Fox News reports:

Obama said the United States is "appalled and outraged" by the regime’s crackdown on protesters, but that his administration is taking a wait-and-see attitude.

"What’s happened in Iran is profound and we’re still waiting to see how it plays itself out," Obama said at a press conference. "It’s not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it." He said there remains a path for the country to engage with the global community.

Obama also dismissed concerns that he’s not speaking out forcefully enough in support of the protesters, saying the Iranian people can "speak for themselves." At the same time, he used tougher language than he has in recent days.

"I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost," he said. "But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society.

"This is not about the United States and the West. This is about the people of Iran, and the future that they, and only they, will choose," Obama said.

The President of the United States shouldn’t have to “wait and see” to be on the side of freedom – he should not be the Bystander-in-Chief.  What is he waiting for?  Oh yeah, still holding out hope that he can negotiate with the thug they currently have as President.  He did say, “it’s not too late for the Iranian government to recognize there is a peaceful path…” 

Are you kidding me?  They had their chance, when protesters are dying in the streets they lose any semblance of credibility when governing.  It is too late for them, and too late for President Obama to speak with any kind of authority or integrity on this issue.  Again, on foreign policy, he has been behind the eight ball.  He must have taken a poll to decide it was time to “condemn” the actions of the Iranian government.  Most of us with common sense realized to do this last week.

The people of Iran can and have been speaking out, and thankfully we’ve had a clue about what is going on via Twitter and YouTube, otherwise they wouldn’t have had a voice.  He said this is about the people of Iran and only they can choose.  You are right Mr. President, it is for them to choose.  They have already done that, and it was stolen from them.

HT: Gateway Pundit

Update: Just read an article yesterday at The Weekly Standard by Fred Barnes – “There’s No False Choice on Iran

But confronted by a popular revolt in Iran, Obama has succumbed to a false choice. Either support the democratic forces in Iran aligned against the rigged presidential election or preserve his chance to negotiate with the Ahmadinejad regime for a nuclear arms deal–one or the other. The president thinks he’s stuck with a dilemma. He’s not. The two options aren’t mutually exclusive. The choice is indeed false.

To escape his predicament, Obama has sought neutrality between a discredited regime and democratic protesters. This actually helps the regime, since President Ahmadinejad and the mullahs don’t need Obama’s support. The protesters do. In effect, Obama has tilted in favor of the regime. The result is personal shame (for Obama) and policy shame (for the United States).

The president should know better. In dealing with dictators, honey is rarely more effective than vinegar. Obama’s respectful overtures to Iran’s leaders evoked only angry recriminations against America and no sign of willingness to settle differences on nuclear arms or anything else.

Read the rest

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive stimulating conservative Christian commentary in your inbox.

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Thanks for subscribing!
  1. Not sure what you are saying Shane. Are you advocating military action? If not what kind of action.. embargo? economic sanctions? It would be helpful to know what kind of action you are wanting.

  2. I concur with Kansas Bob.

    If Obama were to come out in strong support of Mousavi it would play right into the hands of Ahmadinejad. The United States is not viewed particularly favorably over there, and any interference on the part of Obama on behalf of Mousavi would make him look like a mere puppet of the west, and would diminish his support.

    The situation is very tentative, but so long as the US keeps a hands off approach the Iranian people are fully capable of handling this for themselves. Intervention by the US is simply not the answer here.

  3. Oh not wanting military action, but a clear statement denouncing the election fraud and it would have been preferable he wasn't so late in denouncing the violence.

    I think further isolation of the current government is in order – they are illegitimate. Basically from what we've been hearing from the Iranian tweeters is that they would like to see some clarity from him. He needs to realize that trying to deal with Ahmadinejad is pointless and doing so would just legitimize his government.

  4. As I mentioned to Bob – not looking for anything but a clear, direct strong statement condemning violence, but not only that realize that we can not possibly deal with the current government. They were unworkable to begin with, and now they are illegitimate.

    He's just behind on these issues when he should be leading. And, this isn't a left/right thing.

  5. The prez did condemn the violence. Do you believe that it is just a matter of timing? Some might see his actions as in accordance with James 1:19. Really.. what would a quick (rash?) response accomplish? And what do you think “leading” looks like?

    For me I am glad that the era of cowboy diplomacy seems to over. I am glad that we do not have a cowboy expressing empty threats.. I prefer someone leading that is measured and counting the cost before they jump into a volatile situation with both cowboy boots.

  6. As Kansas Bob says. Obama did denounce the violence. Even before the violence arose Obama warned against violent acts and repression.

    There is an talking-points echo chamber out there that seems to be encouraging mass amnesia about the President's statements. Repeating the meme, “Obama didn't warn against violence and vote suppression”, doesn't make it true.

    For the context of the quotes provided, here is the full transcript:

  7. There is a problem when the President of France comes out with a statement condemning the illegitimate vote and violence way before Obama did. This is a nobrainer. No one is talking about bombing Iran or anything like that.

    We are the leading democracy in the world, we should be taking the lead on this.

    I also think you mischaracterizing Bush's handling of despots in particular. Take North Korea for instance, Obama has been challenged more in five months by Kim Jung Il than he did Bush in eight years. Why do you think that is?

    Was he perfect? No. Take his statement on Putin early in his presidency, but that is a similar mistake to what Obama is doing. He learned, and when Russia invaded Georgia – Bush had the right position, and Obama had to make three different statements to get it right. Not good.

  8. Cowboy diplomacy hit its height when we invaded Iraq.. we went in with six-guns ablazin.. unfortunately the outlaws were running around in another country.

    I support prez Obama on this one and am glad he has not cowboyed up. I hope he will continue to offer a measured response and not speak or act rashly and drag us into Iran's civil war.

    I guess it is all a matter of approach.. maybe we need to always be calling foreign leaders out will words like evil.. maybe some feel that kind of rhetoric will make us safer. For me I think that relationships with foreign leaders are made more difficult when we call them names.

    All that said.. I think that Bill O'Reilly would be proud of you Shane for giving France as an example of leadership.. you know how much he loves the French 🙂

  9. Both the French and US Presidents warned about vote irregularities and violent crackdowns on June 16th (actually, Obama brought up these points in a CNN interview on the 15th).

  10. If you feel so strongly about saving Iran I think you should jump on a plane and head over there. Any how I voted for Obama. Whats going on in Iran is not our business weather it be freedom or not. This is America land of the free not world of the free. I don't have a problem with America saving people around the world but at this time America needs to save it self. Sorry about your park incident.

  11. I wasn't advocating us physically getting involved, but rather diplomatic pressure. The President of France, France, has been stronger on this than Obama.

  12. Absolutely Shane.. the left and right flavors of the media.. are mainly focused on talking points rhetoric. It is on us to see through the rhetoric and discern the biased source of it.

Comments are closed.

You May Also Like

Trickle-down Economics: Does It Work?

Several times when I discuss conservative vs liberal/keynesian economics, the topic of…

Jobs Summit: Policy Priorities Outweigh Jobs

Last week’s Jobs summit and President Obama’s subsequent Job tour is either evidence…

Legal Definitions Do Matter

Mollie Hemingway made some great points the other day about why changing…

McCain Bounce and RNC Video

Here is a video of Senator John McCain’s acceptance speech at the…