Why does Obama follow Bush’s lead re Iran’s nuclear energy program?

[jody]

Bush said "Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapons would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

Obama told AIPAC "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything."

Obama told the Democratic National Committee to adopt his policy against accepting donations from federal lobbyists or political action committees but apparently AIPAC is exempt.

AIPAC is a federal lobby and political action committee so why is Obama kowtowing to it?

[Sadie4629]

1. Just a guess, but

maybe because he knows that a nuclear Iran would be bad for Israel, bad for the Middle East, and bad for the planet?? :shrug:

[NNN0LHI]

5. Make it nearly impossible to enslave their people and steal their oil and gas too

I wonder if that could be the real reason?

Don

[Deja Q]

12. *ding* *ding* *ding* we have a winner!

[Canuckistanian]

23. There's a small detail left to work out - it's called PROOF

The 2008 NIE has already declared that Iran gave up their nuclear weapons research 3 years ago.

And besides that, why in hell would Iran WANT to develop such weapons? They are MUCH more politically savvy than to think that it would do any good.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

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

[Dorian Gray]

38. I think that's a good guess...

I really hope that Iran never gets nuclear weaponry.

[AuntPatsy]

40. Who do we think we are that we dare to tell another country that they

cannot possess what we ourselves refuse to give up? Absolutely amazing and far past hypocritical

[sabbat hunter]

2. you can speak at a PAC

convention without taking their money.

Do you want a rogue state like Iran to have nuclear weapons? A state that sponsors terror groups?

[NNN0LHI]

6. After what the US has done lately describing someone else as a state that sponsors terror groups...

...is a little sick isn't it?

Don

[niceypoo]

10. What makes Iran a "rogue state?"

Saudi Arabia sponsors terror groups. The Taliban are Pakistani's, and the Pakistani's who have nukes.

If Iran did not have oil we wouldnt be having this conversation.

[High Plains]

13. Rogue state? The US should look in the mirror when those words are said.

[jody]

15. Do you actually believe Obama will not take AIPAC money and not do AIPAC's bidding? n/t

[sabbat hunter]

34. I believe

that he will not take money from any lobby groups, including AIPAC.

[jody]

35. I hope you are correct otherwise Obama will be just like all other politicians. n/t

[glowing]

3. because every president since Israel has become a country has partnered

with that country and has recognized its right to exist... Personally, I think all countries need to get rid of nuclear weapons.... Really, its fear that they would use them against others in the region or agains Israel.. and it would create a WWWIII scenario..

But I believe they already have the arsenol.. I think they bought some from Russia.. and because of the things we've learned from Sybil Edmonds.. we know our govt was secretly selling things to Turkey who would then pass info along to Iran.. which is one of the reason's Cheney outed Plame.. her front company was working double ops "selling" info to Iranians.. and the pile of shit was getting too close to the sources involved (like Hastert)..

[Xenotime]

8. Well it's now time for a "Change"

[jody]

20. What Xenotime said! n/t

[dmosh42]

4. He has to kiss up to Israel....

That has become the tradition. We'll even do the fighting for them, so their soldiers don't get hurt.

[OHdem10]

7. Pure and simple--Certain Foreign Policies are permanent.and

Candidates agree to them or drop out.

Never expect too much change or you will be mightily disappointed.

[Middle finga]

9. So in other words the talk of change is just campaign talk

that we shouldn't put too much hope into. What about trade, the current health care industry, the Military industial Complex are those permanent policies that can't be changed as well. So if the political process can't bring about real change it's going to take a revolution I guess.

[niceypoo]

11. Yes

Nothing will change in this country until we have publicly financed elections. Until then we do the bidding of corporations.

[SergeyDovlatov]

14. Because Obama wants to get elected?

Going against AIPAC wishes is seen as a political suicide by many.
AIPAC pressure was "off-the-record" cited reason for removing a clause in Iraq funding bill that would have prevented funds to be used for the war in Iran.

[jody]

16. I agree re get elected but does that make BO's PR to turn away lobbyists and pacs hypocritical? n/t

[SergeyDovlatov]

17. Obama is a politician. Unfortunately this is what it takes to play the game.

You can be very principled guy, but you won't go far in politics.

[jody]

18. I'll put you down as "yes" for hypocritical. n/t

[SergeyDovlatov]

19. lol - ok. n/t

[bananas]

21. Obama was talking about nuclear weapons, not nuclear energy

Are you in favor of nuclear weapons proliferation?

[jody]

24. Where is the proof that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons? It's another attempt to justify an attack

against Iran just like Bush did against Iraq.

[bananas]

30. No proof needed.

These countries don't trust each other.

[jody]

31. So Dubya was justified in invading Iraq by your logic. I have friends who were killed, others

wounded, and others with their lives destroyed from mental stress from Dubya's leadership.

It's sad to know that Commander in Chief Dubya needed no proof other than "These countries don't trust each other."

[bananas]

32. No, I'm not saying this is a good thing and I'm not justifying it.

[jody]

33. Question “Where is the proof that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons?” Answer “No proof needed.”

I'll accept your "I'm not justifying it" but what kind of answer did you mean?

I'm not trying to be confrontational but I don't understand your answer. :shrug:

[bananas]

36. Iran violated the NPT

by secretly building nuclear enrichment facilities underground.
Those could be used to make nuclear weapons.
The only way to destroy those facilities is with nuclear weapons.
Russia offered a way out - Russia would provide enriched fuel, Iran would close it's enrichment facilities.
Iran declined.
So things are escalating.
That's reality.

[jody]

39. Assuming you are right, Iran can abrogate the NPT just as N. Korea did following Dubya's precedence

on June 13, 2002 by withdrawing the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

Iran would then join India, Israel, Pakistan, and N. Korea as having nuclear programs and not being bound by the NPT.

IMO it’s pure hypocrisy for leaders to accuse other nations of refusing to abide by critical international treaties when they refuse to abide bide by those same treaties.

[bananas]

41. That would just escalate things further

Getting back to the OP:
Neither Israel nor Bush nor Obama are opposed to Iran having nuclear energy,
this is all about nuclear weapons.
What I meant by "no proof needed" is that anything hidden is presumed weapons-related,
especially when they've already agreed to keep everything out in the open.
From the BBC "Q&A" page:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4031603.stm

Q&A: Iran and the nuclear issue

Iran is defying a demand from the Security Council that it stop the enrichment of uranium.

As a result, the Council approved a third round of sanctions against Iran on 3 March 2008.

<snip>

On 26 May 2008, the IAEA reported that Iran was withholding information about weaponisation studies and that this needed "substantive explanations". Access to some sites, documents and individuals had also been denied. The full report has not yet been published. Iran said it had left no question unanswered.

<snip>

Iran is being offered help to develop a civilian nuclear power programme including light-water reactors. Crucially, Iran would not be allowed to make the fuel itself. This would be done in Russia in a partnership with Iran. However, as a condition for any substantive talks, Iran has to suspend enrichment. It does not accept such a pre-condition.

<snip>

What is the background to this confrontation?

The IAEA reported in 2003 that Iran had hidden a uranium enrichment programme for 18 years, and the current dispute dates back to then.

Western members of the IAEA called on Iran to commit itself to stopping all enrichment activities permanently, but it has refused to do so and later abandoned a temporary halt as well.

The clash with Iran escalated in February 2006, when the IAEA as a whole reported Iran to the Security Council.

A month later, the Security Council decided to take up the issue after receiving a copy of an IAEA report on Iran which said that it could not "conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran".

<snip>

[MiniMe]

22. The thought may be the same, but the methods are vastly different

While * thinks that we shouldn't talk to them at all and just threaten them, Obama thinks we should have talks with them. I think that a lot of Iran wants is simple recognition. And threatening them but not talking to them is one way for them to really want to get nuclear weapons.

[jody]

25. What don't you understand about "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a

nuclear weapon. Everything in my power. Everything."

[MiniMe]

26. I understand that. They still have different methods of dealing with it.

I think Iran with nuclear weapons would be a danger to the mideast if not the world. And Bush's tactics are making it worse. There is nothing wrong with holding talks with them at some level, I think it would be productive.

Why do you think they would deal with it exactly the same way?

[jody]

28. IMO Dubya is bluffing re attacking Iran but he would condone and support Israel's attack.

IMO Obama would talk about talking with Iran but he would condone and support Israel's attack.

I expect the same from McCain.

The end result is under Bush or Obama or McCain there is a very high probability that Israel will attack Iran and U.S. troops would once again go in harms way under the command of Bush or Obama or McCain.

I honestly hope I am wrong because I have hundreds of close friends in the military who would be at risk if that happens.

[Truth2Tell]

27. Sadly

you must say these things to be elected President in America. If he didn't blow this dog-whistle (not to mention the united Jerusalem whistle and several others), those forces which define our bi-partisan foreign policy would see to it that he doesn't win this election. It's not a conspiracy, it's simply the power of the American Imperial conventional wisdom echo-chamber. It's the CFR consensus. And he knows full well that it's cumulative power can easily defeat him.

We can simply hope that Obama is only doing a little pandering and that all this saber-rattling will be flushed away after he wins office. That is our only hope. If he really truly believes in all this rah rah militarism then we are all in for more of the same. I believe it may just be pandering, but that's because there is nothing else to believe. They don't call it "hope" for nuthin'.

[jody]

29. I also hope it's pandering but I'm not to optimistic when it comes to Israel. Israel is in a

position to attack Iran for a perceived nuclear weapons threat.

IMO Israel would immediately receive amens, hallelujahs, it's about time from Christian-Zionists who can mobilize substantial support among the electorate.

IMO, as a minimum, the U.S. would flood Israel with billions of dollars of the latest military equipment making Israel an arsenal for democracy in the middle east and the best way of protecting our oil supply upon which the working poor are so dependent with gas prices over $4/gallon.

Why did God put OUR oil beneath the sands of Muslims? :sarcasm: