Poll: What should the White House do about Iran?

posted at 12:14 pm on June 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

With the Iranians protesting by the hundreds of thousands after a rigged election, many of them wonder why the US has not taken a more public stand on their behalf.  Allahpundit has followed Iranian Twitter accounts to get first-hand accounts of the unrest, and has retweeted their frustration about Barack Obama staying on the sidelines.  Typical is this message:

One question to USA, why isn’t Obama commenting anything of this?

Jake Tapper reported on the White House response last night:

The White House has not issued a statement expressing support for the protestors declaring the election illegitimate. But neither has anyone in the Obama administration said a public word accepting the legitimacy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s reelection.

“We’re reacting to concrete facts,” a White House official tells ABC News. “We’re collecting them still.” …

It’s worth keeping in mind that President Obama expressing concern for, say, Mir-Hossein Moussavi, wouldn’t necessarily be a way to help Moussavi. President Obama on Friday, and Secretary of State Clinton and White House press secretary Robert Gibbs since then, have all spoken about the enthusiasm among Iran’s young people, and in so doing seem to be taking a long-term view.

Tapper has a point … to a point.  Any heavy-handed demands from the US over the Iranian election would play into the mullah’s hands and paint Mousavi as an agent of the Great Satan.  Also, for better or worse, Obama believes he can have a productive dialogue with the extremist theocrats running the show in Tehran, and taking a wait-and-see response allows him to give some indication that the US remains open to engagement rather than just waiting for regime change.  Even those of us who favor regime change as an explicit diplomatic policy know that Mirhossein Mousavi wouldn’t overthrow the mullahs, or else he would never have been allowed to be on the ballot in the first place.

However, we have an opportunity to get the Iranians to use this thick-skulled blunder by the mullahs to press for real regime change.  It wouldn’t take an expression of support for Mousavi from Obama to help increase the momentum in the streets of Tehran and elsewhere for the removal of the theocracy.  An expression of support for self-determination in a free and fair election system in Iran would be plenty.  Obama could use his bully pulpit to point out that the mullahs handpicked all of the candidates, which has obviously left the Iranians feeling manipulated and unrepresented by their government.  Obama could call on the Guardian Council and Ali Khamenei to stage actual elections, without the GC’s interference, and an election with international observers to certify that the Iranian people are allowed to choose their own government.

Only regime change can bring an end to the threat of Iranian nukes.  Only a regime change can end the regional threat the Iranian mullahcracy maintains, as well as an end to the proxy war against the Israelis by Iranian-funded Hamas and Hezbollah.  Barack Obama needs to start pushing in that direction.

What do you think Obama should do?

Update: Bill Kristol warns conservatives to go slow:

The task now is to explain what the Obama administration (and Congress) should be saying and doing, and to urge them to do what they should be doing. Presuming ahead of time that Obama will fail to exercise leadership, and cataloguing this episode pre-emptively as another in a list of Obama failures, would be a mistake. The U.S. has a huge stake in the possible transformation, or at least reformation, of the Iranian regime. If there’s some chance of that happening, and some chance of U.S. policy contributing to that outcome, we should hope Obama does the right thing, and urge and pressure him to do so–because then the United States will be doing the right thing, and the United States, and the world, will benefit.

Agreed, but thus far, the response has been too muted and accommodating.

Update II: David Steven respectfully disagrees. He Twittered me that he would prefer to have the EU play bad cop and the US good cop, which might work if the EU had any inclination to get tougher on Iran. They’ve been demanding US leadership in that role, and so far Obama has not provided it. Read all of David’s thoughtful post.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

What should the White House do in Iran?

Obooba should take over their healthcare system, their biggest banks and insurance companies, and their auto industry. Then institute massive spending to “stimulate” the Iranian economy.

Result? We win. Or actually, I guess would we tie.

Akzed on June 15, 2009 at 12:17 PM

I’m not responding and giving Barry any hints; he should have thought about things like this before he ran as an unqualified candidate.

Vashta.Nerada on June 15, 2009 at 12:17 PM

I would say a nice “other” option would be to let the Israeli’s have access to Iraqi airspace in the next few days, but that’s just me.

BakerAllie on June 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Our ‘Strong Letter to Follow’ foreign policy is too much like Carters for my comfort…we never seem to learn.

JIMV on June 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM

One question to USA, why isn’t Obama commenting anything of this?

The Obama administration is currently licking its index finger and holding it to the wind.

shick on June 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM

I seem to recall Iran funding our enemies in Iraq.

I say we return the favor.

WisCon on June 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Why doesn’t the administration just stand behind their stated policy. Oh wait…..

txag92 on June 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM

Poll: What should the White House do in Iran?

I don’t know what the poll says (yet), but I do know that what the White House will do about Iran is ….take a poll to find out!

Irony.

commenter on June 15, 2009 at 12:19 PM

My option would’ve been to start arming the groups protesting in Iran.

They’re taking out machetes now for heaven’s sake. To think I just watched Hotel Rwanda.

Chaz706 on June 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM

I think they will call for some sort of UN action. He’s impotent when it comes to actually leading.

SouthernGent on June 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM

FYI, you can choose multiple options. I voted 2, 4, 5.

infidel4life on June 15, 2009 at 12:20 PM

Obooba should take over their healthcare system, their biggest banks and insurance companies, and their auto industry. Then institute massive spending to “stimulate” the Iranian economy.

Result? We win. Or actually, I guess would we tie.

Akzed on June 15, 2009 at 12:17 PM

LOL. I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything at the time I read this.

shick on June 15, 2009 at 12:21 PM

If we weren’t bogged down militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan we would have more options on the table, but we can only depose so many totalitarian regimes at a time. Funding opposition groups, historically, has not worked out well for us. The right (and politically-costless) thing to do is to speak out in favor of free elections, but Obama’s approach will likely be that of Bush 43 vis-a-vis Venezuela–an approach of doing and saying nothing while the opposition is beaten into submission.

hicsuget on June 15, 2009 at 12:21 PM

Akzed on June 15, 2009 at 12:17 PM

That would be cruel and unusual punishment.

mankai on June 15, 2009 at 12:21 PM

I don’t see my preferred option on the poll:

Treat the whole Iranian regime as illegitimate and cease entertaining any ideas of talking with them (as our policy had essentially been since 1979). Then bomb the living sh!t out of them and retake their oil fields in order to stop their insane nuclear ambitions and defang that extremely dangerous country.

progressoverpeace on June 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM

I notice that “call Hillary at 3am and ask her” isn’t one of the choices.

Snowed In on June 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM

So he’s voting “present” again.

coondawg on June 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM

WWTD? (What would TOTUS do?)

LASue on June 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Iran may well be at a tipping point here. The last thing we should do is appear to be interposing ourselves, in a Mossadegh moment.

JohnGalt23 on June 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM

If we weren’t bogged down militarily in Iraq and Afghanistan we would have more options on the table, but we can only depose so many totalitarian regimes at a time.

Actually… without the war in Iraq and Afghanistan (and all the troops and equipment therein), we’d have fewer military options.

mankai on June 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Just a week or two ago, wasn’t Obama whining about how he never realized that the Iranian problem was so hard?

Welcome to be big leagues, rookie. You’re at bat now.

NeighborhoodCatLady on June 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Obama has always been the master of Triangulation and that is exactly what he is doing now. It’s just that it’s more obvious now because that strategy does not lend itself to the effective management of rapidly evolving situations.

Dreadnought223 on June 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM

One question to USA, why isn’t Obama commenting anything of this?

I’m surprised there hasn’t been a poll taken by the WH….looks like dear leader is still voting ‘present’.

