Skip to comments.Will Ahmadinejad Stop in Time?
Posted on 08/30/2006 5:10:58 AM PDT by PolishProud
Seeing Ahmadinejad up close, you appreciate that he is a formidable politician. He played the roomful of 150 journalists like a master performer. He has the look of a bantamweight fighter -- compact and agile, punching well above his weight.
He's quick on his feet, answering a broad range of questions, including some critical ones about the Iranian economy, but he came away unscratched. He speaks more softly than you expect, making jokes and, on this occasion, avoiding some of his usual anti-Israel bombast. But the hard edge is never far.
His eyes can twinkle one moment and then suddenly become dark as night. My strongest feeling at the end of his performance was: He may be cocky and eccentric, but don't underestimate him.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
What make the WAPO think these thugs will stop? They will not. They must be stopped. If Pres. Bush allows Iran to get a nuke because of politics then he is no better than Clinton and will truly be a failed President.
Oh, I'm so impressed. That would be like Mike Tyson taking on a room of first graders.
The presidents #1 job is the safety and security of our nation. If Mr. Bush allows the crazies in Tehran to blackmail the world with nukes then he is a failure.
The press loves this nutjob. They always talk about his "twinkling eyes." Yuck.
Oh, I'm so impressed. That would be like Mike Tyson taking on a room of first graders.
I'd phrase it more as: like Mr. Rogers taking on a room of toddlers.
'Issie' sounds like he might have a little homo in'm.
The room was full with 150 idiots who are terrorists appeasers and hate the USA.
Why does the MSM assume that Iran is playing for a negotiated solution? I think they want nukes and will not stop their quest for them.
The Mullah's want a bomb, or two or several and that is that.
Intellectually yes, but if they aren't careful, they will lose a few ears in the process.
The 1936 edition of David Ignatius would have spoken approvingly of the twinkle in Hitler's eye, too.
I think Israel has shown us the winning strategy. We should just bomb all of Iran's infrastructure. Take about two months and take out all airports, electrical power plants, bridges, major highways, television stations, etc. Let their citizenship endure hardship and see if that helps promote political change.
David Ignatius will still be trying to determine the precise color of Ahmadinejad's eyes when we are all headless or glowing.
Did Mike Wallace mention "twinkle" in his interview ?
Ignatius does seem a bit naive on the possible outcomes, but I think he does provide a very useful look at Ahneedajihad. Ignatius is right on the mark when he says the guy should not be underestimated -- and he helpfully points out the man's traits, which could very well snow the unprepared.
For all it's obvious flaws, I like the article a lot ... thanks for posting it.
Actually, the description is probably more apt than that. I think Ahneedajihad can play a room at least as effectively as Bill Clinton did -- and Clinton was a real master at it.
Ahneedajihad is probably far more dangerous, though, because unlike Clinton he's very focused on something other than his own dick.
Dangerous assumption. Much the same was said of Hitler ... but in reality Hitler did the leading, and the generals followed. Ignatius describes the sort of attractive, driven politician who can pull the mullahs much further along than they'd otherwise go. He shouldn't be underestimated.
The press wants to believe it, because the alternative is horrific. Ahneedajihad knows this, and plays to it. (Hitler did exactly the same thing.)
Has anyone else heard that Jimmy Carter has offered to moderate the debate between Bush and Ahmadinejad?
Did you ever see pictures of women who are about to be stoned by these animals? I bet this thug's eyes really twinkly then. Why does the left worship at the alter of some of the world's worst monsters?
I agree completely. I do not believe even today with the Twin Towers gone that our government-across the board- understands the danger in Iran, Lebanon, Syria etc. I truly think they believe these suicide bombers can be contained. Korea is bad enough having a bomb-a jihadist with a nuclear bomb is a death sentence for Israel and ulimately millions of Americans.
Why are allowing jimmy Carter to meet with the former Iranian head?
Maybe they will hang a homing device on Jimma's backside, then he can finally do something for world peace.
I agree. I honestly can't believe the MSM seriously thinks he wants a "negotiated solution," either. They're just scared and want to make nice.
I don't know, but it looks to me like Ahamdinejad is fast becoming one of the left's heroes.
Frankly, the conceit of comparing the president to a taxi driver is absurd. What if we had an analysis from Timmerman or someone who actually knows Iran instead of this tripe?
unbelievable! You can tell a great deal about people by their heroes... Conservative Hero=Ronald Reagan vs Leftist Hero=Ahamdinejad.
VERY dangerous thinking. We must take him at his word that he is willing to use nuclear weapons.
I thought we already passed a deadline? WHat is this one for?
Uhhnggghhh! Someone hand Dave a towel, he'll need to clean up after this.
Because they hate their selves and the world around them. They're not naive, they're suicidal.
There are some apples and oranges in the Hitler comparison.
Iran is not, and has never been a democracy, where Germany was, at the time of Hitler's rise to power.
The comparison of the government's internal structure is therefore invalidated because Iran is a Theocracy. Over shadowing this is a so called elected president who exhibits fascist tendencies, but is impotent and not inner directed, except for his mouth.
The Theocratic machine that actually runs Iran is in the background at all times, and there is but one political power that can dislodge it. This power would be the people and public of Iran.
unfortunately for us, the construct of Islam prevents these people from going against it's government because the government represents Islam as well as Iran.
If you want a valid comparison to this, it would be Rome, and it's conquered territories, under the direction of the Vatican and it's Pope. This set up the situation where to go against one's government, you had to go against the leadership of your religion.
The primary intent of our Constitutional prohibition of the combining of church and state.
These people will need to be conquered, as talking and CIA covert funding of a hoped for public insurrection will be unsuccessful. IMHO
Mr. Carter is a free man to do as he sees fit.
I may not now or ever have agreed with anything he's ever done.
First off, Germany wasn't really much of a democracy. Moreover, well before Hitler it had been secretly been making moves to restore its military strength. Hitler didn't create that, he inherited it. His contribution to it was to accelerate the buildup and to make it overt. Ahneedajihad is in exactly the same position: he's inherited an existing effort, and has now made it overt.
I wasn't comparing Iran and Germany's political structures -- I was comparing Ahneedajihad and Hitler. My unspoken thoughts had to do with how these strong, attractive (to the natives) individuals might affect the direction of their countries. The comparison might just as easily be made with respect to any other charismatic tyrant.
The point is that charismatic tyrants have time and again risen to power and tapped into some national psychological dynamic in such a manner as to their countries to undertake wars of aggression. Hitler's an excellent point of comparison, because there really are a lot of parallels in how these two guys fit within the national dynamic.
If we accept the description in this article, we see that:
* both are/were engaging and able politicians who seem able to drive national policies in the direction they want.
* both are champions for the advance in power for their countries;
* both use the argument that their countries are being held down, and should be allowed to flower;
* both are able to tap in to a militant dynamic among the ruling classes of the country (mullahs being equivalent to the German General Staff, which quietly controlled the real power in Germany);
* both have at their disposal a fanatical military force
* there are distinct and definable enemies on which to focus the nation's energies. In the case of Germany, it was Jews and Communists. In the case of Iran, it's Jews and Western Infidels.
* Finally, and most important, there is a "positive" focus for their fanaticism. Hitler's was that slew of weird "master race" theories. Ahneedajihad's focuses on the 12th Imam. Both of these play very well with the fanatical military arms of their respective countries.
The quote from Ali Ahmadi is amazingly reminiscent of Germans at the time of Hitler's rise: they don't much like the man, but they like what he's doing for the country.
Rummy's speech to the Legion made the valid comparison to the time of Hitler in regard to the international and local reactions to the threat. The appeasers, the hand wringers and the total lack of understanding that the threat was quite real. But he was not comparing governments.
As far as the German Democracy of the time, Germany had only just begun it's experiment in democracy, and had made the first steps. It was much more of a democracy than Iran in any sense of the word however.Iran is a State who has only taken on the appearances of democratic reforms in order to placate a very young and educated public. They do not have any intention of actually becoming a democracy IMO.
What keeps everything from imploding is what I mentioned in my last post and the thing that we cannot deal with politically.
It is the absolute fact that for a Muslim to go against Islam in any way, would bring a death sentence, not only to the individual, but his entire family.
The people are totally hamstrung by this, as they are in every Muslim country. Eventually, we will be required to deal with this, and it will not be easy to sell this to the public unless and until they are seeking revenge.
By then, it will be too late to save our economy from ruin.
This is my prediction. My unfortunate but likely true, assessment of our future.
Sure, it's called nationalism, and all governments use this tool to lay the ground for some future action.
We do it too....
Give me a friggin break.
On the same theme, I heard an interview on NPR this morning with David Kay, who essentially stated that it would be impossible to 'prove' that Iran wanted weapons, and it would be no different a situation than Iraq. He left the impression of someone who could honestly make no judgment on Iran without forensic evidence of machine tooling, enrichment facilities, etc. Hopefully the case will be made next time on factors which are already public and obvious, that is, the behavior and illegitimacy of the Iranian regime.
This is the only explanation that makes sense...I think you are correct.
That's it in two short sentences. Ignatius gives us not one shred of evidence to back up his wishful thinking that Iran will "stop short" - of what? Of making nuclear weapons? Why on earth would Ahmadinejad do that? Consider the unbelievable power that such weapons confer on an aggressive, expansionist government. Now consider the price they'll pay to possess them, which looks to turn out to be somewhere between sanctions and nothing at all. Under those circumstances he'd be a fool to stop.
However, Ignatius is more than a simple dupe. Most of the adult world is hoping that either Israel or the U.S. solves the problem by direct military action, after which they may devolve to their usual position of sanctimonious moral disapproval. Ignatius is preparing a position here from which once that action is taken he may grandly declare that it was never necessary. It's a risk-free deal from his point of view. Should the action not be taken he can always deflect responsibility to Bush's intelligence or determination. Being a leftwing pacifist means never having to say you're sorry.
Yes. Another deadline. How many more before we finally blow each other up, the drama here sickens me.