The Blame-Game

'The Scream' by Edvard Munch 1893, National Gallery Oslo, Norway

 

This is a good question:

On Election Day, when thinking about the effect of your vote on your wallet, it is important to stop and ask yourself: What Would the Democrats Do?

Increase regulation, raise taxes -- Democrats typically mistrust the effects of tax cuts and how they generate windfall individual and corporate tax revenues, which would otherwise not have materialized, because it is an indirect measure and outside of their direct control -- and shoring up entitlements.

But that's on Tuesday.

Today, we need to reflect on the anniversary of a terrible event, some 27 years ago. On November 4, 1979 Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad and fellow terrorists seized the United States embassy in Tehran, thus marking a significant milestone in Islam's foray against the West and Judea/Christian traditions and values. Pax Islamica is the goal, as I keep reminding us all; Islamic peace will reign supreme once all other religions have been successfully suppressed and all Infidels either killed or converted.

Most Muslims don't think about their religion in these terms, thank God. But that doesn't lessen the fact, that today's President of the Mullahcracy, governing Iran, was also the leader of those, who unleashed unmitigated terror on 52 embassy staff members for 444 days. It doesn't lessen the fact, that President Carter infused new meaning to the term 'Appeasement' and it certainly doesn't lessen the fact, that the same group of murdering thugs started Lebanon War II and are turning Iraq into a daily showpiece of the full depravity governing Islamic Jihadists.

Tehran knows the significance of this anniversary and duly commemorates it.

Some of our (ex)-leaders instead see fit to lay blame for political gain, completely ignoring the most infuriating outrage of all: 27 years later, Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad continues to terrorize Americans and all those who are seeking to shake off the dehumanizing chains of 'Islam by the letter'.

Their bickering completely fails to acknowledge the fact, that our Thug-In-Chief only came to power Summer 2005. That since then, Iran dramatically increased its terrorist activities and support for its web of proxy armies throughout the region, largely emboldened by the 'Bush lied, People died' camp over here and abroad to shed the theretofore cumbersome efforts to keep their nefarious activities covert. They conveniently ignore, that Ahmadinejad's push for regional hegemony has started a nuclear race in the Middle East because, just like Israel, Egypt, the UAE and Saudi Arabia do in fact take the Thug-In-Chief and his threats seriously.

If anything, the biggest blame for the escalating violence in Iraq is the West's impotence vis-a-vis Islamic impunity and violence and the obsession to rationalize their barbaric behavior in terms which are both divorced from its true source, namely the Quar'an and Sharia law and the mindset of the medieval perpetrators. The consequence, as so instructively demonstrated during Lebanon War II, is one hell of a resounding command to all murdering thugs, echoing far and wide, 'All systems GO! The Infidel Yellow Dog has no teeth. Do not fear the mighty army for it is on a leash controlled by a dysfunctional public unable to muster any unanimous resolve to stand in our way."

And therefore, if the blame-game we must play, the biggest mistake of all, was and still is the failure to intimidate the enemy. And that, my Liberal friends, is one fault you can not lay on the doorstep of this administration, but you must seek in front of your own.

Comments

[igout]

Right now, I gather, Bush is working hard on behalf of Turkey to get them into the EU. This isn't because he likes Turks especially; it's because as a fat & happy member of the club, Turkey will be a safe bet as a place through which to run the natural gas and oil pipes from the fields in the Caspian Sea nations, all those various Kakastans.

Sorry to beat my old drum again, but keep your eyes on the goddam oil.

What happens after the last 'copter out of Baghdad? Iran is the big power in the middle-east. The surrounding states, the ones with the oil,make their accomodation with the new boss. Controlling all the mid-east oil, Iran can apply very potent blackmail to the shivering West. I imagine the price of their favor would begin with throwing Israel under the bus, don't you? Perhaps the Europeans would gladly convert to Islam for the sake of their pretty cars. At the least you could remove them from the list of 'allies'. Don't blame them, they have no leverage; if they don't take the oil, China will in huge, huge gulps.

As for us, the Great Satan, maybe we can go a-begging to Chavez or Czar Putin. Maybe Mexico woillcontinue injecting us, provideing we throw open the borders and let it reconquer the southwest in a demographic flood. That will please our own High Capitalists, but it won't much the rest of us.

If there's any good news in all of this, with an Islamic Reich in place, international terrorism now would have a clearly legible return address for our nukes. Booma the umma.

Really, are we sure we want to hang Saddam after all? Maybe it's smarter to give him his old job back.

[Ghost Dansing]

The issue is Left wing-Right wing dynamics in American politics.

"Note that GD never rebutted my point about how North Korea got hold of the means to build nuclear weapons. Or China got their hands on guidance technology that gave them the accuracy they needed, but lacked."

Interesting to note that Darrell's examples are results of unregulated capitalist activity... anything goes for a buck... if it makes profit it is good.

You would have to provide governmental regulation and oversight to restrict trade that undercuts profits... not only to China... but all our "allies" that sell to whomever where the technology gets to North Korea or wherever.

Republicans had Democrats have been full-throated advocates of "free trade" to whomever, and whatever, be it directly or indirectly for decades... I agree there should be more governmental regulation of technology... but you would have to step on some corporate toes to do it, and nobody wants to do that...

The philosophy is "...if we don't sell it to them, somebody else will."

The Democrats (especially the DLC... Clinton's crowd) and Republicans have pretty been of like mind in the economic area... so I don't see how you get much "left-right" dynamics out of that at all.

Did you know that laissez faire capitalism was traditionally referred to as "Liberal Economics"... but that kind of Liberalism is not "left wing"...

So the Republican Party still practices one aspect of classic Liberalism... but a facet that modern Liberals have moderated with the realization that while capitalism is a marvelous economic engine, governmental spending is a part of economics, and government in a Free, Liberal Democracy must establish the guidelines that moderate capitalism in order to address social issues that cannot be effectively addressed by the profit motive. There are many. Also, government of and by the people has a responsiblity to protect ALL the people, to the degree possible, from exploitation, by establishing standards of production and methods of commerce.

Republican rhetoric, going back into the Cold War, worked very hard to equate Liberalism, the Democratic Party, and really anything else that didn't agree with it as "Communist" (an extremist form of Socialism based on Marx's evolutionary theory; culminating in enforced State Dictatorship) which is the extreme "leftest" pole of government.

In fact, "leftism", "leftest" philosopy seeks the disestablishment of capitalism as the economic engine of society.

My point about there really is no "left" in America, is that neither of the two major political parties are interested in crushing capitalism... nor are any of their constituents or politicians.

There is one party that is actually interested in effective government... attending to the concerns of the American People about the environment, fair trade, labor laws, Public Safety and the "Common Good", in best of Christian thought.

There is one party that does not believe in government, governs dysfunctionally to make their point, ensures that even when forced to address Public concerns by the American People, does so in such a way that simply siphons Public Monies into Corporate coffers, without effectively providing services.

One political party believes the economic engine should have a throttle, and one believes it should just run wide open to whatever purpose, without a regulator.

One political philisophy produces capitalism in the form of many third-world kleptocracies, like Mexico, where the government simply ensures the wealth of the richest citizens, while exploiting all others as cheap labor, and ignoring evironmental impacts, and one cares about ALL of its citizens.

Not much of a "left" there... unless you are saying that any concern that doesn't service the profit margin is "leftest"... but there is a really BIG rightest element.

Just remember, capitalism can flourish under ANY kind of government... look at what the Communist Chinese are doing... capitalism is not a form of government... it is an economic engine.

How you use that engine is up to the American People.

But there are few if any Americans that are interested in crushing capitalism...

I don't know what you were trying to say with the "Three Kings" diatribe Darrell... The U.S. Government told the Shia and Kurds it would support them if they moved to overthrow Saddam's regime... I don't think that was a Left-Right thing or a Democrat-Republican thing... the whole "Regime Removal" thing established by Clinton was that Saddam would fall by internal hands...

[Darrell]

The adults(me, for one) were saying that the surplus was just a projection during the 2000 Campaign when Gore was putting it in his little lock box--AND spending it on ALL those new programs he was announcing every day.

