Jewish Lesbians for Theocratic Midgets
Via a DailyKos-reading reader comes this "diary" from one sallykohn, a self-identified Jewish lesbian with a "crush on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad," a man, she acknowledges, that might very well have her killed were she Iranian, but who nevertheless "speaks some blunt truths about the Bush Administration that make me swoon… "
It's hard to choose which bits to excerpt, but here are some favorites:
I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about Ahmadinejad that I abhor - locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks, denying the fact of the Holocaust, potentially adding another dangerous nuclear power to the world and, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can't help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of the Bush Administration and, for that matter, generations of US foreign policy preceding.
…
Ahmadinejad, it would appear, cares more about American troops than President Bush.
…
Again, Ahmadinejad, who has flagrantly trounced due process and the rule of law in his own nation is still way ahead of Bush on this point, too.
…
He then goes on to say that even if six million Jews perished in World War II (a point he concedes in this letter), that doesn't give Israel the right to displace and terrorize Palestinians. He doesn't call for violence against Israelis. He calls for ending violence against Palestinians.
…
He takes up the charge of other communities struggling for freedom and justice:
…
It striking when a leader with an abysmal human rights record is the one championing the rights of the poor and oppressed to the president of the United States who proclaims to be the world's savior. Dangerous, indeed --- certainly to the status quo he critiques.Monday, when Ahmadinejad speaks at Columbia University in New York, I'll be listening. Maybe with a bottle of wine and some soft music playing in the background. If I can get past the fact that, as a Jewish lesbian, he'd probably have me killed, I'll try to listen for some truth.
Ms. Kohn's previous diary entries at Kos would suggest that this is, alas, not a joke.
Elsewhere in the lefty blogosphere, Glenn Greenwald and Ezra Klein are outraged by 60 Minutes' aggressive questioning of the Iranian president. "Ahmadinejad," Greenwald quips, "obviously does not watch much American news because he seemed genuinely surprised that someone he thought was a reporter was doing nothing other than reciting the script of the government." Klein complains that Scott Pelley "popped off aggressive statements as if he were a White House press release with a cardiovascular system."
Decide for yourself here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I declare shenanigans again!
Earlier was post about a letter to the editor and now we have a post about a DailyKos diarist. What next, a post about some dumbass comment (not the actual post, but a comment) from Wonkette about Butterstick?
Someone's logic circuits are fried...
Is this "Crazy Liberal Girl" Week at H&R?
I have to confess, this nostalgically takes me right back to the 1980s. Especially with the "I hate the current president of the USA so much, giving a blowjob to Satan sounds pretty good to me" angle.
I want to be very clear. There are certainly many things about Adoph Hitler that I abhor - locking up dissidents, executing of gay folks, claiming to want to eliminate what he considers "lesser races" to give the German people Lebensraum, potentially adding another dangerous European power to the world by rearming Germany, in general, stifling democracy. Even still, I can't help but be turned on by his frank rhetoric calling out the horrors of Versailles, the horrors and hypocrisy of British and French Colonialism and, for that matter, generations of British and French foreign policy preceding.
God that really works.
If I can get past the fact that, as a Jewish lesbian, he'd probably have me killed, I'll try to listen for some truth
You really don't find anything funny about this?
First, the DK author also writes here:
huffingtonpost.com/sally-kohn
So, she's not a nobody.
However, the Kossacks have redeemed themselves with this poll:
dailykos.com/story/2007/9/23/224950/843
After 1088 votes, only 35% would prefer that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was president of the U.S.
There's hope for the Democratic Party!
Elsewhere in the lefty blogosphere, Glenn Greenwald and Ezra Klein are outraged by 60 Minutes' aggressive questioning of the Iranian president. "Ahmadinejad," Greenwald quips, "obviously does not watch much American news because he seemed genuinely surprised that someone he thought was a reporter was doing nothing other than reciting the script of the government."
More accurate is that they were pointing out that the 60 Minutes interview was not going to produce anything of value since the reporter seemed to be asking questions of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety.
To amplify on John's comment: Countries invaded by Hitler: 15. Ahmadenijad: 0.
Useful Idiots of The World, Unite!
"If I can get past the fact that, as a Jewish lesbian, he'd probably have me killed, I'll try to listen for some truth."
Just because the guy would kill me because of my race, religion and sexual orientation, doesn't mean that he isn't right in condeming the the racist homophopic Bush Administration. Ah ok.
