Does Bidens comment refers to attack on Iran - Bomb ready by Feb 2009?

      Home » Middle East conflict » Does Bidens comment refers to attack on Iran - Bomb ready by Feb 2009?

Does Bidens comment refers to attack on Iran - Bomb ready by Feb 2009?

Joe Biden said that the US will enter a time of manufactured crisis next year. Iran's move to producing nuclear weapons might just be the catalyst he is talking about. This would be a test like John Kennedy faced, with nuclear weapons in Cuba.

US intelligence’s amended estimate, that Iran will be ready to build its first bomb just one month after the next US president is sworn in, is disclosed by DEBKAfile’s Washington sources as having been relayed as a guideline to the Middle East teams of both presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama.

The information prompted the assertion by Democratic vice presidential nominee Joseph Biden in Seattle Sunday, Oct. 19: “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy.”

McCain retorted Tuesday, Oct. 21: “America does not need a president that needs to be tested. I’ve been tested. I was aboard the Enterprise off the coast of Cuba. I’ve been there.”)

DEBKAfile’s military sources cite the new US timeline: By late January, 2009, Iran will have accumulated enough low-grade enriched uranium (up to 5%) for its “break-out” to weapons grade (90%) material within a short time. For this, the Iranians have achieved the necessary technology. In February, they can move on to start building their first nuclear bomb.

US intelligence believes Tehran has the personnel, plans and diagrams for a bomb and has been running experiments to this end for the past two years. The UN International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna last week asked Tehran to clarify recent complex experiments they conducted in detonating nuclear materials for a weapon, but received no answer.

The same US evaluation adds that the Iranian leadership is holding off its go-ahead to start building the bomb until the last minute so as to ward off international pressure to stop at the red line.

This development together with the galloping global economic crisis will force the incoming US president to go straight into decision-making without pause on Day One in the Oval Office. He will have to determine which urgent measures can serve best for keeping a nuclear bomb out of the Islamic republic’s hands - diplomatic or military – and how to proceed if those measures fail.

His knowledge of the challenge colored Sen. Biden’s additional words in Seattle: “Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

Israel’s political and military leaders also face a tough dilemma that can no longer be put off of whether to strike Iran’s nuclear installations militarily in the next three months between US presidencies before the last window closes, or take a chance on coordination with the next president.

Waiting for the “international community” to do the job of stopping Iran, as urged by governments headed by Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert - and strongly advocated Tzipi Livni, foreign minister and would-be prime minister - has been a washout. Iran stands defiantly on the threshold of a nuclear weapon.

 http://debka.com/
By netchicken: posted on 23-10-2008

I hope that I am wrong, but I am all but certain that whatever Obama's response is, it is going to be bad. He's going to either roll over and wet on himself, giving the day ultimately to the Islamic Republic of Iran, or he is going to react recklessly, making the matter worse.

I'm betting he'll sit down and talk to Ahmadinejad and ask him to please be nice. :cool:
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 23-10-2008

I don't know, but from what I have read, if Obama gets in America finally gets a President who actually knows his own mind and can made informed decisions.

Just read this interview of the meeting between Petraeus and Obama, it was a meeting of equals not one telling the other what to do.


General David Petraeus deployed overwhelming force when he briefed Barack Obama and two other Senators in Baghdad last July. He knew Obama favored a 16-month timetable for the withdrawal of most U.S. troops from Iraq, and he wanted to make the strongest possible case against it. And so, after he had presented an array of maps and charts and PowerPoint slides describing the current situation on the ground in great detail, Petraeus closed with a vigorous plea for "maximum flexibility" going forward.

Obama had a choice at that moment. He could thank Petraeus for the briefing and promise to take his views "under advisement." Or he could tell Petraeus what he really thought, a potentially contentious course of action — especially with a general not used to being confronted. Obama chose to speak his mind.

"You know, if I were in your shoes, I would be making the exact same argument," he began. "Your job is to succeed in Iraq on as favorable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential Commander in Chief is to view your counsel and interests through the prism of our overall national security." Obama talked about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the financial costs of the occupation of Iraq, the stress it was putting on the military.

