Mar 30 2007

Iran’s Actions Reflect On Appeasers’ Delusions

Published by at 9:50 am under All General Discussions,Iran

The US has naive appeasers in both parties, though they reside in large numbers in the liberal wing of the Democrat party. But the GOP has their Bakers and Hagels, and Iran is showing just how naive they can be in the international arena. This was brought home quite well in this article by Rich Lowry about the misconceptions built up about Iran and the US over the years by the media plying fictional fantasies that are more self projection than reality:

In deterrence theory, this is called “mirroring,” judging someone else’s intentions by looking at your own. James Baker — the head of the late, great Iraq Study Group — concluded that Iran wants stability in Iraq and is amenable to negotiations, no doubt partially because he himself wants stability in Iraq and is amenable to negotiations. Indeed, there is no dispute that can’t be worked out by haggling with James Baker, but he has never taken any hostages, denied the Holocaust or claimed to have had a halo — all exploits of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The old saw about a liberal being someone who won’t take his own side in a fight applies here. When the Bush administration presented evidence that the Iranians have provided material used to kill American troops in Iraq with roadside bombs, Democrats exploded in outrage — at the Bush administration, for not being convincing enough, for having delayed the release of the intelligence, for being overly belligerent toward Iran, which just wants to talk to us.

To the contrary, Iran wants to destabilize Iraq so we will leave and Shia radicals will inherit the country. It wants to acquire a nuclear weapon to become the hegemonic power in the Middle East. And it wants to humiliate the United States and its allies at every opportunity. It can’t merely be talked out of any of these goals. To the extent we try, we are ensuring the abject failure of diplomacy, which can succeed only after we demonstrate that we aren’t to be trifled with.

Very true. The left is attempting to deal with a mythical creature as if it exists. Such is the reality of delusion.

11 responses so far

11 Responses to “Iran’s Actions Reflect On Appeasers’ Delusions”

  1. Soothsayer says:

    The delusion is your, AJ. Allowing some time for Iran to return the POW Brits rather than bombing Iran and starting yet another war with an Islamic country is hardly appeasement. It’s much, much closer to common sense.

  2. AJStrata says:

    Soothie, ‘common sense’ and your world views don’t mix. LOL!

  3. Soothsayer says:

    But starting another war IS common sense? Lay off the crack pipe, man.

  4. Aitch748 says:

    So in Sooth’s world, Iran needs to be given time to make amends after kidnapping another country’s soldiers (from Iraqi waters, no less), but Monica Goodling needs to be jailed for pleading the Fifth to try to avoid malicious prosecution.

    Well, there you have it: Bush administration officials do not merit the benefit of the doubt, but totalitarian theocrats do.

  5. BarbaraS says:

    Don’t anyone forget that Iran declared war on the US in 1979 and that war is still ongoing. I haven’t seen anything to change that situation and neither has anyone else. Witness we haven’t had an embassy in Iran in 28 years. That should tell the dems something. It is very disengenious of the dems in congress to pretend to refute this. They understand it very well but it is not to their advantage to admit it at this time.

  6. Carol_Herman says:

    It’s not Maliki’s problem!

    The saud’s want to control all the arabs.

    And, they just lost their bet, though they keep Bush in their pockets.

    Iran? Figured out a way to move the House of Saud OFF the table!

    In other words? The “hostage crisis” pushed the arab league’s Riyadh meeting down the toilet.

    We’re going into iran?

    What’s the matter with you?

    Bush isn’t able to PULL THE PEOPLE along.

    FDR waited for YEARS, as the isolationist spirit in America dictated the “terms” with which FDR was able to deal with the nazi menace.

    How did FDR do this? Ah. He gave a few “fireside chats.”

    In 1933, at this first one, he talked about banking.

    I don’t think there were more than “5 chats” total. Through his 3 terms (12 years) in office.

