Where's Hillary?

Ahmadinejad is demanding that Obama apologize. And the Iranian ambassador is suggesting the CIA killed Neda.

Do we have a State Department? Yes, Hillary broke her elbow, but not her jaw. Could it be that she has enough sense to stay as far away from this disaster for Obama as she can?

Could be ... could be.

Comments

[mark l.]

uh-oh...

obama must have crossed that line where Iran has 'finally' decided to use propoganda of US 'interference'.
this is all obama's fault for not measuring his words.

I sure hope he apologizes, otherwise ahmadinejad is going to 'start' killing his people.

[Bob]

What, are you now demanding that Ahmadinejad gets to set the agenda for our government, such that our president is required to answer ASAP for every stupid accusation Ahmadinejad makes? How about if he says that the Jews control the U.S. Should Obama or Clinton also have to provide immediate answers to that too? Stupid comments by tin-horn dictators like Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong-Il are best ignored. To attempt to answer would only make our side look stupid and defensive.

Why, sometimes, one would almost think that some of you are wishing for an unlikely scenario in which Ahmadinejad wins a war of words with your own president. You know, one of those, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of deals. Obviously, you hate both Obama and Ahmadinejad. The question is, which one do you hate the most?

[mark l.]

"My worry is that talk of sanctions, talk of a tougher line might just be the start of an excuse for the Iranian leadership not to listen in to what is now being said by the Iranian people," Reinfeldt said.

-swiss prime minister.
borrowed from the EU post.

my point is bob, many on the left, who have posted here recently have offerred that tough talk would "endanger" the iranians on the street. to the best of my memory, I have to absolve you from your inclusion in this group.

"Why, sometimes, one would almost think that some of you are wishing for an unlikely scenario in which Ahmadinejad wins a war of words with your own president."

completely concur, but while we seem to be on the same page, the press has been in awe of his restraint. The first reason they offer to explain it, is that obama must think of the people on the street.

[Logan 6]

"Why, sometimes, one would almost think that some of you are wishing for an unlikely scenario in which Ahmadinejad wins a war of words with your own president."

Yes, unlike the American liberal left who invited the anti-semite Ahmadinejad to hold forth at Columbia University. The Left were all for Ahmadinejad while Bush was in power but now that Bambi is President, the Left suddenly realize that the Iranian is actually a madman. Anyway, the gutless Obama has already lost the war of words to the Iranians......they all see him for the cringing appeaser he actually is.

[Bob]

I don't think it's a matter of endangering people on the street. It's just a matter of being honest about the limited effect that words from our side would have on the Iranian leadership one way or the other. I doubt that Obama is calibrating his response because of fears about what would happen to Iranian protesters. Everybody already knows how virtually all Americans feel about the Iranian leadership and the current events there. Obama has expressed those ideas and condemned their leadership, and that's all he needs to do for now.

But Obama is not desperate the way Ahmadinejad is desperate. He doesn't have to make empty threats or engage in a silly battle of one-upmanship with someone whom everyone knows is a lying tyrant. Let Ahmadinejad fuss and moan and squirm in his own excrement. Obama and the U.S. can remain above his antics and nothing will be any the worse for it.

[mark l.]

"It's just a matter of being honest about the limited effect that words from our side would have on the Iranian leadership one way or the other."

I think it would be pretty safe to verbally undress this regime. I agree, it doesn't change things in Iran, but it is an expression that makes clear that the president and his people are on the same page.

The speech he could give?
explain that iran is a dead man walking. express regret that he had hoped to work with the regime, but in light of recent events, feels they no longer hold the legitmacy of repesenting their people. he can walk away from his plan to work with the regime. give the speech that the 30 and under crowds in iran(60% of the population) want to hear.

does this help him cut a deal with the current regime?
even entertaining the thought is now silly.

as for hillary?
"Warning of the foreign policy challenges facing the next president, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday that it is not a time to pick someone who would need "a foreign policy instruction manual" and likened Sen. Barack Obama, her rival for the Democratic nomination, to President Bush."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502663.html

during the campaign, the issues are run by teams, that move onto policy positions. i imagine that samantha powers still lingers, or someone of her ilk, who still resents hillary and is trying to run an end around of the state department, leaving hillary out of the loop.

the letter the wh sent to iran in may...it would be an even money bet that it did not bear the state department logo on it. They have treated her as figurehead, and now they need her. Biden is another guy who knows, in a very relative sense, how to get fp right.

[Bob]

"The Left were all for Ahmadinejad while Bush was in power"

Logan, that's nonsense and you know it. Find me one example of a liberal who was "all for" Ahmadinejad at ANY time. It's simplistic and naive to act like governments can never negotiate with adversaries whom they neither like nor trust. Sometimes productive areas of common interest can be developed, like nuclear disarmament treaties with our former Soviet enemies, or negotiations that the Bush administration had with Iran about Afghani refugees fleeing from the fighting during the U.S.-led campaign to depose the Taliban. China was our enemy once, and because of the diplomatic missions of a Republican anti-communist, Richard Nixon, they're now one of our biggest trading partners. Life in the real world does not necessarily revolve around right-wing American sloganeering.

[mark l.]

"Logan, that's nonsense and you know it."

the dems have been ridiculing the axis of evil speech since 2002.

north korea, iraq, and iran...

it's a pretty solid list. the argument was never going to occur defending nk, although some have tried, and iraq.

iran was the the one country that the left needed to prove bush wrong. they failed.

it reminds me of the crying game...
the gop kept telling the left that ahmdinejad was a "man"(dictatorial). The left goes ahead and bangs him, denying that he is anything other than a "woman" (open to negotiations).

The past two weeks, he has been walking around in his full glory, for the public to see who was correct about the FUNDAMENTAL NATURE of this regime.

[Bob]

"he can walk away from his plan to work with the regime."

I don't see how he has any choice now. But of course that means that Ahmadinejad wins, doesn't it? Vladimir Putin just gave Ahmadinejad his support and congratulated him on his "victory." Without a united front, the West has no chance now of stopping the Iranians' nuclear program. The regime may be dying, or not, but it could take years even to know the answer. Look at what's happened to China since Tiananmen. Wishful thinking on our side seems to carry little weight.

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday that it is not a time to pick someone who would need 'a foreign policy instruction manual' . . ."

Not sure I would propose any new Clinton conspiracy theories based on campaign rhetoric from over a year ago, dude.

[mark l.]

"I don't see how he has any choice now."

there was a word that got bandied about in describing bush, "hubris".
basically it is excessive pride.

obama can very well perform the exact opposite of bush, but it does not mean he is immune from sahring the same description-"hubris".

I respect that he tried, but I don't think he is ready to give up. Had ahmadinejad locked people up, dialogue might have been one of many options. When ahmadinejad and the regime he works for sent people out with axes to slaughter peaceful protestors, it is a crossing of the rubicon.

I have heard some mitigation for american passivity...

'there is no real difference between the people protesting and the regime that is killing them, in reagrds to the US'.

the way I see it, one side is willing to die for a cause, but without calls for violence, while the other side is more than willing to mow them down. If this was a case of a violent revolution, the argument might be given more creedence. I can't help but side with the victims.

[mark l.]

"Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. "

"States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic."

wow...
bush called it, in 2002.

I had to stomach the arguments that Ahmadineajd wouldn't have been elected(selected)in 05 had bush not engaged in his bellicose rhetoric.

obama?
"I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are. I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse."

"Obama had responded from the gut, working off a correct critique of the Bush administration's skeptical approach toward diplomacy. But his answer lacked the sophistication of Clinton's and Edwards' replies. And this moment illustrated perhaps the top peril for the Obama campaign: with this post-9/11 presidential contest, to a large degree, a question of who should be the next commander in chief, any misstep related to foreign policy is a big deal for a candidate who has little experience in national security matters."

the guy saying he has little foreign policy experience?
David Corn.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames/217102

[Reaganite Republican]

Consider this:

Machiavellian Hillary's letting Obama hang himself on Iran- as her personal advisers told her to do.

What if Hillary were to do a Bobby Kennedy in 2012..?

RFK was Attorney General, and when President Johnson's popularity started to slip, Kennedy turned on him, then ran for President against him in the 1968 primaries.

Anyone telling you today that the Democrats wouldn't run a serious primary challenge against Obama in 2012 -which I have heard often from the left- clearly has no idea what they're talking about.

The hiring of Sid Blumenthal is interesting, to say the least- he's about as loyal a Clintonite Rottweiler as one could imagine... brought on by Hill right as Obama's poll numbers begin to slip. Hmmm.

Barack Obama's personality defects and misguided decision-making are the kinds of things that one's political opponents tend to take notice -and full advantage- of.

You can be sure that the Clintons have- and have planned accordingly.

http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com

[Tired]

What I find interesting is Ahmadinejad's choice of words, saying that Obama shouldn't be like Bush etc. I assume that is to elicit the type of response he would desire. Obama saying "I don't want to be compared to Bush in anyway so I will apologize because Bush wouldn't." Ahmadinejad the Obama puppet master.

[Chris]

"Obviously, you hate both Obama and Ahmadinejad. The question is, which one do you hate the most?"

Dude, you're kidding, right? Obama is willing to fellate AJ, Hamas and Gitmo terrorists yet refuses to allow Republicans a seat at the table in on trillion dollar spending and regulatory schemes. Who does he (and the left in general) hate more? Republicans or the aforementioned sworn enemies of this nation?

[Bob]

"Ahmadinejad the Obama puppet master."

Wing nuts are getting too carried away with their own rhetoric. Regardless of the distorted cartoon image they've created of Obama to be bandied about amongst themselves, just think about what a ludicrous scenario this would be. Obama has triumphed in the U.S. political system and is on top of the world with one of the highest approval ratings for any recent president at this stage of his presidency. And yet somehow he's supposed to be so desperate for approval that he'll crawl on his knees to beg forgiveness because some tin-horn tyrant like Ahmadinejad criticized him? Why isn't he begging Rush Limbaugh's and Michael Savage's approval too?

Isn't it just possible that Obama rightly recognized that a diplomatic dialog with Iran -- whatever its chances of success might have been -- was the ONLY chance to stop their nuclear weapons program, and that he was willing to do what was necessary to responsibly pursue that course? If that meant not disrespecting the Iranian leadership in public and thereby opening himself up to American demagogues on the right, then that was what he had to do. Considering that there was basically no other option aside from a military intervention that even neocons won't publicly advocate any more, there was nothing at all wrong with trying.

But showing that their true loyalty is to their party first and the nation second, right wingers are now happy to use a foreign despot like Ahmadinejad against their own president, reminiscent of how Ronald Reagan cut a deal with Ayatollah Khomeini (the famous "arms for hostages" deal) to try to humiliate Jimmy Carter for Reagan's political benefit. The cynicism of it all is truly shocking. Republicans are rooting for Ahmadinejad to embarrass their own president, when Obama was only trying to do the responsible thing, and they'll gladly try to take whatever political benefit they think they can get for it regardless of what actually happens to Iranian protesters of the national security interests of the U.S. It's shameful.

[Jake]

it reminds me of the crying game...
the gop kept telling the left that ahmdinejad was a "man"(dictatorial). The left goes ahead and bangs him, denying that he is anything other than a "woman" (open to negotiations).

Posted by: mark l. | Friday, June 26, 2009 at 01:35 AM

Brilliant analogy.

[mark l.]

"was the ONLY chance to stop their nuclear weapons program"

given the size of the protests on the street, in the face of their massive economic decline, sanctions have once again returned as a viable solution. They always were possible, but now they appear a practical form of resolution.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"What, are you now demanding that Ahmadinejad gets to set the agenda for our government, such that our president is required to answer ASAP for every stupid accusation Ahmadinejad makes?"

Last week, Obama and his witless puppet Bob were claiming that the United States shouldn't act because they didn't want to give Ahmadinejad a reason to blame them.

Ahmadinejad has already set the Obama Party's agenda. Ahmadinejad has already made Obama look like a bumbling fool. The fact that Obama adamantly refused to condemn the regime for well over a week out of fear of being blamed by them and losing "negotiations" demonstrates very well who's in charge here.

And as for blaming the Joooos, that would be Obama's spiritual mentor for twenty years, the Reverend Wright. Funny how Obama clapped and cheered and supported Wright for twenty years while Wright was spewing this from the pulpit.

[Bob]

"given the size of the protests on the street, in the face of their massive economic decline, sanctions have once again returned as a viable solution. They always were possible, but now they appear a practical form of resolution."

That's a good point. It depends on to what extent the Western powers cooperate. I would think a good case could be made that would get Western Europe on board, but Putin has already congratulated Ahmadinejad on his "victory," and as long as major powers like Russia and China are siding with the Iranians (after all what do THEY care about a little civilian bloodshed), it really weakens the U.S.'s position.

[Tired]

Bob, apparently you didn't catch the "drift" of what I was saying. I should have said "wanna be" puppet master.

My criticism was more on A'jad than Obama. That A would think that O would respond in the way that A wanted him to by using the phrasing that A though would elicit that response.

Get a grip. Not everything is negative Obama. I would hope that Obama would see clearly through his ruse and respond in the way that he actually did.

You are seeing things the way you want to see them. You are so into your opinion you don't try to see what the message writer is saying.

[Bob]

OK, fair enough, Tired. I think your phrasing left a bit of ambiguity there, but I appreciate you clarifying it for me. I probably ended up rolling in my original interpretation of your comments with other comments I've read, and then using that as my launching pad, so to speak. So the point I was making in general still stands, but I won't intend that to apply to your comment. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And I also think that Obama's dismissive reply to Ahmadinejad was appropriate. It's the kind of stupid thing Ahmadinejad says that doesn't deserve to be dignified with a serious response.

[Elmo]

Maybe she'll be first to jump ship?