Klingons Attack President Obama Over Iranian Elections

klingons

Update: President Obama spoke about the Iranian elections just a short while ago, striking a note in line with his pre-election statement:

“It is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be,” President Obama said this afternoon, underlining “that we respect Iranian sovereignty.”

The president added, however, that he is “deeply troubled by the violence I have been seeing on television. I think that the, the democratic process, free speech, the ability for people to peacefully dissent, all those are universal values and need to be respected.”

Mr. Obama said the US “will continue to pursue a tough direct dialogue between our two countries and we’ll see where it takes us.  But even as we do so, it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we’ve seen on the television over the last few days and what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was.”


Sometimes, I think the right forgets about the “diplomatic” part of “diplomacy.” Or maybe they think the word refers to “diplomas,” and form their opinions by consulting the GED set.

Powerline has a typically insightful review of President Obama’s statement on the Iranian elections, before all hell broke loose:

On Friday, President Obama had this to say about the election in Iran:

We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran. Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways.

This was an extremely foolish comment for at least two reasons. First, the debate in Iran was circumscribed. The candidates were screened by the mullahs. Four were permitted to run; hundreds were deemed insufficiently in tune with the “Revolution.” And there appars to have little or no debate on the issue of primary concern to the U.S. — Iran’s nuclear program. Ahmadinejad’s main rival, Mir-Hossein Moussavi, was in full agreement with the regime on this matter.

Second, there was always a strong possibility of election fraud. Robust debate, even had it existed, would be meaningless in the face of a fraudulent election.

This is a simple-minded misread of the President’s statement. Now, I’m sure Kang and the Gang would have preferred something about how we’re on the lookout for fraud, and we ain’t gonna take no mess, and if things go to hell, there’s gonna be pon farr to pay.

The purpose of the statement was to establish the US’ good faith in our approach to Iran’s elections. That way, if there is fraud, we can easily demonstrate Iran’s bad faith.

They also accuse the President of praising “an election that appears to have been a travesty.” Now, let’s read the President’s statement another way:

We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran. Whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact there has been a robust debate hopefully will advance our ability to engage them in new ways.

Yeah, not seeing the praise. In fact,it reads like a diplomatic way of saying “We’re on the lookout for fraud, and we ain’t gonna take no mess, and if things go to hell, there’s gonna be pon farr to pay.”

Powerline’s observation that “Robust debate, even had it existed, would be meaningless in the face of a fraudulent election,” seems to have been lost on would-be head Klingon Mitt Romney, who saw all kinds of meaning in the “possibly” fraudulent election:

Romney began, however, by arguing that Barack Obama’s remark that there was a “robust debate” in Iran had proven to be badly off the mark, as witnessed by “brutal repression” of election day protesters. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s widely contested victory, he added, was another indication that Obama’s approach to the Middle East and world at large wasn’t working.

So, Romney misreads Obama’s statement the same way, then draws conclusions from information that he, himself, suspects is fraudulent. Presumably, Mitt will recant if it turns out the Iranians elected the “right guy.”

This is fairly typical stuff for Republicans, who never met a problem they didn’t want to solve by opening a can of Blood Wine with a bat lethe and grunting out some threatening-sounding gibberish. That might get you points at Klingon Fight Club, but it doesn’t really help those with skin in the game:

The tone struck by the administration thus far has been the appropriate one: questioning the announced results of the election, condemning human rights abuses, but not prejudging the outcome or explicitly allying themselves with opposition candidate and “real” election winner Mir Hossein Mousavi. For one, as many have observed, a Mousavi victory will not necessarily change the balance of interests in the region, but even if he will put a more pragmatic face on Iranian policy-making, explicit U.S. support will hurt his popular legitimacy and give Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his allies credence in claiming authenticity. This last point will probably strike many as pretty obvious, but it’s apparently never occurred to Bill Kristol.

The conservative-dominated Twitter community was on the right track in focusing on the lack of coverage of the unrest in Iran, and its own facilitation of same. Whatever the outcome, the pressure from the US and the rest of the world will be determined by the amount of sunlight on this situation.

Advertisements

6 Comments

  1. […] Republicans join Klingons in assault on President Obama’s handling of the Iranian Elections. Republicans, who never met […]

  2. can mitt romney be even more of a hairsprayed bimbo than he was last year?

  3. Kingof…..NO.

  4. *bat’leth, not bat lethe. OR WAS THAT ANOTHER DORK VENUS FLYTRAP?

  5. […] Right Wing Creaming Over Obama and Iran – Ice Cream, Cream Puffs While President Obama has rolled out a still-stronger statement on the unrest in Iran, there are some on the right who are more obsessed with cream than with productive diplomacy. […]

  6. […] pure opportunism, that the concern was feigned as an excuse to criticize President Obama.  Indeed, this was true of some GOP politicians, but in the Twitter community, the Iranian election developed into a moment of surprising […]


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s