Obama to Iran: Let Them Eat Ice Cream
by Ann Coulter
On Iran, President Obama is worse than Hamlet. He's Colin Powell,
waiting to see who wins before picking a side.
Last week, massive protests roiled Iran in response to an apparently
fraudulent presidential election, in which nutcase Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
was declared the winner within two hours of the polls closing.
(ACORN must be involved.)
Obama responded by boldly declaring that the difference between the
loon Ahmadinejad and his reformist challenger, Mir Hossein
Mousavi, "may not be as great as advertised."
Maybe the thousands of dissenters risking their lives protesting on the
streets of Tehran are doing so because they liked Mousavi's answer to
the "boxers or briefs" question better than Ahmadinejad's.
Then, in a manly rebuke to the cheating mullahs, Obama said: "You've
seen in Iran some initial reaction from the supreme leader" -- peace be
upon him -- "that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep
concerns about the election."
Did FDR give speeches referring to Adolf Hilter as "Herr Fuhrer"?
What's with Obama?
Even the
French condemned the Iranian government's "brutal" reaction to
the protesters -- and the French have tanks with one speed in forward
and five speeds in reverse.
You might be a scaredy-cat if ... the president of France is talking tougher
than
you are.
More than a week ago, French president Nicolas Sarkozy said: "The ruling
power claims to have won the elections ... if that were true, we must ask
why they find it necessary to imprison their opponents and repress them
with such violence."
But liberals rushed to assure us that Obama's weak-kneed response to
the Iranian uprising and the consequent brutal crackdown was
a brilliant
foreign policy move.
(They also proclaimed his admission that he still smokes "lion-hearted"
and "statesmanlike.")
As our own Supreme Leader, B. Hussein Obama (peace be upon him)
explained, "It's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian
relations, to be seen as
meddling."
You see, if the President of the United States condemned election fraud in
Iran,
much less put in a kind word for the presidential candidate
who is not crazy, it would somehow crush the spirit of the protesters
when they discovered, to their horror, that the Great Satan was on
their side.
(It also wouldn't do much for Al Franken in Minnesota.)
Liberals hate America, so they assume everyone else does, too.
So when a beautiful Iranian woman, Neda Agha Soltan, was shot dead in
the streets of Iran during a protest on Saturday and a video of her death
ricocheted around the World Wide Web, Obama valiantly responded by...
...going out for an ice cream cone. (Masterful!)
Commenting on a woman's cold-blooded murder in the streets of Tehran,
like the murder of babies, is evidently above Obama's "pay grade."
If it were true that a U.S. President should stay neutral between freedom-
loving Iranian students and their oppressors, then why is Obama speaking
in support of the protesters
now?
Are liberals no longer worried about the parade of horribles they claimed
would ensue if the U.S. President condemned the mullahs?
Obama's tough talk this week proves that his gentle words last week
about Ahmadinejad and Iran's "supreme leader" (peace be upon him)
constituted, at best, spinelessness and, at worst, an endorsement of the
fraud.
Moreover, if the better part of valor is for America to stand neutral
between freedom and Islamic oppression, why are liberals trying to
credit Obama's ridiculous Cairo speech for emboldening the Iranian
protesters?
The only reason that bald contradiction doesn't smack you in the face is
that it is utterly preposterous that Obama's Cairo speech accomplished
anything -- anything worthwhile, that is. Not even the people who
say that believe it.
The only reaction to Obama's Cairo speech in the Middle East is that the
mullahs probably sighed in relief upon discovering that the U.S. President
is a coward and an imbecile.
Two weeks ago, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman was
exulting over the "free and fair" national election in Lebanon, in which the
voters threw out Hezbollah and voted in the "U.S.-supported coalition."
(Apparently, support from America is not deemed the vote-killer in
Lebanon that it allegedly is in Iran.)
To justify his Times-expensed airfare to Beirut, Friedman added some
local color, noting that "more than one Lebanese whispered to me:
Without George Bush standing up to the Syrians in 2005 ... this free
election would not have happened."
That's what Lebanese voters said.
But Friedman also placed a phone call to a guy at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace -- which he didn't have to go to
Lebanon for -- to get a quote supporting the ludicrous proposition that
Obama's Cairo speech was responsible for the favorable election results
in Lebanon.
"And then here came this man (Obama)," Mr. Carnegie Fund said, "who
came to them with respect, speaking these deep values about their
identity and dignity and economic progress and education, and this
person indicated that this little prison that people are living in here was
not the whole world. That change was possible."
I think the fact that their Muslim brethren are now living in freedom in a
democratic Iraq might have made the point that "change was possible"
and "this little prison" is "not the whole world" somewhat more forcefully
than a speech apologizing for Westerners who dislike the hijab.
Obama -- and America -- are still living off President Bush's successes in
the war on terrorism.
For the country's sake, may those successes outlast Obama's attempt to
dismantle them.