Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Dennis Prager :: Townhall.com Columnist
Dear Iranians: Don't Count on America (or Any Country Led by Left)
by Dennis Prager
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


"The administration has remained as quiet as possible during the Iranian election season and in the days of street protests since Friday's vote."

-- Washington Post , Monday June 15, 2009

"We're going to withhold comment. … I mean we're just waiting to see."

-- Vice-President Joe Biden

"We are monitoring the situation as it unfolds in Iran but we, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching to see what the Iranian people decide."

-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

"Most countries appeared to be taking a wait-and-see approach, including the European Union and China, Germany, Italy and Japan -- nations with strong economic ties to Iran. France said it was closely following the situation."

-- Associated Press, June 13, 2009

For those who look to "world opinion," "the opinion of mankind," or to the United Nations for moral guidance or for coming to the aid of victims of oppression, the past few days and presumably the next few days in Iran, provide yet another example of their uselessness.

A million or more Iranians are demonstrating against last Friday's obviously stolen election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the world -- except for the lowlifes who rule places like Venezuela and Syria and who immediately sent their effusive congratulations to Ahmadinejad -- is quiet. The world is "closely following the situation," just as it followed the situations of the Jews during the Holocaust, the Ukrainians, the Chinese under Mao, the Rwandans, the Cambodians, Tibetans, and so many others.

I have long believed that the citizens of most free countries do not deserve the gift of freedom that they have. Few have any interest in promoting freedom, only in having it for themselves. Insofar as other countries are concerned what matters to most free countries, as to dictatorships, is power.

That is what America and Europe are watching -- where the power in Iran will go. Whoever wins will get free America and free Europe's respect.

Now it may be argued that if the American president speaks out in support of those demonstrating for free elections in Iran, it will be counterproductive.

How exactly? What will the unelected President Ahmadinejad and the unelected Supreme Ruler, Grand Ayatollah, the pre-medieval Ali Khamenei do? Get angry at America? Threaten to annihilate another country? Start building nuclear arms? Stone women who commit sexual sins? Hey, wait, haven't they done all that already?

As bad as most of the world's countries are, those led by left-wing governments are even worse when it comes to defending democracy.

A primary reason America is "waiting" and "watching" and "monitoring" while Iranians are beaten in the streets of Tehran is that the country is led by the left.

Compare the Canadian reaction, now that it has a conservative government:

On the very next day after the Iranian elections, according to CNN, "Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon told reporters in Niagara Falls, Ontario, Saturday, that Canada was 'deeply concerned' about allegations of voting irregularities. 'We're troubled by reports of intimidation of opposition candidates' offices by security forces.'"

Even usually appeasing Germany, now led by a more conservative government, had a sharper response than America:

As reported by CNN, "German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told ARD Sunday that the Iranian ambassador in Berlin would be summoned to explain the treatment of protesters against the result. 'I have already prompted Iran, together with European colleagues today, to quickly shed light on what has happened there -- if one can take the announced election results there seriously or not," he added.

And Germany's Deutsche Welle reported on Monday, June 15:

"German Chancellor Angela Merkel says she is very concerned and condemns the wave of arrests following the Iranian election."

Now compare Labor-led Britain's response:

As reported by CNN: "U.K. Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Saturday that the U.K. government had 'followed carefully, and admired, the passion and debate during the Iranian election campaign. We have also heard the concerns about the counting of ballots expressed by two of the candidates. This is a matter for the Iranian authorities to address. We will continue to follow developments.'"

"This is a matter for the Iranian authorities to address." Surely a proud moment for Britain.

The best example comes, as it often does, from that quintessential man of the left, former President of the United States Jimmy Carter, speaking from -- where else? – the Palestinian City of Ramallah: "I think this election has brought out a lot of opposition to (Ahmadinejad's} policies in Iran, and I'm sure he'll listen to those opinions and hopefully moderate his position."

Not everyone on the left is "sure" that Ahmadinejad will "listen" to his opponents' opinions. But that level of naivete regarding evil is almost exclusive to the left.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Dennis Prager's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Obama should remain silent.

Obama should remain silent on Iran's Presidential election.

Afterall, his own election is called into question because of A.C.O.R.N.

Whether its A.C.O.R.N. or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a corrupt election is a corrupt election.

We can wait for the U.N.
Most of Europe was setting up trade ties with Iraq prior to the invasion. Probably because they felt the pain of those under the boot of Saddam.

Or come to think of it they probably were more concerned with MONEY.

Thank God there were a few who would stand against a tyrant.

Now the politicians, who voted to spend the money that allowed his removal, pretend to have no idea what could have led to the events and say it is better to talk to such tyrants.

Let the populace deal with them. OK let Iran stew. How about we get out of Korea also. How is N.Korea a danger to the U.S.? Even if they could fire a missile our anti-missile defence would knock it down and N. Korea would be bombed out of existence. No need for us to be there.

The best example of naivete
Jimmy Carter visited our strongest military ally in the Mideast, stopped selling our fighter aircraft to them because Jimmy Carter didn't like the Shah of Iran's treatment of Soviet spies who had been undermining Iran.

Carter preferred the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini as a leader because he was religious. So we stood by as the Shah, an ally, was overthrown. Today, Iran is the world's biggest sponsor of terror and is on track to have nukes in five years — all thanks to Carter's naivete.

After Carter lost Iran in what amounted to total incompetence, he visited Leonid Brezhnev. Brezhnev afterward promptly invaded Afghanistan and Carter said, "I can't believe he lied to me."

While Carter was in office, the Soviets took over a number of countries, including Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Grenada, Mozambique, Ethiopia, South Yemen and Nicaragua.

The more Carter talked, the worse it got for the U.S.

Dennis you seem to forget that when
Iran under the mullahs screamed "Death to America" they were only denouncing the US under W. With our new president of the world in charge they have changed completely.

The mullahs have reread the Koran and found their previous understanding of death to the infidels and Jews to be utterly false. When Obama stated Islam is a religion of peace they had a whole new grasp of the basic concepts of what the prophet Muhammad was all about.

They have given up any thought of nuclear weapons and in fact now want to live in peace with Israel and the the US which under Obama is seen as the architect of all that is good. The new prophet of Islam thy name be Obama.


Above is the truly deluded, bordering on criminally insane, thinking of Obama, Biden and Pelosi.

God help us all.

Dennis.
The United States cannot be seen to be aiding and abetting the Revolution. The resistance, to remain legitimate, must accomplish its goals FREE OF AMERICAN INVERVENTION.

When (and if) the Iranian protesters achieve their goal, the United States will WHOLEHEARTEDLY endorse thses brave kids. But these protesters cannot be seen to be a puppet of the United States foreign policy.


You cons have it all backward. You believe in pre-emptive invasions. You believe in jumping in and aiding a pro-democracy movement, but the wider Arab world will see this Iranian movement as illegitimate if the United States bullies and pushes its will onto protesters or insurgent military regimes.


Obama is cautious. He is playing it exactly right.

I am SO freaking glad repub/cons were not re-elected this time. You guys blow everything you touch.

What part of 'mutual respect' is unclear
Obama has made his views about Iran known to americans yet Prager pretends that he does not get it. When Obama started a new era of 'mutual respect' it meant the USA would treat Iran and other muslim nations as countries capable of conducting their internal affairs. Obama is not interested in micromanaging foreign elections because the USA constitution does not inlcude that as part of his duties.

If Iranians want the USA to get involved they will call Obama and ask him to intervene. Until then, respecting the Iranians while they sort out their election issues is how Obama has chosen to respond. As usual, nothing Obama does is 'good enough' 'american enough' or 'acceptable' to the so called 'conservative taliban of haters'.

Prager, let's be clear - Obama has chosen not to interfere with the elections of a soverign nation. And while you disagree, you can't argue that Obama has been unclear about his hesitation to 'dictate' to other nations what to do. That is the arrogance that lead us to look for imaginary 'weapons of mass destruction'.

While you list what is wrong with Iran, maybe you can be humbled by their silence when the Gore/Bush election was being disputed. Imagine if nations had started giving their 'perspective' on the issue? you'd have rightly argued IT'S NON OF THEIR BUSINESS.

Obama Walks a TightRope

After the first gulf war we cheered the Shia in Southern Iraq when they resisted Saddam. We encouraged them, even. Then we stood by and watched Saddam grind them under his heel.
I don't want to see us inciting rebellion in Iran unless we're willing to put our money where our mouth is. And we're not.

Obama also knows (as most TH patrons like to forget) that we already overthrew the government of Iran once, and the dictator we installed developed into a BUTCHER. We probably aren't the first preference for the Iranians when they think of Liberation.

And however imperfect the election might be, calling for the overthrow of Ahmadinejahd would be the 2nd time in recent histoy that we spat on middle east democracy and self-determination because we didn't like what the people determined for themselves. (Remember the election Hamas won?) We wouldn't want to become known as Hypocrites, would we?

Like many Hard-RightWingers, Dennis hates the idea of direct talks with Iran and sees here a chance to make it not happen.

How Exactly?
1) By being exploited by the ayatollahs and the mullahs as the hidden force behind these street protest. Just like Republicans exploited it everytime some from the Middle East said anything complimentary about Obama during the lede up to the our own election

2) Because it would have the opposite 'hoped for' effect

3) Because this is an internal matter for Iran and Iranians; There are no Iranians clamoring to hear what we USA leaders think about it. As a matter of fact, most of the opposition force have asked that we NOT get involved.

dan
"We need to stop being international busybodies and fix our own probnblems-of which there are a multititude."


There is a vast difference between supporting allies (Israel) and people yearning to be free (the Iranian protestors) AND being busybodies.

Expect moral courage from Obama...
And you'll be in for a long wait. This man, an utter rookie on the international stage, is weak-willed, and is annimated by nothing more than the desire to win elections and hold power. He has no moral compass that I can discern, and he does not believe in the quintessential American value of liberty at home or abroad.

Useful idiots (#1) wrote, "Obama should remain silent on Iran's Presidential election.

Afterall, his own election is called into question because of A.C.O.R.N.

Whether its A.C.O.R.N. or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a corrupt election is a corrupt election." Very well said! Obama knows a thing or two about election fraud, or his people do, which is effectively the same thing. ACORN was caught in the act of registering 7-year old children to vote, and in other acts of vote fraud, but our gutless legal system did nothing. Obama himself may not even be a U.S. citizen eligible to serve as President, but the SCOTUS is too gutless to hear the many challenges to his elgibility, asking simply that he prove his status by allowing his actual birth certificate to see the light of day. The Dems and Obama's people have spend tens of millions of dollars blocking such efforts. Why, I thought this administration was going to be the most transparent in history!?

In short, Obama is quite possibly a fraud himself, de facto or de jure, and his campaign people are most certainly such. One can see why he's remained silent on Iran's election after all... might prove, well, let's just say "uncomfortable" for him.

Israel v. Iran

When the Palestinians lob missiles into Israel and Israelis retaliate, the Left goes wild. Protestors angrily march through the streets of American cities like San Francisco and scream "to the ovens you go, Jew". Code Pinko goes nuts. University students erupt with chants of Apartheid.

When 2-3 millions Iranians (according to the AP) take to the streets protesting the obvious theft of their votes in the Presidential election, the Left becomes church mice.

Oh, sure, the Left covers it in the news media, but they are talking more about how this is Iran's Bush-Gore election; rather, than the fact that it is a life and death matter for the Iranians.

One person died today and thugs on motorcycles were driving through the streets and attacking protestors with machetes.

The press had received 7-10 day visas. When they leave, Ahmadinejad will make those protestors disappear ... permanently.

Of course, the Left does not mind us taking up the cause of the Bosnians when they are facing great strife. And, of course, they wish for us to intercede in Darfur.

David Letterman telling a joke...
Did ya hear that President Obama is considering investigating President Bush for war crimes? It seems the Bush policy of bringing democracy in Iraq to cause political turmoil in Iran among the young that Iran was so successful that the Iranian Grand Ayatollah personally called Obama to tell him that Bush was a war criminal and Obama agreed. Wow ... when will the failed Bush presidency cease to cause more problems for President Obama?

Did ya hear about Palin's infant son...?

Letterman Sort of Apologizes, Again - 1

All right, here - I’ve been thinking about this situation with Governor Palin and her family now for about a week - it was a week ago tonight, and maybe you know about it, maybe you don’t know about it. But there was a joke that I told, and I thought I was telling it about the older daughter being at Yankee Stadium. And it was kind of a coarse joke. There’s no getting around it, but I never thought it was anybody other than the older daughter, and before the show, I checked to make sure in fact that she is of legal age, 18. Yeah. But the joke really, in and of itself, can’t be defended. The next day, people are outraged. They’re angry at me because they said, ‘How could you make a lousy joke like that about the 14-year-old girl who was at the ball game?’ And I had, honestly, no idea that the 14-year-old girl, I had no idea that anybody was at the ball game except the Governor and I was told at the time she was there with Rudy Giuliani…And I really should have made the joke about Rudy…” (audience applauds) “But I didn’t, and now people are getting angry and they’re saying, ‘Well, how can you say something like that about a 14-year-old girl, and does that make you feel good to make those horrible jokes about a kid who’s completely innocent, minding her own business,’ and, turns out, she was at the ball game. I had no idea she was there. So she’s now at the ball game and people think that I made the joke about her. And, but still, I’m wondering, ‘Well, what can I do to help people understand that I would never make a joke like this?’ I’ve never made jokes like this as long as we’ve been on the air, 30 long years, and you can’t really be doing jokes like that. And I understand, of course, why people are upset. I would be upset myself.

Letterman Sort of Apologizes, Again - 2
“And then I was watching the Jim Lehrer ‘Newshour’ - this commentator, the columnist Mark Shields, was talking about how I had made this indefensible joke about the 14-year-old girl, and I thought, ‘Oh, boy, now I’m beginning to understand what the problem is here. It’s the perception rather than the intent.’ It doesn’t make any difference what my intent was, it’s the perception. And, as they say about jokes, if you have to explain the joke, it’s not a very good joke. And I’m certainly - ” (audience applause) “- thank you. Well, my responsibility - I take full blame for that. I told a bad joke. I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception. And since it was a joke I told, I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told that joke. It’s not your fault that it was misunderstood, it’s my fault. That it was misunderstood.” (audience applauds) “Thank you. So I would like to apologize, especially to the two daughters involved, Bristol and Willow, and also to the Governor and her family and everybody else who was outraged by the joke. I’m sorry about it and I’ll try to do better in the future. Thank you very much.” (audience applause)


Leftists again misrepresent Mr. Prager
Even though his words are right in front of them, the leftists like Sheik apparently can't read too well. He wrote, "As usual, nothing Obama does is 'good enough' 'american enough' or 'acceptable' to the so called 'conservative taliban of haters'." That says it all, your use of the phrase 'conservative taliban of haters,' doesn't it? I'd say you are the one with the anger problem, the hate problem, mister. I've listened to Dennis Prager for many years, and he does not have a hateful bone in his body, not one. If anything, he is being too easy, too lenient, with Obama.

You then imply that Mr. Prager wants us, the USA, to intervene in the Iranian elections. This is false; read his column again. What he wants is for our president, the leader of the free world, to express condemnation of what is obviously a fraudulent win by Ahmadinejad.

Flaming Lib wrote, "Like many Hard-RightWingers, Dennis hates the idea of direct talks with Iran and sees here a chance to make it not happen." Dennis Prager is not a 'hard right-winger,' it is you who are outside the mainstream of American values. Be so good as to define 'hard rightwing' by the way. While you are at it, please tell me what good direct talks with Iran will accomplish? The USA and Western Europe have done nothing but talk with the leadership there, to absolutely no avail. They are still enriching uranium, just as they were several years ago. And now the NKs have restarted their program. The Iranian leadership must be howling with laughter at Obama, who is doing their dirty work for them.

Dear Useful Idiots
What you say is true.

Dear Useful Idiots
What you say is true.

Dear Useful Idiots
What you say is true.

Obama=Never leta good crisis goto waste1

It' interesting that the left-wingnuts who deride the policies of the Bush/Cheney administration for having the guts to do more than just make speeches in the Middle East. After 9-11 and years of useless U.N. resolutions condemning Saddam's open refusals to abide by them, G.W.Bush did more than talk a good game and defer to, yet more useless resolutions. He had the guts to take action.

It seems the only action Barack Hussein Obama is willing to take is jacking his jaws until the $h!t begins to hit the fan.

What libtards refuse to admit (and in their dishonesty, never will) is that if Bush would never had had the courage to go into Iraq to complete the job of liberating the Iraqi people from the tyranny of dictator Saddam Hussein and his sadistic sons, the people of Iran would not be now in the streets wanting and feeling they deserve the same chance for democracy and liberation in their country.

They are looking at their neighbor Iraq, and they want the SAME THING for themselves: FREEDOM!

George W. Bush never did offer to sit down and negotiate a way to appease Ahmadamnjihad and the mullahs, he threatened to kick their butts if they ever got close to achieving a nuclear bomb! Ahmadamnjihad, AND THE MULLAHS, knew they would get the SAME thing Saddam got if they crossed a certain line! And the people of Iran were silently hoping he would do the same for them as he did for Iraq.

Sorry, Folks
The reason I posted the same comment three times is that my computer worked so slowly, I wasn't sure it was working at all.

Obama=Never leta good crisis goto waste2

The scene you see in the streets of Iran today was SET UP by the strength of George W. Bush's administration to FIGHT Islamic tyrannical governments, NOT give them lip service like Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama’s more concerned with waging his war against the United States Constitution, America small businesses, the American taxpaying middle-class, and Americans themselves than he is fighting anyone in the Middle East. He’s ignoring what’s happening in Iran as he’s too busy running around the country now with the same old song he always sings when he’s getting ready to put another shaft in the taxpayer’s @$$--“We got to take over health care and we’ve got to do it NOW!! OR we’ll have a catastrophe! Give me more control over every aspect of the economy and your lives or the country will not survive!!”

He’s got a lot of courage when it comes to putting a foot up the taxpayer’s rear end! But all he’s shown since descending from the heavens to work out his magic on America is an open mouth, extended hand, and a standing invitation to Ahmadamnjihad on Ahmadamnjihad’s terms. “Hey, it’s alright if they develop nuclear power…they’ve got a right to it.”

What the leftists will NEVER admit is that if it hadn’t been for Bush’s “meddling” in the Middle East, there would be NO public hew and cry taking place in Iran NOW!

Obama=Never leta good crisis goto waste3

They will also never admit that RIGHT NOW George W. Bush is more popular to the people of Iran than Barack Hussein Obama!! And always has been!! There are students in those riots holding up signs RIGHT NOW with photographs of Barack Obama’s face on them with the word: “FRAUD” emblazoned on them! You won’t see any of your mainstream media pundits reporting on this!

Living up to his White House creed, “Never let a good crisis go to waste,” Barack Hussein Obama and his gang are using the opportunity of the suffering of the good people of Iran to try to push through their Socialist Health Care takeover on the American people. The only war worth fighting to Obama, is the one he is waging against you and me!

One good thing that will come out of all this is that the voters of Iran will see, sooner rather than later, that Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t give a damn about helping anybody but Barack Hussein Obama and their Islamic oppressors.

While they’re bleeding in the streets waiting on a response from Obama, he’ll be too busy putting all his attention and energy on bleeding us dry.

Reactions to Iranian Protests
No matter what they may say, no country is going to send its soldiers to get themselves killed defending the Iranian protesters.
Plenty of left wingers in the U.S. want the President to send soldiers to stop the Israelis from defending themselves.
Ronald Reagan, who I'm sure some of you still adore, did precisely that during the 1982 Lebanon War-and the Arabs repaid us by blowing up hundreds of marines.

It's funny
how right wingers are trying to pretend that they care about the Iranian people.

Cherry pick some more why don't we?

tyler

You are a moron. I care about the Iranian people. I cannot tolerate Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs.

Tyler

Location: WA
Reply # 2
Date: Jun 16, 2009 - 2:55 AM EST It's funny
how right wingers are trying to pretend that they care about the Iranian people.

Cherry pick some more why don't we?
____________________________________________

It's funny how you left-wingers pretend to care about the Iraqi people, yet excoriated every effort right wingers did to liberate them from THEIR dictator, Saddam Hussein.

One thing about it...

Your cherry is firmly intact...and ripe to be picked.

Carping the Carper.
Based upon his writing, his radio program, and every speech he has given, there is no way Dennis Prager believes anybody can make the "correct" voting decision, without Judeo-Christian values.

There's nothing wrong with that.

So, why all this crap about who voted for whom, anywhere in the world, including here? Or what the "legitimacy" of the vote was?

No Judeo-Christian values, no legitimate voting results.

And, I mean no disrespect, but do Israeli's make voting decisions, based upon their Judeo-Christian values? Is their nation founded upon Judeo-Christian values and principles?

I don't think any government of Israel would think so.

A second point: civil unrest does not necessarily denote the unhappiness of a group of humans. An recent example (Los Angeles) in our own country is the fan response to their team winning -- certainly a happy thing.

Dennis Prager is correct in his opinion of most humans, in this world. He might just mention that, at every occasion, and be done with it.

Because, hey, no losing side ever thinks the vote was legitimate. That's just Democracy, and human nature.

Just win, baby.


We've been here before -and failed.
I recall lwhen we instigated a couple of coutries under the Iron Curtain to rebel -that's we were on their side and we sat by while their societ masters slaughtered them in the streets. Unless we're ready to go to war with Iran over their freedom, we need to be very careful.

That being said, we must not be cowardly and waiting days to respond to such patent strong armed evil is being cowardly. Obama is like the college kids who carry signs to every peace and justice rally, but have now idea how the grown up world really runs. There are bad guys in it. There is evil out there that sees silly talk as the only weapon we'll dare use as being a paper tiger. They see us as people who care more about silly things like CO2 but won't risk anything to combat deadly acts against humanity - in or out of the womb.

If, and when, history books are written - there will not be a chapter titled The Greatest Generation - anything but, we have turned our backs on those who founded this nation -this nation's God, and the principles of both.

It Doesn't Matter
Iran's policies will not change no matter who the puppet is. If the Iranians want their freedom they they should earn it. Enough American blood has been spilled trying to "give" muslims freedom. It's time for the Iranians to claim their freedom through revolution (without our help). If they're not willing to, then to h e l l with them.

Prager
"How exactly? What will the unelected President Ahmadinejad and the unelected Supreme Ruler, Grand Ayatollah, the pre-medieval Ali Khamenei do? "

It is obvious what they would do, and what they had counted on to win a landslide, use it to gain political sympathy from all the Iranians who fear American interference. The CIA overthrow their elected president in '53 and helped Saddam with his reckless invasion of Iran in 1980.

Never beore has theIranian government allowed such massive protests and, to a certain degree, press coverage of the event. With these demonstrations against a very obvious election stealing, one can see it was very wise diplomacy for Obama to but out of their politics. Ahmadinijad had won easily, in years before, trumping up the Bush/Cheyne "Axis of Evil" talk.

Facts
"If the Persians, Kurds, and others in Iran are truly willing to break off the shackles of Islam, and tyranny, then they may soon become the freest people in the Middle East, other than Israel."

A. They have no intention to "break the shackles" Leaders in this unprecedented broadly based revolt are Muslims and Mullahs, Like Rafsanjani, Khatami, ..

B. People in Israel are not that free. Some people in the population, like Palestinians spend a lot in time in jail being tortured and many of the others are relegated to Ghettoes. A Palestinian isn't even free to go where he wants.

"Human Rights Watch researchers entered Gaza via Egypt on January 21 to investigate alleged violations of human rights and international humanitarian law."



Dave

Location: AL
Reply # 2
Date: Jun 16, 2009 - 7:22 AM EST It Doesn't Matter
Iran's policies will not change no matter who the puppet is. If the Iranians want their freedom they they should earn it. Enough American blood has been spilled trying to "give" muslims freedom. It's time for the Iranians to claim their freedom through revolution (without our help). If they're not willing to, then to h e l l with them."
_____________________________________________

I agree with you about them needing to do it themselves without the cost of American military assistance, but what is tragic is that we have a President in Barack Hussein Obama, that doesn't even have the guts to use this opportunity to lead the free world in a verbal condemnation of Ahmadamnjihad and the mullahs now when that would be most effective.

Reagan had enough smarts to see that when he told Gorbachev: "Tear down that wall!"

For a President whose supposed to be so good at giving speeches, the current one can do a good job of kowtowing, but has no courage when it comes to speaking up for liberty.

This is a GOLDEN opportunity to make the speech of his life contrasting what America and the free world with what is happening in Iran right now! Standing for what is a people's God-given right to control their own destiny, etc, etc.

But hey...I guess if you don't believe in that for your own country, it's pretty hard to sell it to somebody else.

Now would be the PERFECT time for "words, just words"..."speeches, just speeches"...

And Barack Hussein Obama is too busy selling Socialized medicine and his OWN attempts to create a dictatorship in America to be bothered with all that.

The only angry words he has, is for the people of America who oppose his Socialist agenda.

Oncealways
Why would it take "guts" for Obama to condemn Ahmadijad right now? It seems it would pretty dang easy.

Coward in the Whitehouse
Whenever I hear the media ask, "what will the President say/do about this conflict?", I laugh. No matter what, no matter who, he will sit there and gush eloquent, meaningless words that reveal his true character: he's a coward. North Korean or Iranian nukes? The ongoing Israel/Palestine conflict? The Iranian election? All conflicts gain the same response: doing nothing while cloaking excuses in pretty words.

RL
For Obama to condemn Ahmadijad right now, or during the Iranian election, would please no one more than Ahmadinijad. Is that what we want? If the election hadn't been stolen, he would be out now. As it is, people in Iran are sick of the lunatic and won't rest until their is real change.

Dave

Location: AL
Reply # 4
Date: Jun 16, 2009 - 7:22 AM EST It Doesn't Matter"
_________________________________________

And contrary to the comments coming from people like Taft, and these other liberal idiots--Obama's failure to take the leadership that is there for the taking for a President of the United States doesn't not STRENGTHEN his position in the world; it WEAKENS IT!

There more of a role for a President of the United States than just using military might. But Obama is not only ill-prepared to show resolve in using the military; he lacks the any resolve to use MORAL AUTHORITY in speaking out against what is being perpetrated by the Mullahs and Ahmadamnjihad in Iran when the OPPORTUNITY has been handed to him on a SILVER PLATTER!

Just think how POWERFUL the right WORDS would be in this situation. Hell...I would have no problem writing such a speech.

His statement condemning the actions of Ahmadamnjihad would be echoed across the WORLD!

He could even plainly say that we have no intention of interfering, but at the same time make a verbal case against that regime that would HUMILIATE Ahmadamnjihad and his supporters, the Ayatollahs!

His INABILITY to do THIS...makes him look even WEAKER and IMMORAL than he already appears to be. It is a tacit ADMISSION of WEAKNESS on his part.

The WHOLE WORLD is WATCHING...

And the President who OPENLY aspires to have the RESPECT of the entire world is ASLEEP at the switch!

How can the world respect Obama after this when he resumes his attempts to NEGOTIATE with Ahmadamnjihad after saying NOTHING?

Barack Hussein Obama is an EMBARRASEMENT to America and will be recognized as a WEAKLING to our enemies and our allies.

This guy is a COMPLETE DISASTER!

We couldn't have a weaker President than we have now.

They may not have liked Bush...but by God they respected him.

They're walking ALL OVER Obama,and he doesn't even bat an eye.

Prager was wrong
Prager said that the election of Obama would do nothing to improve our relations with European countries. He was wrong. Here's a small example:


After a meeting with President Obama yesterday, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi agreed to take three detainees from Guantanamo Bay. The EU also said yesterday that European nations “are ready to help the Obama administration ‘turn the page‘ on Guantanamo, and take detainees on a case-by-case basis.”



Looks like the Europeans are more willing to cooperate with an American president who respects our allies rather than mocking and ridiculing them, as the conservatives love to do.

Prager predicted that the Europeans would ignore us no matter who was president. Don't hold your breath waiting for him to acknowledge his error in judgment. Prager doesn't do that.

As far as Iran goes? Patience.

Oncealways
Why would the Iranian respect Bush? It only pushed them into electing a reactionary like Ahmadiniad. Did the British respect Hitler? Goering told Hitler he could bomb them into submission and , even though there were many sympathetic to Hitler, including some aristocrats, all it did is bring out the bulldogs, and fears hatred and determined resistance.

Bush seriously though about using nuclear bombs on Iran, and Prager and probably Onceand always, would have happily bombed all the Iranians to death, so much for all this fake concern over the lives of these people.

Oncealwaysamarine and Prager
Do you guys realize that you are cheering for the liberals and progressives to defeat the right wing religious conservatives in Iran?

Sort of an odd position for Prager to take. He thinks the left is the root of all evil.

Phylo out.


Phylo - cheering?

Actually, the cheering is for the defeat of an authoritarian theocracy run by the mullahs. The mullahs will be in charge regardless of who was declared the winner, unless the people in the streets in Tehran get support from the militias and the military.

Progressives exhibit another kind of authoritarian behavior - making a secular religion of government, thereby justifying coercion convenient to those in charge.

Mr. Prager
There are too many noise makers in this tired old world. How about stepping back and not add to the noise.

Phylo Se Fiser

Location: MN
Reply # 1
Date: Jun 16, 2009 - 9:19 AM EST Oncealwaysamarine and Prager
Do you guys realize that you are cheering for the liberals and progressives to defeat the right wing religious conservatives in Iran?

Sort of an odd position for Prager to take. He thinks the left is the root of all evil.

Phylo out.
____________________________________________

You're right Phylo...I don't want to help them...it's just that it is SICKENING to me to see this PRETENDER in our White House!

I'll just have to ride this presidency out and be patient.

I just hope this jerk (Barack Hussein Obama) doesn't get us all killed and completely screws up this country to where it'll take 50 years to clean up the mess he's making, and to restore it to it's rightful place in the world.

A guess a man that can't bring himself to speak out in support of the lives of innocent babies and would leave them to die at birth, can't be counted on to stand up for some poor abused Iranians.

Somebody wake me up when this nightmare is over.

Yeah,
That's exactly what we need...another war.

Axis of Evil
Obama
Ahmadinejad
Kim Jong II

Phylo.....
"As far as Iran goes? Patience. "



Ignorance.

The world should ignore
North Korea It is an independant nation that starves it's people.

Sudan and other African countries, They are independant nation where children will get their arms cut off and women raped as policy.


Right Wing Idiocy

You guys seem to be operating under the delusion that the US can have some sort of impact in Iran. The Germans, who merit Prager's respect, called in the amabassador and had their say. Some other nations may either recall their ambassadors or close consulates.

The US is at a huge disadvantage because the US has no diplomatic relations with Iran. Funny huh? When you operate of confrontational policy toward a nation, you actually LOSE influence.

Obama has done exactly the right thing. He has stated that this is an Iranian issue specifically so the US doesn't become the issue in Iran. If the US becomes the issue, the pro-change forces lose big time and real democracy will face a setback in Iran. At the same time he has made it clear he supports teh will of the Iranian people, who appear to favor change.






Phylo
Your ignorance shows no bounds. Prager clearly states, every time, that it is the AMERICAN LEFT that has hurt THE U.S. And he has continously said the extreme Islamic Right in Iran is evil. You spout drivel witout fact or research. Try to get it right for once.

66% of Americans Disapprove of Obama's

stance on the Iranian elections, including 57% of Democrats and 59% of Independents.

good distinction
If the goal is to make the US feel superior then Prager is certainly right. If the goal is to give the protest movement the best chance to succeed then this column misses the point.

Not surprisingly there is no indication in this article what our putting ourselves in the middle of this contraversy will do. The mullahs in Iran have had success justifying their bad actions in terms of western imperialism, in part because there was an actual history of western imperialism that led to dismantling Iran's nascent democracy in the '50s.

Prager wants us to do the mullahs the favor of making the protesters look like western stooges so they can play that game again. Then, no doubt Prager can feel superior while setting back the protest movement.

But if the goal is to give the protest movement a chance to succeed, then Obama seems to be playing this right by letting the protest movement grow without the link to the foreign superpower.

Phylo
Wow. Italy took three detainees. So what? Bermuda took four. What did Obama say to them? All our Europeon allies said no to Obama to sending help to Afghanistan. His sweet talking is just that. If words our so important do you take Ahmadinejad's words about destroying the Great Satans of the U.S. and Isreal? Or just Obama's kind words matter to you? Taking detainees may or may not solve the problem. For me, I feel better that they are at Gitmo, where I know they will stay and not be loose. Italy and Bermuda? Not so much.

Lon
Very well said.

The Axis of Evil speech

Lets not forget that Ahmadinejad rose to power after Bush's famous Axis of Evil speech. Before this speech, Mohammad Khatami was President and was moving the country in a moderate path.

Bush did threaten Iran and after the invasion of Iraq, Ali Khamenei responded in 2004 by banning thousands of candidates, including most of the reformist members of the parliament. Iran moved back to a conservative Islamic state.

Do we not learn from the mistakes of our past? Any strong signs of support for Moussavi from Obama will be view as a threat by Khamenei who has the ultimate power in Iran and can determine the outcome of the election.

I said this many times before, Iran is not a happy place and will imploded on it own if we stay out of their internal affairs. We must be patient.


Lon

Same here, well said...


More Iranian Issues
Right wing commentators paint a picture on the surface of an issue (always designed to trash teh left) that may or may not be real. Right wing robots generally fail to look beneath that surface.

Prager will not tell you that before the slide back into conservatism, Iran and Israel had an alliance during the Iran-Iraq war. He will not tell you that Iran was very helpful to the US in the invasion of Afghanistan, mainly because Iran was very opposed to the Taliban. He will not tell you that Bush thoroughly mishandled Iran.

He will tell you nothing because he does not care about any of it. He does not care abotu Iranians and democracy eitehr. He cares only that he can use the situation to attack OBama and the left.


Libs say
It's Bushes fault - priceless

Not sure which is more infuriating
The growing hostility of our sworn enemies and the non-response of our president or the liberal idiots who blindly defend him.

Carter Target Of Terrorism?

Four roadside bombs were found along the route that Jimmah Carter took when he left Israel this morning. Three Palestinians are in custody.

Does this mean that Palestinians hate Carter, too? If so, we have more in common with the Palestinians than we thought.

Of course, we do not support assassinations or attempted assassinations.

DanV
There are times when silence is more powerful than words. Is it not something that millions of Iranians are taking to the streets to determine their own future? Would you be happy if during the florida vote crises between Gore and Bush, if Iranians had come along and interfered?

StDenis-Joel-OAAMarine-Others
Don’t hold your breath waiting on the Hair Pulling, Nail Scratching, Gutless Coward of a Liberal in the WH to do ANYTHING!

Let them K i l l each other
I'm old enough to remember the Iranian revolution of 1979. They are getting the "Change you can believe in" that they wanted. They have suffered every since. I hope they suffer greatly. Just like US they are getting what they asked for. Maybe we will all learn a lesson about putting thugs in charge.

John
Your ignorance and ingenuousness rivals Phylo. I can tell you do not listen to his radio show, or that you cannot comprehend if you do. Prager criticized Bush many times on the handling of the early years of the war. Prager has pointed out many times how countries that have bad relations could have once been allies and vice versa. We were enemies with Germany, italy and Japan. Now they are allies. We were allies with Iraq against Iran. Then we became their enemy and went to war with them. Now they are our allies again. This is evident throughout history. Wise up.

Georgetwin
Why do you call our president a coward? Go below and read Lon's post.

Reply to Georgia Boy 61 #1
Georgia Boy 61 (1/16 0:42):
"Dennis Prager is not a 'hard right-winger,' it is you who are outside the mainstream of American values."

OK, Dennis is less so than many. I like Dennis, but he seems to think of himself as a completely objective free-thinker while being far more of a doctrinaire RightWinger than he realizes. And the previous U.S.election outcome argues against your estimation of 'mainstream American Values'.

GB61:
"Be so good as to define 'hard rightwing' by the way."

Oh please! Think of it as the mirror image of "Lefty", or "Libtard". Then think of something more productive to wonder about. (Just about anything'll do.)

GB61:
"While you are at it, please tell me what good direct talks with Iran will accomplish? The USA and Western Europe have done nothing but talk with the leadership there, to absolutely no avail."

GB (and BTW, are you the one Lou Reed & the Velvet Underground sang about??), the above is a fine example of that selective viewing of reality so often practiced by the Hard Right. Tell me, do you deny that during the same period the United States has done nothing but ignore & denigrate Iran and liken it to the International BoogeyMan?? Again, to 'absolutely no avail'???

It's equally valid (and I'd characterize the absolute amount of that validity as 'not much') to blame the current situation on the U.S.'s policies, not the European's.

Who knows what might be accomplished by talking to Iran?

Reply to GB 61 #2
GB:
"They are still enriching uranium, just as they were several years ago."

Look, I don't like the idea of Iran going nuclear, but I can't blame Iran for wanting the bomb (not that I'm convinced that they are lying about the peaceful nature of their Nuclear program). Iran has a REALLY unstable Nuclear neighbor on it's Eastern border (Pakistan) and the most dominant superpower ever to inhabit the Earth has invaded, conquered, and occupied two of it's other neighbors. And the *other* local nuclear power is contemplating bombing runs. Wouldn't YOU want nukes under those circumstances?

Read Hawkins Column
The Left loves rigged elections: Chavez in Venezuela, Iran, Minnesota, Obama and ACORN, Jimmy Carter, the Florida recount in Dade County only (The Rep.s wanted to recount the whole state of Florida but Dem. lawyers blocked that in court and sought to recount Dade County only.); why, because the Dem.s cheated so much in Dade County they couldn't believe they lost Dade County, the 2008 Caucauses(ACORN making up and stuffing ballots)--stomping Hillary, Russia, and too many other elections rigged to count or put here.

The Democrats also love and idealize tyrants and despotic leaders (Chavez, Castro brothers, and too many others to list here.) as they wish they could rule that way...oh yea, they are now with Obama.

Authoritarian regimes...
do not go down because of unpopularity and unrest. They go down because of weakness.

As usual, Taft and Lon have it wrong. Demonstrations have no chance of determining the future for the Iranian people.

If we broke our silence, the Iranian government could accuse us of interfering, sure. They could say it, and their state-controlled media will doubtless trumpet it as well. The Iranian people will not be fooled, though it will not matter, because:

Authoritarian regimes do not go down because of unpopularity and unrest. They go down because of weakness. China cracked down on demonstrations with great savagery in Tienanmen Square, and they don't appear to be ready to collapse soon. That is because their detestable response showed strength.

If the demonstrators get their way and Ahmedenijad is replaced by someone who is actually different from himself, then the Iranian regime will have shown weakness and the path may be open for its eventual downfall.

What our breaking silence CAN do is help demoralize Iran's rulers and help energize their opposition. This combination will possibly help weaken the regime's response. It may not work, but why not try?

And for those leftists who say that the government of Iran would crack down BECAUSE we are against them, I have only this advice to offer: stop being such moronic tools.

NOTE TO TOWNHALL WEBMONKEYS

Could you guys PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE STOP making my PC jabber at me about Toilet Bowl Cleaner when I unsuspectingly drag my mouse over the wrong pixel???????

Taft and others
talking about "pre-emptive invasions" and "come along and interfere" need to read Mr. Prager's piece again. He mentions nothing about invasions or interfering, but rather states that Obama should be more vocal in supporting of the protesters efforts at freedom of free and honest elections. That's it. Where do you lefties get this emtpy and vapid rhetoric??

Well, Then Again....

If you've managed to target only us Leftists, I'm very impressed...

PHeebor
Why then did the USSR go down?

FLM
"Iran has a REALLY unstable Nuclear neighbor on it's Eastern border (Pakistan) and the most dominant superpower ever to inhabit the Earth has invaded, conquered, and occupied two of it's other neighbors."


Iran has been working on its nuclear program since 1953. In the 1990s, the Iranians began moving towards obtaining nuclear weapons, well before the US invaded Iraq and the Pakistani government grew as desperately unstable as it is today.

Taft & "Obama Is A Coward"

It was the British media that first called Obama a coward relative to his reaction of the Iranian elections and the protests that have ensued.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/nile_gardiner/blog/2009/06/15/ the_iranian_election_barack_obamas_cowardly_silence

Intervention?
Many of the house libs here continue to act as though Prager's article was some call for American intervention in Iran, when in fact it is nothing of the sort. It is, however, a call for the US to at least acknowledge the fact that the Iranian election results are obviously fraudulent. Anyone watching the news understands that you cannot manually count millions of paper ballots in a few hours and declare a definitive winner...only Jimmy Carter, Hugo Chavez, and the late unlamented Saddam Hussein would believe those were legit results.

What the deafening silence of the Obama administration is saying here is that they want a dialouge with any Iranian government, no matter if that government is legitimate or not. But what Obama does not seem to understand is that the mullahs who run Iran are going to make any decisions that are reached, regargdless of who the figurehead president is at the moment. But to rush to talk with these people, to pretend their elecions are free and fair, is to give international legitimacy to a regime that rules by religious fiat, is committed to the exporting of terrorism to the world, and cares only for holding onto the power it seized back in the late 70s and early 80s.

Taft
"Why then did the USSR go down?"

Because the global trifecta of Reagan, Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II took a hardline approach towards the USSR.

Do you recall "Peace Through Strength" where Reagan built up our nuclear resources and called upon Gorbachev to "tear down this wall"?

Obama should go to Iraq or Saudi Arabia and make a similiar statement. He would be cheered through out the ME because the region is terrified of Iran having nuclear weapons.

A nuclear Iran will cause a nuclear arms race in the ME. This talk is similar to that occurring now in Asia because of North Korea. Japan is talking about becoming a nuclear power, which terrifies the Chinese.

Prediction:
When Tehran detonates its first nuclear device, Obama and the leftist Democrats will bear the brunt of the world's anger. The little "give peace a chance" meatheads who fall all over themselves in worshipful adoration of their living god presdient will along with him be transformed into the ugly bästard children of Chamberlain and Carter, and the blood will be dripping off their hands in buckets.

It's coming!

St. Denise
Yes, Britain has their neocons too, no surprise there.

The overwhelming truth is, to interferes, especially now, would roll everything on to Ahmadinijad's side and make any oppostition look like their sucking up to the US.

Taft
Because he is a Gutless Coward of a Momma's Boy and he is too Gutless to make a decision until pushed.

Luckydog1
So, what you are saying is that the left has offered empty and vapid rhetoric which is bad and Prager is saying that Obama should be “more vocal in supporting of the protesters efforts at freedom of free and honest elections”. And that would be a good thing. But “vocal support” without some type of action or interference is only empty rhetoric?

Are you so filled with the urge to set the lefties straight that you don’t realize you contradict yourself or are you just another one of those TH folks who believe that something is wrong only when a liberal does it but it’s right when done by a conservative?

Democratic Elections
Liberty is more important than Democracy.


Tibby

FLM
"Look, I don't like the idea of Iran going nuclear, but I can't blame Iran for wanting the bomb (not that I'm convinced that they are lying about the peaceful nature of their Nuclear program)."

Of course. Its a bit hard to explain why Iran might not instead be building refineries to transform some of their vast oil reserves into gasoline, which would surely be far more cost effective than nuclear power for them (and given that they have to ration gasoline now, and it is a huge problem there). This would seem even more so given the precautions they have to take to put their reactors under population centers. But perhaps its because they're really concerned about their carbon footprint. Yes, that must be it.

"Iran has a REALLY unstable Nuclear neighbor on it's Eastern border (Pakistan)"

Pakistan is obviously not going to bomb Iran, and you know it. They have not even exchanged harsh words. If the Islamists take over from the military there, then their relationship might break out into open friendship. Oh, and Pakistan is helping Iran with their nuclear program, or didn't you know that?

"and the most dominant superpower ever to inhabit the Earth has invaded, conquered, and occupied two of it's other neighbors."

Yes, we're just a bunch of mean bullies. Isn't it odd that Qatar hasn't felt the need to nuke up? For such a small country, they have a lot of oil and capital. Strangely, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait do not seem to fear invasion either. And with Obama in power, neither should Iran.

"And the *other* local nuclear power is contemplating bombing runs. Wouldn't YOU want nukes under those circumstances?"

No, you fool. Israel is contemplating bombing runs -because- Iran is perusing nukes, while its leadership constantly goes on about how they want to wipe Israel off the map. FML, how stupid can you be?

taft
The Soviet Union collapsed because communism simply doesn’t work. It always fails in the long run. The actions of several administrations hastened the fall, but too many of those actions carried repercussions that we had to pay for eventually.

Taft
The primary cause of the fall of the USSR was weakness. By the time they collapsed, they could no longer even afford to pay the jack-booted thugs who were subjugating the people. Their army was a joke and basically dissolved. Reagen et al helped hasten this by demoralizing them and causing them to have to spend beyond their means to try to keep up with our missile defense systems.

Taft
"Yes, Britain has their neocons too, no surprise there."

Was the Pope a neo-con? Did not the USSR fall?

"The overwhelming truth is, to interferes, especially now, would roll everything on to Ahmadinijad's side and make any oppostition look like their sucking up to the US."

Untrue. The entire world is against Ahmadinejad's theft. The US is even behind the French in condemning the Iranian elections.

Sure, Ahmadinejad and other tyrants may claim that the US is interferring in Iran and the protestors are sucking up to the US, but Ahmadinejad will claim that anyway.

CNN Producer: Iranian students say that they are doomed if Obama accepts the election results

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/14/cnn-producer-iranian- students-say-theyre-doomed-if-obama-accepts-the-iranian-ele ction/

Reagan did not remain silent on Poland:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/16/reagan-didnt-remain-s ilent-on-poland/


But make no mistake, Mousavi is only slightly less hardline than Ahmadinejad. They both, along with the Mullahs, want nuclear weapons.

I'll repeat my mantra re the Obama Admin
Dictators and tyrants have ABSOLUTELY nothing to fear when it comes to the USA. We have been defanged and it's obvious to them and to reasonable people in America. For 4 years (God forfend 8), murderous regimes have a free hand in the world. It's going to seem like 20 Genghis Khans are running loose....with nothing more to fear than a stern professoral lecture from this wet-behind-the-ears elitist.

Taft, the USSR fell
The USSR did not fall because of civil unrest, but because we had an administration in place that for 8 years put economic and military pressures on the USSR that they could not bear up to. It had nothing to do with civil demonstrations, but with exactly what Pheebor said...their weakness.

The USSR showed weakness when they faltered in crushing Solidarity in Poland, and the reason they did not crush Solidarity is because of the efforts of Pope John Paul II and the Reagan administration; those two forces put the eyes of the world on the USSR, so they could not move against Solidarity without the world watching. The USSR was also shown to be weak with their defeat by the US-backed mujahedin in Afghanistan. With the military defeat of the Russian bear by the Afghanis, the satellite states saw serious weakness in Moscow and the rise of Solidarity in Poland showed them the Soviets could be defied without consequence. When the people trapped under a tyrannical regime such as the USSR see they no longer have reason to fear the regime, the regime will eventually fall...since fear is their greatest weapon.

Add to that the fact that the US choked off a great deal of the USSR's hard currency by greatly delaying the building of a much needed pipeline and the financial burden the Soviets took on in building up their arms and matching US SDI research, and you have the reasons the Soviets fell. And it sure as shooting had nothing to do with people demonstrating in the streets.

Edamon
Iran has helped us in our war on terrorism, both in setting up the new Afghan regime and capturing AQ operatives. The rightwing solution was to bomb Iran, and now you want people to believe that talk is good?

MikeR
I totally agree, communism doesn't work, and neither does fundamentalist Islam.

Akmobamajob Won in 1979
The islamofacist revolution put an evil dictator in charge. All subsequent elections are determined by the dictators that THEY put in charge. That's the "Change" they wanted. Now they have to deal with it. (just like we have to deal with our dictator). It ain't our problem. I just hope they stay busy killing each other for the next 100 years. These people hate us and that isn't going to change with any amount of azs kissing. Stay out of it

Dave
We don’t live in a dictatorship. When people use such terms to describe the current administration, they are either swept up in emotionalism or have a poor grasp on reality.

On the other hand, do you realize that your advice is contrary to Prager’s? You should direct some of your spleen towards them.

"These people hate us"
Actaully, Dave, polling shows that the people of Iran do _not_ "hate" us. The US actually is very popular amongst the Persians people, and the more we stand against their oppressive regime, the better they like us. In the Bush years, the Iranian people polled as far more pro-US than any middle eastern country save Israel, and actually more pro-US than most European countries.

But I think lumping all people from the Middle East into a single "they" does show a bit of possible racism that you might want to watch in yourself.

Mike R
The answer to your question is no. Empty and vapid rheotoric is when someone asserts something is true when evidence clearly shows that is is not. I have no problem with liberals or anybody else asserting an opinion or theory. I have no problem with people disagreeing with Prager's premise. I respect those who make an argument that Obama is doing the right thing in regards to Iran's elections. That's just debate. But when people put false words into another's mouth like they did with Prager here, and the evidence shows the contrary, they are just vapid and meaningless words..

Pheebor
They do hate us. I hate them for what they did to our citizens in 1979.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2267342/posts

Poll: Few Iranians see US favorably, despite Obama
Google/AP ^ | 6/8/09 | staff

Posted on Monday, June 08, 2009 1:19:00
WASHINGTON (AP) — A rare poll of Iranians says that few of them have favorable opinions of the United States, a view that hasn't changed much from before the election of President Barack Obama.

The survey, taken last month, shows that 29 percent of Iranians view the U.S. positively. In February 2008, a similar poll of Iranians showed 34 percent with favorable views of the U.S.



MikeR
Stop drinking the kool-aide. More and more of your freedoms erode each day. Were you asked if you wanted to buy GM? Has anybody consulted you about free health care? Did you approve the money that was seized from you for Obama's porkulus package?

taft the retard
so fundamentalist islam doesn't work

I guess you can tell that to all to all the victims who have died from the bombs, the beheadings the hangings, the stonings that the adherents of that blood cult perpetrate constantly

But it seems that daft, admitting communist and nazi sympathizer loves islam almost as much as he hates america.

It's pathetic how losers like daft can always see victims amongst those belonging to the blood cult but can never see their victims as nothing more than collateral damage.

But daft the retarded really thinks his dreams are coming true. While his messiah and god, flap ears the fraud works to destroy america, daft is having wet dreams over the prospect flap ears will finally admit he is a muzzie who hates america and has reduced america to banana republic status.

But the muzzies have fully recognized flap ears for the fraud he is. Flap ears is a weak leader who will never stand up to the muzzies and has told them they are free to run the dictatorships as they chose.

It doesn't matter to flap ears how many die to advance the blood cult, he agrees that the cult of sharia should rule the world. He told the muzzies they can look to him to protect their rights in america to advance their murderous ways


A Little Humor
Can y'all imagine Obama televising his version of the old Fireside Chats?

He'll call it "Thoughts From The Throne", and viewers will get to watch the would-be messiah waxing eloquent while sitting on the toilet.

Hey, maybe we can then refer to the sail-eared simpleton as the "Dark Lord Of The Sh*ts".

LOLOLOL

Sophie
You said of Prager, "God Prager! Are you getting dumber with
each column or what????" and, "You are a very stupid man".

And yet you continue to come to this site to comment on the writings of a man who according to you is a very stupid man and getting dumber with each column.

So if Prager is stupid, what must that make YOU?

By the way, you still didn't answer my question from the other day, so I'll figure you've forgotten it and re-post it here: given the contempt you've often expressed for conservatives and yet your insistence on still coming to this site often, does your Pervuian squeeze know you post here, and how does he feel about the fact that you seem to prefer the company of those you have contempt for to HIS company?

Sophie
I am sorry to hear you are a dying breed. Prehaps you can go live with the lovely Iranians before you pass dear. I'm sure you would love it there!

MikeR
Well I suppose you have a point, technically speaking you are right, we don't have a "dictatorship" ...at least yet. On the other hand some of us are observing some rather disturbing things going on, and a dictatorship does not have to begin all of a sudden. It can and sometimes does begin with an election. Not that BO will become a "dictator", but he sure does seem to be doing some...well, "questionable" things with his power so far.

Luckydog1
No, in modern times, rhetoric is the art of speaking or writing effectively and vapid means dull or flat. So, vapid rhetoric is empty words, talk that sounds meaningful but really isn’t. By your own word, Prager is suggesting talk, not action. By your accusation, the lefties are doing the same. You infer that Prager is right while the lefties are wrong and that is contradictory. I understand your point now that you have provided me with your own unique meaning of the words you used and I actually agree to a certain extent. Far too many liberals do come here just to stir things up. They are attracted by their conservative counterparts.

Dave
How odd it is that you accuse me of “drinking kool-aid”. Every one of those actions was handled with due process by our elected representative and officials. Now, you either have no understanding of civics or you are, as I suspect, emotionally driven to such irrational thinking. Ironically enough, it is you who is arguing against democracy. Didn’t the election go the way you wanted? Too bad you can’t just change that, for the common good, of course. But then, that would be a dictatorship wouldn’t it?

Stupie:
Don't go away mad. Just go away, and stay away. Your posts subtract from the sum of human knowledge. THen again libs posts do have that effect.

Joel-De Oppresso Liber
Yes, and I haven’t died yet either. And while I know my death is inevitable, I will not describe myself as dead in the meantime. Yes, I have many concerns about our future and the course we are taking, but I don’t think we will degenerate into totalitarianism. You can call it simple faith in God and country, or you could say that history show that we always find a balance however much we tilt from side to side.


Sophie
You said, "I am almost done with Townhall though".

Yeah, yeah, we've had plenty of libs over the months tell us something to that effect who just couldn't seem to tear themselves away from this site after all.

Mario told us late last year he was leaving us for good. Took him less than 7 1/2 hours to break THAT promise.

Have you noticed Mod Mark has returned to this site after a sabbatical? And there have been plenty of other libs I've seen in the time I've been coming here who also took a break from this site for a while but in the end just couldn't bear in the end to not be with us.

Sorry to tell you, but don't expect that you'll be missed - except, I guess, by your fellow libs who come here.

And that's why I predict, until I see differently, that ultimately you'll find yourself unable to break your tie that binds to this site. You libs are too narcissistic to be able to bear the thought that other people actually just might get along just fine without you.

And obviously, this site has been fulfilling SOME need for gratification you have in your life that your Peruvian squeeze or other things, even presumably other political-commentary web sites, haven't been able yet to satisfy. In fact, it's been such an addiction for you that you constantly change post names to ensure you can continue to come to this site. So why should I believe that this will change in the future?

Mel
It is much more than a technical point. When voting is eliminate, when congress and the courts are closed down and when Obama declares himself elected for life, then we have a dictatorship. None of these things is in the works however much some folks like to think they are. Such talk reminds me that there are still too many people out there who don’t understand why the GOP lost in the elections.

International love
is so important, Obama tells us. Our image has been battered and he will make it shiny, so that all things will be sweetness and light. He then proves the hypocrisy of his own position by turning a blind eye to the plight of citizens in Iran. Where is our support for another country? The bottom line is that countries do what is in their own best interest, no matter how much happy talk there is.

Stupie:
Are you absolutely sure of your statement. Given that the Dumbsh1tcraps in Congress have basically told Republicans to shut up, and take whatever theDumbsh1tcraps come up with. I keep seeing how much you all want a filibuster proof Senate to preclude any opposition, Seems to me your side really wants to rule the nation.

BTW, even if the Supreme Court rules against Obraindead and the Dumbsh1tcraps, what's to prevent them from ignoring the ruling. And there is precedent for that.

Iran is for Iranians...
I see modern conservatives to be like evangelicals. They cannot help getting their noses into everything no matter how unwanted. Iran will find its way through this mess and we have no business telling them what to do or say. Both sides of this mess are more or less the same anyway. The people themselves will either rid themselves of this scourge or continue to put up with it. All we can do is foment more hate and animosity for us without getting any benefit from it at all. I know right wingers seem to love meddling in other affairs. Sorry but we are run by adults this time around, step aside son, we have work to do.

Frank

"I see modern conservatives to be like evangelicals. They cannot help getting their noses into everything no matter how unwanted. Iran will find its way through this mess and we have no business telling them what to do or say."


Cool. Tell Obama to shut his f'ing mouth about Israel. He has no business in meddling in the internal affairs of Israel.

Stupie:
You will never beat him acting like petty, paranoid, children.

Pot meet kettle

Actually, Stupie
I do not finfd him very likeable. He is arrogant, smarmy, and has much in common with a snake oil salesman.

If that's the case
>Tell Obama to shut his f'ing mouth about Israel. He has no business in meddling in the internal affairs of Israel.<

Perhaps we should cut all money and weapons to Israel then. Is that what you're suggesting?

Stupie:
Actually, most people do. And if you think your not liking me hurts my feelings, it doesn't.

BTW, have you had your meds today? Your contact with reality seems to be slipping badly.

Sophie
You're right, I probably SHOULDN'T have responded to you, especially in telling you that you won't be missed if you finally take a powder from this site for good; all I probably accomplished by that is to ensure that you'll NEVER go away from here, huh?

By the way, for your information, the reason I'VE been coming to this site is because a lot of the columnists carried here are columnists I've been reading for many years, some even before the Internet was born; the first syndicated commentator I ever started reading was this site's Phyllis Schlafly, and I've been reading her now for over 35 years. I've been reading Pat Buchanan's columns for over 20 years, although obviously I enjoyed his earlier body of work much more than his more recent body of work. Dennis Prager has also a long-time read for me. For years I used to subscribe to a periodical of conservative commentary called The Conservative Chronicle; when I was apprised of this site and discovered that it was pretty much The Conservative Chronicle on the Internet, I cancelled my subscription to that periodical. In fact, I came to this site for a few years, to read authors whose works I had been devouring for a long time, before I decided to join the discussion on the threads and finally registered on this site.

And I'm sure that many of the other conservatives who come here as well would tell you that the columnists carried here have been long-time reads for them, long before this site was born.

Somehow I doubt that the vast majority of you liberals who come here have been serious readers of pretty much ANY of the truly conservative columnists carried by this site (which leaves out such lukewarm authors as Kathleen Parker) and therefore don't come here for serious discussion. Although I think that a lot of your kith post here because you're being PAID to post here, by George Soros and others, to put out the left's message on sites you don't control.

stand's his ground
seems the left's continuing problem is that when you believe in nothing you will believe in anything

The basic idea that this blood cult will change for the better is such a false belief.

While the world advances it's knowledge the muzzies continue their slide to barbarism.

Despite the trillions in oil revenues they keep their citizens living in abject poverty and ignorance.

Their love of killing all non believers has led them to the brink of having a nuclear weapon with the sole purpose of destroying israel. Even if it means the total destruction of their own country.

But when you worship death, life has no real meaning. The idea of dying while killing non believers just to enter a perverted sexual paradise where you can be with the leader of your blood cult defies all levels of understanding

And still the lefties believe these barbarians can reasoned with.

And flap ears has the audacity to think the iranians will change because of him. The world's despots have sized up the clown and have realized they can continue their harsh treatment of their own citizens with the torture rooms and prisons and they need never worry of any criticism coming from america.

Flap ears believes the whole world is in love with him and will do the things he wishes to make the world a better place.

But it seems the rest of the world isn't as stupid as america's msm and their never ending love affair with the clown sitting in the oval office

The one hope Iranians have
is to pretend to be Bengali Muslims, giving cent-percent to the acting thereof (translation: "be prepared to rebel to the utmost") and rebel against Khamenei's rubber-stamper Nejad.

Poor Iranians
I just saw some terrible photos of the suffering the poor Iranians are experiencing right now. It was so funny! I just hope Sophie can get there before the fun stops!

Stupie, Guess What?
We'll tell Israel we will stop "meddling" in their affairs.

We'll withdraw our support, our significant aid, etc...

Tell her, she's on her own.

I'm sure that Israel will send her thanks to you for THAT suggestion.

Duh.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Israel would rather have Obama shut the f*ck up than our aid.

It has an absolute right to its own soereignty.

Sophie
right wing extremists HAVE
no faith in their country nor love of their countrymen.

________________________________________________

Amazing,

I Just Saved $66.3bn Over 4 Years
Obama Will Increase Foreign Assistance Funding By $25 Billion.

Obama Will Provide $2 Billion To Aid Iraqi Refugees.

Obama Would Spend $500 Million A Year For Religious Organizations To Help The Disadvantaged; Equal To $2 Billion Over Four Years.

Obama Would Add "65,000 Soldiers To The Army And 27,000 Marines," Which Would Cost Approximately $11.04 Billion Per Year, Equal To $44.16 Billion Over Four Years. It Costs Approximately $1.2 Billion A Year For 10,000 Soldiers.

Obama Would Provide An Additional $1 Billion Per Year In Non-Military Assistance To Afghanistan, Equal To $4 Billion Over Four Years.

Obama Plans To Implement Legislation That Would "Triple Non-Military Aid To The Pakistani People. It Would Authorize $7.5 Billion Over Five Years, An Increase Of Approximately $5 Billion In Spending, Equal To A $1 Billion Increase Per Year.

Obama Would "Lead A Global Effort To Secure All Nuclear Weapons And Material At Vulnerable Sites Within Four Years." Obama Said This Could Be Funded By Ending The War In Iraq, At A Cost Of $10 Billion Over Four Years.


Obama Would Implement The Lugar-Obama Legislation To Crack Down On The Smuggling Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction. According To The Congressional Budget Office, Implementing The Lugar-Obama Legislation (S. 2566) Would Cost $2.2 Billion Over Five Years, Which Averages Out To $440 Million Per Year And $1.76 Billion Over Four Years.

original cactus head
You said, "seems the left's continuing problem is that when you believe in nothing you will believe in anything".

As I recall, G.K. Chesterton said, "When people stop believing in God, it doesn't mean that they will believe in NOTHING, they'll believe in ANYTHING".

Retired Geek said not long ago that the left doesn't care WHAT replaces America as long as SOMETHING does.

What's really been remarkable to me since 9/11 is to see how many libs who, if they think Christianity is odious, ought to find Islam infinitely MORE odious becoming defenders, even PROTECTORS, of Muslims. A lot of the very same libs who won't say the first good word about Christians and Christianity have managed to discover that they have common cause and ground with Muslims. If they think Christianity is so abhorrent, they OUGHT to find Islam INFINITELY more abhorrent. So why the rush on the part of libs to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Muslims at every opportunity while they cling to the delusion that Christians are their deadliest enemy in America? In fact, Andrew Sullivan a few months after 9/11 wrote a WONDERFUL column in the Wall Street Journal (I still have a copy of it) called The Agony Of The Left exposing the now-manifest idiocy of the left's anti-Christian antipathy and softness toward Islam.

To go back to RGeek's comment, libs are stupid enough to believe that ANYTHING that destroys the America we've had until relatively recently will AUTOMATICALLY produce a better replacement from THEIR vantage point. Yeah, and a lot of those who worked to put the communist regimes in Russia and China in place found out the hard way - and many only just before their untimely deaths - that the change they worked for made them WORSE off.

Will Iran Get US Tax Dollars?
On Friday, the Senate passed a $108 billion blank check for IMF expansion, as part of the military supplemental, in response to a request from the administration in fulfillment of the U.S. commitment to global stimulus pledged at the G-20 meeting in April. Since this appropriation was not included in the House version of the bill, it is possible that the funding might be stripped, as Rep. Obey has stated is his preference, and Republicans have threatened to do. More likely, it provides an opportunity to include various key reforms, without which the funding will likely not achieve its intended impact of global stimulus and may actually do more harm than good.

http://blog.thehill.com/2009/05/26/new-funds-approved-for-i mf-would-worsen-global-economic-downturn/

There is an ongoing move by Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to prevent Iran from receiving any money from the IMF, if such come from the US bailout.

Stupie

I said that I "think" that Israel is more concerned about its own sovereignty than American aid.

Israel receives $3bn/yr. in foreign aid from the US. Take a gander at how much we are sending elsewhere and how much Iran might get from the IMF, which will be using our tax dollars.

Sophie
You are irrelevant.

Sophie

so David, you think people
suffering in their struggle for democracy is funny, huh?

You are a truly sad creature. I feel sorry for you.

Out of curiousity, do you claim to be a christian?
________________________________________________________

Sophie I am not sure what you are talking about. I am however mystified at your blanket characterization of conservatives as un loving. As you know it is virtually impossible
to paint with that broad of a brush. I have seen comments from so called conservatives that I would individually characterize as harsh or even loveless, but far more from th e left come here and display hate and race baiting and I would not do as you did and characterize the whole idealogy as hateful and un-loving.

I certainly would not judge whether a person is christian or not based on a word!

David
Are they being fast tracked to their 72 virgins and their bottomless cup of wine?

Stupie:
I have faith in the country, just no faith in Obumf^ck, the Dumbsh1tcraps, and moonbats like you.

Stupie:
Seems that you are accusing conservatives of the same thing libs did from 2001 until today.

Fear
Was Obama playing to fear when he demanded that the stimulus be passed without any debate virtually overnight?

The Return Of Idealism?
"So I have been struck over the past few days by the response of American pundits to the events in Iran. I cannot remember the last time that there was such a clear consensus across the political spectrum that one side in an internal political dispute in another country deserved our unabashed support. Every publication from The Weekly Standard to The Nation seems exhilarated by the prospect of Iranian liberals standing up to the theocrats who rule their country. Of course, there are sharp disagreements over how we should support the protesters. Should Obama speak out loudly on their behalf? Or would a forceful American response simply aid the mullahs and undermine the protesters? These are important questions, but they are tactical ones. What no one seems to be disputing is the underlying idea that Iranian liberals deserve our support--that their fight is our concern.

It remains to be seen whether this consensus on Iran will trickle up to the White House. Obama has shown little appetite for criticizing other governments, for making the kinds of moral judgments that are at the core of foreign policy idealism. For now, you can at least make a plausible argument that Obama's relatively quiet approach is serving Iranian protesters well. But if we reach a situation--for instance, a Tiananmen-style crackdown--where it becomes obvious that strong condemnations and tough diplomacy will be required to protect Iranian liberals, will Obama have the stomach for it? And will public opinion be able to pressure him to do the right thing? That is when we will find out just how strong a comeback idealism has made."

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/06/15 /the-return-of-idealism.aspx

Stupie

It is funny how you fringe lunatics are outside of both Left and Right journalists and pundits.

But, keep it up! We enjoy the laughs.

Sophie is a wack job
She sounds really mean.

prager and ahmadinejad "election"
how right you are, dennis. the obama-nation is a waffle-house writ large. the man -- AKA the ONE -- feels that he can bend the world to his will by sheer finesse. Newsflash: Even President Barack Obama cannot finesse evil. Evil simply IS, and the Iranian government these past thirty years is evil with a capital E. Instead of pussyfooting around, Barack should step up and demand that this so-called partner for peace set its electoral house in order -- which, of course, they will not do. But at least President Obama, a great wordsmith, should craft some words that shows teeth and a little spine too. That would be a CHANGE that WE ALL could believe in!

Sophie
You said of coming here to TownHall, "It is a bad habit of mine".

Which is ANOTHER reason I'm skeptical that you'll actually depart from us for good.

Because if there's ANYTHING that YOUR side of the political aisle has been about for the last 45 or so years, it's encouraging, maintaining, excusing, defending, and subsidizing bad habits!

StandsHisGround
A week or so back, Moronio CLAIMED he was leaving TownHall FOREVER because Hugh Hewitt was advocating boycotting vehicles from Obama Motors and therefore HATED American Workers and he WOULD NOT support a website that trafficked in hate. Typical Liberal Dysfunctionality and Addiction on display.

Stupie:
Referring to Obumf^ck as Hitler is acceptable, but the comparison is acceptable if the the comparison is GWB and Hitler. Seems I never saw you condemn that comparison. Typically leftist hypocrite.

Stupie:
What happened to Obumf^ck's transparency promise that all bills would be posted on the internet for five days? And if passing the nonStimulus Bill was so urgent, why did it sit on his desk while he went to Chicago for a sweekend with Michelle, aka The Armed One.?

Obama The Appeaser
"Obama to Hitler referring to anyone as "fringe" is pretty laughable!"

Sure, stupie. It Obama allows Iran to build a nuclear bomb that it later uses to obliterate Isreal, then yes he will either be Hitler or Chamberlain. Take your pick.

Further, the Left LOVED comparing Bush to Hitler and NO ONE on the Left ever said that it was an inappropriate comparison. NO ONE.

Sophie

The quickness of the stimilus bill
was a reaction to the urgency of the economic situation.

If that was using fear, what was Bush doing when he demanded billions of bailout money immediately based on a three page summary?

________________________________________________________

Sophie I think there may be hope for you yet, the answer is they were both using fear to accomplish their goals. Their goals are not the ones you and I and this great country will benefit from, only the power class will benefit. See I love my country and I do hate what is being done to it, the difference in you and I Sophie is that I am not married to a party. I am not constantly spinning the facts to fit my ideology.

Actually, Stupie,
Your statement is a day late and an hour short. I never saw you condemn that comparison, when GWB was POTUS, ergo it is a hollow statement.

Actually, Stupie, I am not bitter, but I do hold to my religion, and I do own four guns, whicjh I inherited from my Dad. I keep them for the memories they give me of time spent with him on the trapfield, the shooting ranges, and hunting. The pistols currently rest in a gun safe, and except for cleaning them ocasionally that's where they stay.

Overall, Stupie, I am very happy, I have a wife I adore, a great daughter, and grandkids a nice house, and a job I love doing. What's to be unhappy about?

My only worry is about how my Grandkids are going to be able to live, when Obumf^ck's bills start coming due.

Sophie
I don't know the details on that SFA
If what you say is true.....

That must mean Obama broke a campaign promise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

___________________________________________________

Yes one of many, however you defend the indefensible Sophie and you do not even know what Obama's platform was on the campaign! Really.

Stupie:
Did I say that Obumf^ck was Hitler? Ideologically he's closer to Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov.

My point was that all the libs were sayin they believed him andg how things will change when he becomes POTUS, and nothing did.

Thanks to A.C.O.R.N.

Thanks to A.C.O.R.N., Obama lacks the moral authority to talk about honest elections.

David

Obama broke another of his campaign promises when he sent his DOJ to fight the challenge to DOMA. Man, the gay marriage proponents are p!ssed.

Stupie
"O.k. Denise
when their is a big mushroom cloud over israel you can call Obama Chamberlin all you want."

And, what would you suggest? North Korea has detonated two nuclear weapons. According to the Obama Administration, the Iranians were present. As I have written for months, the biggest threat to the world would be if the Norks sell nuclear weapons and systems to Iran. Who agrees with me? Obama, Hillary Clinton, Rep. Adam Smith (D), and Sen. Chris Dodd, to name 4.

"Until then keep that tinfoil hat nicely adjusted and stay outta the sun so your brain doesn't get any more fried."

My brain is fine. Your's was fried on one of your drug runs years ago.

St Denis

David

Obama broke another of his campaign promises when he sent his DOJ to fight the challenge to DOMA. Man, the gay marriage proponents are p!ssed.
__________________________________________________

He is such a nice man though and such a nice family and that wife is such a snappy dresser! So lets cut him a lot of slack afterall that BO what a dog!

MAD Does Not Work On Nuts With Nukes

M.A.D. is NO deterrent for nuts with nukes. It will not work on Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs in Iran, who believe that they must cause massive death and destruction to bring about the return of the 12th Imam (a 6 year-old boy that disappeared 1100 years ago).

Likewise, it will fail to deter Lil' Kim in North Korea. The man is deranged and he does not care about retaliation.

You' re Right, Sophie

Obama hasn't kept all of his campaign promises. He has been too busy destroying the US economy and planning to do the same to our healthcare system.

IRAN VS ISRAEL
There will be no mushroom cloud over Israel! They will not allow Iran to be a viable threat. They will take out Iran's nuclear facilities at the most opportune time just like they did Saddam's and Syria's, regardless of Obama.

Hey Mr Prager
I just realized something. You and Ann Coulter seem bring out the left wing trolls out of the woodwork more than any other TH writers. I think the only people they hate more than a pro-life Christian woman is any Christian Jew.
God bless you Dennis, your reward will be great!

Georgetwin
I confess I didn't see Mario's recent declaration that you cited vowing to leave this site forever - but by now, it's probably just the latest in a long string of them. I remember one late last year, which I've referenced, vowing to do the same thing - and it took him less than 7 1/2 hours to renege. And who knows how many times before THAT he might have vowed to leave this site for good. Of course, it's almost a nightly occurrence for him now to end a post with "Later, losers" - and then have several more posts appear on this site within minutes of his supposed sign-off.

There actually are a few liberals who come here because they've tried the leftist sites like DailyChaos and HuffandPuff and MorOn.org - and find the stifling censorship of those sites makes them a crashing bore (these liberals have told us this).

You're right, however, about how Sophie evidences liberal dysfunctionality and addiction. And what she seems to be addicted to as much as anything is ATTENTION. Apparently, even the attention of people she regards with contempt seems to be better, in her mind, than no attention at all. In just the same way that many liberals today regard ANY publicity - even NEGATIVE publicity - as better than NO publicity at all.

Sophie

Still talking about me standhisground?
What would your wife think about this obsession?

If you think I am so craving of attention, why do you insist in providing it?

And yes, I do find liberal sites that ban opposing viewpoints boring.
______________________________________________________

Sophie do you understand that this progressivism that BHO is ushering in so very fast will lead to exactly what you hate about the liberal sites. Thought has to be monitored and criminalized. Free speech will just be a vague memory.

Should I go fashion a tin hat?

Trolls
I just realized, trying to reason with these trolls is like trying to talk a junkie into going straight. I give.

Slate Mag: Obama Must Walk Away

Slate: After its fraudulent election, Obama must walk away from Iran.

http://www.slate.com/id/2220555/

Sophie & St. Denis
Sophie:

I don't have to worry about what my wife may think, because I don't have a wife (no kids, either): I've never made any bones about that on this site.

When you asked, "What need am I fulfulling that your wife cannot or will not?": I COULD say that that's a question that you'd do better to direct to Mod Mark, but you don't need to pose that question to him, because I have no doubt already what the answer is. Given that he's married to a Catholic woman (not his first marriage either, he was formerly married to an Asian woman), it seems abundantly clear that he longs for a much more worldly woman than what his wife probably is. And that's where YOU come in.

St. Denis:

While I have little doubt that the mullahs and Li'l Kim would have no qualms about using nukes once they had them, there's another element that shouldn't be overlooked which causes me to believe that it's NOT a given that Iran will use its nukes on Israel if it already has or gets them.

Just because the POLITICAL leadership of these countries may be apocalyptic doesn't mean the MILITARY leadership - or at least enough of it - of these countries is, also. I'm SURE Israel has privately informed the Arab/Muslim governments repeatedly that in the event of a nuke blast over Israeli soil, the Arab/Muslim world can expect to be incinerated.

If you're a high-ranking Iranian military man and believe that Israel is serious about vaporizing your country - and your family - if hit by a nuke, and you're ordered by the crazy mullahs to either launch a strike directly or supply a nuke to a third party that would use it on Israel, you may think, "If I obey this order, I, my family, everything I've worked my lifetime to build, and everything that 100 generations of Persians have worked THEIR lifetimes to build disappears overnight". The military high command of either nation may instead launch a coup that topples the crazy leader, solving the problem.

Sophie
You are a gem, when you see a cat inch closer and closer to a bird in the bush , can you infer what the cat has on its mind?

When BHO without any legal precedent takes over GM and Chrystler, the big banks, is going to try and foist a single payer healthcare system on us that represents 1/8 of the largest economy in the world, do you think that if you are watching that cat (BHO) you can make an educated guess what he intends.
Sophie he is a very liberal big government progressive , statist all his actions so far reflect exactly that, there is nothing new here the play book is well known, so your obtuse mocking of my last post is ridiculous and you are either to blind to see or perhaps in denial that such a monumental change could ever happen here, even though it has already begun before your eyes. Maybe your tinfoil hat slipped down and you did not see it coming.

Sophie
I have made no comment on Iranians.

Sophie
"Just because the POLITICAL leadership of these countries may be apocalyptic doesn't mean the MILITARY leadership - or at least enough of it - of these countries is, also. I'm SURE Israel has privately informed the Arab/Muslim governments repeatedly that in the event of a nuke blast over Israeli soil, the Arab/Muslim world can expect to be incinerated."

Unfortunately, in a dictatorship or theocracy, the military is part and parcel of politics. Just look at Iran now, the Revolutionary Guard is cracking down on and killing prostestors.

My fear is that this is Iran's Tiananmen Square and once international journalist leave, which they will soon, the dissidents will disappear - permanently.

"If you're a high-ranking Iranian military man and believe that Israel is serious about vaporizing your country - and your family - if hit by a nuke, and you're ordered by the crazy mullahs to either launch a strike directly or supply a nuke to a third party that would use it on Israel, you may think, "If I obey this order, I, my family, everything I've worked my lifetime to build, and everything that 100 generations of Persians have worked THEIR lifetimes to build disappears overnight"."

Unfortunately, many of the high-ranking members of the military are as delusional as the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad. They all know about "The Samson Option" that Israel may use to annihilate them, but they do not seem to care.

"The military high command of either nation may instead launch a coup that topples the crazy leader, solving the problem."

They should, but will they stand up to Lil' Kim or the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad?

Sophie, Fun?
don't ruin her fun standhisground
denise is enjoying scaring herself with images of mushroom clouds.

strange fantasy imho, but to each his own.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sophie, I routinely listen to Israeli radio. The reserves have been called up and the entire nation recently went through a multi-day terror drill.

My children are half-Jewish. My ex-husband is a part of a European Jewish family that lost members in the Holocaust; thus, possible annihilation of any group of people is personally offensive to me. It matters not whether it is Israelis or the protestors in Iran.

When nuts get nukes, you never know what they might do.



Sophie
You are a thinking man's vacation, LOL

The Real Agenda...
Last Thursday at a town hall meeting in Rio Rancho New Mexico President Barack Obama was asked why, when “so many people go bankrupt using their credit cards to pay for healthcare. Why have they taken single-payer off the plate (audience applause), and why is Senator Baucus on the Finance Committee discussing health care when he has received so much money from the pharmaceutical companies? Isn’t it a conflict of interest?” (more audience applause)

“Healthcare is one-sixth of our economy, so it is a complicated and difficult task. Congress is going to have to work hard, and everybody is going to have to come at this with a practical perspective as opposed to being ideologically pure in getting it done… Why not do a single-payer system? … A single-payer system is like, Medicare is sort of a single-payer system, but it’s only for people over 65, and the way it works is, uh, the idea is you don’t have insurance companies as middle men. " - Barack Obama

Question: More than 80 House Democrats are supporting a single payer, Canadian-style, Medicare for all healthcare system. It's HR 676. Why don't you support it?
Pelosi: "I've always supported single payer."

Health insurance companies will be eliminated, people will not have a choice, bureacrats will run the system, rationing will be necessary to pay the tab, and our healthcare will be ruined.

David
I haven't seen all the comments, but David, according to the latest news, you need to add ABC to the list of things that Pres. Obama is effectively taking over, which you mentioned, the car industry, the health care system, and the banks, confirmed by Google News reporting on Fox News.
No one is allowed to say anything other than Pres Obama and ABC. The GOP or the RNC is not allowed to respond.


And, Who's Blocking It...
"Howie Klein has a rundown of all the money that the people who are blocking real reform in health care have received from the health care industry."

Arlen Specter (R-D- PA- $4,026,933)
Max Baucus (DLC- MT- $2,833,731)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY- $2,758,468)

"And when you just go right to Big Insurance, the non-presidential candidates who got the biggest legalized bribes were the 7 senators who have been tasked with the job of killing single-payer":

Ben Nelson (DLC-NE- $1,196,799)
Max Baucus (DLC- MT- $1,184,113)
Joe Lieberman (DLC- CT- $1,036,302)
Arlen Specter (R-D- PA- $1,035,530)
Chuck Schumer (D-NY- $981,400)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY- $929,207)
Chuck Grassley (R-IA- $884,724)

Obama does not have the votes in the Senate and he will be unable to achieve a single-payer system with only House Liberals.

Thank God.

St. Denis
I have absolutely no doubt that you are correct in that a good bit of the military leadership in both Iran and North Korea are composed of those who would be willing pawns of the mullahs and Li'l Kim even to the point of obeying orders that could get their nations annihilated.

In fact, we should EXPECT that by now the mullahs and Li'l Kim have skewed their countries' military high commands with bootlickers; that's what tyrants usually do and quickly once they rise to power.

However, it's one thing for them to be bootlickers when the fat isn't in the fire - but when their commanders-in-chief order them to do something that runs the very real risk of ending the relatively comfortable lives that they're enjoying now and that of their families, that's quite another thing.

In fact, if the mullahs and/or Li'l Kim ordered a nuclear strike, and those in their military high commands believed that to obey such an order was likely to get them all killed as well as most or almost all of their countrymen, it seems to me that THAT would be the ideal time for them to try to stage a coup. Because if they believe they'll be dead by obeying any orders to use nukes, at that point in time, what do they have to lose if the coup fails? Their lives? They'd ALREADY believe that was going to happen one way or another anyway if the leader is able to remain in power.

Also, since power is just as addictive as anything else, now that these military leaders in these countries have gotten a good taste of it, they may not so blithely want to sacrifice that.

Not saying you're WRONG about anything you said in response to me, just raising this as a possibility.

Standshisground - I
"In fact, we should EXPECT that by now the mullahs and Li'l Kim have skewed their countries' military high commands with bootlickers; that's what tyrants usually do and quickly once they rise to power."

This is especially true in North Korea. Have you ever seen the people on television when they gather in Pyongyang? Their precision and blank stares remind me of members of a cult.

"However, it's one thing for them to be bootlickers when the fat isn't in the fire - but when their commanders-in-chief order them to do something that runs the very real risk of ending the relatively comfortable lives that they're enjoying now and that of their families, that's quite another thing."

Unfortunately, too many are fanatics. We have seen this over the years in Pakistan. The military has been rife with supporters of the Taliban for years.

"In fact, if the mullahs and/or Li'l Kim ordered a nuclear strike, and those in their military high commands believed that to obey such an order was likely to get them all killed as well as most or almost all of their countrymen, it seems to me that THAT would be the ideal time for them to try to stage a coup. Because if they believe they'll be dead by obeying any orders to use nukes, at that point in time, what do they have to lose if the coup fails? Their lives? They'd ALREADY believe that was going to happen one way or another anyway if the leader is able to remain in power."

Again, I would hope that they do stage a coup. It just doesn't appear to be happening.

(cont)

Standshisground - II
Continued...

Imagine US troops opening fire on prostestors in the streets of American cities or their use of machetes on their own countrymen. This is currently happening in Iran with the Republican Guard going after the protestors.

"Also, since power is just as addictive as anything else, now that these military leaders in these countries have gotten a good taste of it, they may not so blithely want to sacrifice that."

Again, we can hope. Personally, I think that Iran is closer to freeing themselves from the theocracy because more than 60% of the population is under the age of 30 and they are savvy to modern technology (like Twitter), but this is simply not the case in North Korea.


patriotic
I don't think Israel can attack Iran now, things have changed since Saddam and, Iran is farther away from Israel. There are numerous, very deep nuclear sites too in Iran. They have to drag the US in to do it, that's the reason for the multi million dollar propaganda campaign against muslims and Iran. One of the first consequences will be the closing of the Straights of Hormuz and our gas will be $12.00 a gallon, and we will have mile long gas lines. The second thing to happen will Iran's ally, Iraq, will turn on our troops their and there will be many of our boys coming home in body bags.

St. Denis
As long as Li'l Kim and the Iranian mullahs don't give orders to the military leaders that actually puts the lives of those military leaders in very real danger - such as ordering the use of nuclear weapons - the military leaders at present have little incentive to try to overthrow their countries' political leadership. Assuming, of course, that the political leadership is taking good care of them - relatively speaking, anyway - and most tyrants are smart enough to see to this, because if they subject their military leadership as well to the same hardships they impose on the rest of the population, they know they give their military leaders a very vested incentive to try a coup.

The situation I'm postulating that would have a very realistic possibility of bringing about a coup is if the mullahs and/or Li'l Kim actually gave an order that puts the lives of those military leaders/their families squarely at ground zero - such as ordering a pre-emptive nuclear strike or supplying their own countries' nukes to other parties that would use them as proxies. At that point in time, it seems to me that trying a coup to topple the political leadership may be a matter of life or death for the military leadership.

And even if the TOP echelons of the military high commands under the mullahs/Li'l Kim may be top-heavy with bootlickers or those just as apocalyptic as they, the echelons below them may be quite a different story.

You're totally right about the Iranian people. They are surprisingly pro-Western and pro-U.S. and therefore increasingly despise their country's theocratic leadership - and that leadership knows it very well. Unfortunately, as we know from history, governments often try to turn to foreign adventurism at times of internal ferment, to divert their people's attention away from the hardships of their day-to-day lives.


voter fraud in America
Michael Savage just made the point that Barack Obama does not want to meddle in Iran's election regarding voter fraud because it might cause people to start questioning his own election. He doesn't want that. He doesn't want somebody like the Ethics Committee Chairman that just got fired to get close to seeing the truth that lurks inside Americorp.


Stands
"The situation I'm postulating that would have a very realistic possibility of bringing about a coup is if the mullahs and/or Li'l Kim actually gave an order that puts the lives of those military leaders/their families squarely at ground zero - such as ordering a pre-emptive nuclear strike or supplying their own countries' nukes to other parties that would use them as proxies. At that point in time, it seems to me that trying a coup to topple the political leadership may be a matter of life or death for the military leadership.

And even if the TOP echelons of the military high commands under the mullahs/Li'l Kim may be top-heavy with bootlickers or those just as apocalyptic as they, the echelons below them may be quite a different story."


I agree, but I do not see much of a possibility in North Korea. They are so isolated from the world that they actually believe the crap that Lil' Kim and his 26 year-old son, who will succeed him, spew. The military are taken care of at the expense of the starving people.

I am not saying that miracles are unrealistic, but it would take a miracles relative to North Korea.

Taft
"patriotic
I don't think Israel can attack Iran now, things have changed since Saddam and, Iran is farther away from Israel. There are numerous, very deep nuclear sites too in Iran. They have to drag the US in to do it, that's the reason for the multi million dollar propaganda campaign against muslims and Iran. One of the first consequences will be the closing of the Straights of Hormuz and our gas will be $12.00 a gallon, and we will have mile long gas lines. The second thing to happen will Iran's ally, Iraq, will turn on our troops their and there will be many of our boys coming home in body bags."


I agree with much of what you wrote; however, the Israelis have been conducting training missions in the Mediterranean and around Gilbraltar. Their jets can reach Iran and they have mid-air refueling planes.

St Denis
What is probably the scariest scenario for me at least, is the un intended consequences imposed by BHO telling Netanyahu if he attacked Iran, We would not re-supply Israel.

Now if your Israel and you know you have to win quickly and decisively, because you cannot count on supplies from us, do you use your tactical nukes?

St. Denise
It's much nicer to be agreeing together. These bases, though, in the Mediterranean, are they American? And, I don't see why things are changing so much, Mousavi didn't plan on shelving the nuclear program, its become quite a matter of pride for all Iranian, I've read.

Makes Sence to Me
Pat Buchanan

"The dilemma for America is that the theocracy defines itself and grounds its claim to leadership through its unyielding resistance to the Great Satan — the United States — and to Israel.

Nevertheless, Obama, with his outstretched hand, his message to Iran on its national day, his admission that the United States had a hand in the 1953 coup in Tehran, his assurances that we recognize Iran’s right to nuclear power, succeeded. He stripped the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad of their clinching argument — that America is out to destroy Iran and they are indispensable to Iran’s defense."

St. Denis
Much to my surprise, Taft's actually submitted reasonable for a change on this site in his line of reasoning that you responded to in your 6:58 pm post (see, I DO give credit if I think credit is due).

When he submitted this that you seem to agree with, "One of the first consequences will be the closing of the Straights of Hormuz and our gas will be $12.00 a gallon, and we will have mile long gas lines. The second thing to happen will Iran's ally, Iraq, will turn on our troops their and there will be many of our boys coming home in body bags." - and I think what I quoted from Taft is actually quite plausible (has continued exposure to TownHall finally started to reverse the crippling effects of the virus of liberalism for Taft?) - something occurred to me:

can we be sure that what Taft laid forth isn't precisely what Obama is HOPING for? After all, with a world - and America - in economic turmoil by a astronomic increase in oil prices, this might give Obama an opportunity to get enacted drastic measures that would advance his socialist agenda here in America that he could never get passed in a more quiescent environment. It would also give Obama the excuse to quickly terminate our military presence in Iraq: regarding the quantum leap in casualties Taft postulated that would precede it, Obama and the Congressional Democrats and Pravda aka The MSM would simply lay all the blame for it on George Bush. Remember Obama's motto: "Never let a crisis go to waste".

Just a thought.

Connies...
I love reading all these huffing and puffing posts about how we should do this and tell them that and hope that they will quake in their boots and do exactly what we think. Earth to right wing Walter Mitty types. We are not as powerful as you think. Our ideas are not as persuasive as you wish. The world cares only a little what we say and do and at the end of the day, folks in Iran will do exactly as they wish regardless of Dennis Prager or any number of you uber machismo Aryan nation types on this site.

Huff and puff and blow the house down.....What supreme egotists...lol.

Absolutely Ridiculous
No, I didn't read the opinion. To be honest, I couldn't get past its title without laughing out loud!

To say the Iranians can't count on "any country that is left", is simply the most ludicrous statement I think I've ever read on this site.

One only needs to look what happened to Georgia as our Republican Administration sat back and watched Russia roll through their fledgling democracy.

And then we can talk about how Republican's alienated Iran in the 1950's, and how we further isolated them under W with his infamous, "Axis of Evil" speech.

What an absolute pathetic article. Pathetic!

"They're Killing Us All!"

Dispatch from Salon...

"Blood and defiance in Azadi Square"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/16/tehran_thre e/print.html

Taft

"It's much nicer to be agreeing together."

Yes, it is.

"These bases, though, in the Mediterranean, are they American?"

Not to my knowledge.

"And, I don't see why things are changing so much, Mousavi didn't plan on shelving the nuclear program, its become quite a matter of pride for all Iranian, I've read."

I tried to warn people last week that Mousavi did not represent a sea change for Iran. See what the Haaretz reported about Mousavi:

"International Atomic Energy Agency documents revealed that Iran began a secret nuclear program during the tenure of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the opposition leader running against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The documents, which Iran transferred to the IAEA several years ago, show that Tehran decided in 1987 to purchase the centrifuges it is using to enrich uranium.

Mousavi, who is seen as a moderate candidate in the West, served as Iran's prime minister between 1981 and 1989, and while that position has since been eliminated from Iranian politics, it was an executive position that was similar in nature to the current presidential role.

One of the documents revealed that the then-head of Iran's atomic energy organization requested Mousavi's approval for purchasing the centrifuges on the black market. Iran subsequently acquired the centrifuges through the smuggling ring of Pakistani scientist Abd al-Qadir Khan."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1092198.html

David
"What is probably the scariest scenario for me at least, is the un intended consequences imposed by BHO telling Netanyahu if he attacked Iran, We would not re-supply Israel.

Now if your Israel and you know you have to win quickly and decisively, because you cannot count on supplies from us, do you use your tactical nukes?"



If the choice is between being annihilated by Iran or cut of by Obama, I would think that Netanahyu would use The Samson Option to blow Iran to Kingdom Come.

Sophie --
Rather than spending egregious -- and I do mean PLENTY!!! -- of time here at Townhall posting your trite liberal purports, why not use your time to help Barack Hussein Obama's baby brother in Kenya, you know, the one who lives in a 6x9, rat-infested hut adjacent an alligator-plagued swamp. My God -- I heard he "survives" on about 20 bucks a month . . . while big brother Barack feasts on top-notch prime rib! Jeesh!!!

BTW --
What's this talk of right-wing "kook" posters at this site? Have we forgotten the past 8 years wherein sadistic cretins from the left alleged that President Bush stole two elections -- 2000 AND 2004 -- helped plan the 9/11 attacks, and fought the Iraq War for his friends at Halliburton? Oh, wait, that last one was true, according to you obtuse mental case liberals!!!

OBAMA,JFK & IRAN; A PROFILE IN COWARDICE
Boiling anger at Ahmadinejad and the mullahs is turning to disillusionment with Barack Obama as the Iranian masses see our unsupportive spineless leader for what he is: A PATHETIC MORAL COWARD. "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who stay neutral in time of moral crisis." said JFK quoting Dante. The time is now, the crisis is here and where is Obama the messiah of morality and enlightened world leadership? Where is his outreach to Moslems? To the enslaved suffering people of a theonazi state wanting their freedom like the people in neigbhoring Iraq? Where is he? Sitting on the sidelines thinking that he's prudent when he's letting down millions. Think of Ronald Reagan, think of Poland, think of his crucial support for Lech Walesa and Solidarity. With good reason we say that Obama is the anti-Reagan, his antitheis and polar opposite in everything from wisdom to valor and presidential leadership.

By slow degrees this president is turning the White House into a hell house that will engulf him in flames and burn him to cinders becoming his funeral pyre. If JFK were alive today he would be deeply ashamed of Obama; deeply ashamed that his brother and child were his kingmakers; deeply ashamed that he's the leader of the Free World; deeply ashamed at his profile in moral gutlessness and unpresidential weakness. May merciful God take him from us, sparing us from the harm that he's doing our Republic and saving him from the torments of failure and despair.




Nick – another case in point
Yes, you are right in your BTW post. Many liberals clung to that for 8 long years and that was wrong of them and wrong of all whom sat idly by. Now we have the same theme throughout this thread only it’s conservatives railing against Obama.

Yes, you took time to call out Sophie; but do you have the integrity to call out some of the conservatives who do the same?

Why Bother?
It is indeed a matter for concern that so many nations' responses to the election have all the spine of a jellyfish. Perhaps they are thinking, however wrongly, that there is no use...Iran will do whatever it wants, regardless of "World Opinion". Perhaps they are right. How long were the Embassy hostages held while Carter was whistling past the cemetary? He was rightly perceived as what he is: hopelessly naive and completely lacking in resolve. The hostages were released soon after Ronald Reagan took office. It can be argued that the Iranians just got tired of feeding them. More likely it had to do with the world's perception of Reagan as being a "cowboy" (as if that's a bad thing). They were rightly concerned that *he* would actually respond to the situation, and they were not likely to enjoy the results.
Why does the world have to contiunally learn this lesson? Why do we continue electing these Nancy-boys (and girls), then act surprised when they prove unwilling, or unable, to stand up for what is right? I don't want to go to war anymore than any other sane person. That said, sometimes the only way to get the bully off your back is to bloody his nose.

The US is becoming the new France
Jimmah Carter II is on pacifist anti-semite steriods. He will "major speech" us into obscurity.

Dear Iranians...
There is a fundamental reason why the left does so little to defend freedom and democracy. They see it as little more that a vehicle to seize power. Once they get it, they attempt to institutionalize themselves in office. Also, the concept of "Democratic Socialism" is nothing more than a talking point. Socialism cannot long survive where citizens are able to challenge and disagree with its precepts and dictates. Even the authoritarian variety of Socialism still leaves some openings for dissent and disagreement. In the end, Socialism must evolve into totalitarianism.

Obama - Pure Weakness
Too bad that Liberals/ Progressives never seem to learn from the Past! No, they're too enlightened and Progressive to learn from history, in they're minds there is nothing to learn from History. They're too busy trying to reinvent the wheel. F'ing Morons...

Robert
Yes, and many conservative seem to lack that ability too; as is evident on this thread. However, I have reservations about calling the liberals “F'ing Morons”. After all, if that is true, what does that make the conservative who lost to them?

MikeR
How about lost in the Wilderness for one. When all the better we (Republicans) can do is to nominate a Liberal leaning John McCain, what else needs to said. I personally liked Fred Thompson and also Mitt Romney, but Fred did not have his heart into getting elected and Mitt Romney is a Mormon and for too many people this counted him out, which is too bad. We could of used someone like mitt Romney, who is a Business oriented man, unlike the PoS Messiah we now have.

Iranians hate us? Response to Dave
Dave, sorry, but you are still wrong. Iranians view the US Government with deep suspicion and dislike, but not the American people. In all of the Islamic Middle East, only Iranians held spontaneous candlelight vigils in support of Americans killed on 9-11. Here is your link:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeas tnafricara/527.php

To quote, in part:

The WPO and TFT polls found sharp contrasts in how Iranians view the United States, its government and people. The American people are predominantly viewed positively (about 50% positive vs. 30% negative, averaging the WPO and TFT surveys), while the U.S. government and President Bush are viewed very negatively (less than 10% positive compared to about 80% negative on the WPO survey). Iranian opinion of the "United States" is a composite of these and other impressions about American society and falls between these two extremes. About 30 percent of Iranians have a favorable opinion of the United States, compared to 60 percent unfavorable (average of the two surveys). [WPO, QQ 2a-2c and 49a; TFT, QQ 9b, 10c]



So, they may hate the US government, but they don't "hate us".

The Left and Iran
The muted sense of ourage at the behavior of the Ayatollahs in Iran is understandable. First, Leftists see the democratic process as nothing more or less than a vehicle to bring them to power. Once they achieve that power, the democratic process is no longer useful and is often viewed as a hinderance to their agenda. The Left, in the end, is either authoritarian or totalitarian. "Democratic Socialism" and "Social Democracy" are little more than talking points.

Second, totalitarians seem to have an affinity for eachother.

A dissent from the right
Dennis Prager should not assume that only those dreaded, awful "Leftists" oppose leaping into the Iranian fray and "helping" oppressed freedom-lovers. I am more "right" than "left", but I also think we should mind our own business as a nation and avoid overt meddling in Iran's internal affairs. And we *damn* well should avoid bulling our way into another war that we can't afford. If this be "cowardice," make the most of it.

Mr. Prager himself likes to complain that liberals value good intentions more than results (and, often, he is right). But our Iraq crusade, and many other foreign interventions, should prove that good intentions can pave the road to hell in foreign affairs as well as domestic policy. The intentions of people who want to bring "freedom and democracy" to Iran by means of U.S. power are no doubt good. But the results of our meddling are liable to be disastrous for both countries.


Mr Obama please Stop killing
Please stop this!! How can you do this?
Missile death toll at 55 in Pakistan
read more here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/0 6/23/AR2009062300226.html

Ignorance of Geopolitical History
This is a simplistic view of foreign relations. While Dennis has more experience in overseas travel than most commentators, Nothing that I recall in his commentary concerning foreign relations incorporates historical reality and perception of the US by foreign powers.

A more knowledgable commentator on foreign affairs, Georgianne Geyer, states that President Obama has a better grasp on the context of prior American inference in Iran's domestic affairs, that his statement gave no fuel to the,"What has been done to us" faction in Iran of which Aqua Velva Man belongs.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State: