Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 14, 2009

WHEN IN DOUBT, BLAME OBAMA.... Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R) appeared on ABC's "This Week" this morning -- no, I'm not sure why he was invited on either -- and was asked about developments in Iran. Naturally, the one-time presidential candidate said President Obama bears responsibility for what's transpired.

"[T]he comments by the president last week that there was a robust debate going on in Iran was obviously entirely wrong-headed. What has occurred is that the election is a fraud, the results are inaccurate, and you're seeing a brutal repression of the people as they protest.

"The president ought to come out and state exactly those words, indicate that this has been a terribly managed decision by the autocratic regime in Iran.

"It's very clear that the president's policies of going around the world and apologizing for America aren't working.... [J]ust sweet talk and criticizing America is not going to enhance freedom in the world."

Remember the time, a few years back, when credible political observers thought Mitt Romney was serious about policy, and would steer clear of becoming a clueless, partisan hack? Good times, good times.

Of course, it's not just Romney. Ali Frick noted this morning that neoconservatives Richard Perle and Frank Gaffney blamed the election results on the U.S. president.

Frick added, however, that MSNBC's Joe Scarborough struck a more reasonable note on "Meet the Press."

"[T]he law of unintended consequences came in again. I suspect that Cairo speech really scared the grand ayatollahs in Iran. If they were going to fix an election, this was the time to fix it, because the last thing they wanted to do was Barack Obama take credit for reformers winning in Iran, like they already have in Lebanon. And by the way, in the short term that's bad news for us. I think in the long term, though -- if the ayatollahs are seen stealing an election, as a result from what Barack Obama did in Cairo -- I actually think that's a positive for the United States and Iran in the long run."

Great. When it comes to conservative political analysis of developments in the Middle East, Joe Scarborough represents the Republican voice of reason. What a strange thought.

Steve Benen 12:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (78)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I know neo-conservative is a nice short catchy name, but can't we start calling people like Perle and Gaffney what they really are: war-mongering nutjobs without a shred of credibility?

Posted by: martinmc on June 14, 2009 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Scarborough struck a more reasonable note

Actually, Scarborough also blamed Obama. He seems to believe that had Obama not given his Cairo speech, that the ayatollah wouldn't have had to rig the results. The question I have is how much power does the Iranian president have, if his views conflict with the Ayatollah's.

Posted by: Danp on June 14, 2009 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

Yesterday's and today's events make abundantly clear that there indeed has been a robust debate occurring in Iran--not in the official media but among the people. How else to explain the "brutal repression of the people" and the rejection of the election results even among some Iranian government officials? If people had not come to feel that their participation in the election genuinely mattered, there'd have been no protests to repress in the first place.

What more evidence of robust debate could Romney or anyone else need?

Posted by: John B. on June 14, 2009 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

As a former Republican, I welcome a little sanity from the "Right".

Thank you, Joe Scarborough. See, you actually CAN be Republican without being a hack.

Posted by: Mark-NC on June 14, 2009 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

Even Scarborough's comments, though, reflect a ridiculous "it's all about us" perspective. I know the nuclear question was a part of the debate in Iran, but only one part. Events in Iran are much more about internal Iranian problems and Iranian history than anything else

Posted by: Safron on June 14, 2009 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINK

Question is what is not working? If the Iranian people actually voted for change, is Obama's message working? Or was Obama's message responsible for the crackdown, or what?

Note that Romney is also way out in front of everyone else on what is going on in Iran. He is a dangerous person.

Posted by: tomj on June 14, 2009 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

"The question I have is how much power does the Iranian president have, if his views conflict with the Ayatollah's."

I've read speculation in a couple of places (Gary Sick's blog, I believe, is one of them) that suggests that what's happening is a coup by the hard-liners within the secular arm of the government, that the Ayatollah has already certified the elections--two days before Iranian law specifies they can be certified--and so may not have real power right now.

But who knows? Even in normal times there, the question of who has what power is not as easy to answer as some would have the world believe.

Posted by: John B. on June 14, 2009 at 1:07 PM | PERMALINK

How does everyone know it was definitely fixed? Just because *everyone* is saying something doesn't mean it is true. (See WMDs, complying with inspectors, al Qaeda in Iraq, Zarqawi, foreign fighters, etc.)

