The Indefatigable George Washington

He made quite a splash at the 9/12 rally. And last we saw him, George Washington was indicating his disapproval of Obama's entire cabinet.

Now he's singling Obama out.

He just won't let it go.

President Barack Obama speaks about the U.S. missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland, that had deeply angered Russia, Thursday, Sept. 17, 2009, in the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House in Washington, and gets instant feedback. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak/minor edit, TheVIMH)

Nor should he.

What. You wanna argue with George Washington? He's flippin' George Washington, man. Absolute Moral Authority.

_____________
Photo "on loan" from Outside the Beltway. Yes, yes the scare quotes are there to indicate that I did not "ask permission". Ok, fine, I stole it.)

Disapproval of Obama and His Cabinet

You saw the poster at the 9/12 rally.

Washington wasn't content just to leave it there. Now he's going after Obama and his entire cabinet:

(h/t RWSparkle for the original photo)

The Obama Doctrine in Action

Tragically, the events in Honduras have proved as fleeting as summer as far as our national attention span goes. Even more tragically, the way the Obama adminstration has handled the US response is nothing short of, well, tragic.

Via Jay Nordlinger at the Corner we have this report from Reuters:

TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - Honduran de facto ruler Roberto Micheletti said on Saturday the United States has revoked his visa to pressure him to step down and reinstate exiled President Manuel Zelaya, who was ousted in a June military coup.

Micheletti, however, was defiant of the latest move by Washington, which said earlier this month it was cutting more than $30 million in aid to the poor Central American country.

"We will not back down. Dignity does not have a price in our country," Micheletti told Honduran radio.

That word, "dignity". Interesting, that.

During last year's campaign, The American Prospect produced a long and detailed piece on The Obama Doctrine. In it author Spencer Ackerman posits:

Obama is offering the most sweeping liberal foreign-policy critique we've heard from a serious presidential contender in decades.

And getting to the heart of The Obama Doctrine the piece states:

I spoke at length with Obama's foreign-policy brain trust, the advisers who will craft and implement a new global strategy if he wins the nomination and the general election. They envision a doctrine that first ends the politics of fear and then moves beyond a hollow, sloganeering "democracy promotion" agenda...

Well. If anything, the Obama administration is certainly not promoting Democracy in Honduras, so mission accomplished of a sort on that front. In fact, in trying to pressure Honduras to accept the return of former president Zelaya, they are working against the very nature of Honduran democracy.

So, they are against "democracy promotion" because it is hollow sloganeering, and in its place they are:

...in favor of "dignity promotion," to fix the conditions of misery that breed anti-Americanism and prevent liberty, justice, and prosperity from taking root.

There's that word, "dignity".

However, in its efforts to remove the dignity of Honduras and its current President Roberto Micheletti, the Obama administration has indeed shown that is is moving beyond hollow sloganeering.

As I predicted at the time this American Prospect article came out, the Obama administration has descended into utterly vapid sloganeering.

Funrecovery!

MICRO: Funemployment!

MACRO: Funrecovery!

The president’s chief economic adviser warned Friday that the nation’s unemployment rate could stay “unacceptably high” for years to come — a situation that would seriously complicate Barack Obama’s ability to convince Americans that he’s beating back the recession.

“The level of unemployment is unacceptably high,” National Economic Council Director Larry Summers said Friday. “And will, by all forecasts, remain unacceptably high for a number of years.”

Well. Nobody is calling an "L-shaped" lack of recovery "fun". Yet. But somebody, somewhere, soon will. Obama is President and Democrats do control congress, afterall.

By the way...

# of Google hits for "funemployment": "Results 1 - 10 of about 384,000 for funemployment"

# of Google hits for "funrecovery": "Results 1 - 10 of about 67 for "funrecovery"
(all of which appear to be various sites offering to register funrecovery.com, none as a reference to the economy)

I believe that I am first.

"...in almost every respect, the opposite of what he portrays himself to be..."

I've largely abandoned the whole blogging thing. Yes, I still am roused now and again by polls and possibilities for photoshops. Otherwise, I do a lot of reading about politics, but have little to say about it.

Yet every once in awhile, I come across something that catches my eye. In this case, reading Peter Wehner at Contentions, I am compelled to drag my old hobby horse back up onto my old soap box and revisit that which most motivated and irked me about last year's campaign.

Wehner writes in reaction to Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress:

It is not enough for Obama to repeat his false claims, day after day, speech after speech. No, he must also portray himself as America’s Socrates, our voice of reason amidst the angry mob, an intrepid truth teller, a singularly unifying and visionary figure, and a man astonishingly free from the ideological baggage that defines his critics. He views himself as the adult in a world of children.

This is all quite silly. Obama is, in almost every respect, the opposite of what he portrays himself to be. He is a divisive, polarizing figure, among the most divisive and polarizing we have ever seen. He has shown no interest at all in reaching across the aisle and working with the opposition party. He is an orthodox liberal through and through. He denigrates his critics and questions their motives. He has made the health-care debate more muddled, more confused, and less honest. He has hardened the disdain many Americans have toward their government. And he is increasing cynicism among the polity.

Ah yes, cynicism. I may never be able to let that one go. In what I think echoes Wehner's observation from yesterday, I will repost an observation of mine from yester(last)year:

I don't believe for one second that Obama is just an ordinary political opportunist.

Take everything that Obama lays out in his grandiose verbiage...hope, change, end of cynicism, heal racial division, reach across the aisle, end corruption, end special interests, new politics in Washington, etc, etc, etdamncetera.

And then match it up to his record, his actions, and the lack thereof. He believes and acts in the exact opposite manner of what he is selling.

It is no ordinary political opportunist that could cast such a spell over so many people for so long while doing this.

And to reiterate, it is no accident that he has done this. It is a carefully constructed strategy in an attempt to delegitimize any and all criticism:

Listen, I will leave it to [others] to go into the details of the whole Obama as Alinsky-ite thing.

I am just a poor small town BS sniffer.

And as lefty Oliver Willis quipped about Obama, Smells Like a Movement. Oh, yeah a big movement. A toilet-stopping, get-the-plunger, why-didn't-you-courtesy-flush, where-the-hell are-the-matches movement.

Obama's "fight against cynicism" is BS (yes, a movement). I've played with the whole thing for a year now. Being cute, hit and runnish with pointing out Obama cynicism in the name of ending it.

Enough.

Obama's fight against cynicism is not just mere rhetoric. It is an attempt to create for himself and aura of infallibility.

He is above the normal cynical attempt to gain power -- or cynical attempt to retain power. ::cough::bullshit::cough::

He is all about the change/hope/unity/on our way to yeswecanville.

Do you disagree with Obama?You are cynical.

And cynicism is a threat as great as terrorists -- and is a rival greater than any Dem/Repub or Red/Blue or Lib/Conservative divide. ::cough::bullshit::cough::

The man isn't spouting platitudes because he wants everyone all lovey dovey, Oprahfied and empowered.

He wants everyone powerless.

Michelle: "[Obama] is going to demand that you shed your cyncism".

Obama wants unity. To disagree with Obama is a lack of unity. Any lack of unity is cynicism. And cynicism is as big an enemy as terrorists.

Shed your cynicism (agree with Obama) or you are a terrorist.

And finally:

When Barack Obama says he wants to end the divisiveness in politics, I believe him. When Obama says he wants to bring about unity, I believe him. When Obama says he wants to work for a new politics free from bitter partisanship, I believe him. When Obama says he wants to have vigorous debate, a robust discussion or a national dialogue to bring this about, I believe him -- to be lying.

...

[I]f Obama's strategy continues to be successful, the media will shield him from the tough questions and criticism. Because there is no bitter partisanship where there is no discussion of the issues, and there is no divisiveness without debate. Obama is not seeking a dialogue in this campaign to bring about unity; rather, a monologue. Obama wants you silent - unless you agree with him, or until enough people do that your voice is no longer heard.

Unfortunately, Obama rode his strategy all the way to the White House. Fortunately, the veil has been lifted and he has encountered and is encountering resistance that is no longer able to be delegitimized by his word alone. And that resistance is becoming increasingly effective in opposing his efforts. May it continue to grow and succeed.

Disapproved Even Further

So we read in the Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama, seeking to rally his base, accused Republican leaders Thursday of trying to block a health-care overhaul from the start and again threw his weight behind a government-run insurance plan. ...

On the Michael Smerconish radio show Thursday, the president said: "Early on a decision was made by the Republican leadership that said, 'Look, let's not give them a victory and maybe we can have a replay of 1993-94 when Clinton came in. He failed on health care, and then we won in the midterm elections, and we got the majority.'"

Obama having made the comparison, and we having been stuck on polls lately, let's run with this. So far we've used approval polls from the Real Clear Politics average and Rasmussen.

Onward to Gallup. Let's compare Obama and Clinton from each president's inauguration through mid-August. Only this time, let's look how each one performed compared to his numbers in the first Gallup poll after his inauguration. What kind of movement did each experience in his approval and disapproval numbers in those first seven months.

In their first seven months in office:

• Clinton's approval dropped 14 points and his disapproval rose 27
• Obama's approval dropped 13 points and his disapproval rose 27

Being change he can't believe in, Obama wants to blame it on the VRWC, Republicans in Congress and concerned citizens evil mongers at Congressional townhalls.

Whatevs. Even if true, he is admitting that his hindsight is nowhere near 20/20 (the Clinton experience isn't exactly a secret, is it?), his ability to drive a national debate is nowhere near presidential (he's passed many more bucks than bills so far, and the pace will only likely accelerate) and his skin is nowhere near thick enough (he's getting more wee wee'd up than anyone else in this whole process) to take the rigors of the job from what we've seen so far.

It's time for a "gird your loins" pep talk from VP Biden. And that's a pretty sad state of affairs.

If you're Obama, that is, which I'm not. Or if you support Obama, which I don't. So it's a state of affairs that is not sad. If you're me, that is, which I am.

More Disapproved

In our last post, we drew this conclusion:

Obama: Much more unpopular than Bush

And that was based on each President's Real Clear Politics approval rating for the July of their first terms. Obama's disapproval rating was at 37.8% and Bush's was at 31%.

OK, let's cut to Rasmussen, who reports today:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 32% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -9 (see trends).

Today’s update marks the highest level of Strong Disapproval for President Obama.

Here's the graph:

That's an alarmingly upwardly sloping red line there, isn't it? And 41%? That's sounds alarmingly high.

Well. Consider this, from Rasmussen last January, as Bush was on his way out of the White House:

In the final full month of his Presidency, just 13% of American adults said they Strongly Approved of the way that George W. Bush performed his job as president. Forty-three percent (43%) Strongly Disapproved.

At the end of eight years, Bush's Strongly Disapprove number was just 2% worse than Obama's is right now, at the beginning of just his eighth month in office.

Yikes! Obama is operating with ruthless efficiency.

So while our statement above is correct, insofar as when comparing Obama and Bush at the same point in their presidencies, Obama is much more unpopular than Bush was, it is NOT correct to claim that Obama now is much more unpopular than Bush was when he left office.

Therefore, in this context we will revise our wording:

Obama: Barely less strongly disapproved of than Bush

Disapproved

Via Peter Wehner at Contentions, we learn:

President Obama remains in a fairly strong -- but no longer commanding -- political position. The RCP poll average of Obama's job approval rating is 56 percent.

We've been watching Obama's numbers at Rasmussen, and have been wrongfully neglecting the RCP poll average. So let's get a snapshot from RCP:

Apart from the obvious trend (converging Approval and Disapproval and shrinking Spread), one thing that struck us was the Approval number, 55.8%.

And what do you know, someone else had a 55.8% approval rating at this time in his first term.

But besides the similarities in their approval ratings at this point in their presidencies, Bush had a 31.0% Disapproval rating while Obama's Dissapproval rating is 37.8%. One can rightfully draw on this dissimilarity between Obama and Bush to make this observation:

Obama: Much more unpopular than Bush

Of Health Care, Family and Pie

Via Rachel Adams at the Weekly Standard, there is a rift in the White House between the first couple, which has huge implications for the current health care debate:

WASHINGTON - Now it can be told: President Obama says one of the best-kept secrets at the White House is the pastry chef's to-die-for pie.

In an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday, Obama was asked to reveal a White House secret, and he dished about the pie.

Obama says the pastry chef makes "the best pie I have ever tasted, and that has caused big problems with Michelle and I."

Of course it is causing big problems with Michelle. According to her, by eating the whole pie, Obama is preventing us from getting universal health care.

Most Americans, she said, don't want much.

"They don't want the whole pie," she told the women. "There are some who do, but most Americans feel blessed just being able to thrive a little bit. But that is becoming even more out of reach."...

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."

Of course, put me down on Obama's side on this.

Just don't tell me that Obama is serious about universal health care.

Great Some Minds Think Alike II

Okay, let's take on the saga of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya.

You want a little backstory on how Zelaya was booted and how (and how quickly) Obama reacted? Here you go.

What accounts for the difference between Obama's reaction to Zelaya and Honduras and with his reaction to Ahmadinejad and Iranian protesters?

Well.

Remember during the campaign when we were all made aware of these Obama comments:

To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. …

I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.

Obama was speaking directly about the civil rights movement, and specifically about redistributive change in that context. The words are from 2001, but were brought to light in last year's campaign after Obama's "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber.

There were, in other words, "essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution" that Obama wished were not there. And Obama displays his, uh, lack of fondness for the "negative rights" aspect of the Constitution.

He doesn't like the idea that the Constitution fundamentally tells the government what it cannot do.

You know who else doesn't like that? Honduran president Manuel Zelaya. The Honduran Constitution had a "negative right" that said the president could not seek re-election.

Like Obama, he was not optimistic about changing that through the courts. And the legislature unanimously opposed his efforts. So, seeing the constitution as fundamentally flawed (like Obama sees the US Constitution), Zelaya sought to do a little populist community organization with a referendum that would allow him to run again, essentially giving him the power to become President for life, outside the strictures of the laws of Honduras.

It was from there that the court ordered his removal from the contry, which led to his ouster, and Obama's quick support.

Which leads us to this...

Like Obama, Zelaya simply sees his Constitution as fundamentally flawed.

Like Obama, Zelaya simply wants change.

No wonder Obama came out so quickly to support him.

Like with Ahmadinejad, Obama and Zelaya think alike.

Miss Manners 1, Obama Administration 0

Who didn't see this coming?

It was an attempt by President Obama to reach out to Iran with a classically American invitation: celebrate July 4 with hot dogs and hale fellowship at United States embassies worldwide. Now, hot-dog diplomacy is the latest casualty of the bloody clashes in Tehran.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who had authorized diplomatic posts earlier this month to invite Iranians to their Independence Day parties, sent out a cable rescinding the invitations.

“Unfortunately, circumstances have changed, and participation by Iranian diplomats would not be appropriate in light of the unjust actions that the president and I have condemned,” she said. Embassies that had already invited Iranian diplomats were instructed to disinvite them.

Well, good for the administration, though it comes much, much later than it should have -- and actually rescinding the invitations should never have had to occur as the invitations should never have been sent.

But notice that the disinvitation to the Iranian diplomats sounds eerily similar to the hypothetical example of a Presidential disinvitation in Miss Manners' Guide to Excrutiatingly Correct Behavior that we shared in a previous post, which read:

MR. AND MRS. JONATHAN R. AWFUL, II
129 PRIMROSE PATH
BROOKDALE, CONNECTICUT

THE PRESIDENT AND MRS. EAGLE REGRET THAT HIS
MAJESTY HANDSOME V WILL BE UNABLE TO VISIT
THE UNITED STATES AT THIS TIME BECAUSE OF THE
REVOLUTIONARY CIRCUMSTANCES NOW EXISTING IN
MAGICLAND. THEREFORE THE DINNER IN HIS HONOR
AT THE WHITE HOUSE ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7,
2005, HAS BEEN CANCELLED.

THE SOCIAL SECRETARY THE WHITE HOUSE

Nobody messes with Miss Manners.

Nobody Meddles With Obama

In our last post, we provided the evidence that Biden and Hillary may have designs on "meddling" with Obama.

But. To be fair to Obama, and his rather well-deserved reputation as a timid player in foreign policy, he apparently displays much less timidity when it comes to handling division within his own administration.

On Wednesday, word broke that Hillary and Biden were not happy with Obama's stance on Iran.

And on that very same day, it was Hillary's elbow that broke in a so-called "accident".

Accident? Coincidence? Don't be naive.

Well.

In any event, the elbow may be broken, but the finger still works:

Someone May Be Meddling

Last week, the New York Times dropped this tibit about the Obama administration's response to the protests in Iran:

Even while supporting the president’s approach, senior members of the administration, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like to strike a stronger tone in support of the protesters, administration officials said.

To that point, criticism of President Obama was mostly confined to Republicans and conservative leaning blogs. And while that story raised more than a few eyebrows, it was quickly dismissed by the White House.

However, since that time President Obama has begun to move away from his early hesitation in speaking out against the thuggish regime and for the protesters as reportedly advocated by both Biden and Clinton.

But even with this new approach, new evidence has emerged that Biden and Clinton may have themselves moved further toward the view that Obama is simply not up to the task:

Gird your loins, Obama.

UPDATE: Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has issued a joint statement with Iran's Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Khamenei which states: “We don't want to meddle in what should be internal affiars of the Great Satan, but there may not be that much difference between any of them, and we are appalled and outraged that in a land of supposed free speech, the media so readily grants administration leakers anonymity.”

WELL, WELL, WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE: Dan Riehl has this observation concerning Hillary:

Oh my. Why would Hillary need an attack dog par excellence at the State Department? I speculated about Hillary's long-term thinking if Obama really gets caught up in a scandal, or just starts to fade for any reason. I'd keep my eye out for stories featuring "unnamed senior officials at the State Department".

Pre-mature, perhaps - but Blumenthal will say anything about anyone to help a Clinton. This is an interesting move. If there's ever any Obama blood in the water, Sidney will be one of the most dangerous sharks. Just sayin'.

Obama's Excuciatingly Incorrect Behavior

It perhaps is not shocking to discover, though it is no less depressing. Even in the midst of a bloody crackdown in Iran by the thuggish regime against its own citizens protesting the June 12th elections, the Obama administration has no plans on rescinding an invitation to Iranian diplomats for July 4th barbeques at US embassies. Allah at Hot Air has the story from AFP:

The United States said Monday its invitations were still standing for Iranian diplomats to attend July 4 celebrations at US embassies despite the crackdown on opposition supporters.

President Barack Obama’s administration said earlier this month it would invite Iran to US embassy barbecues for the national holiday for the first time since the two nations severed relations following the 1979 Islamic revolution.

“There’s no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats,” State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.

“We have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran,” Kelly said. “We tried many years of isolation, and we’re pursuing a different path now.”

Some people are troubled by this, others are outraged. But ultimately there is but one course one should take in addressing this matter, gentle reader.

And that is, of course to consult Miss Manners' Guide to Excrutiatingly Correct Behavior.

In our copy of Judith Martin's indispensible book, we find on pages 600-601 examples of the proper eitquette the Obama administration should be following in this type of situation, rather than the unfortunate and shameful actions we see above.

Although, on Google Books, it appears that the examples are on pages 701-702 -- yet unfortunately, Google Books does not contain a preview image for page 701.

Therefore, we will re-create page 701 (without the fancy script font on the invitations) and then copy the image for page 702 from Google Books.

President Obama would be wise to ask himself, WWMMD -- What Would Miss Manners Do -- and avoid what is obviously his very excruciatingly incorrect behavior.

You're Welcome (for Obama's Disapproval Rating)

From JammieWearingFool we learn:

The imperial president's honeymoon is over. Just imagine what his approval numbers would look like if 99% of the media weren't in his back pocket.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Sunday shows that 32% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -2. That’s the President’s lowest rating to date and the first time the Presidential Approval Index has fallen below zero for Obama

Well. Yesterday I received a call. Normally I don't pick up calls when I don't recognize the number. But since it was a 214 area code and I have family in Dallas, I thought it might be someone I knew.

It wasn't.

It was Rasmussen. I was being robo-polled*.

So, when we see these results today, Obama's lowest approval rating yet, I have only two words:

You're welcome.

-------------------

*That link takes you to the JustOneMinute thread in which I commented (real-time!) about being robo polled. If one were so inclined, he or she could follow that link and then scroll down for some of my observations of the polling experience.

Bo Knows Iran

Twitter threatens to overtake my life.

I tweeted this yesterday:

@JTlol The reason O and the kids had to pick up doggie treats on the outing 2day ... Bo was left at WH to monitor the situation in Iran.

And sure enough, as Obama and his girls headed out for ice cream...

Woof!

Mmmmm, Tastes Just Like Freedom Voting Present

Well, for better or worse I finally dipped my toe into twitter.

Obama and his girls went out for ice cream today and, well, some people thought that was a little off key because of the crisis in Iran.

Instinctively, I went out and found an old pic of Obama eating ice cream and submitted it to twitter:

But!!! That was an old pic, and as fast as twitter moves, the pic was quickly overcome by the actual images of today's excursion. So I submitted today's pic (via Patterico) with the same caption...

And now, Patterico has a caption contest with this photo at his site...I wish everyone the best of luck.

Great Some Minds Think Alike

Like Obama, Ahmadinejad can succinctly address those who would oppose him.

Is the Situation in Iran a Serious Crisis?

While Obama is flipping off the protesters and demonstrators in Iran, here's a question: Where's Rahm Emanuel?

Remember that Emanuel? It's all about taking advantage of a serious crisis, right?

Empowering Iranian protesters and demonstrators crying out to be freed of the oppression of the current regime, through clear moral and rhetorical support, in an effort that could help delegitimize, destabilize and perhaps overthrow the nuclear weapon-seeking and terror-sponsoring mullahs and Ahmadinejad?

Well.

"You never sometimes want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before but which would take too much risk in expending political capital such that doing anything other than sitting on your hands becomes undesirable."

And while the President sits on his hands...

The House passed it's resolution supporting the people of Iran. Two people voted present, 25 abstained, and everyone else voted for it, except one representative.

Wanna take a guess who that was?

And then Ron Paul, the only person to vote against the House resolution, explained that he did so because he "admired President Obama’s cautious approach to the situation in Iran and I would have preferred that we in the House had acted similarly."

Of course, Paul is wrong to think he's aligned with Obama in cautious passivity, right?

We know that because the WH decided to...

...send in Gibbs!

President Barack Obama's chief spokesman said Friday that a House-passed resolution condemning the Iranian election and the unrest that followed "is very consistent" with the message the White House has been sending this week.

But wait.

"He believes those who wish to have their voices heard should be able to do that without fear of violence," Gibbs said. "That is an important universal principle that should be upheld and I think he supports that."

Gibbs thinks Obama supports that? He thinks???

Of course, Gibbs would know Obama supports that if Obama had actually come out and said that he supports that.

As it is, Gibbs is in the same position the rest of us are...

We can only speculate.

Obama Salutes the Iranians

Reacting to Obama's reaction to the Iranian sham elections and the subsequent mass protests and demonstrations, Ace writes:

Unbelievable. The resisters in Iran cry out for support -- even mere support of the moral kind -- and Obama gives them the finger. He's Ahmadinejad's boy and he's not changing that for nobody.

Ace only thought that he was speaking metaphorically about that one finger salute: