The Iranian government, and those Iranian protesters in the streets going up barehanded against armed thugs, are each, in their own way, reminding Americans again how precious our freedom is. If our current government isn't going to speak our clearly on the slaughter underway in Iran, then ordinary Americans will have to do so.
We watched Gibbs say that what's going on is vigorous debate. The shooting of eight demonstrators is not debate. The knocking of heads, bloodying of demonstrators by the Revolutionary Guards is not debate. The arbitrary arrest of journalists, political opposition, and students is not debate.
And to call it a debate and to use this neutral and denatured language is disgraceful.
Beyond that, the point here is no longer elections. The reason that at least eight have died is not because they wanted a recount of hanging chads in the outer precincts of Esfahan. What they wanted is to no longer live under a tyrannical dictator, misogynistic, repressive, incompetent, and corrupt theocracy. And that's what the demonstration and the moment is all about. It's about the regime. There is an opportunity — revolution is going to happen one way or the other eventually, and this theocracy will fall. It may not happen now, but it ought to be supported, because it might happen now, and it would change the world if it did.
Of course, Krauthammer's just another "neocon."
I'm surprised the repression hasn't been harsher.
The only explanations I can think of are either a failure of nerve on the part of the clerics, or a real or feared refusal of the Revolutionary Guard rank-and-file to act.
When a regime's praetorians refuse to shoot, its days or numbered. That may (or may not) be the case here. I sure hope so.
Perhaps unsurprisingly (and no doubt unpopularly) I agree - on the level of statesmanship and policy - with Ron Paul:
http://www.house.gov/apps/list/s...l/
iranres.shtml
On a personal level, I am gratified to see the people of Iran clamoring for some shred of self-direction in their affairs. This is not a Mousavi vs. Ahmadinejad election...the differences between them, as I understand it, would be nominal so long as the Guardian Council remains in place. That they are rebelling against the Ayatollah himself is the most promising development.
Steve:
I'm not impressed by Rep. Paul's reasoning. A fairly anodyne resolution isn't "meddling," nor did early American congressmen hesitate to criticize the actions of foreign governments, which suggests his constitutional argument is a little shopworn in this context.
Commenting by HaloScan
