Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe democracy movement in Iran has thrown Republican ideologues into such a tizzy of circular logic that they're stepping on their own dicta.
Neocons and hardliners may be as eager as ever to bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb bomb Iran, but are restrained this time out by the feeling that they must support Iran's courageous protesters. After all, the Twittering Green Revolutionaries, as the rightwing brain sees it, are marching in the name of George W. Bush's own vision of a "democratic Middle East," the same vision that led him to occupy Iran's next-door neighbor. ("That's not meddling at all," says conservative conventional wisdom poobah Fred Barnes. "That's supporting the people who see America as a model that they like to emulate.") Yet at the same time, the GOP worries about the meaning of an eventual Mousavi victory in the streets--neocons in particular have openly hoped for Ahmadinejad's survival, for fear that a more reasonable face on the Islamic Revolution might preclude future opportunities for either us or Israel to bomb Iran back to the 7th Century (where Ahmadinejad would like to take his country anyway).
And worst of all, if the demonstrations bring about a regime change in Tehran, the world might well ascribe it, as they have the election of moderates in Lebanon, to the Obama Effect and his Cairo speech. That would be a neocon catastrophe, quite possibly sweeping us toward a moderate, compromised resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as well (before Netanyahu and crew have settled all the land they want). So folks like California congressman Dana Rohrabacher are now calling Obama a "cream puff"--since, after all, he won't sing along with "bomb-bomb-bomb..."
Never mind that taking sides in the Iranian conflict would give the Ahmadinejad supporters a plausible excuse to blame America for what is so clearly a domestic dispute and grant them the perfect excuse to use overwhelming violence. But any victory without the use of force simply has no flavor for the GOP. And besides, there's a special Tehranian tic buried deep in the Republican party.
It was, after all, the 1979 hostage crisis that paved the way for Ronald Reagan's presidency, and it was his decision to sell arms to the ayatollahs in order to raise a slush fund to fight the Sandinistas that shattered faith in his honesty. Persia tasks the GOP like a black whale (it has ever since the West lost control of those oil fields), and there is almost no law of man or nature they won't try to overthrow to get it back.
It's this imperative that has led Republican talking heads into such conniptions of pretzel logic. Days before the election, Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum at the conservative Hoover Institute, said he'd vote for Ahmadinejad because "I would prefer to have an enemy who's forthright, blatant, and obvious." Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute added that a Moussavi win would make it "easier for Obama to believe that Iran really was figuratively unclenching a fist when, in fact, it had its other hand hidden under its cloak, grasping a dagger."
No, no, say some slightly less extreme wingers: Rooting for Ahmadinejad is a "cynical calculation," says Indiana Congressman Mike Pence. And yet, because he feels the need to press Obama wherever possible, he goes on to complain that "in the cause of freedom America cannot be neutral, cannot be in the business of making careful, short-term calculations." Today, the House passed a toned-down version of Pence's resolution (co-sponsored by Dem Howard Berman of California) condemning Tehran's crackdown on dissidents. Some of the more virulent Iraq-war pushers have even blamed Obama for the stolen election itself. "These people are thugs and they have been emboldened by our weakness," says neocon nabob Frank Gaffney.
See how it works? Obama is weak because he won't scream denunciations at Ahmadinejad; if only he would, then Ahmadinejad would have a more secure hold on power--which (to complete the circle) is what the neocons not-so-secretly wanted in the first place.
Bush first nibbled at the pretzel of U.S.-Iranian relations right after he came to power. President Mohammad Khatemi had been elected in 1997 on a promise of reform, leading many in the West to suggest the possibility of a rapprochement with Tehran back then. But once the U.S. Supreme Court put Bush into office, he immediately began squashing any such cream-puffery, and once 9/11 happened and he fixated on invading Iraq, all hope was lost. The 2003 invasion provoked Ahmadinejad's election in 2005 and hardened his determination to pursue nuclear power, thus laying the groundwork for Iranian intransigence and a nice, long-lasting conflict that hardliners on both sides feed on.
But the odd truth is that people get tired of all the shouting and sick of fighting wars. So the calm and cautious Barack Obama was elected over the truculent and reckless John McCain (old "Bomb-bomb" is now knocking Obama for being "tepid"), and now we have the season of Republicans tying themselves into knots. Last week, after eight years of denouncing Democrats for "betraying the troops" if they so much as discussed voting against funding for the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the House GOP voted almost to a man against the military appropriations bill because of a few minor Democratic attachments (they weren't "betraying the troops," they were standing for fiscal sanity).
One thing about being lost in the wilderness, you lose your sense of direction.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Ms Savan, before writing such a misinformed (and I'm being kind) piece like this, I suggest that you take some remedial courses in history, American Govt, spend some hours reading Middle of the road newspapers, the Congressional Record, and any other resource other than Daily Kos or whatever resources you have used to be so lacking in facts.
Just one prime example is that Reagan was elected because Carter was a terrible president. Just ask any of us who had to survive economically during his presidency.
Nor did SCOTUS put Bush into office. I know that is required leftist dogma, but it isn't the actual historic fact.
Regardless of whom the Ayatollah allows to be the face of Iran, they will continue their pursuit of controlling the ME and seeking the destruction of Israel.
<the House GOP voted almost to a man against the military appropriations bill because of a few minor Democratic attachments (they weren't "betraying the troops," they were standing for fiscal sanity).>
And how convenient for your spin that you call the pork and IMF bailout for a "few minor Democratic attachments). My next post will provide those attachments.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 3:29pm
<the House GOP voted almost to a man against the military appropriations bill because of a few minor Democratic attachments (they weren't "betraying the troops," they were standing for fiscal sanity).>
Let's examine what Ms Savan calls "a few minor Democratic attachments"
<Wildfires: $250 million, matching the request, for wildland fire suppression and emergency rehabilitation of burned areas.
Army Corps: $797 million to address damage to Federal navigation and flood control projects resulting from flood and hurricane damage and for restoration along the Gulf Coast.
Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission: $8 million, to fund the commission recently established to examine the causes of the current financial and economic crisis.
Securities Law Enforcement: $10 million for improved enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Essential Air Service: $13.2 million for the Essential Air Service program to provide air service to rural communities.
