mead berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn bayles
After the Iran Deal
Ten Things That Won’t Be on the Agenda in Tehran
Features Icon
show comments
  • Dale Fayda

    “It’s funny, because it’s true…”

    I like it, I like it!

  • rheddles

    So, why did you vote for him?

    • FriendlyGoat

      Because he was the best choice over McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan.

      • azt24

        Does this column sound like Mead still believes that?

        • FriendlyGoat

          I wasn’t answering for Mead. A question like that in a comment section is open to any of us who voted for him.

  • Rick Johnson

    Beautiful. Just beautiful.

  • adk

    In your #10, you forgot to mention another brilliant Prez O’s accomplishment: bringing about eternal peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the goal thought heretofore just impossible, thus earning tremendous goodwill (if not outright adoration) from both peoples for the US and Obama personally. It’s no wonder that many Jewish and Arab mothers alike are naming their newborns Obama.

  • Fat_Man

    Ouch. That has got to sting.

  • Matt B

    When even WRM can’t refrain from satire, you know things have gotten out of hand. As the broader media start to dig into Obama’s ISIS “strategy”, I have seen WRM’s comments from several years ago cited more than once.

  • FriendlyGoat

    The fact that Putin and the Ayatollah ACTUALLY ARE equivalent to a couple of nineteenth-century potentates makes the satire not work. The fact that plenty of other free nations ARE moral heroes by comparison to both Russia and Iran—–and TAI thinks that is a subject for derision—-is really weird. Are you guys deciding to just go senseless and tactless like the Tea Party types, or what?

    • Dale Fayda

      Those “nineteenth-century potentates” are riding your boy-king, “the smartest man to ever occupy the Presidency”, “the lower of the tides and healer of the earth” like an elephant at the circus. The fact that your defense of this pathetic ponce of a president now consists of invoking the good graces of conservatives past goes to show that you have nothing to counter the gist of the opinions expressed in the article and in the comments.

      Obama and his sycophants (you included) had no problem calling the rest of us every name in the book – now it’s our turn at bat, however we decide to phrase it. Embrace the suck…

      • leoj

        Exactly. And it is hard to imagine any so-called “sensible liberal” voting anything but Republican in the next election.

        Obama–it’s good to be on his bad side.

      • FriendlyGoat

        The problem, Dale, is that item #3 in TAI’s list can reasonably be seen as celebrating Putin and Iran over America and other nations—–just to swipe at Obama. This is really, really, really poor thought and “once upon a time”, as I said, conservatives had enough patriotism and enough presence of mind to reject such a thing. Now, apparently they don’t. Now, apparently YOU don’t.

        “America” was not George W. Bush. It is not Barack Obama. It will not be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.

        The piece asks us to believe that—-BECAUSE OF OBAMA—-Russian and Iranian leaders are not potentates and America and a host of other nations are not moral heroes. That’s just crap talk.

        • Dale Fayda

          I see no one on this cite “celebrating” neither Iran nor Putin. I don’t see this article celebrating them either. Putin is a plutocratic dictator wanna-be and the Iranian mullahs are millenarian Islamist fanatics. Both are avowed enemies of the United States and conservatives have been screaming this from the rooftops for years. Obama, Hillary, et al have mocked and denigrated them mercilessly FOR THAT, while sneeringly lecturing us from the lofty heights of their “soft power” wisdom and self-regard. You remember that, don’t you? What am I saying – of course, you do! Obama and Democrat party is doing it right now, as I write.

          And now you are trying to shame us with our “lack of patriotism”?! You have got to be joking!!! Or is this all you can muster in defense of this pathetic demagogue and incompetent fraud who for some strange reason thinks he still matters to anyone in the world?

          • FriendlyGoat

            Well, your side had the idea that liberals OVER-criticizing G.W. Bush implied a lack of patriotism a few years ago and I would suggest that conservatives OVER-criticizing Obama implies the same now.

            Besides, the #3 point in the article was just poorly written. I suppose they just wanted to make fun of Obama as not really a “moral hero”——but they managed, by use of a plural to imply that none of the nations against Putin and Iran actually are moral heroes. That’s baloney and the reason I called it baloney.

          • Dale Fayda

            “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” – said the bumper sticker on every other Pruis during the Bush presidency, remember?

            How about this – we’ll expend to Obama the same level of respect and consideration liberals gave Bush. Acceptable?

          • FriendlyGoat

            How about this? I’ll call the #3 item in the article a misfire and stand by it.

          • Tom

            No, it’s not baloney. Sorry, but the list of “moral heroes” at this juncture is limited to maybe the Kurds.

          • FriendlyGoat

            Gee, I thought they were the USA, Canada, France, UK, Australia, Germany, Japan, South Korea, and dozens of other peace-hoping and civilized democracies.

          • Tom

            Sorry, that doesn’t qualify you for “moral heroism.” “Moral heroism” involves actually doing something about problems instead of preening. And I’ve seen plenty of the latter and none of the former in this whole mess.

          • FriendlyGoat

            We’ll have to disagree on that, I guess. I think the most-free, most-tolerant, most-progressive, most-civilized nations on earth are the moral heroes among nations.

            And nations are who I believe TAI was insulting with #3. They tried to write another snide slam on Obama and it came off stupid. And, frankly, even if we confined it to their intent, Obama actually is a moral hero compared to either Putin or the Ayatollah of Iran.

          • Tom

            There are no heroes among nations, right now.
            And Obama really isn’t a moral hero compared to Putin or the Iranians. He’s not a maniacal tyrant, but he is a self-serving, grasping politico.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I’ll take it as the comparison it is between Putin, the Ayatollah and everything else.

          • Jim__L

            These “heroes” are the dead hero types in a classical tragedy, where their hubris overcame their virtues.

            Americans have a preference for heroes that can get the story to a happy ending. Obama ain’t one of those.

          • FriendlyGoat

            He would have been if Islam was capable of a “meet-in-the-middle” response. The notion that we have to kill people and build walls all over the world is not a “happy ending”.

          • Jim__L

            “Moral heroes” of Obama’s ilk are self-righteous back-patters, unworthy of the name “hero”.

        • Jim__L

          I think the irony here is at right angles to how you’ve taken it… Russia and Iran are *not sorrowful* about their status, as they believe that what passes for a “hero” (microhero?) in the 21st century can’t stand up to someone following a 19th-century playbook.

          The piece is asking us to believe that 19th-century types are perfectly happy being 19th-century types *because of Obama’s weakness and ineptitude*. And that of every Secretary of State he’s ever had, I might add.

          Standing up against a 19th-century playbook is exactly what we had to do in the first half of the 20th century. Look at the ineffective people (pacifists, internationalists) vs. the effective people (muscular interventionists), in that situation. Obama more closely resembles Chamberlain and Kellogg / Briand, than FDR or Churchill.

          On his watch, solvable problems are getting worse because he’s afraid of war.

          • FriendlyGoat

            As I have told many people, the current Republican Congress is at liberty to constitutionally declare any war it wishes and absolutely obligate Obama to command it—-even if that ended up being nothing more than simply handing off all burden of command to the Pentagon. When you have to put 535 elected people on record in a vote for a foreign war, you will find out that Obama is not the only one trying to avoid it. I do not buy the idea that his weakness is our world problem and I do not buy the idea that Congressional conservatives all want to put their names on votes to back up Donald Trump’s bluffs with blood and sacrifice of service people from their districts. This all worked politically ONCE as a response to 9/11, but there is little appetite from conservatives or anyone else for the USA to do a big ground war in Syria.

    • Boritz


      • FriendlyGoat

        There are two ends to a bull. I think they hit the other end.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service