About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Scarborough on Iran: Protestors "are doing quite fine without us screaming and yelling and beating our chests"

June 22, 2009 8:01 am ET

From the June 22 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously: Some conservative media figures defend Obama's response to events in Iran

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 22, 2009 8:11 am ET)
      2 1
      I'll say it again: Joe Scar is may favorite conservative commentator, by far.

      There are so many times he just GETS IT, when all the Fox-screech-monkey and Rush (the 800 lb gorilla) don't.

      To me it's more of a head scratcher when he goes off the deep end on their side of the pool. He just makes sense too often to be that dumb.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (June 22, 2009 8:44 am ET)
        2  
        You have a good point. I'm as critical as anyone when Joe veers into the Rightwing ditch, but I must admit that sometimes he does get it right.

        Maybe he's not in the tank for either side, which would be a good thing. I just wish he'd use better discretion and avoid the Republican talking points.... then he might have more credibility.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by Kiwi (June 22, 2009 8:51 am ET)
        2  
        Yeah. I don't always agree with him, but at least he's doing some critical thinking and not just an echo of the talking points
        Report Abuse
      • Author by ninetwelve (June 22, 2009 12:04 pm ET)
           
        i fully agree
        Report Abuse
      • Author by MickD (June 22, 2009 1:42 pm ET)
        1  
        He reads the Rove Ranger talking points TOO MANY times. I'm not fully convinced. I just think he pulls it back occasionally when he knows that full fledged Fox-type comments are self evident.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 22, 2009 2:27 pm ET)
             
          Yeah, I hear you, but unlike his Fox conuterparts he at least shows he has the ability to "pull it back." If on any given issue there's ONE voice of opposition among the talking heads in the conservative media, you can bet it's Joe.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by raine315 (June 22, 2009 8:46 am ET)
        1
      I may not agree with everything Joe says BUT he is the one republican/conservative who speaks with common sense- he is not into scare tactics and calls out the republicans for being stupid. This morning I watched Morning Joe and then switched over to Fox and Friends for a few minutes AND OMG you can see and hear the difference in the way they cover the same exact story. F&F is preschool meanwhile Mornin' Joe is Harvard. LOL
      Report Abuse
    • Author by nerzog (June 22, 2009 9:07 am ET)
      7  
      Back to his point: what do the Conservative Neanderthals expect Obama to do? Say mean things about the Iranian government? Call in air strikes?

      Truth is, there is little that we or anyone else can do, short of invading the country. I know that some of the Troglodytes would like that just fine, but we have neither the resources nor the justification to do so.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by DAWUSS (June 22, 2009 9:32 am ET)
          9
        Bring in a peacekeeping force that minimizes casualties and ensures there's no election fraud.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by peace4all (June 22, 2009 10:11 am ET)
          6  
          see, heres the thing. this is an iranian problem. we may wish that the election turned out different but it's not up to us. and how do you think that the U.S would have reacted to the world bringing in peacekeepers to ensure no election fraud in 2000. the thing here is is that if the iranian people want true freedom they will need to travel the same path every other free people have had to travel. we cannot impose freedom on them they must do it themselves.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by DAWUSS (June 22, 2009 10:18 am ET)
              10
            When you're the world's policeman, you have certain obligations and responsibilities.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by peace4all (June 22, 2009 10:33 am ET)
              7  
              we call ourselves the worlds policeman. no one is asking us to be. which is funny because we keep saying how we hate being the worlds policemen. the rest of the world does not like us being the world policeman. so let's stop doing it and let the world solve thier own problems. the world seemed to get by just fine before we came around and will probably do so after we leave.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by worrierking (June 22, 2009 11:01 am ET)
              7  
              And who made us the world's policeman?

              Do you have any idea how many American lives will be lost by sending in a peacekeeping force?

              I don't think you understand what a peacekeeping force does. They keep the peace. What you suggest is an invasion, a protracted war, and if and when we're successful, having our troops keep some kind of peace.

              Iran is the most nationalistic country in the Persian Gulf. The people who you see twittering and demonstrating would turn their outrage on us instantly if one American soldier were to step foot onto Iranian soil. All sides in the current election turmoil would have a common bond, the defense of their country from a foreign aggressor.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by DAWUSS (June 22, 2009 11:04 am ET)
                  11
                We're not invading anybody - we're going in to make sure the lives lost are kept at a minimum.
                Report Abuse
                • Author by nerzog (June 22, 2009 11:08 am ET)
                  7  
                  On whose authority?

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by pete592 (June 22, 2009 11:16 am ET)
                  8  
                  "We're not invading anybody"

                  You'll have to convince the Iranians of that. Good luck.
                  Report Abuse
                • Author by worrierking (June 22, 2009 11:56 am ET)
                  8  
                  How can "we go in" without invading?

                  There are two ways to get "in".

                  Invitation or invasion. There is no other option if we were to "go in".

                  Report Abuse
                • Author by historygeek001 (June 22, 2009 1:11 pm ET)
                  4  
                  If we were to enter Iran uninvited, we would be invading. Look at it this way: would you have been OK with Iran sending in "peacekeeping troops" for our last election? Or for 2000 or 2004, when there were huge voting problems here? We have no authority, moral or otherwise, to police them. For that matter, we have no authority to police anywhere outside our borders.
                  Report Abuse
              • Author by nerzog (June 22, 2009 1:31 pm ET)
                4  
                WK is absolutely correct. The Iranians would quickly unite against us the instant our tanks or planes crossed their border. Such a move would be even more foolish than invading Iraq.
                Report Abuse
            • Author by latanza (June 22, 2009 11:36 am ET)
              2  
              There is discretion to what involves us as a policing authority. We police in areas of genocide and cruelty. We don't come into democratic processes. Tinemen Square was exactly this kind of incident. This is about the resistance to change. THis is not a force of option as well. We will not force. If in the event the same behaviors arise here in the United States of America like in the Rodney King riots regarding judicial racism then we have our own domestic insurgency. No other country involves themselves in American policy and if we were victims of widespread violent homicides there would be some type of diplomatic strategy. This is not our fight. If they ask our help we should consider that this country is not ready to develop and we have a different agenda then.
              Report Abuse
            • Author by harley (June 22, 2009 1:54 pm ET)
              1  
              When you're the world's policeman,


              Where in the US Constitution does it state we are the "World's Policeman"?


              Report Abuse
            • Author by NiceguyEddie (June 22, 2009 2:36 pm ET)
                1
              Funny... that could almost be posted sarcasticlly by someone critical of your position.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by jonwisby (June 22, 2009 10:11 am ET)
          3  
          in other words start a third war----GREAT IDEA!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by pete592 (June 22, 2009 11:03 am ET)
          7  
          "Bring in a peacekeeping force that minimizes casualties and ensures there's no election fraud."

          Because nothing lifts up the Muslim world's opinion of the U.S. like more intervention.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by captfoster2 (June 22, 2009 9:47 am ET)
        3  
        "but we have neither the resources nor the justification to do so."

        How dare you point out the obvious!

        Just listening to the various levels of idiocy on cable in spurts is enough to make one want to pull out his ears.

        However, I will say this and I've not been much of a fan of Scarborough since nearly the beginning, but once in a while he does say something that makes sense. This is one of those few times.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Bad News (June 22, 2009 9:08 am ET)
      1 1
      Way to go Joe.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
    • Author by juliajayne1 (June 22, 2009 9:40 am ET)
      7  
      He's sounding more reasonable all the time since Jon Stewart spanked him............;-) Ah, I'm afraid Joe gets it wrong often enough to still warrant lots of healthy skepticism from me. Or maybe I just hate his shrill voice when he goes in his bully lecture mode.

      But he did get it right this time. So props to Joe for that. That's as far as I'm willing to go.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by SMTDL (June 22, 2009 1:06 pm ET)
           
        Yes I agree Joe has been sounding more reasonable and more intelligent of late..Maybe it was due to Jon Stewart!Mike Barnicle is usully on target while Geist and Meka play the role of sheep for Shepherd Joe!!As usual Graham was speaking nonsense ..maybe sucking up to his pal McCain!!?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by juliajayne1 (June 22, 2009 2:16 pm ET)
          2  
          Whenever I hear Lindsay Graham, he is all talking points all the time. I swear the man has NO thoughts of his own.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by latanza (June 22, 2009 11:37 am ET)
      1  
      Go back to the President's Speech at CAIRO, It is relevant to this matter as well. Iran is also it's own sovereignty.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by wolf kotenberg (June 22, 2009 12:33 pm ET)
      3  
      Lindsay Graham is just plain wrong. hard to believe but i do agree with Mr barnicle. Our president appears to learn from historical precedence.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bilbo_dies (June 22, 2009 2:32 pm ET)
         
      So, Morning Joe actually said something that made sense. I guess even a blind squirel will find a nut every now and then.

      I am not sure what everyone else (all those saying we need to say/do more) expects.

      It isn't our country so we really don't have a say in it.
      We may have responsibilities as the worlds strongest power.
      (apoligies to Russia and China) But; I don't know when we were elected the world's policeman, or what laws we would go by when filling that role.

      Basically this boils down to an Iranian version of Teiniman Square. The Iranians will do whatever they do and we will be left on the sidelines to applaud or critisize based on how much we like the outcome.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by wolf kotenberg (June 22, 2009 2:47 pm ET)
        1  
        I think Joe got slapped around a little by the public resistance shown after his recent opinions. Could be the result of a " come to Jesus " moment with his boss ( and co-anchor )
        Report Abuse
    • Author by only_myschly3567 (June 22, 2009 7:04 pm ET)
         
      Imagine if J. McCain had been president now. I don't want to, you do it for me.

      There is no chance, at all, that the Republican response to this would be favorable to the West.
      Report Abuse

Feed IconRSS Feeds

Get personalized rss or email alerts

Connect & Share

Facebook Twitter Digg YouTube MySpace