Comments on: Anyone Forget Bush v. Gore?

By: Booker Rising

Booker Rising — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:14:34 +0000

TONY CAMPBELL COMMENTARY: Anyone Forget Bush V. Go…

…

By: Steven Durham

Steven Durham — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:57:48 +0000

Why is it so hard for people to understand that in the game of politics there is no good or evil, just winners and losers, and that every shrewd politician since the dawn of man has waited out the internal affairs of foreign countries before choosing a side?

By: D. E.Rodriguez

D. E.Rodriguez — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:29:57 +0000

"I concede 1953 to you. Now give me one shred of evidence since."

More recently after the Gulf War, there were serious possibilities of rebellions against Saddam Hussein, by Shiites, Kurds and dissident military units. In fact, encouraged by the United States to rise against Hussein, uprisings actually erupted in certain Siite and Kurdish regions and were ruthlessly repressed.

After encouraging such rebellions, guess what, the United States did absolutely nothing, under the first Bush.

The rest is history...

By: Don Quijote

Don Quijote — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:26:10 +0000

I concede 1953 to you. Now give me one shred of evidence since.

The miseducation of the West
By Joe L. Kincheloe, Shirley R. Steinberg - After the coup: America's Shah

Having Norman Schwarzkopf Sr train the Savak and stealing 40% of the Iranian Oil not enough for you?

By: PucktheCat

PucktheCat — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:58:44 +0000

“I concede 1953 to you. Now give me one shred of evidence since.”

Supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, while not exactly “meddling in internal Iranian affairs,” certainly didn't make us any friends in Iran.

By: casualobserver

casualobserver — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:24:27 +0000

@@Meddling in Iranian internal affairs is what has turned entire generations of Iranians against the US@@

Why do lefties type out revisionist history without even a feeble attempt at support?

I concede 1953 to you. Now give me one shred of evidence since.

By: tomshipley

tomshipley — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:58:23 +0000

"First of all, before I get rebuffed by the right side of my readers, let me clearly explain that I am not supportive of the President’s lack of action on the Iranian elections. However, what exactly is Barack Obama supposed to do?"

You sound like John Bolton. Criticize Obama for not doing enough then essentially saying he really can't do anything and he's smart not to. Which is it?

It's like reading a ** review of a film which contain nothing but positive criticism.

I'll turn around and pose to you the question you asked: What was he supposed to do?

Was he supposed pick a side? Encourage the protesters to fight? Drape an American flag around himself and scream America loves freedom?

By: ThurmanHart

ThurmanHart — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:12:03 +0000

Meddling in Iranian internal affairs is what has turned entire generations of Iranians against the US. It's called “self-determination” because it doesn't come from outside forces.

Or, if you prefer: “When your enemy is trying to hang himself, all you need to do is keep giving him rope.”

By: What’s Mossadeq Got To Do, Got To Do With It? « Around The Sphere

What’s Mossadeq Got To Do, Got To Do With It? « Around The Sphere — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:52:39 +0000

[...] Tony Campbell at the Moderate Voice in a post titled, “Anyone forget Bush v. Gore?” Is the President of the United States supposed to disregard the sovereignty of a nation-state because some of their people are demonstrating against the outcome of a national election? Not too long ago, our country faced a “constitutional crisis” of our own and I don’t remember Vladmir Putin or Jiang Zemin discussing the legitimacy of the American election in the fall of 2000. [...] Iran has been a constant problem area for the United States since Kermit Roosevelt, son of President Teddy Roosevelt and C.I.A. station chief in Tehran, helped to engineer a coup of Prime Minister Muhammed Mossadeq in 1953. The U.S. has meddled in the political life of Iran longer than President Obama has lived. The American people would have been outraged if another country had attempted to sway the 2000 election. For once in our history, let’s leave the Iranian elections to the Iranian people. [...]

By: roro80

roro80 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:09:28 +0000

This was exactly what I was saying just last night. Can you imagine the sh*tstorm if some other nation had tried to even comment — let alone actually do anything — after the 2000 elections? The very people who are now saying “this is also an American issue!” would have totally messed their pants.

By: DLS

DLS — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:58:15 +0000

“When we have tough issues to address, like Bush v. Gore, we do so democratically.”

Actually, the Dems in trying to steal what they lost, lowered standards for the future. But right prevailed.

By: adesnik

adesnik — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:36:01 +0000

I welcome every dictator to comment on the outcome and legitimacy of American elections. We've got nothing to hide. When we have tough issues to address, like Bush v. Gore, we do so democratically.

It's only the dictators who have to fear when outsiders comment on their (rigged) elections.

By: DLS

DLS — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:53:54 +0000

“I bet Bush 41 and Scowcroft would have followed a similar tact.”

This non-liberal has said so on multiple threads on this site. Remember Iraq and the Kurds and Shiites?

By: Rudi

Rudi — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:48:23 +0000

This liberal agrees 100%. I bet Bush 41 and Scowcroft would have followed a similar tact.