Apparently the Obama administration is quietly watching the situation, serially voting present, and unwilling to say much until the final outcome is certain. Meanwhile, debate here centers around whether Bush’s past “Axis of Evil” approach to Iran’s theocracy, or Obama’s “We are sorry for what we did in the past” lamentation is the better course for dealing with a thug like Ahmadinejad. Some thoughts:
1. Conventional wisdom insisted that we had “empowered” Iran by removing Saddam and allowing the Shiites to gain democratic majorities in Iraq. It is at least as possible that we are destabilizing the autocracy in Iran by promoting Iraqi democracy that is no longer just a warning about civil chaos, but a positive view of a Shiite-majority democratic society unknown in Iran. The notion of two large contiguous oil producing democracies in the Middle East is unacceptable to the radical Islamists and most of the Sunni Arab dictatorships as well.
2. When one apologizes to a contemporary terrorist-sponsoring regime for events that occurred 60 years ago at the beginning of the Cold War, and does so without context of the past, then naturally one is self-censored, and will be reluctant to comment on contemporary events in Iran — relegated to a bystander watching the flow of events, predicating the response on who wins.
3. We are seeing in Washington that the multiculturalism impulse — one does not use Western paradigms to judge others — is far stronger than the supposedly classical liberal idea that human freedom is a universal concept that trumps culture. In other words, multicultural foreign policy is a sophisticated and politically-correct version of the old, far more intellectually honest realist notion that we let the bastards do what they want to their own people, and then deal with the thug that emerges in the real world of mutual self-interest.
4. For the probable majority of Iranians who voted against Ahmadinejad, the idea that the US was reaching out to him, despite his subsidies to terrorist killers in Lebanon and Iraq, and his brutality at home, was not necessarily a sign of American good will. If the prior policy of disengagement with the Iranian theocracy, while appealing to the good will of the Iranian people was so flawed, why was it, then, that despite America’s bad global PR, the Iranian people remained far more pro-American than did the Arab Street, whose autocrats about four years ago we ceased pressuring to liberalize?
For at least a decade, liberal icons like Bill Clinton (“Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority … (It is) the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections … There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.)”, Jimmy Carter and NY Times columnists have tried to make cute points that our worst enemy in the Middle East, Iran, was in fact the most democratic — ridiculing the notion of others that rigged plebiscites, pre-screened candidates, the absence of a truly secret ballot and free press, organized thuggery against dissidents, suppression of women’s rights, etc. were hardly democratic.
Iran, let us now confess, understood the America utopians very well, offering them both the thin veneer of “democracy” and at the same time the notion of revolutionary opposition to “imperialist” and “capitalist” America. When Clinton in 2005 said that nonsense at Davos he was simply playing to the international politically correct Western bunch, the subtext was “hey, that awful Bush is running things now in the US, and it is a lot worse over here than it is in the Iran that he demonizes (cf. Clinton’s flourish: “…certainly not my own”). That Iran was killing soldiers in Iraq, sponsoring killers in Lebanon and the West Bank, trying to get a nuke to do worse to Israel did not mean all that much to Bill Clinton, at least if he could sound nuanced, neat, and contrarian among the international drones at Davos.
I’ll take axis of evil and evil empire any day to serial apologies to this creepy regime, and “certainly not my own” comparisons.
PJM Home
A War Like No Other How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War
Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise to Western Power
Mexifornia : A State of a Becoming
Why the West Has Won: Nine Landmark Battles in the Brutal History of Western Victory
Between War and Peace: Lessons from Afghanistan to Iraq
The Western Way of War: Infantry Battle in Classical Greece (Paperback)
Wars of the Ancient Greeks (Smithsonian History of Warfare) (Paperback)
Who Killed Homer: The Demise of Classical Education and the Recovery of Greek Wisdom
Fields Without Dreams : Defending the Agrarian Ideal (Paperback)
The Soul of Battle: From Ancient Times to the Present Day, How Three Great Liberators Vanquished Tyranny
The Landmark Thucydides: A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War (Paperback)
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
71 Comments
1. Pajamas Media » Voting ‘Present’ on Iran:[...] Read the rest here. [...]
Jun 16, 2009 - 8:17 am 2. Mike:Interesting, is it not, that Democrat presidents are always referring to themselves and their magnificent wisdom and accomplishments, while Republicans tend to content themselves with representing the United States. President Obama speaks in Cairo and he and his acolytes actually believe that the speech changed everything, including the outcome of an election in Lebanon! Such hubris leaves rational men slack-jawed.
President Obama’s lack of understanding of history and middle eastern culture could fill volumes, but a few observations will suffice for now. Middle eastern culture is built on shame, hence it is difficult, if not impossible, for its inhabitants to admit any mistake, no matter how small. When foreigners–such as President Obama–admit mistakes on an international scale and apologize for them, middle easterners do not see this as a wise and helpful concession, but as abject weakness and foolishness which represents real opportunity.
Obama believes himself to be above it all. He is so advanced, so brilliant that all he need do is make speeches at the proper times in the proper places to the proper audiences–these speeches will be lauded as unprecedented, history-making, etc.–and the world will fall into line. For Obama, words mean everything and he is their master.
Muslim culture sees him, the son of a muslim father, as a muslim, a muslim who has publicly converted to Christianity. Therefore, observant muslims see him as a apostate. More radical muslims believe him marked for death for his apostasy. Islam not only allows, but encourages its adherents to lie to non-muslims as part of the never ending jihad. Obama can’t seem to grasp this central middle eastern political/cultural/religious concept. He believes that Iranian elections are free and that substantial political change will occur thereby, and he is encouraged by what he thinks is a frank political discussion in Iran. Iranians have no such misapprehensions.
America has always been the world’s beacon of democracy and its primary promoter and protector. To whatever degree a citizen of a middle eastern theocracy/kleptocracy could aspire to democracy and freedom, America held out that promise. Until Obama. He is bigger than freedom and democracy; he is The One.
The only questions for Americans are how quickly Obama will bankrupt us and how and what will be the cost, in blood and suffering in America and around the world, for his contempt for America and its allies because of his feckless mishandling of foreign policy.
Jun 16, 2009 - 8:59 am 3. Mike:Obama’s rhetoric is sullied by his equivocation. The postracial, postmodern president is no champion of democracy. It is now difficult to judge who should be be more indignated, oppresed Irananians, or the President for his lack of leadership.
