… but when performed by the Obama State Department, not so much.
Ian Kelly, State Department Spokesman, Daily Press Briefing, Washington, DC
TRANSCRIPT: June 30, 2009, 12:37 p.m. EDT
QUESTION: On Iran, now that the Guardian Council has announced its decision and announced Ahmadinejad as the final winner with even more votes than before, is that enough for the U.S. Government, or are you still going to wait and see what happens on the street and by the opposition?
MR. KELLY: …as the Secretary said yesterday, we’re very concerned about what’s happening in Iran…And I think this process still has to play out.
QUESTION: Well, what are you waiting – what are you waiting to play out? …
MR. KELLY: I’m not quite sure I understand what you mean by what are we waiting for.
QUESTION: Well, you say you’re waiting for it to play out. I mean, I’m just unclear what specifically you’re waiting for?….
QUESTION: What is it that hasn’t played out?
MR. KELLY: I think that there are – that the Iranian Government still has to take some action…
QUESTION: Well, I know, but —
***
MR. KELLY: In addition, we don’t see that they’ve addressed the concerns of the international community about their nuclear program. So we’re still waiting for some actions.
QUESTION: Well, but – I know. I mean, you could wait indefinitely for some actions, but just kind of —
MR. KELLY: Well, maybe we – I hope we don’t.
QUESTION: But – okay, but, I mean, at what point do you say there will be consequences if you don’t see some actions? …
MR. KELLY: Well, you know what the Secretary said yesterday. I mean, we’re going to – we are going to make decisions and base our actions on the national interests of the United States. We have…concerns …about Iran’s nuclear program, and we’re going to just continue to raise these concerns until we see that action is taken.
QUESTION: Well, …don’t you think that’s inconsistent with “we’re going to do what’s in the best interests of our national security interests regardless?”
MR. KELLY: I just – you’re asking us to take actions. I don’t think —
QUESTION: …I’m asking if you’re going to recognize President Ahmadinejad as the legitimate government that you will be – that you say you want to deal with in – on your other national security interests.
MR. KELLY: …[L]egitimacy of any government derives from the consent of the governed. I think that we’ve always had concerns about the political process in Iran…We will make decisions on that based on our dealings with Iran, based on our national interests. We think, right now, that this internal situation needs to play out.
QUESTION: Sorry, can I follow up? But it has played out. The Guardian Council has said –
MR. KELLY: I don’t think it’s played out.
QUESTION: — Ahmadinejad has – so what are you waiting for? You’re waiting for him to be sworn in?
MR. KELLY: Okay. I’ll say it again. We’re waiting for Iran to take some action.
QUESTION: What kind of action?
MR. KELLY: Well, they need to address the concerns of the international community.
QUESTION: But that’s separate from the election.
MR. KELLY: I know it’s separate from the election. We —
***
QUESTION: So at what point do you decide that you’re going to deal with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
MR. KELLY: Well, we haven’t reached that point yet. We will reach that point when – I mean, we’ve laid out exactly what we think needs to happen in the P-5+1. Javier Solana has invited Iran to participate. We have said that we will participate…
***
QUESTION: It’s a bit confusing. You are saying that you are going to recognize Ahmadinejad when they decide –
MR. KELLY: Did I say that?
QUESTION: — when they decide they will attend this P-5+1 meeting. I don’t see the relationship.
MR. KELLY: Look…the situation is still evolving in Iran…When and if the Iranians respond to the concerns of the international community and decide to abide by their responsibilities under their agreements –
QUESTION: Then —
MR. KELLY: — we will make our decisions based on our national interests.
Heh.
Comment by McGehee on 7/5 @ 11:14 am #
You mean like, for Saddam Hussein to finally comply with the 4,822 UN Security Council resolutions <disclaimer: slight exaggeration of actual number> against him, and the terms of the cease-fire enacted at the suspension of Operation Desert Storm? That kind of “wait indefinitely,” which this President’s and this Secretary of State’s party were perfectly okay with even after 9/11?
I’m not sure why anybody would be surprised this President’s and this Secretary of State’s response would be to wait indefinitely. Then again, as I’ve said on my own site and others, and probably here too, I can’t think of anything else Obama could do that wouldn’t blow up in our faces anyway. I still remember what happened in Iran when Carter was president.
Comment by JHo on 7/5 @ 11:27 am #
In all fairness to Teh Won, that is kinda nuanced.
Comment by geoffb on 7/5 @ 11:47 am #
To me it sounds like the State Department has been ordered to vote “Present” on all issues until and unless ordered differently.
Will we recognize Ahmadinejad as head of Iran? “Present!”
Will we respond to Iran gaining nukes? “Present!”
Who’s really on first? “Present!”
Comment by royf on 7/5 @ 12:21 pm #
Perfect analogy.
Isn’t this the Alinsky standard? I mean all the silly trolls do the same thing thread after thread.
Pingback by “Who’s On First?” At The State Department « ricketyclick on 7/5 @ 12:28 pm #
[...] Protein Wisdom and Powerline, Anne Bayefsky brings this scary funny briefing from The Big O’s Department of [...]
Comment by sdferr on 7/5 @ 1:16 pm #
Obama can’t get to the question “Who’s on first” until he gets past the question, which team is his own, that one over there with Chavez, Ortega, Castro, Morales, Achmadinejad, Khamenei, Mashaal, Haniyeh and al-Assad or this one over here with the freedom loving people of Iran, Micheletti, Netanyahu, Sharansky, Saakashvili, Yushchenko, Merkel and Sarkozy?
If only he already knew.
Comment by -Ed. on 7/5 @ 1:33 pm #
Who’s on first? Obama’s on first! Yes we can!
Who’s on second? Obama’s on second! Yes we can!
Who’s on third? Obama’s on third! Yes we can!
Obama’s got all the bases covered!
Wooo hooo! Yes we can!
Comment by TmjUtah on 7/5 @ 1:43 pm #
The country is in the very best of hands.
Comment by Bob Reed on 7/5 @ 2:10 pm #
Oh.my.gawd…It’s confirmed; we have a bunch of rank amateurs running our foreign policy…
And it starts from the top; from the oval office…
[facepalm]
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 7/5 @ 2:14 pm #
…”that the Iranian Government still has to take some action”…
Ah yes, they haven’t dipped into their chemical weapons stock pile to kill & maim the rabble yet.
Oh, wait…
But Honduras? Shit. Bammy gonna get his “meddle” on there. Stupid Honduran Supreme Court and their fucking beaner legislators thinkin’ they can uphold the law according to their own Constitution. Bammy ‘ll show them.
Those “Constitution” thingamabobs are ALL living documents you stupid pendejos!
Obama, Chavez & the Castro brothers…coming to a town near you.
Comment by Silver Whistle on 7/5 @ 2:19 pm #
Did Ian Kelly show up at that briefing in a clown car? That was beyond lame.
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 7/5 @ 2:28 pm #
I found a previous Ian Kelly briefing here.
Comment by Silver Whistle on 7/5 @ 2:36 pm #
“I’m sorry, I must go.”
Brilliant, Lamontyoubigdummy. Truly the most competent administration ever. I don’t know how the country survived this long without it.
Comment by Rusty on 7/5 @ 2:39 pm #
“Gentlemen! We have to something to save our phoeybaloney jobs!”
Comment by Lamontyoubigdummy on 7/5 @ 3:09 pm #
“Truly the most competent administration ever.”
Pop always said, “You gotta have a Jimmy Carter to get a Ronald Reagan.”
Comment by sdferr on 7/5 @ 3:25 pm #
Saudis give nod to Israeli overflights on route to bomb Iranian nuclear installations, says London Times story. Some time back I ventured we ought not be surprised to awake one day to learn an Israeli force used a Saudi airbase as a refueling stop with the Saud’s looking the other way and shrugging. This overfight business doesn’t quite go that far but I still wouldn’t rule the possibility out. The Saud’s know who’s a genuine threat and who’s not.
Comment by Wm T Sherman on 7/5 @ 3:47 pm #
I suspect that military action against the Iranian nuclear program will not be limited to simply bombing the main facilities from the air. There will be more to it than that – has to be in order to make a real impact.
If the Iranians defend their nuclear program as competently as they steal elections, the damage will be extensive.
Comment by SBP on 7/5 @ 4:10 pm #
And another troll-free thread.
Curious, innit?
They’ll either ignore this or else jump in and start frantically trying to change the subject.
Comment by SBP on 7/5 @ 9:43 pm #
Wow. Seven hours later.
Not one troll appears to defend Presentdent Zero’s position.
What, don’t the Axelrod talking points come out on Sunday or something?
Comment by geoffb on 7/5 @ 9:50 pm #
Sarah is for the trolls as Iraq was for al queda, flypaper, and soon to be a kill zone.
Comment by sdferr on 7/5 @ 9:51 pm #
Herschel Smith hits on something that’s been bugging me for the last few days since Crittenden wrote up Jim Jones WTF comments to the Marines in Afghanistan, namely that we heard endlessly from the critics of the Iraq fight that the US never had enough troops on the ground, Shinseki was right, blah, blah, blah on and on it went. Now though? Obama severely limits the number of men allowed into Afghanistan, a much more difficult situation, and we hear from those same people what? Crickets is what.
Comment by sdferr on 7/5 @ 9:54 pm #
Here’s a bit of what Smith has to say:
Comment by B Moe on 7/6 @ 4:15 am #
Something I find odd…
It’s like she’s not even there…
Comment by Yackums on 7/6 @ 4:58 am #
“So I pick up the ball and I throw it to Present.”
Comment by B Moe on 7/6 @ 5:02 am #
Would it even be feasible to supply that many troops in Afghanistan? That seems like a tall order for a land locked country.
Comment by LTC John on 7/6 @ 5:59 am #
No, it would not be feasible. Lan locked country that has about 12 miles total of rail line – not so much of a raod network, and three (four if Shindand is up now) big airports [BAF, KAF and Kabul Int'l]. You have to go through places that SMART POWER hasn’t been able to help that much with – Tajikstan, Uzbekistan, Pakistan (that is a whole lot of ’stans).
Ths shows how the good Dr. Nagl is not really someone who should have been taken seriously at the time…nor now.
Comment by B Moe on 7/6 @ 6:04 am #
Damn. I knew they was backwoods over there, but, damn.
Comment by sdferr on 7/6 @ 8:53 am #
BMoe: Would it even be feasible to supply that many troops in Afghanistan?
There has been serious concern for some time now that we will have trouble with supply under the current conditions, what with rising attacks in Pakistan and the trending meltdown there. Gen. Petraeus has talked about developing new supply lines from the north to secure our needs. H. Smith thinks we need ‘em, suggesting a route that avoids Russia even (Black Sea, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Caspian Sea, Turkenistan, Afghan), though that might be a tad difficult if the Russ decide to overrun Georgia this summer. In mentioning the “big numbers” strategists I wasn’t endorsing their ideas as remotely sensible for Afghanistan. I just wanted to point out how voluble they could be when they wanted to be (contra Bush, iow) and in contrast how quiet when they felt being quiet was more useful (pro Obama).
Comment by sdferr on 7/6 @ 9:25 am #
The opportunity costs to the United States’ strategic interests imposed by the presence of the foolish Obama administration are simply staggering. Gerecht and Rubin fill out the picture Darleen tackled with this post.
Comment by Andrew the Noisy on 7/6 @ 12:47 pm #
Barack Obama is clearly a leader of men.
Pingback by Steynian 371 « Free Canuckistan! on 7/6 @ 4:51 pm #
[...] to engage, dialogue and hang out with the fascists who brutalized them in the first place.” H/t …. [...]
Comment by maggie katzen on 7/7 @ 12:02 am #
but… but… he’s so much for more diplomacy.