Ezra Klein is on target in regards to the Ahmadinejad:
He’s not being feared. He’s being laughed at. Imagine how the Iranian people feel seeing these clips (and they’re seeing them). Imagine how the rest of the Iranian government feels being made to look so foolish — and all for this jester’s dreams of personal aggrandizement.
Exactly. This clearly underscores why having him come to Columbia was a good thing, not a bad one.
Watch the clip:
Without a doubt the biggest headline has been his denial that there are any homosexuals in Iran. For him to make such absurd statement makes him look foolish and diminishes his international prestige. It also makes his Holocaust denial appear even more cartoonish and ignorant.
Perhaps my outrage-o-meter is busted, but I just don’t see the point to the apoplexy that is roiling through certain elements of the rightward Blogosphere today over the fact that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to visit Ground Zero and will speak at Columbia University.
Part of my basic response is to wonder why some think that we are so weak as to be unable to withstand this man’s presence and his words. It seems to me that the whole thing (and the responses of various presidential candidates) just makes us look petty and frightened.
Maybe it is just a stunt to make him look good. One thing is for sure…denying him the opportunity doesn’t make us look good.
Now, I can understand the question of whether the NYPD ought to be providing special security, but that doesn’t require a race to outrage.
More than the Ground Zero request, I don’t see the point of the outrage over the visit to Columbia. The fact of the matter is, half of the time that Ahmadinejad will spend will be a Q&A segment, in which his controversial ideas will have to be defended in an open forum.
As James Joyner rightly notes:
highlighting Ahmadinejad’s crazy, evil ideas and forcing him to defend them is the most surefire way I can think of to make students throw off the silly notion that all regimes and ideas are equal.
Further, the event is at School of International and Public Affairs–surely the opportunity to see and hear a key world leader, even one who is antagonistic to the US and who has some repugnant ideas, is a useful educational moment. Any process that could lead to a better understanding of a key state in current global affairs is a good thing.
I will confess: part of my problem is that I long ago ran out of outrage for issues that are ultimately unimportant. I try to reserve my outrage for things that are truly outrageous–and this doesn’t qualify.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, September 20, 2024 @ 10:12 am
Not only is outrage a good business model, so is hypocrisy. Apparently the Powerline, Hugh Hewitt, and others are upset that he is allowed to go Columbia, and are tying it in to the blocked Summers trip to USC. You see- Summers should be allowed to go, and this guy should not.
It isn’t that they oppose ‘censorship,’ it is that they want to be the one censoring.
For the record, I have no problem with either of them making their respective visits, and I have no problem with the respective schools deciding who they choose to invite.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, September 20, 2024 @ 1:49 pm
[…] Along those lines, I had the following e-mail exchange with Michael Ledeen today, whose views on these matters — in light of his new book, the various and increasingly absurd Iran “controversies”, and his status as favorite right-wing Iran “expert” — I really was hoping to probe in order to write about: […]
The question is not so much why not let him go to Ground Zero but why let him go anywhere at all within our borders? We jail our own criminals so why let this international criminal free access for photo ops that will enhance his power and insult the United States abroad?
He almost certainly took part in the taking of US embassy hostages. His government supplies forces killing US troops in Iraq. His government is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. His government sponsors terrorism around the world. Let’s not forget he’s as crazy as they come (the UN speech and the glow that surrounded him, the prophecy of the lost Imam and the end of the world).
A guest in my house is treated as a guest until they do something to insult me as host. This wacko has already insulted us and a good portion of humanity before he’s even gotten through the front door. We need no opportunity to discredit his ideas since they have been discredited many times before.
This is worth some outrage, as least as much as was given to the President for thanking the 36 nations helping us in Iraq.
Comment by Steve Plunk — Thursday, September 20, 2024 @ 4:47 pm
Let’s not forget he’s as crazy as they come (the UN speech and the glow that surrounded him, the prophecy of the lost Imam and the end of the world).
It’s new york. No one will tell the difference between him and the other lunatics spewing prophecies. FWIW, his visit will be less obnoxious than the GOP convention. What’s one more theocratic homophobe?
- NY’er.
Comment by jpe — Thursday, September 20, 2024 @ 5:57 pm
Any visit is a problem because of the propaganda and you all need to take the symbolism much more seriously since many dictatorship care about this. Orwell understood how important symbols are for dictators and we should realize how this would play to the world.
Comment by Mark — Thursday, September 20, 2024 @ 7:49 pm
But, of course, the symbolism can work in various directions.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, September 20, 2024 @ 7:52 pm
Yes, Mark, brilliant. Luckily political leaders in democracies NEVER manipulate symbolism.
I’ll have another order of Freedom Fires, please….
Comment by Ratoe — Thursday, September 20, 2024 @ 9:45 pm
Iran’s President And 911’s Ground Zero: Bomb Site Is No Disneyland
Was this deja vu all over again?
Not quite. But there did seem to be some whispers from the past….
On Sept. 19, 1959, at the height of the Cold War, then Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev was barred from visiting Disneyland, leading him to explod…
Iran’s President And 911’s Ground Zero: Bomb Site Is No Disneyland
Was this deja vu all over again?
Not quite. But there did seem to be some whispers from the past….
On Sept. 19, 1959, at the height of the Cold War, then Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev was barred from visiting Disneyland, leading him to explod…
Iran’s President And 911’s Ground Zero: Bomb Site Is No Disneyland
Was this deja vu all over again?
Not quite. But there did seem to be some whispers from the past….
On Sept. 19, 1959, at the height of the Cold War, then Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev was barred from visiting Disneyland, leading him to explod…
[…] I have largely avouded commenting on the MoveOn.org “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” ad because, well, as noted yesterday, I believe that my outrage-o-meter is busted. […]
The problem with the Columbia visit is that it makes higher ed look bad, and acts as confirmation of the “tenured radical” view of American universities.
Now, UC Davis and Columbia are NOT the same school, and neither is under any obligation to coordinate with the other, but the symbolic thrust of UC Davis disinviting Larry Summers one week, and having Columbia invite Ahmadinejad the next — well, it’s just not good.
Of course, I don’t think the solution is to disinvite Ahmadinejad — that model leads to the complete abandonment of discussion altogether. Perhaps instead creating an academic atmosphere into which a Larry Summers can also speak.
Freedom’s Watch President Bradley A. Blakeman released a statement and a copy of the print advertisement it has requested to be run in the Monday edition of the New York Times.
“Freedom’s Watch could not sit back and allow a terrorist to come to
America masquerading as a world leader. We have an obligation to warn the
world of the dangers of a nuclear Iran and to uncover the true intent, that
being, the destruction of the United States and the State of Israel.
Let’s be clear, Iran today kills American soldiers in Iraq and they will not stop
there,” said Bradley A. Blakeman, President of Freedom’s Watch.
The text of the advertisement follows:
Ahmadinejad Is A Terrorist
Columbia University is wrong to give him a platform.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens our nation and the
freedoms we value. He has supported attacks on our soldiers and our allies.
He should be treated as the terrorist that he is.
Yet, while Columbia gives a terrorist like Ahmadinejad a platform to
speak, they refuse to allow the ROTC on campus.
What has happened to this prestigious university?
People who support killing Americans are welcome. But the military that
defends them is not.
Columbia should be ashamed of its actions.
Freedom’s Watch knows that America and the forces of freedom are right.
We know the threat of terrorism is real. And we know Democracy must
prevail.
The terrorists and their appeasers are wrong.
“And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon
experience a world without the United States and Zionism.”
— Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
(CNN, 10/27/05)
______
Thank You Freedom’s Watch For Taking A Stand For OUR Country And Troops!
[…] I have noted before that I am not prone to a lot of outrage, and I am not outraged by statements by Rush Limbaugh that service members who support U.S. withdrawal are “phony soldiers”, but I do think that it takes an awful lot of gall to make such statements after the over-the-top reaction to the MoveOn.org “Petraeus or Betray Us?” ad, as I thought it was supposedly verboten to call into question the integrity of our men and women in combat. Indeed, if MoveOn.org had called some of our soldiers in harm’s way “phony” one guesses that the same group who got up in arms over the Petraeus ad would be up in arms over this. (Not so much, it would seem). […]
An Iranian-American academic imprisoned for months and accused of trying to create a “soft revolution” in Iran was permitted to leave the country and rejoin her family, her lawyer and family said Monday.
Haleh Esfandiari, 67, who was released on bail in August, picked up her passport and flew late Sunday from Iran to Austria, where her sister lives, said her daughter, Haleh Bakhash.
[…]
Esfandiari was detained Dec. 30 after three masked men holding knives threatened to kill her on her way to Tehran’s airport to fly back to the U.S. from a visit to her mother, the Wilson Center has said.
Certainly that is very good news.
However:
Iranian judiciary officials have not provided answers on Esfandiari’s legal status since the release. She may still have to stand trial or return to Iran to appear in court.
Given that her 93 year-old mother put up the deed to her house to bail her daughter out of jail, Iranian officials have more than enough leverage to force Esfandiari to return if they so choose.
Iran is to help Nicaragua develop its infrastructure in return for farm products, according to a trade deal between the two countries.
Under the agreement, Iran will help develop a port and build houses and industrial sites.
In return, Nicaragua will export coffee, meat and bananas to Iran.
The two countries, which have strained relations with the US, have improved ties since Daniel Ortega became Nicaraguan President in January 2024.
Under the accords, Iran will fund a farm equipment assembly plant, four hydroelectric plants, five milk-processing plants, a health clinic, the building of 10,000 houses, and two piers in the western port of Corinto, government spokeswoman Rosario Murillo said.
Of course, for one who studied political science and US-Latin American relations in the 1980s, I couldn’t help but immediately think of Iran-Contra when I saw the headline, although I guess now its Iran-Sandanista!
This would appear to be an extension of Iran’s Venezuela strategy, i.e., to forge ties with left-leaning (especially of the more populistic flavor) leaders in Latin America. It strikes me as smart, as Iran can use all the friends it can make and it certainly has to create a positive domestic boost in Iran as these states are in the US’ backyard. From Nicaragua’s point of view, this is certainly a good deal, at least it seems such based on the basic description in the piece.
US-Nicaragua relations are certainly different now than they were in 1979 after the Sandinistas sent Somoza packing; and Iran may be a boogey man, but the Soviet Union it ain’t.
It strikes me as bad foreign policy on our part to create conditions favorable to the formation of positive relations between known sponsors of the Middle Eastern style of terrorism and any nation in the western hemisphere. Certainly terror has a long history here (and since we’re talking about Nicaragua the Sandinistas are a great example). Personally I think the Tupamaros might have been the most innovative group in history (given historic context) in terms of urban terror; they knew how to take punches at the powerful, and they were darn good at it.
Latin American terror, though, has typically stayed in Latin America, party (I think) because of its nature, and partly (I think) because of US intervention. All those superpower fights, like Nicaragua, were horrible for Latin America but they did keep the Soviets out, at least ostensibly.
I guess this is some of the aftermath of those proxy wars - like Somalia, like Afghanistan. . .
A very smart military science professor of mine once told me that the amount of time it takes to clean up the mess after a war is an exponential function of the length of the war. The cold war lasted what, the better part of fifty years?
I guess we’re gonna be mopping floors for a long time.
Comment by Captain D. — Monday, August 6, 2024 @ 10:04 pm
Iran’s top security body has ordered local journalists not to report on problems caused by petrol rationing, a day after its surprise introduction.
Angry motorists have reacted violently to the curbs, attacking up to 19 petrol stations in the capital, Tehran.
[…]
The authorities switched off the mobile text messaging system in Tehran overnight to prevent motorists from organising more protests.
[…]
Iranian TV initially did not mention the unrest and mostly interviewed people who said they supported the rationing.
The advantages, so to speak, of authoritarian government…
Pro-government newspapers have fallen in line, although some of the opposition press is not, according to the story.
Iranians are being limited to 100 liters of gasoline a month, or 3 liters a day. (That is 26.41 gallons a month or .79 gallons a day). Which, when one is a oil power, is especially problematic.
[…] UPDATE: Speaking of the supposedly dominant regime in Tehran, our own Dr. Taylor, a/k/a Poliblogger, reports that they’re banning yet another category of local bad news. Whoopsie! […]
Um, just to point out the obvious, but isn’t this strategy of Iran precisely the same strategy of the pro-war, “you’re not reporting the good news only the bad news” faction? And doesn’t that just give you the creeps?
It gives me the creeps when people liken the regime in Tehran to any major American political party or movement.
What Tehran is doing is state-sponsored censorship, which has nothing to do with arguments made by individuals in the US who support current war efforts. These individuals feel that what they are saying (that bad news gets more press than good news) is factually correct, and are exerting their free speech rights by making that claim. They have a right to do that, and opponents have a right to present evidence to the contrary if they so choose - and they frequently do.
What is happening in Tehran is the exact opposite of that. They are shutting down conversation, shutting down argument. I fail to see the likeness.
Throwing an authoritarian name or association at a group because we disagree with it is an abhorrent practice that has no place in academic discourse except to reaffirm the validity of Godwin’s Law. . .
Comment by CPT D — Friday, June 29, 2024 @ 7:09 pm
“It gives me the creeps when people liken the regime in Tehran to any major American political party or movement”.
Well sir, it shouldn’t really, should it? You’ve got war criminals at the top level of your leadership, they have been exposed as such and your people don’t have the balls or the inclination to do anything about it. Iran hasn’t invaded any foreign country for a couple of hundred years. The best your country has done is something like 17. Your country has brought about the violent death of many hundreds of thousands of people over the last few years, not just your poor backyard neighbours but nations on the other side of the world. Not to mention untold misery to many millions of broken, helpless people.
Your country gives me the creeps: the sick, murderous and hypocritical bastards who talk of democracy but smile at torture and murder. And, besides, who helped shape the Iran of today?
Comment by james — Friday, June 29, 2024 @ 8:20 pm
There is much buzz on this at Memeorandum at the moment. However, these kinds of stories always cause me to yawn to some degree.
First, this news is about as shocking as a headline that states: “Jerry Sloan Authorizes New Plan to Slow Tim Duncan for Game 3″—of course the administration has covert processes in place to try and destabilize Iran. Could anyone has listened to the administration’s rhetoric and watched its policies and assume that there are no such plans in place? Further, Iran is the US’s major opponent in the region. As such, I would expect that there would be CIA operations going on there.
Second, I yawn because I am not so convinced that such plans will have much effect.
I will say this: the part that doesn’t make me yawn is that I have no confidence that the administration would know what to do if such a plan really worked.
Daniel Drezner is similarly unsurprised by the news. Indeed, he also shares my general concerns and goes on to list some more specific ones (the Haleh Esfandiari angle occurred to me as well).
James Joyner has a good post on this subject as well.
CIA sources have leaked to ABC News an alleged covert plan to destabilize the Iranian regime through non-lethal means.
The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian governme…
ABC News Report: Bush Authorizes Covert Operation to Destabilize the Iranian Government
It looks like overt military action is off the table - for now:
The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert “black” operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence co…
Another reason for the yawning: we already funnel money to oppo groups in Iran to stir up trouble and disseminate propaganda. And we already mess with their economy via the embargo.
Comment by jpe — Wednesday, May 23, 2024 @ 1:00 pm
So does this mean that Iran is correct in saying that the US has been funding terrorism there? Is that what all the yawns are about?
Comment by james — Wednesday, May 23, 2024 @ 6:05 pm
No, I don’t believe I said that.
One can attempt to destabilize an existing regime sans terrorism.
And, at any rate, the nature, efficacy and desirability of a given set of policies is a different issue.
My yawns are primarily directed at the general hysteria concerning the story.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, May 23, 2024 @ 7:10 pm
Iran’s foreign ministry has confirmed that the government has detained a leading Iranian-American academic.
[…]
Ms [Haleh] Esfandiari, one of Washington’s best known Iran experts, was visiting Tehran to see her 93-year-old mother.
[…]
In December, as she was on her way to the airport to return to the US, Ms Esfandiari’s taxi was stopped by three men who stole her belongings, including her Iranian and US passports.
When she went to replace her passport, she was sent to the intelligence ministry, where she was repeatedly questioned about her work as the director of the Middle East Program at the Woodrow Wilson Centre in Washington.
Last week, after being prevented from leaving the country for more than four months, she was taken to the notorious Evin Prison in Tehran by three masked men armed with knives, the Woodrow Wilson Centre said.
Iran’s Kayhan newspaper has accused Ms Esfandiari of spying for the US and Israel and of trying to incite a democratic revolution in the country.
[…]
Other Iranian-Americans have also been banned from leaving the country recently, including journalist Parnaz Azima, who works for the U.S.-funded Radio Farda.
Former FBI agent Robert Levinson disappeared in March on Iran’s resort island of Kish.
Apparently the Iranians are willing to detain anyone whom they believe to be potentially linked to US-driven attempts at promoting democratic revolt in Iran. As such, it is clearly dangerous for any American of Iranian descent with any kind of connection to the US government, however tangential, to travel to Iran.
It also shows a paranoid regime taking steps to create what it thinks is security for itself but abusing people it sees as threats. This is a behavior that is easy to recoil at when done by Iran, but it bears noting that the US government has been willing to hold persons it feels are threats as well. For example, Jose Padilla was held in prison for over three years without charges because he was considered a threat to the US by members of the administration. He remains in jail now awaiting trial.
I do not wish to draw exact parallels in these cases, but it is impossible for me to look at a case like Esfandiari’s and not think of Padilla or the overall cavalier way that the Bush administration has addressed the issue of detainees in general.
[…] Daniel Drezner is similarly unsurprised by the news. Indeed, he also shares my general concerns and goes on to list some more specific ones (the Haleh Esfandiari angle occurred to me as well). […]
[…] Daniel Drezner is similarly unsurprised by the news. Indeed, he also shares my general concerns and goes on to list some more specific ones (the Haleh Esfandiari angle occurred to me as well). […]
[…] Daniel Drezner is similarly unsurprised by the news. Indeed, he also shares my general concerns and goes on to list some more specific ones (the Haleh Esfandiari angle occurred to me as well). […]
[…] Daniel Drezner is similarly unsurprised by the news. Indeed, he also shares my general concerns and goes on to list some more specific ones (the Haleh Esfandiari angle occurred to me as well). […]
[…] Daniel Drezner is similarly unsurprised by the news. Indeed, he also shares my general concerns and goes on to list some more specific ones (the Haleh Esfandiari angle occurred to me as well). […]
Iran’s president has come under fire from a conservative newspaper after he publicly kissed the hand of a woman who used to be his school teacher.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a conservative by the standards of Iranian politics, was attacked by the Hezbollah newspaper for acting “contrary to Sharia law”.
It accused him of “indecency and violating religious values”.
The elderly woman at the centre of the controversy was wearing thick gloves, a headscarf, and a long black coat.
You have to hate it when that happens.
Of course, his radicalism knows no bounds:
He once suggested that women should be allowed to watch football matches. This proved highly controversial and was turned down.
In all seriousness, I have to wonder if criticism in a newspaper is of great domestic significance in Iran or whether it really warrants international coverage. Still, such views do underscore the gap between certain elements in Iran and the West and illustrate why communication is difficult.
Why would criticism in the domestic press not be significant? The press rails at Ahmadinejad all the time, and it’s one of the reasons his political position is so weak, and was weakened further in last December’s elections. Or, more precisely, it is a symptom of his weakness. But its being a symptom doesn’t make it insignificant. The “conservative press” is essentially the mouthpiece of the clerical establishment, which now controls all levers of power other than the presidency.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has insisted no deal was done to free 15 Royal Navy crew members, as they arrived in the UK after being held in Iran for 13 days.
They were released “without any deal, without any negotiation, without any side agreement of any nature”, he said.
British officials also denied that the UK had apologised over the incident.
One would hope that, in fact, that is the case, as one does not want to see such behavior rewarded. Still, one has to wonder if there was nothing that was done that led to the release. Specifically there has been speculation that access was granted to Iranians being held in Iraq as part of a quid quo pro. The story makes this reference in that regard:
He added that while no deal was done by the UK over Iranians being held in Iraq, it was possible that the Iraqi government might have taken some sort of initiative.
Granting access to people in jail is hardly a concession. And if they are indeed diplomats, as Iran states, then they shouldn’t really be in prison this long, should they? Has it been more than a fortnight since they were arrested?
As to the behaviour that shouldn’t be rewarded, I suppose you are referring to the “TV confessions”, and not the actual capture or release of the soldiers. After all, they may be “axis of evil”, but they are entitled to their sovereignty as a nation.
I doubt that there was much diplomacy between Iran and the UK (unfortunately). In order to bargain both sides must have something to offer. What could the UK offer, without an unacceptable loss of face? Not even an apology to get their people back.
Regards and good Easter.
Comment by james — Friday, April 6, 2024 @ 8:52 am
I agree that all states have the right to protect their territory. I can even live with the notion that the Iranians were acting in good faith over their territorial waters. (Although I am skeptical).
However, their behavior in terms of threatening trials of espionage, tv confessions and holding them for almost two weeks was unnecessary.
I wold agree that, in general, access to prisoners should not be a concession. However, if in this specific context the access was granted as a result of the hostage taking itself, I find that problematic.
A Happy Easter to you as well.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Friday, April 6, 2024 @ 9:11 am
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says 15 British naval personnel captured in the Gulf are free to leave.
He repeated Iran’s view that the British sailors and marines “invaded” Iranian waters, but said they were being released as a “gift” to Britain.
He said they would be taken to Tehran airport and flown home within hours.
[…]
The Iranian leader said no concessions had been made by the British government to secure the releases, but that Britain had pledged “that the incident would not be repeated”.
The solution to the crisis - freeing the Britons while rewarding the Iranian commanders of the operation - appears to be a face-saving compromise, says the BBC’s Frances Harrison in Tehran.
She says speculation is likely to continue over whether it had anything to do with developments in Iraq, where an Iranian envoy has reportedly been given access to five Iranians captured by US forces, and where a kidnapped diplomat was released on Tuesday.
Excellent news. It is what I largely expected when all this started–bluster and then release. However, it took far longer than expected.
And this is a little creepy (although jokes beat threats):
Television pictures showed the Iranian president smiling and chatting with the crew.
He joked to one: “How are you? So you came on a mandatory vacation?”
There is not one thing that is “excellent” about this news. Game, set and match Iran. Blair looks like a buffoon, the sailors look like pathetic losers and the UK looks weak. Now Pelosi wants to take credit for having the sailors freed, good for her. I am sure that the Democrats have more respect for Ahmadinejad than they do Bush anyways. Am I living a Bizarro world or has the West just lost its spine in a matter of months? I am sure that McCain and others that were beat in the Hanoi Hilton to make comments against their own country could share a few words with the cowards of Cornwall. Brits your fate is sealed and all of those radical Muslims living next door are ready for another reason to burn London to the ground, maybe next time.
Comment by cmv1202 — Wednesday, April 4, 2024 @ 3:22 pm
The most important elements of this story is that the sailors were safely released sans any bloodshed and without any significant concessions or escalation.
Would you prefer that we launched military action to prove that we have a “spine”? That is insane, my friend.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, April 4, 2024 @ 3:25 pm
Excuse me did I say war or military action, no, but you cannot tell me that this was an “excellent” resolution to an event that should have had the West willing to make some dramatic choices, i.e. Naval blockades, going to the UN for a resolution that would at least add on to the number that are already pending. Iran has won again and those who think that we can just shrug this episode aside are foolish, the West looks weak and, I hate to say it, Bin Laden was right we are all paper tigers. As far as the sailors go not one shot, eating as though they were in a hotel and saying anything that the Mullahs would like them to say, pathetic.
Comment by cmv1202 — Wednesday, April 4, 2024 @ 4:12 pm
Excuse me did I say war or military action, no, but you cannot tell me that this was an “excellent” resolution to an event that should have had the West willing to make some dramatic choices, i.e. Naval blockades, going to the UN for a resolution that would at least add on to the number that are already pending. Iran has won again and those who think that we can just shrug this episode aside is foolish, the West looks weak and I hate to say it Bin Laden was right we are all paper tigers. As far as the sailors go not one shot, eating as though they were in a hotel and saying anything that the Mullahs would like them to say, pathetic.
Comment by cmv1202 — Wednesday, April 4, 2024 @ 4:13 pm
I would note that I said that the “news” was “excellent”–which the release of the 15 hostages could be construed as nothing but.
I am not sure what Iran “won” here and, indeed, escalation, including a blockage, might well have worked to the regime’s favor. Instead, what did they get? At this point, very little.
And as far as the hostages are concerned and their TV appearances, I suppose that under duress you would have shown more spine?
This is real life, not the movies. If you were held captive in a foreign country with the very real possibility that you might never see you family again if the the situation went badly, I suspect you would have been willing to read a statement for the cameras.
Am I pleased by the whole thing? No. Am I glad that it seemingly has been resolved with very little overall damage to the sailors and to the international system? Yes, yes I am.
It is unclear to me what you wanted aside from some flexing of muscles that ultimately don’t mean anything and would have possibly made the situation much worse.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, April 4, 2024 @ 5:13 pm
And really–where in the world do you get the notion that being held captive is like being in a hotel? That’s utterly ludicrous.
Even if you are being held captive in a hotel you are still being held captive.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, April 4, 2024 @ 5:15 pm
You thought process is borderline NYT mixed with a sprinkle of European arrogance. You are completely wrong on this issue. I have talked to a number of friends that are serving and have served in the military and they are so outraged in regards the speed of the 15 cowards folding that they would love to know what training these guys and girls go though in regards to capture and detainment procedures. Name rank serial number, I guess is not part of it. This is the best part yet:
Among the gifts given to the captives in Iran were handicrafts, books, pistachio nuts, a Persian sweet called “gaz” and a vase.
Nice.
Comment by cmv1202 — Thursday, April 5, 2024 @ 11:09 am
And don’t forget the Geneva Convention that you touted during the Gitmo and detainee discussions of the past. Free pass fot Iran from the world community on that one too. This is a great artice that you should read.
Comment by cmv1202 — Thursday, April 5, 2024 @ 11:17 am
Chris,
When did I defend the actions of the Iranians?
Here’s what I said: it was “excellent news” that the sailors and marines were released. Which, it was.
You, in turn, erupted in a diatribe about it not being excellent news (I guess you wanted them to stay in captivity? I assume not, but still)and that the West no longer had a “spine”.
Further, you keep referring to the hostages as cowards and talking about their hotel conditions and the nuts they were eating.
Yes, the Iranians should never have seized these persons and they should not have held them for 12 minutes, let alone 12 days. And yes, the Iranians violated the Geneva Conventions by parading them before the cameras.
However, I never have justified anything that the Iranians did.
I have said that I am glad that the hostages have been freed and that I understand why they behaved as they did in captivity (where you called them “cowards”).
Indeed, by raising the Geneva Convention you seem to be changing the subject.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, April 5, 2024 @ 3:36 pm
Outrage is an excellent business model, however.
Comment by James Joyner — Thursday, September 20, 2024 @ 10:03 am
This is, unfortunately, quite true.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, September 20, 2024 @ 10:12 am
Not only is outrage a good business model, so is hypocrisy. Apparently the Powerline, Hugh Hewitt, and others are upset that he is allowed to go Columbia, and are tying it in to the blocked Summers trip to USC. You see- Summers should be allowed to go, and this guy should not.
It isn’t that they oppose ‘censorship,’ it is that they want to be the one censoring.
Comment by John Cole — Thursday, September 20, 2024 @ 12:46 pm
For the record, I have no problem with either of them making their respective visits, and I have no problem with the respective schools deciding who they choose to invite.
Comment by John Cole — Thursday, September 20, 2024 @ 12:48 pm
Hypocritical Outrage!
It’s all the rage.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, September 20, 2024 @ 1:49 pm
[…] Along those lines, I had the following e-mail exchange with Michael Ledeen today, whose views on these matters — in light of his new book, the various and increasingly absurd Iran “controversies”, and his status as favorite right-wing Iran “expert” — I really was hoping to probe in order to write about: […]
Pingback by The weirdness of some on the Right « Later On — Thursday, September 20, 2024 @ 3:51 pm
The question is not so much why not let him go to Ground Zero but why let him go anywhere at all within our borders? We jail our own criminals so why let this international criminal free access for photo ops that will enhance his power and insult the United States abroad?
He almost certainly took part in the taking of US embassy hostages. His government supplies forces killing US troops in Iraq. His government is pursuing a nuclear weapons program. His government sponsors terrorism around the world. Let’s not forget he’s as crazy as they come (the UN speech and the glow that surrounded him, the prophecy of the lost Imam and the end of the world).
A guest in my house is treated as a guest until they do something to insult me as host. This wacko has already insulted us and a good portion of humanity before he’s even gotten through the front door. We need no opportunity to discredit his ideas since they have been discredited many times before.
This is worth some outrage, as least as much as was given to the President for thanking the 36 nations helping us in Iraq.
Comment by Steve Plunk — Thursday, September 20, 2024 @ 4:47 pm
It’s new york. No one will tell the difference between him and the other lunatics spewing prophecies. FWIW, his visit will be less obnoxious than the GOP convention. What’s one more theocratic homophobe?
- NY’er.
Comment by jpe — Thursday, September 20, 2024 @ 5:57 pm
Any visit is a problem because of the propaganda and you all need to take the symbolism much more seriously since many dictatorship care about this. Orwell understood how important symbols are for dictators and we should realize how this would play to the world.
Comment by Mark — Thursday, September 20, 2024 @ 7:49 pm
But, of course, the symbolism can work in various directions.
Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Thursday, September 20, 2024 @ 7:52 pm
Yes, Mark, brilliant. Luckily political leaders in democracies NEVER manipulate symbolism.
I’ll have another order of Freedom Fires, please….
Comment by Ratoe — Thursday, September 20, 2024 @ 9:45 pm
Iran’s President And 911’s Ground Zero: Bomb Site Is No Disneyland
Was this deja vu all over again?
Not quite. But there did seem to be some whispers from the past….
On Sept. 19, 1959, at the height of the Cold War, then Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev was barred from visiting Disneyland, leading him to explod…
Trackback by The Moderate Voice — Friday, September 21, 2024 @ 2:30 am
Iran’s President And 911’s Ground Zero: Bomb Site Is No Disneyland
Was this deja vu all over again?
Not quite. But there did seem to be some whispers from the past….
On Sept. 19, 1959, at the height of the Cold War, then Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev was barred from visiting Disneyland, leading him to explod…
Trackback by The Moderate Voice — Friday, September 21, 2024 @ 2:30 am
Iran’s President And 911’s Ground Zero: Bomb Site Is No Disneyland
Was this deja vu all over again?
Not quite. But there did seem to be some whispers from the past….
On Sept. 19, 1959, at the height of the Cold War, then Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev was barred from visiting Disneyland, leading him to explod…
Trackback by The Moderate Voice — Friday, September 21, 2024 @ 2:30 am
[…] I have largely avouded commenting on the MoveOn.org “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” ad because, well, as noted yesterday, I believe that my outrage-o-meter is busted. […]
Pingback by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » Kinsely on “Betray Us” (or More Evidence of my Outrage Deficiency) — Friday, September 21, 2024 @ 7:22 am
I’m here
How did my surgery on Tuesday go and what do I think about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad coming to the USA.
Trackback by The Florida Masochist — Friday, September 21, 2024 @ 8:18 am
The problem with the Columbia visit is that it makes higher ed look bad, and acts as confirmation of the “tenured radical” view of American universities.
Now, UC Davis and Columbia are NOT the same school, and neither is under any obligation to coordinate with the other, but the symbolic thrust of UC Davis disinviting Larry Summers one week, and having Columbia invite Ahmadinejad the next — well, it’s just not good.
Of course, I don’t think the solution is to disinvite Ahmadinejad — that model leads to the complete abandonment of discussion altogether. Perhaps instead creating an academic atmosphere into which a Larry Summers can also speak.
Comment by Richard Scott Nokes — Friday, September 21, 2024 @ 9:11 am
Hi,
Just some FYI:
WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Friday
Freedom’s Watch President Bradley A. Blakeman released a statement and a copy of the print advertisement it has requested to be run in the Monday edition of the New York Times.
“Freedom’s Watch could not sit back and allow a terrorist to come to
America masquerading as a world leader. We have an obligation to warn the
world of the dangers of a nuclear Iran and to uncover the true intent, that
being, the destruction of the United States and the State of Israel.
Let’s be clear, Iran today kills American soldiers in Iraq and they will not stop
there,” said Bradley A. Blakeman, President of Freedom’s Watch.
The text of the advertisement follows:
Ahmadinejad Is A Terrorist
Columbia University is wrong to give him a platform.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatens our nation and the
freedoms we value. He has supported attacks on our soldiers and our allies.
He should be treated as the terrorist that he is.
Yet, while Columbia gives a terrorist like Ahmadinejad a platform to
speak, they refuse to allow the ROTC on campus.
What has happened to this prestigious university?
People who support killing Americans are welcome. But the military that
defends them is not.
Columbia should be ashamed of its actions.
Freedom’s Watch knows that America and the forces of freedom are right.
We know the threat of terrorism is real. And we know Democracy must
prevail.
The terrorists and their appeasers are wrong.
“And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon
experience a world without the United States and Zionism.”
— Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
(CNN, 10/27/05)
______
Thank You Freedom’s Watch For Taking A Stand For OUR Country And Troops!
____
Peace!
Dan
General David Betray Us
Comment by Iraq Updates — Saturday, September 22, 2024 @ 8:07 pm
[…] I have noted before that I am not prone to a lot of outrage, and I am not outraged by statements by Rush Limbaugh that service members who support U.S. withdrawal are “phony soldiers”, but I do think that it takes an awful lot of gall to make such statements after the over-the-top reaction to the MoveOn.org “Petraeus or Betray Us?” ad, as I thought it was supposedly verboten to call into question the integrity of our men and women in combat. Indeed, if MoveOn.org had called some of our soldiers in harm’s way “phony” one guesses that the same group who got up in arms over the Petraeus ad would be up in arms over this. (Not so much, it would seem). […]
Pingback by PoliBlog ™: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts » “Phony Soldiers” and Limbaugh’s Dichotomized World — Friday, September 28, 2024 @ 7:13 am