Twittering Persians

I agree with your observations. It is asinine in the extreme to attribute any sense of "freedom" on the part of the protesting Iranians to something Obama said. These protests and the general disenfranchisement of the Iranian youth predates even Bush, let alone this 5 month old presidency. Of course the sun did rise today, and the fish were plentiful in the sea if the occult of Obama still feels the need to attribute something to his majesty, Lord Obama the First, protector of the sacred crown of Orthos ... as you might of gathered I'm growing rather nauseas over the media creaming their collective jeans every time this guy kills a fly.

I would only add that I find the "non-meddling" soundbite, turned US policy, a far cry from the strength in "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" No one's asking that he send in a CIA wet work team to pick & choose winners & losers, but a clear unambiguous statement embracing the protesting Iranians would be more then proper. I shudder to think how disheartened this President would have made the whole of Poland in the 1980's. Of course asking him to be unambiguous is like asking water not to be wet. I just hope that he takes note of the fact that he is arguing on the same side as Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan regarding Iran ... but I digress.

That being said ...

I want to draw your attention to an old bone. We disagreed on the decision to go into Iraq in March of 2003 (quite loudly as I recall). And while you never questioned our need to stay & "finish the job", and even routinely said so, I am under the impression that you still find George W. Bush's (& that of the US congress) decision to go into Iraq as in error.

Now, let me from the onset concede that the administration never produced the nuclear precursors, let alone the an actual "bomb", nor large quantities of chemical & biological weapons that were used to build the pre invasion consensus. And I always felt that PR consensus they built during the lead up to the invasion should of included what they no doubt concluded was the long term remedy to Islamic terrorism (& what was always my defense of the Iraq invasion) - inject a true, functioning democracy into the heart of the Middle East as a vaccine which will spread throughout the region, ultimately choking off radical Islam. So given all that, a particular line of your last post caught my eye:

"I would contend that the sense of freedom and liberty that might be present in Iran is just as attributable to US intervention and success in Iraq as to anything Obama said or did. But you won't see that opinion voiced by the mainstream media, will you?"

I am of the opinion that when one considers the "slam dunk" Intel President Bush had at the time & combine it with what is the ONLY real long term answer ever offered as a remedy to IslamoFascism, that being democracy leading to private enterprise, jobs etc, that the president (& again, congress) would have been acting at the height of irresponsibility were he not to order the 03' invasion.

So Titus ... while I openly concede that their "consensus building" pre invasion argument improperly excluded the "tyrrany vaccine" theory, one I am convinced they did embrace privately (after all what else is meant by, "Freedom isn't America's gift to the world, but rather God's gift to mankind") are you prepared to gauge the invasion as "proper?" As in a proper response to the new war on terror we found ourselves in on 9/11? As in it was a proper strategy to replace with democracy a sworn enemy of the United States in violation of multiple Cease Fires, in pursuit of (by the accounts of nearly all Intel agencies in both hemispheres at the time) WMD's, whose regime was primely located at the heart of a region projecting terrorist acts of war upon the United States?

In other words if President Bush's aim was to both remove an "immanent" threat from the United States AND instill democracy at the heart of the region responsible for making war on the US, and IF Iraq sustains its' young democracy & it spreads (that last was a big "if", I realize that, thus the capitalization) do you think history (and at present you) will judge his actions as a net gain for the US & the world at large? Do you now think he was "right", whereas originally you did not?

Just curious.

Oh, post script: Understand of course, if you still disagree with the decision to invade I will need a plausible "rosier" scenario of the world & that region as of June 2009 with Saddam still at the helm (have fun with that one).

And, HAPPY FATHERS DAY to all!