Krauthammer is a dick and deserves everything he has coming to him.

I don't often agree with George Will, but I like reading his columns, and have read some of his books.

He's definitely a conservative, but he has the intellectual horsepower to back up his beliefs. He's very much unlike most of the ranting, red faced, spittle hurling, voices currently on the right.

tchamber: Krauthammer is a dick and deserves everything he has coming to him.

+1

tchamber and Bucky Katt
Krauthammer is a dick and deserves everything he has coming to him.

Maybe you should visit the Roger Ebert "civil discourse is dead thread."

Big_Thumb: I don't often agree with George Will, but I like reading his columns, and have read some of his books.

He's definitely a conservative, but he has the intellectual horsepower to back up his beliefs. He's very much unlike most of the ranting, red faced, spittle hurling, voices currently on the right.

I must be in bizarro-world when I find myself agreeing with both George Will and Peggy Noonan not just on an issue, but on their opinion of the Democratic President.

Good for George and good for Peggy. The only reason wingnuts are demanding stronger statements (or whatever the Hell it is they want) is because Obama is playing it cool. If the President were making frequent attacks on the regime and openly supporting the demonstrators, the wingnuts would biatch about that and tell Obama to shut up.

This is just more of their childish "always oppose Obama" plan.

I think Obama's definitely doing the right thing here.

Look, I'm not an Obamabot. I don't believe the guy sh*ts gold and is incapable of doing wrong. He's done a lot wrong so far, but it would be a terrible move for the President to insert the US into this...particularly considering how Ahmadinejad is already accusing the West of getting too involved.

This is, of course, ridiculous..because the West hasn't really done much of anything. Ahmadinejad and his people don't understand the Internet, its power, and the usefulness of things like Twitter. The youth of Iran does and they're using it.

Obama's smart here, though. The US, specifically, has a history of getting involved in Iranian affairs. The Iranians know this. The CIA helped to overthrow Mossadegh (who was extremely popular with the Iranians). Why? Because he wouldn't do business with US companies or BP (British Petroleum). Instead, he nationalized oil there in Iran. So, the CIA sponsored coups and eventually took over their government.

So, for the US to inject itself into this issue is a very touchy subject. Obama's being smart here. We saw what sort of effect swagger and tough-talk did during the Bush Administration.

tchamber: Krauthammer is a dick and deserves everything he has coming to him.

I hope he gets in a car crash and becomes a paraplegic.

PapermonkeyExpress: tchamber and Bucky Katt
Krauthammer is a dick and deserves everything he has coming to him.

Maybe you should visit the Roger Ebert "civil discourse is dead thread."

Been there. What's your point?

Another old white guy who has no knowledge of how Middle East politics or internal Iranian politics work. Neocons aren't the type to have any discipline and their knee jerk reactions to the world and its problems is predictable. Luckily this idiot doesn't have much sway other than for the lunatics that make up the republican party base.

Have any of these right wing juggernauts articulated exactly what they think would be accomplished if we involved ourselves in this? Or even what involvement they would like to see us engage in?

It takes some pretty crazy hyperbole to get me and Will on the same page. Krauthammer's OpEd has the right stuff.


Anyone who thinks we need to be diving headfirst into Iranian internal politics has several screws loose.

shivashakti: Obama's smart here, though. The US, specifically, has a history of getting involved in Iranian affairs. The Iranians know this. The CIA helped to overthrow Mossadegh (who was extremely popular with the Iranians).

Initially. His assumption of emergency powers, removal of the secret ballot, and blatant fixing of a referendum to dissolve the Majiles might have negatively impacted his popularity, however. Roosevelt was only able to manufacture a coup that lasted because there were quite a large number of discontented Iranians.

Why? Because he wouldn't do business with US companies or BP (British Petroleum). Instead, he nationalized oil there in Iran. So, the CIA sponsored coups and eventually took over their government.

The US motive concerned perceptions of instability (partly facilitated by the CIA), worries of a Tudeh takeover, and awareness of the Soviet forces not far from northern Iran (which had a history of being under Russian domination at the same time the British were dominating the South under the Qajars). It was the British who were peeved about AIOC and the oil fields, and who refused to follow the US precedent of a better split ala ARAMCO -- the US didn't really much care for AIOC.

DarnoKonrad: It takes some pretty crazy hyperbole to get me and Will on the same page. Krauthammer's OpEd has the right stuff.


Anyone who thinks we need to be diving headfirst into Iranian internal politics has several screws loose.

fasten your seatbelt, we have quite a few of them here.

Although several of them probably don't actually believe it and just need to oppose Obama by any means possible.

Korovyov: Roosevelt was only able to manufacture a coup that lasted because there were quite a large number of discontented Iranians.

Eisenhower.

Wolf Blitzer is a Substitute Teacher: Korovyov: Roosevelt was only able to manufacture a coup that lasted because there were quite a large number of discontented Iranians.

Eisenhower.

That's Roosevelt as in 'Kermit', not 'Theodore' or 'Franklin Delano'. Don't remember if he was a relation.

Korovyov: That's Roosevelt as in 'Kermit', not 'Theodore' or 'Franklin Delano'. Don't remember if he was a relation.

Ah, okay. Yeah, Kermit, Jr. was the grandson of TR.

George Will, Pat Robertson, Peggy Noonan, Ambassador Burns, and Colin Powell.

Yup, it's a Leftist conspiracy to think before speaking...

More and more, folks like Senator McCain show exactly why they would have been a poor choice for the White House. And Krauthammer is such an intellectually dishonest apologist that if Obama were to declare the sky blue, he'd produce a screed with citations from a whole slew of paid shills to declare it "...obviously green, and it's not surprising that this President is so ill prepared and unlettered to have read these papers, and a sad commentary to the depths that the nation has fallen to have chosen this naive and inexperienced man as our leader..."

What is sad, is that folks are using a President's ability to parse the political situation and discipline as a "weakness." To come out like gangbusters puts the protesters and their cause in jeopardy, and it shows a lack of anything looking like diplomacy. Gradations in response are necessary. You come out with ultimatums and draw lines in the sand, then we have no recourse. Giving ourselves room to maneuver is called "smart" in most circles, and it shows a lack of understanding of strategy that is shocking considering how often these same bull headed asshats like to rely on the military option out of hand.

Sort of like a pitcher with only a fast ball, or a boxer who only uses a haymaker. It can work with some, but the more you use it, the more easily it can be used against you...

Korovyov: Roosevelt was only able to manufacture a coup that lasted because there were quite a large number of discontented Iranians.

My understanding is that the regime overthrown was democratically elected. It was a coup by the elite against the will of the people, not with it.

What a Krauthammer might look like.

Korovyov: shivashakti: Obama's smart here, though. The US, specifically, has a history of getting involved in Iranian affairs. The Iranians know this. The CIA helped to overthrow Mossadegh (who was extremely popular with the Iranians).

Initially. His assumption of emergency powers, removal of the secret ballot, and blatant fixing of a referendum to dissolve the Majiles might have negatively impacted his popularity, however. Roosevelt was only able to manufacture a coup that lasted because there were quite a large number of discontented Iranians.

That and his use of faux protests for both sides helped confuse the issue, and give a greater impression of instability and unrest--though, you have to give the guy credit, he managed to sucker a lot of folks into the streets.

Of course, after what some call his greatest work, he retired to collect rugs...

Cabbage hammer.

Anyone who uses the situation in Iran as a way to attack the President of the United States can suck a bag of d!cks. The intellectual dishonesty of the Far Right knows know bounds. The meme that Obama should be doing or saying more has been discredited time and time again by a majority of the people who are in-the-know about Iranian politics.

The only reason frauds like Krauthammer are still yelling about this is A) to score political points, and B) because Obama's stance flies directly in the face of the neocon doctrine of beating our chests and charging into every farking situation like a bull in a china shop.

Obama's handling of the Iran situation is EXACTLY why I voted for him. Pragmatic, level-headed and calculating.

Krauthammer and the other idiots on the Right can go FARK THEMSELVES. They are insuring that my switch to the Democratic Party becomes permanent.

Is http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2009/06/19/hope_and_change_-_ b ut_not_for_iran the column that's being referred to?

Hm.
- Claims that this is a revolt against theocracy (unclear; the much-quoted '7 Demands' suggest reforms, not a tear-down, although more bloodshed may radicalize things)

- Claims that Pres. Obama hasn't taken a side (dubious; while Pres. Obama has not to my knowledge directly commented on the legitimacy of the election, he has criticized the government for the use of violence)

- Claims that talks will not denuclearize Iran (which I am inclined to agree with, if by 'talks' we do not include substantial bribes/threats)

- Claims that Pres. Obama is afraid of 'meddling', which is accurate -- but not negative, in so far as he should be careful about meddling anymore than we currently are (see persistent rumors regarding intel vs. nuclear program, cooperation with Mossad, assistance to terrorist groups such as Jundallah and previously MEK)

"knows know bounds, knows NO bounds..." fark it. Time to go outside a little.

bartink: Korovyov: Roosevelt was only able to manufacture a coup that lasted because there were quite a large number of discontented Iranians.

My understanding is that the regime overthrown was democratically elected. It was a coup by the elite against the will of the people, not with it.

At the time of the coup, Mossadegh had already himself turned his back on democracy. He had some valid reasons -- many deputies in the Majiles probably were bribed, for instance -- but he did dissolve the legislature, and he did assume the unilateral ability to impose legislation.

Charles Krauthammer, the AIPAC stooge? That Krauthammer?

Go figure.

They're trying to sell you out again America. Judith Miller may get her job back if it gets dicey enough.

The right is far too reckless with lives. They're hoping and trying to push Obama into tripping up so they can have a stance to rally around in the next election (ie Obama is too soft on security), regardless of what happens in Iran.

The only people who actually buy that are their hardcore base. Moderates sees through these games and will remember them in 2010 and 2012.

Doesn't George Will realize that a lot of those Iranian people are wearing blue jeans?

tchamber: Krauthammer is a dick and deserves everything he has coming to him.

Yea, he's FAR smarter than you. Dick.

Seems like Obama came out and did exactly what CK said he should do. Better late than never.

This is nothing but empty chest-thumping by a bunch of chickenhawks who would like us to forget that they were calling for military strikes against Iran right up until the protests started. The idea that the world doesn't know where the American peoples' sympathies lie unless the GOP sends out a press release is the height of hubris. The American and European people were on this on Day 1 and have provided more real help to the protesters than all of the GOP combined.

In short, the people have got this one GOP and they don't need your help. Go back to whining about health care or whatever it is you do these days.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Seems like Obama came out and did exactly what CK said he should do. Better late than never.

pbbbttt. please. there was really no difference in the two statements. you guys cried and cried until he did what you wanted and now you're all like smug and shiat.."he should have said that in the first place" when substance wise there's nothing different in them.

I dunno what I hate more. you guys or him for even paying attention to you.

Mentat: This is nothing but empty chest-thumping by a bunch of chickenhawks who would like us to forget that they were calling for military strikes against Iran right up until the protests started. The idea that the world doesn't know where the American peoples' sympathies lie unless the GOP sends out a press release is the height of hubris. The American and European people were on this on Day 1 and have provided more real help to the protesters than all of the GOP combined.

In short, the people have got this one GOP and they don't need your help. Go back to whining about health care or whatever it is you do these days.

At the risk of incurring BK's wrath over posting this a third time, please incorporate lefties such as The Nation (^) also calling for a more overt display of support into your incisive OMG!1! GOP Chickenhawks BOMB BOMB BOMB OMG!!eleven!11! analysis.

Mentat: This is nothing but empty chest-thumping by a bunch of chickenhawks who would like us to forget that they were calling for military strikes against Iran right up until the protests started.

Obama's stance on Iran was almost identical to that of Bush's. CK and others called on him to VOCALLY support peaceful protesters and an examination of the votes.

He just did.

So, now that he has, I expect you and the others have some outrage in our "meddling" with Iraninan affairs. Please proceed.

Assuming that the Green Banner faction somehow prevails in Iran, anyone wanna bet the same right wingers now criticizing Obama for not intervening in the Green's favor, won't exactly be cheerleading for him to open relations/discussion with them after they succeed?

That is, I'm pretty sure they'll go back to Iran-is-teh-ebill!!1! no matter how the dust settles.

Mentat: This is nothing but empty chest-thumping by a bunch of chickenhawks who would like us to forget that they were calling for military strikes against Iran right up until the protests started. The idea that the world doesn't know where the American peoples' sympathies lie unless the GOP sends out a press release is the height of hubris.

Where the government's sympathies, however, are less clear. It's definitely not a historical fact that the US government has consistently stood against repression, even violent repression. This is a sufficiently large world in which there are sufficiently credulous people who believe that Ahmadinejad's actually working with the CIA, as well. This is also a world in which people might believe that the US government actually wants the Islamic Republic to stand intact to serve as a bogeyman.

Korovyov: At the time of the coup, Mossadegh had already himself turned his back on democracy. He had some valid reasons -- many deputies in the Majiles probably were bribed, for instance -- but he did dissolve the legislature, and he did assume the unilateral ability to impose legislation.

That's fair enough.

Hobodeluxe: you guys cried and cried until he did what you wanted

Yea, that's EXACTLY what Obama did.

He executed his foreign policy based on what some cronic failer on Fark claims as "crying".

Got it.

I guess he really does have no backbone then, yes? You just said he changed his policy ideology on "crying". Really doesn't say much does it?

El Pachuco: Assuming that the Green Banner faction somehow prevails in Iran, anyone wanna bet the same right wingers now criticizing Obama for not intervening in the Green's favor, won't exactly be cheerleading for him to open relations/discussion with them after they succeed?

That is, I'm pretty sure they'll go back to Iran-is-teh-ebill!!1! no matter how the dust settles.

Just out of curiosity, were you born this stupid or did your parents have to drop you on your head a bunch of times?

barneyfifesbullet: Doesn't George Will realize that a lot of those Iranian people are wearing blue jeans?

Shhh, don't tell him! Instead, make Will believe that bowties are the height of Persian fashion.

Why am I not surprised that the PITA farked this one up?

MuadDib: El Pachuco: Assuming that the Green Banner faction somehow prevails in Iran, anyone wanna bet the same right wingers now criticizing Obama for not intervening in the Green's favor, won't exactly be cheerleading for him to open relations/discussion with them after they succeed?

That is, I'm pretty sure they'll go back to Iran-is-teh-ebill!!1! no matter how the dust settles.

Just out of curiosity, were you born this stupid or did your parents have to drop you on your head a bunch of times?

Truth hurts?

GoHomeAndGetYourShinebox: Why am I not surprised that the PITA farked this one up?

PITA is probably the useless internet tool since Geocities made pageview counters.

El Pachuco: MuadDib: El Pachuco: Assuming that the Green Banner faction somehow prevails in Iran, anyone wanna bet the same right wingers now criticizing Obama for not intervening in the Green's favor, won't exactly be cheerleading for him to open relations/discussion with them after they succeed?

That is, I'm pretty sure they'll go back to Iran-is-teh-ebill!!1! no matter how the dust settles.

Just out of curiosity, were you born this stupid or did your parents have to drop you on your head a bunch of times?

Truth hurts?

Dropped on head. Got it.

Don't forget to change your bib before your next foam-flecked rant.

Hmmm, it seems those touting (still) this administration's silence on Iran as "the best, most savvy etc etc" aren't mentioning Obama just came out and did what Krauthammer said he should do.

So, were your attacks on Krauthammer wrong, or your praises of Obama's policy wrong?

It couldn't be hypocrisy could it?

For all of you who normally disagree with George Will:

If he was wrong all those other times, why is he right now?

If he is right now, isn't it possible he was right a lot of other times, too?

I happen to like George Will but I would disagree with him on this one.

I suspect that the ruling elite in Iran are dead-set on blaming the US for whatever happens regardless of our reaction or position. It almost doesn't matter what we say, it certainly won't stop the blame game. Even if we don't do it overtly, they will claim that we supplied "covert" support to the demonstrators. You all know there are plenty of folks in the ME who will buy that line with no questions asked.

Big_Thumb: I don't often agree with George Will, but I like reading his columns, and have read some of his books.

He's definitely a conservative, but he has the intellectual horsepower to back up his beliefs.

Are you farking kidding me.

Nobody is a lighter weight than Will not to mention he's a crook (he stole Carters debate notes and gave them to the raygun campaign).

This past fall in defense of Bush's imploded economy he wrote the lamest column ever about why people shouldn't be concerned that Bush blew up the economy and how they should focus on the simple pleasures of life like reading a book.

Will is a typical con (i.e. he's stupid)

They see me (t)rollin'. They hatin'.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Hmmm, it seems those touting (still) this administration's silence on Iran as "the best, most savvy etc etc" aren't mentioning Obama just came out and did what Krauthammer said he should do.

So, were your attacks on Krauthammer wrong, or your praises of Obama's policy wrong?

It couldn't be hypocrisy could it?

Now I'm even more confused. Are you saying that Obama is right now ?