By the way, it won’t fly to say that the administration’s language has been consistent between last week and the start of this week. Expressing “concerns” about something and saying that one is “appalled and outraged” by the same thing are two very different sorts of statements as a matter of conveying displeasure diplomatically. Everyone can see perfectly well that the rhetoric has escalated, and whether or not Obama has escalated his rhetoric because of the critics who have been demanding “more forceful rhetoric” or for some other reason, he has escalated it. More to the point, his critics will take this language as vindication that their early, misguided demands for “tougher” language were right and his caution was not. Whether or not he was affected by the drumbeat on the Post op-ed pages, he has started moving in the direction that those writers wanted. One could even try to defend changing rhetoric as circumstances change, but to deny that there has been any change is silly and, I’m sorry to say, something we have seen several times from Obama over the last two years.
I’m not sure who exactly is denying that his talk yesterday was a bit more blunt, but could it be that Obama’s rhetoric has been designed to match the facts on the ground? I know this is a crazy idea, in which we don’t fly out the gate and call Iran an evil empire and a member of the axis of evil before anything happens, but instead we react to the facts on the ground. Obama’s critics have advanced the same rhetorical line from the beginning. Obama has changed his rhetoric… as the events change. I’m not sure how much of a ramping up the rhetoric it is to note that the murder of Neda and the quashing of dissent is “appalling and outrageous,” as it seems to me that the behavior is appalling and outrageous.
All of this, I guess, was a long way of me stating that I just don’t see Obama shifting his language so as to accommodate his critics or to alleviate domestic political criticisms, I see it as a natural reaction to events as they unfold. Daniel and I have both figured out that no matter what Obama says or does, it will never satisfy certain critics or stop them from making bad faith arguments. I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest Obama has figured this out, too, and is just playing it straight.
EconWatcher
Probably true. On the other hand, the guy does sometimes bend a little than I’d like under pressure. I don’t know why he felt the need to apologize for Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” speech, for example, because in context it was unobjectionable (and banal).
It also looks like Netanyahu thinks Obama has caved on the settlements issue. We’ll hate to wait and see if that’s really true.
someguy
He really shouldn’t be saying anything at all; the critics are fools and playing into the hands of the Neocons who are really, really itching to bomb Iran. As far as the Iranians are concerned (or any other country) it’s just another example of the U.S. meddling in internal politics of countries it has no business meddling in, and to the extent U.S. leadership says anything good about anybody in Iran it only serves to undercut them thanks to our complicity in Mossadeq, the Shah, and the unwarranted slaughter of the passengers on IranAir 655. I’m sure that all the well meaning boobs changing their time on Twitter and with green blog backgrounds will also be cited as evidence of a big American conspiracy. It’s futile too; how well did protests work to overturn the results of the crooked 2000 election in the U.S.? And, unlike the U.S. in 2000, the Iranian government in power is using its guns against the people. Betting on the privileged middle class protestors against the elite class in government and the conservative rural areas is a bad bet. In the long run the U.S.’s ill-advised meddling is going to once again jeopardize the possibility of any agreement on Iran’s weapon systems.
Napoleon
Exactly – Lets see, when Obama made his first comment the body count in Iran was 0 and now it likely measures in the scores, with several of them being high profile affairs caught on tape that perhaps millions have witnessed.
Good God, of course he is going to adjust his language. I would love to see a comparison to speaches LBJ made on civil rights before and after Bull Connor unleashing his dogs and waterhoses in Birmingham in 63.
Skepticat
A petty bitch myself, I continue to be impressed and pleased by the president’s ability to sail his own race and not overreact—or react at all—to the asinine, negative hysteria of these twits.
JL
ot Sanford just returned from Buenos Aires. Long way from the Appalachians. He landed at the Atlanta airport.
Elroy's Lunch
Yeah, I read that this morning and thought well, Larison’s a smart guy and all but I don’t think that’s what Obama’s up to but, I guess in this case I could be wrong.
Looks like I’m not alone out on this limb…
Salacious Crumb
I just do not seem to understand why anything that is happening in Iran, whether perceived fraud in elections or not, heavy crackdown or not, seems to be any of our business. Even saying the words ‘Iran’ and ‘elections’ in one sentence by Obama is interference. When Obama was elected, he pledged to not be in a ‘hostile mode’ with Iran because he needs Iran’s help in solving the Middle East regional issues as well as its nuclear program. I do not see how talking about Iran’s elections is going to be perceived as non interference by the clerical regime in Iran, and how they are supposed to think that we Americans truly mean it when we say we do not want to interfere in their affairs, especially given the history of US meddling in the Middle East and Iran.
I think our problems in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as Israel and Lebanon) just got worse because of our interference in Iran.
And for those who say its our moral responsibility to say something about the govt sanctioned violence in Iran, then I ask, where do we draw the line…why cant we start condemning all the oil sheikhdoms to come clean about their farce elections and brutal disregard of human rights? what about Egypt and all those tinpot dictators in former Soviet states and African states whose oil and mineral we are only too happy to take? why doesnt Obama then be consistent?
kay
Great post. It’s wild. We’re to the point where we completely fly by what actually happened on any given day, and go immediately to the analysis of the rhetorical response.
What happened doesn’t even matter.
chopper
the only thing that would have made the conservatives happy was a bombing campaign the day after the election.
The Saff
I agree, John. Like Obama said yesterday, we don’t know how things are going to play out. Of course he has to choose his words carefully. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with obnoxious loud mouths like McCain and Graham spewing their brand of dipshittedness.
Napoleon
@Salacious Crumb:
He has to talk about it because if he did not cable news would talk about nothing else 24/7/365 but how he has not talked about it to the exclusion of the health care and climate change bill debates, which means those bills will then fail, which means he becomes a one term president.
It really is that simple.
El Cid
No joke: In an exclusive interview with South Carolina daily The State, Mark Sanford reveals he went to Buenos Aires, Argentina.
I do NOT think he went there just to blow off some steam. This whole story is a load of bullshit, and I don’t know what he’s hiding.
**********************************
ATLANTA — Gov. Mark Sanford arrived in the Hartsville-Jackson International Airport Wednesday morning, having wrapped up a seven-day visit to Buenos Aires, Argentina, he said. Sanford said he had not been hiking along the Appalachian Trail, as his staff said in a Tuesday statement to the media.
Sanford’s whereabouts had been unknown since Thursday, and the mystery surrounding his absence fueled speculation about where he had been and who’s in charge in his absence. His emergence Wednesday ended the mystery.
Sanford, in an exclusive interview with The State Media Company, said he decided at the last minute to go to the South American country to recharge after a difficult legislative session in which he battled with lawmakers over how to spend federal stimulus money.…
…Sanford, in a brief interview in the nation’s busiest airport, said he has been to the city twice before, most recently about a year and half ago during a Commerce Department trip.
Sanford said he was alone on the trip. He declined to give any additional details about what he did other than to say he drove along the coastline.
Napoleon
@El Cid:
Man if I just up and did that without telling my wife my marriage would end in divorce.
Wait a second, my marriage did end in divorce and I didn’t even get a trip out of it or anything fun at all.
I can’t wait to see how this is spun.
Rosali
Yesterday, Iranian TV was showing the taped “confessions” of protesters who had been arrested.
..
This is exactly what Obama has been warning about. McCain doesn’t seems to understand, or care, that bellicose statements have consequences.
ZIRGAR
After the “subtle as a brick” rhetoric of the last eight years I guess I forgot what nuanced language, real diplomacy and subtle thinking in a President sounds like or how it comes across. Mr. Obama is dealing with this situation very well because, unlike the previous administration, he understands that not all cultures are alike, there actually are differences, so it’s foolish to handle foreign policy with a wide blanket approach or with blunt force trauma.
PeakVT
I wonder if Obama should punt daily responses over to Clinton for a while. She is SoS, after all.
Bill E Pilgrim
Obama answered this one last night and it was one of my favorite moments in press conference history. To the question about whether he changed his stance on Iran because of what right wing critics said, he responded:
“What do you think?”
I find fault with some of the things Obama does, to be sure, but flopping around and changing positions because of something someone said on some cable show is not one of them. He’s made it clear what he thinks of most of what passes for “debate” in the media in this country.
someguy
We should really shut down these tools of the western intelligence services. They do nothing but discredit the U.S. and UK abroad an undercut diplomatic efforts. But how do you cut off Iranian access to all the western bloggers and useful idiots who are attempting to foment a revolution in Iran?
Hunter Gathers
Unless Obama secrectly said that he was taking one side or the other in Iran, I don’t see a change in Obama’a stance on this. Even in his rhetoric. Larison is seeing something that isn’t there. How is saying you are appalled and outraged by violence is ‘ramping up the rhetoric’? Who isn’t appalled and outraged by a young woman getting gunned down? This is a stupid argument on it’s face, spun up by the idiots who run our precious ‘4th Estate’. They have to have their conflict, or they might have to ,gasp, write about policy . One shudders at the thought. Now of course these morons know jack squat about policy, which is why they spend most of these press conferences asking ‘gotcha’ bullshit. I fully expect a conservative talking head credit Obama’s ‘stronger language’ to John McCain. Proving once again, that everything that happens is Good For McCain.
Snail
I think someguy and Salacious Crumb are the same person.
someguy
‘Fraid not. But I think Salacious Crumb is a genius…
Ash Can
On the topic of Sanford: I’m beginning to think now that he did have a blowup with his wife, she told him to GTFO, Father’s Day or no Father’s Day, and he did.
Staffer A: “She told him to take a fucking hike. What the hell do we say to the press?”
Staffer B: “Charlie, you’re a genius! That’s exactly what we’ll say!”
On the topic at hand: Larison makes a decent point, but it’s not a huge one. After all, Obama’s linguistic variance isn’t on the same level as that which drove us all batshit crazy on a regular basis during the Bush admin — GOP pol says X, later insists s/he did not say X, then is shown on video or heard on audio as, you guessed it, saying X.
I don’t fault Larison for pointing this out, mind you. Quite the opposite — as much as I love the prez, he should always be aware that people are in fact listening to him and remembering what he says. He can’t be careless (let alone in-fucking-competent like his predecessor). However, I think the much more important issue in this particular instance is that Obama respond appropriately to changes in the Iranian situation, which, as John points out, is what appears to be the case.
Johnny B. Guud
OT:
No matter how much the president says he reads Urdu poetry or cooks Pakistani food, I really don’t think this will be winning the hearts and minds…
Napoleon
@Snail:
Both idiots.
joypog
I like larison a lot, but I think he’s decided to be the cranky contrarian on this issue. I mean I pretty much agree with him on Iran in substance more or less (and much more than the neocons) but he’s definitely taken a pretty snarky tone on this one.
sgwhiteinfla
President Obama has a crystal ball dontcha know.
Just ask Chuck Todd.
Brick Oven Bill
In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Assalaamu `alaykum waRahmatullahi Wabarakatuh
You Americans make no sense, so please enough with your lecturing. Neda, Neda, Neda. Yet you slaughter your own women and children needlessly by the dozen without shame for your foolish ideals. Just within the past twelve months, the Green Line in Boston, an airliner in Buffalo, and now 9 more dead and 70 injured on the Red Line in Washington.
Women are objects of beauty and nurture. As such, they are to be cherished within society. This does not include providing them with a set of keys. Give the keys to Sully.
And Allah knows best
Wassalamu Alaikum
BOB
Laura W
@Brick Oven Bill: Bill, if you changed your handle to Brick Allah Bill, we could call you BAB, short for Babble.
I’m a bit disturbed that my first out loud laugh of the day came from you.
Yet, oddly grateful?
The Moar You Know
I do. It’s one of the few times I’ve seen him take a misstep, so I’m not going to lose my shit and declare a red alert over it, but he fucked up here. People were getting killed in Iran last week, they’re still getting killed this week, and there was no reason for him to say anything. At all. We’re not the world police and I thought he’d figured that out.
Instead, he’s done the absolute worst thing possible and stepped up the rhetoric. I neither know nor care if it’s because he’s personally appalled (I am as well, so I understand that) or because John Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran McCain is pissing his Depends about it, but Obama needs to figure out real quick that silence is the best course of action here.
Our track record in Iran is abysmal and the best thing we can do for that nation is stay out of their business.
Laura W
@Laura W: Or:
Babble On.
(Why is it that 50% of the time lately I can’t edit my comments?
Seriously.)
Xanthippas
Well, Larison is somewhat less charitable towards Obama, thought he’s considerably less charitable towards Obama’s critics. The question is, what tone will the administration take if Iran settles down? It’s very easy to adopt tougher language and a harder stance when Iranian security forces are shooting protesters in the streets, but what happens if the protests dwindle (as they appear to be doing) and all the political wrangling is happening behind the scenes out of the sight of the media and the Iranian public? I can promise you whatever Obama does, it won’t be enough for the right-wingers and neocons, who’ve never met an intervention that they didn’t like.
Ash Can
@Xanthippas:
Except the ones carried out by Democrats (e.g., Somalia, Serbia). Obama could turn Iran into a sheet of glass, and the cries of UR DOIN IT RONG from the right would still be deafening.
John Cole
@The Moar You Know: We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I’m not arguing the wisdom of his remarks, per se, but I will argue that his rhetoric has not been meted out to silence his domestic critics, but has naturally been suited to match the events as they unfold.
hwickline
I watched Judy Woodruff interview Lindsay Graham and John Kerry last night, and the entire segment was devoted to their reactions to Obama’s rhetoric on Iran. What a hack that woman is– a total creature of cable news, unable to understand any story that doesn’t focus on a “he said, she said” DC-navel-gaze festival.
What’s happening in Iran is not about us. The President, and most sane people, get this. A fringe of the right does not, and our press continues to aid and abet them. Makes me furious.
Ash
What the fuck does it matter? Whether he’s “concerned” or “shocked and outraged” it will
1) not matter a damn in Iran, and
2) not matter a damn to the people who think he’s a pussy
So, really, who cares?
@The Moar You Know: And there’s a huuuuuuge difference between meddling and just saying something. Iranians aren’t stupid. They know that if someone is shocked and appalled, that doesn’t mean they’re gonna help them overthrow the government.
PeopleAreNoDamnGood
This whole topic is just a theatrical game being played by the Republicans.
Ignore it, it is not relevant to anything other than the Republicans’ seemingly endless cynicism.
Joel
The absolute worst thing possible would be military intervention. The change in tone on Iran really has minimal effect on what happens there, despite what my compatriots on the left and right believe. If Obama steps forward with material support for the resistance or talks of embargos or anything like that, then there’s a problem. Otherwise, it’s much ado about something out of our control.
les
When, like Larison, your positions are dictated by Medieval interpretations of 4,000 year old goat herder pronouncements, a small change in rhetoric in response to changed circumstances can seem like a big deal.
Bill H
What I read in Larison, and agree with, is the change or reason for it, but rather his rather odd insistence that his rhetoric has not changed. “No, no, I’m saying the same thing now, and in the same manner, as I have been all along.” It’s not often that Obama forgets about YouTube, and it’s always rather surprising when he does.
I agree with Larison that his rhetoric has become more vehement. Aside from the rightness or wrongness of that, or the reason for it, I’m uncomfortable with him denying that it has happened.
Bill H
Damn edit, why does it tell me I do not have permission to edit?
What I read in Larison, and agree with, is not the change or reason for it, (fixed)
And apparently I can edit this one, fortunate, since the underline tag is bogus.
Death By Mosquito Truck
Obama should have condemned the murder of Neda before it happened and therefore prevented it from happening in the first place. Messiah fail.
Death By Mosquito Truck
@Salacious Crumb: Apparently, we’re all neocons now.
PeopleAreNoDamnGood
Apparently everyone has forgotten the endless “denounce” parsing that went on during the election campaign of 2008?
This is a replay of that horseshit. Nothing more.
Luckily, the media and blog world has about a 30 day attention span, and we can all run around blathering about this same ridiculous shit all over again. This time the renouncedenounce target is different but the game is the same.
Find something to bitch about, and keep doing it until there is something new to bitch about that gets more attention.
A funny thing happened on the way to the blog world making itself relevant. Namely, this.
slag
@Bill H: In the press conference, he made clear that, as violence escalated, his language went with it. He said it was consistent with reality as he saw it. No denials other than to the idea that he was changing his behavior in response to critics.
Also, the overall sentiments he’s been expressing haven’t changed. They’ve been incredibly consistent.
gex
@chopper:
To be fair, this is *not* true of Larison.
shep
Maddow made the argument and uses Obama’s own words to do it:
.
[Last Monday:]
[Last Tuesday:]
[Saturday:]
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsb2htlzn2g
.
So pretty much showing that he was “appalled and outraged” without actually saying so. Of course, things got a lot more appalling and outrageous after that.
eyeball
Don’t be so freaking pusillanimous. Of course his oratory has shifted in proportion to events on the ground. It has also shifted based on Obama’s sophisticated initial reading of the situation – which was “don’t give them ammo” and “I need to know more about what’s up with their nukes and from spy data on the ground and in the air before I go running off at the mouth.” That’s the WHOLE IDEA of having an intelligence-based foreign policy, in all meanings of the word.
Obama would be inaccurate to suggest the tenor of his words didn’t go up a notch — if that is indeed was he is suggesting, which is dubious. So imagine it simply enough this way: if Obama had used the last grouping of words 8 days ago, it would not have fit the picture that existed then.
Batocchio
Who really gives a shit? Well, who that matters? Regardless of any change in rhetoric, the chickenhawk and tough talk crowd are still the same belligerent fucking idiots and hacks they’ve always been. Chuck Todd is still a tool happy to parrot them for a headline and “conflict.” Larison’s much sharper and more honest than most conservatives, but still, the key question is whether Obama’s approach is wise or not. I’m not including Larison among them, but I’m really, really sick of the stupidest and most venal figures in American politics continually setting the agenda on matters of real consequence.