It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
By Erick Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Iran — Comments (83) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So yesterday, Obama could not classify Iran as a serious threat.
If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance."
Today, however, Iran is a grave threat.
"Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust," he said.
Just to clear things up from the New American Dictionary:
grave |grɑv| |greɪv| |greɪv|
giving cause for alarm; serious : a matter of grave concern.
significant or worrying because of possible danger or risk; not slight or negligible.
Ah, I see. Us working class, Jesus loving, gun toters in middle America aren't used to such flourishing nuance from a Presidential candidate.
The Soviet Union was a serious threat (glad the left finally acknowledges that). It was "significant or worrying."
Iran is a grave threat or "gives cause for alarm."
Now, it may be just be me, but it seems based on those definitions and word usages that a grave threat is actually more serious than a serious threat.
And I would have to agree here. The Soviet Union certainly could have wiped us out, but we could have wiped it out too. The players were rather rational and neither wanted to be destroyed.
Iran could wipe us out through proxies with dirty bombs, but President Obama would never wipe Iran out. The players are not rational*. Both Iran and Obama supporters are wrapped up in messianic zeal for their respective sides.
*Of course, Iran probably knows President Obama would turn the other cheek, so perhaps only one of the players is irrational and it's not the one you'd think.