Obama Gets It Right, Where Condi Got It Wrong With Iran
Way back in May 2005, less than a month before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President of Iran, the barking idiot Condoleeza Rice was prancing around the Middle East and threatening Iran with the sort of "major changes" which the United States had already inflicted on Afghanistan and Iraq.
"The Iranians should not consider themselves immune from the major changes that are going on in the region, and we would hope that they would begin to engage in more stabilizing behavior," said Rice, speaking after a meeting with Kuwaiti's foreign minister, Sheikh Mohammed al-Sabah.
Iranians voters, who were about to choose between the violently anti-American Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the much more conciliatory Mohammad Khatami, and the centrist Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, immediately understood that Condoleeza Rice was sending them a message!
"Elect that hard-liner Ahmadinejad and the biggest bully on the block will open a can of whip-ass on your sorry Islamic butts!"
Ahmadinejad immediately surged out of nowhere in the polls, and won the run-off election against Rafsanjani, because...
Contrary to what goddamned cowards and bullies like Dick Cheney, George Bush, and Condoleeza Rice believe, the world is full of people whom you cannot intimidate!
Maybe you can kill them, maybe you can bomb their cities to smithereens and inflict a genocidal occupation on the ruins, but they will not get down on all fours and obey your stinking orders!
This is incomprehensible to the Bushes and Cheneys of the world, but a brilliant manipulator of public opinion like Barack Obama understands it without even thinking, and so...
When Obama set off on a junket around the Middle East a few weeks before the subsequent Presidential election in Iran, he made much more conciliatory noises at the Iranians, and in my opinion he knocked the main prop out from under Ahmadinejad and his crew of half-witted relatives and mullahs who have totally wrecked almost every segment the Iranian economy for the last four years.
Why bother to re-elect that gang of fanatical boobs when you don't have to make a statement to the bullies and infidels in faraway Washington?
I don't know how the post-election turmoil in Iran will eventually be resolved, but even if Ahmadinejad survives, his authority has been seriously undermined, and that is already a brilliant success for Barack Obama and his foreign-policy advisors.
Yet another sickly-sweet "We love Obama" puff-piece from Rutabaga T. Ridgepole, the Chief Obamabot himself.
Can't wait to hear the rounds of "All Hail Le Glorieux" start up, as the stinking sociopath's dregs gather round the fire.
Harharharhar!
Ok. How'd I do, Ruta?
June 15, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
My therapist says it is OK for me to have multiple personalities but my account gets on my case for taking all 12 deductions.
Seriously Root, what you say is something to contemplate. Nice post.
June 15, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
And yes, in all seriousness, excellent post, Jacob.
Highly rec'd.
June 15, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, are you now arguing against imaginary foes too, quinn?
I bet they will lose now.
June 15, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, obviously I'm against my imaginary foes. It'd be insane to be against my imaginary friends now, wouldn't it? Like they say, if a man loses his friends, he loses the world.
Which is - like most of what they say - complete shite. I could stand to lose a dozen friends, and all that'd change would be the state of play in my liquor cabinet. Miserable mooching lush bastards.
Which brings me back to Rutabaga, and his appallingly disingenuous attempt to suck up and make friends here at TPM.
To which, let me say, you're welcome to 'em, quasi-Turnip-dude. Especially the Peeg, aka Likker Peeg. And that frigging little dog with the short legs. (Hint - they're stunted for a reason.) And the bloody bartending broom, hauling booze around by the bucket.
Let 'em drain YOUR liquor cabinet for a while.
P.S. And no trying to back out by arguing that Obama's barely better than barking mad Rice, and that his clever Iran stance was probably just an accident, or any of that nonsense. You're an Obama-lover now, so just shut up and drink your Kool-aid.
June 15, 2009 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
(passes some stoli to quinn)
I hid some
June 15, 2009 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rootie said to tell you he'll get back to you Q. He's mixing up some of those yummy electric blue kool-aid and rum slushies he's so famous for, (we call 'em 'Obama's Electric Blues'). Get on the good foot and let the man, the myth, the root vegetable, pour you one. You'll never second guess the Pres again. YUM! Great pad he's go here btw. No icebergs threatening this back yard. Whoo-Hoo!
June 16, 2009 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is disingenuous - just Friday, Obama said:
Which after Iran's proxy loss via Hezbollah in Lebanon last week, perhaps wasn't the most impartial statement to be making. Now, Ahmadinejad had quite solid polling a few weeks ago, so I don't think Obama's comments shifted the election too much, and it wasn't as extreme as our usual habit of funding and running the campaign for the opposition, but it wasn't quite as artful as Rootie suggests.
June 16, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reflecting the polling and Ahmadinejad's support in Iran:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jun/15/iran-election-polling
June 16, 2009 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
That article in the Guardian isn't really evidence of anything, and Chris Bowers has thoroughly dissected it on OpenLeft...
This was a poll which showed 49% undecided. If it demonstrates anything at all, it's probably that voters felt safer expressing a preference for Ahmadinejad to some stranger who appeared at their door.
And even if Ahmadinejad eventually wins out, the main assertion of my diary still stands, since his authority has been significantly diminished in the wake of massive demonstrations in Tehran, and the consequent relegation of his "re-election" to the authority of the Council of Guardians.
June 16, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
To add my understanding is that the president has been campaigning for some time but Mousavi only had a few weeks to campaign etc. I can't recall the source so I could be wrong about the process.
June 16, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes here it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2009
The Guardian Council must approve candidates to participate in the election. This took place on May 20, 2009.
Hmmm... so how many days before the election is that um... 23...about 3 weeks. Would it be surprising then that the incumbent who already knew he was in the race and had been campaigning would appear ahead at that point?
June 16, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would it be surprising that a candidate who was only approved 3 weeks plus a few days before the election couldn't sustain enough support nationwide over a multi-year incumbent?
We're not discussing whether the election laws are good - we're discussing whether this poll might be reasonably accurate and whether the election results were severely tampered with.
June 16, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
well it's a good question isn't it. And I am not sure what the answer is based on the fact that this is 'their' system and 'they' are familiar with it. This would indicate that they know that they don't know what there alternatives are until a few weeks before they cast their votes.
I just think it's disingenuous to present a poll from a 3 weeks before the election as the best argument for what results would look like without including the fact that there was NO alternative until 3 weeks before the election.
I just look at the fact that so many Iranian people are taking to the streets, willing to be injured and killed to have their votes count and I question the entire thing. It seems clear that some of the reported results would be fraudulent based on the results given of Mousavi's hometown etc.
Facts are hard to check with the crackdown on reporting but on Friday there were reports that ballots boxes had been burned so I assume recount is a fraudulent 'gesture' to the people.
I feel very sad for the people of Iran. It seems there system is set up so that they will most likely always have a two term president because the competition only gets a few weeks to run against the incumbent. And it appears that even if an alternative candidate pushes hard to win against the incumbent, the leaders will interject and interfere as they see fit.
June 16, 2009 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chris is being a bit pissy. The intro to the poll explains it pretty well. It was conducted up through 23 days before the election, roughly 3 weeks before, could have been stated 3-4 weeks before the election for accuracy, BUT THEY STATE THE EXACT DATES IN THE ARTICLE. They also state in the poll its weaknesses, the large number of refusals to answer (Chris can't figure out the Q27 box in the study that shows that the missing 22% came from 15% who refused to answer who they'd vote for and 7% who said the wouldn't vote for any of the 4 candidates). The authors note that 60% of the undecideds favored reform, so that margins were likely closer.
Their main point stands, that foreigners likely banked too much on Tehran, ignored the Azeri population, dismissed signs of Ahmadinejad's popularity from wishful thinking, and probably did little to assess anti-Lebanese nationalist backlash. One of the poll's items showed that 60% of Iranians favor monetary and military assistance to Shiites in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon, 60% oppose an accord with Israel. 1/3 think they're better of economically under Ahmadinejad, another 50% think they're about the same. These areas basically support Ahmadinejad. While Iranians desire greater democracy, they see power as being held by the Supreme Leader, not Ahmadinejad as President, so even that part doesn't hurt him too badly. In short, assumptions that it was a slam dunk for Mousavi were likely very misguided.
June 16, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
A poll where 49% of the sample don't express a preference is junk, no matter how inventively the intelligent Mr. Desidero may try to parse it, and like virtually every other poll where a bruiser like Ahmadinejad is running the show, it reflects a paranoid reluctance to bare your soul to a stranger who knocks on your door more than a reasonable picture of voter preferences.
It's also absurd to believe that Iranians had no idea which major candidates would appear on the ballot until the official announcement just a couple of weeks before the election. Those Persians may be crazy, but they ain't that dumb!
Meanwhile, events are busy confirming the prophetic Rutabaga's interpretation, with a recount on the agenda of the Guardian Council, and humongous demonstrations in Tehran.
The egregious "salaha" and a few other dimbulbs have been arguing that the "real Iran" is way out in the boonies, and therefore the huge demonstrations in Tehran are merely an epiphenomenon of relatively insignificant urban politics, and...
How quickly they forget!
This is the same Tehran which made the Islamic Revolution in 1979, and crowds in Tehran can also crush a bug like Ahmadinejad, if he gives them a reason.
June 16, 2009 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's better than junk, especially when grouped with attitude surveys. Would I stake my life on any conclusions? No, but nor would I stake my life on the guesses of reporters stuck in Tehran listening to the chitchat by the pool. Of course they'd like to do face-to-face polling, get their response rate up in the >90% and so forth. But as it is, it still gives some attitude surveys worth considering - even though 49% doesn't express a preference for President, they express preferences for other issues, and some guesswork/extrapolation can be made from that. Perfect? Not even close.
June 16, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
While Ahmadinejad likely had substantial popular support, I'm not convinced by that advance polling. I've spent time in parts of Canada and Britain where there were enormous numbers of people who hid their views from pollsters - just because of the risks to local job prospects. This, errrr, includes ME. (And I was right, oddly enough.) Iran would certainly offer up at least that much risk to a large % of the people being polled.
Beyond that, I found the big Ahmadinejad win to be unbelievable in two ways. 1) The speed of the returns, and 2) the initial regional results I saw. Outside Tehran is not simply a world of the "rural poor" who'd all support the incumbent. Even in the opposition candidates home areas, they were getting whomped. So ethnicity, regionalism, local-boy-makes-good - none of it seemed to register in the voting? Not likely.
I guess, all in all, I'm inclined to think it was closer that the vote totals published, but unless there's another election, no clear way through.
June 16, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ad hominem attacks do nothing to advance discourse;if you have a problem with the piece, how about some rational argument.
June 16, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Time to get yer Snark-o-Meter recalibrated. ;)
June 16, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, after reading comments below and your kind redirection, I realize the commentary was in jest.
June 16, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, who stole the real Ruta?
I hate it when this happens....just when I think I can't stand that damn root, it goes and says something sensible. Never fails to make my head spin around in 360 degree circles.
Rec'd, no matter who the hell wrote it.
June 15, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! What LisB said. I was all ready to give him hell.
June 16, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must say the Desidero is not disappointing today. He's as contrary as usual.
June 16, 2009 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, you phony...Who are you? And what have you done w/ the real Jacob?
I had to go back and make sure I was still reading the post from blue vegetable...I kept waiting for the punch line and when it was over and I realized he was complimenting Obama, my brain couldn't reconcile what I'd read with what I expected.
Good job, Jacob...I think I've said that twice in a week...What's up, dude? New meds? Rec'd
June 15, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
i don't know where this came from but I like your reach.
.......this time
By David Ignatius
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
"What the president has done thus far is create a strategic framework for understanding the U.S. in a different way," said a second intelligence official. Obama is "chipping away" at the radical narrative and "increasing the number of alternatives to that radical view," he explained. "He's making more attractive the idea that change can occur outside the radicalization process."
June 15, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting post, but I think at best simplistic.
I have no personnel opinion on the candidates, but Ahmadinejad is and will continue to be the President of Iran. Why? Because the Iranian people voted for him.
Obama and his administration did attempt to undermine Ahmadinejad. Rather than take the bombastic approach of the Bush years, Obama choose the carrot approach '...you pick someone we like and gosh knows the doors that will open to you. But first you must get rid of your President...'
Obama failed, just as Bush failed because neither man accepted the rights of the Iranian people to select their President. Rather both men dictated to a sovereign nation who they would be willing to negotiate with. (This situation is identical to the Palestinian situation. The people elected Hamas. Bush and now Obama refuse to recognize the legal representatives of the Palestinian people. But I digress.)
The western MSM were declaring victory for Mousavi, Ahmadinejad opponent, even before the votes had been counted. They failed to look at the power base of each man. Mousavi, is considered an "intellectual". His power base is Tehran, students and the wealthy. Ahmadinejad's power base is the less educated, the "proletariate." The first results that came out were from Tehran, and I for one was not surprised, to see Mousavi leading. But I was also not surprised, indeed I expected it to be so, when rural results put Ahmadinejad well ahead at the end of the day. History repeated itself for the same thing happened in the last Iranian election.
Ahmadinejad power is not diminished. In Iran, the Presidential post is symbolic. The power lies with the religious authority, with the Imams.
My own thoughts are that Ahmadinejad will emerge stronger because the West declared him dead, and like the Phoenix he has risen again.
June 15, 2009 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am still waiting for facts to be verified here but I did not see the MSM declare that Mousavi 'won' but I feel the result are highly suspicious. When I see Iranians in the streest willing to be abused and perhaps be killed because 'they' feel the election was unfair... I would hardly blame the US or the MSM for the circumstances at hand with regards to the election. You sound like a supporter of the current Iranian president based on your comment.
June 15, 2009 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not a supporter of Ahmadinejad, but nor do I loathe him. What I am is an ardent supporter of the right of a sovereign nation to elect its own leaders. No matter how objectionable I might find another nations leader(s), if they were selected in free and clear elections, they reflect the will of the people. For example, Israel's current foreign minister is a right wing fascist and rascist, who lives in a illegal settlement in Palestinian territory and has stated he will die before he leaves this land. Libermann stands directly in the way of peace for the middle east and yet Obama and his administrations have meetings with this man.
I did not and do not blame the US or the MSM for the mayhem that has ensued in Iran. I have been scouring the newspapers for results of the Iranian elections. The early results in the Washington Post and Times, Daily Mail, BBC News, World News, Jerusalem Post etc., all talked of a new era in Iran, of change and enlightenment, of voting for moderation and peace, of Mousavi being ahead in the votes and declaring himself the winner. You had to read well into many articles to realize the early vote totals were coming from Tehran, and even deeper into the same articles to find out Ahmadinejad was also declaring victory. It was not until late into the new day that one heard Ahmadinjad had been declared the winner. The MSM are not, to put it mildly, fans of Ahmadinejad. And their early reporting reflected their obvious bias 'anybody but Ahamdinejad.'
The religious leaders (the Imams) have now called for an investigation of those results. The Iranian people have spoken of there dissatisfaction with the results through peaceful marches, and demonstrations. This has resulted in cases of harsh brutality by the police, imprisonment of opposition party members and now the sad news of the death of a marcher. But an investigation has been launched, and we all await the results.
This entire episode reminded me of the debacle known as the 2000 US Presidential election, and the SCOTUS deciding who would next embody the values of the USA. Unlike Iran where the people are demanding justice, here in the US we accepted Bush and then gave him another 4 years. Shame on us.
June 16, 2009 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2009 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
The ludicrous cheerleader for Ahmadinejad "salaha" (on the thread above) has been forced to retreat from his original knee-jerk endorsement of Ahmadinejad's "re-election" by an emerging consensus among the ayatollahs in Qom, where effective control of the situation has been transferred from the Ayatollah Khamenei to the Council of Guardians.
salaha immediately pronounced that "Ahmadinejad is and will continue to be the President of Iran. Why? Because the Iranian people voted for him." But every honest commenter in Iran and elsewhere was dubious about Ahmadinejad's "landslide" from the very beginning, and even the power of Ayatollah Khamenei was insufficient to suppress a popular uprising whose contempt for the corrupt little monkey Ahmadinejad is apparently now shared by a significant fraction of the supreme constitutional authority in Iran, the Council of Guardians.
June 16, 2009 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Sir or Madam,
it would appear I have hit a sore spot, but is it really necessary for you to be so vitriolic in your aspersions on my character. You raised this issue and then threw it out in the public domain for what I would presume was intellectual engagement. Why then the bile?
Now let me address your comments:
(1) I am not retreating anywhere. The President of Iran is Ahmadinejad, and as I previously wrote, his is primarily a symbolic position, with the real power lying with the Imams. Grand Ayatollah Khamenei is the 'Supreme Leader of Iran.' Your original post indicated Ahmadinejad had 'power' which was now diminished. I was only trying to say he has no real power. He is only a figurehead.
(2) It was Grand Ayatollah Khamenei who called upon the 'Council of Guardians' to review the election results and look into allegations of fraud. No one took control away from the Supreme Leader of Iran. Rather the Grand Ayatollah assigned the Council a task which they are now undertaking.
(3) Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran. It is upto the Council to now investigate, and for the Grand Ayatollah to make a determination as to what fraud was committed and if enough was committed to overturn the current results.
(4) There are marches and demonstrations going on in Tehran. But that does not mean to say the results will change. Let me again remind you of the debacle known as the 2000 US Presidential election. SCOTUS decided Bush was the President, even though Gore won the popular vote, and not all the votes in Florida were counted. At least in Iran they are willing to look into allegations of voter fraud.
(5) I agree with you when you wrote Ayatollah Khatami was a moderate. I also felt he was a good man who would have presented a more gracious face for Iran. But my thoughts are irrelevant. The Iranians choose Ahmadinejad.
Now let me ask you a series of question? You refer to Ahmadinejad as a 'corrupt little monkey' and earlier you said he was violently anti-American. And you write of 'half witted mullahs...fanatical boobs' and infer mullahs are elected. Is he the later because of the color of his skin, because he is short, why are you calling him that? And why do you think he is 'violently anti-American?' It could be that like you and me, he was very opposed to the Bush policies these past 8 years. Mullahs are not elected, they are religious leaders. And why are they fanatical? because they are muslim leaders? Are you saying there are no extremists in the Christian faith, or the Jewish faith? What good does it do to call someone names? It might make you feel better but it does nothing towards civil discourse.
June 16, 2009 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to give Ahmadinejad some credit for producing more unexpected google results than almost any other politician.
Google "Ahmadinejad corruption" and along with the expected results about cronies and payoffs, you also learn that Israel is "a germ of corruption!"
Harharharhar!!!
Who ever heard of such a thing? A germ of corruption! In the realm of hate-Israel rhetoric, that jewel deserves full points for creativity!
Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad is still in charge of the day-to-day operation of the government of Iran, and salaha's ridiculous claim that the President of Iran is only a "figurehead" is just more of the same unreal mishmash of "factoids" that he keeps trying to pass off as a picture of Iran, and none of it deserves to be treated as anything but a joke.
June 16, 2009 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Sir or Madam,
it would appear from your response that you are not in a place yet where you wish dialogue.
So let me give you a few facts re Iran's political makeup to mull over
- Islamic Republic of Iran
- constitution declared December 1979, added amendment in 1989
- official religion is Shia Islam of the Twelver school of thought
- Supreme Leader of Iran (currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) is the most powerful political office. He appoints the commanders of the armed forces, members of the national security council, director of national radio and television, prayer leaders in city mosques, and the heads of all the major religious foundations. He also selects the chief judge, the chief prosecutor,special tribunals, and with advice the Guardian Council. The Council is comprised of six Islamic jurists selected by the Supreme leader, and six jurists selected by the Majlis (Parliament of Iran) from a list nominated by the chief judge who is selected by the Supreme Leader. The Majlis is not an independent body, it has no legal standing without the Guardian Council
- President is next in line. He is elected by the people. But all Presidential candidates must be approved by the Guardian Council. He supervises the Council, coordinates government decisions, and selects policies to be voted on by the Majlis. Currently 10 VPs and 21 ministers serve under him, all must be approved by the Majlis (which cannot function without the Guardian Council.) The President appoints the Defense and Intelligence ministers but must obtain approval of the Supreme Leader before even submitting their names for consideration by the Majlis.
- Majlis, the Parliament of Iran, all legislation from this body must be ratified by the Guardian Council.
I repeat again the real power in Iran lays squarely in the hands of the Supreme Leader. I don't know what else I can say that would make it any clearer. Perhaps someone else can chime in on this subject.
I wish you well as you carry on this discourse. I may not agree with you but I respect your right to differ and I thank you for allowing me this exchange of my thoughts with yours and for the candor with which you responded.
Assalamu alaikum (peace be to you.)
June 16, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great Post Rootie,
Reminds me of what I always think of as Condi's defining idoicy, when she was exercising while watching Hamas win the Palestinian elections on CNN and she says "no, that can't be right" and calls the state department for verification. (i believe this was reported in the New Yorker- but could only find this link) Anybody with half an insight or even picked up a copy of The Economist knew it was going to happen. Not her, even though she pushed for em to happen.
There are numerous examples of her Naivety, but this one really summed it up for me.
Worst National Security Adviser Ever.
Worst Secretary of State Ever.
Btw- Good to see you drink the kool-aid when it tastes good.
June 16, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Condi for president in 2012. She has proven to be more capable than W. What more could you want? (Capable at what??).
June 16, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ruta, I would have put this on the other NSFW blog but comments are disabled. Anyway, we can't all be brilliant scientists who prove definitively that there were no WMDs in Iraq only to have Hillary ignore the warning / pediatricians who know that taking a Down's Syndrome child on the campaign trail is child abuse / neurological geneticists / career health and policy analysts in DC. But sometimes a picture or a blog can make people think more deeply about things that are just accepted - Like a simple soccer ball. Anyway, thanks for the post which was powerful and thought-provoking.
June 16, 2009 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And hey ruta, if you want to disparage people that actually do something rather than act as if they are doing something, that's OK. because that's what folks like ruta do, and then get socks to agree with them, and then close comments when the truth bites them on the ass.
It takes a bit of integrity to say so, and of course, that's rare.
Pity I was soooo wrong, about so many.
June 16, 2009 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know what Baga does and has done?
What do you know about what KateO's done? Oh, she spent 8 days in Pakistan with displaced children. And? Is that it?
And why does that give here a right to come along and crap on blogging efforts to highlight something?
I dislike Mother Theresa as opportunistic, not using her millions to help cure poverty situations, exploiting frequently the ones she should have been caring about, but her advertising about the poverty situation was sadly but likely more valuable than dozens of workers silently help feed the poor.
People help in different ways. Pompous self-aggrandizement of one way is nonsense, kind of like Palin's "fortunately we can argue back because the troops support our freedom" "my way is the only useful way" crap.
June 17, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
....and what? Hello?
YOU can claim to be anything, and because you are so depraved and assholish, you ASSume that's what everyone else does.
Hear that? That's your clue phone ringing. Addle-pated louts like you that claim to be what you ain't? Well, ruta, you're a despised minority. That is why people don't like you.
You're welcome.
June 17, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have anything to add about the elections in Iran, but regarding Dirty Pictures and a Dirty Joke (NSFW):
Thanks for the inspired post, RR!
When you hit a nerve, people will always let you know. So just keep doing what you're doing. ;-)
June 17, 2009 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't fucking High School, and I'm sure RR could give a crap if anyone around here likes him.
This clique crap is so tiring.
June 17, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The point you made was a good one. What is a blog, if not a forum for discussion? Everyone is allowed to see things differently, and we should be able to discuss it without engaging in a pissing contest about who is really "doing something".
Just a ridiculous digression from the real issue you raised in the blog...
June 17, 2009 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm doing nothing. And also, I hate children.
June 17, 2009 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink