who could possibly disagree with the statement above by Amnesty International.

Well, Barrack Obama, for one.
During the past 8 years policy has been to isolate Iran and agitate the youth to rise up and break the back of the Iranian regime. We have placed economic hardship on the Iran. We have placed two democracies on each border, we have led the world to keep them in check on the nuclear ambitions, then, with one seminal event Obama comes out and supports the regime, when he says he looks forward to a peaceful resolution and to work with the Iranian Government. The youth in Iran who want an alternative look to America for support. What do they get? Silence. And a statement...

who could possibly disagree with the statement above by Amnesty International.

Well, Barrack Obama, for one.
During the past 8 years policy has been to isolate Iran and agitate the youth to rise up and break the back of the Iranian regime. We have placed economic hardship on the Iran. We have placed two democracies on each border, we have led the world to keep them in check on the nuclear ambitions, then, with one seminal event Obama comes out and supports the regime, when he says he looks forward to a peaceful resolution and to work with the Iranian Government. The youth in Iran who want an alternative look to America for support. What do they get? Silence. And a statement by Obama where he says he looks forward to "dialogue" with the Iranian regime. The same regime killing people and arresting demonstrators, removing journalists from the country, etc.

What we see happening in Iran is the result of the Bush policy on the Middle East. It is what I have been saying for years here, yet no one on the left was the slightest bit interested in Iranian liberty. The interesting result from this is not who will end up being president, because the only difference is that one is a loudmouth and one is more reserved. Ideologically there is no difference. Do you not get that?