AHMADINEJAHD WINS AGAIN!!!!

@farmerman,

Quote:

I love what he said to McCain today when asked about whether he (obama) should talk toughre in line with what Sen McCin stted. Obama said "WHAT DO YOU THINK? Sen McCin can speak his mind but I am the prsident of the US"
The perfedct squelch to the cookiehawks.

I'm going to risk taking this discussion off on a tangent because I can't resist responding to this comment.

I can understand why Obama supporters might have reacted favorably to this answer from Obama. "Hell yeah! You tell 'em!"

I also know I'm biased, but it seemed to me that answer demonstrated an irritability that belies the legendary Obama Cool, and a certain sense of insecurity. Whatever I think about Obama, I don't find it very appealing for any president to declare "I'm the President!" in response to criticism.

Of course he's the president. He doesn't need to tell White House reporters that he is, and what does being the president mean? That he can't be influenced by anyone? No matter how viscerally satisfying the retort might have been for his supporters, you can bet Graham and McCain are not going to stop voicing their opinions or criticizing him.

Frankly, I'm not comfortable with the opposition party (regardless of which party it might be), publicly criticizing the president (whoever he may be) on foreign policy issues unless the differences in opinion are significant. Here they certainly were not. It's not as if Obama has been siding with the Mullahs or ignoring the demonstrations. The situation in Iran should not be turned into an opportunity to score cheap political points.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Whatever I think about Obama, I don't find it very appealing for any president to declare "I'm the President!" in response to criticism.

Months ago it irritated me when he answered a question about his toughness with something like "well I'm about to take off in Air Force One aren't I?", basically saying the fact that he won the presidency answers that question.

It may do so, but I thought it was the presidential equivalent of "I'm Rick James Bitch!" and didn't much like it. I think this answer has a bit of that ring to it, however this time I think the fact that he is the president does make a difference and in diplomacy the rank of the person making the statement is an important consideration.

A senator has more leeway in diplomatic speak than does a president.

3 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Yeah. I wasn't crazy about Bush's "I'm the decider" gambit and in general these sort of "I'm the boss" assertions rub me the wrong way. It's a bit too much trash talk. However, his presidential challenger is calling him out publicly (and as Finn said, for a very small difference) during what can only be described as an international crisis. I can see where he might think a public smackdown is in order. I'm not cheering, but I'm not too bothered by it.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

I thought it was the presidential equivalent of "I'm Rick James Bitch!"

0 Replies

Bush was right. The Iranian regime is evil... if the term has any meaning at all.

President Obama has essentially promised them normal relations if they will "unclench their fist." Instead they are slamming that fist down hard on their own people.

The notion that the Iranian regime only did these things because a US President got tough with them, or that they will stop doing them because a new US President extends his hand to them is absurd.

They have not been forced to follow any of the twisted paths they have taken because the West has simply miscalculated in how to treat them.

Whether or not you agree with Taranto's point of view, his columns are often informative.

[He is, of course, a writer for the WSJ. If you feel anyone who writes for the WSJ must be a liar - read no further]

Their Name Is Basij
One way President Obama can "bear witness."
By JAMES TARANTO

However reluctantly, President Obama is finding his voice on Iran. He opened a press conference this afternoon with his strongest statement yet on the subject:

Quote:

We must . . . bear witness to the courage and the dignity of the Iranian people and to a remarkable opening within Iranian society. And we deplore the violence against innocent civilians anywhere that it takes place. . . .
In 2009, no iron fist is strong enough to shut off the world from bearing witness to peaceful protests of justice. Despite the Iranian government's efforts to expel journalists and isolate itself, powerful images and poignant words have made their way to us through cell phones and computers. And so we've watched what the Iranian people are doing.
This is what we've witnessed. We've seen the timeless dignity of tens of thousands of Iranians marching in silence. We've seen people of all ages risk everything to insist that their votes are counted and that their voices are heard.
Above all, we've seen courageous women stand up to the brutality and threats, and we've experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets.

Her name is Neda. As the Associated Press reports, her killers have a name too: "People posting the video say the woman was shot by a member of the pro-government Basij militia." Here is some background on the Basij from last Thursday's New York Times:

Quote:

The daytime protests across the Islamic republic have been largely peaceful. But Iranians shudder at the violence unleashed in their cities at night, with the shadowy vigilantes known as Basijis beating, looting and sometimes gunning down protesters they tracked during the day.

The Times describes a letter that opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi posted on his Web site:

Quote:

Saying that the Basijis lack uniforms, proper identification or anything that denotes them as public employees, he said they appeared with hoses, clubs, iron bars, truncheons and sometimes firearms.
"Just before the police show up they attack the demonstrations," he wrote. "They try to provoke the demonstrators and they destroy people's property and vehicles." Mr. Moussavi said the security forces did nothing to stop them.

The Iranian regime is using nonuniformed thugs to impose its will on the population. These are the tactics of a terrorist organization, not a legitimate government.

The Basij has a long and hideous history, outlined in the 2001 report of the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers. It was founded in November 1979 by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as "a popular, emergency, mobilisation army, consisting mostly of those too young (under 18) or too old (usually age 45 and older) for regular conscription." The Basij became especially important during the Iran-Iraq war:

Quote:

In a series of rulings issued in the autumn of 1982, Ayatollah Khomeini declared that parental permission was unnecessary for those going to the front, that volunteering for military duty was a religious obligation, and that serving in the armed forces took priority over all other forms of work or study. Various sources reported that children were indoctrinated into participating in combat. They were given "keys to paradise" and promised that they would go directly to heaven if they died as martyrs against the Iraqi enemy.

Whether or not those "keys" actually opened the door to paradise, many of their bearers did get the chance for "martyrdom":

Quote:

Iranian officers captured by the Iraqis claimed that nine out of ten Iranian child soldiers were killed.

According to one journalist, most recruits had between one and three months of military training before being sent to the front, but some had no training at all. Boys as young as nine were reportedly used in human wave attacks and to serve as mine sweepers in the war with Iraq.

During his press conference today, President Obama declared that "we have provided a path whereby Iran can reach out to the international community, engage, and become a part of international norms":

Quote:

It is up to them to make a decision as to whether they choose that path. What we've been saying over the last several days, the last couple of weeks, obviously is not encouraging in terms of the path that this regime may choose to take.

The truth is, what we've seen over the past 30 years is not encouraging. A regime that takes foreign diplomats hostage, uses children in combat, threatens to wipe another country off the map, and uses terrorist tactics against its countrymen has shown its determination to flout international norms.

"We must . . . bear witness," says Obama. This entails acknowledging evil as well as celebrating the courage of genuine martyrs like Neda. Obama could do a lot of good simply by giving a speech describing the Iranian regime's departures from international norms starting in 1979. In the process, he might even learn something himself.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

"We must . . . bear witness," says Obama. This entails acknowledging evil as well as celebrating the courage of genuine martyrs like Neda. Obama could do a lot of good simply by giving a speech describing the Iranian regime's departures from international norms starting in 1979. In the process, he might even learn something himself.

Following along up to here. How, exactly, would such a speech do "a lot of good"? What would it accomplish?

2 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

"We must . . . bear witness," says Obama. This entails acknowledging evil as well as celebrating the courage of genuine martyrs like Neda. Obama could do a lot of good simply by giving a speech describing the Iranian regime's departures from international norms starting in 1979. In the process, he might even learn something himself.

Following along up to here. How, exactly, would such a speech do "a lot of good"? What would it accomplish?

And what would it open us up to? If we start listing thirty years of grievances, wouldn't that allow Iran to start listing grievances against us? I think it is far better to say "look at what is happening right now!" I think as of now that Obama is in a good place on Iran. Let the senators go crazy hammering Iran as long as the President shows a measured response. McCain of all people should understand this.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

Quote:

Following along up to here. How, exactly, would such a speech do "a lot of good"? What would it accomplish?

First of all, it's Tarantos suggestion not mine. I'm not sure that it would do a lot of good. Perhaps my emphasizing the sentence left the impression that I agreed with him.

Secondly, I don't think it will hurt, because I don't buy for a minute that being nice to the Mullahs and inviting them to 4th of July parties will alter the course they have set for Iran.

If there is a value to the President of the US - and Obama in particular - giving a speech describing the regime's departure from international norms starting in 1979, it would be to disabuse a very large number of people of the
beliefs that

1) The regime is legitimate
2) The regime is not evil, simply a different form of government in a nation with a different history and culture than our own.
3) That naming of evil for what it is, is not the right thing to do, but only the wayward rhetoric of a Manichean cowboy.

While some of his supporters might suddenly see the truth about Iran, because Obama is the one telling the truth, I'm afraid that the way of the thinking that leads someone to hold the itemized beliefs above is not so eaily corrected.

2 Replies

@engineer,

Quote:

If we start listing thirty years of grievances, wouldn't that allow Iran to start listing grievances against us?

We are not talking about grievances, we are talking about facts. The regime's conduct since 1979 is not despicable only because it is observed through the lens of American grievance.

If they wish to respond with a list of all the horrible things they believe we are guilty of, they can. In fact they already do it on a regular basis.

When the Shah would not put an end to his oppression of his people, we should have withdrawn our support for him. That we didn't then doesn't mean that we are now not allowed to deplore the actions of the current regime. Obama is not being hyp0critical when he condemns their current actions.

Hypocrisy is an ugly trait, but it doesn't render what is being critcized, undeserving of it.

1 Reply

And just to show that nothing is too petty, four players have been banned
from the Iranian national soccer team for wearing green wristbands.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Quote:
Following along up to here. How, exactly, would such a speech do "a lot of good"? What would it accomplish?

First of all, it's Tarantos suggestion not mine. I'm not sure that it would do a lot of good. Perhaps my emphasizing the sentence left the impression that I agreed with him.

Ok. No worries.

Quote:

Secondly, I don't think it will hurt, because I don't buy for a minute that being nice to the Mullahs and inviting them to 4th of July parties will alter the course they have set for Iran.

Errr, are the mullahs diplomats? If so I believe their invitations are under consideration to be rescinded. But this is a false choice between giving a speech that more or less counts the ways the Iranian government is evil and inviting "mullahs" to a 4th of July party. I still think the former CAN hurt whatever momentum the Iranian people have managed to summon.

Quote:

If there is a value to the President of the US - and Obama in particular - giving a speech describing the regime's departure from international norms starting in 1979, it would be to disabuse a very large number of people of the
beliefs that

1) The regime is legitimate
2) The regime is not evil, simply a different form of government in a nation with a different history and culture than our own.
3) That naming of evil for what it is, is not the right thing to do, but only the wayward rhetoric of a Manichean cowboy.

But it hasn't been the exact same regime since 1979 and its path has not been as pure and consistent as such a speech would imply. Further, who are these people that believe your enumerated points and why is it important to disabuse them of these beliefs? Specifically, how will disabusing people of these beliefs help the Iranian people?

This revolution has managed to gain strength by using the language and the symbolism of the revolution of 1979 and calling on the memory of Khomeini himself as the peoples' icon. Indeed part of its success has been in wresting away the governments ownership of the revolution of 1979. How would illegitimizing the first revolution help the second in the least? ( I realize you said you don't necessarily agree, so humor me if you can.)

1 Reply

@George,

For life at that! Can you believe it? Oh, and their passports have been confiscated so no going back to their regular league teams in Germany and elsewhere.

0 Replies

Finn's source wrote:

These are the tactics of a terrorist organization, not a legitimate government.

This is nothing but an ex cathedra statement--Finn's source doesn't bother to even offer a logical argument for this statement. Upon that basis, the Persians can claim that the Shah's government wasn't legitimate because these were the tactics of SAVAK in the 26 years from their foundation up to the 1979 revolution. For that matter, these were also the actions of agents provocateurs employed by MI6 and Central Intelligence in 1953 when England and the United States overthrew the democratically elected regime of Mohammed Mosedegh, and "re-imposed" the Shah's government on Iran.

That argument by Finn's source is not supported even by a logical argument, and it can as easily be applied to the agents of the Shah, and to the agents of MI6 and the CIA in the 1953 coup--which would mean that there has been no legitimate government in Iran for 56 years.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Damn I hate it when people start spouting acurate history to prove a point.

0 Replies

Annoying, isn't it? By that criterion, many of the present governments in the world, and perhaps most of them, are not legitimate.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Whatever I think about Obama, I don't find it very appealing for any president to declare "I'm the President!" in response to criticism

Perhaps you should understand that we have a president who is comfortable with extemp speech and is having an enjoyable time being the president. He was bantering with a reporter who , when quoting what McCain said had said it in a context that said that Obama was evading answering a specifix question" . In his banter with the reporter Obama gave the choice to the reporter to
1Obama would answer the question that the re[orter said he evaded (which would count as a question)or
2 The reporter would ask his own.

He chose to ask his own and that resulted in the response that drew a bit of laughter from the room.

Id not worry too much about what Obama feels where he should be within the bounds of your definition of "presidential propriety". Hes doin just fine, and with a certain wit that hasnt been available in many a year.

0 Replies

Finn has been silenced by the senile Setanta. Setanta averred that Finn's statement was "ex cathedra".. A typical comment by an Anti-religious pomposity. Setanta is, of course, a hard left CryptoFascist who does not know that Nazism was a species of Socialism. When I gave evidence about this, Setanta blubbered and blubbered saying nothing--rebutting nothing. What Setanta will not admit since Obama leans the same way he does--towards Socialism--is that Obama is slowly losing his approval by the American people and it is his lack of decisiveness and his doubletalking that is not helping him.

I know that Setanta will be unable or unwilling(?) to try to rebut the importance of the evidence below, but some will understand and read it.

0 Replies

Come on, Setanta--You know everything or think that you do in your senility. Explain the fact that Obama is losing support partially because of his pusillanimous stand on Iran:

HolyCoast.com
Guaranteed to make you think, make you laugh, or make you mad. I'm happy with any of the three.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Obama Losing Support Among the Blessed Independents

Every election cycle independent voters are treated as some sort of holy force because they don't hold firmly to either side of the political aisle. Their indecision is for some reason seen as a virtue.

Those same blessed independents are finally waking up and paying attention to the guy they swooned over and they're not liking what they see:
Independent voters are the canaries in the coal mine of American politics, telling a leader whether the air is safe or starting to fill up with some toxic gases.

Bearing that in mind, President Barack Obama and his team ought to start worrying about the health of those canaries.

While the president remains broadly popular, his standing has eroded noticeably among political independents in recent weeks. That slide, among a set of citizens central to Mr. Obama's sizable victory in last year's election, means he has reached a politically hazardous juncture at the midpoint of his first, exceptionally hectic year.

The shifting attitude among independent voters, in fact, is the most significant change to emerge from a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, completed just last week. In that survey, Mr. Obama's job-approval rating among Americans overall slipped a notch, to 56% from 61% in April. That's not much of a drop, and is in keeping with the pattern for a new president at this point in his term.

But the slide was much more pronounced among self-identified purely independent voters -- that is, Americans who express no loyalty to either party.

Among these people, who tend to reside in the middle of the ideological spectrum, the president's job-approval rating fell to 45% from 60% in April.

The drop is the result of a "much more critical evaluation by these voters of President Obama" than in the administration's earlier months, Democrat Peter Hart and Republican Bill McInturff, directors of the Journal/NBC News poll, write in their analysis of the findings.

In particular, the survey suggests, independents are developing gnawing fears about government spending. They are markedly more worried about the federal budget deficit as an economic issue than are Americans in general, and they are more likely to be skeptical of Mr. Obama's plan for a health-care overhaul.

Above all, though, independents are starting to simply view the president as more liberal than they expected. The share of independents who say Mr. Obama is a liberal has risen to a substantial 64% from 46% two months ago. A large portion of them actually classify him as "very liberal." That's a particular problem because independents tend to view themselves as center-right -- 78% call themselves moderate or conservative -- so they see a president moving to the left of where they are.

***************************************************************

A PRESIDENT MOVING TO THE LEFT OF WHERE THEY ARE--

Of course, Obama is a Socialist!

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

Quote:

Errr, are the mullahs diplomats? If so I believe their invitations are under consideration to be rescinded. But this is a false choice between giving a speech that more or less counts the ways the Iranian government is evil and inviting "mullahs" to a 4th of July party. I still think the former CAN hurt whatever momentum the Iranian people have managed to summon.

Errr, you needn't take what I wrote so literally and, in any case, what difference does it make? The diplomats will not attend without the blessing of the Mullahs and the idea wasn't to invite the diplomats (as opposed to Mullahs) because it was felt there was any advantage in "winning them over" with a swell party.

You think such a speech would hurt the cause of the protestors; and I don't. I see we disagree.

Quote:

But it hasn't been the exact same regime since 1979 and its path has not been as pure and consistent as such a speech would imply. Further, who are these people that believe your enumerated points and why is it important to disabuse them of these beliefs? Specifically, how will disabusing people of these beliefs help the Iranian people?

The regime today is not made up of the same exact people as it was in 1979, but it is the same regime in ideology, intent and tactics.

Do you reject the idea that there is a block of people who think the way I've described?

Again, I have not declared that the speech Taranto calls for will do a lot of good for the Iranians, but have given one example of how it might be of benefit. Disabusing the people I've described of these beliefs will not provide direct or immediate help to the Iranians, but it would help eliminate a barrier to supporting oppressed people around the world --- including the Iranians.

If one believes that any regime that is in power in a nation is "legitimate," then it certainly makes even criticizing them problematic.

If we balk at calling evil what it is and prefer to dismiss its manifestations as cultural differences confronting that evil is problematic, and the same is true if we ridicule those who have no hesitation in calling it what it is.

If one believes we have no right or business calling anyone evil because of our own past then confronting evil becomes problematic.

There is a debate today about whether or not Sudan is actually engaged in genocide in Darfur. Given the atrocities that the Sudanese government is guilty of committing against its own people, does it really matter whether we give their evil the specific label of genocide?

Is genocide the only crime we are prepared to call evil?

Does a government have to be guilty of genocide before we will confront it?

Obviously not, because there was a time when there was a fairly widespread consensus that the Sudanese government was committing genocide and still it wasn't effectively confronted, even though genocide is the one crime that the UN is allowed to intervene in a nation's politics to combat.

No nation in history of the world has been free of sin. Does this mean that no nation is justified in taking action against a criminal regime simply for the sake of its victims?

The classic response to this question is:

"But there are horrible things happening all over the world. Do we intervene everywhere?"

Perhaps or perhaps not, but this dilemma should not preclude us from intervening anywhere.

Mass murder and mayhem consumed Rwanda in 1994 and the West, with one exception, stood by and watched. Worse still, some believe that the exception, the French, aided and abetted the Hutus in their genocidal actions against the Tutsi. The US did virtually nothing to stop the slaughter.

Clearly France had or believed it had interests in the region and even if it is unfair to characterize their actions as aiding the genocide, why was their intervention not considered unsupportable from the outset? The magic word genocide?

The US, arguably, had no interests in the region and so this justified its failure to intervene?

Yes we have to be selective in the use of our power which, while vast, is not unlimited, and yes we must be careful about interfering in the internal affairs of any nation whether we consider their government legitimate or not, but there should be a line that governments cannot cross without real concern for the intervention of America. Even the staunchest isolationist agrees that such a line exists. The issue for public debate is where the line is drawn.

I take a position that has been described as neo-con. I believe it is in our interests to confront evil, even when more orthodox interests do not exist or are not at risk. Confrontation may mean military invasion, but it may also only mean a hard hitting speech.

If there was any prior doubt, I believe the Iranian regime has proven in the last few days that it is evil. If people are put off by the use of the term, that's fine call the regime's actions whatever you want, and if people don't believe that we should confront the sort of behavior that I term evil because it ultimately undermines our interests or will make the situation worse, that's fine too. I may disagree but I can respect these positions.

What I do not respect is the argument that we have no right or business getting involved because we have our own sins to confess.

(I hasten to add that I am not asserting you have or are making this argument)

2 Replies

Finn wrote:

If there was any prior doubt, I believe the Iranian regime has proven in the last few days that it is evil. If people are put off by the use of the term, that's fine call the regime's actions whatever you want, and if people don't believe that we should confront the sort of behavior that I term evil because it ultimately undermines our interests or will make the situation worse, that's fine too. I may disagree but I can respect these positions.
*******************************************************************

Exactly--and this is echoed by the comment made by Irving Kristol in his book-Neoconservatism-

quote:"

"The United States is not going to cease being an imperial power...It is the world situation--and the history which created this situation--that appoints imperial powers, not anyone's decision or even anyone's overweening ambition. And power begets responsibility--above all the responsibility to use this power responsibly. The policy maker in the United States today--and no doubt, in the other great powers too--finds this responsibility a terrible burden. The intellectuals, in contrast, are bemused by dreams of power without responsibility, even as they complain of moral responsibility without power."

0 Replies

AHMADINEJAHD WINS AGAIN!!!!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know