Obama defies the GOP: The Iranian People Should Decide Leadership

What I saw in that Press Conference this morning, is not defiance of the GOP, but an Obama that was surprised that the main stream media finally asked him tough questions.  The honeymoon has come to an end and perhaps the press will go back to the job that they should be doing, holding the Administration accountable.

It is clear to me why Iran wants nuclear weapons...because of the GOP.  Why does the GOP believe the Iranian election was rigged? Because they know it can be done, and have done it several times in the USA... GW Bush's election was rigged. I like Obama's non agressive attitude. He needs to do more apologizing...scale down the Afghan occupation, leave Iraq...and start supporting operations that rescue people from economic calamity. This means support in Africa, and other poor countries like Sri Lanka.

Did you know that the GOP was a world-wide conspiracy using the Freemasons and the pope to implant thought control devices in our children in the next generation?

I would write my congressman or, better yet, Rev. my congresswoman, to end that program and the oppression of the mullahs by the GOP right away.

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 12, 2009

"And the Spirit of God hovered upon the face of the waters

And what do they hear from the president of the United States? Silence. Then, worse. Three days in, the president makes clear his policy: continued "dialogue" with their clerical masters.

Dialogue with a regime that is breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, expelling journalists, arresting activists. Engagement with -- which inevitably confers legitimacy upon -- leaders elected in a process that begins as a sham (only four handpicked candidates permitted out of 476) and ends in overt rigging.

Then, after treating this popular revolution as an inconvenience to the real business of Obama-Khamenei negotiations, the president speaks favorably of "some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."

 Note the abject solicitousness with which the American president confers this honorific on a clerical dictator who, even as his minions attack demonstrators, offers to examine some returns in some electoral districts -- a farcical fix that will do nothing to alter the fraudulence of the election.

Moreover, this incipient revolution is no longer about the election. Obama totally misses the point. The election allowed the political space and provided the spark for the eruption of anti-regime fervor that has been simmering for years and awaiting its moment. But people aren't dying in the street because they want a recount of hanging chads in suburban Isfahan. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators.

This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime -- and the future of the entire Middle East.

This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen (a hot Tiananmen with massive and bloody repression or a cold Tiananmen with a finer mix of brutality and co-optation) or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.

The latter is improbable but, for the first time in 30 years, not impossible. Imagine the repercussions. It would mark a decisive blow to Islamist radicalism, of which Iran today is not just standard-bearer and model, but financier and arms supplier. It would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism -- leave it forever spent and discredited.

In the region, it would launch a second Arab spring. The first in 2005 -- the expulsion of Syria from Lebanon, the first elections in Iraq and early liberalization in the Gulf states and Egypt -- was aborted by a fierce counterattack from the forces of repression and reaction, led and funded by Iran.

Now, with Hezbollah having lost elections in Lebanon and with Iraq establishing the institutions of a young democracy, the fall of the Islamist dictatorship in Iran would have an electric and contagious effect. The exception -- Iraq and Lebanon -- becomes the rule. Democracy becomes the wave. Syria becomes isolated; Hezbollah and Hamas, patronless. The entire trajectory of the region is reversed.

All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None. Except for the desire that this "vigorous debate" (press secretary Robert Gibbs's disgraceful euphemism) over election "irregularities" not stand in the way of U.S.-Iranian engagement on nuclear weapons.

Even from the narrow perspective of the nuclear issue, the administration's geopolitical calculus is absurd. There is zero chance that any such talks will denuclearize Iran. On Monday, President Ahmadinejad declared yet again that the nuclear "file is shut, forever." The only hope for a resolution of the nuclear question is regime change, which (if the successor regime were as moderate as pre-Khomeini Iran) might either stop the program, or make it manageable and nonthreatening.

That's our fundamental interest. And our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.

And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061803495.html

The Info on Iran is bias by the Western Media to a point. Al-Jazeera and Beirut News have a very different take and believe that the elections where legit and that the protest in the Capital City of Teheran is not shared by the majority of Iranian trough out the Country.

I believe that Ahmadenijad won, but the people who don't want him don't believe it.

That is the problem.

One of the richest oil producers in the world has done nothing but go downhill economically since the shah was deposed. Inflation is 20% and unemployment is 40% and the Iranian nation has a shortage of gasoline.

But the mullahs go around checking haircuts while the women wear sexy clothing under the burlap bag of goodness.They shed all of that to do aerobics and  they turned out to be (in yhr past) big fans of Jane Fonda exercise tapes.

They are completely determined to be part of the modern world, and they will be.

The mullahs have no legitimacy and with their horrible record on the economy and on human rights, they have killed hope and killed trust as collateral damage.

So that is what the protests are really about, not who won the election.

By framing the particulars of the story so narrowly, you miss the broader point, the explanation that accounts for all the data, all the things that the people do.

But, to accept the data and its meaning, a person with strong bias against the US would have to accept the opposite idea, namely that Iran's leadership was exactly as portrayed by the US.

I don't worry about Indian nukes or Israeli nukes.I don't worry about Chinese nukes and I would not worry about Japanese nukes either.

I do worry about the Taliban getting nukes or the Iranians getting nukes or the North Koreans getting nukes.

But I will support my government and the UN, which I detest, in their quest to stop Iran's government from directing its anti-life policies and action out into the greater world, as they already do by supporting the likes of Hamas and Hezbollah through the acquisition of nuclear weapons.

I support the overthrow of the theocracy of Iran.

The Info On the USA is bias here too Paschen.  You cannot possibly think all those people were not legit?  C'MON!!!  There is a historical shift going on and not just from  the big bad USA'S TAKE. 

". An Iranian student keeping anonymity for safety, reports today in the New York Times, that there is strong evidence that Iranians across the board want a better relationship with the United States and Mr. Moussavi would carry out his campaign promise of seeking improved relations with America.

“Until last week,” he writes, “Mr. Moussavi was a nondescript, if competent, politician — as one of his campaign advisers put it to me, he was meant only to be an instrument for making Iran a tiny bit better, nothing more. Iranians knew that’s what they were getting when they cast their votes for him. Now, like us, Mr. Moussavi finds himself caught up in events that were unimaginable, each day’s march and protest more unthinkable than the one that came before.”

If there is more blood on the tracks before this is over and there will be, again it may be time for a new generation of Americans to ask, which side are you on? Already, Obama may have missed the turning."  Bernie Quigley"

Paschen, the mullahs have destroyed hope and trust and this protest is the result of that, for which the possibility that the election involved cheating was simply the spark.

The evil here belongs to the mullahs and theocratic Islam, and all that is going on can be traced back to that.

Your analysis deliberately overlooks the tone, intensity and depth of the protest, and the fact that being a campaign of the young and educated, shows just how far modern people of Tehran are from the countryside and their reactionary and less educated views on government, religion, women and the West.

Here is a link of an Opinion Piece in the Beirut Star explaining the Arab Sentiment towards Iran.

This link from the Beirut Star talks of the consequences of President Obama's speech as it relates to elections in the middle east and Iran.