Jun 16, 2009 - 9:03 am 4. Fragmentarian:More clear thinking, as usual, from Victor Davis Hanson. “Multicultural foreign policy” is an idea that only progressives, the likes of Sheesh and his Obamessiah can get behind. That’s because it is completely inane and backasswards. Maybe they’ll wake up tomorrow and kick themselves for picking and supporting the wrong side but I doubt it.
Jun 16, 2009 - 9:10 am 5. Tina Trent:Contrast Obama’s dissembling here with his crystal clear, line-in-the-sand, western-rights driven unambiguousness regarding South African apartheid. Obama spent years and vast political capital rallying to pressure Harvard to divest from financial interests in South Africa. Yet now he tells us the Iranian dictators are beyond reproach and that women in the Middle East aren’t really victims of gender apartheid.
Such selective outrage — and selective multiculturalism — perverts the very notion of justice.
Jun 16, 2009 - 9:15 am 6. Self-hating Boomer:Even more perverse, he has no problem twisting Israel’s arm.
I think it’s the instinct of the jungle, instilled in Chicago. Fear the strong; beat up on the weak. This is what the community organizers call “social justice”.
Jun 16, 2009 - 9:57 am 7. jb:Regards Iran:
Am I the only one who remembers the sacking of the US Embassy in Tehran and imprisonment of US diplomatic personnel by Iran during the Carter administration? These are also the same folks who widely demonstrated on the anniversary of that event each year; saying over and over that American is the “Great Satan”, and praying to their Allah for the downfall of America. They have committed unforgivable acts which cannot be washed away with a couple of decades, nor should they gain sympathetic International recognition of their plight after a few shameful and harsh decisions by their mullahs on the home front. This was their own bed of roses, complete with a few thorns. It’s time for them to sort their own mess out.
They got the Theocracy (they turned it into a thugocracy), they wanted. Let them either live with it, or change by bloody revolution to whatever form of government they fancy today. These are a people who have been struggling with what they want to be for three thousand years and haven’t got it right yet.
Revolutions tend not to be bloodless, so the hope is that if a few thousand Iranians get themselves bloodied in the process, perhaps they might actually learn to value freedom if they ever achieve that.
While I wish no man harm, I think to support Iran in any fashion at this time is extremely short sighted, these are a people who are not truly civilized, nor are they ready to enter onto the world stage as equals with America or Europe. I have met many Iranians, (aka Persian immigrants), and they uniformly impress me as arrogant, ignorant, and ethically dishonest, socially viewing themselves as superior to everyday Americans with whom they interact with.
I’d prefer not to have a Persian immigrant buy the house next door to me. In my experience, they do not make good neighbors.
Jun 16, 2009 - 9:58 am 8. Winston:Obama is a coward…..
Jun 16, 2009 - 10:07 am 9. Anonymous:US intervention in Iran has worked SO WELL in the past.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d‘état http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
The solution for this problem has to come from Iran. We don’t want any blowback like we’ve had in the past.
Jun 16, 2009 - 10:17 am 10. Robert Winkler Burke:If words and ideas matter, as Ronald Reagan said when President of the United States, then President Obama has already given enough words and ideas to cause this world unimaginable woe; woe that is unfortunately real and not imagined.
Who will survive the requiting and recompense due to this particularly strange sum of all fears? (Wrong thoughts empowered by unrestrained hubris.) Obama’s wrong words and wrong ideas will be believed just long enough to cause epic and long-remembered-in-bitterness mayhem. No script writer on earth is as creative or prolific as the mighty mind of our inestimable and mighty O POTUS.
Can wrong thoughts be stopped before they multiply? Or does history show us they increase exponentially until catastrophic failure? If time is a slow-motion truth detection machine, then hurry, time, hurry!
Jun 16, 2009 - 10:19 am 11. Free Hat:Are you serious?
Literally just a couple of months ago, the general conservative Republican consensus was that we should bomb Iran.
Now that the Iranian people are engaged in revolt, the same right wing morons that just months ago advocated leveling Iran with bombs is now attacking President Obama as not doing enough to support the plight of the Iranian people!
How schizophrenic are you people?
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.
You people are bat**** insane. I thank God daily that you imbeciles are out of power.
Jun 16, 2009 - 10:22 am 12. Derek:WHat obama needs to do is take lessons from Bush on how to strongly condemn with the best of them. I mean it sure stopped Putin in Georgia. Oh wait it didn’t. And we pretended like it didn’t even happen when they were finished…
Let the grown ups handle this. This isn’t a time for feel good rhetoric or refighting a campaign you lost with logic THAT GOT AHMADENIJAD ELECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Jun 16, 2009 - 10:23 am 13. Ron Kean:‘Voting Present’ says it all.
We could be broadcasting encouragement from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thousands of cell phones and digital cameras are showing the world everything in real time. It can be a lesson to the tyrants of the world if the crowds can make a difference.
If our intelligence experts would communicate covertly to the right people, our country might be able to give direction or advise a course of action to overthrow the leaders.
I wish there were contacts in the military.
Where’s HOPE AND CHANGE when you REALLY need it?
Jun 16, 2009 - 10:39 am 14. wayne:I’d bet a big chunk of money that Barry actually admires Armageddon-eye-jab.
After all, they both started off as revolutionary Marxist “community organizers” with Islamists backgrounds, spent decades with demagogic ministers, and have a passionate hatred of “Imperialist America”.
Eye-jab was one of the most important leaders involved in the overthrow of the Shah and the takeover of our Embassy and the 444 days of humiliation that was allowed by that gutless piece of rotten peanut-garbage Carter.
Barry finds ANYONE who is against us to be worthy of courting (and certainly has a disdain towards our friends) and given the similarities in their backgrounds, Eye-jab is an easy fit for Barry’s close circle of pals.
His only real message for Eye-jab is “hey buddy, just like me you are a prophet for change and you can do what you want, just do it quietly they way I do so the media lapdogs don’t get annoyed and show images that inflame both of our peasants as to what we are up to.
Jun 16, 2009 - 10:47 am 15. wickerbasket:If a government controls its people then there is nothing that a person can do to influence them except to help influence against that realm. If there is control then the government will use all of its propaganda to work against things that will free the country. What helps to bring peace is when people begin to have understanding of what is going on in their own government. Instead of what they are told they will see what is important to their lives, when before they only saw that the government is working for them in the world and in their own country.
That is the important thing about information. It is what truly governs a people. When we say that Iran is great we are saying that everything that their country says is right. When we say that their government is wrong we are allowing for imports of knowledge that would not have had as great of an influence otherwise.
When Iran tries to force its hand in Iraq, and against everyone else, it looks to the people inside of it like it is trying to do something that is not possible for a government that is trying to give its people everything in the world. It looks like it is rtying to assert itself and not the people.
That I think is what is asserting itself in Iran. The people in Iran no longer see a government that is working for them, but that is working for its own interests in the region. The people no doubt, after the war with Saddam, do not see the interests of Iran’s people in headlong wars with other states, and suicidal war methods.
The way we influence Iran comes down to showing that there are other things more important than power that allow a country to stay affloat.
Jun 16, 2009 - 10:57 am 16. always right:Gosh, maybe Obama had to be careful for what he said, because US is the largest mooooslem country in the world.
/sarc
Jun 16, 2009 - 10:59 am 17. Frank Arden:“Conventional wisdom insisted that we had “empowered” Iran by removing Saddam and allowing the Shiites to gain democratic majorities in Iraq. It is at least as possible that we are destabilizing the autocracy in Iran by promoting Iraqi democracy that is no longer just a warning about civil chaos, but a positive view of a Shiite-majority democratic society unknown in Iran. The notion of two large contiguous oil producing democracies in the Middle East is unacceptable to the radical Islamists and most of the Sunni Arab dictatorships as well.”
If, for argument’s sake, we accept the “empowerment” of Iran was an unintended consequence of the war by removing Sunni Saddam as an external threat, then it is reasonable to think that this also contributed to Iran’s new internal threat that is destabilizing the autocracy.
Iran is a dictatorship of the mullahs. And dictators always need an external threat to justify their heavy-handed, internal policies. By removing Saddam, the external threat was removed thus depriving the Iranian regime a convenient enemy next door.
At the end of the day, I suspect the Sunni Arab dictatorships fear the ascent of the hated Shiite, whether democratic or not. Indeed, the Sunni Arabs should welcome democracy in Iran compared to a nuclear-armed Shiite dictatorship.
If Sunni Arabs in the west see Shiite Iran/Iraq empowerment to the east as a shift in the balance of power in the Middle East, it might be possible for them to see Israel as less of a threat with a mutual interest opposing Iranian nuclear hegemony. If so, Israel could become the balancer, a de facto ally of the Sunni, with all the best attendant consequences for the Palestinian problem.
And the unintended consequence of Iranian empowerment would be regarded as a casus fortuitus.
Jun 16, 2009 - 11:07 am 18. Genghis Kohn:The daily recitation of this administration’s ineptitude is probably counter-productive. Those who cannot perceive that Obama & Co. are clueless will never be disuaded, no matter how reasoned and rational the arguements. The polite phrasing of criticism is painfully ludicrous. Tragedy is quick becomng farce.
Jun 16, 2009 - 11:25 am 19. Moogie:Free Hat: “Literally just a couple of months ago, the general conservative Republican consensus was that we should bomb Iran.”
No, what we said was we should be bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities.
#7 jb: I totally agree.
VDH: Great observations. I’m not really surprised that Obama is voting “present” when it comes to foreign affairs. As a person with no moral principles to speak of, he’ll wait to see who is the victor, and then he’ll proclaim his support because he doesn’t want to be associated with a loser.
Jun 16, 2009 - 11:59 am 20. Charles Gordon:His conspicuously equal deference to the Sunni keeper of the Ka’bah and the Shi’ite “Supreme Leader” of Persia, exposes in part his multiculturalism but foremost his fascination with the absoluteness of their power. His envy is palpable.
There are no unintended consequences in his emboldening our enemies. The first lesson for any young ruler seizing greater control of power is that most of us will not forfeit our liberty without an interest in protection from a threat.
To this end, he has frequently tried to conjure our fear of an axis of evil and an evil empire but directing it at our own Western heritage and way of life.
Jun 16, 2009 - 12:17 pm 21. SeanLA:OH lord now that the media and government become one with ABC broadcasting from the white house without opposing views.
How will we keep news like this alive?
Dear Mr. Hanson what methods my we use to communicate (and organize), drawing from your knowledge of history and strategy/tactics, are we facing an impending media black out? separating us all into the void.
I’m really concerned here, the old Gil Scott-Heron song `Johannesburg’ sings: because the only news we get is on the bible band.
look at the lack of news around Iran, no one is talking about it, at an office I was in this AM people didn’t even know whats going on or didn’t see it as anything important.
My question is Mr. Hanson, how did divided people communicate through antiquity and what from that can we use for the future?
strange days indeed
Jun 16, 2009 - 12:42 pm 22. Ron Robinson:…unless it is women’s rights or gay marriage or abortion… and there you have the answer to the question the left always asks “why do they hate us?” True, even I have to reach really deep to find some ‘tolerance’ for eastern attitudes on women (I’m not so ‘liberal’ on the other issues).
But we should start with encouraging measures that will benefit the widest spectrum of people. That means democracy, where our help is liable to be appreciated the most.
Once that is done, it will be natural for questions about how we became so prosperous to follow – then we can answer that we put the ‘other half’ of our population to work.
Sometimes attraction works a lot better than promotion or imposition.
We are like an old married man hitting on a teenage girl: not only are our attentions unwanted, they produce rage, and we look damned silly in the bargain.
Let them take baby steps – after all, we allowed that privilege to ourselves. We took over 50 years between giving women the vote and seeing women as CEOs of major corporations, after all. That’s not to say that it’s right, but we did not do any better than we are asking others to do.
Jun 16, 2009 - 12:50 pm 23. Free Hat:19. Moogie: “No, what we said was we should be bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities.”
Fine, genius, but last time I checked, Iran’s nuclear facilities are in Iran, and by bombing them, we give yet another free pass to Ahmadinejad to easily convince the Iranian people that the latest American bombing campaign of their country is proof of how America “cares” about about Iran. Bombing Iran = Iranians hating America instead of their tyrannical rulers = no revolution = no Democracy for Iran.
Retarded Republican foreign policy at its worst.
Jun 16, 2009 - 12:56 pm 24. sjc-tx:oblahblah isn’t voting ‘present’… He isn’t voting at all yet… He has to wait and see what the media spin is, what his popularity poll wants, and what the sanctified teleprompter has to say about it all… Then and, only THEN , he’ll announce another rhetorical, meaningless, afactual, and windbag boring speech, (with appropriate backdrop and location of course!).
And I used to complain that Bush was in over his head. …!
Jun 16, 2009 - 1:21 pm 25. sjc-tx:“”Free hat…Bombing Iran = Iranians hating America instead of their tyrannical rulers = no revolution = no Democracy for Iran.”"
You obviously are very young, very ignorant, and not very well educated.
Hate to break it to ya, but… Iran has ALWAYS hated America… Join us sometime in the REAL world.
Allowing nuclear weapons in the hands of rougue, cultures who have no respect for human life, (as this is what they have shown us for generations and 1000s of years), is a most foolhardy, naive, and dangerous act.
Jun 16, 2009 - 1:27 pm 26. The Shadow:Free Hat – You can’t argue with the morons who want to bomb Iran. It would be like arguing with with a Islamic terrorists. They are true believers willing to use any means no matter how evil for their ends
Jun 16, 2009 - 1:49 pm 27. Brad:Free Hat,
I’m not advocating a bombing campaign, but if one successfully removed the tyranical regime, it might not necessarily result in your “no democracy for Iran” conclusion. After all, bombing had a hand in removing Saddam and there is a fairly grateful democracy in Iraq. So cut the f**king smug comments, i.e. “Retarded Republican…” You’re not too deep a thinker, which your posts consistently display. You’re a knee-jerker. I wonder, though, if election fraud and violent suppression of the opposition will hamper our president’s stance on engaging the perpetrators without preconditions.
Jun 16, 2009 - 1:54 pm 28. westerncanadian:Mr Freehat, I’m pleased that you did not have to pay for your headgear. Congratulations.
I think that Mr Hanson’s article is making the fair point that American presidents, Democrat or Republican, do a good thing when they take the side of democracy. The events in Iran and the public beatings there this week invite Mr Obama to take the side of democracy in the face of some pretty rangy-tang violations of liberty.
By saying nothing Mr Obama appears to be less concerned about the bleeding in the streets than he does about courting Mr Ahmadinejad’s good opinion of he, himself, Mr Obama.
Jun 16, 2009 - 2:21 pm 29. El hefe:If Iran were bombed halfway to hell as stated above by Free Hat the revolution would already be over. The only truly rotten thing we have done in the past to the Iranian people is elect Jimmy Carter as our President. Now we are “helping” the Iranian people again by our having elected another appeaser as President who is currently sitting on his hands. Jimmy Carter although appearing as a humble person is extremely arrogant and never admits he was wrong even though history has proven so. Jimmy is still trying to justify his existence like some reprobate fool throwing good money after bad. Jimmy is still bashing his country and still trying to make deals with the devil and being played for the fool.
Jun 16, 2009 - 2:24 pm 30. Gaffe Prices:At least our current President doesn’t have any false humility, he has none at all. BHO will never apologize for himself only for us. BHO will never by his own admission make a bad decision or a wrong move, his arrogance is supreme just like everything else about him. So why is he constantly trying to justify what he is doing. If he’s so perfect maybe his critics should have gotten the message by now. If he’s so perfect he wouldn’t have to bring ABC into the White House to run his propaganda show to try and convince the American people what an absolute genius he is.
Of course Bill Clinton never made any mistakes either.
So we have two living ex presidents who spend most of their time trying to prove they never did anything wrong. I don’t think there’s room on the stage for a third arrogant S.O.B someone will have to get off soon.
If ex presidents and the current one are constantly going around trying to justify their existence, what good are they actually doing? If they have to lie to justify their existence wouldn’t they be better off just keeping their mouths shut?
Maybe they are just evil to the core and always have been and we are fools for having elected them in the first place.
Maybe we’ll look under the hood a little more seriously next time if there is one.
The arrogant supreme commander may not allow elections any more for our own good.
“Moogie:
Free Hat: “Literally just a couple of months ago, the general conservative Republican consensus was that we should bomb Iran.”
(Moogie): No, what we said was we should be bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Free [ass] Hat has engaged in a Straw Man argument: He attempts to build a demonstrably false premise on the (his) idea that “the general consensus of “conservative Republican[s]“, according to his projection, “was that ‘we” should bomb Iran”.
the premise is false because NO ONE has advocated that “we” should bomb Iran. Period. Hey Free Hat, you want to site some sources of “conservative Republican consensus for us on that?
And since you used the word “consensus” that limits your sources to an elected representative of the Republican party in a leadership position who took a vote of elected Republican representatives in Congress on Iran’s ability to acquire, not nuclear technology for the sake of energy production (which is how 0bama dodged the issue), but a vote on Iran’s ambition to acquire nuclear production for the sake of producing warhead’s mounted on Korean missile’s, that have the capacity and range to strike Edinburgh Scotland or New York city, AND received a unanimous vote specifically (as you project) “that we should bomb Iran.
And issued an official staement as to the “consensus arrived at through a democratic vote conducted by the Republican caucus menbers.
No such official polling of republican membership nor a subsequently issued policy statement was conducted or exists.
Jun 16, 2009 - 2:32 pm 31. genghis kohn:I’ll go you one better. Neutorn bombs. Elimate the Iranis, but preserve the infrastructure. Remember the beloved great leader’s, Stalin, dictum: One death is a tragedy, millions but a statistic. Oh, the horror!!!
Jun 16, 2009 - 2:38 pm 32. sjc-tx:Hey Shadow… a shadow is all you will be if Iran is ‘allowed’ nucs…
…~kumbaya my lord, kumbaya…~
Jun 16, 2009 - 2:44 pm 33. Moogie:#23 Free Hat: “the latest American bombing campaign of their country is proof of how America “cares” about about Iran. Bombing Iran = Iranians hating America instead of their tyrannical rulers = no revolution = no Democracy for Iran.”
1. I never said anything about helping usher democracy into Iran. I just said we need to get rid of their nuclear facilities. Do you want to get nuked by the haters of the Great Satan? I know I don’t.
2. I don’t care if Iran likes America or not. Where is it written in the Constitution that we are supposed to go around campaigning for popularity among the nations of the world?
3. I don’t believe the people currently protesting the outcome of the election are any more sympathetic to western civilization than Ahmajihadipwad. They are rooting for just another mullah mouthpiece. Same diff.
“Retarded Republican” – nice, fella. Real nice.
Jun 16, 2009 - 3:25 pm 34. zhombre:“Bombing Iran” which the Israelis may yet undertake, was predicated on a surgical strike against nuclear facilities, to prevent Iran from developing a bomb, similar to the Israeli strike in Syria; the intention was not to bomb population centers and inflict massive civilian casualties. Frankly, The Shadow and Free Hat are the morons you can’t argue with.
Jun 16, 2009 - 3:42 pm 35. Sam H:Mr. Free Hat, The Shadow and Derek,
My, you certainly can call people names and mischaracterize their positions as well as any liberal talking head I have come across in quite some time. Your parents must be very proud!
I am guessing their is no military service in your backgrounds nor any experience with actual hardship; just blissful and pampered existences, perhaps subsidized existences which allows you all the liberty to compose assinine thoughts and positions.
In your utopian and multi-cultural worlds, there is no violence or repression. Your history is a narrative history full of groups and identities, but never bothering with such things as facts and events.
The only people I see advocating “bomb, bomb, bomb” are you dunderheads. You will never understand such things as strategy and tactics, much less geopolitics. So continue to call people names and act hysterically for it is befitting your ilk.
Don’t look now, but there is a fledgling representative government right next door to Iran. Do you think it, perhaps, has something to do with recent events. People who have literally shed blood for liberty have no need of your braying, they are a people becoming accustomed to just action, noble causes, representative government, free-market economics and all the other things you would consider “passe” and “western-imposed” obstructions.
Dunderheads such as yourselves are very good at backbiting, name-calling, hysterical meanderings and meaningless sloganeering.
Perhaps you should be “working” in DC?
Jun 16, 2009 - 3:51 pm 36. Anonymous:Iran HAD a pro-western democracy. Then the CIA got invovled. Pretty much went into the crapper after that.
Jun 16, 2009 - 4:02 pm 37. neverquit:FreeHat – Shadow:
I think it would be a good idea on your part to consider the current situation in Iran before taking a military option off of the table in dealing with Iran’s nuclear proliferation.
The “Peaceful Transfer of Power” is but one of many important factors in determining whether or not a nation is responsible and mature enough to handle the possession of nuclear power, technology and weapons.
Pakistan’s AQ Khan and his proven treason to the security of Pakistan’s nuclear program is an example of how irresponsible Pakistan has been with it’s nuclear abilities. Pakistan has proven time and again, it is incapable peacefully transferring power or securing it’s nuclear program. Do not make the same mistake with Iran, which now appears back on the path of violent transfer of power, as it has done in the past.
The noble idea of supporting efforts for the prevention of war with Iran, yet finding the time to write your detritus without any words of condemnation for a country (Iran) that has proven itself deceptive in regards to it’s allegedly peaceful pursuit of nuclear technology, as well as Iran’s proven State Sponsorship of Islamic Terrorism, is absolute folly on your part.
Try again, the usual mantra isn’t effective anymore. This is big boy stuff, and an unstable Iran (or Pakistan) is an existential threat to the world. PERIOD. You need to grow up and deal with it, it will take action and not Obama’s words.
Jun 16, 2009 - 4:23 pm 38. Paul M Hupf:Dr Hanson:
Jun 16, 2009 - 4:31 pm 39. bill-tb:Thank you for your continued observations. They are relevant and, in my opinion, directly on point. The President is cavalier with the interests of the country he is sworn to defend. Is it that he deems himself a messiah of sorts, irrespective of the fact that his views on matters of foreign policy lack broad support?
That’s leadership — Present. I bet he hasn’t figured out that Muslims are ruled by despots either.
I notice Obama can’t seem to pronounce freedom, liberty. Must be his Indonesian Muslim heritage causing the problem.
Jun 16, 2009 - 5:32 pm 40. TLM:The Shallow & Tree Bat:
Neither of you two clowns can see further than your own nose. It’s not completely inconceivable that in the next 2 years Obama will green-light an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuke facilities, or order the Pentagon to carry out a similar attack. For all we know obama’s engagement policy is a prelude to such an military strike, ie “we tried everything else first.”
Do I think this is the most likely scenario? Not really. But a nuclear Iran constitutes a significant threat to the Middle East in general not just to Israel. Political instability in Iran, like we are seeing now, makes the situation even more worrisome. Obama knows this. I distrust his foreign policy, but he is not a moron. And only a moron thinks he can accurately predict the course of events over the next few years in the ME and is willing to discard completely a military option against Iran simply because it was a supposed Repub talking point.
Jun 16, 2009 - 5:42 pm 41. Rashputin:Jimmy Carter made sure Iran went down the toilet and ignored them murdering hundreds of thousands, other than encouraging Sadaam to attack them, so what’s the surprise with his son not caring that they’re virtual slaves?
Anyone who thinks The One cares about liberty and freedom elsewhere is either lying to themselves, or just plain lying in hopes no one notices that he doesn’t even care about those things in this country.
Regards
Jun 16, 2009 - 5:49 pm 42. Just Passing Through:23. Free Hat:
‘blah…blah’
I sometimes think that you, shadow, and sheesh are one person. You certainly all mindlessly parrot the same tired old tropes. You all call conservatives morons, yet you are all obsessed with shrilly haunting a conservative site where everyone, other than the trolls like yourself, considers you (and them) abject drooling idiots.
This is what your missing. You would rather that the people you are so apt to call morons join you in making decisions and arguments in favor of risking all in hopes that a regime that avows itself to be our implacable enemy might…like us. The people you are so apt to call morons, on the other hand, make decisions and arguments in favor of protecting themselves because they do not want a regime that avows itself to be our implacable enemy capable of causing us, or nations that are our allies, grievous harm.
I don’t care whether Iran’s leadership likes the US as a nation. I don’t particularly care whether Iranians as a whole like us. It’s their leadership that is the problem and their business to do something about it. I wish Obama would support that business more vigorously, but for better or worse, right now he is the POTUS and the prime function of the POTUS is to be commander in chief so he has may support.
I especially don’t care whether the Iranian leadership or people like people like you. I don’t like you, why should I want them to? Their leadership at least, and by all indications our current leadership, sees you and those like you as disposable tools anyway. What’s to like?
Jun 16, 2009 - 6:36 pm 43. AThinkingPerson:Brad, no need to fight with Free Hat or The Shadow. If you’ll notice, neither ever offers up what Obama’s plan for Iran is as a defense because a) Obama doesn’t have one, and b) they are too busy pointing fingers instead of asking the logical question of “what is Obama going to do?”. Of course logical and liberal are ludicrous to use in the same sentence but reread their posts and you’ll see why I took the liberty of doing so.
Just ask them about Obama’s stance on the Iranian elections and the silence will be deafening (of course besides the requisite “moron” and “retarded” word usage).
I say consider the source and their lack of a coherent comment/grunt about the topic. Very telling.
Jun 16, 2009 - 7:03 pm 44. tc:11. Free (A$$) Hat:
Are you serious?
Literally just a couple of months ago, the general conservative Republican consensus was that we should bomb Iran.
Now that the Iranian people are engaged in revolt, the same right wing morons that just months ago advocated leveling Iran with bombs is now attacking President Obama as not doing enough to support the plight of the Iranian people!
Dude–nice try with the straw man argument. First, you set up the straw man of, here it comes, the “general Republican consensus”–well, can’t recall that questionnaire coming around or the stats being reported as that we’d reached a “general consensus” about this issue.
Second, the course of action mentioned of “leveling Iran with bombs” assumes a military tactic of heavy bombing with scores of bombers akin to the air war over Europe; a failed strategy which we abandoned after we developed air superiority fighters, precision bombing technology and targeting of centers of gravity; ie nuclear power plants and manufacturing or storage areas for nuclear weapons. We have been using air dropped munitions over Iraq for 18 years, during ODS, no fly zone enforcement and now OIF. One would think that Iraq, by your accounts, would effectively be–leveled, as you say??? However, buildings in Tikrit, Baghdad and other locales still stand… as do many bridges, homes, schools and hmmm, mosques.
While the tactical attack of ground facilities in Iran would achieve a strategic objective–reducing Iranian nuclear capabilities, it would neither level the country, nor effectively harm a large portion of the Iranians whom we now (separately from the government) support as they yearn for a chance to have a fair election, have their voice heard and rise up in the face of tyranny. Targeted strikes upon nuclear facilities would not target these folks provided that the facilities are removed from civilian areas. If not, then the lessons of Saddam Hussein would be wise to be heeded in using Iranian people as human shields.
As you can see, your straw man argument has been effectively debunked with simple facts and clarification of positions along with current military technology and operational usage. We would encourage you to stand on the side of facts, even though President Obama cannot.
Jun 16, 2009 - 7:11 pm 45. Moogie:It is now 7:44pm and my last comment (#28) has been sitting in moderation limbo for four hours. Do the moderators operate on eastern standard time?
Jun 16, 2009 - 7:45 pm 46. bbbb:jb and mike are right on. Dr. Hanson would obviously know more about the term (if I spelled it correctly) but the ancient Greek idea of telemosyne is all over the Arab world. It means in essence, being clever by whatever means necessary to your own advantage, especially lying. Disingenuousness is a non-issue for them because it’s the norm. Probably most people know some Arab who lives a completely different life in the Western world as the SAME person lives in the Arab world. Liberals will never get this because they never, ever consider with an intelligent eye the view from another person. Obama will never get the Arab world, and yes, OF COURSE he made a FOOL of himself to them. Am I the only person who remembers that the Iranian hostages were held over 400 days under Carter, yet were released days before Reagan took office? The Arabs knew Reagan wouldn’t take their crap- that’s what they respect.
Jun 16, 2009 - 8:01 pm 47. MiamaMan:23. Free Hat:
[Retarded Republican foreign policy at its worst.]
Mister, I think you are the retarded one. You don’t have to drink and drive.
I heard M’Obama sent intelligence luminary Leon Panetta (Panatella, CIA Chief) to Israel, to make sure Israel refrains from bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. That’s probably what they have left now, and to Nuke them right away if Iran responds harshly. I mean after Ahmadiwhatever takes care of the protesters, put them in concentration camps, torture them, etc, as usual.
As for M’Obama, he will send them another video (Blu-ray disk this time), and put together one of them Muslim speeches, dignifying the great Islamic Republic of Iran, the same republic that attacked the US Embassy, took hostages, disgraced President Carter, who further failed in that rescue attempt in the desert, and finally gave them up when Cowboy Reagan was ready to light their Christmas’ tree (like the therapy he later did with “Colonel” Qaddafi, fixing him for life).
Jun 16, 2009 - 8:29 pm 48. Pat J:The best thing for us to do regarding Iran is to keep our collective mouths shut. If we side with the protesters or put forth some sort of resolution as Mike Pence suggested, it would be seen as American meddling. This will make it an excuse for the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad to come down violently on the protestors. The clerics will feel justified becausae America is meddling in Iran’s internal affairs and the protesters are a part of it.
The best thing to do is to to what the media is trying to do. Get the word out with what’s going on over there, along with photos and video. For the most part this uprising is relatively peaceful compared to the craziness of 1979. I am very hopeful for the Iranian people.
Jun 16, 2009 - 8:53 pm 49. Ron Kean:Free Hat
Shadow
There was a recent video of Iranian women standing on the roof of a building as if praying, saying,’Help us Obama. They’re killing our sons.’ The new street freedom fighters want our help or at least approval and recognition.
In the late 1930’s Jews heard Hitler demonize them and couldn’t believe how terrible the situation would become. They stayed home as loyal Germans and thought the animosity would pass. Their grandparents and uncles fought for Germany on the Somme and at Verdun.
Today the threats of destruction are just like before. Only today we don’t hesitate to believe the things the Iranian leadership is saying. We believe they want genocide. They say they do. We feel we need to stop them before they commit mass murder.
Jun 16, 2009 - 9:49 pm 50. Sheila:Obama is simply not a leader.
Jun 16, 2009 - 10:06 pm 51. Realist:I see ‘Free Hat ‘ and his alter ego (or alternative posting name to give himself backup) ‘The Shadow’ are promoting their Left Wing, idiotic, Multi Culti , moral equivalence Moonbat theories still I would love them to wake up in an Islamic Dictatorship and see how women, gays, Christians and other religions are treated . Then try and spout their Multi Culti everyone is good BS and see how long they live.
Jun 16, 2009 - 10:44 pm 52. Dave Surls:“Literally just a couple of months ago, the general conservative Republican consensus was that we should bomb Iran.”
Good on them. We should have bombed Iran back to the stone age 30 years ago when they attacked our embassy in Tehran. Iran was our enemy then…and nothing has changed. it’s way past time to rid the world of its number one state sponsor of terrorism.
Impeach Obama, put a man in the white house instead of a gutless Jimmy Carter clone, rev up our B-1s and let’s get on with it.
Mad mullahs delenda est.
Jun 17, 2009 - 12:18 am 53. Rashputin:Just Passing Through (42)
“I sometimes think that you, shadow, and sheesh are one person.”
Yeah, I think you’re right. Writing style and choice of words, even slurs, is the same as it the structure. Ignorance is bilss, and the poster playing as those three is just wanting attention because he’s too absurd in person to get any. It happens all the time, it’s sad, but it is common.
Regards
Jun 17, 2009 - 12:21 am 54. Dave:What evil lurks in the hats of men?
Duuno, but The Shadow Trolls.
Jun 17, 2009 - 1:37 am 55. J Milam:“Literally just a couple of months ago, the general conservative Republican consensus was that we should bomb Iran.”
Nice general rant there at nobody in particular. What “same right wing morons”?
“This isn’t a time for feel good rhetoric or refighting a campaign you lost with logic THAT GOT AHMADENIJAD ELECTED IN THE FIRST PLACE.”
Well, if it’s ALL IN CAPS, IT MUST BE TRUE. And who got him elected this time? Are you implying that the first time he was voted in was legitimate? Have any of their elections been truly legitimate? Was Mohammad Khatami somehow better in calling Israel a “plague” and “racist”? Would Mousavi have been better? Would Iran’s clerical establishment have allowed any of Mousavi’s “promises”? Before you answer, don’t forget that Iran started their nuclear program under Mousavi’s Prime Ministership.
The problem is the Iranian people, much like us, keep believing the promises made by those vying for the presidency – promises of more freedom and democracy. Instead, all they’ve gotten was a string of Israel-haters and America-bashers. Ahmadinejad is no different than his predecessors. The only difference is more people are on the internet getting news about him than those before him. Oddly, no one seems interested in, “Before Ahmadinejad there was…”.
Jun 17, 2009 - 3:54 am 56. Paul -Indiana:It’s ok, Obama. We know you’re doing your best.
Jun 17, 2009 - 5:20 am 57. Just Passing Through:48. Pat J:
‘…If we side with the protesters or put forth some sort of resolution as Mike Pence suggested, it would be seen as American meddling. This will make it an excuse for the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad to come down violently on the protestors. The clerics will feel justified becausae America is meddling in Iran’s internal affairs and the protesters are a part of it…’
Mullahs and Ahmadinejad are and will continue to come down hard on the protesters, so I don’t think that fear is enough to justify keeping our collective mouths shut. And if not keeping quiet allows the regime a strawman to point at, I don’t see that mattering either. The protesters know why they’re protesting. Iranians sitting on the sidelines know. Demonizing the US may work to manufacture support for a regime in place, but not for one fracturing.
As far as the media, they are getting the story as a policy initiative or to do what’s best. They are doing it because it’s newsworthy and that’s what they do.
If the best advice that Obama has at the moment is that the protests left be will have legs enough to make a difference without committing the US to a faction and that pans out, the resulting freedom of action in dealing with whoever comes out on top later may be worth keeping options open now. If the protests are crushed without any change in Iran’s external politics, an opportunity for the US to take a stronger stance is lost.
Consider Reagan, Walesa, and the Polish protests in the 80’s.
Jun 17, 2009 - 6:06 am 58. Just Passing Through:53. Rashputin:
“Writing style and choice of words, even slurs, is the same as it the structure.”
Telling isn’t it? As OOMO died, sheesh rose from the ashes. As POM fades, Freehat appears. The shadow has staying power as the ‘Yah, you rock’ sock puppet.
Jun 17, 2009 - 6:13 am 59. Tina Trent:Ron Robinson: yes, incremental progress, and the free market, did more for women than a great deal of ideological bartering. And then ideological bartering had a foothold to do the rest.
However, the situation we are facing now, in Iran and elsewhere, is regression reinforced by reactionary multiculturalism. Nobody is on an incremental path.
Jun 17, 2009 - 9:06 am 60. wl25:I’m glad people take a strong interest in the 1953 coup in Iran known as Operation Ajax. Most people today site that incident as our current unpopularity in the country of Iran. This probably has truth to it, but the grand foreign strategy of the United States during the beginning of the 1950’s was not the spread of democracy.
Jun 17, 2009 - 9:54 am 61. Mongoose:First and foremost, it was to stop the spread of communism into the third world. By 1953, China had been lost to Mao, all of Eastern Europe had been consolidated into the Soviet sphere of influence, and we were in the midst of fighting the Korean War and trying to stop a communist tidal wave heading towards Japan. Whether or not it was based on faulty intelligence, the new Iranian prime minister nationalized the Iranian oil companies and the US received word that there was a chance the communist Tudeh party would consolidate power in Iran. This would give the communists control over at least 25% of the worlds oil supply. There is no US president who would have allowed this to occur. Plus, the Shah’s father was preemptively overthrown in 1941 by the British and the Soviets for his pro-Nazi lean. Now we have a new enemy in the form of Islamic fascism, and now our geo-strategic goals have changed. I am all for the support of these protesters if it means the end of Islamic fascism’s supreme incarnation, The Islamic Republic of Iran.
TC: No one was advocating “leveling Iran”. They were advocating bombing their nuclear arms development infrastructure, which probably amounts to .0001 percent of the country.
Conservatives have been supportive of the Iranian underground for decades.
It is the American Left that has been bending over backwards to accomodate the Mullahs.
Anything to stick it to Israel.
Goodness, it was Carter who enabled their coming to power in the first place.
Typical of what we get out of American Socialists: Inversion of the facts, revisionist history and outright lies.
Get your facts right and stop slandering people.
More Left wing deciet for the American Bolsheviks. SOP for Communists everywhere.
Jun 17, 2009 - 10:19 am 62. Harvard Yard Conservative:In the years leading up to Pearl Harbor, Tinseltown’s Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney, in movie after movie, proclaimed, “I’ve got a great idea. Let’s put on a show!”
Today, in response to each new crisis, the stalwart speaking wet noodle, thinks to himself, “Hey, I know. I’ll give another speech!”
Jun 17, 2009 - 12:38 pm 63. The Shadow:samH as usual yooudon’t knwo what your atalking about – By theway I served for three years in Army Intelligence -not that that me any expert. What i do know is that we have little power to control events in Iran now. Using the bully pulpit would be worthless – what do you suggest. I don’t remeber your hero doign anything after Tienenman Square. How do you expect to keep them from getting the bomb? I am waiting for some realistic policy options – like Hanson who has not had a original idea in years, you have not idea
Jun 17, 2009 - 1:23 pm 64. Fred2:Obama’s Comments
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 - 1:40 pm 65. Dave:wl25: Not only that, but 85%-95% of the populace approved of bringing the Shah back.
Military, merchants, clergy, farmers, and on and on.
The only people who wanted to keep the Mossadegh government were the outright communists and a small minority of students.
The reason was, Mossadegh was elected on a platform of making Iran into a constitutional
monarchy and once in office did his own coup
to establish a “peoples republic”.
The US effort in this matter was a counter-coup, not an originating coup.
Thank you Kermit Roosevelt and Harry Truman.
Jun 17, 2009 - 3:41 pm 66. TLM:wl25:
Unfortunately, this kind of analysis is completely lost on the post baby boomer generations in this country. They neither know nor care to know anything about Cold War political decisions made by their country. Much easier for them to accept that our actions were wrong in ‘53, and never understand how or why we did what we did. Obama’s apology to Iran only reinforces this attitude among young Americans.
Jun 17, 2009 - 6:52 pm 67. J.E. Dyer:Yes, Professor, the mullahs seem to have understood America’s utopians perfectly.
When a regime is butchering its own people as they demonstrate in the street, and appears likely to need to do that on a larger scale to repress them back into “order,” and restore its own power over them — the argument that speaking out against that brutality might make the regime suspect us of meddling is manifestly pathetic.
For about 5 minutes at the very outset of this crisis, there was perhaps a marginal case to be made that Obama could make things worse by expressing support for fair electoral outcomes, the aspiration to real consensual government, and the human rights of the protestors in Iran.
That window passed quickly. We have been at the point, for days, at which the right thing to do is quite obviously for Obama to condemn the regime’s violence against its people, and express solidarity with those people, and the readiness of the United States to stand with a truly fair and consensual outcome, if they can achieve it.
Yet the administration fears to do the right thing. Why? Clearly not because it would make anything worse. The Council is expelling foreign journalists, and most observers expect a bloody crackdown by the Revolutionary Guard in the next few days.
The Iranians are not backwoods idiots. They know America can’t send the cavalry over the hill to fix their problem for them. Obama expressing support for the reformist demonstrators would not raise false hopes in that regard. What it WOULD do is tell them that we, in America, recognize that they are real, viable, organized, and to be taken seriously — that our hand is out, and if they can forge a path to liberalization, we will support them on it.
Obama has, unfortunately, said nothing that would lead them to think that. If the line between hope and despair becomes the tiebreaker for them, the American president has not given them reason to hold onto hope.
There are things we could be doing. My last two blog pieces outline thoughts on that.
Jun 17, 2009 - 7:01 pm 68. TLM:The trials and tribulations of being a smart new president. You stick out the hand of friendship, er appeasement, to your most recalcitrant foe, and a few months later he uses your acknowledgment of his legitimacy to rig his own re-election. The crowd in his country then goes wild and a mini-revolution breaks out, denouncing said leader. Now, what to do for our newly smarter president? Well, all so-called legitimate national leaders hate to see one of their own — or one that they have helped make one of their own — enmeshed in such unpleasantness. The natural tendency for a now “smarter” new president, therefore, is to sit on his thumbs, say nothing of consequence and hope it all blows over. Oh, and invest in a box of Depends.
Jun 17, 2009 - 9:20 pm 69. Jack Marcotte:Essential vdh
#2 Mike: Good and accurate detail and conclusions.
Iran could also be a lesson to the US. It was a pro democracy state under the Shah. Was it perfect no. What happened.
Left wing Utopians in the land of Oz have commented on this “Shah problem” coming to various left wing useless conclusions in the Media and in this blog.
Perhaps the appropriate conclusion to come away with is how a modern, pro-democracy,advancing individual rights country can be pushed back into a radicalized religious Anti democratic state controlled by Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists—while being fewer in number than the pro-western democratic citizens in Iran going about their “business”.
It reminds some of us of how the BHO administration is using his “mandate to revolutionize” America into a socialist anti-capital state. Subversion by definition.
The BHO “radical change” has been so easy now in “Dumbed down America”–we didn’t even have or apparently need a fighting revolution.
Why even mention the MSM, hypnotized by their own needy PC positions based on a dumbed down moronic view of the world.
All that was needed. Just a little dumbed down welfare condition for fast growing parasitic minority “groups” and a few Acorns stuffing boxes and collecting human debris on the streets and leveraging it for a day.
Many X’s on ballets. Then dumping the human debris again–back on the street needing to exist for no higher purpose than Acorn’s use.
Just Acorn, BHO and a bunch of PC idiot representatives on the Democratic side and the same on the Republican side have brought this about.
None seem to be aware that what is happening in the BHO revolution is Non Constitutional.
Judges who talk about a PC “living constitution”. Creating a watered down manifesto for a power grab from the individual to the state. Job security for PC indoctrinated Judicial idiots. No blindfolds here.
It is a perfumed scorpion and the PC smell is enough for our dumbed down politicians.
Does anyone by now believe that Pelosi or Bidden could even build and maintain an outhouse. Does anyone know what Bush ment by a “Compassionate Conservatism”?
When one thinks about all the Americans who have given their lives since the “beginning” of America to defend the constitution it makes one want to fight or leave and find a “better place” in the world.
America is now the most “communist” super power in the world if the BHO agenda gets implemented.
We know how well that has worked out historically. At least those Americans who can still read now above the 5th grade level and have access to the real history books instead of the PC rewrites, presented by the rarefied intellectual air in the Teachers Unions.
What happened? Really!
History is simply repeating itself based on the Human condition.
We are no longer being brought up to be individually responsible citizens–lions to “feed and protect” the “others”. We are being brought up as the victims. PC vegetarians,our brains do not even work right now,the essential fats are gone, multicultural, passive parasites that have been so dumbed down that we do not see that BHO and his “followers” are nothing but Judas goats. We are now sheep.
Those who are aware already know we are on the road to failure and tragedy.
It will be serious and it will be deadly when it finally has to end–like vdh says–a human condition and a tragedy for all Americans.
No longer a beacon or sanctuary in the vicious dark night.
Jun 18, 2009 - 5:14 am 70. Paul -Indiana:#62, Harvard Yard Conservative, just one slight suggestion. “I’ll read another speech”.
Jun 19, 2009 - 7:03 am 71. arthur:As if there is anything the USA can do about the government in Iran, and as if that would help democracy, freedom or the American economy! We changed the government in Iraq, and look at the cost, and it is ongoing. we have not the economy or public support, or the will of allies to effectively use military options against Iran. the only realistic option is trying various forms of diplomacy, none of which has worked for any president yet.
Jun 19, 2009 - 7:25 am