Article

2009-06-16 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

Obama Says Iran Must Pick Its Own Leaders

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2009-06-16 00:00|| || Front Page|| [9 views ] Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 01:40|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 05:21|| Front Page Top

#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">Frank G 2009-06-16 07:41|| 2009-06-16 07:41|| Front Page Top

#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!">Jack is Back! 2009-06-16 07:50|| 2009-06-16 07:50|| Front Page Top

#5 Didja ever notice that almost all bullies are actually cowards?

Posted by Parabellum 2009-06-16 08:22|| http://sidemeat.wordpress.com/]">[http://sidemeat.wordpress.com/] 2009-06-16 08:22|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 08:43|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 09:03|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 09:51|| Front Page Top

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

AoS

Posted by Steve White 2009-06-16 10:19|| 2009-06-16 10:19|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 10:19|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 10:53|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 10:55|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 11:42|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 12:04|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 12:26|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 12:39|| Front Page Top

#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!">Jack is Back! 2009-06-16 12:57|| 2009-06-16 12:57|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 13:00|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 13:04|| Front Page Top

#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">AlanC 2009-06-16 13:37|| 2009-06-16 13:37|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 13:48|| Front Page Top

#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.">Mitch H. 2009-06-16 14:00|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/] 2009-06-16 14:00|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 14:05|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 14:39|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 16:58|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 17:02|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 17:43|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-16 20:05|| Front Page Top

23:08 746
23:03 746
22:48 trailing wife
22:47 tipover
22:40 trailing wife
22:33 trailing wife
22:06 Justrand
21:59 Anguper Hupomosing9418
21:58 Atomic Conspiracy
21:55 trailing wife
21:43 Rambler in Virginia
21:39 trailing wife
21:38 Frank G
21:34 mojo
21:20 DarthVader
21:05 Pappy
20:59 Pappy
20:40 eLarson
20:18 GirlThursday
20:08 GirlThursday
20:05 airandee
20:02 European Conservative
19:58 Cornsilk Blondie
19:46 European Conservative