Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Iran hawk candidates have some explaining to do.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 10:11 PM
Original message
The Iran hawk candidates have some explaining to do.
It is well known, and disputed by no one, that Senator Clinton has been aggressive on Iran, and has some major league egg on her face today.

And it is pretty obvious that Senator Biden is looking very good today.

But, before we fall down the memory hole, let's revisit some greatest hits from the Democratic field's other strident Senatorial Iran hawk, Senator Obama...

Obama Blames U.S. for Stronger Iran
March 2, 2007
By DEANNA BELLANDI
Associated Press

CHICAGO (AP) - Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday blamed Bush administration failings in Iraq for strengthening the strategic position of Iran, which he says must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons.

...Obama focused on Iran Friday, calling President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime "a threat to all of us."

A member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama said the world—not just the United States—must stop Iran's uranium enrichment program.

"While we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons," Obama said.

Obama said Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8NK74JO0&show_article=1



Obama Statement to Rally Opposing Iran's Nuclear Ambitions
September 24, 2007

Chicago, IL -- U.S. Senator Barack Obama today released the following statement on ensuring Iran does not achieve its nuclear ambition to the organizers of the "The National Rally to End the Threat Now."

"I commend you for holding this important rally, and regret that I could not join you today. You are coming together at a critical moment to send a clear message to Iran: it is time for the Iranian government to cease its dangerous and reprehensible behavior.

Iran is now the greatest strategic challenge to America in the Middle East in a generation, and poses a grave threat to Israel's security. We do not accept Iran's support and encouragement of sectarian violence in Iraq. We do not accept their sponsorship of terrorism throughout the Middle East. We do not accept their pursuit of nuclear weapons, in defiance of the international community.

...We should never shrink from raising our voices to put our own values up against the bankrupt values of the Iranian regime. Let President Ahmadinejad learn, here in America, that we are united in rejecting Iran's support for terrorism, its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and his comments which offend Israel, Jews, and all people of goodwill.

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/09/24/obama_statement_to_rally_oppos.php


And, of course, this blast from the past...


Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran
By David Mendell | Tribune staff reporter
September 25, 2004

U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs...

Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:iT6wowfOpF8J:www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story%3Fctrack%3D1%26cset%3Dtrue+obama+iran+nuclear&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 10:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well, I'd say the real assholes here are in the Executive Branch, nu? NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. No doubt. I'm just tired of the constant lie that Obama is an Iran dove of some sort.
It's an insult to Biden and Kucinich, and anyone else who has taken the political risks of refusing to jump on the Iranian nuclear band-wagon.

Hillary's hawkishness is well known and she is paying the bill for it in votes.

Obama thinks he can get away with talking out of both sides of his mouth forever on this topic. He needs to pay the same price.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Give it time--a narrowed debate venue with fewer candidates would give us all a better idea
of where the candidates stand.

I know I catch shit for this, but Kucinich and Gravel, who are NOT going to win, need to leave the building. And after the first three states weigh in, at least one more candidate needs to say sayonara too. We can't have substantive discussion with so many people on the stage. There's just insufficient time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 10:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. The thing is, Hillary can't do it. It wouldn't make sense to accuse someone of
sharing the same views you do.

And Edwards, Biden and even Kucinich have no interest in taking Obama down among the less thoughful elements of the anti-war left. Yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Shouldn't be up to her--it should be up to the debate questioner/s.
We aren't going to get plain talk until we plow under a few of these weeds. We have to shrink it down to a smaller selection in order to get substantive views.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Diamonds or Pearls? : - )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. Get Gwen Ifil up there--she won't pull that crap!! That woman can put together a series of tough
and insightful questions!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. true enough
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. It really scares the shit out of me how three candidates fell for Bush's rhetoric AGAIN!
:banghead:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
20. In fairness, they were probably relying mostly on the 2005 NIE, but your point is valid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
4. LOL..."LUCY...you' got some splaining to do..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I don't like Carville much, but that was a great moment of his.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Yeah, he bugs me too....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
7. "Senator Clinton has been aggressive on Iran......
..... and has some major league egg on her face today."

Really? Why? She said there were nuclear weapons in Iran?

I thought she voted to identify some bad guys in Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. She (among others) has definitively stated that Iran is developing nuclear arms
and now the intelligence community says they aren't.

So it's embarrassing. Granted, she was relying on the full 2005 NIE, just like Obama, but it's still embarrassing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suston96 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. That may be so....Nuclear weapons bad.....but...

.......This vote was a resolution branding the Iran Revolutionary Guard as terrorists. Didn't have anything to do with Iran's nuclear program.

"Hillary Defends Iran Vote

Monday, October 22, 2007 11:28 AM

By: Newsmax Staff Article Font Size

Presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has written a letter to Iowa voters defending her vote for a Senate resolution branding Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps a terrorist organization.

Democratic rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards have skewered Clinton over the vote, and many critics charge that the resolution could give President Bush the authority to attack Iran.

But Clinton says she decided to support the resolution after Democrats removed language that according to Hillary could have given Bush the green light for military action, the New York Post reports.

“Only then did I and a lot of other Democrats vote for the resolution in order to pressure Iran by clearing the way for sanctions and pushing the President to get them to the negotiating table,” Clinton wrote in her Iowa letter. "


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Comically, Obama supports the designation. Here's his reaction to the IRG designation:
Edited on Mon Dec-03-07 11:16 PM by Kurt_and_Hunter
Obama reaction to Condi Rice designating the IRG a terrorist organization.


"Democratic candidates expressed concern Thursday about the Bush administration's extensive sanctions against Iran, arguing that the measures were likely precursors to war. The new sanctions target Iran's Revolutionary Guard, its Quds force and a number of Iranian banks and people the U.S. accuses of backing nuclear proliferation and terror-related activities.

"It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran, particularly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which supports terrorism," Barack Obama said. "But these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran." The senator from Illinois added that "unfortunately, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment made the case for President Bush that we need to use our military presence in Iraq to counter Iran -- a case that has nothing to do with sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/25/iran.campaign
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cameron27 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #17
26. Yes, Obama does support the designation,
and was absent from the K/L vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
23. /
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ilovesunshine Donating Member (289 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 10:56 PM
Response to Original message
10. And, the non voters? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nevergiveup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 11:02 PM
Response to Original message
12. On the other hand
maybe we could revisit some of Sen. Biden's famous greatest hits, such as his vote against the "Multilateral Use of Force Authorization Act of 2002", better known as the Carl Levin Amendment or maybe we could revisit his vote for the Iraq War Resolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurt_and_Hunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Biden has his share of serious errors, but today is a good day for him on Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. We've already covered that, and I believe it ended...
Edited on Mon Dec-03-07 11:09 PM by 1corona4u
when I posted his apology for it. Which, he stated publicly.

For the record;

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0207/2828.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-03-07 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
18. So Biden is not for controlling Iran's nuclear capabilities?
Edited on Mon Dec-03-07 11:22 PM by zulchzulu
You did a great job lying about Barack Obama's policies in regard to Iran. He is not a hawk. He's for diplomatic relations at all costs. But you lie a lot, so it's to be expected that you would misrepresent Obama's views.

Obama not only wants to keep Iran in the dialogue with dealing with the Iraq War that people like Clinton, Biden and others authorized, he wants to try to rid the World of nuclear weapons (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/us/politics/02obama.html).

On your quest to trash Obama with lies, you failed to do a simple Google search on the many opinions of Joe Biden on Iran. Check this out from his own web site:

"The Biden amendment expressed the Sense of Congress endorsing the diplomatic initiative announced by Secretary Rice on May 31, 2006 and called on Iran to fully and verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment and reprocessing activities, cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and enter into negotiations with the United States pursuant to the package developed by the United States, our European allies, Russia and China and recently presented to Iran."

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=257148


Wait! There's more. Did your head explode yet? OK...ready... Here you go:

"We need a policy that isolates Iran, not America and tips the balance in Iran against pursuing nuclear weapons. That means keeping our allies, Russia and China on the same page as we ratchet up economic and diplomatic pressure on the government to stop pursuing nuclear weapons. At the same time, there are growing fissures within the ruling elite - we need to exploit them."

-Joe Biden

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/Biden.html


Biden is a good guy and I see his point, but for you to act like Biden doesn't want to engage with Iran on possible nuclear weapon production is wholly dishonest.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #18
21. Biden has said over and over and over again that Iran is years away from a nuclear weapon.
Those links you posted don't say anything different.

Here is another link
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-526337859449397787&q=biden+iran&total=41&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3

And, more importantly, he says it with his vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-04-07 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
25. It's possible to be cautious on Iran and nukes, while not going along with the president
Thankfully most democrats have learned that lesson.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 06:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC