-
James Gandolfini, R.I.P.
June 19, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games
June 19, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks
June 18, 2013 | 8 comments
-
Do Beyonce & Jay-Z Understand The “Complexities” of Syria?
June 18, 2013 | 2 comments
-
What’s So Moderate About Iran’s New President?
June 15, 2013 | 9 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Here are my final thoughts on tonight’s Iowa GOP Debate in Sioux City which aired on the Fox News Channel.
Rick Santorum - He had a particularly eloquent rebuttal to Ron Paul on Iran and he had Romney on the defensive concerning gay marriage in Massachusetts. Another solid but unspectacular debate. But Santorum needed a spectacular, standout debate and this wasn’t it and it may prove fatal for his candidacy.
Rick Perry - He performed well and is now far more comfortable in the debates but has been relegated to the second-tier. His part-time Congress proposal played well with the audience but there’s no way in hell that Congress is going to limit its own power at the behest of the President. Perry is used to working with part-time legislatures but Washington isn’t Austin.
Mitt Romney - He started out in the debate very strong scoring points when he said President Obama “hasn’t lived in the real world.” Lines like “to create a job it helps to have created a job” and his criticism of Obama’s “foreign policy based on pretty please” also resonated with the debate audience.
However, Romney wasn’t so sure footed when it came to Chris Wallace’s question concerning Romney’s positions on abortion and gay marriage. This will only serve to reinforce the reservations conservatives have had towards Romney.
Newt Gingrich - True to the tortoise-like nature of his campaign, he started slow but finished fast and strong. He was on the defensive early in the debate when he jostled with both Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann on Fannie & Freddie.
But by the end of the night, Newt had the audience eating out of the palm of his hand. It all started with his proposals to restrain the power of the judiciary and continued with his statements on the UN, the Keystone Pipeline, and even immigration when he said on his first day as President he would drop immigration lawsuits against Arizona, Alabama, and South Carolina and cut off federal aid to sanctuary cities. Newt struck the right balance of historical perspective, eloquence, and good humor.
Ron Paul - After tonight’s performance, especially following his exchange with Bachmann over Iran, I am convinced that he would be the perfect spokesman for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. During WWII, you had Tokyo Rose. Today, you have Tehran Ron.
Michele Bachmann - Bachmann was very aggressive tonight in going after Newt on Fannie & Freddie and on his pro-life credentials and also had a spirited exchange with Ron Paul over Iran. But I don’t think it benefited her. When Newt questioned Bachmann’s facts on her partial birth abortion accusations, she said, “I’m a serious candidate.” When a candidate has to make a point of saying “I’m a serious candidate,” it means she isn’t a serious candidate.
Jon Huntsman - His debate performance was so much better on Saturday night.
This is the last scheduled debate before the Iowa Caucus (unless Newsmax finds a new moderator for its proposed debate in Des Moines on December 27th.) There are two debates scheduled to take place in New Hampshire on January 7 and 8, 2012. The first debate airs at 9 p.m. on ABC and the second debate airs at 9 a.m. on NBC. That’s right. There will be a morning debate.
View all comments (74) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Aaron Goldstein
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/15/fox-news-iowa-gop-debate-post
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Overheated Frauds and Fools
- His Reach Exceeded His Grasp
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Clint| 12.15.11 @ 11:54PM
The Neo-Chickenhawk RINO-CINO's Wouldn't Know Real Conservative Foreign Policy If It Jumped Up And Bit Em.
Read George Washington's Farewell Address, Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address And The Old Right And Get Back To Us.
" George Will, "Today, we have a very different kind of foreign policy. It’s called Wilsonian. And the premise of the Bush Doctrine is that America must spread democracy, because our national security depends upon it. And America can spread democracy. It knows how. It can engage in national building. This is conservative or not?"
William F. Buckley, " It’s not at all conservative. It’s anything but conservative. It’s not conservative at all, inasmuch as conservatism doesn’t invite unnecessary challenges. It insists on coming to terms with the world as it is …”
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Marco2| 12.16.11 @ 12:06AM
Well, the Texas Toad sure looked like the buffoon he is tonight. Adios, Ronnie! BTW, what has that old crackpot got to do with the Tea Party, anyway?
Jack in Wi.| 12.16.11 @ 12:58AM
Ron Paul won the debate overwhelmingly. The vast majority of Americans want nothing to do with another war in Iran, after the debacle in Iraq. The five chickenhawk lunatics are dead in the water. Obama is going to run as the guy who got Bin Laden and is bringing the troops home.
Sean| 12.15.11 @ 11:59PM
Oh Iran is about to make a world wide Caliphate. Everyone run and hide under your bed. Iran who hasn't invaded anyone in recent history is about to storm our shores. You know they are crazier than Mao and Stalin.
Ryan| 12.16.11 @ 8:39AM
Iran's been doing worse than "invasion" - they've been sponsoring and supplying terrorist groups and affiliated people. Storming troops over a border isn't the only criteria.
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 12:01AM
Dr.Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor Michael Scheuer,Former CIA Chief of The bin Laden Unit,
" On Iran,The President should,
2.) Publicly state that there will be no U.S. surprise attack on Iran, and no U.S. attack at all on Iran unless the president asks for a formal declaration of war and the Congress votes its approval in a constitutional manner.
3.) Call in Israel's ambassador to the United States and tell him that we understand that Israel believes Iran is a threat to its survival, and that we agree that Israel has every right to defend itself. If Israel believes it must go to war with Iran, then so be it. But also tell the ambassador that if Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. administration will declare U.S. neutrality in the war and immediately cut off military and financial support to all combatants in the war.
4.) Speak to the American people and tell them to expect to be brutally propagandized by U.S. citizen Israel-Firsters through AIPAC, their ubiquitous media shills, and the men and women they own in the U.S. Congress and federal bureaucracy. Urge Americans to ignore this effort by U.S. Israel-Firsters to get them to send their soldier-children to fight in a religious war in which the U.S. has no genuine national interest at stake, and in which U.S. participation would further bankrupt the country, require the reintroduction of conscription, and put America at war with all of the Muslim world -- Shia and Sunni -- for the foreseeable future."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Marco2| 12.16.11 @ 12:01AM
Ol' Newtie hates the girl, don't he? And he's so blatantly obvious about it. Post-19th Amendment, I don't think the old philanderer would hit 40% in the general. But he appears to be taking on enough water that we'll be spared that nightmare.
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 12:29AM
Hates her? Riiight. Anybody who defends themselves must be hating them.
Puleeze. If anybody was hating it was her, as she was actually calling him a liar by misrepresenting him.
Harry| 12.16.11 @ 12:07AM
Ron Paul is right. The media is abdicating its responsibility by letting these lies go completely unchallenged.
As per usual Bachmann and Hannity keep repeating totally false claims. No Iranian official has ever publicly acknowledge that they're pursuing a nuclear weapon, let alone that they want to use one against Israel or the United States. I'm a former NSA counterterrorism analyst and this claim is totally absurd. Modern Iran has never invaded another country, nor have there been Iranian suicide bombers or airplane hijackers. Ayatollah Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons. Even if the Iranians are secretly pursuing a weapon, that's not an indication that they intend to use it in a first strike. Journalists have a responsibility to hold these politicians' statements up to scrutiny and not allow dangerous propaganda to go unchallenged as they did in 2003.
http://www.politifact.com/trut.....d-launch-/
Fareed Zakaria's analysis, again debunking the Iran nuclear aggression myth.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/n.....-bomb.html
Simon Templar| 12.16.11 @ 1:54AM
The more you Paulbots open your mouths, the more it is clear that you are some of the most disingenuous, dishonest, and deluded political hacks to hit the American political scene.
Iran never threatened any other country.
Iran never attacked any other country or invaded it.
Irna never said it would use a nuclear weapon against Israel.
Iran never has produced terrorist or exported terrorism.
What frigin world or planet do you live on?
Tehran is the capital of terrorism and has held world terrorist conferences there for nearly thirty years. Iran has trained terrorist, funded terrorism, and has sent thousands into Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. The idiot running the country has publically announced that he will wipe Israel off the map. Iran fought a war with Iraq where hundreds of thousands died.
Every frigin western country knows Iran is building a nuclear weapon, even the damn French.
Get lost troll.
None of the above| 12.16.11 @ 8:55AM
So many falsehoods and exaggerations in two paragraphs... Sprinkle in a heavy dose of fear and you have exposed yourself as a slave to the neo-con agenda.
Sit down and think through your statements. Then you'll see how ironic your last statement about "Get lost troll" is in regards to the US involvement in Iraq.
Simon Templar| 12.16.11 @ 1:50PM
I am going to make this simple for you. Exaggertations? I used the exact words and paraphrased many of the others that I have heard in this thread and many others from others like yourself that come here to worship your leader, Ron Paul. You actually have the nerve to deny this is amazing.
The facts that I presented are just common knowledge and can be found just about anywhere on the planet. Your local newspaper has reported these items. Even the most uninformed person is most likely familar with these realities.
Now, listen closely. When you write such insane, ridiculous denial and refuse to refute them but resort to this lame denial, you demonstrate so clearly to any reasonable and thinking person that you are definitely a pathological liar or just another deluded, manipulative Ron Paul supporter. You are giving libertarianism a bad name and doing Ron Paul a disservice.
Mike 3/505| 12.16.11 @ 6:20AM
"I'm a former NSA counterterrorism analyst"
No, you aren't.
Red Phillips | 12.16.11 @ 12:12AM
Give it a rest Aaron. You knew good and well before the debate that Ron Paul was a non-interventionist and you learned nothing new tonight. Spare me the feigned shock.
Simon Templar| 12.16.11 @ 1:59AM
We do not have a problem with his non interventionist philosophy. It is his disdain for and blaming of his own nation and his empathy for our enemies that we take issue with and find insane and revolting.
None of the above| 12.16.11 @ 9:29AM
Point taken. However, you are overstating every position.
1. He and no Paulbot blames the US for attacks on itself. Causation beyond simply the actual folks flying the planes is what he is addressing.
2. Yesterday's war enemies are today's trading partners (Germany, Korea, Vietnam, Japan, old Soviet/Eastern Bloc states). Denying the opportunity for future trading partners is economic isolationism.
Demagoguery does not lead to long and prosperous trade relations.
Simon Templar| 12.16.11 @ 2:13PM
Just because you said it does not make it a reasonable refutation or a valid point. Despite what your public education teacher told you, a lie, distortion, and a lame retort is not valid because it came out of your special mouth.
Ron Paul has on numerous occasions, witnessed by millions watching the debates, has stated that he believes we were largely responsible for 9-11, denies that this a war of ideology and values, and draws the conclusion that it is resonable and understandable why Iran SHOULD have nuclear weapons, believes that Israel should not exist, and on an on. He let loose last night with the same. We all heard it..loud and clear.
You know what really gets me about you Paulbots is the fact that you really do not have to resort to such lies, historical revision, attacks, and misrepresentation to make the case for the US to think before they shoot, consider that we can not afford to save everyone, and that military actions should be the LAST resort and always only under national security concerns. We, as a nation, can be a little more creative than foreign buy offs or bombings when dealing with the world and attempting to protect our security and promote a peaceful world.
No one is denying future trading policies. Not sure where that came from and what it has to do with anything. Hating ones nation, blaming it first, apologizing for it, and burying your head in the sand and denying real threats does not lead to prosperous trade relations or for that matter your survival and existence.
JimH| 12.16.11 @ 9:32AM
He does not disdain this country nor does he blame it as a whole. His argument is with those who would bleed our nation of blood and treasure in ways not foreseen under the constitution. Being the only leading candidate (unless you include Perry) to have actually and honorably served in the military I think he has established his credentials. Disagree with him on issues, fine. I do as well. But do not impugn his honor.
William R| 12.16.11 @ 9:45AM
Another Chicken Hawk on parade
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udz5_FdoFGU
Simon Templar| 12.16.11 @ 2:15PM
There are chickens like yourself, chicken hawks, and then just hawks.
Red Phillips | 12.16.11 @ 12:24AM
That contention that Iran is some sort of martyr state is a myth propagated by people who already support intervention. Experts on Iran do not agree with this.
http://mideast.foreignpolicy.c.....state_myth
Mark in LA| 12.16.11 @ 12:51AM
Remember Red - The communists were athiests who weren't afraid to die in the 50's and the American public bought it. It has just been update to the Iranians are religious fanatics who aren't afraid to die. I guess a good lie never goes out of style.
Red Phillips | 12.16.11 @ 12:28AM
In a 2009 article for the Brown Journal of World Affairs, national security analyst Andrew Grotto probed the question "Is Iran a Martyr State?" and found that such claims are unsupported by anything like evidence, but rather have achieved the status of conventional wisdom simply by repetition."The martyr state view rests on bold, even radical claims about Iran's goals and behavior that defy conventional expectations of states' actions," wrote Grotto, "but no government in recorded history has willfully pursued policies it knows will proximately cause its own destruction."
"Given the novelty of the martyr state argument," Grotto continued, "and how unequivocally its proponents present it, one would expect to encounter an avalanche of credible evidence. Yet that is not the case." Finding both that "references are scarce in this line of writings, and certain references are cited with striking regularity," Grotto determined that the "martyr state" view essentially rests upon a few neoconservative op-eds and a report by a right-wing Israeli think tank, whose claims have been bounced endlessly around the internet. ~ from the link above
William R| 12.16.11 @ 12:40AM
Chicken Hawks on parade. Pathetic Goldstein.
RJ| 12.16.11 @ 1:07AM
Michelle Bachmann has not helped her future standing in government service. During these debates she has challenged the integrity of two of her opponents (Perry & Gingrich) without any evidence of wrong-doing. All she has is a draw your own inferences from Perry getting a donation from Merck and Gingrich having a consulting contract with Fannie Mae. In doing so, she sounds like a whiny Democrat. I have lost much of my respect for her as a result of her debate performances. I was hoping for much more from her.
Diogenes| 12.16.11 @ 5:04AM
She never had any future. She's spent her entire time in Congress trashing her leadership in public and accomplishing exactly as much as Dr. Demento-that is to say nothing. The whole point of her 'campaign' is to hope for a VP slot, sell books, and maybe set up for a Senate run.
At least she got the book deal done.
Simon Templar| 12.16.11 @ 1:39AM
Great summary, Aaron, thanks!
Kingofthenet| 12.16.11 @ 1:55AM
I didn't hear Ron Paul being 'Soft', he just doesn't believe the way we are doing things is working out, and I agree. Wars cost Billions and lives, Sanctions cause anger and proxy battles, why not try something NEW? Oh yeah because Iran is Bad and run by a nut who says bad stuff about Israel. Guess who else makes practically WEEKLY threats not only to our allies but our soldiers stationed there? North Korea a week doesn't go by that they don't say they will wipe South Korea away in 'seas of Nuclear Fire' Any suggestion to deal with them from these Chickenhawk Leaders?
Sean| 12.16.11 @ 8:58AM
One of the Chinese generals threatened to hit us with nukes a few years ago.
yoyo| 12.16.11 @ 2:40AM
Can only imagine what Republicans would say if Obama sent a "letter of two sorries" and $34,000 to the Iranians
Diogenes| 12.16.11 @ 5:15AM
You Paulbots need to get over your Israel obsession. If the Obama/Paul team let Iran get nuclear weapons, "Little Satan" isn't going to be their first target. Considering their involvement in Latin America, the state of our borders and the fact that they have been testing detonating their missiles air to air, if you surrender monkeys get your way we can probably kiss the U.S. goodbye.
And I liked the way he weaseled out of the question of whether he would run third party and help re-elect Obama again.
None of the above| 12.16.11 @ 9:00AM
Again, you know nothing of the nuclear history of the world. Every nuclear nation, save the US in 1945, has used nuclear weapons in a war time situation. European nations who have nukes have not stared with each other -- the region had been in near perpetual war for the previous 1000 years!
The Soviets had thousands of nukes pointed t us for decades -- presidents from JFK to Reagan never had to send a single troop to the old USSR to keep the US safe.
You don't have to live in fear if you're armed with real historical facts -- grow beyond the myopic neo-con vision of perpetual war.
Derek Young | 12.16.11 @ 5:46AM
Your comments about Ron Paul are shameful.
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 8:22AM
Agreed, These Israel Firster Propaganda Squad Agendists Have A Repeatedly Bad Habit Of Badmouthing Veteran American Military Officers.
Dr.Ron Paul, " I would ask Congress for a Declaration of War against Iran,if necessary,"
Dr.Ron Paul voted to use force against Afghanistan.
" Dr.Ron Paul served in the United States Air Force as a flight surgeon for several years (1963-1965). While in the air force, Paul reached the rank of Captain. Directly after his service in the air force, Paul worked again as a flight surgeon for the United States Air National Guard (1965-1968)."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
Dai Alanye | 12.16.11 @ 11:14AM
Ron Paul was drafted into the military, received the rank of captain automtically due to his profession, and left as soon as possible. He is no war hero as Clint pathetically attempts to portray him, but simply a cleaner example of sixties anti-war hippie protester, wearing a tie instead of love-beads.
chuck| 12.16.11 @ 8:33AM
Derek,
I went to your website, thanks for providing the link. It shows you are a Democrat councilman from Washington State who has sympathies with Obama's children (OWS protesters).
It is truly an insight to see the left defending Ron Paul. I've always thought his foreign policy was more aligned with the left, rather than the right.
None of the above| 12.16.11 @ 9:06AM
The Taft to Goldwater GOP platform has traditionally been non-interventionist.
I tend to think many in the GOP electorate suffer from "Bush derangement syndrome" in quite a different way then Dems do... They can't accept a non neocon vision of the world without fully embracing how ridiculous Bush was as a president.
Its alright to be wrong. Lets put it in economical terms; look at the return on investment - unsustainable debt, 4800 soldiers lost, over 100000Iraqi civilians killed.
chuck| 12.16.11 @ 9:20AM
I may suffer some sort of syndrome, but at least it's not the "head-in-the-sand" syndrome that Paul and his Paul-bots are suffering from.
None of the above| 12.16.11 @ 9:48AM
I appreciate the civil discourse... Let me rebut.
It definitely isn't a 'head in the sand' thing... If Iran declared war on us, Paul would not hesitate to urge the Congress for a declaration of war.
However, this is not the situation that nearly every pundit describes. War on a tactic (terrorism) is impossible -- it has lead to the moral relativism of Gitmo, war on a religion (Islam) is unwinnable, and preemptive war in the name of a sovereign nation without an explicit treaty is non-negotiable.
Look to Iraq, we have spent about $800b directly and $4t indirectly in a war that cost more US lives than WTC and over 100000 civilian lives in Iraq -- most of them probably have family members who may blow back.
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 1:06PM
Chuck,
Welcome to the reality that the Paul-bot mindset is kindred spirits with the Left, and the more you dig, the more you'll come to that same realization.
After all, to those folk, we're nothing but a bunch of war mongers who just don't understand that drugs should be legal because BIG Gov. shouldn't get in the way of us doing what we wanna do.
And what's that sound just like?
But oh yesh, don't forget~ throw a little "fiscal responsibility" in there for good measure and that should ease the conscience of anyone that shares their proclivities and enable them to vote for the anti-American, anti-semitic lunatic.
The hippy dippies from the 60's! Theyr'e just sooo misunderstood!
Yep, you've pegged them. But now that you have, better watch out because now you're on their enemies list till eternity.
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 1:16PM
Derek!! You're a Democrat??
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.16.11 @ 6:24AM
I think Ron Paul is a hilarious nice old man. It's the Jew hating Paulbots I detest.
Clint| 12.16.11 @ 8:14AM
Uh Oh !
Kenny The Neo-Chickenhawk Squirrel Plays The Dog Eared Anti-Jew Card .
Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here And In Iowa.
chuck| 12.16.11 @ 8:35AM
Although it did look like he was going to drool all over himself at several points last night.
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 1:11PM
"A nice old man." What. like yourself?
No, he isn't NICE at all. He's a lunatic who truly believes America is to blame for terrorism. He's a terrorist sympathizing nutcase.
Much like you who believes you're Christian and yet think you have the OK to trash me.
You're reading yourself in. And you're no "nice old man", either. And there's certainly nothing hilarious about you, either.
By the way, liar: you still haven't posted the "proof" you claimed to have against me in the form of the e mails you claimed you have where I proclaimed my "undying love" for you, and wanted to "marry you."
I know you've changed your story a few times, but since that's what you originally claimed~ the burden of proof is on you.
As I see it, you have some repenting to do.
Ken (Old Texican)| 12.16.11 @ 6:30AM
Well Aaron
Governor Perry had a good night. One thing you will learn about him is his perseverance.
Chrslea| 12.16.11 @ 7:28AM
I agree RJ. Michelle's gotcha attacks are getting old and annoying. Newt gave a solid performance. I hope that perfomace helped him retain the lead. It's so disingenuous to see Romney playing nice and not attacking Gingerich when he and Ron Paul are spending big bucks trashing him in ads.
martin j smith| 12.16.11 @ 7:40AM
It is time for the candidates to go beyond debating each other but to debate their respective visions for our future. What are their ideas and how do they compare them with Obama'ds. And, most important do they tell the American People that this election is in fact a referendum on the kind of system we get for our country: Socialism versus Free Market. It is time to call Obama out.
Ryan| 12.16.11 @ 8:44AM
Question, again, for Ron Paul supporters. If we withdrew every American troop from the Middle East, defunded Israel, and declared neutrality in anything having to do with them, and removed any sanctions from any Muslim nation, would militant Islamists leave us alone for the next 100 years?
Sean| 12.16.11 @ 9:03AM
If we fight a war on terror for the next 100 years would we be 100 percent safe from militants? Nope. Remember 9/11 was conducted mainly by Saudi nationals. Iran and Iraq had nothing to do with it. To prevent another 9/11 you would have to change immigration and visa policies.
chuck| 12.16.11 @ 9:23AM
What you are addressing here is the tactic they used, our planes on our territory. They will change the tactics. What they will not change is their hatred for us, the infidels. They hate us for who we are!
None of the above| 12.16.11 @ 10:07AM
People will hate you for irrational reasons. You can't legislate nor negotiate with irrationality.
Unfortunately,a Phillip Dick Minority Report state cannot ferret out hate without a complete loss of personal liberty domestically and a complete surrender of a foreign nation of its sovereignty...
and not to mention the debt load required for such an operation.
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 1:13PM
And they hate us because we're free. They want us under Sharia law. And I wonder if the Paul-bots wouldn't mind that.
Ryan| 12.16.11 @ 9:59AM
Iran, however, HAS been a consistent sponsor of Al-Qaeda and associated groups. It wouldn't surprise me if there was related funding from them in some manner.
The tide of Militant Islamism needs to be stemmed. Regime change is one - such as sanctions against Iran and supporting dissident elements within the country.
None of the above| 12.16.11 @ 10:04AM
Can this be achieved economically without the associated blowback? Recent history doesn't suggest that.
Do we really want to look like Greece and Portugal for this?
Ryan| 12.16.11 @ 1:37PM
Blowback is a poor reason to cease engagement. Evil must be defeated.
However, the point is made about the financial cost, where we may not be able to afford it any longer.
However, engagement against Iran can be done cheaply anyway.
Sanctions, embargoes, open support for revolutionary elements, occasional black ops, cyberwar, etc. are all ways to engage Iran without substantial cost of money or lives.
None of the above| 12.16.11 @ 10:01AM
@Ryan - Militant Islamists will continue to attempt to any action that will gain them an economic advantage or recruitment advantage. If they were at all possible to identify someone who hated you, then cost effective defense is achievable. However, without declaring something equivalent to a Crusade (which I'm hoping you'd concede as impossible to win), this is an untenable end point. No money for it... We'd be killing ourselves with a debt load that we would not survive the next 100 years without a bullet nor bomb set on US soil.
Ryan| 12.16.11 @ 1:46PM
So, how should we fight them or defend ourselves against them?
Kingofthenet| 12.16.11 @ 11:19AM
Here is a answer in the form of ANOTHER question, IF we did NOTHING in Vietnam would Vietnam become a 'Domino to fall' for Communism, Sure it would, but it HAS anyway, but we would have 50,000 (Non dead Productive young adults) ZERO seriously injured and 'agent oranged' and billions more in our coffers, get it?
Ryan| 12.16.11 @ 1:47PM
Two things:
Vietnam was a SNAFU that may have been, like Iraq, the right war fought the wrong way.
No dominoes fell afterward.
LarryK| 12.16.11 @ 9:24AM
In the final analysis, does it really matter who gets elected?
1860
1940
1980
PMA| 12.16.11 @ 9:49AM
Am I the only person who noticed the utter absurdity of Michele Bachmann’s statement that Iran wants to reestablish the Caliphate? It would be helpful if she understood the difference between Shia and Sunni Islam, especially since she's talking about bombing Iran. Bachmann (and the others running for president) talk about Islam as the enemy yet she doesn't even know the first thing about Islam. Not knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shias is pretty significant. Shortly after the Iraq war began, G. W. Bush was being briefed on the sectarian violence that had erupted between Sunnis and Shias, and he said to the briefers, "I thought they were all Muslims!" Once was enough. I don't think we can afford that kind of ignorance in another president. The undergraduate students who just took my Middle East politics class wouldn't have made such a dumb mistake. Don't you think a presidential candidate--or at least that candidate's advisors--should be held to the same standard? This isn't amateur hour.
Ryan| 12.16.11 @ 10:01AM
Ummm...there are elements within Iran that DO want a reestablishment of the Caliphate, but there is a lot more posturing there than people realize.
Militant Islamists ARE the enemy.
PMA| 12.16.11 @ 10:16AM
No. There is a small Arab Sunni minority within Iran (which is predominantly Shia and Persian), but the Iranian regime is a Shia theocracy. The Caliphate is a Sunni concept that Shiism utterly rejects—indeed, this rejection is at the heart of the Sunni-Shia split. Anyone who suggests that the Shia regime in Iran wants to reestablish the Caliphate knows NOTHING about Islam. This analogous to saying that Protestants want to recognize and be loyal to the Pope. Those radical Sunnis who call for the reestablishment of the Caliphate (which was abolished by Turkey in 1924) aIso tend to view Shias as apostates and legitimate targets for violence. People who say “militant Islamists are the enemy” should first understand the fundamental differences (as well as the many nuances) within Islam. There are militant Sunni Islamists and militant Shia Islamists and they don’t like each other very much (to put it mildly—see Iraq over the past 8 years). How can you fight an enemy if you don’t even know who they are?
Ryan| 12.16.11 @ 1:55PM
Shias don't completely reject a caliphate - that's somewhat of an overstatement. They DO lean more toward Imams and consider them infallible. Just as, if not moreso, dangerous.
And yes, we've always underestimated the Shia-Sunni dislike for each other. They have still attacked us, however.
PMA| 12.16.11 @ 10:28PM
No. Shia Muslims do reject the Sunni concept of the Caliphate. The comments posted in this discussion by several people reflect a genuine lack of understanding of the differences within Islam, and also the differences between the Iranian regime and al-Qaeda. Lumping all Muslims--or even all radical Muslims--into a single monolithic entity is not only factually incorrect but can lead to major policy errors. The GOP candidates seem to have a similarly unsophisticated knowlege base. As a political science professor who teaches Middle East politics, I find this pretty disturbing.
John| 12.16.11 @ 10:49AM
I have question for the liberal internationalists i.e Neocons. After you pathetic war mongers invade Iran, what will happen to the thousands Iranian Jews that are currently living freely in Iran????
Ever heard the term "blowback"?
John| 12.16.11 @ 11:05AM
Paul vs. Bachmann on Iran. According to Politifact, Paul destroys Bachmann.
http://www.politifact.com/trut.....d-launch-/
Margie| 12.16.11 @ 1:14PM
Paul destroys himself. He's a lunatic. He needs no one's help.
Correction| 12.16.11 @ 12:00PM
Psst-Sioux Falls is in South Dakota and Sioux City is in Iowa. Close but no cigar.
Aaron Goldstein| 12.16.11 @ 1:36PM
Thank you kindly. It appears I landed too far north on I-29. The record has been amended accordingly.
Ken| 12.16.11 @ 2:26PM
Sioux Falls is in South Dakota, the debate was in Sioux City, Ia.