Article

2009-06-18 Syria-Lebanon-Iran

US lawmaker: Iran crackdown is 'horrible human tragedy'

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 2009-06-18 00:00|| || Front Page|| [6 views ] Top
File under: Govt of Iran

#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 couldnt 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|| 2009-06-18 09:44|| Front Page Top

#2 This sniping of the O-Teams tepid response to Iranian election seems eerily reminiscent of the ankle biters that couldnt 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|| 2009-06-18 10:37|| Front Page Top

#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 whatthey 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|| 2009-06-18 12:23|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-18 12:35|| Front Page Top

#5 atour de force speech that purports to understand every side, and reconcile them all in his wisdom.

Ouch!

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2009-06-18 16:34|| 2009-06-18 16:34|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-18 16:38|| Front Page Top

#7 Not this side of heikhalot TW.

Posted by Besoeker 2009-06-18 16:39|| 2009-06-18 16:39|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-18 17:03|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-18 19:17|| Front Page Top

#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">Frank G 2009-06-18 19:24|| 2009-06-18 19:24|| Front Page Top

#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|| 2009-06-18 21:20|| Front Page Top

#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">trailing wife 2009-06-18 23:27|| 2009-06-18 23:27|| Front Page Top

23:41 SteveS
23:39 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:36 rammer
23:27 trailing wife
23:12 Thing From Snowy Mountain
23:07 746
23:05 746
22:48 Glenmore
22:37 DMFD
22:15 49 Pan
22:11 Atomic Conspiracy
22:09 49 Pan
21:55 Broadhead6
21:45 tipper
21:33 Rambler in Virginia
21:29 Rambler in Virginia
21:28 Pappy
21:20 lotp
21:11 Frank G
20:51 Cheaderhead
20:46 linker
20:36 CrazyFool
20:28 mojo
20:16 Frank G