Can you spare a little rage and scorn for someone who is actually oppressing people?
The Iranians just had an election stolen from them by their government. Remember how angry you were when you pretended the election was stolen in 2000? Why, you whined about it for years and years. Some of you still even whine about it today. Again, you guys were only pretending an election was stolen. Now think if the election were actually stolen, and Bush declared himself winner by 63 percent of the vote. You’d be so angry you might actually do something more than whine about it. Well, that is what’s happening with the Iranians, and they’re taking to the streets. If you miss the pretend anger about 2000, maybe you can direct some real anger at what’s happened in Iran.
I think it’s a hopeless cause.
[Early evening update]
Two reactions: (1) I doubt such supportive arguments would be now advanced should a President McCain have urged similar realpolitik; (2) Should Obama have come out a few days ago with ringing endorsements for those who wish free and fair elections, and had he given a Reaganesque embrace of the dissidents’ bravery and idealism, I doubt we would be reading any of what we read today.
So do I.
Indefinite holding of detainees under Bush — Evil, the end of the Constitution. Indefinite holding of detainees under Obama: a well-considered, and in the end, wise and calm decision.
Rand, It is the Right (and you) that is now calling for empty ineffectual rhetoric. Shame on you!
Anyway, this Belief.net post is spot on,
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2009/06/iran-doesnt-need-obama-to-spea.html
Read the whole thing.
Actually, Obama has greatly assisted this uprising.
One view:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-rosen/youtube-diplomacy-and-ira_b_217035.html
There also is the simple fact that the youth movement in Iran has been copying Obama’s 2008 campaign strategy. For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEfk1lDImMI
Watch the whole thing
Chait offers more de-bunking of the myth that Obama is objectively pro-Ahmadinejad and/or “sitting on his hands”
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/06/17/is-obama-secretly-rooting-against-iran-s-liberals.aspx
Subsequent to Obama being elected, the Iranian opposition has been far more visible than it ever was during the Bush Presidency.
Explaining this should be a pre-condition to bashing Obama over Iran.
= = =
The strongly pro-Israel Jeffrey Goldberg agrees
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/06/chait_v_kagan.php
Bill,
Obama is lending nothing of substance what so ever to this situation. All we have is his boilerplate rhetoric of hand holding while humming kumbaya and simply plugging in meaningful nouns to fit the context of a situation. We’ve all heard this before over and over again (and it hasn’t even been 1 year) from the Abortion debate on up. Yet, for some reason, when George Tiller is shot and killed he has no problem immediately declaring that he is ‘shocked and disgusted’ yet all we get out of the Iranian situation is ‘moderate concern’. Oh, wait, I think he did upgrade that to “gravely concerned” a few days after the fact.
In Iran we see an assault and an insult to the principles of democracy. This is something that should resonate strongly with all free societies. This is something that should be met with out right scorn at the Iranian regimes thuggish tactics. All Obama has to offer is his hope that a reasoned debate between the regime and the Iranian people will continue. The regime stole a bloody election, that is the antithesis of a debate! How can you debate with a side that only serves to undermine your opposing point of view?
Oh, and I love your attempt to white was the violent history of Iran and spin this around that every thing came crashing down the moment George Bush put Iran at one of the corners of his ‘Axis of Evil’. By that token the Iranians will surely stop developing their nuclear weapons now that the Bushitler isn’t around to call them names any more.
Subsequent to Obama being elected, the Iranian opposition has been far more visible than it ever was during the Bush Presidency.
Explaining this should be a pre-condition to bashing Obama over Iran.
If I’d ever defended the Bush policy toward Iran, you might have a point, but (as usual) you don’t.
I think, though, that the best explanation is that there had been no obviously stolen elections prior to now, or at least none so blatant, for which there had been such hope.
I guess others elsewhere have already made this point.
But the Iranian election aftermath was not simply about a choice between Mr. Dinner Jacket and Mr. Eggplant Dish. As in any authoritatian/totalitarian type society, the candidates are carefully vetted, and which candidate was selected in voting makes very little difference.
The point is that the Mullahs gave the Iranian people this bare dog bone of democracy, and they couldn’t even get that part right by letting the people have this pretense of a choice. If the street demonstrations are not repressed and this leads to revolution, I hardly see even Mr. Mousavi becoming the president.
And even if people are all wrong and the Dinner Jacket really did get 60 percent of the vote, what is it about the people that they would take to the streets instead of simply shrug and accept the election outcome. This election outcome may only be a trigger for deeper forces below the surface.
The King of France gave the people the Estates General, which was a kind of pretend parliamentary government, but we all know where that lead. Once sufficient cracks are opened in an oppressive government, the whole system becomes vulnerable.
Bill,
I don’t get it – is Obama sitting on his hands to avoid the appearance of meddling, or is he greatly assisting the revolt? Which is it?
And how is Twitter evidence of Obama greatly assisting the revolt? Did Obama invent Twitter? I know Al Gore invented the Internet, but the Obama Administration being responsible for the creation and use of “Facebook, Twitter, SMS, MMS, YouTube, Demotix, and other Web 2.0 tools and services” (they forgot to mention Fark, but I guess Fark is a Web 1.0 dinosaur) is news to me! And the really amazing trick is how all these sites were invented years before Obama was elected! Does Obama have a time machine?
Another thing I don’t get, Bill, is how any examination of Bush’s policies towards Iran can prove or debunk Obama’s “pro-Ahmedinejadiness”. Isn’t it possible (under your analysis) that they’re both pro-Ahmedinejad?
Feh.
I agree with Brock. Bill White’s logic here, and the logic of those he is quoting seems off. You can’t say the best course of action is to not meddle and then brag about meddling. You can’t brag about the wisdom of your inaction (until after the fact), and then complain the previous guy did nothing.
Bill White’s logic here, and the logic of those he is quoting seems off.
Not exactly an unusual occurrence.
Actually, did Bill even read the story, or did he just come in here to pump up Obama and put down Bush.
In the article that I read (you know, the one to which Rand provided a link) didn’t say anything about Obama – it called out all of the left-wing liberals who will protest almost anything, as long as it is against conservative ideas. To sum it up, Bush beats Gore, protest because the election was ‘stolen’ but when the election in Iran was (most likely) stolen, say nothing.
Reading comprehension, Mr. White, it isn’t just for conservatives anymore!!
Actually, did Bill even read the story, or did he just come in here to pump up Obama and put down Bush.
He seems to rarely bother to actually follow and read links. He just uses my posts to comment on some hobby horse of his own, like graffiti on a wall.
Well, let’s see. The original article is so snide, insulting and wrong-headed I’m not sure where to start. But let’s give it a go:
1) I for one didn’t think Bush stole the 2000 election.
2) I suspect that those who did think he stole the election were genuinely upset, not pretending.
3) Actually, at least some leftists (see any recent Rachel Maddow episode) are quite angry at the mullahs in Iran.
The argument is not “are the mullahs bad.” The argument is “how best to help Iranians get democracy.” Since the Iranian government is making great efforts to link the street protests with the US government, despite zero evidence of our involvement, giving them evidence to play in an endless loop on Iranian TV seems to be a bad idea.
Let’s try and follow Chris’ logic here, and hope it doesn’t hurt our heads too much.
Iranian protestors: “We know that our election was stolen by the mullahs, and they are murdering us when we protest!”
Mullahs: “The Great Satan is meddling in our affairs!”
Americans: “We support the Iranian people in their desire for a free and fair election, and oppose their being beaten and shot in the streets by their illegitimate government.”
Iranian protestors: “The Americans agree with us! We must be wrong, and the mullahs right! How could we have been so stupid?!”
No, sorry, Chris. They’re not anywhere near stupid as you fantasize them.
And none of this means that anything that happens in Iran has anything to do with the USA or any other Western country. The message to them ought to be loud and clear, and it isn’t.
What message? “We don’t want to know and don’t care what you do in your own country or to each other. However, harm us again as your ‘brothers’ did in 2001 and we will squash you like a bug.” And the USA, and probably even the UK, can do it, too.
Americans: “We support the Iranian people in their desire for a free and fair election, and oppose their being beaten and shot in the streets okay, and already said.
by their illegitimate government is a value judgement on the government and implicit endorsement of the protestors. From our government it’s meddling. From you, me and Rachel Maddow, okay.
From our government it’s meddling.
But it’s not “meddling” that the protesters would object to, or cause them to suddenly support the mullahs. That’s high-octane crazy.
And I provided you with the CNN report of the students asking Obama not to legitimize the election (at your request, after you nuttily told me that they didn’t exist). Did you just have to ignore that to stay in your sphere of unreality?
But it’s not “meddling” that the protesters would object to Actually, it is. We have a history of screwing with the internal politics of Iran that most Iranians don’t like. See, the US and Great Britain circa 1800.
asking Obama not to legitimize the election which is a country mile from “please help us.” It’s actually much closer to (if not the same as) “stay out.”
How many moons circle your planet, Chris?
Rand – one, rather large, thank you.
“We have a history of screwing with the internal politics of Iran that most Iranians don’t like. See, the US and Great Britain circa 1800.”
What? You’re going to ignore Carter in ’79? You know, the Prez who thought Khomeni was a great guy.
Bill White
Wow, just wow. Talk about being in the tank. I think this Iranian episode must really be harming the Obamamessiah reputation to provoke such a full throttled and silly defense.
It would be amusing to verbally abuse Bill White’s tongue-bath of Barry’s scrotum, but I suspect picking on any one stone-dumb enough to cite twitter as a revolutionary force would definable child-abuse.
For Chris Gerrib:
1) That’s nice.
2) Who gives a fat rat’s buttocks whether they were “genuinely” upset, or not? No, really? Should I give more attention to someone “genuinely” upset but delusional, as opposed to artificially upset, but sane? If nothing else, the “stolen election” loons should remember that there were forty-nine other states in play as well, and Gore lost 50% of them. That’s pretty sad coming off of eight years of prosperity, a few budget surpluses, and no war. Talk about blowing it…
3) “The best approach is not get involved.” In other words, if we say and do nothing, we shall have no discernible affect. On the other hand, if we do say or do something, it will have a negative affect. So, our two choices according to Chris are useless silence or adverse discussion.
One must conclude that Mr. Gerrib believes that even vaguely general positive (or specific) statements about current activism in Iran must necessarily result in negative effects.
In other words, the leader of “hope’n’change;” who’s mantra was “yes, yes we can;” who campaigned as a transformative figure; a renowned and eloquent Harvard graduate is reduced to a useless, silent tool.
After that, Chris claims that “screwing with internal politics of Iran … circa 1800” has a contemporary dispositive effect. Yep, most normal human beings get really riled up over things that happened over two fracking centuries ago…
Look, I’m not saying Barry should be sending the entire Fifth Fleet off the coast of Iran, but isn’t there the teensiest room for any sort a “Solidarity” moment? You remember that don’t you, when that crazy old ex-B-movie actor Ronny Ray-gun spoke up for the Polish people, and gave them hope they just might eventually push the stamping boot off of their face?
Sorry. Forget I said that. Don’t want to insult Ronny’s memory by comparing him to Barry… {/snerk}
of Iran … circa 1800″ has a contemporary dispositive effect. Yep, most normal human beings get really riled up over things that happened over two fracking centuries ago…
I was using the US election of 1800 as an example. As everybody knows, it was a tie, yet both candidates (Adams & Jefferson) didn’t want or seek British involvement. I assume I don’t need to explain why.
The events of 1979, where the two main candidates worked to overthrown an American ally, are recent history in Iran, and in living memory of at least some of those protestors.
The events of 1979, where the two main candidates worked to overthrown an American ally, are recent history in Iran, and in living memory of at least some of those protesters.
Some, but the majority of them hadn’t been born yet.
Rand – considering the amount of complaining you do about the events of the 1930s, arguing that the protestors wouldn’t be aware of the events of 30 years ago assumes that the Iranians in the streets are idiots.
I’m much more informed about history than average. And I’m not assuming they’re idiots, just — like most young people — not that knowledgeable about history before they were born. And most of them are pro-American, because they are on the Internet. They hate the regime, and to the extent that they are aware of the events of thirty years ago, most of them are angry at us because we let the mullahs take over, not because we initially supported the shah.