Comments on: Looks Like Biden, Clinton and Repubs All Want Firmer Stance From Obama on Iran

By: the obama effect…? : NO QUARTER

the obama effect…? : NO QUARTER — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:06:03 +0000

[...] Even Hillary Clinton and Biden favored a firmer tone in support of the protesters. [...]

By: Puma for Life

Puma for Life — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:48:28 +0000

Remember, whatever Obama is saying, he is actually doing the opposite. So, when I heard him say we would not meddle in Iran, I immediately assumed that was exactly what we were doing. I find it hard to believe all of those students were just waiting to protest something and that the opposition leader is being so brave and risking his death completely on his own. No way…this smacks of CIA to me. Like, the protestors have signs in English? No way, CIA, that’s my predicton. And very interesting, since Obama has everyone’s heads spinning. The conservatives want us to meddle, the liberals are against CIA meddling, and it is exactly the opposite that is happening…we are meddling. That’s my bet. Larry, what is your opinion?

By: stodgie

stodgie — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:06:53 +0000

ahmedinejad, NO WAY IN HELL!

By: NomNomNom

NomNomNom — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:12:51 +0000

Mousavi was 2x prime minister under Ayatollah Khomeini. He stood there with his arms folded while between 8,000 and 30,000 persons were executed for political opposition. Montaverdi, Khomeini’s designated successor lost his position for speaking out against Khomeini. Mousavi either didn’t have the guts to speak out or agreed with Khomeini. I don’t want the US to support a man who is either gutless or a backer of Khomeini’s policies.
It doesn’t improve matters that he’s : certified as an acceptable candidate by the Grand Council, a founder of Hezbollah, and a founder of MOIS, the Iranian version of the CIA. He’s not a f#cking reformer. He’s not any better than Ahmedinejad, and he might even be worse. For once BHO isn’t screwing up by backing this nutjob. New election, sure! Open election to more than candidates sanctified by the Grand council, absolutely! Mousavi: no way in hell.

By: Docelder

Docelder — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:53:47 +0000

On the bright side, Jimmy Carter is moving up one place in the standings.

By: Pablo Cruz

Pablo Cruz — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:50:59 +0000

Wow — even Henry Kissinger agrees with Obama’s stance on Iran:

“I think the president has handled this well. Anything that the United States says that puts us totally behind one of the contenders, behind Mousavi, would be a handicap for that person. And I think it’s the proper position to take that the people of Iran have to make that decision.”

By: VinceP

VinceP — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:53:13 +0000

Obama is a guy who attended a “church” that printed the entire text of the HAMAS charter in its bulletin.

There should be no mystery where his allegiances are directed and what his values are.

By: brendy

brendy — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:38:12 +0000

What do you expect from a man who always voted “present” as a jr. senator? Obummer does NOT want to take a stand - he does NOT want to be held accoutable for ANYTHING!!!!! Therefore, just his being ‘present’ in the oval office is enough (and ALL he wants) for him!!!!

By: VinceP

VinceP — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:22:29 +0000

The Shah was already in power before the rise of Mosaddeq. He only left Tehran because of American assurances that his authority would be protected from Mosaddeq’s agenda.

By: gas safety london

gas safety london — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:56:32 +0000

If so, then let him be more definitive about it — listen to him. He is even tepid in his not wanting to get involved. How about the President sharing some reasoning? No one is asking him to promote one regime over another but he can ask for restraint and the wish that people are not harmed. He can speak to the violence happening there.

By: trixta

trixta — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:30:37 +0000

The Shah of Iran was installed in a coup as a puppet by the US/British, replacing the democratically elected Prime Minister Moussadegh (see http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Mohhamed_Moussadeq/) The Shah’s regime was anti-democratic and infamous for its brutality, so a return to an Iranian monarchy is not the answer either.

Under the Shah, many Iranians were executed, disappeared, and tortured by his intelligence organization, the SAVAC which would seek people out for the slightest infractions. The Savac had actually come for my Ex in the middle of the night, but he had already left for the US. What was my Ex’s infraction? Walking in the streets with with more than one person — three or more persons were considered a national security threat.

By: trixta

trixta — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:58:24 +0000

This is not about Mousavi–this unrest has been building in Iran for a long time.

Yes!

By: trixta

trixta — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:44:08 +0000

Elizabeth, you are absolutely right. Iran was already leaning pro-democracy before GWB, but because of the Iraq War turned to the hardliner Ahmadinajad. Many Iranians who had fled the Shah’s brutal regime in the late seventies and immigrated to the USA, returned to their homeland (or visited regularly) with a positive view of this country and of American life in general. Many of these Iranians had married American citizens. Over several decades, this transnational community more than anything is responsible for turning the tide toward a more modern, pro-democratic Iran. I saw this first hand, since my ex-husband (of over a decade) was Iranian, and we were very much involved in the transnational Iranian community in Northern California. In reality, Bush and his neo-con policies were responsible for the election of Ahmadinajad and the ensuing hostility toward the US (and the West in general).

By: Ani

Ani — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:43:33 +0000

Interesting. As if Biden and Hill had a little chat about this and decided to let a little birdie leak their names for the article. Sounds about right.

By: John (from Liberal Rapture)

John (from Liberal Rapture) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:37:54 +0000

My hunch: Biden and Clinton are cornering Obama. Obama is in a much weaker position than is clear in the media.

Biden is a gas bag but he has been around a very long time and knows how to play the game when he wants to. Clinton is one of the best at this type of media power play. I think both know Obama’s stance on Iran is untenable in the long run. They are wiser than him. Obama finds this issue an annoyance now. The “year end ” timeline for Iran serves Obama not American policy. He wants it to go away until December.

Clinton and Biden know better. Oh, they also have principles - Clinton most always and Biden sometimes. Obama never relies on principle. Only charm.

By: fif

fif — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:35:05 +0000

If it was just this one incident, you might have a legitimate argument, but this ambivalence and lack of clear leadership is a pattern with Obama. When are people going to stop with the rationalizations for everything he does? When does he take responsibility?

By: fif

fif — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:25:07 +0000

Another great comment. NOQ readers rock!

By: fif

fif — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:15:58 +0000

Very well said. I agree completely.

By: fif

fif — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:14:16 +0000

This is not about Mousavi–this unrest has been building in Iran for a long time. People have been pushing for more moderate leadership. Mousavi is not that person either–none of the candidates were–but for people to be risking their lives like this to protest is revolutionary in itself and they should know that the U.S. is with them in their desire for a new way forward.

By: Al

Al — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:12:55 +0000

An excellent assessment