Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Senator Obama on Bush Announcement on Iran Sanctions

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
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 01:28 PM
Original message
Senator Obama on Bush Announcement on Iran Sanctions
It is important to have tough sanctions on Iran, particularly on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which supports terrorism. But these sanctions must not be linked to any attempt to keep our troops in Iraq, or to take military action against Iran. Unfortunately, the Kyl-Lieberman amendment made the case for President Bush that we need to use our military presence in Iraq to counter Iran - a case that has nothing to do with sanctioning the Revolutionary Guard.


http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post_group/ObamaHQ/CJR2

Gobama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. Hillary claims that Kyl-Lieberman was 'standing up to Bush."
Has there ever been a more dishonest statement?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. wait a minute
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard which supports terrorism? I thought that was bogus according to DU conventional wisdom.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Huh?
DU conventional wisdom was that this amendment was giving Bush a reason to attack Iran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. so you're telling me there was never a hoopla about designating them as terrorists?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. There was a hoopla
until it was discovered that Obama co-sponsored S970 which designated the IRG as a terrorist organization.

Now the problem is that that has nothing to do with keeping troops in Iraq, but that hasn't stopped Obama from co-sponsoring S970
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Not according to me. Tell me, did you read
Edited on Thu Oct-25-07 01:32 PM by geek tragedy
Kyl-Lieberman and think "in your face, Cheney?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. Good for him.
I wish he would have actually voted for it (and I know it wasn't his fault), but I do agree with this statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cuke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. Obama co-sponsors S970 which designates the IRG as a "terrorist organization"
Obama is as much a war mongerer as Clinton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 01:36 PM
Response to Original message
7. Indeed!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TwilightZone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
8. I thought that designating the IRG a terrorist organization was a bad thing.
Edited on Thu Oct-25-07 01:38 PM by TwilightZone
Isn't that the DU conventional wisdom?

Edit: sorry, I guess that I should have read the other responses first, as others have asked similar questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. well, now that Obama has said it, history will be rewritten
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Colobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Check your inbox, wyld.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-25-07 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
12. How come Obama
Edited on Thu Oct-25-07 01:55 PM by bigwillq
didn't vote on this, or was there another vote...according to this

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349

he didn't vote.

:shrug:
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 Apr 19th 2024, 12:17 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