When You've Lost Nicholas Kristof...

When you've lost Nicholas Kristof...

Avowed Obama supporter Nick Kristof is disgruntled with Obama's foreign policy:

Yet the president is taking prudence to the point of paralysis. I’m generally an admirer of Obama’s foreign policy, but his policies toward both Syria and Sudan increasingly seem lame, ineffective and contrary to American interests and values. Obama has shown himself comfortable projecting power — as in his tripling of American troops in Afghanistan. Yet now we have the spectacle of a Nobel Peace Prize winner in effect helping to protect two of the most odious regimes in the world. 

 Earlier this month Kristof called Obama out over a lack of support for the starving children of Sudan:

President Obama, you harshly criticized President Bush for failing to stand up to Sudan’s slaughter in Darfur. So now what are you going to do as Sudan kills again — on your watch? 

That Kristof is even surprised at Obama's "dithering" is naive; who can forget Obama's "dithering" while Iranians protested and died in the streets fighting for their freedom?  Hell, even Bon Jovi stood with Iran on that one.   Obama not only "dithered" in 2009 while Iranians protested, but he went out for ice cream, grilled with Bobby Flay, had a luau and, of course, played golf.

Why should Kristof think the Sudan would be any different?

Yesterday Kristof wrote:

Obama was forceful in demanding that President George W. Bush stand up to Sudan during the slaughter in Darfur, so it’s painful to see him so passive on Sudan today. When governments turn to mass murder, we may have no easy solutions, but we should at least be crystal clear about which side we’re on. That’s not too much to expect of a Nobel Peace Prize winner. 

What exactly did Obama do to win that prize again?

The Nobel Peace Prize 2009 was awarded to Barack H. Obama "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". 

 Oh, yeah.  Right.  Tell that to Neda.



Photo Credit:  Deborah Hakes/The Carter Center

It's Time For an Intervention for E.J. Dionne

E.J. Dionne is delusional.  There is no other explanation.

In his latest column, titled "Can A Messiah Win Twice" (gag bucket, please...), Dionne ponders the likelihood of Obama's re-election:

Most Americans still believe that Obama inherited rather than caused the economic turmoil. Barring another crisis in Europe, there is a decent chance of somewhat better times by Election Day.

Obama's fall offensive against Republicans in Congress has paid dividends. Voters seem inclined to blame Washington's dysfunction on the GOP, not on a president they still rather like. Most also think Obama's foreign policy has put the nation on a steadier course.

Wow.

Where to start?

"Obama's foreign policy has put the nation on a steadier course." 

Yes, the shoot to kill drone program has netted us so much new intelligence!  Oh wait....

Most Americans, I think, recognize and are disgusted by Obama's fawning, bowing, apologies to dictators and his alienation of our allies.

Most Americans would be disgusted by his embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood and the news this week that Obama is aligning with Qaradawi to negotiate (read "surrender") with the Taliban.  He's preparing to recognize the Taliban as a legitimate political party.

Most Americans are disgusted by his lack of support for Israel.

Most Americans were repulsed by Obama's failure to support (until forced to make a statement) Iranians protesting a stolen election and who wanted democracy even when they were shot down in the streets by mullah enforcers.

Most Americans were stunned by Obama's complete and utter failure in Egypt.  Egypt has now replaced a pro-American regime with an anti-American one.  Again, he's aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood.

There's much more fisking to be done on Mr. Dionne's piece, especially on the economic portion, but frankly, I'm getting nauseous. 

Clearly Obama still has plenty of fawning sycophants in the media.

Oh, and for the record, Dionne is betting that Obama gets re-elected.  Bwahahahahahaaa!

New National Defense Policy: Unite the World!

What should we do about Iran?

We learned this week that Obama was briefed on the plot in June to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States. 

In June?

And it hits the media now?

Now that Eric Holder is awaiting a subpoena and under fire for his part in Fast and Furious?  What timing!

Have no fear.  The Obama administration is on the case.  (Cue Kumbaya...)

"It's critically important that we unite the world in the isolation of and dealing with the Iranians," Vice President Joe Biden said on "The Early Show" Wednesday. "That's the surest way to be able to get results."

Better than sanctions, eh?  Not.

"Unite the world?"  Really? Delusional much?  Quote of the day to Investor's Business Daily:

What will we do? Cut off a few more bank accounts? Ask for more meaningless sanctions? We bomb Libya, the mouse that roared, but won't even send so much as an iPhone to Iranian dissidents who share a common enemy — Tehran.

In 2009, when Iranian dissidents risked their lives to demonstrate against the gray-beard mullahs oppressing them, Tehran paused briefly as the Soviet Union did in Hungary in 1956. Seeing no Western support for the uprising, Tehran unleashed its security apparatus to suppress and murder — much as Moscow ordered the tanks to roll into Budapest. Now we are Iran's target.

Anybody but Obama in 2012.

Are You More Worried About Obama's NCAA Brackets Than You Are Japan?

It's been a while since I posted one of these but somehow it just fits right now:

Obama's detachment while "Rome burns" is beyond belief.  Long ago I concluded that nothing this putz did would shock me and he consistently proves me wrong.

As yet another CR is passed with no real resolution to the budget issues, (you'll remember, it was the Dems that kicked that can down the road last year...), as Libya continues to disintegrate, as the news from Japan gets worse and worse with each passing hour, what is Fearless Leader doing?  Well, his NCAA brackets, of course!  Not only that, he's taping a spot with ESPN about his picks.  Does anybody really CARE? 

I'm rather worried about the kind of person who cares more about who Obama has picked in his brackets that what happens to Japan, Libya or the United States. 

And lest we sound repetitious at SIGIS, I must ask once again, can you just imagine if GWB had diddled like this? 

We watched helplessly as Obama golfed his way through the Iranian protests last year.  In fact, during those protests for freedom, Obama planned a luau, grilled with Bobby Flay, and invited the Iranian ambassadors over for hot dogs.  We sat by as he made little or no comment on Egypt.  He's ignored one world crisis after another while concentrating primarily on his golf game under the pretense of not wanting to interfere with the business of other nations.  And it a "let them eat cake" moment, he jokes about this at the Gridiron Dinner. 

Yet now, with Japan, when Obama has an opportunity in his Saturday address to plea for funds, for donations, for aid, what does he do?  He votes "present."  He runs a pre-taped spot on Women's History Month.  Hunh?  It's as if he didn't even know the world was in a meltdown.  With Libya, he has now, now, directed his staff "to fully engage in the discussions" with NATO and the UN.  Were we not "fully engaged" before?

I'm sorry, but I have less respect for this jerk as each day goes by.  I don't respect him as a leader, much less as a man.  My goldfish has bigger gonads than this putz.

Please.

Sarkozy and Krauthammer Unload on Obama

Charles Krauthammer takes Obama to task this week for his naivete, especially with regard to Iran, the U.N. and nukes. Couple that with unfolding story of Obama and his commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, and Krauthammer's point couldn't be more clear.

It is, however, a point that most of us saw long ago, including Krauthammer. He isn't new to this view of Obama.

As things stand at this point, Obama is (finally) meeting with McChrystal on Air Force One at this moment. What will come of that? We shall see. It seems to me, and I'm no military strategist by any stretch of the imagination, but it just seems common sense to me that McChrystal would be the one to know what the situation is in Afghanistan. For Obama to sit upon high and override his hand picked General seems the height of arrogance to me. But, maybe he has other information that the rest of us don't know.

With regard to Obama grandstanding at the U.N., Krauthammer says this:

Confusing ends and means, the Obama administration strives mightily for shows of allied unity, good feeling, and pious concern about Iran’s nuclear program — whereas the real objective is stopping that program. This feel-good posturing is worse than useless, because all the time spent achieving gestures is precious time granted Iran to finish its race to acquire the bomb. Don’t take it from me. Take it from Sarkozy, who could not conceal his astonishment at Obama’s naïveté. On September 24, Obama ostentatiously presided over the Security Council. With 14 heads of state (or government) at the table, with an American president in the chair for the first time ever, with every news camera in the world trained on the meeting, it would garner unprecedented worldwide attention.

Unknown to the world, Obama had in his pocket explosive revelations about an illegal uranium-enrichment facility that the Iranians had been hiding near Qom. The French and the British were urging him to use this most dramatic of settings to stun the world with the revelation and to call for immediate action.

Obama refused. Not only did he say nothing about it, but, reports Le Monde, Sarkozy was forced to scrap the Qom section of his speech. Obama held the news until a day later — in Pittsburgh. I’ve got nothing against Pittsburgh (site of the G-20 summit), but a stacked-with-world-leaders Security Council chamber, it is not.

Obama knew about the second Iranian nuclear plant and held that information until he could reveal it in Pittsburgh because he didn't want to dilute his message of disarmament. As Krauthammer says, "Sarkozy could hardly contain himself." Sarkozy has been rather outspoken about it all this week, reminding Obama that we live in the real world, not a "virtual" one.

There has always been this fatal flaw of hubris in Obama; he somehow believes he knows better than anyone else without having the experience or credentials to back this up. Confidence is a good thing, but any examination of history will show you that pride goes before the fall.

I just hope he doesn't take the rest of us with him when he falls.

Bluster and Blather

The condemnation of Iran's previously secret uranium enrichment facility is interesting, but not a surprise. I'm a neophyte at these things and even I was fairly certain that Iran was up to much more than they admit publicly. The news that the plant exists is not a shock.

The condemnation of the plant by Obama, Sarkozy and Brown this morning isn't particularly earth shaking either. There will be the usual blather about deadlines and sanctions. We all know how well that will work out.

What I'm wondering about now is Israel. What will they do with this? Ed at Hot Air points out that because the plant is located so close to a holy city, a military strike would be a huge risk: "If Israel hits the enrichment plant, Tehran will scream that it’s an attack on an Islamic holy city to rally the public towards religious war." No doubt.

I'm also interested in how Obama will play this one. He's been appeasing to Iran from the very beginning; he's asked for talks without preconditions, he sat on his hands during the stolen Iranian election, mostly to appease the mullahs, and he has consistently been weak on all matters of national security. If you doubt that just read the current headlines on Drudge. If Drudge changes them before you get there, Bride of Rove sums it up nicely. She's not sleeping so well these days.

Obama will beat his chest and pontificate on how Iran should honor the nuke free agenda that he wants, but in the end, Iran will ignore him and go about their merry way. Any other outcome would shock me.

(More at Memeorandum)

Cancelling Missile Defense

In his continuing effort to make America safer....

oh wait. Wrong guy. Try again...

The Wall Street Journal has this item for you today: "The White House will shelve Bush administration plans to build a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, according to people familiar with the matter, a move likely to cheer Moscow and roil the security debate in Europe. The U.S. will base its decision on a determination that Iran's long-range missile program has not progressed as rapidly as previously estimated, reducing the threat to the continental U.S. and major European capitals, according to current and former U.S. officials."

This is major capitulation to bullying by Russia and as Weekly Standard points out, we won't get anything for it. Michael Goldfarb, in fact, digs out this nugget from an April 2009 speech by Obama:

“So let me be clear: Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile activity poses a real threat, not just to the United States, but to Iran's neighbors and our allies. The Czech Republic and Poland have been courageous in agreeing to host a defense against these missiles. As long as the threat from Iran persists, we will go forward with a missile defense system that is cost-effective and proven. If the Iranian threat is eliminated, we will have a stronger basis for security, and the driving force for missile defense construction in Europe will be removed.”

What changed? This certainly will anger and disillusion our European allies even further. It's yet another move to pacify the bullies and dictators of the world while pushing our allies away. And again, we're getting nothing for it. So what's the point? Why?

And what of Israel? This ought to make them feel warm and fuzzy. Nice 'n safe.

You can follow the fallout through the day here, at Memeorandum.

More on the Irbil Five

Abe Greenwald has a comment about the Irbil Five today:

Here we are, sending these dangerous saboteurs out into the world at last. There should have been provisions in our security agreement with Iraq that dealt with special cases such as this one. Failing that, the Obama administration should have leaned on the Maliki government in order to prevent the Irbil Five from returning to Iran — especially in light of June 12, which dampened the urgency of engagement with Tehran. Let’s just hope the Pentagon and intelligence community keep an eagle eye on the Irbil Five and the administration doesn’t quibble about blow-back when faced with the inevitable once again.

There's more at Commentary.

Related Post:
Assault on Reason: Obama Negotiates With Terrorists

Assualt on Reason: Team Obama Negotiates With Terrorists

On Thursday last week, Obama released the "Irbil Five" to Iran. It's difficult to fathom the wisdom of this move which further weakens our national security and the security of our armed forces fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Steve Schippert, writing for NRO, explains that over 400 of our American soldiers killed in Iraq have died because of a weapon designed by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; the Irbil Five are commanders from this group. Specifically, they are Qods Forces: "Qods Force (IRGC-QF), an organization known for providing funds, weapons, improvised explosive device technology and training to extremist groups attempting to destabilize the Government of Iraq and attack Coalition forces."

Schippert explains the background, that these guys were captured in Iraq in January 2007 during a raid on their safehouse; the house had been dubbed as a "consulate" but had no diplomatic status. I point that out because the AP and Tehran both refer to them as "diplomats," but that is untrue.

Their purpose is to facilitate the killing of as many coalition forces, including Americans, as possible preferably through use of their EFP, a weapon they specifically designed to pierce Abrams tanks. They bring the weapons into Iran and use them against our soldiers.

The Multinational Task Force released this statement a few days after the capture of the five men: "Preliminary results revealed the five detainees are connected to the Iran Revolutionary Guard - Qods Force (IRGC-QF) and organization known for providing funds, weapons, improvised explosive device technology, and training to extremist groups attempting to destablize the Government of Iraq and attack Coalition forces."

In October 2007, Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno said he believed the Irbil Five should stay in custody. "Militarily, we should hold on to them," he said.

The Long War Journal reports that the release of these five men was preceded by the release in early June by the Obama administration of Laith Qazali. This is the guy that commands the network that General David Petraeus says was behind the January 2007 attack in Karbala which killed five U.S. soldiers.

Why did we release Laith Qazali? Because it was believed that by releasing him, the five British contractors captured in 2007 would be freed. The captors had made demands for release of prisoners and both the Bush Administration and the British refused because you don't negotiate with terrorists. But the Obama administration does. Obama freed Laith Qazali. The only thing that was released in return? The corpses of two of the British hostages.

Okay so let's keep track. Obama so far has released the Irbil Five and Laith Qazli. That's six murdering terrorists who have no intention of reforming their ways. None. And they were all released outright.

At least the Uighurs released from Guantanamo to Bermuda have to "check in" every now and then; and to be fair, they've never killed Americans.

But don't forget that Binyam Mohammed, believed to be planning a dirty bomb attack in Ameica, was released outright in February 2009 to Britain. He was arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and later held at Gitmo.

The response from the White House to all of this Irbil business is that their release was part of the Status of Forces Agreement which requires the United States eventually to transfer the more than 10,000 Iraqi and third-country detainees it now holds. The Iraq/US SOFA was appproved in late 2008. Steve Schippert is not persuaded:

"That's a load of bunk. Why? Because within the context of what Iran is already doing to its own people, including again today in the streets across Iranian cities, the principled decision would be to pull the rug on any plans to release any of the Iranian regime's thugs, operatives, or representatives. The explanation that this was already long in the works, as if the Obama administration just never noticed it, does not wash. The Obama administration is not stupid or unaware. It may be foolish in the decisions it makes, but not for lack of knowledge or awareness."