A "spirited" conversation ensued, one person who was in the room told me. "It wasn't a perfunctory recitation of talking points. They were arguing their respective positions, in a respectful way." The other two Senators — Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed — told Petraeus they agreed with Obama. According to both Obama and Petraeus, the meeting — which lasted twice as long as the usual congressional briefing — ended agreeably. Petraeus said he understood that Obama's perspective was, necessarily, going to be more strategic.

Obama said that the timetable obviously would have to be flexible. But the Senator from Illinois had laid down his marker: if elected President, he would be in charge. Unlike George W. Bush, who had given Petraeus complete authority over the war — an unprecedented abdication of presidential responsibility (and unlike John McCain, whose hero worship of Petraeus bordered on the unseemly) — Obama would insist on a rigorous chain of command.

 http://www.time.com/time/po...
By netchicken: posted on 23-10-2008

You read Time Magazine and think that you are learning about Obama.
OK. I suppose if you weren't from the U.S. and knew no better you'd think you were getting the straight info.

You say we will finally get a president who knows his own mind and can make informed decisions. Marx, Lenin and Khrushchev were able to do the same thing. That means little to nothing.

You say they talked as equals. Let's get something straight - they are not equals. One man has served his country with honor, protecting it from the enemies who would pull us down. Obama consorted with the enemy, even starting his political career in the kitchen of a domestic terrorist. He admits he preferred Marxist teachers and sought them out when going to college.
His "leadership" experience is from being a "community organizer" and working with ACORN to force banks into making bad loans that we ALL have to pay for now.
He has demonstrated absolutely no leadership skills, only the ability to talk. Of course, he has had not even even a full term in congress, but in that full term he has voted for millions in tabs the taxpayers must pay and voted "present" in anything of importance.

As you know, because I have told you many times, Sarah Palin has more leadership experience and she isn't even running for the top position on a ticket.

What you don't know is if Obama will be able to do what you claim. What you DO know is that he has not proved himself as being able to do so, and, as Biden said before he was in favor of Obama and when he said he'd be honored to run with McCain if chosen, the presidency is not the place for on the job training.

What we do know about this man is what we learn about his past, before he became this young first-term senator. Nothing in his past tells us that he is a leader. Nothing in his past tells us that he isn't even sympathetic with those who wish is to be dragged into the graveyard of history. Nothing even begins to indicate what you suggest.

I have suggested books for you to read but you say you don't have time, yet you DO have time to continuously drag up Jon Stewart drivel and Time articles? You can't even see that this article is written and timed for a specific reason? Time magazine is a serious Obama supporter, and you use a story placed there as proof that he is a man who knows his own mind.

I'll go along with that, Netty, he knows his own mind. I, from everything that I have learned about him, have a clue about what is in his mind, too. I suppose he won't have a problem acting if Iran or Russia confronts us. We will regret those actions.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 24-10-2008

A little more thought on the pro-Obama article that slights Bush and McCain in order to build up a candidate that has no experience, background or training to be the leader of America....

Notice how this article you offer as objective evidence that Obama can make a good decision when under fire felt the need to make McCain's respect for general Petraeus seem abnormal. Clearly, an attempt to plant subconscious seeds. Of course, objective minds in the States know that this tactic is nothing new for left-tilting magazines such as Time and Newsweek.

Notice, also, that the article makes it appear that Bush has had absolutely no control over the wars and the generals have had full rein over the White House. I'm sure that even someone who lives on the other side of the world from the White House can understand that the Times does not have a desk in the Oval Office and is not in on the meetings.

Those of us in the States also have knowledge of American history and remember what happens when the administration tries to run a war from Washington. This article, however, plays into the hands of both those who are unaware of American history and those who wish to push the liberal/socialist agenda upon America in spite of American history.

The article asserts that Obama would enforce a "rigorous chain of command", but what is that chain of command? Petraeus answers to Bush at the moment, and will answer to the next commander in chief, too. That is the chain of command. If Obama is the next chain of command, we will have a commander in chief who is the most ill-trained, ill-prepared and militarily-ignorant commander in chief in American history. The worst thing we can hope for is that such a commander in chief attempt to run a war from the White House as LBJ did.

As a matter of fact, those of us who have been a part of a chain of command know that such a statement is not only slap at Bush, it is a clue of what Obama's intentions are for the future.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 24-10-2008








Does Bidens comment refers to attack on Iran - Bomb ready by Feb 2009? | [Login ]
Powered by XMB
Privacy Policy