It’s Gonna Be a Long Four Years
January 31st, 2009 - 9:19 am
For those of us who argued that President Obama’s promise to talk to Iran, Cuba, etc., “without preconditions” would be interpreted as weakness… well, guess what?
Surely once they receive their first deliveries of unicorns and rainbows they’ll change their minds…
It’s so nauseating to watch this all transpire … and so predictable. Makes you think back on those presidential debates with a clearer vision.
Hey wait a minute! If he’s giving Ahmadazzahatter unicorns and rainbows, why didn’t I get my solid-gold hover-pony?
Remember all those 1950′s science fiction movies, where the turtleneck wearing pipe smoking egghead professor always wanted to talk to the alien monster and usually got a snoot full of high powered laser for his troubles? Yeah, its kinda like that.
I just hope the attack comes before the 2012 elections.
The thing is, Obama doesn’t care if President Whatshisfaceajhad says he’s a wimp. He doesn’t care if Iran says the US is a failure. He honestly doesn’t give a crap. Why anyone else cares so much about the opinions of this raving Iranian loon is beyond me. Obama will smile at him, address the Muslim world, talk past the goofballs in charge, still meet with them, and do what every American President does: what they think is best for our interests.
Obama isn’t playing in the schoolyard, or by the schoolyard rules. Iran’s insults are being said because their government knows Obama will be speaking to the Iranians a message that’s not in the Iranian government’s interest. Having a guy with a Muslim name address Iranians with a promise toward new relations is the kind of message the Iranian government doesn’t want its people listening to. They’d rather have a belligerent Bushclone talking big and promising all sorts of embargos and support for Israel and other things that will allow Iran to say “See? it’s all about the Jews!” and continue their repressive bullshit. Iran is on shaky ground right now: oil is priced low, the nation is young, Shiites next door in Iraq are taking over that country, Saddam is gone, and the US is drawing down our troop strength in that majority Shiite nation (to go to the other neighbor, sure, but it’s mostly to fight Sunni extremists.) I’m not predicting Iran will fall, but I do predict that the messages of the ayatollahs will be ignored much more often in the years ahead.
And if having an enemy call you weak makes you weak, then we couldn’t have done much in Iraq because Bagdad Bob said nothing bad was happening. Also, if it was so damn important to bomb Iran, then why didn’t it happen? Talking isn’t being a wimp. Talking a big game and delivering nothing does, which is something Bush won’t contemplaint on his ranch since he’s selling it to live in the suburbs with the rest of the milquetoast Texans.
Jon –
Long story short. When we act weak, we ARE weak. It has nothing to do with what anyone else says. (This is one thing bin Laden got exactly right, re: strong horse/weak horse.) And Obama in this case is making us weak.
In other cases, less so, and I appreciate those. But he’s dead wrong on this one, and I’ll call him on it.
I really need to edit myself better. Here’s that last paragraph in slightly-improved English:
And if having an enemy call you weak makes you weak, then we couldn’t have done much in Iraq because Bagdad Bob said nothing bad was happening. Also, if it was so damn important to bomb Iran, then why didn’t it happen? Talking doesn’t make someone a wimp. But talking a big game and delivering nothing does. And that’s something Bush won’t contemplate on his ranch, since he’s selling it to live in the suburbs with the rest of the milquetoast Texans.
Don’t see much weakness in talking. It’s what’s said and what comes of it that I’ll judge Obama by, not that he’s willing to talk.
Bush may have been as strong as iron, but his unwillingness to talk with Iran was both a lie since we did meet with Iranians and (I’d argue) not as effective as it could have been in lessening the influence of Iran in the region. Bush left us in some ways weaker in the region at a time when we could have been stronger, which is a polite way of saying that regime change here can better promote lasting regime change over there.
I see the words of Iran’s government as those of a frightened entity. It doesn’t have as much control over its nation as it wishes, fears some loss of that control, and wants to set the agenda. If Obama lets that happen, then he’s weak. But I don’t think he will. Since Iran has said this, now the pressure is off Obama to come up with something substantive from any meeting. He can shrug his shoulders and say “I tried, but regret that the government of Iran was unable to meet in a meaningful dialogue” or similar stuff that will make Iran’s government look like what they are: tinpot loons. Why we would pass up an opportunity to do that on a world stage is beyond me.
Jon-
It seems to me that Bush did what he was accused of not doing in Iraq and that was work with our allies & Russia in dealing with Iran. For the last four years Democrats and the media beat the hell out of him for not playing nice with our allies and friends, he lets the EU run point on Iran and what happens, you say he’s all hat and not cattle.
Free elections in Iraq yesterday with no violence is the best message you can send out to the masses in Iran, that there is hope in the region that the people can actually make a difference in their governments. It may not be perfect, but neither were our first 100 years.
I’m willing to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt since he is new to the office and is stepping up in weight class from his previous jobs, that still said……. he came across weak! In these times, it’s better to be feared and respected then loved. We tried the love/touchy feeling foreign policy method in the 90′s and that cost me a few friends on 9/11, I have no need to relive those time again.
If you get a chance, please read the book “The strongest Tribe”. Sadly in the culture throughout the region, those who show strength first and charity second win out the majority of the time.
I think your missing the point here kids. Our President agrees with their President about the “State of the Nation”, and that is the source of their argument. They see us as unwilling to defend ourselves against their challenges.
Candidates for President can chew the table legs of the country all they want as part of the debate, but once they actually become President, the furniture they once enjoyed chewing becomes their furniture, and as such, the chewing usually falls out of fashion.
Usually.But not this time.Our President is still chewing on the furniture.
This President needs to understand that his gloomy and depressing rhetoric might have helped him get into office, but at some point the ‘great unwashed’ are going to want to follow a leader who actually believes in his team rather than pointing out its every failure. Reagan understood this fact. For the first 2 years of his presidency things were pretty bad, but during that time, he inspired and gave a reason for people to look up and look towards the future. Where Reagan during bad times reminded us about “Morning in America”, the current President takes a moment every day to remind us that the Sun has set and there is some doubt about the dawn and then takes the time to cajole you to buying expensive flashlights and big batteries from Democrats all the while saying “before its too late!”.
There is a reason why every President, no matter the circumstances goes into the “State of the Union” and says “The State of our Union is strong!!”. We know its not always true, but it is not a statement of fact as much as it is a statement of faith; faith in the institutions and the people themselves. One cannot lead an institution or a people if one does not have faith in it. One who does such a thing might be “in charge”, but at some point they will lose their ability to lead it.
This is where Carter failed, its where the Democrats still fail and its the break in the wall that the Persians are going to exploit before it closes again.
a polite way of saying that regime change here can better promote lasting regime change over there
The regime we’ve had for quite a while is a Constitutional republic. What do you want to change it to, jon?
bgates: I guess I wanted an Obama regime rather than a McCain/Bush regime. Not a wholesale change by any means, but substantial enough for my liking.
I’d like for their Islamistnutball regime to go toward something less batshit insane.
…and then we can meet in the middle!
Well he did get them to unclench their fist…..
Only to get bitch-slapped.
Liberals long to be valued for their good intentions, not their actions. So it is that Obama, and his acolytes and sycophants, truly believe that their “good intentions” are a suitable foreign policy strategy to secure our domestic safety. The dictators of the world who would bring this country low did not drink the kool-aid. They are just waiting for the hopeychange stupor to envelop enough of America before they begin to make their moves. God help us.
This whole debate revolves around whether we can—as the left believes—bullshit our way out of literally anything, or—as the right believes—we cannot.
I submit that we cannot. The Iranian regime is made up of people, people who have their own minds containing their own beliefs and their own values based on those beliefs, and their own capacity to act on those beliefs any way they see fit. We not only can’t talk them into doing anything we want, we likely aren’t even capable of understanding what they want for themselves.
I guess I wanted an Obama regime rather than a McCain/Bush regime.
The Bush administration was run according to the Constitution of the United States, as the McCain administration would have been.
You don’t know what “regime change” means, do you?