No Options Are Off the Table

Daniel Kuehn claims (in the comments) that I am being "deceptive" in saying that, when Obama says "no options are off the table" regarding Iran, he is threatening that country with war:

'Are you referring to "no options are off the table"? If that's what you're referring to, that seems extremely deceptive on your part. If there's something I'm missing, I'd be interested in hearing about it. We should keep everything on the table with Iran.'

If the point of this is not to threaten Iran with war if they don't behave, then what is the point? Does Daniel think that Obama talks this way to David Cameron? If we are having a trade dispute with Canada over lumber, does Obama say to... who the heck is in charge up there now, anyway? Is it still Garry Trudeau?... in any case, does he tell the Prime Minister "no options are off the table"? Does he say to Angela Merckle, "You'd better get the Euro thing straightened out pronto, because no options are off the table"?

Of course not. Because these leaders would go ballistic. Because they recognize it as a threat of war. Which it is.


  1. "no options are off the table" is pol-speak for "if you don't do what we want, then maybe our military will help to change your mind."

    Anybody that doesn't understand this is either dense or being entirely disingenuous. Now, I happen to know that DK is not dense, but I often feel that he likes to nitpick the details on things like this when the intent is pretty clear. Why he does that I do not know, but I am fairly certain that he knows exactly what that phrase means.

  2. There is a 3rd one Joseph:

    Daniel might just genuinely believe in the good character of Obama.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Central Planning Works!

Availability bias