Search Observer-Reporter

Search Archive

6/26/2009 3:33 AM

Email this article • Print this article  

This article has been read 344 times.

Paul Greenberg, in his column on this page Wednesday, was critical of President Barack Obama for his silence over the weekend on which Iranian elections were held and, most likely, rigged, and his tepid response later.

Greenburg wrote, "Things have changed since a president of the United States could be counted on to at least voice a protest when another people are cowed." He went on to praise Mitt Romney for his immediate gun burst, "the election is a fraud," as soon as the first returns were being announced, and John McCain for his reflexive outrage.

The Arizona senator said Obama needed to speak out about what McCain called Iran's "corrupt, flawed, sham of an election." Obama's 2008 presidential opponent also said the U.S. needs to support the Iranian people in their struggle against "an oppressive, repressive regime." McCain added that Iran's people should not have to face four more years under a hard-line leader and the country's radical Muslim clerics.

What McCain and Romney had to say may be entirely true, but it would have been foolish and wrong for the president to say so immediately.

Rate This Story:
1 the lowest - 5 the highest

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

Current rating:

Most administrations throughout the 20th century and into this one - with the possible exception of the last one - have recognized the grave significance of a president's response to events beyond the United States. Notably, the responses of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush - a career diplomat - were almost never immediate and always measured.

In the case of the Iranian elections, why screw up a perfectly good revolution in the making by taking credit for it? When the rest of the world is half convinced that the U.S. is ready to invade Iran, why turn world opinion against the protesters and for the Iranian regime, now portraying itself as the victim of U.S. connivance and aggression?

That's what would happen if Obama were to shoot from the hip, McCain style.

In the last election, this newspaper chose to endorse Obama, but not until after long debate. One thing that concerned us was McCain's reactionary behavior, his tendency to act first and think about the consequences later. Had he won the election, would his reaction to the recent events in Iran be as immediate and strong? We would hope not, but ...

This is not to say that everything is just wonderful with all pronouncements from the White House these days. Often, Oval Office reactions seem overly cautious and short on specifics. But it is at least reassuring that this administration apparently takes its time to consider the power and import of what the president says and when he says it.

Home

0 comments

All comments will be reviewed by administrators and posted to their respective articles within 24 hours. Comments deemed inappropriate will not be posted.

Subject:
Body:
Poster:

Enter text seen above: