Obama's answer to the Huffington Post question

Some people are upset that President Obama had invited a question from the Huffington Post's Niko Pitney and compare this to left wing outrage at the thought that President Bush had planted questions at his press conferences. Here is Dana Milbank.

But yesterday's daytime drama belonged primarily to Pitney, of the Huffington Post Web site. During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask preplanned questions. But here was Obama fielding a preplanned question asked by a planted questioner -- from the Huffington Post.

I suppose that this is the sort of thing that upsets journalists and violates the norms of press conferences, but actually I rather liked this. We are all focused on the Iranian story and reading the tweets and blog posts that have come from the country. I wanted to know what they would ask the President and I thought the question that Pitney chose was very good.

We solicited questions on tonight from people who are still courageous enough to be communicating online. And one of them wanted to ask you this: Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of -- of what the demonstrators there are working to achieve?

That was a powerful question and got at what we want to know. Is there anything that would lead Obama not to accept the regime's announcement of a divine result in the election? And how does that square with Obama's Cairo speech where he said this,

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments - provided they govern with respect for all their people.

Read that last line again and remember that the President's advisers were trying to take credit for inspiring the Iranians protests challenging the election results.

So this was a great question. I don't care if it was prearranged or not. The President's answer - not so great.

MR. OBAMA: Well, look, we didn't have international observers on the ground. We can't say definitively what exactly happened at polling places throughout the country.

What we know is that a sizable percentage of the Iranian people themselves, spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. It's not an isolated instance, a little grumbling here or there. There is significant questions about the legitimacy of the election.

And so, ultimately, the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States.

And that's why I've been very clear, ultimately, this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government.

What we can do is to say, unequivocally, that there are sets of international norms and principles about violence, about dealing with the peaceful dissent, that -- that spans cultures, spans borders.

And what we've been seeing over the Internet and what we've been seeing in news reports violates those norms and violates those principles.

I think it is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that -- that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it.

First there is the President's usual attempt to see all sides of a burning issue. So he acknowledges that we didn't have observers on the ground and don't know who really won. Nothing about how the four candidates were chosen by Khamenei and the governing council of mullahs to begin with. Nothing about the analyses that have indicated that fraud was highly likely such as from Britain's Chatham House, Juan Cole or from Walter Mebane at the University of Michigan. But the President didn't want to give public credence to such reports although he does acknowledge that the Iranian people themselves don't believe the results. However, he doesn't answer the fundamental part of Pitney's Iranian correspondent's question. Would the President accept Ahmadinejad's supposed election and how does he square that with the demonstrators' demands? All the President did was acknowledge their right to protest and international respect for such rights. Of course, not all countries respect such rights. As the WSJ points out, Russia is quite happily to congratulate Ahmadinejad.

Russia leads the pro-regime axis. President Dmitry Medvedev last week warmly welcomed Mr. Ahmadinejad on a visit to Yekaterinburg, and yesterday the Kremlin all but recognized him. In a statement posted on the foreign ministry's site, only in Russian though the site is in five languages, Moscow called Iran's elections "exclusively an internal matter" but, ahem, "respects the choice of the Iranian people," meaning, in its view, Mr. Ahmadinejad.

The Kremlin backs this regime for Machiavellian purposes. Mahmoud makes life difficult for America, for one thing. Iran is also a big customer of Russian goods, especially weapons. Perhaps most of all, the prospect of another successful so-called "color" democratic revolution in the neighborhood -- in this case, green -- sends chills down Russian strongman Vladimir Putin's spine.

And we know that China has helped train the regime in how to crack down on public protests.

But is there any indication that the Obama administration would treat this Iranian regime differently in light of the public protests and strong indications of fraud? I realize that he is afraid of his words being twisted by the regime to blame the demonstrations on foreign influence. But that is already happening. And now they're parading in front of cameras arrested demonstrators supposedly confessing that they'd been duped by foreigners and the foreign press. Does anyone think that those were legitimate confessions?

Now comes news of a letter that Obama reportedly sent the Iranian regime before the election moving forward on Obama's intention to engage in discussions with the regime on their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Prior to this month's disputed presidential election in Iran, the Obama administration sent a letter to the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, calling for an improvement in relations, according to interviews and the leader himself.

Ayatollah Khamenei confirmed the letter toward the end of a lengthy sermon last week, in which he accused the United States of fomenting protests in his country in the aftermath of the disputed June 12 presidential election.

U.S. officials declined to discuss the letter on Tuesday, a day in which President Obama gave his strongest condemnation yet of the Iranian crackdown against protesters.

An Iranian with knowledge of the overture, however, told The Washington Times that the letter was sent between May 4 and May 10 and laid out the prospect of "cooperation in regional and bilateral relations" and a resolution of the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.

As the anonymous questioner from the Huffington Post might ask: Is there anything that the regime could do in cracking down on demonstrators that would change Obama's determination to engage with them?

Remember that the Obama administration has broken with 30 years of tradition and invited Iranian diplomats to come celebrate the Fourth of July at embassies around the world in what is now being called "hot dog diplomacy." Here is Obama's response to Fox News' Major Garrett's question about the invitation to Iranians diplomats.

QUESTION: Are Iranian diplomats still welcome at the embassy on Fourth of July, sir?

MR. OBAMA: Well, I think as you're aware, Major, we don't have formal diplomatic relations with...

(CROSSTALK)

MR. OBAMA: ... we don't have formal -- we don't have formal diplomatic relations with Iran. I think that we have said that if Iran chooses a path that abides by international norms and principles, then we are interested in healing some of the wounds of 30 years in terms of U.S.-Iranian relations.

But that is a choice that the Iranians are going to have to make.

QUESTION: But the offer still stands?

MR. OBAMA: That's a choice the Iranians are going to have to make.

What does that mean? That the Iranians have to decide whether or not to accept the invitation or that the invitation is now contingent on whether or not the Iranians are abiding by "international norms and principles." It's not clear whether or not he is thinking of rescinding the invitation. The State Department spokesman certainly thinks that the invitation stands.

Hot Air juxtaposes the Obama's unprecedented invitation with the violence against civilians in the street. If the administration continues with that invitation, I think that The Huffington Post's Iranian questioner has been answered. Symbolism is important in diplomacy, especially in a case like this when there is so little we can do to influence events on the ground in Iran. And this is the symbolism that Obama has chosen.

UPDATE: CNN reports that the Obama administration is seriously debating whether to rescind the BBQ invitations. Good. Maybe it has dawned on them that inviting representatives of the regime that is shooting students in the street is not the best way to celebrate our holiday commemorating our declaration against tyranny. Perhaps the administration would do well to reread the beginning paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence explaining when the people have the right of revolution.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

UPDATE II: The invitation has now been rescinded. Apparently, the Iranians weren't jumping on the opportunity to accept the invitation to celebrate liberty and revolution. It shouldn't have taken this long and public questions and jokes about hot dog diplomacy for the administration to realize that this was not a good idea at this time, but at least they eventually made the right decision.