Turns out, it was quite a few.
I'm going to leave the debate about whether Iran's election was "stolen" and the domestic implications within Iran to people who actually know what they're talking about (which is a very small subset of the class purporting to possess such knowledge). But there is one point I want to make about the vocal and dramatic expressions of solidarity with Iranians issuing from some quarters in the U.S.
Much of the same faction now claiming such concern for the welfare of The Iranian People are the same people who have long been advocating a military attack on Iran and the dropping of large numbers of bombs on their country -- actions which would result in the slaughter of many of those very same Iranian People. During the presidential campaign, John McCain infamously sang about Bomb, Bomb, Bomb-ing Iran. The Wall St. Journal published a war screed from Commentary's Norman Podhoretz entitled "The Case for Bombing Iran," and following that, Podhoretz said in an interview that he "hopes and prays" that the U.S. "bombs the Iranians." John Bolton and Joe Lieberman advocated the same bombing campaign, while Bill Kristol -- with typical prescience -- hopefully suggested that Bush might bomb Iran if Obama were elected. Rudy Giuliani actually said he would be open to a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop their nuclear program.
Score one for being thorough, huh?
Of course, the right only reacts, they don't think ahead. Had we bombed Iran like all these idiots thought we should've, we wouldn't be having this discussion -- Ahmadinejad would've won easily, riding a wave of feverish anti-Americanism. Neither hanky nor panky would've been required.
And now that the election is in doubt, the right wants Obama to totally freak out and tell Iran that they all suck -- making it easy for Ahmadinejad to call the opposition American stooges.
Besides, what would be the point? What would a harsh condemnation accomplish? Seriously, if one of you right wingers could come along and explain that, that'd be great. Because I don't see how that would make a damned bit of difference or accomplish anything at all.
In the end, Obama can only influence things for the worse by losing it and making a big stink -- so he's choosing not to. Why that's supposed to be a problem is beyond me.
