You are not connected. Please login or register

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]


McCain Says Obama Put Politics Above National Interest Over Iran Rally
Thursday, September 18, 2008
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor

( – Sen. Barack Obama “chose politics rather than the national interest” by sidestepping the opportunity for a bipartisan stand against Iran’s nuclear drive, Sen. John McCain said Thursday.

The Republican presidential candidate leveled the charge after the organizers of the “Stop Iran Now” rally, planned for next Monday in New York City, withdrew an invitation to his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, following appeals by Democrats.

“Governor Palin was pleased to accept an invitation to address this rally and show her resolve on this grave national security issue,” McCain said in a statement. “Regrettably that invitation has since been withdrawn under pressure from Democratic partisans.”

“We stand shoulder to shoulder with Republicans, Democrats and independents alike to oppose [President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad’s goal of a nuclear armed Iran. Senator Obama’s campaign had the opportunity to join us. Senator Obama chose politics rather than the national interest.”

“Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons should be a shared goal of every American, not another occasion for partisan posturing,” he said.

One week ago, McCain and Obama set aside the campaign to visit the site of the World Trade Center in New York to mark the seventh anniversary of 9/11.

By the prospect of Palin sharing a stage with a senior Democrat during the charged election campaign was evidently unacceptable to some in the rival party.

First, Sen. Hillary Clinton – who had been invited to participate in the Iran rally before McCain picked Palin as the Republican vice-presidential candidate – withdrew once she learned of Palin’s participation.

Then, the National Jewish Democratic Council, while congratulating Clinton’s decision to pull out, urged the Jewish organizations sponsoring the rally to disinvite the Republican, saying that by doing so they would "return the focus to America’s outrage towards the genocidal musings and nuclear ambitions of … Ahmadinejad.”

On Thursday, the organizers withdrew the invitation to Palin, saying in a statement that in order to keep the focus on Iran, there would be no “American political personalities” at the rally.

The NJDC praised the decision, saying it showed “that bi-partisan solidarity against President Ahmadinejad has won out over partisanship.”

The NJDC did not respond to queries Thursday, including questions on whether it had at any point suggested that the Obama campaign put forward vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden or another senior Democrat to provide balance.

The Republican Jewish Coalition said it was “very sad that the NJDC and other partisan groups could not put the issue of a nuclear-free Iran ahead of partisan politics.”

“It is … a sad day for American Jewry when we allow these groups to hijack an event, when we we should all come together and send a powerful message to Iran and the rest of the world that Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons is unacceptable,” said RJC executive director Matt Brooks.

The rally coincides with Ahmadinejad’s planned visit to New York, where he is expected to address the annual U.N. General Assembly session on Tuesday. President Bush is scheduled to speak the same day.

Organizers include the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now and The Israel Project.

“This issue, opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran, is one which enjoys bipartisan support and the backing of the American people across the political spectrum,” they said in an earlier statement.

“On this, all Americans stand together. We acknowledge and deeply appreciate those American political leaders who have been and remain prepared to stand with us as we collectively address the dangers of Iran’s nuclear program and its support for terrorism globally.”

In Tehran Thursday, Ahmadinejad said he was prepared to debate McCain or Obama while in the United States.

“I am ready for a debate with the U.S. presidential candidates over global issues in the presence of the media at U.N. headquarters,” Ahmadinejad told a press conference.

As Bush was approaching the end of his term, he said, an encounter with him now would not impact future bilateral relations.

Ahmadinejad has in previous years challenged Bush to a debate during the annual U.N. session. The White House declined, calling it a distraction from the international dispute over Iran’s nuclear activities, which the U.S. and its allies suspect are a cover for attempts to acquire atomic weapons. Iran says the program is for purely peaceful purposes.

Last summer, Obama said that as president he would be willing to hold talks, without condition, with the leaders of Iran and other countries hostile to the United States. McCain called the stance reckless, and Obama later accused his Republican rival of distorting his position.

On its Web site, the campaign states, “Obama and Biden are willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. They will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead.”


SSC wrote:McCain Says Obama Put Politics Above National Interest Over Iran Rally

It's too bad that people actually think they making a nuclear bomb over here, when they are not. In our history we have never attacked any other nation, EVER. So what on earth would we want an illegal bomb for?

study The solution would have been easy though, to keep both sides happy. Just agree that Iran can enrich Uranium upto a certain percentage, which is sufficiant for peaceful nuclear energy. That way Iran can still enrich Uranium, and the rest of the world knows it will never be able to make a bomb with it (because that would require highly enriched Uranium).

However, I still cannot understand why the UNSC is on our backs over this, when India and Pakistan developped a bomb right under our noses, and no one did anything about it. In fact, the US was willing to GIVE nuclear bomb technology for free to India.

And relax, we will have presidential election next year as well, so maybe will have a totally different president then.


I would guess it is the track record and deceit. Possibly the thought a little plutonium, hide a lot..Who knows...In my thinking eliminating the cause before it becomes a problem is the way to handle this type of situation.


SSC wrote:I would guess it is the track record and deceit. Possibly the thought a little plutonium, hide a lot..Who knows...In my thinking eliminating the cause before it becomes a problem is the way to handle this type of situation.

But if you think that this kind of action is really warrented, would the same be OK if we turn tables? Let's say we suspect your country is making a nuclear bomb or has already made on. And if we feel that there was a 'bit' of deceit coming from the executive branch of your country, do you think you would like it if any other country took the liberty to eliminate the cause before it became a problem? I suppose not. Yet you think it is perfectly ok for your government to grant itself this liberty. I find this unequal approach very strange.

5 Interpretation of speech as call for genocide on Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:42 pm

rosco 357

i would imagine,the following remarks by ur president has alot to do with it, maybe a new president as u said ur having elections also that embraced israel as a friend would change minds.. israel is in the process of purchasing 1000 deep penetrating bombs one of the most advanced we have,not the largest but most accurate, that can be fired from a stand off position, but i would imagine, before that happened, irans air defense would be eliminated, as is always done when an air campaign is launched. time is growing near , but i forsee not untill shortly after our election, if obama were to win, i would take that as a green light as there will be no waiting , it will be launched, before obama took office, but we shall u know israel is fearless and does not play,, topic as follows.

Interpretation of speech as call for genocide
The speech was interpreted by some as a call for genocide. For example, Canada's then Prime Minister Paul Martin said, "this threat to Israel's existence, this call for genocide coupled with Iran's obvious nuclear ambitions is a matter that the world cannot ignore"

In 2007, more than one hundred members of the United States House of Representatives co-sponsored a bill,[33] "Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel"


rosco 357 wrote:Interpretation of speech as call for genocide

Well, the actual wording in Farsi was slightly different, and it requires a nuanced translation. Let's just say the nuance was lost in translation. He simply wants the country to be renamed to its original name: Palestine (which would mean that 'Isreal' would effectively be removed from the map, not the people that live in that geographic area).

That doesn't mean he wanted to commit genocide. That would even be plain stupid, as hundreds of thousands Muslims live inside 'Israel'. The Iranian position has always been that everyone within the borders of the former British Mandate of Palestine would become one country again (in stead of the two-state solution), where each and every citizen (Jew, Christian and Muslim) would have equal rights. Unfortunately, this is currently not the case in Israel. Nor in the occupied territories, by the way.

Another thing that keeps stinging, is the fact that Isreal does not meet all of the criteria for statehood, as laid down in International Law (The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, to be more specific). One of the conditions that is not met, is the notion of "a defined territory". Even Israel itself does not want to define where its borders are, which is rather problematic. It also doesn't want to define the borders of the occupied territories. It also doesn't even want to admit that it is actually occupying anything, which complicates things further. So they don't want to live with the Palestinians, but they also don't want to let them go. Or perhaps they do want the piece of occupied land, just not the people living in it.

I still feel that the one-state solution is the best way to go. The occupation has gone on for too long to ever get to two viable states anymore. And with only one state, the capital also doesn't have to be split up, as it currently is. Oh well, we're not going to solve this in our lifetimes, I guess.


Very intelligent approach and well underbuilt, Farzad.
It s a bit complicated apparently to call the country Israel or Palestine, but they could go back to ancient times for a name and use the original name for the area : Canaan.
If that is not acceptable they can choose for Cis-Jordan for instance with the capital Jerusalem as opposed to Trans-Jordan with the capital Amman.


Mays Gilliam wrote:It s a bit complicated apparently to call the country Israel or Palestine.

I don't think the actual name of this one country would be the biggest obstacle. It would require that everyone would respect eachother as equals. And Israel wants to preserve its "jewishness". In South-Africa everyone was against Apartheid, but here they can somehow get away with it.

But it would require the admission of the Israeli's that they deported and destoyed Palestinian villages. It would also mean that Palestinians would be able to finally return to their birthplaces for the first time in 60 years. However, it would also allow for Israeli's to legally live in Gaza and the West Bank (which is now considered illegal by international standards).

Sponsored content

View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum