Hey, Obama! Wanna Be A Success? Easy!
 

Just bomb Iran!

This isn't coming from some obscure whack job blogger but from none other than Daniel Pipes in the National Review. Pipes was appointed to The United States Institute for Peace by G.W. Bush. :rolleyes:

http://article.nationalreview.com/42...n/daniel-pipes

So, Obama should start a third war to boost his numbers in the polls. The cyinicism and callous bloodthirsty political opportunism that motivates these people beggars belief. They will destroy this country.

Here's the intro to the article:

How to Save the Obama Presidency: Bomb Iran

I do not customarily offer advice to a president whose election I opposed, whose goals I fear, and whose policies I work against. But here is an idea for Barack Obama to salvage his tottering administration by taking a step that protects the United States and its allies.

If Obama’s personality, identity, and celebrity captivated a majority of the American electorate in 2008, those qualities proved ruefully deficient for governing in 2009. He failed to deliver on employment and health care, he failed in foreign-policy forays small (e.g., landing the 2016 Olympics) and large (relations with China and Japan). His counterterrorism record barely passes the laugh test.

This poor performance has caused an unprecedented collapse in the polls and the loss of three major by-elections, culminating two weeks ago in an astonishing senatorial defeat in Massachusetts. Obama’s attempts to “reset” his presidency will likely fail if he focuses on economics, where he is just one of many players.

He needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a light-weight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations.

Such an opportunity does exist: Obama can give orders for the U.S. military to destroy Iran’s nuclear-weapon capacity.

So how come old Trail Mix here did not ask Dubya to bomb Iran, Dickie thought it was a good idea.

Lets see the conter-terrorism score;

Bush - one shoe bomber

Obama - one underware bomber

Looks like one all to me.

Not quite. There's the little matter of 17 guys with box cutters. Bush has an unassailable lead, I think.

John

I was counting from 9/11 but whatever, the whole soft on terrorists is just more GOP BS.

If anyone hears a scream from the RNC I just sent back their survey. For some as yet unknown reason they seem to think Florence is a Republican. We have sent four letters asking to be removed from the mailing list but no one down there can read.

So when yet another Steele survey arrived today I filled it out, putting YES where they expect NO and vice versa. Maybe that will get his effing attention, Lord knows he was pretty damn stupid as Lt. Governor so I am not expcecting any miracles.

And now Boby Haircut is hemming and hawing about another run for Governor, yeah sure like everyone here in MD wants another 72% rate hike from the electric company.

How about a little turn on a '60's phrase, "Bombing for peace is like f_cking for virginity."

I guess the upshot of this numbskull's proposal is to rally the country against a common enemy. That worked out real well for Adolph (until it didn't).

[QUOTE=finnbow;18802I guess the upshot of this numbskull's proposal is to rally the country against a common enemy. That worked out real well for Adolph (until it didn't).[/QUOTE]

And for Dubya (until it didn't).

"My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency." -- G.W. Bush 1999.

John

I guess he was neither a good president nor a good soothsayer. He gave ignorance a bad name.

He did seem to know he was going to become president though. I wonder how.

Also, since this was more than 2 years before 9/11, it shows just how much that attack had to do with our invasion of Iraq.

John

"What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"
.-.-.-.

Don't think he's being a little tongue-in-cheek with the whole bomb Iran thing? Perhaps he knows we're leading to it anyway so he's tarring Obaama.

Pete

No and we're not.

It would be suicide to attack Iran unilaterally. Iran isn't exactly popular in the Middle East. They're not Arabs after all but if the US were to attack a third Muslim nation, without a mandate from the UN, Muslims around the world would forget whatever petty differences they have with the Persians.

It would be WWIII.

And we'd likely lose since many of our traditional allies would sit it out.

I'm not so sure it wouldn't be suicide even if it were a UN operation.

John

So proxy's OK?

Pete

Say what?

What sort of proxy would be willing to take on Iran for our benefit?

I suppose we might try to work with some of the ethnic and Sunni insurgencies in Iran. There are suspicions that we were doing that under BushCo but that's pretty effing stupid, IMO, since they can pretty much be counted on to screw us royally once (and if) they gain power.

John

Lest we forget, Iran has 3 times the population of Iraq (~72 million) and their nuke facilities are hardened and hidden. We're kidding ourselves if we think we could just toss in a few bombs and destroy (or even significantly damage) their nuclear program. It would do more damage to us than to them in the long run. Plus, they're in the process (albeit slowly) of overthrowing the mullahs from within. Bomb them and all the dissidents will forget their grievances as patriotism overwhelms them. This "rally round the flag" things cuts both ways.