Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Obama: "The United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs."

The press conference. He respects the sovereignty and deplores the violence.
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.

Excuse me. If I may be so bold. I hate to trouble you but.... I don't mean to impose... I'm not interfering... Far be it from me to suggest anything that you might be able to characterize as meddling. I'm no meddler. Not at all. I'm just over here, modestly deploring violence.

UPDATE: The old blog is back, and this post is up over there now. I've copied the comments from here, so go there for commenting now.

56 comments:

madawaskan said...

You mean he hasn't blamed Bush for this mess yet?

[Crap on a pogo stick that's getting old..]

It's like some coach blaming the old coach-sure you could do that for a while but...

The fans wouldn't buy it for long plus hell Obama got to pick a whole new team!

Shut up and coach or somethin'...

Oh and the teleprompters how many historical shots have been ruined by those things?

He's at the beaches of Normandy and he had these sleeker gray colored ones-looked like sunglasses -and it really looked lame.

Here's our new Obama the Orator and-

Look!

He brought his menatal crutches with him!

Go Sarkozy! Now that guy is-



Hooooooottttt!

Hubba.

madawaskan said...

Oh that paternalistic shot you took at Sarkozy I'm all in baby....

Look it's pretty hard to fight for your rights all swarthed out in your burka....

I'd take help from any where I could get it.

If Sarkozy is going to get all hot and bothered about it well....


Damn! The guy is just hot-sorry but I get off on that...

Brainy, passionate and persuasive-plus the eyes-

Ooh lala!

Anyways there's a huge historical mountian of evidence that has marched through time-

burkas=repression.

Sarkozy not so stupid....

I'm just sayin'...

madawaskan said...

Wait this post was about Obama?


Boring!

bagoh20 said...

I sure as hell hope we are meddling, at least covertly. But, it seems like Obama want's the current regime, so I'm not sure we are.

And of course it's up to Iranians who is elected, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT WE SHOULD BE MAKING. Free honest elections, not tyranny.

ajf said...

"The United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs."

That filthy piece of garbage said that he respects the fucking islamic republic and said it in the name of the United States. As an American of Persian descent, I hope to see him hang from a lamp post...

XWL said...

As the violence escalates, and the thugs in charge of Iran get even more erratic and bellicose, Obama's "measured" response to events will be damaging to his party in the midterms, and him personally in 2012.

I've said more than once during the campaign that he seemed hellbent on returning us to the Carter years, and seems like giving us stagflation was only the first step.

Can't wait for the even or odd license plate fill-up days at gas pumps to return...

Marcia said...

"He respects the sovereignty and deplores the violence."

Is that like "love the sinner, hate the sin"?

NKVD said...

Pussy response from a pussy president.

Arturius said...

Well I think the demonstrators need to take a page from the history books and recall what happened to the Ceausecu regime in 1989 and act accordingly.

madawaskan said...

"menatal" crutches!?

[damn it...]

He does kinda have a momma's boy thing about him though....

I'm leaving it.

tim maguire said...

On the scale of possible responses, IMO, Obama's public response is pretty close to the best one (a little soft, but better than many argued alternatives). Any real support for the protestors has to be made covertly. Hopefully Obama is doing just that, but it could be a while before we know.

OldGrouchy Doug Wright said...

He's the one he's been waiting for!

David said...

I have tried to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt. It's getting harder to do. It's clear he's out of his depth in the Iran response. I'm also coming to worry that Obama does not do well at all when he is seriously challenged. Will we see an Obama meltdown? Stay tuned.

junyo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
junyo said...

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.

Here's the flaw with "not determining the outcome". Clinton didn't determine the outcome with Osama. Bush 1 didn't determine the outcome with Saddam. If Ahmadinejad stays, at some point, it's virtually certain that we'll be forced to determine the outcome, either in Iran, or Israel, or some US city that's just had a Iranian supplied nuke detonated within it - in all likelihood with high explosives and bullets. If we can avoid that, even if people jawjack about our "interference" (the Iranian regime has interfered in Iraq with markedly less handwringing), it's the smart call (and some would say our moral obligation) to do so.

Inaction is an action, a choice, and has consequences. Progressives have somehow embraced this policy of global CYA; if we take a pass, no one can blame us for anything regardless of the (entirely predictable) outcome. But the simple fact is, when the people crying for inaction now are screaming about the actions of some future president regarding a militant, nuclear Iran, the responsibility can be laid right here. For the sake of political gain, Obama is punting the problem forward.

madawaskan said...

No and no again.

Remember when the democrats talked about-

"Smart Diplomacy"TM?

What happened to that?

The laissez faire attitude to Iran and referring to it as an internal problem?

Well-you should be insulted by that.

Comparisons to Iran with Poland- again-pretty damn insulting.

The Iranians-are trying to overthrow a nut job who has threatened to nuke another country-now I know it's just a bunch of Jews and somehow that shouldn't count as much as another country-but there it is.

The guy has threatened to start a nuclear arms race in the Middle East disrupting what little stability has been achieved-in an area of both geographical and economic strategic importance.

So-this business about it being just an internal Iranian problem?

Well I guess you could buy that -if you wantedto.

There is a lot the administration could do short of "talking pretty". Now I know they are deathly afraid of affecting the American economy and ruining their own chances of re-election so they wish these pesky protestors would just go away , but the Ayatollah made a grave mistake and hitched the complete Iranian band wagon to the fate of Ahmadinejad.

Economic leverage could be used against Iran, pressure from other countries in the region...but that hasn't been deployed yet.

The irony being Turkey-

Kemal Ataturk banned the burka and he wasn't even French!

[But there are nut jobs out there who claim he was Jewish and this is suppose to be all the "evidence" they need against him...]

Madame Defarge said...

I think he's playing it right. And he's right that the US getting involved would be a distraction and possibly short-circuit the protests.

The people helping with the cyber aspects are doing the most important thing, and as long as he doesn't interfere with that, he's doing okay.

You can't stop the signal. /Mr. Universe

madawaskan said...

Again remember when Liberals said much short of invasion could be done against Iraq?

Well all of a sudden that's-
Bull?

Now I am apt to agree with you when we are talking about democrats because they don't want to use leverage against the current Iranian regime-they want the "problem" to be swept under the rug.

Funny thing is-the American economy looks like it's going to get affected by this wether they like it or not....

Why not bother to be on the "right" side of this?

There is still time for that....

Now it's a pity that the Iranian students have bought into "Hope and Change" even when the American "Hope and Change" guy tried to call bull malarkey on the Iranian "Hope and Change " guy saying he really might not be that different....

Campaign rhetoric being something Obama does have experience with-and can see through.

But it looks lie this thing is going to go down partially because they believe the myth [thela w of unintended consequences] and it's time for the Obama Administration to wise up and stop trying to bet on both-

Red and Green.

Leland said...

Ok, I'm convinced. The Presidency is just a stepping stone for Obama to reach UN Secretary General.

This response is classic UN. The sovereignty of Iran is all that matters. Internal disagreements are up to the sovereign to decide. Pass a resolution saying that the disagreements should be handled without violence, and if that doesn't work, bring in peacekeepers to protect the sovereign.

By the way, what's the ICC doing?

Ironclad said...

The more interesting question is how he will deal with Ahmadinejad after he is "sworn in" for another term as president. While the rules of diplomacy require you to "dance with the partner you brung" - meaning that you deal with the leader or current thug in charge of a country, it does not mean that you have to accord them any respect. Would he give Robert Mugabe a full state reception if he managed a visit?

It's going to take a lot of "nuance" to wiggle out of this one - because if you try to normalize relationships now with the current Iranian government, you are in essence spitting on the protestors who risked their lives to demonstrate. But then, you would not want to "interfere in Iran's internal affairs".

John Stodder said...

We "respect" the sovereignty of nations, meaning we agree we live in a world where nationhood matters and it's not up to one country to dictate political results to another one.

It's not the same thing as respect = admire.

Obama's f-ing up in lots of areas, but on Iran, I think he's doing the best one could hope for, given the weakness of our hand. This matter will be decided by the Iranians, and we might not like what happens, but if the insurgency fails, it surely can't be blamed on Obama.

bagoh20 said...

junyo,

That's perfect. Wish I'd said it, even better, I wish an American President had said it.

MadisonMan said...

it surely can't be blamed on Obama.

You know very well that failure will be blamed on him.

That's because there are people who think that America (the USA, to be precise) should control the 4 corners of the Earth. To them I say: Wake up and smell the coffee.

Arturius said...

This matter will be decided by the Iranians, and we might not like what happens, but if the insurgency fails, it surely can't be blamed on Obama.


The only ones who should be blamed for the failure of the 'insurgency' are the insurgents. If an openly fraudulent election followed by the regime shooting people in the streets isn't enough to get the villagers to storm the castle then they deserve the government they have.

madawaskan said...

Ya a crazy guy who wants nukes who threatened the annihilation of another country?

No biggie!

Not a problem for the leader of the free world.

AJ Lynch said...

If you placed Obama on a sliding scale of domestic vs. foreign interests, he'd be way to the side of domestic meddling. He is not interested much in the foreign meddling.

madawaskan said...

These people are doing the world a HUGE favor-think we could help them-

just a little?

Richard Dolan said...

It's as if O is more concerned about getting the tone right for his domestic audience than he is about the way others will see it. Tone matters, of course. But so does knowing who the more important audience is. His statements on Iran all reflect the fact that he still thinks about 'audience' and 'tone' as if he were in campaign-mode. He views his audience as the anti-Bush crowd, and frames his pitch accordingly. Someone needs to let him know that he won the election, and that campaign-mode doesn't work so well when the real audience is elsewhere than Iowa.

But while knowing your audience and getting the tone right both matter, so does the message. What is his message, exactly? He hasn't figured out how to get all of those elements right at the same time. The presidency is a tough place to try to learn that stuff on the fly.

madawaskan said...

Remember when oh just a couple of weeks ago, everyone was talking about the Iranian problem-and who would have to bomb the living shit out of their "facilities"?

The outcome of that would have been what?

Now you have this-and you could do a hell of a lot LESS meddling then the afore mentioned actions-and Obama and his supporters are getting queasy?

Unreal.

Beth said...

Who is "Major Garrett"? Who names their kids by rank?

I prefer Majel Barrett, muchly.

Randy said...

Colonel Mustard's nephew, I think.

madawaskan said...

Oh and speaking of "meddling" remember when the current Iranian regime was sending IED materials and other assorted sundries to kill AMERICAN soldiers in Iraq?

Ya ghee I know we can't really care about that when Democrats are in power-just like the USS Cole or the Khobar Towers-that somehow doesn't count....

garage mahal said...

Can't we just send like one bomb over there. I'm so bored.

Randy said...

Your suggestion would probably receive great support from commenters here, garage.

Porkov said...

Obama doesn't want to get any Carter on his shoes. Too late.

John said...

Is it that hard to say that a government that murders its citizens in the streets has no right to be considered part of the civilized world? Apparently for liberals it is. I mean really. They just shot a few demonstrators in cold blood. It is not like they waterboarded KSM or Padia or something.

Obama is truly a cowardly crapweasel.

Arturius said...

Who is "Major Garrett"? Who names their kids by rank?


Perhaps the same kind who name their kids after rocks.

Randy said...

So,John,does you rule apply to the People's Republic of China?

John said...

"So,John,does you rule apply to the People's Republic of China?"

Yes it does. I hate how we coddle the CHICOMs. Our "engagement" and ass kissing hasn't made them one bit less oppressive. That doesn't mean we should go to war with them. But, we shouldn't pretend that they are anything other than what they are. Bush should have never gone to the Olympics there. The US should at every opportunity speak out in support of Chinese dissendents and call attention to the country's appalling human rights record.

m00se said...

That man is a hunka' hunka' burning nuance I tell ya'!

SINE NOMINE said...

On Liberal Translation:

Althouse > Hannity

Dave said...

I've read much over the past ten days about how the President needs to be more vocal & needs to be on the "right side of history".

But what I haven't heard is a solid argument for what strong words of condemnation would do to alter the situation. I'm guessing that this is because there is not a strong argument apart from the superficial one of being on the "right side" of the issue.

I might favor tougher rhetoric if I believe it could be of some use to the protesters.

madawaskan said...

Randy-

What kind of equivalency is that?

First of all China is not threatening to nuke another country, is not sending IED materials into theaters to Kill American soldiers-so the analogy-again is missing the bigger picture.

Also just because we can't effect much for human rights in China does not mean that we cannot do what we can when we can.

Politics isn't some absolutist, purist religion.

And it's pretty snide of you and garge to insinuate that the "usual crowd" around here wants to send a little bomb during the protests-if you can't fight the ideas insinuate the ones you can counter-really good faith techniques being deployed-there.

John said...

"But what I haven't heard is a solid argument for what strong words of condemnation would do to alter the situation. I'm guessing that this is because there is not a strong argument apart from the superficial one of being on the "right side" of the issue."

Language and words mean somthing. It undercuts the Mullahs' claims of legitimatcy. Every time our paper hanging moron of a President gets up and talks about how he wants to negotiate with the Mullahs and how this isn't a big deal, the Mullahs can turn to their people and say "see the rest of the world says we are legitimate the only people who are complaining are criminals."

Aaron said...

btw, we can comment on your main blog, so maybe you can post there again, too.

madawaskan said...

Dave-

Again you are picking one line of my argument.....

And fighting that...

It was Democrats who spun "the smart diplomacy"-crap it should be their shining moment to show us it wasn't all pretty talk.

Hey-again you could go back and read where I wrote about leverage being applied to other countries in the region-so that they begin to influence the situation.
Ghee Turkey wants in the EU, Egypt wants stability, Afghanistan could change their tune with some encouragement...

Dave said...

The images of the State beating and killing its own citizens do infinitely more to undercut the government than words from foreign leaders. Which is why the White House was correct over the first seven days or so to not say much regarding the events, when protests were largely peaceful.

As the violence escalated over the weekend, do did the rhetoric from the White House. Again, in my opinion, the proper response.

Dave said...

madawaskan - I actually wasn't picking any line of your argument.

Fred4Pres said...

I am waiting for Andrew Sullivan to defend Obama for his Administration's recent statements that Obama inspired the recent Iranian protests with his Cairo speech and his recent speaking out (after a week of praising him for not saying anything).

I know this will be extremely difficult...

But love will find a way.

Andrew Sullivan is to Barack Obama as Kathryn Jean Lopez is to Mitt Romney. Only Sully is more fauning and has more of a 12 year old girl crush on Barack.

AJ Lynch said...

Major Fife was the name of some kid in high school. I don't remember if he was in the band.

madawaskan said...

Dave-

OK weird- I said something about Obama still having time to be "on the right side" so I thought you were going after the rest of my position.

Bender said...

As I said over at Site One --

Weenie and bland don't capture it.

Face it, he's a weak, pathetic p*ssy that makes Jimmy Carter look like He-Man, Master of the Universe.

Larry Sheldon said...

Ummmmmm....I'm confused.

I didn't vote for him.

But somebody around here did.

What's with the critism?

veni vidi vici said...

"Will we see an Obama meltdown? Stay tuned."

If so, it'll clear the way for Biden to lead, which will likely bring further embarrassment to the Dems (and the US) for the party's embarrassing lack of leaders;

which will clear the way for the Pelosi/Reid juggernaut to step in as party/national leaders, which will likely bring further embarrassment to the Dems for the party's embarrassing lack of leaders.

Pray nothing befalls Obama; if the electorate got a real true taste of the quality of the Democratic party "leadership braintrust", they'd be in the wilderness for a generation.

Or until the pathetically gimped Republican "leadership" half-assed their way to the next election.

What a great time for the nation to have an out-of-touch, elitist and barely competent political-leadership class.

murphy300 said...

Only a few years ago the Iranian regime was shipping enhanced IEDs to al Qaeda in Iraq. The only purpose of those devices was to defeat American armor and kill American Soldiers. What a difference an election makes. The same regime is shooting peaceful protesters in the street, and Obama is afraid to say anything lest he be accused of "interfering in Iran's affairs." Oh no, we wouldn't want to do that, would we. Too late, Obama, you've already interfered. The snipers in Tehran are laughing so hard at you that it's throwing their aim off.

OldGrouchy Doug Wright said...

Junyo was the name of my favorite Japense Carrier; made it through WWII and was then scraped; "We" sunk the IJN, hooray! But seriously about that carrier.

Obama sucks hugely on Iran and the Iranian protest.