RSS Feed MenuWatching President Obama’s Nowruz greeting gave me a pang of sadness and nostalgia. Seven years ago, I tried to sell the idea of President Bush doing a Nowruz speech. Nowruz is a pre-Islamic holiday that Iran’s religious authorities disapprove – and often try to suppress. Nowruz greetings could have been used to forge a deeper American connection to those Iranians who reject the obscurantism, corruption and cruelty of mullah rule – and to show American awareness of the great Iranian culture that reaches back 2500 years and extends halfway across Central Asia.
The idea went nowhere of course. And now it’s being used as part of an attempt to engage the very regime that once punished the holiday’s celebration. Sad all around.
JJWFromME // Mar 20, 2009 at 10:13 am
“And no(w) it’s being used as part of an attempt to engage the very regime that once punished the holiday’s celebration.” If Reagan talked to Russia (something the Neocons didn’t like either), why can’t Obama talk to Iran? Too predictable…
Breggers // Mar 20, 2009 at 10:51 am
Yes, the logic escapes me as well. Engage? You speak it as if it means “romance”. He hasn’t capitulated anything, surrendered anything, lost anything. Not sad at all.
barker13 // Mar 20, 2009 at 11:17 am
First mistake: “Today, I would like to speak directly to the People AND THE LEADERS of Iran.” Hmm. I would have left it at “the People.” I thought our position was “Iran People GOOD; Iranian government.. er… NOT so good.” (*SHRUG*) Second mistake: “Common humanity…?” With the People, yes; government compared to government… NO! Now I’m not saying our government is without faults, but jeez… let’s not compare Iran’s government with our own or any other democracy’s. (*SIGH*) Third mistake: “Mutual respect…???” Respect for a terrorist supporting theocratic totalitarian dictatorship…?!?! (*SNORT*) (Oh… and he wants this theocratic totalitarian dictatorship to take… er… “its rightful place” within the community of nations. Nice. Real nice.) (*SIGH*) Listen… bottom line… while I’m not against negotiation and while I prefer diplomatic to military action, calling upon a theocratic totalitarian dictatorship to merely stop supporting terrorism is far from enough as far as I’m concerned. Obama should have made it clear that as long as Iran remains a theocratic totalitarian dictatorship our ultimate goal is to see the regime’s DOWNFALL. Period. BILL
PiltdownMan // Mar 20, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Yes David. If he had just listened to you more often we wouldn’t be in this mess. Palin and Limbaugh must have talked him out of it.
sinz54 // Mar 20, 2009 at 1:33 pm
JJWfromME: Yes, Reagan did talk to the Soviets. But he also made it clear to the whole world what he thought of their regime and their behavior. He said publicly that their Communist ideology inspired Soviet leaders to lie and cheat, and that theirs was an “Evil Empire.” His incessant attacks put them on the moral defensive. Instead of constantly denouncing the “capitalist West,” they were suddenly faced with having to defend their own behavior for a change. In contrast, Obama is not doing that. Like all liberals, he doesn’t think America has the right to shame any other nations. So he doesn’t bother to condemn the Iranian regime for stoning women to death for adultery, for example. He’s missing a major opportunity. Stoning women to death in the 21st century is indefensible, and he should call the Iranian regime out on it.
pampl // Mar 22, 2009 at 5:40 pm
banker13: Reagan didn’t say “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down your entire government” He resisted the relentless second-guessing of the far right that didn’t understand how to pressure governments to reform and saw it as evil to try. Hopefully Obama will continue doing so as well.
sinz54 // Mar 23, 2009 at 11:17 am
pampl: In 1982, Reagan also said: “”The march of freedom and democracy will leave Marxism and Leninism on the ash heap of history.” (For which he was pillored by the Western Left, as usual.) I don’t recall Obama saying a similar thing about Islamic extremism, or Iranian extremism, do you?
pampl // Mar 23, 2009 at 12:54 pm
sinz54: yes, actually, all the time. It serves the left and the right to ignore it, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t said.
barker13 // Mar 24, 2009 at 8:02 am
Pampl — Always happy to have someone bring up Reagan… but… er… my post stood (and stands) on it’s own. If you disagree with anything I wrote, feel free to address any of my points directly. In any case, Sinz54 dealt quite nicely with any false inference that Reagan wanted anything less than the fall of communist totalitarianism. (*SHRUG*) BILL
barker13 // Mar 24, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Bret Stephens has an excellent piece in today’s WSJ. See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123785115192919205.html BILL
pampl // Mar 24, 2009 at 1:08 pm
To address all of your points directly: doing a line by line analysis is silly and inane. The example of “tear down this wall” was meant to illuminate that for you.
barker13 // Mar 25, 2009 at 9:21 am
So in other words (*CHUCKLE*) (*SNORT*)… no; you won’t address my actual points. BILL