Can AP or Morrissey explain what benefit would be gained from Obama trashing the Iranian electoral process?

I don’t know what the US would gain (in my opinion, it makes no difference to the Mullahs); but the poor guys fighting for democracy and a “liberal” society would feel less alone and abandoned.

I never thought I would say this, but I really miss George Bush.

Obama’s stance is morally bankrupt. It’s sickening.

All over the world Obama is bringing oral succour (pun intended) to iffy régimes and out and out dictators; and insulting ally democracies. Geeze the guy fawns all over Chavez, yet he refuses a dinner invitation with his host, the president of France in the most insulting manner.

On this side of the Atlantic, the message is coming over loud and clear. The guy despises us.

I hear from every liberal quarter that Barack Obama is a great communicator and a great orator, the most brilliant man to ever hold the office of President of the United States. The above video destabilizes that argument.

In the video President Obama comes across as unsure of himself and unsure of what policy the United States should take toward Iran’s post election protests/crisis. His statement and his delivery are uninspiring and stuttering. I don’t mean that he’s stuttering, although there’s enough “uh-uhs” in those four minutes to line Constitution Avenue. If I were putting my life on the line in Tehran as a protester against Ahmadinijad, I would conclude that the U.S. President was an uncertain man, unworthy of any sort of trust.

He’s terrible. This is our orator? This is our communicator?

Barack Obama rides the fence so hard in this video he must’ve spent the rest of the day pulling splinters out of his ass.

Terrible. It was painful to watch.

The tumble of revolution can be mighty unpredictable, but what do we have to lose with an uprising in Iran? Are they go hate us even more?

It’s too bad that we don’t have a brave president to stand up for what’s right like Ronaldus Magnus did during the Solidarity movement in Poland.

try to steal the election of 2012.
jaboba on June 16, 2009 at 5:19 PM

That’s right after they steal the 2010 elections. He’s not scared. He’s just setting the stage for the next steps. By 2012, He should have absolute control over the US military – it will not be the one you know now. So what you see in Iran today will come to pass here – at least if He’s allowed to keep getting away with His stuff.

If He gets blood on His hands by doing nothing during these Iranian protests, then a liitle more blood will wash off easier later on.

If He spoke even a mildly supportive statement, there is just a chance that the mullahs could be overthrown. Without that statement, the mullahs could end the protest by taking out the protesters – and there will be no protest in Iran for decades to come.

If the mullahs decide to take out the protesters and The Grolious One has remained silent, then the blood on the mullahs hands is also on His hands.

We saw how successful Carter was in dealing with Iran. One would think there could be some lessons there. That is, what NOT to do.

Nobody in Iran wants us to get involved – least of all the reformers – so why stick our noses where it’s not wanted and where we can only do harm to our own objectives?

orange on June 16, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Despite the taunting tone of the rest of your comment, I’m inclined to agree with you about this.

American policy makers will feel the need to react. But they need to remember this isn’t about us. This is about Iran and Iranians seeking the right to determine their own future. The United States can help little and harm much by interjecting itself into the process. The Obama administration’s approach to the election — keeping its comments low-key and not signaling support for any candidate — was exactly the right approach. While tempting, empty and self-serving rhetorical support for Iranians struggling for more freedoms serves only to aid their opponents. History has made Iran wary of foreign meddling, and American policy-makers in particular must be sensitive to giving hardliners any pretense to call reform-minded Iranians foreign agents. That’s why Iran’s most prominent reformers, including Nobel-laureate Shirin Ebadi, have said the best thing the U.S. can do is step back and let Iran’s indigenous human rights movement progress on its own, without overt involvement from the U.S–however well intentioned.

— http://niacblog.wordpress.com/

If the President of the United States won’t express the unqualified support of our nation for the dissidents in the streets of Tehran, this Congress must.

Today I’m introducing a resolution that will do just that. It will express its concern regarding the reported irregularities of the presidential election of 12 June, 2009.

It will condemn the violence against demonstrators by pro-government militia in Tehran in the wake of the elections. It will affirm our belief in the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.

And lastly, and most importantly, it will express the support of the American people for all Iranian citizens who struggle for freedom, civil liberties and the protection of the rule of law.

—Mike Pence

My new hobby, counting Obam UH’s whenever he opens his piehole.

TOTUS must have a short in its system!

ha ha so awesome nitpicking

keep your stopwatches out to time how long he takes next time

Dave Rywall

Yeah Dave, anytime YOUR lameass govt. wants to do something about the world, you wake us up okay? Till then, get back on the f’ing porch. Baaad troll dawg.

BTW, does anyone find it odd that the POTUS has such a weak command of the english language that he resorts to say “uh” 38 times in this segment. I counted them. My new hobby, counting Obam UH’s whenever he opens his piehole.

Allahpundit, of course: Obama on Iran: I cannot be silent, even though I was silent for three days…….