Customize

White House Calls Ahmadinejad Iran's 'Elected Leader'

Discussion in 'News And Current Events' started by Twister, Aug 4, 2009.

  1. What international law says he is the leader? A coup does not make a person a leader! Throwing away the ballot boxes and then saying you counted them does not make a person a leader! He is not leader! No one has picked him leader! No law says he is leader! He is leader because law has been trampled upon, and brutal forces beat and kill anyone who disagrees!
  2. Ray Murphy Member

    Iranian law says he is the elected leader - not international law.
    We can't just make up stuff as we go along, like the regime does.
  3. Iranian law does not say he is the leader. He is leader only because basiji make up their own laws as they go. They do not have to follow the law. Anyone with eyes can see that, especially Obama.

    Not getting involved is one thing. Calling him "elected leader" is an entirely different thing. That is getting involved - on the wrong side!
  4. Ray Murphy Member

    Of course Iranian law says he is the elected leader. It's like being a convicted criminal - one doesn't have to BE a criminal to be a convicted criminal in law, but if certain events occur then such a person IS a criminal in law until further notice.
  5. It isn't law if you make it up as you go. That's kind of the opposite of law, you know?

    My opinion of Obama has just gone through the floor.
  6. Ray Murphy Member

    That's only inside your skull. In the U.S. (outside of your skull) reality about law exists.
  7. Inside my skull? What is that supposed to mean? Is your blind loyalty to Obama so strong you cannot even see what is right in front of your eyes? Will you try to tell me the sky is not blue, next? I suppose that is just "inside my skull" too?

    Obama needs to make this right, and apologize for what his spokesman has said.
  8. Ray Murphy Member

    It doesn't matter WHO on the planet says that Ahmadinnerjacket is the elected leader of Iran. Any observer's loyalty is not an issue when it comes to the legal reality in Iran today.
  9. I get the feeling that even if he did that you'd still hate his guts.

    I suspect this quote was another Gibbs slip-up, but Obama's foreign policy with regards to Iran has been regarded as nearly unanimously solid by the people whose opinions are worth a damn. He deserves criticism in many areas (mostly of a domestic nature), but his handling in Iran has been quality up to this point.
  10. Maybe we all misheard Gibbs and he actually said, "erected leader" as in propped up. Okay, maybe not.
  11. Nedjarsan Member

    Hold ur horses guys...

    Gibbs statement quoted here was apparently from the last election.

    We just search for the source to confirm that
  12. Ray Murphy Member

    Just think how people some would feel if Obama had omitted the word "elected"
  13. Coyote-IRAN Member

  14. Nedjarsan Member

  15. Voters Union Member

    Yes, and laws can be far from perfect and the judiciary which interprets the laws can be far from perfect as well.

    So, unless (or until) the election has been judged illegal, Ahmadinejad is the elected President, but *not* the leader, as Gibbs strangly worded, of Iran.

    For any country, it is a tremendous challenge if most of the people believe that the different branches of government are acting illegally and unfortunately I don't think there are any effective national or international ways of solving such disputes. (Some countries have the possibility of citizens' initiated "recall elections", which helps a bit)
  16. WitteKr Member

    What was really said...

    The transcript on the press briefing on 4th of August is out. The White House - Press Office - Briefing by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 8/4/09
    What Gibbs really said:
    Q And on Iran, President Ahmadinejad will be sworn in tomorrow. Some of the U.S. allies will be sending representatives to attend that ceremony. The administration is not. Does the U.S. absence in any way indicate that it is not, shall we say, does not recognize the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad's reelection?
    MR. GIBBS: No, I -- let me get some larger guidance on our participation. Look, I think we have said throughout this that this was a decision and a debate that was ongoing in Iran by Iranians. That they were going to choose their leadership.
    The President has discussed our goals for reaching out in order to ensure that they don't develop a nuclear weapons program. Those continue to be our goals.
    Q But does the administration recognize Ahmadinejad as the legitimate President in Iran?
    MR. GIBBS: He's the elected leader.


    There you have it. Verbatim.
  17. WitteKr Member

    Forgot to mention how The Guardian (is live blogging again...) interpreted the words of Gibbs:
    "He [Ahmadinejad] is the elected leader," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said at a press conference yesterday. But he ducked the question of whether the US recognises Ahmadinejad as the legitimate leader of Iran."

    Iran protests against Ahmadinejad's inauguration | News | guardian.co.uk
  18. Guess Gates was cautious on not wanting to say too much about Ahmadinejad's inauguration. Even most of the Western countries do not recognize Ahmadinejad as the Iranian president.
  19. Mir Obama Member

    Obama is doing the right thing diplomatically. I dont know why people here are getting all worked up in a tissy. You dont just stomp around in flower gardens just because you dont like how another person gets in power. In case noone else noticed, all the other major leaders have also acknowledged Ahmadman's election.
  20. WitteKr Member

    Have they? It seems to me they too are 'ducking' the matter...
  21. Nedjarsan Member


    good for me as long somebody is against somebody else
  22. Twister Member

    Thank you, WitteKr. Was just about to hunt that down.

    "..let me get some larger guidance on our participation."

    Hmm... does that sound like maybe he wasn't sure about what exactly the administration planned on for today? Seems the question took him totally off-guard. Amazing this wasn't discussed within the WH, esp as other countries, ie Germany's Merkel making direct statements re: AH's legitimacy.
  23. Farad Member

    Admin in terribly tough spot.

    I am no big fan of Obama. Having said that, I am going to go out on a limb here and defend his attempts to stay in the middle of the road. My anaysis is similar to that I applied to Raf's speech at Friday prayers.

    It is one of the most intractable problems in foreign policy. It comes up again and again whether you are talking about China's abuses, North Korea's provocations or the unforgivable actions of Ahmadingdong and the supreme dickweed. This is the tension between engagement and isolation. Between retaining the ability to have some influence over the regime if it survives, and showing support for a popular movement that clearly has justice on it's side.

    I just finished a great biography of Washington called "the indispensible man". In it, I was surprised to discover just how much our young nation agonized over how to approach the war between France and England. It was a terrible dilemma and it bore great similarities to many of the issues confronting us today.

    I am not saying that I believe that Ahmadingdong is "the elected" president of Iran, of course he isn't. I am just saying that we should not let our passion for the cause of the people paper over a understanding of how tough a spot Obama is in. He can't appear to overtly support the Green Wave lest he give the regime ammo to use internally (This is a CIA plot etc etc.), he also can't be slapping Ahmadingdong on the back and welcoming him to the club of legitimate governments. I'm not arguing that we have to agree with his tactics, just that we must recognize the difficulties and cut him a bit of slack.
  24. Farad Member

    In addition to my previous post, I do want to acknowledge Roe's contention that this may have been less than deliberate. It is scary to think that an administration would not carefully calibrate it's public pronouncements on such a touchy issue, but it is worth remembering that Gibbs may be the worst press secretary since Dee Dee Meyers.
  25. anonspilz Member

    lulz

    There is more than one other way. Why become so butthurt at their political games?

    Anonymous is cognizant of the political games played by powers of the state, but thankfully have our own. actions may sometimes run parallel, but only when we decide that favorable results will most likely occur

    a lapse into srsbsns is understandable during direct confrontation, but butthurt of this magnitude when perceiving the obvious will duckroll the foundation before its built. there is no need for surprise or frustration - feelings of betrayal only occur between allies. Anonymous has none of this nature.

    do your own thing for your own reasons in whatever way you see fit, but it has been tried before.

    do it for the lulz.
  26. Ray Murphy Member

    At the time the Whitehouse representative answered the question about Ahmadinnerjacket's status he (Ahmadinnerjacket) was not sworn in as president, so he could not have been the (recently) elected president.

    Anyway, if he cannot form a government within the required timeframe he won't be either a leader or a president.
  27. Twister Member

    Well, finally

    I'm glad it was said out loud and in a direct manner unlike yesterday's statement. Apparently he got some "some larger guidance on [US] participation" :)
  28. WitteKr Member

    Sorry Twister, this was published or said *earlier* - before the remark everybody is getting so upset about.
    Let's make an end to this discussion, we're running around in circles and getting confused what has been said when...
  29. Visionary Member

    Iran protests against Ahmadinejad's inauguration | News | guardian.co.uk

  30. Voters Union Member

    Brilliant :D

    I'm sure he understood the question but fumbled on delivering the carefully adjusted answer.

    I'm also sure that the same reporter will ask that same question again at the next press briefing and expect a less misleading answer.
  31. WitteKr Member

    URGENT: White House reverses statement on Iranian election

    Reuter 2 - 05-08-2009 17:21:10 - OBAMA/IRAN (URGENT)

    W.House reverses statement on Iranian election

    ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE, Aug 5 (Reuters) - White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on Wednesday said he had misspoken in calling Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Iran's elected leader and that Washington will let the Iranian people decide whether Iran's election was fair.
    (Writing by Patricia Zengerle, editing by Steve Holland)
    REUTERS
  32. Cation wall of text.

    Glad to see that the statement was revoked.

    Giving my to cents on the opening posts of this thread;

    Always remember that every one have their own agenda and trying to post their own version of the truth (far from sure that what musavi wants is the same as what most protesters want).

    The goverment wants to potrait the protesters as holigans incited by the west, as borderline heretics who does not follow Islam as it should and would love to see thee regime ousted.

    The protesters would like to portrait their movement as larger and more powerfull than it might be. Also they would like to portrait the regime as beeing more harsh than it might be (allthough in this case i belive the regime is far worse than fiction could ever describe).
    All this ofc to catch the worlds attention aswell as inciting more to join the protest.
    In a paralelle, in europe there werent to many risistance people untill it was certain the German grip on the nations would fall, and then suddenly all were resistance.
    Same here alot of people wont join in untill they see victory in sight (understandable in some point, why risk your life for a lost cause).

    Now look at this from a journalist point of view, no reliable sources unless you made them amung the locals before the ban on foreign journalist were made (and not to many did).
    And even if they have a source or two, they will only be able to wittness a small portion of whats going on.
    A good journalist will report only on confirmed reports (yes i know this is far from what actually happens).
    A good report should be unique, relevant to the person on the other side and if runnning over a longer time evolving.
    You would be shocked to know how many people ignore what happens halfway around the globe and satisfy their consience with a mothly donation to red cross (or the likes) of a few dollars a month.

    That beeing said there are still reports on whats happening in Iran, only this is bound to some of the more "important" days of the revolution. And always they go for the low (confirmed) numbers. eks "protest of 400-500 in front of evin prison today" but nothing on the rest of the protest around the city.

    Dont blame the media for the lack of day to day reports on the revolution, they still have to make reliable and relevant (to the viewer) moneymaking news.

    As for Obama, i think it allready described elsewhere but for him there is two possible solutions. The revolution will suceed or not. One way or the other he still has to deal with the goverment that comes out victorious.
    Backing the revolution (which i think he would love to suceed) would only give the regime more fuel for the "foreign insiting the revolt" and would not garentee the revolutions sucees.
    Mix in the Bush policy and America current reputation he would imo be best off keeping neutral as long as possible sticking to condemming the violations on human rights.

    I belive that we do have a few conspyracy theorist and blue eyed human right activist in here. I do value their input which makes base for discussion and and open eyes on a few new possiblities, but remember to look at the argument from all sides and that the most simpel explanation is in most cases the right one.

    I do support the Iranien people and hope the revolution will oust the regime, but i also think that the goverment/ruling system that i would love to see instead is not quite the same as will be. Hell the first several decades we had democracy women werent alowed to vote. Democracy takes time.

    History has proven that a succesfull revolution always comes from the people, may they suceed.

    Dunken

    sry for the spelling but english is not my native language, and no spellchecking ;)
  33. dunken

    Of course one can blame media. Wwhen there are protests in the Middle East against American policy, usually the media (from the two numbers possible) puts larger number of the crowd in its dispatch instead of the lower of protesters.
    When there were government sponsored demonstrations in Iran media usually gave bigger number of participants instead of lower. In fact I have heard that during demonstrations sometimes there were more journalists there than there were demonstrators.
    But now media is putting lower number instead of higher because "journalists should be realiable". Really!!!
  34. Voters Union Member

    Look at the actual quote as well:

    That's not much of a reversal in my eyes, more like a variation of what he probably wanted to say yesterday.

    "He's been inaugurated. That's a fact"

    In other words he's the President now, that's a fact.

    "Whether any election was fair, ..., we'll let [the people] decide"

    The election wasn't fair (all over the world, in lots of places they aren't), but governments deal with the (unfairly) elected leaders of these countries anyway.

    By disconnecting the fairness of the election process from the recognition of the end result, the WH clearly positions itself for a way forward with Ahmadinejad.

    I don't think it's particularly brave or inspiring.
  35. Hechicera Member

    I agree it is not brave or inspiring, but considering the US still has no official ties or embassy, there isn't much room to go lower on recognition.

    As well, if the Ahmadinejad's regime can keep power for a while, the US would not want to give up it's seat at any negotiating tables for pragmatic reasons.

    So, while it is not brave or inspiring, it may be pragmatic.
  36. Mir Obama Member

    I take pragmatic anyday.
  37. Voters Union Member

    Yes, I agree and thank you for completing my thought.

    :)
  38. Thank you. I completely agree. I think this should always be kept in mind.
  39. May I point out that the US did not recognize Ahmadinejad's election four years ago either, nor both of Khatami's elections for that matter.
  40. Srpska Member

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins