Obama Casts Doubt on Direct Diplomacy with Iran
[Guest post by DRJ]
The AP reports Barack Obama “scoffed” at Ahmadinejad’s demand today that the U.S. apologize for meddling in Iran and characterized Obama’s response as an “unusually personal war of words.” Not only did Obama criticize Ahmadinejad for his government’s violence against protesters, he also backed away from his prior willingness to meet with leaders of the Iranian regime:
“Obama also said for the first time that his offer to loosen the decades-old U.S. diplomatic freeze with Iran through direct talks is now in question.
“There is no doubt that any direct dialogue or diplomacy with Iran is going to be affected by the events of the last several weeks,” Obama said, without elaborating.”
This is not the Iran Obama thought he knew.
— DRJ
Can anyone find a campaign statement by Obama that Obama has not yet contradicted?
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/26/2009 @ 8:27 pmthat’ll show em
happyfeet (e8d590) — 6/26/2009 @ 8:27 pmWow – a sternly worded scoff.
Walter Cronanty (7f2f64) — 6/26/2009 @ 8:27 pmdon’t make Barack be openin a can of status quo on you ass
happyfeet (e8d590) — 6/26/2009 @ 8:28 pmYeah, I bet they’re shakin’ in their sandals.
If they keep this up, no barbecue invite next year.
Pons Asinorum (d1c25d) — 6/26/2009 @ 8:32 pm#4 — LOL
Thank you!
Pons Asinorum (d1c25d) — 6/26/2009 @ 8:32 pmReichert is WA-8.
Time for a Republican to run for office in his district this next primary.
steve miller (2bbae9) — 6/26/2009 @ 8:39 pmwrong thread. Sorry guys
steve miller (2bbae9) — 6/26/2009 @ 8:40 pmA well played card, played skillfully and gracefully. This has nothing to do with the fact that he looked like a naïve and scared poofter the last couple weeks.
JD (ed16bb) — 6/26/2009 @ 8:41 pmNext we’ll have The One™ come out and admit that raising taxes and socializing the economy WON’T solve any problems.
steve miller (2bbae9) — 6/26/2009 @ 8:42 pmI guess the fact that Iran already had preconditions before it would meet with Obama had nothing to do with this?
They won’t meet with me, so I won’t meet with you either!!! Seems like the hot dog fight part 2.
They forced Neda’s father to claim on TV that it was the anti-Ahmedinijad protesters who shot his daughter and not some Basij thug on a bike as hundreds (including the father) claim they saw.
Imagine, they take your little girl in front of you, and then torture you and threaten to kill your family, perhaps rape a few of your loved ones (Iran has used rape before, for example to a Canadian reporter in 2006) until you are willing to lie about who murdered your daughter.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzViMjQ0NDUxODhhYzRkYjRiMjQ3ZTk2ZjFiODJlMDU=
That is so far below human. I really want to beg democrats to put aside our differences on cap and trade and the stimulus and urge Obama to supply weapons and angry language to create a civil war in Iran. Iranians know that the protestors don’t even have guns to shoot themselves with yet. That’s a shame, though I think they could find someone better to shoot.
I’m beside myself with grief for Neda, who looks exactly like my little sister.
Juan (bd4b30) — 6/26/2009 @ 8:48 pmI guess it’s just as well the Iran was off the barbecue guest list…far too much awkward dinner conversation there.
But better late than never re Obama. Maybe standing next to Merkel, who was one of the first to speak against the election, gave him the necessary strength.
Dana (8d88ef) — 6/26/2009 @ 8:51 pm#4 – Classic – first time I’ve ever e-mailed a comment to friends.
Walter Cronanty (7f2f64) — 6/26/2009 @ 8:57 pmThis is not the Obama Obama thought he knew.
Ken in Camarillo (aa2192) — 6/26/2009 @ 8:58 pmO/T, JD, I just realized you are linked. Clicked on it. Thanks for the chuckle.
Dana (8d88ef) — 6/26/2009 @ 9:03 pm;-). No problem, Dana.
JD (ed16bb) — 6/26/2009 @ 9:12 pmComment by JD — 6/26/2009 @ 9:12 pm
Oh, too funny! I did not look carefully enough on your link (thought it was in-work or something).
Pons Asiorum (d1c25d) — 6/26/2009 @ 9:23 pmObama: “When I was running for president, George Bush was a complete dumbass, but since I have become president, George Bush has actually grown smarter. Go figure.”
Joe (17aeff) — 6/26/2009 @ 9:26 pmComment by Joe — 6/26/2009 @ 9:26 pm
I love it!
Dana (8d88ef) — 6/26/2009 @ 9:29 pmWhen I hear the likes of Senator Orrin Hatch acknowledging that President Obama has handled this just about right, even with a dash of partisan seasoning to quell any barking from the hard right, then the Obama Administration is on the right track.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/26/2009 @ 9:37 pmHappyfeet (8:28 pm), that is a one liner that would make Saturday Night Live or Letterman or Stewart or Colbert proud, that is if they were willing to even mildly criticize Dear Leader. Well done.
Who is wiser, someone like George W. Bush who implicitly understands the nature of the Iranian regime, or someone like Barack Obama who carries around naive visions of reconciliation until he is very vividly shown exactly whom he is dealing with?
JVW (a8c610) — 6/26/2009 @ 9:39 pm“Obama also said for the first time that his offer to loosen the decades-old U.S. diplomatic freeze with Iran through direct talks is now in question.”
By the time this balloonhead figures out that the mad mullahs CAN’T be negotiated with, they’ll be sitting pretty with an armload of nuclear weapons, and the next time their pet terrorists blow up an American embassy, they’ll be doing it with a nuclear armed Iran behind them.
Keep stalling, keep playing games with these maniacs…and see where it gets you.
Think 9/11, only mushroom cloud style.
Dave Surls (44ee22) — 6/26/2009 @ 9:52 pmThere is a saying that a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. The guy in the White House was just mugged — at least when it comes to a small tenet of his kum-bah-yah foreign policy and thinking in general — by Ahmadinejad.
Mark (411533) — 6/26/2009 @ 9:54 pmI’m really at a loss to see what conservatives want President Obama to do regarding Iran, short of all out invasion and full scale war. Any direct or indirect meddling verbal, financial or otherwise, only works to bolster the powers that be and the ‘reformers’ are still essential theocrats who hold the U.S. in contempt.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/26/2009 @ 9:57 pm#22- Think 9/11, only mushroom cloud style.
Irresponsible fear mongering. Again. Why do conservatives think this will work again? The country has wised up to this kind of Chicken Little act.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/26/2009 @ 10:01 pm#22 — Comment by Dave Surls — 6/26/2009 @ 9:52 pm
Yes, it seems all Presidents since Carter already knew that coming into the office.
Our current President (not the sharpest) seems to be in a steep learning curve; just hopes he figures it out before Americans start paying the price.
Curious what our Sec of State is advising him (are they in agreement or is she AWOL or what).
Pons Asiorum (d1c25d) — 6/26/2009 @ 10:11 pm“I’m really at a loss to see what conservatives want President Obama to do regarding Iran”
I’m really at a loss to see what liberals want President Obama to do regarding Iran. Do they really imagine thugs and loons like the Iranian leaders or L’il Kim in Korea will magically change their stripes for the better merely because a completely inexperienced and unqualified President has assumed office?
What are your suggestions DCSCA? What should Obama do?
I’ve got several ideas short of armed intervention, but I’d like to see some serious ideas from you instead of snark before throwing anything out there. I don’t think you have anything in that empty head of yours.
daleyrocks (718861) — 6/26/2009 @ 10:18 pm“Irresponsible fear mongering. Again.”
They’re not pursuing a nuclear weapons program so that they can give us a wonderful 4th of July fireworks show when next we invite them to our Independence Day celebrations, dopey.
“Ayatollah Khamenei clenches fist–
Leads chants of “Death to America” yesterday at Friday prayers:”
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/06/khamenei-leads-death-to-america-chants.html
Don’t worry about it folks, they don’t really mean it…just like Hitler didn’t really mean it when he was talking about wiping out the Jews.
Dave Surls (44ee22) — 6/26/2009 @ 10:20 pmI’m really at a loss
We know.
MIke K (2cf494) — 6/26/2009 @ 10:21 pmCurious what our Sec of State is advising him
I’ve heard she has been too busy ducking from sniper fire at airport tarmacs.
I’m really at a loss to see what conservatives want President Obama to do regarding Iran
Well, when an official White House photo is released to the public showing him talking to Iranian officialdom, he should make sure it includes the sight of his feet propped up on the table. And maybe, just maybe, he might consider being almost as verbally rigid or clear-cut towards Ahmadinejad as has been towards, say, Benjamin Netanyahu.
Mark (411533) — 6/26/2009 @ 10:44 pmI’ve heard she has been too busy ducking from sniper fire at airport tarmacs.
Do you think she calls him at 3 am?
Pons Asiorum (d1c25d) — 6/26/2009 @ 10:48 pmThe last thing I’ve read from Hillary was about the embassy barbecue,
“Unfortunately, circumstances have changed, and participation by Iranian diplomats would not be appropriate in light of the unjust actions that the president and I have condemned,” she said. Embassies that had already invited Iranian diplomats were instructed to disinvite them.
I would have expected to have seen her every day briefing us on elections and speaking stridently yet cautiously about them. I wonder if she feels she could have been more visible and had more of a voice if she had just remained in the Senate rather than behind Obama…
Dana (8d88ef) — 6/26/2009 @ 10:56 pm#27- I’ve got several ideas short of armed intervention, but I’d like to see some serious ideas from you instead of snark before throwing anything out there. I don’t think you have anything in that empty head of yours. <<-Snark? Uhh, speak for yourself. Not constructive.
Okay, daleyrocks, feel free to list your proposed ideas. I support how the Obama Administration has handled Iran so far. But I’m open to hear what conservatives propose ‘short of war’ and the analysis on how they’d anticipate Iran’s response and the response of other nations in the region as well as along with the greater world reaction.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/26/2009 @ 11:02 pm#29- Unnecessary snark. Five yard penalty.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/26/2009 @ 11:06 pm#32 — Comment by Dana — 6/26/2009 @ 10:56 pm
I wonder if she feels she could have been more visible and had more of a voice if she had just remained in the Senate rather than behind Obama…
I wonder too. I mean is she really in support of the President’s position (or lack of)?
It’s her duty to publicly support him, but she is more knowledgeable (IMHO) and must know that he botched it.
How frustrating to not put your hands on the steering wheel when you know you can keep the car out of the ditch — and worse, have to say “great job driving, we only lost an axel”.
Pons Asiorum (d1c25d) — 6/26/2009 @ 11:27 pmDCSCA @33 – As I said, you first and show your work. Answer all the questions you threw at me.
daleyrocks (718861) — 6/26/2009 @ 11:40 pmPons Asiorum,
I never bought her concession speech pledging Obama her full support, nor did I buy it after her appointment. She’s a shrewd politician and a tenaciously ambitious woman willing to fight hard for what she wants, thus I believe her to be biding her time until the next round of elections. If she had remained in the Senate, would it have lent her more clout and active experience to take to the table as a viable candidate rather than what so far seems a limited role as Secty. of State? Maybe it’s way too soon to speculate. Maybe Obama has her on a short leash?
Dana (8d88ef) — 6/26/2009 @ 11:43 pmYes,
because funding Hamas,Hezbollah,suppling weapons to the Taliban,al-qaeda,and militias that kill American Soldiers and thousands of civilians was not a problem for Obama at all in deciding on direct talks without preconditions.
It is a good thing the “smart ones” are in control with their commitment in going through the UN on international affairs,they have such a stellar record concerning:
Rwanda,Darfur,Vietnam,Cambodia,Iraq,Gaza/Israel,and
Iran.
What do you expect from a lost ideological group that considers snark,witty bumper stickers,and waving the peace sign as “smart power”.
Baxter Greene (8035ae) — 6/26/2009 @ 11:47 pm#37 — Comment by Dana — 6/26/2009 @ 11:43 pm
I never bought her concession speech pledging Obama her full support, nor did I buy it after her appointment.
Me neither.
She’s a shrewd politician and a tenaciously ambitious woman willing to fight hard for what she wants, thus I believe her to be biding her time until the next round of elections.
Completely agree, although I do wonder if some of her motivation comes from the sense that she feels she could do a better job.
–
As to the $64,000 question (or as dems like to say, the $64 billion question) about her future plans…no idea, and therefore no idea if she made a good choice or not.
Maybe she was thinking a Baker-like experience (or perception?) would round-out her portfolio. In any event, somewhere in her calculus, she must have concluded that there is no possibility of running against President Obama in 2012. I mean, how could that possibly work? She is IN the President’s cabinet. How could she legitimately criticize him, for example?
So is she thinking 2016? Who knows, the Clinton’s live in a different world than I do.
Pons Asinorum (d1c25d) — 6/27/2009 @ 12:16 amI think an older, sager, and harder politician will look GREAT to most Americans after seeing Obama confused and naive.
Juan (bd4b30) — 6/27/2009 @ 12:25 am#36- The ‘work’ I and the majority of Americans endorse is on display for the world. The majority agree 100% with President Obama’s approach. Conservatives dont. So feel free, as I asked, to post your positions on how to approach Iran, short of war, as you said, and their anticipated reactions as well as those in the region and around the world. If you have the energy to criticize the Obama Administration’s position you surely have alternative at hand to present the country.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/27/2009 @ 12:30 amI guess I’m biased because of my heritage, but supplying weapons to Iranians seems like something we could easily get away with.
I mean, Iraq and Iran already have tons of weapons from China and Russia and no one really seems to care. France and Germany also supply a lot of monsters. We’d be supplying freedom fighters.
And it’s not like the 80s… modern stingers, for example, won’t lock onto our aircraft (recently, hezbollah blew themselves up firing at an Apache). But we don’t need to give them anything advanced. IEDs and AKs from Iraq, or M-16s. And lots and lots of medical and communication supplies. We could set up a satellite system and send in tons of internet tablets that can communicate with it at low but tolerable speeds.
The manpower is already there, they are just scared to death. The US revolution was fortunate to take place against the British, who were greedy but pretty civilized. And we still needed help. Yorktown was a naval gift from Paris.
I know it would be a public relations nightmare, but really, what’s going on in Iran is obviously the most critical opportunity and potential roadblock in the GWOT.
Juan (bd4b30) — 6/27/2009 @ 12:34 am“The majority agree 100% with President Obama’s approach”
LOL
Obama is popular, but not for anything he’s doing.
Anyway,
Just think of all the jobs Obama could create by building internet and medical support equipment for Iranians!
At the very least, we might as well blow their nuclear weapons plants up. We could very easily give an ultimatum to them regarding human rights and then blow them up. Anyone who doesn’t think Iran’s nuclear weapons development needs to be curbed is insane. Obama, of all people, could pull off this kind of important action, but it’s the right thing to do and there would be some penalty for Obama… so we all know he will shirk his duty.
So that’s my proposal: a) limited strikes on Iran’s ability to make nukes, and perhaps their refineries if they even have any left from the last time they were blown up. b) med and commo supplies for the freedom movement c) perhaps some small arms too
Juan (bd4b30) — 6/27/2009 @ 12:40 amSo that’s my proposal: a) limited strikes on Iran’s ability to make nukes, and perhaps their refineries if they even have any left from the last time they were blown up. b) med and commo supplies for the freedom movement c) perhaps some small arms too.
a. – is an act of war. b.- which freedom mocvement? The revolurionaries are theocrats with distain for U.S. meddling as well. c- the last thing the Mideast needs is more weaponry. and what do you believe will be the anticipated response to any of these acts by Iran, their immediate mideast neighbors and the world as a whole?
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/27/2009 @ 12:48 amWhat are your suggestions DCSCA? What should Obama do?
Do you mean other than not calling for real elections under U.N. supervision, an immediate end to the violence and for all nations to impose sanctions until a free election is held?
And if he could somehow address the arrogant narcissism that lies deep within his soul perhaps he wouldn’t be the last person on earth to realize he ain’t gonna talk the mullahs out of their nuclear ambitions.
Terry Gain (6b2a64) — 6/27/2009 @ 5:20 amTough choices.
Striking Iran’s nuclear facilities is an act of war. Not preventing the mullahs from having nuclear weapons is insanity.
Terry Gain (6b2a64) — 6/27/2009 @ 5:24 am1979, seizing an embassy, 1983-4, bombing an embassy and a marine barracks, through Mohastemi-pur by way of Mugniyeh and Feridoun Nezhi Nezhad,
narciso (996c34) — 6/27/2009 @ 6:13 amseizing TWA 847, (the Hamadi bros,) also tied to the IRGC)if you want to extend it through to the region,1992 and 1994, Buenos Aires, all of these and many others have been actions by either Iranian nationals and/or state apparatus that could be considered an act of war. The overwhelming majority in Iran, who are secular, backed Mousavi because he was the least worst option, Yes, years ago, he had put many of the state’s machinery in motion, although one can argue with exactly the level of responsibility or these actions
At the very least, we might as well blow their nuclear weapons plants up.
Don’t worry about it – we won’t do it, but the Israelis will, come hell or high water. If this current regime is not toppled and comes into possession of a nuke, Bibi will not hesitate to act decisively, he cannot allow his country to be wiped off the map pre – emptively. This is the predicament that Obama will find himself in if he doesn’t start taking actions to help the opposition in Iran ASAP – blockade their ports to deny them gasoline refinery imports (oil is the only thing left in their shambles of an economy that still brings in any revenue), or else watch the entire ME blow itself up, with the resultant world economy left in tatters.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/27/2009 @ 6:37 amWhat a joke.
Equating someone’s popularity pumped up by an adoring MSM is completely different than support for your naive policies:
Poll: 66% say Obama’s not being tough enough on Iran
posted at 5:25 pm on June 15, 2009 by Allahpundit
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/15/poll-66-say-obamas-not-being-tough-enough-on-iran/
Of course polls,not leadership or intelligence,is what drives Mr.57 states decision making, so it is no surprise that he has gone from “not meddling” in the first 6 days to “stop your unjust actions”.
Most of that outrage probably came from the snub Obama got from the Iranians concerning their invite to his July 4th party.
Pretty pathetic when your followers tell everybody you are going to save the world but the reality is you can’t get them to take you seriously enough to even show up for your parties.
Obama’s fairy tale foreign policy is that appeasement and his incredible oratory and presence is going to do what international condemnation and sanctions could not do.
One of the ways to stop tyrannical regimes is overthrow from within (which has started now but is being brushed aside by the “smart ones”):
Outrage! Obama Cuts Funding to Democracy Protesters In Iran!
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/06/outrage-obama-cuts-funding-to-democracy.html
This combined with Obama’s support for the mullah’s is not going to bring about much change for democracy in Iran.His complacency and fence sitting while the seeds of Freedom in Iran are crushed shows Obama is more concerned with what advances him politically than what is best for the people of the world.
Real sanctions backed up by force (military strikes if necessary) is another way to stop a terrorist regime he!! bent on acquiring a nuclear weapon and using it on their enemies.
If the UN and it’s members cannot enforce their own resolutions and do what it takes to stop evil regimes,than it’s support should be seriously degraded and coalitions should be created by member nations to confront dictators and countries
he!! bent on the destruction of their neighbors.
Toothless sanctions and veto’s by economic partners like China and Russia have neutered the UN and reduced it to nothing but a liberal talking point.Obama’s naive foreign policy approach is nothing but the continuation of the failures in :
Baxter Greene (8035ae) — 6/27/2009 @ 6:55 amIraq,Iran,N. Korea,Vietnam,Cambodia,Darfur,Gaza/Israel,and Rawanda to name a few.
Real leadership demands action and results.
Two things Obama and his policies seriously lack.
International Man of Parody – Is your brain so addled that you cannot imagine any options between doing nothing and all out war?
Daley – We already know what it would do. Whatever Teh One does is what IMP would do. It is the perfect policy.
JD (42a8c3) — 6/27/2009 @ 7:41 am“The majority agree 100% with President Obama’s approach.”
Which approach? You cannot even describe it pops. Before or after taking a little blue pill and cutting off their weenies? Once again you expose yourself as a complete fraud.
daleyrocks (718861) — 6/27/2009 @ 8:34 amThe majority of the 15% agree 100% with president Zero’s approach. Daley, can’t you read ?
Mike K (2cf494) — 6/27/2009 @ 8:47 amNotice that the only thing that upsets him, moves him to any action, is a personal jab. He supported Wright until Wright dissed him. This is no different.
He really does believe he’s a king!
Patricia (2183bb) — 6/27/2009 @ 9:43 am“The majority of the 15% agree 100% with president Zero’s approach. Daley, can’t you read ?”
Mike K. – How could I have overlooked that? I feel so small.
daleyrocks (718861) — 6/27/2009 @ 9:47 am#49- A Fox News poll?? Well that makes all the fair and balanced difference, doesn’t it. Good grief.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/27/2009 @ 10:34 am#51- You continue to criticize how the Obama Administration is handling the Iranian matter but have yet to post how conservatives would prefer to approach it, short of war. Please feel free to present a conservative position on Iran and their anticipated reaction, the reaction of their neighbors, and of the world at large, particularly nations purchasing Iranian oil directly.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/27/2009 @ 10:41 am“A Fox News poll?? Well that makes all the fair and balanced difference, doesn’t it. Good grief.”
Unless the nimrod can point to something specifically wrong with the compsition of the poll as is usually the case with CBS, Gallup, ABC, or NYT polls, or the questions, this is simply whining over the results it doesn’t like.
daleyrocks (718861) — 6/27/2009 @ 10:42 am“Please feel free to present a conservative position on Iran and their anticipated reaction”
I have already stated that I will await your comprehensive presentation of the liberal position. Have I missed it? Repeating yourself just adds to your lack of credibility.
daleyrocks (718861) — 6/27/2009 @ 10:46 amDCSCA:
daley:
DCSCA:
daley:
DCSCA:
Polling data:
“Obama is doing everything perfect” is a really deep plan, dude. 15% of 100% of 66% agree with you.
carlitos (84409d) — 6/27/2009 @ 10:55 amDaley – Its position is that whatever Teh One does, it is a superbly nuanced and skillfully played position. In short, Barcky good.
JD (b1f7fc) — 6/27/2009 @ 10:59 amGenetic Fallacy. 15 yard penalty and loss of down.
Steverino (69d941) — 6/27/2009 @ 11:01 am#48- Don’t worry about it – we won’t do it, but the Israelis will, come hell or high water. Ya think? Consider the following, because Bibi is forced to as well:
“Who buys Iran’s oil?
Most of Iran’s oil goes to Asia, with Europe taking the rest. U.S. refiners are banned from processing it due to sanctions. U.S. refiners have no direct supply from Iran, but would feel the effect of any price spike caused by disruption.
Japan is the biggest buyer of Iranian oil, taking over 500,000 bpd or over 12 percent of Japanese supply. China comes next, with just under 500,000 bpd, or about six percent of its supply. Norway’s StatoilHydro (STL.OL) is operating at the country’s giant offshore South Pars gas field and near completing a project there. Italy’s Eni (ENI.MI) is finishing a development phase at the Darkhovin oilfield. Russian giant Gazprom (GAZP.MM) agreed last year to take on more Iranian gas projects and has invested about $4 billion since 2007 in the country. Chinese firms have signed high profile deals but investment and work to date has been slow.”- source, Reuters, 6/15/09
So a unilateral attack on a nation providing oil to key American allies, several of which hold substantial American debt, seems doubtful. Unless, of course, Bibi is willing to forfeit American aid so the U.S. can guarantee petroleum purchases from other sources to keep China, Europe and Japan well oiled up. No, Israel won’t make any moves on their own without approval from the U.S. and that approval won’t happen any time soon. This is why swaggering, cowboy diplomacy and the go it alone strategy doesn’t work in today’s world.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/27/2009 @ 11:06 amOffer withdrawn due to nonresponsiveness. Thanks for the illustration carlitos.
daleyrocks (718861) — 6/27/2009 @ 11:13 am#59- ‘Dude’, see #62. The Obama Administration is handling Iran pitch perfect. You may disagree. China and Japan most likely agree the President Obama.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/27/2009 @ 11:15 am#63- In other words, you can only criticize the Obama Administration and conservatives have no realistic alternative approach short of war to dealing with Iran. Thanks for confirming.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/27/2009 @ 11:17 amTwo things:
1. This is, without a doubt, the funniest thing I’ve read all year.
2. Did anyone seriously think DCSCA would claim that Obama is ever doing anything wrong? Everything Obama does is perfect, according to DCSCA. If Obama ever makes a sudden stop while walking, DCSCA will end up with a broken nose.
Steverino (69d941) — 6/27/2009 @ 11:21 am#45/#46– See #62.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/27/2009 @ 11:22 am#66- see #62. Think it through.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/27/2009 @ 11:24 am#68 — I’ve already thought it through. There’s no way you can say that Obama has been absolutely perfect on Iran. None at all. If you truly think that, you are completely deluded.
You seem to think there is absolutely no ground between Obama’s bumbling and invasion. That’s what’s known as the False Dilemma Fallacy. Are nothing more than a random fallacy generator? I’ve caught you in two just this morning, and I’m not even looking very hard.
Steverino (69d941) — 6/27/2009 @ 11:27 am#69- I’ve already thought it through. There’s no way you can say that Obama has been absolutely perfect on Iran. None at all. I disagree. And maintaining the oil flow is a responsible approach. I believe the Obama Administration has been pitch perfect so far. When I see the likes of Orrin Hatch agree, even with some partisian language thrown in to placate the hard right, it reinforces it. But please present a viable alternative to the Obama approach, short of war. So far, I’ve seen nothing from the conservative side that could be consider a realistic alternative other than criticism and political posturing.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/27/2009 @ 11:50 amDCSCA – Please feels free to post your positions on how to approach Iran, short of war, as you said, and the anticipated Iranian reactions as well as those in the region and around the world. If you have the energy to criticize strawman conservative positions surely you have the ability to explain in detail the wonderful alternatives you claim are supported by the majority being pursued by the Obama Administration.
daleyrocks (718861) — 6/27/2009 @ 12:01 pmRestating your opinion isn’t an argument.
I don’t have to present a viable approach in order to state that Obama has been anything but perfect in his approach to Iran.
Here’s what Obama has done, with respect to Iran:
1. Said he would meet with Ahmadinejihad without any preconditions, then said he wouldn’t meet with him.
2. Remained silent in the face of obvious fraud in Iran’s election and the resulting protests, even while our allies were quite vocal in their criticisms, and then much too late spoke up.
3. Invited a delegation from Iran to the White House and then withdrew the invitation.
Either meeting with Ahmadinejihad is the right thing to do or not meeting with him is the right thing to do, but both can’t be the right thing to do.
Either speaking out about Iran’s fraudulent elections and violent crushing of dissent is the right thing to do or being silent about it all is the right thing to do, but both can’t be the right thing to do.
Either inviting a delegation from Iran is the right thing to do or not inviting them is the right thing to do, but both can’t simultaneously be the right thing to do.
Obama has given the appearance of weakness, of twisting his opinion to fit whatever breeze happens to be blowing past the White House. That’s far from perfect.
You, however, seem to think that whatever direction Obama is headed is always the right direction. It’s an idiotic and indefensible position.
Steverino (69d941) — 6/27/2009 @ 12:09 pmYa think?
If you knew anything about the history of the formation of Israel and their responses to direct military threats, then yeah, I do think, asshat. They’ve pre – emptively taken action on almost every conceivable threat to their tiny country – the war against Nasser, the 7 day’s war, going after Arafat in Lebanon, taking out the nuke reactor in Iraq, taking out the nuke reactor in Syria, Mossad taking out members of Palestinian terrorist teams, the list is endless. And Israel never “consulted” with the US nor asked our approval before launching their military operations – they may have informed their contacts at the State Department or the Pentagon directly after and/or during such actions were taken, but they don’t give a rat’s ass what we think when their survival is at stake.
So your Precious better figure out what the hell he’s going to do to remove the nuke threat from Iran ASAP, or Bibi’s going to make his decision for him, before he gets the chance to sell them out. Obama has already make it clear that he doesn’t consider Israel to be any kind of a special ally of the US, and in fact thinks that Israel is really the primary obstacle to peace for all – time in the ME. Obama’s put his foot in this one, and now he’s in too deep to fancy – foot his way out of it. Either he acts shortly or the Isaeli Air Force is going to expose him for being the feckless fark he really is.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/27/2009 @ 12:21 pm#72- I support the Obama Administration’s approach to Iran. It’s flexible for a fluid situation and pitch perfect. Senator Orrin Hatch, hardly a liberal, agrees with how he’s handled this so far, albeit seasoned with some red meat terms for the hard right. Dr. Kissinger supports his approach. So does more mature conservative wordsmiths like Peggy Noonan and George Will. You do not.
You disagree. You criticize. Yelp indefensible idiocy and distain. Fine. Present viable, workable options short of war, for a fluid situation, and, for one thing, doesnt disrupt the oil flow to allies adding to economic distress. Criticism is not leadership.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/27/2009 @ 12:29 pmMy point, you blithering moron, is that Obama has NOT been perfect on Iran, and no reasonable person could claim that. You might support Obama and think he’s doing the right thing, but it’s impossible to look at Obama’s many reversals and claim he has always done the right thing.
I don’t have to come up with a viable alternative to know that Obama is giving the appearance of a man way out of his league in international politics, a man who changes his opinion with nearly every tick of the clock. That’s not leadership, either. And, just for your own edification, I’m not the person who was elected to lead this country’s foreign policy; it’s not up to me to lead.
Again, you duck the real issue and you keep restating yourself. We all know you’re not here for an honest argument, but you seem hell-bent on proving it with every post.
Let me ask you this: if not meeting with Ahmadenijihad is the right thing to do, why was Obama right when he said he would meet with him?
Steverino (69d941) — 6/27/2009 @ 12:44 pm#73- I do think, asshat. It doesnt show, especially using language like that. Times change. Bibi will do what he’s told. And he knows it. President Obama will not permit Israel to act unilaterally and attack Iran, disrupting the oil supply to western and Asian allies, those holding American debt or otherwise, that would cause havoc to their economies. Your comment in #48 shows me you’ve not thought this through: …blockade their ports to deny them gasoline refinery imports (oil is the only thing left in their shambles of an economy that still brings in any revenue), or else watch the entire ME blow itself up, with the resultant world economy left in tatters.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/27/2009 @ 12:46 pm#75- My point, you blithering moron, Comments like that simply reinforce my belief that conservatives such as yourself simplty want to criticize people who support the President and have no viable plan to offer as a counter proposal to how the Obama Administration is handling Iran. Criticism is not an alternative plan. So be it. There’s no point in attempting to engage you on this topic any further. Rail against Hatch, Will, Noonan and Kissinger instead.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/27/2009 @ 12:51 pm#74 “Criticism is not leadership
Incredible to hear this coming from a “Bush is Hitler” person.
It was as if 2003 o 2009 never existed and the rules of engagement have changed.
Would say anything to defend Bozo the POTUS.
HeavenSent (1e97ff) — 6/27/2009 @ 12:52 pmI will criticize anyone who blindly supports a President without conceding the possibility that the President has made mistakes. If that’s a bad thing to you, well, tough.
And anyone who deliberately ignores valid points and keeps repeating the same thing ad nauseam is a blithering moron…no matter what his political beliefs are.
Again, I don’t have to come up with a viable plan in order to know that what the President has done so far has been a series of bumbling and ham-handed missteps. The mere fact that Obama has changed his mind so many times and so quickly tells me that he doesn’t really know what the proper course is, and he’s just going along with whatever the polls say.
I never said it was.
You haven’t attempted to engage me yet. You keep repeating your mantra: Obama is pitch-perfect. You haven’t offered anything to counter why Obama’s many reversals look bad.
Appeal to authority. Yet another fallacy. You’re really good at those, you know that? Even Hatch, Will, Noonan and Kissinger would admit that not everything Obama has done has been pitch-perfect. So, why don’t you go rail against them?
Steverino (69d941) — 6/27/2009 @ 1:01 pmIt doesnt show, especially using language like that
The asshat complains about language, despite it’s earlier mocking of Farrah Fawcett’s hair loss during her cancer agonies.
F-ck off, f-ckface.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/27/2009 @ 1:06 pm#79- Again, I don’t have to come up with a viable plan in order to know that what the President has done so far has been a series of bumbling and ham-handed missteps. Yes, you do. Criticism for political posturing is destructive, not constructive, and offers nothing concrete as alternative to the President’s approach. As I said, take it up with Hatch, Noonan, Will and Kissinger. I’m done with you.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/27/2009 @ 1:08 pmI will take it up with Noonan.
happyfeet (e8d590) — 6/27/2009 @ 1:10 pm#78- “Bush is Hitler” person? Oh, come on. Apparently most Americans must fall into that category in your eyes, given President Bush’s poll numbers at the end of his administration. There are several areas in which I disagree with President Obama’s positions, but with respect to this thread, Iran is not one of them. I believe he is handling it pitch perfect.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/27/2009 @ 1:25 pmKeep humming the mantra, nickel-boy
Steverino (69d941) — 6/27/2009 @ 1:28 pm#79- Rail against Hatch, Will, Noonan and Kissinger instead. Appeal to authority. Yet another fallacy.
Fallacy. Right.
“Obama scores big among some conservatives other than Scarborough, Will, Noonan, Buchanan, Kissinger and Senator Lugar (R-Indiana). George Will called Obama’s critics on the Iran Crisis “foolish” and argued that US should not interfer in this crisis if we want the reformists to gain this fight against the regim, otherwise they will be portrayed as traitors or US tools. In her WSJ column, Peggy Noonan used harsh words again McCain’s position and praised how Obama was handling the situation without making this crisis about US.”– Source, LaurenMonica, Daily Kos, 6/22/09
“Oh, I think they’ve got to play it as cool as they can, and this is something that has to sit before they can really do… I’m sure they are doing a number of things behind the scenes. They must be. But they’ve got to let the Iranian people make up their own minds.”– Orrin Hatch, R, Utah, 6/16/09
It appears in the eyes of long-time conservative columnist George Will, you’re a fool.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/27/2009 @ 1:37 pmYou have deliberately misstated Will’s words. You and I were talking about Iran policy in general, not just the recent crisis.
You are a lying, word-twisting, intellectually dishonest buffoon.
Steverino (69d941) — 6/27/2009 @ 1:41 pm…as well as just another Obama butt – boy.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/27/2009 @ 1:49 pmI’m done with you.
And this site’s going to be done with you shortly – on a permanent basis.
Dmac (f7884d) — 6/27/2009 @ 1:50 pm#86- You have deliberately misstated Will’s words. You and I were talking about Iran policy in general, not just the recent crisis. You are a lying, word-twisting, intellectually dishonest buffoon.
Hmmm. Speak for yourself. AS I’ve repeatedly said, I support President Obama’s handling of the situation in Iran as well as have other conservative voices. Here’s what George Will said on This Week on ABC: “The president is being roundly criticized for insufficient, rhetorical support for what’s going on over there. It seems to me foolish criticism. The people in the streets know full well what the American attitude toward the regime is, and they don’t need that reinforced.” Will added: “Furthermore, there is an American memory of encouraging things like the Hungarian revolution in 1956 with rhetoric about rolling back communism — we had balloons float in and drop medals with the Statue of Liberty on it, and leaflets. Came the crunch, there was nothing we could do about it.”
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/27/2009 @ 1:58 pmIThe Iranian people know what the attitude of most Americans is toward their repressive regime. Obama is another matter.
President God has been eager to negotiate with the mullahs, and at first appeared to regard the protests as a distraction. Only after great public pressure did Obama make clear statements against the murderous crackdown. Hardly a profile in courage.
One of Obama’s greatest flaws is his belief that America has to atone for its sins around the world. He tries to open ties with repressive, demagogic, anti-American leaders like Hugo Chavez, and is rewarded with contemptuous gestures. What a fool.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (08743a) — 6/27/2009 @ 2:12 pmHey, think positively: it seems that President Obama is a far quicker study in foreign policy than was President Carter!
The Dana who remembers the Carter Administration (474dfc) — 6/27/2009 @ 2:30 pmThe IMP’s Tourrette’s is acting up again. It simply pukes out the same drivel over and over and over and over. You have a better chance of teaching quantum physics to a wheel of sharp cheddar than you have of it engaging in an honest discussion.
Again, I was right ;-). It’s position is Barcky good.
JD (7cdb18) — 6/27/2009 @ 2:50 pmCriticism is not leadership.
This is hilarious. Because that is exactly why Obama is not a leader. All he has is criticism, vague meaningless criticism devoid of substance. We’ve seen that in his foreign policy and in his terrorism policy. Its proof that he’s an Empty Suit(tm) when it comes to actual policy making of his own.
The International Man of Parody parodies himself yet again.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/27/2009 @ 3:05 pmAgain, you deliberately misstate what George Will was talking about. He was addressing the protests only. You, on the other hand, were talking about Obama’s entire policy on Iran, which you have said repeatedly is “pitch perfect”
I called you on your bullshit, and you just doubled down on it, nickel-boy.
BTW, since you’re going to cite Orrin Hatch as an authority to follow, does that mean Orrin’s right about other things? Or is Hatch only correct when he agrees with Obama?
You’ve used that for a second time today, and you still haven’t figured out the correct usage. I wasn’t putting words into your mouth, nickel-boy.
Steverino (69d941) — 6/27/2009 @ 3:13 pmBibi will do what he’s told. And he knows it. President Obama will not permit Israel to act unilaterally and attack Iran, disrupting the oil supply to western and Asian allies,
Spoken like someone who has not a clue at what drives Israel.
To illustrate the vapidity of Carter; when the Iranians took the embassy staff hostage, Carter asked for suggestions. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs suggested taking out Kharg Island, the Iranian oil terminal. Had we done so, I suspect the hostages would have been released. Carter’s fecklessness has left us with a 30 year problem. Netanyahu knows better than to trust Israel’s survival to Carter Jr.
Israel will do what Israel requires. I’m sure the Israelis informed Reagan when they took out the Iraqi reactor but I doubt they will inform Zero.
Mike K (2cf494) — 6/27/2009 @ 3:57 pmObama campaigned on ideas that were dissected here a year ago.
SteveG (bf3db3) — 6/27/2009 @ 5:16 pmWe noted that Obama’s words would impress American’s but not Iranian leadership or North Korea’s rulers.
The Taliban and al Qaeda would continue to kill westerners, try to impose their brand of theocracy and keep looking to get their hands on a nuke even if Obama spoke nicely and apologetically.
I’m not saying that Obama has completely botched this one, because I knew all along that the people who rule Iran would do their own thing regardless of who the US president was…
That said, I think Obama should have made some strong statements early on about freedom, honest elections… instead he seemed not to be up to speed.
His early statements praised things like high turnout, which seemed tone deaf given all the allegations of stuffed ballot boxes.
Taking credit for keeping Twitter up and running, rescheduling maintenance seemed a little off too.
The State Dept. said they’d spoken to Twitter and everyone rushed to give Obama the credit.
#42 — Comment by Juan — 6/27/2009 @ 12:34 am
I mean, Iraq and Iran already have tons of weapons from China and Russia and no one really seems to care. France and Germany also supply a lot of monsters. We’d be supplying freedom fighters.
We already are. [I linked this in another thread. Video, warning — focus on US support of JPAK, Oct 23, 2008]
Pons Asinorum (d1c25d) — 6/27/2009 @ 11:15 pmCasting doubt on direct diplomacy is the right action …. or should I say, it was the right action back when this started.
Again I say, Obama administration: you’ve given us too little, too late.
Harvey M. Anderson (a664fb) — 6/27/2009 @ 11:49 pmInteresting in the way that Barry has articulated — and rather immediately — a somewhat more forceful and clear-cut comment about the events in Honduras than he did right after the vote in Iran.
And, yes, the response to Hondura’s president does follow the pattern of a coup d’etat. But there appears to be a lot more ambiguity or gray area in the inner-workings leading up to that action (coup or, maybe just as correctly, “coup”) than what happened in Iran.
Mark (411533) — 6/28/2009 @ 1:14 pm