Iranian Sanctions Draw Applause From Top Senators
Prominent senators from both parties praised today the Bush administration's new sanctions on Iran, designed to contain the country's nuclear ambitions, but they differed over whether they regarded the administration's tough rhetoric as useful or a risky prelude to war.
The administration last week announced new sanctions against Iran that locked Iran's military and financial institutions, and anyone who does business with them, out of the American financial system.
"I think the sanctions are the right way to go, a lot of diplomatic pressure, a lot of economic pressure. Most importantly, keep the world together against Iran," Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
But Levin warned that "we ought to dial down the rhetoric. We ought to make it clear that there's always a ... military option if Iran goes nuclear, but that we ought to just speak more softly because these hot words that are coming out of the administration, this hot rhetoric plays right into the hands of the fanatics in Iran."
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) acknowledged the United States faces "two very bad choices. Allowing Iran to have a nuclear weapon is a horrible choice. Attacking Iran militarily is a very dangerous choice with a lot of serious consequences."
"What President Bush is trying to do through sanctions is to create a third way," he said on the same show. "But we can't do this unilaterally. ... [A]t the end of the day, if the choice is to use military force to stop an Iranian nuclear-armed Iran, I think it is better to use military force than it is to allow them to have a nuclear weapon."
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who was on ABC's "This Week," said that stopping Iran's nuclear development through force was doable with limited strikes.
"I'm not going to discuss tactics that could be used. But I would say, from my knowledge of warfare and this situation, you don't have to take out all the facilities, okay?" McCain said. "And I don't want to say anything more about it because I think one of the most effective things you can do is not telegraph your punches."
The senators touched on the role that Russian President Vladimir Putin can play with the Iran issue. He has met with the Iranian leadership and resisted the new U.S. sanctions when they were proposed in the U.N. Security Council.
McCain had the harshest words for the Russian leader. "I would start treating him as what he is," McCain said: "a totalitarian dictator who is bent on consolidation of power and countering the United States' best efforts in many areas of the world, including Iran."
Graham was less aggressive, but he echoed McCain's tone.
"I think Russia is sending all the wrong signals to Iran," Graham said. "When the Russian president goes to Iran and does a news conference with the Iranian president, embraces him, calls for other nations not to consider attacking Iran, it sends the wrong signal."
Levin said that Putin is playing politics with the matter but added that "our intelligence thinks it is very clear that Russia will not stand by while Iran has a nuclear weapon."
GOP Senators Aloof on Mukasey Nomination
The pending nomination of Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general drew a lukewarm reaction from McCain and Graham, both of whom have taken aim at the administration's interrogation techniques for detainees, which some allege amount to torture.
In particular, McCain, once a prisoner of war, and Graham, a former military lawyer, have criticized a procedure known as waterboarding. Mukasey refused to say at his Senate confirmation hearing whether he thought waterboarding amounts to torture.
"He was asked a specific question about an interrogation technique called waterboarding," Graham said. "I am convinced as an individual senator, as a military lawyer for 25 years, that waterboarding, the technique that was described to Judge Mukasey, does violate the Geneva Convention, does violate our war crimes statute, and is clearly illegal under domestic and international law. And I think it would serve the attorney general nominee well to embrace that concept. He's talked around it."
Asked if he would vote against Mukasey if he contends that waterboarding is legal, McCain said: "I can't be that absolute, but I want to know his answer. I want to know his answer. Obviously, you judge a candidate for office or a nominee for office on the entire record, but this is a very important issue to me."
McCain, Huckabee on the GOP Campaign
McCain also fielded questions about his bid for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination.
He again expressed doubt that the GOP would nominate a candidate such as Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York whose positions on topics like guns, gay rights and abortion are in stark contrast with that of most social conservatives.
"I think that it's hard for me to accept the fact that we would nominate someone who has fundamental disagreements with one or more of the principles," McCain said.
