Neda: symbol of the Iran revolt/AP Photo
As the world watches the people of Iran rise up against dictatorship and oppression, the contrast with the weak response of President Barack Obama is being contrasted with that of former President Ronald Reagan
President Ronald Reagan supported Lech Walesa and the Solidarity movement in Poland, called Russia the "Evil Empire," demanded that Gorbachev tear down the Berlin Wall and increased our military strength to demonstrate our resolve. Reagan operated from a position of strength while increasingly Obama looks indecisive and weak.
After the fraudulent declared victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian people began risking their lives to demand true democracy. President Barack Obama withheld comment for days, only expressing his concern because supposedly he did not want to interject his opinion and risk alienating an Iranian government that he wants to negotiate with.
Senator John McCain has been quoted as saying:
But I think that there should be a solid statement, such as one we just passed through the United States Senate, that all all of us have certain basic human rights, and they should be allowed to exercise them, and that we should support people's right to protest without being beaten and killed in the streets of Tehran and cities all over Iran.
But, look, the point is that, all during the Cold War, there was the liberal elites who said we should not do anything to upset the Russians, whether it be the Prague Spring or the workers in Poland, in Gdansk.
And there was Ronald Reagan who, said, "Take down this wall," called them an evil empire, said he is ready to negotiate, but we have a fundamental right and respect of human rights.
And to say we don't want to quote "meddle," of course, is is is not in keeping with that tradition in any way. In fact, it's a direct contradiction of it.
To read entire articles, go to:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-090617rossi_briefs,0,2498829.story
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528127,00.html
More articles about Obama responses, go to:
Obama exposed by limp response to Iran revolt
Obama speech to Arabs ends U.S. superpower status
North Korea taunts Obama and his diplomacy efforts
Obama olive-branch to North Korea cracks under launched missile
Obama responds to enemy threats by making speeches
Obama appeasement programs can't be blamed on Bush
Want to read more articles by the National Watchdog Politics examiner?
Subscribe at the top of this column to receive e-mail updates.
Want to participate in the discussion? Add your comments.
Previous articles by examiner Watchdog Politics
Comments
Speaking as a Pole, there are similarities between Solidarity and the Iranian protesters but there are also massive differences that cannot be overlooked. For one Solidarity was a more powerful force and it represented 80% of the workers in the country. Iranian protesters for the most part are a student movement (not completely but that is the bulk of the movement). Solidarity was looking to overthrow a entire political & economic system, while in Iran most of the protesters are arguing for a recount but in the end the person in charge the Supreme Leader will still hold power(regardless of who ultimately because President). The reason this is important is because if the US shows to be to aggressive in its support for the protesters when it comes to negotiating in the nuclear program the Supreme leader will be less likely to make concessions, seeing as his candidate lost. There's several more differences but I'm kind of constrained by the character count.
I find it amazing that neocons and hawk think that Obama saying something will help in any fashion when it is clear that if he says anything, it will only serve to embolden Ahmadinejad.
Then again, these are the same folks who want to "Bomb Bomb Iran."
Even already the Iranian government is saying the West is meddling in their affairs and using that as justification for everything they have been doing.
Doing anything further will only legitimize that view in the eyes of many Iranians.
And using the Berlin Wall situation is to say that everything in the two situations is the same -- when the opposite is true. There is almost nothing the same in the two situations.
Please, next time do some research besides articles in Fox News or the Chicago Tribune.
This commentary would be correct, if one of the two sides in Iran was actually pro-democracy. But that isn't the case. This is an ignorant attack on the President.
That aside, what would the reaction in the U.S. be if Iran or some other country had supported Al Gore, the popular vote winner, when Bush won the first time? What if they tried to tell us how our Democracy should be?
And while I'm venting, every Iraqi I've spoken with says that their country was better off under Saddam then it is today. Has the right wing mentioned anything about that?
Thank God the neocons are no longer running the country. They wanted us to invade Iraq and Iran back in the 1990's.
Republicans who support Obama include.
Senator Frank Lugar, Colin Powell, Tom Tancredo, Pat Buchanan. Iraninan Americans also support Obama.
The only who wants Obama to meddle are the neocons, and the President of Iran.
NG4
The Berlin Wall analogy does not apply.
First Reagan didn't say tear down that wall in
1987, seven years not seven months after he was elected. He also spent billions in an arms race that left both countries with huge deficits. Also the Civil Rights movement in this country helped spur social justices movements around the world. This the diffused the communism is better than capitalism argument
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!