The American Spectator : Robust Weakness

Text Size

Robust Weakness

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 6.25.09 @ 6:08AM

Our unseasoned new president is a model of uncertainty.

WASHINGTON — The anti-government protests in Iran following the government’s rigged elections are doubtless a little more than the “robust debate” among Iranians that President Barack Obama welcomed during the election. Some of the debaters have been shot dead. Others have been hustled off to jail. I wonder if this is an eye-opener for our novice president.

Conservatives have objected to his Laodicean calm in the first days of the bloodshed. He fastidiously refused to take sides. Only by the weekend did he come to his wits and call “on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people.” After that the bloodshed got worse. On Tuesday he expressed “concerns,” but by then the demonstrators had a martyr, 26-year-old Neda Agha-Soltan, an apparently non-political singer who was shot dead, presumably by government riot-control troops, though she was not actually in the protest. The video of her death has been circulating in media and on the Internet ever since.

Though the nonsensical Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remains the president of Iran after the disputed elections, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the country’s Supreme Leader. Having lost confidence in the police and members of the street militia, the Basij, he called out the Revolutionary Guard to clamp down on the protests. Interestingly, the head of the Guard in the province of Teheran, General Ali Fazli, a veteran of the Iraqi-Iranian war, refused to fire on his own countrymen and has been arrested. The Guard itself is a powerful force in the country, with its own institutions and considerable independence from the government and the Rev. Khamenei’s Guardian Council.

Now it seems likely that the Guard will turn Iran into a military dictatorship, with the Rev. Khamenei slipping into a gray space somewhere between political power and spiritual authority. Thus, the outcome for now of the street demonstrations in Iran might well be what we Americans call the division between church and state or between mosque and state. Whether this will render Iran peaceful and an agreeable member of the world community is dubious. The Revolutionary Guard obviously is full of angry militants. Perhaps the best that the West can hope for is the ongoing splintering of the ruling military dictatorship with some members of the Guard resisting attacks on their countrymen and others attempting totalitarian control of Iran.

Yet my question remains: Has our sententious new president learned anything from the unforeseen violent culmination of the Iranian elections? Frankly, I doubt it. He reminds me so much of our last sanctimonious pontificator, President Jimmy Carter, who at first attempted to end the Cold War by lecturing Americans against their “inordinate fear of Communism.” Then the Soviets became more aggressive. Finally Carter began the military buildup that his successor took justifiable credit for. President Ronald Reagan knew the value of a strong military in support of resolute diplomacy.

Neither Carter nor Obama has any sense of the linkage of the two, and now it looks like the Obama Administration is going to cut back on our military even as the dangers to world peace grow.

At the heart of our new president is, it seems to me, ambivalence. Within him exist opposite attitudes. What we have seen during the protests in Iran was not a clear sense of geopolitics but uncertainty. President Obama had not a clue as to what to do. His White House aides are actually claiming that his muddled Cairo speech before the Iranian elections inspired the young demonstrators. “We’re trying to promote a foreign policy that advances our interests, not that makes us feel good about ourselves,” an anonymous Obama Administration aide told the Washington Post. That is precisely the opposite of the truth.

Increasingly it is apparent that we not only have a very unseasoned president in the White House but also a very weak one. At a surprisingly early point in his presidency, Obama’s program is in disarray. On healthcare he is under fire from the left and the right. His Cap-and-Trade policy is in trouble. This week the Hill reports that “Congressional Democrats are largely ignoring President Obama’s $19.8 billion in budget cuts.” His Democrats on Capitol Hill are intent on cuts that he has not asked for, some of which shave funds for his priorities.

Let the mainstream media purr on about this president’s mastery of government. My sense is that he is out of his depth. His dithering over the Iranian protests is but one bloody example.

topics:
Foreign Policy, Barack Obama, Iran

About the Author

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (121) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

jack| 6.25.09 @ 6:38AM

doesnt anyone know we saw this same scenario when Russia invaded Georgia.First Obama said the invasion was not in the olympic spirit,than he said both sides should step back from hostilities,than he put out a weak statement condemning Russia when the damage was done. Too bad the media did not alert the voting public back then but it what it is. We have modern Chamberlain,who also appears to be completely ingnorant of world history and economics. Obama is more an indictment of the US educational system and possibly racial preferences than anything else. Thanks Oprah.

CraigZ| 6.25.09 @ 6:51AM

He's a Deer-In-The-Headlights, but he won't always be this green. Someday he'll over-compensate. Then we'll have an enraged Deer-With-Nukes. Wonder how many American cities it will cost?

CraigZ| 6.25.09 @ 6:52AM

I just recalled Stalin's breakdown during the week following the start of Barbarrosa.

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 6:56AM

"Neither Carter nor Obama has any sense of the linkage of the two, and now it looks like the Obama Administration is going to cut back on our military even as the dangers to world peace grow."

Which country did the greatest damage to world peace in the last decade? Which is to say, which country has launched the most wars against other countries? Which country has slaughtered the most civilians in the last decade?

Marc Jeric| 6.25.09 @ 6:59AM

Obama (whom I call Abu Hussein from Kenya) showed his trademark Julius Caesar smirk while telling us things about Iran's "Supreme Leader". That's what Obama (piece be with him) called that medieval monster the Ayatollah (piece be with him). Foreign policy is not like community organizing, which is the only "working" experience Abu Hussein had.

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 7:03AM

What do those here pretending to support the Iranian protesters have to say about Chamberlain-like appeaser Ronald Reagan, his vaginal foreign policy and his coddling of Hitler-like genocidal tyrant Saddam Hussein?

During Reagan’s presidency Saddam brutally oppressed his people. Iraqi citizens were denied the freedom of assembly or protest. He jailed, tortured and slaughtered his own people in staggering numbers with cold detachment. He ordered the genocide of the Kurds, murdering over 50,000 of them. By any stretch he was a farm more brutal, oppressive and murderous ruler than Khamenei.

Can anyone quote Ronald Reagan forcefully speaking out against Saddam, and voicing his support for the tens of thousands Saddam brutally murdered and the millions he oppressed? Did Reagan ever speak out against Saddam’s brutal reign, and profess solidarity with Saddam’s opposition? Or did he *support* Saddam Hussein with massive amounts of foreign aid and military assistance?

Was Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy “vaginal”? Or was it right for him to actively support brutal tyrants and genocidal dictators if he deemed it in the best interests of the United States? Was he a good President of the U.S. or a failure as the Leader of the Free World?

What do you say, Tomlinson? Was Reagan’s foreign policy to “spread democracy and freedom” or not? If he “understood democracy and freedom are the only way to have true peace between nation states”, why did he *oppose* democracy and freedom in Iraq by arming and propping up a tyrannical, genocidal maniac? Could it be – possibly – that Reagan believed that it is sometimes in the interest of the U.S. to treat with – and perhaps even support – anti-democratic tyrants, and that the President’s responsibility is to the *United States* and not to airy-fairy, abstract notions of “freedom” and “democracy”?

Or was Reagan a Chamberlain-like appeaser whose vaginal foreign policy coddled Hitlerian genocidal maniacs?

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 7:06AM

"Obama (whom I call Abu Hussein from Kenya) showed his trademark Julius Caesar smirk while telling us things about Iran's "Supreme Leader". That's what Obama (piece be with him) called that medieval monster the Ayatollah (piece be with him). Foreign policy is not like community organizing, which is the only "working" experience Abu Hussein had."

Oh how cute - little Marc is repeating things he heard on a talk show!

NoToObamessiah| 6.25.09 @ 7:08AM

Toddard:
A part of the "Blame America First" crowd.

stu.b.con| 6.25.09 @ 7:29AM

S.L. Doltard sounds like the late lamentable l'il davey matthews. Are you a clone, a crybaby davey in drag, or just another lib troll assigned to TAS?
revising history to meet your pathetic blame America first meme is propaganda. htr

No Saddam Fan| 6.25.09 @ 7:55AM

S. L. Toddard, which nation has done more than any other to use its own blood and treasure to liberate millions of Muslims?

I hope it isn't Saddam's rape rooms that you miss so much.

moron| 6.25.09 @ 8:06AM

So why is he sending a "star wars" deployment to Hawaii???

History repeating it's self| 6.25.09 @ 8:12AM

Iran: Religious Fanatics And Paid Rioters

The Iranian government of Mohammed Mossadegh had enraged Britain by nationalizing that country's oil monopoly in Iran. While the Americans under Truman initially supported the staunchly anti-Communist Mossadegh, this soon changed after the British Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, offered the Americans a share in Iran's oil. To destabilize Iran, the Americans cooperated in a boycott led by oil multinationals. They cut off all foreign aid and froze the foreign assets of its banks. This forced Mossadegh to reduce the military budget, curb feudal dues and luxury imports and reduce the Shah's income, all of which encouraged upper class Iranians to collaborate with the CIA. The CIA's principal collaborator, and future Prime Minister, General Zahedi, had been interned by the British in World War Two for pro-Nazi activities. The initial bumbling efforts of the Shah on American advice to dismiss Mossadegh for Zahedi led to the Shah's exile and widespread rioting by Communists. Fearing a leftist coup, Mossadegh was vulnerable to a CIA action involving the use of paid rioters to overthrow his government. U.S. money paid bus and taxi drivers to convey the rioters. They were headed by CIA agent Kermit Roosevelt, grandson of Teddy. After the rioters overturned Mossadegh, the Shah and Zahedi returned.

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 8:15AM

"S.L. Doltard sounds like the late lamentable l'il davey matthews. Are you a clone, a crybaby davey in drag, or just another lib troll assigned to TAS?
revising history to meet your pathetic blame America first meme is propaganda"

Hm. Why are you afraid to answer my question? Do you have an answer?

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 8:17AM

"S. L. Toddard, which nation has done more than any other to use its own blood and treasure to liberate millions of Muslims?"

That's not an answer - that's a question. Please answer my question then I will answer yours - that's how discussions work:

Which country has done the greatest damage to world peace in the last decade? Which is to say, which country has launched the most wars against other countries? Which country has slaughtered the most civilians in the last decade?

Answer the question. Don't be a coward. At the very least, answer that America is that country, but we had to slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians so we could give them Glorious Freedom, and that they should be grateful that we slaughtered hundreds of thousands of them (or something).

Tim| 6.25.09 @ 8:18AM

Once again Obama votes: "Present".

Howard| 6.25.09 @ 8:24AM

Obama is completely poll driven. He only changed his tune when the poll numbers shifted. He is innately cautious and while he speaks well, he is way too inexperienced for the job. 2008 was a perfect year for him; Republican fatigue, McCain was old and weak, Palin, and the Main Stream Media fawning over him. We get what we deserve.

