Subscribe
Notify of
53 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

A lot of Ahmadinejad’s gloating over the election results sounds like “Change and hope!”

Interesting comment by Thomas Friedman in the NYTimes:

While the Lebanese deserve 95 percent of the credit for this election, 5 percent goes to two U.S. presidents. As more than one Lebanese whispered to me: Without George Bush standing up to the Syrians in 2005 — and forcing them to get out of Lebanon after the Hariri killing — this free election would not have happened. Mr. Bush helped create the space. Power matters. Mr. Obama helped stir the hope. Words also matter.

IF Obama really believes that his ‘speeches’ affect the way people behave he has a serious problem. We remember the great words and phrases from great speakers because they inspire us to higher goals. There are no memorable words or phrases from any of Obama’s speeches.
His Cairo speech was peppered with Politically-correct history fables designed to please his muslim audience – but they, like anyone else with a knowledge of history, knew that Obama was exaggerating. Truth is memorable and inspiring, patronization is insulting.

You wish this was over. It’s not. Just like Christian conservatism is going down so is Muslim conservatism. The only question is how it ever got big in the first place. I guess the world just got lazy. It happens. Now the clean up has begun.

even though the so-called “reform” candidate Moussavi had the same views of Iran’s nuclear development as Ahmadinejad.

It’s probably a good thing Mousavi “lost”.

1) There’s the popular outrage taking to the streets
2) Politically, it’s easier for Israel and the U.S. to stand opposed to Ahmadinejad than to the “reform” candidate.

This fraudulent election is a major foreign policy defeat for the administration. As pointed out in the Michael Ledeen article (http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/06/13/the-iranian-circus-iii/), Obama said absolutely nothing in his Cairo speech in support of democracy in Iran. When it appeared that the reformers would win, Obama came out and took credit in the form of that very speech for what they expected to be a dramatic change. When “change” did not materialize, Obama made a mildly critical statement. What he failed to recognize is that his administration’s perspective of the politics of Iran is simply wrong and naïve. In the meanwhile, if the various blogs are correct, Chavez is sending his thugs to Iran to support the corrupt regime and many of the riot police are Arabs recruited from outside of Iran. It is hard for me to believe that the Iranian police are enthusiastic about beating up their own children. This is the time for Obama to step out and condemn the regime, but he and his advisors are completely befuddled. He cannot recognize that there is real evil in the world and he certainly doesn’t believe that the US should criticize such evil. Democracy is among his core values. I suspect this is the first of many foreign policy blunders that we will experience. The world is certainly not a safer place because of our president.

Lebanese election a “referendum” on Obama? Talk about pie in the sky…. Lebanon has had five parliamentary elections since their late 80s civil war. Never gave Hezbollah a major seat at the table before… and all without the big Zero at the helm. What makes anyone think they repeated historic rejection of Hezbollah as a ruling power because of Obama??

BTW, Mike, why do you believe Politico’s Ben Smith was “trying with varying degrees of success to find a silver lining in the outcome for Obama”? I don’t read that article with that tone at all… they are pointing out that Obama… trying to laud himself as an int’l agent of “change”… would have a hard time spinning this to his favor. Politico is hardly one of those media outlets that are partakers of the O’prozac.

Craig… your comment makes no sense whatsoever. Having a problem with nouns, verbs and constructing a thought today?

First of all, no one said anything about “wishing” something was over. Wish *what* was over?

Secondly, lazy and conservatism are an oxymoron when used in tandem. It’s those that feed at the trough of government that are lazy.

As for how conservatism (which is not related to religion in anyway but in your mind) got big to begin with, it’s because generations of Americans relished capitalism’s opportunities. They used to take pride in accomplishments and shoot for the moon to improve their lives.

Now we’ve raised generations of lazy youth who prefer to take a meager government handout, have no pride or ambitions lest they are labeled “big oil, big business, evil CEO”. The US education system has made achievement a dirty word, and representative of an evil class system.

And evidently, if your attempted point is that socialism is taking over as a “clean up”, you’re a perfect example of that downgrade in public education.

Clean up? It’s what will need to be done after history deficient types like those in charge now destroy what made America a superpower to begin with.

@MataHarley: If you compare the Politico link to the S.F. Chron. link you’ll see they “vary” in how they view the Obama effect. No doubt that the Politico piece was more skeptical.

@disturber: I agree with everything you say except this “Democracy is among his core values.” If that is in reference to Obama I have to disagree. He ran as a post partisan candidate but has governed solely with the support from Democrats in congress.

He may still believe in “democracy” but I suspect it’s the same kind of democracy found in states like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North) or the former German Democratic Republic (East Germany).

Obama views democracy the same way Marxists do. One party rules.

P.S. Thanks for that link to Michael Ledeen’s piece. I’ll have to post that.

Wordsmith: I would have liked to see Ahmadjihad get beat. But not if that meant Obama would take the credit.

Egad!” I meant to say that “Democracy is not among his core values. Not enough coffee this am.

Disturber

@Mike’s America:

I would have liked to see Ahmadjihad get beat. But not if that meant Obama would take the credit.

Really? All it takes is for Obama to be seen in a positive light and you’re cheering for Ahmadinejad? Here’s a thought experiment, find this on a lefty web-site: “I would have liked to see Hezbollah get beat in Lebanon, but not if that meant Bush would take the credit.” and tell me it doesn’t reek of BDS and terrorism sympathies. Having read your posts for a while now, I think you just got ahead of yourself here, but this kind of political philosophy – that short-term failures for America (or democracy) are good because they prevent a long-term liberal agenda which is more harmful – is the same justification the Kos Kidz were using in tacitly approving of US deaths in Iraq (more dead soldiers now means we get out of there sooner and have less dead soldiers overall).

But enough trolling, I’m genuinely curious what the conservative approach would be here, and how it has panned out historically? From what I’ve seen, the general idea is to ignore the Iranian government until they move towards the middle and accept certain pre-conditions. Yet here we have a move towards the middle in Iran, and much of the right (Wordsmith, here) are arguing that it’s unfortunate because now it would be harder for us to demonize Moussavi. The other option is to wait/encourage the country to move to the extreme until we can attack them; for whatever reasons (be it the media, lack of will, laziness, political opportunism, short-sightedness) the Iraq war has shown that this is either incredibly difficult or completely impossible, and is guaranteed to result in many deaths and general destabilization – the financial crisis and two wars would make such a proposition even more dubious.

What exactly does the right propose when they claim Ahmadinejad is a maniac, but the relatively moderate Moussavi’s win would be even worse?

@trizzlor:

I listened to a conversation over the weekend regarding Israel’s position on Ahmadinejad’s win. One thought put forward was…… that Israel would prefer the manic Ahmadinejad, his behavior would continue to draw sympathy to their cause whereas Moussavi would not. Familiar?

We were traveling, I don’t remember what city/channel the conversation took place, it wasn’t a right wing group. One should not label Wordsmith as right wing, he’ll fool you everytime, he’s conservative capable of deep reasoning. That particular idea is out there and being discussed in other circles.

On This Week, Mitt Romney reminded us of Obama’s speech to AIPAC. Obama promised them he would never allow Iran to have a nuclear capability, in his Cairo speech he said we could not interfere. Then the manchild prematurely takes credit for the results of the election due to his Cairo speech, all things considered, what’s the message here? Terribly mixed?

As far as this comment:

The other option is to wait/encourage the country to move to the extreme until we can attack them

My understanding of the “Axis of Evil,” we would continue talks with NK, with Iran we were seeing signs that the government would eventually be overthrown from within. I don’t remember the Bush Administration advocating attacking Iran. For years we had decided that Saddam had to be overthrown due to his terrorist connections, oppressing/murdering his people, defying UN Resolutions, reneging on the agreed terms after Gulf 1 and according to the UN, ours and other governments, WMD.

@trizzlor: I never suggested supporting Ahmadinejhad to spite Obama and you know it. How absurd.

Yes, you were indeed “trolling” and it does you no credit.

The conservative position on Iran has been clear all along: support the democracy movement. Many of us were frustrated that the Bush Administration did not do MORE to help along these lines. But it is important to note the number of speeches which President Bush DID GIVE directly supporting freedom movements in Iran.

@Mike’s America: Sure, but you wouldn’t be happy with an Ahmadinejad loss if Obama took credit, or something like that. Whatever parsing helps you sleep at night.

The conservative position on Iran has been clear all along: support the democracy movement.

Great, we all support democracy in Iran, but how does that translate into actual policy decisions? How do you reconcile this with the current neo-conservative messaging that we should be happy when a relative moderate lost? What’s the ideal end-game for democracy promotion done by cutting off diplomatic relations based on pre-conditions; and how did Bush bring us closer to that?

@trizzlor:

Victor Davis Hanson is on point as usual, comments are also quite informative.

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/reflections-on-the-iranian-enigma/

@trizzlor: Your over generalizations and simplications leave me baffled. How in the hell do you think that all neoconservatives think it better that Amadjihad won?

Get real.

The very minimum Obama could and should do is speak out in support of democracy in Iran. No one is suggesting that we attack.

Stop playing games. These are serious matters.

triz: Great, we all support democracy in Iran, but how does that translate into actual policy decisions? How do you reconcile this with the current neo-conservative messaging that we should be happy when a relative moderate lost? What’s the ideal end-game for democracy promotion done by cutting off diplomatic relations based on pre-conditions; and how did Bush bring us closer to that?

Apparently, triz, you are clueless to the Bush underground program to encourage the Iranian youth into effecting regime change. The Democracy Program initiative has been in place since 2006. Liz Cheney, daughter of the former Veep, helped launch this program.

An aggressive effort by the State Department to fund regime change in Iran is ongoing, but the State Department has refused to provide lawmakers with specific details of the program other than to say that the core mission of the initiative is to assist “those inside Iran who desire basic civil liberties such as freedom of expression, greater rights for women, more open political process, and broader freedom of the press.”

Congress has appropriated more than $120 million to fund the project. The State Department has spent most of the money on the U.S.-backed Radio Farda, Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe, and to broadcast Persian programs into Iran via VOA satellite television.

Some funds, according to State Department sources familiar with the how the program is run, have also been secretly funneled to exile Iranian organizations, and politically connected individuals in order to help the U.S. establish contacts with Iranian opposition groups.

Nurturing an internal rebellion is far superior than tiptoeing around oppressive regime tactics in “hopes” that Dingy-dip-wad may suddenly become open to talks, dropping their path towards nuclear armament, and running roughshop over the Iranians.

So the Bush admin made a firm, unquestioable stance on American “values” and freedom, while the big Zero delivers “just talk” and no action. That he remains silent on the Iranian response to post election riots is not only embarrassing, it’s a deliberate move to demote the US from “leader of the free world” to “follower of the free world”.

@MataHarley: This program, or what we know of it, looks like a good thing reminiscent of Voice of America broadcasts that were very effective in the USSR. It’s great that Bush funded it, and I would be very surprised if it or something like it does not continue under Obama, as this is a fairly typical approach to non-allied isolationist regimes. I don’t see how programs like this one are mutually exclusive from a diplomatic approach, or how Obama is “tiptoeing around oppressive regime tactics”. Rather, he has repeatedly made clear his respect for the Iranian people and willingness for negotiations to encourage democracy and human rights there; not much different from Bush’s stance, except to say that negotiations are possible. Such an approach is essentially win-win: if Ahmadinejad agrees to talks, we can get an idea of their motivations and walk away at any moment; if he doesn’t (which seems like the case) we can use that to marginalize him with moderate Muslims and take away his main anti-American talking point.

Still, if you and Mike insist the the conservative position is to move Iran away from extremism, why are many neo-cons unhappy with a Moussavi win (and should they be)? While I never claimed that “all” neo-cons prefer Ahmadinejad, but this is certainly a credible notion. See Daniel Pipes “Rooting for Ahmadinejad,” as well as KLo and The NRO’s Iran expert.

Lastly, the danger with Obama coming out against the election results is that his statements will be used to paint Moussavi as a Western patsy, and de-legitimize the opposition; especially when there is not yet a smoking gun (although the district totals certainly look fishy, as Juan Cole detailed). Even the right misrepresented his pre-election rhetoric (which was essentially boilerplate pro-democracy stuff) as taking credit for the election, so it’s not hard to imagine Ahmadinejad being even more effective. The best he could do was hold off on approving the election results (shamefully, Europe did not) and elicit doubt through surrogates like Biden. Now that the supreme leader has ordered a review, and some serious violence is breaking out, Obama needs to come out with a firm pro-humanitarian stance – let’s hope he does.

Triz, first of all my name is MataHarley, not Mike. I made no comments on Dingy-job vs Moussavi, and you should not lump me in with Mike’s comments in anyway. We both have our own mind. I don’t speak for him, nor does he for me.

Frankly both were deplorable choices in the Iranian election. The only advantage to the incumbent losing would be demonstration that the Iranian youth (the majority of the population) were demanding “change”. Whether one or the other wins, the US faces the same dilemma with Iran. This is the only thing Biden was on the money with, INRE his comments.

Frankly, that the youth is rebelling in the streets is heartening. First, it does pepper the notion that they are dissatisfied with the current regime’s rule. Second, that they are becoming bolder. And last, it (unfortunately) exposes how brutal Iran is on their population, and that their elections are a sham.

INRE your comment:

Lastly, the danger with Obama coming out against the election results is that his statements will be used to paint Moussavi as a Western patsy, and de-legitimize the opposition; especially when there is not yet a smoking gun (although the district totals certainly look fishy, as Juan Cole detailed).

No where did I say that Obama needed to come out and condemn who won or lost. What Obama *needs* to do to be a “leader” and not a “follower” of the EU… who has already demonstrated more balls that this POTUS… is condemn the policy thuggery in response to the riots, the termination of communication via Internet and text messages, and the lack of int’l oversight to insure the election was indeed not fraud. None of those things lend support to either candidate, but they do state unequivocably America’s “values” that Obama says he treasures… but only in words and rhetoric. When it comes to backing up those values, he’s no leader.

And oh, BTW… having Khamenei verify the election as not stolen is like asking the fox to hold the chicken census.

The EU is also part of the Iran negotiating world. If they can speak out for fair elections and human rights, so can the US. However the US should have been leading the way… not waiting to see what will happen, or if anyone has more cajones that this putz.

Juan Cole… what a joke.

ADDED: INRE the Democracy Program initiative. You seem sure Obama continues it. I don’t. I know Bush did. I put the onus on you to prove Obama is continuing this program. Until then, I say it left with the previous admin.

ADDED: INRE the Democracy Program initiative, Triz. You seem sure Obama continues it. I don’t. I know Bush had this policy and Congress funded it under the GOP. I put the onus on you to prove Obama is continuing this program under his regime and the Pelosi-Reid Congress. Until then, I say it left with the previous admin.

@trizzlor: Sounds to me like YOU are the one who is happy Amadjihad won!

Get over yourself!

Where is Obama?

If you claim to support democracy and freedom in Iran, why is the guy you voted for SILENT???

@Mike’s America: Yet another discussion you’ve reduced to “I know you are but what am I” finger pointing. Obama commented on Iran, re-iterating the same points he made prior to the election (which you folks took as grandstanding), and denouncing the violence and bloodshed. What would you propose he had done, held an international press-conference and threatened to bomb?

This sounds like a re-hash of the Somalian Pirate hostage-taking; where you wanted Obama threatening the pirates while they still had a hostage, and then blamed him for stealing the spot-light when he commented on the success of the mission.

Obama commented on Iran

Obama finally commented on Iran at 6:21pm, 6:41pm, and 6:47pm (EST) on 6/15/09. (FTFY)

When was the election again? How many days ago…….

How long has the violence been going on in the streets? How many beaten or shot to death…..

Even President Obama admits it was wrong to stay silent.

Obie has a history of remaining silent when times get tough.

Remember his Gaza non-response?

@MataHarley:

Triz, first of all my name is MataHarley, not Mike …

Your post was in response to mine about conservative reaction to the election; is it such a leap to group your opinion with that of Mike (and myself, frankly) – that the US wants to move Iran away from extremism? If you don’t want to comment on the statements from Pipes or the Corner, we can drop it, but that was my initial point and one that I was re-iterating because both of you had skirted it.

Juan Cole… what a joke.

Maybe there’s an internet tradition I’m not aware of here, but his region-by-region analysis of the election results is the only attempt I’ve seen at documenting the underlying election fraud. Found the link on Red State, so I don’t know his history.

I put the onus on you to prove Obama is continuing this program. Until then, I say it left with the previous admin.

Considering the program is so secretive that congress wasn’t briefed on where half the money went, it could exist in any number of ways now. We do know that Voice of America, at least is still broadcasting into Iran …

No, Triz… My post responded to what Bush did as his Iranian policy to which apparently you are clueless, and remain so plus. Nothing more, nothing less. It was you who decided to lump me in a category with others, envisioning comments and responses I never made.

Is it “such a leap”, you ask? Not for one who thinks in classes and races as the norm.

Specifically you charged:

Still, if you and Mike insist the the conservative position is to move Iran away from extremism, why are many neo-cons unhappy with a Moussavi win (and should they be)? While I never claimed that “all” neo-cons prefer Ahmadinejad, but this is certainly a credible notion.

First of all, I’d say it’s the American (both sides) ideology to move Iran away from extremism. We just all disagree on how to accomplish this. Now I demand you tell me where I said I was “unhappy” with either Ahmadinejad or Moussavi as a candidate, or that I expressed a preference in the outcome. Try to do it before I die since… as I never did express an opinion or preference … you’ll be awhile with your recanted comment.

Juan Cole as a joke is a personal opinion, not an “internet tradition”. Again you “lump” me with herds. I am not, nor have ever been, a herd animal. But if you have any question as to Juan Cole’s political leanings, you might want to note his “friends and interlocuters” links on his website are:

Josh Marshall | Salon.com | DailyKos | Tomdispatch.com | Kevin Drum (Mother Jones) | Truthdig| The Nation | MattYglesias | Helena Cobban | Huffingtonpost |Syria Comment | Abu Aardvark | WashingtonNote | Stephen Walt | Kamil Pasha | Andrew Sullivan | George Packer |

Yeah… there’s a conservative group if I ever saw one. Duh wuh… As I said, what a joke.

INRE the Democracy Program Initiative and your latest comment… it is, as you and I readily agree, a very good option. The GOP Congress funded it, even tho there was no oversight as to the cash output. I can add that is true with almost all of Congressional appropriations.

Now perhaps you’ll start asking that bozo in the WH if he’s still continuing that very good option. As I said, I know what Bush did, but I don’t assume Obama is continuing it.. nor that Pelosi and Reid continue to fund it. In fact, it’s entirely possible that the first budget year of their control… 2008… it could have disappeared.

