Republicans call Obama timid on Iran

Monday 22nd June, 07:30 AM JST

WASHINGTON —

In his first major test of international leadership, President Barack Obama is struggling for the right stance in the face of Iran’s postelection upheaval as political opponents at home accuse him of inaction.

Obama’s measured statements so far attempt to speak up for human rights while preserving U.S. options and lessening the chance that he becomes a scapegoat for the cleric-led government, which has blamed the West for starting trouble.

Obama kept a public silence Sunday, although a spokesman said he discussed Iran with foreign policy advisers in the Oval Office for more than 30 minutes. He later went golfing in Virginia.

Protesters in Iran again defied the government and held a large rally in the capital, Tehran.

The White House did not book any surrogates on the Sunday morning television talk shows to defend or explain the administration’s approach. Republicans used their broadcast appearances to call the president timid or feckless, while Democrats said Obama has struck the right balance in his response.

A day earlier, Obama invoked the American civil rights struggle to condemn violence against demonstrators, some of whom have carried signs in English asking, “Where is My Vote?” It was his strongest statement on what has become the most significant challenge to Iran’s ruling structure since the Islamic revolution 30 years ago.

Both the House and Senate voted overwhelmingly last week to condemn an official crackdown on the mostly peaceful demonstrations.

“The president of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican. “He’s been timid and passive more than I would like.”

Arizona Sen. John McCain, the defeated Republican presidential candidate, and others noted that Western leaders, including French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have demanded a recount or more forcefully condemned the government crackdown.

“I’d like to see the president be stronger than he has been although I appreciate the comments that he made yesterday,” McCain said. “I think we ought to have America lead.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, said a slow or muted U.S. response risks undermining the aspirations of Iranian voters to change or question their government.

“If America stands for democracy and all of these demonstrations are going on in Tehran and other cities over there, and people don’t think that we really care, then obviously they’re going to question, “do we really believe in our principles?’” Grassley said.

Former Sen. Fred Thompson, a Tennessee Republican, said Obama isn’t doing nearly enough, while conservative commentator William Bennett said Obama is bungling his response.

Obama has tried to hold a middle ground as the crisis unfolds, and found the ground shifting by the day. His advisers say any thunderous denunciation of Iran’s rulers would invite them to blame Western interference and might worsen the violence instead of end it. The death toll has risen as shadowy militias and other forces have shot and attacked demonstrators.

Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar, a moderate Republican who holds the party’s top position on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, seemed to echo Obama’s caution.

“The challenge continues, which is going to come to a conclusion one way or another,” Lugar said. “Either the protesters bring about change or they’re suppressed, and it’s a potentially very brutal outcome at the end of the day.”

Obama on Saturday challenged Iran’s government to halt a “violent and unjust” crackdown on dissenters, and he quoted civil rights leader Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.”

“Right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian people’s belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness,” Obama said.

The statement calling for an end to violence against demonstrators followed days of agonizing among his staff over what to say and how strongly to say it.

It also followed a wrong note from Obama last week, when he said he saw little difference between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hard-liner who claims a landslide re-election mandate, and his conservative but pro-reform challenger. That left the impression that Obama discounted the votes of Mir Hossein Mousavi’s supporters or the bravery of protesters who marched to say their votes were stolen.

Incumbent Ahmadinejad claimed victory by an overwhelming margin following a lively campaign that many analysts predicted would yield razor-close results. The speed with which his victory was announced and vote claims in areas where he was at a clear disadvantage caused outrage among Mousavi’s backers.

Democrats in the Senate say Obama has responded appropriately to a delicate situation.

“He’s got a very delicate path to walk here,” said Sen Chris Dodd of Connecticut. “You don’t want to take ownership of this.”

“The worst thing we could do at this moment for these reformers, these protesters, these courageous people in Tehran, is allow the government there to claim that this is a U.S.-led opposition, a U.S.-led demonstration,” said Dodd, emphasizing Obama’s longer-term goal of engaging Iran over its nuclear program.

The United States and much of the Western world believes Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. Iran says it is only trying to develop nuclear reactors to generate electricity.

Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat, agreed with Obama’s response. “I think the president is handling a rapidly evolving, very complex situation about as well as you could expect. He has put us clearly on the side of the reformers, clearly on the side of fair and free elections, clearly condemned the violence,” he said.

Dodd and Graham appeared on ABC television’s “This Week,” McCain was on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Lugar and Grassley spoke on “State of the Union” on CNN, and Bayh spoke on “Fox News Sunday.”

___

Associated Press writer Steven R. Hurst contributed to this report.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 209 Total Comments Show All

TokyoHustla at 03:18 AM JST - 27th June

You want a third war in the middle east?

Yes, of course. America is the meek and shall inherit the Earth, be it by hook, crook or invasion. The resources in the Middle East belong to America. The Bible makes this patently clear. Obama needs to rally the American people by showing them that they own the world and all its resoucres.
teleprompter at 07:36 PM JST - 27th June

The View from Egypt:

“When Obama does not take a stance, the very next day these oppressive regimes will regard this as a signal. This is a test for his government,” said Ayman Nour, a noted Egyptian opposition politician who was recently released from jail. “If they can turn a blind eye to their enemy, they can turn a blind eye to any action here in Egypt.”

Washington Post Fri June 26 2009
goodDonkey at 11:29 AM JST - 28th June

mareo2

Mareo, you may not speak perfect English but if you continue to read comments and post comments it will improve quickly.

My point is not to criticize you but tell you that you did a very good job - mareo2 at 07:55 PM JST - 25th June. You kicked butt! I hope you will get as much education as possible because you are a smart guy. You obviously presented challenges that could not be overcome by injet. In the future if you continue to do such a good job be prepared to be criticized for many things. This could include your country of origin or your English or anything else he thinks will offend you. Don't ever get discouraged. I remember you from years ago. You are not only able to get your point across but you are able to present good points of argument. I look forward to your posts in the future. Of course I want you to learn English better so that others will not be able to use that against you. But it seems to me you want to learn English better also. Good Luck.
inkjet at 05:16 PM JST - 28th June

You obviously presented challenges that could not be overcome by injet. In the future if you continue to do such a good job be prepared to be criticized for many things. This could include your country of origin or your English or anything else he thinks will offend you

are you putting me on?
mareo2 at 09:05 PM JST - 28th June

goodDonkey:

Thanks for the words of encouragement, I really want to learn more english because some times, I find my limited knowledge very frustrating. I want to say more but I am so ignorant that I dont know how to express my ideas.

But I think that I dont deserve you praise so much because, maybe you can agree that what happened there is so dificult to defend that very few people can succed on do it.

Also I dont think that inkjet or others can resort to that tricks because I try my best to respect other readers. If I learned something in these years in JT, is that insults and humilliations never convince the other person of your opinion and of course, the fact that we are humans and the other person can be rigth and we can be wrong because no one know everything.

inkjet:

Like I said to goodDonkey, I think that you tried to defend a very dificult case, but you did your best anyway. Even if you dont convinced me of change my opinion these time, I respect you for your tenacity and waith for read more of your opinions.
inkjet at 11:05 PM JST - 28th June

mareo2

let me get one thing straight, i believe you are an intelligent and sincere person. i think i can say the sentiment you expressed is small minded without it being a personal attack.

and i never attacked you because of your language skills or country of origin, that charge by dumbass, i mean gooddonkey is just ridiculous. i merely pointed out your statement wasn't clear to me and wanted to be sure i understood you correctly.

let me give you a concrete example of why i think the sentiment you expressed is small minded.

you seem to be saying everything that results from the war in iraq is bad because you think the war was bad. is that correct? i can't say the elections there were good because america is hypocritical, right?

think about this example. earlier you mentioned you support nuclear energy. well consider how it was developed, as a weapon. it seems by your logic you should then reject it. if it was created for a purpose you oppose than no good can come from it. it would be hypocritical.

this why i said the sentiment is small minded. it focuses too narrowly. life is more complicated. i believe you should try to identify the good and bad where you find them.

i think the elections in iraq are a very good thing. and i also believe they may have had an effect on the iranians next door. isn't it just possible after seeing the success of the elections in iraq that they feel they too are entitled to open, fair elections? isn't it at least possible?
yabits at 11:59 PM JST - 28th June

life is more complicated. i believe you should try to identify the good and bad where you find them.

What should be identified is this tendency of people to filter out the bad and amplify the good when an action is taken by someone who they politically support. Finding "good" from the Iraq war is a bit like saying to Mrs. Abraham Lincoln, "Besides the shooting, how was the play?"

The war in Iraq was and is a disaster. A war with Iran would be disastrous too -- an even bigger disaster, if that can be comprehended.
realist at 12:48 AM JST - 29th June

All Obama does is go around the world, especially the Muslim countries, and spew out apologies for America. Its sickening. If I was an American and my president went around bad-mouthing my country, Id be demonstrating on the streets calling for his impeachment. Some of his utterances, like "America is not a Christin country, America is the one of the world`s largest Muslim countries" are like something out of Neverland.
yabits at 03:54 AM JST - 29th June

All Obama does is go around the world, especially the Muslim countries, and spew out apologies for America.

Obama is going around the world apologizing for Americans like the writer of that quote. These are the ugly Americans -- the ones that need to apologized for continually.
mareo2 at 06:02 AM JST - 29th June

let me get one thing straight, i believe you are an intelligent and sincere person.

Thaks, I think that you are a well intentioned person with a strong desire of action from the gob.

i think i can say the sentiment you expressed is small minded without it being a personal attack.

Let me explain how I think, so you can understand me. For me sentiment = feelings and mind = intelect. I am confused by your wording because I cant imagine a sentiment having a mind. Small minded, looked like a personal insult because you separated the words with a "." in place of a ",". I guess that you mean "short sighted" or "narrow minded" that are not so offensive.

and i never attacked you because of your language skills or country of origin, that charge by dumbass, i mean gooddonkey is just ridiculous. i merely pointed out your statement wasn't clear to me and wanted to be sure i understood you correctly.

I know that you dont did it and I think that you are not going to do it, because we can exchange words in a respectful way. Of course, we are humans and we two can offend each other by accident, after all my english is far from perfect.

let me give you a concrete example of why i think the sentiment you expressed is small minded.

Ok, but please, can you say "short sighted" in place of small-minded?

you seem to be saying everything that results from the war in iraq is bad

No, incorrect, read again my words. I say "Very little" at 01:36 PM JST - 25th June. Also I said "phyrric victory" on the other thread at 12:43 PM JST - 27th June, impliying some benefits but at a cost to high. I never said that "everything was bad" just to costly and not a priority.

because you think the war was bad. is that correct?

Yes, I think that war is bad because cost to much blood and money. So must to be avoided, but because we japanese are pacifist, dont mean that we are not going to defend if we are attacked. There is a difference betwen do a preeventive strike for "national defense" and invade a country for "enforce democracy". The armed forces of the USA exist for protect the americans and the allies that have militar pacts. The idea of use the armed forces as a tool for "export democracy" it make the USA waste limited resources from the "war on terror", giving free hand to hard-liners in NK and Iran for keep developing WMDs. I think that is time for make clear that I have many critics but these is my biggest problem with the Neocon ideology.

i can't say the elections there were good because america is hypocritical, right?

Yes, so I think. Ie. We cant demand human rights and be permissive with torture. We must to try to practice what we preach or lose any credibility. I hope that the USA lead us by the example of practice high ideals, not to force them in others.

think about this example. earlier you mentioned you support nuclear energy. well consider how it was developed, as a weapon. it seems by your logic you should then reject it. if it was created for a purpose you oppose than no good can come from it. it would be hypocritical. this why i said the sentiment is small minded. it focuses too narrowly. life is more complicated. i believe you should try to identify the good and bad where you find them.

Sorry, but we humans can developed that technology with out making bombs, just because it acelerated the process and today half of the energy of Japan is nuclear, dont means that I am happy that the USA nuked two japanese cities or that Elvis is making nukes next door for remember us that it can happen again, I think that the a big majority of my 127 millions of compatriots agree with me on these. We have a strong policy against nuclear weapons but that never stoped us from use nuclear energy and we dont see any hypocrisy because it can be made with out making bombs. Democracy to can be made with out making war, it can take more years but cost less blood and money.

i think the elections in iraq are a very good thing.

Sure that elections are good, but in my humble opinion I think that you are to optimist, because the country still is recovering and is unstable, there is no warrant that the country cant fall into civil war or end divided on three mini-states or controled by Iran. Is to son for "sing victory", I think that is wise to wait a little more before talk about a "succesful democracy" influencing the neighboors.

and i also believe they may have had an effect on the iranians next door. isn't it just possible after seeing the success of the elections in iraq that they feel they too are entitled to open, fair elections? isn't it at least possible?

I my humble opinion, the Irak elections is not even in the radar of the iranians. Iran have 17% unemployment, 25% inflation, millionds of drug adicts, many other social problems and low Oil prices. Their main concerns are economics and social, not about a constitution reform or regime change.
inkjet at 06:08 AM JST - 29th June

the Irak elections is not even in the radar of the iranians.

we just disagree. simple as that.
inkjet at 06:17 AM JST - 29th June

A war with Iran would be disastrous too

this thread is not about strating war with iran. it's about backing up protesters tying to get democratic control of their country.

i guess for you, and the regime you so fervently support, fair and open elections would also be disastrous. what a shame to spend so much energy backing a totalitarian regime.

even the book you sited to back your position says the regime clearly blocks any real democratic process. do you selectively read between the lines? have you no shame?
yabits at 06:32 AM JST - 29th June

mareo2:

Thank you for your posts and for your voice. When you say, "I think that is time for make clear that I have many critics but these is my biggest problem with the Neocon ideology," in my opinion, the Neocon ideology is the very same strain of nationalist/militarist outlook that has gotten many nations in deep problems.

Many of us Americans are working towards the goal of making our nation more of a peace-seeking country. I appreciate your thoughts.
yabits at 07:28 AM JST - 29th June

it's about backing up protesters tying to get democratic control of their country.

The last thing the protestors in Iran need is for the U.S. to overtly support them beyond what President Obama has seen fit to do to this point.

A former CIA Iran expert said today that what has likely happened in Iran is a coup by the military. The clerics are essentially no longer in control. It's a very dangerous situation, and attacking the clerics via words is not only futile, it's attacking the wrong target.

I don't support the Iranian regime, fervently or otherwise. But, being from a family that emigrated from Poland, and having family still there, I know firsthand how a totalitarian regime can peacefully make the transition to a more democratic society. Americans may want to foolishly believe that Reagan did it all, but in reality the transition in Poland was just as much due to internal factors -- especially the labor union, Solidarity, backed by the Catholic church.

In Iran, I have great faith that the working people of the country will join together along with students to press for more of the processes of democracy, just as the Poles did. After a period of martial law during the 80s, the Poles launched strikes which forced the government to allow them a better election process, which the people used to their advantage to enact even more democratic leverage points. I see the same thing happening with Iran.
mareo2 at 12:37 PM JST - 29th June

inkjet:

we just disagree. simple as that.

Ouch... I feel like the bad guy now. I still think that people can reach agreement if both sides really try. So my apology, I recognize that "is possible that the Irak elections can have some influence on the Iran elections". So lets just agree that we just have different opinions on how much. My statement sounded like I think that it have zero influence but even if I think that is close to zero, it is not zero. My bad.