Just a partial list. More at the link: http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/victordavishanson/index
he never learned that you have to bully a bully
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/
NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
Pajamasmedia: http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/
An Inadequate Response to an Illegitimate Regime [Victor Davis Hanson]
Obama's Iran policy has been an ethical and practical embarrassment from the beginning.
Moral equivalence? The president put Mousavi — and, by extension, the crowds in the street — and Ahmadinejad on the same moral plain.
Naïveté? For the first few days the administration and its flaks in the media issued pompous "in the know" suggestions to the effect that Ahmadinejad may have "really" won the election.
Straw men? We were supposed to think that those who from the beginning saw the issues at stake and supported the reformers with strong words of encouragement were some sort of interventionist neocons who wanted to do another Iraq-like invasion, or would egg on reluctant demonstrators only to betray them in Hungary-like fashion.
Naked realpolitik? We openly stated that we were unsure who would win, with the obvious inference that we are hedging our bets at the expense of values and principles. Our moral outrage, in the words of the president himself, hinges on the outcome of the struggle at hand.
Hesitancy? Over some ten days, we've seen split-the-difference, 50/50, "debate going on" fluff, as if risking one's life to promote freedom is just a narrative that competes with another from thugs who wish to crush them.
Diplomatic confusion? No one apparently appreciates the stakes at hand, that there was an outside chance that many of the key issues of our time — from lunatic nuclear proliferation to terrorist subsidies to undermine neighboring democracies — are in play, and worth the risk of strong moral condemnation of the Iranian theocracy. It is almost as if this administration assumes a nuclear Iran is a done deal, and is now more worried about scrambling to come up with plans B and C.
Dissimulation? We are to believe that outreach to the Iranian mullahs and Islam in general, in the al-Arabiya interview, the Cairo speech, and the video sent to Ahmadinejad explain the popular uprising against a theocratic radical Islamist dictatorship — rather than the intrinsic desire for freedom among millions deprived of freedom by a 7th-century ruling Islamist clique, not to mention the presence of a still vibrant Shiite-majority democracy next-door in Iraq? What logic— speaking out in praise of Islam appealed to those opposing radical Islam to such an extent that then going silent in their hour of need helped them even more.
Victor Davis Hanson is right on every point in the article - but he's missing the fact that Obama comes from a tradition of thuggery - from ACORN to Alinsky.
How can Obama come out against strong men stealing an election when his own "team" winks and nods at ACORN?
The best Obama could muster at the beginning was "ImANutJob" thugs shouldn't be killing their own citizens.
Obama feels the Mullahs should do "thuggy soft" - set up an Iranian version of Janet Napolitano - stick her on the citizens to make them all look like criminals. Maybe hire some low level thugs to write fake letters to the editor to make it look like everyone objects to the protesters. Or better - contact some shills in the Iranian state run media ( their version of our MSM) and hold up the opposition to mockery.
So the Dem's problem with people objecting to crooked elections - is that Dems are on the side of the Mullahs...they vote the dead - laugh about cheating as if it's "just a game" and "everyone does it". But in fact, it's the corrupt who "do it". Iranian corruption or Chicago corruption. Stealing a "supreme leader" spot - or a presidency for Kennedy. Same thuggery.
No wonder Obama doesn't "get it".
Victor Davis Hanson is right on every point in the article - but he's missing the fact that Obama comes from a tradition of thuggery - from ACORN to Alinsky.
How can Obama come out against strong men stealing an election when his own "team" winks and nods at ACORN?
The best Obama could muster at the beginning was "ImANutJob" thugs shouldn't be killing their own citizens.
Obama feels the Mullahs should do "thuggy soft" - set up an Iranian version of Janet Napolitano - stick her on the citizens to make them all look like criminals. Maybe hire some low level thugs to write fake letters to the editor to make it look like everyone objects to the protesters. Or better - contact some shills in the Iranian state run media ( their version of our MSM) and hold up the opposition to mockery.
So the Dem's problem with people objecting to crooked elections - is that Dems are on the side of the Mullahs...they vote the dead - laugh about cheating as if it's "just a game" and "everyone does it". But in fact, it's the corrupt who "do it". Iranian corruption or Chicago corruption. Stealing a "supreme leader" spot - or a presidency for Kennedy. Same thuggery.
No wonder Obama doesn't "get it".
Truth and facts may be grossly out numbered by the fawning mainstream media and its blind devotion to 0bama, but many clear thinking people are starting to see how poorly 0bama handles criticism.
He’s an amateur, and easily flustered—politicians and pundits on the right need to take that ball and run with it—daily.
Victor, my future husband, should run for president.