Obama on Iran being ‘unhelpful’ – Would you like a buttocks massage with that?

I listened to President Obama’s first press event the other night and was disgusted by his weak-sauce answer to an important question about Iran. Hugh Hewitt broke down the asinine statement on his radio show today. Here’s the audio:

Like I said: Iran provides weapons in Iraq that kill American soldiers, Defies America and the U.N. by continuing nuclear weapon development, calls for Israel to be ‘wiped off the map,’ financially backs terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas – and President Obama calls this ‘Unhelpful.’

Wow…I’m sure the Mullahs really felt shaken up being labeled ‘unhelpful’ after all that. Maybe we should send them a few valentine cards with unicorns, butterflies, and rainbows on them. Or perhaps some gift cards for 50% off their next buttocks massage…

Jules Crittenden has the list of most ‘unhelpful’ events:

There are the 241 unhelpfully dead Marines in Lebanon, and years of unhelpful instability and thuggishness there, with ongoing interference by Iranian-backed terrorists who have brought war and destruction down on the Lebanese people. There are several hundred unhelpfully dead American soldiers in Iraq and God knows how many unhelpfully dead Iraqis. There is the unhelpful nuclear program. The unhelpful training and arming of Hamas. There was the unhelpful taking of an American embassy, and 444 unhelpful days of humiliation.

Iran Missile Update – Complete Hoax!

The whole story is turing out to possibly be one huge crock of crap. And yet there are people who still think that we should talk with these abject liars… What’s the point? They will not negotiate in good faith. Plain and simple.



This in from Drudge:

Fri Jul 11 2008 15:18:02 ET

Many of Iran’s claims related to missile tests during “Great Prophet III” war games — appear to be smoke and mirrors!

The missiles tested DID NOT not have 2,000-kilometer range, the NEW YORK TIMES is planning to report on Saturday. 

Iran DID NOT launch a Shahab-3 missile, able to reach Israel.

It was an older missile that was out of production, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE. 

And a video showing what appeared to be many missiles being fired — is actually one missile, filmed from different angles! 

NYT’s Bill Broad is planning to quote military insiders. 



This shouldn’t be a surprise – but it makes you wonder – what every happened to investigative journalism? The fact that the free press in the world thinks anything from Iran is not propaganda…

Update: It’s official – the whole thing was a bunch of crap. Here’s the full official report. (excerpt below)

WASHINGTON – Iran’s missile test this week did not demonstrate any new capabilities, according to a U.S. official familiar with the intelligence, and the test may not have included one of the longer-range missiles Iran claims was among those launched.

Iranian officials claimed the tests Wednesday and Thursday demonstrated a new variant of the Shahab missile that had a range of 1,250 miles. Such a missile would put much of the Middle East in striking distance, including Israel — as close as 650 miles from Iran — as well as Turkey, Pakistan and the Arabian peninsula.

The tests drew immediate criticism from U.S. officials. In Eastern Europe during the launches, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the missile tests underscored the need for a U.S. missile shield in the region.

But an independent national security blog, ArmsControlWonk.com, Thursday analyzed video footage of the launch posted by the Iranian government. It determined the missiles were identical to a version of the Shahab missile first demonstrated in Iran in 1998 that has a known range of 746 miles.

In a post called “Same old Boring Shahab 3,” it compared the diameter of the missile to its length and found it to be identical to the 1998 version.

Unless the Iranians built a larger missile with the same length to width ratio, dramatically improved the thrust of the rocket or decreased its internal structural mass, the missile could not achieve the range Iran claimed it did. Otherwise, it is the same knockoff of North Korea‘s Nodong-1, according to the blog.

If Mahmoud wants to sit down and chit chat with the President and other world leaders, perhaps he should start giving us some shard of evidence that he isn’t simply a blatant liar and propagandist. Otherwise – what’s the point?

The Iranian Missile FAIL

What exactly was Iran trying to cover up in yesterday’s big photoshop-fest?

It’s like dudes that drive around in massive jacked up trucks: Yeah…they’re compensating…

HT [jawa]

Photoshop: Images of Iran’s Missile Launch [Updated]

UPDATE – Is the whole thing a hoax??

One of the images picked up (…or, did they do it?!?) by Western Media on Iran’s missile test today – clearly photoshopped:


Can you spot the fakery?

What fakery?

Oh…whoops. Sorry – here’s the real one:

Yeah – nice try Iran. This Blog made a great animated gif showing the copying…

Does our western media pick this up? Nope, a bunch of dudes sitting around on their computers sipping Mountain Dew… Gotta love that!

Also: Perhaps you missed this bone-fide classic from the AFP earlier this year:

Hit her house?

Hit her house?!?

Click the image above or go here: Two Bullets in the Hand, One Big Crock of Bull

ht [LGF]

UPDATE: Well, the Times figured it out this morning (9:33am, that’s about 12 hours at least after bloggers picked this up…)- but that wasn’t quick enough for all the other papers to run it front page:

Here’s the money quote from the NYT story: 

“Does Iran’s state media use Photoshop?” 

Hmmm…nah – they’re trustworthy

The NYTimes folks are blaming it on the AFP – the same jokes that ran the Magic Bullet Woman story above.

EPIC FAIL for big media, EPIC WIN for bloggers.

Here’s another great post on this at Snapped Shot.

Dumb-as-a-post Pelosi blames surge success on…(wait for it)…Iranian goodwill!!!

Her statement today (emph mine):

“Well, the purpose of the surge was to provide a secure space, a time for the political change to occur to accomplish the reconciliation. That didn’t happen. Whatever the military success, and progress that may have been made, the surge didn’t accomplish its goal. And some of the success of the surge is that the goodwill of the Iranians-they decided in Basra when the fighting would end, theynegotiated that cessation of hostilities-the Iranians.”

I’m sorry – I usually don’t resort to flat out insults, but…What a freaking clueless idiot!

This ludicruis comment is so typical of the know-nothing douchenozzels in Washington. It even earned Nancy the coveted flaming skull over at Ace of Spades (I had to transplant and quote):


Having blurted out, probably accidentally, that the surge was in fact successful, Granny Rictus McBotoxImplants now scrambles to credit the enemy nation murdering our troops with the victory our troops accomplished through blood, sweat, tears, and more blood.

It’s not our troops. It’s not Petraeus’ leadership. It’s not the Iraqis turning on the Al Qaeda murderers. No — it’s Iran’s goodwill.

Here at wtc she gets the coveted Jar-Jar Award:

I have created a helpful “who to trust” tutorial below for those who haven’t been following the war so far:


Definition of A Precondition

Precondition: “An expression that has to be met before the task can be executed.

Sen. Obama apparently doesn’t agree with that definition. He is now simultaneously claiming that he would meet with Iran without preconditions, but that he would only do it if they met certain…uh…preconditions.

If he wants to talk about “guiding principals of diplomacy – Essentially, here is Sen. Obama’s new plan:

No talks with Iran until they end their nuclear-weapons programs, progressively tougher sanctions until they comply with international non-proliferation regulations and UN Security Council resolutions.

Note that this is exactly what the Bush administration has done since 2003.

Sen. Obama’s grasp of foreign policy is very odd to me. The more I hear, the more it appears to me that he simply doesn’t have a plan. Consider this next clip from a speech in Oregon the other day where he claims that Iran, Syria, etc do not pose a serious threat to the US:

That’s a messed up grasp of history. The reason we could talk with the Soviet Union was because they already had loads of nuclear weapons and they were a rational state that understood the implications of Mutually Assured Destruction. The Iranian Mullocracy is nothing like the government of Russia. The governments of Iran and Syria simply do not negotiate in good faith. Ed Morrisey expands on these thought in better words (I’ve added emphasis for skimmers):

Let’s start with the Soviet Union. We talked with the Soviet Union because they also had nuclear weapons. Obama seems to forget that the entire point of our Iran policy is to prevent being put in the position of having to cut deals with a terrorist-supporting, radical Islamist non-rational state. When the enemy already has the capability of destroying you several times over, negotiations are needed to keep one side from initiating a war. Only an idiot would think that the negotiations intended on disarming the Soviets, or they us. The same dynamic applies to our engagement with Mao Zedong and Red China; Mao was smart enough to hold himself out as a potential partner in a power balance against the Soviets.

The Soviet Union collapsed economically; they did not just decide to capitulate. The Berlin Wall did not fall as a result of negotiations, but because the regime propping it up ceased to exist. Why did the Soviet Union collapse? Because Ronald Reagan won an economic war with Moscow, forcing it to spend more and more and falling further and further behind. The Strategic Defense Initiative provided the coup de grace to the Soviets, who knew they could never match us in missile defense, and tried negotiating an end to the economic war instead, with disastrous results.

That would be the same SDI that Democrats staunchly opposed, sneeringly called “Star Wars” and proclaiming it a threat to peaceful coexistence. They wanted a decades-long series of summits instead of the end of communism, which sounds strikingly familiar in Obama’s speech. Reagan had to fight the Democrats to beat the Soviets, not through presidential-level diplomacy but through economic isolation and military strength.

Listen to Obama talk about the “common interests” supposedly shared between the US and the Iranian mullahcracy. What interests would those be? The destruction of Israel, the denial of the Holocaust, the financial and military support of Hamas and Hezbollah, or the killing of American soldiers in Iraq? And please point out the presidential-level, unconditional contacts that brought down the Berlin Wall. Our “common interests” didn’t exist between the East German and American governments; they existed between the people of East Germany and America in the promise of real freedom. When the Soviet power structure imploded, it was the people of East Germany who tore down the wall, not Mikhail Gorbachev, who watched it happen impotently.

Furthermore, the danger in Iranian nuclear weapons has nothing to do with the capacity of its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles. Iran’s sponsorship of terrorist organizations will allow them to partner with any small group of lunatics who want to smuggle a nuclear weapon into any Western city — London, Rome, Washington DC, Los Angeles, take your pick. That’s the problem with nuclear proliferation; it doesn’t take a large army to threaten annihilation any longer, which is why we work so hard to keep those weapons out of the hands of non-rational actors like Iran. The Soviets may have been evil, but they were rational, and we could count on their desire to survive to rely on the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. The Iranians believe that a worldwide conflagration will have Allah deliver the world to Islam, so a nuclear exchange may fall within their policy, and that’s assuming we could establish their culpability for a sneak nuclear attack to the extent where a President Obama would order a nuclear reprisal.

This speech reveals Obama to have no grasp of history, no grasp of strategic implications of a nuclear Iran, and no clue how to secure the nation and handle foreign policy.

It is clear to me that when it comes to foreign policy, Sen. Obama fails to grasp some crucial elements. Even worse – he has a very strange reading of history that leave out many crucial facts. I’m reminded of the opening quotation from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:

Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana

Furthermore – Sen. Obama’s fervor over Pres. Bush’s remarks the other day in Israel (Note that the president didn’t make any reference to Sen. Obama, the Democrats, or even Americans…) were very revealing. It could have been his one chance to agree with the president and say, ‘No, we cannot talk without preconditions,’ but instead he decided to take the remarks as a personal attack. What the crap? If Obama doesn’t believe in appeasement (which is what President Bush was talking about) then why take his comments so personally?

I think the reason is because Sen. Obama doesn’t really have a clear stance on foreign policy. (Also, admitting that President Bush has done anything right is clearly off the table). Early on, he was criticizing the Bush Administration for not talking with Iran – and now he is pulling a 180 and basically mirroring the policy that he described as such a total failure.

So what is the plan then? Talk to them – but only if they stop their nuclear program? That’s what’s known as a precondition.

Read the remarkable Part TwoWhere Obama both hypes, contradicts, and criticizes his own policy and somehow blames it all on Bush. Make sure your head it securely fashioned because it may be in danger of spinning off.