See No Evil: Obama and Iran
By Jonathan Bean • Saturday December 19, 2009 3:32 PM PDT • 7 Comments
“You lie!”
That line came from a Republican congressman when President Barack Obama delivered his speech in favor of national health care.
The line is even more appropriate when discussing candidate–now President–Obama’s shifting policies on Iran. The Wall Street Journal summed up the latest do-nothing, say nothing, see nothing turn in Obama’s Iran policy:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541004574600274098469020.html
In a word, the president has promised sanctions, drawn lines in the sand, but never followed through with even words.We are told that Obama was to be a Great Communicator like FDR or Reagan but his exaggerated oratorical skills were used more to win the favor of Old Europe than to address the awful Iranian despots’ march toward a multiplicity of nuclear weapons. Throw in the tone deafness about Iran’s continuing support for terrorists, murder and torture of protestors, a new round of U.S. hostage-taking, and you have the makings of another Neville Chamberlain. I suppose he would be the first “black Neville Chamberlain.”
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, words mean something. If you say something, mean it. As a Dr. Seuss character put it:
“I say what I mean and I mean what I say”
Does President Obama mean what he says? If so, perhaps he can tell the people of Iran, Israel and the rest of the world if he says what he means.
Tags: Iran, Middle East, Presidential Power, Transparency 
Seems like a bit of a misprioritization of urgency to be shrieking shrilly about “awful Iranian despots’ march toward a multiplicity of nuclear weapons” when we have a despot here in the US, who has more nukes, armies deployed all across the world and a historically-demonstrated willingness to use both.
But sure, the Iranians are scary, too.
Taylor | Dec 19, 2009 | Reply
Hitler constantly ranted (like the Iranians) that the British, French and Dutch imperialists were a far greater threat to world peace, blah, blah. They had large navies, Germany was confined, they had empires, Germany had none, etc. Imperialism was bad, given, but it takes a failure to see evil here and abroad that damages our security and credibility. Churchill supported empire but he was right about Hitler. Doesn’t that say something? You can be wrong (in our view) about one thing, but right (dreadfully right) about another.
Surely, those who see U.S. intervention/power as a threat ought to call out the likes of the Iranians?
The great Achilles heel of libertarians is the Chomsky temptation. Like the Left, we become so fixated on the problems with our unconstitutional government that we don’t see the forest for the trees
Jonathan Bean | Dec 19, 2009 | Reply
Besides, the point is that Obama’s foreign policy sends no clear message. He is all wrapped up in words that SIGNIFY NOTHING.
Jonathan Bean | Dec 19, 2009 | Reply
Unbelievable. Did you just equate Hitler’s Nazi Germany with modern day Iran that has great internal discontent, is suffering economic depression, and is surrounded by American troops?
Iran is in no position to strike, but America is. Of course that does not mean that the Iranian mullahs are not a greedy and dangerous bunch, but they’re not making the threats here. They’re standing their ground as any nation would in this situation. On the other hand, America and Israel are making threats after threats, just itching to get a war going.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a fan of the mullahs, but they are not the epitome of evil. The American empire has that title, and if you fail to see that, then you’re not paying attention or have not read history.
Truth Excavator | Dec 19, 2009 | Reply
Jonathan,
My apologies if you thought I was excusing one tyrannical regime and not any others. The Iranian mullahocracy or whatever you want to call it is creepy, authoritarian, repressive and violent. No doubt.
Why do they hate “us” again? Their distrust and saber-rattling toward the US government seems to be a function of decades of foreign policy meddling by the US govt in their affairs. Highly reactionary, in other words. Like Hitler, Iran didn’t become an enemy of the US overnight, irrationally.
I am going to leave my reply at that. You’re dealing in so many false collectives (“world peace”, us, them, etc. etc.) that it’s nearly impossible to have a meaningful discussion on this topic without adopting your terminology and with it your flawed premises.
Hate to be a relativist but in this situation, it seems to all be relative... I wonder how scared Iraqis and Afghanis are of Iranian interventionism vs. US benevolent dictatorship?
Just saying.
Fully agree with you on Obama... the guy is a worthless chump, as all politicians are. So, no qualms there!
Taylor | Dec 20, 2009 | Reply
“world peace”? Where did I say that? I was talking about the meaning of words, the false premises and promises of Obama. World peace will never happen, given man’s fallen nature.
As for using history to justify evil, I find it an annoying tendency because it excuses all present evil in the name of “History.”
Believe me, history has pivoted again in Iran. They aren’t shouting about the USA but against the whole idea of an Islamic Republic. And when they name foreign powers, it is Russia and China. I know, I just had friends back from Iran (Iranians, some expats, some green card returnees). I’ve had Iranian friends since college (early 1980s) and that past ten years has seen a radical turn away from lingering distrust of America to the very opposite — among large swaths of the population (the people, not the government).
Jonathan Bean | Dec 20, 2009 | Reply