…and voted “present.“
Maybe TOTUS is on summer vacation.
[Update late afternoon]
Speak for America, Mr. President:
Some argue that the brave Iranians demonstrating for freedom and democracy would be better off if the American president somehow stayed out of the fight. Really? But Barack Obama is president. His statement wouldn’t be crafted by those dreaded neocons who vulgarly thought all people would like a chance to govern themselves and deserved some modicum of U.S. support in that endeavor. It would be written by subtle liberal internationalists, who would get the pitch and tone just right. And the statement wouldn’t be delivered by the notorious George Bush (who did, however, weigh in usefully in somewhat similar situations in Ukraine and Lebanon). It would be delivered by the popular and credible speaker-to-the-Muslim-world, Barack Obama. Does anyone really think that a strong Obama statement of solidarity with the Iranian people, and a strong rebuke to those who steal elections and shoot demonstrators, wouldn’t help the dissidents in Iran?
I don’t believe it. I don’t believe Barack Obama believes it. As he put it in The Audacity of Hope: “We can inspire and invite other people to assert their freedoms;…we can speak out on behalf of local leaders whose rights are violated; and we can apply economic and diplomatic pressure to those who repeatedly violate the rights of their own people.”
Maybe someone else wrote that book. He continues to vote “present.”
[Late afternoon update]
The State Department refuses to condemn the crackdown:
Lefties keep assuring me on Twitter that western meddling will only make it easier for the regime to demonize the protesters, but (a) the demonization’s going to happen anyway, (b) no one’s asking Obama to send in the Marines, just to speak up, and (c) Angela Merkel managed to issue a statement earlier today calling the Basij thuggery “completely unacceptable” without killing the uprising in its crib. And still, from the White House, nothing. To think, some commentators are accusing The One of “cowardly silence.”
You’ll also be pleased to know that, according to no less than the New York Times, Obama didn’t bother holding any meetings or conference calls about this yesterday. Remember: Health care is a “crisis.” This is but a “situation.”
Well, to be fair, perhaps they want to avoid charges of hypocrisy when they may have to do the same thing here next November.
From American Conservative magazine:
http://www.amconmag.com/schwenkler/2009/06/15/obama-and-iran/
I concur. Allowing Ahmadinejad to frame this as “Iran versus the US” is a good way to assure that Ahmadinejad wins this thing.
And right now, with two million Tehran-ians in the streets Ahmadinejad could very well lose this thing. So lets not muck it up.
Of course, folks like Daniel Pipes and Charles Krauthammer have been openly rooting for Ahmadinejad to win so perhaps those demanding that Obama speak boldly are perhaps playing a reverse psychology game intended to assist Ahmadinejad.
Rand, do you prefer that Ahmadinejad win this thing?
I concur.
Do you ever not concur with anything the Obama administration does?
Allowing Ahmadinejad to frame this as “Iran versus the US” is a good way to assure that Ahmadinejad wins this thing.
Here’s an idea. Don’t allow him to do that. Frame it as the Iranian people and America against the mullahs. I’m sure that TOTUS can come up with the right words.
Do you really think that the Soviet people were upset when Reagan called the USSR an evil empire? Do you really think that the dissidents didn’t take heart from it? Again, how stupid do you think the Iranian people are?
Rand, do you prefer that Ahmadinejad win this thing?
[rolling eyes]
As long as Ahmadinejad’s boys have the guns and their support for him is not splintered, it is unlikely that these protests will come to much. THe sad truth of the matter is that unless the tyranny in question is on its last legs, popular uprisings have very little impact upon said tyranny…
With that said, there is no question that Obama should speak out… Are we to stand by while this sort of thing is done and say nothing?
Scott – YES. With a caveat. They get firmly told that they got the first lick in in 2001 – they might get a second – but they won’t get a third, as they won’t be alive to make the try. Any of them.
Another way to put it: “In our opinion, one of our buildings is worth one of your cities and one of our cities is worth all of yours. And we are not interested in your opinion.”
Given what I’ve seen of President Obama, I really do think the Iranian people, and the American people, and the world, are all better served if he keeps his hopenchangey mouth shut.
He may not think so, but the mullahs certainly do, that the President of the United States is their enemy, and whatever he may want, they will oppose with all their might. Obama would be unprepared for this response, and disaster would result.
Obama didn’t say anything because to him and his buttboys, the A-Man is the good guy.
After all, he agrees with them on Israel and America…he can’t be ALL bad.
Fletcher, even if Obama said such a thing, I cannot imagine any world political leaders naive or foolish enough to believe him. Given who he is, and who is supporters are, the probability of America responding with serious force to almost any provocation (and I would include provocations a lot more serious than the loss of a single building) is quite remote.
To be blunt, this is a much less acceptable update (‘reimagining’?) of Jimmy Carter, but without the steely backbone and deep insight…