Obama just said this about Iran

[welshTerrier2]

"Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and is meddling in Iraq" ...

is there evidence of this ??

is this an indication of how he, and perhaps all Senate Dems, will vote when bush asks for authorization to attack Iran?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

1. God I hope NOT!

[Radical Activist]

2. Yes, we know those things are true.

Saying it doesn't mean he supports a war with Iran. Obama was an early opponent of the Iraq war during his Senate primary race.

[welshTerrier2]

6. how do we know this?

i have not seen evidence of Iran "meddling in Iraq" ... do you have information about this?

and what proof is there that Iran either has ties to terrorist organizations or specifically to Al Qaeda? is there credible information about this?

[Radical Activist]

8. take two minutes with google

This isn't WMD stuff. Iran has been sponsoring terrorists for over a decade.

[bunkerbuster1]

9. and as for meddling with Iraq, well, there was this war, y'see...

[Radical Activist]

12. Right, of course they're involved in Iraq.

They have an interest in what happens to Iraq. It would be naive and illogical to think they aren't involved.

[welshTerrier2]

15. naive and illogical ???

first of all, "naive and illogical" does not rise to the level of "evidence" ... that's nothing more than opinion and supposition ...

secondly, even if they were "involved in Iraq", one still must make a credible case that doing so is in some way improper ... now that i think of it, isn't there another country "meddling in Iraq" ??????

talk about hypocrisy ...

[Radical Activist]

16. If you close your eyes and plug your ears

I guess you can believe anything you want. What the US is doing, or whether Iran is justified in "meddling" in Iraq, really has nothing to do with the fact that they are there. They've had an interest in Iraq ever since that whole Iran-Iraq war thing a while back. Remember?

[welshTerrier2]

18. evidence?

having an interest in Iraq does not rise to the level of inappropriate meddling ... if you have some information, instead of just allegations and supposition, you can simply present it ...

all i'm saying is i haven't seen any ... i have, btw, seen numerous recent charges by the bush imperialists that the Syrians are allowing insurgent operations in Iraq to base themselves inside Syria ...

one might question the credibility of those reports from an administration that has been able to effectively manipulate the MSM ... their track record on WMD in Iraq wasn't all that good ...

on Iran though, i haven't seen support for these allegations ... have you ???

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[welshTerrier2]

21. personal attacks instead of evidence

so far, you've insulted me using the following list:

naive and illogical
If you close your eyes and plug your ears
I guess you can believe anything you want
You are being seriously bull-headed

you were the one who indicated you knew Iran was meddling in Iraq ... if you enjoy making ad hominem attacks instead of providing any information you might have, all i can say is have at it ... i do not intend to respond in kind ...

[Radical Activist]

22. I think you enjoy

making up your mind without reason or evidence and not bothering to do any research. Don't expect me to do the work for you.

[welshTerrier2]

24. update

so far, you've insulted me using the following list:

naive and illogical
If you close your eyes and plug your ears
I guess you can believe anything you want
You are being seriously bull-headed
I think you enjoy making up your mind without reason or evidence and not bothering to do any research

anything else ???

[Radical Activist]

26. Yes

You still haven't done a search for yourself or done anything to justify your knee-jerk reaction to Obama's statement. I guess you don't care to disprove any of the above statements.

[welshTerrier2]

13. here's an example of what i found ...

Mossadegh had called for nationalization of the country's oil and a re-negotiation of all the contracts between Iran and the big oil companies. Of course, such a call has never been popular with the oil companies and the governments that serve them, especially that of the United States. This is the primary reason for the CIA-sponsored overthrow.

it appears the "state sponsored terrorism in Iran" was being done by the US ...

[CWebster]

3. Yeah,

you gotta listen for the little remarks they toss in there.

[bullimiami]

4. obama you stupid fool

we are now the biggest terrorists, we are the torturers, we have the wmd, we break the laws, we lie and we kill.

wake up!

[invictus]

30. .

.

[Imagine My Surprise]

40. Thank you! Obama is probably a protege of Karl Rove

[RandomKoolzip]

47. Huh?

[dogday]

5. You Know Sometimes It Feels Like We Have Left The Party or is

it that the party has left us.

[Kolesar]

11. What do you mean?

please elaborate.

[cliss]

20. I agree.

I read somewhere that the 2 political parties in Washington are "one creature with two heads".

And if you look at the things the Dem's do, it really does make sense.

[invictus]

28. The party is morally bankrupt.

The corporations and powerful special interest groups run America and both parties politicians go begging to them for campaign contributions. It will continue to be this way until we have political reforms. We need to elect Congress using Proportional Representation. We also need to stop corporate financing of political campaigns. The governement should provide all funding for the top political parties like in Canada.

[Al-CIAda]

7. Chalabi. See, he gives Iran US secrets, is encouraged to LIE

about Iraq, then is rewarded the Oil ministry job of Iraq. Now you can clearly see how it was Iran that is the double crossing enemy and NOT the neocon facists -and why said facists, oops, US administration congratulated Chilabi on his 'political comeback.

It couldn't be clearer, Iran must be bombed.

:silly: :wtf: :silly:

[Al-CIAda]

10. Off topic -btw, I hear he (Obama) supports CAFTA as well. n/t

[Radical Activist]

14. Heard from where?

I've seen this claim on DU before but no one has ever provided a link or source, not once.

[hang a left]

37. here ya go

snip>



Sen. Barack Obama, a Chicago Democrat, said he is “not entirely satisfied” CAFTA labor provisions are stringent enough. He suggested the U.S. could negotiate CAFTA side agreements “to bolster and strengthen what’s already been structured.”

“On the other hand, we as an agricultural state would be a net beneficiary of CAFTA,” Obama told FarmWeek. “Central America is not a big manufacturing area, so it’s doubtful we’d see a lot of displacement of (U.S.) jobs as a consequence of the agreement.



snip>



http://farmweek.ilfb.org/viewdocument.asp?did=7962&r=0.9712183

[madrchsod]

17. the guys that run iran

are basically thugs.there is a growing opinion that these guys are becoming more dangerous-but- we do not have the ability to attack them unless this country restores the draft.my fellow mothers and fathers of the viet nam generation will have to send our children into a war that will for ever change our babies. i do not think we are willing to do that, at least i pray we don`t

[invictus]

27. the guys that run america ...

... (i.e. Republicans) are also thugs. Replacing one group of thugs in Iran with another group of thugs from America is not progress.

[Larkspur]

23. Iranian diplomats were recently welcomed by Iraqi Shiites

so Obama needs to talk to the Iraqi Shiites about this. Iraq doesn't need to directly meddle in Iraq's affairs when it has native Iraqi allies to do it for them.

[invictus]

25. I am disappointed in Obama.

He is pandering to the AIPAC lobby for money but he is also doing the neo-cons dirty work for them. Shame on him.

[welshTerrier2]

29. Democrats should be talking about how to PREVENT war with Iran

instead, we get only more sabre-rattling ...

welcome to DU, invictus !!!

[Dr Fate]

42. They could bring up the UK memo if they wanted to cast doubt.

But they do not.

They will support this sham in effort to impress more swing-voters, who will ultimatley just vote for the REAL Republican hawks instead.

Stupid strategy, but who are we to question the people who lost the last 3 election cycles? We are merely the time & money donating base who begged them not to support the 1st war b/c of WMD lies.

[Blue_Roses]

53. oh give it a rest

geeze...why don't we just tar and feather while we're at it.:eyes:

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CWebster]

32. he is pretty

and a smooth talker.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CWebster]

34. Oh...he is black?

:evilgrin:

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JI7]

38. what is that supposed to mean ?

he is seen and viewed as a black male in this society. he isn't going to be treated half as badly by the bigots just because he is half black.

i don't even know why you brought this up.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Chicago Democrat]

35. Groan!

O Bama!

I guess we hardly knew you....

[Dr Fate]

41. Is this why no top DEMs will utter a sentence about the UK memo?

Because they dont want rove and the media to call them "flip floppers" when they support Bush's new fake war.

I guess all this crap about DeLay, Bolton, Social Security, etc wont be so important by that time.

[returnable]

43. And....? What came after the ellipses?

"'Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and is meddling in Iraq'..."

I've read much the same thing elsewhere myself. What else did Senator Obama have to say about it?

[welshTerrier2]

44. i heard him make that statement on the Senate floor today ...

not sure where you can get a full transcript of his speech on the Bolton nomination ...

[returnable]

45. Well, without knowing how he followed up that statement...

...it's kind of impossible to say if it's an indication of how he'd vote on a proposed invasion of Iran.

For all I know, he followed it up with "...and we need to step up diplomatic measures to curb the potential threat" or something.

Based on his early and vocal opposition to the Iraq war, I have a hard time believing he'd be bamboozled into supporting a goose chase in Iran.

[welshTerrier2]

46. no problem with your reasoning ...

he did not state whether he would support or oppose an attack on Iran ... most of his discussion was focussed on the Bolton nomination ...

his comments on Iran were made in that context ... my intent in posting his statement was 1. to accurately quote him and 2. to raise the issue about whether his remarks, current or past, might suggest that he would support an attack ... i have no idea whether he would or would not ... that's why i asked the question ...

i will say that i have not seen any evidence to support his contention that Iran is "meddling" in Iraq ... he clearly used the word "meddling" to imply inappropriate conduct ... i could only wonder what his view is of the current US conduct in Iraq ... i suppose one might call a 140,000 troop occupation force "meddling" ...

[returnable]

48. It's hard to say what he was specifically refering to, I guess...

...I don't know what evidence he would cite to back up his "meddling" claim, or exactly what he meant by that.

I know I've read that our military's failure to secure that border was one of the biggest snafus of the invasion, though, as insurgents were traveling freely between the two countries.

And there's little doubt that the Iranian government has a rooting interest in seeing a theocratic Shia minority consolidate power in Iraq.

How pro-active they've been to that end, I cannot say.

[davepc]

51. More then a rooting interest

While in their ultimate dreams I'm sure Iran would love Iraq to become an Islamic theocracy, their short term goals are a bit more modest, but probably more important to Iran's long term survival in its present state.

The US can not use Iraq to base large scale military operations into Iran if the US can not adequate secure the Iraq countryside and supply routes.

Chaos and disruption and civil war in Iraq means the US needs to focus its attention inside Iraq itself, and can not expend much, if any, energy trying to overthrow the Iranian government.

With the inability to manage one insurgency, the US cant handle two insurgencies that support and assist each other across a common border.

[ieoeja]

49. Yes, the US is meddling in Iraq

And so is Iran.

[davepc]

50. Why would Iran not take advantage of the turmoil in a neighboring state

to try and use what power it can to influence events in a favorable manner?

They share a common border, and a religious and ethnic ties with large segments of Iraq.

You think the Iranians are sitting on their side of the border just twiddling their thumbs really *really* hoping that events happen to their favor, instead of taking an active (if clandestine) role?

The United Sates is not the only nation in the world that plays Geopolitics.

[fujiyama]

52. What context was this in?

The fundamentalist clerics in Iran do have a history of sponsoring terrorism.

And I'd be surprised if any of Iraq's neighbors weren't meddling around in Iraq. Every country wants to extend its influence beyond its borders, and Iraq is ripe for that - especially with its instability.

That said, I don't see how any nation could be meddling in Iraq more than the US. After all, we're the one that invaded.