Silly Me

I assumed I would never have to think about John Bolton again. Then Newt promised to threatened to named him Secretary of State.
Here's Juan Cole, the rational blogoshere's go-to guy on such matters:

 ... wants to bomb Iran so badly he sometimes just sits in an F-18 and imagines himself over Isfahan

Another Reason I'm Glad I'm Not The President

I hate the word endgame. It sounds so, you know, final.
(You thought this would be another health care post?)

Has Social Media Broken The News Model?

Depends on who you listen to.
This guy thinks it's a deeply flawed concept, and in the Ft. Hood massacre case he cites as proof, he's clearly right. (As further proof, I could point to Mayhill Fowler's wretched coverage of the presidential campaign during Huffpo's little Off The Bus experiment — Jay Rosen, I'm looking at you — but I won't, heh).
But he goes on to argue that the Tweeting out of Iran clearly made no difference since the same hierarchy is still in power, an argument that just shows to go ya that any good idea taken to its logical conclusion is just bullshit. Not to mention that even a good social critic can fall prey to the current fast-food concept of history.
Nothing is proven about Iran yet, including the influence of social media reporting. And it's my guess that scholars will still be debating it 50 years from now, if we last that long.
By that I mean, if we last past 2012.

ADDENDUM: Here's a little insider recap of the Fowler reference above. It should be noted that the writer did not mention that Fowler was at the aforesaid fundraiser because she was given a ticket as a private citizen and she used her camera phone to record Obama in violation of the rules for attendees. It's called ambush journalism OR sneak journalism where I come from and it's patently unfair. Should we be secretly recording candidates in the bathroom? At their parents' anniversary parties? They were private remarks at a private function and Fowler violated the rules to get what soon became the "Bittergate" story. Certainly not the first reporter to ever do so.

And Fowler broke a "big" story, Obama saying that Pennsylvania voters might be bitter and cling to God and guns as recourse. The context was entirely misused by the Republicans and the  media and still pops up occasionally, while Huffpo pats itself on the back for a job well done. Sigh.

$15 For Persiankiwi

Avaaz, Moveon.org's online activism arm is raising money to help Iranians keep on keeping on with the tweeting, etc.

Folks, when was the last time anybody asked you to go fight in Spain against the fascists? This is so easy it's ridiculous.

Will they win? They live to fight another day. That's what revolution is.

(N.B. Persiankiwi was the very prolific blogger that no one had heard from in a few days. Still no definitive word.)

They Call This Disappearing

"no news from persiankiwi"
"persian kiwi is arrested"

I am truly brokenhearted about all of it. Sullivan and Nico over at Huffpo just run the tweets and it filters in like rain, like ash, like the acid they say the helicopters were using against protestors last week. Was that just rumor, or did they run out of whatever it was?

Okay, Had Your Coffee Yet?

I couldn't sleep last night, no idea why. Maybe it was this.

The Women Of Iran

Neda Soltani

Two women talk it over, via Andrew Sullivan.

And then there's always Neda.

Today In Iran

Andrew Sullivan said he couldn't help cheering when he saw the end of this BBC Persia video.

Face of Iran, June 20, 2009

Andrew has a talent for this sort of thing. No need to say more.

Blood In The Streets

Iran, June 20, 2009. As predicted.
I regularly check Andrew Sullivan, who says he's blogging from the end of a pier in Cape Cod (sigh) and Nico Pitney at Huffpo. They both link to other sources, if you're that keen.

Pitney recommends this NYT piece. So do I.

In essence, the core of the struggle is between two competing views of what this country’s Islamic revolution sought to achieve.
“One side wants a gradual evolution of democratic institutions and a more democratic reading of Islamic institutions,” said Kavous Seyed-Emami, a political science professor at Imam Sadeq University in Tehran. “The other side is for a populist and more or less authoritarian reading of Islam.”

Last I read, Obama will have a live statement in about an hour.

Iran: 38 Best Photos

Esp. #29

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised

It is being tweeted.

Caught By Surprise

Iranian leaders clearly did not anticipate what has happened.

Iran's supreme leader ordered Monday an investigation into allegations of election fraud, marking a stunning turnaround by the country's most powerful figure and offering hope to opposition forces who have waged street clashes to protest the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Iran: What Does It Mean?

Contrarienne would prefer to let others read all the competing information and come to a conclusion she can trust.
But Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan are saying over and over that they just can't judge yet, the information is too confusing and there isn't enough credible reporting on the ground. When there is, it must be translated and who's to be sure the translations are accurate.
Josh points to Juan Cole for expertise.
But I have my own biases. This via Sullivan fits right in with them:

Iran is no longer a theocracy. To blame this on "The Mullahs," or worse, Iran's "Right-Wing" is to fundamentally misunderstand what is taking place there. This is a secular power grab done under the guise of Islam and revolution. The perpetrators are the enemies of western rapprochement, and the proponents of economic isolation. The Revolutionary Guards benefit from Iran's economic isolation, much like the mafia benefited from prohibition and other criminalized behavior. As any stereotypical movie gangster might say, "why ruin a good thing?"
I believe we are witnessing the disposal of Islamic pretense, and in fact a more honest and apparent Iranian police state. How that affects their place in the region and the world is still to be determined.

Truth Or Dare

Okay, so I haven't the faintest idea whether this comment at Wonkette is true or not and I'm not going to research it either. This is a blog after all.
But I want it to be true so I'm republishing it.

At his third press conference, President Reagan responds to the following:
· The Israeli attack on Iraq - "I can't answer that"
· Israels' refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty - "Well, I haven't given very much thought to that particular question there"
· Pakistan's refusal to sign the treaty - "I won't answer the last part of that question"
· Israeli threats against Lebanon - "Well, this is going to be one, I'm afraid, that I can't answer now"
· The tactics of political action committees - "I don't really know how to answer that."
When faced with skepticism about his administration's grasp of foreign affairs, the President declares "I'm satisfied that we do have a foreign policy."

And how come Wonkette is the only one of my favorites to pick up on this giant McCain re-write of documented Reagan/Iran history, anyway? What's with that? TPM, I'm looking at you. Kos? Anybody?



Well, thanks to The Google, I find Think Progress wrote about it. Maybe I'll have to put them on my list.
So, if your memory is kind of poor about all of that stuff 20 or more years ago:

McCain’s praise of Ronald Reagan is wholly misplaced. To recap, during the Iran-Contra affair in the 1980s, hostages (held by Hezbollah) were not released because of Iran’s fear of Reagan, as McCain suggested. In reality, Iran released them after Reagan administration officials infamously sold arms to the country, which were transfered to Ayatollah Khomeini. As a result, 11 Reagan officials were convicted of crimes.

Furthermore, Reagan did not have to “negotiate” with Iran during the hostage crisis of the 1970s because he wasn’t involved in it. The extensive negotiations with Iran were done before his presidency. In fact, Reagan’s inauguration occurred only minutes before the hostages were released.

McCain should take note of what Reagan said in 1981: “Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will.”

(It should be noted —so I'm noting — that theories that Reagan campaign officials actually prevailed upon the Iranians to hold back on releasing the hostages that they held until inauguration day Jan. 19, 1981, has been pretty thoroughly debunked. Commenters seem to agree that the Iranians purposely did it to embarrass Carter as he left office, after his envoy Warren Christopher, had succeeded in negotiating the release.)

Oh, I know. It's hard enough remembering who all the neocons are, much less the crimes of past administrtions.

On To The General Election