Obama meddling?

#3
#3
The Obama administration had worked with allies to try to prevent a military coup in Honduras, and now that the effort has failed, it is seeking to restore democratic order in Honduras, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said at a routine press briefing on Monday.
Click to expand...

Seems like he's quite adept at meddling. Who knew?
 
#6
#6
I just returned from a mission trip to Honduras yesterday. I wasnt anywhere around the capital but in San Pedro Sula the night before the president was removed(I wont refer to it as a coup since I believe it was done legally and preserved democracy) fireworks were going off and people were celebrating in the streets. Im still not sure if any of that was in relation to the up coming removal of the president. I do know it happened after all the TV channels had been taken over by the government for a brief time for a press conf of some sort. In the morning on our way to the airport we witnessed hundreds of young people walking down the side walks. Keep in mind this was around five in the morning. Seemed weird to us and we had not learned of the removal of the president yet. We didnt learn of it until we had landed in Houston TX.

Im glad my mission team's flight out didnt get delayed seeing that they closed the borders today, just one day after our departure.
 
Last edited:
#7
#7
As for my opinion on how Mr. Obama should handle this. He should fully support the Hondurans and preserve democracy. Im sure you all have learned by now that the former President was in bed with Chaves and seeking to change the law through an unconstitutional vote that would allow him more time in office. The so called coup was Honduran Supreme Court approved thereby making it justified and legal. It is clear to me that the only reason for the military take over was in order to preserve democracy. Seeing as how they already have a new President in office and that he will relinquish office in January after the next vote. Obama should be quick to support the new regime in wake of Chaves's threats to invade. I believe strongly that America should take any shot it can at Communism, especially in this part of the world.
 
#8
#8
volinbham said:
Seems like he's quite adept at meddling. Who knew?
Click to expand...

and those "allies" referred to in the quote in your post are none other than Castro, Chavez, and probably every other Marxist dictator in Central and South America.
 
#9
#9
volinbham said:
It's called sarcasm LG - you should try it sometime.
Click to expand...


I understood both the sarcasm and your point. Mine was that comparing "meddling" in Honduras to "not meddling" in Iran as some sort of indication of hypocrisy or foreign policy by convenience, is utterly absurd because the situations of course are completely different.
 
Last edited:
#10
#10
lawgator1 said:
I understood both the sarcasm and your point. Mine was that comparing "meddling" in Honduras to "not meddling in Iran as some sort of indication of hypocrisy or foreign policy by convenience, is utterly absurd because the situations of course are completely different.
Click to expand...

Of course they are different and of course the response will be.

The absurdity is not the difference in handling. It is anyone believing that the reason Obama was completely MIA for days after the election in Iran was his "reluctance to meddle".

Clearly he's not anti-meddling. The naivete is believing his lack of comments was born out of a genuine ideology of non-meddling.

To be clear - I'm not calling him hypocritical on this. I'm saying his publicly-stated reasoning for how he handled Iran was BS.
 
#11
#11
volinbham said:
Of course they are different and of course the response will be.

The absurdity is not the difference in handling. It is anyone believing that the reason Obama was completely MIA for days after the election in Iran was his "reluctance to meddle".

Clearly he's not anti-meddling. The naivete is believing his lack of comments was born out of a genuine ideology of non-meddling.

To be clear - I'm not calling him hypocritical on this. I'm saying his publicly-stated reasoning for how he handled Iran was BS.
Click to expand...


Well, then, what do you think his real reason was? He calls it "meddling" on tv. My suspicion is that he received a lot of advice from the intelligence people and his foreign policy advisors who told him that if he made a statement supporting the protestors early on, then that would undermine the protestors because the current regime would point to the opposition as supported by the U.S.

He did it a week later, and of course that's exactly what happened. But if he did it right as it began, he'd have been seen as the puppetmaster behind the opposition and the protests, thereby delegitamizing them.

Makes perfect sense.
 
#12
#12
volinbham said:
Of course they are different and of course the response will be.

The absurdity is not the difference in handling. It is anyone believing that the reason Obama was completely MIA for days after the election in Iran was his "reluctance to meddle".

Clearly he's not anti-meddling. The naivete is believing his lack of comments was born out of a genuine ideology of non-meddling.

To be clear - I'm not calling him hypocritical on this. I'm saying his publicly-stated reasoning for how he handled Iran was BS.
Click to expand...

His actions or rather reactions lead to this conclusion. Those who do not want to see it never will.
 
#13
#13
lawgator1 said:
Well, then, what do you think his real reason was? He calls it "meddling" on tv. My suspicion is that he received a lot of advice from the intelligence people and his foreign policy advisors who told him that if he made a statement supporting the protestors early on, then that would undermine the protestors because the current regime would point to the opposition as supported by the U.S.

He did it a week later, and of course that's exactly what happened. But if he did it right as it began, he'd have been seen as the puppetmaster behind the opposition and the protests, thereby delegitamizing them.

Makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

Only those loyal to the current Iranian regime would have believed this, this is how they feel now, would have thought no matter what Obama would have done. Europe came out harshly against the elections and violence and I haven't seen any backlash there.

You are ignoring the most probable reason altogether. That Obama had a channel for discourse open with the current regime and he didn't want to burn any bridges until he saw how things shook out. It isn't a terrible move to make, but when you are the leader of the free world and remain silent while democracy is being trounced on it leaves you open to criticism, and deservedly so. It is a matter of taking sides, he waited too late to choose one publicly IMO.
 
#14
#14
I have yet to hear anyone explain what he could have done that would have led to a different result more favorable either to the protestors, the opposition, or the U.S.
 
#15
#15
KB5252 said:
Only those loyal to the current Iranian regime would have believed this, this is how they feel now, would have thought no matter what Obama would have done. Europe came out harshly against the elections and violence and I haven't seen any backlash there.

You are ignoring the most probable reason altogether. That Obama had a channel for discourse open with the current regime and he didn't want to burn any bridges until he saw how things shook out. It isn't a terrible move to make, but when you are the leader of the free world and remain silent while democracy is being trounced on it leaves you open to criticism, and deservedly so. It is a matter of taking sides, he waited too late to choose one publicly IMO.
Click to expand...


That's utterly ridiculous.

First, you note that the regime is in place and not going anywhere, so there were no bridges for Obama to burn by supporting the inevitable loser, right?

Second, Obama saying something earlier would not have changed a damn thing, except to give the security forces an earlier and better excuse to go in and hammer the protestors.

It is just absolutely amazing that people will reach so hard to find anything to criticize Obama for. I mean, its just so intellectually dihsonest.
 
#16
#16
lawgator1 said:
Well, then, what do you think his real reason was? He calls it "meddling" on tv. My suspicion is that he received a lot of advice from the intelligence people and his foreign policy advisors who told him that if he made a statement supporting the protestors early on, then that would undermine the protestors because the current regime would point to the opposition as supported by the U.S.

Not only did he not say anything negative. He implied support for the Iranian regime. I suspect he knew Ahmadinejad would emerge as the winner and because he had already planned direct talks with Iranian leadership. Any public negative commentary would make those talks more difficult.

The "undermining" argument is weak. The protesters were not driven by the U.S. nor deterred by the U.S. Even with BO's weak statements, the Iranian regime tried to claim meddling over state run airways - that had no impact on the protests; clear evidence that this reasoning is weak at best.

He did it a week later, and of course that's exactly what happened. But if he did it right as it began, he'd have been seen as the puppetmaster behind the opposition and the protests, thereby delegitamizing them.

Again, I call BS on this. This is what he is telling us but the facts don't support the assertion. Statements from the beginning from GB in particular were stronger in questioning the election results. GB has a strong presence in Iran and the protesters didn't believe GB was some sort of puppetmaster.

Truth is, the protests were organic to Iran. Statements from the U.S. wouldn't deter them. BO and his team had a preconceived FP with Iran and thought this little election squabble would blow over quickly. By staying out of it, they could felt they were in better position for direct talks. Problem is, the election thing didn't blow over. BO and his team got caught flat-footed here.

Makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

P.S. You made a wrong assumption about another one of my posts...
 
#17
#17
volinbham said:
Of course they are different and of course the response will be.

The absurdity is not the difference in handling. It is anyone believing that the reason Obama was completely MIA for days after the election in Iran was his "reluctance to meddle".

Clearly he's not anti-meddling. The naivete is believing his lack of comments was born out of a genuine ideology of non-meddling.

To be clear - I'm not calling him hypocritical on this. I'm saying his publicly-stated reasoning for how he handled Iran was BS.
Click to expand...

The non-meddler thing just doesn't make sense, the US uses its influence to meddle every day. I don't know if Obama said he didn't want to meddle or other people said that to explain his actions...but it just sounds off based on the fact that we can't help but meddle (economy, culture, etc.).

However, it is quite reasonable to me to think that one would take a more subtle and quiet response to the situation in Iran where, considering we are already on the ground in the middle east and could easily be portrayed as regime changers. While we don't have a great history in central america...it's been a little while, we're not currently on the ground there, and more "meddling" comments will not likely blow up in our face.

While it is easy for me to see those differences, that doesn't mean that they explain Obamas reaction. Only he and his staff know what he took the approach (conscious or subconscious) that he did....he could have just been an idiot and not thought the Iranian protests were a big deal. I don't have enough info to discern between the two possibilities.
 
#18
#18
lawgator1 said:
That's utterly ridiculous.

First, you note that the regime is in place and not going anywhere, so there were no bridges for Obama to burn by supporting the inevitable loser, right?

Second, Obama saying something earlier would not have changed a damn thing, except to give the security forces an earlier and better excuse to go in and hammer the protestors.

It is just absolutely amazing that people will reach so hard to find anything to criticize Obama for. I mean, its just so intellectually dihsonest.
Click to expand...

In reverse order.

1. It's amazing you are so bothered by legit criticism of BO (whether you agree with it or not) to call it intellectually dishonest.

2. So you are saying when BO did say something that motivated a more harsh crackdown? Interesting.

3. No one has suggested he support the losing candidate. From the beginning he made NO criticism of what was clearly a flawed election. In fact, he bolstered the Iranian regime by saying he wasn't concerned because the Supreme Leader was looking into things.

All most of us have suggested is that he make a principled statement about:

1. The importance of fair elections and
2. Moral support for Iranian people's rights to self determination.

He did neither until a protester was shot. He didn't have to choose Mousave. He didn't have to call the election a sham directly. It's pretty straight forward and every body else had not problem making these principled statements.

To have us believe he didn't simply because:

1. He doesn't want to meddle - it's Iran's business or
2. His words would be damaging

doesn't stand up to the facts of the situation.
 
#19
#19
TennTradition said:
The non-meddler thing just doesn't make sense, the US uses its influence to meddle every day. I don't know if Obama said he didn't want to meddle or other people said that to explain his actions...but it just sounds off based on the fact that we can't help but meddle (economy, culture, etc.).

However, it is quite reasonable to me to think that one would take a more subtle and quiet response to the situation in Iran where, considering we are already on the ground in the middle east and could easily be portrayed as regime changers. While we don't have a great history in central america...it's been a little while, we're not currently on the ground there, and more "meddling" comments will not likely blow up in our face.

While it is easy for me to see those differences, that doesn't mean that they explain Obamas reaction. Only he and his staff know what he took the approach (conscious or subconscious) that he did....he could have just been an idiot and not thought the Iranian protests were a big deal. I don't have enough info to discern between the two possibilities.
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming he's an idiot or even wrong necessarily.

What I am suggesting is his statements about not meddling (which he and/or Robert Gibbs used repeatedly) are BS statements about the situation.
 
#21
#21
Well of course we want to meddle. Its just that we need to do it in an a way that makes sense. And of course Obama cannot publicly say we are meddling, but that we are doing it in a calculated and surreptitious way.
 
#22
#22
lawgator1 said:
I have yet to hear anyone explain what he could have done that would have led to a different result more favorable either to the protestors, the opposition, or the U.S.
Click to expand...

That isn't the issue here. No one is claiming that the outcome would have been different. The only effect it might possibly have had was that the protesters might have seen that America stood with them in the spirit of free and honest elections (a principle this country is built on).

The issue is that Obama waited too long to comment about the situation in Iran because he was afraid to burn any bridges he built with the current regime before the upcoming talks. His public statement about measuring his statements with the situation on the ground in Iran is BS, if this was the case he would have spoken out much sooner with the tone he showed much later, at that point he was almost forced to do so.

The point is that it is obvious to many around the world, especially those in Iran who know about the upcoming talks in America what was going on here. To them, and many here in America, it looks like he purposefully toned his response to keep in good standing with the government in Iran.

It wasn't a terrible move IMO, it was a choice that had risks no matter which way he decided to go. In the end Iran still accused the US of interference even though Obama did what he could to keep from publicly criticizing the regime who rewarded him by these accusations anyway. If Obama does not make headway in his talks with Iran this will prove to be a blunder in foreign policy. He would have squandered one opportunity for the chance at another. This just JMO of course.
 
#23
#23
volinbham said:
I'm not claiming he's an idiot or even wrong necessarily.

What I am suggesting is his statements about not meddling (which he and/or Robert Gibbs used repeatedly) are BS statements about the situation.
Click to expand...

I wasn't projecting the idiocy comment onto your thoughts....I was just saying that as my opinion, he's an idiot (in this situation) if he didn't think that was a big deal. Of course, I have no idea what he really thought. I wasn't sure if he had made the meddling comments or others attributed it to him. I miss the news cycle over here.

If he wants to pretend that he doesn't want to meddle, then that's fine...but he's wrong. We meddle everywhere..that's what we do...we're the US. If he wanted to make those comments in public to continue keeping the Iranian regime from having an obvious, willing target, then that's fine...as long as Obama doesn't believe the stuff that he is saying.
 
#24
#24
lawgator1 said:
That's utterly ridiculous.

First, you note that the regime is in place and not going anywhere, so there were no bridges for Obama to burn by supporting the inevitable loser, right?

Second, Obama saying something earlier would not have changed a damn thing, except to give the security forces an earlier and better excuse to go in and hammer the protestors.

It is just absolutely amazing that people will reach so hard to find anything to criticize Obama for. I mean, its just so intellectually dihsonest.
Click to expand...

I believe Obama knew the current regime was going to be in place and this is exactly why he was so measured in his response to the election and protests. He remained silent because he didn't want to burn bridges with the current Iranian regime. I guess you don't see my point here and I don't understand what you are missing.
 
#25
#25
bigtime said:
As for my opinion on how Mr. Obama should handle this. He should fully support the Hondurans and preserve democracy. Im sure you all have learned by now that the former President was in bed with Chaves and seeking to change the law through an unconstitutional vote that would allow him more time in office. The so called coup was Honduran Supreme Court approved thereby making it justified and legal. It is clear to me that the only reason for the military take over was in order to preserve democracy. Seeing as how they already have a new President in office and that he will relinquish office in January after the next vote. Obama should be quick to support the new regime in wake of Chaves's threats to invade. I believe strongly that America should take any shot it can at Communism, especially in this part of the world.
Click to expand...


Interesting. I must confess that I don't know a thing about the situation in Honduras.

Our history in Central and South America is checkered for sure.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top