"Ahmadinejad is the elected president of Iran." - Press Secretary Robert Gibbs

/palm through face

Obama keeps making all the right friends ...

Nice, very nice. Well, I suppose it's hard to make nice with a thug when you've got evidence of his thuggery. Sweep away the evidence, though, and it's a lot easier.

Change!

I have to admit, this doesn't make sense to me. Does the Administration not believe that we should object to torture of citizens? Does the Administration think we should not hold other countries accountable for human rights abuses?

“If the rationale is that we are going to stop funding human rights-related work in Iran because we don’t want to provoke the government, it is absolutely the wrong message to send,’’ she said. “That means that we don’t really believe in human rights, that the American government just looks into it when it is convenient.’’

Ouch.

Obama worries about the rights of terrorists, but not the rights of dissidents from the Mullacracy. Nice to see his priorities are in order.

/spits on CBBHO

Right wing spin machine.

re: #5 vxbush

Yes.

The Iranian democracy movement - thrown under the bus.

We're on the wrong side of a couple of these democratic opportunites - it's one thing not to be the world's policemen, but it's quite another to keep picking the wrong team (or leaving the right team dangling in the wind).

/Not a play on words.

Tell me again how the Obama Administration is dedicated to human rights and that the left is interested in human rights while the right isn't?

Is this a sop to the Iranians to get them to the bargaining table, where the Iranians will stall for more time to allow their nuclear program to continue enriching uranium for their weapons program?

re: #7 Dark_Falcon

"Well, it's their culture and we shouldn't intervene in their development. As Americans though, we have standards to uphold."

/hurr durr

You know, just when you think this administration is starting to see the light, they seem to close their eyes yet again to the train wreck getting ever closer.

For some reason this is reminding me of the missile shield news bit. I'm going to wait and see if there ends up being a good reason for this action.

Appeasement, pure and simple.

From the article:

But at least three other groups that received funding under Bush’s democracy program for Iran have been told they would not receive funding this year, according to Roya Boroumand, founder of the Bormound Foundation, which works against the death penalty in Iran. Boroumand said her group does not get State Department funds, but that she is in contact with other organizations who do, and all are worried.

“If the rationale is that we are going to stop funding human rights-related work in Iran because we don’t want to provoke the government, it is absolutely the wrong message to send,’’ she said. “That means that we don’t really believe in human rights, that the American government just looks into it when it is convenient.’

re: #15 Locker

For some reason this is reminding me of the missile shield news bit. I'm going to wait and see if there ends up being a good reason for this action.

We'll have to see, but right now, it doesn't look like it.

re: #1 laZardo

Double face palm

re: #9 MikeySDCA

Yes.

Surely someone is going to point out his statements during his term as Senator when he supported such funding and investigation into such abuses...

re: #15 Locker

For some reason this is reminding me of the missile shield news bit. I'm going to wait and see if there ends up being a good reason for this action.

Don't hold your breath.

I was trying to get the names right - why the hell are we supporting Zelaya in Honduras, any way? A president loses an election, and their supreme court ousts him by way of the army - that's now a coup?

Democracy works, but it's fragile - we don't need to be encouraging thugs to squash it.

Iraq's government spokesman says a group of 36 Iranian opposition members have been freed after nearly three months in custody in Iraq.

Ali al-Dabbagh says the men were returned Wednesday to Camp Ashraf in northern Iraq, where nearly 3,500 members of the People's Mujahedeen of Iran have been confined since the US-led invasion in 2003.

But al-Dabbagh says that Iraq still seeks to expel the 36 former detainees to any country willing to take them. The 36 men were detained in July and supporters claimed many were on a hunger strike for weeks. Iraqi judicial authorities had ordered the men freed.

The group operated for years in Iraq under Saddam Hussein. The US military turned over responsibility for Camp Ashraf to the Iraqis on January 1.

SNIP

re: #18 EmmmieG

Double face palm

Why get someone else when you can do it yourself?

...and thats how The Obama throws an entire foreign nation under the bus.

Nice work!

If I wasn't so horrified, I would be impressed.

re: #18 EmmmieG

Double face palm

Here's a good one from the same site.

Fascist Barbie

re: #3 Guanxi88

Nice, very nice. Well, I suppose it's hard to make nice with a thug when you've got evidence of his thuggery. Sweep away the evidence, though, and it's a lot easier.

It's the way of the Chicago machine.

BTW, Morning all.

re: #3 Guanxi88

I only regret that I can offer but a single up-ding for that one!

Hear! Hear!

There are so many reasons not to engage with the rulers of Iran, but this administration is so determined to subject Ahmadinejad to the Omnipotent Charisma of The One that the facts are ignored.

"$2.7 million in funding for the next two years"

The amount of money involved also says a lot about this decision.

This amount of money is very small when compared with the amounts of money the Obama administration and Democrats are willing to spend on other projects.

re: #10 martinsmithy

The Iranian democracy movement - thrown under the bus.

just another speed bump on the road to where ever it is we're going...

(a week or so ago, there were some newspaper reports/editorials about President Obama's heading up that UN committee (about stopping nuclear proliferation)...and it was later discovered that the U.S. had info about Iran's secret enrichment facility -- and Obama did not make use of that opportunity as Chair of the committee to announce Iran's continued nuclear weapons development, but waited for the G-20 summit to make the announcement...I suspect that the reason for this -- as may be the closure of this agency collecting info on Iran's human rights abuses -- is diplomacy. It's to allow Iran to "save face."..and not to publicly humiliate Iran...)

re: #21 brent

Because Zelaya actually was President, and you don't just hoist someone out of the country for publicly asking if maybe a public referendum on term limits should be considered.

Is this a definable change in policy between Bush and Obama?

re: #19 vxbush

Surely someone is going to point out his statements during his term as Senator when he supported such funding and investigation into such abuses...

Did he support it then?

Sad.

re: #33 MandyManners

Did he support it then?

I'm pretty sure. Let me do a search...

I unconsciously read this as "US cutoff of funding to Iran human rights cause signals shit".

Sometimes my unconscious mind is right.

Their supreme court heard and rejected his argument, and he would not step down. He tried to rewrite their constitution and was denied; the military stepped in to enforce their rule of law as ordered by the courts. It was not some rogue action on the military's part.

re: #15 Locker

For some reason this is reminding me of the missile shield news bit. I'm going to wait and see if there ends up being a good reason for this action.

I'm struggling to think of any good reason for sweeping human rights abuses under the rug.

See, part of this is probably because it's easier to "negotiate" with a dictator than it is with a free nation. It's easy to figure out who's who in, say, Hamas; it's harder, however, to negotiate with Israel, because their government has to reflect or serve the will of their people.

Consequently, he prefers dictators in Iran.

re: #21 brent

I was trying to get the names right - why the hell are we supporting Zelaya in Honduras, any way? A president loses an election, and their supreme court ousts him by way of the army - that's now a coup?

Democracy works, but it's fragile - we don't need to be encouraging thugs to squash it.

I don't think he lost an election. The Hondurans responsible for the overthrow maintain that Zelaya was, inter alia, trying to push a constitutional amendment to overturn the prohibition on a second term presidency. The problem for Zelaya was that the current Honduran consitution contains a clause that prevents this happening by triggering a requirement for the immediate removal from office of the offender.

re: #31 laZardo

Check this out, laZardo:

While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do...

Calculating that some critical mass of Hondurans would take his side, the president decided he would run the referendum himself. So on Thursday he led a mob that broke into the military installation where the ballots from Venezuela were being stored and then had his supporters distribute them in defiance of the Supreme Court's order.

That's a little beyond "publicly asking if maybe a public referendum on term limits should be considered." Quote is from WSJ here.

This is just another step towards becoming "just another nation in the community of nations". While it looks appealing to progressives on the surface if you dive into those depths you see the next big war rising beneath the surface. We cannot continue to go down the path of "who are we to lecture other nations" for very much longer.

So what did Iran say to make us do this? You guys better stop making us look bad or we will blow up some Jews to show our displeasure? They have us cowed into silence now?

Speaking of thugs,...

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

President Hugo Chavez is poking fun at Washington's misgivings over a possible transfer of nuclear materials between Venezuela and Iran.

During a televised Cabinet meeting Tuesday, Chavez welcomed Mining Minister Rodolfo Sanz as he arrived late and asked, "How's the uranium for Iran? For the atomic bomb?"

Chavez's mocking drew snickers from Cabinet members. Sanz grinned.

US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said recently the United States is worried about the possibility of nuclear transfers between Iran and Venezuela.

SNIP

re: #42 Thanos

This is just another step towards becoming "just another nation in the community of nations". While it looks appealing to progressives on the surface if you dive into those depths you see the next big war rising beneath the surface. We cannot continue to go down the path of "who are we to lecture other nations" for very much longer.

I think we are already in a post-superpower, ie unstable and volatile.

re: #41 SlartyBartfast

Okay then...but they still had to kick him out of the country for that?

Very disturbing -- more so since Occam's Razor seems to say that Rubin's analysis is correct.

re: #39 Guanxi88

See, part of this is probably because it's easier to "negotiate" with a dictator than it is with a free nation. It's easy to figure out who's who in, say, Hamas; it's harder, however, to negotiate with Israel, because their government has to reflect or serve the will of their people.

Consequently, he prefers dictators in Iran.

Did BHO say that or did Biden?

I was just going to post that WSJ article - 15-0, he was called out for seeking to extend his own term, in direct opposition to their constitution. We are basically telling the Hondurans to pound sand up their constitution and bring him back. The same deal was rejected when Costa Rica offered it up - time to let them run their own country.

re: #43 Claire

Maybe it was something like: "hey, just let us keep raping and murdering dissenters in our nation and we will definitely start unclenching our fist!"

This is the office at the State Department who used to provide their funding. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.

re: #45 baier

I think we are already in a post-superpower, ie unstable and volatile.

I don't want people to miss-characterize this, the next big war is not around the corner, it's a decade or more off if we continue this direction, but it's out there.

re: #46 laZardo

Okay then...but they still had to kick him out of the country for that?

Trying to overthrow the constitutional order, using a mob to over-run a military installation whose officers were acting under instructions from the Supreme Court to prevent a do-it-yourself referendum using ballots and support from a foreign power? He's lucky they just threw him out.

re: #48 MandyManners

Did BHO say that or did Biden?

Neither one; just an analysis of the preference for dealing with dictators.

re: #44 MandyManners

Speaking of thugs,...

[Link: www.jpost.com...]

President Hugo Chavez is poking fun at Washington's misgivings over a possible transfer of nuclear materials between Venezuela and Iran.

During a televised Cabinet meeting Tuesday, Chavez welcomed Mining Minister Rodolfo Sanz as he arrived late and asked, "How's the uranium for Iran? For the atomic bomb?"

Chavez's mocking drew snickers from Cabinet members. Sanz grinned.

US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said recently the United States is worried about the possibility of nuclear transfers between Iran and Venezuela.

SNIP

Wow, that's good Chavez. You should be on SNL. However, I'll lay good odds against that shipment's ever reaching Iran.

re: #39 Guanxi88

See, part of this is probably because it's easier to "negotiate" with a dictator than it is with a free nation. It's easy to figure out who's who in, say, Hamas; it's harder, however, to negotiate with Israel, because their government has to reflect or serve the will of their people.

Consequently, he prefers dictators in Iran.

Didn't Jimmy Carter say something like this? That he preferred dealing with dictators because he knew they were completely in charge?

Read the whole article - the decision to expel him had to do with the very real possiblility of mob violence, and the fact that Chavez's own hand was at work in Honduras, trying to ship in votes for Zelaya. It may have been rash, but that's true only in the relative calm after the episode.

The question I have about this - Clinton generated ploy, or Obama Generated ploy?

re: #46 laZardo

It's possible that the gov't reaction may have been over-the-top, but when people believe their freedom is in danger they sometimes do crazy things. Many examples come to mind...

re: #35 vxbush

I'm pretty sure. Let me do a search...not much yet...

At OnTheIssues, a generic statement:

US policy should promote democracy and human rights. (Jul 2004)

At Council on Foreign Affairs, regarding China and human rights abuses:

He has said that although the United States should maintain a cooperative relationship with China, it should “never hesitate to be clear and consistent with China where we disagree—whether on protection of intellectual property rights, the manipulation of its currency, human rights, or the right stance on Sudan and Iran.”

re: #10 martinsmithy

The Iranian democracy movement - thrown under the bus.

And somewhere in a dungeon in Iran, Hossein Derakhshan's interrogators are laughing in his face.

Peace activists will tell you that the essential element to bringing peace to a situation is to depolarize it.

The question for the Obama admin is this - do we want to "depolarize" when human rights and pluralist democracy represents one of those poles?

At some point this country has to be willing to assert its values, especially in the face of tyranical asecular thugs. Trying to "depolarize" by abdicating your value system in the name of "bringing about peace" asks nothing of the other party. Instead, it hands them the concession they have demanded.

IMO, Obama is getting some bad advice on this one.

re: #59 SlartyBartfast

It's possible that the gov't reaction may have been over-the-top, but when people believe their freedom is in danger they sometimes do crazy things. Many examples come to mind...

Like the tea parties.

re: #53 Guanxi88

Yeah, they should have just made it a formal coup.

re: #58 Thanos

The question I have about this - Clinton generated ploy, or Obama Generated ploy?

My guess is it was a consensus decision.

re: #51 Mich-again

This is the office at the State Department who used to provide their funding. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor.

I did a quick search on Micheal Posner and Israel.

[Link: www.wikio.co.uk...]

About the fourth article down is about the Goldstone *spit* Report.

When President Zelaya proposed the reform extending his term, he caused Article 239 of the Constitution of Honduras, to take effect. The Supreme Court and the attorney general were following the law.

You can look up and read the law for yourself.

He can't even SUGGEST such a reform. In an area of the world where tyrants feel that they should be "president for life", this sort of suggestion is taken seriously.

re: #52 Thanos

I don't want people to miss-characterize this, the next big war is not around the corner, it's a decade or more off if we continue this direction, but it's out there.

I agree. I think we are a path to a very unstable world.

re: #52 Thanos

I don't want people to miss-characterize this, the next big war is not around the corner, it's a decade or more off if we continue this direction, but it's out there.

The start date of the next big war is not in our control.

re: #54 Guanxi88

Neither one; just an analysis of the preference for dealing with dictators.

Someone said it this year.

re: #68 debutaunt

The start date of the next big war is not in our control.

I'm free this Sunday.

re: #54 Guanxi88

Neither one; just an analysis of the preference for dealing with dictators.

JIMMAH CARTER!!

re: #68 debutaunt

But the next big war after that will be fought with sticks and stones.

/forgets who said that.

re: #64 Danny

My guess is it was a consensus decision.

I understand that, but someone came up with the idea first.

As terrible and short-sighted as this move is, let's remember it's not "Obama" himself doing it. Do you think he personally okayed this? it's the State Department, a separate fiefdom.

re: #30 J.S.
My understanding was that he timed it to be "shoulder to shoulder" with the UK and France when announcing it. Symbolic of multilateralism.

re: #12 lawhawk

Tell me again how the Obama Administration is dedicated to human rights and that the left is interested in human rights while the right isn't?[...]

The runup to the Iraq war settled the question of the Left's commitment to human rights quite nicely. They support them, unless such support puts them on the same side as the United States.

re: #63 laZardo

Like the tea parties.

re: #53 Guanxi88

Yeah, they should have just made it a formal coup.

No, a coup would be when the military intervened to overthrow a legitimate government. In this case, the military, acting on instructions from the Supreme Court, removed a president who had demonstrated his eagerness to disregard the constitution. See, a coup is an illegitimate use of force to install a dictator; this one, they removed a dictator. There is a difference, you know.

re: #72 laZardo

But the next big war after that will be fought with sticks and stones.

/forgets who said that.

Einstein.

#72 - sticks stones..

I think it was Einstein.

re: #72 laZardo

But the next big war after that will be fought with sticks and stones.

/forgets who said that.

Einstein; and he was right.

re: #77 Guanxi88

Hence the use of the term "formal." Roberto Micheletti is, informally, the 'installed' guy now.

Here's my thought. Being the first black President is much the same as being the first black head coach in the NFL. Obama has done his duty to the country simply by being elected. He should not be expected to the job with any degree of competence greater than that of his predecessors, nor should he be expected to be immune to the pressure exerted by his fan base political supporters. To the contrary, his position is so unusual and so tenuous, and he was from the beginning so clearly unprepared for office, that we need to see clearly that his accomplishments will be limited to being who he is in his position. He is no more likely to live up to campaign promises than any other politician, and he lacks the experience to manage the Legislative Branch. His tenure will be marked by all the problem you might associate with weak management and a faulty philosophy. Of course it doesn't help that his innate propensities are wrong-minded to begin with. But I think his managerial incompetence will be what saves the country from worst possible outcomes this term.

re: #62 karmic_inquisitor

Peace activists will tell you that the essential element to bringing peace to a situation is to depolarize it.

The question for the Obama admin is this - do we want to "depolarize" when human rights and pluralist democracy represents one of those poles?

At some point this country has to be willing to assert its values, especially in the face of tyranical asecular thugs. Trying to "depolarize" by abdicating your value system in the name of "bringing about peace" asks nothing of the other party. Instead, it hands them the concession they have demanded.

IMO, Obama is getting some bad advice on this one.

Quite Concur. And its worth remembering that you can't have peace with a leftist tyrant. He might keep quiet for a little while, but soon enough he'll be right back at his empire building. You have accept the clash of interests and fight.

re: #74 SeaMonkey

As terrible and short-sighted as this move is, let's remember it's not "Obama" himself doing it. Do you think he personally okayed this? it's the State Department, a separate fiefdom.

so you are suggesting the state dept went rogue enacting this policy independently against the will of the President?

Is it possible we're cutting off gov't funding because the group has access to some non-governmental source of funding? So they can continue their work without it being officially sponsoed by the US State Dept?

