Translated article thru googleObama politically neutral line has aroused strong criticism from the political opposition in the United States. They believe he must run a tougher line against the election of Ahmadinejad, and clearly take the demonstrator's side.
- He must speak out about the election is tainted, counterfeit and fraud - that the Iranian people are deprived of their rights, said the republican John McCain on NBC program "Today", writes AP.
Obama, however, expressed "deep concern" for the obvious attacks on freedom of speech and democracy, and says the troubles show that "the Iranian people are not convinced valgets legitimacy", NTB reported.Do you get any deja vu's here, Americans? ;-)
The auto translation of this article is not very correct, I'm afraid, so don't take all you read as fair game. But the above translates correctly, and the Republicans are according to that attacking Obama for _not_ speaking out. So, how double standard is this, if you were here in 2004?
Another
article has a diametrically opposite view of the situation:
Obama will be according to the BBC have been set to the wall by some conservative politicians in the United States for his support to the opposition supporters, especially because it is pointed out that Ahmadinejad is actually in the theory may have passed out from the election as a winner, too, if the results have not been tampered with.Yeah? So he's, according to republicans, both doing not enough and doing too much. Another quote from the last article:
- Iran's voices must be heard, but I will not go in and mediate. It is not productive, the history between the U.S. and Iran taken into consideration, he said, according to the channel's website.A reaction from the US president which, in Norwegian media and by US republicans, are portrayed as a result of Obama's lack of action OR too much action, that's the only possible outcome apparently.
And it all is played out with the backdrop of Ahmadinejad's lust for nuclear arms and the history of enmity between the US and Iran for the last decades, as contentum.
What they don't mention is the coup in 1953 and all the aftermath of that, which will make the US president a not neutral entity in this matter, and the fact that Obama is not a kinglet like Bush, who reached into other nations with great arrogance to change them to his benefit. With disastrous results, as we now know.
Obama has this in mind, he's a smart man. He knows that if the US goes in too deep officially, this can be used against the democracy movement by the regime supporters.
The repubs doesn't want a democratic Iran, that would ruin their world picture. They have proven this again and again up through history. If the Iran religious regime disappeared, it would mean that Reaganism is truly dead.