If we have learned anything at all, following the unelected, corrupt, dishonest eight-year George W. Bush-Dick B.Cheney reign of terror (that many were not able to even survive), it is that it does indeed really matter just who the President of the United States is. Moreover, honesty and clear-headed, rationale judgement & analysis must be the primary critera.
Shown below are Barack Obama's recent statements with respect to Iran and the irresponsible Joe Lieberman-Jon Kyl (R) legislation, which thankfully no 2008 (or 2004) Democratic candidate for President supported....
er....except, of course, Rupport Murdoch's favorite Democrat: Hillary Clinton.
Barack Obama on IRAN, Lieberman-Kyl
"The amendment, offered by Sens. Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl, directly links the ongoing war in Iraq -- including our troop presence -- to checking the threat from Iran. The amendment opens with 17 findings that highlight Iranian influence within Iraq [Note: The CIA refused to confirm these 'findings']. It then states that we have to 'transition(s) and structure' our 'military presence in Iraq' to counter the threat from Iran, and states that it is 'a critical national interest of the United States' to prevent the Iranian government from exerting influence inside Iraq.Why is this so dangerous? The Bush administration will use language like this to justify a continued troop presence in Iraq as long as it perceives a threat from Iran. Even worse, the Bush administration could use the language in Lieberman-Kyl to justify an attack on Iran as a part of the ongoing war in Iraq.
As my colleague Sen. Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said in opposing the amendment, "I do not want to give the President and his lawyers any argument that Congress has somehow authorized military actions."
He is exactly right. Because as we learned with the original authorization of the Iraq war -- when you give this President a blank check, you can't be surprised when he cashes it.
I strongly differ with Sen. Hillary Clinton, who was the only Democratic presidential candidate to support this reckless amendment. We do need to tighten sanctions on the Iranian regime, particularly on Iran's Revolutionary Guard, which sponsors terrorism far beyond Iran's borders. But this must be done separately from any unnecessary saber-rattling about checking Iranian influence with our 'military presence in Iraq.' Above all, it must be done through tough and direct diplomacy with Iran, which I have supported, and which Sen. Clinton has called 'naive and irresponsible.'
Sen. Clinton says she was merely voting for more diplomacy, not war with Iran. If this has a familiar ring, it should. Five years after the original vote for war in Iraq, Sen. Clinton has argued that her vote was not for war -- it was for diplomacy, or inspections. But all of us knew what the Senate was debating in 2002. John Edwards has renounced his own vote for the war, and he should be applauded for his candor. After all, we didn't need to authorize a war in order to have United Nations weapons inspections. No one thought Congress was debating diplomacy. No newspaper headlines ran on Oct. 12, 2002, reading, 'Congress authorizes diplomacy.' This was a vote to authorize war, and without that vote, there would have been no war.
America needs a leader who will make the right judgments about matters as grave as war and peace, and America needs a leader who will be straight with them."
-Senator Barack Obama
____
Hillary: We will have a president who takes their directions from: the PNAC, the AEI, AIPAC, the CFL, the DLC, the International Banking cartel, Pentagon War-Hawks, and Joe Lieberman! Am I right, ladies?
|
|
|
Permalink :: 37 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