"To amplify on John's comment: Countries invaded by Hitler: 15. Ahmadenijad: 0."
Lamar, I think the above statement could have been written in 1933, 1935 or even 1932 when the countries invaded by Hitler and Ahmadenijad were both zero.
This is my favorite pic of Butterstick. He is soooo adorable.
To amplify on John's comment: Countries invaded by Hitler: 15. Ahmadenijad: 0.
Iran is crafty, they manage to invade countries without having it show up in the statistics (by supporting Hezbollah, or troublemakers in Iraq, etc.)
Dailykos has so many wacky things on it. This shouldn't come as a surprise.
When the enemy of your enemy would have you killed for your sexual orientation/religion/gender, it's time to rethink the whole "friend" part of the saying.
Satan would certainly like that...
[ducks]
More accurate is that they were pointing out that the 60 Minutes interview was not going to produce anything of value since the reporter seemed to be asking questions of the "have you stopped beating your wife" variety.
I've always considered "Have you stopped beating your wife?" a legit question to a wife beater. It isn't? Why?
Is this really a worthwhile game to play?
You think it would be very difficult to find some fringe GOP supporter who holds lots of love for the KKK thinks that "Hitler wasn't that off base"?
How many GOPers believe that although they didn't think much of Stalin and his economic policies, they have to admire his willingness to deal with threats to the nation (both from outisde and from within) without worrying about nuisances like civil and human rights, due process, or habeus corpus for people considered enemies of the states of "terrorists" and to brand as traitors anyone who doesn't support the government's actions?
Or is Mr. Moynihan going to pretend like it's only the lefty fringe that is capable of this kind of stuff?
Really, this is fucking silly.
"Ahmadinejad," Greenwald quips, "obviously does not watch much American news because he seemed genuinely surprised that someone he thought was a reporter was doing nothing other than reciting the script of the government."
I seriously doubt that. That's what TV news does in Iran, after all.
Anyway, does anybody here really believe he really believed he'd get a warm welcome in the US? Perhaps he is nuts, but I've no reason to think he's stupid.
The left has always been willing to commit suicide for the cause. The first and really biggest sin Orwell ever committed against the Left was when he told the world that the Stalinist agents in the Spanish Communist Army during the Spanish Civil War, had they won planned to kill all of the Western Communists in the party first thing. Who hated him the most for this? The very Western Communists who would have been killed. You would have thought those guys if anyone would have had second thoughts about at least Stalin if not Communism in general. But no, they instead hated Orwell for letting the secret out and discrediting the movement. This woman's article is a strain of this sort of insanity.
Well, you can very easily find nolstalgia for the apartheid regime on Free Republic.
"How many GOPers believe that although they didn't think much of Stalin and his economic policies, they have to admire his willingness to deal with threats to the nation (both from outisde and from within) without worrying about nuisances like civil and human rights, due process, or habeus corpus for people considered enemies of the states of "terrorists" and to brand as traitors anyone who doesn't support the government's actions?"
That would be none Tom or at least none out of your imagination. Please feel free to post links to Stalin admiring quotes from the GOP. Of course, I you probably could find some Hitler admiring quotes from Pat Buchanan, but he has been run out of the GOP and probably at least on the subject of Iraq and Bush agress with you more than he agrees with the GOP.
Or is Mr. Moynihan going to pretend like it's only the lefty fringe that is capable of this kind of stuff?
Today's topic is the absurd, useful-idiot fawning over Ahmadinejad by the lefty fringe. I don't think Mr Moynihan has claimed there is no righty fringe. This blog also mentions wacky righty fringe stuff.
Maybe 60 minutes could have just asked "so, when did you stop executing gays?"
"Well, you can very easily find nolstalgia for the apartheid regime on Free Republic."
REally? I have never read Free Republic, I would be curious to see that. Please link.
Beyond all of the Godwin stuff, here's the real issue: should any man be flattered if a lesbian has a crush on him?
Episiarch said: When the enemy of your enemy would have you killed for your sexual orientation/religion/gender, it's time to rethink the whole "friend" part of the saying.
The truly funny part is that the worst part of US foreign policy over the last century was backing tyrants and terrorists like Hussein and bin Laden *because* they were the enemies of our enemies.
And here is Ms. Kohn unironically applying a similar attitude to Ahmedinejad while in the same paragraph agreeing with Ahmedinejad's criticism of U.S. foreign policy.
Seriously, think about it.
"Beyond all of the Godwin stuff, here's the real issue: should any man be flattered if a lesbian has a crush on him?"
I guess that would depend on the lesbian. Sophie Hawkins? Yeah that is pretty flattering. Billy Jean King or Rosie O'Donnel not so much.
The same day that "phenomenon" disappeared from Iran. It doesn't exist in Iran!
Really, if it wasn't for the historonics, I wouldn't be interested in politics in the least.
"The truly funny part is that the worst part of US foreign policy over the last century was backing tyrants and terrorists like Hussein and bin Laden *because* they were the enemies of our enemies.
And here is Ms. Kohn unironically applying a similar attitude to Ahmedinejad while in the same paragraph agreeing with Ahmedinejad's criticism of U.S. foreign policy.
Seriously, think about it."
Very true. Imagine her reaction if someone told her "Yeah, Pinochet was a bad guy, but if you get passed the number of people he made disappeared, he made some great points about the evils of Communism."
You got me there, John. I'll come back in 15 years to see if Iran invaded anybody. Or, since they don't have a military capable of swatting a fly, I'll just assume they won't. I see others are already saying that Iran does it's dirty business via proxies like Hezbollah (a part of the Lebanese government, which is supported by the US). Kind of negates the idea that Iran will be invading anybody.
Today's topic is the absurd, useful-idiot fawning over Ahmadinejad by the lefty fringe. I don't think Mr Moynihan has claimed there is no righty fringe. This blog also mentions wacky righty fringe stuff.
The day I see Mr Moynihan attack the right for these types of things, then I'll admit that it's merely a "topic of the day" situation.
But I have seen some of the other tripe Mr. Moynihan has produced and based on that I stand by my belief that he is trying to present this as an example of mainstream lefty beliefs.
So the operative theory here is that the diarist's constant harping on how terrible it is that Iran executes gay people is NOT supposed to indicate that she considers Ahmedinijad bad.
OK.
WTF?
Look, people need to realize the difference between the ad hominem fallacy and filtering out unreliable sources. Does Ahmadinejad make some statements that happen to be true? Sure. Does that mean we should disregard certain ideas because he happens to espouse them? No. But should we consider him, as opposed to somebody else, as a reliable source for truths? No.
I don't get the Ahmadinejad swooners. I just don't.
Damn, somebody needs to reboot his humor meter.
"You got me there, John. I'll come back in 15 years to see if Iran invaded anybody. Or, since they don't have a military capable of swatting a fly, I'll just assume they won't. I see others are already saying that Iran does it's dirty business via proxies like Hezbollah (a part of the Lebanese government, which is supported by the US). Kind of negates the idea that Iran will be invading anybody."
I guess I don't see your point Lamar. Just Amajad runs a piss poor country instead of an industrial and military powerhouse like Germany doesn't mean he is not just as loathsome as Hitler. Pol Pot didn't invade any countries either, but if you someone said, "I can't agree with his desire to return to year zero and murder all of the educated but if you get passed that, he makes some great points about the evils of US involvement in Southeast Asia" it would be just as loathsome. Moreover, even if Ahmadijad isn't quite as bad as Hitler, that doesn't mean he is not a despotic lunatic and her praising him completely insane.
John, their website is down but I did manage to find this little gem in the cache.
"Not saying I agree with apartheid, but explain to me what were it's evils? Simple seperatness by social or institutional norms isn't evil in my opinion. Evil has a value judgement so vehemently negative and with the connotation of some malevolent intelligence behind it, that I don't think is quiet appropriate for judging apartheid."
And this-
"They [white South Afircans)They traded in a CHristian republic for participation in international atheletics."
And then theres this-
"What is happening is South Africa is happening here. The only difference is whites in South Africa have no where to go, while whites in the US still have some community space in the suburbs of the South and in the open areas of the Midwest and mountain region."
And they basically suggested the effort to end the disgusting system of apartheid was nothing but a Communist plot.
Whole thread here
So the operative theory here is that the diarist's constant harping on how terrible it is that Iran executes gay people is NOT supposed to indicate that she considers Ahmedinijad bad.
Apparently. I suppose if you don't condemn everything associated with a bad person you are de-facto pro that bad person.
It seems to me like this whole diary is more of an indictment of the opposition party here in the US rather than fawning over Ahmadinejad. The idea being that if more Dems were willing to speak blunt truths about this administration, this jewish lesbian wouldn't
have to admire that part about this shitty person (Ahmadinejad)
I don't get the Ahmadinejad swooners. I just don't.
Neither do I. The only thing I can think of is that their hate of their domestic enemies, whom they have much more proximity to, overpowers any sense of reality.
I mean, I hate the government but when I see some white-supremacist militia morons mouthing off about the government, I don't go "yeah, right on, d00d!!!" Instead, I wince that my beliefs will be conflated with that asshole's beliefs, and it makes those beliefs in general get a worse reception.
The difference being, Cesar, that the Freepers are actually supportive of apartheid, while the Kos Diarist finds what Ahmedinejad does in Iran deplorable.
BTW, we had a commenter right here on Hit and Run two days who posted about what a great man Augusto Pinochet was.
Yes, joe, but Grand Chalupa is a feature, not a bug. He provides a valuable service, in acting as a target for dhex to go after and hence more fully reveal the awesomeness of dhex.
The day I see Mr Moynihan attack the right for these types of things, then I'll admit that it's merely a "topic of the day" situation.
I will concede, there may be less pointing out of righty fringe stuff here because much of it is otherwise known as "libertarianism".
Ceaser those people are nutcases. Of course at least they are praising an evil ideology that would put them on top, as opposed to this person who is praising someone who would kill her if he had the chance.
Chicago Tom,
Read Thoreau's point. He says it as well as can be said.
"Look, people need to realize the difference between the ad hominem fallacy and filtering out unreliable sources. Does Ahmadinejad make some statements that happen to be true? Sure. Does that mean we should disregard certain ideas because he happens to espouse them? No. But should we consider him, as opposed to somebody else, as a reliable source for truths? No."
It is nuts to say that "I know this guy is a murderous lunatic, but he makes some good points." If the points are good, there should be someone besides this clown who makes them.
So there's no filter in Ms. Kohn's world where she weighs what people say to what her senses are telling her is reality?
"Hey, Sally Kohn, I have a stinking, steaming pile of, uh, ICE CREAM, here, only 25 cents per pound"
If the points are good, there should be someone besides this clown who makes them.
Exactly. And there are other people who make those points, and so it's a mystery why anybody would spare even a single keystroke to praise him.
"BTW, we had a commenter right here on Hit and Run two days who posted about what a great man Augusto Pinochet was."
Things turned out better for Chile than they did for Cuba, so he was better than some of the alternatives, but he was still a bad guy. Of course people like Kohn would never agree that Pinochet should be credited for having had some truthful things to say about Communism, but somehow, Ahmadjinidad deserves to be praised and listened to for his Bush bashing.
See, John, you just made the mistake of seriously engaging a point made by Grand Chalupa. The correct response is to point, laugh, and wait for dhex to arrive.
Yeah, someone (I forget who) said it best--Chalupa is the right-wing version of the guy in the Che shirt.
Can you mock hyperbolic left-wing dykes and fellate Sam Walton's corpse at the same time? Maybe you can just open DailyKos on a laptop and wag your fingers at it.
Why, thoreau, he's a feature and a bug.
Tell me this: if he were not a bug, how could dhex so regularly squash him?
"Maybe 60 minutes could have just asked "so, when did you stop executing gays?""
Well since Iran doesn't have any homosexuals that would be a silly question.
If the points are good, there should be someone besides this clown who makes them.
There are.
You accusing them of loving Middle Eastern tyrants and suffering a mental disorder, too, John.
I met a libertarian once who wouldn't let fireman save his burning house because they weren't volunteer but were paid by the guvmint.
Therefore I conclude that that is the only thing I need to know about those crazy libertarians.
For instance, I can conclude that Ron Paul must hate firemen, since he says he is a libertarian.
Logic, ain't it great.
My mistake Thoreau.
Think about this for a second. Whenever the Right makes fun of the left after Bin Ladin comes out with an audiotape where it looks like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky co-wrote the script, the Left, rightfully I think, says that is rediculous who cares what some lunatic murderer in a cave thinks, the fact that he has adopted our rethoric says nothing about its validity. Why doesn't this woman say the same thing here? What if some rightly had pulled these points out of Ahmadinijad's speech and did the same thing with it that they do with Bin Ladin's speeches? This woman would apparently agree with them. Why? I guess Ahmadinijad isn't really that loathsome in her eyes.
I guess that would depend on the lesbian. Sophie Hawkins? Yeah that is pretty flattering. Billy Jean King or Rosie O'Donnel not so much.
Ah, but if the lady in question swoons over femininity, and she's getting hot and bothered over you, can that be considered a good thing by the average straight guy?
As to the real topic at hand, authoritarian thugs of all stripes have always had their enablers and admirers who ought to know better. Doesn't matter which brand of brutality they espouse.
John, my point, which you seemed to concede, is that Ahmadenijad is NOT as bad as Hitler. Plus, most Iranians I know are anti-Ahmadenijad but caution that Iranians speak in poetry and parables, rarely in frank, literal language. That's why "wiping Israel off the map" means nothing. It's why he can deny the holocaust while saying that Jews should be in Europe because that's where the holocaust happened. It's why he pounds on the table, yet state-sponsored television in Iran runs television shows sympathetic to the Jews.
I think very few Americans have the slightest clue what Ahmadenijad is saying, what he stands for, and how the US should approach those relations. All we see is a madman with eyes too close together whom we are told to fear.
Ceaser those people are nutcases. Of course at least they are praising an evil ideology that would put them on top, as opposed to this person who is praising someone who would kill her if he had the chance.
Yeah, thats masochistic on her part. But there are certain right wingers (Dinesh D'Souza comes to mind) who also think the religious nutcases in the Middle East make a really good point about or "degenerate" culture. Nevermind most Islamists would be happy to put American conservatives in the same mass grave as liberals.
"I think very few Americans have the slightest clue what Ahmadenijad is saying, what he stands for, and how the US should approach those relations. All we see is a madman with eyes too close together whom we are told to fear."
I think the opression of the Iranian people, the theocratic nature of the government, the government's support of Hezbollah and both shia and sunni millitants in Iraq speaks for itself. As far as his statements about Israel. I am not a Persian scholar, but there have been more than one of them that when translated seem pretty clear about his intention to destroy Isreal. Perhaps they were just poetic flourish repeated over and over. If they were, I think the burden is on the Iranians, who are busily building nuclear weapons to refute this notion. If that is not what he meant, why is he not at the UN explaining what he did mean in plain terms?
John,
the Left, rightfully I think, says that is rediculous who cares what some lunatic murderer in a cave thinks, the fact that he has adopted our rethoric says nothing about its validity. Why doesn't this woman say the same thing here?
She does. Repeatedly. That's the central thesis of her diary: that the Iranian's deplorable treatment of gay people and women "says nothing" about the vailidity of his statements about Bush.
You just scored on your own goal.
"rarely in frank, literal language"
Cultural differences aside, it seems like a bad idea to be a politician if you can't speak in "frank, literal language."
**maybe it is a Persian thing. You've read the lyrics to "Bohemian Rhapsody."
Ceaser,
Dinesh D'Souza lost me when he wrote his 9-11 book. He came accross as not that much different than the "our evil empire got what it deserved" types on the left. He is a clown.
I still want to know why conservatives wrote off the office of the Iranian Presidency as nothing but a figurehead position when a conciliatory moderate was in power, but now that theres a hardliner, hes The Next Hitler with all the power.
"Monday, when Ahmadinejad speaks at Columbia University in New York, I'll be listening. Maybe with a bottle of wine and some soft music playing in the background. If I can get past the fact that, as a Jewish lesbian, he'd probably have me killed, I'll try to listen for some truth."
Try again Joe. Read above. All she is sayin is "I know he is a lunatic, but he makes some good points, and I have a crush on him." She deserves the scorn she is getting. There is little doubt that the good Iranian President is an acceptable if excentric figure to her.
Can someone please explain to me why anyone defending this woman is wasting their breath? She's a fucking idiot, and could find far better objects of affection that espouse the talking points she wants to hear.
She deserves to be piled on, just like anyone who says "I will listen to this despicable person because they say things I like" deserves it.
"That's the central thesis of her diary: that the Iranian's deplorable treatment of gay people and women "says nothing" about the vailidity of his statements about Bush."
So the fact that he says it is relevent why? Read Thoreaus point above, he summed it up about as well as it can be.
"Ah, but if the lady in question swoons over femininity, and she's getting hot and bothered over you, can that be considered a good thing by the average straight guy?"
True, but if it translated into some good sex, you gotta do what you gotta do.
Ahmedinijad didn't say Israel would be wiped off the map. The Farsi word for "map" appears no where in his statement. However, the word for "regime" or "government" does.
A more accurate, non-MEMRI translation is "The Israeli govenrment will be erased from the pages of history."
Which is not a terribly nice thing to say about Israel, and is perfectly in keeping with the Iranian regime's antisemitism, but it's best not to take MEMRI'S "translations" at face value.
I still want to know why conservatives wrote off the office of the Iranian Presidency as nothing but a figurehead position when a conciliatory moderate was in power, but now that theres a hardliner, hes The Next Hitler with all the power.
Actually, most conservative analysis I've read believes that Ahmadinejad is little more than a figurehead for the hardline clerics led by Ayatollah Khamenei, who really control the country.
Hard to say whether that's true, but it's undoubtedly true that the hardline clerics do control who is allowed to run for president.
Who's the dreamiest? Butterstick, Ahmadinejad, Pinochet, or Fidel (in a yummy twofer with Che totally SFW)?
Can't I vote for them all? They're super dreamy each and every one.
Pinochet is to be admired for, above all else, his folk music criticism.
Actually, most conservative analysis I've read believes that Ahmadinejad is little more than a figurehead for the hardline clerics led by Ayatollah Khamenei, who really control the country.
Hard to say whether that's true, but it's undoubtedly true that the hardline clerics do control who is allowed to run for president.
I read somewhere (The Economist I think) that the Supreme Leader actually isn't a huge fan of the President and his big mouth.
de stijl,
I'd laugh at your "joke" if Butterstick wasn't practicing raccoon apartheid.
joe, I think the point is, "what about Ahmadenijad, other than the fact that he is politically opposed to Bush, makes him appealing to any liberals at all?" The president is hardly beyond reproach*, but you could definitely find better political figures to compare him to than, say, Castro, Chavez or Ahmadenijad.
Cesar said, "I still want to know why conservatives wrote off the office of the Iranian Presidency as nothing but a figurehead position when a conciliatory moderate was in power, but now that theres a hardliner, hes The Next Hitler with all the power."
Nice to know that someone else noticed this. Because Bush needs a boogeyman pronto...the Hitler meme is particularily stupid.
Also, the "wiping Israel off the map" is a very handy poltical slogan, but what he actually said was, translated as closely as possible, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,"
Now that in itself is bad enough, but I do get tired of people casually accepting something as "truth" and using that untruth.
That kind of sloppy talk is what allowed Bush, and any politican at anytime, to get away with this whole Iraq adventure in the first place.
Art POG,
joe, I think the point is, "what about Ahmadenijad, other than the fact that he is politically opposed to Bush, makes him appealing to any liberals at all?"
Nothing. Did you see anything in the diary, other than his criticism of Bush, that sallykohn expressed support for?
I read somewhere (The Economist I think) that the Supreme Leader actually isn't a huge fan of the President and his big mouth.
I've seen something along those lines, too. It's seems that he was their boy to begin with, but that he's been making a few too many waves for their liking. And I can their POV on that...they have serious internal problems with increasing dissent, and he's out there being such a shitstirrer that even the French have backed away.
"Nothing. Did you see anything in the diary, other than his criticism of Bush, that sallykohn expressed support for?"
Nothing, but I find it hard to imagine her accepting such a casual attitude towards Bush. For instance, her credulity when she says; "he takes up the charge of other communities struggling for freedom and justice." Do you find this rhetorically odd or is it just something acceptable to you coming from partisans?
hey guys the simple answer is this:
THE ENEMY OF MY ENEMY IS MY FRIEND
why? because people are unprincipled fucksticks.
why? i have no idea. maybe it's the water supply. maybe too many vitamins. or too few. who knows? maybe principles don't actually exist, and it's politics all the way down.
either way i'm neither surprised that someone would write this stuff or that freepers would be into apartheid, and more sadly, i'm not really entertained either. and if its true that we're all in this together, we're totally fucked.
It's seems that he was their boy to begin with, but that he's been making a few too many waves for their liking. And I can their POV on that...they have serious internal problems with increasing dissent, and he's out there being such a shitstirrer that even the French have backed away.
Actually, he was never their boy. Rafsanjani was their boy in the last election. Ahmadinejad ran on a platform of redistributing oil wealth. The oilgarchs posing as religious leaders couldn't have been too happy about that.
If he had stuck to some economic projects that pacified the public without threatening too many entrenched interests, they would have been OK. But he just had to go and stir shit up internationally, and put more external heat on a regime that's already facing plenty of internal heat to boot.
My guess is that in 2009 he'll announce that he's completed the projects he set for himself and now he wants to spend more time with family.
"I think the opression of the Iranian people, the theocratic nature of the government, the government's support of Hezbollah and both shia and sunni millitants in Iraq speaks for itself."
I agree. And it's a whimper.
I don't think I follow you, Art POG.
I'm not sure what the sentences you've written have to do with each other.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Ahmadinejad is a worse leader and more evil person than George W. Bush. Let's also assume that as Americans, the actions and policies of Bush affect us much more directly than do those of Ahmadinejad.
So here's the question: if you agree with the above, is it more rational to support Bush and oppose Ahmadinejad, or support Ahmadinejad and oppose Bush?
joe, I suppose what I'm getting at is if you take what a politician says at face value, then I'm sure they usually end up looking good. To me, Ahmadenijad deserves to be called out for hypocrisy rather than praised for espousing liberal views.
Maybe Ms. Kohn should demand more of Ahmadenijad than he merely point out what's wrong with his adversaries. Clearly he is involved in a similar gamesmanship as our White House, critiquing another gov't to distract from his own gov't's iniquities.
Although, the U.S. has done much mucking around in the Middle East and do have a lot of blood on our hands due to regimes we have supported in the past, etc., I would have been more impressed with Ahmadenijad if, instead of taking the U.S. to task for the War in Iraq, he would have called openly for the conciliation between Sunni and Shiite partisans in the country.
It's possible he's said such a thing, and tried to really improve the situation diplomatically, but I have never read it.
To me, that would be good leadership in the Middle East, although I'm truly uncertain how much good one can do in such a volatile situation.
To me, it would be revolutionary to hear a "controversial" head of state like Ahmadenijad take serious pains to stop the sectarian infighting in the Mid-East.
The U.S. military would leave voluntarily if such a lasting peace were achieved, but there seem to be a great many zealots in the Middle East that don't believe in compromise.
Maybe if Ahmadenijad took the "Muslim Middle East" to task for their actions, or gave credit to other regimes, I'd be more impressed than I am by predictable criticism for the West, particularly the U.S.
joe sez: I'm not sure what the sentences you've written have to do with each other
That's why I need an editor.
"his intention to destroy Isreal. Perhaps they were just poetic flourish repeated over and over. If they were, I think the burden is on the Iranians, who are busily building nuclear weapons to refute this notion."
I believe it is all bluster on Ahmadinejad's part. I don't think the Iranians have any intentions of attacking Israel with their nuclear superiority. As far as Iran's development of nukes, I believe it's for protecting their regime from being overthrown by us. Iraq didn't have nukes, we changed their regime. North Korea does have nukes, we leave them alone.
A former US general from the Middle East theater has recently stated that we can live with a nuclear Iran.
She claims it is satire in her commments section. If it is satire then the only thing it is satrizing is liberals' irrational hate for bush, so much so that they sympatheize with his enemies even if they are horrendously evil. I highly doubt that was the point she was trying to make, and in fact she had no point other than to be provocative.
Art POG,
Maybe Ms. Kohn should demand more of Ahmadenijad than he merely point out what's wrong with his adversaries.
I hear you, and certainly, I'm-a-dinner-jacket isn't to be taken at face value any more than Duke Cunningham. Agreed.
But for Ms. Kohn, what does it matter? Does he really have any other significance in her life other than as someone on the TV who talks about politics? If she were to get serious and write a diary that is highly critical of him and his beliefs, what good would it do?
On the other hand, pointing out that even a gay-killing anti-Semite like Ahmedinijad cas see right through Bush and take apart his failures as leader may be of some consequence in the American political marketplace of ideas.
"she had no point other than to be provocative"
well said
joe sez: On the other hand, pointing out that even a gay-killing anti-Semite like Ahmedinijad cas see right through Bush and take apart his failures as leader may be of some consequence in the American political marketplace of ideas
Perhaps. I don't mean to be dismissive, but I don't really see it that way. I mean, who but the true believer neocons or the woefully ignorant could not easily give a harsh assessment of the current White House?
Ahmadenijad is certainly an interesting and charasmatic person...I'm not trying to make ad hominem arguments, but his regime is so awful, it's hard for me to lend much of what he says any credulity, even if what I know he says is true. It's like there should be a Jon Stewart-like rejoinder to half the stuff he says.
FWIW, I feel a strange mixture of awe, admiration, confusion and pity at Ahmadenijad's decision to speak at Columbia. I would love to see members of the White House engage in such discourse, for sure.
It's just hard for me to get up for one more hypocritical politician. As a Libertarian, I feel he's just one more awful head of state.
Ow! My brain just knotted up!
It's exaggeration. Rhetoric. It's another left-wing emo-kid who really thinks George W. Bush is a wet turd. Come on, Reason. DailyKos diaries? Letters to the editor? Pollit? Weak sauce. Really weak sauce. Let's debate some intelligent liberals next. Or else, let's waste more time with VDare and WorldNetDaily.
Aw, man...
Don't tell me we could've stopped this thread with the first comment by de stijl.
Ah, well, it was a fine thought experiment.
Obey Butterstick,
That is an awesome link. I so want to get the W.W.B.D. t-shirt now.
I have the W.W.A.D? t-shirt. I prefer the way it says "wad".
Kos lefties are to the Democrats what libertarians are to the Republicans.
Anyway, as a lame duck, focusing venom on Bush does no good. He's not running anymore. There were tons of Clinton bashers back in the day, but Gore still won the popular vote. You've got to turn the page.
MCM: may we use the title of this post as a tag over at URKOBOLD?
There sure are a lot of Kool-Aid fans in the Ahmadinejad audience. And no I'm not talking about the so-called leftie loons who have something positive to say about him.
Why can't we ever just study facts? Everyone seems initially won over by simplistic CNN analysis of foreign policy and leaders. In most cases its so simplistic that it's downright false. Who is responsible for more American deaths, Ahmadinejad or George W. Bush? Who has a more base motive? (I'm talking about reality here, not the fantasy la-la land in which America always does the right thing.)
He is a rather powerless figurehead, and the fact that he's the new Hitler (c) means one thing and one thing only: that we're being propagandized.
I should qualify my comments to add that as much as I consider myself a libertarian, I realize that we just aren't going to win any elections. But it's fun to pretend we're popular.
thoreau,
I was more under the impression that the clerics who rule Iran were mostly letting Ahmadinejad do his best crazy routine in order to deflect criticism from themselves (as they cracked down on the student protests since M.A. won election). I'm not so sure they don't use some of his nuttier speeches to their advantage, as well.
I also was under the impression that Rafsanjani would have been mostly a continuation of the slow moderation of Khatami.
I know that many scholars and citizens of Iran think Ahmadinejad is a Persian Bush (hmmm...) - intellectually bankrupt, religiously fanatical, and a general idiot. There was a Discovery documentary some months ago by Ted Koppel which was very interesting and revealed some of that general perception.
I should qualify my comments to add that as much as I consider myself a libertarian, I realize that we just aren't going to win any elections. But it's fun to pretend we're popular.
For libertarians, it isn't about winning elections, it's about getting popular support for your ideas so the two major parties feel the need to adopt them. Openly declared Socialist Party candidates haven't won any major elections recently, and that party has no representatives in Congress, but most of the Communist Manifesto has been implemented -- by the two major parties.
Most elections are won at the margins, and if the balance of power comes down to the few percent of the populace voting for libertarians, the major party candidates will start eyeing more libertarian policies to get those crucial swing votes.
Ron Paul is running as a Republican, not a Libertarian. If his vote percentage is equal to the difference between the first and second place finisher in the Republican primary, that will get people's attention.
prolefeed,
That's kind of my point, but I wanted to be vague so it wouldn't start a flame war with our left-leaning members. I've noticed that everything Kos touches turns to lead.
Timon19-
Maybe I'm wrong. The impression I got was that Rafsanjani wouldn't rock any boats, because he had held the job before, while Ahamdinejad was talking about redistributing oil money, which would threaten entrenched interests. But I could be misinterpreting things.
Certainly Ahmadinejad and Bush have a lot in common. Neither one is fluent in English, neither one can explain what he was doing in the 1970's, and both of them say crazy things that get the world scared.
I think that Rafsanjani wouldn't have rocked any boats is consistent with him also continuing the slow moderation of the civil government and thus the public face of Iran.
Sounds like ol' Mahmoud promised one very large populist thing in a craven grab for votes.
Where have we heard of that happening before...?
The reason that the U.S. does not attack North Korea is because of the country to the north of N.K. China. China has more nukes, more troops and has successfully tested a sattelite-killing sattelite. I doubt very much that the U.S. will attack North Korea anytime soon.
*confused - not sure which is cause of the swoon - 1999's military knowledge or the incredibly ?bertough handle*