Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘Iran’


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 13, 2010

Common enemies create unlikely coalitions.

The oft-quoted phrase “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” sums it up quite nicely.

On a micro level, the annoying, noisy neighbor next door becomes an unexpected ally when the even more annoying guy down the street keeps letting his out-of-control dog go rummaging through everyone’s garbage cans, leaving trash strewn everywhere.

The guy with the smelly armpits on the subway sitting next to me becomes an instant comrade when the naked-from-the-waist-down dude across from us starts hurling peanut shells, shouting expletive-rich, pro-Obama slogans.

Arguably, the most well-known example of this kind of thing on a macro level is the alliance between the United States and Soviet Union during World War II.

Common foe: Nazi Germany.

Yet, within seconds of the war ending, the Cold War was officially on.

In a world where the scourge of moral equivalency acts as a fertility drug of evil – and the rise of kindness to the cruel is matched only by the increase of cruelty to the kind – the very concept that the nation of Saudi Arabia would stand with Israel before the United States does is, to say the least, distressing.

Strange bedfellows, indeed.

Hugh Tomlinson of the Times Online writes:

Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.

In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.

To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.

“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a US defence source in the area. “They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”

Odd times.

Saudi Arabia, obviously, is concerned about an ever-strengthening Shia. It is more than obvious, even to the Saudis, that Barack Obama’s United States of America cannot be counted on for cover.

Thus the backup plan.

And what, pray tell, is Plan B?

Let Israel take care of it.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

At least temporarily.
wordpress statistics


Posted in Middle East | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 8, 2009

It isn’t exactly clear how Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad found out about it, but the United States has got to do a better job concealing these things. Somehow the Iranian madman has acquired verification that America has been actively blocking the return of humankind’s savior (according to Muslims), the Mahdi. Ahmadinejad claims he has “documented proof” that the United States is keeping the prophesized redeemer of Islam from the rest of the world.

My first reaction is, “Damn, how the hell did he found out?”

My second reaction is, “Do the white sleeves of his jacket not reach all the way around to the back?”

There is clearly a dangerous breech in the heart of America’s national security complex, because this isn’t the first time the United States has been caught with its pants around the ankles.

For example, when it came out that the real Santa Claus was discovered and abducted by crack Army commandos in 1925 and brought back to Camp Elfwood where he was tragically killed during a freak reindeer exercise, America lost some of her innocence.

Kringlegate became a household word. Only the Great Depression delivered America from her four-year long Yuletide nightmare.

Now this.

From Fox News:

“We have documented proof that they believe that a descendant of the prophet of Islam will raise in these parts and he will dry the roots of all injustice in the world,” Ahmadinejad said during a speech on Monday, according to Al Arabiya (a television news station based in Dubai).

“They have devised all these plans to prevent the coming of the Hidden Imam because they know that the Iranian nation is the one that will prepare the grounds for his coming and will be the supporters of his rule,” Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

Ahmadinejad continued the rant by claiming there have been plots by both the West as well as countries in the East to wipe out his country, according to Iranian news Web site Tabak.

Mr. Happy Pants went on to say that when it comes to Afghanistan, the United States is much like an animal in a quagmire.

I suppose that puts us in our place.

Just curious … Who is the “they” that have developed “these plans?” Democrats? Republicans? Embittered Jews? Resentful Christians? And how was the Mahdi prevented from coming exactly?

And will the rest of us ever get a chance to see the evidence?

I have to be believe this was more of a George W. Bush initiative than a Barack Obama one. There’s no way this president would have ever gotten permission from Ahmadinejad to keep the savior under wraps.

Posted in Iran | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 30, 2009

Not that I believe the United Nations (or any related organization) is actually good for anything other than reminding the rest of us that impotence does exist beyond Viagra users and cocaine addicts, but the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) – an autonomous body which reports directly to the UN Security Council and General Assembly – actually did the right thing on Friday.

Not that it actually matters in the grand scheme of things.

Not that it will make a damn bit of difference.

This is the IAEA, after all.

But by a count of 25-3, the IAEA passed a resolution demanding that Iran cease construction of a recently discovered nuclear facility near Qom and put an end to its uranium enrichment program.

Both the United States and Israel applauded the vote.

And yes, you read that correctly … the IAEA demanded Iran cut it out.

Meanwhile, Iran’s response to the IAEA resolution – to go along with five other UN resolutions – was to announce to the world that it is expanding its uranium enrichment program with the construction of ten new plants.

So there!

This smart diplomacy angle is really paying dividends.

The censure from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), with rare backing from Russia and China, provoked anger in Iran where members of parliament demanded the withdrawal of co-operation with UN inspectors.

President Ahmadinejad announced last night that his Cabinet had ordered the building of ten new plants aimed at producing up to 300 tonnes of nuclear fuel a year, with construction to begin on five within two months.

He said that the Cabinet had also been studying plans to start enriching uranium to a higher level — high enough to be used in medical research but below that required for weapons.

Smart diplomacy seems to be cut from the same cloth as smart climate change science.

There really is nothing quite like having infirmity as the prevailing American foreign policy motif.

Indeed, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs released a statement about America’s patience wearing thin with Iran, and the promise of consequences if Iran doesn’t play nice, blah, blah, blah.

Still, I cannot help but wonder why is it that President Obama is willing to accept the notion that Iran is pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, but is not willing to accept that Iran really does want to see Israel wiped off the face of the Earth.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Foreign Policy, Iran | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on September 27, 2009

obama the cowardly lionThere is no need for in-depth analysis here.

There is nothing that necessitates a detailed breakdown by anyone in the punditocracy.

In this case, the President of the United States is as clear as the san-serif font on his teleprompters. In fact, unlike the text that scrolls across the face of his electronic cue-cards, his words, in this instance, are not empty or vapid. Dare I say it … there is not a stitch of ambiguity in what the Commander-In-Chief of the United States Armed Forces is saying.

With the recent revalation that the nation of Iran has kept a secret nuclear plant hidden from UN inspectors for many moons, Barack Obama has taken a page from the I’m-A-Lover-Not-A-Fighter songbook and made it clear that he is not looking for, nor does he want, victory against Iran.

I actually had to pause to allow that concept to sufficiently sink in.

Victory is not what the current Iranian crisis is about, according the President of the United States.

(Think about that for a moment).

The President did not imply it or indirectly suggest that victory wasn’t his aim – he actually came right out and said it, in those very words.

He is “not interested in victory.”

Just like that.

It can hardly be misinterpreted.

If there are words more gutless, more disgusting, that one can hear come out of the mouth of the President of the United States (other than “I Barack Obama, do solemnly swear ….), I’d like to know what they are.

Here was the brief exchange between The One and a reporter:

REPORTER: You just mentioned sanctions that have bite. What kind of sanctions –and I know you can’t get into detail – but what kind of sanctions at all would have bite with Iran? Do you really think any kind of sanction would have an effect on somebody like Ahmadinejad?

Secondly, some of your advisors today said that this announcement was a “victory.” Do you consider it a victory? And if so, why didn’t you announce it earlier since you’ve known since you’re President-elect?

OBAMA: Uh … This isn’t a football game. So, I’m not interested in victory. I’m interested in resolving the problem. The problem is that Iran repeatedly says that it is pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and its actions contradict its words. 


Or maybe I shouldn’t be.

Take another moment to let it sink in … The President of the United States of America – the most powerful man in the most powerful nation on Earth – has publicly asserted, in no uncertain terms, that he does not seek victory against a rogue nation whose government not only slaughters its own citizens on the streets, but openly backs terrorism, has called for the destruction of Israel, has a thug madman as its President, poses a genuine threat to its neighbors and the world oil supply, and is on the brink of having the capability of producing nuclear weapons.

Rather, he’s interested in resolving the problem – whatever that means.

Without victory.

What the hell is he talking about?

I haven’t the inclination or patience to try and parse the messiah’s words. Sometimes, taking things at face value is more than enough.

Let us hope that Obama’s interest in victory carries over to the election of 2012.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Iran, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 25, 2009

Obama Appeasement UniversityIt isn’t often that an opportunity as golden as this presents itself so readily. The only question is whether or not President Barack Obama will step up to the plate and seize the moment. Sure, Bam is sufficiently well-versed in apologizing for his own country on foreign soil, but he hasn’t done it so much from home – certainly to the shagrin of the Blame America First contingency of a Bam-A-Lang-A-Ding-Dong Brigade. And seeing as he probably isn’t inclined to spontaneously hop on his big old jet and fly to some country with a horrible human rights record to grovel and express his shame of America (unless the teleprompter advises him to do so), chances are quite good that the world might be treated to a good old fashioned slice of humble pie – or waffle – from deep within the friendly confines of the U.S.A.

It’s sure to soften the hearts of our murderous enemies everywhere.

The Politico is reporting that the recent winner of the Iranian elections, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, isn’t happy with our President. He’s even going so far as to compare Obama to his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Short of drilling machine screws into Obama’s toe nails, is there anything Ahmadinejad could have done that would have been worse?

Talk about brutality.

From the Politico:

Reacting to Obama’s comment Tuesday that he is “appalled and outraged” by crackdowns in Iran, Ahmadinejad said, “Mr Obama made a mistake to say those things … our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously Bush used to say.”

“Do you want to speak with this tone? If that is your stance then what is left to talk about… I hope you avoid interfering in Iran’s affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it,” he added, according to Reuters.

And from the screeching throats of liberals all across the star-spangled map will come the admonitions that the President should have said nothing – that a statement of condemnation from the White House was nothing more than an ill-advised bone thrown to the war-mongering American right-wing.

See what happens when you appease the God-happy, gun-toting, Dick Cheney lap dogs?

You piss off Ahmadinejad.

How dare Obama agitate the Iranian whack-job when everything was just starting to get better, and world peace was just around the bend.

Bam had better find out what Ahmedinejad’s favorite movies are.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Iran, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 23, 2009

obama our confused president

As an “add-on” to the piece I posted on Sunday called “Bam Acknowledges the Iranian Upheaval,” I wanted to tip my hat to talk show host Mark Levin who made a very interesting point on his radio program Monday evening – something I wish I would have made myself in the article.

When it was originally reported that the election results in Iran were very close, and that the very real possibility existed that the opposition (Mir-Hossein Mousavi) could pull out a victory over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President Barack Obama wasted no time in giving himself a pat on the back and a hearty attaboy, crediting – at least in part – his now much-hearalded (and thoroughly vacuous) speech in Cairo, Egypt as a catalyst for the start of a “new dialogue” in that country.

That he did so came as no surprise, of course.

Indeed, it fit in quite famously with his modus operandi – that is, everything that Obama says and does is all about Obama. Everything else – if it cannot be shaped, molded, redefined and beat into political submission – is irrelevant.

Mark Levin – The Great One – points out how Obamacrats had no problem devouring bromide after bromide from Bam’s Big Box-O-Platitudes, calling his empty speech in Cairo the fuel behind what was seen at first as a potentially historic election.

Even now, some credit Bam’s Cairo teleprompter read as the spark and inspiration behind the courage summoned by the people of Iran to rise up in protest against their government when the election results took a curiously decisive and comfortable turn toward an Ahmadinejad victory.

Levin notes how looking toward Cairo as some sort of catalyst for the events in Iran is nothing more than sycophant media-hype, Obama-spun fantasy-world nonsense, and liberal wishful thinking. Rather, one needs to look toward the successes in Iraq – and the policies implemented by the Bush administration – as a more reasonable explanation as to why the events in Iran have unfolded as they have.

He’s absolutely right.

No one – absolutely no one – in the mainstream media (and God forbid, the administration) would ever dream of attributing the turnaround in Iraq as having any sort of influence on the extraordinary happenings over the past week in Iran. It can only be Obama, savior to the world, foil to the xenophopic notion of American exceptionalism, with his delightfully naive perceptions of the world and his unwillingness to confront and label evil, that could actually move the people of Iran to rise up and fight for their basic human rights. The slow and steady push toward democracy in the once despotic nation of Iraq could not possibly have anything to do with the upheaval in neighboring Iran, according to leftists.

After all, to a liberal, crediting George W. Bush for anything outside of slaughtering innocents and war crimes is worse than a dozen ice picks to the eye or mentioning God in public.

Indeed, in my piece on Sunday, I was very critical of the President’s handling of the situation in Iran – how unreliable, weak and embarrassing it makes the United States look. 

On his radio program on Monday, Mark Levin helped to illustrate my point – although he certainly doesn’t know me from Adam. (All I can say, as an admirer of his, is “thank you, Great One.”)

Please take a moment to compare and contrast how President Ronald Reagan, in December, 1981, spoke out against the government-led violence in Poland to President Barack Obama’s words almost 28 years later.


reagan picAs I speak to you tonight, the fate of a proud and ancient nation hangs in the balance. For a thousand years, Christmas has been celebrated in Poland, a land of deep religious faith, but this Christmas brings little joy to the courageous Polish people. They have been betrayed by their own government.

The men who rule them and their totalitarian allies fear the very freedom that the Polish people cherish. They have answered the stirrings of liberty with brute force, killings, mass arrests, and the setting up of concentration camps. Lech Walesa and other Solidarity leaders are imprisoned, their fate unknown. Factories, mines, universities, and homes have been assaulted.

The Polish Government has trampled underfoot solemn commitments to the UN Charter and the Helsinki accords. It has even broken the Gdansk agreement of. August 1980, by which the Polish Government recognized the basic right of its people to form free trade unions and to strike.

I urge the Polish Government and its allies to consider the consequences of their actions. How can they possibly justify using naked force to crush a people who ask for nothing more than the right to lead their own lives in freedom and dignity? Brute force may intimidate, but it cannot form the basis of an enduring society, and the ailing Polish economy cannot be rebuilt with terror tactics.

I want emphatically to state tonight that if the outrages in Poland do not cease, we cannot and will not conduct “business as usual” with the perpetrators and those who aid and abet them. Make no mistake, their crime will cost them dearly in their future dealings with America and free peoples everywhere. I do not make this statement lightly or without serious reflection.


obamaThe last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for — those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That’s what they do. That’s what we’ve already seen. We shouldn’t be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the — Iranian people are seeking to — let their voices be heard. 

Now, what we can do is bear witness and say — to the world that the, you know, incredible demonstrations that we’ve seen is a testimony to — I think what Dr. King called the — the arc of the moral universe. It’s long but it bends towards justice.

Such strength.

How exactly can one accurately measure the moral arc of the universe when one cannot – or is unwilling to – first take a stand against that which is immoral?

Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 21, 2009

iranian protestor beatenIt’s being called a change in approach.

Allow me a moment or two to set this straight in my mind.

He was against imposing values before he was for it, even though he was adamant about imposing at least some ideas before he said he was in favor of staying out of things altogether. All of this, of course, came before he finally crawled out from behind his ice cream cone to say something about the violence and upheaval in Iran, despite his inclination not to perturb the murderers and thugs of the world, or throw a monkey wrench into his policy of appeasement and paddy cake.

If ever there was a leader with less of a clue about foreign policy than President Barack Obama – without having to backtrack all the way to Neville Chamberlain – it isn’t readily apparent.

Willing to throw the nation of Israel (one of our closest allies) under the bus, making demands of them, i.e. imposing values, while attempting to make nice-nice with those who would think nothing of slitting the throats of his own children is frustrating enough. Having his Secretary of State say that if North Korea doesn’t watch out, the United States may put them back on a “bad guy’s list” of terrorist nations is, indeed, embarrassing. But to come to the conclusion that it was strategically (and politically) expedient to say nothing and play “neutral” towards the horrendous acts of brutality being perpetrated by the Iranian government on its citizenry in the streets of that country until now – when it was clear that the heat of the political winds were calling him to do so – is downright bad leadership.

It was up to the President of the United States to take an open and unequivocal stand, without mincing words and without concern for his image, against the violence and cruelty taking place in Iran right away. It was up to the leader of the free world to say “to hell with worrying about how sour my relationship with Iran might get if I say something,” and act like a President – someone who gives a damn about something other than his popularity and legacy. It was time to show resolve by pulling a page from the Reagan and Thatcher handbook and engage Iran directly with immediate condemnations.

One would think that the images and reports of innocents being slaughtered in the streets by a despotic government ought to raise the ire of a man so shaped and influenced by the graduates of the protest culture. One would assume that the fist-pimping, community-organizing, radical leftist that burns deep within the President would summon the spirits that moved his mentors to work to overthrow the “tyranny” of the United States back in the day and at least act like the violence in Iran matters to him.

Maybe the President left his outrage at customs counter in Egypt.

It’s absolutely stunning.

On one hand, without an inkling of hesitation, the President is willing to publicly announce battle strategies while still at war, overhaul and socialize the greatest health care system the world has ever known, grow the national debt to unsustainable levels, apologize for the actions of his own country overseas, demand that Israel roll over yet again for those who want to see her destroyed, and generally blame everything that is wrong with the world on the previous administration. Yet, on the other hand, as the innocent in Iran are butchered by the government in some of the most remarkable and shocking pictures many have seen in a long time, Obama decides that the best thing to do is take a “wait and see” approach … until now, that is. He has realized, to his great dismay, that the whole Iranian “upheaval thing” isn’t just going to fade into news archives and back pages.

He actually had to say something about it.

And so he did.

He has called on Iran to “stop all the violent and unjust actions” … and only a week or so late!

(That sound you hear are members of The Guardian Council shaking in their shoes).

Said the President:

obama and iranThe Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said – “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

The words themselves are fine, but its impact – a week overdue and seemingly forced –  has the effect of a paraplegic threatening to kick the ass of a professional wrestler.

Remember, the United States is to lead by example, according to the President.

Another speech or two in Cairo ought to crack that nut.

Naturally, saliva gushing Obamacrats have hailed the President’s silence and sudden change in course as brilliant strategy.

A blogger called Anna at Ben Smith’s blog at the Politico website echoes the sentiments of many Obamacrats, writing:

Had (Obama) come out in support of the idea that the election had been rigged, he’d have given the ruling elites a lot of ammunition: the great Satan is trying to influence Iranian affairs again, beware the Westerners, etc. But this way, he’s only saying things that are incontestable: free speech must be protected and governments cannot kill citizens with impunity.

This is yet another brazen example of why liberals – while quite good at making music and designing websites – cannot be trusted with matters of national security.

Blame America first.

To Anna, and other leftocrats, it is the United States that would have exaserbated the situation in Iran by openly and swiftly castigating the actions of the government there. It is America that would have fuelled anger in Iranian’s ruling elites had Obama said anything deemed disparaging and critical (because Lord knows the Ayatollah Khamenei and friends were all waving their American flags and looking toward us for moral guidance right up until the Iranian elections). In other words – in Anna’s world – if Obama can keep quiet in the wake of some of the ugliest violence against innocents seen in quite a while, America won’t be as great a Satan as it most certainly would have been otherwise.

Beacuse, after all, it matters what Iran thinks of us.

Of course, I’m wondering what Obama will do if the Iranian government flat-out refuses to be led by American example?

What if the Iranian government dosen’t stop all the “violent and just actions against its own people?”

Will Obama break out the “whooping stick” and put them on a new list?

Or maybe (dare I say it) threaten them with some United Nations fist pumping?

Can sanctions be right around the corner?

Another poster at Smith’s blog at Politico makes this important point:

Obama seems to forget that “universal rights to free speech” aren’t guaranteed in Islamic society. The protesters have no right to be doing what they are doing and they will be cleared from the streets and punished by Islamic law.


Liberals routinely speak of how close-mined, non-nuanced, and “black and white” conservatives are. It’s as interesting a theory as it is false because it requires no thought. Liberals are overwhelmingly the ones who see things in “black and white.” There are no “shades of grey” in the lefty rainbow.

For example, to be against same-sex marriage is to be a homophobe. In the mind of a liberal, there’s simply no chance that a conservative may simply wish to keep the definition of marriage as it has always been and still not hate gays.

To liberals, the war against islamo-Facism (if they even consider it a war anymore) is all about Osama Bin Ladin … and that’s it. That there are a multitude of terrorist groups with the same objectives as Al Qaeda is irrelevant to them.

Only platitudes (and probably warfare itself) carry any weight with liberals. For Obama to implacably condemn what the Iranian government has been doing to its own people, would have been a waste of time, according to libs. Iran wouldn’t be influenced or compelled to change their ways based on a Presidential condemnation, they’d explain. For Obama to demand a stop to the violence would have been pointless, they’d argue – and it’d be meddling in other people’s affairs. Conservatives are fooling themselves to think it really matters if the President of the United States stands up for so-called “freedom” and “democracy.”

Who are we to demand anything?

What right we do we have?

(Perhaps Israel is asking the same question of Obama who has demanded that Israel remove settlements from the “occupied territories.”)

Keep in mind that these criticisms of conservatives come from the people who lap up and suck on Obama’s empty bumper-sticker platitudes like a liberal on a working man’s paycheck. Recall how they cried, sighed and shuddered at the “brilliance” of his poster-board, slogan-happy rhetoric when he spoke in Cairo. Remember how they fawned and fainted when he gabbed in Germany, speaking in flowery, pointless, uncourageous, cleverly crafted news-bite fodder (proven even more hollow by his week of “neutrality”).

appeasementObama regularly uses words like “peace” and “unity” and liberals wet themselves. Yet, when the bell rings, and the time comes to actually stand up and defend those principals that foster basic human rights, Obama shuts up. He knows liberty is offensive to some people.

But that is precisely what the President of the United States should have been doing from the moment it became apparent what was happening in Iran – boldly speaking out against the government-led violence, condemning the actions of the Iranian government, sending a crucial message that America not only supports those who fight for the basic human rights, but is never afraid to say so.

Liberals, of course, find no importance in doing this, unless no one is offended in the process – that is, except American conservatives. Being openly critical of the Iranian government would have gotten a whole bunch of Mullah panties in a twist, and that just couldn’t be allowed to happen.

The fact is, while liberals continue to applaud what they see as a brilliantly tempered strategy on the part of Barack Obama to “stay out of it,” those of us who actually are cognizant of the real world understand that such “neutrality” makes America look weak and disinterested … and our enemies know it.

America cannot be disinterested and neutral when such obvious examples of brutality are on display for the world to see.

Yes, this President is a veritable platitude-machine, careful not to offend anyone, speaking in vague generalities, throwing out meaningless phrases like “working together,” “common ground” and “striving toward peace,” all the while never exuding the courage to define and condemn that which is evil – unless you consider corporate profits and being without health care insurance evil.

That is a huge problem.

When the President of the United States cannot denounce the likes of the Iranian government, it is bad for the world.

Sure, it was a nice touch for Obama to quote Martin Luther King Jr. in his comments, but I doubt there are too many of the Iranian elite doing a double-take saying, “Damn, he’s right, you know.”

We’d be the Great Satan no matter how many times we puckered up to kiss their backsides.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 20, 2009

whack jobFrom the “Just So You Know” file …

There is some chest thumping coming from the President of everyone’s favorite friendly neighborhood buddy-nation. Yesterday, Iran test-fired a “new advanced missile” with a range said to be about 1,200 miles. As the AP reports, that puts “Israel, southeastern Europe and U.S. bases in the Middle East” within its reach.

Said President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: “Defense Minister (Mostafa Mohammad Najjar) has informed me that the Sajjil-2 missile, which has very advanced technology, was launched from Semnan and it landed precisely on the target.” Semnan is 125 miles of Tehran.

AP reporter Ali Akbar Dareini writes:

The announcement will not reassure the U.S. government, coming just two days after President Barack Obama declared a readiness to seek deeper international sanctions against Iran if it shunned U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama said he expected a positive response to his outreach for opening a dialogue with Iran by the end of the year. 

Of course he does. Ahmadinejad has been nothing short of accommodating and cooperative since he first warmed our hearts with his Holocaust-denial, anti-American rhetoric and calls for Israel’s elimination.

What a guy.

President Obama – who has said he is willing to pow-wow with Iran regardless of what it does or says – is not only delusionaly confident in his fairytale “sit down and tell me what we’ve done to make you angry” foreign policy, but he is sure his TV-star magnetism and personal popularity will be enough to muster international support for sanctions against Iran should it come to that.

His “rock star” status certainly has served him well trying to build up that Afghanistan posse, didn’t it?

Most Western analysts believe Iran does not yet have the technology to produce nuclear weapons, including warheads for long-range missiles. A group of U.S. and Russian scientists said in a report issued Tuesday that Iran could produce a simple nuclear device in one to three years and a nuclear warhead in another five years after that.

The study published by the nonpartisan EastWest Institute also said Iran is making advances in rocket technology and could develop a ballistic missile capable of firing a 2,200-pound nuclear warhead up to 1,200 miles “in perhaps six to eight years.”

When the meeting does take place between Bam and Whack Job, I wonder if the President will bow in front of Ahmadinejad or just offer to comb the falafel crumbs from his beard.

Posted in Foreign Policy, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »