Watched the first 2 Rocky movies over the weekend, so forgive the title of this post. In fact, count yourselves lucky I didn’t lift any other quotes like “piss lightening and crap thunder”. Maybe tomorrow I get you that post. Maybe tomorrow.

As for today, I’ve got a little AP/Ahmadinejad story that’ll warm your hearts. In advance of the Iranian President’s visit to to NY, tomorrow, the AP thought it wise to give its readers a little background:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Monday he was proud his denial of the Holocaust had enraged the West, as the controversial leader geared up for a United Nations trip to stress what he said would be a message of “peace and friendship.”

Ahmadinejad’s latest comment about the killing of millions of Jews during World War II comes as Iran is locked in a bitter dispute with the U.S. and other Western nations over its nuclear program. Even as that fight continues, his remarks were sure to earn the Iranian president an even more frigid reception when he heads to New York on Tuesday to attend the U.N. General Assembly.

“The anger of the world’s professional killers is (a source of) pride for us,” Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying by the official IRNA news agency.

He was responding to a question about criticism from the European Union following a speech on Friday in which he questioned whether the Holocaust was a “real event.” The manslayers reference appeared to be directed primarily at Israel and the U.S.

“It’s a sad day for the Iranian people,” French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Christine Fages said in an online briefing Monday in reference to Ahmadinejad’s latest Holocaust statements. She said “they unfortunately add to the long list of hateful statements” by Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly raised questions about the Holocaust. He has said it has been used as a pretext for Israel’s formation, and that Israel and Jewish groups are actively muzzling any attempt to link shame over the Nazi atrocities with the what many in the Muslim Middle East believe is the West’s bias for the Jewish state at their expense.

via Ahmadinejad proud of Holocaust denial.

Go back and re-read that first paragraph. Does the AP really believe that a person who’s in one breath proud that his lunatic holocaust- denials are enraging the west could ever really be on a mission of “peace and friendship”? Is such a leader truly only ‘controversial’? Why does the AP tie itself up in knots trying to make it appear that Ahmadinejad is just another foreign leader on his way to NY to talk politics? Ahmadinejad is an anti-semitic madman on a mission to spark a global nuclear conflict. That this is not a mission of peace and friendship should be obvious.

The second paragraph’s a pisser too. Because Ahmadinejad referenced something called “the Holocaust” in paragraph 1, being good journalists, they felt the need to explain to their idiot readers just what that was. As if it was some term of art or foreign dialectic that might otherwise get lost in translation if not translated by the ever-on-the-ball AP. Is the Holocaust really just about “the killing of millions of Jews during World War II”? These jews weren’t passively “killed” The Nazis murdered them. Why? Because they were Jewish. The Holocaust was the systemic murder of millions of Jewish men, women and children by an anti-semitic madman….the SAME type of anti-semitic madman who’s the subject of this balanced news article. The reason why Ahmadinejad’s comments are outrageous and why he is such a dangerous and festering threat to the West (who’s obviously NOT on a mission of peace and friendship) is that  he’s saying the same things that Adolf Hitler said right before he went ahead and set up a government tasked with the object of murdering Jewish people.

Third and fourth paragraphs now. Thank you AP. Without your brilliant analysis, I’d still be wondering who Ahmadinejad was referencing with his “professional killers” comment.  The US and Israel? Brilliant work. I was thinking Sri Lanka and Poland. One question though. “Manslayer”? What’s that supposed to be? The context of Ahmadinejad’s comments indicate that the REAL professional killers (the US and Israel) concocted the story of FAKE professional killers (Germany) to shame the world into ceding Israel to the Jews after WWII. That’s his twisted deal. For the AP to describe the “professional killer” reference as one of “manslayers” is the height of ridiculousness. First, because it almost looks like a madeup word. Second, and most importantly, because it conjures the familiar word “manslaughter” in the minds of its readers. What’s manslaughter? It certainly isn’t murder, right? Manslaughter is what happens when you kill someone that you shouldn’t have, but because you didn’t INTEND to do it, the punishment isn’t that bad. Does the AP really wish to liken the “professional killers” of Nazi Germany with “manslayers”? Did the Nazis really not INTEND to kill all those Jewish people? You’ve really got to wonder if that’s what the AP thinks.

