ACTION? – AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  Sometimes an uproar in the right places can bring results.  Iran got an uproar from many American quarters when it recently appointed a man associated with the taking of U.S. hostages in Tehran in 1979 as ambassador to the United States.  Even the Obamans are taking notice.  From Fox: 

The State Department is raising “serious concerns” over Iran’s new nominee for ambassador to the U.N., who was involved with the group that took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran for 444 days and held American diplomats hostage in 1979.

Critics were outraged after it was revealed Iran wants to send Hamid Aboutalebi to New York as its envoy, and some lawmakers want him barred from entering the U.S. Aboutalebi may now be a 56-year-old veteran diplomat, but also was apparently a member of the hard-line Muslim student group that took over the embassy.

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said Wednesday that the U.S. believes Aboutalebi’s nomination is cause for concern.

“We think this nomination would be extremely troubling,” she said. “We're taking a close look at the case now and we've raised our serious concerns about this possible nomination with the government [of] Iran.”

Harf did not say whether the U.S. would refuse to grant a visa to the envoy, as some have urged. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on Wednesday joined calls to refuse a visa, calling the appointment a "slap in the face" to American hostages. Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer have also raised concerns.

COMMENT:  We should refuse to grant the visa.  We have good grounds.  But I doubt if the Obamans have the backbone to do it.  Remember, we're trying to persuade Iran to play kissy-face over its nuclear weapons program.  The appeasers will argue that turning down an ambassador might "upset" the delicate egos in Tehran.  I'd argue that a pushback from the mush that we call our national administration is just what is needed.

April 3, 2014