Support Obama on Iran against Radical Republicans
President Obama's approach to the crisis in Iran is courageous. He deserves credit for it, and needs our vociferous support.
The temptation to leap into the Iranian fray with both feet must be great. But as president, Obama has to keep his eyes on the long-term security interests of the American people, and is not permitted the luxury of issuing idle statements of support just because they feel good. Obama has a complex set of interrelated challenges on his Middle East agenda, and needs to remain focused on the ultimate goals, even if that means exercising frustrating restraint at this juncture. His willingness to endure the incoming taunts and attacks from irresponsible Republicans is brave, and he deserves credit for it.
What some of the Republicans are doing with this issue is beneath contempt. They are playing games with the lives of Iranians and the lives of Americans, for the sake of their own short-term political fortunes.
And the more radical Republican lovers of violence and creative destruction are doing something even worse: going for a chaotic Persian train wreck, by means of which they can maneuver Obama into an unavoidable military intervention and escalation in the region. That's what they do. They engineered an Iraq train wreck to tie the US military into the Middle East for good, and a fiscal and financial train wreck to sink what was left of the US social welfare system. But right now they are threatening the very lives and security of the next generation of Americans. They need to be stopped.
I firmly believe President Obama is looking out for the security of me and my family, and I'm grateful to him for it. This is the job he was elected to do.
What puzzles me is how the neocons could retain any public credibility on foreign policy after Iraq. Are the likes of Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Krauthammer are truly still considered serious thinkers by the public, or is it only an illusion created by the media's propping them up, or what?
June 19, 2009 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is an illusion, but it is irrelevant because it is believed by too many. Yes, the blinders came off some, but we are not loud enough to put them away. They need to be driven off instead of being allowed to hang around pouring sand into the gas tank.
June 20, 2009 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you mind particularizing your generalities here so they don't seem like empty strawman demons?
irresponsible Republicans
some of the Republicans
the more radical Republican lovers
It's not that I am totally out of touch, but I just don't know which ones clearly represent each or all of those categories.
June 19, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't leave out:
DINOS, DLC, Blue Dogs,...
Republicans are not our problem.
June 19, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Republicans are not our problem."
So, they are our solution?
But seriously, while I agree that Dan could just be whinging, I do prefer to have concrete examples by which to understand the rhetorical generalities he provides.
June 19, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Republicans are not our problem.
I agree with you, Bell, because I'm sure you meant to include the word "only" in there somewhere.
June 19, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why worry about Republicans until you've defeated the Democrats? If you defeat the Blue Dogs and get the country behind you, you don't have to worry about the Republicans.
The Democrats come to the public with doubt and the public responds with concern. If Democrats don't have any confidence they can pull this off they might as well quit. And now they are all shocked, I tell you they are shocked, that it's going to cost money. Well, like why do you think it hasn't been done in the last 50 years? Of course it's going to cost money. So maybe they ought to have a believable sales pitch. The more they obsess about costs and leak ideas like slashing Medicare and Medicaid and taxing health benefits without ever explaining how you actually get something in return, the more I wonder if they ought to just throw in the towel.
Do they believe in universal healthcare or not? My Senator won't tell me because she apparently hasn't been told by the party if she is allowed to believe in universal healthcare or not or if the party might decide in the end that universal healthcare is really just one of those French ideas that don't sound center-right enough to be politically correct (the French do it better than any other country but why confuse Americans with facts).
Well if you don't believe in it Dems then fold your tents and go home. Because if you don't believe in it, I'll be damned if I know what the hell you think you are doing. Controlling costs? What American in their right mind believes the government is going to control costs?
June 19, 2009 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Answering your questions:
Well, like why do you think it [healthcare reform] hasn't been done in the last 50 years?
Because, as you say, "Of course it's going to cost money." But I think you aren't clear about whose money. It's gonna cost money for the BC/BSs of this country and the like. That money has lobbyists. See the next question for more about this.
Do they believe in universal healthcare or not?
What they believe in is re-election. What they believe in is conservatism. (Yes, I am talking about Dems.) What they believe in is their political comfort zone. Universal healthcare? What's to believe?
why confuse Americans with facts
Dunno. Never been tried.
Controlling costs? What American in their right mind believes the government is going to control costs?
Well, if you're gonna put all those qualifications on it, you're not likely to find that many Americans who meet your requirements anyhow.
June 20, 2009 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone on another thread said Americans won't buy into generic fairness. I don't think they'll buy into generic cost cutting either particularly since any plan is likely to increase costs, i.e. taxes, up front. If they can't sell a goal more inspiring than cutting costs, they can't do major change on this and they might as well pack it in.
Think about how they sell war. Do they say war is going to reduce costs? No, they yell freedom and patriotism and then scare the hell out of you with mainly bogus threats to your family.
They should have a campaign to sell this thing the way the neo-cons sell war.
Notice I have hijecked a war thread because we can see on this site great evidence of the obsession with war related items that have almost nothing to do with the average American. Neo-cons still rule.
June 20, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neocons still rule? No I don't agree with that. But authoritarian conservatives still own the White House, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court. As I said elsewhere, America is so very fucked.
June 20, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Would you mind particularizing your generalities here so they don't seem like empty strawman demons?
irresponsible Republicans
some of the Republicans
the more radical Republican lovers"
You're right, generalities are not good.
Some irresponsible Republicans might include George W. Bush, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol, William Bennett, Mitch O'Connell, John Boehmer, Michelle Bachmann, the lawyers who wrote memos approving of torture...
Well, I won't bore you with more names. I'm older. My wrists might get tired from having to sit here at the keyboard all day naming names, leading to a stroke.
June 19, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
and Mike Pence.
June 19, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a pretty vague and general list.
"His willingness to endure the incoming taunts and attacks from irresponsible Republicans is brave,"
Which one or two would, or the silent Dan K, say highlight his bravery and their irresponsibility in context?
How about the other categories?
June 19, 2009 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Certainly you are capable of finding the comnments that Dan K refers to in his original post. I'm limited to two links. But when there is a need to know, I check with the "always wrong" Bill Kristol first:
Check.Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona:
Check.
Representative Bob Inglis, Republican of South Carolina:
Check.
Republicans in general:
Check.
Not sure if these covered all your categories, but they only took a couple of minutes to find. And no, I don't read Dan's mind, but it seems clear what he was writing about.
June 20, 2009 6:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
One more covering the luxury of issuing feel good statements:
June 20, 2009 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Liberty is always worth focusing on. Oh yeah, they're an enemy of ours anyways.
June 20, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK, little boy. Run on out to play now. You got to write your dirty words and say some really nasty things to grown-ups, but now it's time to work off the fat on your body and in your brain. Cry some more when you're an adult.
June 20, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uninteresting words from another moron with nothing intelligent, innovative, or factual to say.
June 20, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems you are missing the point. Dan was simply engaging in mindlessly general Repo bashing, in effect calling them irresponsible radicals. Then he refers to conduct of "some" of them as being beneath contempt.
Well, sure one Repo is "some". So are two. So what?
Does being radical make one irresponsible, or vice versa? If not, then who fits which in this context? What is irresponsible about voicing opinions which dont' agree with Dan? Who wants a chaotic train wreck now, really?
Enduring taunts is not brave, it's not like Obama can run away and go cry to mommy to get away from them. He's forced to endure them. How he handles them might count. Is silence brave or just prudent here?
June 20, 2009 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
His bravery consists in the fact that he is willing to endure a lot of taunts from critics as the price of doing the right thing. I thought I said that in the original post.
June 20, 2009 7:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
see http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/dan_k/2009/06/support-obama-on-iran-against.php#comment-3503446
June 20, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eds, I think you're being a tiny bit disingenuous here. Every elected Republican official that has been on television speaking about Iran, except Dick Lugar, has been critical of the president not doing the right thing. All the conservative pundits have said the same thing. Those are the people DanK is talking about, and I think you know that. Either that or you're not watching the news, listening to the radio, or reading any Web sites.
June 20, 2009 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not all the conservative pundits.
June 20, 2009 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not disingenuous, rather not partisan. If that parses clearly... It's not that I'm being the former, it's that I'm not being the latter.
Enduring attacks and taunts from the incompetent and impotent doesn't require bravery. Nor does relatively mindless Repo bashing these days, it seems.
June 20, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
and Cantor, and John McCain.
June 20, 2009 7:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Guess what, if Obama came out in support of the reformers the Republicans would say he is playing right into the Supreme Leader's hands.
June 19, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. Murray is such a smart dog.
June 20, 2009 6:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's why Obama should say when asked,
"What about the Republicans?"
"F&ck 'em! I have given them many chances. We cannot wait for them any longer."
The GOP is the Party of No. IT does not matter one bit what Obama proposes. He is not from the GOP and they wil resist. For Iranian Reformers, and he's playing into the Supreme Leaders Hands. Silent and he is abandoning Freedom in it's time of need. Intervention with the military? I doubt they would get behind him even for that, although they will all have a stake in the contractors who support the troops, ... if the price is right.
June 20, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
June 20, 2009 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
405 to 1. Mighty homogenous bunch of lemmings.
June 20, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Radical Republicans should take Obama's advice that is, "no need to meddle in foreign affairs." The Republicans aren't used to "strategic- intelligent planning" as proven with Iraq. And as usual the party of "no" is trying to "distract" the attention away from the real important issues facing America by engaging in Iran propaganda "meddling."
It's the same ol' outdated play book the Republicans have been using for a long, long time and it doesn't work anymore.
June 20, 2009 6:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You got this right Dan. This is exactly why we elected him.
Well constructed argument Dan.
June 20, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
> President Obama's approach to the crisis in Iran is courageous. He deserves credit for it, and needs our vociferous support.
Were his sentiments in the best interest of our nation, people would support him. He's more interested in running for reelection than standing against tyranny, though.
> Obama has a complex set of interrelated challenges on his Middle East agenda, and needs to remain focused on the ultimate goals, even if that means exercising frustrating restraint at this juncture.
Like what kind of goals? Obama appears to have no plan whatsoever. Just like Iraq. "We'll be out within the first 90 days of me taking office!" Oh wait, nevermind, lets try for first 90 years.
Obama has no plan on the middle east, that's why he doesn't have much to say about the middle east.
> What some of the Republicans are doing with this issue is beneath contempt. They are playing games with the lives of Iranians and the lives of Americans, for the sake of their own short-term political fortunes.
No, they're playing the "liberty" card. Something the democratic majority really hates, obviously because they're opposed to individual liberty. Americans tend to get upset at social injustices, no matter where they occur in the world. If something happens to be true and fortunate, why not jump on it?
> And the more radical Republican lovers of violence and creative destruction are doing something even worse: going for a chaotic Persian train wreck, by means of which they can maneuver Obama into an unavoidable military intervention and escalation in the region.
I'm pretty sure your delusional mind just made this up. Everyone knows Israel is going to bomb the shit out of Iran. We don't have to actually do anything but watch and support. Considering the Republicans control about nothing in congress right now, I don't understand how you figure the Republicans can maneuver Obama into anything; you'll have Nancy and Harry to blame for that one.
It never ceases to amaze me how even the simplest of facts seem to elude the liberal mind.
June 20, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Everyone knows Israel is going to bomb the shit out of Iran."
Now there's a delusion. Bomb Iran and see whether the entire Middle East doesn't go after Israel. The Saudis have been stockpiling jets for years. For fighting who? Kuwait? Dubai? Israel bombs Iran and they will have a lot more then Palestine about which to worry.
June 20, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
GZ, this is a little boy who likes to write dirty words (under Favorites) and play grown-up. Ignore.
June 20, 2009 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, those pesky "facts" get in your way of stealing my freedom. Damn.
June 20, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Facts are only pesky when they are stated. Check your dictionary. Opinions are one thing. Misstatements are a second thing. Facts are quite another. Your posts are nothing but one and two, lacking entirely in three.
June 20, 2009 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Either you don't understand English, or lack reading comprehension. Either way, I'm right and you're wrong, which doesn't surprise me.
June 20, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
You poor, poor, fucked-up person. Just to show you what an idiot liberal I am, I really feel for you. It must be hell trying to navigate this nasty world you have built with nothing to gird you but your anger and Bill O'Reilly's second-hand opinions.
June 20, 2009 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your lack of intelligence is astounding.
Saudi Arabia has been acquiring weapons for decades, mostly due to the general unrest of the middle east. Israel removing a nuclear threat would be a godsend to Saudi Arabia; they'd get security for not doing anything, and still maintain good ties with Iran.
I just figured out why you liberals are so adamant about spending more money: you all don't want us to be capable of defending ourselves or allies against tyranny.
I like how out of a page of facts you can only come up with one comment based purely off of your own ignorance.
June 20, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Discretion is the better part of valor.
June 20, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink