Well, I took it that that was the point. The US not only installed the Shah, but supported his dictatorial reign up until as recently as 1979 (and would have supported him even longer had he lived longer and not been deposed by the Iranian Revolution). Given our shameful history in Iran, and given the fact that George Bush is the leader and public face of the US, it is pretty rich for him to criticize Iran for not being sufficiently democratic.
Well, I think it’s pretty “rich” for the OP to assume we trust his interpretation of what Bush said. I heard parts of his news conference today, I didn’t hear anything close to what the OP is claiming. Now, maybe I missed the key part, but I’m not going to call anyone to task on something that I can’t even be sure that person said.
Well, sure, if GB didn’t say anything like what the OP attributes to him, then the discussion is moot.
I’d agree, but I don’t think anyone has said that. Don’t you think it’s a bit of a cheap shot to criticize them for not having a ‘real’ democracy when we helped overthrow their government when they did have one? Maybe fifty years ago seems like a long time, but ninety years into our democracy we were coming apart at the seams and killing each other by the hundreds of thousands.
If what we really want is for Iran to have a stable, Western-style democracy, I’m at a loss how our current approach is facilitating that.
I see the distinction, but in this context it would seem safer to assume people are talking about George Bush the architect of US foreign policy, rather than George Bush the guy who likes his dogs.
Wow, that really couldn’t be a more retarded restatement of something no one said. It’s not the fact that he’s criticizing the Iranian government, it’s that he’s doing it in a very impolitic way that makes us look bad. Don’t go to Vietnam and criticize the fact that there’s still unexploded land mines everywhere, don’t go to Iraq and complain that you can’t walk the streets without people shooting at you, and don’t go to Iran and complain about their “choice” of leaders in past decades. It’s not about whether those actions were right or wrong, it’s about not being needlessly inflammatory. It casts the U.S. in an unfavorable light, for no reason.
They made one huge * mistake, they installed a theocracy in the heat of revolutionary fervor, and they did it democraticly. * Dumb da dumb dumb dumb!
Actually, I think the **Bluchmeister ** may have misheard. I searched the on-line transcript of the press conference, and it seems like what Bush said (in the context of explaining our lack of intelligence on Iranian nuclear activities):
No reason? The last elections in Iran demonstrated pretty conclusively that having other nations hate you is good for the local conservative party. What other reason does Bush need to act the way he does?
Well that’s not the same thing as “not putting together a competent presdency since 1979.” Not even a little. I certainly can’t fault Bush for being undiplomatic with his remarks in this particular instance.
Yeah, but he still got a blowjob.
No, wait…I’m a little mixed up here. I’ve forgotten my standard partisan retort. Someone help me out here.
I’m not entirely certain that the current time and venue is the correct time and venue to be bringing fact to the issue.
My guess is he heard “presence” as “president”, and missed the “we” part.
Not really. That election was more about kicking the incumbent regime out for bad economic results than about sticking it to the US of A.
I’ll wait for footage of this sentence. I know damn well he said ‘presidency’ in the live un-sanitized version.
Give it up. That’s part of what I heard on the news today (taped coverage), and that’s what he said. “Presence”, not “president”. We often mishear things, even when we “know damn well” we didn’t.
Sure John, is that what the NIE says? :dubious:
Yeah, I hear “presence” as well, meaning (I think) a poverty of human intel sources within the, ah, target country.
I think you’re right. Back in 1992, when he was running for Governor of Texas, he used more complex sentences and seemed to have no trouble handing fairly sophisticated arguments. Then he became more “folksy” to run for President, and started relying on simple, black-and-white talking points that he repeated over and over. It worked, and now the leader of the free world talks to us like we’re slow-witted children.
Stop putting America down. She’s young, naive, and inexperienced. She’s not used to this whole empire at large thing. She has stage fright and the built up pressure from all the expectations from all her big brothers isn’t helping. Spain was taunting her because it took so long to conquer Mexico. But you know what? She’ll show 'em all someday…heck, t’was only a couple years ago she united the industrial east with the resource rich west coast with a grand railroad. A railroad system almost 2,000 miles long! Little old America, can you imagine that? Who knows what she’ll be doing in 50 or 100…
No. It’s what was widely reported during that election. Sorry if you missed that.
So, is the OP going to admit his mistake or just slink away like the idiot he is. You know, there is sooooo much to pit in that press briefing that it’s amazing how the OP ended up getting it wrong.