Jump to content

Is Obama Ignorant, Naive or Both?


SteveAJones

Recommended Posts

Simply contrast this article against the one which follows...

Obama Says Iran's "Robust' Election Debate Hopeful Sign for US-Iran Engagement

By David Gollust

State Department

12 June 2009

In comments to reporters at the White House, President Obama said he was excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran, only days after he renewed his overture for dialogue with that country in his June 4 policy address in Cairo.

"Obviously after the speech that I made in Cairo, we tried to send a clear message that we think there's the possibility of change," he said. "And you know ultimately the election is for the Iranians to decide. But just as has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well is that you're seeing people looking at new possibilities."

Mr. Obama said that whoever wins the election, the fact that there's been a vigorous debate will hopefully enhance the United States ability to engage Iranians "in new ways."

Iran vote features heavy turnout, bit of violence

By ANNA JOHNSON and BRIAN MURPHY • Associated Press • June 12, 2009

TEHRAN, Iran — — A campaign organizer for the main election challenger to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says about a dozen of the president's supporters attacked one of the opponent's campaign offices in Tehran with tear gas.

Saeed Shariati, head of Mousavi's youth cyber campaign, said Ahmadinejad supporters attacked his office in north Tehran with tear gas. He said police quickly dispersed the group. There was not independent confirmation of the attack.

The cyber campaign ran several Web sites and Facebook pages supporting Mousavi. Authorities blocked at least three of them today.

There were no reports of serious problems at the polls. But a top Mousavi aide, Ali Reza Beheshti, said some polling stations in northwestern and southern provinces ran out of ballots, claiming it was a "deliberate attempt by the government to keep people from voting."

In a sign of the bitterness from the campaign, the Interior Ministry — which oversees voting — said all rallies or political gatherings would be banned until after results are announced, which are expected Saturday.

The highly charged atmosphere brought blistering recriminations against Ahmadinejad — whom Mousavi said was moving Iran to a "dictatorship" — and a stunning warning from the ruling establishment. The political chief of the powerful Revolutionary Guard warned Wednesday it would crush any "revolution" against the Islamic system by Mousavi's "green movement" — the signature color of his campaign.

The outcome will not sharply alter Iran's main policies or sway high-level decisions, such as possible talks with Washington. Those crucial policies are all directly controlled by the ruling clerics headed by the unelected Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

In a possible complication for Mousavi's backers, Iran's mobile phone text messaging system was down. Many Iranians, especially young voters, frequently use text messages to spread election information quickly to friends and family.

"Unfortunately, some of my representatives were blocked from entering polling stations and SMS (text messaging) is also down, which is against the law," Mousavi said after voting, according to his campaign Web site. "We should not be fearful about the free flow of information, and I urge officials to observe the law."

Telecommunication Ministry spokesman Davood Zareian confirmed to the Associated Press that the text message system has been down since late Wednesday.

Iran's elections are considered generally fair, but the country does not allow international monitors. The ruling clerics, however, put their stamp on the elections from the very beginning by deciding who can run. More than 470 people sought to join the presidential race, but only Ahmadinejad and three rivals were cleared.

--------------------------------

So the ruling clerics "cleared" only 3 of more than 470 candidates. What was that again about exploring new possibilities? Get real, dumbass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the ruling clerics "cleared" only 3 of more than 470 candidates. What was that again about exploring new possibilities? Get real, dumbass.

You need to stop watching Glenn Beck.....It's damaging your sense of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Madman Pyjamaman-Dinnerjacket has fixed the election.....More years of oppression for many Iranians...How sad....

He has extended an invitation to fellow Muslim Barack Hussein Obama to engage in a "debate" at the UN in NYC, but he added their "nuclear" ambitions are non-negotiable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has extended an invitation to fellow Muslim Barack Hussein Obama to engage in a "debate" at the UN in NYC, but he added their "nuclear" ambitions are non-negotiable.

Is Steve A Jones a Bonehead, Zionist, or both?

What's your point Steve? Obama is a closet Muslim terrorist? What's your point with Iran? What would Steve A Jones do? I've spent more than a few minutes trying to figure out where the heck your coming from. Every time you post about our boys, you're methodical and linear. Every time you wander off the reservation into the wilderness of politics, you do some irrational fear mongering, highly questionable speculation, tethered to a bunch of bullshit.. What on earth is your point Steve? Spell it out.

Keep in mind, folks like me felt the Bush years as 8 years of HELL. Compare and contrast what we have now with the 8 years of HELL we just experienced, and get back to me about why I should be so scared of your boogey-men. Thus far I'm not feelin you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U.S. officials are casting doubt over the results of Iran's election, in which the government declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the winner Saturday.

U.S. analysts find it "not credible" that challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would have lost the balloting in his hometown or that a third candidate, Mehdi Karoubi, would have received less than 1 percent of the total vote, a senior U.S. officials told FOX News.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameini apparently has released a statement calling the results "final" and hailing the election as a legitimization of the regime and its elections.

Turnout appears to have reached 82 percent, an all-time high. But when asked if the turnout figures should be considered suspect, given the "not credible" counts for Mousavi and Karoubi, the official said the turnout clearly was questionable.

There already are reports of violence outside Mousavi's campaign headquarters and of huge demonstrations for both sides in central Tehran, with Mousavi trying to make his way to the one organized by his supporters. Even if widespread violence occurs, analysts see no prospect that this event would lead to a full-scale attempt at revolution or the toppling of the regime.

The dominant view among Obama administration officials is that the regime will look so bad as a result of whipping up Iranian hopes for democracy and then squelching them that the regime may feel compelled to show some conciliatory response to Obama's gestures of engagement.

foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/13/official-obama-administration-skeptical-irans-election-results

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Steve A Jones a Bonehead, Zionist, or both?

What's your point Steve? Obama is a closet Muslim terrorist? What's your point with Iran? What would Steve A Jones do? I've spent more than a few minutes trying to figure out where the heck your coming from. Every time you post about our boys, you're methodical and linear. Every time you wander off the reservation into the wilderness of politics, you do some irrational fear mongering, highly questionable speculation, tethered to a bunch of bullshit.. What on earth is your point Steve? Spell it out.

Keep in mind, folks like me felt the Bush years as 8 years of HELL. Compare and contrast what we have now with the 8 years of HELL we just experienced, and get back to me about why I should be so scared of your boogey-men. Thus far I'm not feelin you.

If you would, in a concise paragraph or two, please explain to those out of the loop,what we have "now," when compared to the "8 years of HELL." Much thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you would, in a concise paragraph or two, please explain to those out of the loop,what we have "now," when compared to the "8 years of HELL." Much thanks in advance.

Thank you for your question.

Assuming we think his erection was free and fair,

George Bush hell began with Dick Cheney's meddling in Californian and Oregonian energy markets. To this day he has steadfastly refused to identify whom he met with behind closed doors in 2001 to discuss energy policy. We all know it included disgraced cooked book kings Arthur Andersen and Enron figures such as Ken Lay. Do you guys even remember that? I'm now looking for the promo vid he made for AA where he says Arthur Andersen is a cutting edge accounting firm because of going "above and beyond usual practices".. Holy shit. WTF does that mean? Insider trading. Artificial manipulation. Cooked books. Criminal activity..

We had numerous warnings of terrorist hijacking activity in 2001. We decided to act on them by not acting, as we did with Pearl Harbor which we also knew of full and well in advance. One motivation for allowing this was to whip the American public into a feeding frenzy of fear. You remember that fucking idiot that duct taped his windows closed and died of suffocation because he followed the advice of Tom Ridge? Hysteria.

Now, with Pearl Harbor, we had a well defined enemy with well defined boundaries and borders. With this new attack, we have no such thing. We didn't interrogate the Saudi's. We let the family related to the supposed master planner on the first flight allowed post attack. This is because the Bush family has multi-generational business and friendship dealings with the Bin Ladens, Prince Bandir and King Abdullah that have fuck-all to do with our American interest. The set up for the full coup d'etat failed when no Senate Democrats died of Anthrax poisoning in October 2001. If that had gone down the way conspiratorial traitors planned it, we would now be under a state of emergency and our government would be the secret government GW set up in 2001. I mean to state clearly, this anthrax was traced back to the ARMY. This threat to elected government was in addition to the massive electronic voting machine hacking and fraud. I was astonished to find that a company could be contributing money and leadership to a particular party and manufacturing voting machines at the same time.

Onto the "war on terror". What kind of fucked up horseshit is this? War on Terror. Why not a War on Purple? This failed marketing ploy, prolly from the lips of Karl Rove, was meant to make us love big brother, invite him into our homes, telephone calls and email. "If you not with us you're against us". Remember that? Somehow, we were brow beaten and fear mongered into this ridiculous costly aggression in Iraq. Preemptive war without evidence, without provocation, but with a rationale du jour was business as usual for our Republican occupiers. So, these folks will have you now believe that our financial problems are due to 120 days of socialism under Obama. Whatever.

From here I'd like to go into Dick Cheney's two-headed Air Force, bent spears and the like, cause that scares the crap out of me. There is to this day an unaccounted for nuke (5 of 6 accounted for) and a missing nuke fuse (Air Force serviceman had his case canceled last February without explanation). The missing nuke is from an illegal US flyover! On 9-11, Dick Cheney told the Air Force to stand down, as gleaned from the testimony of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y. Whom does the Air Force report to? Not Bush. I don't think Bush liked that, and I think Robert Gates was installed as a check and balance on Cheney. I don't think anything would make the Glenn Beck/Michelle Bachman crowd happier than a nuclear attack on an American city. Except maybe assassinating Obama.

In these 5 months I've been let down by Obama a few times, however he is very clever, forward thinking, and pragmatic. I'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt. That said, I'm not comfortable with his relationship with the Fed Reserve. I think Steve A Jones is way pre-mature in attacking President Obama's handling of the Iranian election. A change in leadership isn't going to affect the nuke issue, which I'm assuming Mr Jones sees as a threat to his Israeli interest. Those are my words, not his, and he hasn't yet spelled out his position.

In summation of 8 hellish years

1)vote rigging

2)energy market manipulation (still felt by customers here in Oregon via PGE)

3)lax defense or outright conspiratorial traitorism

4)fear mongering and dehumanization of so called enemies (always dark skinned)

5)Unilateral preemptive strikes without evidence, without recognition of sovereignty, without declaration of war (how can you declare war on uh.. "terror"?).

6)Insider arms trading

7)Reckless privatization of military functions

8)two-headed Air Force (search term: bent spear)

9)Army Anthrax attack on Senate Democrats.

10) Total Information Awareness spying on Americans program introduced by John Poindexter.

11)Warrant-less wiretapping of Americans, continued under Obama as far as I know.

12)Right wing attack on Federal Court system, installing loyalists high and low, some without merit, experience or both.

13)Ideological appointees to important US health and safety positions.. A wolf for every hen house. I give you Mike Brown of Arabian Horse Assc appointed to head of FEMA. Or every oil man they appointed to safeguard the environment.

14)Privatization attempts on Social Security

15)Invisible ink black op budgets for the Pentagon. Still no trace of the 2.3 Trillion dollars Donald Rumsfeld ANNOUNCED as MISSING on September 10th 2001!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just because I'm stopping here doesn't mean I've addressed every grievance. Friend of Bush = Enemy of Mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your question.

Assuming we think his erection was free and fair,

George Bush hell began with Dick Cheney's meddling in Californian and Oregonian energy markets. To this day he has steadfastly refused to identify whom he met with behind closed doors in 2001 to discuss energy policy. We all know it included disgraced cooked book kings Arthur Andersen and Enron figures such as Ken Lay. Do you guys even remember that? I'm now looking for the promo vid he made for AA where he says Arthur Andersen is a cutting edge accounting firm because of going "above and beyond usual practices".. Holy shit. WTF does that mean? Insider trading. Artificial manipulation. Cooked books. Criminal activity..

We had numerous warnings of terrorist hijacking activity in 2001. We decided to act on them by not acting, as we did with Pearl Harbor which we also knew of full and well in advance. One motivation for allowing this was to whip the American public into a feeding frenzy of fear. You remember that fucking idiot that duct taped his windows closed and died of suffocation because he followed the advice of Tom Ridge? Hysteria.

Now, with Pearl Harbor, we had a well defined enemy with well defined boundaries and borders. With this new attack, we have no such thing. We didn't interrogate the Saudi's. We let the family related to the supposed master planner on the first flight allowed post attack. This is because the Bush family has multi-generational business and friendship dealings with the Bin Ladens, Prince Bandir and King Abdullah that have fuck-all to do with our American interest. The set up for the full coup d'etat failed when no Senate Democrats died of Anthrax poisoning in October 2001. If that had gone down the way conspiratorial traitors planned it, we would now be under a state of emergency and our government would be the secret government GW set up in 2001. I mean to state clearly, this anthrax was traced back to the ARMY. This threat to elected government was in addition to the massive electronic voting machine hacking and fraud. I was astonished to find that a company could be contributing money and leadership to a particular party and manufacturing voting machines at the same time.

Onto the "war on terror". What kind of fucked up horseshit is this? War on Terror. Why not a War on Purple? This failed marketing ploy, prolly from the lips of Karl Rove, was meant to make us love big brother, invite him into our homes, telephone calls and email. "If you not with us you're against us". Remember that? Somehow, we were brow beaten and fear mongered into this ridiculous costly aggression in Iraq. Preemptive war without evidence, without provocation, but with a rationale du jour was business as usual for our Republican occupiers. So, these folks will have you now believe that our financial problems are due to 120 days of socialism under Obama. Whatever.

From here I'd like to go into Dick Cheney's two-headed Air Force, bent spears and the like, cause that scares the crap out of me. There is to this day an unaccounted for nuke (5 of 6 accounted for) and a missing nuke fuse (Air Force serviceman had his case canceled last February without explanation). The missing nuke is from an illegal US flyover! On 9-11, Dick Cheney told the Air Force to stand down, as gleaned from the testimony of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y. Whom does the Air Force report to? Not Bush. I don't think Bush liked that, and I think Robert Gates was installed as a check and balance on Cheney. I don't think anything would make the Glenn Beck/Michelle Bachman crowd happier than a nuclear attack on an American city. Except maybe assassinating Obama.

In these 5 months I've been let down by Obama a few times, however he is very clever, forward thinking, and pragmatic. I'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt. That said, I'm not comfortable with his relationship with the Fed Reserve. I think Steve A Jones is way pre-mature in attacking President Obama's handling of the Iranian election. A change in leadership isn't going to affect the nuke issue, which I'm assuming Mr Jones sees as a threat to his Israeli interest. Those are my words, not his, and he hasn't yet spelled out his position.

In summation of 8 hellish years

1)vote rigging

2)energy market manipulation (still felt by customers here in Oregon via PGE)

3)lax defense or outright conspiratorial traitorism

4)fear mongering and dehumanization of so called enemies (always dark skinned)

5)Unilateral preemptive strikes without evidence, without recognition of sovereignty, without declaration of war (how can you declare war on uh.. "terror"?).

6)Insider arms trading

7)Reckless privatization of military functions

8)two-headed Air Force (search term: bent spear)

9)Army Anthrax attack on Senate Democrats.

10) Total Information Awareness spying on Americans program introduced by John Poindexter.

11)Warrant-less wiretapping of Americans, continued under Obama as far as I know.

12)Right wing attack on Federal Court system, installing loyalists high and low, some without merit, experience or both.

13)Ideological appointees to important US health and safety positions.. A wolf for every hen house. I give you Mike Brown of Arabian Horse Assc appointed to head of FEMA. Or every oil man they appointed to safeguard the environment.

14)Privatization attempts on Social Security

15)Invisible ink black op budgets for the Pentagon. Still no trace of the 2.3 Trillion dollars Donald Rumsfeld ANNOUNCED as MISSING on September 10th 2001!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just because I'm stopping here doesn't mean I've addressed every grievance. Friend of Bush = Enemy of Mine.

I'm not 100% on board with all of this, but THANK YOU for being detailed in your information and opinion, rather then just spewing a few sentences of hate and sounding like an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CIA head says Cheney almost wishing US be attacked

28 mins ago

WASHINGTON – CIA Director Leon Panetta says former Vice President Dick Cheney's criticism of the Obama administration's approach to terrorism almost suggests "he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point."

Panetta told The New Yorker for an article in its June 22 issue that Cheney "smells some blood in the water" on the issue of national security.

Cheney has said in several interviews that he thinks Obama is making the U.S. less safe. He has been critical of Obama for ordering the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, halting enhanced interrogations of suspected terrorists and reversing other Bush administration initiatives he says helped to prevent attacks on the U.S.

Last month the former vice president offered a withering critique of Obama's policies and a defense of the Bush administration on the same day that Obama made a major speech about national security.

Panetta said of Cheney's remarks: "It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics."

Asked if he agreed with Panetta, Vice President Joe Biden told CNN's "State of the Union" that he wouldn't question the motive behind Cheney's criticism.

"I think Dick Cheney's judgment about how to secure America is faulty," Biden said. "I think our judgment is correct."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:threadjacked:

Back on topic: Is Obama Ignorant, Naive or Both? I'd say both.

It's been less than 150 days. I think your judgment is premature. You have that in common with Mr Jones. Now, explain why you'd say both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CIA head says Cheney almost wishing US be attacked

28 mins ago

WASHINGTON – CIA Director Leon Panetta says former Vice President Dick Cheney's criticism of the Obama administration's approach to terrorism almost suggests "he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point."

Panetta told The New Yorker for an article in its June 22 issue that Cheney "smells some blood in the water" on the issue of national security.

Cheney has said in several interviews that he thinks Obama is making the U.S. less safe. He has been critical of Obama for ordering the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, halting enhanced interrogations of suspected terrorists and reversing other Bush administration initiatives he says helped to prevent attacks on the U.S.

Last month the former vice president offered a withering critique of Obama's policies and a defense of the Bush administration on the same day that Obama made a major speech about national security.

Panetta said of Cheney's remarks: "It's almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it's almost as if he's wishing that this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that's dangerous politics."

Asked if he agreed with Panetta, Vice President Joe Biden told CNN's "State of the Union" that he wouldn't question the motive behind Cheney's criticism.

"I think Dick Cheney's judgment about how to secure America is faulty," Biden said. "I think our judgment is correct."

And yet Biden himself predicted an attack within the first months of the Obama administration.

Just typical politics, drawing their own conclusions and extrapolating comments to suit their own agenda, and deflect heat from the original issue of Cheney's point-by-point exposure of Obama's weak policies.

But of course during the Bush administration the Democrats based their entire agenda on failure in Iraq, when a united front at home could easily have helped end the war in a couple years. But then that would have meant Bush would win, and that was out of the question.

The Democrats have been putting their party politics ahead of the interests of the nation for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today's election results in Iran prove Obama was naive to infer as he did that "robust debate" in that country would amount to anything of consequence. It certainly did not.

The dominant view among Obama administration officials is that the regime will look so bad as a result of whipping up Iranian hopes for democracy and then squelching them that the regime may feel compelled to show some conciliatory response to Obama's gestures of engagement.

foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/13/official-obama-administration-skeptical-irans-election-results

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dominant view among Obama administration officials is that the regime will look so bad as a result of whipping up Iranian hopes for democracy and then squelching them that the regime may feel compelled to show some conciliatory response to Obama's gestures of engagement.

------------------------

Nice spin for political purposes. Seems to me he was among those whipping up hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The dominant view among Obama administration officials is that the regime will look so bad as a result of whipping up Iranian hopes for democracy and then squelching them that the regime may feel compelled to show some conciliatory response to Obama's gestures of engagement.

------------------------

Nice spin for political purposes. Seems to me he was among those whipping up hope.

The United States has had a foreign policy in Iran for many years. I would imagine the Vice President has some influence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...