No matter what happens in Iran, if it's good it happened because Obama is, well, Obama. If it's bad, it is probably George Bush's fault.
Jonah Goldberg observes:
So, if Obama deserves "credit" for what's happened in Iran, there are several possibilities. The first is that he intended for something like this to happen. He gave his speech in the heart of the Muslin and Arab world, knowing full well the glorious inspirational power of his words.
Or, he didn't intend for his words to specifically inspire the Iranians, but he's glad the shrapnel from his wisdom grenade generated so much collateral hope and change.
So, if it's option one, if the Cairo speech was intended to spark this protest movement, why was the administration caught so off guard? Why did Obama try to minimize the differences between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad? Why did he spend a week tamping down, rather than encouraging the protestors? I mean, if the Cairo speech was intended to inpsire such a movement, shouldn't have their been some follow-through? Some Plan A or even Plan B?
After the news conference today, Anne Althouse parses Obama's position:
Excuse me. If I may be so bold. I hate to trouble you but.... I don't mean to impose... I'm not at interfering... Far be it from me to suggest anything that you might be able to characterize as meddling. I'm no meddler. Not at all. I'm just over here, modestly deploring violence.
Me, I don't think Obama can speak convincingly about freedom and liberty to anyone, because he doesn't really believe in it. He believes in collectivism, he believes in consolidated centralized power, he believes in all kinds of skullduggery to hang onto power.