HornetSting on June 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Considering Ahmedinejad and the Mullahs are simply doing what I increasingly suspect Obama and the Democrat leadership wish they could get away with in the US (and, someday, very well may be able to), he should probably just sit back quietly and take notes on what happens. Which is what he may very well be doing.

Blacklake on June 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM

mankai on June 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM

Yep.

progressoverpeace on June 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM

BakerAllie on June 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM

it would be the perfect time for israel to hit them….

i’m just sayinn…..

SHARPTOOTH on June 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Only regime change can bring an end to the threat of Iranian nukes.

I think that is far too optimistic.

Regime change might help end the threat of Iranian nukes, but we have no idea what kind of new regime would spring up if the mullahs got knocked down.

myrenovations on June 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Only regime change can bring an end to the threat of Iranian nukes.

Frankly I doubt it. IF, and that’s a big IF, there is a rebellion and the mullah government is overthrown, I think the odds are very good that whatever replaces it will be just as intransigent, just as much of a threat to the world, just as interested in nuclear weapons — every bit as bad as the current regime.

johnsteele on June 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM

progressoverpeace on June 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM

But then we’d have to apologize (again).

mankai on June 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM

We should support free elections AND voice that (and this part is priceless but he won’t do it) election tampering, voter fraud and voter registration fraud should not be tolerated.

Refusing to recognize Ahmadinejad as Iran’s president is a bad idea because a legitimate vote of the people is what the election is about. Dont go there.

shick on June 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM

A tersely worded press release memo about how BO’s Cairo speech is what matters most and a couple teleprompters stare-ups should do it.

MarkT on June 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

BO is going to do a Carter ie watch the protesters get beat up and killed. He is probably pissed off that they did not followed his speech. Worthless.

nina on June 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

We should support free elections AND voice that (and this part is priceless but he won’t do it) election tampering, voter fraud and voter registration fraud should not be tolerated.

shick on June 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Sorry, but I see no reason to support free elections in the arab/persian/muslim world. They never deliver anything civilized and always work to destabilize the world.

progressoverpeace on June 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

There are to many variables to pick a poll answer.
Obama will want to have a dialogue with Iran later
to show that he can work with them. And that leaves out several of the printed options.

I would hope that the Iranian opposition is
already being funded with help from the US, but suspect that ended when Obama took office.

He has already shown that he doesn’t have
“Bush like” fortitude to refuse to accept Ahmadinejad as legitimate.

cozmo on June 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Why should B.O. care what we think he should do?

He is already doing everything we do not want him to do, from Healthcare to the Czar’s Czar’s everywhere!

It doesn’t matter what we want… B.O. just doesn’t care unless it is about him!

upinak on June 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

I said no reaction at all. I would have liked an “other” option because it isn’t entirely an internal issue for Iran but what good would it do for the filthy liar in the White House come out and say anything about the situation? He’s opened his mouth far too often as it is with calls for direct negotiations with America’s enemies. The US isn’t going to start funding resistance groups or picking sides in the election. And, unless I missed something, we don’t diplomatically recognize Iran now so what good would it do to not recognize a president of a nation we don’t recognize.

highhopes on June 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM

As Nixon did a first with Communist China, Obama wants to do a first with Iran. (When was the last time an American President visited Iran?)

This Iranian election glitch is just a distraction for Obama’s plans for Iran and the Middle East.
Obama will lay low and let it blow over.

(And while the press is distracted with this Obama will be releasing Gitmo prisoners around the world as fast as possible.)

albill on June 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM

progressoverpeace on June 15, 2009 at 12:22 PM

Okay, I am kind of partial to your option.

Much more effective than the ones in the above poll.

myrenovations on June 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Considering Ahmedinejad and the Mullahs are simply doing what I increasingly suspect Obama and the Democrat leadership wish they could get away with in the US (and, someday, very well may be able to), he should probably just sit back quietly and take notes on what happens. Which is what he may very well be doing.

Blacklake on June 15, 2009 at 12:23 PM

People like you keep me up at night. Stop it. I refuse to read your future comments as I prefer to live in a land of unicorns and rainbows.

shick on June 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM

I would say a nice “other” option would be to let the Israeli’s have access to Iraqi airspace in the next few days, but that’s just me.

BakerAllie on June 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM

Really bad idea… you would create a viable outside threat which the Mullahs could use to solidify the populace.

My suggestion is not on there… use the CIA, MI6, and the DGSE (French), to COVERTLY help the protesters with money.

Oh, and get the American hackers to attack the shutdown of the Internet and such in Iran… open communication back up for the protesters.

But do it all COVERTLY… we can not afford to be caught meddling in internal Iranian affairs withoug helping the existing Government.

Let Obama make a broad statement about supporting Democracy, fairness, and the rule of Law…

Romeo13 on June 15, 2009 at 12:28 PM

I think these are the “cultural differences” BO was talking about.

bloggless on June 15, 2009 at 12:31 PM

Why should B.O. care what we think he should do?

He is already doing everything we do not want him to do, from Healthcare to the Czar’s Czar’s everywhere!

It doesn’t matter what we want… B.O. just doesn’t care unless it is about him!

upinak on June 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Wait till he appoints a ‘protest’ czar.
I figure obama will go out and say something, then change his mind, and then there will be a ‘liberal translation’ of what he MEANT to say.

HornetSting on June 15, 2009 at 12:32 PM

The US isn’t going to start funding resistance groups

Funding of rebels would have to be covert, so that we wouldn’t get to hear about it until we could read the declassified documents 30 years from now.

It would be a great idea but I agree it doesn’t seem very likely.

aengus on June 15, 2009 at 12:32 PM

What do you think Obama should do?

Take his finger out of his butt, stick it in the wind, then put his thumb in his mouth.

JiangxiDad on June 15, 2009 at 12:32 PM

There should also be this option for the Traitor-in-Chief:

To come out and admit that he was terribly mistaken in trying to convince people to talk to Achmadinejad and the animals running Iran. He is sorry for that awful mistake. The Iranian government is comprised of people who cannot be negotiated with in good faith and Bush was correct to not talk to them, at all (though Bush should have hit Iran as soon as it was clear that they were fighting us in Iraq).

This would never happen, obviously, but it’s what should happen. And conservatives and moderates need to pound The Precedent on how mistaken he was in his call to negotiate with Iran (without preconditions, even) in his smug, stupid, anti-American way.

progressoverpeace on June 15, 2009 at 12:32 PM

I think the odds are very good that whatever replaces it will be just as intransigent, just as much of a threat to the world, just as interested in nuclear weapons — every bit as bad as the current regime.

johnsteele on June 15, 2009 at 12:24 PM

Isn’t that what they were saying about East Germany just before the Iron Curtain came down?

I think it unlikely that this will lead to anything because the real power is not entrenched in the President but, rather, the Supreme Council. Democratic actions may take a dictator down but getting rid of a theocracy is a much more difficult undertaking. Also, Tiennimen Square shows that even the most fervent democratic movement can be crushed by a dictatorship willing to kill citizens.

highhopes on June 15, 2009 at 12:33 PM

we should hope Obama does the right thing

Hope all you want. He’ll do what all Western Leftists do when faced with a tough call that requires a definitive decision: he’ll cower, dissemble, and blather about “the UN”-this and “the world community”-that.

In short: he’ll be the coward that he is.

After all, when it comes to the mullahs, he can’t use his US media guard against them in the same way he does against American citizens.

rvastar on June 15, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Sorry, but I see no reason to support free elections in the arab/persian/muslim world. They never deliver anything civilized and always work to destabilize the world.

progressoverpeace on June 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

You don’t think it offers better than what they had? I’m hopeful and naive on these election things. Are you among those who think things would be better run by Shieks? I’m not being sarcastic, just curious?

shick on June 15, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Breaking News Headline at CNN: Obama discusses his healthcare plan with Doctors.

