Barack is seemingly not aware of his own position on Iran, as he has gone from acknowledging Iran as a danger to troops in Iraq and supporting a U.S. deterrent in the region even as we draw down our forces, to supporting a bill declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, to a conspicuous silence on the issue during the Kyl-Lieberman resolution debate, to all of a sudden a reversal of his previous stand now declaring that Kyl-Lieberman as a prelude to war...
One would almost say presidential politics was determining his position...
November 2006 Obama made the following statement in a speech...
We would make clear in such a scenario that the United States would not be maintaining permanent military bases in Iraq, but would do what was necessary to help prevent a total collapse of the Iraqi state and further polarization of Iraqi society. Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region... Make no mistake- if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening. We should also make it clear that, even after we begin to draw down forces, we will still work with our allies in the region to combat international terrorism and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It is simply not productive for us not to engage in discussions with Iran and Syria on an issue of such fundamental importance to all of us.
So he is for maintaining a military presence to deter Iranian and Syrian interference in Iraq.
http://www.barackobama.com/2006/11/20/a_way_forward_in_iraq.phpInteresting
Then in April 2007...he cosponsors Senate Bill 970, which designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. A position he now disagrees with apparently...
Then just a couple weeks ago, during the debate over the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, Obama was conspicuously silent on the issue, making no effort to use his position to either alter the amendment or speak against it. Even while Hillary and other Democrats including Obama's fellow Illinoisan Dick Durbin were working to have any implication of military use removed from the resolution...an effort in which they were successful.
And of course, Obama was one of only two Senators not to vote on the resolution...the other being the perpetually absent John McCain...
Then after providing no leadership in the debate over the resolution, not working to amend or kill it, not bothering to even speak out against it during debate, and of course not even voting on it...all of a sudden he views it as some disastrous prelude to war...
...just last month, the Senate voted for an amendment that raises the risk that we could repeat the mistake of Iraq. Here is why this amendment is so reckless. It opens with seventeen findings that highlight Iran’s influence inside of Iraq. Then it says we have to structure our military presence inside Iraq to counter Iran. It goes on to say that it is "a critical national interest of the United States" to prevent the Iranian government from exerting influence inside Iraq. Why is this amendment so dangerous? Because George Bush and Dick Cheney could use this language to justify keeping our troops in Iraq as long as they can point to a threat from Iran. And because they could use this language to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq.
http://www.iowapolitics.com/index.iml?Article=107433Nearly 180 degrees from the position he took in 2007...
And he wonders why he is getting no traction on the issue...
h/t hillarysbloggers.com
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
