Dot. Dot. Dot.

Now you know what a movie reviewer feel like! Of course, a movie promoter finesses a blurb to sell a movie. What’s the WS selling?

“But still, it is markedly more free than the Soviet Union–which killed 40 million of its own citizens–ever was.”
.
Oh that’s right, in the 80s, there was the possibililty that the USSR would revisit Stalin’s worst excesses.
.
I agree that the Standard should not have taken your quote out of context, but even in context, it’s silly. Could a woman wear what she wanted in Iran even before elections?

What’s the WS selling?
-
Other people’s children’s deaths.

Shorter Joke Line: Why do people not get that I’m never wrong?

See Joe, if only you’d stayed at your desk instead of actually travelling to the country, you’d be able to see the truth.

Could a woman wear what she wanted
.
Like in France?

.
Oh that’s right, in the 80s, there was the possibililty that the USSR would revisit Stalin’s worst excesses.
.
1 million, 5 million, 2 million, 1.2 million, 3 million…numbers of Afghanis dead, fled, displaced, disabled, maimed, respectively, in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan from 1979-1989.
.
Care to revise your statement, spboob?

“Now you know what a movie reviewer feel like! Of course, a movie promoter finesses a blurb to sell a movie. What’s the WS selling?”
.
I’ll assume that this is a rhetorical question…

grape_crush, the issue, of course, was the Soviet Union’s treatment of its own people, not its brutality in Afghanistan.
.
PD, your snark is weak. In France, the banning of the hijab (in public schools) is ostensibly to protect women from being forced to wear them by family/neighbors. A woman in Iran risks horrible abuse for wearing jeans and a shirt. You know it; I know it. Don’t clown yourself–it’s embarassing.

Joe Klein is infallible… even when making silly comparisons.

being forced to wear them by family/neighbors…
.
So the lack of freedom you’re citing isn’t unique to Iran and isn’t necessarily due solely to the government.

PD, you’re trying to compare Iran to France. It’s beyond parody. I’ll leave it at that.
.
By the way, any women’s rights folks care to take issue with PD’s comment? I would assume that the subjugation of women in Iran is a big deal to you . . . . and PD is trying to minimize it.

Whether or not the comparison or the conclusion survives reasoned debate has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Weekly Standard essentially lied about Joe Klein’s claims by omitting half of a sentence, and the entire explanatory paragraph from their quote.
.
It’s despicable. It’s as if someone had written Iran in comparison to Auschwitz:

The camp commandant, Rudolf Höss, testified at the Nuremberg Trials that up to 3 million people had died at Auschwitz. The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum has revised this figure to 1.1 million,[2][3] about 90 percent of whom were Jews from almost every country in Europe.[4] Most victims were killed in Auschwitz II’s gas chambers using Zyklon B; other deaths were caused by systematic starvation, forced labor, lack of disease control, individual executions, and purported “medical experiments”.
.
Iran, by contrast, is breezy with freedom. It is certainly freer now, despite Ahmadinejad, than it was when I first visited in 2001.

, and the Weekly Standard had just run with the quote “Iran…is breezy with freedom”, and completely omitted any mention of “Auschwitz” part of the column, as they victoriously debunked a claim that never really been made. “Look!“, would the libelous victors shout, “Look at how Joe Klein loves the (axis of) evil state of Iran! No wonder he so supports Obama’s prostration before them! No wonder he ascribes moral equivalence between our system and theirs –he even says that they’re free, just like us!”
.
It’s vile, dishonest, and wrong –the kind of tactic that reeks of political desperation– and should further disqualify any serious consideration of the views of those associated with this propaganda rag.

spob, true to form can’t resist lying about other people’s position. The repression of women he’s suddenly concerned about is a feature of Islam. It’s particularly bad in Saudi Arabia, is common in Egypt and apparently is a problem in France. We know spob’s prescription is to select one to bomb into oblivion and ignore the rest. But we can be sure that from his perch in NYC, he knows more about Iran than Joe Klein can gleam from actually visiting the country in question.

Poor spob. First an embarrassing display of grotesque legal ignorance,and now an obvious attempt to pretend that he cares about women’s rights. Weak sauce, spob, even by your standards.

Damn I swear I would love to see at least one post’s thread that doesn’t get hijacked.
.
Screw it, I think imma pull a pourme and just do twitter.
.
Its been real folks.

I be thinkin’ th’ argument regardin’ whether he be ri’ ‘r wrong be diff’rent fr’m th’ argument tha’ ‘is words were taken out o’ context a’ purpose t’ try t’ make it look like ‘e were sayin’ somethin’ ‘e wasn’t.
.
Th’ wench rules it be fair t’ be callin’ WS on it.
.
Over an’ done.
.
Can we be havin’ some more substance stories, now, me hearties?
.
Arrgh!

Sorry – tha’ should be: “th’ argument regardin’ whether he be infallible or no be diff’rent…”
.
Pay attention t’ me dots, mates, they’ll be helpin’ ye be findin’ yer place ag’in!
.
Arrgh!

sgwhite –
.
Don’t be abandonin’ th’ ship, me hearty!
.
If th’ people who wants t’ discuss be leavin’, spongy an’ ‘is ilk be winnin’.
.
B’sides, I don’t be doin’ twitter, an’ I’d be missin’ ye fierce.
.
YARR!

maverick, I think any fair observer reading my comments and your comments in the Ricci thread has to come to the conclusion that I know what I am talking about and you do not. As for this thread, the point is not whether other Islamic countries are cruel to women, but the comparison of Iranian freedom to that of the Soviet Union ca 1983. Women are subjected to physical violence in Iran for wearing make-up, engaging in premarital sex etc. They can be accused of adultery by their husbands and be executed. This is all condoned by the government. It’s certainly germane to whether Iran’s freedom is “breezy” when compared to that of the USSR in the 80s.

As for this thread, the point is…the comparison of Iranian freedom to that of the Soviet Union ca 1983
.
Err..no.
.
The point of the thread is that the Weekly Standard lies about the claims of its political opponents.

They’re breezy with their brains as well. By that I mean their skulls are so devoid of grey matter that the breeze can just breeze right through.

sz, you’re wrong, here’s a quote from Joe’s post:
.
“But still, it is markedly more free than the Soviet Union–which killed 40 million of its own citizens and imprisoned countless others–ever was.”
.
And yes, I agree that the Weekly Standard should have given the full context.

http://worldupdates.tripod.com/islamintheworld/id21.htm
.
In April 1922, an all Turkistan Islamic Conference held in Samarkand unanimously declared Turkistan as an independent republic. The communists sent in the Red Army, under M. Feroze who started the mass killing of the Muslims. After the failure of this attempt, an anti-Islam propaganda campaign was started. The ulema became the foremost target of this campaign and efforts were made to win over unscrupulous people by bribery Religious institutions were closed and congregational prayers were prohibited. Any one found praying were fined heavily. The madrasas were closed and the ulema were handed out severe punishment. Different methods were devised for their liquidation. For instance, they were pushed into work camps from where there was no escape. At the start of this campaign there were nearly 7,000 madrasas in Turkistan of which hardly any can be found now. A breed of Socialist ‘Ulema’ was produced. There were organized attempts to steer the younger generation toward permissiveness and liquor was supplied in abundance in the Muslim areas.
.
So when the Soviets crack down on Muslims, are they oppressing a religion or liberating their women?

spob, you’re wrong, in as much as the quote represents 1 out of the five paragraphs in the post entitled “Dot.Dot.Dot.” (a reference to the dishonest use of ellipses).
.
The point of this thread is the scurrilousness of the editors of the Weekly Standard, but I’m certainly glad to see that you have the intellectual honesty required to know what a libelous claim looks like.

Sorry, SZ, Joe repeated his claim–it’s fair game. That’s what I was getting at. My language wasn’t exactly clear.

I come away with the impression, formed over time, that the folks at Commentary and the Weekly Standard call each other and ask: “Who is going after Joe this week?” They can do this because it is easy to pontificate from a desk inside the Beltway.

Unfortunately you have been busy travelling to places where things are actually happening; and your reports reflect that.

Maybe, just maybe, you should ignore the two “organs”.

PD, you’re clowning yourself–1922?? Come on. You can do better than that. The issue is “freedom”. Iranian women do not have it.

let’s say “what’s the WS selling?” was meant to be an open ended question

The question stands. To what degree does the liberating of women involve the suppression of religion? And how much violence is appropriate to accomplish the goal?
.

It would appear as well that Iranian women’s own opinions might actually come into play as well. Have you asked any? Joe has.

Actually, yes. And the few that I have do not like the restrictions and certainly don’t think that they ought to be backed up with state-supported violence. But even if a majority of women agreed, is that ok?
.
The Muslim religion exists in the US. (After all, according to Barack, we’re a Muslim country.) There don’t seem to be any real issues about women’s freedom and freedom of religion.

OT, but enjoyable:
.
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/29/coups-interference-and-the-shifting-standards-of-obama/

is that ok?
The question isn’t what’s OK. The question is what can be done about it.
The tension between freedom of worship and women’s rights has a long and complex history. France and Utah are two places where the freedom to worship has lost out. You and Joe arguing about whether Iran or the USSR was more free is basically absurd, but since Joe was referring specifically to freedom of expression and the comfort people displayed while he was there, you have no basis to claim that he was wrong.

Southern joke:
Q: When you’re arguing with a fool, what’s the fool doing?
A: The same thing.
.
So I’ll reiterate my thanks to those of you who merely enjoy occasionally acting like fools, for putting the real fool’s name at the outset of your retorts, so I can save myself the trouble of reading the hijacked portions of the thread.

PD, Joe did not so limit his comparison. No dice.

Spob,
Not to pick a fight (honestly, that’s not my intention), but the “Muslim religion” is called Islam.

What you don’t hear them say is how Joe hit that one on the nose:

The satellites dishes, twitter & blogs that Joe sites are exactly what made the progressive movement have such scope and projection!

And even the folks at WS must be thankfull that we had such access to what the Iranian government considered a “private” affair..

¿x?

For a man with a growing red wooden nose, spob really is fond of accusing people of self-clowning, isn’t he? Sexual insecurity, perhaps?

“Muslim religion” is certainly ok to write.

Bitter says: “I come away with the impression, formed over time, that the folks at Commentary and the Weekly Standard call each other and ask: “Who is going after Joe this week?”
~
“Maybe, just maybe, you should ignore the two “organs.”
~
Excellent advice–and one could make the reverse observation, that someone at Time mag/S-land actually deigns to frequent the Weekly Standard or Kraut’s digs at WaPo, looking about the nutters’ lairs for post topics. Why the hell is that? By spending so much time rebutting them, by putting their voices here, JK, you on some level validate what they have to say, that THEY are worthy of your estimable “time.” Not to mention my own grudge–that lefties like me are too deviant to be even acknowledged.
~
And SG, man, it’s quite easy to skim past the trollish subtext. Ignore the names that feed the trolls, at least regularly, look for the voices that intrigue you, and talk only to them. Perhaps more simple for me, given my time zone/the fact that I’m usually reading the threads at their death throe stage.

I dont see how anything I have written in this thread can remotely be called trollish.

The Weakly Standard is basically institutionalized trolling. Its writers have their jobs because of their willingness to lie, cheat and malign in the service of an ideology they barely understand.
This post is written as a service to my fellow commenters, as an example of how to post without referring to any of the obnoxious, knuckleheaded attention-whores who love nothing more than to be acknowledged. Try it. It’s not that flippin hard.

hellslittlestangel: amen to that. The Very Weakly Standard has that master of intellectual rigour Fred Barnes – a dumbass if ever there was one – and will die a much needed death if that a##hole who owns F@@k News did’nt fund them.

spob,
Yes, it’s technically correct, in the same way “the Jew religion” is correct . . . but “Judaism” sounds less parochial. Just a suggestion; take it for what you will.

“Why the ellipses?”
That’s easy. Just ask Dana Milbank. “To change the meaning so I can ridicule something.”

merely –
.
I think you may have contributed a new verb to the lexicon: to milbank (v.t. & v.i.), (from O.E. mulle’s bunke, one who sleeps with barnyard animals) – the act of misrepresenting a partial quote as having informative value when the speaker intended a contrary meaning, particularly done with the primary objective of self-aggrandizement, e.g., “If we milbank his statement we can really stir up the wackos;” “A little more milbanking and I’m sure Hannity’s people will call me.”

enjoy: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGFhMTM4Zjc5N2RlZWRhZTFmYjYyOWUxNTllMGYyNWI=

[...] how the warmongering Wingnuts who won’t be satisfied until we carpetbomb Tehran have actually changed the context of something he wrote to support their addled [...]

“I dont see how anything I have written in this thread can remotely be called trollish.”

Of course, you don’t, spobby – of course you don’t.

I love the way you carefully pick out one detail of the elephant to base your argument on, that it’s a rope or a fan. That’s not unique to any political group, naturally, but I have to say that the folks on the right have raised it to an art form. The chamois-like dexterity they show leaping from detail to detail as one or another is discredited is also worthy of admiration. Not that you, personally would ever do such a thing; it would be wrong, that’s for sure.

The caricature of Iran that Spob refers to does exist in rural cities, but not in the cities and especially not in Tehran. Women are free to wear whatever they want, though most respect social mores and wear a dress and a headscarf. In my several visits to the capitol, I saw maybe a dozen chadors and hundreds of women in jeans or slacks.