Obama Vindicated On Key Foreign Policy Issues?
The relentless focus on the economy has obscured the extent to which Obama's election also represents a big win for his foreign policy vision, which was resoundingly chosen over McCain's. A pair of articles in today's New York Times shed a fair amount of light on this.
There's this one...
Barack Obama may have been elected only three days ago, but his victory is already beginning to shift the political ground in Iraq and the region.Iraqi Shiite politicians are indicating that they will move faster toward a new security agreement about American troops, and a Bush administration official said he believed that Iraqis could ratify the agreement as early as the middle of this month.
"Before, the Iraqis were thinking that if they sign the pact, there will be no respect for the schedule of troop withdrawal by Dec. 31, 2011," said Hadi al-Ameri, a powerful member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a major Shiite party. "If Republicans were still there, there would be no respect for this timetable. This is a positive step to have the same theory about the timetable as Mr. Obama."
There's also this one, which reports that newly available info calls into question the "longstanding Georgian assertion that it was acting defensively against separatist and Russian aggression."
You'll recall that McCain attacked Obama as follows: "Obama said the invaded country should show restraint. He's been wrong on all of these."
If Obama does begin an orderly withdrawal from Iraq, and it does succeed in pressuring Iraq into resolving political differences, it's hard to overstate how massive a victory this would be for reality-based foreign policy sanity and how big a blow it would prove to GOP militarism, jingoism, and self-delusion.
Massive is right - this will be huge.
This ought to knock all the shine off the militarism that is so pervasive. God I hope so!
We get past this blip of intense militarism and I might start to believe we will get beyond this moment, too.
It's not Vietnam - it's WWII. And I realize that that won't end until that generation is gone - it's leaving quickly. But that's what started all this - this love of the military and uniforms and this idea that American military can do no wrong.
It's so over - it's been over since Vietnam, but the old war horses will not let go. Jesus people, it's ancient history and we can't continue to pretend that it's 1949 and we just won a world war. That happened a long time ago now.
November 7, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the things that Obama will clearly show Americans is that we are actually more powerful in terms of influencing the world when they like us, when we are a true example of the principles of our Constitution. And that this is what we base our sense of pride, rather than base it on our ability to invade this or that country and kick their ass.
November 7, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, acamus, and I also think most Americans just told the government that they would much prefer to go in that direction - where we are seen as we see ourselves, basically.
Americans were not comfortable with the America Bush was showing the world.
November 7, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign!
November 7, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If Republicans were still there, there would be no respect for this timetable."
Awesome. I remember when the Iraqis were talking about this that McCain seemed unbelieving. This is good news and shows that with their feet to the fire, maybe Iraq will actually get their act together.
November 7, 2008 11:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
... it's hard to overstate how massive a victory this would be for reality-based foreign policy sanity and how big a blow it would prove to GOP militarism, jingoism, and self-delusion.
Unfortunately, only for those of us who were already members of the reality-based community.
Surely the one thing McShame's campaign and its media enablers should have pounded into our thick, idealistic, liberal skulls by now is this:
reality has nothing to do with wingnut freakazoid thinking, words or actions.
They will continue to insist that up is down and the sun rises in the west and Iraq caused 9-11 no matter how much Obama accomplishes.
November 7, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is a 'freakazoid' a bit like a trapezoid? :)
I know what your saying. I remember Carl Sagan talking about how everyone, especially government, needs a 'bullshit detector'. It isn't radical to think rationally, but until now it has been. I've been going slowly through a book called "The Republican war on science" and it is stunning what has been done. How does eschewing thought make America strong?
November 7, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read "The Republican War on Science" and it scared the bejeebus out of me.
But it also chased away the last naive hope I had that these people could be reached through logical, reasoned argument.
November 7, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, call me a cockeyed optimist, but I think that there are sane Republicans who will understand that continuing on the same path is going to send their party into oblivion.
That realization isn't going to take place this year, or even next. I predict it will sink in after the 2010 elections, when they lose even more.
They might not be friends with reality, but they crave power, and sooner or later, they're going to have to reconcile with reality.
November 7, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not anywhere near as soon as 2010, I think and hope. 2006 was a fire alarm but they ignored it.
It's going to take losing 50 states to Obama in 2012 and another dem landslide in 2016 to give the few sane members of the party still around enough power to force it to face reality.
