New York Times Praises Unrest or Maybe Not
I'm not sure where the NYT is coming from. It reads mostly as though they are on the side of people who would prefer freedom, liberty, modern technology, democratic principles and engagement with the rest of the world. But, then they offer this:
President Obama is right to remain open to dialogue with Iran and to continue looking for a peaceful resolution to the dispute over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. He is also right to condemn the violence against Iranian civilians and to place the United States on their side, as he did in his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize and in comments on Monday.
So, which is it? Dialogue or condemnation? Double-speak preferable to straight talk?
Poland Throws Off the Yoke
Soviet Union Collapses
Now Two Democracies Rather Than One Puppet
Collapse and Reunification
Those events were an outgrowth of an uncompromising policy of strength, democracy and free-market capitalism directed by a President who knew what America stood for. There was no waffling or equivocation. The results speak for themselves.
What Obama needs to realize is that there is no downside to aggressive, vocal and firm support of the Iranian dissidents. With such support they can possibly destabilize the regime and return Iran to a path of responsible membership in the community of nations. Even if they fail in their efforts, we have lost nothing in demonstrating our principles and opposing a madman dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the undermining of America. Support of Ahmadinedjad gains us nothing in this fight.