies – he is, afterall, Muslim.

  5. Gail B. says:

    Honest American– Thanks for that information. I didn’t know suitcase nuclear bombs even existed! Seems our grassroots friends know more about “nuclear issues” than I-Obama does! (And isn’t Sarah Palin one of our grassroots friends?!)

    My comfort zone decreases each day as I-Obama steps up to a microphone. Now he’s saying that he will not retaliate with nuclear arms against a country without nuclear arms. So, if Iran already has nuclear capability, we’re just going to sit with our hands crossed simply because I-Obama was not aware of Iran’s nuclear power? Iran has already let us know that if we attack Iran, our soldiers who are already there will not come home alive.

    This usurper is radical and dangerous!

  6. Gail B. says:

    “Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates.” ~ Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 8

  7. Wam Bam, thank you, Sam says:

    I do not like it Uncle Sam,~ I do not like it Sam I am. ~I do not like these dirty crooks, neither how they cook the books.~ I do not like when Congress steals;~ I do not like their secret deals.~ I do not like the speaker Nan;~ I do not like this ‘YES WE CAN’. I do not like this kind of hope,~ I do not like it, nope, ……nope, nope!

  8. whats_up says:

    Gail B. says:

    . Now he’s saying that he will not retaliate with nuclear arms against a country without nuclear arms


    That is not what he said, what he stated was a non-nuclear country that was in complaince with the Non-nuclear pacts had nothing to fear, Iran which is in violation of the non-nuclear pacts is not covered, they are open to attack. Perhaps you should actually read what he said and stop listening to those who are only giving you half truths.

Speak Your Mind