Obama: Iran Not a Threat

[Brainster]

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

As Jennifer Rubin notes, this should be a final exam in international relations; how many mistakes and fallacies can you spot in this little clip?

Reagan negotiated with the Soviets and Nixon with the Chinese because they were too big to ignore (and China was seen as a counterbalance to the Soviets). Iran may not be a real threat to the US, but then, neither is Al Qaeda. Will Obama negotiate with Osama? And is Iran perhaps a threat to other countries in the region beginning with I, like Iraq and Israel?

Remember, this is the guy who thinks he doesn't need any help with foreign policy.

[boloboffin]

Barack Obama:

Quote:

I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave.

Wow, Brainster. Propagandize much?

[Just thinking]

Personally, I think Iran is a very real threat to the Middle East, and in turn the USA. If I recall, there are some religious leaders (leader) that wants to see the destruction of Israel before he dies, and he's not doing too well. Anyway, my point is that, unlike the USSR, these folks don't care if after they hit us (or Israel) that we blow them to Kingdom Come. The Russians value a continued existence here on Earth ... I'm not so sure about these guys; and that makes them a greater threat in some respects.

[varwoche]

The thread title is so misleading that it borders on a lie.

What he actually said:

Originally Posted by Obama

They don't pose the serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.

Which of course is true.

[moon1969]

It is only a threat to Israel. Since it is very clear that Ahmadinejad doesn"t like the "zioniost" and Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust. How is it a threat to the USA? USA hates Gulbuddin Hekmatyar? So why did Iran close all offices of Hezb-e-Islami on February 10, 2002? Why can"t Israel handle Iran just like they did to Saddam Hussein? Do you remember Operation Opera on June 7, 1981? Iran claims that they hate the Taliban. And if USA did anything to Iran anti-american attitudes would only get stronger in Middle East. Didn"t McCain sign bomb bomb Iran? McCain can"t fund a war with Iran because the USA has no money plus McCain would have to bring back the draft.

[Just thinking]

Originally Posted by varwoche

What he actually said: Which of course is true.

There I would disagree. Sure, they don't pose the threat of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), but they seem to pose a much greater chance of doing something very serious.

[boloboffin]

Just thinking: Be sure to include my direct quote of Obama into your calculations.

[Just thinking]

Originally Posted by moon1969

It is only a threat to Israel. Since it is very clear that Ahmadinejad doesn"t like the "zioniost" and Ahmadinejad denies the holocaust. How is it a threat to the USA?

A nuclear hit on Israel would result in a counter strike from the USA. Take it from there.

Quote:

Why can"t Israel handle Iran just like they did to Saddam Hussein? Do you remember Operation Opera on June 7, 1981? Iran claims that they hate the Taliban. And if USA did anything to Iran anti-american attitudes would only get stronger in Middle East. Didn"t McCain sign bomb bomb Iran? McCain can"t fund a war with Iran because the USA has no money plus McCain would have to bring back the draft.

This isn't like Saddam in that the Israeli military may not be up to the task. Too big a campaign. The US wouldn't invade, they'd bomb --- and make it count. And you're right ... anti-American sentiment would soar ... hence the greater threat now.

[Just thinking]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Just thinking: Be sure to include my direct quote of Obama into your calculations.

Of course, but one line out of context is meaningless. From what I hear, I'm not so sure he realizes the threat as being in some ways much greater.

[boloboffin]

That's why I provided a link to his comments quoted more fully -- so that you might find the context of his arguments. As soon as I can locate a full transcript, I'll provide that as well.

One line out of context might be meaningless, but compared to the outright lie in the OP title, it's a breath of fresh air.

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by varwoche

The thread title is so misleading that it borders on a lie.

What he actually said:

Originally Posted by Obama

They don't pose the serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.

Which of course is true.

Ah, the untold benefits of selective editing. My favorite is from Exodus.
"Thou shalt ... commit adultry."

[Just thinking]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

One line out of context might be meaningless, but compared to the outright lie in the OP title, it's a breath of fresh air.

OK ... but when you have an enemy that doesn't care if they die, in whole or in part, just what can you negotiate?

[BPSCG]

Here's a terrorist Barack Obama can negotiate with.

"You can trust me, Madame Speaker; I promise I'm not building a nuclear reactor with the North Koreans..."

[Just thinking]

Stupid double post.

[boloboffin]

In 2003, everything was on the table.

When the current administration has just spent eight years convincing the Iranians that negotiation would get them nothing at all, a little sitdown from a more rational mind seems in order to me.

[Just thinking]

So what do we do? ... go back in time to 2003? We have to deal with the situation as it stands in 2008. Like the article said, it was believed the Iranian government was in serious trouble. It's a great exercise in 20/20 hindsight ... but beyond that? Also, do you honestly believe everything it said about Iran's position on Israel?

[Tricky]

Originally Posted by Just thinking

Of course, but one line out of context is meaningless. From what I hear, I'm not so sure he realizes the threat as being in some ways much greater.

Greater than the possible extinction of the human race through nuclear annihilation? Hmm... I'm not sure how. Iran is nowhere near MAD levels of nukes.

[boloboffin]

I thought the goalposts were...

OK. What we do at this point is convince the Iranians that we are negotiating in good faith. Convince EVERYONE that we are negotiating in good faith, for that matter. That would be a danged fine first step. At the very least, that would be one party at the table doing so.

The article said two things about Iran's position on Israel. The document they had delivered to Washington said that they were willing to discuss accepting the Saudi initiative for a two-state solution. A Iranian analyst also thinks that Iran was ready to soften its stance on Israel to something approximating the Malaysian stance.

I'd definitely accept the first as accurate. The second -- well, he'd probably know better than I. I don't see why they wouldn't be ready to go there eventually. Not tomorrow, of course. But they could move in that direction. As Thomas P.M. Barnett says, connectivity is so much more effective a force to motivate ruleset adherence. Iran has much more to gain from connectivity than this stance they have now. A society capable of building a nuclear weapon is intelligent enough to understand this.

[kallsop]

It's a major campaign blunder for Obama to knee jerk react to everything McCain or Bush says on foreign policy. I don't know why he keeps digging the hole deeper. This isn't quite as disastrous as Kerry parading himself as king of the veterans, but it could grow into something of that magnitude if he keeps making these rookie mistakes.

[boloboffin]

Originally Posted by kallsop

It's a major campaign blunder for Obama to knee jerk react to everything McCain or Bush says on foreign policy. I don't know why he keeps digging the hole deeper. This isn't quite as disastrous as Kerry parading himself as king of the veterans, but it could grow into something of that magnitude if he keeps making these rookie mistakes.

Obama is changing the public face of the race from a Democratic primary to a US general election. This will help him extraordinarily in the Democratic primary.

The dexterous speed with which the right wing blogs gleefully distorted and lied about what he said is the real kneejerk mistake here. "Obama said Iran wasn't a threat? Roll the tape!"

Please, FSM, please keep the mighty right wing Wurlitzer so out of tune.

[Brainster]

Well, excuuuuuuusssssse me! The title is so misleading, because what Obama said is "They don't pose a serious threat to us..." Is the gripe that I didn't include the word "serious"? This is kind of like that Michelle Obama quote where we're supposed to always mention that what she said was that first the first time in her adult life she was "really" proud of her country, which is not the same thing as saying that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country?

Granted, Boloboffin notes that Obama has changed his mind, and this is to the good. But compare the two statements:

1. "They don't pose a serious threat to us..."

2. "I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

I'm having some difficulty reconciling those two statements. And of course then there are the folks here who think that Obama was right the first time.

[boloboffin]

Changed his mind??? That's the same speech, Brainster!

What's the ellipse for? What's the ellipse trimming out? Could it be an instructive example of a more serious threat than Iran? Why, yes, I believe so.

"FEMA: WTC 7 Is Implosion"

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Changed his mind??? That's the same speech, Brainster!

What's the ellipse for? What's the ellipse trimming out? Could it be an instructive example of a more serious threat than Iran? Why, yes, I believe so.

"FEMA: WTC 7 Is Implosion"

Okay, now I get why you're upset; you're mistaken. The YouTube clip is from Obama speaking in Portland yesterday. The speech you quote is from a Billings Montana speech today. Obama is attempting a rowback.

The ellipse? Okay, let's see you reconcile both statements in full:

"They don't pose the serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us."

"So, I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

They're not a serious threat to us like the Soviet Union. But they are a grave threat. Because a grave threat is not a serious threat.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by kallsop

It's a major campaign blunder for Obama to knee jerk react to everything McCain or Bush says on foreign policy. I don't know why he keeps digging the hole deeper. This isn't quite as disastrous as Kerry parading himself as king of the veterans, but it could grow into something of that magnitude if he keeps making these rookie mistakes.

Funny, everyone I talk to comes to the opposite conclusion:

1. It puts him against McCain and Bush, which sends the message he wants, that McCain would be Bush's third term.

2. Responding is the proper response, unlike Kerry who only got around to defending himself five months later.

3. It puts him on the same level as McCain and Bush, i.e. him being a presumptive nominee and nicely leaves Hillary out of the picture.

[BPSCG]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

What's the ellipse for? What's the ellipse trimming out?

Originally Posted by Brainster

The ellipse? Okay, let's see you reconcile both statements in full:

Ellipse: a plane curve such that the sums of the distances of each point in its periphery from two fixed points, the foci, are equal. It is a conic section formed by the intersection of a right circular cone by a plane that cuts the axis and the surface of the cone.


Ellipsis: Printing. a mark or marks as ——, …, or * * *, to indicate an omission or suppression of letters or words.

Carry on.

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Brainster

"They don't pose the serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us."

"So, I've made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

They're not a serious threat to us like the Soviet Union. But they are a grave threat. Because a grave threat is not a serious threat.

Ah, so that's the issue. You're trying to word-parse some extra meaning out of this.

There's only one real way to take issue with Obama's statements: if you think that Iran is just as much of a threat today as the USSR was then.

And let's be honest - nobody really thinks that. It's a silly idea. Even neglecting the nuclear arsenal, just a conventional war with the Soviets would've made both previous World Wars pale in comparison. Compared to the USSR, Iran ain't squat.

Obama is, at the end of the day, correct. He sees Iran as a threat, but not as much as the USSR was. Well, duh.

You're looking for some excuse to criticize Obama, so you've manufactured this "serious vs. grave" conundrum. (Which is just as insipid as Hillary's similarly-manufactured BS about "reject" vs. "condemn.")

In short...You have no real point here. This is just fighting for the sake of fighting. This thread represents the worst of the American political scene.

[David Wong]

It's actually sad what politics does to Brainster. I don't think he would participate in this kind of outright deceit in any other area of life and be able to look at himself in the mirror.

He knows the thread title is a lie. Yet he excuses this lie because... what? It's in service to a larger cause? That he doesn't think we'll see what a danger Obama is to America if he tells the truth, so he has to exaggerate to the point that it becomes an outright lie to accomplish the goal?

When end can justify that means, Brainster?

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Cleon

Ah, so that's the issue. You're trying to word-parse some extra meaning out of this.

There's only one real
You're looking for some excuse to criticize Obama, so you've manufactured this "serious vs. grave" conundrum. (Which is just as insipid as Hillary's similarly-manufactured BS about "reject" vs. "condemn.")

In short...You have no real point here. This is just fighting for the sake of fighting. This thread represents the worst of the American political scene.

Serious question for you. What do you believe Obama will do to convince Iran to stop its continued sponsorship of terrorists, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons?

[Cleon]

Originally Posted by Texas

Serious question for you. What do you believe Obama will do to convince Iran to stop its continued sponsorship of terrorists, and its pursuit of nuclear weapons?

I doubt his approach to Iran will be much different than GWB's. Some tough talk, but otherwise nothing significant.

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Cleon

I doubt his approach to Iran will be much different than GWB's. Some tough talk, but otherwise nothing significant.

He is not a tough talking kind of guy. That is supposed to be his strongest selling point. We have already heard Iran's demands, they have been consistent for 40 years. It boils down to all United States involvement in the Middle East to be limited to buying its oil, cutting Israel loose and now for us to leave Iraq. Obama has already promised that we will meet the 3rd demand so if he is going to base US foreign policy on his self described "surge of diplomacy", will withdrawing completely from the region and forcing Israel to come to terms with Hamas and Fatah be enough, IYO, for Iran to drop its nuclear ambitions and support for terrorists such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the nation of Syria plus, after 60 years, recognition of Israel's right to exist?

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by David Wong

It's actually sad what politics does to Brainster. I don't think he would participate in this kind of outright deceit in any other area of life and be able to look at himself in the mirror.

He knows the thread title is a lie. Yet he excuses this lie because... what? It's in service to a larger cause? That he doesn't think we'll see what a danger Obama is to America if he tells the truth, so he has to exaggerate to the point that it becomes an outright lie to accomplish the goal?

When end can justify that means, Brainster?

Obama knows he made a mistake, hence the rowback today. I don't mind that he made a gaffe while speaking and now acknowledges that implicitly by revising and extending his remarks.

On the other hand, I do mind the claim that I lied. Obama said in so many words yesterday that Iraq was not a serious threat. If he had said it was not "as serious a threat as the Soviet Union", I would concede Cleon's argument.

And many, many people have read it the way I did, which is why the story has been at the top of Memeorandum all day.

Jennifer Rubin:

Quote:

Obama apparently believes that Iran and other rogues states (he lists Iran, Cuba and Venezuela) “don’t pose a serious threat to the U.S.”

Rick Moran:

Quote:

Yesterday in front of 75,000 adoring fans, Obama really let his inner liberal take over and made one of the most outrageously stupid comments of the campaign to date. If the GOP were smart, they would take this comment and run it from now until November.

Hugh Hewitt:

Quote:

Obama expects people to take his support for Israel's security seriously, and then declares that Iran isn't a serious threat?

Jim Geraghty takes on the comparison to the Soviets:

Quote:

Again, in an era of asymmetrical warfare, a group's budget and spending do not necessarily reflect the scope or danger of the threat. The 9/11 Commission report stated the attacks cost somewhere between $400,000 and $500,000 to execute, plus the cost of training the 19 hijackers in Afghanistan; the short-term costs alone to the U.S. from the attacks are estimated at $27.2 billion.

Indeed, the Soviets may have been less of a threat because mutually assured destruction kept them in check, while the Iranian government, run by a madman, may not care if they die; their 72 virgins await.

[boloboffin]

I see. It isn't the same speech. I apologize for that mix-up.

Obama is clearly minimizing the threat Iran poses with regards to the Soviet Union. That doesn't mean the threat is a grave one or a serious one. It's just not the serious threat the Soviet Union posed and we talked to them.

"Van Romero: Towers Controlled Demolition"

"Silverstein: I Told FDNY To Destroy Building 7"

Explain why these headlines are not exactly the same error as yours, Brainster.

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Indeed, the Soviets may have been less of a threat because mutually assured destruction kept them in check, while the Iranian government, run by a madman, may not care if they die; their 72 virgins await.

Not to mention the return of the 12th Imam. That is what I find the most ironic about the attitude of the left today. It is often stated that Iran, even with nuclear weapons, is no threat to anyone because of "mutually assured destruction". I was already an adult during the height of the Cold War and the left of that time were demanding unilateral disarmament decrying MAD as planetary suicide.

[Puppycow]

OMG, the meaning of a sentence, like, totally changes when you omit certain words!

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

I see. It isn't the same speech. I apologize for that mix-up.

Obama is clearly minimizing the threat Iran poses with regards to the Soviet Union. That doesn't mean the threat is a grave one or a serious one. It's just not the serious threat the Soviet Union posed and we talked to them.

"Van Romero: Towers Controlled Demolition"

"Silverstein: I Told FDNY To Destroy Building 7"

Explain why these headlines are not exactly the same error as yours, Brainster.

I think you mean "minimizing the threat Iran poses compared to the Soviet Union", not "poses with regards to the Soviet Union"?

Like I said, given that Obama has rowed back on this I just look at it as a mistake. I'd have to look back and see what Obama has said in the past about the threat from Iran. Maybe he meant to say "as serious a threat as the Soviet Union", in which case at least it's arguable.

But I disagree about the face-to-face negotiations being comparable to such talks with the Soviet Union or Red China. That's silly. You treat hostile equals as equals. Hostile unequals don't get to meet with the president.

As for the comparative headlines they completely misrepresent what the person said and aren't close to being quotes. Obama said Iran wasn't a serious threat, so the OP title is not false. I can see how Democrats, with their confirmation bias might see it as "unfair" and I can see how a Republican like myself with my own confirmation bias might not see it the same way. The idea that it's some dastardly lie, is, quite frankly, Obamania writ large.

Obama clearly knows he misspoke, hence the new phrasing today. If I had known about that new speech I probably would not have made a big deal out of posting this. Like I said, it was at the top of Memeorandum all day, so obviously it was a hot topic.

[boloboffin]

Van Romero said that the collapses looked like controlled demolitions and he even had a little scenario worked out. All I did was eliminate two words "looked like". Since he had a scenario, that little omission hardly misrepresents what he said originally at all. He's retracted since, of course. The evidence was overwhelming.

The FEMA quote: They did say that certain elements suggested implosion, and that's true. An internal failure leading to a global collapse is an implosion whether it's a building or a star. It doesn't imply or suggest that explosives were involved, but stated so baldly, it can.

The Silverstein one is, of course, a severe misrepresentation in that it doesn't even use his words. While your headline isn't a serious misquote in that regard, it is much more serious in its misrepresentation because the stakes are that much higher.

Barack Obama qualified that statement in the very sentence he used it in. By clipping out the caveat, you and the blog you quoted from misrepresented what Barack said in a very material way.

Quote:

"They don’t pose a serious threat to us in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us."

[...]

If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn't mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least, we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world."

Now your blogs and you can pretend Barack said that Iran wasn't a threat. You can pretend that you wouldn't have been AS upset if Barack had said "AS serious a threat," because the comparison would have been explicit, but you know? He did make the comparison explicit.

"...in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us." That is the comparison. How serious was the threat the Soviet Union posed? Do you think the threat Iran poses is anywhere near that level? Of course you don't. John McCain must pretend that Iran is an existential threat to the U.S., but it's not. Things don't have to be existential threats to be grave. And threats can still be serious without being the most serious threat of all time, bar none.

And please don't tell me you think Ahmedinejad runs much of anything in that country. Yes, he has some power. What many people on my side of the aisle pretend Bush-Cheney to be, Khamenei-Ahmedinejad actually is.

I appreciate all the minor editing points.

[Brainster]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

Van Romero said that the collapses looked like controlled demolitions and he even had a little scenario worked out. All I did was eliminate two words "looked like". Since he had a scenario, that little omission hardly misrepresents what he said originally at all. He's retracted since, of course. The evidence was overwhelming.

Okay, so the Van Romero headline is very comparable; basically what the guy said even though he retracted it quite sensibly afterwards. I agree, the elements of comparability here are pretty good.

Quote:

The FEMA quote: They did say that certain elements suggested implosion, and that's true. An internal failure leading to a global collapse is an implosion whether it's a building or a star. It doesn't imply or suggest that explosives were involved, but stated so baldly, it can.

I can only assume that this is some quote you intended to put in your post but did not?

Quote:

The Silverstein one is, of course, a severe misrepresentation in that it doesn't even use his words. While your headline isn't a serious misquote in that regard, it is much more serious in its misrepresentation because the stakes are that much higher.

Oh, horrors, Barack might lose the JREF vote?

Quote:

Barack Obama qualified that statement in the very sentence he used it in. By clipping out the caveat, you and the blog you quoted from misrepresented what Barack said in a very material way.

He clearly stated that Iran was not a serious threat. He has gone back and stated now that it's a grave threat. So he recognizes he was wrong. Why can't you just do the same?

Quote:

Now your blogs and you can pretend Barack said that Iran wasn't a threat.

He did. This is getting a little silly here.

Quote:

You can pretend that you wouldn't have been AS upset if Barack had said "AS serious a threat," because the comparison would have been explicit, but you know? He did make the comparison explicit.

I'm not pretending anything. Please address my arguments without implying my statements are not genuine. I assume you really think what you say, otherwise I would not bother responding.

Quote:

"...in the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us." That is the comparison. How serious was the threat the Soviet Union posed? Do you think the threat Iran poses is anywhere near that level? Of course you don't. John McCain must pretend that Iran is an existential threat to the U.S., but it's not. Things don't have to be existential threats to be grave. And threats can still be serious without being the most serious threat of all time, bar none.

That is a reasonable argument; what a pity it's not the argument that Obama was making Sunday night. Yesterday he said "not a serious threat", today he said "a grave threat". Clearly he knows he screwed up. As I've said several times, I'm not so concerned now that he's clarified his statement. But I will not let charges that I lied in the title or anywhere here stand unrefuted. You and David Wong owe me an apology.

[Texas]

Originally Posted by boloboffin

And please don't tell me you think Ahmedinejad runs much of anything in that country. Yes, he has some power. What many people on my side of the aisle pretend Bush-Cheney to be, Khamenei-Ahmedinejad actually is.

I appreciate all the minor editing points.

From Obama's website:

Quote:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

Do you see any potential problem(s) with his position as stated above?

[Dr Adequate]

Shock horror, Obama tells exact truth, Republicans spin it.

Damn, this could finish him. Oh wait, it didn't the last zillion times.

No, Iran doesn't pose the same serious threat to the US, nor to the rest of the free world, as the USSR did.

Duh.

[Texas]

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

Shock horror, Obama tells exact truth, Republicans spin it.

Damn, this could finish him. Oh wait, it didn't the last zillion times.

No, Iran doesn't pose the same serious threat to the US, nor to the rest of the free world, as the USSR did.

Duh.

30 years ago the left was saying the same thing about the USSR. THe message never changes.