Iran at a Crossroad: Mr. President, Where Are You?
by Chris BurgardAfter Friday’s Iranian Presidential election, Mohammad Asgari allegedly released results showing that the Iranian government used new software to rig the results in favor of Ahmadinejad. After a mysterious car accident, Mr. Asgari is now dead.
Mohammad Asgari worked for the Iranian Interior Ministry to protect the security of their IT network. Officially President Ahmadinejad received two thirds of the vote with around 24.5 million votes, while his closest rival, Mir Hassein Mousavi, received over 13 million votes. According to figures leaked by Asgari, President Ahmadinejad came in third.
Hundreds of thousands of Iranians are in the streets demanding liberty. Officially 37 have been killed: shot in the streets and in their dorm rooms. Iranians are standing up to the Mullahs. They are standing up for freedom and they are being killed.
These are not people who were promised a day in the park for a free rock concert, sausages and beer. These are people who are risking everything to go against an evil theocracy. It is no longer simply a matter of candidates, the Mullahs are in real danger of losing their power, and they know it.
Ronald Reagan stood at the Berlin Wall and demanded: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” In that moment the world changed. That was leadership.
There is an opportunity here of historical proportions. Two thirds of the population of Iran are under the age of thirty. Most of them are pro-American! These protests have the potential to take down a regime. The Iranian people are crying for democracy not theocracy.
Where are you Mr. President?
As a citizen of the world, why aren’t you decrying the violence and thuggery going on in Iran at this very moment?
As a human being, why aren’t you applauding the brave Iranian women tearing off their headscarves and leading this revolt?
Today Iran is a country where kids have to play rock and roll behind closed doors for fear of being arrested. Women are stoned to death for alleged adultery and gay people are executed for being themselves. The country is screaming for change, they are willing to die for it and yet you remain silent?
Mr. President you told Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Mullahs that, “We will extend a hand if they will unclench their fist.” Sir, they are using that fist to hammer their own people for exercising the very human rights we hold dear.
Where are you Mr. President?
Tonight the Mullahs are expecting the largest protest ever. The Iranian people must know they are not alone, that free people across the planet stand with them.
Democracy was brought to the people of Iraq with the blood of our servicemen and women. Will you shed some television time to free the people in the streets of Iran?
As the president of a republic birthed out of revolution, will you hold out your hand to the revolutionaries who are ready to die in the streets of Tehran for freedom?
For the past five months I have seen you on the television eating cheeseburgers, pondering puppies, swatting flies and pushing fear-driven agendas. Will you have the audacity to take five minutes to broadcast a message of hope to the Iranian people?
With all due respect Sir, I believe this to be a defining moment in your presidency. For you to continue to remain silent will be nothing short of a moral failure that history will not soon forget.
Sir, you do not have to endorse any candidate, you only need to endorse democracy! Germany and France already have! Why can’t we?
We Americans, those of us who do not subscribe to the teachings of Saul Alinski, are extremely proud of our heritage. We hold ourselves to the standards and ideals of that “Shining City on the Hill.” We expect our President to act like the leader of the free world, not react like a Chicago politician.
Sir, destiny is calling and this is not the time to vote present.
Who are you Mr. President?
We stand at a precipice.
Dr. Martin Luther King had a dream that he was willing to die for. For that he was, and always will be a hero in my family.
Millions of Iranians also have a dream that they are willing to die for, and we Americans would be so proud to have a President who stood up like he had a pair, and held his hand out to them in liberty and fellowship.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
107 Comments
Prez Obama is probably instructing ACORN to make sure their IT department fixes any glitches.
We are seeing a performance by Obama every bit as shameful as Bush 1 's when he did not support the Kurds in their bid for freedom after Gulf War 1. What has happened to America?
ok, now you owe me a keyboard….
For a man who holds the record in voting 'Present' – are we really surprised by his lack of presence here, too?
We knew what we were getting. And those who are surprised by it, ignored the facts prior to electing him.
(yeah, I know… I was shocked too!! )
President Bush said he hoped the seeds of freedom would be sowed with our work in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We are seeing those seeds bearing fruit RIGHT NOW. And it is being ignored by our 'Child-who-would-be-God."
At least King Tut had the decency to die at a young age.
Cut the Prez some slack, he's waiting poll results. Sheesh!
Just my opinion, but Prez Obama wanted the TITLE of "President", not the JOB.
Elsewhere in BigHollywood, a recommendation was made for the HBO movie "The Gathering Storm". I'm glad for the reference; after watching it last week, I realized that what our country needed was a leader for the storm of this century. Instead, I find a POTUS channeling Neville Chamberlain, and a conservative leadership that is asleep at the helm.
Our current president prefers to appease those who want to destroy us, while sacrificing important friendships along the way. While extending a hand to extremist Muslim regimes and dictators like Putin, Chavez, Castro in both hemispheres, I see the other hand giving the finger to Poland, The Czech Republic, and Israel, to name a few.
If Obama won't lead, where is the next Churchill/Reagan/?? Is unafraid, unapologetic conservative leadership found only in Republican women, the Palins and Bachmanns of the party?
This is one of Obama's 3 AM moments & expect more of the same when something unscripted happens to the One.
Here, here, Chris! Well said. Let's see if our darling little tyrant-in-waiting will stand against the Mullahs.
If indeed he is waiting for poll results, he is bound to be disappointed!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us/politics/18p...
Mr. President , Sir, Your Eminence, what about using this as an opportunity to undermine the regime that is bankrolling terrorist groups- Hamas and H ezbollah. Discredit the Iranian government so that these thugs will stop blowing up our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh, that's right , we dont have to worry about that now – Sir just signed a bill to increase funding for the army so now all of us who believe in the sanctity of our armed forces can get off his back.
What would the President rather be known for – helping with the establishment of a new democracy and therefore changing the entire demographics and future of the Middle East and it's peace process, or the utter destruction of the most amazing country in the world – the United States of America.
Thank you Chris – clear and to the point!JT
chris, just curious… where did you see this bit of information:
After a mysterious car accident, Mr. Asgari is now dead.
I missed this one.. and HOW this one doesn't make the news is beyond me…. Someone? Anyone?
Barack Hussein O. don't won the chair thanks to his strong dedication for the USA, but rather thanks to the shyness of the GOP leader. Now, don't count on him for becoming a leader of the free world, that's too risky for his agenda and furthermore, he already has the title of messiah.
Mr Brak apparently doesn't believe in American exceptionalism. He doesn't believe that America's freedoms and democracy are worth promoting to a suffering world. Maybe he doesn't want to 'offend' the Iranian totalitarianist for fear they won't listen/talk to him thereby denying him the opportunity to sell them his peaceful, liberal form of utopian government. He's afraid of being called names by the Iranian Mullahs and Ahmadinejad. I'm willing to bet that in his belief system if the Iranian leadership want to kill their own people that's their business. We shouldn't meddle in the name of honest elections. Just think, If Bush II had followed that line of thinking we would never have gone into Iraq, Saddam Hussein would still be president, the shiites and Kurds would still be cannon fodder, and the rape and torture cells would be rockin . I really can't see Obama ever receiving the Ronald Reagan Freedom Medal.
Google is amazing! Check this link: http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/42815
At least the Senate/House passed a joint resolution in support of the Iranian protesters. The WH continues to stress it is not about us, it`s about the Iranians. prezbo does have a lot on his plate now, with two wars to "run", (not WIN!), enforcing the trillion dollar universal healthcare and how to stop the NK fireworks show they have planned for the Fourth of July off Hawaii! Also burdensome for prezbo, is finding an appropriate frame for that fly he killed. Silver, or maybe one of the boards from the Resolute desk in the Oval Office he likes to put his feet on. flmo wants to put the framed fly up on eBay, to fund their next date night.
Well don't expect any statements to come from the Whitehouse this weekend. Obama broke Hillary's elbow to prevent her from speaking up on the topic. He gave Biden the Spongebob Squarepants dvd box-set and a shiny new quarter to keep him entertained and away from the press for the next several days. And unfortunately for Obama, his teleprompters have all been sent in for service to preserve the warranty. So for those brave Iranian protesters hoping for at the very least some vapid lip-service support from Obama, how do you say "Don't hold your breath" in Farsi?
Don't you sense the nation's reached a turning point on the Prez? He's dropping like a stone among Independents. Obamacare and Crap and Trade are fizzling out. The GM takeover is a mess, the firing of IG Walpin has corruption all over it, his porkulus is an abject failure, and now he's a complete weakling on Iran. Who cares what his personal ratings are? By Fall this guy is doomed.
Forgot to mention his Gitmo embarrassment.
The President is hiding behind his Teleprompter. Or he's on another date night.
What I find pathetic is the way the Obamaniacs actually believe Obama is doing the right thing here. Read Charles Krauthammer's article in the Post about it, and then look at all the Obamaniac comment replies, echoing word-for-word Obama's nonsense about the coup in 1953 and the Shah and how endorsing the opposition would hang an albatross and blah blah blah. If they tire of that argument they'll immediately leap to the 'warmonger' canard – that it's better to let ruthless dictators like Ahmadinejad and Kim run rampant and get nuclear weapons than 'risk war'. Right, because we all know if they get their way there won't be war.
This country is full of insane people. Like all advanced societies, our death will be a suicide.
Another link:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators...
dawn, so far the only news related site that's I'd seen that gotten anything out about this is the Telegraph.. and even they say it's 'Unconfirmed" That's why I'm wondering if there's any collaboration… ( I know .. Iran's put up the media blackout, but things do leak… and you'd swear this one would leak BIG.)
Whoops.. just noticed the Guardian was the one that networkworld sourced….
Excellent comparison. That is one footnote in our modern history that is rarely brought up. Had we acted there this entire war in Iraq could have been averted.
If Obama adopted Mr. Burgard's approach, American foreign policy would certainly once again muck up a nascent cultural shift in an oppressive country. Most Iranians still resent how the USA overthrew their liberal democracy in favor of the oppressive cold warrior Shah. Let them have a chance to reform their country without the Reaganist grandstanding, taking credit for something that he didn't do. If they truly want more democracy, then it starts at the grass roots. You can't import it from the top down, i.e. the Iraqi fiasco.
Hilarious!! Unfortunately it's probably true.
Even his own Democrats are beginning to rumble about Obama's failure to take a stand of any kind. They're not only embarrassed by his pseudo-intellectual maunderings, but also his failure to support a burgeoning freedom movement. Moreover, they are learning that making nice with a dictatorship doesn't accomplish anything, since Ahmadenijad is demanding that Obama stop interfering in Iranian politics. If Obama would interfere this little in American politics, a whole lot of us conservatives would be absolutely delighted.
The simple answer to your question, "Where are you Mr. President," is, he is exactly where he wants to be. You see, I believe in his mind BO thinks of the moral norms of our society in platitudes. In his heart he is not one of your typical patriotic Americans, he is a new and better breed of American, he is a Marxist. You may recognize that in the Marxist teachings one of the first steps toward utopia is the revolution of the people, then democracy then the natural evolution toward communism. Everything that the man has done so far in his presidency is and can be drawn to a specific tenet of Marxism. It frankly makes me freakin' sick. This is all they teach at Universities anymore so its no wonder people sit back and watch what he is doing and think it's a legitimate policy tact. The most powerful man in the world thinks that the natural evolution of human nature is toward communism! It is a little bit on the scary side.
It is telling that so many here on the BH and other conservative websites are urging Obama to do something which, if successful, would provide some actual heft to the divine nimbus with which the MSM seeks to wrap him and allow him to claim a real accomplishment, albeit one handed to him on a silver platter.
Sadly, he will demur being accused of interfering in Iran's affairs by being "above" such an American self-interest action, ensuring the deaths of many more brave Iranian citizens.
In the end, after they've crushed the insurrection with brutality which will make Tianemen Square seem tame, the Iranian mullahs will accuse him of interfering anyway. The difference is that in the "Muslim world" he's so anxious to relate to, he will be seen to have interfered in a weak and ineffectual manner.
Bin Laden's "Weak horse" argument will regain strength and followers.
Yeah, geez, give Ahmadinejad enough room and there's no telling how much goodness will happen. Although I agree with your intent, I don't see the harm in holding results until they can be verified. If honest, they would really bolster Iran's standing in the world community. A recount and even a revote wouldn't change the outcome, if they're honest. Ahmadinejad allegedly won by a huge margin. It couldn't hurt for Obama to call for honesty and transparency, could it?
nothing in the article about it, Aggie… (there's one in the comments that points back to ibn… so NOW it's looking like there are at least a couple of sources…. So WHERE is OUR media covering this then? Considering even the Dems are challenging Obama on this one?)
Obambi is like a deer caught in the headlights. He was all prepared to sit down with the tyrants of Tehran. Had his talk points all in order and his list of concessions in his pocket. Now he doesn't know what to do. Anyone think the previous occupant of the Big Chair in the Oval Office would have been so silent? Not for a single second. He would be championing the Iranian people loud and clear, just as he did the Iraqi and Afghani people. History will show that America at the start of the 21st century had a leader that was unafraid to follow the words of another president from the previous century: "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, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."; and that he was followed by a moral coward.
BTW, why do you suppose so many of the signs the demonstrators are carrying are written in English?
If this was merely a "vigorous debate" among the Iranians, they'd be in Farsi. They are clearly hoping for support from outside the regime; since they're not written in German or French, to whom do you suppose they're appealing?
Stand second to none in my disddain for The One. In fairness though, so what? What can anyone do or say that will susbtantively change these crazy nutballs?
The substantive difference between President Obama and President Mccain operationally would be ….nothing. Either way Iran will be governed by an American-hating crazy. What would be different would be ANY president who looked at this, called these nuts crazy and decided to adopt an actual energy policy, something we haven't had in forever.We aren't going to pay and price nor bear any burden. Stop pretending we will. It's pretty much where Bush went off the rails.
You guys are missing the point-I don't care about these people any more. Suspect more and more Americans are also coming to the conclusion that talking with these people is pointless. Imadinthehead and his opponent are both certified whack job America-hating loons.There seems to be a whole bunch of wishful thinking about Iran by both sides of the political spectrum.Suspect it's all wrong. And I'm at a loss why anyone cares. I don't care who deals the cards in the asylum as long as we aren't playing.
We aren't going to war with Iran. May be we impose tougher sanctions. May be we make more of a point on interdicting Iran giving Iraqi insurgents weapons and supplies, which we should be doing, absent leaving Iraq(as we should have done yesterday, and there too no difference operationally). May be we even let Israel go off the leash for a day or 2 with the military we paid for. But practically other than a difference in tone there would be no real difference between Obama and Mccain, no d change in the situation.
Let's hope we're proved wrong, but I don't think so.
Chris that would require Barry to take a stance, his school boy morale relativism will not allow action. This goes against every fiber of his being, his natural inclination is to cower and wait for others to act, pitiful. Sadly the Iranian people are on their own.
The last time a predominantly Muslim nation was angry at it's oppressive leadership and BEGGED us to help, it was the Iraqis. Remember how that turned out? "Thanks for taking care of the ONE of our several dozen power-crazed tribalistic strongmen, Uncle Sam. Now, please leave, cuz we'd like to get back to our region's centuries-old passtime of murdering one another over who prays to the right god the right way… and if you DON'T let us, we'll start killing your guys, too. But hey, thanks for the hookup!"
Most of the Iranian public is probably sincere at their general outrage, but don't kid yourself about the possibilities here. Ahmedinejad's opponent was only SLIGHTLY less radical, anti-US and anti-Jewish than he was, so if he was to suddenly "win" there wouldn't be much policy change. And sending our guys in to fight for them would be Iraq all over again – they don't want our help, tons of them still blame us for provoking the original "revolution" by reinstalling The Shah.
In my head, the President of the US "To the people of Iran, the United States will not intervene in your nation. To the people of Iran, we Americans, and the rest of the free world, morally stand with you during these dangerous times. To the leaders of Iran, know this, the eyes of the free people of the world are upon you. You can not stop the flow of information from your country, not in the age of the internet and globalization. We are watching you. And know this, what ever actions you take, will determine the way the rest of the world views the legitimacy of your government. And further, remember, we people in free world elect our leaders, and those very same voters are watching you very carefully. The future leaders you will deal with on the world stage will reflect how these voters react to your actions in the coming days. It is up to you to ensure the rest of the world understands you represent the will of the Iranian people, and not your own power."
What the real President says out side of my head "Hey Michelle, can you pass me the Presidential arugula?"
That's the 'gamble' you take when you try to help someone out Bob… I actually agree with you about Mousavi only being slightly less of a maniac than Ahmedinejad.
But then again, the promotion of Democracy as a whole means people have to live with who they voted for (Good, bad, or ugly), not who the "muslim 12" want in there.
"That's the 'gamble' you take when you try to help someone out Bob…"
Hey, if some individual citizen wants to stock up on supplies and John Rambo themselves over to Iraq, Iran or wherever because they think they can help an oppressed people overthrow a dictator? Fine by me. Go to it. Bring some friends. People are free to gamble with THEIR OWN lives.
I'd rather not, however, "gamble" with the lives of American soldiers on these kinds of "assist" missions that don't really have a great track record. Now, if the Iranians (or whoever) want to overthrow their OWN dictators and then come to us with "Okay, we're now a new, shaky and VERY vulnerable free(er) society and could use some backup, let's talk strategic alliance?" That's another story.
Obama is an awful president. That doesn't mean his policy of watch and listen is in this instance a mistake. Again, there seem to be a whole lot of jumpting to conclusions that have no basis in fact.
dunno, Bob.. i thought that's what we've been doing for the last 20+ years in terms of Iran? We've been hoping (and I wouldn't doubt if there were some operations to push) for a populist revolution.
It seems as if that's what we're finally seeing this time around?
The reason is obvious. Obama wants to "fundamentally change the United States". What a man steeped in radical-left academia, black liberation theology and Chicago politics means by that is now becoming evident. Everything is just a racket to him that he needs to control.
However, such a man does not have the guts or honesty to talk straight and stick his neck out. His style is underhanded. Saying one thing, doing another. Acting visibly only when polls are on his side. Anything difficult or potentially unpopular gets outsourced to "czars" or Congress and rammed through without debate, basically over night. Allies are paid off. Opponents are smeared and destroyed.
What he doesn´t need is being tied up in foreign affairs because they are by definition unpredictable. They can screw up his modus operandi. American interests or human rights count for nothing next to the danger uncontrollable foreign affairs may pose to His career. Actually risking something to help people would be a sign of weakness. Like a gangster developing a heart for orphans.
+1 on the last sentence! I think the economy would be delighted as well.
But hey, Mousavi is so much easier to pronounce! And, I don't end up with phlegm all over the place afterwards!
I've used my entire '!' quota in this one post!
I despised Bush 1 after that, Desert Storm or no Desert Storm. Despicable and cowardly.
The first part of my statement is intended as sarcasm btw.
Wasn't the UN at least partially responsible for that? I'm pretty sure they're the reason why the US was kept from toppling Saddam back in the first place. I may be wrong.
It is truly dismaying to watch. He's trying to maintain an awful status quo. Somebody had better tell Obama that the Prime Directive is fictional, and doesn't apply to the real world. Also, he's showing way too much respect to these thugs. The ayatollah is a meglomaniac, a tyrant who claims to speak for God. Calling him "supreme leader" is an insult to the Iranian people who want freedom, who are dying now for freedom. Mousavi is not an improvement, but I feel this uprising will go beyond him. One day, Iran will be free again. But the US could help bring that about much faster.
I remind you all again: he sat at Rev. Wright's racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American church for 20 years. 20 years. And it's showing.
One of the best, most ariculate and concise descriptions of the current president I have read . . anywhere. Great post!
That's the quote of the year.
People the world over used to look towards the US for support when seeking democracy and freedom. That poor woman in the photo with the sign – and other freedom seekers like her – should understand that Nobama is not the person to look to for help, since he is trying to implement his own version of socialism in this country. Nobama is more interested in restricting freedom than expanding freedom. The US now is not the same US it was a year ago. Can you imagine the torment the woman in the photo feels? Can you imagine how much worse she will feel when she realizes that the mighty United States will not be there to help her?
Why? OBAMA.
You've got him pegged, my friend! Excellent analysis.
Where is he? Out to lunch. By his inaction, Fearless Leader is making a mockery of democracy. The Man Who Would Be Overlord of the Planet looks terribly impotent.
After reading this blog, I get the sense that most of the people here do not have a sense of world politics. They are from the school of might is right.
There is not a single pro American organization in Iran…NONE… For America to be seen as enabling the protests will only serve to ensure what many GOP talking heads were wishing for last week, a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad victory.
We already have that. The ayatollah declared Ahmadinejad the winner. Officially, he won. Unofficially, however, is reason why we're having this discussion.
I am glad you use the term 'in my head' it shows that you are a nut job.
Sorry to tell you that you have 7 more years of PRESIDENT OBAMA.
What is the political persuasion of the Iranian Opposition? If you think that it is Pro-American, then change your meds.
President Present
Biden was correct that obama would be tested and that we would not like what obama does in response
You and your ilk have never been out of the USA. You do not have a clue that the Iranian Opposition is not pro-democratic or even Pro-Western. Changing from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Mir-Hossein Mousavi is like swapping a dog for a monkey. They are both fervently anti-American , Anti-Israel and Anti-West.
Peaceful, supportive, non violent, stressing free people expressing their own free will and change through the democratic process, how could a liberal have a problem with that?
Ignoring your unfunny joke about medications (some of us have relatives on medication, you know), I will say this: Mousavi is not an improvement. There are no pro-American institutions in Iran. But, the people, who are much more important than any organization, are rebelling. The illusion of the ayatollah's divine inspiration is being destroyed. This is very important. It has the potential to go beyond mullah-approved candidates. The potential.
America standing with the protestors, denouncing the rigged vote, would send a powerful message that the US is not the Great Satan. Instead we have Obama hedging his bets, abdicating moral responsibility by trying to remain neutral. He seems more concerned the dictatorship he was hoping to engage diplomatically will end than with the fact that it's a dictatorship, one that rigs votes and kills protestors.
It's a first step away from the mullahocracy. Many more are required. But it's possibly the first real hope we've seen out of that part of the world in a long time. That's why it's important.
The ayatollah may have declared Ahmadinejad the winner, but if the people are not behind him he will be ineffective. Should President Obama insert himself forcefully into the picture then it becomes US vs Iran which will ensure that the people get behind him. The people hate Ahmadinejad, but they dislike America even more.
My "ilk"? I'm Canadian.
And yes, I know the Iranians are not all pro-American. But I do not believe that every single one of them is anti-American and anti-Western. People are not homogenous masses.
There is no comparison here Sunday School drop out. …Bush encouraged the Iraqi people then fail to show up. The Iranians DO NOT want our help. They are not Pro-American, They are not even pro-democratic. They are Anti-Israel with no love for America. It is best if America is seen and not heard in this instance.
Oh you are wrong and you know it. It was a political decision advised by Powell, Baker and Cheney.
Auntie, the two incidents are both shameful, albeit for different reasons. If it is a comparison you want then compare Reagan's support of Solidarity in Poland with President Firefly's non-reaction to the Iranian protesters. And if the Iranians do not want our support, why then are all their protest signs in English? Read some stuff by Michael Ledeen, or Michael Rubin for some actual background Auntie.
Yes John, I agree 100%–like the smell of napalm in the morning, it smells like victory.
Somebody call Sesame Street! I think we found one of their puppets and he's posing as the president!
We'll see!
Rock-n-Roll, El_Gordo great post!
The problem lies in the fact that Barry Soetoro doesn't really know what all the fuss is about "Ahm-a-nut-job" rigging an election to remain in power. After all, ACORN and a lot of dead people voted for Barry in our last election so to him this is normal. Besides, he has such an affinity for "Ahm-a-nut-job" and actually admires the man for having such a powerful grip over 25.8 million people. Barry is infatuated with this guy and doesn't want to "hurt his feelings" so he's staying silent. He's in agreement with the pseudo-caliphate of the Ayatollahs because he's a muslim himself.
Except Democrats!
What’s up Zo! You’re not going to have your videos on BH?
President Obama has just morphed into a darker hued Jimmy Carter on steroids with "glistening pecs." Is Iran & North Korea the moment like when Russia invaded Afghanistan & Iran took American hostages?
Like most commenters, I'm with the Iranian protesters and appalled by our POTUS's mumbling, stumbling, half-responses. Drag out the columns, fire up the grill, and give a bloody speech already.
Congrats Chris – best piece BH has had in its short history. I shared a similar sentiment yesterday.
http://www.cbrookskurtz.com/articles/2009/6/18/th...
Here's another Onion-style parody on topic entitled "Obama Sends Sterner Message to Iran from His Personal Blackberry, But Experts Say His Use of Emoticons 'May Cloud Message'": http://www.optoons.blogspot.com/ (June 19 entry)
We should all lighten up a bit on our dear President. Let's not forget that everytime he does make a speech addressing a foreign nation and its people he tends to apologize to the wrong people and for all the wrong reasons.
I have no doubt whatsoever that if Obama did address the Iranians at this point he would apologize to the Mullahs for the previous administration's indiscretion in establishing a thriving democracy right next door to them. He would go on to say how he inherited the Iraq War and their growing democracy so he is powerless to make any real changes to ruin it. Finally, he would show how much above all this he is by using his usual moral relativism comparisons. Stating that while the Mullahs are wrong for using deadly force to subdue dissent, the protesters are equally to blame for not appreciating the fact that they have a government who knows what's best for them and is simply looking out for their interests.
As the saying goes America, "Be careful what you wish for".
Clearly I know there are many people in Iran who would rather be in America than in Iran. I accept that.
Look at it from this angle..Do you understand why Ahmadinejad has remained silent since the election?
He knows it is about him and the protesters. He also knows the less he says and the more the Clerics say it becomes less about him and more about Islam. Juxtapose that with American belligerence and you see what it portends. It becomes America vs Islam. Just where Ahmadinejad wants it to go.
Ahmadinejad knows he cannot win the support of the people unless the fight is cast in nationalistic, religious terms.
The President is right to not come out in support of Mousavi. At the end of the day the demonstrations is about the Presidency and not the theocracy. We still have to deal with a Nuclear Iran regardless. Neither Mousavi or Ahmadinejad have control where that is concerned.
We need to maintain a level head and as I said before be seen and not heard. In other words use the CIA to identify real supporters of a free Iran and work with them towards that day. Until then shouting at the wind is useless.
Chris Burgard short of assassinating the entire Iranian leadership what purpose of siding with one anti-American over another serve??
Solidarity was about freedom from Communism. Strange it was led by a trade union! Heavens the evil trade unions.
What we have in Iran is not about democracy. Its about 2 rivals from the same faction fighting for the honor of being the Mullahs mouth piece on the world stage. These demonstrations are not about freedom. They are about who gets to be the spokesman from the Ayatollah.
Big difference when compared to Poland and the Polish people's wish for self-determination.
"Two thirds of the population of Iran are under the age of thirty. Most of them are pro-American!" …
That is the height of ignorance being parlayed as expertise. Chris Burgard you have no clue what you are writing about. Please stick to Ballerina Dancing.
That is hard to do because of those, including many anti-GOP types, who have worked so hard to undermine the ability of the CIA to identify, let alone accomplish anything.
You are sadly behind the curve. Yes Solidarity began as a trade union, but like most successful revolutions it grew way beyond it's origins. And Solidarity was fighting for the kinds of things American unions were fighting for when they first began. Those unions largely accomplished thier goals and can hardly be compared to the sclerotic, corrupt, industry destroying organizations they are today.
And it is much the same for the Iranians. This uprising is now in the millions and has also grown beyond it's origins. Do you really believe these people are dying because of some contested hanging chads in the suburbs of Tehran? It has become about regime change. Do you think they will accept another theocracy led by Mousawi (sp?) after they get rid of Ahmadinejad and Khameni?
Obama's tacit endorsement of Khameni, by saying his priority is to engage with "The Supreme Leader" (that's how he referred to Khameni earlier this week) indicates that he is just fine with a murderous, mysoginistic, gay-cleansing, repressive dictatorship is just plain disgusting. Obama fancies himself as some kind of great world leader that was going to restore American moral leadership in the world. His cowardly non-action in this crisis has exposed him as the empty suit 47% of Americans knew him to be in November.
Much like Jimmy Cater had his dictators of preference like Castro and Arafat and Assad, Obama is building his little "favorite despots club" with Chavez, Ahmadinejad and now Khameni as charter members.
Obama, the Thug from Chicago, is routing for the tyrants of the world. BO thinks there will be a world-wide tea party and he will be voted King of the World of Tyrants. Obama is on "I'm a Nutjob's" side.
exactly
ditto
Great piece of writing Chris, keep up the good work.
After reading this blog, I get the sense that most of the people here do not have a sense of world politics. They are from the school of might is right.
If they were, they'd be supporting the Iranian government's crackdown instead of speaking against it.
Your brief history of the Iraq war is not what actually happened. Nobody talks about occupying Iran, but nice strawman here. And you seem to believe that most of the protesters are in fact supporters of Moussavi – as if they did not know him. In fact the regime itself is the target and the Western commenters usually the ones who never heard of Moussavi until 2 weeks ago.
"… tons of them still blame us for provoking the original "revolution" by reinstalling The Shah."
12 people are a ton, so that impresses no one. We did not oberthrow Mossadegh, they did. We did not install the Shah, they did. Sure, they did it with our help. On the other hand, Mossadegh with his socialist leanings would have been just as hated by Khomeini and just as likely to be overthrown. Come on. Don´t just swallow this stuff, think a little. Besides, who cares if they love us as long as they get back on track to the end of history.
1. It was not liberal democracy. 2. They overthrew their own government, we were just lending a hand – no reason to refuse them now. 3. And for most Iranians, Mossadegh was 5 generations ago. America has not been their problem as long as they lived.
It is the Western progressive left that tries to profit from keeping Western guilt alive. Has nothing to do with Iranians.Spare me the fake concern, please. For you this is about the US, the US, the US. Nothing so parochial as an American liberal.
International support is always important for such movements. But you would deny it to them.
Where is the President? He is getting frozen custard for Malia and Sasha. Awwww!
Forget Moussavi. I do not think this woman just wanted to replace one religious thug with another. Do you?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/...
To call every protester a supporter of Moussavi is boneheaded. There is no organized opposition precisely because they are all thugs, so people take the best opportunity they get. Still doesn´t explain what would be so wrong to speak words of support for the people. History tells us that movements trying to reform brutal regimes need international support.
The truth is: Even before the protests, Obama never rhetorically separated the people from the regime because he doesn´t give a damn.
Historically, international support has always been important to movements trying to reform brutal regimes. The idea that we would "make it worse" by speaking out can only come from a parochial American liberal or anti-Western ideologue. Speaking out against evil is so "Bush" and that is what they really worry about.
Who are "these people" you are talking about?
We are so refined and nuanced that we simply cannot speak out against evil without some self-bashing and navel-gazing. History tells us that international support is important for any movement trying to go up against a brutal regime. But history is only important when it serves the progressive cause and besides, being against evil – even using the word without cringing – would be so "Bush-like".
Insane, yes.
I don´t mean to defend the oppressive elements of the Shah regime – but he was good compared to the Mullahs. He left the country instead of ruining or massacring his people. The Left in Europe and the US was very vocal in their opposition to the Shah. And back then international support made a difference. Now the Left makes excuses not to do anything about the theocratic rulers of the same country. Very telling.
Irrelevant. The protests are not only pro-Moussavi. They target the system. They have to use this opportunity because, as you say, there is no organization they could rally around. That is hardly new. Brutal regimes don´t allow them. Brutal regimes have fallen or been forced to reform nevertheless.
If Moussavi wins power carried by a pro-Democracy movement, he can hardly go back to business as usual. The nature of the regime inevitably changes. And any more representative, just regime will be friendlier towards us as well, even if we continue to have differences.
You must be logged in to post a comment.