Obama will condemn Iran abuses (12:30 news Conference)

[kpete]

Source: Financial Times

Obama will condemn Iran abuses
Tue, 06/23/2009 - 9:38am

President Barack Obama will condemn Iranian government use of violence against peaceful protesters and other human rights abuses at a 12:30pm news conference, sources in touch with the administration say. The president's planned news conference was moved from the Rose Garden to the James Brady briefing room.

The announcement will come after a weekend in which Iranian paramilitary and security crackdown killed from 10 to 19 demonstrators and onlookers, arrested and detained opposition supporters, kicked out most of the foreign press corps, arrested a dozen journalists and banned the rest from covering protests, and accused the United States, Britain and other nations of meddling. The British Embassy is reportedly evacuating families of diplomatic staff.

Iran's Guardian Council, a top clerical body, today declared that there was no fraud in the vote count that found incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the landslide winner of elections, and that the elections would not be annulled.


Read more: http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/06/23/obama_will_condemn_iran_abuses

[rocktivity]

1. Will? He HAS been!

x(
rocktivity

[ddiver]

6. Do you have a quote of that condemnation? This is all I have found....

"We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people," Obama said in a written statement. "The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights."

"The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government," Obama said. "If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion."

The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That's what they do."

"I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process, free speech, the ability for folks to peacefully dissent, all those are
Obama Deplores Iran Protest Violence universal values and need to be respected."

Hardly a condemnation, but indeed a fierce advocate.

[rocktivity]

7. This isn't a condenmation because he doesn't use the actual word?

:shrug:
rocktivity

[ddiver]

8. Yes. This is a condemnation....

The House of Representatives expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law; condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections.


Obama expressed "concern".

The difference is clear. Many here have applauded the lack of condemnation from Obama. There's no having it both ways.

[caseymoz]

11. Obama has to be extremely careful.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3935194&mesg_id=3935357

One wrong word could help the conservatives and weaken the opposition. If he expresses outrage, he raises the fear of the US that the Islamic regime has used to stay in power. If he expresses strong support for the opposition, he raises the specter of the US trying to manipulate the outcome of the election: something the conservatives could use against the opposition by saying that they are stooges of the US. Iranians are especially sensitive to interference by the US, for good reason.

[ddiver]

12. That is why I asserted there was no condemnation from Obama.

Because there has not been one no matter how many CAP LADEN statements to the contrary.

[AlphaCentauri]

2. did Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won the election?

I've read all this post about the stolen election, nobody has come forward to probe it.

[sufrommich]

4. "nobody has come forward to probe it"

I assume you mean "prove". Why would you think the Iranian government would be open to any access to their election results? Information has been effectively blocked in Iran.

[AlphaCentauri]

15. OK prove it

we know information has been blocked and yahoo, google, twitter and face book are doing their best to bring the best information out of Iran. I can't dispute that there is violence there but not even state department is saying that the election was stolen.

[ohio2007]

21. LOL , your wish is granted

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3935859
;)
ala ahkbar

[AlphaCentauri]

23. al ilah al muta'annis

:patriot:

[JudyInTheHeartland]

13. In some districts, more than 100% of the population "voted"

The election was obviously fraudulent.

[AlphaCentauri]

16. Where are those numbers?

I don't see any institution like the UN showing any, does any human rights organization have them?

[JudyInTheHeartland]

17. See below.

Chatham House, a British think tank, published a study over the weekend in which it found irregularities by comparing Iranian presidential voting in 2009 and 2005 against the 2006 census published by the official Statistical Center of Iran. The report finds that two conservative provinces reported turnouts of more than 100% and that in a third of all provinces, this year's official results would have meant Ahmadinejad won not only all the conservative voters from 2005, but also the centrist voters from then and all new voters -- as well as 44% of reformist voters.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran24-2009jun24,0,4945198.story

[Mari333]

3. dont buy into the crazed Right wing chest thumping dick waving bullshit

those chickenhawks are always pounding the pavement with their shrivelled private bits when it comes to foreign policy, then they gloat as they rake in the cash while our kids go overseas and die to keep other people's bank accounts plum with money.
just say you are behind the people, and dont interfere.

[Soylent Brice]

9. "Right wing chest thumping dick waving bullshit"

:rofl:

see, it's funny cause it's true.

[ohio2007]

5. absolute power

[caseymoz]

10. Obama deserves some credit here for extending a peace offer to Iran, twice.

That regime has used fear of the United States to stay in power. When Obama removed the fear of the US, within months the Islamic Republic has become destabilized. There was a good reason why Iran's hard line politicians kept snubbing the US and saying the overture wasn't sincere, or that it was a trap. Also, there was a good reason why they arrested Roxana Saberi for spying months ago: the hard-liners were trying before the election to provoke an angry response from Obama. It did not work, and they had to relent.

There's also a certain anger toward to US for its past interference in Iranian affairs, which is why when Bush spoke out for the moderates before the previous election, the Iranian people voted overwhelmingly for the conservatives. It was another stroke of genius for Democracy Boy.

Obama had better chose his words carefully today, but indications are that he knows exactly what he's doing.

[melm00se]

14. damned if he does, damned if he doesn't

no matter what Obama says, who he says it to or how he says it to, it will be wrong and not just in this country.

if he condemns the Iranian government, it will provide fodder for the existing government to blast claiming that the USA is interfering with the internal workings of their country. If he doesn't say anything (or is namby pamby about it), he will be accused of not supporting the (apparently) pro-western dissidents, thus weakening the support of the dissidents emboldening the existing Iranian government to take stronger actions against the dissidents.

IMO, as the Iranian government will blame the USA for anything at anytime, Obama should just come out and blast them and throw his vocal support behind the dissidents. I don't think it would make the relationship between the USA and Iran any worse.

[ohio2007]

18. He doesn't offer supprt for theIranians that asked him this question

1:45 PM ET -- HuffPost asks Obama a question about Iran at press conference.

My colleague Nico Pitney was given the opportunity to ask a question at Obama's press conference today that came directly from an Iranian. His question for the president was: "Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working toward?"

Obama's response:



"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/31508276#31508276"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html




They have to dig themselves out and lift themselves up by the bootstraps.

[EFerrari]

19. Obama is right. The guy asked the wrong question.

It's not up to anyone outside of Iran to "accept" their election results. It is up to the world community to object to violence against the populace by the Iranian government.

[ohio2007]

20. This is the question the Iranian wanted asked and thats the one Barack agreed to answer imo

"you gotta want it" in order to get it so don't expect it to be handed to you.You are on your own to sink or swim. 'give peace a chance' and oh yeah, the world will keep watching your jihad

imo,
it was sort of a cyberspace "Bay of Pigs" moment kind of statement but this time, the cell phone camera is going to do the shooting while the world observes the beach activity.

Obama has been following his posts like the rest of us all weekend as he mentioned at the get go;

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/31508276#31508276


I didn't hear Obama scold the theocracy ( like some seem to have mentioned ) but the theocracy will 'parse' every word and respond in kind when ready.

[EFerrari]

22. No matter who wanted it asked, it was the wrong question.

And you have to question the independence of a movement that needs the United States to accept or reject their elections. If that is where that question originated, which I doubt.