St. Thor| 6.25.09 @ 8:33AM

BO has obviously not outgrown the late night sophomore bull sessions at Occidental where he knew he could fix everything in the world if given a chance.

phil hoey| 6.25.09 @ 8:35AM

To S.L. Toddard - due to the way your question has been phrased - it cannot be answered. The actual answer is not a country - but a non-country specific movement - Terrorists who expound a belief in the God of Father Abraham but are really common brutal criminals.

Grzmlyk| 6.25.09 @ 9:28AM

hey, Turd: Here's how your "discusson" works:

Your comments about Reagan and Saddam are irrelevant.

Next?

What do you think| 6.25.09 @ 9:32AM

So, Toddard, what do you think of our men and women in the armed forces? Apparently you're accusing them of "slaughtering" civilians. You're down there with Kerry and Murtha, apparently. When you see a man or woman in uniform, what do you want to say to him or her?

Grzmlyk| 6.25.09 @ 9:39AM

Gee, last time Turd emerged from his bedroom, he was dipping his garments in the blood of American soldiers, waxing pro-military. Why the change in attitude, I wonder? Oh that's right; for the moment, it suits his argument.

He's a complete fraud, folks, a philosophical poser and an intellectual coward. He has no moral compass whatsoever; he simply likes to argue abstractions because he subordinates the real world, with real consequences, to the echo chamber of his own ridiculous ego.

Like any generic pseudo intellectual, he lives entirely in a putative universe.

Hey turd, when most people engage in onanism, they have the decency to do it in private. Why don't you go back into your bedroom and lock the door? No one cares how smart you think you are.

Old Texican| 6.25.09 @ 9:41AM

Pretty good article Mr. Tyrrell...but!

I think you are misunderestimating Obama. (grin)

How can he come down hard on the mullahs, or Chavez, or even Korea? Hell, in his wonderfullest fantasies...he wants to have the same powers they throw around.

OK, Obama has a different population to contend with. Many of us have lived in freedom our entire lives. We sorta' know we like it!

He can't put his blueshirts on the streets in millions .............yet!
He has to be SNEAKY...and "phase in" serfdom.

...Well as we have read here at AS before...The terrorists better get off their butts if they want to beat Obama to the punch hurting America.

Tim | 6.25.09 @ 10:07AM

I see from the news this morning that Ahmadinejad has actually come out of hiding and demanded that Obama apologize for interfering ing the election. You can't make this stuff up.

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 10:53AM

"Gee, last time Turd emerged from his bedroom, he was dipping his garments in the blood of American soldiers, waxing pro-military. Why the change in attitude, I wonder?"

What change in attitude?

The rest of Grzmlyk's post is worthless, though typical, ad hominem that need not be addressed.

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 10:55AM

"So, Toddard, what do you think of our men and women in the armed forces?"

Which ones specifically?

"Apparently you're accusing them of "slaughtering" civilians."

Your contention is that the U.S. has not slaughtered civilians but only armed militant fighters?

"When you see a man or woman in uniform, what do you want to say to him or her?"

I suppose it depends. You'll have to elaborate on this fantasy scenario.

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 10:57AM

"Your comments about Reagan and Saddam are irrelevant."

Well, I didn't actually expect *you* to be able to formulate a rational and logical response. The question was for the adults here.

That reminds me though - none of the passionately pro-Freedom democracy-lovers have answered me, so I will ask again:

Or was Reagan a Chamberlain-like appeaser whose vaginal foreign policy coddled Hitlerian genocidal maniacs?

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 11:04AM

"To S.L. Toddard - due to the way your question has been phrased - it cannot be answered. The actual answer is not a country - but a non-country specific movement - Terrorists who expound a belief in the God of Father Abraham but are really common brutal criminals"

No, that's not and cannot be the answer. The question *I* asked was "Which *country* did the greatest damage to world peace in the last decade...etc". "Terrorists" are not a "country".

I ask again:

L. Ross| 6.25.09 @ 11:19AM

Very nice article, Mr. Tyrrell. The comparison between Carter and Obama is obvious, and has occurred to me on several occassions. Both men are/were young, untested, and didn't seem to believe in the goodness of the United States. They seemed to feel that the U.S. was the problem, not the solution. I expect BHO to be a one term flash in the pan who does wonders for the conservative side of the aisle in the next election.

S.L. Vegetard:

You sure did take a liking to "vaginal foreign policy", now didn't you, boy. Oh, I know you are using it in an ironic fashion, while the genius Mike Tomlinson who coined the term was using it in an original fashion. Grow up, and come up with some original thoughts. Don't be stealing from your betters.

Finally, if you want to know the biggest cause of strife on the planet for the past 1400 years, it is islam. Read. Learn. The U.S. ain't perfect, but it's still far and away the best this world has got.

chuck| 6.25.09 @ 11:20AM

s. l. retard,
While you rip Reagan for a vaginal foreign policy(a great expression!originally written of obama) you forget that during Reagan's terms Iraq may have been killing a few of its own people, but it was preoccupied with killing Iranians. My own thoughts at the time were that we should have armed both sides to the teeth, and let them have it at. It is completely understandable that we armed Saddam, as Iran was widely viewd as the most dangerous to the stability of the middle east. You need to learn some history, and while you're at it, why don't you add up all the people Saddam murdered, then decide if removing him from power was the right thing to do. Do you and all your leftist, peace-loving friends want him back?

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 11:30AM

"It is completely understandable that we armed Saddam, as Iran was widely viewd as the most dangerous to the stability of the middle east."

So you believe that Reagan believed that it is sometimes in the interest of the U.S. to treat with – and perhaps even support – anti-democratic tyrants, and that the President’s responsibility is to the *United States* and not to airy-fairy, abstract notions of “freedom” and “democracy”?

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 11:35AM

" You sure did take a liking to "vaginal foreign policy", now didn't you, boy. Oh, I know you are using it in an ironic fashion, while the genius Mike Tomlinson who coined the term was using it in an original fashion. Grow up, and come up with some original thoughts. Don't be stealing from your betters."

Why waste your time posting something like that? Do you think that resembles an argument? "I think you're a poopyhead!!!" - that, in essence, is your "argument". And then you tell a man with whom you could not, in your wildest dreams, contend in a debate to "grow up". Are you familiar with the concept of "irony"?

"Finally, if you want to know the biggest cause of strife on the planet for the past 1400 years, it is islam. "

That's nice that you believe that. But without any proof or at least evidence to support that claim it's utterly worthless. If I said I believed platypuses were the "biggest cause of strife on the planet" it would be exactly as legitimate a claim as yours.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.25.09 @ 11:38AM

Since Barack Obama is our first “Eunuch” President (as Bill Clinton was our first “black” President) can anyone really be surprised at his vaginal foreign policy? It is one thing to threaten the Constitutional liberties of peaceful Americans, rewrite bankruptcy laws by fiat and seize control of companies that aren’t Muslim or armed, but it is another thing to stand up to blood thirsty mullahs and Islamo-fascist thugs. That takes “cojones” something Obama and his kind definitely lack.

S. L. Toddard, as what appears to be an Obama apologist, thank you for the compliment of using the term I coined for Obama's foreign policy, but you misused it when talking about President Reagan's ill-advised foreign policy regarding Iraq. Still as an appeaser of tyranny and despots I'm surprised you are so critical of President Reagan’s policy vis-à-vis Iraq.

The error of Ronald Reagan's foreign policy regarding Iraq and Iran was he worked to stop the war between these two rogue nations. In that case he should have followed your avowed position of doing nothing. As many TAS readers may recall I’m highly critical of President Reagan’s Middle East foreign policy regarding his failure to avenge the murder of our Marines and Sailors in Beirut (sponsored by Iran) and his actions regarding Iraq and Iran. While I understand the principle of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend” I do not fully ascribe to it especially when the two nations at war are Muslim. Sometimes it is best to stay out of squabbles and let tyrants beat each others brains out. Of course, while doing that we should be cultivating promising or nascent democrats or democratic movements in those countries – as Obama pointedly refuses to do even verbally to our chagrin in Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and around the world.

Let us not forget that we are in this pickle with Iran, because Jimmy Carter and Democrats not Ronald Reagan or Republicans naively helped bring the radical mullahs to power. For an arrogant anti-Semite who prided himself on being a champion of “human rights” Carter was and is incredibly dim-witted when it comes to tyrants and terrorists. Had Carter taken the time to have someone investigate the Ayatollah Khomeini and his teachings he would have discovered a man who was intolerant, cruel, brutal and hateful – the antithesis of a democrat or defender of human rights. Someone the United States late in its history had no business supporting.

Of course, while Reagan and Bush 41 aided Iraq in its conflict with Iran it is wrong to imply that they actually supported him, he was a convenient tool, but if some wish to believe the US supported Hussein then as everyone knows President George W. Bush rectified that error in foreign policy.

While Carter is a gadfly and an unofficial supplicant for terrorists and tyrants the good news is he was only in the White House for 4 years. Had he been there longer not only would our economy have collapsed, but our nation’s life might have been imperiled. Hopefully, the same will be true for the man who has inherited his mantle of cowardice, pettiness, spite and incompetence – Barack Hussein Obama. If not we may be looking at Nicolas Sarkozy as the leader of the free and sane world in the future as the United States slips into a position of irrelevance as a failed state thanks to Obama and those who defend his policies both foreign and domestic.

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 11:41AM

OK Tomlinson, so we are agreed that Reagan believed that it is sometimes in the interest of the U.S. to treat with – and perhaps even support – anti-democratic tyrants, and that the President’s responsibility is to the *United States* and not to airy-fairy, abstract notions of “freedom” and “democracy”?

chuck| 6.25.09 @ 11:48AM

s.l.
Absolutely Reagan was right to deal with Saddam, as was Roosevelt and Churchill in dealing with Stalin during WWII. Churchill, an outspoken critic of Stalin and communism, was asked how he could be so pleasant to a man he had so completely criticized. His answer: If hell declares war on Germany today, tommorrow in Parliment I shall find nice things to say about the Devil!

John II| 6.25.09 @ 12:02PM

Toddard! Good to hear from you again after all these hours of silence! Let me take your probing questions one by one.

1. Which country has done the greatest damage to world peace in the last decade? That's a tough one, considering that "world peace" has never existed--at least not within human historical recollection. The term is a canard favored by certain types of ideologues, some harmless and others murderous--but all apparently witless.

Still, let me take a stab: North Korea and her customers? Iran and her proxies? Syria and her intelligence services? I dunno. I'm stumped. How does one measure a "world peace"? I've never seen one.

2. Which is to say, which country has launched the most wars against other countries? But Toddard, you're begging the question by reframing the question that way. But I'm a good sport, so let me take another stab: Iran? Let's see, Iran's been meddling violently in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Kuwait, Egypt, Yemen, Dubai, several European countries, Somalia, Venezuela, Colombia . . . gosh! The list goes on and on. There are so many ways to "launch wars," Toddard, I just can't keep up with them all. Your question is unfair existentially as well as logically.

