True Colors

With Iran teetering on the brink of a revolution, our gutless Muslim-In-Chief defers from entering the fray. Remember the sixties? Remember the colleges seething with unrest? The demonstrations? The violence? Remember how the hippies who later became Congressmen and community organizers were so energized by this? Remember how these events changed American foreign policy?
That is where Iran is today. This is an historic opportunity to destabilize and perhaps completely neutralize an outlaw regime that has participated in the murder of thousands of innocent victims, as well as US servicemen, through its financial and logistical support of terrorism. This is an opportunity that was afforded by Bush The Younger's policies. And it is going down the tubes.

The Muslim-In-Chief's concern about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is a sham. It's just another one of his Mussolini-style head shakes as he goes for the basket.
Charles Krauthammer has an excellent op-ed piece in today's Washington Post regarding how this once in a lifetime opportunity is being squashed.

This started out about election fraud. But like all revolutions, it has far outgrown its origins. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime -- and the future of the entire Middle East.

This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen (a hot Tiananmen with massive and bloody repression or a cold Tiananmen with a finer mix of brutality and co-optation) or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.

The latter is improbable but, for the first time in 30 years, not impossible. Imagine the repercussions. It would mark a decisive blow to Islamist radicalism, of which Iran today is not just standard-bearer and model, but financier and arms supplier. It would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism -- leave it forever spent and discredited.

[...] And what side is the Obama administration taking? None. Except for the desire that this "vigorous debate" (press secretary Robert Gibbs's disgraceful euphemism) over election "irregularities" not stand in the way of U.S.-Iranian engagement on nuclear weapons..

"Vigorous debate" is how the Obama administration labels the cries of millions of oppressed people who finally have run out of patience with their corrupt leaders. Millions marching in the streets and this clown calls it vigorous debate. What will he call it when the streets run with blood as government sponsored Irani thugs up the debate a notch? "Lively persuasive tactics?" or perhaps "strenuous disputation?" Obama's press hand puppet would have called WWII a "discourteous manifestation of international dissension."

Remember, this is the very same administration that labelled protests a form of "low-level terrorism" in a Pentagon refresher on terrorism. But I guess that only applies when the protests occur in the United States against the current President's policies.

The question read: "Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism activity?"

Test takers had four choices: "Attacking the Pentagon," "IEDs," "Hate crimes against racial groups," and "Protests."

The correct answer to the question was "Protests."

Quoth Charles Krauthammer:

And where is our president? Afraid of "meddling." Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror -- and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.

I vehemently disagree. The President has taken sides. He has sided with the purveyors of terror. He has sided with murderers of gays (what else do you do with unused construction equipment?) and he supports treating women like chattel.


He has sided with his birthright and his upbringing, he has chosen the side of Islamic and socialist radicals.