Obama on Iran's Digestive Discomfort

The actions of a Jimmy Carter Jr. is too mild an epithet to describe the disgraceful performance of Barack Obama in the face of events taking place in Iran. For the first time in 30 years the United States has an opportunity to positively influence the outcome — and without firing a single shot — and the heir to the Great Pretender goes beyond fumbling the ball by refusing even to admit the game is on.

Initially he said virtually nothing in order not to be seen as "meddling" in their affairs. Chamberlain would be proud, having taken a similar stance even before pre-WWII Munich. Events of the period in Germany prompted the great humorist James Thurber to write "The Rabbits Who Caused All the Trouble." In the short story the narrator relates how, having now been eaten by the wolves with whom they lived side by side, the matter was "strictly an internal affair."

One would hope that Obama would be on the side of the rabbits. One would, if one believed that he had any real disdain for the wolves, that is. But if he's indifferent to freedom and the individual rights to live, create, and enjoy the fruits of one's efforts — as he's demonstrated repeatedly in America these past dreary months — one would know better than to hope for any such thing.

To those who argue that strong words on his part would only inflame the situation, or actually provide aide to the mullahs in power — yes, there are such people — it's enough to point out that this is exactly what we should want. The more inflamed that situation the better for the citizens of the United States, and not coincidentally for the brave souls currently protesting and dying for even a few crumbs of freedom.

Jimmy Carter Jr., very junior (which, considering the small stature of that former occupant of the Oval Office, is approaching microscopic height), has declared:

Well, I think first of all, it's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons.

Mousavi may well be evil. He is said to have been a founder of Hezbollah and was vetted as one of four acceptable candidates out of dozens proving he was not perceived as a threat to the mullahs' rule. All that is irrelevant. Millions are not protesting and being arrested or slaughtered in the streets of Iran's cities in order to support another dictator. They are shouting "Death to the Dictator." They are asking for freedom. To fail to support that wish wholeheartedly — when it costs him nothing is a moral failure of the most serious kind.

There are those, often the same "those" referred to above, i.e. ever dependable leftist apologists for the smiling Fascist, who claim he would lose something, a bargaining advantage with the mullahs. Even a realpolitik 'realist' of the Kissinger sort should be embarrassed by this argument. Reagan called the Soviets out many times for their oppressions and yet continued to 'bargain' with them for years.

To the contrary, his excoriations were good for both the oppressed and the citizens of the United States. Making authoritarians nervous by openly noting their evil in no uncertain terms is always advantageous. Evil flourishes when good men stand idly by.

Obama is emphasizing his desire to continue bargaining with them in ways large and small, such as not rescinding an invitation to a July 4 discussion. That it is set to take place on July 4 of all days should be a clear indicator to anyone on the fence just how much contempt for the American system and its history Obama really has.

That he's willing to engage representatives of some of the world's worst dictators of the past 30 years at all is bad enough. To spit in the face of the American people by doing it on July 4 in the face of current events in Iran is grotesque amorality, that is to say, classic Obama.

That behavior shouldn't be too surprising, however, even if one knew nothing else about the mouse in the White House but that he's willing to assert that the Iranian regime has "caused some problems in the neighborhood." I don't believe even Obama is as ignorant as that, but he is that politically correct.

Supplying weapons, training, funding, intelligence, organization, and base camps in Iran in order to fight U.S. military in Iraq is bad enough. But even the State Department still recognizes — if Obama is unwilling to — that Iran remains the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism as it attempts to export Islamic jihad everywhere it can.

The list of calumnies of the past 30 years can't have fully escaped even the willfully-ignorant-of-history Obama's tiny brain. He was, after all, already a teen when the Islamic revolutionaries kidnapped dozens of American officials and held them for over a year.

To describe this history as causing "problems in the neighborhood" is to cloak one's self Ribbentrop's shade of gray and concede that the frantic struggle of the Iranian rabbits is nothing but an internal matter, and only to hope that one doesn't get vomit on a new pair of Italian loafers.