These things take on a life of their own quite quickly - everyone is talking about it because everyone is talking about it, and it is probably true because everyone is talking about it.

The reason I have any skepticism is because this result is what powerful forces would like us to believe. Might be, might not.

Posted by: flubber on June 14, 2009 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK

Mittens!
Attaboy!
Just make shit up!
Worked for you real well last year...


Posted by: neill on June 14, 2009 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

The Ayatollahs, and that fool Ahmedinajad, will soon find themselves where the leaders of the former DDR, communist Poland and dear Caecescu found themselves - to their surprise.

Posted by: SteinL on June 14, 2009 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Mitt said, ""It's very clear that the president's policies of going around the world and apologizing for America aren't working.... "

Why doesn't Mitt gather up his five sons, and clench them together into a fist of fury, and send them over to Iran to kick ass and take names?

Because they are all chickenhawks, just like their dad, and would refuse to go, just like they have never shown up for duty in Iraq, or Afghanistan.

Posted by: Bill on June 14, 2009 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Isn't it amazing how reality warps for right wingers? Just yesterday they were out telling us that O'Reilly's and Limbaugh's egging on the nutjobs to kill Dr Tiller had nothing to do with someone actully killing the doctor.

But, President Obama tyring to open the door by stating what the rest of the world already knows caused the results of the Iranian election.

You know; War is Peace, etc.

They have no shame, they're Republicans.

Posted by: madstork123 on June 14, 2009 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

"President Obama bears responsibility for what's transpired."

...or credit? Let's be honest here, OUR revolution and fight for freedom wasn't peaceful. If they want to take their country back from the mullahs and military they'll have to fight for it.

Funny how the people of Iran rise up right after the President's speech in Cairo.

Posted by: Saint Zak on June 14, 2009 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Scarbaorough:

I suspect that Cairo speech really scared the grand ayatollahs in Iran. If they were going to fix an election, this was the time to fix it, because the last thing they wanted to do was Barack Obama take credit for reformers winning in Iran, [like they already have in Lebanon].


OK, so what Scarborough is saying here is that if Obama hadn't given his speech in Kairo, the grand ayatollahs would have allowed Mussawi to win the election, but after the speech that was no longer something they could allow any longer, because Obama would have taken credit for it?

Seriously, something like that now counts as a reasonable argument from a Republican?

Posted by: SRW1 on June 14, 2009 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

.
Let's eliminate the middlemen: Use the Internet like Costco. Wholesale communication, person-to-person. Governments and media are just getting in the way. They just help start wars the rest of us have to fight, with no benefit to ourselves. We could be using the Internet to get around this. But 5 Billion people are not even on it. Their means of communication is munitions. Something to think about.
.

Posted by: cosanostradamus on June 14, 2009 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

If we want to blame any US president for what's going on in Iran, I modestly propose Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Posted by: Roddy McCorley on June 14, 2009 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Romney is 100% correct. Obama never misses an opportunity to criticize American sins of the past, but what has it gotten us? A more militant North Korea, a defiant Iran, an unmoved Russian and an unwilling European community that will not help us fight in Afghanistan.


Posted by: kathy on June 14, 2009 at 3:08 PM | PERMALINK

Fanatics always need an evil enemy that threatens everything good and pure in the world to consolidate their power and distract their opponents from the problems caused by their extremist policies. George W Bush and Mr. Ahmadinejad are two sides of the same coin.

This is why the neocons are so desperate to have the Obama Administration condemn the elections - it will help Ahmadinejad stay in power, giving them the Iranian evil dictator they'll need to win in 2010 midterm elections.

Posted by: RepubAnon on June 14, 2009 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Romney is 100% correct. Obama never misses an opportunity to criticize American sins of the past, but what has it gotten us? A more militant North Korea, a defiant Iran, an unmoved Russian and an unwilling European community that will not help us fight in Afghanistan.

Uh, exactly wrong. In fact, Middle Eastern analysts are crediting Obama with more reformist challengers able to participate in elections there:

Similarly, Lebanese pundits credit Obama's speech with helping a U.S.-backed coalition prevent an expected victory by a Hezbollah-led coalition in Lebanese elections on June 7. "Lebanon is a telling case," Osama Safa, director of a Lebanese think tank, told the New York Times. "It is no longer relevant for the extremists to use the anti-American card."

In Iran, Ahmadinejad has claimed victory in an election many Iranians believe was blatantly stolen. Obama's speech made it easier for the challenger, Mir Hussein Mousavi, to denounce Ahmadinejad's foreign policy. It will make it harder for the Iranian leader to use the American bogeyman as an excuse for future repression.

So you got that one completely wrong, showing you have no comprehension whatsoever of the foreign policy landscape. And Since Obama's overtures to Muslims obviously have nothing at all to do with Russian or North Korean relations, your stringing those together is nothing less than a sign of you inability to even make cogent, logical arguments.

Posted by: trex on June 14, 2009 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, Kathy, those Republican habits of loudly proclaiming that we were infallible and bombing the shit out of places made us the most popular country on earth, and everybody just smiled and did what we asked. It's a puzzle that Obama would want to change a thing.

Posted by: Paul on June 14, 2009 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

>"but what has it gotten us?... "

Hmmm... well Kathy, how about a massive upwelling of support by a good portion of the earths' population?

Posted by: Buford on June 14, 2009 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

"The question I have is how much power does the Iranian president have, if his views conflict with the Ayatollah's."

The answer: Zilch...

Posted by: Stevio on June 14, 2009 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Let me get this straight: the neocons push for "regime change" for ten years, and now they are blaming Obama's Cairo speech for "scaring" the clerics and helping an Iranian populist movement that is challenging the status quo and fighting in the streets? I thought the neocons *wanted* to scare the Mullahs and encourage a public uprising!?!

It's always hard to tell if the neocons are truly this stupid or if it's pure cynicism. After all, last I checked, stealing an election is not a great way for an autocratic regime to maintain credibility domestically or abroad.

The neocons ought to be creaming their shorts, but but they are obsessed with attacking Obama that they keep their stories straight. I guess they just can't get their head around the concept that the best way to spur regime change is by undermining the "great Satan" argument of the hardliners through engagement. Funny how Obama's speech did a better job of encouraging moderate Iranians than threatening to drop bombs on them...

Posted by: owenz on June 14, 2009 at 3:47 PM | PERMALINK

I won't know what to think about Iran until Sarah Palin weighs in. I accept this could take a while because, as she once told Katie Couric, she reads "all" the news media to become fully informed.

Posted by: dweb on June 14, 2009 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Are you saying that Scarborough's fair?

Parsley, sage, rosemary ahd th....

Posted by: The Galloping Trollop on June 14, 2009 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Kathy, such a tool.

Nobody of sane disposition believes your propaganda. North Korea was trending in the Militant direction long before President Obama took office. Bush/Cheney diplomacy certainly wasn't working.

Iran had a more moderate president prior to Ahmadinejad, but guess who's ham-handed diplomacy in the early 2000s essentially gave the anti-American Ahmadinejad a platform to win the election?

The European Union had already started drawing down forces in Afghanistan under Bush. Too bad Bush/Cheney squandered the good will of nations after 9/11 on that administrations deceptive war in Iraq.

Posted by: JWK on June 14, 2009 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

cosanostradamus's comment:
If we want to blame any US president for what's going on in Iran, I modestly propose Dwight D. Eisenhower.

That comment might be right but it requires a bit of history that most Americans do NOT know.
Operation AJAX wikipedia link and Kermit Jr.

The reaction to Operation AJAX might explain a lot of why Iran and its clients (Gaza and southern Lebanon) are like they are now.

Posted by: crazyman in nyc on June 14, 2009 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of Willard Romney, this morning on THIS WEEK, Stephanopoulos said that one of Romney's "top New Hampshire supporters", claimed that his problem during his presidential campaign was that he lost his strongest selling-point, that he could be the economy's 'Mr. Fix It'.

Yes, well, being a corporate raider that put working people out on the street does tend to take the sheen off your 'Mr. Fix The Economy' platform.

Posted by: Joe Friday on June 14, 2009 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, dear. Poor li'l Kathie connected some letters together, and made some actual words! (Monkeys furiously typing, Shakespeare chortling) And then, and then, she put the words In Order, made some sentences! (more monkeys find old Smith Coronas and Remingtons in Cheyney's garage, The Bard paces, worridly).

Kathie tosses words onto The Internets- and Actual Sentences are formed! (She smiles, smugly, monkeys smear feces on keyboards, Will hands out bananas).

Sentient Beings, AKA Liberal/Progressive/Democrats deconstruct post, call monkeys back to work to compose rebuttals. Will rolls in grave, seeking more comfortable position.

Posted by: DAY on June 14, 2009 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

madstork 123 @ 1:59 pm, I think you deserve an award for the connect the dots comment of the day.

Isn't it marvelous that our President has done more in a few months to bring democracy to the middle east with diplomacy and speechifying, than 7.5 years of war by Bush & Co. Without adding billions to the national debt.

WE TOLD YOU SO, comes to mind.

Seems to me the ultimate argument for the election being stolen is the extent and determination of the protestors. There is a clear enough consensus that something is wrong for that many people to risk the injuries, jail, etc. to show up and protest.

The in country assessments is that it rivals their last big revolution. How long has it been since America saw this kind of protesting? Thanks to the MSM we can't be sure, but I suspect the Nam era beat the protests for Iraq. In spite of that, they still took a long time to change policy enough to be effective.

Posted by: Ginny in CO on June 14, 2009 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

WHEN IN DOUBT, BLAME OBAMA....

If breathing, blame Obama. (Yawn)

Posted by: beep52 on June 14, 2009 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

I see three very, very big mistakes by Romney.

1. He has linked himself dirctly to that bigotted, backward and "we are the superior nation" attitude that was represented in the United States over the last 8 years. Thus he is nothing newn and special compared to the last Republican Administration and thank all your lucky stars he was not a successful presidential candidate.

2. As some intelligent posters have noticed, be certain that US policy or even the nuclear subject was a minor factor in the concerns of the average Iranian voter. This is another example also of this belief by some that the world revolves around US policy, that only adds to that Ugly American vision much of the rest of the world considers does exist to various degrees. And lastly,

3. He claims to religious and faithful to Christian values and morals - and then came out with this crap.

(Solkhar is the pen-name for a retired western diplomat, a liberal Sunni-Muslim by choice since the age of 17 and an expert in terrorism financing. He is a permanent resident of Marrakech in Morocco)

Posted by: Solkhar on June 14, 2009 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Are we seeing history being made before our eyes and reported to us via Twitter? We can only step aside and pray for the people of Iran.

I've been providing updates all day on my blog from various sources here:

http://theworldofhowey.wordpress.com/

Posted by: Howey on June 14, 2009 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

That's "President" Obama, please. He is now the President, and the fools should refer to him as such.

Posted by: Bob M on June 14, 2009 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

Funny how Obama's speech did a better job of encouraging moderate Iranians than threatening to drop bombs on them...

I just wanted to see this line in print again.

Posted by: Thumb on June 14, 2009 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

what a bunch of as-ho dems they blamed bush for
every thing under the sun when there obimbo the
worse pres we ever had not even a american can run the u.s.a.into the dirt and they love the
nazis

Posted by: terry penna. on June 14, 2009 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

Wadda know ?

Today a MUCH LARGER crowd of Ahmadinejad supporters fills Tehran's Vali-e Asr square:

By mid-afternoon, tens of thousands of Ahmadinejad supporters filled Vali Asr. Ahmadinejad's forces waved Iranian flags and green Islamic banners, an obvious response to Mousavi's campaign that adopted green as its trademark color.
Posted by: Joe Friday on June 14, 2009 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

better trolls please. terry penis is not even worth rebutting, since he makes no coherent argument, has not thesis or premise, makes sweeping statements and absurd proclamations. Thanks for showing once again what a bunch of propaganda eating, spoon-fed dolts RepigliCONs are.

BTW, I think Mittens should blame himself for "a brutal repression of the people" in Iran and the militant/holocaust denying/repressives winning out. Why?,,,because it was the Repigs, of course, with their "shove it in your face and down your throat" (lack of) diplomacy, kidnapping and rendition, agonizing torture, invasion/occupation of and killing of tens of thousands of innocent men/women/children/elderly in Iraq and Afghanistan, and indefinite detention of men who looked middle eastern that has spawned renewed hatred and vengeful attitudes towards the West. Recruiting tools for terrorists = Romney and his ilk. Way to go Mitt.

Posted by: In what respect, Charlie? on June 14, 2009 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

Today a MUCH LARGER crowd of Ahmadinejad supporters fills Tehran's Vali-e Asr square:

1) Would Saddam Hussein or Kim Jung Il have staged anything less?

2) How many Republicans were there?

Posted by: Danp on June 14, 2009 at 7:26 PM | PERMALINK

While it's sweet that JS credits, instead of blames, Obama for what is happening in Iran, the fact is that Obama's speech has as much to do with the elections in Lebanon and Iran as Reagan had to do with the fall of the Soviet Union, ie, none.

Both Obama's uncritical supports and his enemies make the same mistake of ascribing him super powers that he does not have. It's all part and parcel of the myth of USAmerican Exceptionalism.

Posted by: Disputo on June 14, 2009 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

When in even greater doubt, blame Obama's wife! You folks hear about this yet:
[I still can't italic multiple paragraphs, sorry so here it is:>

Incredible but predictable

GOP activist says escaped gorilla was "ancestor" of Michelle Obama
Ben Hoover reports
Screen capture of the comment (Source: FITSNews)
Rusty DePass (Source: Facebook)

By Ben Hoover - bio | email

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) - A state Republican activist has admitted to and apologized for calling a gorilla that escaped from the Riverbanks Zoo Friday an "ancestor" of First Lady Michelle Obama.

A screen capture of the comment, made on the Internet site Facebook, was obtained by FITSNews, the website of South Carolina politico Will Folks.

The image shows a post by an aide to state Attorney General Henry McMaster describing Friday morning's gorilla escape at Columbia's Riverbanks Zoo.

Longtime SCGOP activist and former state Senate candidate Rusty DePass responded with the comment, "I'm sure it's just one of Michelle's ancestors - probably harmless."

DePass told WIS News 10 he was talking about First Lady Michelle Obama.

DePass has been involved in state politics for decades, and helped elect Republican Governor Jim Edwards in 1974. He was an early South Carolina supporter of former President George W. Bush in 2000.
...
[end quoted]

Heh, it all figures ...

Posted by: Neil B ♠ on June 14, 2009 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, someone let us know if it ever makes its way to Drudge ...

Posted by: Neil B ☺ on June 14, 2009 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

Danp,

Hey, all I'm sayin' is that some here were attempting to use the few thousands of Mousavi supporters in the street as some sort of barometer, proof that the election was fraudulent and Mousavi had more support.

Well, if that's the barometer...

Posted by: Joe Friday on June 14, 2009 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Friday: Wadda know?

I know that:

A) You didn't provide a link to the AP article you got that snippet from, probably because

B) You edited what the article says:

By mid-afternoon, tens of thousands of Ahmadinejad supporters filled Vali Asr Street — the same place a massive pre-election rally was held by Mousavi last week. Ahmadinejad's forces waved Iranian flags and green Islamic banners, an obvious response to Mousavi's campaign that adopted green as its trademark color.
And by 'massive', I guess the AP article means like this.

Posted by: grape_crush on June 14, 2009 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

grape_crush,

Actually, I got it first from ABC News correspondent Jim Sciutto, who did a video report from Vali-e Asr square, and he said there were "tens of thousands". He's there, I'm not. Are you there ?

Then I got the copy from the ABC Newswire.

Just to get it straight.

Posted by: Joe Friday on June 14, 2009 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

Now come on, Joe, if that's the barometer, remember one crowd gets police assistance. The other gets police resistance. The fact that anyone is protesting the elections suggests that they feel strongly they were rigged. If anything the protests are a barometer of how likely people are to start another revolution, and that seems unlikely. The pro-Ahmadinajad rally measures nothing.

Posted by: Danp on June 14, 2009 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

Remember the time, not so many years ago, that Bush was blamed for Louisiana Democrats' poor handling of the Katrina disaster? Remember all those freedoms lost under "BusHitler"--not one of which the leftists can name? Now that the Obama regime has proposed allowing the Government to dictate mundane everyday personal decisions such as what you eat and drink and how much, will we hear any lefty squawking about lost freedoms? No, because leftists love fascism and are blind to their hypocrisy.

Posted by: Dion on June 14, 2009 at 8:24 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think either is measure of anything. Both were staged.

That was my point.

Posted by: Joe Friday on June 14, 2009 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK
Remember the time, not so many years ago, that Bush was blamed for Louisiana Democrats' poor handling of the Katrina disaster?

