Obama responds to announcement on Iran

July 16, 2008
Categories: http://dyn.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/index.cfm/category/BarackObama">Barack Obama

Obama responds to announcement on Iran

He issues a statement reacting to the news that Undersecretary of State William Burns http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/world/middleeast/17iran.html?hp">would be attending international talks with Iran:

"I welcome news that the Bush Administration has shifted course and will send an envoy for direct talks as part of the P5+1 with the Iranians in Geneva this weekend. I commend our European allies and other friends on this effort. Now that the United States is involved, it should stay involved with the full strength of our diplomacy. A united front with our friends and allies directly calling on the Iranians to stand down on their illicit nuclear program will maximize the international pressure we can bring to bear and will show the Iranian people that Iran's isolation is a function of its government's unwillingness to live up to its obligations. Iran should live up to its obligations now; by waiting, it will only face greater isolation."

By Avi Zenilman 12:56 PM


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0708/Obama_responds_to_announcement_on_Iran.html#comments">Link

You shamed bushco into doing the right thing!

Rather than digging at Bush by pointing out he "shifted course," he could have sounded more statesmanlike by saying "I agree with (or maybe "I applaud") the Bush Administration's diplomatic efforts and will send an envoy..." etc. That also would have elevated him to statesman level by its assumption that his opinion was equivalent (yeah, we all know it's actually superior, but I'm only talking protocol). As he said it, it sounded a little too much like a campaign dig, which lowers him and more importantly shows disagreement, which isn't what you want with diplomatic relations. Minor complaint.

After that, brilliant! Calls for world unity (and unlike Bush, he hasn't lost the right to do that) on Iran, firmly encourages rather than recklessly threatening Iran, and best of all, the last sentence is clever. "by waiting, Iran will only face greater isolation." Waiting for what? Why, Obama's inevitable ascension to the White House, of course! It assumes inevitability, but better, it subtly encourages the rest of the world that things will be better under him. Might as well have said "Hang on, help is on the way." At the same time, he encourages Iran to make appropriate steps now, instead of waiting for Bush's departure. Brilliantly worded.

Now, let's get him elected.

The howls here would be unbearable if he said he 'agreed' - and they'd be even worse if he 'applauded.'

IMO, he played it right. got a little dig in on the flip-flop, while pointing out that Bush finally made the right move.

Smart dude, that Obama.

- as

I just think the statement should have been geared for the international community, which doesn't want to hear politicking.

Like I said, minor issue. It just grated a tad on my ear on the way down.

However, if you are a "conservative" you are not fucking smart enough to have a legitimate and educated conversation with anybody about anything. Its so much easier for them to put other people's children in harm's way and beat their chests as if they were manly patriots.

And just when do those cows come home?

Of course, from watching MSNBC, I have learned about Hillary Clinton's new hair cut, what critics are saying about The Dark Knight, various bear shenanigans, Star Jones soon to be ex husband's interview on youtube, how Queen Elizabeth wants to redecorate Buckingham palace, etc.

AGAIN!

Obama again has proven adept at dominating the political discourse in this country and John McAmbien just stands there looking like a fool...once again.

My understanding is that our National Intelligence Evaluation concluded that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program several years ago. It is also my understanding that all nations have the right to develop peaceful nuclear power systems. Iran claims to be developing nuclear power for peaceful purposes and we have no evidence to the contrary.

How is it that Israel, which, with the U.S.'s help, definitely has deployable nuclear weapons, is allowed to pursue their nuclear weapons program without sanctions or threat of invasion by the U.S.?