Obama insisted that it's important for the U.S. to be engaged in the world, but he doesn't want to meddle.
The question: How does Obama define "meddle"?
Obama doesn't hesitate to "meddle" in the automotive industry and the financial sector. He wants to "meddle" the hell out of health care.Those of course are instances of domestic "meddling."
On the world stage, Obama is choosing to wimp out.
His failure to speak out more forcefully on the turmoil after the elections in Iran is a huge mistake.
It's not nearly enough for the leader of the free world to say that he's "troubled" and has "deep concern."
Why not extol the virtues of democracy and show support for Iranians demanding fair elections?
That's hardly going out on a limb for an American president.
Now is not the time to stand back.
Obama's mettle is being tested and he's flunking.
Are we supposed to be impressed with the Obama administration's effort to keep information from Iran flowing via Twitter?
The Obama administration today revealed it took the usual step of asking Twitter to defer a planned maintenance shutdown - which would have temporarily blocked many Iranian protesters’ only communication channel to each other, and the outside world.
Underlining the social network’s role in unrest following the disputed Iranian election result, and Mr Obama’s status as the Web 2.0 president, the US State Department revealed earlier today that it had asked Twitter to postpone a planned maintenance upgrade, which would have taken its systems offline during Iranians’ day time.
The social network moved its planned 90-minute shutdown from 9.45pm Monday US Pacific Daylight Time (Tuesday morning in Iran) to 2pm US PDT (10am today NZ time), causing peak-time disruption for millions of Twittering Americans. (The systems upgrade was successful, adding more capacity - which in turn should lead to fewer Fail Whale sightings.)
With Google, Microsoft and AOL's instant messaging services all turned off by the Iranian government, Twitter has assumed central importance in the struggle to get words and images to the outside world.
That's it?
That's how Obama leads in the face of the post-election unrest in Iran?
Through his silence, Obama is effectively endorsing Ahmadinejad. What is he thinking?
Now is not the time for restraint.
Jeff Jacoby, the Boston Globe, writes:
"Engagement'' with the foul Ahmadinejad and the turbaned dictators he answers to has always been a chimera; if that wasn't clear before last week's brazenly rigged election results, surely it is clear now. Iran's ruling clerics, headed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, didn't just endorse the Ahmadinejad approach - the pursuit of nuclear weapons, the vile anti-Semitism, the demonization of America, the partnership with terrorists, the trampling of human rights. They unreservedly embraced it. Ahmadinejad's fraudulent reelection was hailed by Khamenei as "a divine blessing'' and "a glittering event.'' With such a regime, no compromise is possible. Neither is impartiality. Like it or not, the White House must choose: Will America stand with the mullahs and their goons, or with the endangered people of Iran?
Obama is standing with Ahmadinejad, the mullahs, and their goons. He could at least be lending moral support to the people of Iran in their struggle to rise up against the fraudulent reelection of an oppressive regime.
Obama is missing a tremendous opportunity.
Remember what Rahm Emanuel said: "Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."
Obama prefers to hedge his bets. He's content to let a crisis go to waste rather than seize the opportunity to lead with vision.
In short, Obama's spine is MIA. That means America's spine is MIA, and that's not a good message to send to the world.
_______________
Iranian opposition leader calls for rally Thursday
10 comments:
This struck an odd cord
Where is the evidence of voter fraud? Dont get me wrong, I am no fan of Ahmadinejad. I feel it would better serve the interests of the USA to capitalize on this.
But, decrying an election without facts, because "our guy" did not win is likewise, wrong.
The protests have resulted in Iran's Council of Guardians agreeing to examine disputed ballots and have a partial recount.
I don't think it's as clear cut as you make it out to be.
And what do you mean "our guy"?
Mousavi isn't some guy hand-picked by the U.S. It's not as if Mousavi is the mirror opposite of everything that Ahmadinejad is. I doubt he would turn Iran into an American ally.
The issue is the legitimacy of the election. I think Obama is missing an opportunity to stand up for democracy.
Ahmadinejad has already been accused of buying votes.
Read more here.
Obama could care less about this mess. His priority is making the USA into a socialist state.
He's hoping these little bothers just fade away. He doesn't have a clue how to deal with foreign policy, which is actually the President's main job, and he probably doesn't even realize this fact.
Che Obama doesn't have the time, nor inclination to deal with foreign affairs.
Our guy, as in the person the Iran Specialists wanted to win. (as per the link)
What should we do?
Invade Iran and "Free" its people from the election results?
Do we scorch the Earth?
Do we convince Iran that the USA is not Satan after all and become BBF's?
How about we back Israel and tell them, "Do what you have too, we got your back."
Obama has shown what he is made of with his astute handling of Korea.
You are right that we need to support the Iranians, but to condemn the election would play into the hands of dictators. Ahmadinejad would love to crush the protests by saying it is an American CIA plot. He can't, and he is weakening by the minute. Going on to twitter can help the Iranians, http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/16/cyberwar-guide-for-i.html
Of course, we shouldn't invade Iran and scorch the earth.
Good grief, Lee. Get a grip.
I think Obama should make a statement about the importance of the integrity of elections in the democratic process.
Free people must have confidence that the election of their leaders is legitimate.
Obama extolling the virtues of freedom and democracy wouldn't be playing into the hands of Ahmadinejad and the mullahs at all.
Mary, you know full well I am only listing what is being said out on the blog sphere. I am in full control of my grip.
The goings on in Iran can just end so badly for the people. Although, you could be right in thinking a statement by The One would make all the difference in the election. I just don't share the optimism.
No, I really didn't know that you were listing what you've read on the Internet.
The problem is that the free world has been waiting for this moment for a long time - to topple Iran's dangerous regime from within. Obama and his people don't have a clue what to do much less what to say. They evaluate everything politically, sacrificing the potential freedom of Iran's citizens for Obama's approval numbers. That's the truth. Obama is legendary for voting "present." This situation is no different. He doesn't even have the cajones to make a strong statement of support for Iran's repressed citizenry. It's pathetic really.
The problem is that the Iranians that are protesting are protesting against a theocracy.
They want freedom from tyranny and opression and I hope they get what they are fighting for.
Post a Comment