White House spokesman says Ahmadinejad is the elected leader of Iran
white house press conference / White House spokesman
04-Aug-2009 (96 comments)

Disgrace: Shame on Obama's administration

by peace45 on

call the white house and let then hear what you have to say:

White House phone line:  202-456-6213 


rosie is roxy is roshan

Dear Farhad,

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

I am going to write you a message to your account very soon. About the things we've talked about here. I'm sorry for the delay. It's unusual for me. It's complicated. But I wanted to let you know because sometimes people don't check the e-mail accounts attached to their esite accounts. Take care.

Farhad Kashani

KoroushS aziz,  

by Farhad Kashani on

KoroushS aziz,


Thanks for your kind remarks and let me just say we haven’t won the war yet. The uprising has started but not finished. The regime has won a battle, and we know they are going to lose the war, but we have to be more resilient than before. I see that you are absolutely doing your part and more.


You are right about the bullishness. You know better than me aziz that people who subscribe to regressive ideologies such as Socialism, Left, Islamism or Islamist Socialism, are bully-wannabes because they lack the logic and they know it. Look at the Islamists in Iran and the Left in this country. The Left on campuses, in media, they are impolite, bullies, lack character and personality and are intolerant. They hide behind respective terms such as “Progressive” and “Mehrvarzi Islami”, but they’re neither progressive nor “Mehrvarz”. Every single IRI supporter, whether Islamist or Leftist, I met on this site and even generally throughout my life (with the exception of few truly religious ones) fall into that category. That has translated into the ideology as well.


Islamist in Iran always take the upper hand and that’s why distinguishes them from other dictatorial regime. For example, they do not wait for you to criticize them for lack of democracy and human rights. Rather what they do is they say “we have our own form of democracy” to silence you and then they counter attack by talking about the lack of justice in Guantanamo (!!) whereas they got thousand of thousands-times-worst than Guantanamo prisons themselves!, and Leftists in the West, such as own buddy here, and Chomsky and Jon Stewart and others, enables them, meaning, using the forum provided to them by Leftist media which has dominated media the last few years, they soften the image of regimes such as IRI and elaborate and translate what they say to the audience in the West. Our friend here is doing the same. However, what these lost souls just simply do not want to believe is that people know their game. They think people are stupid, but the joke is on them. They sincerely think that people, the everyday average citizen of the world, doesn’t know what the truth is. Chomsky says something, Stewart repeats it and NIAC, Reza Aslan and this guy emphasize it; to them, that’s the entire world! They live in a bubble. That’s the root of all issues.


Anyhow aziz, I’m glad you are standing up to them and speaking in support of the Iranian people. I’m proud of you.


Like you said, IRIs image, credibility and reason for existence has vanished forever and nothing can bring it back. That is the launching point from where the final knockout punch comes from.


Farhad jan

by KouroshS on

Thanks so much for your encouraging words. Thank you for assuming a major role in coming up with effective and sensible and logical counter arguments against these people. To me it does not really matter what side they are on or how many times they have changed positions on different issues, what really pisses me off is this sense of bullishness and authority figure that they employ in their approach.

They can kiss ahmadinejad's behind one day  and then turn around and french kiss obama and many other reform-minded and liberal leaders of the world the next, but they do not have the right to make determinations as to who is and who is not allowed to participate in various discussions.

The problem with this particular fellow was that he decided that he should take the lead on this and be the one who calls the shots and at time he has done this in the most appalling of manners. You know, you simply do not come on a public forum such as this one and bully everyone out of your way and think that they should either listen to you or they have no place in that debate.

 It was a pleasure mr. kashani. Keep up the great work.



Farhad Kashani

KoroushS jaan,   These

by Farhad Kashani on

KoroushS jaan,


These IRI supporters who are running around trying, in their mind, to repair the irreparable credibility, image and legitimacy of the IRI regime (Not like it had any before!), are lost souls.


They used to come out here passionately supporting the regime. They twisted definitions of concepts like democracy and human rights, they engaged in blind anti Americanism, they “went to greet Ahmadinezhad in NY as the president of Republic of Iran (!@$%#&*) (no part of that sentence makes sense!)” ; now this is all part of their last attempt to salvage something. They see their logic (lack of it!) shattered and proved wrong, they see their regime collapsing slowly but surely, so it is very natural for them to be yelling and shouting and trying to play mind games.


If regime’s hellish propaganda machine for 30 years on 24/ basis helped the regime any, then, their attempts will do the same! 30 years of “death to America” slogan turned into “Death to Russia” and “Death to China” overnight, because the Iranian people know that America is not their enemy. The regime and its supporter’s problem is that they think Iranians don’t know. They think that they can fool the people. They have that in common with little kids who do something bad and try to hide it from their parents thinking they don’t know! Literally, the thought process and intellectual level of people like Khomeini and Khamenei and whoever think those two are righteous, or for example think those two  brought us Esteghlal”, and now they're trying to escape by calling themselves "reformers"!!, has not matured, and I mean that literally has not matured. Reasons are socio economic and cultural offcourse. But it’s true nonetheless.


So aziz jaan, they gonna  bark, so what? These people have no place in a free Iran. Did Nazi supporters have any place in post Nazi Germany? No! Same with them. I’m just proud of people like you and Fred and others who stood in their face, discredited their foolish arguments, took back our voice and spoke in support and on behalf of the oppressed Iranian people.



by KouroshS on

I do get it, and i get plenty of it, I wish i could say the same thing about you.

I am not as blind as you are, since i am as old as you are. Ossoolan you have the tendency to turn things around in such a cunning way. I have seen that. That is ok. Like you say that is part of life. Your life.

Let me think about your deal. Can i get back to you on that? Cuz you see. Sometimes you say things that piss people off so much that you just can not leave them unreplied to. It is so bad that now that fellow Craig has taken after you and is behaving in the same exact manner.




You obviously don't get it...

by Q on

You can look below and see who started with the lecturing and the "arrogance" name calling. It was you, but you are too blind to see it.

No matter. I'll make you a deal, that should settle this once and for all, if you are serious.

How about from now on you never address me, talk to me, or talk about me and I will do the courtesy of doing the same thing for you. OK? Can you handle this, or do you feel as though you have to talk about me?



by KouroshS on


You crack me up. Ye kam slow down kon okay? you may blow a gasket.

I NEVER started with the name - calling, so your slogan of Retorting to me, is utterly meaningless. You, on the other hand was the one who called me a hypocrite. If you do not remember, PBS is doing its annual fund rasing deal selling all kinds of books on memory enhancment. I recomment you call them up. You can Continue doing whatever the hell is it ke eshget mikeshe. 

That is just life ? LOL. Ok. mr. Life. Whatever rocks your boat.

Arrogance? Yeah sure. I am the arrogant one. But remember that you are the one who takes the liberty of cracking stupid comments as to who can and who can not get into a discussion. You are the one who thinks has the authority to determine who "inserted" Himself in the discussion. One must be full of you know what to deny that.

I don't give a hoot whether you are interested or not. I was talking about the collective presence of the whole community of those who bother to come to this site and talk about issues. And BTW nobody wants your opinion on what they are interested or should be interested in talking about on this site. This is not the elementary school and you are no longer the Mobser. Wake up.

Preaching was something that you started Q. Quit messing around with words. How could i be preaching about being preached to? Think about that.

You what you can do with the free advice? i think you have a pretty good idea. You are smart enough to know. You are absolutely right. You should keep it shut when you do not understand certain things.
No one could have said it better than you.

You know yourself better than anybody else. The hight of arrogance and selfishness is so evident from every singel words you have uttered.

What a shame.


Sorry Dudes!

by Q on

I am a reformist, and was so before it was fad for people like yourselves. Azad, I doubt very much you are one still. Back when I was known as a reformist, being a reformist was an insult and frequently attacked by people who thought there is no reforming in Iran and Iranians must have foreign help to do anything. That's what those quotes represent and if anyone reads the contexts they'll see the kind of short-sighted arrogance that I was up against.

I give you credit for finding the original contexts, but that pretty much pulls the rug out of the "hypocrisy" argument. Which, I forgot you are NOT making. Haha! Of course I do not have to answer them. What's the question? You don't have one. You don't even know WHAT to ask, you just want to give the AURA of something bad! Just like the word associations games I talked about.

KouroS: I retorted to you with the exact same level of "name calling" you did to me, in fact even fainter. If you continue, so will I. That's just life. If you can't see that you have the arrogance to start "preaching", and then later continue "preaching" about being "preached to", where's the conversation? If this is what you call "exchange of information," save it. I'm not interested, and neither would anybody else.

Some people just can't see their own flaws, too busy pointing out others for the same ones. Don't be those people. And don't talk about things you don't quite understand. (Some more free advice for you.)



by KouroshS on


Why did i know and expect that i'd  get such a reply from you? amazing. You can't make a comment or discuss something with peace and calmness with anyone, can you? You have no right to pass judgements on anyone in here and calling anybody an angry this or that. Look at you. Does not take much to tick you off and now you are sitting here preaching to me about what perceptive and NOrmal people do. You are giving youself way too much credit there mister.

You have entagled yourself in the web of deceit and paranoia, thinking that there are actually people who have made it their full time job to chase you around on this site and maybe all over the internet. and the most credible reason that you have to offer is the fact that they have been on for a short time. as if you know for a fact who they really are. Mage mardom beekaran? I guess in your culture and in your mind one must be. The Irony you are talking about here is nothing but Paranoia. It is a good thing that you agreed with every single point that he brought up in his last posting.

I am the Hypocrite? Look who has started the name calling game again. It has become a normal part of discorse on this Site for you, has'nt it!

You don't even know what the heck you are talking about. Why should i or anyone else for that matter like it when you "pull" something so nasty and degrading and low-lifish? What gives you that right? This is the kind of behavior that you initiate.

Whether you like it or not, whether you want it or not and whether your oh, so super intelligent mind can handle it, We or at least most of us are here exchanging comments and WE DO apprecite each other and we do not need renegades and bandits to mess that up for us. It is the insult-free and peaceful exchange of comments that i think should be appreciated not anything else. Why can't you make the distinction?

Iraneh Azad

Dear "Q" Is your response the best you can Do?

by Iraneh Azad on

I took all the quotes below from 3 specific blogs I believe. It took me no more than 20 minutes to find them. I am sorry it did not take me hours as you claim as I just don't have the time. It was really easy as you just have to look for blogs with a lot of hits on them as its a clear indication of long discussions by people here.

Here are the links:




Q, you do not have to answer them. I just wanted you to know that your record of hypocrisy and support of the IRI and its political system is clear and can be found very easily. The readers will decide if they are "out of context" since they are absolute statements by you in support of the IRI regime and speak for themselves regardless of the context.

I just know that most people, after reading the statements below by you would doubt that you are a "reformist" and would find it an insult that you wear the color green here.


KouroshS, thanks for the lessons, really,

by Q on

now take some notes down yourself, and quit the BS word games. What are you even talking about how many million sites do I have control over? Are you another conspiracy nut?

You honestly think this is an "exchange" of opinions? I wish. Please... wake up!

There is no arrogance. When an angry a-hole with nothing better to do, acts like a stalker, because he can't argue his way out of a bag, you can't help but notice up his/her pattern. It's not difficult at all if you are the least bit perceptive. Normal people aren't this obsessed. Maybe you don't see that, but most people do.

I've dealt with a lot of a-holes. This person is certainly a candidate. Look at his track. Does it make sense for someone new to sign up in a short time and then obsessively "try to out" ONE PERSON the entire time? Azad is obviously an old timer at iranian.com, but he doesn't want anyone to know his previous name WHILE he's trying to paint me as inconsistent. You don't see the irony?

Why should I "appreciate" this behavior? Don't be a hypocrite. YOU have not liked it either (to put it mildly) when I pulled something much less severe on you, i.e. repeated your previous user name, and now you're lecturing others on "appreciation" of comments.



by KouroshS on

This site is a collective forum of individuals who are interested enough to be a participant in a wide range of topics that tend to come up for discussion. I can not believe that you have not realized that simple fact, given your immense level of intelligence and Danesh!

You display your arrogance when you (and you have done this. oh,,, just about a zillion times) make the call that so and so popped out of no where, or Butted into the discussion. You should feel lucky and be thankful that commenters of various backgrounds and affiliations care enough to open up a discussion and exchange opinions with you, regardless of how many million sites there are out there that you happen to have control over or conduct discussions on.




Dear "Azad" is this the best you can do?

by Q on

Yes, they seem reasonable. The subject/objects of a few of them are not clear since they are taken out of context, but if David ET wants to make a point of hypocrisy, he's welcome to it.

I wonder why since you surely spent hours fishing for them, you did not provide the link. Could it be you are counting on taking these out of context? Could it be that you don't want people the see the whole discussion including any evidence or experts that may have been offered to support the statements?

What's really funny is that I know you spent hours getting these, but could not yourself actually make a case for hypocrisy. So, you fall back on the tried and true method of sensationalizing word occurances (like "IRI" and "democracy") without making any argument. Reminds me a little of the Iraq war ("WMD" and "Saddam").

I'm all ears for David ET's point, however.

PS. As I mentioned last time you popped out of nowhere and attacked me, it's now beyond a doubt that you are obsessed with me as I seem to be occupying a huge amount of time you spend on this site. Since you must be a fake/former user who is clearly taking abusing the sites open policy to take cheap shots without revealing your own record, forgive me if I don't give you the time of day.

But David ET, I respect enough to answer.

Iraneh Azad

Q, Do you agree with the following statements?

by Iraneh Azad on

A single person on this site has made all statements below. Do you Agree with them?

1) “So we have to admit, there is such a thing as a continuom...... The system as it is designed currently can deliver much better democracy. For example: if the Guardian Council starts vetting candidates less and less. The Supreme Leader could show less and less initiative. The foreign policy council could be dominated more and more by the popularly elected President (That's Ahmadinejad by the way). The system can move very far toward perfect democracy. “

2) "The fact that there is strict eligability requirement is not a reason to call it undemocratic."

3) "Even though I agree the candidate vetting process in Iran is unusually subject to abuse, it is only a few degrees different than other democracies. And in any case continued participation of people in the system also legitimizes it. That's just a fact of life we may not like but it won't go away.
That's just a fact of life we may not like but it won't go away."

4) "I believe the revolution gave us "Esteghlal"."

5) "Since when is having a democracy dependnet on Parties? The US constituion doesn't have any provision for political parties. The definition of what is a "party" is extremely vague anyway. What we have in Iran now could be considered parties"

6) "The fact that there is strict eligability requirement is not a reason to call it undemocratic."

7) "In Iran, the role of Supreme Leader is closest to a "chief justice" since he has no proper legislative functions."

8) "A referendum is not a bad idea, if the people of Iran want it. A majority would have to demand it. But personally I think if even 30% of Iranians go on record supporting such a referendum it would happen and I would support it."


"The point is that the IRI and its supporters will not allow such refrundum to take place since they know its results."

"I'm not sure if that's true, but where is the proof that such a referendum is demanded? When a large majority of Iranians come out year after year to vote inside the system, and support its positions (like Nuclear Power, anti-Iran terrorism, etc) in international polls, why should they think that anybody other than Monarchists and the MEK are calling for this referendum?"

"The majority of Iranians want the same things than any other normal human being would want: freedom, progress, prosperity, peace, security, happiness and so on."

"no doubt. But IRI claims to provide these and a lot of people believe them. Contrary to popular belief in California, all those people ren't and really couldn't be on the "IRI payroll". You must face the fact that not everyone interprets these values the same way as you do or you understand them.

In fact since 65%+ of the Iranians routinely participate in elections, we can conclude that they have decided the system is reformable and good enough. They have decided they don't want the kind of chaos that comes with a revolution, especially since there are many foreign wolves waiting to attack. I know you don't accept this, but that's why you are not in charge."

11) "As far as IRI has imposed its ideological supremacy, I fail to understand how a government can do that based on a national constitution that was voted for by 90%+ of Iranians"

12) "IRI has neither occupied ("hegemony" by the definition that is relevant here)nor "forced an ideology through government"

13) "If Iranians want to put their lives on the line, they can remove the government right now"


David ET, I'm getting tired of your worthless blabbing

by Q on

I don't know what you're fantacizing about my "positions" but be a man and show it. What are you even talking about? What's the hypocrisy? You say it's on record? Great, just point to the page. Your biased paraphrasing and worthless judgementalism is no use to anybody.

I don't want to see anything from you unless you can back it up. So run along and find it first.

Right after that, be parepared to extensively review your own "positions".

Yes, I can and do expect a response from US when it is it's own money, weapons and support involved. The issue is not the Gaza genocide (paid for by US by YOUR taxes), but the routine inauguration of a world leader.

I'm being absolutely consistent: US should stop interfereing be it Israel or Iran.

David ET

give it up Q..just compare your positions vs.a year ago!

by David ET on

at least some of us have been consistent and no we are not forgetful.  

I had never seen you pleased with US position towards Iran, these days you seem to be more content 

and no : "He is the ELECTED leader" does not qualify as not getting involved in Iran politics as you desire.

and no just the fact that I think everyone ( not only US) should condemn human and civil rights violations, unjust trials, rights to and  murders does not give US or anyone moral high ground but shows that as specifies we do believe in common principles of human rights. This has nothing to do with politics but humanity and this should be expected of all , US included and if you deny that , then you can not expect that when it comes to Gaza, China, Iraq etc either...

The one who is seeing this through his political/ideological/religious shades is you and you are reflecting it on others. 

But I am not surprised about your positions today or in the past. You are same one who used the claim the demonstrations in the past (before all this) were just by very few in front of universities etc and did not represent a larger section of the society.Your past comments and records are here to stay!

Once you were faced with the undeniable masses of people in the street, you could nolonger continue to claim that so you shifted to another false claim that all those people want continuation of a Islamic regime (a regime which excludes so many from participation by its nature, its constitution and its name).

I have no idea whatsoever why the Islamist want to shove their viewpoint down the throat of others and divide the society as opposed to democratic seculars who believe all should be allowed to freely participate , a system that includes all sections of society and brings unity  . 

If God wanted all to be Islamist or the same would have created us that way ! 


I predicted this last year....

by shushtari on

that obama would be the 2nd coming of carter!

as farhad stated perfectly, this is what happens when you let liberal lefties dictate foreign policy (before you liberals lash out, I did not vote for bush either!)


obama and this fat idiot, gibbs, have demonstrated their utter ignorance when it comes to foreign policy....

obama has displayed that he has no cojones whatsoever and the fact that he is a wet-behine-the-ears rookie has been perfectly demonstrated


the people of iran wanted a sign of support from the "so called leader of the free world..." instead, these morons do what they do best, bend over for murderers and dictators and go out of their way to appease them...

what are these fools thinking:??: "oh, let's not piss off the mullahs, so we can negotiate with them.....I'm sure we can talk them out of hating us or building a nuke...!"

 all the while, the akhoonds and their paid arab goons are shooting our brave people in the heart and head- shooting to kill and these are unarmed civilians......!

a day will soon come when these basijis and bache akhoonds will wish they were never born!! oh, I can't w8 

Farhad Kashani

This is what happens when the Left wins!

by Farhad Kashani on

This is what happens when you give in to the Left.


Lets be honest, the Left won this battle and the damage has been done to America, Iran and the world. Now we need to win the war and take back our country, our voice and our dignity.


By above I mean, this is what happens when we let Left brainwash us. This is what happens when we let Jon Stewart and Chomsky and Reza Aslan and NIAC and antiwar.com and moveon.org “analyze!!” things for us, speak on our behalf and hijack our voice. This is what happens when we let them speak on behalf of the people, thus, forcing the government to adopt policies aligned with their logic (lack of it!)


This is the result of 8 years of misguided and twisted anti Bushism. This is the result of 8 years of making a culture out of being obsessed with Bush and neglecting what Fascist regimes such as IRI were doing. When Bush said Iranians deserve better than this, which is what Iranians have been saying for 30 years now, we let the Left attack him and silence him. When Bush said America will stand with the Iranian people when they stand up, we let the Left bash him and silence him. When Bush rightfully so called the Fascist regime part of axis of evil, we let NY Times and Cindy Sheehan raise hell. When global media concentrated day and night on a prison called  Guantanamo with some of the most dangerous people in it and neglected the thousand times worst than Guantanamo prisons in Iran, this is what happens.


Let’s admit it. Let’s admit that we let the Left win this battle. We did, but from now on, let’s make sure we win the war. Let’s make sure we THINK. Let’s make sure we reject what these people say. Let’s learn not to fall into clichés and pop culture analysis of world politics. Let’s learn not to be bullied again. Let’s learn to push back people who are speaking on our behalf with no permission. Let’s be active, for Iran’s sake.


No, sorry, you're still emotionally over-dramatizing

by Q on

I think it was a very strong, very loaded word, and that's WHY I was so upset about it after I heard it. Because the word is the strongest signal you can possibly give, that ONE LETTLE WORD.

Rosie, quit pretending this is zero sum game. It's not a signal at all to repeat the official stance of the Islamic Republic of Iran regarding it's own election. It is normal procedure to acknowledge an election according to official results. The same procedure that was followed by Bush when he congratulated Egyptian President on his election (and which Obama will do the same in the future). Obama already "congratulated" Lebanon after its election, which lacked the fundemental basics of democracy where the numerically superior votes of Hezbollah was not enough to win parlimentary majority due to a colonial-era rules weighing Christian votes higher. Unless this administration likes to act like a hypocrite, it won't treat Iran differently from any other country that has inaugurated a new leader.

Anything other than what's normal, is signal/statement.

I never said it wasn't "intentional". I think Hillary was wrong in interjecting herself into this but I said the reason she did it was for political consumption and I was right. In any case, what she did considering Ahmadinejad's glowing congratulations to Obama on his election was to make it more difficult to negotiate with iran (which is what the people who don't give a crap about the Green movement want.).

The reason that I said that about you is that you seem to insist on some kind of acknowledgement of your own political viewpoint from the US administration. This has the effect of positioning the interlocutor of such a statement as a moral authority, something Bush loved to do whenever it suited him, and something Obama is trying to avoid, but thanks to short-sighted interventionists of both parties, he may not be able to avoid.

Kaveh Nouraee

Mark this date, folks

by Kaveh Nouraee on

It (show trials) demonstrates I think better than any of us could ever say that this Iranian leadership is afraid of their own people, and afraid of the truth and the facts coming out."

I never thought I would see the day where Hillary The Shrew would actually say something that I agree with.

There is indeed a first for everything.

rosie is roxy is roshan


by rosie is roxy is roshan on

I'm not ignoring you. I'm just too tired to go on  right now.

rosie is roxy is roshan

Q, what do you mean, I want some kind of 'back handed

by rosie is roxy is roshan on


First of all, I don't think it was some kind of back-handed signal at all. I think it was a very strong, very loaded word, and that's WHY I was so upset about it after I heard it. Because the word is the strongest signal you can possibly give, that ONE LETTLE WORD.


You still have to admit that if  that word was intentional, Hillary's words are also intentional. Especially since they were recorded in the interview for CNN which is coming out on Sunday. And you know those questions wee given in advance.

'Resistance' is the strongest possible word youc can choose. I implies something like a state of war going on. Where the people are ckearkt fuggtubg agaubst their oppressors and their struggle one sees as legitimate,. And in this case the word is very clearly loade, given the rest of Clinton's languag in the context. She says the truth and the facts will come out, which implies electoral fraud. People talk about the Palestionian resistance. The French Resistance is World War II. They usually talk about an Opposition 'Party'. When you have a military-like situation where you don't like the side fighting against the power, you usually call them 'opposition forces', or rebels. You don't call them Resistance.

To repeat, it's the strongest word that could possibly be used.

So again, since You yourself said 'good cop bad cop, I really don't understand what your point is here.

Hillary's message is loud and clear, SO clear that I'm getting a liiiiiiiiittle worried that it could get too clear.  And David'll probably be disappointed that I said that.  But I do want something that encourages people to move on to Phase 2 peacefully, I see no point in more deaths or tortures. I don't think it will lead anywhere. And Resistance is not a peaceful word.

And I don't want foreign intervention or crippling sanctions either. And so, given the recent history of US policy under Bush, and his rhetoric, there is a problem because she imay soon start to sound like him. Which could cause repercussions most unpleasant all around. 

So again. You simply have to admit that if you believe the word 'elections' gave a strong signal. that Hallary's words are at least eually strong. So since you yourself said 'good cop bad cop', I honestly don't see where you're going with this telling me I'm looking for a back handed 'signal'. Presumably if you said good cop bad cop that would be what you think too, to large degree.


As for it being minor, no, I don't think it's minor. I said below several times that moral support from the United States (and certain other countries, in particular, although probably not quite as much( They want iis very important to people over there.  I said it's because this struggle (which is another word Hillary could've used, by the way, but it's still not as strong as Resistance, black people during Civil Rights had a struggle, but not a Resistance like the Palestinians do),

I said it's because this struggle over there is about people wanting to be part of the modern world (which includes democratic parliamentary). So they need recogniton from the world they want to be a part of. For all its warts. They want that recogntion for their struggle very badly. It doesn't mean their struggle will fail without that support l (you see, even I wouldn't use as strong a word as Resistance now). But it does mean, I believe, that they will feel stronger with this moral support. Which could help them succeed.




So I don't agree that this is a minor issue, but I'd rather first clarify my first question, because it's far more simple. What do you mean by saying  I'm looking for a back handed signal in light of what I wrote in the first paragraphs?


PS Now that I think about it, Resistance is a word usually applied to a struggle against an occupying country.



by Q on

America is dealing with many countries that is not democratic but Iran is a unique case that not only its not democratic but they are a terrorist regime

Thanks for making it easy for people to ignore you completely from now on.

Rosie: Unfortunately, you're too emotional about this minor issue. You still want some kind of back-handed "signal" to the opposition which makes no sense. I don't really understand what you must be going through but I know it's not rational.


Rear Rosie,...

by peace45 on

First of all thank you so much for your spirited comments!! You were the reason that this post is one of most commented post..so thanks!

 BUT...the only people who are for negotiation with regiem are the oil companie and GE type corporation who are dying to make some money in Iran.

I am not against them making money, but I want them to do it when Iranian people are FREE.

rosie is roxy is roshan

Did you people see Clinton's new statements?

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

today. I hadn't. //www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/06/clinton.iran.trials/

"It (show trials) demonstrates I think better than any of us could ever say that this Iranian leadership is afraid of their own people, and afraid of the truth and the facts coming out."



rosie is roxy is roshan

Oooooooooh boy, Peace45,

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

you're getting yourself into hot water. Go back to Javid's thread, Q. Have a laugh on Ari and me. You could use one.


Peace, whatever reason Obama had for what they said, I really do think he did it with good intentions. I just think it was an AWFUL and UNNECESSARY choice.  Or gaffe.

And I'm sure there are plenty of people in Iran who do want him to deal with the Regime economically and diplomatically. You can't speak for everyone. You just can't. Every time you say 'we' and you're thinking of all Iranians, or even all people in the Green Movement, you have to step back.

It can't be true. It just can't.


Q ..you got it wrong on Obama

by peace45 on

your comment "it is the fact that Obama has at least a partial desire to stay out of other people's business."

 actually you are right in a way, Obama does not want to deal with Iranian people, he wants to deal with the terrorist regime and that's the part which is disgusting!!!

yes, America is dealing with many countries that is not democratic but Iran is a unique case that not only its not democratic but they are a terrorist regime and they not only are killing their own people but also is funding terrorist camps around the world and has been responsible in killing of hundreds of American soldiers and also their strategic goal is to spread their regime everywhere (ie: Lebanon and west bank)


Listen, I voted for the guy (regretfully) but his brand was all about "hope & Change"....All we are asking him is not negotiate with the terrorist regime and let them get isolated.  Who can argue with that? 


rosie is roxy is roshan

I'm not playing word games. You didn't check my words.

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

I said it three times. It's no game. It's very clear. I wrote out the dialogue and I bolded it. I'll do it again.

Reporter: Is Ahmadinejad the legitimate leader of Iran?

Press secretary: He is the President. (looks over his head, points to someone behind him). Yes?


And the use of the word Resistance is more than 'good cop'. Supporting the Opposition is good cop. Supporting the Resistance went beyond the call of duty. And Clinton didn't make a gaffe for sure.


Why play word games, Rosie?

by Q on

If he is disputing the official results, why beat about the Bush? There was an event, he had to describe it. Why use a non-standard phrase?

Isn't it a bit juvenile, to use "is Presidnet" instead of "elected President" while not officially claiming he cheated and chuckling in the corner like a school girl? Please...

Gibbs' has no business giving 'signals' to anybody. If a "signal" came from the whitehouse, that's the end of the resistance right there.

The Clinton retort was obviously post-facto Good-cop / Bad copy "cover my ass in front of conservatives" diplomacy. I don't put much stock in that. This is politics after all, I fully expect them to use whatever tools they want for their own domestic consumption and to put more pressure on Iran for their own nuclear negotiation purposes. But make no mistake it's not for the sake of "the resistance" nor should it be.

This is very simple. US needs to stay out of it. The more it gets involved the harder it makes the job of the protesters.

rosie is roxy is roshan

Wait, I'm being misrepresented. Q, Ostaad, ET

by rosie is roxy is roshan on

First of all I never said Q that he should be in a position to determine anything. What I said was that it would've been far better for him to make a simple affirmative assertion, "Ahmadinejad is the President" or "Ahmadinejad is the leader" and then move on.

I also said that there could an advantage to it in that it discredits (whether truly or spuriously...) the notion of 'foreign meddling' by 'the enemy' (withIN and without lives this 'enemy', btw), and I said that the show trials brought that point painfully home that this is going to be a REAL problem for the Green Movement. You look at these people in their pajamas looking like they're wasting away of cancer BABBLING on drugs about the CIA. And your heart goes out to them, and you just don't see the point in their being any more.

So what I said is it could be a signal to move on to Phase 2, which would be pressure from below (civil society) and pressure from above (within the various governmentS, all three-clergy, military, parliament--and the fourth estate, the press...) in a...what...calmer way? I can see that would be a sensible signal to send. And I said Obama & Co. may have been thinking that.

I also have to reiterate that for Clinton to use the world RESISTANCE is a VERY VERY STRONG choice. Everywhere people and the press have been using 'Opposition'. 'Opposition' DEnotes political challenging. Resistance DEnotes subversive challenging to the point of guerrilla warfare. Now.

If it is true that Obama and co. chose the word 'elected', they ALSO chose the word RESISTANCE. (And Hillary was VERY scripted, and frankly..GIbbs...was not as 'confident' as she...). So in this case it must be assumed that the intent was to confer BOTH recognition AND non-recognition. It's the ONLY logical conclusion if one assumes 'elected' was the intended word with the intended DEnotation (not CONnotation, as in Gibb's (semi)-retraction.

I would not be saying this had Hillary used the word 'Oppositon'. But 'Resistance..."


 This is not simple. And I never said it was. What I DID say was that imho there was a far more preferable choice, and that the Movement needs moral support FROM the 'modern' (and PARLIAMENTARY) world, because THAT IS WHAT THEY YEARN TO BE PART OF.

HOWEVEE, someone said it very concisely and strongly today elsewhere-Thank you, Obama for taking away the IRI pretext of foreign intervention. This was a terrible blow to them. (Echong my original musing, I paraphrase).

Well, I hope I'm clearer now. I DO see many sides. I KNOW it's complex.

But ultimately I wish very much Gibbs wouldn't've said that. And I still haven't ruled out 'gaffe' btw, and neither has NIAC, so I'm in pretty good company.