Iranian Leaders Blaming CIA, Protestors, for Killing Neda

Unfortunately even this is unlikely to make your president stop trying to deal with the Iranian dictators. It’s a hallmark of the zealot not to let events and facts affect his preconceived notions.
I’ll be delighted to be proven wrong on this one.
Brad – Canada

How to explain the doctor that has already spoken who said the protesters took the photo id off the person who killed her and it was a member of the Basij? Ignore it, blame America. The protesters know differently though.

The Iranian regime should be bombed off the face of the Earth but unfortunately, we don’t have leaders with balls.
**************************************
Right with all those civilians you proclaim to support. Kind of hard to bomb them off the face of the earth without taking the population with the,.

How soon before Obama apologizes to Iran?

I like diplomacy…but not at the expense of our honor. If they don’t want to talk…then let’s not talk. They act as if its is a treat for us. All I’m saying is that when they accuse us of meddling when they are known to meddle, accuse of us of murder, when they are murdering, we need to let them know…STRONGLY, that this isn’t acceptable…

Posted by: Liberal concerned | Jun 26, 2009 11:03:31 AM
Posted by: Paul Wall | Jun 26, 2009 11:03:00 AM
When Israel takes out Iran’s facilities with a missile strike, we should be prepared to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them and be ready to back up our actions. When it gets ugly, it’s gonna get real ugly real fast and we need to have a plan in place ready to implement at a moment’s notice.
This President does not seem interested (so far) in preparing for this inevitability still thinking he can persuade Iran but his words, such as how he can understand Iran’s need for nuclear energy are disturbing. he said he does not want to meddle but seems to have to problem giving Israel advice. I hope he comes around (to my way of thinking ;-) ).

“but seems to have NO problem”
(sorry, no preview button)

but, hey, whatever Rush says—”ditto Rush.” Posted by: Paul Wall | Jun 26, 2009 11:08:57 AM
ROFLMFAO!!! You could at least thought up some original material.
“The Iranian regime should be bombed off the face of the Earth.” is different than eliminating an entire race. Get rid of the regime, not eliminate Iran. The people of Iran are wonderful people.

Said Ghadiri, “We say that the bullet that was found in her head was not a bullet that you could find in Iran.”
I heard that they make the family pay for the bullet. I wonder if the family gets to keep the bullet after they make them pay for it. I’d really like to see that bullet!

Looks like they’re trying to Baghdad Bob it. Good luck with that; like those thugs are going to make that accusation stick. Obama is not “dead or alive” “axis of evil” Bush and the Iranian people now know it. That much-mocked ‘apology tour’ Obama has been on looks like genius now. No one but the hardliners themselves is going to buy that BS CIA story.

That much-mocked ‘apology tour’ Obama has been on looks like genius now.
Posted by: jhw539 | Jun 26, 2009 11:53:58 AM
Please elaborate.

Today we see the real politics at work in the iranian capitol,
make call to Nancy Pelosi and blame the C.I.A

I am satisfied with the current strategy and hope it continues to evolve along the well-demonstrated path used so well during the fall of Communism. Posted by: jhw539 | Jun 26, 2009 11:56:03 AM
Admittedly, I do not know what that well-demonstrated path was but I will look it up. Realistically, do you think that the same strategy will work on religious zealots determined to produce nuclear weapons to wipe out Israel? Isn’t this all about ushering in the 13th Immam or something like that? You have no faith in the religious right in the country but you have faith in the religious fanatics Iran coming around to your way of thinking?
For the record, I’m not defending the axis of evil approach either. I’m skeptical that anything will work.

Iranian Leaders Blaming CIA…. They obviously met with their “caucus leader” and fellow traveler Nancy Pelosi.Strange how similar those that hate America think.

Skip, the two motivations for Iran’s leadership desiring nuclear weapons are not mutually exclusive. You can not exaggerate the Iranian leadership’s long-standing enmity toward the state of Israel– it is very real and it is very deeply rooted. So are you trying to say that it’s America’s fault that Iran plans to go nuclear? If so, I strongly disagree.

Thinking – Think again. The American military is perfectly capable of very specific targeting & very much limiting any collateral damage.
In any case, this regime should be eliminated – what should we wait for???
Until they complete their nuclear program? Imagine these morons with nuclear bombs – just how irresponsible is it of world leaders to allow Islamic crazies to have atomic weapons?
You think 9/11 was horrific – the best is yet to come if these madmen aren’t stopped. But we have another Jimmy the dhimmi Carter in the White House.

I think it’s much more likely Iran wants a nuclear weapon as a deterrent to US invasion. Once we overran Iraq so quickly it confirmed their concerns that we could cannot be stopped with any conventional weapons. Posted by: Skip | Jun 26, 2009 12:10:47 PM
They say no. From Wikipedia:
“the Iranian authorities deny seeking a nuclear weapons capacity for deterrence or retaliation since Iran’s level of technological progress cannot match that of existing nuclear weapons states, and the acquisition of nuclear weapons would only spark an arms race in the Mideast.”
If we are going to negotiate with them, we must trust but verify, right? I mean that is the direction in which President Obama is headed, right?

Which statement is a LIE, Hint 1 thru 6 are true
1)Friday, May 15, 2009
WASHINGTON NEWS
Pelosi Says CIA “Lied” To Her
2)Iranian Leaders Blaming CIA, Protestors, for Killing Neda
June 26, 2009 9:55 AM
3)Thursday, April 16, 2009
Obama Will Release CIA Interrogation Memos [Andy McCarthy
4)’US, J’lem had agreement on settlements’
Former US Deputy National Security Adviser Elliot Abrams.
Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST
Jun 25, 2009 19:07 | Updated Jun 26, 2009 17:33
The internal US debate about whether the Bush administration had tacit agreements with Israel on construction in the settlements heated up Thursday, with former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams writing that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was wrong in saying these agreements did not exist.
5)Obama Accuses Fired Inspector General of AmeriCorps of Being ‘Confused, Disoriented
WASHINGTON — Responding to criticism from a Senate Democratic ally, President Obama explained why he fired the Inspector General of the AmeriCorps without the 30-day notification required by law, calling Gerald Walpin so “confused” and “disoriented” that there was reason to question “his capacity to serve.”
6)EPA’s own research expert ‘shut up’ on climate change
Government analyst silenced after he critiques CO2 findings
Alan Carlin, senior operations research analyst at the EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics, or NCEE, submitted his research on the agency’s greenhouse gases endangerment findings and offered a fundamental critique on the EPA’s approach to combating CO2 emissions. But officials refused to share his conclusion in an open internal discussion, claiming his research would have “a very negative impact on our office.”
7)From WhiteHouse.gov….
“My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.”

No, Borneo, Republicans are NOT blaming the deaths in Iran on the president. Some republicans are speaking out about the atrocities and some have urged the president to speak out more forcefully in support of the protesters, which he is doing. That is not nearly the same as “blaming the president for the protesters’ deaths.” Let’s not twist things too far, now.

The American military is perfectly capable of very specific targeting & very much limiting any collateral damage.
In any case, this regime should be eliminated – what should we wait for???
Posted by: Terry
why stop with Iran?
lets ‘get em all’…
N.Korea, Syria, Pakistan, Russia, China
Venezuela, Cuba,
start the countdown
was that Dr. Strangelove sitting next to you?

But unlike bin Laden, “a regime” is a nice and vague thing to target. So if you accidentally hit a wedding or a daycare center…. you can just say it was part of the “regime.”
The Iranians will be thrilled.
The drive-by media always likes to pretend they are protesting for “democracy” or some other discredited liberal pipe-dream. But if you actually translate what they are saying, the protesters are saying, “What do we want? Airstrikes! When do we want them? Now!!!”

XXX – I think a lot worse than Dr Strangelove is hanging around with the Ayatollahs. Obviously, I don’t recommend bombing China today – but it might have been a good idea to stop Mao in 1948/49. Perhaps, the Bolsheviks could have been stopped in 1918 as well – later it was too late. Don’t you think the world would have been better off without Stalin?
Korea is the same story – we stopped short during the Korean War when we should have eliminated the Communists.
Do you think we did the North Koreans a favour by not doing that?
Vietnam was no different – do you think the Communist take-over of the South was a picnic? Cuba the same – we should have knocked off Castro right away.
I’ll give you a better example – don’t you think the US & Europe should have forced Hitler from power in the mid-1930′s or at the latest, in 1937? BEFORE Germany was ready for war?
It’s the same now with Iran.

It’s great to see you coming around. Whenever ANYTHING happens ANYWHERE in the world, just blame our President.
=====
As I read moderate, she’s not saying anything of the sort.
Iran, however, does seem to be blaming our President and our CIA. So you’ve got that going for you.

MayBee, how many times to I have to tell you, we are on the same side!
I’m telling you that I support your desire to blame Obama for everything as a matter of principle, insofar as it is politically advantageous for the GOP.
I mean, in his hands, even Ice Cream is a tool of immense evil! Instead of eating decadent Western Ice Cream with his supposed daughters, he could have been saving lives in Iran.
The world needs to hear the message that the mainstream media has so ruthlessly silenced…. and I am going to do my part to let everyone know that you blame Obama to a degree for the actions of other people. If you so much as get a flat tire, I am going to be there to back up your claims, no matter how specious they may seem, that a Democrat is somehow responsible.

MayBee, how many times to I have to tell you, we are on the same side!
I’m telling you that I support your desire to blame Obama for everything as a matter of principle, insofar as it is politically advantageous for the GOP.
———–
I have no desire to blame Obama for anything that is happening in Iran.
So no, we are not on the same side.
You may continue to say we are, but it simply isn’t the case. Sorry.

if you don’t preemptively get rid of enemies, eventually, they try to get rid of you.
Posted by: Terry
except in cases like Israel & Egypt… mortal enemies…. until Sadat went to Isreal and made peace with Begin

Terry, preemption is a doomed policy.
If you punish people for crimes they might commit, we’d all be in jail or worse.
The fact is that at any point any person can realistically harm another person. Punishing people because of this fact of human existence quickly leads to the very kinds of oppression that such preemption would supposedly prevent.
You can preen about how “realistic” you are and how naive I am. But the difference between humans and animals is that we do not have to live in the realm of “is,” we live in the realm of “ought.” Realism is only good to the extent that it can direct us from what we are to what we ought to be: Moral creatures.

Just for grins…..why not blame our CIA, Nancy Pelosi did……interesting to say the least…..

I am always stunned at how quickly conservatives are willing to throw Jesus under the bus when it comes to our enemies.
Jesus (and the early Christians) converted their persecutors, not be killing them preemptively, but by remaining loyal to Christ’s commandments.

Nothing better than spamaganda.

The funny thing is that all of the “realists” have a very unrealistic view of war.
On the one hand, the brutal possibilities of the world DEMAND war. On the other hand, the imagined consequences of war are always so rosy and positive.

At the end of the day, all you really control is your own integrity.
I may very well be too weak to be a courageous person… but I am not going to live my life in contemplation of failure.
This “realism” that you embrace is the cause for many evils in society.
Realism is what tells people:
1) You are an animal, so don’t even try to abstain from sex.
2) Hard work makes no difference, wait for the government to provide opportunities for you.
3) Nobody reads books, so just watch whatever pops onto TV.
4) The only way to get ahead in business is through cheating, if YOU don’t cheat, too, you are a loser.
5) The world privileges those who can take from the weak, if we want to be on top, we have to force our way there.
We live in a society of the lowest common denominator. It’s not a partisan thing, it’s just the general shape of our culture. And the consequences are disastrous.
I am not going to live my life like an animal just because some people choose to act like animals.

Borneo – No offense but I’m not into immortal souls, I’m far more concerned with my mortal body. And I’m definitely not into suffering. I firmly believe in doing unto others BEFORE they do unto me. Integrity, by the way, is not the same thing as self-righteousness. Integrity is facing reality & understanding that sometimes all your choices are lousy.
I actually resent the implication that I am without ethics.

Look… we are just talking.
People do not hesitate to say outlandish things about the president, so I assumed that we were having a freewheeling conversation. And in my mind, a little bit of satire and dark humor from time to time is an effective way to get a point across. It’s argument. I grew up around people capping on each other in a friendly way.
If it ever occurred to me that these words were harmful to any of you… I’d stop.
So, if that’s what you are asking, I will do it right now. And I will apologize for it. Because, you’re right, if my tone offends, then I should put it in check.
I will, if you prefer, engage in a straightforward way.

Borneo – I’m not offended by anything you said, I’m not very sensitive actually. You have a right to your opinion no matter what I think of it.
I would agree with you that we live in a society of the lowest common denominator, a dumbed-down disaster.
I can barely watch TV or movies anymore, most of today’s music is utter trash, & much public discourse is just stupid (in my opinion). Slogans & superficial BS rhetoric seems the order of the day.

Borneo…why on earth are you apologizing for your opinion/stance on an issue? Never ever ever apologize for your opinion because it is when we apologize for what we stand for/believe in that makes us stop being who we are.
Never conform, especially when it is not who YOU are!
I live by these everyday and will until I cease to physicall exist:
To know what you prefer instead of humbly saying amen to what society tells you you ought to prefer is to have kept your soul alive~Robert Louis Stevenson

Okay…..so now can we get back to disagreeing…..LOL

Borneo – I’m sorry but I don’t know anything about Maximillion Kolbe so the reference is lost on me. Yes, indeed, integrity without risk is meaningless & stories about people’s courage always touches me greatly.
But what I have been saying is that often choices in life are all bad. There is nothing funny about war but sometimes the consequences of NOT going to war are so much worse ultitmately.
This whole conversation started because I said we should eliminate the Iranian regime. There is no acceptable level of risk in allowing crazy fanatics to obtain nuclear weapons. The consequences will be far far worse than a preemptive action. I equate these monsters with the Nazis – their ideology, in my mind, is no different.
Obama’s idea of engagement or whatever he call it is no diffent than the Neville Chamberlain appeasement of Hitler. It’s the easy way out, short-term. To me, this is both intellectually dishonest & lacking in integrity.

Obama’s idea of engagement or whatever he call it is no diffent… Posted by: Terry | Jun 26, 2009 3:20:34 PM
I don’t think the President is intentially being a coward or weak. I think he actually thinks he can persuade them to stop. It’s who he is. I think it has become a learned behavior on his part due to the responses to his words and his actions he’s received since childhood.

I would like to hear them say that it is not possible that some disorderly Basij ‘volunteer’ or ‘volunteers’, tacitly supported by some elements of the Iranian leadership, were responsible for this, or other sporadic killings/beatings.

That’s what Obama gets for not meddling.

Oh, yeah. And I suppose the CIA was involved with Prague, Budapest and the Solidarity Movement in Poland as well.
Lefists won’t buy anything that common people do unless there’s some radical students from a university somewhere with big red flags leading the way.

Obama just could not act differently – the great part of Iran;s population voted for current president, so how can one insist he should take any side.
He protested against violence – exactlty what should be done in this circumstances.

Operation Ajax…that was Iran.