Expect the unexpected with Iran coverage - from the Wall Street Journal:
The President yesterday denounced the "extent of the fraud" and the "shocking" and "brutal" response of the Iranian regime to public demonstrations in Tehran these past four days.
"These elections are an atrocity," he said. "If [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad had made such progress since the last elections, if he won two-thirds of the vote, why such violence?" The statement named the regime as the cause of the outrage in Iran and, without meddling or picking favorites, stood up for Iranian democracy.
Dramatic pause while we search our memories - no, we didn't miss Obama's bold pronouncements on Iran:
The President who spoke those words was France's Nicolas Sarkozy.
The French are hardly known for their idealistic foreign policy and moral fortitude. Then again many global roles are reversing in the era of Obama. The American President didn't have anything to say the first two days after polls closed in Iran on Friday and an improbable landslide victory for Mr. Ahmadinejad sparked the protests. "I have deep concerns about the election," he said yesterday at the White House, when he finally did find his voice. "When I see violence directed at peaceful protestors, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me and it's of concern to the American people."
Spoken like a good lawyer. Mr. Obama didn't call the vote fraudulent, though he did allow that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei "understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election." This is a generous interpretation of the Supreme Leader's effort to defuse public rage by mooting a possible recount of select precincts. "How that plays out," Mr. Obama said, "is ultimately for the Iranian people to decide." Sort of like the 2000 Florida recount, no doubt.
Whoa - is this MY Wall Street Journal praising the French and mocking Florida 2000? How far has the Iranian revolution reached?
GEORGIA ON MY MIND: Back when McCain and Obama were mere candidates, Obama was initially cautious in response to the Russian incursion into Georgia, but eventually got behind the bellicose John McCain.
I could have stomached Obama remaining silent. In general, on any matter of any import, it is better that Obama remain silent. However, the "senior official" providing background for the WSJ, it seems to me, was articulating Obama's policy view (namely, that Dinnerjacket is still in charge so let's get on with the negotiations). It seems to me that Obama tilted toward recognizing the fraud.
Clarice, you are clearly wiser in the ways of DC speak than I am. Isn't that kind of "senior official" background not done unless the Prez authorizes it?
Posted by: Thomas Collins | June 17, 2009 at 01:27 PM
TC, I can't tell with this clown show--but generally that is the case.I take is this was Hillary.
Posted by: clarice | June 17, 2009 at 01:46 PM
This is Obama's Carter moment and he is accepting it with full narcissistic honors. Where is Gates, Jones and Clinton in all this? Where is Biden? Is this the crisis Joe spoke off where we would all look puzzled at Obama's [that young man's] reaction and find ourselves scared or not trusting (I am paraphrasing from memory here). Voting present is not a healthy option for us since we are looked upon as not only The Great Satan but also the same people who brought democracy to Iraq and Twitter to Iran.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | June 17, 2009 at 02:02 PM
Good Acorn stuff:
Posted by: MayBee | June 17, 2009 at 02:18 PM
AP provides some cover for 0bama:
Iran accuses US of interference in election feud
Posted by: Extraneus | June 17, 2009 at 02:20 PM
Having Acorn's Scott Levenson and Silky Pony in a room and only one bullet is the definition of a dilemma.
Posted by: Captain Hate | June 17, 2009 at 02:39 PM
Give me $50k and I'd find those 32 homeowners for virtually no cost and use the money to help them with their mortgages..but we all know this was really "walking around money", don't we?
Posted by: clarice | June 17, 2009 at 02:49 PM
CH,
Not a dilemma at all. If you had only one bullet and a gun most likely the Silk Pony would hide behind Levenson so you would be able to get both with one shot.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | June 17, 2009 at 03:53 PM
I never ever thought there would come a time when the French president would have noticeably more testicularity than the U.S. president.
Posted by: Original MikeS | June 17, 2009 at 04:08 PM
Chirac was good during the Cedar Revolution. But then, so was Bush.
Posted by: MayBee | June 17, 2009 at 04:27 PM
Didn't Obama's campaign give most of a million bucks to an organization whose headquarters were in the same New Orleans building as ACORN? As were many other orgs under the ACORN umbrella, I think.
Posted by: Porchlight | June 17, 2009 at 04:34 PM
Not even paid ads allowed during the OBC health-care special.
link
Posted by: Extraneus | June 17, 2009 at 04:40 PM
Michelle Malkin on Obama's $800k to Acorn
Posted by: Original MikeS | June 17, 2009 at 04:43 PM
This OBC special is another put-up job by the Journ-O-List crowd. I think I may have to go over to Angryjournalist.com and cheer myself up with a tall frosty mug of Schadenfreude.
Posted by: Fresh Air | June 17, 2009 at 04:50 PM
Not a dilemma at all. If you had only one bullet and a gun most likely the Silk Pony would hide behind Levenson so you would be able to get both with one shot.
And leave some baby in Beverly Hills without a father?
Posted by: peter | June 17, 2009 at 05:13 PM
Frankly, the Obama response seems a bit .. “anal”.
It’s like once the election is over .. please clear the streets of this “chaos.”
The politically savvy will savoy the “chaos” and use the “chaos” to advantage, but to Obama, this is just clutter.
Posted by: Neo | June 17, 2009 at 08:11 PM