Go to A Distant Drum of the Coming Revolution
- Add a comment
- Go to Bill Clinton: 'Reach Out' to Iran, Syria
Lights are on, Damon, and shining bright on your comment!
"Clinton is backing the conclusions of the cross-party Iran Study Group which, while there are definite ridiculous ideas in there, broadly says that the policies of the current 'president' have been absolute failures."
And this was one of the "definite (sic) ridiculous ideas in there." So both Clinton and the ISG are wrong,
"Clinton's may have failed, but they didn't fail in anywhere near as costly a way, both in terms of tax dollars and lives, as the stupid, knee-jerk policy of agression pursued by the Shrub and based on demonstrably false premises."
Oh, really? Does it not occur to you that, had Bubba taken the hard line against terrorism after any one of the attacks during his terms in office as he should have done, September 11 might not have happened? Instead, he was more concerned with having people feel good about him. That, my good reader, is a colossal failure of both character and leadership at enormous cost. And that is just one of many failures that can be laid at his feet.
Your second point about Carter is incorrect. Carter turned his back on an American ally, one of precious few in the region, of some thirty years standing. His refusal to support the Shah led to the emergence of Khomeni and the hardline Islamofascists who followed him. The Shah was hardly a shining light of human rights; but look what Iran and the rest of the middle east got in his place - a nation led by openly hostile and violent religious fanatics. In spite of his problems, the Shah was at least a check against such fanaticism. Take a gander at this: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4094. Also at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_carter, under the Hostage Crisis heading.
Third point well taken as far as whether or not Madman Mahmoud speaks for the country. I was aware of that when I wrote it, hence the qualifier "This, according to Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is what Iran wants." But I heartily disagree concerning accuracy of translation and reliable reporting. If that's a bone of contention for you, then I assume that you go to great lengths to ensure that the words of President Bush and other conservatives are being reported accurately, in context and so forth before you jump on them like a buzzard on roadkill. Right?
And Bubba's failures most certainly do matter, just as Carter's do. The actions of any world leader, for better or worse, bear both consequences and lessons for future generations. This is true across the board, from total failures like Chamberlain's appeasements, to acts of barbarity like Hitler's campaign to exterminate Jews, to the ringing successes like Reagan's strategy to end the Cold War and bring down the Soviet Union.
posted by
WriterofLight
on December 10, 2006 at 11:00 AM
| link to this | reply
You talk a whole lot of
conspiratorial crap....and in true fashion wind up focusing on attacking the messenger instead of the message.
Give some substantianted references instead of left wing blog drivel....we've heard the same things for 6 years now. The Iraq Surrender Group is useless.......this document and this group has one objective, and that's to unite the American people in defeat, to unite the American people in withdrawal, to unite the American -- bipartisan and consensus.
Well, Lady Thatcher said it best about consensus.........
"It is the absence of leadership!"
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on December 9, 2006 at 5:47 AM
| link to this | reply
You Are...
Clearly very confused here - you need to turn your 'light' on yourself for a while!
First, Clinton is backing the conclusions of the cross-party Iran Study Group which, while there are definite ridiculous ideas in there, broadly says that the policies of the current 'president' have been absolute failures. Clinton's may have failed, but they didn't fail in anywhere near as costly a way, both in terms of tax dollars and lives, as the stupid, knee-jerk policy of agression pursued by the Shrub and based on demonstrably false premises.
Second, it wasn't carter "whose Iran policies set the stage for today’s brewing nightmare" - it was the way the British engaged with the country initially as an oil partner, and left it in the 'capable' hands of an absolute dictator, without any understanding of existing power structures and tensions.
Third, it is not "Iran" that wants those things you list. It is the leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who allegedly wants them. And even then, there are difficulties. Specifically, a) how accurate is the translation? b) how accurately are his statements being reported? c) how much of what he says is rhetoric aimed at the local market (much like Bush's "bring it on" or "mission accomplished")? I know quite a lot of Iranians, both ones who live in the UK, and ones who live in Tehran, and NONE of them want ANY of the things you list.
Fourth, though you may or may not be correct about Clinton's failures (and, frankly, I couldn't care less either way), he was never as tied in to the bin Laden family as Bush is. Bush Senior continues to serve on the board of the Carlyle Group, along with members of the bin Laden family. The Bush family have accepted cash investment into their failed oil ventures in the past from the bin Laden family. Bush arranged for a plane-load of bin-Ladens to fly out of the US the day after 9/11. And, as I posted in STOP THE WARS, Saudi Arabia is a major supporter of terrorism - the 9/11 bombers (allegedly), supporting al-Qaeda, supporting the Iraqi insurgents - yet the US still suck up to the House of Saud because they supply the oil.
Rant all you like, but in order to be taken seriously, you have to know what you're talking about, thing things through, and get your facts straight. Otherwise, you just come across as an opinionated ignoramus.
D
posted by
DamonLeigh
on December 9, 2006 at 5:35 AM
| link to this | reply