About Me & This Website
My Positions
On Facebook
Contact Me

  DougCo School Board Loss
  Pro-Caucus Chairman
  Free the Delegates
  Clinton Surplus Myth
  Taxes, Rich & Poor
  Clinton Surplus Myth, Pt. 2
  Financial Crisis
  Obama's Economy
  More articles...

Obama Says Debate = Revolution   June 23rd, 2009
Does the president understand the meaning of the word "debate?"       


More observations...

Two days ago I expressed hope that President Obama would take a stronger tone regarding Iran in his press conference today; I also hoped (and sent an email to the White House) indicating that I hoped he'd mention Neda by name and be extremely stern. Unfortunately not only did he not do that, he's made a mockery of the situation and intentionally misused terms of the English language.

From his press conference today:

The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days...

The Iranian people are trying to have a debate about their future... The Iranian people can speak for themselves. That's precisely what's happened in the last few days...

No, a debate is what the Iranians arguably had before the June 12th election. They spoke on the day they had an election, and their voice was ignored. And what's happened since the election is killing, oppression, and the seeds of revolution.

To call a "revolution" a "debate" is to insult what the people in Iran are doing, and more importantly soften the reality of what the Iranian government is doing to its people.

We've seen debates before when candidates debate each other on stage going into an election. We see debates occur in the media and we see debates in our Congress.

But people aren't physically threatened in debates. They aren't beaten or imprisoned in debates. People don't die in the streets in debates. What's going on in Iran is not a debate and it's insulting to the intelligence of everyone who heard this statement, and even more insulting to those that are fighting for freedom and dying, to mischaracterize it as such.

If what's going on in Iran is a debate, should we expect our lawmakers in Congress to bring guns to each session from now on? Because that apparently qualifies as debate.

If an intentional misuse of words of the English language is the best the president can muster on the situation in Iran then I can understand why he's been silent.

 Go to the article list