|
| |
OBAMA TO IRAN: LET THEM EAT ICE CREAM
BY Ann Coulter
AnnCoulter.com
June 24, 2009
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.
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. (It also wouldn't do much for Al
Franken in Minnesota.)
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!)
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."
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.
Two weeks ago, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman was exulting over the
"free and fair" national election in Lebanon, in which the voters threw out
Hezbollah and voted in the "U.S.-supported coalition." (Apparently support from
America is not deemed the vote-killer in Lebanon that it allegedly is in Iran.)
To justify his Times-expensed airfare to Beirut, Friedman added some local
color, noting that "more than one Lebanese whispered to me: Without George Bush
standing up to the Syrians in 2005 ... this free election would not have
happened."
That's what Lebanese voters said.
But Friedman also placed a phone call to a guy at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace -- which he didn't have to go to Lebanon for -- to get a
quote supporting the ludicrous proposition that Obama's Cairo speech was
responsible for the favorable election results in Lebanon.
"And then here came this man (Obama)," Mr. Carnegie Fund said, "who came to them
with respect, speaking these deep values about their identity and dignity and
economic progress and education, and this person indicated that this little
prison that people are living in here was not the whole world. That change was
possible."
I think the fact that their Muslim brethren are now living in freedom in a
democratic Iraq might have made the point that "change was possible" and "this
little prison" is "not the whole world" somewhat more forcefully than a speech
apologizing for Westerners who dislike the hijab.
Obama -- and America -- are still living off President Bush's successes in the
war on terrorism. For the country's sake, may those successes outlast Obama's
attempt to dismantle them.
COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106