Obama Administration Officals Are Pissed Off At Iranian Protesters?

Okay, I have reviewed an article here from Haaretz that includes quotes from two Obama administration officials: Susan Rice who is U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and David Axelrod who is Obama's political advisor and I see something between the lines here...it's my contention that the Obama administration's silence regarding the uprising of the Iranian people against the illegitimate governement of the mullahs is due to the Obama people having banked on the press and prestige that Obama would receive during and after upcoming diplomacy talks with Iran. In other words, the Obama administration has choreographed upcoming talks with Iran NOT to disarm that country but to frame Obama as the great Global Negotiator, and the uprising in Iran has been seen as a significant distraction to that plan.

I want you to look at this quote from Susan Rice:

"This is a profound moment of change. And what Ahmadinejad says to try to change the subject is, frankly, not going to work in the current context, because the people understand that the United States has not been meddling in their internal affairs," she said. "The legitimacy of the government, while questioned by the people of Iran, is not the critical issue for the U.S. goal of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear capability," Rice said.

And now, look at Axelrod's comment:

"We are looking to... sit down and talk to the Iranians and offer them two paths. And one brings them back into the community of nations, and the other has some very stark consequences," Axelrod said.

It's apparent to me that Rice and Axelrod are trying to brush the uprising and demonstrations aside as if they haven't even happened - their eyes are focused on getting the Iranians to the table....they want that photo op of the Iranians sitting down with Obama officials. We have to remember that Barack Hussein Obama is all about image. He's all about polls. He's all about speeches in Germany.

So, in my estimation, the uproar in America over Obama's seemingly weak-kneed response to the Iranian government's actions against the demonstrators was off target a little bit. Obama wasn't trying to show Iran that he wasn't meddling...he was trying to be sure that the uprising failed...and quickly...so he could get to his focused mission of painting himself as the global leader who will face the Iranians and bring hope to the world.

Obama officials: Talks with Iran still possible

Despite questions about the legitimacy of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election and his belligerent anti-American rhetoric, the White House remains open to discussions with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. "It's in the United States' national interest to make sure that we have employed all elements at our disposal, including diplomacy, to prevent Iran from achieving that nuclear capacity," Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said Sunday. As protesters filled the streets of Iranian cities after the disputed vote, Ahmadinejad accused the West of stoking the unrest, singling out Britain and the United States for allegations of meddling. Iran expelled two British diplomats last week and Britain responded in kind. Iran detained nine British Embassy employees Saturday and released at least four.

The U.S. has not had diplomatic relations with Tehran since the aftermath of the Iranian revolution in 1979. Ahmadinejad has said he would make the U.S. regret its criticism of the postelection crackdown and said the mask has been removed from President Barack Obama's efforts to improve relations. Rice said Sunday that Ahmadinejad was falling back on his government's usual strategy of blaming the West and the United States in particular for its internal problems. "This is a profound moment of change. And what Ahmadinejad says to try to change the subject is, frankly, not going to work in the current context, because the people understand that the United States has not been meddling in their internal affairs," she said. "The legitimacy of the government, while questioned by the people of Iran, is not the critical issue for the U.S. goal of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear capability," Rice said. Both Rice and David Axelrod, Obama's top adviser, said Ahmadinejad doesn't appear to have the final say over Iran's foreign policy. Axelrod, dismissing Ahmadinejad's harsh language as bloviations, said being open to talks with Iran is not an effort to reward the country. "We are looking to... sit down and talk to the Iranians and offer them two paths. And one brings them back into the community of nations, and the other has some very stark consequences," Axelrod said. White House officials pointed to Obama's remarks last week, urging engagement. "My expectation would be ... that you're going to continue to see some multilateral discussions with Iran," Obama said Friday. Officials in Washington said they want Iranian officials at the negotiating table - which, they say, was not destroyed during the postelection demonstrations in Iran. "We are also mindful of the fact that the nuclear weapons in Iran and the nuclearization of that whole region is a threat to that country, all countries in the region, and the world. And we have to address that. We can't let that lie," Axelrod said.