well said, and well needed

As we say in the wild blue yonder, if you want to fly with eagles, don't be a turkey

Thanks

Dorian

I'm not Mom, just an Assistant Editor at TMV with a reminder to commenters… Please dont shoot the messenger… and Please do read or reread the TMV comment policy if in doubt about our rules and policies for civil commenting. Our commenters are asked
–to stick to the basic topic in the article,
–with no ad hominen attacks on the writer or other commenters.
–This includes no high-jacking of the thread, no vulgarities, and no posting of long articles in respons…
–however you are welcome to leave links to those articles in comments as usual.

In the meantime, commenters who violate TMV's rules will be edited and/or warned once, and if a commenter then chooses to continue violating commenting rules and policies for civility at TMV, they will be banned.

You are welcome to debate, as we say in USAF, flying with pure blue lightning… which doesnt mean using 'blue language,' but rather means to fly with all the expertise in you.

Thanks,

Dr.E
Assistant Editor and Columnist at The Moderate Voice

Although the current conflict began with the election malfeasance, it has evolved to reflect the social discontent of the Iranian people against the current suppressive society that has entrenched Iran since the revolution. With this change, a different tactic to addressing the issue by our leaders is necessary. Hence, being firm now reflects the change on the ground and how the issue in Iran has evolved from demonstrations about election failures to a national protest against tyranny.

My problem with the criticism of Obama's initial stance, this was rarely taken into consideration. Of course their was hesitancy to support Mousavi, but now the issue has changed. At least, that is how I see it.

“Mousavi and his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, had an active role in the success of Iranian revolution.[8] He was imprisoned for organizing street protests against the monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.[3][5] As the Iranian revolution neared, Mousavi whose earliest political hero was Che Guevara,[9] became more actively involved in the struggle. Soon he joined ranks with Mohammad Beheshti, who was a close associate of the revolution leader, Ruholah Khomeini.[5]

The Shah left Iran for exile in January 1979 and several weeks later,Ruholah Khomeini, the leader of the revolution, returned to Tehran.

Mousavi helped Mohammad Beheshti found the Islamic Republican Party in 1979, in order to assist the establishment of the Islamic Republic in Iran and hasten the overthrow of Iran's monarchy.[3] He became the political secretary of the party,[5] and chief editor of Jomhouri-e Eslami, the party's official newspaper.[5]

In mid-1979, he was appointed by Khomeini, to the Iranian Council of Islamic revolution.[10] As the chief editor of Jomhouri-e Eslami, he was a loud critic and opponent of Abolhassan Banisadr, the first president of the Islamic Republic, until the latter's 1981 flight to France, following a successful impeachment by parliament. [11]

In August 15, 1981, as part of the restructuring of the government in Mohammad Ali Rajai's cabinet, Mousavi was appointed foreign minister.[5] He held the post for five months until December 15, 1981, when he received the higher appointment of prime minister.[3]“

In order for Mousavi to run for election, the Iranian Council of 12 had to approve him as a candidate. Furthermore, the council and the supreme leader are the judicial branch, have right to veto any legislation, and have the power to remove any president.

Although, at face value, he seems like a wonderful alternative to Ahmadinejad, I have not seen sufficient commentary questions and proving he has the ability to significantly alter the status quo. The current policies within Iran reflect the will of their supreme leader and the council of 12.

Although a moot issue at this point, would Mousavi, if he had been elected, been able to bring significant and meaningful change, or would he be a different face to the same problem?

Would Obama have voted “present” if he were still in the Senate now?

Ten. Days. Ago.

If you weren’t slobbering so much over him, you’d recognize that. A moment in history is just that – a moment. Things that would be brave to say one day are nothing the next.

Yes, the world was watching. Everyone saw that they shouldn’t count on the U.S. at any critical point, unless they need us to vote “present”.

Weak. Gutless. Lame. Typical Democrat.