Post-911 Musings on Iran from Moderate Democrat Bill Clinton

By gamecock Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I can't take it anymore. Not even my own contributions to "it." It being the exalted ranking of Bill Clinton and his wife as light years better than any Democrats in the White House or as present prospects for same in 2008 since JFK.

My previous sentence may well be true, but I'm sure their is also a least horrific Flue epidemic since Cain left Eden.(and while we are on the subject of rankings, let me encourage my fellow Americans in Mississippi that no matter if all Americans were as wealthy as Bill Gates, one state would still be ranked 50th, ie last.) But I digress:

Bill Clinton in 2003 at Davos:

"Iran today is, in a sense, the only country where progressive ideas enjoy a vast constituency. It is there that the ideas that I subscribe to are defended by a majority."

Same Moderate Democrat in 2005 to Charlie Rose (also counted a moderate by the MSM since he lived in North Carolina for more than 24 hours):

"Iran is the only country in the world that has now had six elections since the first election of President Khatami (in 1997). (It is) the only one with elections, including the United States, including Israel, including you name it, where the liberals, or the progressives, have won two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote in six elections: Two for president; two for the Parliament, the Majlis; two for the mayoralties. In every single election, the guys I identify with got two-thirds to 70 percent of the vote. There is no other country in the world I can say that about, certainly not my own."

So, while millions of Iranians, especially the young, look to the United States as a mode of progress and democracy, a former president of the US looks to the Islamic Republic as his ideological homeland.

Back to Davos 2003:

Clinton told his audience in Davos, as well as Charlie Rose, that during his presidency he had "formally apologized on behalf of the United States" for what he termed "American crimes against Iran."

Read the whole report from Amir Taheri's WHO SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO WHOM? and
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

about the philosophical views of a morally bankrupt fool.

Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.
... Jean-Fran├žois Revel

Isn't it amazing that this man was president for 8 years and we survived it still a constitutional democratic republic?

I come away with a better perspective on the value of an Ivy League education and IQ and the ability to answer questions fast. not much

I always laugh at characterizations of colleges as "elite".

I mean, is this guy stupid or wicked?

No wisdom, that's for sure.

I simply cannot comprehend. I mean this is as bad as the so-called looney left.

He was president!

Can someone explain? and
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan

Proud to be: politically incorrect, straight, white, pro-life Christian, and of the opinion the spotted owl tastes just like chicken.

The Democratic Party shed its loyalty to the United States of American beginning in the years around 1969 as it started receiving large infusions of aid and support from the likes of North Vietnam and the USSR. Since then any group espousing ideas even remotely left of center is received warmly by the Democrats with open arms. Today's Democrats make the 1930's cover up of the millions of deaths due to starvation in the Ukraine, and one newspapers subsequent receipt of a Pulitzer Prize for the cover up, look like a Sunday afternoon walk in the park by comparison. Bill Clinton's warm remarks about Iran should come as no surprise.
If the looming prospect of a Democratic House and Senate should come to fruition, expect the Democrats to begin frantically searching for someone, anyone, to appease. It's September,1938 in Munich Time again. Has humanity changed significantly enough since then to expect any different result this time?

The idea that Iran was chock-full of moderates ready to tip, with relatively small provocation, was common as recently as two years ago. I'm sure it played into the decision to invade Iraq, in fact. Bush and the neocons (and me) thought that a Democracy in Iraq would tip Iran immediately.

"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts

"Bill Clinton in 2003 at Davos"

Actually both quotes come from Rose's interview of Clinton at Davos in 2005.

Taheri's original article has been blogged about extensively in the past year. Even the folks at Powerline admit that Taheri didn't quite do justice to Mr. Clinton's original intent. They (Powerline and Taheri) split hairs over what it means to be a "moderate" in ME politics and overlook the Realpolitikal goal of helping the "liberal," "pro-western" wing of Iran's "democracy."

As Mr. Clinton states, there's a huge groundswell (about 70%) of support for the secular parties in all of the major political races. I don't know how much of that is a vote against the Theocratic loons that hold most of the real power, which is the "whipsaw" effect that Mr. Clinton speaks of. He isn't saying that Iran is his "ideological homeland." He (Clinton) is just trying to say that we (westerners) backed the wrong horse when we brought down Mossadegh for trying to nationalize BP Oil.

Taheri does quite a bit of re-writing History himself (as he accuses Mr. Clinton of doing). His recollection of the overthrow of Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh approaches Tinfoil Territory. Then again, if you look up Operation Ajax, you'll find that the name "James Risen" surfaces yet again. Coincidence?

Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service