SocraticGadfly

September 01, 2010

Did ayatollahs, not CIA, overthrow Mossadegh?

The traditional story has been that Iran's 1953 prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, was overthrown by a CIA coup after beginning to nationalize foreign oil companies.

Not so fast. In Iran and the CIA: The Fall of Mosaddeq Revisited,
Darioush Bayandor says Shi'ite clerics, including the mentor of the future Ayatollah Ruhollah Khoumeni, were responsible.
On August 15, 1953, the CIA did, indeed, stage a coup to overthrow the government of Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadeq. But that coup failed. By August 16, the agency had acknowledged its failure and the State Department had already ordered rapprochement with Mossadeq. Three days later, however, a few powerful clerics led by Ayatollah Borujerdi, among whose disciples was a junior cleric named Ruhollah Khomeini, orchestrated major unrest. This unrest, spurred by the clergy who felt threatened by Mossadeq’s promise of a secular democracy, facilitated the coup for which the CIA has been credited, and vilified, all these years.

Bayandor does not exonerate the CIA. Nor does he rule out the possibility that the failed first coup contributed to the instability that ultimately brought about the success of the subsequent one. But the irony of Iran and the CIA is that it shows, among other things, both the agency’s incompetence and, to a large degree, its irrelevance to the events of 1953. Indeed, Fazlollah Zahedi, the purged army general with whom the CIA had been dealing, proves to play only a marginal role in the ordeal. It is ultimately a handful of clergy—awakened from years of dormancy imposed by the Iranian Constitutional Revolution of 1905—who make history for Iran, and who step into the political limelight once more after the coup they themselves helped foment.

At the least, we should genuflect to Iranian "sensibilities" less than we do. It seems that, at the least, the ayatollahs didn't find Mossadegh pliable enough and so were ready to abandon him. Shades of 1979!

August 30, 2010

Salon's Joan Walsh agrees: Obama is self-delusional

Going far beyond Paul Krugman's most recent column, Joan Walsh lays it on the line:
The Obama team seems to think 2012 will take care of itself, as long as they burnish that shining Obama "brand," which requires reaching out to Republicans and independents and ignoring the pesky left, with its old culture-war grudges and its subversive demand for greater economic fairness. I've heard some smart folks speculate that the White House may even welcome a Republican takeover, the better to "let Obama be Obama," and continue to play out his fantasy of being a Democratic Ronald Reagan, creating a generation of what he used to call "Obamacans" and realigning politics for his lifetime.

If anyone in the White House still believes that, they are delusional.

Sadly, Joan, Mayor McCheese himself still believes it, and that's the problem.

Beyond that, Walsh also notes he "doesn't get" the other side:
Apart from accepting too many Republican prescriptions for the economy, Obama also waxes vague and platitudinous when asked about the extreme forces he's up against, like birthers, Beck and Limbaugh.

Progressives: Stop enabling Obama

As if I didn’t already have about 228 reasons to vote Green in 2012, and to tell other people on FB, my blog, etc. to do that, the fact that Social Security hater Alan Simpson will remain cochair of Obama's debt commission is just another.


Second, the Democratic co-chair, Bowles, also wanted to partially privatize Social Security when he was the Slickster's chief of staff. Look at the other commissioners. Paul (nutbar) Ryan, for example. Obama's stacked the deck on this issue, folks, including stacking the deck on this commission.

When will "liberal" blogs, or even allegedly progressive mags, like The Nation stop being apologetic for him?

It took more than two decades of third-party votes, even to the point of winning electoral votes and Congressional seats, in the late 1800s, before progressivism of any sort entered the political mainstream.

Real liberals and progressives must stop “enabling” neolibs.

Hopefully, by laying it on the line, Salon's Joan Walsh will encourage the anti-enabling:
The Obama team seems to think 2012 will take care of itself, as long as they burnish that shining Obama "brand," which requires reaching out to Republicans and independents and ignoring the pesky left, with its old culture-war grudges and its subversive demand for greater economic fairness. I've heard some smart folks speculate that the White House may even welcome a Republican takeover, the better to "let Obama be Obama," and continue to play out his fantasy of being a Democratic Ronald Reagan, creating a generation of what he used to call "Obamacans" and realigning politics for his lifetime.

If anyone in the White House still believes that, they are delusional.

Sadly, Joan, Mayor McCheese himself still believes it, and that's the problem.

Beyond that, Walsh also notes he "doesn't get" the other side:
Apart from accepting too many Republican prescriptions for the economy, Obama also waxes vague and platitudinous when asked about the extreme forces he's up against, like birthers, Beck and Limbaugh.

Obama - playing it safe to catastrophe

The nut graf of Paul Krugman's latest column isn't at the start, or even close to it; it's buried at the bottom:
If I were President Obama, I’d be doing all I could to head off this prospect, offering some major new initiatives on the economic front in particular, if only to shake up the political dynamic. But my guess is that the president will continue to play it safe, all the way into catastrophe.

I think a lot of disillusioned liberals, as well as left-liberals like me who were never illusioned by Obama in the first place, recognize this is the bottom line.

But why?

The man only really spent two years in the Senate, back when it was under GOP control. He was running for president by 2007. So, he never saw, up close and in person, even a fraction of how obstructionist the GOP can be in the Senate.

Along with that, I sincerely believe the man still thinks he can charm Republicans by the suasion of his voice. In other words, he's still too illusioned of himself. Hey, Barry, Prez Kumbaya, it ain't happening.

Second, the man either never learned the art of political strategy in the Illinois Senate, or else, related to the above, has abandoned it. Especially with the stimulus, when he and/or Rahm Emanuel decided it couldn't come in over $1 trillion, they negotiated that, so to speak, in advance of any actual negotiations. $999 billion should have been the final number. Even that would be too small, but not as much too small as what we got.

Third, he refuses to be Machiavellian, play hardball, or whatever. He could be taking a page out of Harry Truman's playbook and calling Congress into special session. With the current all-the-time election cycle, etc., this would crap on obstructionists of both parties; especially, it would keep "safe" GOP senators from campaigning for GOP challengers. (And, I have already thought of far m ore Machiavellian ideas, like threatening to free up time for 535 FBI agents to assist Members of Congress with Patriot Act "protection."

Meanwhile, going far beyond Krugman's most recent column, Joan Walsh lays it on the line:
The Obama team seems to think 2012 will take care of itself, as long as they burnish that shining Obama "brand," which requires reaching out to Republicans and independents and ignoring the pesky left, with its old culture-war grudges and its subversive demand for greater economic fairness. I've heard some smart folks speculate that the White House may even welcome a Republican takeover, the better to "let Obama be Obama," and continue to play out his fantasy of being a Democratic Ronald Reagan, creating a generation of what he used to call "Obamacans" and realigning politics for his lifetime.

If anyone in the White House still believes that, they are delusional.

Sadly, Joan, Mayor McCheese himself still believes it, and that's the problem.

Beyond that, Walsh also notes he "doesn't get" the other side:
Apart from accepting too many Republican prescriptions for the economy, Obama also waxes vague and platitudinous when asked about the extreme forces he's up against, like birthers, Beck and Limbaugh.

August 29, 2010

Ambinder right on cons, wrong on libs

Mark Ambinder rues the increasing purity demands of hardcore conservatives, and the lack of party discipline, unity and message. But, he then totally spoils his column with some crazy counservative-liberal, Republican-Democratic equivalency claim on this issue.

Seriously. The never-before-elected Joe Miller, a fringe Palinite, is the same as three-term House veteran Joe Sestak? And, no, I'm not joking:
Democrats, too, have had their share of bickering. Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill Halter — galvanized by the state’s labor unions — challenged Senator Blanche Lincoln; she barely won the June runoff. In Colorado, when Senator Michael Bennet was not responsive enough to party liberals, the state’s former House speaker Andrew Romanoff decided to challenge him. Mr. Romanoff sold his house to pay for his campaign and might have won the Aug. 10 vote were it not for strategic mistakes he made late in the campaign.

In May in Pennsylvania, Representative Joe Sestak would not let the Democratic establishment coronate Senator Arlen Specter — who had just been persuaded to switch parties by the White House after conservatives made it impossible for him to win the Republican primary. These anti-party forces are not likely to wane.

Indeed, conservatives and liberals alike will continue to insist on nominating unadulterated candidates and will become more successful in doing so. And those candidates are likely to distrust their own establishments as much as they ideologically oppose the people at the other end of the political spectrum.

Neither Romanoff nor Halter nor Sestak was an ideologue.

Even if Bernie Sanders, in Vermont, were to decide to become a Democrat and run against Pat Leahy, even HE wouldn't be Joe Miller and Ambinder's "equivalency" would still be untrue.

Also, contra claims Ambinder makes elsewhere in the column, there's no well of left-liberal funding anything like the Koch brothers and others.

Finally, so far at least, the tea party challenge has done fairly little to dissolve GOP party discipline. Of course, we'll have to wait not just until the end of the primary season, but until after midterm elections in November to test this, for various reasons. We'll need to see how many nutbars win, and how that affects the GOP with them inside the electoral tent. We'll also need to see how many nutbars lose, and how much that affects sniping at the GOP "establishment."

But, Dems, without even Bernie Sanders types, let alone, say, Alexander Cockburn types, challenging on their left, continue to be more fractious than Republicans. Blame Rahm Emanuel for the Blue Dog Congressional candidates he recruited. Blame President Kumbaya for not cracking a whip on party discipline, which his predecessor did. In other words, Obama needs Rahmbo to be Rove, and he's not pushing Rahmbo to do that, in that way.

Praying Glenn Beck doesn't know his Bible or Jesus

At his "Reinventing Himself" rally Saturday, among other inanities, monstrosities and pomposities, Glenn Beck exhorted the crowd to:
Recognize your place to the creator. Realize that he is our king. He is the one who guides and directs our life and protects us." He asked his audience to pray more. "I ask, not only if you would pray on your knees, but pray on your knees but with your door open for your children to see.

Just one problem.

Whereas Jesus said ...
And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. ... When you pray, go into the room, close your door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. ... And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans.
So, there you have it, from Jesus' mouth to your ears. Glenn Beck is a hypocrite.