If Obama continues to displease the voters, his summer of Hope and Change may well turn into his Winter of Discontent.
President Barack Hussein Obama rode into the White House on what some have termed a “tidal wave” of popularity. His electoral numbers, while not a landslide, were certainly impressive: he garnered 53% of the popular vote, and 365 electoral college votes (270 were needed to win).…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - pablo
It never ceases to amaze me how not only naive but politically uninformed most of the commenters and writers are on this site.
I am not fan of either Islam in any of its forms, nor of sharia law in particular. That being said, it is obvious to even the most elementary political observer of the shenanigans going on in Iran have been instigated by the CIA. I will provide proof should I receive (as I expect) typical responses from the usual ignoramuses.
Not even a scintilla on this site of US covert involvement in a foreign election. OH now we would never do that! hehehehe
Politically astute folks? I think not
27 - Cindy
Here is some info about Moussavi:
Facts on Mir-Hossein Moussavi
Moussavi is no savior. Jordan summed it up right, imo.
How can we know accurately what the desires of the people of Iran are?
They appear to want what most people want--human rights and an end to oppression--to not be killed and jailed for speaking out, among other things.
I think they are misguided thinking it will come from Moussavi. Still, they'll do what they have to and I think the US govt should stay out of it.
28 - Dan(Miller)
Cindy,
I don't think I have any illusions about Moussavi. He has shown himself in the past to be a jerk; for all I know to the contrary, he may well still be a jerk.
If the Iranians are delusional, and think that he would bring some species of democracy, so much the better; they may actually force him to do just that. The important thing to me is that they seem to be rebelling against the whole Iranian theocratic power structure, in which there already appears to be quite a lot of dissension.
I certainly don't think we should send in troops, tanks, etc. I do think we should offer those who are fighting against the Iranian theocracy such moral support as we can.
Dan(Miller)
29 - Irene Wagner
Maybe the Green Twitter Phenomenon will dampen enthusiasm for this kind of "support."
30 - Cindy
Dan(Miller),
If the Iranians are delusional, and think that he would bring some species of democracy, so much the better; they may actually force him to do just that.
I can't say I'd disagree with this.
The important thing to me is that they seem to be rebelling against the whole Iranian theocratic power structure, in which there already appears to be quite a lot of dissension.
I am very much in agreement with this.
Despite our basic agreement, I would not like to see a potential escalation. He has already said a few words--as I quoted in the other thread.
Now that I read Irene's article (hinted at also by Pablo) escalation is an even bigger concern.
31 - Cindy
Addendum: I was reading earlier that even some clerics are denouncing the dictatorial govt power.
32 - Cindy
Some links within Irene's dismaying article:
US funds terror groups to sow chaos in Iran (UK Telegraph, 2007)
"America is secretly funding militant ethnic separatist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear programme."
Preparing the Battlefield
The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.
"'The Finding was focussed* on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,' a person familiar with its contents said, and involved 'working with opposition groups and passing money.'"
Irene,
Thanks for that article. I saw some $400 million figure go by somewhere today, but I lost what it was about when my browser crashed.
I follow that site Antiwar.com on twitter. I hadn't seen them post it. I really like that site.
* Clav--Look at that, that is the New Yorker!
33 - Irene Wagner
Cindy, yes, I wasn't sure I could trust claims that Voice of America Persia had interviewed Abdolmalek Rigi, leader of Jundullah (the organization responsible for terrorist attacks against the citizens of Iran) until I found it reported on Voice Of America's own website:
Washington, DC " June 23, 2008 . . . Major stories this week included...President Bush welcoming Britain’s pledge to tighten sanctions against Iran;... the US Congress approving $162 billion in new funding for US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan;...and interviews with Abdolmalek Rigi, the leader of Jundollah; with former British Foreign Secretary David Owen; with AEI scholar Michael Ledeen on US-Iran relations;
34 - Irene Wagner
I wonder what VOA Persia is up to lately?
35 - Cindy
Unbelievable. (not really)
36 - Cindy
Abdolmalek Rigi
"Many believe Jundallan is linked to Al-Qaeda[3]. Jundallah claims to be fighting for the rights of Sunni muslims in Iran. Jundallah is a militant group that according to evidence and some international sources receives funding from the US Government and Baluchi Iranians abroad.[4][5]"
37 - pablo
I think what I find so repugnant about all the american nosy do-gooders, who want to stick their noses in everyone else's business throughout the world, is that they ought to clean their own house first and foremost. If you are so upset about man's inhumanity for man perhaps you do gooders out there might want to spend your time helping all those poor souls that are locked up in amerika's prison system for victimless crimes, or the homeless that have been kicked out of their house, or the kids that have no protection from predators, the list is actually endless. But nooooooooooo, you would rather point your finger at a rigged election. If so put your efforts into insuring that elections in amerika are fair and your ballots actually count (they dont)
Arrogant, uninformed, bigoted, nosy, and just plain stupid, is how I find the vast majority of you so called do gooders out there. One of the many reasons that I have chosen not to live in the land of the free (cough). Don't forget to put on your rfid bracelets kids, after all it is for das homeland. You want freedom? Try being free here and see what that gets ya. smirk
38 - Cindy
Claims of vote-rigging in Iran backed by British academics’ analysis
39 - pablo
Cindy,
Just curious, do you think the voting is fair in Russia, Iraq, Venezuala, the USA, Mexico,etc etc?
I sure as hell dont. In fact I think that most voting was invented just to give people the illusion that their two cents is worth two cents.
Vote fraud in Iran? It is surely a given, what else is new?
40 - Cindy
Pablo,
In fact I think that most voting was invented just to give people the illusion that their two cents is worth two cents.
Yup. Me too.
My reason for posting that info is because confirming information allows one to build a more accurate picture of events based on the best evidence available.
Some people might have doubts, for example, about whether Mousavi manipulated the event. It's just info for whoever wants it.
41 - pablo
cindy,
glad we are in agreement, now if we can just agree on bohemian grove, bilderberg group and the cfr! hehehehehe
42 - Cannonshop
Words will be more powerful (and more effective) than Bullets-at least, from OUR side. The fact is, some American administrations did quite a few things that were, are, and should be judged as evil in the past. This is an Iranian struggle, whether it results in a nation we can, eventually, do business with in good faith or not, by intervening beyond words, we place that positive outcome in far greater doubt, than if we let the Iranians see Iranians killing Iranians for the sake of men whose policies have failed...Iranians.
This is NOT like Vietnam, the side we (the U.S.) opposes is NOT being funded by our enemies or supplied with arms by them. IF we DO get involved, then that (among other negative outcomes) WILL happen.
Not because, necessarily, our enemies are gentlemen, but because if we get involved physically, it gives them an opportunity to do us (as a nation) harm on multiple levels while they keep their individual hands clean.
If Iran degenerates into civil war, that helps American interests in the region, if Iran's inner conflict results in a more modern state that is disconnected from the irrationality of the Theocrats, that is also good for American interests in the long term. If Iran's tyrants retain power?
Well...nothing really changed then, but they lose some credibility with their European supporters.
Which is good for our side.
None of these is good for long-term U.S. interests if U.S. troops or U.S. arms are brought into the equation.
43 - Arch Conservative
Despite having the mainstream media on his payroll, Barry's approval numbers are dropping rapidly.
It's time for the moonbats to start rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Even I didn't think it would come so soon.
When it's all said and done Barry will have made Jimmy Carter look like George Washington.
Hold on tight folks, it's going to be a very bumpy ride over the next three years.
44 - roger nowosielski
Dan #24,
The very title of the article, "Obama and the Voters," tells the whole story. The events in Iran are not the main focus, only a part of the laundry list dumping on Obama. Well, I'm sorry but that topic is of no interest to me. I couldn't care less how Obama and the administration stand in the polls. But I do take it to be significant as defining the context within which the discussion of the Iran situation takes place. And it is that, more than anything else, that I find suspect.
Thank you for a valiant effort, bringing to mind examples when "mere words" made a difference and counted. Well, just a time is not now. America has lost its moral credibility, and it's going to take considerable time to rebuild it. Words, just as actions, must be credible in order to make a difference. If they're not, we're just pissing in the wind.
Also the argument that we must speak now, so that we could also speak to Iran's nuclear program, and effectively, doesn't wash either. We'd be just as ineffective in the first matter as we have been in the second. Compounding the weaknesses, piling one on top of the other, doesn't make for greater strength; it only demonstrates a greater weakness.
So yes, we are in disagreement here - not as to what we ought to do were we in a position to do it, but mainly as regards the effectiveness and the utility. Again, an empty gesture is something that we certainly do not need - not unless it can translate into a positive result. And thus far, you have not been able to suggest even one positive development that might result from our speaking out and expressing what would be construed by many as "feigned outrage."
45 - roger nowosielski
Correction: "such a time is not now"
46 - Ruvy
In the final analysis, a regime change deflecting away from an Iranian militant nuclear policy is in everybody's best interest in terms of keeping the game running that is running now (my bow to Pablo).
This is said without reference to any morality on the part of the United States, but because it eliminates the need for an Israeli nuclear attack on Tehran and other command and control centers in Iran. One does not embrace mass murder as a weapon of defense without a damned good reason, and if it can be avoided, it should be.
47 - Ruvy
Having said this, we should be aware that any regime that runs Iran will want nukes. So, we might as well get used to the idea eventually. What matters is not the possession of nuclear weapons (India has them, we have them) but rather the intent of the rulers with respect to their use.
An Iran that has nukes is a force to be reckoned with. But Iran nned not be the "Islamic Republic". If Moussavi throws in his lot to get rid of the mullahs running the country, who ultimately dictate this nuclear militancy, then he may be better then them, even though he was part of the crowd who brought them in originally.
If he isn't (with respect to "eliminating israel from the map"), there is always the possibility of us nuking Tehran.
48 - roger nowosielski
#46,
Correct, and that's the pragmatic view. But Miller was arguing from the position of US moral strength, I can't let him get away with it. It's been squandered.
49 - Irene Wagner
Roger Nowosielski, you gave your “correct” to this? #46: “...a regime change deflecting away from an Iranian militant nuclear policy is in everybody's best interest in terms of keeping the game running that is running now...”
(“The game running now” is described in #26 - #36: Funding and propaganda support, provided through US executive order, to terrorist organizations in Iran with the aim of stirring up regime-toppling civil unrest.)
So which is correct, Roger Nowosielski, the pragmatic view or the moral view? Do you trust a power that has “squandered” its moral strength to engineer regime changes for other countries?
Ruvy of Samaria has been busy advocating, in another thread, gross human rights violations (not just by Israel but by thugs around the world) with “justice being served.” His remarks today are consistent with the remarks he’s made elsewhere.
I'm interested in hearing what YOU have to say, Roger Nowosielski.
50 - roger nowosielski
These are different universes of discourse, Irene, and my first concern was to keep them apart. I've already expressed my view as to the moral dimension: US is in no position (in light of its past policies and actions) to exert a viable moral influence for a long time - not at least until we straighten our own act.
Now, as to pragmatics. Not to agree of course with Ruvy's idea of "the final solution" - with which I don't - I was merely conceding that having a party in power in Iran that would be less trigger-happy would be a desirable outcome. But I wasn't addressing, mind you, the means of accomplishing that end.
So to put it more crudely, perhaps, I may have been advocating a course of action on pragmatic grounds; but I was definitely opposing the idea of whitewashing the action by endowing it with honorable (read: moral) motives.
Do you see a contradiction?
51 - Irene Wagner
Yes, Roger Nowosielski, I do see a contradiction between your 1) advocating a course of action on pragmatic grounds and 2)opposing the whitewashing of ANYTHING.
52 - Irene Wagner
Hasn't the position of YOUR moral strength been "squandered" if you advocate, "to put it crudely," an immoral course of action?
53 - roger nowosielski
First off, I am not advocating anything, only conceding the point that some people might do so for the stated reasons.
Trying to avoid a worldwide nuclear conflagration is one possible reason why some people might want to act rather than not to act (and I can understand the reason without necessarily approving it). But this is not to say that such a reason would necessarily be a moral one - as some would like to argue.
54 - Clavos
"Depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
55 - roger nowosielski
My objection, first and foremost, was to the hypocrisy on the part of those who try to couch their real motives in a favorable light. The pragmatic consideration brought up by Ruvy was a side point.
56 - Christopher Rose
Roger, I must object in the strongest possible terms to you associating the word pragmatic with anything Ruvy has to say.
He is as self serving and egocentric as the Grand Ayatollah of Iran, with whom he has more in common than with his own government...
57 - roger nowosielski
I wasn't considering the speaker, Chris, only the idea that the change of the guard in Iran that would be less trigger-happy would be a desirable outcome.
58 - Ruvy
Ruvy of Samaria has been busy advocating, in another thread, gross human rights violations (not just by Israel but by thugs around the world) with “justice being served.” His remarks today are consistent with the remarks he’s made elsewhere.
Oh well, Irene, I see you misread what I wrote. I wrote my article advocating the nuking of Tehran before these elections took place. I certainly didn't know that this Moussavi dude would put himself against the mullahs he helped install in 1979.
When pushed against a wall, you do what you have to in order to survive. These are things you learn when you live in a slum, and I grew up in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn when it was a nasty slum.
Sometimes, doing what you have to to survive can be damned disgusting. Murdering off several million people in a nuclear attack to make sure your opwn nation can survive is certainly damned disgusting, at least by my standards. When I wrote my article advocating the nuking of Tehran, I did not see another way out. And I said so, in so many words.
Now, there is another way out. I don't give a tinker's dam about your morals personal or otherwise, or your alleged moral authority. The black ops your country has pulled here, the corruption of the Israeli government, the turning of this country into a Jewish Puerto Rico where your officials can do whatever they want and squeeze whosever nuts they want, has cost your governmernt all the respect I might have ever had for it. And I haven't forgotten about the Chrisian missionaries who roam Israel's streets stealing Jewish souls and deceiving them. You'll discover over time that I forget very little.
I'm ashamed to admit that I'm an American. When I meet someone in the street, and they ask me if I'm an American, I always tell them, "I used to be". I have not renewed my US passport. Why? Going into any American controlled building leaves me with a certain taste of disgust in my mouth and darkens my soul. You personally may not be evil, but your government IS.
Given what I think of what your government pulls off here, and how your leaders continually try to SCREW US IN ISRAEL over, I would not wish American intervention on Iran. Even Ahmadinejad deserves better. At least he acts out of real religious faith - more than I can say for the scum in your government.
Ruvy in Samaria understands the "Jack Bauer" philosophy of dealing with the world. When stuck with only immoral choices, you think your way to the least immoral of the lot, and pray to G-d that you have done right. And sometimes, even mass murder is the least immoral of all the solutions.
The Iwlamic Republic is an existential threat to me and my country. You don't have to care about that from the wilds of Idaho. You can get all self-rigteous if you want and preach about Jesus and all that jazz.
That's nice.
I live here in Samaria, and I'm not leaving, unless I actually intend to leave. A place in northern Judea might be nice, if the prices are right. But the bottom line is that I do have to care about existential threats from Iran.
My life and that of my family is on the line.
The Islamic Republic has to go. There are two ways out. One is to nuke the command and control centre of the country, and to nuke Qom, to strip Shi'ite Islam of any authority (a god who cannot protect his holy places is not worth worshiping).
The other is to get rid of the actual regime by changing it. If that can be accomplished without killing millions, that's great! If that is what is underway now, so much the better and paise be to the Merciful One who has removed the Sword of His Justice from over the innocents of Persia.
59 - Irene Wagner
If you weren't advocating the US' fomenting of violent civil unrest via its support of Jundullah (and there wasn't anything in
#48's "correct" to indicate that you weren't putting your seal of approval on "keeping the game running that's running now") then I've glad you've had the opportunity to clarify, Roger.
Now I'd be interested in hearing what Dan (Miller) has to say about US funding of Jundullah. How would a verbal show of support for the Iranian people by President Obama (who has not made arrangements to discontinue the support authorized by former President GW Bush) be consistent?
60 - Cindy
Is there some reason that people seem to assume that Mousavi is any less in favor of a similar nuclear program?
(Discussions that fail to try to verify information, seem to run away and suddenly it's presumed that facts are being discussed.)
61 - Christopher Rose
Timing is everything sometimes and here Ruvy posts yet another comment to prove my point.
He's a poor immigrant living in occupied territory, yet thinks he knows enough about Israel's nuclear arsenal to come up with fantasy battle plans.
The reality is that Israel could not stand without Western support and Ruvy is effectively powerless to do anything to help his country, two facts that enrage him.
All the above comment he made shows is the desperate need he has to justify his life choices and not accept the gaping hole of selfish immorality that is his actual position.
This explains his constant blustering against the UK, the USA and everywhere else that doesn't support his dreams of conquest and Jewish, not even Israeli, superiority.
The real problem here, as always in the Middle East and further afield, is that religious beliefs have been allowed to get completely out of control.
Religion has no place in the business of national management, which is what government is all about.
The glib ease with which he suggests mass murder and destruction, with nary a thought to what would follow if such insanity ever came to pass, just reveals the reality here, that fear and rage have long since replaced reason, leaving just the empty roars of a frightened little mouse.
62 - roger nowosielski
Of course I wasn't Irene, if only for the fact that I don't know what's going on.
I was only conceding a general kind of point that there are times when Realpolitik is a legitimate enterprise (even in situations when the underlying motives aren't particularly "moral").
63 - Irene Wagner
A young man on BC wrote about the persecution, rape, torture and murder of Christians, not only the ones who were handing out religious literature, but also those who were sitting in their homes and churches.
Ruvy of Samaria dismissed ALL of the young man's objections, stating that "justice was being served."
Ruvy of Samaria has no more of an audience with me than does anyone who called Ruvy a "Christ-killer" has with him.
So, back to Dan (Miller.) Would Obama's reversal of Bush's executive order to support Jundallah carry more weight than a verbal show of support?
64 - Ruvy
I must object in the strongest possible terms to you associating the word pragmatic with anything Ruvy has to say.
Christopher, reason and you are strangers of the most distant sort. The fact that you cannot swallow down your narrow throat that sometimes pragmatic solutions have to be brutal, and terribly so, shows the blinkers on what you allege to be your reasoning.
Thank G-d - yes thank G-d - that someone with your narrow mindset wasn't in command of the RAF in WWII. It was a brutal decision to firebomb German cities - but it was necessary for a whole host of reasons - one of which was the survival of some kind of liberty on the Island you inhabit. At least one of your parents would have been dead if the Germans had connquered England - gone up in smoke in a gas chamber. And you would not be here to call me crazy.
It was murderous brutality on the part of the RAF that helped break the Germans' spirit.
Don't ever forget that.
65 - Christopher Rose
Quite right, Cindy. I've not seen or heard anything to suggest that Mousavi is anything more than marginally less bad than the current regime.
The problem remains, at the core, that belief in myths, legends and fairy stories has no place in government and is being used by deeply manipulative people for their own selfish ends.
66 - roger nowosielski
Well, it's coming to a peak, Irene. But I'm glad that we've resolved our difference.
67 - roger nowosielski
Except it must be said that many young Iranians are well-educated, attend universities, and the popular conception was that years ago they were very much drawn to the ideals of democracy.
Which presents a puzzle of sorts. If the situation hasn't changed, why would they be so supportive of the regime change?
68 - Christopher Rose
Ruvy, maybe you should get out of the god con trick business and get into alternative comedy. Your re-writing of reality in service to your "beliefs" is richly entertaining, albeit in the most grotesque of ways.
To point out only the most basic of your errors regarding pragmatism, you have completely ignored the likely aftermath of a unilateral nuclear strike on Iran, a scenario in which Israel's small nuclear arsenal is spent and the enraged Muslim world and the appalled West would most probably unite to remove Israel from the map permanently.
To try to make a comparison of what the Allies did in World War 2 to stop German aggression with what you are suggesting, is to pile yet more obscenity upon the already obscene.
I also seem to recall you criticising that very WW2 action in another thread, so you are now adding blatant self-serving hypocrisy to your own little arsenal of the inane.
Pragmatism is so far removed from your world view as to be irrelevant.
69 - roger nowosielski
Indirectly, perhaps, you contributed to an important qualification: "pragmatic" can never mean anything approximating outrageous. There are natural limits.
70 - roger nowosielski
#69 directed at Christopher Rose
71 - Jeannie Danna
As Obama moves to remake America into his own private vision of a 21st century Utopia, he would do well to remember the voters.
Well this article was short and sweet!
I do have to disagree with you on a number of points.
*[1] Obama is not forcing this country to change. The majority of the American public are fed-up with Washington politicians, lobests, and corporate America "running things."
*[2] The government under Obama's guidance does not want to take over Health care. A public option would force the Insures to get out of the wat. It is the insures that stand between the individual and their doctors!
72 - Cindy
There may be many reasons for the protests I am sure Roger. (Regime change may be beside the point in some cases) Here are a few ideas that I have been exposed to:
1) They feel that their votes were tampered with. (UK academic analysis supports this.) Regardless of the election outcome or the idea of regime change, people do not want their votes changed!
In this campaign ad for a different candidate (This is not an ad for Mousavi but for Karroubi) we can at least see what would appeal to the people of Iran: What The Opposition Stood For "The resonances are quite obvious. The translation is below."
2) Some believe in Mousavi. He is promoted as a reformist. Whether or not he is much different, he apparently is somewhat different at least in what he proclaims--which is summarized here from wikipedia.
After 20 years of political silence, on March 9, 2009, Mousavi announced his intention to run in the 2009 Iranian presidential election. He stated that his main goals were: to institutionalize social justice, equality and fairness, freedom of expression, to root out corruption and to speed up Iran's stagnant process of privatization and thus move Iran away from what he calls "an alms-based economy".[14] Mousavi criticized the current conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his alleged economic mismanagement, asking, when Iran "was making profits from the high prices of oil, did he (Ahmadinejad) envisage a situation when the prices would fall?" On March 16, 2009, the former Iranian President Khatami withdrew from the election in support of Mir-Hossein Mousavi.
(continued too many urls)
73 - Cindy
(cont from #72)
In this article, I read that Mousavi apparently procalimed that student demonstartors would not be arrested (for example). Some students did not believe this. This article also seems to suggest (like other things I've read) that Mousavi's position toward Israel is similar (yet I read he acknowledges the Holocaust.)
A bit of information for whoever needs it:
FACTBOX: How Iran's ruling bodies work
74 - Jeannie Danna
Clavos,
President Obama is the most inclusive president we have ever had...
As Obama moves to remake America into his own private vision of a 21st century Utopia, he would do well to remember the voters.
Well, this article is short and sweet!
I do have to disagree with a number of points.
*[1]President Obama does not want to force this country to change from "business as usual. The majority of American voters in this country polled are fed-up with Washington politicians-both parties, lobbyists,and corporate America "running things" without any thought to what would be in the best interest of all the people.
*[2]President Obama does not want to stand between you and your health care providers. The insures are doing a really good job of that right now and that is why we are getting "raked over the coals", For-Their-Profit-Health-Care.
*[3] If GM hadn't destroyed the EV1-Electric car, America would be at the for-front of the Automobile industry instead of having to file for bankruptcy.
*[4] Who says this is just a honeymoon?
I suspect they are those who were not invited to the wedding
75 - Jeannie Danna
Please ignore comment #71. I was not finished:(
damn computer!