Obama calls Iranian regime a 'threat'

[rodeodance]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070302/ap_on_el_pr/obama_mideast;_ylt=Ahlfdfpubpa5pqR2Z6KKQs6yFz4D

Obama calls Iranian regime a 'threat'

By DEANNA BELLANDI, Associated Press Writer 24 minutes ago

CHICAGO - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) 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.


Illinois senator said that means "direct engagement" with Iran similar to the meetings with the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

"A consequence of the Administration's failed strategy in Iraq has been to strengthen Iran's strategic position; reduce U.S. credibility and influence in the region; and place Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in greater peril," according to a text of a speech Obama delivered to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

.......

Obama also emphasized in his speech his commitment to protecting the security of Israel, which he called "our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy."

"Our job is to renew the United States' efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision," Obama said.

[Lerkfish]

1. *lerkfish crosses another candidate off his list*

that's three so far.

I'm tired of throwing firecrackers into ammo dumps in order to look "presidential".

[SteppingRazor]

2. Well, to be fair, he goes on to say that...

this needs to be remedied by talking to Iran.

[Lerkfish]

3. yes, but I think the concept that Iran needs to be "dealt with" is inherently

inflammatory and inconsistent, and plays right into Bush's march towards regime change in Iran.

I appreciated Clark's comments much better, and I wasn't even a clark fan before now.

He said military options should not even be mentioned at this point. his view was diplomacy all the way, and that saber rattling was dangerous.
(IIRC)

[Taverner]

6. Well negotiations are one way of "dealing" with a threat

Basically he's talking tough about an intelligent action.

A far cry better than talking intelligently about an intelligent action ("More sensitive war on terror" anybody?)

[Bucky]

25. Keep in mind, when grownups say "deal with Iran" they mean "deal with" not "bomb"

I'm a Clarkie, but it misreads Iran's position to think that it isn't a threat to us. This is hardly throwing a firecracker to say that we have to engage them--not on the battlefield, but at a table. It's not just our own homegrown saber-yankers who think a well armed Iran is a problem. The preponderance of western democracies, if not all, think they need to be chatted with firmly and constrained from further destablizing the region. They are, in a very real sense, a threat to the Middle East. Right behind Wahhabist groups in the region, the Baathist insurgents, the Bushies' knock-em-over-fix-em-later military policies, and the Israeli-Palestinian tit-for-tatism. In my book, that puts them in the Top Five.

[ixion]

29. maybe so, but when they choose the wording previously applied by neocons

they should expect it to cause trouble, IMO.

[qwlauren35]

38. Obama says an armed Iran is a problem.

I guess that makes him a saber-yanker...

Somehow, I didn't think he was going to be able to skirt the issue much longer. The Senate has to make decisions about Iran very soon, and I think I can see where this is headed.

I think this is why Governors so frequently have an easier time getting elected. They can't be blamed for the mess in Washington. And only very staunchly positioned people like Kucinich ever seem to be able to vote their consciences. Which then makes them "unelectable".

Argh.

[ixion]

28. yep, it is inflammatory wording, to be sure, and counterproductive in the long run

[BayCityProgressive]

5. he also says

a preemptive military option shouldn't be taken off the table. He is one of the best candidates we have in my opnion, but he has bowed to worship AIPAC and the military/industrial complex here. Abysmal on this issue just like the rest...except Kucinich.

[carla]

36. Any candidate

who supports a pre-emptive military strike on another country should not be taken seriously. Such talk is dangerous, even more than the "threat of nuclear weapons" because it makes the strategy of acquiring such weapons a greater likelyhood. Pre-emption is inherently de-stabilizing and should be dropped from the political vocabulary. Obama is treading thin ice by advocating such naivete. Comes the day when the USA is considered a danger to some dominant power, the failed doctrine of this failed presidency will play as rationale for dropping bombs on America. Wisen up, this is beyond foolish and borders on the immoral.

[Taverner]

4. Well they are a threat

So is North Korea, Taliban controlled-Afghanistan, China, Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, each for different reasons.

They are a threat to Israel and Europe. Now are they a dangerous threat or just a threat. We have all kinds of threats - many of which will just be saber-rattling (which I think Iran is at this time.)

Just because something is a threat doesn't mean we need to invade.

I also noticed this:

Illinois senator said that means "direct engagement" with Iran similar to the meetings with the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

I think all of us here are in agreement that this is the action that needs to be taken to deal with this threat.

[BayCityProgressive]

7. depending how you look at things

The US could be percieved as a "threat" and in my opinion should be. Iran hasn't gone galavanting across the world overthrowing governments and invading countries. N Korea never has. Who uses atomic weapons on civilians and has cause dmore coups and invasions since anyone after Nazi germany? That would be us.

[Taverner]

8. Well yes, and we are a threat to Iran

And we are a threat to many other nations. We're a threat to Canada, trade-wise.

Thing is the term "threat" is so open ended, it could mean anything.

[BayCityProgressive]

11. true

hopefully he was just pandering. I just hate that now even the Democrats support this doctrine of preemption. I bet if you asked him or many fo the others point blank if they support it they would say yes. Our politicians are basically saying openly that they are imperialists now and just call it "preemption".

[Taverner]

14. All politicians pander

That's why we love them so :)

Seriously, the pre-emptive thing does bother me...and I'm seriously surprised there isn't more outrage over this

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. No, they're not.

It's all a load of propaganda bullshit.

[gravity]

24. I agree, and Iran needs to be dealt with

I just think that people are so against doing something about Iran, is because George Bush's past wreckless actions, and they forget what actual real diplomacy is.

George Bush isn't even trying to be diplomatic with Iran, and is just trying to find an excuse to invade, like Iraq. This just give Iran greater incentive to build nuclear weapons. Even if he was trying to be diplomatic, he lost all credibility from his conflict from Iraq. How can Iran trust that Bush wouldn't invade them?

Obama's plan actually talks about diplomacy, and while military options should be an option, they should be the absolute last resort which should only be a one in a million chance event.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Boy, I hope Gore runs.

[BayCityProgressive]

12. I like Gore

but seriously doubt his position would be any different. I like him and voted for him, but I don't know why people here think he is some flaming leftist. He supported the death penalty, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, opposed single-payer care, opposed gay marriage, and didn't say anything during any of Clinton's imperial adventures...He is heads and shoulders above the GOP but he is no lefty that would rock the boat on Israel/Iran/Palestine either. Unless he has really changed.

[Scurrilous]

13. Obama: US should never dictate what's best for Israel

In speech delivered before AIPAC lobbyists in Chicago, US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama reveals strongly pro-Israel platform: US must preserve ‘total commitment to unique defense relationship with Israel’, work to stop Iran’s nuclear program even if military action is necessary

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3371763,00.html

<snip>

"In a powerfully pro-Israel speech, Democratic presidential candidate US Senator Barack Obama clarified that Israel and the United States do not have the luxury to ignore the exhortations of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and “no option, including military action, (should be taken) off the table” in the effort to stop Iran's nuclear armament.

Regading the Middle East peace process, Obama declared that Israel should never feel "dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table" by the United States.

Senator Obama appeared Friday in Chicago before an audience of hundreds of lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).

“The world must work to stop Iran's uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy,” he said.

Even though all options were on the table, Obama said the utmost efforts should be devoted to “sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions."

[ixion]

30. it makes me sad to hear him say that, although not entirely suprised

he is politician, afterall.

There must be some type of illuminati gate that people pass through when elected, where their brain is retro-fitted with some type of device that makes them imprevious to the reality of a situation.

[SOS]

37. Obama needs to calm down a bit

Didn't he hear the testimony of the National Intelligence Director this week?

"In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week, Mike McConnell, the new director of national intelligence, said that it was possible Iran could produce a nuclear weapon by the beginning of the next decade, but that it was also possible Iran would not develop a weapon until 2015."

March 2, 2007

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,469526,00.html

Only 5-10 years away!

And what do all these "bombing Iran is on the table" politicians have to say about the actual threats?
What is their position on the security of existent nukes in the former Soviet Union? Pakistani black market nukes? NK transfer? LNG tanker hijacking practice in the Straits of Malacca?
Our "leaders" pander while the actual threats to the United States remain ignored.
The eventual outcome of this idiotic political puppet theater could be an American catastrophe of unimaginable devastation.

[MsMagnificent]

15. Excuse me, but isn't

Lebanon also a Democratic Republic? (in re: "...only established democracy")

Is there some reason why all our politicians --on both sides-- seem to be blind to that fact? I don't get it. :shrug:

[BayCityProgressive]

16. Barely

now it is in chaos because Israel mutilated it.Couldn't have any other Democracies in the area making Israel look bad..

[INDIA]

18. ...

:eyes:

[brentspeak]

20. Lebanon is in chaos because Syria won't stop screwing around with it

[The Stranger]

21. No, Syria didn't kill 1200 Lebanese civilians last Summer -- Israel did.

[ohio2007]

32. The 30 year Syrian occupation of Lebanon ended last year ...

....and in their vacuum,they left a few rogue groups unattended to fend for themselves;

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3889

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=13228

[The Stranger]

34. Israel came back after a 20 year occupation just last Summer.

Syria and Lebanon were the same thing until Imperialism divided the two, so the Syrian "occupation" is really a false construction.

And, once again, the Syrians didn't bomb Lebanon's infrastructure, destroy its environment, and leave illegal cluster bombs all over the little country, and leave 1200 innocents dead.

Come on.

[HuffleClaw]

17. "A consequence of the Administration's failed strategy..."

is at least nice to hear. the rest is utter crap.

[Whoa_Nelly]

19. Yes, Obama states dialogue with Iran should be done, but...

Guess Obama doesn't read the news re: recent Hersh story The Redirection? :shrug:
http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/070305fa_fact_hersh

Maybe somebody should send it to him.

[MirrorAshes]

22. he obviously has to say this

lets be real

[DemCam]

31. Just like Hillary?

[ohio2007]

33. campaign contributions?

have to make promises in exchange for advertising $

[Turbineguy]

23. Well in a way he's right

they elected a nutcase to go toe to toe with our nutcase.

[BayCityProgressive]

26. but threatening him

will only make people keep him there longer. Look how Bush has used threats against the country to keep himself in power. Have respectful dialog with Iran and show them that they have nothing to fear from us, and they will vote this idiot out.

[lligrd]

27. USA Is The Biggest Threat Right Now

to world stability and the environment. You know it, I know it and the majority or the world knows it. When will our politicians say that?

[acmavm]

35. Obama is one of those guys who stretches himself beyond all credibility

by trying to be all things to all people.

If he's the future of the Democratic Party, we are sooooooo screwed.