Obama fires at GOP critics: Protecting Israel 'is not a game'

[kpete]

Source: The Hill

Obama fires at GOP critics: Protecting Israel 'is not a game'
By Jonathan Easley - 03/06/12 02:24 PM ET

President Obama shot back at his Republican critics over accusations he has shown a lack of resolve in protecting Israel from a potentially nuclear-armed Iran, condemning their “bluster” in “beating the drums of war.”

“Those folks don’t have a lot of responsibilities,” Obama said at his first press conference since October 2011. “They’re not commander-in-chief. When I see the casualness with which some of these candidates talk about war, I’m reminded… of the decisions I have to make in sending these men and women into war.”

“This is not a game,” the president continued. “There is nothing casual about it. When I see some of these folks who have a lot of bluster and a lot of big talk, but… they repeat the things we’ve been doing over the past three years, indicates to me that’s more about politics than solving a big problem.”

The president spoke the same day that Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum blasted his policies toward Israel and Iran in addresses to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Republicans have made a concerted effort to win Jewish voters away from Obama by painting him as weak on Iran.



Read more: http://thehill.com/video/administration/214455-obama-fires-at-gop-critics-protecting-israel-is-not-a-game

[Ian David]

1. Send the chickenhawks on a clandestine fact finding mission to Iran.

Without the benefit of diplomatic cover.

[Inuca]

2. Obama to Republicans: If you want war with Iran, say so - Greg Sargent

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/obama-to-republicans-if-you-want-war-with-iran-say-so/2012/03/06/gIQAP5y8uR_blog.html

Obama’s insistence that there’s still a window for peaceful resolution, and that the warmongering from the GOP could prove counterproductive, are both in some ways reminiscent of 2008. Obama was pilloried as weak on national security matters both by Hillary Clinton, who called him “naive” on Iran, and by John McCain, who all but painted him as a terrorist sympathizer. In responding to both, Obama proceeded from the assumption that he could win an argument over national security by unabashedly making the case for negotiating with enemies and against mindless militarism. He gambled that voters would ultimately reject the assumption that the former constitutes automatic weakness and the latter constitutes automatic strength.

No question: Since then, in some ways, Obama has capitulated to the hawkish worldview, on civil liberties and other aspects of the war on terror. But on Iran, he seems to be gambling that he can win the argument in the public mind by arguing against hollow, hawkish chest-thumping, by pointing out that wars have consequences, and by lampooning his opponents’ casual and simplistic approach to these questions, even as he’s the one making the difficult decisions about them. The message: I’m commander in chief, and you’re just playing one on TV. Just as in 2008, the outcome of this argument will hinge on the public’s decision as to what really constitutes weakness, and what really constitutes strength.

I think that one important difference with 2008 is that Obama is no longer a mostly unknown quantity, and especially definitely no longer a "newbie" at foreign policy and national security issues. People may disagree with his decisions, and many do, but he definitely has the experience, as opposed to those who "just play one on TV" as Sargent puts it.

[Dawson Leery]

3. The President understand that this is not a game.

If the Republicans want a war with Iran, then send Romney's boys.