Do you know what Obama’s doing? That would be “Mr. Transparency”, I believe he’s called.

@MataHarley: It’s admirable that you treat Triz’s remarks with such consideration. I frankly find that his lame attempts to put words in people’s mouths is such a transparent device that I have very little else to say to him.

It would be interesting to see if one of your well considered responses has any impact on his clearly flawed thinking but I am not holding out any hope.

Triz is just following the marching orders he received at Huffpo or some other lefty site which is promoting the idea that conservatives are opposed to democratization in Iran.

And yes, perhaps we need to go back and dig up the references President Bush made in his speeches on this subject to provide our Dem friends with some assistance as it seems they haven’t got a clue what to say or do.

If you want to tackle that one Mata, please do. I am overquota and if I post too much more today our moonbats may be worried that I have launched a coup at Flopping Aces and taken over.

Oh… so as not to dodge your comment about Daniel Pipes, of whom I have the upmost respect…

Daniel would, of course, find more inherent value in Ahmadinejad winning. That would be obvious… look at the riots and reaction. Would that have happened with Dingy-dip-wad’s loss? Like America, a period of “false hope” and either worse sheeeeeeet or more of the same ol’, same ol’.

Then of course, this election is… much like the Iraq liberation in that allowed the jihad movements to show their true colors (ala mutilating and killing Muslim peers for their jihad)… a way for Ahmadinejad to show more of *his* true colors by arresting the opposition and engaging in Tianamen Square police tactics. This just helps build the future civil war of Iran and wresting control by the westernized youth. Frankly, this particular “rebellion” will not effect regime change. But it is the first time in decades that this type of uprising has been visible in Iran. That is a good sign.

Does that mean I “rooted” for Ahmadinejad? Nope. Have no opinion between loser #1 and loser #2 here. This isn’t Obama (loser #1) and McCain (loser #2) where I actually have a personal stake as a citizen. I just wish that the Iranians at least had a fair vote, and not be brutally treated for the right to redress grievances with their government. And that is something Obama should be condemning… without offering support to any candidate… from the WH former rooftop garden.

@MataHarley: What I find offensive and deeply dishonest is that Triz and his Huffpo talking points assume that all conservatives must think alike. It’s similar to how they tried to accuse “right wingers” of inspiring the Holocaust Museum Shooter.

I haven’t even read what Pipes said about this. I stand by my opinion that it would have been nice to see Amadjihad get the boot. But it may be even better to see the situation develop now where the entire theocracy could potentially get the boot.

If that is what Pipes was suggesting then I am all for it.

If you guys want to bask in the self-victimization some more, don’t let me get in the way. I never accused you of being against democratization of Iran, in fact I granted you that position (“if you and Mike insist the the conservative position is to move Iran away from extremism“) and asked how you reconcile that with the statements of prominent conservatives that they would prefer Ahmadinejad to win. It’s funny that you guys waste so much breath accusing me of painting you with a broad brush and then go on to agree with Pipes’ thesis. Personally, I think it’s a dangerous game to push a regime towards extremism hoping that it will tear itself apart and democracy will rise from the ashes. Rather, I suspect Pipes has long ago concluded that the military option is the only one that can work with Iran and simply hopes that a more extremist president there will commit some horror there that will require retaliation.

Mike, your comment, and let me repeat it here so I’m not accused of putting words in your mouth again – “I would have liked to see Ahmadjihad get beat. But not if that meant Obama would take the credit.” – stands on it’s own. I don’t know how you can look at that and honestly say that it’s not hyper-partisan rhetoric. Even Kristol is coming around to the fact that Obama is our president, and when he does the right thing, the US is doing the right thing.

Triz, I will tell you once more with civility… my name is MataHarley, not Mike, not Daniel Pipes. Kindly point out to me where I have expressed any opinion on the advantage of either one of these Iranian losers being the victor. As I have already stated in the simplest of terms, who wins is of no consequence to me since neither were going to be compliant INRE their nuke programs, nor Israel’s right to exist. As for the repercussions of Ahmadinejad’s win, they are obvious as you watch cable TV and the riots in the streets. It’s a no brainer. Can we tell what would have happened if the opposition had won? Nope. Just what we have in front of us as reality

I said I could understand what Pipes said. I did not agree, nor disagree. I simply see his point of reasoning. That you construe this as every conservative viewpoint is a leap of desperation in your attempt to debate.

As far as victimization goes… sorry… that label belongs to you and yours, Triz. I’m not so politically sensitive that my day is ruined and I scream from the mountain tops in frustration that you prefer to lump everyone in classes and groups. That’s your nature. Your bigotry and blanket generalizations roll off me like water off a duck. You see races, genders and classes. I see Americans. And in in you, I see a very stupid and rude American with the most limited of reading ability.

@trizzlor: What part of this do you NOT understand?

The idea that some on the left pushed that Obama could claim credit for a better outcome in Iran was absurd. And since you seem to want to link all conservatives together, perhaps we should ask you to defend that absurdity.

When you “asked how you reconcile that with the statements of prominent conservatives that they would prefer Ahmadinejad to win” you assume that I am responsible for explaining what other conservatives think or do?

Go read Pipes yourself if you want to know what he thinks. We don’t all agree with each other in lockstep as you and your fellow lefties apparently do.

I could point out numerous points of disagreement but since your role here is not to learn but to create a distraction, I would only be aiding your effort.

Give it a rest!

Here’s one example of where I find myself in complete agreement with a fellow conservative@MataHarley: ” in [Trizzlor], I see a very stupid and rude American with the most limited of reading ability. “

You guys are coming off pretty fed up here, but maybe you should re-read my first post. My main interest was what a proposed conservative alternative would be, I offered a few positions which I thought were representative of the approach in the past and seemed to me contradictory now that Iran was actually undergoing some change. This seems like a fairly standard question, and in fact, Mike initially took no offense to it: “The conservative position on Iran has been clear all along: support the democracy movement.“. Now you want to argue that conservatives are each like a beautiful snowflake and have their own unique opinions, that’s fine. I just assumed we were all adults here and could, at least, look at that question and say “I don’t know what the majority conservative approach is, but here’s mine…” or ignore it completely.

MataHarley, you’re right that you merely explained Pipes’ sentiment and did not explicitly agree with it, my apologies for conflating your views with Mikes. I’m sure you guys get a lot of people in here trying to cause a scene, my intent wasn’t to pin you to someone else’s words but to understand the pro-Ahmadi sentiment coming from prominent neo-con voices as well as your (concordant or not) opinions on how the US should move forward given the changes going on in Iran.

@trizzlor: If your goal was to understand “pro Ahmadi” sentiment (which is NOT what neocons were espousing) then go ask someone you feel is promoting that view.

Clearly WE ARE NOT PROMOTING AHMADINEJAD.

Why you think we should explain views we do not fully share is beyond me.

But if you want to be tarred with the same brush and asked to defend every view put forward by the left then let’s have at it.

Perhaps you can explain Code Pink’s view siding with the jihadi terrorists in Fallujah? Surely you must have agreed with that?

Three terrific Opeds today, first up is Robert Kaplan’s piece in the WaPo. He leaves me doubting that the Obama Admin is not working with the Iranian people. Liz Cheney’s program may still be funded, but if it is, it’s money waisted, what else is new with the powers that be?

One of the great innovations in the Obama administration’s approach to Iran, after all, was supposed to be its deliberate embrace of the Tehran rulers’ legitimacy. In his opening diplomatic gambit, his statement to Iran on the Persian new year in March, Obama went out of his way to speak directly to Iran’s rulers, a notable departure from George W. Bush’s habit of speaking to the Iranian people over their leaders’ heads. As former Clinton official Martin Indyk put it at the time, the wording was carefully designed “to demonstrate acceptance of the government of Iran.”

This approach had always been a key element of a “grand bargain” with Iran. The United States had to provide some guarantee to the regime that it would no longer support opposition forces or in any way seek its removal. The idea was that the United States could hardly expect the Iranian regime to negotiate on core issues of national security, such as its nuclear program, so long as Washington gave any encouragement to the government’s opponents. Obama had to make a choice, and he made it. This was widely applauded as a “realist” departure from the Bush administration’s quixotic and counterproductive idealism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061601753.html

Next up, Over a couple of days now, I’ve been noting that lefties are commenting that Ahmadinejad was brought to power because of warmonger Bush. Heh. That isn’t really why I’m posting this though.

Danielle Pletka and Ali Alfoneh are telling us that Ahmedinejad has strategically placed his military all through the government, the press, etc. and has sucessfully boxed Khomeni in. Khomeni sold out the clerics to save his position, he’s still “technically” in power along with the 12 members of the Guardian Council. This could explain the bit of back and forth going on around the scenes with Rafsanjani and another cleric, they aren’t trusting Khomeni. If Pletka and Alfoneh are calling this correctly.

JUST after Iran’s rigged elections last week, with hundreds of thousands of protesters taking to the streets, it looked as if a new revolution was in the offing. Five days later, the uprising is little more than a symbolic protest, crushed by the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Meanwhile, the real revolution has gone unnoticed: the guard has effected a silent coup d’état.

The seeds of this coup were planted four years ago with the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And while he has since disappointed his public, failing to deliver on promised economic and political reforms, his allies now control the country. In the most dramatic turnabout since the 1979 revolution, Iran has evolved from theocratic state to military dictatorship.

Disenchantment with clerical rule has been growing for years. To the urban youths who make up Iran’s most active political class, the mullahs represent the crude rigidity of Islamic law. To the rural poor, they epitomize the corruption that has meant unbuilt schools, unpaved roads and unfulfilled promises of development.

This hostility overflowed during the 2005 presidential race, with the defeat of former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a cleric widely considered corrupt, by Mr. Ahmadinejad, a former officer in the Revolutionary Guards.

In Mr. Ahmadinejad, the public saw a man who repudiated the profligacy of the clerical class, a man who was ascetic, humble and devout. And he capitalized on that image to consolidate power and to promote his brothers in arms.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/opinion/17pletka.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Then we have Melanie Phillips outstanding write up, “Oh dear, how inconvenient for the White House”….enjoy:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3700526/oh-dear-how-inconvenient-for-the-white-house.thtml

Great links Missy.

I totally agree with the Wapo article that Obama is siding with the Mullahs. He foolishly thinks that by offering them legitimacy they will agree to stop making nukes. Fat chance.

Melanie Phillips has it right on as usual also.

I especially like the excerpt she took from the American Thinker article:

The great majority of the people of Iran are disillusioned and even disgusted by the mediaeval incompetent, oppressive, and corrupt rule of the mullahs, irrespective of which mafia gang is in power. The votes, more than anything else, are protest ballots cast against the entire system, rather than indications of support for the so-called conservative-moderate coalition. It took less than 4 years for Iranians to realize that boycotting the so-called elections in the Islamic Republic of Iran can only bring to power even a worse bunch of Islamofascists. This time around the people turned out to vote for the lesser of two camps of evil — the mullah dominated gang of conservatives and ‘moderates.’

That could also be a lesson to the conservatives in our country who don’t vote.

All of this reinforces my point that we have a rare opportunity here and that Obama is blowing it bigtime. We’ll be stuck with the Mullahs for years now thanks to Odumbo!

Phillips and others have been making the claim that Obama was too silent too long on the cold-blooded beating and killing of protesters. Kagan (Kaplan?) assumes this is because Obama is a “realist” and is simply looking to broker with whoever comes into power and so isn’t looking to rock the boat. Obama himself has stated that he doesn’t want to give America’s poison kiss to the opposition, which would doom them as enemies of Islam (Moussavi has been very shrewd so far in co-opting religious traditions). While I initially agree with MataHarley’s point that a stronger statement against all violence should have been made (and would have made us all feel better as Americans doing something to help), in hindsight I’m not so sure. Even based on Obama’s mealy-mouthed comments, the Iranian Foreign Ministry is already complaining of American intervention, and government leaders are claiming that this means protesters are waging war on Islam, and should be executed. Had such a response come in the first few days of the opposition, it could have killed it (or inflamed it, for that matter). It’s not hard to distort America’s statements in a country with almost complete media blackout, so I wonder what the response would have been like if we had come out with loud condemnation. Especially considering the US is essentially toothless in this situation, as Ahmadinejad’s trip to Russia underscored.

triz: While I initially agree with MataHarley’s point that a stronger statement against all violence should have been made (and would have made us all feel better as Americans doing something to help), in hindsight I’m not so sure. Even based on Obama’s mealy-mouthed comments, the Iranian Foreign Ministry is already complaining of American intervention, and government leaders are claiming that this means protesters are waging war on Islam, and should be executed. Had such a response come in the first few days of the opposition, it could have killed it (or inflamed it, for that matter). It’s not hard to distort America’s statements in a country with almost complete media blackout, so I wonder what the response would have been like if we had come out with loud condemnation

Well first, triz… thanks for *finally* making your way to a similar conclusion as myself that Obama should have spoken out against their violent response to protests, and to an election that needs evaluation (without suggesting either candidate should be the victor).

However to leap to the conclusion that had Obama spoken out at the same time Europe did would have inflamed their already inflamed reaction is akin to blaming America for 911. Iran needs no excuse to point their fingers in our direction and deflect scrutiny of their own brutality elsewhere.

Make no mistake.. the “media blackout” does not extend to the Iranian leadership… only to the citizenry. The leaders know every word the media has reported with no editing. There is no distortion on the press coverage but on their skewed rebroadcast to their own denizens.

Iran’s treatment of their protesters is not the blame of America… whether Obama spoke out or not. Instead he was, as you say, mealy mouthed and johnny come lately to stand up for American values of free and fair elections, and human rights. What they did, and continue to do, would have happened no matter what.

This is something I wish I had agreed/discussed sooner but we got caught up :). While I would never blame the victim of a crime, the issue of blowback is something we do need to keep in mind, especially when it’s preventable. Obviously there are extremists who will act out their manias no matter what we do, but there are also the “moderates” who are looking to pick a side or no side. I personally don’t usually read books recommended to me by on-line strangers, but I would very much point you towards The Accidental Guerrilla, by David Kilcullen – the counterinsurgency adviser to Petraeus in Iraq. His point, essentially, is that most of these terrorist movements grow because the west (often unintentionally) changes some cultural balance in the region or because anti-western leaders are able to mobilize ignorant masses with rhetoric; the conflict is over the direction of these moderates and the way to deal with this is to encourage division within local groups (don’t call them islamofascists – rather focus on their internal hostilities) and work as indirectly as possible. In Iran, you do that by letting the opposition develop naturally and support them by not recognizing the election (someone tell the Czechs and Chinese) and simple statements about peace and order. Teary-eyed protesters aside, if Moussavi had wanted western support he would have made that clear in his subsequent rallies and statements. And yes, we’re not looking to pick a side, but for now, the US and Moussavi have some mutual goals in democracy promotion.

On the other hand, consider a scenario where Obama comes out forcefully: The mullah’s distort his statements and label opposition supporters as American spies and traitors to Islam; demonstrators are locked up en masse under penalty of execution and the protests cease because people are afraid for their lives; Ahmadinejad whips up anti-US sentiment and offers a recount as gesture of his good-will; the recount goes on for weeks, the results are confusing or unchanged, eventually the whole process is tainted and the current leadership remains with all parties involved begrudging perceived US meddling.

Like I said, it would certainly make me feel better if Obama had put on a real stem-winder about the bullshit going on in Tehran and I wouldn’t blame him for the blowback, but the end result would have been both tragic and avoidable.

I personally don’t usually read books recommended to me by on-line strangers, but I would very much point you towards The Accidental Guerrilla, by David Kilcullen – the counterinsurgency adviser to Petraeus in Iraq.

Didn’t I point that book out in a previous thread? I seem to recall linking to a WSJ article on it. I only skim-read the first couple of chapters and haven’t picked it up in a while, to finish. It’s one of several books I’m in the middle of and do find it useful.

@Wordsmith: I’m sure we’ve talked about blowback before but I don’t think the book had come out yet. Kilcullen had some very interesting newspaper interviews recently, in particular talking about how the financial crisis could effect stability in Pakistan; I’d be curious to see what the WSJ had to say about it because I think their agenda is quite different from his. I first heard about Kilcullen from “Imperial Life in the Emerald City,” another good book on Iraq but mostly anecdotal and very pessimistic.

A few comments about “blowback” inbetween my personal chaos of late, triz.

First, the Iranian citizens are not completely cut off from and to the world, nor being naively bamboozled. They are sneaking stuff out via other methods, nor are they backing down on what is justified… a fair election.

Which brings me to my main point. You speak of “blowback” as if a POTUS must comment on the protests and violence as a statement of support for any candidate. This appears to be common, as I hear that as a main talking point for Dems, and even from Pat Buchanan on the semi/quasi uber-left (oops…) RIGHT…. that had Obama “supported” the protesters, it would have been “worse”.

First of all, if any of you are in control of a working crystal ball to determine alternative universes, we all need to get together to make some serious bucks in today’s fluctuating economy. But since this is merely a BS point made with no foundation in facts, let’s go to something more concrete.

It’s as simple as this:

1: You can condemn police action and violence to protesters without lending support to the protesters cause. And you can speak out against the integrity of an election without supporting any candidate. The key phrases are “every vote must count and there should be credible oversight”, and “protests are key to fundamental democracy and freedom of speech. Tianamen Square tactics are not acceptable at any time.” All these can be accomplished without any credible accusations of “blowback”.

Doesn’t mean that the Iranian leadership won’t try to present it as such. However examination of the facts would be that a POTUS and free world would be on record as supporting free speech without violence, and fair accountable elections. No matter how Dingy-job twists the facts, they are on record and all deviations from truth and responsibility lie with him.

Just because he “claims” the US is “meddling” doesn’t make it so in reality. His murders will not fly in the world community. He cannot blame the US for the murders. He would do them anyway… statement or not.

2: It’s only a very small portion of the world, and even Iran itself, that will not have access to the full statements that support “free speech and fair elections”, as opposed to a candidate and outcome. The Iranian population are not new here. They know the score on America’s (if not Obama’s) attitude towards free speech and fair elections. Unfortunately, the only recent POTUS in history to walk the walk on that assertation has been GWB.

So let’s “be clear” here on what the “blowback” is. A statement that is non-definitive in the world of election outcome would not create any more violence than has happened.

Thanks for continuing to entertain this discussion. My other response must’ve gotten lost in the ether (I still haven’t cracked the spam-detection algorithm here) so this is a bit clipped.

Doesn’t mean that the Iranian leadership won’t try to present it as such. However examination of the facts would be that a POTUS and free world would be on record as supporting free speech without violence, and fair accountable elections. No matter how Dingy-job twists the facts, they are on record and all deviations from truth and responsibility lie with him.

This still seems to me to be more about making yourselves feel better rather than helping the Iranian people. Yes, in retrospect we will of course be judged as being on the side of freedom, but what explicitly are forceful denunciations meant to achieve in Iran? In your defense, the Ayatollah has indeed been blaming US meddling, simply by making up statements Obama never made. Is the opposition better off now because they can deride this is as lies rather than have to explain the context of actual quotes had Obama made them; I don’t know. I do see that the opposition is sustaining on its own and that the reaction of western governments was of little consequence. So weather through skill or dumb luck, Obama’s approach seems to be effective.

Obama came out on Saturday and emphasized his previous statements, which are mainly a re-hash of his boilerplate from Cairo. God forbid there is more violence in the streets this week, what is the US prepared to do to back up these statements (and what can we talk about publicly)? I think we can all agree that a military response is out of the question (it’s not coincidence that Ahmadinejad honey-mooned in Russia). For better or for worse, six years of isolationism has left us without much to bargain with. What’s the direct benefit of stronger condemnation if it is obviously toothless?

triz, only you seem to construe a definitive statement of American values INRE fair elections with oversight, and brutal treatment of citizens while exercising the right to free speech as something “making yourselves feel better rather than helping the Iranian people”. And in fact, you said:

Like I said, it would certainly make me feel better if Obama had put on a real stem-winder about the bullshit going on in Tehran and I wouldn’t blame him for the blowback, but the end result would have been both tragic and avoidable.

The Iranian people need to know their efforts are being supported by the free world. Not some namby-pamby BS from the “follower of the free world” about “watching”, “concerned” and “touched” by the events. [BTW, I was quite pleased to hear Lindsey Graham pick up on my newly coined phrase, “follower of the free world”, yesterday….]

As far as the end result being “tragic” and “avoidable”…. or, as you put it above:

On the other hand, consider a scenario where Obama comes out forcefully: The mullah’s distort his statements and label opposition supporters as American spies and traitors to Islam; demonstrators are locked up en masse under penalty of execution and the protests cease because people are afraid for their lives; Ahmadinejad whips up anti-US sentiment and offers a recount as gesture of his good-will; the recount goes on for weeks, the results are confusing or unchanged, eventually the whole process is tainted and the current leadership remains with all parties involved begrudging perceived US meddling.

My my… interesting comment you made in recent retrospect, don’t you think? As time has revealed, and as I predicted (or as you put it, in my “defense”), all of the above comes to fruition *without* Obama demonstrating any balls in leadership. Therefore your crystal ball is filled with sewage, and your quick agreement to ignore our values and remain diplomatically neutral has been proven to be an exercise in naivety.

The “tragic” happens despite his tiptoeing around a stand for our values of freedoms. But compounding the “tragic” is Iranians in the streets, putting their lives on the line, waiting and “hoping” day after day for a measure of support – only to find the American President is a diplomatic eunuch, and refuses to pick a side that is reflective of the values of this nation. Frankly, the Iranians are demonstrating more American values than our POTUS.

I miss George Bush, dang it all. That man didn’t sit on the fence when it came to freedom and basic human rights in these nations.

The Bush admin had Democracy Program Initiative, as we discussed above. This was to nurture exactly what is happening now… a nation that speaks up for regime change. (Altho those like Larry W seem to think this magically appeared because of Obama in Cairo… sigh…)

You seemed to assume Obama would continue that program.

Courtesy of Missy, tho we see no formal accounts in other media, Obama has abandoned that as well.

Suzanne Maloney, a Brookings mouthpiece, has been against this program, saying the Iranians need to fight it out themselves. How interesting… we rescue other nation’s citizens when they are being oppressed (Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia, Korea, Vietnam, WWI and II etal), but helping Iranians is out of the question? What are these people to do against Ahmadinejad’s military might and the Aytollah’s oppressive power? You think Iran’s leadership will cave to the protestors without the help of the free world?

The supporters of the Iranian initiative blame people like Maloney for “blunting the intent” of the program. As is usual, the special interest lobby types manage to control foreign policy somehow.

What to do? Again, I ask you… we can come to the rescue of the Slavic nations and that’s okay, but we can’t come to the rescue of the Iranians? Why is that, triz. Because you see defeat before we begin? From your statements INRE Russia, that’s obviously your armchair general’s opinion. If that’s anything like your sewage-filled crystal ball gazing, forgive me if I discard your strategic observations as nothing more than pacifist mutterings.

Well fear not. *This* POTUS won’t lift a finger to help anyone else escape oppression. He won’t even give them verbal support and a well warranted “atta boy”. That probably falls in line with an impotent and corrupt UN… who will also do nothing but issue white washed lip service and token “tut tut’s”.

Obama, that selfish and stupid bastard, will do nothing but focus the American military on his campaign promise of bringing Osama bin Laden “to justice” (i.e. relocation to Bermuda or some other island?). All well and good but, in reality, that won’t do whit in the world of the “overseas contingency operations”. But won’t the big Zero strut about like a peacock, proclaiming his big success?

In the meantime, an opportunity for Iran to make major advances in becoming a Muslim democracy, because their own people are demanding a “change”, will fall by the wayside by a cowardly and naive POTUS who is “touched” by their efforts, afraid to take a side. Why? Because he thinks if we stand passively aside, Iran’s regime will be easier to negotiate with.

Right… and I’m winning the lottery tomorrow.

Frankly, I’m glad work has swamped me of late, limiting my post contributions and comments. I never thought I’d say it, but I am utterly ashamed to be an American under a President Obama. I don’t recognize my own country anymore. The values I treasure, and those of my parents and generations before, are being tossed aside as expendable under this POTUS. Our dedication to those around the world that also seek freedom is too expensive and inconvenient for this President, as it may hurt his poll numbers and find himself as despised as Bush. Not good for this self-consumed stage politician.

Obama’s “remaking of America”, our values, culture of entrepreneurialship, and overt power grabs that everyone chooses to ignore as they gaze lovingly at the big Zero does not sit well with me. And I suspect other old farts that think like me, and don’t want to be a ward of Obama’s State, will be growing in numbers over the years. Guess all you O’faithful out there will just have to wait until we die off before you achieve your utopian dream of a Euro-social America with a stepford/complacent population.

@MataHarley: “I miss George Bush, dang it all. That man didn’t sit on the fence when it came to freedom and basic human rights in these nations. “

Amen to that.

And I did post on the cuts to the program supporting Iranian democracy yesterday:

Obama Cut Funding for Iranian Democracy Program

Just like Obama is cutting missile defense at the very time North Korea is threatening to shoot missiles at Hawaii, he seems to be completely out of phase with what is needed NOW to address current problems.

Obama really does seem more interested in currying favor with the Mullahs than he does in supporting the protesters. We have the best opportunity since the Islamic revolution 30 years ago to get rid of this evil regime and Obama is sitting on the sidelines.

You’re right that he is not a leader. He is a follower.

Thanks for posting on the Democracy Initiative cuts, Mike. Missy sent me the link on Saturday, but I had no time to do a follow up. And obviously even less time to read and catch up on all your other FA’s author’s posts.

To repeat triz’s comment #17 INRE the Bush initiative:

trizzlor: This program, or what we know of it, looks like a good thing reminiscent of Voice of America broadcasts that were very effective in the USSR. It’s great that Bush funded it, and I would be very surprised if it or something like it does not continue under Obama, as this is a fairly typical approach to non-allied isolationist regimes.

Well, triz… I guess we can all count you as “very surprised” that Obama does not continue what we all agree is a good and historically effective program.

I, however, am not in the least bit surprised. I guess I saw thru him more quickly than you. And I am filled with “hope” that you are beginning to see you’ve had the wool pulled over your eyes by this man who’s not worthy of being the WH janitor.

As time has revealed, and as I predicted (or as you put it, in my “defense”), all of the above comes to fruition *without* Obama demonstrating any balls in leadership.

Well, not exactly – had this happened in the first few days of the protests the results could have been quite different; this far into it the Ayatollahs statements are having little resonance with the public. Like I said, the opposition is standing strong without our direct involvement, either through Obama’s skill or dumb luck.

I’m glad you think that merely cheering louder isn’t the only solution here, but I don’t see the Iranians asking for the kind of military “liberation” that you mention in our previous conflicts. Conflating Eastern Europe’s response to liberalism (in the classical sense) with that of the Middle East is what cost us so much in Iraq. The history of our relationship with Iran is obviously different to that of Poland (for example), particularly in the distinction that Iranians think we’ve intervened too much in the past while the Polish thought we had done too little. Nor had we called Poland evil, threatened to topple their regime, and then invaded their neighbor with mixed results. Never mind the fact that Reagan had been speaking out against a foreign super-power holding Poland hostage, rather than an internal political struggle. All things said, you’d be hard pressed to find an Iranian (opposition or not) who wants the kind of help that you’re prescribing. As for covert operations and structural support for the opposition, there’s a fine line to walk (see: Al Qaeda), but the less Obama says publicly about that the better.


As for the democracy initiative, the more I read about it the more it seems like a boondoggle, with half the money going to things we’re already doing through VOA and the other half completely unaccounted for. You’ll have to excuse me for not trusting Newsmax to tell the full story here, but if that is the case – that the program was effective anti-regime activity, then it’s clearly stupid and a mistake for Obama/congress to de-fund it.

As a side note, I hope things calm down for you with work. Personally, I look forward to your responses and am no longer surprised at how well-reasoned they always are :). I have a lot of respect for you guys in taking so much time to keep informed and humor these anonymous tug-of-wars. I can see the image you have of the President, and it’s certainly a frightening one. Considering a lot of our arguments are really just based on assumed motivations (consider the reaction to Bush or Obama capturing Bin Laden), I hope we both move towards the middle in that regard.

@trizzlor: “As for the democracy initiative, the more I read about it the more it seems like a boondoggle, “

So basically you have NO alternative to offer. Nothing for the Iranian people. Zero, Zip, Nada!

Yeah, and meanwhile, you people falsely bash conservatives for suggesting that we want to use this crisis to invade Iran.

Get real.

Obama is doing NOTHING to support the men and women dying in the streets while he continues, even today, to suggest legitimacy and “respect” for the Iranian regime.

It has become clear whose side he is on and if you were honest, you’d be embarrassed by his performance.

@Mike’s America: I support covert aid to the opposition to keep them on their feet and spread their message (with lessons learned from Afghanistan in the 80’s), but this is something Obama obviously shouldn’t be public about. No one really knows what the democracy promotion program set out to do, how much was spent, etc. and I doubt it was our only involvement with Iran (nor it hasn’t even officially been de-funded yet). MataHarley offered military action in Eastern Europe as a model – I don’t think that’s wise and I doubt the Iranians are even interested, but I’m not “bashing” conservatives. Even Solidarity is an apples to oranges comparison. Your “alternative” seems to be to just cheer louder.

@trizzlor: ” No one really knows what the democracy promotion program set out to do, “ and yet you say you “support covert aid to the opposition to keep them on their feet and spread their message. ”

Obviously SOME support is better than none at all.

And it certainly does not hurt to have Farsi broadcasts from the Voice of America.

But if Obama terminates most or all of that support what is left?

Clearly, your messiah cares more for currying favor from the Mullahs than he does for supporting the Iranian people in their quest for freedom.

Radio Farda and VOA Persia have existed before the Democracy Promotion program – it’s naive to think that is our only effort within Iran. Here‘s a great op-ed from the WSJ with actual ideas on what Obama can do to help the opposition; I pretty much agree with all of them (although calling Moussavi is a risk).

Triz:

Well, not exactly – had this happened in the first few days of the protests the results could have been quite different; this far into it the Ayatollahs statements are having little resonance with the public.

There ya go with the sewage crystal ball and parallel universe crap again, guy. At the first sign of brutality aimed at the demonstrators was the first opportunity for the world to speak up.

Yet you continue to tout that had Obama said anything, all this “tragic” stuff would happened on a worse scale, and the US would be blamed.

I don’t know how to break this to you… or you could read my latest post… but all this tragic stuff DID happen and Obama didn’t speak up. They blamed the US, even when Obama didn’t speak up.

But then, Obama’s a fool. For as I pointed out in my latest post, Iran *always* blames the US for everything. To believe that Messianic diplomacy and not rendering harsh criticism would break that age old Iranian game for years is truly the height of stupidity. Obama’s for believing it, and your’s for buying into the spin.

This BS is just a way to try and make Obama’s not look the fool on the world stage. And there are many on both sides of the political aisle playing that game. It still, however, does not make them diplomatically correct. And we know for sure they are not morally correct.

But then… that’s part of leadership. Something Obama is reluctant to do because of popularity repercussions.