You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Obama to Iran's leaders: Stop 'unjust' actions
2009-06-21
Bambi tries to get into the game.
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Saturday challenged Iran's government to halt a "violent and unjust" crackdown on dissenters, using his bluntest language yet to condemn Tehran's postelection response.

Obama has sought a measured reaction to avoid being drawn in as a meddler in Iranian affairs.
No; 1) he doesn't know what to do 2) he doesn't want to sound like George Bush 3) he'd rather work on health care 'reform' and 4) speaking out on Iran doesn't give him a chance to apologize for how evil America is.
We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people," Obama said in a written statement. "The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights."
A written statement. Great. How about a televised statement from the Rose Garden? With the teleprompter and everything. Wear a green tie. That would send a message.
Obama has flailed searched for the right tone in light of political pressures on all sides. On Capitol Hill, Congress pressed him to condemn the Iranian government's response. In Iran, the leadership was poised to blame the U.S. for interference and draw Obama in more directly.

"Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away," the president said, recalling a theme from the speech he gave in Cairo, Egypt, this month.

"The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government," Obama said. "If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion."
Is there a reason why he couldn't have said this earlier in the week?
Obama's comments came as protesters outside the White House waved Iranian flags and denounced Iranian government efforts to suppress the protesters.
The protesters are going to remember the Basiji. They're going to remember who beat them and shot them. They're also going to remember who stood with them and who didn't. We need to be remembered as people who stood with them.
Obama's criticism came one day after both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly to condemn the actions by the Iranian government against demonstrators and moves to interfere with Internet and cell phone communications. That was seen in part as a veiled criticism of Obama's response, too.

The president already was on record as saying the United States stood behind those who were seeking justice in a peaceful way. He responded to critics that he hadn't been forceful enough in support of protesters, telling CBS News: "The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That's what they do."
But you got blamed anyway. Playing defense doesn't work when dealing with thugs. Get out in front. Play offense. Put some heat on them. Maybe they'll crack and the protesters will win.
The president returned Saturday to his theme that the world is watching the way the Iranian government responds. Obama cited Martin Luther King's statement that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

"I believe that," the president said. "The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian people's belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness."
Posted by:Steve White

#30  Have "they" come up with a meme about what it is the US is supposedly going to steal in Iran? I mean: oil is so played.
Posted by: eLarson   2009-06-21 22:02  

#29  You do notice how he continually drags things oiff topic, refuses to address the iusses at hand, dodges and weasels, etc. Typical techniques of a propagandist, not someone who is honestly attempting to actually argue the points. I say cage him and drop in into the crap pile from which he came.

Is he Aris the Dickless Dishonest Douchebag?
Posted by: OldSpook   2009-06-21 21:43  

#28  Athens, eh? Now that you mention it, I kinda recognize the style.
Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie   2009-06-21 19:34  

#27  Hey look! A chewtoy!

Honestly, us not nuking Iran in 1979 is the real problem here. I forget who said it, but I really liked the sentiment. This is paraphrased, "Every so often, the US needs to pick some small country up and throw it against the wall, just to keep the rest of the world in line."

Honestly, thanks to the slowly diminishing spines of our leaders, people no longer fear the US as they should and we're eroding away the morality that makes people turn to us for aid and comfort when evil is afoot. We should get back into stomping evil, instead of running about, whining that people can like us now. I don't want the world to like us. Respect, fear, and loyalty I'll take though.
Posted by: Silentbrick   2009-06-21 19:20  

#26  "Yeah, sorta the way we supported Stalin in World War II."

Since Saddam was the one who invaded Iran, it's more like if you had supported Hitler against Stalin instead.

But if it makes you better, I rechecked the timeline and this sin was initiated by *Carter's* first green-lighting the Iraqi attack on Iran.

Perhaps you'll find it easier to consider it a horrible crime if you know that it was Carter who first committed it, and Reagan merely continued it.

"Yeah, winning the cold war was no biggie, eh? "

Reagan's administration was fine where the Cold War was concerned. It was absolutely horrible where the Middle-east was concerned, supporting Iraq and equipping Iran, and helping two bloody dictatorships spill the blood of their young people.
Posted by: Punky Ulegum5531   2009-06-21 19:05  

#25  What you won't understand is that a nation that's being invaded, or a nation under imminent threat of invasion, won't rebel against the current regime. The regime uses that threat to legitimize itself.

How come this threat always works in the mullah's favor if we're the ones fighting them but it never works against the mullahs when they have a bunch of syrians cracking heads?
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2009-06-21 18:10  

#24  Heh. A Greek. How unusual.
Posted by: Mike N.   2009-06-21 17:48  

#23  Our commenter 'Punky' posts from Athens.
Posted by: Pappy   2009-06-21 17:32  

#22  "Remove the stupid Reagan years "

Yeah, winning the cold war was no biggie, eh? Punky, sorry but you are a you stupid dipshit.
Posted by: OldSpook   2009-06-21 15:34  

#21  "Meddling in internal affairs" is something you will only hear from totalitarian regimes.

Free democratic countries don't have that problem.
Posted by: European Conservative   2009-06-21 14:59  

#20  "we would have had this revolution sooner if only America had kept quiet">

More Jeremiah Wright and Barry Soetoro "Hate America" drivel. Please don't buy any.
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-06-21 14:43  

#19  Punky: Iran-Iraq war. You supported Iraq in a war against Iran.

Yeah, sorta the way we supported Stalin in World War II. We gave Iraq limited intel so that they could stop Iran from reaching the Shatt-al-Arab. Sometimes you don't get to pick the cleanest side in a fight.

Good to know you're with the Iranian people.

As to Bush and the 'intervening years', Bush had it right: he supported the Iranian people also, and he said so loudly. That the Mad Mullahs™ used his words to try and build support for themselves at home is irrelevant: they've used America as their stalking horse and have done so regardless of who was President.

Did you notice how the Mad Mullahs™ slacked off the America-hating when Obama became President? No, me neither.

Your idea that we would have had this revolution sooner if only America had kept quiet is a fallacy -- it's the sort of 'realpolitik' that keeps us from what we should be doing, which is to support liberty, human rights and democracy loudly. Always. And damn the thugs and dictators who try to use us to build support at home.
Posted by: Steve White   2009-06-21 13:59  

#18  I'm with the Iranian people, Steve. Khameini is a theocratic fascist, Ahmadinejad a genocidal fascist, and Moussavi himself is not much better (he supported the fatwah against Rushdie, and he's one of the founders of Hezbollah)

But the Iranian people are currently using Moussavi to promote their own desire for freedom, and I'm with the Iranian people.

"Hey Punky, we have not touched a thing in Iran since Carter was president"

Iran-Iraq war. You supported Iraq in a war against Iran. This solidified the legitimacy of Iranian regime, of Iranian anti-Westernism, and besides the deaths it caused then, it helped created some of the most horrible mechanisms for oppression (e.g the Basij), mechanisms that are used today.

What you won't understand is that a nation that's being invaded, or a nation under imminent threat of invasion, won't rebel against the current regime. The regime uses that threat to legitimize itself.

What we're seeing now, under Obama, are the first significant protests since the July 1999 student protests -- under CLINTON.

In between the two, came the brilliance of George W. Bush, who kept threatening to invade Iran -- result? No significant protests during *Bush's* years.

That's why I said "15 years ago". Remove the stupid Reagan years with his Iran-Contra and his support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war. Remove the stupid Bush years with his own threats of invasion. The events we're seeing now, we'd be normally seeing 15 years ago.

I'll grant you they might have failed then, same as they seem likely to fail now. But the regime would have been delegitimized that much sooner. Instead you kept boosting the Iranian regime's legitimacy through the Reagan and Dubya years -- by either supporting or threatening attacks on the Iranian people.
Posted by: Punky Ulegum5531   2009-06-21 13:24  

#17  Punky is orobably a Ron Paul supporter
Posted by: tipper   2009-06-21 12:27  

#16  Don't blame Barry, he was simply once again caught..... "unaware."

Barack Obama, through his spokesman, claimed that he was unaware of the tax day tea parties.

Granted, the MSM has done a good job in suppressing any sort of coverage ahead of time (and the little coverage they did provide was derisive at best) but how out of touch is the Community Organizer in Chief, really?

This much:
- He was unaware that his Presidential plane was used during a photo op joy ride, costing taxpayers $329,000, flew over New York, being pursued by an F-16 fighter, terrorizing thousands of American citizens.
- He was unaware that he was attending a church (for 20 years) with a racist pastor who hates America.
- He was unaware that he was family friends with, and started his political career in the living room of, a domestic terrorist.
- He was unaware that he had invested in two speculative companies backed by some of his top donors right after taking office in 2005.
- He was unaware that his own aunt was living in the US illegally.
- He was unaware that his own brother lives on pennies a day in a hut in Kenya.
- He was unaware of the AIG bonuses that he and his administration approved and signed into a bill.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Commerce was under investigation in a bribery scandal.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of Health and Human Services was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be his Secretary of the Treasury was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be the U.S. Trade Representative was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the woman he nominated to be his Chief Performance Officer was a tax cheat.
- He was unaware that the man he nominated to be #2 at the Environmental Protection Agency was under investigation for mismanaging $25 million in EPA grants.

For the love of God, there are people in comas that are more aware of world affairs than this guy.
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-06-21 12:25  

#15  Let every business nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill ,which Rahm keeps a close eye on, believe me, that we shall force it to pay any tax price, bear any regulatory burden, meet any goal for campaign contributions hardship, support any Democratic candidate friend, oppose any Republican candidate, especially Sarah Palin foe to assure the survival and the success of the Chicago Way liberty.

Barack Obama, 2009
Posted by: Matt   2009-06-21 12:14  

#14  
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

~John F. Kennedy, 1961
Posted by: Willy   2009-06-21 11:48  

#13  There is a mandatory moral dimension to being President of the United States. We, as an exceptional nation, are on the side of Liberty. Or at least we used to be (exceptional, liberty) until recently.

Reagan understood this innately, and used his words to that effect, to support Solidarity, etc. "Mr Gorbachev, Tear down this wall".

Surely as glib a fellow as Obumble can find the right words and present them well from his telepromper.
Posted by: OldSpook   2009-06-21 10:43  

#12  Punky claims: If you didn't keep meddling, the Iranian people would have overthrown their dictators 15 years ago.

Really? How, exactly? Have you seen who has the guns and the nightsticks? Who has the nasty hard boyz who are willing to use them?

And if the people had tried to overthrow the regime fifteen years, ago, that would have been 1994. Bill Clinton was president then. What would you have expected him to say and do?
Posted by: Steve White   2009-06-21 10:42  

#11  Punky, please answer honestly the following question:

In the current confrontation between the people and the ruling regime in Iran, whose side are you on?
Posted by: Steve White   2009-06-21 10:40  

#10  If Iran doesn't like our 'meddling' why then are they sending arms and ammunition to kill people (civilian and military) in Iraq? Not to mention the annihilation of Israel and the murder of all Jews? What about their 'meddling' in the states of Lebannon and Israel (and Syria for that matter)?

Sorry but you can't have it both ways. We have been, defacto, in an undeclared war with the GOVERNMENT of Iran for several years now.

Note I said Government - not the People of Iran - who have little, if any, say in their government. (And I wouldn't try that 'Iran is a democracy' BS here...)
Posted by: CrazyFool   2009-06-21 10:04  

#9  Hey Punky, we have not touched a thing in Iran since Carter was president, which was probably before you were born.

Stop blaming others for your failings.
Posted by: Parabellum   2009-06-21 09:50  

#8  Ok, 'burgers....in regards to Punky, is he/she/it an Obamabot (complete with kneepads), someone with a "I -Heart- Basijis and Dinnerjacket gets me hot" poster on the wall, or both?
Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie   2009-06-21 09:50  

#7  "But you got blamed anyway"

In short you want Obama to say exactly what the Iranian regime had to LIE about what he said.

Why are you people such big lovers of the Iranian regime that you want to give them exactly what they want?

The Iranians hate American meddling. If you want the Iranians to overthrow their dictator, DON'T MEDDLE.

The Islamofascists gained power as a response to the America-supported Shah.
The very Basij who are killing people now, got power in response to the American-supported war of Saddam Hussein in the 1980s.

If you didn't keep meddling, the Iranian people would have overthrown their dictators 15 years ago.

STOP MEDDLING. STOP "PLAYING OFFENSE" WHICH KEEPS GIVING THE IRANIAN REGIME EXACTLY WHAT IT WANTS.

Obama acted sanely here. Follow his example, and keep your paws off Iran.
Posted by: Punky Ulegum5531   2009-06-21 09:43  

#6  Yeah, he sorta messed up with that Great Satan thingy for which he's been apologizing for on every trip abroad. The events don't match the meme. Which is why the Joe the Plumber event derailed him for a bit till his attack machine could overwhelm the information flow.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-06-21 08:34  

#5  This doesn't fit the leftist narrative (protests should only be against America or Israel) and it is very confusing for him.
Posted by: Lord garth   2009-06-21 08:03  

#4  It's the Superfecta folks. No Chalk-eaters on this one folks. All play ends in five minutes, thats five minutes. Get your beer and ice cream after your play.... that's four minutes remaining. These ponies are HOT!
Posted by: Besoeker   2009-06-21 07:40  

#3  Translation: "Stop fighting each other, and concentrate on getting nukes to deal with you know who!"
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2009-06-21 04:23  

#2  Because you didn't finish your Kobe Beef and Arugala Salad, No dessert till you eat your meat and veggies
Posted by: Michelle "The Klingon" Obama   2009-06-21 01:58  

#1  Why can't I just eat my French Vanilla ice cream?
Posted by: Barack Obama   2009-06-21 00:17  

00:00