Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 18, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


A New Way Insurers are Shifting Costs to the Sick
Climate Action and Economies Can Grow Together




On the Run


Truthdig Bazaar
The Case for God

The Case for God

By Karen Armstrong
$18.45

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Iran Bristles as Sarkozy Gets In a Zinger

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 6, 2009
ENTER_ALT_TEXT
Flickr/.faramarz

After crackdowns, deaths and the detention of 1,000 protesters and nine British Embassy employees, Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei has warned the West of the power of the “united fist” of the Iranian people if it continues criticizing the Iranian election results. The announcement came after French firecracker President Nicolas Sarkozy said Monday: “Really, the Iranian people deserve better than the leaders they have today.”

For the latest on the ground in Iran, check out this article:

The Christian Science Monitor:

The Iranian regime continued this weekend in its bid to paint citizens protesting the announced results of its June 12 presidential election as tools of outside powers.

In a scathing editorial published Saturday in the influential state-run newspaper, Kayhan, editor-in-chief Hossein Shariatmadari said opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi had committed “terrible crimes,” including “murdering innocent people, holding riots, co-operating with foreigners, and acting as America’s fifth column.”

This comes on the heels of a leading Iranian cleric’s call Friday for some Iranian employees of the British Embassy to be tried for allegedly inciting pro-democracy protests.

Read More


On the latest interplay between the West and Iran:

The New York Times:

In sharpening exchanges with the West, Iran’s supreme leader warned Monday that outside criticism following its disputed June 12 election would backfire and that the Iranian people would become a “united fist” against what he termed meddling by foreign powers.

But, in a new broadside from a European leader, President Nicolas Sarkozy of France was quoted as saying Iranians deserve better leaders.

The remarks were the latest fallout from the vote, which returned President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power in the face of opposition claims that the ballot was rigged. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets in protest, provoking a harsh crackdown that ended the demonstrations.

Read More

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 7, 2009 at 12:59 pm Link to this comment

Well you know what they say whyzowl1, birds of a feather…and cats with one eye… of course I can say the same of you and your one-eyed fowl (make that foul) brethern.  You put words in my mouth, and if you do also of nefesh, I surmised he will say so.  But it is not the case that I do not see no evil in Israel and if you had both eyes open and had read my posts here and there, you would quickly see that Israel is not exonerated by my view.  Will you please provide that more complex analysis about the Israel, USA, Iran, and North Korea that you are blowing about out of your rear end?  Exactly what are those “worst violations” you also mouthed off about.  That is the trouble with birds of your feather, you squawk a lot but never provide evidence.  And what evidence do you offer that Israel would commit a preemptive unprovoked attack against Iran?  Stupid remarks like you make stokes the Contingent’s united bigoted self-aggrandizing front.  Go ahead, blow off your fetid steam.  It doesn’t really matter to the world.  You don’t think politicians care what the denizens of TD say or think do you?  Their ‘agenda’ was forged in corridors the likes of you, or myself, would never be privy to. 

Equal rights for all is an ambiguous statement.  You have to say equal rights for what moral rule(s) exactly.  Some people think it is moral to behead so called enemies of the state without a fair trial (and here the word ‘fair’ is also ambiguous).  “Any moral question,” might also be about child rapists.  Do they have the same ‘moral’ rights as the child that is raped?

It is highly probable that Iran does not present any immanent threat to the United States.  Nor probably would for tens of years, if at all.  There is a lot of hot air against the United States being expended by the president of Iran, but that is usual, nothing new.  Nevertheless, countries that are jockeying themselves into nuclear power easily converted into nuclear weapons is a deranged state of mind.  And this is regardless as to whether Israel has such weapons.  The same is claimed of Iran.  Some say they both do, some say they don’t.  It is completely disputatious.  Adding fuel to the nuclear arsenal of the world is against the best interests of the world.  And in the case of nuclear weapons, it is the world’s business.  Radiation poisoning of the magnitude if a nuclear war happened would affect the entire planet. Nuclear radiation cannot be contained. Obama has voiced a desire to drastically reduce nuclear weapons in the world.  A zero-sum of them actually.  Is he a dreamer?  Perhaps, but it is a worthwhile dream, and all good ideas begin with a dream, day or night.  Can Obama effect this dream.  Probably not.  But at least it is the start of a dialogue that has merit.  The moral question is not to “even” up countries to have nuclear weaponry.  That is complete madness.

