Dana the protest killer?

[Roosveltrepub]

DATELINE: What is the best way to approach this? … President Obama though says that we don’t want to take sides too publicly because then the ruling regime there could use us as the straw man to beat back this public uprising. How do you read this?

ROHRABACHER: Well I think that Mr. Obama, if he continues to have these types of attitudes, we’re going to see things get very bad, very quickly. Already the North Koreans have challenged him and realized that he’s a cream puff, if that is what he is indeed going to be as a President.… [N]ow if the Mullahs in Iran are permitted to just roll over opposition something like Tienanmen square, we will have missed a great opportunity.

Later in the interview, Rohrabacher said that he had distributed a video to the people of Iran that declared “we’re with them, be courageous, don’t let this moment go by” and that Ronald Reagan “always knew that — at the very least — we should be vocally supportive of all those people who are oppressed.” Listen here:

pick your source it's everywhere
This guy is an idiot who should be muzzled. He is interfering with our foreign policy. Who is he to send a videotape expressing Americas support of the protesters? He now speaks for the Government? What's he to do encourage the Iranians to rally around the flag? He is giving the Clerics PROOF we are trying to interfere in their election which is one of the charges being made to undermine the legitimacy of the Protesters complaints. I guess it's great domestic politics and will play well with those more worried about posturing than policy goals. The time to condemn is after it plays out in a way that goes against our policy goals ot before. Those protests are GOOD. They do deserve to be free but, from our point of view the longer they go on the more they undermine the Mullahs. Our support would be the kiss of death for their legitimacy.

[gunnut]

pick your source it's everywhere
This guy is an idiot who should be muzzled. He is interfering with our foreign policy. Who is he to send a videotape expressing Americas support of the protesters? He now speaks for the Government? What's he to do encourage the Iranians to rally around the flag? He is giving the Clerics PROOF we are trying to interfere in their election which is one of the charges being made to undermine the legitimacy of the Protesters complaints. I guess it's great domestic politics and will play well with those more worried about posturing than policy goals. The time to condemn is after it plays out in a way that goes against our policy goals ot before. Those protests are GOOD. They do deserve to be free but, from our point of view the longer they go on the more they undermine the Mullahs. Our support would be the kiss of death for their legitimacy.

I am against our congressmen going overseas to talk to foreign governments. I agree with you that Dana (my congressman) shouldn't interfere with foreign policies. That being said, who was it that went to Syria to talk to the head of state while wearing a scarf? Who was it that went to Iraq to negotiate troop pull out before becoming president?

[Roosveltrepub]

I am against our congressmen going overseas to talk to foreign governments. I agree with you that Dana (my congressman) shouldn't interfere with foreign policies. That being said, who was it that went to Syria to talk to the head of state while wearing a scarf? Who was it that went to Iraq to negotiate troop pull out before becoming president?

excuse me but you can show me no credible source that says Obama was talking troop pullouts. That was all conspiracy theory bs. The Syria thing is a red herring as well as his wearing local attire. Senators whether running or planning to run for President visit other countries. If Dana wants to visit any country he is welcome too but sending taped messages purporting the US is with them is like Carter going to Gaza and speaking out.. We are with them but Dana is willing to undermine the protests by giving it an american stamp to score partisan political points.

[Ironduke]

I think the whole "opposition is a Zionist / CIA / Jewish plot" is wearing extremely thin on the Iranian people. Some videotape by a lone Congressmen isn't going to make or break their movement. These people want bread and their freedoms. They want to be free from the vice police and ayatollahs. They want a truly democratic republic.

Besides, the majority of Iranians crave the establishment of ties with the US and the normalization of relation. Kiss of death, my butt.

[gunnut]

excuse me but you can show me no credible source that says Obama was talking troop pullouts. That was all conspiracy theory bs. The Syria thing is a red herring as well as his wearing local attire. Senators whether running or planning to run for President visit other countries. If Dana wants to visit any country he is welcome too but sending taped messages purporting the US is with them is like Carter going to Gaza and speaking out.. We are with them but Dana is willing to undermine the protests by giving it an american stamp to score partisan political points.

Whoa whoa whoa...wait a second. How can the Syria thing be a red herring? She was there to express the US foreign policy wishes of the democrat party when Bush was still president. But you have a problem with Dana expressing his view of support to the people of Iran?

I do applaud Dana's stand on the Georgia thing. He was against US involvement in that mess.

[gunnut]

Hope and Change - But Not for Iran
by Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Millions of Iranians take to the streets to defy a theocratic dictatorship that, among its other finer qualities, is a self-declared enemy of America and the tolerance and liberties it represents. The demonstrators are fighting on their own, but they await just a word that America is on their side.

And what do they hear from the president of the United States? Silence. Then, worse. Three days in, the president makes clear his policy: continued "dialogue" with their clerical masters.

Dialogue with a regime that is breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, expelling journalists, arresting activists. Engagement with -- which inevitably confers legitimacy upon -- leaders elected in a process that begins as a sham (only four handpicked candidates permitted out of 476) and ends in overt rigging.

Then, after treating this popular revolution as an inconvenience to the real business of Obama-Khamanei negotiations, the president speaks favorably of "some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."

Where to begin? "Supreme Leader"? Note the abject solicitousness with which the American president confers this honorific on a clerical dictator who, even as his minions attack demonstrators, offers to examine some returns in some electoral districts -- a farcical fix that will do nothing to alter the fraudulence of the election.

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.

This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime -- and the future of the entire Middle East.

This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen (a hot Tiananmen with massive and bloody repression or a cold Tiananmen with a finer mix of brutality and co-optation) or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.

The latter is improbable but, for the first time in 30 years, not impossible. Imagine the repercussions. It would mark a decisive blow to Islamist radicalism, of which Iran today is not just standard-bearer and model, but financier and arms supplier. It would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism -- leave it forever spent and discredited.

In the region, it would launch a second Arab spring. The first in 2005 -- the expulsion of Syria from Lebanon, first elections in Iraq and early liberalization in the Gulf states and Egypt -- was aborted by a fierce counterattack from the forces of repression and reaction, led and funded by Iran.

Now, with Hezbollah having lost elections in Lebanon and with Iraq establishing the institutions of a young democracy, the fall of the Islamist dictatorship in Iran would have an electric and contagious effect. The exception -- Iraq and Lebanon -- becomes the rule. Democracy becomes the wave. Syria becomes isolated; Hezbollah and Hamas, patronless. The entire trajectory of the region is reversed.

All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None. Except for the desire that this "vigorous debate" (press secretary Robert Gibbs' disgraceful euphemism) over election "irregularities" not stand in the way of U.S.-Iranian engagement on nuclear weapons.

Even from the narrow perspective of the nuclear issue, the administration's geopolitical calculus is absurd. There is zero chance that any such talks will denuclearize Iran. On Monday, Ahmadinejad declared yet again that the nuclear "file is shut, forever." The only hope for a resolution of the nuclear question is regime change, which (if the successor regime were as moderate as pre-Khomeini Iran) might either stop the program, or make it manageable and nonthreatening.

That's our fundamental interest. And our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.

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.

Charles Krauthammer : Hope and Change - But Not for Iran - Townhall.com

[Roosveltrepub]

Is Obama Selling Out the Iranian Revolution?

By Jacob Heilbrunn - June 19, 2009, 9:01AM
The Washington Post op-ed page has become the main forum of neocon opposition to President Obama's approach toward Iran. Today it features two pieces. The first is by Paul Wolfowitz, the other by Charles Krauthammer.

Wolfowitz's is measured and stimulating. But that does not mean that it is necessarily correct. Wolfowitz draws on his own experiences in the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations to argue that Obama is being too cautious. He notes that Secretary of State George Shultz was dismayed by Ronald Reagan's initial reluctance to call out Philippine president Ferdinand Marcos for election fraud in 1986. Reagan, Wolfowitz says, shifted gears after Shultz persuaded him he had to back away from the longtime American ally. But that is the key difference in the Philippine situation--Marcos was a venal authoritarian dictator that America had been helping to prop up. Major domo Ali Khamenei is not an ally of America's but the reverse.

Wolfowitz goes on to point to the attempted coup against Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991. George H.W. Bush was notably circumspect about backing Gorbachev.
According to Wolfowitz, "it was Yeltsin--with a powerful personal letter--who persuaded Bush to abandon equivocation and oppose the coup." The difference with Iran, of course, is that Gorbachev was the reformer in power whom retrograde forces were trying to oust. Once again, the reverse of the situation in Tehran.
Wolfowitz acknowledges that "no two situations are identical," which is putting it mildly! But he argues that Obama should now reverse course as well. According to him, "Coming from America, silence is itself a comment--a comment in support of those holding power and against those protesting the status quo." He adds that Obama does not need to pick sides in the election but "could send a powerful message simply by placing his enormous personal prestige behind the peaceful conduct of the demonstrators and their demand for reform--exactly the kind of peaceful, democratic change that he praised in his speech in Cairo."

Clearly Obama was caught flatfooted by the protests. But he does seem to be carefully ratcheting up his criticisms of the mullahs. In a Tuesday interview with CNBC, Obama said that when, "you've got 100,000 people who are out on the streets peacefully protesting, and they're having to be scattered through violence and gunshots, what that tells me is the Iranian people are not convinced of the legitimacy of the election. And my hope is that the regime respond not with violence, but with a recognition that the universal principles of peaceful expression and democracy are ones that should be affirmed." Even that mild reproof was enough to send the Iranian leadership into conniptions, as the Washington Post's Thomas Erdbrink reports today.

If Wolfowitz seeks to exhort Obama to take a more forceful stand, Krauthammer lashes into him as a pathetic wimp who is missing the chance to alter history, or least put himself on the right side of it. He sees a new domino effect in the region. Peace and freedom can bloom overnight: "Now, with Hezbollah having lost elections in Lebanon and with Iraq establishing the institutions of a young democracy, the fall of the Islamist dictatorship in Iran would have an electric and contagious effect. The exception--Iraq and Lebanon--becomes the rule. Democracy becomes the wave. Syria becomes isolated; Hezbollah and Hamas, patronless. The entire trajectory of the region is reversed. All hangs in the balance."

This is, of course, a pleasant fantasy. It is essentially no different from the one that the neocons peddled on the eve of the Iraq War. Just as the war was supposed to topple dicatorships in the Middle East, so Obama's support for the demonstrators would, somehow, usher in the end of the age of tyranny. But even a moderate Iran would not be an unflinching ally of Washington's. Instead, it would follow its national interests. Ever since the Shah's days, Iran has had a nuclear program.

Ultimately, Krauthammer's belligerence rests on the bogus assumption that America can by itself steer events in Iran as it wishes. If only Obama will demonstrate more support for the demonstrators, then all will be well. Krauthammer ascribes an omnipotence to America that it does not possess.

The truth is that the impressive thing has been how well Obama has handled the crisis. Again and again, Obama was pounded for his lack of experience during the 2008 election campaign. But imagine if John McCain were president. The mullahs would not be in the predicament they are. Instead, they could point to the demonstrators as American stooges. The uprising would have been quashed before it ever began. Fortunately, Obama's basic approach has been to follow the foreign policy equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath: "First, do no harm." Imagine the obloquy that would greet Obama if he were to champion the demonstrators and help to create a bloodbath, as Radio Free Europe did during the 1956 Hungarian revolution, when it encouraged Hungarians to revolt by assuring them that they had backing of the West, which they didn't. So far, Obama has shrewdly hewed to a middle course that allows him some flexibility in dealing with Iran.

For no one truly knows where Iran is headed. It could lurch into civil war, a violent crackdown, or the regime could crumble. But with Khamenei denouncing the demonstrators in his Friday address, Iran is turbulent enough without Obama piling on. Obama doesn't deserve criticism, but plaudits for his statesmanship.

I think it provides encouragement to the supporters of those in power Ironduke. In another day or two they will be using it to justify firing on the crowds in the government controlled media. I would bet it gets used as propaganda by those in power at the very least.


Gunut where did you get that from(clinton stuff)? Please dont say CNS-Newsmax et al.


Charles is way off. Where were the words of encouragement Obama gave those in power? All I caught were references to it being an internal issue. Wasn't Iraq supposed to start the dominoe effect? Short of a regime change we are beter off with a bitter end to the protests further undermining the government. If the other side won we'd be negotiating while hey continued the nuke progrm. I dont think anyone will embrace much further negotiations with the current government just ratcheted up sanctions.

[gunnut]

Gunut where did you get that from(clinton stuff)? Please dont say CNS-Newsmax et al.

Clinton? The only Clinton related stuff I posted over the last 2 days was the "no fly zone" joke about Billy.

Charles is way off. Where were the words of encouragement Obama gave those in power? All I caught were references to it being an internal issue. Wasn't Iraq supposed to start the dominoe effect? Short of a regime change we are beter off with a bitter end to the protests further undermining the government. If the other side won we'd be negotiating while hey continued the nuke progrm. I dont think anyone will embrace much further negotiations with the current government just ratcheted up sanctions.

I think Krauthammer holds the extremely optimistic side of view. I don't fully agree with his assessment. But I posted it to express a different point of view.

[astralis]

krauthammer is a fool- joe klein frisks him thoroughly here.

There Will BeBlood - Swampland – TIME.com

[astralis]

i have to add, as well- mousavi is, at best, a reformist conservative...and one that has american blood on his hands. and in the end, as with a-jad, his power will be strictly limited by the supreme leader. perhaps less so than a-jad after this event, but still controlled.

one last thing- notice the students are desperately trying NOT to call this a revolution, they are calling this "preventing treason".

[Blue]

Clinton? The only Clinton related stuff I posted over the last 2 days was the "no fly zone" joke about Billy.

Aren't you referring to Pelosi GN? I don't think RR knows what you are talking about.

When pelosi became speaker she tripped on over East mistaking herself for Sec of State as I recall.

[Bigfella]

i have to add, as well- mousavi is, at best, a reformist conservative...and one that has american blood on his hands. and in the end, as with a-jad, his power will be strictly limited by the supreme leader. perhaps less so than a-jad after this event, but still controlled.

one last thing- notice the students are desperately trying NOT to call this a revolution, they are calling this "preventing treason".

Great article by Klein astralis. Short & to the point.

From my limited observations of this I'm not even sure the Mousavi/A-jad battle is the real story here. Mousavi isn't exactly an Iranian Aung San Suu Kyi & there is a very good chance that he lost the election anyway. I'm not sure these protests are about any great love for Mousavi.

From what I can work out the real battle is Rafsanjani/Montazeri vs Khamenei. While the first two are no screaming liberals, they are more moderate than Khamenei. I suspect that the blatant manipulation of numbers in the election & the clear disgust of some has given them their chance. There are other senior religious figures who have long questioned Khamenei's qualifications for high religious office, so they may find allies.

This is the only change in the balance of power likely in the current climate. There doesn't seem to be any real support for an overthrow of the system, and if the protests looked like a real threat the hardliners in Iran would be able to do the same thing they did in China 20 years ago. America wading in with its size 10s would doom any chance of change in a heartbeat.

We know what happened when Wolfowitz got close enough to power to influence events. Fortunately no one will ever make that mistake with Krauthammer - leaving him free to play pretend. As for the good Congressman - playing to the peanut gallery at home. Just hope he doesn't do any damage in the meantime.

[gunnut]

Aren't you referring to Pelosi GN? I don't think RR knows what you are talking about.

When pelosi became speaker she tripped on over East mistaking herself for Sec of State as I recall.

Yes. I was referring to Pelosi's trip to Jordan or Syria or something like that right after the dems took over the congress in early 2007.

Our congressmen should cut down their overseas trips and cut down on meddling in foreign policies. They are here to serve their constituents.

[Dreadnought]

I am against our congressmen going overseas to talk to foreign governments. I agree with you that Dana (my congressman) shouldn't interfere with foreign policies. That being said, who was it that went to Syria to talk to the head of state while wearing a scarf? Who was it that went to Iraq to negotiate troop pull out before becoming president?

Dam, Gun cant you seem to keep the moonbats in the asylum out there?:));)

[Dreadnought]

yes. I was referring to pelosi's trip to jordan or syria or something like that right after the dems took over the congress in early 2007.

Our congressmen should cut down their overseas trips and cut down on meddling in foreign policies. They are here to serve their constituents.

Agreed and cheers to that one Gun. If they want to go then they foot the bill not the taxpayers of america and any statement/deals or other is not supported by the us government. Know your place weasels!:)):P