Postworthy

I think there was one serious mistake made by the Reagan
administration, and that was the idea that you could deal and temporize
with and negotiate successfully with terrorists who were running Iran.
And that was a mistake, as President Reagan was courageous enough to
admit and agree to later on. He was misled by some very wrong advice
and it had very terrible consequences in the [Beirut] Airport. —Caspar Weinberger

Two of the most ludicrous and perplexing statements regarding the
Iranian elections came, poignantly, from Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton. Unfortunately, they occupy the top two positions within the
hierarchy of American foreign policy.

Ludicrous and perplexing statement number one from Obama: "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."

Ludicrous and perplexing statement number two from Clinton: "It’s a
very positive sign that the people of Iran want their voices and their
votes to be heard and counted. And like many people inside and outside
of Iran we are going to wait and see what the results are."

Their statements are alarming, considering the naivety of their
unsophisticated expectations of the probable outcome of the Iranian
elections. A senior State Department official even had the callowed
audacity to state that there might be the possibility of a run-off in
the Iranian election.  No one, and I emphasize, no one
possessing a modicum of knowledge regarding Iran, its history, and this
regime, other than our elected and appointed leaders, expected anything
different than the result this election produced. The one variable that
was not foreseen before these fraudulent election results were
announced, was the overwhelming breadth of the protest and public
dissent by the opposition to the current regime; but the retaliatory
violence by Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, very
predictable.

Barack Obama, America’s first celebrity president, is reacting in
the same fashion as he did during the majority of his short tenure in
the senate, by voting "present" on the situation in Iran. Perhaps Obama
is in a state of bewilderment since he has declared that he tried to
send a clear message to the Islamic world during his speech to the
Islamic world in Cairo that his administration sees a possibility for a
change in relations. That message, that dynamic dialogue, should have
prevented the Iranian election fraud and ensuing bloody aftermath, and
thus, bestowed more glorious adulations onto Obama; but reality
interfered with that fantasy, again.

Obama may have wagered on a perverse form of a trifecta: Could he
actually believe the hype circulating in the leftist media that his
Cairo speech influenced the victory of a pro-Western majority in the
Lebanese election? Did he honestly believe there would be a Democratic
election in Iran that would run as smoothly as an election in the U.S.
under ACORN’s supervision? And finally, did he believe there would be
robust and honest dialogue with the winner of the Iranian election
about their vexatious nuclear aspirations?

Unfortunately, Obama’s Cairo speech, after digestion, was a vacuous
fantasy filled with dishonesty and aspersions of America, with very
little reality-based substance. There has been somewhat of a positive
transformation in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, with Libya
removed from the terror list; the Democratic advancements in Iraq; the
pro-Western election winners in Lebanon; and especially, sans electoral
thievery, the probable victory of  moderate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, in
Iran over Ahmadinejad.  But this process was started while Obama, when
not campaigning for president, was occupying a Senate seat in Illinois,
railing against the Iraq war; and these positives can be attributed not
to the current administration, but to U.S. foreign policy in the Middle
East during the Bush administration.

While the streets of Iran are covered by the blood of people hoping
for change, Obama’s hope of taking credit for the wonderful outcome of
a Democratic election, made possible by robust dialogue, was derailed
by the bloody crackdown conducted by a murderous regime he refuses to
completely denounce, and with which he will, without pre-conditions,
have future dialogue.

It has become unbearable to listen to the sycophantic left of this
country, especially the media, after the Cairo speech, who are so
fanatical about Obama succeeding at all costs, that they truly believe
that this man, this mountebank, can stand in front of a teleprompter in
Cairo regurgitating lies, deceit, unintelligible history, and make
fantastic claims, that his speech, his words, are going to restructure
the 1,500-year precarious relationship between the Middle East and the
rest of the world, forever altering the politics of the Middle East.

Obama’s Middle East trespass is threefold: an absurdly adolescent
understanding of the world we occupy; believing that Iran has a
legitimate right to nuclear energy; and not having the political, nor
personal courage to make a definitive stand against the current regime
in Iran. Obama is not being asked to charge into Iran with the cavalry,
but there is a distinct line between right and wrong, and
unfortunately, as a leader, when that choice presents itself, a
decision has to be made as to which side one is on, and doing nothing
is choosing sides–the wrong side. Obama’s naive and anemic calls for
Iran to pursue a "peaceful path" to the election resolution and making
clear that it is "not too late" for Iran to do so, is, quite frankly,
morally repulsive. The damage is done; it was done immediately after
the election results. Bolstered by Iran’s refusal to stop their nuclear
proliferation, the blatant support of terrorist organizations, and now
this barbarity with the elections, there is no excuse not to banish
Iran to the status of Somalia: a government devoid of international
recognition. As opposed to Obama, and with clear and decisive moral
authority–a character trait Obama has demonstrated time and again he
does not possess–Germany’s Merkel has unequivocally and officially
sided with the protesters in Iran, along with France’s Sarkozy.

Yes, Obama, there will be change in Iran; there will be change the
day they consummate their quest for nuclear weapons, then there will be
change, indeed.

Using the old Chinese proverb, A Picture’s Meaning Can Express Ten Thousand Words, please enjoy the following 80,000 words of the robust dialogue of which Obama spoke of in Iran: