Conventional wisdom: "The neocons are rooting for Ahmadenijad." Is it true?

[AlexanderProgressive]

In some quarters, we progressives who take the unpopular position that we don't know for sure whether Ahmadenijad stole the elections, are greeted with a message that can be summarized like this: "the neocons are rooting for Ahmadenijad, and if you think he maybe won, then you are on their side. And bad guys can't win without fraud."

But is this a statement rooted in reality? Evidence says no. neo-cons have always have an irrational hatred toward Ahmadenijad, contrasting with Obama's cautious willingness to dialogue with him. Obama opposes Ahmadenijad in a rational way.

The Weekly Standard says today:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s supposedly decisive victory over Mir Hussein Moussavi is almost certainly fraudulent.

Michelle Malkin is cheerying hard for the uprising against the Iranian government.

The top story in Freerepublic is a protest against an alleged attack by gunfire from pro-government militias on protesters.

I'm not providing links because I believe it's against the rules here to link to right-wing sites. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I think that those who seek to quiet the debate by those screaming, "you're a neocon! you must admit Ahmadenijad stole the election!" should not assume that the analysis of an election result reflects a person's preference for a candidate.

And no. Neo-cons are not rooting for Ahmadenijad.

[Zynx]

1. I frankly think that if any progressive or liberal expresses the slightest support

for Ahmadinejad or the existing government of Iran, they need to re-examine their beliefs very carefully.

[AlexanderProgressive]

2. "support"? To say that we don't know if fraud occured for sure is not support

Support is to say, "I support Ahmadenijad's policies," or "I want Ahmadenijad to remain in power".

That's support.

One cannot say, "oh, see, the line we progressive should take is that the elections were stolen, so let me not deviate from the line of thinking even if I don't subscribe to it."

[Zynx]

7. I'm suspicious of the motivations of those who readily accept the word of a government

that banned candidates from participating in the last two parliamentary elections as well as engages in routine oppression of its own people. Forgive me for being a little suspicious.

[billyoc]

3. He's a convenient boogeyman for them.

I've examined the slate of candidates who stood in this election and determined that, as a socialist, I cannot support any of them.

[FrenchieCat]

4. Yes, the Neocons want to stop any diplomacy to be done

with who they know will be the President of Iran, Ahmadenijad.

So they figure if they holler loud enough, folks will disapprove of Obama
talking with a regime which is illegitimate.

In otherwords, the Neocons don't want any of overture made to Iran,
as they would rather bomb Iran instead.

[C_U_L8R]

5. They're rooting against America

and our President
and for their own self-interest.
That much is apparent.

[CJCRANE]

6. Why are you speaking for the neocons?

It doesn't matter what they say because they will easily say the opposite tomorrow if it suits them.

[AlexanderProgressive]

12. If that's the case...

I assume that you already criticized those who "spoke for the neocons" when they said that the neocons were rooting for Ahmadenijad.

[DrToast]

8. Some of them are, yes. Some of them are even open about it

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/right-wing-neocons-rootin_n_214698.html">Right-Wing Neocons Rooting For Ahmadinejad Win

[AlexanderProgressive]

13. The neocon "National Review" magazine: "Ahmadinejad’s Dirty Landslide"

Written by the editors, and sharply denouncing Ahmadenijad's fraud and "thugogracy."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NmUzMTFiMmRmYzAyNjNmYTQ0YmJiMWZmZWFmNmRkZjI=

I have cited the most powerful, famous neo-cons speaking against Ahmadenijad: Kristol, TNR, the Freepers, etc.

[OKNancy]

9. A LOT of neocons are hoping for Ahmedinejad

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/13/neocons_start_using_iran_election_to_push_for_war/

Neocons Using Iran Election To Push For War

By M.J. Rosenberg - June 13, 2009, 8:40PM
It helps that the neocons in both the United States and Israel made emphatically clear how much they wanted Ahmedinejad re-elected. If they had kept their mouths shut -- and pretended that they preferred the moderate Moussavi -- they would have a bit more credibility now as they shout that Ahmadinejad's election justifies an end to diplomacy.

But they didn't prefer Moussavi; they preferred the thug and said so. The internal contradiction in their argument can be seen in these words from Israel's very neocon deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon today.

"We had no illusions about these elections in Israel," said Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, "because on the nuclear issue there was no fundamental difference between the candidates." Nevertheless, he added, Ahmadinejad's election removes "any glimmer of hope for change in Iran."

Got that? Even though there was no difference between the candidates, Ahmadinejad's "victory" removes "any glimmer of hope...."

Here is Elliot Abrams: "Both the apparent victory and the apparent fraud greatly complicate the Obama strategy. My advice is that they had better be thinking about more sanctions....Sanctions that bite might be a powerful tool and might push the regime into a serious negotiation. But it is more likely that the engagement strategy has been dealt a very heavy blow.

more at link

--------------

And here is another:

"I would vote for Ahmedinejad" ( Daniel Pipes)

http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=256

------------

June 11th Kos post

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/12/741489/-Do-Some-Neo-Cons-Want-Ahmadinejad-To-Win-Today

-------------

Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/12/right-wing-neocons-rootin_n_214698.html

[AlexanderProgressive]

11. William Kirstol, neocon of neocons, asks Obama today to denounced the "fraud"

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/06/speak_for_america_president_ob.html

Does anyone really think that a strong Obama statement of solidarity with the Iranian people, and a strong rebuke to those who steal elections and shoot demonstrators, wouldn’t help the dissidents in Iran?

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/06/speak_for_america_president_ob.html

[DrToast]

14. You don't get it, do you?

Speaking out will not help their cause. It will hurt them.

Have you noticed that none of the reformers in Iran have asked for America's backing?

Kristol is trying to fuck up Obama's agenda.

[louis-t]

10. Neo-cons are for anything that makes it harder for Obama.

National security and what's good for this country be damned.

[salguine]

15. I wouldn't doubt it—confrontation is their Viagra™.

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. The neocons still want their war with Iran

Keeping Ahmadinnerjacket in as the boogeyman is the best way to do that. They continue to lie about Iran's "nukular weppins" and mistranslate Ahmadinnerjacket's comments about "the Zionist regime" into a call to "wipe Israel off the map".

If Moussavi were to be elected, the Likud spin department would have to work 24/7 to dream up a new excuse to attack Iran. NuttyYahoo is really praying to his dark lord Satan that he doesn't have to work that hard.

[DCBob]

17. Their simple-minded argument is that if Ahmadinejad is forced out Obama may get too confident and ..

think his moderate approach is working and be taken advantage of by the clever evil Iranians. It is a bizarre twisted justification for simply hoping/praying for Obama to fail. Their biggest fear is Obama will be successful and the Republicans will be out of power for at least the next 8 years. Sick pathetic bastards.