Previous post
Next post
barack obama says he’s ‘troubled’ by what’s going on in iran. troubled?? jeez. he really needs to get his balls back from michelle – if he ever had any.
WASHINGTON (AP) – President Barack Obama says he believes supreme leader Ayatollah ali Khamenei has deep concerns about the civil unrest that has followed the hotly contested presidential election there.
Obama repeated Tuesday at a news conference his “deep concerns” about the disputed balloting. He said he believes the ayatollah’s decision to order an investigation “indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns.”
But at the same time, Obama said it would not be helpful if the United States was seen by the world as “meddling” in the issue.
nk. now, iran.
why are liberals in general and The One specifically such cowards? the regime he refers to and says he’s ‘troubled’ by is shooting their own people from rooftops! it’s that very regime that rigged the election in the first place.
obama’s hair should be on fire. he should take this as a critical moment in history to speak directly to the people of iran. to say ‘we stand with you and we stand for democracy; have hope, have courage!’
nothing.
president bush said this on 1/20/05:
“All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.”
and guess what? oppressed people believed him and took him (and us) at our word. there was the orange revolution in ukraine, the tulip revolution in kyrgyzstan, and a cedar revolution in lebanon that very spring. and then there were the democratic elections in afghanistan, the UAE, and iraq. remember the purple fingers? of course you do!
but sadly those days are over. obama is no liberator and seems to have little to no understanding of what real evil in the world is. his priorities? standing with our enemies, sending terrorists to bermuda, and being incredibly silent on pro-democracy protests happening even now in iran.
.
Kate – I hate to nitpick you but the terrorists were sent to Bermuda, not the Bahamas.
You know how some people will be about that…
Jane says: Excuse me but what do you want the President to do? Use military force? Send in agitators? Weapons? Tanks? Iran is a soverign nation. You don’t just act like “the bully on the block” and butt in to other peoples internal issues! A wait and see attitude is the perfect response in my humble opinion because it says “Do the right thing because we’re watching you”. This is the fundamental problem with Conservatives. They have a shoot first and act later cowboy approach to everything.
And yes it was Bermuda and not the Bahamas.
And yet, Obama really isn’t saying “we are watching you”. He’s just saying he’s worried and deeply concerned – what thinking person wouldn’t be given the circumstances in Iran.
He needs to make a statement to the people of Iran and not the government. Like Reagan did in 1981 for Poland – America stood with the people of Poland during the oppression and uprising of that period. And what happened? Because the people of Poland knew that America respected them and stood with them – they had the courage to make Poland a free nation. America’s support – even if it was initially just words – gave them the courage to stand fast for what they believed in.
Similar words right now could give the Iranian people courage. It’s crazy that the President of the most powerful nation in the world talks about tough diplomacy with Iran, but doesn’t tell the Iranian people that we stand by them.
Remember what happened to the French in this country after 9/11, when they said they were with Americans “in the heart” and did/said nothing else? Remember Freedom Fries?
Americans are much nicer in their condemnation than a Muslim Theocracy will be…
Micky says: “President Barack Obama says he believes supreme leader Ayatollah ali Khamenei has deep concerns about the civil unrest that has followed the hotly contested presidential election there.”
Having the Ayatolla oversee a partial recount of the votes is like having the fox watch the hen house.
jane.
What Obama should do is ask Iran to open the election/results to outside observers so as to establish legitimacy that will only add to and benfit further talks/negotiations if theres going to be any at all. No one said anything about us sending in any military forces or any such thing but Obama could ( maybe not) at least step up to the plate and let them know that what they’re doing is only going to hamper whatever hopes there is of getting diplomatc responses from us in the future as Ahmajinedads legitimacy may always be in question. Can Obama seriously recognize a leader who was not legitimately elected, and if so willing and able to prove it ? should he ?
Kate is absolutley right.
This is the perfect time for Obama to reach out and take advantage of the sentiments of the Iranian people. Hows that go ? “never let a good crisis go to waste “?
Paul says: It is insane to expect President Obama to give what… “words of encouragement” ???? to Iran??? They are a terrorist state. They are not someone a rational person can deal with. Do you want more blood in the streets then what has occured? This, if not dealt with carefully, could blow up the middle east.
PenniePan says: Barack has said the Iranian people need to be heard and respected. He has also expressed concern about the violence happening there dummies. What else should he do? Get a tank and drive it down main street Tehran just like Shrub would have done? Why is it that you conservatives always think you have the corner on the market when it comes to democracy? Why don’t you try to watch something other then Faux News and you might get your facts updated once and a while.
Micky says: Paul.
The words of encouragement need to go to the people. Not the leadership.
Many of the people protesting are the ones who voted for a leadership that doesnt support the terroristic policies presently in place. They are well aware that Ahmajinedads policies are getting them slammed with sanctions that are screwing up their lives.
Paul says: This reminds me of McLame’s “Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran” song. Anyone for the chorus?
Yes Kris, I get that but my point is that Iran is irrational and if they feel threatened by the US, they will take it out on their people.
Micky I wasn’t directing my comments to you. Mind your own business. By the way, no need to repeat what Kris said. I know what she said. I read it and unlike you, I read for comprehension.
Micky says: Pennie, do some research.
Bush is on record many times reaching out to the Iranian people.
When it was discovered that Iran was sending its Kud forces/revolutionary guard and weapons into Iraq to kill Americans and train insurgents how to do the same it was an act of war that justified our doing whatever we wanted to them. It was an act of war. Did we send tanks thru Tehran then ?
“Why is it that you conservatives always think you have the corner on the market when it comes to democracy? ”
Because we believe that it should be available to everyone, and not just those who think like you guys ?
A_Reluctant_Pundit says: Our President doesn’t need to make a stronger statement. If he did, as many Iranian/Mideast experts have pointed out, it’d be used by Ahmadinejad to portray the protestors as tools of the West, and that certainly wouldn’t help the situation.
Micky says: Paul, you didnt make it clear who the hell you were speaking to at all.
As a matter of fact if you learned the distinction between the people of Iran and its leaders you’d be able to make a more intelligent argument to be comprehended.
It is my business to say what I want unless you think you can do something about it. If I bug you so much, ignore me.
“no need to repeat what Kris said. I know what she said. I read it and unlike you, I read for comprehension.”
You talk about comprehension ? I was reaffirming Kates position, not repeating kris.
You guys need to make up your minds.
Either you want Obama to talk with Iran or you dont, which is it ?
First you wanted Obama to sit down with Ahmajinedad.
Now hes a terrorist and should be shunned.
Marsha says: Hello!!??!
The Iranian people I am following on Twitter DISAGREE with you Paul, Jane, PenniePan, Pundit, VEHEMENTLY! Interestingly they are thanking Germany and France (of all damn people) for their strong statements of condemnation. They did not Get real you lefties and wake up about your Messiah.
Marsha says: *grins* My cat distracted me.
“They did not Get real you lefties and wake up about your Messiah.”
Should have said “They did not thank Obama and the United States. Get real you lefties and wake up about your Messiah.”
moonlvr says: Well I think the President struck the right tone. If he were more forcefull it would strengthen the hardliner’s hand possibly resulting in escalated bloodshed. They could spin it domestically as a rebellion fueled by outside interests instead of real democrasy. I thought it was a good statement that Barack made, walking a tightrope of sorts. It’s not easy no matter whose in charge.
PenniePan says: Micky jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.
I know what Shrub did and didn’t do. I was trying to make a point about his style not being necessarily right in this instance. If Barack had gone in with guns blazing, wanting A-jad “Dead or Alive” it would be a nightmare. Do we want a repeat of when the hardliners accused any protest of any kind of any size of being “tools of the Americans” just like in the days of the Shah? People died and disappeared every hour. That would be far worse for democracy in Iran then anything else so wake up and do your own research instead of copying everybody else for god’s sake!!
The President knows what he’s doing. He is taking into account the history of our relations with Iran and its people, and thinking before he speaks. After Shrub, we’re just not used to a president doing that and it will take some time to get used to.
Jane says: I so agree with that Pennie, well said. Measured and calm. I’m so relieved that he’s our president now, instead of another crazy republican.
Yes Moonlovr. Imperialistic comments from us will only result in more bloodshed.
hey jane, pennie, paul, moon, A, whomever:
god jr, The One, is performing so poorly over this iran issue its embarrassing and dangerous!!!!
when the fwench — the stinkin fwench for gosh sakes!! — sound more american then we do on the issues of liberty and democracy we have a grave, grave issue in this country surrounding our own security.
bloodshed??? there has been decades of bloodshed!!!
there is a revolution going on and obama is picking his nose! the people in iran are rising up. obama needs to say something to them! give me a mic! i’ll say it since The Balless one is unable to: the american people are with you. we stand with you. we are praying for your safety. we anxiously wait for you to prevail and will be with you at the end!
was that so hard? my head’s exploding over your incredibly lifeless comments.
Micky says: Penie.
No one said anything about military action except for you.
So, your assertion as to what you think Bush would of done really had no place in the conversation other than for you throw a little crap around, as usual.
You were wrong about Bushs style, I corrected you.
What Bush “would of done” is what he always did which was reach out to the Iranian people as he had done so many times before.
So please, spare me this fake argument of yours that Bush or anyone would go in with “guns a blazing”. No one, and I mean “NO ONE ” has even hinted at invading Iran.
Instead of siding with the people in the street what your gutless leader is doing is standing behind the damn theological dictatorship saying he supports the action of the supreme leader in launching what we all know is an investigation that will be nothing but a farce.
“President Barack Obama says he believes supreme leader Ayatollah ali Khamenei has deep concerns about the civil unrest that has followed the hotly contested presidential election there.”
Could anyone be any more stupid or inconsiderate to the Iranian people ? The Ayatollah is the single most powerful man in that country who will never give up a dictative theocracy and yet this a$$wipe of a president is siding with him.
Measured calm ? More like cautious chicken.
“After Shrub, we’re just not used to a president doing that and it will take some time to get used to.”
Once again, a fake argument. Bush exausted all diplomatic avenues possible with any of our adversaries
You know, George W. Bush is the former president. What he would or wouldn’t have done under the same circumstances is … irrelevant. You people have got to let that go.
Obama is responsible now – God help us – and he needs to respond with more than concern and worry. He needs to let the people of Iran know that America has their back.
It’s the government of Iran that are the terrorists, not the citizens trying to resist a fixed election and misrepresentation.
The Other Brian says: So there may be a way to see if the result are “free and fair.” If they are, we’re in the same quandry as with Gaza. On the one hand we want to promote democracy but we don’t like whom the people chose to govern and lead.
Micky says: As long as its a dictatorship and a theocracy it doesnt matter too much who the president is. The most Musavi could do, who is said to be not all that different from Ahmajinedad is inspire the people to have more of a voice and demand that it be heard. As long as the Ayatollas are calling the shots and have Israel in their crosshairs whoever the president is is just a mouthpiece. Either way, this regime is still going to pursue nuclear arms.
Obama needs to at least make it clear that he is willing to cooperate and support a more moderate leadership than the one in place now, and the people behind it.
The Other Brian says: Right on the money, Micky
lisab says: “I get that but my point is that Iran is irrational” Paul
so then you believe iran must not get nuclear weapons? iran being irrational and all.
lisab says: “I get that but my point is that Iran is irrational ” paul
soooo … that means you think iran should be stopped from getting the nuclear bomb? iran being irrational and all.
Micky says: “So there may be a way to see if the result are “free and fair.” If they are, we’re in the same quandry as with Gaza. On the one hand we want to promote democracy but we don’t like whom the people chose to govern and lead.”
Whats interesting or at least needs to be noted is that the Palestinians leadership is is Iran by proxy of Hamas.
With the Palestinians you have a much larger majority of rigid Islamic tradionalists and radicals that support the type of radical actions that Iran pays Hamas to perfrom.
When it comes to Hamas which holds the majority in its parliament and the Iranian parliament theres not a whole lot of difference other than the amount of support the radical majority gets from the people. In Gaza with the Palestinians we see the people holding a larger majority to support radicalism than we do with the much younger and less traditional majority in Iran. Many of the problems with Hamas applying it radicalism towards Israel and westerners could be solved by Obama doing what he can to support or help guide into place a leadership in Iran thats willing to take a stronger approach at instituting democratic policies and human rights. Thats what the majority of people in Iran want as that majority is made of people who are under 35 and do not want to live under archaic Islamic rule.
But, then again, it doesnt look like Obama gives a rats a$$ about Israel
Ann Flowers says: This should be left up to the UN. The US over threw their democratic government in 1953. Ahmadinejad is just waiting for Obama to stick his nose in so that he can blame the revolution on the US and condone his nukes. If you were president and had all of the facts that we are not privy to, you would also use caution in order to keep peace between th US and Iran.
Tehran did not accelerate its nuclear efforts until they saw how we whacked Iraq but spared Kim Jong of North Korea. We included them in the axis of evil, after they had helped us intercept jihadists fleeing Afghanistan. It looked we were spoiling for a fight, itching to “kick posterior”. In their mind, the difference was simple: Pyongyang had nuclear power, Saddam did not. We picked on the weak. Then they figured, may be if they armed up, we’ll let them be. Despicable as the regime is, remember this. Iran has never attacked anyone in its history.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2kyXN4ZVQg
Yes we need to let Tehran know it cannot and will not acquire the “bomb”. In exchange, Tehran needs to know it is not going to be attacked again by any of our proxies in the region as Saddam did in the 80s.
Micky says: Ahmadinejad is just waiting for Obama to stick his nose in so that he can blame the revolution on the US and condone his nukes.”
Its too late.
Even the limp wristed statements that Obama has issued have already been used by Ahmajinedad and the supreme leader to say that America is feeding the revolution. It doesn’t matter who says what, how inflammatory or benign it may be these schmucks will blame everyone except there own tyrannical leadership.
“Tehran did not accelerate its nuclear efforts until they saw how we whacked Iraq ”
Since they’re goal has always been to eliminate Israel our attacking Iraq had little to do with their motivation for developing a nuke. Hastening the arrival of the 12th Imam has been an objective goal of Iran’s leaders for decades now.
N. Korea had no nuclear power during the time you reference but rather was in the beginning stages of its development during the initial invasion of Iraq.
” remember this. Iran has never attacked anyone in its history.”
Remember this, Iran has sent revolutionary guards and Kud forces into Iran to attack and kill Americans, arm and train insurgencies.
Iran presently funds and supports Hamas and Hezzbola. Two violent terroristic organizations that attack innocents in a sovereign nation on a daily basis.
“In exchange, Tehran needs to know it is not going to be attacked again by any of our proxies in the region as Saddam did in the 80s.”
The don’t care, unless this regime is replaced they will seek nuclear weapons regardless of any deals we broker.
The UN ? Good luck with that.
Iran theocratic dictatorship is the bad guy.
get it ?
“This should be left up to the UN.”
Yes, because the U.N. has such stunning success when dealing with rogue and hostile nations. Please see Iraq, N. Korea, Somalia, etc. Their track record is horrible. Nobody said we should invade, but a stronger response in support of freedom and democracy would have been nice, that’s all we’re saying.
“Ahmadinejad is just waiting for Obama to stick his nose in so that he can blame the revolution on the US and condone his nukes.”
He’s already telling the Brits and the U.S. to STOP meddling in their affairs and he was working on getting nukes long before B.O. ever showed up.
“If you were president and had all of the facts that we are not privy to, you would also use caution in order to keep peace between th US and Iran. ”
Yet so many were ready and willing to bash Bush without knowing “all of the facts”.
“Tehran did not accelerate its nuclear efforts until they saw how we whacked Iraq but spared Kim Jong of North Korea.”
Please provide a link to information supporting that fact.
“We included them in the axis of evil, after they had helped us intercept jihadists fleeing Afghanistan.”
Again, this is the first I have heard of this, please provide a link.
“In their mind, the difference was simple: Pyongyang had nuclear power, Saddam did not.”
No, but they believed Saddam had chemical/biological weapons which can be just as deadly. The reason N. Korea wasn’t treated the same was it’s alliance with China. Iraq’s biggest ally was France. See the difference?
“We picked on the weak.”
Only in the mind of someone who is completely clueless of history would think that getting rid of Saddam was “picking on the weak”.
“Iran has never attacked anyone in its history.”
Wrong again.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16825943/
“The policy came in response to intelligence that Iran is supporting terrorists inside Iraq and is providing bombs — known as improvised explosive devices — and other equipment to anti-U.S. insurgents.”
As Micky has stated, Iran has been responsible for the killing of U.S. soldiers, an act of war in and of itself. Iranian backed Hezbollah was responsible for killing over 280 Marines as they slept in their barracks in Beirut in 1983. Don’t tell me Iran hasn’t attacked anyone. To do so is to show incredible naivete.
“Yes we need to let Tehran know it cannot and will not acquire the “bomb”.”
So, that’s your plan. Tell Iran, “You will not be allowed to acquire “the bomb”. What then? As they continue their march towards completeing a nuke, what do we do? Your plan is that of a child. Tell them “no!” in a strong and stern voice?
God help us all.
No Comments