November 10, 2006

"This defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation."

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei interprets the American election.
"With the scandalous defeat of America's policies in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, America's threats are empty threats on an international scale."
What will the Democrats do to push back against that?

96 comments:

Revenant said...

What will the Democrats do to push back against that

Assuming they stay with their current strategy? Blame Bush and stick their heads in the sand.

Theo Boehm said...

Nothing.

Commenterlein said...

Ignore the nutcase and have our foreign policy determined by our best interest rather than by the trash-talking of some third-world despot?

A lot of pointless conflicts could be avoided if at least one side acted like rational adults rather than like folks who got beaten up too much in grade school.

-Peder said...

Whether or not a Dem congress will be better for Iran or not remains to be seen. I hope so but am not optimistic. But this does illustrate something rather important about the manner in which we leave Iraq. Bad guys around the globe will spin our actions to their benefit. If we leave without achieving an obvious US victory, it'll embolden terrorist groups around the world. If you thought our presence there was helping recruiting, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Gahrie said...

A lot of pointless conflicts could be avoided if at least one side acted like rational adults rather than like folks who got beaten up too much in grade school.

Two problems:

1) The other side isn't rational, so they are going to attack us even if think the conflict is pointless, and refuse to defend ourselves.

2) In case you haven't noticed, today's third world despots are arming themselves with weapons of mass destruction, and have shown themselves to be more than willing to use them.

tjl said...

What will the Democrats do to push back against that?

They won't push back, they'll hasten to agree.

Then they'll confer with George McGovern to think of ways to make sure we never ever use military force again.

Charles Giacometti said...

What will the Democrats do to push back against that?

They will have the brains to recognize it as propaganda.

Seven Machos said...

My guess is that commenterlein got beat up a lot in school. Congratulations, now, though. You've really taken the high road.

On substance: utter shit. You are suggesting that we ignore Iran, a country right next to Iraq, right next to Pakistan, right next to Russia; a country with massive oil reserves; a country very close to having nuclear weapons; a country that funds radical Shiite causes throughout the Middle East; a country that funds and provides weapons for elements fighting against the United States in Iraq; a country that has openly called for the complete physical destruction of a nearby U.S. ally.

Yeah, let's just ignore a country like that. It'll go away. It won't bother us. After all, what has Iran ever done to the United States? Nothing, right? Not one thing. Nope. Can't think of anything at all.

Nothing to see here. What's really important is the minimum wage. Raise that, see, and we can assuage our guilt about poor people. Many of the neediest and lowest-skilled workers will no longer be employable but the important thing is that we feel good about ourselves.

chickenlittle said...

After McGovern gains no traction, they'll turn to Jimmy Carter who had more direct experience with Iran. He's a southern Christian too which might score some points.

Internet Ronin said...

Talk a lot about it, I'm sure. Hold a press conference or two (maybe three) no doubt. Sponsor a symposium under the aegis of Madelaine Albright, perhaps. Other than that, not much. There's not a lot they can do anyway, and absolutely no indication that they would do it, whatever it was, if they could.

Badger said...

What will the Democrats do to push back against that?

Invade Turkey?

Internet Ronin said...

Only if its a Butterball!

MadisonMan said...

Imagine the good a free election would do for Iran.

gj said...

The quote is an obvious attempt to provoke Americans into electing more Republicans. You can call Ali Khamenei many things, but he's not stupid. Bin Laden did the same thing in 2004, releasing a video one day before the election to give Bush a boost in the polls.

The Palestinian militants play a similar game, increasing violence in the run-ups to Israeli elections as way of helping the harder-line Israeli candidates. That's how they keep the conflict going and keep themselves in business.

Americans need to do a better job of focusing on our own self-interests rather than letting ourselves get tweaked in such an obvious way.

As for the Democrats, they shouldn't respond at all, anymore than you should respond if a drunk calls you a "faggot" from across a crowded bar. You don't dignify it with a response, unless you're the kind of person who likes to get in fights just for the sake of it.

Seven Machos said...

Yes, gj. That's what Arabs and Iranians want: Republicans in Congress. That's why Iran was said so much before before this election.

Also, I'm sorry you keep getting called "faggot" from across the bar.

Too Many Jims said...

I've got an idea. Let's sell them arms. Maybe we can even get them to pressure Hezbollah to turn over some hostages. Then we can take the proceeds from the sale of the arms and fund some rebels to de-stabilize this guy. Come to think of it I have just the right guy for the job. After all, it is time for a new approach with Iran.

But seriously, one of the great things about our country is that we get to decide what our elections mean to us. After the 2004 elections there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth among leaders and the press in countries that are allied with us. Did Bush care? Should he?

Ruth Anne Adams said...

GJ said: "You don't dignify it with a response, unless you're the kind of person who likes to get in fights just for the sake of it."

The problem is they like to kill infidels* just for the sake of it.


*that's most of us in their view.

kettle said...

Attack Azerbaijan!
But seriously, do we need to respond to that? We've already declared this guy a hooligan-lunatic-fringe-misfit; wouldn't we be contradicting ourselves a little by gratifying him with a 'NOT!' playground response?

If you meant, in general, what are the democrats going to do to dispel that feeling in the international community, then I don't know... But I do hope that it is something DIFFERENT, something novel. I'm sure that that is too much to hope for though.

Sloanasaurus said...

You can call Ali Khamenei many things, but he's not stupid. Bin Laden did the same thing in 2004, releasing a video one day before the election to give Bush a boost in the polls.

Go ahead and spin all you want, but you really know the truth.

Al Qaeda made the same comments. This is really bad for Dems. They should want the enemy to beleive that they they will be worse for the enemy. It is a reflection of the Dems weakness and reputation on national security. After all who wants to give rights to terrorists - the Dems. The terrorists see this as weakness.

I have more hope for the Dems. I think they just wanted power so they used negative news on the war to get it. I hope they come out fighting now.

If the Dems underperform from now until 2008, Republicans have a rright to play these comments over and over again during the campaign

tjl said...

"something DIFFERENT, something novel. I'm sure that that is too much to hope for though."

I'm sure of that too, Kettle. The Democrats are more likely to rerun something tried and true from their back inventory, like helicopters taking off from the embassy.

kettle said...

Seems that the bulk of my post was already posted, in variation, 2 or 3 times. Should have scanned the other posts first. Whoops!

I would like to know, how much first-hand knowledge does anyone posting here actually have about Iran?

I would venture to say that the average is close to NIL (myself included). Doesn't that make us sound rather silly?

JSF said...

Here is a history of what could happen (posted on another thread)....

Let's follow the Democratic Party's current idea of "pulling out" of Iraq to its forgone conclusion. OBL got his idea to attack the US after we ran out of Haiti and Black Hawk Down in Somalia. Lets leave Iraq.

2007 - American troops leave the Fertile Crescent. Al-Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah advance in and massacre populace not aligned with Islamic Radicals.

2008 - Islamic Radicals use $ from Oil to ally with Chavez, Iran and Syria. Money rolls in for terrorist objectives.

2009 - Just like tel Aviv in 2000, suicide bombers attack "soft Targets" in America.

I would like to know how the Democrats are going to stop this from occuring.

hdhouse said...

What will the Democrats do to push back?

Why pray tell do the Democrats have to push back except to feed the collective guilt of a republican administration and mindset that hears no evil, sees no evil in their own backyard.

The republicans got us into this mess or hellhole or both without a plan or a steadfast goal. Stuck wtih neither they have botched this "mission accomplished" into a new black hole, sucking the national treasure into it as fast as they can shovel it out of the treasury.

First order of business for the Democrats is to stop the horrendous policy or lack there of and simply tell the moronic executive branch to set a goal and make a plan and if they can't the congress will. Second step is to get the fools who are still in there pumping this godforsaken guideline for loosing and get them on a slow boat to nowhere where they can "do no harm".

You can't format a plan when the situation changes every damn day and the goals become morphed for political expediency and re-election mirth. This is a death spiral on ice and until Bush and his ship of fools set sail in 2008, the democrats are pushing back against air.

mcg said...

Bin Laden did the same thing in 2004, releasing a video one day before the election to give Bush a boost in the polls.

So what you're saying is that Ayatolla Khameni is just as crazy as Bin Laden, but too stupid to get the timing right.

Uh, OK.

For some reason that doesn't make me feel better. "Hey, what does this button marked 'failsafe' do? (press)"

Tim said...

"What will the Democrats do to push back against that?"

Nothing.

Nothing at all.

Don't dare to provoke our enemies, do we?

And its hard to argue against a truth so self-evident and transparent. EVERYBODY knows (if they have a brain) that Democrats winning elections is good for America's enemies.

Besides which, Democrats are credible liars on social security, but less so on national security. Even they know that.

Joe said...

Commenterein said:
"A lot of pointless conflicts could be avoided if at least one side acted like rational adults..."
I read today that:
"THREE Christian high school girls were beheaded as a Ramadan “trophy” by Indonesian militants who conceived the idea after a visit to Philippines jihadists, a court heard yesterday. The girls’ severed heads were dumped in plastic bags in their village in Indonesia’s strife-torn Central Sulawesi province, along with a handwritten note threatening more such attacks. The note read:
“Wanted: 100 more Christian heads, teenaged or adult, male or female; blood shall be answered with blood,
soul with soul, head with head.”
My question to commenterlein is, what would you consider the rational adult response to this?

Pogo said...

Re: "What will the Democrats do to push back against that?"

1. Surrender
2. Appease
3. Beg forgiveness
4. Don burkhas
5. All of the above

The MinuteMan said...

A lot of pointless conflicts could be avoided if at least one side acted like rational adults rather than like folks who got beaten up too much in grade school.

Very uplifting. However, anyone who has spent any time at the Kos/Atrios boards has been informed that the only way to deal with a bully is to punch back hard.

Of course, the bully they have in mind is Karl Rove and the Republican Noise Machine.

(As a recent example of this mindset one can look to John Kerry's first pass at defending his "joke" about the uneducated troops, when he blamed the controversy on "right wing nut jobs".)

Anyway - maybe the Dems can gasp and then whine that Khamenei is attacking their patriotism.

Tom Maguire

30yearProf said...

Remember the anti-Rumsfeld retired Generals (last Summer's new story)?
THIS was their complaint.

"...Batiste and his colleagues offered their solution: more troops, more money and more time in Iraq.

'We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge,' Batiste warned.

'We better be planning for at least a minimum of a decade or longer,' contributed retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes."

Do you think the Democrats were listening?

Seven Machos said...

Joe -- If we simply ignore these wackos, they will go away. Just like they did after the USS Cole, the Kobar Towers, the first WTC, 9/11, the Iranian hostage crisis, the killing of teh Marines in Lebanon...

The list goes on. Christ! What additional evidence do you need?

Sloanasaurus said...

The republicans got us into this mess or hellhole or both without a plan or a steadfast goal

This is not a mess. It's a war against islamic fanatics who want to kill all of us. Go watch United 93 then come back and post your response.

The Bush Administration has a plan. That is to stick it out in Iraq until the Iraq gov can take over. Maybe it will take another year, maybe another 5 years. The Dems are to big a pussies to fight back

Sloanasaurus said...

The fact that the Dems have not yet responded to these Al Qaeda/Iran pronouncements is unbelievable. Either the dems agree with the terrorists, or they are worthless.

Do the Dems really want to defend America?

Joe said...

The MSM is not about to publicize islamofascist gloating over the election, so it will not register with most people. But the democrats will have to walk the walk now, no more sniping. They can choose to confront the threat in a responsible manner, or they can waste time in endless hearings and recriminations in their personal anti-Bush jihad.

K the C said...

I agree with the "don't respond to the drunks" crowd to an extent. I don't think there's a need for the Democratic leadership to dignify every Islamizoid press release with a response. I don't think think there's necessarily a requirement that the Democrats "push back" specifically against Khamenei, at least not directly.

But these comments are not a one-off. The proposition that this election was a referendum on the way the Bush administration has handled the war on terror is uncontested. Iran believes it. Al Qaeda believes it. Europe believes it. America believes it. *Everyone* believes it, and they're mostly right. Surely the election reflected America's view that Bush wasn't fighting the war on terror in the best way. But that doesn't necessarily mean that America has decided to cut and run.

That's why it's important that the Democrats say something. A global consensus is forming that says "the election of the Democrats amounts to the US waving a white flag in the war on terror." Again, it's not just one nutjob's opinion; it's the *world's* opinion, and it's wrong. The Democrats know that it's wrong. The Democrats didn't run openly on a cut-and-run platform. They won close races with a platform of generic "change," by running Jesus-wheezing candidates, and by not getting in the way as the Republicans died a death by a thousand self-inflicted cuts (Foley, earmarks, Ohio scandal, macaca, etc.). And even if the vast majority of Democrats wanted to surrender or cut and run, they still don't have the votes. Republicans + Lieberman = Hawkish Senate. Don't forget that Bush managed to prosecute the war on terror for more than a year with a Democratic Senate.

Since 9/13/01, the Democrats have been constantly saying that they could fight the war on terror more effectively than Bush. I'll take them at their word that they intend to. If they do, they should be announcing boldly that, now that the Democrats are in power, the US is going to fight terrorism more effectively than ever before. They should be making it loud and clear that the terrorists' days are numbered, now that there is a smarter, bipartisan effort to fight the war.

Will they do that? They haven't, and I don't hold out much hope, because they're beholden to their antiwar /appeaser base. But they *should* be.

Joe said...

They have 2 years to show their guts. If they whine and wring their hands about Bush and let al qaeda regroup, chances are there will be a republican in the white house in 2009. If they do a credible imitation of FDR and JFK, they just may win in '08.

Tim said...

"They should be making it loud and clear that the terrorists' days are numbered, now that there is a smarter, bipartisan effort to fight the war."

That really is the problem, isn't it?

They (Dems) really must believe they have no obligation to defend the nation unless they're in power, or that the nation isn't worth defending unless they're in power.

But if that were true, they'd have responded already to al Qaeda and Khamenei. I guess old habits die hard, or they're distracted with appointing Hastings chair of the House Intelligence Committee...

But it didn't take Kos anytime to go after Carville. Must be a matter of priorities.

WisJoe said...

Most of these comments are stupid. By saying nothing publically about the ignorant rantings of a nutcase with power does not mean that the Democrats are IGNORING Iran. Do you really think the Democrats, even if they obtain the executive branch, are going to ignore nuclear threats from fundamentalist theocratic governments? Maybe they (actually "we" since I am one of these softie Dems) will just surrender to Al Quaeda or allow Khamenei to nuke Israel? Get real. They have made implementation of the 9-11 Commission recommendations one of their main goals. Frankly, the executive branch has more to do with responding to this nutjob than the legislature- nonetheless, you know in your collectively disappointed hearts that the Dems will make a sincere effort to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes and Al Quaeda from attacking us and our allies.

Svolich said...

Joe, they don't have 2 years. They have 14 months at the outside. If they don't respond to the first wave (and I don't expect that they will) DC won't be here in 2 years.

charlotte said...

"What will the Democrats do to push back against (Iranian perception that we're weak horses)?"

Hold hearings on Halliburton corruption and FedEx Rumsfeld to Germany.

john(lesser) said...

"you know in your collectively disappointed hearts that the Dems will make a sincere effort to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes and Al Quaeda from attacking us and our allies."

"Most of these comments are stupid."


Wisjoe thinks we want to die to prove Dems soft on defense. Smart. Nuanced.

Cedarford said...

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been in charge of Iran since 1989. The other guys Ahmedinejad, Khatami - are in the window dressing Presidency. The guy is a disciple of Ayatollah Khoumeni and no friend of the USA, that's for sure.

However, in any war, one should listen to and try to understand the enemy and what they are saying. Khamenei is basically correct..Bush and the neocon's "Democracy & consumer goodies" idea of reforming the region has failed fairly catastrophically. Noble purple fingers aside, elections served to guarantee Iraq would be Islamist. Democracy in Afghanistan never challenged the supremacy of Islam, warlordism, or born out the stupid Laura and Dubya belief that women were ready to "throw off their burquas".

The Cedar Revolution in Lebanon is revealed as a Potemkin village because the real power is Hezbollah - further "legitimized" by the democratic vote. As was Hamas in the Palestinian elections.

Khamenei - our enemy - claims the results of our own democratic process show Dubya was an idiot. Suckered by the neocons and Sharansky hard-liners in Israel on how the infidels and Zionists were going to use "democracy" as a secret weapon to "reform Muslims" so they demanded Western amenities, freedoms, and woman's lib in their households. But Faith & Honor beats the purple finger and American bribes anytime.

Is he right? The results appear to indicate that Muslims will vote more radical Islamist parties into power. Though Khamenei does have problems within Iran's 20 year old experiment with democracy - clerical corruption, oppressiveness, rigging candidate slots appear to have made many voters there disaffected with radical Islam.

The American side notions of spending hundreds of billions of money to win the favor of the people or turn in "head evildoers" for 30 million dollar rewards haven't worked.

So to listen to our true main Islamic enemy - not the media-cast Binnie as the arch evildoer - Ayatollah Khamenei - he says what we have done so far has not worked and actually screwed us.

If our main enemy is right, we need a fundamental rethinking of our ME policy and strategy against terror. If not "noble purple fingered heroes creating a secular Iraq", then what? If not "preserve Israels land seizures and WMD monopoly no matter what"; then what? If not "if only you Muslims lived in a civilized country you would know us and not want to blow us up" fails to work on the tube bombers or Atta or Ayatollah Khoumeni - then what?

It seems that Pope Benedict has it right that we should, after 5 years, finally sit down and begin talking with the Islamic religious leaders and with key Muslim nations on several tracks. Religious issues. Spheres of influence. NATO allies-Russia-India-Islamic Issues. The Israel question. See what is negotiable and what is considered hard lines drawn. After 5 years - because the Bushies have refused dialogue, we haven't even told the American public who the enemy is, over what specific issues, and what goals America must have as a minimum to keep our people and civilization safe and prospering..
******************

seven machos - Nothing to see here. What's really important is the minimum wage. Raise that, see, and we can assuage our guilt about poor people. Many of the neediest and lowest-skilled workers will no longer be employable but the important thing is that we feel good about ourselves.

I never quite understood why a particular strain of conservatives believe tax cuts for the wealthy are ordained by God - but a minimum wage for the working poor is evil, immoral. Neither did the Hispanic, blue collar white, and Reagan Democrat voter, which outside Jesusland, appear to be migrating further to the Democratic side.

After almost 10 years of the poor losing wage-earning power to inflation while their owner-employers prosper. After dozens of past min wage hikes did not lead to unemployment or catastrophies. Blind opposition to the needed min wage adjustment is more ideological than pragmatic. And politically suicidal.

**************

johnstodderinexile said...

Do you really think the Democrats, even if they obtain the executive branch, are going to ignore nuclear threats from fundamentalist theocratic governments? Maybe they (actually "we" since I am one of these softie Dems) will just surrender to Al Quaeda or allow Khamenei to nuke Israel? Get real. They have made implementation of the 9-11 Commission recommendations one of their main goals.

As Chuck Schumer said at a rally after the election, this week's victory means nothing if the voters reject them next time. Call me a ridiculous optimist, but I think the taste of power is going to sober up much of the Democratic Party right quick.

I do see a generational split in the party that plays interestingly in the nutroots. The party's jowly equivalent of Crosby, Stills and Nash -- Dingell, Waxman, Frank, Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, Kerry and so on -- are on one page, while I suspect the younger members whose context is primarily the Clinton years are on another. It's the younger group, led by Emmanuel, Schumer, Pelosi and now joined by Webb, that I feel far more comfortable with; but I think it's the older group that is more sympatico with the whackos.

Seven Machos said...

Cedarford -- Let's not push this thread to the minimum wage. However, I did my senior thesis on this issue in college. Here's what happens: it doesn't really affect short-term employment. In the long-term, though, businesses affected by the minimum wage tend to ask good employees to do more work and hire fewer marginal workers. They tend to hire older people, and even pay them more. Hence, poor and unskilled young people remain poor and unskilled longer.

Also, I'm a little disappointed in you: how could you possibly not find a way to work in a blame-the-Jews angle here.

Joe Baby said...

Min wage isn't evil, just causes a trade off that Dems never address.

Kinda like union jobs and the inability to enter a profession.

Or raising taxes to the point of lowering revenues.

Or affirmative action and the cost to those who lose out as a result.

Forgot which public figure wanted a one-handed economist ("on the other hand..." etc.), but there's plenty of the in the Dem Party.

Anonymous said...

wisjoe: you know in your collectively disappointed hearts that the Dems will make a sincere effort to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes and Al Quaeda from attacking us and our allies.

I know no such thing; neither in my heart nor my brain. I fully expect the Dems to stick their heads in the sand and pretend the threat doesn't exist, or that it can be dealt with as a "matter for law enforcement". Within 5 years (assuming the Dems are still in power) I think the best-case scenario is that only one or two US cities will have disappeared under a mushroom cloud. Worst case scenario is that we'll have lost twenty or thirty and this nation will effectively cease to exist.

Seven Machos said...

It was the last great Democratic president who wanted a one-handed economist: arry S Truman, from the great state of Missouri.

Seven Machos said...

I have high hopes that the Democrats will fight an effective war on terror. I am nervously optimistic.

reoconnot said...

For once al Qaeda is right. The mystery is why those who voted Democrat are so stupid that they could not understand that the enemy will interpret the result as a prelude to surrender.

The war on terror will be won by those who are patient and steadfast- not to mention reproductively prolific. From where I stand it does not look like we have what it will take to win.

Seven Machos said...

reoconnot: When you are down and out, feelin' small, just think about Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Nazi concentration camps, the USSR's gulags, the horrific fate of Native Americans and Native Australians, Cambodia -- I'm sure I am forgetting some.

All of those were made possible by the West and its ideas.

mcg said...

I think we will see at most an adjustment in Iraq policy, and not a complete reversal, as the hawkish Democrats are allowed to be hawkish; as long as they are not muffled by this or that parliametary procedure or (even worse) political blackmail. Barring that I don't think the pacifist left and isolationist right are enough to effect a Vietnam-style withdrawal.

And anyone who thinks Republicans didn't allow dissent on display wasn't watching the immigration reform legislation unfold.

Nahanni said...

Seven Machos,

Nice to see you got an A+ in revisionist history. You seem to forget that your "noble non Caucasians" are soaked with blood too. More blood then Caucasians are.

Anyway...

The Democrats are their allies, what makes anyone think they would do or say anything to hurt them.

Maybe they will send Jimmy Carter over to grovel before the mullahs.

Seven Machos said...

Nahanni -- Non-Western civilizations have never shown themselves to be organized enough to seriously commit genocide.

There are a lot of new people here. I iterate that I am not advocating genocide. (And I think the Bush administration has been very noble in giving our enemies the chance to change and civilize.) I merely observe that the West has shown that the West can carry out genocide very effectively.

Mr. Forward said...

"Non-Western civilizations have never shown themselves to be organized enough to seriously commit genocide." Seven Machos

Just off the top of my head. Tamerlane, Genghis Khan, Mao, Kim Il-Sung.

M. Simon said...

Internet Ronin 8:48 PM, November 10, 2006 said...

Only if its a Butterball!

Wicked!

cAPSLOCK said...

This is the ONE thing about the whole 'new deal' we got going now that scares the SHIT out of me.

Seven Machos said...

Mao and Kim Il-Sung fall clearly into the Western category. Their political-economic systems were Communist.

Perhaps you don't understand the West and what it is. It's not a place.

I don't know a thing about Gengis Khan. I'd be surprised if his death total could hold a candle to much that has happened in Western culture, particularly since the advent of Western killing machines.

M. Simon said...

Raise wages enough and machinery becomes a better alternative.

Supply and demand meet at a price.

The supply of will to fight is diminished. According to the supply demand curve for this product fighting among those with irreconsilable differences will increase.

When the policeman comes to your door you treat him/her with respect. Why. It ain't worth a fight unless you are a bully.

What is the supply/demand curve for bullies? Weakness invites attack, it does not promote concilliation.

Anonymous said...

Will the Democrats push back? The intellectual center of the party basically agrees with the Iranian Supreme Leader.

Democratic stategy in the war of terror - obstruct and blame the evil "George Bush." The old head in the sand strategy.

AllenS said...

The Democrats will not push back against anyone who wants to kill them. They will go after Bush for 2 years straight. Did ABC, CBS or NBC bring this statement by Iran to the public's attention? Since I don't watch network news, I don't know. I doubt if they would, because they never seem to want to embarass the Democrats. Now, to answer your question "What will the Democrats do to push back against that", well they could hold a candlelight vigil. Do you ever get the feeling that we're only one or two candlelight vigils away from peace and tranquility? Yeah, me neither.

Gahrie said...

I don't know a thing about Gengis Khan.

Really? Yet we are supposed to accept your interpretation of history as definitive?

Well let's explore the limits of your knowledge.

Which civilization developed the concept of science and the scientific method?

Which civilization developed a philosophy that included the concept that slavery was evil? Or that all men were created equal, and had inherient rights?

Seven Machos said...

Gahrie -- An interesting gambit. You can accept my interpretation as definitive or not. That's entirely up to you. If I were you, I would not accept in total any interpretation from anyone about anything in a bunch of web-posting comments, late at night, on a Friday.

If I wished to learn about Gengis Khan, I could. I have the Internets. The issue here isn't my knowledge of history, or yours. It's whether any culture but modern Western culture has effectively carried out genocide.

Has anyone outside the West equaled one day of the firebombing at Dresden, or one month in the killing fields of Cambodia, or one hour in the nightmare of Nagasaki? Clearly, the answer is no.

I think the West is very good. You will not find a person who is more pro-Western than I am.

michael a litscher said...

WisJoe: Frankly, the executive branch has more to do with responding to this nutjob than the legislature- nonetheless, you know in your collectively disappointed hearts that the Dems will make a sincere effort to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes and Al Quaeda from attacking us and our allies.

Will this "sincere effort" by Democrats, in regards to Iran, take, oh, 444 days?

Mark in Texas said...

gj

As for the Democrats, they shouldn't respond at all, anymore than you should respond if a drunk calls you a "faggot" from across a crowded bar. You don't dignify it with a response, unless you're the kind of person who likes to get in fights just for the sake of it.

Perhaps you drink in a better class of bar.

If somebody calls someone "faggot" across a crowded bar, that is often a prelude to trying to coldcock them with a chair. If there is an alert bouncer, he steps in and prevents the angry irrational drunk from damaging any of the peaceful patrons.

Who do you envision as playing the role of bouncer WRT Iran?

Or were you not aware that stuff was happening in drinking establishments?

Cedarford said...

Add Pol Pot, Shakka Zulu, Idi Amin, the fun-lovin' Hutus, Japanese vs. the Ainu, Malay vs. the Micronesians(Negritos), Iraquois vs. the Huron.

Mr. Forward said...

"...particularly since the advent of Western killing machines."

You mean like Rockets and Gunpowder?

Gerry said...

"What will the Democrats do to push back against that?"

Blame Bush.

And America.

Gerry said...

"The quote is an obvious attempt to provoke Americans into electing more Republicans. "

Just like the bombs in Spain were an obvious attempt to provoke Spaniards to re-elect Aznar and his security-minded supporters.

Mr. Forward said...

"Mongol Conquests (Genghis Khan ruled 1206-27. Kublai Khan ruled 1260-94)
John Man, Genghis Khan : Life, Death, and Resurrection
The Jin (North China) recorded 7.6 million households in the early 13th Century. The first Mongol census in 1234 recorded 1.7 million housholds. Man interprets this as a population decline from 60 million to 10 million.
Man make a rough guess that 1.25M people were killed in Khwarezm in two years-- that's 25% of 5M original inhabitants.
Jack Weatherford, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World (2004)
From the Washington Post's 4/4/4 review of Weatherford's Genghis Khan...: "It's estimated that 15 million died in the Mongols' five-year invasion of central Asia."

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#Mongol

Seven Machos will blame Marco Polo.

Joe said...

Democrats have a unique opportunity here - what a blow to al qaeda if they now demonstrate to the world that their problems with Bush are merely domestic politics, by affirming a strong stance against islamic fundamentalism, that they will prosecute this war vigorously!
But I am probably dreaming. More likely they will take the head in the sand approach toward the war, and will occupy their time seeking payback for the Clinton impeachment. They are not particularly bright, forward looking, big-picture types as a group.

Balfegor said...

What will the Democrats do to push back against that?

I'm sure someone has already pointed this out (but am too lazy to read through 70 comments) -- the Democrats can just say that politics isn't a zero-sum game. That sometimes, developments are good for everyone all around, and that because the Republicans are dangerous/incompetent/irresponsible/whatever, their losing power in the house is a good development for everyone no matter where. On Iran in particular, they might say it's good for the Iranian people, because it lowers the risk that the Republicans will flub negotiations and tempt the Iranians into doing something stupid, and lowers the risk that the Americans will invade Iran. And that lowering those risks is good for America too.

I'm not sure if this spin would be persuasive -- I certainly don't agree with it in this case -- but it's not unreasonable.

The Drill SGT said...

A lot of pointless conflicts could be avoided if at least one side acted like rational adults rather than like folks who got beaten up too much in grade school.

That's the "Violence never solves anything argument"

Go tell that to the city fathers of Carthage.

Anonymous said...

What will the Democrats do to push back against that?

Now there's a question completely out of left field. Why should the Democrats have to push back? Anyone with any sense is going to recognize that for what it is -- posturing for the home crowd, directed at Bush.

There seems to be this revelatory vision going around that the Democrats are now accountable for fixing every blunder of the last six years. Excuse me -- the Democrats took Congress, not the White House: Bush is still president, it doesn't sound as though Gates, if confirmed, is going to buck him at all, and since Lieberman won Connecticut, our Middle East policy is obviously fine with the American people.

When did Congress start setting foreign policy?

Internet Ronin said...

M. Simon:

Thank you!

(I am rather proud of that one ;-)

Charles Giacometti said...

The Ayatollah throws out the lamest kind of political propaganda and Althouse and the other Bushies respond like a pack of rabid dogs. Sniping at the Democrats even before they are in power, and even though Bush still controls foreign policy. As I suggested above, the Democrats will wisely ignore this.

The real question here isn't what the Democrats will do. The real question here is why are Althouse and her sycophants so ignorant that they even respond to this kind of thing?

Or, if it is not ignorance, why do they hate America so much?

Joe said...

Hey CG, it's not just a river in Egypt to you, is it? Your ad hominem attacks are no answer to the undeniable fact that our enemies were happy to see the democrats win. But, no time for self reflection on your part as to WHY this might be, amidst all the gloating. And when the next 9-11 attack hits our shores because the dems are ignoring the threat, I am sure you will find a way to blame Bush.

Charles Giacometti said...

Joe,

Your "undeniable fact" is your interpretation of the lamest kind of propaganda from the Ayatollah. So my question still stands. Are you ignorant, or do you hate America? You decide, because it is one or the other.

By the way, even your side's Captain Ed is on board with this. And if you want a terrific explication of how loony you really are, read Glenn Greenwald's piece.

However, Greenwald's piece is more than a paragraph long, so you and Althouse will get confused by it.

Internet Ronin said...

For some reason, two words just came to mind:

sock puppet

Joe said...

Same old, eh, Chuck? Try to come up with a new insult, moron. As long as you want to play this way, I am trying to see your point of view but I can't get my head that far up my ass. I don't get the part about wanting to defend America from terrorists meaning I "hate America." Greenwald is not a credible source, so I won't bother. The Capt. is willing to give dems the benefit of the doubt, by ignoring their behavior and pronouncements of the last 5 years. And to call the ayatollah's words lame propaganda ignores the fact that it is so effective in rallying our enemies. So, let's see if the democrats are going to pursue the war on terror with any kind of responsibility or continue the ostrich routine. We know whose side you are on.

Ann Althouse said...

Giacometti/Greenwald: What I saw at the puppeteer's was "There is no point in bothering to refute any of this because it is so vile and just plain stupid that it is self-refuting." And then he went on to re-blab that in his flabby style for about 2000 more words. If he's not going to talk about something could he please also do that other thing that for most people goes along with not talking about something. That is to say: shut up.

Meanwhile, remember, the obligation of the Democrats is to please me.

Charles Giacometti said...

You know which side I am on, eh, Joey? So do I. I am on the side of the majority of Americans who think that Bush's incompetence has made American more dangerous, and decided it is time for a change.

I am also smart enough to know what propaganda is, and when to ignore it, and not to burst into tears when it happens. I am old enough to rememember decades of cold war propaganda, including many communists who told us that Reagan was bad for our country at the very same moments Reagan's policies were destroying the last vestiges of world communism.

This is progaganda 101. Think Tokyo Rose, or another propagandist. Are you really so completely clueless to not understand what is going on? (Don't bother to answer.)

Face it, your side is angry and irrational, and whining that you lost. But keep reading Althouse and Instarube and Ann Coulter. And keep listening to Rush and Savage. Keep it right up, and continue to be the clueless minority that you are.

As to Ronin's lame sock puppet reference, nice try, but, no, I am not Greenwald. I am just an average Joe who likes laughing at you. I am sure it comforts you to imagine otherwise, but the majority of Americans line up squarely against you.

Charles Giacometti said...

Dear God, Althouse, what an incredibly lame reply--repeating the baseless sock puppet accusation of Ronin and then demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension.

Are you drinking this early in the day, again?

Joe said...

OK Chucky cheese I will try again, one last time to see if this gets past your magnificently pompous sense of smugness. I know it's propaganda, you know it's propaganda, but the benighted sons of Allah don't. All we are asking is for the democrats to examine why their views are so susceptible to being used as enemy propaganda. The propaganda is not directed toward us, you idiot, it's for their own people.
But you are such a fucking genius, you know what's in the mind of every single American voter. Wonder how you explain Lieberman's victory. I am done with you, you bore me, you have no idea what you are talking about and appear to be incapable of understanding what anyone else says. Have a nice day.

Internet Ronin said...

ROFLMAO! What a jerk! Who do you think I voted for in the last election "Chuck?"

Anonymous said...

Charles G said the Dems will recognize the Iranian position as propaganda. Really? I think the point here is that we won't know whether they agree with it or see it as propaganda unless they speak out and declare themselves. Charles, let's keep listening.....Hear anything from them?

Anonymous said...

Charles G said the Dems will recognize the Iranian position as propaganda. Really? I think the point here is that we won't know whether they agree with it or see it as propaganda unless they speak out and declare themselves. Charles, let's keep listening.....Hear anything from them yet?

Garage Mahal said...

What I saw at the puppeteer's was "There is no point in bothering to refute any of this because it is so vile and just plain stupid that it is self-refuting."

Someday you and your blog might get as popular as Greenwald's, someday you might write a book that sells as good as Greenwald's -- but in the meantime, I'm afraid your traffic will mostly rely on cheetos stained fingered commenters that come over from Instawanker links.

Has anyone seen Nancy? Oh! There she is!

Joe Baby said...

More examples of that leftist brilliance going on in here?

Do bathe me in your eloquence. More of those clever wordplays on blog names, yuk yuk.

Lots of cursing and namecalling, too. Ah, wit!

Anonymous said...

Perhaps a Althouse can form a comedy duo with Jean Schmidt, take it on the road as Schnidt-House.

Anonymous said...

What will the Democrats do to push back against that?
The question is -- when will Republicans stop being PR-men for the terrorists? When will they stop translating enemy propaganda?

TmjUtah said...

America is safe from domestic attacks for at least the next two years - longer if the Islamic strategy of driving democracy from Iraq and Afghanistan succeeds.

They (the Islamists) take the long view.

They need eight years of Democratic majorities and presidency to destroy our war fighting capability. They'll probably get them, too, unless China jumps the gun or Russia melts down.

The Democrats don't need to deal with the problem; there won't be a problem where their short term domestic political ambitions are concerned and that's as far as they are interested in looking.

The Long War continues.

George said...

But back to what Kahmenei said.....

It's a lot of yap-yap for domesic Iranian consumption.

The President's still the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.

We're still in Iraq, and we still have a massive naval and air presence throughout the Persian Gulf.

"What will the Democrats do to push back against that?"

Who cares? George Bush isn't a Democrat, and if the U.S (and Israel and whoever else) see fit to shatter Iran's military and economic infrastructure we would get the job done in a day or two.

Let 'em yap.

hdhouse said...

the hitler youth on here shouldn't blog when drunk.

hdhouse said...

"The President's still the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces."

yea well he is also the chief law enforcement officer.

besides being two mints in one, he is simply awful at both.

you knaves need to realize that putting on a uniform is different than wearing one.

.....or is that too subtle?

Seven Machos said...

hdhouse -- Thank goodness Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and Howard Dean served in the military.

That's really a dumb argument. Par for the course for you.

And Bush is the Commander in Chief. Do you dispute that? I'm sure you do.

SMGalbraith said...

Bush, the argument goes, must compromise with the Democrat's agenda. After all, the people want that, so they say, after Tuesday.

Okay, what's the Democrat agenda for Iraq, the overall war against radical Islam, et cetera, that Bush has to compromise with?

King Bush has been thrown from his crown. You've won.

The game is over, my liberal friends. No more complaining. You've got to come up with some proposals.

Jonathan said...

After watching some of the Sunday morning shows, I'm struck by how eager the liberal talking heads remain to proclaim the Republicans evil and stupid for saying that a Democratic victory was a victory for terrorists. I've yet to see a liberal commentator, or Democratic party leader, respond similarly to terrorists saying the same thing.

I'm not a particularly conservative guy, and I think there are a lot of advantages that come from divided government and from derailing the social conservative agenda. But I've yet to hear things from the Democrats indicating that they take national security seriously. The actions and reactions of the new majority thus far lend credence to the pre-election charge that voting for a Democrat was voting for a Democratic victory.

The one bright spot I've seen so far is Joe Lieberman, who understands the nature of our conflict with Islamic terrorism. I hope his new colleagues pay more attention to him and less to McGovern.