Having survived working with and routinely around the Clintons and their staffs over the years, I admit I once thought that anyone, literally ANYONE, would be preferable as President than Hillary Clinton. When she announced her long-suspected candidacy for the White House, I found myself, as a conservative Independent, looking upon her Democratic challengers as the last line of defense against another Clinton in the Oval Office, an office I on which I strongly believed her husband had left a stain, figuratively and literally. During the 2008 campaign, it was clear she would not win her party's nomination, and although I had misgivings about an Obama presidency from a tax and spend point of view, I also noted that in their head-to-head debates, Hillary Clinton was much more conversant on world affairs and expressed, courageously for the times in her party, a concern over withdrawing troops too precipitously from Iraq. She was usually hawkish on the Iraq War, much to her credit, although the pressures of trying to win a nomination in a party bent on pulling troops out and declaring the war "lost" eventually drove Hillary to echo some calls for a draw down in troop strength. I do not believe she actually favored that strategy, but it took a back seat to her immediate need to strategically fight for the Democratic nomination.
Now, a few years removed from the bravado of the campaign trail, I wonder if the Democrats made a mistake in nomination as I watch President Obama, as Commander in Chief, taking nuanced non-committal stances on most international developments, as illustrated by his administration's confusing range of responses to the uprising in Egypt. Eventually, after two weeks of protests against Hosni Mubarak, President Obama spoke in favor of the protesters, some of whom were seeking democracy, others of whom, like the Muslim Brotherhood, were seeking and end to Mubarak's tight controls over their terrorism-related ideologies and activities. President Obama called for our staunchest long-time ally in the Arab world to step down from 30 years of keeping the peace with Israel, in favor of temporary rule by the Egyptian military until "democratic" elections can be held later this year. To this day, it remains unclear whether the Egyptian uprising was solely a popular swell for democracy or something insidious organized by groups with violent goals for the region, specifically ending the treaty with Israel. One must entertain this as a possibility if for no other reason than observing the Iranian government gleefully praising the protesters and their toppling of Mubarak.
Although we have yet to hear any definitive statesmanship from President Obama on today's protests in Iran and the violent methods security forces utilized to disperse the marchers, Hillary Clinton voiced today precisely the message that the President should be delivering to the Mullahs in Tehran. Although the White House has been noticeably understated on the events in Iran, in marked contrast to the open calls for governmental change in Egypt days earlier, Hillary was front and center pointing out, in refreshingly blunt language, the utter hypocrisy of Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs for praising the Egyptian "revolution" and change of government in Egypt while simultaneously suppressing their own people attempting to march for reforms in a notoriously oppressive regime.
Listen to Hillary state, more eloquently and more forcefully than the President, what needed to be stated to the Mullahs: Iranian government is hypocritical on issue of protests against government
Capital Cloak gives credit where it is due. Hillary made the right comments today about Iran. The question that we must ask is why President Obama, who claims to champion freedom and democracy in Egypt, is mostly silent on Iran, particularly after missing the opportunity to support the Green Revolution in Iran in June 2009. Iranians who genuinely desire freedom from the oppressive Mullah rule have already experience abandonment once from the Obama White House. Now, after the events in Egypt, Tunisia, and throughout the Middle East have inspired courageous revolutionaries in Tehran to test the waters of support from the U.S., they are finding the waters tepid at best. Unless they listen to Hillary, whose message to the Mullahs today was music to Iranian revolutionary ears.
More such messages are needed, from Hillary, from President Obama, from our Congress, and from heads of state of our allies worldwide. We can only turn up the heat on the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad if we speak candidly and with unwavering support for the protesters in Iran. Unlike in Egypt, where it really DOES matter what type of government replaces Mubarak in the long-term, in Iran it DOES NOT matter what would fill the vacuum left by the Mullahs if toppled. The current regime is hotly pursuing nuclear weapons capability, funding and equipping Hezbollah, infiltrating Iraq and working to shatter fragile coalitions there, and training terrorists who routinely attack allied forces. We would be hard pressed to imagine a worse government in Tehran. Supporting any flicker of desire for democratic reform in Iran should be our highest priority. Speaking bluntly about the regime's hypocrisy is a step in the right direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment