But did Biden mean to warn that unilateral disarmament would be unpopular, or that Obama would initially alienate the Left by demonstrating military strength in an international crisis? One could argue it either way

It seems clear to me that Biden meant the latter. I can not see the “argue it either way” at all as it was clear that he was concerned about the left not turning on Obama.

In the midst of it all, barry yanking missile defence, troops from Iraq, filling up CIA with left wing cronies making it more dysfunctional than usual, disarming unilaterally, surrendering to the world court, giving up rights to terrorists……

Any way you cut it, Israel is in for a tough time if he wins.

Agreed … but then again … clue me in as to why any American Jew would vote for Obama or … any Democrat this year. Seems to me the party has been taken over by Anti-Israeli Anti-Semites.

So why does the Jewish population stand behind these guys? I’ve never understood this.

By Ed Morrissey
HOT AIR – Plenty of people have been scratching their heads over Joe Biden’s warning to voters that electing Barack Obama would precipitate an international crisis to “test his mettle”. Investors Business Daily agrees …

Sounds like a medieval loser.

For want of a nail…

Was Biden talking about Obama’s plan for unilateral disarmament?
A alot of people have been scratching their heads over Joe Biden’s
warning to voters that electing Barack Obama would precipitate an
international crisis to “test……

The real issue is exactly what was it that Bush told them.

I think Bush told both of them that Israel was convinced that obambi was not their friend and that he would not defend them so Israel was determined to launch a first strike before the end of the year.

Obambi and SlowJoe decided that the only way to deal with the coming domestic storm (Israel bombs and Obambi sits back) is to pre-empt the outcry. Slow Joe was the designated hitter.

What Bush did not tell them (because Bush is a friend of Israel) is that the first strike was not necessarily going to be after the inauguration. After the election, sure.

IMO, obambi and slowjoe heard what they wanted to hear because they see the election as the turning point rather than January 20th. Remember the yellow cake fiasco? The “sixteen words” fiasco? The “imminent threat” fiasco?

Well, I think they’ve gone and done it again. And Bush has extremely plausible deniability plus Israel finishes the “Bush Doctrine” which always included surrounding Iran with the American military and then overthrowing the government. Sadly, because of Clinton, our military needed practice at taking over a country so Iraq went first.

That’s how I see it. No matter who’s elected, Israel is going after Iran. They’ll just do it sooner if obambi wins.

Good analysis. I think the Bush Adminstration will go silent after November 4th. My best bet for an Israeli attack would be between Christmas Eve and New Years. Things get a bit slack around the Pentagon during that week and it will be worse during a transition to the Obama adminstration. Virtually all the senior decision makers will have the left the building and DoD will be left to the caretaker civil servants who won’t make decisions. When Israel goes the will be prepared to go all the way if it is necessary.

Perhaps Obama isn’t as stupid as he seems. Maybe he is counting on Israel to solve the Iran problem without involving the United States. Afterall, he will be able to claim that he was shifting US support to Iran for just this reason but heah, it was on Bush’s watch. It’s his fault.

I think if I were a moderate Democrat, I’d want to know about that.

Just. Wow.

But I think it would be best if I keep my mouth shut for the time being. So I will.

ok, honestly I’d never heard that. I was just curious, I wasn’t going to flame you.

I don’t mind the preterist interpretation…if thats what yours was…I’ve noticed they get very upset by the premillenialists interpretation…

but regardless of the interpretation, Iran is itching to attack israel…all they need is the bomb, and us out of the way…

thats why I think we’ll get an EMP attack, and then Israel will be attacked by Iran…and perhaps before that, israel will destroy damascus…

and no, I wasn’t looking for a fight, just wondering where you get that at?

right4life on October 23, 2008 at 3:00 PM

I accept that and I apologize if I was too strident or too quick in my response. But I think it would be best if I keep my mouth shut for the time being. So I will.

If I were to sketch out a likely scenario it would probably go something like this…

Obama wins the election and soon thereafter, and overtures are immediately made either by the Iranians to Obama or vice versa with Obama declaring a new and “balanced” American outlook towards the Middle East. Israel, fearing Iranian nukes (and rightly so) will decide that it cannot rely on US backing under an Obama administration–quite the contrary, it might have to consider an Obama administration as potentially hostile to its interests, and so it will set into motion its plans for a preemptive strike. The timing of the strike is crucial. Ideally, Israel will want to hold off until it can be assured that it has made all necessary preparations for Iranian retaliation and that it can weather the economic sanctions that will be imposed at a minimum by Obama. So, it will try to get as much as it can from the lame-duck Bush administration as possible before striking. It will also want to give Obama as short a time frame as possible between the strike taking place and his taking office to take maximum advantage of his indecisiveness and poor leadership abilities. Ideally, such a strike would take place in early January before inauguration, but, events might force an earlier strike in December or even late November.

Such events could include, but are by no means limited to: decisions on the part of the Bush administration to cut off supplies in an effort to hamstring the Israelis, intelligence information that calls for immediate action, or the possibility of an Iranian preemptive preemptive strike with the Iranians figuring that Bush does not have the popular support to retaliate and Obama won’t.

In any event, it don’t look good…

I’m not playing this game, sir. Enjoy your life.
platypus on October 23, 2008 at 2:59 PM

apparently you just cannot explain what you are talking about.

and no, I wasn’t looking for a fight, just wondering where you get that at?

Right4life is his own authority with a non-constructive attitude. He’s looking for a fight. Therefore, I will not give him one nor will I try to educate him.

I will say this – there is nothing in the words of Revelation 3:9 that talks about quantity of persons. Right4life is seeing what he wants to see, and that is the most dangerous practice on earth.

I’m not playing this game, sir. Enjoy your life.