How a President chooses to lead in times of crisis abroad, a study in contrasts.
Many have tried to explain Obama’s position, or lack of one, on the momentous happenings as walking a tightrope. I think that these nattering nabobs of nuance are too cute by half. Iran is already cracking down and will accuse the US and others of meddling no matter what we do. President Reagan, up against much greater threats than Iran, chose to give voice to rights and aspirations of an oppressed people. President Obama has chosen the opposite path. History will judge him accordingly.
I include here a few tweets of mine that reflect my thinking on the topic.
- In these times that test the spirit of men, an unwillingness to meddle shows One’s mettle.
- Nuance & timidity in the face of a brutal repression of the legitimate rights and aspirations of a people seems like complicity.
- Obama and the nattering nabobs of nuance show calculated indifference to the aspirations of a people. History will judge accordingly.
June 23, 2009 at 12:30 pm
As my husband often says, "Silence is acquiescence."
Obama's silence is giving Aminijad carte blance to continue brutalizing the Iranian people.
Much of the world looks to the President of the United States to lead not only the United States, but the rest of the free world. It is a shame we sent a coward to the White House instead of a hero.
June 23, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Will accuse us?
Already have….
Protested via the Swiss envoy, and accused at a "meeting of clerics and scholars."
Oh, and their grand total basis? ONE guy asked Twitter to put off a scheduled down-time.
Definitely makes me want to show them what REAL interference is…and it's not failing to help…. *growl, grumble, goes for more coffee*