Obama in 2004: Missile Strikes on Iran a Viable Option

[BPSCG]

Link

Pakistan, too.

Obama said the United States must first address Iran’s attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said.

But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.
“The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?” Obama asked.

Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world.

“In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he said.
“On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. … And I hope it doesn’t get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I’d be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.”

As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses.

Boldings in linked material.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Well yes. The word "Duh" springs to mind. And your problem is?

 

[BPSCG]

Well yes. The word "Duh" springs to mind. And your problem is?

Since I don't intend to vote for him, I don't actually have a problem. However, since this appears to be at variance with what his website says our policy toward Iran should be, it seems to me his supporters should ask him if he has taken military strikes off his list of proposed ways of dealing with Iran's "troubling behavior," and if he has, what is it about Iran's behavior since 2004 that has made him take that option off the table.

Link to his website:

• Opposed Bush-Cheney Saber Rattling: Obama opposed the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which says we should use our military presence in Iraq to counter the threat from Iran. Obama believes that it was reckless for Congress to give George Bush any justification to extend the Iraq War or to attack Iran. Obama also introduced a resolution in the Senate declaring that no act of Congress – including Kyl-Lieberman – gives the Bush administration authorization to attack Iran.

• Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

 

[SezMe]

I don't see a contradiction. In 2004 he uses words such as "might" and "option". He also says it was his "gut instinct" and it is entirely possible (in fact, I would hope it to be the case) that he has gotten a lot smarter on such matters and is no longer speaking about his gut. Especially after what Bush's gut has brought us.

Frankly, Beeps, this is much ado about nothing. Maybe you need to start another picture caption thread.

 

[BPSCG]

I don't see a contradiction. In 2004 he uses words such as "might" and "option". He also says it was his "gut instinct" and it is entirely possible (in fact, I would hope it to be the case) that he has gotten a lot smarter on such matters and is no longer speaking about his gut. Especially after what Bush's gut has brought us.

Bush isn't running for president; Obama is. Does he still think military strikes against Iran are a viable option, yes or no?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Um, if Iran makes the bomb inspite of any peaceful efforts like sanctions, then bombing their facility seems reasonable. Obama's been consistently anti-nuclear proliferation.

Actually, I remember Gravel making a big deal durung one of the debates about how all the major Democratic candidates had said that "all the options were on the table" with Iran.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Bush isn't running for president; Obama is. Does he still think military strikes against Iran are a viable option, yes or no?

At present, no.

He thinks that that would be right under certain hypothetical circumstances that have been put to him.

I do think that this is odd. The way it seems to work is this. Someone asks Obama "Would you order military action against Belgium if Belgium nuked New York?"

He replies: "Of course. So would you. So would anyone."

Then it gets written up as "Obama Is So Politically Naive That He Just Declared War Against Belgium."

As I say, I find this odd.

 

[SezMe]

Bush isn't running for president; Obama is.

Yes, he is. He just changed his name. I'm sure you saw the presser after Bush and McCain had lunch and Bush went on and on about how McCain was going to carry on his policies. Finally, when Bush ran out of gas the press asked McCain for his comment and he said he had nothing to add!

McCain is running for Bush's third term.

 

[BPSCG]

Yes, he is. He just changed his name. I'm sure you saw the presser after Bush and McCain had lunch and Bush went on and on about how McCain was going to carry on his policies. Finally, when Bush ran out of gas the press asked McCain for his comment and he said he had nothing to add!

McCain is running for Bush's third term.

Sounds like you've bought the whole Democrat script, including the gift wrap and the extended warranty.

Of course Bush endorsed McCain. Can you imagine the uproar if he hadn't?

Of course McCain went to the White House and thanked Bush. Can you imagine the uproar if he hadn't?

Now watch McCain avoid Bush for the rest of the campaign like the man has a communicable disease.

Again, Obama is running for president. Does he think bombing Iran is a viable option, yes or no?

 

[BPSCG]

At present, no.

He thinks that that would be right under certain hypothetical circumstances that have been put to him.

I do think that this is odd. The way it seems to work is this. Someone asks Obama "Would you order military action against Belgium if Belgium nuked New York?"

He replies: "Of course. So would you. So would anyone."

Then it gets written up as "Obama Is So Politically Naive That He Just Declared War Against Belgium."

As I say, I find this odd.

Okay, now you're getting silly.

Belgium doesn't have nukes, and isn't interested in acquiring them. And if Belgium did have nukes, it would not be a cause for concern in the U.S., any more than the fact that the U.K. has them is a cause for concern. The fact that those countries are liberal democracies that haven't threatened their neighbors with extinction might have something to do with that. So your Belgium-nukes-New-York scenario isn't just hypothetical; it's absurdly hypothetical.

Iran, OTOH, is building nuclear weapons (maybe not this week - depends on whether this is an odd-numbered or even-numbered week, doesn't it?), is building long-range missiles, and is threatening at least one of its neighbors with extinction. So a prudent person would conclude that Iran's saber-rattling isn't absurdly hypothetical; it's a serious concern.

Would President Obama take military action to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran? Note the link in the OP says he would consider destroying those sites simply because UN and U.S. sanctions have failed to stop it - not because Iran has blown up New York (that's another reason your Belgium-as-a-nuclear-threat hypothesis fails). Does Obama still believe bombing Iran's nuclear facilities is a viable option? Yes or no?

 

[T.A.M.]

At present, no.

He thinks that that would be right under certain hypothetical circumstances that have been put to him.

I do think that this is odd. The way it seems to work is this. Someone asks Obama "Would you order military action against Belgium if Belgium nuked New York?"

He replies: "Of course. So would you. So would anyone."

Then it gets written up as "Obama Is So Politically Naive That He Just Declared War Against Belgium."

As I say, I find this odd.

I do not find it odd given the way Billary plays the game. They give new meaning to the word "spin".

I think they should rename what they do "twist"...they could rename the room where they address the media, the "twist room".

TAM

 

[NeoRicen]

Again, Obama is running for president. Does he think bombing Iran is a viable option, yes or no?

Yes, he does. The point is he's going to exhaust every other option first. That's the logical thing to do. McCain/Bush are saying it's a viable option pretty much NOW or in the near future, and not just attacks but an invasion.

 

[WildCat]

He thinks that that would be right under certain hypothetical circumstances that have been put to him.

This differs from Bush's position how, exactly?

 

[WildCat]

McCain/Bush are saying it's a viable option pretty much NOW or in the near future, and not just attacks but an invasion.

You seem to have forgotten to post a link to either Bush or McCain saying this... or is this something you just know because of your psychic abilities?

 

[Dr Adequate]

This differs from Bush's position how, exactly?

I should expect any president to be prepared to use force as the last resort.

The objection to Bush is that he used it at the first excuse.

 

[WildCat]

The objection to Bush is that he used it at the first excuse.

There has been no military strike on Iran, and the Iraq war started only after 12 years of negotiations failed. Afghanistan was the result of us being attacked first.

I really don't see the difference between Obama's position and Bush's.

 

[SezMe]

Sounds like you've bought the whole Democrat script, including the gift wrap and the extended warranty.

Actually, my entire response was based on the post-endorsement news conference. No other purchase was involved.

Of course Bush endorsed McCain. Can you imagine the uproar if he hadn't?

Of course McCain went to the White House and thanked Bush. Can you imagine the uproar if he hadn't?

Now watch McCain avoid Bush for the rest of the campaign like the man has a communicable disease.

Of course you are right on all points yet you totally miss my point. I was noting that McCain has NOT distanced himself from Bush's policies. Domestic and foreign. Not one. Torture. Iraq. The economy. And so on.

Thus, I stand by my point that McCain is essentially running for Bush's third term.

 

[SezMe]

I really don't see the difference between Obama's position and Bush's.

Theoretically, you may be right, WildCat. But there is, I would argue, a huge difference between how such a policy would be implemented between the two. I believe (yes, without hard evidence) that a Obama administration would, in fact, exhaust every last option before using the military. I believe (yes, on hard evidence) that the Bush administration was not hesitant to use the military option early in the process. And, as you may note from my posts trying to get our friend Beeps to think clearly )), I see no difference between Bush and McCain.

 

[T.A.M.]

Wildcat:

I think the difference in Obama and Bush is likely in HOW MUCH force to use, and when.

I suspect Obama would continue with diplomacy well beyond when Bush/Cheney would move to force.

I suspect like Clinton, Obama would use limited strikes except for exceptional circumstances.

Just speculation based on my part.

TAM

 

[WildCat]

I believe (yes, on hard evidence) that the Bush administration was not hesitant to use the military option early in the process.

When did Bush ever use "the military option early in the process" except in Afghanistan? Need I remind you the Iraq issue had been simmering for 12 years, and Bush had been POTUS for over 2 years before the war began?