169 Comments

1. Lightnin' Hopkins:

The very misgivings which you recount concerning President Obama’s character should answer most of your own questions, Roger. You can be sure that if the heat of the situation forces him to, he will suddenly “find his voice” on the issue (as the adoring press will undoubtedly frame it).

The apt comparison with Reagan vis-a-vis Poland written about elsewhere today makes it plain what a weakling Obama truly is. Calling evil by its name is not “meddling.” Even Bubba — the original hot-buttered waffle himself — would’ve given a stronger statement than, “I’m very troubled…”

I’m sensing a lack of “empathy” here. Certainly one of shame.

Jun 16, 2009 - 11:26 pm 2. Godzilla:

“He has done little in public beyond expressing “deep concern” on two occasions while making the point that any strong American comment on the Iranian election would only play into the hands of the mullahs, allowing them to blame the crisis on the Great Satan.”

Obama and his advisors may be making a gross miscalculation. With millions of Iranians taking to the streets, whos knows what a Bushian-like display of support could do? However it’s not in Obama’s psyche to voice support for the Iranian people. Mainly because, I believe, he has a totalitarian heart. He is dispicable. The stepford media is despicable. The stepford leftists are despicable.

However, the Iranian people themselves may have enought gumption this time to do it on their own. If only this election had occurred last year instead of this one.

Jun 16, 2009 - 11:55 pm 3. zefal:

They haven’t killed any late-term abortionists so what’s the big deal!

obama wouldn’t do away with the likes of ahmadinejad or any anti-western tin-pot dictator if he had a magic wand that would do it without a single scraped elbow.

he is anti-west at his core, that is why he associated himself with the likes of reverend wright, william ayers and the late edward said. he didn’t meet those people by chance at the bowling alley.

Jun 17, 2009 - 12:26 am 4. Pajamas Media » Obama, Iran, and the Ongoing Saga of the Liberal Reactionary:

[...] Read the entire piece here. [...]

Jun 17, 2009 - 3:29 am 5. Terrye:

You know what Roger? They are all a bunch of hypocrites, and that is especially true of Obama. If Saddam were still alive, Obama would be kissing his behind too.

Jun 17, 2009 - 4:11 am 6. Formwiz:

It’s very indicative that the President of France is showing more backbone. The country that lined its roads with trees because the Krauts liked to march in the shade should not be out in front on this. Shows how far we’ve fallen with this guy.

Jun 17, 2009 - 4:12 am 7. David Thomson:

“Negotiate what?”

This is simply a repeat of the naive responses of Stanley Baldwin and Neville Chamberlain to Adolph Hitler in the 1930s. These tyrants have no hesitation in lying to gullible Westerners. Both Amademajad and Hitler share a contempt for Jews. This is no secret. We should believe them! There is nothing to really negotiate—unless both side are committed to the notion of a win-win solution. Other than that, somebody is being played for a sucker. Their enemy, at the end of the day, is simply trying to gain more time.

Jun 17, 2009 - 4:21 am 8. Old Soldier:

Old school communists don’t care about freedom or democracy.

My lesson from this – keep your guns. The Iranians would be done with this revolution already if they were not unarmed peasants fighting against a well armed Revolutionary Guard (ironic name now).

Jun 17, 2009 - 4:27 am 9. Gary Ogletree:

Our Mussolini wannabe hates to see totalitarians toppled. It’s so discouraging.

Jun 17, 2009 - 5:03 am 10. Broadsword:

The Pres. can deliver a strongly worded apology, and a mumbling statement prefaced by “Let me be clear”, and an weak statement summoning up his moral equivalency, but all moral distinctions are above his “pay grade”.

Jun 17, 2009 - 5:08 am 11. Paul -Indiana:

Are you still glad that you voted for Obama?

Jun 17, 2009 - 5:10 am 12. Terry Gain:

Barack Obama refuses to lend verbal support to the people of Iran in their desire for some democratic reform because he doesn’t want to hurt his chances of sweet talking the mullahs and Ahmadinejad out of their nuclear ambitions. His thinking, such as it is, does not take into account two realities.

Firstly, there is no chance – none whatsoever-that he will talk the mullahs and Ahmadinejad out of forsaking nuclear weapons. Secondly, the only possible way of peacefully preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons is to replace the theocracy with some form of democratic government that is more interested in providing for its people than in menacing its neighbors.

The inchoate revolution in Iran should be vigorously supported by all western nations.
The arrogance and narcissism of Obama is standing in the way of progress. Ironically, he is against hope and change in Iran

Jun 17, 2009 - 5:26 am 13. AThinkingPerson:

I’m thinking you’re giving Obama way too much credit. His non-approach to the current Iran crisis is ominous? I don’t believe he’s that far sighted. This is one instance where his timidity and smoothness will not cover up an obvious lack of a solid viewpoint. The Iranians are now almost demanding he take a stand and come out in support of their uprising and he just can’t muster it.

This is his “present” vote on the world stage. He mustered up more emotion when Dr. Tiller was shot. I think that about sums him up. Unfortunately not much hides beneath the surface once scratched.

Jun 17, 2009 - 5:26 am 14. Terry Gain:

**out of forsaking **

into forsaking Hmm, seems I shouldn’t have forsook editing.

Jun 17, 2009 - 5:36 am 15. Mike2:

Mr. Simon, good essay and I agree, it is a bit mystifying as to why Obama doesn’t make a stronger statement. He could certainly do so without appearing to intervene. We all know that there is a fine line that needs to be walked here but at least he could praise the bravery of the protesters or something. For me, I think # 2 Godzilla has a good point:
“I believe, he has a totalitarian heart”.

Obama laid it all out for me when he made the “we are the ones we are waiting for” speech in Berlin last summer. There are some real issues of overweening megalomania with the man that we have never seen before in an American president, not even Clinton.

Jun 17, 2009 - 5:43 am 16. Blackwater:

The only problem I have with the Iranian uprising it that it seems to be more political than ideological. They aren’t really crying out for more freedom and liberty but instead are just upset that the islamist nut they supported had the election stolen by a slightly worse islamist nut. They aren’t burning pictures of the “Supreme Leader” and the mullahs while demanding an end to the barbaric and backwards islamist theocracy. They’re burning pictures of their current puppet President while heaping praise on an alternative puppet President who founded hezbollah, wants to destroy Israel and America, and who founded their nuclear weapons program. So this doesn’t really seem to be a genuine cry for real reform. It would be as if people in America went insane because they felt Obama stole the election in 2008. I think we have to be honest and just admit that Iran – just like most muslim majority countries and minority enclaves – is insane and brainwashed like nobodies business who likes being ruled by islamist dictators. Muslims simply seem to prefer a mob like society with a strong dictator. That’s what islam does to people. It makes them ignorant, backwards and fanatical about ruining their own country and other countries. So when they start bruning pictures of the “Supreme Leader” and are calling out for an end to islamic theocracy THEN I’ll be impressed. But that doesn’t mean we should pass up the oppurtunity to achieve that goal even if they don’t really support it. Maybe this uprising will result in the overthrowing of the theocracy and the start of a new civilized and modern Iran. And we should be doing everything we can to make that happen. But unfortunately what will most likely happen is the Iranian islamist theocract despots will make some small minor concessions or the regime will seriously crackdown on the uprising similar to the Chinese and the uprising will be squashed and move on. So yay for decades of more crazy ass Iran. Sorry to be pessimistic but it’s probably true.

Jun 17, 2009 - 5:45 am 17. Margie:

Obama chose the wrong side of everything a long time ago. He tries to smooth it over to the fools who voted for him.

Jun 17, 2009 - 5:53 am 18. homero:

…if Obama was just an oportunist I would be happier. they are predictable. Obama thinks he is the messiah …incidently so does the Iranian president.

it is a wounder he can fit his ego into airforce one.

Jun 17, 2009 - 5:55 am 19. News Blurbs! Get Your News Blurbs Here!!! | DEEP BRAIN DIARY:

[...] Wingnuttery REALLY wants Obama to press “the stupid button” and turn the Iranian crisis red, white and blue.

Jun 17, 2009 - 6:10 am 20. Fragmentarian:

To the thoroughly modern postmodernist, just as Reverend Wright’s church was as valid as any other, there can be no real difference between the USA and Iran. They have every right to be themselves and we shouldn’t even have an opinion.

Jun 17, 2009 - 6:13 am 21. Webutante:

He’s silent, Roger, because unless he can be the hero/messiah in this mess, he doesn’t want to get in the act…I do think he wants to negotiate the nuclear thing with A-jad on the world stage and right now for him, the theater of opportunity only offers him a supporting role, to put it in screenwriters’ terms.

Such a bit part is beneath our presidential actor.

Jun 17, 2009 - 6:15 am 22. tanstaafl:

(Obama) has done little in public beyond expressing “deep concern” on two occasions while making the point that any strong American comment on the Iranian election would only play into the hands of the mullahs, allowing them to blame the crisis on the Great Satan.

In typical relativist, postmodern fashion, this President said yesterday words to the effect…”hey, Mousavi and A’jad aren’t that different, so what’s the big deal ?”

While it’s true that A’jad’s main challenger may be loyal to the ayatollah and has not such a great personal history in Iranian politics, this comment of Obama’s completely glosses over the real point of the struggle against opppression going on in Iran.

This US President doesn’t seem to be particularly interested in that freedom fight. A cynic would say that he only cares about the situation in Iran (and the recent anti-Hezbollah vote in Lebanon) to the extent that he claims credit that his Cairo speech was/is the motivating factor for such impulses to reject Islamic tyranny.

Jun 17, 2009 - 6:31 am 23. jd:

I’m wondering if maybe Obama doesn’t want to get involved in anything that would delay his ramming through single payor healthcare and cap and trade. An international crisis, a change in Iran’s leadership, would shift attention away from his domestic agenda. Obama still seems to be in “campaign mode”. Maybe he just doesn’t want to deal with a crisis away from home.

Jun 17, 2009 - 6:47 am 24. Anita Hope:

What is even more surprising is how our elected representatives our following Pres. Obama’s lead. It is like they have been put under hypnotic suggestion, he says what he wants and they do it. In just a few short months government has taken control of big business and now started what we can see back in our history books as “Socialistic Dictatorship”. This is so very scary and as the news media continues to also be under hypnotc suggestion, we our loosing what we hold so very dear, our freedom of choice. #7 said it “someone is being played for a sucker”
Pres. Obama has used the class structure to win his election, and the Pres. of Iran has done the same, our country needs more of what he is doing to wake up and Iran is finally more than not, awake. In our country we have a saying, “It takes one to know one”.

Jun 17, 2009 - 6:52 am 25. George Atkisson:

Why aren’t a few thousand of Saddam’s left-over AK-47’s being smuggled into Iran from Iraq? It’s not like the weapons and ammo aren’t there. A simple nod to the Iraqui’s who hate Iran anyway, and there wouldn’t even be any of Obama’s fingerprints on the deal. If the Iranian protesters can defend themselves, the odds of a ‘Tianamen Square’ solution go way down.

