The Continuing Unrest In Iran & Obama’s Waffling Continues

Loading

The demonstrations continue on in Iran but the crowds are getting smaller as the Basij thugs are becoming more and more brutal:

Security forces wielding clubs and firing weapons beat back demonstrators who flocked to a Tehran square Wednesday to continue protests, two witnesses said.

One witness said security forces beat people like “animals.”

~~~

At least two sources described wild and violent conditions at a part of Tehran where protesters had planned to demonstrate.

“They were waiting for us,” the source said. “They all have guns and riot uniforms. It was like a mouse trap.

“I see many people with broken arms, legs, heads — blood everywhere — pepper gas like war,” the source said.

Around “500 thugs” with clubs came out of a mosque and attacked people in the square, another source said.

The security forces were “beating women madly” and “killing people like hell,” the source said.

“They beat up a woman so bad she was all bloody,” the source said in a description that underscores the growing and central role of women in the uprising.

“Women are playing an amazing role in the streets, both in terms of numbers and effectiveness,” according to a member of Mir Hossein Moussavi’s party.

The Iranian capital remained tense Wednesday. Some residents said they were too afraid to talk about the political crisis over the phone to anyone in the United States or Europe. Many protesters debated whether to show up on the streets.

“I am not going outside my house at all! The streets are too dangerous, and just so very busy with police,” a 21-year-old college student from Tehran said. “Ahhhh, when will our lives get back to normal?”

Worried that the government was monitoring their phone conversations, some residents said the Internet was the best way to transmit information. However, the spotty connection made it difficult to rely on the Web.

“It’s beyond fear,” said a woman who arrived at a U.S. airport from Iran but still did not want her name used for fear for her safety. “The situation is more like terror.” Video Watch arrivals describe the situation

Reports of arrests of foreign nationals are also being spread claiming they are helping to incite the protests. Also, the Iranian government is now claiming Neda may have been killed by mistake….stating, get this, that the marksmen had mistaken her for the sister of a member of the People’s Mujahedin Organization of Iran, which promotes a secular Marxist government.

Latest video to come out of the unrest:

And another flip-flop from Obama:

The Obama administration is seriously considering not extending invitations to Iranian diplomats for July 4 celebrations overseas, senior administration officials tell CNN.

The officials said intense discussions on the issue were taking place, but the final decision had not been made.

Late last month the State Department sent a cable to its embassies and consulates worldwide informing them they “may invite representatives from the government of Iran” to their July 4th celebrations.

The U.S. receptions marking Independence Day usually feature symbols of Americana, such as hot dogs, red-white-and-blue decorations and remarks by U.S. officials about America’s founding fathers.

I swear, the man can’t help but straddle the fence, waiting to see which way the wind blows. The true sign of a non-leader.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
27 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

If you read this blog, you’d think that there is unanimous consensus that Obama has made a hash out of Iran. But the only people critical of Obama on this issue have been Republican politicians and their hard core supporters.

Everyone else, from former George W Bush administration Iranian diplomats to the likes of Henry Kissinger to the Iranians themselves to George Will to US Iranian scholars, have been in agreement that the President’s actions have been entirely appropriate, given the circumstances.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105802915

On NPR’s “Fresh Air” yesterday, there was an interview with an Iranian-American analyst Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

>>Before joining Carnegie, Sadjadpour was the chief Iran analyst at the International Crisis Group, based in Tehran and Washington, D.C.<<

Anyway, Sadjadpour said what it obvious truth: The present “mini-revolution” against the Iranian Governing Regime would have been inconceivable, were George W Bush still the President of the USA. The leadership of this “mini-revolution” includes a number of prominent 1979 Iranian revolutionaries, who were part of the “Death to America Culture” (a term used by Sadjadpour). It was only after Obama’s overtures to Iran in particular and the Muslim world in general that the Iranian people now feel free to fall out of lock step support of a struggle against a common enemy (the Great Satan USA) and to begin the process of changing their own governance and international policies.

Can’t you see how, even now, the “Supreme Ruler” is trying to quell dissent by claiming it’s simply a result of Western agitation? Don’t you see the significance behind Great Britain replacing the USA as the new Iranian Public Enemy Number One? Why did this happen? Because Obama has skillfully convinced the Iranian people that the USA is no longer the enemy of Iran.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Strikes will be more effective than street protests now. If they could convince the oil workers to strike, this would be over in a week.

He’s gonna continue to waffle. He is clueless folks. Way way way over his paygrade.

Larry, you have become absolutely derranged, or a troll. It’s hard to tell which. To claim that obama had anything to do with the current situation is laughable.
These same people existed before obama was in office and they rose up when the election was stolen from them-PERIOD.

Look at what obama said in his Egypt speech. He basically supported the iranian leadership which is made up of Jew hating psychos that want to wipe Isarel and America off the map.

As for Kissinger, if you think he’s a valid source for an opinion that is proof he isn’t. George Will? So what. last I checked he didn’t exactly have his finger on the pulse of the Conservative movement.
Iranian scholars? You mean the people who never get it right and always want to coddle iran? LOL.

I was kidding in the past when I said you needed help, but I’m not now. You are in pathological denial and are sinking deeper into your obama fantasy.
You probably think he’s governing from the center and that his picks were moderates.

Since the spam monster got my other post:

Here’s what your man Karim Sadjadpour has to say about obama and Iran. He sounds like a KOSlim, DUNGite, or you larry.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=22880

Larry, I never thought that a Dr. self medicating was a good thing, but I think you should start…or stop. One of the two. You really sound extremely delusional.

I see your irony meter is still broken there Hard Right…

Sadjadpour said what it obvious truth: The present “mini-revolution” against the Iranian Governing Regime would have been inconceivable, were George W Bush still the President of the USA. The leadership of this “mini-revolution” includes a number of prominent 1979 Iranian revolutionaries, who were part of the “Death to America Culture” (a term used by Sadjadpour). It was only after Obama’s overtures to Iran in particular and the Muslim world in general that the Iranian people now feel free to fall out of lock step support of a struggle against a common enemy (the Great Satan USA) and to begin the process of changing their own governance and international policies.

And you believe Sadjadpour? Why?

“Obama is Great, and Sadjadpour is his Prophet”.

Please point me solid evidence that “Obama’s overtures to Iran in particular and the Muslim world in general” was the spark for this “mini-revolution”. And what is up with this?

Remember when Farhenheit 9/11 came out and was shown in Iran? What was the reaction? According to Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, pro-American sentiments:

A group of 12 university students, for example, composed of both men and women who had seen the film, collectively wrote me and signed an e-mail which said: “Wow, this guy complains that Bush lied once. What would this windbag do if he lived here where our president lies to us once an hour?”

Another comment was: “This guy gets to publicly accuse Bush of lying and becomes famous and adored worldwide. We, here, complain about some decrepit and inconsequential government lackey and we not only go to prison but some of us get death sentences. He ought to thank his lucky stars he lives in a country where he’s allowed and even encouraged to be this obnoxious…”

Someone else quipped: “If he thinks that the U.S. is so bad, he’s welcome to trade places with us…since he’s so forgiving of brutal Middle Eastern dictators!”

Another young man said: “They are showing this film to erase from our minds the idea of America being the great liberator; maybe Americans themselves don’t appreciate what they have but we sure do!”

I’ll pick a Bush speech over an Obama speech any day of the week:

The following is from Bush’s 2006 State of the Union speech:

“Every step toward freedom in the world makes our country safer, and so we will act boldly in freedom’s cause. Far from being a hopeless dream, the advance of freedom is the great story of our time…”

“At the start of 2006, more than half the people of our world live in democratic nations. And we do not forget the other half — in places like Syria and Burma, Zimbabwe, North Korea and Iran — because the demands of justice and the peace of this world require their freedom as well. No one can deny the success of freedom, but some men rage and fight against it…”

“Democracies in the Middle East will not look like our own, because they will reflect the traditions of their own citizens. Yet liberty is the future of every nation in the Middle East, because liberty is the right and hope of all humanity. The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon, and that must come to an end. The Iranian government is defying the world with its nuclear ambitions, and the nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons.”

“America will continue to rally the world to confront these threats. And, tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.”

And somehow you deem Iranians should consider Bush the face of “The Great Satan” and Obama the One with the halo?

I’m more a fan of the Bush Effect.

Muslims liberated:

Bush: 50 million
Obama: the big “0”

Photobucket

Firstly, I was merely quoting the opinion of a bona fide Iranian expert, who makes it clear, in his interview, that he is foursquare for regimen change in Iran. This doesn’t mean that he’s correct, but he is an Iranian American; he is a bona fide expert; he wants regime change; and he makes a cogent argument that Obama is doing the right thing by Iran and that, absent Obama, it is not conceivable that the former Iran revolution hard liners who are the most important players in the current challenge to the “Supreme Ruler” would have taken their present positions has George W Bush still been in the Presidency.

And there are other very credible, knowledgeable people who support the Obama approach as well (quoted elsewhere), such as John Negroponte, former US national intelligence director in the Bush administration.

Michael Moore is an extremist. He’s got close to zero credibility and everyone knows it. It’s a straw man to go bringing up Moore. He’s not relevant. Who cares?

What did all that Bush “Axis of Evil” stuff ever accomplish in Iran? How many centrifuges were shut down? Obama has done more to move Iran in a positive direction in 5 months than Bush did in 8 years.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Look around, Larry. All those VOA support broadcasts into Iran must of had an effect on the Iranian youth. And what has Obama accomplished but another lesson in how to straddle fences?

Larry W: Firstly, I was merely quoting the opinion of a bona fide Iranian expert, who makes it clear, in his interview, that he is foursquare for regimen change in Iran. This doesn’t mean that he’s correct, but he is an Iranian American; he is a bona fide expert;

Welp, there’s one on your side, Larry. I gave you three references to “bonafide Iranian experts” on the other thread. You’re down by at least two.

But there is never “consensus” as long as humans inhabit the earth.

My reply to 7 went to spam.

– Larry W

It’s a straw man to go bringing up Moore. He’s not relevant. Who cares?

Geez….let me spell out the point:

It’s not about Moore’s film, specifically. It’s something that came to mind when reading your “Obama > Bush” on the democracy promotion front. The Iranian government figured they could use Moore’s propaganda film to show their people how terrible Bush is. What a brutal, warmongering dictator. Instead, Iranians were walking away from the movie with much the reaction Russians had when the Soviet government showed footage of America’s minority population living in poverty. What Russians came away with was not how bad America’s poor, black population had it, but just how much better off even the poor in America had it. In similar fashion, the fact that people like Moore have the freedom to say whatever he wishes about our president- and rake in millions of dollars from it, and not sent to Club Gitmo for waterboarding, illustrated for Iranians just what they themselves are denied, living under an Islamic theocratic regime.

Welp, there’s one on your side, Larry. I gave you three references to “bonafide Iranian experts” on the other thread. You’re down by at least two.
But there is never “consensus” as long as humans inhabit the earth.

Down by two, am I?

1.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0624/p06s01-woeu.html

On Sunday, GOP leaders including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) of South Carolina charged Obama with “timidity” in the face of a new generation of Iranians that voted against the hard-line mullahs. “The president of the US is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it,” Senator Graham said.

Yet most European analysts say that a patient US approach, and a distancing from the kind of pro-democracy invective that became familiar overseas during the previous US administration, would be more effective in promoting the cause championed by Iranians seeking change.

The Mideast director of IFRI in Paris, Denis Bauchard, says that “if you support the opposition in Iran, you make them an agent of the USA – a very risky policy.” [Editor’s note: The original version misspelled Denis Bauchard’s last name.]

In a review here today of Obama’s foreign policy, hosted by the French America Foundation, the US president was given good marks by John Negroponte, former US national intelligence director in the Bush administration, and a former French ambassador to Washington, Francois Bujon de l’Estang.

During a question-and-answer session, Richard Burt, a former US ambassador to Germany, said Obama’s engagement policy toward Iran was “high risk” since failure could bring repercussions in Israel and by its US supporters. Mr. de l’Estang, now president of Citigroup in Paris, disagreed, saying that he saw “no downsides” and that a failure would simply lead to different tactics. Mr. Negroponte said he had a “high level degree of confidence” in the Obama team, which got “an extremely good start to foreign policy.”

2.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/diplomacy/bushs-iran-ambassador-lauds-obamas-handling-of-iran-crisis/

Bush’s Man In Iran Lauds Obama’s Handling Of Iran Crisis

John McCain and other Republicans and conservatives have been hammering away at Obama’s handling of the Iran crisis, saying that it has been insufficiently aggressive. This morning, McCain demanded that Obama “condemn the sham, corrupt election,” in order to “make sure that the world knows that America leads.”

But guess who is praising Obama’s approach and saying Obama’s right to refrain from McCainian chest-thumping: George W. Bush’s top negotiator with Iran, Ambassador Nicholas Burns.

In an interview today with NPR, Burns praised Obama’s handling of the crisis, and said that a more aggressive response would actually play into the hands of President Ahmadinejad.

“President Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to see a very aggressive series of statements by the United States that would try to put the U.S. in the center of this,” Burns said. “And I think President Obama is avoiding that quite rightly.”

“This is not a dispute for the U.S. to be the center of,” Burns said at another point. “It’s up to Iranians to decide who Iran’s future leaders will be. He said he respects Iran’s sovereignty. I think it was important to do that.”

Burns said that Obama was right to refrain from throwing the U.S.’s weight around while giving props to reformers. He praised Obama for being “low-key” while saying he’s concerned about the plight of reformers and inspired by them, which Burns called a “balancing act.”

Dueling banjos

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Let’s see, Larry… from the CS Monitor link, that was two critical (Graham and Burt), and two pro (Negroponte and Bouchard) for Obama’s fence straddling. That’s a break even there. Altho Negroponte was not a specific opinion on Obama’s Iran stance, but a review of his foreign policy in general. You have to understand, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, detainees at Bagram (Obama’s new Gitmo) are all a continuation of the Bush foreign policy. You will notice that you can’t find a Negoponte comment specifically addressing Obama’s Iranian fence straddling anywhere on the net. I’m not sure he’s weighed in, since the libs would wave that flag high.

But hey… you’re down in the count for “true” experts, so we’ll give you the benefit of the doubt for Negroponte to bolster your spirits. I, personally, don’t buy it until I see him speak on that issue specifically.

Tossing in Negoponte gives you a mean increase of one on “the count” (assuming we don’t find out exactly how many Iranian demonstrators talked to Nico Pitney, and count each individually) just for Nicholas Burns. That would be Clinton’s Soviet nations advisor on his NSC, and Dir of Soviet Affairs for Bush, the elder. He was with the Clinton admim the entire term, an serving as Ambassador to Greece in the last 3-4 years under Clinton. He then became the Ambassador to NATO until retiring in 2008.

So far, one big time “Iranian expert”, eh? And hardly a Bush (either one) devotee… just in case you’re looking for a Dubya Defection. He’s one of those international types of guys… a big EU fan, CFR member etal. Can you say globalist and “citizen of the world”?

But an Iranian expert? Maybe you don’t even deserve a full point for that one… LOL

Burns still goes up against the *true* Iranian experts I provided, Michael Ledeen, Joshua Muravchik, and protesters in the street (thru CNN) and on the Iran Updates comments site.

As I said, there will never be a consensus as long as humans inhabit the planet. For every one you can give me, I can come up with another counter. So that’s an exercise in futility.

The point is, whether Obama supports them or not, the US is blamed as part of the uprising… as is Iran’s history. They actually make very good Democrats. Nothing is ever *their* fault. They are always the “victim” of someone for their shortcomings and brutality.

This makes the “foil” argument moot… and leaves you all predicting parallel universes about how much “worse” the bloodbath would be… “if”….

Sorry… parallel universes and sewage filled crystal balls don’t fly as fact.

Yay! The links game:

Persians push for Bush
As long President Bush stands with the Iranian people, the Iranian people will stand with him

February 15, 2005
iranian.com

The BBC world service website recently released the results of their 2004 presidential poll. Of the sixteen linguistic ethnical groups surveyed, Persians were overwhelmingly the most supportive of President Bush. In fact, over fifty two percent of Iranians preferred Republican George W. Bush to challenger John Kerry who’d received a minuscule forty two percent of the vote. Thus, surprisingly, unlike in the United States where the presidential race was relegated to a couple of percentage points, in Iran – President Bush won by a landslide.

Numerous other sources of plausible acclaim have confirmed these results. Renowned intellectuals, as well as award-winning journalists have written pieces on this critical issue. For instance, Pulitzer Prize winner Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times who spent an entire week in the country recently wrote, “Finally, I’ve found a pro-American country.

Everywhere I’ve gone in Iran, with one exception, people have been exceptionally friendly and fulsome in their praise for the United States, and often for President George W. Bush as well.” Thomas Friedman another Pulitzer Prize winner and ardent critic of the war in Iraq wrote “young Iranians are loving anything their government hates, such as Mr. Bush, and hating anything their government loves. Iran . . . is the ultimate red state.”

The well-documented emphatically pro-Bush leaning in Iran, which is relatively widespread, has perplexed many western technocrats. Part of the answer may be that Iran is changing at such a rapid rate that the media has had a difficult time reporting and/or understanding the situation inside the country. Also, Friedman may be right that “young Iranians are loving anything their government hates, such as Mr. Bush and hating anything their government loves”, but there are even deeper social as well as geopolitical reasons such as the availability of satellite dishes and the internet.

Millions of Iranian homes receive illegal satellite television beamed in by Iranian-American expatriates in California. With a mix of pop music, political discussion and international news these stations have had a profound impact on the cultural, and political situation inside of Iran. The Iranian dictatorship has repeatedly tried to crackdown on these dishes as well as the Internet, but they’ve been largely unsuccessful. Presently, it is estimated that between five to seven million homes receive satellite television and an estimated three million have Internet access. Hence, to the dissatisfaction of the reigning ayatollahs Iranians do not live in a closed off cave.

Due to the availability of satellite television, millions of Iranians were able to hear President Bush’s State of the Union speech. The Persians were once again encouraged by the President’s vision when he said “To the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America Stands with you.” thereby reiterating his support to the Iranian freedom fighters inside of the Islamic Republic. Several political analysts have confirmed that this was in direct reference to the pro-democracy movement in Iran. “The President was sending a message to the people of Iran that if they rise up America will stand by their side,” said political analyst Charles Krauthammer.

Of course, President Bush’s declaration of support to the Iranian youth does not mean military intervention for the purpose of regime change. According to a recent poll by the National Iranian American Council a non-profit civic organization in the United States over ninety percent of Iranian-Americans are against any type of military attack on Iran. In fact, although Iranians are openly pro-American any type of military attack by the United States and/or Israel will turn the nationalist population in Iran immediately anti-American.

The political ideology advocated by the Republican Party for a free, democratic Iran is one of a peaceful transition to democracy. For example, Republican Senator Rick Santorum recently introduced the Iran Freedom and Support Act, legislation that commits America to “actively support a national referendum in Iran with oversight by international observers and monitors to certify the integrity and fairness of the referendum.” The act further calls for financial and moral support to pro-democracy groups as a means towards a peaceful transition to regime change. There is no mention of military intervention, nor has there ever been any such mention.

Many questionable organizations have promoted a theory originally initiated by Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani dubbed the ‘Nationalistic Tactic’.’ This theory rallies nationalistic feelings around a fictional military invasion of Iran as a final survival tool for the dying regime in Iran. The strategy calls for the suffocation of the free exchange of ideas within the Iranian community and for the luring of naïve apolitical Iranians with nationalistic pride.

In the end, the theory calls for barraging the truth to such a degree that anyone speaking otherwise is regarded as an enemy of Iran. Unfortunately these groups are far from doing a service to the people of Iran and should not be regarded as friends of freedom. Luckily, in spite of their propaganda campaign polls from within Iran show that people of Iran have not been fooled.

As evidenced by a Tehran University student who said, “The Iranian people support President Bush because he supports our cause. As long President Bush stands with the Iranian people, the Iranian people will stand with him.”

@openid.aol.com/runnswim:

What did all that Bush “Axis of Evil” stuff ever accomplish in Iran? How many centrifuges were shut down?

Hmm…remember that 2007 NIE that said with “high confidence” that a military-run Iranian program intended to transform raw material into a nuclear weapon was shut down in 2003? What led the Iranians to do such a thing? Was it Khameini discovering his inner Ghandi? What was it in 2003…….

What major historic event occurred…..think….think…..

Was it the 2003 OIF that took just two weeks to overrun Baghdad?

Even if it were peaceful international pressures, wasn’t that led by the Bush administration who called out Iran as one-third of the triumvirate axis?

Obama has done more to move Iran in a positive direction in 5 months than Bush did in 8 years.

Yup…it wasn’t until the golden Age of Obama that diplomacy flourished, that the fields are now littered with daffodils and pink marshmellow clouds and fuzzy bunnies. He inherited nothing from the Bush years, except the bad.

Word, larry has gone full mental. He is beyond reason or sanity.

No sense even responding to Larry. We will find him in a corner of a smelly Starbucks rocking back and forth chanting stimulus, stimulus, stimulus. Let him be. He’s harmless. He’s probably out razorblading his Obama bumper sticker off the VW wagon as I write this.

It’s a shame we can’t set-up radio stations or television to broadcast to those protesters inside Iran and show to them that much of the rest of the free world supports their cause.

A “Radio Free Iran’ as it were.

Sad to say, but I see this Iranian revolt against the mullahs as a direct result of the Bush Presidency seeking to bring freedom to the Middle East.
If you are going to do something, don’t do it by half measures.
The problem is Islam and as long as Islam is a dominant force in their culture, nothing will change, except perhaps a new generation of freedom loving youngsters who have been tricked by the West into believing they had a chance of standing up to murderous Islam will be slaughtered.
In so many of the photographs of demonstrators, so many of them look so secular and Western.
It is so sad to see so many young people, striving for freedom, only to run smack bang into full fundamental murderous Islam.
They don’t have a chance without outside help.
When the coalition pulls out of Iraq, I expect to see the same thing happening there as well, with all those Iraqis who are perceived to have helped the crusader infidels or who are too “Western” in dress or outlook being butchered.

“Always with the negative waves” ~ Oddball, Kelly’s Heroes

Blaming Bush for this is total b*llsh*t. At last count, Islam youth outnumbers the tyrants. It is not impossible for them to successfully revolt, as that country’s own history shows. In fact it is much easier than would be possible in many other countries.

What all of my (and Obama’s) critics fail to understand is that what is most important about the goings on in Iran are not the “grass roots” street demonstrations. It is the fact that the veterans of the 1979 Islamic revolution — charter members of the “Death to America Culture” — are, in fact, participating and and leading the effort against the “Supreme Leader.”

e.g.,

Moussavi, Khatami, Rafsanjani, etc.

it’s utterly inconceivable that these Mullah’s would be doing what they are now doing, were Bush still in office and had Obama not given them the cover they needed to do what they are now doing. Haven’t you seen how desperately important it is to the Iranian power structure to try and make the demonstrations appear to be inspired by the West? Today, Ahmadinejad is saying that there’s no difference between George Bush and Obama. He’s saying it, but his people aren’t believing it.

Note to Wordsmith: Thanks for clarifying the point of your Michael Moore reference. I didn’t understand your point initially.

With respect to Iran briefly suspending uranium enrichment, circa 2003 — yes, the invasion had a temporary effect, but this boomeranged later on, once the severe limits of US military capabilities were revealed to the world. The USA became hopelessly overextended, on account of Iraq, and both Iran and North Korea realized that there was no credible threat of an Iraq-style US invasion. So they resumed their nuclear enrichment efforts. As I said, the policies of George W Bush did nothing whatsoever to change the policies of North Korea and Iran — if anything, the Bush policies and actions emboldened both North Korea and Iran.

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

reply to 13, 15, 17 went to spam

While waiting for my response to Wordsmith to be resurrected from spam, here’s one to Mata:

http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/obama-right-iran-islam-experts

– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Larry, you’ve been caught trying to smuggle a cherry pie to an apple pie contest, guy. Per your link:

While President Obama continues attracting criticism for a too-tepid stance on the uprising in Iran from neoconservative Republicans and liberal interventionist Democrats alike, experts in Islamic affairs almost universally approve.

Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, told an Atlantic Council audience that President Obama was taking just the right approach to the situation in Iran, balancing a respect for the shared values that the West and the Muslim world share with a respect for the sensibilities that a history of imperialism created.

Similarly, as CSM’s Robert Marquand reports, Obama is getting “high marks from Iranian specialists in Europe.”

“If you support [presidential challenger Mir Hossein] Mousavi too openly, you destroy him,” says Dominique Moisi, a leading French intellectual who has worked extensively on Middle East geopolitics. “So [if you are the American president] you support human rights, you don’t support a particular person. It’s a correct policy of prudence … at this time.”

No where in any of my posts have I demanded that Obama “support” either candidate. In fact I am on record as saying that *is* meddling. (Besides, both are different flavors of scum…)

Thus comes the same quandary as happens with poll results, and you examine how the question was worded. Not one critic was asking Obama to support Mousavi over Ahmadinejad. What we are asking is an undeniable statement of American values that any questionable/stolen election is unacceptable (despite who wins…) without legitimate int’l oversight on the recount, and that human rights abuses is not only unacceptable and not an “internal” problem, but an act that will result in additional repercussions.

Instead, Obama holds on to taking a wait and see, and will negotiate with a dictator and regime that mows down their dissenters and outright steals an election and refuses full recounts with unbiased, third party oversight.

And, if you’ll notice, they agree with me and the others disgruntled with Obama’s wishy washy approach… ala “you support human rights”. Obama did not “support” the demonstrators. He “tut tut’ed” the regime for mowing them down with nary a promise of repercussion.

America does not negotiate with terrorists and despots… especially those in power via coups and brutality right under our noses. Or at least my America doesn’t. Obama’s America apparently has new rules.

So sorry… the “true experts” on Iran you provide are not giving an opinion on anything we disagree with. ala… no support for a particular candidate. So take your cherry pie home… no points for you.

Larry w: It is the fact that the veterans of the 1979 Islamic revolution — charter members of the “Death to America Culture” — are, in fact, participating and and leading the effort against the “Supreme Leader.”

e.g.,

Moussavi, Khatami, Rafsanjani, etc.

You are a busy guy, so it’s no surprise you are still behind the times. But considering you posted this also on the other Iran thread, I can see you skipped over a very important article I included in a response to Yonason. That being the opposition has lost their charm for Mousavi because of his reluctance to lead and appear, and this is no longer about his candidacy and winning, but about a manipulated election and police thuggery to quell free speech. He has shown himself to be just another opportunist. Then again, only Khomenei shills were allowed to run anyway…

Read the Las Vegas Sun’s reprint of the June 23rd AP article, and you may get up to date.

Now if you can also get up to date on why Iran is going after Britain and the EU as their latest #1 enemy, we’ll all be happy. Hint: has nothing to do with what Obama did or did not say in Cairo, or his impotent, johnny-come-lately non-leadership INRE the election illegitimacy and violence.