Yesterday, the world heard a desperate Iranian woman tearfully describe the horrific slaughter of innocents occurring in her country, which included axe wielding Basiji forces.
“They are killing students with axe…you know they…they…put the axe through the heart of young men! …And it’s sooo….. devastating!
“This is horrific, This is genocide This is a massacre!…This is Hitler!” she cried, …pleading for us to act. “It’s time to act!”
She wasn’t exaggerating:
According to Threats Watch:
To my intelligent friends who have been arguing the logic of our president’s near silence on the issue of Iran – and not without merit on certain points – you can disengage from me now. I will entertain none of it any longer.
This is an axe wound, just one, doled out by the regime’s thug basiji animals on Saturday, June 20, 2009.
This was a brutal murder of an assuredly unarmed protester of the up-close-and-personal variety. An act, and one not isolated, which requires the presence of inhumane malice and aggression and the absence of humanity. The traits required for massacres upon the unarmed. There is no nuance, no logical approach, no deft explanation that covers near silence and inadequate, tepid condemnation of the meekest sort. To decline any mention of possible repercussions on the regime for these acts “because we don’t know how this is going to turn out” is moral cowardice of the highest order. Look at the picture above and listen to the frantic woman calling in to CNN again. They seem to “know how this is going to turn out.”
There is a way to condemn a regime axing its citizens in the streets of Tehran and other cities across Iran without “making this about the US.” You, and our president, are intelligent men and women and lacking no gifts of speech and prose. Find what’s missing. Each of you frustrate and sadden me. Argue your eloquent points elsewhere. My ears are deaf as of now.
Related opeds from a trio of morally outraged women:
1. Ann Coulter:
OBAMA TO IRAN: LET THEM EAT ICE CREAM
On Iran, President Obama is worse than Hamlet. He’s Colin Powell, waiting to see who wins before picking a side.
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.
On the wrong side of history
This is the regime before which Obama has been grovelling. We have learned from the Washington Times (whose reporter is apparently being thrown out of Iran) that before the disputed Iranian election, Obama sent a letter to supreme Leader Khamanei, holding out the prospect of ‘cooperation in regional and bilateral relations’ and a resolution of the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program. Surprise surprise – the outcome of this craven display of weakness was mockery of the US by Khamanei.
Now the Obama administration has got really tough! It has cancelled its invitations to Iranian diplomats to attend Independence Day celebration parties — the very parties that only the day before, in his pathetically feeble press conference, Obama said that the ‘Iranians will have to decide whether they want to attend’. The Iranians must indeed be quaking now. It would be laughable were it not so serious that such a clown is in the White House, and at such a time.
A Weak American President
…when the president was asked Tuesday: “Is there any red line that your administration won’t cross where that offer [to talk to Iran’s leaders] will be shut off?” He answered: “We’re still waiting to see how it plays itself out.”
And when asked again, “If you do accept the election of Ahmadinejad … without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn’t that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working to achieve?” He answered: “We can’t say definitively what exactly happened at polling places.”
And asked again: “Why won’t you spell out the consequences that the Iranian people…” He answered: “Because I think that we don’t know yet how this thing is going to play out.”
And yet again: “Shouldn’t the present regime know that there are consequences?” He answered: “We don’t yet know how this is going to play out.”
This is a man who embodies the opposite of the courage to act.
Rep. McCotter speaks forcefully on the insanity of appeasement verses moral clarity on Red Eye + the best Gov Sanford joke I’ve heard so far:
A blast from the past: Former President GW Bush speaks directly to the Iranian people in March 2008:
First of all, the United States of America wishes everybody a Happy New Year. Secondly, [the] people of the United States respect the great Iranian history and culture. We have great respect for the people, and we’ve got problems with the government. We have problems with the government because the government has been threatening, has made decisions that –and statements that — really have isolated the people of Iran.
My message to the young in Iran is that someday your society will be free. And it will be a blessed time for you. My message to the women of Iran is that the women of America share your deep desire for children to grow up in a hopeful society and to live in peace.
I think the people of Iran are going to have to come to the conclusion that a free country is in their interest. We, of course, support freedom movements all around the world. We are supporting a freedom movement on the Iranian border, in Iraq. We are promoting and helping the Iraqis develop a free society. By the way, a free Iraq will help the Iranians seek the blessings of a free society. There’s no doubt in my mind that the women will be leading freedom movements in Iran and elsewhere, and the role of the United States is to provide moral support and other support without undermining their cause.
But of course, Bush was a “meddler”.
My previous posts on the crackdown in Iran: