The Obama Back Step.

Lets look at what President Obama said on Friday June 12 2009
From a pool report:

“We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran and obviously, after the speech that I made in Cairo, we tried to send a clear message that we think there’s a possibility of change and, ultimately, the election is for the Iranians to decide but just as what has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well, is that you’re seeing people looking at new possibilities [sic], and whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there’s been a robust debate hopefully will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways.”

President Obama is taking credit for how the election is going in Iran.
Read what was written in the economist.com.

“Last week, Hizbullah lost elections in Lebanon, and today Iranians are voting for president after a surprisingly hard-fought campaign. Yet critics of Mr Obama are not prepared to give him credit for a breakthrough that relies on Arab and Persian opinion swinging towards America. So they're pre-spinning the insignificant results. It might be smarter, though, if Iran's president loses, to follow Mr Krauthammer's lead and take credit for years of controversial Republican diplomacy that is only now bearing fruit. Either that, or quit making political issues out of the president saying "shukran" to an Arabic-speaking audience, and seriously consider whether Mr Obama's brand of diplomacy is actually working.

Update: His critics may not give him any credit for the events in the Middle East, but Mr Obama is claiming it nonetheless.”

If you did not click on the economist.com blog entry and follow the link here is where they linked to The New Republics Blog “The Spine” by Marty Peretz here it is

It appears that Obama was the one who was expressing a desire to see Ahmadinejad lose and Mousavi to win. Such a result would allow Obama to claim success in his foreign policy.
And now what does Obama say?

“Now, it's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling -- the U.S. President meddling in Iranian elections. What I will repeat and what I said yesterday is that when I see violence directed at peaceful protestors, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me and it's of concern to the American people. That is not how governments should interact with their people.

”


http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-President-Obama-and-President-Lee-of-the-Republic-of-Korea-in-Joint-Press-Availability/

“Now, it's not productive, given the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, to be seen as meddling -- the U.S. President meddling in Iranian elections. What I will repeat and what I said yesterday is that when I see violence directed at peaceful protestors, when I see peaceful dissent being suppressed, wherever that takes place, it is of concern to me and it's of concern to the American people. That is not how governments should interact with their people.”

“[A]lthough there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised.”

And in a press conference on June 15, 2009 with Prime Minister Berlusconi of Italy

“I think that 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're, rightfully, troubled.”

Did you see it? President Obama made a back step. The question is was it a bit too late? Many hold the view that the election in Iraq would not make any difference since all candidates would be under the authority of the Maulas. So they could allow for free and fair elections but when Obama made his statement it made the Iranian leaders mad for Obama to suggest that his Cairo speech was what made the difference. So they simply announced Ahmadinejad won and by a large majority and the hell with Obama.
They however did not expect such a revolt from the people.

Congressman Pence would like congress to say what?

And up to this point, they have not received the unqualified affirmation of the most powerful free nation in the history of the world. I think it's important that Congress say "we affirm the right of the dissidents to step forward. We affirm them seeking freedom of expression and free and fair elections." I'm hoping that the American people will be able to be heard on an American stage, even if the administration is taking a more measured approach.

William Kristol

Question for White House spokesman Robert Gibbs: As "things" have continued to unfold, is President Obama now willing to condemn the brutal actions of a violently illiberal regime? If not, what would the regime have to do to generate clear moral and political condemnation from our "deeply troubled" president?

If Obama is not being strong enough, it because he is going to have to deal with Iran when all this is over. If he wants success he can’t seem to promote the overthrow of the Iranian government. He will also have to speak out for the people of Iran to have free speech.

Patrick Leahy has set the date of July 13 for the start of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings.

Patrick Leahy has set the date of July 13 for the start of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. With the numerous number decisions I would have expected to take a bit longer to start the hearings. There is plenty of time before the October session. I hope Sen. Leahy showed some consideration for Judge Sotomayor and conferred with her about the date. She may not have every case she has done on the top of her head, and she needs time to examine each case. Does she have enough time to prepare the answers she will be asked? It not just the people asking the question who will need time, she needs the time to review her prior decisions.
Alito v Sotomayor
Two key differences between what Alito said in his confirmation hearing and what Sotomayor has said.
1. Alito never said he would come up with a better decision. She would need to present the point that its not a issue of race but that Wisdom with experience leads to better decisions. Experience without wisdom, does not lead to a good decision and Wisdom alone may be better than experience alone but is still not as good as a person with both Wisdom and Experience.
2. We do not hear her saying what Alito said. Which is “And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.” She needs to express a similar view. Other wise it would seem she would be bias and not objective.