| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| US lawmaker: Iran crackdown is 'horrible human tragedy' |
| 2009-06-18 |
| A top Republican US lawmaker called Wednesday for Congress to pass tough new sanctions targeting Iran and condemned Tehran's crackdown on post-election protests as "a horrible human tragedy." "We are witnessing, in Iran, a horrible human tragedy. You've got a government there that has been seen crushing its people in the streets of Tehran," Republican Representative Eric Cantor told AFP. "How do you expect to trust, to engage with, a regime like that? How could we ever tolerate a regime like that having nuclear weapons?" said Cantor, the number two Republican in the House of Representatives. Cantor said the US Congress should quickly pass legislation aimed at choking off Iran's gasoline imports and foreign investments in its energy sector to break its defiance of global demands to freeze its suspect nuclear program. "We can send a message very quickly to our allies and the rest of the world that we mean to live by our commitments that we do not want Iran to become a nuclear power," said the lawmaker, whose home state is Virginia. US efforts to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons must hold firm whether or not Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ultimately prevails in his disputed electoral bout with rival Mir Hossein Mousavi, said Cantor. "It's very clear that democracy in Iran is somewhat of a mystery and that clearly the clerics in that country are the ones that control the levers of power. And our policy vis-a-vis Iran needs to reflect that reality," he said. Cantor also said the Obama administration had not sufficiently criticized the official crackdown on protests by Mousavi supporters. "Their silence on the issue of human rights violations is very troubling to me. America has a moral responsibility to stand up for human rights around the world and to condemn the abuses that are occurring in Tehran today," he said. Obama has said he is "deeply troubled" by the violence in Iran, but that Washington cannot be seen as "meddling" in the Islamic Republic's affairs, and said that he will continue his policy of reaching out to Tehran. |
| Posted by: |
| #12 Not this side of heikhalot TW. Your Hebrew is many decades more recent than mine, Besoeker. I had to look that up! Not exactly in the closet, Frank. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-06-18 23:27 |
| #11 liberalhawk, you left out the strong possibility that Obama doesn't know WHAT he thinks (not just how to say it). He has a strong ideology, but not much in the way of inconvenient principles, from the looks of it. |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-06-18 21:20 |
| #10 Buchanan's an isolationist and IMHO a closet antisemite. When he speaks so lovingly of Arab dictatorships at times, I can't take his sudden care for the Iranian People™ seriously. I heard him on Hannity, and it still pisses me off PMSNBC puts him on as the "house conservative". F*ck Pat Buchanan. Also IMHO O is voting "present" because he doesn't want to answer that 3AM call. Iowahawk has his version of Obama's speech to teh Iranians - I'll post it in Opinion page |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-06-18 19:24 |
| #9 Pat Buchannan agrees w/letter (A) as per his discussion on hannity today. I'm not sure what O's doing, he might end up moving closer to W's original position or he'll deal w/dinnerjacket and take more flak for tacitly supporting a fraudulently elected leader. Either way can't be good for him. Not that mousavi was going to be any better. I doubt O will do anything covert to help the protestors but I could be wrong. |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2009-06-18 19:17 |
| #8 I'd like to throw a couple more takes on the deal. () He may have been taken by surprise. () He must continue to push the domestic policies while the window is still open; anything else would be a distraction. () Supporting protests against the government would be counter to the attempts to demonize the spend-then-tax protests in the US. His track record shows his great confidence in the uncontested layups and hesitent in dynamic situations while he figures how to make a situation work for him. In a word predictable. What might be more telling is dinner jacket's Russian trip a la Frankin to Senate in order to validate claim and control, legitimacy. Meanwhile, the centrifuges continue to churn so a bit of controlled civil discourse would work in favor of the bomb wanters, help in identifying dissent leaders, and work as a sort of pressure release. A risky game sure, like those people at parties who use a lighter to put gas in their closed hand then light it to make a fireball - its a great party trick unless it blows up in their face. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2009-06-18 17:03 |
| #7 Not this side of heikhalot TW. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-06-18 16:39 |
| #6 i hope the many levels I mean are visible in that I find his intelligence quite real, and his rhetoric sometimes really quite good - unfortunately he is all to well aware of that, and I think often it shows. |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-06-18 16:38 |
| #5 atour de force speech that purports to understand every side, and reconcile them all in his wisdom. Ouch! |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-06-18 16:34 |
| #4 At this point we dont know obamas motives (I will discount the "barry hates freedom" folk) Is he A. staying quiet cause he genuinely thinks speaking out more strongly would hurt the protestors? or B. Staying quiet cause he expect dinnerjacket to win, and he is afraid that speaking out would interfere with talking to dinner jacket or C. He hasnt yet figured out how to say what he wants to say If B, thats really bad. For one, its at some level highly cynical. Sacrificing Iranians for O's diplomacy. Maybe thats the only realistic course, but its still so at odds with O's optimism about the world, his "We can change" etc, its way too embarassing to admit. Its also probably wrong. For one thing, there is a real chance Dinnerjacket is on the way out. And even if he isnt, does it matter. On the one hand theres no guarantee diplomacy with dinner jacket is going anywhere anyway. On the other hand we have managed arms deal with folks we've criticized on human rights (reagan and the USSR) if the motive is A, is a different story. Without a MUCH clearer picture of the situation in Iran, I cant say whether it is right or not. Ive seen reasonable arguments both ways. I suspect that O could go much further without doing harm, but his position, if incorrect, does not strike me as unreasonable. I also think the motive is in part C. O isnt an off the cuff guy. Look at how he fumbled on the russian invasion of Georgia. He likes to take several weeks, examine all the angles, and then do a tour de force speech that purports to understand every side, and reconcile them all in his wisdom. BUt the situation in Iran MAY be moving too fast for that. |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-06-18 12:35 |
| #3 “The one who said in his inaugural address…” SteveS, I think you would agree that The President should be more circumspect when it comes to statements about rapidly evolving events as opposed to an inaugural address – but point taken. I was thinking more along these lines. When it came apparent that Raul Castro was about to ascend to Grand Poobah of Cuba, Bush broadcasted an address urging the people of the island to “rise up to demand their liberty.'' Good for him! Not surprising, instantly there was some critical of the President's speech. They called it a “stale approach” and said it would “threaten to make the United States irrelevant on the island.'' And guess what…they all had an agenda. It seems to me most of the criticism of Obama on this one is less about righteous indignation and more about political carping. (Crumbled cookie) |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2009-06-18 12:23 |
| #2 This sniping of the O-Teams tepid response to Iranian election seems eerily reminiscent of the ankle biters that couldnÂ’t resist criticizing Bush at every turn Would that be the same Bush who freed 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan from thugocracies? The one who said in his inaugural address "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2009-06-18 10:37 |
| #1 "Their [the Obama administration] silence on the issue of human rights violations is very troubling to me." This sniping of the O-Teams tepid response to Iranian election seems eerily reminiscent of the ankle biters that couldn’t resist criticizing Bush at every turn. In fact, there is a cogent argument to be made that a measured reaction is the best course in the early stages of such events. Lets face it - an “Iranian Peaceful Protest” is an anomaly – and more likely an oxymoron. So it would seem that if there are any more of those fire-bomb your way into a military facility thingies it might be best if the motivations were viewed as strictly domestic. |
| Posted by: Josh the Kid9150 2009-06-18 09:44 |