3. Which country has slaughtered the most civilians in the last decade? Whew, an easy one at last. The answer, of course, is Sudan. But what's the point of the question?

Peter McGrath| 6.25.09 @ 12:03PM

"Which country did the greatest damage to world peace in the last decade? Which is to say, which country has launched the most wars against other countries? Which country has slaughtered the most civilians in the last decade?"

Toddard's question is designed to elicit a response which blames America for "launching the most wars" and "slaughtering the most civilians." The wording of the questions is problematic but the answers are fairly simple.

After 9/11, America could no longer afford to stand by while rogue nations hatched plots to commit mass murder against our citizens.

Absolutely, we needed to go to war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, which was harboring those directly responsible for the agonizing horror of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Flight 93.

The same is true with Iraq. Saddam Hussein resolutely defied every United Nations mandate to disclose and dismantle technologies (biological and nuclear) designed to cause mass murder and destruction. Bush spent 6 months working with the U.N. to get a resolution threatening severe consequences if Iraq failed to comply. During that time, it was a simple matter for Saddam's generals to dismantle and/or transport such weapons to Syria. Happily, such weapons were no longer available for use by terrorist organizations. Saddam was a blight on the region, a tyrant and mass murderer, and we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief that he's gone, forever.

The insinuation that our nation "slaughtered" civilians in Iraq, or elsewhere, is an insult to our volunteer armed forces, the best trained in the world. Frequently, enemy combatants would embed themselves in civilian populations, hoping that doing so would dissuade the use of force in such areas. Yes, civilian casualties were inevitable with such wicked, cowardly, foes.

I would thus argue, based on the removal of the Taliban and Saddam from power, that the United States has been the greatest force for peace and stability in the world in the past decade, precisely because of leadership that was not afraid to confront and defeat evil in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

Our current leadership, headed by the Chief Moral Coward (CMC), appears to be afraid, or even embarrassed, by American strength and power, and appears unwilling to exercise force to confront the Mullahs, Kim Jong-il, or others seeking to destroy us.

The open question for folks like Toddard, or the CMC, is as follows:

Do you believe that the United States, overall, has been a force for good or a force for evil, in the world at large?

There, Toddard, I answered your infantile questions.

Now, answer mine.

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 12:10PM

"Neither Carter nor Obama has any sense of the linkage of the two, and now it looks like the Obama Administration is going to cut back on our military even as the dangers to world peace grow. "
-R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

"..."world peace" has never existed--at least not within human historical recollection. The term is a canard favored by certain types of ideologues, some harmless and others murderous--but all apparently witless. "
- John II

Well, you certainly did a better job with witless ideologue R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr than I did. Appreciate the help, though.

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 12:13PM

"The insinuation that our nation "slaughtered" civilians in Iraq, or elsewhere, is an insult to our volunteer armed forces, the best trained in the world."

It wasn't an "insinuation", it was clearly stated and not really controversial.

slaugh⋅ter
/ˈslɔtər/ Show Spelled [slaw-ter] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
4.to kill or butcher (animals), esp. for food.
5.to kill in a brutal or violent manner.
6.to slay in great numbers; massacre.
7.Informal. to defeat thoroughly; trounce: They slaughtered our team.

The United States *slaughtered* civilians. That's not really in contention.

John II| 6.25.09 @ 12:13PM

You're welcome.

(Note the laconic character of my reply.)

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 12:14PM

"Do you believe that the United States, overall, has been a force for good or a force for evil, in the world at large?"

Both, of course.

Anthony| 6.25.09 @ 12:14PM

And what exactly did America expect from this empty suit community organizer, who is both a moral and an intellectual coward, as are most elitist Leftists? Our bowing president, who supplicates to the House of Saud, titular head of Islam, is not sympatico with the Iranian people. Our bowing president is more in tune with the mullahs, the clerics, and the hard core Islamic extremists who rule this 7th century hell hole.
His tepid, weak and floundering statements are proof positive that America elected a cowardly, elitist, who also worships at the alter of moral equilivance. American exceptionalism?? Perish the thought. We have Imperialistic blood on our hands, so let the people of Iran get trampled and beheaded. Bye- bye freedom. Hey! What flavor ice cream shall we get today??

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 12:15PM

"You're welcome."

Also, Sudan was an excellent response. Although I was referring more to open wars between nation-states rather than whatever that ethnic conflagration is. Still though - touche.

Txreader| 6.25.09 @ 12:18PM

Re: S. L. Toddard Original Question:
1. Iran
2. Iran
3. Saudi Arabia

Anything else you would like to know?

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 12:18PM

"Toddard's question is designed to elicit a response which blames America for "launching the most wars" and "slaughtering the most civilians." The wording of the questions is problematic but the answers are fairly simple."

You didn't answer. Which country?

ds80| 6.25.09 @ 12:19PM

S.L. Toddard: "What do those here ... say about ... Ronald Reagan -?"

We say: that was so two-decades ago. Try living in the new millenium, SL.

Or, how about reaching back to, oh, say, FDR?

Oh - to answer your three questions:

(1) Islamic fundamentalism
(2) Islamic fundamentalism
(3) Islamic fundamentalism

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 12:20PM

1. Iran
2. Iran
3. Saudi Arabia

Anything else you would like to know?

How many civilians have been killed by Iran, Iran and Saudi Arabia and how many wars have been launched by Iran, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

John II| 6.25.09 @ 12:29PM

That's right--I completely forgot about Saudi Arabia, which just goes to show how sneaky the House of Saud is.

A more precise way of asking the question might be: how many violent deaths all over the world have been bankrolled by the Saudis?

Whoa: I don't think any of us could count that high.

ds80| 6.25.09 @ 12:35PM

"Which country did the greatest damage to world peace in the last decade? "

The best characterization of that query comes from Mona Lisa Vito: "It's a b******t question"

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 12:47PM

"Our bowing president, who supplicates to the House of Saud"

That is proof positive that one is a secret muslim enemy of the United States, Democracy and Glorious Freedom.

http://sheikyermami.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/bush-saud-thumb-350x233.jpg

http://www.greatdreams.com/political/bush_saudi.jpg

JP| 6.25.09 @ 12:59PM

"During Reagan’s presidency Saddam brutally oppressed his people. Iraqi citizens were denied the freedom of assembly or protest. He jailed, tortured and slaughtered his own people in staggering numbers with cold detachment. He ordered the genocide of the Kurds, murdering over 50,000 of them"

And SL Toddard, you appear blissfully ignorant that Iraq circa 1979-1989 was a Soviet Satellite. The Soviet Union armed Saddam's army, trained its NCOs and Officers, and the Iraqi Army was modeled after the Soviets.

The Iranians, unlike the Iraqis, exported revolution -esp directed at Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and Egypt. The US didn't coddle Iraq, but in the aftermath of Anwar Sadat's murder in 1981, Reagan did recognize the dangers that Iran poised to the region. In the aftermath of the Kurdish gas attacks, we did pull out all diplomatic missions to Iraq save our embassy.

You really do need to get your facts straight.

JP| 6.25.09 @ 1:05PM

"Which country has done the greatest damage to world peace in the last decade? Which is to say, which country has launched the most wars against other countries? Which country has slaughtered the most civilians in the last decade? "

1)NKorea first, Iran Second

2)Iran has fought 2 proxy wars in Lebanon and Gaza, one in Iran, another in Gronzy, and still another in Kurdistan and Turkey. That makes 6, with 3 still ongoing.

3)That would be Rwanda, which murdered over 1 million. Second Sudan, which has murdered over 2 million in the Dafur region. And one should not forget Serbia, which murdered nearly 250,000 in Bosnia, Croatia, Herzogovinia, and Macedonia.

eolon| 6.25.09 @ 1:16PM

In answer to the question: "What country has laughtered more civilians...?" The answer is the US, at least since Hussein was elected.

He has been laughtering them for a while now. I think most middle east countries are still laughing from his Cairo speech.

Best Regards,

.::.

Tim| 6.25.09 @ 1:27PM

What the Hell Toddard ? Thanks to you this thread has become the Vagina monologues.

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 1:30PM

"And SL Toddard, you appear blissfully ignorant that Iraq circa 1979-1989 was a Soviet Satellite. The Soviet Union armed Saddam's army, trained its NCOs and Officers, and the Iraqi Army was modeled after the Soviets."

Uh... what? Do you deny that Reagan's gov't gave Saddam financial and military aid throughout the 80s? That Reagan sent Rumsfeld there to offer assistance? That due to that assistance Iraq became the third largest recipient of U.S. aid at the time? That Bush I doubled that aid? That during the al-Anfal campaign, in which Saddam committed genocide against the Kurds (slaughtering an estimated 50,000 of them) he was being assisted militarily and financially by the Reagan and then Bush administrations?

Old Texican| 6.25.09 @ 1:59PM

Guys!
Toddard can't add to a rational discussion...
Use your scroll button and ignore him.
Best regards

NoToObamessiah| 6.25.09 @ 2:14PM

Tim you are on the mark!

Jim| 6.25.09 @ 2:16PM

S.L. Toddard,
The biggest problem with your question on who has started the most wars in the last decade is the insinuation the United States started either the Iraq or Afghanistan wars.
In Afghanistan we took a war that was brought to us by the terrorists and the government who supported them back to their country. Remember we did not envade until after 9/11 not before. As for the war in Iraq while we did invade the country Saddam brought it on himself when he made the decision to ignore 17 UN resolutions. Thus repeatedly violating the surrender conditions he agreed to, these violations ment the war was back on after the first violation. It just was not until President Bush that anything was done to actually finish the war Saddam once again started.
As for the idea of world peace and the United States having some how doing damage to this. Not really possible since it never has actually happened. My question to you would be in what way did either the Afghanistan or Iraq wars actually increased world instability. Show one example were things are worse now because of the wars than they were before the wars.
Finally as for your question of who as slaughtered the most civilians in the last decade. You ask a question which while it is true alot of civilians have died in these conflicts just answering yes to the questions is over simplifing the question. First the U.S. military does not slaughter civilians in the way you are attempting to imply regardless of the definition you posted. Do they die in the conflicts yes do we want them to no. The real question would be although some civilians have died are the people as a whole better off now than they were before under dictatorships who killed far more of the people than have died during these conflicts. I will even answer this one for you. In Iraq yes. In Afghanistan it is yet to be seen if the gains we have made can be continued and increased.
Please if you are going to attempt to degrade the United States, don't do it by asking such narrow questions. There are more players in the world than just the American government. Ignoring all the non-government players when they play such a large roll is what has lead us to the serious problems we are in today.

CraigZ| 6.25.09 @ 2:39PM

Regarding the question of Reagan and Iraq/Iran: Reagan was playing the 1980s version of the "Europe First" strategy followed by Roosevelt. Although Japan directly instigated war, Germany was seen as the bigger long-term threat. Similarly, Reagan saw the Soviet Empire as the greater threat to America and put other threats on the back burner. Valid? Depends on our time frame. P.S. Funny how although Japan hit us, and Germay had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor, the Europe First strategy was followed. Even funnier, the first big land battle was against the French in North Africa. P.P.S. they also were not responsible for Pearl Harbor. Again, funny how the Republicans didn't make that an issue in the 1942 elections.

Go tell 'em| 6.25.09 @ 3:03PM

Mr. Stoddard, your original question didn't deserve an answer, since the premise behind it was pejorative toward our brave men and women in uniform. It's cowardly of you to accuse them of slaughtering innocent civilians on this Web site; I recommend that you ask a few soldiers or marines this Independence Day weekend and ask them how many civilians they have slaughtered. Then at least have the decency to thank them for their selfless service.

JP| 6.25.09 @ 3:45PM

"Uh... what? Do you deny that Reagan's gov't gave Saddam financial and military aid throughout the 80s? "
Yes I deny it...Iraq was not the 3rd biggest recipient of Aid. I'm not sure where you got that piece of info -other than MoveOn or the Koz.

I reiterate, the US offered credits not aid; the CIA did offer some intel. Rumsfeld did make a few visits, but nothing much came of them. We gave far more aid to Isreal, Egupt, the Phillipines, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia and Jordan than we ever gave to Iraq.

Funny, how you ignored my previous point concerning Iraq and the USSR. Again, the Iraq Army was modeled after the Red Army. The senior Iraqi officers attended the Frunze Academy; the Iraqi Secret Police attended KGB and GRU schools; the Soviet Union supplied Mig fighter jets, T-72 and T-80 tanks, Soviet BMPs, rocket launchers, AK-47s; chemical warfare equipment (including the gas used on the Kurds), SCUD surface to air missles and surface to surface missles, communication gear, and most of all billions in credit, grants, and loans. Most of the Iraqi cities were modernized using Soviet money and Iraqi petro-dollars. Saddam always considered himself an heir to Lennin and Marx, and his society reflected it.

phil hoey| 6.25.09 @ 4:03PM

S.L. Toddard - since you require a 'country'. There was 706,899 people all to gather that were killed. There was more than that were injured there were 1,354,229 that were injured. What country - Afghanistan. Who caused that - mostly the Taliban. Which take us back to who did the killing. Not the United States of America - that is for sure.

The History of America| 6.25.09 @ 4:11PM

THE CIA INVASION OF GUATEMALA

After using anti-Communism to seize Iranian oil, the Eisenhower administration used the same cloak to maintain the United Fruit Company's hold on banana production in Guatemala. The democratically elected Conservative government of President Jacobo Arbenz was bent on land reform, and it was United Fruit's land that was being returned to peasants. Both Standard Oil of New Jersey and United Fruit faced anti-trust actions. These were dropped under cold war pretexts of national security.

The CIA's invasion of Guatemala involved one of the most reactionary, fascist-minded members of the country's ruling elite. Colonel Castillo Armas, who earlier had tried to overthrow the government, agreed to return the expropriated United Fruit lands, destroy the railway workers' union, and establish a strong-arm dictatorship. The CIA created an army of 150 mercenaries in Nicaragua, under the friendly eye of the Somoza dictatorship. Although the U.S. used anti-Communism to justify its efforts, ex-CIA agent Phillip Agee would later reveal that the very head of the Guatemala Communist Party, Carlos Manuel Pellecer, was himself a CIA agent. Dulles fabricated an elaborate hoax that the Guatemala government was importing arms from Czechoslovakia. The CIA's secret air force then actually bombed a British ship they believed was carrying arms to Guatemala, which was only carrying cotton and coffee.

The small CIA mercenary army was able to overthrow the Guatemalan government, essentially because its generals panicked in the face of the mercenaries' air superiority. The U.S. was pleased with Castillo Armas's return of lands to the United Fruit Company, his awarding the country's oil resources to foreign interests, and his removing taxes on foreign corporations. But Allen Dulles and his brother, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, were outraged that Armas allowed dissidents to leave the country. They wanted them all to be executed.

History of America| 6.25.09 @ 4:24PM

Those who disagree with Mr Stoddard, is because they don't understand their history or understand the facts.

Some do not understand that the 9/11 was an inside job, in order to go to war, because of Saddam decision to sell Oil in Euros, which would cripple the American economy that was already showing signs of declining, due to it's hug debt.

They want to go to war with Iran because Iran has changed from selling Oil in dollars. They insist Iran is making a bomb, which is not true.

America is in financial problems, going to war with Iran will not save the American economy.
Many country around the world already knows that the American ideologies can't go on it is unsustainable. The people themselves are asking questions about the huge debt which is growing.

L. Ross| 6.25.09 @ 4:25PM

Texican:

Loved the "vagina monologues" comment.
Good Stuff that.

eolon| 6.25.09 @ 4:33PM

Dear History of America:

See what happens when you go off your medication?

Best Regards,

.::.

Go Tell 'Em| 6.25.09 @ 4:42PM

Wow, Mr. Stoddard, your twin, "History of America," has arrived. Two peas in a pod. "History of America" thinks you're right -- a ringing endorsement of your views. A Truther who still thinks that 9/11 was an inside job, and that Iran doesn't want an nuclear bomb. You're in good company.

Michael Tomlinson| 6.25.09 @ 5:18PM

Saddam's massive military was built and primarily supplied by the Soviets/Russians, but other communist countries and Western European nations supplied him with everything from ammunition to WMD (yes we guarded WMD at the Muthana Chemical dump). America was never his main supplier or patron.

As one who has been among the Kurds it is insulting to imply we were linked to their genocide. It was the US that roundly condemned Saddam's actions in the UN and around the world. It was under our leadership that the UN passed resolution after resolution condemning his rogue regime.

Before leaving the Sahl Sinjar Mountains a Kurdish Peshmerga Colonel told us when he was fleeing Saddam's genocide he and his family were starving. Just when they thought they were going to die American helicopters dropped them food. Then as they crossed the Turkish border the first people to greet them and offer them shelter and place to live were US Marines. He told us the Kurds loved America and would be our friends till the end of time. The story brings tears to my eyes.

America has consistently been a force for good in the world. Despite the BS we invaded Iraq for oil the reality is quite simple we toppled Saddam, because he had WMD, he was willing to use them, he paid for suicide bombers in Israel thus willing to pay for them to attack us and he was an enemy of the US. The President has a primary mission to defend the nation and uphold the Constitution. President Bush did both even as political opponents did everything they could to belittle him and hand victory to our enemies. This includes the current occupant of the White House.

No matter what the fair weather patriots say America is a great nation and a force for good in the world. There is no better or finer nation in the world despite its faults and foibles.

Steve from Alamo, California| 6.25.09 @ 5:58PM

Those interested in an accurate analysis of who this "disinterested observer" of his host country is might Google "Spengler" of the online "Asia Times" and read his column of February 26, 2008 entitled "Obama's Women Reveal His Secret". This prescient and accurate discription of who this "Manchurian Candidate", and now President really is should shed some light as to what kind of an unpleasant and disturbing future awaits us all. Next time, knuckleheads, don't vote for unknown quantities.

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 6:01PM

"It's cowardly of you to accuse them of slaughtering innocent civilians on this Web site"

I'm not really "accusing" them, I'm just noting that this happened. Here is the definition of "slaughter" (again):

The United States *slaughtered* civilians, in that we "killed" massive amounts of them "in a brutal or violent manner". What do you think getting blown apart or shot in the face is like? Peaceful? Do you think the tens to hundreds of thousands of civilians that were killed all died in their sleep?

That being said it's not the soldiers who are responsible. The soldiers swear to defend the Constitution against all enemies with the understanding that they will be used in that capacity. It is not incumbent upon them to question their mission or pick and choose which wars to fight. That is the job of Congress, who abdicated it, and the President, who failed spectacularly in his duties.

S.L. Toddard| 6.25.09 @ 6:02PM

"It's cowardly of you to accuse them of slaughtering innocent civilians on this Web site"

I'm not really "accusing" them, I'm just noting that this happened. Here is the definition of "slaughter" (again):

The Death of Michael Jackson| 6.25.09 @ 6:18PM

Print Email Share Add to My Stories Comments (8)

Michael Jackson dead: reports
Posted 22 minutes ago
Updated 9 minutes ago

Michael Jackson, 50, is reportedly dead. (Dave Hogan: Getty Images)

Video: Michael Jackson feared dead (ABC News) Related Story: Jacko concerts face legal challenge Related Story: Jackson delays London comeback concerts Related Story: Jackson's London concerts sold out: promoter Related Story: Jackson to play 50 gigs in London Related Story: Jackson comeback: Thriller or off the wall shows? Related Story: Michael Jackson memorabilia auction cancelled Related Story: Jacko rushed to hospital after heart attack: reports Pop legend Michael Jackson is reported to have died of a heart attack after he was rushed to hospital in Los Angeles.

Jackson suffered a cardiac arrest earlier today, according to CNN and entertainment news website TMZ.com.

TMZ is now reporting he has died.

"We've just learned Michael Jackson has died," TMZ said.

"Michael suffered a cardiac arrest earlier this afternoon and paramedics were unable to revive him.

"We're told when paramedics arrived Jackson had no pulse and they never got a pulse back," the entertainment website said.

There has been no official confirmation of the reported death and spokespersons for Jackson could not be reached for comment.

Earlier, The LA Times reported paramedics went to the singer's home and found him not breathing.

The newspaper said paramedics performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation at the scene before taking him to the UCLA Medical Centre hospital.

Jackson had been due to start a series of comeback concerts in London on July 13 running until March 2010.

He had been rehearsing in the Los Angeles area for the past two months.

The shows for the 50 London concerts sold out within hours of going on sale earlier this year.

Jackson - who started out as a child star in the band The Jackson 5 more than 40 years ago - has lived as a virtual recluse since his acquittal in 2005 on charges of child molestation.

There have been concerns about Jackson's health in recent years but the promoters of the London concerts, AEG Live, said in March that Jackson had passed a four-and-a-half hour physical examination with independent doctors.

- ABC/AFP/Reuters

Tags: arts-and-entertainment, music, bands-and-artists, death, human-interest, people, united-states
Search for news
Search
HelpMy Tags
environment
government-and-politics
health
indigenous
offbeat
science-and-technology
Add Tag Page links here to follow news categories important to you.

View all tags | Tag cloud

HelpMy Stories
Bookmark stories, video and audio clips you may want to access later.Comments (8)
Add your comment

Tabby:
26 Jun 2009 8:04:12am

OMG ..