Concurring Only In Part

Andrew McCarthy deconstructs Obama on Iran:
Obama will always give ground on ideology (as little as circumstances allow) in order to maintain his grip on power.

It would have been political suicide to issue a statement supportive of the mullahs, so Obama's instinct was to do the next best thing: to say nothing supportive of the freedom fighters. As this position became increasingly untenable politically, and as Democrats became nervous that his silence would become a winning political round for Republicans, he was moved grudgingly to burble a mild censure of the mullah's "unjust" repression — on the order of describing a maiming as a regrettable "assault," though enough for the Obamedia to give him cover. But expect him to remain restrained and to continue grossly understating the Iranian regime's deadly response. That will change only if, unexpectedly, it appears that the freedom-fighters may win, at which point he'll scoot over to the right side of history and take all conceivable credit.

Well, yes, but.... Mr. W & I were talking about this at dinner and agreeing that in the case of Iran any President has three choices.

  • Speak strongly and be prepared to take real action
  • Speak strongly yet do nothing
  • Keep as quiet as you can.
Of the three, Obama has chosen the second best course, which is option three. The worst thing he could do is take the UN option --yak a lot and do nothing at all. I'm for standing on the side of freedom and against the mullahs, but that only makes sense if you intend to back your words with action. The worst and most immoral thing the President could do is make pretty speeches about freedom, stir people into a frenzy, and then not back them up (Hungarian uprising, anyone? Iraq, 1993?) So, while I'm not happy, given who's in the Oval Office, I'm grateful the President's not doing much worse and think much Conservative criticism of him is... while not exactly wrong, at least unrealistic.