Hillary Blasts Ahmadinejad Visit

[jefferson_dem]

Hillary Blasts Ahmadinejad Visit
By Greg Sargent - September 24, 2007, 3:48PM

Hillary is endeavoring to make it very clear today that she disapproves of Ahmadinejad's visit to New York. She's just released a statement saying that she's "proud" to join the thousands who gathered in New York today to decry "the hateful and inciteful actions" of the Iranian President.

In it, she reiterated her condemnation of Ahmadinejad's desire to visit Ground Zero and blasted Iran for a whole host of oft-cited reasons. Full statement after the jump.

“As thousands gather today in New York to decry the hateful and inciteful actions of the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I am proud to join them by adding my voice to their efforts. As we know too well, the President of Iran has made a series of incendiary, outrageous comments, questioning the Holocaust and calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. Israel's right to exist – and exist in safety – must never be put in question. To deny the Holocaust places the President of Iran in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists. These hateful statements are beyond the pale of international discourse and acceptability.

"His request to visit to Ground Zero, the site of the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil in our nation's history — a request that was properly denied —was unacceptable as Iran continues to refuse to renounce and end its support of terrorism. President Ahmadinejad's outrageous comments and support for terrorism is even more disturbing when viewed in the context of the regime's quest to acquire nuclear weapons; his pro- anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric underscores the seriousness of the threat. United States policy in this regard must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons.

"We can and we must continue to speak up. I commend all of those raising their voices to raise awareness of the Iranian regime's policies and statements during President Ahmadinejad's visit. We must continue to work together to put pressure on Iran until it ends its anti-American and anti-Semitic policies of hate, ends its nuclear weapons program, renounces sponsorship of terrorism, supports Middle East peace, and plays a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq.”

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/hillary_ahmadinejads_visit_to_new_york_is_really_really_bad.php

More candidate reactions here ---> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/24/politics/main3292477.shtml

[whistle]

1. What have other Democratic candidates said about President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today?

[jefferson_dem]

5. Obama: I Would Still Meet With Ahmadinejad

Obama: I Would Still Meet With Ahmadinejad
Posted by Brian Montopoli| 4

Despite the controversy that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York City has triggered, Senator Barack Obama still vows to meet with rogue leaders if he is elected, reports CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic.

“Nothing has changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries,” Obama told reporters at a press conference after receiving an endorsement from the New York City Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association.

Obama said he would not have invited Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University, but he believes in academic freedom. “They have the right to invite people to speak. As I said, it’s not a choice that I would have made but we don’t need to be fearful of the rantings of somebody like Ahmadinejad.” Obama says the United Nations provides an adequate forum for Ahmadinejad to speak.

Obama was asked if his statements about Ahmadinejad were contradictory – why would he meet with the Iranian leader as U.S. president but not invite to speak if he were the Columbia University president? “There are two different functions, as president of the United States, my job is to look out for the national security interests of this country,” Obama said. “In the same way that Nixon met with Mao and that past presidents met with people that we don’t like.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/09/24/politics/horserace/entry3291763.shtml

[rinsd]

6. That is a good statement.

“Nothing has changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries,” Obama told reporters at a press conference after receiving an endorsement from the New York City Correction Officers’ Benevolent Association.

[jefferson_dem]

7. I agree. Take a position on the visit while also distinguishing his "new" approach to governance.

This is a touchy subject for Obama since he graduated from Columbia. Not sure I agree with him on the University visit but to defend anything Ahmadinejad at this juncture may be politically cumbersome...to say the least.

[rinsd]

9. It was a tough one to walk.

I am fairly sure Hillary's stronger statement was to force him into an awkward position but he did very well in responding.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. It was a good response by Obama

It should be kept in mind on days like today that Hillary Clinton is not only running for President, she is also a sitting Senator from New York. Columbia University is in New York, ground zero is in New York, and like it or not, sentiments against Iran right now run very strong in New York in both parties. I am not suggesting that Hillary said anything today that she does not believe, or that she would not say many of the same things on another day. I am just saying that if she has any intention of making a more detailed speech outlining a comprehensive policy toward Iran in specific and the Middle East in general, that simply wasn't going to happen today while NYC is in an uproar over Ahmadinejad being physically present. It would not have received any hearing, let alone a fair one. The (NY at least) media is looking for sound bites today that make Ahmadinejad look crazed and Americans look tough, and very little else.

[whistle]

16. Now that is a sensible response, keep the door of dialog open

[FrenchieCat]

13. Has Edwards or Elizabeth said anything about this visit?

:shrug:

[trumad]

2. What's she to say?

I love the guy and want to have his baby?

[jefferson_dem]

4. "I want to wash his feet" perhaps?

LOL. I only posted this for edification purposes not to crticize Hillary.

[SaveElmer]

3. Good...I'll K&R that...

She is right!

[reggie the dog]

8. so much

so much for diplomacy. I know that there are some human rights violations in Iran but there are also human rights violations in the USA. Poor people have no right to health insurance in the USA, people that use certain drugs (even to treat terminal illnesses) are arrested and put in jail. People are dissapeared to prisons in Cuba and around the world by the US government. Untill these and other autrocities (New Orleans, the bombing and invasion of Iraq and Afganistan) the Patriot act have stopped being commited by the USA their leaders should be a bit more tactful. (Notice that H. Clinton supported these wars of aggression as well as the constitution shredding patriot act and now she will not speak to the president of Iran because she is concerned about human rights.) Frankly many people here in France think that W. insulted Ahmadinejad by not letting him lay a wreath at or near "ground zero". Hell, W Bush and H. Clinton, through their support for the wars in Iraq and Afganistan, have led to the death and suffering of far more people than Ahamdinejad ever has.

[OwnedByFerrets]

12. Right On Reggie

:toast:

[OwnedByFerrets]

10. oh STFU......or be just as

vocal about our own war criminal resident, who is responsible for over 1 million deaths.

[Steve_in_California]

11. A missed opportunity . . . .

Had they let Ahmedinajad lay a wreath at ground zero it would have been the perfect opportunity to present him with a gift from the American people--a still-live armor-piercing bomb bearing the insignia "Made in Iran."

[Gloria]

15. So, she's repeating the "quest for nuclear weapons" mantra...

She will be a perfect follow-up to Bush. Sounds exactly like him.
They guy really doesn't even represent the true power in Iran. Most of what he says is for domestic consumption.

[Mother Of Four]

17. Oh Hillary :(

"United States policy in this regard must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons.

"We can and we must continue to speak up. I commend all of those raising their voices to raise awareness of the Iranian regime's policies and statements during President Ahmadinejad's visit. We must continue to work together to put pressure on Iran until it ends its anti-American and anti-Semitic policies of hate, ends its nuclear weapons program, renounces sponsorship of terrorism, supports Middle East peace, and plays a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq.”


This doesn't sound like a presidential contender...This sounds more like a college student with a picket sign. (Edit, I re-read this and no offense intended to college students that stand up for their beliefs. It's just that someone running for our highest office has to think of ALL sides, not just one.)

In another thread, someone pretty tactful and smart asked me why I don't like Hillary and won't be voting for her, that they would be disturbed if they weren't able to define it. I had up until now not been able to articulate my reasoning. I think this embodies my reasons.

I don't WANT another Bush, I want someone who recognizes that what we've been doing up until now is wrong and isn't working. Tell me, after a speech like that...how will she be able to be civil and sit to meet with this office? Yes, this might get her extremist votes. However, we need to look at AFTER the election as well. We need to have a president that we are proud of, someone that we can get behind no matter what party affiliation people are and say "YES...I am AMERICAN...and THIS....This is our president."

Haven't we been embarrassed enough for almost 20 years?

Obama, I'm damn impressed with his response. Not condoning, but still open for diplomacy, as my kids say "Cool beans...totally cool beans."

[Tom Rinaldo]

18. Don't look now but

almost all of the potential Democratic nominees believe that Iran has a quest for nuclear weapons underway. To my knowledge all but Kucinich believe that, and I'm not even sure if he doesn't, are you? There is a little more space between them on what if anything the U.S. should do to deal with it, but not much there either. I saw Wes Clark asked a question about Iran at a book signing, and he said he has talked to all of our candidates about their position regarding "what if" Iran gained weapon nukes capacity. He started to say that all of them, and then he corrected himself to say except perhaps for one or two, take the position that Iran flat out can not be allowed to gain the capacity to make nulcear weapons. The way he emphatically started saying all of them led me to believe that he was confident of the positions of all the major candidates. I'm guessing Kucinich and maybe Gravel may not be fully on board with the latter statement.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. My account of Clark's comments and their implications to me

can be found at my CCN Blog:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13407