There are always ways around things in politics, especially when it comes to releasing thugs and terrorists that intend to do your country harm.

So what is to be concluded of all of this? This may come as a shock, but I don't think Obama actually hates America. I do believe that he has a different vision of America than most of us do. I believe he loves his reshaped vision of America. I can only ascribe it to a dangerous naivete that he believes he will get what he wants by being nice and conciliatory. There can be no other logical explanation for his abandoning a decades old policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

The release of the Irbil Five, Laith Qazali, Binyam Mohammed, assorted Gitmo prisoners, the closing of Gitmo in general, all seem to me to be working against the security of America in the long run. Exactly how many of these thugs will be released before we have to pay the piper? What exactly does the Obama administration believe the Irbil Five will do once back in circulation in Iran? Join the choir? Work in humanitarian efforts?

There's a real pattern here and it scares the heck out of me. These releases combined with the constant apology tours, pointing out America as evil or guilty of numerous sins, weakens us in the eyes of the world. During the election one of my largest concerns was national security. To me, and I suspect to the rest of the world, it's much, much weaker now than it was.

We have a president that is not proud of America or it's accomplishments. I point back to the Victor Davis Hanson article of Friday when he said:

"Also, in emphasizing America’s alleged sins, Obama shows himself to be somehow oblivious to the simple fact that he enjoys such power and prestige as a U.S. president because someone, at some time, must have done something quite extraordinary. Surely there is more to America than slavery and Hiroshima. So many Americans are vaguely beginning to sense that Obama is simply ignorant of Valley Forge, the Oregon Trail, and Iwo Jima. What happened at these places seems absent from his knowledge of the past, and so fails to inform his present narrative of and future plans for the nation."

And why isn't all of this all over the evening news broadcasts? Why isn't it on the front page of your papers? Why aren't more people talking about it? How can the trading of terrorists for hostages not be NEWS? We all know the answer to that. It's also noted and lamented by by Andy McCarthy when he said "the silence is deafening."

The world is laughing at us.


Further reading:
Negotiating With Terrorists - Andrew McCarthy, National Review Online, 24 June 2009
Obama's Third Way: Release the Teorrists - Andrew McCarthy, National Review Online, 3 March 2009
Clear and Present Danger - Thomas Joscelyn, The Weekly Standard, 1 December 2008
US Releases Iranian Oods Force Agents - Bill Roggio, The Long War Journal, 9 July 2009
The (Free) Irbil Five: Meeting Iran's Preconditions - Steve Schippert, National Review Online/The Tank, 9 July 2009
Growing Worries About our Pied Piper - Victor Davis Hanson, National Review Online, 10 July 2009

Treason!

Hot Air had this in the Headlines, but in case you missed it, or missed it on NRO, be sure you read this. Seriously. I'm speechless. And that doesn't happen often.

Bon Jovi Stands by Iran

Have you seen this? It's pretty cool. Via Pajamas Media and Ryan Mauro, Bon Jovi, Richie Sambora and friends, including some Iranian musicians, do a cover of Stand by Me in both English and Farsi.



Mauro attests to the power of music when he writes:

"The technologically proficient Iranian population will make their own videos, playing the music in the background with images of the mixture of pain and hope that defines Iran today. It will be played in their homes as a form of protest and it will be played at rallies and demonstrations. It will be impossible for the regime to silence the music if each Iranian plays it loudly on their cell phones, laptops, portable music players, or even from speakers in their homes. The comfort they will feel as they walk down the street, fighting back the tears as they think of their loved ones being detained and beaten, while faintly hearing the music from another Iranian passing by will be immense. The rest of Hollywood needs to follow Bon Jovi’s lead, making awareness ads, fundraising for humanitarian aid if avenues to get it to the Iranians can be found (star power has a way of making things happen), and making similar videos so that Iranians can know that our short attention span hasn’t caused our ears to turn away from their voices."