Remember, they've already met and decided that McCain/Palin lost because they weren't wingnut freakazoid enough.
November 7, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know. What can I say? There's a part of me that insists on believing that they will understand that they're being completely left behind.
The numbers in today's Times about evangelical young voters drifting away from McCain should scare the bejebus out of Republicans.
November 7, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you - they cannot afford to continue to spit against the wind. They will get that as soon as Congress goes back to work, I'm thinking.
November 7, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interestingly enough, the coopting of language by the Repubs continues apace to the effect that they are perpetuating their state of denial. After labelling Obama as a radical socialist (which Hannity claims is still Rove's belief), he claims that Obama won because he's a right centrist.
Radical socialist = right centrist (= WTF?!)
Somehow, I don't see them coming around to rational discussion until they get their heads out of their arses.
November 7, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
November 7, 2008 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the sights I'm looking forward to is the first time Obama visits Iraq or Afghanistan as CIC and is surrounded by rank and file soldiers showing Obama their positive support.
November 7, 2008 11:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
"... it's hard to overstate how massive a victory this would be for reality-based foreign policy sanity and how big a blow it would prove to GOP militarism, jingoism, and self-delusion."
Well except for the mall fact that Obama was calling for a withdrawl almost 2 years ago...before the current sittuation that allows for a peaceful transition of responsibility to Iraqi forces.
November 7, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's as you suspected. Too risky for your family.
November 7, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
If we were where we are now 2 years ago, then they'd be getting their act together then too. It's amazing how much people can do when they have to.
(yes I am ignoring that in Nov. 2006 that the situation in Iraq was a proto-civil war. I'm speaking generally here)
November 7, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that I'm sure Shiite politicians are glad Obama won, because he said he'd get out ASAP and they don't want any infidels over there. My point is that troop levels are decreasing because of the drop in violence and larger responsibility taken by Iraqi forces, which would be happening if McCain had won as well. It's kind of like the argument y'all make against the privitization of SS accounts. "Look how far the stock market fell! That's why we can't have private accounts." Never mind the fact tha someone retiring today would still get more after the crash if there entire ammount of SS payments had been made to an account based on the DOW average than they do from Social Security. You can't look at a snap shot in time and apply it to an entire sittuation. Well you can, it's just disingenuous.
November 7, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unless they put the bulk of it in Enron.
November 7, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's why you limit it to low risk funds. The point of privatization isn't to gamble and get rich, it's to actually have something tangible at retirement.
November 7, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
An aside: I would imagine that if McCain had won, they would be saying something equally flattering toward his administration. It's in their best interest right now to be buddies with the White House.
November 7, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Troop levels aren't dropping, however. They're returning to presurge levels.
November 7, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and the stock market isn't dropping, it's just returning to pre-Bush levels.
November 7, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rewriting history again?
November 7, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes - in great big letters.
Give me a break about the stock market, please. I know exactly what has happened -
November 7, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just comparing notes...in 1998 the Dow's low was at 7938, it's just below 8900 right now. Either it's dropping now or just returning to pre-Bush levels.
November 7, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush took office in 1999?
Yes we CAN rewrite history!
November 7, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
What was the Dow on January 19, 2001?
November 7, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
.
Well well well Sgt Blowhard
If it isn't the ol' apolectic authoritarian enabling Sgt 1st Class Blowhead himself . . .
You wouldn't happen to wish to chime in about your prediction that you dumped here in the old Café back in September of 2006, now would you?
You know, your infamous...
Hope to see you visit there to leave your latest tripe.
Yer lep... Yer lep... Yer lep right lep . . .
~OGD~
*Still meandering in the Café since June 2005*
November 9, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, thanks to Stephen Colbert, we already understood that reality has a well-known liberal bias.
November 7, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok - the press conference is at 12:30 EST? That means 10:30 here - it's 9:14 - time zones shouldn't be confusing but I'm easily confused -
November 7, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Tena, but it's 2:30 EST, not 12:30, so 11:30 Pacific, 12:30 Mountain, and 1:30 Central.
November 7, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
O thanks - I'm already 2 hours off.
I'll just hang around until someone says it's on.
November 7, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's at 2:30 P.M.
so that makes it 12:30p for us New Mexicans.
November 7, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to Sarah Palin, New Mexico's part of NAFTA, too.
November 7, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"According to Sarah Palin, New Mexico's part of NAFTA, too."
If I'm not mistaken, New Mexico hasn't seceded and should be covered.
November 7, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
I don't know how many times when I've been talking to a call center and when you say 'New Mexico', they say "I'm sorry, we can't service in a foreign country." It drives me nuts!
November 7, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just always tell whoever it is that I'm calling from a 3d world country.
That's one of the reasons I love it here so much - LOL
November 7, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I once needed the number for the State Dept. in DC and the info operator kept saying, "What state?"
"THE State Dept. The one in Washington DC," I kept saying.
"In Washington?" she said, "which department do you want in the state of Washington?"
I finally asked for her supervisor. Evidently the first operator attended the Sarah Palin school of government.
November 7, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
I had a long conversation with a woman in Phoenix, AZ, who had never heard of Taos.
I was pretty gobsmacked - most of Europe has heard of Taos. And Arizona is right next door - it's all that southwestern thing. She had no idea -
November 7, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've got you beat:
Years ago, my mom was calling a hotel company trying to book a hotel. She asked for something about halfway between San Francisco and LA, and the person said "What's LA?". My mom nearly had a coronary.
November 7, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!!! - you win. That does beat all.
November 7, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
For the record, I'd never heard of Taos until I went to Chaco Canyon.
Have you ever been to Cuba, NM? I would always stop there for a bite on my way from Albuquerque to Chaco Canyon.
(It does occur to me that you were being sarcastic about people not having heard of Taos, but I'm not sure either way.)
November 7, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. There's a great joint in Cuba - it looks like a coffee shop but it serves native food. O jebus it's good!
You are unique - most people have heard of Taos and not of Chaco.
LOL
Been to Bandelier? It's even better than Chaco, IMO.
November 7, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the only reason I've been to Chaco is because I was helping an archaeology class with their computer network. (I did this for 3 years.) The vistas in NM blew me away. I took pictures for my wife, but I had to explain to her that the pictures just don't do it justice.
And, no, I've never been to Bandelier (or Taos). I'm fairly ignorant about the western half of the US.
November 7, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe the Bush administration, with the election out of the way, is opening, without preconditions, an interest office in Tehran,
November 7, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone has been focused on how Obama is going to get us out of the huge hole we are in, but I think it is underestimated how much progress can, and will, be made just by taking a rational, non-ideological approach to solving the issues.
I think we may see a lot of things start moving quickly, including the winding down of the Iraq war.
November 7, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...it is underestimated how much progress can, and will, be made just by taking a rational, non-ideological approach to solving the issues."
Did you just say that Nancy, Harry and Barry are going to approacing things in a "non-ideological" way?
November 7, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, but you go right on hearing what you want to hear.
BTW, his name is Barack and he's your next president. Get used to it.
November 7, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of which, I wish the talking heads would stop calling the president "Barack." I don't remember their calling Bush "George."
Enough of the informality - he's the goddamn president. Let's see some respect for the office, if you please.
November 7, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, enough of us called him "W" that I've got no problem with people calling Obama by Barack or by Barry. He'll certainly be called worse, and we certainly called Bush worse—I know I did.
In fact, I kind of like the Harry & Barry bit.
November 7, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The flip side of this is I have a relative who'd get really upset about how "the left" disrespected Bush and claim that she'd never be disrespectful to a sitting President. I haven't spoken to her since the election, but I expect the next time I do, she'll prove herself wrong. (Well, technically, not until Obama is actually President and not just President-Elect, but I doubt she'll suddenly find respect for him then, either.)
November 7, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
And if there is a general sense of more stability and peace in the world, then there is an increase likelihood that the world's investors will start putting more dollars into the world's economy because it will be less of a risk.
November 7, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm so happy to have a smart, forward thinking president again. It's not that I don't love this country, but sheesh, Bush was so dang embarrassing it made me uncomfortable when I was overseas and people ask me why Bush did this or did that. I defended as much as I could but you can only make up so many excuses for the guy after a while.
November 7, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, that's easy. All you had to say was "he felt it was in the best interest of the US."
November 7, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You get funny looks when you say something like that you know. It's like saying: Hitler was doing what he thought was best for Germany, too.
I mean - come on. There are objective standards, Wallace. I know you conservatives got convinced that everything is relative - which you used to accuse of us. Now y'all are all about that.
November 7, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, I do agree there are objective standards, I still believe in right and wrong, good and evil. I'm not a "shades of gray" moral relativist. I just don't believe that Bush and Chenney are evil like y'all do. I believe the steps they've taken were what they felt were in the best interests of the country. I don't agree with everything they've done, but I don't assign an evil intent to the stuff I disagree with. I also believe that Obama and Biden will do the things that they think are best for the country. I doubt that I will agree with them all but I won't rant that they are evil and that they are just doing things to get rich or pay off their cronnies.
November 7, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I remember talking to someone in 2002, arguing: Is Bush evil? Or is he just very stupid?
The debate rages on!
November 7, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Bush is Bush. The question is if Cheney is evil. Rumor has it that he was in line for Darth Maul in one of the Star Wars movies. But Lucas was freaked out because the lightning bolts coming from his hands were real.....
November 7, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow, it won't be long until these jokes aren't even funny. Got to milk it while I can.
(assuming people thought the joke actually was funny)
November 7, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was funny, but I'm biased. I think much of what you say is funny.
November 7, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been pretty serious for the last few days, but thanks!
November 7, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just because I'm a giant dork: Darth Maul didn't shoot lightning out of his hands- he was the only worthwhile character in Episode I.
Cheney could've replaced the CGI Jabba though
November 7, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, it doesn't matter what you call it, the decisions our leaders made have led to great Evil. You can argue their "good intentions", but Abu Ghraib, Rendition, Civilian deaths, torture, etc., all stand as evidence of Evil perpetrated b by the USA. Of course we are fighting some awful people, you could even say Evil, but that does not automatically make the battle between Good and Evil. Good as a gifted carpenter once taught us, is determined by one's works. I'd say George and Dick have alot of "work" left to do.
November 7, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Part of why the whole "oh, Obama's got his head in the clouds with his soaring rhetoric" attack didn't quite fly was that he had his feet firmly on the ground with respect to foreign policy. He wasn't feeding us a lot of horse shit about "honor" and "surrender." It was about our resources, not our vague sense of wartime pride.
November 7, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the main reason that didn't fly is that it was a flat-out lie. Republican spokesmen and wingnut commenters alike endlessly parroted the "he talks pretty but doesn't give any specifics" line, but anyone with half a brain could see he was giving a hell of a lot more specifics than McCain.
November 7, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
The article goes on to say that Bill Nelson might get the nod considering he's more of a centrist than Feingold.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/outspoken-feingold-could-lead-senate-foreign-relations-2008-11-06.html
November 7, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The sooner they put Feingold in charge, the better off we'll all be.
November 7, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone listen to NPR's Talk of the Nation yesterday? They broadcast the show through various stations around the world and opened up the lines to internaitonal callers (even paying for the call!).
Nothing short of amazing to hear the flood of well wishers calling in from all over the world. I spent four years abroad in the 80s and I was continually defending an America I did not even agree with most of time.
Bush has been much worse. Because of that, there is now a deeply felt sense of change, hope, and cooperation in the air.
I hadn't realized how hungry I was to hear foreign voices speak so positively about America and Americans.
November 7, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't hear the program, but I wholeheartedly second this.
November 7, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama wins, the world responds:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=96699117
November 7, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's it. Thanks.
November 7, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
O my god yes.
I was moved to tears while in Italy 2 years ago, by a Belgian woman who was very nice to me about Americans. I understood then that most Europeans are sophisticated enough to know that we weren't synonymous with our government - it's not like they haven't had bad governments in Europe.
But as I said upthread - I think almost everyone in the country was sick about the America that the Bush Administration was showing the world because we want to be seen as we see ourselves. We like ourselves - we don't want to be hated. We believe in our potential and goddamn it! Americans do get it! LOL! I'm so happy!!!!!!!!!
November 7, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Georgia was the GOP's early "surprise" - the timing was just too perfect. Obama was vacationing, the Olympics would drown out any in depth reporting meaning the Republicans could have much easier time framing it they way they wanted it. McCain comes out with a big grandstanding speech, and they tries to lecture his town halls on Georgia to show how smart he in on FP/International dealings. They led/egged Saakashvili on and Georgians and Russians died because of it. It basically backfired in that it painted McCain as too eager for war and looked at times that he was trying to pick a fight with Russia.
November 7, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
One other thing Obama was right about: The need to increase troops in Afghanistan so we don't have to rely on air raids which result in more civilian casualties. Remember how much the Hannitys of the right ripped Obama by cherry picking the "air-raiding villages and killing civilians" portions of the quote?
Now we see this:
An Afghan investigation has found that 37 civilians were killed in US air strikes that hit a wedding party, along with 26 Taliban, the Kandahar provincial government said Friday.
November 7, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep thats one big plus that Obama brings to the WH: International trust and respect.
People do not trust bush nor do they respect him, but so far we seen quite a reverse of that world wide for Obama.
November 7, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know. I think everyone is so jubilant we have forgotten one of the great battles we've won.
There is a likelihood Obama will be appointing two Supreme Court justices that won't subscribe to limiting peoples rights be it the right to privacy or other rights that have recently been infringed upon in California.
I would hope the ban in Cali will eventually be found unconstitutional.
November 7, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will! It cannot but be found so if the Constitution is going to stay in one piece. Equal Protection demands it. There is no way around it - none.
None.
It is going to happen - just keep the discussion about the constitution and don't talk weddings. That's all it will take, goddamn it!
November 7, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The two likeliest to step-down are Democratic appointees, Bader-Ginsberg was rumored to be holding on solely in the hopes a Dem would win the White House. I expect that same strategy by Republican appointees because there is a chance that if he serves eight years there will be 1-2 Republican appointees that will need to be replaced. Scalia and Kennedy are 72 years old, and Souter is 69.
Stevens and Bader Ginsberg will likely be replaced within the next four years and I think Breyer will strategically retire should Obama get a second term to make sure he is replaced by a Dem appointee. He won't leave during Obama's first term though.
November 7, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bless you, Mike, but the first two justices likely to be replaced are the two lonely liberal votes: Stevens and Ginsberg.
Third will be Souter, another liberal vote.
Conservatives Thomas and Scalia are only in their 60s although both are overweight and probably not healthy. Unless jeebus takes them first, they'll hang on to those seats until three days after they're dead, as long as the president is a dem.
By replacing Stevens, Ginsberg and Souter with younger liberals, Obama will be positioning the Supreme Court liberally for the future, but he won't be changing any 5-4 decisions until Thomas and Scalia are gone.
November 7, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, let's start praying that Thomas and Scalia are both struck by an irresistible urge to spend more time with their families. : )
November 7, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The key to Iraq is Iran. You need to get Iran to stop meddling in Iraqi matters. Right now they're fighting a proxy war against the US. Shiites needs to know this as well. Iran got all froggy with Bush' axis of evil talk and freaked out when the Bushes made-up reasons to invade Iraq.
Iran emboldens the Shiites in Iraq, and as a result them seem to be running interference with the attempts to form a working government.
Iran needs to know we're not looking to fight with them, not looking to remake the Middle East in our image through military might. The SOS will be key here as he really needs to get this message across. If they can be brought into believing that this is a new America that wants to work with Iran, not bully them, that will go a helluva long way in stabilizing the area. Ahmadinejad plays well there because he talks tough and Iranians are scared.
November 7, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
actually, Ahmadinejad is like a Republican in Iran, his approval rating is quite low due to the economy but his fear stuff works on more rural areas of Iran and the older population. However Iran currently has a large percentage of people who are under 30. This youth population are much more pro western and don't like all this war drum beating. Just like here in America Ahmadinejad is like a republican who doesn't have much support in the cities or among the youth.
Iran would rather Iraq to be stable atm because it would be a good trade partner for them and because Iraq population is largely Shiite then when a government is set up its already going to be most likely have more Shiite's in control.
One thing i love about Obama is his view on topics isn't black and white, and a new approach to Iran will go a very very long way.
November 7, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly so!
I have great faith in what I know of the Iranian people. That is a very ancient sophisticated culture - it's Persia for god's sake. The people are really amazing people and I don't think they're one bit happy except for the extremists.
November 7, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will watch very closely how Obama speaks about Iran. Bush has forgotten that a majority of Iranians probably loathe their government, and would rather watch Sateliite TV than answer a call to prayer.
Finally we can help empower those seeking to reform Iran from within, rather than helping the clerics consolidate their power with our threats and portrayal of the entire country as an enemy.
November 7, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Problem with your theory.
Iranians are Persians. Iraqis are Shiite Arabs. They hate each other as much as the Sunni and Shia do.
November 8, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink