Free Dating Site    

Well history has been made Obama is the first African American/Black Presidential Canidate. He is running against McCain the Heroe Prisoner of War.

I do not see him putting his neck on the line for us.

AND Why the emphasis on the "RACE" factor. If Clinton would have won the nomination it would have also been a historical moment.

With the threats made against him, and they are well known, he's putting more than just his neck on the line by even running for President.

Think about it.

The arrogance of Obama has put all of America at risk when he uttered the statement He would eliminate Iran.

The answer is not unconditional dialogues with these two dictatorships from a position of weakness. The answer is for the international community to apply real pressure to Syria and Iran to change their behavior. The United States must also bolster its regional military posture to make clear to Iran our determination to protect our forces and deter Iranian intervention.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/
FDEB03A7-30B0-4ECE-8E34-4C7EA83F11D8.htm

With the threats made against him, and they are well known, he's putting more than just his neck on the line by even running for President.

Think about it.

The arrogance of Obama has put all of America at risk when he uttered the statement He would eliminate Iran.

Will you quit posting that crap please? Crash already showed you how you twisted it in another thread, you think it's gonna fly in this one? I got news for ya, it's the same crowd. If you really want the 'rhetoric' to end, look to yourself first.

The arrogance of Obama has put all of America at risk when he uttered the statement He would eliminate Iran

bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran. Cat...kettle. Kettle...cat.

Then, a few days after that ... Obama decides (when the Pundits were saying that some Voters would consider that a 'soft/weak' stance and that the Jewish vote would fear he would not stand with Israel)...Obama says (as he now wears dual American/Israel flag pins) that he..HE... would eliminate Iran because Iran is a real threat.

OBAMA: To achieve this, I think we have to offer sticks, like economic sanctions. And we should not take our military options off the table.

That's one of the reasons that I was the chief sponsor of the bill that Congressman Wexler referred to that calls for greater ability to divest resources from Iran, to put the economic squeeze on them. But it also has to provide carrots, incentives, like the prospects of better relations, and integration in the international community, in order for these things to be effective.

I would seek sanctions through the United Nations and encourage our friends in Europe and the Gulf to use their economic leverage against Iran outside of the United Nations. We will be in a stronger position to achieve tough international sanctions if the United States shows that we are willing to come to the table.

And I would -- I will continue to work on strengthening sanctions. And make no mistake. If and when we ever have to use military force against any country, we must exert the power of American diplomacy first. That's how we gain legitimacy. That's how we are going to be more effective."

May 23 2008
Sen. Obama Speaks on Israel
to the B'nai Torah Congregation in Boca Raton, Florida

http://votersforpeace.us/press/index.php?itemid=320

But just as we are cleareyed about the threat, we must be clear about the failure of today's policy. We knew, in 2002, that Iran supported terrorism. We knew Iran had an illicit nuclear program. We knew Iran posed a grave threat to Israel. But instead of pursuing a strategy to address this threat, we ignored it and instead invaded and occupied Iraq. When I opposed the war, I warned that it would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East. That is precisely what happened in Iran — the hard-liners tightened their grip, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president in 2005. And the United States and Israel are less secure.

I respect Sen. McCain, and look forward to a substantive debate with him these next five months. But on this point, we have differed, and we will differ. Sen. McCain refuses to understand or acknowledge the failure of the policy that he would continue. He criticizes my willingness to use strong diplomacy but offers only an alternate reality — one where the war in Iraq has somehow put Iran on its heels. The truth is the opposite. Iran has strengthened its position. Iran is now enriching uranium and has reportedly stockpiled 150 kilos of low enriched uranium. Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they cannot be denied, and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure.

Sen. McCain offers a false choice: stay the course in Iraq, or cede the region to Iran. I reject this logic because there is a better way. Keeping all of our troops tied down indefinitely in Iraq is not the way to weaken Iran — it is precisely what has strengthened it. It is a policy for staying, not a plan for victory. I have proposed a responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq. We will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in. We will finally pressure Iraq's leaders to take meaningful responsibility for their own future.

We will also use all elements of American power to pressure Iran. I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That starts with aggressive, principled diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions, but with a cleareyed understanding of our interests. We have no time to waste. We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited, piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It is time for the United States to lead.

There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing — if, and only if, it can advance the interests of the United States.

Only recently have some come to think that diplomacy by definition cannot be tough. They forget the example of Truman, and Kennedy and Reagan. These presidents understood that diplomacy backed by real leverage was a fundamental tool of statecraft. And it is time to once again make American diplomacy a tool to succeed, not just a means of containing failure. We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives — including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.

Obama's Speech at AIPAC
June 4, 2008

Rather than sitting down unconditionally with the Iranian president or supreme leader in the hope that we can talk sense into them, we must create the real-world pressures that will peacefully but decisively change the path they are on. Essential to this strategy is the UN Security Council, which should impose progressively tougher political and economic sanctions. Should the Security Council continue to delay in this responsibility, the United States must lead like-minded countries in imposing multilateral sanctions outside the UN framework. I am proud to have been a leader on these issues for years, having coauthored the 1992 Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act. Over a year ago I proposed applying sanctions to restrict Iran's ability to import refined petroleum products, on which it is highly dependent, and the time has come for an international campaign to do just that. A severe limit on Iranian imports of gasoline woul d create immediate pressure on Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to change course, and to cease in the pursuit of nuclear weapons.

At the same time, we need the support of those in the region who are most concerned about Iran, and of our European partners as well. They can help by imposing targeted sanctions that will impose a heavy cost on the regime's leaders, including the denial of visas and freezing of assets.

As a further measure to contain and deter Iran, the United States should impose financial sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran, which aids in Iran's terrorism and weapons proliferation. We must apply the full force of law to prevent business dealings with Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. I was pleased to join Senators Lieberman and Kyl in backing an amendment calling for the designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization responsible for killing American troops in Iraq. Over three quarters of the Senate supported this obvious step, but not Senator Obama. He opposed this resolution because its support for countering Iranian influence in Iraq was, he said, a "wrong message not only to the world, but also to the region." But here, too, he is mistaken. Holding Iran's influence in check, and holding a terrorist organization accountable, sends exactly the right message -- to Iran, to the region and to th e world.

We should privatize the sanctions against Iran by launching a worldwide divestment campaign. As more people, businesses, pension funds, and financial institutions across the world divest from companies doing business with Iran, the radical elite who run that country will become even more unpopular than they are already. Years ago, the moral clarity and conviction of civilized nations came together in a divestment campaign against South Africa, helping to rid that nation of the evil of apartheid. In our day, we must use that same power and moral conviction against the regime in Iran, and help to safeguard the people of Israel and the peace of the world.

In all of this, we will not only be defending our own safety and welfare, but also the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people. They are a great and civilized people, with little sympathy for the terrorists their leaders finance, and no wish to threaten other nations with nuclear weapons. Iran's rulers would be very different if the people themselves had a choice in the matter, and American policy should always reflect their hopes for a freer and more just society.

June 02, 2008
McCain's Speech to AIPAC

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/
mccains_speech_to_aipac.html

John McCain is attacking Barack Obama's opposition to the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which (among other things) called for labeling Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. McCain claims that Obama's opposition means that he also opposed calling the IRGC terrorists. We find otherwise.

* Obama cosponsored an earlier bill that also called for designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization.

* The Kyl-Lieberman amendment did more than just label the IRGC terrorists. Obama stated at the time that he opposed the bill on the grounds that it constituted "saber-rattling."

* McCain claims that Obama must oppose calling the IRGC a terrorist group because Obama's Web site doesn't say anything about the IRGC. McCain's argument is a glaring example of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/140174

On the other hand, McCain/PNAC/AEI members have been very outspoken about banging the war drum loudly - without trying to hide it. Research it and see for yourself.

Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased. Those are the facts, they cannot be denied, and I refuse to continue a policy that has made the United States and Israel less secure.

90% of the African Americans will vote Obama based on Race alone

Sounds like Obama fell for the old "MEMRI" translations as well.