Topic: Act like a President
no photo
Tue 09/29/09 07:40 AM
Time to Act Like a President

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Sooner or later it is going to occur to Barack Obama that he is the president of the United States. As of yet, though, he does not act that way, appearing promiscuously on television and granting interviews like the presidential candidate he no longer is. The election has been held, but the campaign goes on and on. The candidate has yet to become commander in chief.

Take last week's Group of 20 meeting in Pittsburgh. There, the candidate-in-full commandeered the television networks and the leaders of Britain and France to give the Iranians a dramatic warning. Yet another of their secret nuclear facilities had been revealed and Obama, as anyone could see, was determined to do something about it -- just don't ask what.

The entire episode had a faux Cuban missile crisis quality to it. Something menacing had been discovered -- not Soviet missiles a mere 100 miles or so off Florida but an Iranian nuclear installation about 100 miles from Tehran. As befitting the occasion, various publications supplied us with nearly minute-by-minute descriptions of the crisis atmosphere earlier in the week at the U.N. session -- the rushing from room to room, presidential aides conferring, undoubtedly aware that they were in the middle of a book they had yet to write. I scanned the accounts looking for familiar names. Where was McNamara? Where was Bundy? Where, in fact, was the crisis?

In fact, there was none. The supposedly secret installation had been known to Western intelligence agencies -- Britain, France, the United States and undoubtedly Israel -- for several years. Its existence had been deduced by intelligence analysts from Iranian purchases abroad, and it was pinpointed sometime afterward. What had changed was that news of it had gone public. This happened not because Obama announced it but because the Iranians beat him to it after discovering that their cover was blown. They then turned themselves in to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna and, as usual, said the site was intended for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. These Persians lie like a rug.

No one should believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran seems intent on developing a nuclear weapons program and the missiles capable of delivering them. This -- not the public revelations of a known installation -- is the real crisis, possibly one that can only end in war. It is entirely possible that Israel, faced with that chilling cliche -- an existential threat -- will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. What would happen next is anyone's guess -- retaliation by Hamas and Hezbollah, an unprecedented spike in oil prices and then, after a few years or less, a resumption of Iran's nuclear program. Only the United States has the capability to obliterate Tehran's underground facilities. Washington may have to act.
ad_icon

For a crisis such as this, the immense prestige of the American presidency ought to be held in reserve. Let the secretary of state issue grave warnings. When Obama said in Pittsburgh that Iran is "going to have to come clean and they are going to have to make a choice," it had the sound of an ultimatum. But what if the Iranians don't? What then? A president has to be careful with such language. He better mean what he says.

The trouble with Obama is that he gets into the moment and means what he says for that moment only. He meant what he said when he called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" -- and now is not necessarily so sure. He meant what he said about the public option in his health-care plan -- and then again maybe not. He would not prosecute CIA agents for getting rough with detainees -- and then again maybe he would.

Most tellingly, he gave Congress an August deadline for passage of health-care legislation -- "Now, if there are no deadlines, nothing gets done in this town . . . " -- and then let it pass. It seemed not to occur to Obama that a deadline comes with a consequence -- meet it or else.

Obama lost credibility with his deadline-that-never-was, and now he threatens to lose some more with his posturing toward Iran. He has gotten into a demeaning dialogue with Ahmadinejad, an accomplished liar. (The next day, the Iranian used a news conference to counter Obama and, days later, Iran tested some intermediate-range missiles.) Obama is our version of a Supreme Leader, not given to making idle threats, setting idle deadlines, reversing course on momentous issues, creating a TV crisis where none existed or, unbelievably, pitching Chicago for the 2016 Olympics. Obama's the president. Time he understood that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/28/AR2009092802484.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

metalwing's photo
Tue 09/29/09 08:16 AM
Israel has essentially the same ability to wipe out Iran's underground facilities as we do ... with a nuclear strike.

Quietman_2009's photo
Tue 09/29/09 08:21 AM
Edited by Quietman_2009 on Tue 09/29/09 08:34 AM
there is so much going on with this situation, undercurrents and behind the scenes intrigue and intelligence, that I doubt any public annunciations of bloggers or editorialists actually know what they are talking about

on one hand you have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, who actually holds very little real power, and his saber rattling rhetoric

then you have the real power in Iran, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Ali Khamenei not only is the real power in Iran, but he considers himself the ultimate authority in Islam itself

Khamenei issued a Fatwa in 2005 that said that the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall never acquire these weapons.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/nuke/mehr080905.html


and yet when a measure to publicly denounce nuclear weapons was introduced to the Iranian legislature it was defeated. Iranian legislator Hojatoleslam Mohammad Taqi Rahbar said that the bill to ban nuclear weapons was "not expedient," because Iran is in a region of proliferators.

He added, significantly: "There are no Shari'a [religious law] or legal restrictions on having such weapons as a deterrent."

http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2005/08/081105.html


During the Iraq/Iran was, Iraq attacked Iranian troops with chemical weapons and nerve gas. The Iranian generals demanded a counter attack with the same. The Supreme Leader than denied them stating that the use of nerve gas and chemical weapons was not consistent with the Koran




I dunno that I would give the Iranians the benefit of the doubt because the implication of being wrong is too severe and extreme to contemplate. But I think it would behoove the President to tread cautiously and carefully and not to do anything precipitously or capriciously.

and I sure wouldn't make any policy or negotiation decisions based on blogs and editorials that are anchored in rhetoric and knee jerks.


a good intelligence analysis read. its long but compehensive

http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090112_iran_wmd_policy.pdf

Dragoness's photo
Tue 09/29/09 09:17 AM
Quietman wrote

there is so much going on with this situation, undercurrents and behind the scenes intrigue and intelligence, that I doubt any public annunciations of bloggers or editorialists actually know what they are talking about


That is the reason I kinda stay out of this one.

I think if we have nuclear weapons and others have nuclear weapons, why are we not fair and let everyone have nuclear weapons? What makes us better than them? We either need to stop using them ourselves and work to end everyone from using them or we need to make everyone equal and hope for the best.

Shouldn't every nation be able to protect themselves the same as we do or war the same as we do?

heavenlyboy34's photo
Tue 09/29/09 09:19 AM
OP, the same could be said of any president thus far, but it is definitely true of B.O.

Quietman_2009's photo
Tue 09/29/09 09:21 AM
we (the United States) have been in a thirty or forty year process of trying to get rid of nuclear weapons. Slowly but surely the US and Russia have been negotiating trying to draw down thier stockpiles.

But it doesnt do any good to get rid of em if unstable third world countries start developing them

Dragoness's photo
Tue 09/29/09 09:48 AM

we (the United States) have been in a thirty or forty year process of trying to get rid of nuclear weapons. Slowly but surely the US and Russia have been negotiating trying to draw down thier stockpiles.

But it doesnt do any good to get rid of em if unstable third world countries start developing them


Third world countries who have the technology to develop nuclear weapons are not so third world, are they?

Also they will realize as we did, like in the movie War games, if we fire they will fire and bye bye to everyone. The other countries who do not get hit will be able to take over our country and theirs...lol

All they need to do is make the deduction of consequences and they will stand down too. They do have brains even if we do not give them credit for it.

TJN's photo
Tue 09/29/09 09:58 AM


we (the United States) have been in a thirty or forty year process of trying to get rid of nuclear weapons. Slowly but surely the US and Russia have been negotiating trying to draw down thier stockpiles.

But it doesnt do any good to get rid of em if unstable third world countries start developing them


Third world countries who have the technology to develop nuclear weapons are not so third world, are they?

Also they will realize as we did, like in the movie War games, if we fire they will fire and bye bye to everyone. The other countries who do not get hit will be able to take over our country and theirs...lol

All they need to do is make the deduction of consequences and they will stand down too. They do have brains even if we do not give them credit for it.

Did Japan think of the consiquences before they bombed pearl harbor?

What about Hitler? Would he have used Nucs to get what he wanted if he had them?

I don't think Japan counted on the strength of our military.

And Hitler probably would have used them if he had them JMO

Quietman_2009's photo
Tue 09/29/09 09:59 AM
Edited by Quietman_2009 on Tue 09/29/09 10:00 AM
mmm yeah, but the consequences of actually using nuclear weapons are so apocalytpic that I think they should be totally banned glabally. but that is aways away

my point was more in that it is possible that Iran might just be sincere in their denial of intending to create weaponized nuclear technology and that should be investigated more thoroughly

they DO have the right to develop nuclear power generating facilties if they can reassure the world that it is the extent of their endeavor

Dragoness's photo
Tue 09/29/09 10:01 AM



we (the United States) have been in a thirty or forty year process of trying to get rid of nuclear weapons. Slowly but surely the US and Russia have been negotiating trying to draw down thier stockpiles.

But it doesnt do any good to get rid of em if unstable third world countries start developing them


Third world countries who have the technology to develop nuclear weapons are not so third world, are they?

Also they will realize as we did, like in the movie War games, if we fire they will fire and bye bye to everyone. The other countries who do not get hit will be able to take over our country and theirs...lol

All they need to do is make the deduction of consequences and they will stand down too. They do have brains even if we do not give them credit for it.

Did Japan think of the consiquences before they bombed pearl harbor?

What about Hitler? Would he have used Nucs to get what he wanted if he had them?

I don't think Japan counted on the strength of our military.

And Hitler probably would have used them if he had them JMO


Guess that is the danger of creating them in the first place huh? Everyone will someday have one to use at their leisure.

Quietman_2009's photo
Tue 09/29/09 10:01 AM
Hitler ALMOST had nukes

they were reportedly only a few months away when Berlin fell

Dragoness's photo
Tue 09/29/09 10:07 AM

mmm yeah, but the consequences of actually using nuclear weapons are so apocalytpic that I think they should be totally banned glabally. but that is aways away

my point was more in that it is possible that Iran might just be sincere in their denial of intending to create weaponized nuclear technology and that should be investigated more thoroughly

they DO have the right to develop nuclear power generating facilties if they can reassure the world that it is the extent of their endeavor


Why do they have to assure the world that is all they are going to do when the world around them did not have to do the same?

Quietman_2009's photo
Tue 09/29/09 10:36 AM
Edited by Quietman_2009 on Tue 09/29/09 10:37 AM
well actually they do

that is the whole point of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (which Iran signed)

first to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons

and second to reduce or even eliminate existing nuclear weapons


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

msharmony's photo
Tue 09/29/09 10:44 AM
Not everyone will agree with the President. Not one President yet has accomplished that and thats ok. If Obama said nothing, some would say he wasnt presidential because he wasnt doing enough or because he didnt speak out or because he didnt care. Obama is a highly visible president and I feel there is nothing unpresidential about that. We live in a very global age, television and internet are a reality and people are going to report news or make it up regardless of what the President does. I think it is refreshing that he remains human enough to answer questions in 'interviews' in front of millions who voted for him and might want to know. I think it is wise for him , as well, to speak for himself on issues that arise instead of letting others make false accusations or try to infer from his action or inaction what he really 'means'.

There are three more years, at least, to see what will be accomplished in this term and I am still very optimistic about and proud of the President I elected.

Quietman_2009's photo
Tue 09/29/09 10:46 AM
Edited by Quietman_2009 on Tue 09/29/09 10:46 AM
the US and Russia have been actively working together to reduce nuclear weapons with an eventual goal of eliminating them

the latest


Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory reported that President Bush directed the US military to cut its stockpile of both deployed and reserve nuclear weapons in half by 2012. The goal was achieved in 2007, a reduction of US nuclear warheads to just over 50 percent of the 2001 total. A further proposal by Bush will bring the total down another 15%
-wiki

TJN's photo
Tue 09/29/09 11:01 AM
I like the fact that he is in Copenhagen trying to get the 2012 olympics in Chicago.

NOt only will it hopefully bring the games here but I live about a hour and a half away so I will be able to go to some events. And possibly even rent out a couple rooms for those who can't get a hotel.

Ok so my reasoning is for personal gain, but it would be good for the economy around here.