Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Republican Senate Candidate To Run Racist Ad During Super Bowl
Romney Biographer: Candidate Grew Up In A “Series Of Bubbles”
Latest Entries
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
C.K.: November 22, 1999 – January 7, 2012
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
The American media has shown themselves to be absolutely useless. Useless. I’ve gotten all my info about IRAN online -through foreign news services and blogs.
Countdown to “Well that’s the librul media for ya” in 3…2…1…
You mean NO ONE has any idea why this might be so?
May I suggest:
Were Bush President, how would the unrest in Iran be blamed on him?
Since Bush is not President, why is this not being blamed on Obama?
This story will be muffled in the hopes that Iran restores itself to order, because :
a) It must not look like Obama’s outreach to the Islamic World in Cairo was a waste of time; and
b) The Press does not want to be a participant in a call to action, that could result in military involvement in Iran.
In other words, the Press, in the Age of Obama is now in the business not of reporting news, but rather, the business of manipulating what information reaches the public.
There ought to be a word for that, you know ?
Like “prop” … “propa” …
Oh, wait!
sorry end italics
Since Bush is not President, why is this not being blamed on Obama?
This story will be muffled in the hopes that Iran restores itself to order, because :
a) It must not look like Obama’s outreach to the Islamic World in Cairo was a waste of time; and
b) The Press does not want to be a participant in a call to action, that could result in military involvement in Iran.
In other words, the Press, in the Age of Obama is now in the business not of reporting news, but rather, the business of manipulating what information reaches the public.
There ought to be a word for that, you know ?
Like “prop” … “propa” …
Oh, wait!
Frank, please stop smoking whatever it is that you are smoking.
This story will be muffled in the hopes that Iran restores itself to order, because :
a) It must not look like Obama’s outreach to the Islamic World in Cairo was a waste of time; and
Well that doesn’t make much sense.
Why would this story make it appear that Mr. Obama’s Cairo speech was wasted? The speech concerned relations between the United States and the entire Islamic world. The uprising in Iran is limited to a single nation, and it’s pro-reform, not anti-American or pro-American.
If you’re going to spin these yarns, Frank, at least make them plausible, will you?
But, if MSNBC broadcasted the news on Iran, I would have had to wait until next weekend to find out if life in jail really is horrible.
Uh, does Mr. DiSalle understand that these revolts are actually FOR progressive change (Obama’s position) and has nothing to do with being anti-American?
So how can they be “blamed” on Obama. If anything, they should be CREDITED to Obama if one were so inclined.
Or do I have to explain the difference between blaming and crediting?
Remind me again why our President should have stopped these riots by people opposing the evil Ahmadinajad? (Also, how would military involvement help in a country larger than Iraq, that can’t have less than 30% actually supporting our opponents even before we invade?)
I thought all presidents get a pass for what goes on until September 12th after their election.
Surely the fact that Iran has the middle east’s most participated in democracy is the greatest Irony (should that be Irany?)
Really none of our business, is it?
Although, it is good for McCain. To wit;
Whaddya suggest we do, Johnny Thunder?
Vote early, vote often!
“Vote early, vote often!”
But only up to 10 times, because that’s how many fingers can be marked with purple ink to stop you voting again before you run out of fingers!
Oh wait …
If you had a functioning media in the US, you might know these things.
Surely the fact that Iran has the middle east’s most participated in democracy is the greatest Irony (should that be Irany?)
Sure, if you consider a country where a religious Council of Guardians approves the candidates to be a democracy.
As to the coverage – do you get a station carrying the BBC world news in the US and BBC’s commentary shows about the middle east? If not – you really haven’t a clue what is really going on.
As to what is going on in Iran now – one thing is CLEAR – the IDEA of Iran as a “democracy” as long as you are a “Bat-Shit Crazy Religious Fanatic Moron” has been exposed BY THE SILENT (NOT SO MUCH ANY LONGER) MAJORITY as being a total SHAM. This COUP against the COUP will be step one in the destroying the whole sick religious mess that is Iran.
Obama’s message of “yes we can” continues to reverberate around the world. Here in Canada we’ll be having an election early summer or fall – lets hope our “progressives” can crush the Harper government and give the Obama wave another victory!
[...] (h/t Olliver Willis) [...]
Mylegacy:
Thanks for your post. Maybe there’s hope for this world after all. Based on what I’ve read, there’s no clear call on whether the election was really a sham or not. But if the BBC says its a sham, then it’s a sham!
Isn’t it a shame that we Americans who tout our freedom of the press seem to live in a press-free zone sometimes? Or maybe, given our relationship with the Iranians, it would be in poor taste for us to jump too hard on the Mousavi bandwagon just yet. It might jinx him to have us western monsters give our endorsement.
Yes we can!
if you consider a country where a religious Council of Guardians approves the candidates to be a democracy.
We would never negotiate with such a repressive regime. Iran stands in stark contrast with the modern, open society represented by our friends and allies the Saudis, whose national passion for democracy, women’s rights and religious freedom surpasses even our own.
Repack,
You failed to address his point regarding Iranian democracy.
But enough of that, what’s your inflation hedge you mentioned the other day?
Wow Frank; doubling your post has only doubled the inanity of it.
Good job Captain Banal.
‘We would never negotiate with such a repressive regime. Iran stands in stark contrast with the modern, open society represented by our friends and allies the Saudis, whose national passion for democracy, women’s rights and religious freedom surpasses even our own.’
Ouch RR; that is some bang on satire amigo.
AO: “You failed to address his point regarding Iranian democracy.”
Actually, he did. You see, the original point is that someone claimed you couldn’t negotiate with Iran because it was repressive, but someone said that they are at the head of the class in the Middle East.
Note. No one said they were perfect. No one is claiming that.
So Colin is merely fighting strawmen and RR actually showed that compared to other states in the area, states the Unites States has no issue dealing with, Iran is ahead of the curve. Therefore, if you can deal with Saudi Arabia, you can deal with Iran.
See?
We would never negotiate with such a repressive regime. Iran stands in stark contrast with the modern, open society represented by our friends and allies the Saudis, whose national passion for democracy, women’s rights and religious freedom surpasses even our own.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I am not sure you do either.
I don’t think that my point — that Iran isn’t a true democracy — is very controversial.
So Colin is merely fighting strawmen and RR actually showed that compared to other states in the area, states the Unites States has no issue dealing with, Iran is ahead of the curve. Therefore, if you can deal with Saudi Arabia, you can deal with Iran.
See?
What strawman did I take down?
This post seems to be arguing with something I never said, which is par for the course around here. Show me where I said we shouldn’t talk to Iran. Show me where I said anything about US policy towards Iran.
I pointed out that Iran is not a true democracy. I stand by that.
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. I am not sure you do either.
Translation: I don’t understand what you said, therefore, you are wrong.
Ah, pure ultra-con debate tactics, how fascinating.
Translation: I don’t understand what you said, therefore, you are wrong.
Ah, pure ultra-con debate tactics, how fascinating.
Since you have decided to inject yourself into this conversation perhaps you can do me a favor and explain how this:
We would never negotiate with such a repressive regime. Iran stands in stark contrast with the modern, open society represented by our friends and allies the Saudis, whose national passion for democracy, women’s rights and religious freedom surpasses even our own.
makes sense as a response to this:
Sure, if you consider a country where a religious Council of Guardians approves the candidates to be a democracy.