Filed under: — @jphoganorg @ 7:25 pm

This should get you through the weekend and past Iran’s President’s United Nations’ pointed orations as Ahmadinejad’s.  Not past them as fully discardable - but past them with a consideration of such as them of showing opportunities for progress, maybe.

There was a whole lot of specific nuance.

There was a whole lot of "wiggle room" for him with his commentary if you can discern how and where he nuanced to differentiate between Clintons and Bush.  He may certainly have gone far more than seems reasonable to most, and incontrovertibly. 

How much is horse trading?

How much is dramatization overt to uncover unconversed not necessarily covert?

It is at least reasonable how he offered to converse upon clear demarcations surrounding "lays of land" different between Clintons’ eight years and Bush’s eight years.

Obama cannot run from such - it is on our 2010 and 2012 campaign tables.

Obama cannot run from such just for Clintons’ in their "two-fer" so of starting their eight years (yes it does get annoying discussion Clinton’s as Clintons’ but again they asked for "two-fer" status) ummm… ummm… oh, yes, right, …of starting their eight years with an asking of Middle East leaders to give them a blank slate and with a specific posturing to blaming American Republicans for all or most of existing Anti-American attitudes then present.

See we cannot "take back" "Hillary’s Crusades" and her traveling Middle East region like an imperialist with dictates upon how that region and especially its radical and radicalized and those also easily radicalized needed to change to the American ways she was dictating they should.  We cannot take back much of Clintons’ eight years of "Hillary" not alone in trash talking to such region and especially existing "radicalized."

Obama has a "Hillary Problem" more than his own problem around his opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom also a rending of justice upon Saddam Hussein for his indisputable role in near a million Irani deaths.  Cold War "justifications" only go so far and can only go to point in discussions where opportunities haven’t existed past such for "corrective" policies.

Sure President Obama has a serious problem around diplomatic relations with Iran for being of once and still opposing Operation Iraqi Freedom, but his "Hillary Problem" seems greater for being an endorsement as well of Clintons’ eight years of avoidance and inaction around Iraq and Iran, largely, and of great import today even without "Hillary’s" trash talking than can be argued as "inciting" to 9/11 suspects.

See, President Ahmadinejad nuanced his orations such that Clintons eight years and now
"Hillary’s" leadership (sense of governance) slighted far more than Bush and his team.  Iran’s President actually defended Bush’s troop levels in Iraq and near complimented Bush for having not put "occupation level" troops into Afghanistan.  It is there not even just "between the lines" in Ahmadinejad’s characteristic dramatization.  It is there some but not so much such that he blames Iran for not having helped its neighbor Afghanistan those eight years America had more "responsibilty" (maybe?) to during the Clintons’ eight years.

Yes Ahmadinejad could have blamed Irani people as much as Clintons for their avoidance and inaction around Afghanistan during their eight years, but it wasn’t Iran that left a vacuum in Afghanistan with its earlier departure that left room for Taliban before Taliban had room to give Al Qaeda.

So from President Ahmadinejad’s United Nations oration it seems President Bush actually did much to improve relations with Iran, and necessarily with Operation Iraqi Freedom and sense around trading with Afghans with road and school building then for "permission" to be in their country, not as an occupation force, to chase mostly foreigner camping there with purposes to radical reactions while less radical options still seemingly available to and for similar "ends."

Seems that today around Iran issues that President Obama could not have a worse choice of Secretary of State than his - Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

So how can we move forward and build on the progress the Bush team effected with Operation Iraqi Freedom that the Bush’s eight years seem to have effected with Iran?

How do we get past the Clintons’ eight years and their avoidance and inaction that left issues present then to festering among Iraqi and Irani Shia and peoples?

Seems we cannot remove as "rediculous" statements in President Ahmadinejad’s commentary that revolve around Clintons for their eight years and years since, and especially now with President Obama and his clinging to "Bush was wrong…" to be more to repeating the seeming clear religious - official religious bias - the Clintons showed to Sunni at expense of Shia in Iraq and Iran.

President Ahmadinejad may only have a case against Clintons and Obama for characteristic "not letting a crisis go to political waste" as he seemed to profer such an accusation, and, well he too may only have a case against such for naivete and incompetance in ways his nuancing suggests doesn’t exist around Bush and his team.

The Clintons’ eight years are "on the table" and with at least "naivete" and "incompetance" in our 2010 and 2012 political decidings.  

Hillary was of traveling to regions President Ahmadinejad was commenting around and of "trash talking" nearer "imperialist dictating" in her crusadings, well cheered and discussed but not quite to satisfaction yet of Iran.

Yes President Obama is risking being seen as officially "religiously biased" as Clintons were their eight years with their official policies seeming PRO-SUNNI at the expense of Iraqi and Irani Shia. 

Seems Clintons thought Saddam Hussein was a "necessary" ally to be slowly let out of sanction for like > Iraqi Shia are not capable of governing themselves.

There is much that cannot be ignored nor discarded in Iran’s President’s recent orations at the United Nations.  And, really, we cannot keep ignoring and avoiding discussion of the Clintons and specifically the Clintons’ eight years.

President Ahmadinejad seemed to point out that President Bush was very wise not to have put more troops into Iraq earlier, and to have avoided such levels that Iran would clearly have taken as "occupation level" and maybe insulting to region.

Obama has a "Hillary Problem" but, well, I may have to take back that his "opposition to Operation Iraqi Freedom" is not a bigger diplomatic problem now hindering further improvement with Iran - United States relations now present from President Bush "standing with" in Iraq towards effecting a mending, like, for hard and ugly compromises in past seemingly unavoidable during years of struggles to thwarting global spread of Soviet Socialism.

And, well I still am not ready to take back my opined around Iran with nuclear weapons should feel more motivated to target Russia than America, and even after Russia’s help towards such where if and when or how such did or may have happened.  

Iran is Iran today as much for having been on Soviet side during Cold War as anything else in Iran’s President’s United Nations oration. 

Clintons were wrong to have asked Middle East leaders back in 1993 to just blame American Republicans, right?  If it "makes sense" I still haven’t figured out how.

Comments »

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

Publication may require admin approval; please come back later to view your comment.