Obama speaks on Iran.

While at a press conference with Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi yesterday, Obama had the opportunity to respond to the following question:

Q Mr. President, on Iran, does the disputed election results affect — there’s been violence in the street — in any way change your willingness to meet with Mr. Ahmadinejad without preconditions? And also, do you have anything to say, any message to send to people who are on the streets protesting, who believe their votes were stolen and who are being attacked violently?

Here’s what he said (with commentary by yours truly):

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Obviously all of us have been watching the news from Iran. And I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football — or discussions with the United States.

Does he realize that Iranians don’t currently make decisions in Iran about who their leaders will be? The protests are about exactly that, actually. Doesn’t he know that? If Iran had free elections, they’d certainly not have chosen Ahmadinejad. The Mullahs know that. Ahmadinejad knows that. The Iranians know it. Too well. Obama’s the only one under the delusion that elections operate in Iran the way they do in the US. Say what you want about Florida in 2000, but nobody was placed under house arrest BY THE GOVERNMENT. Nobody was beaten to death BY THE GOVERNMENT. Nobody was shot in the head BY THE GOVERNMENT. That all happens in Iran every day and just happened again actually, which is what all the fuss is about. Sir. And as for wanting to avoid having the US be an “issue” within Iran. Why is that exactly? The U.S. is the largest and most successful democracy of all time, guaranteeing freedom not only for Americans, but for people all over the world for 200+ years. Why isn’t it a good idea for that to be an issue within Iran? Especially now, with the government rigging elections, removing the freedom of its citizens, and jailing dissenters? That’s a “political football” that I’d think Obama would be EAGER to toss into the maelstrom that is Iran right now. That he doesn’t want to do that belies his innate distrust of America and too easy willingness to nuzzle dictators.

Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I’ve been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process — free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they’re, rightfully, troubled.

Having said that he’s totally immune to the totalitarian nature of Iran and the sham that the Iranian government has perpetrated on its people, and having demonstrated an unwillingness to promote democratic values as a salve for the thousands risking their lives to give voice to the freedom we here in America take for granted, Obama makes the grand pronouncement that the videos of people being shot in the head and dragged off by baton wielding police is “deeply troubling”. He’s not troubled by the CAUSE of the violence, mind you. He’s troubled by the violence itself. That’s like sticking your hand in a meat grinder and being troubled by the blood. How about the decision to put your hand in there to begin with? How does that make you feel? Silence. All he has to say is that the democratic process “should be respected”. It should, should it? By whom? How about something a bit more forceful for the Iranian government who is very obviously and very BLOODILY not respecting the democratic process at all? Or doesn’t Obama understand that organizing in marches to voice your opinion IS the democratic process at work? A RIGGED VOTE is NOT the democratic process.

My understanding is, is that the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place. We weren’t on the ground, we did not have observers there, we did not have international observers on hand, so I can’t state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election. But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed. And I think it’s important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views.

He speaks so whimsically of “the Iranian government” as if it’s the same as ours, the same as Italy’s, the same as France’s. The “Iranian government” is a totalitarian, authoritative theocracy. It doesn’t ‘govern’ its people as much as it threatens them. Any acts which flow from this sort of government are inherently suspect. When they say that they’re “looking into irregularities”, what they mean is that they’ll pretend to do so if it satisfies world opinion, but won’t actually go so far as to declare that they did anything wrong and certainly won’t declare a rightful winner. That’s because what happened in Iran WAS NOT AN IRREGULARITY. That was the PLAN ALL ALONG. When something like this happens in a free society, we say it is an irregularity. When it happens in a totalitarian society with an iron-fisted government well practiced in crushing its citizens under its boot, we say it’s STATUS QUO. The mullahs will of course pretend to check their math. And may indeed find a few more votes for Mousavi. But to believe that they’re actually looking for “mistakes” is beyond naive. Ahmadinejad’s re-election was pre-ordained. Either Obama doesn’t realize this (which is unforgivable) or he does realize it but PRETENDS not to in order to legitimize the Iranian government as worthy of a sit-down with an American President (which is evil).

Now, with respect to the United States and our interactions with Iran, I’ve always believed that as odious as I consider some of President Ahmadinejad’s statements, as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on a range of core issues, that the use of tough, hard-headed diplomacy — diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries — is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests, specifically, making sure that we are not seeing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East triggered by Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon; making sure that Iran is not exporting terrorist activity. Those are core interests not just to the United States but I think to a peaceful world in general.

It’s true, Iran’s behavior is a threat to US security. They export terrorism. They’re threatening to develop a nuclear weapon that will throw the entire world into turmoil. This impacts the US as well as the “peaceful world”. Got it. It’s what Obama’s plans are to rectify this situation that’s got me bugged. To him, the only way forward is through “hard-headed diplomacy without illusions about Iran”. OK. But if you really had “no illusions” about Iran, you’d see that they’re every act is directed toward the central goal of becoming the new strong horse in the Middle East—replete with a nuclear arsenal, a radical Islamic leadership, and a thug President in Ahmadinejad committed to suppressing the world beneath his Shari’a heel. Once you truly remove the illusion that they’re a perfectly fine negotiating partner, you MUST realize the only logical conclusion—that they’re NOT fit to negotiate with and the US interests you claim to be protecting are much better served by ISOLATING them….not coddling them and feeding them sweetbreads.

We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we’ll see where it takes us.

Great. The thing of it is, if even I know that Obama’s brand of “tough” is pretty damn weak, what do you think the Mullahs think of it? Where do you think THEY see this all ending up?

But even as we do so, I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we’ve seen on the television over the last few days. And what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was. And they should know that the world is watching.

I’ll bet they wish someone who was actually prepared to DO something was watching. I mean, if I’m drowning in a lake, what do I care that a bird is watching? When I’m being beaten with sticks, what do I care that a worm is watching? When I’m languishing in prison for speaking my mind in public, what do I care that a cockroach is watching? The only people I want to watch my suffering are people prepared to do more than merely SAY they’re watching. Yet that’s all that Obama is prepared to do. He’s certainly not willing to risk the opportunity to sit down with the “democratically elected” Ahmadinejad and trade special favors for empty words about disarmament.

Are you understanding the weasel words? What sort of comfort are the Iranians to take from Obama’s assurance that “regardless of the outcome” the world was inspired by their participation? Whatever the outcome? So the world should be inspired whether it is shown that the elections were legitimate or not? As if this is even in doubt. As if it’s “yet to be determined” whether the Iranian election was rigged or not. What a dangerous, dangerous demagogue this Obama is.

And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected.

Wow. Just, wow. Inspiring, huh? This is what I meant about a drowning man not giving a damn about the bird watching him sink. Does Obama sincerely think that the “youth” of Iran who are out dying and being beaten to a pulp in the street defending their freedom care that Obama thinks that their voices “should be heard and respected”? Especially when he starts out by saying that he doesn’t want to “make any decisions for the Iranians”? Back to the drowning man. Here comes a boat. They’ve got life vests. But since the boat captain “doesn’t want to make any decisions” for the drowning man (even though it’s obvious from his thrashing about that the man is DYING), he doesn’t throw a life vest. He doesn’t extend a hand to help. Instead he shouts to the man “you in the water! I understand that you should not be drowning! Good luck!”

Good luck indeed.