Trump’s immigration bill proposal

The New Neo Posted on by

It’s big news, but I haven’t yet written on it.

Why? Because I think it’s just the opening scene in a play that will be revised several times.

Actually, that’s a bad metaphor. It’s not the opening scene; the play has come out in various versions for over a decade (at least, that’s the history I’ll focus on here; it’s actually a much more long-standing issue), as Congress considers a comprehensive immigration bill.

Remember the effort made during George W. Bush’s administration? If you don’t, let’s take a little stroll down memory lane:

The [2007] bill was a compromise based largely on three previous failed immigration reform bills:

—The Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (S. 1033), a bill proposed in May 2005 by Senators Ted Kennedy and John McCain, sometimes referred to as the “McCain-Kennedy or McKennedy Bill.”
—The Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005 (S. 1438), a bill proposed in July 2005 by Senators John Cornyn and Jon Kyl, sometimes referred to as the “Cornyn-Kyl Bill.”
—The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2611), sponsored by Senator Arlen Specter, which was passed in the Senate in May 2006 but never passed in the House.

The bill’s sole sponsor in the Senate was Majority Leader Harry Reid, though it was crafted in large part as a result of efforts by Senators Kennedy, McCain and Kyl, along with Senator Lindsey Graham, and input from President George W. Bush, who strongly supported the bill. For that reason it was referred to in the press by various combinations of these five men’s names, most commonly “Kennedy-Kyl”. A larger group of senators was involved in creating the bill, sometimes referred to as the ‘Gang of 12’. Senator David Vitter of Louisiana led the opposition to the bill, clashing with McCain and Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.

The bill never passed, and drew a lot of anger. You can read its suggested provisions here. To go into the details would take a much longer post than I plan to write, but the gist of it was that it established a path to citizenship for every single illegal immigrant then currently residing in the country, although there were certain hoops to jump through. There also were some security provisions:

The bill would have increased enforcement of the United States-Mexico border, including increasing the number of border patrol agents by 20,000 and adding another 370 miles (600 km) of fencing, among others.

And then there was the case of the Gang of Eight in 2013:

…[T]he immigration bill passed the Senate with a strong majority””68”“32, with 14 Republicans joining all Democrats. The United States House of Representatives under Speaker John Boehner did not act on the bill, however, and it expired at the end of the 113th Congress.

You can read the proposals in the bill here. Once again, it provided a long-term path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already residing here (there were many many more changes, but again they’re too numerous to detail). It also purported to increase security (someday):

The bill contains many border security measures, some of which must be implemented before illegal immigrants can adjust from the provisional status to full green card status. However, the DHS Secretary simply must submit a plan for border security within the first six months of the bill in order to initiate the provisional legal status for illegal immigrants. Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) explained that whether or not the border is secure will have no impact on the advancement of the legalization of illegal immigrants, saying, “We’re not using border security as an excuse or a block to the path to citizenship. [The Gang of Eight] wants to make sure the border is secure, but not to use it as a barrier to prevent the 11 million from eventually gaining a path to citizenship.”

Those who criticize Boehner as spineless and unconservative probably forget that he was the person who stopped this bill, which had already passed the Senate. His stated reason:

In our conversation last week, I told the president what I have been telling him for months: the American people and their elected officials don’t trust him to enforce the law as written. Until that changes, it is going to be difficult to make progress on this issue.

Obama responded through executive orders in order to circumvent Congress.

Now, take a look at the current proposals under Trump. The emphasis is on security. The visa lottery is eliminated and family chain immigration tightened up somewhat (the latter was done in some of the previous bills, as well). A path to citizenship is provided only for people eligible for DACA.

This is pretty much what one might have predicted of Trump, since (if you were paying attention) he was always waffly on DACA. And the Democrats have done what you might expect. Nancy Pelosi considers it racist, naturally. The basic Democratic response can be summed up this way:

“Dreamers should not be held hostage to President Trump’s crusade to tear families apart and waste billions of American tax dollars on an ineffective wall,” Sen. Dick Durbin, the Illinois Democrat who has fought for protection for participants in the expiring Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, said in a statement.

Of course. Trump should just give Dreamers what the Democrats want without asking for anything in exchange, right? I’m sure if the Democrats were in power, they’d have returned the favor by starting with the wall and waiting patiently for the rest.

I wonder whether Trump made this proposal knowing the Democrats would balk. I doubt he’ll make it more amenable to them in response. He might make it less. The problem may be, as with all the other immigration bills, it will be hard to get enough votes to pass it because it is almost impossible to please enough people with any bill. Most of the opinions expressed by the GOP have been supportive, but some Republicans are unhappy with it as well, and the GOP holds only a very small margin in the Senate.

So, what else is new?

The speculation game: the press and Obama

The New Neo Posted on by

Would a photo of Obama with Louis Farrakhan have made any difference in the results of the 2008 election had it been published and not suppressed?

A journalist announced last week that he will publish a photograph of then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D) and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan that he took in 2005 at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting, but did not make public because he believed it would have “made a difference” to Obama’s political future.

The photographer, Askia Muhammad, told the Trice Edney News Wire that he “gave the picture up at the time and basically swore secrecy.”

“But after the nomination was secured and all the way up until the inauguration; then for eight years after he was President, it was kept under cover,” Muhammad said.

Asked whether he thought the photo’s release would have affected Obama’s presidential campaign, Muhammad said, “I insist. It absolutely would have made a difference.”

Here’s the photo:

Photographer Muhammad certainly has gotten a remarkable amount of publicity from his belated admission, but I beg to differ with his evaluation. I submit that it would not have mattered. First of all, a photo is practically meaningless. Politicians pose with people all the time, and it doesn’t necessarily indicate much. The photo was taken in 2005 at a Congressional Black Caucus meeting, which means that most of the black members of Congress were there.

So, big deal. It could even have been used to cry “racism” at those who criticized the meeting.

But even more importantly, if Obama’s two-decades long and very close relationship with Rev. Wright didn’t hurt him, a passing meeting with Farrakhan most definitely wouldn’t have done so.

What I think is more interesting is that the photo was suppressed, and that we’re in a “now it can be told” mode. I guess none of it matters anymore. But I’d love to hear from the people at the LA Times who have continued to sit on a certain video that contained statements by Obama:

John McCain’s campaign is demanding that the Los Angeles Times release a video of a party for a prominent Palestinian activist that Barack Obama attended in 2003.

The Times described the going-away party for former University of Chicago professor, and Obama friend, Rashid Khalidi, in a story in April. The story reported that Palestinians thought they might have a friend in Obama because of his friendships in that community, despite the fact that his positions have never been particularly pro-Palestinian.

“A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi,” said McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb, citing Obama’s friendship with Khalidi, who is now a professor at Columbia University.

He said the video could, among other things, show how Obama responded to a poem recited at the party accusing Israel of “terrorism” and warning of consequences for U.S. support for Israel, which Goldfarb described as “hate speech.”

Khalidi is a controversial figure, reviled by pro-Israel activists, though not a marginal one. A former professor at the University of Chicago, he’s now Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia, and respected by many in academia. He’s been criticized most for saying that Palestinians have a right to resist Israeli occupation and has been described as a former P.L.O. spokesman, a label he has denied.

The media protected Obama and fought his battles for him. There is little question that it mattered in general, whether or not the photo of Farrakhan would have made any difference.

The Emperor’s New Clothes: Trump at Davos

The New Neo Posted on by

No, Trump’s not the emperor without clothes. He’s the kid who points and says the obvious about the naked emperor, “But he hasn’t got anything on!”

That was my reaction yesterday when I read what Trump had said about Palestine and Israel at Davos. Trump was not reading from a speech or prepared notes:

That money [from the US] is not going to [the Palestinians] unless they sit down and negotiate peace, because I can tell you that Israel does want to make peace, and they’re going to have to want to make peace, too, or we’re going to have nothing to do with it any longer.

It may not be very elegantly said—it wasn’t very elegantly said—but boy, did it get my attention, and I bet it got the Palestinians’ attention too. Had no one in US government ever said this sort of thing before? If so, I couldn’t recall it. Trump said he’d wondered, too, and asked the question [emphasis mine]:

If you look back at the various peace proposals, and they are endless, and I spoke to some of the people involved. And I said, ”˜Did you ever talk about the vast amount of funds, money that we give to the Palestinians? You know, we give hundreds of millions of dollars.’ And they said, ”˜We never talk about it,‘” Trump said. “Well, we do talk about it. When they disrespected us a week ago by not allowing our great vice president to see them, and we give them hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and support, tremendous numbers, numbers that nobody understands, that money is on the table.”

So previous negotiators had never talked about it. Why? Probably a lot of reasons, but chief among my guesses would be these:

(1) Threatening to withdraw financial aid is not what diplomats do.
(2) Europe certainly wouldn’t like it, nor would the vast majority of the pro-Palestinian world (which is the vast majority of the world, if the UN General Assembly is any indication).
(3) Previous administrations cared very much about #2.

Trump is not a diplomat. He’s a businessman. He promised that he knew how to make deals, and he deals like a businessman and not like a diplomat. Businessmen are very money-conscious, and they know that money is leverage they can use. If you’re negotiating with someone who is financially dependent on you—duh!—you can use that money for leverage.

This tough-love technique may not work, of course. But nothing else has so far—nothing, not all the diplomats in the world have been able to make the situation better in that neck of the woods. If Trump could, it would be astounding as well as a consummation devoutly to be wished.

Trump had more to say:

“The hardest subject they had to talk about was Jerusalem,” he said. “We took Jerusalem off the table, so we don’t have to talk about it anymore. They never got past Jerusalem. We took it off the table. We don’t have to talk about it anymore.” He then turned to Netanyahu and said: You won one point, and you’ll give up some other points later on in the negotiation ”” if it ever takes place. I don’t know that it ever will take place.”

Asked by The Times of Israel whether Jerusalem being “off the table” meant no part of the city would be part of a future Palestinian state, Trump responded, “Next question.”

Interesting.

Netanyahu had something to say, too. And it seems he agrees with me about the “emperor’s new clothes” aspect of what Trump had said:

People say that this pushes peace backward,” Netanyahu said. “I say it pushes peace forward, because it recognizes history, it recognizes the present reality. And peace can only be built on the basis of truth.”

Parallel media universes: the MSM is obsessed with Trump and Mueller

The New Neo Posted on by

While the right covers this, that, and the other thing, the MSM and the left is obsessed with the NY Times’ report that Trump tried to fire Mueller and was talked out of it. Go to memeorandum and you’ll see what I mean.

Once again, they seem to think this is some sort of smoking gun that will sink Trump. And they are waiting with bated breath, of course, for Mueller’s report. Meanwhile, Trump calls it “fake news.”

The problem for the Times at this point is that, even though Trump is certainly capable of lying through his teeth about whether or not he seriously considered firing Mueller, the Times may have even less credibility. That’s what happens when you cry “wolf” over and over and over.

This particular story is just the latest iteration of a long series of stories saying the same thing (you can read about some of the history here). I am virtually certain that most of my liberal friends believe the stories are all true (if they follow them at all, that is).

I do not believe they are true, although they certainly might be true, and I do not believe that they are not true. There is simply no way to know. But the MSM’s track record on this sort of thing is bad. Their undisguised and virulent animus towards Trump, and the number of their previous Trump-critical stories that have never been confirmed or have turned out to be flat wrong, make it difficult for people who are not already on the left to believe them.

But I have an additional question. Let’s say that the Times report is true. Let’s say that Trump wanted to fire Mueller last June and was talked out of it by, among other things, his counsel’s threat to resign. What is the news here? The idea that Trump might have some autocratic impulses isn’t news. The idea that he might be enraged that Mueller was investigating him isn’t news, either; I’m hard-pressed to come up with any president I can think of who would take it with equanimity and a smile. The fact that Trump was talked out of that autocratic impulse makes it seem (to me, at least) as though his desire to fire Mueller either wasn’t incredibly strong to begin with and/or that he realized the repercussions would be worse than the problem. That latter possibility makes him sound reasonable, or at least amenable to persuasion/reason on a practical basis.

And that’s if you believe the Times’ story.

My war with graphics, and graphics’ war with me

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve written before about my problem with cartoons.

But I have a similar problem with graphics. The other day while working on the new blog site I noticed that my dashboard was one of those streamlined things so popular today—mostly because of the popularity of cellphones—where little symbols have totally replaced words. The dashboard has at least twenty symbols running along the side, and they all are about the same size and give few clues as to what they mean, which (for me, at least) makes it hard to differentiate among them.

The graphics for “links” and “comments” are so ubiquitous—a chain for links, and a sort of cartoon bubble for comments—that even I, with my graphics dyslexia, know what they mean. But the rest are not the least bit intuitive and I have no interest in learning them. What’s wrong with words, good old-fashioned words?

Luckily, there’s a way to make the words reappear on the dashboard. But of course, in order to do that you have to search the symbols-only version and find it. It’s a tiny little triangle/arrow at the bottom, and once you click on it up spring the missing words and all’s well. But the default position is now the graphics one.

Perhaps I’m revealing my advanced age by saying all of this. But I also sometimes have a problem with the graphics on containers. You know, the things that tell you how to open them. Sometimes words are even included and it still can be confusing.

For example, I was making a smoothie today. I always put frozen fruit in them and then blend the whole thing up. Today I was opening a large new package of frozen fruit and encountered this graphic. I only took the photo after I had opened it, so the little tear there makes it obvious how it’s done. But try to imagine it without the tear to guide you; try to imagine the oval with the arrow is whole. What would you do?

I’ll tell you what I did. I assumed that the arrow pointed to something below the oval. Perhaps that little thing that looked like a string, that might be sort of embedded in the packaging and that you need to pull? I’ve encountered packaging like that before. But no, the string stubbornly defied my best efforts to pry it loose.

Perhaps that’s because it wasn’t a string, but a drawing of a cherry stem, cleverly placed to fool the graphically challenged like me.

It turns out that the thing to pull was a hidden tab above the arrow—yes, above the arrow that pointed down. The arrow apparently meant “look above this arrow that’s pointing down and pull the thing above the arrow down.”

Now I ask you, does that make sense?

FBI, DOJ: Lost and found

The New Neo Posted on by

Those texts from Strzok and Page that had gotten lost?

They’ve been found!:

Here’s how:

In a letter sent to congressional committees, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz said his office “succeeded in using forensic tools to recover text messages from FBI devices, including text messages between Mr. Strzok and Ms. Page that were sent or received between December 14, 2016 and May 17, 2017.”

Ah, so the DOJ managed to use forensic tools to find some text messages the FBI couldn’t seem to recover. What a novel idea! I guess we can’t expect the FBI to know what forensic tools are, can we?

And have all the texts been recovered, or some of them are still missing?:

“Our effort to recover any additional text messages is ongoing,” Horowitz said. “We will provide copies of the text messages that we recover from these devices to the Department so that the Department’s leadership can take any management action it deems appropriate.”

Fox News has learned from U.S. government officials that the inspector general recovered the texts by taking possession of “at least four” phones belonging to Strzok and Page.

They were busy little beavers, weren’t they (Strzok and Page, not the FBI)? Who knows whether all the texts will ever be recovered, or whether the FBI and DOJ are aware of all the methods the lovers used to communicate.

Robert Weede: “The Most Happy Fella”

The New Neo Posted on by

“The Most Happy Fella” is a musical by Frank Loesser (I wrote about Loesser and his oeuvre here) that opened on Broadway in 1956.

“Fella” is an odd bird in that it requires many operatic voices. Perhaps that’s why it’s so seldom performed. My parents, who often took me to Broadway musicals even at that tender age, omitted that one. My guess is that it was because it contained “adult” themes.

But we owned the record. It was one of the few musicals I learned through the recording only and didn’t see in person until I was well into middle age. It’s absolutely wonderful, one of the best ever, combining a touching story and an almost endless flow of beautiful music.

Was it an an opera? I would say not, since it contained huge reams of dialogue. I’d call it “operatic,” though. As a child, however, I didn’t care about such distinctions.

Robert Weede, who played Tony and is shown in this video, had previously been known as an opera singer. But he was a sensation in “The Most Happy Fella.” I’m sad that I didn’t get to see him, but I found a YouTube video of him performing one song from the show, live and in concert.

Do you think he’s hammy? Maybe, by today’s standards. I think he’s absolutely perfect. The character of Tony is supposed to be very emotional. Tony is an Italian-born (the stereotypical Italian accent is part of it) California vineyard owner, an older man who’s never been lucky in love but thinks he’s finally found a woman to love him. In addition, wonder of wonders, she’s young and beautiful. In this song he’s telling his long-dead mother (in heaven) the news.

Just watch Weede transition from explaining the character to being the character. That part begins at around 00:32, and the transformation becomes complete at around 00:42:

Giorgio Tozzi (1980) is very good singing the same song, but in my opinion not as good as Weede:

Michael Corvino, singing here more recently, has a very beautiful voice. But the acting, although fine, is more gentle and displays nothing like the astounding variety and power of the swiftly changing emotions Weede conveys with his face and gestures. Here’s Corvino:

While we’re at it, if you’re still with me, here’s a recording of another favorite song of mine from the original cast album. This one is among the songs from the show that are not the least bit operatic. Enjoy:

There’s this one, too. In the video (and on the record) there’s a short intro I’ve left in here, because it tells you a little bit about what’s happening. Tony is teaching some Italian to the younger woman with whom he’s in love and who is beginning to love him back. But it’s also a quartet that contrasts the happiness of the lovers—who rejoice in each passing day—with the depression of Tony’s older sister and the restlessness of the farm foreman Joey. There’s only one comment to the YouTube video at the moment, and even though I didn’t write it, it expresses my feelings about the song and the feeling I had about it even as a child (“This quartet is almost painfully beautiful.”):

John Kerry, diplomat extraordinaire, can’t seem to retire

The New Neo Posted on by

There are few prominent political figures in America I have disliked as much or as long as John Kerry. Even back when I was a liberal Democrat, which is when he first became well-known, something about him (or maybe many things about him) rubbed me very much the wrong way.

Kerry was actually the subject of my very first post (2004) written expressly for this blog. And there’s also this post (“John Kerry: treason then and now”) which I wrote in 2014.

In 2012 I added the following reminiscence:

…[S]trangely enough, back when I was a liberal in the 60s and 70s, something about Kerry almost instantaneously raised my hackles. He seemed a phony, self-aggrandizing, pompous, opportunistic, narcissistic windbag even back then. Or maybe especially back then.

“Especially” not because he was actually worse then, but because his extreme arrogance and air of superiority seemed particularly misplaced in such a young person.

Kerry has always fancied himself an international negotiator, even as a young man:

”¦[H]e met on the trip with Nguyen Thi Binh, then foreign minister of the PRG and a top negotiator at the talks. Kerry acknowledged in that testimony that even going to the peace talks as a private citizen was at the “borderline” of what was permissible under U.S. law, which forbids citizens from negotiating treaties with foreign governments.

As one might expect, neither age nor his lengthy stint as senator nor his time as Secretary of State under Obama has dimmed his desire to negotiate, even now that he’s supposedly a private citizen. If this report is true, he’s still at it, this time to undermine Trump in the Middle East:

During the conversation, according to the report, Kerry asked Agha to convey a message to Abbas and ask him to “hold on and be strong.” Tell him, he told Agha, “that he should stay strong in his spirit and play for time, that he will not break and will not yield to President Trump’s demands.” According to Kerry, Trump will not remain in office for a long time. It was reported that within a year there was a good chance that Trump would not be in the White House.

Kerry offered his help to the Palestinians in an effort to advance the peace process and recommended that Abbas present his own peace plan. “Maybe it is time for the Palestinians to define their peace principles and present a positive plan,” Kerry suggested. He promised to use all his contacts and all his abilities to get support for such a plan. He asked Abbas, through Agha, not to attack the US or the Trump administration, but to concentrate on personal attacks on Trump himself, whom Kerry says is solely and directly responsible for the situation.

According to the report, referring to the president, Kerry used derogatory terms and even worse. Kerry offered to help create an alternative peace initiative and promised to help garner international support, among others, of Europeans, Arab states and the international community. Kerry hinted that many in the American establishment, as well as in American intelligence, are dissatisfied with Trump’s performance and the way he leads America. He surprised his interlocutor by saying he was seriously considering running for president in 2020. When asked about his advanced age, he said he was not much older than Trump and would not have an age problem.

Kerry may not think he has an age problem, but in that case he does have a math problem. If Kerry ran for president in 2020 and won, he would have just turned 77 years old before the inauguration. That’s quite a bit older than Trump was when he was first elected, and it’s still significantly older than Trump would be if Trump were re-elected. When you’re at that end of the age graph, every year counts more than it does at the beginning.

But age isn’t really Kerry’s problem if he wanted to run for national office. He lost in 2004 despite President Bush’s unpopularity because Kerry is widely despised, and there’s no big affection for him even among liberals.

But back to his alleged communication with Abbas through Agha. It seems to me that Kerry may be terrified at the possibility that Trump could actually broker a deal in the Middle East, something that eluded Kerry but that he had fervently hoped would be his ticket to diplomatic stardom. How dreadful, how positively unendurable, it would be if Trump—of all people—managed to do what Kerry could not do, and to get better terms for Israel into the bargain.

I have no problem believing that Kerry would do his best to prevent that from happening. It makes perfect sense: tell Abbas to hang tough and not be afraid of Trump, and then Kerry can swoop in later and use his contacts with Europe and the rest of the “international community” he knows so well to broker a much better deal for the Palestinians. As part of this proposal, he must convince Abbas that Trump is on the way out soon, so there’s no need to take his proposals seriously or to be afraid of him.

Another must-read from Andrew C. McCarthy

The New Neo Posted on by

Andrew C. McCarthy is the most consistently readable, thorough, and clear writer on the topic of all the current government investigations going on, and recent ones in the past as well. I’ve cited him many times, and here I go again:

From the first, these columns have argued that the whitewash of the Hillary Clinton”“emails caper was President Barack Obama’s call ”” not the FBI’s, and not the Justice Department’s. (See, e.g., here, here, and here.) The decision was inevitable. Obama, using a pseudonymous email account, had repeatedly communicated with Secretary Clinton over her private, non-secure email account.

If Clinton had been charged, Obama’s culpable involvement would have been patent. In any prosecution of Clinton, the Clinton”“Obama emails would have been in the spotlight. For the prosecution, they would be more proof of willful (or, if you prefer, grossly negligent) mishandling of intelligence. More significantly, for Clinton’s defense, they would show that Obama was complicit in Clinton’s conduct yet faced no criminal charges.

That is why such an indictment of Hillary Clinton was never going to happen.

McCarthy discusses the process by which, in several succeeding drafts of Comey’s statements exonerating Clinton from having committed any criminal act, all references to President Obama that had originally been included were expunged. An early draft had said this:

That use included an email exchange with the President while Secretary Clinton was on the territory of such an adversary. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.

Later drafts changed the presidential reference so that it read “another senior government official.” By the time Comey delivered his remarks, that entire passage was gone, as well, and just Hillary was mentioned:

What most alarmed Obama and Clinton advisers (those groups overlap) was not only that there were several Clinton”“Obama email exchanges, but also that Obama dissembled about his knowledge of Clinton’s private email use in a nationally televised interview…

Perhaps [Obama] was confident that, because he had used an alias in communicating with Clinton, his emails to and from her ”” estimated to number around 20 ”” would remain undiscovered.

His and Clinton’s advisers were not so confident. Right after the interview aired, Clinton campaign secretary Josh Scherwin emailed Jennifer Palmieri and other senior campaign staffers, stating: “Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he saw it on the news.”

Scherwin’s alert was forwarded to Mills. Shortly afterwards, an agitated Mills emailed Podesta: “We need to clean this up ”” he has emails from her ”” they do not say state.gov.”

Much more at the link.

Iranian history: that CIA coup that deposed Mossaddegh

The New Neo Posted on by

A little while ago a commenter here wrote: “We and the Brits destabilized Iran in 1953 for the Shah, then the Shah’s reign led to this theocracy.”

The reference is to the coup engineered by the US and Britain against Iranian Prime Minister Mossaddegh [variously spelled]. Here’s what Wiki has to say about it. It’s the sort of thing you commonly will read if you do internet research on the subject:

He was the head of a democratically elected government, holding office as the Prime Minister of Iran from 1951 until 1953, when his government was overthrown in a coup d’état aided by the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency and the United Kingdom’s Secret Intelligence Service.

An author, administrator, lawyer, and prominent parliamentarian, his administration introduced a range of progressive social and political reforms such as social security and land reforms, including taxation of the rent on land. His government’s most notable policy, however, was the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, which had been under British control since 1913 through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC/AIOC) (later British Petroleum and BP).

Many Iranians regard Mosaddegh as the leading champion of secular democracy and resistance to foreign domination in Iran’s modern history. Mosaddegh was removed from power in a coup on 19 August 1953, organised and carried out by the CIA at the request of MI6, which chose Iranian General Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Mosaddegh.

It seems pretty clear what is being said here, at least from the “progressive” (great word, isn’t it?] point of view. I’ll fill in the blanks for you: good guy Mossaddegh was doing wonderful things for a stable Iran until the greedy bad guys the Americans and Brits got mad at him for nationalizing the oil industry and claiming it for its rightful owners, the Iranians.

You can read that sort of thing all over. Is it true?

One can begin at any number of arbitrary points in Iranian (and Persian, before that) history or modern history. But this might be a good one. While you read it, mull over how very very stable Iran was (that’s sarcasm, by the way) before the coup.

Here’s more:

The CIA’s immediate target was Mossadeq, whom the Shah had picked to run the government just before the parliament voted to nationalize the AIOC. A royal-blooded eccentric given to melodrama and hypochondria, Mossadeq often wept during speeches, had fits and swoons, and conducted affairs of state from bed wearing wool pajamas. During his visit to the United States in October 1951, Newsweek labeled him the “Fainting Fanatic” but also observed that, although most Westerners at first dismissed him as “feeble, senile, and probably a lunatic,” many came to regard him as “an immensely shrewd old man with an iron will and a flair for self-dramatization.” Time recognized his impact on world events by naming him its “Man of the Year” in 1951.

Mossadeq is Kinzer’s [author of a book about the coup being reviewed in the article] paladin””in contrast to the schemers he finds in the White House and Whitehall””but the author does subject him to sharp criticism. He points out, for example, that Mossadeq’s ideology blinded him to opportunities to benefit both himself and the Iranian people: “The single-mindedness with which he pursued his campaign against [the AIOC, otherwise known as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company] made it impossible for him to compromise when he could and should have.” In addition, Mossadeq failed at a basic test of statecraft””trying to understand other leaders’ perspectives on the world. By ignoring the anticommunist basis of US policy, he wrenched the dispute with the AIOC out of its Cold War context and saw it only from his parochial nationalist viewpoint. Lastly, Mossadeq’s naé¯vete about communist tactics led him to ignore the Tudeh Party’s efforts to penetrate and control Iranian institutions. He seemed almost blithely unaware that pro-Soviet communists had taken advantage of democratic systems to seize power in parts of Eastern Europe. By not reining in Iran’s communists, he fell on Washington’s enemies list.

If you want to read a history of Mossadegh devoid of leftist memes, go here:

There are serious men who are under the impression that the CIA led a coup to replace an upstanding, democratic reformer named Mohammed Mossadegh with a fascist Shah named Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and that Pahlavi’s crimes were so atrocious that Iran was driven into the arms of the mullahs. None of that is true.

That’s near the beginning. The body of the article fleshes out that thesis with points such as this one:

Extremely valuable property [the AIOC, and the oil industry in Iran that had been developed by the British and not the Iranians], legally owned by the British government and British private citizens, had been confiscated by a foreign government. Before the war, Britain might have invaded. Instead, it retaliated against Mossadegh by leading an international embargo of Iran’s oil and by withdrawing its technicians from the nationalized holdings. Without British know-how, the company could barely function; after the withdrawal, Iranian oil production dropped 96 percent. And the oil that was produced couldn’t be sold.

Oil money funded the Iranian government; without it, Mossadegh’s reforms were worthless, and his popularity plunged. Mossadegh called a parliamentary election in late 1951. When he realized he was going to lose, he had the election suspended.

(That should put to bed the notion that he was an idealistic democrat.)

The entire article is well worth reading, if only to present a thought-provoking alternative to the usual simplistic “US bad, Mossaddegh good” story. Later on, there’s this [emphasis mine]:

The CIA was happy to take credit [for the coup], exaggerating its involvement in what was, at the time, considered a big success ”” but a private CIA cable credited Mossadegh’s collapse to the fact that “the flight of the Shah . . . galvanized the people into an irate pro-Shah force.” (A large portion of those galvanized people, it should be noted, were hard-core Islamists, who feared that Mossadegh’s slide to the left would include Communist atheism.)

So: Mossadegh was no democrat, and the CIA was not responsible for his ouster; the CIA did not install the Shah in his place, and it did not become involved because of oil. In fact, after Mossadegh was gone, Iran’s oil infrastructure remained nationalized, and eventually the British agreed to a 50-50 profit split.

Note especially this: “So why do so many people believe the imperialist-calamity version of modern Persian history? Because the world is filled with freshmen and sophomoric adults.”

Guess so. My gut feeling is always that history tends to be far more complex than its presentation by either side. But generally I’ve found the right to be somewhat more reliable on that score than the left.

When the 1953 coup occurred, Iran wasn’t the least bit stable. It was already a battlefield among the groups fighting for power: the monarchists, the liberal democrats, the religious fundamentalists, and the /leftists/Communists. I’m pretty sure that the liberal democrats were the smallest group, even back then. In the end—that is, during the revolution of 1979—the latter two groups (religious fundamentalists and the left) united in unholy alliance in order to overthrow the first two groups. That temporary unity was one of the main reasons the revolution was successful.

Iran has suffered ever since. It turned out that it was the religious fundamentalists who were the last men standing, although the left had intended to take that position.

[NOTE: I’ve written quite a bit in the past about Iranian history and in particular the history of the years directly leading up to the revolution of 1979 (see this this, this, this, and this, which is just a sampler of the most important posts but is by no means an inclusive list).]

Explaining the delay in undoing the Hawaii nuclear scare

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, it’s all clear now:

Gov. David Ige told reporters today that part of the delay in notifying the public that the Jan. 13 ballistic missile alert was a false alarm was that he did not know his Twitter account password.

The Hawaii Emergency Management Agency issued the false alarm at 8:07 a.m., and Ige was told the missile alert was a false alarm two minutes after the alert was sent to cell phones across the state. However, Ige’s office did not get out a cancellation message until 17 minutes after the alert.

It really gives a person a deep sense of faith in the efficiency and competence of government and government officials.

Ige is sixty-one years old, so he’s old enough to be of the generation that’s not exactly completely conversant with the internet. Then again, he needs to be. But don’t despair; it’s been fixed:

Ige added that “I have to confess that I don’t know my Twitter account log-ons and the passwords, so certainly that’s one of the changes that I’ve made. I’ve been putting that on my phone so that we can access the social media directly.”

One thing that even Trump’s enemies should be able to say about Trump is that he always seems (so far) to have been quite cognizant of his Twitter password—although they probably wish he weren’t.