David Frum proposes that Iran turn its resources away from nuclear pursuits and instead use their money for: Giving $$$ to new mothers. $$$ for raising teacher salaries. $$$ for public transport. David, you don't need to work toward a "New Majority". You already embrace the ideas(atleast for other countries) that many of us liberals feel can improve our lives here at home. And now we are the majority. David, Come Home.

The Baha'is are the second largest religious minority in Iran, yet they are terrorized and denied basic human rights. Lets hope that current events pushes Iran in a more tolerant direction.

"Will Iran be Obama’s fall of the Berlin Wall?" Best line in weeks. Some Iranians are using internet relays along the Iraq border to communicate free ideas......six years ago thier neighbors could have faced harsh punishment, even death, for attempting to use a cell phone. One president does everything he can to bring democracy to Iraq, one cautiously reflects on 'robust debate' and takes bows for swatting flies. Awesome.

Quoting ImprecisePsychic: David Frum proposes that Iran turn its resources away from nuclear pursuits and instead use their money for:

Giving $$$ to new mothers. $$$ for raising teacher salaries. $$$ for public transport.

David, you don't need to work toward a "New Majority". You already embrace the ideas(atleast for other countries) that many of us liberals feel can improve our lives here at home. And now we are the majority. David, Come Home.

This is a nicer way to put it than I was thinking. I wanted to jump in at that same point and ask David, "What would be the Republican reaction -- even the 'New Majority' one -- to a proposal from President Obama that the US cut its spending on nuclear weapons programs '50, 60, even 70%'." Or, closer to the bone: "What would be your reaction, David, to President Obama proposing a cut of this magnitude in US military aid to Israel?" I think that David and a lot of other people never consider that people on the other side of the fence feel just as concerned (or paranoid, if you like) about their own national security. I think, as well, that he fails to consider that developing a nuclear capability is a source of

Quoting harkin: One president does everything he can to bring democracy to Iraq, ...

And look how well that worked out!

... one cautiously reflects on 'robust debate' and takes bows for swatting flies.

Please point to any source that shows Obama taking a bow, even a metaphorical one, for swatting that fly, apart from the five seconds of banter right after it happened. I swear, harkin, you're being as ridiculous as PETA on this one.

Quoting bjkeefe:

Quoting harkin: ...One president does everything he can to bring democracy to Iraq, ...

And look how well that worked out!...

Not to put to fine a point on the matter, as I know you are so fully vested in proclaiming Iraq a failure, that you can hardly bear to think much let acknowledge that there is a budding democracy in Iraq. I would not argue that it is a perfect place or that there is a complete absence of violence but by what statistics and measures do you use to justify your your Iraq is a failure rhetoric?

Quoting piscivorous: Not to put to fine a point on the matter, as I know you are so fully vested in proclaiming Iraq a failure, that you can hardly bear to think much let acknowledge that there is a budding democracy in Iraq. I would not argue that it is a perfect place or that there is a complete absence of violence but by what statistics and measures do you use to justify your your Iraq is a failure rhetoric?

Nice of you to grant yourself a generous hedge while characterizing my position as so absolute. I am sure this would be a debate that you would love to have, especially proceeding from your premises quoted above, but I think it would be a complete waste of time. I am, however, moderately happy to see that you no longer proclaim Iraq to be an unqualified victory and complete vindication for Bush's decision to invade.

Frum. It's like listening to the three-time loser in front of you in line at the convenience store brag about everything he's going to do with his scratch ticket winnings. Then he asks you for money to buy the ticket.

Actually I still hold to that claim. There are many democracies in the world that fit the description of Iraq, that I just used. But I am glad to see that you can provide no measure or statistics to justify your intransigence, just old and tired rhetoric.

how about millions of displaced refugees, hundreds of thousands dead, the loss of a huge amount of resources, the oppportunity costs reflected in our downward spiral in afghanistan, the loss of face from the fact that our president was a duplicitous, lying tool. but i'm sure you have your own metrics - like, "we killed one really bad guy"! so it was a "success".

Quoting piscivorous: Not to put to fine a point on the matter, as I know you are so fully vested in proclaiming Iraq a failure, that you can hardly bear to think much let acknowledge that there is a budding democracy in Iraq. I would not argue that it is a perfect place or that there is a complete absence of violence but by what statistics and measures do you use to justify your your Iraq is a failure rhetoric?

I never understood why Liberals feel the need to make the Iraq situation out worse then it is in reality. I see no contridiction in making the following two statements: A)The Iraq war will on balance be a good thing for the region and later the world. B)The Bush,Cheyney, Rumsfeild Triumverate was a horrible adminstration. Just because Iraq is improving (after years of complete chaos) and is now arguably better off then it was pre invasion, it in no way negates the total lack of foresight and long term planning by the above that made a bad situation much worse then it had to be. I feel much of

Quoting harkin: [i]
Some Iranians are using internet relays along the Iraq border to communicate free ideas......six years ago thier neighbors could have faced harsh punishment, even death, for attempting to use a cell phone.

I'm texting this message from a unisex hamam in Fallujah. Think I have a good shot at turning on an Iraqi chick by reciting passages from The Fountainhead. Send more bombs! Quick!

Quoting piscivorous: Actually I still hold to that claim. There are many democracies in the world that fit the description of Iraq, that I just used. But I am glad to see that you can provide no measure or statistics to justify your intransigence, just old and tired rhetoric.

You can try to bait me all you want, pisc, but I'm not even going to nibble. It's not that "I can't;" it's that I don't want to. You and I have done this dance to death. I already know how rigid you are on this topic, and I know how much time you've spent over the past few years reading sources and amassing factoids that do nothing but confirm what you would like to believe about George and Dick's excellent adventure. So, as far as giving you an excuse to do a core dump of your "research" goes, I'd just as soon try to disabuse the beliefs of a Moon Hoaxer or a 9/11 Truther. By the way, isn't the fact that you so frequently use "rhetoric" as a pejorative more than a little self-referential?

Quoting popcorn_karate: how about millions of displaced refugees, hundreds of thousands dead, the loss of a huge amount of resources, the oppportunity costs reflected in our downward spiral in afghanistan, the loss of face from the fact that our president was a duplicitous, lying tool.

If those are the metrics you use to classify Iraq as a failure was the the American Revolution or the American Civil war then failures by these metrics? I also find it quite telling that the current occupant has adopted 90-95% of the policies, concerning Iraq and the war on terror, ops I forgot its now Overseas Contingency Operations, that were implemented by his predecessor the "duplicitous, lying tool

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I never understood why Liberals feel the need to make the Iraq situation out worse then it is in reality.

I never understand why someone who wants to come off as reasonable feels it's useful to begin by making sweeping statements about "Liberals." (a) Not all liberals believe Iraq is/was bad, (b) very far from all liberals exaggerate how bad the situations is, and (c) there are non-liberals who think invading Iraq was a mistake and continues to be a big problem.

I see no contridiction in making the following two statements:

A)The Iraq war will on balance be a good thing for the region and later the world.

B)The Bush,Cheyney, Rumsfeild Triumverate was a horrible adminstration.

You say (A) that as though we can be certain about it, and we cannot. You also appear to be considering the goodness only from the perspective of the US.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I never understood why Liberals feel the need to make the Iraq situation out worse then it is in reality.

I see no contridiction in making the following two statements:

A)The Iraq war will on balance be a good thing for the region and later the world.

B)The Bush,Cheyney, Rumsfeild Triumverate was a horrible adminstration.

I see no contradiction in the statements. I believe that one can honestly believe both views. My problem is with the old and tired meme of Iraq is a failure.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Just because Iraq is improving (after years of complete chaos) and is now arguably better off then it was pre invasion, it in no way negates the total lack of foresight and long term planning by the above that made a bad situation much worse then it had to be.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I feel much of the last administration's policies that were about foreign policy were created to work in the world of bad Vietnam movies and 24.

At the start of President Bush's first term he explictly disowned the position of intervening in failed states and the philosophy of state building. It was aftr

If you don't regard the Iraq war as a mistake, what is there to stop a US Iran war?

Nothing.

[quote=bjkeefe;117087]I never understand why someone who wants to come off as reasonable feels it's useful to begin by making sweeping statements about "Liberals."
[...]
[quote] Placing qualifiers in front of everthing I say would get tedious rather fast.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Placing qualifiers in front of everthing I say would get tedious rather fast.

There was no need for qualifiers. What's needed is a change of attitude. If you'd break out of the mindset your opening sentence displayed, you'd realize that you could have instead begun by saying something like: I never understood why some people feel the need to make the Iraq situation out worse then it is in reality.

Wasn't that long ago Frum & co. were talking about knocking off Iran, Syria, etc.

Quoting bjkeefe: I never understand why someone who wants to come off as reasonable feels it's useful to begin by making sweeping statements about "Liberals." (a) Not all liberals believe Iraq is/was bad, (b) very far from all liberals exaggerate how bad the situations is, and (c) there are non-liberals who think invading Iraq was a mistake and continues to be a big problem.

Absolutely. Iraq is much worse off than I think it is because I couldn't sleep at night if I faced up to the reality of it. As bad as Saddam was he wasn't as bad a thousand little Saddams.

Quoting bjkeefe: There was no need for qualifiers. What's needed is a change of attitude.

If you'd break out of the mindset your opening sentence displayed, you'd realize that you could have instead begun by saying something like:

I never understood why some people feel the need to make the Iraq situation out worse then it is in reality.

That would not be conveying the information that I do feel more Liberals meet that criteria then Conservatives though.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: That would not be conveying the information that I do feel more Liberals meet that criteria then Conservatives though.

Well, there is no surprise there, so as for conveying information, it's nearly null. As I understood your original post, you wanted to make a point about the next two statements conceivably being simultaneously true. I don't see what your introductory sentence added to that, and as you have doubtless gathered from my response, it in fact detracted from that aim. But, maybe your aim was really just to beat some hypothetical group of people over the head. In which case, fine, whatever.

Quoting piscivorous: ...was the the American Revolution or the American Civil war...

Pathetic.

Quoting piscivorous: the current occupant has adopted 90-95% of the policies, concerning Iraq and the war on terror

Cool spreadsheet and graph.

Quoting Ray: Frum.

It's like listening to the three-time loser in front of you in line at the convenience store brag about everything he's going to do with his scratch ticket winnings.

Then he asks you for money to buy the ticket.

Wow.

AHCHMAH - DEENA - JHOD

Just break his name down into all FIVE syllables. Two, two and one.
It's not that hard to pronounce. Why do so many pundits and politicians botch his name? AHCHMAH - DEENA - JHAHD

I don't have much to say on the topic of the Iranian election itself. I don't know enough about the country to comment intelligently. I guess I agree with Professor Leverett that little will change in terms of Iran's behavior, particularly with respect to foreign policy, no matter who is declared the winner. It appears to me the Iranian president has little foreign policy influence and is more or less a figurehead. I'd be grateful for anyone who understands Iranian politics and government better to say whether that is true. But what I don't understand is why Obama is to be applauded if he follows Leverett's advice--i.e., do absolutely nothing on behalf of those agitating for greater freedom in the hope that this will somehow make the leadership more amenable to doing some strategic deal. Unless I'm misinterpreting him, Leverrett is arguing the U.S. must, in fact, turn its back on those hoping for a more open Iran and, in effect, side with the oppressors--those who, according to the media demonology, are "on the right" and "conservative." I know Obama's defenders will say it beats Bush's "clumsy meddling" in things he didn't understand (by advocating democracy!), but

Quoting rfrobison: I don't have much to say on the topic of the Iranian election itself. I don't know enough about the country to comment intelligently. I guess I agree with Professor Leverett that little will change in terms of Iran's behavior, particularly with respect to foreign policy, no matter who is declared the winner. It appears to me the Iranian president has little foreign policy influence and is more or less a figurehead. I'd be grateful for who understands Iranian politics and government better to say whether that is true.

But what I don't understand is why Obama is to be applauded if he follows Leverett's advice--i.e., do absolutely nothing on behalf of those agitating for greater freedom in the hope that this will somehow make the leadership more amenable to doing some strategic deal. Unless I'm misinterpreting him, Leverrett is arguing the U.S. must, in fact, turn its backs on those hoping for a more open Iran and, in effect, side with the oppressors--those who, according to the media demonology, are "on the right," and "conservative."

I know Obama's defenders will say it beats Bush's "clumsy meddling" in things he didn't understand (by advocating democracy!), but the

Quoting AemJeff: If you want to nurture a movement such as this from the perspective of the American Government, what could you possibly do that would be more effective than not providing the seeds of an anti-American backlash?

If I understand you correctly, the way to "nurture" a democratic movement in Iran is to "not provoke a backlash." Well, to paraphrase Hippocrates, the first rule of medicine may be "do no harm," but that isn't the only rule. And a backlash by whom? The government has the lash in its hand and it isn't afraid to use it. Are the demonstrators going to suddenly demonstrate in favor of having their heads beaten in because Obama speaks in their support? Iranians may be different, but not that different, surely.

This whole line of argument strikes me as disingenuous, intended to take easy shots at the administration while they try to negotiate a minefield.

Yeah, it's an "easy shot," I suppose. Bush was the recipient of a few of those, too. But leave that aside. And sure, there are no easy answers. For my money things in Iran, for better or worse, are pretty much out of our hands--which is why, in my view, we

Quoting rfrobison: If I understand you correctly, the way to "nurture" a democratic movement in Iran is to "not provoke a backlash." Well, to paraphrase Hippocrates, the first rule of medicine may be "do no harm," but that isn't the only rule. And a backlash by whom? The government has the lash in its hand and it isn't afraid to use it. Are the demonstrators going to suddenly demonstrate in favor of having their heads beaten in because Obama speaks in their support? Iranians may be different, but not that different, surely.

Yeah, it's an "easy shot," I suppose. Bush was the recipient of a few of those, too. But leave that aside. And sure, there are no easy answers. For my money things in Iran, for better or worse, are pretty much out of our hands--which is why, in my view, we ought to take the relatively costless step of standing up for the right of self-determination. Calmly, in a nonbelligerent way, but also self-assuredly. I simply don't see the Iranians sitting across the negotiation table in Geneva saying, "Well, we were going to give up our nukes and recognize Israel, but since you supported Moussavi, now we're not gonna."

Maybe they're doing plenty and we just haven't

Quoting AemJeff: This whole line of argument strikes me as disingenuous, intended to take easy shots at the administration while they try to negotiate a minefield.

I agree with this, as well as the view that there is nothing the mullahs in Iran would like more than to tie the opposition to the US. To the latter, recall that this is not brand new thinking -- I remember seeing quite a few stories back during the Bush years of expatriate Iranians doing their level best to avoid connection with the administration, including declining funding. Memories of the US-sponsored overthrow of the democratically-elected prime minister Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953, and the ensuing propping up of the Shah are still vivid, as I understand it, not to mention the obvious connection to Israel. As to realpolitik -- if you would like to characterize Obama's thinking this way -- the considerations that have to remain paramount are (1) how likely is it that the US can actually affect the situation the protesters' benefit? and (2) if a US-backed effort along these lines fails, as seems probable, what are the consequences of that once the protests end? Will we be that

Quoting AemJeff: To be clear, what I'm saying is that any official assertion of support from our government is extremely unlikely to have a desirable effect. Whatever we say in support of any faction will become useful as a rhetorical club to be swung right back at that faction. This seems like an obvious fact of life in that part of the world. If an action is unlikely to be helpful, how can it also be obviously the right thing to do?

I have to say that the (paraphrasing) "Bush was the target of plenty of disingenuousness" line of argument really doesn't seem to carry a lot of water here. As I recall, Bush was the target of very little sniping and had plenty of support, except from the fringes, for more than a year into a crisis. The potshots here are not coming from the fringes, it's a coordinated effort involving most of Obama's political adversaries initiated almost immediately after the inception of what could prove to be a huge crisis.

What I think you're ignoring in the hypotheticals you pose is that Iranian instability is a real concern

Quoting rfrobison: Hmm, well, since I've already conceded the partisan aspects of the criticism, I don't suppose there's much to add on that score. But it seems fair at least to raise the possibility that doing nothing could be just as bad. The argument that we should "see no evil, speak no evil" in this case could have been applied much more convincingly during the Cold War--after all, the Soviets had nukes pointed at us--yet somehow presidents and congressmen on both sides of the aisle weren't shy about criticizing human rights violations in the Soviet Union, and some aren't in the case of China and Burma today. I'm not sure why Iran merits an exception.

The concern about instability is valid up to a point, and personally I'm all for circumspection, but, taken to an extreme, the position presupposes that stasis is always preferable to uncertainty. Eastern Europe in the run-up to the fall of communism offers a counterexample. Should we not have, say, lent our rhetorical support to Solidarity in Poland in the '80s for fear it would lead to instability (which it may have, at the margin) or cause the government to

Quoting AemJeff: There are profound difference between Soviet dominated Eastern Europe and Iran. Default public opinion in Poland has never resembled the vehement anti-Americanism common in the Middle East. There's no historical equivalent to the installation of the Shah in Poland. We share a European cultural heritage with the people of Poland. We were not seen the enemies of the Polish people, by stretch. I don't understand why you think there's a generic comparison to be made here. It's extremely easy to argue to an Iranian audience that support from the US is a disqualifying attribute of any poltical movement. Without strong public support, this movement crumbles. It's fragile.

I really don't believe that a primary consideration for the Administration is to publicly distance their current policy from that of the prior Administration. I'm sure they have some sensitivity to that, but even considering their narrow interest - successfully negotiating the complexities presented by this crisis is far more likely to be of political benefit to them than any simple-minded rhetorical posturing of that kind. Even George Bush got the benefit of the doubt in 2001 and 2002. Assuming at the outset

What about the opportunity costs of Saddam Hussein still being in power? Iraq's future is hella brighter thanks to the U.S. invasion and occupation.

I think this discussion begs the most important question. I tend to agree with David Frum for the most part. But the bigger question is: "Are the interests of the rest of HUMANITY advanced by regime change in Iran?" David danced along the edge of this by presuming that the interests of the US are the same as the interests of the world. This is a mistake in logic.
Lets face, it the US has made some rather huge mistakes in the past few decades that really put itself at odds with the interests of humanity. The interests of humanity are far more important than the parochial interests of the US. They are far more compelling to Iran, that is for sure.
If for examplem a new Iran fore-swears nuclear weapons, it would be far more important to the world including the US--if only from the perspective of relevance. Lets face it, the US nuclear capability dwarfs Iran's ambitions and N. Korea's combined by far. Any suggestion by either country to start an N-war with the US would be ridiculous. What is more concerning from the global point of view is that some extreme, ideological

Revolutions don't always have tidy story book endings. The collapse of the Soviet Union was an anamoly. A civil wars occured in Russia after the October Revolution in 1917, and in the newly independent Republic of Ireland in the 1920's. France descended into chaos shortly after the 1789 Revolution. First I want to say that the bravery of the protesters is truly commendable, regardless of the outcome. I do have a bone of contention however. Every one says there are only two possible outcomes: either the regime wins or the reformers win. What about of the third and messier outcome: protracted internal civil strife and perhaps even civil war? What is so scary about all this is no one really knows just exactly how many people actually did vote for Ahmedinejad. I don't seriously believe he won 63% of the vote, few people still do, although it is within the realm of possibility. Nor am I certain whether the election was stolen or the regime merely padding his totals to avoid the embarressment of a runoff. Which candidate actually won? Did either Mousavi or Ahmedinejad get more than 50% of the vote to avoid a runoff? We

President Obama's statement this afternoon on Iran:

The 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.

I'm not sure we're going to get much closer on this. I'll leave it with Peggy Noonan's words.

i listened only to the podcast. who was making all that banging noise in the background?

Yeah, I read Ms. Noonan's (she's kinda old-fashioned, maybe she'd prefer "Mrs."--is she married?) piece earlier today. Dunno, she's kinda getting wiggy in her dotage. Pretty much on the Obama bandwagon from what I can tell, albeit that she can't stop treating Reagan as if he were some dearly departed saint who could do no wrong. I guess there's not a lot to take issue with on the substance of her argument: Americans prefer freedom to tyranny, and U.S. politicians should avoid cheap grandstanding. Yep, and alcoholics should avoid the open bottle of perfectly aged scotch, crystal tumblers, and glinting ice cubes I've got right here in front of me. I do see, however, that Obama has condemned the use of violence by the Iranian government against the protesters. Better late than never.

Quoting rfrobison:
I do see, however, that Obama has condemned the use of violence by the Iranian government against the protesters. Better late than never.

From June 15th:

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Obviously all of us have been watching the news from Iran. And I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football -- or discussions with the United States.

Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process -- free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent -- all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they're, rightfully, troubled.

My understanding is, is that the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place. We weren’t on the ground, we did not have observers there, we did not

Quoting rfrobison: Yeah,

I read Ms. Noonan's (she's kinda old-fashioned, maybe she'd prefer "Mrs."--is she married?) piece earlier today. Dunno, she's kinda getting wiggy in her dotage. Pretty much on the Obama bandwagon from what I can tell ...

Add another to the Not A Real Conservative list! (Reminded by Benen's latest.)

Quoting bjkeefe: Add another to the Not A Real Conservative list!

(Reminded by Benen's latest.)

This, from Benen's post, bears emphasis:

You'll notice that President Obama's strategy has not only been endorsed by Democratic lawmakers, but also prominent Republicans who are in office (Dick Lugar), served in Republican administrations (Henry Kissinger, Gary Sick, and Nick Burns), or are prominent Republican voices in the media (George Will, Peggy Noonan, and Pat Buchanan).

The president's leading detractors, meanwhile, primarily come from a motley and discredited crew who cling to neoconservatism -- McCain, Graham, Kristol, Krauthammer, Wolfowitz.

When we see reports indicating that "Republicans" are outraged by the president's tack on Iran, let's not forget it's mostly just a certain part of the party.

FLYNT EVERETT IS SO BORING!!!! He alone makes this video unberable. listening to him is like watch wallpaper peel. And he dominates this conversation. THIS IS BY FAR THE WORST BLOGGINGHEADS I HAVE EVER SEEN.

You're puttin' words in me mouth, BJ. You will agree that M(r?)s. Noonan has been awfully glowing in her praise of Obama, won't you? Nothing wrong with that, necessarily, just kinda odd given that Obama's probably the most liberal Democratic president in a generation or more. And Jeff was citing her, I presume, to say, in effect: "See, even righties like Peggy Noonan think Obama is handling this correctly." And again, maybe he is. To reiterate: I don't presume to know what a "real conservative" is, or whether Noonan fits the bill. It doesn't really matter to me. I do see, however, that New York Times columnist Roger Cohen (hardly a Republican shill) agrees with me. From his June 19 "City of Whispers" column: "The president has been right to tread carefully, given poisonous American-Iranian history, but has erred on the side of caution. He sounds like a man rehearsing prepared lines rather than the leader of the free world. A stronger condemnation of the violence and repression is needed, despite Khamenei’s warnings. Obama should also rectify his erroneous equating, from the U.S. national security perspective, of Ahmadinejad and Moussavi." Since Cohen is a confirmed liberal and in this instance I agree with his assessment, maybe I'm not a "real conservative" either. Oh, well. Don't think I'll lose much

Noonan is a fruitcake. Google "noonan magic dolphins" for a laugh.

Jeff: As much respect as I have for some of the people you cite in your post (Kissinger, Will, Lugar), I don't feel under any compulsion to toe their line in this instance. Buchanan's a total dork and any opinion of his makes me want to run the other way. I'd (almost) sooner embrace Leninism than agree with him. The others I'm only vaguely aware of, if at all. Furthermore, although I'm pretty skeptical of what has come to be called "neoconservatism" as the media has caricatured it: i.e., we should start wars as a form of political social work--in order to reshape the world in the U.S. image--that doesn't mean neoconservatives are wrong in every instance. Even the dunces in class occasionally get the right answer. Nor do I find the whole neocon vs. realist prism that this debate is being viewed through particularly useful. I fail to see what is so "neocon" about speaking out forcefully for human rights. If that's true, then Jimmy Carter is a neocon. These labels are just political pejoratives that people hang round each others' necks. They mean little, if anything, other than: "You're an idiot."

Quoting dkschwartz: FLYNT EVERETT IS SO BORING!!!!

He alone makes this video unberable. listening to him is like watch wallpaper peel. And he dominates this conversation.

THIS IS BY FAR THE WORST BLOGGINGHEADS I HAVE EVER SEEN.

Could not disagree more. Flynt: If by some change you read this thread, just know that dkschwartz is held in the lowest repute by pretty much everyone else on the site.

Quoting rfrobison: You're puttin' words in me mouth, BJ. You will agree that M(r?)s. Noonan has been awfully glowing in her praise of Obama, won't you?

No, I would not agree with that. I am aware that she doesn't hate on him non-stop the way some other conservative columnists do, and has (gasp) said some positive things about him. As to whether I put words in your mouth or not, I think your eagerness to push her out of your tent pretty much speaks to exactly what I meant in my previous post.

Nothing wrong with that, necessarily, just kinda odd given that Obama's probably the most liberal Democratic president in a generation or more.

What's a generation? Twenty years? Twenty-five? Hmmm ... pretty long list of Democratic presidents to compare with over that time span. Let's count ... OMG! Nearly two! Okay, I'll grant that Obama may be marginally more liberal than Clinton, although I think the jury is still out on that one. It remains to be seen what he does apart from dealing with the economy in crisis mode. For myself, I have always thought Obama was a moderate on most scores -- certainly nowhere near as liberal as I'd like him to be, and downright annoyingly

Quoting bjkeefe: No, I would not agree with that. I am aware that she doesn't hate on him non-stop the way some other conservative columnists do, and has (gasp) said some positive things about him.

Well here's another shocker for you: I think Obama may turn out to be a fine president. He certainly has the intellect and the temperament. He's got scads of charisma (never a bad thing for a president), and has shown flashes of willingness to think outside ideological boxes. So, we'll see. I think his instincts are typically statist. And he seems to have a strong suspicion of if not a a visceral dislike for markets and the profit motive (e.g., denouncing GM bondholders as "speculators"; trashing free trade during the campaign, etc.). I general, I doubt I'll like much of what he does over the next four or eight years, but I suspect he'll be effective and successful on his own terms.

As to whether I put words in your mouth or not, I think your eagerness to push [Noonan] out of your tent pretty much speaks to exactly what I meant in my previous post.

I can only repeat that I'm not trying to push anybody out of any tent. I don't own

Quoting rfrobison: Jeff:

As much respect as I have for some of the people you cite in your post (Kissinger, Will, Lugar), I don't feel under any compulsion to toe their line in this instance. Buchanan's a total dork and any opinion of his makes me want to run the other way. I'd (almost) sooner embrace Leninism than agree with him. The others I'm only vaguely aware of, if at all.

Furthermore, although I'm pretty skeptical of what has come to be called "neoconservatism" as the media has caricatured it: i.e., we should start wars as a form of political social work--in order to reshape the world in the U.S. image--that doesn't mean neoconservatives are wrong in every instance. Even the dunces in class occasionally get the right answer.

Nor do I find the whole neocon vs. realist prism that this debate is being viewed through particularly useful. I fail to see what is so "neocon" about speaking out forcefully for human rights. If that's true, then Jimmy Carter is a neocon. These labels are just political pejoratives that people hang round each others' necks. They mean little, if anything, other than: "You're an idiot."

I think the takeaway here is simply that I don't think that

Quoting AemJeff: I think the takeaway here is simply that I don't think that a simple partisan analysis is a useful prism through which to view this controversy. Forget Buchanan. His foreign policy ideas are based on notions alien to mos of us, and he's predictably where he is regardless of the logic most of us would want to apply to the situation. People like Lugar, however, should get your attention. But the point here isn't that this group of conservatives believes something, therefore so should you. It is, as I said, that the divide here doesn't fall along the pattern that you seem to have been assuming.

The problem with neocons is that they've discredited themselves and their movement. Regardless of whether they have anything of value to offer, they seem to have, through venality and disingenuousness (see Hanson, Victor Davis, e.g.) made it impossible for most people to take them seriously. Their place in the public debate is one with little standing, at among the majority of people who aren't (or aren't any more) fellow travelers.

If I'm following your argument correctly, then I guess I agree (partially). Sure, there's no neat and clean division along partisan lines on this

Quoting rfrobison: If I'm following your argument correctly, then I guess I agree (partially). Sure, there's no neat and clean division along partisan lines on this very difficult problem. That's good. It means people are trying, as much as U.S. politicians and their various partisans ever try, to be thoughtful, and maybe even expressing sincerely held views.

I can also understand the administration's rationale for wanting to keep the response low-key, even though I'd say there are ways to calibrate our expressions of disapproval so that no reasonable person could plausibly claim that the U.S. is fomenting unrest or "making the situation worse." The bloodshed is horrific already. The regime's actions have gone beyond the point where it can plausibly pin the blame on outsiders, to all but the most fanatical of its supporters, even inside the country.

The Iranian authorities are blaming and will blame Americans, Zionists, and sundry other external foes for their bloodletting regardless. I doubt that many Iranians will buy that old line this time.

And given the images we've seen so far, it will be harder and harder for the Obama administration to limit itself to mild expressions of dismay. What's happening is outrageous

Quoting AemJeff: The problem with neocons is that they've discredited themselves and their movement. Regardless of whether they have anything of value to offer, they seem to have, through venality and disingenuousness (*) (not to mention stupendously awful foreign policy blunders they've unapologetically championed) made it impossible for most people to take them seriously. Their place in the public debate is one with little standing, at least at present, among the majority of people who aren't (or aren't any more) fellow travelers.

* see Hanson, Victor Davis, e.g.

And see also Roy Edroso's wrap-up of rightbloggers reacting to Obama's handling of the Iran situation.

Clay: If my answers seem incoherent it's probably because I'm not sure what the administration should do. I suspect that at a bare minimum they'll have to put any talk of negotiating with Tehran on hold for now. It's highly unseemly, in my view, to continually reaffirm our willingness to talk to a government that is busy gunning its own citizens down in the street. You remember how Bush the Elder got excoriated for sending Scowcroft to talk to Beijing something like six months or a year after Tiananmen? In this case the bodies are still warm and you've got senior politicians (like Richard Lugar, whom I just claimed as my own!), in effect, saying: "Nothing to see, here. Move along, move along." I would say Obama should, for now, do what he has been doing: i.e., speak out in favor of people's rights to peaceful, free expression. I'd like to see a little less "Cool Hand Luke" and a bit more "I'm mad as hell about this." Others will claim that's bad strategy, but again, the longer this goes on the more important that will come to seem. As for the glib part, well, I was writing kinda late last night

One thing I think the administration will have to do unless there is a rapid improvement in the situation is to push for a U.N. resolution condemning the violence. Of course it would just be symbolic and the Russians and Chinese would block it, but it would put us on record as officially disapproving of what Tehran is doing. Again, some may say that harms our chances of doing a deal with them later, but if recent events are anything to go on, they appear to have other priorities.

Dealing with them now is just about an impossibility. Ahamdi and Khamaeni are no longer kosher with liberals. Obama will get serious flack if he deals with them. Matt Yglesias said as much this week I think. http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...kdown-iran.php

Very impressed by Flynt Leverett. I would surely like to see him more often on bhtv. Just not sure if he is willing to wander off his area of expertise and talk about things he knows nothing about, the way frequent diavlogers do.