Iran
I know, I know--even slower than our President on this one. Hopefully, however, I will be more coherent.
First off, I will say that Obama has the potential to strike a major blow to democracy--literally a government of the people--on this one, and so far he hasn't.
But I am not so sure that he won't.
Imagine, if you will, a call to the Oval Office tomorrow from Khameini. "Mr. President," he says, "I know that you have been told that the demonstrations are acts of freedom-seeking peoples, expressing anger with perceived wrongs. Nothing could be further from the truth. The election was held; I assure you the broadcast results are entirely legitimate. These demonstrations are the acts of a few desperate men, some of them not even Iranian, seeking to undermine my government. I have suffered these fools in the interest of peace, but now they try my patience too far. I have a country to govern, and this disobedience stands in my way. And you, sir, stand in my way, too--at least right now. But you can change that. I am asking you to speak directly to the Iranians in the street; tell them to go home and resume normal life immediately. Tomorrow my forces will not be kind to those found in the streets; we will not be kind to those participating in a strike; in short, we will not be kind to anybody who is acting in a manner that, in my judgement, undermines the well-being of this country. Your influence may help keep a significant confrontation from happening, and may even save lives. If you do what I ask for the good of the Iranian people, I promise to engage in talks with you about our quest for nuclear power. However, if you fall short of my request, you will get no such deal from this government. You have until your prime time news shows tonight to decide."
WWTOD? (That's "what would the One do?") Watching his body (and his logic) contort on this one would be IMMENSELY entertaining--but only because he has "unique" principles. If he actually had a dog in this fight more significant than his desire to talk with our enemies (because America has been wrong, you know. . .sorry about that, world), then this would be a no-brainer. But he doesn't. No, he'd be left on his own, having to do the thing that governors do: make a decision. A life-and-death decision. It would be great writing--if it wasn't so unbelievably dangerous.
The second point I'd like to make about all this: Obama in his press conference yesterday said the following, as reported on Powerline:
The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent and not coercion.
WHAT?
A right to free speech in Iran? Since when? Granted, there is a document signed by Iran that purports to support the idea of free expression of opinion--but really, who thinks that has been in practice all these years? (The signing of the document predates the current regime by, oh, a generation or so)
And yet not only did Obama say those words from a prepared text, NOT A SINGLE PERSON IN ATTENDANCE felt like calling him on it. How tough would it have been to ask "do you really think that the Iranian government allows for the practice of free speech?"
Folks, the man is still securely on his honeymoon. Anybody know where he can get some waffles?
First off, I will say that Obama has the potential to strike a major blow to democracy--literally a government of the people--on this one, and so far he hasn't.
But I am not so sure that he won't.
Imagine, if you will, a call to the Oval Office tomorrow from Khameini. "Mr. President," he says, "I know that you have been told that the demonstrations are acts of freedom-seeking peoples, expressing anger with perceived wrongs. Nothing could be further from the truth. The election was held; I assure you the broadcast results are entirely legitimate. These demonstrations are the acts of a few desperate men, some of them not even Iranian, seeking to undermine my government. I have suffered these fools in the interest of peace, but now they try my patience too far. I have a country to govern, and this disobedience stands in my way. And you, sir, stand in my way, too--at least right now. But you can change that. I am asking you to speak directly to the Iranians in the street; tell them to go home and resume normal life immediately. Tomorrow my forces will not be kind to those found in the streets; we will not be kind to those participating in a strike; in short, we will not be kind to anybody who is acting in a manner that, in my judgement, undermines the well-being of this country. Your influence may help keep a significant confrontation from happening, and may even save lives. If you do what I ask for the good of the Iranian people, I promise to engage in talks with you about our quest for nuclear power. However, if you fall short of my request, you will get no such deal from this government. You have until your prime time news shows tonight to decide."
WWTOD? (That's "what would the One do?") Watching his body (and his logic) contort on this one would be IMMENSELY entertaining--but only because he has "unique" principles. If he actually had a dog in this fight more significant than his desire to talk with our enemies (because America has been wrong, you know. . .sorry about that, world), then this would be a no-brainer. But he doesn't. No, he'd be left on his own, having to do the thing that governors do: make a decision. A life-and-death decision. It would be great writing--if it wasn't so unbelievably dangerous.
The second point I'd like to make about all this: Obama in his press conference yesterday said the following, as reported on Powerline:
The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent and not coercion.
WHAT?
A right to free speech in Iran? Since when? Granted, there is a document signed by Iran that purports to support the idea of free expression of opinion--but really, who thinks that has been in practice all these years? (The signing of the document predates the current regime by, oh, a generation or so)
And yet not only did Obama say those words from a prepared text, NOT A SINGLE PERSON IN ATTENDANCE felt like calling him on it. How tough would it have been to ask "do you really think that the Iranian government allows for the practice of free speech?"
Folks, the man is still securely on his honeymoon. Anybody know where he can get some waffles?
