RECENT POSTS
- White House Study Looks at Job Creation in Illinois if Gitmo Prisoners Transferred There
- President Obama: Asia Trip Helped Usher in a New Era of American Engagement
- Secretary Sebelius Celebrates the Tenth Anniversary of National Adoption Day
- Organizing for America Targets Sarah Palin
- Obama Administration Starts to Publicly Raise Issue of Detained US Citizen Xue Feng
- President Obama Gives Interview (of Sorts) to Dissident Cuban Blogger
- "You Guys Make a Pretty Good Photo Op," President Obama Jokes to Troops at Osan Air Base
- Did the Chinese Government Crack Down on an Obama Interview?
- Our Trip to the DMZ
- President Obama Greets U.S. Troops in South Korea, Wraps Up Week in Asia
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
President Obama Ups the Rhetoric -- Slightly -- About the Legitimacy of the Iranian Elections
June 16, 2009 1:05 PM
Standing in the Rose Garden with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak Tuesday, President Obama today addressed two of the toughest international challenges facing his young administration: the disputed elections in Iran, and the continued pursuit of nuclear weapons by North Korea.
“I have said before I have deep concerns about the election,” the president said when asked if he had confidence in the election results, “and I think that the world has deep concerns about the election. You've seen in Iran some initial reaction from the supreme leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election.”
In actuality, today’s expression of concern constituted new language from the President Obama. Yesterday, he said he was “troubled” by the violence surrounding the election and said he understood the Iranian government was looking into election irregularities.
But even as the president hardened his remarks, he acknowledged the risk of saying more.
“It's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling -- the U.S. president meddling in Iranian elections,” President Obama said.
He repeated that when he sees “violence directed at peaceful protesters, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me and it's of concern to the American people. That is not how governments should interact with their people. And my hope is -- is that the Iranian people will make the right steps in order for them to be able to express their voices, to express their aspirations.”
The president suggested that he believes there’s been a shift in Iranian attitudes, that “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.”
“I stand strongly with the universal principle that people's voices should be heard and not suppressed,” the president said.
Asked about the United Nations Security Council resolution calling for the interdiction of arm shipments heading to or from North Korea, the president said the way that will be implemented has yet to be determined. “How we approach cooperation between various countries to enforce this, is something that the United States, South Korea, China, Russia, all relevant actors -- Japan -- all relevant actors will be discussing in the months to come.”
The president rejected North Korea’s demand to be treated as a nuclear power, calling it “unacceptable” and arguing it would create a “destabilizing situation” that profoundly threatens the security of the world, given the country’s past behavior, “the belligerent manner in which they are constantly threatening their neighbors,” as well as its “track record of proliferation” to non-state actors as well as other countries.
“We will pursue denuclearization on the Korean peninsula vigorously,” President Obama said. “So we have not come to a conclusion that North Korea will or should be a nuclear power.”
North Korea “will not find security or respect through threats and illegal weapons,” the president said, noting that on Friday, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution calling for “strong steps to block North Korea's nuclear and ballistic missile programs. Now we must pursue a sustained and robust effort to implement this resolution together with our international partners.”
Speaking almost directly to the leaders of North Korea, the president said “there is another path available to North Korea, a path that leads to peace and economic opportunity for the people of North Korea, including full integration into the community of nations. That destination can only be reached through peaceful negotiations that achieve the full and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.”
Said President Lee, speaking in Korean, “under no circumstance are we going to allow North Korea to possess nuclear weapons.”
Asked if his country feared an imminent attack by North Korea, President Lee said the firm alliance with the U.S. would make North Korea “think twice about taking any measures that they will regret.”
“North Koreans must understand that their past behavior will not stand,” said President Lee. “And of course, not only the U.S.-Korea close partnership, but Japan, China and the rest of the international community will take part in this effort. And now the North Koreans will come to understand that this is different, that they will not be able to repeat the past or their past tactics and strategies. I urge the North Koreans to fully give up their nuclear weapons program and ambitions and to become a responsible member of the international community.”
-- jpt
June 16, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (55)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
The vast majority of Florida polls close. CBS News decides not to project a winner in the Florida Presidential race at poll closing, even though the best estimate, based upon exit-poll interviews from the 45 survey precincts, shows Gore leading Bush by 6.6 points. The Decision Desk decides to wait for some actual votes from sample precincts to confirm the exit-poll results...............jojo guest who was the Governor at that time (Jeb Bush, if it could have been any other state other than florida just maybe one would believe it was a mistake, but it was in all places where his brother was Governor, it was STOLEN!
Posted by: thepeoplespeak | Jun 18, 2009 12:18:43 AM
Bush in fact did steal the 2000 election,read this from the washington post:
- Washington Post Sunday , November 12, 2000 ; Page A22
Yes. Something very strange happened in Volusia County on election night November 2000, the night that first Gore won Florida, then Bush, and then as everybody can so well remember there was a tie.
Something strange indeed. But what exactly? In the above report ( click for full version), written days after the election, hotshot Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank goes on to attribute the strange 16,022 negative vote tally from Volusia's precinct 216 to an apparently innocent cause.
"…. faulty 'memory cards' in the machines caused the 16,000-vote disappearance on election night. The glitch was soon fixed," he wrote.
Faulty memory card my a##.
Posted by: jojo | Jun 17, 2009 11:51:39 PM
I don't believe our current president has the stones to confront N. Korea. Nothing against Obama because I like him, I just don't think he has the stomach to be tough. The rest of the world already knows this.
Posted by: Jason | Jun 17, 2009 10:31:00 PM
NK is building nukes to gain respect but his people are starving. I would respect him if he could find a way to feed these people.
Posted by: nufznuf | Jun 17, 2009 10:24:50 PM
one more thing, I see a lot of people with blood for all approach commenting here, I'm honored we have a president who would think before making such a great sacrifice, he realize unlike the previous administration that these are not toy soldiers and you can’t take it back and if you are going to make such a sacrifice, you can't make such a sacrifice on a wimp, you better make d#m sure you are right, unlike the other guys who because of their egos sacrifice Precious blood over a lie.
Posted by: we'r1 | Jun 17, 2009 10:04:15 PM
I really believe our President is doing the right thing, I personally believe they are trying to provoke a response and distract us from solving our real problems,which rebuilding our financial and economy system, I believe they are afraid of a complete recovery, a complete recovery would mean a much stronger America, but make no mistake about The President resolve to protect, I think the enemy would gravely underestimate the President respond if truly threaten us with a strike, but I happen to think that nobody is that stupid because the consequence would be grave, like the saying goes “It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog, If you can't tell this President got guts you have got to be blind,he's not a saber rattler, but he's strong and he's got guts, but most of all he got wisdom.
Posted by: we'r1 | Jun 17, 2009 9:32:03 PM
In response to "Fuzzy", with a name like that your comment does not surprise me. These totalitarian types loathe perceived weakness. There have been a few too many apology tours of late. Keeping us all safe is supposed to be the President's first priority. All of this foreign policy is obviously a major distraction for a President with a domestic agenda.
Posted by: comodus218 | Jun 17, 2009 1:11:36 PM
Many of you who favor a big stick approach to international affairs have not read Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People". Bullying doesn't work and causes far greater resentment and resistance, when what we need is willing cooperation, not forced compliance. Viewing everything in terms of "weakness' shows basic insecurity in your own personalities --- I'm sure you think of yourself as "strong". Thank the gods you are not diplomats.
Posted by: fuzzy | Jun 17, 2009 11:01:06 AM
Hey the reason for talking about Iran was not just address Iran herself, but also South Korean gov's oppression on peaceful protests in Korea against authoritarian govt.
Posted by: Ryan | Jun 17, 2009 6:13:12 AM
Obama will NEVER use military force to prevent either Iran to gain, or North Korea from Proliferating Nuclear Weapons. He doesn't have the stomach for it, they know it and both of these nations are exploiting this to the max. JFK proved his metal with the Cuban Missle Crisis. This is just as big, if not bigger and our President will be found wanting.... Kim's son may even be so emboldened as to launch an attack on South Korea, with the idea that when push comes to shove, Obama will not resort to nuclear weapons to save the South, and we do not have the manpower to send help. They have an overwelming superiority in numbers, and the Comunist North is not concerned about taking casualties, as we are. No, foreign policy will be President Obama's Waterloo. Senator McCain has said that we should be ready for a "worse case" scenario comming from the North. I believe that if another missle launch, or nuclear test goes un apposed, that Worst Case Scenario will become a deadly reality. I do hope for all our sakes, I am proved to be WRONG!
Posted by: Carl Nalbone | Jun 17, 2009 2:20:26 AM
Obama must decide early on in his presidency whether or not he is going to allow Iran and North Korea pursue dangerous policies. Iran must allow its people the right to fair and just elections. North Korea cannot be allowed nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Kottaras | Jun 16, 2009 11:23:10 PM
President Obama Ups the Rhetoric?
That's his foreign policy in a
nutshell, Rhetoric aka Blah, Blah, Blah!
He's "troubled" by the election?
How about saying We, The United States
of America, support democracy and
fair elections and we believe that
neither has occurred in this instance!
What is he afraid of?
Offending Ahmadinajad?
Guess what, Mr President he still hates
us and Israel and would like to destroy
both countries!
He will still pursue nukes whether we
comment on the election or not!
Why not support democracy?
Is the president afraid of offending
the Mullahs who support Ahmadinajad and
hold the same views toward nukes,
Israel and the U.S.?
I didn't think any U.S. President could
look meeker on the foreign policy stage
than Jimmy Carter. I was wrong.
Posted by: reaganfan | Jun 16, 2009 8:48:02 PM
DOUG E FRESH, isn't that all the left did for 8 years??
Posted by: Ryan | Jun 16, 2009 6:14:04 PM
The massacre in Iran is worse than the tianeman square massacre in China. The media provided walll to wall coverage of that tragedy. I guess Obama has only given them permission for limited, if any reporting on this issue because Obama supports the murdering Ahmadinejad and not the democracy seekers.
By the way, for the morons who still believe Bush stole the 2000 election from Gore. Let me remind you newspapers such as the new york times and USA today among others did a complete recount and discovered that Bush did indeed legitimately win.
They buried the reporting on this and only reported it deep in their respective papers just after 9/11 happened when no one was paying attention.
LOOK IT UP IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME! Below are only two examples
AP: A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential election indicates George W. Bush would have narrowly prevailed in the partial recounts sought by Al Gore, but Gore might have reversed the outcome – by the barest of margins – had he pursued and gained a complete statewide recount.
The Palm Beach Post put it more dramatically:
Palm Beach Post: Al Gore was doomed.
He couldn't have caught George W. Bush even if his two best chances for an official recount had played out.
NOTICE THAT THEY REPORT IN A DEFINITIVE MANNER BUT CLAIM GORE MIGHT HAVE, WHICH MEANS BUSH "MIGHT HAVE" AS WELL.
Posted by: MNM | Jun 16, 2009 6:11:29 PM
It funny to listen to the right whine and complain but never offer up a solution.
Posted by: Doug E Fresh | Jun 16, 2009 5:35:31 PM
The POTUS is good at avoiding a lot of stir over things he cannot do a whole lot about.. measured responses to such things are fast becoming a hallmark of this administration. I kind of like it.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | Jun 16, 2009 5:12:46 PM
What's Obama going to do to NK? give them an apology speech?
Posted by: CW | Jun 16, 2009 5:11:17 PM
Here we go again. Another spank your hand president.
Posted by: Jim Rod | Jun 16, 2009 4:39:49 PM
Now, where in there are the people of Iran determining their future, and thus, the government empowered by the consent of the governed?
-------------------
I say all governments are empowered by the consent of the governed. If the system in Iran can achieve that consent rightously, they will be accepted. If not, not.
On 'parsing' words- take a term, like 'consent', and look for all examples of where consent is and is not, comparing all the attributes for similarities and differences. Look and see, also, if 'consent' is always a part of something, or also what is essentially required for 'consent'. etc.
Posted by: MarkLeavenworth | Jun 16, 2009 4:36:26 PM
We don't know per se if these Iranian protests will change politics in Iran. I believe the Pres. should remain mute for the time being otherwise the Iranian government will use it as an excuse to supress and kill the opposition. Regarding NK this issue goes back to the Clinton Administration by giving up the NK by giving monies and technology to built a nuclear power plant and now is using the weapons as a ace of spades to trump the west.
Posted by: Frank | Jun 16, 2009 4:29:15 PM
Post a comment
