Palin: Obama Could Win in 2012 if He Bombed Iran
Of course, on this Sarah Palin makes perfect sense.
And if Iran is not bombed, and acquires nuclear weapons, with all that that will imply about American fecklessness and ineffectiveness, then he is very likely not to win. And that, in turn, means that it is likely that a candidate far less worried about global climate disruption (anthropogenic global warming) will be elected President, with no Chu, no Holdren, no Hansen. If Barack Obama cannot be made to care sufficiently about the need to prevent Muslim states, peoples, groups, from acquiring weapons of mass destruction (and working to prevent Pakistan from being able either to deliver, or transfer, what "Islamic bombs" it has managed to produce, by threatening the end of all aid, and complete destruction of its pitiful economy), perhaps he can be made to care if he realizes that little will be done to ameliorate climate distruption if he does not destroy the nuclear project of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Deal, or No Deal?
Posted on 02/07/2010 11:07 PM by Hugh Fitzgerald
.jpg)
%20(2).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
