Punting For Peace!
Great news for Obama! Word is emerging that the Iranian election may not have been stolen! Ahmadinejad may just be a victim of bad PR. He may yet be a partner for peace. And it’s Carter-approved! But first, about that election …
Washington Post, Will of the People:
The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin — greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday’s election.
Well, you can dicker about the power of incumbency and mullah-approved selection of candidates and thumb-on-the-scale attacks on regime opponents if you like. And its not like the mullah-approved opposition represented change for Iran any more than, heck, Obama does from the usual pork-addicted hackery and hypocrisy. But like it or not, evidence is emerging that suggests the vast majority of Iranians may prefer a raving anti-Semitic nuke-lusting sponsor of terrorism … which clears the way for Obama to negotiate with him!
Help me out here, did I miss it? I noticed that while the Obama admin remained cautiously pro-talks over the tumult of the weekend, it was crickets from Obama. But it’s beginning to sound like the coast is clear for Obama to come out and congratulate his hostage-taking partner for peace! The legitimate result of almost democracy-like elections in Iran!
Heritage Foundation: Great electioneering, mullahs! OK, that’s not exactly how HF put it.
This one’s good, Christopher Hitchens, Slate, “Don’t Call It An Election.”
… the vicious manipulation by which the mullahs control Iran can no longer be considered their “internal affair.” Fascism at home sooner or later means fascism abroad. Face it now or fight it later. Meanwhile, give it its right name.
May want to tell your boyfriend O about that, Chris.
Hold on one second. Hold everything!
UK Telegraph, leaked Interior Ministry results show Ahmadinejad actually came in third.
The statistics, circulated on Iranian blogs and websites, claimed Mr Mousavi had won 19.1 million votes while Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won only 5.7 million.
The two other candidates, reformist Mehdi Karoubi and hardliner Mohsen Rezai, won 13.4 million and 3.7 million respectively. The authenticity of the leaked figures could not be confirmed.
WTF?
Well, whatever. We’re talking realOpolitik here.
Washington Post: It’s a dilemma for O. How do you suck up to a dictatorship without appearing to suck up to a dictatorship? OK, that’s not exactly how WP put it.
Washington Independent: Obama admin to focus on human rights, ignore human rights in Iran. OK, that’s not exactly how WI put it, but that’s what I’m getting from it.
It’s a bummer. O reckons he’s got no options. You don’t always get to champion peace and freedom with the Gandhi of your choice. Sometimes you just have to sweet talk the nuke-lusting mullah-approved anti-Semitic sponsor of terrorism you’re faced with.
Sounds like punting, though. Punting for peace!
Wall Street Journal: Will O stand with Iran’s democratic reformers? WSJ poses and seriously addresses the question. Doesn’t much attempt to disguise the eye-rolling, though.
RealClearWorld and Memeorandum round up the deep thot and rants.
Abu Muq looks at the role technology did, or didn’t, play.
Legal Insurrection, an A’jad win is a no-win situation.
Hyscience: Ex-Mossad chief is worried about O’s learning curve … sorry, come again … there’s a curve?
HotAir, channeling CNN producer: Iranian students say they’re dead if O accepts the election. Plus vid, Iranian thugs beat protestor to death in broad daylight.
Gateway: Iranian opp leader defies ban, leads massive protest.
Malkin with some art and links.
Moderate Voice: Crackdown? Well, yeah. Two out of three mullahs say yes.
Moe Lane: Inconvenient Jew removed from Obama admin Iran post. And Breaking: militia fires on protestors.
Powerline, channeling an astute Corner reader that deserves a retweet, or reblog, whatever:
Obama has squandered [strategic opportunities] by demonizing Bush and the Iraq war for years.
Imagine how powerful it would be for Obama (or, more likely, a surrogate) to be able to stand up and say to the Iranian protesters, “Under the USA, your neighbor Iraq held free and fair elections. The government of Iran went out of its way to demonize the US and undermine those elections. We are now seeing the results of that mindset come home to Iran as you are denied a voice by your government in your own elections. The US government stands behind all who seek free and fair elections.”
Of course, he can’t say that with any legitimacy because he has spent years putting down Bush and Iraq. This is a classic example of why partisan bickering needs to be toned down; it hamstrings the new Administration. So frustrating to watch.
I dunno, that presumes Obama would even want to be in a position of defying Iran, any more than he wanted to be in a position of defying Saddam. Or al Qaeda in Iraq, for that matter.
Speaking of which Surber notes that the broken clock known as Tom Friedman is apparently telling the time right again. “Winds of Change.” Maybe more like “Windbag Changes” … again. He’s back on board with Bush and his Saddam-removal operations. Bush fueled freedom and democracy in the Middle East.
Hey, on the subject of relevant presidential predecessors, where’s that mullah-enabling free-election advocate Jimmy Carter on this one? OK, here we go … he’s punting, too.
AFP, Carter sees no change in policy:
RAMALLAH, West Bank (AFP) — Former US president Jimmy Carter said on Saturday there would be no change in American policy after the re-election of hardline Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Carter said US policy would remain the same “because the same person will be there” in brief remarks after he met Palestinian officials in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
US President Barack Obama has vowed to pursue diplomatic engagement with Tehran in a bid to convince the Islamic republic to stop sensitive nuclear work the West fears could hide efforts to build atomic weapons.
Iran has vowed to press ahead with what it says is an entirely peaceful nuclear energy drive and vehemently denies that it is seeking atomic weapons.
Carter — who was president during Iran’s 1979 revolution that toppled the US-backed shah and the hostage crisis that followed — said the strength of the opposition during the campaign may push Ahmadinejad to “modify” his policies.
“I think this election brought a lot of opposition to his policy in Iran and I am sure he will listen to this opposition and may modify (it).”
Apparently Carter has forgotten that what got the mullahs to modify their policies last time was Ronald Reagan’s (free and fair landslide) election. Never mind, it sounds like Obama’s punt gets the Carter seal of approval. But I thought that guy was all about fair elections.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:49 am on Monday, June 15, 2009
12 Responses to “Punting For Peace!”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Question: Are you using “punting” in the British sense or in the American football sense?
June 15th, 2009 at 11:55 am
I understand what the fuss is all about. We know from Ohio, Illinois, Minnesota, and elsewhere that it sometimes takes a while for ACORN to get the counts right.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:57 am
That was suppose to say “I don’t understand….” but I’m not sure that the way it came out is better–sometimes it is hard to see (given the quality of the press coverage these days) just where ACORN id at work.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:59 am
Larry having a bad day. “…came out is not better…”
June 15th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
No worries Larry. Re “punt,” Big Henry, that’s the American football usage. As in delivering the ball into your opponent’s hands in the usually vain hope of limiting the damage when you can’t think of anything better to do. Except it isn’t fourth down unless O wants it to be. British “punt” as in a gamble, no. That would require bold initiative, which has been absent. “Punt” as in to aimlessly pole a boat along while whispering sweet nothings on a dreamy Sunday afternoon, yeah, that works.
June 15th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden has put together a roundup of some of the reactions to the Iranian situation in [...]
June 15th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
I like the “to aimlessly pole a boat along while whispering sweet nothings on a dreamy Sunday afternoon” analogy.
If only we could get The Obaminator to whisper (and carry a stick of ANY size).
June 15th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden has put together a roundup of some of the reactions to the Iranian situation in [...]
June 15th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Bush would have said plenty about the Iranian situation by now. Obama should be ashamed of himself.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:10 am
@RebeccaH
A narcissist can not be ashamed of himself, by definition.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:14 am
[...] link roundups by Jules Crittendon and Michael Totten, who is also adding his own [...]
June 16th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Maybe ABC - the All Barack Channel will give him a prime time special so he can explain himself.
http://www.jourtegrity.blogspot.com