I'm going to keep this uber-short because it's uber-late (as in Tuesday evening), I'm still getting my new laptop up and running (although I'm writing this post on it) , and with a couple of days off, I'm bound to forget to check in.
Iran has been besieged by protests, primarily because the people know a clear fix when they see one. Thus the people are voicing their anger. Surprisingly, the regime hasn't started some wholesale slaughter, Tiananmen Square style. And I'm not going to worry about it, as this is the kind of shit I expect from a totalitarian theocracy. Although it doesn't matter who wins to us (as all the candidates despise us), it matters that the supposed free vote of the people wasn't respected, even in theory. That's why we need to stand with the voices of freedom.
And many free countries are doing so led by President Sarkozy of France (yes, the country that's a poster child for pussified surrender). Our milktoast POTUS, I mean President Obama, in the grand tradition of the neutered and NOT the leader of the free world, has been struggling to even condemn the violence, or lend the moral support of the United states to the electoral process in Iran (although I finally heard the word condemn out of him today).
The important thing, though is that a process must be as transparent, open and fair as possible. Not that that matters here anymore. So, since I'm sure some of our AOTWs have already made the comparison between Iran in 2009 and Flori-DUH in 2000:
The 2000 'Selected, Not Elected' crew is Asshat of the Week!
There's a certain amount of sour grapes that happens when you lose an election (although I didn't feel anything past election night 2008 since it was Assface (McCain) that lost). But the 'Selected, Not Elected' crowd has carried it far past reason. I could understand using it as a whining rallying cry in 2004, as it worked well for Andrew Jackson in 1828, when he used the mess that was the election of 1824 (where he lost the election when the House chose John Quincy Adams over him under questionable circumstances) to oust the sitting President. Alas, it didn't work, and the question of the 2000 election should have died.
Just like the Obama birth certificate bitchers today, it's insipid sour grapes, tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, and utter asshattery to keep whining about this shit when there's no point other than to complain.
The fact is that no elections are perfect (just ask the folks in Minnesota about their Senate race). The best we can do is to try to make sure all legitimate (living) votes are counted, once, and then render a decision based on simple and consistent laws. And since our questionable elections are small fucking potatoes compared to Iranian elections, if you're making a comparison, you might want to try relieving your self-induced stress with a brick (self-bludgeoning, specifically).
14 comments:
I haven't heard the comparison yet but that is a very good thing because I may be tempted to knock a few heads together. Watching an Iranian woman killed after getting out of her car is NO comparison to a few goofy ballots in Florida. To even suggest it is beyond the pale.
Actually, at first I thought that Obama not jumping into the fray immediately was a good thing. Wait and see what happens and go from there. Well, we are seeing it and I think that although he came out and said he was "appalled" he needs to show that America does not support the killing and fraud of the election process. He now needs to come out strong. It has definitely reached a point that needs addressing!!
"Our milktoast POTUS, I mean President Obama, in the grand tradition of the neutered and NOT the leader of the free world, has been struggling to even condemn the violence, or lend the moral support of the United states to the electoral process in Iran (although I finally heard the word condemn out of him today).?
Every foreign policy expert, including George W. Bush's top negotiator with Iran, Ambassador Nicholas Burns--experts who ACTUALLY have had experience in the Middle East, and specifically in Iran, have said that Mr. Obama's handling of the Iranian crisis is correct.
Conservative bloggers are certainly entitled to their opinion, which is biased against anything Mr. Obama does, including acting like a stateman instead of a impetuous bully, but they're not entitled to their facts. And the facts are that experienced, seasoned, and knowledgeable people all AGREE with Mr. Obama's handling of the Iranian situation.
But I certainly understand the need for those who dislike Mr. Obama to have a place to vent their frustrations and anger over the fact that the president is being seen by those who really know the facts as a shrewd and very intelligent foreign policy statesman.
Threatening the leaders of Iran without backing those threats up with force is what makes a nation look weak.
What do you, Patrick, suggest the president threaten the Iranian leaders with? Military force?
If you examine everything the president has said publicly since the beginning of the crisis, you will see that he has condemned the fraudulent election and has supported the Iranian people who are protesting it.
There are others claiming that ACORN rigged the election. And then the Republican tweet the other day about comparing this to losing in the Senate? Wow. AOFTW.
Btw, a little off topic, but Tao's bloglink goes nowhere. Know anything about that?
Jenn: It came to my mind, so I'm sure some asshat moonbat has said something stupid along those lines.
And while Obama finally responded, better late than never is not the way to do it.
Shaw: What do you, Patrick, suggest the president threaten the Iranian leaders with? Military force?
I knew I should have included the disclaimer.
His first statement, which should have been as soon as there was a clear suspicion that there was obvious election rigging (about the time of the first protest) should have clarified that America will stand with the people of a free Iran when they throw off the shackles of the oppressive theocracy. However, it's not our place to throw in troops just because their government is composed of a bunch of dicks. In fact, were we to do so, it would make Iraq look like a cakewalk.
There's a difference between strong condemnation of totalitarianism (and I'll spare you the reason that just popped into my head as to why Obama has been hesitant) and behaving like an impetuous bully. And the president was slow to do the former, no matter what he eventually said.
And yes, Tuesday, just before I finally wrote the post (but after I had the ideas firmly in my head) I did hear him breaking out the porta-spine.
James: If anyone in the GOP is making such a comparison, then they're co-asshats. I'll say the same for anyone harping about the Coleman/Smalley race in Minnesota.
As for Tao, looks like he pulled his blog again. Sucks, but it happens.
"Conservative bloggers are certainly entitled to their opinion, which is biased against anything Mr. Obama does, "
Shaw, Generalizations like this don't become you. Every time we have an opinion that goes against Obama, it is not because of some deep bias toward the man. You really have to get over this paranoid delusions that you have. If we don't think he was tough enough, then we think he wasn't tough enough. You are trying to read too much into it.
But I certainly understand the need for those who dislike Mr. Obama to have a place to vent their frustrations and anger over the fact that the president is being seen by those who really know the facts as a shrewd and very intelligent foreign policy statesman.
"And the facts are that experienced, seasoned, and knowledgeable people all AGREE with Mr. Obama's handling of the Iranian situation"
ALL is a bit extreme. I didn't realize that you had the inside info of EVERY knowledgeable and experienced person out there.
You can have your opinion, that is fine but to generalize that conservatives that don't agree with you only do so because of their dislike of Obama is really too much.
Will I ever learn to proofread?
*delusion*
What troubles me immensely Patrick is that while the "Bush stole the 2000 election" crowd makes such a protestation, they are at the very same time vehemently opposed to any sort of ID requirement (or similar) on election day.
Even their reasons for doing so is antithetical to traditional Democratic orthodoxy which is to subsidize and expand and grow the state.
While they could propose offering subsidies to help the poor and downtrodden to pay for the acquisition of a state issued ID, I've yet to hear such a proposal.
Let me say that while I do not endorse subsidies of any kind, I am much more receptive to a subsidy to ensure fair and just elections much more so than I am receptive to a subsidy so American households can purchase not one but two digital converter boxes so they may watch television.
Patrick wrote:
"His first statement, which should have been as soon as there was a clear suspicion that there was obvious election rigging (about the time of the first protest) should have clarified that America will stand with the people of a free Iran when they throw off the shackles of the oppressive theocracy."
I was just wondering upon what you base that statement and why you think that the president should have done what you state.
Did you personally interview any Iranians to find out what THEY thought the US president should say about their elections?
Imagine France making a statement about the hanging chads and screaming hired thugs in Florida during the 2000 election. Would you have welcomed any criticism over that from any democracy-loving nation?
I think not.
It is not President Obama's duty to interfere in a sovereign nation's elections--especially a nation with whom we have no diplomatic relations.
In any event, I repeat. All diplomats who actually have experience in these very delicate matters agree with how Mr. Obama has handled the situation.
Only those who do not like anything this president has done are unhappy and giving their unprofessional opinions.
That's my opinion. :-)
"It is not President Obama's duty to interfere in a sovereign nation's elections--especially a nation with whom we have no diplomatic relations."
Finally something we agree on Shaw.
What's more, who the hell is America as a country to go around crying foul on the electoral process of other countries when we can't even get our own shit in order?
You'll recall, Minnesota is still at present short a Senator.
Shaw: Only those who do not like anything this president has done are unhappy and giving their unprofessional opinions.
Thankfully I think he's done a (very damned) few things right (not that I can remember them offhand), so I know you're not talking about me.
But to address both you and the most bubbly Soapster:
"It is not President Obama's duty to interfere in a sovereign nation's elections--..."
I do agree with this, despite what you took (incorrectly) from my prior statements. However there's a world of difference between making a moral statement and interference.
"However there's a world of difference between making a moral statement and interference."
You may pass go. You may collect that $200 in fiat currency.
;-)
Am I getting taxed for my fiat currency award?
Most definitely.
"screaming hired thugs in Florida during the 2000 election"
David Boies was one of the worst of these. To tell as many lies in the courtroom as necessary in order to overthrow actual election results. Or try to, anyway.
Post a Comment