Hayes misrepresented Obama comments to suggest excessive deference to Ahmadinejad
SUMMARY: In a June 18 blog post, Stephen Hayes claimed that President Obama "has gone to great lengths to avoid saying anything casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Ahmadinejad government" and said that during a CNBC interview, Obama repeatedly referred to the "Iranian government." In fact, Obama noted challenges to Ahmadinejad's legitimacy and did not refer to the "Iranian government" in that interview.
In a June 18 Weekly Standard blog post, Stephen Hayes claimed that President Obama "has gone to great lengths to avoid saying anything casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Ahmadinejad government and ... in his comments on CNBC earlier this week repeatedly referred to the thuggish regime as 'the Iranian government.' " In fact, during the June 16 interview with CNBC chief Washington correspondent John Harwood, Obama said, "[U]ltimately the question that the leadership in Iran has to answer is their own credibility in the eyes of the Iranian people." He continued: "[W]hen you've got 100,000 people who are out on the streets peacefully protesting, and they're having to be scattered through violence and gunshots, what that tells me is the Iranian people are not convinced of the legitimacy of the election." Moreover, at no point during the June 16 CNBC interview did Obama say "the Iranian government." Rather, Obama referred to "the leadership in Iran," "the regime," and the "Iranian regime" that "we were going to be dealing with" regardless of who won the election.
From the June 16 CNBC interview:
HARWOOD: Couple things, quickly, before we run out of time. You took your time reacting to the protests in Iran after the election. What are you watching for in the handling of those protests and in the investigation of the results to -- and how will that influence the dialogue that you seek to have with Iran?
OBAMA: Well, I think first of all, it's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. 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 is pursuing nuclear weapons. And so we've got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election. The second thing that I think's important to recognize is that the easiest way for reactionary forces inside Iran to crush reformers is to say it's the US that is encouraging those reformers. So what I've said is, 'Look, it's up to the Iranian people to make a decision. We are not meddling.' And, you know, ultimately the question that the leadership in Iran has to answer is their own credibility in the eyes of the Iranian people. And when you've got 100,000 people who are out on the streets peacefully protesting, and they're having to be scattered through violence and gunshots, what that tells me is the Iranian people are not convinced of the legitimacy of the election. And my hope is that the regime responds not with violence, but with a recognition that the universal principles of peaceful expression and democracy are ones that should be affirmed. Am I optimistic that that will happen? You know, I take a wait-and-see approach. Either way, it's important for the United States to engage in the tough diplomacy around those permanent security concerns that we have -- nuclear weapons, funding of terrorism. That's not going to go away, and I think it's important for us to make sure that we've reached out.
From Hayes' Weekly Standard blog post:
And later, in what could also be understood as rebuke of Obama -- who has gone to great lengths to avoid saying anything casting doubt on the legitimacy of the Ahmadinejad government and who, in his comments on CNBC earlier this week repeatedly referred to the thuggish regime as "the Iranian government" -- Makhmalbaf asked the international community not to recognize the government of Ahmadinejad as a legitimate government.
FP: Does Mousavi have a message that he'd like to deliver to the international community?
MM: [He asks] that the governments [of the world] pay attention to the people in the streets and do not recognize the government of Ahmadinejad as the representative of Iran -- [that they] do not recognize the government of Ahmadinejad as a legitimate government.
That being said, Obama's measured and reserved response to this crisis is exactly what we need to be doing. We cannot and should not be seen as meddlers in Iran's election. Those that want Obama to be front and center in the middle of all of this are jumping the gun, which is typical of most of these neocons and their buttinsky methods of foreign policy. Oh, and to get a few licks in at Obama as well.
It shows that Obama has a deeper understanding of the workings in Iran than our neocon bomb, bomb, bomb Iran friends do.
His point is that the clerics have final say and Mousavi has also supported being a nuclear weapon based nation.
Obama is right on here.
From whatever I have been reading in the media, there is not much difference between the two except that one is the establishment guy and other is a former establishment guy.
Much appreciated.
The nuclear program, women's rights, etc. are controlled by the theocrats in Iran, not the Iranian president ...
The two are representative of the very narrow spectrum allowed, by the Iranian mullahs, to participate in the democratic process. Mousavi went off the reservation in mid-campaign and adopted the pose of a reformer. It remains to be seen if this is genuine, or a ploy for votes--Mousavi has always been a very right-wing guy. Obama is quite correct on that point. The reason he's important is not as a leader of the opposition, though. His real significance is as a figurehead for the frustrations, resentment, and general disgust of the Iranian public with the current regime. Iran had been moving in a reform direction for years before Bush went into Iraq. That move put the hardliners back in the saddle, and saddled Iran and the rest of the world with Ahmadinejad, but that same discontent has continued to simmer, and what we're seeing now is an outpouring of it. If it hasn't already become a lot bigger than Mousavi, it soon will be, and he won't have a choice in the matter. Events have probably moved beyond candidates and elections.
That being said, Obama's measured and reserved response to this crisis is exactly what we need to be doing. We cannot and should not be seen as meddlers in Iran's election.
Absolutely not. The hardliners have blamed the unrest on U.S. agitation from the beginning. If Obama, President of the Great Satan, breathed a word in support of the reformers, of Mousavi, or against the Iranian regime, the reformers would be utterly discredited. What's particularly disgusting is that someone like John McCain would slam Obama on this matter. Is there anyone reading this who believes McCain wouldn't be reacting to this situation exactly the same way if he'd been elected president?
---
Left Hook! The Blog
http://claslib2.tripod.com/pow/
Mr. News
a perfect example is the approaches we have taken to cuba and venezuela. after almost fifty years, this year we did not veto the reentry of cuba to the organization of american states. and what is the result? castro is refusing to rejoin because he knows they will bring attention to his political prisoners. instead of us looking stubborn and obstinate, it's him.
we are wisely keeping a hands off policy with chavez and he is quickly making enemies among the military with his directives that no one criticize him or his government. the wisest thing is to let the attention stay on him and not let him use us as an excuse like castro did for so many years.
1. There is McCain on TV faulting Obama for not doing something about Iran. Their foreign policy positions were stated multiple times in last year's elections and voters sided with Obama's. He has nothing better to do?
2. There is the idiotic Congress (including Democrats) passing a useless resolution about supporting democracy in Iran. Tomrrow let's pass a meaningless resolution supporting some other group in the world.
Weren't they elected to something more productive for US citizens?
3. Similar reporting went on last year in the conflict between Russia and Georgia. Facts came out later that both sides were to blame (and not Russia alone).
Bottom line is this. If Mousavi won the elections but the results were manipulated (we can guess rationally but never be sure until WE count the probably rigged ballots), what business is it of ours to support the demonstrators whose candidate lost? Even if we take it to be our business, what the hell can we materially do about it?
And what help would it be to those demonstrators if we were to shout from the roof tops that we support them? Let them take care of themselves.
If the Iranians feel the need to change the government either through elections, or otherwise, they can and they will.
Thanks for reading my rant.