Obama, Left All But Indifferent to Aspirations of Iranian People
If you want to know why I call blogress Jennifer Rubin aJewish Athena, just take a gander at her Pajamas piece on the American Left, the President and the protests in Iran, Don’t Iranians Deserve ‘Hope and Change’ Too? The very title tells you much of what you need to know.
Barack Obama, who promised hope and change in his successful campaign to win the White House, seems oblivious that the Iranian people could have aspirations for those very ideals. And they are in far more dire streets than we were when he announced his bid for the Oval Office. And yet he has been most mealy-mouthed as they rise up against a fraudulent election, hoping for regime change.
The man eager to push the longest standing democracy in the Middle East to alter its policies on settlements doesn’t want to be the United States to be seen by the world as “meddling” in Iranian affairs. When he got that 3 AM phone call, he voted “present.” Hearing the President’s initial statement on the protests in Iran, Jim Lindgen struggled “against a feeling of utter disgust”
I recognize that there are times in diplomacy when one has to hide one’s real feelings and to mince one’s words about evil. And I realize that it is remotely possible that this is one of those times.
Yet this is a president who mormally loves the bully pulpit. And Obama’s statements so far are about as restrained as it is possible for a president to utter without a gun actually being held to his head. One might perhaps understand a statement this mushy if Iran were America’s closest political or military ally in the world. But it’s not.
Note that even now Obama is not willing to denounce Ahmadinejad. All he is willing to say is “as odious as I consider some of President Ahmadinejad’s statements.” Obama chooses his words carefully. He doesn’t call Ahminejad odious, nor does he call Ahmadinejad’s core beliefs odious (after all, sometimes people say loose things that don’t express their core beliefs). Nor does he say that Ahmadinejad’s statements ARE odious, just that Obama personally “considers” them odious.
Amazing that the President of the United States can’t denounce a man who wishes to wipe a sovereign nation off the map and who serves as chief executive of a regime which executes gay people on a regular basis, some so young that if they were American citizens, they wouldn’t be old enough to vote. And with such a ruthless hegemon, Rubin sees “the Obama administration [apparently] choosing, a ruthless determination to pursue some deal, any deal (there has to be a deal, right?) with the mullahs.”
And Rubin finds that Obama’s not the only one who appears blind to the aspirations of the Iranaian people:
It has been obvious for some time that the American Left has given up on democracy and human rights as fundamental tenets of American foreign policy. But never before has it been so clear just how ruthless and indifferent they are to the aspirations of those who would be crushed by the boot of despotic regimes. And never before have we seen how Herculean a task it is to deny and obfuscate the nature of these sorts of regimes in order to pursue a policy devoted to stability, engagement, and process as goals in and of themselves (rather than as means to some greater ends).
And yet there are notable–and noble–exceptions on the left, gay leftie blogger Michael Petrelis reports hundreds at San Francisco Solidarity Rally for Iranian Democracy. But, by and large, today, the left seeks to put pressure on our allies and to appease our adversaries, even as those adversaries oppress the very types of people for whose “rights” they agitate in our country.
And the sufferings of those groups are far less, far, far, less than they are over there.
We may not yet have a woman President, but married women here are not subject to the violent whims of their husbands. Most states may not recognize our unions as marriages, but the state does not execute us for acting on our longings for sexual and romantic intimacy.
It would be nice if those on the Left showed the same regard Petrelis and the San Francisco protestors have for those whose rights they would likely take to the streets if only they had had that good fortune to be born over here.
39 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Bush: All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you. Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country. The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people, you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.
Chairman Obama: Screw you, guys!
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 17, 2009 @ 4:47 am - June 17, 2009
He is allowng it to remain Iranian fight. Not Iran v US. If it became about US, [Iranian] governmentt would crack hard on protesters. Government could say this is about US interference & really go after protesters. Not now. This is Iran people wanting change
Comment by sitwell — June 17, 2009 @ 5:18 am - June 17, 2009
once again, you display a stunning naivety with respect to how iranian politics works. thank god you fools are no longer in power.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — June 17, 2009 @ 6:49 am - June 17, 2009
…says the Jimmy Carter supporting Boob….you know, the Jimmy Carter who turned his back on our longtime ally the Shah, turned his back on Iranians fighting for democracy, and allowed the Mullahs to seize power because, he thought, “they’re religious” so they would be good.
spare us, booby.
Comment by American Elephant — June 17, 2009 @ 7:11 am - June 17, 2009
when did i say anything about jimmy carter? i wasn’t even born when he was president.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — June 17, 2009 @ 7:24 am - June 17, 2009
Your typical lib doesn’t care about actual human rights; they care about posturing about human rights. They pitch snit-fits because terrorists don’t get four star spa treatment at Gitmo (Although thanks to Obama, they now get that in Bermuda at taxpayer expense), but they don’t give a crap about 11,000,000 Cubans on the other side of the fence oppressed, impoverished, and denied basic human rights by their progressive socialist masters. Chairman Zero is cut from that same cloth.
Comment by V the K — June 17, 2009 @ 7:32 am - June 17, 2009
Obama committed himself to discussions and negotiations without preconditions. A great many people believed him, thinking this was a better way to approach such dictators. For all I know, he believed himself. Now he’s in a bind — but it doesn’t matter. He’s POTUS and that’s what matters. More importantly, he’s not Bush.
Comment by Ignatius — June 17, 2009 @ 8:11 am - June 17, 2009
If Obama condemns Ahmadinejad, they will play it every day in the hope to make the protestors seem pro-American. More people will die and the whole effort will be wasted. Instead Obama condemned both men and their whole system.
I understand that you are used to the good/evil world you hold so dear, but in this case your simplistic world view just doesn’t cut it.
Comment by gillie — June 17, 2009 @ 8:19 am - June 17, 2009
7: “I understand that you are used to the good/evil world you hold so dear, but in this case your simplistic world view just doesn’t cut it.”
gillie, what doesn’t cut it is how liberals try to cover the as*es of the worthless politicians they support by suddenly claiming foreign policy to be a deeply-complex enigma, wrapped in layer after layer of nuance, impenetrable by us conservative simpletons. Yet, less than six months ago, the same idiots SIMPLISTICALLY condemned Bush’s foreign policy with nothing more than a decades-old photograph of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein. I guess the days of the “open-and-shut-case” when it comes to foreign relations expired on January 20, 2009. Shocker.
Comment by Sean A — June 17, 2009 @ 8:39 am - June 17, 2009
Q Why won’t President Obama stand up against Iran?
A It’s not Israel.
Comment by The Livewire — June 17, 2009 @ 8:58 am - June 17, 2009
They pitch snit-fits because terrorists don’t get four star spa treatment at Gitmo (Although thanks to Obama, they now get that in Bermuda at taxpayer expense)
According to multiple news reports I read, those 4 Uighurs who are in Bermuda (and the remaining 13 who are likely to settle in Palau) have been cleared twice by the U.S Government, meaning they are not terrorists. And yes, it is thanks to Obama now, but what would Bush have done? Send them back to China to be tortured? I doubt it, since he respected human rights. My guess is he’d have worked with places like Bermuda and Palau as well. Or Albania, where he actually sent some, over the objections of the Chinese government.
Comment by Neptune — June 17, 2009 @ 9:10 am - June 17, 2009
Gee, where would anyone get the idea that Uighurs who trained with al Qaeda and plotted bombings against the Beijing Olympics were terrorists? Obama’s State Department (which I have about as much faith in as I do for his Inspector Generals) hasn’t cleared them of being terrorists, only of being threats to the USA. The fact that 200 countries have refused to take them would give most people a clue. If you’re relying on the MSM for your news, you’re basically getting an unexamined rehash of the administration’s talking points without any critical analysis. Watching Brian Williams bow to his overlord and ABC turn over prime time to a White House propaganda special on socialized health care should have clued you in to that.
Comment by V the K — June 17, 2009 @ 9:24 am - June 17, 2009
Well, using gillie’s arguement, shouldn’t we have sent the Uigers back to China? After all letting them go gives China propoganda to fan anti-Americanism.
(Personally, I think we should have sent them back to China, but that’s because we made the mistake of not shooting them on the battlefield)
But hey, in the name of Hope and Change, we just let a terrorist who killed our ambassador in Bosnia go to Saudi Arabia. Anyone remember what happened to the PLO terrorists after the Munich games? (no, not the Spielberg movie, actual history) We need to remember the correct way to handle terrorists.
Comment by The Livewire — June 17, 2009 @ 9:44 am - June 17, 2009
You caught me, VtheK, because I did read it in those two liberal bastions of the 4th Estate, the Wall Street Journal and the Christian Science Monitor. Oh, and on Fox News. And it wasn’t Obama’s administration that cleared them of being enemy combatants, it was Bush’s. They’ve been cleared since before the inauguration, as early as 2006.
Our own national security officials deemed them no threat to the U.S., i.e., not “enemy combatants”. I stand corrected on that designation.
I have a question, and I mean it seriously because I am curious about your (and other GPers’) thoughts on the matter. What should be done with Gitmo detainees? Even assuming the camp wasn’t slated to be closed, how do we deal with them? I’ve long thought the right answer is more of a law-enforcement/try them in the courts solution. I’m curious what you guys think. (sorry – this is way OT from Dan’s post, btw.)
Comment by Neptune — June 17, 2009 @ 9:45 am - June 17, 2009
We treat them according to the Geneva Conventions, Neptune. Simple.
Comment by The Livewire — June 17, 2009 @ 9:47 am - June 17, 2009
# 8
Sean, Are you sure you want to go down the Iraq road?
The country was told of the huge threat that Saddam posed and that he was meeting with Al Quedia. Simplistically, the republicans said OK kill him, take the country over, be greeted with flowers, and watch freedom take over.
Easy cheesy!
Pointing to photos of rummy and crew hangin’ with Saddam furthered the point that indeed, its not as simplistic as good v evil world that republicans wished we lived in.
And its interesting that yet again, conservatives are pushing Obama to go down that road. Yet none of you seem to have any idea of the consequences that would bring.
The current republican foreign policy model seems to be:
Damn the consequences, full bombast ahead!
Comment by gill44mn — June 17, 2009 @ 10:07 am - June 17, 2009
#14: “We treat them according to the Geneva Conventions, Neptune. Simple.”
Oh, but, The Livewire, haven’t you heard? Treating enemy combatants pursuant to the Geneva Conventions is soooooooooooo 2003. And affording them all of the rights guaranteed to criminal defendants in the US (including access to American Courts) is like, sooooooooooo five-minutes-ago. As draconian and barbaric as it sounds, the current, hip, “in” standard for the treatment of terrorists now is BERMUDA.
Thank goodness we are closing down Gitmo. Like the liberals said–it’s just a “recruitment tool” for terrorists. We certainly don’t have to worry about them signing up for that harrowing Bermuda gig or anything.
Comment by Sean A — June 17, 2009 @ 10:08 am - June 17, 2009
Is Neptune seriously suggesting we should put terrorists who have vowed to kill as many Americans as they can through the same criminal court system that handles shoplifters and drug dealers, and give them ACLU attorneys, LA juries, and liberal judges? And then, if we somehow manage to convict them of anything, we put them in prisons where they can recruit and radicalize the other convicts? Not to mention, make those prisons and the communities in which they are located targets for other terrorists who want to free their comrades?
And what happens when Americans are taken hostage and the terrorists demand freedom for the terrorists in prison?
Keep them at GITMO (where they receive far better treatment than the 11,000,000 Cubans on the other side of the fence that liberals don’t give a damn about), or send them to Diego Garcia, or Antarctica. But for God’s sake, keep them as far away from innocent people as we can.
And I don’t get the hypocrisy of worrying about how China is going to treat terrorists given that we routinely shrug off the brutality of the Chinese Communist regime against innocent citizens like the Falun Gong, the Tibetans, and anyone who criticizes the regime …
Comment by V the K — June 17, 2009 @ 10:21 am - June 17, 2009
#16: “And I don’t get the hypocrisy of worrying about how China is going to treat terrorists given that we routinely shrug off the brutality of the Chinese Communist regime against innocent citizens like the Falun Gong, the Tibetans, and anyone who criticizes the regime …”
Excellent point, V the K. Liberals don’t give a flip about how non-terrorists are treated in China, but the very idea of a terrorist being subjected to anything more serious than a nasty sunburn from a day at the beach is simply unacceptable to them, apparently. Wasn’t it just last week that our VILE Speaker of the House got back from her I-hope-this-lying-about-the-CIA-thing-blows-over tour in China where she specifically declined to answer any questions about China’s human rights abuses and then proceeded to give speeches about a “safe environment” being a “human right” to rapturous applause (enforced by the Chinese Ministry, natch)?
Oh, and don’t you worry, V the K. No Western journalist asked Pelosi any of those pesky, off-limits questions like, “what the fu*k is the US Speaker of the House doing in China?” or “how is this your job?” or “is the American taxpayer footing the bill for this trip?” or “why would a woman with a $100 million plus real estate empire get face-work done in Tijuana?” Madame Speaker was permitted to spread her eco-fraudulent message without such meddling, petty distractions. (I know you were concerned about that.)
Comment by Sean A — June 17, 2009 @ 10:41 am - June 17, 2009
It’s interesting what you think appears to be hypocrisy, since not once did I “worry” about China would treat terrorists. I only made a point that even George Bush’s administration didn’t want to send the Uighurs back there. And yes, I was seriously suggesting that, as has been argued by former U.S Attorneys, terrorism should be treated at least partially as a law-enforcement problem, because it demonstrates to those that hate us that we believe in our rule of law. I’m suggesting it’s one option – so I was curious what some of you think our other options are.
Thanks for not answering my question, VtheK. I knew it was a fool’s errand to ask a question of you and expect a reasoned answer, instead of criticism and hyperbole.
Livewire, thank you for taking the time to offer up a real answer to a real question.
Comment by Neptune — June 17, 2009 @ 10:49 am - June 17, 2009
Neptune, your question was “I have a question, and I mean it seriously because I am curious about your (and other GPers’) thoughts on the matter. What should be done with Gitmo detainees?” Which I answered: Keep them there or put them in some other remote location. Please don’t lie about what I said in the future. It is not civil or appreciated.
Comment by V the K — June 17, 2009 @ 11:06 am - June 17, 2009
#18: “And yes, I was seriously suggesting that, as has been argued by former U.S Attorneys, terrorism should be treated at least partially as a law-enforcement problem, because it demonstrates to those that hate us that we believe in our rule of law.”
Neptune, the Obama Administration has now sided with the Bush interpretation of our “rule of law” which is that the Gitmo detainees DO NOT enjoy access to US Federal Courts. So, what you really mean by “our rule of law” is whatever liberals think it SHOULD be–guaranteeing our enemies all of the Constitutional rights enjoyed by Americans.
But more importantly, please explain to me the virtue or benefit to be derived by “demonstrating to those who hate us” that the US’s no. 1 priority will be zealously protecting their human rights if they are caught trying to murder us. Seriously, explain to me why that should be the guiding principle in this debate. Are you actually contending that perhaps they would renounce their terrorist ways if we guaranteed their right to a trial in an American Court if they happen to be caught in the act of trying to blow us up? Is that really what you think the terrorists are angry about?
Comment by Sean A — June 17, 2009 @ 11:13 am - June 17, 2009
I think it’s naive in the extreme to think the terrorist barbarians of Al Qaeda hate the USA because we fail to adhere to the most liberal possible interpretation of case law in dealing with their barbarism.
Mohammed: “Abdul? Pull out of the goat for a minute and listen up! Have you not heard? The USA has failed to abide with dicta from Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab in its treatment of discovery in terrorism trials?”
Abdul: “I am radicalized now! Death to the Infidels!”
Goat: Ba-a-a-a-a-a-a-a!
Comment by V the K — June 17, 2009 @ 11:21 am - June 17, 2009
#18. Glad you agree that we should just kill them where we find them, since the protections of Geneva don’t apply.
Article two states:
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. [Emphasis mine.]
Since Hamas, Al Quida, et al. Do not accept or apply the provisions thereof (ask Daniel Pearl. Oh wait, you can’t) We can do whatever we want.
It’s a sign of Western Civilization that Club Gitmo exists at all.
Comment by The Livewire — June 17, 2009 @ 11:50 am - June 17, 2009
when did i say anything about jimmy carter? i wasn’t even born when he was president.
Jimmy Carter was President of the United States from January of 1977 to January of 1981.
Given that this is now 2009, that means boob cannot be more than 29 years old.
Yet, in in his previous postings, boob has claimed to be a graduate of Yale Law school with decades of experience.
Once again, boob has been demonstrated to be nothing more than a complete and total liar and shill.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 17, 2009 @ 11:50 am - June 17, 2009
NDT — I kind of started scrolling over boob’s posts a long time ago after I figured out he was incapable of contributing intelligently to a conversation.
Comment by V the K — June 17, 2009 @ 11:52 am - June 17, 2009
Here’s a TIME piece written by a former CIA field officer that gives another perspective on the Iranian election. He says don’t assume the election result was rigged. The protests are staged by educated urban youths, who do not represent the majority of Iranians (poor, rural folks, working class, etc.) It’s possible that Ahmadinejad did actually win, riots notwithstanding.
“Don’t Assume Ahmadinejad Really Lost”
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904953,00.html
Comment by Juju — June 17, 2009 @ 1:11 pm - June 17, 2009
your argument in this post is undermined by your previous post. there, you begrudgingly acknowledge the work that andrew sullivan has done in covering the iranian protests. i doubt that sullivan would dedicate as much time to this issue if his “left-wing” readership wasn’t interested.
nor should you presume that obama’s response indicates indifference. obama recently gave an interview with cnn, in which he addressed this issue. his response is measured, pragmatic, but clearly not neoconservative. in the spirit of intellectual honesty, isn’t that your real complaint?
Comment by Chad — June 17, 2009 @ 4:04 pm - June 17, 2009
My complaint with Obama is one I typically have with leftists and liberals…he’s a whimp. He isn’t a strong leader and is no supporter of freedom and democracy. And btw he must feel a closeness to the Leaders of Iran…..their use of executive fiat. Not as messy as democracy and representative republicanism.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — June 17, 2009 @ 4:15 pm - June 17, 2009
To those commenters who are defending Obama because you feel that he doesn’t want to make things worse:
Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Do you really think that Obama saying the “wrong” thing will cause the government in Iran to crack down any harder?
In the past, this may have been a likely excuse for the U.S. President to not say much. But not this time! In the past protesters were usually just students and young people. This time it is all age groups and people from all walks of life; some carrying signs in English that say “hope and change.” Different situations call for different reactions.
Hope is very Powerful – Hope is what helped many in the Nazi camps to stay alive until liberation. Hope is what kept many in communist prisons, in gulags, or in “re-education” camps to keep believing in their ideals. Hope is what helps many individuals through the darkest days of their lives. In short, Hope, next to Love, is a very powerful human emotion – please don’t discount it.
For a President who campaigned on “Hope” it does seem a little odd that he doesn’t seem willing to share hope with those who could use it right now. The government in Iran will eventually crack down, as they have done in the past. Hope for this time will give people hope for the next time. And in the end, hope may be all that they have left. So why not give the people “over there” some hope?
I ask, does Obama truly know what hope is? Has he ever had real hope for himself, for others? Based upon his actions to date, I think the answers are no.
Comment by Charles — June 17, 2009 @ 5:26 pm - June 17, 2009
#28: “obama recently gave an interview with cnn, in which he addressed this issue. his response is measured, pragmatic…”
Kind of like his 130 “measured, pragmatic” votes of “present” in the Illinois Legislature. Chad, we all heard his statement–he’s apparently deeply, deeply, deeply, concerned and troubled about the violence in Iran. Wow. What a statesman.
Comment by Sean A — June 17, 2009 @ 6:05 pm - June 17, 2009
#30: “To those commenters who are defending Obama because you feel that he doesn’t want to make things worse: Do you have any evidence to support this claim? Do you really think that Obama saying the “wrong” thing will cause the government in Iran to crack down any harder?”
No, Charles, of course they don’t have any evidence of that. In fact, the evidence proves the opposite because despite Obama’s waffling appeasement, IRAN IS BLAMING THE U.S. ANYWAY:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124523854750623001.html
Comment by Sean A — June 17, 2009 @ 6:10 pm - June 17, 2009
um, NDT, i never claimed to have decades of experience.
and, fwiw, i graduated law school at 24.
Comment by bob (aka boob) — June 17, 2009 @ 6:14 pm - June 17, 2009
#16: “Sean, Are you sure you want to go down the Iraq road?”
Ummmm…yes.
“The country was told of the huge threat that Saddam posed and that he was meeting with Al Quedia.”
By, among others, Al Gore, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright,…
“Simplistically, the republicans said OK kill him, take the country over, be greeted with flowers, and watch freedom take over.”
I don’t believe those were the exact words of the Senate Resolution authorizing the war, but in a way, I guess you could say that was the position of, among others, Dodd, Clinton, Kerry, Schumer…
“Easy cheesy!”
Wrong, gill44mn. No Republican or conservative EVER said (or would say) war is “easy cheesy.” Only the liberal dim-wits later complained that they had been “tricked” into voting for what they thought was the “no casualties” war option (which liberals continue to believe somehow exists).
“…its not as simplistic as good v evil world that republicans wished we lived in.”
As opposed to the “evil doesn’t exist” world that liberals TRULY BELIEVE they live in (except America, natch).
“The current republican foreign policy model seems to be: Damn the consequences, full bombast ahead!”
Oh, if only. From your fingertips to God’s ears, gill44mn.
Comment by Sean A — June 17, 2009 @ 6:39 pm - June 17, 2009
The leftist liberal Democrats on the Iraq war wanted it both ways.
When it looked like we were going to roll up the Iraqi military in days they wanted a war resolution that made them look strong and “yeah us too, we want to beat Sadaam”. When war got tough with the insurgents, the Democrats did what Democrats do. They began second guessing and chickening out. Thank God we had a strong President who stayed the course despite the cost to his reputation in the short run. 45 million Arabs and Muslims rejoice because of it. Obama, like most Democrats is afraid to act until the end result is assured. Trouble is most difficult foreign policy issues aren’t so easy.
Darfur, Iran, N Korea…..tick tock, we are waiting Mr President. Man up.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — June 17, 2009 @ 9:32 pm - June 17, 2009
In any case, a statement of support does not need to be inflammatory.
For goodness sake, give a speech – he’s good at that – about Pope John Paul II and Poland. People are not stupid, they’ll get the parallels, but it gives him diplomatic cover.
What about this scenario: The election results are overturned and now Obama must negotiate with the new guy. How happy is he going to be about Obama’s deep concern?
Comment by mrsizer — June 17, 2009 @ 9:59 pm - June 17, 2009
You didnt. But you don’t have to; Obama is Jimmy Carter II.
no wonder you support Obama.
Comment by American Elephant — June 17, 2009 @ 11:32 pm - June 17, 2009
Can I point out that Mr Obama was supposed to change our foreign policy, apologize to everyone, and get all the nations to help us solve difficult problems. So how’s that working out for him?
* No new military fighting forces from NATO to help in Afganistan.
* No new EU or UN help to save Darfur.
* N Korea situation deteriorating….talks fall apart. N Korea detonates a nuclear blast and fires off 7 missles.
* BHO is afraid to “meddle” while Iranian thugs kill protesters.
*no new movement in the mid east. Israel close to acting unilaterially.
Obama kills a fly, asks what time is dinner. Michelle walks the dog, and brings in some freshly picked beefsteak tomatoes. ummm
160 days A+ Mr President!!!!
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — June 17, 2009 @ 11:35 pm - June 17, 2009
Have you noticed that they only do that when Chairman Obama or Granny Botox are out of the country?
Seems like the way to keep the world safe is to keep them at home.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — June 18, 2009 @ 2:22 am - June 18, 2009