The statement:
The reference to “vigorous debate” comes from the administration’s first statement on the events in Iran, put out the day after the “election,” by Robert Gibbs. If it was a foolish thing to say then, it’s just absurd now, but the State Department yesterday continued to use the euphemism, saying it was resolved not to interfere “in the debate that Iranians are having about their election and its aftermath.” For some reason the left, normally so process oriented (think Gitmo, where their main concern is not keeping terrorists detained but demonstrating America’s commitment to the rule of law) has suddenly become so results oriented. Democrats are concerned not with doing what’s right, but doing what they believe will best advance the cause of liberty in Iran — in this case keeping their mouths shut. But don’t Americans have some obligation — a moral responsibility, as Cantor says — to pick a side? Shouldn’t America always be explicitly on the side of those who seek liberty and democracy, even at the cost of complicating our foreign relations or complicating their revolution? The Iranians accuse us of meddling anyway, which is what all authoritarian regimes do when they face internal dissent. And it is authoritarian states like China and Russia that seek to turn non-interference into some kind of international norm. Suddenly, they’ve found broad support for that view among the American left.
