50 Comments

1. F:

Absolutely right, Wretchard: we need clarity regarding our strategy. Just as importantly, we need even-handedness regarding Islam. It makes little sense to treat Muslims one way (lots of tolerance of terrorism, for example) and to treat everyone else differently. More importantly, it sends a bad message. We have seen an example of this domestically this last week with presidential criticism of the killing of the pro-abortion doctor (Tiller) but no mention of the gunning down of two US Army soldiers at a recruiting office. And we see hints of a similar lack of even-handedness in Obama’s Cairo speech. It just makes him look foolish — or worse, in Islam’s pocket. F

Jun 14, 2009 - 3:07 pm 2. Arkroyal:

We have no strategy. It is all done ad hoc, ad lib, all the time. A glib con man way out of his depth. He is used to dealing with people who are afraid of being sued or accused of being called racists by him and his ilk. He is now dealing with people who murder as a way of life. One day, one of them will threaten his life or his family’s in such a manner that it will paralyze him him with fright.

Jun 14, 2009 - 3:35 pm 3. Willie G:

Someone else put it better than I could:

“The elections highlight the dilemma of engagement with Iran. “Engagement” is an all purpose word whose meaning crucially depends on a modifier. If engagement with an oppressive regime is ultimately directed at facilitating “regime change” it means one thing. If on the other hand engagement is merely directed at “behavior change”, then it means another, because engagement in that case tacitly implies a recognition of the status quo and a willingness to deal, without any set limit, with the devils in power.”

It’s not a “new” administration – it’s a N00b administration….

Jun 14, 2009 - 3:57 pm 4. Eggplant:

Arkroyal said:

“We have no strategy. It is all done ad hoc, ad lib, all the time. A glib con man way out of his depth. He is used to dealing with people who are afraid of being sued or accused of being called racists by him and his ilk.”

Sad but true. Obama’s response to tyranny will always be like Neville Chamberlain’s.

Obama has no choice.

The moonbat elites in the MSM put Obama into power. If Obama defies the moonbats then his political power base disappears.

Some Iranian demonstrators made interesting comments about the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad’s election, i.e. Where are the people celebrating Ahmadinejad’s victory? If Ahmadinejad election was legitimate then his supporters should be on the streets of Tehran slugging it out with the disgruntled supporters of Moussavi. Instead we only see policeman fighting Moussavi’s people.

Jun 14, 2009 - 3:58 pm 5. Dave the Kapampangan:

Dear Iranian Students:

The election results that cheated you out of a decent life were a sham. But now, because I have waited a “decent interval” I now consider the election results to be legitimate. I trust that the current regime truly represents your will and has “silenced” your plight, even as my President extends his hand in eternal friendship to Emeperor Palpatine.

Your friend
Roger

Jun 14, 2009 - 4:51 pm 6. no mo uro:

Seconding Eggplant.

The Messiah cannot use force as an option, even if the cause be just or innocent people are being massively harmed. The idea that he would project force in a faraway place is fantasy. Indeed, most of the people who voted for him believe that there is no reason, even the nuking of one or several U.S. cities, that is worth going to war over. It’s pretty clear that if a terrorist attack occured to any city but L.A., NY, Chicago, or DC, Obama’s response would be to attempt reconciliation with the perpetrators. There would be NO military response, whatsoever. Ramping up the defense of this country would take money, status, and prestige away from metrosexuals, sex-in-the-city urban sluts, public-sector union lifers, and NPR education industry elitists.

Therefore, it would cause much of his base to desert him.

I believe that he and his base would sacrifice millions of Americans – particularly if they were in Republican voting states, and especially if they were devout Christians (bonus points for killing ‘those people’, in the O’s mind and the minds of his acolytes) – before they would interrupt the ongoing transfer of wealth from those who produce it (the entrepreneurial private sector) and those who defend it (the military) to those who squander it (the rest of the public sector, etc.).

Jun 14, 2009 - 5:03 pm 7. wretchard:

If you look back at how Reagan helped bring down the Eastern Bloc, real moral clarity played a big role. Reagan didn’t cross the inner German border; he never engaged in a military confrontation with Russia — JFK did — but he did use the Presidency as a bully pulpit to project an idea. Reagan, according to Newt Gingrich, was driven by the concept of idealistic realism. And in the early 1980s Reagan had the wit to sense that Soviet-style Communism was dying. A new world was being born, and although its birth-cries were inaudible to many in the ivory towers, ordinary people could hear it. You just needed to remove the blinkers to see that the Soviet knight, in the words of John le Carre, “was dying in his armor”. By going with the tide of history Ronald Reagan made America a hero to a generation of Eastern Europeans. He joined the winning side. Reagan’s policy was a supreme act of realism, but it was also fueled by idealism.

I will argue that the Iranian regime is now on the way out. Whatever impetus it had in 1979 has long since been overtaken by corruption and cynicism. The global recession has pulled the economic rug from under its feet. A rival center of Shi’ite power has risen in Iraq. It has overextended itself in Lebanon. The Islamic Revolution has had stroke under its turban. But the difference is that President Obama, unlike Reagan, is determined to yoke himself to a corpse. He is making his pact with a world that is dying and ignoring the world that is waiting to be born. Obama is choosing the wrong side of history. This is not realism, but a kind of idiotic cynicism; a sort of deep stupidity that only the very educated are capable of committing.

Jun 14, 2009 - 5:12 pm 8. Alexis:

I have had a concern for a couple of decades that the United States would finally decide to “engage” with the mullahs, and just as soon as the United States does so, POOF! The United States government becomes suddenly the ally of a hated tyrannical government that has just been overthrown. And then Iranians would become hostile to the United States all over again because America lost its nerve just as the mullahs got overthrown, throwing away all of the advantages of a principled foreign policy at the last minute.

We can stand for our principles, the principles of liberty, of democracy, and basic human decency. We can stand for the basic idea that America is our home. As a free people, we must not let ourselves bow down to tyrants, whether foreign or domestic. We must not bow down to Pharaoh. We must not submit to the will of Pharaonic states. We must not let those who worship the false deity of “stability” break our will to live as a free people. We can do better than the policies of Barack Obama.

Jun 14, 2009 - 5:12 pm 9. Fat Man:

Obama wanted an unclenched fist, but the Iranians give him a middle finger. My question is whether the geniuses in the White House and the State Department can figure that out.

Jun 14, 2009 - 5:26 pm 10. Charles:

Spengler gives a pretty lucid account of the economic box the obama admin has walked the country into.

Jun 14, 2009 - 5:31 pm 11. no mo uro:

“I will argue that the Iranian regime is now on the way out. Whatever impetus it had in 1979 has long since been overtaken by corruption and cynicism. The global recession has pulled the economic rug from under its feet. A rival center of Shi’ite power has risen in Iraq. It has overextended itself in Lebanon. The Islamic Revolution has had stroke under its turban. But the difference is that President Obama, unlike Reagan, is determined to yoke himself to a corpse. He is making his pact with a world that is dying and ignoring the world that is waiting to be born. Obama is choosing the wrong side of history. This is not realism, but a kind of idiotic cynicism; a sort of deep stupidity that only the very educated are capable of committing.”

The question is, Wretchard, WHY?

What motivates his type to do this? I agree with the premise that they are largely overeducated and underintelligent (or at least under-wise) fools – the ‘cream’ of the NPR-listening crop.

But there has to be a ‘why’ beyond those explanations. What is their ultimate goal in hitching their star to a train going off a cliff?

And if for some reason the regime in Iran falls and an even slightly better one takes its place, will not Obama and his followers and handlers calim credit, regardless of whether or not they were the agent of said change?

Jun 14, 2009 - 5:34 pm 12. no mo uro:

That’s “claim”.

Jun 14, 2009 - 5:36 pm 13. RAH:

Cohen is a fuzzy thinking liberal. The liberal philosophy is the perfectibility of man, especially through government. Conservatives know that man is fallen and will operate in his own interest so systems that work with human nature work best. That means capitalism, which each person works to their own benefit and through the market mechanism most people benefit to being product and services to the market at a low cost.

Now Cohen is embarrassed that Ahmadinejad has been exposed as the ruthless dictator who steals elections. If Obama thought it was worthwhile to meet and discuses ME and nuclear ambition with Iran’s President Ahmadinejad, then the method he maintains power is irrelevant. He is still the President of Iran and will be that President until he retires or removed from office.

Jun 14, 2009 - 5:47 pm 14. RAH:

As to why Obama pursues his courtship with Muslim countries. It is because Bush went to war against Muslim countries and Obama’s and liberal nut cases morality has to show that the idea of going to war against Muslim countries is wrong.

Obama is convinced that he can talk anyone into agreeing with him. The problem is that his method was to be a mirror like that the other party thought that his ideas and beliefs were reflected in Obama and thought Obama agreed. He doesn’t really agree since he has very little beliefs and philosophy himself except that capitalism is wrong. And to destroy private enterprise especially in health care since that has been a main goal of liberal democrats for a long time.

So basically Obama wants to simply convince Iran that the US has no interest in attacking or invading Iran and if they would just stop talking about nukes and shooting missile everything would be hunky dory.

But Iran wants to be supreme arbiter of influence in the Middle East like China does in the Pacific and Russia in Caucasus. In order to reach that position Iran needs to have a nuclear bomb to be feared and respected.

Obama know that to be respected one has to be feared and he uses that to bully others who oppose his administration goals. But Obama does not identify with being America; especially as President he is the ultimate American symbol. So he does not want America to feared or respected just his administration and himself.

So he trashes America and the past American administrations and pushes the benefits of himself as the savior from American mistakes.

Jun 14, 2009 - 6:04 pm 15. BattleofthePyramids:

The Shah’s mistake was trusting the US, and having perhps too much mercy and compassion when strong measures were called for. I doubt the Mullahs will make the same mistakes. As China proved, there is no such thing as a popular uprising that cannot be crushed with military force. As long as the Revolutionary Guards,the Basji militia and if necessary the hired mercenaries from Hizbollah and Hamas are willing to obey orders (and why should they not when the status quo benefits them?) the regieme has nothing to fear.

The above assumes, of coure, that there really is an uprising going on and not a show by the Mullahs to buy time until their nuclear weapons are ready for use.

Jun 14, 2009 - 6:19 pm 16. reg:

#7 wretchard

I recall reading a story about hugh hambleton, a canadian history prof convicted of spying for the USSR in the UK. He was at the apt of a friend in moscow( late 70’s)having dinner when his friend recieved a phone call, someone was joining them . His friend was visibly nervous when this older gentleman joined them.they had a wide ranging conversation, one question which this guy was interested in was the ability of the US to increase military spending.Hambleton told him that the US could double it’s spending without affecting its society at all.this made an impression on the man and he thanked hambleton and left.Sometime later hambleton discovered that the ‘gentleman’ was Yuri Andropov head of the KGB, later general secretary of CPSU. And a few years later Reagan did what Andropov was worried about. The realism helped too.

Jun 14, 2009 - 6:21 pm 17. Thrasymachus:

Whatever else we have to support the moderates, understand? *We* *absolutely* *must* *support* *the* *moderates*. Support the moderates, see, that’s the ticket!

Jun 14, 2009 - 6:32 pm 18. CPT. Charles:

“I’ve also argued that, although repressive, the Islamic Republic offers significant margins of freedom by regional standards. I erred in underestimating the brutality and cynicism of a regime that understands the uses of ruthlessness.”

This man is my ‘moral and intellectual better? I commanded Corporals who had their heads screwed on straighter than this effete bozo.

Jun 14, 2009 - 7:14 pm 19. Derek:

There is something very weird and dangerous going on. Read some of the comments on news sites.

I have heard, in casual conversation, in listening to discussions, out of the blue numerous references to either fascism directly being beneficial, or what is called the Beijing consensus, a strong totalitarian government controlling economic activity and maintaining societal order. Somehow the rough and tumble of free speech and political discourse must be controlled, and there is a willingness to give up freedoms that others would exercise to get there.

This isn’t new. The prime minister of Canada said publicly that Syria should have control of Lebanon, this at the time when their grip was loosening. Stability and control of forces that are unpredictable is much better.

We are entering dark days. I fully expect the unrest to be viciously suppressed. The treatment that the surviving activists receive will produce more Zawahiris, people dehumanized by inhumane treatment. They will form movements far more dangerous and bloody than the activists we see in Iran. And they have some object lessons on what not to do.

The desperate desire for what has been will destroy all we have.

Derek

Jun 14, 2009 - 7:26 pm 20. Derek:

>I erred in underestimating the brutality and cynicism of a regime that understands the uses of ruthlessness.

The pathological stupidity of these people is mind boggling.

This is another instance where reality collides with what people want to believe. Expect the shock and troubled thoughts to last a week or two after these events leave the news channels. Then they will be dismissed, and the comforting fantasies will take hold again.

There is another weird parallel. Sarajevo under siege, and the west as a whole got pornographic pleasure out of wringing their hands in their imagined impotence.

Derek

Jun 14, 2009 - 7:31 pm 21. joe buzz:

Why on earth did the Obama administration rush to state that the “results” were legitimate? This is a foreign policy blunder of the first order. Did he not just get done lecturing us about how the US should not dictate policy to foreign governments?

Jun 14, 2009 - 7:44 pm 22. Herb:

Mr Fernandez at #7 emits his harshest criticism yet (the previous being mere cynicism) of what someone calls Baraq. I defer to Mr Fernandez’ perspective on the fascist. I tend to view them all as equals.

What is needed now is for an American President to stand foursquare in favor of the legions of freedom now crying out in Iran. Anybody got one?

To quote an American Patriot: Faster, Please.

Jun 14, 2009 - 7:50 pm 23. Herb:

21 Joe
’cause Jimmah said it was so. You cant quarrel w/ Jimmah. He loves them all.

Jun 14, 2009 - 7:55 pm 24. Herb:

before I go to bed.
Wretcherd is forcing me to start a Commonplace Book. Im too old for that shit. Ive already said a lot of things that have been said better by others. I really dont want to be saving things at this late date to clarify my babblings, it clutters my life.

Not one which accepts the existence of a dysfunctional regime; that comes to terms with the devil.

If the strategy is wrong, the only thing an interval will do is change the timing of betrayal.

His rhetorical flourishes should be are noted. And should be illuminated.

Jun 14, 2009 - 8:06 pm 25. Josh:

The Chocolate Caliph waits for nothing.

Jun 14, 2009 - 8:12 pm 26. wretchard:

The question is, Wretchard, WHY?

Morality, in case no one has noticed, has a price. Sanctions mean lost business. Engagement means that people peddling certain things can sell them again. In the case of Iran a lot of people stand to make money if one could sell them things: aircraft maintenance contracts, financial services, gas pipeline development services … you name it … once those sanctions are out of the way. Lest I give the impression that engagement for ‘behavior change’ is all about sordid things, there are sound geopolitical reasons too. Europe wants Iran’s natural gas online to counter Russia’s. Iran could be useful in supplying Afghanistan. Engagement means a whole parade of business deals can go forward, some for good reasons, some for simple business reasons. Sound public policy doesn’t require that no private interests are served; it only requires that public interest is not made secondary to private ones.

It’s much more lucrative to deal with the Chinese, the Saudis and the Ayatollah’s than to talk to some martyr in a dungeon, or an exile in a one-room London apartment with nothing in the cupboard but a kipper wrapped in newspaper waiting to be fried on a gas ring sputtering on a line deeply in arrears with the energy company. Just as in the case of coercive interrogation, taking a stand, one way or the other, means a willingness to pay for it; because pay you will.

Personally, I don’t think paying for things is a deeply rooted virtue in either Hillary or Barack. They are ‘winners’ above all. The ultimate accolade in their world is “I won”. Consequently, they’ll sell you Hope and Change. But don’t expect them to sell it at a loss. You’ll be lucky to get any change for the hope in your pocket.

Jun 14, 2009 - 8:14 pm 27. whiskey:

No Mo Uro –

I’ll give you the WHY.

The WHY is because fighting an enemy, even in words and small deeds (economic restrictions, etc.) would take power away from “metrosexuals, sex-in-the-city urban sluts, public-sector union lifers, and NPR education industry elitists.” As well as Blacks, Hispanics, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, and Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Even more threatening … White guys would win as in Reagan’s defense buildup. Which forced the Soviet Union, dying from lack of revenue in an oil glut to spend itself into insolvency. Reagan is hated, not the least of which is he made the majority group in this nation, White Men, successful and important. As opposed to “metrosexuals, sex-in-the-city urban sluts, public-sector union lifers, and NPR education industry elitists.”

CPT Charles — the guy you quote has his priorities. Chief among them being that the Average White Guy is enemy #1, Iran and Ahmadinejad is his ally in the fight to exterminate Average White guys. See the “Life After People” exterminationist pr0n, which somewhow never covers Shanghai, Beijing, Mecca, or Lagos Nigeria. Instead DC and NYC.

Wretchard, please. There gas and oil all over the place. Business to be made in creating a whacking great European or American defense force, able to whack out Iran or other troublesome peoples at a moments notice. Building lots of military stuff is extremely profitable, not the least of which is that basic R&D is subsidized by the military programs, many with unexpected benefits (radar begets microwave ovens). People had to FORGO advantage in order to keep Iran going.

Almost no one has made money in China, or with Chinese deals. Everyone is betting stupidly on the expectation that “someday” they’ll make money off of (most of them desperately poor and destined to remain that way) 1 billion consumers. When in Beijing I was told flat out that GE’s turbine unit had lost at least a billion in revenue in China. More if you counted the illegal but condoned copying of intellectual property the Chinese routinely engage in. VW lost even more. No one wins with Russia either. Investors in Norsk Nikel and other firms lost their shirts. No, the reason is that the Western elites hate/fear Joe Average or whatever he’s called, want him exterminated, and will ally with anyone to do so.

You can see this most clearly in Advertising. I’ve got (up on my blog) examples of “viral marketing” ads created by technology company Jawbone (featuring noise cancelling Bluetooth headphones). The chief consumers for this sort of technology is White men, yet the ads feature various ill fates befalling White men as women and non-Whites ignore it. Fascinatingly, comments on Youtube by women and non-Whites are overwhelmingly positive. Whereas featuring White women or non-White men in the White male roles would probably result in jail time in any nation.

It’s as simple as this: Obama and his people are allied with Nutjob against the Native White populations of the West.

Jun 14, 2009 - 8:44 pm 28. Cadmus:

Engagement has somehow come to be a bad word. One can engage a battle. Or, engage in a heated debate. It simply means to come into meaningful contact with the others.

Reagan engaged the USSR at the height of confrontation. Nixon reached out to China. The list is long. And, the Bush administration had engaged Iran in Iraq since 2007. They met in Iraq and discussed ways to make the Iraqi solution work. That engagement has proven beneficial to our troops and to the Iraq we are trying to build.

Yet, beyond the limited effort in Iraq, the policy towards Iran for 30 years could be summarized in one phrase “I don’t see you.”

Let us consider this carefully.

The sanctions meant nothing. The Iranians can buy anything they want, mostly through Dubai, which is an Iranian purchasing outpost. Many countries were perfectly willing to deal with them. They sold all their oil at market prices (the third international oil exchange after New York and London is I Tehran). And, they managed to build a sizeable industrial complex, military and civilian. Why would the Mullahs care if we see them or not?

If we do not talk to leaders who kill heir people we should cut our relations with half the world, starting with our Arab allies and Pakistan. If Islamic rule is the reason, we also should stop talking to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and most Moslem countries. Nukes? We seem to be perfectly capable of dealing Pakistan and India, etc.

Bush did not go to war against “Moslem countries.” He went after Al-Qaida and Taliban in Afghanistan, and after Saddam in Iraq, which most Moslems considered a heretic. He did so with help and support of many Moslem countries. Our bases in the Gulf and turkey are in Moslem countries. Iraq is a Moslem country. The new Afghan regime is Moslem.

Clinton went to war in defense of Moslems in Bosnia. And, the first Bush did the same in Kuwait.

The best way to promote and protect our interests is through the old stick and carrot principle. One without the other does not work. Carrots alone do not provide retribution for bad behavior. Sticks alone provide no incentives for good behavior and their only concern will be fetching a stick big enough to protect themselves. Simple human nature.

Retribution does not need to be in the form of mushroom clouds. We do not threaten other countries with annihilation, yet we manage to promote our interests just fine. We manage to have quite a bit of leverage with countries much bigger, more powerful and much richer than Iran.

Most importantly, engagement should not be meant to prop up a regime or support a ruler. Engagement should be based on specific principles and issues of interest to us, regardless of the leader. If they change leadership, our interests do not change. We should focus on actions, not personalities.

In cases like Iran such engagement weakens the fanatics, who thrive on confrontation, and give more maneuvering room for moderates who seek rational relations with others.

In the 21st century it has become almost impossible for any Government to control the thoughts of its people. Try as they may to control the flow of information, the internet and satellite TV allows people to see what is happening all over the world. People travel constantly and return back to share stories. The Moslem world is changing fast. The young generation (most of it) is very eager to adopt our ways and gain their freedoms and liberty. And, that trend continues to grow. (Northeast Pakistan, Afghanistan and a few remote backwards areas not withstanding)

As people yearn for more freedom and advancement. As they become more educated and worldly, the Mullahs and Imams loose control. That is what they fear most. That is why they want confrontation and isolation. That allows them to continue to create fear and control people. Engagement with a purpose will deny the fanatics their most important weapon – isolation of their people.

An Iranian friend in the US (father was one of the Shah’s close entourage) was asked about the Mullahs a few months ago. He said there is an old saying in Iran that says “the same donkey with a new saddle”. He explained that before, the Shah and his group controlled everything and made all the money. Now the Mullahs and their men do that.

People supported the revolution on the premise it will bring them a better life, the same way people in Russia supported the communists. Neither gave them what they were hoping for. Engagement with the Soviets brought down the regime. The same will happen with Iran.

Unfortunately, I do not think Obama has the temperament to carry out such a task. It has been a long time since we have had a real statesman in the White House.

Oh, and before anyone asks the question, which I am sure is coming. Here is my answer. If Netanyahu wants to wage war on Iran, he can do so and bare the consequences. The Israelis can deal with him as they wish. As an American I am most concerned with promoting and protecting US interests.

Cadmus

Jun 14, 2009 - 8:54 pm 29. ledger:

I agree with some of the posters.

Obama is out of maneuvering room. He has clearly stated that the USA is in deep financial trouble and he has added to it and its enormous debt.

Without financial power there is little military power.

Without out military power there is very little diplomatic power. Military power and diplomatic power go hand-in-hand.

Obama is negotiating from a position of weakness. He has never been in the military or the rough and tumble business world. His actions at the Bully pulpit would more resemble a well groomed Poodle barking in a high pitch voice.

His Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is not respected by Islamic countries. They do not respect women. Both he and his Secretary of State send childish signals like give a toy “Re-set button” to the Russians and giving our allies a cheap collection of DVDs.

Obama strongest allies are those in Hollywood. Unfortunately, the Russians, Chinese and Iranians don’t respect Hollywood or spend much time interacting with Hollywood.

Obama has dissipated years of respect for America and it’s financial a military strength.

I am doubtful that this respect for America can be regained in short order. Short of him resigning or being impeached and ejected from Office I don’t think things will improve in the short term.

Jun 14, 2009 - 8:54 pm 30. Mad Fiddler:

I believe there are Democrats… members of the Democrat Party… I mean people who think of themselves as Democrats and vote for Democrat candidates, without ever actually participating in the strategic planning that goes on. I can’t believe they all are fascists, but they sure do seem to have accepted the poisonous illogic of the Party, that anyone who disagrees with them is EVIL.

I think that far more than any other parallel to the history of world events leading to WWII shows we are heading for bloody conflict.

You can be absolutely certain that anything you write online under your own name will be used against you in the trials to come. Posting under a nom-du-web just proves your intent was evil, subversive, and part of a vast conspiracy.

Well, now I come to mention it…

NO NO NO

The point of posting under a pseudonym is to avoid being flagged later in employment or loan applications, not to avoid prosecution!!!!! Or in the case of anyone employed in “higher education,” to avoid being FIRED for any sort of expression deviating from approved dogma. (And the f***ing Leftists just LOVE to screech “McCarthyism!” when in fact they are the primary practitioners of it.)

Of course, that just confirms to the Fascistas that you’re not on their side.

It does appear inarguable that the current administration is steering the country into a hurricane, whether by screaming incompetence, or vicious America-hating intent, or both.

The historically demonstrated viciousness of the Left suggests they will not hesitate to ORDER police and military units to fire on citizens when open armed rebellion arises. Think of Ruby Ridge and Waco and tell me it isn’t so. Of course, Ruby Ridge occurred on GHW Bush’s watch. Think of Bill Ayers description of concentration camps for the 25 million or so Americans he anticipated would resist the “re-education” he and his MURDERING Weather Underground comrades dreamed of. Think of the fact that our current elected PRESIDENT has refused repeatedly to denounce the terrorist acts and philosophy of his close personal friends Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

The current administration is made up of radical Leftists who view the rest of the country as subhuman, evil by every measure they can think of, evil in every impulse and habit. If the habits cannot be beaten out of them, if they cannot be intimidated into accepting the right and proper rule of their betters, they must be incarcerated or eliminated. After all, incarceration is expensive; a bullet to the back of the head is cheap.

You think it can’t happen here?

The people of Cambodia didn’t think it could happen under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge.

The people of Germany sure as shit didn’t think Hitler would use the Guillotine to decapitate over TWENTY THOUSAND dissenting German citizens. (You don’t here that statistic pointed out much, do you?)

The current administration comprises a bunch of spoiled children who really believe that the only reason they aren’t able to have anything they want is the opposition and evil greed of their domestic adversaries. They will use whatever means they have at their disposal to subdue domestic rivals before they will use any force against external rivals. This is because they truly believe the external rivals are hostile ONLY because of the misdeeds of the conservatives and reactionaries in the US.

Lord, hear our prayers.

Please open their hearts and eyes.

Give us all wisdom to see and do what must be done.

Lord hear our prayers.

Jun 14, 2009 - 9:16 pm 31. Mad Fiddler:

Ooops.

You don’t here[sic] that statistic pointed out much, do you?

Of course, that should be “You don’t hear that statistic pointed out much, do you?

Sorry. I see the level on that bottle of Glenfiddich is a lot lower than I remember from earlier in the evening. >;0)

Jun 14, 2009 - 9:31 pm 32. Alexis:

wretchard:

Personally, I don’t think paying for things is a deeply rooted virtue in either Hillary or Barack. They are ‘winners’ above all. The ultimate accolade in their world is “I won”.

Isn’t it ironic that democracy rewards those who win elections?

To get elected, it is not necessary to be intelligent. It is not necessary to have credentials. It is not necessary to have good ideas. It is not necessary to know what you are doing. All that is necessary to get into elective office is getting elected.

This is why a well-informed citizenry is so important. If a majority of the voters cannot spot the defects in their political leaders, if a majority of the voters cannot spot the flattery of a politician who is willing to say anything to get elected, if a majority of the voters cannot keep themselves from getting snookered by predators who would wear the clothes of their grandmothers, then any republic would be in trouble.

I think part of the problem facing America is the legacy of the French court at Versailles. Versailles may have once set a standard for fashion, but it also created a legacy of estrangement between the powerful and the nature of their own power. It set a pattern of secluded enclaves of rich and powerful people who are obliviously unaware of the consequences of their actions, of latter-day Marie Antoinettes who fail to comprehend the dangers lurking around them. It is no accident that Hyde Park should be an enclave of a variety of academic liberalism that sets itself apart from the struggles of the rest of humanity. It is also no accident that Charlotte Corday was one of the petit noblesse who had never known the wonders of Versailles, for while she was a naïve assassin whose murder of Jean-Paul Marat did nothing to improve the lot of France, she had a better sense of the danger confronting France than many of her noble contemporaries.

Versailles advertised the notion that sealing one’s self off from the problems of the outside world should be a token of status, indeed a token of social legitimacy. Versailles advertised the ideal of a ruling class cut off from the harsh realities that other people must face, an ideal embraced by industrialists from the Gilded Age and passed down the social ladder over time. Yet, to confront the legacy of Versailles would mean confronting the very idea of Suburbia as a place of refuge from the problems of the outside world. Moreover, confronting the legacy of Versailles would mean considering all over again what it is to be American, for the main American ideal promoted for the past eighty years has not been Liberty, but rather a fantasy land called “The American Dream”.

I don’t think it is wise to expect people to lead when they are shielded from the consequences of their own actions. I am concerned that the very affluence of America’s rich and powerful is depriving our so-called “best and brightest” of the very tools that any true leader would need to guide the United States through the difficult times ahead.

Jun 14, 2009 - 9:44 pm 33. Robert Boeren:

Dear Sir,

Since I found your website at Roger Cohen`s, I have to ask myself why you give him the attention he so craves. Although it`s sad to list one`s critics as the late Leonid Brezhnev presented himself with medals, the comments here almost
rival those which appeared at Cohen`s (rather vile) former blog at the Inernational Herald Tribune.

Robert Boeren

Jun 15, 2009 - 3:09 am 34. twobyfour:

The country’s government-funded Press TV reported Monday that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei had requested an investigation into the country’s disputed presidential election and asked opposition leader Mir Hossein Moussavi to pursue his allegation of ballot fraud through legal means.

Apparently, Khamenei thinks the genie is out of the bottle. The question is whether he can put it back. If the protests continue, it may not be possible.

Jun 15, 2009 - 4:16 am 35. RWE:

Wretchard #7: “…difference is that President Obama, unlike Reagan, is determined to yoke himself to a corpse.”

This brings to mind a statement from Bill Buckley in the late 70’s “Faced with a crisis in the USSR and growing opposition there the Administration has decided to root for the communists.”

Jun 15, 2009 - 5:38 am 36. Ben:

“I erred in underestimating the brutality and cynicism of a regime that understands the uses of ruthlessness.”

The fact that a Jewish commentator can say this tells me that even history’s harshest lessons have been forgotten: “Never Again” has become “Until Next Time”.

NO ONE should ever underestimate ruthlessness.

Jun 15, 2009 - 6:45 am 37. buddy larsen:

Or, “Never Again, Hopefully”

Jun 15, 2009 - 7:00 am 38. Pseudo-Polymath » Blog Archive » Monday Highlights:

[...] Some more remarks here. [...]

Jun 15, 2009 - 7:28 am 39. Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e72v1:

[...] Some more remarks here. [...]

Jun 15, 2009 - 7:28 am 40. Subotai Bahadur:

#30 Mad Fiddler

I offer this from yesterday’s INSTAPUNDIT to add to your very on point comments:

June 14, 2009

DO NOT GO GENTLE INTO THAT GOOD NIGHT: Remembering The Rape of Nanking. “I was struck by the similarity between the reaction of the Chinese civilians and soldiers to their fate and that of many Jews during the Holocaust. Despite plenty of obvious evidence to the contrary, they clung to a belief that they would be okay right up until the very end. The Japanese troops carrying out the killings were often outnumbered ten and even a hundred to one by their prisoners yet there were very few instances of any resistance even though the Chinese likely would have been able to overwhelm their captors had they acted together. It’s probably part of human nature at some level to refuse to accept that a horrible fate awaits and to rationalize your way into inaction. I don’t know if there are any lessons that one can take from this (and hopefully they would never need to be applied), but one seems to be that if armed men come to take you away you should assume the worst. Resistance at that point, even if futile, is probably preferable to the alternative. It reminds me of how people are usually advised that if you are getting car jacked or kidnapped, the best chance of escape is in the initial moments of the attack.”

Subotai Bahadur

Jun 15, 2009 - 9:24 am 41. Roderick Reilly:

The liberal “engagers” sound an awful lot like novice hostage negotiators to me, but they have no “pro” in their corner to help them talk down the bad guy. Besides, a “hostage negotiation” mentality is the worst possible way to deal with evil governments.

Jun 15, 2009 - 11:57 am 42. NahnCee:

Am I the only one thinking that the Iranians — all of the Iranians — have absolutely no right whatsoever to ask America for help?

Iranians broke into our embassy and held Americans hostage for a year, including torturing Americans to death.

Iran has been an outspoken enemy of America for decades, up to and including threats of “death” and destruction.

Iran has funded terrorists in Iraq, with the sole goal of killing American soldiers.

Iran has funded terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with the sole goal of killing American soldiers.

Iran has played footsie with Russia, with the sole goal of overthrowing America, terrorizing America, and impoverishing America.

Watching the crowds in the streets in Tehran now is interesting in the same sort of way as watching stupid men run away from the bulls in Pamplona. But it has absolutely nothing to do with me as an American taxpayer, citizen or patriot.

Watching Obama spin slowly (but with ever-quickening gyrations) in the breezes of international events is also amusing. But just because I want B. Hussein to fail as President of the United States does *not* mean I have the slightest urge to spend time, money or blood in helping out Iranians in whatever possibly-demented thing they want to do now.

We showed them how it’s done in Iraq. Let them stand up now on their own hind legs and do it for themselves. Then after they’ve proven for a few years that they’re capable of acting like human beings, we can discuss a rapproachment with the rest of the world, including America.

They owe us a BIG one already. How dare they come begging for our help now.

Jun 15, 2009 - 4:18 pm 43. winslow:

Obama is little more than an actor reading his lines (teleprompter.) He was selected for his reading and acting ability. He is not the originator of the strategies that are being carried out by his administration. Those actions are clearly not in the National Interest. Since most of the media accepts the Potemkin Village decor that the administration presents, there is no need for logic or consistency in its statements or actions.
The mystery is not why he and his administration do such strange things, but to whose benefit do they accrue.
To characterize those actions as naive or incompetent is to misconstrue their purpose.

Jun 15, 2009 - 4:29 pm 44. Cadmus:

NahnCee

Mousawi and his team have not directly asked the US or anyone else for help. The people saying we should help are Iranians who escaped Iran when the Mullahs took over (there are millions).

The people in Iranian streets today were either not born yet or too young to remember 1979. We cannot possibly hold them responsible for that, particularly when they are fighting against the people who are doing all the things you list.

It is very possible that the world will sit back and tell these guys the hell with you. We do not owe you anything.

Remember, the West has already done this several times, including to the Shah in 1979. That allowed all these “terrorists” to grow to this level of deadliness, because “we do not owe anyone anything”.

Where has it gotten us?

The guaranteed result of such action will be the continued reign of the Mullahs and all the problems that come with them. They will actually be much stronger as they will feel secure that no one will challenge them for some time.

Many of those who asked for our help and got kicked in the groin will join the Mullahs in their hatred and make them even stronger.

I am sure some people want just that. They want an excuse to go to war.

But, wars bring back a lot of body bags, and a lot of pain. If that is the objective, then onward march.

But, I believe we owe ourselves something. We owe civilization something. Those in history who abandoned the fringes to barbarians have all ended up falling victim to barbaric invasions.

Cadmus

Jun 15, 2009 - 5:20 pm 45. Sylvia:

24/Herb. Had something similar on my refrigerator for years. Pesky new stainless frig doesn’t hold the dozens of scraps of paper with quotes. Needed a new commonplace book anyway. I have shelves of them. Lovely bits and pieces, a delight for the mind on a sleepless night.

27/Whiskey. They don’t just hate Reagan — they fear him and his legacy. I have friends whose bookshelves are filled with books about those evil conservative white men. Yikes. And why can’t they believe there are conservative white women (hello!)? My daughter and I voice our opinions but the libs don’t hear us. They do not want to accept that our opinions differ from theirs, so they assume we agree with them. Is it a form of narcissism?

32/Alexis. They *think* they *are* well-informed. They watch TV and listen to NPR and read The New Yorker and the NY Times…

I have been wondering what happened to the two Persians who arrived at my high school in Utah back in late 1978. The “girl” had stretch marks, played a mean game of racquetball, and was a “student” for only a few months, then she was gone. The “boy” had perfect military bearing and already knew everything we were learning in our physics class. I saw him once that summer up at the university, then he was gone, too. The few of us who were non-Mormon took them under our wing and pretended they were our age, and as with the other n-M kids, we asked no questions. The local radio stations were censored and we didn’t have TV’s so we had no idea what was going on beyond Deseret, but we trusted our instincts. They were on the run from something, they were from a very high social class, and they were in their 20’s.

Jun 15, 2009 - 5:48 pm 46. Marcus Aurelius:

I needed tires so I drove my little 4 hamster honda into the industrial part of our town. Drove and pretty much at random selected a tire shop and arranged to get four new tires.

The owner of the shop and his sons then sat me down and as is customary asked if I wanted tea, I said now “just water, please” and had to argue and finally thought I was going to get my water, but a platter shortly came with teas for all of us. Okay, so I started to drink my tea and chat with the shop owner & his sons (the owner did not understand English his sons did). They asked where I was from and I said the US and the son got a big smile and said “ahhhh our countries are very close friends” I immediately detected the sarcasm but was not 100% wise until the son informed me they were from Iran, he said it with a laugh.

An economics professor I had, noted he had friends return to Iran after the ‘79 revolution. My prof attempted to warn them off but they did not listen, they ended up against the wall.

We’ll see what the future holds here. Of course I would like to see President Obama give a bolder statement but did anyone think he would?

Jun 15, 2009 - 6:54 pm 47. Marcus Aurelius:

I read Cohen’s piece, despite its length it says very little. However, he wonders why the Mullahs at one point seemed to let the election process run its course and then flop and find themselves where they are now.

A lot of us have the general notion all candidates are Mullah approved and they are (at least in comparison to each other) commodity items. However, I wonder why it is the Mullahs have second thoughts about Mousavi?

Jun 15, 2009 - 7:49 pm 48. Mad Fiddler:

In 1974 a Persian professor I’d met from one of the area’s universities decided to return to Iran. I bought a bunch of his things. After 1979 the professor was not heard from.

The idea of authoritarian regimes murdering people who are deemed “un-reliable” is so commonplace it’s a cliché in tv scripts and novels. Americans on the LEFT denied that sort of thing ever went on in the Clinton Administration, despite the astounding number of deaths of people linked to Clinton.

What is it that allows reasonably intelligent people to accept that elsewhere murderous but charming thugs have climbed to power on the heaped bodies of their expendable countrymen, but it can’t possibly happen here?

Well, the LEFT certainly have been willing to accuse Republicans of operating that way.

If even a tiny fraction of a percent of the accusations against Republicans were actually true, How’z cum the only spies that keep coming to light are LEFTIST communist bastards?

How’z cum the Democrats never dig up someone who’s been secretly working for decades to sell out America to the Right Wing International Conspiracy????

Jun 15, 2009 - 7:51 pm 49. buddy larsen:

i kinda agree with Winslow @ 43.

i say ‘kinda’ because there’s still a chance –i mean in my own evidence room –an outside chance that O is more rather than less the man wit da plan. IOW, the Sorosian Syndicate, or SS as i shorthand it, may have to ask for, rather than demand, the down-with-America policies and personnels now crashing outta DC and into the heartland like a zombie army on bulldozers.

Jun 16, 2009 - 6:16 am 50. buddy larsen:

sylvia/45; re your last para, this great (from 2003) film, House of Sand and Fog is about precisely those people.

i note that their ultimate betrayer, one Jimmy Carter, said yesterday in Gaza that the Gazans are being “treated like animals”.

Of course there’s the outside chance that he was accusing Hamas and not da Jooos (and the Americans who care more about people receiving rather than firing ten thousand kassams), but we probably already really understand that he’s attempting to replicate what he did to the Shah, only to da Jooos this time.

The Long March of the Man from the Habitat for Humanity.

Hopefully his latest roof will collapse too, only not like before, on the heads of the humanity units sitting at the breakfast table in the habitat below.

Jun 16, 2009 - 9:25 am

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.