Powered by TypePad

« Meanwhile, Back In Waziristan | Main | I Will Do Anything To Bash Krugman (But I Won't Do That) »

June 23, 2009


Barry Dauphin

The White House now wants to take credit for the brave folks standing up to the mean authorities, but not the kind of credit that constitutes meddling, you see. It was all a subtle (but not meddling) after effect of the president’s speech in Cairo. So, if they overthrow the regime, the Administration wants credit, but not credit for meddling just inspiring, and if the protesters are killed, it’s not because we were meddling but that would really be Bush’s fault.


And it'll probably work.

Actually yesterday Taranto had a long bit showing that Obama had offered some support to the demonstrators and CBS ignored that part of the interview..

(here's what my cat added as she walked across the keyboard.)


just to further the illusion and mythology, Obama called on someone from Huffington Post second at his press conference today, who dutifully asked an agreed upon beforehand question (per Politico). Sounds just like something out of Moscow circa 1970.

"Yes comrade, wheat production is up an amazing 34%. Thank you for asking such a wonderful question."

hit and run

although the 4th of July hotdog diplomacy is still on.

Shameful, isn't it?

But don't just take my word for it, gentle readers -- http://thevimh.blogspot.com/2009/06/obamas-excuciatingly-incorrect-behavior.html>Obama's Excruciatingly Incorrect Behavior

(I do hope more than a few of you know where this line of thought is going before you click the link)

Mark O

But, wait. Isn't it Bush's fault?

JM Hanes

Last night, the NatGeo Channel ran a really informative 2hr special on the last 30 years in Iran. Not surprisingly, it looks like Colin Powell's State Department blew a major opportunity for rapprochement. Iran sent over a "Road Map" for new improved relations, with substantive concessions, and after some preliminary engagement with staffers, submitted a revised version -- to which State never responded! Apparently, it didn't come through the usual "official" channels, although the woman who dealt with it at the time pointed out that it came from a major player and obviously would never have landed on their doorstep without approval from the top.

Condi Rice also had what was virtually a done deal till the newly elected Ahmadinejad killed it, in a major exercise of diplomatic shock and awe. State had a meeting arranged at which Condi herself and the Iranian negotiator were set to give it the official stamp of approval on both sides, and at the very last minute, Ahmadinejad showed up with a huge entourage -- to grandstand at the U.N. instead. So much for the canard of Bush's obstinate refusal to engage. Obama's position could conceivably be influenced by some back channel maneuvering too (diplomacy done right!), but he seems a lot more interested in personal public messaging.


"Yes comrade, wheat production is up an amazing 34%. Thank you for asking such a wonderful question."

Expect more of this with the ABC informercial with staged questions by Obamabots and rehearsed answers by the One, a perfect echo chamber.


I have an excellent idea for the protesters in Iran. Place a pair of panties on your head and the world will come unglued. The Panty Revolution!!!!!


HEH, Sue!!

Jack is Back!

Somehow we are going to regret this opportunity in Iran much in the same
way people came to regret and criticized Bush 41 for not going into Baghdad and deposing Saddam. Remember how that worked out later for the Shia.


No State, quashed the 'grand bargain' not Rumsfeld, not Condi, or Cheney, this wasn't Flynt Leaveritt talking, though.

Jack is Back!

One other thing - did anyone else note BHO's "I won" moment in his answer to the criticism by Repubs (especially McCain). Another cheap, thuggish, Chicago moment.

JM Hanes


I have to give HuffPo a real break on this one. The Guardian has Nico Pitney's question for the Prez @ 5:45pm on their live blog. Pitney has been the single most useful and comprehensive source on internal events as they happen in Iran, and he solicited suggestions from Iranians about what to ask the Prez should he be called upon.

Obama took a query from Nico Pitney, my liveblogging counterpart over at Huffington Post, who had pledged to ask a question suggested by a reader in Iran.

Pitney asked, "Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal" of the demonstrators?

Obama responded that no international election observers were present on the ground, so the US government cannot say what happened. But he said that a "sizeable percentage" of Iranian deem the election illegitimate.

"So ultimately, the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not legitimacy in the eyes of the United States," he said.

Pitney has really been consistently apolitical in his running updates, which makes for a really refreshing change from the usual HuffPo fare.


"Obama has gotten hammered for staying behind the curve of Western leaders in the defense of liberty, freedom, and human rights."

More road apples in Cap'n Ahabs barrel.

No less than the Icon of Foregin Service, Henry Kissinger agreed that too much said by Obama would give the Ayatollahs ammunition to succor their Base. It would serve them well to procleim 'Great Satan' is, once again, attempting a Coup to replace their Theocracy with something else.

This is NOT 1952 Iran.


I think that everyone should start describing the tyrants in charge of Iran as the "Fundamentalists"--religious fundamentalists, no less--that they are. The cognitive dissonance this will engender among the Obamabots in the MSM will be instructive.


Fundamentalist, anti-abortionist, patriarchs, Boatbuilder.


Really you're taking Kissinger's line on Iran, now, Semantic,


Dont forget homophobes. That will really get Sully to resume the pinging on the administration. Siding with homophobes!

Dorothy Jane

I think they should serve Hebrew Natl brand at the 4th of July parties


"taking Kissinger's line"

I don't think he wants to go near the subject of the Iranian Coup...............


God forbid that the President of the United States should be able to formulate a position based on what he, his intelligence services, and his advisors know, and what the international press and common sense make abundantly clear, without the cover of "international elecion observers." No wonder they weren't invited to observe. No wonder Saddam repeatedly went through the charade of elections in which he received 99.8 % of the vote. God forbid that the what the US thinks should matter to anyone.
What a sad embarrassment this man is.


I'm pretty sure they are anti-union as well.


"the President of the United States should be able to formulate a position based on what he, his intelligence services, and his advisors know,"

Yeah. It's called Diplomacy, but I understand yer lack of familiarity with how that works. It hasn't been done in 8 years.

It takes more than inflammatory words like..

"Axis of Evil"

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

Since the Iranian election, BHO has not done much to dispel the notion that he is a slow study, and is not good on taking advantage of international crises as "opportunities'. I guess the Chicago School of politics doesn't extend beyond US shores.

Bill in AZ

WSJ Headline: "Obama: World 'Appalled' by Iran Violence"

(("the President of the United States should be able to formulate a position based on what he, his intelligence services, and his advisors know,"

Yeah. It's called Diplomacy...))

No, it's called the preliminary poll results finally came in and fed the teleprompter.


But what if Mousavi wins? Jonah Goldberg says it doesn't matter:

"If the forces of reform and democracy win, Obama's plan to negotiate with the regime is moot, for the regime will be gone. And if the forces of reform are crushed into submission by the regime, Obama's plan is moot, because the regime will still be there."

More OFDS..(Obama failure derangement syndrome).

Because if his Unified Field Theory of Governance succeeds, it makes nearly everything you stand for an abject failure.


Let's assume the worst case scenerio: the Iranian gov't T-Squares the protesters and manages to survive.

How much you wanna bet that Obama's sycophants would back away from the "Obama's Cairo speech started all of this ..." story?


Politico is reporting that the White House informed Pitney ahead of time that he would be called on.

According to POLITICO's Carol Lee, The Huffington Post reporter was brought out of lower press by deputy press secretary Josh Earnest and placed just inside the barricade for reporters a few minutes before the start of the press conference.

(This post was rewritten shortly after the exchange and updated in the text. Initially, I wrote the exchange was "clearly coordinated," but have since put the question to a Huffington Post spokesperson and the White House for more elaboration. See updates: There was discussion between the White House and Pitney about asking an Iran question).

UPDATE: Deputy press secretary Bill Burton responds: "We did reach out to him prior to press conference to tell him that we had been paying attention to what he had been doing on Iran and there was a chance that he’d be called on. And, he ended up asking the toughest question that the President took on Iran. In the absence of an Iranian press corps in Washington, it was an innovative way to get a question directly from an Iranian."

UPDATE 2: Knoller, again via Twitter: "Huffington Post's Nico Pitney says the WH called him this morning and invited him to ask his Iran questions at the news conference."

Interesting how confident the WH was that Pitney wouldn't reveal the "invitation" until after the press conference. Gee, think they have some practice with this?


No one is defending the stalwart GWB and his theories of Foreign Relations?

Rob Crawford

He's out of office, 'leo.

Please try to keep up with current affairs.


Oops, sorry, matt beat me to it upthread.

It may or may not be a good question by Pitney and a good answer by Obama. What bothers me as I said is that the WH seems so confident and practiced in these arrangements.


Right, Leo. He should have said the axis of not very nice.

Captain Hate

It takes more than inflammatory words like..

"Axis of Evil"

Because calling the filth that murdered Neda by an appropriate name bothers you, mendacious idiot who can't spell "your"? Your heroic Lord of the Flyswatter has been in a really bad mood due to events that call for decisive leadership that he's far short of being able to provide. Now the Iranian protesters can rally around the image of a young and beautiful martyr; real beauty, not the media induced vapors about toned arms on a lurching oaf with the face of a disfigured bulldog. And the murderers of Neda are invited for hotdogs on the Fourth of July. Thanks again 52%


"Please try to keep up with current affairs.'

You do know the importance of the subjects of History, don't you? >rhetorical question>


OT - Ford is now "accepting" money from the Government in the form of a "loan". LUN.

One would hope that they were smarter than this after watching Chrysler become ZombieMotors and GM becoming UndeadMotors. I guess Obama & Co. made them an offer they couldn't refuse.



Totally OT but still a thrill I wanted to share. I got kicked out of a meeting with our chairman, as he indicated he did not want to keep the President waiting. The President was in fact George W. Bush. I even got to shake his hand as I headed for the elevator bank and he and his secret service entourage passed me on the way to our Chairman office.


Apparently, meddling before the fact with the "Cairo speech" is good, but meddling after the fact is bad.

Show of hands of those who think the Mullahs (or the protesters) will appreciate that nuance ...


Just an observation -- a devout Muslim won't eat pork. So, for the Iranian to actually eat the hot dogs, they'd have to be having something Kosher. Wonder how the Ambassador from Iran would look to his chiefs if he went to the US embassy to watch a baseball game and munch on a Hebrew National.


Obama has reduced himself to the level of the nerd who goes to the dance but doesn't dance, but wants credit for helping with the decorations.

President Steven Quincy Urkel



You do yerself a disservice when you regurgitate the meal you have been fed.


Rarely in human history has a gay man been that obsessed with a married woman’s vagina.


Defend GWB?

I will. Bush's assertive foreign policy and the 2 wars that the US has fought on both of Iran's borders in Iraq and Afghanistan have changed the dynamics in the Middle East and Muslim world. This has encouraged pro-democracy movements there, as well as in other places like the Ukraine.

Freer and more democratic governments ("space") on both sides of Iran are what give the Iranians hope and the motivation to change their own government - not Obama's apologetic Cairo speech.

If you don't want to take my word for it, that's okay. You can always take the word of someone like Thomas Friedman of the NYT, in his article entitled "Winds of Change?":


"Second, for real politics to happen you need space. There are a million things to hate about President Bush’s costly and wrenching wars. But the fact is, in ousting Saddam in Iraq in 2003 and mobilizing the U.N. to push Syria out of Lebanon in 2005, he opened space for real democratic politics that had not existed in Iraq or Lebanon for decades. 'Bush had a simple idea, that the Arabs could be democratic, and at that particular moment simple ideas were what was needed, even if he was disingenuous,' said Michael Young, the opinion editor of The Beirut Daily Star. 'It was bolstered by the presence of a U.S. Army in the center of the Middle East. It created a sense that change was possible, that things did not always have to be as they were.'"

Bush's critics still have to get their snark in to maintain their liberal creds, but it's encouraging that even they still find it necessary to acknowledge the reality on the ground.


Wow, Gmax!


Ann Althouse:

“Excuse me. If I may be so bold. I hate to trouble you but…. I don’t mean to impose… I’m not at interfering… Far be it from me to suggest anything that you might be able to characterize as meddling. I’m no meddler. Not at all. I’m just over here, modestly deploring violence.”

Dead center to the target.

Rick Ballard

I'd chip in for a couple of nice hot Poloniumish Sausages. Without preconditions.


"Bush's assertive foreign policy"

>chuckle> Next yer gonna tell us that Reagan brought down the Wall.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

BHO will probably need Andrew Sullivan to explain Rick's symbolism.


Reagan didn't bring down the wall by himself. That was accomplished after 45 years of the Cold War, several proxy wars, the failure of Marxist/Communist economic policies, the will of those who desired freedom behind the Iron Curtain, ... as well as Reagan's promotion of democracy, vocal support of those struggling for freedom behind the Iron Curtain, and his willingness to rebuild the US military after Carter's emasculation and weakness.

Rob Crawford

"You do know the importance of the subjects of History, don't you? "

More than you do. You want to return to a slave economy.


Thanks, fdcol63. It seems pretty obvious to me. How could one speech make more of a difference than the impact of witnessing concrete examples on either side?


fdcol63 - was referring to your comment at 3:19 pm, sorry.

Original MikeS

Obama reduced his usage of the first-person singular "I" by substituting "we". In my book, that qualifies as the majestic plural rather than the first person plural.

I don't like it.

Rick Ballard


A triptych, perhaps? Neda (with a boot print superimposed) centered, with Ogabe on the left and Ahmadinnerjacket on the right over "We Won!". soviet red and koran green flanking the white of virtue.


neo--what a fabulous article. I really loved this one liner:
"(Only a truly supple writer can respond to accusations of objectifying a child by referring to him as “it.”)

GMax, wow--what fun!


Obama hasn't even demonstrated competent "followship", much less "leadership" in this entire episode.

Kudo's to Major Garrett of FOX News for his question, What">http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/06/23/fncs_garrett_asks_obama_what_took_so_long_to_be_concerned.html">What Took You So Long? And don't forget to see how Obama refuses to address Garrett's follow-up about the question of Iranian invites to Fourth of July Celebrations at US Embassies. I'm sure posted pix of Iranian Diplomats sharing Ice Cream at US Embassies on the 4th Of July will be exactly what the Mullah's would wish for in order to dishearten the protesters.


Porchlight, thanks!


--And, he ended up asking the toughest question that the President took on Iran. In the absence of an Iranian press corps in Washington, it was an innovative way to get a question directly from an Iranian.--

As I pointed out in the comments at Politico, questions aren't hard when you know them in advance.

I also suggested they might try the same innovative way of obtaining questions from Americans in the absence of an American press corps in Washington these days.

hit and run

Peter Suderman on twitter about Ezra Klein's NetFlix relationship:

Isn't this same relationship @ezraklein wants lots of young, healthy people to have with insurance?

What is http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/06/my_horrible_relationship_with.html>Klein's relationship with NetFlix? I'm glad you asked:

My Horrible Relationship With Netflix
Matt Yglesias has a quick post on the Netflix movies he rented this weekend. I don't. Because I've had the same three sitting in my drawer for almost two years now. That's literally hundreds of dollars I've donated to Netflix to help subsidize the fees of people who actually use the service. Meanwhile, one of the movies is cracked and I can't find the envelopes for the other two. So I continue my philanthropic donations to the Netflix Fund for the Needy. And every month, I loathe myself just a little bit more.

Rob Crawford

I don't like it.

ITYM we are not amused.


--Isn't this same relationship @ezraklein wants lots of young, healthy people to have with insurance?--

Somewhat. He wants to coerce young healthy people to have that relationship.
Ezra the dope voluntarily keeps doing it.


Thanks for the link. Sully, soup to nuts.

Danube of Thought

This guy Perez Hilton whose face is all over Fox News lately seems indistinguishable from Andrew Sullivan.

The demonstraters have lost, Ahmajinedad will remain in power, and Obama is diminished even more. The Ras approval index is at a very fitting "zero" today.


I have to admit I'm a dope just like Ezra re: Netflix. I had the same three movies for eight months w/o watching them, finally sent them back, changed my plan so I wasn't paying as much, got one more DVD and have now kept that one for six weeks. Pathetic.


I don't think Major Garrett cracked a smile the entire time--was the best question he has asked Obama, evah!! And O was on the defensive after it, unhappy immediately and then his offensive jokes nobody except rubes wanted to laugh at. Tapper looked constipated. I cannot believe you are banned, Dot...what's a facist hyena to do these days?

All in all, O convinced me he is more like Amadinnerjacket and Khomenei, than ever.

Gmax--you evidently had a great day!! Memories......

Jack is Back!

Is this the same guy who questioned people who questioned "words"? Hmmm. Words do have effect, don't they Barry? So, what effect do you think your words being twittered around the Iranisphere are having? Calming? Encouraging? Craven? Lethargic? Apathetic? or Reliant? To me they sound somewhat craven in that it seems you are really afraid of something happening that you don't have the vocabulary to address without the aid of not just a teleprompter but a sense of history and risk.


Gmax: I echo what Glenda said. Way cool.


GMax! Man, I wish I had been there too.


As I pointed out in the comments at Politico, questions aren't hard when you know them in advance.

From the presser:
THE PRESIDENT: Nico, I know that you, and all across the Internet, we've been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?

Q: Yes, I did, I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.

Why go through the charade?
Why not say, "We've asked Nico Pitney to bring us a question from Iran today"? or "I know Nico has a question for me from Iran"

Why pretend it's all about how he's been paying attention to HuffPo (though apparently he's above cable news chatter) and surmises, from the nature of their coverage, that Nico Pitney may be there with a question from Iran?


--Why go through the charade?--

Cause he's a charlatan?


I'm really disappointed that nobody asked Obama about the election result.

Official results credited Mr. Ahmedinejad with 24 million votes to 13 million for Mir Hossein Mousavi. Now the Guardian Council has indicated that there are at least 3 million votes are in dispute with 50 Iranian cities reporting over 100% voting.

Take makes it something like 3/(24+13) or about 8% of the vote.

Does Obama feel that the US voting system is secure enough to avoid anything like that ?



The way I read the NatGeo special, they were blaming Bush personally. Colin and Armitage had it all worked out, but George didn't seize the opportunity when the "moderate" Khatami offered peace. And then of course the whole "axis of evil" speech just hurt the poor Iranians feelings.They seem to forget that Iran was still funding Hamas, Hezbollah, and a nuclear weapons program.

Even when there has been some moderation in Iran, revanchists like the revolutionary Guards and Basij have their own agenda.


I see Instapundit is quoting from our peanut gallery here again.



"a lurching oaf with the face of a disfigured disgruntled bulldog"

Fixed it for you, Cap'n!


Bravo Ben!!

Nat Geo gets worse every month..Pheh


It gets even better,after the first part above, the Chairman comes strolling down our hall, stops right in front of my office and says "want to have your picture taken with the President?" I jump. Hope the goofiness of the grin is not captured by the camera!


Woohoo, GMax!


I see Instapundit is quoting from our peanut gallery here again.

I can't agree with Insty's conclusion. Pitney may have asked a challenging question, but since Obama knew the question ahead of time, it is effectively a softball. Besides, above all the collusion with the WH ought to be deplored.




Sorry! hope this works.


Sorry! this work in preview, but not on the post..

JM Hanes


NatGeo did spend time sussing out the effect of GWB's "Axis of Evil" formulation, but I don't think that's inappropriate, because it did have undeniable ramifications. In the segment about the Road Map debacle, though, they specifically stated that it was not, in fact, nixed by "hard liners at the White House," it was ignored by the folks at State. Their treatment of Condi's negotiations seemed pretty positive, and they placed responsibility for that setback squarely in Ahmadinejad's court. In contrast, they made Maddy Albright look like an idiot.

All in all, I thought it was a more balanced presentation than any I've seen in a long time. The interviews with major players on the Iranian side were particularly interesting, and it was remarkably well edited for narrative flow, IMO, which was no small achievement if you count up all the different people they included.

There was a lot that I had forgotten -- or not paid much attention to contemporaneously. I'm not sure I realized that the Shah had the 5th largest army in the world, although I was aware that SAVAK, his secret police, were everywhere. In some ways, the '79 revolutionaries were at a similar, if not worse, structural disadvantage than the opposition is now.

Back in the early '70's, I was in Iran with a friend who asked me not to say anything about the Shah, good or bad, because virtually anybody could be reporting on you, and my comments would attach to her as my host. As she put it, "When SAVAK tells you to snitch, you don't say no." This was true at every level of the social strata, including Iran's considerable coterie of jet setters who were in favor with the Shah at the time. Even one of Tehran's most infamous playboys was pretty widely known as an informer.

She also said that no one could get ahead in government -- or pretty much anywhere else, I believe -- without handing out bribes at every step along the way. It was never discouraged by the authorities, because "exposure" of such corruption provided a convenient excuse to get rid of anyone who proved inconvenient.

I doubt that's changed much, which is why I suspect that if the establishment wants to dump Ahmadinejad, they could do it the traditional way easily enough, at almost any point in time. Ahmadinejad accused Rafsanjani of corruption (presumably true), and it's my impression that the A'jad attack may have gotten more attention than almost anything else he said in the pre-election debates. Khamenei's emphatic defense of Rafsanjani's rectitude at the Friday prayer meeting seems significant to me, perhaps as an attempt to keep his options open. Of course, it might have just been the better part of wisdom not to piss off the head of the Assembly of Experts.

Hans Nichols [Los Angeles Times]. Hans.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. If I can just return to the economy more generally. When you were selling the economic stimulus package, you talked and your advisors and economists talked about keeping unemployment below 8 percent. Last week you acknowledged that unemployment is likely to reach double digits, being 10 percent. Do you think you need a second stimulus package?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, not yet, because I think it's important to see how the economy evolves and how effective the first stimulus is. I think it's fair to say that -- keep in mind the stimulus package was the first thing we did, and we did it a couple of weeks after inauguration. At that point nobody understood what the depths of this recession were going to look like. If you recall, it was only significantly later that we suddenly get a report that the economy had tanked.

And so it's not surprising then that we missed the mark in terms of our estimates of where unemployment would go. I think it's pretty clear now that unemployment will end up going over 10 percent, if you just look at the pattern, because of the fact that even after employers and businesses start investing again and start hiring again, typically it takes a while for that employment number to catch up with economic recovery. And we're still not at actual recovery yet.

Please .. will somebody tell Mr. Obama that there isn't a chance in hell that there will be a second "stimulus" after the "world class" screwup of a "stimulus" that Congress already passed.

There will be no do overs. We can't afford it.

And I lover the historical revisionism .. they found out after the "stimulus" was passed that the economy had tanked ?? They had been going around before the inauguration saying that it was going to get worse before it got better. Besides, if the economy hadn't tanked already .. why was the Congress asked to pass a "stimulus" with a $878 billion price tag ?? Hoots and giggles .. I suppose.

Strawman Cometh



Interesting bit of comic book trivia at this Mossadegh link.

Published from 1951 to 1956, T-Man was among the more enduring anticommunist titles and probably the only comic book ever to feature the adventures of a US Treasure agent. A T-Man story published in late 1951 opens in Teheran at a meeting between British diplomats and an Iranian official, in which the participants are about to conclude a treaty granting Great Britain and the United States exclusive oil rights to Iranian oil production. The Iranian leader tells the Englishman that he is happy to give away these rights because the British and AMericans have demonstrated that they respect Iranian laws and customs. Suddenly his is interrupted by someone who appears to be a US Treasury agent Pete Trask, who burst into the room, throws a squealing pig at the Iranian official, and says, "here rag-head! Take this little fellow home and barbecue him for breakfast!". The agent then flees, having effectively sabotaged the treaty.

Outraged by this deliberate (and extraordinarily absurd) insult to Islamic custom, the Iranian leader cancels the treaty. Later it is revealed that this ruse was the work of a Soviet agent disguised as Trask, who is trying to poison relations between Iran and the West. Inevitably, the real Pete Trask sets matters straight and ensures that the treaty is signed. In this tale, obviously inspired by the recent overthrow of the anti-Western Mossadegh government in Iran, Communism is once again contained and the US and Great Britain win exclusive rights to Iranian oil.

The conclusion in all of this is that Mossadegh was just a poor misunderstood fellow who wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil fields--in the fifties.

JM Hanes


According to Pitney:

[The White House] never asked what the question would be, and they helped me move through the very packed briefing room when I showed up a bit late (sorry to the many toes I stepped on getting through).
He relates the sequence of events in his 3:58 pm post.



It was interesting, but having Powell and Armitage selling Bush out once more made my stomach turn.

Your points are well taken regarding Iran pre-1979. One of the most corrupt oligarchies in the world. The turning point was that the Shah was dying and word crept out, emboldening the opposition. Khomeini was in Paris, having survived several assassination attempts, biding his time. He was able to coopt the opposition very effectively by gaining the support of the middle and lower classes.

Today, that same class of mullahs have simply replaced the Shah's corruption with their own, which is what Ahmedinejad was supposed to have stood against until he too was coopted.

People forget that there were and are many places in the world where speech is not free. A good reminder JM.


Andy McCarthy at The Corner explains why Obama can't/won't condemn the mullahs. I think he's right on, especially his contention that Obama wants what's best for America...but that "best" is very different from what most here would imagine.


It is so nice that Miss Cleo has found a new home to post obtuse comments. I'm sure Jeff Goldstein would be pleased to hear this.

Charlie (Colorado)

No less than the Icon of Foregin Service, Henry Kissinger agreed that too much said by Obama would give the Ayatollahs ammunition to succor their Base.

Wait, I thought Kissinger was an evil realist neocon Jew war criminal.

Charlie (Colorado)

I dinna do it.

hit and run

[The White House] never asked what the question would be

Well that was bleepin' obvious from the response Obama gave.

I would have expected much more had TOTUS been given a chance to formulate the response.

As it is, Obama met my expectations with his garbled and meaningless non-answer.

JM Hanes


I believe she may have been holding forth here before she branched out to Protein Wisdom. At the moment, she's trying to get up to speed on her yers, so she can graduate to arghhhhh by 19 September.

Rick Ballard

If the Ogabe Regime is going to take responsibility and credit, perhaps they could pay the bills being presented to victim's families for the bullets expended in killing demonstrators. Or maybe send the families of victims a case of hot dogs to show their support.

The level of corruption of tyrannies throughout that portion of the world so unfortunate as to live under muslim misrule has to be measured against the Ottoman empire. It really isn't that bad using that measure. About average, if viewed against 1400 years of slavery, theft and murder.


Thought experiment: Let's say John "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain and Sarah "Iran is planning a second holocaust" Palin had managed to eke out a victory back in November.

Think things would be looking any better (for the US) in Persia? Hardy har har har.


Nico gave him a good question, and not surprisingly he couldn't answer itproperly. Powell & Armitage couldn't be for democracy could they; considering their ties to a corrupt, Sunni dominated Shia majority authoritarian regime (Soviet style)none the less, Azerbaijan. Interestingly both Mousavi
and Khamenei are ethnic Azeris. One recalls for the otherwise wretched "Reds" that John Reed, was surprised to see that the Soviets
were using Islamist propaganda, to undermine
the U.K. tied post WW 1 regime there. The Aliev's as of this writing, has been able to keep any Salaf1 activism under wraps.


I remember Cyrus Hashemi who was certainly assassinated..He was represented by a friend and seemed very Westernized--In fact he was a member of the Hashemifamily, enemies of the Shah and he was working with the mullahs.

JMH is right--it was a bizarre, high living culture where everyone was on the take and everyone was a snitch to some group or groups.

hit and run

perhaps they could pay the bills being presented to victim's families for the bullets expended in killing demonstrators

It was a national crisis when Palin was ( very wrongly) accused of making rape victims pay for rape kits, of course.

mark l.

spin this...

"Iranian public opinion of the United States has dropped since Barack Obama was elected, despite his willingness to hold talks with Iran and perceptions that he is improving world views of America."


god forbid that the obama admin acknowledge high unemployment, inflation, and other failed economic policies would lead to people in the streets.

Captain Hate

Thought experiment:

Go fuck yourself douche. Neda's blood is on you and the rest of the 52% that elected the host of the July 4th hotdog/murder fest. Laugh that off, prick.


"I thought Kissinger was an evil realist neocon Jew war criminal.'

Shorter Chaco; 'Atleast he's not a Muslim...'

The comments to this entry are closed.