See, he has to finish distroying this country before the can get involved with anything else.

BuckNutty on June 15, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Why should B.O. care what we think he should do?

He is already doing everything we do not want him to do, from Healthcare to the Czar’s Czar’s everywhere!

It doesn’t matter what we want… B.O. just doesn’t care unless it is about him!

upinak on June 15, 2009 at 12:26 PM

You could have written that about the crazy Iranian mullahs. We seem to have much in common with the Iranian protesters. Maybe they scare Barry more than they do Andy.

JiangxiDad on June 15, 2009 at 12:34 PM

Really bad idea… you would create a viable outside threat which the Mullahs could use to solidify the populace.

My suggestion is not on there… use the CIA, MI6, and the DGSE (French), to COVERTLY help the protesters with money.

Oh, and get the American hackers to attack the shutdown of the Internet and such in Iran… open communication back up for the protesters.

But do it all COVERTLY… we can not afford to be caught meddling in internal Iranian affairs withoug helping the existing Government.

Let Obama make a broad statement about supporting Democracy, fairness, and the rule of Law…

Romeo13 on June 15, 2009 at 12:28 PM

I see your point. I’m just unconvinced that after the unrest settles we won’t end up in basically the same place with a different leader: A nuclear-armed Iran hell bent on the destruction of Israel and funding terrorist groups.

BakerAllie on June 15, 2009 at 12:34 PM

(And while the press is distracted with this Obama will be releasing Gitmo prisoners around the world as fast as possible.)

albill on June 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Drudge has pictures of the GITMO terrorists frolicking on the beach in Bermuda.

highhopes on June 15, 2009 at 12:35 PM

There should also be this option for the Traitor-in-Chief:

That’s Traitor-in-Thief. Show some respect.

JiangxiDad on June 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Oh I think he should waffle and allow a continued crack down on dissent to continue.
He should not under any circumstances adopt a position where we have to do anything.
And lastly he should point out he inherited this problem.

\sarc

LincolntheHun on June 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Son of a …

(And while the press is distracted with this Obama will be releasing Gitmo prisoners around the world as fast as possible.)

albill on June 15, 2009 at 12:27 PM

Drudge has pictures of the GITMO terrorists frolicking on the beach in Bermuda.

highhopes on June 15, 2009 at 12:35 PM

I am going to go to al quaida training camp and grow a beard.

I havent had a vacation in 6 years…bermuda sounds damn nice!!

BillaryMcBush on June 15, 2009 at 12:37 PM

HornetSting on June 15, 2009 at 12:32 PM

b.o. thinks he is the next prince of the world.

JiangxiDad on June 15, 2009 at 12:34 PM

now if we could get all the protesters like that.. then we could possibly live in peace?

naa I doubt that.

upinak on June 15, 2009 at 12:37 PM

shick on June 15, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Not sheiks, but puppets, essentaially. The only chance for reasonable self-rule in arab/persian/muslim societies is along the Turkish model, but that calls for a radically secular military that holds supreme power. Not all societies in the APM world can even generate such militantly secular organizations, as was done in Turkey, so for them the only solution are dictators that are pro-Western, or at least dictators who are not interested in war with the West.

And they must be defanged countries, too. They cannot be allowed militaries that threaten world stability.

progressoverpeace on June 15, 2009 at 12:37 PM

My suggestion is not on there… use the CIA, MI6, and the DGSE (French), to COVERTLY help the protesters with money.

Oh, and get the American hackers to attack the shutdown of the Internet and such in Iran… open communication back up for the protesters.

But do it all COVERTLY… we can not afford to be caught meddling in internal Iranian affairs withoug helping the existing Government.

Let Obama make a broad statement about supporting Democracy, fairness, and the rule of Law…

This would be the best option. But, remember in his Cairo speech Obama decried the U.S. involvement in the 1953 Iranian coup. Would he dare have the guts to try something similar?

JohnInCA on June 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM

The White House has not issued a statement expressing support for the protestors declaring the election illegitimate. But neither has anyone in the Obama administration said a public word accepting the legitimacy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s reelection.

Where’s Hillary Clinton? North Korea claims it is about to detonate nukes. Iranian elections have resulted in riots and deaths. The UK is (rightfully) irate that Obama snuck terrorists into Bermuda……

It is the White House that is commenting on all this stuff and I can’t recall a single peep out of SECSTATE. My guess is the filthy liar in the White House is controlling all the press but still, you’d think somebody would notice Hillary has gone to ground since there was a time you couldn’t keep the Clintons off television.

highhopes on June 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM

That’s Traitor-in-Thief. Show some respect.

JiangxiDad on June 15, 2009 at 12:36 PM

heh. I like that.

progressoverpeace on June 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM

I can’t decide what the best course of action is, but I do know Obama is totally in the wrong.

And once he takes an official position, that will also be wrong.

e-pirate on June 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM

They could do what they always do:

Stick a finger in the air and choose the response that offends the fewest leftist and Muslim leaders.

rockbend on June 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Does it really make a difference which puppet the Mullahs use? My opinion is at least now everyone in the world understands Iran is an illegitimate regime. If Moussavi was put in Iran could give the appearance of ‘change’ and legitimacy and in doing so might cause the rest of the world to be a bit more complacent… if that’s possible since no one seems to want to really do anything to prevent Iran from building nukes.

And again, does it matter which puppet is used? Either way Iran should be dealt with as a terrorist state.

Joy on June 15, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Obama will do nothing but talk. It’s cheap. And he’ll play both sides of the fence. He’ll end up accomplishing nothing. Just like his tract record in the Illinois legislature and US Senate.

GarandFan on June 15, 2009 at 12:39 PM

I’m just unconvinced that after the unrest settles we won’t end up in basically the same place with a different leader: A nuclear-armed Iran hell bent on the destruction of Israel and funding terrorist groups.

BakerAllie on June 15, 2009 at 12:34 PM

I’m starting to think that the unrest will last as long needed to complete their nuclear amnitions.

myrenovations on June 15, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Obama actually do something??…Paaalleezeee, Obama isn’t capable of umping a Little League game.

Jeff from WI on June 15, 2009 at 12:40 PM

They could do what they always do:

Stick a finger in the air and choose the response that offends the fewest leftist and Muslim leaders.

rockbend on June 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Then it is easy. Just blame GWB.

highhopes on June 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Where’s Hillary Clinton?

highhopes on June 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM

She was on the television on Saturday in a red pantsuit. I had the volume turned down, so I have no idea what she was talking about.

I doubt it was important.

myrenovations on June 15, 2009 at 12:41 PM

Obama will do nothing but talk. It’s cheap. And he’ll play both sides of the fence. He’ll end up accomplishing nothing. Just like his tract record in the Illinois legislature and US Senate.

GarandFan on June 15, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Oh get over it. The retards with voting rights in this country don’t care. If they could text their votes for president for 2 hours on election night while their fat a$$es are sitting on the couch eating chips.

BillaryMcBush on June 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM

shick on June 15, 2009 at 12:33 PM

Generally, I have no interested to be involved in their internal politics, at all. What really needs to be done is for us to take the gulf oil fields. Then the arab/persian/muslim world can have any governments they want, since they won’t be able to threaten anyone.

All threats from the APM world start and stop with control of the gulf oil fields. That’s the whole game, right there.

progressoverpeace on June 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM

This would be the best option. But, remember in his Cairo speech Obama decried the U.S. involvement in the 1953 Iranian coup. Would he dare have the guts to try something similar?

JohnInCA on June 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM

I would not be suprised at all, if a year from now we find out that Bush had been covertly funding groups in Iran for a few years… and Bambi, as he has with so many other Bush positions… just didn’t stop it.

