As I said in the last post, Obama was right on this one. We shouldn't get involved in the outcome of a democratic election in Iran [again].
Just as was predicted, by myself and others, even Obama's mild rhetoric against the violence there has provoked responses from the Iranian government that those protesting are agents of the US, giving more ammunition.
Today, President Obama brought it up a notch.
"The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days," the president said, adding that he strongly condemns "these unjust actions."
In response to Iran's allegations that we are putting our agents in to instigate the protests:
"This tired strategy of using old tensions to scapegoat other countries won't work anymore in Iran. This is not about the United States and the West; this is about the people of Iran and the future that they -- and only they -- will choose."
In response to those that call for a stronger response, or even interference [again] in Iran's election:
"Right after the election I said that we had profound concerns about the nature of the election, but that it was not up to us to determine what the outcome was," he said.
So. Those of you on the right who have been calling for a harsher response: You have it. He has now condemned it. So, are you going to acknowledge this? Or are you going to find something else to complain about. If your response to this is further criticism, ask yourself this first: What would you approve of? Bomb, bomb, bombs away? If that is the case, then you are suffering from two ailments: Obama Derangement Syndrome, and if you are of the "bombs away" mentality, then you are suffering from neo-conservative ideology.
Shaming as a political tactic
3 months ago