Democrats give Ahmadinejad Reason to Smile

ChossidMom

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 3:58 pm

The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

Democrats give Ahmadinejad reason to smile
Sep. 24, 2008
Abraham Katsman and Kory Bardash , THE JERUSALEM POST

A JPost.com exclusive blog

Some friendly advice to our Obama-supporting friends: When your interests are aligned with those of Iran's President and Hitler-wannabe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, it's time for some re-assessment of priorities.

Democrat activists this week gave Ahmadinejad a huge gift by sabotaging a major bipartisan anti-Iran rally. More important to them than Iran, apparently, was the opportunity to marginalize popular Republican vice-presidential candidate Governor Sarah Palin.

In a nutshell, here is what happened: The rally was organized by wide coalition of mostly Jewish organizations, including the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the respected non-partisan umbrella group that is the closest thing the American Jewish community has to single and unified voice. They assembled an impressive protest of the presence of Ahmadinejad at the United Nations, to sound the alarm over his nuclear weapons program, and to urge world leaders gathered this week in New York to act strongly-and soon-to prevent a nuclear Iran that would threaten America, Israel and the world.

The organizers secured a number of high-profile speakers, including Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, recent Democrat presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton and Vice-Presidential nominee Sarah Palin. It is not yet clear whether Clinton was coordinating with Democrat strategists, but when she found out Palin was also invited, she bailed out. Too bad-having America's two highest profile female politicians together on the same stage condemning the misogynistic (among its many attributes) Iranian regime would have been a powerful image.

Following Clinton's lead, two of the sponsoring organizations-led by left-wing Democrat activists-demanded that Palin be barred from speaking lest the rally be a "partisan" event. The organizers pleaded with both Joe Biden and Barack Obama to speak, but both declined. Although Congressman Robert Wexler, a prominent Obama surrogate, was available to speak, the Democrats (including members of Congress) relentlessly pushed to have the Palin invitation rescinded.

Their argument was part naked pretext and part veiled threat: that maintaining the invitation just might prompt the IRS to investigate all sponsoring organizations' non-partisan tax-exempt status-an interesting understanding of "partisan" considering the invitations to Clinton, Obama, Biden and Wexler. (Perhaps this gives a clue how an IRS run by Obama lieutenants might treat political opponents). In an effort to maintain an appearance of Jewish unity against the evil of Iran, the organizers were forced to cave; Palin was given the boot. Game over. The Democrats won.

And so did Ahmadinejad. This had the makings of rally with impact. Besides being a tremendous show of bipartisan unity opposing Iranian aggression, the massive media attention paid to Palin's appearances would have brought the Iranian danger to the forefront of American consciousness. The rally was also attended by Iranian dissidents, human rights activists, gays, Christians, Jews and Iraqis, all of whom suffer at the hands of the mullahs' regime. Their under-reported causes could have used the publicity boost. Deflating the event by removing its star power did all these groups a huge disservice. We're sure Ahmadinejad cannot believe his good fortune. Thank you, Democrats!

Don't the Democrats vainly claim to be the party of the powerless and the voice of the voiceless? Fighters for human rights and protectors of liberty? They shouldn't flatter themselves. How did they help those causes this week? By strong-arm tactics, stifling dissent and sacrificing their "principles" for some perceived marginal political gain? Aren't those the sorts of things they're supposed to be protesting against? Perhaps they should tell us which principles they won't trample in order to gain fleeting political advantage.

In all likelihood, by getting their way and silencing Palin, the Democrats won only a Pyrrhic victory. This political gamesmanship is not going to sit well with most Jewish and pro-Israel voters-including Democrats and Independents-who take the Iranian threat seriously. The same day as the rally, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned that Iran could be hiding certain nuclear activities, and estimated that Iran could go nuclear in just six months. And this past Sunday, no longer content to merely "wipe Israel off the map,"Ahmadinejad presided over a military parade with banners reading "Israel should be eliminated from the universe." (Those must be some powerful nukes.)

Palin's non-speech, the text of which was released to the press (and is well worth reading), pulled no punches. She pointed out that Iran's radical Islamic government, committed to going nuclear, is already the world's leading sponsor of terrorism, is culpable in the deaths of hundreds of Americans in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and soldiers in Iraq, has murdered countless opponents, has persecuted its own Jews and murdered Jews as far away as Argentina, is fixated on anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, and terrorizes its own people. She even quoted Hillary Clinton to make a bipartisan argument for stronger sanctions. Would it have been so unbearable to give her words national attention?

Democrats and Obama-supporters, please ask yourselves: was it really so important to begrudge any forum to Palin that you'd sacrifice a golden opportunity to raise the profile of Iran's increasingly imminent threat to world security? What, exactly, are your priorities?

By contrast, in matters of national security and international action, John McCain has constantly put aside partisanship. Earlier this year, he joined with Obama and Clinton issuing a united statement on ending the genocide in Darfur even though it's an issue on which Democrats have been more vocal.

When presciently advocating the then-unpopular "surge" of American troops in Iraq even though it jeopardized his presidential campaign, he famously said "I'd rather lose a campaign than lose a war." Can the Democrats say the same thing? By sacrificing unified leverage over the greatest security threat we now face in order to spitefully diminish and delegitimize an opposing candidate, we may have our answer.

Obama's talk of post-partisanship and "reaching across the aisle" looks increasingly divorced from reality. If his operatives can't even bring themselves to join Republicans in something with such wide bipartisan support and national security implications as preventing the nuclearization of Iran, just where is that supposed post-partisanship going to appear? Do they not agree that the enemy is Ahmadinejad, not the GOP?

There is something very wrong with a party that insists on sitting down with Ahmadinejad without preconditions, but refuses to share a stage with the Republican Party candidate for Vice President of the United States of America.

Clarissa

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 4:03 pm

She probably knows nothing about Iran. The only "profile" she would have "raised," in the words of the article, is her own. Let's be serious. Does every rally, parade and gathering of every kind have to be about this election?

ChossidMom

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 4:16 pm

Actually, it appears as though Hilary Clinton and the others turned it into being about the elections. It was meant to be against what's his name.

Clarissa

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 4:22 pm

Have you ever heard Palin discuss foreign policy? There's no way anybody would believe that anything she has to say about Iran is anything she understands. Did you hear what she said about Russia to Couric?

ChossidMom

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 4:25 pm

Nope. I don't have a tv. So, what did she say about Russia?

Clarissa

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 4:26 pm

COURIC: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
PALIN: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and on our other side, the land-- boundary that we have with-- Canada. It-- it's funny that a comment like that was-- kind of made to-- cari-- I don't know, you know? Reporters--
COURIC: Mock?
PALIN: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.
COURIC: Explain to me why that enhances your foreign policy credentials.
PALIN: Well, it certainly does because our-- our next door neighbors are foreign countries. They're in the state that I am the executive of. And there in Russia--
COURIC: Have you ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?
PALIN: We have trade missions back and forth. We-- we do-- it's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia as Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-- where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is-- from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there. They are right next to-- to our state.

I really cannot imagine why she's being hidden from the press or why there seems to be an effort to delay the VP debate. I mean, she is can SEE RUSSIA!

ChossidMom

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 4:28 pm

I wonder if Obama has more experience...

Akeres Habayis

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 4:29 pm

udont need a tv anymore the internet shoste interviews cbs.com

ChossidMom

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 4:34 pm

Akeres Habayis wrote:

udont need a tv anymore the internet shoste interviews cbs.com

I'm much too busy. Too busy surfing Imamother that is.

Clarissa

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 4:40 pm

ChossidMom wrote:

I wonder if Obama has more experience...

I'm guessing his answers wouldn't be incoherent. Her answer to a bailout question was even funnier.

"That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in. Where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be about job creation, too. Shoring up our economy, and getting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade -- we have got to see trade as opportunity, not as, uh, competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation."

Did you know that reducing taxes has got to accompany tax reduction? Fascinating grasp of our economic system.

Wanna know what's even scarier? She was using notes, and she still answered questions like that.

Really, what business would she have talking about Iran at a rally?

ChossidMom

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 4:43 pm

But why wasn't Clinton there? I'll bet she can talk coherently about Iran.

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 4:49 pm

So she is not a polished speaker like Obama is. Whoopee. As far as experience, she is the same as Obama. Except that Obama is the top of the ticket.

Clarissa

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 4:55 pm

ChossidMom wrote:

But why wasn't Clinton there? I'll bet she can talk coherently about Iran.

She decided not to do it. Who cares what she has to say about Iran, anyway? I like her, but I'm not all that interested in any speech she'd make there.

Clarissa

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 4:55 pm

rb wrote:

So she is not a polished speaker like Obama is. Whoopee. As far as experience, she is the same as Obama. Except that Obama is the top of the ticket.

Yes, he's more polished, but he also has some basic level of comprehension about the issues, wouldn't you say?

ChossidMom

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 5:00 pm

Clarissa wrote:

ChossidMom wrote:

But why wasn't Clinton there? I'll bet she can talk coherently about Iran.

She decided not to do it. Who cares what she has to say about Iran, anyway? I like her, but I'm not all that interested in any speech she'd make there.

You know, I really don't think that it was "about" what she or Palin had to say about Iran. I think it was more a show of solidarity with Israel/Jews and against Ahmadinejahd.

Clarissa

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 5:09 pm

ChossidMom wrote:

Clarissa wrote:

ChossidMom wrote:

But why wasn't Clinton there? I'll bet she can talk coherently about Iran.

She decided not to do it. Who cares what she has to say about Iran, anyway? I like her, but I'm not all that interested in any speech she'd make there.

You know, I really don't think that it was "about" what she or Palin had to say about Iran. I think it was more a show of solidarity with Israel/Jews and against Ahmadinejahd.

Why? Other people spoke, wasn't that solidarity for you? Also, without Googling, can anybody give the list of people who spoke at the rally? I mean it, without googling. No, because nobody cares, except to use it as a partisan fight. The Democrats have their own opinions about what happened. But people did speak, and those people were at least as effective at showing solidarity as Hillary Clinton would have been, and certainly more effective than Palin would have been. The only reason anybody is talking about this rally here is to condemn Democrats. Otherwise, there wouldn't have been mention of it here.

ChossidMom

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 5:13 pm

A high profile person agrees to come and then cancels. That makes waves. That was obviously a political move (unless she had a toothache or a sudden conflicting appointment) and of course the other side is making use of it politically as well.

Clarissa

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 5:15 pm

According to Rep. Anthony Weiner, the rally was a mess, and those who planned it are at fault. Anyway, I still can't understand why either Clinton nor Palin needed to be there. I really can't.

ChossidMom, without checking online, can you tell me who was there? Do you pay attention to the speakers at rallies? If I name various rallies and protests, could you or anyone tell me who spoke, and how they did?

Last edited by Clarissa on Thu, Sep 25 2008, 5:17 pm; edited 1 time in total

ChossidMom

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 5:16 pm

Whatever. I'm going to bed. It's been real.

ora_43

Thu, Sep 25 2008, 5:24 pm

Clarissa wrote:

ChossidMom, without checking online, can you tell me who was there? Do you pay attention to the speakers at rallies? If I name various rallies and protests, could you or anyone tell me who spoke, and how they did?

Of course I can't tell you who was there. That's the whole point. If Palin and Clinton had been there, they would have brought a lot of news coverage with them, and people would have heard a lot more about the rally than they did.

What does it matter if Palin would have sounded like an idiot? The point, from the organizers' perspective, is that Palin would be an idiot with a lot of cameras pointed at her. Cameras that would also be filming the rally, which newscasters would mention, at least briefly, as the background for Palin's appearance.