Perhaps Barack Obama should stop apologizing and say something about the situation in Iran.
Graphic video of an Iranian woman being shot dead while watching the Iran protests with her father is sweeping the net. While Iran state media is doing its best to put a muzzle on foreign media reporting on the violent revolution unfolding in Iran, American media is under no such constraints. Americans are treated to the news that Obama is eating an ice cream cone.
As news of 20 deaths so far between protestors and police in the streets of Tehran is reported by Iran's state media, American media reports that Hillary Clinton is recovering from surgery on her elbow. Though the surgery has been described as minor, it has apparently left Hillary without a voice, as no statement has been forthcoming from our Secretary of State about the millions of Iranians who are risking death to protest their oppression by a tyrannical government.
President Obama, after being elected President in part due to his carefully crafted image as a champion of the oppressed and supporter of equality for all, has decided that America will remain neutral, as he made clear while addressing (and validating) the "Supreme Leader." As the chaos in Iran accelerates, Obama assures the world that he is 'bearing witness.' I'm sure the Iranian people are breathing a collective sigh of relief.
As events continue to unfold, Obama has been forced to devote a small part of his never ending television face-time to opine that Iran should stop "all violent and unjust actions." Noticeably lacking in Obama's address was the passion he showed a mere two days ago, when he put critics of his financial overhaul on notice, saying, "While I'm not spoiling for a fight, I'm ready for one."
One would almost believe that our President considers American businessmen more of a threat than a murderous regime, systematically involved in oppressing and killing its own citizens for the crime of seeking freedom.
Shame on you, Mr. President. Shame on you for being the first American president in history to decline to stand up for freedom and democracy.
As our President takes to the airwaves to exhort American fathers to be better fathers than his own, millions of Americans are doing what he is not. Standing up for the Iranian people. Demonstrations are springing up in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. and across the country as the American people strive to make known their support for the Iranian people in their quest for freedom. Ditto in France, as thousands of people gathered north of Paris on Saturday to show their support for Iranian opposition protesters.
This American, while shamed by our current administration, is proud of America, knowing that the example our country has set and the freedoms we enjoy, serve as an example of what is possible. This American is proud that the Iranian people also have the example of Iraq to serve as a barometer of what might be feasible in their own country.
As our President concentrates on empty rhetoric and his own political viability, the people of America are taking to the streets. Showing by their actions that the American ideal of democracy and freedom is alive and well. And showing the Iranians that the American people, if not our President, are actively supporting them as they risk their lives to gain the basic freedoms that we take for granted.
Who knows, maybe one day the Iranian people will return the favor.
There’s an article you and find easily online called something like “Things President Bush wishes he hadn’t said.”
In addition to what’s mentioned I wonder exactly what was accomplished by the “axis of evil” speech.
Pat Buchanan agrees with what Obama is doing, and therefore Buchanan agrees with John Kerry. Lindsey Graham says, “President Obama is more timid than I would like.” I could just as easily take that as a sign that Obama is doing the right thing. Graham would probably be happier with a demonstration against Obama than he would be with a demonstration in support of the voters of Iran.
Restraint is not always weakness. Sometimes speaking every time you get the urge is weakness.
With the benefit of a couple weeks of hindsight, I wonder if ruminator still feels the same way about Obama’s, ahem “restraint”, in speaking on Iran while he demands, in solidarity with communist totalitarians Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega, that Honduras return to power a left wing leader exiled by his country’s supreme court and legislature for violating the constitution. Sometimes standing there like a moron when you should open your mouth, and then opening your mouth when it makes you look like a moron, is weakness.
Hi Patrick: Well Obama finally has spoken on Iran, and what has been the benefit? Is there any reason to think that the supreme leader and Ahmedinijad are looking to us for tips in how to run things? We’re not going to change the regime in Iran.
President Bush’s pronouncements seemed like they were more for the benefit of listeners back home. What about these “paper tiger” characterizations? And then a war of words comes.
“Speak softly and carry a big stick” is better.
I don’t know enough about Honduras yet. Sorry.
The point was, if Obama was showing principled restraint for the sake of geo-political liability in withholding his remarks on Iran, he violated the same principle in regards to Honduras. The only difference was that Honduras is experiencing political upheaval and adhering to their constitutional process to handle it, whereas Iran quite obviously has less legitimacy (more info on Obama’s remarks on Honduras can be found on the current first article on the homepage of this site: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/07/02/our-meddlesome-president-except-when-it-comes-to-iran/ ).
As far as the benefit of remarking on Iran, there is no real practical results to be had. However, as a matter of principle and of setting forth one’s priorities publicly on the world stage for the purpose of clarification, rhetoric matters (as no one, with the possible exception of Ahmadinejad, should understand better than Obama).
Your point was made clear in post #2. Why are you soliciting a comment from me on a subject that I have let you know I am not informed about?
In my opinion, yours, and Obama’s, the people in Iran who want reform have the more legitimate position. But the supreme leader thinks he has God power (legitimacy). This sounds like a great thing for us not to get mixed up in.
My second post wasn’t intended to “solicit a comment”, just clarifying my original point by way of comparison. If “getting mixed up in” condemning rigged elections of a religiously-annointed totalitarian is something America should avoid in regards to Iran, America should do likewise with a democracy pursuing an internal matter regarding the constitutionality of the actions of its legitimately elected leader. Obama keeping silent on Iran in and of itself isn’t what I primarily object to – it is his justification for doing so which he promptly contradicted.
OK except Obama HAS commented on Iran, so he is not so much inconsistent with himself as he is with the approach that I perhaps mistakenly attributed to him.
Unless one chooses to believe that he only commented on Iran in response to pressure from Americans and Israelis, which has occurred to me. Whereas maybe he relished commenting on the Honduras situation for some reason, which it sounds like you believe he does.
Maybe, having implied that our problems with Iran were partly Bush’s fault, he was reticent about going after them.
You’re right, rhetoric matters, and not to mention that the positions that you used to get elected will assist you or haunt you, depending on how well chosen.
I still think the whole thing with the Shah Pahlevi and the revolution of 1979 would have justified keeping quiet about Iran for now so that any accusation of US involvement would be properly seen as a fantasy.