Bush to say wants Iranians to have greater freedom (SOTU)

[sabra]

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N30290443.htm

Bush to say wants Iranians to have greater freedom

WASHINGTON, Jan 30 (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will offer words of support on Tuesday in his State of the Union address to Iranians who want greater freedom as U.S. diplomats push for sanctions over the Islamic republic's nuclear program.

Bush is walking a tightrope with his Iran policy, denouncing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for refusing to halt a nuclear program the West suspects is aimed at developing an atomic weapon, while encouraging freedom in Iran and not alienating the Iranian people.

"We want the people of Iran to be able to live in a free society," Bush said during a Cabinet meeting on Monday to discuss his annual State of the Union speech. "So tomorrow night I am going to talk about this issue and make clear the policy of the United States."

...

"We believe they are great people and they want greater freedoms and the president has said multiple times that we stand behind them in their quest for freedom. He's not saying, 'rise up and overthrow,' but that we stand behind them in their quest for greater freedom," said an administration official.

[acmavm]

1. You couldn't make this shit up. You really couldn't. It can only

come from the dark recesses of a totally deranged mind.

[EuroObserver]

32. I suspect the USA is developing (and deploying) atomic weapons

(and chemical and biological ones, to boot).

I also suspect that the USA is no longer, even minimally, a law-abiding 'democracy'.

[slay]

48. I'm VERY afraid of the kind of so called "freedom" Bush promotes

Is "greater freedom" some kind of right wing republican code word for we're gonna invade your country, kill your people, and take your oil? :scared:

[grytpype]

2. Jesus, this guy never, ever learns anything does he?

Iraqis got to vote and they elected a pro-Iran Islamic theocracy.

Palestinians got to vote and they elected a terrorist organization.

His little voting = freedom = pro-Western idea is a flop.

[stevietheman]

10. It's like he's never had any exposure whatsoever to political science,

especially with understanding how democracy and freedom actually work in reality here on Planet Earth. The mountain of nuances within these concepts themselves are astounding and can only be considered by the not faint-of-heart.

But then, we know that Traitor Bush is the global symbol of anti-intellectualism. So, again, no surprise here.

[Bandit]

30. You sound like you don't think Iranians vote now.

They actually have a fairly strong form of Democracy but they also have a form of Theocracy as well. They have both an Ayatollah and a President

[ladjf]

37. His "base" never learns either. Maybe since they believe that

the "end days" are soon, that nothing long range matters.

[uppityperson]

3. Freedom is Slavery

go Mr.bush!

[NYC Liberal]

4. Uh oh! Remember the last time Bush talked about bringing "freedom"

to a country?

[Bucky]

21. Even the "OK, let's start with Florida" jokes are getting old

[Blue_Forney05]

45. I know

and look were that talk got us.x( x(

[Shakespeare]

5. "And we'll give it to them at the end of a gun barrel"

As per usual.

[saigon68]

18. "FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH" screamed the Chimpanzee

[Democrats_win]

6. Freedom means ECONOMIC freedom. All other freedoms go to hell.

[Endangered Specie]

7. One man's freedom is another man's

1000lb high explosive bomb into your kid's bedroom?


Wait a minute, those are the same man.

[doublethink]

8. Translation ....

:nuke:

[raccoon]

19. Exactly, when this joker says he wants to bring freedom to

a group of people, that's what he REALLY means.

[medeak]

9. Iran is a democracy....wtf is he talking about? n/t

[kenny blankenship]

14. yes but when democracies choose unacceptable policies then it is our duty

as the most democraciest democracy in the world to kill a few hundred thousands of their people off and occupy them and steal their oil.
"Unacceptable" means that there was some mistaken result of that country's democratic process that conflicts with the desires of our non-taxpaying corporate elite for them. Then in order to restore true democracy we must annihilate their actually existing democracy, which isn't democracy at all since they refuse to comply with the whims of our unelected powerful corporations and individuals. Then they will have true democracy, as anyone would be able to see since we will then have military bases all over their country.

[semillama]

57. democraciest

"as the most democraciest democracy in the world "

Is that pronounced "demo-craziest?"

[mrbassman03]

61. most democraciest, haha, i like that... n/t

[jobycom]

11. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators.

Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. I can only say; even in death they cannot stop lying. I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier (into Austria) there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. Not as tyrants have we come, but as liberators.

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

12. So THAT'S where my freedoms have gone to!

I was wondering where they hid 'em...

[politicaholic]

13. Ahmadinejad is a nutcase...

and I personally know a couple of Iranians who are quite embarrassed every time he opens his mouth.

Bush is right to support the freedoms of the Iranian people. From what I understand they have a religious society , but as a whole, not really totally fundamentalist society. It's the great power of the conservative church's and the fragmented multi party system that gives the hardcore fundamentalists power.

This is a dire matter. Especially for woman there and throughout the middle east. Sure, Bush's words may be shallow and ineffective (lip service is one of his fortes), but there is a potential for great things in Iran if they can just strip themselves of these zealots. The current leaders are hell bent on the destruction of Israel, less for the Palestinian state, and more through their blood lust for Jews. Promoting individual freedom in Iran can only be good for everyone regardless of what is happening in the US.

[Mandate My Ass]

15. Bush is a nutcase

and he has no room to talk to anybody. Iraq is in utter chaos and there is no end in sight to their suffering, not to mention now that all the money has been embezzled by Bush cronies there will be no rebuilding. Everytime he opens his mouth, another nutjob in the ME gets elected or straps a bomb on himself and heads to the nearest U.S. or western establishment.

Bush should STFU about freedom because he's an embarrassment and a zealot.

[politicaholic]

22. You're right.

Like I said, his words are shallow and useless. His words have lead to more useless death and impotent policy than any president since Nixon.

I would personally choose Bush over Amedinajad though. Sure, Bush is an incompetant sociopath, but I'd have to go with the lesser of two evils on that one.

[TheWatcher]

49. The US Should stay out of the affairs of every country on Earth as long as

These criminals are in power. Not to be gruff, but so what if you're words ring true. In our current form, the United States is not in the condition to help anyone with anything. It is true that the Iranian people deserve individual freedom, but WE are NOT the country to help them with that.

I hope the rest of the world could somehow help them sort it out, because the United States has lost it's way, and would end up destroying Iran, the Middle East, and perhaps the planet itself if we are allowed to "spread more freedom.", the way we have done in Iraq. Personally, I think the world has had about enough of our brand of freedom.

It would be a total contradiction for us to help them gain individual freedom, when what our own leadership in this country wants is for OUR people to suffer a same fate along the lines that their people currently face. How noble of us to want to spread "freedom" in other countries when we are doing everything at home to make things resemble a country from 60 years ago that tried to rule the world.

I wish the Iranian people luck but I don't think we are the luck that they need. We are the last brand of "help" anyone needs right now.

[politicaholic]

59. Perhaps you don't know what is at stake...

There are massive US corporations that have large investments and facilities in Iran (Halliburton being one of them). The Carlyle Group also has very close ties to the Iranian government. These corporations are run by some of the most powerful men in the world to the point where they have a hand in directing the distribution of campaign contributions not only in the US, but the countries where they have interests.

The United States Government has no choice but to protect these corporation's interests in places where the largest stakes are held, namely, Iran, China, etc.

As much as an isolationist policy may bolster manufacturing, jobs, and individual income, the global community is established. There is no turning back. Yes, pre-emptive strikes on defenseless nations based on a lie is not only absolutely ludicrous, but the actions of the purely stupid and arrogant. What I'm saying is, the US government will not stop having a global presence, but soon the military options need to be curtailed or the US will be sent into an economic tailspin and the people that will suffer most are the voting majority. I fear that only true rational change will come when people are voting from their stomachs.

[IndianaGreen]

17. Bush is a dictator and is a threat to the entire planet

Ahmadinejad is a local problem that is not solved by laying Iran to ruins with American bombs.

Look at how much women have lost in Iraq, all thanks to American liberation!

[ladjf]

38. Bush is a bad virus and should be quarantined.

[Bridget Burke]

20. Yes, he's found that beating the drums of war....

Will distract his people from their real problems. That's Ahmadinejad, not Bush. Although their methods are quite similar.

The Iranian people would love more freedom. They have a democracy, but the Religious Nutcases & the Military have great power. (More similarity?)

The last time we tried to "free" the Iranians, we put the Shah in power. Peaceful exchanges between our countries would be helpful for all of us. Bombing, invasion & occupation will not help the cause of freedom in Iran--or anywhere else.

[politicaholic]

23. I'm beginning to doubt a non-UN sanctioned attack on Iran...

It just doesn't seem likely unless there is another terrorist attack on the US.

I used to be convinced that there would be a third front in Iran, but I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that if that happened the Iranians would (of course) resist regardless of how they felt about their leaders and that China would begin a wholesale sell off of United States bonds. The United States economy couldn't handle a blow like that.

[Bridget Burke]

24. A terrorist attack on the US would be very useful for some people.

And would provide an excuse to attack anyone at all. After all, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

Besides, aren't potential nukes the current reason we "hate" Iran? It's OK for Pakistan to have them, though.

[kenny blankenship]

28. I doubt it too, but here's how it could possibly happen anyway

We bomb Iran, they in response begin to infiltrate arms and fighters into Iraq (or Sadrist Shi'ite militias go on the warpath there against our legions in Iraq without being asked to do so by Iran) Now we will have the pretext to say "Iran is committing aggression!" and give them an ultimatum, which will surely be worded carefully to exclude the possibility that they could comply. Even if they did comply with our ultimatum, we will declare them to be in violation. Then, under the rubric of fulfilling UN Security Council mandates to bring about a pacified Iraq, and brandishing the open-ended IWR rubberstamp, Bush will move to invade Iran, "in order to bring stability to the region by removing the source of all terror sponsorship and WMDs". Republican Neo-Fascists in this country will react to the spiralling escalation of limitless warfare in the middle east by saying "We always knew it would come down to eliminating Iran. We just had to wear down the namby-pamby objections of the terror sympathizing liberals--and God has provided us the way!" Despite the obvious truth that the war would now have taken on a life of its own, and that an open-ended regional conflagration had now evolved from what was supposed to be a brief invasion which was expected to be greeted with garlands of flowers and a happy Iraqi populace thrilled to be our new regional partners, the Neo-Fascist right would then pretend that everything was in fact going according to plan, and that "we are winning in the name of freedom and Jesus." We will just have to throw everything into the prosecution of the war and soldier on to final victory, praise the Lord.
Of course this means the reinstitution of the draft. Iran cannot possibly be invaded without more manpower. And attacking them without effecting regime change would be madness since the present government would drop everything to make trouble for our occupation of Iraq if left in power after an air attack. America will be placed on a total war footing...
But then, the complete reordering of values of our society was always the neo-fascist's intention. They think peace breeds softness and materialism; they thirst for war and the self-sacrificing virtues of heroism and patriotism (not that they intend to sacrifice themselves of course, but they think the people need to). Doubling down on their lost bet in Iraq, and escalating the war eastwards is therefore the natural move for such sick minds--any setback such as what we're experiencing in Iraq is also an opportunity (in their twisted way of thinking) to widen the conflict and up the stakes of the conflict until we're "all in". They are searching for a meaning to life through war--and what could guarantee a meaning to life more surely in that case than a do-or-die war which we'll either win with glory and sacrifice, or which we'll lose--and in losing lay waste to our own country?

[txaslftist]

27. ...or so Bush has told us.

If you actually read the so called "nutcase" quotes he's made, he comes off actually pretty sane. But we're not going into Iran because of nukes or teraa or oppression or democracy or any of that crap. We have to keep the Iranian Oil Bourse from going on line on March 20th, selling oil in euros instead of dollars.

Iran's WMD = Weapons of Monetary Destruction

[louis-t]

34. There is/was a delicate balance

between the fundies and pro-western groups in Iran. Iran was moderating before shithead came along and started threatening them. What did he expect them to do? Bow to the almighty King of Stupid?

[Inland]

35. Yep. Too bad for everyday Iranians that Bush is the president of the US.

Whatever needs to be done that's right by the Iranian people isn't going to come from THAT guy. They can expect a bombing and another generation of rule by the religious elites as the nation rallies around their flag.

[IndianaGreen]

16. By bombing and destroying their cities?

We have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan the results of Bush's version of freedom and democracy. I wouldn't wish that fate on anyone else!

[Rex]

25. Oh boy...just in time for March Madness!

Anytime he mentions 'freedom' it means oppression, so you Iranians better start planning for an illegal occupation! FYI.

"And in speaking to the people, my message is this: You know, we're not going to tell you how to live your life, but we would like you to be free. We would like you to be able to express yourselves in the open, so without fear of reprisal. We want you to be able to vote and elect," he said.

Iranian surfers, beware this saying...it mean we are going to rape and pillage Iran soon with the full force of Boosh's executive (soon to be unitary) powers! Wake up! Look at Iraq and decide if that is 'freedom' or oppression, because a war like that is just waiting for you. :(

[Mnemosyne]

26. In return they will throw candy and

give us flowers, or is it the other way around? I know, let's ask our soldiers in Iraq!

:grr:

In peace and waning hope,
V

[VaYallaDawg]

29. The key word to watch for will be "regime" or "regime change."

Then ... uh oh.

[ladjf]

39. It looks like the Iranian President is on the "payroll". He saying

these stupid things about wiping Israel off ot he map. What is he thinking? He must have some inside information that the U.S. will not attack him. It would be better if he would shut up.

[The Magistrate]

31. Sounds Like 'The Iron Fist Of Freedom" Again, Sir

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Tight_rope]

33. Damn...this is Deja vu!

:scared:

[ladjf]

36. Well , perhaps at the cost of several thousand Americans

, a trillion dollars and a possible nuclear retaliation, we could give Iran some of the same "freedom" that we have given to Iraq.

[chicofaraby]

40. Last time George brought freedom to a nation

it killed 100,000 plus of their citizens.

Plus the fact they are occupied by a foreign army... not MY idea of "freedom."

[HuffleClaw]

41. "We believe they are great people and they want greater freedoms...

...and the president has said multiple times that we stand behind them in their quest for freedom."

pretty much the exact words he said about iraq. i expect he'll prattle on about the 'obligations of the civilized world' and how the UN and IAEA 'must act responsibly' too, by which he'll mean, 'give me my WAR !'

[0007]

42. Wonder if junior will mention the draft?

[AndrewJacksonFaction]

43. Uh-Oh.

[WinkyDink]

44. I'll believe him when he mentions...CHINA.

THEN, he'll have credibility with me.

[Gloria]

46. One of the speakers at the New America Foundation forum today (Mon)

actually said that Bush would exacerbate problems in the State of the Union speech with this sort of talk.

What a damned jackass Bush is...

[InkAddict]

47. But, but, but, the Palestinians got greater freedom and

democratically elected Hamas! You're doin' a heckofajob, buba!

[tanyev]

50. He's taking our freedoms there so we don't get to have them here.

[wordpix]

51. last time he called for elections we got Hamas, a terror org--way to go!

[sarcasmo]

52. If Dictator 43 attacks Iran their will HAVE to be a Draft.

I see no other way the troops are spread to thin.

[Jackpine Radical]

53. Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose.

[PATRICK]

54. Freedom from democracy

Freedom from religion, freedom from liberty, freedom from a free press, freedom from oil, freedom from life. The right to be occupied, the right to starve, the right to kill each other, the right to be tortured.

The Bush Bill of Rights is for another trillion or two with penalties for late payments in oil.

[Javaman]

55. Greater freedom through warefare....

I think I have figured it out. OBL doesn't hate us for our freedom, he hates us for our "type" of Freedom.

The kind we export via bombs and bullets.

Hell, I hate that kind of freedom too!

[BadGimp]

56. If Bushco wants them to have "greater freedom"..

..then they are completely screwed now.

[truthisfreedom]

58. bush's version of freedom includes 24 hour surveillance, kids...

data mining of every burp, sneeze, and fart. cradle to the grave.

[MissMillie]

60. You think he has any ideas about greater freedoms for the U.S.?

Wouldn't that be nice?

[antonialee839]

62. Iran may want to ask Iraq about the type of freedom Bush supplies.