What She Would Have Said About Iran

what?? op-ed?? did she even write the speech??? .... thwart him???

Sent by jen | 12:15 PM | 9-22-2008

i doubt if she wrote the letter herself...she is recorded on tape earlier this year saying she doesnt know anything about the war in iraq. i am quite sure she doesnt know anything about iran...

Sent by brandi | 12:25 PM | 9-22-2008

If Palin actually put pen to paper and wrote this, I'll eat my hat. If the Republicans pull off another heist of an American presidency with their second-rate (at best) candidates, I'll be eating that hat in another country.

Sent by RG, Tampa, FL | 12:25 PM | 9-22-2008

When fundamentalists of any kind come to power, it's a sad day for human rights, common sense, and rule of law. Ironically, it is Palin's appeal to dangerous fundamentalism in this nation that is gathering votes for the Republican ticket.

- Curbing of Constitutional rights under the Patriot Act,
- Denial of rights to prisoners on American soil, and
- Refusal to satisfy the American people, who legitimately question the role of these prisoners in overseas actions,
- A party which wants to decide matters of faith in the civil arena (gay marriange, abortion),
- A skewed respect for human life that allows capital punishment,
- Unilateralism,
- Focused hatred (against muslims), and
- A real threat to use arms to advance ambiguous goals and unite a nation in fear, hatred, and anger.

Her speech may be dead-on but it could, with a few word changes be directed at the current administration, the Republican candidates, and many fundamentalist Christian clergy and congregations.

Sent by HL | 1:07 PM | 9-22-2008

It seems to me. on evaluation. That a new dark age is looming. The collapse of the american empire, mirrors the collapse of rome.

If there is one thing we have, that rome didn't, that may allow us to avoid another descent, it is our development of empirical method.

Take a step back, let the system fail, and then organize quickly, and effectively, to avoid famine, the failure of our water supply, and electrical and communications infrastructure.

There is no room for emotion in this. No room for the masturbatory political conflicts of the past. There is only one way to achieve survival, to employ rational thought, and to resurrect the concept of personal honor.

Sent by Jody Sol | 1:19 PM | 9-22-2008

I am terrified of this country's collective intelligence when I see how close the Republican ticket is polling with this absurd pick.

Sent by Dan - Fort Worth, TX | 1:44 PM | 9-22-2008

I think one shouldn't underestimate Palin as far as who wrote her speech and a bipartisan political involvement is appropriate at a protest like this.Forget political correctness-Palin and Hillary should've both attended .

Sent by trini | 2:12 PM | 9-22-2008

I am so annoyed that she keeps praising Hillary Clinton to woo Clinton supporters, as if they don't know the difference. And even more annoyed that they seem to not know the difference.

Sent by Emily, Washington DC | 2:18 PM | 9-22-2008

Hmmm...

She omitted the part about how the US' actions over the past 5 years directly empowered the country and leader that she is protesting.

How come it is God's will that we go to war but the consequences and effects of said war "must be stopped".

The terrifying thing is that in rhetoric she is not that far off from Ahmadinejad. Both are extreme fundamentalist idiots who believe they are carrying out God's Will - Ironic, no?

Sent by Dan K. | 2:46 PM | 9-22-2008

Although I agree with the general tone of the comments (including the more scurrilous ones), it is not hard to see why folks think NPR is a bunch of lefties. Although it is clear that NPR is not leftist, many of us who listen to it are! I'm not sure what that says about us or the right.

Sent by Joe Brown | 2:58 PM | 9-22-2008

I love it! Do you people actually believe Obama writes all of his own speeches? Come on!

Isn't the more important story why Palin was disinvited in the first place? Could it be lack of tolerance for opposing political views? Or perhaps to make Clinton's absence less noticable? Perhaps Obama plans to cozy up to Ahmadinejad if he is elected. He has already stated he would meet with him. This would make him just as deplorable as Bush with his relationship with the House of Saud.

I remind you this is the "Holocaust never happened" Ahmadinejad, the "there are no homosexuals in Iran" Ahmadinejad, the "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury" Ahmadinejad.

You people are making Palin out to be the real enemy. I don't agree with most of her politics, but I'm not so blind with hatred towards her that I compare her to a despot whose country truly treats women like chattel, cuts the hands off of people accused of stealing and executes homosexuals in the public square.

Sent by PJH | 3:17 PM | 9-22-2008

Does she even know who actually controls Iran? The speechwriter didn't include those remarks for her to read.

Sent by Gnarls, Philadelphia | 3:22 PM | 9-22-2008

PJH - In case you don't know too much about international politics, I'll fill you in a little. Ahmadinejad has very little power in the Iranian government as compared to say, our president. The presidential office there is more like the vice-presidential office here, except that he can appoint a variety of ministers and cabinet members like our president can.

He's second to Ali Khamenei in power, and doesn't control the military. Let me repeat that once again, Ahmadinejad DOES NOT CONTROL IRAN'S MILITARY. Even if Iran had nuclear weapons, Ahmadinejad would still have zero authority to order a strike against anyone. That decision would be Khamenei's, who hasn't indicated that he's even remotely interested in conflict of that sort. Granted, he isn't fond of the United States, and likes Israel even less, but if you know anything about politics in that region, an anti-US/Israel sentiment is fairly widespread (and don't we always wonder why?). On top of that, Khamenei denounced Ahmadinejad's remarks about 'wiping Israel off the map' by stating that "the Islamic Republic has never threatened and will never threaten any country." Granted, Khamenei doesn't support the idea of an independent Israeli state, but neither does he support attacking them.

Also, Ahmadinejad's term as president is up in August of 2009. He has to seek re-election for another 4 year term, and from most indicators it appears that his approval rating is plummeting, in part due to his Holocaust denial and strong anti-Israeli rhetoric, both of which are generally unpopular ideas with most Iranians.

Instead of throwing up straw men like Ahmadinejad (which is what he is, having NO MILITARY AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER) to provoke another unjustified war, we should be engaging in DIALOGUE with Iran to calm the rhetoric down (because that's all it is at this point), get them to agree to a continual IAEA presence in exchange for possible allowances of CIVILIAN nuclear power facilities, and carefully re-examine our commitment to unequivocally defending Israel against every single threat, real or perceived. After all, Israel is also a nuclear power, and quite capable of defending itself, and we shouldn't be stepping in to help them out militarily every time some two-bit lunatic rattles a dull saber in their direction.

As far as Palin's speech is concerned, while it must be nice to have the best minds of the Republican party writing your speeches for you, I wouldn't even let those people write a college paper on International Relations for me. You see, the simple fact she released this 'speech' just shows her complete IGNORANCE of the Middle East, and the political situation there.

Hell, I didn't get around to mentioning Palin's utterly ridiculous remarks about Russia, either, and I don't have to bother in order to come to the conclusion that she simply isn't qualified to handle these kinds of responsibilities.

Listen, if we elect McCain/Palin to political office and let them loose on the world with control of our military, we will sincerely regret it, assuming that we live long enough to do so.

Sent by jonathon, pdx | 4:18 PM | 9-22-2008

Folks, don't you think we should lighten up on Scare-uh a bit re. her lack of knowledge of middle east? After all, she can't see Iraq and Iran from her tanning booth, I mean, yard.

Sent by skatkins | 5:43 PM | 9-22-2008

Jonathon, thank you for the civil response.

As far as Ahmadinejad is concerned. I am well aware that he doesn't have the amount of power in his country that many think. However, to the world he is the face of Iran. Therefore, it only makes sense that those who have a problem with not just him but with Iran as a whole would want to protest his appearance before the UN.

Nowhere in my post did I advocate the US going to war with anyone. As far as I am concerned, we need to bring our troops home. Not just from the Middle
East, but from the Balkans, Germany , Korea, etc.

I have no problem with the Iranian people. From what I have read, many are quite secular and are pushing for social change in their country.

In my original post I was trying to make a few points.

a. I was just wondering why Hillary dropped out all of a sudden. She has attended these protests in the past.

b. Was Palin's invitation revoked because of her right-wing politics. If so, it shows a remarkable amount of intolerance for opposing political views on the part of the rally organizers.

c. All of the previous posters just wanted to talk about how "evil" Palin is. Not a one mentioned Ahmadinejad and the reason he is being protested at all. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with her on most anything. I do believe, however, that she has been unfairly targeted by the media for some reason. Maybe because of sexism or maybe left wing bias. At any rate, she is entitled to her beliefs whether you agree with her or not.

Yes, Palin has said some ridiculous things. So have Biden, McCain and Obama.

By the way, your last sentence gave me a sense of deja-vu. It reminded me of when Reagan was elected in 80' and every liberal I knew was sure he was going to "push the button" and start World War III.

Sent by PJH | 6:01 PM | 9-22-2008

PJH

Can't speak for the others who posted here but I for one base my view of Palin on facts and research. To say that those who view her as an unqualified and dangerous candidate are sexist or biased is equivalent to those who say opposing Obama shows racist tendencies. It's silly and base.

Sarah Palin for all of her better qualities is a religious fundamentalist. She has been described and documented in multiple sources as such by many people who are or have been close to her. She is an active member of a radical Pentecostal church and has publically expressed viewpoints that reveal extremist religious beliefs including predestination in national matters.

With this characterization in mind, I fail to see how my comparison of her to the Iranian President is completely off the mark. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism no matter how you decorate it. To view Christian fundamentalism as somehow better than Islamic fundamentalism is as na??ve and foolish as those statements for which Ahmadinejad is so infamous. Just because she may not be as radical as he in her rhetoric (yet), does not mean that they are not both cut from the same cloth.

Palin truly scares me. Not because of her anatomy, not because of her political persuasions but because she seems generally unable to separate herself from her religious ideals. Politics and religion make a volatile cocktail... they simply do NOT belong together.

Editorial expressing similar concerns:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/160080/page/1

BTW: I am neither a democrat nor an atheist.

Sent by Dan K. | 11:23 AM | 9-23-2008

Dan K. - In response to your post. Yes, fundamentalism is bad.

However, last time I looked, Christians aren't strapping bombs to themselves and blowing themselves up in crowded locations.

Predominately Christian countries don't execute homosexuals and adulterers in the public square.

Predominately Christian countries don't have big problems with "honor" killings.

Christian fundamentalists, as far as I've heard, don't mutilate their daughter's private parts so they won't enjoy sex and therefore be less likely to cheat on their husbands.

Now, fundamentalist Christians have done some pretty horrendous things. However, they have done nothing recently to match what has been done in the name of Allah.

Please don't retaliate by bringing up abortion clinic bombings. First of all, when was the last time one of these clinics got bombed.

Second of all, how many people in the US have died due to anti-abortion violence? (hint - the number is less than 10).

And yes, the Crusades were bad and attrocities were committed, on both sides.

Yes, Palin has done some scary stuff. I can't forgive her for the attempted book banning, that's for sure.

It also troubles me that she has maintained a longtime association with a fanatic who was part of an organization that wanted to overthrow the government and planted bombs in government buildings.

Wait, I'm sorry. I keep forgetting Bill Ayers was Obama's friend, not Palin's. My mistake.

Sent by PJH | 1:09 PM | 9-23-2008

PJH -

So much of fundamentalist Christianity relies on an "end times" view which includes a violent and militaristic backing of Israel against Islam. For them, Islam is not simply another religion which rejects Christ (like Judaism) but an actively evil faith.

Driving policy and supporting candidates with an eye toward the end of the world is dangerous. It can and has lead only to deepening conflict.

A Christian is responsible not only for his own actoins but for how his actions affect others, including how they may motivate or incite others. Hence the rhetorical "Am I my brother's keeper?"

To that extent, fundamental Christain attitudes and desires have added to the dries of Allah hu akbar and strapped bombs onto many individuals who may have lead peaceful yet un-Christian lives.

Whether we look at the fundamentalist spectrum from Hagee to Dobson, we find a strong belief that there can be no peace with our bitterest, fundamentalist muslim enemies.

However, the words of Christ demand that we be peaceful, make peace with our enemies, always work toward peace. We must act out of faith and hope, not fear. We must embrace that God desires the salvation of all and we must hope not for the world's end but for enough time to make sure everyone hears the Gospel before it does end.

To this extent, many fundamentalists corrupt the very faith they claim to uphold. That is more devious and deadly than bombs.

Sent by HL | 12:38 PM | 9-24-2008

HL - So in order to be good Christians, we should back away from Israel and let the many neighboring nations who would like to wipe Jews off the face earth destroy it?

Sent by PJH | 5:38 PM | 9-24-2008