Republicans call Obama timid on Iran

Indianans Lugar and Bayh may come from opposing parties, but they are right on in their assessment of the situation. Many other Republicans are praising Obama's tactics, refusing to fall in with the duped hardliners.

Obama seems to be doing an equally effectice job of driving a wedge between ordinary Iranians and their duped hardliners too.

Stupid Republicans.

Amateurs!

“The worst thing we could do at this moment for these reformers, these protesters, these courageous people in Tehran, is allow the government there to claim that this is a U.S.-led opposition, a U.S.-led demonstration,”

Not only did Dodd say this but even Pat Buchanan, who was just as clear on McLaughlin Group in the past couple days, said just as much.

I can't wait to hear the support for the idiot Republicans call for The Big Mouth response.

Besides the fact that it could be attributed to America and thus begin to become unattractive to the opposition supporters and moderates it could give the Iranian power junkies an excuse to begin a Tiananmen type response.

Republicans would have to understand diplomacy to understand there are moments in time to shut your yap. But by all means I encourage the conservatives on JT to open their yap now and expose their naiveté.

this is really stupid of them. didn't they bother even researching about masouvi?

Obma is correct at the moment.

Iran: they have oil and their own independent banking system.

=NWO wants to control both.

What countries are not part of the financial terrorists? -Iran, NK, Venezuela, Cuba.

-Makes one wonder.

To the people of Iran:

-I hope you get what you desire, and the "Father of all Democracies Cyrus the Great is always watching (as a good father would).

Happy Father's Day.

Not only did Dodd say this but even Pat Buchanan, who was just as clear on McLaughlin Group in the past couple days, said just as much.

LOL. Pat Buchanan. That one's a keeper.

“The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham

I checked the Constitution and it does not claim anything like the ones Sen. Graham is claiming. Odd how the Neo Cons try to flame the fan of war just for political points.LOL

Me thinks that the far right needs to read up on the Constitution....LOL

“I’d like to see the president be stronger than he has been although I appreciate the comments that he made yesterday,” McCain said. “I think we ought to have America lead.”

LOL! Sen McCain must be trying to make points with his party. This is too funny, so the new Republican strategy is to claim that the President is too weak on foreign policy.

Great move by the far right and their lackies...Republicans never learn from their mistakes. They tried to be nation builders, but that blew up in their faces.

teleprompter (RR) said:

LOL. Pat Buchanan. That one's a keeper.

If you plan to keep it and don't know where to stick it I could give you some suggestions on where to stick it. I guess we won't know your opinion on the matter until Rush tells you what it is. Love to hear those critical of Obama's stance offer an assortment of sentences that Obama might utter that would be beneficial to the situation at hand. I mean that should be a simple request for the guys that are so full of ...

...ideas in the past.

I suppose the republicans would want Obama to claim that Iran has WMD and smoking guns and nuclear tubes and is being lead by the ghost of Saddam Hussein. Then Obama can invade country number three in the Middle East and fail like bush did in the first two invasions.

Then they would be happy because then Obama would be leading as Bush did and how republicans blindly believe the world works.

Will the republicans ever grow up?

backseat drivers are always jealous.

Iran appreantly has WMD but there's not one member of the GOP urging an invasion.

This doesn't make any sense at all, especially considering Saddam's complete lack of WMD didn't stop bush and the neocons invading Iraq.

Are they scared it wouldn't be a fair fight?

Is Obama timid? I reckon he is incredulous and bewildered - like most on the Left - that ordinary Iranians want what we in America have.

Why are the protest signs in English?

Mr Obama has great admiring over those iranian supreme ayatollahs......sure he wont irked their home business!

Come on!Mr.McCain your respectful career was finished and it's time to your your life.

to enjoy your life

Obama would do well to recall what Iron John Howard had to say on this subject:

"If you imagine that you can buy immunity from fanatics by curling yourself in a ball, apologising for the world - to the world - for who you are and what you stand for and what you believe in, not only is that morally bankrupt, but it’s also ineffective. Because fanatics despise a lot of things and the things they despise most is weakness and timidity. There has been plenty of evidence through history that fanatics attack weakness and retreating people even more savagely than they do defiant people."

Who the heck is John Howard, never heard of him, must be an obscure republican.

So some people, particularly republicans, wanting Obama to make a harder stance. What happens when Iran says, "Screw you America"? What happens when Iran continues to oppress the people?

Do we attack Iran? Do we drop a bomb somewhere?

The republicans beat their chest and they feel better.

This isn't a time for chest beating.

Obama's doing fine. < :-)

Effin ' Belgium is more critical than we are of the totalitarian, theocratic, misogynist, homophobic, dissident-torturing, journalist-murdering thugs running Iran.

Mousavi! Mousavi!

God knows why obama got elected...McCain could have been a better leader.

Twitter dares to allow ordinary citizens in both Iran and America to diss The Media's Chosen One:

http://patterico.com/2009/06/20/contrast-iranian-protestors-shot-as-obama-goes-for-ice-cream/

JoeBigs,

You stole my thunder. Good on ya'. Far from being charged with leading the free world, I think the President is charged by the Constitution to preserve, protect and defend the very same document. And he is actually given very limited powers with which to do that--although you wouldn't know that from the actual exercise of the office..

There is a time for leadership. And there is a time for figuring out where we ought to be going. In the latter case, I think the trick is to maintain momentum while standing still. Obama's remarks have been measured and if Merkel and Sarkozy want to lead, let them.

Obama's job is to do what is best for the US.

Gotta love the French, they're leading the way as usual.

First they stand up and diss China and now Iran.

Why are the protest signs in English?

To answer in kind, that's a rhetorical question is it not?

Yes, why indeed are the signs in English? To elicit American/Western support and put added pressure on the Iranian government? Why do you think?

Ansar Hezbollah has members among the Basij religious police brutalizing ordinary Iranians for the last week.

This is the same Hezbollah that killed hundreds of American Marines in Beirut.

Our rookie president needs to lead, or step aside.

The American government is not much loved around the world but American people are. Prolly the best thing is for the US government to keep quit but for American people to give as much support as possible.

America should get in there and take down all these rogue states...Iran...Israel...Lebanon..

For the US government to publicly back one side on this would be like GW Bush backing a candidate at the last election. It'd be seen as guilt by association.

What can he say? We want democracy, but we don't like the democratic choice of the people?

The American government is not much loved around the world but American people are.

It's Iran we are talking about. Not "the rest of the world" - i.e. European journos and Commonwealth pikers.

Why are the protest signs in English?

29% of Iranians have a good image of the US.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/08/world/main5072202.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_5072202

Proxy: teleprompter doesn't care about polls, except all the times he cares about polls.

Obama is doing the right thing in Iran, and teleprompter knows it. He's just lashing out as usual, shaking his little fists and what not. If Obama acted any differently teleprompter would do the exact same thing. He knows he should be thankful for the president he has, but he just can't suck up the election loss of last year yet, and will dig at anything to undermine it.

Fortunately Obama's approval rating is still extremely strong, his stimulus plan is increasing jobs and decreasing unemployment claims, and he's making the right moves and calls on Iran for the time being. People like teleprompter and the weak Republicans accusing Obama of being timid are simply incapable of doing anything but criticizing. That's one of the reasons they lost the last election.

Ah, Republicans. Still putting party politics before national interests. Still amateur hour at the GOP.

29% of Iranians have a good image of the US.

Down from a year ago.

"Hahahahahahaha, too funny!"

zurc: I suppose the republicans would want Obama to claim that Iran has WMD and smoking guns and nuclear tubes and is being lead by the ghost of Saddam Hussein.

Saddam didn't have a dozen nuclear facilities, over 3000 centrifuges, and enough uranium hexafluoride gas to make 100 nuclear bombs. Not to mention A.Q. Khan's direct involvement with Iran's nuclear program. So enough with the stupid comparison with Iraq.

Will the democrats ever grow up?

smithinjapan:

Fortunately Obama's approval rating is still extremely strong,

and his disapproval ratings are getting stronger! Go Obama!"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 32% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2. That’s the President’s lowest rating to date and the first time the Presidential Approval Index has fallen below zero for Obama."

his stimulus plan is increasing jobs

Not in America. China maybe?

and decreasing unemployment claims,

Oops, wrong again. Some kind of Right wing blog calling itself the Bureau of Labor site [ http://www.bls.gov/ ] "Regional and state unemployment rates were nearly all higher in May. Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia recorded over-the-month unemployment rate increases, 1 state registered a rate decrease, and 1 state had no rate change, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today."

and he's making the right moves and calls on Iran for the time being.

What, like "Let em eat ice cream" ?

Is the same old Republican stand "if you are not with us you are against us" This idea that America must somehow lead the world is just so freeking tired. Obama is taking the right stance in respect to the crisis. He has chosen not to make threats, declare war or support any particular party except to say that the Iranian people has a right to self determination and violence against them should stop. Republicans must just go away, their approach, their attitude, their arrogance just don't work in this new world.

Democrats in the Senate say Obama has responded appropriately to a delicate situation.

“He’s got a very delicate path to walk here,” said Sen Chris Dodd of Connecticut. “You don’t want to take ownership of this.”

“The worst thing we could do at this moment for these reformers, these protesters, these courageous people in Tehran, is allow the government there to claim that this is a U.S.-led opposition, a U.S.-led demonstration,” said Dodd,

Hey Dodd.....NEWSFLASH

They already did that 4 days ago. Glad to see Dems are still on the sideline on this....not.

Iran accuses U.S. of meddling after disputed vote World › 06:49 AM JST - 18th June

VIENNA — Iran accused the United States on Wednesday of "intolerable" meddling in its internal affairs,

Saddam didn't have a dozen nuclear facilities, over 3000 centrifuges, and enough uranium hexafluoride gas to make 100 nuclear bombs.

Clearly an issue which begs for the kind of foreign policy competence in the White House never demonstrated during the previous administration. Political posturing for domestic audience instead of policy to an end, they just can't help themselves.

And the Republicans whine their way into obscurity... He's not doing enough... He's doing too much... blahblahblah... All the while ignoring the best interests of their country!

Former political prisoner(tortured for his beliefs) Iranian dissident Ahmad Batebi:

"His (Obama) lack of response will not be regarded lightly. We will watch for how much his response will help the people or the regime....If the world really wants the advent of terrorism to disappear in the Middle East, if they want peace with the Palestinians and Israel, if they want nuclear techhology to be developed for peaceful things and not nuclear weapons... They only need to support the people of Iran right now. This regime has the most dangerous of ideologies. They're killing the opposition."

Shame, shame on Obama and his party. This is not your grandfather's or even your father's Democrat Party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTE29XQrpDg

Republicans will never admit it but the main reason Iran is being taken so seriously is because the bungled invasion of Iraq destroyed Iraq, the main enemy of Iran - and multiplied Iran's power and influence in the ME exponentially.

This was yet another in the long list of ways GWB and the GOP weakened America.

President Obama is right - taking too strong a position would give Iran's leadership juicy bait to blame the unrest on the West.

Had John McCain and the GOP been in charge, the extreme Right would be howling for blood, bombs and "democracy", American-style.

Thankfully, the GOP are now nothing but background noise. :-)

It's amazing how naive Republicans are. What do they want? - a "stronger" response?

Sen. Graham says about Obama, "The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it. He’s been timid and passive more than I would like."

Sen. McCain said - “I’d like to see the president be stronger than he has been although I appreciate the comments that he made yesterday. I think we ought to have America lead.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley - said a slow or muted U.S. response risks undermining the aspirations of Iranian voters to change or question their government, while former Sen. Fred Thompson, a Tennessee Republican, said Obama isn’t doing nearly enough, while conservative commentator William Bennett said Obama is bungling his response.

The common thread among these responses is the complete lack of constructive ideas.

These guys are simply criticizing without offering any alternatives.

Again, what do Republicans want?

Airstikes? A bombing campaign? The Hallelujah Chorus?

The GOP is - not surprisingly - utterly clueless, and they screwed themselves bigtime by going gung-ho into Iraq when there were no WMD - which has subsequently effectively ruled out equally stupid invasions in future.

Some people learn from their mistakes.

Then, there's the GOP. :-)

President Obama is right - taking too strong a position would give Iran's leadership juicy bait to blame the unrest on the West.

Let's see, we took a tepid approach to Rwanda, it was just an internal thing and look what happened there. I will give Clinton credit, he learned his lesson later and quickly deployed US troops to Kosovo (again as many like to say, an internal squabble, and we even took the sides of the Muslims in that one).

We are taking a soft approach to Dafur and yet nothing is said about that. I think that both parties are making mistakes. At least RR lent our solidarity to the workers in Poland. Since Obama likes to say that we should lead by example, I would think that making a statement for fair elections (not siding with one candidate but making sure that the count was done fairly) is not being too hawkish, but showing that we respect your process, and if he won, show the world why. After all we were pretty open with our own fiasco back in 2000.

Alphaape - "Since Obama likes to say that we should lead by example, I would think that making a statement for fair elections (not siding with one candidate but making sure that the count was done fairly) is not being too hawkish, but showing that we respect your process."

Agreed.

I'm still wondering what the GOP would want Obama to do - send in the Marines???

Send in CIA operatives undercover to rig the vote?

Lash out with lots of bellicose threats of violence and scary-sounding words??

Strap Rush Limpbough to the tip of a cruise missile and fire it at Tehran (He'd fix 'em :-)?

Mention the 45-minute mushroom cloud over NY??

What does the GOP want the president to do?

What does the GOP want the president to do?

Reach out to that unclenched fist of millions of Muslims in Iran right now. They could use the support agaisn't the Muslims in Iran who still have theirs firmly closed and the one hand that is open there is firmly grasped around their necks.

He made the speech.....Back it up Obama or where they just "Words" again.

What a surprise, Republicans playing domestic political games with foreign policy. Even if they have legit concerns over the policy, going on Sunday morning blabfests is not the way to go about expressing them. That is just showbiz for middle America, and a way to influence public opinion. Of course if Republicans think public opinion should affect foreign policy, that pretty much says it all. And if they don't, what was the point of appearing on the programs other than to score political points. No surprise Luger didn't join in on the fun, being on the Foreign Relations Committee he's got his credibility to protect. Unlike the rest of them.

Sailwind - "Reach out to that unclenched fist of millions of Muslims in Iran right now. They could use the support agaisn't the Muslims in Iran who still have theirs firmly closed and the one hand that is open there is firmly grasped around their necks."

Great prose. What's it mean in plain English? Specifics please.

It's pretty clear that neither the GOP nor their supporters have any ideas whatsoever about what they think their president should be doing at this point.

That's pretty funny, but I like Sailwind's approach - read 'em poetry - that'll sock it to 'em! :-)

It's no secret or surprise to anyone in the US government. Left or Right, that the average Iranian wants greater freedoms. What is baffling, or rather, annoyingly obvious, is that all of the bluster and flexing about "being tough" and "standing firm" coming from the War Hawks in the shattered Republican Party stands in contradiction to their obvious lack of will to tangle militarily with regimes that are more likely to have WMD now than Iraq ever did.

It’s seems apparent that some of the most vocal proponents of “tough” stances are the very same that are overly cautious when faced with a real fight, preferring to stick to only those battles the bookies give them overwhelming odds of winning, like Iraq. Yet oddly, it’s always a different story when it comes to an adversary that can actually do some damage to the US, like North Korea or Iran.

In lieu of real, tangible efforts to affect outcomes, they recommend . . . talking “tougher.” Yes, talking “tougher” – the hallmark of Republican foreign policy today. It doesn’t matter what you do, as long as you sound tough while doing it – even if what you do amounts to not much.

In the meantime, it’s hard not to be struck by this inexplicable desire on the part of Republicans to ensure America is always the Belle of the Ball. An America that “leads rather than follows” is one thing. But this suggestion that France or Germany are somehow not up to the task of speaking on behalf of Liberty – as if America could somehow do it so much better – requires an arrogance to defy description (never mind that most of what we know today of Liberty comes courtesy of our European neighbors).

Still sticking to failed Bush Administration policy, these critics believe the "Be Abrasive, Unyielding, Self-Righteous A-holes" approach to foreign affairs is still a good one, despite Bush failing utterly and completely to dissuade Iran from continuing to pursue its nuclear program or prevent North Korea from testing its first nuclear bomb via the same obnoxious – and that’s really the best word to it – recalcitrant approach, a la, “We’re not talking until you say something we like.”

Considering all of this, I'd say it's more than time for Republican critics to shut the hell up and let Obama try things his way. Unless they've got a better suggestion than the same-old-same-old plan that resulted in absolutely nothing. Which, as SushiSake3 accurately pointed out, is glaringly absent.

It's just my guess but I'd say the U.S. government sent CIA operatives undercover into Iran to rig the vote years ago.

Naturally, if the vote goes the way the U.S. wants it to, America would call the outcome a 'victory for Democracy.'

Go figure. :-)

Still sticking to failed Bush Administration policy, these critics believe the "Be Abrasive, Unyielding, Self-Righteous A-holes" approach to foreign affairs is still a good one, despite Bush failing utterly and completely to dissuade Iran from continuing to pursue its nuclear program or prevent North Korea from testing its first nuclear bomb via the same obnoxious – and that’s really the best word to it – recalcitrant approach, a la, “We’re not talking until you say something we like.”

Considering all of this, I'd say it's more than time for Republican critics to shut the hell up and let Obama try things his way.

Obama's way.......despite Obama failing utterly and completely to dissuade Iran from continuing to pursue its nuclear program despite his offer to hold talks with the regime or prevent North Korea from testing its SECOND nuclear bomb via the 'softer approach'. Has resulted in these rogue Regimes being more EMBOLDENED then ever before.

Welcome to reality President Obama and not the campaign rhetoric you spouted so easily. It will be sad day years from now if the Mullahs are sucessful in stamping this down and we just stood by and watched it happened.

And guess what, the Blame Bush card is getting pretty darn old now.

Great prose. What's it mean in plain English? Specifics please.

He made a speech in Cairo to reach out to the Muslim world. It seems quite of few of those Muslims are reaching right back in Iran right now, but let's not try and help them and slam the Republicans if they 'gasp' dare suggest that we actually do.

Why are the protest signs in English?

Look at yourselves - a year ago you were singing "We're gonna change the world"

on Youtube ~

Obama Sing for Change - the "Obama Youth"

Obama has tried to hold a middle ground as the crisis unfolds" I think that is the best policy. Masouvi is really not a person I am happy to support after reading about him.

Look people, this is just politics. If he did something, the other side would say he's doing too much... You really can't win for losing.

History News Network:

I hope Barack Obama takes the time to read Ayatollah Khamenei’s speech. He would find it most educational. For the Supreme Leader, as Obama likes to call him, has not directed his rhetorical fire at his most forthright detractors, France and Germany.

No, he directed them, as he always did and would have done if Obama had been more forthright in his response, at the United States. If president Obama hoped his “tepid” response would undermine Khamenei’s ability to posit America as the enemy (second, of course, to the Zionists), he was wrong.

Why are the protest signs in English?

There's that question again. Do tell.

If the protest signs are in English, the protesters are obviously not appealing to the Iranian leadership or the Iranian populace. At least when the Bush protesters were escorted to the back of the bus, they were not holding up signs in French.

If you have an answer to your question, now would be a good time to explore it.

Why are the protest signs in English?

So the world can read them. Now remember, their is more to the world than the US.

If America is so hated and Bush supposedly set us back thirty years why - with Dubya only five months out of office - are the Iranian citizens we see fighting the mullahs' brownshirts asking in English for a foreign power to unilaterally intervene in the affairs of their country?

Is it Great Britain they beseech?

Don't jump the gun and look foolish again, teleprompter - as you did on Lemming Day.

As far as I can see there will be two possible shrieking solutions for the radical right depending on the outcome of the current tensions.

If the mullah's get their way their will be an anti-Obama froth-fest like we have never seen before.

If the protesters get's their way, it will be thanks to Bush.

haha, the Republicans believe because the signs are in English it is directed at the Americans. Narcissist

"the Republicans believe because the signs are in English it is directed at the Americans. Narcissist"

Heh, one of them is always shrieking about the "America obsessed" without realizing they suffer the same affectation.

Iranian student activist Kianoosh Sanjari:

"The People of Iran Will Not Forgive Obama For Siding With the Regime"

Ahmad Batebi was featured on the cover of the Economist magazine about a decade ago. He was later imprisoned and tortured by the regime in Iran.He spoke this week:

"His (Obama) lack of response will not be regarded lightly. We will watch for how much his response will help the people or the regime. We will know more this week... Obama can hold talks with the regime in Iran if he wants. Is it morally correct for Obama to support the regime? Does he actually believe the people of Iran will appreciate that? The social movement requires support."

Well if people want to know what the evil Republicans think, it's contained in the article:

I’d like to see the president be stronger than he has been although I appreciate the comments that he made yesterday,” McCain said. “I think we ought to have America lead.”

and

“The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican. “He’s been timid and passive more than I would like.”

and

Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, said a slow or muted U.S. response risks undermining the aspirations of Iranian voters to change or question their government.

and even this...

Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, a moderate Republican who holds the party’s top position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, seemed to echo Obama’s caution.

I don't see anything about invading, bombs, oil, WMDs, anything of that sort. I think some here are confusing "Republicans lost the election" with "I can make up anything I want and call it a Republican position." Why so much distortion of the real message? Personally I think Obama's been doing a great job, but I don't feel the need to create false positions for those who might disagree.

"We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people," Obama said in a written statement. "The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights."

oh dear. it sounds as if he wants to impose our values on the iranians. what gives? didn't he just make a big deal about abandoning that strategy?

After joking about bombing Iran, do you think McCain seriously has any credibility on the issue?

"Personally I think Obama's been doing a great job, but I don't feel the need to create false positions for those who might disagree."

But I agree with that. He hasn't remained quiet but he hasn't given any fodder to allow the mullahs to screech about the US with any cedibility. Perhaps that's why they're singaling out Britain, depsite French condemnation going further than anyone elses so far.

"didn't he just make a big deal about abandoning that strategy?"

I'd say there's a difference between saying what is right, and sending an invasion force to actually make it happen.

Again I ask, where does it say in the Constitution that the President of the United States is the leader of the free World?

Please could any, and I mean any far right winger please show me where it says this. To date not a one can/or has answered my question.

You far right wingers claim that he is suppose to be, but you have yet to show me where it says this.....

I'm waaaaaaiting!LOL

You guys are a joke....LOL

After joking about bombing Iran, do you think McCain seriously has any credibility on the issue?

Whatta laugh. The totalitarian theocracy in Iran paints 'Death to America' on the missiles it parades through Teheran and people like you say it is just for show, doesn't mean a thing blah blah blah. Candidate McCain, who even if he became president would have faced a Dem Congress, jokingly sings a Beachboys tune and changes a few words and the Left, in its endless orgy of self-congratulation, decides that their vote for Obama saved mankind from a nuclear war.

tele,

What a nice little out-burst. Firstly, please answer the earlier questions regarding all your earlier blog cut 'n pastes.

Secondly, if you want to address my mentioning McCain's lack of credibility after joking about bombing Iran, then you are actually going to have to address it - that's instead of rattling on about how much the Iranian regime hates the US, because that we're already aware of.

Thanks.

So the world can read them. Now remember, their is more to the world than the US.

I've already said so that America and the Western countries could read them. If you want to throw in China, India and Pakistan, I have no problem with that.

My point was that the signs were not to the Iranian leadership or to the populace as a whole.

Again I ask, where does it say in the Constitution that the President of the United States is the leader of the free World?

joe sit down this may come as shock. it's not in the constitution. i hope you haven't spent to much time looking for it there. i wish i had seen your question sooner. you are obviously beside yourself trying to find the answer.

well it's your lucky day. i have the answer for you. it's just commonly accepted, that's all. i hope that settles it for you.

good day sir!

Republicans talk, talk, talk, all talk about the big game, but when the ball is in their hands they fumble, run off and field and then claim victory. Think the Kurds in Iraq. Saddam massacred them after they rose up against him. Why? GWHBush made promises that were forgotten.

Now the Republicans are getting all waxy about democracy and freedom and talk, talk, talk - if talk was BS, they could get into agriculture and feed the world's hungry.

Madverts ( 7:34 PM ):"McCain's lack of credibility"

I don't think so.

inkjet at 07:39 PM JST - 22nd June well it's your lucky day. i have the answer for you. it's just commonly accepted, that's all. i hope that settles it for you.

Oh ok then that answers everything, our President is the President of the free world then......Ah ok now I have another question.....If our President is the leader of the free world who is his arch-nemesis? In other words who is his Lex Luther?

Just asking to keep us with the far right's idea of how the world runs.

BTW, got one more small question concerning the far right and our President Obama......

Okay, so in the far right's world President Obama is the leader of the free world.....But if he is the leader of the free world why is the far right always trying to attack him?

See that is where I am confused.....When Bush was President of the free world, the far right guys flipped over backwards to give him a free pass whenever he did anything.

But, for some odd reason, the far right keeps slamming the present "Leader of the free world" whenever he says anything, why is that?

Since you have been so kind as to answer the question, why not answer the next for me?

I really hope there isn't a double standard because he is a little far left of Bush for the far right.......

Again, btw thank you ahead of time for your input......

JoeBigs you got a very interesting point. The rabid Right seethe so much against Obama as their leader but blithely assume he's everyone else's leader. Talk about egomaniacs.

It's funny reading all these timid, limp-wristed slaps against Obama.

Why aren't Republicans out in force on Pennsylvania Avenue, showing solidarity with their Iranian counterparts? Oh, I keep forgetting, their Iranian counterparts just "won" the election over the people who want change.

Why aren't Republicans out in force on Pennsylvania Avenue, showing solidarity with their Iranian counterparts?

Does the title of the article not make sense?

Republicans call Obama timid on Iran

Maybe it's more a case of [ Criticism. Criticism. Does not compute. There can be no criticism of Dear Leader ]

sarge,

If that's your "argument" take your ball home. Or at least Deny all knowledge like the teleprompter.

teleprompter,

Are you incapable of defending the points of other people that you cut and paste?

The answer is clearly yes, so why bother cutting and pasting opinions you obviously don't understand?

www.infowars.com

After the Texas,yeehaa,gung ho approach of Bush, a more measured,common sense approach is better. You cant please everyone anyway. And listening to those Repubs in office and here complaining,is just out of boredom.

Senator Lugar is absolutely right. Of course like I said in the past he and Biden are the most intelligent people on foreign affairs. They spent a great deal of time as a team. I remember watching them countless times on Sunday morning on various programs. They were extremely well informed and understood that different decisions and applications needed to be applied to different situations. People like sailwind and teleprompter (RR) want to use the same old logic that cookie cutter techniques will work for every situation.

It is probably closer to the truth that these conservatives are jealous that this uprising took place on Obama's watch. It certainly is not helpful in proving the failure they insisted Obama's reaching out to Iran and others would produce. If anything it is a demonstration of success. Of course we cannot attribute it to Obama because no causal relationship has been established. I would not want to do what sailwind constantly does and claim a cause and effect relationship just because two events happened at the same time. We may still learn however in the future that some of the demonstrators felt inspiration from Obama. If as I suspect those conservatives are jealous then they could not help themselves but meddle even if the truth is, not only has this proved to be a successful strategy, it is also entirely possible that if the demonstrations are quelled, a movement may continue underground.

If anything Obama's words would be used to crush the rebellion. So this talk of faux concern for sustaining the rebellion by appropriate words from Obama is typical conservative crap. The Republicans need to listen to Lugar with vast foreign relations experience and stop listening to McCain who has only a fraction of the knowledge and experience Lugar has. Conservatives have very little understanding of finesse and that is what this situation calls for. They would call using finesse timid; and now some are showing their complete ignorance by suggesting that timid is not only appropriate for "the response" but also Obama. Good luck with that! Trying to pass off Obama as timid; what a perfect way of showing the ignorance we always knew was underlying.

sailwind said:

And guess what, the Blame Bush card is getting pretty darn old now.

Either statements concerning Bush are true or not. sailwind, as always, is out to stop any mention of past Republican errors. He thinks he can use preemptive strikes like saying anyone who mentions Bush is crazy. It would be crazy not to mention any past administration's effect on current foreign affairs. I said it before and I'll say it again. It is a lame attempt on sailwind's part to control others. Sometimes Bush's actions are relevant to the current situation and sometimes not; but sailwind wants to block any mention of Bush. It is simply an attempt at controlling others. We aren't having any part of being controlled. You will find that the Republicans can do no wrong if we cannot analyze their past actions. If mentioning Bush is "getting pretty darn old now" then conservative commentators need to be schooled by sailwind also because I hear every singly one of them mention Bush all the time. But sailwind can say that he said "blame Bush[.]" That would then beg the question of whether it is ok to praise Bush but we are not allowed to blame Bush. It is all about control.

Republican solution: Use our formulaic, cookie cutter response to every situation; but look at their track record.

Republicans need to concentrate on America first. America is ina desperate situation right now.

Iran will be ok after 8 years.

Republicans need to concentrate on America first. America is ina desperate situation right now. Iran will be ok after 8 years.

No, it won't. Iran faces huge obstacles - a birth rate like that of many W European nations (also committing auto-genocide), and a huge heroin problem. Speaks of hopelessness if you ask me.

http://indexmundi.com/iran/total_fertility_rate.html

http://www.voanews.com/uspolicy/2009-03-09-voa1.cfm

teleprompter at 10:54 PM JST - 22nd June Republicans need to concentrate on America first. America is ina desperate situation right now. Iran will be ok after 8 years. No, it won't. Iran faces huge obstacles - a birth rate like that of many W European nations (also committing auto-genocide), and a huge heroin problem. Speaks of hopelessness if you ask me.

So far right wing Republicans are more concerned with Iran that the United States of America???? What????

Come on stop supporting nation building and start supporting our nation......Right now we need every American to help out rather than help other nations.

After our President has corrected the last 8 years of hell then we can worry about everyone else. But right now we need to take care of America....Well unless you rather not...

Glad to see the far right believes in party before America......At this rate you guys will not have a single voice in congress......

"a birth rate like that of many W European nations (also committing auto-genocide)"

Heh, can you explaing that? Is "auto-genocide" an idiosyncrasy similar to "infantacide"?

If the question appears to difficult, at least email the blogger that wrote it.

"So far right wing Republicans are more concerned with Iran that the United States of America???? What????"

Joe,

Your talking with people who are openly hoping for their own president to fail.....whilst secretly hoping for a terrorist attack on US soil.

Why is it those on the left, always have to rant about Bush? Deal with today, quit whining about the past.

On the issue of Iran, I actually agree with Obama's actions on this so far. As others have said, coming out in support of the dissidents, would be used by the government to crackdown on the people calling for change. I think Obama's response, calling on Iran to refrain from violence is good. It supports neither side.

Obviously not all Republicans are criticizing Obama for his actions, or lack thereof. I think some Reps just want to criticize him for anything, while others, such as myself, look at each situation and response, and judge accordingly. Admittedly, judging from his past foreign policy gaffes, he'll probably screw this up too, but until he does, I won't say a word against him on this subject.

The Republicans are wrong on this one, Obama can't really do anymore than he's done. If Obama comes out and supports the Iranian opposition they will be tainted. The supreme leader was already trying to paint the opposition as tools of the west. If we threw our support behind Mousavi he'd be finished. The Iranian people need to do this on their own. I hope they succeed and we will have leadership in Iran that we can negotiate with.

"Deal with today, quit whining about the past."

Ignoring the past is pretty narrow-minded, hence Obama's current stance with the Iranian regime. And besides, when bush was in power getting all these nut-bag regimes wound up with his fire and brimstone nonesense, all you partisans were shrieking about Clinton anyway. More flip-flop.

Either statements concerning Bush are true or not. sailwind, as always, is out to stop any mention of past Republican errors. He thinks he can use preemptive strikes like saying anyone who mentions Bush is crazy. It would be crazy not to mention any past administration's effect on current foreign affairs. I said it before and I'll say it again. It is a lame attempt on sailwind's part to control others. Sometimes Bush's actions are relevant to the current situation and sometimes not; but sailwind wants to block any mention of Bush.

On the issue of Iran, I actually agree with Obama's actions on this so far. As others have said, coming out in support of the dissidents, would be used by the government to crackdown on the people calling for change

Ignoring the past is pretty narrow-minded, hence Obama's current stance with the Iranian regime. And besides, when bush was in power getting all these nut-bag regimes wound up with his fire and brimstone nonesense,

How long are you folks going to give Obama a pass? The man is nothing but a lousy politician at this point. Iran is in turmoil, people there are crying for there freedom and being killed for it by the Mullahs, and you want to discuss Bush????? Hey about this. Obama, you have proven your point you are not Bush, you have made the reach out to the Muslim world, you have mended fences with Europe. You are in no way shape or form Bush or his Foreign policy. The leadership in Iran has rebuffed you, could care less and now are killing there own people and the best you can do is this?????

That ain't leadership, thats a President who has hedged his bets on the Iranian leadership to clamp down on the 'protesters' and will prevail and is more concerned on striking a deal with those jerks two or three years down the line, then the ones in Tehran yelling for their freedom from the rooftops.

Obama....Politician bar none......Leader, give me a break.

sailwind,

The person talking the most about bush is yourself. ODS and BDS.

How both syndromes combined can make a once reasonable bloke go off the deep-end....

Obama, you have proven your point you are not Bush...

He's certainly not the Bush who couldn't send emissaries fast enough to toast the murderers of hundreds in Tiananmen. And he's certainly not the Bush who constantly lied to the American people to trump up an attack which ended up getting thousands of innocent people killed.

Thank goodness for that.

Molenir: "Deal with today, quit whining about the past."

I respect your posts of late and think more of you than I used to, but suggesting that we forget the past is ridiculous, particularly in light of the Republicans, who just lost power, criticizing the newly elected Dem. president (and with McCain throwing things in there, too). I mean, if you REALLY believe we should all stop whining about the past, shouldn't we also stop taking Iran's leadership's past into account, and give them a new start? I certainly don't think we can take their past actions out of the equation when thinking about how they may act next, etc.

Often the same people who demand you forget about the past are those who spent half their last 8 years arguing about past presidents' acts. What's more, history is what's led you to the present, and the present problems.

Maybe THIS is the change he promised. In an uncharacteristic manner, America is, officially at least, MINDING ITS OWN BUSINESS.

On one hand it is Obama's foreign policy and the republicans should not be interfering. On the other hand the French and Germans have been fairly harsh and who is getting the blame? The US and UK. Looks like the US is going to get blamed by every dictator needing to divert attention. At some point you have to call it like it is....

sailwind

Please do not post quotes of my comments with another person's comments without delineation. It does not matter whether I agree with the other person or not. It is not an honest method of quoting a person.

I mean no offense at all against Madverts. I am quite sure Madverts is able to speak for himself. He does not need to be entangled with my words by joining our comments together.

Please try to show more integrity in the future sailwind.

How long are you folks going to give Obama a pass?

It's not a pass. He gets my/our approval as long as he's doing the right thing and not a moment longer. So, far he's handling the Iran situation rather well and even very well by any standard.

When are you going to look past last November and get back to somewhat reasonable rational discourse again? C'mon.

sailwind said:

That ain't leadership, thats [that's] a President who has hedged his bets on the Iranian leadership to clamp down on the 'protesters' and will prevail and is more concerned on striking a deal with those jerks two or three years down the line, then the ones in Tehran yelling for their freedom from the rooftops.

Be careful not to make sailwind angry; he seems to be out of control. He is making defamatory and libelous statements. Why not tell a few other people of your false accusations and get the trifecta by adding slander?

It would be typical of those who believe in hero worship to maintain that an American President's public support of demonstrations for freedom would be a super force capable of accomplishing the impossible. I would ask why Lugar would support such a policy but I am afraid of inviting defamation and libel on poor old Dick Lugar, who does not deserve such abuse.

gcbel

When are you going to look past last November and get back to somewhat reasonable rational discourse again?

You certainly hit the nail on the head with that statement.

America had a civil war and no foreign country interfered, what would have happened if a foreign country had interfered and helped the south or even American Indians? Iranians need to deal with this themselves, so they can feel proud when they win thier fight for freedom and it will show the average Muslim dosn't want Taliban/Al Qaeda sytle rule even when they are not being influenced by west.

The Spanish then, (The French, Canadians and Indians) fought us and then it was the Brits. You must fight for your democracy, your brotherhood and faith.

Hopefully the corrupt financial terrorist will keep away and not try to enslave (like in the U.S.). =Iran is already freer than most.

SoulTrain Groove of the Day: Love is all around (bop) love is all around (bop,bop)youuuuuuuuuuu(funkly double-beat accelerating bass line)uuuuuu. Don't worry (aaaaaaahhhhhh) about the things you do. (repeat bass)

Is the republican party now going swishy on us? They are more out there now than Divine, RIP.

I think this is the Senator Craig influence on the party. Its all flash and lisp. What a party of whiners it has become. Whine, whine, whine and never a proposal to do anything positive.

They need to just get out of the way and let some other party become the intelligent opposition. Where is Nader?

It is truly pathetic and sad to watch this. The educated middle class in Iran is trying to get rid of the crazed mullah dictatorship and their goon Ahmedinejad, and Obama is still preparing to sit down with the dictators and discuss, without preconditions, their right to get a nuclear bomb, and the destruction of Israel.

Change, indeed. Hope, alas, not. Crazy!

Responsibility rests with the President to communicate foreign policy. Just because the Democrats undercut the previous president does not mean its okay for Republicans to do it now.

If Obama wants to take a weak position, the only thing members of congress can do is raise their concerns with the administration outside the public eye.

Let the pundits have their say, let the American people formulate their opinion but no more letting petty politics masquerating as disent damage the President's lawful authority dealing in foreign affairs.

America had a civil war and no foreign country interfered, what would have happened if a foreign country had interfered and helped the south or even American Indians?

This is actually not true. The US came close to a shooting war with Britain over their aid to the South during the civil war. Certainly the outcome cooled relations with England for several years afterwards. It wasn't until the 1880s, that relations between the US and England began to noticeably thaw. Indeed, the French and Spanish likewise all kept their hands in. While there was no military intervention, direct trade with the South aided those fighting against the government, and without question, helped prolong the war. Indeed it wasn't until Shermans march that the south was truly, and decisively beaten.

Nowhere in this article or these comments does anyone explain HOW Obama is supposed to influence the situation in Iran. Just complaints that he should be expressing support more strongly and showing more leadership. So the guy who is "words, words, words, all talk and no action, and thinks he is a messiah" is being criticized for not talking and not acting like a messiah. Nice irony. As for no action, well he could have done like Bush41 did after the Gulf War - lots of words of support and then hanging the Iraqis out to dry. Or he could have shot his mouth off and talked tough, giving the Iranian government and endless loop of the "Great Satan" to run on the state-controlled TV. Both really great ideas those.

And by the way, Mousavi and his supporters are not trying to get rid of the crazed mullah dictatorship - he is part of the crazed mullah dictatorship. He is trying to get rid of Ahmedinajad. Major difference.

Let the pundits have their say, let the American people formulate their opinion but no more letting petty politics masquerating as disent damage the President's lawful authority dealing in foreign affairs.

i think as a member of the opposition you can be open critical. you even have an obligation to be critical. but it should be done in a responsible way. that doesn't mean accusing american troops of acting like nazis from the senate floor, stuff like that. and we heard an awful lot of that from the dems over the last several years.

obama should be prepared for a little honest, responsible criticism. can he handle it? so far he has had a pass.

When are you going to look past last November

I'm thoroughly enjoying Barack's Excellent Adventure.It's looking like a rerun of the Carter years, which were awful, but they paved the way for Reagan. Apparently, every 30 years or so sentimental Lefties - young and old - need to learn in real time why they have always been on the wrong side of history. I'm sorry that ordinary Iranians are adversely affected, and I worry that as with Carter, our president's tepid response is read as eagerness to appease, which will be tested elsewhere.

Carter - Reagan:

Doesn't matter -this is about the people of Iran and true democracy. =This is not about IMF-World Bank-USA Corporate enslavement. =What works for the USA doesn't generally help the rest of the world.

our president's tepid response is read as eagerness to appease, which will be tested elsewhere.

And TP, when are you and your friends going to explain exactly what a non-tepid and effective response would be? One that positively influences the situation and doesn't just make Americans feel good about themselves and their principles.

I have to say, it's pretty bad to say the Republicans are the ones that are trying to undermine Obama on this.

The House resolution for showing support to the protesters passed 405-1.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll411.xml

Carter-Reagan-Obama?

I wonder if this alleged view of Obama as "messiah" isn't just the projection of such feelings by blinder-wearing right-wingers on their messiah, Ronald Reagan. I say blinders because you'd have to be blind to overlook the fact that Reagan turned tail and ran in Beiruit after the Marine barracks were bombed. (Thus showing the terrorist elements of the Islamic world that you could get Americans to run away if you sufficiently bloodied them. Lots of lessons were taken away from that one, and formed into plans.)

Reagan, who sent his emmissary, Don Rumsfeld, to shake hands with Saddam Hussein, thus signalling to the world that the United States was willing not only to talk with bloody dictators, but to do business with them, meaning that basic human rights means jack squat. Reagan, who was not timid when it came to trading arms for hostages with the same Iranian dictatorship that people are protesting against today.

Barack's excellent adventure is certainly taking the US to a better position in the world than right-wingers' display of their fantasyland.

The Senate Resolution passed 97-0 by the way.

S. Res. 193

Resolved, That the Senate-- (1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law; (2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and (3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.

I'll return you to the Republican bashing now.

look obama just got back from his historic trip/speech in cairo. he made a big show in front of the muslim world that america was not going to impose it's values on them.

what is this resolution but an attempt to impose our values? if he wants to be true to his convictions he should veto it.

of course the liberals will say he was only speaking about invasion. you know we won't invade you like the last guy did. but they have that view because, like obama, they are looking at international affairs through the 'we hate bush and we want to show everyone how bad he was' colored glasses.

in fact obama pledged to not impose our values on muslims, not to demand they share our values. if they want to deny women rights, that's their culture. if they want to have a secular dictatorship that's their culture. if they want to defy the world community and continue their nuclear program while always threatening to destroy israel, it's their country. we won't demand they be like us.

that sounds good when you're obssesed with making bush look bad.

with so many issues, one by one the 'inexcusable' positions bush had are being taken by obama. you'd think someone on that side would be embarrassed. now that reality has reared it's ugly face obama doesn't look so cocky, does he?

Hmm... In my humble opinion, some people is just angry that a few spechs of peace, respect and friendship from a pacifist president have more impact in the regime on Iran than all the threats of bombing from a hardliner president. No matter how much people play with the words, the cold fact is that right now the reputation of the regime on Iran is going down and the reputation of the USA is going up and that is thanks to Obama. If you can read other languages you can see how much anti-americanism is falling these days and that means that terrorism is less popular. The kind of action that the moderates muslims are waithing from the USA is more pressure on Israel, not in Iran.

i think the election, the results and the riots have very little do do with either bush or obama. i wouldn't give bush or obama credit for what is happening in iran. but it's clear america can't sit back and not try to 'impose' our values there. the reality is obama should have known that. he should not have painted himself into a corner by saying he would not interfere. it looks amateur.

it's like when you call military tribunals a violation of human rights then turn around and continue the practice. the press will give obama a free pass on this stuff for a while. but eventually it will burn him. sorry but that is my humble opinion.

Hmm... I think that one of the things that make some people get anti-american views, is read americans talking about impose american values in countries like Iran but avoid to mention countries like Saudi Arabia. I think that in english is called double-standard and people around the world really hate it.

i agree with you. i would prefer a more consistent message too. ironically that was one of the things that i found attractive with the neo-cons.

but in this case i'm certainly not trying to make out bush was perfect or that obama is all wrong.

my point is obama seems to have gone into office with a political agenda or chip on his shoulder. it's as if he can't stop running his campaign, trying to prove he's better than bush. i think it would have been more productive to find areas of agreement to focus on. areas that were in our countries and the world's best interest.

there are many examples of this besides the rhetoric he used with the military tribunals. there was the example of the photos from abu ghraib. he wanted them to be released until it eventually became clear it served no positive purpose except to make bush look bad. instead it simply undermined our troops and gave fodder for the extremist to whip up some fresh anger. besides the obvious damage that would do to the troops it could also wind up hurting him politically. he woke up and changed his policy. same with the whole nancy pelosi thing. she tried to accuse the CIA of lying. that sort of thing was fine while bush was in office. but how does it help the dems to have congress accusing the CIA of lying? so she got no back up there. in the bush days there would have been a parade of dems denouncing the CIA. the examples can go on and on. do i make the picture clear?

i think many on the left thought if you purged bush from the equation everything would just fall into place. we could all sit down a discuss things like rational adults. bush was at the root of all problems. a very naive thought. unfortunately in my opinion obama has been running his foreign policy this way.

eventually he will no longer be able to lay his problems at bush's feet. that time is coming very quickly.

sailwind: Thank you for your stats on votes. Now, tell me where Obama is not doing these things. Where the Republicans are criticizing Obama is that they're saying his response is not ENOUGH (which clearly indicates he has a response, doesn't it, sailwind?).

Clearly you have no idea what you want. Obama has indeed expressed support, but the people on here criticizing want more, and yet cannot define what they want. Some die-hard morons probably want another charge to glory like in Iraq -- the US goes in and 'saves the day' kind of BS that always lands the country in hot water.

Obama not going to war with Ahmadinejad does NOT mean he doesn't support protesters and getting down to the bottom of what really happened in the election. You guys are so 'with-us-or-against-us' black and white that you really don't even know what you're for anymore, you just claim it's not what your president is for while providing stats that back up to a T exactly what he's doing.

Obama is perfectly right in what he is doing now. Only a handful of fools feel otherwise.

sailwind: Thank you for your stats on votes. Now, tell me where Obama is not doing these things. Where the Republicans are criticizing Obama is that they're saying his response is not ENOUGH (which clearly indicates he has a response, doesn't it, sailwind?).

Two questions Smith.

Did President Obama express his support before or after the resolutions were passed by Congress?

Hint pick before.

Who should have expressed his support first in this, Congress or President Obama for the people of Iran that rose up agaisn't the Mullahs?

Sums it up in a nutshell about his Leadership on this one.

Obama is perfectly right in what he is doing now

yeah he's about right now. the problem is he went out of his way to define a different philosophy last week. on the job training?

explain exactly what a non-tepid and effective response would be?

Leveling Iran's nuclear facilities. Imagine how much less relevant this whole discussion about Iran's internal affairs would be.

Leveling Iran's nuclear facilities. Imagine how much less relevant this whole discussion about Iran's internal affairs would be.

USA turning to electric trains and cars. Let's just imagine how much less relevant the whole war on terror would be.

Let us just pause and remember who have to thank for the 30 years (and counting) of radical islamic mullah regime in Iran, and 30 years of world-wide sponsorship of islamic terrorism:

Jimmy Carter, ex US president and previous liberal icon.

Ayatolla Khomeini is a holy man, and what could possibly be wrong with a holy man, remember that? And how much have we learned.

USA turning to electric trains and cars. Let's just imagine how much less relevant the whole war on terror would be.

i have a better idea, nuclear power plants. oh yeah, obama opposes those.

but that wouldn't stop the islamofacist from trying control muslim world anyway. would you suggest just letting them do it with out trying to stop them?

because if you do anything, and i mean anything including drawing cartoons, to oppose them you will be a target. would you suggest total appeasement?

i have a better idea, nuclear power plants. oh yeah, obama opposes those.

I agree that thats one of the most stupid moves of these administration. Please dont confuse support to one policy with support with all what a leader do. It gives the impression that we are talking about a man and not about policies.

but that wouldn't stop the islamofacist from trying control muslim world anyway. would you suggest just letting them do it with out trying to stop them?

Why anyone can care about they control deserts if you dont rely on oil so much anymore?

because if you do anything, and i mean anything including drawing cartoons, to oppose them you will be a target. would you suggest total appeasement?

a) Why they are going to target you if you no longer need to secure a source of oil?

b) How they are going to fund terrorism if you no longer buy so much oil? Their entire economy crumble.

first of all america is certainly not the only country who relies on middle east oil or oil in general. just because wind up picking up the slack doesn't mean it's only our problem. the entire world would be screwed if the oil supply was compromised.

no change in energy policy is going to change that reality in the mid to short term. period.

why do we see muslims threatening to kill artist like rushdie or actually killing van gogh? like it or not this is not just a war over oil but a real holy war and cultural war. in many was europe has a much bigger problem coming on the horizon than we do in the us.

so please don't imply this is simply a problem because americans don't know how to conserve energy. it's a lot more complicated than that.

What Actually Happened in the Iranian Presidential Election:

I checked out the site that 'informed' posted, and found this article: http://www.infowars.com/what-actually-happened-in-the-iranian-presidential-election/

Its pretty good, thanks 'informed'. I hope sailwind, teleprompter, and maybe injet at least read this, and maybe feel a little less threatened by Iran.

I personally like Iran, have known many Iranians, and think they have an interesting history and background. I also think it is unique that they really don't have that much Western influence, but are actually one of the most democratic nations in the world (Please read the article before disagreeing).

Just for a little peek:

"the Islamic Republic of Iran has never missed an election during its three decades. It has conducted over thirty elections nationwide. Indeed, a tradition of election orderliness has been established, much like election precincts in the U.S. or boroughs in the U.K. The elections in Iran are organized, monitored and counted by teachers and professionals including civil servants and retirees (again much like the U.S.)

There has not been a tradition of election fraud in Iran. Say what you will about the system of the Islamic Republic, but its elected legislators have impeached ministers and “borked” nominees of several Presidents, including Ahmadinejad. Rubberstamps, they are not. In fact, former President Mohammad Khatami, considered one of the leading reformists in Iran, was elected president by the people, when the interior ministry was run by archconservatives. He won with over 70 percent of the vote, not once, but twice.

When it comes to elections, the real problem in Iran is not fraud but candidates’ access to the ballots (a problem not unique to the country, just ask Ralph Nader or any other third party candidate in the U.S.) It is highly unlikely that there was a huge conspiracy involving tens of thousands of teachers, professionals and civil servants that somehow remained totally hidden and unexposed.

Moreover, while Ahmadinejad belongs to an active political party that has already won several elections since 2003, Mousavi is an independent candidate who emerged on the political scene just three months ago, after a 20-year hiatus. It was clear during the campaign that Ahmadinejad had a nationwide campaign operation. He made over sixty campaign trips throughout Iran in less than twelve weeks, while his opponent campaigned only in the major cities, and lacked a sophisticated campaign apparatus."

my problem is not with the iranian election per say. my only complaint would be they refused to have monitors and open polling. my problem along here has been with obama's position. again, he makes a big deal about promising not to interfere in muslim countries affairs. he promises not to impose our values. that we won't demand they meet our expectations. then a week later he's condemning them.

i think it was a legitimate position for bush to talk about promoting our values and to demand countries live up to certain standards (even if those expectations were not always met). i think obama wanted to give bush a nice little kick in cairo by declaring he would not be making such demands. a week later he's doing another one of his now all to familiar about faces.

liberals may choose to turn a blind eye to all these flip flops but there are many (even more) dangerous people who won't. these things have significance.

first of all america is certainly not the only country who relies on middle east oil or oil in general. just because wind up picking up the slack doesn't mean it's only our problem. the entire world would be screwed if the oil supply was compromised.

Thats the rest of the world problem if they dont shift to electricity with the USA. The USA lead the world and the world follow their example if they want it. You win, they lose.

no change in energy policy is going to change that reality in the mid to short term. period.

The world is going to run out of Oil in the long term. Change in the mid term is good for the USA and the world. People can endure in the short term, because you win in the end.

why do we see muslims threatening to kill artist like rushdie or actually killing van gogh?

That is a problem for the police. A western fanatic killed a doctor for religious anti-abortions beliefs.

like it or not this is not just a war over oil but a real holy war and cultural war.

Ideals and religion like: Good, Allah, Fredom, Democracy, Justice, "bring culture to the barbarians", etc... are all excuses for war and war is about control of resources or revenge, everyone know that.

in many was europe has a much bigger problem coming on the horizon than we do in the us.

Thats is Europe's problem and is related to poverty. Link muslims with terrorists is just like link african-americans and latins with criminals.

so please don't imply this is simply a problem because americans don't know how to conserve energy. it's a lot more complicated than that.

Im very sorry, but I disagree with you. No Oil economy = no muslim power. Very simple solution: no money = no weapons.

he promises not to impose our values. that we won't demand they meet our expectations. then a week later he's condemning them....liberals may choose to turn a blind eye to all these flip flops

First of all, you put words into Obama's mouth that he never said. No American president has ever said that other countries have to meet our expectations of them. And so, to claim Obama to supposedly to be saying the opposite -- he actually never said anything of the sort in his Cairo speech -- is quite disingenuous. Conservatives appear to read anything they want to in Obama's words.

Too much Rush Limbaugh; too little indepedent critical thought.

No American president has ever said that other countries have to meet our expectations of them.

wrong. bush set expectations or conditions on iran before he would sit down with them. obama said he would set those demands aside.

why do liberals always have to insult. does it make you feel smarter?

obama said he would set those demands aside.

Yes, to sit and discuss issues. What is the harm in that? You actually like war better?

why do liberals always have to insult. does it make you feel smarter?

Where is the insult?

It's not just Republicans. Iranian expat in Canada goes after Obama:

I guess the mullahs are laughing their arse off seeing this shameful coward man in the White House giving them international political cover while they're massacring the sons and daughters of Iran in broad day light.

US gov't says the 4th of July BBQ party is still on for the Iranian diplomats.

And are they serious about this amid the bloodbath in Iran? This moron in the White House has his hands stained with the blood of Iranian people if he really negotiates with the murderers or keeps covering for them. Shame on you Obama! You're a coward tyrant!

http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/

Yes, Obama should send the regime weapons, as Reagan did.

the insult was in saying i had too little critical thinking. it's the same as calling me an idiot. get it?

Oh, LOL!! I've never thought that those who refuse to use critical thinking abilities were necessarily idiots. But I guess if you're self-conscious and defensive enough to align your thoughts that way, you'll find insults everywhere.

You yourself even admit to refusing to use critical thinking when you say "my point was not to analyze" or "I leave his reasoning for you...to work out." Someone who refuses to analyze or leaves the reasoning to others to work out is a pretty good description of a "dittohead."

Obama, by the way, made no "promise" that he later "went against." You appear to make these things up as you go along. Maybe Obama said something that you misinterpreted as a promise -- just as you perverted the meaning of my comment about refusing to use critical thinking skills into somehow the same thing as "telling someone they're an idiot."

jhk:

" What Actually Happened in the Iranian Presidential Election: I checked out the site that 'informed' posted, and found this article: http://www.infowars.com/.... "

(snip)

LOL! Yeah right, trust an Alex Jones conspiracy site to tell us what "really happened" in Iran.

Ridiculous.

I'm still patiently waiting for the Republican recommendations for how Obama should proceed in a way that would be more successful than US foreign policy has been so far in Iran.

In particular, I'd like to hear the nugets of wisdom on how to proceed that Republican leadership clearly must have been withholding from Bush, since he wasn't able to make a dent in the Iran issue with "tough talk."

Where are the recommendations, besides talking tough, that will cause this situation to bear fruit in a way it hasn't in the past 8 years of presumable superior Republican leadership?

Anyone? (looking left)

Anyone? (looking Right)

Hello . . . ? (noticing the cleaning staff folding up the chairs and sweeping the empty room)

(cue sound of crickets in the background)

Its hard to say what is the best stance to take on Iran at this time. But it is obvious that a change was needed and that we don't have that much influence either way. These Republicans are just shooting for political points. They are detracting from what is a very important debate. We might end up with a civil war in Iran. The questions are, should we incite it? Who should we back? And even more important, how to silence those evil men who are far more interested in oil rights than the rights of the Iranian people. Watch the movie Syriana. It was based on American meddling in Iran, but set in the modern era. Its easy to say they will support the opposition at this time, but if a tyrant worse than what it in Iran now comes to lead them, some in our government will support him in return for oil rights.

Breaking news: President Obama has no plans to change his tone on the Iran election. He doesn't want the U.S. to "become a foil for the protestors" who are disputing the outcome of the presidential election. In other words, anything we do in support of the protestors undermines them.

So, he's not going to do a damn thing.

Sarge "So, he's not going to do a damn thing."

A president who can show restraint. I like that. Sometimes doing nothing is the best option. Gung-ho people never seem to understand that.

Obama does not want to see democracy spreading in the mideast. If it were to happen, it would prove that Mr. Bush was right. He would rather have pro-democracy protesters killed in the streets of Tehran then to let democracy happen.

Moderator: Please refrain from making inflammatory remarks like this, which reflect badly on yourself.

"A president who can show restraint. I like that"

So do the mullahs.

RR - Obama wouldn't mind letting democracy happen in Iran. After all, that would be one less headache he would have, just like he has one less headache already next door, thanks to Mr. Bush. It's just that he doesn't want to get involved in any way.

"Obama does not want to see democracy spreading in the mideast."

Totally unsubstantiated ass-hattery. It ranks right up there with "terrorists hate freedom."

Still waiting for the breathtaking Republican revelation on how Obama should proceed in a way that is any different or substatively better than the complete impotence of Bush's "tough" foreign policy . . .

Waiting . . .

Waiting . . .

"the complete impotence of Bush's "tough" foreign policy"

I want so much to respond to this, but it would be off topic and get deleted, so I'll just have say, still waiting for the breathtaking Democratic revelation on how Obama should negotiate with extremist wackos without pre-conditions.

Still waiting for the breathtaking Republican revelation on how Obama should proceed in a way that is any different or substatively better than the complete impotence of Bush's "tough" foreign policy . . .

Telling the protestors in Iran he has their back would be a darn start I think.

inkjet at 05:48 PM JST - 23rd June my only complaint would be they refused to have monitors

I agree with you injet, I too think that all countries should have election monitors. If we had them in the last few elections things would have turned out much different and we would not be in this mess.....

Oh if only the UN had sent in monitors to make sure all elections were fair and proper.....

Oh wait, you did not mean every nation? Oh sorry I thought you did.....Opps my bad.....

Now let us have fun with the far right.......

Now for something totally different....let us have a seat and take a look at reality none far right wing reality.

The far right believes that "we the people", means the entire world.....But, as the rest of us know, it does not mean that.

The saying term "We the People" comes from the United States and is not a mandate to change the world.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union

Is that not a beautiful beginning to a nation?

We do not have the right to force our system down anyone's throat, no matter how badly you far right wingers want to...

You see that is not the way things work in the world, and especially not the way our Founding Fathers envisioned the way things should be run for our nation........

I know, I know W, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfie, Irving Kristol and the rest of the "world building" Neoconservatives have brainwashed into believing that that is best for our nation.

But it is not.....If you destroy it then you have to rebuild it.....and guess what....it cost money!

So why not follow the strategy that our President and wait it out and allow him to do the back door deals to get things in order. Guess what, his way saves lives and MONEY!

Remember, he is the "Leader of the Free World'...Why not let him lead?

So why not follow the strategy that our President and wait it out and allow him to do the back door deals to get things in order. Guess what, his way saves lives and MONEY!

You and Obama should get a room, that is if you get the Media to scoot from the left side off the bed first.

Telling the protestors in Iran he has their back would be a darn start I think.

I understand how the right wing wants their presidents to lie to the world. The fact is that the United States does not, never has, will never have, and should never have, the backs of protestors in this type of situation.

There are ways within the bounds of international law -- treaties the United States has signed and is honor-bound to observe -- to deal with the kinds of human rights violations that are taking place in Iran. For the United States to play cowboy and disregard the law usually ends up getting FAR more innocent people killed in other countries, as well as gives up any moral authority the US claims to have.

We understand the hysteria and rhetoric of the cowboy mentality, but America has had enough of that. It's time for cooler, calmer heads to prevail. And if the drugstore cowboys -- who never are the ones to sacrifice their sons or daughters to the "action" they try to incite -- claim that the cool, calm approach be "timid," intelligent people can live with that.

As the outlaw Bush regime was eventually replaced by a much better government, so too will the current regime in Iran be replaced.

LOL ! joe bigs, LOL! is battling adaydream :> for most ignorable here.LOL!

We do not have the right to force our system down anyone's throat, no matter how badly you far right wingers want to...

It's like that old story we heard as children about the Wind making a wager with the Sun about which one could get a man to take off his coat first. The harder the Wind blew, the tighter the man wrapped the coat.

What frustrates the blowhard conservatives more than anything is the high probability that Obama's approach will bear fruit in the short term, and will provide better long term results as well.

It's like that old story we heard as children about the Wind making a wager with the Sun about which one could get a man to take off his coat first. The harder the Wind blew, the tighter the man wrapped the coat.

What frustrates the blowhard conservatives more than anything is the high probability that Obama's approach will bear fruit in the short term, and will provide better long term results as well.

Yeah right Yabits,

The Mullahs stamp it down, Obama waits in the short term, then shakes their blood soaked hands latter on in striking a deal with them.

Nuff said on that.

The Mullahs stamp it down, Obama waits in the short term, then shakes their blood soaked hands latter on in striking a deal with them.

If that really bugs you, go back and take a good, hard look at Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein's hand.

Where you are DEAD wrong about Iran is that any "deals" reached with a regime whose very legitimacy is under a cloud will be highly conditional and tentative. You conservatives act as though Obama is going to give away the whole store to Ahmadinejad.

Up to this point, and there is nothing to indicate anything different, President Obama's conciliatory gestures towards the nation of Iran has revealed the serious split within the regime itself.

The Mullahs stamp it down...

Right now, you've got one mullah ordering the arrest of the familiy members of another mullah. Just wait and see how this gets sorted out. With each and every martyr that the current regime creates, the force for certain, positive change becomes all that much greater.

Up to this point, and there is nothing to indicate anything different, President Obama's conciliatory gestures towards the nation of Iran has revealed the serious split within the regime itself.

He sure has taken advantage of that....NOT.

Just wait and see how this gets sorted out.

Of course no need to lend any real support to the good guys in Iran here.

Nice Yabits real nice.

Of course no need to lend any real support to the good guys in Iran here.

Your suggestion of telling them we've "got their back" when the United States has no intention or means of doing is simply not very bright.

Secondly, some of those you call "good guys" may be every bit as anti-American as the ones supporting Ahmadinejad. Would that President Obama not been starting from the deep hole dug in Iranian-US relations by his predecessor and his "axis of evil" cowboy rhetoric. The wedge inside Iran did not begin with Obama's Cairo speech. Had the U.S. had a smarter president and smarter foreign policy in the post-9/11 period, the transition within Iran would be much farther along now.

Yabits - Obama, by the way, made no "promise" that he later "went against." You appear to make these things up as you go along. Maybe Obama said something that you misinterpreted as a promise -- just as you perverted the meaning of my comment about refusing to use critical thinking skills into somehow the same thing as "telling someone they're an idiot."

Ok, I have to correct you here. On this topic, I agree that Obama is making the right move, in sitting back, and not coming out directly in support of the protesters. However, saying Obama hasn't made mistakes, or saying he hasn't ever lied to America is simply not true. He made lots of promises during the campaign, which he has later disavowed. Say what you will, the man lied. Want some examples? He promised to bring 'openness and transparency' to the white house. Has he? He was criticizing Bush for not revealing who he met with, but Obama did the same thing, keeping the records of who he met with secret. I actually agree with the decision, but his saying he wouldn't do that, and then doing it, is a lie.

How about his claiming that under his health plan, we'd be able to keep our insurance, or choose to opt out. Turns out that was another lie. He claims that wasn't meant to be taken literally, but is there any other way to take it? These are just 2 examples of the promises he has broken, there are others as well. I find that in most respects, the man is either incompetent, or willfully malicious. I find fault with just about everything he does, but on Iran, in this instance, I agree with what he's doing, and so to be fair, I have to come out and say so.

In this instance, thus far, Obama has made the right move.

The comment I made about Obama's non-promise specifically relates to the topic at hand: Iran. It was never meant to apply outside of this topic, since any discussion on the points you raised would certainly be struck down.

C'mon, Sailwind, be honest here.

You really want us to believe that this is all about America protecting democracy in Iran? As if vocally supporting this election were somehow more important than putting a stop to Iran’s nuclear program, inarguably a far greater threat to the security and stability of democracies across the region?

In light of the far greater threat of nuclear weapons in the Middle-east, Bush did nothing for 8 years about Iran, it's nuclear weapons program, or the lunatic currently in charge, even when Ahmadinejad went on the record several times denying the Holocaust and proclaiming that our crucial Middle-East ally Israel be “wiped from the map” of history.

No, “nothing” isn’t exactly accurate (Please, Sarge. Do educate me on the highlights of what Bush accomplished in Iran. I’m all ears). He talked “tough.” The Bush Administration pursued a consistent and inflexible policy of talking “tough” – the infamous “Axis of Evil” speech, coupled with the announcement that “all options are on the table” in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program, including the use of nuclear weapons, and a loud and clear message that the United States would not negotiate with Iran on its nuclear program until Iran capitulated first – Period.

The net result of the tough-talking Republican approach? Iran refused to back down and continued its nuclear program research.

Bringing us exactly to this point in US foreign policy history where Obama is faced with the choice of pursuing this current strategy, namely keeping a respectful distance from the election so as to not taint the rightful anger of the Iranian people with accusations of Western meddling, the rumors of which would please Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to no end as it would legitimize their allegations that the US is manipulating affairs in the Middle-East for its own selfish purposes OR continuing with the proven ineffective policy of tough talk, the international equivalent of a petulant child.

You throw around phrases like, "Telling the protestors in Iran he has their back," but you don't say what having their backs entails exactly.

Maybe what you want is a fourth round of sanctions, since the first three rounds seem to have done very little to soften up the Iranian leadership?

Or perhaps Obama is supposed to go in, guns a blazin? Roll in with the Sixth Fleet and bomb Iran back into the Stone Age, then arrange a photo shoot from the flight deck of the USS Enterprise, complete with a tight-fitting flight suit and a banner unfurled in the background declaring “Mission Accomplished?”

Is that was this is about? Bush couldn’t find the wherewithal to go to war with Iran, lacking evidence, justification, and most importantly, support from allies, and now the more trigger-happy elements of the Right want to live vicariously through Obama, even going so far as to double-dog-dare him to talk tougher?

Maybe that’s where the anger comes from. When Bush had the guns loaded, ready to “take names and kick ass” in Iran, he went limp. No precision air strikes on the nuclear facilities. No invasion of Iran. No “regime change” in Tehran. Maybe that’s where all the pent-up frustration stems from. Bush left unfinished business to a new president who obviously doesn’t subscribe to the policy of “talk loudly and carry a big stick.”

Or maybe, just maybe (and this may be heresy for both sides of the fence here), Bush and his advisors realized that for all the tough talking, forcing Iran to do anything might not be in anyone’s best interests, short or long-term, at least not without a better strategy - And they've passed that wisdom on to the Obama team.

Call me crazy, but I really do believe that despite their political differences, when it comes to a nuclear-armed Iran, Republicans and Democrats can agree on some things, at least behind closed doors. It's when the opportunism to score political points rears its ugly head that I begin to question people's intentions and sincerity. I'm half-temped to trot out the old Republican accusation that questioning the Commander in Chief so publicly is the same as “giving comfort to the enemy,” but that would make me petty.

So, again, in the absence of tangible results from the previous administration’s stance towards Iran, what precisely is it Obama should do that would make Republicans feel better and simultaneously bring positive net results to the US and its allies in a way that Bush policies didn’t?

To be honest, it’s a trick question. I know you don’t have any specific answers, after all, if Bush and his staff couldn’t come up with any, then I sincerely doubt anyone here at JT is going to provide any illuminating insight.

Which only serves to highlight my original point: People are incredibly quick to rush to the front of the crowd with suggestions of how wrong Obama is handling this, but they’re very, very sparse on the details.

He is. He is also timid with NK.

He is. He is also timid with NK.

Clinton was preparing a pre-emptive strike against NK's nuke project, then Elvis chikened and offered to give up the nukes for economic help. But Bush rejected the offer. After Bush invaded the wrong country without any WMDs whatsoever (Irak) and got the USA bleeding out against insurgence, Elvis keeped perfecting nukes and started scalating provocations whitout much fear of a pre-emptive strike from the USA. And lately I keep hearing opinions that the USA maybe can not defend Japan if we are bombed with chemicals and that we must to do a pre-emptive strike alone. So, I dont have a very positive opinion of Bush way of deal with states developing WMDs and Republicans that keep supporting him. First get out of Irak, second end the war in Afganistan and when you get the troops for do a pre-emptive strike you can start to talk tough again to Elvis or Iran.

So what in the article do you disagree with or question? Can you be specific.

Your comment is like saying "Any person who uses the acronym 'lol' in their comments is a lunatic and secretly worships satan".

Sailwind said:

You and Obama should get a room, that is if you get the Media to scoot from the left side off the bed first.

MEDIA BIAS!!!!

It is pretty clear that the demonstrators lives were at risk. If Obama had said the right thing and the Iranian leadership used it in the wrong way people could have been killed at the onset of these protests. Once the protests subside and there is little or no chance of individuals dying out on the street for U.S. Presidential statement it might be appropriate for Obama to show some support for the demonstrators. The Revolutionary Guard is just itching for an excuse to kill a few people that disagree with them in the name of god.

VOR, Helter_Skelter, teleprompter (RR), sailwind and others as usual choose to taint those who disagree. They now want to give the impression that they appreciate freedom so much more than those of us on the left. Well now it is a case that most moderates and a few conservatives agree that Obama made the right call. It is now about freedom and how we don't respect the Iranians right to be free. Other times it has been that we are not patriotic. Still other times it is that we lack the morals that they have.

sailwind would risk the protesters lives so that America could once again be the hero. He loves to play the role of the hero. In all this lame rhetoric, not once, have they described how Obama's words would help the situation. Maybe words of encouragement are magically going to transform the protesters, already tireless efforts, into victory. They have also failed to recognize the increased risk of deatch or maybe they just won't admit a fact that weakens their rhetoric. Any intelligent mind can see that there was a risk of the President's words being used to slaughter the protesters. This was especially true in the beginning if a statement of support had been issued. I guess if you believe that your hero's words brought down the Berlin wall and that your hero's words brought down communism then you would be more than happy to try to sell a ridiculous notion that an American hero is needed in this instance.

We have all seen that it is very important for all of these individuals who are calling Obama timid to claim that America was needed in every situation or crisis in the world. The hero worshipers could not stand it if the Iranian demonstrators just did not need America right now. It is obvious that they cannot conceive that American involvement could in fact be a detriment.

"I told you I'm not going to criticize my successor," he said, before doing exactly that. "I'll just tell you that there are people at Gitmo that will kill American people at a drop of a hat and I don't believe that persuasion isn't going to work."

Do we miss George Bush or what? You can disagree with the sane policies of Obama but at least you can understand him. Retirement seems to be making bush more goofy. And he is still the leader of the failing republican party.

Obama lays down harder line on Iran violence

Obama borrowed language from struggles throughout history against oppressive governments to condemn the efforts by Iran’s rulers to crush dissent in the wake of June 12 presidential elections. Citing the searing video circulated worldwide of the apparent shooting death of Neda Agha Soltan, a 26-year-old young woman who bled to death in a Tehran street and now is a powerful symbol for the demonstrators, Obama said flatly that human rights violations were taking place.

“No iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to peaceful protests of justice,” he said during a nearly hourlong White House news conference dominated by the unrest in Iran. “Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.”

I agree with you Mr. President 100 percent. A little late, but damn good to hear from you finally on this. You now have my full support Mr.Obama now on your Iranian policy.

I'll return the floor to those who have enjoyed slamming my position (and me) on this from the beginning. At least President Obama came around to it and that is all that matters.

Sailwind,

what Obama says about Iran means nothing in Iran itself. The US history in Iran is a tragedy as you probably know. We have zero credibility in that country as the CIA destroyed democracy once there to put in the Shah, our oil puppet. That worked out just great up to 1979. Then the USA became the Great Satan.

No, the press conference today was for domestic consumption since the fairyland republicans went all whiny about something that they have zero influence about.

What was more interesting is that for the first time in 7 years in a presidential press conference there was not a single question about Iraq. Americans are moving on finally from the bush invasion disaster.

One other note, for years the israelis and bush went on and on about attacking Iran. Now perhaps the majority of Iranians want internal change. If bush had bombed Iran what is happening now would have been impossible. Yet another example of how flawed the conservative world view is and how other countries should be left alone to their own devices in most instances. Clearly the CIA is clueless, as with the USSR collapse.

i agree the news conference was for internal consumption. but it was no to appease the rigth wing fanatics it was aimed at the average american. since when does obama care about right wing fanatics?

as to your other points. no one was hated more in iran than saddam. you don't think there are any people there who are thankful to bush for getting rid of him?

if bush had wanted to bomb iran he would have.

if bush had not been so hard on the regime perhaps not so many iranians would feel compelled to get rid of it. marginalizing the regime gave the opposition something to focus on. did you ever consider that?

the people in eastern europe had a different take than yours on the role of reagan in ending the cold war. but then again they had to live through it.

inkjet at 01:39 PM JST - 24th June if bush had not been so hard on the regime perhaps not so many iranians would feel compelled to get rid of it.

What? Okay could you elaborate? I am a bit confused by your statement.... Are you saying that Iranians owe Bush for this attempt at more freedom?

Or if Bush would have not been so forceful with the regime and things were not so bad the Iranians would not be attempting this?

What exactly do you mean, I am attempting to understand your post, ty...

zurcronium at 10:52 AM JST - 24th June We have zero credibility in that country as the CIA destroyed democracy once there to put in the Shah

But I do think that electing a President like Obama shows the world (and the Iranians) we are not the same nation.

inkjet at 01:39 PM JST - 24th June if bush had wanted to bomb iran he would have.

Difference between Iran and Iraq is Iran would fight back a little harder. The attack on Iraq was a blunder to say the least. But Bush and company was not stupid enough to start a World War.

So the claim that "if he wanted to" there was no "if he wanted". He would have never bombed Iran not even he was that stupid.

Remember Russia and China have major investments in Iran. Not to mention many European nations. Take a look at some of the Construction equipment that is being used in Iran. Look at the names and figure out where they came from.

https://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidZAWYA20061115053425/Iran,%20Germany%20sign%20agreement%20on%20locomotives%20construction

http://www.asiacrusher.com/

Money talks and political bs does not go as far. Bush was not stupid.....

i'm suggesting that the pressure put on iran by many nations (perhaps lead by bush) may have been a factor in making the iranians want to change their president.

iranians want to be part of the mainstream world community. if they felt their president was in the way it could give the opposition an opening.

the inverse could also be true. if obama's message is 'don't worry we will deal with you no matter who is in power and no matter what they do' that could help the regime. it is possible, no?

i'm suggesting that the pressure put on iran by many nations (perhaps lead by bush) may have been a factor in making the iranians want to change their president.

Well, anyone can make anything up in order to suit their fantasies. Every U.S. president since Reagan has been tough on Iran, and so, at the first sign of a true rapproachment by a U.S. president in 30 years is overlooked in favor of the cowboy approach.

Here is how a vastly superior analysis puts it: "By reaching out to Iran, publicly and repeatedly, President Barack Obama has made it extremely difficult for the Iranian regime to claim that it is battling an aggressive America, bent on attacking Iran. A few years ago, this was a perfectly plausible claim. George W. Bush had repeatedly declared that the Iranian regime was a mortal enemy, that Iran was part of the Axis of Evil and that a military assault on the country was something he was considering.

"Obama has done the opposite, making clear that he views the Iranian people with warmth and would negotiate with whichever leaders they chose to represent them...The fact that Obama has been cautious in his reaction makes it all the harder for Khamenei and Ahmadinejad to wrap themselves in a nationalist flag. (Fareed Zakaria, writing in the latest issue of Newsweek.)

Awesome posts Yabits. I think the people who wanted to "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" got their wish in a way. Obama has bombed Iran with a defusing of tensions, and pulled the rug out from under the regime. Obama has stealth bombed Iran with calm words of reconciliation. All Americans got something they wished for, and all Americans should be grateful to Obama for delivering.

"All Americans got something they wished for"

What, we wanted dead Iranian protestors? Believe me, we didn't want that.

Obama has bombed Iran with a defusing of tensions, and pulled the rug out from under the regime.

As one of Gorbachev's ministers told the Americans during the height of glasnost: "We are going to deny you an enemy."

Naturally, this has the hardliners running around chasing their tails, in Iran and in the U.S. What they are most afraid of is that the soft power approach will pay big dividends. That is why every attempt to exercise soft power is met with accusations of appeasement.

As one of Gorbachev's ministers told the Americans during the height of glasnost: "We are going to deny you an enemy."

you make it sound like they won the cold war. i would think you would want avoid that subject if you are promoting detente.

you make it sound like they won the cold war.

And the Republicans make it sound as though they dictated and got terms of unconditional surrender.

And the Republicans make it sound as though they dictated and got terms of unconditional surrender.

i'm not sure what you're talking about. let's stick to the subject. by putting political, military and economic pressure on the soviet union reagan weakened the regime. giving the dissidents strong vocal support encouraged and inspired them. all over eastern europe they won their freedom. small potatoes for you it sounds.

still i'm not saying that proves the approach will work in iran. but i'm saying it shouldn't be used as an example against the 'cowboy' approach either.

in fact i think both approaches need to work together, the good cop, bad cop routine. if the world's pressure (and it wasn't just the cowboy was it?) weakened the regime obama's approach could be helpful. but i think that would mean supporting the people. bush always expressed his support for the iranian people.

obama was slow off the mark on that front. it's clear, except to his loyalists, that obama should have expressed his strong support sooner. but he seems to have learned something.

in fact i think both approaches need to work together, the good cop, bad cop routine. if the world's pressure (and it wasn't just the cowboy was it?) weakened the regime obama's approach could be helpful. but i think that would mean supporting the people. bush always expressed his support for the iranian people.

I my opinion, it looks more like Bush played the "bad cop" as a role model of all what the world must to see like absolutly wrong from the USA: invasions, torture, bombings, etc... So when everyone got so affraid of the GOP that even USA's staunchest allies started to critic USA, then the Obama play the "good cop" and the democrats look like the heros and saviors of the world. For some reason, I think that these is not what the neo-cons promised to the GOP.

I my opinion, it looks more like Bush played the "bad cop" as a role model of all what the world must to see like absolutly wrong from the USA

i think you're saying bush did only bad things. right?

well that is a bit one dimensional. for starters, free elections in afghanistan and iraq. that doesn't count for anything?

American policy on Iran has been idiotic for a couple generations now. Like most of the MidEast policies it was short sighted and resulted in decades of difficult blow back.

When will people learn?

Iran is not a nation of rabid Islamists. Nor it is an Axis of evil.

What Iran is in fact, is a nation with multiple conflicted personalities. Iran is an Islamic state with strong religous control, it is also a revolutionary state that has at least a propaganda value for democracy and an interpretation of freedom and rights.

It is a nation in transition as young Iranians want more of a role on the international stage as members of the global community and not as citizens of a potential threat state.

Finally it is a nation with a poor conservative population, who not unlike the conservative counterparts in the US, have very conservative religious, nationalistic and political views that also carry weight.

An intelligent approach to Iran is to make firm statements of support for the rights of the demonstrators. Second to threaten additional international consequences for their iron fist policy of dealing with their public. And finally to morally come out in support of free and open elections and in support of the will of the Iranian people.

Anthing more may undermine the current uprising. If it looks like we have too much vested interest in the outcome, then we risk adding fuel to the fear fires of the existing regime. That could mean harsher crack downs.

Likewise we cannot physically intervene. This must be a home grown transition.

Like our American civil war. It was far better that we resolved the issue on our own than with direct participation from outside states. Iran must do this too. Even if it means no success this time, it may lay the foundations for positive future changes.

For now we must support with our words and with our values only.

well that is a bit one dimensional. for starters, free elections in afghanistan and iraq. that doesn't count for anything?

Very little, do Bush cared that there is no free election in Saudi Arabia? I think that we already discused that any moral ground on democracy is lost for double-standard.

Very little, do Bush cared that there is no free election in Saudi Arabia? I think that we already discused that any moral ground on democracy is lost for double-standard.

wow. this is a very surprising sentiment. so small minded.

of course i agree in an ideal world there would be no double standard. but you can't reject good results because of this double standard. we need to build toward a better world step by step where and when we can.

simply dismissing the accomplishment of bring elections to iraq and afghanistan is really insulting to the thousands who died trying to reach that goal.

will you hold obama to the same ridiculous standard? if so, you may as well start condemning him right now as he clearly supports the suadi king. so nothing he says or does to promote democracy or fairness will be worth defending, right? if you want to be consistent. 100% or nothing. is that it?

consider the possibility that what is happening in iran could be a result of the elections in iraq and afghanistan. perhaps the iranians are asking themselves if they can have fair elections why can't we?

i know you hate bush. but try to consider it is just possible what happened in iraq and afghanistan could represent a new future for the muslim world. it is possible.

tkoind2:

Finally it is a nation with a poor conservative population, who not unlike the conservative counterparts in the US, have very conservative religious, nationalistic and political views that also carry weight.

If you actually bothered to read a little history you'd find that Iranians are also a conquered people - Islam is not native to Persia.

Your attempt to liken Iran's poor and rural with those in the US is laughable; kinda reminds me of watching the mainstream media describe Gorbachev's opponents in the waning days of the Soviet empire as "conservatives", with the twisted reasoning this would reflect badly on Reagan and the Republicans.

The true "conservatives" in Iran are the ones who want the Persian identity preserved and restored. It is the newcomers, first in the form of Ayatollah Khomeini and since then the totalitarian theocrats like Khameini, who represent "liberal" forces of "change" in Iran. As is so often the case with Islam the invaders tried to obliterate the native culture. And like "liberals" elsewhere they resort to coercion and violence to attain their ends.

It is no coincidence that Ahmadinejad adopted Obama's slogan ("We can") for the most recent Potemkin elections arranged by the mullahs.

http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/04/29/ahmadinejad-steals-obamas-campaign-slogan/

wow. this is a very surprising sentiment. so small minded.

Please, can we avoid the insults?

of course i agree in an ideal world there would be no double standard.

Thank you.

but you can't reject good results because of this double standard.

Why..? It dont make the USA looks hypocrite?

we need to build toward a better world step by step where and when we can.

Yes, but the "Bush Doctrine" support "the end justify the means". In my opinion, that is inmoral.

simply dismissing the accomplishment of bring elections to iraq and afghanistan is really insulting to the thousands who died trying to reach that goal.

If Elvis nuke Honolulu and half million civilians die when USA is busy with democracy in Irak and Afganistan. What is the priority for the president? National Security or invade other countries for democracy?

will you hold obama to the same ridiculous standard? if so, you may as well start condemning him right now as he clearly supports the suadi king. so nothing he says or does to promote democracy or fairness will be worth defending, right? if you want to be consistent. 100% or nothing. is that it?

I think that Obama asured to the world that he dont follow an agenda of actively impose "american values" in other countries.

consider the possibility that what is happening in iran could be a result of the elections in iraq and afghanistan. perhaps the iranians are asking themselves if they can have fair elections why can't we?

No, I think that a lot of people suspect that any democracy from an ocupation force is pupet of the invading nation and is weak for the suspected lack of legitimacy.

i know you hate bush.

I am not a muslim, so I dont hate Bush. But as a japanese I think that he really failed to see what the real National Security threats are in WMDs, for the USA and their allies.

but try to consider it is just possible what happened in iraq and afghanistan could represent a new future for the muslim world. it is possible.

I dont think that there is anyone that want to be invaded and ocupied like Irak or Agfanistan and is going to take a lot of time to heal the wounds of the war and insurgence. We can expect some anti-americanism from the relatives of the victims of these agressive policy.

Please, can we avoid the insults?

i meant the the sentiment is small minded. i still do. i think if you looked at the larger picture you might see there are positive and negative things in every situation.

this is not the right thread to go into bush and the war in iraq. it's about the elections in iran.

all other consideration aside i believe the iranians may be inspired by the free elections next door. that is a good thing.

the rest of your argument is besides the point for me in this thread.

i meant the the sentiment is small minded. i still do.

Sorry, my english is terrible. Can you elaborate?

i think if you looked at the larger picture you might see there are positive and negative things in every situation.

Hmm... That sounds to me like a consolation prize.

this is not the right thread to go into bush and the war in iraq. it's about the elections in iran.

I think that the Irak war is relevant to these thread about Iran, because after Bush invaded Irak, the hardliners in Iran not only lost an enemy, they also got a lot of influence in Irak. Also, why you can talk about Bush and the Irak elections and I cant talk about Bush and the Irak war?

all other consideration aside i believe the iranians may be inspired by the free elections next door. that is a good thing.

Iranians voted reformist before. The only diference is that these time, there is a real chance of advance the nuclear negotiations if a moderate iranian president meet a moderate USA president.

the rest of your argument is besides the point for me in this thread.

Sorry, I am confused, but is not you who asked to me to look in to the larger picture?

Let's try to focus in to the disagreement. Our difference in opinion is that you think that Bush made good things with Iran and allowed the coming of moderates. I think that Bush only gived more power to the hardliners and is Obama the one that made iranians go and vote for change the president. If you can elaborate just "how" the Irak elections influenced the Iran electiosn that can really help me to understad you, because I just dont see any influence and I dont readed any one talking of these idea aside of you. If you can provide links to any political expert with credible backgrounds that mention these, that can be very helpful to me.

mr. obama is taking the right tract. deny the nut jobber theocrats and enemy. however is saying that the nut jobbers will create faux stories to rally their nut jobber followers. in saying that, justice will prevail.

Plate tectonic theory has proven that the birthplace of Jesus Christ is now located in America, right in Washington DC. This is no coincidence. It is time for all people of the world to admit that Christ is America and that America is Christ - the King of Kings. This is pure and simple logical fact. Criticizing the President of America means that you hate Jesus Christ. We are one and the same.

Obama is one big disappointment. Too wishy-washy, trying to be nice to everyone, and pleasing no-one. Bring back George Bush!

Realist, really? You want a third war in the middle east? You want more countries destroyed and millions dead for no reason. You want massive debts piling up for decades for invasions that aid the enemies of the USA? Really?

The big winners in the Iraq illegal invasion were Israel of course and Iran. Not the USA for sure. We won nothing and lost lives and billions and billions of dollars.

Even bush would not want to clean up after his mess. He usually has his family do that for him but once again its the democrats who must clean up after the bush failures. Like Clinton did for the first bush presidency.

You want a third war in the middle east?

Yes, of course. America is the meek and shall inherit the Earth, be it by hook, crook or invasion. The resources in the Middle East belong to America. The Bible makes this patently clear. Obama needs to rally the American people by showing them that they own the world and all its resoucres.

The View from Egypt:

“When Obama does not take a stance, the very next day these oppressive regimes will regard this as a signal. This is a test for his government,” said Ayman Nour, a noted Egyptian opposition politician who was recently released from jail. “If they can turn a blind eye to their enemy, they can turn a blind eye to any action here in Egypt.”

Washington Post Fri June 26 2009

mareo2

Mareo, you may not speak perfect English but if you continue to read comments and post comments it will improve quickly.

My point is not to criticize you but tell you that you did a very good job - mareo2 at 07:55 PM JST - 25th June. You kicked butt! I hope you will get as much education as possible because you are a smart guy. You obviously presented challenges that could not be overcome by injet. In the future if you continue to do such a good job be prepared to be criticized for many things. This could include your country of origin or your English or anything else he thinks will offend you. Don't ever get discouraged. I remember you from years ago. You are not only able to get your point across but you are able to present good points of argument. I look forward to your posts in the future. Of course I want you to learn English better so that others will not be able to use that against you. But it seems to me you want to learn English better also. Good Luck.

You obviously presented challenges that could not be overcome by injet. In the future if you continue to do such a good job be prepared to be criticized for many things. This could include your country of origin or your English or anything else he thinks will offend you

are you putting me on?

goodDonkey:

Thanks for the words of encouragement, I really want to learn more english because some times, I find my limited knowledge very frustrating. I want to say more but I am so ignorant that I dont know how to express my ideas.

But I think that I dont deserve you praise so much because, maybe you can agree that what happened there is so dificult to defend that very few people can succed on do it.

Also I dont think that inkjet or others can resort to that tricks because I try my best to respect other readers. If I learned something in these years in JT, is that insults and humilliations never convince the other person of your opinion and of course, the fact that we are humans and the other person can be rigth and we can be wrong because no one know everything.

inkjet:

Like I said to goodDonkey, I think that you tried to defend a very dificult case, but you did your best anyway. Even if you dont convinced me of change my opinion these time, I respect you for your tenacity and waith for read more of your opinions.

mareo2

let me get one thing straight, i believe you are an intelligent and sincere person. i think i can say the sentiment you expressed is small minded without it being a personal attack.

and i never attacked you because of your language skills or country of origin, that charge by dumbass, i mean gooddonkey is just ridiculous. i merely pointed out your statement wasn't clear to me and wanted to be sure i understood you correctly.

let me give you a concrete example of why i think the sentiment you expressed is small minded.

you seem to be saying everything that results from the war in iraq is bad because you think the war was bad. is that correct? i can't say the elections there were good because america is hypocritical, right?

think about this example. earlier you mentioned you support nuclear energy. well consider how it was developed, as a weapon. it seems by your logic you should then reject it. if it was created for a purpose you oppose than no good can come from it. it would be hypocritical.

this why i said the sentiment is small minded. it focuses too narrowly. life is more complicated. i believe you should try to identify the good and bad where you find them.

i think the elections in iraq are a very good thing. and i also believe they may have had an effect on the iranians next door. isn't it just possible after seeing the success of the elections in iraq that they feel they too are entitled to open, fair elections? isn't it at least possible?

life is more complicated. i believe you should try to identify the good and bad where you find them.

What should be identified is this tendency of people to filter out the bad and amplify the good when an action is taken by someone who they politically support. Finding "good" from the Iraq war is a bit like saying to Mrs. Abraham Lincoln, "Besides the shooting, how was the play?"

The war in Iraq was and is a disaster. A war with Iran would be disastrous too -- an even bigger disaster, if that can be comprehended.

All Obama does is go around the world, especially the Muslim countries, and spew out apologies for America. Its sickening. If I was an American and my president went around bad-mouthing my country, Id be demonstrating on the streets calling for his impeachment. Some of his utterances, like "America is not a Christin country, America is the one of the world`s largest Muslim countries" are like something out of Neverland.

All Obama does is go around the world, especially the Muslim countries, and spew out apologies for America.

Obama is going around the world apologizing for Americans like the writer of that quote. These are the ugly Americans -- the ones that need to apologized for continually.

let me get one thing straight, i believe you are an intelligent and sincere person.

Thaks, I think that you are a well intentioned person with a strong desire of action from the gob.

i think i can say the sentiment you expressed is small minded without it being a personal attack.

Let me explain how I think, so you can understand me. For me sentiment = feelings and mind = intelect. I am confused by your wording because I cant imagine a sentiment having a mind. Small minded, looked like a personal insult because you separated the words with a "." in place of a ",". I guess that you mean "short sighted" or "narrow minded" that are not so offensive.

and i never attacked you because of your language skills or country of origin, that charge by dumbass, i mean gooddonkey is just ridiculous. i merely pointed out your statement wasn't clear to me and wanted to be sure i understood you correctly.

I know that you dont did it and I think that you are not going to do it, because we can exchange words in a respectful way. Of course, we are humans and we two can offend each other by accident, after all my english is far from perfect.

let me give you a concrete example of why i think the sentiment you expressed is small minded.

Ok, but please, can you say "short sighted" in place of small-minded?

you seem to be saying everything that results from the war in iraq is bad

No, incorrect, read again my words. I say "Very little" at 01:36 PM JST - 25th June. Also I said "phyrric victory" on the other thread at 12:43 PM JST - 27th June, impliying some benefits but at a cost to high. I never said that "everything was bad" just to costly and not a priority.

because you think the war was bad. is that correct?

Yes, I think that war is bad because cost to much blood and money. So must to be avoided, but because we japanese are pacifist, dont mean that we are not going to defend if we are attacked. There is a difference betwen do a preeventive strike for "national defense" and invade a country for "enforce democracy". The armed forces of the USA exist for protect the americans and the allies that have militar pacts. The idea of use the armed forces as a tool for "export democracy" it make the USA waste limited resources from the "war on terror", giving free hand to hard-liners in NK and Iran for keep developing WMDs. I think that is time for make clear that I have many critics but these is my biggest problem with the Neocon ideology.

i can't say the elections there were good because america is hypocritical, right?

Yes, so I think. Ie. We cant demand human rights and be permissive with torture. We must to try to practice what we preach or lose any credibility. I hope that the USA lead us by the example of practice high ideals, not to force them in others.

think about this example. earlier you mentioned you support nuclear energy. well consider how it was developed, as a weapon. it seems by your logic you should then reject it. if it was created for a purpose you oppose than no good can come from it. it would be hypocritical. this why i said the sentiment is small minded. it focuses too narrowly. life is more complicated. i believe you should try to identify the good and bad where you find them.

Sorry, but we humans can developed that technology with out making bombs, just because it acelerated the process and today half of the energy of Japan is nuclear, dont means that I am happy that the USA nuked two japanese cities or that Elvis is making nukes next door for remember us that it can happen again, I think that the a big majority of my 127 millions of compatriots agree with me on these. We have a strong policy against nuclear weapons but that never stoped us from use nuclear energy and we dont see any hypocrisy because it can be made with out making bombs. Democracy to can be made with out making war, it can take more years but cost less blood and money.

i think the elections in iraq are a very good thing.

Sure that elections are good, but in my humble opinion I think that you are to optimist, because the country still is recovering and is unstable, there is no warrant that the country cant fall into civil war or end divided on three mini-states or controled by Iran. Is to son for "sing victory", I think that is wise to wait a little more before talk about a "succesful democracy" influencing the neighboors.

and i also believe they may have had an effect on the iranians next door. isn't it just possible after seeing the success of the elections in iraq that they feel they too are entitled to open, fair elections? isn't it at least possible?

I my humble opinion, the Irak elections is not even in the radar of the iranians. Iran have 17% unemployment, 25% inflation, millionds of drug adicts, many other social problems and low Oil prices. Their main concerns are economics and social, not about a constitution reform or regime change.

the Irak elections is not even in the radar of the iranians.

we just disagree. simple as that.

A war with Iran would be disastrous too

this thread is not about strating war with iran. it's about backing up protesters tying to get democratic control of their country.

i guess for you, and the regime you so fervently support, fair and open elections would also be disastrous. what a shame to spend so much energy backing a totalitarian regime.

even the book you sited to back your position says the regime clearly blocks any real democratic process. do you selectively read between the lines? have you no shame?

mareo2:

Thank you for your posts and for your voice. When you say, "I think that is time for make clear that I have many critics but these is my biggest problem with the Neocon ideology," in my opinion, the Neocon ideology is the very same strain of nationalist/militarist outlook that has gotten many nations in deep problems.

Many of us Americans are working towards the goal of making our nation more of a peace-seeking country. I appreciate your thoughts.

it's about backing up protesters tying to get democratic control of their country.

The last thing the protestors in Iran need is for the U.S. to overtly support them beyond what President Obama has seen fit to do to this point.

A former CIA Iran expert said today that what has likely happened in Iran is a coup by the military. The clerics are essentially no longer in control. It's a very dangerous situation, and attacking the clerics via words is not only futile, it's attacking the wrong target.

I don't support the Iranian regime, fervently or otherwise. But, being from a family that emigrated from Poland, and having family still there, I know firsthand how a totalitarian regime can peacefully make the transition to a more democratic society. Americans may want to foolishly believe that Reagan did it all, but in reality the transition in Poland was just as much due to internal factors -- especially the labor union, Solidarity, backed by the Catholic church.

In Iran, I have great faith that the working people of the country will join together along with students to press for more of the processes of democracy, just as the Poles did. After a period of martial law during the 80s, the Poles launched strikes which forced the government to allow them a better election process, which the people used to their advantage to enact even more democratic leverage points. I see the same thing happening with Iran.

inkjet:

we just disagree. simple as that.

Ouch... I feel like the bad guy now. I still think that people can reach agreement if both sides really try. So my apology, I recognize that "is possible that the Irak elections can have some influence on the Iran elections". So lets just agree that we just have different opinions on how much. My statement sounded like I think that it have zero influence but even if I think that is close to zero, it is not zero. My bad.