US Features
Republican hopefuls blast Iran, reject Iraq pullout
By Tony Czuczka May 4, 2007, 14:15 GMT
Washington - Leading Republican presidential candidates declared a nuclear-armed Iran unacceptable and agreed that US troops should stay in Iraq for now as they faced off for the first time in the 2008 election season.
Thursday's nationally televised debate also exposed differences among the 10 men on social issues, such as abortion, and on another tricky question: Could attacks on President George W Bush, a fellow Republican, yield political capital?
Iran's nuclear activities provoked the toughest talk from the two top contenders, former New York mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Senator John McCain, whom Bush defeated for the party's nomination in 2000. Both hinted they might use military force against a nuclear-armed Iran.
Striking Iran would be 'very dangerous' but nuclear arms 'in the hands of an irrational person' like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be worse, said Giuliani, the Republican front-runner.
McCain said attacking Iran would be a last resort if it went nuclear and 'our intelligence tells us that this is a real threat to the state of Israel, to other states in the region.'
A week after the presidential candidates of the centre-left Democrats held their first debate, the Republican hopefuls easily agreed on rejecting Democratic calls for a timetable to withdraw US soldiers from Iraq.
'We should never retreat in the face of terrorism,' said Giuliani, who was mayor when New York was hit by the 2001 terrorist attacks.
A hasty pullout before Iraq is stabilized could lead to broader regional conflict and force US troops to return to Iraq, said Mitt Romney, a former venture capitalist and ex-governor of Massachusetts state, who has topped the campaign-money race.
Only former Texas congressman Ron Paul, who favours 'a foreign policy of non-intervention' but has no realistic shot at the Republican nomination, disagreed.
With eight months to go before the two major US parties start voting for their candidate to replace Bush, Thursday's polite debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California, produced no clear winner.
Most contenders evoked Reagan, whose social conservatism, economic liberalism and firm stand against the former Soviet Union make him an icon for Republicans looking for a more popular role model than Bush.
But only McCain, who has long criticized Bush for refusing to send a bigger US force to invade Iraq, lashed out at the current president.
'The war was terribly mismanaged, and we now have to fix a lot of mistakes that were made,' he said.
In contrast, Giuliani complimented Bush for 'the right decision ... to put us on offence against terrorists' after the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington.
While issues of war and peace loomed large, the debate also delved into other themes that resonate with conservatives, including abortion, federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research and the candidates' stand on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
Faced with seven lesser-known contenders eager to appeal to Republican core voters, Giuliani, McCain and Romney - all centrists viewed suspiciously by social conservatives - had to negotiate some pitfalls.
Giuliani, once in charge of a free-wheeling metropolis, said he opposes abortion but as president 'would respect a woman's right to make a different choice.'
Romney, whose conversion to the anti-abortion side in 2005 has become a campaign issue, insisted that politicians sometimes change their minds.
McCain, at 70 the oldest candidate, backed additional federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research - which Bush has barred - as a way to help scientists find new disease cures.
No audience applause was allowed under the debate's ground rules, but when California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger escorted Reagan's frail, 85-year-old widow Nancy to her seat at the start, they got a standing ovation.
And, oh yes: All 10 Republicans agreed that they do not want to see Senator and former first lady Hillary Clinton in charge at the White House.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
Sorry boys you're way past a day late and a dollar short on talking tough. Where was the Republican Party when Bush and every word out of his mouth was bashed to pieces by a grieviously biased media and vacuous movie stars. I'll vote for my dog this time around.
These Republicans should b sent to Baghdad and spend some times i Green Zone
and, if they dare to Red zones, to know what the mess a Republican administration has made. Before fixing this they want to create a much bigger
one, i.e., attacking Iran.
I too have been disappointed in the Republican response to the Democrats - especially to the ultra-liberals. But, if you give up and 'vote for your dog' you will get your wish and have a real dog in the White House. Most of these Republican candidates are better than any of the Democrat candidates. I didn't see the debate, but I also didn't see any reporting on discussion about our open borders. We have to shut down the flow of illegals - it is necessary financially and for security. To me it is one of the top issues.
It is unfortunate that so far the GOP candidates don't have anyone who is asserting a clear, positive view on foreign policy. The debate was held at the Reagan Library-- but the candidates have so far forgotten the central success of Ronald Reagan. That is, Reagan ended the Cold War without firing a shot. He negotiated with Gorbachev, rather than confronting him, and brought Eastern and Western Europe together, with a mutual pullback of troops and major reductions of nuclear weapons.
Now, George Shultz, Sam Nunn, Henry Kissinger and others who helped in that process (Shultz was Reagan's Secretary of State)say again clearly in the Wall Street Journal: it's time for 'A world without nuclear weapons.' (WSJ, Jan. 4).
None of the candidates-- none of the Dem's either, so far-- have yet to endorse this bold, important process. We need candidates with the political courage to say-- Reagan and Gorbachev were right at the 1987 Reykjevik (Iceland) Summit, when they endorsed aiming for zero nuclear weapons, over 20 years.
If we had adopted those principles, we wouldn't be worrying about nukes for
Iran, etc.-- the world would be free of nuclear weapons today. it's time to
restore the best of Reagan and Gorbachev, when Reagan said: 'Trust, but verify.' Set up a nuclear disarmament program, use strict verification, and rid the world of these threats forever. Instead, right now the administration seeks a rollback of agremeents, and is threatening to build 10,000 new warheads, costing $150 billions. (See the RRW Program, on the Department of energy website.) The American people need to say-- enough-- go back to the positive Reagan-Gorbachev approach.
I welcome comments- and hope you'll speak to your favorite candidates, on either side of the aisle, about reversing these outrageous, wasteful, and destabilizing measures, and going back to the Spirit of Reykjavik.
Thank you.
Ron Paul has no realistic chance at the nomination? Perhaps that's correct, but they said the same thing about Bill Clinton early in the 1991-1992 primary season. I actually watched the debate last night. I was absolutely impressed with Ron Paul. I will do some more research on the guy, and if I like him enough, I will vote for him.
The candidates sound like broken records. 'Stay the course' 'Be aggresive on Iran' but no real plan. Just like the Dems that they argue with. Washington is really broken right now, and more of our sons and daughters getting killed is not making America 'safer'. The 'green zone' isn't even safe.
The debate was a rather shameful display of how to pander to religious right wing conservatives for their support and votes. I believe that a certain quote from Martin Luther King sums it all up.
' The most dangerous thing in the world is sincere ignorance and committed stupidity'
One last quote from Albert Einstein for the pro war sabre rattling Republican candidates.
' Force attracts men of low morality'
What do you mean, 'former Congressman' Ron Paul? Last I checked, Ron Paul is currently serving yet another term as a Congressman. Check your facts please. Sad to see the best Republican candidate not given his fair due.
Ron Paul has as much of a chance as Howard Dean did in 2003. To write a candidate off so long before the primaries shows a contempt for the democratic process.
Ron Paul is a current congressman from Texas. He clearly won the debate, as evidenced by the official MSNBC poll where he got 45% of the votes of who won. The American public are speaking and they love this man. Please write an article completely about him next time. Just look at your comments on this article-- who are people talking about? People love this man.
Ron Paul did not pander to the 'religious right' as the other candidates did-- that means he is a true stand-up individual, a former physician who is not a liar and a man who is a true American success story.
I get the feeling that you would have said a certain poor, self-taught lawyer from Illinois would never have been elected in 1859, and Abe Lincoln became one of America's greatest leaders. Let's put Ron Paul in the White House and see what he can do.
...the utterly stellar economy. Huge tax income, lower taxes, record employment and financial figures. Do you notice the libenzi press ignores this, almost every day?
We are in the renaissance of the supply side miracle. No nation on earth has the prosperity America generates. Yet, the lib press ignores it, for years on end, until the story changes.
They have predicted, wrongly, a recession for every year Bush is in office. They whine about 'balance of payments' as they have for thirty years, when no negative result has ever been detected. No one outside of the financial publications has given the Bush economic juggernaut any of the credit for the extended prosperity we've been blessed with.
Let's run on that and see what happens. No one will miss it until it's gone.
more soilders in body bags will keep the body bag sales soaring .
for everyone that gets blown up we have a good laugh.
what else is there left but laugh..
can we say screw the soilders?
Harry Reid is doing that for you.
I do not see any of the rep candidates running away from the war issue. McCain did a closely argued speech in favor of it, just a week ago. He was crystal clear about a must-win.
Either they expect Bush to deliver them from this issue, or they think Reid wil do it for them, or they are willing to face the people with it.
Knowing Bush, they'd better practice. Everyone thought he was a pussy. God, how can so many folks be so wrong? Has their ever been a press more off the mark than they have with Bush? Not in my lifetime.
Gotta like that kind of character...no voting for it before voting against it here. Going down in flames? Maybe, but you WILL get a clear choice.
a lousy conservative.
Where does SP4 get his figures on the economy ? - the dollar is weak against the Euro and the £ sterling, the European stock exchanges have now overtaken the US in capitalisation, most of the wise money - from the many Russian billionaires to Middle East investment is through London, China & India (and probably Russia) will also overtake the US economic terms within the next few years
Also the US economy is propped up by cheap oil because pricing is in dollars so the dollar's decline hides the way the US economy is falling
However, SP4 spends most of his time trying to stir up debate on these pages, so I expect he's still in senile decline, crouched over his terminal and isolated from the real world
My guess is that SP4 suffers from wishfull thinking .I can sum up at least ten countries where standards of living are better than the USA ,higher incomes on the average,less difference between high and low wages,higher minimum wages,better social security and much better medical assistance for all.My guess is that SP4 has no knowledge of the rest of the world but has his brain fried by too much neocon propaganda .Keep on dreaming boy.
...we,ve heard this crap for 3 decades. In the world you live in, those factors no longer drive the economy. Rather than blather, take a look: Our output keeps climbing, personal wealth is at an all time high, our employment is stellar, and our tax reap is HUGE! All, while cutting taxes! deficits? Go see 'Europe'.
My belief is that we utilize our investments better. Otherwise, why would euro and Japanese companies be investing billions in plants in the USA? It still is the best place to invest.
So My questions are:
What 'cheap oil' do you refer to? We buy at the world price, same as everyone else. What a stupid comment!
Market capitalisation means dick. Governments only benefit by tax revenues, and ours are stellar. Compare that to the strapped euro nations with double digit unemployment, lousy productivity, etc.
Our output keeps climbing BECAUSE of foreign investment in the USA. Toyota made 14 billion last year, and we reaped the benefits in the USA with plants, jobs, etc., as well as the other foreign investors.
The Japanese have a saying 'Never count America out'
If is wasn't for BUSH fighting the war on terror, the UN and Euro counties could not focus on global warming, apparently that is more of a threat to anyone than Iran with nukes.
Stick to your out of date concepts SP - the real world has moved on old timer
You know, Andy, I did a poor job explaining and I wish to apologize.
I had a professor like you once. Professor Layton was telling us, in 1977, why the Russian currency was getting stronger while ours was weakening.
I had a moment of clarity, after some serious beer drinking and womanizing, and said 'Professor, Russia has bread lines sir'
He said 'Yes?'
I said 'well sir bread is flour, water, energy and labor sir'
He said 'that's correct'
I said 'that being the case, how valuable can a currency be if it's holders can't even buy bread?'
He said 'that's very simplistic son'
I said 'it is, indeed sir, but that fact does not necessarily undermine the premise of my thesis, does it sir? If they can't produce bread, why would we think that they can produce anything else efficiently?'
Then, he rambles on into currency valuations..
Professor Layton was a F--kin dildo, and academia buys it 24/7.
I know this, because he was also a rep to my state legislature and checked into a hotel under another reps name, ostensibly to screw his boyfriend, thinking no one in this little town would notice. How frickin stupid do you have to be?
Back to econ 101
You see Andy, currency is only valuable as to what it can buy. When it is weak against the dollar, we can go abroad and buy the things we wish for at a bargain. When it is strong against the dollar, THEY can come and buy from us, at a bargain! Since American corporations are more productive, we get a benefit both ways! This is a far better explanation than the one you offered, which was none.
In a free trade, globalized world, our disadvantage has a HEDGE, or a limiting factor to the weakness. Since we both import and export a great many things, we BENEFIT both ways, even if it is not totally a washout.
Europe, on the other hand, needs exports like a junkie needs dope. Your corporations are nothing more than troughs for your corporate aristocracy to feed at. You vanunted capitalization is due to the lax corporate accounting your elected officials are blind to, and if they do fail, your piglet politicians feed it, just like Airbus.
As my broker, who made me a pile of $$ for me said, 'don't by foreign stocks because the annual reports are complete falsehoods'. Further study for you Tony might include 'Airbus', or 'Parmalat' or, well, just pick one.
In America, we have SARBANES-OXLEY, end of story. I hope this was meaningful. As Professor Layton would say 'bend over sugar and let the wild goose fly'.
Caio, babe...
If oil was priced in (say) Euros, as the Dollar falls (over 25% in the last decade) you would need to pay more and more dollars to get Euros to buy oil. This hasn't happened because oil is priced in Dollars, so you haven't paid more - therefore you have artificially cheap oil
Nice to know Toyota is doing so well - profits go back to Japan of course, which uses them to invest in Europe where prafits - being in the strong £ and Euro - are worth much more
Not sure what your above ramble above is about - unfortunately you use words which are in American, but not the English language.
Andy:
Since there is an orderly market for currencies, wouldn't oil, priced in dollars be readily convertible into oil priced in, say, euro's, gold, rubles etc.?
The only stopper here is if they only ACCEPT dollars for PAYMENT, Andy.
Now that has a whole, different connotation, doesn't it? Why do you think that might be? Security of the dollar? Ability to buy a wide range of goods (everything), services (every other thing) and financial instruments ?(T-Bills, stocks, etc.) Why is it they buy these and not 'euros' or European stocks?
They know what my broker knows, Andy.
That's the beauty Andy...we get a pile of it back! This is called 'trade'. We do it all the time. We're good at it! We make trade deals with nations and it benefits us. It pumps up our employment, sells our debt, pays for our oil. It's a real deal, because, Andy, we know how to make money. Profits out the door?
Nonsense.
We get the MRP and the MRO, the jobs, the trade. It's a deal, and here's the best part, a lot of that profit gets reinvested right here in the good ol USA! In plant & Equipment Andy. Ever wonder why folks are just running from Europe's business environment?
Get back to us on that one Andy. By the way, go check the prosperity of America's trade partners too.
Schools out Andy. That's another American term. Feel free to look it up. I should charge you for these lessons. I only accept dollars Andy.
'Not sure what your above ramble above is about - unfortunately you use words which are in American, but not the English language.'
Andy, you are an idiot, that is why you didn't understand.
..well, maybe a little stupid. Using one standard of measure to assess a whole economy is ignorant. Knowing it's ignorant ,and still doing it is stupidity.
Nonetheless, I read crap like this every day, while tax dollars are just coming into the American government by the truckload, because of free trade and lower taxes! The American economic juggernaut can take care of itself. A pity we can't tap it for social security.
My original point was that we managed to do this while LOWERING taxes. Supply side economics works and works bitchin. If only we could get government to do this with oil. Reagan dereguated oil in the 80's and the shortages disappeared. If we allow drilling and production on the east coast and Alaska, we could be exporters!
The best part, we KNOW it's there!
How crazy is that???
You missed the point in my catch scenario - I cant be bothered with peasant mentalities. Goodbye
We just think you're wrong.
Why is it pseudo-intellectuals hide behind such a lame tit excuse? Everyone see's it for what it is.
The world has changed and the folks who don't seem to get it are academics and liberals. To them it's time for yesteryear, 'the good old days'.
There is a few flaws in SP4 logic,he must have been a bad economy student is mu guess .If the US dollar is the currency on the oil market because it is so strong,why is the dollar losing to the euro ?
Furthermore it is not true that european companies are investing in the USA because it is so much better .THey are expanding there ,so in fact aquiring a bigger portion of the market .Big difference if you ask me .But in fact almost all your arguments are nonsense ,only made up to demonstrate the superiority of the USA to Europe .All that is water under the bridge .Facts dont care about propaganda .Both European and american companies are in fact investing in China most of all,because they pay peanuts as wages .THat is the new trtend .
As for full employment and economy booming in the USA ,sorry but that is not happening .As usual republicans are just profiting from the work that Clinton has done on the budget deficit .It is not exactly a well kept secret that Clinton has balanced the budget deficit and Bush took advantage of the clean slate to dig a new hole ,an abyss in fact .HOw can anybody claim that spending trillions of dollars on weapons is creating welfare .THat is the most supid thing ever said as weapon industry is making goods unfit for consumption .
I will gladly elaborate on that especially for SP4 as his economical knowledge is below average .You see my friens :if you make a bicycle or a house,you can actually profit from it .Now tell me what,can you do with a missile ?Is it making life better for anybody on the economical level ?Certainly not .Now please refrain from the usual propaganda about a safer world and all that bullshit.THatis politics,right now we are into economics and consumerism .Capice ?
Answer - You can sell the missile, too. If it's made in the USA, we make money. If you make it, you lose money. If you buy expensive oil, but your economy successfully uses it as a tool, and profits from it, you still win. Weak dollar? Fine. They will buy more of our goods. Strong dollar, we get a bargain on needed items for the money machine.
Anyone can act superior, Tonney, but money is money. If they build plant & eq. in America, so much the better. A weak dollar helps the process, Tonny. This is the result of the free trade phenomena. It's a hedge for us, but affects trade-managed nations negatively. You guys have been feeding the trough with stifling taxes and your economy shows it. In a land of opportunity you have dumbed down your brightest. How you can do this just baffles the world when Europe could be a powerhouse.
Better study the facts, Tonney. S&P is through the roof. The stock market is hot. Orders up, inflation in check, Bushs tax receipts have blasted through the Clintons by 40%. Tech bubble? Hah! Those are the facts Tony.
Like Prof. Layton, you blindly adhere to outdated parametrics. The world you are living in has changed and you are still living in the Kenysian bubble.
You're a bigot, Tonney. You refuse to see the facts. They are laid in front of you and you still refuse. A win is a win.
Renowned economist Alfred Kahn once went on the PBS show Wall Street Week and said 'we need to all get bicycles.'
About three years later, Reagan deregulated the price of oil and there were no more shortages.
Kahn was out to sea in a world no one lived in. Like his colleagues, he was living in the last throes of the Keynesian noose that strangled America for 25 years. When Reagan started the supply side revolution, all of the sickly indicators went away.
Tonny, it was Reagan, certainly not Clinton, that revolutionized the American economy. We are still benefiting today.
page: 1
Ron PaulMay 4th, 2007 - 15:16:59
Ron Paul doesn't have a realistic shot at the nomination? Glad you told me, otherwise I might have wasted my vote on someone that I agree 100% with.
Report this comment