US showed support for Iran protestors: Clinton
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Sunday that the United States did a lot “behind the scenes” to show support for demonstrators contesting Iran’s disputed presidential election results.
“We did not want to get between the legitimate protests and demonstrations of the Iranian people and the leadership,” Clinton said in an interview with CNN broadcast on Sunday.
“And we knew that if we stepped in too soon, too hard… the leadership would try to use us to unify the country against the protestors.”
“Now, behind the scenes, we were doing a lot,” Clinton said. “We were doing a lot to really empower the protestors without getting in the way. And we’re continuing to speak out and support the opposition.” [continued…]
Editor’s Comment
— If the Iranian revolutionary court recently trying protesters in Tehran had been able to subpoena Hillary Clinton to testify on behalf of the prosecution, this is what they would have wanted her to say: “behind the scenes, we were doing a lot.”
This is not what President Obama should want his chief diplomat to be saying. What the hell was she thinking?
There is one thing that movers and shakers (while they’re doing all their moving and shaking) find almost impossible to grasp: there are times when doing nothing is better than doing something.
Tell the Iranian people: we’re with you in spirit and we’re rooting for you, but this is your fight. The best we can do is to do nothing that will empower those who want to oppress you.
Well, it doesn’t fit your story, does it? Is that the problem? Are you saying ‘don’t do it,’ or ‘don’t admit you’ve done it.’ The 400 million went somewhere, one supposes.
To imply that the unrest we’ve witnessed in Iran over recent weeks was facilitated by the efforts of the US government both overestimates the capacities of the US and underestimates the depth of political frustration across Iranian society. The only support Clinton actually cited in the CNN interview was the well-publicized intervention to get Twitter to postpone a maintenance shut-down. Her primary concern seemed to be to resist the characterization of the administration’s posture as having been too passive. Her abiding preoccupation remains that the US must not appear soft on Iran — even in its current politically fractured condition.
“Her abiding preoccupation remains…”
You certainly are confident, on the basis of no evidence. That however has been the theme of your Iran coverage. Say it is true enough times with enough conviction and evidence doesn’t matter.
“Say it is true enough times with enough conviction and evidence doesn’t matter.”
Evidence of what exactly? That post-election unrest in Iran resulted from foreign meddling?
Blinded by anti-Communism, I didn’t see my beloved Nixon’s repeat on the Shah of the JFK Diem Coup in Vietnam, using Khomeini, because Shah raised price of oil. America did so many BIG things for such selfish LITTLE reasons, yet still worries about its image in Mideast(?!?!) It is ever-shrinking as we impose our interests: politically by Congress for Jewish votes and economically by White House for revival of our ability to “buy, buy, buy,” cheap goods made by slave labor abroad and cheap oil. That’s not national security, that’s just global polution.
By no means did US or Israel play a role in current election crisis in Iran. But I remind of past errors, from which we are still suffering, because we though Khomeini would be our man. Isn’t it ironic that after millions $ of US interference, something happens that we had nothing to do with. That only augurs well for that all-Iranian uprising and our image for NON-interference!!!