Pajamas Media

63 Comments

1. sambo hux:

We’ve done all that stuff. Hasn’t worked. Let’s try something new. If it doesn’t work, we’ll know it soon enough, and the worse we’ll be is back where we are.

Feb 2, 2009 - 11:29 pm 2. Michael MacConnell:

@ Sambo Hux

Well, to be fair, the United States hasn’t made any effort to interdict the Iranian nuclear program. Yet.

I certainly hope that President Obama somehow finds the courage necessary to do it.

Feb 3, 2009 - 1:57 am 3. Ann141:

Once again, the manboy is given credit for a perspective for which there is no convincing evidence: “I’m sure that President Obama means well in attempting to negotiate with the Iranians.”

Based on what?

There is absolutely no evidence in his public “career” or intellectual background that suggests that he has any comprehension of the issues or risks involved. Giving him the benefit of this conclusion isn’t much different than suggesting the mother of the octuplets (and their 6 siblings)is on track for “wanting to be the best mother of all time”. There’s no evidence for that either.

Willingness to participate in a process cannot be presumed to be evidence of qualification for either such participation or basis of expectation of a good outcome.

I have yet to see obama do or say anything that gives me the impression he actually has the well being of the United States of America as his primary motivation.

As far as I’m concerned, he’s still just the BMOC (who didn’t actually earn his spot on the football team–he actually caught the coach with the principal’s wife)playing a role.

Feb 3, 2009 - 3:17 am 4. eon:

President Obama is making the same fundamental error as President Carter did, in that he assumes that the statements coming from the Iranian regime’ are simply inflammatory rhetorical flourishes, i.e. that it’s all “just posturing” and “they don’t really mean it”. Thus, when Khamenei or Ahmedinejad says things like “death to (the U.S., Israel, etc)” Obama brushes it off as nothing but a PR stunt. It isn’t. Whatever the Iranian people believe or don’t, their rulers (i.e., the guys who give orders to the guys with the guns)operate on an eschatological belief system that bears little or no resemblance to reality. In their minds, if nowhere else, they can bring about Paradise on Earth (or at least the return of the “12th Imam”) if they just fulfill a few prophecies (i.e., manage to kill enough people, at home and/or abroad).

Neville Chamberlain once said that all that was needed at Munich was to “find out what the Germans want, and give it to them”. Chamberlain failed to understand that there was a vast gap between (a) what the Germans, as a people, wanted (peace and an end to the Versailles Treaty penalties that bankrupted their country- which France opposed ending), (b) what Hitler wanted (to rule the planet Earth, and kill every Jew living on same- which Chamberlain refused to believe), and (c) reality. President Carter made the same mistake with the USSR, believeing that they really weren’t interested in global hegemony, when in fact the Central Committee was obsessed with acheiving exactly that. And Carter also failed to grasp that all of Khomeini’s anti-Western, anti-Semitic, and anti-American statements going back to the 1950s were made for anything but the sake of appearances.

It seems that those who regard themselves as being “enlightened” are unable to believe that everyone else does not think exactly as they do. Which means that when confronted by someone who genuinely doesn’t, they literally are incapable of seeing the reality before them.

clear ether

eon

Feb 3, 2009 - 3:45 am 5. Michael MacConnell:

@ Ann

You seem to have confused “meaning well” with “command ability”. As you yourself point out, what I said was that I believe that Obama means well. I am not of the opinion that he is in any more hurry than the common man to witness his children being carbonised in a nuclear detonation.

I presume that you do possess some concrete evidence of his antipathy toward his country, else you would not make quite so much noise about it.

I also point out (in three separate sentences) that while Obama means well, that is irrelevant, as his inexperience and ignorance of Iran will lead to a dire outcome regardless of his intention.

I’m simply not inclined to participate in he same degree of vitriolic personal denunciation of the president that other writers indulged in whilst a Republican was in office. Not until I am convinced that yes, the man does indeed intend, willfully, to harm his own nation’s interests.

Feb 3, 2009 - 4:00 am 6. Pajewmas tuba teakettle of fish:

This from Pesident Obama’s Foreign Policy Site:

“Barack Obama will pursue tough, direct diplomacy without preconditions to end the threat from Iran:
Obama and Biden will present the Iranian regime with a clear choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, they would offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, Obama and Biden will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.”
http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/

Michael McConnell typed:

“Interdict the Iranian nuclear program. Sure, you’ll lose the love of Time magazine. But really, in a year’s time, aside from them, who will care?”

So what do “you” mean by “interdict”?

Feb 3, 2009 - 4:13 am 7. fear Obama:

Amadinnernutjob
has sent America several letters demanding that we bow down to Islam and accept Mohammad as our prophet.
If Obama will only give us a few months to study the Koran and offer Amadinnernutjob our repentance and surrender to Sharia laws,
I think Iran will love and forgive us.

But how do we repent for the Homosexuals and Atheists?

Feb 3, 2009 - 4:16 am 8. Craig:

“Pro-democracy advocates lose credibility when the leader of the free world offers a free lunch…”

A liberal offering a free lunch? Why of never heard of such a thing. Think of all the free lunches 1.2 trillion provides.

Feb 3, 2009 - 4:18 am 9. Michael MacConnell:

@ Pajewmas tuba teakettle of fish

Blow up. Destroy. Annihilate. Etc.

Feb 3, 2009 - 4:24 am 10. DoubleTapper:

He doesn’t seem to really care about Israel either.

Donating $20,000,000 to Gaza while Hamas is still in control seems about as well thought out, as sending George Mitchell back over here to fix all of our problems.

Maybe some of the money will actually get to those who need it and not to the pockets of Hamas. Or not?
DoubleTapper
DoubleTapper@gmail.com
DoubleTapper, blogging on
Guns Politics Defense from Israel

Feb 3, 2009 - 4:29 am 11. Ann141:

5 Michael….

your para 1–yes, my phrasing was wrong. Didn’t take take time to think through what I meant..”command ability” is the better phrase

your para 2–re his antipathy toward his country: I conclude his “lack of caring” from his apparent willingness to allow disintegration of or disrespect toward things that are designed to protect our sovereignty (such as the Constitution, his own words)and our law enforcement (such as cabinet members paying taxes). I acknowledge conclusions based on going from general observation about him to specific application. Because of my fears for our country, I will plead guilty to overdoing it and may have done so here. It’s far easier to destroy something than to build it, and it seems to me he’s willing to destroy either directly or indirectly, partly out of personal arrogance because “he won”.

Your para 3…correction accepted!:)

Your para 4…noted…your last sentence contains exactly the point that I AM concerned about and almost convinced of, based both on what he SAID during the campaign and what he has DONE in these “brief” (they seem endless) two weeks.

Sometimes “vitriolic personal denunciations” do reflect real concern, real fear and a real sense of helplessness. Someone trapped in a crumpled automobile after a crash should not be accused of hating the automobile industry just because they are screaming for help.

The ease of internet communication/posting unfortunately, isn’t a great leveler in terms of quality–so we do all jump in the pool, don’t we. I apologize for all the splashing.

Feb 3, 2009 - 4:39 am 12. SAF:

Bush did nothing about Iran that I could see in his eight years besides call them evil.

Iran sent weapons and terrorists to Iraq who killed and maimed many of our boys. And Bush did absolutely nothing about it. Today Iran launched their first homemade spy satellite on their own rocket. So reaching Israel and perhaps the US with a nuclear weapon seems quite possible.

Looks like Obama is continuing Bush’s Iran policy which is to let them develop their weapons and export terrorism as they will.

Feb 3, 2009 - 4:44 am 13. Pajewmas tuba teakettle of fish:

I tried to post a comment several times about three days ago, on Israel’s Existential Threats. I responded to Anne141. I’ll try here again.

Anne141,

Just stating the obvious, but thanks nonetheless. Although I do think it’s easy to lose sight of it after years of frustration.
Has an effort ever been made by the Arab League of States to physically commit a coalition of troops (not occupation), in order to establish law and order in Palestine? Seems like they want to talk the talk, but not walk the walk when it comes to rescuing the Palestinians. Sure the Saudi’s supply money, as in this report:

“The Saudi king says his country will donate $1 billion to help rebuild the Gaza Strip after Israel’s devastating three-week offensive in the Palestinian territory.

King Abdullah criticizes Israel for using excessive force in Gaza and says “one drop of Palestinian blood” is more valuable than all the money in the world.

The king spoke Monday in Kuwait City at a summit focused on boosting economic growth and development in the Arab world.”

But they’re not willing to sacrifice help in the form of peace keepers in Gaza itself. They and other Arabs and Persians seem to be only good at posturing and condemning Israel.

On the other hand, Israel obliterates infrastructure in an already impoverished region, largely inhabited by children. Too bad intervention couldn’t happen to educate them that war against the Zionists isn’t really what their life should be dedicated to. Were options exhausted, or were the Israelis exhausted and willing to settle for a costly and deadly solution? They did a little over three weeks worth of hate reinforcement, more than what Islam could probably accomplish in a lifetime. Just compare the feelings of the children in Iran, that were born after the revolution, to the elders of the state. No aggression against them, made them less likely to be aggressive. Really, just common sense.
It also appears that Israel is attempting to cleanse Gaza, through deprivation of sustenance. Not very pretty. Especially when the foe isn’t that strong militarily to begin with and the threat is small scale, but I agree, still a nuisance, although very rarely deadly. I do acknowledge that before blockades were put in place along the Gaza boarder (still in progress along the West Bank border), Israeli civilians were being killed ever so often by suicide bombers. Thus, possibly making them prone to attack with overwhelming force.
It just goes to show how desensitized the Western countries have become to pain and suffering to both parties, and to what lengths of accountability ME countries will abstain from. All the while being stubborn against taking a wholehearted effort towards a resolution that will be in both sides interests. Presumably their own too, in terms of stability in the region.
And the most perplexing frustration about this Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Hatred has continued through generations. And to look at it on the surface, it appears easily solvable with reasonable people involved. Acceptance of each others sovereignty is long overdue. Solving this problem would greatly reduce Israel’s existential threat. Killing just increases it.

I guess I’m trying to convince others that a cold-hearted response is not what’s needed, to avert an ill-gotten world. And to other than others, a feeding frenzy of hate only leads to more violence.

Convincing those in power to take meaningful peaceful action, as opposed to a violent effort, is the real reason for my rant. I know it sounds wimpy, but death, pain, and suffering of war just doesn’t sound that appealing to me. Neither does inflicting it. Even if I can do it and remain virtually unscathed. Just like I’m sure some of you would. Maybe the draft should be reactivated, and see how gung-ho the rest are. You wouldn’t have to volunteer to defend your country, then.

Feb 3, 2009 - 5:15 am 14. David Thomson:

“Not until I am convinced that yes, the man does indeed intend, willfully, to harm his own nation’s interests.”

Barack Obama definitely means well. I have no doubt about that. Nonetheless, he also seems to be a self hating American. Obama appears existentially incapable of perceiving the United States as being truly exceptional. It is instead the victimizer of dark skinned people throughout the world. The Iranians do not possess blue eyes and blond hair—and therefore it is obvious that America has crapped on them.

Feb 3, 2009 - 6:03 am 15. RE:

It’s pretty clear that tyrants will be benefiting tremendously from an Obama Administration over the next four years.

Feb 3, 2009 - 6:16 am 16. Mimi:

during the cold war, liberals kept on insisting on unilateral disarmament. If the west disarmed, the USSR would do the same and all would be love, we were told. This could only go so far, however, since the russians were caucasian and could not pretend to be victimized by the west. Now it is racial. Supporting Iran is a matter of racial loyalty for many people. Opposition to it is seen as racist. Things are going to get very ugly indeed.

Feb 3, 2009 - 6:40 am 17. deguello:

What perils? Ti was all Bush’s fault! Under the Messiah’s beneficent appeassement, the Iranians will disarm, terrorism will end,and the kingdom of joy will be established! what’s wrong with all you mean-spirited nonbelieving republicans?

Feb 3, 2009 - 7:05 am 18. Thomas:

As in driving on the freeway, it’s not checking your blind spots that will get you into the most trouble. Mr. Obama, apparently, has no blind spots. Good luck with that sir.

Feb 3, 2009 - 7:12 am 19. JED:

Give the guy (Obama) a break. He is at the bottom of a learning curve, he has no clear history of diplomacy, and he is attempting to guide the ship of state through a mixture of idealism, popularity, and hefty promises. America was always a great experiment.

Feb 3, 2009 - 7:34 am 20. LynnS:

Isn’t this as simple as an unclenched fist? A simple solution that would fit on a bumper sticker. Should we assume that President Obama has the best interest of this nation in mind just as we were told that President Bush did not?

Will we one day see Secretary of State Clinton running after an errant Ahmadinejad just as Secretary of State Albright did years ago when Hussein stompted out of the room? Round and round we go.

Everyone seems to want President Obama to be successful yet there is a thought in the back of my mind wondering if his success in the short term could actually be bad for this country with or without his good intentions.

The Obama Adminstration’s arrogance and williness to further the idea that all the world’s problems and the hatred for this country are due to the last eight years is, in my opinion, dangerous and simplistic. I don’t think that we are doing ourselves a favor thinking he won’t throw us under the bus.

Feb 3, 2009 - 7:38 am 21. Joe Bison:

The jihadists need a timeout to recuperate.
You might see some “perceived” positive
results. Hudna with the kafirs is permissible. The liberals will then crow about the success
the new approach is having.

With the ballistic response over Iraq and to
a lesser extent Afghanistan what did people
want Bush to do in Iran? I think Israel will
eventually have to do something. The fly
in the ointment, for Israel, I fear is Obama.

Feb 3, 2009 - 7:40 am 22. Brian Richard Allen:

“” I do not believe that … (the self-and-own-culture-loathing mobbed-up murtadd Muslim Marxist Arab-African, O’Carter,) means to weaken the United States or harm its interests. “”

And that, in an otherwise almost astute take on the prospects for the “presidency” of the world’s most dangerous dullard, who is both an empty galabia and a very well demonstrated pathological-ideologue, only highlights an awful ignorance of its subject. One whose life has thus far been overtly dedicated absolutely to uniformly insidious un-and-anti-American associates and activities. Which, when coupled with a razor-thin resume of zerO personal talent, zerO noteworthy qualification, zerO responsibility — ever — to profit, zerO experience — ever — at meeting a payroll and zerO executive experience bodes ill indeed for our beloved fraternal republic’s future. And for that of the very Judeo-Christian/Western/Human Civilization we have long vanguarded and must forever guard.

Brian Richard Allen
Los Angeles – CalifZEROcated 90028 and the Far Abroad

Feb 3, 2009 - 7:50 am 23. Paul -Indiana:

Obama has all the makings of a good Dhimmi.

Feb 3, 2009 - 8:39 am 24. TalkinKamel:

$20,000,000 for Hamas—er, I mean Gaza?

This, while flyover country is suffering from a devastating ice storm, we’re headed into a depression, jobs are being lost and businesses are closing?

Not only is Obama no friend of Israel, he doesn’t seem to like the American taxpayer much, either!

Feb 3, 2009 - 8:42 am 25. tanstaafl:

…arrogance…It takes many forms, but generally it is manifested in the idea that if only the United States decided that something ought to be done, then it would eventually be accomplished…this passive form of adventurism still stands a particularly good chance of harming the United States’ interests, both at home and abroad.

Obama and Susan Rice (his pick for UN amb) have both been burbling about direct talks with Iran.

It would be good if Iran’s reaction last week (”we laugh at big, juicy western carrots from the capitalist dogs”) paraphrased ) helped put such starry eyed rubbish & arrogant posturing in its place.

Ahmadinejad and the belligerent state he leads. In drawing sniveling appeals from the president of the United States, he is entrenching himself and his party, consolidating their absolute grip on power.

If A’jad’s position is occasionally shaky within his own country (Khamenei won’t last much longer and there is already jockeying to lead the direction of Iran), deference from a US President works to shore up the current oppressive crowd in Iran.

Feb 3, 2009 - 8:44 am 26. JJKRN:

THIS IS GOING TO GET REAL UGLY..just wait…domestic and abroad…canidate Obama told us all what he was going to do..did you not believe him…this is now a Chicago run america..it’s all about profit for those in power…is anyone suprised at all of this…he will throw ALL of us under his bus for the sake of enriching himself and his cronies…jesus..have any of you spent any time at all reading the Chicago papers…his socialist posturing is just that….he is a corruptocrat….born,trained,raised in the climate of greed, can you name one person he is associated with, just one, that isn’t tainted with dishonesty, this is just silly,,it’s almost dream like that people believe this chap has our best interests at heart…he only has his interests at heart…ask ANYONE in Chicago…

Feb 3, 2009 - 8:56 am 27. Shef Rogers:

Look, we tried the big snub with Mao’s China. It didn’t work. Nixon ended that silliness and we benefited.
This isn’t the playground. You don’t pretend countries don’t exist simply because you dislike their policies.

Feb 3, 2009 - 9:34 am 28. David Thomson:

“Nixon ended that silliness and we benefited.”

Richard Nixon did not visit China until a number of issues were resolved. Henry Kissinger had already ironed out some of the difficulties before the public announcement. Barack Obama has jumped the gun. The Iranian mullahs have not shown any evidence that they are willing to compromise. Obama’s handling of the matter makes him appear weak to our long established enemies.

Feb 3, 2009 - 9:54 am 29. LynnS:

#27 Shef Rogers
Snubbing is for snobs and the problem with snobs is that they are arrogant and disregard previous attempts by others to reach out through diplomacy. An American administration that agrees with the world that the previous administration is the cause of the ills in the world is pretending that reality doesn’t exist. That will definitely not work. To give a country like Iran top billing during an inaugural speech is not acknowledging their existence but confirming their already overinflated opinion of themselves and their oppressive regime.

Feb 3, 2009 - 10:03 am 30. joe:

Every POTUS seems to fall into some trap of his own making. Probably the cloest was Reagan and he got hung up in Lebonon. The other one might have been GHWB.

It seems they all get caught in either North Korea or either with the PA and Isreal. Now Iran is going to be in play.

I have to agree this is going to end badly. For the most part the West leaves all of this to the US, add little or nothing and then complains about whatever the POTUS does or does not do.

The POTUS is not going to change any of these trouble spots unless he is willing to invest America’s treasure and I do not think he will.

So at the end of the day he will get rolled on Iran just as former PTOUS Clinton and Bush did with North Korea

Feb 3, 2009 - 10:05 am 31. Ian Thorpe:

Obama may think his good will and sincerity will charm the whole world. Unfortunately for the rather naive boy from Chicage / Hawaii / Kenya / wherever, the world knows there is nothing quite as phony as sincerity.

Feb 3, 2009 - 10:25 am 32. Paul M Hupf:

Barack Obama is digging a hole for himself and for the country of which he is president without regard for the safety of its citizens. He proposses to make undefined concessions to Iran and militant Islam. If he persists on this course he will find agreement ever more elusive unless he makes further concessions. In the end no matter what he does any agreement he claims will be an illusion. He is the image of Neville Chamberlain, who returned from a meeting with Hitler at Munich in 1938, proclaiming “Peace in our Time.” The naivete of Chamberlain is best stated in his own words as he was near death during the course of WWII: “If only Herr Hitler had kept his word.”

Feb 3, 2009 - 10:45 am 33. SeanLA:

Funny thing is the Iranian spokesman, Gholam-Hossein Elham is RIGHT!
Western ideology HAS become passive, capitalist thought HAS failed.
I can’t see, even on these pages where he is wrong.

Feb 3, 2009 - 1:16 pm 34. Ted:

The Joint Chiefs of Staff HAVE AN ABSOLUTE CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to stand behind Guantanamo Military Judge James Pohl UNTIL OBAMA OVERCOMES “RES IPSA LOQUITUR” BY SUPPLYING HIS LONG FORM BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND PROVING HIS ELIGIBILITY TO BE PRESIDENT UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE US CONSTITUTION.

Feb 3, 2009 - 1:54 pm 35. David P:

Unlike 9/11, this time being asleep at the wheel will have severe consequences for all of humanity.

Feb 3, 2009 - 2:03 pm 36. Terry Gain:

“Obama Overlooks Perils of Reaching Out to Iran”

Could we inject some realism into this and change the caption to Obama Is Oblivious To Handing Iran A Propaganda Victory.

Feb 3, 2009 - 3:22 pm 37. Marc Malone:

The idea that Obama does not have the best interests of the U.S. at heart is displaying the same myopia that Obama displays when dealing with Iran. It’s this same refusal to see the obvious truth that got this chump elected in the first place.

Read his books. Hear the anger, resentment and hostility. He pines for his deadbeat, Islamic father. Went to an Islamic school in Indonesia. His communist Uncle Frank. His boyhood hero was Farrakhan. His preacher his spritual guide, is an anti-american, militant bigot. He made no friends in college. His friends were outside; those who paid his way through. Bill Ayers lived in his neighborhood while he was in college. Do you think it a coincidence that Obama chose to go to Chicago; that Ayers hired him; that Ayers lived nearby? Rezko, the Syrian, lives next door. They regularly ate dinner together. They were chums. He’s married to first-time-in-my-life Michelle.

He’s still fighting the lawsuit requiring him to produce his long-form birth certificate. Why? Why not just produce the danged thing, rather than spend a million bucks fighting it? Why let this stay an issue? Why did he decide to go to Pakistan, at a time when it was off-limits to Americans? How did he manage it? Was it because he had a passport that proclaimed him to be Indonesian? His step-father/adopted father(?) is Indonesian. That would explain it. Why can’t we get his college records? Is it because he claimed then to be an Indonesian, too? This would have gotten him one of those precious slots. Maybe he wants the Constitution reworked so he can be President legally?

I could go on with, say, ACORN, but you get the gist. Lots of lies, fog, and of course, his Socialist beliefs, demonstrate a guy who does not have the U.S. interests at heart. People are as blind about him as he is about the MidEast. Of course, he may not be blind to it, so much as sympathetic.

Feb 3, 2009 - 4:22 pm 38. Leatherneck:

Great read! Perhaps, the CFR pukes everyone is good inside you just have to talk to them to find it should wake up.

Feb 3, 2009 - 4:25 pm 39. RE:

We just lost our airbase in Kyrgyzstan today, that’s a big setback in the Afghan war. The North Koreans are parading a new nuke missile. And the Euros and Canadians are totally pissed off about Obama’s talk of ‘Buy American’ trade protectionism and the Iranians are mocking Obama’s Kumbaya outreach.

Two weeks in and it looks like the office of the presidency just might crush Obama. I was afraid that the wheels would come off the cart early. It turns out he can’t even get the wheels on the cart in the first place. It seems like Obama is in way over his head.

Prepare for a very long four years.

Feb 3, 2009 - 5:16 pm 40. DaveinPhoenix:

“Can’t we all just get along, please?”…the Great One asks. And the hardliners in Iran are busily rigging more bombs to the chests of their children…

No, no problem here.

Feb 3, 2009 - 5:32 pm 41. Tailgunner:

Obama wants to talk to Ahmadinejad ‘without preconditions’.

Ahmadinejad, however, demands ‘preconditions’, like the US withdrawal from the Middle East and of support for Israel, before talks can take place.

This means even though nobody’s sat down at the table yet, Obama’s already been diplomatically outmaneuvered, earning him the contempt of the entire Arab terrorist sphere.

It’s going to be a long four years.

Feb 3, 2009 - 5:36 pm 42. Judy, NYC:

it’s cowardice. spineless, ignorant cowardice. although, perhaps he likes them. after all, he called america “a christian and moslem nation..”.

giving him the benefit of the doubt, obama is either dangerously naive or mentally narcissistic. what is he thinking, that this psychotic in iran, is like his lefty buds in america who blab their mouths off, or some chicago politician. instead of the ruler of a jihadist code of hatred for all that is the West. armed with nuclear weapons and his militant, deranged moslem followers this psycho dirtbag is determined to destroy and dominate everything that is the west. include the magna carta, the constitution, our judicial system based on english law, the bill of rights, all freedoms, and of course, all rights of women.

apparently, the islamization of europe doesn’t bother him. or the very real threat of an american jihad.

withdrawing support from israel because of these moslem scum and allowing antisemitism to go unabated, while remaining silent, will result in iran becoming just another crater to be studied in earth science. these are not the jews of the 1920’s, mr. president.

at least he won’t have to worry about answering the phone. because it won’t ring.

Feb 3, 2009 - 9:16 pm 43. Pajewmas tuba teakettle of fish:

Judy,NYC typed:

“withdrawing support from israel because of these moslem scum and allowing antisemitism to go unabated, while remaining silent, will result in iran becoming just another crater to be studied in earth science. these are not the jews of the 1920’s, mr. president.”

Harshly put.

Nuclear proliferation that would bite the hand that feeds. Now I know the true meaning of “sins of the father”.
Would sacrifice, for the rest of humanity be an option? Or at least give the friendship a chance to mend (four years, or so), before preemptive strikes take place.

Funny how we think in terms of eternity, when in vitriol the flesh besmirches the spirit.

Feb 3, 2009 - 11:59 pm 44. Pajewmas tuba teakettle of fish:

Judy,NYC typed:

“withdrawing support from israel because of these moslem scum and allowing antisemitism to go unabated, while remaining silent, will result in iran becoming just another crater to be studied in earth science. these are not the jews of the 1920’s, mr. president.”

Harshly put.

Nuclear proliferation that would bite the hand that feeds. Now I know the true meaning of “sins of the father”.
Would sacrifice, for the rest of humanity be an option? Or at least give the friendship a chance to mend (four years, or so), before preemptive strikes take place.

Funny how we think in terms of eternity, when in the present, vitriol of the flesh besmirches the spirit.

Feb 4, 2009 - 12:48 am 45. Marc Malone:

#41 tailgunner – Nice. Translation of Iranian demanded preconditions, “Come to me on your knees, you wuss!”

Feb 4, 2009 - 1:51 am 46. Kevin:

BHO is waiting for David Geffen to run onto the set and yell “Cut!Cut! People. People. For God’s sake, stick to the script. No tax cheats and no calls to terrorists!! OK, from the top..ACT 1, Scene 1, BHO Announces His Cabinet Appointees and Initiates His Foreign Policy…3…2…1…aannndddd ACTION!”

Feb 4, 2009 - 8:14 am 47. Ann141:

You asked me yesterday for “concrete evidence” for my perspective re obama’s apparent lack of concern for the welfare of the United States of America.

I refer you to Victor Davis Hanson’s article today in which he articulates the dangers to the United States from the disaster that is obama as evidenced by the last two weeks.

I realize that his expression of concern doesn’t give any concrete evidence either. He only states the obvious, that the POTUS does not know what he is doing and that this is “serious”, in his words, and dangerous for the United States of America.

Don’t keep raising the bar for what is acceptable evidence just because you don’t like the way the alarm is raised by some.

Feb 4, 2009 - 8:17 am 48. Paul -Indiana:

Obama intends to stop work on our ABM system. If this all leads to the worst of bad endings, I hope DC is the target and we can start again without the current crop of idiots running the show.

Feb 4, 2009 - 8:51 am 49. Ann141:

48.Paul…what you said.

Feb 4, 2009 - 9:11 am 50. Barrett:

13) One thing you miss is the Palestinians voted for Hamas and are getting the results of that decision. What would you do if your enemy attacked you repeatedly and publicly pledged to wipe you off the face of the earth as a matter of policy?

Get real about being “desensitized”.

19) Why do think so many of us were questioning his lack of experience? BHO is in far over his head. I really don’t know how smart he is because the only time he sounds coherent (and that does not mean what he says is right) is when he is reading from a teleprompter. In addition, he thinks America is the problem, which is starting from the wrong premise. It’s a garbage in, garbage out exercise.

MacConnell is right about challenging Iran point by point, including dividing the Isalmofacist leadership from the population at large and interdicting anything that aids Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Mr. MacConnell, if you want concrete evidence for Obama’s lack of concern for the welfare of the US, just look around. He talks about ethics, but acts differently by appointing and standing behind tax cheats. The stimulus bill is nothing but pork and is financial malpractice. He wants to control executive compensation versus requiring that bailed-out banks and corporations change executive management and boards of directors (why back management that has already led you down the path of ruin). He calls for protectionism with his “buy American” demand, only to back down after being challenged by Europe. He has already caved into Putin by saying defensive missles will not be deployed in Poland. His naive strategy with Iran.

My goodness, this is just after the first two weeks!

I don’t care if he is malicious or well-intentioned, but he is clearly incompetent. Incompetency may be enough to damage the welfare of all citizens. Let’s hope is doesn’t get us killed too.

Feb 4, 2009 - 1:36 pm 51. Michael MacConnell:

@ Ann

“Based on what?”

“There is absolutely no evidence…”

“There’s no evidence for that either…”

“…cannot be presumed to be evidence…”

“I have yet to see obama do or say anything that gives me the impression…”

Since I don’t even use the word ‘evidence’ in my article (as I can’t prove one way or the other whether or not Obama means well) I’m left curious. I’m sorry, Ann. Exactly who was raising the bar for what is “acceptable evidence”?

The fact is, you have feelings about Obama in the same way Bush haters had feelings about him. In the end result, we conservatives will not win anyone over with outrage, anger and unproven accusations.

On ne le regne sur les ames que par le calme, Ann. You’ll attract more ants with sugar, than vinegar.

Feb 4, 2009 - 1:49 pm 52. Oscar the Grump:

Has Obama seen Fitna yet?

Feb 4, 2009 - 2:38 pm 53. Ann141:

Your post no. 5 requested “concrete evidence” from me, and I was attempting to respond to that. I never said that you used the word “evidence” in your piece.

I have never been interested in attracting ants.

Since we’re picking at one another’s use of words, may I say that I am not sure what it is you are claiming to be sorry about.

I have obviously misunderstood the “opportunity” presented at the close of all the PJM pieces wherein the box is presented and the words appear “write a comment”.

You have the advantage over me, since, in addition to my apparent incompetence in expressing my opinions, I don’t speak or read French.

I will try to remember your name and be careful never to make a comment on your articles again.

This surely can’t be that important to you. I’m a little baffled as to the reason for your laser-like focus on my fumbling comments, when many others in the thread have made comments that are quite similar and just as strongly stated. If my expression and my opinion is that poorly done, it surely isn’t significant in the larger scheme of things.

Nevertheless, you win. I am left to conclude that that was your only goal (along with attracting ants).

When a discussion degenerates to attacking how something is said instead of what is said, there’s really nothing left to be said.

Feb 4, 2009 - 3:28 pm 54. Fred2:

It really depends on what is meant by “Reaching out”. Meetings between diplomats are appropriate. Meetings between Obama and Ali Khamenei are not. Maybe later.

Two things are missing from MacConnell’s article. 1) What does Iran really want? and 2) What is the role of Russia and China? What do they want and why are they helping Iran?

Feb 4, 2009 - 3:31 pm 55. Michael MacConnell:

Touchy, touchy.

Feb 4, 2009 - 5:16 pm 56. Michael MacConnell:

@ Fred2

1) What they’ve always wanted. Regional supremacy and a reduction in American influence in the region.
2) This article wasn’t about the role of Russia and China in Iran. It was about the error Obama was making in attempting rapprochement.

Feb 4, 2009 - 5:33 pm 57. Smorgasbord:

Confucius say: “Before you reach your hand out to your enemies, find out what is in their hand.” I’m guessing he said something like that. You also might want to see what is in their other hand that is behind their back.

Feb 4, 2009 - 10:52 pm 58. Smorgasbord:

Confucius say: “Before you reach your hand out to your enemies, find out what is in their hand.” I’m guessing he said something like that. You also might want to see what is in their other hand that is behind their back.

Michael MacConnell
Obama said how he is going to disarm the world. He said he was going to reduce our nukes, then the other countries will be EMBARRASSED and reduce theirs. Our first line of defense will be EMBARRASSMENT!!!!! I’m not sure if we will deliver it by artillery, bomber, or missile. Oops!! I forgot. We wont’ have those for long. I guess the countries will have to come and get their EMBARRASSED themselves.

I can hear our enemies now cringing because they will have more nukes than we do and would be too EMBARRASSED to use them. You do have to admit Obama’s plan is a lot cheaper than Reagan’s plan was.

Feb 4, 2009 - 11:07 pm 59. Pat J:

What’s ignored in all this is Iran actually reached out to us in spring 2003. And the U.S. ignored them.

From an article here: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/11/17/a_grand_bargain_with_iran.php:

Iranian leaders offered to stop “material support to Palestinian opposition groups…from Iranian territory” as well as “pressure on these organizations to stop violent actions against civilians within [Israel’s] borders of 1967.” And it offered to accept the Arab League “Beirut declaration”—a Saudi-sponsored initiative in March 2002 which proposed a comprehensive peace, including the establishment of normal relations, with Israel based on Israel’s withdrawal to pre-1967 war lines.

What Iran wanted in return for these concessions was an end to U.S. “hostile behavior,” including the “axis of evil” tag and its designation as a “terrorist” state, as well as end to commercial sanctions, “decisive action” against anti-Iranian MEK terrorists, especially on U.S. territory, and access to peaceful nuclear and other technologies. Finally Iran wanted recognition of its “legitimate security interest in the region”—a phrase that has been interpreted as referring to security guarantees against U.S. attack and recognition as a party to future security arrangements in the region.

Feb 5, 2009 - 11:32 am 60. Michael MacConnell:

@ Smorgasbord:

I’m no apologist for Obama. This article is a critique of his naive and misguided attempts to engage a nation which stands nothing to gain from meaningful negotiation. Obama compounds this foolishness with negligence when he agrees to cease the development of ABM technologies and their emplacement in Poland (which would have pleased Czar Putin no end).

He’s made a bad start. All I’m refraining from doing is demonising him in the way the media demonised Bush. I want to rob liberals of the ability to point to any real ‘Obama derangement syndrome’. I think we should keep the bar of debate raised quite high and attack Obama and his people strictly on the issues. To this end, I won’t speculate wildly (as have some have done) as to his state of mind.

I simply don’t believe that he despises his country. I think he’s had a lot of bad influences in his life and hopefully he will be able to drag himself away from them. If he was the radical America-hating loon that some make out, I think we would have seen a very different approach to the one he’s so far taken.

Feb 5, 2009 - 1:15 pm 61. Michael MacConnell:

@ Pat J:

You note the date of that offer? Quite a few belligerent nations (Libya, North Korea, Syria, etc) were all of a sudden anxious to start negotiations with the United States, who had just overthrown the Taliban in Afghanistan and had invaded Iraq. We were now in the business, or so the world thought, of overthrowing despotic regimes.

It would be a terrible mistake, in your eagerness to find something human and decent in the Iranian regime, to overlook such details. They were afraid for their existence. That is the ONLY reason that they made such offers and as such, were rightly ignored.

Feb 5, 2009 - 1:21 pm 62. Pat J:

61. Michael MacConnell:
————————
Yes I did note the date. Khatami was president then. And if you had bothered to read the main points I presented, the Iranians offered to back away from some of their nastiness. We ignored them due to the ignorance and arrogance of the Bush administration. Talk tough got us NOTHING.

Now Obama wants to try talking instead of ignoring. That does not signal appeasement. It’s the first step in confronting them.

Feb 6, 2009 - 7:57 am 63. Michael MacConnell:

@ Pat J:

If you have nothing of substance to rebut my arguments with, why waste your time on gibberish? I did indeed read your points. I noted that you mentioned the Iranian’s sudden anxiousness to make nice… and you know what I did then?

Wait, this might shock you a little…

I answered you.

Here’s a little tip about negotiation for you, Pat. You never negotiate from a position of weakness (as Obama now is seeking to do). You negotiate from a position of strength. Bush wasn’t “ignorant” or “arrogant” in spurning their false advances, because as the Iranian ‘negotiation’ tactics with the IAEA showed, they shamelessly used good faith negotiations simply to buy time.

They lie, and lie, and lie and then finally, they sit back and laugh when they’ve accomplished their ultimate goal, as they will with the nuclear weapons they and the IAEA swore blind they weren’t building.

In the case of 2003, they thought that the United States was going to enact regime change in Iran. So they sought to buy time with false negotiations so that they might raise men, arms, speed their nuclear program along and pray like mad that we got held up in Iraq. It wasn’t a heartfelt yearning for detente. It was a cynical ploy, one of many they have successfully leveraged against the west over the years, successful thanks to well-meaning but gullible people like you.

Cynicism. Manipulation. Lies. Is this the kind of behaviour you do admire, Pat? Bush dealt with them openly and honestly. So long as they were a murdering, homophobic, misogynistic, terrorist-sponsoring nation, he wanted nothing to do with them. He didn’t respond to their offer with scorn, however, as the Iranian spokesman did to Obama. Did you notice that, Pat?

C’mon, don’t be so self-loathing and naive. There are bad guys in the world, buddy, and your nation isn’t the capo de tuti capi of them. No matter how much you wish it were so.

The delusion you’re suffering from is a common form of denial found on the left of politics. It holds that if only the USA stopped being mean, or did something completely differently, or didn’t do something, or whatever, then everything would be hunky-dory. It’s a rather US-centric view of the world and it willfully overlooks the capacity of other nations, people and cultures to be powerful, driven actors in international affairs. Driven by their own goals and ambitions; very few of which are anywhere near as decent and altruistic as those which drive your nation. Just because your nation is the current superpower doesn’t mean it is controlling the entire world, Pat. That’s patently impossible for any nation, no matter how powerful.

Please re-read my article to learn why this is a bad time to try negotiating with Iran. You consider yourself a principled person, right? Try to learn more about the Iranian regime under the mullahs. See if you still think it a government which is worthy of entreaties from the President of the United States.

Feb 6, 2009 - 9:07 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: