hard to believe you missed that he was actually criticising Obama in that remark for failure to draw a distinction between Mousavi and Ahman. it's time for Barry to get off the fence. [rquoter]The Ayatollah Speaks, Will Obama? by Thomas Joscelyn In a performance that may be remembered for years to come, Ayatollah Khamenei put on a show at this morning's prayers. The ayatollah said that not only were the elections legitimate, but that the "street challenge is not acceptable." He all but threatened Mousavi directly, saying: "I call on all to put an end to this method. ... If they don't, they will be held responsible for the chaos and the consequences." What of the challenge to the regime's authority? "Some may imagine that street action will create political leverage against the system and force the authorities to give in to threats. No, this is wrong," Khamenei said. And who is to blame for this unrest? America and the Zionists, of course. The "evil media" belonging to "Zionists" is trying to draw into question Ahmadinejad's overwhelming victory, Khameini said. The 60-plus percent of the vote Ahmadinejad supposedly got was not suspicious, Khameini argued, but instead a sign of convincing victory. "Some of our enemies in different parts of the world intended to depict this absolute victory, this definitive victory, as a doubtful victory...It is your victory. They cannot manipulate it." Four observations: First, keep an eye on the Revolutionary Guard, which has promised to stomp the opposition. We can only speculate on what the IRGC will be ordered to do at this point. There are unsubstantiated reports that the IRGC may be ready to deploy. Some reports suggest that IRGC commanders who are sympathetic to the protesters have been arrested. And the ayatollah's threats seem to indicate that he is preparing to blame Mousavi for any bloodshed. That is, the ayatollah has created a pretext for not only blaming the opposition for any escalation, but also created a storyline he can use to frame any crackdown on Mousavi himself. Thus far, the violence has been mainly perpetrated by the IRGC's Basij militia. The Basij has beaten protesters, and reportedly killed some. But the Basij has focused largely on stealth techniques, including hunting down and arresting protesters at night, when there is less scrutiny of their actions. If the IRGC's professionals are deployed, then the violence could quickly escalate. Second, the ayatollah and Ahmadinejad's comments may very well antagonize the protesters further. It was not wise to openly insult the hundreds of thousands of protesters taking to the streets, yet that is exactly what the regime's leaders did. This was hardly a "rational" move by the regime's hardliners. Third, the ball is now in Mousavi's court. Make no mistake about it, he has been warned. If Mousavi continues to lead the protests, then the ayatollah and his forces will hold him accountable. Will Mousavi back down? It does not appear he will, having rejected the ayatollah's offer to attend the Friday morning prayers. (That offer was undoubtedly intended to get Mousavi to give in.) But if Mousavi presses on, what is his gameplan for handling the violence that may be headed his way? Fourth, now, today, is another opporunity for President Obama to speak. Mousavi has been threatened, as have the thousands of protesters. The ayatollah offered no conciliatory language for the protesters or the West. There was no talk of redoing the stolen election, or giving Mousavi a seat at the table. Obama has gone out of his way not to "meddle" in this affair, thinking that America's "meddling" may compromise efforts to negotiate with the Iranian regime going forward. What has been the reward for America sidelining itself? More condemnations from the regime that Obama wants to negotiate with. That same regime may be on the verge of an even more violent convulsion. Mousavi is far from a perfect partner. But it is clear that the Iranian people are rejecting the worst of the worst inside Iran's regime, not just supporting Mousavi. Mousavi and his supporters deserve to know that America will not sit by quietly as they stare down the ayatollah's threats - even if the only support they get right now is the president's rhetoric. The thousands of protesters demanding democracy in Iran deserve to know that the world's most powerful democracy hears them, and stands by them.[/rquoter]
We can keep going back and forth posting links, but mine seem to be leaders with experience in international policy while yours are right-wing bloggers / analysts. Hmm. http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/18/kissinger-obama-iran/ Kissinger: Obama is handling the situation in Iran well. In an interview with CNN yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) criticized President Obama’s approach to the turmoil in Iran, saying that he shouldn’t be concerned about being seen as “meddling” in Iran’s affairs. But on Fox News last night, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, noting that he was a McCain supporter, said that he thinks “the president has handled this well”: KISSINGER: Well, you know, I was a McCain supporter and — but I think the president has handled this well. Anything that the United States says that puts us totally behind one of the contenders, behind Mousavi, would be a handicap for that person. And I think it’s the proper position to take that the people of Iran have to make that decision. Of course, we have to state our fundamental convictions of freedom of speech, free elections, and I don’t see how President Obama could say less than he has, and even that is considered intolerable meddling. He has, after all, carefully stayed away from saying things that seem to support one side or the other. And I think it was the right thing to do because public support for the opposition would only be used by the — by Ahmadinejad — if I can ever learn his name properly — against Mousavi.
I think you misunderstood, or jumped to the conclusion you wanted rather than what was actually stated. Your idea of what Obama should do plays in to the hands of Ahmadinejad. The line the govt. has been using is that protestors shouldn't listen to the foreign instigators and outside influences. The last thing needed would be to give credence to that. You need to realize your idea of diplomacy has failed for the last 8 years, and we now have a President smart enough to not continue what hasn't been working.
It goes well beyond 8 years. We have a history of meddling in revolutions (see Latin America) and rarely does it go well for the people of the country. The best model is the crumbling of the Soviet Bloc. Obama could probably afford to come out and say a little bit more, but it's better to err on the side of caution than going too far. Ultimately, these things will occur from within. The best thing the US could do is, if successful, quickly recognize a new gov't and then offer humanitarian support for whatever damage was done in the struggle.
looks like the House, by a vote of 405 to 1, disagrees with Fauxbama: [rquoter]Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for other purposes. Resolved, That the House of Representatives— (1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law; (2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and (3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.[/rquoter]
Howard Berman, D- CA: [rquoter]Chairman Berman’s remarks on H.Res. 560, expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and rule of law Mr. Speaker, every day since Iran’s election, the streets of Tehran have been filled with demonstrators, and each day this past week, the number seems to be growing. Even state-run media in Iran has put the number of demonstrators in Tehran at “hundreds of thousands.” One British newspaper reports that there were a million demonstrators in Tehran yesterday. What do these demonstrators want? Are they simply in favor of the candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi? Or are they making a more profound statement about the Iranian regime? Nobody knows exactly. We do know one thing, though: The demonstrators feel their intelligence was insulted and their dignity assaulted by the high-handed manner in which the results of the June 12 election were handled. They want justice – this morning, the Supreme Leader offered none. It is not for us to decide who should run Iran, much less determine the real winner of the June 12th election. But we must reaffirm our strong belief that the Iranian people have a fundamental right to express their views about the future of their country freely, and without intimidation. The Iranian regime is clearly embarrassed by the demonstrations and has not shrunk from using violence to stop them. At least eight demonstrators – and quite likely, a number more – have been killed and hundreds have been injured. The Regime has also tried to ban media coverage of the demonstrations. Foreign journalists are consigned to their homes and offices; several have been expelled from the country. Cell-phone coverage has been frequently blocked in order to limit communication among the protestors. And the regime has interfered with the Internet and taken down many opposition Web sites. We cannot stand silent in the face of this assault on human freedom and dignity. I repeat that we have no interest in interfering in Iran’s internal affairs. That era has ended. This resolution “affirms the universality of individual rights,” as well as “the importance of democratic and fair elections.” Beyond that, it simply expresses its solidarity with “Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law.” I don’t know how many of the demonstrators fall into that category, but I do know that many of them do. This resolution also condemns the bloody suppression of freedom. It is not a judgment on who won the Iranian elections. It is an acknowledgement that we cannot remain silent when cherished, universal principles are under attack. Mr. Speaker, I want to just offer my appreciation to our ranking member and to the gentleman from Indiana for working together on a resolution which puts the House of Representatives on the side of the people of Iran. And with that, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution.[/rquoter]
Hmm that's funny because that's not the original text of the bill proposed, thats a modified version that was negotiated by said Obama administration... Nice try though. Also, lol Ron Paul was the one dissenting vote.
The story that just went across my newswire says: *GIBBS SAYS WHITE HOUSE WELCOMES U.S. HOUSE CONDEMNATION OF IRAN
What else would you expect from Neocon Bret Stephens, an ex-editor of the Jerusalem Post that was notable for his inability to read as much a sign in Hebrew.
I think a good question at looking not only at this thread, but also the other posts in it by basso, is... has he ever been right? Has he ever posted something that is accurate, honest, and factual?
yes, modified because The Faux One wanted to tone it down. [rquoter]Obama aides toned down Iran resolution The White House worked with House Democrats to moderate a fire-breathing resolution circulated by Republicans to rebuke Iran for its post-election crackdown on dissent, according to an Obama aide. The new resolution, similar to a version introduced in the Senate, "condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones." It's expected to pass the House today. The language, while relatively strong, is a toned-down version of the resolution pushed for by House GOP Conference Chairman Mike Pence (R-Ind.). During day-long wrangling, White House officials worked with Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-Calif.) to convince Pence that a harsh bill would provide Tehran with an excuse to drag America into their internal debate, according to people familiar with the situation. "We made it clear that we didn't want to make the U.S. a foil in a debate that has nothing to do with us," a senior administration told me this morning. "This is a debate among Iranians."[/rquoter]
