Oh no you don’t!
by AlexinCT
I think we sane people need to get ahead of the latest liberal myth – another rewrite of history – and squash it fast. What myth am I talking about? Well the one that the libs and the WH are now touting, after they horribly bungled and totally mangled their response to the current revolution in Iran. The left is already claiming that the revolution in Iran is either indirectly, and very likely, directly tied to Obama and his election. The meme, as a couple of libs I heard spreading this dastardly cover-up are preaching, is that Obama’s election was but 6 months ago and we are already seeing more resistance in Iran than ever in the past 30 years. When asked for clarification the roundabout explanation was that the election of Obama and his new direction for the US made the Iranians decide it was time for a change. Obama performs another miracle!
Of course I pointed out the sheer stupidity of this kind of thinking. The left actually wants to make people believe that we have the Iranian people risking their lives and standing up against their brutal dictators because after 8 years of that warmongering criminal Bush talking about “destroying” Iran, Obama now talks peace. Let me break this down for you so you can see how stupid this sounds. The mullahs tell the world they are building a bomb and plan to use it (on Israel and then the great Satan). The US, nay the world, tells them to rethink that. Sanctions and much useless talking follow, as the Iranian leadership hunkers down, ignores the impact on their people of the sanctions, and push on with their plans to go nuclear. In the mean time Iran’s two neighbors are cleaned up, and the Iranian people get to watch both the Iraqis and the Afghanis democratically elect their leaders, because of evil warmongering Bush-McHitler. While this is going on, the thugs in charge of Iran refuse to change course, putting the Iranian people at risk of a massive strike campaign, or even a possible nuclear retaliatory strike, because of their pursuit of the bomb. Yet, the Iranian people, at serious risk, never fear for their lives, and revolt. Now some guy, Obama for you true believers, gets elected to the presidency of the US – the one country that has stood in opposition of the thugocracy that practically all of the Iranian people have despised and wanted to get rid off for over a decade - and that new guy wants to cozy up to the brutal and evil thugs holding them prisoner. Mend things. Chat without conditions. Be friends! Peace and all that jazz. And suddenly the Iranian people decide that they need to risk their lives to get rid of the thugs! Are these leftists living in the real world or the Twilight Zone?
See, if you want to link what is happening in Iran to Obama, the real and logical flow of things would indicate a much different chain of events. More likely, what has really happened is that the Iranian people have realized the current US president was going to establish and normalize relations with the monsters running their country, legitimizing the regime in the process, and make it even harder for them to get out from under its oppressive yoke. Thus the Iranian people decided to act before that took place. Once the US had legitimized the thugs in charge, getting rid of them would be that much harder. The Iranian people will remember that the WH’s response to their uprising was to try and play nice with the mullahs, and not to condemn them. Even after a brutal show of indiscriminate force. I guess this is the second democrat to seriously screw things up when it comes to Iran. No wonder that the people that really get what Obama is doing are now saying that he is making Jimmy Carter look wise. No wonder the that the left feels the need to rewrite history.
Cross posted at Wasting time with Alex
Comments
Well the one that the libs and the WH are now touting, after they horribly bungled and totally mangled their response to the current revolution in Iran.
It really wasnt that bad at all.
The left is already claiming that the revolution in Iran is either indirectly, and very likely, directly tied to Obama and his election.
This is true, and I cant beleive that people are stating that Obama has inspired the uprising.
This would be happening if we’d elected Fred Flinstone in 2000 and Barney Rubble in 2008.
God I wish they would have been on the ticket, or Tom and Jerry even. Anyhow, I agree. We had little to do with this. The Iranian government forgot the first rule of Tyranny which is never to loosen your grip. They allowed some open debates, and as I figured they’d do is have the hardliners win overwhelmingly to show the world that reform was soundly rejected. This time it backfired. They should have stuck to the old method of keeping the opposition quiet, and show Ahmadinejad constantly surrounded by loving crowds and kids lobbing flowers at him.
Could Iranians even contemplate a revolution if Saddam was perched on the border with tanks?
Not that I want to credit Bush with this. Not at all. But wasn’t one of Saddam’s long-term goals to dominate and annex Iran? And wouldn’t this be a good time to try, while the country is in turmoil?
Credit belongs to those who are rising up. BUT...if one needs to reach to give an American president some form of credit for this, shouldn’t that credit go to Bush?
Credit belongs to those who are rising up. BUT...if one needs to reach to give an American president some form of credit for this, shouldn’t that credit go to Bush?
That’s right. It might not have happened just because of Bush, but he sure had more to do with it than all the Democrats put together.
I find the claims that Obama has changed the game—both your arguments and the liberals—to be incredibly self-centered. Not everything is about us. Can we not accept that it is possible for countries to change on their own?
I think that’s what Alex was getting at. His counter argument was just to point out that, not only is the WH/lib/lefty position is not only self-centered but completely devoid of logic.
At least that’s what I got from it.
I think that’s what Alex was getting at. His counter argument was just to point out that, not only is the WH/lib/lefty position is not only self-centered but completely devoid of logic.
You forgot the bit about it all being a collectivist conspiracy - it seems to be in most of his other posts ;-)
FWIW - I agree - credit needs to go where credit is due, and this is definately one of the good things to come out of the GWOT. I am not suprised that the Dems aren’t giving Bush credit though, just as I wouldn’t be suprised if it were the other way around. The current administration takes the credit for things that happen now, and tries to shift blame to whoever came before. And the same happens with Bad things. For further information see ‘Economic Situation, Blame laid on’.
In other news, White House officials are quietly crediting Obama with the sun rising this morning based on the fact that he set his alarm clock last night…
I find the claims that Obama has changed the game—both your arguments and the liberals—to be incredibly self-centered.
Retluocc1 got it right. I agree the dam was going to burst sooner or later Hal. You are 100% correct, and I said so in my post, that the Iranians, the people, not the idiots in charge, have been fed up with their failed revolution for over a decade now. They see how it is holding them back. It can also not help much that they see their neighbors now having free elections, because of intervention from what their leaders call the Great Satan, of all things! I was using the liberal’s own bull against them. If any event(s) or person(s), other than the people putting their lives on the line for freedom (all the dangerous and hard work) after yet another election was rigged by the thugs oppressing them, are going to be sighted as influencing events, I will be damned if I let the left play fast and loose with the truth in order to cover up for Obama’s cowardice in the face of this whole thing, though.
Obama’s cow-towing to the thugs in Iran, both in Cairo and after they started killing people to stop the protests, is shameful. He wanted to, as he has done constantly, play both sides of the fence and then pick the winner. Unfortunately the US president can and should not do this when important foreign policy events are taking place. I am certain that an immediate refutation of the rigged elections - only idiots ever believed Iran was a democracy and that the victor was not predetermined by the real power center: the mullah in charge - and an even more forceful condemnation of the brutality used by the regime to halt protests to this sham, would have gone a great way into bringing the US and Iran together. Unfortunately Obama was more interested in not undermining his own policy of coddling thugs in the hopes they become less belligerent, or, at a minimum, turn their wrath elsewhere. Did Obama really believe that the thugs in Iran wouldn’t blame America, even when there was no action on our part whatsoever, in order to deflect blame? How stupid and unprepared are the policy makers in the WH? Or better yet, how stupid do they think the American people are?
The left is desperate for a foreign policy victory for Obama. Something that can make him the left’s Reagan. Getting Iran to play along was supposed to provide that to them. Unfortunately for them, in their desperation to avoid any incidents that might derail that plan, they stepped on a nuclear land mine. My point was that the strategy shift considered isn’t how best to help the Iranians fighting to rid themselves of the mullah, but how to capitalize on that so they can give the neophyte in the WH some real gravitas. Hence the myth making. And there is no way we should let them get away with that.
You forgot the bit about it all being a collectivist conspiracy - it seems to be in most of his other posts ;-)
Most of the stuff that is standard practice on the left these days britishcress is straight out of the KGB play book.
Did Obama really believe that the thugs in Iran wouldn’t blame America, even when there was no action on our part whatsoever, in order to deflect blame? How stupid and unprepared are the policy makers in the WH?
I dont think he thought that at all. But what harm has there been in his statements? I’d like to think that america has shown in the recent past that is IS a sipporter of freedom and democracy. you said in your own post that:
“It can also not help much that they see their neighbors now having free elections, because of intervention from what their leaders call the Great Satan, of all things!”
Why would some rhetoric about supporting the marchers and slamming the election Bring th US and Iran together? To me, all it would seem to do is help legitmize the claims that forign powers are working behind the scenes.
Why would some rhetoric about supporting the marchers and slamming the election Bring th US and Iran together?
If the Iranian people succeed in throwing the yoke of these evil masters off, do you think they will not think badly about those that actually tailored their response in order not to offend the thugs in charge? If I was one of them I sure would be remember whom stood with me and whom with the oppressive masters I risked life & limb to get rid off.
To me, all it would seem to do is help legitmize the claims that forign powers are working behind the scenes.
Obama seems to now disagree with you Mike, since he finally talked though yesterday. Not because it was the right thing to do, but because he realized how weak, inexperienced, inept, and legacy motivated he looked with his first few responses.
Why does the image of one or another “hood” movie, where the male drug addict offers to “service” some guy in the crudest possible terms in return for a desperately needed hit, after offering burgers or some such other weird thing he just stole and getting rebuffed and laughed at, come to my mind every time I think of Obama talking to the mullahs?
This is an attempt to cast Obama as the new Reagan. His Cairo speech was supposed to be the new “Tear Down This Wall” speech.
See? He’s all things to all people and a great statesman to boot....
Could Iranians even contemplate a revolution if Saddam was perched on the border with tanks?
Not that I want to credit Bush with this. Not at all. But wasn’t one of Saddam’s long-term goals to dominate and annex Iran? And wouldn’t this be a good time to try, while the country is in turmoil?
No, I don’t think so. Iran has a much larger population than Iraq and entirely Shiite. Saddaam never intended to annex Iran, but to control the waterways and islands at the top of the gulf.
In any case, his offensive military might, absent the 2003 invasion, would not have been nearly enough to take advantage of the present situation. Hard to take over a country twice your size with no air force, no navy and not much armor.
In any case, his offensive military might, absent the 2003 invasion, would not have been nearly enough to take advantage of the present situation. Hard to take over a country twice your size with no air force, no navy and not much armor.
That’s likely why Saddam also never admitted that he didn’t have any more ready-to-use WMDs and made sure to keep all his WMD programs ready to go online and crank out stuff in a couple of weeks time, Hal. Don’t need much of a capable military when people know you are so crazy you gassed your own countrymen just to make a point. These days the Iranians have a lot to worry about when it comes to Iraq. The old Soviet era military, inefficient and mostly for show, is being replaced with a western style one. Even a force a fraction of the size of what Saddam had, with decent western gear (which they are getting), tactics, and effective structure, will be a lot more dangerous to Iran which has an old and antiquated military which is also built on the Soviet model, has decades old equipment, and little training on how to use it.
If the Iranian people succeed in throwing the yoke of these evil masters off, do you think they will not think badly about those that actually tailored their response in order not to offend the thugs in charge?
Thans the thing. I tend to agree with you, but out of all the things I have seen and heard coming out of Iran “Obama, Please support us.” was not one of them. I’ve seen more reporters saying that the Green Revolution leaders want keep the idea of U.S. Support of their cause away.
Obama seems to now disagree with you Mike, since he finally talked though yesterday. Not because it was the right thing to do, but because he realized how weak, inexperienced, inept, and legacy motivated he looked with his first few responses.
Personally, i would have liked to hear him talk a little more forcefully at the start, but i had no big problem with it. And I guess we’ll have to just agree to disagree with the “legacy motivated” part you posted. he’s been in office six months. I doubt he’s worried about his legacy just yet.
And I guess we’ll have to just agree to disagree with the “legacy motivated” part you posted. he’s been in office six months. I doubt he’s worried about his legacy just yet.
Seriously, the left started writing his legacy, Ronald Reagan’s equal, if not superior, about the same time that the press decided to coronate Obama as the new president back in 2007 when he started running Mike. Maybe Obama himself has not bought completely into it yet, but the movement, the ones telling him what to do, have.
Personally I think they both deserve some credit-Bush for Afghanistan and Saddam, whatever you might think of how much he screwed the pooch later on, and Obama for his more diplomatic and concilatory tone to the Muslim world (and it does resonate with moderate Muslims, IMO). But in the end, this has a lot more to do with the aforementioned fact that Iran has a large, educated younger population who now outnumber the old farts from the original Revolution.
Speaking of which, it should be noted that this started out as an attempt to get the government to reaffirm the ideals (such as they were) of the Revolution, not reject it-Mousavi was, after all, an establishment guy, but not as much of a nutbar as Ima Dinnerjacket. So, this could be considered a conservative reaction to the fundamentalist theocrats who have been running things, with the younger, educated crowd supporting the conservatives...which is something the Republican Party should be pondering instead of wanting more campaign-style rhetoric from the likes of McCain and Graham.
Seriously, the left started writing his legacy, Ronald Reagan’s equal, if not superior, about the same time that the press decided to coronate Obama as the new president back in 2007 when he started running
I dunno...that sounds like a stretch. He was an underdog to Hillary at the start and was until Iowa. Hell, when he said Reagan did some good things, some on the left jumped all over him. I know you hate the guy, and I did not vote for him myself, but I just dont feel the hatred towards him you and many others here do. At least, not yet.
I know you hate the guy,
No Mike. You got that totally wrong. I may not like him a bit, I don’t hate the guy. Hatred is an emotion that can cloud judgement. I abhor what he believes in, and what he is doing to this great country. Otherwise I might not have any problem drinking a few cold ones and shooting the shit with the dude. Big difference.
Why does the image of one or another “hood” movie, where the male drug addict offers to “service” some guy in the crudest possible terms in return for a desperately needed hit, after offering burgers or some such other weird thing he just stole and getting rebuffed and laughed at, come to my mind every time I think of Obama talking to the mullahs?
Dude, your netflix queue is fucked up....
Next entry: I told you so...
Previous entry: The Forked Tongue Strikes Again
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 8588
Total Logged in members: 3
Total guests: 48
Total anonymous users: 0
britishcress,
Hal_10000,
Surfpunk,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
A National Tantrum
(16 total, Last @ 12:39)
AlexinCT: It so happens I was informed last week that my employer’s insurace rates were increased by 16%. Mine is only going up by 12%. I am not counting the extra taxes. And my doctor told me he is retiring early and moving to New Zealand, because he isn't ready to…
A National Tantrum
(16 total, Last @ 12:38)
AlexinCT: Truly, have dumber words been posted here? By muirgeo1? He is constantly trying to up the ante and set a new record for stupid. Once you understand his superiority complex comes from the mistaken belief that he is a better person than all of us, because he thinks he has…
Paper and Fire
(5 total, Last @ 10:37)
Seattle Outcast: Yeah, he has the freedom to do it. But why did he want to be such an asshole? Same reason as always - because they can. Ditto for the "Ground Zero Mosque" - it's a big, fat FU to NYC...
Vancouver--The Detroit of Canada!
(1 total, Last @ 10:34)
Seattle Outcast: Historically, hosting the Olympics has always been a massive money loser. Seattle even went so far as to pass a law banning the city from doing so, and I know other places have done similar things to prevent the city council from engaging in such foolish thinking.
Paper and Fire
(5 total, Last @ 07:06)
Orpheus: Interestingly enough, he got a lot of death threats from that.
Last 30 Comments
They’ve said nothing of the kind. That’s the problem. They’re claiming this for energy purposes.
I find the claims that Obama has changed the game—both your arguments and the liberals—to be incredibly self-centered. Not everything is about us. Can we not accept that it is possible for countries to change on their own? We’ve been talking for *years* bout how Iran’s young population wasn’t going to put up with the fundamentalist shit. This would be happening if we’d elected Fred Flinstone in 2000 and Barney Rubble in 2008.