Finally, that last paragraph really caps it, doesn’t it. If I tell you right now that Santa Claus appeared to me last night in a dream and told me that Christ was a sham and that Merv Griffin was the Son of God, could my comments legitimately be described by a self-respecting journalist as “raising questions about Christmas”? To say that the Holocaust never happened is not to “raise questions” about the Holocaust. “Raising questions” implies that you’ve actually highlighted a real inconsistency that is backed by evidence, does it not? The mere fact that you’ve asked a question (however ridiculous, unfounded, unsupported or insane) does not imply that you’ve “raised questions”.

So I can’t tell who I hate more—the AP or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Part of me actually hates the AP more because at least with Ahmadinejad, you understand right up front that he’s a lunatic and that he’s dangerous and that he’s motivated by pure evil. With the AP, you don’t get that understanding until it’s WAY too late. Their “analysis” is disguised as legitimate discourse, and you don’t realize they’re defecating on your front porch until it’s too late.

While at a press conference with Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi yesterday, Obama had the opportunity to respond to the following question:

Q Mr. President, on Iran, does the disputed election results affect — there’s been violence in the street — in any way change your willingness to meet with Mr. Ahmadinejad without preconditions? And also, do you have anything to say, any message to send to people who are on the streets protesting, who believe their votes were stolen and who are being attacked violently?

Here’s what he said (with commentary by yours truly):

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Obviously all of us have been watching the news from Iran. And I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football — or discussions with the United States.

Does he realize that Iranians don’t currently make decisions in Iran about who their leaders will be? The protests are about exactly that, actually. Doesn’t he know that? If Iran had free elections, they’d certainly not have chosen Ahmadinejad. The Mullahs know that. Ahmadinejad knows that. The Iranians know it. Too well. Obama’s the only one under the delusion that elections operate in Iran the way they do in the US. Say what you want about Florida in 2000, but nobody was placed under house arrest BY THE GOVERNMENT. Nobody was beaten to death BY THE GOVERNMENT. Nobody was shot in the head BY THE GOVERNMENT. That all happens in Iran every day and just happened again actually, which is what all the fuss is about. Sir. And as for wanting to avoid having the US be an “issue” within Iran. Why is that exactly? The U.S. is the largest and most successful democracy of all time, guaranteeing freedom not only for Americans, but for people all over the world for 200+ years. Why isn’t it a good idea for that to be an issue within Iran? Especially now, with the government rigging elections, removing the freedom of its citizens, and jailing dissenters? That’s a “political football” that I’d think Obama would be EAGER to toss into the maelstrom that is Iran right now. That he doesn’t want to do that belies his innate distrust of America and too easy willingness to nuzzle dictators.

Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I’ve been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process — free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they’re, rightfully, troubled.

Having said that he’s totally immune to the totalitarian nature of Iran and the sham that the Iranian government has perpetrated on its people, and having demonstrated an unwillingness to promote democratic values as a salve for the thousands risking their lives to give voice to the freedom we here in America take for granted, Obama makes the grand pronouncement that the videos of people being shot in the head and dragged off by baton wielding police is “deeply troubling”. He’s not troubled by the CAUSE of the violence, mind you. He’s troubled by the violence itself. That’s like sticking your hand in a meat grinder and being troubled by the blood. How about the decision to put your hand in there to begin with? How does that make you feel? Silence. All he has to say is that the democratic process “should be respected”. It should, should it? By whom? How about something a bit more forceful for the Iranian government who is very obviously and very BLOODILY not respecting the democratic process at all? Or doesn’t Obama understand that organizing in marches to voice your opinion IS the democratic process at work? A RIGGED VOTE is NOT the democratic process.

My understanding is, is that the Iranian government says that they are going to look into irregularities that have taken place. We weren’t on the ground, we did not have observers there, we did not have international observers on hand, so I can’t state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election. But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed. And I think it’s important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views.

He speaks so whimsically of “the Iranian government” as if it’s the same as ours, the same as Italy’s, the same as France’s. The “Iranian government” is a totalitarian, authoritative theocracy. It doesn’t ‘govern’ its people as much as it threatens them. Any acts which flow from this sort of government are inherently suspect. When they say that they’re “looking into irregularities”, what they mean is that they’ll pretend to do so if it satisfies world opinion, but won’t actually go so far as to declare that they did anything wrong and certainly won’t declare a rightful winner. That’s because what happened in Iran WAS NOT AN IRREGULARITY. That was the PLAN ALL ALONG. When something like this happens in a free society, we say it is an irregularity. When it happens in a totalitarian society with an iron-fisted government well practiced in crushing its citizens under its boot, we say it’s STATUS QUO. The mullahs will of course pretend to check their math. And may indeed find a few more votes for Mousavi. But to believe that they’re actually looking for “mistakes” is beyond naive. Ahmadinejad’s re-election was pre-ordained. Either Obama doesn’t realize this (which is unforgivable) or he does realize it but PRETENDS not to in order to legitimize the Iranian government as worthy of a sit-down with an American President (which is evil).

Now, with respect to the United States and our interactions with Iran, I’ve always believed that as odious as I consider some of President Ahmadinejad’s statements, as deep as the differences that exist between the United States and Iran on a range of core issues, that the use of tough, hard-headed diplomacy — diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries — is critical when it comes to pursuing a core set of our national security interests, specifically, making sure that we are not seeing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East triggered by Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon; making sure that Iran is not exporting terrorist activity. Those are core interests not just to the United States but I think to a peaceful world in general.

It’s true, Iran’s behavior is a threat to US security. They export terrorism. They’re threatening to develop a nuclear weapon that will throw the entire world into turmoil. This impacts the US as well as the “peaceful world”. Got it. It’s what Obama’s plans are to rectify this situation that’s got me bugged. To him, the only way forward is through “hard-headed diplomacy without illusions about Iran”. OK. But if you really had “no illusions” about Iran, you’d see that they’re every act is directed toward the central goal of becoming the new strong horse in the Middle East—replete with a nuclear arsenal, a radical Islamic leadership, and a thug President in Ahmadinejad committed to suppressing the world beneath his Shari’a heel. Once you truly remove the illusion that they’re a perfectly fine negotiating partner, you MUST realize the only logical conclusion—that they’re NOT fit to negotiate with and the US interests you claim to be protecting are much better served by ISOLATING them….not coddling them and feeding them sweetbreads.

We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we’ll see where it takes us.

Great. The thing of it is, if even I know that Obama’s brand of “tough” is pretty damn weak, what do you think the Mullahs think of it? Where do you think THEY see this all ending up?

But even as we do so, I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we’ve seen on the television over the last few days. And what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was. And they should know that the world is watching.

I’ll bet they wish someone who was actually prepared to DO something was watching. I mean, if I’m drowning in a lake, what do I care that a bird is watching? When I’m being beaten with sticks, what do I care that a worm is watching? When I’m languishing in prison for speaking my mind in public, what do I care that a cockroach is watching? The only people I want to watch my suffering are people prepared to do more than merely SAY they’re watching. Yet that’s all that Obama is prepared to do. He’s certainly not willing to risk the opportunity to sit down with the “democratically elected” Ahmadinejad and trade special favors for empty words about disarmament.

Are you understanding the weasel words? What sort of comfort are the Iranians to take from Obama’s assurance that “regardless of the outcome” the world was inspired by their participation? Whatever the outcome? So the world should be inspired whether it is shown that the elections were legitimate or not? As if this is even in doubt. As if it’s “yet to be determined” whether the Iranian election was rigged or not. What a dangerous, dangerous demagogue this Obama is.

And particularly to the youth of Iran, I want them to know that we in the United States do not want to make any decisions for the Iranians, but we do believe that the Iranian people and their voices should be heard and respected.

Wow. Just, wow. Inspiring, huh? This is what I meant about a drowning man not giving a damn about the bird watching him sink. Does Obama sincerely think that the “youth” of Iran who are out dying and being beaten to a pulp in the street defending their freedom care that Obama thinks that their voices “should be heard and respected”? Especially when he starts out by saying that he doesn’t want to “make any decisions for the Iranians”? Back to the drowning man. Here comes a boat. They’ve got life vests. But since the boat captain “doesn’t want to make any decisions” for the drowning man (even though it’s obvious from his thrashing about that the man is DYING), he doesn’t throw a life vest. He doesn’t extend a hand to help. Instead he shouts to the man “you in the water! I understand that you should not be drowning! Good luck!”

Good luck indeed.

A Flock of Seagulls, this is not. Craziness is brewing in Iran in the wake of Ahmadinejad’s “re-election” over the weekend. It seems as if there’s corruption afoot in the land of a thousand Mullahs….as if we didn’t already know that.

The thing of it now is that it’s all being broadcast to the world for all to see. How do totalitarian societies function? To what lengths will they go to supress free thoughts and expressions? What will the American president do and say in reaction to these horrors?

To answer the first part, they function fairly well. The trickiness of course in any government being how to manage different ideas to form a cohesive whole. In Iran, there’s no such trickiness. Absolutely crush anyone who thinks differently.

As for the second part, I’d say the answer is GREAT lengths judging by the links below.

As for the last part—Obama’s been silent. Iran is boiling to bursting, and Obama has nothing to say.

Where is Obama?

While we look for him, please check out this link on what’s going on in Tehran.

From Obama’s Cairo speech:

“No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons.”

First, and obviously, if no nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons, then on what grounds is he committing to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons?

Second, the first sentence presupposes that all nations are rational and would only use those weapons as a last resort. The fallacy of course is that the presupposition is a lie. All nations are not rational. Iran in particular, the nation to whom this speech is directed in the Muslim world, is especially IRRATIONAL. Of course rational and law abiding nations can and should “pick and choose” which nations should hold nuclear weapons free and clear. Rational nations have a moral obligation to make sure that irrational nations who have vowed to wipe Israel off the map never possess the capability to do that. The United States is not on the same footing as immoral, irrational and evil regimes such as Iran. To say that “who are we to say that another country can’t have nuclear weapons when we ourselves have them” is the height of moral equivalence absent of any shred of intelligent interference. It’s as if Obama has waltzed into a kindergarten classroom and begun handing out cigarettes. Who is he, after all, to determine who smokes and who does not? If I smoke, why should not these little people? Because they’re children, Mr. President. And because Iran is the equivalent of a child on the global stage, they should never be in possession of deadly nuclear weapons and it’s perfectly legitimate for responsible nations to interfere and make sure that never happens. By. Any. Means. Necessary.

Finally, the Platitude. “No nations should ever hold nuclear weapons.” Yes, it would be lovely if no nation ever possessed a nuclear weapon ever again. Or would it? Think back to the history of mankind and all of our wars between nations prior to 1945. Lots of ugly death tolls.

World War I saw 8.5 million combined military deaths.

World War II saw 20.8 million.

Nothing near that since.

Why?

The major difference between wars pre- and post- 1945 of course was the introduction of nuclear warfare. Since the introduction of nuclear warfare (and the possibility thereof), war deaths have been reduced dramatically. When nobody had nuclear weapons, we  butchered ourselves silly.

I don’t know about you, but I kind of like having nuclear weapons. The United States is rational nation, beholden to the rule of law. Our nuclear arsenal is for defense only and a deterrent to others against aggressive actions toward us.

What type of nation is Iran? Why do they want to have nuclear weapons? What in their history could reasonably suggest to Obama that they’re just like us?

Can we now label this man dangerous? If not, please tell me when so I can mark it on my calendar.

“Radicals” burn Obama posters in Iran (Wizbang).

The irony for me is that when pictures of any Republican (ie. Bush) were burned in various parts of the Middle East for any one of a number of assumed offenses, it became the media’s symbol that we were not liked around the world and that this was a bad thing that could be fixed by merely talking to the lunatics doing the burning.

Now that a Democrats are being burned…and the TOP shiny lovely smells like the back of a baby’s neck after a bath Democrat who has promised to talk to groups like Hamas and Iran on top of that…how to react?

I know what I’M thinking….and that is that radical Islamists will burn just about anything they can get their hands on…including each other…if given the chance. Take none of their complaints seriously. Instead, go to school on their actions.

Then crush them.