Gulf Coast Housing: $80 million for Tenant-Based
International Monetary Fund (IMF)
1. To enable the IMF to respond to grave threats to the stability of the international monetary system, particularly in developing countries severely impacted by the financial crisis, the bill provides an increase in the U.S. quota in the IMF of roughly 5 billion in Special Drawing Rights valued at about $8 billion. The bill also provides for loans to the IMF, as requested, to enable the U.S. to increase its share of the New Arrangements to Borrow, which establishes a set of credit lines extended to the IMF, from approximately $10 billion (6.6 billion in SDRs) to the equivalent of $100 billion.>
continued
Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 3:31pm
More on what Ms Savan calls "a few minor Democratic attachments"
<2.The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to agree to the sale of nearly 13 million ounces of IMF gold which will finance an endowment the return on which will fund a portion of IMF administrative expenses and expand the IMF's investment authority. A portion of the sale of gold (at least $4 billion) would also be used to address the short-term financing needs of low-income countries.
3.Cash for Clunkers (CARS Act): $1 billion to provide consumers with $3,500 or $4,500 vouchers when they choose to trade in an old vehicle for one with higher fuel efficiency. The vehicle turned in must be scrapped.>
http://tinyurl.com/nyj3lf
Yes, these things were essential for and contribute to the Obama "transparency and elimination of pork" way of govt (LOL)
And it's no big deal if we give a 100 billion to European banks, right Ms Savan?
Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 3:33pm
I can't help feeling a sense of irony when someone responds to really bad analysis with analysis that's almost as bad (but not quite; Ms. Savan's arguments are really really bad).
So let's start with Ms. Savan. First of all, we can dispense with a lot of the ridiculously speculative psychological analysis ("Tehran on the brain" isn't a real argument). Second, most of her analysis relies on the claim that conservatives just feel an instinctive urge to bomb Iran, so somehow they're not complete without it. This is absurd. I know of no one who actually feels that way; those who defend bombing Iran do so only because they feel it is necessary, not because they won't get their jollies otherwise.
Moreover, they're not saying that the US should speak out in favor of democracy movements because it will discredit those movements; they're saying that because they think silence from America DISCOURAGES those movements (which it does; see the Cold War).
The only nugget of truth in her essay is that there are two values pushing in different directions: the desire for democracy, and the desire to to be certain (and have one's own leaders be certain)whether or not another state poses a security threat. Those are entirely legitimate concerns. Granted, there are legitimate arguments to the effect that the invasion of Iraq hurt relations with Iran; that's fine. However, Ms. Savan's central contention of conservative incoherence relies on a combination of distorting legitimate dilemmas and fabricating motives out of whole cloth.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/19/2009 @ 3:48pm
It's not just conservatives that are choking on this Persian puzzle.
;-)
I, for one, find it entirely fascinating that so much of the U.S. "mainstream" media is falling head over heels in love with the "Green Revolution" that has sprung up so "spontaneously" in the wake of obviously monumentally "rigged" elections in Iran. And the mainstream in this case has apparently swept along much of The Nation magazine in its torrential roar straight down Gullible Alley.
I reiterate here, there may well have been significant or even wholesale fraud in these elections, but where's the beef? As in documentation of said largescale fraud.
If nothing else, the vehemence and velocity of the projectile vomitous allegations of fraud, hand-in-hand with the treacly fawning over the Tehran protestors should give any reasonable observer pause. When combined with sound documentation of a well financed CIA push for destabilization --tinyurl.com/nwm48h-- one should, perhaps, even be alarmed.
But let's just hope that a genuine and fruitful bursting of democratic (and ultimately peaceful) reform has begun to blossom --in spite of what our Security Industrial Complex overlords really intended.
Now that would be a truly twisted outcome.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/19/2009 @ 3:52pm
Now on antisocialist's response. The first two little pieces, about Carter and SCOTUS, are relatively unimportant. First off, even if SCOTUS' ruling was correct, they still technically put Bush into office. He became President as a direct causal result of their decision; were that not the case, he would not have had standing to begin with. Though true, the claim is irrelevant; the only relevant question is whether their decision was right. On Carter...yes. That was a huge part of people's motive for electing Reagan. That and a fairly eloquently-articulated conservative philosophy.
But down to the meat...your effort to deny conservative hypocrisy here appears unsuccessful. First of all, how bad is all the stuff in this bill to start with? Preventing massive wildfires and hurricanes (since states always succeed in stopping those; this is where the attack on Governor Blanco backfires)? Making sure the SEC continues doing its job?
Let's throw all that aside, though. Suppose that every single dime of that spending is bad policy. That's not good enough. Providing funding to the troops so they can do their jobs and not be killed is a lot more important than refusing to toss money at the IMF or whatever other spending project lawmakers find problematic.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/19/2009 @ 3:58pm
"Second, most of her analysis relies on the claim that conservatives just feel an instinctive urge to bomb Iran, so somehow they're not complete without it. This is absurd."
thrawn, a core conservative philosophy is a pro-active, non-diplomatic and militaristic approach towards the broader middle east, and iran in specific. it has been since at least 1980, and perhaps even further back to the late 1950s, when the united states conduted a coup in tehran.
for conservatives to suddenly adopt a new found concern for the iranian people, and for "democracy" within iran, is so patently contradictory to their aforementioned tendency towards militarism, and specifically a militaristic stance towards tehran.
the republicans choice for the president, john mccain, even joked about bombing iran. bush's main "diplomat," bolton, also wanted to bomb iran. as did rove. as did the entire neocon pundit class.
and mike pence, from indiana? what a shit head!
get a load of this:
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/mike-pence-vs-mike-pence
Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 4:34pm
"Nor did SCOTUS put Bush into office"
(statement of the day)
only a republican can say things so blatanly false.
Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 4:35pm
Without getting too cerebral and analyze everybody's `analysis'.....
So what if the Conservatives Choke on this or that? That is the privilege of being out-of-power......
Have I mentioned before, for the first time in my politically & economically-mature adulthood, I get to see the Dems take RESPONSIBILITY FOR EVERYTHING!
Quite a Magic show so far.....almost, just almost, worth losing in Nov.!
Posted by Happy at 06/19/2009 @ 4:42pm
", I get to see the Dems take RESPONSIBILITY FOR EVERYTHING"
oh, really? as if the conservatives haven't attempted to obstruct EVERYTHING that the democrats were elected to do?
Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 4:46pm
....the democrats were elected to do?
Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 4:46pm
An admission that your Party wanted 10~11% unemployment and $10 TRILLION+ of debt? Great start!
Gotta go have some dinner & then choke on Cabaret....at Hobby Center, ciao!
Posted by Happy at 06/19/2009 @ 4:59pm
"An admission that your Party wanted 10~11% unemployment and $10 TRILLION+ of debt? Great start!"
having been dealt an awful deck of cards by the previous administration, i take those figures with a grain of salt.
what would mccain have done? taken the greenspan approach?
Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 5:04pm
<i>Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 4:34pm </i>
First, on bombing Iran. None of the conservative approach is militarism for its own sake; those who have advocated military action have done so only when they thought it was the least of available evils. Not one of them would attack any country in the Middle East if they were replaced tomorrow by democracies that had no desire to destroy us or to threaten innocents. In that sense, you're right; conservatives wouldn't be nearly so eager if the democratic movement were far more radical and dangerous than the status quo. That doesn't show a disdain for democracy, though; it shows an overriding concern for security (even if their judgment in that regard was wrong, which in at least some cases it was).
The stuff on McCain and Bolton doesn't challenge this either. If a peaceful, moderate candidate won, there is no world in which either of them would defend bombing Iran.
Finally, on Pence. I actually don't see the problem with what he said. He's not defending the opposition candidate; he's saying that people shouldn't be attacked for demanding free elections. If there were huge protests challenging Bush's election in 2000, the US government would have no right to just start imprisoning journalists and protestors left and right. When that happens, the US should express its support for those whom the government is unjustifably repressing. Crooks and Liars is simply mistaken in claiming that there is any inconsistency in what Pence said.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/19/2009 @ 5:22pm
It's pretty easy to go down all sorts of silly sidetracks getting into largely useless "debates" with Happy the Fool and Rev. Larry V Clusterfuck. Personally, I don't have much truck with a vast majority of the Democratic Party establishment --as much as the Republican Party is firmly entrenched even deeper in hell.
This Iran election imbroglio is further evidence --following the lock-step, headlong rush into the Iraq War and the still ongoing implosion of the financial system-- that our entire American political-military syndicate is almost undoubtedly well beyond the event horizon.
In other words, the last thing an outside observer is already seeing is the signature X-ray scream as this entire edifice gets spaghettified into oblivion.
I suggest James Bamford's "The Shadow Factory" for a brief tutorial.
Cheers and happy Friday all.
:D
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/19/2009 @ 5:25pm
Bush2's insouciance vis a vis Bin Laden came at a high price for america. (gosh I love those french woids)
Posted by emile duBois at 06/19/2009 @ 5:25pm
"The stuff on McCain and Bolton doesn't challenge this either. If a peaceful, moderate candidate won, there is no world in which either of them would defend bombing Iran."
uh, thrawn, both bolton AND mccain threatened iran numerous times PRIOR to the iranian elections last week. so, indeed, there WAS a world in which both of them would defend bombing iran. so your claim that there is "no world" is patently FALSE.
"Crooks and Liars is simply mistaken in claiming that there is any inconsistency in what Pence said"
again, thrawn, you are so obviously mistaken. pence is claiming two things which are patently false:
a) that obama SHOULD meddle in the iranian elections (by supporting the protestors who are de facto mousavi supporters)
b) that obama should NOT meddle in the iranian elections (by de facto showing support for the opposition candidate)
in any case, iran thinks obama is meddling. kissinger supports obama. obama says he isn't meddling.
i mean, WTF?! pence has no argument whatsoever!
Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 5:35pm
I am really growing tired of all the people, journalists and internet babblers alike, who have suddenly determined that they are experts on Iranian history and politics, and know best what should be done for the Iranians (because we all know that they shouldn't be left to decide for themselves what they want).
Posted by syfriendly at 06/19/2009 @ 5:46pm
Cheers to that, Sypher.
By the way, seems to me that Ms. Savan has invoked "Pretzel Logic" in a previous piece as well. Must be a fan of the Dan?
Here's a little Friday afternoon/evening tribute:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2iPhS2XSnk
Nice live version.
P.S. Newsweek had a very nice Iran focus edition a couple of weeks ago with some very interesting and useful articles including the featured piece on "Yazd to Tehran" (or something like that), a good short analysis by Fareed "establishment" Zakaria (I know it's a surprise), and an absorbing interview with Khatami.
I'm pretty sure they can be found at Newsweek.com -- they're not too bad at all for a mainstream source and I really like the new hard copy format.
Best wishes to all.
:-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/19/2009 @ 6:02pm
Have I mentioned before, for the first time in my politically & economically-mature adulthood, I get to see the Dems take RESPONSIBILITY FOR EVERYTHING!
Quite a Magic show so far.....almost, just almost, worth losing in Nov.!
Posted by Happy at 06/19/2009 @ 4:42pm
And your escape plan, sir, assuming you're far too rational to fall into the abyss with us?
Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/19/2009 @ 6:24pm
"So folks like California congressman Dana Rohrabacher are now calling Obama a "cream puff"--since, after all, he won't sing along with "bomb-bomb-bomb..."
Dana Rohrabacher calling Obama a "cream puff?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"Me thinks she doth protest too much."
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/19/2009 @ 6:35pm
Hey everybody!
Check it out!
Really informative articles about Iran!
www.newsweek.com/id/199148
www.newsweek.com/id/199147
www.newsweek.com/id/199150
www.newsweek.com/id/199144
The best one is the last one (feature length story). I suggest readers just burn off a hard copy and pass it on to a friend or acquaintance. Better yet burn off copies of all of 'em and hand 'em out, or leave 'em on a coffee table at your barber, doctor, dentist.
Think of it as a cheap public service that you perform on your own (without government assistance) --just as Lord Reagan intended.
:D
And here's a bonus "Dan" tune to lighten your burden:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9LGO5ShIQo&NR=1
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/19/2009 @ 6:46pm
Enjoyed the Soul Coughing tune.
As for the compartmentalization of me an' Ahmadihejad....
I suppose I'll let your own "red sucker mouth" provide the explanation for that and the rest of that jive you're apparently spewin'.
I believe my position here over the years speaks for itself --patriotic enough to call a charade a charade when I see it.
Peace out, dude.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/19/2009 @ 7:37pm
emile:
Vous avez dit:
"...Bush2's insouciance vis a vis Bin Laden came at a high price for america. (gosh I love those french woids)..."
Ma réponse:
Saddam allait commencer à faire de nouveau des armes de destruction massive.
Saddam allait vendre les armes de destruction massive ou de donner les armes de destruction massive à des terroristes.
Les terroristes vont tuer des millions d'entre nous avec des armes de destruction massive de Saddam Hussein.
Je l'ai dit plusieurs fois en anglais et les libéraux ne comprennent toujours pas. Peut-être que si je le dis en français libéraux vont enfin obtenir le point.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/19/2009 @ 8:12pm
Apology accepted.
;-)
Hey, here's a link to the must see Democracy Now interview of James Bamford (~45 minutes):
tinyurl.com/4heb7x
The Amazon reviews hardly do justice to his book "The Shadow Factory". I've read a lot of books and articles in my life, but this one is the most DEEPLY DISTURBING --hands down.
At minute 33 of the interview Bamford describes the mind blowing irony that one of the 9-11 crews set up their final staging area at the Valencia motel in Laurel, MD --a couple of miles from the 8th floor office of Michael Hayden, the head of the NSA. The NSA had phone recordings by a couple of the very same guys at the Valencia, and the FBI was just about to draw a bead on them --if not for layers of incompetence described so vividly in the book.
Laurel, MD is the bedroom community for the NSA, and the highjackers were shopping and going to Gold's Gym alongside NSA employees.
But that's the "fun" stuff in the book. The bad stuff involves the fact that wiretapping domestically is far more pervasive --and continues to be so-- than the vast majority of U.S. citizens are aware.
Most deeply ironically --the information gained is mostly useless and in far too high a volume to be of much practical use to our security complex, but the intimate involvement of private contractors with ties to foreign countries makes the misuse for nefarious purposes virtually inevitable.
This is a HUGE FUCKING FIASCO!
Books like "The Shadow Factory" make it pretty clear to any reasonably intelligent reader that the entire human enterprise is essentially riddled with the seeds of its own destruction, ultimately.
But I still insist that we as citizens must fight back against this kind of rank stupidity --until our dying day.
Cheers, Snowjo!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/19/2009 @ 9:49pm
Unsurprisingly dead here tonight. Here's an appropo little ditty by a way cool metal outfit I loved back in the day:
tinyurl.com/lvflp9
Muzz, Reid, Calhoun and Corey kicked some serious ass on this tune --only wish a better sound recording was up on the 'tube.
Catch you all on the flip.
:-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/19/2009 @ 11:21pm
One more for good measure:
tinyurl.com/5eeqju
History's a lie that they teach you in school
A fraudulent view called the golden rule
A peaceful land that was born civilized
Was robbed of its riches, its freedom, its pride....
Chorus:
It's time for a change
Concepts rearrange
Can't you feel my rage...
It's up to you to seek the truth
To know your history....
~Peace out.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/19/2009 @ 11:35pm
<i>Posted by darladoon at 06/19/2009 @ 5:35pm </i>
I'm afraid many of your criticisms are directed at a position I never defended.
First, on conservatives on attacking Iran. I ask you to read my statement again. I said: "IF a peaceful, moderate candidate won, there is no world in which McCain or Bolton [brought forth because they're cited as extremists who seek to bomb Iran] would threaten Iran." My point was that those who threaten Iran do so only insofar as they see it as a threat; if it ceases to become a threat in their eyes, which it clearly could do, they wouldn't defend bombing it. It's not "in the conservative nature" to threaten Iran. This is silly.
The analysis of Pence fares little better. There is still no inconsistency in what Pence said. His entire statement was premised on differentiating between the opposition candidate and those protesting in the streets. Unless you're suggesting that the two groups are identical (I don't see any grounds for thinking they are), your criticism of Pence remains baseless. It's equivalent to saying that anyone who criticizes the election of 2000 (leaving aside for the moment the merits of such criticism) must de facto have been a Gore supporter, or at the very least a Democrat. Except it's worse than that because the situation in Iran is obviously far worse than the situation in America post-2000 election; the only way your critique of Pence can succeed is if only a supporter of the Iranian opposition could oppose the current brutal crackdowns.
Lastly, I am glad that we can disagree, though vehemently, with some respect. I wish more political discussions could be civil discussions rather than shouting matches.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/20/2009 @ 12:20am
The Obamanation that makes desolation aka "The Apologist in Chief" can't seem to find his voice and make a foriegn policy decision about what is going on in Iran! Maybe it is better he just keeps quiet for once?
"Ahmadinejad is going to blame the U.S. whatever it does. He rightly sized up the new administration and realized there is now an American government that will apologize for the CIA's actions in 1953, but not ask Iran to apologize for its deplorable record in Iraq from 2003 to 2009. So it is a one-way street with Iran, and it's better to be damned for voicing criticism than for being afraid to voice criticism.
The Iranian theocrats are realists par excellence; they do not give a damn about ideals or morality, and will deal with us in the future on their perception of their own self-interest: whether or not we "meddle" now, if they find it useful to talk in the future, they will; if they find it of no value to talk in the future, they won't."
It is very clear that Obamanation aka the apologist in chief cares not what dictatorship or form of fascist regime he bargins with just like when he was campaigning! Now where did he put that hope and change thingy?
Posted by BigPasture at 06/20/2009 @ 12:39am
Ms. Savan is spot on. Many on the right here are so caught up in a mind set of circular reasoning (not to mention ad hominem and straw man arguments) that they wallow in their own deceitfulness.
Right now, Obama is playing things well. Unlike the neocons, he understands when it's advantageous to 'keep his powder dry.' Let's hope that this 'revolution' in Iran is just a first foray into creating a sense of reconciliation between Iran and the west. If, as bats''t crazy pastureboy thinks, the ayatollahs are 'realists,' this outcome is more likely than not if they wish to survive the ultimate reality.
Posted by erazma at 06/20/2009 @ 08:22am
<i>Posted by erazma at 06/20/2009 @ 08:22am </i>
Ms. Savan's argument, as already pointed out, is awful. Whatever merits it appears to have it derives from a series of misrepresentations. Once the misrepresentations are removed, the only thing left is a legitimate dilemma.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/20/2009 @ 09:36am
Oh, Larry, Larry, Larry....nothing will stop you from your rampant hypocrisy, will it?
2006- republicans tack on farm subsidy monies to the war appropriations bill. That would be socialist subsidies for farmers.
In 1998 Boehner supported IMF funding, 18 billion vs the 5 billion proposed last week.
"I have been as critical about the IMF as many, but given the crisis we have around the world, the U.S. needs to provide leadership." "The only real avenue is the IMF," said Boehner in 1998.
In 2006 the republicans backed a Iraq/Katrina spending bill. Judd Gregg wanted to add border security funding to the war funding bill.
In addition the following items were added:
$700 million to relocate a freight railroad line from a section of Mississippi's Gulf Coast that developers want for casinos.
• $600 million for highways in states from Alabama to Alaska affected by natural disasters, some as long as seven years ago.
• $23 million for flood control in Sacramento and Hawaii.
• $20 million to help New England shellfishers recover from last year's toxic red tide.