    When we got hit at Pearl Harbor; not only did FDR go to Congress and give a big speech. He also went on the air. HE TOLD AMERICANS TO BUY MAPS! He was going to lay out, for the American people … whom he hoped would have maps in front of them … as he spoke. About the menace we were facing. In the Pacific. And, in the Atlantic. By February 1942? The Japs were pretty much in charge of one-million-miles of ocean. And, 100-million people.

    The night FDR spoke; all the world maps in all the stores across America had been sold.

    He galvanized the public. And, the isolationists, disappeared. (Or went to work at State. Pick your favorite, here.)

    But in all democracies YOU NEED THE PEOPLE ON YOUR SIDE.

    Bush has bupkis.

    And? Maliki is NOT unhappy that Iran gave a good swift kick into the groin area of the real bastards! THE HOUSE OF SAUD!

    So, go complain. Shout at your TV.

    But the real louse? Bush didn’t have to agree to let the “saudi plan” fly.

    It’s probably not flying right now.

    But Bush is incompetent. Things won’t get better for us while this monkey is president. Just like it was in 1978. And, we put up with Jimmy Carter.

    Too bad Bush didn’t think of firing his incompetents. Because? Condi would be gone by now, too.

    What will people say after January 20, 2009? I’ll guess they’ll say affirmative action hires don’t work well for this country.

    What if Bush tries to swing an incompetent supreme court nominee up “next time?” Could happen within the next two years, ya know?

    I’ll bet, then, that you’ll see a ferocious congress! You won’t have candidates “coming out of committee.” Instead? O’Connor will be asked to take her seat back. And, wait for January 20, 2009.

    Bush? You think any GOP candidate, ahead, is going to ask him to toodle out and do a campaign stop? REALLY?

    All this is harmless entertainment. The serious stuff to discuss? Bush doesn’t know this, yet. But his toe is in “impeachment waters.” Why? No one has sympathy for him.

    And, from Sampson’s “testimony,” it seems there are underlings, working for incompetents, that have their own axes to grind. Who knew?

  7. Carol_Herman says:

    Given what’s at stake. And, given that Bush is pushing for the House of Saud “to win one;” why not see, instead, that the allies haven’t got a grip on what would work for the Iraqis, EITHER.

    In other words? We “picked a side.” But it seems all Bush wanted to do is knock Saddam OUT. And, then give the House of Saud “the advantages of picking up property.”

    Nope. There won’t be any truth discussed. Because either the elites are clueless. Or they don’t see that iran is also a player. And, for some reason Bush is more focussed on disliking Iran, than he is on the savage enablers in the House of Saud.

    But if you had a scorecard? You’d see Bush is behind the 8-Ball. He’s not picking up any milage, with his kakamamie plans. Condi’s trip was a bust.

    While Bush’s relationship with Blair is not a very good one.

    As to the “how did the iranians get away with this?”

    It seems Blair “wanted” the phone call. And, “accepted” the phone call from the rather innept commander of the Cornwall.

    Yet no blame falls where it must.

    Ya know, the iranians seem a bit more media savvy, than the incompetents! No matter where you look! As if diplomatic pants dancers didn’t know that Bush might as well twiddle his thumbs.

    If you saw the “capture” film; you’d see there was one British helicopter, hovering over the iranians.

    Let’s see? You’re told that the Brits were examining ships for contraband. And, then?

    Seems to me, considering the size of the arsenal; we’re dealing with enemies who still know how to make “perfect scores.” Be they tall buildings. Or, soldiers in rafts. NO. HEAVY. GUNS!

    You’ve got a problem when a commander of a war ship “calls home.” Instead of opening up a manual that would explain to someone very innept; how to engage a bunch of marauders out at sea.

    Instead? You’re picking sides?

    I’ve picked mine. I hope the House of Saud’s FAILS.

    And, I hope Maliki can keep his country in shape. Since it’s the Saud’s who are funding all of Iraq’s troubles. As our troops get mired and sucker punched by Bush, himself. A pawn for the Saud’s.

    Meanwhile? You can yell at the tops of your lungs, sort’a the way the Kos Kids do. Because it doesn’t matter!

    Until you get a picture that Bush is the problem! With Tony Baloney Blair not lagging too far behind. What you see is what you get when the man in the white house is as innept as Jimmy Carter. That’s okay. Bush doesn’t have a clue.

    While, here? Some of you may recognize the sounds of “something different.” Bush is about as popular as Jimmy Carter was in 1978.

    All the roads lead right into his office. He, however, occupies the chair like a potted plant. Day to day, he doesn’t learn a thing.

  8. Carol J says:

    Can anyone tell me how the hell this helps?

    (via Hotair)

    ABC News has learned Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi plans to visit Syria next week to meet with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. The visit will make Pelosi the most senior U.S. official ever to meet with President Assad…

    Pelosi’s visit to Syria would come as the United States has severed high-level contacts with Assad’s government…

    Traveling with Pelosi will be Congressmen Keith Ellison (D-MN), Nick Rahall (D-WV), Tom Lantos (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA), and David Hobson (R-OH).

    Following in the traitorist footsteps of Jay Rockefeller? Wonder if she’s going to warn Assad that we’re going to invade Iran.

    The White House spokeswoman says Gee! We wish they wouldn’t do that. What the hell is going on here? Comments?

  9. Carol_Herman says:

    Pelosi can go where she pleases. She’s not going to bring voters into the donk’s tent. That’s just reality. She can also take George McGovern with her, if she so chooses.

    In our free country, very few people are impressed with the politicians in DC.

    Meanwhile? You can flag the mistakes to Bush. And, his mistaken belief that the Saudis “deserve” to be in control. While most arabs just laugh at this. And, think it’s very funny.

    Iran won a round. They certainly showed the House of Saud to be jackasses, in the “getting the news out” department.

    Way back, in 1972, one of the things Nixon “tried” was “wage and price controls.” Which up-ended everything the GOP said they believed in. So, what was Nixon up to?

    Turns out, Nixon was betting he’d “do” a take-over of the GOP. His goal? To become more powerful than the rockefellers.

    That’s not how Nixon’s bets panned out. And, even now, there aren’t too many people complimenting the man who was forced to resign from office.

    And? He was forced to resign when a republican (Rodino), threw in the towel.

    Meanwhile, things aren’t as bad for Bush. Because he’s an idiot. And, he can’t quite get anything he wants “done.”

    Let alone how the iranians just ate the Saudi’s expensive lunch.

    Pelosi? She is steering into the “power shift.”

    Tony Blair? I gather he’s “seething.” Which is something lots of europeans are getting to be go at doing.

    This, too, shall pass.

    The giraffe, Assad, is actually a weak player.

    He didn’t quite kiss the Saudi’s ring in Riyadh, either.

    So, as far as politics go? Nothing’s changed.

    Yes. We’re still in Iraq. But Maliki HATES the saudis! So Bush? Seems to just sit on whatever it is he is sitting upon.

    Headway in Iraq? Ya know? Maliki is happy to see Tony Baloney Blair getting it “stuck to him!”

    Similiar to the days when Nixon started to go downhill. (And, Nixon was a very bright man!) Now? Your top brain is under a turban. In Riyadh.

    And, Bush is probably very poor company.

    While I’m still wondering why Kyle Sampson deveeloped such a dislike, not just for his boss, the AG Gonzales; but, so, too, it seems for the top potted plant in the Oval Office.

    Go ahead. Make fun of pelosi.

    But it doesn’t matter.

  10. dennisa says:

    There has been speculation that the Iranian regime wants to create the sense of external threats to the country in order to unify support behind the regime. Fifteen sailors in rubber boats in Iraqi waters are hardly a threat to Iran. I don’t believe that this particular ploy of the regime is going to work.

  11. DubiousD says:

    Pelosi’s going to Syria? Does that mean it’s her turn to play Rockefeller?