No LEFT in this country? I suggest you look at the current crop of Democrats. They can't win any election by disclosing their true beliefs--socialism and communism--so they call themselves "Democrats"...or "Liberals" or "Progressives" or "Greens." Ever hear JFK call capitalism a threat to the US or the world? I assume spirit's noses don't grow every time they tell a lie. Otherwise you, Ghost Danser, couldn't get within 20 yards of a computer keyboard. Note that GD never rebutted my point about how North Korea got hold of the means to build nuclear weapons. Or China got their hands on guidance technology that gave them the accuracy they needed, but lacked.

As many others have pointed out, the national boundaries in the Middle East are not the result of natural processes like war or compromise over the ages. The were established by European powers according to their whims and fancy, designed to actually force daily confrontation between competing groups. Take out the government of Syria or Iran and watch the same struggles unfold between groups within those borders. Weren't you Leftists...ummm Democrats...saying that Bush 41 should have gone into Iraq the first time to aid the Shia insurgents to Saddam's regime? Didn't you make little movies like "Three Kings" criticizing that Bush administration for their lack of support and aid? What do you want to do now, subject Iraqis that co-operated with us to reprisals? Like in Viet Nam? What is it with VN and you guys? Or girls? Or "insurgents" that kill civilians 10-to-1(at least) over our personnel. They sound heroic to you? Or do you chicken-lemmings dream in red? Must be that Marxist bloodletting thing.

Yes, Billy Clinton governed center-right when the polls--and the new Republican Congress--made him. Left that part out, eh? Behind the curtain things were different...Witness his judicial nominations and the characters he put into government. Bolsheviks looking for a revolution.

[Ghost Dansing]

Why is what a bad thing Sandy?

[Sandy P]

And why is that a bad thing?

[Ghost Dansing]

RV... There will eventually (5 years or so) be another strong-man government (military autocracy) in Baghdad, and Iraq is going to fracture into 1 or 2 Shia autonomous regions in the South, with oil and access to the sea... a Kurdish autonomous region in the North with oil, and problems of its own with Turkey, Iran and its own Arab and Turmen minorities... with a Sunni-dominated area in the middle... with no oil, a lot of instability... hotbed for terrorists, national and international.

However, in the short term there is going to be increasing sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Our troops are really just "getting in the way" of the inevitable at this point.

A Sunni insurgency will continue against the central government (whatever that is)and against the Shia financed by doners in other Sunni-dominated Countries as a hedge against Shia/Persian domination.

[Red Violin]

GD: Perhaps, the question I should've asked is what do you think will happen once our troops leaves Iraq?

[Sandy P]

And why does 9/11 never sink in as a reason for the deficit?

All that spending and upgrading doesn't come cheap. Plus we lost billions if not a trillion.

[Sandy P]

Well, John Dean should know about a lack of conscience......It's amazing anyone still listens to him.

Bob Brinker, 1/11/2000 sent an urgent mail to all his subscribers, GET OUT OF THE MARKET.

Smart money was out in 1999.

Irrational exhuberance, mid-90s, Mexican peso crisis, Y2K, in hindsight, of course all that money spent upgrading computers had to end.

Oddly enough, the dems in the senate could have stopped the budget any time they wanted, like they did the judges. But they chose not to, and I seem to remember 2001 the dems held the senate.

Let's face it, we all enjoyed the vacation decade bot on the backs of our military preparedness.

But we're back to the real world.

Now what have you got against kids and old people, GD? You were a kid once and will be old one day.

[Ghost Dansing]

Well, RV... let's just say I'm an American citizen, not an Iraqi citizen. When American troops stop getting killed in the cross-fire, things will be better. The better question for you is why you think, after milestone after milestone has been passed with no improvement; instead a constantly degrading situation, do you believe the U.S. Troop presence is achieving anything at all? Ultimately, are we going to defend the Sunnis against a Shia backlash, against the Iraqi governments wishes... Sunni minority domination that we just overthrew when overthowing Saddam? In other words, are we going to join the Sunni insurgency in order to fight Shia militia's and death squads, embedded in Iraqi government forces? You don' even know what you're fighting for at this point... you can't, because nobody does.

Dream on Darrell... the surplus was the full topic of discussion on the economy in 2000... If Dubya didn't believe it to be true, he sure didn't say so, and was more than willing to spend it on tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent of the population.

What you really need to remember is there really isn't much of a "left" in the United States... but you do have a very strong rightest trend in the Republican Party.

Clinton governed center-right, and was very much a continuation of Republican policies going back to Reagan... he even selected a Republican Secretary of Defense.

What's happened is the Republican Party has swung so far right, that American Liberalism (the foundational thought) of American governmental structure, and even the moderate majority of both the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian and independent parties are referred to as "left".

Modern Republicanism is not even true to tradtional conservatism... it is currently espousing radical authoritarian policies.

"Looking back on the development of conservative politics in the U.S., Dean notes that conservatism is regressing to its authoritarian roots. Dean draws on five decades of social science research that details the personality traits of what are called "double high authoritarians": self-righteous, mean-spirited, amoral, manipulative, bullying. He concludes that Chuck Colson, Pat Robertson, Newt Gingrich, and Tom DeLay are all textbook examples. Dean calls Vice-President Cheney "the architect of Bush’s authoritarian policies," and deems Bush "a mental lightweight with a strong right-wing authoritarian personality."…

Conservatives Without Conscience, by John Dean

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_50_year_study_says_conservatives_0711.html

DEAN: Goldwater Republicanism is really R.I.P. It's been put to rest by most of the people who are now active in moving the movement further to the right than it's ever been. I think that Senator [Goldwater], before he departed, was very distressed with Conservatism. In fact, it was our conversations back in 1994 that started this book. That's really where I began. We wanted to find answers to the question, "Why were Republicans acting as they were?" -- Why Conservatives had taken over the party and were being followed as easily as they were in taking the party where [Goldwater] didn't want it to go.

[Darrell]

The surplus was just a projection, assuming that the economy continued at its (then) current rate of growth. That rate of growth stopped when Clinton let his Leftist friends try to split up Microsoft(to teach Gates a lesson for not contributing to the Dem party) and the market collapsed. Bush inherited Clinton's recession. If the Dem weren't planning their "talk down the economy" plan to regain control of Congress in 2002(planned right after 9/11, while adults were thinking about confronting terrorists), we might be seeing surplus PROJECTIONS again. As it is, Bush's tax cut is now cutting budget deficits markedly. And that's a budget with the war on terror(and Katrina reconstruction) included into it--not Clinton's budget.

Remember that the Dems and the Left(the distinction is hardly worth noting) told us not to invade Iraq because Bush WOULD NOT commit US troops for the time necessary to establish a stable government in Iraq. They told you that Bush would leave after toppling Saddam, like his "daddy did." Strange that they would be complaining when Bush is doing what they said he must.

We all wonder where North Korea got the means to develop their nuclear program, or where China finally got the means to hit the US with advanced guidance systems for their missiles. I'd ask Clinton. Maybe he could verify it. He could always check Sandy Berger's pants.

[Red Violin]

Mr. GD:

What leads you to believe that the situation in Iraq will improve if US troops leave, rather than stay the same or get worse?

[saul davis]

GD: Bottom line -- Saddam had WMD, or was very close to having it; the Bush lied meme is simply blown out of the water.

[Ghost Dansing]

Modern Republicanism isn't the "REAL problem" in the world... it's just America's problem if it want's to effectively deal with any other problem... too much corruption and incompetence combined with a flawed political philosophy.

Of course, the Saddam conviction would be a little more gratifying if Saddam wasn't a monster of our own making.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

The U.S., which followed developments in the Iran-Iraq war with extraordinary intensity, had intelligence confirming Iran's accusations, and describing Iraq's "almost daily" use of chemical weapons, concurrent with its policy review and decision to support Iraq in the war [Document 24]. The intelligence indicated that Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian forces, and, according to a November 1983 memo, against "Kurdish insurgents" as well [Document 25].

"...A State Department account indicates that the administration had decided to limit its "efforts against the Iraqi CW program to close monitoring because of our strict neutrality in the Gulf war, the sensitivity of sources, and the low probability of achieving desired results." But the department noted in late November 1983 that "with the essential assistance of foreign firms, Iraq ha[d] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use. Given its desperation to end the war, Iraq may again use lethal or incapacitating CW, particularly if Iran threatens to break through Iraqi lines in a large-scale attack" [Document 25]. The State Department argued that the U.S. needed to respond in some way to maintain the credibility of its official opposition to chemical warfare, and recommended that the National Security Council discuss the issue.

Document 25: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq25.pdf

Soon thereafter, Donald Rumsfeld (who had served in various positions in the Nixon and Ford administrations, including as President Ford's defense secretary, and at this time headed the multinational pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle & Co.) was dispatched to the Middle East as a presidential envoy. His December 1983 tour of regional capitals included Baghdad, where he was to establish "direct contact between an envoy of President Reagan and President Saddam Hussein," while emphasizing "his close relationship" with the president [Document 28]. Rumsfeld met with Saddam, and the two discussed regional issues of mutual interest, shared enmity toward Iran and Syria, and the U.S.'s efforts to find alternative routes to transport Iraq's oil; its facilities in the Persian Gulf had been shut down by Iran, and Iran's ally, Syria, had cut off a pipeline that transported Iraqi oil through its territory. Rumsfeld made no reference to chemical weapons, according to detailed notes on the meeting [Document 31].

Document 28: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq28.pdf

Document 31: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq31.pdf

[brian]

The people of Iraq have now rendered justice to Saddam Hussien. Guilty of crimes against humanity. Sentence: Death by Hanging.

Iraqis Dansing with Ghostly joy today, U.S. troops happy too, but none of it matters because modern Republicanism is the REAL problem inb the world, I'm sure we're about to learn. So fire away, but I won't be listening to GD's relentless, rambling undermining and whining about 3 years ago. Cut'n paste all you want, I'm still going to enjoy this for a while.

Great posts as usual, Alexandra.

[Ghost Dansing]

And as far as Darrel's assertion of "fact" is concerned... not sure how he can blame current circumstances on ANYBODY but Republicans.

... the last Democrat we had in the Whitehouse delivered a surplus economy that was debated in the 2000 election...

With complete control of the House, Senate and Whitehouse Dubya has delivered record deficits and has little if anything to show for it... he can't do disaster relief, he can't do war, he can't do healthcare... as suspected, the only thing Republicans are able to do is ensure public monies end up in corporate profit margins.

[Ghost Dansing]

North Korea had an atomic bomb and developing long range rockets to deliver them... why didn't we invade them Saul? We think Iran is working on an atomic bomb, why didn't we invade them Saul? The taliban and al qaeda are in Afghanistan... the ones that did and supported 9/11... why did Dubya pull assets from there to go into Iraq Saul?

Wolfowitz admitted that WMD was only an expedient excuse to invade Iraq... the real driving proposition was the neocon theory that if you create a Liberal Democracy in the middle of the Middle East, there will be a reverse Domino effect that will spread Democracy. This Republican administration had its cross-hairs on Iraq before 9/11... Rumsfeld suggested it at the first response to 9/11...

"Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decision making process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggest manipulation, if not misuse of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a sea of oil."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/

That also explains why al qaeda was not of particular importance to Dubya when he took office... remember the "swatting flies" comment Condolezza Rice cited to Dubya in Congressional testimony? They thought firing missiles at al qaeda camps was just "swatting at flies"... they wanted to "transform" the whole Middle East... and Iraq was an "easy" mark as a bad guy... topple Saddam... create a Liberal Democracy with a market economy and presto! Intstant transformation.

I've always said, invading Iraq as a response to 9/11 was like taking the guy you had tied and gagged in the closet, bringing him out and shooting him.

Of course they had to IGNORE a lot of experts, military and otherwise, in order to proceed with that delusion:

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now."

"And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos."

"In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs."

"The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library."

"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/04/war.games.ap/index.html

[saul davis]

Somewhat related to this topic and why Vote Republican is critical -- numerous recent posts by Powerline, Captain's Quarter's, LGF, Ace, etc., regarding the Iraqi documents that were released for public view, and the recent article by the NYT regarding the disclosures contained in those documents. This is particularly pertinent to GD's many rants of the past; it is now absolutely clear, and admitted even by the NYT, that Sadaam Hussein's regime was working on an atomic bomb/nuclear weapons of mass destruction, and was as close to one year from obtaining nuclear weaponry! When the Times admits this, it is now appropriate to completely close the no WMD calumny of the left and the DNC. As I have stated on a number of occassions in the past, the real facts are not always readily apparent; history evolves over time; it appears that the timetable for the disclosure of actual WMD research by SH has been much quicker than I believed; will you GD now admit that President Bush, and the numerous international intelligence agencies, did not lie?

[Darrell]

"The Democrats have proved utterly inept at both foreign policy and military matters."

Fact.

Add domestic policy and non-military matters to that list, for the complete picture.

Vote Republican. Don't you want to watch their heads explode? If that isn't a good enough reason for you, try Global Warming, Supreme Court nominations, impeachment, repealing the tax cuts, Left-wing judicial activism hampering "collecting the dots" as well as "connecting the dots", committing the US to the International Court, etc., etc., etc. The polls have "predicted" a Democrat landslide every two years since 1996. Seen one yet? Don't let them take your voice away---vote!

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

gringoman

I have posted a few times on that exact point. Look at how the Chinese treat Falun Gong practitioners. Your assessment about China is correct. The day after 9/11, they rounded up about 1000 Muslim "persons of interest", hearded them into a stadium and shot them all down, after first suitably forcing them to desecrate themselves by eating pork, and consuming vast quantities of beer. A very clear, thorough message to their Muslim population. The old "look, see" approach they learned from the Mongol occupation.

They wouldn't give two shits about nuking Mecca, either. They are a vast country, and hard to hit from Iran. They see Islam as a mental disease, and have, I am sure, made it quite clear to President Tom exactly where they stand. Ergo, no Islamic agitiation anywhere near China, or her borders.

I believe the great hope for humanity is the Army of the People's Republic of China. We can always hope...

[Ghost Dansing]

"The Democrats have proved utterly inept at both foreign policy and military matters."

Myth

http://www.yuricareport.com/OverSight/WarCollegeReport011204.pdf

[gringoman]

RV,

Has the Ahma guy or his Think Sh'ia Tank explained to the flock what Asia will do after the West implodes from "sensual ennui?" Or do they expect the proud Chinese, Japanese and Koreans---not known for endless patience with foreign God-hustlers---simply to pack up their chop sticks and colonize the moon or Mars, leaving Planet Earth to the yelling devotees of the Prophet? No, I'm not suggesting that another wave from the East will literally cut down every living thing in its sight, like the Mongols once did to every sign of muslim life in Baghdad etc (around the 12th century or so), but I suspect that even the Ahma bunch are smart enough not to act up with Asians in the way they feel they can with today's "sensitive" Politically Correct West.

[Francis W. Porretto]

The Democrats have proved utterly inept at both foreign policy and military matters. Since these are the overriding matters of our time, to allow the Democrats back into power would be suicidal.

HOWEVER... we must find some means of disciplining the Republicans, who've grown far too comfortable in power and have been wholly unfaithful to their supposed principle of limited Constitutional government. A party allowed continuous hegemony is unfortunately prone to that sin, but our system doesn't provide many methods by which to curb their betrayals, short of armed revolution.

Probably the best approach is to encourage a great surge of citizen interest in the primary process, which means it's too late for this year. But there's always 2008. It's time to put our thinking caps on.

[Red Violin]

Here is the link for Iran's Agenda for the World:

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/17909

[Red Violin]

J-B:

I can not read his mind, but I would be surprised if he does not believe that the history of North Africa is about to be repeated across Europe.

Indeed. That is precisely what he thinks. "According to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad secular anti-imperialism, including Ba'athism, has failed to halt the advance of the American "Great Satan." Today, only militant Islamism can fill the gap left by the disintegration of the USSR and Communism as global challengers to "imperialist hegemony."

To this day, Ahmadinejad has never lost an opportunity to reiterate that the Islamic Republic is as committed to fighting Western democracies as it was when it came to power almost three decades ago. Claiming that he is preparing the ground for the return of the Hidden Imam, a messiah-like figure of Shiite lore, Ahmadinejad considers a “clash of civilizations” to be both inevitable and welcome. Of course, he is ready to talk—so long as the Islamic Republic is not required to make any concessions.

In a speech in Zanjan over the summer, Ahmadinejad assured his listeners that the United States would never be permitted to create “an American Middle East.” “The new Middle East,” he told the cheering crowd, “will be Islamic.”

For the past three years, tens of thousands of students have demonstrated throughout Iran demanding "Democracy, Now!"

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave his reply: Democracy? Never! (President Muhammad Khatami spoke of "religious democracy", an oxymoron in which vice pays tribute to virtue.)

The answer is spelled out in a 7000-word document, IRAN'S AGENDA FOR THE WORLD that Ahmadinejad presented as his government's "short- and long-term programs" to the Islamic Majlis (Parliament).

In it he categorically states that Western "ideas and concepts of government" have no place in Islam. Without using the word democracy, the document states that the new administration "bravely rejects all alien political ideas" as incompatible with Islam.

The document says that in a Muslim country power belongs to God. The exercise of that power is the privilege of the Prophet and, after him the 12 imams of duodecimo Shiism. Since the 12th Imam is in "grand occultation", thus not exercising power on a day-to-day basis, the task devolves to "chosen ones from the family of the Prophet". In the case of Iran today it means Ayatollah Ali Khamenehi, the "Supreme Guide" who claims to be a descendant of Hussein, the third imam.

Ahmadinejad says that not only will he fight any form of democratization in Iran but would mobilize the nation's resources to prevent the United States from imposing the Bush plan on the Middle East.

In practical terms it could mean a switch in Iranian policy in Afghanistan and Iraq. Under President Khatami Tehran's policy was to make sure that the Americans were bled to the maximum while allowing them to establish friendly regimes in Kabul and Baghdad. Now, however, Iran may well want to bleed the Americans more but deny them even the merest crumb.

The document states that the region is heading for a "clash of civilizations" in which the Islamic Republic represents Islam while the United States carries the banner of a West that has forgotten God.

The document calls the US "the hegemon" and asserts that the Bush plan for the Greater Middle East is a device to slow down the decline of the United States as a superpower.

"Despite its pharaonic roars," the document claims," the hegemon is in its last throes."

The US is a "sunset" (ofuli) power while the Islamic Republic is a "sunrise" (tolu'ee) one.

The US is going to crumble because it is based on a system that produces "endless material needs" which lead into "the desert of lust" where men are handed over to Satan.

The Americans may "mock the divine system" in Iran. But Islamic Iran is the model for the future of mankind......There's More.

[Jerub-Baal]

I am a student (by hobby) of Medieval History. Recently I picked up "the Civilization of the Middle Ages" by Norman F. Cantor. In chapter 4, 'Justinian and Mohammed', it is interesting to see the things that lead up to the loss of Egypt and North Africa from Byzantine Christendom to the Arab-Moslem conquest. One of the main factors was Justinian's intolerance (shown militarily) of the Monophysite heresy. By overtaxing the empire, and repressing what he viewed as a form of apostasy, Justinian alienated the most populous region of the empire. Combined with the empire's exhaustion over battling the Persians, there was no longer any ability to defend anything much beyond Constantinople. The Arabs, though no angels they, were in the beginning less repressive. The pole tax was less than the empire's taxes, and for the most part (because it was in the Muslims' economic interests to do so) Christians and Jews were tolerated. Even so, since Muslims were given sanction to pillage and subjugate non-believers during war, the population of Egypt voluntarily converted within a hundred years.

I wonder over the future of Europe. There is no general level of faith, not even to a 'heresy.' Taxation is onerous, and leaves no room or ability for upward mobility. The population seems (to my view) to be emotionally exhausted, filled with ennui. Should things break out into serious conflict, will our grandchildren see a population that has simply rolled over and converted?

The Persians, under the Abbasids, took over the ummah from the Arabs in the middle of the eighth century. You can be sure that Ahmadinejad knows his history far better than most Europeans or Americans know their own. I can not read his mind, but I would be surprised if he does not believe that the history of North Africa is about to be repeated across Europe.

[gringoman]

Democratic competence vs. Republican incompetence?

Yes. In at least one significant area, that's what Teusday's Election is about.

What? You don't believe it? You think it's a joke? This is not just a tournament of wussies vs. weasels?

Sorry, a joke it is not.

Explanation?

Coming.