Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Hussein Obama: Pandering to Islamic Radicals

From Anne Bayefsky, "A Weak American President":
President Obama has staked his reputation on being a human rights guru to people around the world. But his remarks at Tuesday's news conference and behavior since taking office have instead exposed a different persona--that of human rights charlatan.

On June 15, three days after the phony Iranian elections and the same day that seven Iranian demonstrators were murdered, Obama's UN Ambassador, Susan Rice, made a speech in Vienna promoting the Saint Obama vision: "The responsibility to protect is a duty that I feel deeply. … We must prepare for the likelihood that we will again face the worst impulses of human nature run riot, perhaps as soon as in days to come. And we must be ready. … We all know the greatest obstacle to swift action in the face of sudden atrocity is, ultimately, political will. … It requires above all the courage and compassion to act. Together, let us all help one other to have and to act upon the courage of our convictions."

A week later there were multiple casualties, injuries and threats, and 46 million voters wrenched away from that doorway to freedom that had opened--if only a crack. But when the president was asked Tuesday: "Is there any red line that your administration won't cross where that offer [to talk to Iran's leaders] will be shut off?" He answered: "We're still waiting to see how it plays itself out" ....

This Iranian government has told us in deeds, as well as in words, exactly what path it has chosen. President Obama has told us his path also: pandering to Islamic radicals and empty posturing. Ironically, the rest of the world claimed they wanted a weak American president whose foreign policy would read "apologize, capitulate and stand down." Now that they have what they asked for, real human rights victims are being forced to pay the piper.
P.S. Can somebody get Reihan Salam a clue!

11 comments:

Tim said...

Man, I clicked on the link expecting something devastating.

Instead, nuthin'.

And, once again, nothing presented from the other side. Once again, what exactly is Obama supposed to do here, other than condemn the violence, which he has.

More harsh words? 'Cos that will make the violence stop. More bombs? Because that will end the bloodshed. More sanctions? Because they always work. More interference? Because that would never piss off TPTB.

Aren't we all just waiting to see how this plays out, before committing to something?

Would love some answers. Because, you know, the right always has them!

Kenneth G. Davenport said...

Obama a neocon? Now that is a good one! (thigh slap, yuck, yuck, yuck).

With each passing day, Obama looks like the reincarnation of that sage from Plains, Jimmy Carter. Weak, unfocused, overwhelmed by events, and unable to stick to any coherent message. His reaction on Iran was exactly the reaction he had when Russia invaded South Ossetia last year: unsure at first he waffled, trying to split the middle. Later, as he took criticism, he toughened his stance; but his initial reaction was the real clue. This is someone who is in way, way over his head -- and all the charm and eloquence isn't going to matter one bit when the stakes are highest.

The reality is that the "wait and see" approach presupposes that the ruling regime in Iran can be engaged constructively. That's pure fantasy. The best hope we have is for the existing theocratic power structure to be damaged beyond repair so that moderates can take over. That is the policy that we should be pursuing -- not some fantasy about negotiating with Ahmadinejad and Khameini.

Donald Douglas said...

Your head is buried, Tim.

I appauded President Obama a couple of months ago on his decision on troops in Afghanistan. The administration is now squandering America's moral leadership, plain and simple - and leftists like yourself have nothing, nothing self-redeeming.

Philippe Ohlund said...

Very courageous post, Donald! :-)

Politics is to have a very strong will to change things.

It is true that President Obama has a wait and see attitude which is very bizarre.

Yes Tim, I think more harsh words from the American President could help.

When the Spanish dictator Francisco Franco killed five persons in Spain, the Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme made a speech.

He addressed the Spanish dictator directly by calling him "Satanic murderer and dictatorship's creature".

And it helped.

In Iran, every single day for two weeks now scores of young people are murdered.

And the Iranian regime defends their constant killings of people there, and continues, relentlessly.

President Obama is the most powerful man in the Western world, and yes, I think he could make a difference by responding to their propaganda with strong words, like:

"So speak the creatures of dictatorship, who are bloody murderers!".

We should be nice to nice people.

With evil murderers there is absolutely no reason to be nice.

Tim said...

Donald, my point remains. You offer nothing in exchange for my own uncertainty here. Is John McCain your spokesperson? Because we know where he stands--amid a pile of more freshly killed bodies is my guess.

As for the Russia/South Ossetia issue last year, I seem to remember McCain taking a stand before we even knew what had happened there. So, shoot first, ask questions later I guess.

But again, I think Obama is handling this like an adult, not a petulant child.

Sometimes moral leadership is about not caving into the craven and ill-thought out reactions from the other side. I don't get the Carter comparisons at all, sorry. That is wish fulfillment on behalf of the neocons--if they can't tar him as Clinton, then make him out to be Carter. Sorry, no dice.

cracker said...

I'm with Kenn,

Hussein Obama aint no Neo-con!, he has yet to kneel to Netanyahoo....(this is a cornerstone of neo-conservative ideology, my friends).

Mossad may have his number already, but this time the CIA aint gonna be asleep at the wheel. one can only hope...i mean, the One can only hope.

Nonetheless this conservative is STILL diggin President Husseins intelligence, candor, and prudence.

Donald Douglas said...

Tim!!

You're a "wait-and-see" Obama clone!!

Tim said...

And Obama should do exactly what again? Besides condemn the violence, which he has already done.

Is more condemnation just to assuage our historical guilt for effing up Iran in the first place?

Again, I'm not claiming to have any answers here. But neither is the other side.

Rich Casebolt said...

Tim ...

Here's an "idea" of what I would consider a good start.

Of course, if Mr. Obama and other world leaders weren't so mired in your kind of moral equivalence when it comes to governance ... i.e. treating dictator and democrat with the same deference ... we would have acted in the only way to establish sustainable peace BEFORE now, by rising up and uprooting this regime.

You say that we "effed" up Iran ... well, in 1953 we faced the real possibility of Iran becoming part of the USSR. Now letting that happen would have really "effed" things up ... and if we had stopped the moral equivalence and instead worked to move the Shah towards rights-respecting governance (as Mr. Bush did in Iraq), instead of simply tolerating him as an ally, we wouldn't be in this situation today.

The problem is that the West spends more time navel-gazing, and less time acting in the JUSTIFIED confidence that protecting those "self-evident truths" increases the peace ... to the point that we consider as illegitimate regimes that show wanton disregard for those truths, as the Islamic Republic has inside and outside Iran's borders ... and act decisively to remove them and replace them with rights-respecting governance.

That would not lead to "war without end" ... but sustainable peace, instead, once those inclined to establish such regimes understood that We. Would. Not. Allow. Them. To. Prevail.

That lack of confidence is driving events towards a lost opportunity to increase the peace here ... once again.

It is time to realize that the decisive action I support is not about imposing "our" culture/values/religion upon others ... but about imposing UNIVERSAL, HUMAN principles of interaction upon those whose greed, brutality, and/or fanaticism lead them to impose such, upon others.

Anonymous said...

For real insight into Obama's pandering to Islamists please check the following blog posts:

Panderer in Chief, DOJ, and State Dept all continue favoring Islam


Islamic group, ISNA, staging coup at the FBI and White House

Obama’s Supplemental Bill Passes, Gives Billions to Enemies

Tom the Redhunter said...

Tim, there are several things Obama could do and you know it.

1) Offer moral support to the protesters. Contrary to what you think, the words of a president of the United States carry great weight.

ex-dissidents such as Armando Valladares and Natan(Anatoly) Sharansky have written that when the U.S. president condemns tyranny it boosts the morale of dissidents and protesters and delegitimizes tyrants. They've also written that when the U.S. president remains silent tyrants take heart. You could stand to learn from them.

But if you don't think that "harsh words" are called for, tell me if you advocated silence regarding apartheid South Africa?

2) Shun Ahmadinejad and anyone in his cabinet with the justification that he is an illegitimate president. Refuse to meet with him or anyone in his cablinet, and walk out whenever he speaks. Twist arms around the globe to do likewise (we've got a lot of pull when we choose to exercise it). This will delegitimatize the regime and help lead to its downfall.

3) Ban the import of gasoline into Iran. Despite its being a petroleum exporter, due to low refining capacity Iran must import some 40% of its gasoline. A full court press by the US would mostly stop this flow. The Iranian military would step in and end the regime.

There are more things we could do but this would be a start.