President Obama: On Key Policies, Not Much Difference Between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi
EmailPresident Obama argued yesterday that there is little difference between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi on policies critical to the U.S.
“It's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised,” the president told CNBC. “Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons. And so we've got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election.”
In fact not only is Mousavi a supporter of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, International Atomic Energy Agency documents obtained by Ha’aretz newspaper indicate that Iran began its secret nuclear program during Mousavi’s previous tenure as prime minister when “Tehran decided in 1987 to purchase the centrifuges it is using to enrich uranium,” which were purchased on the black market
through Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan’s smuggling ring.
A profile of Mousavi in Germany’s Spiegel earlier this year – which noted that during his time as prime minister Mousavi “did not distinguish himself as a domestic political reformer. In fact, his term in office was marked by a sharp rise in the number of arrests” – Mousavi said that “we will not abandon the great achievements of Iranian scientists. I too will not suspend uranium enrichment.”
Asked how he is different from Ahmadinejad on nuclear weapons, Mousavi asked, “Must there always be fundamental differences between two candidates on vital national issues?” Mousavi also told Spiegel that he doesn’t recognize Israel.
But there do seem some key differences on other issues. For one, Mousavi seems far more willing to engage with the West.
“The language Mr. Obama uses is refreshingly different from that of his predecessor, George W. Bush,” he told Spiegel. “But actions must now follow. We will pay careful attention to what happens next. If his actions are in keeping with his words, why shouldn't we negotiate?…We want to see concrete steps. When that happens, trust can slowly be developed once again. We can contribute to this by moderating our tone. I support good relations with other countries. A policy of détente will be a central issue for me.”
Mousavi has expressed a desire for more openness. "An approach that runs on the basis of 'keeping the influx of changes at bay' will irrefutably bring about the closure of newspapers, limitations on freedom in society and public detachment from national-religious leadership," he has said. "On the contrary, an approach that moves toward the recognition of changes, upholds values like sovereignty, liberty as well as peace. Such an approach would produce the right conditions for changes in the society and enable us to make the most of our opportunities.”
He’s also expressed support for greater rights for women in Iran. "We should reform laws that are unfair to women,” he has said.
And his wife Zahra Rahnavard has been quoted saying that “we should prepare the ground for an Iran where women are treated without discrimination…We should reform laws that treat women unequally. We should empower women financially, women should be able to choose their professions according to their merits, and Iranian women should be able to reach the highest level of decision making bodies."
It’s unclear if Mousavi acknowledges the full reality of the Holocaust, just as Ahmadinejad denies it.
“ It is not a question of the number of people killed,” he said. “Nor is it a question of who committed the crimes. No matter who was responsible, we condemn them for it. But the issue is this: Why should the Palestinians have to pay for what happened back then in Europe?” he said that “we have a cemetery in Tehran where Polish immigrants are buried. They fled to Iran to escape the injustices at the time. Something must have happened.”
In a separate interview with the Associated Press Mousavi of the Holocaust, “some people were killed there, some Jews were killed there, we condemn the killing of a single innocent person.”
-jpt
Rick Santorum Sweeps 3 States 
Pentagon to Open Additional Jobs to Women
The Iranian students are waiting for a little wisp of a breeze from Obama to help keep their ember of “hope and change” alive, but are met with suffocating silence.
The Obama administration overreaches in Israel but keeps its hands in his pockets with the Iranian students.
This is heartbreaking.
Posted by: WhereWasThePress? | June 17, 2009, 12:52 pm 12:52 pm
“It’s important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised,”
Um…. can someone tell the President that its not about this, its about corruption of government in staged elections? Hellooooo. Yeah, protestors DIED because Mousavi was so much different than Ahmadinejad.
What a crock, who is this laim reporter that let the President get away with such a juvenile statement?
Posted by: KR | June 17, 2009, 1:20 pm 1:20 pm
“It’s important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised,”
Nice to see the President is keeping the big picture – America and the worlds actual security interests – in mind. A refreshing change from staring into Mousavi’s eyes and seeing the pureness of his soul or something.
Everyone wants the people of Iran to win greater freedom, but I’m glad that our leadership is keeping their eyes on managing reality. Obama clearly has some good people on his team – this measured approach is reminding me of the sort of maestro work done by Bush Sr.
Posted by: jhw539 | June 17, 2009, 1:32 pm 1:32 pm
“It’s important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised,”
——————————–
KR . . . President Obama was making a separate point from the legitimacy of the elections. Obama has already made statements supporting a review of any election irregularities.
Posted by: danita | June 17, 2009, 1:36 pm 1:36 pm
There’s not much difference between Obama and Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon either, but most people haven’t seem to have caught onto that yet. Maybe he should make an announcement on one of his daily tv appearances to let them know.
Posted by: paul | June 17, 2009, 1:49 pm 1:49 pm
Obviously President Obama doesn’t get it. There are extreme differences between the two Iranians. Mousavi does not promote men having several wives, and promotes more cooperation and contact with the West. The President, as usual, is naive and undeducated – he should do his home work before he says such stupid things. I am also disgusted with ABC offices moving into the White House to be at the President’s disposal for his healthcare agenda, which keeps opposing viewpoints from being heard by ABC viewers. You say you will include all people of every opinion in the White House briefings – Sure you will. Your station is obviously now run by the President, just like Cuba or Russia. There is something called “Freedom of the Press”, and the ability of other networks to express their opinions on various subjects. Your network is promoting Dictatorship – Never again will we watch your programs. Shame on you. ABC can now be credited with promoting a Communist agenda. Outrageous.
Posted by: mfrench | June 17, 2009, 2:01 pm 2:01 pm
mfrench:”Mousavi does not promote men having several wives, and promotes more cooperation and contact with the West”
Great, so what are their differences on their nuclear program or supporting terrorists? You know, the things that are actually legitimate American concerns?
Posted by: jhw539 | June 17, 2009, 2:06 pm 2:06 pm
Oduma is almost just like them or wants to be .
Posted by: Joeray | June 17, 2009, 2:10 pm 2:10 pm
ODUMA is just like them,or wants to be .
Posted by: Joeray | June 17, 2009, 2:13 pm 2:13 pm
Obama is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. The $64 million dollar question is: Why do the Mullahs want Ahmadinejad rather than Mousavi?
Prior to the Cairo speech, Obama went to Saudi Arabia to consult with them. The Saudi prefer the strict Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam. The Iranians prefer the Shiite version of Islam. Basic Sunni and Shiite beliefs are at odds with each other. For all of Obama’s claims to Muslim roots and a current Christian profession, he appears to have little understanding of either religion (and their complexities, variations, and disagreements) and what underlying role they play in politics. Not a good sign for understanding what role the USA should or should not take in the middle-east at this time.
Don’t even get me started about how ignorant Obama is on the Jewish faith and their historical claims to their land…. there is much Mr. O needs to learn, but he’s on a blitskrieg.
Posted by: Ordinary Sadie | June 17, 2009, 2:13 pm 2:13 pm
You guys sit here in America, eat MacDonalds and you think you know what is happening elsewhere.
1. Ahmedinejad didn`t just win, he actually blew out his opponent. Of course the loser will not accept defeat easily. Mousavi is yet to present any real evidence of election fraud.
2. I remember the same thing happening last year when the west wanted Ahmedinejad`s party to lose in their parliamentary elections. Guess what? They won.
3.Ahmedine`s party held a rally yesterday with the biggest crowd of supporters yet but they never showed you this on TV.
4. After all the threats from Israel did you think Iranians will be stupid enough to vote in a weak leader?
5. If it`s okay for Israel to elect a right wing party, why is it not ok for Iran to do that?
6. Yes these Ahmedinejad and Mousavi are very similar in a lot of ways including their nuclear programs and Foreign policy. The Mullah`s have vetted them very well.
7. People talk about how Democracy in Iran is a sham because candidates are vetted by the mullahs and how the Ayatolla is the real leader. This is not different from America where Dems and Repubs control politics among themselves and not allowing a third party. At least Iram is a multi party system. They vote their president by popular vote, not electoral college like America.
Next time you have something bad to talk about, please be objective.
Posted by: Mike | June 17, 2009, 2:18 pm 2:18 pm
“President Obama was making a separate point from the legitimacy of the elections.”
It’s more connected than that. Iranians are over there protesting, and in some cases dying, over their inability to choose their leader and future of their nation. The only reason he is making any comments at all is because of that disturbance over there. To come out and say, “well it doesn’t really matter anyway because the two candidates are so much alike” totally undermines their protests.
“Obama has already made statements supporting a review of any election irregularities.”
He knows, as everyone should know, the elections in Iran are not really elections, nor should they resemble anything of the like. Coming out and saying that the government, who is responsible for the whole ruse of this being an election, should investigate irregularities on itself? This is insulting to anyone with a clue. The government chooses who can run, not the people, and in the end, the Guardian Council chooses who wins, not the people, and our President shows support for them to investigate themselves? Silly and naive.
Posted by: KR | June 17, 2009, 2:23 pm 2:23 pm
KR . ..
What would you have the President do?
Posted by: danita | June 17, 2009, 2:28 pm 2:28 pm
I’m so glad McCain is not president. He would have used their election mess as reason to go to war with Iran.
(bomb,bomb,bomb Iran)
‘Hail to the Chief’
president Obama, smart & pragmatic
Posted by: watching | June 17, 2009, 2:37 pm 2:37 pm
The real people doing the meddling are the Iranian government. By shutting off facebook, twitter and bloggers and internet. By denying safe-haven to journalists and protestors they have all but guaranteed themselves a civil war by making Amedinejad, the current regime and the Ayatollah look GUILTYas sin of trying to silence the people seeking the truth. THERE IS YOUR PROOF!!! Thankfuly its 2009 and there is NOTHING that they can do to stop internet, photographs, journalists and word-of-mouth from ever leaving Iran ever! The revolution is all but already won!!! Allah Akbar!!! Death to the dictators. They cannot silence all the people of Iran it will never happen!!!! There is always a way just like when the jews escaped hitler!!! Eventually the even the prisoners of Iran will be free and the those who die in the name of its freedom will be martyrs!!!
Posted by: allahakhbar | June 17, 2009, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm
The real people doing the meddling are the Iranian government. By shutting off facebook, twitter and bloggers and internet. By denying safe-haven to journalists and protestors they have all but guaranteed themselves a civil war by making Amedinejad, the current regime and the Ayatollah look GUILTYas sin of trying to silence the people seeking the truth. THERE IS YOUR PROOF!!! Thankfuly its 2009 and there is NOTHING that they can do to stop internet, photographs, journalists and word-of-mouth from ever leaving Iran ever! The revolution is all but already won!!! Allah Akbar!!! Death to the dictators. They cannot silence all the people of Iran it will never happen!!!! There is always a way just like when the jews escaped hitler!!! Eventually the even the prisoners of Iran will be free and the those who die in the name of its freedom will be martyrs!!!
Posted by: guesswhaturwrong | June 17, 2009, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm
They will never silence a country of 75 million people! Never!
Posted by: guesswhaturwrong | June 17, 2009, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm
“Ahmedinejad didn`t just win, he actually blew out his opponent. Of course the loser will not accept defeat easily. Mousavi is yet to present any real evidence of election fraud.”
If you take the suggested results, released by the government interior ministry, who works for Ahmedinejad. Also of note, mass protests numbering in the tens of thousands broke out all over Iran, not just at a University in Tehran.
“Ahmedine`s party held a rally yesterday with the biggest crowd of supporters yet but they never showed you this on TV.”
Given that they claim their rallys number a million, when in reality about 20k is the standard there, plus their own governments crackdown on all media, how are we to see the truth?
“4. After all the threats from Israel did you think Iranians will be stupid enough to vote in a weak leader?
5. If it`s okay for Israel to elect a right wing party, why is it not ok for Iran to do that?
6. Yes these Ahmedinejad and Mousavi are very similar in a lot of ways including their nuclear programs and Foreign policy. The Mullah`s have vetted them very well.”
Its not about who, its about how. It’s about if they really are elections. Why do a recount if it was such a landslide victory? Because Iranians don’t believe the results. I find it interesting people of a particular political pursuasion will claim democracy will never work in Iraq, then turn around and defend the staged democracy of Iran.
“People talk about how Democracy in Iran is a sham because candidates are vetted by the mullahs and how the Ayatolla is the real leader. This is not different from America where Dems and Repubs control politics among themselves and not allowing a third party.”
Wow, this is some screwed up equivelancy arguements here Mike. First off, we allow third party’s, Green Party, Libertarian party, no one votes for them (well about 2% total I think this last election). Ron Paul ran as a third party didn’t he? So it’s allowed, just not popular.
And don’t fool yourself, the Mullahs in the Guardian Council do more than “vette” candidates. Everyone knows there is little difference between the candidates. But don’t think for a second that the Guardian Council didn’t care who won and who lost. When they have that power, they won’t leave it to chance who represents Iran.
Posted by: KR | June 17, 2009, 2:48 pm 2:48 pm
KR . ..
What would you have the President do?
Posted by: danita | June 17, 2009, 2:54 pm 2:54 pm
“What would you have the President do?”
All of his words should be focused on the Iranian people and their freedom to choose the future of their nation. Standing with the people of Iran that the government represents their will, regardless of what they choose. That we support open, free and fair elections.
Don’t choose sides between political sides, choose liberty and freedom for the Iranian people to ensure a government that represents them.
That’s what he should do, or should have done. Even if Achmedenijad is clearly the winner, you’re still sending the right message that the Iranian people need greater say in their government, which can only help us in the long run.
Posted by: KR | June 17, 2009, 2:54 pm 2:54 pm
KR . . .
You are stating almost exactly what President Obama has said . . . ‘his words should be focused on the Iranian people and their freedom to choose the future of their nation’ – he stated clearly it is for Iranians to decide their future and that we support ‘open, free and democratic elections’. And as you recommend against, he did not ‘chose sides’ .
You have said almost exactly what the President has said already.
Thank you for making your suggestions.
Posted by: danita | June 17, 2009, 3:04 pm 3:04 pm
“You have said almost exactly what the President has said already.”
Really? Where? Only thing I heard was “we aren’t choosing sides” and “we have conerns about the violence” and “we think the irregularities should be investigated”.
How is that simular?
Posted by: KR | June 17, 2009, 3:08 pm 3:08 pm
KR . …
Now you are showing woeful ignorance of what President Obama has said. He stated clearly it is for Iranians to decide their future and that we support open, free and democratic elections – just as you recommended. And he clearly did not take sides.
Posted by: danita | June 17, 2009, 3:12 pm 3:12 pm
“It’s not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling.”
“It’s important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi, in terms of their actual policies, may not be as great as has been advertised,”
Obama made clear that this “is not how governments should interact with their people.” His rhetoric went just a bit beyond his careful statement on Monday, when he said an inquiry into the disputed presidential election should go ahead without violence and that it would be wrong to be silent about developments
“People’s voices should be heard and not suppressed,”
“I do believe that something has happened in Iran,” the president said. “There is a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures towards the international community that have taken place in the past and that there are people who want to see greater openness and greater debate and want to see greater democracy.”
There are “people” who want to see greater … Oh but not us, we are in no position to say.
Give me a break Danita.
Posted by: KR | June 17, 2009, 3:13 pm 3:13 pm
KR . …
Now you are showing woeful ignorance of what President Obama has said. He stated clearly it is for Iranians to decide their future and that we support open, free and democratic elections – just as you recommended. And he clearly did not take sides.
This is what you said you would have the President do . .. and it’s been done. Your suggestions have already been implemented.
Do you have any other suggestions for what you would have the President do?
Posted by: danita | June 17, 2009, 3:17 pm 3:17 pm
“Now you are showing woeful ignorance of what President Obama has said.”
Yeah your right Danita, I’m the one showing woeful ignorance. Is it just standard that anyone you disagree with is woefully ignorant?
This is pretty important in the type of work I do so I am paying attention. Now I personally disagree with his approach, that’s just me. But honestly his response is what I expected, from an internationalist point of view. But that’s what America voted for so I’ll live with it, doesn’t mean I have to agree.
Posted by: KR | June 17, 2009, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm
KR . …
What would you have the President do?
Posted by: danita | June 17, 2009, 3:24 pm 3:24 pm
“What would you have the President do?”
Um… there is no reset button on boards. You can scroll down and read it.
Posted by: KR | June 17, 2009, 3:27 pm 3:27 pm
“But the torch of liberty is hot. It warms those who hold it high. It burns those who try to extinguish it.”
-Ronald Reagan
That’s the kind of words I was hoping for Danita, and I think the Iranians were hoping for something like this as well. I could be wrong, not saying his unaffected approach is detrimental, it isn’t hurting anything, just doesn’t seem what this country should be standing for is all. Maybe we aren’t the country I thought we were anymore.
Posted by: KR | June 17, 2009, 3:33 pm 3:33 pm
We will just add this to the very long list of Obama’s self serving lies.
If he doesn’t speak up and protest the slaughter of protestors for democracy in Iran he has a very good reason, we are to believe.
No difference.
I beg to differ, however Obama supporting a dictator in a regime that even the UN inspector Baradai now admits wants nuclear weapons is indefensible.
Obama’s must hope that Ahmadinejad will carry out his anti-Israeli, wipe Israel off the face of the earth threats. Does anyone else have an honest, realistic explanation.
Perhaps he senses a kinship in Ahmadinejad, even an admiration for his iron handed control of the entire country. I bet Obama wishes he could get away with killing those that oppose him.
He already has carried out threats of financial ruin for those that oppose him, while the media lie down like the dogs they are for Obama.
Perhaps he senses if continues to push this very rapid decline in the US economy and the very rapid takeover in banking, auto industry and so on, he too could have the power of an Ahmadinejad.
Before you become apoplectic ask yourself how many things Obama has already done that you could not possibly have imagined would be so.
Posted by: MNM | June 17, 2009, 3:46 pm 3:46 pm
I am tired of this Iran issue, Obama is right there is no difference between these two, and he should stay out of it.
The loser is now calling for more protest, maybe riots and civil disobedience exactly what will that prove?
He is willing to destroy the country, get people killed to get into power and then say he is the better candidate.
Looking on I think Iran is very free, am surprised that so many people are allowed in the street, burning and breaking stuff and not getting tossed into jail.
This can never happen in Venezuela and some other places so exactly how difficult is life for them, they sure seems to be allowed to express how they feel, as I said am tire of it time for them to accept the results and find some other means to be heard, a worthwhile leader would encourage citizens to do such.
Posted by: SJ | June 17, 2009, 3:50 pm 3:50 pm
The President is finally right
about something!
They are two peas from the same pod.
Either one would continue the
nuclear program which must be stopped.
Posted by: reaganfan | June 17, 2009, 3:50 pm 3:50 pm
Well, these little equivalencies of Barack are getting tiresome because they don’t lead to any either heartfelt or reasoned conclusions, just his “hope” for unconditional negotiations that will lead to what, more “hope??
Bhutto and Musharraf had about the same opinion on their nuclear weapons, so?
Stalin and Khrushchev about the same ideology but the world perhaps and Russia definitely were better off with latter.
Could Mousavi be a Gorby? Impossible to tell at this point, but we could dream?
Ronnie and Maggie and above all John Paul II dreamed (and strove for) a Gorby to come into being, and when he did, pushed him in the way he should go.
The protests if they become something more and are not crushed like Tiananmen are much more than just about Mousavi. Read the 7 point manifesto of the students. Listen to Rafsanjani and Ayatollah Montazeri question the legitimacy of the regime.
The phenomenal thing is that President Obama stands above the amazingly diverse protest (mullahs, communists, millionaires, students and farmers) and judges their odds of being dealt better odds at democratic reform as being too low to make a rash choice to favor them.
Posted by: robertb | June 17, 2009, 4:00 pm 4:00 pm
“President Obama: Not Much Difference Between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi”
So the people are rioting in the streets due to petty disagreements? Nice way to marginalize the Iranian people, oh great diplomatic one.
I thought Obama wanted “to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran.” That was his excuse for not commenting immediately or forcefully and for generally being weak on the issue. Apparently the pressure to defend freedom and democracy finally got to him. Pathetic.
Of course, in Obama’s attempt to deflect criticism over the issue, he admits that the Iranian people really didn’t have a “robust debate” as he’s been trying to convince everyone. I ask, how can the Iranians have a “robust debate” when he’s claiming both candidates are virtually the same? You can’t. Just more doublespeak from Obama.
Which brings us to the heart of the matter for Obama — politics. Obama naively thinks that if he legitimizes the elections and the government of Iran he will score political points with the Iranian government that he can use when he negotiates with them over their nuclear ambitions. All at the cost of real freedom and democracy for the Iranian people and people with similar aspirations around the world. So much for America being a beacon of hope, freedom, and democracy under Obama.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 17, 2009, 4:36 pm 4:36 pm
Even if Mousavi is a poor alternative to Ahmadinejad, there is no good reason for Obama to say so (except to portray himself as a know-it-all to Iranians and the world). If Mousavi had been “elected”, Obama would have to “talk” with him instead. Now he has insulted both leaders, and also those Iranians who voted for Mousavi for real reasons. This is simply naive behavior from Obama, he has had more than enough time to come up with an “intellectual” and “nuanced” response.
I wonder now if Obama believes that Iranians have a democratic right to elect whatever leader they choose, even if that leader would disagree with US interests. This calls into question his philosophy concerning the role and value of democracy; he chooses to ignore election fraud, and how that is a subversion of democracy, and concentrates instead on a way to extricate himself from talks without preconditions with an Iranian government that is a sham, one way or another.
Posted by: Mike | June 17, 2009, 4:40 pm 4:40 pm
Frankly, the Obama response seems a bit .. “anal”.
It’s like once the election is over .. please clear the streets of this “chaos.”
The politically savvy will savoy the “chaos” and use the “chaos” to advantage, but to Obama, this is just clutter.
Posted by: John Q Public | June 17, 2009, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
Well apparently the supreme leader, the ayatollah, thinks there’s a difference, otherwise why rig the election. the iranian people obviously know it was not a landslide victory for akmedinejab
Posted by: jjk | June 17, 2009, 5:26 pm 5:26 pm
president obama you are in wrong. change plz
Posted by: Alireza Rahimzad | June 17, 2009, 5:51 pm 5:51 pm
Heck, there’s not a lot of difference between these two guys and Obama!
Posted by: TxBoB | June 17, 2009, 6:37 pm 6:37 pm
At least Obama is not doing the knee-jerk “he’s good – he’s bad” act of the two Georges Bush. A little “so what” might actually go a long way toward defusing some types of conflicts.
Posted by: Jordan | June 17, 2009, 7:04 pm 7:04 pm
there’s always the ‘nuanced’ singing suggestion of John McCain’ from the campaign,..
follow the bouncing ball, everyone sing……
bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran’
oh those quirky republicans, they go from war to supporting Iran so quickly… you could get wind burn
Posted by: Oh Yeah | June 17, 2009, 7:34 pm 7:34 pm
Clearly there are no suggestions coming forward from the Republican right as to what the President should be doing differently or additionally in this situation.
No specifics whatsoever.
Let’s face it; most of what is going on here is just carping and bad-mouthing.
Posted by: danita | June 17, 2009, 8:00 pm 8:00 pm
Again, Obama is claiming against all the evidence to the contrary, and not a scintilla of evidence backing him up, that Iran is persuing nuclear weapons. He’s lying.
Posted by: Flash Override | June 17, 2009, 8:01 pm 8:01 pm
Some people just dont understand issues as hot and delicate as this political situations between US/Iran and or other country. Whatelse in the world did u guys who disagreed with The US-President(President Obama) expected him to say.If he had commented quickly some of these contributors will say something negative, now he waited….and made a superb-political comment, yet some
who knows next to nothing about int’l politics started..bla..blaing it is very unfortunate. GUYs say whatever u care…believe US/Thr. The present President Obama is on the dright track to right what has been completelly-wrong for years. And atrocities commited by most REPUBLICAN-govts, and of which several citizens of US are paying ‘unnecessary-price’ for.
At this stage and time may GOD bless this new US PRESIDENT-Obama. Dialogue means a whole lot, but at the end Americans wont have as many enemies shortly, as we have had over the years.
Posted by: wale mohammed | June 17, 2009, 9:06 pm 9:06 pm
ORIGINAL HEADLINE: “President Obama: Not Much Difference Between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi”
NEW HEADLINE: “President Obama: On Key Policies, Not Much Difference Between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi”
The original headline for this was accurate. Apparently, ABC couldn’t let Obama’s gaffe stand unaided. Maybe they felt he deserved a handicap as I’m guessing he didn’t use a teleprompter for the interview (then again, I wouldn’t be surprised to be wrong). In any case, ABC was thoughtful enough to take the time to add in the false “on key policies” qualifier to transform Obama’s original comments into something a little more sensitive to the Iranian people. You know, the same Iranian people who found enough “difference” in the candidates to shed blood and riot in the streets. Yes . . . Obama has proven to be quite the sensitive diplomat. Sensitive to our enemies, and an enemy to free people — that’s the type of diplomat Obama has proven to be.
Obama said, “. . . the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised.” He said nothing of “key policies,” but instead spoke generally of “actual policies.” The original headline was accurate, and the modification itself provides a real insight into the minds of the so-called objective reporters of the news at ABC. In truth, the liberal bias and Obama-love, here, is thick as it is pathetic.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 17, 2009, 9:59 pm 9:59 pm
follow the bouncing ball, everyone sing……
‘bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran’
oh those quirky republicans, they go from war to supporting Iran so quickly… you could get wind burn
Posted by: Oh Yeah
you are right…… McCain & the Republicans would have started another war by now, they’re not happy unless there’s war
Posted by: TJ | June 18, 2009, 12:09 am 12:09 am
TJ: “McCain & the Republicans would have started another war by now, they’re not happy unless there’s war”
Woulda, coulda, shoulda, but didn’t.
I don’t know how many times you liberals said we were going to invade Iran. Although, we had every justification to with their support of terrorism, their killing of our soldiers in Iraq, and their nuclear aspirations to name a few. In any case, no matter how many wild dreams you concoct, Bush never did invade Iran, and McCain never had the chance. Enough with your faulty theories.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 18, 2009, 3:20 pm 3:20 pm
Saying “the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised” is not the same as saying that there is little difference.
It’s a pity when a reporter not only fails to understand what someone actually said, but then actively tries to distort their words into being something that they are not. Shame on you, Mr. Tapper.
Posted by: Prodigal | June 20, 2009, 12:03 pm 12:03 pm