"Appalled and Outraged"Is Obama getting tougher on Iran?
Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009, at 6:59 PM ET
I will not begin a piece with a pretentious literary quote. Meanwhile, F. Scott Fitzgerald observed that the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in the mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. By this measure, President Obama was first-rate at his press conference Tuesday afternoon. He escalated his rhetoric about the violence in Iran but insisted he hadn't changed his posture. He claimed to be outside the 24-hour news cycle while simultaneously manipulating it.
Obama's supporters will call this performance evidence of an admirably supple mind. His detractors will call it slipperiness.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponThe president started the press conference with his strongest denunciation of the violence in Iran to date. In his opening remarks, he said the United States was "appalled and outraged" and that "we deplore the violence against innocent civilians." Switching to the first person, he continued, "I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost."
This is the strong stuff the president's critics have been calling for. In the nine days since the government of Iran started cracking down on its people, Obama has been reluctant, arguing that if he meddled, he would become a foil for the authoritarian regime. In response to the beatings and shootings in the street, he said he was "deeply troubled" and "concerned," but no more. This weekend he called on the Iranian authorities to stop the violence, but his language contained no new admonition.
Today, he not only upped his rhetoric, he reacted personally, talking about the "searing image of a woman bleeding to death in the streets," a reference to the so-called Neda video. He called the loss "extraordinarily painful" and "heartbreaking."
In recent days, Obama has quoted the expression Martin Luther King Jr. made popular: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." When he cited this quote during his presidential campaign, he asked voters to put their hand on the arc to help it bend. Until now he has said the United States stood "witness" to the events in Iran. Now he has put his hand on the arc.
Why the change? The president bristled at the mere suggestion that it was a change. Yet his press secretary had gone on the morning news shows to preview Obama's new "stern words," the White House had them translated into Persian, and still the president maintained that he'd said nothing new. "I've been consistent all along," he said. It's true that he reiterated his previous noninterventionist position—he did not challenge the legitimacy of the election or withdraw his offer to engage with Iranian leaders. But the language was new.
Obama laughed at the notion that his critics like John McCain had pushed him into a stronger position. "I just made a statement on Saturday in which we said we deplore the violence," he said. But the president's statement on Saturday contains no such tough language.
The president also answered several health care questions. He made it very clear, as he always has, that he wants Congress to present him with a plan that doesn't increase the deficit. "This is legislation that must and will be paid for," he said. He repeatedly returned to this point, perhaps an acknowledgement of the public's fears about growing deficits.
Why Is Obama Always Talking About "False Choices"?
The Lovely Bones: Peter Jackson's Attempt To Show Us Heaven
Is It Practical To Kill Someone by Boiling Him in Lye?
Justice Stevens Is the Court's Last WASP. Should Obama Replace Him With Another One?
How Hanukkah Became a Major Holiday
Will Avatar Be a Flop or Tremendously Successful?
Interesting to observe that Obama's rhetorical ramp up was inversely proportional to the chances for the success of the hapless young Iranians protesting an obviously rigged election. He weakly and timidly tip toed through the first few days of the uprising when they could have used our encouragement most, and uses the stronger language after the cause is lost. One could almost think that he wanted them to fail so that he could continue to negotiate with the oppressive regime he has so willingly held out his hand to. Obama never disappoints, he is a weak, inexperienced neophyte, and always shows it.
-- Mary Fitzpatrick
(To reply, click here)
Back in the 50's, when the same thing was going on America was very approving of the struggle for 'freedom' in Iran. In fact, America helped the process along with assassination and financial support of paramilitary gangs.
The short term result was adjudged 'very good', the long term result was the Iran we see today.
In between, the Shah and his secret police set new standards of corruption and brutality. This suggests to me that America would do better by doing less.
-- al loomis
(To reply, click here)
There are two issues that Obama can take a position on: the results of the election, and the handling of the protests. It is entirely appropriate for Obama to take a measured approach on the former, and a strong position on the latter.
When Obama was being measured in his words last week, we did not have much reporting of a crackdown - the Iranian government was, or was believed to be, allowing the people to protest.
Now the government has been using violence, and sterner words are called for because the underlying situation has changed. Obama has responded appropriately.
As for the legitimacy of the election, there's no surer way to hurt the legitimacy of any subsequent regime than for it to be seen as put into place by help from the U.S.
-- spackle
(To reply, click here)