Obama's excuse for not acting on Iran
President Obama: "It's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised," Obama told CNBC news.While that's true, the goal here ought to be to overthrow the Mullahs and let the Iranians have fair and free elections, and not just to install Mousavi. But in Obama's morally muddled world, he doesn't see any difference between a truly free election and installing Mousavi. To Obama, one is no more meritorious than other. Both are shades of gray.
"Either way we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and has been pursuing nuclear weapons," he said.
And unfortunately, he doesn't see why protecting innocent people who are being shot at in the streets is morally correct or in America's interest either.
Hope and change for me but not for thee?
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 7:09 AM
3 Comments:
The point is realism precludes hoping for things that will never happen. Obama's version of it is hypocritical; he's the realist on Iran and the derring-do interventionist on the Israel-Arab conflict. You can't have it both ways if you are a realist. Just ask the Iranians.
Why does Obama think it is wrong to meddle in Iran, but he supports meddling in Israeli politics?
"And unfortunately, he doesn't see why protecting innocent people who are being shot at in the streets is morally correct or in America's interest either."
The question is rhetorical right?
Post a Comment
<< Home