You do not have to agree with me, and you have expressed that you do not twice – this is a conservative blog, so no surprise there that my conservative views will be expressed. I’m still dumbfounded and angry at Obama’s lack of support and milquetoast rhetoric – I wholeheartedly feel that he DID NOT MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE. I have already expressed that more than once, but now, it should be without ambiguity.

I used to be a liberal, but decided a while back that the ideologies and principles of liberals or Democrats do not match my own. I’ve expressed several times my opinions on Obama’s weak stance on the Iranian revolution and his lack of leadership in denouncing the fraudulent election, which a great many other people share, including Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and yet, you continue to badger. Your queries now seem to be disingenuous. You’re allowed to defend him, but you’ve repeatedly crossed the line with your attitude. Why did I use his middle name? I’ve called him that before, and will likely do it again. I also call him POTUS, The One, BO, BHO, Mr. President, Barry, Prez, Party-Boy, Spendthrift Wastrel, Frat Boy, Mr. Socialist, Mr. Elitist, Teleprompter Man, Super-Obama… any number of different names. Read into it anything you want; whatever you want to think is A-OK by me.

In conclusion, to paraphrase your final insulting sentence, I hope you “stomached” my “hyperbole and mentally parsed out the pointless list of links” to your statist satisfaction. If you didn’t, please trust in that I’m fine with that. Yes, this conversation has devolved into snide personal insults from you and is now over. This could have been a civilized debate, but you screwed up and broke the rules. Insulting admins of any blog is never a good thing, Chris. You’ve worn out your welcome here.

At this point, ti’s not exactly clear that outright condemnation of Iran is the right choice. If you were watching what Iran’s leaders were saying instead of complaining about what Obama isn’t, you noticed that pretty much all of them have accused pretty much ever Western country that’s acknowledged them of trying to manipulate the elections and the protests. Remember who we are talking about here – major members of the Iranian government regularly decry what they believe to be a Zionist conspiracy against them, and most criticism they receive is filed under “nonsense from puppets of Israel”.

What exactly do you hope for Obama’s support to lead to? Will the protesters gain some kind of video game-like morale bonus that makes them more efficient at bringing about democracy? There’s just as good a chance that Iran will crack down even harder on their dissidents if they think they can sell the idea of foreign parties causing the unrest.

All Obama can offer at this point is words, and the words that some consider to be help can be used as weapons by others.

Also, why did you include his middle name in your post? Because I have to admit I’ve never seen a conservative do it for a reason that promotes intelligent debate.

(Vicky, I’ll try and reply to your post later, assuming I can stomach the hyperbole and mentally parse out the pointless list of links)

I would think him giving more verbal support to the Iranian protesters would fit perfectly in his “Hope and Change” motto. They are desperate people – they want change from the dictatorship of Iran, and without America and other countries supporting them, they hav e NO hope. or was Obama’s hope and change only good up until November 2008 and after he got elected it doesn’t apply anymore? Has his philosophy of ‘hope and change’ expired? And it doesn’t apply to people who are bieng gunned down and brutlized by their government?

The people wanted a recount of a fake election, and not only were they told “no,” but have been threatened by the government. These people want justice, human rights, and democracy. Americans have stood for these principles. He should have taken a stronger stance once American journalists were told to leave, once communications were severed. This is a revolution, and the leader of the greatest nation in the world has been pretty much MUTE.

What do I want Obama to do? I want him to QUIT CAMPAIGNING, quit waffling like a kid in bathing trunks who isn’t sure if he wants to jump into the pool, and be our POTUS. To stand for democracy and denounce the dictator regime of Iran. To show that America does not tolerate nor condone rigged elections, the oppression of women, the injustices perpetrated by heartless, power-hungry tyrants. I want him to grow a pair and maybe pretend for just a bit that he is half the man and one-quarter leader that Ronald Reagan was. Or George W. Bush was (love him or loath him, we never had a repeat of 9/11 on US soil after the WTC tragedy – I give GWB full credit for that). Or any other leaders of America when staring at blatant tyranny and oppression straight in the eye. And Chris, I’m not alone on how I think and feel on this. Democrats as well as Republicans are cringing and criticizing his weak stance. I’d rather he be feared than mocked, as I don’t want the national security of America to ever be compromised.

I include many, many links to many, many blogs and news sources in my blog posts. I’ve copied these for your convenience. I am in agreement with a goodly number of them. Read a few, and at least, you won’t ask me any other rhetorical questions about where I stand.

The Plum Line: Report: Hillary And Biden Want Obama To Talk Tougher On Iran
Free Republic: Internal Discord Over Obama’s Iran Response? (Biden/Hillary Team Up & Throw Obama Under the Bus)
USA Today: Obama’s reticence on Iran stirs stew of opinion
Today, MSNBC: McCain: Obama needs to get tougher on Iran
Christopher Hitchens, Slate: Persian Paranoia – Iranian leaders will always believe Anglo-Saxons are plotting against them – Hitchens smacks Obama Over Iran
Associated Press: Obama stays with careful response to Iran crisis, does not want to become a scapegoat
FOX Politics: McCain Faults Obama for Cautious Response to Disputed Outcome of Iran’s Election
Michelle Malkin: Iran showdown: “Supreme Leader” tries to quell rebellion; US Congress does what Obama won’t
Presidency News: Weak: Obama Finally Speaks out on Iran, Manages to Simultaneously Say Nothing….
Gateway Pundit: Noted Iranian Activist Kianoosh Sanjari: “The People of Iran Will Not Forgive Obama For Siding With the Regime” (Audio-Video) and Obama Tells Killer Iranian Regime “The World Is Watching”… Then Gets Ice Cream
Nice Deb: An Iranian Protester Pleads For US/World Intervention

What do I think the world’s reaction will be if Obama stops acting like a community organizer and like a man to be respected? And believe me, he is being laughed at by all the tyrants he desperately wants to be be buddies with.

I believe the reaction will be what is it is about now with him being “President Pantywaist” as they call him in the UK: Half will hate us, half will agree with us. We won’t be meddling, but speaking out against the regime. Silence is complicity. It’s like he’s standing in the middle, holding back to see who will be “the winner,” so then he can scoot over to the “winning” side. And most of the world sees that happening, too.

Obama will be criticized around the world no matter what he does – goes with the job. Parts of the world that hate us now also hated us under Bush, under Clinton, Under Bush Sr., under Reagan, under Carter… we can’t be weak and milquetoast-like just because we want to be liked. That’s childish and dangerous. For some countries, we will NEVER be liked. But that’s not important – we need to be respected, to be feared. Otherwise, attacking the US may seem like “easy pickin’s” to many of our enemies.

1. What do you want Obama to do?

2. And how do you think the world will react to that course of action?