Monday, May 19, 2008

So much politics, so little time to post. Barack Obama continues to provide folks like me stuff to post about, and since I've lost all respect for the man I certainly don't mind taking what he gives me. Two things today:

First, a little thing. Today Obama tells the GOP to leave his wife alone, claiming that their "attacks" were "low class". To that I say, "okay, then tell her to stop making stump speeches". He was referring to the Tennessee GOP airing an ad that takes exception to Ms Obama's "proud of my country" comment. You see, there are quite a few Americans who didn't appreciate what she said and the GOP is taking advantage. It was a mistake, and the Obama's are paying a price. In my opinion, a candidate's spouse has the option of taking on a supportive role versus something more active. Ms Obama has chosen the latter, which means that what she says is open to criticism. Why would Obama expect anything different? Are we to grant his wife a free pass to say and do anything simply because she is his wife? Once again, the elitist arrogance of those two is astounding. The GOP is not out of bounds here. They did not "attack" her, as Obama says. There was no personal attack. I mean, it's not like they made fun of her for being a stay-at-home mom (I wonder if Obama would consider THAT to be low class?). They took exception to something she said. That's politics, and if Ms Obama can't handle it then perhaps she should reconsider the job she's applying for.

Second, a much bigger issue. President Bush gave a speech to the Israeli parliament and during that speech he said appeasement is bad, referring specifically to Iran and how some people feel we should deal with them. Obama and many other democrats are irate. Joe Biden even called it "bullshit". Excuse the language, his words not mine. The interesting thing about this is that Bush didn't mention any names. He didn't even mention any one particular political party. He said appeasement was bad, and the democrats apparently have a major problem with that.

The dems say that it was wrong for the president to play politics in a foreign country. Of course, it's okay for Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, but not for Bush. In my mind, it's very appropriate for the US President to tell Israel--one of our most loyal allies--that he disagrees with appeasing a dictator that has openly advocated for wiping Israel off the map. Not sure what the dems object to there.

But I found it both entertaining and informative when the dems seem to collectively object to the president condemning appeasement. I mean, what exactly are they objecting to? If there is anything more telling about how the dems approach foreign policy then I haven't seen it. Senator Obama would have been much better served if he simply agreed with what Bush said unless, of course, he disagreed with what Bush said in which case the Senator was right to take issue with it.

However, Obama has decided to keep Iran in the political spotlight and he is sticking to his guns. He defends his position that the US President should hold unconditional unilateral talks with Ahmadinejad. The basis of his opinion is that we did the same with the Soviet Union. That's right, Obama doesn't see any difference in the two. This reveals much about his vast lack of understanding, experience, knowledge, whatever you want to call it...who knows? Regardless, the fact that he considers the two to be about the same is gaspingly ridiculous. Even the most junior of junior senators should be able to discern the two and know better than this. If he does become President, it is my sincere hope that he learns as much as he can about foreign policy in the next 6 months or we'll be in bigger trouble than I thought (And I won't bother explaining why this is so gaspingly ridiculous. Either you get it or you don't and if you don't then you are probably an Obama supporter, in which case the man can do no wrong in your eyes and you will never take issue with him no matter what I or anyone else says. I saw it today, Obama basically saying "we talked with the USSR" and his minions just mindlessly nodded in support. No gasps, no wide eyes, they just lapped it up without actually thinking about what he said).

Obama also defends his position by saying that McCain is just an extension of Bush's foreign policy. Wrong again, Senator. Unbelievable. Someone needs to inform the Senator that since this country was founded it has ALWAYS been US policy to NEVER negotiate with terrorists, and there is a pretty good reason for it. This is not a George Bush concept. Apparently the good Senator plans to do things differently. Obama says he is all about change. Well, I guess I can't argue with that. Each day that goes by this guy gets more and more scary.

But what Obama hasn't done is tell the American people what he plans to say to Ahmadinejad. I, for one, would like to know. He's attacked Bush for not doing it right. He's attacked McCain for just doing what Bush is doing. But he hasn't told us what he plans to do, other than have private talks with a terror-supporting dictator who denies the holocaust and wants to destroy Israel. What will he say that hasn't already been said? What can one say to someone who is clearly off the proverbial rocker? What fresh new conversation will he have that will convince Ahmadinejad to abandon his terrorist ways? Or does Obama plan to offer something in return? It's a fair question.

Eventually, Obama will have to answer these questions, even though the mainstream media is not likely going to ask them. Still, this issue won't go away and we, the voters, have the right to know what Obama plans to say to this man, and will it be worth the price we pay for granting Ahmadinejad status as a world leader.


Dan Trabue said...

Obama is coming from, among other places, the Direct Action model of organizing. His organizing years are part of his experience that many of us value so very much, as we are well aware of the efficacy of good organizing and good direct action.

When we are confronted with a banker who could care less about a few pastors or neighborhood activists; a banker whose main concern is the bottom line; a banker who is okay with engaging in the illegal act of "red-lining" (to keep certain people out of certain neighborhoods); when we are confronted with such a system and set of individuals KNOWS that the banker doesn't give a whit about what a few activists think about him.

But the activists engage the banker and the system in conversation, politely and powerfully, to affect desired action. To make the banker see why it is in his bank's best interest to agree with the activists. And it works.

One can't effectively affect change of another group of people with their own set of interests without engaging in dialog.

Don't confuse dialog with appeasement. That's been part of Bush's mistake for lo, these last eight long years and why people are so very ready to get him out of office.

We're tired of the old, imperialist, patriarchal, "We'll decide what's best for everyone else" way of doing things. We want justice and effective action, and that sometimes means talking to our enemies.

I believe this will be a losing argument for the Republicans, should they cling to this line of thinking. Another one of many.

Anonymous said...

There are many lessons to be learned from the Bush presidency. I suppose I am am agreement w/ the Doctor inasmuch as we should be wary of electing someone who is inexperienced.

That said, there are few similarities betweeen George W. Bush and Barack Obama. One contrast is how the fomer rejected intellectualism at an early age and one can certainly interpret the past eight years in that light.

Doctor, you don't like Ahmadinejad and I don't like him either. Perhaps we should have a contest to determine who dislikes him more. Nevertheless, it is beyond us to grant or deny him "status" as a world leader. He is a world leader and our invasion of Iraq has made him more influential in the Middle East than he otherwise would have been.

The guy is a steaming hunk of stercoraceous material in the middle of our living room rug and denying that he there, polluting all he touches, is simply ineffective.



Now that we have succeeded in our six-year campaign of demonizing the 'Cowboy Diplomacy' of 'Dubya',
and ridiculing GWB's reference to a Republican Senator's Appeasement Remarks in 1939 ("we should have talked to Hitler")...before the Israeli Knesset, maybe it would be good strategy to tie Senator McCain to the "failed policy" of Dubya! The MainStreamMedia isn't talkin' much about Gen Petraeus & Iraq anymore; I wonder why...
(See Redhunter Report).

Now that we've spent a billion destoying the Bush/Cheney Image, shouldn't we switch that Negative Energy toward the old "Status Que McCain". Harry Reid's got it, O.K.
Print up some Bumper-stickers...

"McCain Is A Bush CLONE!" yEAH, That's The Ticket, Murder 'Em!

And, here's more good news, the U.N.'s "Human Rights Council" is gonna investigate the USA for "Racism" for three weeks. Whoopie!

Loop Garoo is right, there are "many lessons" to be learned...
Hot Air Wins!

Dan Trabue said...

Ummm, that IS part of the Obama strategy, and rightly, honestly so.

In some ways, no doubt, a Pres. McCain would be better than Bush, but in most ways, it's more of the same.

If the shoe fits...

Tom the Redhunter said...

dan trabue wrote
"We're tired of the old, imperialist, patriarchal..."

"Imperialist" ??

"Patriarchal" ??

With words like those you make it impossible to take anything you say seriously.

I mean, outside of Code Pink, International ANSWER, or some nutty "feminist studies" class, who even talks like that?

But do tell, how many Noam Chomsky books do you have on your shelf?

Dan Trabue said...

Just one, which I've only browsed through.

I learned most of my philosophy from the Bible, actually. Go figure.

If you don't like the words, "patriarchal" and "imperialist," ignore them. The gist of the point is that there is a HUGE number of Americans and people around the world who are tired of the Bush-types who abuse the ideals of a democracy-loving America.

Who place themselves above the law.

Who decide unilaterally which dictators are acceptable and worthy of our support (Pinochet, Somoza, Saddam, etc) and which ones aren't and must be overthrown (Ortega, Saddam, etc) - even if it breaks our own laws and int'l laws. Even if it involves war crimes and torture.

This hubris is NOT part of the American ideal and there are those of us - in great numbers - who will peaceably fight to see America stand for her true ideals and who rejoice when men like Bush are held accountable for leading us astray.

And, because of that, we are glad to see a patriot like Obama who better represents the American ideals of truth, justice, reason, compassion and responsibility.

Anonymous said...

Snake Hunters is suffering from an unfortunate obsession in which he has come to believe that the Bush-Cheney administration has been tarnished single handedly by George Soros.

To believe this is to ignore the obvious that the Bush-Cheney administration's standing in the eyes of most Americans has suffered b/c of the invasion of Iraq. Although this administration is not directly responsible for the credit crisis or the spike in fuel costs, both of those happened on the Bush-Cheney watch and a bad economy is toxic for the party in power's nominee.


Auntyem said...

I don't think Obama will get a chance to talk to Ahmed-in-a-jar or anybody else about appeasement, etc.

Most voters seem to be center-right, and "ideologically closer to McCain..more inclined to hear what he has to say and be open to his ideas, presenting McCain with a structural advantage toward building a center-right majority is not a given that voters will vote for a candidate that they are closer to ideologically...voters still want to hear ideas and what a candidate is going to do, especially in this environment".

Obama has the college people and those dissatisfied with what they have come to with high prices, etc. but the Republicans have that machine, can and will "cage" votes in certain communities, and do other things to make sure their candidate can't lose. If Obama is the nominee eventually, he will give McCain a go, and might only lose by a small margin. Deja vu all over again.

I too am in suspenders about what Obama would say to the little Napoleon. You can't "talk" to religious zealots. It has to be their way, and the extremists are ready to die for Islam, unlike the godless communists of the former Soviet Union. Obama says he is not against war, "just stupid wars". Would he give Pipsqueek enough rope to hang himself and then stomp on him?

Until we have a new admin, it looks like the Israelis don't consider the US a player now and have started talks with Syria in Turkey with the goal of isolating and containing Iran.

Port Orchard, WA

Dan Trabue said...

Why can't you "talk" to religious zealots? Are they somehow different creatures than us?

Do they not have their own interests that they will look out for? Do they not have some basic concerns that can be addressed?

What case can one make that there are some people out there who can't be talked to?

Are religious zealots an odd lot? Sure, sometimes. Are they motivated by different reasonings. Sure, sometimes. They're a lot like the rest of us in that regards.

I, like Obama, am against stupid wars. Seems a reasonable position to hold.

As to your suspicion that McCain might win, I'm thinking that is a bit hopeful, at this point.

Who is fired up to vote for McCain? Where is his enthusiastic base? Where are the crowds ready to get out the vote for McCain?

I don't see ANY enthusiasm at all for McCain. There's some general agreement amongst a subgroup that they don't like the idea of President Obama, but that's hardly enough to fire up the base.

On the other hand, Obama has a HUGE enthusiasm following him wherever he goes. His appearances are like rock concerts. He's got that Reagan magnetism.

McCain has the specter of Bush hanging over him. He has the rash of Republican convictions and scandals hanging over him.

In his favor, he does have the Republican machine and swiftboater-types, who'll say anything to win, but I'm thinking that America is tiring of that game.

Time will tell.

Kristina said...

Okay, here's what I don't get. I don't understand how a person can follow Obama's speaches and continue to support him. Let me give you an example.

Obama said he'd talk, without preconditions, to Iran. Then,Obama said he wouldn't negotiate with Hamas and that talks with Iran would actually improve Israeli security.......Demanding concessions from Iran in exchange for offers of economic aid would give America "the moral high ground," he argued. That would make it easier to build international support for sanctions to pressure Iran into halting its nuclear program and its support of terrorism, he said.

Then, he reiterated that his outreach to enemies does not include terrorists and that he would not negotiate with groups such as Hamas until they renounce terrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist.

So, he wants to talk to Iran, but he won't talk to terrorists, and he said that Iran is supporting terrorism, but he won't talk to terrorists. I'm sorry, must be that he'll only talk to supporters of terrorism.

The man talks in circles depending on what cirlce he's talking to.

Dan Trabue said...

Iran is a sovereign nation. Like them or not, we must deal with them. That means talking with them. But talking with them does not imply appeasing them or not having parameters of what we hope to accomplish in our conversations.

I don't believe Obama has talked in circles. Rather, he's stated what he would do. Then, his critics twist that to say, "He says he'll talk with terrorists with no preconditions." or something similar.

And so, he clarifies his meaning, which inevitably gets twisted and on and on it goes.

I've seen it happen too often in this Left/Right country of ours to not recognize the pattern. Because we're coming from different paradigms, orientations or backgrounds, sometimes we talk past each other and miss the others' meaning. And so, we have to clarify.

What else can we do? Just assume the worst about the Others and then proceed to demonize them? There's a better way, and I think Obama is among those who are trying to lead us in that better way.

Tom the Redhunter said...

"Iran is a sovereign nation. Like them or not, we must deal with them. That means talking with them."

Er, no. It means overthrowing them. We need a policy of regime change. To effect this we use a combination of A) public human rights campaign, B) open and clandestine support of Iranian dissidents and the democracy movement, C) publicly work towards declaring the Iranian regime illegitimate. Which means NOT talking to them.

"Rather, he's stated what he would do. Then, his critics twist that to say, "He says he'll talk with terrorists with no preconditions." or something similar."?

O for 2.

First, the Iranian regime supports Hezbollah and other terrorist groups, effectively making them a bunch of terrorist themselves.

And from last year's YouTube debate, he said he'd meet without preconditions.

"QUESTION: In 1982, Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.

In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

OBAMA: I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

Oh, and it's also on his website

"Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."

But I guess you can't be bothered with research, dan.

Dan Trabue said...

It means overthrowing them. We need a policy of regime change. To effect this we use a combination of A) public human rights campaign, B) open and clandestine support of Iranian dissidents and the democracy movement, C) publicly work towards declaring the Iranian regime illegitimate.

Overthrowing nations? Clandestine support of dissidents? Perhaps even a little terrorism and coups and assassinations?

This is part of the Old Bush Imperialism (I know you don't like that, but if the shoe fits...) way that people are tired of and that is undermining our security. The world is tired of the US deciding who gets to be the leader of sovereign nations.

It is not OUR country to pick and choose leaders for other nations. Even if that leader is a rotten leader.

I wonder, are you suggesting we break our laws to overthrow this leader we don't like, or are you comfortable remaining within our laws? Or are laws for other countries?

Kristina said...

The problem is that Obama actually said all those things. He said that he would talk to Iran. He said that talking to Iran would encourage them to halt their nuclear program and stop supporting terrorists. He said he would not talk to terrorists.

I'm sorry, but in my book supporting terrorism is the same thing as the act of walking through the door with a bomb strapped on. Without 'support' (funding), the terrorists wouldn't be able to be terrorists.

It really all depends on who he's talking to. You see, when he was talking to Jews, he said that he would not talk to terrorists and that Iran supports terrorists. Of course, we all know that Iran supports terrorists. I'm just not sure you'll admit it.

So, yes, that equal talking in circles.

Dan Trabue said...

Fair enough, I'll take your word for it that he said different things in different contexts. If so, he's falling prey to one of the sins of politicians and shame on him for not being more upfront and clear.

But what does he mean? Does he mean that he'll both talk to terrorists and NOT talk to terrorists? Or, does he mean that he recognizes that we must talk to our enemies, at least those leaders of other nations with whom we disagree.

And organized groups (but not nations) who use terrorism (and let's be honest, that group would include the US - remember the Contras? Saddam? Pinochet?) need to be dealt with and it would be foolish to rule out one tool in dealing with them.

If Obama's talking in circles, shame on him. But the direction I'm hearing him say he's taking us is the one we need to move in (as indicated at his website) - running away from the direction we've been going.

Anonymous said...


I think you are operating on the horns of a dilemma, or perhaps a dichotomy. If you wish to promote a regime change in Iran, there is no point in taking the high road and not talking to them. One need only look at the the United State's Cuba policy to determine the shortcomings of attempting to isolate the enemy.

There are at least three factions in Iran. The mullahs--Lord deliver us: the president and the Iranian Guards (see PLA) and their cronies who are proponents of the ongoing Islamic Revolution which is specifically designed to 1. promote a path that guarantees there will never be peace anywhere, starting w/ the Middle East; and 2. the quash all dissent, particularly that of the young, middle class, and educated, who cannot fid jobs, or marry, or buy their starter home in the Tehran suburbs b/c the Amadinejad crowd is spending every available rial not to better the lived of Joe Farsi but to support Hezbollah, Hamas, etc.

If recent history has taught us anything, it is that when the despots in power have all the weapons, isolating them economically and politically is a recipe for failure when it comes to promoting regime change. Albert Einstein once defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Cuba; Iraq; North Korea; Zimbabwe; Sudan.

Therefore, I suggest a different approach. Let us extend our hand in friendship, clasping Iran's b/f stabbing them w/ the Crocodile Dundee knife, hidden behind our back. Or let us replay the scene from The Godfather, the one were Luca Brasi has his hand pinned to the bar w/ a stiletto, allowing Turk Solazzo's henchmen to garrote him.

To enact these metaphors means a complete abandonment of our self proclaimed "Nation of Laws" ethos in favor of a more pragmatic approach to international relations whose goal is the survival of western culture, but there is the divergence of the two roads in the yellow wood.




Partisan Political High-Jinks!
O.K., Count me in, I'll play.

Ronald Reagan: "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party Left Me!"
On John F. Kennedy 1960 Inaugural, our president displayed a 'Profile In Courage' with these words:

"We will pay any price, bear any burden, endure any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival of Freedom."
Barry Goldwater, 1964: "Extremism,
In the Defense Of Liberty Is No Vice!"
Adolph Hitler wrote "Mein Kampf", telling the world in advance, his intentions. Only a few were listening. Forty million, in a dozen countries...perished in World War II.
In the 21 Century, a New Persian Empire has again given the world advance notice of their plan to bring back from the dead the 12th Imam, their "Madhi" Prophet to Rule This Planet with The Qur'an's Sharia Law. Iranian Shia Prophesy believes that After a great war, sweeping 'Little Satan' (Israel) into the sea; then on to Europe, and finally "Big Satan!"

Again, too few are listening.
Knowing The Enemy At Home...and abroad, has become this great nation's epic challenge, and a solemn duty.
They enrich U-235 as we quibble and discuss the dubious merits of 'negotiating' with a Suicidal Kill-Culture. reb

Anonymous said...


And your suggestion re dealing w/ the problem are?



Loop Garoo knows my views quite well, yet he offers no solutions; that would be too risky.

Iran kills our troopers every day with sophisticated IED's, and they infiltrate military personnel into Shia tribal areas, waiting for
that grand day for deliberate action, when U.S. politicians force a redeployment before their mission achieves a stable Iraqi Force, capable of national self-defense.
We have been at war with Iran since
1979 and too few young Americans know that.

Our Goal Must Seek Regime Change, for there are no viable options, and my friend Loop Garoo knows that too. He Has Never Publicly Endorsed "Negotiating" With These Fanatical Killers. He knows.

Loop Knows That They Are A Deeply Committed Kill-Culture, they will not be deterred with WORDS, and that Time Is Of The Essence; that they enrich Uranium to fulfill their Hideous Madhi Prophesy.

Loop Is A Lawyer, and he enjoys WORDS, and pussy-footing around!

IF we succeed in de-fanging the Snake, Loop will use it as Exhibit "A" on a Lecture Tour, and having learned all about the 'politics of war' from knowledgable bloggers like The Redhunter, he'll eventually renounce Appeasement, and write a Guest Editorial for the Rocky Mountain News...about "Peace & Justice", and Winning the War Opposing Global Jihad!

In Loop's Dotage, he will become...A Republican Alderman from a small Colorado mining town, and be highly regarded by his peers, as he finally fades away into the sunset...even as You and I will, one day. reb

Anonymous said...

Screw you reb. Do you want to begin a series of ad hominem attacks? Stop repeating the obvious and suggest a solution. Your commments are blather.

How do you effect a regime change in a country where the people you are attempting to supplant have all the weapons?

Newt Gingrich's suggestion about bombing the refinery has merit except that doing so would constitute an act of war and we not longer able to fight another war.



Loop Garoo,

You Demand That I Repeat a Logical
Solution, rather than add a single
voice to the Merry-go-round of Left
and Right Partisan Bickering;
Very well, One More Time:

a) Yes, Eliminate Iran's Single Gasoline Refinery & Storage Facilities (Gingrich says: "let 'em walk to their next war.")

b) Obliterate Iran's Underground Nuclear Labs BEFORE they can produce a single catastrophic weapon, to pass on to a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, i.e. al Queda, or more likely Hezbollah.


The Physical Destruction of IRAN's Capability to Threaten their Middle East neighbors, Continental
Europe and North America (I have never suggested an invasion, but merely excising a malignancy) may arguably be only a temporary solution to This Madness of Radical, Offensive Jihad Lunacy, it merely accomplishes a Singular Objective...Regime Change, with little 'Collateral Damage' to an innocent civilian population (a youthful, more secular, educated nation) allowing for Hope, CHANGE,
and a 'New Direction'.


Now then, Loop Garoo being far more sophisicated in vague nuances and skilled polemics than most of us, I leave it to YOU to weigh in the balance the risks...of Action Vs Inaction.

Your friend, reb

Anonymous said...


Let us start w/ the suggestion of bombing the refinery. Whereas it accomplishes the immediate objective of destrying Iran's capacity to produce gasoline, what else does it do?

1. The acts of war that Iran has committed against us and against our forces in Iraq and against others--which acts need not be documented here--are indirect. Bombing another country (rmemebr Pearl Harbor?) is a direct act of war. So the first question is,are we prepared to fight a war gainst Iran?

2. You seem to think that the disaffected in Iran have the capacity to change the regime. Why do you think so? The IRG is armed to the teeth and rather resembles the PRC of a generation ago. Add to that, the fact that committing a direct act of war against a country tends to convert its disaffected into patriots.

3. I cannot say that bombing Iran's weapons sites does not have some appeal except for one problem. How good is our intelligence. Do we know where the facilities are located?

Basically your idea that we should effect a regime change is a good one. Your ideas on how to accomplish that regime change would be very unlikely to succeed.

Life for the average Iranian has its challenges. The more we can show them of our open society, the more Iranians will want to abandon spending their revenue on the revolution in favor of domestic spending.

One more point. If we were to bomb any Iranian installation, what would prevent Iran from declaring open season on the U.S. and its citizens?


Anonymous said...


Let us start w/ the suggestion of bombing the refinery. Whereas it accomplishes the immediate objective of destrying Iran's capacity to produce gasoline, what else does it do?

1. The acts of war that Iran has committed against us and against our forces in Iraq and against others--which acts need not be documented here--are indirect. Bombing another country (rmemebr Pearl Harbor?) is a direct act of war. So the first question is,are we prepared to fight a war gainst Iran?

2. You seem to think that the disaffected in Iran have the capacity to change the regime. Why do you think so? The IRG is armed to the teeth and rather resembles the PRC of a generation ago. Add to that, the fact that committing a direct act of war against a country tends to convert its disaffected into patriots.

3. I cannot say that bombing Iran's weapons sites does not have some appeal except for one problem. How good is our intelligence. Do we know where the facilities are located?

Basically your idea that we should effect a regime change is a good one. Your ideas on how to accomplish that regime change would be very unlikely to succeed.

Life for the average Iranian has its challenges. The more we can show them of our open society, the more Iranians will want to abandon spending their revenue on the revolution in favor of domestic spending.

One more point. If we were to bomb any Iranian installation, what would prevent Iran from declaring open season on the U.S. and its citizens?


John Washburn said...

"We're tired of the old, imperialist, patriarchal, "We'll decide what's best for everyone else" way of doing things"

Dan, to hear a Left-leaning person say something like this is rather entertaining, and laughable. The Dem party's motto should be "vote for us and we'll take care of you". Nobody personifies that better than Obama. And yet you seem to take offense at patriarchal types? I don't get it.

As for Iran, Obama couldn't be more wrong. Yes, our policy towards Iran is regime change. THe current regime is dangerous and represents a threat to world peace, therefore it must be changed. One way to do that is internally, by way of the Iranian people themselves. We must let the people become disgruntled and frustrated with the current regime.

Part of doing that involves ISOLATION of Iran. We reduce trade, reduce communication, and don't acknowledge their legitimacy on the international stage. Despite what some say, they DON'T "have" to be dealt with. We've succeeded at isolating Iran and the Iranian people will eventually tire of it and, hopefully, turn on the regime. This is one way to bring about regime change.

The moment Obama meets with Ahmadinejad that is all flushed. That's when Iran is no longer isolated and becomes recognized in the international stage.

It would be a catastrophic mistake. Obama's inexperience is what keeps him from seeing that. Such inexperience is too dangerous for the highest office in the world. Being a "good organizer" isn't enough to offset that.


Loop Garoo & Dr Washburn are content to wait for some brave, young Iranians to begin a movement,
(suicidal) while a vague Freedom Coalition imposes "Restrictions" and "Isolation" on Iranian Leadership. All the while, China, Syria and Russia are making sure that Iran is not too uncomfortable in their so-called "Isolation".

We have the ability to castrate these thugs with over-whelming force in 48 hours; Israel will not, cannot wait much longer; they BELIEVE goofy Ahmadinejad.

I've asked YOU to make a choice, Loop. You have chosen INACTION. Obama chooses "Negotiation".
Where's RedHunter, You out there Tom?

The nuke clock is ticking. reb

Anonymous said...


Once again, you have failed to consider the second move; and the third and the one after that.

You have failed to consider the kind of country that you wish to inhabit and the type of globe you wish to inhabit.

Your philosophy gives creedance to the jihadists' fear of crusaders.

Tell me. What is the difference between an endless jihad and a perpetual crusade?



Loop Garoo, Your Puzzling WORDS Continue To Ignore Reality.
It is not the Crusaders who bomb Madrid, Bombay, London, or N.Y. City. Major cities of the world.

It's the Suicidal Jihadist, the 'Moon-Worshippers of the Kaba', the Sunni & Shia that strap bombs on their women & kids; that stone their "sinning" young women, that slit the throat of a young daughter to maintain 'Family Honor'. Grim stuff!

It's SHARIA...Primitive Islamic Law that you attempt to justify.

Why do you equate these wild-eyed
beasts of this generation, with 12th Century Roman Crusades?

I cannot understand your motivation. reb

Anonymous said...


Your essential issues are that you seem completely unable to step outside yourself and view yourself as others do. By implication, you are completely unable to view the United Staes as others, whether they be enemies or friends view us. Do you know what the Muslim view of a crusader is?

Your other issue is that you are completely unable to recognize that the actions and methods you decry in others are actions and methoids you promote in furtherance of your philosophy.

Consider these issues.

One more question. Why is Mohamed so intractable?




The PsychoMetrics of Denial

is in evidence here, and nothing anyone can say, no amount of hard evidence will alter or convince the Committed Left of Center Viewer that he is anything but 100% Correct in his Partisan View.

So, in Frustration Extra-ordinaire,
I weary of your tired lamentations, and I refer you to another author, an Iranian National on our June 1st Post! Go there, Loop Garoo, and make your best effort Directly To Him. His name is Amil Imani. The Post Is...

"A Mullah Reality Check"

Your friend, reb


The Loop Garoo Kid,

Why is Mohamed so Intractable?

It's probably because you go to Mohamed Fadly's blog, and call him a "fool", rather than coax him here on American Blogs to explain his 'Islam Truth' position.

Vinegar attacts nobody.

Why doesn't Loop Garoo have the courage to answer Amil Imani, the American/Iranian on S/H June 1st Post?
I would not dare to interfere with that exchange. It's tailor-made for TLGK! reb

Anonymous said...


Lack of courage has nothing to do with my absence from your site. In case you have forgotten, I am boycotting your blog because you censored it in a way that I found to be unacceptable to me. You have renderd your site a safe haven for intellectual lightweights like Winfred Mann and you are fortuanate that TRH chooses to visit from time to time.

As for Mohamed, again you display behavior that is quite puzzling to me. Whereas on th eone hand, you seek to warn us all regarding the "kill culture" of Islam on the other you seek to engage Mohamed as if he is somehow different.

Mohamed is an Egyptian. There have been riots there over the cost of bread. Yey Mohamed, rather than evincing concern for his fellow Egyptians, languishes over the plight of the Plaestinians and when confronted wuth the unviability of any of his positions, he ignores the questions.

I do not seek to engage him. I will merely point out the invalidity of his postions to his readers.


Anonymous said...

Snake Hunter Sez,

Loop Garoo,

We have both attempted Logic & Reason on Mohamed Fadly's Blog.

He's A Muslim! You are "Guest".

You began there, in reasonable style explaining Palestinian History, then as you are prone to do, you turn to unkind ridicule, and apply too much pressure, ending all hope of serious dialogue. In your last comment, you called Mohamed a FOOL. (That does not encourage a valid response).

So, outsmarting you, he doesn't Delete the Insult, he leaves you hanging there, exposing your vain arrogance!
You're a Blog-bully, Loop Garoo!
You, Boycotting Me? I'm Terrified!
How will my humble Snake Hunters Effort ever survive without your occasional insult, that feeds into your superb posturing, your pedantic arrogance?

Anyone reading this can simply go to Feb/March Posts to sample the exchange. I politely requested that
both you and that Lady from Washington...Stay On Point, and be more CONCISE. Four Warnings, Loop!

Then, I Deleted Both, It's My Domain.

Observe the Rules, you're always welcome, of course. Flaunt them, and the world suffers the loss of your brilliance, your vast knowledge, AND charming mannerisms!
Now you attack me on Dr Washburn's Site, playing the victim! (He also has sampled your crudeness). Come back for a visit after Nov 4th, Loop. I think the stress of Obama-Mania may have seriously impacted a fine legal mind.

Now, I must apologize for both of us...Sorry, Dr John. reb

Anonymous said...



It is as simple as that. It's one thing to maintain a profanoity and advertisement free site. It's another to delete comments w/ which you disagree (see Yankee Doodle and Winfred Mann) or the edit or alter its content. (See SH)

"How will my humble Snake Hunters ever survive...?" It will survive but have you noticed the tenor of comments since Emilie and I departed? It's all "atta boy" stuff. So you are the master of your domain. In my opinion, your domain has become a less interesting place b/c people like me won't visit or comment b/c your rules for commneting are arbitrary and capricious. You say your rules are not so but ultimately when you delete a comment w/ which you disagree, or b/c it "attacks" you pointing out the inconsitancy of your behavior, then "L'etat c'est vous."


Meanwhile, so far as Mohamed is concerned, I will keep my own consel.

As for Obamamania, I fear it has affected you far more than me. I was merely contar Hillary Clinton. I thinks ometimes the most qualified candidates never made it out of the gates.


The Loop Garoo Kid



In the 1930's a Monster surfaced on the European Scene. Adolph Hitler wrote a 300-page book, Mein Kampf, telling the world exactly what he intended to do. Europe Shrugged, and 40 Plus Million Died in a dozen countries!

The Servant of Appeasement, Neville Chamblerlain prattled about "Peace In Our Time" as Winston Churchill frowned, and tried to issue a warning in 1938.
Anyone see today's parallel?
Today, in the 21st Century, we are witness to another Gathering Storm. Sunni-Wahhabism & Shiite
Persia (IRAN) are on the march under the Banner of Sharia Law. The Flag of The Moon-God of the Kaba has replaced the crooked Nazi Cross!

After the successful assault on our Embassy in Terhan on Nov 4, 1979, there followed a series of bombings from Beirut to widely scattered locations around the world. An excitable, Angry Islamic Kill-culture had long been dormant. Now Emboldened, they began their Planned Offensive Jihad
upon a complacent, peaceful and secular (infidel) world. They export cadres of their followers
to populate the heathen enemy's cities; they establish Enclaves & "Holy" Mosques, everywhere!
And our people invent "Talking Points".
The world was startled, and many cheered when the New York Twin Towers Fell on September 11, 2001, and 2973 innocents died on that sunny morn.

We Had Been Warned! We shrugged and hit the "snooze-button" of our minds.

Bush/Cheney Approval Rating shot up to 71 Percent; all was well once again; or was it? "Peace Banners" were unfurled. 'Code Pink' & "United For Peace & Justice", a Communist Front, was ready to began a long & brilliantly executed plan to demean "DUBYA"
and ridicule U.S. Leadership. They deployed "Campus Organizers" across the nation to enlist the gullible youth clubs, supplying Peace Signs, Slogans, and bumper-stickers. Many hundreds of millions of dollars were spent in the next 6 yrs & nine months to sap the will of the U.S., and today, Bush/Cheney is at 28 Percent Approval. The Hate Campaigns were hugely successful.

Bush Lied! "Impeach Bush/Cheney"

The Nabobs of Negativity Had Achieved their Goal of dividing us,
splintering our will to confront an intractable, determined suicidal enemy.

In 2007, Iranian spokesman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad clearly stated that Iran would "Wipe Israel Off the Map." Again, The world shrugged & Yawned.

Here at home, the Soros Machine Selected a smooth talking parrot, Barry Obama. He now hoists the blue banners of "Change" and 'New Direction', and listens to the sweet chants of "Yes We Can!", and promises to "bring our troops home" quickly, as his minions sign up a youthful army of enthusiastic & gullible first-time voters.

And Loop Garoo Knows All Of This! He's a smart lawyer-type, that chooses not to hide his true feelings, but to expand them. He fashions "new" talking points, and Ridicules & "boycotts" an old fellow that attempts to Inform & Alert a Sleepy, Nonchalant Citizenry.

IGNOR.ANCE Of DEADLY PERIL Is A Wasteful, Ego-driven, Stupid-Ass Thing. reb


Loop, a few days ago, you began with "Lack Of Courage has nothing to do with my absence..."

Sir. Your alleged 'Lack of Courage'
is in evidence daily, with your unwillingness, your timidity, your obvious 'lack of courage' to Post A Left-Wing Blog, then vigorously defend your 'Left of Center' positions.

We Admire Courage; We Enjoy The Open Forum Give & Take. Yankee Commentary, WhenEvilProspers, The Redhunter, Winfred Mann, and Prof Donald Douglas are all valued Snake Hunter Links. They All Assume

Should Loop Garoo Ever Summon Up The Courage to Post a Website, I'd be delighted to provide Linkage. "Fair & Balanced" is a Slogan we can all believe in! Loop can dish it out in multiples, but he can't take a counter-punch. He has a fragile, 'glass-jaw'.

So Alas, I don't think Loop Garoo has the Necessary Back-bone...Loop is a Jelly-Fish! Lots of Poisonous Sting, But No Visible Spine! reb

Auntyem said...

Dr. Washburn,

A lot of comments have been posted to your post here about Obama's intentions to "talk" to Ahmed-in-a-jar, but all I see is the hour the comment was posted. Is there some way I could see the date of the comments also? It seems the comments have continued over several days.

As for the topic, (I guess I am way late on this again) I am now confused since it went from whether Obama should talk to "terrorists" or not, even if one is a hated president of "rogue" nation. I think our President should invite talks, even if they don't result in a peaceful settlement. At least we tried.

Why couldn't Obama (if he should become President, which I think he won't be) hold talks at Camp David the way other presidents have done, the way Clinton did in trying to effect a peace in the Middle East by holding talks with the Israeli and Palestinian leaders together.

Clinton told the Palestinian that he had single-handedly ruined his legacy by not keeping the peace. And didn't the regime of the other guy get changed with his assassination by his own people because of those talks? I also remember the regime of the Egyptian that had been involved in peace talks ended when he got assassinated, also by his own people.

With such a history, would Ahmed-in-a-jar still want to "talk" to the respresentative of Big Satan? Has he indicated he wants to "talk"? I know he was anxious to make a speech to Americans last year, and he was invited to a college to speak, only to be ridiculed.

I still say you can't talk to religious zealots. We can't effect a regime change in Iran by campaigning for human rights, clandestinely supporting dissidents, promoting democracy, or declaring their regime illegitimate. The only human rights they believe in are those under Sharia law, they imprison or kill their dissidents, and they truly believe that Islam is democracy itself.

We interfered before in Iran by setting up the Shah on the ancient Peacock throne as a "democratic" leader, but his regime was overthrown and he was lucky not to have been assassinated. Now they feel that they are on their way to their dream of a world-wide Caliphate and converting the world to the only "true" religion, Islam.

So, no, regime change does not always work to our advantage. Islamic militants will have their tribal battles amongst themselves as they always have, and assassinate each other, and in the meantime the rest of the world can just try to contain them economically and stay ahead of them in military intelligence as Israel is trying to do. We just need to support Israel, as Iran supports Iraqi and Palestinian "resisters" (they refuse to call them "terorists") to the great and little Satans.

About Obama: Should he get elected, how long before he would get taken out as JFK was? Some still believe the JFK assassination was planned by the oil barons in Texas who were against his regime of civil rights and oversight of big industy, etc. I remember the hateful posters on the motorcade, even Lady Bird was shoved and was spat on. I talk to many blacks who think Obama's life won't be worth a plugged nickel if he ascends to the Presidency, since he is not only a liberal, he is a black one. (Gen. Powell refused to run for Pres because his wife was so afraid he would be assassinated for being black, and he was a Republican). Regime change indeed.

Most of us here will die of old age before many of the world's dictators' regimes are "changed". Those guys suffer from megalomania and stay in power for life; thank goodness we can have a regime change every eight years, even if some feel there shouldn't be. Maybe we will have a change, maybe we won't. Can hardly wait to see how it all turns out.

Port Orchard, WA


Emilie, in your third paragraph you suggest 'talks' at Camp David might possibly produce something positive; a "nothing ventured, nothing gained" approach. I would empathize with you, and that strategy indeed has some merit, when dealing with any rational major power.

However, negotiations with IRAN is
simply a dead-end, non-winner for two important reasons:

a) It Gives These Mullahs an elevated, unearned prestige and stature among nations of the world.

b) There Is No Hope Whatsoever that any "talks" would result in their Abandonment Of The "Madhi Prophesy". It's Shia Islam's "Holy Grail". The Return of the Madhi, the 12th Imam, is their Pillar of Truth, their proof of superiority over the Sunni/Wahhabi of Arabia!

They join with the Sunni only as a Modus Vivende, a 'temporary arrangement' to Kill Jews. Note: In Palestine Today, the Hamas & Fatah kiil each other! Why? Hamas is an Iranian funded puppet; Fatah is a Saudi Arabian surrogate! It's very complex, but well worth your time to study this, before you begin with your own web-site. Intractable Killers? You can bet your life that negotiating with these types is a fantasy, a quite improbable dream.

The Egyptian President, Anwar Sadat died in the attempt. Jimmy Carter persuaded Sadat to make peace with the Jews. He tried, and the negotiation led him directly into his early grave.

Obama's stated hope for a rappoachment with Iran is pure juvenile, immature folly. Breeching Pakistan's Sovereign Border to get bin Laden is another Obama flub, exposing immaturity. Imagine a serious crisis, and this fellow sitting in the Oval Office as our Commander-In-Chief!

Obama-Mania chatter is scary enough to spin heads in the Pentagon. Dare we risk that insane region?

I think not. reb

Anonymous said...

Dear reb,

I hope your felt better after writting the above.

Let me tell you how the cow ate the cabbage. I can only hope you appreciate it notwithstanding your apparent descent into lunacy.

1. The are too many blogs. We need fewer not more. Just b/c one has a computer and access to the internet does not mean one has something to say that is worth reading.

2. I boycott blogs that censor comments b/c of content. There are certain truths about e-mail. Once you press the "send" button you can't get back that which mailed. Once you press the "delete" button on your weblog and remove someone's comment b/c of content, then you have ceased being one person and begun being another.

2. I checked your last posting. There have been only 18 comments in 11 days of which only 5 have not been posted by you. Now, instead of commenting about mullahs you are attempting to ridicule Democrats.

I will give you a piece of advice. The first is, whenever you are working at 2:00 a.m. and you write something you think is hilarious, don't post it immediately. Read it at noon and determine whether it is as funnny as you first thought.

As for your comments above, they would have been hurtful several months ago when I still respected your opinion.



John Washburn said...


The problem with talks is the legitimizing of the regime. Of course Ahmadinejad would meet with Obama, it would show his people that EVEN the US president acknowledges his power and position of authority. That decreases the possibility of regime change.

We don't have to talk to Ahmadinejad or any other terrorist in order to convey our message. It's clear. He must stop his nuclear weapons program at once. That's the condition that he must meet before we legitimize him as a world leader.


Loopie Ga-roopie,

When That Cow ate the cabbage, the poor beast developed an enourmous amount of foul-smelling gas.

Perhaps That Cow, and some other arrogant types, fond of giving worthless advise, should not attempt to create an informative weblog; they would surely fail.

My Dad was a Lifelong Democrat; I was a Democrat too. I've come to dislike labels, and am much more content with "INDEPENDENT"!

Like Republicans, they each have many fine people, and also some easily deceived souls in both main groupings. The human brain is a complex thing subject to both negative & positive input.

Shrewd Manipulators (you are not one of them) know the methods that can turn the most suggestable into bleating sheep, and away from the basics, the Positive Fundamentals.
You can see them at well-funded political rallies, waving signs, and maybe a free bumper-sticker!

The S/H blog attempts to deliver an antidote to those poisoned by negative suggestion. If you need a sample of these hate-mongers, they too have websites, and Loop could provide them with his mindless Cabbages & Cows rhetoric, deflect them from their hate-mongering activities that seek to demean, manipulate and destroy all hope of thoughtful analysis.

Go to Huffington Post, she's a prominent hate-monger, and also your intellectual equal; Tell Her All About Your Cow!

Nit-pick her site, destract her from her evil ways. Give Ms Arriana your best shot. Now that would be a service to your country that we can all appreciate!


My next post in gonna be a dandy; The author raps Both Parties, for their Do-Nothing Congress. It's about "Greenie" Negativity.


Sorry John, this Lumpy, Tattered, Empty Wig will not give it up. reb

Anonymous said...


Again, whereas I detest Ahmadinejad (please add Hugo Chavez; Robert Mugabe; the Burmese junta; and the guy running Belarus to my list) he is the leader of Iran.

I believe we need to foil his major policies which include obtaining nuclear power and weapons and the export of "the Iranian revolution" but to do so, as the president says "all options are on the table."

One of those options is talking to him, if only to keep him w/in range.

Meanwhile, I believe that we should have invaded Burma by sending in relief supplies and workers, despite the junta's lack of permission.

The whole world (except for despots like those mentioned above) would have stood up and cheered. W/ the olympics approaching, China would never have interfered.