RSS Feed MenuAmong other casualties of the violence in Tehran: President Obama’s foreign policy hopes. If he persists now in his deal-making efforts, he’ll be acquiescing in fraud and violence. What is happening in Iran now is this year’s Tiananmen Square, and if Obama tries do business with the regime afterward, he’ll open himself to exactly the same criticism Bill Clinton meted out to the elder George Bush: of coddling tyrants.
On the other hand, if Obama does not persist in his deal-making, what else does he do? He promised in 2008 to end the “threat” from Iran’s nuclear program. Diplomacy was his plan A to deliver on his promise. If he abandons diplomacy, there’s no Plan B. Sanctions have repeatedly failed. The president describes force as “on the table” – and there it will stay.
Obama’s outreach to Iran has been slapped away. If the regime prevails in this power struggle, the American president will be left trapped and optionless. Obama badly needs a Mousavi win, not because such a win means change (let’s not get over-excited about that), but because it offered the appearance of change. Without that appearance, the realities for Obama with Iran get very dismal.
Brutus1776 // Jun 17, 2009 at 5:23 am
As per the “Team America” comments: interesting how prescient Trey Parker and Matt Stone were regarding North Korea and Kim Jong-Il…
barker13 // Jun 17, 2009 at 5:27 am
Re: Brutus1776; wrote 6 minutes ago –”Anyone have thoughts on Buchanan’s sentiments as of late?”(*RAISING MY HAND*)(*FIDGETING*)(*YELLING OUT “ME! ME! ME!*)I’ve always been a big fan of Buchanan. Not that he’s always right… but my view is he’s consistently right – not to mention intellectually consistent – around 90% of the time.As I often note, a large helping of Buchanan… a serving of Dobbs… a cup (strained) of Ron Paul… throw in some Krauthammer, a bit of Will…(*GRIN*)Hey… I’m a Paglia fan too… love Hitchens… there are plenty of bright, knowledgeable, gifted writers out there, but anyone who has followed Buchanan’s writings for a while has to note – willingly or unwillingly – that Buchanan more often than not hits the nail on the head and his predictions are well worth paying attention to.Any specific column you’d care to chat about, Brutus?BILL
ottovbvs // Jun 17, 2009 at 5:53 am
barker13 wrote 22 minutes ago”As I often note, a large helping of Buchanan… a serving of Dobbs… a cup (strained) of Ron Paul… throw in some Krauthammer, a bit of Will…”……..After all the events of the past eight years have proved all these people so completely right in their prognostications.
barker13 // Jun 17, 2009 at 6:25 am
Re: Ottovbvs; wrote 30 minutes ago –”After all the events of the past eight years have proved all these people so completely right in their prognostications.”Umm… yeah… pretty much!(*GRIN*)Now Otto… back to DailyKos with you! Scoot!BILL
sinz54 // Jun 17, 2009 at 6:44 am
ottovbvs: Actually, Ron Paul wasn’t too far off the mark on the big issues of the Iraq War and the economy. He had opposed the Iraq War; and he was one of just two Republican candidates for President in the 2008 primary season who said that the U.S. economy was in trouble. (The other one was Mike Huckabee.) All the others said that the U.S. economy was doing well–and that the GOP should be given credit for it.Of course, a stopped clock is right twice a day, you know the routine. I could not abide Ron Paul’s flirting with the Truthers and other fringe groups.
sinz54 // Jun 17, 2009 at 6:51 am
barker13 sez: “Buchanan more often than not hits the nail on the head and his predictions are well worth paying attention to.”Buchanan represents the 1930s type of right-winger: Isolationist, nativist, with a streak of anti-Semitism (surreptitiously indulged). Examples:http://tinyurl.com/5fha8lhttp://tinyurl.com/md9j74We don’t need that again.
barker13 // Jun 17, 2009 at 11:22 am
Sinz. (*CHUCKLE*)One can’t help but notice that once one tears aside the snark… even YOU don’t deny my basic premise. Indeed, you actually support my contention via writing, “Actually, Ron Paul wasn’t too far off the mark on the big issues of the Iraq War and the economy.”As for Buchanan… regardless of whether you peg him as representing 1930’s type thinking or 1830’s thinking or whatever… (*SMILE*)… you don’t claim his predictions have been wrong more often than not – which would be the counter to my assertion.Anyway… (*SHRUG*) BILL
Rod // Jun 17, 2009 at 12:22 pm
The appearance of change isn’t change. It’ll still be a rediculous religious dictatorship run by pathetic old men. The bigger problem I see is countries like Russia greeting Ahmadinejad with open arms and congratulating him on his victory. Birds of a feather stick together.
sinz54 // Jun 17, 2009 at 2:42 pm
barker13: What were some of Buchanan’s predictions?
barker13 // Jun 17, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Re: Sinz54; 2:42 PM –Fair’s fair, Sinz; you answer my questions (re: Gingrich/Rove) over on the other thread and I’ll be more than happy to answer yours here.BILL
sinz54 // Jun 18, 2009 at 7:37 am
barker13: I don’t remember your questions anymore. Care to repeat them here?
barker13 // Jun 18, 2009 at 11:23 am
Re: Sinz54; 7:37 AM –Nope.(*SHRUG*)BILL