Obama Refuses to Condemn Crackdown on Iranian Protests
Allahpundit has the rundown on the protests today in Iran, which were reportedly 2 to 3 million strong. (See also DRJ’s post below.) I wore green at work today but didn’t see too many others doing so; I’m not sure how widespread that message was. Obama is naturally refusing to criticize the crackdown that materialized. Spare me the nonsense about how wise and restrained that is. As Allahpundit says:
(a) the demonization’s going to happen anyway, (b) no one’s asking Obama to send in the Marines, just to speak up, and (c) Angela Merkel managed to issue a statement earlier today calling the Basij thuggery “completely unacceptable” without killing the uprising in its crib.
These links are in Allahpundit’s post, but (content warning) here is a taste of what Obama’s refusing to condemn.
Making a bold statement that might expose him to risk is not something he’s gonna do.
Chickens come home to roost and all that.
steve miller (ec51d8) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:12 pmAlas, I must disagree. Patience. As I noted on another thread, forty summers ago, during Apollo 11’s descent to the moon, it reached a critical period where it could abort or land. The flight director got on the loop and told his mission team to minimize the cryptic chatter and to ‘shut up and let’em land.’ Which is exactly what they did. Prsident Obama’s muted commentary at this critical period speaks volumes as well. He’s letting Iran land.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:15 pmWhat complete and utter meaningless BS, DSCSA. The idea that by not saying something The One is doing the right thing is laughable on its face. We either stand behind and defend liberty, freedom, and democracy, or we do not. All the world is learning from this is that Teh One talks a good game.
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:24 pm#3. Patiences. “Let’em land.”
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:30 pmDCSCA, do you believe it possible that others might follow Obama’s lead if he denounced the violence, and made an unwavering stand for freedom? After all, he is the Leader of the Freest Nation in the World. I think America’s ability to influence others throughout the world is unparalleled. Ms. Merkel was brave and bold but I don’t think she has the same clout and voice as the President of the United States and that’s the real shame of his silence.
If he spoke, fearlessly, smartly, and boldly – very likely others would follow. And for those whose lives are on the line in their battle for freedom, that would give them great courage as well as making it clear to A-jad and company, that they are being called out.
Dana (aedf1d) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:33 pmHealth care is a crisis that demands action NOW, but a revolution in Iran demands…silence and fear.
Who elected this guy? Not me.
steve miller (ec51d8) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:34 pmDana – Clearly it would be bad for the people fighting for democracy and freedom to have the greatest country on earth standing firmly behind them. I expect TOTUS will give us a great speech, after everything is done. Leadership.
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:38 pm#5- Dana, be patience. America has said that through word and deed for 200 years. Any commentary now would distract Iranian attention. Minimal commentary from the West as critical events unfold along a fast moving trajectory is what’s call for. Patience. Allow brave Iranians their chance to manage this through. “Let’em land.”
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:43 pmDCSCA, be intelligence
Steverino (1b3695) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:46 pmDSCSA’s words of wisdom were no doubt learned directly from Von Braun.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (3a21c6) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:46 pmAndrew Malcolm at LAT’s “Top of the Ticket” has the President’s statement here:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/06/obama-iran-elections.html#more
I’m not sure that I see how a stronger statement from the U.S. would help Mousavi (and those allied to him) in the theocracy’s internal struggle, rather than prejudice his chances. Avoiding a diplomatic stance that sabotages the opposition in Iran is not “nonsense,” but a real concern. Could it be that proponents of tough talk are more concerned with the effect it has on American politics than with how it affects the situation in Iran?
Tim McGarry (9fe080) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:46 pmTim – Could it be that it is the policy of our country to stand behind liberty, freedom, and democracy?
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:52 pm“deeply troubled”
Teh One made a stronger and more forceful statement about the murder of Dr. Tiller.
But, “deeply troubled” is more forceful than the condemnation of the murder of a US serviceman, Pvt. Long, by a Muslim with ties to terrorists, so I guess that is something.
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:54 pm#9-
Okay. DCSCIA.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:57 pmDSCSA, I don’t understand what you think will happen if our president condemns the violence: do you believe A-jad will get really angry and have the military (or Basij)arrest people, club them or shoot them (look at Patterico’s photolink – it’s already happened)? Do you think the state will start stoning it’s female citizens for defiance to the clerics or Khameni, who declared A-jad the winner (oops, they already do that to women)? Do you think they will threaten the world with nukes (oh, wait a second…)?
What exactly are you afraid will happen if our President makes a bold stand? What else can they do: they already rule with a iron fist, they are already in the grip of a theocracy that denies freedoms we take so for granted.
I’ll say this though: hats off to Ms. Merkel. Leave it to a woman to show our president how to do it. Thatcheresque.
Dana (aedf1d) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:59 pmOh, my. The firestorm begins again. DWP, clearly.
Eric Blair (5a226d) — 6/15/2009 @ 9:59 pmBy which I meant #14, Dana.
Eric Blair (5a226d) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:00 pm#12
JD, I would hope it’s our policy to advance those values intelligently. I think it would be regrettable if our reaction to events in Iran — whether too mild or too strong — were to tip the scales against the more moderate factions within the Islamic Republic.
Tim McGarry (9fe080) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:04 pmI am pretty sure that given its history of lying, dishonesty, mendacity, and overall hackery, if DCSCA read me the 10 Commandments, I would need independent verification of its veracity from at least 2 other sources.
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:05 pm____________________________________
If the guy in the White House believes it’s important to not flap his gums about Iran and its elections, perhaps he should apply the same concept to Israel and the Palestianins.
Okay, Barry?
Mark (411533) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:07 pmTim – By what metric do you think the scales have not been tipped? An election was stolen right in front of the world’s eyes, people are being slaughtered, and some actual religious nutjobs running an actual theocracy are hellbent on finishing off their quest for nukes, the same people that said that they would like to see Israel wiped off of the map. You must have infinite patience, as it seems the scales have been tipped for some time already. It is not like our support would make Ahmadinnerjacket less of a friend, or would make us less of a Shaitan in their eyes. What would it take to convince you the scales have been tipped?
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:10 pm#15- Dana- There’s nothing to be gained by distracting Iranians with external commentary from the United States during this critical phase. They know where America stands. This is Iran’s change to birth. As I’ve said, ‘Let’em land.’
Regarding Mrs. Thatcher. She was our MP from Finchley when I resided in Britain. I was not a supporter of Mrs. Thatcher then, or now.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:12 pmThose silly little brown people would be fatally distracted if the President of the United States expressed the unequivocal support of their efforts.
Shocked that you did not support Thatcher. SHOCKA
How did you work for CBS, NSA, hang out with Von Braun in your towel, and all of those other things while residing in Britain?
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:16 pmThere’s nothing to be gained by distracting Iranians with external commentary from the United States during this critical phase.
You. Do. Not. Know. This.
Ms. Merkel made a stand and the sky hasn’t fallen.
What you call “external commentary”, others call solidarity.
What you call “distracting”, very easily those on the ground frightened, courageous, and steadfast could quite easily see as the support they need to know is there to take the next step.
Dana (aedf1d) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:17 pmJD, I think the U.S. government is rightly concerned to avoid statements or actions that inadvertently help the Ahmadinejad faction in its power struggle with the Mousavi-Rafsanjani faction.
Tim McGarry (9fe080) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:21 pmDana – The lying crapweasel knows stuff. Just ask it. Or don’t. It will tell you either way.
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:22 pmTim – Why? Based on what? And why privilege one group by our inaction instead of positively reinforcing the other side?
What would it take for a tipping point to be reached for you? They are already murdering people. Nukes – sure. Overt threats to annhilate Israel – check. Stoning homosexuals – check. Where is the line?
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:24 pmI was not a supporter of Mrs. Thatcher then, or now.
Comment by DCSCA — 6/15/2009 @ 10:12 pm
??
Chris (a24890) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:25 pmSeriously?
No one here would have guessed.
I predict a photo op on Friday afternoon at a folksy burger joint where they will get a picture of Teh One gazing off into the distance looking all thoughtful after consuming a burger and playing normal. Standing up for liberty, democracy, and freedom? We do not want to come off as imperialist jingoistic xenophobes.
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:26 pmThe firestorm begins again. DWP, clearly.
Comment by Eric Blair — 6/15/2009 @ 10:00 pm
I’m really tired – I read DWP and thought what the heck: Department of Water & Power?
My Two Cents: What is currently taking place in Iran is a ferocious and historical battle for freedom. I hope that this discussion can continue to be fruitful and insightful with differing views respectfully given and received. Hopefully this will not be allowed to disintegrate into an ugly snark fest. In Iran there is too much on the line while so many suffer what we never have. They deserve more.
Dana (aedf1d) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:29 pmWhile it’s possible to confront Iran on human rights in and nuclear weapons, the nukes are job one.
The way to negotiate with Iran about their weapons program is not to back an unsuccessful presidential candidate. Candidates would not have been allowed to stand in these elections if they had had a different view on Iran’s uranium enrichment.
The millions of pro-Western Iranians don’t think the U.S. supports a crackdown on dissidents. Obama calling out regime thugs will neither change their lot nor satisfy his blogosphere critics. He may eventually have no other choice.
steve (5565b5) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:29 pmsteve – So we should not call them out for what they are, murdering thugs that stole and election, because someday we might have to negotiate with them over their overt breaking of international law?
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:33 pm“Let ’em land”
Oh yeah.
Let the chips fall where they may…
I’m sure Obama would say this to the UAW right?
SteveG (c99c5c) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:39 pmJD, you are arguing that Ahmadinejad is worse than Mousavi. We agree on that. However, they are fighting each other for the upper hand within the Islamic Republic’s political establishment. In light of recent Iranian history, American support could be the kiss of death with this group. Let’s be careful and avoid blunders.
Please understand that I recognize the threat to American interests and to peace in the Middle East posed by the Islamic Republic, especially under Ahmadinejad and his radical faction. A word of caution, though — this threat would continue, although more moderately perhaps, under Mousavi.
Tim McGarry (9fe080) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:39 pmNo, Tim. I am asking you where your tipping point is. I appreciate your pedantic words of caution as though I am unable to discern the fact that Mousavi is no peach. I am well aware of that. But at some point, Teh One is going to have to stand for something other than taking other people’s money and companies. Merkel gave a statement in no uncertain terms, and it should not be so difficult for our President to be able to come up with something more than “deeply troubled”, considering his reaction to the murder of Tiller was not nearly as restrained. Where is your tipping point?
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:46 pmObama had harsher words for the deranged Holocaust museum shooter than the Iranian govt thugs shooting and beating civilians. Moral leadership?
Kevin Gregory (b98b1c) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:48 pmThe millions of pro-Western Iranians don’t think the U.S. supports a crackdown on dissidents.
steve,
Can you distinguish between “don’t think the U.S. supports” and “don’t believe the U.S. will lift a finger to oppose”?
Patterico (cc3b34) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:55 pmMaggie Thatcher got her seat in Finchley in 1958, and left it in 1970.
Werner von Braun did the college dorm thing in 1974.
This guy just happens to be everywhere, right where history is happening. Amazing. Can you tell us the PowerBall numbers for this week?
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:56 pmObama had harsher words for the deranged Holocaust museum shooter . . .
And the abortion doctor shooter.
And the health care crisis.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 6/15/2009 @ 10:56 pmJD, I don’t think the “tipping point” concept has much application here, unless it’s to the power struggle within Iran itself. And the outcome of that struggle remains very much in doubt. Much of what is going on is opaque to those of us on the outside looking in. We won’t really know what effect we’ve had until well after the matter’s decided. I can only say that I think Obama’s cautious course is the least likely to do harm.
Good night.
Tim McGarry (9fe080) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:01 pmTim – You introduced the idea of a tipping point in comment #18. You did, not I. On what do you base your idea that doing absolutely nothing is the course that is the least likely to do harm?
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:04 pmJD has a valid question.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:10 pmMy view of this goes back to the Left being unable to call out actual evil as evil, unless it is a domestic political opponent. Iran and Ahmadinnerjacket run a country that is diametrically opposed to the ideals of our great land. Instead of focusing on that, it seems fashionable to try to compare all measure of evil to Bush, as opposed to noting that something is evil. Murdering political opponents is evil. Stoning homosexuals is evil. Punishing women for being raped is evil. Honor killings are evil. A desire to wipe Israel off the map is evil.
It should be easy for either POTUS or even TOTUS to talk about the American ideals, and give HOPE to those that are fighting for their liberty, democracy, and freedom. It should be one of the easiest things a President can do. That is the side we are always supposed to be on. Maybe I am just a xenophobic jingoistic rube in fly-over country and cannot appreciate the nuance of standing on the sidelines watching.
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:17 pmActual evil = evil.
There. I said it.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:19 pmPatterico, #39: did the President have any strong words at all about Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad? I mean, after the Tiller and von Brunn statements?
Or was he waiting for the situation to land?
Eric Blair (5a226d) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:19 pmOh, and Patterico: all evil is created equal, but some are more equal than others. To coin a phrase.
Eric Blair (5a226d) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:21 pmYeah, yeah, yeah, Patterico. But you are not a Leftist 😉
Eric – I think we all know the answer to that. He could not let an actual act of terrorism on domestic soil to get in the way of his historic trip to the Middle East and Europe.
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:22 pmFirst, I disagree with an assessment of Obama’s remarks that says it does “absolutely nothing.” It falls short of a condemnation, but it does contain some encouragement for the crowds in Tehran and those who want more democracy in Iran.
Perhaps I misconstrued JD’s use of “tipping point.” His use of it seemed to center on a moral evaluation of actions taken by the Ahmadinejad regime. My use of “tip the scales” at #18 concerned the effect of American statements and actions on the power struggle within the theocracy. At #40, I suggested that the opacity of that struggle to outsiders made caution wise.
At this point, I’m going to have to leave the discussion to others, but will try to look in tomorrow night. I have a long day of work tomorrow.
Tim McGarry (9fe080) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:25 pmI made no moral equivalances. I stated who the opponent is, in clear and not at all uncertain terms. ‘Tis a flaw of mine.
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:29 pmLet’s forget about your idea of a tipping point, since your construct seems to now bother you. When is enough enough?
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:30 pmBTW, I did a little happy dance when Patterico typed “JD has a valid question”. Usually the only responses I get from our esteemed host is to tell me to quit using colorful and creative language 😉
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:55 pmOh, my grammar is teh suXxor
JD (9df895) — 6/15/2009 @ 11:56 pmJD – I know what you’re doing – you’re trying to get an ‘all JD, all the time’ on the recent comments list, and I’m not going to let you do it.
Also, what did your Grandma ever do to you?
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:01 amPerhaps if we are wisely cautious we can achieve peace in our time.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:02 amJD,
Tim’s remark about “tipping the scales” in a power struggle between two factions in Iran seemed clear. I may not agree but his point was clear.
I am trying to understand what you are asking in reference to “tipping point” and I confess I am not clear. Could you explain? Are you asking at what point we as a country should commit to action on behalf of Iranian revolutionaries?
I am trying to understand, Sir.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:03 amPatterico – peace in our time.
Hey, that’s catchy! You should write it on a piece of paper, have our enemies sign it, and bring it back and wave it around on the tarmac at LAX.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:05 amMachinist – Yes.
Apogee – Damn you, damn you to hell. Oops. I do not mean to make you cross with me for fear I may someday have to negotiate with you to not blow up some country. My apologies.
JD (9df895) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:05 amMachinist,
You should ask Tim McGarry what he meant with his comment:
It seems to me that he’s worried that if we criticize the killing of dissidents protesting a phony election, we will somehow be Doing Bad. I don’t see it that way.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:06 amActually, Machinist, no. It is much simpler than that. Where is the tipping point, or how far do the scales have to tip before we call evil evil?
JD (9df895) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:06 amEvil = evil.
There. I said it again.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:16 amI don’t know about JD, but on the other thread I remarked that President Obama already made a speech in the Middle East to the Middle East where he said this about democracy.
My point was that we cannot un-ring that bell. We have already issued a statement about democracy, and more specifically, our recognition that the political leadership must rule by consent and not by force.
To pretend that at this point our statements will negatively affect anything is contradictory as we have already laid out our policy. Remaining silent at this point only serves to undermine the previous message. We simply appear afraid to reiterate that which we have already asserted.
As for tipping points – there is a point whereby the populace understands that it is more powerful than the leadership. It is very hard to remove that knowledge, and most attempting to repress it are forced into self-destructive and unsustainable practices.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:17 amPatterico – Evil = Evil = Evil = Evil = Evil
Evil’s Sprint “pick 5” choices.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:21 amWhat will it take before Teh One will condemn the slaughter of people in Iran who are fighting for their democracy/freedom/liberty in terms even remotely equivalent to the terms he used to describe the murder of Dr. Tiller, or the von Brunn shooting?
So, Machinist, I guess my position was a bit more layered than my terse answer above let on. I am curious as to why the outrage can be turned up a notch for the sake of politics, but not to condemn the murder of Pvt. Long, because it might get in the way of his Middle East trip, were he to denounce a Muslim. I am curious as to why he used stronger language to condemn some (for political purposes) but cannot bring himself to call what is going on in Iran wrong, wrong, wrong. Frankly, we can recover from his escapes in domestic policy, but this strikes me as one of those moments that you will look back on in history, and I hope that we do not have to look back and say “I wonder what would have happened if President Obama had any principles”.
JD (9df895) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:23 amJD – Damn you, damn you to hell.
Charlton?
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:27 amFrankly, we can recover from his escapes in domestic policy . . .
Mmmm . . . not so easily.
But I understand what you’re saying.
This moment in Iran, is a signal moment.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:28 amSee, Apogee. You managed to say what I was thinking, but without that edge that I always seem to have.
JD (9df895) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:29 amSee, Apogee. You managed to say what I was thinking, but without that edge that I always seem to have.
Fuck you and your edge.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:31 amJD – You were thinking about Charlton Heston?
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:31 am#58 Patterico,
“It seems to me that he’s worried that if we criticize the killing of dissidents protesting a phony election, we will somehow be Doing Bad. I don’t see it that way.”
I agree with you Sir, and I feel we should condemn this action. I do not agree with your interpretation of his remark. I think he was speaking in a more general sense, though I would not presume to speak for him. He asked earlier, perhaps on another thread, if our expressing open support for the opposition candidate might hurt them politically. I took his #18 comment to be in this same vein. Like having David Duke or Castro endorse your candidacy, it may do more harm than good. I agree one should consider this but I feel that it is entirely appropriate to condemn the violence by the government. These are two different issues.
To be honest I wish a very much stronger position had been taken earlier and on a different rational, but given the weak leadership in place now we should choose our words carefully. I do not want us to promise support and then stab these people in the back like we did to South Vietnam. Unfortunately, Democrats are known for this.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:32 amCool. That got past moderation. I must have privileges to be profane on my own blog. Awesome.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:33 amYou are right, Patterico, it will not be easy to undo some of the stuff. Government does not go away, you can only hope to control the rate of growth 😉
Maybe their lack of action as action position with shed light on the fact that POTUS and TOTUS can sound all soaring with their rhetoric, but absent the willingness or spine to follow up, it is quite hollow.
JD (9df895) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:35 amJD – You without your edge would be like TV News without news babes.
Like an Eastwood movie without guns.
Like Bonneville without rocket cars.
Help me out here, Mr. P.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:37 amHow about changing the title banner background to green? See, for example, Instapundit.
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:38 amOur host just cussed at me 😉 I am so proud. That is almost as cool as my daughter walking for the first time right across a golf green this weekend.
Machinist – With a wife born in South Vietnam, and an Iranian Aunt that lives in Tehran, my family knows that all too well.
JD (9df895) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:42 amI must have privileges to be profane on my own blog. Awesome.
With great power comes great responsibility.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:43 amLike Tiger Woods without Elin.
JD (9df895) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:43 amLike Michael Jordan without his tongue hanging out.
Like Teh One without TOTUS.
How about changing the title banner background to green? See, for example, Instapundit.
I would if I could figure out how. I wore this whole green get-up today . . .
Patterico (cc3b34) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:43 amJD, that became quite a sweeping question and I am not sure how to answer it myself because I am still not sure what you are asking.
I think it is past time to condemn the violence by the government. As far as backing this particular candidate I would say caution and reflection are prudent.
Do you just want a statement made and holes poked in the air with fingers, or are you talking about action as the leader of the free world? The sad reality is that with the current leadership in the Whitehouse and the legislature, any commitment of support or help could not be trusted or counted on. Is it more honorable to admit or lack of national character and keep a low profile or make noble promises and then fail to honor them or even stab our allies in the back?
Machinist (c5fc28) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:43 amJD – an Iranian Aunt that lives in Tehran
Is she OK? And do you get any communications from her?
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:44 am“With great power comes great responsibility.”
Spoilsport!
Machinist (c5fc28) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:45 amWith a wife born in South Vietnam, and an Iranian Aunt that lives in Tehran, my family knows that all too well.
It doesn’t get much more pro-American than that. And I am being totally serious.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:45 amJD – Like Teh One without TOTUS.
I wasn’t implying you’d be useless, just less interesting.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:46 amApparently it’s not just you, Mr. P.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:47 amI wore this whole green get-up today . . .
didja get any ‘lucky charms’ comments? Plenty ‘O Irish in the building, I would expect.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:51 amApogee – We are assuming she is okay, but have not been able to contact her. We have no reason to suspect that anything has happened to her. She is actually my Aunt’s mother, I mis-typed, and is older, so I doubt she has been out amongst the rabble rousers 😉
Machinist – At a crucial point in history, wouldn’t it be nice to have something other than those choices?
JD (9df895) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:52 amdidja get any ‘lucky charms’ comments? Plenty ‘O Irish in the building, I would expect.
No, nobody seemed to notice. I would have been happy to explain . . .
Patterico (cc3b34) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:52 amActually, you can shrink government. You must starve it, cut off the money. It is the unlimited money that causes the growth of government and corruption.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:53 amNight all.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:53 am#85 JD,
From your lips……
Yes it would. There have been a few times that we have had the right leaders in place and we still benefit, but the shelves are terribly barren right now.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:56 amGood night, Patterico. It has been nice to see you here in real time, Sir.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:57 amMachinist – Agreed, though we all know what happens when you even cut the rate of growth of a program. RethugliKKKans want to starve school children.
Our family get togethers can be fascinating. The stories about getting in helicoptered off the roof of the American Embasssy, or smuggled out of Iran are amazing, though that word does not really do them justice.
JD (9df895) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:58 amJD – I hope she’s ok, and any info you get please let everyone know.
Luckily, we have a President who would never utter such rash comments as “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!”
Didn’t that prolong the cold war another 25 years?
Sheesh.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 1:01 amI can only imagine, JD. That is indeed a rich heritage.
As to cutting off the money it would take a scaled up version of the Prop 13 fight in California. Unfortunately, that would take many more responsible and thinking voters than I have seen evidence of. Also, even if those measures were voted in I am sure some judge would declare it unconstitutional to limit the scope and size of government and impose a tax by judicial fiat.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 6/16/2009 @ 1:05 amMachinist – As to cutting off the money
That’s happening right now as we speak. Revenue depends on the economy, and this one’s much lower than they thought it would be at this time. They may print more money, but they won’t collect more.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 1:14 amHere is a random thought bouncing around … given their track record, might it not be better that Barcky does nothing as opposed to something. So far, doing nothing would have been a better alternative for so many things.
Machinist – Yes, we are blessed.
JD (9df895) — 6/16/2009 @ 1:18 amAlright, Teh One was able to use stronger language in speaking to the AMA today than his being “deeply troubled” about Iran.
JD (9df895) — 6/16/2009 @ 1:24 amApogee,
To adults a slower economy means less money but as we have seen, our current politicians consider the ability to charge their spending to future generations as being the same as revenue.
These lowlifes crashed our economy with their looting of Fanny and Freddie but the money they stole is still theirs and the voters rewarded them with reelection and more power.
We must restrict their money and allow no borrowing. The income tax has been one of the worse things to happen to this country.
Machinist (c5fc28) — 6/16/2009 @ 1:29 amJD – might it not be better that Barcky does nothing as opposed to something.
That’s a distinct possibility, but my point has been since this election fiasco started (Iran’s election) is that the PR image of Barack Obama as President is that he is a great orator, and can effect change with his leadership where others cannot. Obama was not sold to the electorate by the idea that he can do what others do, the electorate was pitched the idea that he can do what no other can do.
The silence and inability to do that which we are told he is exceptional at doing – that is, motivate others and inspire them to the proper course of action – contradicts his election sales pitch.
He is remaining silent. That is not action, and it is not inspirational. He has already given a speech to the people of the Middle East – he simply needs to reiterate it.
But he isn’t even voting ‘present’.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 1:38 amMachinist – We must restrict their money and allow no borrowing.
The rest of the world will do that for us, eventually.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 1:39 amApogee – I can find no flaw with that comment.
Gentlemen – Good night. Ambien works.
JD (9df895) — 6/16/2009 @ 1:50 amI will leave you with this parting idea … maybe we should dispatch Joe Biden to attempt to negotiate with all of the parties to bring a resolution to all of this.
JD (9df895) — 6/16/2009 @ 1:53 am#24.- Dana, if memory serves, Merkel has fair percentage of citizens in Germany who practice Islam. It’s quite possible the U.S. encouraged Germany to comment in lieu of a more overt statement directly from Washington as the U.S. has more recent ‘history’ with Iran and any comment on internal matters would simply divert attention. Actually, the United States does have a sense of how nations, Iran included, object to meddling from the West on their affairs, be it comment on commerce, conflict or internal politics. And Iranians are aware of America’s position on the status of the regime. Be patient. It took decades to reach this point. A few more days or weeks are worth the wait if change is to topple forth. The Iranian government is clearly unsteady and events may move favorably. Or they may not. It is up to the Iranian people to fan these embers into a flame, or let it flame out. But the fact they have been unable to quash dissent by now should tell you a lot.
Regardless, the rest of the region with similar regimes and motives are watching this unfold with unease. This kind of ‘revolution’ is catchy. Recall how the Eastern bloc began to unravel to the Soviet border.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/16/2009 @ 2:04 amJD,
Machinist (c5fc28) — 6/16/2009 @ 2:25 amIsn’t there a saying about having the world think your leaders are fools and having Joe Biden confirm it?
After the Iraqis rebelled after the first Gulf War we waited to let them land and the results were not good, for them or for our honor or reputation.
How many times did Soviet client states try to liberalize and get crushed before Reagan broke the back of the Soviet Union?
Machinist (c5fc28) — 6/16/2009 @ 2:34 am#38- Seems that way, doesn’t it. Thanks for reminding me I’m aging. Funny, we never considered Thatcher leaving Finchley as ‘historic’ when Heath beat Wilson. More a relief when she left town. The Beatles breaking up seems a more memorable event. But then, we were all pleased to leave Finchley eventually. Play these numbers: 01202009. President Obama’s Inaugration Day.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/16/2009 @ 2:39 am#60- Evil = evil.
There. I said it again. I can appreciate you perspective, Patrick. My late grandmother and grandfather steadfastly refused to own any appliance, automoble or product ‘Made In Japan’ after December, 1941. That was their evil = evil. And their boycott was unwavering. Got to be a difficult find for them in the 60s, 70s and 80s.
The West could try not buying/using/transporting/pipelining/profiting from any Iranian oil. No subsidizing evil at all. Evil = evil. Unfortunately, diplomacy isn’t always black and white… or green. And the U.S. rejected cowboy diplomacy last November.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/16/2009 @ 2:56 am#98- He is remaining silent. That is not action, and it is not inspirational. He has already given a speech to the people of the Middle East – he simply needs to reiterate it.
No he doesn’t. They heard him the first time, before the election. Loud and clear.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/16/2009 @ 3:00 am“I wore green at work today but didn’t see too many others doing s”
Why reading your post its almost as if you wore green instead of finding links to what Obama said.
imdw (d533ba) — 6/16/2009 @ 4:39 amWhile Obama is putting more pressure to bring down Netanyahu’s government than Dinnerjacket’s, DCSCA is here making up stuff out of whole cloth to claim that Obama might be responsible for Merkel’s comment. Taking credit for someone else having the simple decency to say something is the kind of BS I expect from Obama and Obama supporters.
Once again, DCSCA beclowns himself.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/16/2009 @ 5:25 amWe don’t buy Iranian oil, Europe does, Germany does in particular, so it’s good that Merkel made her statement, then again she’s from East Germany
narciso (4e0dda) — 6/16/2009 @ 5:31 amso she understands about living under oppression. Like the point I’ve made on other blogs, I don’t much care for Mir Hussein Mousavi, but the people who risked their lives to exercise their rights, who are now taking their lives in their own hands.
We chose not to intervene on behalf of the Marsh Arabs in 1991; Three Kings shows the failure of that, the cool reception we received in 2003, and their partial shift of allegiances to Iran, was the longterm consequences. Saddam was not taken out in 1991, ironically this helped the Wahhabi virus in AQ metastisize into the atrocity that was 9/11. A JFK, with his ‘jelly donut’ remark, would have made a more forceful statement, but we don’t much of that in either the Donks or the Grand Ole Party, except for a woman with a ‘servant’s heart, who is dodging the gnats like Letterman and Maher, Yes we ‘dodged a bullet indeed alright
As for imdw’s snark, finding Obama’s statement seems to actually lead to feelings of disgust with Obama.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/16/2009 @ 5:36 am“I think that the democratic process — free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all those are universal values and need to be respected.”
Disgusting huh?
imdw (6eb217) — 6/16/2009 @ 5:43 amSo imdw does not even bother to click on links, while snarking about others not searching for statements.
Ah, nothing like the smell of hypocrisy in the morning.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/16/2009 @ 5:47 amAw give Obama a break. The teleprompter was broken.
Ellis Wyatt (03a310) — 6/16/2009 @ 5:51 amRalph Peters argues here that the transparent stealing of the election – not even bothering to pretend to actually counting votes – comes from Iran’s conclusion that Obama is weak.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/16/2009 @ 5:55 amyou know i got that from the link. you couldn’t tell?
imdw (5f867f) — 6/16/2009 @ 6:01 amwe never considered Thatcher leaving Finchley as ‘historic’ when Heath beat Wilson. More a relief when she left town.
The trolls seem to be more active after dark. I wonder if that is significant ? Maybe it’s that time machine DCS seems to inhabit.
I do worry about Patterico’s case today if he’s up that late. Patrick you need your sleep unless today is one of those mandatory days off to help Arnold.
Mike K (2cf494) — 6/16/2009 @ 6:03 amNice try, imdw, but you were not quoting Lindgren. Your hypocrisy and snark are noted.
Meanwhile, Ralph Peters has Obama’s number. From his piece:
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/16/2009 @ 6:04 amI can see this scenario now…
Obama to Ahmadinejihad: Did you know that I am the 12th imam that you seek?
Ahmadinejihad to the IRGC: Off with his head!
either orr (6c9faf) — 6/16/2009 @ 6:23 amMr. “I’minadinnerjacket” is only ham handedly aping Obama, ACORN, and the New Black Panthers.
PCD (02f8c1) — 6/16/2009 @ 6:27 amAnd don’t miss the latest on the Drudge Report …
ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
ABC will have no opposing voices when they give Obama a day long infomercial on Obama care .. for free.
Neo (46a1a2) — 6/16/2009 @ 6:49 amCan you distinguish between “don’t think the U.S. supports” and “don’t believe the U.S. will lift a finger to oppose”?
Sure. We talking Delta Force? Naval blockade?
The same crowd that ridicules “Teh One” for insinuating himself into distant cultures with messianic zeal now demands that he be more than “deeply troubled” by still-unfolding events. He’s either an intruding, all-things-to-all-people proselyte or some trembling dilettante.
steve (bacfa4) — 6/16/2009 @ 7:03 amNo, all he needs to do is grow a pair and actually made a definitive statement of support for the protesters and just once in his political life make a stand that’s not nuanced and neutered beyond all comprehension. Why is that so hard for Obama’s cultists to understand?
JD, I don’t think the “tipping point” concept has much application here
Apparently the tipping point for many of the cultists is when hundreds of thousdands lie dead in the streets of Tehran – and at that time, Obama will courageously word a statement of preconditional talks between Imanutjob and the mullahs. He’s supposed to be the POTUS, not the Prime Minister of Sweden.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/16/2009 @ 7:52 amthere is a point whereby the populace understands that it is more powerful than the leadership
with any luck, Iran got there today.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 6/16/2009 @ 8:14 amI’m confused as to why some commenters seem to feel that even a carefully measured yet firm statement of support would cause the sky to fall? Making such a statement is not intervening in a battle that is between Iran’s citizenry and those in power.
Again, from Michael Leeden,
He probably thinks he’s in a bind (he isn’t, actually). He probably thinks that if he condemns the violence, and the regime wins, that will lessen his chances to strike the Grand Bargain he so avidly desires. Somebody might remind him that Ronald Reagan was unstinting in his criticism of the Soviet Union (”The Evil Empire”), but negotiated no end of bargains with them, including quite dramatic arms reductions.
It’s always better to assert American values, both because he’s our president and he should be speaking for all of us, and because catering to the tender sensibilities of the murders in Iran won’t gain anything. It will only increase their contempt.
Dana (be9504) — 6/16/2009 @ 8:24 amFrom this mornng’s WSJ:
The council is closely allied with Iran’s ruling cleric, who on Monday ordered an investigation into allegations of fraud in the presidential election. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s call hedged his strong backing of the result of Friday’s vote. It appeared to be in response to the violent protests, and suggested growing unease among the clerics who sit atop Iran’s complex power structure.
In the past few days, a number of senior clerics have met with Mr. Khamenei or written to him, urging him to intervene, according to a series of public letters from the clerics. One grand ayatollah, one of the highest-ranking clerics, issued a religious order demanding his followers not cooperate with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s government.
Will this process tip in favor or against the crowds in the streets? Could too much or too strong talk from U.S. officials return the upper hand to Khamenei and Ahmadinejad? Chest-beating and misplaced comparisons to Munich aside, these are genuine concerns U.S. policymakers have to take into account.
When is the populace more powerful than the leadership? When the leadership loses control of the instruments of repression — in particular, the armed forces.
This didn’t happen in China 20 years ago, tragically, and democracy was defeated, something outsiders were powerless to prevent.
The best chance in Tehran is an alignment between the streets and a critical mass within the ruling elite. That certainly requires the U.S. president to chose his words with care.
Tim McGarry (9fe080) — 6/16/2009 @ 8:27 amWe should all be reading Michael Ledeen’s blog for updates. I think the turning point, if it comes, will be the older members of the Revolutionary Guard joining the students. There are reports of that happening. That is how a revolution wins.
The role Obama could play is to speak for everyone about the ugly scenes in Tehran but he still hopes to deal with the regime of Ahmadinejad after the the “unpleasantness” is over. One of the few legitimate grievances in the Muslim world about us is the tendency of America to support dictators. Here we have an opportunity to speak for freedom and Obama prefers to “keep his options open.” He is indecisive at best and narcissistic at worst. It’s all about him.
If the mullahs win, they will disdain him. If the students win, he will have chosen the wrong side.
Mike K (2cf494) — 6/16/2009 @ 8:35 amFor those not seeming to understand the difference, here’s a text of Reagan’s speech during the Solidarity crisis in Poland – similar dynamics on the ground, yet no ambivalence, no equivocating, no namby – pamby (second item down):
http://www.powerlineblog.com/
If the cultists cannot see the inherent differences between that statement and Obama’s, then there exists a parallel universe of logic on their behalf.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/16/2009 @ 8:41 amMaking such a [carefully measured yet firm] statement of support is not intervening in a battle that is between Iran’s citizenry and those in power.
Ambassador Nicholas Burns, George W. Bush’s top negotiator with Iran:
Sen. Richard Lugar, endorsing the arms-length stance:
steve (9847a5) — 6/16/2009 @ 9:02 amI hate to think Obama is this stupid or hateful, but his choice of words about how America sometimes gets in the way or becomes an issue really rankled me. Sure, we have made mistakes but on the whole the world is better because of our “interference.”
No shining city on the hill for him! No credit due to the exceptionalism of our founding precepts. No. Again, we are always, always the problem.
Patricia (2183bb) — 6/16/2009 @ 9:05 amRead Reagans’ statement – it threads the line between the two extremes, but makes it quite clear that the US’s concerns are with the Iranian people, and that further bloodshed is not only unnecessary, but repellent. In no way does it interject the US into the internal machinations of Poland, but expresses our committment to democracy and to the prevention of innocents being slaughtered.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/16/2009 @ 9:39 amWho is asking him to intervene in the elections, steve? Or do you prefer to argue with positions not held? If you were a citizen fighting for your rights, how exactly, be specific, would it be a bad thing to know that the US of A is standing firmly behind you?
JD (9df895) — 6/16/2009 @ 9:44 amAphrael – with any luck, Iran got there today.
With this President, we’re going to need an abundance of luck.
Again, President Obama has already defended the necessity for any political leadership to govern with the consent of the people. Very recently, in the Middle East, addressing the people of the Middle East.
No sides, no choices, no intervention. Just the simple statement that reflects what the crowds in Tehran want and what Dinnerjacket’s party goes to great pains to fake.
He’s not saying anything because he’s covering his ass. Whatever happens, he plans on taking credit for his frightened non-action. Pathetic, just like his blind supporters.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 10:25 am#59 — Comment by JD — 6/16/2009 @ 12:06 am
Where is the tipping point, or how far do the scales have to tip before we call evil?
Although most leftists do not really understand the question — as most of them cannot even acknowledge the existence of evil — in regard to Iran, my guess is it may go back to 1979, to the start of the current regime.
–
An unbroken string of US Presidents have understood this, and have pulled a hard-line with this Iranian regime. Perhaps it is beginning to crack.
Too bad our current POTUS is scared to take a risk. If he could find the courage, our nation could possibly hasten the fall of the Revolutionary Guard regime, and maybe stop their nuclear weapons program. At the very least, it would possibly be in the hands of a regime that appears to desire a more open society and a better economy (a more rational self-interest than calling for the destruction of Israel). At worse, we are in the same boat as we are today.
President Regan and the first President Bush did not hesitate when the Soviets began to break after seven decades or so.
If President Obama could find the courage, the world could perhaps be safer and better in half the time it took to collapse the Soviets.
So far, his lack of leadership is shining-through. His apologists are already justifying his inability to go beyond the comfortable parameters of an ideologue and into the treacherous arena of national leadership.
Pons Asinorum (89208d) — 6/16/2009 @ 10:42 am#124- aphrael, they are close.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/16/2009 @ 10:54 amSunch inanity …
JD (459763) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:05 amPons – I am but a simple rube, but it strikes me as rather sad that it would be a risk or require courage to stand up for American ideals.
JD (459763) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:08 amComment by steve — 6/16/2009 @ 9:02 am
You are assuming an equivalence between a carefully measured statement and very aggressive statements by the United States that would try to put the U.S. in the center of this.
Why would you make such a silly assumption?
Dana (be9504) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:10 amWho is asking him to intervene in the elections, steve? Or do you prefer to argue with positions not held?
Lugar’s comments are from this morning, not last week.
Obama today:
steve (dd230e) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:21 amBecause Steve believes the following:
– whatever his hero says is in actuality completely the opposite of what he meant (but only if events prove his earlier assertions to be inane);
– the US is to be cowed and beholden to any who oppose it, and our ideals are completely discredited notions from bitter and clingy gun people who live in the hills;
– just because pro – democracy demonstrators are being slaughtered in the streets doesn’t mean we still cannot have negotiations with the head nutbog and his mullahs without any preconditions whatsoever. Our POTUS, after all, is from Harvard – he knows things.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:24 am“it is of concern to me”
Way to go out on a limb there, Mr. President.
JD (459763) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:29 amPressure our friends, coddle our enemies.
SPQR (72771e) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:31 amYou folks are ridiculious. This incredible cataclysm for real democracy is playing itself out in Iran and all you people care about really is ineffectually spin this as a black eye for Obama. Give me a break. Enough already with this nonsense. If anything Obama’s election and his speech in Cairo set the stage for the Iranian people’s uprising. It was his “Mr. Gorbachev tear down this wall” moment especially when he spoke of those tyrants trying to subvert democratic processes, but no you guys, most of you can’t see that, and the immensity and danger of the situation, no of course not like any bunch of narcissests the world exists only as a measurement of your pain and your agenda.
Fools, all of you. In order for what is happening in Iran to have validity around the world and to the Iranian people and have the greatest impact it must rightly be perceived as a homespun movement of the people themselves. Why would Obama, want in anyway to discredit that or give the repressive bastards, who’re being exposed hourly as repressive and bloodthirsty and uncivilized any excuse whatsoever for them to point there finger and say “See, it is the great Satan America that is causing all this to the peaceful and Ahmenijad-loving and Islam guided people of Iran.”
So once again, you people shoot yourselves in the foot with your blindness and stupidity. Great, when this is all over and hopefully it ends peacefully and the govt is toppled, the Iranian people and the American people will greet each other with open arms and you guys can keep crying into your beers and muttering bitter nonsense that made no sense six months ago and still makes no logical sense.
PettyPat_and his_PityParty (57f09d) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:31 amIs it just me, because I find Teh One’s constant us of I/me absolutely grating, fingernails on a chalkboard.
JD (459763) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:33 amI’m crying in my grapefruit Perrier, for what it’s worth.
carlitos (84409d) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:34 am#138- Dana, President Obama reiterated America’s position in his speech in Cairo before the election. Iranians know where America stands. This administration has elected to follow a wiser, more careful and reserved line of diplomacy rather than the less tactful cowboy diplomacy which was rejected by voters in November. Hardline Congressional conservatives like Eric Kantor (apologist to Limbaugh, who wants President Obama to fail) and Mike Pence have voiced similar criticisms of this approach in the media. So has Mitt Romney. Could it be they prefer cowboy diplomacy or simply want to scuttle any diplomatic success by the Obama Adminstration at the expense of Iranian reform. I wonder.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:35 amClean-up on aisle idiocy, I mean comment #143.
AsPcA is heading back to his Boss Limbaugh memes. Careful, they are about to land.
JD (459763) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:40 amPettyPat – Punting for Peace.
SPQR (72771e) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:41 amIf Obama’s Cairo speech was “tear down this wall” then my last fart was Tchaikovski’s Serenade for Strings.
That speech, like many of his other ‘first’ speeches was little more than sweeping apologia. There is simply no need to apologize for every bad thing the US has ever done every time you are in front of an audience. Especially in the Middle East, where they respect strength and not weakness.
carlitos (84409d) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:42 amRegarding Obama’s Cairo speech – according to noted right-wing hacks, the Huffington Post:
carlitos (84409d) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:49 amThe world knows where America stood under Bush, too, especially 28M free Iraqis. Still, I’m glad Obama is concerned about the Iranian protesters. I hope that, once he has more time to think it over, Obama will end up where Joe Lieberman was 2 days ago.
DRJ (180b67) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:51 amTeh One is troubled and concerned, DRJ. Give him a break. This mess that Boooooosh left him is hard.
JD (459763) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:56 amHe treaded lightly on one issue that President George W. Bush had made a centerpiece of his second term — the spread of democracy.
It’s called subtlety and diplomacy. There is no question of who he is addressing. In his own words:
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
Just because you don’t go spouting off like some half-assed moronic cowboy doesn’t mean you don’t mean what you say, I’d say it’s to the contrary and that speech was just the motivation the Iranian people needed to hope, yes hope in a real and fair and respectful response towards the people from its own government. And instead the lie that Iran represents to the world of being a peaceful nation ruled by the will of the people (derived from the Islamic Revolution of 1979), and picked on and pushed around by “the Great Satan” falls flat on it’s face as the BS that it is.
That speech was nothing short of masterful and it will go down in history. The Iranian people know and understand what was said, they don’t need to be beaten over the head with it. It is after all their democratic will, not the will of another nation or Obama. That is what it’s all about. The people of a nation speaking.
And I know you all join with me in putting aside your petty partisanship and hoping that this doesn’t turn into a massacre, but of course that would be expecting too much from a bunch of self-serving, self-absorbed losers.
PettyPat_and his_PityParty (a89c50) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:06 pmI suggest you change your name to something more attractive before you start calling us “a bunch of self-serving, self-absorbed losers.”
PS — We’re the ones who want Obama to support the freedom protesters in Iran. Having said that, did you put aside petty partisanship when it came to Iraq?
DRJ (180b67) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:10 pmOMG – Please tell me one of you is doing a parody, because that is just priceless.
JD (459763) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:12 pmWere the bold parts on the TOTUS?
SPQR (72771e) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:19 pmPettyPat, you do realize that your opinion of the Cairo speech is just that, right? When an opinion is coupled with name-calling in one’s first two posts, it doesn’t exactly encourage folks to take it seriously.
carlitos (84409d) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:21 pmcarlitos – I thought that might be you or Dmac doing a parody. Please, Allah, if that is a real person, use your power to protect that person.
JD (459763) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:28 pmAnd when the mullahs do their version of Tiananmen Square, it will also be the fault of all the wingnuts who just did not have faith in Duh One.
nk (84aad8) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:29 pmI think that while Obama would like some glory in foreign affairs, his main agenda lies here at home.
If he accomplishes what he wants to here, we won’t be in any position to interfere in foreign affairs.
He is playing to his base for time to transform the US. His base is buying it, mostly, though some are waking up.
Once we embody all these fabulous ideals, the US position in international politics will be like the large gossipy middle-aged aunt at family reunions, so dependably sympathizing and hand-wringing over family issues, but unfortunately in no position to do anything practical about anything. But feeling very good about the feelings.
jodetoad (617c49) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:39 pmI was trying not to lash out at the babbling idiots, so I will attempt to disengage my normal “edge” and note that the Leftists like the parody above worship Teh One because he speaks their language. Lots of beautiful and flowery language that means absolutely nothing. They equate words with actually doing something. Those words spoken in Cairo are hollow, empty, and meaningless unless those ideals are propped up by what we do.
JD (459763) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:43 pmPettyPartisan is just that, and it needs to read this comment of mine from yesterday. – although reading obviously isn’t it’s strong suit, along with logic, as it fails to recognize how President Obama contradicts his own points in that part of the speech.
It stumped the partisan apologists for awhile, and then they decided to run with it without checking the potholes in front of them.
What these blind sycophants would like you to believe is that the Iranian people heard Obama’s words and were inspired – a la Reagan (who didn’t become ‘quiet’), but now, less than a month later, we’re to believe that these very same Iranians will fold if the very same person who inspired them and gave them ‘hope’ reasserts his original point about the necessity of the consent of the people for governments to have legitimacy. The Iranian people recognize his point, but he’d better be quiet or they’ll be fooled into not recognizing his point! Is this about the will of the people or not? The partisans don’t know. All they know is that they support Obama.
Such callow, biased and blatantly blind support for their politician. JD is correct – these ‘random’ supporters become increasingly frenzied the in direct proportion to the amount of weakness exposed by their party.
They simply write, over and over, “what ever President Obama does is the right thing, and I’ll twist my mind around trying to sell that to everyone.” And yet, they probably never attempt to examine if they are better off for their support. They really seem to be effectively brain dead with dishonesty.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:48 pmParaphrasing Carl Jung –You are what you do, not what you say you’ll do.
carlitos (84409d) — 6/16/2009 @ 12:48 pmApogee – That would be JD’s First Rule of Trolls. It has never been proven wrong.
JD (459763) — 6/16/2009 @ 1:21 pmYou are what you do, not what you say you’ll do.
And sometimes the best thing to do is shut the hell up and let something play itself out without meddling or playing politics with other people’s lives as the Right is so desperately attempting to do by turning this into some imagined failing of Obama. Pfft..puh-lease.
Even one of your fave Right commentators, Pat Buchanan understands this:
When your adversary is making a fool of himself, get out of the way. That is a rule of politics Lyndon Johnson once put into the most pungent of terms. U.S. fulminations will change nothing in Tehran. But they would enable the regime to divert attention to U.S. meddling in Iran’s affairs and portray the candidate robbed in this election, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, as a poodle of the Americans.
And with that, I will get out of the way and let you folks continue…
PettyPat_and his_PityParty (a89c50) — 6/16/2009 @ 1:35 pmDuckCrap has a new identity.
AD - RtR/OS! (b363ba) — 6/16/2009 @ 1:51 pmAgain, they simply write, over and over, “what ever President Obama does is the right thing, and I’ll twist my mind around trying to sell that to everyone.”
Shutting the hell up is playing politics with other people’s lives, especially when you’re already on record supporting the very struggle that’s not playing out. If the Iranian situation is so delicate, then he should have excised the passages regarding nukes and democracy in his previous speech.
He’s inspired them! But he can’t talk now, or they’ll be fooled! A partisan conundrum.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 2:03 pm…the very struggle that’s now playing out.
Apogee (e2dc9b) — 6/16/2009 @ 2:04 pmGreat, now Pat Freaking Buchanan speaks for me. Patty, the comment at 12:21 will be the last response you merit from me for a while. Don’t let the door hit ya…
carlitos (84409d) — 6/16/2009 @ 2:08 pm“Pressure our friends, coddle our enemies.”
Yup.
We demand that our longstanding friends and de facto allies in Israel not build houses in the West Bank (God forbid that Jews should live on “Muslim land”), but we make no demands on our longstanding enemies in Iran, even when they’re shooting people down in the streets.
That’s our foreign policy.
Obama is a total fool.
Dave Surls (bfda6b) — 6/16/2009 @ 2:22 pmThe world knows where America stood under Bush, too, especially 28M free Iraqis.
Well, it only took four years for him to realize his post-invasion military strategy wasn’t effective. After Republicans lost control of Congress.
I think his Iran policy was made inert by Ahmadinejad calculating there was little chance a stretched U.S. military had realistic options to prosecute a ground offensive – much less control the long Iran-Iraq border.
Bush had nothing to bluff with at a time the Iraq invasion/occupation was political Viagra for Iran’s hardliners. Does Obama have any more leverage? Too early to say. But proclaiming “the world knows where America stood under Bush” is not much of a take-away.
steve (863e63) — 6/16/2009 @ 3:27 pmIran is archetypal 21st century conflict: Troops firing guns confront students firing tweets.
steve (863e63) — 6/16/2009 @ 3:39 pmOur little country’s cowardly cowardly president what can’t speak up for young Iranians dying for freedom.
He shames us all.
happyfeet (2d133f) — 6/16/2009 @ 6:03 pm“If you were a citizen fighting for your rights, how exactly, be specific, would it be a bad thing to know that the US of A is standing firmly behind you?”
Because you’re not necessarily on the side of the US of A. Do you know who’s in moussavi’s coalition?
imdw (9cc8cc) — 6/16/2009 @ 7:07 pmGood Allah. Can you little pr*cks ever be anything other than pompous, preening, and arrogant?
JD (aaf9e7) — 6/16/2009 @ 7:17 pmThe world knows where America stood under Bush, too, especially 28M free Iraqis.
Well, it only took four years for him to realize the post-invasion military strategy wasn’t effective. After Republicans lost control of Congress.
Our Iran containment policy was made inert by Ahmadinejad calculating there was little chance a stretched U.S. military had realistic options to sustain a ground operation – much less control the long Iran-Iraq border.
Bush had few cards to play at a time the Iraq invasion/occupation was political Viagra for Iran’s hardliners. Obama may not have any more leverage. But proclaiming “the world knows where America stood under Bush” is not much of a take-away.
steve (201bfc) — 6/16/2009 @ 8:59 pmIndeed, Obama didn’t say anything to give the Iranians an excuse to blame the U.S. … and yet they are blaming us anyway:
DRJ (180b67) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:21 pmSince Obama is so timid about ruffling feathers in Iran, he should extend that stance to Israel/Palestine and keep his big yap shut regarding an age-old problem. After all, the situation between those two societies also is, and has been, fraught with a ton of tension and past armed conflict, with potential for a lot more.
Barry talks out of both sides of his mouth.
Why he’s charge of the White House (and, consequently, the US) instead of some rinky-dink mayor’s office of a two-bit city in, say, the Midwest — eg, Detroit or St Louis — is beyond me.
Mark (411533) — 6/16/2009 @ 11:38 pmwas political Viagra for Iran’s hardliners. Does Obama have any more leverage?
Project much, Steve?
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/17/2009 @ 7:03 am#137 — Comment by JD — 6/16/2009 @ 11:08 am
Pons – I am but a simple rube, but it strikes me as rather sad that it would be a risk or require courage to stand up for American ideals.
You’re right (about the courage/risk thing, not the simple rube thing 😉 ).
#144 — Comment by JD — 6/16/2009 @ 11:33 am
Is it just me, because I find Teh One’s constant us of I/me absolutely grating, fingernails on a chalkboard.
No, I’ve noticed it as well. Glaring, was the second half of his speech at the tomb of the Unknown Soldier.
He has always done this. It is is increasingly difficult to stomach him. He has accomplished nothing (aside from his broken pledges of transparency, honesty, and bipartisanship as well as putting together a crappy cabinet).
He shows no understanding of the greatness of this Country. It is not in him.
Pons Asinorum (89208d) — 6/17/2009 @ 1:33 pmI would love to see a comparison of the number of times Teh One has used I/me in comparison to either Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc … I would almost be willing to bet that Teh One’s usage dwarfs the others.
JD (dab43d) — 6/17/2009 @ 5:29 pmMaybe the reaosn why Obama isn’t flapping his mouth like many want him to, is because he’s smart enough to have learned from Bush’s mistake.
Time and time again as soon as Bush would open his big mouth to talk about promoting democracy, regimes over-seas would tell their people “See? These Americans are interfering”. “See? These protesters are just agents of America”, “See? The Americans wants to ruin our nation like they did Iraq”, etc….
Nothing is funnier than the idiot right-wingers who somehow think that because these protesters don’t like Ahmadinejad, that somehow they love the American government and Israel and would happily go back to being their lackeys.
Dar (964f54) — 6/17/2009 @ 5:36 pmIs it just me, because I find Teh One’s constant us of I/me absolutely grating, fingernails on a chalkboard.
Comment by JD — 6/16/2009 @ 11:33 am
Ah, so you’re one of those people who prefers to have his politicians constantly kiss his derriere with empty talk about “We the people” and “the proud people of America”, etc….?
It’s rather amusing how people want their President to be a a proud,noble leader, yet also a mindless kiss-ass who’ll follow their orders blindly.
Dar (964f54) — 6/17/2009 @ 5:41 pmDar – Nice try. We have been told that Teh One’s reading of TOTUS in Cairo was historic, and led to this revolution. Now, Teh One is concerned and troubled? We either stand for freedom and liberty or we do not. Apparently you did not see where they blamed The Great Satan for interfering in their elections despite the fact that Teh One has gone to great lengths to avoid doing so. Problem is, for you, those protestors are not agents of America. They are people, who want their freedom and democracy. Problem is, for you, is that we did not ruin Iraq, no matter how many times you say so. Who here said that the protestors love America or Israel, or are you arguing with voices in your head?
Surely, there are better trolls out there.
JD (dab43d) — 6/17/2009 @ 5:42 pmGo f#ck yourself, Dar. I like my Presidents to not think that they are bigger than the country. If you want a dictatorship, there are plenty of places that you could find one. Again, it is a problem for you, that trite hackneyed phrases like we the people embody the spirit of our country.
JD (dab43d) — 6/17/2009 @ 5:45 pmWanting a President to be a proud and noble leader is a bad thing ?!
JD (dab43d) — 6/17/2009 @ 5:55 pm#
Dar – Nice try. We have been told that Teh One’s reading of TOTUS in Cairo…head?
Comment by JD — 6/17/2009 @ 5:42 pm
So diplomacy and being smart, to you, means mouthing off about every event in the world?
Besides, I don’t remember Bush,or any other President, saying much about the 99% victories of Egypt’s Mubarak.
They say nothing because they don’t want to lose an ally. Fine. Fair enough.
But the same “cold logic” should be applied to Iran as well.
—-
#
Go f#ck yourself, Dar. I like my Presidents to not think that they are bigger than the country. If you want a dictatorship, there are plenty of places that you could find one. Again, it is a problem for you, that trite hackneyed phrases like we the people embody the spirit of our country.
Comment by JD — 6/17/2009 @ 5:45 pm
So you DO prefer shallow specious phrases simply because they make YOU feel better.
Since when does is the President some living embodiment or personification of the totality of the American nation? He’s just a mortal like you and I who gets his position for 4/8 years, then goes home.
Dar (964f54) — 6/17/2009 @ 5:57 pmWhere did I ask our President to mouth off? Where? Or, in your world, is standing us for freedom and democracy mouthing off? Why are ideals like “by the people” specious?
Anyway, sorry to respond to the troll, friends. This one was/is vile.
I like my Presidents to be humble, servants of the people, not in service to oneself, like Teh One. It is fine if you prefer a President that considers himself greater than the country as a whole. We just live in different worlds. I don’t particularly care for yours.
JD (dab43d) — 6/17/2009 @ 6:11 pmComment by JD — 6/17/2009
Anyway, sorry to respond to the troll, friends. This one was/is vile.
And I’m sorry that you’re so intellectually weak and so unsure of your own beliefs, that anyone who challenges them is a “troll”.
Yup, I can see why you’d be more comfortable with kiss-ass politicians.
Dar (964f54) — 6/17/2009 @ 6:16 pmNo, anyone who challenges me is not a troll. Anyone who distorts, lies, misrepresents, and does not argue in good faith is.
JD (dab43d) — 6/17/2009 @ 6:18 pmWhy can’t we just let Obama eat his waffle?
nk (e186cd) — 6/17/2009 @ 6:18 pmWhy does one not liking our President using I/me instead of we/our make that person like “kiss-ass politicians”? That is an incredible leap in (il)logic. Plus, the only kiss-ass President I can recall is Teh One, and I am no fan of his.
JD (dab43d) — 6/17/2009 @ 6:20 pmComment by JD
No, anyone who challenges me is not a troll. Anyone who distorts, lies, misrepresents, and does not argue in good faith is.
I tell you what, why don’t you show me where I “lied” and “misrepresented” and “distorted”.
It is a fact that Bush’s talks about “spreading democracy” has been used by less-than-democratic governments s propogranda.
And thus, Obama is wise to not repeat the mistake.
Why does one not liking our President using I/me instead of we/our make that person like “kiss-ass politicians”?
Because he’s not “us”, he’s not me and he’s not you. Do you agree with everything he thinks, says, and does? If so, then yes, it would make sense for him to talk to “us” and “we”.
When Obama talks about keeping abortion legal, is he talking for you and I? I don’t know about you, but he’s talking for me. Let him say “I/me”.
Dar (964f54) — 6/17/2009 @ 6:28 pm(Meant he’s NOT talking for me, on abortion)
Dar (964f54) — 6/17/2009 @ 6:29 pmI will skip all of those, because you just skipped right over those and went straight to the name calling and attributing positions to me that I do not hold, ie. not good faith. Every comment since has confirmed my first impression.
Obaba was hailed for reading a historic speech in Cairo by the Left where he talked of the importance of free elections and democracy, in case you missed that. Many claim that his speech gave rise to this revolution, though I am certainly not one of those.
He speaks for our country. If you do not understand that, I am sorry for you.
JD (dab43d) — 6/17/2009 @ 6:35 pmFrom the Meddling in Iran thread …
JD (dab43d) — 6/17/2009 @ 6:36 pmDCSCA is right. Not only from the standpoint of the Founding Fathers, who were adamant about not becoming involved in foreign entanglements, not only because we’ve been meddling in that part of the world for the better part of 50 years and haven’t made it better yet, but also from the pragmatic standpoint of maybe if we stay out of it, they will use their nukes to blow themselves up and save the rest of the world the trouble.
DCSCA=right (ae643a) — 6/20/2009 @ 8:08 pm“…if we stay out of it, they will use their nukes to blow themselves up and save the rest of the world the trouble.”
What happened to the concept that…”one nuclear explosion can ruin your whole day”?
Now the Left wants people to use nuclear devices?
Are you mad, Sir?
AD - RtR/OS! (46d66c) — 6/20/2009 @ 8:56 pm#197- For the record, I didn’t post that. I do not advocate the use of nuclear weapons. Too messy.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/20/2009 @ 9:37 pm#167- Shutting the hell up is playing politics with other people’s lives, especially when you’re already on record supporting the very struggle that’s not playing out. Yes. Smart politics. Wise diplomacy. Not conservative politics and cowboy diplomacy, both of which voters rejected last November.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/20/2009 @ 9:42 pm