More love for liberals from terrorists.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush’s defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran.
41 Responses to “Ayatollah Ali Khamenei Celebrates Glorious Victory of Democrats Over Bush”
Leave a Reply
note: by commenting, you indicate that you have read and accept all-encompassingly's comment policy. please print it and keep a copy of the document in your wall safe along with your living will or advance directive.
Well let’s just go over there and nuke em. Right pilgrim.
Steve,
I assume you support Atrios for Secretary of State.
Doug,
Certainly not. I don’t want nuclear weapons in the hands of religious fanatics (also reason to deny access to the football by Bush, aside from the fact that he’s dumber than a rock).
What I do know is that by couching the war on terror in religious terms, Bush played into the hands of the Iranian government and other terrorists. What a genius he is! Additionally, by invading Iraq, Bush increased the pace of nuclear weapons development in Iran and North Korea. You guys need to get over this notion that they are stupid. If Iran sees that a country with nuclear weapons can reach a stalemate with the US while one without is invaded, which path will they opt for?
Remember, it’s because of Iraq!
Right you are Ryan. We shocked and awed Hamas in to power, caused a civil war in Iraq, and emboldened Hezbollah,Iran, and North Korea. Now aren’t we smart?
America = Dumb
Bush = Dumb
Iran & North Korea = Smart
I’m beginning to understand…
Your brilliance shining through again Doug. You’ve read too much into this. Just as Bush didn’t get Kerry’s joke. Duh. We (i.e., the administration -because I was forced along) made some stupid stupid moves. If that weren’t the case, the GOP would’ve held both houses. America recognizes it. Wake up.
Most people agree that Kim Jong Il and the leaders in Iran are playing the only card they have to stay in power. It seems that after all the crap you guys pulled (racist ads, robocalls, trying to scare Virginia voters, etc.) to stay in power, you would at least recognize what they are doing.
If you don’t recognize Bush as dumb by now, that’s a scary thing.
Who’s the more foolish: the fool, or the fool who follows him?
I still can’t believe that the war drum is the Iraq war.
Are you talking about the fools who voted for Bush. Not sure what you’re trying to say here. Don’t criticize yourself too harshly. I voted for Bush the first time around when he disguised himself as a moderate.
Oh I see what you’re trying to say. You’re using the logic Travis pulled on me. Because the Dems were lied to about WMD (Cheney cooking the NIE) and they voted for the war, they are somehow as bad as the liar. That makes a lot of sense! Brilliant!
Ryan,
You critical reasoning, like Travis’, is sorely lacking.
Can’t you see that Bush is a dumb idiot who fooled all the smart Democrats? Duh!
Did I say Bush Doug? I don’t think so. I think I said Cheney. Bush is dumb. Cheney is smart and evil. Get it straight.
Ah. Ok. Smart and evil Cheney fooled the “the dumb one” (Bush) and the smarties (the Democrats).
That’s right Doug. I take it you never did watch the Frontline special on Cheney’s Dark War. It was very well done.
That said, I actually hope that the Dems don’t try to take revenge and go after Bush and Cheney. Although part of me believes that people who lie should be punished, we have far too many issues that need to be addressed.
Indeed.
If this Frontline special was so revealing….why am I hearing about it in the comments section on a blog and not even in the MSM?
Apparently half the country voted against the Bush/Cheney/Republican team. Why keep such a secret out of the headlines?
Ryan wake up buddy! It’s out there. It was done by Frontline (a much more reputable source than Fox News). Switch channels once in a while; there’s a world out there. Really. Surely you’ve heard some people saying that the Dems should go after Bush and Cheney for some of these accusations! If you haven’t, you are really out of it!
Ryan there may be hope for Bush yet. Look at this article about the ascendancy of realism within this administration (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/12/cover.story.tm/index.html). Too bad. This was needed from Day 1.
Indeed.
If only Bush would have incorporated Kissinger somehow into his cabinet. We could have installed Pinochet in Venezuela after we overthrew Chavez in 2002 before Augusto had these serious health and legal difficulties…
No Doug No! The last thing we would want is another Nixon holdover. If there was any doubt about the crookedness of his administration, the past six years have erased that (Cheney and Rumsfeld).
Why would you suggest that someone from that group is a realist? Basically Kissinger and McNamara know they are going to hell, so they give the same advice to Cheney and Rumsfeld. Live as long as you can boys. (I stole that from a political cartoon. Can’t remember which one though).
Gee. I wonder.
Why do I feel like I’m in Princess Bride?
You like to call others dumb. Now I’m not the smartest guy blogging here at all-encompassingly, but, my suggestion to you? Don’t throw rocks if you live in a glass house.
I don’t know. Is it because you smell the Iocane powder?
You really missed the point Doug and it’s because you didn’t read the TIME article that was the basis of this whole discussion. You could’ve caught it if you even read the title of the source you’ve given above:
“How Ideology of Neoconservatism Rejected Kissinger’s faulty Realism & Supported Secretary Rice’s pro-India policies”
Look carefully again Doug. “Kissinger’s faulty realism”. The point I was making is just that. I don’t regard Kissinger as a realist. Rather he was a paranoid scoundrel who even has American blood on his hands stemming from the events in Chile (you mentioned above). In that respect, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Kissinger go together nicely (not to mention the fact -again- that they were all a part of the crooked Nixon administration).
The TIME article was really about how Bush has been neutered. He can no longer rule from the right. He has to reach out to the middle. The pragmatists. The cautious. The Powell-type realists. Got it. Not difficult.
Now what’s this about throwing rocks at a glass house? I’m sorry if I offended you with my saying “brilliant” all the time. It’s a joke I’ve gotten into with friends. Something from a Superbowl commercial. Something about, “Beer in a bottle? Brilliant!” We’re always chiding one another. I’ll try to restrain here, but it’s a part of my personality.
Brilliant!
Brialliant!!
(Brilliant commercials if you ask me)
Uh, no.
The point that article was making is how neoconservatives consider Kissinger’s realism “faulty”. It was not trying to posit that Kissinger is not a realist.
Again:
If the neocons want to call his realism as “faulty” or “amoral”, fine by me. The TIME article was refering to the other brand of realist which is quite distinguished from Henry Kissinger. Of course you didn’t read the article and so I was confused as to why you were bringing up Henry Kissinger. This has devolved into a silly argument.
I did read the article. Which, by the way, was actually a summary of the full article.
You were probably confused as to why I would bring up Kissinger, a realist, because you don’t know what realism in foreign policy is.
Baker, Powell, Gates, Scowcroft, etc (oh look, here they are). These guys are realists. They prefer to have guys like Saddam (who killed a lot more people than Pinochet) in power. Remember the clip of Rumsfeld meeting Hussein from the 1980’s? That’s the idea. Maintain order and stability, loftier ideals be damned.
And that’s all fine. It is certainly a legitimate world view, albeit one that many liberals have whined about for decades.
Perhaps.
Nevertheless, it has been another clear demonstration of your BDS. You laud the return of realists, if only because you know that Bush isn’t one…so they must be good!
Again Doug you missed the point. I laud the return of realists as pointed out in the article. Those that are cautious and pragmatic. Those that are centrists. That is what the TIME article was about. You missed it. I read the full article. You only had to watch a small commercial to read the full thing. It mentioned nothing of cozying up to evil dictators to maintain a balance of power. It wasn’t about that. So if your definition of realist is different than mine (and the author of the article) forgive us.
Forgiven.
And it’s not “doug’s definition”, it’s what realism is. You have no clue what you’re talking about, which is increasingly apparent.
Bush, Powell, Baker & Co. were in favor of leaving evil dictators in power (Saddam!) to maintain stability in the middle east…that’s why we didn’t march to Baghdad. Duh.
You have no clue what realism is. You say you love it because you suffer from BDS and Bush isn’t a realist.
Duh Doug. You are wrong again. I am using the term as outlined in the article (Bush reaching out to the center). I was the one that brought it up. I know how I am using it. It’s increasingly clear you didn’t read the article. I never said I love the “Kissinger-type” (from your blog reference). I said I love the Powell-type meaning the pragmatic, thoughtful, ruling from the center approach. Anything else you’ve read in to this is of your own making.
Steve, you are a blue marshmallow.
Don’t try and disagree. I’m bringing it up. I know what I’m talking about.
You are a blue marshmallow.
Here are the references to “realism” or “realist” in the full article:
Everytime that it talks about “realists” or “realism” in the administration it refers to the foreign policy and national security (let the dictators stay in power to maintain stability).
When it mentions “realism” in the Democratic sense, it refers to political calculus (run candidates who will win elections).
Was drawing this distinction out so difficult for you?
And how do you know he is drawing a distinction between the two Republican and Democratic realists. That is what I am saying. You are saying he is. I am saying he is not. There it is, we can’t even agree on this. Look at the title of the article too Doug. It gives a clue. Bush reaching out to Centrists. I think you have overreached here.
You are still a blue marshmallow.
I love blue marshmallows. Aren’t those the things in Lucky Charms.
No. They comment on blogs. Duh. Didn’t you read what I wrote? How can you be so dense? Don’t you know what I’m talking about?
Actually, you’re the one proving to be rather dense. I don’t read everything you write because it’s not worth much.
I’ll remember to use < sarcasm > tags next time. My bad.
As will I.
I was actually looking forward to some good discussion. However, this seems to have turned into a name calling game coupled with some misunderstanding.
oops, wrong post.
[...] Steve, Nov 2006 [link] [...]