President Obama: On Key Policies, Not Much Difference Between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Heck, there's not a lot of difference between these two guys and Obama!

president obama you are in wrong. change plz

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.