Comments on: Obama Sets High Bar for World Intervention

[Mortarman29]

Commenting on a woman's cold-blooded murder in the streets of Tehran, like the murder of babies, is evidently above Obama's "pay grade." (peace be upon him)

If it were true that a U.S. president should stay neutral between freedom-loving Iranian students and their oppressors, then why is Obama speaking in support of the protesters now? Are liberals no longer worried about the parade of horribles they claimed would ensue if the U.S. president condemned the mullahs?

Obama's tough talk this week proves that his gentle words last week about Ahmadinejad and Iran's "supreme leader" (peace be upon him) constituted, at best, spinelessness and, at worst, an endorsement of the fraud.

Moreover, if the better part of valor is for America to stand neutral between freedom and Islamic oppression, why are liberals trying to credit Obama's ridiculous Cairo speech for emboldening the Iranian protesters?

The only reason that bald contradiction doesn't smack you in the face is that it is utterly preposterous that Obama's Cairo speech accomplished anything -- anything worthwhile, that is. Not even the people who say that believe it.

The only reaction to Obama's Cairo speech in the Middle East is that the mullahs probably sighed in relief upon discovering that the U.S. president is a coward and an imbecile.

[Mortarman29]

More than a week ago, French president Nicolas Sarkozy said: "The ruling power claims to have won the elections ... if that were true, we must ask why they find it necessary to imprison their opponents and repress them with such violence."

But liberals rushed to assure us that Obama's weak-kneed response to the Iranian uprising and the consequent brutal crackdown was a brilliant foreign policy move. (They also proclaimed his admission that he still smokes "lion-hearted" and "statesmanlike.")

As our own Supreme Leader B. Hussein Obama (peace be upon him) explained, "It's not productive given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling."

You see, if the president of the United States condemned election fraud in Iran, much less put in a kind word for the presidential candidate who is not crazy, it would somehow crush the spirit of the protesters when they discovered, to their horror, that the Great Satan was on their side.

Liberals hate America, so they assume everyone else does, too.

So when a beautiful Iranian woman, Neda Agha Soltan, was shot dead in the streets of Iran during a protest on Saturday and a video of her death ricocheted around the World Wide Web, Obama valiantly responded by ... going out for an ice cream cone. (Masterful!)

[Mortarman29]

On Iran, President Obama is worse than Hamlet. He's Colin Powell, waiting to see who wins before picking a side.

Last week, massive protests roiled Iran in response to an apparently fraudulent presidential election, in which nutcase Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner within two hours of the polls closing. (ACORN must be involved.)

Obama responded by boldly declaring that the difference between the loon Ahmadinejad and his reformist challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, "may not be as great as advertised."

Maybe the thousands of dissenters risking their lives protesting on the streets of Tehran are doing so because they liked Mousavi's answer to the "boxers or briefs" question better than Ahmadinejad's.

Then, in a manly rebuke to the cheating mullahs, Obama said: "You've seen in Iran some initial reaction from the supreme leader" -- peace be upon him -- "that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."

Did FDR give speeches referring to Adolf Hilter as "Herr Fuhrer"? What's with Obama?

Even the French condemned the Iranian government's "brutal" reaction to the protesters -- and the French have tanks with one speed in forward and five speeds in reverse.

You might be a scaredy-cat if ... the president of France is talking tougher than you are.

[Mortarman29]

Is there anything resembling a fact in this post?

[ajjaxtheleast]

WHAT!??,,this CANT be!!!

You mean no more sitting around after an illegal
war crime invasion that directly and indirectly kills
a couple hundred thousand human beings, yes, Georgie,
they are,,WERE human beings, and saying "Well, we're
here now so lets just make the best of it."??

George set the bar low so that with less effort he could
continuously suck the suds from a straw,,,And now Obama
recognizes this as The Bush Folly in that it more
thoroughly weakens brain function resulting in faulty
visions such as The Man Upstairs ordering you to
commense the destruction of another country,,,

With a HIGH bar Obama now has NO excuse for the
war crimes HE is committing in Afghanistan.

I imagine Obama will presently be talking to his
speech writer.

[Mortarman29]

Is there anything resembling a fact in this post?

[Mortarman29]

Multinational force in Afghanistan? Are you kidding me? Americans are always the lead, the biggest force bringing the most assets and money. Having the "multinational forces" only helps us politically.

The American military always does the heavy lifting.

[mahalapril]

The problem now with the militarily weak Obama is not intervening or initiating a war in any part of the world. It will be defending our homeland from islamic fanatic terrorist attacks which Bush prevented for 8 years after 9/11.

[fedup12]

Hmmmm... Sounds good to me Im sick and tired of being the worlds police. Let some other countries pick up the tab once in awhile.

[lorinkundert]

Spoken like a true Marxist dictator, every nation is sovereign, what happens within it's borders is none of your business.

[bobbyduck1]

Thank God for a President that has more sense than to "shoot from the hip" and go off and start yet another war. It may come to that but if so, it should be like in Afghanistan where a truly multinational force agreed together to stop a common menace and went in with UN sanction.

Instead of the Bush/Cheney/Halliburton madness that took us into Iraq, and for what? Ego, greed and idiocy, and for nothing else. We invade Iraq but largely ignored Rwanda and Darfur.....boy what great world leaders we were while the GOP had the reins.... NEVER AGAIN!

YES WE CAN!

[Mortarman29]

Multinational force in Afghanistan? Are you kidding me? Americans are always the lead, the biggest force bringing the most assets and money. Having the "multinational forces" only helps us politically.

The American military always does the heavy lifting.

[johntarkenso]

We actually did have allies at the beginning of the Aghanistan war, until we decided to open a profit center in Iraq. Pretty hard for allied countries to hang with you when you display such dubious motivation.