right wing roots for Ahmadinejad

**foreigner** · 13-06-2009, 12:35 AM

war hawks are outa their f'n minds

American Enterprise Institute's Michael Rubin told National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez it might be better for Ahmadinejad to win, because a loss might give Obama the impression that diplomacy was working.

Rubin is another hard core hawk that did not put his humming bird arse where is alligator mouth is.
.. he wants to send americans into harms way .. a place he choose not be put himself.
& to kill many innocent victims via collateral damage
what a f'n arse
wonder if his children or close relatives stand up for what they say? He does not!

Right-Wing Neocons Rooting For Ahmadinejad Win

**attaboy** · 13-06-2009, 01:17 AM

That is pretty funny the way it's written. It's a comedy blog right? Like the Daily Show, it's comedy oriented?

Here's a portion of the interview:

KATHRYN JEAN LOPEZ: How real is this election in Iran tomorrow?

MICHAEL RUBIN: In a sense, the elections are real. Fraud is a problem and election tallies are often tinkered with (indeed, this enabled Ahmadinejad to avoid elimination in the first round back in 2005) but this year, four candidates have engaged in a real campaign, and held real debates. That said, the worst thing any analyst can do is engage in projection, and assume that Iranian elections are equivalent to elections elsewhere. In the Islamic Republic, for example, a Council of Guardians determines who can and cannot compete in elections. This year, less than 1 percent of applicants were allowed to compete. Only those that agree with the Supreme Leader can run. An analogy would be if the Soviet Union held elections in the 1970s, but only candidates that espoused the policies of Leonid Brezhnev could compete. In such circumstances, we would hardly call the Soviet Union a democracy.

As a result, Iranian elections are much more about style than about substance. There’s a tendency among analysts to amplify differences, but when it comes to key U.S. policy concerns: Iran’s nuclear ambitions, violent opposition to the Middle East peace process, and support for terrorism, there are none. Remember, that it was under “pragmatist” President ‘Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and “reformist” President Mohammad Khatami that the Islamic Republic not only built up its nuclear capability but also, according to the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate, experimented with warhead design.

The last thing to remember is that the real power in the Islamic Republic rests with the Office of the Supreme Leader, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and, in the economic sphere, with the Revolutionary Foundations.

LOPEZ: Should we want Ahmadinejad to lose the election this weekend?

RUBIN: The Obama administration tends to conflate advocacy with analysis. They see in the Islamic Republic what they want to see, not what the Iranian leadership’s intentions really are. As such, should someone more soft-spoken and less defiant — someone like former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi — win, it would be easier for Obama to believe that Iran really was figuratively unclenching a fist when, in fact, it had it had its other hand hidden under its cloak, grasping a dagger. What Ahmadinjead did was to expose the ideology of the power holders in Iran for what it actually is. Holocaust denial, for example, is nothing new to the Islamic Republic. Both Rafsanjani and Khatami also encourage it. Ahmadinejad’s bluntness, however, forced even the Europeans to react.

Eye on Iran - Kathryn Jean Lopez - The Corner on National Review Online

According to Rubin a change in the presidency should not be construed as even a 'UN infinitesimal' step towards progress. It's for appearances only. Time will tell. We can all

for the best as long as we don't ignore the facts. I mean thinking positive and hvaing a rosy attitude ain't going to cut it in the real world.

**barbaro** · 13-06-2009, 01:48 AM

Originally Posted by foreigner

war hawks are outa their f'n minds

American Enterprise Institute's Michael Rubin told National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez it might be better for Ahmadinejad to win, because a loss might give Obama the impression that diplomacy was working.

Rubin is another hard core hawk that did not put his humming bird arse where is alligator mouth is.

Very stupid analysis by this man, Michael Rubin. But then again, he comes from the advocacy group (not a think tank), AEI.

The election in Iran will be interesting to follow. I assume we'll know the results soon (if not already).

There are many economic problem and issues in Iran, and a large percentage of the Iranian population is under 30 years of age.

Again, for the upteenth time, the President of Iran (Ahmadinejad) is not the leader of Iran. He does has control of many domestic Issues, but the military, and nuclear development issue if controleed by the real leader of Iran: Al Khomeini, leader of the Supreme Council.

I don't like Ahmadinejad and think he's odd, to say the least. But he's not the evil menace - I mean, threat - that the US media is portraying him to be. He doesn't have the power under the Iranian system to be a threat.

**Norton** · 13-06-2009, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Milkman

Again, for the upteenth time, the President of Iran (Ahmadinejad) is not the leader of Iran. He does has control of many domestic Issues, but the military, and nuclear development issue if controleed by the real leader of Iran: Al Khomeini, leader of the Supreme Council.

Agree but the Supreme Council will have to listen to the electorate of Iran if they want to maintain power. The recent rally's by the greens (moderates) have drawn huge numbers. The last thing the Supreme Council wants is a repeat of what put them in power. Massive demonstrations!

**raycarey** · 13-06-2009, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by attaboy

RUBIN: The Obama administration tends to conflate advocacy with analysis. They see in the Islamic Republic what they want to see, not what the Iranian leadership’s intentions really are. As such, should someone more soft-spoken and less defiant — someone like former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi — win, it would be easier for Obama to believe that Iran really was figuratively unclenching a fist when, in fact, it had it had its other hand hidden under its cloak, grasping a dagger.

ooooh....scary.

reminds me of the communist fear mongering that took place in the US not too long ago.

**TSR2** · 13-06-2009, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Milkman

Michael Rubin

Welsh already !!

**Boon Mee** · 15-06-2009, 06:13 AM

Obama's Apology Tour Ain't Working

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said on Sunday that the Obama administration's approach to Iran was "entirely wrong-headed" and made the case that the contested results of that country's elections proved that the president's policy of apologizing for America was "not working."

Source

Obviously it isn't...

**panama hat** · 15-06-2009, 07:54 PM

And the sleazoid Romney is an authority figure on this, BM?

You guys didn't even want to give him a real chance to be president and all his words now simply sound like sour grapes.

**raycarey** · 15-06-2009, 08:03 PM

yeah, let's listen to mitt romney on foreign policy.

**barbaro** · 15-06-2009, 11:30 PM

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Obama's Apology Tour Ain't Working

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney said on Sunday that the Obama administration's approach to Iran was "entirely wrong-headed" and made the case that the contested results of that country's elections proved that the president's policy of apologizing for America was "not working."

Source

Obviously it isn't...

Approach Iran? What "approach" is best? It doesn't matter. The Supreme Council will continue the nuclear program.

There is not a lot the US can do. Dialogue will produce nothing IMO, and a surgical strike to hit the nuke facilities is not possible.

I can see why Iran would want nuclear weapons. Iran has oil. Look to the border on both sides and see what is happening, and dumping the US dollar in favor of the Euro for the petro-dollars is what Washington does not want.

All the fear. For what?

**Boon Mee** · 16-06-2009, 12:42 AM

Originally Posted by raycarey

yeah, let's listen to mitt romney on foreign policy.

Better than talking points outa Kos Files, eh?

**panama hat** · 16-06-2009, 09:03 AM

^ Nope, not even that.

**Boon Mee** · 16-06-2009, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by panama hat

^ Nope, not even that.

Are you even familiar with Kos Files, PH?

**panama hat** · 16-06-2009, 09:56 AM

Yes. And Romney has/is no moral or political authority/credibility over KOS.

**barbaro** · 16-06-2009, 11:50 AM

For Iranians: it matters who wins the Presidential election.

For Americans: it does not matter.

The Supreme Council has the control over the nuclear development program.

The US mainstream media (I'm visiting the US) is loving the photos and video of the protests and is showing over and over again.

Not much will change in Iran, for the most part. I am referring to the next 4-5 years only.

**robuzo** · 16-06-2009, 12:44 PM

The very knowledgeable Robert Baer cites a caveat about the Iran demonstrations that has been noted elsewhere:
Bay Area residents eye Iran post-election protests - 6/15/09 - San Francisco News - abc7news.com
Robert Baer of Berkeley is a former CIA operative, an author and expert on the Middle East. He says what people see in media images may not reflect the complete reality of Iran and that much of Iran remains conservative.

"It is like Berkeley in '68, '69 and '70 when you saw a bunch of rich kids out protesting the Vietnam War. They certainly burned a lot of tires and cars, but they didn't represent the rest of this country," he explained.

Baer told ABC7 those pro-Mousavi demonstrations would need to spread to other cities. As of Monday night there were reports that they have spread to Shiraz and the historic city of Esfahan.
- - -
Juan Cole takes issue with that reading in some detail here:
Informed Comment: Class v. Culture Wars in Iranian Elections: Rejecting Charges of a North Tehran Fallacy
Some comentators have suggested that the reason Western reporters were shocked when Ahmadinejad won was that they are based in opulent North Tehran, whereas the farmers and workers of Iran, the majority, are enthusiastic for Ahmadinejad. That is, we fell victim once again to upper middle class reporting and expectations in a working class country of the global south.

While such dynamics may have existed, this analysis is flawed in the case of Iran because it pays too much attention to class and material factors and not enough to Iranian culture wars. We have already seen, in 1997 and 2001, that Iranian women and youth swung behind an obscure former minister of culture named Mohammad Khatami and his 2nd of Khordad movement, capturing not only the presidency but also, in 2000, parliament.
(Read the whole thing if you are interested in Iran, it's quite good.)
- - -
Submitted without comment.

**Rural Surin** · 16-06-2009, 06:56 PM

Wouldn't be easier for the Yanks to just oversee the Iranian election?

For that matter, maintain and underwrite the elective process worldwide?

**foreigner** · 17-06-2009, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by Milkman

he comes from the advocacy group (not a think tank), AEI.

this is the "advocacy group" that yielded the neocon philosophy .. included in this 'advocacy group" are Bush / Rummy / Cheney / Wolfie / Perle / Abrahams / Crystal / .. et al

this is that "advocacy group" represents the core ideology of the 21st century republican party ..

much more relevant to perverse core GOP ideology that almost any other organization.

**foreigner** · 17-06-2009, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by Milkman

I can see why Iran would want nuclear weapons

when the dominate bully in the region is allowed to have nukes it is logical that those who wish to stand up tho the bully would want to make it a fair fight

don't to show up at a nuclear war with conventional weapons.

the regional bully refuses to stop encroaching on the land of the endogenous people
the only way to control an out of control bully is to kick his f'n butt ..
or bend over & let the bully's ongoing theft continue without comment

**Butterfly** · 17-06-2009, 08:24 AM

Israel is a cancer, and we created that cancer

eventually we will need to take care of it, in a more dramatic manner and not as nice as it should be

**panama hat** · 17-06-2009, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by foreigner

right wing roots for Ahmadinejad

From the title I thought Sarah Palin and Ahmadadinnerjacket had gotten it on . . . instead of Russia they could both see the starts.

Thread: right wing roots for Ahmadinejad

Thread Tools

Display

right wing roots for Ahmadinejad

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions