Originally Posted by bjkeefe
Good point. I, too, have yet to hear what the "more" is from people who say "Obama should be doing more." Christian at least was honest enough to acknowledge that Obama amping up the rhetoric would be highly unlikely to accomplish anything useful, so in the end, I am inclined to think that what motivates his attitude is, at base, frustration. It's never a good feeling to have one's hands tied, but that's pretty much where we're at with respect to the situation in Iran.
I think some others of the "Obama should be doing more" camp deserve a less charitable interpretation of motives, of course.
When I was looking for the dingalink I posted, I had originally thought that Christian had used the phrase "moral clarity", whereas he had actually only hoped for Obama's "clarifying". It's the "moral clarity" idea that strikes me as fundamentally off, as though the world best sorts out their issues when there's a good side and a bad side and people on both sides make it "clear" which side is which. I wish I could hear an argument for why that is supposed to work, it seems silly and nonsensical on its face, but enough smart people seem to believe it that I wish at least one of them would offer a convincing, or even cogent, defense of it.