49 Comments

1. Soflauthor:

The operative word is “pretend.” It appears that the Obama administration and its supporters on the Left and in the mainstream media are perfectly willing to pretend that an Islamist regime will somehow be a reasonable negotiating partner, will keep whatever commitments it does make, will tell the truth about its nuclear intentions, will cut its support to terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezballah … the list of pretends is long. Worse, like children who play the game by the same name, Obama’s supporters in the media have bought into his fantasy and play along with little if any critical commentary.

But of course, the game of pretend does not stop with Iran. The President is playing pretend with the Israeli-Palestinian issue and is going to try to play pretend with North Korea. And that’s just in the international arena.

As a child, I recall that I liked the game, but along the way, I grew up, and chose to see the world as it was. I wonder when Barack Obama will finally decide that the game isn’t worth playing.

Jun 13, 2009 - 3:09 pm 2. Talnik:

Yesterday when events appeared to indicate the election would be close or Mir Houssein Mousavi might even prevail, Obama was obtusely crediting his own Cairo speech for hope and change in Iran.
What are the chances he will label the outcome of the election a rejection of his hope and change?

Jun 13, 2009 - 3:23 pm 3. rabidfox:

Talik, of course he wont. The Chosen ne isn’t interested in foriegn affairs, beyond providing excuses to swan around the world. He’s too focused on turing us into another third world country like Venezuela or Zimbawe, his models.

Jun 13, 2009 - 3:28 pm 4. Alexis:

International diplomacy is sometimes like a man who, determined to dance and having arrived by mistake at a zoo instead of a ballroom, proceeds to tango with a bear.

In 1913, a new fashion swept through the ranks of Saint Petersburg’s young female aristocrats. Suicide became the “in” thing to do, among princesses at least. Historically, it is not unusual for those who are rich, powerful, and decadent to harbor a death wish.

Those who seem to desire America’s humiliation in its foreign policy should not be assumed to be traitors. Those who desire America’s humiliation may desire humiliation or death themselves because their privileged lives have been so devoid of meaning. One should not mistake narcissistic nihilism with treason, for while the effect may outwardly be the same, their motivations are vastly different. The narcissistic nihilist does not seek to betray his nation, but instead regards national masochism as his nation’s highest calling, for only by enduring utter humiliation can his nation become morally superior in his eyes. If he seeks his nation’s doom, he does so out of a warped version of patriotism, the patriotism of those who equate humiliation with exaltation.

Imagine a man with suicidal tendencies who insists upon getting into an automobile accident with his family in the car. Then, imagine a politician with suicidal tendencies who insists upon getting his nation into an “accident” due to his desire to let other people share in the beauty of his own death wish.

Every time America’s leaders send messages of strength, people listen. Every time America’s leaders send messages of weakness, people listen. Every time an American leader seeks humiliation and death fueled by his nation’s pent-up nihilism, people listen.

Jun 13, 2009 - 3:39 pm 5. wretchard:

I think the Left knows how to ostracize people and states very well. Sarah Palin knows what it’s like to be beyond the pale. The Left knows how to increase the contrast in treatment between those they approve of and those they disapprove of; how to reward their hacks and punish their opponents. Chicago politics is built on that principle.

But there is a curious inability to extend the principle of contrast to enemies. Will David Letterman ever make an off-color joke about the Iranian President’s daughter? Terrorists must be read their Miranda rights. Ahmadinejad must be invited to Columbia. Arafat should be feted on the White House lawn. And people expect this work. Sending a message about how open-minded and inclusive the West is. But if you make the international environment invariant to a rogue regime’s behavior, how should it adapt? Why should it adapt?

Jun 13, 2009 - 3:43 pm 6. Mike Sylwester:

It, like Ahmadinejad is the beneficiary of the policy of finding a partner for peace at all costs.

What’s the idea of this sentence? Is the idea that this election result is the fault of Barack Obama? Is the idea that this election result happened because President Obama has a policy of finding a partner for peace at all costs? Is that the idea?

Ahmadinejad was elected during the administration of George W. Bush, four years ago.

The Administration of Barack Obama has been in power for five months.

Ahmadinejad has been the beneficiary of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy for four years and of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy for five months.

Jun 13, 2009 - 3:50 pm 7. Herb:

MS at 6: why so defensive? Does anybody think the the POWH has any effect on an Iranian “election”?

In Bush’s defense he has had the benefit of being called everything but a Child of God for the past five years by the left and the press. He has been unable to field any sort of an aggressive foreign policy, let alone a regime change. His position was not to legitimize the Teheran regime but to delegitimize it, at least internationally. This is a tactic of the “change” engagement.

Jun 13, 2009 - 4:06 pm 8. Herb:

On the Boss’ #5. Why should it adapt? Because if they dont we’ll keep sending StJimmah of Plains. (I like it because it gets him out of Georgia which is normally a very pleasant state. His sanctimony is less repulsive from a distance)

If this repeats, its moderation’s fault. I cant tell if a post is eaten or held.

Jun 13, 2009 - 4:11 pm 9. buddy larsen:

bad behavior unpunished is good behavior punished.

What’s the idea of the sentence, you ask, Mike? Did you read the sentence? Did you note the last three words of it?

Jun 13, 2009 - 4:30 pm 10. AWH:

funny, I’ve seen a wave of new people on some of the boards I read lately. Their playbook is roughly:

1. claim to be a conservative or moderate

2. bash Bush incessently

3. justify whatever Obama does at all costs

they get a little touchy on boards like this because they are just a thin-skinned as Obama is. I suspect the tanking support polls have caused them to send out their online troops to disrupt the critics and the sources of criticism. Wonder if they are getting paid for their help?

Jun 13, 2009 - 4:38 pm 11. wretchard:

President Obama recently called on the Burmese junta to release Aung San Suu Kyi. It was the right thing to do. Although some will say it was an empty gesture, unlikely to sway the Burmese rulers in any way, still the day will come when the Burmese will overthrow the present rules. And on that day, even if he couldn’t do anything, President Obama will be remembered for having stood against the regime.

History is a stage on which dramas are played out. On that stage, no one will remember whether the State Department used the past perfect tense of the verb three sentences from the end of the second paragraph. History forgets nuance, but it remembers which side you were on. Neville Chamberlain was a brave, hard-working and intelligent man. He faced cancer bravely. Once war was declared against Germany he served his country a selflessly as anyone. But no one remembers this. Chamberlain’s historical epitaph isn’t father, patriot and statesman. It is appeaser.

President Obama can choose to be remembered as the man who would engage with the current Iranian regime “without preconditions”; talk to them anytime, anywhere, no matter what. Or he can choose to be remembered as a statesman who was more conditional in his approval. One day the Iranians will rid themselves of the current regime. On that day, which speech will Obama wish to bring to their recollection?

The Los Angeles Times reports that President Obama is under great pressure to distance himself from the very people he was so eager to talk to, or at least use the opportunity to give them a talking to.

Reporting from Washington — The reelection of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered a stinging setback to the Obama administration’s hopes of cultivating a better relationship with the Islamic Republic. …

Now, as bitterly disputed results proclaim the victory of a strident leader who has called for the elimination of Israel, Congress and pro-Israel conservatives will undoubtedly press President Obama to put a tight deadline on his overture to Iran. They are expected to urge him to move on to tougher measures, such as economic sanctions or military action, to try to compel Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions.

Ahmadinejad’s victory “could well mean more pressure to limit the timeline” for engagement, a senior U.S. official acknowledged before the election results were in.

U.S. officials insisted that they would press ahead with their offer of dialogue no matter who won the election. But Obama appeared to signal the administration’s preference for the moderate candidates Friday when he hailed the turbulent Iranian campaign as a sign that Iranians were looking at “new possibilities.”

Step by step, events are forcing the President to modify his eagerness to sup with the devil. Ironically he is being outpaced by events in the Middle East themselves. The least he can do is heed the traditional advice that if you intend to dine with the devil, then sup with a long spoon.

Jun 13, 2009 - 5:04 pm 12. Lifeofthemind:

AWH,
Wait a month for the return of the march of the Lubyanka puppets, they come with the Caucusus campaign season.

Jun 13, 2009 - 5:13 pm 13. Walt:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected in a landslide, which must have pleased President Obama, who stated the other day that the vibrancy of Iran’s election battle was due to his electric Cairo speech. You may remember that in his suck-up to the Muslim world in his Cairo speech, President Obama stated Iran was entitled to generate electricity through nuclear power or through Obama’s speeches, whichever seemed more efficient. But Obama knows and we know the Iranian nuclear program has nothing to do with generating electrical power, but with generating military power, namely the power to destroy Israel, an eventuality President Obama is apparently comfortable with. When Ahmadinejad smiles and says they are only building cooling towers, the cooling towers he has in mind are the burnt out husks of Tel Aviv skyscrapers. Yet it is Israel President Obama is putting pressure on, not Iran. When the Iranian mullahs get that nuke, when they obliterate Israel, when another six million Jews die in a second holocaust, President Obama will have some reflecting to do, reflecting that may go something like this:

Iran has nukes, what’s that you say?
I really can’t believe that they
Would do a thing like that behind our backs
I’ve trusted them to tell the truth
About their nuclear plans, forsooth
And for my pains took lots of dirty cracks
From awful people on the right
Who seem to think it’s time to fight
The peaceful mullahs and their lawful plans
To generate some AC power
By building a nice cooling tower
And sending juice out to the desert clans
I see no harm in such a scheme
I say let them fulfill their dream
Of climbing to the modern world with us
I am aware what they’ve been saying
That soon Israelis will be paying
For all the times they’ve hit them with the bus
But when friend Ahmadinejad
Promised I his word had had
I knew my charm and smile had won the day
So what if Haifa is no more
And Tel Aviv a burning sore
The important thing is peace is on the way

Jun 13, 2009 - 5:21 pm 14. Doug:

Madness! Obama Administration Silent As Iranian Students Are Slaughtered in Streets– Announce They Will Negotiate with Fraudulent Regime

Jun 13, 2009 - 5:26 pm 15. Subotai Bahadur:

#4 Alexis

Regardless if the motivation is ideological or psychological; is it not then the obvious implication that it is the duty of all to see that they get their wish on a purely personal level, while not taking the country down? By the way, I vote for ideological on balance, but am not adamant about it.

#6 MS

It was Buraq Hussein who attempted to take credit for influencing the Iranian elections. Personally, I think that it was a pre-ordained result, but it seems that the facade has deceived even Iranians. Elsewhere there has been discussion of whether an intact Ahmadinijad regime or an Iranian civil war is to our benefit. I vote for the Iranian Civil War, but I don’t think it will happen. The Mullahs and Ahmadinijad will continue to beat on Buraq Hussein like a Persian rug.

#10 AWH:

Of course they are getting paid. Given the truly horrendous sums of our tax dollars the Democrats have given to their own party activist groups [ACORN alone got more than the entire cost of a presidential campaign just this year], one has to assume that the Federal treasury is funding all of the pro-Obama political activity. Remember the infamous “8:45 A.M. call” group that was revealed, where Democratic operatives have a conference call daily at 0845 with the media and lobbying groups to set the day’s message?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19846.html

The simularity in responses, and the talking points approach makes them apparent. This is a continuation of what was going on during the campaign. In fact, on a lot of blogs it became a running joke because we could tell when their shift changes were.

Subotai Bahadur

Jun 13, 2009 - 5:40 pm 16. Doug:

Mike Sylwester said…
-
“It, like Ahmadinejad is the beneficiary of the policy of finding a partner for peace at all costs.”

What’s the idea of this sentence? Is the idea that this election result is the fault of Barack Obama?
—
Both Obama and the MSM framed it that way.
Hard to believe, but he was prepared to take credit for the election.
…based on his ONE SPEECH!
Strange, but true.

Jun 13, 2009 - 5:42 pm 17. whiskey:

Obama is a Muslim. Of course he prefers Ahmadinejad. Like nearly all Muslims, Obama wishes for Iran to nuke Israel out of existence, and nuke the US.

He’s not a President like Jimmah! Carter or Clinton, who at least wanted to hold power as an American President. Obama would rather see the nation destroyed than his own power enhanced, such is the power of his own hate. Hate for America (fed and cared for all his life). Hate for Whites, hate for Jews, hate for Western Civilization. A hate shared by most of his allies, who above all Hate White Men. None so more than the spoiled rich heirs like Ayers, who thinks his radicalism makes him “non-White.”

It’s the virulent, cancerous form of the traditional struggle in American between rough, up from the boostraps Westerners and the privileged, inherited wealth East. Jackson vs. Bank of the United States.

Obama WANTS to sit down and fawn over Ahmadinejad. His deepest desire is for the NutJob to nuke Israel off the face of the Earth (an act that would send Obama and his Wife dancing in the White House) and then nuke a major American city. So he can surrender.

Meanwhile, defense contractors are selling the F-22 Abroad because we won’t pay for them, and a Judge allowed 9/11 Terrorist Padilla to sue Bush’s Justice Dept. official John Yoo for drafting a legal advice memo.

Jun 13, 2009 - 6:17 pm 18. whiskey:

This also brings to mind hard truths.

Middle class people don’t matter. What matters is guns, goons, and money, to have the goons paid to shoot Middle Class People.

Computers, Twitter, SMS, all those toys don’t matter a hill of beans next to an AK-47. Or a nuke.

Democracy, being “nice,” having the world love us, rainbows, unicorns, the loss of evil (so says Obama worshipper Mark Morford from San Francisco, Mr. “Lightworker” ) and other idiot fantasies of the rich and idle, mean nothing.

What matters, and the ONLY thing that matters, is how many people a nation or man can kill, and how willing they are to do it.

Some middle class Iranian woman got a rude awakening. She thought that because she was educated, a Doctor, Middle Class, that she actually mattered one bit. Now she knows she doesn’t. She doesn’t matter at all. An ill educated goon with an AK-47, functionally illiterate, matters more than her. Why?

Because he can kill, and she cannot. Simple as that.

Jun 13, 2009 - 6:21 pm 19. Doug:

“[ACORN alone got more than the entire cost of a presidential campaign just this year]”
—
To few seem to appreciate that.
Fear and loathing.

Jun 13, 2009 - 6:21 pm 20. buddy larsen:

Too few seem to appreciate that.
Fear and loathing.

The thing that grinds is tha so much of the psychology driving the depth and breadth of the crisis that has enabled all this –the enabling of the enabling as it were –is so clearly a Cloward-Piven result, writ larger than most will ever allow themselves to imagine.

We’re in the midst of a major coup, and the message making it work is that the Democrats are done with the two-party system, are done because they can be, because they’ve proved they can and will make the nation ungovernable otherwise.

Jun 13, 2009 - 6:59 pm 21. Mark Maps:

I can’t help but think perhaps The One, Chicago pol that he is, views the goings on in Iran as equal to another political machine in New York. What they do in their own city is of minimal importance as long as they don’t mess with his Chicago machine. Perhaps The Speech was meant to signal this to the mullahs.

I can imagine The One thinking how much more power he would have if he could only reduce the size of our military and use that money for numerous municipal works projects. If he can only convince the Mullahs and Dear Leader to keep their hands off his pie and do what they want with the rest of the world, all will be well.

Sophisiticated, worldly historian that he is, The One doesn’t realize the turf isn’t America, it’s the world and by retreating, he invites the wolves closer and closer. The organic brocolli isn’t just unimportant to the circling wolves, it’s an enticement to attack.

Jun 13, 2009 - 7:06 pm 22. buddy larsen:

And it didn’t have to be this way. First truth had to be stomped flat.

Jun 13, 2009 - 7:12 pm 23. hdgreene:

Michael Totten has video. Some of those protests are huge.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/06/iran-on-fire.php

My guess is the regime prepared for a major crack down before stealing the election for Ahmadinejad.

I would not be surprised if this turns bloody. I wonder how loyal the regular armed forces are. And if the Revolutionary Guards are up to shooting into crowds.

Jun 13, 2009 - 7:35 pm 24. Lifeofthemind:

My hope for Iran is that after the sturm and drang of the revolution will come a Thermidor and then a swing to normalcy. The risk is that they might swing to far, like France did between revolution and counter-revolution. A better option to hope for is that the Iranians are blessed and get to follow the English model. Remember that the English in the 16th to 17th centuries had a religious experience at least as dramatic as that which has consumed the Iranians for the last thirty years. The result was the Restoration which manifested itself in a thoroughgoing rejection of all enthusiasms, especially religious, that did them well for two hundred years. That this has now left the moribund Church of England vulnerable before Islam’s religious passions is an unfortunate byproduct. Perhaps within a few years the world will be astonished at an Iranian secular flowering.

Jun 13, 2009 - 8:28 pm 25. Derek:

Obama will do what the foreign policy establish suggests. He has no ideas of his own, other than how to maintain his own power.

Since the Washington foreign policy establishment have been wrong on every issue quite consistently, they will do the wrong thing. I imagine the discussions are under way on how to prop up the regime so that the potential of future negotiations are not damaged.

Stability stability. Wouldn’t want any popular will expressed. An iranian nuke would be manageable, but popular uprising, revolution? Where would it end?

I wonder if the Tehran-China phone lines are getting warm yet.

Derek

Jun 13, 2009 - 8:40 pm 26. Cowboy:

Obama’s take so far on foreign policy seems to be that he can bring a certain authenticity to the table, a certain je ne sais qua, by virtue of his being. I have no doubt that this has always worked for him before. Previously his experience in this realm has been that of participant then a grandee of American liberal salon conversations. In this realm who he is matters more than reason, because his being has always been a trump card. He could always invoke race, invoke Indonesian experience with Islam, invoke the dreams of the father he never knew, etc., and that always set or reset the table, or at least presented a hinging node of argument, for everything that goes down in those circles.

The trouble is that his personal story doesn’t mean a whit outside American electoral politics and its various narratives. He doesn’t seem to understand he no longer has a trump card. If he does anywhere else at all, that’s an accident. Obama’s been conducting things as if his magicness is universal. He thinks he has this special authenticity that will be persuasive to the world at large. He does not understand that it is not even persuasive here at home beyond his leftist circles.

He seems to be a president whose plan regarding Iran, and all other areas of foreign policy, is to say, “Hey, I’m different.”

That seems so naive.

In foreign policy you run with wolves, and it’s always a matter of strength, perception, will and determination. You don’t pussyfoot around in this league.

This man Obama is sitting over in the corner having actually said, “I’m excited by Iran’s robust debate.” Wow, that’s his take. How much can he continue to underwhelm?

That’s a pathetic statement. No other way to put it. It’s just plain sad.

Jun 13, 2009 - 9:18 pm 27. whiskey:

The Armed Forces are EXTREMELY loyal. They are first off, paid by Ahmadinejad. Second, they control most if not all of Iran’s economy, and would suffer greatly if the current regime were overthrown. Third, the IRGC has in addition to the Armed Forces paramilitary forces, the Basij, who are more than proficient in cracking heads and killing people. These men are also paid by Ahmadinejad. Fourth, the opposition has NO leverage whatsoever in what matters:

MEN WITH GUNS.

There is no split in the Armed Forces ala Pinochet, or the Spanish Coup plotters, or Marcos, or Ceaucescu. There is no backlog of unpaid wages as with the Czar’s men, or the Soviets in 1991. There is one paymaster, Ahmadinejad, and one unified thug army reporting to him. No one else has any guns, any men, any tanks, any planes, any missiles.

All this protest junk, protest babe idiocy, all that does not matter when it comes to real, bloody fighting. Then it’s who’s got how many men, guns, heavy weapons, and the will to use it. Ahmadinejad suffers no lack of will, and I’m sure he’ll make the streets of Tehran run red if he has to, in order to stay in power. As will his followers, from Generals down to the lowest private, they are all in on the graft, the corruption, the money making, the looting. All of them.

The AK-47 Talks, BS walks. After that, a surprise first strike at Israel with their existing nukes (I’m sure they have some) followed by a few nukes aimed at the US via deniable terrorist proxies and shipping containers. Why not? Ahmadinejad aims at nothing else, than total regional domination. A wiped out Israel, and nuked (and surrendering America) will leave him free to turn the Gulf into an Iranian lake and rule from Pakistan’s border right into the Med, all the way down to Egypt, and perhaps into Turkey. That’s his aim. He need more. More money. More loot. More tribute. To pay his men. Just like Putin.

What this whole episode shows is how useless, stupid, self-defeating, idiotic, and moralizingly stupid the idea that democracy and liberty can exist when a bunch of thugs run around with guns. You can have them running around, because you lack the will, means, ability, or even basic desire to kill them ALL, to gain freedom. But let’s not BS. The only thing that matters is the guns and gunmen, and who pays them. All else is BS.

Jun 13, 2009 - 10:11 pm 28. Cadmus:

Whiskey

How can you be so sure that there is no split in the armed forces?

No one really knows how much has been planned, or how much organization lies behind what is happening. But, from the size of the movement, it appears it was not the spontaneous reaction of a few. Mousawi has openly defied Khamenei and crossed the point of no return. He would not do this if he did not have something ready to back this move. It would be suicidal.

Police beating protestors with sticks in one night of violence is one thing. Shooting people in the streets for an extended period is another. The Iranian soldiers are connected to the people, and their own brothers and sisters may be in the crowd. How long do you think it will take before the soldiers whose relatives are being killed, switch sides? That is assuming they have not already.

In 2005, when the Lebanese took to the streets to demand Syria’s withdrawal, the Syrian dominated Government ordered the army to prevent them from reaching down town. The army deployed on all the streets. The people simply walked right threw and told them they were seeking their rights and they could shoot them if they wanted. Not a single soldier fired his gun. NOT ONE. People walked right on by. Why? Because they all had relatives in the crowds and would not want to kill them for demanding their rights.

When that happened, those who had ordered the soldiers to the streets began to switch sides. Before long they were heading to the podiums to stay with popular wave and not be overtaken by it. Half of March 14 leaders gave those orders.

That is probably an extreme case. There may be those in Iran that do fire, if they know all their relatives are not in the crowds. But, how many can feel so confident?

As far as both candidates operating under the authority of the Mullahs. Remember that Gorbachev and Yeltsin were leaders of the communist party when they dissolved it and changed the Soviet Union permanently. It may be that the only way to the top is through the Mullahs to get into place to change things.

Have some faith. It is not all gloom and doom. The world does not need to end in a mushroom cloud. There are alternatives. And rest assured, Ahmadinejad, even if he survives this, does not have enough military muscle to invade the US. Even if Obama wanted to surrender he will have no one to surrender to. The Iranians will not be here, and if some show up at our shores, I am sure there are enough of us willing to fight them.

Cadmus

Jun 13, 2009 - 11:27 pm 29. Molon Labe:

Iconic image

http://twitpic.com/7buyf

Jun 13, 2009 - 11:39 pm 30. blogstrop:

Cadmus – the USA was attacked in 2001, even if not technically invaded, and Israel has been attacked numerous times. The damage that Iran can do in the ME is bad enough. The fact that 12th Imam millenarians are in charge is a worry. The fact that even the “moderate” alternative to Ahmadinejad is committed to Nukes is a worry too.

Jun 14, 2009 - 1:01 am 31. dtmack:

#26 Cowboy

Excellent post. I agree completely.

Jun 14, 2009 - 3:56 am 32. Sam Hall:

When the Ayatollah Khomeini took power in 1979, he formed the Revolutionary Guards (Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution) because he didn’t trust the ex Shah’s (American trained)armed forces. IIRC, the Guards were mostly Arabs, not Persian who Khomeini also didn’t trust.
How things stand today, I don’t have a clue.

Jun 14, 2009 - 4:25 am 33. Wadeusaf:

As of 1998, Baseej or basically your volunteer sharia code enforcers, and elements of the Qods Jerusalem forces or the IRG, combined to provide the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Council an alternative to using military units for crowd control. In 1993 they became known as The Ashura Brigades. There have been on again off again stories of military units refusing orders from the Mullahs in all of the above groups. What is worrysome to me is Ahmadinejads history as a member of the Qods Jerusalem forces during the early 1990’s time frame and their history with the Ashura Brigades. I don’t know how internal security forces are today arranged. The Qods forces are keepers of the revolution, and the Qods Jerusalem forces are the keepers of the revolution outside of Iran. They are the ones who train and maintain Hezbollah and recently ties with Hamas. They are the guys who ran (run) assassination squads in Europe and elsewhere. Ahmadinejad cut his teeth with such an assassination squad in Austria, was still wanted by police for the murder until… but that is another story.

I really don’t have the nuanced information to say whether or not it is Ahmadinejad or the “opposition” candidates who are bucking the Mullahs, but I am thinking this could be a three way coup. There is enough confusion in official dispatches and unofficial reports to lend credence to that idea I think.

According to Mondoweiss, “Mousavi’s spokesman claims he received word from the Ministry of Interior that he had won the elections and had already begun preparations for a large celebration on Sunday.” Then “his campaign offices in north Tehran were attacked and several of his campaign workers were hospitalized. He had announced a press conference at 2 pm Tehran time, but this never took place.”

How many of the Mullahs and who among them will be replaced or retire is will be good indication of what has happened, but unfortunately that kind of signal has not occurred yet or has taken place off stage.

There are other indications that the election did not proceed as planned by the Mullah’s, at least not all of the Mullahs.

Jun 14, 2009 - 5:55 am 34. joe buzz:

I am struck by similarities between AlFranken and Ahmadinajad.

Jun 14, 2009 - 6:47 am 35. Herb:

“Robust Debate” Two thugs arguing about which stick to beat you to death with.

What strikes me is how any rational person who has lived thru the past 32 (THIRTY TWO) years can think that any election held under the mullahthugs has any legitimacy at all. They actually let Jimmah into the country? This war started on his watch.

Jun 14, 2009 - 8:45 am 36. NahnCee:

The last American Presidential election was every bit as stolen as this Iranian one. Between ACORN registering dead voters and money flowing into Obama’s election coffers from overseas and a lying cheating media, the shining beacon of American democracy is every bit as dirty as Ahmadinnerjacket’s bogus win.

We American voters are giving the Constitutional system a chance to self-correct and *do* something about this alien interloper. If it doesn’t, there is every chance the world will see rioting in America’s streets, too, the difference being that American citizens won’t be unarmed, and I’m pretty sure our armed forces will *not* shoot into crowds on the say-so of an African, Indonesian, Muslim, Marxist, Chicago hack.

Jun 14, 2009 - 8:51 am 37. Jay:

Alexis, Great summary and insight. The DC political class wants to work with other political classes that are status quo. It is a bizarre modern form of what happened in Europe after the 1848 revolts. But the political classes of Europe were uper class artistocrats and not phony corrupt US wanna be aristocrats.
Wretchard, Beyond the pale refers to the pale of settlement of Jews in the eastern Russian Empire. Jew were not allowed to live in Russia proper unless they were gifted artists.

Jun 14, 2009 - 9:08 am 38. buddy larsen:

Herb, this jihad didn’t merely start on Carter’s watch, he fathered it by dramatically showcasing — evidently in order to brand himself the “human rights president” –a repudiation of the Shah. The Shah was a longtime and very staunch western (and particularly the USA’s) ally whose gov’t was –not by choice but by necessity –fighting a ‘dirty-war’ (as per the lexicon then coming into the western left’s ‘narrative guidance’) against a rebel insurgency comprised of communists and jihadists.

So basically, no other word for it, really, Carter switched sides; “threw in with the other side”.

To the Shah’s constituency, it must have been as it would have been to the Allies had Truman, upon FDR’s death, switched sides and thrown in with Hitler.

Good ole Jimmy.

Jun 14, 2009 - 9:31 am 39. buddy larsen:

In fairness to Carter, some say the jihad began in Munich ‘72. But the case for Tehran ‘79 is better, i think, in terms of the globalist ambition. It’s a moot point anyway. I’d just like to see Carter get one-hundredth of the blame he deserves for the bloody messes he made for posterity to deal with. If he isn’t an enemy of America, he’ll do until a real one comes along. Yet, since he picked up a hammer on-camera and knocked together a few habitats for humanity, all is forgiven, yipee, his violence against American history is just another darn thing that (“oops!”) happened. As our double bubble gum klown Kar Kaboose jumps the tracks and sails off into the wind millstones of our minds.

Jun 14, 2009 - 9:56 am 40. Herb:

Buddy #38 You’re right. I think from Ike to Carter Iran was an “our bastard” state and engagement was, in the Boss’ parlance, management, which was justified by the Cold War. Carter changed that to the regime change mode because he really thought the Soviets were justlikeusdonchakno, just like the mullas

We should be careful what we wish for. We may get something we dont want.

Jun 14, 2009 - 9:59 am 41. buddy larsen:

Herb, right. Also right: Carter’s scolding our “inordinate fear of communism”. It should have been an “ordinate fear of carterism”.

Y’know, 100 million dead victims of communism is just a statistic, but a few commie insurgents getting beat up by the Shah’s police, now THAT calls for Human Rights Action!

Jun 14, 2009 - 10:06 am 42. Doug:

Just Make Stuff Up – Victor Davis Hanson –

Why has President Obama developed a general disregard for the truth, in a manner far beyond typical politicians who run one way and govern another, or hide failures and broadcast successes?

First, he has confidence that the media will not be censorious and will simply accept his fiction as fact. A satirist, after all, could not make up anything to match the obsequious journalists who bow to their president, proclaim him a god, and receive sexual-like tingles up their appendages.

Second, Obama is a postmodernist. He believes that all truth is relative, and that assertions gain or lose credibility depending on the race, class, and gender of the speaker. In Obama’s case, his misleading narrative is intended for higher purposes. Thus it is truthful in a way that accurate facts offered by someone of a different, more privileged class and race might not be.

Third, Obama talks more than almost any prior president, weighing in on issues from Stephen Colbert’s haircut, to Sean Hannity’s hostility, to the need to wash our hands. In Obama’s way of thinking, his receptive youthful audiences are proof of his righteousness and wisdom — and empower him to pontificate on matters he knows nothing about.

Finally, our president is a product of a multicultural education: Facts either cannot be ascertained or do not matter, given that the overriding concern is to promote an equality of result among various contending groups. That is best done by inflating the aspirations of those without power, and deflating the “dominant narratives” of those with it.

The problem in the next four years will be not just that the president of the United States serially does not tell the truth.

Instead, the real crisis in our brave new relativist world will be that those who demonstrate that he is untruthful will themselves be accused of lying.

Jun 14, 2009 - 10:40 am 43. buddy larsen:

Ode to VDH’s “Just Make Stuff Up”:

Descarte before the hearse:

“I am, therefore, I think.”

Jun 14, 2009 - 10:52 am 44. Cadmus:

Jihad started with Muhammad, long before Tehran or Munich. And has always been global in objective. But, as long as there was an Islamic Khalifeh (heir to Muhammad) promoting Global Islam and fighting to expand its domain, there was no need for individual action. All was channeled through the “legitimate” leaders.

The dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after WWI terminated the reign of the last Khalifeh. Since then, Islamic radicals have been struggling to recreate the “rightful” rule of Islam. Without a focal point of power, much of the fighting turned into internal power struggles, but, they still did much harm on those in their immediate vicinity.

Sadly, the West never really understood this, and treated Islamic fanatics as local thugs that can be controlled, used and disbanded at will, which allowed them to actually grow with the help of the West. It was used to undermine the nationalist movement and to face off and undermine the Soviet Union. Now, we find ourselves face to face with a monster, partly of our own making.

The Shah was “our thug”, and was confronted by both communists and Islamists. A communist take over of Iran would have brought the Soviet Union to the Gulf shores and into control of the most vital oil supplies. The Shah, recognizing the importance of his position, was demanding more and more concessions from the West and becoming “uncontrollable”. So the West figured the Islamists – Khomeini – is the lesser of the evils. Big mistake that we are still paying for.

The biggest mistake of all has been the belief that somehow Shiite and Sunni fundamentalists can neutralize each other to our advantage. This is the worst foreign policy idea ever. They have both used it to grow stronger and become an even bigger threat. Some have not yet learned, and are now looking to Sunni fanatics to face off Hizbullah for example. What would that get us? Death on Sunni hands rather Shiite hands? Is that the objective?

Cadmus

Jun 14, 2009 - 10:56 am 45. buddy larsen:

“I’d rather be right than be President” –POTUS, candidate, Goldwater

“I’d rather be President than be right” –POTUS, Democrat, generic

“I’d rather be wrong and be President” –POTUS, Manchurian, current

Jun 14, 2009 - 11:18 am 46. RAH:

The Iranian coup was completed and those who beleive the power of peaceful protest to overturn the fraud are naive.

If the protesters really want to change they have to be willing to back that up with guns and a plan to take over the government. The protests are just children screaming and there is no real intention to back them up with real plans and guns.

The protesters should have taken over the communication centers. TV, Cell phone controls, that type of stuff. Instead they got Hamas and Hexbolla riot police.

I have been pleasantly surprised that the police have been as civil as they have been with tasers and tear gas.

Jun 14, 2009 - 12:47 pm 47. Beverly:

To quote Buddy, above:

the Democrats are done with the two-party system, are done because they can be, because they’ve proved they can and will make the nation ungovernable otherwise.

The ones I know, here in NYC, are dead keen on eradicating any trace of opposition, and scoff at the idea of the two-party system being essential to preventing tyranny. They thirst for absolute control, and believe fervently that the opposition is “Evil.”

One said to me not long ago, “Our problem is the Republicans screwing things up [in the NY City Council]. When we get rid of them, we won’t have this problem any more.” I replied, incredulously, “WHAT Republicans??? There are only two out of 32 council members!!!”

She just pouted.

Jun 14, 2009 - 2:20 pm 48. Doug:

Beverly:
-
Exactly!
Just shows how powerful they are.
If two can inflict so much damage,
more would be too scary to contemplate.

Jun 14, 2009 - 5:57 pm 49. Marzouq the Redneck Muslim:

Bev #47, Doug #48:

Who the f%^* is John Galt!?!?!?!? I see it coming too but still hopeful it can be averted. Atlas SHOULD shrug!

Whiskey #27, Cadmus #28:

Excellent posts! Observation of the Iranian situation can provide good lessons. Thank Allah for 2ND Ammendment!

Salaam eleikum Y’all!

Jun 15, 2009 - 7:18 am

Write a Comment

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

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail