If roles were reversed, and liberals gloated like this, conservatives would unabashedly condemn them as unpatriotic. Just sayin’. #olympics
If roles were reversed, and liberals gloated like this, conservatives would unabashedly condemn them as unpatriotic. Just sayin’. #olympics
EXACTLY!!!
I mean, since when did conservatives start rooting against expensive prestige boosting events in our country?
Reading/watching this is like something out of bizarro world. It’s a CNN anchor displaying arrogant American exceptionalism — “Madrid is still in? Tokyo is still in?” … implicitly saying, “Chicago is WAY better than those backwater foreign cities!” — and conservatives mocking him for it!!
Aren’t conservatives supposed to AGREE that America is way, way more awesome than anyone else, and therefore it’s totally unbelievable that anyone would possibly vote for some Old Europe city (Madrid) or some sort of probably-communist Latin American city (who can keep all those countries south of Texas straight, anyway) over AMERICA???
But instead of thinking about this in terms of patriotism or national pride or a belief in America’s superiority, the conservatives are interpreting all expressions of shock over Chicago’s rejection as being purely the result of an unshakable belief that OBAMA is awesome. Huh? How does that even make sense? Does Obama = America now? Does this mean conservatives are going to start threatening to move to Canada if he gets re-elected?
If roles were reversed, then liberals would respond by unabashedly condemning conservatives for daring to question their patriotism. Just sayin’.
That’s the conservatism I signed up for back in the day. This has nothing to do with “American Exceptionalism”.
Yes, they would, Joe Mama. And they’d be right. It’s wrong to question someone’s patriotism over something like this. Which is why I’m NOT questioning the gloaters’ patriotism. I am merely pointing out their unbelievable hypocrisy and stark partisanship.
Aren’t liberals supposed to believe that we’re transnational citizens of the world, that no country is better than any other, that we’re all interconnected, blah blah blah . . . so what’s the big deal? Chicago = Tokyo = Madrid = …
Ah, but see, your premise is wrong. Most liberals do NOT feel that way. Some far-left academic types, sure. But the vast majority of liberals are very patriotic. Most Americans of all political stripes believe in American exceptionalism, in America’s superiority over other nations, in America’s general awesomeness. So there’s nothing strange or bizarre or hypocritical about liberals (or CNN anchors, but I repeat myself) being disappointed that something good didn’t happen for America. The belief that liberals usually root against America, or are at best neutral toward it, is a smear with no basis in reality.
By contrast, the notion that conservatives usually root very hard FOR America, and wear their patriotism on their sleeves, is NOT a smear, it’s a fact. So whereas liberals’ reaction here is perfectly in character, conservatives’ is not.
Hypocrisy often goes both ways — if one group is being hypocritical in one direction, the other is being hypocritical in the opposite direction — but this is not one of those cases.
But your premise is just as flawed, Brendan. I seriously doubt most conservatives are happy that America got denied the Olympics, regardless of how it makes Obama look. The Ann Coulters and Rush Limbaughs, sure (or, roughly a % equal to the number of liberals who feel the way I described them above). If you hooked every conservative up to a polygraph and asked them whether they would prefer to have America denied the Olympics just to make Obama look bad, the vast majority would say NO.
I disagree, Joe Mama. A lot of the conservatives I know were happy this got denied, and I have been defending the good old US of A to them! To people I never thought I’d have to advocate American awesomeness too!
I can’t speak to the conservatives you’ve spoken to in the last hour, B. Minich, but were they genuinely happy that America was denied the Olympics, or were they just laughing at Obama’s sway with the IOC? Those are two different things.
I’m with B. Minich on this, Joe. You are vastly underestimating the reach of blinding anti-Obama hatred on the Right.
There is a fundamental difference between the lefty attitude you describe and the right attitude I’m describing, and it’s this: the notion of America being non-exceptional, that we should all be “citizens of the world,” etc., is an opinion generally held only by elite liberals. People with advanced degrees, who hang those degrees on the wall on look down on the hoi palloi, both Left and Right, as an inferior class. Your average Joe Blow steel worker in Pennsylvania or soccer mom in California doesn’t feel that way — AT ALL. What you’re criticizing is a tiny sliver of “liberals” in this country. Probably 90 or 95 percent of “liberals” — people who vote consistently Democratic, who support Obama and his policies, etc. — don’t fall into the group you’re describing.
By contrast, bizarrely, over-the-top harsh anti-Obama opinion among conservatives is by no means an “elite” phenomenon. On the contrary, it is a phenomenon of the conservative masses, let by populist instigators like Beck, Limbaugh, etc. If anything, the conservative “elite” is the least likely to engage in gratuitous Obama-bashing. It’s the conservative Man on the Street who is the biggest Obama-hater. You mentioned Limbaugh specifically, meaning to diminish this by saying “yeah but it’s only Rush.” But that’s nonsense. I don’t subscribe to the notion that Rush is the “leader” of the GOP or of conservatism, but the fact is, he’s insanely successful because he has MILLIONS of listeners who (generally speaking) share his worldview! Will some of those listeners rebel against the anti-Obama schadenfreude about the Olympics? Sure, maybe. But when polls show that the percentage of conservatives who believe Obama wasn’t born in this country hovers somewhere in the 40-55 percent range, forgive me for not believing that the willingness to put everything aside, including logic and reason and, yes, one’s normal out-on-the-sleeve patriotism, to bash the current occupant of the Oval Office, is not something that’s limited to a small percentage of the Right.
Those are two different things.
Again – you wouldn’t have made this distinction if the roles were reversed.
P.S. It’s Rio!
you wouldn’t have made this distinction if the roles were reversed.
And you wouldn’t have tried to pre-emptively make schadenfreude the issue if the roles were reversed. But anyway, we’ll agree to disagree, because I’m not at all persuaded that the “conservative Man on the Street” would prefer to see America knocked down a peg just to make Obama look bad, least of all by pointing to polls showing how many conservatives believe Obama wasn’t born in this country (as if there aren’t polls showing that an equal number of liberals believe in even more insane conspiracies).
And you wouldn’t have tried to pre-emptively make schadenfreude the issue if the roles were reversed.
Actually… “Could the Left handle Tom DeLay and Karl Rove both being indicted in the space of a week? Or would liberals everywhere be so filled with joyful schadenfreude that they would spontaneously combust or something? :)”
Not an equivalent situation, of course, but my commentary is very much offered in the same lighthearted vein as my winking obsession with conservative schadenfreude here, right down to the comment about people combusting/heads asploding.
Really, I don’t think this is a big deal. But I do think there’s a level of hypocrisy underneath it all, and I can’t abide bogus arguments that try to explain away that fact. Under Bush, anytime a quasi-prominent liberal expressed any sort of joy, schadenfreude-ian or otherwise, with anything that made both America and Bush look bad, it was held up as stark evidence of a lack of patriotism — and this was done without any nuance or willingness to consider the sort of distinctions you’re making now. The fact that people were happy to see Bush fall on his face, even when it hurt America in some way, was said to mean, ipso facto, that they were putting party over country, regardless of whether they wanted America to look bad, or were merely overlooking that inconvenient fact because it was so much fun to watch Bush flail around. Now, you want to say that taking joy in Obama’s failures doesn’t necessarily equate to being unpatriotic, even when Obama’s failures happen to “knock America down a peg,” as you put it. I absolutely agree. I just wish this attitude had been present on the Right from 2001-2008. Hence my criticizing conservatives not for their present attitude, but for their hypocrisy.
an equal number of liberals believe in even more insane conspiracies
Not so much, actually.
I’m not going to deny that there are conservative gloaters — I may even be one of them to some extent — but I can’t abide the bogus argument that mocking Obama’s ability to sway the IOC amounts to conservative hypocrisy re American exceptionalism. We were told by the Left that electing Obama would boost America’s image in the world, that his ability and willingness to negotiate would advance our interests where others had failed, that the int’l community would be more willing to placate America if an internationalist such as Obama represented us, etc. While that argument is usually trotted out in some form by Democrats in every election, it was featured far more prominently with respect to Obama’s unique multicultural profile. It’s only been 9 months, but the opportunities so far for the dividends to pay off seem to have been missed, including when the story about whether Chicago hosting the Olympics became, rightly or wrongly, all about Obama. Does pointing this out (with perhaps some lighthearted gloating) mean that OMG!! CONSERVATIVES ARE HYPOCRITES WHO DIDN’T WANT THE USA TO GET THE OLYMPICS BECAUSE OBAMA IS A MUUUSLIM!! Not exactly. This capitalist pig is well aware of the $-making opportunities that were lost by the U.S. earlier today. I would be willing to endure Obama’s incessant apologizing on behalf of his own country if it actually paid dividends and advanced our interests. But so far it doesn’t seem to be having the desired effect.
Re that recent poll, I hadn’t seen it, but at first glance it would certainly appear that many more Republicans are “birthers” than Democrats are “truthers,” which is quite distressing (I’ve written on this blog several times before about why “birtherism” is much less insane than “trutherism,” but that’s beside the point).
OMG!! CONSERVATIVES ARE HYPOCRITES WHO DIDN’T WANT THE USA TO GET THE OLYMPICS BECAUSE OBAMA IS A MUUUSLIM!!
😛
P.S. Why do you hate America?????
You know, it seems like every now and then there’s another reminder of what a strangely indifferent president Bush 43 was. The other day one of the cable newsies was talking about how Obama’s legislative agenda for his first year was as ambitious as any President’s since LBJ’s civil rights year in 1965. The commenter said something about how Presidents try to strike while the iron is hot, which is usually when they have goodwill in their first year.
This of course caused me to recall Bush’s first year, which in fairness did have a significant tax cut, but beyond that he scheduled a speech to tell America how he felt about stem cell research, as a way of reminding us that he still existed seven months into his “mandate”.
There are myriad other examples: flying over NOLA post-Katrina, the endless statements that “whatever my generals want in the theater of war, I’ll give em”, the lack of accountability post-9/11, the fact that he did only one Sunday morning interview – and even then seemed flummoxed by a question of “war of choice vs. necessity”, as if he had never thought about that distinction before, you know, going to war. And on and on and on.
The relevance to this conversation: if we step away from emotional terms like BDS, patriotism, communism, Howard Dean, etc., we would probably conclude, in the abstract, that a disengaged President is more dangerous even than an incompetent one. Perhaps even more dangerous than a Communist one, depending on the circumstances. This is because any President has the ability to impose an unbelievable amount of grief on the country, and there are any number of folks who would like a disengaged President to do their bidding.
To that point, I recall Joe Mama and David K having a disagreement a while ago, where David K pointed out the inconsistency between Bush’s “non-interfering” foreign policy of the 2000 campaign and the nation-builder he became. Joe Mama replied something about how 9/11 changed his view.
But if Bush was indifferent, did 9/11 change his mind? Or did he know he had to do something, and Natan Sharansky was just the first guy on his speed-dial?
The relevance to this conversation is that I suspect the ferocity of the BDS-accusing crowd is in part tactical, per Atwater-Rove politics, and also perhaps gigantic partisan defense mechanism, as everyone suspects that indifference is about the worst thing you can have from a President.
This defense mechanism is arguably part of the cancer that is threatening the GOP. In 2008 we got Palin – the Queen of Governing Indifference, on the same ticket with a “war hero”, who once was on the plane that exploded on a battleship, and he, er, ran away while 168 of his fellows died fighting that fire.
Maybe this defense mechanism is the thing killing the GOP.
if we step away from emotional terms like…Howard Dean
LOL
As a liberal, I’m happy for Rio, I don’t care about Chicago and the disaster hosting the Olympics there would be. I, like the rest of America, don’t give a damn about the Olympics. I don’t care about them here, I don’t care about them there, I don’t care about them anywhere. I would not watch them on my couch, I would not watch them with a mouse, I would not watch the Olympic games, I would not watch them all the same.
Good for Rio, there isn’t anything else to do in that city but steal, screw, and go to the beach, this will be a great culturual experience for them. And the girls are– HOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooTTTTTT.
I would be willing to endure Obama’s incessant apologizing on behalf of his own country if it actually paid dividends and advanced our interests. But so far it doesn’t seem to be having the desired effect.
Do you not think progress has just been made with Iran? If nothing else, you must concede that we’ve now delayed how long it would take them to make a nuclear weapon. And that, I think, is only the most cynical reading of the situation.
Do you not think progress has just been made with Iran?
Is that a serious question?
BTW – in addition to perceiving Republican attacks against Bush critics as a defense mechanism, I actually have no problem whatsoever with conservatives gloating at Obama’s failure in Copenhagen.
Look, Obama is probably a pretty decent dude, but he surely didn’t go to Copenhagen for patriotic reasons. He’s a politician, for goodness sake, and he campaigned in Denmark for a gigantic hometown summertime celebration that would be a valedictory to what he hopes will be a very successful 8 year presidency. That’s why he went. Cmon now.
So while Brendan might be right that the conservatives would prop up the patriotism argument, it seems pretty clear patriotism is at best tangential to Obama’s interests in the 2016 Olympics in Chicago.
Ah BDS, I remember that bogus argument being thrown around alot on the previous version of this blog. So when do we get to start refering to any criticism of Obama as ODS Joe Mama? I mean fair is fair right? If you got to use the argument we should get to use it back against you right?
In my case, it’s got nothing to do with Obama. Although now that Jazz puts it into perspective with the whole eight year thing perhaps it should.
First of all, Tokyo’s had the Olympics before and they were just in Asia. Spain had Barthelona AND two in a row in the EU would be ludicrous. That leaves Rio and Chicago.
And I’m enough of an LA partisan to say screw Chicago, because I think the games should be back at the Coliseum next time they’re in the US. After Munich, Montreal, and Moscow, it was the 84 games that gave them the cachet they have now (and also the profit potential to go with all that prestige). So Cal all the way!
Jazz:
In 2008 we got Palin – the Queen of Governing Indifference, on the same ticket with a “war hero”, who once was on the plane that exploded on a battleship, and he, er, ran away while 168 of his fellows died fighting that fire.
I can’t decide what is worst about your quote, the sheer assholery of it, or the ignorance.
First, he was IN the pilot’s seat of a fully armed and fueled airplane (an A-4) on the deck of an AIRCRAFT CARRIER surrounded by a dozen other armed and fueled airplanes when a different airplane (an F-4) launched a missle across the flight deck due to an electrical fault. This caused a huge fire and the explosion of dozens of bombs and missles. John McCain did exactly what he and every other pilot on that flight deck was trained to do, which is get the hell out of the way and let the emergency crews fight the fires and push the planes off the flight deck. He barely escaped as his plane was completed destroyed by a bomb blast 90 seconds after the faulty missile launch. He then proceeded to go into the hanger deck and help throw laden bomb carts over the side to keep them out of the spreading flames.
First of all, Gahrie, its factually incorrect to suggest that McCain was following protocol by rushing away from the A-4 and letting the ‘experts’ die in the mess that ensued. We know this because the Forrestal disaster served as the basis of later establishing the protocol to which you refer.
You are correct that JSM III’s next step was to go to the hanger deck and help unload bomb carts, which he apparently did for a while, then retreated to the safety of the “ready room”, watching his fellows die from the safety of closed-circuit tv.
So did he unload ….”lots”…of bomb carts, or few? Did he watch most of the incident from the ready room, or a little? Do you care? More importantly, does JSM III? If the answer is “no”, and he chooses to wrap himself in war hero anyway, then while I may be an asshole, I’m certainly not moved by the accusation of ignorance…the situation is what it is.
Is that a serious question?
Of course it is. I’ll take that to mean you haven’t heard the news that came out of the meetings with Iran? You can’t seriously make the statement that the meetings didn’t bear fruit.
Also, related to the original post:
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/weekly-standard-newsroom-erupts-into-cheers-at-news-of-olympics.php
In the list of examples of Bush 43 indifference in #17 above – I forgot the most notorious of all: his behavior the morning of 9/11. You know the story: his motorcade was driving up to the elementary school in Florida when Andy Card whispered to Bush that a plane had struck the WTC, and Bush made some comment about it probably being a prop plane, thought nothing more of it and went into the school anyway, hearing nothing more until Card whispered, about 15 minutes later, that another plane had hit the WTC, at which point Bush soldiered on….
…Until this discussion I always thought the interesting aspect of Bush’s morning was passing off the first report as a small plane without inquiring further. I heard that a plane had struck the WTC and immediately rushed to a tv; I bet you did too, and we weren’t privy to a PDB a month earlier saying that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the US.
But really, the more interesting aspect, in light of this conversation, is Card’s behavior. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Card informed Bush at about 8:50 or 8:51, 2 or 3 minutes after the first plane hit. You recall from the footage that a jumbo-jet sized hole was immediately evident in the North Tower, with huge plumes of black smoke immediately emerging from the entire gash. So – even as GWB was casually speculating that it was probably a small plane, Card would certainly have access to the truth, that something much much worse was occuring, and…
…Card didn’t correct Bush, or say anything more, until the second plane hit 15 minutes later, and…
…Card not only didn’t lose his job for that, he wasn’t even punished, remaining in his role for another 5 years.
It seems believable that Card was under orders not to bug Bush unless the motorcade itself was in imminent danger of attack.
Getting back to David’s suggestion of ODS, you don’t have the right to bring up ODS unless you lack a rational response to Obama criticism. Bush fanatics gave you BDS in response to accusations of indifference, because…what else were they going to say?
So if you want ODS, David, try arguing something stupid like Obama went to Copenhagen solely for love of his country, not at all motivated by 2016 self-interest, and when your opponents rain down abuse on you, and you have no other defense…that’s when you play the ODS card.
Jazz, I think you’re confused. I bring up ODS because of all the bullshit claims of BDS thrown around by people who criticized Bush regardless of what their criticism was. BDS was an excuse created by the right to ingore legitimate criticism (of which there were many of Bush). Given the irrational criticisms leveled at Obama not for things he has done (different from criticisms of Bush) but for things they think he MIGHT want to do someday.
David,
Just to clarify: its hard to imagine any trusted assistant – to anyone – being privy to the info that must have been coming over Card’s earpiece between, say 8:50 and 9:05 AM, and that assistant not be like “Boss? You might not want to go into that elementary school just yet.”
That the boss in question was the President is way way beyond belief. Which is where BDS is born – the sequence of events is so unfathomable, and yet it happened, but so unfathomable that it must not have happened, and therefore people who claim that it did happen, must be nuts, or deranged, because something like that could never happen with the POTUS involved.
So in the Obama case, you would need to come across some behavior that is way way beyond the Presidential pale, and for which there is no rational defense, and in reply to the heat raining down from your opponents, you simply argue that what they are positing is definitionally inconceivable, so they must be deranged.
The Copenhagen example in 28 is not apt. It would be much more comparable if Joe Mama or Gahrie could dig up a clip of Obama claiming that a Marxist totalitarian state is the ideal political organization, then they throw that at you, and say “What say you, David?” and after watching the clip you got nothing other than such a thing is unimaginable for a President, so they must be deranged.
That’s the criteria for ODS.
I’ll take that to mean you haven’t heard the news that came out of the meetings with Iran?
No, you can take it to mean that the Iranians are playing for time, their uranium enrichment has not stopped, and a delay while new talks happen is a victory for them.
No, you can take it to mean that the Iranians are playing for time, their uranium enrichment has not stopped, and a delay while new talks happen is a victory for them.
Oh, then yes, you definitely haven’t heard about it.
I don’t see allowing inspectors in and having the majority of their uranium enriched outside the country simply playing for time. Playing for time implies they are moving forward, except that this dramatically slows their progress towards obtaining the material needed to obtain a nuclear weapon.
It would be much more comparable if Joe Mama or Gahrie could dig up a clip of Obama claiming that a Marxist totalitarian state is the ideal political organization
hmmmm
I wonder why Pres. Obama’s college transcripts and college papers are all locked up out of public view?
I’m just saying……..
Jazz, you are COMPLETELY missing my point. My point is that people like gahrie accussed anyone and everyone who disagreed with them about Bush, anyone who criticized Bush as having BDS. I was merely half-joking that its only fair that we can now accuse them of ODS anytime they criticize Obama.
Now in reality, that hasn’t happened. Why? Because their criticism is so laughable most of the time its just not worth it 🙂 Actually its because their “attacks” are so easily refuted.
Oh, then yes, you definitely haven’t heard about it.
LOL…I wonder if Bush-supporters were as naive as pthread when Iran made exactly the same “concession” in 2007. I take it you haven’t heard that Iran’s ambassador to Britain denied that the idea of sending Iran’s enriched uranium out of the country had actually been discussed? In other words, the alleged achievement of last week’s talks may very well turn out to be illusory.
I don’t see allowing inspectors in and having the majority of their uranium enriched outside the country simply playing for time. Playing for time implies they are moving forward, except that this dramatically slows their progress towards obtaining the material needed to obtain a nuclear weapon.
Um, “U.S. Wonders if Iran Is Playing for Time”
LOL…I wonder if Bush-supporters were as naive as pthread
Keep it classy, dick. But hey, I’m naive, just like those pie in the sky liberals in Russia that can’t get their heads out of the clouds.
when Iran made exactly the same “concession” in 2007.
Uh, much lower level talks, sorry. Also a much different political situation in Iran, and a much different political climate in the talks.
I take it you haven’t heard that Iran’s ambassador to Britain denied that the idea of sending Iran’s enriched uranium out of the country had actually been discussed? In other words, the alleged achievement of last week’s talks may very well turn out to be illusory.
No, I haven’t heard that he said that, because he didn’t. He said it hasn’t been agreed upon yet, as in the details have not been solidified. He has never denied it was not discussed.
Bah. we’re both fucking up these italics here. Wish we could edit posts.
Keep it classy, dick.
Figures. Next you’ll tell me not to use obscenities.
But hey, I’m naive, just like those pie in the sky liberals in Russia that can’t get their heads out of the clouds.
The Russians don’t seem naive at all. Medvedev admitted that “sanctions are seldom productive.” More importantly, however, Putin (who wields the real power) opposes additional sanctions, even after Iran test-fired its offensive missiles.
Uh, much lower level talks, sorry. Also a much different political situation in Iran, and a much different political climate in the talks.
I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean, but if by “much lower level talks” you’re referring to talks between the U.S. and Iran in 2007, then you should read that NYTimes article more closely, because it was European diplomats who thought they had wrung a concession from Iran on exactly the same issue — enriching uranium outside the country — in 2007. I also don’t see how the “different political situation in Iran” is going to make the mullahs agree to forgo or delay their nuclear weapons program.
No, I haven’t heard that he said that, because he didn’t. He said it hasn’t been agreed upon yet, as in the details have not been solidified. He has never denied it was not discussed.
LOL…again, from the NYTimes:
The Russians don’t seem naive at all. Medvedev admitted that “sanctions are seldom productive.” More importantly, however, Putin (who wields the real power) opposes additional sanctions, even after Iran test-fired its offensive missiles.
Well then you’ll forgive me for pointing out your double standard. The Russians, like the rest of us, are preparing the details of the enrichment agreement.
http://english.cctv.com/program/newshour/20091006/101764.shtml
I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean, but if by “much lower level talks” you’re referring to talks between the U.S. and Iran in 2007, then you should read that NYTimes article more closely, because it was European diplomats who thought they had wrung a concession from Iran on exactly the same issue — enriching uranium outside the country — in 2007.
I’m apparently confused by what you are referring to. There were low level talks in 2006 that discussed enriching uranium in Russia, although those talks were not at a very high level. There was the supposed Russian ultimatum in 2007 that both Russia and Iran deny happened, but other than that I’m not sure what you are referring to. Either way, it is not at the level this meeting was. These meetings represented the highest level formal meetings between Iran and the US since the revolution (theirs of course, not ours 🙂 ).
I also don’t see how the “different political situation in Iran” is going to make the mullahs agree to forgo or delay their nuclear weapons program.
Because they are in a more perilous situation than they were before, and tangling with the US isn’t as easy as it was. Obama’s lack of rampant criticism of the regime means they can’t use US threats as a scapegoat anymore, at least not effectively.
LOL…again, from the NYTimes
Uh, that’s a pretty big twisting of what he said. One, the AP article that that is talking about (because I’m pretty sure you didn’t lift that directly from the NYTimes) is not printed exactly like that. It looks like this:
President Barack Obama noted the deal in comments on the meeting. But Mehdi Saffare, Iran’s ambassador to Britain and a member of the Iranian delegation at the talks, told The Associated Press the issue had “not been discussed yet.” Asked if Iran had accepted, he replied: “No, no!”
Now why this is pretty dishonest is because it’s pretty clear it *has* been discussed. All other parties involved accept that it has. What this tiny four word snippet from a larger sentence is probably referring to is that the issue has not been discussed and accepted in Tehran. Nor was it in Washington, when it happened. That’s the point of negotiations between others besides the leadership of said countries.
The fact of the matter is all parties are accepting that those talks did occur, and for you to pretend otherwise is simply intellectually dishonest.
Or do you think this is all some elaborate lie constructed by the Americans, the Russians and ElBaradei, with the only evidence of this lie being a four word snippet out of context in an AP article?
Right.
god damn it. How do you do a block quote? I thought it was with a block tag?
Well then you’ll forgive me for pointing out your double standard. The Russians, like the rest of us, are preparing the details of the enrichment agreement.
What double standard? Russia confirming a tentative agreement to help Iran enrich uranium hardly discounts Medvedev’s and Putin’s previous statements about the chances for a diplomatic solution that actually bears fruit.
I’m apparently confused by what you are referring to. There were low level talks in 2006 that discussed enriching uranium in Russia, although those talks were not at a very high level. There was the supposed Russian ultimatum in 2007 that both Russia and Iran deny happened, but other than that I’m not sure what you are referring to.
Well then I’m still confused by what “low level talks” you were referring to. Exactly who are you claiming was involved in the talks (and at what level) the NYTimes is referring to here in that article:
Uh, that’s a pretty big twisting of what he said. One, the AP article that that is talking about (because I’m pretty sure you didn’t lift that directly from the NYTimes) is not printed exactly like that.
Then you can take it up with the NYTimes, because I ABSOLUTELY lifted that DIRECTLY from that article (complete with they typo in “country”), which I can only assume you still haven’t read.
Now why this is pretty dishonest is because it’s pretty clear it *has* been discussed. All other parties involved accept that it has. What this tiny four word snippet from a larger sentence is probably referring to is that the issue has not been discussed and accepted in Tehran.
I don’t doubt that it was actually discussed, but what was actually discussed behind closed doors — and whether the other parties involved agree on what was discussed — isn’t the point. The issue is whether Iran is negotiating in good faith, which they obviously aren’t doing if they’re backpedaling in public on what they talked about in private. My basis for saying Iran is backpedaling is what the NYTimes reported exactly. My opinion isn’t changed by looking at the AP article. I don’t buy your interpretation of the AP article (although I’ll admit it’s not outside the realm of possibility), and I’m still not persuaded that the NYTimes dishonestly mischaracterized it.
The fact of the matter is all parties are accepting that those talks did occur, and for you to pretend otherwise is simply intellectually dishonest.
If I’m being intellectually dishonest, it’s only because I believed what I read in the NYTimes. Quite frankly, for you to assume that I deliberately mischaracterized the AP article when it’s plain as day that I lifted that quote directly from the NYTimes is simply asinine, and now I’m kind of embarrassed that I even engaged in this exchange with you.
Or do you think this is all some elaborate lie constructed by the Americans, the Russians and ElBaradei, with the only evidence of this lie being a four word snippet out of context in an AP article?
Straw man.
Oh, I forgot about this:
Because they are in a more perilous situation than they were before, and tangling with the US isn’t as easy as it was. Obama’s lack of rampant criticism of the regime means they can’t use US threats as a scapegoat anymore, at least not effectively.
I hate to interrupt the “Obama is the new Ben Franklin on foreign policy” meme, but the mullahs haven’t exactly stopped scapegoating the U.S. now that Obama is in office. Obama’s tepid response to the oppression against the protesters earlier this year in Iran — no doubt meant to prevent America from being used as a foil — was nevertheless met with absurd allegations of tampering by the mullahs. How those allegations were less effective now than in years past is beyond me. In fact, I would hazard a guess that Obama’s Cairo speech claiming some weird sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the mullahs’ support for terrorism over the last 30 years is probably only likely to provoke more absurd claims of tampering by the U.S. instead of less.
In spite of all the foregoing, I sincerely hope that pthread’s optimism is vindicated and my pessimism turns out to be misplaced.
What double standard? Russia confirming a tentative agreement to help Iran enrich uranium hardly discounts Medvedev’s and Putin’s previous statements about the chances for a diplomatic solution that actually bears fruit.
You state that I am naive to believe it, yet the Russians are proceeding as if it will happen. That’s a double standard. My expectations of the situation are no different than theirs, or at the very least one could say they believe this will happen at least as much as I do.
Well then I’m still confused by what “low level talks” you were referring to. Exactly who are you claiming was involved in the talks (and at what level) the NYTimes is referring to here in that article:
I guess we’re both confused then. The only talks I know of in 2007 with Iran about Nuclear enrichment was the fabled “ultimatum” given by Russia and the offer of Iran to partially suspend enrichment that was then rejected by the US. I don’t know of any concession wrung out of Iran by European diplomats. If you have more information on this situation other than a vague reference in a times article, I’d like to read it.
Then you can take it up with the NYTimes, because I ABSOLUTELY lifted that DIRECTLY from that article (complete with they typo in “country”), which I can only assume you still haven’t read.
First off, the article is “news analysis” and not a “news article” so it’s not a direct reporting of the facts. Regardless, that’s an incredible small number of words to base your entire argument on. There are six words, the most key four don’t even form a complete sentence by themselves nor are they repeated in the proper context. The piece you quote from the Times is worded to make it sound like the quote must be about the entire idea of enriching uranium outside the country. The original AP article makes no such distinction. The primary point here is, what is more likely? That the Iranians are denying something was discussed at all which is easily verifiable or that these four words are being taken out of context? Occam’s Razor buddy.
And I needn’t “take it up with the Times” because I’m taking up with you your interpretation of what you are reading. You are guessing about future events based on a vague reference in a news analysis piece. That’s not the times responsibility, it’s yours.
There’s a date set for the meeting to work out implementation details. If the Iranians are really denying this ever occurred, someone should tell all other parties involved.
I don’t doubt that it was actually discussed, but what was actually discussed behind closed doors — and whether the other parties involved agree on what was discussed — isn’t the point. The issue is whether Iran is negotiating in good faith, which they obviously aren’t doing if they’re backpedaling in public on what they talked about in private. My basis for saying Iran is backpedaling is what the NYTimes reported exactly.
But they New York Times isn’t reporting that. A writer writing an analysis piece said it. It doesn’t make it fact. And again, if Iran was truly trying to back pedal and not negotiate in good faith, they wouldn’t throw out an obscure single quote, they’d be plastering this all over the place. Wouldn’t we have heard something other than these four words out of context by now?
If I’m being intellectually dishonest, it’s only because I believed what I read in the NYTimes.
Well you if you aren’t saying the talks didn’t occur than this is a non-issue, as I said it’s only intellectually dishonest if you were attempting to claim the talks didn’t happen at all.
Straw man.
It wasn’t a straw man, it was what I actually thought you were arguing. You seem to have clarified that you think it’s Iran back pedaling, which I think is a ridiculous assessment but not the same as the lunacy that I originally thought you were saying.
I hate to interrupt the “Obama is the new Ben Franklin on foreign policy” meme, but the mullahs haven’t exactly stopped scapegoating the U.S. now that Obama is in office. Obama’s tepid response to the oppression against the protesters earlier this year in Iran — no doubt meant to prevent America from being used as a foil — was nevertheless met with absurd allegations of tampering by the mullahs. How those allegations were less effective now than in years past is beyond me. In fact, I would hazard a guess that Obama’s Cairo speech claiming some weird sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the mullahs’ support for terrorism over the last 30 years is probably only likely to provoke more absurd claims of tampering by the U.S. instead of less.
They can claim whatever they want. What the people believe is what matters. The idea that America was about to come over the border at any minute was prevalent during the Bush administration. Hell, people here thought it might happen. Imagine what it was like there then. That sort of thing causes solidarity with the government in power. The government has less support now because the immediate threat has been removed.
Now, I suppose I should be fair. Late in the Bush presidency he changed tactics with Iran, and that was probably the start of all this anyway. But two things:
1.) It was too late. The Iranian people were still distrustful of Bush.
2.) When Bush started doing this it was during the campaign, and people were commenting on the fact that what Bush was doing was exactly what Obama had been calling for.