Obama Continues Message to Iran: ‘Pursue a New Course, or Face Consequences’
ABC News’ Jordyn Phelps and Sunlen Miller report:
President Obama reflected upon the progress made during his week at the United Nations and the G-20 summit and looked ahead to the upcoming Oct. 1 negotiations with Iran in his weekly address.
Echoing the demands he first made to Iran Friday morning in a joint announcement with France and the United Kingdom at the G20 summit, President Obama said that the uncovering of Iran’s secret nuclear facility brings “added urgency” to the upcoming talks with Iran.
“Iran’s leaders must now choose – they can live up to their responsibilities and achieve integration with the community of nations,” Obama said, “or they will face increased pressure and isolation, and deny opportunity to their own people.”
The president’s demands are for Iran to “cooperate fully” with the International Atomic Energy Agency and prove that it only intends to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
President Obama reiterated the accomplishments of his week, which was shared between the United Nations General Assembly in New York and the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh.
President Obama noted the significance of his meetings with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israeli and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday at the United Nations, saying that the meetings marked progress in Israeli-Palestinian relations.
“We resolved to move forward in the journey toward a just, lasting and comprehensive peace in the Middle East,” the president said.
The president called for the leaders to continue to work toward this end in his remarks following Tuesday’s meeting. Special Envoy George Mitchell is scheduled to meet with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators this coming week, and Secretary of State Clinton is charged with reporting back to President Obama in mid-October on the progress made.
Obama further reflected upon the progress made at the G-20 summit in defining the way forward for global economic recovery and environmental sustainability with an agreement from the 20 participant nations to phase out fossil fuel subsidies. He also pointed to the historical significance of the resolution passed during the Security Council meeting he chaired calling for a world without nuclear weapons.
-Jordyn Phelps and Sunlen Miller
Email
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
This is just for public consumption – Obama knows it’s too late to stop Iran except by military means, something he is unwilling to do. He is effectively accepting a nuclear-armed Iran while all the while trying to stop Israel from taking action. Anyone who wants to read a real account of what is happening can read it at DebkaFile which specializes in military & security developments in the Middle-East.
Posted by: Terry | September 26, 2009, 10:16 am 10:16 am
Interesting asks, ”How long did they know about Qom?” – please, this joke has been going on for at least the last 11 years, Clinton did nothing, Bush did nothing, & now Obama is doing nothing.
Just think about the reprecussions of a nuclear device & a delivery system in the hands of Islamic crazies – is the Iranian regime any different than Al-Qaeda?
Posted by: Terry | September 26, 2009, 10:31 am 10:31 am
Mr. Obama will start to blame Washington for Iran issue.
Posted by: young_voter | September 26, 2009, 10:32 am 10:32 am
Instead of apologizing at the UN, why in the name of GOD didn’t he reveal this when it would have garnered more weight?
This proves he is over his head when it comes to International issues.
What a joke for a “Leader.” (?)
Posted by: Remember America? | September 26, 2009, 10:39 am 10:39 am
This sounds EXACTLY like the run up to the Iraq war.
Posted by: keredte | September 26, 2009, 11:20 am 11:20 am
Instead of apologizing at the UN, why in the name of GOD didn’t he reveal this when it would have garnered more weight?
==========
That’s what I don’t get. He made the unprecedented move of chairing the Security Council, and was all kumbaya. It was Sarkozy who was bold in front of the world leaders.
The next day Obama held a separate event to call out Iran….to the press.
I just don’t get the point of the way he talked to the world vs. how he spoke after Sarkozy got angry.
Posted by: MayBee | September 26, 2009, 11:46 am 11:46 am
Terry,
I’m afraid you’re dead right!
sanctions against Iran will not work, and America would not gain anything
by going to war with Iran.
Let’s hope Iran doesn’t aquire the Bomb before the GOP resume power in 2012.
Posted by: magdalen | September 26, 2009, 11:55 am 11:55 am
Now HE want’s to invade Iran… thanks Barack O’BUSH!!!
Posted by: jafo | September 26, 2009, 11:58 am 11:58 am
So much time and money spend for so little purpose. Another apology agenda and the only concrete thing to come out of the whole week is expanding the G20 to eliminate the G8. The only group that will really do anything about Iran is Israel and Obama has already thrown them under the bus. Nothing of consequence (to be expected) came out of the U.N. or the G20.
Posted by: Mickey13 | September 26, 2009, 12:02 pm 12:02 pm
“face consequences…”
Like the threat of more “serious meaningful dialogue”??
LOL.
So when does the One sit down face to face to with Ahmedinejad without preconditions so the Iranian can further humiliate Obama and the US?
Posted by: drjohn | September 26, 2009, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm
From Big Government:
Obama: “We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.”
Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”
The rest of Sarkozy’s remarks were, well, remarkable:
“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.
“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.
“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.
The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.
“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.
Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”
This is what the media chose not to have you learn.
Posted by: drjohn | September 26, 2009, 12:07 pm 12:07 pm
Although it is still less than a year for the Obama team, it is refreshing to see an administration that is pro-active in foreign policy from the get-go and along with multi-tasking on many issues along with bringing our country back to the road of recovery from financial disaster caused by the GOP/Conservative coalition of the Bush/Cheney government between 2005 and October 2008.
As for the road to Mid East peace will take several smaller accomplishments to achieve not ultimately peace but the compromise of sustaining conflict management within the region.
It is possible? Anything is possible in good time relative to the resources but the U.S. cannot do this alone but should look at other models of dialog like a multinational concepts where the U.S., UK, France, Germany, Russia, China, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt design a framework for progress for the region. Surely Iran can be dealt with the same way.
Posted by: threeriverscrossing | September 26, 2009, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm
And why does iran want nukes?to proctect themselfs from the nukes we gave israel.maybe we should recall israelei nukes and then no one in the region would have them.
Posted by: wayne | September 26, 2009, 12:13 pm 12:13 pm
Now Iran is going to help Venezuela develop a nuke, and Brazil is talking nukes.
What a job that Obama is doing!
Posted by: drjohn | September 26, 2009, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm
drjohn says***
“face consequences…”
Like the threat of more “serious meaningful dialogue”??
LOL.
So when does the One sit down face to face to with Ahmedinejad without preconditions so the Iranian can further humiliate Obama and the US?
***
1. Obama NEVER said he would sit down with Ahmedinejad FACE TO FACE.
2. You Obama haters are a bad joke. Yesterday the haters were complaining Obama is weak. So now when he starts talking tough. You laugh at him and talk like you want Iran to humiliate us just so you can complain about your countries President some more.
3. Did you complain that Iran was humiliating us when for 6 years GWB did nothing but refuse to talk. Yeah that got us real far didn’t it. But that was ok with you wasn’t it?
You and your other Obama hater friends on this board are nothing but Hypocrites.
Posted by: Bill | September 26, 2009, 12:15 pm 12:15 pm
young_voter says ****
Mr. Obama will start to blame Washington for Iran issue. ****
And you will blame everything on Obama. Amazing!
Posted by: Bill | September 26, 2009, 12:18 pm 12:18 pm
Well, at least GWB is back on his funny-farm in Texas. Or we’d have been attempting to fight THREE wars simultaneously by now.
Posted by: Jaylah | September 26, 2009, 12:38 pm 12:38 pm
Bill. And by the way, both Clinton & Bush share in this mess. Neither did anything to stop Iran. Bush wimped out – he should have attacked Iran at the end of his term.
Posted by: Terry | September 26, 2009, 12:40 pm 12:40 pm
In 2007 Obama said he would meet with Ahmedinejad without preconditions.
“Meet” means
1. to come upon; come into the presence of; encounter: I would meet him on the street at unexpected moments.
2. to become acquainted with; be introduced to: I’ve never met your cousin.
3. to join at an agreed or designated place or time: Meet me in St. Louis.
4. to be present at the arrival of: to meet a train.
5. to come to or before (one’s notice, or a means of noticing, as the eyes or ears): A peculiar sight met my eyes.
6. to come into the company of (a person, group, etc.) in dealings, conference, etc.
7. to face, eye, etc., directly or without avoidance.
8. to come into physical contact, juxtaposition, or collision with: The two cars met each other head-on at high speed.
Courtesy Dictionary
Posted by: drjohn | September 26, 2009, 12:42 pm 12:42 pm
Boy, it didn’t take long to censor my response to Bill. Nothing like free & open debate, I guess being blunt is no longer in style. Of course, this is why so many people think the mainstream media is total BS.
So sorry, Bill, it would have been an interesting discussion.
And how long will it take to delete this comment?
Posted by: Terry | September 26, 2009, 12:51 pm 12:51 pm
This is what the media chose not to have you learn.
Posted by: drjohn | Sep 26, 2009 12:07:08 PM
Uh…. you may want to check the official translation at the French embassy site.
Posted by: Alyson | September 26, 2009, 1:23 pm 1:23 pm
Obama, what a joke for a leader. He has played footsie with these dictators since his inaugeration and they see him as a weakness not a strength. I like the forceful tone of Brown which is what the situation demanded.
Posted by: DaveT | September 26, 2009, 2:07 pm 2:07 pm
Blah Blah Blah…Obama..put your money where your mouth is….er. I mean…put OUR money where your mouth is. You should be able to do it easily since the Democrats Looove to spend other peoples money.
Posted by: bo | September 26, 2009, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm
To the Americans, Mr. Obama tells them, “Yes, we can”. All things are possible. To the International community at the UN, he tells them, “America cannot do it alone”.
Posted by: young_voter | September 26, 2009, 2:40 pm 2:40 pm
Oh no, we might have to “face consequences” from a far left liberal no less. Well, if that doesn’t stop us I don’t know what will. I guess we will just abandon our plans to go nuclear. We never considered that we wouldn’t have world approval on this one. What were we thinking??
Posted by: Sarcastic Bill | September 26, 2009, 2:41 pm 2:41 pm
I can just hear him now…..I inhericted this mess…..hey, so did Bush. Iran’s been around a long long time. The difference is that the previous administrations didn’t bow before the evil leaders of these nations. Obama is a “kitty”. He doesn’t have the “nerve” to stand up to Ahmadinijad.
Posted by: bo | September 26, 2009, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm
This sounds EXACTLY like the run up to the Iraq war.
Posted by: keredte | September 26, 2009, 2:44 pm 2:44 pm
Bush’s intelligence agencies told him unequivically that Iraq had WMD. The intelligence agancies were wrong. What happens if Obama’s intelligence agencies are wrong?
Posted by: bo | September 26, 2009, 2:46 pm 2:46 pm
Why would Iran back down because of
these statements??? Obama has a great
smile but no teeth.
Posted by: wis134 | September 26, 2009, 2:48 pm 2:48 pm
Obama’s plan….disarm the U.S. while turning his head to what evil dictators in the east do. Surprising? No, not from a far leftie.
Posted by: bo | September 26, 2009, 2:49 pm 2:49 pm
Obama’s too busy trying to BULLY the American people to accept his socialist agenda than to bother with Ahmadinijad.
Posted by: bo | September 26, 2009, 2:51 pm 2:51 pm
Apparently Bush briefed Obama about this
in the transition period. If Obama
truly believes that Bush lied and
intelligence is failed, why would
Obama believe him and act in a way
just by what he learned from a “flawed”
ex-president? Maybe he is waiting to
blame Bush for this one too while he
comes up with some kind of answer.
He has no backbone. Iran should have
nothing to fear and they understand
that clearly.
Posted by: wis134 | September 26, 2009, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
Bush’s intelligence agencies told him unequivically that Iraq had WMD
***
That’s not true. Do some research and get up to speed. What the documentation suggests is that the U.S. intelligence community caved in to Bush administration pressure for data justifying an invasion of Iraq. The public relations push for war came before the intelligence analysis, which then conformed to public positions taken by Pentagon and White House officials– and investigations have shown that political manipulation extended beyond the intelligence itself to affect investigation of the intelligence failures on Iraq as well as the Bush administration’s use of that information.
Posted by: Alyson | September 26, 2009, 3:03 pm 3:03 pm
The era of Bush`s shoot before aiming is gone. Now we have a strategic thinking president who will use war as a last resort rather than a first resort like Bush and his neo-conservatives did.
Posted by: Klaus | September 26, 2009, 3:40 pm 3:40 pm
“INCREASED PRESSURE AND ISOLATION?” LOL!!!! HEAVY, VERY HEAVY!!!
Posted by: Temagami | September 26, 2009, 3:45 pm 3:45 pm
The buck stops with Obama.
Posted by: ceeLeelee | September 26, 2009, 3:49 pm 3:49 pm
For all you neo-cons who want to fight a third war, this is what you can do:
Go to the DOD then ask to be drafted as a special force that will go into Iran to do the fighting. That is bravery instead of trying so hard to paint our intelligent president as a wimp. Nobody is buying your garbage.
Posted by: Klaus | September 26, 2009, 3:52 pm 3:52 pm
“The commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan has submitted a request for more troops, a spokesman said Saturday, but the Pentagon will hold it while President Barack Obama decides what strategy to pursue.”
Afghanistan? What Afghanistan? The military twists in the wind while Barack asks his political advisors at the Kos what to do.
Soon I expect Obama will come out with “Look, I didn’t ask for this mess. It’s not my fault. Blame Bush!”
LMAO
Posted by: drjohn | September 26, 2009, 4:14 pm 4:14 pm
Lots of neo-con types today. Wow. Who kills the most civilians: US or Iran? Who attacks more sovereign nations: US or Iran? Who has used nukes on civilians: US or Iran? Who tells other nations how to be prosperous: broke US or Iran? Really easy questions.
Posted by: Huh | September 26, 2009, 4:15 pm 4:15 pm
“Now we have a strategic thinking president who will use war as a last resort rather than a first resort like Bush and his neo-conservatives did.”
So that’s why we’re at war with Iran?
Strategic thinking? Like ducking the responsibility in Afghanistan? The ROE in Afghanistan are abominable. Our military cannot clear and hold if they can’t clear. They cannot hold if they haven’t enough manpower.
Posted by: drjohn | September 26, 2009, 4:18 pm 4:18 pm
The US has been made broke by liberals giving everything away to those who won’t work for themselves.
How much in the way of bonuses did Obama and the Democrats hand out to bankers?
Republicans had NOTHING to do with that.
Posted by: drjohn | September 26, 2009, 4:24 pm 4:24 pm
from the UK Telegraph:
“Obama has done more to restore Russia’s hegemonial potential in Eastern and Central Europe than even Vladimir Putin. . . . If the word is out that America is in retreat, it will soon find it has no friends.”
Posted by: drjohn | September 26, 2009, 4:31 pm 4:31 pm
from the Independent (UK)
‘Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, came close to mocking his US counterpart for the good intentions, which Mr Obama had heralded as an “historic” step towards nuclear abolition, even though it set no targets or fresh mandates.
“We live in a real world not a virtual world,” the Frenchman told the 15-member council. “And the real world expects us to take decisions.
Dreams
“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons . . . but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.’
“Dreams from my Socialist Father”
LOL
Posted by: drjohn | September 26, 2009, 4:36 pm 4:36 pm
I dance with glee every time a read a musing on any blog from a conservative blah, blah, blahing about Obama giving their money away to the poor so they can be rich. These poor foolish conservatives have never been able to understand how much of their money the government gives away daily to conservative farmers not to grow crops, to conservative milk farmers to subsidize their supposedly low prices for milk, and huge amounts of corporate welfare to every conservative company and manufacture in the form of tax relief and subsidies.
They have been blinded by the lies and untruths of those they hold up as saviors and spokespeople for their cause, Lumbaugh, Fox, O’Rielly, Beck and Cheney.
I don’t want the conservatives to change their thinking nor stop believing the lies and untruths of their spokesmouths. Between that and their foolish hatred for medical care for all Americans, which they hope will not pass, they will become so full of hatred and angst that will cause their health to decline and lo and behold they will not have any health care. Oh, wait. They do believe in the government handing out Social Security checks, medicaide, and medicare. Never mind.
Posted by: democratic | September 26, 2009, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
I forgot one little piece of information, the latest poles show President Obama’s political ratings on the rise with a majority of Americans. Heh, heh, heh.
Posted by: democratice | September 26, 2009, 4:51 pm 4:51 pm
Between that and their foolish hatred for medical care for all Americans, which they hope will not pass, they will become so full of hatred and angst that will cause their health to decline and lo and behold they will not have any health care. Oh, wait. They do believe in the government handing out Social Security checks, medicaide, and medicare. Never mind.
Posted by: democratic | Sep 26, 2009 4:45:49 PM
***************
You sound really frustrated with everything that’s going on. Don’t take it personal – think of how the Republicans feel – like they are trapped and can’t do anything for an entire year until the next elections in 2010. Now that’s really frustrating!
Posted by: Jenny | September 26, 2009, 4:52 pm 4:52 pm
Every obnoxious, negative and silly comment by the legion of Obama haters here constitutes welcome and wonderful support to the majority of us citizens who are glad it’s no longer Elmer Fudd and Darth Vader in charge of our destiny. Thanks for motivating us.
Posted by: Robin | September 26, 2009, 5:19 pm 5:19 pm
I’m still waiting for Obama to come out and say what exactly Iran did that doesn’t comply with the NPT (unlike some other countries that won’t go mentioned). They notified the IAEA months before they needed to. What is all the bloviating about?
Posted by: Flash Override | September 26, 2009, 5:39 pm 5:39 pm
“Every obnoxious, negative and silly comment by the legion of Obama haters here constitutes welcome and wonderful support to the majority of us citizens who are glad it’s no longer Elmer Fudd and Darth Vader in charge of our destiny. Thanks for motivating us.”
So you consider the president to be in charge of your destiny?
Posted by: PD | September 26, 2009, 6:16 pm 6:16 pm
It’s comforting to have a president who is tough but uses all the options at his disposal. Military force is on the table, but should always be the last resort when virtually everything else has failed. I trust that Obama is coming from that persepctive. But I also trust that he will not hesitate if sadly it comes to that.
Posted by: hopesprings52 | September 26, 2009, 6:23 pm 6:23 pm
Alyson,
Obama is stepping into the same territory Bush stepped into before invading Iraq. US Intelligence reports both state the affirmative regarding Iraq and Iran’s weaponry. Whether this was justifiable reason enough to fight Iraq is questionable. Therefore, it would be interesting what toughness Obama is proposing on Iran for THEIR alleged US Intelligence report weaponry.
The fact is Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Joe Biden, Rockefeller, Nancy Pelosi, et. al. have been caught on tape in the late 1990′s (1998 to be exact) stating that Hussein was successfully developing WMD’s. In 2002 Harry Reid supported Bush’s response to Iraq, only to cave later to domestic American radicals later.
I disagree with Bush’s justification to attack Iraq and I would again disagree with any Obama justification to attack Iran; especially using the US Intelligence reports that have not been reliable; or at least unsupportable.
Posted by: EPU | September 26, 2009, 7:13 pm 7:13 pm
“It’s comforting to have a president who is tough…”
it would be more comforting if there were a shred of evidence that he is tough.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 26, 2009, 8:01 pm 8:01 pm
“What the documentation suggests is that the U.S. intelligence community caved in to Bush administration pressure for data justifying an invasion of Iraq.”
One can always find selective documentation “suggesting” that almost any malicious and libelous falsehood, such as this one, is true. Fortunately, we have the written findings of two independent bipartisan commissions establishing the falsity of this particular claim.
Never forget Clinton-appointee George Tenet’s “slam dunk” on the eve of the invasion.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 26, 2009, 8:08 pm 8:08 pm
I disagree with Bush’s justification to attack Iraq and I would again disagree with any Obama justification to attack Iran; especially using the US Intelligence reports that have not been reliable; or at least unsupportable.
Posted by: EPU | Sep 26, 2009 7:13:07 PM
***
I’m thinking we agree, although I don’t think pressing for inspections is where we went wrong in Iraq and it seems highly likely to me that our current intelligence is improved and less politicized, given past mistakes. (One would hope– but I realize I shouldn’t assume.) Where we went way wrong in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, IMHO, was when we blew off Hans Blix, who, along with a team of UN weapons inspectors spent more than three months searching for WMD in Iraq and found nothing he deemed significant. We should have let him and his team do their job.
I’m glad it wasn’t Obama who put military action on the table, but rather France–though now the neocons think he looks like a wimp and a dreamy eyed liberal utopian (can you be that alongside being a fascist/commie/socialist/radical– probably to some as logic doesn’t seem to have much to do with the mischaracterizations). Iran’s nuclear chief says the country will set a date for the UN’s atomic agency inspectors to visit a newly-disclosed plant. So we’ll see what happens. I certainly think military action against Iran would set a dangerous precedent and set off a wildly dangerous chain of events. Ahmadinejad say the announcement yesterday, and the news of the nuclear facility, won’t affect the upcoming talks between Iran and the 5+1 group in October.
Posted by: Alyson | September 26, 2009, 8:22 pm 8:22 pm
One can always find selective documentation “suggesting” that almost any malicious and libelous falsehood, such as this one, is true. Fortunately, we have the written findings of two independent bipartisan commissions establishing the falsity of this particular claim.
***
And they are? I’ll check them out.
I have read the white papers in the National Security archive of George Washington University, among other things– and I was talking about the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) reports realeased in June 2008, which examined whether the public statements made by U.S. officials, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, and others were consonant with U.S. intelligence information. This report forms part of a second phase of the SSCI’s investigation of Iraq intelligence issues, most especially Saddam Hussein’s possible Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program, originally approved by the Intelligence Committee in February 2004 but stalled by its Republican majority for several years, until the majority changed with the current 110th Congress.
Admittedly, their findings fit in with what seemed true to me at the time, and still seem true given some of the memoirs that have come out.
Posted by: Alyson | September 26, 2009, 8:34 pm 8:34 pm
“Iran’s leaders must now choose – they can live up to their responsibilities and achieve integration with the community of nations,” Obama said, “or they will face increased pressure and isolation, and deny opportunity to their own people.”
Blah, Blah, Blah!
President Obama continues his failed
strategy of talking the Iranians
into giving up their goal of making
a nuclear weapon.
When will the president realize that
his empty threats are not working?
After Iran has a nuclear weapon attached
to a missile? Then it will be too late!
The Iranians know as do the
North Koreans and the Russians that
the U.S. under Obama is a “paper tiger”!
This guy makes Jimmy Carter look
like a saber rattler. Ugh!
Posted by: reaganfan | September 26, 2009, 8:34 pm 8:34 pm
democratice:
What polls are you talking about?
The CBS/New York Times Poll?
Let me clue you in those two
organizations make things up out of
thin air and report them as facts!
How many Republicans and Independents
were included in that poll?
Posted by: reaganfan | September 26, 2009, 8:41 pm 8:41 pm
There’s no need to rush off and bomb Iran; they’ve got a ways to go till they get a usable weapon. In the meantime let US intelligence finish this cat and mouse game with Ahmadinejad. He knows with our radar-invisible planes and cruise missiles we can destroy anything we can see, so apparently he was trying to see if he could build a facility that we couldn’t find. Well we found it much to the credit of our intelligence community who should get credit for this victory. Ahmadinejad now has to face that placing huge economic burdens on his country is risky since his popularity is fading and any extremely expensive facilities he builds can probably be easily destroyed.
Posted by: Skip | September 26, 2009, 8:44 pm 8:44 pm
I am so relieved, that we now have a MAN in power. I along with so many, feel that we can now sleep a night.This president is working really hard for eace in the world. trust him.
Posted by: Norm Baird | September 26, 2009, 8:57 pm 8:57 pm
Alyson,
I wouldn’t trust the US Intelligence reports. Just to say that they are now trustworthy because a President with a D at the end of his name is in charge is ideological posturing.
Posted by: EPU | September 26, 2009, 9:07 pm 9:07 pm
“He knows with our radar-invisible planes and cruise missiles we can destroy anything we can see, so apparently he was trying to see if he could build a facility that we couldn’t find. Well we found it much to the credit of our intelligence community who should get credit for this victory.”
And this proves that we’ve found all such facilities … how?
Posted by: PD | September 26, 2009, 9:11 pm 9:11 pm
We’ve known for years about this and Obama *still* offered negotiations without preconditions?
And what kind of nonsense talk is this about Iran *proving* what cannot be proved?
Is Obama 100 times more stupid than most people already think he is?
Posted by: tanarg | September 26, 2009, 9:31 pm 9:31 pm
The consequences are–another deadline.
Obama doesn’t scare Ahmadinejad or any other tyrant.
They love Obama because he has no backbone and portrays America as a very flawed country.
Posted by: max | September 26, 2009, 9:46 pm 9:46 pm
Someone on Fox made an interesting comment.
Obama wants to rush everything–the stimulus, omnibus, cap/trade. health care.
But he wants to take his time when it comes to sending more troops to help in Afghanistan. While he drags his feet our troops are dying.
Either send help or get them out!
Posted by: tyler | September 26, 2009, 9:52 pm 9:52 pm
“The consequences are–another deadline.
Obama doesn’t scare Ahmadinejad or any other tyrant.”
Exactly. As long as he can keep us talking and doing nothing, he’s got us where he wants us. “Let them talk, the fools, while we continue with our plans.”
Posted by: PD | September 26, 2009, 9:52 pm 9:52 pm
Pretty sad to see Sarkozy and Brown showing more fortitude than the president of the United States.
Obama just doesn’t have it in him to be forceful. Kind of makes sense that he voted present 120 times in the Senate rather than taking a stand.
Posted by: larry | September 26, 2009, 10:01 pm 10:01 pm
“The CBS/New York Times Poll? Let me clue you in those two organizations make things up out of thin air and report them as facts! How many Republicans and Independents were included in that poll?”
Unweighted
289 Republicans
357 Democrats
396 Independents
Weighted
234 Republicans
385 Democrats
423 Independents
Posted by: Numeros | September 26, 2009, 10:03 pm 10:03 pm
Obama still isn’t swaggering around and making enough tough-guy threats
to keep the timid feeling secure it seems. Most Americans don’t want any more loved ones to die in the Middle East so some of you are going to have to reach deep down inside yourselves and try and find the courage to make it as these diplomatic processes are carried through. None of the violent and arrogant policies you’re advocating got us anywhere the last six years anyways.
Posted by: Skip | September 26, 2009, 10:17 pm 10:17 pm
“Most Americans don’t want any more loved ones to die in the Middle East..”
Talk to Mr. Obama about that one. Ask him why he sent an additional 21.000 troops to Afghanistan. Ask him abou all those who have died there on his watch.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 26, 2009, 10:36 pm 10:36 pm
I just love how Obama promised Hope & Change along with having the most most tranparent administration ever, of course his administration is no different than any other; lies & cover-ups and on and on. Then he demands transparency from Iran? What would he know about it?
Posted by: FoundingFathers | September 26, 2009, 10:40 pm 10:40 pm
Where are the anti-war protesters? Why isn’t the media asking that question?
Posted by: Mary | September 26, 2009, 10:46 pm 10:46 pm
I’ll take peace over war almost any time. I know the Right never showed much interest in non-oil-rich Afghanistan anyway, but I’m just curious: Is it because the oracle George Will pointed the way that conservatives are willing to embrace cut and run there now?
Posted by: Skip | September 26, 2009, 10:49 pm 10:49 pm
“And they are? I’ll check them out.”
Start with Robb-Silberman.
If you accept the CYA conclusions of the partisan Democrats on the SSCI, you are not really looking for the truth. Those folks–see, e.g., Jay Rockefeller–had been warning about Saddam’s WMD since 1998. They had access to the same intelligence Bush and Clinton had, and they all reached the same conclusion. There was so significant change from one administration to the next.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 26, 2009, 10:50 pm 10:50 pm
Obama: “We must never stop until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of the earth.”
Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”
Bill Clinton: “Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen,”
I see a pattern
Posted by: dean | September 26, 2009, 10:53 pm 10:53 pm
In the words of harry reid, “this war is lost”. The dems do not have the will to fight it. Next step is to redefine the mission.
Posted by: Foghorn Loghorn | September 26, 2009, 11:05 pm 11:05 pm
Better watch out Iran ….. the U.N. is about to write you a letter. Bet your afraid now!! What a useless bunch of …..
Posted by: FoundingFathers | September 26, 2009, 11:05 pm 11:05 pm
Alyson,
I wouldn’t trust the US Intelligence reports. Just to say that they are now trustworthy because a President with a D at the end of his name is in charge is ideological posturing.
Posted by: EPU | Sep 26, 2009 9:07:40 PM
Oh, no worries, I don’t. I want to be able to, but ultimately I don’t– I’ll put it like that. I didn’t say they are now trustworthy because a Democrat is president. I said I would think it was better now *given past mistakes* but I also said I realize I shouldn’t assume (and what I meant, but didn’t say, is that though one would think we as a country, and our government, and our intelligence community, would learn from past mistakes and that having been in the region throughout the Iraq war would give us improved intellience, we dont’ always learn from our mistakes and I realize that.) Overall, I do think and am hopeful that the current situation gives the U.S. and its partners a stronger hand in upcoming negotiations. I would think the Russians, while they have somewhat different interests and incentives than us, would be frustrated by this development (as their statement suggests) and that puts Iran in a pretty tough position. Now, we have to engage while continuing to tighten the squeeze, hopefully through international action with multilateral sanctions that aren’t so harsh they push the Iranian people to embrace the regime, but rather tighten the screws. We’ll see.
Posted by: Alyson | September 26, 2009, 11:17 pm 11:17 pm
Start with Robb-Silberman.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | Sep 26, 2009 10:50:57 PM
Okey doke. Thanks for the info.
Posted by: Alyson | September 26, 2009, 11:19 pm 11:19 pm
democratic:
Those ‘subsidies’ and ‘incentives not to grow crops’ were put in place by liberal legislation catering to environmentalist groups.
The Social Security Act enacted by Roosevelt in 1935 – a democrat – was later amended to add Medicaid and Medicare – which were signed into law by Pres. Lyndon Johnson – also a democrat.
These are your democrat laws that we’re all forced fed to live with and pay for even though a majority of Americans don’t benefit from them. We don’t want them.
People with jobs that wisely invest their money into a retirement savings and invest in health care don’t need your democrat legislations. Taking from the producers to give to the nonproducers is all democrats are about.
Posted by: EPU | September 26, 2009, 11:44 pm 11:44 pm
I’ll take peace over war almost any time. I know the Right never showed much interest in non-oil-rich Afghanistan anyway, but I’m just curious: Is it because the oracle George Will pointed the way that conservatives are willing to embrace cut and run there now?
Posted by: Skip | Sep 26, 2009 10:49:44 PM
Me, too on the first statement, and interesting question on the latter– though so far I get the impression that many neocons are using Afghanistan and many other things to simply dump on Obama, maybe hoping a neverending War and other things (like trouble closing Gitmo) will make Obama as unpopular among the left wing as he is among the right, so, you know, maybe his unpopularity will eventually be worse than Bush’s was– and his domestic policies and reforms will get dropped, and he won’t get re-elected, and they’ll be saved from meaningful health care reforms, energy and environment reforms, rail and infrastructure improvements, immigration reforms, a less criminalized DOJ, a fair Census, pushback on nutwinger lies — because you know all those things are soooooo awful.
Posted by: Alyson | September 26, 2009, 11:48 pm 11:48 pm
“and they’ll be saved from meaningful health care reforms, energy and environment reforms, rail and infrastructure improvements, immigration reforms, a less criminalized DOJ, a fair Census, pushback on nutwinger lies — because you know all those things are soooooo awful.”
Posted by: Alyson
They call it socialism. What is the opposite of socialism? -collective selfishism?
Posted by: Skip | September 27, 2009, 12:44 am 12:44 am
George Will has nothing to do with this. Other than to point out how Obama is lacking any policy other than to get himself elected. So what if Bush did it? Wasn’t Obama the candidate of change (for the worst).
Posted by: justunclejoe | September 27, 2009, 12:45 am 12:45 am
iran wants nukes because we gave nukes to israel,why would we tolerate any nukes in that region, since we send alot of taxpayer dollars to israel we should ask for their cooperation. Iran isn’t a threat to the u.s. neither was iraq,,,,they might be a threat to israel.I believe our support{money,weapons}to israel was the reason for 9-11.they’ll be no peace in the region untill the land grabbing stops.
Posted by: wayne | September 27, 2009, 1:19 am 1:19 am
Troops has been dying in Afganistan for 8 years……..it was an “uninterested” war in the beginning, left unattended until President Obama took office. This war was a “sham” of the Bush years. Where were your voice then?
Posted by: sara | September 27, 2009, 2:50 am 2:50 am
Who advises this guy? The ‘Paper tiger’.
Posted by: LongT | September 27, 2009, 10:00 am 10:00 am
What consequences does the One speak of? Let me guess, he’ll send Iran an iPod packed full of his “historic” speeches….lol. Kind of reminds me of the kid that cried wolf!
Posted by: TxBoB | September 27, 2009, 10:30 am 10:30 am
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 30% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty percent (40%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 .
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 27, 2009, 10:49 am 10:49 am
Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Fifty-one (51%) disapprove.
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 27, 2009, 10:54 am 10:54 am
One has to wonder just rust Obama was doing on the Harvard Law Review, and teaching costitutional law at Chicago. Here’s the WaPo:
The White House and its allies knowingly engage in a distortion. The question isn’t whether the president may indefinitely hold some detainees — the courts have ruled that he can under certain circumstances — but what process should be available to those subject to such detention. This is the debate that Mr. Obama now lacks the courage to engage.”
“
Posted by: Fascist Hyena | September 27, 2009, 11:11 am 11:11 am
Obama will huff and he will puff and the Iranians will laugh and laugh.
The One has known about this since he came into office, why is he bringing it up now?
Posted by: Quinten | September 27, 2009, 11:58 am 11:58 am
The international community has discovered what the media refuses to report:Barack Obama is a weak,indecisive man with no skills aside from a gift of gab that is wearing thin. At the diplomatic level has has no respect-everbody knows that he can be rolled with little effort. Why did the Iranians launch a new missile?
Posted by: Nephron | September 27, 2009, 12:04 pm 12:04 pm
The point is not whether Iran has or has not been pursuing a course toward nuclear weapons, the issue is HOW we react to it in concert with OTHERS. The conservative side still sees the World as run by the US, and wants to “bully” a solution. A person such as Obama has the courage to know that this paradigm lacks integrity. Throughout history, effective action has only been taken when countries work together to put pressure and solve these kinds of disputes as a group. Bush chose basically a “go-it-alone” policy, and it was and still is a complete disaster It is time to work in harmony with other nations, or face an even further decline in our respect and standing in the World communities.
Posted by: Work Together | September 27, 2009, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm
“At the diplomatic level has has no respect…”
I’d be curious to know who you think has more respect at the diplomatic level from the international community than Obama. He’s been prominent at every top level international gathering he has attended.
Posted by: Skip | September 27, 2009, 12:25 pm 12:25 pm
There were many opportunities to stop Nazi Germany’s rearming in the thirties, yet none were taken. No country had the courage to make Hitler stop rearming Germany until he invaded Poland. Millions of lives later, Hitler was finally stopped. I fear history will once again repeats itself.
Posted by: pam | September 27, 2009, 12:40 pm 12:40 pm
-I’d be curious to know who you think has more respect at the diplomatic level from the international community than Obama.-
Agreed. A nuke free world is right around the corner. Not counting Iran, Venbezuela, Brazil, not to mention that new missile test by our Persian buddies.
Posted by: Kumbaya | September 27, 2009, 12:51 pm 12:51 pm
Skip,in terms of respect-do you honestly think that the Iranians,North Koreans,Syrians,Israelis,Russians,Chinese,Poles,Czechs give a damn anymore what the government of the United States advocates?Do you think that Eastern Europe can trust a neophyte whose grasp of history is so poor that he apparently was unaware of the Nazi-Soviet nonagggression pact of 1939 and the important dates related to that pact?Of course they LIKE him-he is weak,ignorant in foreign affairs and will not cause trouble-like Lichtenstein.
Posted by: Nephron | September 27, 2009, 12:54 pm 12:54 pm
I find it entirely hysterical how liberals cite ‘the thousands of dead civilians’ in Bush’s Iraq war, but turned a blind eye to Clinton’s wars. I even heard one radical lib say Clinton must start a war to stop the genocide in Kosovo, yet rail against Bush for stopping Sadam Hussein’s genocide. Not that I support the war in Iraq which I don’t, but liberals are blatantly hypocritical when it comes to war.
Posted by: EPU | September 27, 2009, 12:59 pm 12:59 pm
-I’d be curious to know who you think has more respect at the diplomatic level from the international community than Obama. He’s been prominent at every top level international gathering he has attended.-
Prominence does not equal respect.
Posted by: Webster | September 27, 2009, 1:08 pm 1:08 pm
With all of Obama’s America bashing all over the international forum of course he’s more prominent to the international community. The only place he is losing prominence is here in America with his -10 index rating of approval.
Obama may be more ‘prominent’ in the international community because the world is sees Obama as malleable and are grooming him to implement THEIR agenda. Global communities see Obama as a useful tool to them – someone who can deliver what they need for the benefit of THEIR nation. They already know where he stands on HIS country.
Posted by: EPU | September 27, 2009, 1:18 pm 1:18 pm
“Prominence does not equal respect.”
Intimidation does not equal respect either.
Posted by: Skip | September 27, 2009, 1:23 pm 1:23 pm
“-do you honestly think that the Iranians,North Koreans,Syrians,Israelis,Russians,Chinese,Poles,Czechs give a damn anymore what the government of the United States advocates?”
The key word there is ‘anymore’. I don’t believe for a second that these nations gave more of a damn what Bush advocated either.
Posted by: Skip | September 27, 2009, 1:37 pm 1:37 pm
Only two choices remain: Live with a nuclear Iran or get rid of the Iran’s nuclear ability, it is now either or, or..But the world better decide now fore it sounds as if Iran will be making the decision fairly soon, like it or not, for everyone…anyone with half a brain knows inspections is just another stalling tactic..
Posted by: Parallex View | September 27, 2009, 3:44 pm 3:44 pm
Skip,ask a Pole,ask a Czech-at least Bush knew where Auschwitz was and wasn’t stupid enough to sellout Poland on the 70th anniversity of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Poland.
Posted by: Nephron | September 27, 2009, 3:48 pm 3:48 pm
Nephron… If Europe wants a missile defense system let them build one with their resources… We can spend that 8.8 billion dollars on something that will benefit American’s (i.e. Healthcare)…
Posted by: Martin | September 27, 2009, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm
“and wasn’t stupid enough to sellout Poland”
What would be really stupid would be setting up an expensive missile defense system for them that we know doesn’t really work just so people here on the Right can feel better about it.
Posted by: Skip | September 27, 2009, 4:07 pm 4:07 pm
iran is a soverien nation and ca n test missles ,just like israel.why dont we take back the nukes we gave to israel and then maybe iran couldn’t justify trying to obtain them. You wouldn’t end your nuke program if your neighbor had them. there will be no peace in that region untill the land grabbing stops. if i gave someone part of your backyard,you might get mad,if they then took more of your land, you might feel threatend,and if they had nukes, you’d want them too !!!!
Posted by: wayne | September 27, 2009, 5:34 pm 5:34 pm
It could be argued, supplying our allies with defensive and PREVENTATIVE majors in respect missile shield would be a huge benefit to American military lives, obviously you are not a member of, and weapons costs, taxpayers, if called on to later come to the aid of Poland…As far as the comment in reference to the shield not working, I can only say that Russia put up a well documented “fuss” against something that does not work….
Posted by: Parallex View | September 27, 2009, 5:42 pm 5:42 pm
Sarkozy: “We live in the real world, not the virtual world. And the real world expects us to take decisions.”
“President Obama dreams of a world without weapons … but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.
“Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.
“I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map,” he continued, referring to Israel.
The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama’s resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.
“If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons,” he said.
Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”
Posted by: drjohn | September 27, 2009, 6:58 pm 6:58 pm
“A missle system that doesn’t work”-what do you know about the Standard missle system? Have you ever been to Barking Sands?Do you even know where Barking Sands is?What is SPY-1?You guys know nothing about anti-missle systems and yet you claim a system doesn’t work. Maybe you ought to tell the people in Alaska and Hawai’i that their system doesn’t work.
Posted by: Nephron | September 27, 2009, 7:44 pm 7:44 pm
They knew about Qom for years, all of them. I believe this tough talk is more than just the leak of this site, I believe Israel has set a deadline to attack or Iran is going to attack Israel and Ahmadinejad forced Obama’s hand to see where he stands. Not just Obama but Russia and China too. I highly doubt they would be talking tough like this over a site they have known about for years, and having a CYA policy about access when they know full well that these sites are not for electricity by Iran’s own admission. I read in another article that deal under which Iran would suspend uranium enrichment in return for a package of economic assistance and help with the construction of a civilian power industry has been on offer for more than a year and has so far been flatly rejected by Iran. They are determined to build a nuke to destroy Israel and probably the US too if they could.
Posted by: Ferrari5858 | September 27, 2009, 8:12 pm 8:12 pm
“yet you claim a system doesn’t work”
I heard on the news that according to the DoD the system won’t work for Poland since it isn’t designed to counter the missiles Iran is making now. I don’t need to be a missile expert to understand what that means, unless you’re just playing with words. If I set up mousetraps to kill termites it can be said that the system I used to kill the termites doesn’t work even though the mousetraps function perfectly.
Posted by: Skip | September 27, 2009, 10:07 pm 10:07 pm
But anyways why does it matter what the Russians think? We have enough change lying around to build a missile system in Poland that we doubt will be effective anymore just to spite the Russians?
Posted by: Skip | September 27, 2009, 10:42 pm 10:42 pm
If Obama pushes and gets ANY sanctions….he better damn well put on his big-boy pants and be ready to keep the Straits of Hormuz open and to defend those tankers. If those tankers cannot get through, we are in deep stuff.
Posted by: Bill | September 28, 2009, 12:21 am 12:21 am
It is an excellent broadcast filled with descending contents of resolution well arrived at; strategic and domesticated in understanding – I mean in the knowledge of the wise meanings.
Posted by: CHARLES EMANUWA | September 28, 2009, 9:08 am 9:08 am
Obama Continues Message to Iran: “Pursue a New Course, or Face Consequences.”
Stop building nukes, or we will send yet another strongly worded message and extend your deadline yet again!
And if that fails, I will sit down with your leaders “without preconditions” for face-to-face talks.
That’s got the Mullahs shaking in their sandals.
Posted by: Appeasement Czar | September 28, 2009, 9:20 am 9:20 am
Obama isn’t going to do anything about Iran anymore than what he is going to do in Afganistan, he will more than likely walk away from both. The House and Senate are filled with Chicken Little’s but with nothing more than a bag of hot air to expel. While we may have 4 years of “Peace” with the current adminstration their do nothing (except for their continuing threat of raising taxes) attitude on foreign events will bring about 8 years of problems to clean up.
Posted by: Superman | September 28, 2009, 11:19 am 11:19 am
Consequences? What consequences? There is none that will work. This is sad…We built their military, we equipped it and we trained it because we thought the Shah would be there forever. We set up this entire thing. Now we just sit back and watch it unfold now that he is dead. I suppose the worse part is – we paid for it. Now we have to fight it.
Posted by: ray sparks | September 28, 2009, 12:37 pm 12:37 pm
What is Obama really going to do? Nothing that really matters. We’ll stop exporting American Cheese to Iran and that will be about it. Captain Wee Wee (Obama) is a weak kneed, spineless politician of the worse kind. Iran will get it’s nukes and he’ll blame Bush or someone else. Now is the time to “man up”.
Posted by: Willie12345 | September 28, 2009, 12:38 pm 12:38 pm
This is’nt about Democrat vs. Republican vs. Indepentdent (other). We are talking about sending our sons and daughters into harm’s way. We need to quit the blame game and bring our people home.
Posted by: ray sparks | September 28, 2009, 12:43 pm 12:43 pm
Whats he going to do?? Bomb them? call bomb busters? Hah. One bone that ticks me is that we voice our opinions here and other places and are accused of being raciest. The dems are saying and the president that they cannot get things done because the Republicans and the right wing movement are stopping them. If that is the case’ then how in the he– did Obama get elected?? If there is that much influence on the right how did he make it in??? The dems have all the power they need to do what ever. They are chicken too because they know what will happen come next election. which is going to happen no matter. Voted out and the lifers retired.
Posted by: Jim Rod | September 28, 2009, 1:36 pm 1:36 pm
Putting in an appearance for the Olympics is more important than Iran?
Posted by: deanbob | September 28, 2009, 2:57 pm 2:57 pm
“Consequences”????? Now there’s the laugh of the day.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | September 28, 2009, 5:34 pm 5:34 pm
Huh. On first glance I thought this said Obama Continues Massage to Iran.
Message, massage, what’s the difference when it comes from our current government?
Posted by: SickReality | September 28, 2009, 6:47 pm 6:47 pm
OMG, you must be kidding me! Iran must be quaking in their boots under the threat of more “just words….just speeches”. Maybe the Weakling in Chief could just stay in Denmark for eternity!
Posted by: TxBoB | September 28, 2009, 7:03 pm 7:03 pm
Sickreality – You made me laugh this morning – LOL.
Now that I think about it maybe they could take your idea and run with it – steam room, some serious time on the massage table together, dinner and a movie.
Pretty soon we would have “world peace”
The only downside is that the winner of the Miss America pageant would have to hope for something new – say, “universal peace.”
Posted by: Lone Star Rules | September 29, 2009, 7:59 am 7:59 am
Rick McDaniel:
You’re being too hard on
President Obama.
He’s going to Hold His Breath Until
He Turns Blue!
That’ll show those Iranians who’s Boss!
LOL!
Posted by: reaganfan | September 29, 2009, 11:17 am 11:17 am