Major Garrett just challenged Mr. Obama’s tone on Iran, essentially asking why he waited so long to show any outrage and whether he’d been inconsistent. “I don’t think that’s accurate,” the president replies, defending himself. “Track what I’ve been saying. Right after the election I said we had profound concerns about the nature of the election, but that it was not up to us to determine what the outcome is.” And he added, “The United States will not be a foil” for the Iranian government to accuse of meddling.
Excuse me. If I may be so bold. I hate to trouble you but.... I don't mean to impose... I'm not interfering... Far be it from me to suggest anything that you might be able to characterize as meddling. I'm no meddler. Not at all. I'm just over here, modestly deploring violence.
पोस्ट्स
७६ टिप्पण्या:
On liberal translation:
Althouse > Hannity
:razz:
Obama is such a weenie.
Obama believes that love is all we need.
MORE:
XWL said...
As the violence escalates, and the thugs in charge of Iran get even more erratic and bellicose, Obama's "measured" response to events will be damaging to his party in the midterms, and him personally in 2012.
I've said more than once during the campaign that he seemed hellbent on returning us to the Carter years, and seems like giving us stagflation was only the first step.
Can't wait for the even or odd license plate fill-up days at gas pumps to return...
JUNE 23, 2009 12:50:00 PM CDT
Marcia said...
"He respects the sovereignty and deplores the violence."
Is that like "love the sinner, hate the sin"?
JUNE 23, 2009 12:53:00 PM CDT
NKVD said...
Pussy response from a pussy president.
JUNE 23, 2009 12:53:00 PM CDT
Arturius said...
Well I think the demonstrators need to take a page from the history books and recall what happened to the Ceausecu regime in 1989 and act accordingly.
JUNE 23, 2009 12:54:00 PM CDT
madawaskan said...
"menatal" crutches!?
[damn it...]
He does kinda have a momma's boy thing about him though....
I'm leaving it.
JUNE 23, 2009 12:56:00 PM CDT
tim maguire said...
On the scale of possible responses, IMO, Obama's public response is pretty close to the best one (a little soft, but better than many argued alternatives). Any real support for the protestors has to be made covertly. Hopefully Obama is doing just that, but it could be a while before we know.
JUNE 23, 2009 1:16:00 PM CDT
OldGrouchy Doug Wright said...
He's the one he's been waiting for!
JUNE 23, 2009 1:27:00 PM CDT
David said...
I have tried to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt. It's getting harder to do. It's clear he's out of his depth in the Iran response. I'm also coming to worry that Obama does not do well at all when he is seriously challenged. Will we see an Obama meltdown? Stay tuned.
JUNE 23, 2009 1:28:00 PM CDT
MORE:
junyo said...
I said we had profound concerns about the nature of the election, but that it was not up to us to determine what the outcome is.
Here's the flaw with "not determining the outcome". Clinton didn't determine the outcome with Osama. Bush 1 didn't determine the outcome with Saddam. If Ahmadinejad stays, at some point, it's virtually certain that we'll be forced to determine the outcome, either in Iran, or Israel, or some US city that's just had a Iranian supplied nuke detonated within it - in all likelihood with high explosives and bullets. If we can avoid that, even if people jawjack about our "interference" (the Iranian regime has interfered in Iraq with markedly less handwringing), it's the smart call (and some would say our moral obligation) to do so.
Inaction is an action, a choice, and has consequences. Progressives have somehow embraced this policy of global CYA; if we take a pass, no one can blame us for anything regardless of the (entirely predictable) outcome. But the simple fact is, when the people crying for inaction now are screaming about the actions of some future president regarding a militant, nuclear Iran, the responsibility can be laid right here. For the sake of political gain, Obama is punting the problem forward.
JUNE 23, 2009 1:40:00 PM CDT
madawaskan said...
No and no again.
Remember when the democrats talked about-
"Smart Diplomacy"TM?
What happened to that?
The laissez faire attitude to Iran and referring to it as an internal problem?
Well-you should be insulted by that.
Comparisons to Iran with Poland- again-pretty damn insulting.
The Iranians-are trying to overthrow a nut job who has threatened to nuke another country-now I know it's just a bunch of Jews and somehow that shouldn't count as much as another country-but there it is.
The guy has threatened to start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East disrupting what little stability has been achieved-in an area of both geographical and economic strategic importance.
So-this business about it being just an internal Iranian problem?
Well I guess you could buy that -if you wantedto.
There is a lot the administration could do short of "talking pretty". Now I know they are deathly afraid of affecting the American economy and ruining their own chances of re-election so they wish these pesky protestors would just go away , but the Ayatollah made a grave mistake and hitched the complete Iranian band wagon to the fate of Ahmadinejad.
Economic leverage could be used against Iran, pressure from other countries in the region...but that hasn't been deployed yet.
The irony being Turkey-
Kemal Ataturk banned the burka and he wasn't even French!
[But there are nut jobs out there who claim he was Jewish and this is suppose to be all the "evidence" they need against him...]
JUNE 23, 2009 1:40:00 PM CDT
Madame Defarge said...
I think he's playing it right. And he's right that the US getting involved would be a distraction and possibly short-circuit the protests.
The people helping with the cyber aspects are doing the most important thing, and as long as he doesn't interfere with that, he's doing okay.
You can't stop the signal. /Mr. Universe
JUNE 23, 2009 1:41:00 PM CDT
MORE:
madawaskan said...
Again remember when Liberals said much short of invasion could be done against Iraq?
Well all of a sudden that's-
Bull?
Now I am apt to agree with you when we are talking about democrats because they don't want to use leverage against the current Iranian regime-they want the "problem" to be swept under the rug.
Funny thing is-the American economy looks like it's going to get affected by this wether they like it or not....
Why not bother to be on the "right" side of this?
There is still time for that....
Now it's a pity that the Iranian students have bought into "Hope and Change" even when the American "Hope and Change" guy tried to call bull malarkey on the Iranian "Hope and Change " guy saying he really might not be that different....
Campaign rhetoric being something Obama does have experience with-and can see through.
But it looks lie this thing is going to go down partially because they believe the myth [thela w of unintended consequences] and it's time for the Obama Administration to wise up and stop trying to bet on both-
Red and Green.
JUNE 23, 2009 1:49:00 PM CDT
Leland said...
Ok, I'm convinced. The Presidency is just a stepping stone for Obama to reach UN Secretary General.
This response is classic UN. The sovereignty of Iran is all that matters. Internal disagreements are up to the sovereign to decide. Pass a resolution saying that the disagreements should be handled without violence, and if that doesn't work, bring in peacekeepers to protect the sovereign.
By the way, what's the ICC doing?
JUNE 23, 2009 1:55:00 PM CDT
MORE:
Ironclad said...
The more interesting question is how he will deal with Ahmadinejad after he is "sworn in" for another term as president. While the rules of diplomacy require you to "dance with the partner you brung" - meaning that you deal with the leader or current thug in charge of a country, it does not mean that you have to accord them any respect. Would he give Robert Mugabe a full state reception if he managed a visit?
It's going to take a lot of "nuance" to wiggle out of this one - because if you try to normalize relationships now with the current Iranian government, you are in essence spitting on the protestors who risked their lives to demonstrate. But then, you would not want to "interfere in Iran's internal affairs".
JUNE 23, 2009 1:58:00 PM CDT
John Stodder said...
We "respect" the sovereignty of nations, meaning we agree we live in a world where nationhood matters and it's not up to one country to dictate political results to another one.
It's not the same thing as respect = admire.
Obama's f-ing up in lots of areas, but on Iran, I think he's doing the best one could hope for, given the weakness of our hand. This matter will be decided by the Iranians, and we might not like what happens, but if the insurgency fails, it surely can't be blamed on Obama.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:01:00 PM CDT
bagoh20 said...
junyo,
That's perfect. Wish I'd said it, even better, I wish an American President had said it.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:03:00 PM CDT
MadisonMan said...
it surely can't be blamed on Obama.
You know very well that failure will be blamed on him.
That's because there are people who think that America (the USA, to be precise) should control the 4 corners of the Earth. To them I say: Wake up and smell the coffee.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:05:00 PM CDT
Arturius said...
This matter will be decided by the Iranians, and we might not like what happens, but if the insurgency fails, it surely can't be blamed on Obama.
The only ones who should be blamed for the failure of the 'insurgency' are the insurgents. If an openly fraudulent election followed by the regime shooting people in the streets isn't enough to get the villagers to storm the castle then they deserve the government they have.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:13:00 PM CDT
madawaskan said...
Ya a crazy guy who wants nukes who threatened the annihilation of another country?
No biggie!
Not a problem for the leader of the free world.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:14:00 PM CDT
AJ Lynch said...
If you placed Obama on a sliding scale of domestic vs. foreign interests, he'd be way to the side of domestic meddling. He is not interested much in the foreign meddling.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:15:00 PM CDT
MORE:
madawaskan said...
These people are doing the world a HUGE favor-think we could help them-
just a little?
JUNE 23, 2009 2:16:00 PM CDT
Richard Dolan said...
It's as if O is more concerned about getting the tone right for his domestic audience than he is about the way others will see it. Tone matters, of course. But so does knowing who the more important audience is. His statements on Iran all reflect the fact that he still thinks about 'audience' and 'tone' as if he were in campaign-mode. He views his audience as the anti-Bush crowd, and frames his pitch accordingly. Someone needs to let him know that he won the election, and that campaign-mode doesn't work so well when the real audience is elsewhere than Iowa.
But while knowing your audience and getting the tone right both matter, so does the message. What is his message, exactly? He hasn't figured out how to get all of those elements right at the same time. The presidency is a tough place to try to learn that stuff on the fly.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:19:00 PM CDT
madawaskan said...
Remember when oh just a couple of weeks ago, everyone was talking about the Iranian problem-and who would have to bomb the living shit out of their "facilities"?
The outcome of that would have been what?
Now you have this-and you could do a hell of a lot LESS meddling then the afore mentioned actions-and Obama and his supporters are getting queasy?
Unreal.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:19:00 PM CDT
Beth said...
Who is "Major Garrett"? Who names their kids by rank?
I prefer Majel Barrett, muchly.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:20:00 PM CDT
Randy said...
Colonel Mustard's nephew, I think.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:23:00 PM CDT
madawaskan said...
Oh and speaking of "meddling" remember when the current Iranian regime was sending IED materials and other assorted sundries to kill AMERICAN soldiers in Iraq?
Ya ghee I know we can't really care about that when Democrats are in power-just like the USS Cole or the Khobar Towers-that somehow doesn't count....
JUNE 23, 2009 2:23:00 PM CDT
garage mahal said...
Can't we just send like one bomb over there. I'm so bored.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:23:00 PM CDT
That is some big time double think from our Supreme Leader. Without an election, then the Iran enterprise is no Republic. It's a monarchy. We should interfer with them as often as we need to to destroy their harmonious Tyrant's enterprise before it destroys us. You don't need a large country to destroy the USA when the Tyrant in a country holds the power of a U-235 superbomb.
MORE:
Randy said...
Your suggestion would probably receive great support from commenters here, garage.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:25:00 PM CDT
Porkov said...
Obama doesn't want to get any Carter on his shoes. Too late.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:25:00 PM CDT
John said...
Is it that hard to say that a government that murders its citizens in the streets has no right to be considered part of the civilized world? Apparently for liberals it is. I mean really. They just shot a few demonstrators in cold blood. It is not like they waterboarded KSM or Padia or something.
Obama is truly a cowardly crapweasel.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:26:00 PM CDT
Arturius said...
Who is "Major Garrett"? Who names their kids by rank?
Perhaps the same kind who name their kids after rocks.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:27:00 PM CDT
Randy said...
So,John,does you rule apply to the People's Republic of China?
JUNE 23, 2009 2:32:00 PM CDT
John said...
"So,John,does you rule apply to the People's Republic of China?"
Yes it does. I hate how we coddle the CHICOMs. Our "engagement" and ass kissing hasn't made them one bit less oppressive. That doesn't mean we should go to war with them. But, we shouldn't pretend that they are anything other than what they are. Bush should have never gone to the Olympics there. The US should at every opportunity speak out in support of Chinese dissendents and call attention to the country's appalling human rights record.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:34:00 PM CDT
m00se said...
That man is a hunka' hunka' burning nuance I tell ya'!
JUNE 23, 2009 2:35:00 PM CDT
SINE NOMINE said...
On Liberal Translation:
Althouse > Hannity
JUNE 23, 2009 2:35:00 PM CDT
Dave said...
I've read much over the past ten days about how the President needs to be more vocal & needs to be on the "right side of history".
But what I haven't heard is a solid argument for what strong words of condemnation would do to alter the situation. I'm guessing that this is because there is not a strong argument apart from the superficial one of being on the "right side" of the issue.
I might favor tougher rhetoric if I believe it could be of some use to the protesters.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:39:00 PM CDT
madawaskan said...
Randy-
What kind of equivalency is that?
First of all China is not threatening to nuke another country, is not sending IED materials into theaters to Kill American soldiers-so the analogy-again is missing the bigger picture.
Also just because we can't effect much for human rights in China does not mean that we cannot do what we can when we can.
Politics isn't some absolutist, purist religion.
And it's pretty snide of you and garge to insinuate that the "usual crowd" around here wants to send a little bomb during the protests-if you can't fight the ideas insinuate the ones you can counter-really good faith techniques being deployed-there.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:41:00 PM CDT
MORE:
John said...
"But what I haven't heard is a solid argument for what strong words of condemnation would do to alter the situation. I'm guessing that this is because there is not a strong argument apart from the superficial one of being on the "right side" of the issue."
Language and words mean somthing. It undercuts the Mullahs' claims of legitimatcy. Every time our paper hanging moron of a President gets up and talks about how he wants to negotiate with the Mullahs and how this isn't a big deal, the Mullahs can turn to their people and say "see the rest of the world says we are legitimate the only people who are complaining are criminals."
JUNE 23, 2009 2:42:00 PM CDT
Aaron said...
btw, we can comment on your main blog, so maybe you can post there again, too.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:44:00 PM CDT
madawaskan said...
Dave-
Again you are picking one line of my argument.....
And fighting that...
It was Democrats who spun "the smart diplomacy"-crap it should be their shining moment to show us it wasn't all pretty talk.
Hey-again you could go back and read where I wrote about leverage being applied to other countries in the region-so that they begin to influence the situation.
Ghee Turkey wants in the EU, Egypt wants stability, Afghanistan could change their tune with some encouragement...
JUNE 23, 2009 2:46:00 PM CDT
Dave said...
The images of the State beating and killing its own citizens do infinitely more to undercut the government than words from foreign leaders. Which is why the White House was correct over the first seven days or so to not say much regarding the events, when protests were largely peaceful.
As the violence escalated over the weekend, do did the rhetoric from the White House. Again, in my opinion, the proper response.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:48:00 PM CDT
Dave said...
madawaskan - I actually wasn't picking any line of your argument.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:51:00 PM CDT
Fred4Pres said...
I am waiting for Andrew Sullivan to defend Obama for his Administration's recent statements that Obama inspired the recent Iranian protests with his Cairo speech and his recent speaking out (after a week of praising him for not saying anything).
I know this will be extremely difficult...
But love will find a way.
Andrew Sullivan is to Barack Obama as Kathryn Jean Lopez is to Mitt Romney. Only Sully is more fauning and has more of a 12 year old girl crush on Barack.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:52:00 PM CDT
AJ Lynch said...
Major Fife was the name of some kid in high school. I don't remember if he was in the band.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:54:00 PM CDT
madawaskan said...
Dave-
OK weird- I said something about Obama still having time to be "on the right side" so I thought you were going after the rest of my position.
JUNE 23, 2009 2:56:00 PM CDT
Weenie and bland don't capture it.
Face it, he's a weak, pathetic p*ssy that makes Jimmy Carter look like He-Man, Master of the Universe.
Don't think he'll be any better when it comes to defending us.
"Face it, he's a weak, pathetic p*ssy that makes Jimmy Carter look like He-Man, Master of the Universe."
Frankly we would have been better off electing Michelle. At least she has a dick and a pair of balls.
Sheesh, sovereignty.
there is only one rightful sovereign of any country: the people.
no dictator is sovereign over anything. and we have no moral obligation to respect their alleged sovereignty. now as a practical matter we might say hands off just because, well, you can't kick the whole world's behind at once, but let's not pretend there is any principle there but practicality.
OOPS, MISSED THE FIRST PART OF THE COMMENTS COPIED FROM ALTHOUSE2:
madawaskan said...
You mean he hasn't blamed Bush for this mess yet?
[Crap on a pogo stick that's getting old..]
It's like some coach blaming the old coach-sure you could do that for a while but...
The fans wouldn't buy it for long plus hell Obama got to pick a whole new team!
Shut up and coach or somethin'...
Oh and the teleprompters how many historical shots have been ruined by those things?
He's at the beaches of Normandy and he had these sleeker gray colored ones-looked like sunglasses -and it really looked lame.
Here's our new Obama the Orator and-
Look!
He brought his menatal crutches with him!
Go Sarkozy! Now that guy is-
Hooooooottttt!
Hubba.
JUNE 23, 2009 12:21:00 PM CDT
madawaskan said...
Oh that paternalistic shot you took at Sarkozy I'm all in baby....
Look it's pretty hard to fight for your rights all swarthed out in your burka....
I'd take help from any where I could get it.
If Sarkozy is going to get all hot and bothered about it well....
Damn! The guy is just hot-sorry but I get off on that...
Brainy, passionate and persuasive-plus the eyes-
Ooh lala!
Anyways there's a huge historical mountian of evidence that has marched through time-
burkas=repression.
Sarkozy not so stupid....
I'm just sayin'...
JUNE 23, 2009 12:26:00 PM CDT
madawaskan said...
Wait this post was about Obama?
Boring!
JUNE 23, 2009 12:26:00 PM CDT
bagoh20 said...
I sure as hell hope we are meddling, at least covertly. But, it seems like Obama want's the current regime, so I'm not sure we are.
And of course it's up to Iranians who is elected, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT WE SHOULD BE MAKING. Free honest elections, not tyranny.
JUNE 23, 2009 12:30:00 PM CDT
ajf said...
"The United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs."
That filthy piece of garbage said that he respects the fucking islamic republic and said it in the name of the United States. As an American of Persian descent, I hope to see him hang from a lamp post...
JUNE 23, 2009 12:30:00 PM CDT
Didn't watch it / listen to it. But from Ed Morrissey live blog:
12:47 - Major Garrett: “What took you so long?” Obama objects to the characterization that he waffled. “We’ve been entirely consistent.” Ha!
I should have been keeping count of how many times POTUS BO tells people he is clear and consistent. Almost every time he speaks; every time he is questioned.
12:49 - Garrett asks whether Iranian diplomats are still welcome to State Dept 4th of July celebrations. Obama says, “That’s a choice the Iranians have to make.” Weenie diplomacy still on!
That is bizarre.
The questions was whether [the US] was still going to welcome Iranians diplomats to the annual July 4th picnics at embassies around the world
Note: There is no US embassy in Iran -- why? Oh. I remember, these same Iranians invaded it a bunch of years ago and held hundreds of Americans hostage for over a year ....
But hey, also note the the President does not answer the question.
The non-answer, if you didn't catch it, is "yes" they are still welcome.
But the IRANIAN diplomats are not the ones who determine the welcome. That's our prerogative. And we are not meddling if we tell them "You're not welcome at our party which celebrates independence and freedom and revolution, the likes of which curls every hair on your bodies."
2:57 - Response on Iran “timid and weak,” today sounds a lot stronger; is this a response to McCain and Graham accusation? Obama laughs it off. “Only I’m the President of the United States,” which is why my earlier response was weaker, even though I said it wasn’t earlier. I don’t want to be a “foil” for the mullahs, even though they’re doing it anyway. Incoherence.
Get that? He knows he is The President of the United States.
Can someone with access to Lexis-Nexis check whether ANY President has ever used that meme as much as President Obama has in the last 5 months and 3 days?
People who know who they are don't have a need to tell everyone else.
13:00 - “You have avoided twice” noting potential consequences for the Iranian mullahs, Chuck Todd says, but Obama says he’s not married to the “24-hour news cycle”.
Thanks for telling us. I guess the President puts The Phone on voice mail when he goes to bed. The WORLD is on a 24-hour news cycle, sir. That's part of your job.
But then, he erects lots of blatant barriers and blows people off -- and the press lets him get away with it. He has HIS special personal BlackBerry (and what's the rule on Presidential communications?) And he has His medical records, and he has His birth records, and He has His college transcripts, and His thesis, and he has His notes from this state legislative office, and he has His ... And none of it is available to the People of the United States whom he serves.
I know I am bitching but is someone going to explain to him that he is just Not That Special?
That's why I don't listen to him.
Obama latest round of "tough principled diplomacy" calling for the world to "bear witness" to the atrocities of the Iranian theocracy segue perfectly into this week's Ramirez cartoon.
Blogger Bender said...
Weenie and bland don't capture it.
Face it, he's a weak, pathetic p*ssy that makes Jimmy Carter look like He-Man, Master of the Universe.
****
I really hate when men use pussy as an insult. Not only is it sexist but I like my pussy and I don't like Obama at all.
Meanwhile, in an awful display of unintended irony, the Obama State Department is planning on celebrating the birth of American democracy on the 4th of July with the same Iranian thugs who are beating and murdering those demonstrating for Iranian democracy.
This takes desperation to appease to new depths.
Lisa:
Calling Obama a "pussy" is definitely an insult to all women. It would be far more accurate to compare him to the invertebrate of your choice.
Tsk tsk. Calling the POTUS such derogatory names while he's fighting two wars and dealing with several hot spots flaring up around the world is, I'm not going to say unpatriotic, but, troubling.
Ok, wait, wait, wait. Are you trying to tell me some guy named Obama said something?
Meanwhile, in an awful display of unintended irony, the Obama State Department is planning on celebrating the birth of American democracy on the 4th of July with the same Iranian thugs who are beating and murdering those demonstrating for Iranian democracy.
What you don't know is that the 4th of July party is actually a fiendish trap set by the scary-smart Obama and his State Dept lackeys.
First, we'll give the Iranians a false sense of security by plying them with halal chicken franks and O'Doul's non-alcoholic brew. Then, BAM!, we present them with that sternly worded letter that everyone's been anticipating.
Take that, you theocratic thugs! Smart power, get some!
When Bark Obama opens his mouth:
95% tax break for all American idiots, remember his promises to close Girmo immediately, and start withdrawning troops from Iraq on day one.
Only a fool would take his word on his promises.
Calling the POTUS such derogatory names while he's fighting two wars and dealing with several hot spots flaring up around the world is, I'm not going to say unpatriotic, but, troubling.
Last I heard, it was the highest form of patriotism.
See what I did there?
I'm still beaming from getting my name and comment re-printed from our lovely host. Iran will have to wait.
He's not my president.
Impeach now.
Endless war.
Speak truth to power.
And so on, at least until this no-nut motherfucker (thanks again, Jesse) is out of office.
"Tsk tsk. Calling the POTUS such derogatory names while he's fighting two wars and dealing with several hot spots flaring up around the world is, I'm not going to say unpatriotic, but, troubling."
Coming from the same Leftists who spent the last 8 years inventing all sorts of new derogatory words to describe President Bush, this has to win the Irony of the Day Award.
"Dissent is patriotic"...that was what Leftists said for 8 years. So which is it?
"I really hate when men use pussy as an insult."
-
We could just reverse the usage:
-
"My Obama is itchy."
-
"Stop staring at my Obama."
-
"I want some of that Obama, mama."
Coming from the same Leftists who spent the last 8 years...
.
So which is it?.
One subject at a time now! And I asked first. What about my point -- how do you feel about calling the POTUS such derogatory names during this crisis and especially in time of war?
Kouross Esmaeli, Iranian American journalist and filmmaker, responding to the criticism of President Obama from the right, in terms of his inaction on the issue of the election in Iran?
KOUROSS ESMAELI: "What is interesting about the criticisms that are coming from the right is that it’s been coming primarily from Senator John McCain. The Iranians know Senator John McCain as the man who sang “Bomb, bomb Iran” during the elections of last year. The man holds no credibility as far as supporting Iranians or seeming like he’s got the best interests of the Iranians at heart. And that, for Iranians and for this issue, that discredits him altogether and discredits this whole attack on President Obama.
President Obama’s stand, I think, has been the most sensible, and it’s amazing that the President of the United States is taking such a sensible stand. And that—everyone I’ve talked to in Iran has said the same thing, that we do not need any symbol of Western, especially American, interference in Iran’s internal politics. And the fact that America does not have diplomatic relations with Iran really ties its hand, as far as how far he can go in really supporting Iran. So the only thing they can do is to just scream as loud as they can, which will be immediately used by the Iranian authorities." (Democracy Now)
NKVD said..."He's not my president."
Are you saying you're not an American citizen?
junyo said..."Last I heard, it was the highest form of patriotism."
Where have you ever heard calling the President names is some kind of patriotic duty?
You're full of shit.
garage -
I'll let you know as soon as you Leftists huddle and decide whether you were lying for political convenience over the last 8 years or whether you're just acting out of political convenience by even posing the question.
Since your side started the whole "Dissent Is Patriotic" meme trying to defend their own conduct 8 years ago, you went first.
Let me know when you stop drowning in your own hypocrisy.
(For the record, I never thought it was unpatriotic to criticize President Bush.)
I'll let you know as soon as you Leftists huddle and decide.....
So your moral beacons are Leftists? And again I believe I asked first.
And I wanted to add that our men and women are dying for your right to dissent under the 1st Amendment. However untasteful it may be sometimes.
Obama is doing exactly what the leader of the free world should be doing...something we never saw from the last administration.
Almost all of the comments appearing here today are just another round of bitching and whining about all things Obama from the far right.
And it epitomizes why the Republicans lost the last round of elections and will lose the next.
garage -
Re-read my post. I stated my opinion on the subject.
Too bad you don't have the courage to admit whether you were lying then or lying now. Pick a side. You can't have both.
Either it was unpatriotic to criticize Bush or it wasn't. And if it wasn't, then you even pretending that you're "troubled" by criticism of Obama is not just hypocritical: it's deceit.
And if it WAS unpatriotic to criticize President Bush, you have a lot to answer for.
So which is it? Are you a traitor or a liar?
Too bad you don't have the courage to admit whether you were lying then or lying now. Pick a side. You can't have both..
I don't recall ever stating what my position "then" was to you. My original post simply said calling the POTUS derogatory names during this crisis was troubling. I clearly stated it wasn't "unpatriotic" as you wrongly misread and repeated.
Jim - "Dissent Is Patriotic" has little if anything to do with the kinds of comments appearing here and throughout the right wing grapevine.
Differing views have nothing to do with personal attacks on Obama.
Calling him a pussy? Saying he thinks all we need is "love?" Althouse calling him "bland?"
And complaining about Obama not "doing more," whatever the hell that means, or not doing what McCain, Newt and other conservatives think he should be saying or doing isn't flying with the American public.
They've seen the kind of politics the Republicans practice and the wrong-headed decisions they make...and they rejected it by electing Obama.
Get used to it.
Given how derogatory your statements were and are about President Bush, I'm assuming that your position is that it is NOT unpatriotic to criticize the president. Or are you saying that you're a traitor?
You're trying to play a semantic game because you wanted to weasel "troubling," and I'm not letting you out of your insinuation that criticisms of Obama are even remotely unpatriotic.
You made the insinuation, and you've been called out on your hypocritical deceit. You're the one who started down this road. Don't pull a Perez Hilton and run screaming now.
Question from an Iranian in Iran today to the President:
-
"Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of -- of what the demonstrators there are working to achieve?"
-
No doubt we can find Iranians on both sides of the debate. So quoting ONE does not tell us much about what they want as a people. I mean they are so different from us, I'm sure they would prefer to just fight the regime on there own without any support from us. We could say that they are evil and selfish to protest and help them even more that way.
Calling Our President names is not a good tactic. But Barak Obama's passivity is leading to the rest of the world losing respect/fear of American power to defend America and its allies. Love is a warm feeling that disappears the second the leaders and the people of another country smell loot. Obama knows this from experiences in the play to pay system in Chicago. That makes one wonder what Obama plans to do after he is America's President, which now seems to be his part time job until he finishes with the curtailing of the USA's wealth and power.
How many times did he quote himself?
On the name calling of the POTUS (that's not an insult is it):
I don't like it for any President, but after seeing Obama in action I empathize with how the left could get so upset and disgusting about Bush. Obama could not be any more anti-me than he has turned out so far.
-
But, I won't dip to the depths dredged by the left over the last 8 years. I will fight the urge, because I'm not like them. I don't hate him. I just think he is really really bad at this job.
"Calling him a pussy? Saying he thinks all we need is "love?" Althouse calling him "bland?"
And complaining about Obama not "doing more,""
-
You can't be serious. Those are terrible insults? I have no intention of resisting calling him "bland".
-
Holy shit are you lame? Can I call him thin-skinned? Or is that racist?
"madawaskan said...
Randy-
What kind of equivalency is that?
First of all China is not threatening to nuke another country, is not sending IED materials into theaters to Kill American soldiers-so the analogy-again is missing the bigger picture..
We owe Iran some payback for providing weapons to kill Americans
but it is like America, the #1 weapons provider to the world, doing the same and denying they are a part of the slaughter.
US weapons did a fine job on the flesh, helos, and planes of Russian invaders in Afghanistan. Thousands of Palestinians have been killed by US-made bullets, cluster bombs, missiles.
With our economy on the brink of Depression, the last of the Republican neocon tools need to think about what 250 dollar a breel oil will do to Americans...and how that rates alongside starting a war to help "noble freedom lovers" every bit as committed to opposing Zionism, exporting Islamism, and supporting Iran's current nuke program as the regime is.
Obama is being as smart as Eisenhower was not starting war with the Soviets over the hungarian Freedom-Lovers!, or LBJ/NIxon not starting a hot war over the noble Czechoslovakian Freedom-Lovers.
Or Ford and Clinton sitting genocides out.
Or Reagan pulling forces out of Lebanon with MItterand when they realized they were being set up by the Zionists to die for Israel and it's allies in Lebanon - and it was better to cut their losses. 241 Marines and 58 French paras in one day was enough folly.
Besides Iran retaliatory action shutting off the Gulf for 3-6 months causing a global Depression squarely blamed on America...any overt support of protestors gets them branded as tools of America and what Iran and many in the ME believe America's Pupppetmasters. And we also face possible war with N Korea, a potential collapse of our currency.
Nope. Obama is better off being like Ike, or Nixon, or Reagan avoiding creating new military burdens...than listening to disgraced neocons and their last remaining dupes ranting about him being a wimp.
bagoh20 - I just think it's indicative of the fact that you and others really have no credible alternatives to what he's doing right now.
You have some of the bigger Republicans politicos and pundits also saying he's doing exactly what he should right now (including Kissinger, Will, etc.), yet you continue to bitch and whine.
The Clerics and Ahmadinejad are praying for him to overtly take sides, which would be the worst thing he could do.
What do YOU think Obama should be doing about the situation in Iran?
Cedarford said..."We owe Iran some payback for providing weapons to kill Americans..."
And you don't think they believe WE provided weapons to Iraq...to kill Iranians?
The left is enlightened. Progressives are the smartest people on earth. From these brilliant douchebags I have learned that insulting those you disagree with and calling them names is the best way to go through life.
Obama is a stupid unaccomplished lightweight empty suit. His wife tried to put his manhood in a lockbox, but could not find it.
He is an idiot, a weakling, a pathetic drug addict and former crack head.
He loves despots and dictators and hates America and Americans.
Did I mention his ugly wife has an enormous ass? No, not Jeremy, I mean the one attached to her lower spine.
And the children you see with the lovely couple - Obama is not their father.
Obama's mother was a slut.
Have I missed anything?
NKVD said..."Have I missed anything?"
Yeah, the part about being an uneducated and thoroughly ignorant child.
And people here wonder why the Republicans are in free fall??
Read this idiot's comments.
Me and others have been saying what he should do since it started. And you have been reading it. Since it's not what he's doing, you say it's not credible. If he was doing it, you would love it and be defending him with the same vigor. Likely, some people would also change sides against you, but not me. I care about the policy and I don't care who is carrying it.
-
I wish more than anything our first black president was fiscally conservative, decisive, and a leader. I would love him. He's not and I don't.
bagoh20 -
Thin-skinned doesn't begin to cover Obama's inability to deal with criticism. Let's look at the juvenile stunt of giving both Hillary and McCain the finger during the campaign: that's the act of a child, not an adult.
He's clearly still emotionally a teenage-boy. But, having been coddled throughout his adulthood by one "mentor" after another, it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that he gets so testy - as he did this afternoon - whenever he's asked to actually take some degree of responsibility for his actions.
Why should those who worship at his feet be expected to display any more emotional maturity than their Messiah?
They can say what they want about Bush, but he suffered a lot more slings and arrows than this emotional basketcase and he never responded with the kind of snippiness and childishness we've already seen from Obama.
People. Stop feeding the trolls. Please. Ann has already made the point that these threads deteriorate not because of them, but because you nourish them.
These trolls are not here to be argued with. They exist only to frustrate and insult. There is nothing you can do to "win" them over, so why the hell do you try? They are here to divert attention away from the argument, not to contribute to it.
Oh there is no doubt in my mind about the quality of the two men. I know who I would prefer as a friend in tough times. I don't want to end up under some bus, cause there was only one seat left.
More forceful commentary from the American president will only embolden the despotism of the Iranian regime. It also will not accomplish anything. In short, such rhetoric will only hurt the protestors. Is that what you desire?
chefmojo,
I like testing my ideas, but I do wish they were better at it.
Now, having said that, I'd like to say that Jeremy, et.al., seem to take immense enjoyment from savoring the glistening dew on the underside of Obama's ball sack. Reliable sources have observed that Jeremy says that the those testicles taste like a mixture of honey wine, sweat funk, soap and a faint hint of wagyu steak fart.
Just sayin'.
Exhaulted,
The rhetoric that getting people killed is the protesters'. Maybe they should shut up too. LEAVE AHMADINEJAD ALOOOOONE!!!
The Clerics and Ahmadinejad are praying for him to overtly take sides, which would be the worst thing he could do.
Actually the mullahs have already blamed the US, Britain and that moral beacon the UN for 'meddling' in their internal affairs so it really doesn't matter one bit if Obama sides with the protesters.
I fail to see why the worst thing to do is to side with the group that is protesting and being gunned down by a brutal theocratic regime. Perhaps Obama is a closet Trekkie and has adopted Federation foreign policy.
Arturius -
Except that Obama is trying to have it both ways.
On one hand, he's saying he doesn't want to meddle. On the other hand, his people are trying to take credit for the uprising by saying that he was sending some kind of coded message to Iranians in his Cairo speech. (Despite the fact that he said nothing about Iran in his speech other than to say that he was willing to work with the government they already had.)
He can't have it both ways, but he sure wants to. He wants credit for saying something he didn't say and doing something he hasn't done. It's pretty much his MO thus far, and his "deer in the headlights" policy on Iran isn't any different.
Actually the mullahs have already blamed the US, Britain and that moral beacon the UN for 'meddling' in their internal affairs so it really doesn't matter one bit if Obama sides with the protesters.
Bingo! That's the irony of this whole WH reaction. The mullahs are going to blame the US and Jews - uh, sorry. I mean neocons!™ - no matter how un-meddling they are. They're already saying that the whole thing is our fault.
So, why not get some mileage out of it and at least make an impression that we - meaning the United States Government - actually gives a shit beyond words-just-words.
Jeremy said...
Obama is doing exactly what the leader of the free world should be doing...
Doing nothing?
...something we never saw from the last administration.
I cannot disagree with you there.
He should let McCain be president, and shadow him, to figure out what he should do and how he should act. McCain always knew what he should do. Obama never has any clue unless he's reading his cue sheet. Get McCain to be the real president, and Obama can be the ACTING president.
Oh why didn't we elect the guy singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"? They'd be free by now!
Beth,
I'm not recommending it, but other than Vietnam, that bomb bomb stuff has a stellar record in freeing people: France, Belgium, Poland, Germany, Austria, Japan, Korea, Philippines, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Two of those nations are the #2 and #3 biggest economies in the world after the U.S. Just sayin'.
He can't have it both ways, but he sure wants to. He wants credit for saying something he didn't say and doing something he hasn't done. It's pretty much his MO thus far, and his "deer in the headlights" policy on Iran isn't any different.
Yes he wants it both ways and so far the media seems content to let him have it.
That said, considering how bad he wanted to extend the olive branch to the Islamic regime, I'm guessing he has to be pretty peeved at those demonstrators who had the temerity to force the mullah's hand like this over something as silly as an election. I'm sure even Obama would be reticent to be shaking hands with the guy who symbolizes an innocent women being gunned down in the street.
Given how derogatory your statements were and are about President Bush, I'm assuming that your position is that it is NOT unpatriotic to criticize the president. Or are you saying that you're a traitor?.
Your job is to find a post by me claiming that calling the Pres derogatory names is patriotic. I could save you the time and point you to my post here in this thread where I said it wasn't unpatriotic?
More forceful commentary from the American president will only embolden the despotism of the Iranian regime. It also will not accomplish anything. In short, such rhetoric will only hurt the protestors.
In other words after shooting unarmed demonstrators in the streets they're going to really get tough?
Calling Our President names is not a good tactic. But Barak Obama's passivity is leading to the rest of the world losing respect/fear of American power to defend America and its allies.
The world losing respect/fear of America -- hence the observation. If a leader's behavior leads the bad guys of the world to increasingly start f*cking with that "leader," then that leader is a weak p*ssy.
It is really sad when even the French are tougher than you.
Where have you ever heard calling the President names is some kind of patriotic duty?
You're full of shit.
Where did I ever hear that name calling was not a valid form of dissent? Where was any mainstream person on the left putting any limits on what was said about the previous administration or calling
out any of their associates for uncalled for speech? But now that your guy's in the big chair everyone needs to show the proper respect.
Fuck you, you fucking hypocrite.
Calling Our President names is not a good tactic. But Barak Obama's passivity is leading to the rest of the world losing respect/fear of American power to defend America and its allies.
You are completely clueless how the rest of the world thinks about the US. For the first time in 8 eight years you're beginning to regain some respect.
garage -
That's not what you said. You think you're being clever by using the "troubling" phraseology, but you don't get to get off.
You implied it was unpatriotic because you thought you were being oh so clever. But you weren't because your own words made your implication an intentional deceit.
You can run rings around yourself trying to claim you didn't say what you said, but it's no different than claiming that even though you said something on the order of "Not that I'm saying the guy is gay, but he does have a lot of anal sex with men." The implication was clear enough, and not unintentionally so.
It's a cowardly dodge. You said what you said. I'm not playing your game. Perhaps next time you'll have the courage to back up what you said instead of backtracking and trying to disown what you said.
People can agree or disagree with where I stand on issues, but at least I'm man enough to stand behind what I say. Too bad no one can say the same about you.
You are completely clueless how the rest of the world thinks about the US. For the first time in 8 eight years you're beginning to regain some respect.
You're completely clueless if you actually thought the world respected us pre-Bush. I'll worry when the G8 decides to level sanctions and cut off relations with us.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा