President Bush Tolled the Bell
Before we get to today’s thoughts, today does mark the one year anniversary of Sen. Clinton declaring in a Democratic Party debate that the United States is safe from terrorism . . . just thought you'd all like to know that you had nothing to worry about.
Because I enjoyed it so much, the picture of President Bush chest-thumping an Air Force Academy cadet (see June 1 post). AP Photo/Charles Dharapak
In my entire life, I don’t think I ever got angry in a conversation with a liberal extremist; they’re so bloody stupid that laughter is always the first emotion and not anger. Well, I sense that in the time between today and the November elections, there is a chance I might encounter anger. And, betraying my long held belief that I don’t need profanity to make my points or to be funny, I think there is chance, in an impulsive moment, I may post profanity here.
Yesterday, my (news)paper, the Boston Globe, published the following asinine editorial; it’s short so I re-produce it in its entirety:
A bell tolls for Ahmadinejad
STATE DEPARTMENT officials commonly complain that without an embassy in Iran, the United States cannot decipher the opaque workings of the Islamic Republic. This may be true in a general way, but no classified intelligence sources are needed to grasp the importance of last week's lopsided election of Ali Larijani to the powerful position of Parliament speaker.
The pragmatic Larijani, a former chief of Iran's National Security Council and lead nuclear negotiator, has been an outspoken foe of hard-line president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His ascension spells a promising power shift within Iran's faction-ridden political system. Larijani is very much a devotee of that system, but one who makes no secret of his belief that dialogue and deal-making with the West offer the surest means to secure Iran's national interests.
Larijani is known as a favorite of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. His smashing victory in the parliamentary vote suggests that the legislators knew they were doing the will of Khamenei, the ultimate decider in Iran's theocratic republic.
This tilt toward Larijani suggests that the supreme leader has begun to respond to popular disenchantment with Ahmadinejad. The public's anger at Ahmadinejad for his disastrous economic policies has now found expression in the upper reaches of Iran's power elite. Larijani can be expected to castigate Ahmadinejad not only for measures that drive up inflation and unemployment but also for making truculent public statements that increase Iran's isolation and subject it to crippling banking sanctions.
The best news is that Larijani's elevation may foreshadow Ahmadinejad's defeat in the presidential election scheduled for June 2009. If he is replaced by Larijani or another pragmatist - and if the United States, too, has a pragmatic president by then - a bargain may be struck to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran. It will take deal-makers to make such a deal. (End of editorial obviously written by an idiot and edited by an idiot and then published by idiots.)
Isolation and crippling banking sanctions are not passive actions. They didn’t just happen because Ahmadinejad made “truculent public statements”!
The letter, as toned-down as I could make it in hopes of getting published:
Editor,
In celebrating the election of Ali Larijanni to Parliament speaker in Iran, you wrote the lopsided election was due largely to Iran's increased "isolation" from the rest of the world and "crippling banking sanctions" (A bell tolls for Ahmadinejad, June 2, A14).
You then take your usual cheap shot at President Bush, suggesting we need a "pragmatic" President to deal with the future leaders of Iran.
Who does the Boston Globe think is leading the global effort to isolate Iran? Who does the Boston Globe think is the muscle behind the banking sanctions?
President Bush tolled the bell for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, plain and simple.
If Sen. Obama was President today, he would have met with Ahmadinejad with no pre-conditions, thus giving Ahmadinejad credibility and making the prospects for his defeat in June 2009 much less likely. (End of letter.)
Before we get to today’s thoughts, today does mark the one year anniversary of Sen. Clinton declaring in a Democratic Party debate that the United States is safe from terrorism . . . just thought you'd all like to know that you had nothing to worry about.
Because I enjoyed it so much, the picture of President Bush chest-thumping an Air Force Academy cadet (see June 1 post). AP Photo/Charles Dharapak
In my entire life, I don’t think I ever got angry in a conversation with a liberal extremist; they’re so bloody stupid that laughter is always the first emotion and not anger. Well, I sense that in the time between today and the November elections, there is a chance I might encounter anger. And, betraying my long held belief that I don’t need profanity to make my points or to be funny, I think there is chance, in an impulsive moment, I may post profanity here.Yesterday, my (news)paper, the Boston Globe, published the following asinine editorial; it’s short so I re-produce it in its entirety:
A bell tolls for Ahmadinejad
STATE DEPARTMENT officials commonly complain that without an embassy in Iran, the United States cannot decipher the opaque workings of the Islamic Republic. This may be true in a general way, but no classified intelligence sources are needed to grasp the importance of last week's lopsided election of Ali Larijani to the powerful position of Parliament speaker.
The pragmatic Larijani, a former chief of Iran's National Security Council and lead nuclear negotiator, has been an outspoken foe of hard-line president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His ascension spells a promising power shift within Iran's faction-ridden political system. Larijani is very much a devotee of that system, but one who makes no secret of his belief that dialogue and deal-making with the West offer the surest means to secure Iran's national interests.
Larijani is known as a favorite of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. His smashing victory in the parliamentary vote suggests that the legislators knew they were doing the will of Khamenei, the ultimate decider in Iran's theocratic republic.
This tilt toward Larijani suggests that the supreme leader has begun to respond to popular disenchantment with Ahmadinejad. The public's anger at Ahmadinejad for his disastrous economic policies has now found expression in the upper reaches of Iran's power elite. Larijani can be expected to castigate Ahmadinejad not only for measures that drive up inflation and unemployment but also for making truculent public statements that increase Iran's isolation and subject it to crippling banking sanctions.
The best news is that Larijani's elevation may foreshadow Ahmadinejad's defeat in the presidential election scheduled for June 2009. If he is replaced by Larijani or another pragmatist - and if the United States, too, has a pragmatic president by then - a bargain may be struck to keep nuclear weapons out of Iran. It will take deal-makers to make such a deal. (End of editorial obviously written by an idiot and edited by an idiot and then published by idiots.)
Isolation and crippling banking sanctions are not passive actions. They didn’t just happen because Ahmadinejad made “truculent public statements”!
The letter, as toned-down as I could make it in hopes of getting published:
Editor,
In celebrating the election of Ali Larijanni to Parliament speaker in Iran, you wrote the lopsided election was due largely to Iran's increased "isolation" from the rest of the world and "crippling banking sanctions" (A bell tolls for Ahmadinejad, June 2, A14).
You then take your usual cheap shot at President Bush, suggesting we need a "pragmatic" President to deal with the future leaders of Iran.
Who does the Boston Globe think is leading the global effort to isolate Iran? Who does the Boston Globe think is the muscle behind the banking sanctions?
President Bush tolled the bell for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, plain and simple.
If Sen. Obama was President today, he would have met with Ahmadinejad with no pre-conditions, thus giving Ahmadinejad credibility and making the prospects for his defeat in June 2009 much less likely. (End of letter.)
posted by Zack at 5:12 PM
1 Comments:
As you stated in your opening remarks, arguing with liberals isn't worth the time. They blindly hate the President so much they don't care how dumb or illogical they sound. Keep in mind they (the globe) are playing to their base which is equally illogical therefore unable to see the truth. I'm sure most liberals still think there is a civil war in Iraq or that Reagan's policies will still lead to WWIII. I honestly can believe how wrong the leaders in the Democrat party have been over the years and that they still have a base. I think we, on the right, underestimate just how dumb their base actually is. Scary.
Post a Comment
<< Home