No Shame

I wonder what it would be like to be a right-wing pundit.

It'd be great. Just ask Stephen Colbert.

a good take on an important subject.

this thing with ahmadenijad and the ISG strikes me as bizarrely kafka-esque anyway. giving our position a once-over, wouldn't Ahmadenijad and the mullahs know that we, at best, are not good faith operators, and at worst, have no control over most events within our periphery? Iran has no motivation to talk with us. it would achieve nothing. all policy is directed out of offices that are ensconced in secretive agencies, which is a state of affairs disturbingly like the figurehead fallacy we keep running into with Ahmadenijad. the conversations would have almost no bearing on what went on in the world, causes and effects would be opaque, and everyone involved would be totally justified in feeling like K. on his way to the castle (an allusion to Kafka's the castle for the uninitiated).

FROM ONE OF THE HORSE'S MOUTH:

"We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it actually." Matt Labash, 32, is a senior writer with The Weekly Standard, Http://journalismjobs.com/matt_labash.cfm, Interview with Matt Labash, The Weekly Standard -- May 2003

An explanation of the Iranian power structure (and how Ahmathingamadum doesn't control Iran's foreign policy) can be glimpsed off the Q&A following ex-CIA guy Flynt Leverett's (he of the White House suppressed NYT Op-Ed) talk here:
http://www.newamerica.net/events/2006/dealing_with_tehran

"Ahmadinejad has an impeccable sense of timing"

Since Iran has been working on the conference for over a year --
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/44701 --
wouldn't it more honest to say that the ISG had a remarkable sense of timing?

There's no reason to single out Boots, or pundits. Bush made essentially the same point yesterday, without mentioning Ahmedinejad by name. Matt's complaint is actually with a whole political class & culture.

"for to not give free rein to whatever kind of wingnuttery some conservative wants to publish would merely confirm that the media is liberal."

It's gotta be more complicated than that, right? CW states "reality has a liberal bias." So it seems editors could fight jargon with jargon, if they were so inclined. Or they could force conservative editorials to start defining terms and backing up such claims with examples. Seems the intellectualy honest thing to do at least. So why doesn't this happen? Whatever the problem, it seems to be institutional rather than rhetorical. But if it were institutional, one would think all this push back would affect the narrative-setters. Yet this slop still appears with great aplomb.

Why do our media pundits continue to commensurate propaganda with mass information? With all our push-back; letters to the editors, voting out corrupt republicans, popularity of lefty-blogs, polls, etc., how do media wonks remain so unaffected? Does the media narrative flow only one way? (from them to us, or top/down?)

This seems a phenomenon too complex or expansive for my little brain. It seems even if the incentive is great to back more predominantly republican shenanigans of war with more lies that at some point, one just couldn't keep up anymore. One - even if it were there job - would simply exhaust their mental faculties in inventing and (solely) supporting this fantasia. WTF? Seriously, wtf?

But Michael Moore is FAT! Thus, no one left-of-center must be either seen or heard. Ever.

He knows Ahmadinejad doesn't run Iran's foreign policy and that, therefore, proposals for negotiations with Iran have nothing to do with heart-to-hearts with Ahmadinejad.

Actually, is this true?

The Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Khamenei) controls the armed forces of Iran, but is that the same as controlling the entire foreign policy? It's not clear that it is. After all, in most countries there's usually two different ministries for those areas - one for the armed forces (I.e., Department of Defense) and one for foreign policy (i.e., Department of State). I can't find anything in a quick google about who, in fact, controls foreign policy in Iran.

Can Matthew point me to something that discusses this in greater detail? For example, if Bush were to have a summit with an Iranian leader (like the old US-USSR summits), would it be with Khamenei or with Ahmadenijad?

Can Matthew point me to something that discusses this in greater detail? For example, if Bush were to have a summit with an Iranian leader (like the old US-USSR summits), would it be with Khamenei or with Ahmadenijad?

Surely even that is not so important. We're trying to figure out who is the power behind the throne. Procedural formalities are, it strikes me, even less likely to be telling in Iran than they have been for the Bush Administration.

That's true, SCMT. But Matthew specifically objected to Boot's assertion that the ISG told Bush to have discussions with Ahmadinejad. I think it may in fact be true that, for a foreign policy related discussion, Bush would have to meet with Ahmadinejad (hence Boot's statement that this is a heck of a time for Ahmadinejad to have a holocaust-denier conference). Even if Ahmadinejad doesn't have the final say on whatever comes out of such a meeting.

I can't find anything in a quick google about who, in fact, controls foreign policy in Iran.

Why not ask Jonah Goldberg for help, Al, since you've proved yourself an even lazier fucker than he is.

Al - This might be what you're looking for.

Remember, Reagan was a squishy liberal sellout to these people because he dared to talk with the Soviets. They're not normal.

Thanks, washerdreyer. I continue to wonder who Bush would meet with for a summit, though. Or perhaps a summit is an impossibility given the Iranian system.

I continue to wonder who Bush would meet with for a summit, though. Or perhaps a summit is an impossibility given the Iranian system.

After Khruschev's fall from power, it was never the case that the actual leader of the USSR (the first secretary of the communist party) was the nominal head of state (the chairman of the council of ministers). Throughout that period, US presidents would meet with the first secretary, not the prime minister rather than adhering to the empty formalism.

Also note that the ISG doesn't actually propose a summit meeting. Rather, it proposes that Iran be invited to join a "Support Group" composed of representatives from Iraq's neighbors, Egypt, the US, and the other permanent members of the security council.

Max Boot deserves a bullet to the back of the head. Failing that, I pray nightly that he gets a fast acting cancer and dies quickly but in horrible pain.

A.P. at 7:17, can we leave the eliminationist talk to the right wingers? I hope for something far worse and far better for these people, namely that they wake up and realize how wrong they have been, and how much damage they have done.

Does anyone else think it might be impossible to organize a conference of any stripe, with participants from around the world, on such short notice?

"I hope for something far worse and far better for these people, namely that they wake up and realize how wrong they have been, and how much damage they have done."

Isn't it the point of this thread that they already know how wrong they are and how much harm they do, and that this realization pleases them.

I wonder what it would be like to be a left-wing pundit. Insinuating that it is foolish to say we shouldn't talk to Ahmadinejad because... but instead that it is smart to talk to Ahmadinejad who doesn't run Iran's foreign policy anyway and can't negotiate anything any way.

I don't know; talking to a wall would be more beneficial as we would avoid the Iranian propaganda at least.

proposals for negotiations with Iran have nothing to do with heart-to-hearts with Ahmadinejad

While Matt is right to point out that the President of Iran does not "run" Iran's foreign policy - no one person runs Iran's foreign policy, and certainly the President's power is circumscribed by other branches of the government, especially the Leadership - still, proposals for negotiations with Iran certainly do have something to do with conversations with the President.

The President in Iran is the head of government, and is charged with appointing and receiving ambassadors and appointing the Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well as all other ministers. The President according to the constitution "is the head of the Council of Ministers. He supervises the work of the Ministers and takes all necessary measures to coordinate the decisions of the government. With the cooperation of the Ministers, he determines the program and policies of the government and implements the laws."

The Iranian constitution also says that "the President or his legal representative has the authority to sign treaties, protocols, contracts, and agreements concluded by the Iranian government with other governments, as well as agreements pertaining to international organizations, after obtaining the approval of the Islamic Consultative Assembly."

The biggest mistake our press makes in reporting on Iran is the assumption that Iran has a rigorously hierarchical government, or even a dictatorship. It has a constitution which is quite complicated, and is full of all sorts of "checks and balances", and has produced a system with competing centers of real power. as far as i can tell, Iranians generally seem to follow their constitution. The system is certainly more authoritarian than ours, and explicitly theocratic, but the authoritarianism is checked by real democratic elements that are not at all insignificant. Concluding an agreement with Iran will be a complicated business. It will require getting agreement from the President, the Assembly and the Supreme Leader. It is not just a matter of identifying the right "strongman" and getting his X on a dotted line. But it is well worth trying to strike a deal, since there is so much to gain.

Ahmadinejad is in my view a bit of a fool and a loose cannon, an undisciplined Friedman-like windbag with a self-destructive need for admiration. He shows an occasional populist touch, but erratic political skills and judgment. And there is no doubt that this idiotic recent conference has greatly weakened Iran's global diplomatic position. This, of course, should give us even more confidence in our ability to benefit from a negotion with Iran. If Ahmadinejad were an uncannilly shrewd diplomatic operator, we would have much more reason to fear our negotiators would get taken to the cleaners.

Even if Ahmadinejad does turn out to be the chief negotiating partner, the issue of negotiations with Iran should have nothing to do with whether Ahmadinejad is a nice guy or a bad guy, or whether he is an anti-semite, a cat-skinner, a leper, a child-hater, a bad golfer or a nercrophiliac. The question is only whether such negotiations are likely to produce an outcome which is good for the United States. I think we have much to offer Iran in trade, and Iran has much to give in return and a certain willingness to deal, and that a bargain is certainly worth exploring in a serious way.

I think the best rejoinder to make to Boot about the issue of "timing" is that following Ahmadinejad's absurd conferance, the Iranians had an election in which their choices for the Assembly of Experts dealt a bit of a blow to Ahmadinejad and rebuffed him. So the damage done by Ahmadinejad to Iran's reputation was offset somewhat by some promising evidence that Iranians are on the whole more reasonable people.

The reason Iran is no threat to us is because Iran merely needs to stay out of our way and let us destroy ourselves.

Or, should I say, let Bush and (they hope) an equally insane successor continue on the very same path we've been on.

So Ahmadinejad makes himself repellent, makes it impossible for Bush to deal with him, makes himself so toxic that the ISG reports recommendations are impossible to implement.

This is a kind of passive agression; and a frighteningly effective strategy.

When I saw psyche7 cite an Onion link regarding the planning of the conference, I thought it was going to be a joke. But no, it turns out that the Onion was right.

Somehow no one mentioned the Supreme Council (which goes under a variety of names when translated) unless I missed it. A collection of about a dozen old mullahs control just about all of Iran, including foreign policy. They have been known to kill of Khatami's supporters when he tried to hold real power.

OK, I see the need for a blogger to make provocative comments now and then, but I think the blogging host is being as intellectually dishonest as Mr. Boot. because he has just decided to say that, to be a pundit and conservative, one must be a liar.

How nice.

Guess we shouldn't believe any conservative pundits when they agree with liberal pundits. (As happens.)

Funny. This post reminds me of using Al Sharpton to criticize all black preachers.

he has just decided to say that, to be a pundit and conservative, one must be a liar.

Ummm...I would say that among the most influential conservative pundits, the counter-examples are pretty damn rare, A.M.

Glenn Greenwald finds a few in The American Conservative magazine, but those guys are clearly persona non grata when it comes to actually having any influence over policy, compared to the NR/LGF/AEI windbags.

The real genius of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was to get President Bush to delay the ISG report until after the elections, so that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had time to convene a conference on whether the Holocaust really happened.

Good comment.Thanks admin.

best wishes.
[link title="mirc"]www.turkiyemirc.org[/link]
[link title="mirç"]www.turkiyemirc.org[/link]
[link title="mırc"]www.turkiyemirc.org[/link]
[link title="mırç"]www.turkiyemirc.org[/link]
[link title="mircturk"]www.turkiyemirc.org[/link]
[link title="turkmirc"]www.turkiyemirc.org[/link]
[link title="mirc indir"]www.turkiyemirc.org[/link]
[link title="mirc yukle"]www.turkiyemirc.org[/link]
[link title="forum"]www.karar.org[/link]
[link title="forum"]www.karar.org/forum/[/link]
[link title="turkmirc"]www.mirc-turk.gen.tr[/link]

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
forum
forum
mirc
turkmirc
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

thanksss

thanks

thanks you

youtube
yuotube
yotube
youtobe
video sitesi
video siteleri
izlesene
yutup
www.youtube
youtube izle
video izle
youtub
youtup

geciktirici sprey

geciktirici/a>

I like very much the writings and pictures and explanations in your adress so I look forward to see your next writings. I congratulate you.

mirc