Barack Obama’s predecessor Abraham Lincoln once famously said “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”
This is a lesson President Obama should internalize. The President has been roundly criticized this week for his deafening silence in the face of the protests and the violent response of the regime in Iran. Obama’s defenders suggested that this was a wise policy so as not to antagonize Iran. I thought that this was nonsense and that a more strident response in favor of the demonstrators was the wise course, but I gave the President the benefit of the doubt.
Now that the President has spoken out, I wish he would have stayed silent.
From Jake Tapper
President Obama argued yesterday that there is little difference between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi on policies critical to the U.S.
“It’s important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised,” the president told CNBC. “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. And so we’ve got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election.”
How utterly, utterly, stupid. While it may be true that policy wise the two candidates are not radically different, it is completely besides the point. These protests are not about who is the better candidate from the American perspective. No, Mr President, it is about who was legally and legitimately elected in Iran.
To paraphrase another one of your predecessors, Bill Clinton. “It’s the democracy stupid!”
June 21, 2009 at 11:50 am
Dude, your posts seem so angry sometimes… And besides, the Iranian state is investigating wether the election results are valid.
June 21, 2009 at 3:28 pm
a123b, that is like the Nazi party investigating the ethical treatment of Jews in the concentration camps. The Iranian state doesn't operate the same way a legitimate democracy (or Republic– which it is and we are as well) ALL of Iranian government answers to one man, the president. That includes the state religion. This is why the media reported that Ahmadinejad won, why the Ayatollah spoke out against the demonstrators saying they would be punished.
I agree with Patrick's view. This was a poorly held view. My question about this (and most of the speeches coming from this administration) is where the heck are the aids? Why didn't someone simply tell Obama "um… well see the bigger issue is that the 'vote' of Iran isn't being upheld." Just like someone should have clued Clinton in on the fact that the Tilma was not painted by someone– it was a miracle.
These are little things that aids should be saying if the politician forgets. Especially the tilma, that devotion and history should be divulged to ANY politician who goes to Mexico.
But to correct President Clinton– We live in a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. Also, there are really not ANY democratic governments in the world because democracy on a large scale is nothing but problematic. Anyway, getting on a rant.
Sorry for the excessively long comment/blog post.
June 21, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Chris H. a minor correction, the mullahs of the ruling council run the country there, the President rules by their sufferance. The head mullah isn't referred to as Supreme Leader for nothing. But in the main your reply to a123b is dead on, it IS just like the Nazis of Germany investigating complaints against the concentration camps!
June 21, 2009 at 8:11 pm
I am guessing a123b is a Obamanite…great fearless leader can do no wrong…at least that is what Pravda…I mean…ABC tells him.
Obama has shown repeatedly a total lack of comprehension when it comes to foreign policy, I am not surprised that he has pooched it here as well.
June 21, 2009 at 8:53 pm
I was baffled as to why Obama didn't speak out earlier (with merely a simple statement of support for the Iranian people and democracy in general). But since then I've heard (isolated) opinions from people I respect (Pat Buchanan, who is no Obamaite) who pointed out that the president has played it right by treading very carefully in his public statements–because forces in Iran would be very happy to make the US a foil for future actions by drawing us into the argument and attempting to make the conflict about the United States.
I am no fan of Obama and have little patience for his "healer of the world" posture. But it's possible in this situation that he has handled it carefully so far. And as of today (Sun.) he has issued much stronger statements of support for the Iranian people. Better late than never, I guess.
June 22, 2009 at 12:12 am
Fr Bill – I'm not Obamanite, but the writers of this blog are so visibly and obviously backed up with hate-filled bile for the president that we should all take up a collection to get them a lifetime supply of ex-lax. If the president remained silent, they would have whined and moaned just the same. So, this was a no-win situation either way.
Regarding the situation in Iran: a) what Subvet and Chris said is true (the president is merely a rubber stamp to the supreme council) b) what the president said is true. I don't know if the president was saying "screw them both since neither of them is pro-American" or he was just making an accurate observation. Either way, Patrick is being petty and belligerent as usual.
Pray for the Christians of Iran.
June 22, 2009 at 1:40 am
Listen, you can say Obama was right all you want about his policies, but this wasn't about policies, it was about human rights to a just and fair election, and to not being shot or harrased for having voted differently. Surely we should not be afraid to say, "Don't shoot your own people." just because diplomatically, that might be received the wrong way…since when, given the nature of the Supreme Leader and his challenger, would we expect to receive a fair minded response to anything we say?
June 22, 2009 at 3:43 am
Patrick your comments here are "utterly utterly stupid". The President of the US MUST look at the election in terms of the American perspective. And you would be sniveling Obama is a traitor were he to do otherwise. The Iranian election is one between two infidels; both who hate the US and want to continue the nuclear program. And you want the president of the US to ignore the "American perspective"?? Are you a liberal in disguise or just anti-American?
The infidel Iranians who lost the election are protesting the infidel Iranians who won, just as the Democrats who lost in 2000 protested the Republicans who won. Boo hoo. Nothing new here. It doesn't mean their election was stolen necessarily, it just means they don't like the results one way or another.
Honestly, I'm really wondering right now if you wrote this post as either one of your unfunny "joke" posts, or to get people to ask themselves if you really are that stupid.
June 22, 2009 at 4:21 am
It is one thing to be a coward, it is quite another to be a coward with poor reading comprehension.
The fact that I am neither of these means at least I have one thing going for me. I am not you.
June 22, 2009 at 4:50 am
My reading comprehension is undoubtedly far superior to anything you will achieve or aspire to in 2 lifetimes. So, rather than squawk like some mindless parrot, try countering any of the points I made in my post. Here, I'll make it easy for you: you are "utterly utterly stupid because…
a) the POTUS MUST look at this election from an American perspective, wheras you state it should be all about their excercise in Democracy.
b) the Iranian election is between two infidels who hate the US and want to continue their arms programs, so as Obama says, there's no real horse for us in this race.
c) Just because a group protests results doesn't mean there is fraud or an election is stolen, so no need for the US to intervene or make any other statements.
d) you are cholerically anti-Obama, so nothing he could have done would have satisfied you here.
I've dumbed it down for you here to make it easy. If you have anything intelligent to counter, please do so by all means.
June 22, 2009 at 2:21 pm
It ain't some neo-con conspiracy even if we can come up with a respectable list of neo-cons gunning for Obama to ratchet up the Democracy Goodspeak like Wodrow freakin' Wilson. My local small-town newspaper regularly shills for progressive candidates and causes. It also would rather do a story on two beetles mating that give the front page to an international story, but when this story hit, it has been front page every day so far, even when the violence subsided. So Iranian violence–front page story. No Iranian violence–front page story? The thing stinks of media-driven controversy (the "Where is my vote?" posters written in perfect English being the first clue), and as much as Obama's world-view is detestable, it seemss the worst one could say is that it is a case of a blind pig finding a truffle. The good news is that this might signal the end of the honeymoon between the media and The One, but I wouldn't bet on that.
June 22, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Obama could have done something to satisfy those of us who are appalled at what's going on in Iran – he could have declared his support for those who are peacefully protesting and yet being violently put down. You act as if that wasn't an option, A123B.
Oh, and who said this?
"America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas; they are human rights. And that is why we will support them everywhere."
That's right, Obama just recently said that in Cairo. I think that should address your point. Obama was saying that even thought we might not support the outcome of every free election, we do support the process as a "human right." Therefore American support for free and fair elections and American interests in who gets elected are, by Obama's own words, independent of one another.
June 22, 2009 at 3:39 pm
First of all, I'm Dutch so I have a different perspective on all this. I am in support of Obama's foreign policy but am really against abortion. I'm not saying the Iranian government shouldn't change a lot, but I think you're a little prejudiced against Iran because of the American conservative media. The protests weren't peaceful, some were more like riots.
June 22, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Like I said, it isn't just conservative pundits pushing the Up-the-forces-of-democracy-in-Iran meme. My progressive rag of a local newspaper is pushing it as well. When that happens, our spidey-sense bs antennae should be tingling.
The protests weren't peaceful, some were more like riots.
That gets us to the only fact I'm really interested in and the one that it is hard to get trustworthy information on. If it is a peaceful demonstration, then yeah, the killings should be severely condemned. If it is a violent riot however, that's another kettle of fish that gets into details like amount of threat, proportional response, etc. Details which are hard to come by and that merely plugging in Iran government=bad isn't going to cut it.
June 22, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Yup. Just as I thought. Utterly utterly stupid.
June 22, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Fr Bill P I would have thought you to be an "ardent" Obama supporter, since you seem to share his disdain and disrespect for traditional Catholicism.
Who woulda thunk?