Romeo13 on June 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM

My guess is the filthy liar in the White House is controlling all the press but still, you’d think somebody would notice Hillary has gone to ground since there was a time you couldn’t keep the Clintons off television.

highhopes on June 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM

I think she’s having tea with AP and Tina Brown doing some more important feminist business. Check the headlines section under Tina Brown.

JiangxiDad on June 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM

A Bill Kristol warning has all the punch of room-temperature water.
It’s never a mistake to assume that Ogabe will fail to exercise leadership. Narcissists don’t lead, they dictate.

SKYFOX on June 15, 2009 at 12:44 PM

I would rather that all of the West say and do nothing – at all.

The “election” never happened, it’s business as usual.

That way, no big-mouthed twonk can make things worse than need be.

OldEnglish on June 15, 2009 at 12:44 PM

The only chance for reasonable self-rule in arab/persian/muslim societies is along the Turkish model, but that calls for a radically secular military that holds supreme power. Not all societies in the APM world can even generate such militantly secular organizations, as was done in Turkey, so for them the only solution are dictators that are pro-Western, or at least dictators who are not interested in war with the West.

And they must be defanged countries, too. They cannot be allowed militaries that threaten world stability.

progressoverpeace on June 15, 2009 at 12:37 PM

Good points but that still allows for terrible violations of human and women’s rights to progress. I prefer liberty over stability but I was raised that way. But then again, the APM doesn’t understand that model at all.

Notice how education is critical for positive change in any system.

shick on June 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Breaking News on FNC:

Pro-Government Militia Reportedly Fire at Opposition Protesters in Iran

highhopes on June 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Funny, Ogabe had plenty to say, one dragged out speech after another, about the treatment of those poor captured jihadists at Gitmo.

Now, silence.

I guess it’s OK to club Muslims if you’re a Muslim friend of Ogabe’s.

fogw on June 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM

If the President were smart, he would order Radio Free Farsi to organize the protesters, and infiltrate the CIA into Iran to foment resistance to Ahmadinejad.

But that’s what a smart President would do. We’ve got Obama (sigh!)

Dear Eloquent One who makest women swoon and tinglest legs, what sayest thou?

Steve Z on June 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM

pl0x for there to be a “Turn it into superheated glass” option.

Ryan Gandy on June 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Shick On, that was funny. Surely no one believes the One will take any action with substance. We must wait for poll results and telepromter reload. Just curious do you think the looting and burning in LA after the Lakers won was to support the Iranians?

LSUMama on June 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM

but still, you’d think somebody would notice Hillary has gone to ground since there was a time you couldn’t keep the Clintons off television.

highhopes on June 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM

Actually, Shrillary is replaying Bill’s moves from the Russian coup attempt. Remember when Russian tanks were firing shells at the parliament and raiding the TV station? Bill Clinton spent the time hiding out in New England. He didn’t even bother to come back to the White House or make more than a cursory statement of nothing.

progressoverpeace on June 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Missing option:

[] Ignore it and tell the American people that the world will end if we don’t act now to pass his universal health care

Daggett on June 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM

What do you think Obama should do?

Give more speeches on how nationalizing our economy and socializing health care will solve the Iranian problem.

petefrt on June 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Only regime change can bring an end to the threat of Iranian nukes.

That is not the case and our experience in Saddam’s Iraq shows that.

Also, the idea that the recent election is a watershed moment and a harbinger of imminent change in Iran doesn’t really hold water. Statewide polls conducted in the month running up to the election actually mirror the results already announced with roughly 2-1 margins in favor of the incumbent. The election electrified a segment of the Iranian population who want change but the majority of Iranians remain relatively poor, uneducated, and natural supporters of Ahmadinnejad’s folksy populism.

