Posted on 09/20/2007 6:31:25 PM PDT by blogsforthompson.com
Edited on 09/20/2007 6:38:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Fred Thompson has issued this stern statement regarding Iranian Leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, his upcoming visit to the United Nations, and what we must do regarding the threat Iran poses:
Dallas, TX - Senator Fred Thompson issued the following statement today from Dallas, Texas regarding Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's upcoming visit to the United States and further called upon the UN Security Council to impose economic sanctions on the terrorist state:
"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of the world's premier terrorist state, is speaking before the United Nations next week. He has also asked to visit Ground Zero. If I were President of the United States none of this would have been an issue--I wouldn't have let him into the country in the first place.
"It's time for the world to finally send a stern message to Iran. Ahmadinejad has called for the destruction of Israel, is supporting terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, and is responsible for supplying weapons to extremists who are killing US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. And with Iran's ongoing pursuit of nuclear weapons and development of long-range missiles, that country is a threat not only to the region and our allies, but to the entire free world. It's time for the United Nations to take more serious action against this terror regime.
"The Security Council needs to begin placing comprehensive, multilateral sanctions on Iran's economy, to include banning foreign investment, stopping export credits to companies doing business there, and prohibiting any business dealings with Iran's Revolutionary Guard. Iranian banks should be denied access to international banking and financial institutions, and World Bank loans should be suspended. All arms sales to Iran need to be halted. And travel by Iranian officials should be stopped and their assets frozen. Cutting off Iranian access to refined gas imports will certainly get Tehran's attention and cause them to reconsider their priorities. If the UN can't reach agreement on these measures due to continued Russian, Chinese or others' intransigence, then we need to work directly with our allies and go around the UN roadblock.
"The international community has been negotiating with Iran for more than four years to no avail in seeking to halt the mullahs' nuclear program. I believe strongly in diplomacy, but it has its limits, especially when the other side is made up of extremists. If we don't get serious and act now--before they build atomic weapons--the stakes will be even higher, and our hand much weaker. The United States and its allies cannot afford to let that happen. As president, I certainly will not."
He can certainly be barred from travel anywhere but to and from the airport and the U.N.
Oh, well....
At least you got the tagline...:-)
Wow! Contrast that with the powderpuff answer Bush gave to the press.
“My thoughts are the local police there will make the right decision, and it looks like they aren’t going to let him there,” Bush said during a morning news conference. “If they decide they don’t want the leader of a country that sponsors terrorism, then I understand that.” George Bush
Yep, not sure how you can be stern about who can come to the UN and then turn around and start talking about security councils, sanctions, etc.
The UN will be as much help as they ever are, which is none at all. I see nothing stern here just some tough talk about sanctions for DinnerJacket’s amusement.
There is one way, if Iran continues on the path to nuclear armament, they get a coordinated 48 hour air campaign and the same lessons in miscalculation that Hussein received. Done and done.
FEAR THE FRED
“I love Fred, but is he mis-speaking here? Does a U.S. president have the authority to bar a head of state from a member nation coming to the UN?”
If the other republicans attack him for stating we shouldn’t let him in the country, they’ll be savaged by the base. You can debate law all you want, I’m pretty confident conservatives aren’t going to see this as a negative either way. Other then Ron Paul, I doubt any Republicans running are that foolish.
Although, The State Department is connected to the Executive Branch. They (meaning Bush) can deny him entrance. It’s been done before.
The Republican President of the United States is leaving it up to local police to decide where an Islamic terrorist goes while he is inside our country.
“The sad fact is that Ahmadinejad will come to America with the permission and blessings of President Bush, who is a man that passionately seeks approval from his enemies for some reason.”
You are being silly.
“The Republican President of the United States is leaving it up to local police to decide where an Islamic terrorist goes while he is inside our country.”
Sure, the bound at the hip cooperation of New York and the federal government in the war on terror, and you guys think he is turning it over to some small time cops.
There could be just a little more to this effort to minimize the aggrandizement of the nut case’s importance in relation to the President of the United States.
Would that include cooperation concerning illegal invaders that are potential violent criminals or terrorists? No, seeing as NY is a sanctuary city, I don't think so.
Wasn’t really relevant was it?
Oh, I don't know. You're the one bragging up the tight cooperation between Federal authorities and local NY LEO's when the truth is they, in violation of Federal law, refuse to cooperate with federal authorities when it comes to illegal invaders. In fact, as Ahmadinejad is not a convicted felon, if he illegally entered the Country he would be protected by NY's finest. And it seems to me that we have someone running for president that not only supported this illegal policy but sued the federal government, the same one you think NY cooperates so closely with, to maintain the policy despite the law. In fact, this person is runing against Fred Thompson whom this thread is about.
I believe there's some relevance, especially after you brought it up.
“Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of the world’s premier terrorist state, is speaking before the United Nations next week. He has also asked to visit Ground Zero. If I were President of the United States none of this would have been an issue—I wouldn’t have let him into the country in the first place.”
One would certainly hope not. Good for FDT.
We can only hope to get out of the UN. What action on the part of the U.S. would it take to get it out and relocated to say, Beirut?
The controversial visit by a foreign leader is not yet another reason to put an illegal alien spin to an unrelated story.
I have been anti illegal for more than 40 years, when I first took a deliberate public action where I had to explain my views.
I can play the connect all dots to immigration and enforcement policy too, but I don’t and I wouldn’t, it only annoys people and dilutes it into sounding like a goof ball’s chanting instead of the true serious matter that it is.
an 'inconvenient truth' is that, by US law, the Native Americans still legally own a great deal of land = especially in the mid-west. They may yet, one day, "inherit the land" - 'Manifest Destiny" = dastardly excuse for murder and mayhem to grab what is not yours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.