"President Obama is right to remain open to dialogue with Iran and to continue looking for a peaceful resolution to the dispute over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. He is also right to condemn the violence against Iranian civilians and to place the United States on their side, as he did in his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize and in comments on Monday."
Sorry, but Obama's behavior pertaining to the Iranian dissidents has been disgraceful. For many months Obama has all but ignored them, and it is no wonder that the dissidents on the streets of Tehran chant:
"Obama, are you with them or with us?"
My comment in response to The Times editorial, if they decide it is "not abusive" and "on-topic" and agree to post it - The Times remains extremely protective of Obama:
It is gratifying at long last to see an editorial from The New York Times, which acknowledges the brutality of the ruling regime in Tehran.
It is disappointing, however, to observe that this editorial is incapable of observing the refusal of President Obama to offer, at a minimum, moral support to the dissidents and to bring this matter before the UN Security Council.
It is disappointing that The New York Times has been reluctant to permit contrary opinion to that of Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen, who most recently issued a call for "inertia" with respect to U.S. policy pertaining to Iran.
It is disappointing that The New York Times has been reluctant to permit contrary opinion to that of the Leveretts, who in 2009 wrote two op-eds in The New York Times calling for "rapprochement" with Iran.
Finally, it is disappointing that The New York Times has not provided space on its op-ed page for a discussion of Iran's horrifying oppression of its Baha'i minority (Cohen over the course of many months of Iran-related op-eds only mentioned the Baha'is once.)
[The above comment was censored by The New York Times. "Abusive"? Not "on-topic"? Too critical of Obama? Or too critical of The New York Times?]