You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Obama Says Iran Must Pick Its Own Leaders
2009-06-16
This is long but I'm not sending it to Page 49. I'm unhappy with my President and you should be too. The man has to stand for freedom and human rights or the United States doesn't mean anything anymore. The woman in the photo showed more courage today than my government, and that is simply shameful.
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama for the first time voiced his concerns about the way Iran's election was conducted, though he fell short of calls from some democracy activists that he formally denounce the vote.
He's picking and choosing his words, "voicing concerns", because he doesn't know what to say. He doesn't know what to say because his moral core doesn't have the words for "freedom" and "human rights" and "liberty".
Mr. Obama said he was deeply troubled by the violence surrounding the election, but also stressed it was up to the Iranian people to choose their leadership.
No, it isn't and it hasn't been, and that precisely is the problem. Does the man not understand the difference between democracy and dictatorship? Iran is ruled by a Guardian Council. They pick and approve of the presidential candidates. They approve of all other national leaders. They veto government legislation. Iran has billed itself as an 'Islamic Republic', sovereignty coming from Allah and not from the people. Therefore it isn't up to the people in the first place. Now that the people are rising up Khamenei is moving to make clear to the world what perceptive people have always understood -- Iran is ruled by thugs.

Does Obama not understand this?
He said he would maintain his policy of directly negotiating with Iran's leadership on its nuclear program, irrespective of the current vote.
There is nothing to negotiate. The 'leaders' may not be there next week. And if they are, they are certainly not going to compromise with you -- not after they slapped their own people down. Khamenei is arresting the very people he hand-picked to run in the election. The smart thing to do is to get on the side of the people, so that if and when they throw out (and execute) the Guardian Council, we'll be able to say, "we were on your side when it mattered." Obama is throwing that away.
"It is up to Iranians to decide who their leaders may be. We respect Iranian sovereignty," Mr. Obama said following a meeting with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. "I think it would be wrong to remain silent about what we've seen. ... The world is watching and is inspired by their participation, regardless of the outcome."
So don't be silent. Take a stand, man, and pledge the United States to being on the side of the common, ordinary people of Iran who are rising up.
The fluid political developments inside Iran are placing Mr. Obama in an increasingly difficult diplomatic position, U.S. officials and regional analysts said. Mr. Obama has pledged both to support democracy in the Middle East and to engage directly with Tehran's clerical rulers over the future of Iran's nuclear program.
The former should take precedence over the latter. Dump the clerics.
Any push by Mr. Obama to overtly support Iranian opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi could make diplomatic talks more difficult, while also potentially painting Mr. Mousavi and his supporters as American puppets, these officials and analysts said.
They will be painted as puppets regardless. It's already happening. The key is to get out in front and use the inspiration of the Iranian people to make clear where you stand as a world leader, and in turn to inspire the Iranian people to dump the thugs.
Still, a gathering number of Iranian opposition leaders, both inside Iran and out, are calling on Mr. Obama to lend more direct public support for those Iranians challenging the vote that re-elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. These activists fear that any near-term dialogue between the Obama administration and Mr. Ahmadinejad or Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could result in legitimizing the Iranian regime while also validating the election results.
Absolutely correct, and Short Round would use such talks expressly to smack down the internal revolution.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Monday ordered a probe into alleged voter irregularities in the country's presidential election. This was a shift after his strong endorsement of Mr. Ahmadinejad's re-election over the weekend.
It's a sham -- it is what thugs do when they're trying to placate the people. Call for an investigation and then bury it.
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Monday joined world leaders in supporting an inquiry into the disputed presidential election in Iran. "My position and that of the United Nations is that the genuine will of the Iranian people should be fully respected," Mr. Ban told reporters in New York. "I am closely following how this investigation into this election result will come out."
Don't follow the 'investigation', follow the people. Put the U.N. on the side of the people and you'll send a message to thugs all around the world. That would be legacy worth having as Secretary-General.
"We view the implications of recent events in Iran with serious concern," British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said.

Mr. Miliband said the long view from London on the election outcome was its impact on Iran's nuclear program. "It is the implications of the decisions that are being made at the top levels of the Iranian regime that are of most concern," he said. The foreign secretary said the West's diplomatic overtures should be "answered by Iranian willingness to sit down and negotiate."

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said he was "profoundly troubled by the political situation in Iran" and "condemns the violence against the demonstrators." He condemned the arrests of opposition political leaders and called for an end to restrictions on freedom of expression.
That's better -- Nick gets it. France can't do a lot, practically, to help the demonstrators, but France can take their side.
The French foreign ministry on Monday summoned the Iranian ambassador to the ministry to explain his government's actions, but the ambassador sent his press counselor in his place, according to an official at the French mission to the U.N. in New York.
A clear demonstration that Iranian officials plan to weather this and don't give a damn what the world thinks.
State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said the U.S. was still evaluating the claims of election fraud, but reiterated the administration continued to have "doubts about the returns, which showed Mr. Ahmadinejad winning 63% of the vote.
Oh come on, we're not 'investigating' election fraud in Iran -- we have no such ability whatsoever. It's not like we're going to be examining voting machines. Kelly is stalling for time because Obama and Hillary do not know what to do. And they don't know because they don't have a moral core.
Ongoing demonstrations could force the Obama administration to take a firmer line on Tehran's handing of the election in the days ahead, said a number of Iranian activists and former U.S. diplomats. These officials said the political uprising in Tehran could represent a rare generational shift in the country, where a rising pro-democracy movement is seeking to uproot the founders of the 1979 Islamic revolution. Not to support these reformists, said these officials, could have a much broader impact for democracy promotion across the Middle East.

In his outreach so far to Iran, including in a speech on the Persian New Year, Mr. Obama has generally demurred from democracy and human-rights issue while formally recognizing the rule of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Thus ripping the heart out of democracy movements around the world. If the President of the United States won't support democracy, no one will.
Former U.S. officials said the Obama administration is walking an increasingly delicate line between supporting democracy in Iran while pursing the abolition of Tehran's nuclear program. Any rupturing of a dialogue between Tehran and the West could have major implications for global security, these officials said. Israel has vowed to attack Iran's nuclear research sites if there isn't progress diplomatically to contain the nuclear program.
That's the 'realists' talking, the one who don't want to 'upset' things. Right now upsetting Short Round and Khamenei is exactly what needs to be done.
Posted by:Steve White

#28  Obama is going to go with his strength on this one; wait for the worst to happen and then apologize. He is working with Charlie Gibson in the Whitehouse on crafting an emotional filled apology to be delivered in Primetime.
Posted by: airandee   2009-06-16 20:05  

#27  Respect for "sovereignty"? Israeli Jews would be slaughtered if a belligerent paleosaur entity was formed on their eastern border, which is only 9 miles from the sea at one point. Hussein O has an agenda that goes beyond preserving life and liberty.

I don't suppose Big Media would corner the Enlightened One on his position-of-weakness' diplomacy?
Posted by: Black Bart Sliter4867   2009-06-16 17:43  

#26  I'm sure Obama had nothing to do with this upset in Iran, but he couldn't create a better diversion from our financial woes if he tried.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2009-06-16 17:02  

#25  This is shown by every thing he does and says. Total government control be it of GM, banks, healthcare, media, etc. all screams of BHO's fascist nature.

In a very loose sense "Government total Control" is desirable, there's no blame shifting, we know just who to blame.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2009-06-16 16:58  

#24  It may appear a bit counterintuitive, but if Barry plans to 'do nothing' he should probably 'say nothing' as well. On the other hand, if he plans to take some sort of action, it would be well advised to 'say nothing' of it as well.
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-06-16 14:39  

#23  Looks like the admin did something practical

Reuters:

The U.S. State Department contacted the social networking service Twitter over the weekend to urge it to delay a planned upgrade that could have cut daytime service to Iranians, a U.S. official said on Tuesday.

“We highlighted to them that this was an important form of communication,” said the official of the conversation the department had with Twitter at the time of the disputed Iranian election. He declined further details
Posted by: liberal hawk   2009-06-16 14:05  

#22  That the man is neutral between the wolf and the sheep is all that needs to be said about him, and all that will be remembered, if there are aught to remember afterward.
Posted by: Mitch H.   2009-06-16 14:00  

#21  Steve:

My study is a bit littered, I've just ripped the entire "U" section out of my Websters. I was aware of the recent injunction regarding discussions about birth certificates. Please let me know if there are other prohibited words or phrases. I'll get right after them as well!

You know what you're doing; so do I.

Next time - no warning.
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-06-16 13:48  

#20  LH, BHO IS against freedom. This is all a part of his makeup along with sucking up to every dictator in the world from Venezuela to China. He despises freedom in the US because it interferes with the control (aka power) he craves.

This is shown by every thing he does and says. Total government control be it of GM, banks, healthcare, media, etc. all screams of BHO's fascist nature.
Posted by: AlanC   2009-06-16 13:37  

#19  "The Poles didn't ask Ronald Reagan to send the army through the Fulda Gap. "

but they did ask him to speak out.

have the iranian protestors aske BHO to speak out? If not, why not? Lack of leadership? Fear of the alienating Iranian fencesitters? Higher priorities?
Posted by: liberal hawk   2009-06-16 13:04  

#18  And I hear you Steve. Obviously no one is talking about armed intervention. We are talking about presidential statements. And when I said Iran isnt Poland, that is what I had in mind. In 1989, in Poland, there was, afaik, no one who had ANY particular reason to dislike or mistrust the United States. Maybe FDR and Yalta, but I think most Poles didn't really think there was much FDR could have done. Whereas in Iran there is '53, and the support for the Shah over the years. Whether thats as important as folks like Sullivan and John Judis think, or as unimporant as someone like Michael Totten thinks, I am not in position to say, which is why I am fence sitting on this one.

is what you have written that much stronger than "The world is watching and is inspired by their participation " ? Its a matter of subtle differences in wording.

As I said, I give BHO a C+. I dont know about you, but when my kid comes home with a C+ its not cause for celebration. But I dont think it means BHO is against freedom. He may be so "realist" that he has no stomach for any US support for freedom abroad (rather than simply forced to abandon such support out of a belief we are too overstretched at this time). Or maybe not. But whether he is that "realist" or NOT, he clearly is not one with stomach for confrontations for freedom. He likes to see the other guys side. In some instances that may well work - we are going to get farther with Russia, say, by acknowledging where Putin is coming from than by cheering for the Yelstin era. But Iran is different, in ways that dont comfortably fit BHO's world view.
Posted by: liberal hawk   2009-06-16 13:00  

#17  Zero has already spoken forcefully about the struggle for freedom - in Cairo. He said that no country should impose its politics or values on other countries. He isn't going to now contradict himself by getting embroiled in this kerfuffle. No, he is a man of his word and his word is "back-off".
Posted by: Jack is Back!   2009-06-16 12:57  

#16  LH, I hear you and understand the concern. I don't want Obama pledging to send the Big Red One into Tehran.

But he CAN say, loudly and simply, "we stand with all people in the world who want democracy, liberty and human rights. We stand with all brave people willing to fight for their families, their children and their rights to live in freedom."

That's all he has to do.

And wear a green tie.

The Iranians will do the rest.

The Poles didn't ask Ronald Reagan to send the army through the Fulda Gap. But every time Reagan spoke for liberty and freedom, dissidents everywhere behind the Iron Curtain took heart.

Heart. That's what it is about. When people lose their fear, an evil regime's days are numbered. Obama can give the Iranians heart without committing the US to a dangerous course, and that's all I ask him to do.
Posted by: Steve White   2009-06-16 12:39  

#15  Until the protestors hold signs that say "forget '53, we want US support anyway" I fear Obama will be too worried it would be counterproductive.

Michael Totten has a good essay on why BHO is wrong to worry about that.
Posted by: liberal hawk   2009-06-16 12:26  

#14  Obama Says Iran Must Pick Its Own Leaders

That's precisely the problem isn't it? They can't since Iran is an islamic dictatorship. What a weasel the US has for a president. America: the #1 friend of dictators since Jan 20, 2009.
Posted by: ed   2009-06-16 12:04  

#13  I actually would rather BHO didn't say much here...

If anything makes a mass protest uncool in Iran, it's having a US Presidential backing to it. That partly explains why the previous protests over there in 2003 (albeit of smaller magnitude) didn't quite catch on, irrespective of how good President Bush's intentions were. The Iranian politicians were too afraid to endorse the protests, lest they be seen as America-influenced traitors

There is a massive unrest in Iran (at least 100,000 took part in a mass rally yesterday)The best we can do (for RIGHT NOW) is to sit back, be quiet and watch the fireworks.
Posted by: sludge   2009-06-16 11:42  

#12  as for the contrast to messing with the Israeli coalition - sure, if Im bibi (and I AM someone with more respect for Bibi than a week ago) I pocket that.

But that doesnt do a thing for folks in Teheran.
Posted by: liberal hawk   2009-06-16 10:55  

#11  In fairness to BHO, part of the reason he is holding back has to do with the political situation in Iran. As I have said before, Moussavi and his reformist supporters are NOT necessarily on the same wave length. Moussavi has been PART of the regime, and is no western liberal, albeit (like Rafsanjani) he is more sane than dinner jacket. The reformers are trying to use him, and he them.

Moussavi has NOT called for the US to support him, and probably wont. A few reformers have asked for support, in tweets, and occasionally in interviews with MSM. But can it be proven they speak for the entire movement? There is no leader of the true reformists, only Moussavi for now. No Walesa here.

And will it strategically make sense to call for US support? This isnt Poland. Granted, dinner jacket will call moussavi a puppet anyway. Will fence sitters beleive him? And who are the fence sitters who count, anyway? Moussavi voters who havent come into the streets yet? dinner jacket voters having regrets? Or more importantly, the regular Army? (which some say resents the influence of the Rev guard/pasdaran) I dont know.

I give BHOs speech a b-, or at worst a C+. He understood what he needed to do, and he more or less did it. But this is a guy whose rhetorical skills should have given him an A. He should have managed to avoid saying anything risky, and STILL have been more inspiring, instead of checking the boxes.

I dont think this is cause he doesnt have the words for freedom and liberty. If it was a matter of reconciling two sides, in order to achieve freedom and liberty, he would do it just fine. What he seems to lack is a core for revolutionary confrontation. The Bushies had the core in words, they just had a tendency to apply the rhetoric excessively and with inconsistent or incompetent follow through. Clinton was a born compromiser, but he could at least empathize with someone elses aspirations and articulate them.

BHO, derided as a messiah, and worshipped by some as a messiah, is singularly LACKING in messianic qualities. Thats good on domestic policies (and has disappointed many of his backers so far) and is good on many for policy issues. But faced with a democratic revolution like this, it leaves him tone deaf.


Posted by: liberal hawk   2009-06-16 10:53  

#10  The clinched fisted Communist (opps...forget that his advance people changed it to Community) Organizer strikes again.
Posted by: jack salami   2009-06-16 10:19  

#9  Besoeker, we don't need that, especially today. Don't do it again.

AoS
Posted by: Steve White   2009-06-16 10:19  

#8  Obama is simply a dumbfuc* Chicago Pol; a narcissist who thinks his shi* don't stink, Old Spook

I believe the appropriate term is "uppity." It is a colloquial term used during the presidential election by Congressman Lynn Westmoreland. Not heard much anymore in "polite" society.

Keep pushing the envelope, meneer...
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-06-16 09:51  

#7  Leftists despise individual freedom, and obambi is a leftist. He was probably choking on bile just making the lame utterances he's made thus far. He'd be a mullah himself if he could get away with it...
Posted by: M. Murcek   2009-06-16 09:03  

#6  Obama is more confrontational with Israel then with Iran.

Instead of saying, "It is up to Israelis to decide who their leaders may be. We respect Israeli sovereignty."

He said, "endorse a Palestinian state or else."
Posted by: Lord garth   2009-06-16 08:43  

#5  Didja ever notice that almost all bullies are actually cowards?
Posted by: Parabellum   2009-06-16 08:22  

#4  Maybe instead of 3 AM they should wake him up around 10 AM. I hate to say this but Hillary got this one right. He must not trust anyone other than Ayers, Marshall and Wright or either Jim Jones, Bob Gates and other responsible thinkers are lethargic also. I suspect this is his Carter moment and he is acting accordingly.
Posted by: Jack is Back!   2009-06-16 07:50  

#3  I suspect he's a little nervous about the prospect of street protests when the tea parties gather steam ahead of the 2010 elections here. When it becomes clearer the power nakedly grabbed, the debt gathered, and the economy still tanked, Teh One may not be enthusiastic about a people expressing their will against an unpopular regime
Posted by: Frank G   2009-06-16 07:41  

#2  Obama is simply a dumbfuck Chicago Pol

If only! A politician knows that keeping promises is his stock in trade.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2009-06-16 05:21  

#1  Sorry, I cannot hold back.

What will the price in Iranian blood be for your fecklessness? What about American and Israeli and other innocent blood down the road when this squandered opportunity ends up in Mullahs with Nukes, Barry, you ignominious dickhead?

Obama is simply a dumbfuck Chicago Pol; a narcissist who thinks his shit don't stink, and who thinks he can finesse anything. The ignorant bastard has never had to work for anything in his life, from his ivy league scholarship to his dirty tricks to win the Senate seat, to the GOP leadership's utter incompetence nominating McStain who refused to hit him hard, and the national press handing him this election with their Bias, then the press becoming as slanted as state owned media in old Communist eastern europe in order to cover the huge errors he has made so far.

All Obama has to do is be brave enough to speak a few words of respect for democracy and the will of the people, that's all the minuscule amount of courage that he needs to take a stand. It could be as few words as Reagan use "Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall". Compare that small act of speaking to the Iranian people putting their lives on the line against the regime of thugs. And these are thugs who, if left in place, will have nukes, and don't give a crap about anyone's population including their own.

If this fool sides with the Mullahs and Amadhinejad, he deserves to be thrown out of office for cowardice and incompetence, for his endorsement, by inaction, of the thugs.

A quote for that vacuous preening shithead we have in the Oval office:

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing
Posted by: OldSpook   2009-06-16 01:40  

00:00