Comparing Cheney To Ahmadinejad

Iran’s Leadership Battles

By Steven Clemons Washington Note, October 16, 2007

A reply by Kotzabasis and a counter reply by Clemons to the latter’s  comparison of Cheney to Ahmadinejad in his piece to the WN ending it with the phrase ‘the “Dick Cheney of Iran”, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’.

Steve, to print this shameful quote that compares Cheney to Ahmadinejad to please the political Scarlet O’Haras who follow you, shows that you have entered a redlight district willing to prostitute your scholarly reputation for a “scarlet” coin.

Steven said,

kotzabasis — thanks for your note though your attacks on some of my posts are as robust as some of my attempts at metaphorical comparison. seriously though, i do realize that some would be taken back by the comparison of ahmadinejad and cheney. some in the u.s. government — who are friends of mine — have told me as much about their discomfort with that comparison.

How they are dramatically similar is that both have been declining in relative influence and both see political gain in the increasing tension and potential collision between iran and the u.s. to some degree, ahmadinejad and cheney are able to help each other regain some influence in their respective countries.

What fascinates and worries me is that whereas political factions fighting it out in the US administration — or even in Iran — is nothing new, what is new is that you have such weight on both sides of the equation. bob gates is battling cheney. and maybe — wings of iran’s political establishment are battling rogue elements of the al quds force and ahmadinejad.

In that sense, I think that the comparison is apt — but i recognize and ‘respect’ your alternative take.

Thanks for sparring a bit with the blog. i do enjoy reading your commentary and understanding your take on many of these issues.

all the best,

Kotzabasis said,

My dear Steve, I’m always perplexed that a noble person like you stoops at times to the ugly passions of hoi polloi. But Marcel Proust is always relevant.

My best wishes too.

steve clemonsPosted by Steve Clemons at October 22, 2007 10:28 AM

THE SLEEPING DEMON OF RACISM WILL AWAKE TO BITE OBAMA’S AMBITION

The Great Non Sequitur, by Charles Krauthammer

 Washington Post, March 7, 2008

 A short reply by Con George-Kotzabasis

In the “progressivist” euphoria of seeing a black American with an agile mind of capturing the up till now Waspish Whitehouse, most people cannot see the first awakening movements of the sleeping demon of racism rising from its slumbers to bite Obama’s ambition to become the next president of the U.S.A. . But the ever watchful Argus-eyed New York Times. which always has its finger up in the air to feel the political cross winds that are battering the American electorate, has already sensed that Obama cannot win the election, despite the fact that he has won most states in the primaries, against John McCaine, and therefore it has “de-barracked” Obama and is barracking for Clinton. The …Times, on March 9, 2008, under the rubric The Editorial Board’s Primary Choices,  states, that “the editorial board endorses Senator … Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination”. Thus surprisingly declaring itself against the majority of Democrats who prefer Obama. And the only reason for doing this is no other than in the editorial board’s educated guess is that America at this stage is not ready  to vote a black American into the Whitehouse.

The next to follow this line of the … Times will be the super delegates of the Democratic Convention who at the penultimate moment the majority of them will be also endorsing Senator Clinton as their nominee. Thus we will be told, that the flagship of the liberal media The… Times and the liberal super delegates of the Democrats had decided that the best way to repulse this wave of impending racism from falling and drowning their black candidate is to attract this rising wave of racism behind their waspish candidate Clinton, whose tsunami will have a greater chance of raising the latter to the Oval Office.   

Moreover, Obama is politically totally unfit to lead a great nation that faces stupendous challenges and dangers in our times with his populist siren songs and idyllic rhetoric to a deeply divided America, issuing from how to deal and handle Islamist global terror, and its corollary, the war in Iraq. And as Krauthammer correctly points out “uniting is not a matter of rhetoric and manner, but of character and courage”.

And in this case John McCaine is Napoleon’s “voila une homme“. As Obama’s spine is made up of neon light flashes and has no backbone. But if he does get the Democratic nomination, I too believe he will lose the election. As the presently dormant demon of race will awake from its present slumber at the crucial moment-this time for the good of America and the free world- along with its auxiliaries, the American Latinos and the Asians, and prevent a political dilettante from getting the helm of power in his hands in our turbulent and most dangerous times.

Your opinion on this issue…

Imaginary Discussion With An Unimaginative Interlocutor Whether One Can Appease Islamists

By Con George-Kotzabasis

In all situations of life of a critical momentous nature one’s choices are shrinked and one is forced to dichotomize the situation, which you consider to be wrong since you believe that one has a greater number of choices than two. Let us make a mental experiment. One is standing in front of a window of a first floor room that is on fire. There are three exits from the room, one door that leads to the staircase, another door that opens to the adjacent room, and the window. The two doors are a “closed” option since the room is on fire, so one has only one choice to jump from the window with the probability of breaking one’s limbs but saving one’s life.

Now you will say to me that I assume that we are on “fire” with the jihadists and this is not the real situation. But let us answer this question not with the heat of fire in our minds but with coolness. First it’s necessary to know one’s enemy, to start on the granite premise of the Chinese philosopher and military strategist, Sun Zi. It’s true we are not facing powerful enemies of the Nazi and Soviet kind, as you say. But we are confronting an unidentified invisible enemy that is lost in the “crowd”, has all the features of the latter and potentially is being armed with weapons of mass destruction, and indeed, with nuclear ones. Moreover, this is a religious fanatically motivated enemy with apocalyptic goals. With demands that are not earthly but heavenly. And since no “mortal Caesar” can render to this enemy what is “God’s”, he is bound to remain un-appeasable. Ergo it’s foolish to consider that you can appease or negotiate with a foe who sturdily believes he is implementing God’s Agenda.

Of course you will retort that this is another assumption I’m making. But likewise I will reply that yours too is an assumption, that is, that you can appease these fanatics. So which assumption is correct? The answer is given by the “Delphic sage”, History. If we put the two assumptions on the scales of history we will witness a quick heavy tip of the balance of the scales that will shoot your assumption up into the environs of thin air.

I rest my case.
 

What is your opinion on this issue…