GOP Rhetoric and the Difference between Q and N

There is something about the criticisms levied toward President Obama on Iran that would be comical if they were not so serious. As protesters in Tehran have been met with the oppressive and brutal hand of its government, what is the proper tone that the president should strike? Should he be more strident in his opposition against the actions of the Iran government? Should he be more forceful in his rhetoric in support for the protestors?

I believe "timid" has been the popular word choice among the chattering class who want the president to embrace a more forceful approach on Iran.

"The President of the United States is supposed to lead the free world, not follow it," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on ABC. And Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) told CNN that the president on Iran has "been timid and passive more than I would like."

Sen. John McCain, also criticized the president, for issuing a response, in McCain's opinion, "has not been enough." McCain, as many recall, famously joked while on the presidential campaign trail, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran."

If the president is more forceful in his support of the protesters, what does that mean and how is it heard? Does it mean that the United States will be treated as liberators in Iran in the unlikely scenario of a new election, with different results and a different president, but same Supreme Leader?

Does it mean those words will be heard in Tehran in the confines of the current moment as most Americans will hear it? Or does it mean the president's forceful comments would be linked to the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and the CIA-backed coup d'état that put the Shah in power in 1953?

I don't know exactly what is the right tone for Iran, I'm not certain anyone does. Regardless of the outcome between the protesters and the Iranian government, the United States is still facing three possible scenarios as it relates to Iran's nuclear ambitions: learn to live with it, diplomacy, or some type of military action.

It seems useless to advocate for a position that could escalate tension in a part of the world we still do not understand, from the exclusive lens of the US perspective. But there is a haunting familiarity emanating from this knowledgeable cluster of dissenters that is cause for concern.

The difference between an "n" and a "q" is all that separates the same individuals who were certain about Iraq--in some cases bombastically so--now leading the charge against the president that he's not tough enough with his rhetoric on Iran. Given where the US stands, or should I say bogged down in Iraq, calls for tougher rhetoric in Iran doesn't exactly come with the requisite credibility.

If Democrats can be punished on national security issues for Vietnam, then surely some price must be exacted from the political party who led the charge toward the biggest foreign policy blunder in US history.

For my money, part of that price would include a large amount of skepticism when receiving from those espousing tougher rhetoric on countries located in the Middle East that possess advanced desires for nuclear capability.

There is a certain ironic absurdity associated with the aforementioned senators critical of President Obama. Their criticism seems harsher on the president for not escalating his rhetoric on Iran than they were with President George W. Bush as he escalated an unnecessary invasion and occupation in Iraq.

I share the criticism of others that Obama clings too close to the safe shores of the amorphous middle on a number of issues. But on Iran I think he is right to do so. Words matter, especially those coming from the world's largest military super power. Unlike those advocating for tougher language, the president must deal with whoever and whatever comes out this scenario in Iran.

What's the point of escalating the rhetoric if it is not going to lead to saber rattling? And if it is not going to lead to saber rattling it's merely the musings of a paper tiger.

Byron Williams is an Oakland pastor and syndicated columnist and blog-talk radio host. He is the author of Strip Mall Patriotism: Moral Reflections of the Iraq War. E-mail him at [e-mail] or visit his website: byronspeaks.com

Follow Byron Williams on Twitter: www.twitter.com/byronspeaks

Comments

[justoverit333]

Great article. Thank you.

[justoverit333]

Great article, Mr. Williams. I agree with all of it.

[Justaminute]

No matter what Obama or any leader in the EU says will not carry much weight if Big Business chooses to support Iran. So far they have used subsidaries to flout past embargos. Euroupe is a major player in business in Iran. As long as O-I-L means more to Europe all the words out of our lips are just hot air. Look at what corporations have done to the people in the US who have a supposedly free press and fair elections. Have we been successsfull in removing religion from our politics?

[zest]

Passive agression can move mountains, bombs can only blow them up.

[kapalabhati]

The Republican "leaders" have NOTHING ELSE. To be sure, if President Obama were standing on his head red in the face decrying the Iranian government, the Rs would say it was the wrong thing to do. Like it or not, Iran is a sovereign nation, undergoing its own revolution (we hope). The President and the State Department need to monitor the situation and stay on top of it. It is not our role to interfere. This is not like slavery or the Holocaust, contrary to MacQ's poor analogy.

[panamarine]

McCain, Lindsey Graham, et al. are asking / demanding that the President give a : "Firm response".­....or tougher rhetoric and in the absence of such categorizes him as being "timid" and "weak". First, their assumptions are from their game book, which is to continuously berate and simplistically try to put the fire to his feet to be a Warmongering, shoot first ask questions later President. Second, I ask: How firm should the response be? Should President OBAMA say: " We want you (IRAN) to nullify that election, we know it was rigged or else we will send an armada of Election officials from the US to count the ballots and insure the counting is accurate this time. And IF you don't allow that, we will send the 82nd Airborne and a 3rd Marine Combat Brigade to smash your Police and para-militaries. Then send Volunteer policemen from around the USA to patrol your streets in order to protect YOUR citizens. Now where will that get us? There is NO WAY any of those threats be backed up! Then what? He would look like a paper tiger, which is what these Yapping, barking Senators would like him to appear as, to their delightful glee. How pathetically disingneous. Shouldn't they be backing the President ? Showing a UNITED front in this matter? That's why the American public sees them for what they have become ---a woeful, out ot touch bunch, with maybe few exceptions.

[kathy001]

Right on the money, panamarine.

[Avery Castille]

It is my opinion that President Obama played it just right with his reserved but
Somewhat stanch response to the horrific actions taken by the Iranian leadership.
Ahmadinejad and the Clerics now look like fools attempting to blame outside influences for the uprising. The people of Iran know what they need to do.

[MacQ]

Mr. Bush let it be known that America stands beside people who want their liberty. Liberal leadership is less apt to feel that way (it's their problem, is what I'm reading from lib posters here).

That said, I think Mr. Obama has struck the right tone, and I don't have a problem with the way he's handled this. At the same time, I think it's appropriate for others in America to speak up in support of the Iranian people. Regular people, congressmen--they aren't in the same role as the president is, and they can and should speak.
I was amused, however, that Mr. Axelrod (the president's spokeman) called achmedinijad a "bloviator". This is the guy who orchestrated propaganda that Mr. Bush's rhetoric was making people hate us. Ha.
So the new diplomacy will include personal name-calling. Very liberal.

Whatever he says, Mr. Obama will be accused of inciting and meddling by the iranian government. That has nothing to do with reality (just as it didn't when Mr. Bush was president). It's just the tool they use at all times to make America the enemy rather than themselves. Their people aren't buying that. Only American liberals are.

[Warlock67]

Really...Y­ou ability to rationalize is unparrelled along with your unfounded arrogance. I understand that you must now create a world where somehow your President was good and wise and now that things are in the liberal hands they are much differeny. You are just as responsible for supporting a President who has created the greatest propoganda tool the islamic extremists could have ever wanted by invading Iraq.

I am guessing those that want to use examples of American rhetoric just need to point at the 140,000 troops occupying foreign soil next door on the basis of a lie to fuel their needs.

Oh, your point regarding other American's speaking up is valid. However, that is not what the Republicans are doing. They are using this as an oportunity to criticize the President.

Lastly, "liberals" recognize that America will still be the great Satan in the islamic world. However, the control countries once had over information is not a s great as it once was and how we act will effect how we are preceived by the next generation. Unfortunately, we have a lot of making up to do because of poor "conservative" choices by the previous administration.

[timberdoodle]

When are these war mongers going to learn other countries have the right to run their affairs as they see fit and the United States certainly doesn't have the high ground on morality to go around telling others what to do or how to act.

There isn't any doubt in my mind if the GOP had their way they would be following the tenets of PNAC their guiding light and America would be in a third war within a year or two. That's where Republicans and their allies make their money.

[MacQ]

150 years ago, you would probably have said the slaves were happy on their plantations.
75 yers ago, you'd have said the jews liked being in the camps.

[Warlock67]

I am sorry you are confusing liberal and conservatives again.
'
Conservatives= staus quo ie they would be FOR slavery to continue. Liberals are for change which means to eliminate what is wrong and improve on what is right.

Hitler would have been considered a conservative. He longed for the old days and was a fundamentalist.

I must say MacQ. You do get things confused in your mind.

[digeridoo2]

His stance should be, "Wow, what a bunch of chumps. When you guys figure out who your leader is, get back to us. Meanwhile, we have more important things to do than to worry about some third rate Nacho Supreme Leader and who he chooses to adminstrate his pathetic little nation."

[MacQ]

Nice message to the people dying in the streets from the leader of the free world...

[PrickliestPear]

Obama's GOP critics haven't considered what it would look like to Iranians if the US explicitly took sides in this conflict. It would hurt the reformers more than it would help them. But seeing things from a perspective other than one’s own is not a conservative strong point, is it?

[lizt]

I think the Republicans actually believe that the United States is the center of the universe. This development in Iran is an internal political struggle and despite the fact that their actions are appalling in our eyes, it is still their struggle. I think President Obama is striking just the right note especially in view of past US history in the region.

[jhamm1]

Republicans have never learned the virtues of long-term thinking, as their standard procedure for resolving any and all crises is to select an impulse, act accordingly, and think.....­..well, never.

[CJWebber]

What are the leaders of the other countries doing? Is England involving itself? France? Canada?

Obama is doing the right thing by keeping his nose out of Iran's affairs. Just like everyone else.

[Dredd]

He seems to be doing very well. Not too cold, not too hot, instead the proper language for a head of state.

http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/06/neocon-ahmadinejad-fools-progressives.html