Gateway Pundit notes that leftist American think tanks are fawning over the mullahs' phony election. Take a pratfall of shame, Institute for Policy Studies. Because, you know, when woman-hating, gay-bashing, crony capitalist Islamofascists veto vast numbers of candidates, rig what's left, and lie about voter non-attendance - it's time for every good leftist to swallow that at face value, talk about the positives, minimize anything too blatant to deny, and bash America.
Note, too, that IPS begins its latest Iraq talking points with "Anti-war organizing that began within days of September 11th and kicked into high gear in the run-up to Bush's war in Iraq is paying off...."
Anti-war? No. Just on the other side.
I should note here that I had added the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace to this post. An analysis at their site has merit on second reading, but their quoted spokesperson in Gateway Pundit's article seems to be way off the beam. Trouble is, I need the news link for that to see the full context. So, I've changed my stance to "reserve judgment" and written to GP.
UPDATE: Got the CEIP quote context, or at least the news report URL, from GP, who has incorporated it into his article. On review, this is a clear example of idiotarianism, but not aid and comfort per IPS. Meanwhile, here's an article that adds further weight to the idea that the CEIP's written analysis may be on to something. So the good news, they aren't complete idiots.
More good and valid examples from others in the comments, including our favourite idiotarian Ward Churchill. Guess what he's up to now?
Joe-
Apologists for Iran may indeed be somewhat misguided, but please don't fall for the "working for the other side" argument. It's just provocation for its own sake and offers absolutely nothing to the debate.
Now I'll prepare for my flogging....
I'm with Matt on this one. The Iranian elections were a duplicitous mockery of democracy that were more decorative than those normally held in a theocratic dictatorship solely for the purpose of convincing the West not to mess with the mullahs on the issue of democratization as well as telling the proles who has the real power.
Should we be all that surprised that some people bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker?
That fallacy isn't limited to left think tanks either. Check out Larry Johnson over at the Counterterrorism blog, for instance, he's on the verge of having an orgasm because Ahmadinejad means the Iranian people don't want democracy ...
Joe- The article that really got me was the one titled, "Ahmadinejad and Bush: Separated at Birth?" How completely outrageous!
I agree,... many on the left could be working at Al Jazeera, and some do!
Matt - what other way is there to describe IPS' talking points? "Began within days of 9/11..." - i.e. began to oppose U.S. military action of any sort, while the World Trade Centre site was still smoking. And proud of it. Think about that.
I don't take back one letter of what I wrote.
Based on what they wrote, the Carnegie folks may just be terminally stupid (though their disparaging comments re: American democracy promotion make that a generous interpretation). But when organizations like the IPS throw in their lot with our enemies as part of their glorious path to a post-capitalist utopia, it's absolutely proper to call them on it.
Matt and Dan:
Okay, but take at the IPS bullet points:
Years of anti-war organizing are starting to pay off
Pay off against who? Al Qaeda?
Global organizing against the war is being strengthened as the links between war and poverty become the target.
Who do you think they blame for poverty? Osama bin Laden?
U.S. policy in the Middle East is being exposed ...
Note that they don't just disagree about policy, they fantasize about "exposing" it.
Bush's failure to get John Bolton confirmed as ambassador to the UN has strengthened Democratic backbones
What do you suppose those theoretical Democratic backbones are supposed to do - fight the "real" War on Terror, or capitulate?
Israel resumed its official assassination policy, as the Palestine/Israel summit failure sets the stage for more failure with the Gaza disengagement plan and the possibility of consolidating permanent occupation
Now we're getting down to the real brass tacks: ZOG Imperialism.
military "victory" in Iraq is impossible
Note the sneer quotes around victory. It wouldn't be their victory, would it?
Despite serious flaws, the elections in Iran were seen by many as more democratic than the limited processes underway in Egypt and Saudi Arabia which the U.S. had heralded as major accomplishments, leaving Washington open to renewed charges of hypocrisy.
The more "democratic" the elections are, the more hypocrisy can be charged against the enemy. So those elections must be double-plus good, and must look better all the time.
So prithee, which side of what are these people on, and what do they imagine themselves to be doing to help that side?
I was referring more to Carnegie than anything else since I know some people who work there and while they're certainly lefties most of the ones I know tend to be of the sane variety so the comments had me seeing red.
And isn't the comparison between Bush and Ahmadinejad based on comments made by none other than our own MESA president Juan Cole?
I was already giving the CEIP thing a third reading as you wrote that, and reviewing the GP article. And as you were typing that, I was modifying the post above to take CEIP off the firing line....
And then there are just the morons, like Dennis Kucinich. Get this:
Yes, Dennis. They were so much safer under Saddam. Why did we ever disturb that nice man?
In reply, I offer James Earl Jones, from Field of Dreams
I swear, that was the best part of the whole movie.
OK - I throw my two cents in here. See my thoughts over at Discarded Lies:
HOW TO LOSE A WAR
[...]
What's there not to understand. This is not a quagmire as the liberal left believes nor is this an imperlatistic move by the United States. President Bush has been blamed for being in bed with the House of Saud and this is all about oil.
The oil connection has some truth but not for these reasons. President Bush should be given credit for a fundamental shift in our strategic foreign policy in the ME Region. That from one of regional stability for a continued flow of oil, to one of no longer recognizing and/or support repressive/trynnical regimes in this regime. This has been our policy for the last 50 years that has been followed by both Dem and Rep regimes including Bush I. This policy has led to the situation we find ourselves in now. If this was all about the Bush family and oil then we would not be pursuing this course.
[...]
First rule of war know your enemy and its ideology.
This is a failed ideology just like the others that have gone down into the dustbin of world history e.g. Nazism, Communision, and Fascism. These ideologies cannot provide for the equitable distribution of wealth nor meet the needs of its people. The fundamental difference is the recogizition of univerisal truth of the free will of men and women. Any ideology that treats women no better than the animals is doomed to failure.
[...]
Read More
Leftists are truly on the other side. Despite Dan and Matt's innocent protestations, leftists are allied with islamic terrorists and China in trying to defeat the pro-democracy movements around the world. See pundita's excellent posting on this very topic.
It complements several recent postings here at WOC.
This is joining the other side:
"...Conscientious objection removes a given piece of cannon fodder from the fray. Fragging an officer has a much more impactful effect."
"Ward Churchill, Portland, Oregon- 6/23/05":
http://treyjackson.typepad.com/junction/2005/06/video_churchill.html
the simplification, that weakens the real insight in this case, is the phrase "the other side". I think its true that a lot of folks in the radical left (though not everyone who misjudges Iran) really ARE on the side of the Iranian regime. It overthrew the Shah, who was the poster child of what the US did wrong in the 3rd world (some of that is exagerated, overlooking the occasional opening under the Shah, but not by much) The rhetoric the Iranian revolutionaries tended to use was more anti-imperialist than Islamist, even when the secular Marxists were suppressed. There is a deep soft spot for the Islamic Republic of Iran among the "anti-imperialist" types - perhaps more so among the anarchists, far left socialists, etc than among card carrying communists, who have to deal with the fate of their comrades from Tudeh (the Iranian Communist Party)
All of which does NOT mean said lefties are subjectively on the side of AQ. We here may see an Iranian-AQ alliance ( myself i think its possible, and i like seeing what Dan has to say, but im far from sure its actually happening) but they dont.
Interesting points, liberalhawk. I'd reply thus:
If they're on the side of the Iranian regime, they're on the side of Islamofascism. THAT'S the other side. Whether they are then on the side of al-Qaeda as well is just icing on the cake.
Though I do return, again to that "days after Sept. 11..." quote. Whom do you think they were shilling for then?
"Though I do return, again to that "days after Sept. 11..." quote. Whom do you think they were shilling for then?"
If memory serves, there was a branch of the quasipacifist left that claimed to be anti AQ but opposed to invading Afghanistan (this is different from the "liberal hawks" - less hawkish than myself - who were for the war in Afghanistan, but against that in Iraq). They wanted to spend more time serving the Taliban with subpoenas, and stuff like that. Never made any sense to me, but I suppose thats what they mean.
but i'll admit IPS is generally vile.
keep in mind they were formed cause Brookings was too 'conservative'
JK,
I think the phrase Islamofascism DOES have analytical usefulness, in understanding the diverse roots and interconnections among Secular Baathism, Salafist radicalism, and the ideology of the Iranian mullahs. I suggest Paul Berman,"liberalism and terror" for an elucidation.
Im not sure its useful to think of them as one side though. Its kinda like European totalitarian - Fascism and Communism definitely shared many qualities, some roots, and had many intellectual interconnections - and were capable of alliances of convenience as well - but they remained seperate "sides" and to refer to say, a Stalinist sympathizer, as simply "on the other side" during say WW2, would have been confusing, and weakend the position of the person saying it.(note Im NOT saying that Irans role in the current war is analogous to that of the USSR after June 1941. More like the USSR's role before June 1941, if analogy must be made)
Shiite's are the "allies" of the US. They are also the allies of Iran so Iran does indeed fight on the same side as the US.
The only reason why it doesn't fight on the same side as the US is off diplomatic incompetence of this US goverment. Iran should be with us in Afganistan fighting the Taliban
I wanted to post some questions for this group of commenters. They deal with Iran.
1. People often critique the EU's engagement of Iran saying that it is naive and economically driven. That said, what happens without that engagement? Iran then engages with China and Russia. Right under our noses a new superpower is being created that will make it increasingly difficult for us to influence countries like Iran. How do you balance the carrot and the stick?
2. Economic improvement means a bigger middle class that will, as so many historians and pundits claim, create a class that demands a voice in its government. Today, most Iranians-- middle class and poor-- are too busy worrying about money to care about having a voice in government. Isn't there a way to engage in trade with Iran without being seen to support the current government?
Thanks for your responses,
TE
Can you please tell me which side the US joined during WW2?