Last night one commenter pointed out that Obama made a statement:
“I am deeply troubled by the violence I have been seeing on television. I think the democratic process, free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they are troubled.”
The commenter, mightysamurai, criticized the weakness of the statement, that "troubling" was the strongest that could be said of the violence, censorship, and brutality of officials of the Ahmadinejad government.
My own feeling is
POTUS Barack Hussein Obama is fully and completely backing Iran’s Ahmadinejad. He finds it troubling to find violence *on television*. Get the TV cameras turned off, and both will be much happier.
Another commenter pointed out how quickly Obama could hound a GM CEO out of office, but won't criticize a brutal tyrant that happens to have oil - and an army - for resources. Perhaps Obama is thinking appeasement will work with this tyrant, since he is a Muslim believer, after all. That, and Obama's actions don't hold up so well, if you look at the legality of some of his actions (dismantling and parceling out Chrysler and GM, firing an investigator annoying one of Obama's buddies, signing an Executive Order requiring Federal construction use only Union labor, in defiance of states passing Right To Work laws, etc.) I still wonder at what a new President could have done to try to influence the Supreme Court, that caused Judge Souter to retire.
Obama certainly seems sympathetic with Ahmadinejad's moves to silence dissenters rather than defend free speech. Just ask Rush Limbaugh about attacks from the White House.
There are still rumblings and dissent in the US. Perhaps Barack Hussein Obama is concerned that he will need to be stifling the cameras to keep violence and protest from "troubling" Americans, at least, the Americans supporting Oh! Bummer!