For two years now, John McCain has been entirely consistent on Iran: every last statement he's made - at least, those that I've seen - has been (a) fabulously uninformed and (b) dangerously bellicose. He's still at it, apparently. There is no question that President Obama's more prudent path is the correct one right now. There is also no question that the neoconservatives are trying to gin up this situation into an excuse for not engaging with the Iranian government in the near future--and also as a rationale for their dearest, looniest dream, war with Iran.Read the rest, here.
But seriously, why is President Obama's path the "more prudent"? We're only emboldening the Iranian regime, and we'll put the region into even greater peril - from Tehran to Tel Aviv - with the deadening moral silence of this administration vis-à-vis the heroic men and women in the streets of Iran.
As always, I'm struck by how intense have been our domestic partisan divisions over the mullah's shamocratic election and the brutal crackdown against the Iranian democrats in the street. (The left blames Iran's troubles on the U.S., and discounts any comparison between the bankrupt Democratic Party leadership of today to the vigorous Cold War leadership of the Reagan administration during the 1980s. The analogy holds, folks, because tyranny holds today in Iran as it did across the East Bloc under the Kremlin.)
Where is American leadership?
We don't have to use apocalyptic rhetoric to denounce the administration's abject moral cowardice. A perfectly measured tone will do: "What Obama needs to say and do about Iran," and "More things Obama should be saying and doing about Iran."
As for Joe Klein, he's simply attempting to settle scores for getting his butt kicked by neoconseratives so many times its ridiculous. Previously, Peter Wehner has repeatedly mopped up with Klein, and I eviscerated Klein at this post.
See also Peter Wehner's essay tonight, "Let Us Not Comfort Cruel Men."
Photo Credit: Boston Globe, "Iran's Continued Election Turmoil."
16 comments:
"because tyranny holds today in Iran as it did across the East Bloc under the Kremilin" [sic]
You may have missed the point of Hilzoy's post: the relationships involved here are different. To say that tyranny is tyranny is to completely ignore particular details and history.
We could count the ways the situations are different--for the most obvious, the Eastern Bloc was made up of countries that could be said to be satellites of the USSR, whereas here we're talking about one country's internal conflict. That's the first to pop into my head, but maybe we could think of others. (Like that pesky Shah thing; or recent saber-rattling directed towards Tehran--I can't remember, I know we had hot times with Moscow, but did we ever talk about bombing Poland in the same way people have talked about bombing Iran?)
Ben JB: Don't try to argue history with the wingnuts. They ignore their own history. Just ask them a simple question about Reagan and you will get one unified response. And it will be all wrong as it has been distorted since soon after he left office. I blame the media too for that one.
Reagan, for instance, negotiated with unelected leaders. Fancy that?
One of these days the libtards are going to discover EXACTLY what a neocon is and where they came from and then what will they do?
The term neocon cracks me up.
calling us neocons is like calling "them" neolibs. ROFLMAO!
Klein is still recovering from calling Charles Krauthammer someone lacking in perspective because CK's physical disability prevented him from traveling to Iraq.
Of course, it is Joe Klein who was the mental cripple in this regard and his shallow comments on Iran follow the same pattern as his silliness on Iraq.
Even Juan Cole, whom I disagree with on many Arabist points as well as political perspectives, is correct in noting that Ahmedinejad's electoral win in Tabriz over Moussavi, an Azeri, is hopelessly improbable & a certain sign of electoral tampering. It would be as though John McCain beat Obama in DC during the November election last Fall. [Tabriz, of course, is the capital of the Iranian part of Azerbaijan, and the Azeri Moussavi was wildly popular in Tabriz, yet the Election Commission's tabulations had A-jad winning over 50% of Tabriz's votes, with Moussavi coming in with less than half A-jad's total.
Joe Klein is both a mental cripple and a moral leper on American foreign policy. Time is now as much a USG/DNC propaganda arm as Pravda/Izvestia used to be for the USSR's Communist Party. And AP would function today much as Tass did back during the Cold War.
Pitiful.
Too simplistic, Tim ...
... ask Gorbachev about that time in Iceland, when he was ready to give away the store if Mr. Reagan would give up SDI ...
... not to mention those references to the Evil Empire and a certain wall in Berlin.
Mr. Reagan didn't treat thugs as his moral equivalent. Mr. Obama does ... even as he treats our allies with an abject lack of respect.
You don't want to argue history, because you will lose ... for history shows us that it is the wise application of resolute confrontation that expands liberty and creates the conditions for sustainable peace.
Not mere words. Negotiation, in the absence of a CREDIBLE threat of force, only works when both sides have a conscience.
Perhaps, Tim, if the rest of the world wasn't so receptive to the Leftist brand of moral relativism, there would be other voices that would join in resolutely condemning what is going on in Iran, preventing Ahmedinijad from spinning his opposition as mere puppets of the Great Satan even as he his exposed by the world as the thug he is ...
... not to mention EFFECTIVELY preventing the behind-the-scenes rulers from expanding their totalitarian reach through terrorist proxies and a nuclear lever.
There is only one way the above will end ... when this regime is removed from power.
How long are you and your so-called "compassionate" fellow-travelers willing ... and how many lives are y'all willing to risk, if not lose ... to delay the inevitable in the name of keeping your hands "clean"?
"To say that tyranny is tyranny is to completely ignore particular details and history."
You prove my point, BenJB ...
God, what a fool you are ...
Too repetitive Rich. Two years ago, you were singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." Now these liberal minded dissidents protesting in the streets of Iran are your buddies?
Bottom line: The Iranians seem to be handling this fine themselves.
Any Republican remember Romania? (Let alone be able to find it on a map?)
Tim,
You must be really worried because most of your rants are unsubstantiated drivel replayed over and over again in hopes that somebody somewhere will be fooled.
You demonstrate time and again that you cannot for the life of you present a reasoned argument. Name calling is indicative of insecurity, poor skills and an inability to deal with others.
When Reagan negotiated with the current leaders of any country he did so from a position of strength, not from a position of weakness and appeasement. The problem here is that most of us have a far better grasp of history than you will ever have.
I may not agree with Repsac3 on many issues, but I enjoy the fact that he is attempting, for now, to comment with an eye towards swaying other people.
You and a couple of others do a disservice to the Left by attempting to alienate everyone who disagrees with you. I guess that is going to really move people to your position, NOT.
If you look at the continuing Gallup polls you might notice that those who self identify with Conservative is growing to 40 percent and above while those who self identify is at 21 percent. I guess I should be happy to see you and your ilk alienate as many people as possible. It only adds to our gain.
I don't why I waste my time even considering that you might be capable of something better because you seem wedded to the same disproved arguments.
You can now go to your standard behavior. I think I will go and sit by the pool and enjoy the new Frangipani blooms and other flowers that are just beautiful this time of year. The Jasmine has such a nice aroma. Life is too beautiful a thing to waste on fools for more that a small amount of time.
I'm going to side with history on this one, Donald.
And just so we're clear here, despite all your talk about how political polarization is terrible, you've thrown the first punch--well, the first name-calling at any rate.
I grant you, "fool" is relatively mild, but it comes to the same thing: you're not interested in debating the issue. You might think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is too stupid to understand your point or too evil.
If pigeon-holing those who disagree with you and refusing to debate the issues are not the foundations of political polarization, I don't know what is.
Tim ... again, too simplistic.
As we showed in Iraq, we can differentiate between the Iranian people and the thugs who have hijacked their nation.
And I always have made that differentiation, Tim.
Congratulations Ben JB!!!!
"If pigeon-holing those who disagree with you and refusing to debate the issues are not the foundations of political polarization, I don't know what is."
You have just defined the Neo-conservative philosophy and methodology while simultaneously exposing its intrinsic/fatal flaw in a democratic republic.
Well done sir, well done.
Dennis and Rich: What you may have noticed, amongst my admittedly snide comments, are links to other ideas and possibilities. But, being conservative, you won't even look at alternatives. You believe, and support, failure. It's a form of insanity to expect different results every time. You have to move with the times, and try new things. Until Obama proves otherwise, I remain open, yet skeptical too.
The both of you offer no insight other than repetitive cliches. While Donald just cuts and pastes, and lambastes.
You need to step it up and discuss more. Not just denigrate.
HOLD IT NOW,.....Tim
what in the hell are you sayin?
your askin alot there!
why dont you jess hold on, take a look around you bubby
discussion!?....(git a rope, heh heh....you can have your discussssssssssssion with that....AINT DAT RIGHT BOYS!)
cracker, as long as I post here, I will always advocate for an alternative position. Just because I don't agree with the people here, I don't judge them as people, only misguided in their politics. And, quite possibly, their religion. But for that I do cut people slack. I get it, just don't agree with it.
Donald, and others, tend to judge us liberals as people. I am the one who has been called "a horrible person" for simply disagreeing. I don't mind be called stupid though. That's fine.
Post a Comment