(or is that just wishful thinking on my part?)

re: #74 SeaMonkey

On the other hand, our President could be looking for and promoting every possible means to turn up the heat on the rogue leadership in Iran.

Apparently, he's not...

re: #82 imp_62

I sure hope you put some invisible sarc tags on that post.

re: #58 Thanos

The question I have about this - Clinton generated ploy, or Obama Generated ploy?

I was thinking along the same lines. One thing about this group - they make the State Department's incestuous, useless policies look bad, just like any comparison between those policies and reality tends to do. The money obviously isn't an issue - a couple million bucks is less than what Congress spends on urinal cakes in the COB every year. And the accusation that 0bama is behind this doesn't make a whole lot of sense - he's been telegraphing that the whole "engagement" thing isn't working of late.

It makes more sense to me that a move like this would come from Clintonian pressure. It isn't as though politically motivated firings are unknown to the SoS, after all.

re: #68 debutaunt

The start date of the next big war is not in our control.

No, no it is not. Who thought the assassination of an Austrian Archduke would lead to a world war?

re: #81 laZardo

Hence the use of the term "formal." Roberto Micheletti is, informally, the 'installed' guy now.

And I think you'll find that he's not a general, and in fact the President of the Congress, the body that swore him in after Zelaya was removed. A weird way to stage a coup, to say the least.

And in terms of a coup, I'd say that Zelaya's freelance referendum to amend the constitution was a definite coup attempt - throw in the Chavez link (a foreign power getting mixed up in things, after all) and the use of force by his followers against the military, and it's no contest or question what Zelaya was up to.

re: #31 laZardo

Because Zelaya actually was President, and you don't just hoist someone out of the country for publicly asking if maybe a public referendum on term limits should be considered.

You're right, the should have tossed him in prison and arrested him for treason. Then there wouldn't be an issue of 'coup' attempts. The Supreme Court rules his actions unlawful and The Congress agreed with the Supreme Court.

Zelaya was trying to do an end around and force the issue despite the Supreme Court and the Congress opposing him. The Army also took the side of the Supreme Court and Congress. And Zelaya and his supporters decided to break into the army compound, and steal the ballots he'd had printed in Venezuela after he was denied permission to print the ballots in Honduras.

Don't white wash Zelaya or his actions. He's a thug.

re: #68 debutaunt

The start date of the next big war is not in our control.

The prevention of it is, but only if we retain our military superiority. That balance has kept us out of big war for more than sixty years, in a world where all nations are equal and there are no superpowers, there will be war again. A review of European and Asian history for the past few centuries should show you that we live in different times today, and I like it that way.

re: #89 Honorary Yooper

No, no it is not. Who thought the assassination of an Austrian Archduke would lead to a world war?

Yes. All we can do is react properly to the trigger.

re: #88 SixDegrees

I was thinking along the same lines. One thing about this group - they make the State Department's incestuous, useless policies look bad, just like any comparison between those policies and reality tends to do. The money obviously isn't an issue - a couple million bucks is less than what Congress spends on urinal cakes in the COB every year. And the accusation that 0bama is behind this doesn't make a whole lot of sense - he's been telegraphing that the whole "engagement" thing isn't working of late.

It makes more sense to me that a move like this would come from Clintonian pressure. It isn't as though politically motivated firings are unknown to the SoS, after all.

You think that they might be doing "good cop" "bad cop" with Iran?

Oh, this is interesting...from the US Embassy in the UK:

The United States broke diplomatic relations with Iran in 1980 after militants backed by Iran’s revolutionary government seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days. Since then, relations have been further chilled by Iran’s support of international terrorist organizations destabilizing the Middle East, such as Hezbollah and Hamas; the Iranian government’s record of human rights abuses against its own citizens; and Iran’s internationally controversial nuclear program, which its leaders claim is aimed at developing nuclear energy, but a growing number of nations — including the United States — suspects is a covert drive to develop nuclear weapons.
Obama acknowledged these challenges, pledging that his administration will lay out a framework over the next several months for how the United States will proceed with Iran. “The Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization,” Obama said. “We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful.” (See “Obama Pledges New American Partnership in Middle East.”)

So the "challenges" are acknowledged.

I could have sworn I remember hearing him say something while a senator about the abuses in Iran. I'm still looking.

re: #31 laZardo

Because Zelaya actually was President, and you don't just hoist someone out of the country for publicly asking if maybe a public referendum on term limits should be considered.

Actually, under the consitution, simply contemplating the removal of term limits requires that the contemplator (if he's President) immediately be removed from office.

So the Great Esteemed Leader, heretofore known as the "putz" if the vulgarity can be excused, has still not learned that one does not make concessions, especially to thugs, without something in return. He has tried it already by dumping Eastern Europe under the bus with his abandonment of missile defense there. It seems as though the Russians could not tolerate US presence in what they see as their stomping ground. After all, they have stomped all over Eastern Europe since 1945.
So the Iranians are allowed to kill US citizens in Iraq with IED's made in the Islamic Republic of Iran without consequence, and they are allowed to develop missiles armed with nuclear warheads with which to satisfy their promise to destroy Israel.
It is very difficult for me to feel comfortable with this clueless, naive putz as Commander in Chief of the United States.

Taking appeasement to whole new heights.
A clear sop to the mullahs, while further throwing the reformists under the bus.

re: #75 karmic_inquisitor

There were reports that Sarkosy was expecting the announcement to be made when the spotlight (all the tv cameras and the world) was focused on the UN committee...but Obama chose not to do so. (Again, I think this is pretty much following what Obama has been talking about -- he will not become confrontational; he doesn't like the "it's us vs them"; he doesn't like the "axis of evil" stuff; it's about diplomacy, etc., etc.)

re: #94 Thanos

You think that they might be doing "good cop" "bad cop" with Iran?

I was thinking more along the lines of Clinton deep-sixing a group whose reports are an embarrassment to the State Department.

re: #84 jdog29

so you are suggesting the state dept went rogue enacting this policy independently against the will of the President?

It's possible that a minor functionary made the decision.
"How likely" is another matter, but the fact remains that it's possible.

re: #90 Guanxi88

And I think you'll find that he's not a general, and in fact the President of the Congress, the body that swore him in after Zelaya was removed. A weird way to stage a coup, to say the least.

And in terms of a coup, I'd say that Zelaya's freelance referendum to amend the constitution was a definite coup attempt - throw in the Chavez link (a foreign power getting mixed up in things, after all) and the use of force by his followers against the military, and it's no contest or question what Zelaya was up to.

It's the 21st century, not the Cold War. The more things change though, the more they stay the same.

Zelaya did do some very unlawful things, I won't disagree anymore. But the extreme reaction he got for it doesn't make the government look better.

Continue to pray for the Iranian "Enemies of the State".

#91 he's a thug.

Exactly. We're standing by the side of a thug, and we're telling a soverign nation we want to check their math, so to speak. The best thing you can say about it is that it's tone deaf. You couple it with our treatment of Chavez lately, and it's bullying.

Add this slap to the Iranian Human Right group, and it's sickening.

re: #5 vxbush

Note From Obama to public and Cabinet
Waterboarding out, Iran torturing people... IN!

Teenage boy whipped to death in Iran for eating while hungry.

"Iran human rights group"

*massive, thick lugie*

re: #100 SixDegrees

I was thinking more along the lines of Clinton deep-sixing a group whose reports are an embarrassment to the State Department.

DING! DING! DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!

re: #100 SixDegrees

That could be it entirely, but I suspect there's more at play. What I really like about this place is that everyone seeks positive and negative evidence when things like this come up. Keep up the good thinking

It would be interesting if State's gone renegade on Obama the way they did with Bush, but it's way to early in the course for them to have gone renegade to my thinking.

re: #108 Thanos

That could be it entirely, but I suspect there's more at play. What I really like about this place is that everyone seeks positive and negative evidence when things like this come up. Keep up the good thinking

Agreed, and this is just an initial report. As we all know from the past other facts may come to light.

I still don't understand what the 'debate' is in terms of Iran's nuclear program. Dinnerjacket himself has overtly threatened Israel multiple times. This tactic of 'Oh, he doesn't really mean it' is a seriously weak defense.

Ankle grabbing time people.

re: #8 haole

Right wing spin machine.

Disgusting... I've known about this for a few days, by the way, and am not at all surprised. Human rights, ideology, and all that... they're, you know, so yesterday!

re: #102 laZardo

It's the 21st century, not the Cold War. The more things change though, the more they stay the same.

Zelaya did do some very unlawful things, I won't disagree anymore. But the extreme reaction he got for it doesn't make the government look better.

So, the use of force to remove a president who defied the Supreme Court and Congress and the constitution of his nation, and who, further, used foreign assistance to produce illegitimate ballots that were seized by force from the army by his followers, all in order to amend the constitution to allow him to stay in office longer, is a coup because it removed an elected leader? Does the fact that he was elected give him a pass to take any measures he wishes to stay elected indefinitely?

Do you think maybe an engraved invitation or formal letter would have made sure he didn't overthrow the government by tossing the constitution out the window? What exactly do you do in a case like this? They showed amazing restraint.

re: #15 Locker

For some reason this is reminding me of the missile shield news bit. I'm going to wait and see if there ends up being a good reason for this action.

The world must look funny through those rose coloured glasses.

re: #74 SeaMonkey

As terrible and short-sighted as this move is, let's remember it's not "Obama" himself doing it. Do you think he personally okayed this? it's the State Department, a separate fiefdom.

It is HIS State Department.

The more President Obama tries to vote "present" on the world stage the more the tyrants love him.

"If you choose not to decide...
you still have made a choice."
Rush, the rock band, not the radio personality

I always did like the nickname ... "Foggy Bottom"

/... :D ... the possibilities are well-nigh endless

Semi-ot: Iran sees U.S. role in researcher's disappearance

Iran accused the United States on Wednesday of involvement in the disappearance of a technology university researcher, Iranian media reported.

ISNA news agency referred to "some rumors" that Shahram Amiri, who went missing during a pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia in June, was an employee of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization who wanted to seek asylum abroad.

Heh.

re: #112 medaura18586

Disgusting... I've known about this for a few days, by the way, and am not at all surprised. Human rights, ideology, and all that... they're, you know, so yesterday!

Stupidity and egocentrism are currently in season, and will be as long as CBBHO is in office. My contempt for that man knows no bounds.

re: #116 jdog29

The more President Obama tries to vote "present" on the world stage the more the tyrants love him.

"If you choose not to decide...
you still have made a choice."
Rush, the rock band, not the radio personality

Well, we were just voted 'most admirable country'...

They now like us... *sniff*, they really do!
/

re: #99 J.S.

There were reports that Sarkosy was expecting the announcement to be made when the spotlight (all the tv cameras and the world) was focused on the UN committee...but Obama chose not to do so. (Again, I think this is pretty much following what Obama has been talking about -- he will not become confrontational; he doesn't like the "it's us vs them"; he doesn't like the "axis of evil" stuff; it's about diplomacy, etc., etc.)

Trading honor for peace and ending up with neither.

re: #109 Thanos

It would be interesting if State's gone renegade on Obama the way they did with Bush, but it's way to early in the course for them to have gone renegade to my thinking.

One would think it to be too early, but State's always had a mind of its own, even if the President thinks differently.

It will be difficulty to make the case before the world community that vigorous sanctions (cut of refined gasoline shipments) or other means is needed against Iran's Nuke program without evidence of both Iran's Nuke program and the Iranian government's brutality. It would seem evidence of the Iranian government's brutality is not considered a priority by the present administration. One could reasonably conclude the action to cut funding to examine Iran's human rights abuses is a step in the direction to accept a Nuclear Iran.

And not entirely OT: "Land Reform" under way in Venezuela, translation by Fausta. You don't have to go along with the anti-Obama insinuations there to be appalled by this.

Obama could have unseated Ahmedenijad outright if he'd supported the protests at their peak. Now, after totally fumbling that opportunity, he's going to cut one of the few grants worth paying. What's the point of pitching a hardball approach to Afghanistan if he's this inept and purposeless in his foreign policy in general?

re: #123 Rexatosis

It will be difficulty to make the case before the world community that vigorous sanctions (cut of refined gasoline shipments) or other means is needed against Iran's Nuke program without evidence of both Iran's Nuke program and the Iranian government's brutality. It would seem evidence of the Iranian government's brutality is not considered a priority by the present administration. One could reasonably conclude the action to cut funding to examine Iran's human rights abuses is a step in the direction to accept a Nuclear Iran.

Nothing to see here...move along.
/

re: #111 Oh no...Sand People!

I still don't understand what the 'debate' is in terms of Iran's nuclear program. Dinnerjacket himself has overtly threatened Israel multiple times. This tactic of 'Oh, he doesn't really mean it' is a seriously weak defense.

Ankle grabbing time people.

I think some countries think they'll get eaten last.
Iran won't stop at Israel; they want Saudi Arabia to become Shi'ite; the US, and they'll probably also supply nukes to the Chechens, if they have enough.

re: #109 Thanos

There is no way that State did this without clear consent from the top of the food chain.
It involves the country that is at the top of the foreign policy agenda.

re: #113 Guanxi88

Do you think maybe an engraved invitation or formal letter would have made sure he didn't overthrow the government by tossing the constitution out the window? What exactly do you do in a case like this? They showed amazing restraint.

Try him and let him rot in prison, which despite the practices of former-Spanish-colony politics should be relatively easy to do given the evidence?

/

re: #109 Thanos

It would be interesting if State's gone renegade on Obama the way they did with Bush, but it's way to early in the course for them to have gone renegade to my thinking.

I think that's a very real possibility, however, although for different reasons. State went rogue on Bush because they felt it was somehow their job to dictate foreign policy, and not the President's. In the current case, we have a Presidential wannabee running the department who may well be motivated to undermine the Administration on foreign policy for her own political gain.

Hillary as SoS - and not as VP - was a smart move on 0bama's part; as VP, she would have set up an enemy camp right across the street from the White House, with her own budget and great independence of action. As SoS, she answers directly to the President, and at his pleasure, so she's easier to keep under control.

But to be blunt, she's a conniving bitch who will do whatever she can get away with to further her own ends.

re: #87 The Sanity Inspector

Tongue-in-cheek, yes. But not sarcastic. Obama would have been elected if he had stood at the convention dressed in a toga reading the script form Animal House. It would have been interpreted as a platform supporting racial harmony, housing subsidies, hope, renewal and free beer. The guy is an empty suit and a union tool. But he was elected for reasons that have nothing to do with what he said or believes. He was elected for who he is. There will be other minorities in the WH in future, and Obama will have been important as the first. Not the best, but simply the first. Unfortunately, he has a whole raft of personal, social and policy priorities that most of the electorate did not feel like paying attention to when it counted. Like when Obama turned to Zbig Brzezziniskzzzki as a foreign policy advisor early in the campaign.

re: #129 laZardo

Try him and let him rot in prison, which despite the practices of former-Spanish-colony politics should be relatively easy to do given the evidence?

/

Add to sarc tag:

/I live in the Philippines, which is why I say "former-Spanish-colony" rather than "Latin American"

re: #129 laZardo

Try him and let him rot in prison, which despite the practices of former-Spanish-colony politics should be relatively easy to do given the evidence?

/

Lock him up, and he's a political prisoner. His followers attacked a military installation already; why give them any more reason to go after the authorities?

#123
Your interpretation is what I believe - we're actively laying the foundation for an nuclear Iran by removing roadblocks and embarrassments. I just don't see the endgame, what does that get us - a balance to some other power(s)? Is that really worth it?

That grant money will instead go to the legal defense fund of ACORN.

re: #104 brent

#91 he's a thug.

Exactly. We're standing by the side of a thug, and we're telling a soverign nation we want to check their math, so to speak. The best thing you can say about it is that it's tone deaf. You couple it with our treatment of Chavez lately, and it's bullying.

Add this slap to the Iranian Human Right group, and it's sickening.

On this I agree, I'm really pissed that Obama and his administration is offering even luke-warm support for Zelaya. The Iranian issue, I wonder if there's a little more going on, after all, a case could be made that having a state department sponsored group isn't going to have the same credence as an independent group highlighting the same issues.

I don't know if that's part of the reasoning or not. but it's something worth considering.

re: #118 Killgore Trout

Semi-ot: Iran sees U.S. role in researcher's disappearance

Heh.

The Saudis could have him working on their nuclear program

re: #65 MandyManners

The original linked article said ..

The job of doling out money to groups seeking to influence Iran has been shifted from the State Department’s Near Eastern Affairs Bureau to a lower-profile division, its US Agency for International Development.

So that would say it fell under the control of the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, William J. Burns. But here is a State Department document that said the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor was the source of grant money for the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center

The FY2004 foreign operations appropriation (P.L. 108-199) earmarked “notwithstanding any other provision of law” up to $1.5 million for “making grants to educational, humanitarian and nongovernmental organizations and individuals inside Iran to support the advancement of democracy and human rights in Iran.” The State Department Bureau of Democracy and Labor (DRL)48 has given $1 million of those funds to a U.S.-based organization, the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, to document abuses in Iran, using contacts with Iranians in Iran. The Documentation Center is run mostly by persons of Iranian origin and affiliated with Yale University’s “Griffin Center for Health and Human Rights.”

And that group would fall under María Otero the Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs.

Wouldn't one or the other control that money, but not both.

re: #127 Kosh's Shadow

I think some countries think they'll get eaten last.
Iran won't stop at Israel; they want Saudi Arabia to become Shi'ite; the US, and they'll probably also supply nukes to the Chechens, if they have enough.

I hate that 'as long as I can outrun my friend if the bear is chasing me Ill be ok' mentality.

I am grateful to Deity / Darwin / 'insert whatever ideal you espouse here' for Israel every day. I am saddened we are selling them out.

re: #137 Kosh's Shadow

I suspect that guy was the source of the revelation about Iran's secret enrichment facility. He disappeared shortly before the story broke.

re: #124 The Sanity Inspector

And not entirely OT: "Land Reform" under way in Venezuela, translation by Fausta. You don't have to go along with the anti-Obama insinuations there to be appalled by this.

What's so bad? It worked so well in Zimbabwe.
/not enough sarc tags

re: #66 Buck

When President Zelaya proposed the reform extending his term, he caused Article 239 of the Constitution of Honduras, to take effect. The Supreme Court and the attorney general were following the law.

Here it is:

ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Vicepresidente de la República. (This is saying that you cannot be President or Vice President more than once. An earlier section defines who actually holds executive power, and it's the President or Vice President).

El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos y quedarán inhabilitados por diez (10) años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.

(This is saying that anyone who breaks this provision or who proposes its reform and those who support it directly or indirectly immediately must stop carrying out their duties and are disqualified from any public function for 10 years).

re: #114 Bagua

The world must look funny through those rose coloured glasses.

Enough so to warrant a down ding for stating I would wait before passing judgment. How harsh of me.

re: #138 Mich-again

The original linked article said ..

And that group would fall under María Otero the Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs.

Wouldn't one or the other control that money, but not both.

I have no idea. The whole department is a labyrinth.

re: #106 Ojoe

Teenage boy whipped to death in Iran for eating while hungry.

"Iran human rights group"

*massive, thick lugie*

What was his name? Oliver Ahmadinejad Twist?

re: #133 Guanxi88

It would at least make it easier to present the evidence against him and reduce/minimize international uproar. It would've also shown that the country's government has "moved on" from something as "old-fashioned" as giving him the military boot, which would quiet all but the most radical activist types.

#136 sponsored group...

That's an interesting take on the funding, but if that's it, they're a little late to sever the ties. If Bush supported them for so long, then having Obama drop the money looks like a more 'peace loving' American doesn't support them.
I would be very nervous ever having been associated with that group right about now.

re: #145 John Neverbend

What was his name? Oliver Ahmadinejad Twist?

that's just brutal man

re: #124 The Sanity Inspector

And not entirely OT: "Land Reform" under way in Venezuela, translation by Fausta. You don't have to go along with the anti-Obama insinuations there to be appalled by this.

This is getting bad. Chavez is clearly moving to "agrarian reformer" status. While what Chavez is doing is clearly misguided, evil, and wrong, other countries in Central and South America really need to take note.

There would be zero power behind Chavez if Land reform had already happened. When most land ownership is concentrated in the hands of a under a hundred powerful families you get a state that appears capitalistic on the surface, but underneath it's still feudal. The democratic states in South and Central America need to take that tinder away before resurgent communist forces light in a Bolivarian revolution. We know where that's going to lead.

re: #141 Kosh's Shadow

What's so bad? It worked so well in Zimbabwe.
/not enough sarc tags

Not really a sarcastic statement. Land reform in Zimbabwe accomplished exactly what Mugabe intended. White landowners left and are leaving, the economy is in the hands of his government, and he controls the means of production and distribution. He never intended the people as a whole to be better off, or to right historic wrongs, as in South Africa. No, things are humming along just the way Mugabe wants.

re: #148 albusteve

that's just brutal man

Dickens was prescient.

re: #46 laZardo

Okay then...but they still had to kick him out of the country for that?

sure...for his own protection.
/

re: #149 Thanos

This is getting bad. Chavez is clearly moving to "agrarian reformer" status. While what Chavez is doing is clearly misguided, evil, and wrong, other countries in Central and South America really need to take note.

There would be zero power behind Chavez if Land reform had already happened. When most land ownership is concentrated in the hands of a under a hundred powerful families you get a state that appears capitalistic on the surface, but underneath it's still feudal. The democratic states in South and Central America need to take that tinder away before resurgent communist forces light in a Bolivarian revolution. We know where that's going to lead.

Che's Revenge

re: #128 captdiggs

There is no way that State did this without clear consent from the top of the food chain.
It involves the country that is at the top of the foreign policy agenda.

I would wager you are right, but it's fair to speculate

re: #146 laZardo

It would at least make it easier to present the evidence against him and reduce/minimize international uproar. It would've also shown that the country's government has "moved on" from something as "old-fashioned" as giving him the military boot, which would quiet all but the most radical activist types.

Aside from Cuba, Venezuela, and the US State Department, I don't hear too much squawking about it. Cuba loves to make trouble in the area, and would support Venezuela's role on principle; Venezuela has its own reasons for seeking the permanent installation of a friendly dictator in the region, installed with Chavez' help; and the US State Department is all twisted up over it because it's an organization of morons under Clinton and led by a rookie (obama) with a soft-spot and hard-on for dictatorships.

re: #150 imp_62

Not really a sarcastic statement. Land reform in Zimbabwe accomplished exactly what Mugabe intended. White landowners left and are leaving, the economy is in the hands of his government, and he controls the means of production and distribution. He never intended the people as a whole to be better off, or to right historic wrongs, as in South Africa. No, things are humming along just the way Mugabe wants.

I hope he enjoys the Ninth Circle of Hell, cause that's where he's going after he dies.

re: #154 Thanos

I would wager you are right, but it's fair to speculate

so what percentage would you speculate that the state dept. acted independently without direct input from President Obama?

This speech of Obama's regarding the military tribunals and torture is interesting for the following line:

Because what we're doing here today - a debate over the fundamental human rights of the accused - should be bigger than politics. This is serious.

It's interesting that the rights of possible terrorists were worthy of discussion, but the rights of people being tortured and beaten in Iran are not.

re: #134 brent

#123
Your interpretation is what I believe - we're actively laying the foundation for an nuclear Iran by removing roadblocks and embarrassments. I just don't see the endgame, what does that get us - a balance to some other power(s)? Is that really worth it?

I would love to think they have insider info that we do not on this... but I don't.

From the Jerusalem Post:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton... also said Monday night that last week's historic joint talks with Iran were a limited success, in a conversation conducted alongside Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to be broadcast on CNN.

She was quoted as saying that "on balance, what came out of the meeting in Geneva was positive."

Asked if the Iranians were committed to resolving the dispute over their nuclear program, Clinton said, "We don't know yet. We don't know."

Quid pro quo? We ignore China's human rights abuses. We ignore, in fact, nearly all of the human rights abuses going on every minute around the globe. So while we're trying to talk to Tehran we cut off funding for one small monitoring group and people start looking for conspiracies? It's staring you right in the face.

re: #156 Dark_Falcon

Indubitably.

re: #158 vxbush

This speech of Obama's regarding the military tribunals and torture is interesting for the following line:

It's interesting that the rights of possible terrorists were worthy of discussion, but the rights of people being tortured and beaten in Iran are not.

BO says all kinds of shit, mostly for his own ears...he's all over the place and cannot be trusted by his words

re: #155 Guanxi88

Aside from Cuba, Venezuela, and the US State Department, I don't hear too much squawking about it. Cuba loves to make trouble in the area, and would support Venezuela's role on principle; Venezuela has its own reasons for seeking the permanent installation of a friendly dictator in the region, installed with Chavez' help; and the US State Department is all twisted up over it because it's an organization of morons under Clinton and led by a rookie (obama) with a soft-spot and hard-on for dictatorships.

Not too much squawking anymore now that the attention has gone onto more "important" countries.

Don't get me wrong, Chavez and Ahmadinejad are crazy bastards (putting it mildly for the former, and in words that I didn't self-delete for the latter). I just think the situation in Honduras could have gone off without as much fuss as it caused.

re: #163 laZardo

Not too much squawking anymore now that the attention has gone onto more "important" countries.

Don't get me wrong, Chavez and Ahmadinejad are crazy bastards (putting it mildly for the former, and in words that I didn't self-delete for the latter). I just think the situation in Honduras could have gone off without as much fuss as it caused.

Yeah, Zelaya could have obeyed the law.

re: #157 jdog29

so what percentage would you speculate that the state dept. acted independently without direct input from President Obama?

Knowing their renegade past, there's at least a 10-15 pct chance that they cooked this up on their own and packaged it with something else when presenting it up the chain.

re: #152 AuntAcid

sure...for his own protection.
/

I wasn't there, and probably don't have all the facts, but I understood that there were also criminal allegations against him. If that's true, I wonder why he wasn't jailed and put on trial.

Can "Most Favored Nation Trading Status" be far behind?

re: #147 brent

#136 sponsored group...

That's an interesting take on the funding, but if that's it, they're a little late to sever the ties. If Bush supported them for so long, then having Obama drop the money looks like a more 'peace loving' American doesn't support them.
I would be very nervous ever having been associated with that group right about now.

Agreed, no matter how you look at it, it looks like a bad move, because it's not like they're magically going to be considered independent as you rightly pointed out. I just wanted to point out there are different rationales for the administrations actions to explain it beyond the 'Obama sucks and is an appeaser' meme.

Now mind you, if it comes out that this was done to make nice nice with Iran, then yeah, I'll happily join the 'Obama is an appeaser' crowd. I've just seen Obama play a long game that there could be some real long term plan in place that we don't see yet.

re: #163 laZardo

Not too much squawking anymore now that the attention has gone onto more "important" countries.

Don't get me wrong, Chavez and Ahmadinejad are crazy bastards (putting it mildly for the former, and in words that I didn't self-delete for the latter). I just think the situation in Honduras could have gone off without as much fuss as it caused.

Myanmar comes to mind...who gives a shit?...it's more important to dance for the Red Chinese

re: #160 SeaMonkey

From the Jerusalem Post:

Quid pro quo? We ignore China's human rights abuses. We ignore, in fact, nearly all of the human rights abuses going on every minute around the globe. So while we're trying to talk to Tehran we cut off funding for one small monitoring group and people start looking for conspiracies? It's staring you right in the face.

But but but...we waterboarded some people at GITMO!!! Everyone..start your collective self flagellations in penance for losing the 'moral hightground' so now we can no longer judge any other country for we are just as repulsive.

/moonbat off

re: #162 albusteve

BO says all kinds of shit, mostly for his own ears...he's all over the place and cannot be trusted by his words

And yet many people find that acceptable. I thought I'd find a comment about human rights abuses in Iran getting Obama's attention, but I couldn't find any. He did speak about China, but I get the impression that there was a lot of bloviating going on.

His speeches at AIPAC during the runup to the presidential election should have made people take notice of his tendency to say what each group wants to hear.

RE: #134 Brent

You are assuming the administration is thinking about the ramifications of an immediate policy decision (does Israel attack? If not does Saudi Arabia go Nuclear? If so can a Wahabbist state keep control of it's nukes? How does India react? and how does a Nuclear Iran alter the current Indo-Pakistani Nuclear balance of power? If India fundamentally alters its strategic defense does such a change impact the Indo-Sino rivalry regarding Tibet, Nepal, etc.? and so on...) We have an administration that essentially is bringing their checkers to a game of three-dimensional chess. They aren't thinking about end-games, it seems to be well beyond their capabilities.

All I can say is that this is a very bad move on the part of the administration. One has to wonder now about the future of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center.

I found this web page at Anonymous Iran with step on can take regarding the defunding. It includes a good deal of relevant contacts.

#168 long game...

I really hope you're onto something - I don't want to be an Obama hater, either. I just find a couple very disturbing tendencies in his decisions lateley, and I'd love to be shown a brilliant, long term plan this supports.

I'd vote for him, if that were true -if there really were a plan for Iran and Afghanistan that I can't see, I would freeking vote for him.

re: #163 laZardo

Not too much squawking anymore now that the attention has gone onto more "important" countries.

Don't get me wrong, Chavez and Ahmadinejad are crazy bastards (putting it mildly for the former, and in words that I didn't self-delete for the latter). I just think the situation in Honduras could have gone off without as much fuss as it caused.

It would have if President Obama had used the hands off approach he utilized when the Iranian non-election took place.

I believe he intentionally endorsed the Iranian non-election by "not tampering" in the affairs of other countries and he intentionally endorsed the destruction, if he has his way, of the Honduras constitution by backing Zelaya.

President Obama's apparent indecisions are actually very decisive decisions.

re: #172 Rexatosis

RE: #134 Brent

You are assuming the administration is thinking about the ramifications of an immediate policy decision (does Israel attack? If not does Saudi Arabia go Nuclear? If so can a Wahabbist state keep control of it's nukes? How does India react? and how does a Nuclear Iran alter the current Indo-Pakistani Nuclear balance of power? If India fundamentally alters its strategic defense does such a change impact the Indo-Sino rivalry regarding Tibet, Nepal, etc.? and so on...) We have an administration that essentially is bringing their checkers to a game of three-dimensional chess. They aren't thinking about end-games, it seems to be well beyond their capabilities.

Fixed that for you.

re: #171 vxbush

And yet many people find that acceptable. I thought I'd find a comment about human rights abuses in Iran getting Obama's attention, but I couldn't find any. He did speak about China, but I get the impression that there was a lot of bloviating going on.

His speeches at AIPAC during the runup to the presidential election should have made people take notice of his tendency to say what each group wants to hear.

and I have nothing but contempt for those that accept that sort of meandering tripe on blind faith partisanship...fortunately most liberals hear can see through the clumsy sharade

re: #171 vxbush

Everybody heard what they wanted to hear during the campaign. It was eerily reminiscent of "Mars Attacks".

BBL I have a pediatrician run to do. Toodles.

What I really think about this is that it's just another example of Obama's isolationism. Whether it's the right wing paleocons or Obama taking us off the world stage, I don't think it's a good idea longer term.

I think I found the problem...

"IHRDC strives for complete transparency in its report writing, with each report being extensively footnoted. It is also possible to view the resources used in the production of each report for oneself through the IHRDC’s searchable online database."

Didn't transparency go out the window with our administration a long time ago?

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

re: #178 imp_62

Everybody heard what they wanted to hear during the campaign. It was eerily reminiscent of "Mars Attacks".

Tragedy is that Achmadinjad's bullhorn doesn't say, "We come in peace" then the laser blasts, but "Death to Isreal", and STILL nobody is taking notice.

re: #142 John Neverbend

Here it is:

ARTICULO 239.- El ciudadano que haya desempeñado la titularidad del Poder Ejecutivo no podrá ser Presidente o Vicepresidente de la República. (This is saying that you cannot be President or Vice President more than once. An earlier section defines who actually holds executive power, and it's the President or Vice President).

El que quebrante esta disposición o proponga su reforma, así como aquellos que lo apoyen directa o indirectamente, cesarán de inmediato en el desempeño de sus respectivos cargos y quedarán inhabilitados por diez (10) años para el ejercicio de toda función pública.

(This is saying that anyone who breaks this provision or who proposes its reform and those who support it directly or indirectly immediately must stop carrying out their duties and are disqualified from any public function for 10 years).

Nit-picker.

/

It's 1:30 AM and I must head to bed. Thanks for the discussions, folks.

re: #180 Thanos

What I really think about this is that it's just another example of Obama's isolationism. Whether it's the right wing paleocons or Obama taking us off the world stage, I don't think it's a good idea longer term.

He is not an isolationist; that would denote a conscious policy choice. He is simply uneducated on important issues, and to much of a narcissist to understand that he is unprepared and incompetent on issues of foreign affairs, international relations, and military policy.

re: #185 imp_62

He is not an isolationist; that would denote a conscious policy choice. He is simply uneducated on important issues, and to much of a narcissist to understand that he is unprepared and incompetent on issues of foreign affairs, international relations, and military policy.

Thank Gawd we have Joe Biden to fill in that gap then.
/

re: #185 imp_62

He is not an isolationist; that would denote a conscious policy choice. He is simply uneducated on important issues, and to much of a narcissist to understand that he is unprepared and incompetent on issues of foreign affairs, international relations, and military policy.

that's why he keeps making decisions lauded by Chavez, Achmadinijad and Castro. Ignorance doesn't explain it.

Good evening everyone! =)

This story has me in stitches:
Pirates hit navy ship 'in error'

re: #185 imp_62

He is not an isolationist; that would denote a conscious policy choice. He is simply uneducated on important issues, and to much of a narcissist to understand that he is unprepared and incompetent on issues of foreign affairs, international relations, and military policy.

That's absolutely untrue. If he was incompetent in all those areas, he would have never gotten elected.
(sigh /)

re: #180 Thanos

What I really think about this is that it's just another example of Obama's isolationism. Whether it's the right wing paleocons or Obama taking us off the world stage, I don't think it's a good idea longer term.

I agree. Taking us off the world stage is a very, very bad thing. Right now, we're about all that stands between a fairly peaceful world in which trade flourishes and prosperity grows and a world in which nations again go to war on a massive scale. The last time the world's large and important nations took a backseat in world affairs, we wound up fighting the biggest war in history.

re: #173 Gus 802

All I can say is that this is a very bad move on the part of the administration. One has to wonder now about the future of the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center.

I found this web page at Anonymous Iran with step on can take regarding the defunding. It includes a good deal of relevant contacts.

Nothing can suppress a people that have discovered 4chan. Really.

/kay, actually heading to bed now

re: #188 Summer

Good evening everyone! =)

This story has me in stitches:
Pirates hit navy ship 'in error'

It's the French. Odds were 50-50 that the lightly armed pirates get the French navy to surrender.

parents get 6 months in jail for murdering their child with prayer

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

re: #188 Summer

Good evening everyone! =)

This story has me in stitches:
Pirates hit navy ship 'in error'

They figured it was just a French navy ship.

How Israel Was Disarmed

News analysis from the near-future.

NEW YORK—When American diplomats sat down for the first in a series of face-to-face talks with their Iranian counterparts last October in Geneva, few would have predicted that what began as a negotiation over Tehran's nuclear programs would wind up in a stunning demand by the Security Council that Israel give up its atomic weapons.

Yet that's just what the U.N. body did this morning, in a resolution that was as striking for the way member states voted as it was for its substance. All 10 nonpermanent members voted for the resolution, along with permanent members Russia, China and the United Kingdom. France and the United States abstained. By U.N. rules, that means the resolution passes...

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

re: #192 imp_62

It's the French. Odds were 50-50 that the lightly armed pirates get the French navy to surrender.

Nope, the French forced the pirates to surrender. Sarkozy has put some iron in spine of the French Navy.

re: #188 Summer

Good evening everyone! =)

This story has me in stitches:
Pirates hit navy ship 'in error'

Reminds me of Master and Commander - Far Side of the World, interesting.

re: #193 spacejesus

parents get 6 months in jail for murdering their child with prayer

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

Why didn't you answer them and intervene?
/

re: #189 Walter L. Newton

That's absolutely untrue. If he was incompetent in all those areas, he would have never gotten elected.
(sigh /)

As posted above, I believe his competence had nothing to do with his election.re: #187 jdog29

that's why he keeps making decisions lauded by Chavez, Achmadinijad and Castro. Ignorance doesn't explain it.

Sure it does. They laud his mistakes and fire him on form the sidelines. He's not evil; he is incompetent - which is worse. As Talleyrand (?) said C'est pire qu'une crime; c'est une faute.

Meanwhile, over at Zomblog, a certain Thomas von der Trave has been outed as - me.

I wanted to post a confirmation for the geniuses who figured that out (some of the slower ones were sure Thomas was really Kejda or her husband), but "Zombie" has blocked me.

So here you go, haters:

Yep. Cato here. Not Kejda, though I expect she's laughing her ass off at the tools who think I'm her husband. I figured the smart ones would figure out Thomas von der Trave. But do you get the joke? I doubt it.

"Zombie" knows my real name, too, and more than that. And I wouldn't put it past himerit to "out" me. It's up to you, oh great anonymous citizen journalist. I can no more out you - I have no more idea who you really are - than I do about the origin of the universe or the date and time of the final judgment. But I think once you cross from documenting teh crazee at demos with undercover photos to demanding that people kiss your anonymous ass or lose their jobs, you've crossed a line. I hope your real identity comes out real soon and we can all see a conversation between you and those you defame. Kejda is out there in the real world calling out Stacy McCain and you hide behind your fear of kidz wearing Che shirts.

I'm not on a mission from anybody. A former admirer who thinks you've become a disgusting un-American unnamed Denunziant worthy of the Stasi. But you're obviously proud of that, so I'll just go on hoping you lose your incognito to someone with a badge.

Keep it "real", Zomb.

There is a post there hoping someone kills my dog.

And Charles, you're ghey. Ed Mahmoud sez so. Thought you'd want to know.

re: #198 Oh no...Sand People!

Why didn't you answer them and intervene?
/

i should have intervened through the judge and given them a real sentence

I'm off to work.

re: #142 John Neverbend

Now how do we get Obama (a lawyer with constitution experience) to read it?

re: #199 imp_62

Sure it does. They laud his mistakes and fire him on form the sidelines. He's not evil; he is incompetent - which is worse. As Talleyrand (?) said C'est pire qu'une crime; c'est une faute.

Did you see my sarcasm tag? Evidently not.

re: #192 imp_62

It's the French. Odds were 50-50 that the lightly armed pirates get the French navy to surrender.

Reminds me of that "South Park" episode where Cartman leads a band of Somalian pirates and captures a French cruise ship. "Zey had light sabers!"

OT: The Communist Connection Glenn Beck Doesn't Want to Talk About

re: #191 laZardo

Nothing can suppress a people that have discovered 4chan. Really.

/kay, actually heading to bed now

Roger.

Just sent off a contact to the president. Not holding my breath though regarding this matter.

re: #192 imp_62

It's the French. Odds were 50-50 that the lightly armed pirates get the French navy to surrender.

All they need to take over a French ship is a toy light saber.

Is anyone defending or spinning this yet? I'd like to see what they are saying.

re: #205 Alouette

GMTA

re: #206 Killgore Trout

OT: The Communist Connection Glenn Beck Doesn't Want to Talk About

/rupert's a commie! He's part of the plot! This will keep GB awake at night...

Is this a part of the Obama administration's developing "hey world, put up or shut up" policy? At the very least I would hope that this would be offset by something a bit on the more clandestine side; not something along the lines or magnitude of what took place in Chile, of course. But to be sure this isn't going to do much for the general pro-west sentiment of the Persian people.

This sort of reminds me of Kennedy's interview with Cronkite.

re: #200 Cato the Elder

Ed Moran Gomex abu Kohool Martyrs Brigade the weatherman. I remember that poster. A Shiavo flouncer I think.

re: #206 Killgore Trout

OT: The Communist Connection Glenn Beck Doesn't Want to Talk About

And if he does in the future? Would that change your opinion of him?

re: #209 mph

Is anyone defending or spinning this yet? I'd like to see what they are saying.

Yes... Locker.

re: #209 mph

Is anyone defending or spinning this yet? I'd like to see what they are saying.

I'm sure there are lots of possible explanations. It's possibly that with coordination with other US and foreign agencies we've discovered that the work is already being done by others. It could be a duplicate effort. Also it's possible that things in Iran are going to come to a head soon and the agency might not be needed in the near future. Anything's possible.

re: #200 Cato the Elder

My comment now posted at "Zombie's" place through a proxy. We'll see how long that lasts.

re: #52 Thanos

I don't want people to miss-characterize this, the next big war is not around the corner, it's a decade or more off if we continue this direction, but it's out there.

Do you think that if Israel takes out Irans nuclear ambitions things could escalate into a much wider and more serious conflict? That scenario could be just around the corner.

re: #214 Oh no...Sand People!

And if he does in the future? Would that change your opinion of him?

No, but it would be interesting to see how long he keeps his job. He might turn on Murdoch if he gets fired.

Someone probably told Obama to cut off funding for the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center over his Blackberry. The question is who.

re: #200 Cato the Elder

LOL! I'm reading them now. Great bit of trolling. However, I must say that Ringo chastising Ed for posting hatred of Charles is just classic.

re: #206 Killgore Trout

This powerful American friend of communists is, of course, Rupert Murdoch — the man who signs Glenn Beck's paychecks. Don't hold your breath waiting for a Beck exposé.

Interesting point. Enough connections to start a RW blog stampede if it was in their interests.

re: #218 filetandrelease

That scenarios been around since the First Gulf War. Though with the passive-aggressive Obama, I worry it may come to bear.

re: #219 Killgore Trout

No, but it would be interesting to see how long he keeps his job. He might turn on Murdoch if he gets fired.

I remember when Beck was on CNN and he made a bet with his radio audience that he would be fired by the following October. I, personally, think that the 'TV' forum is just 'bonus' money to him and he actually would go after Mr. Murdoch. I would love it if he did just to see what would happen.

re: #213 Mich-again

Ed Moran Gomex abu Kohool Martyrs Brigade the weatherman. I remember that poster. A Shiavo flouncer I think.

No, Ed got banned for being an ass. He was busy reposting comments over at GCP for that crowd to make fun of. Ever since, he's really been nasty toward Charles.

re: #218 filetandrelease

Do you think that if Israel takes out Irans nuclear ambitions things could escalate into a much wider and more serious conflict? That scenario could be just around the corner.

I don't think Iran would want to expose it's 2nd rate military to any real firepower

re: #221 Honorary Yooper

LOL! I'm reading them now. Great bit of trolling. However, I must say that Ringo chastising Ed for posting hatred of Charles is just classic.

Why would any Lizard be posting at Zombie's place? Am I missing something?

re: #223 badger1970

That scenarios been around since the First Gulf War. Though with the passive-aggressive Obama, I worry it may come to bear.

True, but the opportunity window is closing.

re: #227 Walter L. Newton

Why would any Lizard be posting at Zombie's place? Am I missing something?

Ringo got banned for something (I don't know what). Reading through the thread Cato trolled, it was funny to see him call out Ed for posting some very nasty insinuations about Charles. Unfortunately, he was the only one doing so.

re: #216 Killgore Trout

I'm sure there are lots of possible explanations. It's possibly that with coordination with other US and foreign agencies we've discovered that the work is already being done by others. It could be a duplicate effort. Also it's possible that things in Iran are going to come to a head soon and the agency might not be needed in the near future. Anything's possible.

That's a distinctive possibility. We'll just have to wait and see. I've heard various rumors of action against Iran in late October or early November. But, those are rumors, and I've seen rumors before about action against Iran come to nothing.

re: #227 Walter L. Newton

Why would any Lizard be posting at Zombie's place? Am I missing something?

it's a new cyber sport

re: #229 Honorary Yooper

Ringo got banned for something (I don't know what). Reading through the thread Cato trolled, it was funny to see him call out Ed for posting some very nasty insinuations about Charles. Unfortunately, he was the only one doing so.

Was an active Lizard posting there? Who?

re: #226 albusteve

I don't think Iran would want to expose it's 2nd rate military to any real firepower

True enough, and I guess their first rate proxy militias and terror cells probably won't be enough to instigate a major world conflict.

OT. But it looks like like Charles Rangle may be losing his chairmanship.

House Considers Resolution to Oust Rangel From Chair of Tax-Writing Committee.

The House is voting on a resolution to remove Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., from his chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee following the reading of a long and stinging list of his alleged wrongdoing.

re: #232 Walter L. Newton

Was an active Lizard posting there? Who?

Cato went over there under a nickname (see his #200) and chastised them. Nothing sinister or foul. They banned him.

Once again jumping in to a thread...but have a question - has anyone discussed why we abstained from a vote at the UN? Does Obama think this will improve his negotiating stance or is he trying to throw Israel firmly under the bus while allowing the middle east to become nuclear in more ways than one???

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

... that's just what the U.N. body did this morning, in a resolution that was as striking for the way member states voted as it was for its substance. All 10 nonpermanent members voted for the resolution, along with permanent members Russia, China and the United Kingdom. France and the United States abstained. By U.N. rules, that means the

The U.S. abstention is sending shock waves through the international community, which has long been accustomed to the U.S. acting as Israel's de facto protector on the Council. It also appears to reverse a decades-old understanding between Washington and Tel Aviv that the U.S. would acquiesce in Israel's nuclear arsenal as long as that arsenal remained undeclared. The Jewish state is believed to possess as many as 200 weapons.

Tehran reacted positively to the U.S. abstention. "For a long time we have said about Mr. Obama that we see change but no improvement," said Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. "Now we can say there has been an improvement."

Does this worry anyone??? It seems the administration is taking a position of "abstain" at precisely the times it is needed to send the right message!!

re: #235 Honorary Yooper

Cato went over there under a nickname (see his #200) and chastised them. Nothing sinister or foul. They banned him.

Thanks for the information. That's interesting.

re: #236 Right mind left

Once again jumping in to a thread...but have a question - has anyone discussed why we abstained from a vote at the UN? Does Obama think this will improve his negotiating stance or is he trying to throw Israel firmly under the bus while allowing the middle east to become nuclear in more ways than one???

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

... that's just what the U.N. body did this morning, in a resolution that was as striking for the way member states voted as it was for its substance. All 10 nonpermanent members voted for the resolution, along with permanent members Russia, China and the United Kingdom. France and the United States abstained. By U.N. rules, that means the

The U.S. abstention is sending shock waves through the international community, which has long been accustomed to the U.S. acting as Israel's de facto protector on the Council. It also appears to reverse a decades-old understanding between Washington and Tel Aviv that the U.S. would acquiesce in Israel's nuclear arsenal as long as that arsenal remained undeclared. The Jewish state is believed to possess as many as 200 weapons.

Tehran reacted positively to the U.S. abstention. "For a long time we have said about Mr. Obama that we see change but no improvement," said Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. "Now we can say there has been an improvement."

Does this worry anyone??? It seems the administration is taking a position of "abstain" at precisely the times it is needed to send the right message!!

It's "News from the near future". Hasn't happened...yet.

re: #236 Right mind left

Once again jumping in to a thread...but have a question - has anyone discussed why we abstained from a vote at the UN? Does Obama think this will improve his negotiating stance or is he trying to throw Israel firmly under the bus while allowing the middle east to become nuclear in more ways than one???

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

... that's just what the U.N. body did this morning, in a resolution that was as striking for the way member states voted as it was for its substance. All 10 nonpermanent members voted for the resolution, along with permanent members Russia, China and the United Kingdom. France and the United States abstained. By U.N. rules, that means the

The U.S. abstention is sending shock waves through the international community, which has long been accustomed to the U.S. acting as Israel's de facto protector on the Council. It also appears to reverse a decades-old understanding between Washington and Tel Aviv that the U.S. would acquiesce in Israel's nuclear arsenal as long as that arsenal remained undeclared. The Jewish state is believed to possess as many as 200 weapons.

Tehran reacted positively to the U.S. abstention. "For a long time we have said about Mr. Obama that we see change but no improvement," said Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. "Now we can say there has been an improvement."

Does this worry anyone??? It seems the administration is taking a position of "abstain" at precisely the times it is needed to send the right message!!

or why the Brits voted in favor?...BO is just slapping Bibi around by proxy, but maybe there is more to it...I'm not surprised anymore

re: #236 Right mind left

Once again jumping in to a thread...but have a question - has anyone discussed why we abstained from a vote at the UN? Does Obama think this will improve his negotiating stance or is he trying to throw Israel firmly under the bus while allowing the middle east to become nuclear in more ways than one???

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

... that's just what the U.N. body did this morning, in a resolution that was as striking for the way member states voted as it was for its substance. All 10 nonpermanent members voted for the resolution, along with permanent members Russia, China and the United Kingdom. France and the United States abstained. By U.N. rules, that means the

The U.S. abstention is sending shock waves through the international community, which has long been accustomed to the U.S. acting as Israel's de facto protector on the Council. It also appears to reverse a decades-old understanding between Washington and Tel Aviv that the U.S. would acquiesce in Israel's nuclear arsenal as long as that arsenal remained undeclared. The Jewish state is believed to possess as many as 200 weapons.

Tehran reacted positively to the U.S. abstention. "For a long time we have said about Mr. Obama that we see change but no improvement," said Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. "Now we can say there has been an improvement."

Does this worry anyone??? It seems the administration is taking a position of "abstain" at precisely the times it is needed to send the right message!!

Why would this be a surprise?

re: #195 mj

How Israel Was Disarmed

News analysis from the near-future.

That's some article. Nice touch about the Wannsee conference at the end, just as the "Zionism is racism" resolution was debated by Chaim Herzog on the anniversary of Kristallnacht. Of course, it's not going to happen, no way, no how...at least not until January 20, 2010.

re: #238 mj

It's "News from the near future". Hasn't happened...yet.

Twilight zone, so surreal it seems true!!!

re: #236 Right mind left

Once again jumping in to a thread...but have a question - has anyone discussed why we abstained from a vote at the UN? Does Obama think this will improve his negotiating stance or is he trying to throw Israel firmly under the bus while allowing the middle east to become nuclear in more ways than one???

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

... that's just what the U.N. body did this morning, in a resolution that was as striking for the way member states voted as it was for its substance. All 10 nonpermanent members voted for the resolution, along with permanent members Russia, China and the United Kingdom. France and the United States abstained. By U.N. rules, that means the

The U.S. abstention is sending shock waves through the international community, which has long been accustomed to the U.S. acting as Israel's de facto protector on the Council. It also appears to reverse a decades-old understanding between Washington and Tel Aviv that the U.S. would acquiesce in Israel's nuclear arsenal as long as that arsenal remained undeclared. The Jewish state is believed to possess as many as 200 weapons.

Tehran reacted positively to the U.S. abstention. "For a long time we have said about Mr. Obama that we see change but no improvement," said Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. "Now we can say there has been an improvement."

Does this worry anyone??? It seems the administration is taking a position of "abstain" at precisely the times it is needed to send the right message!!

W.T.F.

re: #234 Bubblehead II

I think it was just over turned. He stays.

re: #218 filetandrelease

Do you think that if Israel takes out Irans nuclear ambitions things could escalate into a much wider and more serious conflict? That scenario could be just around the corner.

It might escalate, but if Iran gets nukes, we will have a nuclear war.
I'd rather a conventional escalation.

re: #234 Bubblehead II

Damn, looks like I posted too soon.

House Kills Resolution to Oust Rangel From Chair of Tax-Writing Committee

House Democrats voted to strike down a resolution to remove Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., from his chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee following the reading of a long and stinging list of his alleged wrongdoing.

re: #236 Right mind left

Once again jumping in to a thread...but have a question - has anyone discussed why we abstained from a vote at the UN? !

Er, the article was fictional...for the moment.

present.

re: #245 Kosh's Shadow

It might escalate, but if Iran gets nukes, we will have a nuclear war.
I'd rather a conventional escalation.

I second that.

re: #246 Bubblehead II

Damn, looks like I posted too soon.

House Kills Resolution to Oust Rangel From Chair of Tax-Writing Committee

House Democrats voted to strike down a resolution to remove Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., from his chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee following the reading of a long and stinging list of his alleged wrongdoing.

That sucks. Even the WaPo says Charlie has to go.

re: #244 filetandrelease

Just saw (and posted) that.

re: #236 Right mind left

Did you notice the date on that "article" - Jan 2010
It was a prediction, not an actual event, yet.

re: #8 haole

Yeah, the Boston Herald is known for that...
///
And given the extra warm welcome the Dalai Lama received from the B. Obama, the head-knockers in Beijing are feeling pretty confident now that there won't be any more unpleasantness from the students hanging around Tianamen.

re: #251 Bubblehead II

Just saw (and posted) that.

That sucks. So close.

re: #237 Walter L. Newton

Thanks for the information. That's interesting.

in a rare agreement with iceweasle, I think this inter blog, personal slapfest is unfair to new posters...threads just get overwhelmed with this continuous sniping and blocking and flouncing and as for me it is very unpleasant as well...and I don't understand half of it

re: #246 Bubblehead II

Which means in Congress-speak- "Nothing to see here, let's move on."

re: #195 mj

How Israel Was Disarmed

News analysis from the near-future.

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

Just so there isn't any more confusion, Bret Stephens wasn't writing an actual news article. This hasn't happened yet. He's speculating that it might happen.
The amazing thing is how believable it is.

re: #252 Kosh's Shadow

Did you notice the date on that "article" - Jan 2010
It was a prediction, not an actual event, yet.

Whew... I was like, "WHOA!!!"

I so hope that it doesn't wax prophetic however.