Ayatolla Khamenei questions the democrats patriotism

basso and ayatollah = political allies

 

Where did the Ayatolla mention patriotism?
Somebody seems to have grown up where the local NBA team didn't participate in Read to Achieve.

 

the only one i see questioning the dems patriotism is basso. Basso, why do you hate the democrats so much? I guess you only love 1/3 of this country right now. Maybe you should move to Utah or somewhere else that's solidly bush country. That way you don't have to be around unpatriotic dems who hate bush and invading countries because they tried to assinate someone's daddy.

 

Why do basso and Bush hate America?

 

Why are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and the Ayatolla Khamenei questioning the patriotism of the Democrats all of a sudden? Sounds fishy... we need to start wiretapping these fellas.

 

Basso, do you trust the Iranian leaders? If not, why would you believe anything they are saying?

Do you want this country to be great or do you just want the Republicans to be great? If a Republican president can lead this country to greatness I am sure 90% of the democrats and independents would support him. Try to stop look at everything through a colored glass for a change sometimes, it could give you some new perspectives.

 

basso's in full meltdown mode...



And really, who besides insecure bullies and wimpy little fraidy cats care what others say about them?

 

Here's Glenn Greenwald, who writes well...
______________
Relegating extremists to the fringes

One theme that has emerged among a very specific strain of embittered Bush followers -- exemplified by the likes of Marty Peretz, John Hinderaker, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds -- is that Al Qaeda and America's other enemies, such as Iran, are celebrating the results of the midterm elections because Democrats are their allies.

To make this claim, they cite a series of playground taunts from Al Qaeda leaders in Iraq and various Iranian political officials mocking President Bush because his party was rejected by Americans in the election and because he lost Donald Rumsfeld. Taking these taunts with the utmost seriousness, these Bush followers claim this to be proof that Democrats are the allies of the Terrorists and/or demand that Democrats take immediate action in response in order to prove that this is not the case.

Ann Althouse asks: "What will the Democrats do to push back against that?" Marty Peretz echoes her "thought":


And Friday, according to an article by John Hemming from Reuters, Khameini that the defeat of the Republicans on Tuesday was a victory for Iran. Let's hope that the Democrats don't make it so.

One way to prevent this from seeming to be objectively true would be to have Nancy Pelosi end her ugly and personal vendetta against Jane Harman as the chair of the House Intelligene (sic) Committee. But, let's face it, it will take more than that. Much more.


John Hinderaker has a whole post with one declaration after the next like these:


I don't think there is any doubt about the fact that the terrorists, world-wide, were hoping for a Democratic victory. . . . And the spike in violence in Iraq prior to the election was generally understood as an effort by the terrorists to help Democratic candidates. . . .

Do the Democrats feel at all sheepish at having their victory hailed by al Qaeda? Do they feel any pressure to demonstrate to the American people that they are not a de facto ally of the terrorists? Not as far as we've noticed so far.

But when the Democrats stop celebrating, they may want to pause long enough to consider a simple question: Why are the terrorists so happy that they won? . . . . . Strategy Page has a closely related analysis; read it all:


Now, the stage is set for al Qaeda to win a major victory. It was a simple matter of getting the American media to ignore the battlefield victories while accentuating al Qaeda's attacks. What could not be accomplished on the battlefield – an American retreat from Iraq – was instead achieved in American newsrooms.


I think that's right. And the Democratic Party, to the extent that it exists independendly (sic) of the mainstream media, has been an accessory at every step of the process.


There is no point in bothering to refute any of this because it is so vile and just plain stupid that it is self-refuting. This was the rhetoric upon which they and their Leader increasingly relied as the inevitability of their loss became clearer, and the more they spew this sort of trash, the better it will be for the country, because with it, they so transparently reveal what they really are.

I note all of this not in order to respond to these "arguments" but instead to note the response to it all from Ed Morrissey, who said this:


It's the kind of stupid rant that makes radical Islamists and their sympathizers swoon with delight, but is filled with hyperbole and crude attempts at psychological warfare and propaganda. They try to play into the mood of their enemies, and they demonstrate their ability to monitor news feeds in their attempts to provoke Americans across the political spectrum. That's one reason why it's a mistake to allow them to succeed, but there are more as well.

Radical Islamists want to divide Americans in order to defeat us. They will play on our differences, stoking the fires of resentment and generating more hatred between us than we have against our enemies. . . . Besides, if we take Abu Hamza at his word about the Democrats, then we have to take him at his word about Bush as well, and about our troops.

The partisan sniping has ceased to be germane. We've already had the election, and the Democrats are in charge -- and they will be for two years no matter what. Obviously, we will watch closely to ensure that they do not surrender to terrorism, but I'm not going to take Abu Hamza's word that they will before their majority session even starts.

They are Americans, and Americans put them in charge, and they have earned the right to show us how they will face the enemy now that they control the agenda. If they fail, I'll be the first to castigate them for losing ground to the terrorists. However, I'm going to base that on their actions, and not on the word of a murderous thug who couldn't care less whether their American victims are Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, or LaRouchists.

I'm hoping we can find common ground with them now that they have the responsibility to govern. If we can't, then let's criticize them for their actual failures, and not get so intent on grasping at any way to attack them that we start becoming repeater stations for the ravings of genocidal lunatics.


The idea that Al Qaeda and Iran were rooting for the Democrats to win in the midterm elections -- or that they want Jane Harman to be blocked from ascending to the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee because they prefer some more liberal Democratic Congressman -- isn't just malevolent. It's outright stupid and childish -- just as those endless claims as part of the 2004 election that Al Qaeda was rooting for John Kerry were. Digby explained exactly why that is so yesterday in the course of speculating as to why Rumsfeld was not fired before the election:


It is also probable that Bush, Cheney and Rove all believed that any sign they were listening to the opposition would be perceived as weakness by the terrorists which I think is one of their fundamental mistakes in running the war on terror. Like most immature bullies they attach much too much importance to silly schoolyard taunts . . . .

How much do you think Junior hates [hearing Al Qaeda taunts that he fired Rumsfeld and lost the election]? I would guess it bothers him quite a bit, judging from his rhetoric over the past five years.

I suspect they think the world sees things through the same schoolboy lens as they do and truly believed that if their voters saw al Qaeda dissing the Prez before the election they would recoil from their weakened leader in disgust.

Perhaps they are right. And I suspect they couldn't take the idea of Democrats gloating (we are pretty much the same as al Qaeda in their minds) either.


In many respects, we have had a foreign policy over the last five years based on the mentality of the most irrational, insecure 8-year-old playground bully -- hence, the obsession with Al Qaeda's chest-beating proclamations and the increasing identity between the Bush movement and Al Qaeda in terms of both rhetoric and thought process. But I think Morrissey's sober response to his comrades illustrates something important.

Even among those who have been supportive of this presidency, there are differences. I think the country now has a real opportunity to re-define what is acceptable political dialogue and to raise the standard -- even if only a little bit -- for what is deemed to be respectable mainstream views and what is deemed to be extremist, moronic bile.

This election constitutes a rather resounding rejection of the mindless militarism, hysterical fear-mongering, un-American embrace of lawlessness, and adolescent hate-mongering which have fueled the Bush movement. These tactics have been the bread and butter of people like Dick Cheney, Bill Kristol, Marty Peretz, John Hinderarker, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Reynolds, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and the rest of those who have become intoxicated by neoconservative fantasies of Global, Endless, Glorious Epic War against an endless array of Enemies, real and imagined, foreign and domestic, out in the open and hiding under everyone's bed (or in the Democratic Party and at The New York Times).

There is a real opportunity to relegate that strain of Bush follower -- to quarantine them -- to the impotent fringes, where they belong. And ironically, they are seeking to isolate themselves, as they insist, with the belief-affirming self-delusion that has come to define everything they do, that the reason they lost the election is because they weren't extreme enough.

They believe Americans wanted them to be more militaristic and more ideologically pure. Let them do that. They will quickly become an even purer and more transparent version of what they have been -- the Party of James Dobson, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol and Dick Cheney -- combining rabid, fantasy-based warmongering (both domestically and abroad) with religious and moralistic governmental control, all in one toxic, extremist mix.

It is both tempting and easy to mock all of these earnest appeals to "bipartisanship" that we're hearing. And coming from the likes of George Bush -- even a humbled and defeated George Bush -- such appeals understandably provoke great cynicism, even laughter. And they should. Certain individuals have demonstrated that they are irredeemable, and he is at the head of that line.

But it is also true that the country faces serious problems and to the extent that there are responsible, serious adults capable of working together despite political and ideological differences, all the better. That ought to be welcomed.

But that needs to be pursued in conjunction with consigning the most rabid and rotted elements of the Bush movement to the dustbin (and exposing what they have done is a necessary part of that). They will do most of the work themselves -- they already have, and the more they feel weak and rejected, the more rabid they will get. And they have stubborn allies, including in the national media which has long operated from the premise that they are to be taken seriously, although I think the odor of defeat will help to erode much of that perception.

What is worthwhile is to do everything possible to highlight the differences among them so that their isolation becomes more complete, more quickly. The strain of the Bush movement reflected in the above-excerpted comments has been posing as part of our political mainstream even though they are anything but that, and it's time that they return to the fringes where they belong.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/

 

I think we should ban the Democratic party and pass a bill to hold them all as enemy combatants. Curse those terrorists lovers!

 

Wouldn't it be great if the Iranian people could excercise THEIR right to vote.

DD

 

That's a perfect comeback for the likes of Khamenei. Well said!

 

Basso,

Are you a fan of the Savage Nation? If you aren't, and in case others aren't familiar with the show, you should tune in once in a while. It's brilliant comedy, not to mention a venue where nutty individuals can openly express just how nutty they are.

Just this week, he had a caller who was bemoaning how liberals are taking over the country and surrendering to the terrorists and -- get this -- "turning our nation over to Islam." In the caller's opinion, Bush is part of an evil conspiracy that agreed to "turn the country over to Islam" (not Muslims even, but Islam).

Of course, Savage himself ripped Bush a new one, calling him a traitor, saying that he was in on the whole thing and was 'gleeful' during his press conference thereby "showing his true colors", implying that he was clearly working to bring about this result all along, using the Christians to usher him into power and then stabbing them in the back by making 'deals' with the Democrats.

A truly great show, puts Howard Stern to shame...

 

Basso needs a little of this.

 

I keep reading waiting for something on Dems. and patriotism, and it just never happened?

Isn't the title of this thread:

"Ayatolla Khamenei questions the democrats patriotism" ?

THAT"S JUST WRONG!

 

Were I a newly elected Democratic leader, that's exactly what I'd come back with. As CometsWin pointed out, well said! Too bad Creepy isn't here. We'd get to read 12 pages of how democratic Iran is.

The title of this thread is so bogus. So misleading. So bankrupt.

Look, we have this statement:

"The result of this election indicates that the majority of American people are dissatisfied and are fed up with the policies of the American administration," the IRNA state news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.


Well, can anyone argue with that? That sums up the election. Did Bush and the Republican Party suffer this gigantic repudiation by the American people because they were satisfied with the job done by Bush and the GOP? That they wanted another giant plateful of the policies of the Bush Administration, and the do-nothing Republican Congress? I think not.

Let's look at this one:


"With the scandalous defeat of America's policies in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, America's threats are empty threats on an international scale."


Here, they have proven their own misunderstanding of American history. It may be a bit "tongue in cheek," but not really, when I say that Democrats will stack their record of being in power when war came upon them, and fighting with gusto and success, against any GOP administration. And they will stack their record of fighting needless, but bloody and punishing wars against nations, with any GOP administration. Look at history... Democrats are up to their eyeballs, for good or ill, in getting the US in wars with the offending nation(s) any day of the week, and, pun only slightly intended, TWICE ON SUNDAY'S.

Were I the Iranian theocratic democratic posers, I'd be afraid of a Democratic victory. Very afraid. It doesn't matter who is in office. If an ass-kickin' must be done, Democrats are not shy. If they put their eggs in a Democratic victory to allow them to do what they like in the region, I would ask them this... do they like their eggs scrambled, or fried?



Keep D&D Civil.

 

basso, Bill Maher's opening to his show friday was about guys like you saying all these things the democrats have done wrong so far in 5 days. hilarious

 

the real comedy lies in mr. savage's backgroud. his real name is michael weiner - he is from new york and used to be a big liberal. went to berkley where he got a phd in botany. while out in san fran he had ties to various communist groups. he had a homosexual affair (allegedly) with allen ginsburg.

 

Rather a "situation to be solved" than a "war to be lost," which has been created by the ineptitude of this administration... we certainly shouldn't listen to these idiots any longer.

basso, you and the administration had your chance. If you had been the least bit honest in basic government and competent in handling Iraq and Katrina, Repubs would still be in charge. You failed miserably. Time for something new.