The Missing Two Words (Still Missing)

President Obama's opening remarks at today's press conference are below. Basically, they're a rehash of Saturday's remarks and, once again he fails to even utter the two words; FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.

Why is it so difficult for the President to enunciate the principles for which we stand?

The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.

I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.

The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in the Iranian government are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd. They are an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran’s borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won’t work anymore in Iran. 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.

The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That is precisely what has happened these last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice. Despite the Iranian government’s efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we have watched what the Iranian people are doing.

This is what we have witnessed. We have seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands Iranians marching in silence. We have seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and their voices heard. Above all, we have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights, and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, not coercion. That is what Iran’s own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.

The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost.

I have made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not at all interfering in Iran’s affairs. But we must also bear witness to the courage and dignity of the Iranian people, and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place.

The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future. Some in the Iranian government are trying to avoid that debate by accusing the United States and others outside of Iran of instigating protests over the elections. These accusations are patently false and absurd. They are an obvious attempt to distract people from what is truly taking place within Iran’s borders. This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won’t work anymore in Iran. 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.

The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That is precisely what has happened these last few days. In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to the peaceful pursuit of justice. Despite the Iranian government’s efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers, and so we have watched what the Iranian people are doing.

This is what we have witnessed. We have seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands Iranians marching in silence. We have seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and their voices heard. Above all, we have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets. While this loss is raw and painful, we also know this: those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people have a universal right to assembly and free speech. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect those rights, and heed the will of its own people. It must govern through consent, not coercion. That is what Iran’s own people are calling for, and the Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government.

The Missing Two Words

After a week of inexplicable silence on the subject of Iran, President Obama finally issues a statement. Note that the tone of the statement is rather tepid, and that neither the words FREEDOM or DEMOCRACY appear once. Not even once.

The situation in Iran is all about freedom and democracy! The Leader of the Free World, after waiting a week, makes a flaccid statement that doesn't even include the words that define us, as Americans, and that represent the concept for which the Iranian people are risking their lives?

The excusion is disgraceful.

His remarks of today:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it mustrespect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

A Week Later, Obama Still Mum on Iran. Why?

A full week after Iran's clearly fraudulent "election", President Obama remains conspicuously reticent on the subject; no forceful denunciation of the Mullahs and no verbal support for the protesters.

As I wrote below, the President famously campaigned on the slogan "Hope and Change", yet as the Iranian people flood the streets, literally risking their lives in a bid for "Hope and Change", the President does not even feel compelled to pay them lip service.

If the President of the United States will not champion democracy, who will?

Yesterday, Iran's "Supreme Leader", Ayatollah Ali Khamenei clearly stated what is to come:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iran's supreme leader sought Friday to end the deepening crisis over disputed elections with one decisive speech—declaring the vote will almost certainly stand and sternly warning opposition leaders to end street protests or be held responsible for any "bloodshed and chaos" to come.

But a first sign of possible resistance came shortly after nightfall in Tehran. Cries of "Death to the dictator!" and "Allahu akbar"—"God is great"—rang from rooftops in what's become a nightly ritual of opposition unity.

The sharp line drawn by Iran's most powerful figure, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is a gambit that pushes Iran's opposition to a pivotal moment: either back down or risk a crushing response from police and the forces at Khamenei's disposal—the powerful Revolutionary Guard and their volunteer citizen militia, the Basiji.

Also yesterday, the President reiterated his "position":

WASHINGTON — With Iran on a razor’s edge after a week of swelling protests, the Obama administration has fended off pressure from both parties to respond more forcefully to the disputed election there. But if Iranian authorities carry out their latest threat of a more sweeping crackdown, the White House would reconsider its carefully calibrated tone, officials said Friday.

Administration officials said events this weekend in Tehran — when demonstrators plan to rally in defiance of the authorities — would be a telling indicator of whether President Obama would join European leaders and lawmakers on Capitol Hill in more harshly condemning the tactics of the Iranian government.

Congressional Republicans and conservative foreign-policy experts stepped up their pressure on the White House to take a firmer stand in support of the demonstrators, even as Mr. Obama worked to keep Democrats from breaking openly with him on Iran.

For now, administration officials said they had not been swayed by criticism that Mr. Obama’s refusal to speak out more had broken faith with democracy advocates in Tehran, or by the fact that European leaders and even members of his own party in Congress had responded more assertively than he had.

In an interview with CBS News on Friday, Mr. Obama spoke cautiously about warnings by Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, of bloodshed if the protests go on. “I’m very concerned, based on some of the tenor and tone of the statements that have been made, that the government of Iran recognize that the world is watching,” Mr. Obama said.

First, when European leaders, such as Germany and France and the U.S. Congress are out in front of the President in a foreign policy crisis such as this, denouncing the Iranian thugs and defending democracy, does this not signal a lack of leadership?

Secondly, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is already whining about foreign "interference" :

TEHRAN, June 19 (Reuters) - Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned on Friday what he said was interference by "some foreign powers" in
this month's election in the country.

"After street protests, some foreign powers ... started to interfere in Iran's state matters by questioning the result of the vote. They do not know the Iranian nation. I strongly condemn such interference," Khamenei said.

"American officials' remarks about human rights and limitations on people are not acceptable because they have no idea about human rights after what they have done in Afghanistan and Iraq and other parts of the world. We do not need advice over human rights from them," he added.

In view of this, why won't the President, at the very least, issue statements of condemnation of Iran's thuggish tactics and verbally support the protesters who are risking their lives? After all, since we're already being blamed for meddling, the President should at least state the traditional American position in favor of democracy. Is he trying to position himself to "deal" with Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, once the uprising has been quelled?

If that is the case, it would represent an unspeakable level of cynicism and wanton disregard for the lives of the Iranian people who simply want their freedom.

Alas, it's already too late; the die has been cast. Waiting to see "if Iranian authorities carry out their latest threat of a more sweeping crackdown", in the words of the White House, to "reconsider its carefully calibrated tone" is unacceptable and vacuous. The "bully pulpit" from which presidents once spoke in support of the oppressed, from which presidents once spoke in favor of the American values of liberty and democracy, stands vacant at a pivotal time in history.

President Obama's silence is deafening, and those Iranians who may well die in their struggle for "Hope and Change" deserved more from the Leader of the Free World. They deserved, at least, his moral support, and all they received was equivocation.

What Will Obama Do, or Fail to Do, Next?

Well, you can't say that, domestically, President Obama doesn't have ambition; in less than five months, he's sought to heavily regulate or take over the financial sector and two of three of the country's automobile manufacturers and he's largely succeeded. The Speaker of the House seems to be no more than a botoxed lapdog and the Senate Majority Leader a lobotomized Obamadrone. The President and the Democrat Members of Congress resemble the Borg, all but muttering "resistance is futile" and urging voluntary absorption.

The Obamanation has truly eclipsed Orwellianism. Even FDR would blush at his naked power grabs.

On the other hand, his foreign policy seems to consist of "speak apologetically for ever having used the Big Stick" with pledges to reduce the the size of said stick. Teddy Roosevelt he certainly isn't.

In short, the Obama administration's answer to domestic problems is "control it". Their answer to foreign problems (such as the sham "election" in Iran) seems to be to "ignore it"- they can't even bring themselves to denounce, in no uncertain terms, the Iranian Thugocracy's threats of violence against Iranian protesters or to forcefully and vociferously support the Iranian people's quest for the very ideals on which Obama ran for President - "Hope and Change". If there is a better example of blatant hypocrisy, I'd like to see it, and from the way things are going, I probably will.

Had someone told me 12-18 months ago that we would be at this place at this time, I would have called them paranoid, or worse.

I feel like I'm living in the "Twilight Zone".

John McCain to Intercept North Korean Ship

Sorry, I just couldn't resist that headline. Actually, the US Navy is putting the USS John McCain, a Navy destroyer, in position for a possible intercept of a North Korean ship suspected of proliferating nukes and missiles.

I wonder if President Obama, upon hearing the news, asked "don't we have any other destroyer in the area?"

The irony is priceless.

North Korea: 'Hey, look at me, look at me!'

Meanwhile, not to be outdone in the "Crazy Nuclear Despotism Department" by Ahmadinejad; North Korea - its people starved for food and its leadership starved for attention - actually make Iran look moderate, by comparison.

NKorea says it will 'weaponize' its plutonium

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea vowed Saturday to step up its atomic bomb-making program and threatened war if its ships are stopped as part of new U.N. sanctions aimed at punishing the nation for its latest nuclear test.

North Korea's Foreign Ministry also acknowledged for the first time that the country has a uranium enrichment program, and insisted it will never abandon its nuclear ambitions. Uranium and plutonium can be used to make atomic bombs.

The threats, in a statement issued through the official Korean Central News Agency, came a day after the Security Council approved new sanctions aimed at depriving the North of the financing used to build its rogue nuclear program.

The resolution also authorized searches of North Korean ships suspected of transporting illicit ballistic missile and nuclear materials.

The sanctions are "yet another vile product of the U.S.-led offensive of international pressure aimed at undermining ... disarming DPRK and suffocating its economy," the North Korean statement said.

Pyongyang blamed Washington for the nuclear tensions, saying it was "compelled to go nuclear in the face of the U.S. hostile policy and its nuclear threats."

Carter's wish: "US and Israel on collision course"

From my perspective, this what Carter has been working toward for decades and may be a little wishful thinking on his part. At what point can we just start calling Carter "Jew Hater"? He has become nothing more than a mouthpiece for Islamic radicals and with each statement he makes, it becomes increasingly clear that, in his view, the Israelis are the only stumbling block on the road to Middle East peace.

In an environment where Israel is continually pressured by her "allies" to make more and more concessions in the interest of peace, surrounded by countries that cannot even agree on her right to exist and continually attacked by them, how is it that Israel is the problem?

Carter warns US and Israel on collision course

Israel is headed for a clash with main ally the United States over the issue of Jewish settlements, former US president Jimmy Carter said in an interview on Sunday.

Asked by the liberal Haaretz newspaper whether the Jewish state was looking at a "head-on collision" with the United States if it doesn't comply with Washington's demands, Carter said "Yes."

The former president, who brokered the historic peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979, said Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank were the biggest hurdle in the hobbled Middle East peace process, saying they were "illegal and (an) obstacle to peace."

The administration of US President Barack Obama has repeatedly called on Israel to halt all settlement activity in the occupied West Bank, which is viewed as one of the key obstacles in the stalled Middle East peace process.

This "obstacle to peace" canard is tiring, unfair and dangerous as it fuels the anti-Israeli sentiment in the Middle East which is doing quite nicely on it's own.

Where are the concessions from the Arabs or the Iranians who continually call for the destruction of Israel? Did it ever occur to this old fool that maybe, just maybe that the blood curdling hatred that many in the "Islamic community" have for all things Israeli might be an obstacle as well? Did it ever occur to Mr. Carter that Israel may be becoming weary of making sacrifices, in the blood of her own citizens as well as the relinquishment of even more land and getting nothing but more war in return?

Carter was a failure as a president and is an unqualified disgrace as a man. Israel should block his entry as an "undesirable".

Ahmadinejad Remains Unclenched

Alas, for all of President Obama's happy talk, on Friday-

"Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways"

The Mullahs' newly "reelected" pit bull, Ahmadinejad, remains as feisty as ever and comes out swinging:

Ahmadinejad Makes New Threats, Plans Victory Rally Amid Protests

TEHRAN, Iran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says his re-election was "real and free" and cannot be questioned. He also indicated there would be no change in the country's nuclear policy during his second term, saying any country attacking Iran would deeply regret it, Reuters reported.

Ahmadinejad made the comments Sunday during a press conference — his first since the government announced that he was re-elected to a second term in a landslide victory during Friday's vote.

"Who dares to attack Iran? Who even dares to think about it?" Reuters quoted Ahmadinejad at the press conference.

Ahmadinejad also accused foreign media of launching a "psychological war against" against the country.

It would appear that the "robust debate" thing didn't work out as hoped. The "whoever" that won the "election" apparently wasn't the "whoever" the administration envisioned.

So, what's "Plan B"?

A Whiff of Anti-Semitism from Bill Clinton?

In all fairness, it's unclear whether Clinton actually used the words I've emphasized below, or if is just a bit of editorializing on the part of the writer. Either way, it just smells of classic antisemitism which seems to be more prevelent on the Left every day.

Bill Clinton: United States growing more diverse

WASHINGTON
(AP) - Former President Bill Clinton said Saturday that Americans should be mindful of the nation's changing demographics, which led to the election of Barack Obama as president.

He told an Arab-American audience of 1,000 people that the U.S. is no longer just a black-white country, nor a country that is dominated by Christians and a powerful Jewish minority, given the growing numbers of Muslims, Hindus and other religious groups here.

Clinton said by 2050 the U.S. will no longer have a majority of people with European heritage and that in an interdependent world "this is a very positive thing."

Speaking in a hotel ballroom to the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee during its annual convention, Clinton also praised Obama's speech in Cairo, Egypt, that was focused on the Arab world.

The words "powerful Jewsh minority" are a bit alarming since this is exactly how antisemitism was spread in 1930s Europe, and we know how that worked out.

Does this mean that Iran isn't a real democracy?

Alright, I'm one to give credit where credit is due, so it would now appear that the Obama administration is, indeed, "getting a clue". What they do with it is another thing, but this is a good start.

US rejects victory claim by Iran's Ahmadinejad

NIAGARA FALLS, Ontario (AP) — The U.S. on Saturday refused to accept hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim of a landslide re-election victory in Iran and said it was looking into allegations of election fraud.

Any hopes by the Obama administration of gaining a result similar to Lebanon's recent election, won by a Western-backed moderate coalition, appeared to be in jeopardy.

"We are monitoring the situation as it unfolds in Iran, but we, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching to see what the Iranian people decide," U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said at a news conference with Canada's foreign affairs minister, Lawrence Cannon.

Minutes after Clinton spoke, the White House released a two-sentence statement praising "the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians," but expressing concern about "reports of irregularities."

How they expected anything other than election "irregularities" in Iran is surprising, and I think it's doubtful that Iran will go out of its way to calm our "concern" regarding the veracity of their election.

That said, casting public doubt on Iran's sham "election" is a welcome turnaround from the pollyannaish statements coming from the administration as detailed in the previous post.

Naiveté on Stilts

Obama "excited" by Iran's robust election debate

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama said on Friday he was hopeful the robust debate taking place in Iran's presidential election would advance his administration's efforts to engage longtime U.S. rival Tehran in new ways.

"We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran," Obama told reporters when asked about the Iranian election during an event at the White House.

"Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways," he said.

I wonder, will his excitement continue as the opposition is rounded up and quietly "disappeared" during the coming weeks and months?

The United States has had no ties with Iran since shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution, but Obama has expressed an interest in a dialogue if Tehran "unclenches its fist."

Obama said he had tried to send a clear message during a speech to the Islamic world last week in Cairo that his administration sees a possibility for a change in relations.

He said while "ultimately the election is for the Iranians to decide,"voters in the Middle East had shown they were looking at the possibility of a change.

Sorry, Mr. President, Ahmadinejad was reelected, the fist remains clenched and that "Hopey Changey" thing that worked so well on the American electorate doesn't work so well in Tehran.

How could anyone, even remotely familiar with Iran, think that the Iranians decided this election, or that they have any say in the "possibility of a change"?

Get a clue, Mr. President.

In Rememberance of D-Day June 6, 1944

I can think of no better tribute to these brave men, than to post Ronald Reagan's moving "The Boys of Pointe-Du-Hoc" speech at the 40th anniversary in 1984. As one of the last Presidents of that "Greatest Generation", it seems fitting to hear his words, once again.


(This is a good copy, I suggest you click on "HQ" when it starts)