Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Is Rush Limbaugh Comparing Minnesota Senate Race To Iran Election Controversy?

One of the intriguing aspects of Sen.-elect Al Franken’s victory over former Sen. Norm Coleman has been watching the conservatives whine and complain (because of how much they hate Franken). So, leave it to Republican leader Rush Limbaugh to come up with the comparison of Franken’svictory over Coleman to the Iran election scandal.

LIMBAUGH: Look at this. From Iran’s press television, the state-run media in Iran: Ahmadinejad gains votes in recount, just like in our country! It had — just like in our country. Norm Coleman wins in Minnesota in a recount, and they keep having recounts, and Al Franken wins. So they had the recount in Iran, and shazzam! Ahmadinejad gained votes!

I think the people of Minnesota deserve better than to be smeared by someone like Rush Limbaugh.

Rush, like it or not – the people of Minnesota has spoken and Sen.-elect Franken is finally taking office if Republicans will cease with the obstructions.

Crooks and Liars:
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/rush-limbaugh-compares-al-frankens-win

Thursday, June 25, 2009

This Is Why President Obama Was Wise To Be Careful In His Words About Iran

Protesters in Iran largely have been put down by the government in an aggressive and violent fashion in the wake of a highly-controversial and disputed election that it appears will keep Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his position as president of Iran. Many on the far right of the political spectrum wanted President Obama to speak out strongly against the government of Iran for the election results and to support the protesters. President Obama did express support for the rights of the protesters to express their views (contrary to what you will repeatedly hear from those on the right who see virtually nothing positive in our president). President Obama was wise not to make an irrational move and entangle the United States too deeply in an Iranian affair (as much as many people were angry by the disputed election results and the way the protesters were put down). A rush to judgement by President Obama would have made it even easier for Ahmadinejad to demonize the U.S. even more and rile up those who still dislike or hate the U.S. due to the policies of previous administrations (most notably the George W. Bush presidency).

TEHRAN (Reuters) – President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused Barack Obama on Thursday of behaving like his predecessor toward Iran and said there was not much point in talking to Washington unless the U.S. president apologized.

(EDITORS’ NOTE: Reuters and other foreign media are subject to Iranian restrictions on their ability to report, film or take pictures in Tehran.)

Obama said on Tuesday he was “appalled and outraged” by a post-election crackdown and Washington withdrew invitations to Iranian diplomats to attend Independence Day celebrations on July 4 — stalling efforts to improve ties with Tehran.

“Mr Obama made a mistake to say those things … our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously (former president George W.) Bush used to say,” the semi-official Fars News Agencyquoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

“Do you want to speak with this tone? If that is your stance then what is left to talk about … I hope you avoid interfering in Iran’s affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it,” he said.

You can see that Ahmadinejad is trying to turn the comments from President Obama into a distraction from what is taking place on the streets in Iran and what took place during the election. That, I believe, is precisely what President Obama saw coming from some in the Iranian government.

Yahoo News/Reuters:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090625/wl_nm/us_iran_election

Greg Gutfeld’s Criticism Of President Obama Is A Head Scratcher

When will some of these hardcore conservatives wake up and realize that we need to work to stay out of the business of another country? Our military already is spread thin thanks to, among other things, conflicts going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. North Korea is stand out out there as an unknown potential threat and then there’s Iran. With our own eyes, thanks to various forms of media (including social media like Facebook and Twitter) we’ve seen the violence that has erupted since the highly-disputed (due to what many people feel is possible widespread voting corruption) reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of Iran. Protests immediately erupted in Iran and, as expected, the government has tired of these protests and begun to put them down, violently so.

This brings me to a blog written by Greg Gutfeld (posted at Big Hollywood). Like a good number of conservatives, Gutfeld is whining because President Obama didn’t respond strongly enough or soon enough to suit his tastes.

Here is part of what Gutfeld wrote in a blog titled “The Bystander in Chief”:

“We don’t know how this thing is going to play out.”

Somehow, that statement doesn’t blow your mind like “hope and change,” but that’s exactly how Obama feels about Iran.

For Gutfeld, that is not good enough. What does Gutfeld want: missile strikes, ground troops, a nuclear bomb? Who knows? President Obama is not one of these hardcore right-wingers who want to invade every country that even looks like it is stepping out of line. The president is a man who wants to proceed carefully and now run into Iran with a cowboy hat on, bomb first, and ask questions, later (of those who survive).

“We don’t know how this thing is going to play out.”

Which, as you know, is a stance that has never stopped our President from immediately re-imagining health care, trying to end enhanced interrogations, or reducing carbon dioxide emissions via something ridiculous called cap and trade legislation.

I want a president who is concerned about issues more directly related to the American people. Issues like health care may not be so important to Greg Gutfeld, but they are to others who are barely making ends meet. We may not solve the health care crisis, but it’s a better issue than getting involved in the affairs of Iran (which will come back to bite us in the butt as some in that country will use it to further demonize the United States of America as evil and self-righteous meddlers). President Obama is trying to erase that false image of the United States that exists abroad.

“We don’t know how this thing is going to play out.”

I imagine you can use that excuse on pretty much anything. Except when it comes to press conferences. Which is why Obama does him. And now that our President has recognized that he’s potentially on the wrong side of history – he gave us a press conference designed to blunt criticism, as opposed to blunting the persecution of innocent people.

He’s on the wrong side of history, huh? I don’t think the American people see it that way. I certainly don’t think they see it that way after the previous eight years.

“Bearing witness,” as Obama calls it, is all it takes, apparently. But I’m not so sure. If you were being mugged, you’d really like a cop to shoot the bastard, instead of bearing witness. If you’re lugging five bags of groceries up four flights of stairs, “bearing witness” does no good. Lend a hand, champ.

Ugh, where does all the violence come from? President Obama is working to change things for the better and clean up the mess left for him by the previous administration. Of course, it makes it difficult with the Grand Obstructionist Party standing in his way and doing everything within its power to trip him up. President Obama is trying to lend a hand to working-class and poor people through health care reform, champ. It’s too bad Republicans won’t settle for simply bearing witness instead of obstructing. This is why the GOP has gone from champs to chumps.

So I disagree with Obama – we’re not seeing a “debate” in Iran. We’re seeing a brutal, ruthless crackdown. Something tells me that stopping that is more important than reducing carbon emissions to fight a questionable threat.

Look, I like the fact that he’s finally – although reluctantly – stepping up, but I wish Obama felt as immediately outraged about Iran as he did over the murder of an abortion doctor.

So, now we see what this is all about … our conservative friends are still whining about the murder of Dr. George Tiller (allegedly at the hands of an anti-abortion extremist). Just as Fox News correspondent Major Garrett asked a stupid question about the president’s response, so too does the rest of Fox News continue running down the football field with the ball – in the wrong direction. When you commit football suicide and run out of the back of the end zone … we’ll take the two points.

“We don’t know how this thing is going to play out.”

It would have been closer to Obama’s real concerns, if that quote ended with “for me.”

No, “for our country” is a better way it might end. The last thing we want to do is further damage the reputation of the U.S. worldwide and put more troops in harm’s way in another country. We did enough of that during the Bush-Cheney years in the White House.

What’s next: North Korea?

Big Hollywood:
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggutfeld/2009/06/23/daily-gut-the-bystander-in-chief/

President Obama Calls Out Fox News Reporter On Pushing Conservative Talking Point

Fox News reporter Major Garrett, questioning President Obama during a press conference, followed conservative talking points in questioning the president about an alleged slow response to the controversy in Iran. President Obama spoke out several times as the election controversy and subsequent crisis developed. Garrett’s question was based on a false premise (established largely on a foundation of right-wing bias).

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

An Interesting Perspective From Joe Scarborough

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough made interesting comments that Think Progress has reported today. Scarborough, who I do not always agree with, seems to take a stance opposite of political partisan parrots like right-winger Mitt Romney (who will say just about anything to appease the far right).

Here is an excerpt that includes the comments from Scarborough:

Later on Meet the Press, MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough seemed to rebut these right-wing claims, suggesting that President Obama’s outreach in Cairo “scared” the Iranian leaders into fixing the election:

SCARBOROUGH: You know, the 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.

That is an interesting thought, however, it is a reasonable belief that he would have done anything to remain in power as president. President Obama’s inspiration seems to be sparking people to stand up and assert themselves in the pursuit of fairness, freedom and to ensure they are not disenfranchised by a farce of an election, a rigged process with a predetermined conclusion. Perhaps Scarborough is correct in that this (what appears to some people to be a huge power grab) could spark people to continue to pursue change after being victimized by a process a large number of people see as crooked. If President Obama’s words have made people hungry for change then that seems to me to potentially be a positive.

Think Progress:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/14/neocons-blame-obama-iran/