barry’s political expedient delay on Iran

June 19, 2009

Looks like folks are finally catching on to barry’s MO: political expedience. One wonders if they knew all along but can’t hide it anymore because of his clear waffling on Iran. Even then it took a few days.

NY Times’ HELENE COOPER & MARK LANDLER:

Some criticism of the Obama administration’s cautious posture may be politically opportunistic, coming from rivals who are eager to draw distinctions between Republicans and Democrats, to portray the administration as generally weak when it comes to international confrontation.

So is there disagreement? Gibbs says no. And that’s about it, except for the usual frat boy laughs and sarcasm.

June 18 WH Press Briefing:

QUESTION: Robert, on Iran, is there an internal debate in the White House now between those who clearly support what the president is doing in terms of the hands-off approach and those who think that the president needs to have some stronger language? Is that ongoing in the White House?

GIBBS: There’s no debate in the White House.

QUESTION: Is there division at all? Is everyone on the same page on this or are there those who think that the president — internally — that the president…

GIBBS: Everybody’s on the same page. There’s no difference of opinion.

[...]

QUESTION: You said there’s no difference of opinion. But we’ve been led to believe this president seeks out different opinions from his advisers. You’ve got these incredibly knowledgeable people sitting around the room. He can’t find a single person who does anything other than nod “yes,” Mr. President, “you’re absolutely right on this”? How can there not be some difference of opinion on this?

Caught by a reporter actually doing their job, Gibbs backtracks and uses his favorite diversion: “The American People…”

GIBBS: Well, there is a belief by all here that — that this is a debate, as I’ve said, I think, everyday for the last five days — four days, plus my statement, that the American people and this government are not going to pick the next leader of Iran. That’s something that the Iranians have to do. We have to ensure that we express our views. As I’ve said about ensuring that people can demonstrate; have their causes and concerns heard, and that’s what people here believe.

QUESTION: Is there nobody who believes you ought be a little more open in supporting the demonstrators? Nobody’s expressed that opinion to him?

GIBBS: Everybody’s on the same page.

Time for his sarcasm to try and put an end to it.

QUESTION: Just absolutely verbatim? Nobody…

GIBBS: We walk around like robots.

A discussion as to what type of communication there has been between the WH and Congress – whether it looks bad for the US that there is dissent. And, as usual, no real answer, laughing and then the final sarcastic remark.

Q Does the administration believe that the vocal criticism of — that members of the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill, and many very prominent members of Congress, have said — have spoken out forcefully in favor of the demonstrators, do members of the administration believe that’s a bad thing for the U.S. government to be doing?

MR. GIBBS: Well, it’s not — it’s not the tack that we’ve taken. But, Chuck, let’s –

Q But should the government — I mean, are you guys reaching out quietly to members on Capitol Hill, saying, hey, guys, this is what our intelligence is saying, you shouldn’t be doing this?

MR. GIBBS: No. Look, I appreciate the opportunity to get Congress to agree with everything that we believe. I will wait and see whether that comes to fruition. Again –

Q But this is a national security issue. It’s not uncommon sometimes for -

MR. GIBBS: Chuck, let’s be honest. Let’s — but hold on.

Q — for the White House to reach out to Capitol Hill and say, hey –

MR. GIBBS: No, no, but let’s be honest.

Q — let me tell you what we know.

MR. GIBBS: You make it sound monolithically like the President is saying one thing and everybody else is saying another thing. That’s not even true in the Republican Party, right?

Q So you think it’s good that there are members out there, prominent members of the United States government, saying –

MR. GIBBS: The President and his team are responsible for what the President and his team say. I’m not going to get into what motivates other people to do or say what they do or say. But I think the President believes that he’s struck the right tone, and as do others in the administration, as do others in the Republican Party, as do others in the Democratic Party.

Q And you’re not reaching out? Nobody in this administration is reaching out to members of Congress who have been very vocal in saying, can you buy us some time, can you give us a few days to get this sort of –

MR. GIBBS: Give us a few days for what?

Q To see what happens. I mean, it seems to be –

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think everybody is watching what happens, but I’m not — you know, I’m not – ask for two days to do what? Count the ballots?

barry conveniently gets his weekend. Senator John McCain said his resolution would be “an expression of support by the government and the people of the United States of America”. As for barry’s: It’s not productive for the US president to be seen meddling in Iranian elections? McCain doesn’t buy it:

CNN: It is unfortunate in a way that this resolution is required since the administration does not want to ‘meddle’ and has refused, the president has refused to speak out in support of these brave Iranian citizens, most of them young, who are risking their very lives to protest what was clearly an unfair and corrupt election. (video)

He can shoot with both barrels but there’s always a question of what he would actually be doing himself. But his words do have consequence whereas barry’s 2002 speaking out on Iraq – which had ZERO political consequences – despite barry’s own lies. No 2 Republican Eric Cantor (R-VA) spoke out firmly as well. What is he campaigning for?

CNN: The administration’s position that what’s going on in Iran is a ‘vigorous debate’ is absurd. People are being brutalized and murdered by the regime in Tehran. We have no idea exactly how many have died or have been seriously injured since the regime has restricted journalists. In no way do these actions constitute a ‘vigorous debate.’ America has a moral responsibility to stand up for these brave people, to defend human rights and to condemn the violence and abuses by the regime in Tehran.

Cantor’s quieter thoughts per the NY Times:

Obama’s posture has been very equivocal, without a clear message. Now is the time for us to show our support with the Iranian people. I would like to see a strong statement from him that has moral clarity.

Not along the lines that it’s above his pay grade. His advisers are starting to see his wait and see political expediency approach [to everything] might have real consequences.

NYT: But several administration officials acknowledged that Mr. Obama might run the risk of coming across on the wrong side of history at a potentially transformative moment in Iran.

Sen John Kerry backed barry’s sentiment of not meddling:

CNN: There is no need for the United States of America to step into the middle of it and make this about America. It is an Iranian moment, spurred on by Iranians, thoroughly supported by Iranians to the degree that the supreme ayatollah has now backed off his own support for the elections [and] called for an investigation.

What do the protesters have to say directly? Besides getting a new election or a revote and making sure the world is watching them, what more do they want? How can they expect the US to do anything even if they wanted help?

barry’s saying there isn’t a difference between Ahmadinejad and Mir Hossein Mousavi was more than a little weird. Clueless, really. Wonder how they interpreted that? That their efforts are worthless? That the US doesn’t care about a rigged election even if we can’t get involved?

NYT: Either way, the United States is 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 is pursuing nuclear weapons.

And that’s inspiring the protesters to fight for democracy how? How does it jive with his statement that diplomacy has to start fresh? That diplomacy and people choosing for themselves are the way to effect that Change! he used to talk about. What we don’t hear anymore because it’s no longer politically expedient to use.

NYT: “For Barack Obama, this was a serious misstep,” said Steven Clemons, director of the American strategy program at the New America Foundation. “It’s right for the administration to be cautious, but it’s extremely bad for him to narrow the peephole into an area in which we’re looking at what’s happening just through the lens of the nuclear program.”

Secretary Clinton’s press spokesman sticks to the party line but goes one further — intentionally or not — and mentions that they would hold the parties responsible for any violence perpetrated on the protesters but stops short of what that would.

June 19 STATE DEPT Press Briefing:

QUESTION: Recognizing the White House has already spoken to this and White House officials have already spoken to it as well, I’m just curious, who does the United States hold responsible for the violence against the protestors that’s going on in the streets?

MR. KELLY: Well, I think as we’ve said before, we think that the right of the Iranian people to peacefully assemble needs to be respected. We think that –

QUESTION: Is it being?

MR. KELLY: Well, I mean, there have been times of – where demonstrators who have peacefully assembled have, of course, suffered at the hands of the authorities. And of course, we condemn any actions that – like that.

QUESTION: Okay, so you do hold the Iranian authorities responsible for any – disruption or violence that –

MR. KELLY: We would hold any government authorities responsible for any violence perpetrated against peaceful demonstrators.

QUESTION: Can I just ask, what does that – what does that mean in practical terms?

MR. KELLY: It means just that, that we –

QUESTION: No, no, I –

MR. KELLY: — we would expect that — we adhere very firmly to the principle of the right of people to peacefully assemble, to express their political views. And we would condemn any acts of violence against people who are peacefully assembling.