U.S. May Have to Apologize for Obama as He Picks Wrong Side in Iran Posted by Former Author on 17 June, 2009 at 10:16 am. 25 comments already! [DELETED BY AUTHOR] FedUp says: June 17, 2009 at 11:29 am Why wait??? Dear Freedom-loving Iranians!! We must apologize for our Dear Leader – he hasn’t grown up yet and we don’t have high hopes that he will. Stand firma and know that there are many people who support you!!! Missy says: June 17, 2009 at 11:58 am My, my, wonder if he will apologize. I think they smell weakness. TEHRAN, Iran – Iran accused the United States on Wednesday of “intolerable” meddling in its internal affairs, alleging for the first time that Washington has fueled a bitter postelection dispute. Opposition supporters marched in Tehran’s streets for a third straight day to protest the outcome of the balloting. The Iranian government summoned the Swiss ambassador, who represents U.S. interests in Iran, to complain about American interference, state-run Press TV reported. The English-language channel quoted the government as calling Western interference “intolerable.” http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election Now, this is what I call meddling, or, dancing with the devil. But, make sure you don’t speak out forcefully against the brutality in Iran lest the mullah’s humiliate you on the world stage. Hamas is now rubbing their hands together and whistling Dixie. http://therealbarackobama.wordpress.com/2009/06/16/klein-obama-administration-sent-message-to-hamas-official-with-terror-group-says-carter-right-person-to-serve-as-middle-man/ bill-tb says: June 17, 2009 at 11:59 am Indonesians don’t know what freedom means. SpideyTerry says: June 17, 2009 at 3:53 pm U.S. May Have to Apologize for Obama as He Picks Wrong Side in Iran Wrong. It should read “U.S. Will Have to Apologize for Obama as He Picks Wrong Side in Iran.” Even if by some miracle Obama gets some sense on this issue, that won’t excuse his bungling of it in these first few days. Old Trooper says: June 17, 2009 at 3:55 pm What has Obama not bungled so far? His On the Job Training is a failure. Richard says: June 17, 2009 at 4:27 pm Sure, let’s dive right back into Iran. Operation Ajax ring a bell? EdGi says: June 17, 2009 at 4:55 pm HAH, too true; years from now, when the corrupt thugs of the Guardian Council are gone, we will have to apologise for Obi’s teabagging of evil. Militarily, we are in the same spot we were in during the Hungarian Uprising, but Obi is giving the nut jobs license to kill, and the victims will demand an apology in years to come. Tom the Redhunter says: June 17, 2009 at 4:55 pm Recall the crackdown on the trade union Solidarity and declaration of martial law in Poland in 1981. The West did not stand idly by and “monitor” the situation. Reagan, Thatcher, Kohl, and John Paul II did not simply proclaim themselves “troubled” by developments. No, they and most other people in the West took firm action. If the West could act so decisively then, why the equivocation now? Is it the result of years of post-modern relativism? Is it simply that Iran is “over there,” whereas Poland was next door? I’m not sure if it’s these or something else. yonason says: June 17, 2009 at 9:10 pm Maybe it’s just because he’s a little confused and disoriented? http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=553306 Oh, wait, didn’t he just fire someone ( and illegally, to boot), and lie about the reason by saying it was that they were “confused and disoriented?” http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/06/fired-inspector-general-walpin-on.html TO ALL YOU AMERICANS WHO VOTED FOR THAT PIECE OF GARBAGE – WHAT THE #@** WERE YOU THINKING???!!! Mike's America says: June 17, 2009 at 9:44 pm @yonason: Of course Obama is confused and disoriented. Like many libs, he has long eschewed talk about the value of freedom and democracy. To libs, those are buzzwords for what they see as neocon conspiracies. Now Obama is suddenly forced to confront the painful reality that these concepts means something universal to all men. It’s difficult for him to find the right words because the language of freedom is alien to him. An American Voter says: June 17, 2009 at 11:22 pm By late morning, Friday, June 12, American news broadcasters were relaying that Mir-Hossein Mousavi was ahead in the Iranian election exit polling and predicting a possible win. Around 12:50, Obama was holding yet another televised press conference and during the Q&A, offered remarks on the election. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Remarks-on-Passage-of-Kids-Tobacco-Legislation-an-Answer-on-Iranian-Elections/ I believe his remarks were carefully crafted to give his Cairo speech credit for the results he thought happening – at that moment in time — he had previously taken credit for the Lebanese election results. At the time, I thought his remarks rather arrogant as (to me) it sounded like he was taking a premature bow for the election results and in doing so — risked insulting the Mullahs. Later that day, an announcement was made that AJ had been re-elected……the Mullahs control elections anyway. However, might there be a chance that our President’s speech prompted the Mullahs to have changed the final announced results to keep AJ in office. Thereby thumbing their noses at Obama’s arrogance? Just a thought…… The Mullahs accused Obama of injecting himself in the elections — Obama did inject himself in the Iranian election with those Friday, June 12 remarks — correlating his Cairo words to the outcome of that election before their polls closed….and his remarks/tone was much different in his subsequent comments…by Wednesday, June 17, his words were not even similar to those uttered on June 12 AND no without mention of his Cairo speech! Why do I think Obama’s Cairo speech was NOT the major catalyst of change in Iran? Iran has been ripe for change for a couple of years…if Bush-bashers read beyond the hate Bush stories … there were occasional articles covering the societal unrest within Iran — especially with the huge 25 and under demographic. This society was/is plagued by high unemployment, inflation, disatisfaction with the quality of life, and another severe crackdown by the Mullahs to reinvigorate reinforcement of religious restrictions. In rare, news articles 2007, 2008, there were even surprising suggestions that perhaps the Iranians wanted some of the freedoms newly enjoyed by the Iraqis. Iranian poll numbers, 2007-2008, showed high numbers of voters DID NOT FAVOR Ahmadinejad and the direction he was taking that country. The Iranians seemed to want more open contact with the West and sanctions/isolation was working and discrediting AJ….all this prior to Obama’s Cairo speech..what a shock. Man’s eternal desire for freedom is inherent…someone needs to remind Mr Obama… Old Trooper says: June 18, 2009 at 2:10 am As Iran has locked down the media, the Revolutionary Guard, the Army and the Police will pretty much have their way with the dissenters and the world will know nothing about it. They can have their own holocaust and it will go unreported. The concept of Freedom and Liberties that we insist on enjoying are not permitted by the Mullahs or Revolutionary Guard Thugs for the people of Iran. Obama will sit on his hands for fear of offending the Moslems as he has greater sympathy with them than the Israelis that are the only Democracy in the Region. His on the job training has not progressed beyond Campaigning. Leadership is a foreign concept for him so expect rhetoric but no sanctions or support for the common folks in Iran and zero support for dissenters. Election fraud will be impossible to prove because the Regime there will never allow outside observers so that is a dead issue. Counting 40 million paper ballots in 72 hours is just not possible so I do suspect fraud but we will never know. eaglewingz08 says: June 18, 2009 at 11:31 am Already many high members of the Iranian r-evolution are saying that Obama is no friend of theirs and that they will not have close relations with the US while Obama is in office because of his coddling of the mullahs and failure to defend the integrity of the will of the people. So Obama, how is all that smart diplomacy going? Old Trooper says: June 18, 2009 at 11:50 am Issuing apologies for everything from the Original Sin to whatever happened this morning is not Diplomacy. Fit fit says: June 18, 2009 at 12:21 pm The Iranians don’t need Obama or anyone else to do anything but watch as they take their own country back for themselves. They are going to do this. Aye says: June 18, 2009 at 12:29 pm @Fit fit: The Iranians don’t need Obama or anyone else to do anything but watch as they take their own country back for themselves. They are going to do this. Right…..because fledgling democracies, especially in the Middle East, have such a great track record of success without nurturing from the outside. Exit question: How successful would the American Experiment have been without the involvement and assistance of outside forces? yonason says: June 18, 2009 at 1:10 pm @Aye Chihuahua: “How successful would the American Experiment have been without the involvement and assistance of outside forces?” Heck, if it weren’t for lots of foreign help, why, we’d probably still be speeking English. Uh…., well, ….you know what I mean. But, seriously, you shouldn’t ask a rhtorical question like that and expect Lefties to “get it.” If they are anything like Obama, they don’t even know how many states there are. Fit fit says: June 18, 2009 at 1:29 pm It will be nice to have the comparison/contrast between Bush’s Iraqi regime change and Obama’s Iranian regime change. OLDPUPPYMAX says: June 18, 2009 at 1:46 pm Hussein picked Amadinejhad’s side so the mullahs would give him a deal on nukes?? No. Hussein sided with this little thug because the Saudi King–one of Hussein’s biggest contributors–told him to. Don’t need any more damned democracies in the middle east were undoubtedly the Kings thoughts. Aye says: June 18, 2009 at 1:58 pm @Fit fit: You really are a dullard aren’t you? Do you really believe that the uprising we are seeing in the streets of Iran is going to overthrow the mullahs? The whole story in Iran is about the mullahs…..it’s always been about the mullahs. They are the men behind the proverbial curtain. If the US had taken a more active role, both overtly and covertly, then perhaps the protesters would have had the courage to rise up, reach for the golden ring, overthrow the theocracy, and thus truly take control of their own future. There will be no positive comparison from your point of view between the regime change in Iraq and the “regime change” in Iran. Fit fit says: June 18, 2009 at 2:05 pm The mullahs serve at the will of the people. Kings and dictators and anyone “holding” power serves at the will of the people. The power really always lies with the people, they only have to realize it. I’m not sure the majority of people in Iran want to overthrow their government, they just want their system to work the way it’s supposed to. yonason says: June 18, 2009 at 2:36 pm It may be just as well that O’Bungler doesn’t encourage them. After Gulf War the first, the Kurds and other Iraqis began revolting. George Sr., encouraged them. Thinking the the USA would come to their aid, they opposed Saddam. They lost, and many died, and America didn’t lift a finger to help until nearly a decade later. At least the Iranians will have nothing to feel betrayed about. (I blame Colonitis Powell, who advised Bush Sr. to stop before we had ousted Saddam, and so naturally Saddam thought he had won. Powell probably advised him not to back up his encouragement with action, as well.) Aye says: June 18, 2009 at 3:01 pm @yonason: There may be blame to go around on the whole Gulf War I thing, but, if I remember correctly, the UN mandate specifically excluded marching on to Baghdad to remove Saddam. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong….I am too short on time to research it at this moment. (The children, the dog, and I are about to go down to the river to swim.) In any case, George, Sr. should have supported the Kurds as well as the other groups who showed the courage to rise up against Saddam. That support could have been overt or covert. There are lots of ways to skin a cat and many ways to solve a problem. Leaving those people to twist in the wind, often literally, is a black mark that the US will bear for a long time. We started that bad habit way back when Jefferson was president. Jefferson’s representative, Tobias Lear, left the citizens of Derne to the brutal mercies of the Bashaw of Tripoli even though they had risen up and helped us in seizing the city. Our forces, including the first US Marines, literally snuck out of the city under cover of darkness leaving them to their own devices. Can you imagine how much easier our current engagement in Iraq would have been if the populace had not been trying to play both sides of the loyalty fence in and effort to see if we, the US, would stick with them to the end? yonason says: June 18, 2009 at 3:07 pm @Aye Chihuahua: Have a great swim. My childhood watering hole (probably no swimmers due to autumn, but summers were very crowded) Wow, they even have a photo of one of my childhood fishin holes. http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2936642.jpg See the ice? Once in mid June there was still ice on those rocks, despite air temps in the 70’s. It’s a south side, in the shade of the bridge. And now I live in Florida. No comparison, scenerywise, though politically it’s a lot closer to my liking. MataHarley says: June 18, 2009 at 9:11 pm Fit: The mullahs serve at the will of the people. …. snip…. I’m not sure the majority of people in Iran want to overthrow their government, they just want their system to work the way it’s supposed to. You can’t possibly be this uninformed, Fit. The Iranians want an “Islamic theocracy/democracy”? Typical western uneducated thought is what you aptly demonstrate… convenient talking points perhaps? Try again: And for you prozac laden O’faithful, please note this is dated epoch “PO”… as in “PRE OBAMA”. The world did – and does not – start and stop with the big Zero. And the Iranian youth didn’t magically become disenchanted with their government when Obama preached to the Middle East. It is, thus, not surprising that a Gallup survey conducted during the years 2005 and 2006 indicated that only 12 percent of Iranians are now willing to put legislation directly in the hands of religious leaders, while another 26 percent think that religious leaders should only act as advisors to legislative bodies, and a majority of 56 percent believe that they should have no role at all in legislation. This is despite indications that most Iranians are still deeply religious. In fact, a 2007 Gallup survey concluded that while today only 14% of Iranians believe that Islam’s principles, values, and ethics should act as the only source of legislation, a majority of 63% still want these values and principles to be a source of legislation, but not the only source. The above survey indicates that Iranians still want their Islamic values and principles to have at least some influence on legislation. Their ideal mechanism of this proposed influence, however, has clearly changed. Not long ago Iranians regarded their religious clergy as expert Islamic jurists – the very best men to turn to in matters of Islamic law and justice. The general understanding used to be that as laymen who had no extensive understanding of Islamic law, the members of the Shi’ite community had to accept the decrees of their scholars of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) in matters of Islamic jurisprudence. Now, however, most seem unwilling to endorse their Fuqaha (scholars of jurisprudence) and Mujtahidin (scholars of Islamic judgment) as legislators. This suggests that not many Iranians now see the decrees of these religious leaders as representative of true Islam. This may be, to a great extent, due to the fact that Iranians have largely reconsidered their mode of religiosity. A research conducted by Abdolmohammad Kazemipur and Ali Rezaei concludes that between 1975 and 2001 Iranians dramatically shifted from organized to personalized religion and from a practice-centered mode of religiosity to a belief-centered one. For a country whose people arose, during the late 1970s, to uphold Islam as the foundation of their collective identity and the basis of their system of government, this amounts to nothing less than a complete U-turn.