In dealing with the tumult in Iran, Obama is a captive of his belief in moral equivalence

examiner.com ^ | 6/19/09 | John Kinsellagh

[beacon street bandit]

Where is President Barack Obama? The whole world wonders. As people who yearn to free themselves from the yoke of oppression look to our president for guidance, the purported leader of the free world dithers on Iran. As the great and historically unprecedented upheaval continues, one of the greatest orators of our time, has become a sideshow, his response to the crisis reduced to issuing tepid, cautious, lawyerly equivocations.

On Iran, Barack Obama is held captive to his firmly held conviction in the post-modernist concept of moral equivalence. The doctrine of moral equivalence was not only a pivotal and indispensable tool that Obama used to great effect in the election campaign (think of the justification for his long-term relationship with the racist Reverend Wright), it also has served as an underpinning of his foreign policy. If the "post-racial" candidate was capable of threading the needle on Reverend Wright, of reconciling the irreconcilable (with the able assistance of an ideologically friendly and adoring press), what is to stop him from solving the most intractable conflicts on the world stage?

The successful implementation of this strategy requires that incidents and concepts that are intrinsically inconsistent be normalized by contextualization. For example…

[kromike]

The First Thug does not believe in actually doing anything; he just likes to hear himself talk and talk and talk.

[Oshkalaboomboom]

Incredible as it may sound, America’s most watched elitist gasbag (that would be Bill O’Reilly) thinks Obama is doing the right thing and protecting our troops from Iranian retaliation.

[TigersEye]

If you look at 0bama’s actions, foreign and domestic, you will find that he always sides against individual freedom and liberty and for more government authority. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth so you can find words of his to support almost anything but his actions are pretty consistent on siding with government authority and power.

[TigersEye]

O'Reilly's problem is that he can't think past the end of his nose. Could supporting the protesters in Iran result in attacks on our troops through the Iranian regime? Yes, it might. But in the long run what will bring about greater peace and security in the world, standing for freedom or coddling tyrants?

Our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are there specifically to confront the most violent aspects of tyranny and barbarism in the world. It is a horrible thing that they have to do that but that is their job. When violence against our troops is stepped up they need material, moral and political support to beat it down not phony liberal "compassion" that tries to buy them safety by playing footsie with tyrants.

BOR has much more logically consistent positions on abortion, child molestation, illegal immigration and a few other issues.

[COBOL2Java]

The First Thug does not believe in actually doing anything; he just likes to hear himself talk and talk and talk.

His idea of the duties of a President is based on what he observed as a child in Indonesia. He was enthralled with the pomp, power and glory of the office, and this probably transferred to his notions of an American Presidency.