Obama vs. McCain Redux: Vote Vindicated

So, because Obama is incapable of condemning the shooting of Iranians in the street by their own government for the "crime" of wanting some tiny degree of democracy, he is somehow an admirable leader? When speaking of Iranian protesters, Obama even claims that that "they’re having to be scattered through violence and gunshots." "Having to"? The Iranian government has to do this? Really? Is that what the President thinks? If so, he's not just incapable of condemning this brutal repression of democracy, but he is in fact justifying it.

Here's the entire quote from Obama about the protesters having to be scattered:

I think’s important to recognize is that the easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it’s the US that is encouraging those reformers. So what I’ve said is, `Look, it’s up to the Iranian people to make a decision. We are not meddling.’ And, you know, ultimately the question that the leadership in Iran has to answer is their own credibility in the eyes of the Iranian people. And when you’ve got 100,000 people who are out on the streets peacefully protesting, and they’re having to be scattered through violence and gunshots, what that tells me is the Iranian people are not convinced of the legitimacy of the election. And my hope is that the regime responds not with violence, but with a recognition that the universal principles of peaceful expression and democracy are ones that should be affirmed.

Decide for yourself if this shows Obama is justifying the brutal repression of democracy.

Voluptuary -- I wouldn't have voted for you either. There's a critical difference between grandstanding and leadership. If Obama did what you suggest, he could harm rather than help the fledgling chances of reform. The hardliners in Iran could accuse the US of meddling in Iranian affairs, and if we actually appear to be meddling, that perception could prompt Iranians on the fence to desert the protestors. Cautious, careful words are in order. Obama gets that. You and McCain clearly don't.

Pete, I agree with you 100%. A cool, level-headed leader is exactly what the Iran situation needs instead of "Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran". The U.S. can't be seen as meddling and I guess that intervening to Twitter to have their system maintenance not impact communications during Tehran's day so that the protesters can continue to communicate for some folks just isn't as good as playing right into the mullahs' hands.

Hey slow-learning club. Announcement. You may have noticed that Obama is up to his graying top hairs in about a dozen crisis, any one of which could topple the country. "Precarious" doesnt' do justice to our sitution in description. Taking on a civil war in Iran? Now I know who the real traitors are, anyone suggesting an action that would push the US past the tipping point.

Other countries [brace yourselves, this may come as a shock] HAVE THE RIGHT TO SOVEREIGNTY. They can and will deal with their own internal problems as a matter of course. We are not in a strategic position to intervene anywhere, let alone Iran.

The GOP wishes I'm sure that it could exploit the situation and grab the oil. Just like Iraq. Our days of Manifest Destiny are done. We've crunched the numbers and it's too expensive to be greedy..

When I first heard the "Mousavi and Ahmadinejad aren't that different" line, I wondered if he was speaking to Americans at all, or if this was directed to fence-sitting Iranians.

"He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election and that the Iranian people have been deprived of their rights," - John McCain

Wow. It’s a good thing we don’t have this kind of crazy talk coming out of the White House. He basically is saying “Let’s bomb those heathen Arabs back into the Stone Age” (since he’s way too stupid to know most Iranians are Persian).

The Iranians marching in the streets protesting a corrupt, flawed sham of an election appreciate Obama’s nuanced silence on their being deprived of their rights. These young, educated protesters would stop immediately if any word of encouragement came from the “Great Satan”.

Of course, liberals are happy that the President of the United States of America, the beacon of freedom and democracy, is so subtle and cool that he knows enough not to voice support for anyone in the world hoping to achieve the same thing. It is also important that this new administration send a message to every despotic government in the world that, no matter how blatantly an election is stolen, Barack Obama is ready to legitimize the group who cheats best.

Ya, we’ve got ours, let them get theirs without any sweat from us.

Again, From the AP:
"Iran has accused the United States of "intolerable" meddling in its internal affairs, alleging for the first time that Washington has fueled a bitter post-election dispute."

Now that we are all warm and fuzzy about Obama's calm remarks about Iran. Iran is accusing us of meddling with their affairs...for the first time...meaning not even Bush did what Obama is now "doing".

When will we figure out that this government refuses to honestly deal with us? We can't treat them like Denmark.

Once again, here's a quote from Obama:

And, you know, ultimately the question that the leadership in Iran has to answer is their own credibility in the eyes of the Iranian people. And when you’ve got 100,000 people who are out on the streets peacefully protesting, and they’re having to be scattered through violence and gunshots, what that tells me is the Iranian people are not convinced of the legitimacy of the election. And my hope is that the regime responds not with violence, but with a recognition that the universal principles of peaceful expression and democracy are ones that should be affirmed.

Decide for yourself if this shows Obama is supporting the blatant theft of an election.

jwest,

Both experts in the region, Iranian protestors, and the relatives of Iranian protestors have all pretty much said they don't want the US involved. They want Europe and the US to condemn human rights abuses (verbally, no actual intervention) and election fraud (verbally, no actual intervention) but that is it. Most of the Mousavi supporters aren't even pushing for US style freedom. They want to get rid of the corruption and they want free elections, but they have no intention of getting rid of the Mullahs (just the ones supporting Ahmadimejad). The rhetoric is to return to the ideals of that 1979 revolution which overthrew the shah. Obama gets it. I wish you did.

Shannonlee,

Thanks for the tip. Here's a link to the AP Story as it appeared at Forbes.com ...

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/06/17/ap655....

After reading this, I couldn't help but think that certain Iranian gov't leaders still don't understand legitimacy and what it takes to build and sustain it.

With the Iranian people having direct and indirect access to Obama's measured response, the accusation by the Iranian gov't that he/we are interfering will (hopefully) be viewed as more gov't lies/fraud.

And I still think the opposite would have happened if Obama had taken the McCain approach -- i.e., the McCain approach might have have "jived" with the Iranian gov't accusation; the Obama approach clashes with that accusation -- stands in stark contrast to it -- further undermining the gov't leaders who make such charges.

Z,

What we’re talking about is a statement of support for people protesting a sham election and looking for change in Iran.

No one is advocating sending in the 7th Fleet.

I know that’s what you thought when you read my comment, but if you go back and read it again, you won’t find any call for immediate air strikes.

If the President of the United States is so weak and unsure of his position that he needs to wait days and take a few polls and focus groups before he can say that America supports free elections, then we are in big trouble as the center of democratic nations.

At least the French President has the balls to speak like a leader.

"These elections are an atrocity," he said. "If [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad had made such progress since the last elections, if he won two-thirds of the vote, why such violence?"

Who would have thought a few years back that Americans would be envious of France for having a courageous President.

No amount of a Senator McCain style response from President Obama is going to make an Iranian citizen take to the streets in protest of a regime that is basically firing first and asking questions later. That Iranian citizen has to BELIEVE and be BRAVE. It is up to the Iranian people ALONE to "fight the power" and show the political and religious leadership that they will fight to the bitter end to change things. No more and no less.

All I see is typical Republican/Conservative tireless meme that Obama is "soft" on foreign policy. And another thing. Obama's Cairo speech meant "nothing" but tough talk towards Iran is going to mean "something"??

Sometimes you have to shut the f@#$ up and let a family take care of their "family business".

Yelling isn't courage, jwest. It's emoting. There are two main questions: 1) Do the words of an American President make any difference to the outcome of this "election"? and 2) Which words are more likely to make the difference we want?

My best guess is that the words of a President will have only a very minor sway in the outcome of this. If so, then the President's job is to set things up as profitably as possible for a deal on nuclear weapons in the future. Calling the government that only the Iranians can determine morally bankrupt will make any such later deal even more difficult than it already is. Which would you rather have: A deal over nuclear weapons with Iran or the moral high ground over a nuclear armed Iran?

Pacatrue,

What McCain and Sarkozy said are meant to take the moral high ground. The low road is to sit back with your finger in the wind waiting to see how things shape up before saying anything.

By declaring that the Iranian election is illegitimate and not the will of the people, the leaders with courage set the stage to either back a reform movement which would enjoy a symbiotic relationship with any new Iranian leader or be in a position to minimize public sentiment when air strikes are necessary to delay or obliterate a nuclear weapons program.

Being able to blame the winner of a rigged election for forcing the peace loving powers of the world into bombing certain sites in Iran is a product of being on the right side from the beginning.

jwest said: "By declaring that the Iranian election is illegitimate and not the will of the people, the leaders with courage set the stage to either back a reform movement which would enjoy a symbiotic relationship with any new Iranian leader or be in a position to minimize public sentiment when air strikes are necessary to delay or obliterate a nuclear weapons program."

I submit that public sentiment won't need to be minimize if Iran gets full blown nuclear weapons capability with a loony leader with an itchy trigger finger. Regardless it is much more of an Iran issue than an USA issue. And because of that, President Obama gave the smart response.

jwest,

First up, I think everyone knows what side the current administration is on. It's not a secret.

Second, I think your argument here, such as this part:

"Being able to blame the winner of a rigged election for forcing the peace loving powers of the world into bombing certain sites in Iran is a product of being on the right side from the beginning."

make the clear distinction between our position. You are angling for the best way to operate a good bombing run, while many others are hoping to avoid bombing yet another nation.

I prefer Obama's position on this to McCain's and I'm a big McCain fan. That being said the difference is minimal and the Iranian government is blaming us for meddling anyhow. The protests still would have occyurred either way, and crackdowns will occur either way.

I'm still overjoyed that I voted for McCain, all one has to do is look at the new projected deficiets after Obama increases government spending by more trillions of dollars. I feel vindicated by that.

The devil you know...

Some excerpts from an essay today in The Times by Mohsen M. Milani, the chairman of the political science department at South Florida University, author of “The Making of Iran’s Islamic Revolution.” He is also the author of“Tehran’s Take: Understanding Iran’s U.S. Policy,” an essay in the current Foreign Affairs.


"Will there be a fundamental change in the strategic direction of Iran’s foreign policy?

Unless there is a fundamental change in the existing structural configuration of the Islamic Republic, or in a change in the institution of the Supreme Leader, it is unlikely that Iran will radically change its foreign policy. If anything, the next president of Iran is likely to rely increasingly on nationalistic sentiments in order to bring harmony to a divided, dynamic and assertive Iranian electorate.

The strategic direction of the Islamic Republic of Iran has always been determined by the Supreme Leader, in consultation with the main centers of power in Iran’s highly factionalized polity. As the second most powerful man in the country, the Iranian president has profound impact on strategy and policy, but the Supreme Leader — Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — is the final “decider.”

Tehran’s foreign policy, particularly its policies toward the U.S., has its own strategic logic, and is based on Iran’s ambitions and Tehran’s perception of what threatens them. Tehran’s top priority is the survival of the Islamic Republic as it exists now. Tehran views the United States as an existential threat and to counter it has devised a strategy that rests on both deterrence and competition in the Middle East.

The logic of Iranian foreign policy is driven not by a single faction or a single issue but by an entire system of governance, with its long-standing international alliances. A fundamental change in that strategy will not come when Iran has a new president, no matter how reform-oriented he is. It can come only when the Supreme Leader approves it.

Moreover, that change will come only if Tehran and Washington reach some sort of understanding to normalize relations –something that the electoral dispute has made considerably more difficult to achieve. The pivotal part of this engagement should be building upon the common interests of the two governments, such as stability and reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan and the fight against al Queda, and establishing concrete institutional mechanisms to manage their remaining differences.

President Obama’s measured and prudent response to the electoral dispute, his concerns with the escalating use of violence, and his decision not to publicly entangle Washington in the ongoing and ferocious factional struggle inside the Islamic Republic are necessary steps in the right direction."

As ever, Pete, I'm in agreement with you. It was Obama's foreign policy, ultimately, that won my vote.

I don't really like either foreign policy views but than again I don't like that we are still in Afghanistan.