Checking the online magazine Iran Affairs does not help ferret out the truth.  The force of that “journal” is highly prejudiced.  Unfortunately there is no unprejudiced reporting on the other side either.  Who to believe?  No one.

Cheap Advice: Keep eyes and ears alert.  Read and listen to everything.  Believe nothing.  Wait to see what happens unless you are an actual participant in some political action.  If you are, you already know what side you are on and what you believe.  You might check out your beliefs in that case.

Report this

By whyzowl1, July 7, 2009 at 11:20 am Link to this comment

All I’m saying is that as a free moral agent—if one cares to be honest and fair about it—one has to be willing to confer the same rights, privileges and options to both sides of any moral question. If Iran’s nuclear enrichment program is to be seen as an existential threat to Israel—without any evidence whatsoever, I might add—and thus confers upon Israel the “right” to attack Iran to preemptively defuse the “threat,” then Iran must have an equal right to attack Israel to defuse the existential threat posed to it by Israel’s already existing stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Both of you, Shenonymous and Nefesh, are perfectly standard issue one-eyed cats, partisans who see nothing but evil in “the other” and all virtue on your own side. I think you need a much more complex analysis than “Israel and the United States good” and “Iran and North Korea bad.” I might point out that the worst violations of world peace and the rule of (international) law over the past couple of decades have clearly been committed by the United States and Israel. Nobody else is even close.

Report this
Shenonymous's avatar

By Shenonymous, July 7, 2009 at 7:58 am Link to this comment

Perhaps ‘just’ in the right place, at least, Sarkozy’s posturing, as the French always do, we all know that his paltry words whiz past the ears of all those who are important in the west and only slightly burn earlobes the Islamic Republic of Iran.  Do you think anybody cares what Sarkozy thinks or says?  France is nothing but a whisper these days.  They are remindful of that small cipher of a boy on the playground who gains prestige by hanging around with the big guys and who tries to grouse about now and then and the big boys just ignore him.  However, the IRI’s squawking and wheezing about “the west’s” criticism is their continued political demented claim of victimization. 

The obsessive impulse for some of the mental clods on TD to take every opportunity to blister Zionist Jews, whether it is against Sarkozy who’s grandfather was Jewish, but not his mother nor his grandmother (which for those who are ignorant defines who a Jew is) and who himself is Roman Catholic and practices Catholicism, shows their imbecilic nature of using religion as a pathetically depleted foil for political criticism.  Religion is used just an excuse for gaining power and wealth, particularly by the militant Islamists.  None of those practicing any religion today practices the essence of their religion and they are not, absolutely not, the least concerned about the people.  It is a mockery. 

That the United States could be involved in any destabilization of the IRI (or any other politically antithetical entity for that matter) is only suspect, as no one at least on this newsy forum (or anywhere else) has produced anything but conjecture in their delusional fantasized wisdom.  But say it is true, why should it be surprising since that regime has officially declared its hatred for the United States and is bent on producing nuclear weapons, which means in this day and age, they mean to use them?  Which would be the most stupid thing they could do since nuclear war would take place in the Middle East.  They could and would harm Israel but they would destroy their own people and their own physical country for generations until the radiation dissipates (maybe never given the size of the nuclear conflagration that would ensue), for they couldn’t think for a nanosecond that the west would not retaliate with all its force, which is a mighty gigantic force.  It is interesting that Iran and North Korea are pursuing a nuclear program simultaneously and would naturally join forces to produce a nuclear tit for tat holocaust the likes of which would without a doubt ravage a great part of the world.  Perhaps a two-prong nuclear war is thought could be victorious but is in reality insanity to think the United States could not defend in two directions.  There are also European allies and Israel (who may or may not have nuclear weapons) who would take care of the Middle East theater, and North Korea would be wiped off the map with the help of Japan AND CHINA.  Get your radiation hazmat suits ready!

Now if only Hugo Chavez could get his nuclear program going….It could be a three ring circus. 

Leefeller is right.  People get the government they allow.

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, July 7, 2009 at 5:24 am Link to this comment

[CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST]

By whyzowl1, July 7 at 3:41 am #

If Iran declared Netanyahu’s very close “victory” in the recent elections fraudulent and called for a UN resolution to demand a recount or new elections in Israel, would you support that resolution? Would you have supported such a resolution in the year 2000, when the Republican Party clearly did steal an American presidential election?

 

Right, the old “we’re not so different from them” line. If you have been to Israel or even followed events there closely, you would know that Israel’s democracy is vibrant, crowded with opinions, and as free and open to political expression and participation as any in the world. Your analogy to Iran is a false one. Israel has no unelected “Supreme Leader” and never has. Israelis routinely vote out governments they aren’t happy with, and the transitions are peaceful and civil. Netanyahu was the PM back in the 90s but his party lost the elections and then he was out. Khameini isn’t going anywhere unless an angry mob of oppressed Iranians strings him up by his neck, the way tyrants are dealt with when their times come.

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, July 7, 2009 at 5:10 am Link to this comment

By whyzowl1, July 7 at 3:41 am #

Do you think Israel’s very real and not merely potential nuclear arsenal poses an existential threat to Iran?

Very real to you, maybe, but even if Israel has nuclear weapons, they are undeclared; can you verify that any have even been tested? I defy you to go beyond the usual inane rhetoric about Israel and demonstrate how the nation of Israel - her people and body politic, would ever want to destroy Iran, as a last resort, absent an existential threat to Israel from Iran to begin with? I don’t believe you can.
========================================

If so, what rights to defend itself from this really existing existential threat are automatically conferred upon Iran, in the same sense that you seem to suggest that Iran’s merely potential threat confers essentially limitless rights upon Israel to “respond?”

“Existing existential threat”? First you set up a false analogy, and then you run with it. Iran and Israel are not natural enemies. Far from it, in fact. They share no borders or even mutual borders with a third country. They have no rational disputes or grievances. Israel has no interest in war or conflict of any kind with Iran. But Iran leverages the hostility of the Arab and Muslim world, and the Palestinian Arab grievances in particular, in a very cynical (and deadly) game of regional power politics. Iran arms Hezbollah and Jamas with all kinds of advanced Katyusha artillery rockets, advanced anti-armor weapons, explosives, and, in the case of Hezbollah, advanced Chinese-made CS-802 cruise missiles - ALL of which have been used to attack Israeli civilian and military targets for years. At a cost of thousands of Israeli lives. Including hundreds of innocents targeted on busses, in schools, on the streets, by Iran’s proxy in Hamas. And how many Iranians have been targeted, or even threatened by Israel? ZERO
====================================

Doesn’t Iran have a right to attack Israel’s nuclear weapons facilities with conventional weapons (or by any means possible) to “take them out” and thus eliminate the threat?

No, they have no such right, any more than they have a right to attack India, or France, or China, who are actual, declared nuclear powers, and who have also never attacked Iran or it’s citizens.</blockquote>
==========================================

If “too many” Innocent Israeli civilians are killed in the attacks, well, I guess Iran will just have to be sorry about that. Right?

Too many Israeli civilians have already been murdered by attacks from Iran’s agents (Hamas and Hezbollah), even as Ahmadinejad and Khameini host the Hamas and Hezbollah terror leaders in Tehran as official guests of the state. And I say again, Israel doesn’t attack Iran - it’s military or its civilians, ever - and would be remiss if she didn’t understand the reality of the Iranian threat and plan accordingly. Even as Iran’s Islamist terror-supporting regime routinely parades long-range Shihab-III missiles emblazoned with “Death To Israel” signs on them. Ever noticed those?

[CONTINUED ABOVE]

Report this

By whyzowl1, July 7, 2009 at 12:41 am Link to this comment

Sepharad, I have a few questions for you.

Do you think Israel’s very real and not merely potential nuclear arsenal poses an existential threat to Iran?

If so, what rights to defend itself from this really existing existential threat are automatically conferred upon Iran, in the same sense that you seem to suggest that Iran’s merely potential threat confers essentially limitless rights upon Israel to “respond?”

Doesn’t Iran have a right to attack Israel’s nuclear weapons facilities with conventional weapons (or by any means possible) to “take them out” and thus eliminate the threat? If “too many” Innocent Israeli civilians are killed in the attacks, well, I guess Iran will just have to be sorry about that. Right?

If Iran declared Netanyahu’s very close “victory” in the recent elections fraudulent and called for a UN resolution to demand a recount or new elections in Israel, would you support that resolution? Would you have supported such a resolution in the year 2000, when the Republican Party clearly did steal an American presidential election? 

Just who do you think these “hard-headed statesmen of good will” who could solve all the Middle East’s problems might be? I can’t think of a one.

And, of course, the whole world deserves better leadership.

Report this

By rollzone, July 6, 2009 at 6:18 pm Link to this comment

hello. Mr Sarkozy, i agree. iron fist me and i will cut your hand off. i have wild carnivorous pigs out back in the woods that will never harm me. if they go mental and attack me, i will kill them. is this what all this human slaughter is about? they believe their neighbors are mental? i cannot conceive how an entire nation of peoples can simultaneously go mental. these pissing contests involve two people. we should be preserving all other nations, cultures, traditions, and archaic dynasties; societies; for future inhabitants. stop meddling in other peoples affairs. they can determine their own destinies. because we believe our way is the best, there is no urgency to convert everyone, and heroically save them from themselves. it is fundamentally wrong to do this. i would be a fool to go out in the woods to pet the pigs. they are not domesticated. when they attack without provocation; kill them: but not until then. taunting is done by mentally ill provacateurs. all the people together cannot be stopped. they are far more numerous than their leaders. they have what they want. the pigs want and need to be wild, roaming pigs. it is what they like. i am not going to domesticate them. they need to be wild.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, July 6, 2009 at 5:39 pm Link to this comment

How about the theory, you get what you deserve?  Why should anyone deserve better, what is better?  Better for me may not be the same for someone like Palin or her supporters. In my mind killing wolves from a helicopter is not a better life, for Palin it may not be living under a bridge.

Report this

By Sepharad, July 6, 2009 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment

radson, thanks for the background on Arutzsheva. Re why Israel couldn’t use Iraq airspace: to do so would put the U.S. in position of enabling such an attack, and also would upset the Iraqi government. The Saudis have caused so much trouble by supporting the Wahabbi extremists and thus creating the dilemma of nuclear Pakistan that I found it completely ironic that they would offer Israel airspace to attack Iran, as I’m sure they hate Israel just as much as they hate Iran. Maybe they want their enemies to destroy each other. Who ever knows what motivates the Saudis, other than trying to make sure other people do the fighting and dying for them, sort of like our own pols.

Suggestion of nuclear weaspons to proxies is definitely premature but no more suicidal (from the Iranian point of view) than using their own nukes on Israel.

My own best possible scenario would be that the Iranians see their nuclear weapons, when they get them, as deterrents to Israel to tuck away in their pocket, just as Israel has. Balance of power, it’s all good as long as some lunatic extremist in either country doesn’t get control of its nuclear weaponry.

But am wondering if Iran would not consider a tactical nuke of some sort if, for example, Israel and Hezbollah were fighting and Israel were winning. Don’t you think the current Iranian government would be sorely tempted to stop the defeat of their main proxy?

I assume the Iranians and Pakistanis and Taliban and Al Quaeda all assume that if Israel is attacked with a nuclear weapon, Israel will respond in kind, and whole Mideast will be a mess. I count on the Iranians and Israelis to be rational. But I’m not all that sure about the Iranians, as long as so many of its leadership believe dying as martyrs is desirable. I don’t think most Iranians are that extreme, but if the ones in charge are it doesn’t matter.

Bottom line, I don’t want anyone to attack anyone, but the technology just sitting around in Pakistan as well as in Iran, the land of the Shiia, makes me very nervous indeed.

The religious metamorphosis seems quite unstable to me, in the Middle East, and I’m also uneasy with the current Israeli government though there is always the Nixon-to-China syndrome. What drives me crazy is the idea that if everyone could simply remove religion from the equation, and have hard-headed statesmen of good will sit down and come up with some rational borders, rational relations, and economic Middle East union, the whole world would benefit from the example. I know so many Arabs, Persians and Jews who very much want this to happen, but they are not always in the majority. It could still happen, but only if the right people were in charge and negotiating.

Statesmanship matters. I’m firmly convinced that if Daniel Webster and Henry Clay hadn’t died 20 years too early, America could have avoided the bloody Civil War. (By the time the State’s Rights men and the Manifest Destiny guys were steering the debate, nothing in the world could have prevented that war.)

What kind of odds would you place on Netanyahu and Ahmadinejad working out a happy ending? Now, Shimon Peres or Tzip Livni and Moussavi, and you have a better chance at Cold War-style deterrence.

Report this

By radson, July 6, 2009 at 4:13 pm Link to this comment

To Sepharad

Sepharad thanks for your comment ,Arutzsheva is not exactly US MSM ,they used to broadcast from offshore ,but that is no longer the case and today they concentrate on the settlement expansion
issues.Why would the IDF have to use Saudi airspace to attack Iran ,when big brother is in control of Iraqi airspace,is that due perhaps to the Honest Broker Theory,which requires quite a bit of revision
don’t you think.I agree that all Sovereign nations have the right to defend themselves and in the framework of this discussion it includes both Israel and Iran.Your assement that Iran could perhaps provide
Proxies with clandestine nuclear weapons ,is I believe premature and an invitation to suicide to say the least.Will the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran threaten the middle East or is it more a balance of power
in the making ,if it indeed comes to pass .The threat from an unstable Pakistan is a reality that can no longer be ignored ,and the Saudi Govt has had their share of negative influence to promote this threat,is
that due to the Oil Prowess that they have inherited.Sarkozy has mentioned that a change of Govt would be beneficial to the Iranians ,it is true ,but not only in Iran and furthermore I consider the evolution that
is taking place coincides with the religious metamorphosis that is occurring in the Muslim world.

Report this

By KDelphi, July 6, 2009 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

Folk—very true.

The problem is, that our MSM offers absolutely NO evidence (and often obfiscates the truth) about WHO ARE “the people” in almost every case mentioned.

It seems that it is whoever the media decides, which is always on the side of Money and Power.

These protests always seem to come at such convenient times, with MASS ‘assistance” by the media…almost like it was planned or something!

Good article in “The Nation” (for a change)(Can I get a “curveball”)

“Twittergasms” (Alex Cockburn of course)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090713/cockburn

“How much easier it is to raise three—or 3 million—rousing tweets for the demonstrators in Tehran than to mount any sort of political resistance at home! Here we have a new Democratic president, propelled into office on a magic carpet of progressive pledges, now methodically flouting them one by one, with scarcely a twit or even a tweet raised in protest, aside from the gallant efforts of Medea Benjamin, Russell Mokhiber and their comrades at the healthcare hearings in Congress….

...And who’s doing the Twittering? Professor Larry Gross, director of the School of Communication at the University of Southern California, Annenberg, has forwarded from chartingstocks.et a very interesting analysis of the most prolific Twitterers, “a team of people with an interest in destabilizing Iran.” The chartingstocks.et analysis narrowed the spammers down to three of the most persistent: “StopAhmadi,” “IranRiggedElect” and “Change_For_Iran.” “These twitting spammers began crying foul before the final votes were even counted, just as Mousavi had. The spammer @IranRiggedElect created his profile before a winner was announced and performed the public service of informing us in the United States, in English and every 10 minutes, of the unfair election. He did so unselfishly, and without any regard for his fellow friends and citizens of Iran, who don’t speak English and don’t use Twitter.”

!!!!!!!!!!!!

Report this

By Sepharad, July 6, 2009 at 2:25 pm Link to this comment

matti, agreed: everyone deserves a better system.

Report this

By Folktruther, July 6, 2009 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment

Matti, the decent tendency of most progressives is to be on the side of the demonstrators and against the side with the guns.  Unfortunately American imperialism takes advantage of this tendency to train terrorists and demonstrators to create violence, with a view of imposing imperialist policies.  this is what happened in the Color revolutions, in Iran and now in China.

the US takes advantage of genuine grievences to create chaos that destabilizes or weakens the targeted regime.  Then it gets American Zionists and other pseudo-Progressives to obfuscate the struggle.

Report this

By Sepharad, July 6, 2009 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

radson, no reason the answer to “What about Saudi Arabia?” should elude the Western media. Yesterday’s online edition of ArutzSheva, an Israeli broadcast outlet, said that Saudi Arabia let the Mossad know that their airspace (and Syria’s) could be used in an attack on Iran.

As one of those constant defenders of Israel on this website, my best guess is that Biden knew that before making his statement that Israel is a sovreign country that could do what it must to counter an existential threat (which I believe Iranian nuclear weaponry would be).

But again, as a strong supporter of Israel, I would caution Israel’s leaders that it might be worth a second look at the notion of attacking Iran.

In the first place, Saudi Arabia and Syria do not recognize Israel’s right to exist, and anything they suggest to Israel directly or indirectly is not necessarily something that would be good for Israel. If the Saudis and Syrians feel so strongly about Iran, THEY should use the influence they have economically, in the U.N., in the Gaza, and over Arab media (such as Al Jazeera)to influence a recount or a new election monitored by the Arab League or the U.N.).

Secondly, Israel should not even consider attacking Iran without the express—not merely tacit—approval of the Euros and the Americans, both of which are perfectly capable of implying or winking support but hanging Israel out to dry if things go awry or many innocent Iranian civilians are killed.

Finally, I think it would be in Israel’s best interests to let the situation in Iran play itself out much longer. There might yet emerge more rational leadership who, while not in love with the U.S. or Israel, are less interested in using nuclear weaponry to attack and more interested in using it as a deterrent. (Though if Iran supplies Hezbollah and Hamas with small nuclear weapons, the situation would be quite different, and Israelis would have to
recalibrate their thinking.)

Of course Sarkozy was right. Iranians do deserve better leadership, and judging from the citizens who took to the streets and the backing of the intellectuals, but especially the clerics of Qom opposing Khameini’s dictates, that better leadership could be very close. It would be terrible to snatch defeat from the jaws of possible conciliation.

In any case, the Taliban/Al Quaeda-articulated goal of capturing Pakistan’s nuclear weapon/uranium facilities is a more clear, more present, danger. In an ideal world, the lunatic fringe clery on both Shiia and Sunni side will stalemate one another, while other Middle Easterners progress one step at a time. Such steps might include a different kind of cooperation among Saudi Arabia, Syria, a nascent Palestine and Israel: economic cooperation, infrastructure building and no fighting.

Report this

By matti, July 6, 2009 at 1:48 pm Link to this comment

Anybody else notice how Sarkozy is now a “firecracker” in Truthdig’s eyes?

Funny, I could have sworn that he was the “hard right” neoliberalist who TD has spent years denouncing for his attacks on workers, the social welfare system of France, Algerian immegrants,and France’s Muslim population in general.

Now he comes out for Mousavi and he’s a “firecracker”?

Hmmm.

Iran’s whole system of Government is an affront to democratic principles, so who cares about one election? The Iranian people deserve not better “leaders” (which is a totally classist, even caste-ist, aristocratic and anti-democratic sentiment) but a better system altogether.

Unfortunately they are not the only ones who are in such a situation. The truth is,to a greater or lesser extant, MOST of the world’s peoples are, including those in the “Western democracies”.

As for the protestersin Iran, China, Honduras or Gaza, my stance is that I’m ALWAYS on the side of the people with the placards, NEVER on the side of the people with the guns, I’m always on the side of the kids with rocks, never on the side of the men with tanks.

As far as I’m concerned, being wealthy, “westernized”, pro-capitalist or even corporatist, and more intersted in your right to wear “un-Islamic” designer clothing than in the common people’s right to be clothed period doesn’t change anything.

I guess that’s my two cents.

Report this

By KDelphi, July 6, 2009 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment

Of course the Iranians deserve “better leadership”—so do we!

But Mousavi was not going to provide it.

And, the US certainly CANNOT provide it.

First , we should provide better leadership for ourselves. Otherwise we look like a bunch of hypocrits.

Report this

By joe, July 6, 2009 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

the empire is in BIG trouble. the whole world knows it except of course, as usual, its propaganda’d out clueless “citizens” aka the walking zombies. it’s trying to save itself from complete and sudden collapse by trying all sorts of criminal schemes everywhre. but it’s too late already.the cancer is terminal nothing could save it and everything it tries will backfire.

Report this

By radson, July 6, 2009 at 12:22 pm Link to this comment

Vice President Biden has unofficially given the Green Light for Israel to bomb Iran ,while President Obama keeps the thin veil of peace alive .The Dolphin has crossed the Suez canal to keep the Green
wizards hopes alive to maintain a certain accountability with regards to votes,-the Greens should consider the Bush’s mathematical skills -especially with what transpired in Florida..Sarkozy is tinkering
with Israeli damage control and Lieberman understands his gestures.So what’s next ,let the oil flow ,or is it let the blood oil flow first.But the big question that eludes the Media is ‘what about Saudi Arabia’.

Report this

By Folktruther, July 6, 2009 at 11:27 am Link to this comment

Both the pseudo-progressive media like Truthdig and the pseudo-conservative media support US imperialism and its attack on Islam to control its oil.  They all echo the Big Lies of American imperialism, like the “Irani Stolen Election”, as they did “Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction” and “Dafur Genicide.” So the American people are deluded, conceptually deranged and confused, having no simple coherant view of the people’s interests.

As to Iran deserving better leaders, of course they do.  We all do, as Tropicgirl has said.  All our power strctures are oppressive and exploitive.  But this focusing on Iran supports the US policy of destablizing the country and privatizing its oil. As Sarkozy knows all too well.

Report this

By Noshid, July 6, 2009 at 11:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sarkozy’s comment is right on time. I have been waiting for that corrupt Zionist Jew to weight in on the attacks on Iran. Wrong move Sarky, all the deals among the Mullahs are done. Keep pushing the Muslim world towards Russia and China. Soon the euro is going to be worth as much as the dollar.

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, July 6, 2009 at 10:43 am Link to this comment

By skulz fontaine, July 6 at 1:17 pm #

Dang, Nico the Sark certainly has a grasp on the glaringly obvious.

At least Sarkozy’s sentiment is in the right place; the hard-core tin-foil-hat contingent posting here at Truthdig wasted many words tearing down the protesters as bourgeois whilst simoultaneously defending the (indefensible) Islamist tyranny in permanent rule in Iran. Now THAT’S worthy of condemnation.

Report this
tropicgirl's avatar

By tropicgirl, July 6, 2009 at 10:42 am Link to this comment

The Iranians got more of a recount than we did.

President Nicolas Sarkozy said Monday “Really, the Iranian people deserve better than the leaders they have today.”

Really? I think France and the western world do also.

Report this
skulz fontaine's avatar

By skulz fontaine, July 6, 2009 at 10:17 am Link to this comment

Dang, Nico the Sark certainly has a grasp on the glaringly obvious.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.