I need to stop being surprised at the reality that President Obama reliably takes the wrong position on almost everything. The guy’s naivete is matched only by his hubris.
Writing in the New York Post, Ralph Peters has some thoughts about Obama’s response to the seemingly stolen Iranian elections and the subsequent demonstrations and government crackdown.
SILENCE is complicity. Our president’s refusal to take a forthright moral stand on the side of the Iranian freedom marchers is read in Tehran as a blank check for the current regime.
The fundamentalist junta has begun arresting opposition figures, with regime mouthpieces raising the prospect of the death penalty. Inevitably, there are claims that dissidents have been “hoarding weapons and explosives.”
Foreign media reps are under house arrest. Cellphone frequencies are jammed. Students are killed and the killings disavowed.
In the past when something like this happened the leader of the free world would typically express support for the people demonstrating for honest democracy, even if the words were carefully chosen and not bombastic. Not so with this beta male President. But what does Obama do?
And our president is “troubled,” but doesn’t believe we should “meddle” in Iran’s internal affairs. (Meddling in Israel’s domestic affairs is just fine, though.)
We just turned our backs on freedom.
Of all our foreign-policy failures in my lifetime, our current shunning of those demanding free elections and expanded civil rights in Iran reminds me most of Hungary in 1956.
For years, we encouraged the Hungarians to rise up against oppression. When they did, we watched from the sidelines as Russian tanks drove over them.
For decades, Washington policymakers from both parties have prodded Iranians to throw off their shackles. Last Friday, millions of Iranians stood up. And we’re standing down.
That isn’t diplomacy. It’s treachery.
LTC Peters: you hit the nail right on the head. Mr Obama has a fetish for talking about diplomacy that is rooted in a few stereotypical, but quite often true, liberal attributes. First, liberals always pretend that history started yesterday and that the experiences of others trying to deal with the same problems are insignificant. Second, liberals believe that everyone is essentially the same and that all conflict is simply caused by a misunderstanding of each other; I like to call this the Three’s Company School of Diplomacy. Third, and in this president’s case this is the real underlying problem: I would argue once again, as I have for a while now, that beta males have such an intrinsic fear of toughness that they avoid situtations requiring that manly attribute. President Obama, being such a classic primped beta male, would rather talk nice than talk tough because toughness simply is not in his character. He is incapable.
LTC Peters also points out that these new developments are not in the Obama&Co script outlining how this is supposed to work, so they are holding their fingers in their ears yelling la-la-la-la:
Despite absurd claims that Obama’s Islam-smooching Cairo speech triggered the calls for freedom in Tehran’s streets, these politics are local. But if those partisan claims of the “Cairo Effect” were true, wouldn’t our president be obliged to stand beside those he incited?
Too bad for the Iranians, but their outburst of popular anger toward Iran’s oppressive government doesn’t fit the administration’s script — which is written around negotiations with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Peters closes with this:
History’s a blank canvas — except for America’s sins. Of course, we’ve had presidents who presented the past in the colors they preferred — but we’ve never had one who just made it all up.
Obama’s ignorance of history is on naked display — no sense of the brutality of Iran’s Islamist regime, of the years of mass imprisonments, diabolical torture, prison rapes, wholesale executions and secret graves that made the shah’s reign seem idyllic. Our president seems to regard the Iranian protesters as spoiled brats.
Facts? Who cares? In his Cairo sermon — a speech that will live in infamy — our president compared the plight of the Palestinians, the aggressors in 1948, with the Holocaust. He didn’t mention the million Jews dispossessed and driven from Muslim lands since 1948, nor the ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Christians from the West Bank.
Now our president’s attempt to vote “present” yet again green-lights the Iranian regime’s determination to face down the demonstrators — and the mullahs understand it as such.
If we see greater violence in Tehran, the blood of those freedom marchers will be on our president’s hands.
The blood of Iranians who yearn for freedom is on your hands, Mr Obama.