Make that "Ahmadinejad" in the headline.

Change we can believe in!

This is GOOD news.

Khatami is a moderate reformer who made unsuccessful attempts at normalizing relations with the Bush Administration. He used all his political capital to convince the "Assembly of Elders" - Iran's ruling body - to allow him to do so.

Then, even after leaving office, he made attempts to help Bush ease the sabre rattling. Bush told him to take a hike and refused to meet with him.

We GOT Ahmadinejad BECAUSE of Bush's actions.

We GOT Ahmadinejad BECAUSE of Bush's actions.

The hard liners in Iran said "See? We told you so!"

Khatami's election would be a big plus for all of us.

Absolutely.

Khatami's election would be a big plus for all of us.

He would undoubtedly be better than the last guy...
...which is why a lot of people supported Obama.

The problem is that Khamenei and an assortment of shady characters are still pulling the strings. The real players and power in Iran are religious figures, and right now they mostly support Khamenei (and how that happened is an interesting story too). If they don't like the direction a president takes, they just say, "you and your party can't run next election" and maybe arrest you. It also lets you stick up a scapegoat that can take the fall for domestic hardships, keeping the theocracy a little safer in their grasp on power.

Iran is also stinging from low oil prices, an already shitty economy, and sanctions. Iran is a great place to go if you want to find a black market kidney- the point being that people don't sell kidneys if they're in a good financial situation. The return of Khatami may install a moderate and signify a bit of openness to diplomatic discourse with the US, but whoever takes over for Ahmadinejad is going to have his work cut out for him.

There won't be real change, the change you can "believe in," until the influence of the theocracy is either reduced or the clerics adopt a more liberal position. That will take time.

We GOT Ahmadinejad BECAUSE of Bush's actions.

It was probably a response to the potential for a more bellicose, interventionist US government. A lot of countries at odds with the US got took a more hard-line stance in response to Bush. Ahmadinejad is the theocracy's way of saying, "I'll see your warmongering nutcase and raise you some anti-Israeli rhetoric and nuclear ambition..."

ZOMBIE

As I mentioned in my previous post, Khatami (a moderate reformer) used all his political capital to get the Assembly of Experts (which has moderates and hardliners) to agree to him reaching out to the West.

When his overtures were spurned the hardliners said, "See? We told you so", and thus we got Ahmadinejad.

While the Presidency of Iran is more akin to a mayoral position (domestic only) they still have the power to shape public opinion. Currently, Iranians have the same opinion of Ahmadinejad as we did of Bush - a low opinion.

Let's see who the ayatollahs want. That'll be who wins.

When his overtures were spurned the hardliners said, "See? We told you so", and thus we got Ahmadinejad.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I just can't remember if it was Clinton or Bush who slapped away Khatami's hand first. I want to say Bush, but that's probably just because I dislike him more than I do Clinton. Regardless, I didn't see any shift in US policy toward Iran under Khatami versus Ahmadinejad. They elect a moderate, and I don't remember the specifics of why the US just ignored him, but we did. I remember it not making a bit of sense, and I got the feeling that the US was blowing an opportunity. Apparently it was not gone forever.

While the Presidency of Iran is more akin to a mayoral position (domestic only) they still have the power to shape public opinion. Currently, Iranians have the same opinion of Ahmadinejad as we did of Bush - a low opinion.

I'm not so much worried about public opinion- Ahmadinejad speaks for the Iranian populace about as much as Bush spoke for all Americans. The two presidents are a lot alike, really, and I imagine that any candidate with a functioning brain in his skull would stand a chance of being elected over Ahmadinejad now. Iranians were scratching their heads when Obama won, wondering, "why couldn't we have Khatami now?". Well, they're probably going to get him. A thaw in relations would be a great symbolic step, and I think the populations of both countries have been ready to embrace it for quite awhile now. Any real and enduring progress is going to come in spite of conservative religious figures in Iran and a powerful Israeli lobby in America, though.

The worst problem facing Obama and Khatami (if elected) is that their predecessors have left the two of them both stinking messes in their respective countries. They may be able to do some truly productive things as far as improving relations, but neither will keep power for long if they can't fix the economic problems that impact voters the most.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I just can't remember if it was Clinton or Bush who slapped away Khatami's hand first. I want to say Bush, but that's probably just because I dislike him more than I do Clinton. Regardless, I didn't see any shift in US policy toward Iran under Khatami versus Ahmadinejad.

It gets even worse, Zombie Hunter.

Right now Kissinger is in Russia talking to Putin semi-officially under Obama's direction. The given reason fer sed talks is to try and re-start the nuke talks long stalled after 8 years of BushCo. A laudable enuff reason to have such talks perhaps but certainly not laudable enuff to justify involve "Dr Killinger", the War Criminal, into the process. The real reason Killinger is there is to try and bribe Russia into stepping back from imposing harsher sanction on Iran through the UN and the really real reason he's there is to sound out the Ruskies on wot it would take to get them to turn a blind eye to the US dropping nuclear tipped bunker busters on Iran's nuclear program.

/The more you know.

Be Well.

The real reason Killinger is there is to try and bribe Russia into stepping back from imposing harsher sanction on Iran through the UN...

Obama is certainly going to try to get some form of concession out of the Iranians, and if he's rebuffed, I would imagine he would try to push through UN sanctions. I can see going to Russia to get their support on sanctions after making a more "honest" effort than his predecessor, but this is where I see it ending. Who knows how negotiations would go, but Iran will probably keep their nuclear program with restrictions to make it difficult for them to make a bomb. International oversight to account for all bomb-grade fissile material, no breeder reactors, etc...

I'm sure those are concessions that Iran would make if the US can guarantee Israel won't drop a nuke on them (and they might actually do it).

the really real reason he's there is to sound out the Ruskies on wot it would take to get them to turn a blind eye to the US dropping nuclear tipped bunker busters on Iran's nuclear program.

Doubt it. At least the nuclear-tipped part (though from what I hear, it would take a nuke to ensure the facility's destruction). Attacking Iran is like poking a hornet's nest- it may seem attractive to begin with, but the consequences would be horrible and long lasting. I think that's widely recognized even among people that don't fancy an Iranian nuclear program. And using a nuke to do it? Very few would deny this would be a war crime that could never be justified to the American people, the UN, or anyone else. If anyone bombs Iran, it will be Israel- their government is acting like a bunch of belligerent drunks right now and doesn't seem to give a damn. If the US for some reason wants Iran to be bombed, it will give a wink and a nod to Israel and the dirty deed will be done by proxy.

Right now, there is an opportunity for the US to begin to undermine the power that Khamenei and the theocracy hold by refusing to play the villain in their political games. I think, or hope, rather, that Obama will attempt to capitalize on this. Fucking hope. It's a sorry state of affairs when "hope" gets you elected. I hope you're better than the last guy... that's how it goes.

I'm sure those are concessions that Iran would make if the US can guarantee Israel won't drop a nuke on them (and they might actually do it).

Yes, Israel definitely would do it if they thought they could get away with it.

They would get away with it too, just not for very long.

The only real reason they haven't so far acted unilaterally as they did in the case of Saddam's nukes is the fact that unlike the Iraqis the Iranians have more than one site and they are all deep underground.

Doubt it. At least the nuclear-tipped part (though from what I hear, it would take a nuke to ensure the facility's destruction). Attacking Iran is like poking a hornet's nest- it may seem attractive to begin with, but the consequences would be horrible and long lasting. I think that's widely recognized even among people that don't fancy an Iranian nuclear program. And using a nuke to do it? Very few would deny this would be a war crime that could never be justified to the American people, the UN, or anyone else. If anyone bombs Iran, it will be Israel- their government is acting like a bunch of belligerent drunks right now and doesn't seem to give a damn. If the US for some reason wants Iran to be bombed, it will give a wink and a nod to Israel and the dirty deed will be done by proxy.

Nobody would be fooled by America's "plausable deniability" this time if Israel did the dirty deed.

Cos in order to do so a nuclear tipped bunker buster would be required and only one nation on earth makes those.

If Israel did so how soon do you imagine it be before a dirty nuke or two strapped to a thermo-suicide bomber took oput significant chucks of Israel?

AQ Khan is a free man once again doncha know.

That's a signal even if nobody is talking about that aspect of the deal.

Off fer dins now.

Maybe back later.

Be Well.

Could it be that if the Iranian people had a cheaper ,more dependable source of electricity they could prosper and all would work out better in the long run

Re: #14

I really hope that's the case.

I can just see the campaign slogans.

"I was the real leader of the Iranian hostage crisis"

"Terrorism you tax dollars at work"

"There's no bomb like an IED"

"I am the really crazy guy not AMADMANONTHEJOB"

"Vote for me or I'll take your family hostage and do to them things that would make Saddam Hussein shit his pants"

"I can build a nuclear bomb cheaper than he can"

The mere fact Khatami is being allowed to run for President shows a shift by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. No one is allowed to be a candidate without the blessing of Khamenei and the ruling body, the Assembly of Experts.

Ahmadinejad is very unpopular in Iran, where the vast majority of citizens are under 35 years old.

The mere fact Khatami is being allowed to run for President shows a shift by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Amazing what happens when we elect a guy who thinks we should at least talk to Iran before we bomb them. Like you said, most would like to see Ahmadinejad "clearing brush" in the future, and allowing Khatami to run is a savvy move. He should win, and it will be a positive thing.

I don't think the theocracy has anything but its own interests closest to its hearts, though. These are no benevolent ascetics. For them, now allowing a reformer to run against an unpopular incumbent keeps people hopeful during the economic crisis. And it sounds familiar...

"People feel the need for change because of Ahmadinejad's foreign policy and economic policies. Therefore we think people will vote for Khatami, for change," said Mohammad Ali Abtahi,

Yeah, good luck with that "change" thing Iranians. It's working out GREAT for us here in the US!

how come there isn't more attention drawn to the fact that russia is building the damn reactor????

they're part of the sanction process, and yet they are the sole supplier of the goods and technology to build the reactors. why the hell can't we sanction them? are there not UN policies in place forbidding the trade and construction of nuclear reactors with 'rogue' nations? am i missing something?

Khatami was voted out because he achieved aboslutely ZERO in terms of actual reforms, and the reform minded youth did not really vote or get behind him. Add to that a bunch of reformists were banned from running, and the result is as the Ayatollahs desired. Same thing now, they will allow a reformist to get elected and achieve nothing over 4-5 years at which point another conservative can come in.
the US cannot stop them from getting nukes. accept that your power is limited and doesn't extend to micromanaging powerful countries across the world developing technology that is over half a century old. Better to play the "alternative way" nice guy, leader of free world and hope the youth in Iran tire of their masters.

.......sorta like choosing between a shit sandwich and a mud pie for lunch.......

It's long been a fact in Iran, that the populace is a lot more pro-western than the nuts that run the government.

I don't really know what to make of this.. I just hope this guy doesn't get shot for running.

But.. the idea postulated by some, that this is somehow tied to Obama being elected is insane. For some very interesting reading, go look up what Khomeini's son said about his father's low opinion of Jimmy Carter.. he laughed at him and disdained him after he offered no real response to the Americans being captured. Speaking softly is fine, but as Teddy said.. carry a big stick.

Being everyone's friend is fine.. there are some however, that just need to fear us. The leaders of Iran are in the latter category. Maybe due to nothing Obama has done, but just the perception (real or not).. no-one fears Obama. No-One. (unless maybe you're a American fiscal conservative )

.......sorta like choosing between a shit sandwich and a mud pie for lunch.......

FUNNY!

Are we sure we're talking about Iran & not the US? Seems like the same menu doesn't it?

Khatami is a moderate reformer who made unsuccessful attempts at normalizing relations with the Bush Administration. He used all his political capital to convince the "Assembly of Elders" - Iran's ruling body - to allow him to do so.

Then, even after leaving office, he made attempts to help Bush ease the sabre rattling. Bush told him to take a hike and refused to meet with him.

We GOT Ahmadinejad BECAUSE of Bush's actions.
#4 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2009-02-08 02:28 PM

Just curious why you claim it was only Bush's fault. Khatami was from 1997-2005. Are you saying the relationship prior to 2000 was good? Or is this just another hate Bush syndrome talking?

Just curious why you claim it was only Bush's fault. Khatami was from 1997-2005. Are you saying the relationship prior to 2000 was good? Or is this just another hate Bush syndrome talking?

#25 | Posted by crispee_oc

Khatami wrote the letter to Bush in 2002. It took him 5 years to convince the Assembly of Experts to allow him to make overtures to the U.S. As I pointed out, once Bush spurned even talking to him, the hardliners in the Assembly of Experts said, "See? We TOLD you so!", and thus we got Ahmedinejad.

As far as hating Bush: I'd rather not even think about the moron anymore, thank you.

As I pointed out, once Bush spurned even talking to him, the hardliners in the Assembly of Experts said, "See? We TOLD you so!", and thus we got Ahmedinejad.

So Bush wiped out 30 years of friendly relations with Iran? So after 9-11 you expected Bush to recipricate with Iran within a year of Khatami's request?

Are we sure we're talking about Iran & not the US? Seems like the same menu doesn't it?

#24 | Posted by HATEBIGGOV

.......I don't think so.......in my judgement, Obama has been a breath of fresh air........

......his record will remain for history to judge...but so far...I think the American people have made a good choice.......

#8 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2009-02-08 06:49 PM

When his [Khatami's] overtures were spurned the hardliners said, "See? We told you so", and thus we got Ahmadinejad.

JOHNSON

You should read up on you history. You're obviously uneducated about this matter.

Congrads on managing to look like a fool without writing a manifesto though! Nice!

Here, JOHNSON

Learn a couple things then we'll talk. I know you much prefer typing to reading, but I'd suggest you educate yourself. This is from a linked article from The Nation - a non-partisan site:

"Five years ago, Kharazi helped write a secret offer to cooperate with the Bush Administration on a broad range of issues, from Israel and terrorism to Iran's nuclear enrichment program, but the offer was rebuffed."

"Khatami hopes for better relations with the United States, but he leaves no doubt that the Bush Administration destroyed any possibility of rapprochement. "During my tenure, many steps were taken to eradicate misunderstandings. I believe the Clinton Administration did not object to these efforts. But I am sorry to say that certain forces were opposed. When Bush came into power, everything was turned upside down. When the Iran of the Khatami era is branded as the axis of evil, despite the fact that Iran's cooperation was the most important factor in America's success in Afghanistan [in 2001], these misunderstandings become more powerful."

So Bush wiped out 30 years of friendly relations with Iran? So after 9-11 you expected Bush to recipricate with Iran within a year of Khatami's request?

I hope you are sarcastically pointing out that US-Iran animosity goes back further than Bush. That doesn't give it legitimacy, though, and yes, sticking them in the doghouse known as the "axis of evil" wasn't very prudent. Who cares about 9/11, Iran didn't have anything to do with it. Or Iraq...

So after 9-11 you expected Bush to recipricate with Iran within a year of Khatami's request?

#27 | Posted by crispee_oc

Actually, immediately after 9/11 might have been a perfect time for rapprochement with Iran.

(CBS/AP) Iran rounded up hundreds of Arabs to help the United States counter al Qaeda after the Sept. 11 attack after they crossed the border from Afghanistan, a former Bush administration official said Tuesday. Many were expelled, Hillary Mann Leverett said, and the Iranians made copies of almost 300 of their passports.

The copies were sent to Kofi Annan, then the secretary-general of the United Nations, who passed them to the United States, and U.S. interrogators were given a chance by Iran to question some of the detainees, Leverett said in an Associated Press interview.

Leverett, a Middle East expert who was a career U.S. Foreign Service officer, said she negotiated with Iran for the Bush administration in the 2001-3 period, and Iran sought a broader relationship with the United States. "They thought they had been helpful on al Qaeda, and they were," she said.

For one thing, she said, Iran denied sanctuary to suspected al Qaeda operatives.

Personally, I don't care whose fault it is that the United States doesn't speak with Iran and vice-versa. Let's hope that someone in Iran has the good sense to accept the olive branch that Obama has been wise enough to extend.

When the Iran of the Khatami era is branded as the axis of evil, despite the fact that Iran's cooperation was the most important factor in America's success in Afghanistan [in 2001], these misunderstandings become more powerful."
#31 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2009-02-10 03:45 PM

What was that you spewed to Johnson about reading history AU????

But we have seen the results of the Bush administration's refusal to engage. It is time to at least test Tehran's intentions on all fronts.

Some people give Obama's supporters way to much credit.
The majority of them have no idea what party Obama is connected with and no little or nothing of his ideals, just the fact he promised them more money for no work and that will be the downfall of America.

Which Middle East country held spontaneous candlelight vigils for victims of the World Trade Center Attack on 9/11?

* Kuwait - No.
* Saudi Arabia - No.
* Israel - No.
* Iran - Yes.

www.bestirantravel.com

#33 | Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2009-02-10 03:57 PM

Let's jump ahead to this year. The Obama administration is now contemplating an approach to Iran. President Obama has said he would like to have some kind of dialogue; he's also said Iran should live up to the Security Council demands on suspending its nuclear enrichment program. What would be your suggestion on what the president should be doing?

My experience in dealing with Iranians over Afghanistan tells me that, although those talks were productive, they were structurally flawed. As long as there was no comprehensive, strategic framework for dealing with the Iranians, a variety of unrelated issues could undermine otherwise productive talks at any time. So whether it was an alleged Iranian arms shipment to Palestinians, whether it was some nasty statements that someone in Iran made, whether it was competing views in Washington on the MEK [Mujahadeen-e-Khalq, an anti-Iranian group based in Iraq] those issues, in the absence of a strategic framework, torpedoed our talks on Afghanistan. There's going to be a great temptation to try to engage Iran now on areas where there may be common interest, like Afghanistan or Iraq. And, while I see some utility to that, the unfortunate thing is that we've done this with the Iranians before, not only on Afghanistan in 2001 to 2003, but also in other arenas dating back to the Iran-Contra affair [the secret sale of weapons to Iran] in the Reagan administration. In each of these cases of issue-specific tactical cooperation, it was the United States, not Iran, that cut off negotiations, usually because of some domestic political consideration here.

The majority of them have no idea what party Obama is connected with and no little or nothing of his ideals, just the fact he promised them more money for no work and that will be the downfall of America.

The potential impact of his economic policy may be something open to debate, but why are we not talking to Iran? That's the issue here. Because they took some hostages 30 years ago and AIPAC doesn't want us to? Neither sound like very worthy reasons. Let bygones be bygones, and I say it's time to give AIPAC a good skullfucking... or just stop listening to them.

What would be your suggestion on what the president should be doing?

#37 | Posted by crispee_oc

I wouldn't even presume to advise the President or Sec. Clinton on how to proceed with something this critical or delicate.

My point was simply that there have been glimmers of hope over the years and it is possible that the right convergence of time and personalities has arrived. Certainly worth a try.

"...but why are we not talking to Iran?"

Because it's like trying to teach a pig to sing? Because it is a huge waste of time? Because it hasn't worked for the UN, Europe, or anyone else? Because it falls right into their hands and results in the time they want to keep developing those nuclear weapons? Because the time for "talking" is over?

My point was simply that there have been glimmers of hope over the years and it is possible that the right convergence of time and personalities has arrived. Certainly worth a try.

We all know how much they helped by sending arms and fighters into Iraq. We know by the article posted they ended up turning on us and helping the Taliban. We know sanctions have been futile in slowing down Irans nuclear ambitions. What makes anyone think we need to engage in diplomacy when they have screwed us over any chance they get? For the first time in my life I agree with Carter and his decision to start the embargo.

"Because the time for "talking" is over?"

Unfortunately for you, the time for "nuking" was over on November 4th.

from the article -

Former President Mohammad Khatami, who pushed for detente with the West when in office from 1997 to 2005, said on Sunday he would run in Iran's June presidential election against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad....

If the former President Mohammad Khatami is open and still willing to push for detente and negotiate with the West then he's certainly a better option to have in office than the confrontational and current Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

We know sanctions have been futile in slowing down Irans nuclear ambitions.

#41 | Posted by crispee_oc

Sanctions rarely work out that well. (Right Fidel?)

So if sanctions don't work and we're not gonna talk to them, I guess that leaves...

So if sanctions don't work and we're not gonna talk to them, I guess that leaves...

Getting fucked over again by trusting Iran?

If the former President Mohammad Khatami is open and still willing to push for detente and negotiate with the West then he's certainly a better option to have in office than the confrontational and current Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

#43 | Posted by CalifChris at 2009-02-10 04:18 PM

CC,
He tried that from 1997-2000 with Clinton. Hardly a neo and they still got nothing done.

What makes anyone think we need to engage in diplomacy when they have screwed us over any chance they get? For the first time in my life I agree with Carter and his decision to start the embargo.

For every person like you, there is an Iranian saying the same thing- well, fewer Iranians, actually. Fortunately, both are a minority, and if Khamenei, congress, and the assortment of influential blowhards on both sides cooperate, things will move in a good direction.

Because it falls right into their hands and results in the time they want to keep developing those nuclear weapons? Because the time for "talking" is over?

If you want to press the button so badly, why not hit the red one on your remote that turns off Fox News?

Getting fucked over again by trusting Iran?

#45 | Posted by crispee_oc

What's Farsi for "Trust but verify"?

He tried that from 1997-2000 with Clinton. Hardly a neo and they still got nothing done.

For awhile, Khatami had to fight just to get permission to make overtures to the west. And yeah, Clinton wasn't that receptive to the idea of improving US-Iran relations- he could have extended the olive branch himself, after all. Bush, though, just crapped all over everything.

And yeah, Clinton wasn't that receptive to the idea of improving US-Iran relations- he could have extended the olive branch himself, after all. Bush, though, just crapped all over everything.

The olive branch? Like North Korea? What does Clinton and the hag Albright have to say about that gesture?

The olive branch? Like North Korea?

There's no comparison between N. Korea and Iran beyond the fact that Bush liked neither.

Zombie,
Just becasue CNN reports the world was all fine until 2000 doesn't make it so. Turn it off son.

Just becasue CNN reports the world was all fine until 2000 doesn't make it so. Turn it off son.

Lol never much enjoyed the 24-hour cable news cycle. 30 minutes flipping between channels hits about ever major story. MSNBC and Fox News compete for which network can be the more effective vector of partisan propaganda. Vector as in a disease vector- MSNBC, Fox News, mosquitoes, and ticks all rate equally low in my book.

Remember, though, by all accounts Bush left in January with the world and the United States worse off than either was before he took office. The Republicans' actions, though not responsible for all of this, did cause a lot of the problems we're facing now. Bush was a terrible president, and it remains to be seen if Obama or the democratic party will be any better.

Just becasue CNN reports the world was all fine until 2000 doesn't make it so. Turn it off son.

America was rockin' and rollin' until January 2001.

America was rockin' and rollin' until January 2001.

I would say things got shitty after Bush and the oh-so-fiscally-responsible Republicans blew the budget surplus and decided to stimulate the economy after 9/11 by giving money to people who were already hoarding money.

Oh, yeah, and Iraq. I was driving back from playing some soccer when I heard Bush on the radio saying that he was going to invade- all the guys in the car just looked at each other and said, "fuck this shit, I'll see you in Canada if they start drafting us".

Lol never much enjoyed the 24-hour cable news cycle. 30 minutes flipping between channels hits about ever major story. MSNBC and Fox News compete for which network can be the more effective vector of partisan propaganda. Vector as in a disease vector- MSNBC, Fox News, mosquitoes, and ticks all rate equally low in my book.

Yet somehow I am different? I don't watch ANY cable news. (If you want to press the button so badly, why not hit the red one on your remote that turns off Fox News?)

#47 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Remember, though, by all accounts Bush left in January with the world and the United States worse off than either was before he took office. The Republicans' actions, though not responsible for all of this, did cause a lot of the problems we're facing now. Bush was a terrible president, and it remains to be seen if Obama or the democratic party will be any better.

9-11 changed everything. Don't forget both parties were on board and behind Bush. Of course when things started going bad they all ran for the hills.

CRISPEE

Although I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 I supported him 100% - as I start off doing with all Presidents because I want them to do well.

After 9/11 when Bush told us to shop, spurned all offers of help to stamp out terrorism (including Iran), and then blew all the goodwill of the world by invading Iraq and blew the effort in Afghanistan he lost my support. His handling of the economy has only added to my disdain for that arrogant idiot.

I'd like to remind you the vote to authorize Bush to invade Iraq was not a vote to give him carte blanche. I recall that specifically he was asking for a hammer to hold over Saddam's head in the event he didn't cooperate with the U.N. Inspectors. Well, Saddam did cooperate with the inspectors, who by the time we invaded were allowed unfettered access to all sites. Bush and Co. didn't like the fact the U.N. was telling him they were finding no evidence of WMD's, threw them out and invaded.

On Iran, most of the citizens there do not like the mullahs. Most of Iranians are under 35 years old and think Ahmadinejad is a lunatic.

I hope Khatami wins.

I'd like to remind you the vote to authorize Bush to invade Iraq was not a vote to give him carte blanche. I recall that specifically he was asking for a hammer to hold over Saddam's head in the event he didn't cooperate with the U.N. Inspectors. Well, Saddam did cooperate with the inspectors, who by the time we invaded were allowed unfettered access to all sites. Bush and Co. didn't like the fact the U.N. was telling him they were finding no evidence of WMD's, threw them out and invaded.
#58 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2009-02-10 06:31 PM

I would like to remind you of every leading Senator and Congressional Rep from both sides of the political aisle echoing the same thing as Bush. You can try and re-write history about inspectors, the UN (which you forgot about Saddams umpteen resolutions and did not cooperate with the UN)and even the wording of the authorization. The bottomline is he had the support, votes and majority of the Country behind him. The fact things went bad doesn't change this fact or exonerate anyone who had a say.

Yet Bush couldn't give the UN Inspectors the 2 months they were pleading for? Think of how differently things would look if he only had. I doubt Bush wanted the U.N. to report they'd found no WMD's, as they were on the eve of the invasion. Prudence would dictate Bush would wait until the inspectors finished their job and conclusively found there were or weren't WMD's.

"On March 7, 2003, Hans Blix's last report to the UN security Council prior to the US led invasion of Iraq, described Iraq as actively and proactively cooperating with UNMOVIC, though not necessarily in all areas of relevance and had been frequently uncooperative in the past, but that it was within months of resolving key remaining disarmament tasks."

"On February 8, 2004, Dr Hans Blix, in an interview on BBC TV, accused the US and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the government of Saddam Hussein."

"On May 30, 2003, The U.S. Department of Defense briefed the media that it was ready to formally begin the work of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), a fact finding mission from the coalition of the Iraq occupation into the WMD programs developed by Iraq, taking over from the British-American 75th Exploitation Task Force.
On October 6, 2004, the head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), Charles Duelfer, announced to the United States Senate Armed Services Committee that the group found no evidence that Iraq under Saddam Hussein had produced and stockpiled any weapons of mass destruction since 1991, when UN sanctions were imposed.

Bottom line IMO, CRISPEE, is Bush wanted a war with Iraq U.N. inspections or no U.N. inspections.

Bottom line IMO, CRISPEE, is Bush wanted a war with Iraq U.N. inspections or no U.N. inspections.

The bottomline is he had the support, votes and majority of the Country behind him. The fact things went bad doesn't change this fact or exonerate anyone who had a say.
#59

CRISPEE

I think we both know Bush was a dweeb.

Improving or normalizing relations with Iran will go a long way to preventing further trouble vis a vis Iraq/Iran in the future. As we also both know, invading Iraq gave Iran power and influence in the region they could have only dreamt of before.

PS CRISPEE

The Bush Administration couldn't possibly have expected things to go well. Especially with under 1/4 the force that was in the region in '91.

Cheney gave every good reason we didn't invade after the '91 Gulf War with a 650,000 strong international coalition during an interview he gave in 1994.

Improving or normalizing relations with Iran will go a long way to preventing further trouble vis a vis Iraq/Iran in the future. As we also both know, invading Iraq gave Iran power and influence in the region they could have only dreamt of before.

I know it goes a long way having bases in Iraq when and if we decide to normalize relations with Iran. The problem is Iran cannot be trusted. Nor will they give up any strongholds in Lebanon, Gaza or anywhere else in the ME. How would normalizing relations make any difference now? Will the ME suddenly begin to live in the 21st century? Would they hate Israel or the west any less? Tell me what the US could offer Iran. What would they be willing to give up?

CRISPEE

We have to start somewhere. To continue to hold to the same failed policies of the past has gotten the ME peace process nowhere.

As long as the U.S. is seen to be 100% in Israel's corner and an unfair broker in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict others will continue to support their opposition.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If someone took the U.S., signed multiple peace treaties promising to leave the land we were ceeded alone and then continued to build settlements year after year, you and I would probably be side by side trying to kick their asses out.

IMO building settlement after settlement on Palestinian land in violation of treaty after treaty is a 'fuck you' from Israel to all who would like to see a final resolution there in a conflict that has been at the root of most anti-American sentiment for 60 years in that region.

Let's hope for the best vis a vis Iran.

PS

After putting the Shah in power and all the Iranians had to contend with under his decades long dictatorship, can you really blame some Iranians for hating our guts?

They had a democratically elected Parliament and Prime Minister before we did that. All he was asking for was a fair deal for their oil. So, we conspired to throw him out an install a dictator.

I think we'd have both been pissed if that had happened to us.

RIP Khatami

It's their version of Cheech and Chong. I do however have difficulty discerning which one is which. It really does not matter. One day, they will make certain that we know and learn, the hard way, that there is really no difference.

Mohammad Khatami has shiite clerics' jizz in his
weird-beard just like all the other Iranian 'presidents'.

Just another meat puppet under Islamic control.

Wake-up, liberals:
Societies that tolerate throwing rocks at little girls are EVIL.

Not all cultures are morally equivalent (duh).

I hope Khatami wins.

~AU

Yes, that would be a good sign that moderation is supplanting wingnutty religious extremism.

Hopefully Obama will adopt a less threatening and confrontational tone with Iran than the Sabre-rattling Dick Cheney and his pet chimp did.

Wake-up, liberals:
Societies that tolerate throwing rocks at little girls are EVIL.

Not all cultures are morally equivalent (duh).

~Dented Vuvlva

Wot about societies that torture?
Wot about societies that start wars unilaterally?
That use depleted uranium munitions?

You can't jusge an entire society based purely on it's worst acts.

Besides, if you understood the history of that country you'd know that the '79 Revolution was largely blowback from America's installation by coup and subsequent decades long backing of the murderous, torturous, secret police-luffin' Shah of Iran.

America makes it's own monsters, just like Doctor Frankenstein.

See also: The Taliban, Al Quaeda, Saddam Hussein, Noriega, Suharto, Trujillo, Pinochet, Charles Taylor et al.

Own that.

Be Well.

Iran has been electing fewer and fewer conservative members of the Assembly of Experts.

Iranians - most of whom are under 30 years old, want good relations with the U.S. They've been suffering economically as a result of the hardliners and the resultant isolation from the rest of the world their policies have brought.

Yet somehow I am different? I don't watch ANY cable news.

No, I was just giving you shit because what you were saying was something I'd expect to see on Fox news. Belligerent. Americacentric. Little foundation in fact.

After putting the Shah in power and all the Iranians had to contend with under his decades long dictatorship, can you really blame some Iranians for hating our guts?

Bad things tend to happen when you prop up despotic yet sympathetic governments and try to manipulate a country's internal affairs. Even when the US saw the Shah was doomed, they wanted to transfer power to the military- Khomeini stepped in and said that he wasn't going to tolerate any more meddling. No small surprise the people embraced him.

Wake-up, liberals:
Societies that tolerate throwing rocks at little girls are EVIL.

Not all cultures are morally equivalent (duh).

And societies that tolerate leaders what start wars based on lies... somehow less evil? Don't judge people by their leaders or laws- politicians have their dirty fingers too deep in those. The theocracy isn't exactly popular, you know?

Persians gave us chess, monotheism, Rumi, and kamancheh music- they can't be that evil, right?

Wake-up, liberals:
Societies that tolerate throwing rocks at little girls are EVIL.

Not all cultures are morally equivalent (duh).

And societies that tolerate leaders what start wars based on lies... somehow less evil? Don't judge people by their leaders or laws- politicians have their dirty fingers too deep in those. The theocracy isn't exactly popular, you know?
Persians gave us chess, monotheism, Rumi, and kamancheh music- they can't be that evil, right?
#75 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2009-02-10 10:55 PM

So long as our laws are circumvented, we are meaningless, our vote is pointless.

Our very money is not backed by real gold, let alone anything of actual value, and the televised economic analysts don't appear to care who knows it because it's never mentioned. Inflation is the effect of liberal magic proving they need to be burned for their witchcraft!

"...but why are we not talking to Iran?"

Because it's like trying to teach a pig to sing? Because it is a huge waste of time? Because it hasn't worked for the UN, Europe, or anyone else? Because it falls right into their hands and results in the time they want to keep developing those nuclear weapons? Because the time for "talking" is over?

#40 | Posted by jestgettinalong

........oddly coincidental..........

.....but that's the same attitude that Hamas supporters take about talking to Israel.......

So long as our laws are circumvented, we are meaningless, our vote is pointless.

Our very money is not backed by real gold, let alone anything of actual value, and the televised economic analysts don't appear to care who knows it because it's never mentioned. Inflation is the effect of liberal magic proving they need to be burned for their witchcraft!

And this somehow relates to Obama opening up relations with Iran...?

Liberal magic? Yes... avada kedavra! Now piss off.

Persians gave us chess, monotheism, Rumi, and kamancheh music- they can't be that evil, right?

Did they not also gives us Hammas, Hezbollah and Company?

The theocracy gave us Hezbollah, with a little help from their friends in Syria, Lebanon, and Israel. Big difference.

The theocracy gave us Hezbollah, with a little help from their friends in Syria, Lebanon, and Israel. Big difference.

How long would these entites last without the support of Iran? In dollars and weapons?