GOP Debate: Ahmadinejad=no power,Supreme Leader=power.Why the FUCK doesn't someone call them on it?

[BrentWil]

Newt called Ahmadinejad a dictator. Both Rick and Mitt agreed. Why the FUCK want anyone say, "Gentlemen, you mentioned Ahmadinejad as a dictator. The Iranian constitution and, from all appearances, the Iranian state grants most power to the Supreme Leader and unelected bodies of clergy. What power do you think Ahmadinejad has in the country of Iran?"


I am not anti-war. What I am is anti-idoits deciding. These guys are talking about the possibility of launching a war that could have very wide consequences for the US, the Middle East, and the World. With that, they don't seem to understand some fucking basic facts about how the country runs. Jesus Christ, it is embarrassing. Hell, Ahmadinejad got slapped by the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard about a year ago and went hiding and basically refused to come out. That doesn't sound like someone that is making important decisions for the country of Iran.

War doesn't piss me off. The talk of war without some basic understanding of what the fuck you are talking about does.

Done with my rant.

[Bigmack]

1. Thanks for the rant....

Sometimes an informed rant is what is needed..... Ms Bigmack

[BrentWil]

2. No problem NT

[unblock]

3. if obama is a nazi commie warmonger pacifist tax-hiking kenyan muslim with a crazy preacher

according to these people, then i have to give them points just for knowing that "iran" is not a misspelling of "iraq".

[BrentWil]

4. The problem isn't with them, really. It is with the press. Basic mistakes on facts should not

be tolerated when talking about going to war.

[randome]

5. The press doesn't think on its feet, that's the problem.

Not a lot of intelligence in that field.

[BrentWil]

6. THen that is sad. It is sad that King cannot come back with harder questions NT

[unblock]

9. their job is scribe, not fact check.

at least if you ask them.


given a choice between "sun rises in east, scientists say" and "sun rises in west, snooki says", you know which story they're running with.

[BrentWil]

10. That isn't fact checking. That is asking a relevant fact on what is common knowledge about Iran

Among anyone who has basic, basic knowledge of he country. It is not expecting too much to expect King to hammer them on a basic fact concerning a country they may take us to war against.

[TheKentuckian]

15. The corporate media isn't there to think or ask questions

other than to disseminate propaganda, distract the people, and refute anything that might make the pigs lift their chins from the trough.

They are none too slow to dig up pointed questions and present them combatively if the beltway frame is even placed in a shadow of a doubt.
They are not what we pretend and aren't blatently, in my opinion.

Giving the corporate media even the label "news" is an act of willful suspension of disbelief. I think the weather drives the legitimacy, along with the scores.

[BrentWil]

16. I don't think it is some big scheme...

I think it is because you get on TV because you "sound right" and your aren't ugly. That isn't the best means to determine real members of the press.

[TheKentuckian]

17. I'll agree to an extent but still hold that asthetics aside, the gubbleheaded beach blonds and goofy

facemen can get sharp and pointed when the beltway common wisdom is questioned unless the question is from the fringe Reich Wing, who get softballs and are taken seriously.

Stretch Gregory, Andrea Greenspan, John King, and even the faux intellectual and seemingly challanged Blitzer are capable of getting tough, strident, and fairly cutting when the rare occasion arrises that they bother to even talk to a liberal.

The only way to not see the willful framejob is to be taken in already.

[BrentWil]

18. I hope things start to turn around...

I really don't want Fox News to be the future of news. And that is left or right. The only place you actually get intelligent debate is NPR and PBS, nowadays.

[grantcart]

7. I agree

or that Israel has admitted an attack would only set them back 2-3 years.

When Ron Paul is the most factual, intelligent person in the group you know that you are in the wrong group.

[BrentWil]

8. Depends on the type of attack, etc.

Ron Paul doesn't have any real knowledge on Iran. He doesn't want to go to war however. That is somewhat better.

Of course, there is the possibility the Iran actually is a threat and war is needed. The question is, who do you trust to be in charge. These guys or Obama?

[Canuckistanian]

11. If America were run on the same rules

Then Tom Tancredo would be called the "leader" of America. And he would be the Deputy Secretary of State.

Really, that's how much power he actually wields in Iran. He's just the public face for the Supreme Council.

[BrentWil]

12. Some limited domestic power, at least in the past....

Under Khatami, you saw things like opening up for cultural plays, etc. With that said, I think there is general agreement among the Iranian leadership that this level of power was too much. Under Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran has lost power.

If there is another sector of power in Iranian society, it is the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, not the President of Iran.

[Canuckistanian]

13. Who knows?

Who really has power in the Iranian system is a mystery wrapped in an enigma. And they seem to like it that way.

[BrentWil]

14. Life is a "mystery wrapped in an enigma"...

But that doesn't mean we should not strive for answers. We do know some things about Iran. We can read their constitution and get the basic structure of their government. Most decisions are actually rather public. Moreover, the Iranian press and others reports on things like, Ahmadinejad being slapped by the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.

However, I am not looking for deep knowledge from these jokers. I am looking for, "Ahmadinejad doesn't run the country as a dictator." That isn't a high level of knowledge.