McCain has released an ad touting that he stopped an earmark by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to use tax dollars to help fund a Woodstock museum, but he criticized the notion that Republicans would be taking personal shots at her in a head-to-head matchup.
"I know and respect Senator Clinton, and we'll have a respectful debate. And it's not going to be anything but about the fact that she's a liberal Democrat; I'm a conservative Republican," McCain said.
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who was on CNN's "Late Edition," showed how his effort to break into the top tier of GOP candidates relies in no small part on a good-natured personality and avoiding the jabbing that marks exchanges between some of his rivals.
Asked by host Wolf Blitzer if there is "one single thing you need to do in the next few weeks to break through, to get into that top tier?"
"I think we're in that top tier," Huckabee said. "I mean, if the Rasmussen polls, if the surge that we're seeing in terms online support, heck, I mean, I've got the endorsement this week of Chuck Norris. Now people are going to be afraid not to support me."
Blitzer noted, "None of us want to mess with Chuck Norris, to be sure."
To which Huckabee responded, "None of us do. I don't even want to mess with him."
Laura Bush, Connecting in Saudi Arabia
First lady Laura Bush went on "Fox News Sunday" to discuss her growing role on the world stage.
She said that her recent trip to Saudi Arabia, to discuss a partnership to fight breast cancer, "was also a way for me to talk about something that Arab women traditionally have not been able to talk about. And what I found out when I was there was that they were very glad to talk about it, because it is true that breast cancer presents about 10 years younger in Arab women than it does here in the United States."
She said she hopes the trip and others would help improve opinions about the United States in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.
Bush said she consults with President Bush on some foreign policy issues -- in particular Burma, which has been a cause of hers -- as well as his AIDS relief plan. And she rejected conservative criticism that, during her trip to Saudi Arabia, she endorsed the subjugation of women by accepting and wearing a head scarf.
"Well, I did not see it that way at all. In fact, I'd had the meeting with them totally uncovered," she said. "They saw this as giving me a gift from their culture. And it was the scarf with the pink ribbons and the pink edging on it, the breast cancer scarf, that I put on."
"What they were saying to me is they want to reach out," Bush said. "They want American women to know what they're like. And these women do not see covering as some sort of subjugation of women, this group of women that I was with. That's their culture. That's their tradition. That's a religious choice of theirs."
On a separate matter, Bush said she wouldn't back Clinton for president just because she's a woman.
"I'm going to be voting for the Republican," she said.
"So the fact that she's a woman doesn't matter?" persisted Fox host Chris Wallace.
"No, it doesn't matter to me. And I hope it doesn't matter to other people," she replied.
-- Zachary A. Goldfarb
By Post Editor |
October 28, 2007; 4:07 PM ET
Previous: It's "Meet the Candidates" Day |
Next: Thompson Defends Adviser With Criminal Past
Posted by: Jasone | October 28, 2007 7:34 PM
I think there is more than one bad egg over there. Iraq has another neighbor
that is as much of a problem as Iran,
but that oil rich nation is never ever
mentioned. How about a little evenhandedness.
Posted by: g bamer | October 28, 2007 9:33 PM
Huckabee is roaring into the lead.
Posted by: Oscar | October 28, 2007 10:12 PM
The news:
"WASHINGTON - The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog said Sunday he had no evidence Iran was working actively to build nuclear weapons and expressed concern that escalating rhetoric from the U.S. could bring disaster.
ADVERTISEMENT
"We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization," said Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency. "That's why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks."
"But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice accused Iran this month of "lying" about the aim of its nuclear program. She said there is no doubt Tehran wants the capability to produce nuclear weapons and has deceived the IAEA about its intentions..." etc etc etc
Liar, more liars and more liar of Bush and associates.
Posted by: iece | October 28, 2007 10:15 PM
If Americans are duped again into invading Iran (which, incidentally, we are already bombing), God help them. Bush & Co. are running the same game for the very same reasons and sticking the American taxpayers with the bill. But what are the American people getting out of any of this except the largest debt in the history of this country which is a tab that our grandchildren will be left with after they have stolen all of this money because we can't even monitor where they money has gone, is going, except that we know it isn't building schools, roads or infrastructure in Iraq or anywhere else as we promised those poor Iraqis who were also tricked into believing that we were invading their country to help them. They all know now that was one big lie and want the troops out as they should, so now Bush is moving over to Iran to do this debacle all over again. Sinful!!!
Posted by: Sarah Anders | October 28, 2007 11:05 PM
Wow,so were already bombing Iran? One would have thought that would have evoked more press coverage.
Posted by: Robert | October 29, 2007 6:29 AM
There is little doubt that US, EU and Japanese economic sanctions against Iran are all Israeli inspired.
Western companies are very reluctantly losing a lot of lucrative business in Iran because of the enormous influence that Israeli Lobby wields on their governments.
Americans, European and the Japanese who run businesses are primarily interested in making money and maximising their profits.Those, who cannot do business in Iran because of Israeli dictates, miss Iran market sorely; and those who are told to wind up their highly profitable transactions with Iran are getting very angry.
The situation as far as the Israeli Lobby is concerned is becoming untenable. An open revolt of the corporate West against the Israeli domination of their business interests will be the last thing the Lobby wants.
The Israeli Lobby is therefore going to bring the Iranian problem to a head as far as US is concerned.
That is: A LAST PUSH FOR WAR, while there is still a chance for it.
Posted by: Anonymous | October 29, 2007 6:42 AM
These same people were applauding at the start of Iraq invasion, may God forgive America for bringing miseries to millions all over the world since 1965.
Posted by: Kate Andrew | October 29, 2007 7:11 AM
wow...alot of blind war remarks. It amazes me how many people make uninformed statements about our country's actions. Give me a break. I think smart people hold their tongue because we know no one except the president of the UNITED STATES and his cabinet can have information on the BIG PICTURE. If you think you know it all as an average citizen your just plain nuts. But waste some more energy complaining in the dark. Feel better?
Posted by: bm | October 29, 2007 8:25 AM
Clinton will never be elected president. Too much garbage and who is so stupid to vote for a woman just because she is a woman. She has not been clear on any issue. She will pull our troops, she will keep them there, she will fix social security, she doesn't know what she will do? What's going on with this woman. Will she have a melt down like that woman, forgot her name, about a dog. How about a war. Get lost Clinton! The USA sure doesn't need you and your husband, friend or whatever you call him.
Posted by: bebe | October 29, 2007 6:39 PM
HAs anyone ever come up with the inconceivable idea to just sit down and talk to Iranians face to face before rattling sabers and ecominic sanctions. The Iranians are a danger with nukes granted but we're all in danger if we don't talk to them and let the world know we're doing it as the Iranians do have an national ego and need respect as much as we do. Talk may not work, but at least try. We can't afford to fight another war and Bush is hell-bent on going to war--again. Just how many more Americans have to die for this man's lunacy? It's almost as if he's one of those crazed Roman dictators of ancient times, and we all know what happened to Rome.
Posted by: Steamboater | November 12, 2007 10:24 AM
Sir
I doubt if Iran needs any assistance from USA as Putin already has been with Iran. While I write this on 2nd December 2007, I note that the insurgence has increased in Iraq that goes on Eid holidays about ten days from today.
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla MBA PhD
P.O.Box 6044
Dar-Es-Salaam
Tanzania
East Africa
Posted by: Firozali A Mulla MBA PhD | December 2, 2007 7:04 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
The joke is on the US bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. After spending $1 TRILLION on the Iraq fiasco and the national debt reaching $10 TRILLION, so the military industrial complex and oil cartels, friends of Bush/Cheney can get richer thanks to American Taxpayers. The joke is not funny any more, eh?