Obama has repeatedly demonstrated his affinity for tyrants, Obama is irresistibly attracted to bloody hands


By David Podvin —— Bio and Archives June 21, 2009

Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

As Revolutionary Guards were murdering dissidents in Tehran, Barack Obama was obsequiously referring to Iranian despot Ali Khamenei as the “Supreme Leader”. Since becoming president, Obama has repeatedly demonstrated his affinity for tyrants. First, he warmly embraced the reprobate who perverted Venezuela into a police state. Then, he called the depraved mastermind of the 1972 Munich Massacre “a great champion of peace”. Now, he exalts Iran’s homicidal dictator. Not unlike Squeaky Fromme, Obama is irresistibly attracted to bloody hands.

The president is a self-described “progressive”, and the progressive narrative is that American misbehavior catalyzes worldwide evil. After accepting this inversion of reality, one invariably concludes that those who hate the United States must be the good guys. This premise established the foundation for the failed Jimmy Carter foreign policy, and as a good liberal Obama faithfully emulates failure.

The president shares Carter’s perception that Iran is the victim and America the victimizer. Obama said as much when he insisted that - given the past – the United States must avoid all appearances of “meddling” in Iranian affairs. This statement was an oblique reference to the 1953 CIA overthrow of Iranian President Mohammad Mossadegh. Like all doctrinaire leftists, Obama is haunted by the memory of that event. When the democratically elected Mossadegh threatened to nationalize foreign oil interests, President Eisenhower intervened and installed Reza Pahlavi as the Shah of Iran. To liberals, the supplanting of Mossadegh provides the smoking gun which proves that America lacks the moral standing to “meddle” in Iranian affairs.

In fact, America possesses the moral obligation to rectify the damage that liberalism has wrought. The current tragedy in Iran was created not by Eisenhower but by Carter. It was Carter’s toxic view of America that led him to displace the Shah, who was infinitely more benign than his jihadist successors. Like Obama, Carter was haunted by the memory of Mossadegh, so like Obama he sought to expiate America’s sins by appeasing the Iranian fascists who torment their own people while financing international terrorism and threatening nuclear apocalypse.

It is a recurring progressive theme: embracing evil as the antidote to Americanism. Obama views the United States contemptuously, which explains why he feels compelled to apologize for the wicked country he leads. It is the same wicked country that saved the world from Nazism, liberated a billion people from communist enslavement, and provided more humanitarian aid than all other nations combined. To compensate for these American transgressions, Obama promises that the United States will stop intervening abroad…except when Jews build houses on the West Bank.

The events in Iran represent a pivotal moment in history. If the Iranian people are provided with encouragement, the bloody Khamenei regime could fall, and that happy occurrence just might avert a thermonuclear war. Yet a precious opportunity to preserve peace is being lost because Americans recently elected a president who considers the United States insufficiently virtuous to promote freedom.

That attitude explains why Obama’s first statement about the Iranian election could have been written by the Ayatollah himself. Obama expressed excitement about the vibrancy of Persian democracy. When that exemplar of moral cowardice was widely panned, Obama amended his public stance by saying he was “troubled” that pro-democracy forces were being killed. It was the sound of Barney Fife clenching his fists.

Obama did not say what needed to be said: that Iran has been hijacked by cutthroats and must be liberated. He did not say that America fully supports the efforts of the protesters to overcome oppression. He did not say that the United States will be a steadfast ally of people everywhere who seek freedom.

How could he? Obama’s goal is not to depose the murderous Iranian regime but to negotiate with it. His emphasis is diplomacy rather than liberty. It is the progressive way.

And so, the intrepid quest for liberty by Iranians is being subordinated to Barack Obama’s contempt for America, a contempt so profound that he argues American support for freedom would merely make matters worse. The Obama administration contends that Khamenei would use the United States as a “foil”, invoking the specter of Mossadegh to rally Iranians against American intervention.

But it is not the Iranian people who would view American advocacy of their cause as constituting a hypocritical sham…it is Obama. And when the presidency is occupied by someone who disdains the United States, tyrants possess carte blanche to wreak havoc.

Iran’s Supreme Leader knows that he can oppress his country with impunity because America’s Supine Leader regards his own nation with derision. During the Carter Administration, Americans learned that such a progressive viewpoint makes the world more violent. Yet the passage of time eased those painful memories and voters have placed another leftist in the Oval Office, so the cause of freedom is being ravaged once again.

David Podvin is a California-based commentator. For the past decade, he has analyzed politics in essays that have appeared internationally. Podvin is actively involved in the field of animal rescue. He can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).


Guest Column David Podvin -- Bio and Archives | Click to view Comments

Items of notes and interest from the web.