Is this what you call a 'vigorous debate?'

- The Loft - http://www.gopusa.com/theloft -

Is this what you call a 'vigorous debate?


An election was held in Iran, and now people are dying. They are dying in the name of freedom -- protesting what they feel is a rigged election. Since the protests began, the Iranian government has been resorting to violence in order to stop the momentum of progress.

While people are dying in the streets of Iran, Barack Obama and his team have been calling the situation a "vigorous debate." Are you kidding me? A vigorous debate was held between Lincoln and Douglas. A vigorous debate is what you have between Michigan and Ohio State fans. People are dying! And yet, Obama will still not send a clear message to the people of Iran that America is on their side.


The White House has been quite obvious in its lack of direct condemnation of the Iranian government, despite the fact that innocent civilians, who are standing up for the most basic "American" values of freedom and democracy, are dying at the hands of a government crackdown.

During a June 19 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had this exchange with a reporter:

Q He said he was troubled by violence. He didn't say they shouldn't do it or directly criticize them for doing it.

MR. GIBBS: That's not the way I read it. I think when the --

Q I have the --

MR. GIBBS: I have the same transcript right here. I think when the President sits in the Oval Office and says he's: deeply troubled by what I've seen on television, and the American people are rightly troubled by that; I think when the President discusses as he did with President Lee that something has happened in Iran, where there's a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures toward the international community that have taken place in the past, and there are people who want to see greater openness, greater debate, and want to see greater democracy -- I stand strongly with the universal principle that people's voices should be heard and not be suppressed.

I think the language in the resolution is very consistent with the language that the President has used.

Q It makes direct criticism of the government, which he has not done.

MR. GIBBS: We can quibble on this. I think the President has been clear in standing up for the universal principles and deploring violence.

In other words, Barack Obama is "troubled by violence," but he does not have the fortitude to tell the Iranian government to stop.

In that same briefing, the following exchange occurred:

Q Robert, continuing on that theme, what is the White House and the President's reaction to the supreme leader of Iran warning to protestors to stop protesting and calling on -- saying that leaders will be held responsible for bloodshed?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President addressed that also on Monday, that he believes, as we have said throughout the week and as I've said throughout the week, those who wish to have their voices heard should be able to do that -- to do that without fear of violence; that that is an important universal principle that should be upheld. And I think he strongly supports that.

Q So would he criticize or condemn this particular statement from the supreme leader?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has been clear on what he believes: that he believes strongly that people should have their voices heard, that clearly there is, as he said on Tuesday, a ferment in Iran that is bringing about change.

Direct answer to the question... NO! The president will not condemn the statement because he wants to have it both ways. By doing so, he sends a clear message to the Iranian people that he is not in their corner. This is a demoralizing blow to a nation that is yearning for freedom.

On June 13, the White House described the Iranian elections this way:

Like the rest of the world, we were impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians. We continue to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities.

And here is what Obama said yesterday:

And the fact that they are now in the midst of an extraordinary debate taking place in Iran, you know, may end up coloring how they respond to the international community as a whole.

More "great debate" type of non-answers! The next part was even worse:

QUESTION: So should there be consequences for what's happened so far?

MR. OBAMA: I think that the international community is, as I said before, bearing witness to what's taking place. And the Iranian government should understand that how they handle the dissent within their own country, generated indigenously, internally, from the Iranian people, will help shape the tone, not only for Iran's future, but also its relationship to other countries.

What in the world does that mean. Obama rarely talks about America... it's always the "international community." And who cares about "bearing witness." Many countries bore witness to the early actions of Hitler and did nothing! Obama talks about "shaping the tone" while Iranians are dying. I'm not talking about going to war with Iran, but the Iranian people need to believe that America is firmly on their side. Do you think they believe that?


Posted By Bobby Eberle June 2009

CANADIAN HEALTH CARE: COMING SOON TO THE USA?

Dear Friends,

In our new book, Catastrophe, we spell out exactly how the Obama health care proposals will lead to a Canadian style socialized medicine -- and we explain the consequences.

* A 16% higher cancer death rate in Canada

* An eight week wait for radiation therapy for cancer patients

* 42% of Canadians die of colon cancer vs. 31% in the US

* Cutbacks in diagnostic testing

* The best meds for chemo therapy are not available

* No way out of the system; you can't even pay for services yourself

Why is health care so bad north of the border? Because there are too few doctors to treat everybody and cost savings -- which slice medical incomes -- drive doctors out of the profession. When Obama calls for a 21% cut in Medicare fees to physicians and a $2500 cut in health costs per capita, that is exactly the kind of downward spiral in medical care quality he will bring to the United States. By making too few doctors cover too many patients, he will cut the quality of care to everybody.

As Obama's proposals make their way through Congress, it is vital that we all get up to speed on what is happening in Canada, so we can stop it from happening here. It is through word of mouth that we need to spread the information to undermine public support for the changes Obama would bring.

That's why we wrote Catastrophe. That's why we hope you read it!

Thanks,

Dick

CATASTROPHE by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

Full Title: How Obama, Congress And The Special Interests Are Turning A Slump Into A Crash, Freedom Into Socialism, And A Disaster Into A CATASTROPHE...And How To Fight Back

Click here to order a signed copy of CATASTROPHE while supplies last!

http://www.dickmorris.com

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT DICKMORRIS.COM!

THANK YOU!

Senator CHRIS DODD'S OTHER PROBLEM

Senator CHRIS DODD'S OTHER PROBLEM


Sen. Chris Dodd, the dubious Democrat from the Nutmeg State, told a recent interviewer that it was "offensive" that the media would suggest that his wife, Jackie Clegg Dodd, has potential conflicts of interest because she sits on the boards of four pharmaceutical firms.

With Sen. Ted Kennedy ailing, Dodd is the Democratic point man for upcoming health-care legislation.

Of course, this is the 21st century. Spouses of powerful pols have their own -- often quite successful -- careers.

Of course, everybody knows that Mrs. Dodd received no special consideration because of her powerful spouse -- because Sen. Dodd says so.

That's the same Chris Dodd who "just happened" to get sweetheart mortgage loans as a "Friend of [Countrywide Financial founder] Angelo [Mozilo]" -- a relationship that is the subject of a Senate Ethics Committee probe.

That's the same Dodd who "just happened" to buy out a friend's share of an Irish cottage for well below what should have been the appraised value.

Only after a public-interest group raised questions did the Dodds finally have the cottage re-appraised -- whereupon the property's value jumped to $660,000, from between $100,001 and $250,000 just last year.

How about that: In the midst of a worldwide recession, his vacation home doubles in value in just one year -- as property values across Ireland plunged 40 percent.

Dodd says "there's no reason" for his wife to step down from her various boards -- an ethics lawyer gave a clean bill of health on potential conflicts of interest. He further complains that raising these questions is "offensive" because the husbands of female members of Congress don't face the same scrutiny. Really?

Dodd could talk to former Senator -- now Secretary of State --
Hillary Clinton about the conflict-of-interest questions she faced,
thanks to her husband's business practices.

Nobody's picking on Chris Dodd. Not that he doesn't deserve it.