Obama’s Iran policy is unpopular… with Democrats
[Posted by Karl]
There is not much love for Mister Softee on the Hill today:
Lawmakers grew increasingly frustrated with the Obama administration on Tuesday as a State Department official refused to endorse a new package of sanctions on Iran that is expected to speed through Congress this year.
***
“I find it troubling that the administration is not looking to support the toughest sanctions possible,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.).
“You don’t want Congress to pursue the legislation, but you don’t give us a verifiable timeframe. That makes us very uneasy,” said Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.). “Regardless of what is said, we need real action.”
He’s pressing his “Present” button as hard as he can, Bob.
Democrats off the Hill are even less happy. A majority of Democrats want to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes, even if that means taking military action.
–Karl
Worse than Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy, pure amateur hour.
SPQR (26be8b) — 10/6/2009 @ 2:03 pmDisconnected from the bulk of his Party, and reality.
AD - RtR/OS! (fb2a2a) — 10/6/2009 @ 2:15 pmWhat could go wrong?
We can only guess about what goodies Obama is going to offer the Iranians in the upcoming summit…
His UN speech about global disarmament is probably some kind of foreshadowing I think….
New Fast (f41260) — 10/6/2009 @ 2:34 pmWhen we agree with Sen.s Schumer (D-N.Y.)and Menendez that the Administration is not taking a firm enough stand, that is pretty extreme.
MD in Philly (d4f9fa) — 10/6/2009 @ 2:37 pmNew Mantra of the Obamaphiles – Change for the worse is still change.
daleyrocks (718861) — 10/6/2009 @ 2:39 pmAs soon as he gets his instructions from George Soros he will take definitive non-action.
He doesn’t want to disturb the image of him as the smart president that looks at things from 20 ways before not making a decision.
If he can figure out how to get those darn muslims kicked off the ballot in Iran he figures he’ll have clear sailing to victory. When is the next election there?
MU789 (3f9d29) — 10/6/2009 @ 2:40 pmAll those Democrat born again hawks will be hawks till the first blood is spilled. Then they’ll be chickens again. Just watch.
glenn (757adc) — 10/6/2009 @ 2:49 pmIt all depends on what it was the little president man is trying to accomplish.
I wish we knew.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 10/6/2009 @ 2:53 pmSanctions rarely work out like we want them to.
It’s not a simple task to penalize sanctions busters. Venezuela has agreed to sell Iran 20,000 barrels of gasoline a day, for starters. You’d conceivably need to impose strict cargo inspections or rigorous passenger manifestos on poorer emirates in the Middle East – actually, on any country that opens themselves as offshore havens or registers Iranian companies.
steve (c1321c) — 10/6/2009 @ 2:56 pmI still find it hilarious that Iran has to import so much of its refined petroleum. I would find the nuclear situation far more troublesome if there were evidence that they were working to cut that dependence.
Soronel Haetir (2b4c2b) — 10/6/2009 @ 3:01 pmThe President has promised to study this issue carefully, so we should hear from him, in a few weeks, more about whatever strategy he has or comes up with; and, in the meantime, if more US soldiers are killed, more civilians are injured, and we lose ground to the Taliban, so what? He’ll be able to go back on television for an endless round of speeches saying nothing, but sounding good. Did Nero fiddle this much while Rome burned?
Rochf (ae9c58) — 10/6/2009 @ 3:30 pmsteve,
I agree that sanctions rarely work. But that’s what the Schumers of the world want to hide behind… and Obama is just not helping them.
Karl (f07e38) — 10/6/2009 @ 3:42 pmRussia, which is building the Iranian bomb, will defeat any sanctions by selling Iran refined product. This is moving toward war.
Mike K (2cf494) — 10/6/2009 @ 3:56 pmYou nailed it, Schumer only wants to appear as if we’re doing something… even though the sanctions proposed will accomplish nothing.
Not only do sanctions rarely work, I guarantee they won’t work with Iran. Even if the ‘international community’ was willing (which they’re not), what sanction can they impose that forces Iran to give up its quest? Keep in mind that we’re dealing with dictatorial religious fanatics… they never give up power willingly, they’re more than willing to let their subjects suffer and they’re always happy to use military force to keep the folks in line. The Mad Mullahs want nukes and they’re not going to let a little hardship keep them from their goal.
steve sturm (3811cf) — 10/6/2009 @ 3:59 pmI can’t remember a POTUS that continually sucks his thumb on every farking decision, no matter how trivial or large. What the hell does he do all day? Plan upcoming PR shows and dinners with his wife?
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/6/2009 @ 4:09 pmBTW, I wonder why a naval blockade has not been discussed.
Dmac (5ddc52) — 10/6/2009 @ 4:10 pm… as a State Department official refused to endorse a new package of sanctions on Iran that is expected to speed through Congress this year.
Hillary Clinton: world’s smartest lap dog.
Terry Gain (4045b4) — 10/6/2009 @ 4:35 pmDo you think Owebama can ask for a do over? I don’t think anybody would laugh ’cause he’s a celebrity pezzydent and all.
daleyrocks (718861) — 10/6/2009 @ 4:35 pmSanctions. Naval blockade. Why would you even bother when you have the persuasive and charming messiah on your side?
Terry Gain (4045b4) — 10/6/2009 @ 4:39 pmMichelle could threaten to sit on Imadamnutjob.
Oops, I didn’t mean to say that out loud.
daleyrocks (718861) — 10/6/2009 @ 5:09 pmSchummer and company help create this monster,O vs.Iran, with eight long years of non support for President Bush.Now you have a person so lacking in leadership abilities ,it is your turn at the “waters edge”and the bad dream became a nightmare.These fanactics at least knew Bush would stand his ground,unlike the feckless Democrats in power,today.
mike191 (97b84e) — 10/6/2009 @ 5:20 pmHe won’t contemplate on this any longer than he did deciding what type of dog to get the girls. Lighten up, guys….decisions take time!
rls (e58293) — 10/6/2009 @ 6:08 pmOr which Church to attend after he threw Rev. Hatey under the back of the bus.
I see a sternly worded letter in Iran’s future.
JD (ebf60b) — 10/6/2009 @ 6:12 pmI think we should all cut Obama a break as he’s currently busy dealing with the massive threat that is Honduras.
john (63fd94) — 10/6/2009 @ 6:59 pmQuestion: “What did Billy Carter have that President Obama doesn’t have ?”
Answer: “A foreign policy.”
Sorta sad that that almost-30-year-old joke is actually valid, hare and now …
Alasdair (205079) — 10/7/2009 @ 12:50 amThis is getting really tiresome. Obama needs to take more decisive and tougher actions against Iran. Quoting him “The time for talk is over. Now is the time for action!”. Take some of your own advice Mr President.
The Emperor (1b037c) — 10/7/2009 @ 2:51 am[…] more troops. His dithering over Iran’s nuclear ambitions annoys everyone from France to the US Congress (so much so that Obama may have to go the unilateral cowboy route himself). His stimulus-based […]
The Greenroom » Forum Archive » Community organizing as foreign policy? (e2f069) — 11/2/2009 @ 9:23 pm