How Far Up Obama's Rear?

[Annie]

Officially, America is no longer America. France and UK are doing better.

That Was Awful. Do It Again!
The New York Times's bizarre position on Iran.

By JAMES TARANTO

We suppose we were a bit hasty in declaring, in yesterday's headline, "We're All Neocons Now." That "all," of course, left out President Obama, who has been under fire from left and right for his listless response to the Iranian regime's political crisis. But we hadn't realized that Obama is expressly not under fire from one place on the left, the New York Times editorial board. In an editorial yesterday, the paper staked out a position of such utter confusion that it can only be termed bizarre. Here are the final three paragraphs:

More violence against the Iranian people will only highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation.

If the authorities want to resolve this impasse peacefully--that must be the goal--they should call a new election, monitored by independent Iranian observers. Before last week's results were prematurely and improbably declared, a runoff was expected between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi. As a first step, authorities should set up a commission representing all major candidates to examine the election data and jointly determine a face-saving and credible way forward.

Some in Washington, meanwhile, have been complaining that President Obama hasn't been tough enough in his criticism of Iran's government. He may have to speak out more forcefully in the days to come. But given its history with Iran, the United States must take special care not to be seen as interfering. That would only give Iran's hard-liners a further excuse to blame the United States for their own shameful failures.​

Let's take this from the bottom, starting with the paper's comments on Obama. This paragraph is remarkable for its own flocculence. The Times implies, without quite saying it, both that it approves of Obama's evasions ("the United States must take special care") and that it would approve if he took a different approach ("he may have to speak out more forcefully"). It's hard to know whether to describe this as a posture of total deference to the president or of complete indifference to the underlying subject.


The paper even refrains from criticizing the one Obama statement that has drawn expressions of disapproval from almost everyone else: his claim, on Tuesday, that there's not much difference between incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi. If this is true, the Times's call for a new election doesn't make much sense.

Not that it makes much sense either way. There is so much wrong with this idea that it's hard to know where to begin, so let's pick one telling detail: the paper's insistence that the new election be "monitored by independent Iranian observers." Why not call for monitoring by international observers, common practice when corrupt Third World regimes hold elections? In this context, "independent Iranian observers" is a contradiction in terms anyway, given that all Iranians live either under or inside the regime's heel.

As we've noted earlier this week, even an "honest" Iranian election would be a sham, given that only candidates approved by the regime-controlled Guardian Council are permitted to run. (This year the council rejected more than 100 prospective candidates for every one it approved.) And what if the regime decided to make the revote only a travesty of a sham rather than a mockery of a travesty of a sham--that is, what if it steals the election for Ahmadinejad again, but in a less obvious way?

The Times seems to think such a result would be desirable. The editorial's penultimate paragraph calls for "a face-saving and credible way forward," not a fair and just one. This is consistent with the antepenultimate paragraph, which we'll repeat for emphasis:

More violence against the Iranian people will only highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation.

This statement is flatly false. More violence would do many things beside "highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation." Most obvious, it would inflict pain, injury and death on innocent people who are heroically standing against a criminal regime. It could succeed in achieving the regime's goal, which is to suppress dissent by terrorizing the population. In short, violence is part and parcel of the regime's illegitimacy. The Times, however, expresses concern only that it highlights that illegitimacy.

Making this even more strange, yesterday's Times editorial is a substantial weakening of the paper's own position in a Monday editorial that highlighted the regime's illegitimacy:

The elections are another potent reminder that there can be no illusions about Iran's government and its malign intent. That is a hard political fact.

From "there can be no illusions" to "determine a face-saving and credible way forward" in 72 hours. It takes courage for Iranians to put themselves on the line in opposition to a repressive regime. It takes a special kind of cowardice to waver in one's opposition from the comfort of a free country half a world away....

 

[Bootneck]

Officially, America is no longer America. France and UK are doing better.

That Was Awful. Do It Again!
The New York Times's bizarre position on Iran.

By JAMES TARANTO

We suppose we were a bit hasty in declaring, in yesterday's headline, "We're All Neocons Now." That "all," of course, left out President Obama, who has been under fire from left and right for his listless response to the Iranian regime's political crisis. But we hadn't realized that Obama is expressly not under fire from one place on the left, the New York Times editorial board. In an editorial yesterday, the paper staked out a position of such utter confusion that it can only be termed bizarre. Here are the final three paragraphs:

More violence against the Iranian people will only highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation.

If the authorities want to resolve this impasse peacefully--that must be the goal--they should call a new election, monitored by independent Iranian observers. Before last week's results were prematurely and improbably declared, a runoff was expected between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi. As a first step, authorities should set up a commission representing all major candidates to examine the election data and jointly determine a face-saving and credible way forward.

Some in Washington, meanwhile, have been complaining that President Obama hasn't been tough enough in his criticism of Iran's government. He may have to speak out more forcefully in the days to come. But given its history with Iran, the United States must take special care not to be seen as interfering. That would only give Iran's hard-liners a further excuse to blame the United States for their own shameful failures.​

Let's take this from the bottom, starting with the paper's comments on Obama. This paragraph is remarkable for its own flocculence. The Times implies, without quite saying it, both that it approves of Obama's evasions ("the United States must take special care") and that it would approve if he took a different approach ("he may have to speak out more forcefully"). It's hard to know whether to describe this as a posture of total deference to the president or of complete indifference to the underlying subject.


The paper even refrains from criticizing the one Obama statement that has drawn expressions of disapproval from almost everyone else: his claim, on Tuesday, that there's not much difference between incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi. If this is true, the Times's call for a new election doesn't make much sense.

Not that it makes much sense either way. There is so much wrong with this idea that it's hard to know where to begin, so let's pick one telling detail: the paper's insistence that the new election be "monitored by independent Iranian observers." Why not call for monitoring by international observers, common practice when corrupt Third World regimes hold elections? In this context, "independent Iranian observers" is a contradiction in terms anyway, given that all Iranians live either under or inside the regime's heel.

As we've noted earlier this week, even an "honest" Iranian election would be a sham, given that only candidates approved by the regime-controlled Guardian Council are permitted to run. (This year the council rejected more than 100 prospective candidates for every one it approved.) And what if the regime decided to make the revote only a travesty of a sham rather than a mockery of a travesty of a sham--that is, what if it steals the election for Ahmadinejad again, but in a less obvious way?

The Times seems to think such a result would be desirable. The editorial's penultimate paragraph calls for "a face-saving and credible way forward," not a fair and just one. This is consistent with the antepenultimate paragraph, which we'll repeat for emphasis:

More violence against the Iranian people will only highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation.

This statement is flatly false. More violence would do many things beside "highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation." Most obvious, it would inflict pain, injury and death on innocent people who are heroically standing against a criminal regime. It could succeed in achieving the regime's goal, which is to suppress dissent by terrorizing the population. In short, violence is part and parcel of the regime's illegitimacy. The Times, however, expresses concern only that it highlights that illegitimacy.

Making this even more strange, yesterday's Times editorial is a substantial weakening of the paper's own position in a Monday editorial that highlighted the regime's illegitimacy:

The elections are another potent reminder that there can be no illusions about Iran's government and its malign intent. That is a hard political fact.

From "there can be no illusions" to "determine a face-saving and credible way forward" in 72 hours. It takes courage for Iranians to put themselves on the line in opposition to a repressive regime. It takes a special kind of cowardice to waver in one's opposition from the comfort of a free country half a world away....

Yep! We now have the honour of being the ones to piss off Iran the most. Ayatollah Khamanei called the UK “the most treacherous” of Iran’s enemies.

Quite funny really, coming from a bunch of medievil tub thumpers who opress their own people.

 

[Metternich]

You get a special thank you for posting a topic that was, if anything can be decided upon, revealing.

 

[MaggieMae]

Officially, America is no longer America. France and UK are doing better.

That Was Awful. Do It Again!
The New York Times's bizarre position on Iran.

By JAMES TARANTO

We suppose we were a bit hasty in declaring, in yesterday's headline, "We're All Neocons Now." That "all," of course, left out President Obama, who has been under fire from left and right for his listless response to the Iranian regime's political crisis. But we hadn't realized that Obama is expressly not under fire from one place on the left, the New York Times editorial board. In an editorial yesterday, the paper staked out a position of such utter confusion that it can only be termed bizarre. Here are the final three paragraphs:

More violence against the Iranian people will only highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation.

If the authorities want to resolve this impasse peacefully--that must be the goal--they should call a new election, monitored by independent Iranian observers. Before last week's results were prematurely and improbably declared, a runoff was expected between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi. As a first step, authorities should set up a commission representing all major candidates to examine the election data and jointly determine a face-saving and credible way forward.

Some in Washington, meanwhile, have been complaining that President Obama hasn't been tough enough in his criticism of Iran's government. He may have to speak out more forcefully in the days to come. But given its history with Iran, the United States must take special care not to be seen as interfering. That would only give Iran's hard-liners a further excuse to blame the United States for their own shameful failures.​

Let's take this from the bottom, starting with the paper's comments on Obama. This paragraph is remarkable for its own flocculence. The Times implies, without quite saying it, both that it approves of Obama's evasions ("the United States must take special care") and that it would approve if he took a different approach ("he may have to speak out more forcefully"). It's hard to know whether to describe this as a posture of total deference to the president or of complete indifference to the underlying subject.


The paper even refrains from criticizing the one Obama statement that has drawn expressions of disapproval from almost everyone else: his claim, on Tuesday, that there's not much difference between incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi. If this is true, the Times's call for a new election doesn't make much sense.

Not that it makes much sense either way. There is so much wrong with this idea that it's hard to know where to begin, so let's pick one telling detail: the paper's insistence that the new election be "monitored by independent Iranian observers." Why not call for monitoring by international observers, common practice when corrupt Third World regimes hold elections? In this context, "independent Iranian observers" is a contradiction in terms anyway, given that all Iranians live either under or inside the regime's heel.

As we've noted earlier this week, even an "honest" Iranian election would be a sham, given that only candidates approved by the regime-controlled Guardian Council are permitted to run. (This year the council rejected more than 100 prospective candidates for every one it approved.) And what if the regime decided to make the revote only a travesty of a sham rather than a mockery of a travesty of a sham--that is, what if it steals the election for Ahmadinejad again, but in a less obvious way?

The Times seems to think such a result would be desirable. The editorial's penultimate paragraph calls for "a face-saving and credible way forward," not a fair and just one. This is consistent with the antepenultimate paragraph, which we'll repeat for emphasis:

More violence against the Iranian people will only highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation.

This statement is flatly false. More violence would do many things beside "highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation." Most obvious, it would inflict pain, injury and death on innocent people who are heroically standing against a criminal regime. It could succeed in achieving the regime's goal, which is to suppress dissent by terrorizing the population. In short, violence is part and parcel of the regime's illegitimacy. The Times, however, expresses concern only that it highlights that illegitimacy.

Making this even more strange, yesterday's Times editorial is a substantial weakening of the paper's own position in a Monday editorial that highlighted the regime's illegitimacy:

The elections are another potent reminder that there can be no illusions about Iran's government and its malign intent. That is a hard political fact.

From "there can be no illusions" to "determine a face-saving and credible way forward" in 72 hours. It takes courage for Iranians to put themselves on the line in opposition to a repressive regime. It takes a special kind of cowardice to waver in one's opposition from the comfort of a free country half a world away....

You people seem so eager to provoke Iran into realtime threats against the United States. You just can't stand it that we're not on the verge of another war and bloodying up citizens of some other country, can you.

Bomb bomb bomb Iran. Ain't gonna happen. Rent some war movies.

 

[del]

You people seem so eager to provoke Iran into realtime threats against the United States. You just can't stand it that we're not on the verge of another war and bloodying up citizens of some other country, can you.

Bomb bomb bomb Iran. Ain't gonna happen. Rent some war movies.

you're not big on nuances, are you?

 

[Annie]

You people seem so eager to provoke Iran into realtime threats against the United States. You just can't stand it that we're not on the verge of another war and bloodying up citizens of some other country, can you.

Bomb bomb bomb Iran. Ain't gonna happen. Rent some war movies.

you're not big on nuances, are you?

Think she's read about NK threats?

 

[del]

You people seem so eager to provoke Iran into realtime threats against the United States. You just can't stand it that we're not on the verge of another war and bloodying up citizens of some other country, can you.

Bomb bomb bomb Iran. Ain't gonna happen. Rent some war movies.

you're not big on nuances, are you?

Think she's read about NK threats?

only to the extent conservatives are to blame.

 

[DiveCon]

you're not big on nuances, are you?

Think she's read about NK threats?

only to the extent conservatives are to blame.

of course

but ya know, this one seems so dumb that chris might actually have a shot with her, maybe even bobo

 

[rayboyusmc]

Why don't we take over the country. Install a Shah or something and make them our friends.

Oh, sorry we did that already and then it was democracy we overthrew.

Obama should come out and really vocally back them up. Then Grand Leader can say that they are our stooges and has the right to kill them.

What ever happened to a country, right or wrong, having the right to run its own affairs. The only way they will change, and they will because the right wing religious nuts will lose their power over time, is for the Iranians to rise up and change their government.

I don't remember Iran and any one else attacking US when Bush stole the election in 2000.

No one here supports Grand Leader, but the chickenshit Kantors and other repulicraps are just using this as another political ploy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Why don't we take over the country. Install a Shah or something and make them our friends.

Oh, sorry we did that already and then it was democracy we overthrew.

Obama should come out and really vocally back them up. Then Grand Leader can say that they are our stooges and has the right to kill them.

What ever happened to a country, right or wrong, having the right to run its own affairs. The only way they will change, and they will because the right wing religious nuts will lose their power over time, is for the Iranians to rise up and change their government.

I don't remember Iran and any one else attacking US when Bush stole the election in 2000.

No one here supports Grand Leader, but the chickenshit Kantors and other repulicraps are just using this as another political ploy.

I absolutely LOVE the claim Bush stole the 2000 election. Even though EVER recount, even by people that desperately wanted to PROVE Bush stole the election found that Bush won.

Another example of a Liberal dumb ass thinking if they repeat the lie often enough people will believe it.

 

[editec]

The last thing that those people protesting in Iran need right now is our heavy handed interference.

That would be giving the Mullahs a bludgeon to claim that the protestors are tools of America.

They are quite capable of dealing with their own government.

 

[Gunny]

Officially, America is no longer America. France and UK are doing better.

That Was Awful. Do It Again!
The New York Times's bizarre position on Iran.

By JAMES TARANTO

We suppose we were a bit hasty in declaring, in yesterday's headline, "We're All Neocons Now." That "all," of course, left out President Obama, who has been under fire from left and right for his listless response to the Iranian regime's political crisis. But we hadn't realized that Obama is expressly not under fire from one place on the left, the New York Times editorial board. In an editorial yesterday, the paper staked out a position of such utter confusion that it can only be termed bizarre. Here are the final three paragraphs:

More violence against the Iranian people will only highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation.

If the authorities want to resolve this impasse peacefully--that must be the goal--they should call a new election, monitored by independent Iranian observers. Before last week's results were prematurely and improbably declared, a runoff was expected between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi. As a first step, authorities should set up a commission representing all major candidates to examine the election data and jointly determine a face-saving and credible way forward.

Some in Washington, meanwhile, have been complaining that President Obama hasn't been tough enough in his criticism of Iran's government. He may have to speak out more forcefully in the days to come. But given its history with Iran, the United States must take special care not to be seen as interfering. That would only give Iran's hard-liners a further excuse to blame the United States for their own shameful failures.​

Let's take this from the bottom, starting with the paper's comments on Obama. This paragraph is remarkable for its own flocculence. The Times implies, without quite saying it, both that it approves of Obama's evasions ("the United States must take special care") and that it would approve if he took a different approach ("he may have to speak out more forcefully"). It's hard to know whether to describe this as a posture of total deference to the president or of complete indifference to the underlying subject.


The paper even refrains from criticizing the one Obama statement that has drawn expressions of disapproval from almost everyone else: his claim, on Tuesday, that there's not much difference between incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi. If this is true, the Times's call for a new election doesn't make much sense.

Not that it makes much sense either way. There is so much wrong with this idea that it's hard to know where to begin, so let's pick one telling detail: the paper's insistence that the new election be "monitored by independent Iranian observers." Why not call for monitoring by international observers, common practice when corrupt Third World regimes hold elections? In this context, "independent Iranian observers" is a contradiction in terms anyway, given that all Iranians live either under or inside the regime's heel.

As we've noted earlier this week, even an "honest" Iranian election would be a sham, given that only candidates approved by the regime-controlled Guardian Council are permitted to run. (This year the council rejected more than 100 prospective candidates for every one it approved.) And what if the regime decided to make the revote only a travesty of a sham rather than a mockery of a travesty of a sham--that is, what if it steals the election for Ahmadinejad again, but in a less obvious way?

The Times seems to think such a result would be desirable. The editorial's penultimate paragraph calls for "a face-saving and credible way forward," not a fair and just one. This is consistent with the antepenultimate paragraph, which we'll repeat for emphasis:

More violence against the Iranian people will only highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation.

This statement is flatly false. More violence would do many things beside "highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation." Most obvious, it would inflict pain, injury and death on innocent people who are heroically standing against a criminal regime. It could succeed in achieving the regime's goal, which is to suppress dissent by terrorizing the population. In short, violence is part and parcel of the regime's illegitimacy. The Times, however, expresses concern only that it highlights that illegitimacy.

Making this even more strange, yesterday's Times editorial is a substantial weakening of the paper's own position in a Monday editorial that highlighted the regime's illegitimacy:

The elections are another potent reminder that there can be no illusions about Iran's government and its malign intent. That is a hard political fact.

From "there can be no illusions" to "determine a face-saving and credible way forward" in 72 hours. It takes courage for Iranians to put themselves on the line in opposition to a repressive regime. It takes a special kind of cowardice to waver in one's opposition from the comfort of a free country half a world away....

You people seem so eager to provoke Iran into realtime threats against the United States. You just can't stand it that we're not on the verge of another war and bloodying up citizens of some other country, can you.

Bomb bomb bomb Iran. Ain't gonna happen. Rent some war movies.

Why don't we take over the country. Install a Shah or something and make them our friends.

Oh, sorry we did that already and then it was democracy we overthrew.

Obama should come out and really vocally back them up. Then Grand Leader can say that they are our stooges and has the right to kill them.

What ever happened to a country, right or wrong, having the right to run its own affairs. The only way they will change, and they will because the right wing religious nuts will lose their power over time, is for the Iranians to rise up and change their government.

I don't remember Iran and any one else attacking US when Bush stole the election in 2000.

No one here supports Grand Leader, but the chickenshit Kantors and other repulicraps are just using this as another political ploy.

Just wow. How stupid does it get? You two have to pass that single brain cell back and forth?

 

[MaggieMae]

Think she's read about NK threats?

only to the extent conservatives are to blame.

of course

but ya know, this one seems so dumb that chris might actually have a shot with her, maybe even bobo

I love it when all the little fratboys get together for one voice. They're always so profound in unison!

Sorry, but if you think for a moment that there aren't a whole bunch of people who think war equals patriotism and aren't already locked and loaded for another costly escapade, you're dilusional. Of course we're so short on bodies to actually fight what armchair warriors drool over, we'd need to send in the Boy Scouts and piece together some heavy equipment way past the sell-by date in order to "do" Iran or North Korea.

 

[MaggieMae]

Officially, America is no longer America. France and UK are doing better.

You people seem so eager to provoke Iran into realtime threats against the United States. You just can't stand it that we're not on the verge of another war and bloodying up citizens of some other country, can you.

Bomb bomb bomb Iran. Ain't gonna happen. Rent some war movies.

Why don't we take over the country. Install a Shah or something and make them our friends.

Oh, sorry we did that already and then it was democracy we overthrew.

Obama should come out and really vocally back them up. Then Grand Leader can say that they are our stooges and has the right to kill them.

What ever happened to a country, right or wrong, having the right to run its own affairs. The only way they will change, and they will because the right wing religious nuts will lose their power over time, is for the Iranians to rise up and change their government.

I don't remember Iran and any one else attacking US when Bush stole the election in 2000.

No one here supports Grand Leader, but the chickenshit Kantors and other repulicraps are just using this as another political ploy.

Just wow. How stupid does it get? You two have to pass that single brain cell back and forth?

More produndity. Like...huh?

 

[DiveCon]

Why don't we take over the country. Install a Shah or something and make them our friends.

Oh, sorry we did that already and then it was democracy we overthrew.

Obama should come out and really vocally back them up. Then Grand Leader can say that they are our stooges and has the right to kill them.

What ever happened to a country, right or wrong, having the right to run its own affairs. The only way they will change, and they will because the right wing religious nuts will lose their power over time, is for the Iranians to rise up and change their government.

I don't remember Iran and any one else attacking US when Bush stole the election in 2000.

No one here supports Grand Leader, but the chickenshit Kantors and other repulicraps are just using this as another political ploy.

more proof that liberals have a perverted view of history
we didnt install ANY Shah, he was ALREADY Shah, moron
all we did was advise him to do what he already had the authority to do

 

[DiveCon]

You people seem so eager to provoke Iran into realtime threats against the United States. You just can't stand it that we're not on the verge of another war and bloodying up citizens of some other country, can you.

Bomb bomb bomb Iran. Ain't gonna happen. Rent some war movies.

Why don't we take over the country. Install a Shah or something and make them our friends.

Oh, sorry we did that already and then it was democracy we overthrew.

Obama should come out and really vocally back them up. Then Grand Leader can say that they are our stooges and has the right to kill them.

What ever happened to a country, right or wrong, having the right to run its own affairs. The only way they will change, and they will because the right wing religious nuts will lose their power over time, is for the Iranians to rise up and change their government.

I don't remember Iran and any one else attacking US when Bush stole the election in 2000.

No one here supports Grand Leader, but the chickenshit Kantors and other repulicraps are just using this as another political ploy.

Just wow. How stupid does it get? You two have to pass that single brain cell back and forth?

More produndity. Like...huh?

uh, WHAT???

gotta love it when moronic liberals try to show how intelligent they are

 

[oreo]

The last thing that those people protesting in Iran need right now is our heavy handed interference.

That would be giving the Mullahs a bludgeon to claim that the protestors are tools of America.

They are quite capable of dealing with their own government.

The Mullahs are already accusing us of that. But--I agree with Obama on this--& normally I am a big critic of his economic policies.

There is no way to prove that this election was a fraud. Everything I have read is based on conjecture according to the size of political rallies. With so many unemployed in Iran--I imagine political rallies would have high attendance regardless of who was speaking. Ones attendance at a political rally does doesn't indicate a vote.

I was around in 1979--when the Mullahs gained control--& this is what the Iranian people wanted. After they got them-over time they became discouraged.

In the end--it's their country--their form of ridiculous government-who cowers to the appointed by God knows Who Supreme Leader. It's -their elections--& all of this is really none of our business.

 

[DamnYankee]

Yep! We now have the honour of being the ones to piss off Iran the most. Ayatollah Khamanei called the UK “the most treacherous” of Iran’s enemies.

Quite funny really, coming from a bunch of medievil tub thumpers who opress their own people.

Doncha find it interesting how WE keep changing sides? Kinda like little kids who need to choose up the best players for their team....

 

[Epsilon Delta]

more proof that liberals have a perverted view of history
we didnt install ANY Shah, he was ALREADY Shah, moron
all we did was advise him to do what he already had the authority to do

Actually, that's half-right. There was a Shah, Reza Shah, but after the '41 invasion of Iran during WWII [needed the supply lines] he has replaced by his son, "The" Shah [Reza Pahlavi]. In '51 Mossadegh was elected as prime minister and nationalized the oil, so Britain asked the US for help in overthrowing the democratic part of the regime [the Prime Minister and Parliament] and turned Reza Pahlavi into a virtual brutal autocrat. This was Opration Ajax in 1953, the first time in which the CIA deposed a democratically elected government but by NO means the last. Mossadegh was deposed and arrested and the Shah, with US help, would go on to brutally crush all opposition for the remainder of his stay in power.

I guess you'd have to forgive Iranians for laughing their ass off about "America's leadership in bringing about democracy [anywhere]."

Anyway, to continue with this thread of thought, I ask again, as I've been asking these suddenly bleeding-heart defenders of democracy in the third world [excuse me: ]

WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST?! INVASION?! BOMB BOMB BOM IRAN? ASSASINATIONS?! COUNTER-COUPS?! WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST?!

 

[Sarah G]

Officially, America is no longer America. France and UK are doing better.

That Was Awful. Do It Again!
The New York Times's bizarre position on Iran.

By JAMES TARANTO

We suppose we were a bit hasty in declaring, in yesterday's headline, "We're All Neocons Now." That "all," of course, left out President Obama, who has been under fire from left and right for his listless response to the Iranian regime's political crisis. But we hadn't realized that Obama is expressly not under fire from one place on the left, the New York Times editorial board. In an editorial yesterday, the paper staked out a position of such utter confusion that it can only be termed bizarre. Here are the final three paragraphs:

More violence against the Iranian people will only highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation.

If the authorities want to resolve this impasse peacefully--that must be the goal--they should call a new election, monitored by independent Iranian observers. Before last week's results were prematurely and improbably declared, a runoff was expected between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi. As a first step, authorities should set up a commission representing all major candidates to examine the election data and jointly determine a face-saving and credible way forward.

Some in Washington, meanwhile, have been complaining that President Obama hasn't been tough enough in his criticism of Iran's government. He may have to speak out more forcefully in the days to come. But given its history with Iran, the United States must take special care not to be seen as interfering. That would only give Iran's hard-liners a further excuse to blame the United States for their own shameful failures.​

Let's take this from the bottom, starting with the paper's comments on Obama. This paragraph is remarkable for its own flocculence. The Times implies, without quite saying it, both that it approves of Obama's evasions ("the United States must take special care") and that it would approve if he took a different approach ("he may have to speak out more forcefully"). It's hard to know whether to describe this as a posture of total deference to the president or of complete indifference to the underlying subject.


The paper even refrains from criticizing the one Obama statement that has drawn expressions of disapproval from almost everyone else: his claim, on Tuesday, that there's not much difference between incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi. If this is true, the Times's call for a new election doesn't make much sense.

Not that it makes much sense either way. There is so much wrong with this idea that it's hard to know where to begin, so let's pick one telling detail: the paper's insistence that the new election be "monitored by independent Iranian observers." Why not call for monitoring by international observers, common practice when corrupt Third World regimes hold elections? In this context, "independent Iranian observers" is a contradiction in terms anyway, given that all Iranians live either under or inside the regime's heel.

As we've noted earlier this week, even an "honest" Iranian election would be a sham, given that only candidates approved by the regime-controlled Guardian Council are permitted to run. (This year the council rejected more than 100 prospective candidates for every one it approved.) And what if the regime decided to make the revote only a travesty of a sham rather than a mockery of a travesty of a sham--that is, what if it steals the election for Ahmadinejad again, but in a less obvious way?

The Times seems to think such a result would be desirable. The editorial's penultimate paragraph calls for "a face-saving and credible way forward," not a fair and just one. This is consistent with the antepenultimate paragraph, which we'll repeat for emphasis:

More violence against the Iranian people will only highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation.

This statement is flatly false. More violence would do many things beside "highlight the government's illegitimacy and desperation." Most obvious, it would inflict pain, injury and death on innocent people who are heroically standing against a criminal regime. It could succeed in achieving the regime's goal, which is to suppress dissent by terrorizing the population. In short, violence is part and parcel of the regime's illegitimacy. The Times, however, expresses concern only that it highlights that illegitimacy.

Making this even more strange, yesterday's Times editorial is a substantial weakening of the paper's own position in a Monday editorial that highlighted the regime's illegitimacy:

The elections are another potent reminder that there can be no illusions about Iran's government and its malign intent. That is a hard political fact.

From "there can be no illusions" to "determine a face-saving and credible way forward" in 72 hours. It takes courage for Iranians to put themselves on the line in opposition to a repressive regime. It takes a special kind of cowardice to waver in one's opposition from the comfort of a free country half a world away....

You people seem so eager to provoke Iran into realtime threats against the United States. You just can't stand it that we're not on the verge of another war and bloodying up citizens of some other country, can you.

Bomb bomb bomb Iran. Ain't gonna happen. Rent some war movies.

Can you imagine McCain as president? He is ready to invade right now.