When George W. Bush won a disputed and controversial election in 2000, many on the left were quick to throw around words like "stolen," "rigged," and "illegitimate." Despite the fact that a media recount showed Bush widening his vote lead in Florida, to this day liberals feel no qualms about claiming that Bush stole the election and shredded the Constitution.
Contrast that with the hesitance of many of those same individuals to refer to the election in Iran with the same terminology. They caution that we should not jump to conclusions or make hasty statements. We should refrain from rhetoric that would make the situation worse. Why does this situation call for patience and understanding, while the other demanded the toughest of words?
How can you refuse to accept an election in one of the freest nations in the history of civilization, yet be somewhat trusting a murderous, racist, terror-supporting, theocratic dictator would participate in a fair election. It strikes me as odd, and a bit troubling, that so many in our country are more accepting of votes in states with dictators (Iran, Venezuela, Saddam's Iraq, etc.) than they are of America's elections.
Hi Aaron:
Who is it that is counseling patience, and will they be as skeptical after we know more details? Obama is properly helping the opposition by NOT saying too much–if US seems like it's meddling that will help the theocrats.
your friend
Keith
I said this in another post, but I don't know anyone who seriously believes that Obama should go in guns blazing, etc. But he should at least indicate, even if it is through "unnamed administration sources" in the media, that he is no longer willing to meet with the Iranian regime unless that resolve their issues peacefully and deal with the situation in a just and fair manner.
As I told Louis, with a link, the dictators are already blaming the US, UK and Israel for all the problems and protests already. Staying mostly silent is not going to stop them from trying to unite everyone against us. They already do that and have been doing that.
Hi Aaron:
I think what the President should do is whatever will make it more likely that Iran will stop their repression; empty symbolism doesn't matter at all, only results. I don't know that "unnamed White sources" would have any effect on the dictatorship right now It seems to me our government is hitting the right tone here, with Congress condemning things and the White House saying they are concerned.
your friend
Keith
Keith
many on the left were quick…
Contrast that with the hesitance of many of those same individuals to refer to the election in Iran with the same terminology.
Who are these unnamed "individuals"? I'd really like to know.
That doesn't describe me. I think the situation in Iran is not comparable, but I do think it's terrible. But, what can you expect from a authoritarian, theocratic country?
I do wonder, however, why the right is trying to score points on Obama with the situation in Iran. I think it's shameful to politicize the situation.
Hi Louis:
About politicizing the thing in Iran: I DO think it's legitimate fro conservatives to use the current situation as part of an argument against Obama's desire to negotiate with Iran. I think Obama's approach has been spot on, but there's is nothing wrong with using events to argue for policies. Trying to damage political opponents though is off limits.
your friend
Keith
>>> Who are these unnamed "individuals"? I'd really like to know.
You can do a Google Blog search to see all the purported Iran-Neocon connections.
I know you read Andrew Sullivan. He is consistently using this situation to strike out at "NeoCons." He even has a post entitled "The Khamenei-Neocon Agreement." How about one called "The Rovian Islamist" where he compares the Iranian government tactics to Karl Rove and Sarah Palin and calls their supporters "Red State Iran?" Is he being shameful in politicizing the situation?
Over at the liberal blog "Crooks and Liars," one blogger wrote: "Isn't rioting in the streets the appropriate reaction when your country is taken over through election fraud? What's the alternative, to reward theft? We've already seen what that did here!"
Again, you can do a Google blog search to see countless liberal blogs comparing Iran 2009 to US 2000. I don't have to make this stuff up. It's all over the place.
You will note that I never said you or any of the commenters here held to that position. I simply said that it was out there among liberals. Just as there are also liberals who are holding out (at least there were before today) support for the regime. Sullivan along with Salon and others have been criticizing them.
>>> I think Obama's approach has been spot on, but there's is nothing wrong with using events to argue for policies.
I agree. Not with your analysis of Obama's approach (obviously), but I do think you can and should discuss political approaches to world events. How else would you distinguish between politicians and for whom you would vote?
Sullivan is right.
from Sullivan's latest post:
Obama's Response:
Did you notice how many times he invoked the word "justice" in his message? That's the word that will resonate most deeply with the Iranian resistance. What a relief to have someone with this degree of restraint and prudence and empathy – refusing to be baited by Khamenei or the neocons, and yet taking an eloquent stand, as we all do, in defense of freedom and non-violence. The invocation of MLK was appropriate too. What on earth has this been but, in its essence, a protest for voting rights? Above all, the refusal to co-opt their struggle for ours, because freedom is only ever won, and every democracy will be different: this is an act of restraint that is also a statement of pure confidence in the power of a free people.
I agree with him.
>>> I agree with him.
Of course you do, but then you disagree with yourself. You can't on one hand hold up some glorious standard of bi-partisanship and a refusal to see the events as they relate to domestic politics, while at the same time using the events to criticize "neocons" in America.
Either it is acceptable to relate the events to American politics or it is not.
So far, according to your standard, it is OK to criticize "neocons" (Bush, Cheney, Palin, conservatives, etc.) for their response, but it is unacceptable and offensive to criticize Obama for his response (or lack thereof).
It can't be "shameful" to use the events to criticize one, but not the other.
Which one is it? Is it OK to "politicize the events" or not?
In answering, the best I can do is quote Sullivan again:
I'm going to say something about neoconservatism here that perhaps needs to be said amid my many swipes. There are many good faith neocons who could not be more thrilled at what is happening in Iran, and although they may still have a hankering for some of the emotionally satisfying but now discredited rhetoric of the early days, their hearts are still in the right place.
Not all neocons backed torture (many were appalled), or the Iraq war in bad faith. The core hope that democracy could spread in the Middle East – and that this alone would ultimately destroy Jihadism – is in some ways vindicated by this year in Iran. It remains, of course, a fantastic irony that they chose Iraq to impose this result, rather than waiting for Iran to demonstrate it. And a further irony that their opponent Barack Obama helped inspire the hopes to vindicate neoconservative dreams.
But this democratic flowering follows the best version of the neoconservative inheritance, if not its recent descent into a bitter ideology of naked power. And if Obama can meet it, if he can somehow be a second term Reagan in his first, then the resonance will be even deeper.
Iran's green awakening may end awfully. But if it succeeds, it will be everything the neocons had hoped to achieve in Iraq – and also a demonstration of neoconservatism's core fallacy, which is that freedom can be forced on anyone; or somehow force-fed into maturity. It thus vindicates and refutes neoconservatism at the same time.
History is like that. It makes fools of us all in the end.
Hi Aaron:
1. IMO it is perfectly OK to criticize Obama.
2. But IMO Obama HAS inspired the resistance in Iran. Whatever you think about Obama's policy proposals, surely you admit that Obama draws huge crowds even outside the US–his "yes we can" message resonates with idealists the worlds over. I haven't seen any polling but I'll bet that most of the freedom resistors in Iran would have said as much. I actually expect they'd still say it, knowing as they do that if the US speaks out TOO much this will give ammo to the dictators who us anti-americanism as a substitute for really solving Iran's problems.
your friend
Keith
Keith, now you are pulling a Louis and trying to have it both ways. You can't say that Obama's words matter to the opposition, but also that they don't. He can't both inspire action with his words and do the same with his silence in the exact same situation.
I believe Iran would be in the same situation now no matter who was elected President or if Obama gave his speech or not. Internal issues had come to a boiling point in the nation.
Do you credit Bush for all the democratic revolutions while he was in office?
And since you want to go around giving credit, could it not be that the younger Iranians were inspired by the freedom they see in their neighboring countries?
Hi Aaron:
Keith, now you are pulling a Louis and trying to have it both ways. You can’t say that Obama’s words matter to the opposition, but also that they don’t. He can’t both inspire action with his words and do the same with his silence in the exact same situation.
I don’t think I DID say that. What I said was that Obama is an inspirational figure to idealists all over the world (including Iran) but that if he had specifically sided with Iran’s opposition in this dispute that would have provided the theocrats with ammo. I don’t think there is any contradiction in those two statements.
your friend
Keith
your friend
I forgot to answer the rest of your post:
Do you credit Bush for all the democratic revolutions while he was in office?<.i>
No. Bush was a reviled figure throughout the world so I don't think he has the same inspirational effect that Obama has had.
And since you want to go around giving credit, could it not be that the younger Iranians were inspired by the freedom they see in their neighboring countries?
What do you mean by this?
your friend
Keith
>>> No. Bush was a reviled figure throughout the world so I don't think he has the same inspirational effect that Obama has had.
So you think someone's speeches do more to inspire the world to seek freedom than someone's actions? I find that a bit hard to believe.
Again, seems to be a bit of a double standard. Obama gets credit for the good things that happen around the world during his administration, but gets to blame the bad things that happen on lingering effects from the Bush era. But at the same time, Bush does not get credit for the good things that happen around the world or in the US, only blame for the bad stuff.
That's a good gig for Obama if you can get it.
>>> What do you mean by this?
That it seems a bit simplistic to say the fact that Obama has been in office only a few months, gave some speeches and that has prompted people to seek freedom. But the fact that Iran is bordered by Iraq and Afghanistan, who now have freedom would have nothing to do with their sudden desire for revolution.
>>> What I said was that Obama is an inspirational figure to idealists all over the world (including Iran) but that if he had specifically sided with Iran's opposition in this dispute that would have provided the theocrats with ammo.
Reports are coming out that Obama scheduled a press conference today where he is going to be a lot tougher (verbally) with the regime and in support of the protesters. If he does that will you continue to say he has struck the right tone all along? I'm simply wondering if you (or Louis) think he can do anything wrong in this situation besides praising the government crack down?
Hi Aaron:
>>> No. Bush was a reviled figure throughout the world so I don't think he has the same inspirational effect that Obama has had.
So you think someone's speeches do more to inspire the world to seek freedom than someone's actions? I find that a bit hard to believe.
I'm not making the general statement you are attributing to me. I am suggesting that Bush's actions (war of choice in Iraq, torture, etc.) have made him reviled throughout much of the world especially in the Middle east, so he has not been inspirational, while Obama's words and his international family background and his personal story make him an inspiration throughout the world. I think the evidence that he has inspired so many people can be found in the giant supporting crowds he gets when he has appeared internationally. IMO the evidence is clear that Obama induces inspiration that Bush was not able to induce. Will Obama continue to be inspiring after he has been in office for a few years? I don't know but I'd say it is obvious he has been inspirational so far.
Again, seems to be a bit of a double standard. Obama gets credit for the good things that happen around the world during his administration, but gets to blame the bad things that happen on lingering effects from the Bush era. But at the same time, Bush does not get credit for the good things that happen around the world or in the US, only blame for the bad stuff.
If you ask me this so-called double standard is based on evidence. I think the evidence of Obama's inspirational abilities is clear and that very likely has had SOMETHING to do with inspiring the Iranian opposition. How much effect? I wouldn't claim a huge amount. Bush's legacy is Katrina, torture and quagmire, and I think he gets the proper amount of credit for those things. What good stuff are you thinking Bush should be credited with? One thing I credited him with was after 9-11 he specifically spoke out against the Franklin Graham framing of the so-called war on terror as a battle between God and the evil religion of Islam. Bush specifically distinguished between terrorists who (according to him) misused Islam and the rest of the Islamic world.
That it seems a bit simplistic to say the fact that Obama has been in office only a few months, gave some speeches and that has prompted people to seek freedom. But the fact that Iran is bordered by Iraq and Afghanistan, who now have freedom would have nothing to do with their sudden desire for revolution.
I agree that saying Obama prompted people to seek freedom is simplistic (I don't know who gave him THAT much credit). But I would challenge your assertion that Afghanistan and Iraq now have freedom. I expect that women are still denied basic rights because of the conservative application of Islamic law andI know they are not free from war.
Reports are coming out that Obama scheduled a press conference today where he is going to be a lot tougher (verbally) with the regime and in support of the protesters. If he does that will you continue to say he has struck the right tone all along?
Depending on his comments I might. It seems perfectly reasonable to me for Obama to get gradually tougher as the situation in Iran progresses (regresses?). It seems to me you are looking for a universal principle of Presidential rhetoric that Obama should apply for all time. IMO the President ought to choose his international rhetoric based on his best estimate of what will make things better. What was appropraite at the beginning might change as time goes on.
simply wondering if you (or Louis) think he can do anything wrong in this situation besides praising the government crack down?
Just as I would for Bush, I give him benefit of the doubt when he takes a relatively cautious approach to intervening in another countries affairs. It is essential that we do no harm.
your friend
keith
>>> I think the evidence that he has inspired so many people can be found in the giant supporting crowds he gets when he has appeared internationally.
Yes, but inspired to do what? Come to a speech to hear a celebrity or overthrow a dictatorial, murdering regime?
Any celebrity can go around the world and get a big audience to hear a speech. Michael Jackson draws a crowd, but that doesn't mean that people would throw off a theocratic regime because they heard him speak.
Obviously, Obama has more sway than Jackson (or other Hollywood celebrities), but to simply say he is "inspirational" because people around the world show up to hear him speak does not mean anything more than popularity. It doesn't mean people are inspired to action.
>>> What good stuff are you thinking Bush should be credited with?
How about the Orange and Cedar Revolutions? I do think history, long-term, will look kindly at freedom being brought to Afghanistan and Iraq. I do think if you ask the people there (specifically women, since you brought it up) if they are better or worse than they were under their former regimes. I would think most would say better now.
>>> Bush's legacy is Katrina, torture and quagmire, and I think he gets the proper amount of credit for those things.
That's his legacy with you and with other liberals. I don't think that will be his long-term legacy. Bush made some obvious mistakes, but his legacy has much more to it than simply liberal talking points against him.
As I said, I'm not sure how you can argue that Obama being elected and giving a speech inspired the revolution, but the freedom of the surrounding nations had nothing to do with it.
>>> I agree that saying Obama prompted people to seek freedom is simplistic (I don't know who gave him THAT much credit).
How about Obama's administration?
Perhaps Jim Geraghty can explain my point better than me:
That's my point. You can't have it both ways. Either Obama shouldn't get involved or "meddle" in their affairs since it is entirely an Iranian issue, or Obama inspired the events.
>>> IMO the President ought to choose his international rhetoric based on his best estimate of what will make things better. What was appropraite at the beginning might change as time goes on.
Possibly, but you can't change and then say that you haven't changed, which is what Obama wants to do. He condemned the violence and took a much harsher tone than he has previously, but at the same time he is saying that he has been consistent the entire time.
The previous complaint was that if he spoke out the mullahs would take it and use it against the protesters. Has that fear subsided? Why is it a good idea now and not a few days ago?