Back during the campaign, then-Senator Joe Biden guaranteed that Obama would soon face an "international crisis, a generated crisis," one designed to "test [his] mettle." After North Korea, prophetic proof came again in the form of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, freshly returned as president with damning evidence of election fraud.
But I wonder: is Obama's true test coming from Iran, or actually from Republican opposition at home? Sometimes I'm really not sure.
-----
Driving home from work tonight, I tuned into The Mark Levin Show to find the fiery, preeminent star of conservative talk radio downright abusing an Obama-aligned caller. At the incensed apex, he demanded that the overwhelmed caller read his book, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, then call back.
Yet one does not have to read the book to know Levin's response to Iran. His agenda is self-evident in the title, remote but clear.
To the Republicans and some Obama supporters alike, that the American president does not forcefully repudiate Iran is beneath contempt. At stake, of course, are the values and principles all Americans cherish. We elect a man not just to run the country, but to represent us as a people.
Nothing else matters. To hardline GOP hawks, Iran is an existential threat to America, nevermind nukes.
If life was a FPS video game, Obama's choice would be easy: reprimand Iran, denounce the legitimacy of the Khamenei regime, grandstand tall for the world to admire, and march down the glorious path to civilizational war (as expertly narrated by Spengler in 2006).
Unless, of course, the video game is a Sid Meier masterpiece, whereby the game is a portrait of life, not fantasy.
The Republicans badly want Americans to miss the Bush Doctrine, and for Sarah Palin to memorize it well by 2012. By appealing to raw American values, the GOP hits Obama where it hurts the most politically, namely for making an informed choice.
In fact, caution is the only choice Obama could have made. Had he responded to the Iranian election with unbridled indignation, an eventual US invasion is all but assured. After all, if you do not talk to an enemy with words, you talk with bullets.
Had Obama taken McCain's advice, erased are all diplomaticprogress overtures in the Middle East to this point, possibly for good. Then we would be back at square one: bomb-bomb-bomb Iran. No McCain, you were not joking.
Yet, all joking aside, it may very well be that bombing Iran will come as the final act, the beginning of the end. But it is also apparent that if you think that, it is very likely you really will end up bombing Iran.
Is there no other way? Bombing Iran would spell the beginning of the end of our so-innocent Middle East enterprises.
The region would be set ablaze, awash in bloody rain beyond all fictitious fancy. Already I hear the first rumblings. Be assured that Iranian proxies Hamas of Gaza and Hezbollah of Lebanon, vis-à-vis the US Army in mighty Israel, are already licking their swords, struggling vainly at thenoose leash.
I am not opposed to fighting, since war is how peace is made. Yet I, and many others, should be careful what we wish for.
Do not forget the 2006 humiliation the Israel military puppy suffered against Hezbollah in Lebanon, or, more poignantly, the ongoing Iraq quagmire initiated by the American pit bull. Nevermind the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan the failed state, affectionately known as the Af-Pak war theater recently unveiled by Impresario Obama.
It is painfully apparent that, at present, Iran is not a fight we can win without another Nagasaki. Yet if Iran does develop nuclear warheads, let them beware.
This sobering reality has shaken me enough for a second take on my world view. If we must fight, then we fight. But, given present circumstances, what we should NOT do is guarantee a fight a la Bush Doctrine.
Things are bad enough already.
To think: here is Iran, landlocked by Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and a fleet of indomitable American maritime fortresses. All the while, John McCain makes funny about bombs (he should joke about President Oh-bomb-ma).
If I were Iran, I would build me a nuke, you betcha. Why else do you think the US is so convinced Iran is weaponizing plutonium?
I am not an Iran apologist, but a grudging voice of reason. There are realities one must consider before succumbing to professed ideology. This is, of course, my definition of a postpartisan act, as channeled by Obama. If I must sacrifice my precious American values for contingent wisdom every now and then, then let it be so.
Apparently, wisdom is no longer a virtue for the GOP crazies, not in matters of foreign policy. If we have to prove this factoid with blood ONCE AGAIN to the American people, I'm moving back to Hong Kong.
We have already leveled two Middle East countries; how many more before hardline conservatives learn a lesson? How many more before ALL Americans know folly when they see it?
If no one else, Obama has learned from the Bush Doctrine. Yet, the average American, who will never be as smart or engaged as our president, can glean as much from the writing on the wall.
Namely, when one model of reality is proven false, it's time to try something else. Insanity, as Einstein sagely suggested, "is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Please, someone pass this timeless bit of wisdom on to the neoconservatives, who have long had their chance on Capitol Hill.
My hope is that enough voters know better. Obama's timid response to Iran is, of course, part and parcel of his vague campaign promise of "postpartisan change." Clearly, Obama supporters who now regret their vote did not think through the matter of Iran. More than that, these people—who cannot stand up to the Mark Levin's and John McCain's of the world—should be careful what they wish for.
"Peace through superior firepower," they say? Yes, but not in a war wherein nukes are involved and the odds are stacked against our favor, please.
In a way, Iran gave a test to the American people, not Obama. Unwittingly, the Republican party has become Iran's surrogate mouthpiece.
The Republicans know Obama's is an informed choice, which is precisely why they can attack it. After all, the average voter does not have the time of day to be informed. Between the "smart" and the "right" thing to do, there is a 50/50 chance the GOP will hit blackjack, and they know it.
Apparently the GOP wants to roll Obama in the same Middle Eastern mud that they are still choking on.
How I wish that 17 year-old caller on the Mark Levin show could have read this post first, and how I long to be in that caller's place, forcing Levin to reveal his true face (see picture of Bush at top) to the talk radio masses.
Listen, forget all that. Moving forward, our choice is simple: do we bomb, or don't we bomb Iran? If you cannot make this decision, just shut up and listen to Obama, OKAY?????
UGH stop fucking with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But I wonder: is Obama's true test coming from Iran, or actually from Republican opposition at home? Sometimes I'm really not sure.
-----
Driving home from work tonight, I tuned into The Mark Levin Show to find the fiery, preeminent star of conservative talk radio downright abusing an Obama-aligned caller. At the incensed apex, he demanded that the overwhelmed caller read his book, Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto, then call back.
Yet one does not have to read the book to know Levin's response to Iran. His agenda is self-evident in the title, remote but clear.
To the Republicans and some Obama supporters alike, that the American president does not forcefully repudiate Iran is beneath contempt. At stake, of course, are the values and principles all Americans cherish. We elect a man not just to run the country, but to represent us as a people.
Nothing else matters. To hardline GOP hawks, Iran is an existential threat to America, nevermind nukes.
If life was a FPS video game, Obama's choice would be easy: reprimand Iran, denounce the legitimacy of the Khamenei regime, grandstand tall for the world to admire, and march down the glorious path to civilizational war (as expertly narrated by Spengler in 2006).
Unless, of course, the video game is a Sid Meier masterpiece, whereby the game is a portrait of life, not fantasy.
The Republicans badly want Americans to miss the Bush Doctrine, and for Sarah Palin to memorize it well by 2012. By appealing to raw American values, the GOP hits Obama where it hurts the most politically, namely for making an informed choice.
In fact, caution is the only choice Obama could have made. Had he responded to the Iranian election with unbridled indignation, an eventual US invasion is all but assured. After all, if you do not talk to an enemy with words, you talk with bullets.
Had Obama taken McCain's advice, erased are all diplomatic
Yet, all joking aside, it may very well be that bombing Iran will come as the final act, the beginning of the end. But it is also apparent that if you think that, it is very likely you really will end up bombing Iran.
Is there no other way? Bombing Iran would spell the beginning of the end of our so-innocent Middle East enterprises.
The region would be set ablaze, awash in bloody rain beyond all fictitious fancy. Already I hear the first rumblings. Be assured that Iranian proxies Hamas of Gaza and Hezbollah of Lebanon, vis-à-vis the US Army in mighty Israel, are already licking their swords, struggling vainly at the
I am not opposed to fighting, since war is how peace is made. Yet I, and many others, should be careful what we wish for.
Do not forget the 2006 humiliation the Israel military puppy suffered against Hezbollah in Lebanon, or, more poignantly, the ongoing Iraq quagmire initiated by the American pit bull. Nevermind the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan the failed state, affectionately known as the Af-Pak war theater recently unveiled by Impresario Obama.
It is painfully apparent that, at present, Iran is not a fight we can win without another Nagasaki. Yet if Iran does develop nuclear warheads, let them beware.
This sobering reality has shaken me enough for a second take on my world view. If we must fight, then we fight. But, given present circumstances, what we should NOT do is guarantee a fight a la Bush Doctrine.
Things are bad enough already.
To think: here is Iran, landlocked by Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and a fleet of indomitable American maritime fortresses. All the while, John McCain makes funny about bombs (he should joke about President Oh-bomb-ma).
If I were Iran, I would build me a nuke, you betcha. Why else do you think the US is so convinced Iran is weaponizing plutonium?
I am not an Iran apologist, but a grudging voice of reason. There are realities one must consider before succumbing to professed ideology. This is, of course, my definition of a postpartisan act, as channeled by Obama. If I must sacrifice my precious American values for contingent wisdom every now and then, then let it be so.
Apparently, wisdom is no longer a virtue for the GOP crazies, not in matters of foreign policy. If we have to prove this factoid with blood ONCE AGAIN to the American people, I'm moving back to Hong Kong.
We have already leveled two Middle East countries; how many more before hardline conservatives learn a lesson? How many more before ALL Americans know folly when they see it?
If no one else, Obama has learned from the Bush Doctrine. Yet, the average American, who will never be as smart or engaged as our president, can glean as much from the writing on the wall.
Namely, when one model of reality is proven false, it's time to try something else. Insanity, as Einstein sagely suggested, "is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." Please, someone pass this timeless bit of wisdom on to the neoconservatives, who have long had their chance on Capitol Hill.
My hope is that enough voters know better. Obama's timid response to Iran is, of course, part and parcel of his vague campaign promise of "postpartisan change." Clearly, Obama supporters who now regret their vote did not think through the matter of Iran. More than that, these people—who cannot stand up to the Mark Levin's and John McCain's of the world—should be careful what they wish for.
"Peace through superior firepower," they say? Yes, but not in a war wherein nukes are involved and the odds are stacked against our favor, please.
In a way, Iran gave a test to the American people, not Obama. Unwittingly, the Republican party has become Iran's surrogate mouthpiece.
The Republicans know Obama's is an informed choice, which is precisely why they can attack it. After all, the average voter does not have the time of day to be informed. Between the "smart" and the "right" thing to do, there is a 50/50 chance the GOP will hit blackjack, and they know it.
Apparently the GOP wants to roll Obama in the same Middle Eastern mud that they are still choking on.
How I wish that 17 year-old caller on the Mark Levin show could have read this post first, and how I long to be in that caller's place, forcing Levin to reveal his true face (see picture of Bush at top) to the talk radio masses.
Listen, forget all that. Moving forward, our choice is simple: do we bomb, or don't we bomb Iran? If you cannot make this decision, just shut up and listen to Obama, OKAY?????
UGH stop fucking with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Logging you in...
steve · 820 weeks ago
The truth is that any overt action toward influencing developments in Iran that Obama could take would probably be counterproductive. In the past 60 years, the America has overthrown a democratically elected government of Iran, installed and supported a brutal police state, incited Saddam Hussein to make a land grab whch resulted in a 7 year war that killed a million people, and invaded the countries on Iran's east and west border. They don't really think of us as friends. Barack Obama meddling in Iranian affairs is liable to have a effect little better than Osama Bin Laden endorsing a candidate in teh US elections.
John McCain doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. He goes on like he's some kind of great statesmen, and here he is scoring political points by attacking the President for doing the right thing. The Republicans really don't seem to understand that saber rattling, chest pounding and overcompensation are not always the best way to go in diplomacy. Seriously, whenever something unfavorable happens, their immediate reaction is to puff themselves up like blowfish, even if they have nothing to back it up. Look at Condi Rice during that whole Russia-Georgia thing awhile ago. Going on tv and carrying on about how we weren't just going to stand idly by in response to this; no, we're not going to take this lying down. This demands action. blah blah blah
And what did we end up doing in Georgia? Nothing. Why was this? Maybe because we already had all our forces committed in Iraq and Afghanistan already. None left over. So what did Condi's brave words amount to? A lot of empty talk.
milesian 35p · 820 weeks ago
The only people who don't know are these right-wing idiots. Actually maybe they DO know better, but they know the PEOPLE don't know better. This is how dirty political points are scored.
The GOP using the media is one thing.. what really PISSES ME OFF is Iran using the GOP as its unwitting mouthpiece......
After all, if the neocons can't have Activist Obama gallivanting about the globe, reelecting Ahmadinejad is probably the next best thing for their agenda:
[Daniel Pipes of the Heritage Foundation said,] “I’m sometimes asked who I would vote for if I were enfranchised in this election, and I think that, with due hesitance, I would vote for Ahmadinejad,” Pipes said. The reason, Pipes went on, is that he would “prefer to have an enemy who’s forthright and obvious, who wakes people up with his outlandish statements.”
MFackenthal · 820 weeks ago
Can you guess what my response is going to be? ...
Call the show yourself and mention your blog. Obama needs more voices like yours.
~Megan~
milesian 35p · 820 weeks ago
Sadly, the reason Obama needs more voices like mine is because people do not think for themselves. They can, but they just don't.
Like sheep, they get mindlessly herded back and forth between partisan stables at the herder's whim. Tired of being dragged about, the more strong-willed sheep decide to stay in a pen of its choosing, even when it's burning down. Meanwhile, the cynical sheep rejects all herding and stands on its own pasture, directionless, left behind by the herd and eventually starves to death.
A democracy like ours deserves better than the present picture.
Mordred · 820 weeks ago
I didn't hear the radio talk show you were referring to. I consider myself and open-minded conservative and I have to admit that some of these conservative radio talk show hosts are little more than rabble-rousers, employed more for their ability to entertain than for their critical thinking skills. (I especially love it when they personally endorse sponsors' products on the air in 3-minute infomercials.)
Radio stations sink or swim by advertising revenues, which are tied to ratings. The inflammatory comments of these talk-show hosts often border on the ludicrous. However it could be argued that the points of view of some liberals are scary as well, and they have their share of militant spokespersons (many not on the radio) whose comments sometimes border on lunacy--whose definition of democracy bears a striking resemblance to anarchy. While I don't agree with criticism levied against Obama, conservatives have raised some interesting questions about who he is and how he defines allegiance to America.
steve · 820 weeks ago
Honestly, I'm not at all sure what you're talking about. I've heard Obama called a Muslim. I've heard people accuse him of not being a citizen. I've heard it said that he attended a radical "madrassa". I've heard a lot of innuendo too, like in the above passage. None of it has amounted to anything, and it's a long shot that it will at this point.
It's one thing to talk about policy disagreements, it's another thing to be raising questions of this nature, especially when they so clearly have no basis in reality. I think that Obama defines allegience to America in terms of a great and old tradition of civic nationalism. I believe what he represents is the idea that America is not defined by any one religion, or ethnic group, or set of beliefs, but that it is defined by the idea that different people can come together in a civilized public sphere, engage in rational discourse and come together to make moral decisions about the common good. Civic nationalism, rather than ethnic nationalism (the veneration of "our" religion, and "our" culture" and "our" way of life as being attacked by Jews/Commies/Queers/Muslims/terrorists/Hispanics), is what our country needs more of.
milesian 35p · 820 weeks ago
I just want to get on with governing the country.
With the notion of "civic nationalism," Steve pretty much hits Obama's lofty aspirations dead on. Yet I have little faith that people can even understand its significance. After all, Obama courageously sat in with Jay Leno in an attempt to reach average Americans in a venue suitable to their taste. In response, he was mostly met with ridicule and dismissive smirks.
I, for one, listened to what the president had to say, how he said it, and WHY.
Beyond encouraging a "civilized public sphere," I believe Obama has also laid out how he thinks decisions should be made. This is a critical part of the promised "change" in Washington, namely that of post-partisan politics.
Because the mainstream uses the term mindlessly and often in ignorant slander, I have attempted a few expositions on Obama's vague notion of post-partisanship, as can be found in this blog here and here, however incomplete. And here, I also applied the tenets of post-partisanship to his appearance on Jay Leno.
In this, perhaps Obama hopes on in vain, but his ideas will carry on in spite of reality. If Americans cannot find value in them, then others may one day to their great advantage.
milesian 35p · 820 weeks ago
In politics, the "best interests of the US" are always in the eye of the beholder. It is difficult, if not impossible for anyone to formulate a "real solution" for anything, as only history can tell.
In the present, the only thing to do is try different options through the painful process of elimination, all the while balancing pragmatism with conviction.
I do not take issue with conservative values, but that is all Republicans care to display these days. Nothing else seems to factor into their policy calculations, namely sensible reflection or pragmatism with regard to war-making.
That worries me, as it should more people.
I am not opposed to fighting. Liberals who think war is pointless are kidding themselves. In fact many of them don't know what they're talking about either. That caller on the Mark Levin show was very well-rehearsed with Obama's talking points, yet that got him nowhere because he obviously did not think it through.
That drove me NUTS. NUTSSSSSSSSSSS
Anyway, I highly recommend the links throughout my post detailing the neoconservatives and their ilk, along with this superb primer. The coalitions they build are powerful and influential, including the phantom "Israel lobby." They are the wellspring of right-wing rhetoric regarding our entire Middle East enterprise, providing the intellectual basis for the Bush Doctrine and our immense military postures.
Again, I only ask that we pick reasonable fights, those which stand a chance beyond fighting. At present, we fight an endless army of hardened militants, a war that cannot be won by force alone. I think this fact should be self-evident by now. Osama bin Laden knew this damn well from the very beginning, which is precisely the reason he lured us over there.
Finally, I do not share your confidence in discrediting conservative talk radio. Nor do I think their ability to think critically is lacking, and yet their grasp of reality is questionable. The Democrats weren't kidding that Rush Limbaugh has become the de facto leader of the GOP.. I hear both, loud and clear, and it's true.
Maybe the influence of talk radio is a dirty little secret among peers, but in society, it's there and very, very palpable in the mainstream.