Does anyone know Obama's position on Ahmadinejad's visit?

I saw Hillary saying she was outraged (paraphrase) at the thought of Ahmadinejad wanting to visit Ground Zero AND she wouldn't invite him to speak at Columbia. Does anyone know how Obama feels about the visit? I think he SHOULD be allowed to go to Ground Zero and lay down a wreath. Iranians were killed there that day and Iran helped us after 9/11. But to listen to some who are against the visit, you'd think he was responsible for 9/11!

that shallow and pathetic as to tell a foreign national leader that no, he cannot visit the 9/11 site out of spite, jeez (slap forehead)

which is why I hope Obama isn't against it...

and Kissinger was against it...

are 2 different issues. Didn't the visit to Ground Zero result in an outcry from NYC residents? Besides it is like hallowed ground to some people, so I can understand if they don't want someone who is associated (rightly or wrongly) with harboring Islamicist terrorists to visit it.

Columbia, on the other hand, is about free speech. People have a right to hear what Ahmadinejad speak and answer questions from the audience.

he shouldn't be allowed to visit the WTC site. Iran helped us after 9/11. Iranians were killed in those towers.

make one, I hope it is along the lines you have suggested.

and thanks. :hi:

Check out the following:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1884301

I'm saddened. And I'm so damned tired of our people pandering to people who wouldn't vote for them if hell froze over. Or worse yet, Obama and Clinton may actually be saying what they believe, which is even more frightening.

We don't need Republican Lite. And I don't think that's what the majority of the American people want, either.

Dear God, no statement at all would have better than those Obama and Clinton delivered.

The Dollar is collapsing, we are mired down in an illegal and immoral occupation of Iraq which the neo-cons want to expand with no justification whatsoever into Iran, and all we get is pandering from our candidates to the lowest elements of our society.

:-(

unimaginative yet bullying foreign policy that got us into this mess to begin with. :scared:

This should be of particular interest to those trying to float the notion that HRC and Obama are on the same page. This is an example of the clear distinction between the two, and part of why I support Obama.

If she'd said anything else, the Republicans would slaughter her over it, and the public has been so brainwashed on Ahmadinejad that they'd buy it.

It has nothing to do with her foreign policy.

It's easy to acquiesce to the same standard of behavior - in this case foreign policy - probably the more important issue for 2008.

The hard part is advocating for change in foreign policy, and I admire Obama's fearlessness calling BS on the system of brow-beating.

So, in conclusion, if playing it safe so the GOP isn't mean to you is smart, I prefer a leader.

in order to pander to a facist government one must become a facist.

WHY is she outraged at the idea of Ahmadinejad coming here? Why is she following in Rudy's footsteps? Iran was on our side after 9/11 and at least Zbigniew pointed that out today on Blitzer's show, and he WAS introduced as an Obama supporter.

It signals to me more of the same. Ugh.

I REALLY don't want more of the same, which we WILL get with Hillary.

Clinton had to say something, as the senator from New York, and sadly (though I still don't forgive it) she had to take a hardline stance against her. If she even says anything neutral about him, the Republicans will cuff her to his image.

If Obama is lucky, he'll be able to dodge the question. On the other hand, if he's smart (and he is) he'll have an answer ready, anyway. Hopefully an answer which dodges the question. :)

Your last paragraph was funny. :D :hi:

out of fear of the Republicans? Here I thought she was a great fighter and all....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1884301

:(

:hi:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/09/23/america/24letter.php

Right move by Obama. Dialog, or diplomacy even, with Ahmadinejad is one thing. Allowing a visit by him to that hallowed ground is another entirely.

Clinton's hard-ass posturing on Iran stands out big time and reeks of the bullyboy politics of this administration.

She spoke out against it like the Repubs. And I didn't see him say he's against him speaking at Columbia. His supporter/endorser Zbigniew Brzezinski is FOR him speaking there.

have to do with 9/11 being hallowed ground? why not allow him, thats my point. Why cannot he not visit it? what has he done to not visit it. I mean all this shows is that america is bigoted and has hatred for forigners and just furthers america's agresivness towards a nation that we are building up our war machine for.

and wish Obama would've explained that Iran actually HELPED us after 9/11. But at least he wasn't as vocal as Hillary was about it.

Who said anything about Iran being responsible for 9/11? I'm sorry you need this explained to you but perhaps you could google "iran" and "terrorism"and judge for yourself. If you're honestly *concerned* about "aggresiveness"...do a bit or research and think about how you would feel if you lost a loved on on that day.

Whatever the case, do you honestly think Ahmadinejad's request was simply a well-intentioned gesture? Please.

Works so Well

She said that is up to Columbia to decide. Basically, she sidestepped the question. Ground Zero is a different issue than speaking at Columbia.

she would NOT invite him to speak.

but, in reality, if you are president of Columbia the decision couldn't be made that cavalierly. Freedom of speech in an academic setting and the wishes of the student body would have to be seriously considered. She said the most politically expedient thing, which I don't blame her for.

"The site of the attack 'must not be a backdrop for President Ahmadinejad to posture,' Barack Obama said."