FranzKafka
Registered: 01/07/04
Posts: 990
|
| Posted 03/05/05 at 09:18 AM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
Here's an article by Amir Taheri regarding recent remarks by Bill Clinton.
Understand that Taheri is an Iranian ...
---------------------
Who Should Apologize to Whom?
Amir Taheri
Where is the country that Bill Clinton, a former president of the United States, feels ideologically most at home?
Before you answer, here is the condition that such a country must fulfill: It must hold several consecutive elections that produce 70 percent majorities for “liberals and progressives.”
Well, if you thought of one of the Scandinavian countries or, perhaps, New Zealand or Canada, you are wrong.
Believe it or not, the country Bill Clinton so admires is the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Here is what Clinton said at a meeting on the margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, just a few weeks ago: “Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority.”
And here is what Clinton had to say in a recent television interview with Charlie Rose:
“Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Khatami (in 1997). (It is) the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: Two for president; two for the Parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralties. In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own.”
So, while millions of Iranians, especially the young, look to the United States as a mode of progress and democracy, a former president of the US looks to the Islamic Republic as his ideological homeland.
But who are “the guys” Clinton identifies with?
There is, of course, President Muhammad Khatami who, speaking at a conference of provincial governors last week, called for the whole world to convert to Islam.
“Human beings understand different affairs within the global framework that they live in,” he said. “But when we say that Islam belongs to all times and places, it is implied that the very essence of Islam is such that despite changes (in time and place) it is always valid.”
There is also Khatami’s brother, Muhammad-Reza, the man who, in 1979, led the “students” who seized the US Embassy in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days. There is Massumeh Ebtekar, a poor man’s pasionaria who was spokesperson for the hostage-holders in Tehran. There is also the late Ayatollah Sadeq Khalkhali, known to Iranians as “Judge Blood”.
Not surprisingly, Clinton’s utterances have been seized upon by the state-controlled media in Tehran as a means of countering President George W. Bush’s claim that the Islamic Republic is a tyranny that oppresses the Iranians and threatens the stability of the region.
Clinton’s declaration of love for the mullas shows how ill informed even a US president could be.
Didn’t anyone tell Clinton, when he was in the White House, that elections in the Islamic Republic were as meaningless as those held in the Soviet Union? Did he not know that all candidates had to be approved by the “Supreme Guide”, and that no one from opposition is allowed to stand? Did he not know that all parties are banned in the Islamic Republic, and that such terms as “progressive” and “liberal” are used by the mullas as synonyms for “apostate”, a charge that carries a death sentence?
More importantly, does he not know that while there is no democracy without elections there can be elections without democracy?
Clinton told his audience in Davos, as well as Charlie Rose, that during his presidency he had “formally apologized on behalf of the United States” for what he termed “American crimes against Iran.”
But what were those “crimes”? Clinton summed them thus: “It’s a sad story that really began in the 1950s when the United States deposed Mr. Mossadegh, who was an elected parliamentary democrat, and brought the Shah back and then he was overturned by the Ayatollah Khomeini, driving us into the arms of one Saddam Hussein. We got rid of the parliamentary democracy {there} back in the ‘50s; at least, that is my belief.”
Duped by a myth spread by the Blame-America-First coalition, Clinton appears to have done little homework on Iran. The truth is that Iran in the 1950s was not a parliamentary democracy but a constitutional monarchy in which the Shah appointed, and dismissed, the prime minister. Mossadegh was named prime minister twice by the Shah and twice dismissed. In what way that meant that the US “got rid of parliamentary democracy” that did not exist is not clear.
There are at least two things that Clinton does not know about Iran and Iranians.
The first is that the claim that the US changed the course of Iranian history on a whim would be seen by most Iranians, a proud people, as an insult from an arrogant politician who exaggerates the powers of his nation more than half a century ago. The second thing that Clinton does not know is that in the Islamic Republic that he so admires, Mossadegh, far from being regarded as a national hero, is an object of intense vilification. One of the first acts of the mullas after seizing power in 1979 was to take the name of Mossadegh off a street in Tehran. They then sealed off the village where Mossadegh is buried to prevent his supporters from gathering at his tomb. History textbooks written by the mullas present Mossadegh as the “son of a feudal family of exploiters who worked for the cursed Shah, and betrayed Islam.”
Apologizing to the mullas for a wrong supposedly done to Mossadegh is like begging Josef Stalin’s pardon for a discourtesy toward Alexander Kerensky.
Clinton does not know that it was President Harry S. Truman’s energetic intervention in 1946 that forced Stalin to withdraw his armies from northwestern Iran thus foiling a Communist attempt to dismember the Iranian state.
Clinton does not know that if anyone has to apologize it is the mullas who should apologize to both the Iranian and the American peoples. He does not appear to remember images of American diplomats paraded in front of TV cameras, blindfolded, and threatened with summary execution every day — images that did lasting damage to the good name of Iran as a civilized nation.
Speaking of apologies, Clinton also ignores the fact that Iranian agents in Lebanon, led by the “ liberal progressive” Ayatollah Ali-Akbar Mohtashami, organized and carried out a string of terrorist attacks in the 1980s that cost the lives of over 300 US citizens, including 240 Marines.
And does Clinton remember the dozens of American citizens who were held hostage by the mullas’ agents in Lebanon, sometimes for more than five years?
Clinton forgets that anti-Americanism, and hatred of the West in general, is the ideological backbone of Khomeinism; that that the devise of the mullas’ regime is “Death to America”, and that the American flag is burned or trampled under foot in thousands of official buildings throughout Iran every day?
Clinton claims that the mullas “still kind of like the West in general, and America in particular.” That must be as much news to the mullas as to anyone else.
The former president endorses another claim of the mullas that Saddam Hussein, the deposed Iraqi dictator, invaded Iran on behalf of the United States.
Clinton says: “Most of the terrible things Saddam Hussein did in the 1980s he did with the full, knowing support of the United States government.”
Don’t be surprised if Clinton’s next apology is addressed to Saddam Hussein, another victim of American Imperialism!
----------------------------------
Thanks for all the help, Bill. Ready to take that baton of ex-Presidential junk-thought from the aging Jimmy Carter? Sounds like it.
I've heard that, since Americans don't trust the Democrats with their security, the best situation for the Dems come 2008 is for Bush to utterly succeed in the ME and create a world atmosphere free of Islamic fascism that will put national security on the back burners issue-wise come the next election. If that is plausible, Bill ain't helping his party much. The regime-change Iranians need to hear encouragement from friends on the outside, not about pats on the back for their oppressors by an ex-President.
Scuttlebutt has it that, during their recent confab, Putin responded to Bush's questions about the Russian's crackdown on dissident domestic press by crying hypocrisy over Bush 'firing' the malignant liberal lot down at CBS News. An amazing lack of sophistication there from a world leader sitting on a mountain of nukes. Perhaps we've now seen something to rival it in reading Taheri's examination of Clinton above.
Imagine Bill as a major voice of advisement whispering in Hillary's ear as she ascends and claims the whitehouse in 2008.
Shudder.
BTW, maybe it's time to 'Old Yeller' Shawn Bradley.
|
| Loading... | |
thomas
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 3,304
|
| Posted 03/05/05 at 11:10 AM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
That article was junk. Clinton said one thing and then the writer of that article twisted it into much more than it was. If you are going to complain, complain about what he actually said.
Note: this is what pisses me off about the media and politics. 90% of what is out there is BS. |
| Loading... | |
FranzKafka
Registered: 01/07/04
Posts: 990
|
| Posted 03/05/05 at 12:25 PM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
Transcript, audio, video ...
http://www.zombietime.com/clinton_on_iran_at_davos/
Thanks for the rant, Thomas. It compelled me to actually read the transcript. Taheri has always been nails in the past, so I didn't doubt him.
But, does anything fleshed-out there really counter the gist of Taheri's article - that an arrogant ignorant ex-Prince of Democracy running his mouth off on the world stage is a possible detriment to the hopes and dreams of lots of seriously put-upon folks? Was there a quote or a context there that Taheri cuts corners with or that counters his argument? Help me out here, what did I miss?
|
| Loading... | |
thomas
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 3,304
|
| Posted 03/05/05 at 02:32 PM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
All Clinton said was that the Iranian people were voting liberal and that is it. And then yes, he screwed up the history (I'm assuming the facts stated in the article are right).
Everything else is Taheri's fluff. "ideologically most at home" give me a break. "the country Bill Clinton so admires is the Islamic Republic of Iran" he didn't say that either.
Something you don't know about me is that I spent 10 years on the side editing the accuracy of other people's writing for books. It put me in the habit of reading criticially and seeing where people were not connecting the dots correctly.
Note: I do want to stress that all sides of our political system write stuff like this. This country would be a lot better off if people would think through what they are reading instead of buying into it. You know how we tear apart basketball articles. Well, do the same for political articles - you'll found the same lousy quality. |
| Loading... | |
keven
Registered: 01/08/04
Posts: 950
|
| Posted 03/05/05 at 02:59 PM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
The unwritten rule in presidential history is that you stay out of presidential politics once you leave office. Almost all presidents realise how difficult the job is and how much they appreciate past presidents not interfearing with their term. Unfortunately, both Carter and Clinton don't seem to have the same respect for the job that litterally every other past president has had. That one nice game from Bradley against the Kings got my hopes up again. Last nights game brung those hopes back down. The amazing thing to me is Bradley can't even block shots any more. Maybe I am cruel, but I prefer to put Bradley back in the dog house and wait for nature to take its course.
__________________
http://maverickblog.blogspot.com/ |
| Loading... | |
thomas
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 3,304
|
| Posted 03/05/05 at 03:42 PM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
| Crap, we are getting into basketball here, but I happened to be on Bradley's NBA page today. He is #12 in blocks/48. It just seems like he isn't blocking cause his minutes are so tiny. |
| Loading... | |
FranzKafka
Registered: 01/07/04
Posts: 990
|
| Posted 03/05/05 at 03:57 PM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
I've given everybody an article by a widely respected writer and the transcript it's based upon. I tried to contextualize it further with some comments.
You've told everybody to disregard it all as junk because ... well ... you said so. And you've reminded everybody to never ever believe a thing they ever hear or read because it's all lies.
And they say political debate is dead.
|
| Loading... | |
thomas
Registered: 02/19/04
Posts: 3,304
|
| Posted 03/05/05 at 05:56 PM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
Franz: I stated my reason for ignoring it - I believe he read WAY more into what was said than was actually said. And I said to be critical of what you read and analyze it not that everything is lies. You did exactly what I said Taheri did and that really says it all.
Keven: you raise an interesting point and one worthy of discussion (I partially agree and disagree with you), but Franz has bummed me out of having any meaningful non-basketball discussions here.
I think I'll just ignore the political threads now and stick to basketball.
|
| Loading... | |
Sonic
Registered: 01/08/04
Posts: 1,561
|
| Posted 03/05/05 at 07:59 PM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
I read both the Taheri article and the Clinton transcript that were posted or linked. I'm amazed at the amount of inaccuracies in Clinton's comments on Iran, as pointed out by Taheri. It's a shame that an Emmy award winning journalist and (according to his biography on his web site) "one of America's premier interviewers" would allow Clinton to get away with that BS. It seems that Clinton's agenda is to discredit the current government's assertion that the current regime in Iran is very dangerous, and deserving of inclusion in the "Axis of Evil". |
| Loading... | |
Venger
Registered: 01/10/04
Posts: 3,579
|
| Posted 03/08/05 at 03:30 PM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by FranzKafka
I've given everybody an article by a widely respected writer and the transcript it's based upon. I tried to contextualize it further with some comments.
You've told everybody to disregard it all as junk because ... well ... you said so. And you've reminded everybody to never ever believe a thing they ever hear or read because it's all lies.
And they say political debate is dead.
Damn, I knew I liked you...
Venger |
| Loading... | |
