Accepted Wisdom™ on Obama’s Response to the Iran Crisis
(Accepted Wisdom™ is an occasional feature of this site, highlighting contradictory viewpoints held by the elite.)
It is Accepted Wisdom™ that:
It would have been counterproductive for Obama to unequivocally condemn the Iranian regime’s violence as soon as it happened. This would have played into the hands of the regime. The world is watching every move Obama makes. He is a symbol of America. Everything he does is closely monitored and is seen as representative of the United States.
And at the same time:
Republicans are cynically exploiting Obama’s ice cream jaunt during the most critical day of the Iranian uprising. Republicans are stupid to argue that the world is watching every move Obama makes. Republicans are playing politics when they argue that Obama is a symbol of America, and that everything he does is closely monitored and is seen as representative of the United States. What a stupid argument that is. Obama is just a dad taking his kids out for ice cream.
And at the same time:
Remember when Bush said “Now watch this drive” after making a statement about terrorists? What a doofus.
It’s just the usual Alphabetist hypocrisy, Patterico. It’s always different when a person with a “D” after their name does something. Although it is amusing if a bit sad to watch the tapdancing of the Left refusing to accept their own hypocrisy.
Me, I would be delighted if both Right and Left joined forces to no longer accept many political behaviors. But that isn’t going to happen anytime soon.
Eric Blair (5a226d) — 6/21/2009 @ 2:19 pm“The world is watching every move Obama makes. He is a symbol of America. Everything he does is closely monitored and is seen as representative of the United States.”
The above is just silly. Cleary Obama is more than just a symbol of America and a representative of America. He is a representaive of the world and his actions transcend the petty artifical boundaries of the nation called America. He is the person the world awaited. He stopped the oceans rising and began the earth healing.
Think much bigger and out of the box Patterico. You’ve got conservative blinders on. Imagine rainbows and unicorns like a good progressive.
daleyrocks (718861) — 6/21/2009 @ 2:27 pmAccepted Wisdom is among my favorite of your series, primarily because it’s usually a glaringly obvious statement that nobody noticed until you pointed it out.
DRJ (cdbef5) — 6/21/2009 @ 2:42 pmIt is Accepted Wisdom that if the outcome is bad, Bush will be blamed. If the outcome is good, Teh One will take credit, and his sycophants in the media will give him credit. It is Accepted Wisdom that Teh One will single-handedly disarm the Iranian and Nork nuke programs.
JD (da8b51) — 6/21/2009 @ 2:47 pmAnd if it doesn’t work, JD, guess who is at fault?
BushRove Neocons, standing in the way of skittle-pooting unicorns!
Eric Blair (5a226d) — 6/21/2009 @ 2:51 pmMaybe this is what Slow Joe was talking about in that babbling incoherent nishi-esque rambling where he said that non-action is action and action is non-action. If this was the test Slow Joe was talking about, Teh One rescheduled his exam.
JD (da8b51) — 6/21/2009 @ 2:57 pmWhen the Obama adminstration got twitter to move their manintenance to a resistance down time block, Khameini raved about Western meddling.
wheeler's cat (0cf7e1) — 6/21/2009 @ 3:24 pmThe consensus of people that know what they are talking about, is that Obama has done exactly the right things do far.
One thing you don’t seem to take in account is that he is leaving himself room to manoeuver when the situ is in flux.
Hey, wheeler’s cat. Since you are all into Sufism, here is a good quote for you to remember:
You seem to be very contrarian. Muhammad himself is the source of the quote above. It’s from “Essential Sufism.”
Eric Blair (5a226d) — 6/21/2009 @ 3:29 pmYes, people that bend with the wind, and have their finger in the air testing which direction that wind is coming from, always try to leave themselves maneuver room so that they can appear to be leading the parade, when they are just followers of it.
AD - RtR/OS! (33c17b) — 6/21/2009 @ 3:30 pmFor further clarification, just go look up “empty suit”.
Obama always leaves himself room to maneuver.
DRJ (cdbef5) — 6/21/2009 @ 3:30 pmObama’s words, let us not forget, cease having meaning as soon as they are uttered.
And nishi would be praising Teh One no matter what position he took, and will continue to do so. It is a believer.
JD (da8b51) — 6/21/2009 @ 3:34 pmAgain, during the ‘critical days’ of the Cuban Missle Crisis, President Kennedy had the audacity to sit through the screenings of a few movies, probably with popcorn, not ice cream in hand. And we’re still here. Had Dubya been CIC at the time your Post Toasties would still be glowing in the dark.
GWB made the error of giving a statement on terrorism while teeing up then couldn’t resist adding a smark aleck quip to it to remove all doubt in the doofus department. He did a similar thing just last week when at a photo op when a reporter asked Pappy Bush what he had for breakfast before his skydiving event. Dubya chimed in, “Check the ocean.” Yes, one a doofus, always a doofus.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/21/2009 @ 3:39 pmWell then, I think we’re all in agreement:
AD - RtR/OS! (33c17b) — 6/21/2009 @ 3:42 pmDuckCrap is a Doofus!
DRJ, I am reminded of Captain Louis Renault from “Casablanca”:
Of course, in the movie, Renault finally finds his convictions. It will be interesting to learn what our President really stands for, and will say, when the going gets tough.
“Maneuvering room” can mean many things. Let’s hope it doesn’t mean “lacks convictions” or “looks only to short-term political advantage.”
Time will tell.
Eric Blair (5a226d) — 6/21/2009 @ 3:43 pmDCRAP posted that same comment yesterday. It was no less inane the second time around.
JD (da8b51) — 6/21/2009 @ 3:44 pmHad Dubya been CIC at the time your Post Toasties would still be glowing in the dark.
What is interesting about these trolls is how ignorant they are. It is now known that Kennedy was looking for a way out and the Russians gave him a face saving out because they feared a coup de etat in the US if he surrendered as he was suggesting. The removal of missiles from Turkey was kept a secret for decades to avoid embarrassing him.
This was in the Venona transcripts and KGB records that were opened during Yeltsin’s early government. Kennedy was weak and Khrushchev was reckless so we almost had a serious clash. Still, I don’t think Kennedy was nearly as weak as Obama.
MIke K (90939b) — 6/21/2009 @ 3:50 pmMike K – Odd that they see a victory in that, huh?
JD (da8b51) — 6/21/2009 @ 3:54 pmTo me, it is interesting how the Left just “knows” how “stupid” GW Bush (and apparently his father) is…yet foolish or bizarre statements made by the President and Vice President are not even commented upon.
Heck, I remember hearing how darned smart Al Gore was for years. Ditto John Kerry. Then the grades got posted. Suddenly grades didn’t mean anything (they sure did before). The goalposts move, as they always do for alphabetists.
Would GW Bush have nuked the Soviets over Cuba? Seems like a bizarre question, since we know now about all the weirdnesses of the JFK administration, which has been touted as Camelot by folks who should know better. Heck, even by people who were very small children during that time.
What I do know is that GWB didn’t nuke targets in the Middle East. I wonder what JFK would have done, if the date of those attacks had been 9-11-61?
Breakfast cereal or not.
Eric Blair (5a226d) — 6/21/2009 @ 4:01 pmObama always leaves himself room to maneuver.
i.e. Obama always leaves himself an escape route.
Dana (8d88ef) — 6/21/2009 @ 4:06 pmDRJ, that is because Obama is not a true liberal, but a machiavellian pragmatist with liberal tendencies.
wheeler's cat (0cf7e1) — 6/21/2009 @ 4:08 pmAnd you will not beat him, unless you can come up with a machiavellian pragmatist with conservative tendencies to oppose him.
😉
All conservatives need is a real conservative.
DRJ (cdbef5) — 6/21/2009 @ 4:13 pm“…machiavellian pragmatist …”
AD - RtR/OS! (33c17b) — 6/21/2009 @ 4:15 pmIs that how they define narcissist these days?
Who is the “real” conservative you are going to run?
Zombie Reagan?
Ahh, yesssss.
wheeler's cat (0cf7e1) — 6/21/2009 @ 4:22 pmSarah Palin.
Not a peep out of her, huh?
I betcha she is bizzy cramming to be able to tell the difference between Iran and Irq.
“Obama always leaves himself room to maneuver.”
DRJ – Or he flat out lies about his prior positions like he did in the campaign and figures the liberal media won’t call him on it.
daleyrocks (718861) — 6/21/2009 @ 4:25 pm“Who is the “real” conservative you are going to run?”
nishi – Of course it will be Palin because real women like her scare the pee out of hatemongering dormitory feminazi grrls like you and it’s so funnee to watch you squirm.
daleyrocks (718861) — 6/21/2009 @ 4:28 pmI betcha she is bizzy cramming to be able to tell the difference between Iran and Irq.
Comment by wheeler’s cat
I hope she is not asking the Democrat chair of the House Intelligence Committee to tutor her because he doesn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shia.
Silvestre Reyes, the Democrat chosen to head the House of Representatives committee, was asked whether members of Al Qaeda came from the Sunni or the Shia branch of Islam.
“Al Qaeda, they have both,” he answered, adding: “Predominantly probably Shi’ite.”
Wrong !
Jeff Stein, a reporter for Congressional Quarterly, then put a similar question about Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shia group. “Hezbollah. Uh, Hezbollah . . .” replied Mr Reyes. “Why do you ask me these questions at five o’clock? Can I answer in Spanish? Do you speak Spanish?” Go ahead, said Stein. “Well, I, uh . . .” said the congressman.
Well, I’m sure he knows who his campaign donors are and that’s what counts. After all, the war on terror is just a bumper sticker according to would-be president Edwards.
MIke K (90939b) — 6/21/2009 @ 4:43 pmSee how the supporter of eugenics and geonicide always tries to change the topic, or focus on its Obama lurv?
JD (da8b51) — 6/21/2009 @ 4:43 pmsee how your hatred of her once again causes you to whine and cry. Contribute something, dj. Just once.
timb (8f04c0) — 6/21/2009 @ 4:45 pmI do not speak to you for a reason. Now, crawl back under your rock.
JD (da8b51) — 6/21/2009 @ 4:47 pmI do believe Sarah Plain will be the GOP nominee.
wheeler's cat (0cf7e1) — 6/21/2009 @ 5:02 pmI do not hate nishit. I pity her. I wish the people close to her would get her help. Hate is not an emotion the trolls could produce, as in order to hate something, you have to have some emotional investment to begin with.
Nishi’s “beliefs” are her religion.
JD (da8b51) — 6/21/2009 @ 5:31 pmHey, the heralded release of Bo’s official portrait and the photo op ice cream run in the midst of a world crisis were totally fine—-but he wasn’t caught in the cardinal sin of reading My Pet Goat to the girls, was he?!
elizabeth (e6434c) — 6/21/2009 @ 5:34 pmWell McCain didn’t know the difference, and he thought the Surge took place in Baghdad. It’s a congress thing dooontcha kno/
wheeler's cat (0cf7e1) — 6/21/2009 @ 5:49 pmObama knows the difference.
That is what counts.
There are few people out there who hate the idea of Barack Obama being our president more than I do, but — and I hate to say it — he’s actually done things pretty close to right on this issue.
It has been said that when your enemy is busy destroying himself, you should get out of the way and let him proceed. Regardless of who wins in Iran, Iran will be weakened. If Mr Mousavi wins, especially in a way which brings down the mullahs, he’ll have to spend a great deal of effort consolidating his power. If Mr Ahmadinejad wins, he’ll have a more restive, more resentful population with which to deal, and the clerics who have the top power will be weakened as well. More, the Islamists outside of Iran will be weakened; they have a stake in this, and in the victory of Iranian theocracy. I don’t have a problem with private citizens expressing their opinions, and, in one way, we might even be helping to prolong the strife. But as for our government, I’d say that our not getting in the way of the Iranian self-immolation is, if not a good thing, still the wisest thing we can do.
The Dana who is, very uncharacteristically, defending Barack Obama (474dfc) — 6/21/2009 @ 5:50 pmYou are a practical person, Dana, and pragmatism is a valid and longstanding U.S. foreign policy perspective. Is there a point where you think getting involved in Iran – rhetorically, that is – would be justified? And do you have a guess why Obama has reached that point and you haven’t?
DRJ (cdbef5) — 6/21/2009 @ 6:05 pmMike K., DCSCA’s version of history is always hilarious – between his Zelig tendencies and his outright fantasies.
SPQR (26be8b) — 6/21/2009 @ 6:07 pmA classic case of accepted wisdom as asserted here:
“The consensus of people that know what they are talking about, is that Obama has done exactly the right things do far.”
Ah. Smart power.
Just curious, what exactly are those “right things” and please provide a clear link between cause(action) and effect(s).
Because I admit not to know right now if Obama’s strategy of neutral statement followed days later by mild assertion can be claimed by any sane person as having had any effect at all.
I think I could easily argue that this is nothing more than a stern and sonorous vote of present.
Now, I will agree that a simple “I’m here” can be a great great deterrent, and at times a great support… sort of like an AA sponsor.
I would like “people that know what they are talking about” to show me how the Iranian leadership’s position towards the world has changed because of Obama’s speeches.
SteveG (c99c5c) — 6/21/2009 @ 6:12 pm“Too early to tell….” would be a great start to the best answer
DRJ asked:
Yes: that point is reached when we have the actual power to accomplish something. Right now, we don’t — unless we’re talking about bombing Qom.
This will be resolved, one way or the other, internally in Iran. There is a ground-up revolution starting, which will or will not succeed. It seems to me that officially siding with Mr Mousavi actually strengthens President Ahmadinejad and the mullahs, rather than helping the revolutionaries.
We have a long history of interfering in the internal affairs of Iran, and that’s been drummed into the heads of the Iranian people for a long time. If we are seen as interfering again, it will simply strengthen the hands of those against whom we are seen as interfering.
Now, if we actually had the power to change things, to make things run our way, my position would be different. But we really have no power there.
The cynical Dana (474dfc) — 6/21/2009 @ 6:17 pmThe problem inherent in Obama’s neutrality on Iran is the very same problem I had with his voting record in Illinois where he relentlessly expressed his non-preferences by voting “Present” so bloody often. He’s just so very relentlessly neutral on so many damned things, well, until there’s a poll or someone complains. THEN he’s got a position. The problem is that his neutrality does not look like informed pragmatism. It looks like same old same old, voting present, blah blah blah.
Were Reagan the one speaking against the violence and refusing to take a side, I could trust that he actually HAD a side or even a blasted opinion and was choosing public pragmatism as the right course in this instance. I agree with The Dana with the ever changing moniker and Mike K, this is an instance of allowing your enemy to destroy themselves. Irreparable damage has been done to the Mullah system. I don’t think any of the dogs up for president hunt. I do recognize that getting our official opinion out there by picking a side is all kinds of wrong. We can condemn the violence and the obviously fraudulent election results.
BHO’s response was weak and waffling, it continues to be weak a waffling.
Vivian Louise (c0f830) — 6/21/2009 @ 6:24 pmWas that a waffle cone that Obama was eating?
Obama preaches that we should all be above this that and the other thing; he goes out and plays golf seemingly every Sunday (Dubya shut his golf excursions down after the invasion of Iraq) etc.
I’d say that the appropriate caption for the photo of Obama eating an ice cream cone this weekend was “Hey you militants in Iraq? Lick this!” That was the message that was sent, if perhaps not the message that was intended.
Mike Myers (674050) — 6/21/2009 @ 6:35 pmDana,
So you don’t believe the U.S. should issue any statement of support or criticism unless we’re willing to take immediate military action to back up our position? Is this a policy specific to Iran, to belligerents in general, or does it apply to all nations?
DRJ (cdbef5) — 6/21/2009 @ 6:45 pmFor the last eight years Democrats have attacked Bush for everything he did. They did it whether he was right or wrong, moderate or conservative, active or passive. All the while they accused Republicans of defending Bush and following him blindly. The fact that Bush faced as much GOP criticism in his first week as Obama has gotten from his party in five months. Bush made many mistakes and I tried to point them out throughout his term. I was never that impressed with Bush, although the Democrats he ran against did everything in their power to make him look like Churchill or Reagan. He was very lucky in drawing Gore and Kerry, a pair of vainglorious nonentities.
I reserve the right to praise Obama when he does the right thing. And if he ever does, I will do so.
Ken Hahn (892992) — 6/21/2009 @ 6:57 pmWaiting to speak until after things have gone horribly wrong and your words could no longer really have any type of effect is not really leadership, is it?
JD (da8b51) — 6/21/2009 @ 7:07 pmThe Bush line “now watch this drive” was taken totally out of context. He made that statement BEFORE 9-11 and he was talking about Hamas/Fatah
Capitalist Infidel (38bec9) — 6/21/2009 @ 7:48 pm#18- I wonder what JFK would have done, if the date of those attacks had been 9-11-61? Wondered what they were aiming at in New York since there was no WTC complex in 1961. It’s a cinch he and his people would have read the reports warning of it prepared for him in August, along with Barbara Tuckman’s ‘The Guns Of August’ as well.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/21/2009 @ 8:59 pm#34- That’s right. “Let’em land.” And admirable that in spite of your ‘hatred’ you can be honest enough to see President Obama and his people are on the proper approach to let Iran work this out on their own.
DCSCA (9d1bb3) — 6/21/2009 @ 9:07 pmDCSCA – It must have been sort of like that partially privatized postal service and its cost cutting you were on about a week or so ago but couldn’t explain to anyone. That’s what you get for lifting ideas from other people without understanding them.
daleyrocks (718861) — 6/21/2009 @ 9:07 pmWait … I thought the meme was now that Teh One has come down hard on Ahmendinnerjacket and the mullahs. Now DSCSA is telling us he is still sitting on the sidelines. Where will the madness end? Can you Leftists pick a meme, just one, and stick with it. A little consistency should not be too much to ask for.
JD (dd7aa0) — 6/21/2009 @ 9:20 pmIt is so much more convenient if they could just tell one lie at a time.
AD - RtR/OS! (33c17b) — 6/21/2009 @ 9:36 pmWhy exactly would we bomb Quom, the local Ayatollah Montazeri, has given assent to the protests, no Bushehr, Isfahan, Natanz would be the likely targets. I’m no expert but something
like this, could make the point, it’s not a formal statement, but after the assassination of Neda Sultan, it might have an impact, unless this is what we now call a spirited debate:
“Women worldwide watching Iran protests led by women demanding fair election & equality; their voices loud, strong; they will usher in change.”
The Cuban Missile crisis was a game of chicken occasioned by JFK not deigning to admit that 100,000 Soviet troops along with the missiles, had been placed in Cuba, until it was too late.
narciso (996c34) — 6/21/2009 @ 10:18 pmI bet Obama and his family are just washing their faces and brushing their teeth and sleeping in their beds tonight WHILE PEOPLE DIE. They are history’s greatest monsters.
southpaw (7bcdba) — 6/21/2009 @ 11:23 pmI really hope that the troll types feel better, posting what they do. It must burn them something fierce to have their Hope and Change President do things that they themselves condemned when Republicans did them.
I can’t explain the anger and bitterness they display in any other way.
And it is going to get worse.
Eric Blair (5a226d) — 6/22/2009 @ 12:02 amIt would have been counterproductive for Obama to unequivocally condemn the Iranian regime’s violence as soon as it happened.
I’d give him some leeway for prudent decisionmaking if the guy now in the Oval Office wasn’t the same fool who bowed before the king of Saudi Arabia — which even a snot-nosed teenager could have sensed was totally inappropriate etiquette — and a few months later allowed the White House official photographer to snap a shot of him with his feet up on the desk while speaking to Israel’s prime minister.
Also, if Barry feels he must show so much restraint and quiet contemplation towards the Iranian regime, then why the hell hasn’t be displayed as much — or at least a somewhat similar amount of — diffidence towards the Hobson’s-Choice quagmire that Israel faces, and has been facing for decades?
Bush made many mistakes
I never cared for traces of amorality evident in his and his father’s attitude towards nations along the lines of the PRC (ie China), or certainly people like Vladimir Putin (given an overly friendly nickname of “Pootie-Poot” by Bush). Also, some of Bush II’s biggest blunders can be traced to when he became philosophically squishy and acted more like a liberal Democrat than a common-sense rightist (eg, his stance on illegal immigration, burgeoning budget deficits, Harriet Miers—one of W’s father’s biggest goofs, BTW, was choosing the stealth candidate of David Souter, who in reality was quite leftwing, to the Supreme Court).
Mark (411533) — 6/22/2009 @ 12:52 amSo much for the meme that all Muslims love theocracy. The neoconservatives must be so bummed.
Hollywood Gliberal (9beff2) — 6/22/2009 @ 5:07 amI’m willing to cut W a fair amount of slack, on some of these points, even before September 11th, it’s turn toward Orthodox Christianity,he thought that Russia’s capitalist orientation and it’s general anti-Islamist fight, there willinf not to abide by the ABM shibboleths would bond them together. Miers wasn’t the best candidate, but at the time with helpful John’s “Gang of 14” it was realistically we could get, I don’t think she would have been a Souter, because she had a familiarity with many of the issues involved. The panic over that and the Dubai ports deal, which was occassioned by Britain’s surrenderof P& O was unseeemly. He likewise never promised to be an anti-immigration crusader or deficit hawk, so I don’t see how he can be faulted for that.
narciso (4e0dda) — 6/22/2009 @ 5:36 amDRJ wrote:
It doesn’t have to be military power to have power in a situation, but in this one, we have none. If I thought that we could have a positive impact by taking action, whether that action was stronger public support for Mr Mousavi or financial support or whatever, yeah, I’d support it. But all I see here are negative responses.
And, quite frankly, Mr Mousavi strikes me as being little better than the current regime. He has some Western support because he has painted himself as a “reformer,” but basically we are looking at him to be President Not-Ahmadinejad. I don’t know just how much of a change that would be. He hasn’t said the nut-case things President Ahmadinejad has said, but, in a way, that could make him more dangerous; at least with the current regime, the West is more on its guard.
Mr Mousavi was the longest serving Prime Minister in Iran since the Islamic Revolution, and spent most of that tenure under the Ayatollah Khoumeini. He was the political enemy of Abolhassan Banisadr, who was at least trying to get the American hostages freed; Mr Mousavi hurt us in that instance.
I just have a hard time picturing him as better, either for Iran or for the US.
With the bloody images we’re seeing, it just goes against our grain to remain silent, but sometimes, that’s still the only real option.
The realistic Dana (3e4784) — 6/22/2009 @ 5:36 amSouthpaw wrote:
Really? I don’t like the fact that Mr Obama is our president any more than you do, but just what do you think President Obama could do differently that would have a positive impact? I’m not sure how letting his teeth rot would help matters.
The inquisitive Dana (3e4784) — 6/22/2009 @ 5:40 amWhich Dana um…
realistic, there is no question that it would be better for the United States and Iran if Iranian elections were actually free.
So what if the first popular vote is for some dude who worked with the Ayatollah Khoumeini?
papertiger (fb6ec3) — 6/22/2009 @ 6:01 amI would be hard finding a politician in Iran who didn’t work with Khoumeini. Your gonna disqualify a lot of people with that criteria.
Play three degrees from Khoumeini and you disqualify the whole friggin country.
Just a small piece of advice for you, O Honest Man Patterico.
The conservative blogosphere has been all OUTRAGE! all the time since day one. Pretty soon you will hit the outrage saturation point, and then you will like the little boy that cried wolf. If Obama actually did something evil, no one would listen except your echo chamber, because you have screamed us all deaf.
Plus, Obama-hatred as a longterm conservative strategy seems futile. Eventually someone else will take office. You should be honing those superawesome conservative memes of yours for market penetration in 2010.
wheeler's cat (0cf7e1) — 6/22/2009 @ 6:04 amYou keep saying the stopband filter of the biased msm keeps your memes from getting to the electorate…..yet all you do on your websites is rave about how horrible Obama is.
You really nee to actually develop alternative policies to able to offer the voters a choice.
Jus’ sayin’.
😉
Obama-hatred as a longterm conservative strategy seems futile
What comment(s) are you referring to?
Gerald A (adb85a) — 6/22/2009 @ 6:28 amBush hatred is why we have this dirty socialist hungarian muppet what is devolving our little country into irrelevancy and malaise and Barack Obama hatred has to be conjoined with a resolve to say Never Again. Not in our little country no never ever again will we ever ever abide Hate standing so triumphantly because it is so so awful to see.
It’s a lot cause of the dirty socialist media and Something Must Be Done to where they sleep far less soundly than days are they do.
happyfeet (2d133f) — 6/22/2009 @ 7:11 amLook it’s not about liberal and conservative, a Truman or an Kennedy democrat would have spoken out more forcefully on the subject. Yes Moussavi was a colorless factotum in office, but the movement is important. The name of Ferenc Nagy, the Hungarian prime minister at the time of the uprising, the Prague Spring, even Lech Walesa at the time of Solidarity wasn’t a sure thing to prevail. I would take Bani Sadr more seriously if he hadn’t traded in the “OctoberSurprise”slander, to try to rescue his reputation,but he was a member of the old Mossadecq crew, and was an opponent of the Ayatollah. Moussavi wasapparently one of the players in the Iran Contra affair, along with Rafsanjani, his role in the MOIS, and Hezbollah’s rise has been exaggerated almost for affect. He is not the issue, the fact that he is a vehicle for the protesters aspirations is. That he is up against a too bit kidnapper and button man (Quasemlou, Vienna, 1989)like Ahmadinejad is.
narciso (dab149) — 6/22/2009 @ 7:26 amComment by wheeler’s cat — 6/22/2009 @ 6:04 am
I would bring up irony here, but nishi would probably think I’m talking about making steel.
Moron!
AD - RtR/OS! (7cda43) — 6/22/2009 @ 7:56 amRe The Inquisitive Dana: “Really?”
Sigh . . . No! It was sarcasm, you nit. This thread is filled with crazy people. Let the man buy his daughters some ice cream; it doesn’t interfere with the nation’s business.
southpaw (a1208b) — 6/22/2009 @ 8:52 amYes, let the man buy his daughters ice cream. Give the private sector a chance. More time buying ice cream = less time nationalizing industries and spending money my kid will have to pay back.
And in other news 3 out of 4 Americans want government healthcare, per the NY Times and CBS, but this has been challenged by Dinner Jacket as “poling that even my regime wouldn’t accept”.
EBJ (2fd7f7) — 6/22/2009 @ 10:25 amAnd, quite frankly, Mr Mousavi strikes me as being little better than the current regime. He has some Western support because he has painted himself as a “reformer,” but basically we are looking at him to be President Not-Ahmadinejad. I don’t know just how much of a change that would be.
This was all true prior to June 12. Now everything is different. Gorbachev just wanted to make communism work. He wound up destroying it (except in university faculty lounges) because he looked at the situation without blinders.
Moussavi seems to have looked at the situation in Iran realistically and decided, for whatever reason, that he was obliged to speak for those kids who were being killed. It is all different.
For those who would like a distraction from Iran that does not involve ice cream, my investment letter today says the bear market rally is over and the March 9 bottom will not hold. We had a 90% down day in the stock market last Friday.
Whoops !
MIke K (90939b) — 6/22/2009 @ 11:35 am