As Jim relates below:

My understanding is, is that the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place. We weren't on the ground, we did not have observers there, we did not have international observers on hand, so I can't state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election.

But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed. And I think it's important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views.

When I got to the language quoted above, especially when Obama seems to have confidence that the Iranian government is really looking into irregularities, and points out our lack of international observers, I swear I thought Jim was going to reveal at the end that this was an exceedingly clever parody of President Obama. Sadly, no.

The special irony is the widespread reports that the Obama Administration would like to bring down Netanyahu's government in Israel. I suppose we can't expect Obama to say "that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the [Israelis], but we do believe that the [Israeli] people and their voices should be heard and respected."

UPDATE: What should Obama have said, without providing the bad guys with anti-American ammunition? Just for example, a simple "America is always on the side of free elections, freedom of expression, and individual liberty" without further comment would have sufficed. And to clarify, of course I recognize that the U.S. is in a very different position with Israel than with Iran. But you don't want to get to a point where foreign leaders think that the best way to immunize yourself from American criticism is to become America's sworn enemy, and the worst way is to be great friends.