Amen to that!

No Hot Dogs

Does Obama really get credit for rescinding the Iranian hot dog invitations when none of the Iranian ambassadors even agreed to come? How can you actually take back an invitation that was never even accepted?

I guess you can, and he did. I guess he gets points for that. Or something.

It should tell him SOMETHING than none of them accepted his invitation. How much blood in the streets and slaughter does he need to see? The sound bite that just slays me right now is from his press conference yesterday with regard to Iran: "Because I think that we don't know yet how this thing is going to play out. I know everybody here is on a 24-hour news cycle. I'm not. OK?"

Play out? How much more does it need to play out before we do SOMEthing?

And since when is the president not in a fairly constant loop with regard to the news cycle? He's a 9-5 president now?

Well, either way, the invitations that were not accepted have now been rescinded, so I guess that's something.

Open Invitation Stands While Protests Continue

Allahpundit calls it the lowest point of the Obama presidency so far. I have to agree. After failing to condemn murder in the streets of Iranian teenagers, students and other protesters, he continues to stand with open arms to the tyrannical regime. Let's have a hot dog!

President Barack Obama's administration said earlier this month it would invite Iran to US embassy barbecues for the national holiday for the first time since the two nations severed relations following the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"There's no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.

"We have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran," Kelly said. "We tried many years of isolation, and we're pursuing a different path now."

Disgusting.

I hope they think about this girl when they are eating their hot dogs. That's Neda, the young girl who was shot through the heart on Saturday as she watched the protests. She was 27.

There's a website for her now and a proper memorial.

I understand the limitations that Obama is under as far as what he can do with Iran right now. I get it. But the continued displays of merriment are too much. People are dying in the streets while he goes out for ice cream, plays golf, hosts parties in the White House, grills with Bobby Flay and plans a luau.

Back off. Show some respect. Show some class.

Neda

If you were watching any of those tragic videos coming out of Iran yesterday then you probably saw Neda. She was watching one of the protests with her father and was shot. She died within minutes with her father screaming by her side. It was horrible.

She's become a martyr and a symbol for the movement in Iran now and Doug has more information on her and some great links. Go see. (No, he's not going to make you watch the video. It's okay, I promise.)

Unemployment, Health Care, Protests, and a Luau

A quick look-around of the news sites today gives me this:

On Iran: "Iranian state TV is reporting that the daughter of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani -- a senior cleric and an architect of the 1979 Islamic Revolution -- has been arrested along with four other relatives."

On Iraq: "The death toll from an attack near the Iraqui city of Kirkuk - the deadliest in Iraq for more than a year - has risen to at least 72, security officials say. About 200 people were injured in the truck bombing, which flattened dozens of mud-brick houses."

In Afghanistan: "Two U.S. soldiers were killed and six others wounded Sunday in a rocket attack inside a heavily fortified compound in Afghanistan, the military said."

On Health Care: "As Republicans stepped up attacks on Obama's ambitious health care plan, members of both parties were staggered by early cost estimates of $1 trillion or more for proposals that still left millions of people without health insurance."

On Inspector General Gerald Walpin: "Mr. Gerald Walpin was/is an Inspector General of the United States that from all outside appearances was initially fired by President Obama for doing his job, and by all accounts, apparently illegally to boot."

North Korea: "A U.S. Navy destroyer is tailing a North Korean ship suspected of carrying illicit weapons toward Myanmar in what could be the first test of new U.N. sanctions against the North over its recent nuclear test, a leading TV network said Sunday."

Palau: "The Obama administration's drive to close the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has hit a new snag: At least some of the 13 detainees accepted for resettlement by the island nation of Palau don't want to go there."

On unemployment figures: "The unemployment picture in all but two US states deteriorated in May as the jobless rate in more than a quarter of them exceeded 10 percent."

In Washington: President Obama, a son of Hawaii, is re-branding the annual White House picnic for members of Congress and their families the "Congressional Luau." The popular South Lawn cook-out takes place this Thursday night, according to an invitation that was emailed to Hill staffers Saturday. The Congressional Luau will feature food, drink and entertainment," reads the invite. "Attire is Casual."

and "The White House hosted a cookout Friday afternoon, featuring chicken grilled with chef Bobby Flay's barbecue sauce. Flay joined Obama and other celebrities to promote fatherhood on the Friday before Father's Day. When the president appeared at the cookout in the mid-afternoon, he got some tips from Bobby Flay before sprinkling some seasoning on rib eye steaks."

Priorities.

On Arrogance, Liberals, and Iran

Steve and I went on a little road trip this morning but I was glued to Twitter on my iPhone the entire time. I can not stop watching coverage on Iran. I feel like I'm watching history unfold. I'm pulling for these people and in total awe and admiration of their courage.

So allow me to vent for a second and say that I have looked at my LAST liberal blog (I try to look at angles other than my own, believe it or not) in discussion of Iran. I just stumbled on to one that said they were sick of the constant coverage of Iran elections, even calling into question what the "American media" is showing them.

Baby, the coverage I'M seeing is not from the American media, it's from brave Iranians with cell phones and video cameras risking their lives to plead for help from the rest of the world. You say that America is bullying other nations, like Iran, to be just like us because we are so arrogant? And that Obama is absolutely correct in going out for ice cream and keeping his mouth shut on Iran because it's none of our business? None of our business?! Really?!

I'm unglued and undone. I cannot fathom such ignorance.

It's never a good idea to blog when you're so angry and pardon me for not linking to the blog, but I don't want to give them any more traffic than they already have.

This person accused America of bullying other nations to be like us. Let me assume, please, that the people in this photograph have not been "bullied" by America. It's quite possible that they want freedom on their own merits. It's quite possible that the women in Iran would like the freedom to go out in public, to speak to friends without fear of being stoned to death, to have productive and satisfying jobs and any number of other things that you take for granted in your sheltered and privileged life every single day. Why do you think many of their signs are in English? They WANT the world to hear them.

How dare you say you love America yet condemn the very ideals that make us what we are? I suggest you follow the lead of Gwynneth Paltrow and Johnny Depp and move to Europe - become an ex-patriot - if you think we are so evil and such bullies, but don't sit HERE and tell me you love America when all you do is codemn it at every chance.

Obama's reservation in speaking out against what his advisors are telling him about Iran (because I doubt he's watching it) is not wise or astute or intelligent. He's in over his head, he has no clue and no sense of history. If he wanted to, he could support these people crying for freedom. He still thinks this is about an election. It quit being about an election over a week ago.

Obama continuing to express a desire to talk with an Iranian regime that is currently murdering people in the streets and pouring tear gas on them from helicopters is nothing but incredible and disgraceful. Nothing less. Nothing.

So to you libs that feel that if we just open our hands to this Iranian regime that continues to stone women in public, murder people in the street, take students hostage, and slam the door on all these Iranians crying for freedom...shame on you.

I'll say it again; I long for a president who will stand up to these thugs and say this:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.”

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.

405-1

The House voted today 405-1 to condemn Tehran's crackdown on demonstrators protesting last Friday's election outcome. The lone dissent was Ron Paul.

From the AP:

The policy statement expresses support for "all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and rule of law" and affirms "the importance of democratic and fair elections."

It also condemns "the ongoing violence" by the government and pro-government militias against demonstrators, as well as government "suppression of independent electronic communications through interference with the Internet and cell phones."

There's been criticism of Obama for not coming out strongly in support of the protesters.

Brandon Friedman had a piece on VetVoice yesterday in which he sides with Obama's reticence to become involved. He said, "One way you can help the oppressive Iranian government crush dissent is by handing them the argument that the protesters are tools of foreign governments. Allow them to say that the massive protest movement isn't a home-grown uprising. Let the ayatollahs tell the Iranian people that it's a product of American meddling--and that no patriotic, un-coerced Iranians would participate...This isn't about us. This is an internal movement within Iran and, ultimately, it's how democracies are born. And it's why the President has refrained from jumping directly into the fray over the Iranian election. As soon as we take an active role in trying to shape events in Iran, we'll hand the Iranian government the argument it needs to persuade regular Iranians that this isn't an organic uprising."

Charles Krauthammer, on the other hand, spoke out in his column this morning making the point that this is not about an election anymore:

"Moreover, this incipient revolution is no longer about the election. Obama totally misses the point. The election allowed the political space and provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren't dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators."

Krauthammer closes his column by asking, "And where is our president? Afraid of 'meddling.' Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world."

Who is correct? Which side is right? I don't know for sure, but I do know that I've been following these brave protesters since this story broke and I'm simply awed by their courage. I can't begin to imagine the courage it must take to do what they are doing. The pictures coming out of there have been incredible.

What will today's House resolution accomplish? At the very least it will let the people know that we support them and that just can't be bad. If it gives them strength and courage, that's great.

I wish Obama would say something like this:

All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.

Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.

The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it.”

The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.

Protesting for Freedom

Incredible video of today's protests in Iran.

Iran AND LA Burn

Which of the three pictures is Iran and which is Los Angeles?

Which one LOOKS like New Orleans after Katrina but is really Los Angeles after the Lakers victory last night?

As Michelle says, Losers!

Speaking of losers, let me just say a word about the poor media coverage of the Iranian situation. I know others have commented on that too, but night before last when this all began to break, I turned on Fox for...news (go figure) and they had a rerun of Huckabee. Last night I turned on Fox and found a rerun of Hannity. CNN did a bit better last night with minimal coverage and then a rerun (twice) of a September 2008 interview with "Amanutjob" and Larry King.

I know that the current situation doesn't exactly permit journalists broadcasting from the streets right now, but for crying out loud! These networks did 24/7 coverage on Natalee Holloway, OJ driving down the freeway, and Hurricane Katrina, to name a few. I know they can do more thorough coverage of what's happening in Iran. Even the New York Times noticed the lack of television coverage.

Thank goodness for Twitter (#iranelection) and for Michael Totten.

I'm really glad that Roxana Saberi is out of Iran right now. I'm sure she is, too!

Meanwhile, speaking of Iran, Dennis Ross, who served as special envoy to Iran, has been relieved of his duties and reassigned. Pam Gellar has the story.


(Photo credit: LA Times)

When Vast Oil Reserves Aren't Enough

As Obama prepares for his latest trip abroad, he issues his latest white flag to the Iranians telling them that it's just fine for them to have nukes, as long as it's for energy purposes. Whatever.

This is such hogwash and drivel that it shocks me on a daily basis that he's not tried for treason. Iran allowed to go nuclear? As long as it's for "energy"? Does he seriously think that's what they want it for? Of course not. They've got oil riches in abundance. They don't need nukes for energy. They want it to bomb Israel off the map as they have stated most clearly.

As with everything Obama does, you have to ask Why? So why does he want to allow them to have nukes? Does he want them to bomb Israel? Or is he just pandering, trying to snooker them into letting inspectors in? Trying to open "dialogue"? Is he trying to help "Imanutjob" get re-elected in their upcoming elections?

What he says in Riyadh and in Cairo will be telling. Israel has already figured out that Obama is no friend of theirs. They've already figured out they're on their own now. That's incredibly sad.

Meanwhile, Obama invited the Iranians to celebrate the Fourth of July. WTF?

Update: Eric Cantor issued a press release regarding Obama's Middle East policy and also addresses the Iran issue:

“I strongly disagree with President Obama’s dangerous suggestion that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy. Iran forfeited any right to nuclear energy when it made the decision to illicitly enrich uranium to levels that can be used for nuclear weapons. Access to nuclear energy is an irreversible process, and the United States cannot trust the aspirations of the world’s foremost state-sponsor of terrorism."

(H/T: The Weekly Standard)