BARACK OBAMA ON THE WRONG SIDE WITH IRAN
When The Soviet Union was a threat to The United States, Ronald Reagan without hesitation called it an , "evil empire." When terrorists attacked The United States and regimes actually were backing terrorism George W. Bush without hesitation called Iran, Iraq and North Korea, "The Axis of Evil."
Millions are protesting in the streets against the theocratic tyranny of Iran and Barack Obama considers it only, "vigorous debate." At a time when Iranians are fighting in the streets for their freedom and looking to the world for support in their quest for Democracy, the German Chancellor voices her support. The French President voices his support and The President of The United States stands behind the very regime that Iranians are protesting.
The lame excuse that has been put forth by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs when asked why Obama was not coming out in support for the protesters was that he did not want to meddle in Iranian affairs and that it could incite violence against the protesters.
Charles Krauthammer compared Obama's response to the response by Pope John Paul II when he spoke in Poland during the height of The Soviet Union. The Pope was truly concerned that his remarks supporting the fall of the Communist regime in Poland would incite violence against the pro - democracy protesters so he spoke in code that was obvious but not aimed directly at the Polish regime.
Krauthammer answered Gibbs with the following:
"The president is also speaking in code. The Pope spoke in a code which was implicit and understood support for the forces of freedom. The code the administration is using is implicit to support for this repressive, tyrannical regime.
We watched Gibbs say that what’s going on is vigorous debate. The shooting of eight demonstrators is not debate. The knocking of heads, bloodying of demonstrators by the Revolutionary Guards is not debate. The arbitrary arrest of journalists, political opposition, and students is not debate. And to call it a debate and to use this neutral and denatured language is disgraceful."
Barack Obama in his attempt to create dialogue with the tyrannical regime in Iran is selling out the millions of Iranians who are placing their very lives in peril protesting in the streets against the very regime that Obama is tyring to be friendly with. What we are seeing in the streets of Iran is something that America has been waiting to see since 1979 when the Theocracy took over Iran and considered The United States and enemy.
Now that the people of Iran who have always been told that America and Americans supported them despite the oppressive regime that governed Iran are taking a massive stand against the Theocracy, Barack Obama who should be voicing support for their cause and heralding their attempt for Democracy and freedom refuses to support Iranians and rather stands by the tyrannical leadership.
As Charles Krauthammer states, this is disgraceful. No one is calling for Obama to send planes or ships to attack the Iranian regime. No one is calling for any military action. But voicing support for millions taking to the streets marching for and crying for freedom is not only the right thing to do but the morally correct thing to do.
Obama has apologized at every opportunity for what he calls American arrogance. The same ,"arrogance," that fought for freedom in Europe to end the reign of Nazi Germany. The same ,"arrogance," that stood against The Soviet Union and caused the collapse of communism and freedom for Eastern Europe and Russia. In his apology Obama stated that America has lost its leadership in the world. A statement that I disagree with. Yet now when he has the opportunity to lead he neglects that responsibility for a personal and naive policy.
It is not arrogant to stand for freedom and those who are willing to fight in the streets for freedom. Iranians are doing that now and Obama has chosen to abandon their plight in order to pursue his naive policy of talking to a regime that has NEVER been willing to talk. The movement of millions in Iran standing for freedom is what America has always stood for. A stand that Barack Obama is not willing to take. A true leader would voice support for freedom over personal policy. A true leader would take a stand with the Iranian people.
Ken Taylor
Millions are protesting in the streets against the theocratic tyranny of Iran and Barack Obama considers it only, "vigorous debate." At a time when Iranians are fighting in the streets for their freedom and looking to the world for support in their quest for Democracy, the German Chancellor voices her support. The French President voices his support and The President of The United States stands behind the very regime that Iranians are protesting.
The lame excuse that has been put forth by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs when asked why Obama was not coming out in support for the protesters was that he did not want to meddle in Iranian affairs and that it could incite violence against the protesters.
Charles Krauthammer compared Obama's response to the response by Pope John Paul II when he spoke in Poland during the height of The Soviet Union. The Pope was truly concerned that his remarks supporting the fall of the Communist regime in Poland would incite violence against the pro - democracy protesters so he spoke in code that was obvious but not aimed directly at the Polish regime.
Krauthammer answered Gibbs with the following:
"The president is also speaking in code. The Pope spoke in a code which was implicit and understood support for the forces of freedom. The code the administration is using is implicit to support for this repressive, tyrannical regime.
We watched Gibbs say that what’s going on is vigorous debate. The shooting of eight demonstrators is not debate. The knocking of heads, bloodying of demonstrators by the Revolutionary Guards is not debate. The arbitrary arrest of journalists, political opposition, and students is not debate. And to call it a debate and to use this neutral and denatured language is disgraceful."
Barack Obama in his attempt to create dialogue with the tyrannical regime in Iran is selling out the millions of Iranians who are placing their very lives in peril protesting in the streets against the very regime that Obama is tyring to be friendly with. What we are seeing in the streets of Iran is something that America has been waiting to see since 1979 when the Theocracy took over Iran and considered The United States and enemy.
Now that the people of Iran who have always been told that America and Americans supported them despite the oppressive regime that governed Iran are taking a massive stand against the Theocracy, Barack Obama who should be voicing support for their cause and heralding their attempt for Democracy and freedom refuses to support Iranians and rather stands by the tyrannical leadership.
As Charles Krauthammer states, this is disgraceful. No one is calling for Obama to send planes or ships to attack the Iranian regime. No one is calling for any military action. But voicing support for millions taking to the streets marching for and crying for freedom is not only the right thing to do but the morally correct thing to do.
Obama has apologized at every opportunity for what he calls American arrogance. The same ,"arrogance," that fought for freedom in Europe to end the reign of Nazi Germany. The same ,"arrogance," that stood against The Soviet Union and caused the collapse of communism and freedom for Eastern Europe and Russia. In his apology Obama stated that America has lost its leadership in the world. A statement that I disagree with. Yet now when he has the opportunity to lead he neglects that responsibility for a personal and naive policy.
It is not arrogant to stand for freedom and those who are willing to fight in the streets for freedom. Iranians are doing that now and Obama has chosen to abandon their plight in order to pursue his naive policy of talking to a regime that has NEVER been willing to talk. The movement of millions in Iran standing for freedom is what America has always stood for. A stand that Barack Obama is not willing to take. A true leader would voice support for freedom over personal policy. A true leader would take a stand with the Iranian people.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 12:05 AM
19 Comments:
Again Ken, what U.S. interest is served by Obama taking a hard stand?
Mir Hossein Mousavi hates America, hates Jews, wants nuclear weapons, and has been called "Ahmadinejad's ideological twin."
Instead of worrying about who is going to lead Iran, just let them sort it out. Then, we'll just deal with whoever is there. The U.S. needs to stop wasting time (and money/resources) intervening in countries we don't understand.
We got burned with Saddam (Reagan supported him against Iran). We got burned with Arafat (Clinton), we got burned supporting Abbas in the Palestinian territories (Bush). We got really burned with Musharraf in Pakistan.
Supporting Mousavi serves no U.S. interest - he isn't any different than the crazy president they have now. Just let the Iranians figure it out on their own.
Rob,
You make the dubious assumption that Mousavi would do nothing to improve human rights issues in Iran. If this were so, then why would so many thousands of Iranians be willing to put their lives at stake for him? He obviously represents a clear difference in leadership for multitudes of Iranians. Seems that you feel you know better than all of them. That, sir, is the height of arrogance. You must be "Obama's ideological twin."
There isn't a major human rights issue in Iran. The protestors want their votes counted, they want a new President because Ahmedinjad is an idiot, but they still support their Islamic Republic and the mullahs who run the country.
I am not making any assumptions about what Mousavi would do for the Iranian people. Frankly I don't much care.
We don't have to make any assumptions about what he believes - he openly states his dislike for America, his hatred of Israel, his intention to pursue nuclear weapons, his willingness to work with the mullahs.
You are under some illusion that Mousavi and his followers want the U.S. to help him/them. They don't want our help and they don't need our help. This is an Iranian issue.
Rob,
You seem to minimize the importance of the demonstrations, just like your ideological twin in DC. Iranians are giving their lives for this cause. They want more rights and freedom, and are doing extraordinary things like keeping one step ahead of the internet censors so the world can see what is really going on. It is a clear human rights issue when a govt tries to censor and repress its citizens.
Rob,
One more thing. 405 members of congress seem to agree with me...
Rob, I could care less about which one wins the election. There si not much difference between either. This is about the people of Iran who the US has time and again supported in every effort to get out from under the Mullah oppression.
Like anonymous said the demonstrations are remarkable and are obviously not just about getting votes counted. These people are risking their lives seeking freedom from an oppressive regimeand the election was just the catylist to begin a real and massive revolt.
If the POTUS cannot support that then how can we Americans expect him to fulfill anything he stated in his oath of office. This country stands for liberty and freedom and when the POTUS refuses to support those who are fighting in the street for what we stand for then what good is he.
No one mentioned armed intevention. But the right and moral thing to do would be to voice support for what the people are doing. Instead he chooses to stand with the regime that is killing and beating their own people for taking a stand against tyranny.
Anomymous - you were commenting as I was typing. Thanks for the reminder about the House taking a stand that the President will not.
Even Biden and Hillary have urged a stronger supportive response and Obama refuses. He is on the wrong side of history in this one!
Seems Obama is the 21st century's version of Jimmy Carter. We'll need another Reagan to bail out Obama's disastrous foreign policy stances.
You are right, Ken. There is no difference between the two. The fact is that Obama recognizes a kindred spirit in Ahmadinejad. He doesn't truly care about the people here, so why in the world should we expect him to care about the people in Iran?
If that sounds harsh I don't apologize to anyone for it. It's what I truly believe. I don't believe his middle name is "Hussein" for nothing and none of us has seen his original birth certificate yet.
Yes, I am serious. Iran is not an unusually bad place for human rights. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan - allies of the U.S. are far worse.
Dennis, you need to have a better understanding of what the opposition wants in the country. They don't want American support (at one point they were chanting "Death to America"). They don't want to change the Supreme Leader. They don't want to change from the Islamic theocracy they have now. They just want Ahmedinejad out.
Mousavi has no major policy differences. Nor is he advocating a change in the 12 member governing council that actually runs the country (i.e., the mullahs).
I don't understand why you care to choose between Mousavi and Ahmedinejad. It won't make any difference - the mullahs will remain.
Dennis, you have been strangely silent on the fiscal issues we have been discussing. I am curious if you understand/agree with my points.
NIce Reagan video ken. remembering a time when real leaders roamed the earth.
Oliver Benton
Rob thinks our allies are worse on human rights than Iran! WOW!
Ahmadinejad is a dictator of the worst sort, and yes, I know he was elected but he's still a dicator. It's true that Mousavi isn't much of an improvement over Ahmadinejad, but that's not the point. The results of the election is the point and Mousavi clearly won hands down. The people have a right to have the PM the majority elected, don't they, Rob? Perhaps you don't think so.
Today Obama made a statement (finally!) that supports the people of Iran and it's about time! Someone must of put a bug in his ear that he'd better do so. I doubt seriously it was his idea. I hope that it was, but I'm skeptical.
Facts are facts. Just read about how people are treated and the law in the countries I mentioned.
Iran has fairly liberal laws and human rights for a country in that part of the world. Women are educated. That alone makes them far different than many of their neighbors.
RaDena, by definition a dictator means one person runs the entire country. You clearly do not understand Iranian politics or government structure. You need to do a little research, especially if you actually think Ahmadinejad is in charge.
Poor Rob! WRONG AGAIN!
I'd be surprised if he can chew gum and walk.
P.S. Rob: My doctoral seminar at Columbia University was with Zbigniew Brzezinski. Know who he is? My topic? Iran.
Why don't you just stop commenting on subjects you know nothing about? Your ignorance is sooo glaring.
Mike, being that you are such an expert, why don't you inform us in some way. Please enlighten us on how the Iranian government works, how Mousavi would be better for the U.S., and why the U.S. should get involved in an internal Iranian matter.
What would you recommend? Give us an actual opinion about the subject. Come on Mike - show us how smart you are.
What is your Ph.D. in?
For folks who are new to this blog, let me clue you in on Mike. All the guy does is call those he disagrees with names, and comment on how smart he is. He very rarely actually adds legitimate content to any discussions.
Rob,
You still ignore the fact that at least 17 people (probably many more than that) have now given their lives to this cause. They are seeking liberty and freedom from tyranny. America is supposed to be the shining beacon for the world. Right now, all we are is just a dim bulb. Europe seems to be taking over the leadership from us.
OK Anon - what do you want to do? Please tell me what you want Obama to do in Iran.
What he said in his news conference today was a start. But why did he wait so long? It took vast amounts of public pressure before he finally saw the light. That is certainly not leadership.
Post a Comment
<< Home