The Obama speech in Cairo

[Hugin Raven]

Well, I'm glad that's over! Now that our silver-tongued president has gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims' hurt feelings, they love us again! Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack Obama's speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.

Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims' historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?).

But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!

Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization.

Except we didn't colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven't the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)

In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."

So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don't have enough female firefighters here in America.

Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview, saying, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to cover their heads on pain of losing them.

Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America's invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience," while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan -- nor any country -- attacked us on 9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 -- and who hoped to attack us again.

The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that's the only one I can think of.

The modern Democrat Party chooses -- really chooses, not like Saudi women "choosing" to wear hijabs -- to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn't say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2 years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler -- who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so -- was a "necessity" in a way that fighting Saddam wasn't. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)

Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be liberated, too. (Then we'll see how many women -- outside of an American college campus -- "choose" to wear hijabs.) The war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim audience as a discussion of gay marriage.

Arabs aren't afraid of us; they're afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran's quest for nuclear "power," while attacking -- brace yourself -- America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.

The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.

Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.

For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA's greatest accomplishments isn't just crazy, it's Ramsey Clark crazy.

Obama also said that it was unfair that "some countries have weapons that others do not" and proclaimed that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Wait -- how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can't the U.S. at least build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?

I'm sure Iran's compliance will be policed as well as North Korea's was. Clinton struck a much-heralded "peace deal" with North Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn't build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn't dry before the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes.

But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for, again? They're not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top of a large percentage of the world's oil and gas reserves. That's not enough oil and gas to run household fans?

Obama's "I'm OK, You're OK" speech would be hilarious, if it weren't so terrifying.

I wonder what the TW Community has got to say about this non-mainstream opinion, which doesn't hang on new Messiah's every word... allthough I'm pretty sure about the outcome.

[Vequor]

Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims' historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries

No it WAS Muslim Arabia that created Algebra, and engineered many important medical treatments for things such as eye cataracts. The other two he is correct about, but they were brought to the western world through Arabia.

But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!

You can't blame all or most muslims for that any then you can blame all or most Jews for an Israeli bulldozer running over protesters.

Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization.

Except we didn't colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven't the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)

American transgression into the Middle East, particularly over oil, is well documented, though he is correct it is not technically colonization.

So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don't have enough female firefighters here in America.

Such kinds things are uncommon both there and here, but do rarely happen in both places. Such as this incident.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/06/08/2009-06-08_jewish_patrol_leader_beat_black_girl_in_95.html

Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview, saying, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to cover their heads on pain of losing them.

I believe the care of the message is that many women do cover their heads for religous reasons, and are no less equal for doing so.

Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America's invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience," while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.

There was a lot more backing for one then the other so no they were not necessarily the same, but I do think both were wars of choice that should have been avoided.

The modern Democrat Party chooses -- really chooses, not like Saudi women "choosing" to wear hijabs -- to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn't say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2 years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.

As I said earlier, there were differences between the wars, but I do agree that with the exception of a few, such as Obama, most Democrats supported both wars.

Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler -- who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so -- was a "necessity" in a way that fighting Saddam wasn't. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)

Saddam wasn't trying to exterminate anyone, neither did Saddam declare war on the United States the way Hitler did.

Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be liberated, too. (Then we'll see how many women -- outside of an American college campus -- "choose" to wear hijabs.) The war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim audience as a discussion of gay marriage.

Most occupants of the Middle East, not just Muslims, are cursing the United States for transgression into the region and wish they would just go away.

Arabs aren't afraid of us; they're afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran's quest for nuclear "power," while attacking -- brace yourself -- America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.

Iran has every bit as much right to nuclear power as anyone. Even though I don't think they want it, I daresay yes, Iran even has as much right to, nuclear weapons as anyone. Its hypocritical to try and ban them for all but a few, and I support any challenges to such a system. Either no one gets them or everyone should.

The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.

Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.

For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA's greatest accomplishments isn't just crazy, it's Ramsey Clark crazy.

I don't know very much about this subject, however I can say I feel CIA assassinations are usually bad in general, especially as the target has often been American politicians.

Obama also said that it was unfair that "some countries have weapons that others do not" and proclaimed that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Wait -- how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can't the U.S. at least build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?

If the United States wants to build a nuclear power plant then it can, if it dosn't its because it dosn't want to.

I'm sure Iran's compliance will be policed as well as North Korea's was. Clinton struck a much-heralded "peace deal" with North Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn't build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn't dry before the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes.

Once again I don't know much about this subject, but I don't see how it applies to Obama.

But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for, again? They're not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top of a large percentage of the world's oil and gas reserves. That's not enough oil and gas to run household fans?

They want nuclear power so they can sell their oil instead of using it and because a remote location in areas such as deserts are ideal for hazardous power plants, quite a reasonable assessment.

Obama's "I'm OK, You're OK" speech would be hilarious, if it weren't so terrifying.

This is just mindless fear-mongering.

[Hugin Raven]

No it WAS Muslim Arabia that created Algebra, and engineered many important medical treatments for things such as eye cataracts. The other two he is correct about, but they were brought to the western world through Arabia.

No it wasn't Muslim Arabia that invented Algebra. It is correct that the term Algebra derived out of arabic, but the origins of Algebra can be located in India. The first records of Algebra can be traced back to the Aryabhattiya which was written by the INDIAN mathematician Aryabhata I.

You can't blame all or most muslims for that any then you can blame all or most Jews for an Israeli bulldozer running over protesters.

I can blame an ideology of violence, like Islam is one, for such depicable actions. Not all Muslims are like that, but many. The radicals are growing in numbers in the Muslim world, while in Europe the radicals already control the moderate Muslim immigrants in certain quarters.

American transgression into the Middle East, particularly over oil, is well documented, though he is correct it is not technically colonization.

What? There is no American transgression in the Middle East, that's mere propaganda. What are the Americans doing in Iraq? They got rid of a tyrannic regime, which was hated widely by the Iraqis themselves. The only problem is, that the Iraqi forces, which are mobbed-up by insurgents, can't take care of terrorists and that's the only reason why the USA is still present in Iraq.

Such kinds things are uncommon both there and here, but do rarely happen in both places. Such as this incident.

What? Forced marriages of female children aren't common in the Muslim world? Or honor killings? Or the brutal supression of minorities and women in general? Don't they just follow their ing prophet, which married a 9 years old girl? Don't they follow the violent Koran, which says among others "women are your fields, you can take them when ever you want"

I believe the care of the message is that many women do cover their heads for religous reasons, and are no less equal for doing so.

Ah yes those poor souls, which were indoctrinated from infancy on to wear the hijab. surely for them its a symbol of their faith, but what about the moderate Muslim women, who oppose to wear the Hijab or even worse (chador, burqa)? In large parts of the Muslim world those get punished severely if not officially, they are a legitimate target for rape.

Saddam wasn't trying to exterminate anyone, neither did Saddam declare war on the United States the way Hitler did.

So Saddqam didn't try to exterminate the Kurds with chemical weapons?

Most occupants of the Middle East, not just Muslims, are cursing the United States for transgression into the region and wish they would just go away.

I'm sure there would be peace, if the US just left Iraq or Afghanistan

Iran has every bit as much right to nuclear power as anyone. Even though I don't think they want it, I daresay yes, Iran even has as much right to, nuclear weapons as anyone. Its hypocritical to try and ban them for all but a few, and I support any challenges to such a system. Either no one gets them or everyone should.

Yeah, Nuclear weapons in the hands of the Mullahs. Great, just what this planet needed. Don't their just re-elected president regularly threatens Isreal with extinction?

I don't know very much about this subject, however I can say I feel CIA assassinations are usually bad in general, especially as the target has often been American politicians.

Maybe you should go out an seek some more information on certain topics - preferably independent sources and not your local leftist media.

If the United States wants to build a nuclear power plant then it can, if it dosn't its because it dosn't want to.

BS, see above...

They want nuclear power so they can sell their oil instead of using it and because a remote location in areas such as deserts are ideal for hazardous power plants, quite a reasonable assessment.

As reasonable as their government, which wants to wipe out Israel?

This is just mindless fear-mongering.

Your post is just pointless whitewash.

[Gelgoog]

Yeah for pandering !!! sorry, but it certainly was no "tear down this wall speech".

[persianfan247]

Yo Dude, check out this thread
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=267107
I believe they call it the search tool of Doom

[Wilder]

Yeah for pandering !!! sorry, but it certainly was no "tear down this wall speech".

Yeah, but the "tear down this wall speech", was also no "tear down this wall speech". everything is beautiful with rose tinted glasses.

[Viking Prince]

Yeah, but the "tear down this wall speech", was also no "tear down this wall speech". everything is beautiful with rose tinted glasses.

Somewat of a good point. I would prefer to say the speeches are remembered after they have proven effective.

FDR had a few of them including the "fear from ...",
Churchill's Iron curtain speech,
Kennedy's Ask not speech,
King's I have a dream speech,
and yes, Reagen's Tear down this wall speech.

[jankren]

Meh, garbage opinion. What a sad probably conservative Obama hater.

Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims' historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?).

Algebra for example was derived from Al-Jabr the Arabic book of mathematics written by Al-Khawarizmi the Persian scholar. It is a common consensus that he was the father of modern Algebra.

By the way I want to know the source of that article. Why are you hiding it?

[Babur]

Arabs aren't afraid of us; they're afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran's quest for nuclear "power," while attacking -- brace yourself -- America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.

The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.

Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.

wow so you're claiming that the Shah of Iran was better than Mossadegh? he wasn't crazy, he just stood up for his country unlike the Shah did,I guess that Iran shouldn't have remained Democratic?

I guess you want Mousavi to be assassinated now!

the article uses the word "liberals" many many times so I assume a bit of bias perhaps?


And anyway there was a thread on this topic not long ago...

[Sher Khan]

Well, I'm glad that's over! Now that our silver-tongued president has gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims' hurt feelings, they love us again! Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack Obama's speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.

The two incidents have nothing to do with each other.

Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims' historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?).

Algebra was not invented by the Babylonians, or any of the many illustrious Indian mathematicians. What they developed was a problem-solving orientated way to tackle an algebraic concept. The birth of the modern field and discipline of Algebra begins with al-Khwarizmi.

The compass did exist in China, but the dry compass that was most likely being referred to here (the one that we all use, including the Chinese) was developed side by side in the Middle East and Europe (possibly first in Europe).

The pen in question was the reservoir fountain pen developed in the 10th centry in Egypt, unless you mean the rather primitive reed and quill pen. Take a guess which one is sold today in our Walmarts.

And finally, medicine is self-explanatory.

But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!

I'll ask you not to follow a man who insults the memory of 9/11 like that. You should reject this blog on principle alone (I will reject it for you factually).

Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization.

Except we didn't colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven't the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)

The last Great Game was not played between Britain, France, and Tsarist Russia, but between Britain, the U.S., and the Soviet Union. Our support for many oppressive and/or unpopular regimes usually takes the cake when it comes to complaints against the U.S.

In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."

So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don't have enough female firefighters here in America.

Argumentum ad absurdem.

Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview, saying, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to cover their heads on pain of losing them.

Why, just the other day I phoned home and made sure my cousins were wearing their hijabs proper. I wired some money for a new machete just in case!

Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America's invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience," while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.

What? How can you literally sit there and believe this man in his claim that our reasoning for invading Afghanistan were the same for invading Iraq?

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan -- nor any country -- attacked us on 9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 -- and who hoped to attack us again.

Saddam sheltered none of the terrorists involved on 9/11.

He is, in fact, one of their targets and another reason we're not liked in the Middle East.

The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that's the only one I can think of.

Clearly, a thinker for the ages.

The modern Democrat Party chooses -- really chooses, not like Saudi women "choosing" to wear hijabs -- to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn't say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2 years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Here's one: they're on opposite sides of Iran, and lived under oppressive regimes operating on opposite sides of the political spectrum.

Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler -- who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so -- was a "necessity" in a way that fighting Saddam wasn't. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)

Hitler declared war on us to back his ally, Imperial Japan. He didn't have to, actually, but his decision to do so speaks volumes on his megalomania.

Obama was right.

Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be liberated, too. (Then we'll see how many women -- outside of an American college campus -- "choose" to wear hijabs.) The war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim audience as a discussion of gay marriage.

Muslims throughout the Middle East blame the U.S. for these Saddam Husseins existing in the first place, and continuosly blame them for their support from abroad.

Arabs aren't afraid of us; they're afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran's quest for nuclear "power," while attacking -- brace yourself -- America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.

The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.

Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.

For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA's greatest accomplishments isn't just crazy, it's Ramsey Clark crazy.

Ridiculous. That Mossadegh was a failure in his economic policies is no reason to circumvent a sovereign nation's democratic institution and remove him from power by our own will. That we then destroyed a nation's democracy and installed a brutal despot is inexcusable on principle alone.

Obama also said that it was unfair that "some countries have weapons that others do not" and proclaimed that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Wait -- how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can't the U.S. at least build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?

We have plenty of nuclear power plants, and can build many more should the local populace agree to it's construction.

Ahmadinejad would have no control over such a thing anyway.

I'm sure Iran's compliance will be policed as well as North Korea's was. Clinton struck a much-heralded "peace deal" with North Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn't build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn't dry before the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes.

Obviously comparable situations and regimes. I wonder if the man's ever taken a Political Science course (perhaps he scorned them for being a liberal brainwashing technique).

But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for, again? They're not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top of a large percentage of the world's oil and gas reserves. That's not enough oil and gas to run household fans?

Obama's "I'm OK, You're OK" speech would be hilarious, if it weren't so terrifying.

And now I'm positive the man needs a course on basic Middle Eastern history and political science or else risk becoming a menace to society.

[Lord Consul]

What effect did FDR famous "Fear from" speech or Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you" monologue had? Suddenly Americans became more courageous and patriotic?!