Obama: Can't Make Sense Of This

Seems that while the American media can't get enough of the clothes the Obamas are wearing, other folks are less than thrilled with the details of his trip. Iran isn't seeing the change they expected, and anti-War.com is calling him two-faced. They do seem to have a point. At the same time he praised the Czechs for having the courage for hosting a missile defense system, it's expected to get the axe in DOD budget cuts announced today. Was his rhetoric a teleprompter gaffe, or is he just making it up as he goes along? At this point there's no clear message on where he stands on Bush's anti-missile system at all.

TEHRAN, April 6 (Xinhua) -- Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi said on Monday that U.S. President Barack Obama's recent comments on Iran are contrary to the slogan of "change."

Qashqavi made the accusation in his weekly press conference in response to Obama's Sunday remarks that the U.S. missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland will go forward "as long as the threat from Iran persists."

"Repetition of former U.S. administration's policies is contrary to the slogan of change," Qashqavi said, adding "Iranian threat and nuclear weapons do not exist at all."

Comments

[Leslie Ambedian]

Speaking of being two-faced...

Here you are, quoting an Iranian political statement in an attempt to score points against your hated Barack Obama.

How does this work in your rule book?

Rule #114: "Despise and distrust anything and everything the Iranians say or do, except when they criticize the evil Barack Obama, in which case you must embrace what they say and use it as a cudgel against Obama."

How does embracing criticism from the Islamic Republican of Iran square with rule #83: "Obama is secretly toiling on behalf of all forms of 'Political Islam,' to the detriment of these United States."

So - help me out here...

Are the Iranians on our side or not?

Is Obama empowering the Iranians against the interest of the United States?

I can't seem to build a complete picture from what you've been saying alongside with what the Iranian government has been saying and what President Obama has been saying.

There are some significant inconsistencies here. Perhaps I'm missing something and you can explain. I'd appreciate it if you would do so.

[seekeronos]

"--- So - help me out here...

Are the Iranians on our side or not? ---"

They are useful to the extent that they (Shi'ite Muslims) can be played against Sunni Muslims (namely the insurgents in A'stan and elsewhere.

A classic "balance of power" thing, playing two parties at odds against each other.

A related thing might be useful is to play their "threat" against the Russkies, who are perhaps getting a bit "uppity" these days as well.

That being said, we'd do better to let them have their rudimentary nukes, and let Israel bloody their noses when they step over the line... we should tend to our own mounting debts and related problems, and let the world fend for itself.