Comments on: Obama’s Smart Iran Policy and the Far Right’s Irresponsible Saber-Rattling

By: JohnHolmes

JohnHolmes — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:26:26 +0000

I’m really disgusted at Kathy’s persistent irrational attack on this intelligent man with a debilitating disease. By any rational account Krauthammer is extremely cerebral and intelligent, he’s won the Pulitzer Prize, unlike Abu or Kathy. Kathy’s mind is as weak as Krauthammer’s body. This Abu Ghrabiwawwi guy is just attacking Krauthammer because he’s an anti-semite. Krauthammer’s life and work speaks for itself:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer

By: radical_moderate

radical_moderate — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:45:15 +0000

“Roosevelt was “inactive” until the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor. Do you not know your history?? FDR tried to remain neutral as much as possible, the Japanese made a stupid move forcing him into a War.”

Bullshit. Roosevelt’s hands were tied by the Isolationists in Congress, he got around this by implementing the “lend-Lease” program that allowed the US to ship military equipment to England when she needed the help. A President is not a King, he has to go through congress before declaring War.

By: JohnHolmes

JohnHolmes — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 23:26:32 +0000

Roosevelt was “inactive” until the Japanese struck Pearl Harbor. Do you not know your history?? FDR tried to remain neutral as much as possible, the Japanese made a stupid move forcing him into a War.

Anyway, there are tons of exceptions but in today’s political environment Progressives stand for “inaction” while Conservatives prefer a more active role. Do you disagree with this general statement?

Again, I watch the TV News, read the major online papers, and read all over the internet to see what’s going on and who’s following what. Progressives have an unusually high level of interest in the Iran turmoil right now. Could somebody here explain why?

By: radical_moderate

radical_moderate — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:13:50 +0000

btw, it was Conservative Republicans who were isolationists during the late 30′s pushing Roosevelt to stay out of the European conflict, and in fact, it was a Republican Senator who said “If only I could talk to Hitler..” so famously used by Bush in his speech to the Israeli parliment last year.

By: radical_moderate

radical_moderate — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:07:58 +0000

“…inaction and nothingness mark Liberal or Progressive philosophy in these instances (Neville Chamberlain/Obama).”

Yeah because Roosevelt/Truman were so “inactive.” I wish to God that Democrats had been more inactive during the Vietnam era, and that is why I am interested in caution.

As for the “opposition” Leader in Iran, from what I understand, he stands maybe a hair to the left of the current President.

By: JohnHolmes

JohnHolmes — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 00:42:46 +0000

Well the never ending Iraq War is coming to an end isn’t it?? Troops are pulling out and going home. The threat of Saddam has been removed and tens of Millions of Iraqi people are in charge of their own freedom now … at a cost of course that only America ever seems to be willing to shoulder. So the Bush Policy worked.

The “Nothingness” strategy deployed by Obama has rarely, if ever, worked in the past against an aggressor nation. So we’ll see. Iran wants Nukes and N. Korea is preparing a fireworks display for out 4th of July Holiday.

If Action or Military Force marks Conservative Ideology (Krauthammer/Bush) … inaction and nothingness mark Liberal or Progressive philosophy in these instances (Neville Chamberlain/Obama). If Iran or N. Korea gives up its Nukes I’ll admit the Obama Policy worked. But this latest protest has nothing to do with Obama, it marks a festering divide between Iranians and their Government, the disgusting ruling Mullah’s. I have yet to see anyone in the media tell us what this opposition leader even stands for. Who’s to say he would be any better?

By: radical_moderate

radical_moderate — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:51:47 +0000

Krauthammer has one agenda in the Middle East, and it is no secret what it is since he writes about it enough, that is the protection of Israel no matter how many lives, even American lives, it costs. He sees Iran as the top threat to Israel in the region, and that his, and other rightwing intellectuals, imprudent support enabled the Bush Administration to embroil us in an endless war in Iraq, and would, if he could influence it, embroil us in even more violent and bloody conflict should we materially support Revolution in Iran apparently hasn’t entered his Israelcentric brain. As an American, I absolutely support the Obama’s quiet, restrained approach. ENOUGH of the sort of ham-handed interference in other sovereign Nation’s affairs that marked, and tarred, the Neo-Con Bush regime, and thankfully, I suspect, Obama will not be bullied into imprudent policy making by the likes of failed VEEP Cheney and blowhard Israel-Firster Krauthammer.

By: JohnHolmes

JohnHolmes — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:19:50 +0000

What Obama Policy in Iran?? You mean the “nothingness” policy?? Obama doesn’t have a policy that anyone can discern nor articulate in Iran or N. Korea. So rather than even talk about the issue in any meaningful way you guys go after Krauthammer instead. Krauthammer is very intelligent and cerebral in his analysis and thought process, this is true whether you like his view or not … the guy is really smart.

Abu Muqawama is a mental midget compared to Krauthammer . He tacitly admits in his piece that Obama has no Iran Policy, spends 2 lines on Obama then continues to attack Krauthammer and PW.

Republicans and Bush are not in power now. Yet they are still the focus of the extreme Left.