Indeed it does. Excellent point, DaGoat.

A lot of people do seem to be acting that way currently — for all I know they confuse him with the sun, too. Obviously this more silly love of Obama (and pathological hatred of non-liberals, a.k.a. “right-wingers” and such) is irrational, which explains why one would be moved to defend Obama as a response to Fisk's defense of Iran's religiously controlled society. (It doesn't follow, but with such people, needn't.)

The real issue (not given its due — as often happens with misplaced liberal priorities) is that Fisk appears to be in defense of Iran's religiously-controlled society. Fiske is notoriously anti-Israel and has been anti-Western before, don't forget.

“Both sides should have thought better than to turn this factual report on conditions on the ground in Iran into another ideological debate on Obama.”

This reminds me of “cycle of violence” and other statements that express or imply equality of blame in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The issue was the wandering off from reporting on Iran, to Obama, which in no way was wrongly reacted to by J. West.

I already described earlier, elsewhere, the key issue with Obama _and_ Sec of State Clinton, that they should not repeat the blunder of Bush the elder, inciting people in Iraq to revolt, without backing them up when Hussein suppressed them. It has nothing to do with mainly hatred-mythical neo-cons or such.

. It makes you wonder why more correspondents don't just go out and see what is going on for themselves.

A) Because they would need to speak the languages of the country/region they are reporting about.
B) Because they would need to understand the history and the culture they are reporting on.
C) Because they need to get paid and make a living when nothing major/earth-shaterring is occurring.
D) Because the publishers/editors back home would probably not want to see their prejudices & propaganda destroyed by facts.

I disagree with Kathy for gratitously inserting the editorial comments in Robert Fisk's report, which was intended to be a factual, if anecdotal, account, and I disagree with jwest for rising to the bait.

Both sides should have thought better than to turn this factual report on conditions on the ground in Iran into another ideological debate on Obama. There is plenty of commentary out there on the Obama adminstration's response. Fisk's report wasn't one of them.

Except, of course, that my statement about the correctness of Obama's decisions with regard to Iran does not logically lead to the conclusion that I have a “cult-like adoration of all things Obama.” It just doesn't. So your “holding up the key portions” of my post on Obama's stance on Iran to “ridicule my cult-like adoration of all things Obama” is fatally flawed from the start.

So there's no contradiction in my opinion. As much as I despised former Pres. Bush, if another country was trying to interfere in my country's election results, I would want to put my country's national sovereignty over my opposition to the person who won the election.

Some years ago, I spent a good amount of time in downtown Chicago. Each morning, I would go the Oak Tree Café and have one of their wonderful breakfasts.

Every morning outside the café, there was a local (I assume homeless) man who used to carry on extensive arguments with a streetlight pole. I don’t believe he ever won one of those fights although he had a better chance getting through to that pole than I do to you.

If you ignore facts, logic, reason and intellectual honesty, you make a pretty good case. Toss in a little blind hatred of all things conservative and you’ve got yourself an article. My comment above wasn’t an argument. It was holding up the key portions of your article to ridicule for your cult-like adoration of all things Obama.

I don’t believe the Oak Tree Café is there anymore and I’m sure the homeless man has moved on, but next time I’m in Chicago I’ll find that streetlight pole and yell at it a little………and be thinking of you.

Similarly, you have accounts of militias/policemen running into college dorms and beating people, and then soldiers taking care of other pro-Mousavi protesters.

It all indicates that there is no single opinion yet among the powers that be in Iran about how to handle this. I just hope that this indecision is not like the indecision in the communist party of China before Tiananmen.

I mean look at what is quoted from Fisk:

“It’s clearly an Islamic protest against specifically the personality, the manner, the language of Ahmadinejad. They absolutely despise him but they do not hate or dislike the Islamic republic that they live in.”

Then look at your comment:

” I’m guessing that if Obama had taken the heavy-handed approach the interventionists on the right had wanted him to take, Iranians might very well have been rallying around Ahmadinejad rather than openly and vehemently protesting the election results.”

Why would you make that guess after quoting Fisk's assertion that they absolutely hate Ahmadinejad? Sorry but that doesn't add up.

Green and Saffron

Last night, before dinner with Iranian friends, the subject of the most recent example of people power came up—Burma and its failed “Saffron Revolution” of September 2007. What were the differences between Burma and Iran? Are there conditions at work in the massive demonstrations in Iranian cities that give this movement a better chance of success than the peaceful marches of monks and ordinary civilians that were tragically and bloodily put down in Rangoon? No one can be sure that the Iranian nonviolent uprising won’t be snuffed out or manipulated into losing its energy, but we concluded that there are at least these differences working in its favor:

What is going on in Iran isn't about Obama, it's IRAN and it's citizens…

Now what would be the negetive of strong comments denoucing Ahmadinejad at this time would be the excuse it would give for a crackdown. The crackdown will still likely intensify, but without words from the US that would help justify it. As far as the actual support of Mousavi inside Iran,, it wouldn't make any real difference.

“It seems to me that scenes like this would not be taking place, and could not have taken place, if the Obama administration had responded to the election results the way right-wingers like William Kristol and John McCain (and Clifford May from National Review on CNN a couple of days ago) had wanted him to.”

Then this:
“I’m guessing that if Obama had taken the heavy-handed approach the interventionists on the right had wanted him to take, Iranians might very well have been rallying around Ahmadinejad rather than openly and vehemently protesting the election results.”

I think it’s pretty safe to say that in your mind, Obama is the reason the sun comes up each morning.