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.

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)

Reading List

I have 65 pages left of Atlas Shrugged; I also have at least a dozen books sitting in my "about to read" pile, so just in case I run out of something to read I've ordered A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel.

Israel Matzav posted about it today and I've been looking to bone up on this subject. A timely recommendation!

The book's authors responded to PowerLine's request to preview their book and wrote:

"In A Safe Haven we seek to answer the persistent question, why did he do it? We follow Truman as he grappled with the pros and cons of supporting the creation of a Jewish state and made crucial decisions that would affect the outcome. Through a narrative history, we view Truman as he confronted the Holocaust, the situation of the Jews still lingering in European DP camps after the war, and the resolve of world Jewry to have a country of their own in Palestine. Supporting this goal were significant numbers of the American public and Congress, key White House advisors, influential opinion-leaders, and ultimately the United Nations."

"It is our argument that had FDR lived and Truman not become President, Israel most likely would not exist today. It is a dramatic story about the many forces Truman had to deal with, especially his handling of the Arabs who insisted that the only acceptable outcome was for the Jews to live as a minority in an Arab state, the recalcitrant British who gave up their Mandate over Palestine and handed it over to the United Nations to come up with a solution, and his own Department of State, whose Arabists sought to undermine him."

I'll post my review when I've read it, but since it took me four weeks to read Atlas Shrugged, you might want your own copy.

Obama Refuses to Meet With Netanyahu

Via Memeorandum, The Jerusalem Post reports that "Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Sunday canceled his plans to attend the upcoming AIPAC summit, after it became clear that US President Barack Obama would not meet him during the conference. " Why will Obama seek out Hugo Chavez at a conference yet refuse to meet with our allies?

This has been brewing for a few days. Consider this excerpt from an article by Jason Koutsoukis: "Can Israel still call the United States its best international friend? Apparently not, if you believe the tone of the local media.

"Watching the drama unfold inside Israel, the increasingly tense dialogue between US President Barack Obama and new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is taking on all the trappings of a duel. Almost every day brings news of another sore point between the two countries, a source of yet further inflammation of their once warm relations.

"One could be forgiven for thinking that the more immediate threat to Israel's national security lay across the Atlantic rather than from closer to home. It is bad enough that President Obama uses almost every opportunity he can to set the parameters of a final peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Now US officials are openly using Israeli anxiety over Iran's fledging nuclear program as a bargaining chip to force Israel's hand on giving up control of the West Bank Palestinian territory.

"No less a figure than White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel — whose father fought with the militant Zionist group the Irgun, and whose appointment had provided such reassurance to Israeli officials — was quoted this week laying down the law to Israel.

"If Israel wants US help to defuse the Iranian threat, Mr Emanuel was reported to have told Jewish leaders in Washington, then get ready to start evacuating settlements in the West Bank. Talkback radio blazed with fury across the country the same day, as Israelis protested that no US official had the right to tell them where to live."

There is an increasing tension in relations between Israel and the United States. Benjamin Netanyahu has become increasingly outspoken in his concern over Iran's nuclear program, as well as the apparent United States reticence to do anything about it. Given that our response to North Korea's missile launch was basically, 'don't do that again!', one can understand Israel's concern.

Shmulev Boteach wrote in the Jerusalem Post "Like many Americans, I have been awed by our president's capacity to draw those who hate us near. He is a man of considerable charm and grace. But I have to admit that I am increasingly troubled by his seeming inability to call out rogue dictators." Boteach and the Israelis are not alone in that feeling; many Americans are concerned as well.

Boteach went on, "All this leads to one important question. Suppose Obama succeeds in building friendships with Chavez, Castro, Ahmadinejad and the Taliban. What then? Does America still get to feel that it stands for something? Will we still be the beacon of liberty and freedom to the rest of the world, or will we have sold out in the name of political expediency? And do any of us seriously believe that presidential friendship is going to get a megalomaniac like Hugo Chavez to ease up on the levers of power, or are we just feeding his ego by showing him he can be a tyrant and still have a beer with the president of the United States? Will the Iranians really stop enriching uranium through diplomacy rather than economic sanctions? "

Netanyahu acknowledges that Iran threatens other countries besides Israel. He has also said that nonmilitary pressure may also work. An Atlantic article by Jeffrey Goldberg quotes Netanyahu, “I think the Iranian economy is very weak, which makes Iran susceptible to sanctions that can be ratcheted up by a variety of means.”

In October 2008 Jessie Jackson was quoted as saying that Obama would end "decades of putting Israel's interests first" and that“Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” will remain strong, but they’ll lose a great deal of their clout in an Obama nation."

I guess he was right.

Hope 'n Change for the Middle East?

I've admired Obama sticking to the "one president at a time" mantra, but now I think he needs to speak out on the Israel/Gaza situation.

The problem is that nobody really seems to know what his position might be or how sympathetic he will be toward Israel, one of our own allies. There is one school of thought that suggests that Israel went ahead and retaliated against Hamas now because George Bush is still in office and they KNOW where he stands. In his Saturday radio address, President Bush said, "Since Hamas' violent takeover in the summer of 2007, living conditions have worsened for Palestinians in Gaza. By spending its resources on rocket launchers instead of roads and schools, Hamas has demonstrated that it has no intention of serving the Palestinian people."

He also said, "America's objectives in the Middle East will remain clear: We seek security and peace for our allies, the free people of Israel. For the Palestinian people, we seek a peaceful and democratic Palestinian state that serves its citizens and respects its neighbors. For all in the region, we seek an end to terror."

The blathering fools on HuffPo make me crazy in their criticism of Israel. Do they think that the people of Israel should just accept the 6400 rockets that have been launched at them over the past three years and do nothing? Diana West, author of The Death of the Grown-Up: How America's Arrested Development is Bringing Down Western Civilization, has an excellent analysis of the situation, the most poignant point being that the only grievance Hamas has is the very existence of Israel.

The Middle East situation has been screwed up forever, but right now, at this point in time, it seems to me that Mr. Obama would do well to make his position known; something beyond the soft platitudes he has issued so far. "One president at a time" has been the proper stance until now; now the world is actually looking to Obama to offer America's vision of "hope and change" for the Middle East.

(Image credit: weblogcartoons.com)