Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Ha'aretz: Obama, Clinton pledge to blow up Iran to stop nuke proliferation

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
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 08:43 AM
Original message
Ha'aretz: Obama, Clinton pledge to blow up Iran to stop nuke proliferation
Edited on Thu Feb-07-08 09:18 AM by Leopolds Ghost
Redirected from http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2828884

Obama Supports Israel... Period (Ha'aretz)

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=832667&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1

Barack Obama's big speech on Israel is now over, and as expected, the candidate made no secret of his support and dedication to the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel.

Obama's words to Haaretz last week. Today, he sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani.

At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period.

As I wrote for Slate last week, I don't believe there's a big difference between Democrats and Republicans in regards to Iran-policy.

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in ... On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran."

On stopping Iran: "Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran's major trading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would mean unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementation of U.S. sanctions laws."

On American aid to Israel: "We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs."

On Israel's security: "Our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region. That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: Our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point."

On the Palestinian leadership: "We should all be concerned about the agreement negotiated among Palestinians in Mecca last month."

On U.S. mediation: "We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli prime minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States" - or is that about Syria?

Is he really as friendly to Israel as any other candidate? Yesterday, writing about Clinton and Edwards, I mentioned the fact that "the constant interest in, and the open sympathy for, Israeli affairs that is required of all important elected officials in the most Jewish of states in the U.S. has had its effect on" Clinton and Giuliani, The Israel Factor favorites. Obama doesn't have this advantage. He isn't from New York and, more importantly, is relatively new to the public sphere.

This last part is especially sad and revelatory of the self-hating attitude of Israeli neocons towards American Jews, seeing them as a financial tool of pro-Israel foreign policy: (Leopolds Ghost)

Money

It is no secret that Jewish money plays a big role in the Democratic Party. "They don't have the number , but have the means to get the voters," a prominent Democratic operative told me last week. That's why I told the told the NY Sun that "I don't think his real motive is to win votes. It's, of course, Jewish money." Will he get it? Here's one clue. Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida is going to co-chair Barack Obama's White House drive in the state. And why would Wexler do such thing? Because "I have spoken with Barack to discuss the dangers facing our ally Israel, and I am convinced there will be no stronger supporter of Israel than President Obama", his statement says. It "appears as Obama plans a big day on March 25 of fundraising in Florida, where he will be looking for help from the Jewish Democratic donor community", writes Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun Times today.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=832667&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1

No mention is made for support for a Palestinian state -- something that Bush's State Department supported under Powell and the Democrats don't. (Leopolds Ghost)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
1. what a Stretch!
Please -- show me where EXACTLY you get a pledge to blow up Iran from this quote:

" Edwards' "Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons"

Talk about putting words in people's mouths. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
2. A Lot Of Hyperbole But There Isn't Much Light Between Any Of Their Positions On The M E
~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
3. I believe Obama and Edwards were the ones
that mentioned talking to Iran. What a load of crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. This is ALL written from a pro-Israeli perspective and it is ALL from Ha'aretz
Chief US Correspondent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Their extrapolation is a stretch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Leopolds Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 09:03 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. "missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us... OTOH, a nuclear Iran is worse."
Edited on Thu Feb-07-08 09:07 AM by Leopolds Ghost
Obama's words at the Ha'aretz / "Israeli Factor" conference whatever the
fsck that is. Why hasn't Obama attended any conferences in Saudi Arabia
or Russia or China, or maybe gone to a Financial Times / International
Herald Tribune conference to appeal to British fat cats worried that we
might crack down on blood diamonds while we're at it? Maybe he should
pledge to crack down on Cuba for the sake of the Cuban community and
promise to invade Venezuela for the sake of Columbian government-sponsored
drug cartels who are losing their investments there. Shouldn't Obama be
crafting foreign policy based on what American constituents want and not
seeking to mollify foreign investors who are publically pledging to pump
money into a US PRIMARY campaign?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. It's political speak.
However, I saw his judgement in action in the run up of the Iraqi invasion. His judgement was correct and didn't yield to pressure from any foreign government influence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IsItJustMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
6. Yep, seems like if your gonna be Prez, you are gonna have to kiss their ass. Just the way it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
8. more pre-emptive war?
nice. :(
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 Fri May 03rd 2024, 11:45 PM
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