This "Obama needs to be stronger on Iran!" meme really needs to die, as it just exposes the complete lack of willingness to be informed from everyone who repeats it. Obama has condemned the government's use of violence. But the Iranian people do not want him to take sides on the issue of the election. They are tired of U.S. intervention. U.S. intervention is what destroyed their democracy and led to 50 years of theocratic oppression. Do some research and you'll see that a stronger stance on Iran would only hurt the interests of the people there. Hell, even Pat Buchanan and George Will are supporting the president on this one!

http://mediamatters.com/research/200906210009

I'm glad we now have a president who actually listens to what the common people of a foreign country want, rather than forcing American dominance down everyone's throats by claiming he knows better than they do about what's in their best interest.

You are so dense, and he is so cool. Our Prezzy, by virtue of his mild, statesmanlike demeanor is making a splendid impression on AJ's voters. None of this bellicose, blundering nonsense that they got from Bush ... and that they get from AJ. Might get 'em thinking.

He might be trying to avoid getting the Iranians killed.

"By KARIN LAUB, Associated Press Writer Karin Laub, Associated Press Writer – 17 mins ago
CAIRO – Iran expelled two British diplomats Tuesday after bitterly accusing Britain of meddling and spying."

There! See! Our government has (all of a sudden) got more sense than to give AJ grounds to blame the civic discontent on "outside agitators." Sigh. You don't know what a relief it is.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama

What more do you want?

Seriously, this is PirateGate all over again. Obama could drop down in a parachute wearing a cowboy hat and shoot Amedinejad in the face, and conservatives would still say he was being too soft.

Also, where did the "Please Play Nice" post go? Was it deleted?

K

*But the Iranian people do not want him to take sides on the issue of the election. They are tired of U.S. intervention.*

Apparently you missed the appeal I posted earlier from an Iranian risking his life on the street. He made a direct appeal to Obama and he is not alone. What other country would Iranians who wish to live in a more open and democratic society appeal to?

*I'm glad we now have a president who actually listens to what the common people of a foreign country want, rather than forcing American dominance down everyone's throats...*

I would ask you to expand the reading you do since I know you at least try to be informed. You are wrong on two counts: 1. There are people in the Middle East that want to get out from under the harsh thumbs of religious fanatics and gain their freedom. 2. We have not "forced" American dominance on anyone.

The attitude that America has forced and pushed our weight around is pure bologna. President Bush has worked hard over the last eight years with leadership in the Middle East and around the world to liberate oppressed people. No it didn't always go as planned but in the end the people of Afghanistan and then Iraq formed their own governments. Just as our republic is something we must hold on to, it is up to them to hold on to their fledgling governments. Bush offered America's support. Obama is a bystander who sees no real difference between an oppressive regime and a democracy...either form of government is fine. He wants to be friends with whomever wins. In fact he seems more comfortable with oppressive regimes, Hugo Chavez for instance. He claims he does not wish to tell other governemtns what to do yet he had no trouble telling Israel what he thought they should and should not do. He also seems to disfunctionally need win the approval of everyone. This is not a motivation that fits with leadership.

Libby

*Iran expelled two British diplomats Tuesday after bitterly accusing Britain of meddling and spying." *** There! See! Our government has (all of a sudden) got more sense than to give AJ grounds to blame the civic discontent on "outside agitators." Sigh. You don't know what a relief it is.*

Yeah...much better that they not have to knuckle under to world pressure so they can "blame" the people of Iran and then slaughter them in the streets or through them into dark prisons never to be heard from again.

You people claim to be the keepers of world peace...the keepers of civil rights....as long as you don't have to actually DO something. Smiling and nodding just doesan't cut it when people are being shot for peaceful protest.

"Apparently you missed the appeal I posted earlier from an Iranian risking his life on the street. He made a direct appeal to Obama and he is not alone. What other country would Iranians who wish to live in a more open and democratic society appeal to?"

I didn't miss this. But I have read testimony from many other Iranians asking us to stay out of it. And I have posted evidence that interference would only be a negative, evidence that is supported by many conservatives. You have not argued against any of this.

"I would ask you to expand the reading you do since I know you at least try to be informed. You are wrong on two counts: 1. There are people in the Middle East that want to get out from under the harsh thumbs of religious fanatics and gain their freedom."

Well, of course there are. Where did I even remotely imply anything different? That doesn't mean that the United States should butt in when it they are being asked not to and when it will not be at all helpful.

"2. We have not "forced" American dominance on anyone. The attitude that America has forced and pushed our weight around is pure bologna. President Bush has worked hard over the last eight years with leadership in the Middle East and around the world to liberate oppressed people. No it didn't always go as planned but in the end the people of Afghanistan and then Iraq formed their own governments."

Their own governments, yet governments still being occupied by U.S. troops.

"Just as our republic is something we must hold on to, it is up to them to hold on to their fledgling governments. Bush offered America's support. Obama is a bystander who sees no real difference between an oppressive regime and a democracy...either form of government is fine."

Please give evidence for this claim. Yet again, Obama has now condemned the illegal elections and the violence instituted by Amedinejad. I'll ask you one more time, what more do you want him to do?

* You are so dense, and he is so cool. Our Prezzy, by virtue of his mild, statesmanlike demeanor is making a splendid impression on AJ's voters. None of this bellicose, blundering nonsense that they got from Bush ... and that they get from AJ. Might get 'em thinking.*

Yep...cool is really....cool...if you're fifteen.

The statement from the Iranian student I quoted on my earlier post more closely reflects the remarks made by a real leader.

President George W. Bush on Iran:

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1079666.html

Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty

Radio Farda: At the beginning of Noruz, the Persian New Year, what message do you wish to share with the people of Iran, especially with women as well as with the young generation?

George W. Bush: First of all, the United States of America wishes everybody a Happy New Year. Secondly, [the] people of the United States respect the great Iranian history and culture. We have great respect for the people, and we've got problems with the government. We have problems with the government because the government has been threatening, has made decisions that --and statements that -- really have isolated the people of Iran.
My message to the young in Iran is that someday your society will be free. And it will be a blessed time for you. My message to the women of Iran is that the women of America share your deep desire for children to grow up in a hopeful society and to live in peace.

Radio Farda: Speaking of the women of Iran, Mr. President, the majority of [the] population in Iran are women, and even in Iranian culture they are considered the foundation on which men deeply rely. Is there any plan, or could there be one, to promote and engage Iranian women in the U.S. into a unified and centralized movement for a free and democratic Iran?

Bush: Well, I think the people of Iran are going to have to come to the conclusion that a free country is in their interest. We, of course, support freedom movements all around the world. We are supporting a freedom movement on the Iranian border, in Iraq. We are promoting and helping the Iraqis develop a free society. By the way, a free Iraq will help the Iranians seek the blessings of a free society. There's no doubt in my mind that the women will be leading freedom movements in Iran and elsewhere, and the role of the United States is to provide moral support and other support without undermining their cause.

And Bush was right about the women. The women in Iran have taken the lead in this protest.

*There! See! Our government has (all of a sudden) got more sense than to give AJ grounds to blame the civic discontent on "outside agitators." Sigh. You don't know what a relief it is.*

You betcha...AJ waits, maybe stays up nights, looking for these kinds of excuses.

AJ is the mouthpiece of tyrants for pete's sake! he doesn't need "grounds".

Okay, so now Obama comes out just today and condemns in the strongest possible terms the oppression of the Iranian regime and the violence directed at the demonstrators. He said he morns their losses.

Well Libby, now whatta ya say about that? Is he meddling, caving in to pressure or what? I'm pretty sure it was our PS article that did it.

It matters not at all whether Obama condems the Iranian government in the harshest of terms or the mildest of terms. It is all just ineffectual talk. What we need, and I hope we are getting behind the scenes, is for the CIA to be using their native Iranian agents to assist the revolutionaries with money and weapons. Let's just hope we can keep it secret from the New York Times for a change.

*That doesn't mean that the United States should butt in when it they are being asked not to and when it will not be at all helpful.*

Who has suggested that Obama should "butt in"? Making a strong statement of support about freedom and decency isn't "butting in".

Obama was virtually silent for over a week and then he went off for the weekend. (A day or two may be defensible.)

What people expected of the president, who is seen by the world as the most influential person in the world was a strong solid statement.

When the leader of the free world speaks his words have tremendous weight. When other voices follow we have considerable pressure brought to bear. Obama has finally said something after being pressed into it after letting the Iranian people in the streets dangle and beg for support from him and the free world. Butbecause of his stutter the question remains, does he stand behind the principles of freedom or is he kinda ok with thugocracies? How would anyone know for sure?

That is not leadership.

You said the Iranian people don't want Obama to take sides. Obviously not all of the Iranian people have this opinion. Have you ever asked yourself what those who support the thugocracy are getting from supporting the thugocracy? Maybe they get better housing and food. Maybe they have relatives that would be put in jail if they don't. Who knows, maybe they actually back the men that favor chopping off hands and feet and stoning women.

What we do know for sure is that the people in the streets are risking their very lives because they hope and pray the world will stand behind them in their quest for freedom. They RISK...something that liberals don't seem ever to want to do because it means you would have to choose between sides. Amazingly you won't even go so far as to make a statement.

Choosing to support calls for freedom with rhetoric does not mean you cannot then engage. Reagan said, "Mr. Gorachov tear down this wall", a strong, public statement. He was advised not to do it but he went ahead...and then proceeded to have talks that led to the fall of the Soviet Union and the drawing down of nuclear weapons. He knew what he stood for and everyone else did too. That is leadership.

"Okay, so now Obama comes out just today and condemns in the strongest possible terms the oppression of the Iranian regime and the violence directed at the demonstrators. He said he morns their losses.

Well Libby, now whatta ya say about that? Is he meddling, caving in to pressure or what? I'm pretty sure it was our PS article that did it."

He had already said basically the same thing before this, and conservatives were still criticizing him for being too soft.

*Their own governments, yet governments still being occupied by U.S. troops.*

K, I'm really put off by the word occupied. It is a word chosen by democrats to feed, as a poison, to the public. We had an invitation to stay in the country from the newly formed government and agreements about what we would do and for how long. The

http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1078292.html

2007 at the White House

"Prime Minister [al-]Maliki is a good guy, good man, with a difficult job, and I support him," Bush said. "And it is not up to the politicians in Washington, D.C., to say whether he will remain in his position. That is up to the Iraqi people who now live in a democracy and not a dictatorship." – GWB

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6561771&ft=1&f=1001

Prime Minister Al Maliki with Bush in Jordan.

I would also like to thank the President of the United States for his response and for the role that he has shown in dealing most positively with all the files that we've discussed. *** And I would like, during this occasion as we leave this transitional stage, we have won initialy when we have accomplished democracy in Iraq and when we give Iraq the permanent constitution and the parliament and the unity government. And all these are victories that are victories with the principles that we believe in. And therefore, these victories were our decision not to let those who would like to tamper with the fates of the region, or those who oppose democracy to win, so that the despotic regime comes back...But the steel strength of the national unity government would help us face all those who are breaking the law, or those who are trying to take down democracy in Iraq, or those who are conspiring and trying to have coups or basically bring down the national unity government. *** We are active with anybody who are working within the framework of the constitution. Because we established the constitution, we'll abide by it, we'll protect it, and we'll be protected by it. We assure everybody that we are in alliance with the international community in facing all the challenges that the world is facing. And foremost of those challenges is terrorism. Terrorism is not a danger only to Iraq, it's a culture, it's an ideology. The whole civilized world must face it as one line, one unit. Some people might not understand the successes that we have as we daily face terrorism in Iraq and as the security forces in Iraq chase them down, arrest them. This is solid strength based on our vision, and our vision is that terrorism, terroristic ideology, extremism, sectarianism are all issues that will rob humans from happiness. *** So everybody who is trying to make Iraq their own influences appear on the account of the Iraqi people needs to recalculate for it will not happen. And all the political forces in Iraq have agreed on that. They want to form a very strong political base to support the national unity government. We have visions in Iraq, and we are at the steps of transformation into a new stage where we'll have security plans that we believe will be effective and will deliver what is required.
In Iraq, we don't only deal with terrorism. We're dealing with building a whole state in all its aspects -- political, economic, security, militarily -- and all these are signs of maturity that are now very obvious in Iraq. And we hope that they will be complemented and supported by the international community and by our neighbors, who I hope that will be supportive not only for the benefit of Iraq, for the benefit of those countries, as well.

President Bush at same meeting:

 And today we had a meeting that will accelerate the capacity for the Prime Minister to do the hard work necessary to help stop this violence. No question it's a violent society right now. He knows that better than anybody. He was explaining to me that occasionally the house in which he lives gets shelled by terrorists who are trying to frighten him. *** And so the second point I make to you is that I appreciate his courage. You can't lead unless you have courage. And he's got courage, and he's shown courage over the last six months. Thirdly, he has expressed a deep desire to unify his country. You hear all kinds of rumors about the politics inside of Iraq. I'm talking to the man face-to-face, and he says that he understands that a unified government, a pluralistic society, is important for success. And he's making hard decisions to achieve that. *** And one of the reasons I appreciate the Prime Minister is that he, on the one hand, sees that it's a sophisticated operation to get a military up from zero, but on the other hand, is frustrated by the pace. And the reason why he's frustrated is because he wants to show the people who elected him that he is willing to take the hard tasks on necessary to provide security for the Iraqi people, such as hunting down those who are killing the innocent. And the reason I came today to be able to sit down with him is to hear the joint plans developed between the Iraqi government, the sovereign government of Iraq, and our government, to make sure that we accelerate the transfer of capacity to the Prime Minister. And I know he's looking forward to more capacity being transferred so he can do his job. *

These are not the words of occupation. These are words of co-operation. We have been allied to the people of Iraq, their elected leaders and government.

The conservatives on this blog remained silent until last night.

Snopes...we can always hope.

I watched the press conference with the Muslim in the white House and I must say that when he was asked by a reporter at the press conference;

Your administration has said that the offer to talk to Iran’s leaders remains open. Can you say if that’s still so even with all the violence that has been committed by the government against the peaceful protesters? And if it is, is there any red line that your administration won’t cross where that offer will be shut off?

I was totally shocked by his wimpy attitude of an answer, This was his response;

we’re still waiting to see how it plays itself out. ........................................................................We are going to monitor and see how this plays itself out before we make any judgments about how we proceed.

Basically, what the Muslim in the White House is saying with his repeated statement of, “waiting to see how this plays out”, is that he is neutral in the battle between good and evil being waged in the streets of Tehran and he’ll work with whomever wins. The best opportunity to replace the evil regime that is directly responsible for much of the terrorism and bloodshed the world has experienced in the last 30 years is floating slowly past us as we watch the horror on the streets of Tehran go unchallenged by the President of the United States.

American leadership at critical moments has achieved great progress in human history. Unfortunately, the world now sees a President who does not share the vision of American exceptionalism which led to so many advances in world peace and prosperity in earlier years.

Meanwhile, Obama’s State Department has said that their invitation to Iranian diplomats to 4th of July at our embassies worldwide for the first time in many years is still available!

Well as an American who lost his Father in a foreign war, and myself fought in a foreign war, I hereby apologize to the world. I especially apologize to the Iranian people for the weak and passive response by this President of the United States! You are on your own. Obama doesn’t care!

I also send my condolences to the family of the murdered Iranians who just want the same basic freedom to have their vote counted as Obama demands.

My question to K, Libby, and Quentin is,
What pisses you off more?

The President of the free world standing by as;
1.) Innocent Iranian protesters, asking for freedom and the right to have their vote counted, get shot and killed. “Neda”, the young woman who was protesting when shot by the Basiji police
2.) . 1 million Tutus are hacked to death in 100 day, by the opposing Hutu tribe who ruled the government. Rwandan genocide survivor shares her story - with video
3.) Janet Reno sets the Branch Davidian compound on fire killing 74 men, women and children because of firearm violations.

OR
3.) The President of the free world freeing 25,175,000 Iraqis from an oppressive and tyrannical dictator like Saddam.

Ever notice how Democrats always stand around while innocent people are murdered? But when a Republican is in office millions of people are freed from oppression. Just goes to show you who always steps up to the challenge to help those who cannot help themselves.

The Muslim in the White House is just another democrat who would rather see people die than make the tough decisions.

I just want to add one more comment about our friend Quentin.

Quentin is constantly attacking people for their views, but when someone goes to his blog he rarely posts their comment. I have commented to him a number of times, and when he rebutted my comment I came back with a defense of my views that took him to task. Yet he refuses to post most of my comments, and I must add I have been more respectful on his blog than I have been here.

Anyone curious I could show them to you, because I have kept them all, knowing the yellow belly coward will not debate when he has been proved wrong.

I only post this here because Quentin gets every one of his comments here posted, but refuses to do the same for others. Just like a liberal, squash any opposition by denying it exists. Kind of reminds you of the way the Iranian government is trying to shut down the ability of the protesters to talk to the world. And Quentin defends them by defending the silence of the Muslim in the White House.

How does that saying go?........"Birds of a feather"

Excuse me?
Fred, it is one thing to jhold a different opinion sir. It is quite another to LIE.
And SHAME on you Jack, for allowing it. I will be informing Ryan of this libel.
You are a LIAR Fred, and I am calling you on it.
I have posted every single, racist, homophobic comment that I have been ntofied of through e-mail.
What kind of coward talks about someone on another's blog?
Oh, well I guess we know the naswer to that one.
A pussy.

I hate to get involved in this argument, but I have seen Fred say some pretty nasty things on Quentin's blog. I can't imagine what he could write that Quentin would censor.

As for this discussion...I am going to listen to the people who actually understand and talk about Iran's complicated relationship to the U.S. I think they know better than people who keep refusing to really take a serious look at that issue. I'm sorry, but if you really care about what's in the Iranians' best interest more than taking digs at Obama, you will look at the evidence and it will be plain as day that Obama's is the right approach.

*...if you really care about what's in the Iranians' best interest more than taking digs at Obama, you will look at the evidence and it will be plain as day that Obama's is the right approach.*

Plain as day? I don't agree.

Whether Obamas approach is "right" won't really be known for many years...historians will look back dispassionately and make a more credible evaluation.

Disagreement with his approach is not an indication of ignorance about the relationship the US has with Iran.

Tina

"The Muslim in the White House ...."

Fred takes a page from the BushCo playbook: just say it often enough, and suddenly ... it's true!

"You people claim to be the keepers of world peace...the keepers of civil rights....as long as you don't have to actually DO something."

DO what? Make irritating and inflammatory pronouncements? Go blundering into Iran with our army? We've been there and done both with nothing you could call success. How about we just let the Iranians deal with it? It is their business ... not yours.

And they're doing fine. We are now getting very interesting commentary to the effect that the religious leadership in Iran is not monolithic. There's a sizeable faction that does not believe that they should be meddling on the political side. Much like the non-right-wing Christian leadership in this country, they feel that endorsing political leadership what then turns out to behave in a most unChristian/Islamic fashion (you know, cheating on the wife and all that sort of thing) ... well ... it cheapens the faith, so it does.