Then the tanks rolled in and people started dying and disappearing in to prisons.
It was the quite sane and sound refusal of the Eisenhower Administration to intervene, and begin a new war in Europe, that soured many on the right to him. When Joseph Welch, the founder the John Birch Society, called Eisenhower an agent of the communist conspiracy, it was this event, among others, that made many think him, at the very least, a dupe.
To be fair to the conspiracy-mongers, the over-the-top rhetoric of support for Hungarian freedom raised hopes far too high in Budapest as much as it did in the hearts and minds of right-wingers in America. American refusal to do anything to stop Soviet tanks and the ensuing turmoil was not just dispiriting; it was reminiscent of the British refusal to honor its commitments to the Czechs before the Second World War; betrayal of a weak semi-ally in the face of tyranny creates deep scars and long memories. Which is not to say that Eisenhower was wrong to stand by while Hungarians died in the streets or were hustled off to prison; they should have been more circumspect in their rhetoric beforehand.
Fast forward to today's headline from Reuters, and it's deja vu all over again.
Obama says U.S. stands with protesters in Iran
It may sound cynical and small-minded, but it's easy enough for Obama to say he "stands with" the Iranian protesters, even as he stands at his Hawaiian home. Words from this Administration are cheap, and these words in particular are as vacuous as a speech from Newt Gingrich or an entire book by Jonah Goldberg. Since there is absolutely nothing the US can, or should, do, silence would be far better in this instance than the meaningless declaration of some abstract solidarity. Since we aren't going to invade Iran - and I doubt such an act would be welcome by those we claim to support - and short of that we really can't do much of anything, we should simply lodge the usual diplomatic protests and shut up.
