President Obama--belatedly--issued a statement today that the Iranian people had a "universal right" to free speech, the exercise of which should not be denied/punished by the government of Iran.
Say what? "Universal right?" Is that not the thing PRESIDENT BUSH used to say? Did not Saddam Hussein MORE violently oppress his people than Iran has (so far)? Is Obama saying this is a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY? Does that justify the Iraq Warl--at least moreally? (Of course it does, to answer that last question.) Wasn't much of the media praise of Obama's Mideast trip, and his speech to the Muslim world, to the effect taht Obama recognized that we had not right to impose our "values" on the Muslim world? Is not the "universal right of free speech" one of those "values" of ours? What about democracy? Do not "ree speech" and democracy go hand in hand? NO non-demcracy can xist for long and truly allow "free speech". Very few Muslim countries allow real "free speech". Has not Obama just CONTRADICTED what he said on his Mideast trip? In fact, the only country he really criticized on that trip was ISRAEL, which has both democracy and free speech. Did Iran have "free speech" BEFORE these election protests? Be real. President Obama will simply say ANYTHING that "sounds good", even if it conradicts what he said yesterday. He is the most hypocritical and intellectually dishonest President of my lifetime--although, admittedly, only engaging in the type of hypocrisy that is enemic to the left and the mainstream media (that redundancy again).
I am presently reading (listening to) Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey. Yep. JANE AUSTEN gave an absolutely devastating critism of President Barack Hussein Obama--some 200 years ago. As perhaps no one has ever done better than Jane Austen, she criticizes the type of person--represented by one of her characters, Mir. Thorpe, but phrased in a devastating criticism of an entire character type--who contradicts what hes said yesterday with no embarrassment, and no apparent awareness that he is doing so. President Obama is the perfect example of that character type--overstating what he says in the first place, and yet willing to contradict it the next day. The man (President Obama) is a menace, and Jane Austen pegged him thos centuries ago.
Notice again how this blog was proven right, IN FORESIGHT. While the mainstream media was praising Pr3esident Obama for a "history changing" sppech (like "Mi. Gorbachev, tear down that wall") in the Mideast, I told you that the speech would have NO effect at all, except for making our enemies--like North Korea and Iran--BOLDER. I later told you that Iran could only interpret Obama's silence on Iran's treatment of the lection, along with that Mideast trip and speech, as a BLANK CHECK. Did not President Obama PROMISE Iran that we had "no right" to impose "our values" on Muslim countries?
Whatever else it has done, the Iran "crisis" has shown exactly what I said to be true, right after Obama's Mideast speech: The speech was MEANINGLESS--not "historic" in any way except, perhaps, for the pandering to the oppressive aspects of the "Muslim" world. Can ANYONE now think that Obama's speech had any lasting significance?
Yes, I know. The mainstream media can. And Obama can. Ingoring the real content of Obama's message to Ran and Muslims, expect Obama and/or the media to give Obama CREDIT for the protests in Iran. Now they may not do it NOW, but expect it if the government of Iran were to FALL (which I do not expect). Why not do it NOW? Well, they may float a trial balloon, but what if these Iran portests end up in the people being CRUSHED (as hapend in Hungary and Czechoslovakia when the evil empire of the Soviet Unon was dentying the "universal right of free speech")? Does Obama rally want credit for ENCOURAGING these protests (which he did not do), and then face the blame for ABANDONING the protestors after they are crushed by the regime? I don't think Obama wants to go there, just as he did not want to "go there" as to criticism of the Iran government--until virtually forced to catch up with everyone else. Even then, Obama was unable to resist--as Jane Austen's character could not resist--the outrageous contradiction of his own previous words.
"Universal right of free speech" indeed!!!!!! The man has no shame.
P.S.: I have criticized Fox News in the past for being part of the mainstream media problem, and not part of the solution. I withdraw none of that criticism. However, Fox News distinguished itself on Saturday, and deserves major credit for it. Fox News went "live" from Iran basically the whole afternoon/evening (maybe all day, but I did not look at Fox News in the morning). Fox was the only cable network to do so, and probably the only network. This involves spending substantial MONEY ("the same as cash", to quote Yogi Berra). Further, Fox seemed to be doing a pretty good job. This is on a day--Saturday--when there are not that many television viewers. Fox deserves to GAIN viewers because of this news decision. Iran is a heckuva more significant news event than, say, the plane crash of JFK, Jr. And short term ratings cannot be the goal (as with JFK, Jr.). Long term ratings may be the goal, but long term ratings SHOULD follow from correct news decisions. .
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment