Obama on Iran elections = ??????????????????????????...

[tocqueville]

GERMANY

"The German government is very concerned about the current situation," Merkel said Monday in Berlin.

She strongly criticized the "wave of arrests" during the demonstrations and the fact that foreign media were being hampered from reporting on the developments. Allegations of election fraud called for a "transparent investigation," she said.

Earlier on Monday, the German government summoned Iran's ambassador to express concern over Iranian authorities' violent response to demonstrations.

Deputy Foreign Minister Reinhard Silberberg told the ambassador that Berlin considers the attempts to prevent peaceful demonstrations "unacceptable." Silberberg also demanded international media be allowed to report freely and reporters' security be guaranteed.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4328112,00.html?maca=en-en_nr-1893-xml-atom

FRANCE

Sarkozy condemns Iran’s “violence directed at demonstrators”
Updated: Monday, June 15, 2009
18:00GMT--02:00PM/EST

Washington, 15 June (WashingtonTV)—Nicolas Sarkozy, president of France, today “condemned the violence directed at demonstrators” in Iran and called for Iran to shed “full light” on the result of the presidential election, AFP reports.

In a strongly-worded released statement, Sarkozy said he “condemned the violence directed at demonstrators, the arrest of opposition members and political figures, restrictions on public liberties, freedom of expression and communication and the constraints imposed on Iranian and foreign nationals.”

"It would be unacceptable if vote-rigging had falsified the result of the elections, against the democratically-expressed will of the Iranian people," Sarkozy said in a statement, adding: “Full light must be shed on this situation.”

Earlier today, France’s Foreign Ministry summoned Seyyed Mehdi Miraboutalebi, Iran’s ambassador to France, to hear its concern over the election results.

In a statement released by the French Foreign Ministry, after the summoning, the French ministerial spokesperson, Eric Chevallier said: “We have expressed … our concern as to allegations of irregularity surrounding the Iranian elections… We have also underlined that Iran’s security forces must protect the French embassy, which was the object of a hostile demonstration (Monday),” reports AFP.

http://televisionwashington.com/floater_article1.aspx?lang=en&t=1&id=11297

UK

Brown: Iranians deserve democracy
15/06/2009 - 16:16:41

Iran’s leaders have “serious questions” to answer over the disputed presidential election, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said today amid growing protests in Tehran.

http://breakingnews.iol.ie/news/world/brown-iranians-deserve-democracy-414962.html

CANADA

"The government of Canada calls for freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Iran, and urges the country to fully respect all of its human rights obligations, both in law and in practice. We also continue to call on Iran to comply immediately with its legal obligations concerning its nuclear program."

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Canada+joins+chorus+protest+over+Iran+election+violence/1698833/story.html

UN

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is urging Iran's leaders to respect the will of their people as they investigate allegations of fraud in Friday's presidential election.

EU

EU urges Iran to clarify election outcome

The European Union's 27 member states are to issue a joint call on Iran to clarify President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's landslide election victory, Spain's foreign minister said on Monday.

"There is a need to clarify the situation and to express our concern that a sector of the population are having difficulties in expressing its opinion," Miguel Angel Moratinos told reporters after talks in Luxembourg with EU counterparts.

"The Iranian people deserves to have its voice heard, and we call for a fully transparent investigation into electoral discrepancies," Cannon said in a statement.

USA

President Barack Obama says it's up to Iran to determine its own leaders.
But he also says he's troubled by the situation in Iran and that it would be wrong to stay silent.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZfgLuKrg3QBRltJ0qQMIzgIohdQD98RD8800

_______________________________________________________________________________

not very much leadership here... mostly empty words

ok flame away

[BobRossi]

1. Change baby! Change!

Oh yeah! ><

[CreekDog]

35. Obama's full statement (OP has not quoted Obama correctly)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[EFerrari]

2. He was perfect. Why would he need to add to the pile, he's not a lemming.

Those points had already been made.

Too bad Bush isn't still in office. He probably would be invading right now. :)

[spanone]

3. he should suit up and get over there immediately

nwmhtt

[ButterflyBlood]

4. Too strong of a statement would help Ahmadinejad and the mullahs

They'd be able to accuse the opposition of being US puppets. He's being smart.

[JackRiddler]

5. Nuke'em, you socialist surrender monkey. Nuke'em now!

[tocqueville]

9. we have already moved the stuff to Abu Dhabi

just in case

[billyoc]

6. The best way to insure the wholesale slaughter of the protesters is to tie them to America.

The U.S. has absolutely NO credibility in the human rights/voting rights arena.

The Iranians will just have to sort themselves out.

[EFerrari]

12. Not in Iran. But the endorsement could be used against them, for sure.

[Blue State Bandit]

7. Obama should interfere?

That's a wonderful idea...

NOT!

[kenny blankenship]

8. We are still the "Great Satan" over there. Euros don't have that liability.

We need to stay out of it, publicly at least, and not give further excuse for the Old Regime to smash heads among the protesters. America openly aligning with the demonstrators would be all the Ahmadinjihadder faction need to accuse the demonstrators of treason and then treating them accordingly.

[Canuckistanian]

17. That's not really true among young people

Most young Iranians love American culture and like Americans.

Only the hardliners - the older, religious types distrust America. And they're a shrinking demographic.

That said, I think that any perceived American government interference would be vigorously protested.

[WeDidIt]

10. So you want Obama to be filled with TEH STOOOPID???

Obama is playing it perfectly.

Plus, he's right.

For him to come out in support of one side or the other smacks of what Iranians hate the most about America.

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. He should borrow *W's* old flight suit and fly to Tehran and declare nookolar war.

:rofl:

[Kaleko]

52. Ya, put some awe into the mullahs in their mosques, man.

[Thrill]

13. I think you need to watch Obama's actual statement. He had the best reaction

of them all. The others could learn from him

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x324981

[tocqueville]

15. I did watch

that's why I posted this

[Thrill]

16. He had the best reaction. And said why he shouldn't say more than that.

Ahmadinejad would like nothing more than to be able to say the US is interfering with his election

[Billy Burnett]

54. Then why did Mr Obama's OFAC shut down IM services in Iran last month, except Twitter?

Strange timing to enforce an obscure embargo policy during the campaigns in Iran - especially after not enforcing it for 10 years, yes?


Do you know that the Obama admin shut down MS, Yahoo, Google, Messenger to Iran last month?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5863428


All IM services shut down by OFAC except Twitter - Twitter is now getting assistance from the US government in managing the delay of Twitter's routine maintenance after the Obama admin's request to - just so Iranians will have a method of communication without interruption. This wouldn't be necessary if the other IM services hadn't been shut down by the admin.

[HughMoran]

14. never mind

I just watched the video - it was a great response and all that needed to be said.

[tocqueville]

19. I just see weakness

the argument of non-interference is bull. As if the Mollahs will wonder if they make Obama angry if they repress in blood a movement for freedom...

what will Obama do when they eliminate the opposition ? go back to the negotiating table as if nothing happened ?

[HughMoran]

20. What do you suggest he do - threaten someone?

Whoever he shows support for will instantly fall out of favor. He's one smart man and I admire his ability to keep his calm in a situation like this. I'd expect Bush to go off half-cocked and ruin any chance at all of reform for another generation.

[tocqueville]

27. saying what the others have said

is sending a signal to Khameini "don't push your luck" but doesn't mean starting a nuclear war (as some here believe)

saying practically nothing as he said, is telling the mollahs "wash your laundry", we'll talk later

it's going to be interpreted as a sign of weakness by Khameini.

And he'll use it

those guys invented chess

The million of Iranians who fought the dictatorship those last days must feel pretty betrayed...

[HughMoran]

28. Others are not the US

Empty threats by the US have worked so well in the past, right?

I just can't imagine what he could have said that would do anything more than appease a few people like you.

[tocqueville]

33. talk about appeasement...

I'd be careful with the use of that word in that situation...

[FrenchieCat]

25. The weakness you see is in your opinion

that Obama should be weighing in on Iran's Elections results. :eyes:

Obama's not that stoopid.
Obviously leadership to you means talking shit.
We had 8 years of that,
and let me tell you that I partied hard
on November 4th when I realized the nightmare of cowboy diplomacy was over.

[CreekDog]

34. the OP made Obama look bad by not quoting his full statement

and using the brevity of his truncated statement to make Obama appear to be giving short shrift to the issue.

stay tuned. :crazy:

Now for Obama's full statement...you be the judge:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[Prometheus Bound]

26. I smell neocon BS.

[Posteritatis]

38. He was calling for nuclear strikes earlier if I recall

So yeah, you're characterizing it pretty accurately IMO.

[EFerrari]

39. I don't think you are hysterical enough.

[tocqueville]

44. Haven't you defended Ahmanidejad enough ?

from unreliable twiterring to questioning if there was fraud or not ?

[EFerrari]

46. So, you have evidence that young children have been rounded up and killed

and you must certainly have a good vote count?

lol

[DonCoquixote]

49. OK

if he interferes with Iran, it only strengthens the rush to war, the one Israel is ready for...

BUT

If he does that, then he is just like Bush...

[Prometheus Bound]

18. It's pretty hard to ask for a better response than that.

[sub.theory]

21. Obama's response was perfect

Obama was clearly conscious of the fact that Ahmadinejad would love nothing more than to paint the protesters as agents/stooges of the United States. He clearly spoke out against the violence and in his own subtle way gave his support to the protesters. He had a difficult tightrope to walk, but he did a great job.

[CreekDog]

24. Obama's response is not in the original post actually

A very small part of Obama's response is in the OP which the OP made purposely small to make it seem like Obama had nothing to say in comparison to the other nations respresented IN FULL.

The OP says more about the poster than it does about Obama. And it doesn't say anything good about the OP.

:thumbsdown:

[AntiFascist]

22. Daniel Pipes would have voted for Ahmadinejad....

??????????????????????????????????????????????????

[CreekDog]

23. Are you proud? You tried to make Obama look bad by truncating his statement down to two sentences

why would you do that?

here's the full text of what he said about the elections and violence:

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.

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.

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.

...

...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.

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.

[tuvor]

29. +1

I hate when people pull that crap.

[tocqueville]

31. that was the essence

the rest is rethorics

1) no strong demand of investigation
2) no condemning of the violence

he said basically "I hope you'll be nice..."

demanding accountability is not "making any decisions for the Iranians"

[CreekDog]

32. you didn't answer my question

are you proud of yourself? :rofl:

[tocqueville]

36. it's not a question of pride

and you obviously didn't read my answer

[CreekDog]

37. I'll quote it back to you in the way you quoted Obama:

"...rethorics

(blathered on about something here)

"I hope you'll be nice..."

demanding...is not...Iranians"

[tocqueville]

42. here is the answer to your mail

the two statements are the core of what he said, they are repeated over and over on press releases and comments. Just check it. And the other leaders reports are truncated too. I wanted to exemplify the difference in wording, that's all.

The rest is vague alluding to the current events.

there is a big difference between "being troubled" by violence and to condemn it.

there is a big difference between "fraud" and "irregularities"

"whatever investigations take place are done in a way
that is not resulting in bloodshed" : too late, don't tell me he isn't watching the news.

"We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between
our two countries" : contradicts the current approach.

"do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians" : you can't, it's just empty rethorics.

As most observers say Obama expects to have nuclear talks with the current Iranian administration. So the current situation complicates it for him. But if Iran collapses, the new Iranian leadership will pursue the same nuclear politics and it will be even more difficult (since they now are the nice guys) to stop them.

The risk is far bigger that Ahmadinejad wins and gets even worse. Which means war. So it's not by half-pandering at them now that it will change anything, the Mollahs take it only as weakness.

what is sad is that you are so blinded by Obama's "infallibility" that you don't see that he is probably taking a wrong approach.

most international observers call his approach a "soft-soft" one (The Guardian for example) and see it as a crass gamble. The problem is if he loses on that one, he will be eaten alive by the Repubs and portrayed as a Chamberlain.

sorry I didn't see your mail earlier

[CreekDog]

51. I simply do not feel it was fair to parse Obama's comments so heavily

so that you did not even include 2 full sentences of what he said.

especially when you provided much more of what was said by other nations while criticizing Obama for not saying more in his remarks.

i think your treatment of Obama was unfair and i think you mislead the readers here.

that was my complaint.

next time if you want to complain a statement of his wasn't good compared to others' statements, at least quote him fully and accurately before doing so, or else the readers will have to judge his words by your own and when they actually read his own, they are going to be angry with you for misleading them --as i was.

[anigbrowl]

40. You're full of it

Just a week or so ago he was in Cairo and acknowledging (finally) that the US staged a coup in Iran in the 50s which resulted in a Democratic government getting overthrown in favor of the shah (something I was glad to hear, as I've been pointing that out to people for years).

Now, when there are finally cracks in the hardline Islamic revolutionary cabal that has ruled Iran for the last 30 years, you think he should wade in and hand the Iranina government a propaganda carrot?

[tocqueville]

43. not as much as you are

see answer above

the "propaganda carrot" is a red herring

"He was careful, though, to avoid any confrontational remarks that Iran could use as an excuse to rebuff his call for direct negotiations.

In contrast to the Bush administration, Obama has offered to meet the Iranian leadership to discuss the nuclear stand-off. He wants to try to persuade Iran to suspend what the US claims is a nuclear weapons programme. Iran denies it is seeking nuclear armaments.

US officials and analysts say privately that it does not make a significant difference to US policy whether Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or his challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, is president, because nuclear policy is dictated by the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Some US officials and analysts argue that Ahmadinejad as president suits the US better than Mousavi because, if the diplomatic route fails, Ahmadinejad as president will make it easier to persuade Russia and China to agree to UN sanctions."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/15/iran-obama-administration-election-results

all this is crass politics that have nothing to do with the "freedom loving" students. The Mollahs are fighting for their survival so there won't be any difference if Obama condemns them before or after they massacre the opposition.

besides his Cairo Speech has pissed off progressive Muslim women all over the world who don't give a shit about the "religious freedom" of wearing a hijab. But this isn't reported in US media.

[anigbrowl]

50. Whatever. You have no argument.

[BuyingThyme]

30. I think it was a pretty good statement.

[Juche]

41. Obama really has no credibility to criticize Iran

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oRf34gNumw

2:28

"By the way, I have to say I think Al Gore won (reference to 2000 election)-Obama"

But meh. Its a shame to have a president who knows election fraud happens here, but who seems more concerned about it overseas.

[izzybeans]

45. Your namesake wouldn't appreciate your approach here.

De Tocqueville would have enjoyed an honest debate on the matter.

Of course he also said that the threats to peaceful assembly and dissent must be protected and is a universal value, but those are just empty words, right?

[bdamomma]

47. in this situation we should just keep on doing what we are doing

keep out of their election.

[Arkana]

48. What would you have him do?

Put on tights and a cape and fly over to Iran with his STUPER POWERS and fix Iran's electoral system?

It's a bad place to fuck around in. We can't appear to back either side because we can't appear to be influencing the elections.

But hate on him if you must.

[HughMoran]

53. HAHAHAHA!!! Rachel says Obama's strategy is politics 101 and only dolts wouldn't get it

...and she showed a Republican moran saying what the O/P is saying.

:rofl:

I agree with Rachel.

[sgolder]

55. Yup, BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN would have been so more subtle and smart

Pathetic.