by C. William Chattin

OP, as you say, Obama’s statement — save for his self-absorbed  “As I said in Cairo” clause — finally hit the right pitch and sentiment.  And, again reiterating you, the President’s biggest adorers have already found no distinction between his initial comments, “I’m troubled by violence,” “I understand the Iranian government is looking into the results,” and “there may not be a distinction between Ahmadjinedah and Mousavi,” on the one hand, and this latest statement “the Iranian regime must govern through consent, not coercion,” on the other.  Clearly, there’s a difference.

I suppose the President’s statement raises two questions: Why the change? and, How come his didn’t make these statements orally?

To the naysayers who laugh off any suggestion that Barack may not want a revolution in Iran, I submit for consideration the words of Michael Scheuer, former high-ranking CIA official and vehement critic of President Bush’s Middle East policy.  Mr. Scheuer appeared on Fox News yesterday and, with a straight-face, suggested that the election returns in Iran, resulting in a landslide for Ahmadjinedah, may indeed have been accurate.

It’s certainly unfair to associate the words of Scheuer with the President.  But, it bears noting that not every experienced foreign policy guru thinks the protests in Iran are legitimate and/or beneficial for the United States.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark



Comments

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Share your wisdom