The events unfolding in Iran have been so fascinating, encouraging and saddening to watch over this past week.  The way in which technology has played a part in the process has been equally fascinating.  The way in which some in the US government have behaved, however, have been and is very angering and disappointing.

Today is the 2,244th day since former President Bush’s “mission accomplished” declaration.  We’ve seen more than 4,000 of our brothers and sisters killed in that conflict, and more than $680 billion of our tax dollars spent.  Our troops remain in Iraq, resources that should have been available to our efforts in Afghanistan all these days, where another two soldiers were killed just yesterday.

The Sunday talking points from Republicans and neo-cons once again went after President Obama for what they consider his “tepid” response so far to the Iranian protests and their government’s response to quell them.  These are the same folks who told us of WMDs in Iraq, and pushed Bush et als in believing a  “truth” we’ve since learned was bogus.

President Obama, to his credit, has been remarkably restrained, and correctly so, in his public comments so far.  Certainly no one can doubt which side of the Iranian conflict his sentiments stand on, and yet he’s been both diplomatic and Presidential in his words.

Iranian government officials, from the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has been supreme leader since 1989 and throughout, have attempted to convince the world that outside agitators are responsible for the protests and the large crowds that have turned out for them.  Yet, the symbol of those protests has become a 16 year girl, shot by Revolutionary Guard soldiers and allowed to bleed to death – - her photo and the video of her death having made their way around the virtual world quickly.

Republican and neo-con knuckleheads are calling upon the President to become more vocal and strident in his opposition to the government actions in Iran.  By merely speaking these words, they play directly into the hands of the Iranian government, giving them the “outside agitator” source they need for their propaganda machines.

Those unmeasured words, spoken solely for their political effects domestically, are irresponsible in the same way the “truth” about the WMD presence in Iraq was irresponsible.  They are spoken specifically for their incendiary effects on the Republican base and the neo-con support, and are irresponsible because they’re spoken with no endgame in sight.

The 1979 revolution in Iran was fueled by anti-American sentiment after this country’s meddling in Iranian government affairs, and installing the Shah on the Peacock throne.  The leaders of the Iran protests now were part of that revolution back then, leaders who resented US involvement in Persian affairs and used it to fuel their efforts.

How, then, will US involvement today help what is happening in the streets? How will strident tone and heated rhetoric from the White House, specifically, and America, generally, help those young people we see marching right now?  It is an Iranian issue, not an American issue, and although we watch with hope and prayer, it is their fight, not ours.

What’s the endgame of any tough talk the White House might engage in today?  Why intrude into the Iranian politics when to do so would be counterproductive to the opposition’s feet in the street?  Why offer such strong support if the US is not prepared to back it up with action, especially when there is no appropriate action?

The question of the day for Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, Paul Wolfowitz and the other neo-cons, is:  Would you be saying the same thing if you had been elected President of the United States?

If the answer is yes, then you are reckless and irresponsible.  If the answer is no, then its just politics, and President Obama neither needs nor benefits from your advise.

More importantly, if you are truly concerned for the protests and protesters in Iran, then be quiet.  They do not need your words.  Please keep them to yourself.