If necessary, Obama will back down from a cadaver - any cadaver:
[Q] - Obama’s interview with John Harwood suggests Obama doesn’t
really care who wins in Iran — so long as his precious engagement
strategy isn’t disrupted. Here is the relevant exchange [via NYT]:
HARWOOD: Couple things, quickly, before we run out of time. You
took your time reacting to the protests in Iran after the election.
What are you watching for in the handling of those protests and in the
investigation of the results to–and how will that influence the
dialogue that you seek to have with Iran?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, I think first of all, it’s important to
understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in
Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of
their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised.
Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that
has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused
some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons. And
so we’ve got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear
power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And
that would be true whoever came out on top in this election. The
second thing that I think’s important to recognize is that the easiest
way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say
it’s the US that is encouraging those reformers. So what I’ve said is,
`Look, it’s up to the Iranian people to make a decision. We are not
meddling.’ And, you know, ultimately the question that the leadership
in Iran has to answer is their own credibility in the eyes of the
Iranian people. And when you’ve got 100,000 people who are out on the
streets peacefully protesting, and they’re having to be scattered
through violence and gunshots, what that tells me is the Iranian
people are not convinced of the legitimacy of the election. And my
hope is that the regime responds not with violence, but with a
recognition that the universal principles of peaceful expression and
democracy are ones that should be affirmed. Am I optimistic that that
will happen? You know, I take a wait-and-see approach. Either way,
it’s important for the United States to engage in the tough diplomacy
around those permanent security concerns that we have–nuclear weapons,
funding of terrorism. That’s not going to go away, and I think it’s
important for us to make sure that we’ve reached out."
It is clear what’s up. All he wants to do is talk, so he can’t give
offense. Fine — he’ll deal with Ahmadinejad if the regime can crush
the protesters. He is an enabler now, a cheerleader against regime
change. Shameful. --
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/70171
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
