White House condemns 'suppression' in Iran

[jefferson_dem]

White House condemns 'suppression' in Iran
AFP American Edition
—
The White House on Sunday strongly condemned "violent and unjust suppression" of civilians in Iran, following a fierce government crackdown on opposition protests.

The blunt statement contrasted with careful initial responses by the White House following post-election protests in Iran in June and came as the nuclear showdown between Tehran and world powers reached a critical point.

"We strongly condemn the violent and unjust suppression of civilians in Iran seeking to exercise their universal rights," National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer said in a statement.

"Hope and history are on the side of those who peacefully seek their universal rights, and so is the United States.

"Governing through fear and violence is never just, and as President Obama said in Oslo -- it is telling when governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation."

<SNIP>

http://www.inform.com/article/White%20House%20condemns%20'suppression'%20in%20Iran

[EFerrari]

1. And yet the White House is fine about the murder of activists in Honduras.

Go figure. :sarcasm:

Another young member of resistance Renán Fajardo Argueta found dead

http://hondurasresists.blogspot.com/2009/12/another-young-member-of-resistance.html

[AVID]

4. yea they're toasting and fist bumping in the hallways...

:sarcasm:

don't be so fucking stupid.

or...start your own thread about it.

[Cha]

5. +1

[EFerrari]

6. Better than that. They never stopped the funding, kept training

at SOA and lectured the region on getting on with "reality".

Well, this is reality.

[Political Heretic]

10. They're sure not "issuing statements" about it, are they?

[totodeinhere]

43. That may be, but it doesn't justify the oppression going on in Iran. n/t

[EFerrari]

46. Of course not. But the hypocrisy is stunning. n/t

[Cha]

2. Poor Iranians..thanks

for the link, Jefferson.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Political Heretic]

7. PH condemns White House.

Dear WH,

STFU. As far as I am concerned, you have lost any and all credibility to speak as a voice of justice or universal rights. You lie, you equivocate, and you are full of shit.

Why do I say such things?
http://www.chelseagreen.com/content/detainees-are-not-persons-rules-us-supreme-court/

When your administration asks the Supreme Court not to hear a case in which people it is detaining are decreed to be "not persons" and thus having not expectation of not being tortured, its time to tell your administration that its full of shit when talking to other countries about "universal rights"

Love,
PH

[Cha]

8. The White House can speak on anything they fucking well please.

[Political Heretic]

9. Not without rank hypocrisy.

[Cha]

14. The hypocricy is assholes teaming up with grover norquist

and Marching With The Teabaggers.

[Political Heretic]

15. Irrelevant and non-applicable. Logically fallacious, and childish.

Since I haven't "teamed up with" anyone, its also a nonsequitor. Do you have anything of critical substance to add? Or just petty name-calling?

[Cha]

20. No, I say it's not irrelevant.

Nobody gets to talk about hypocricy when they're fucking hypocrites.

[Political Heretic]

24. Except that, none of the things you said apply to me.

Since I don't support norquist or march with "tea baggers"

[EFerrari]

17. Spin. People are dying in Honduras but the White House comes out against

Bogeyman #1.

Perfect.

[jefferson_dem]

22. Bogeyman #1?

Are you serious?

If so, that's truly sad.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/12/the-regime-reels.html

[Cha]

25. It's fucking pathetic.

[EFerrari]

45. Your best shot is ANDREW SULLIVAN?

Good grief, get a clue.

The US backed the same kind of bogus election in Honduras you're all upset up in Iran.

We are training, funding and arming the SAME kind of repression and violence that this administration hopes to make hay out of when it's about IRAN.

Those horrible images in Iran, they're happening in HONDURAS, too, and you are paying for the violence.

Hello?? McFly?

Are YOU serious?

[jefferson_dem]

11. You're so right.

The "leader of the free world" should have stayed mum on this - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e201287685b843970c-popup until they have satisfied every single one of your policy demands. That's telling 'em, Mr. Heretic!

[Political Heretic]

12. They should just try not to be transparently hypocritical. Pretty simple really.

And by the way, has nothing to do with "policy" demands. Petitioning the court to dismiss a case and uphold lower courts ruling that detainees are not persons, and thus have no right not to be tortured is pretty much the bare minimum you can do to be taken seriously when talking to other countries about "universal rights."

[jefferson_dem]

16. Again...

I'm sorry the White House has disappointed you with their statement...as you would rather they meet your "bare minimum" before saying anything...about this http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e20128768557d9970c-500wi

STFU indeed.

[Political Heretic]

19. They do more harm than good by speaking in rank hypocrisy.

Just coming out and making a pretty-words statement is pretty meaningless. It is worse than meaningless and outright disgusting and unhelpful to make a statement claiming some sort of moral authority when you have zero.

The number one response by the world to the US's pontifications on human rights is: "why the hell would we even listen to you, given your consistent and ongoing commitment to human rights ABUSE?"

It is, most definitely, better to put our own house in order BEFORE preaching to other people, because preaching to other people while being gross hypocrities does not help - it makes things works, and further destroys any credibility we might have.

What exactly do you think this statement does? Change the world? Stop the tragedy from happening? No. And since we have no credibility on the issue, the statement doesn't even help build international pressure.

Because of our terrible human rights record and our own gross hypocrisy - that statement is release for no one but people like YOU - who want to feel good about US because we issued a fucking statement.

[jefferson_dem]

21. I realize you may find it more fashionable to be a discontent...

and Obama has not done enough to measure up to your standards on human rights. He probably never will. But please aquaint yourself with the facts. Global opinions of the US and presidential leadership are way up across the board. See Gallup's reports at http://www.gallup.com/poll/121991/World-Citizens-Views-Leadership-Pre-Post-Obama.aspx

Nobody said a statement alone will do anything. Don't be silly. But public statements are important in terms of setting the tone/stage for action.

[Political Heretic]

23. There' not "my standards" they are universal standards. And the truth of global opinion is this"

It's based entirely on hope and expectations of change. As that luster continues to wear off, world opinion continues to slip.

And hey, if it doesn't then great! As far as I'm concerned its good if the world thinks we rock, whether we do or don't in reality.

Public statements are only important for setting a tone/stage for action if they carry some weight. The weight that they carry is tragically undercut by rank hypocrisy.

[dave29]

37. WTF ?

really? So if everything they say carry no weight for you, why bother bloviating about it?

[Political Heretic]

50. It carries no weight for the world, and I think it should. That's why.

Our influence and our ability to stand in a position as a moral arbiter in the world is severely undercut by our own rank hypocrisy.

We could do so much more, be such a more powerful participant, partner and influence in the world if we would first lead by example, instead of by bloviating bullshit that we ourselves don't even follow and expecting others to take us seriously.

[Flaneur]

32. Setting the stage for action? What do you (or Obama) have in mind?

A little intervention into Iran's internal affairs? That worked out so well last time...

[jefferson_dem]

33. Sure. Next time POTUS and I have a policy meeting "sit down"...

"Intervention"? Meh...

I'll recommend we employ some strong dimplomatic leverage in the region, to support the brave Iranians who have taken to the streets demanding their voice be heard...only to be brutalized by the regime.

Hey, if you want to excuse/enable Ahmadinejad, have at it.

[Political Heretic]

13. "The leader of the free world?" What an arrogant egotistical joke.

We're #1

We're #1

USA!
USA!
USA!

:eyes:

Each and every day we speak with this sort of rank hypocrisy on the world stage we become more and more irrelevant. Bush decimated American image, and we we're the leader of anything - free or otherwise. Obama gathered the hopes of the world that he would restore our image and change our hypocrisy in international direction. The infactuation is already wearing off as little to none of his international actions match his hopeful rhetoric.

Every day that goes by we become more and more ridiculous on the world stage. The only thing we "lead" any more is our military might and our ability to economically bully smaller countries.

GO USA!

*breaks into song*

AND I'M PROOOOOUD TO BE AN AMERICAAAAAANA WHERE AT LEAST I KNOW I'M FREE... oh wait.

[jefferson_dem]

18. I put it in quotes because I offered it up as a tongue-in-cheek label...

You're so easy. Breath in...breath out.

[pampango]

26. Thanks for the information. The killing civilians in the street is the kind of thing Obama should be

speaking out about.

[Fearless]

27. Who wants to bet in 15 years we'll know that the CIA was behind it.

And if it succeeds they put in power a dictator that the people hate, thus we're hated. Or the coup fails and we're still hated. Just saying.

[Goldstein1984]

28. I don't recall the White House condemning suppression in

Philadelphia during the G20 Summit; or the repression in Copenhagen, where the government practiced "preventive arrests."

I don't see the White House pushing for investigations of war crimes by the Bush/Cheney Administration.

The White House isn't condemning the oppression of Palestinians by Israel.

Or the bombing in civilians in Yemen.

It's all one thing--Human Rights

[emilyg]

29. +1

[Cha]

30. So? You use this thread to whine about what you

haven't seen the White House do? When clearly the Iranian Government's action needs condemning.

[totodeinhere]

44. That's a common tactic used by some when the subject comes around to Iran.

They try to change the subject. Why I don't know. Regardless of what the White House is doing or not doing, the political suppression in Iran is wrong and it needs to be condemned.

[EFerrari]

48. That's backward. Iran is our punching bag. The US turns a blind eye every day

to human rights violations by their "allies". See Colombia.

Yes, the government violence and repression in Iran must be condemned. But selective condemnation by an administration that funds the same activities where it is convenient is not only meaningless but embarrassing.

[totodeinhere]

49. We should keep up the pressure on the administration to do the right things when it comes to human..

rights everywhere. I agree with that. But in the mean time, while we are working on that, at least we should support the administration in it's condemnation of Iran. And after all, Iran's suppression of dissent has been condemned by the European Union as well. Our condemnation of Iran is in good company.

[jefferson_dem]

31. But Obama hasn't done what IIIIII want so it doesn't matter what he says about anything else...

Whaaaa...

Do you realize how self-centered and petty you sound?

[Goldstein1984]

34. Self-centered and petty

I don't think I directly benefit from anything on that list of failures. There's nothing self-centered about it.

I'm endlessly disappointed in the failure of people to see anything as part of a pattern, or the hypocrisy of selectively condemning targets of convenience.

Obama has no credibility in his condemnation of Iran's treatment of it's citizens. He's perpetuating the worst of Bush's policies, and he's condoned what he isn't practicing by refusing to disclose or investigate war crimes.

Go ahead and defend Obama by condemning my criticism. But the criticism stands.

[dave29]

39. Obama has far more credibility abroad than you suggest

far, far more. I am sorry your hate is not working out for you.

[Goldstein1984]

40. Time will tell.

And I have no hate.

Disappointment.

No hate.

[dave29]

41. This is not a time related issue. We are talking about today.

As far as your disappointment, I am glad it is not hate.

[Goldstein1984]

42. I think it's part of a pattern

so I agree that it isn't a time-related issue.

And I agree that President Obama is doing it right in his comments regarding Iran. I just wish the principles upon which his condemnation is based, which I fear is only political expediency, given the divergence for the other actions I cited above, were applied more broadly.

Believe me, I believe Obama is better than the alternative. And he will most likely have my support in 2012. But, for the first time in many years, my vote for Obama in 2008 was not based on "the lesser of two evils," and I want very much for it to be the same way in 2012. Based on many of his policies regarding human and constitutional rights, it may be back to the lesser of two evils for me in 2012.

Hate is a wasted emotion. Religiously, I'm an atheist. Philosophically, I'm a Taoist/Buddhist. When you hate somebody, they control you.

[backscatter712]

35. Obama's doing it right.

On one hand, anyone who's vaguely human at all has to condemn the brutality of Iran's crackdowns.

On the other hand, blustering, chest-thumping and saber-rattling isn't going to help matters - it'll just give ammo to Ahmedinajad and the fundies to crack down harder.

[mcablue]

36. This is administration is hypocritical. Feingold has criticized it for hiding behind State Secrets

As in some cases where the administration has blocked entired lawsuits because the evidence is allegedly risky to our national security. Same regarding the torture photos.

Such hypocrites.

[jefferson_dem]

38. Yet another poster who demands his/her conditions be met before the adminstration speaks out...

on behalf of human rights.

[EFerrari]

47. Obama has had six months to speak out about torture and murder in Honduras.