LOL... Moron, those two are not mutually exclusive. Whether or not Louisiana Democrats screwed up or not does not absolve Bush for the many mistakes his administration made.

Remember all those freedoms lost under "BusHitler"--not one of which the leftists can name?

Habeas corpus, moron. The Fourth Amendment.

Now that the Obama regime has proposed allowing the Government to dictate mundane everyday personal decisions such as what you eat and drink and how much, will we hear any lefty squawking about lost freedoms?

No, because Obama has proposed no such thing, moron.

No, because leftists love fascism and are blind to their hypocrisy.

ROFL... Oh, the irony.

Posted by: PaulB on June 14, 2009 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Friday: Well, if that's the barometer...

...then the barometer you are using is cracked. 'Tens of thousands' observed by one reporter and 'tens of thousands' observed by another definitely would not validate the claims of an 'unassailable' margin of victory made by the Ahmadinejad camp.

I don't think either is measure of anything.

So, uhm, what exactly does a barometer do, Joe, if not used for measuring something?

Posted by: grape_crush on June 14, 2009 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

The whole republican dialogue is not only broken, but twisted, even "bent" if you will. They no longer have even the slightest ties to a "rational" view of the world.

At this point, the "republic" party has been reduced to a bunch of whining children with their shorts in a knot up their ass. Of course, some of their members apparently are comfortable with diapers, and wide stances in naughty gay bathrooms.

The far right now governs the "republic" party, and anyone who utters the demonic phrases of "compromises" or "accommodation" is deemed a heretic.

The weapons of the republican extremists are many and varied. So get out there and whip up some anti-neanderthal fervor! After all, they will lie about anything in order win an instants regard in the press, later denying that opportune moment. Otherwise, they will project and turn their mentality into yours, even when it's totally and laughably off the wall.

So, gird your loins, and get ready for the battles of 2010, and 2012. We MUST build on 2008!
OMG, I'm such a verbose bitch. Oh well. Ya'll have a quite night, a great week, and keep on thinking about ways to thwart the wingnuts!

Posted by: Wagner1959 on June 14, 2009 at 9:48 PM | PERMALINK

When are his sons going to enlist to defend DADS honor !

Posted by: bill on June 14, 2009 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

When are his sons going to enlist to defend DADS honor !

Posted by: billk on June 14, 2009 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

"Remember the time, a few years back, when credible political observers thought Mitt Romney was serious about policy, and would steer clear of becoming a clueless, partisan hack?"

No. No, I don't. Who are these "credible political observers" you speak of? Those who thought Mitt (pro-choice until he isn't ... pro-health care reform until he isn't) Romney was "serious about policy?"

Posted by: Cal Gal on June 14, 2009 at 10:27 PM | PERMALINK

[T]he comments by the president last week that there was a robust debate going on in Iran was obviously entirely wrong-headed. What has occurred is that the election is a fraud, the results are inaccurate, and you're seeing a brutal repression of the people as they protest.

That's it, Mitt. What we need to do is bluster and insert ourselves in a delicate situation in Iran with a bunch of right-wing, war mongering rhetoric. That should really help the protestors.

Or maybe not. Maybe a president shooting off his mouth as Mitt suggests would provide a perfectly good reason for the mullahs to portray the protestors as American puppets and start gunning them down in the streets, which they may do soon without any provocation from an idiotic American president like Mitt Romney, God forbid.

Posted by: Pug on June 14, 2009 at 10:34 PM | PERMALINK

grape_crush,

"...then the barometer you are using is cracked."

Obviously the sarcasm went right over your head.

As I previously posted, both events were staged.

Yet another echo of Venezuela. If they had access, next the CIA would try a coup against Ahmadinejad.

Posted by: Joe Friday on June 14, 2009 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

what owenz said

Posted by: Impeach Jay Bybee on June 14, 2009 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINK

Voter participation was unprecedented 85%

The ballots were paper and counted by hand.

And I'm supposed to believe that all the counting was done in TWO HOURS and that the results can be trusted? I may be a dumb Polack, but *that* dumb I'm not.

According to one of the NYT articles, even some of the Ahmadinejad's supporters (the Tehran poor) say the elections were rigged. Just not as much as Mussavi said they were. And, anyway, Mussavi ain't saying anything any more, because nobody knows where he is. When asked whether the rumours of Mussavi's arrest were true, Ahmadinejad is reported (same NYT article) to have answered that, Iran being a country of laws, everyone who committed a criminal act will be arrested and tried. Make of that statement what you want...

Posted by: exlibra on June 14, 2009 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

what owenz said

Posted by: Impeach Jay Bybee on June 14, 2009 at 10:55 PM | PERMALINK

The GOP is busy doing their usual thing -- scoring cheap political points instead of discussing the important issues.

Unfortunately for Iranians the ayatollahs have virtually guaranteed an Israeli air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel will simply not allow nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of a mad man.

We need to be prepared for the Arab world's reaction to US missiles fired on Iran by Israeli pilots flying US-supplied warplanes.

Posted by: pj in jesusland on June 14, 2009 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

pj,

"Unfortunately for Iranians the ayatollahs have virtually guaranteed an Israeli air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities."

That assumes they know where they are. We don't know where they are. The above-ground installations are likely decoys.


"Israel will simply not allow nuclear weapons to fall into the hands of a mad man."

Whadda they gonna do ?

If even a war criminal like Chimpy wouldn't give the Israeli RightWing bunker busters and the rest they requested, I don't see Obama doing it.

~~~

BTW, EU says it will accept Ahmadinejad's victory, but Germany waiting until they talk with the Iranian ambassador.

Posted by: Joe Friday on June 14, 2009 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINK

"what a bunch of as-ho dems they blamed bush for
every thing under the sun when there obimbo the
worse pres we ever had not even a american can run the u.s.a.into the dirt and they love the
nazis

Posted by: terry penna"

Somebody needs to check on this guy.

Posted by: Democrat on June 14, 2009 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

"3. He claims to religious and faithful to Mormon values and morals - and then came out with this crap."

There, fixed for you.

I think the corporatist nature of the LDS is in exact contradiction to the "socialism" of Jesus Christ. "Blessed are the poor" and all that. There are also more mainstream sects that buy into the idea that if you're successful in business, it's because God wants you to be successful in business. And if others are not, it is because God wants them to fail.

A total disregard for what the "son of god" preached, but that doesn't seem to phase them.

Posted by: Camel's eye on June 15, 2009 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

"No, because leftists love fascism and are blind to their hypocrisy.

Posted by: Dion"

Sorry, Dion, but no matter what you read in the National Review, fascism is a movement of the right, not the left. It is a movement that benefits corporations at the expense of the workers.

Workers v. "owners" -- that 's your left and your right, right there.

Posted by: sarah Barracuda on June 15, 2009 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

Why not blame Obama? His campaign was change. Change the country precinct by precinct, change Washington and then change the world. His final challenge was to change the world. It seems he is leaving steps one and two to Pelosi and Reid and his greater ambition is to lead the world. I have always thought that being president was probably incidental to him, on his way to becoming world ruler. Pardon me if I am wrong but I don't believe I am. It was pretty evident to quite a few people that his speeches were intended to incite the population rather than work with the leaders. After all. isn't that the strategy of a community organizer, especially one that it has been suggested is impressed by the Saul Alinsky philosophy. Obama is shrewd and may be capable of leading the world but I doubt Armidinejad and others will allow him to. That is o.k though, if it doesn't work for us we can blame Obama. He will just pass the blame on to failed Bush policies and everything will be back to square root one. Everybody will have an excuse but no one will have solutions.I don't know which one will end up being the worst president but isn't it funny how one came after the other. It is almost like a conspiracy that is tearing this country apart. No one knows for sure who is wrong and who is to blame. It's like an old Joe South song, "The games people play". "So we make one another cry --------and swear that the other was to blame. South and the sixties singer Barry Mcguire "Eve of Destruction" not only protested the sixties but were prophetic. Isn't it interesting how history repeats, and each time it gets a little worse. I guess we can just give Satan all the blame for the confusion. If not him then some other weird character. It has been fun living in this world but it looks like man is running out of answers so we look for someone to blame.

Posted by: native son on June 15, 2009 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINK

...worst president we ever had...not even a(sic) american...

Posted by terry penna:

Penna shows that his assessmet of Presidsent Obama is based on hatred and bias, and not even close to reality. He has been in office about five months and has already accomplished more for the American people than George W. Bush did in eight years, yet terry has already deemed him as the worst president American has ever had. Well, let's see: Bush ignored warnings that a terroist attack was imminent, and perhaps as a consequence, 9/11 with a loss of nearly 3,000 lives; lied about weapons of mass destruction and invaded Iraq, causing a loss over 4,000 American lives and counting; claimed he didn't know the seriousness of Katrina (I think he was on one of his 6-week vacations), and did a "fly-over" several days later...that's showing real concern for American citizens; left this country with a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit after assuming office with billions in surplus, etc., etc., etc.. I'll stop now because this may be a bit too heavy for terry penna.

Posted by: MJB on June 15, 2009 at 1:43 AM | PERMALINK

"[Fascism] is a movement that benefits corporations at the expense of the workers."

sarah b,

Half wrong, half right.

Fascism benefits corporations and the state, in fascism they work hand in glove.

"workers vs owners" is how the left self-identifies and "workers vs the state" is how the right self-identifies. Both sides are against it and both get called it by the other.

Posted by: angus on June 15, 2009 at 2:12 AM | PERMALINK

Seems to me that, like true idiots, the Neocons have painted themselves in a corner. Meanwhile there's a plausible possibility, made more plausible by the events this weekend in Iran, that everything they Neocons attempted to win by war, Obama might gain by diplomacy.

Oh my God! Perish the thought! We get Progress, Peace, Stability, Liberalization, and maybe even Prosperity in the Middle East, and all done through diplomacy instead of warfare.

No wonder these guys are bitching.

What's gone wrong in Iran? They are having a liberal revolution. Isn't that a good thing?

The people on the street love Americans. Do a video Google on Rich Steves' Iran - and you'll see. It's the governments that have problems.

They want more freedom, liberalization and they don't want to be isolated from the world anymore. These are all good things.

Obama gives a speech in Cairo, then you have a Pro-Western Election in Lebanon, a pro-intergration revolution in Iran, and Bibi having to do a walk back towards a two state solution in Iran.

Suddenly the prospect of real progress towards the goals of peace and democracy in the middle east.

The Neocons want none of this, unless they are in charge or leading it. They had their opportunity and they cluster-fudged it. They get to go down in history as the Moe-Larry-and-Curly of public affairs.

Posted by: Bub on June 15, 2009 at 4:52 AM | PERMALINK

The MSM is in the thrall of Obama. Not one has yet pointed out the fact that Obama has been in office for almost 5 months and he has yet to fix the problem of the weather in the northeast!

Posted by: Marc on June 15, 2009 at 8:44 AM | PERMALINK

Um -- if the Iranian protests are due to Obama's Cairo speech, Mitt, how is that a bad thing? If he spurred the people towards protesting peacefully against an authoritarian regime because of the American example, isn't that what we're supposed to be to oppressed peoples everywhere?

Posted by: Lost in Tarnation on June 15, 2009 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

Um, what proof do any of you that are pushing the "CIA is responsible" line regarding the protests ? Comparing it to Venezuela is ignorant, seeing that we have both a new CIA director *and* a new administration.

Posted by: OhNoNotAgain on June 15, 2009 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINK

I propose that Obama appoint George W. Bush as the "Decider Czar." The "Decider Czar" will make all decisions for the administration leaving Obama free to do the two thing he likes best .. campaign and blame Bush.

Posted by: Neo on June 15, 2009 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, because Bush has demonstrated just what a good "decider" he is over the past eight years.

Moron, the reason that Bush is getting blamed is that he is, in fact, responsible. Deal with it.

Posted by: PaulB on June 15, 2009 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK
Pardon me if I am wrong...

No. There is no pardon for such stupidity.

Posted by: PaulB on June 15, 2009 at 2:24 PM | PERMALINK

best for bride is a bridal store for bridal designer wedding gowns in toronto ontario gta canada offers bridesmaids mothers of the bride prom accessories


Posted by: nobo on September 15, 2009 at 6:37 AM | PERMALINK

As a famous brand and specialized manufacturer of sexy clothing in China. sexy lingerie

Posted by: Siman on September 27, 2009 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Hi! iNlIxm

Posted by: srmGJgqH on November 19, 2009 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

"Unfortunately for Iranians the ayatollahs have virtually guaranteed an Israeli air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities."

That assumes they know where they are. We don't know where they are. The above-ground installations are likely decoys. sexy lingerie

Posted by: cherry on May 21, 2010 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly