| Barack Obama (D-IL) |
|
|
|
|
September 4th, 2007 MANCHESTER, NH Question: Over the weekend, the London Times reported that the Pentagon has plans drawn up for a three day bombing campaign of Iran's nuclear and military sites. This is all despite an August 30 IAEA report saying that Iran has not progressed in its nuclear capacity. What are you going to do as a senator to prevent the President from attacking Iran? Obama: The senator prefaced his remarks by saying that he does consider Iran a threat -
Ahmedinejad has threatened the destruction of Israel and has a great deal of
influence with Shiites in Iran. However, he said that it is very important that
we have direct talks with Iran and mentioned the democratic impulses within
Iran. But he said that we should be pursuing aggressive diplomacy, and said he
supported the Webb amendment (which would not allow the President to take
military action in Iran without congressional vote). I asked him if he would
continue to support the Webb amendment now, and he said he would. He also said he would support the Webb Amendment. Questioner then asked if he would publicly support the Webb Amendment. He said yes. Questioner #2 approached Obama at the end of the event and asked for his
views on nuclear weapons. Obama said he
favors reductions in nuclear arms. Questioner #2 asked if he favors nuclear abolition. He said
"in time." Questioner #2 repeated, "in time?" To which Obama responded "yes, in time." Question: Obama was asked if he was committed to reducing our nuclear weapons stockpile from ten thousand to one thousand weapons. Answer: Obama said he is committed to leading an effort to secure nuclear stockpiles ahnd materials across the world within four years. To prevent countries from building weapons programs, he endorsed the concept of an ihnternational nuclear fuel bank, proposed last year by former Senator Sam Nunn, who now advises the Nuclear Threat Initiative. As president, Obama would provide $50 million to get the fuel bank started and urge Russia and other countries to join. (prioritiesNH) Tuesday, April 10, 2007, MoveOn.org's Virtual Town Hall on Iraq, CONCORD, NH "The hard truth is, there's no military solution to this war. Our troops have done all that they have been asked and more, but no amount of American soldiers are gonna solve the political differences that lie in the heart of the sectarian conflict. So, the news today that the Pentagon is considering extending the surge by extending the tour of 15,000 troops, the National Guard is about the call up another 13,000 soldiers before they were scheduled to deploy. All of this is just going to put more men and women in the crossfire of a civil war..." Click here to finish reading Senator Obama's comments. Monday, April 2, 2007, Keene State College, KEENE, NH Question: "Senator, I am very concerned about indications that the Bush administration is planning a military attack against Iran and that President Bush has said that no options are off the table as regards the weaponry that might be used in an attack. A March 2005 policy paper (Doctrine of Joint Nuclear Operations) stated that a pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. would be permissable against an enemy. At least one of your opponents has also stated that in regard to Iran 'no options are off the table'. Do you agree?" Answer: Obama replied that, in the first place, he thinks that a military attack on Iran would be a mistake. On further questioning he said that from his current view he could not conceive of a situation in which he would recommend the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. He did/wpuld not (and clearly seemed reluctant to be drawn out) say that the use nuclear weapons was not an option. (ereardon) Monday, April 2, 2007, Peterborough Diner, PETERBOROUGH, NH Question: "Will you come out against a new generation of nuclear weapons, such as the Complex 2030 program and the Reliable Replacement Warhead?" Answer: "As president, I would want to look at general U.S. nuclear policies to see what needs to be done. If we want the rest of the world to disarm, countries like India and Pakistan, we need to put something on the table, bring something to the table." (He said an additional sentence about leading by example in disarmament - that was the jist of the comment.) Follow up: But will you AS SENATOR vote against funding for new nuclear weapons this year? Obama: I need to take a look at the bill and know more about it. Follow up (somewhat shamelessly): Senator Clinton has said she doesn't support new nuclear weapons. Obama: I would probably vote against it, but would need to see the bill first. (amiller) Monday, February 12, 2007, Eagle Deli Cafe, CONCORD, NH Question: Obama was told that we appreciated his coming out against the war but that we really want him to vote against the supplemental funding for Iraq. Answer: He's introduced legislation that, if passed, would have our troops redeployed by March 2008. He needs to look at the supplemental funding. He says there is the possibility that the Administration could call Congress' "bluff" if Congress voted to cut off funding, and that he doesn't want to leave troops stranded without armor, etc. (To that I replied that they wouldn't have to hitchhike home, and that there' s plenty of money in the Pentagon coffers.) He didn't respond to that. He also said they (the Democrats) think their chances are better with legislation than defunding the war. (amiller) Question: "Will you commit to not signing funding for Complex 2030 and the Reliable Replacement Warheads?" Answer: No commitment. His responses indicated that he has not really thought yet about particular proposals. The Senator also discussed our lack of congruency in our commitment to the NPT and said that we cannot claim the "moral high ground" and require other countries to adhere to NPT if we are not doing the same. Obama voiced his belief that we have "too many" nuclear weapons. He also discussed how he has been involved with "this issue" for quite some time and believes that we need to "secure" our weapons. Senator Obama said that we needed to determine what a "safe level" of nuclear weapons would look like - did not denounce the use of nuclear weapons. (eplacey) From the New Hampshire Peace Action Questionnaire Question: Do you oppose the two major new administration proposals called the Reliable Replacement Warhead and Complex 2030? Answer: "Before introducing totally new and untested design into the arsenal, we have to caarefully study factors such as how it would impact our ability to reduce stockpiles, the impact on would-be proliferators, and the science behind stockpile aging. In this context, I oppose the Complex 2030 and Reliable Replacement Warhead programs. As I wrote in foreign Affairs, "America must not rush to produce a new generation of nuclear warheads." Question: Do you believe that the US shoudl abide by our NPT commitment and, if so, how will you do so as President of the United States? Answer: "We need to get back onh the road that leads to fewer nuclear weapons and ultimately to a world from which their dark shadow has been completely lifted. As President, I will make sure that, every step along the way, our security interests will guide our actions. Over the long term, we must reduce the salience of nuclear weapons in international politics by articulating a clear vision of the nuclear future others will follow--one in which there are fewer and fewer nuclear weapons in the world." Question: Do you support the Bush Administration's approach to the threat of terrorism? Answer: "We need to use all the tools of American power against violent extremism, including economic, diplomatic, and military means. As we prosecute the war on terror, we need both to destroy and disrupt terrorist organizations from gaining more followers over the longer term. That requires that we bring all our power to bear on this war. Finally, we must recognize that there is nothing inconsistent about fighting the war on terror and respecting civil liberties; the two are not mutually exclusive. That's why I believe that we should close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and restore the centuries-old protection of habeas corpus." Question: Will you call for all US combat and non-combat troops to be removed from Iraq during the first one hundred days of your administration in such a way that minimizes the potential violence, and for the US to commit to financing reconstruction and redevelopment. Answer: "I support a phased redeployment of US troops form Iraq with the goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. In this civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi governmenh to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can reduce violence and promote stability. The Iraq War De-escalation Act that I introduced in January 2007 allows for a limited number of US troops to remain in Iraq for force protection, to engage in counter-terrorism, and to continue the training of Iraqi securityh forces. In addition, we will redeploy our troops to other locations in the region, reassuring our allies that we will stay engaged in the Middle East. Question: Are you willing to take the "nuclear option" off the table with Iran? Answer: "As president, I will never take the military option off the table. But our first ine of offense must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy--the kind that the Bush Administration has been unwilliing to conduct. Lastly, I will make certain that the current UN Security Council resolutions--and sanctions--are enforced vigorously, and if Iran persists, press for tougher sanctions leading, if necessary, to Iran's total isolation." Question: As President, will you forswear any preventive military attakc on or use of force to achieve regime change in Iran? Answer: "Our first measure with respect to Iran must be sustained, direct and aggressive diplomacy--the kind that the Bush Administration has been unwilling to use." |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