• $15 million to help promote the sale of Gulf Coast seafood.
Who was the chair in 2006?
The Honorable Richard C. Shelby, Chairman Senate Appropriations Committee
I don't think there can be any question that republicans tacked on multiple extra spending requests to Iraq war funding bills (ALL of which were OFF BUDGET BTW, funny coming from the alleged fiscal conservative party of Family Values) and they quickly jumped on any dem that opposed any portion of said bills as being against the troops, against America and for the terrorists.
But, somehow now, in 2009, under Obama, being against war funding is just plain old fiscal responsibility?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2009 @ 10:04am
Hypocrisy is nothing new to politics, nothing new to either "side". But, again, one party runs on family values and concrete adherence to what Larry and SJ like to call "core values". So, if a dem wanders on his wife, it is seen as "typical liberal weakness" and we can shake our heads at the moral morass that liberals live in. Meanwhile the republicans receive their guidance from God Herself, they even have 10 Commandants that they would like to see posted over ...everything?
You shall not commit adultery.
Neither shall you commit adultery.
Senator Ensign on Bill Clintons extra-marital affair:
"an embarrassing moment for the country."
'I think we have to feel very sad for the American people and Hillary and Chelsea,'
"I came to that conclusion recently, and frankly it's because of what he put his whole Cabinet through and what he has put the country through,"
Helen Chenowith, R-Idaho---In 1998 she called (in a campaign ad) for Bill Clinton's resignation saying,"I believe that personal conduct and integrity do matter". Days later she admitted to a six-year adulterous affair with a married associate, but now she claims a pardon from a higher authority: "I've asked for God's forgiveness, and I've received it," she revealed
Do I need even list Newt Gingrich's multiple moral failings while leading the call for Christian values?
Matthew Glavin, president and CEO of the Southeastern Legal Foundation, was a big player in the Clinton Impeachment proceedings, and he has spearheaded a good number of anti-homosexual jihads. He has been arrested multiple times for public indecency
Jeff Miller, (R-Cleveland), Senate Republican Caucus Chairman in Tennessee and the sponsor of Tennessee's Marriage Protection act. He was divorced in April 2005 because of an affair
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2009 @ 10:21am
you all know what a father is, don't you?
the original motherfucker
Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 10:24am
"It's not "in the conservative nature" to threaten Iran"
never thought i'd award thrawn the "statement of the week" award. but this one takes the cake.
can you explain why numerous conservatives have advocated a bombing raid of iranian nuclear facilities for at least the last 2-3 years?
"There is still no inconsistency in what Pence said. His entire statement was premised on differentiating between the opposition candidate and those protesting in the streets."
i'm not sure watched the entire video interview with pence, thrawn. did you?
Posted by darladoon at 06/20/2009 @ 10:26am
Republican hypocrisy is almost funny
By Mark Mellman Posted: 11/02/05 12:00
Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson :"The reason that I voted to remove him from office is because I think the overriding issue here is that truth will remain the standard for perjury and obstruction of justice in our criminal-justice system and it must not be gray. It must not be muddy."
But when Republican Scooter Libby, the indicted former chief of staff for Vice President Cheney, is at issue, she categorizes those same offences as "technicalities," suggesting they shouldn't be cause for indictment.
When John Roberts is the nominee, questions about Roe v. Wade are out of order. When Harriet Miers is under discussion, Republicans want assurances that she will overturn the decision ..
----
The teabaggers showed up only a couple of months into Obama's presidency, but where were they during Bush's 8 years of "spending like a drunken democrat"?
Bush drove the ceiling on the national debt from $5.95 trillion in 2001 to $9.62 trillion in 2006, an increase of over 60 percent in five years.
I don't remember any teabagging parties (apart from what Rep Foley may have had in the privacy of his office) during Bush's Reign. As a matter of fact, if anybody opposed of budget spending....they were AGAINST THE TROOPS!!!!!
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2009 @ 10:34am
Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 10:24am
What does that say about George Washington, the Father of our country, and what his intentions were?
"Hey colonists, come 'ere and give us a kiss."
Posted by crabwalk at 06/20/2009 @ 10:47am
thrawn, his entire premise was criticizing obama's measured response to the crisis.
on the one hand, pence advocated a more aggressive stance, but yet falls short of advocating one candidate over another.
but when asked by blitzer what HE would do, he can only say "we stand for freedom and democracy."
how has obama strayed from that principled stance?
obama said he was "deeply troubled" by the crackdown, which he has now condemned.
so, pence essentially has NOTHING to say. at all. he has nothing on obama, despite that fact that he'd really love to exploit iran's crisis for his own political gain (and he lost).
basically, conservatives would love to go back to the glory days of overt threats towards iran that we had under bolton/kristol/krauthammer.
but since obama won the election, they realize that threats don't work. so now they've paired it down to: "well, obama is wrong, even though he's doing the same thing we would do."
in a sense, you are right about conservatives not wanting to bomb iran at this time, but 1-3 years ago?
hell yeah!
i'm not sure how you can live under the impression that conservatives, specifically neoconservatives, did not want to bomb iran while bush was prez.
Posted by darladoon at 06/20/2009 @ 10:48am
McCain sang this ditty to the accompaniment of a vast chorus of cons bigger than the Tabernacle Choir.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 11:22am
The biggest problem with Iran is that they didn't get the ass-kicking they deserved back in 1979 when they committed an act of war by occupying our embassy (soverign US territory) and holding our diplomatic staff hostage for over a year. Unfortunately we had a weak President in the White House and a gutted military (see the Desert One fiasco).
I beleive this issue, more than the economic ones, had the most to do with Reagan coming to power and is still the unspoken "elephant in the room" influencing US ambivalance at best and outright hostility at worst to ANY Iranian regime.
It may have been 30 years but a large segment of the US population (mostly, but not completely conservative) has not forgotten--or forgiven Iran for its impertanance. Any opportunity to watch them bleed will be savored--as a guilty pleasure if nothing else.
Posted by vertigoskippy at 06/20/2009 @ 11:41am
The biggest problem with Iran is that they didn't get the ass-kicking they deserved back in 1979 when they committed an act of war by occupying our embassy
grrr, kill, kill
a war with tens of thousands killed would have improved the situation and the quality of life so much.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 11:44am
the weak pres was followed by one just as weak and a dishonest traitor to boot.
all the jihadi attacks can be laid at saint Reagan's feet, when he did next to nothing to hold the murderers of the marines in Lebanon responsible.
see that logic works both ways.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 11:46am
"all the jihadi attacks can be laid at saint Reagan's feet, when he did next to nothing to hold the murderers of the marines in Lebanon responsible."
You are absolutely correct about Reagan's failings in dealing with the Iranians. I said it was a key factor in bringing him to power--not keeping him there. In the end Iran/Contra almost cost him his presidency.
However, if the Ayatohllas had been dealt with 30 years ago there wouldn't be one leading a crack-down today. Unfortunately this had been allowed to fester instead of being dealt with years ago.
Let's hope His Holyness Obama is successful in resolving all these issues.
Posted by vertigoskippy at 06/20/2009 @ 11:54am
had been dealt with
dealt with? how? war? missiles lobbed? all the hostages would have been killed.
"Any opportunity to watch them bleed will be savored"
your fangs are dripping blood all over your shirt front.
you are puffing yourself up by pretending to be John Wayne in the Green Beret days.
look out the air is escaping from you..
Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 11:58am
In the end Iran/Contra almost cost him his presidency.
it cost him his honor, a commodity perhaps even more precious than a presidency.
Nixon shoulda been impeached, Reagan shoulda been impeached, Bush1 shoulda been impeached, Clinton shoulda, wait, he was impeached. Bush2 shoulda been impeached. criminals all.
we gotta lotta noive to lecture other nations.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/20/2009 @ 12:03pm
"Any opportunity to watch them bleed will be savored--as a guilty pleasure if nothing else"
them bleed?
what about us?
we deposed of a democratically-elected government back in the 50s.
do we deserve some blood, or just the iranians?
Posted by darladoon at 06/20/2009 @ 12:21pm
We don't get no flack from Grenada, do we?
Reagan showed em!
And Thatcher showed those Falklanders a thing or two!
Then the "coalition" tried something a little bigger, Iraq. 6 years in, still bombing, still killing, still no democracy. Skippy, do you think Iran would have been a cakewalk?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/21/2009 @ 07:30am
Skippy, perhaps you have forgotten ( a Reagan legal maneuver BTW) that Iraq went after Iran just after the hostage crisis? Saddam was Reagans ally, and this is what he did about Iraqs use of chemical weapons...after he blamed it on Iran...
"Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford's defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting."
And this classic statement from Ron Reagan...
""While condemning Iraq's chemical weapons use . . . The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims"
imagine, Saddam Hussein, in 1985, after attacking his neighbor, had a "legitimate government".
Posted by crabwalk at 06/21/2009 @ 07:40am
When asked whether the U.S.'s conclusion that Iraq had used chemical weapons would have "any effect on U.S. recent initiatives to expand commercial relationships with Iraq across a broad range, and also a willingness to open diplomatic relations," the department's spokesperson said "No. I'm not aware of any change in our position. We're interested in being involved in a closer dialogue with Iraq"
ran had submitted a draft resolution asking the U.N. to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use. The U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to lobby friendly delegations in order to obtain a general motion of "no decision" on the resolution. If this was not achievable, the U.S. delegate was to abstain on the issue. Iraq's ambassador met with the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Jeane Kirkpatrick, and asked for "restraint" in responding to the issue - as did the representatives of both France and Britain."
So, Skippy, would you like to get in line with the rest of the hypocrite neo-cons that voted for Reagan, and the authorization to use force against Iraq in 2003?
It's pretty darn ironic that people like skippy continue to call Obama "Messiah", "The One" and such, but the cons quote Reagan more than they quote the Ten Suggestions!!! They have no shame, no moral center, zero self awareness.
Posted by crabwalk at 06/21/2009 @ 07:44am
<i>Posted by crabwalk at 06/21/2009 @ 07:30am </i>
I hate to put this out there, since I'm afraid I may be subjecting myself to mockery...but how large geographically does a country have to be in order for it to contain some meaningful security threat? I say this not because I defend Grenada specifically, but rather because the "it was tiny, invading it was iodicy/hyper-fear" relies on a rather dubious premises.
How big does a country have to be in order to be a base for revolutionary efforts? Do guerillas organizations rely on superior size or numbers?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/21/2009 @ 3:54pm
Interesting, the libs are claiming size matters, and the neocons that size doesn't matter.
Posted by winyahn at 06/21/2009 @ 6:39pm
Just one prime example is that Reagan was elected because Carter was a terrible president. Just ask any of us who had to survive economically during his presidency.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 3:29pm
Did you hear that Ms Savan? If you want proof of why Reagan was elected, all you need do is ask a member of the far right and they'll give you the truth.
Now for the rest of antisocialist BS.
The US considers all the America's to be it's domain, yet the notion that the largest country in the Middle East would want to be a major player is a threat to humanity. BTW antisocialist, Iran does not seek the destruction of Israel.
Posted by Shingo at 06/21/2009 @ 7:25pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 3:31pm
Thanks for the list of so called democratic pork. I am surprised at how reasonable and sensible all these items were.
It's little wonder by the GOP is less popular in this country that Russia or Venezuela.
Posted by Shingo at 06/21/2009 @ 7:28pm
"So, Skippy, would you like to get in line with the rest of the hypocrite neo-cons that voted for Reagan, and the authorization to use force against Iraq in 2003?"
Ok...1) I'm not a neocon (but thanks for assuming)
2) I said the perception of how Reagan would deal with the hostage crisis was a factor in getting him elected - not that I agreed with his Iran/Iraq/Contra policy he pursued once in office--which I didn't. Using Saddam to do our dirty work and then turning on him when he was no longer useful was a shameful way to conduct US foreign policy.
What I'm saying is we should have went after the Iranian regime directly - not by proxy. Iran has always been the biggest threat to US interests and Israel in the region - certainly much more than Iraq.
If you think the situation is bad in Iran now wait until the hardliners finish consolidating power by elminating their more "liberal" opponents. (who want to destroy Israel just as badly but are more quiet about it).
Posted by vertigoskippy at 06/21/2009 @ 7:29pm
Are you suggesting that those who claim size doesn't matter have "army envy"? :D
Posted by Thrawn at 06/21/2009 @ 7:34pm
This is absurd. I know of no one who actually feels that way; those who defend bombing Iran do so only because they feel it is necessary, not because they won't get their jollies otherwise.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/19/2009 @ 3:48pm
Again, the wignut fraternity seems to confuse their opinion with fact. Thrawn doesn't know any conservatives personally who want to bomb Iran, therefore it can;t be true, Never mind that Norman Podhoretz was hoping and praying last year, that Bush would bomb Iran.
A number of Neocons have already come out and stated that they want Ahmadinejad to win, so it's highly likely that they want America to enthusiastically support the opposition in an effort to weaken these movement.
Ironically, the invasion of Iraq probably helped elations with Iran. After all, the Iraqi government is a pro Iranian entity and we by invading Iraq, the US got rid of Iran's greatest enemy.
Posted by Shingo at 06/21/2009 @ 7:36pm
Iran has always been the biggest threat to US interests and Israel in the region - certainly much more than Iraq. Posted by vertigoskippy at 06/21/2009 @ 7:29pm
US interests meaning they are a threat to our bottom line. Of course, Iran is no security threat to either.
Posted by Shingo at 06/21/2009 @ 7:39pm
The biggest problem with Iran is that they didn't get the ass-kicking they deserved back in 1979 when they committed an act of war by occupying our embassy (soverign US territory) and holding our diplomatic staff hostage for over a year.
Posted by vertigoskippy at 06/20/2009 @ 11:41am So does that mean that our backing of Saddam in the Iran/Iraq war gave the Iranians reason to attack us? It may have been 30 years but a large segment of Iran's population has not forgotten--or forgiven US for it's murderous policies.
What about when we shot down their airliner in Iranian air space, killing all 290 passengers in 1988? Does that give them justification to attack us? It may have been 20 years but a large segment of Iran's population has not forgotten--or forgiven US for it's murder of Iranians.
What about the fact that, having helped us go after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we responded by supporting and backing terrorists groups like the MEK (listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization) or the Jundullah ( Kaleid Sheik Mohammed's old gang) as they set off bombs in Tehran? Does that give them justification to attack us?
Your are simply another narcissistic Islamophobe who thinks the world belongs to the US.
Posted by Shingo at 06/21/2009 @ 8:05pm
However, if the Ayatohllas had been dealt with 30 years ago there wouldn't be one leading a crack-down today.
Posted by vertigoskippy at 06/20/2009 @ 11:54am
Oh really? Dealt with how exactly? The way we dealt with Mossadegh? The way we dealt with Saddam?
have you given any thought to what might be festering today had we "dealt with" them 30 years ago?
Posted by Shingo at 06/21/2009 @ 8:08pm
<i>Posted by Shingo at 06/21/2009 @ 7:36pm</i>
You were going for a generalization regarding conservatives. Retreating to "so there are some people who think this way" means you're conceding that Savan's position is absurd. Yes, there are some people who use bad logic. There are also some people who think a central government can be trusted with absolute power to regulate economic affairs; neither of these justify tarring conservatives or liberals (respectively) with a broad brush.
Moreover, you're missing the argument. The only reason people like Podhoretz prefer Adhmadinejad (assuming he does) is that he doesn't believe there will be a reformist leader with any influence. Take out that belief, and he would no longer have any desire to bomb Iran. If a democracy movement succeeds, and you CAN get such a reformist leader, I'm willing to bet that none of these individuals would defend bombing or prefer Ahmadinejad to such a leader.
<i>Posted by Shingo at 06/21/2009 @ 7:39pm </i>
Of course Iran is no threat to Israel. That must be why they keep funding Hezbollah.
That said, unless Iran actually does a whole lot more than they're currently doing and directly threatens either Israel or the US (or stability in the Middle East generally), bombing them is idiocy. It might be idiocy even if they do something aggressive, but it'd certainly be idiocy now. Just so my position is clear.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/21/2009 @ 8:42pm
Posted by Thrawn at 06/21/2009 @ 8:42pm
While I agree that not all conservatives think with the same brain, the Savan is clearly referring to those with the loudest and most influential voices. With the exception of Pat Buchanan, the chorus of those who use bad logic is unmistakable. Yes, there are some people who use bad logic.
Podhoretz's Iran position has been extreme and militant from the get go. His prayers to bomb Iran were made long before the elections were held. Take out that belief, and he would no longer have any desire to bomb Iran. Posted by Thrawn at 06/21/2009 @ 8:42pm
Podhoretz's reflexive bomb Iran position is based on Islamophobia. When Iran captured the 15 British sailors, Podhoretz's solution was.......you guessed it, bomb Iran. He, like so many prominent conservatives are one trick ponys. I take it you do not fall into this category, but those who happen to be speaking on your behalf certainly do.
Of course Iran is no threat to Israel. That must be why they keep funding Hezbollah. Posted by Thrawn at 06/21/2009 @ 8:42pm
So what? Do you believe Hezbollah can actually threaten Israel? The best Hezbollah could ever manage is a defense of Southern Lebanon. It surprises me how so many regard the ability of Israel's foes to defend themselves as a threat to Israel.
All Israel need to is stay out of Lebanon and Hezbollah is not an issue.
In any case, I respect that you are a moderate and a clear thinker, but sadly, positions like yours are not being presented by conservative representatives or pundits.
Posted by Shingo at 06/21/2009 @ 9:37pm
Posted by antisocialist at 06/19/2009 @ 3:33pm
I always love how Larry lectures (or "preachs") others...especially on topics that he has a single-minded, dogmatic view of.
In this case NOTHING that happens in Iran can change his view that we (i.e. us and Israel) MUST go to war with Iran.
Why? "Historical precedents"?...no. "Geo-political inevitabilities rising from a chaotic situation"?...nope. "Iranian leaders completely suicidal"?...nuh-huh.
"Because 'God' said we would" in a single modernist interpretation of a 2000 year old religious tome.
Yes, Ms Savan, YOU definitely are the "misinformed" one who needs "remedial courses."
Posted by Mask at 06/22/2009 @ 06:08am
"Nor did SCOTUS put Bush into office. " Posted by antisocialist at 06/19
Correct. Bush was put into office by Al Gore, who couldn't even win his home state (that he and his father had represented for decades).
What makes the events in Iran interesting is what makes it possible.
Reagan funded fax machines and photocopiers to folks that wanted to circumvent Government controlled media in Iran.
Bush resurrected this program, with a modern technological twist.
All aimed at fostering a free press.
Obama axed it.
So, the folks in Iran (through sources other than relatives that escaped to America) get to see dictators overthrown in other countries (Because of an American "cowboy"). They could imagine freedom for themselves.
Yep. Bush gave them HOPE and CHANGE.
Next thing you know, they'll be naming their newborn sons George W. Bush. Just like the folks in Sudan have been doing.
Posted by nighthawk750 at 06/22/2009 @ 7:38pm
All aimed at fostering a free press.
Obama axed it.
Posted by nighthawk750 at 06/22/2009 @ 7:38pm
Yes we all love a free press don't we, except when we don't.
Can you get Al Jazeera on your cable provider? I am am guessing not because freedom ain't free now is it?
The folks in Iran got to see a dictator overthrown in 1979. In 1953, they got to see a democratically elected one overthrown too. They didn't need fax machines for that.
Bush gave them threats. In 2005, he warned the Iranians not to elect Ahmadinejad, which the Iranians took as an afront to their free will, so they went and elected Ahmadinejad.
Posted by Shingo at 06/22/2009 @ 10:25pm
>>neocons in particular have openly hoped for Ahmadinejad's survival, for fear that a more reasonable face on the Islamic Revolution <<
I share that argument, but it is not the neocon argument, or the Israeli argument. Commentary wants unequivocal Obama encouragement of demonstrators and Mossad directors believe Mousavi may have changed since 20 years ago.
I don't; he is a prettier face and more sophisticated voice than Ahmedinejad, just as Abbas is less repulsive than Arafat. But underneath there is the same maktabi and no policy difference, which in any case is the province of Khamenei, who certainly has not changed.
As to neocons fearing that a regime change in Tehran will be credited to the Cairo speech, just as the Obama effect helped liberals in Lebanon's elections: look at the facts.
All the Hezbollah candidates won. Their coalition secured 54% of the votes. An unfair preassignment of seats denied them power. Their election failure was due to pro-Hezbullah Christian candidates losing. Recent revelations that Hezbollah, not Syria was behind the Herrari killing undermined them.
As to the the Cairo speech, there he bowed from the waist to Arab civilization, Islam and a region of police states. He apologized for America's dark past and flourished America's core values which support the oppressed against their masters. Yet as he spoke, across the Egypt's borders a mountain of 300,000 black Africans towered in Darfur, and 3 million refugees. He feared to spend 1 minute on that tragedy because the brethren of his audience were were responsible for that atrocity. He wanted to flatter them, not remind them of their responsibility, and his, to end that slaughter.
That is the Obama Nichols is proud of, and who, he thinks has the respect of the Arabs.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/23/2009 @ 01:02am
"He feared to spend 1 minute on that tragedy because the brethren of his audience were were responsible for that atrocity"
aside from the sheer stupidity of raising the issue while on egyptian turf, how were "the brethren" solely responsible for that atrocity, and not say, the western and chinese oil speculators hell-bent on that black gold beneath the soil? why do you think china has been silent?
Posted by darladoon at 06/23/2009 @ 10:13am
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/23/2009 @ 01:02am
Uh, Hugo...didn't HAMAS win in the West Bank on Dubya's watch as well?
Posted by Mask at 06/23/2009 @ 11:12am
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/23/2009 @ 01:02am
Posted by Mask at 06/23/2009 @ 11:12am
N. Korea exploded their first Bomb, on W's watch.
AQ Khan was allowed to stay in Pakistan, with no charges brought against him, on W's watch.
9/11 happened on W's watch.
Mulsim Brotherhood won elections in Egypt, on W's watch.
Wasn't Lebanons PM assasinated on W's watch?
Usama bin Laden was allowed to escape, on W's watch.
Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism increased on W's watch.
The worlds opinion of the USa went down, down, down...on W's watch.
Hugo says "Heckuva Job!"
I think Chimpy McFlightsuit needed a new watch. His took a pretty good licking.
BTW, Hugo, the "brethren" were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Saudi Arabia has long, long standing ties with the Bush family. As a matter of fact, Prince Bandar is frequently referred to as Bandar BUSH.
So, if we were to write about "brethren"....?
Posted by crabwalk at 06/23/2009 @ 12:02pm
How many of these conservative freedom-lovers still grin maliciously when the think on Kent State?
Posted by Best Leftist at 06/23/2009 @ 12:23pm
Posted by crabwalk at 06/23/2009 @ 12:02pm
Now, now, crab....you know as well as everybody that...
Clinton left office, then Dubya came in, then in 2006, HANK PAULSON became President and all that stuff happened on HANK's watch....even the stuff that happened before Paulson became President!
Just heard it on an AM radio station.
Posted by Mask at 06/23/2009 @ 3:01pm
darladoon at 06/23/2009 @ 10:13am wrote:
>> aside from the sheer stupidity of raising the issue while on egyptian turf, how were "the brethren" solely responsible for that atrocity, and not say, the western and chinese oil speculators hell-bent on that black gold beneath the soil? why do you think china has been silent? <<
Stupidity is the right word. First you note that it would not be politic to confront Arabs with the humanitarian disaster they are causing, but then you suggest, the real culprits are western speculators and the Chinese.
If the latter is the case wouldn't it be outrageously undiplomatic to remain silent about so many deaths right next door to Egypt?
Is it acceptable to discuss wickedness, the necessity to support the oppressed against their oppressors, and then to stay mum about the greatest humanitarian disaster of our time?
You and your ethnicity are guilty of that massive slaughter and that huge ethnic cleansing, not because you are Arabs or Muslims, but because you are covering it up and thereby actively abetting it, denying and veiling it, making smoke, pretending it is not happening. Instead of doing what you can to end that tragedy, you are helping it continue. That is how you make yourself culpable, a collaborator of the Sudanese and of the murderous janjaweed
Your sputtering of Chinese culpability is ridiculous. How dare you yet cry bloody murder about an ethnic cleansing that happened over 60 years ago in the course of a war which the Arabs started and admitted they started, but now refuse to acknowledge an ethnic cleansing five times as large and with 300,000 murders and countless rapes thrown in.
You are morally corrupt.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/23/2009 @ 9:46pm
crabwalk and mask,
You list the lousy things that have happened on the Republican's watch.
How about the Vietnam war which the Democrats got us into, the Castro take-over of Cuba, Korea, WWII, World War I, the Missile Crisis which almost destroyed the world, and countless other disasters that happened during a Democratic administration? Of course it is idiotic to draw up such a bill, and I don't, but you do.
Which is why, if you two combined your brainpower you'd amount to a half wit.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/23/2009 @ 9:55pm
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/23/2009 @ 9:55pm
What exactly is your assertion regarding WWII?
Posted by winyahn at 06/23/2009 @ 10:03pm
Neocons caught on tape:
Discussing Nixon's political opposition with aide Chuck Colson says it included "the blacks and the poor." Nixon adds: "And the intellectuals." Colson goes on to say that it also included "the lavender shirt mob . . . the homos and the queers."
LA Times June 23, 2009
Posted by winyahn at 06/23/2009 @ 10:08pm