The recent protests in Iran, as well as Hezbollah's political defeat in Lebanon days earlier, are the result of Barack Obama's speech in Cairo on June 4.
Such nonsense was actually reported by the Washington Post Tuesday.
At this time, it appears the real Obama Derangement Syndrome is creating a nexis between anything good that happens anywhere on the planet to some presidential deed (h/t Hot Air):
Obama's approach to Iran, including his assertion that the unrest there represents a debate among Iranians unrelated to the United States, is an acknowledgment that a U.S. president's words have a limited ability to alter foreign events in real time and could do more harm than good. But privately Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the protesters, especially the young ones, who are now posing the most direct challenge to the republic's Islamic authority in its 30-year history.
One senior administration official with experience in the Middle East said, "There clearly is in the region a sense of new possibilities," adding that "I was struck in the aftermath of the president's speech that there was a connection. It was very sweeping in terms of its reach." [...]
His Cairo speech sought to clear the air -- in Iran's case, by acknowledging the U.S. role in the 1953 coup that toppled the democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh. Translated into Farsi, the speech was delivered to Iranians in real time through a State Department-sponsored text-messaging service.Obama's advisers say the outreach may have contributed to the defeat in Lebanese elections a few days later of a coalition led by Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed party, that had been predicted to win. In recent days, administration officials have pointed to the Iranian demonstrations as further evidence of Obama's possible influence in the region.
Asked Friday whether the administration believes Obama's outreach to Iran and the Muslim world is affecting events on the ground, press secretary Robert Gibbs said, "You're witnessing something that many people might not have presumed or imagined . . . just a few -- even a few weeks or a few days ago."
Wow.
To be sure, it is not at all surprising to witness this kind of arrogance from the current White House. It just would have been nice to see the Post cite some Middle East experts with a different view than that being offered by the Administration.
For example, isn't it equally likely if not more so that Iranians and Lebanese see a free and democratic Iraq as something to emulate?
Unfortunately, the Post didn't offer this alternative explanation.
I wonder why.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
HMMMMMMMMMM
June 23, 2009 - 09:34 ET by rick007This is proably correct except they might have believed he would stand behind them.
As per usual the Kenyen tucked tail and ran after spewing his Bull Shit.
Or went and had icecream!!!!
The Blood of NEDA is on his hands!!!!!!
Noel, it's raining like heck here. It is because I move here.
June 23, 2009 - 09:40 ET by acaiguanaIf I had stayed in Northern California, there would be no draught.
:-)
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
Blake
June 23, 2009 - 09:49 ET by Noel SheppardBlake,
Are you talking about beer or dry climate? :-) ns
I can't slip anything past you.
June 23, 2009 - 09:53 ET by acaiguanaACA
:-)
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
After tommorows rousing
June 23, 2009 - 09:48 ET by Dan The Man 2After tommorows rousing debate on healthcare I predict many will rise to teh alter and give testimonies of them being cured of grave illnesses.
One will even come forward and testify that they had an arm miraculously grow back.
So we need to send in our donations to get a prayer cloth actually dipped in Duh Ones feces. It has shown that they have miraculous curative properties.
And the people say AMEN.
Funny Dan
June 23, 2009 - 10:05 ET by BlondeNL207 posted a YouTube video yesterday which puts into pictures your exact sentiments.
Oh yeah, beverage alert.
I hope he fails, too.
I like this one
June 23, 2009 - 10:27 ET by motherbeltI like this one better....it has a great intro....
And all I can say is, it's a good thing Morton's black or there would be hell to pay.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
Only thing is, is that it's
June 23, 2009 - 09:49 ET by G. MayOnly thing is, is that it's not a revolt. It had the chances to be one, but it failed. The reason? Ahmedojihad probably would have won without the alleged fraud anyway. Why? More Iranians support him than the media makes it appear. Why? He openly opposes the clerics in power.
The sad fact of life in Iran is that the protesters are in the minority. Despite the large numbers of protesters, there is an even larger number of Iranians who are not interested in liberal reforms. It was doomed to fail no matter what any American president, or European leader said.
you're right may
June 23, 2009 - 12:21 ET by candanceAnd exposing atrocities performed by the government will not sway public sympathy around to their favor? Exposing a fraudulent election will not get independents to think twice? Revolutions *always* begin with an angry minority.
Even if this revolt is "doomed to fail" it could be a sign of a long-term shift, and if America comes down on the wrong side the people there will never trust us again. Iranians are quickly learning that America is terrified of siding against an establishment.
What exposing is there for
June 23, 2009 - 13:45 ET by G. MayWhat exposing is there for Obama or the congress to do? The violence was already exposed. Presidents don't expose that sort of thing with statements. The voter fraud, while likely, is also alleged. Short of team Obama sending in an independent investigation to figure it out, he's not going to expose anything there either with a strong statement.
You're also considering Iran as if it's the US in terms of moderates/independents. It's not. Not to imply that there aren't middle-of-the-raod types in Iran, but the dynamic and political structure is night and day. Revolutions also do not "always" begin with an angry minority, but I'll refrain from getting sidetracked.
This is already a sign of a long term shift and will probably result in some more upheaval in the future. America is already on the wrong side of the people there. America is on the right side of some.
What do you want the President to do, issue a strongly worded letter to the UN? Say something really mean and nasty toward Iran's ruling class?
Short of military intervention, there are only words, so let's say Obama comes out and says the strongest possible thing he can. The protest/uprising/revolt is still not going to go anywhere because they're well in the minority and lack sufficient power to do anything but throw rocks and start fires.
G May, Great great
June 23, 2009 - 14:21 ET by CacciatoG May,
Great great posting on this thread. Finally a voice of reason in the NB community.
There's been a lot of shrieking around here that Obama dropped the ball, he is too afraid to do anything, he blew it and now Iranians are dying, he has blood on his hands, etc etc etc. and frankly, it's mystifying. Blood on his hands? Really?
Some people around here need to stop and take a deep breath. Thankfully, your post does just that.
What do people want him to do?
You nailed the reality of the situation and I will be interested to see how the rabid anti-Obama crowd will respond.
Again, great post.
Which is it?
June 23, 2009 - 14:37 ET by RpeggioDid Obama 'meddle' by supposedly generating the enthusiasm within Iran for a democratic uprising via his Cairo speech? That's what many in the liberal media are saying. If that's so, then he's already 'meddled' and owns some of the bloodshed. I personally disagree with that statement that his Cairo speech is to credit or blame, but that's how far Obama-luvin' can take some people.
I personally think he's handled this fairly well, sure I would have liked him saying the tougher language he said this week, last week, but he's typically measured and slow to react to crisis, a slight dig on him, but I'd prefer a more thoughtful response than Bush tended to offer.
But the liberal left loses credibility when they don't see any mistakes being made by Obama....ever. And for many to give him credit (unbelievably) for his Cairo speech being the catalyst for the Iranian uprising is just silly, but if you think that, then you must then admit he's led them to slaughter, by not coming out with equally powerful rhetoric now that they've hit the streets for the freedom he said they all deserve. Don't you guys see that? The hypocrisy?
Real men have enemies
June 23, 2009 - 17:36 ET by Dan The Man 2Real men have enemies because they stand for something and make sure all know what it is. Reagan was a real man because he let the USSR know where he stood, both Presidents Bush did the same and let everyone know where they stood. They let everyone know without question in solid answers. I first saw Bush jr do this when he said Jesus was his Savior and mentor and when asked by a bewilderd moderator he reinterated and expounded on it.
Now those are leaders. Duh One is not a leader he is a destroyer.
what do we want Obama to do?
June 23, 2009 - 21:56 ET by candanceHere's a quick list:
-Disinvite the Iranian government from attending Obama's July 4 barbeque. This would be akin to FDR inviting Hitler for dinner for the sake of having diplomatic relations.
-Take a cue from France, Germany, and every other civilized country by condemning the mullahs instead of just saying something nice about feeling sorry for dead people.
-Explain why he sent Joe Biden to Lebanon a month ago to push for fair elections, but that wasn't meddling.
No one here actually expects Obama to invade Iran or send in any troops. But he's naive if he really thinks overlooking murder will get him any favors in the future.
What can obama do? hmmmmm......
June 23, 2009 - 14:54 ET by pahuber"What exposing is there for Obama or the congress to do?"
"What do you want the President to do, issue a strongly worded letter to
the UN? Say something really mean and nasty toward Iran's ruling
class?"
"Short of military intervention, there are only words, so let's say
Obama comes out and says the strongest possible thing he can."
- How about Obama start doing the job he was elected to do.
- Standing there with your head firmly planted up your ass does not a President make... he is only emboldening the mullahs with his overtures of acceptance.
- It is called a 'bully pulpit' for a reason and he can plead the case for the resistance and for fairness to put pressure on Iran.
* Doing what Obama is currently doing is nothing short of appeasement to the mullahs and encouraging their behavior. So saying 'what can he do' is simply accepting his failur at foreign policy.
The way your response is
June 23, 2009 - 20:13 ET by G. MayThe way your response is formatted, I'm really not sure if your post was attempting to address my points. Obama was elected to uphold the constitution. While I'll be the first to join in saying he's certainly overstepped his bounds wildly in that regard, I can't say I agree on the ssue of Iranian elections. He was not elected to do a thing about another country's internal elections. He can and has issued an appropriate statement. Making it stronger is not going to change or help anything.
While I'll agree that his strategy of "engaging" the mullahs was wrong, I'd like to point out again that there is nothing else he can do. Other than making a useless gesture with a more strongly worded statement, what would you propose he do?
The only pressure that can be put on Iran is to appeal to the international community. And we all know what a joke that is. The powers of western Europe have already weighed in with more strongly worded statements, and that will accomplish exactly nothing either.
If Iran is going to remain defiant on their nuclear program in the face of "pressure", do you think they're going to wake up one morning and go "golly, I guess you guys are right, we'll change our tune"? I think not.
There is little opportunity here for anyone. It's just a non-starter.
I agree that it is a tiring job, but he has to use the bully
June 23, 2009 - 22:08 ET by pahuberpulpit to continue and influence other nations that will listen. This also allows the dissidents to know they are supported elsewhere.
I agree the mullahs will most likely ignore it, but with enough pressure it may do some good... so far it seems like Obama is just dragging his feet.
You know it's going to come down to Israel just taking out the nukes and/or reactor, right?
Other nations aren't going
June 24, 2009 - 01:08 ET by G. MayOther nations aren't going to listen. Despite all the sanctimonious lecturing from Europe, those nations act in their own interests first - altruistic bullshit be damned when it comes to their wants. Then there's Russia and China. Both have extremely vested interests in Iran for their own reasons. Therefore neither of them will offer much in terms of a friendly ear. Especially given their own records of how they handle internal strife.
So again, no traction from the "bully pulpit".
The only good that comes out of this is that it vindicates Bush with his Axis of Evil observation. But that will fall on deaf ears in the media.
Of course it's going to come down to Israel acting in its own self interest. I actually hope it does because they're the only ones with balls anymore. The west has paralyzed itself on and off since the end of WWI. Israel acting in its own defense will probably be the spark to bring in some real, much needed change. Until then, there's only words and posturing and we all see just how much good that's done and doing.
Other nations aren't going
June 24, 2009 - 02:42 ET by Dan The Man 2Other nations aren't going to listen .... Until then, there's only words and posturing and we all see just how much good that's done and doing.
And you dont understand it is not posturing it is taking a stand and a position so everyone knows who we are and where we stand. Real leaders do this when no one cares or when everyone cares and some think its the wrong thing to do.
And the people listening are us the people, the ones who are the most important or shoudd be to a President. Great men say what they mean and mean what they say. Patrick Henry"Give me liberty of give me death", do you think he said that to or for the Brits? No he said it for him and his men so he and they would be bolstered and know here they stand. And for his men more importantly where Henry stood.
Presidents Reagan, Bush the senior and Bush the elder all made bold statements and proclamations and backed them up with actions. The American people appreciated that and the world and Americans knew where they stood.
So yes words have meaning and when there are no words it also has meaning.
My understanding is quite
June 24, 2009 - 09:48 ET by G. MayMy understanding is quite fine thank you. You're arguing semantics. Posturing, taking a stand, words...tomato, tomahto. Words have meaning, but in the political arena, they must be backed by policy. Reagan and both Bush's (especially Bush43) backed up their rhetoric. Obama's rhetoric is? Engagement. And we see how well that's served him so far. The real criticism here is his Iran policy. People should be using this to jump all over his policy, but they're not. They're focused on the words.
Forest for the trees.
His response, while not as strong as it could have been (once again, stronger will have accomplished nothing) was appropriate. Would I have said something stronger? You bet. Because I feel that the mullahs and Ahmedojihad would have reacted in a predictable way (and they did), therefore you might as well condemn them vociferously. But once the condemnation is out there, what happens next? I'll tell you - the mullahs bring in security forces whose personnel come from outside Tehran who will have a much easier time pulling the trigger.
And you get a squashed revolt. Authoritarian style.
The political power play right now is between the theocratic mullahs and the militaristic Ahmedojihad. The political elites in Iran will be taking these sides now. But both sides are authoritarian and hostile toward the west. Even Mousavi is a coninuation of this.
And I'll make the point again - clearly the majority is not really in step with the protesters. That's why this thing is effectively over for now. And it was going to be over no matter how strongly Obama spoke out.
As an aside, clearly enough Americans did NOT "appreciate" Bush43's words. For the record - I did and do more and more with each passing day.
Obviously - not even Obama believes that!
June 23, 2009 - 10:08 ET by Gary HallObviously - not even Obama believes that! If he actually did, then the boy president would be out with his head cocked upwards in the air saying, "now, that's what I's been talking about."
His lack of verbal support for the people in Iran has been more than telling.
Gibbs? His comments are meaningless blabber.
(;~/ gary
You're right; he would be
June 23, 2009 - 10:32 ET by motherbeltYou're right; he would be front and center taking the credit for it!
He's not touching this one until because he's pretty sure it's going to fail. There will be a major crackdown; Ahmadinejad will prevail, and Obama doesn't want to ruin his chances of negotiation with him. The dinner jacket just might have some "preconditions" which the President doesn't.
I didn't think it was physically possible, but this both sucks and blows. -Bart Simpson
MB - indeed.. in fact, in order to take credit..
June 23, 2009 - 10:40 ET by Gary Hall.. Obama would also have to accept that there usually is a cost when dealing with such horrid regimes like this; many ordinary people wanting to have the veil of oppression lifted from their people will be willing to risk their lives. I think he fears having his name attached to that risk. (;~/ gary
The stupidity of all this
June 23, 2009 - 10:12 ET by Right2thePointThe stupidity of all this has even reached London as so well told my Melanie Phillips.
Obama Derangement Syndrome strikes London's Mayor
ODS
June 23, 2009 - 11:32 ET by merlin61I say today we call it OLS ---because they aren't against him like Pres.Bush, they are so overly in
love with anything he says they make you want to
puke. ITs more serious than BDS. Help, Help,
Help!!!!
h
"defeat of Hezbollah" What
June 23, 2009 - 10:21 ET by merkava"defeat of Hezbollah"
What nonsense is this? They're still there aren't they, ergo they have not been "defeated" in any meaningful sense of the word. They still run Lebanon under the surface no matter which "moderate, pro-Western" leader is allegedly in charge.
Glick Ridicules Obama Effect
June 23, 2009 - 10:22 ET by slickwillie2001Caroline Glick ridicules the 'Obama Effect':
The Obama Effect: http://www.carolineglick.com
(This was in direct response to a Helene Cooper article in al New York Times.)
How can liberals claim that the Bamster's sucking up to Khameini empowers those that are protesting in the streets against him? This illustrates the bizarre ability liberals have to disconnect themselves from reality. By the way, the Bamster's invitation to Iranian embassies the world over to join the American embassies for a July 4th celebration still stands:
Hot Dog Diplomacy: http://www.julescrittenden.com
"The United States said Monday its invitations were still standing for Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at US embassies despite the crackdown on opposition supporters."
Yep, those mullahs are just shaking in their boots over Obama aren't they? Or maybe shaking with laughter.
Don't we look so good?
June 23, 2009 - 10:31 ET by CentaurThe main thing that kills me about this is that Americans look so weak with a President like this: our word means absolutely nothing when our president will not act properly.
Add to that the fact that Obama wants to take away our sovereignty over domestic policy and allow an international committee of foreigners to make our decisions for us, and we are up a fjord with a LOT of Vikings. You can find out more at www.parentalrights.org; I stumbled over it today. Check it out: it's very eye-opening: http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={B4C2416A-04A4-49BD-AE7D-D8221AF15661}
The main thing that "I watch the skies, for it is mine to watch, Badger, as it is your's to remember." -- Glenstorm
Iranian ambassadors will be eating Hebrew National hot dogs
June 23, 2009 - 10:37 ET by SickofLibsObama DOES have a master plan for the July 4th Embassy picnics.
All caterers have been instructed to serve unlabeled Hebrew National hot dogs.
On July 5, Gibbs will reveal this to the world.
Bhaa ha ha hah, Iranians!!! We really got you, ya bastards!!!
Makin' and savin' jobs or something
June 23, 2009 - 10:28 ET by In_AweWe will be treated to this kind of nonsense for the entire duration of this one term president. All good flows from Him, all bad is that guy Bush's fault - or the scapegoat de jour. This schtick is already old and tired - by the end people will openly laugh at His claims of influence and power. His ego knows no bounds and he has no knowledge of Middle East history. Obama the Self-Important. Blech!
This what Barack Hussein
June 23, 2009 - 10:36 ET by Gat New YorkThis what Barack Hussein Obama said in his Cairo speech:
Then look at what he has said - or has not said - concerning this event in Iran.
Words should matter and in Obama’s case his timid approach is an indictment of his knack for self-serving empty words. He will regret this moment when his own words and lack of leadership come back to haunt him.
So which is it?
June 23, 2009 - 10:43 ET by SeftonSo administration officials are touting the glorious leader and his "world-saving" speech making here . . .
but following the AMA speech, these same administration officials admit "that the president's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally."
I think the latter was more in line with the truth.
---
June 23, 2009 - 10:50 ET by slickwillie2001This space intentionally left blank.
Wapo
June 23, 2009 - 10:49 ET by jessieHjessieH Does the MSM really believe their own B.S.? Obama did nothing. The people of Iran did. Obama is no leader. He is Jimmy Carter. A waste of flesh..............
Did BDS preclude giving Bush credit for much ado about..
June 23, 2009 - 10:49 ET by Gary Hall.. anything?
In October, 2008 [just last fall], at the President's Conference on International Development, as is often the case, praise for President Bush and his administration was in the air - for doing what? Doing the walk - not just the talk.
Sir Bob Geldof (Humanitarian activist - and Live 8 organizer):
"President Ellen Sirleaf Johnson, of Liberia (the first freely elected woman in Africa's history):
Anyone remember the WaPost highlighting the story - wanting to make us feel good about ourselves and our government's bold and goodly efforts around the globe?
(;~> Gary
His Cairo speech also cured
June 23, 2009 - 10:49 ET by bedmondsonHis Cairo speech also cured my ass cancer.
Noel
June 23, 2009 - 11:24 ET by RESTLESS 1You should have seen the scrubs on "morning joe" positing this bs yesterday. I'm still surprised my TV survived.
"This liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Uh....
June 23, 2009 - 11:26 ET by StarAZAm I missing something? I thought the idea was not to be blamed--or credited.
Exactly
June 23, 2009 - 13:09 ET by RpeggioThe Obama kool-aid crew think we're all stupid. They want to take 'credit' for his speeches being the catalyst for the uprising yet don't want any blame or fingers pointed at them by that regime and don't want to meddle. Anyone who believes that convenient logic is a fool.
and???
June 23, 2009 - 12:15 ET by candanceEven assuming Obama's speech had something to do with it, how does Obama look now backing away from it and not having the spine to act on all those pretty words?
Iranians are getting the message that Iraqis and Afghanis deserve freedom but they don't. If they were anti-American before, how does he think the average Iranian kid on the street will feel about us now, knowing that our president said some pithy words while still hedging his bets with the Mullahs?
Liberals are so stupid. They don't even get it that to say Obama inspired this is to expect him to take ownership of it. This is like waving a steak in front of a hungry dog, pulling it away, and then expecting thanks for letting him sniff it.
Then It's Obama's Fault People Are Dying In The Streets
June 23, 2009 - 13:06 ET by RpeggioSaying Obama's Cairo speech was the catalyst for the Iranian's reaction to the fraud election is ridiculous yes, but let's run with that theory, if his speech did help generate the energy for the uprising, then you could logically say Obama is also to blame for Neda's death and 100+ others in the streets of Iran.....so thanks Obama.
And if you are in that liberal camp and believe his speeches are to credit (or blame), then you should be saying why are you leaving the Iranian citizens hanging out to dry? Why lead them to slaughter and then say you don't want to meddle? Heck, Obama even today is still saying he'll allow Iran's regime into negotiation/dipomacy if they make the right choices???? What? Has he turned his TV on lately?