Jun 17, 2009 - 6:53 am 26. Jerry:

To everyone who is concerned about the direction of the Obama regime, I recommend “The Road to Serfdom” by F.A. Hayek. His academic style is well-above the average mystery and reflects his Austrian (thus, German) sentence complexity. However, he writes as though he is referring directly to the policies we see being put into place. One quote from one of his essays (Freedom and the Economic System (1939):

“In the end agreement that planning is necessary, together with inability of the democratic assembly to agree on a particular plan, must strengthen the demand that the government, or some single individual, should be given powers to act on their own responsibility. It becomes more and more the accepted belief that , if one wants to get things done, the responsible director of affairs must be freed from the fetters of democratic procedure.”

He refers to both German National Socialism and Russian Communism, but it sounds like the road down which we are headed – inadvertent totalitarianism.

May I take this opportunity to mention again that I am supporting Sheila Bair, current head of the FDIC, for the Republican candidate for President. A woman, but with none of the Palin vulnerability; an intellectual that can debate Obama without referring to her notes, an American with roots in our culture, a politician without Obama’s predatory history. (He refers to the lying and cheating associated with winning the nomination and the presidency as engaging in a hard-fought campaign.)

Jun 17, 2009 - 7:07 am 27. Hotpatch 6:

Maybe the reason Obama voted “present” again is because no matter what the outcome of the so-called Iranian “revolution”, we will still end up with a bunch of bloodthirsty Shia Muslims in charge. What is the up side of that?

Jun 17, 2009 - 7:16 am 28. Roger L Simon:

‘Maybe the reason Obama voted “present” again is because no matter what the outcome of the so-called Iranian “revolution”, we will still end up with a bunch of bloodthirsty Shia Muslims in charge.”
‘
How do you know that, Hotpatch 6? It may not be that simple. Give the Iranian people a chance. There are a lot of terrific ones. I have met them.

Jun 17, 2009 - 7:25 am 29. J. Oliver:

Without the current regime in Iran, Obama has no bargaining power with Israel, and no threat of imminent nuclear capability with which to keep Netanyahu in line. In addition, Obama alone wants to be the one responsible for lessening that threat, and imagines that talks with A-jad will bring that about. He cannot fathom, or accept, the possibility that the people of Iran will beat him to it. By this reasoning, Obama cannot and will not say anything to the Iranians who are risking their lives that will acknowledge the power they hold.

Jun 17, 2009 - 7:26 am 30. joe buzz:

And Putin warning Obama about raising taxes ; Putin slams Obama tax plan… we are surely living in some Whiskey Tango times.

h/t GP

Jun 17, 2009 - 7:27 am 31. Instapundit » Blog Archive » VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: “One can sympathize with worry not to undermine the resistance by being tied t…:

[...] UPDATE: Related thoughts from Roger Simon. [...]

Jun 17, 2009 - 7:27 am 32. Dark Eden:

The theory that Muslims can’t handle democracy has been pretty much destroyed with Iraq, though the left seems to still hold onto this. It really strikes me as simple racism/religionism/some-kind-of-ism to say that this revolution won’t matter because ‘blood thirtsy shia’ will still be in charge.

Jun 17, 2009 - 7:39 am 33. Sebastian Shaw:

President Obama is an opportunist who is in for his own power–not to protect America or US; he wants to be a dictator.

Therefore, his spineless waffling is exactly what I expect from someone who has no moral compass since his foundations are built on moral relativism.

Furthermore, hints were shown when Russia invaded Georgia during the campaign; it took Obama 2 weeks to respond. Why? President Obama needs a script. He cannot function without a script.

Jun 17, 2009 - 7:46 am 34. tanstaafl:

Putin’s looking to re-establish Russian empire.

Kim Jong Il is on his last legs & shooting his wad.

Arachnidjihad is a crumbly weasel that The One™ won’t criticize too heavily as said One still wants to negotiate with him on nukes to serve his own egoistic ambitions.

One™ doesn’t even seem to realize that question of nukes with Norks and mullahs is non-negotiable.

Jun 17, 2009 - 7:47 am 35. X Contra:

Nina Easton said something interesting this morning about how weak Obama’s words were. She compared him to Pope John Paul II, speaking to those huge crowds in Poland prior to 1989.

Easton: He used “code” to talk with them.

Good. A strong message that lit up the crowds but did not turn the Sov tank divisions loose. I blogged up her comment today, because there is also something more to John Paul II’s words.

As for Obama, it shows me that, although he is reputed to be smart, he is not smart enough to speak clear and strong for freedom.

John Paul II was clearly smarter than just about everyone, but even Reagan was smarter than Obama?

So Roger’s comments about Obama’s character, I would extend them to his intelligence: Weak.

Jun 17, 2009 - 7:49 am 36. Professor Guvinoff:

So much posturing and fakery behind the teleprompter, how can we believe anything this guy says?

He is not sincere about his plan to negociate with the theocracy, either. If he was, he’d be doing the smart thing, showing strength and resolve, right now! Speaking in support of the youth desperately trying to find their voice, and patrolling the gulf with an aircraft carrier and its escort. What’s so complicated and mysterious about this?

You don’t negociate without a precise inventory and readiness of the assets at your disposal to back your words with. Trumpeting that he was in favor of negociating was only the instinctive response of the ultimate political animal. To this kind of people, the danger of a nuclear Iran is an abstraction, and he will only talk about it to sound good, not to mean it.

Trying to manipulate the world with the power of words, he finds himself paralyzed when there is something real to talk about.

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:02 am 37. Stepan:

Obama needs a the Thugocracy in Iran to pressure the Israeli’s to give up more territory to the Palestinians, so that his bow to King Abdullah will not be in vain.

Why would he want to government in Iran to fail?

He wants it to succeed!

A mind really is a terrible thing to waste, isn’t it?

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:04 am 38. JAY:

If you start with the assumption that Obama is pro mullah and opposed to freedom, then everything he has said makes sense. He is in sympathy with the thugs running Iran. The Iranian governing approach is the one he is moving the US toward. Ask yourself what does ACORN more resemble the student protesters or the government organized counter protesters?

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:12 am 39. Hyphenated American:

Obama wants to use Iran as an enforcer against Israel. So it makes perfect sense for him to be silent.
http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2009/06/events-in-iran-complicate-obamas-plans.html

A better question is – where is Dick Cheney?
Why can’t he come out and make a strong speech in support of Iranian dissidents?
http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-iranian-dissidents-and-american.html

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:14 am 40. toad:

There have been discussions about whether Obama operates from malice or ineptitude. I’m coming around to the view that it is malice and indifference. He plain doesn’t care what happens in Iran. He throws a lot of stuff against the wall. Some sticks and give him more power, the ones that don’t stick distract people from the ones that do. IMHO it won’t bother him a bit if the US becomes a third world country with a few bombed out cities as long as he and his are in charge of the peasants.

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:20 am 41. Claude Hopper:

Obama won’t support the Iranian demonstrators because he wants dominance in the US similar to the Mullah’s dominance in Iran.

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:24 am 42. tanstaafl:

Ask yourself what does ACORN more resemble the student protesters or the government organized counter protesters?

I’ve had the thought, vote suppression and manipulation are right up Obama’s alley.

No big deal that A’jad was declared the winner very shortly after the close of voting, with millions upon millions of hand marked paper ballots to be counted.

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:42 am 43. Delia:

Decisions aren’t exactly Mr. 0’s strong suit.

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:45 am 44. straightman:

What Obama wants more than anything is not to be seen as treading in the path of George W. Bush.

Hey, Roger et al — exactly what support did the Bush administration give to Iran’s opposition? If the Bush administration was frenetically aiding the Iranian opposition, and Obama has turned its back on them, perhaps you could explain why the opposition languished for eight years and has sprung to life only after Bush departed the scene?

thnx!

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:47 am 45. apodoca:

How can you expect Obama to condemn something with which he finds no fault? Remember, Obama is the man who believes that genocide is no cause for intervention. The best thing that can be said about Barack Obama is that he has an rather Islamic indifference to life.

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:50 am 46. Howard Veit:

It’s not that simple (see here: http://oraculations.blogspot.com/2009/06/inside-iran.html)for a detailed report on the extent of the Mullahs control of the entire economy. The demonstrators have no guns or money while the Mullahs have guns, money and oil and are not helpless on the international stage. This is a thugocracy and make no mistake, they can and might just start shooting demonstrators.

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:51 am 47. Delia:

44. straightman,

The ‘Bush’ days are over. Is that seriously all you’ve got? That dead horse has been beaten to a pulp.

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:51 am 48. straightman:

Delia, you didn’t answer my question.

thnx!

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:52 am 49. tanstaafl:

…why the opposition languished for eight years and has sprung to life only after Bush departed the scene?

Undoubtedly, it was Obama’s Cairo speech, finally giving c-hope to all the millions of miserably oppressed living under the nuke happy religious fanatics in Iran.

It couldn’t possibly be the near total destruction of parlimentary process inside Iran (mullahs say who can join the Majlis and mullahs said who could run for President) and the dashing of some form of vague c-hope represented by Mousavi.

No, it must be the departure of Bushhitler and the advent of Barry that caused it all.

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:57 am 50. kevIN:

straightman -

some simple googling would show you that under Bush there was increased funding for Iranian dissidents.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article731445.ece

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:57 am 51. kevIN:

and Obama has reduced funding
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124424627384290569.html

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:59 am 52. Edward:

I think some of the commenter alluded to this. But my take is that Obama sees no personal benefit to saying anything strong. Remember this guy used to vote present all the time in the IL legislature. If you take no stand at the beginning of an event, then at the end you can take the stand of the winning side.

If the protestors win, with no help from Obama, he can say see I was right not to say anything and who in our Media is ever going to tell or ask him that they won in spite of him.

If the Mullahs win he can say see I was right not to get involved in their domestic affairs and begin negotiating with them to give them Nuclear power, and the Bomb. And no one in our media is ever going to ask him about all the people who are being killed in the Iranian streets.

Jun 17, 2009 - 9:00 am 53. Edward:

Another thought, as to the protestors and if they win you are just going to get another dictator in the same system. I would not bet on that, remember Iran is not the U.S. protestors are being killed and you do not risk you life to get more of the same. If they win the Mullahs lose, because the Mullahs are the ones who rigged the election and order the protestors killed. Nothing happens in the Iranian Gov. without the Mullahs blessing.

The protestors know this.

Jun 17, 2009 - 9:17 am 54. kytraveler:

I agree with Roger completely as to Obama’s character plus I think I know the answer to some of his questions. I believe that, in his heart, Obama does not believe in democracy at all. You can see it when he makes statements like the statement about the people “clinging to their guns and religion”. He has a disdain for the “common man” and doesn’t believe we are capable of ruling our own affairs as they should be run – we need politicians and government bureaucrats to do order our lives. Look at both him and his wife – they know nothing about business and the creation of wealth through honest business. Instead of encouraging young people to work and create wealth they advise them to avoid working for profit and instead to devote their lives to “helping” someone – in other words, live on the public dole at the support of the taxpayers while ordering other people’s lives and manipulating political events through “community organizing”, etc.
This man Obama is a piece of work that the American people are going to deeply regret. Hopefully it won’t be too late when we all wake up to what he really is.
And as to his non-support of democracy in Iran he is the biggest disgrace of a President we have had since Jimmy Carter. It is sickening to see this opportunity pass. It is almost as bad as George H. W. Bush sitting by after the first Gulf War while Saddam slaughtered the people who rose up in rebellion thinking they had the support of the US.

Jun 17, 2009 - 9:19 am 55. Sherab Zangpo:

#8 OLD SOLDIER

You wrote:

“Old school communists don’t care about freedom or democracy.”

Bingo !

And yes, this makes all of them “reactionaries”: they want to bind the world to their ideology instead of running ahead with history. And if history is history, it is history of Freedom.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Jun 17, 2009 - 9:25 am 56. sjc-tx:

Edward…

Are you old enough to remember the situation with Iran in the 80s?? This was not A-jad and Mullahs… That was Mousavi and Kholmani. The protesters are not necessarily making the “right” choice. I think many are just pissed cause their vote was not counted…. (hmmm maybe we should have taken to the streets like violent animals when our votes weren;t counted in the primary…)

What scares me most is, not WHO gets the win, but that ANYONE of this backward, patriarchal, single-minded society has access to nucs. And their support by/for N Korea.

Jun 17, 2009 - 9:29 am 57. Brad:

I tend to agree with Blackwater #16. But that masses of people, and it looks like mostly young people, are expressing their desire to “choose” the own nutjob, is a good start down a better road. Choosing which Islamist maniac is better than told which one (as is now being attempted), for if they can get used to choosing, then maybe down the road they’ll begin to choose saner types. Like they do in Iraq now, no thanks to morons like straightman.

Jun 17, 2009 - 9:49 am 58. Lightnin' Hopkins:

straightman:

What most commenters are asking for is a firm condemnation of the violence and election fraud by our president. Solidarity with the souls within Iran that yearn to be free from the odious tyranny they suffer under the mullahs. Thus far, he cannot bring himself to make this simple, decent gesture.

Say what you will about President Bush (why stop now?) but he was consistent on the basic principles of freedom and democracy, in situation after situation all over the world.

Click on the following link and give us another smug retort – then don’t let the facts smack you in the head on your way back to HuffPo:

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/06/bush-stood-with-democracy-activists.html

P.S., What is it with O!bots that they have to end every post with “thanx!” or “peace!”? Seriously.

Jun 17, 2009 - 10:00 am 59. hermie:

The ‘Won’ wants a powerful Iran because without it, Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists would not be financed as well as they are now. Iran’s building a bomb is Ok to him because like his long-time spritual mentor, and ‘beloved uncle-figure’, the ‘Zionists’ need to be destroyed. Why else would Obama feel the need to interfere and threaten Israel while being concerned about the US appearing too harsh regarding Iran, hezbollah and Hamas?

Jun 17, 2009 - 10:05 am 60. Moderato:

Very few of us really know what’s going on inside Iran. Caution is the correct policy for the time being.

Jun 17, 2009 - 10:07 am 61. Dave:

Straightman, I must have missed the comparable event when President Bush failed to support real Democracy in any part of the world. (You know. The kind with freedom of speech and real choices.) In fact, shortly before leaving office, he spoke very strongly in his support of Democracy in that part of the world. Are you really trying to give Obama credit for these events. Had McCain been elected, would these people have suddenly no longer wanted freedom and democracy?

Bush criticizes Iran in pro-democracy speech

I personally think these events would have happened regardless, but International pressure may be the difference between real change and a brutal crushing of the movement. In the mean time, out President votes present. Too busy nationalizing large chunks of the private sector and crushing private enterprise to be bothered, no doubt.

Jun 17, 2009 - 10:14 am 62. The Shadow:

Let see – no wne remebers Eisenhauers’ reaction to the Hungarian revolt in 57. Bush to Tienanamen Square? The question is what is our power to effect change there – Are the policies of the opposition candidate different than what we have now. Is the most important issue how to preven the spread of nuclear weapons to Iran? If so, what is the best way to handle this crisis? I thinkso far Obama is handling teh situation just right. He is not playing this the political way teh neocons would like. Thank God

Jun 17, 2009 - 10:21 am 63. Jack’s Newswatch » Blog Archive » Third march planned in Iran as reformists are arrested (2):

[...] come across several web entries today wondering why Obama is remaining largely silent in regards to the Iran situation.

Jun 17, 2009 - 10:24 am 64. Self-hating Boomer:

We can’t judge other cultures, but we can judge (and arm twist) Israel. News flash! Israel is a foreign country in the middle east. If you can’t judge Iran, you can’t judge Israel, either.

Jun 17, 2009 - 10:24 am 65. Carl Sesar:

As others have already pointed out, Barry wants A’jad in there, so they can make things tough for Israel. As for the bomb, if Barry could negotiate a deal with him to give up the bomb, hey, Barry’ll look real good, of course. But that isn’t gonna happen, and Barry knows it. What our Barry wants is for A’jad to get the bomb, and then drop it on Israel. That’s right, and sad to say, most of the world will cheer him. Barry’s a Jeremiah Wright poodle, Louis Farrakhan groupie, Rashid Khalidi A-student, and William Ayers creation, all wrapped up in one spiteful, protracted adolescent.

Jun 17, 2009 - 10:39 am 66. gclarke:

Mr. Simon, I don’t know what you are talking about. I have been fixed in my political views since Eisenhower was president, and a fervent anti-communist because “communism,” or monopolistic capitalism as Lenin and Stalin practiced it, is based on imposing a tyrannical state apparatus controlled by a small group of people that ultimately becomes one person. Since Alger Hiss and before, every leftist I ever heard of supported tyranny exactly for that reason. They looked up to every Mussolini strong man who could make the trains run in time as a matter of, mouth-watering envy I imagine.

So Obama is no different. Big surprise. In looking at the Mullahs, I am sure Obama says, “There but for the Grace of lower case fate, go I.” Since his Cairo speech and US abasement shows he admires the Mullahs more than the prior occupant of the Big White House he now lives in, it is no surprise that he loves tyranny. Leftists always do. I don’t know what the big surprise is, but to traditional William F. Buckley conservatives like me, there is no surprise.

Jun 17, 2009 - 10:46 am 67. Meryl:

“almost every Iranian I have talked with would like to see a more fervent declaration of democratic principles…”

“But he waffles. Why?”

Going by what is in front of our lying eyes, I think it’s because he does not have fervant convictions about democratic principles.

Keep in mind who he is: he did not grow up in the United States of America. He does not have instinctive love, loyalty or admiration either for American history or America’s elevation of individualism and personal liberty.

How few flags are seen at democrat functions, public and private.

How seldom are the words “personal liberty”, “American excellence” or “pride of ownership” spoken in his presence by those who are in his good favor.

He doesn’t like us, Mr. Simon. He doesn’t like America.

I am surprised that his handlers think he can afford the negative PR by being so obvious in his unAmerican persuasians. But he’s on a power trip that apparently nobody who has the authority to, is willing to interrupt.

Jun 17, 2009 - 10:55 am 68. Free Hat:

11. Paul -Indiana: Are you still glad that you voted for Obama?

Very much so.

What kind of “revolution” would be going on right now if John “Bomb, bomb, bomb – bomb, bomb Iran” McCain had been elected and had listened to his Republican advisors and the crazy voice in his head and bombed Iran?

Do you really think a popular revolution would be taking place now if the country were bombed half to hell as the Republicans have been itching to?

Of course not. Ahmadinejad would have used the deaths of civilians to rally the people around the government, blame America for their suffering, and business would continue as usual.

Bombing Iran = Iranians hating America instead of their tyrannical rulers = no revolution = no Democracy for Iran.

Retarded Republican foreign policy at its worst.

Jun 17, 2009 - 10:55 am 69. ic:

Obama is learning what to do, and what not to do in 2012, e.g. manufacture just enough votes, a landslide but not a huge one. He would love to send his ACORN to learn from his colleague in Iran.

Jun 17, 2009 - 10:58 am 70. Professor Guvinoff:

@65, Carl Sesar.

I agree, sadly. How about electing a mature person with understanding of, and grateful for, America and liberty the next time around?

Jun 17, 2009 - 10:58 am 71. Edward:

sjc-tx

I’m 43 I do remember the eighties. Also, seem to remember that Iran before the Islamic revolution was rather western under the Shah and if not for “the great all knowing” Jimmy Carter pulling his support we would not have this mess. It was not always like it is today.

From Wikipedia Iran-Israel relations:

From the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 until the Iranian Revolution and the fall of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979, Israel and Iran maintained close ties. Israel viewed Iran as a natural ally as a non-Arab power on the edge of the Arab world, in accordance with David Ben Gurion’s concept of an alliance of the periphery. Israel had a permanent delegation in Tehran which served as an unofficial de facto embassy. After the Six Day War, Iran supplied Israel with a significant portion of its oil needs and Iranian oil was shipped to European markets via the joint Israeli-Iranian Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline. Brisk trade between the countries continued until 1979. [1]Israeli construction firms and engineers were active in Iran. Iranian-Israeli military links were kept secret, but they are believed to have been wide-ranging.[2] In spite of this, Iran voted in support of the UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 in 1975 which equated Zionism with racism (the resolution, however, was later revoked with Resolution 4686 in 1991, which post-revolution Iran voted against). However, Iran and Israel embarked on joint military projects, such as Project Flower, an Iranian-Israeli attempt to develop a new missile.

Not the closests of friends but the Shah was not saying he wanted to Nuke Isreal.

Again, I can not believe that all they want is the same dictatorial system with a different guy. But as I write this I seem to remember people saying if Obama was not elected that there would have been riots. So you never know, they could be that stupid. But as a conservative, I never underestimate the power of the individual. Let’s hope that they are not that stupid.

Jun 17, 2009 - 11:03 am 72. ZZMike:

“His principle contribution appears to have been nothing more than spending billions of dollars will-nilly in a manner no one seems to be able to comprehend or track.”

Two points to the first reader to find the spelling error in that one. (No, it isn’t “will-nilly”.)

I think our Glorious Leader is developing a Napoleon complex.

“… – that he stills wants to negotiate the nuclear situation with A-jad.”

Let’s see how well he does with the Kim dynasty. And let’s see how well Mrs Clinton does with the two hostages in North Korea. She promises us she’ll do “everything we can” to bring about their release.

For once, she’s not lying. The fact is, there is nothing we can do, and she’s doing that very well.

Jun 17, 2009 - 11:08 am 73. gclarke:

Free Hat:

I hate to agree with you but you may be right that lack of bombing may have acclimated Iranians to emulate the democracy that Bush delivered for the Muslims on Iran’s borders, both East and West. But because I as a Republican did not want the Iranian nuclear program bombed does not mean that I did not support Michael Ledeen’s proposal to use American influence in the area to support the Iranian Democratic Movement. This was my proposal, after Ledeen, not bombing. Methinks you blacken the right with too broad a brush. I certainly think when the Iranian Gestapo infiltrated Iraq to kill and blow up our messengers of freedom in US uniform, we could have surreptitiously reciprocated in kind. I am sure for the support of our Brave Troops you agree, so at least now we have common ground.

Jun 17, 2009 - 11:13 am 74. kevIN:

so Free Hat, you want to live in a society that is run by one party? Without someone promoting freedom and democracy for others. By your standards perhaps Hugo Chavez would be even a better president.

Jun 17, 2009 - 11:14 am 75. Meryl:

34.tanstaafl
“One™ doesn’t even seem to realize that question of nukes with Norks and mullahs is non-negotiable.”

In his world view, they are not non-negotiable.

Jun 17, 2009 - 11:26 am 76. Free Hat:

74. kevIN: “so Free Hat, you want to live in a society that is run by one party? Without someone promoting freedom and democracy for others. By your standards perhaps Hugo Chavez would be even a better president.”

Uhhh…..what the hell are you talking about?

Jun 17, 2009 - 11:35 am 77. Blackwater:

@32

Well I think we just have to be honest. I’m extremely dissapointed by the reaction of muslims around the world to both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Had we done the same thing in Eastern Europe during the Cold War the Eastern European Christians would have raised our soldiers into the air, stripped their clothes and made love to them right in the middle of the street. Muslims on the other hand used TERRORISM against their American and coalition LIBERATORS. What a bunch of insane backwards ingrates. Can you imagine living under a regime like they had under Saddam in Iraq or under the taliban in Afghanistan? You’re telling me you wouldn’t welcome liberation from a foreign coalition of civilized nations who have your best interests at heart? Because make no mistake, we ARE there to help both Iraq and Afghanistan. We spill tons of our own blood, spend literally billions upon billions of dollars of our OWN money to help rebuild those countries and we bend over backwards not to offend them. And they HATE us for it. Screw them. Screw muslims and screw the middle east. They’re literally insane. Not to mention extremely backwards, imperialistic, violent, oppressive and ignorant.

Jun 17, 2009 - 11:44 am 78. Rick:

“but almost every Iranian I have talked with would like to see a more fervent declaration of democratic principles” I don’t think it’s in him to make such a declaration. He doesn’t believe in those words and doesn’t see a reason to even give them lip-service. That’s what scares me about this guy we elected. I’m afraid Ahmadinejad & Co. are his kindred spirits – not Reagan, John Paul, Havel, Thatcher, etc. “Leaders” make decisions and the people are better seen, but not heard.

Jun 17, 2009 - 11:52 am 79. Ian Thorpe:

The President waffling?
Maybe the ventriloquist who works Obama is taking a well earned break.

Jun 17, 2009 - 11:55 am 80. Войска ПВО:

Put me down as one who thinks President Training Pants is just plain dumb and way in over his head on this one — as he is with everything else.

I know I keep harping on this, but we all saw this coming when Russia got into it with Georgia last Summer. Do you remember how McCain and others came out with the strong denunciations and hard-edged words decrying Russia’s incursion?

Markedly late on the scene was our Dear Exalted One, the darling candidate vacationing in Hawaii at the time. He shuffles out in his Bermudas and flip-flips, gives us his deer-in-the-headlight stare, mumbles something to an adoring press, and shuffles back inside to take a smoke.

..and this is different from what he is doing now how?

Jun 17, 2009 - 12:09 pm 81. Wolf:

I do believe Blackwater @16 nailed it. There seems to be something in the content of the Koranic cosmology that prevents its adherents from recognizing what’s in their best interests and to solve all their problems by killing the source. Truely, the best outcome of this kerfuffle in Iran will simply be a rearranging of the deck chairs.

Jun 17, 2009 - 12:14 pm 82. tanstaafl:

Meryl, #75, Barack has said that a nuclear weaponized iran is “unacceptable” and has also magnaminously proffered (it’s part of his style) that Iran has a “right” to develop a capacity for nuclear power.

The single truth is that both North Korea and Iran are hellbent on having a deliverable nuclear weapon. Both countries have been playing the so called “negotiation” game for a very long time while, all the while, consistently working towards their shared single goal, even in tandem, with North Korea & Iran sharing nuclear and missile material and technology.

All the alleged negotiation is really some kind of very bad joke, the UN’s just passed resolution to attempt to regulate what’s heading to Iran out of North Korea on ships included. (some shipment from NK to Iran was recently interdicted coming up overland through Africa)

Anyway, Barack’s ego is such that, on personality alone, he seems to feel he can affect all this behavior and get both countries’ respective nutjobs to see his version of The Light.

Jun 17, 2009 - 12:16 pm 83. Moogie:

Obama may be silent on the Iran situation, but he’s being loud and clear on the nationalized institutionalized socialized totalitarianized health care “plan” and on extending ever more power to the bankrupt and corrupt Fed.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned. We’re being distracted by events outside our borders, when right here, inside our borders, our liberties, freedom, and the “thing” that makes America different are being flushed down the White House toilet.

#16 Blackwater: I think you have it exactly right. The people wanted a steak knife, not a butcher’s knife. A knife is a knife: they both cut.

Jun 17, 2009 - 12:31 pm 84. Claire Solt:

Stop and think how bad Iran has been, not just with nukes but is sponsoring terrorism. The upside could be huge. Indifference is just dumb.

Those who wonder if this is just about elections should know that once the people hit the streets a movement can coalesce and become a revolution.

Jun 17, 2009 - 12:43 pm 85. Pastorius:

Anyone who thinks this is a “non-story”, such as CNN, many right-wing bloggers, and apparently, our President, does not realize,

this is not about Mousavi, and it is not about the Mullahs. It is about the people of the country of Iran.

Additionally, even if the people want a kinder, gentler totalitarian Islamist, we could still use the situation to unsettle the government of Iran while they are in the midst of building nuclear weapons.

Jun 17, 2009 - 12:50 pm 86. tanstaafl:

So when they start bruning pictures of the “Supreme Leader” and are calling out for an end to islamic theocracy THEN I’ll be impressed.

Right now, that would be certain death or lifelong imprisonment in Iran.

Yesterday, Barack referred to Khameini as “The Supreme Leader” thereby (paraphrasing C. Krauthammer) legitimizing a foul tyrant.

Obama may well be more comfortable with King Abdul than he is with leaders of those lousy old western democracies, thereby explaining “the bow” and all the nice things he had to say about Islam and “The Holy Koran” recently in Cairo.

Jun 17, 2009 - 12:50 pm 87. Fred2:

Obama’s comments will not impact the behavior of the Iranian government nor the protesters; They are both fighting as hard as they can for their sides.

Obama’s words will effect the possible support demonstrations around the world, and other governments. If marchers from Mexico City to Beijing hold up signs that say “Where’s Irans Vote?” that could have an impact. And Obama can help that along.

Jun 17, 2009 - 1:19 pm 88. Ms. Attitude:

68. Free Hat:

Where’s your proof that Iran would’ve been bombed if McCain had been elected?

You must have one powerful crystal ball…you can see the future and what the future would be like if things were different. hmmmm…..

Jun 17, 2009 - 1:21 pm 89. Free Hat:

Blackwater: Well I think we just have to be honest. I’m extremely dissapointed by the reaction of muslims around the world to both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Had we done the same thing in Eastern Europe during the Cold War the Eastern European Christians would have raised our soldiers into the air, stripped their clothes and made love to them right in the middle of the street. Muslims on the other hand used TERRORISM against their American and coalition LIBERATORS. What a bunch of insane backwards ingrates. Can you imagine living under a regime like they had under Saddam in Iraq or under the taliban in Afghanistan? You’re telling me you wouldn’t welcome liberation from a foreign coalition of civilized nations who have your best interests at heart? Because make no mistake, we ARE there to help both Iraq and Afghanistan. We spill tons of our own blood, spend literally billions upon billions of dollars of our OWN money to help rebuild those countries and we bend over backwards not to offend them. And they HATE us for it. Screw them. Screw muslims and screw the middle east. They’re literally insane. Not to mention extremely backwards, imperialistic, violent, oppressive and ignorant.”

Are you seriously f****ing kidding me?

We invaded Iraq, a country that posed absolutely no threat to us, and in the process unleashed utter devastation on the populace. Thousands of Iraqi civilians – women and children – murdered in their own city for absolutely no reason. We imprisoned them, tortured them, raped them, bombed them, and murdered them, in their own homes, and you actually have the gall to sit at your computer and whine about how ungrateful they are for failing to appreciate that we spent so much time and money trying to bring them Democracy.

Please tell me What f***ing good is Democracy when you can’t even leave your house because there is no law or order, and you can’t support your family because there are no jobs because there is no economy?

And you think the people in the Middle East hate America because the Koran tells them to, or because they’re inherently violent and ignorant?

No, jackass, they hate America because when they look at us they see people like you: ignorant conservative Republican morons who have absolutely no capacity to understand what it must be like for an average Iraqi family to wake up one day under American occupation, see their neighborhoods destroyed and overrun with violence, and see their friends and loved ones get dragged off to Abu Ghraib to be tortured, raped and killed simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Saddam was a cruel dictator; no one disputes that. But at least under Saddam people could go to work and school every day and scrape out a decent living. The American occupation turned Iraq into a hellhole, forcing Iraqi families to flee for their lives, and you have the audacity to scold these poor bastards for not fully appreciating the wonderful gifts of chaos, violence and death that the American occupation bestowed on them.

It sickens me that people as shockingly ignorant and conscienceless as you are actually exist.

Jun 17, 2009 - 1:22 pm 90. Dinocrat » Blog Archive » Two different reactions:

[...] thought: Roger Simon’s reflections on this matter seem pretty similar to [...]

Jun 17, 2009 - 1:25 pm 91. EdSki:

President Obama is doing exactly what he did in the state senate.

He’s voting ‘present.’

Jun 17, 2009 - 1:33 pm 92. dcc:

Ms. Attitude:

Free Hat is just engaging in Obama’s favorite tactic – erecting a ludicrous caricature as a straw man and then arguing against that.

Hey, remember when Obama told us that anybody against the “stimulus” package supposedly just wanted to do nothing? Well, Obama, in his wisdom, told us he rejected that. It was a neat trick that prevented any discussion of the actual objections to passing a bloated porkfest with no time to actually review it. Of course, his rush to push it through is coming back to haunt him…

Jun 17, 2009 - 1:39 pm 93. David M. in Europe:

We have Geert Wilders who has gut, courage and personality and Barack Hussein has no gut, no courage and no personality. Geert Wilders (a real pro-America) for President 2012 (birth certificate is not needed anymore).

Jun 17, 2009 - 1:40 pm 94. Ted:

What’s the point, Free Hat? You’ll never convince conservative reactionaries.

Jun 17, 2009 - 1:42 pm 95. Ms. Attitude:

89. Free Hat:

I seriously think you have a severe thinking problem. Life under Saddam Huessien was better than what it is today in Iraq?

Reprisal Against Dujail
Anfal Campaign
The Barzani Clan Abductions of 1983
Chemical Weapons Against Kurds
Invasion of Kuwait
Shiite Uprising & the Marsh Arabs

And don’t forget his “rape rooms,” death by torture, decisions to slaughter the children of political enemies, and the casual machine-gunning of peaceful protesters accurately reflected the day-to-day policies of Saddam Hussein’s regime.

Jun 17, 2009 - 1:44 pm 96. Chilloutyo:

Wonder how long before we see massive demonstrations, like those in Tehran and Esfahan, here in the US. Soon, I hope. Soon.

Jun 17, 2009 - 1:46 pm 97. Godzilla:

After looking at these videos , I appreciate the 2nd Amendment even more. The protesters have no real weapons with which to fight the Revolutionary Guard.

Free Hat: Wars are sometimes necessary and often can have good outcomes. For example the American Revolutionary War. I suspect that Iraq will be a beacon for the rest of the Arab world…it probably already is for the ’street’.

Jun 17, 2009 - 2:05 pm 98. Godzilla:

By the way, has the stepford media even been writing about Iraq lately?

Jun 17, 2009 - 2:08 pm 99. Godzilla:

By the way…’stepford media’ is particulary appropriate as a substitute for MSM, giving their spreadlegged whorish adoration of Obama, Fox being the lone exception.

Jun 17, 2009 - 2:10 pm 100. Free Hat:

Ms. Attitude: “I seriously think you have a severe thinking problem. Life under Saddam Huessien was better than what it is today in Iraq? “

Ms. Attitude, if anyone has a thinking problem, it’s you. You accepted without question that Saddam had WMDs and was going to attack America. You accepted without question that we had to rush to war with Iraq in order to pre-empt their attack against America. You accepted without question that there was a link between Saddam and al Qaeda. You accepted without question that we had to stay the course in Iraq, despite the protests of Iraqis wishing us to leave and let them rebuild their country and government themselves. You accepted without question that the people we were fighting in Iraq were evil insurgents rather than just Iraqi citizens trying to defend their country from foreign invasion. You accepted without question that we did not torture. Then you accepted without question that it was only a couple of bad apples doing the torturing. Then you accepted without question that torture was actually necessary to stop terrorism. Then you accepted without question that waterboarding was not torture, and that we had to use it against Iraqis in order to defend ourselves. Then you accepted without question that the information we got from torturing prevented an attack when there was absolutely no credible evidence of this.

You’ve accepted without question every single atrocious lie that has led us to this horrific situation, so it comes as absolutely no shock or surprise that you would accept without question any bull**** Republican lie that helps you reconcile all the other lies you’ve swallowed. And that includes accepting without question that Iraqis are better off now that we have destoyed their homes, families, pride and livelihood.

Jun 17, 2009 - 2:20 pm 101. Ted:

It’s already started, Chilloutyo. There was a massive demonstration outside of the David Letterman Show theater yesterday.

Jun 17, 2009 - 2:21 pm 102. Skatzbert:

“But he waffles. Why?”

Roger, Roger,… Roger.

You’ve been there, done that, (don’t know about the ‘T’ shirt).

Look at Øbamas past associations. This dude’s no mere Leftist, he’s a Marxist Revolutionary Red Communist.

Why should he care what happens to the demonstrators in Iran? He’d do the very same thing to half the people in this country if he thought he could get away with it.

Jun 17, 2009 - 2:24 pm 103. Godzilla:

Free Hat: “And that includes accepting without question that Iraqis are better off now that we have destoyed their homes, families, pride and livelihood.”

Iraquis are worse off now that they have a democratic government? I still remember seeing the cries and outpouring of joy reflected in the huge crowds after the initial invasion. The remnants of Sadaam’s goons and Al Qaeda were not fighting against the U.S. when they bombed mosques and marketplaces. For a time these tactics did in fact make living conditions for Iraquis very hard. Those conditions no longer exist, and Iraq is beginning to thrive. Your thinking that Iraq is worse off NOW is simply not a rational thought, and I suspect that you either are too emotionlly involved with these comments, that you wrote too quickly, or that you are deranged or disconnected with reality and living in the past.

Jun 17, 2009 - 2:39 pm 104. Ms. Attitude:

100. Free Hat:

Thank God, you know me so well!!! NOT! I don’t accept anything the government throws at the public. I question everything. You should try it sometime, you might learn something. Oh wait, you’d prefer to stick your head up Obama’s butt so far that fail to see how he’s crapping all over our rights. Get a grip and wake up!

As for Iraq, where I work, I’m privvy to information and you, sir, are wrong!

Jun 17, 2009 - 2:42 pm 105. X Contra:

In the movement for Iran freedom, what will be the input from Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani?

Jun 17, 2009 - 2:43 pm 106. Godzilla:

If the Iranian army sides with the people, however, the Revolutionary Guard and the Grand Theocramullah are toast. Supposedly, many of the lesser mullahs (the mullah-lites are siding with the people.

Jun 17, 2009 - 2:53 pm 107. Chilloutyo:

Ted, good snark. “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” Mahatma Ghandi. I guess you are in stage 2 above.

Jun 17, 2009 - 2:57 pm 108. tanstaafl:

I accept (without question) that Free Hat subscribes to every liberal knee jerk bromide on the planet.

Jun 17, 2009 - 3:02 pm 109. Blackwater:

@89

What does it matter from the perspective of an Iraqi, Afghan or muslim in general if Iraq posed a threat to us? Shouldn’t all they care about is the fact that they’re now FREE and have the wealthiest and most civilized armed forces in the world doing everything they can to help rebuild those countries and get back on the right track?

And we didn’t devastate those countries. They were already devastated. Especially Afghanistan which isn’t even really a country and is one of the poorest nations in the world. Iraq had a much higher degree of development but they’re still light years behind most Western countries despite having vast amounts of natural resources thanks to Saddam’s brutal incompetent regime.

And we also didn’t just start killing Iraqi civilians left and right. In urban combat when fighting against shit tons of various insurgents and islamist jihadist terrorists civilian casualties aren’t only tragic from our perspective but ENCOURAGED by the enemy. They specifically target civilians just to create unrest and choas which they thrive in and which looks scary and chaotic on the TV screens across the globe. Which influences retards like you who then think we should hoist up the white flag and let them do whatever they want to the countries they operate in.

And we shouldn’t be fighting these people to begin with! We’re there to help. Not to steal oil. Not to rape. Not to murder. Not to steal land. Not to spread Christianity. But to help build those countries into prosperous well runned nations which ensures regional and international stability. Not to mention it being the morally right thing to do and all.

Also look up France and Italy (etc) during WWII. We had to devastate large sections of those countries as well which also killed civilians which was tragic. But just like then and now we went through great pains to minimize the amount of civilians we killed. Not to mention we also tried to preserve historial buildings, religious buildings and works of arts whenever possible. Yet the French and Italians didn’t complain despite massive propaganda efforts by the Nazis to brainwash them into believing we were just bombing and killing at random. The Italian and French people KNEW we were the good guys and were there to liberate them. And the Iraqi’s and Afghans should also be smart enough to KNOW that and not pick up arms against our soldiers. But no, they’re too stupid and backwards to see we’re there to help them.

And you act like Saddan’s Iraq was some kind of paradise. Have you forgotten that he killed over 1 MILLION of his own people? How would you feel if Bush murdered over 1 million Americans and then buried them in unmarked mass graves? I lived under the kind of regime the Iraqi’s had to live under for decades I’d PRAY every night that some international force of decent nations came to liberate us. And the first thing I’d do when they came would be to JOIN them.

And the reason why they’re generally backwards, ignorant and violent IS because of islam. Winston Churchill said it best when he wrote “No stronger retrograding force exists in the world…” Islam is anti-modernity, anti-plurualism and anti-freedom. So no crap they can’t tell the difference from when they’re being liberated and when they’re being invaded. They don’t know anything about the world because most of them can’t even read or write and are brainwashed by their radical imams and state run propaganda. And I DO live “under American occupation” and it’s great. A decent legal and political system, human rights out the wazoo, a great economy, strong national security, etc, you name it!

And how can you critize America for Abu Grahib when it was USED by SADDAM as a REAL torture and rape facility? What a few sadistic American soldiers did was obviously wrong but let’s not exaggerate. If I was ever captured by the enemy I’d PRAY that the worst I’d ever have to go through is that the guards would strip me naked and take pictures of me while spanking me with a paddle. Hell I’ll bring the whipped creame.

And while Iraq was unstable for a few years after we removed Saddam that’s largely because the Iraqi’s themselves and muslims from around the world MADE it that way by filling food carts full of explosives, taking it to a food market in Baghdad, waiting for tons of men women and children to gather around it and then blow it up killing dozens. Or beheading entire villages of people for rebelling against them. Or suicide bombing Iraqi police stations. Or suicide bombing historical mosques and weddings and funerals. Or kidnapping human rights workers and beheanding them while screaming “ALLAH AKBAR!”. Yeah, that doesn’t help. It’s actually kind of counter-productive to making Iraq and Afghanistan a stable and prosperous country.

Thankfully Iraq has turned around now for the last couple years incase you didn’t know. Which is no thanks to idiots like you that advocated pulling out prematurely and shrugged your shoulders at the comments from experts in the field who warned that would lead to genocide. And the attemps by ignorant brainwashed morons like yourself to whitewash the human rights atrocities of the Saddam regime and pretend you’re some enlightened Crusader of human rights and peace is disgusting. Please do yourself and the whole world a favor by playing in traffic.

Jun 17, 2009 - 3:09 pm 110. Meryl:

If McCain had been elected:(68) “Ahmadinejad would have used the deaths of civilians… blame America for their suffering, and business would continue as usual”

obama will blame America for their suffering and business can continue as usual, because he’s sure not going to rock the Islamic boat regardless of how these immediate events turn out. He’s a scaredy cat.

Jun 17, 2009 - 3:09 pm 111. kactuz:

“Negotiate what?” You say that you don’t understand what Obama wants to negotiate with the Iranian regime.

Well, there is a lot to negotiate. Stop and think… There is that “Death to America” thing that A-jad and the Mullahs chant in every meeting and after every speech.

Maybe Obama can negociate the “Death to America” thing down to, say, 50% or so. Heck, maybe he can get it down so it is only “Death to 10% of America”.

Isn’t that a worthy goal? I mean, after all, as both Obama and Ahmadinejad agree, America is evil and so we obviously deserve some degree of death and a goal of 10% is not unreasonable. It is our fault that millions of Iranians are unhappy with their government. I mean, like, who else could be behind this terrible deed?

It is all so simple when you understand basic truths.

Kactuz

Jun 17, 2009 - 3:23 pm 112. Blackwater:

#97

Agreed. As I’m watching these protests in Iran where people are being gunned down as they protest a truely crazy islamist regime that has taken over their country, I thought “Man, THIS is one of the many reasons why we need to protect the 2nd ammendment.” I’m not an anarchist type but you never know when your own government can be taken over by some nuts of one kind or another. If it happened to Germany it can happen anywhere. If the Iranians were allowed to own guns the theocracy would have been done with by now. Same thing with the Chinese. Just goes to prove that the last thing a facist regime wants is an armed populace.

Jun 17, 2009 - 3:23 pm 113. AThinkingPerson:

Re #89 Free Hat: His/her/it’s quote:”No, jackass, they hate America because when they look at us they see people like you: ignorant conservative Republican morons who have absolutely no capacity to understand what it must be like for an average Iraqi family to wake up one day under American occupation, see their neighborhoods destroyed and overrun with violence, and see their friends and loved ones get dragged off to Abu Ghraib to be tortured, raped and killed simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. ”

Note the words: “American occupation”

Yet more proof that the uninformed, unthinking masses are sharing one brain cell. Any guesses as to why they hate America so much? I can’t figure it out for the life of me.

Jun 17, 2009 - 3:25 pm 114. Mike:

“But he waffles. Why?”

As you said, he waffles because he is an opportunist. It was opportunism that lead him to pursue a policy of “diplomacy” with Iran without preconditions. He painted himself with “appealing” qualities; he was open-minded, intellectual, and a champion of diplomacy. It was opportunism that made him wait until after the Iranian elections to begin diplomatic efforts. He gained time to deal with an imminent problem, defined the diplomatic schedule, and created the appearance that he had formed a coherent plan to deal with Iran.

However, the elections royally screwed up his plans, and now threaten to reveal the foolish nature of his foreign policy. It would no longer appear diplomatic if he dealt with a blatantly dictatorial government. At the very least, it would act to undermine the Iranian democracy, and to legitimize the elections. Also, the clock started ticking one the elections were over, so Obama is no longer in control of the schedule.

Even more disturbing, the recent events expose that Obama’s plan for dealing with Iran was not based on principles. He is not commiting to a moral position, and now Iranian dictators can find a way to use that lack of moral conviction against him. It will be difficult for Obama to defend himself against the moral attacks that will be waged when he does not control the message. The West may find a way to appreciate Obama’s measured words, but the words will be increasingly insufficient to affect change in Iran.

Obama simply has too high an opinion of himself, and trusts too much in his rhetorical ability to diffuse the necessity to answer difficult moral questions. A wiser person would know that strong policies stem from strong principles, and that policies based on equivocations are doomed.

To add to the Iranian mess, another recent event may threaten Obama’s moral character. During the presedential campaign, Obama claimed to faithfully attend church. However, Wolffe’s new book may show that he was never as faithful as he claimed. His morals will be called into question if it is shown that Obama exaggerated his faith.

Jun 17, 2009 - 3:28 pm 115. tioedong:

“…MORE: The Regime “photoshops” the pro-Ahmadinejad demonstration. [Who says they're not allied with Hezbollah?-ed]…”

uh, they are…there are reports that the gov’t there called in “security” types from Hezbollah to help because local police wouldn’t shoot demonstrators, and there is at least one report that “Arab” speaking “security police” were arresting demonstrators (not local Farsi speaking police).

And has anyone done an analysis of CNN? due to brownouts in our area of the Philippines, I haven’t watched much TV/Internet for a couple of days, but they seem to be kowtowing to the government, at least earlier in the week… I saw a report where they quoted the government poll to show the “election results” were accurate…no mention of the instantaneous counting of paper ballots, or other irregularities that ironically have been extensively reported in our local Philippine papers…

People Power in Iran?

Jun 17, 2009 - 3:38 pm 116. Reaganite Republican Resistance:

Barack Obama is clearly not qualified to be President of the United States- period. The chance to topple the maniacal regime in Tehran is right-there for the taking… and Obama is standing frozen like a deer in the headlights,

Isn’t this what George W Bush told you was going to happen in the Middle East? Maybe that’s why Barack Obama has so little apparent interest in finishing the job in Iran… no matter how much it benefits the US and free world.

Jun 17, 2009 - 4:16 pm 117. SeanLA:

Krauthammer’s Take

On Obama’s reaction to the situation in Iran:

I find the president’s reaction bordering on the bizarre. It’s not just little and late, but he had a statement today in which he welcomed the Iranian leader’s gesture about redoing some of the vote, as you indicated.

And the president has said “I have seen in Iran’s initial reaction from the supreme leader.” He is using an honorific to apply to a man whose minions out there are breaking heads, shooting demonstrators, arresting students, shutting the press down, and basically trying to suppress a popular democratic revolution.

So he uses that honorific, and then says that this supreme leader — it indicates that he understand that the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election. Deep concerns? There is a revolution in the street.

And it is not about elections anymore. It started out about elections. It’s about the legitimacy of a regime, this theocratic dictatorship in Iran, which is now at stake. That’s the point.

What we have here is a regime whose legitimacy is challenged, and this revolution is going to end in one of two ways — suppressed, as was the Tiananmen revolution in China, or it will be a second Iranian revolution that will liberate Iran and change the region and the world.

And the president is taking a hands-off attitude. Instead of standing, as Reagan did, in the Polish uprising of 1981, and say we stand with the people in the street who believe in democracy. It is a simple statement. He ought to make it.

And it is a disgrace that the United States is not stating it as simply and honestly as that.

Jun 17, 2009 - 4:55 pm 118. sheesh:

Wait a doggone minute . . . What about Carrie Prejean? What about David Letterman? What about Obama eating a hamburger . . . with mustard?! Have we lost sight of the things we thought were so critical to the survival of our Republic? People, I like ping ponging back and forth criticizing EVERYTHING Obama does as much as the next incensed conservative victim, but we have to stick with those things we hold dear . . . defending the rights of beauty pageant fame whores, whining about comedians who tell jokes we secretly think are funny but have to act outraged about instead, and of course standing up for French’s Mustard in a squeeze bottle. Don’t waver. Don’t flinch. Be a maverick! Thank you, and may gold bless each and every one of us.

Jun 17, 2009 - 4:56 pm 119. sheesh:

104. Ms. Attitude . . . “Oh wait, you’d prefer to stick your head up Obama’s butt so far that fail to see how he’s crapping all over our rights. Get a grip and wake up!”

More scat from Ms Attitude. I told you it wouldn’t take long. Right wing turd mongers. Amazing.

Jun 17, 2009 - 4:58 pm 120. sheesh:

88. Ms. Attitude: . . . “Where’s your proof that Iran would’ve been bombed if McCain had been elected? . . . You must have one powerful crystal ball…you can see the future and what the future would be like if things were different. hmmmm…..”

I don’t have a crystal ball. i have a radio. And when i turn it on I hear, “Bomb, bomb, bomb . . . bomb bomb Iran.”

Hmmm.

Jun 17, 2009 - 5:01 pm 121. Immanuel Goldstein:

Regarding Obama’s silence on Iran: it’s hard to read a teleprompter when you are cowering under the bed.

Jun 17, 2009 - 5:37 pm 122. HonestJon:

PJM in solidarity with the Iranian democracy movement

Fantastic!

From the NYT (spit, gag) : “The sense of threat against the opposition was growing. Reuters reported that Mohammadreza Habibi, the senior prosecutor in the central province of Isfahan, had warned demonstrators that they could be executed under Islamic law.”

““We warn the few elements controlled by foreigners who try to disrupt domestic security by inciting individuals to destroy and to commit arson that the Islamic penal code for such individuals waging war against God is execution,” Mr. Habibi said, according to the Fars news agency. It was not clear if his warning applied only to Isfahan, where there have been violent clashes, or the country as a whole, Reuters said.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html

I’d bet that all the protesters already know this is risking being murdered by the mullahs. Some little quote from our own country’s past keeps ricocheting around the backside of my head. It went, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Kudos to the patriotic Iranians who strive for freedom!

regards

Jun 17, 2009 - 6:41 pm 123. HonestJon:

I, Chief HonestJon, with the power vested in me as a decent human being who desires freedom for all people, do hereby appoint straightman, Ted, FreeHat, and Sheesh into the axis of evil.

I would also humbly request that they be permanently banned from PJM for two reasons: 1) none of them have our country’s interest at heart (neither do they have the Iranian people’s interest at heart); and 2) none of the above has ever put forward a coherent argument without belittling, besmirching, or insulting other posters (beside the fact that none has ever put forward a coherent argument.)

I hope you read this and take action, Mr. Simon!

regards

Jun 17, 2009 - 7:09 pm 124. M. Report:

POTUS does not protest, still called Meddler.

As for rigging the vote; The official tally

graphs as an impossibly straight line, slope

equal to the officially decided majority.

Offering support to an uprising is only

marginally worse than invasion/occupation;

I do hope, though, that our FOB, Iraq, has

been equipped with some ABMs.

Jun 17, 2009 - 7:19 pm 125. Mike Reynolds:

What I don’t get is why the vicious lunatics who run Iran even go to the trouble of ‘rigging’ the election, or stuffing the ballot boxes, etc. After all, they’re the ones who announce the results, aren’t they? Why don’t they just let the election proceed as it will & then announce whatever the hell result they want to? I don’t get it.

Jun 17, 2009 - 8:27 pm 126. sheesh:

123. HonestJon:

You’re right about this much – coherence may be your issue. I feel more than justified in offering this to you – FO

Jun 17, 2009 - 9:01 pm 127. Ted:

I feel besmirched – but that’s not what Chief HonestJon was doing – he was putting” forward a coherent argument.” LOL

Jun 17, 2009 - 9:54 pm 128. Godzilla:

Roger, this from your June 10th post: “In case you didn’t know it, Los Angeles, aka Tehrangeles, is one of the biggest Iranian cities in the world, perhaps the biggest outside Iran. According to Wikipedia, metropolitan LA has about 900,000 Iranians and descendants.”

From the current post: “No one is advocating we call out the Marines, but almost every Iranian I have talked with would like to see a more fervent declaration of democratic principles, more support for the bravery of the demonstrators, by our president.”

I wonder who the LA Iranians favored in the recent Presidential Election. Do you have any idea? I suspect they mostly voted for Obama, but I wouldn’t bet on that happening in 2012.

Jun 17, 2009 - 10:39 pm 129. Yehudit:

Godzilla, my bet would be that the American-Iranians in LA did not favor Obama. US citizens who fled oppressive regimes tend to vote for foreign policy hawks who don’t see those regimes with rose-colored glasses.

Jun 17, 2009 - 11:28 pm 130. Roger L Simon:

“Godzilla, my bet would be that the American-Iranians in LA did not favor Obama. US citizens who fled oppressive regimes tend to vote for foreign policy hawks who don’t see those regimes with rose-colored glasses.”

My guess is that, for the most part, Yehudit is correct about this. But the Iranian population of SoCal is huge, so you get all kinds, even a fair number of Regime agents, I am told.

Jun 17, 2009 - 11:32 pm 131. Gary Rosen:

Hey, sheesh, I’m not surprised you bring up Carrie Prejean when the people here are concerned about the future of liberty in Iran. Why don’t you just go back to your usual Jew-baiting?

Jun 18, 2009 - 12:02 am 132. baluc/ka:

I just thought of the worse thing you could say to/about Obama (unless someone else came up with it) that may stick with him for posterity should Obama be on the wrong side of history (which he appears to be) :

OBAMADINEJAD

Jun 18, 2009 - 12:14 am 133. Godzilla:

Yehudit and Roger: One thing is for sure, that is one large voting block. I had no idea that many Iranians were in LA. I don’t remember reading anything about them at all during the runup for the last Presidential Election. I’m feeling a little cognitive dissidence over the majority of them having favored McCain/Palin. The events taking place now weren’t even a thought 6 months ago, and logic tells me that a pro-Iranian mentality would have chosen the president that was least hostile to Iran verbally (which would be Obama, who talked about negotiating with Dinnerjacket months ago). But the events now, along with Obama’s tacit backing of the Dinnerjacket regime (given by his equivocation), and his incredibly stupid remark about it not mattering much what the outcome of the protests are, probably will doom his chances of winning much Iranian support in the future. Those videos of the murdering of students going on over there are horrifying. The Revolutionary Guards’ turning the guns on their own people after a rediculous sham of an election should eradicate the effectiveness of any attempt by the mullahs or Dinnerjacket at rousing up nationalistic pro-Iranian sentiment against the U.S, in LA or in Iran.

Jun 18, 2009 - 12:20 am 134. JPS:

Remember how in last years’ president election Obama said there are 57 states in USA. Seems it was not a mistake but a freudian lapse: there are 57 muslim (or muslim dominated) countries in the world – his true darlings.

Jun 18, 2009 - 12:33 am 135. sheesh:

131. Gary Rosen: . . . “Hey, sheesh, I’m not surprised you bring up Carrie Prejean when the people here are concerned about the future of liberty in Iran. Why don’t you just go back to your usual Jew-baiting?”

Why do any of us know the name Carrie Prejean? Because right wing media spent 2 weeks whining about some idiot named Perez Hilton. Why? Because that’s the only thing they know how to do – whimper and whine like 5-year-old brats about “values”‘ . . . kind of like this guy, who said, Bill Clinton erased his credibility by having an affair . . . Oh, sorry, that guy was John Ensign. But you’re not hearing about him Fuk Snooze, are you? You’re not reading about him on conservative blogs, are you? But there’s plenty of opportunity for you to suck your teeth in self-righteous disgust . . . “Miss California Carrie Prejean’s Odyssey: Not Very Pretty”

Now, who brought up what?

Jew baiting? Not me. You, but not me.

Jun 18, 2009 - 6:31 am 136. antaine:

Carter was inffective when the Iranian revolution (and Afghan coup of 1978) took place. To a large degree, weak Democrat foreign policy in the region has given us the fundamentalist and belligerent Middle East we see today. Even Clinton, who some have stated was stronger than other Democrats when it came to Middle East affairs, was no more wise in his overall vision.

Why should Democrat policies that create a nuclear Iran and foster fundamentalism be anything other than expected?

We aren’t going to get the Democrats to change, we can only *hope* that 2010 marks the start of a *change* in who has the decision making power in Congress and eventually the Executive in 2012. Well, we can do more than hope, and God willing, we will…

Jun 18, 2009 - 7:24 am 137. Marc Malone:

#135 sheesh – Just listen for once, please. Our indignation over Prejean is because she got robbed of the Miss America title (she was odds-on favorite before the kerfluffle), then lost her Miss CA title, because she honestly and politely answered a political question. She declared her values, which are in line with 70+% of America. For this, they persecuted her.

We simply can’t have freedom in this country, if our careers are at risk every time we speak an opinion. It is no different from persecuting someone because they SUPPORT gay marriage. We can’t have liberty, if we’re all (except the radicals) always living in fear. It’s about freedom, and it is important.

Jun 18, 2009 - 11:01 am 138. Ted:

#136 antaine

We can never forgive Jimmy Carter for the damage done by his withdrawal of US forces after the 1983 bombing of a barracks in which 241 Marines were killed. It was that shameful “cut and run” moment in American history that emboldened the terrorists to believe that we were a nation of cowards. 



Can we ever forgive Carter for providing intelligence and financial assistance during the Iran-Iraq War to Saddam’s military regime, that also allowed the shipment of “dual use” materials, which were diverted for use in Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction programs?



And what about Carter’s traitorous arms sales to our sworn enemies, the Iranians, in 1986? 



Oh, wait… that wasn’t Jimmy Carter. None of those acts of were committed by him, they were the dishonorable actions of Ronald Reagan – the other president of “good intentions” – or as you call it “a weak foreign policy.”

Jun 18, 2009 - 11:56 am 139. Chesler Chronicles » No “Illegal” Settlements=No Jews in the Middle East:

[...] out so strongly on their behalf. This odd discrepancy has been duly noted both by the our own Roger Simon and by Ralph Peters at the New York [...]

Jun 18, 2009 - 12:44 pm 140. SukieTawdry:

Surely the most brilliant orator of our time can walk the rhetorical line between general support for the principles of liberty, democracy, peaceable assembly and the right to petition governments for a redress of grievances and appearing to interfere in a sovereign nation’s internal affairs. Can’t he? Maybe he should call TOTUS for help.

Jun 18, 2009 - 1:01 pm 141. Hotpatch 6:

After digesting the many and diverse opinions stated herein, and upon long reflection, I am now convinced that if the demonstrators in Iran prevail, there will indeed be a kinder, gentler class of Islamic thugs in charge of the government of Iran.

Jun 18, 2009 - 1:03 pm 142. Ms. Attitude:

126. sheesh: You’re right about this much – coherence may be your issue. I feel more than justified in offering this to you – FO

FO??? I knew it was only a matter of time for Sheesh to bring up his favorite solo activity!

Jun 18, 2009 - 1:07 pm 143. Russell.J.Coller.Jr:

Ah, but the post-Nagasaki Democratic party has shown uncompromising flaccidity regarding the vile police-staters around the world. As the various secret-police kleptocracies implode (or would if given a push) many in our permanent government go white with fear at the thought of ‘instability.’
They are the same folks who want: poor people to be jammed in federal public housing, gigantically fat people to be fed with federal food stamps & get a free power chair, the post office to be subsidized for eternity, the DMV-style clinics of the future to administer your pap-smear, and to launder 40-60% of your taxable productivity through the IRS……. well, they LOVE ’stability.’ There is nothing more stable than a government ‘job’… just check the butt-sized indentation in their tax-payer funded chairs.
Not that Republicans are interested in all that much freedom. However, a top tax-rate of 20% is far superior to 55% in my book. (an 80/20 split sounds perfectly reasonable, no?)
Perhaps Social Security and Medicare should kick in at age 77, not 65.
Perhaps history will judge the decapitation of the Iraqi kleptocrats as cheap even at twice the Bush/Cheney price.
Perhaps the golden oportunity for Obama is at hand, now that Iran is completely encircled and shaky.
What about holding certain truths to be self-evident, even for the Iranian people of 2009?
If the Iraqis and the Afghans can accept international monitoring of elections, why can’t the be-turbanned Mullahs?

Jun 18, 2009 - 1:07 pm 144. Oscar the Grump:

Now folks don’t be so hard on sheesh. God wants us to be kind to the dumb and children. I even have a hyperlink to try to help him. Also I hope it will also help you understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhhkF3dqXR0&feature=player_embedded

In the words of Elvis, thank you, thank you very much!

Jun 18, 2009 - 3:34 pm 145. Rachel Maddow Show: Just the Beginning in Iran « Schmoozing with Elya & Ellie Katz:

[...] The Ongoing Saga of the Liberal Reactionary by Roger Simon of Pajamas Media [...]

Jun 18, 2009 - 4:52 pm 146. Godzilla:

Here Krauthammer does not mince words in describing Obama’s reaction to the Iranian protests.

Reading almost anything about Obama sickens me, but especially galling was his reference to the ranking theocromullah as “Supreme Leader”. Krauthammer describes the usage, and the context within which it was mentioned, quite appropriately as “abject solicitousness”. The next four years can’t happen soon enough for me, and if Obama gets re-elected, then the four years after that. I so clearly see that he is just a puffed up circumlocutionist without a shred of substance, just a hotair balloon funded and supported at the base by craven anti-american leftists. He sickens the hell out of me, but I can’t really hate him. A thing is what it is, according to its nature. Obama is just one person. But the people who place him up on the pedestal are legion. “The Messiah”…”The One”…”The President of the World” (except of the Iranian protesters). How can Americans support the government taking over portions of the car industry? Banking? How can Americans support his attempt to have government-run healtchare? Even the AMA is against this. Healthcare is Obama’s big project now. Sure healthcare is a mess, but you want to know where the real mess is, the real miscarriage, the real abortus? It’s sitting right in the Oval Office of the White House. That’s where it is, along with the flies. For the next 4 years, at least.

Jun 18, 2009 - 6:10 pm 147. Smaj:

What’s so hard to understand? The Dear Leader does not believe in liberty or freedom.

Jun 18, 2009 - 7:18 pm 148. sheesh:

142. Ms. Attitude: . . .”FO??? I knew it was only a matter of time for Sheesh to bring up his favorite solo activity!”

Come on. Mz Tude, make an effort. Aren’t you short a turd reference today?

Jun 18, 2009 - 7:19 pm 149. HonestJon:

142. Ms. Attitude: I think he meant by that acronym, “Forget Obama.” But I’m not really sure. He could have been being indecent again.

I respond to him, “GFY.” Which means, “Go flagellate yourself.” Considering that Sheesh has now been inducted into the Axis of Evil by yours truly (and was a member long before I promoted him from his previous lowly position of inhuman leftist hack), he probably already flagellates himself regularly.

137. Marc Malone wrote, “Just listen for once, please.” A total waste of time, sir! He appears to be deaf to any counter argument without regard to the veracity thereof. Facts are as worthless to this creature as the citizens in Iran who are being repressed/beaten/killed/probably tortured (REALLY TORTURED NOT WATERBOARDED) by the Iranian government. It’s all a knee-jerk emotional response which relies on ad hominem irrational attacks against anybody with whom he doesn’t agree. I hereby submit that Sheesh shall forevermore be renamed by me, “Ayatollah Sheesholio,” member of the Axis of Evil. (Mayhaps he ought to move to Iran or NK for just a little while just to gain some perspective.)

regards

Jun 18, 2009 - 7:46 pm 150. Oscar the Grump:

sheesh
What’s the matter with you? You pick a name that’s an anal sound, then you want respect? Really sheesh!

Jun 18, 2009 - 7:53 pm 151. HonestJon:

143. Russell.J.Coller.Jr wrote: “Ah, but the post-Nagasaki Democratic party has shown uncompromising flaccidity…”

It’s not just the Dems. It has to do with the pusillanimification of our whole country…nay our whole civilization. I tend to like to call it, “Electile Dysfunction.” (They ain’t no Viagra for thissun, folks!)

After having been invaded by immigrant Muslims and other subversives who refuse to embrace Western culture and the prosperity inherent within, we now witness the Europeans-THE EUROPEANS FOR THE SAKE OF ALL THAT’S HOLY-electing right-wing presidents and EU Representatives. Geert Wilders, the British BNP, Angela Merkel, Nicholas Sarkozy (who was much more of an American than Obama in his denunciation of the repression in Iran) come to mind. Putin and Chavez are ridiculing our country for being more socialist than them. It’s a shame that history is, once again, repeating itself with respect to the Roman Empire-which was brought down from within. It’s now happening here folks. Has been for a long time. By representative democracy, no less.

The pusillanimification of our country will be our downfall-weakness from within. And Ayatollah Sheesholio is just a representation of that weakness.

regards

Jun 18, 2009 - 8:04 pm 152. HonestJon:

143. Russell.J.Coller.Jr wrote: “Perhaps Social Security and Medicare should kick in at age 77, not 65.”

I agree with you on this level: The age of productive ability is rising with the average age of death. Our (Western) medical advances have increased the longevity of our population significantly in the past 50 years or so. Maybe the age of retirement needs to increase, as well. Furthermore, IMHO, if someone has ever drawn Medicare/Medicaid/food stamps/subsidized housing/other government benefits, then those benefits should be deducted from Social Security checks for the first five years of drawing.

There needs to be consequences to relying on the productivity of others when one could be productive themself and they refuse to do so.

regards

Jun 18, 2009 - 8:16 pm 153. sheesh:

149. HonestJon: . . .’without regard to the veracity thereof.”

What are you, a Musketeer?

“knee-jerk emotional response which relies on ad hominem attacks”

i didn’t know what “ad hominem attack”meant so I looked it up. Here’s the definition . . . “I respond to him, “GFY.” Which means, “Go flagellate yourself.” . . . he probably already flagellates himself regularly.”

“Mayhaps he ought to move to Iran”

And you shall forever more be known as a name given you by me as a person who names others and that name, soon to be in the hall of fame for names other people get given to them by me shall be be . . . D’Artagnan.

Zounds! Egads! Would that thee were thine own thusly, but alack tis not to be restful beneath the heavens, oh great turd of fatuous fortune.

(Compelling, I know.)

Jun 18, 2009 - 8:22 pm 154. Fen:

Moonbat: why the opposition languished for eight years and has sprung to life only after Bush departed the scene?

GOP policy was never “bomb bomb Iran”. It was 1) remove Saddam from Iraq, 2) support revolt in Iran and 3) force N Korea into multilateral talks with its neighbors.

Your stupid strawman is projection: no one who proposed removing America as scapegoat in N Korea talks would turn around do the opposite re Iran.

And maybe the opposition “sprung to life” because Iraq the Model is beginning to cascade across the ME the way West Berlin did to the Warsaw pact. Doesn’t hurt that Iranians no longer have Saddam as an external threat to be another scapegoat.

And you’re an idiot. I bet you swallowed that Lancet BS hook line and sinker.

Jun 18, 2009 - 8:56 pm 155. HonestJon:

153. Ayatollah Sheesholio replys, : ” . . .’without regard to the veracity thereof.”
What are you, a Musketeer? ”

Nah. Not a musketeer. A verbal defender of liberty and freedom. Freedom for ALL people. Liberty for everyone. A defender of your freedom to make horrendously inaccurate statements which have no basis in reality or reason, science or fact.

If it were the 1700s, I may just have been a musketeer; on the American side. My guess is that you, however, would’ve sided with the British during that time (maybe even the Indians(whatever it takes to bring the country down)). And that makes you a “Puskateer.” IMHO, of course.

What? Do you dislike the English language as much as you dislike reason? You must, Ayatollah Sheesholio.

Why don’t you “Go outside and play…” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCcCzj_yRtk

regards

Jun 18, 2009 - 9:11 pm 156. sheesh:

137. Marc Malone:

I’m not buying. First, she wasn’t the odds-on favorite. The judges and the pageant director said she was not the favorite and was, in fact, behind on points before her answer. She was not attacked, she was insulted by some bozo on the fringe of celebrity. It was his response, not hers, that was controversial. If Perez Hilton hadn’t called her a dumb bitch, you wouldn’t even know her name.

But he did, and the right wing media machine cranked up to create and appropriate her 15 minutes of fame. I don’t care about the “I am a Christian and a model . . . oops a semi nude model, but there’s only one photo . . . oops, and those other photos . . . oops, and my lesbian mother . . . ” I honestly don’t care about any of that.

No, she did not lose her crown because of her answer. Trump, as you know, defended her after the answer and the photos. She lost her crown, according to the people who actually fired her, for not meeting her contractual obligations. And of course, The Donald added some insight . . . “To me she was the sweetest thig. Everyone else she treated like shit.”

Here’s a glimpse into both assertions – breach and bitch

http://theblemish.com/2009/06/carrie-prejean-was-a-bitch/

Ultimately I don’t blame Prejean. She’s just an arrogant kid entranced by the chance to be famous. My problem is with the media, specifically the right wing media, who politicize the matter. It’s a phenomenon best illustrated by Sean Hannity, who wailed about “the viscous attacks calling her the worst imaginable names” . . .This from the same guy who defended Ted Nugent who held up a machine gun at a concert and yelled, “Hey Hillary, why don’t you sit on this you worthless bitch!” Sean’s response? “I’m not going to condemn Ted Nugent. He’s my friend. You don’t like what he says, don’t go to his concerts.” (Yes, it has equal relevance to the feigned outrage over David Letterman.)

As to her holding an opinion that the majority of people hold? That’s a losing game . . . too many things you disagree with that majority of people DO agree with . . . like Obama for example.

I guarantee that Carrie Prejean is thrilled this happened. The only victims are the American people.

Jun 18, 2009 - 9:30 pm 157. Gary Rosen:

“Jew baiting? Not me. You, but not me.”

In a recent thread on antisemitism, sheesh suggested the Jews have it coming. I challenge you sheesh to find one post of mine that is antisemitic; to the contrary I am a strong supporter of Israel. Put up or shut up. Of course you’ll do neither, because you’re a typical leftist liar and clown.

Jun 18, 2009 - 9:31 pm 158. sheesh:

157 . . . and where did I do that, exactly? Was it in the same thread where you stood up for the rights of pedophiles?

Jun 19, 2009 - 5:37 am 159. sheesh:

155. HonestJon . . . “And that makes you a “Puskateer.” IMHO, of course.”

I singed your eyebrows in #153. It hurts, and you’re having a difficult time coping. That’s clear in your desperate attempt to appropriate my skewering reference . . . ‘ateer. But really, Puskateer? You obviously forgot the goal with such a petty theft . . . to be clever and funny. You’re not up to it, that’s clear, but I offer that harsh bit of truth in your best interest . . . don’t touch the power tools if you’re not experienced enough to use them. You’re only embarrassing yourself and your humorless friends.

Here’s an exercise that will help you make your way back to relevance and respectability . . . work on this phrase, “The pusillanimification of our country ” or maybe wander around a bit in this, “I would also humbly request that they be permanently banned from PJM . . . (never) put forward a coherent argument without belittling, besmirching, or insulting other posters.”

BTW, thanks for being “a decent human being who desires freedom for all people.” I’m sure it’s quite a burden. How you stay so true to that principle is nothing short of, well, a miracle.

Hallelujah!

Jun 19, 2009 - 5:58 am 160. sheesh:

Dear, HonestJon,

Two things from your simmering brainpan: (This is almost too easy.)

Thing #1 . . . “(I’m a) verbal defender of liberty and freedom. Freedom for ALL people. Liberty for everyone. A defender of your freedom to make horrendously inaccurate statements which have no basis in reality or reason, science or fact.”

Thing #2 . . . “I would also humbly request that (Sheesh, et al) be permanently banned from PJM . . . I hope you read this and take action, Mr. Simon!”

I think you need a new screen name. Let me know if you get stuck . . . I have some ideas.

Jun 19, 2009 - 6:28 am 161. Lightnin' Hopkins:

Moonbat-iest comment thread ever!

Jun 19, 2009 - 7:25 am 162. Ted:

Wingnut-iest comment thread ever!

Jun 19, 2009 - 10:23 am 163. Lightnin' Hopkins:

Zing! Turned it right around on me. Pure genius.

Jun 19, 2009 - 10:47 am 164. Ted:

“Wingnut and Moonbat”

Write the screenplay, Roger.

Jun 19, 2009 - 11:37 am 165. Godzilla:

Hmm, it seems that <a href=”http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWQ4ODQ2Y2QwYmE1ZjdkOWFhMjQ0NjgwMTQ2NzU3YzQ=”Obama is really serious about not wanting to “meddle” in Iran’s affairs. Being “troubled” is the line in the sand. After that, it’s a defcon 5 ramp up to “VERY troubled”. At that point, all bets are off. Even the nuclear “EXTREMELY troubled” will be on the table.

Jun 20, 2009 - 11:58 am 166. Godzilla:

Let me try that link again:

Hmm, it seems that Obama is really serious about not wanting to “meddle” in Iran’s affairs. Being “troubled” is the line in the sand. After that, it’s a defcon 5 ramp up to “VERY troubled”. At that point, all bets are off. Even the nuclear “EXTREMELY troubled” will be on the table.

Jun 20, 2009 - 12:00 pm 167. Godzilla:

What a difference a > makes. Why isn’t there a preview option?

Jun 20, 2009 - 12:01 pm 168. Glenn A Knight:

There are two good reasons for the President of the United States not to jump into the Iranian melee. There are lots of other reasons, some formal, some shaky, but there are two good ones.

First, most Iranians are not big fans of the United States. Even those who are not enamored of the present regime have been raised to believe that the United States, along with Britain, has played the villain more than once in Iranian affairs. It is one thing to note that some Iranians share some of our values. It is another to cause the broad mass of Iranians to identify the students and other protestors with the United States. There is no way that most Iranians would see that as us merely supporting a movement we like. They would have to see us as Khamanei wants to portray us – as puppetmasters of these brave young people.

Second, working out an arrangement which keeps Iran’s nuclear program from becoming a nuclear weapons program is more important that who the political leader of Iran might be. If Mousavi wins, we’ll have to deal with him (and he ain’t no George Washington). If Ahmadinejad wins, we’ll have to deal with him. In no case should we make it easy for these guys to refuse to talk with us.

Let’s also remember that, as in most of the Middle East, public opinion is more anti-American and anti-Israeli than elite opinion. Iran might be an exception, but I’d be somewhat cautious about accepting the idea that a more “democratic” government would necessarily better for us.

Jun 20, 2009 - 5:14 pm 169. AST:

“making the point that any strong American comment on the Iranian election would only play into the hands of the mullahs, allowing them to blame the crisis on the Great Satan.”

All of which supports doing more than merely expressing troubled feelings. If they’re going to crack down on these people anyway, why not express our discomfort by putting a ban on any country or company doing business with Iran from doing business here. Same deal as we gave South Africa. Or are Iranian human rights less important to us than African ones?

It’s time to get serious about all this addicted to oil nonsense. We might need oil at this time, but we don’t really need Persian Gulf oil. We should be developing our own energy resources as a national security issue. We have been whipped around by these creeps long enough. Why continue skiing behind their boat, when we’ve got our own over at the dock?

I’m not necessarily hoping for a more democratic regime, so much as pressuring them where it hurts to give up this nuclear dream of theirs. I’d be perfectly happy with a sane regime that cares about the nation’s economy. The Shah was hardly George Washington, but his sins on the human rights front weren’t anywhere in the league of the Mullahs’.

“Let’s also remember that, as in most of the Middle East, public opinion is more anti-American and anti-Israeli than elite opinion.”
Oh, no! It’s the feared Arab Street all over again! Why worry about it? It’s never going to favor us, because these people don’t get any accurate, fair information about us. All they know comes through their mosques and state-run media. That’s why all this trying to reach them through diplomacy is just a feel-good waste of time. Bush knew that. After all he had first-hand experience with our own media. Obama seems to think that Iranian reporters will be as charmed by him as our own are. Good luck with that.

Jun 21, 2009 - 8:05 pm

Write a Comment

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