Posted by
VBushmills on Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:49:06 PM
We have to ask this question a
second time.
Candidate Obama told us that he wanted to rebuild America's image abroad. Since then he's given the finger to the British Prime Minister, the Queen, the entire British Isles, President Sarkozy, and apparently German Chancellor Angela Merkel doesn't like him out of sheer common sense. Respect, repeat, "respect" for Obama is dwindling twice as fast in Europe as it is in Iowa.
So, did he lie during the campaign? We doubt it. Apparently, candidate Obama didn't give a hoot in hell about our relations with the First World (there's that vaunted doublespeak again). It's the Third World where he wants to repair our sullied image; the Arab street, the Kenyan street, the Indonesian street, etc. But not actually "the street", mind you, for Democrats in general and socialists in particular could care less about better relationships with the man-in-any-street, or "the drones" as they are affectionately thought of in Washington. It's the Petty-Potentate-at-One-UN-Plaza crowd who Obama wants to repair America's sinking image with...as one statist to another. Outside of a few pajama-clad bloggers in Ames, I don't think that's what Iowa voters had in mind either.
With that in mind, I'm trying to sort out what and who he was talking about by defending his tepid inaction about the bloodshed in Iran at yestderday's press conference. VB stated correctly that Obama was waiting to "see how things played" in Iran, i.e., to see who wins, and "Hey, guys, the hot dog invitation still stands", while Tehran's streets run red.
Who was his intended audience in defending this strange (and cowardly, per Vassar Bushmills) statements yesterday? His defense of "appearing not to meddle" was so as to deny Tehran's government from claiming US or CIA or worse, Obama involvement in ginning up the street riots in the first place. Tehran did anyway.
But to who that mattered?
Europe had already "meddled" more by decrying the slaughter in tones that befit major players. Who was Obama fearful might be convinced or swayed by this charge of meddling? Not the Iranian people. They already know better. They know their own minds even in the Great One doesn't. We doubt even the Sunni Muslim world ( a huge part of the Arab street) would either, for they don't really like Iran very much, anyway. Those two guys in bathrobes in Ames? A strawman?
My only guess is Hezbollah in Lebanon. Maybe he's afraid that the Hezbollah street in Beirut and environs will believe this dirty CIA-Obama lie. They might, you know.
But why?
Simpatico, or fear?
Bernard Chumm