the obama effect…?
By American Girl in Italy on June 23, 2009 at 8:05 AM in Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud, Current Affairs, Foreign Affairs, Iran, John McCain, Media Handling of Story, Obama Administration, Sara in Italy, World News
I have been following the coverage of Iran this past week, listening to both sides, those who think Obama is setting the right tone by staying out of it, and those who think he is not being strong enough - basically voting present. Now, I assume that Obama is listening to many experts, people who know a hell of a lot more than I do, and he is doing what they recommend - staying out of it. But, I can also see value in setting a firmer tone, in support of Moussavi’s supporters.
“On this issue, I do not believe that the president is taking a leadership (role) that is incumbent upon an American president, which we have throughout modern history, and that is to advocate for human rights and freedom — and free elections are one of those fundamentals,” the Arizona Republican McCain told CNN’s “American Morning.”
Even Hillary Clinton and Biden favored a firmer tone in support of the protesters.
There have been many Iranians with differing points of views as well. Some think Obama should stay out of it, others not so much.
“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. 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.
And, people need to know that if they do not stand by the Iranian people shoulder to shoulder right now, that they themselves will come face to face with this very regime. And if this regime is allowed to have a nuclear weapon it will do the exact same thing with the entire world. This regime does not represent the people of Iran. And, morally the people of the world need to support the people of Iran and not what the regime wants.”
After viewing the video from the Daily Show that Larry posted this past weekend, I had an idea about what I wanted to write. I held off though, still unsure, but after seeing Morning Joe this morning, I figured it out.
Obama made this statement the other day:
“We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran and obviously, after the speech that I made in Cairo, we tried to send a clear message that we think there’s a possibility of change. And ultimately, the election is for the Iranians to decide. But just as what has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well, is that you’re seeing people looking at new possiblities. And whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there’s been a robust debate hopefully will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways.”
And then I saw this segment from Morning Joe:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Chuck Todd said in this video that the Obama administration is disturbed that the Cairo speech, which had resonance isn’t getting enough credit. He said they felt that Cairo speech “helped stiffen the backbone of the folks in Iran”….
So, what Chuck is saying, and Joe reiterates, and what Obama believes, is that his speech made a difference - that the speech inspired the youth in Lebanon and Tehran.
And the media, as witnessed in the Jon Stewart video, was more than happy to tie Obama’s speech to the uprising of *hope and change* in Iran. The “Obama Effect” they called it.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Indecision 2009 - Everywhere but Here Edition | ||||
|
||||
So, it seems pretty clear the media and the Obama White House all support the belief that Obama’s Cairo speech was a catalyst in the revolution that is now happening in Iran.
Personally, I doubt Obama’s speech is responsible, or perhaps even a factor, for the massive uprising in Iran, but for the sake of argument, let’s say it is. What if the election of Obama, and the outreach to Muslim countries, and the idea that the US wants to mend the relationships with countries like Iran, and his Cairo speech did inspire them (as Obama and the media believe)? What if it was the final push they needed to rise up?
What kind of message are we now sending them?
“America’s position in the world is one of moral leadership. It’s not about what takes place in the streets of Iran. It is about what takes place in America’s conscience.”
In Cairo, Obama spoke of freedom and liberty, and change and hope, but when the youth of Iran rose up and stood up for Democracy and change, and fair elections, Obama seemingly bails on them. Isn’t that a bit like lighting a fire then running away once the fire starts to burn? Where is the follow through? Doesn’t this seem like a typical Obama move?
I understand the opinions from the Left, that the US can’t be seen as influencing the election, or meddling in their affairs. I get that point. And as Larry said here, he believes Obama is doing the right thing. I said before I’m sure Obama is listening to many experts, advising him to stay out of it. There are many who disagree, but that always seems to be the case.
“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, emphasizing Obama’s longer-term goal of engaging Iran over its nuclear program.”
But, wasn’t the media, and the WH, just about a week ago, touting the Obama Effect, and crediting Obama for starting these movements for change? Isn’t that like going around to factory after factory, and getting the union workers all riled up for a strike, and then not showing up for the strike?
They wanted to sell the idea that Obama had an effect on the movement, even Obama tried to point to his Cairo speech as a catalyst. But, when the revolution began, Obama said he couldn’t meddle…?
By not taking sides, isn’t Obama letting down hundreds of thousands (millions?) of young people who are literally dying for change in Iran? If he did indeed set in motion this call for change, what message is he sending to them now?
That it doesn’t matter, we’re fine with whoever wins, because there is no difference between Ahmadinijad and Mousavi?
“It also followed a wrong note from Obama last week, when he said he saw little difference between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hard-liner who claims a landslide re-election mandate, and his conservative but pro-reform challenger. That left the impression that Obama discounted the votes of Mir Hossein Mousavi’s supporters or the bravery of protesters who marched to say their votes were stolen.”
Yes, the “Supreme Leader” still dominates areas of the political landscape in Iran, but isn’t the election of/revolution for Mousavi a good thing? The fact that millions of Iranians are voting for, and fighting for change seems to be a very positive step, for the future of Iran, I would think. Even if the policies are not drastically different, it is a move in the right direction, no?
So, how can we not stand with the protesters, and the young people of Iran, who are the future (and 70%)of that country? How can we as a country not take their side? The Left seems to think that Obama’s speech in Cairo is partly responsible for this uprising - so shouldn’t he now be responsible for standing beside them?
I would think if the Iranians who support change look for reaction from the White House, (and around the world) and perceive the support as weak, that would damage our relationship moving forward. If we are seen as willing to work with just anyone, even someone who steals elections, and kills those who oppose the results, won’t the new generation of Iranians turn against us, too?
How can we heal the divide if we bail on them in their most crucial hour? They are taking a stand, and dying for change. Don’t we owe it to them to show the world that we stand beside them? (Especially if, as the media said, it was the Obama Effect that ignited them….)
Iran is already blaming us for interfering.
“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called on the United States and Britain on Sunday to stop interfering in the Islamic Republic’s internal affairs, the ISNA news agency was cited by Reuters.
“Definitely by hasty remarks you will not be placed in the circle of friendship with the Iranian nation. Therefore I advise you to correct your interfering stances,” Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying in a meeting with clerics and scholars.”
Obama hasn’t even said anything, and yet is blamed for interfering. (There’s just no reasoning with some people…)
Do we really still plan to just sit down, and have some tea with Ahmadinejad, obviously a madman, if at the end of this, he is still in power? Won’t that breed a new generation that distrusts/hates America? Do we ignore who we are, and what we stand for because we want to sit down with one mad man? Won’t we damage our relationship with Iran, for the long term? And doesn’t sitting down with him, after this is over, if he is still in power, legitimize his (stolen) power?
If the media wants to believe that Obama sparked this revolution, shouldn’t he be responsible for supporting their cause?
Don’t we owe it to the young people of Iran to show them that we are with them, that we stand with them, that we support Democracy, and that we are there for them? That we are more than just rhetoric, and pretty speeches.
Like I said in the beginning of this post, Obama is taking the advice of experts, and they certainly know a lot more than I. But, if Obama wants credit for his speech in Cairo, if the media wants to claim Obama had an Effect on this election, and the uprising, then shouldn’t Obama take a firmer stand? Not just offer his usual line of being saddened, troubled, or disappointed.
Obama said Monday he was “deeply troubled” by the violent protests that followed Friday’s vote, which official results show resulted in the re-election of hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But he avoided siding with Ahmadinejad’s opponents, telling reporters that “It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be.”
Tuesday, he added, “It’s not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling, the U.S. president meddling in Iranian elections.”
I don’t know, I just feel like, in this crucial fight for *change* we should offer the Iranians some *hope*.
“America has a moral responsibility to stand up for these brave people, to defend human rights, and to condemn the violence and abuses by the regime in Tehran.”
Bottom line, Obama is probably doing the right thing, as recommended by the experts. I’m sure he has been advised on what to say, and the best approach to take. (I do think he made a massive gaffe by saying there was no difference between the two leaders.) But, if the WH and the media want to play the *Obama Effect* game then they shouldn’t walk it back when the going gets tough.
“It is an Iranian moment, spurred on by Iranians, thoroughly supported by Iranians to the degree that the supreme ayatollah has now backed off his own support for the elections (and) called for an investigation,” John Kerry said.
My personal wish is that we were stronger in our support of the *revolution* and that we reached out more to the protestors. I wish we would have showed them our solidarity in their quest for change, and supported their right for fair elections. I wish we could have done more. I only hope that they know we are behind them, and we hope for a better tomorrow.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
I caught that same Morning Joe comment, the White House wants credit for lighting the match for dissonance but doesn’t want to fan the flames. What a bunch of hypocrites. He needs to take a stronger stand in support. A Tear Down this Wall moment but it will never happen, he still thinks he can talk the regime out of nuclear arms. His ego is so big, he thinks he can charm the mullahs. HE wants to be the leader of the whole world, he just needs to be the leader of the free world.
“the White House wants credit for lighting the match for dissonance but doesn’t want to fan the flames”
now that’s the metaphor I needed! Linda corrected my earlier one, and I revised it, but you nailed it. I knew there was a metaphor in there somewhere, but couldn’t get it right! :O)
yep. Dawn nailed it perfectly.
If he wanted credit then maybe Obama should have the backbone to stand behind his words in his Cairo speech:
Then look at what he has said or has not said concerning this event in Iran. Words should matter and in Obama’s case his timid approach is an indictment of his knack for self-serving empty words. He will regret this moment when his own words and lack of leadership come back to haunt him.
Obama is singularly focused on himself and placing himself over the interests of the United States. It’s about him and him only.
The reasons for what is happening in Iran have to do with: (1) a horrific economic situation (about 40% unemployment reported),(2) imminent war with Israel over Ahmadinejad’s nuclear weapon development and lunatic rhetoric (which they do not want), and (3) they are exposed to what has transpired in other Mulsim countries where there is more freedom.
Obama’s speech? He’s a fraud.
Don’t you mean dissidence instead of dissonance?
dis·si·dence (ds-dns)
Disagreement, as of opinion or belief; dissent.
dis·so·nance (ds-nns)
1. A harsh, disagreeable combination of sounds; discord.
2. Lack of agreement, consistency, or harmony; conflict: “In Vietnam, reality fell away and dissonance between claim and fact filled the void” (Michael Janeway).
3. Music A combination of tones contextually considered to suggest unrelieved tension and require resolution.
Main Entry: dissonance
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: disagreement
Synonyms: antagonism, conflict, contention, controversy, difference, disaccord, discord, discrepancy, disharmony, disparity, dissension, dissidence, incongruity, inconsistency, strife, variance
Yes!
Obummer’s overblown Ego is guiding his agenda here. Another flip-flop and huge inconsistency between his words and his actions.
Just read Ann APPLEBAUM’S Washington Post’s column today:
“An Overlooked Force in Iran”—WOMEN’s grassroots organizations are the ones responsible for this uprising in Tehran. Not Obama’s timidly veiled speech that didn’t have the guts to discuss women’s human rights and hid behind the burqa~~~!!Shame on this clown!
Periodically, when he feels down he’ll be launching attacks….too late for this bitter Sweetie and LORD OF THE FLIES!
Thanks, Mary! Great article!
As long as he doesn’t try and take credit for it if the iranians have revolution and kick Imadinnerjacket out of office he can do what he wants. But our dear leader doesn’t get to keep his mouth shut and then try to take credit for it because of his unHistoric Cairo Speach when he refuses to tell this regime to go to hell for what it is doing it is doing to it’s own people. My issue with Obama is not him keeping quiet and playing it safe. My issue is him keeping quiet and then trying to take credit for something he had nothing to do with. Credit goes where it is do, and in the case of Iran he is due none. Let the record be taken that Obama said nothing while these people are being slaughtered and let that be what it is no matter what happens and i will happily move on with my life. What the hell do i care? He’s got enough to take care of at home he doesn’t need to be Obama the global citizen.
Did anyone catch the presidential debate between these two guys. The guy they are fighting for isn’t a friend of the U.S. In fact, that was the main difference between the two of them in the election.
I find it ironic that most people use the freedom thing. They aren’t fighting for democracy. Their government will not change. They still will have the same one, just a different political diplomat. Their government will still be run by a theological body. They are fighting to change to a more religous conservative head that wants to take a tougher stance on America. If you have any doubts here is the debate they had on the national TV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJBA7PJSWQA
But this has become bigger than Mousavi to the protesters. And he appears to be the best that was allowed to run, and he is NOT Ahmadinejad. The protesters are now yelling death to ayatolla.
it seems to me, in a situation where the ayatolla chooses the candidates, they have tried to pick the best of the bunch, and it has now become bigger than one man… When you listen to the protesters, it is about freedom and democracy.
If the government will change, hopefully this will do it, or at least get it started.
Looking at all those faces, I don’t believe they want to continue to be repressed, and stifled.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/michael_ledeen_mousavi/2009/06/21/227538.html
Sounds like the 2000 elections to me. And that didn’t stop dems from getting angry when they thought Bush cheated. How aobut clinton voters? Sure their was distinct difference between her and Obama, but if you listened their views where the same even though Obama was a about popularity not clear plans. Its not about the winners belief systems it about not being listened too. when our founding fathers wrote the declaration of independents and faught the Revolutionary war, no one had a clear plan of exsactly how they wanted to run their country, they just knew they were sick of the Brits and wanted them out. They even tried the ARticles of the Confederation which didn’t work, because of a marade of reasons, and so they created our present form of government.. It’s amazing how dems and republicans are so short sighted in alternating varibles. These people are fed up nd that is all they need to be. If they over comes this, do you really believe, they wouldn’t have the courage to confront another leader. these people have been so beatened down by these this regiem they doubt their own strengh. Once they figure that out, their leaders will seriously need to watch out. .personally I wish them a good luck. They have my moral support, and i hope they start some French Revolution whoop ass on these people who have treated them so creully for all these years.
2000 Election?
You mean
2008 Nomination Fraud (Fla/Michigan) where Hillary got cheated royally by the Great Fly-Killer of the Western World??
Actually i was talking about the notion that Bush cheated in the national election and there was’t much difference between him and Gores platform. We’ve had serveral incidents in the past few years where elections have been called into question. Doesn’t stop us from rising up even if their is no visible diffeence in the candidates. IT’s not bout the candidate it’s about not being listened to.
AGinI,
Again, thanks for the most excellent and well-reasoned post.
Obama’s attempt to play both sides of any issue can’t last forever–at least we can “hope.” I was annoyed with some commenters who did not want to support the demonstrators because they felt those demonstrators’ support of Mousavi using the same slogans that Obama used in the primary and GE showed they were being played.
Your post makes it clear to me how Obama has stolen those ideas from us. Hope, change, the feeling that “we can do it”–if we state any of these ideals now, are we going to be branded as obots, or like obots? Will we be seen as people who are naive and gullible? I still want to be abe to have hope for change and for the empowerment of people everywhere.
You’re absolutely right, you can’t claim to give people hope for change and empowerment and then say, like Emily Letilla always did, “Never mind.”
I agree with those, on the other hand, that if you’re going to saber rattle with your speeches, you can’t then also say, “never mind” because you’re not prepared to provide the sabers.
I will say it again: The thing that bothered me most about the statements he did make in support of the demonstrators’ right to question the fairness of the voting and their right to free expression is that I would have to hear it from his lying, hypocritical lips, given our experiences here in regard to the primary, another election that was probaby more of a “selection” by party big wigs.
His statements were made of the right, measured words but coming from the lips of a person whose words can’t ever be trusted.
And the points made in the clips about the terrible partisanship that continues in this country are important. Why hasn’t our great uniter, the person who was going to bring us all together kept that promise either?
thanks Diane. :O)
posted this link late last night, pardon re-post, not sure anyone saw it:
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/irans-leading-lady-mujahida-to-the-last-drop-of-her-blood/
Mousavi is a founder of their CIA, MOIS; he is a founder of Hezbollah; between 8 and 30,000 political dissidents were murdered while he was PM. He is not a reformer. His wife is not a feminist. Their ideology is not pro-democracy.
Here is the picture I mentioned last week of Mousavi’s wife stomping on the American, UK, and Israeli flags. It is from this campaign: this is not an old picture.
Creeping Sharia beat me to locating it (darn-but-thx, CS!!).
Before looking at it, ask yourself why a several weeks old photo of this import has not reached our media sooner, and whether you think you will be seeing it anytime soon on FOX or anyplace else that likes to suggest that there is a fundamental difference between Ahmedinejad and Mousavi.
BHO is for once, doing the right thing.
Zahra Rahnavard, the wife of Iranian presidential candidate, In the photograph below, she is stomping on the Israeli, United States, and U.K. flags. Her caimpaign efforts on behalf of her husband have led some U.S. media sources to refer to her as Iran’s Michelle Obama.
Stomping on a US flag, and they call her Michelle Obama? Sounds about right… ;O)
peas in a pod
george bush and the liberation of Iraq is what planted the seed of freedom…..the Iranians could see it right next door….they liked it. say what you want about bush….but his effort in Iraq will be looked at very favorably by historians
Mark - your remarks echo my Iranian friend’s - he loved Bush. He found him inspiring and hoped that Bush would push on into Iran. My friend’s sister had been imprisoned (and still is, as far as I know) for speaking out for women’s rights. My friend returned to Iran two years ago and we have heard very little from him since. But he said many times while he was here, the people of Iran were ready to revolt and were inspired by Bush’s actions in Iraq.
texasmirth, if this would have happened on bush’s watch….the democracy movement would be overpowering the regime
oh gawd that’s rich
roflmao
um not
Texas Mirth
Ask your friend to read Washington Post’s column today “AN OVERLOOKED FORCE IN IRAN” on IRANIAN WOMEN’S ORGANIZATIONS by Ann Applebaum
It’s the women’s revolution that brought this outpouring of humanity in the streets, not the FLy-Swatter Prez’s timidly veiled Burqua speech!
Chris Hitchens–a man I love to hate, and hate to love just as often–has a few things to say about this issue at Slate, and I think in this instance, he’s right:
http://www.slate.com/id/2221020/
Great Hitchens article, thanks.
Yes, an interesting and thought-provoking read.
I feel the same way about Hitchens, but I agree that in this article, he’s probably right. Thanks for the link.
yes hitchens can hit them out of the ball park. more’s the pity it isn’t more often. i would say he has some insightful views on iran. and his point about the mullah’s views is accurate with the exception perhaps of sistani.
Better article by Chris Hedges in Oped News:
“Iran had a Democracy before…..” an alternate perspective! Amazing historic tour de force and more accurate than Hitchens! In l953 western democratic governments conspired to throw out the democratically elected (and most loved) Iranian president Mohammed Mossadegh. Why? So they could install Puppet Shah of Iran who’d take bribes from oil co’s and do as he was told. It’s Shah’s brutality reign that brought the poor Iranians the Khomeni monsters!
I do have a soft spot in my heart for Chris Hedges. I’ve read all of his books, and the man holds a special place in my heart for his perspectives. I admire him greatly, so thanks for tossing his name into the conversation.
That said, I just read this very interesting tidbit about Mousavi at CQPolitics, by Jeff Stein [who I confess I'm not familiar with, so don't shoot the messenger, please]:
Mousavi: The Butcher of Beirut
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/2009/06/mousavi-celebrated-in-iranian.html
I agree, mountainaires. I read some backup material on Mousavi and was appalled by his history. Unfortunately for the Iranians, the choice they have is between the devil and the deep blue sea–the current weasel or the “Butcher of Beirut.” And though I’m “not” an Obama fan, I really think that’s where the statement about neither of these choices being good or different came from.
And ultimately, it’s an Iranian decision.
I read that right before I posted my story, and I wanted to link it somewhere, but couldn’t find the right place. I figured someone would post it, or write it up, anyway.
Anne Applebaum at WaPo has another word for the “obama Effect.”
Amerocentric.
http://www.slate.com/id/2221033/
More like Obamacentric. Why is everyone covering Iran? Did Obama stop going out for hamburgers?
He may yet turn out to be the avatar of Iranian democracy, but three decades ago Mir-Hossein Mousavi was waging a terrorist war on the United States that included bloody attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut.
http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/spytalk/2009/06/mousavi-celebrated-in-iranian.html
Obama’s pander-a-thon Cairo speech is the reason they are on the streets in Iran?
He is a shameless self promoter with absolutely no dignity.
The real shame is that his antics seem to work on the American electorate so well.
Shame on us for letting him be our representative.
Yes; shame on us. While millions of people are angry with BO for being POTUS, I reserve my ire for the millions of people who (effectively) elected him.
Wondering aloud if Obama is quiety positioning himself to win the President Jimmy Carter Award for striking out in matters pertaining to Iran. Yes, in fairness to Mr. Carter and his administration, he was caught off-guard with a sudden uprising and the subsequent capture of 444 American hostages…and, like Mr. Carter, Obama has been caught flat-footed by the Iranian election results and subsequent aftermath 30yrs later. Will it take another Ronald Reagan to step up to the plate to get things right in Iran? Carter-Reagan & Obama-?
Or will Obama get off the fence, set aside his teleprompter and actually take a stand for once without the benefit of reading scrolling words telling him what to say and do? The parroting words act is growing old while innocent humans are being slaughtered for standing up for civil liberties and human rights.
Yes, I am terribly worried now as I read reports that the government in Iran has promised to let its courts deal with the demonstrators. I hope everyone here will realize the real bravery of the demonstrators. I would feel real terror if I had to face Iran’s court system.
I pray for them all. I wish for a way to get twitter, MySpace, Facebook, email, cellphone cameras into every court proceeding.
the problem is that many of obama’s advisors are the same ones that helped get carter in trouble including carter piping up now too with bad advice i’ll wager.
americangirl, don’t assume that obama has better information or advice than your own common sense. your own analysis and thinking sound more in line with reality than what i see coming from the wh.
I (heart) stodgie.
;O)
I noticed in his press conference that Obama always refers to himself - first person - when it is something he feels he can take credit for.
But when he needs to create distance for himself on contentious issues he uses “we.”
totally does that!
Correction: That would be 52 hostages held for 444 days, I often see this mistake made.
But it’s good that you brought it up. Carter’s weakness encouraged the captors, and his efforts to rescue them were a miserable and embarrassing failure. The hostages were released when it was apparent that Reagan would be the next President. Reagan didn’t need to do anything for this too happen, because the captors believed he WOULD do something based upon his firm and credible statements to that effect. Reagan only needed to verbally take a strong position to get the results that he wanted. Obama probably missed this whole episode while in a drug induced stupor.
In the current situation, Obama is Carter’s mimic. The Mullahs don’t fear him, and the only thing they may have to lose by crushing their citizens, is the 4th of July invitation to the Whitehouse for potato salad and hotdogs. Contrary to what Larry Johnson has stated, I believe that Obama has missed an historic opportunity to strongly condemn the Mullahs, and pledge any support possible to the valiant protesters in their efforts to bring about a more representative and less opressive government. The movement for a better government in Iran has over run the candidates, and they are no longer the issue. How much farther do you think the movement would go if they believed that a US led group of nations were committed to support them? Also, wouldn’t such a pledge knock the Mullahs back on their heals, and perhaps force them to moderate their actions?
The Obama effect? Could that be what is rapidly expanding global unrest, and encouraging all sorts of thugs to crawl out of their holes to cause trouble? Neville Chamberlain was Rambo compared to Obama. The Obama effect should be called the invertebtrate effect.
This Iranian protest issue and why the Usurper is hush about it…. it seems so blatantly obvious to me, but am I the only one who sees this? I think they all agree that the Iranian election results are fraudulent and that Akmandinajad winning is illegitimate, but the Usurper knows that he can not say anything about that, because he is fully aware that Iran will strike back and say….”well, the US election is a fraud as well, given that YOUR President refuses to show his eligibility!”
Come on now, there is no doubt that the world is aware of the uproar from the American people, it’s all over the internet, and no doubt that they have been muttering this behind closed doors…..it is their trump card, and the Usurper knows it. Because he is a fraud, and refuses to prove his eligibility, he has now made the wonderful United States complete unable to rise up and speak for liberty and freedom.
And we have allowed him to do that.
Of course the Iranian results are a fraud. What surprises me most is that I did not know that ACORN had offices in Iran?
I thought about that too. hahah He doesn’t want to draw any attention to the matter of *fraudulent elections* heheh
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062202387.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
The protests in Iran are a “Women`s Movement.”
Screw Dr. Utopia!
http://www.sign4change.info/english/spip.php?article537
Stop the Repression of Iran’s Women and Men
Release All Detainees
Although the non-democratic tenth presidential election was one of the most promising elections for bringing about peaceful change, what ensued afterward gave rise to widespread protests by the public.
Alongside civil and political rights activists, labor activists, students, journalists, and ethnic rights activists, a large spectrum of women’s rights activists from several campaigns and tendencies also participated in the election in order to say “no” to a government with a discriminatory orientation and to demand an end to gender discrimination.
A hope for change brought millions of women and men to ballot boxes, but the official results transformed this hope into despair and led to widespread demonstrations by the population. The response of the establishment to these protests has been blatant violence, beating, bloodying, injuring, and killing innocent citizens, and the arrest of human rights lawyers and activists, civil and political activists, journalists, students and ethnic rights activists.
Repressive forces, including those who give and those who carry out the orders, once again assaulted universities and dormitories in bloody fashion calling to the minds of all Iranians tired of violence the bitter memories of the events of July 9th 1999 in [Tehran] University dorms. Reports indicate that a significant number of female and male students have been killed, injured, arrested, or are missing across several Iranian cities.
In addition, the blocking of phone and internet communication channels has minimized access to information and and has distressed and disrupted the public psyche. Through complete control of the media, especially all radio and television broadcasting, the establishment is whipping up anger in the population by portraying those who protest and criticize its totalitarian behavior as hooligans and rioters. Meanwhile, without paying any heed to their rights, the state is subjecting people to various forms of brutal violence.
We, the undersigned activists of the women’s rights movement, condemn the violence and humiliation that has continued to be perpetrated against Iranian women and men in recent years and which is aimed at repressing them. We emphasize our continued commitment to achieving the demands of the women’s rights movement, which has had a profound role in educating the public and in civil struggles in recent years, and we express our solidarity with those who protest the results of this election. We demand that those arrested in recent days be released without condition and we call for securing and protecting civil and political freedoms.
Eh, women were on the streets in ‘79 too.
Iran, Lebanon (a Christian arab country, so probably shouldnt be on this list), parts of Iraq you see women permitted by societal norms to be out, participating in public events.
Doesnt mean what they are doing is “good for all women” or “feminist” as a Westerner would understand the concept.
But sure, it does mean their societies permit expression, in public, by women. Its always been true in Iran to some extent. In fact it reached an apex under the Shah in my opinion. Interesting fact people like to ignore.
As it did under Saddam in Iraq and under the Russians in Afghanistan. Unfortunate but true, women have less freedom currently in those countries.
we have the power.we need to use it here now..
in my view at the end of the day truth will out about obama. acorn, axelrod, etc can’t fix world public opinion about his failures. they are what they are. few will take us seriously in the future. we’ll see less and less the use of the term “leader of the free world”. our suckup media will try and bandy it about but the snickers from the world press and others will soon shut them up.
the crisis in iran has brought to the front a clear view of obama telepromter speeches or not. he is a timid, craven, ego driven shallow man with no real academic superiority. he has litttle experience and refuses to be coached. those he has that have the experience he uses as cover. and the whisperers in the dupe’s ear are as craven, arrogant, and ill fitted for their jobs as he is.
No doubt the Iranians would get Obama’s attention if they were to demand universal healthcare coverage.
The same question should have been asked during the Gaza conflict in Dec-Jan in which 1,166 to 1,417 Palestinians and 13 Israelis died.
He “voted present” on those deaths too.
You are absolutely correct Donna.
If we want to start taking score this isn’t the first time mr yes we can has diddled in an election and some where and screwed the people, anybody remember Kenya 2007 and Odinga. Didn’ he use the same yes we can(burn chrisitians in their churches) matraer if he is going to try and take credit for that too? My advice to any one living under opression and what to live free. DON’T call Obama that s the worst thing you can do.
I urge everyone to check out the video Persepolis. I was dragged to see it because I thought I wouldn’t like it. It is mesmerizing. It is a story told by a girl in Iran and it poignantly addresses the persecution and oppression there. Please take the time to see it.
It was bases on a small two-volume graphic biography by Marjane Satrapi. She was totslly involved in making the film, too. Iranian ex-pat writers have done much to make the conditions in their country clear. The two-volume set can be read in day. It can be found in most book stores.
His speeches during the campaign may also have emboldened the militant Islamic group that killed 173 people and wounded at least 308 in Mumbai in Nov 2008. This group’s goal is to introduce an Islamic state in South Asia.
[...] See the original post here: the obama effect…? : NO QUARTER [...]
Excellent article, American Girl….
I’m so glad to see you have written something about those brave, young Iranians. All they want is a better life, one where their vote counts, they will be heard by their government–and instead they received gunfire in their hearts and faces. I’ve been monitoring twitter since Friday and the desperation of those young people is so disconcerting.
Meanwhile, Obama went out for Vanilla Custard–and a round of golf. We’ve also extended a casual invitation to these Iranian tyrants to join us for hot dogs on America’s Independence Day. Obama reiterated today that nothing has changed (since they were invited).
How is it only a few people really know what’s going on? Why is it NoQuarter and a few other sites like them are aware of any subtle shift or even explosive news story that the mainstream media does not pursue? Well, we all got to see Obama kill a fly thanks to the MSM–but they’re giving him a pass on the real news.
I beg you to continue your intelligent dialogue here and spread the word to those who have not bothered to really research the facts. I’ll bet half of the Obama supporters don’t even know we’ve invited that horrific Iranian regime for hot dogs on July 4th. Please spread the word.
Yes, we’re on the wrong side of history. The very least we can do is come out and say–America believes in the right of free speech and the right to a fair election. Let’s just hope America can maintain free speech and renew its ability to have fair elections–unlike the recent fiasco in the primaries (5/31).
Please, continue speaking out!
They keep saying Obama is walking a fine line with the Iran situation. But, I feel like every time he slips off that fine line he falls to the wrong side of the line.
thank you for your thoughful comment. :O)
Major Garrett at the Obama presser: “What took you so long?”
oooh, can’t wait to read that Q&A.
Major Garrett just challenged Mr. Obama’s tone on Iran, essentially asking why he waited so long to show any outrage and whether he’d been inconsistent. “I don’t think that’s accurate,” the president replies, defending himself. “Track what I’ve been saying. Right after the election I said we had profound concerns about the nature of the election, but that it was not up to us to determine what the outcome is.” And he added, “The United States will not be a foil” for the Iranian government to accuse of meddling.
Mr. Garrett asked about whether Iranian diplomats and American diplomats would still be permitted to mingle. Mr. Obama didn’t answer that.
Ahmadinejad and Mousavi were heavily inolved in the Islamic Revoloution in 1979. That riot resulted uhe installation of the Ayatolla Khomeini as their Supreme Leader. Mousavi was their Prime Minister from 81-89, when Khomeini died and they abolished the PM position. That governmnet did not tolerate dissent either.
While I support the protesters on an ideolgical basis, I don’t believe the U.S. or they will be any better off w/Mousavi in power.
At this point, for me, it is more about the protesters, and that they are rising up, and wanting *change*.
Those here who are hung up on the lack of difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi aren’t seeing the big picture. It doesn’t matter that Mousavi may or may not be marginally better. Don’t forget, anyone on the ballot to begin with had to be approved by the clerics. Many candidates were denied.
SO, a vote for him was the only real way the electorate could express dissatisfaction. The movement is bigger than Mousavi.
The POTUS is so fond of giving sermons around the world, why not give one when it could be of real use, like perhaps in front of the Statue of Liberty, hailing the freedoms we tend to take for granted in our country in light of what’s happening in Iran? He missed a great opportunity to not only make amends to those of us who are weary of his moral relativism and world-wide apologies on our behalf, while at the same time telegraphing the message to Iranian dissidents that our hearts are with them.
On thinking about this, I am starting to think that Obama is sitting on his hands not just to vote present, or to see if he can take a credit for something that happens without him. No, I am thinking he is holding out for Ahmadinejad to stay in control, and for civil unrest and violence to strengthen. I think what we will see after that is a replacement Ayatollah. Obama has said himself there is no difference in these two candidates. That depends on what you think “different” constitutes. But, I think that statement is very telling. I don’t think he wants to bring political change, but is holding out for religious change. Thankfully for the world, Obama is probably not who he thinks he is. But, the Shiites familiar with 17th century prophecy don’t know that yet, and that is the danger with him playing with this box of matches. This is probably a lot more complicated than most realize.
No Meddling?
CNN interview with a young Iranian:
Mohammad: Yes. Let me tell you something. For about three decades our nation has been humiliated and insulted by this regime. Now Iranians are united again one more time after 1979 Revolution. We are a peaceful nation. We don’t hate anybody. We want to be an active member of the international community. We don’t want to be isolated… We don’t deny the Holocaust. We do accept Israel’s rights. And actually, we want — we want severe reform on this structure. This structure is not going to be tolerated by the majority of Iranians. We need severe reform, as much as possible.
Roberts: Interesting perspective this morning from Mohammad, a student demonstrator there in Tehran.
Mohammad: Excuse me, sir. I have a message for the international community. Would you please let me tell it?
Roberts: Yes, go ahead.
Mohammad: Americans, European Union, international community, this government is not definitely — is definitely not elected by the majority of Iranians. So it’s illegal. Do not recognize it. Stop trading with them. Impose much more sanctions against them. My message…to the international community, especially I’m addressing President Obama directly – how can a government that doesn’t recognize its people’s rights and represses them brutally and mercilessly have nuclear activities? This government is a huge threat to global peace. Will a wise man give a sharp dagger to an insane person? We need your help international community. Don’t leave us alone.
Obama isn’t punting on Iran. In order to punt, you’d have to actually be in the game.
The punt comment I should attribute to the Jawa Report.
I have a feeling that what ever happens Obama will only stand with what ends up being in his best interests not America’s.
If Ahmadinejad stays in control no matter what the death toll and it ends up good then Obama will probably say “See what I helped create” But if Ahmadinejad ends up being a horrid leader, or a threat to us then Obama will probably give some glowing speech talking how he was all for the protestors with all of his supporters saying what a good job Obama did of handling it. Hey Obama is Hillary’s boss.
Hey this is how Obama works it….Obama claims credit for anything good no matter his part in in. But if its bad then he runs for cover and starts throwing people under the bus.
“Obama’s intelligent speech in Cairo has had a big impact in the Muslim world, and it is obvious that it is his presence in the White House – far more than any BBC broadcast – that is giving hope to the demonstrators in Tehran…I do not believe it could possibly have happened had John McCain been elected…Who knows whether [the Iranian protestors] will succeed, but we can safely say that the BBC and Barack Obama have done more to change Iran than Fox News and George W Bush.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/06/23/london-mayor-obama-bbc-have-done-more-iran-bush-fox-news
It would be my guess that the typical Iranian on the street could give a rats @$$ about Obama’s Cairo speech.
Well, to a typical Iranian, a rat’s @$$ might buy the transcript of the speech. I’m sure they would rather have the rat’s @$$ though.
“But privately Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the protesters, especially the young ones, who are now posing the most direct challenge to the republic’s Islamic authority in its 30-year history.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/06/23/wapo-obamas-cairo-speech-encouraged-iranian-revolt
he always wants the credit.
The more Obama supports the Iranian protestors, the less legitimacy those protesters will have in Iran. Obviously Iran is desperate to link the protesters to the US; why would Obama want to indulge them. That was one thing the Bush administration got consistently wrong; every time they called Iran evil, they bolstered support for Ahmadinijad.
Watch Obama… Next time he speaks. Watch him use the word “we” then in the same sentence about the same subject using the word “I” very interesting.
In the world I live in, its always safe to have 2 different answers on tape.
What exactly is Obama suppose to be saying that he has not already said?
All you nuts who want some kind of stronger response for the U.S., including McCain, are not really saying what Obama must say or do? There are no positives from a “tear down this wall” type speech and potentially only negatives. It would do absolutely nothing. The entire planet is quite aware of which direction the U.S. wants Iran to go. It would only make some neocons feel better about themselves.
Every true Iranian expert, who is actually Iranian, says the U.S. should stay out of this? It is political suicide for any politician who gets in in Iran to be viewed as having got in with the help of the U.S. That politician would spend the next year or two defending himself as a U.S. lacky. It would be like if at the height of the cold war it was found out that one of the reasons Reagan got elected was because of the support of the Soviets.
Only people who are saying that Obama should say or do more are just trying to score very cheap political points. They are the Neocons (and McCain is one of the biggest Neocons) who’s ideas have been disastrous for this country.
And it could very well be the case that Obama first interview that was with an arab network, his initial speech to Iranians (on March 20th — http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/20/barack-obama-video-iran) and the his Cairo speech helped to set a new tone that embolden the Iranian protestors. How do you know it did not? There have been many reports in the Arab press, including reaction from Iranians, that was very positive about Obama new outreach. So far Obama’s strategy on Iran has been absolutely brilliant. It pushes the ball down the field. I have no doubt that whatever happens, Obama will continue to push the ball down the field, to promote democracy and negotiate the nuclear issue. He is just taking a different approach then these nutball neocons, who want nothing but war.
You left off the suffix “head” in your moniker, there, bone. Your rubbish, like all other bot rubbish, consists of unknown facts, composition/division fallacies, equivocation, and stacking the deck. When do you start your junior year in high school?
Personallyy I don’t careabout Obama not saying jack. What I care about is the narcissistic need to always take credit for things he has nothing to do with. If he’s not going to put skin in the game then he needs to shut the hell up about his Uninspirationa speach in Cairo. Seem like it would bother you that everything Obama does is about obama, my question is what happens when what makes him feel all tingly and get’s him recognize is in direct contridiction for w hat good for him? Nobody wants Obama to fight any one, I just want the credit seeking coward off my damn tv. Bill Clinton set mostly quiet while Rowanda went up in flames. I don’t complain about that, he was a great president. But he also didn’t try to get credit for some unhistoric speach he made nor did he invite the very perople who was slaughtering people to white house for a barbecue. every one understands the differences between the two parties, and their approach on foreign affairs. yes repubublicans are going to want to show strength in the face of tyranny and Dems keep their mouth shut and watch carefully. But this petuenlent,bratty, wishy wash behavior on Obama administration has gotten on my last nervrve shut up about it, I just want him to go and distroy another industry for God sake and get the hell of my tv. maybe if a few more of you loose your jobs you won’t be so willing to kiss his ass.