Regime change forced by the outside will fail without a real majority of Iranians supporting it. Outside interference would merely prove the worst fears of those Iranians who mistrust the motives of the outside world… that the will of the Iranian people will again be usurped by outsiders. The current convulsions among the educated affluent classes in Iran will hopefully lead to the government loosening its absurd control of information and urban lifestyles but it does not justify a military invasion or attack on Iran. Regime change must come from within Iran. The regime must be seen to fail under it’s own weight if there is to be real sustained change in Iran. If a clear majority of Iranians were against the government then I would not be saying this but the evidence suggests that a clear majority of Iranian’s voted for another four years of the little asshole.

lexhamfox on June 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM

WHY IS PRESIDENT OBAMA ALLOWING INNOCENT MUSLIMS TO DIE IN IRAN?

JiangxiDad on June 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM

All threats from the APM world start and stop with control of the gulf oil fields. That’s the whole game, right there.

progressoverpeace on June 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM

I agree. They were never a threat until oil was marketable.

shick on June 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Obama will say it’s Laker related violence.

Chuck Schick on June 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Notice how education is critical for positive change in any system.

shick on June 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM

Negative change too. You don’t think that generations of NEA-sponsored socialist propaganda indoctrination hasn’t had an impact on the victims of America’s public school system? How much is this betrayal of traditional values, ethical grounding, and basic skills is a result of the NEA putting touchy-feely stuff ahead of education?

highhopes on June 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Of course if O goes on the record supporting elections without fraud, how does he answer for his election?

Of course he should support these brave citizens… but he won’t. Just like the Somalia pirate situation, he’ll order everyone to sit on their hands.

katablog.com on June 15, 2009 at 12:49 PM

I would not be suprised at all, if a year from now we find out that Bush had been covertly funding groups in Iran for a few years… and Bambi, as he has with so many other Bush positions… just didn’t stop it.

Romeo13 on June 15, 2009 at 12:43 PM

Didn’t some lefty say over the weekend that is exactly what is happening. It was accusatory toward Obama in a Ted Rall’ish sort of way.

myrenovations on June 15, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Daggett on June 15, 2009 at 12:47 PM

Oops, seems to be an echo in here.

petefrt on June 15, 2009 at 12:49 PM

In the words of Olby:

Resign now Mr. President!!!!!11!!

phreshone on June 15, 2009 at 12:50 PM

The Obama should consult with his Muslim Master, Abdullah Bin Abdul Aziz

Kini on June 15, 2009 at 12:50 PM

shick on June 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM

Yep. And retaking the oil fields (after they were stolen in the forced nationalizations of a half century ago) is an essentially bloodless way of defanging those countries, but liberals would never let us solve the problem without blood. Liberals love spilt blood.

progressoverpeace on June 15, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Just curious do you think the looting and burning in LA after the Lakers won was to support the Iranians?

Hell no, it was against the right wing conspirators who are trying to keep them from having FREE health care paid for by the right wing conspirators.

katablog.com on June 15, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Didn’t some lefty say over the weekend that is exactly what is happening. It was accusatory toward Obama in a Ted Rall’ish sort of way.

myrenovations on June 15, 2009 at 12:49 PM

don’t know about the Lefty…

But it would be hard to imagine that we don’t have some intelligence assets working Iran, with their funding of Hez, Hamas, and the IEDs which were coming from there…

Romeo13 on June 15, 2009 at 12:52 PM

Bambi should have sent Carter to make certain the election was legit.

PappaMac on June 15, 2009 at 12:52 PM

My answer to the poll was stacked

B then D.

C. should have already been in motion of course on the DL since well before the O or even Bush.

C-Low on June 15, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Shick On, that was funny. Surely no one believes the One will take any action with substance. We must wait for poll results and telepromter reload. Just curious do you think the looting and burning in LA after the Lakers won was to support the Iranians?

LSUMama on June 15, 2009 at 12:45 PM

I hope your joking. I give a quick no. Looters and rioters are narcisists who don’t care about their neighbor who owns a small store let alone someone on the other side of the globe.

Is anyone else suggesting that?

On a more personal note: LSUMama? You have a child going to LSU or are you a student and a mama? My wife and I were there from 1991 to 1993.

shick on June 15, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3