President Obama Reiterates Concern About Iran’s Election

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Tuesday that it would be counterproductive for the United States “to be seen as meddling” in the disputed Iranian presidential election, dismissing criticism that he has failed to speak out forcefully enough against the growing unrest in Iran.

“I have deep concerns about the election,” Mr. Obama told reporters at the White House. “I think that the world has deep concerns about the election.”

But the president said any direct involvement by the United States would not be “productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations.” He expressed optimism that the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had called for a review of the election, which on Monday resulted in the largest antigovernment demonstration since the 1979 revolution. Opposition protests continued Tuesday.

“I do believe that something has happened in Iran, where there is a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures toward the international community that have taken place in the past,” Mr. Obama said. “There are people who want to see greater openness and greater debate and want to see greater democracy.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/politics/17prexy.html?ref=politics

[Wizard777]

1. Absolutely! Stay out of it. It's not our elections and not our dispute.

We can enact change there in years or decades. THEY can enact that same change there in weeks or month. It's a more meaningful and stable change that will be long lasting. It's a change they will feel obligated to defend instead of attacking it. If we have learned little to nothing from Iraq. Let us hope pray we have at least learned that much.

[twitomy]

7. Stay out, huh?

Here we have the Iranians trying to get a little more freedom, trying to get out from under the heels of religious fanatics. And the US cant even express and opinion?

Hmmm..so when the blacks in South Africa were trying to get of Aparteid, the US should have not gotten involoved, nor even expressed an opinion?

When Soilidarity was trying to bring freedom to the Poles in the 80's, the US shouldn't of had a opinion?

We should also not speak out for the Tibetans either?

Wow, so proud to be an American :eyes:

[Wizard777]

8. If expressing an opinion was all we could do. But that's just how it starts.

It ends in some really dirty shit. Maybe they would have that freedom they desire now if we didn't overthrow their democratically elected government and install a Monarch. What you are saying is like asking a girl that has been raped and molested by an uncle at every contact to trust that he's better now. So she should have no reservations in giving him a big hug. :wow: :eyes:

[twitomy]

9. Different time, different people running the Govt

now (Obama)...I thought he was supposed to be a different kind of US leader.
You know, calling for freedom, for Freedom sake and NOT installing a Monarch.


Anyway, I hardly doubt the protesters in the streets of Tehran would reject a word of support from Obama...DO you ?

[Wizard777]

10. Same old shit. It's not gonna work any better with a (D) behind it.

Obama is doing the right thing by steering clear of this. That's a real change. It would be so easy for us to topple Irans government right now. With internal presssure mounting. External pressue would put them between a rock and a hard place to be ground into dust. We can't do that. The change must come from within. It's the only way to create a meaningful and lasting change they will defend instead of attack. Face facts the second we set foot out of Iraq. That government will probably be history or just become a facade for a dictatorial regime. We couldn't do any better in Iran. If they really want the change they will make it happen.

[twitomy]

11. Dont get me wrong...

I amd not suggesting we do anything "material" to make a change.

Im saying we could and should offer vocal "moral support" to those folks in Iran who seek positive change.

But Yes they have to actually do it themselves.

[Wizard777]

14. Obama is doing that while steering clear of anything inflammatory.

We can't even be seen as blowing on the embers that erupts into a fiery revolution. As Iranians reclaim their government http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKu2QaytmrM"> we can only stand around singing.

[bdamomma]

2. we need to stay out of this, plus we had our own elections stolen.

and that stupid man Ahmadinejad is spewing up crap about the US.

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Defiant_Ahmadinejad_blasts_US_at_Ru_06162009.html

[monmouth]

3. I wish he had also told John McLame to STFU...n/t

[dos pelos]

4. WEAK !!!

"I do believe something has happened in Iran"....weak and stupid.
Geez,this guy is no Truman.We've got Stevie Erkel in the white house.Here is what someone needs to get Obama to do:

1.) Give Obama a pep talk,"you can do this Barak..stop shaking and remember not to bow",..
2.) Give a speech,a statement to the press,stating that "THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT STAND WITH THE IRANIAN PEOPLE AS THEY STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM.No military intervention
or other intervention,just hold the lamp of freedom up a little higher and say " we're with you".

[SpartanDem]

5. If you wanted that you should've voted for McCain

[Arkana]

13. It's "Barack."

And what is he doing if not that?

[marshall]

6. Make Jimmy Carter the "foreign elections czar"

He would take care of everything smoothly.

[Arkana]

12. That's good.

Offer the protestors moral support till you're blue in the face, but appear at all to be meddling in Iranian affairs and we'll get our asses beat.

[karynnj]

15. On Monday at a speech on global warming, Kerry answered Iran questions using similar words

- though the forum (and the fact that he is not in the administration) allowed him dispute Tom Brokaw's contention that it might be that our diplomats and journalists see only the urban areas and to be less vague on what rises suspicions. Like Obama, he speaks of the fact that the US "meddling" has caused problems in the past. He also makes a plea to continue the diplomatic route - no matter how this ends up. (He speaks also of this as a sign that things are changing internally there.)

This was in the Q&A, which starts about half way through. (If you want to get to just this - it is when Kerry and Brokaw are first seen sitting down - and it is about half way into the time bar.) http://www.cfr.org/publication/by_type/video.html

- Although any Kerry speech on global warming is very good, the Q&A is fascinating. It is low key, thoughtful and candid. (His comments on the Middle East are interesting.)