Saturday, June 20, 2009

Mr. Gorbechev…Nice Tie Today….

My blog is not green. That is not a statement.

As an American, it is my obligation to support free, open, honest elections and oppose any efforts to suppress that.

So, rather than turn my blog green (because it’s a hassle to go back and forth and it would totally mess with my OCD need for color coordination) I am taking this opportunity to say I support free, open, honest elections for peoples of all nations without fear of repression or reprisal.

And as such, I support the Iranian people in their desire for free, open, honest elections without fear of repression or reprisal.

Friday, the House voted nearly unanimously to pass a resolution to supports "all Iranians who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law."

Not to support a specific candidate in the election. Not to intervene either militarily or diplomatically.

Just a plain statement of support for the above qualities, all central American – Conservative – values.

Only one Representative took a stand against the Conservative principles of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law.

Republican Ron Paul.

I wish I could say I was surprised, but I’m not.

If it wasn’t Ron Paul, I would think it was a joke. But this is also the man who, early in the primaries, said that America hadn’t been attacked by a foreign power in 250 years. Which is why there is no holiday on December 7.

So really, this is just par for the course.

We now have Paul on record opposing a resolution that says the following (language from the resolution):

• "(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law; • "(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cell phones; and • "(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections."
His excuse? “We know very little beyond limited press reports about what is happening in Iran." (source)

In that ludicrous statement, Paul betrays his ignorance of the situation by blaming a lack of information on “limited press reports.”

Almost all of what we know of what is going on in Iran has come not from official press agencies, but rather from individual Iranian citizens using networking sites like facebook (until it was banned) and now Twitter.

In fact, Twitter was so essential to the communication between Iranian dissidents and the outside world that Twitter rescheduled maintenance so as to not interrupt their flow of communication. Go here for more info regarding the importance of Twitter in the Iranian Revolution.

The official statements from the Iranian government, however, say that Ahmadinejad won by a landslide in an legitimate election where it took 20 minutes to tabulate over 350,000 ballots.

To Paul, apparently, that’s enough to create reasonable doubt.

Here’s what the real issue is, though. What did this resolution actually do?

Did it order the military to go to Iran? No.

Did it claim one person did or should have won the election over another? No.

Did it threaten to intervene in the Iranian elections? No.

Did it do really anything in a practical sense? No.

So there was no imperialism (which totally screwed the Japanese, they’re nothing but American serfs nowadays, right?) or “policing the world” (like with those poor innocent Nazis, we had no business interfering in their peacekeeping enterprises) as some have alleged.

All the resolution did was officially state that we, as Americans, support free, open, honest elections and condemn violence against individuals, specifically as it regards the situation in Iran.

So then, what is the point in opposing it?

Reagan took a much more direct, oppositional, antagonistic stance when he went to Berlin and gave his famous imperative to the Soviet Union.

But you’re right, that was a huge imperialist, meddlesome screw-up. No reason to follow that fellow’s footsteps.

One wonders how Paul would have responded had he been in office at the time. Actually, no, we don’t have to wonder. This vote shows us exactly how he would respond.

Hold him accountable, ladies and gentlemen. You’ve called other good Conservatives RINOs for less.


Simon Owens said...

Yes, the media reach from tweets coming out Iran is pretty massive. I conducted a study yesterday that found that most tweets coming from on-the-ground protesters in Iran received an average of 57 retweets.

AndrewPrice said...

It's too bad that Ron Paul is such a nut because many times the things he says make a lot of sense. . . but then he puts on his tinfoil hat and it all goes wrong.

JG said...

We ran into someone over the weekend who is a self-professed Paulite. My husband brought up Iran. "Isn't it exciting what's happening? It's like 1776 over there!" And the fellow shrugged and said, "Sure, if that's what's really happening." Gah.

AndrewPrice said...

I don't understand how people can not be excited about millions of people trying to achieve greater freedom?

Not even mentioning the fact that if they do become a peaceful free people, then the Middle East will calm down significantly.

Seda said...

"...values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law."

Um, excuse me? Those are liberal values!