"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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
59 comments:
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.
Nothing.
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.
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.
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.
What will the Democrats do to push back against that?
They will have the brains to recognize it as propaganda.
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.
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.
Only if its a Butterball!
Imagine the good a free election would do for Iran.
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.
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.
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
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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)"
"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.
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
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?
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
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Internet Ronin 8:48 PM, November 10, 2006 said...
Only if its a Butterball!
Wicked!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
"...particularly since the advent of Western killing machines."
You mean like Rockets and Gunpowder?
"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.
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.
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.
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?
M. Simon:
Thank you!
(I am rather proud of that one ;-)
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,
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.
For some reason, two words just came to mind:
sock puppet
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.
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.
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?
ROFLMAO! What a jerk! Who do you think I voted for in the last election "Chuck?"
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?
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?
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!
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!
Perhaps a Althouse can form a comedy duo with Jean Schmidt, take it on the road as Schnidt-House.
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?
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.
the hitler youth on here shouldn't blog when drunk.
"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?
Post a Comment