Free Markets, Free People

Where Is Our Secretary Of State On This?

UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband has spoken out about the violence in Iran and the repression of the protesters, calling the violence against them by the state “disturbing” and hailing the “great courage” the protesters have demonstrated.

He further stated:

“The tragic deaths of protesters in Iran are yet another reminder of how the Iranian regime deals with protest,” he said.

“Ordinary Iranian citizens are determined to exercise their right to have their voices heard. They are showing great courage.

“I call on the Iranian government to respect the human rights of its own citizens – rights which Iran has promised to respect.”

Of course speaking out like this in support of freedom and democracy – something US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently said would remain the policy of the United States – has drawn an expected reaction from Iran’s Manouchehr Mottaki:

Mr Mottaki said the protesters “should not be encouraged by a few… statements by certain countries”.

He added: “They should not pin their hopes on them. Britain will get slapped in the mouth if it does not stop its nonsense.”

Mr Mottaki’s speech was broadcast on Iranian television with an English translation on screen.

“The lowly and downgrading remarks by some foreign officials show the black stain on their record in their… contradictory interactions.”

Oh, my. A “stern rebuke”. How ghastly. I’m sure Miliband is forever scarred.

Obviously, it is this horrific toll that is keeping our brave Secretary of State from speaking out on the violence and injustice now occurring in Iran. Instead it is left up to an NSA spokesman to make the denunciation.

NSA? So they’re now conducting our foreign affairs.

Where in the world is Carmen … er, Hillary Clinton?



Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

21 Responses to Where Is Our Secretary Of State On This?

  • When you find her also ask why the underwear bomber was issued a visa…..

    • Ask, too, why a couple of the 9/11 hijackers were issued visas six months AFTER the WTC attack.

  • FEAR. The administration is afraid of the consequences of condemning the regime.
    1. If the regime does not collapse (I give their survival a better than 50% chance) then the administration has given them “proof” that the rising was a foreign plot. There’s nothing like jingoism to unit the people.
    2. If the regime does collapse, the administration is afraid it will undermine the legitimacy of the new leadership.
    3. Our historical record of support for oppressed peoples is uneven. Poland is a good example of success. Hungary, East Germany (the 1950s) and Czechoslovakia (1960s) are examples where our rhetoric exceeded our ability.
    4. There is nothing diplomats prize more than stability.
    Change is what is needed in the Middle East. Change is what they fear.

    • FEAR. The administration is afraid of the consequences of condemning the regime.

      Mostly the PR consequences, I think.  Obama seems to want to have it so that at the end of the day, regardless of the outcome, he can say “it wasn’t my fault, I tried being nice.”  Which will no doubt mollify the Erbs of the world.  Considering that the Iranian response to “being nice” is pretty much the same as their response to a principled and direct stance, one would think that the President would understand that it’s safe to take a more practical approach and properly condemn the barbaric actions being taken against Iranian citizens.

  • “Where in the world is Carmen . . . er, Hillary Clinton?”
    She is either:

    Getting Polling data on what her measured response should be so as to not hurt her in future political endeavors (i.e. 2012?)


    She is waiting for Obama’s Iranian Czar to respond accordingly.


    She is waiting for Obama’s approval of her draft statement to the press.

  • “Where in the world is Carmen . . . er, Hillary Clinton?”

    Maybe a more important question is:  “Does anybody really care?”

  • McQ – Where in the world is Carmen … er, Hillary Clinton?

    Oh, Papau or Estonia or Malawi or any other quiet, out-of-the-way country where Imeme can think to send her, confident that she can’t do anything there to enhance her stature so as to make her a threat to his renomination in ’12.

    Steve C. – There is nothing diplomats prize more than stability.

    Sad but true.

  • Popular will, outside of it coinciding or manipulating it to your own targeted ends, is anathema to Statists.
    When manipulated properly with a compliant press, it can give the air of legitimacy.  But when push comes to shove, popular will takes a back seat or else.

    • Let’s not forget the same can be said for any Constitutional decrees that can’t be circumvented or reinterpreted.

  • Dudes, she’s in Honduras making sure the evil coup leaders are being replaced with the legitimate government of El Presidente Manuel Fidel de’ Chavez  Zeyala.

  • Sadly, Bruce, Miliband’s comments are pure hot air. He has no interest in freedom or electoral democracy, having been instrumental in the slow but steady transfer of British sovereignty to a supranational oligarchical elite, recently completed by the ratification of the EU Constitution.

    The EU elite continues to appease Iran, for reasons of corporatist interest and cultural engineering, so please don’t look to these shores for improved Iranian policy.

    Outside of Israel I can’t think of any state-centred foreign policy analysts who can even maintain the objective standards which are a necessary prerequisite for even beginning to form policy.

    Yes…Clinton is a sack of shit. Hitchens exposed her many years ago for the evil fascist she is. But I’d be careful not to criticise her for reasons relating to national politics, or to make the terrible mistake of appearing to praise a Bilderberger globalist like Miliband. His two-faced nature towards Iran really has amounted to “contradictory interactions”.

    But I agree with your central thrust, which is that US foreign policy has been infected with the same moral subjectivism brought to bear domestically. For all his faults, Cheney had the right idea “We don’t talk to evil”. Now Clinton (and Obama) are granting sanction to the Persian military state posing as a ‘democracy’.

    Ultimately this all comes back to what I am constantly calling for: honesty. Let’s call a spade a spade and then maybe we can avoid apocalypse.

  • Is it my imagination, or is Hillary Clinton AWOL lately? I seem to remember Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice on television everyday; yet, somehow, the more I look for our current Secretary of State, I cannot find her.

    Could that be because the foreign policy (or what goes for it) is being run out of the White House?

  • Hiliary is becoming the fusion of the two Rodney-s … Rodney King and Rodney Dangerfield.
    Can’t we all just live together and I get no respect.

  • Where was she? Somewhere with her nose up some Islamists butt crack.

  • When a woman like Hillary — of a certain age, constantly in the spotlight, etc. — is MIA in a moment like this, there is only one possible explanation: She’s having some (more) work done.

  • I would love to see her come out of hiding and make some pronouncement against the regime, simply because I want to hear the backlash from the Iranians.   If Miliband’s comments garnered the type of response that includes the phrase “….Britain will get slapped in the mouth…” I can’t wait to see what they would have to say about Hillary criticizing them.

  • I think that there were long periods of time when Condi was seen almost not at all.    Presumably she was working.     Sometimes we saw a lot of her in the news, but it was an on again, off again, sort of thing.
    As for Clinton…   I’m sticking with “evil but not stupid.”     And Obama is stupid.    And since Clinton is not stupid (just evil) I’m not inclined to think that the incredibly moronic actions coming out of State are coming from her, but are what Obama directs.    The first thing that Obama did was publicly countermand Clinton’s major staffing decisions, if you recall.
    Obama doesn’t delegate well.

  • I’m just wondering if Hillary is being made to lay low by Obama, or if she’s laying low as a way to hedge her bets come 2012.  I’m inclined towards the latter, I don’t think her ego can handle being shoved behind the scenes this much.  I think that she will spend her term as SoS the way she has so far, trying to walk a tricky tightrope between being able to take credit where she feels it is due, while also being able to refer to low points in the administration’s foreign affairs and claim that she ‘wasn’t there’.
    Biden, on the other hand, doesn’t strike me as being that shrewd.  He’s just kept locked in a room until they decide to trot him out for comedy relief.

  • Hillary and Obama are both bewildered fantasists.
    By the way, this fear of upsetting the crazies reminds me of co-dependency: “Don’t mention his drinking, that upsets him! If we’re supportive, maybe he’ll stop!”
    Rotsa ruck.