June 15, 2009

Obama Got His 3:00 AM Call...

and refused to pick up the phone:

The White House has not issued a statement expressing support for the protestors declaring the election illegitimate. But neither has anyone in the Obama administration said a public word accepting the legitimacy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's reelection.

"We're reacting to concrete facts," a White House official tells ABC News. "We're collecting them still."

Via Hot Air.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at June 15, 2009 12:58 PM

"We're reacting to concrete facts. We're collecting them still". In other words, We're voting "present".

Posted by: Tim at June 15, 2009 01:07 PM

He missed the call...he was out on another "date night" with Michelle.

Posted by: Steve at June 15, 2009 01:38 PM

I don't see how this helps Michelles kids......

Posted by: zipity at June 15, 2009 01:39 PM

Maybe you can check with David Letterman for a quote.

Posted by: jdflorida at June 15, 2009 01:40 PM

The union contract for the Teleprompter scriptwriter specifically says that no scripts shall be produced without 24 hours prior notice.

Posted by: Micropotamus at June 15, 2009 01:42 PM

It's a distraction.

Posted by: Brad at June 15, 2009 01:46 PM

I wonder if he will manage to craft a response more quickly than he did when Russia invaded Georgia?

I'm betting the over on this one.

Posted by: moqui at June 15, 2009 01:55 PM

The problem is that for both of the Obamas and many of their followers US support for the people on the streets of Tehran would somehow delegitimize their cause. If you haven't figured it out yet our new genius President is a Franz Fanon disciple. This is why his speech to the Muslim world spent so much time decrying colonialism. Fanon-ism, if you will, is the kind of communism that was popular when Obama's parents would have gotten together to make the One.

Posted by: Frege at June 15, 2009 02:05 PM

Yeah, it's all fun and puns until Israel gets nuked. Hell, it's not like Ahmenidijad is hiding his intentions. He's kinda of like Hitler in that way.

Posted by: Roy Mustang at June 15, 2009 02:08 PM

While my heart is with the protestors, I wonder if Obama is not playing it smart here. If he comes out too strongly in support of the opposition, the regime can play the protestors as tools of the West.

Posted by: Anthony at June 15, 2009 02:08 PM


He is playing it" smart".

He doesn't want to encourage the protesters because he supports his fellow totalitarian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

He does not want the Iranians to "Hope" for a "Change" from their Islamofascist regime to something less totalitarian.

The only thing lacking in this whole sorry mess is St. Jimmah (I never met a dictator I didn't like) of Plains declaring the Iranian "election" "fair".

Posted by: Nahanni at June 15, 2009 02:20 PM

Anthony, about what regime can that not be said?

Would you have said that about South Africa under apartheid? Czechoslovakia under the Soviets?

Czechoslovakia under Hitler?

Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at June 15, 2009 02:20 PM

And if he doesn't say anything at all (especially after his push for "a new start with Muslims"), he will appear weak, indecisive and full of hot air.

A truly smart President would come out strongly for free and fair elections.

Posted by: Roy Mustang at June 15, 2009 02:31 PM

Except he's not in favor of free and fair elections, Roy. 2008 was probably our last. Acorn will see to that. By 2012 we'll be where the Iranians are now. Obama's probably waiting to see how Ahmadinejad handles it. Nothing like a dry run on someone else's dime.

Give him points for honesty on this one.

Posted by: Bob Young at June 15, 2009 03:35 PM

Roy ~ Who says Obama is "smart," anyway?

He refuses to release undergrad transcripts as Bush and Kerry did. No one from his class at Columbia even remembers him being there.

As Editor of the Harvard Law Review, he published only one - one! - nondescript article, and ZERO publications in scholarly journals as a "constitutional law professor" at Chicago.

This fellow has never shown any particular intelligence, and the only ability he has evidenced is in making speeches with a teleprompter.

It is hardly surprising that an Affirmative Action President is about as effective as an Affirmative Action brain surgeon.

Posted by: Adjoran at June 15, 2009 03:49 PM

Barry al Hussein is a marketing strategy - nothing more. With Soros's and Oprah's money and marketing advice, al Hussein now sits in the White House.

And our country is now aligning with the jihad movement around the world, while it insults our real allies.

How pathetic.

Posted by: rgg at June 15, 2009 04:28 PM

It doesn't matter that he doesn't have any executive experience. What could possibly go wrong?

Posted by: The 53% at June 15, 2009 04:54 PM

There is good reason on the spending/domestic front to say that we are well rid of W, given his precedential aid to Barack's socialist aspirations, but can anyone doubt that he would be handling Iran properly? And by properly of course I mean with a hard line to A-jad et al and a helping hand, at least rhetorical, to the Iranian resistance? Another genius speech is shown to be obsolete even on its own terms just as soon as it rolls off the teleprompter. Truly, as C Krauthammer described, this was the Cairo Disaster.

Posted by: megapotamus at June 15, 2009 05:09 PM

Bob Young, why do you think our 2008 election was "free and fair"?

Posted by: MikeM at June 15, 2009 05:59 PM

What's a "concrete fact" vs a 'non-concrete fact'?

What if the fact was stainless-steel? Would that be better or worse than a concrete fact?

Posted by: Old Weird Ken at June 15, 2009 06:56 PM

This whole Iran thing seems to be "above Obama's paygrade"...

I'd be less than honest if I said I was surprised!

Posted by: GEJ at June 15, 2009 07:33 PM

Unfortunately, 53%, it's not about experience. Obama just doesn't care about human rights in Iran. He just wants everyone to love him. All he did in his speech in Cairo was pander to the worst aspects of Islam.

Posted by: Tom the Redhunter at June 15, 2009 08:47 PM

Amazing how Iran could count 40 million votes manually as quickly as they did.

Posted by: Paul at June 15, 2009 10:55 PM

The One will do nothing to advance the cause of liberty and freedom. Why fight for a a cause he clearly does not believe in?

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at June 16, 2009 07:11 AM

From GatewayPundit:

Last year George Bush told the Iranian people:

My message to the young in Iran is that someday your society will be free. And it will be a blessed time for you. My message to the women of Iran is that the women of America share your deep desire for children to grow up in a hopeful society and to live in peace.

This from the "fascist" Bushitler. And from Obama?

"This is an issue for the Iranian people to decide".

Not much of a comparison between the fighter pilot and the illegitimate Indonesian community worker....

Posted by: iconoclast at June 16, 2009 12:47 PM

From GatewayPundit:

Last year George Bush told the Iranian people:

My message to the young in Iran is that someday your society will be free. And it will be a blessed time for you. My message to the women of Iran is that the women of America share your deep desire for children to grow up in a hopeful society and to live in peace.

This from the "fascist" Bushitler. And from Obama?

"This is an issue for the Iranian people to decide".

Not much of a comparison between the fighter pilot and the illegitimate Indonesian community worker....

Posted by: iconoclast at June 16, 2009 12:48 PM

cue the stuttering....

Posted by: DownWithTheFoe! at June 16, 2009 01:14 PM

I'm confused, are you guys now in favor of expressing support for the Iranian people, or do you still want us to bomb them?

Posted by: Jim at June 16, 2009 01:32 PM

Apparently Jim is the only person posting here too dim to tell the difference between bombing civilians and targeting systems designed for nuclear weapons proliferation.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at June 16, 2009 01:42 PM

Please educate me then CY, where are these "systems" - the CIA had a list of 1500 nuclear program sites to target - and who works in them and lives near them?

One would hope Belgrade, Iraq, and Afghanistan would taught you the reality of "surgical strikes" but I guess hope springs eternal when it's other peoples lives.

Posted by: Jim at June 16, 2009 02:09 PM

Typical leftard troll, trying to use a fallacious argument to discredit support for the Iranian people. Of course Jim recognizes that any government risks its own people with its actions. This is abundantly true when governments like Iran use their own civilians as human shields.

It is disgusting that the leftards in our country don't even rise to the idealism of France in this matter. Instead, their version of the 100 years war is to use every pretext to discredit the domestic political opposition.

Their hunger for political power is too great to come together for any reason. Treason in war, betrayal in peace--the leftard way.

Posted by: iconoclast at June 16, 2009 06:37 PM

"the CIA had a list of 1500 nuclear program sites to target" ... This sounds like one of those made-up facts. I noticed he didn't back it up with references.

And who here doesn't think that any list made public is disinformation? We're not going to use that list anyways. We'll use the Mossad list.

And what if it is 1,500 target sites? What difference does that make? We should do whatever it takes to eliminate the nuclear capacity if we do decide to remove nuclear sites. Better safe than sorry.

And thanks President Bush for having a military presence in 2 countries surrounding Iran. Way to cut Iran off! Nice strategic move. Makes it a lot easier to bomb Iran if we decide to.

Posted by: Old Weird Ken at June 16, 2009 07:04 PM

Um yeah, iconoclast, I didn't say anything at all about discrediting the Iranian people, I asked if you guys still want us to blow them up.

I'm sure you've spent a great deal of time prior to this election talking about the wonderful majority of Iranians who are peace loving, pro-Western folks - people we should reach out to rather than demonize as faceless Islamofascists. Yep, I'm oh so very sure that's been your take on the situation.

And shorter Old Weird Ken

"the 1500 number is made up, and who cares if it is we should blow it up any way. Thank goodness Bush gave us the ability to do so - if we decide to do so - and we should - although, strangely, he never did...."

Where to even begin with you, I guess this is a start:,0,5419188.story?coll=la-home-commentary

Posted by: Jim at June 17, 2009 12:27 AM


You have no idea what I talked about before this regarding Iran. So stuff your attempt to change the subject where the sun doesn't shine, troll.

While you were sniffing unicorn f@rts, the rest of the educated world recognized that (1) citizens always are responsible for the actions of their government, and (2) those same citizens are doubly at risk when their government intentionally use them as human shields. Neither of which should prevent necessary action from being taken.

Which you already know. Heck, leftard trolls like yourself would be the first to wipe out an entire city if it threatened your grip on power. And the first to hand over your country and your freedom if it gained you a speck more of political power.

Posted by: iconoclast at June 17, 2009 04:35 PM

Are you 12?

Posted by: Jim at June 18, 2009 12:27 PM

Sorry, that was unfair to 12 year olds.

The idea that individuals are responsible for the actions of their leaders is ludicrous, especially in a dictatorship like Iran.

And the line about people like me being willing to "hand over my country, and my freedom if it gained me a speck more political power" is an instant classic of idiocy. Let's hope you never fall for the trick of handing over your freedom for more power. :)

Posted by: Jim at June 18, 2009 12:39 PM

Ignoring this thread's devolution into infantile mudslinging on the part of the illiterate Jim...

Did anyone really expect our new Hussein Hitler to take a stand against tyranny? Surely not. It would never occur to the liberals to support freedom of speech and representation (far too conservative an idea for those who loathe an autonomous populous) and no conservatives could hope so highly for our new anti-Constitutional dictator.

So why are we acting surprised here? The fact that Obama claims socialism as his cause and our recurrent Iranian 'president' claims fanatic Islam as his does nothing to differentiate between their positions on ultimate 'presidential' power.

Posted by: LaMagdalena at June 18, 2009 01:00 PM

Shorter LaMagalena:

I like democracy except when it results in the election of someone I don't like here at home. In that case I'll call our duly elected President a tyrant and toss in some references to Hitler and socialism.

Posted by: Jim at June 18, 2009 03:30 PM

Dear Jim,

Thank you with your concern over the comments on the Confederate Yankee's posting. Your continued interest proves there may be hope for you yet.

If you wish to understand why I call the current president a tyrant, you may follow the link to my blog and read the entries there that explain the failure of the American attempt at bypassing regional democracy. Or you may simply examine Acorn, should you prefer.

I respect freedom and self-defense above all else, and the situation in Iran stifles both for its populous. However, Obama's political record demonstrates a fanatic belief in truly socialist policies, and his recent actions (particularly involving the nationalization of key industries and health care) do NOTHING to reassure me about his commitment to American rights or Constitutional legality. Furthermore he commands equally fanatic loyalty that escapes the realm of sanity.

This is why I call him a socialist and a tyrant. This is why I compare him to Hitler.

Posted by: LaMagdalena at June 18, 2009 06:14 PM