Sunday, June 21, 2009

I've got big balls



The parade of conservative weenies whining about Pres. Obama's cautious words on the Iranian crisis would be funny, if they weren't so damned stupid.

For perspective, here's what Obama said on Wed., 6/17:
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Obviously all of us have been watching the news from Iran. And I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football -- or discussions with the United States.

. . .

Now, with respect to the United States and our interactions with Iran, I've always believed that as odious as I consider some of President Ahmadinejad's statements, as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on a range of core issues, that the use of tough, hard-headed diplomacy -- diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries -- is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests, specifically, making sure that we are not seeing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East triggered by Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon; making sure that Iran is not exporting terrorist activity. Those are core interests not just to the United States but I think to a peaceful world in general.

Yep, sounds like a pussy to me. Going all squishy when the people of Iran are crying out for us to . . . what's that? Mossadeq? 1953? CIA? Never mind.

And again, Obama on Fri., 6/19:
Q People in this country say you haven't said enough, that you haven't been forceful enough in your support for those people on the street -- to which you say?

THE PRESIDENT: To which I say, the last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That's what they do. That's what we're already seeing. We shouldn't be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the Iranian people are seeking to let their voices be heard.

What we can do is bear witness and say to the world that the incredible demonstrations that we've seen is a testimony to I think what Dr. King called the "arc of the moral universal." It's long but it bends towards justice.

But that's not enough for some of these politically motivated bloodthirsty idiots, like ├╝ber-tool Mark Steyn, who whines on Friday:
The polite explanation for Barack Obama's diffidence on Iran is that he doesn't want to give the mullahs the excuse to say the Great Satan is meddling in Tehran's affairs. So the president's official position is that he's modestly encouraged by the regime's supposed interest in investigating some of the allegations of fraud. Also, he's heartened to hear that O.J. is looking for the real killers. "You've seen in Iran," explained President Obama, "some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."

"Supreme Leader"? I thought that was official house style for Barack Obama at Newsweek and MSNBC. But no. It's also the title held by Ayatollah Khamenei for the past couple of decades. If it sounds odd from the lips of an American president, that's because none has ever been as deferential in observing the Islamic republic's dictatorial protocol. Like President Obama's deep, ostentatious bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, it signals a fresh start in our relations with the Muslim world, "mutually respectful" and unilaterally fawning.

That last part is rich, considering your guy GWBush kissed and held hands with Saudi Royalty. But of course, his sensitivity made him tough. Or something.

Look, this gotcha crap is not only insulting but childish. Steyn has made a career out of weak attempts at humor and hipness, but it's clear his only goal, like most on the right, is not a realpolitik assessment of the world, including the Middle East, but constant criticizing of Democrats, regardless of the reason.

Speaking of Realpolitik, here's what '70s hawk Henry "H-Kiss" Kissinger had to say:

KISSINGER: Well, you know, I was a McCain supporter and — but I think the president has handled this well. Anything that the United States says that puts us totally behind one of the contenders, behind Mousavi, would be a handicap for that person. And I think it’s the proper position to take that the people of Iran have to make that decision.

Of course, we have to state our fundamental convictions of freedom of speech, free elections, and I don’t see how President Obama could say less than he has, and even that is considered intolerable meddling. He has, after all, carefully stayed away from saying things that seem to support one side or the other. And I think it was the right thing to do because public support for the opposition would only be used by the — by Ahmadinejad — if I can ever learn his name properly — against Mousavi.


But idiots like Steyn have to criticize Obama for not being hawkish enough. Bacause as I keep harping, Iranians haven't forgotten 1953 and the CIA-engineered overthrow of democratically elected Mohammed Mossadeq, the popular Prime Minister of Iran.

And if we act foolishly, that's all they'll see: Allen Dulles, Kermit Roosevelt, Operation Ajax, and the US CIA.

That'll work really well for us. Like it did in 1979. Sometimes the strong thing to do isn't to flex muscles, but to talk. But I guess macho Right-wingers would rather inject testosterone into the situation and depend on manliness. Or assholiness.

Bastards.