Obama’s Decision: Right or wrong

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei sided with Ahmadenajad and declared the election of last Friday a “definite victory.” He further stated, “If the difference is 100,000 or 200,000 or 1 million, one may say fraud could happen. But how can one rig 11 million votes?” Eleven millions votes might be hard to rig in a country where web sites were not shut down, where people could use their cell phones with ease, or where foreign press was allowed to observe the countries reaction to the election, but all of these, according to widespread reports through the American media, have been taken away from the Iranian people. These are excerpts from Newsmax.com, but multiple media outlets have reported the same information.

Without a nod of disapproval from the west, any attempts made by Musavi would go unchallenged, so why did Obama fell to intervene in the situation that the Iranian people have faced over the last week. Obama’s mother was Iranian; his father is African, both from countries with unstable governments. It could easily be said that the Africans change leadership as easily as they change loincloths, while the Iranians have had a long history of combatant elections. Obama, more than most, knows the fallacy of debating an election in Iran and would probably base his decisions upon how much diplomatic wealth would be gained by going against the true leader of the country; Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs; however, referred to the events taking place in Iran as a debate. People in the streets having their heads bashed in or being shot is not a debate, but an outright murder of one’s own citizenry. Whether or not the words that come from Gibb’s mouth are a directed speech made on Obama’s part could be debated, and it would be hoped that Obama does not believe that killing those who protest is viewed by the world as a “debate.” The only debate that could come as a result of all that has been broadcast, prior to the elections and ousting of foreign reporters would be between Obama and Khamenei and that could yield no good for the peoples of either the United States or Iran. This is one decision that though I have personal beliefs as to why Obama chose not to intervene, it is easier to argue that his lack of meddling did less harm.

The United States cannot fight battles in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran, and the only show of anything kind that the Iranian government would respect would be a show of force, which we are not in a position to effect. Too many times we have become involved in struggles, in foreign lands (the Philippines) to help the people only to be cast aside when the “people’s choice” became a worse choice than the one they already faced. The Shah of Iran and the Marcos regime are only two of the mistakes that we have made repeatedly while attempting to liberate people from an evil dictator. While it appears wrong to do nothing for the Iranians, this might be the best choice for all concerned.

I cannot state that this is a republican, conservative, independent, or a democratic view, but it is a personal view having watched one too many countries turn their backs on us after we thought our actions were to help them.

Posted by D. Ffallis at June 19, 2009 10:20 AM
Comment #283265

“…why did Obama fell to intervene in the situation that the Iranian people have faced over the last week.”

How would you have him intervene?

“While it appears wrong to do nothing for the Iranians, this might be the best choice for all concerned.”

How would you and the rest of the Republicans have felt if other nations had intervened in the contentious (and still called corrupt by some) 2000 and 2004 US presidential elections, or the still-undecided 2008 Minnesota senatorial election? Would that have appeared right to you?

“Obama does not believe that killing those who protest is viewed by the world as a “debate.””

I’m not sure where you’re getting this. Obama clearly expressed concern and sorrow over the violence and bloodshed that have occurred.

You’re just like Jack, aren’t you? You disapprove of the way Obama’s handling the situation but you fail to explain what he should be doing differently or why.

Let me ask you this: Is it within the realm of possibility that Obama would ever do something you would approve of, or is he disqualified by virtue of not being Reagan, or at least not being a Republican?

Posted by: Daniel Defoe at June 19, 2009 12:30 PM
Comment #283270

I don’t think he could have handled it any differently, and that’s what I said. I’m sorry if you misunderstood. Iran and a few other nations don’t want us to interfere with their political policies, and nothing short of a show of force would impress them. We’re not financially or militarily equipped to handle any of it. FYI, I did not vote for Bush.

Posted by: Donna Fallis at June 19, 2009 2:05 PM
Comment #283281

Telepromptors have been around for decades, and presidents use them. There is nothing new about this. What is your point about Obama using a telepromptor?

Posted by: phx8 at June 19, 2009 4:10 PM
Comment #283282

“Now I’m going to have to DVR everything on TV so I can fast forward through Obama’s informercials.”

A little to much transparency for you Sam? Better to have secret meetings in the white house with oil executives instead?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 19, 2009 4:28 PM
Comment #283283

Donna, I agree with your conclusion. Meddling in the internal affairs of nation’s is fraught with hidden dangers. We are fighting a 2 front war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are brinking on a third with N. Korea. Every history and military history book of any renown spells out the perils of trying to fight multi-front wars where there is any choice in the matter.

The road to interfering with Iran’s INTERNAL affairs has clear potential for resulting in fighting a third front war of choice, not necessity. And any war not of necessity is the gravest crime against humanity any leader may undertake in the name of their people.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 19, 2009 4:44 PM
Comment #283284

Sam, ignoring Obama only leads to being ignorant in discussing Obama.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 19, 2009 4:45 PM
Comment #283285


“A little to much transparency for you Sam?”

Are we talking about the recent WH blocking of guest list?

Or are we talking about the Obama administration blocking certain news agencies from being allowed to cover events? Or perhaps we’re talking about Obama’s personal attacks on Fox News?

Or by transparency, you mean only certain news channels being allowed to climb in bed with Obama?

Or perhaps like ABC, only news agencies who promote Obama will be given priviliges?


Sure you want to go there?

Posted by: sam at June 19, 2009 5:12 PM
Comment #283286

You sure have to love the corporate media don’t you sam? But then it could be worse instead of letting the news crews in bed with them they could be excluding what is left of our “free press” all together, just like the repub administration before them.

The guest list blocking wasn’t recent sam it has been blocked for years, once the cat is out of the bag, you know…

To exclude faux news is not excluding the free press though, and I am glad they did it, after all the previous administration used faux almost exclusively the past 8 years it is just someone else’s turn now. But better to have some of the press than exclude the press as was the case with the oil executives.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 19, 2009 5:33 PM
Comment #283288

He could not make a statement on Iran because Ayers is on vacation and did not type anything in the telepromter. Gibbs is such an idiot he is speaking like obama now. uh, uh, uh what was the question?

this administration will go down in history as the worst ever.

Nero fiddles while Rome burns!!!

Posted by: crayon51 at June 19, 2009 7:01 PM
Comment #283291

“True, but Obama promised transparency. And so far he is following the platform of Bush. I see dissapointment in those on the left.”

Well not exactly, sam, every journey begins with a single step. Obama has started the process and has made decent progress in reversing the trend of secrecy of the previous administration. Perhaps the disappointment you see is real as I am sure most of us would like more transparency, and as Americans consumers we expect it immediately, in government but to judge so quickly indicates a much greater disappointment from the right that this administration has moved in the proper direction on this issue.


“You do realize Fox News holds all the records for cable news, don’t you. Somebody must be watching.”

So what faux also says they are fair and balanced but does anybody really believe that and can they say it without a snicker? After all Columbo was the most watched TV series episode in the does that tell you anything about TV records?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 20, 2009 12:57 AM
Comment #283309

Iranian opposition leader: Vote should be annulled . http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090620/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election_326

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 20, 2009 1:29 PM
Comment #283318

President Obama seems to have made a decent statement now. Not as pithy or courageous as Reagan would have done and a little late, but I think we can say that our president is now catching up. The reactions of the world and the American people made a difference.

Posted by: Jack at June 20, 2009 3:23 PM
Comment #283327

Being a Republican Jack, I understand why you would spin his responses as ‘catching up’ to the rest of the world’s emotional ‘KNEE JERK’ responses.

The people of the world have that luxury. The President of the U.S. should not. The words and actions of the President of the U.S. potentially carry far reaching and enormous consequences, present and future. They must be weighed and considered when time permits. In this situation, time has permitted, and Obama has observed due diligence to his role as POTUS.

GW Bush has a lot to learn from Barack Obama.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 20, 2009 6:53 PM
Comment #283337

You have some of your history wrong.The rule of the Shah,effected by a CIA organized coup, was not for the purpose of getting rid of an “evil dictator”. It was to get rid of a popular democratically elected government that had the temerity to propose nationalization of Iran’s oil reserves and demand higher payments from US oil companies.
That is one of the reasons why a great deal of involvement by the US in the Iranian struggle would be counter-productive. Nothing would solidify the mulahs position more effectivly that for the
“Great Satan” to attempt direct involvement.BHO is doing the right thing.
A little off re. the Philippines also. Marcos was elected. He became a dictator after he refused to step down and the US helped keep him in power. The reason was that he was anti-communist. Surprisingly, his regime is looked back upon with a degree of longing. The economy of the RP was much better under Marcos, largely as a result of US investment and military expenditure.
FYI,We may have the opportunity to do the right in the RP soon. The current president is set to be termed out in 2010. Her backers are seeking a constitutional change to switch to a parlimentary system, allowing them to elect her as prime minister. There have been large protest also in Manila that have mostly been ignored in the US MSM. Gloria has been a staunch ally of the US and GWB. We also have a military mission in the RP and our influence goes back a long way. We could have an effect here.

Posted by: bills at June 20, 2009 11:21 PM
Comment #283343

You are a new poster here. Welcome.I have noticed occasional glimmers of insight in your post.At its best this site is about thoughtful debate and interchange of information. Ditto heads and their jingoism do not last long nor do they add much. The notion that BHO, one of the most thoughtful and eloguent public speakers in American politics for generations is absurd on the face of it. Bragging about self imposed ignorance of what the President of the United States has to say is belittling and insulting. If you choose to do that to your self,fine, but please do not insult the rest of us. I look forward to some honest ,knowlegable and thoughtful discussions with you.

Posted by: bills at June 21, 2009 12:03 AM
Comment #283344
The words and actions of the President of the U.S. potentially carry far reaching and enormous consequences, present and future. They must be weighed and considered when time permits.

Was Obama weighing and considering his words when he said that Mousavi was no different from Ahmadinejad? Whether or not this is true, it was a diplomatic disaster which was taken as a grave insult by the Iranian dissidents who are putting their lives on the line in the streets of Iran.

“Considered when time permits?” This is exactly what Hillary Clinton warned us about in the 3am telephone ad. The President doesn’t always have the luxury of voting present until “time permits” him to do the right thing, especially during a fast moving crisis. You don’t need endless amounts of time to try and get the rights words programmed into your teleprompter anyway if you have principles governing your actions.

It remains to be seen if our desire for an African-American president is worth the risk of subjecting ourselves and the world to n inexperienced community organizer whose actions are based on political calculation instead of principles.

Posted by: Paul at June 21, 2009 12:10 AM
Comment #283351

I think it is good thing to have a president that thinks before he opens his mouth. Remember GWB’s knee jerk “axis of evil” speech that had the effect of driving one and perhaps two of the countries he referred too to nuclear weapons production.
You seem shocked that a master politician might take political calculation into account. That’s how democracies work.Leaders taking the expressed will of the people into account is the difference between a dictatorship and and freedom. There are times,rare times, when a leader must buck public sentiment. There are other times when a leader must work to build consenses before moving in a direction. There are other times when information and consideration of possible outcomes must be done before an action is taken.This does not mean that principles are not also in play. In this case, it is very important that the Iranian people are convinced that we do not have a dog in the hunt. An endorsement by any American president would end any support they might have with the Iranian people, in light of out past dealings with Iran. It would be like a KKK endorsement for a national candidate.

“It remains to be seen if our desire for an African-American president is worth the risk of subjecting ourselves and the world to n inexperienced community organizer ….”

Obama did not win because he was Black. He won in spite of it.Your comment is an insult to the majority of the Americans that chose him not only over a well known,capable and experienced Democrat in the primary but over a battle tested and honorable Republic Senator in the general election. We did this because his policy proposals made more sense than his opponents did and he stands a good chance of delivering on them. Being Black is just a plus.
Enough with the teleprompter jibe,please. Every president since television was invented has used them. BHO is the best public orator to sit in the Oval Office in a long time. He writes his own books,a Washington rarity. He was editor of the Harvard Law Revue.He can put words together. To try to portray him as some sort of bumbling fool is an exercise in doublethink and beneath you.

Posted by: bills at June 21, 2009 4:28 AM
Comment #283353

Paul, care to provide a link to verify YOUR version of what OBama said about Musavi and Ahmadinejad? Obama’s critics have a tendency to take his words out of context or substitute their own words for his, which I suspect is what you are doing here.

But, you can settle this debate by providing the source of Obama’s quotation on this matter, if you dare.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 21, 2009 6:16 AM
Comment #283354

Sam, your comment about the polls is demonstrably wrong. Obama has pursued several agendas which the polls show a majority in the negative. Polls don’t drive this president’s agenda, and the polls prove it. The majority approve of his being president, but, a majority in the polls disapprove of several of his policies, including bailing out the banks and GM, and his federal benefits for same-gender couples, which alienated many on both the left and right.

Your one-liner partisan cheap shot comments having no basis in empirical fact are just too easy. Thank you.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 21, 2009 6:21 AM
Comment #283364

Virtually everyone agrees on the moral stand America needs to take in regard to Iran. It’s interesting that the people most vociferous about moral grandstanding and political interference come from the same political philosophy that brought American foreign policy to the shameful state it has reached today.

The shame of that political philosophy still finds itself expressed in beliefs that Islam is a uniquely violent religion, that Obama’s use of a teleprompter means… I don’t know, I can’t even follow that line of reasoning. Does anybody know what conservatives are trying to say? Is Obama stupid? Too cautious? Too aggressive? A movie actor?… The adherents of conservative philosophy are the same ones that brought about the debacle in Iraq, the numbskull assertion that the surge worked, and so on. Now, in all seriousness, they cricize Obama for… something… anything… It doesn’t even make sense.

Can idiot terms like ‘Islamofascism’ be poised to make yet another farcical, yet dumb, appearance?

Posted by: phx8 at June 21, 2009 1:39 PM
Comment #283413


I’m not Paul but here is the actual quote from Obama.

It’s important to understand that although there is some ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised,” Mr. Obama said. “Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons.”

NY Times

It is being played up in the foreign press (and on Free Republic of course) much the same way that Paul presents; as a lack of support for the protests. The title at Azerbaijan Today is “Barack Obama sees no difference between Ahmadinejad and Musavi losing elections”

Posted by: George at June 22, 2009 3:40 PM
Comment #283420

George, thanks.

Too bad so many folks are functionally illiterate and can’t understand, let alone quote, another person accurately.

The word ‘MAY’, and the FACT that we are going to be dealing with segment of Iranian society that will remain hostile to the U.S., seem to completely have escaped those putting false words in Obama’s mouth.

And Obama is probably right about their being not that much difference between the policies of Ahmadinejad and Musavi, from what I have been reading of Musavi’s past speeches. He may be an improvement for many Iranian people, but, Musavi’s intent to keep Iran the strongest player in the Middle East and suspicious of American actions, is documented.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 22, 2009 6:19 PM
Comment #283506

Try this one for size. Though I don’t agree with many of his opinions sometimes he hits it out of the park. This is chess folks. Not checkers.

Posted by: John at June 24, 2009 12:48 PM
Comment #283507

So sorry. Here is the link.


quote text

Posted by: John at June 24, 2009 12:50 PM
Post a comment