The offensive expressions have not been deleted. They remain in the DDPA which is included by reference. Besides that, there are many implicit and explicit demands for enforcement of Islamic blasphemy law. Those demands are detailed in this blog post: http://snooper.wordpress.com/2009/03/18/durban-ii-sham-revision-the-details/ .
uj5vf6

Kind of surprised me to see President Obama reach out with a olive branch, especially after all the negative atomic stuff that the press has been putting out. BUT we have to remember that 60 MInutes has had a interview with the President of Iran last year. I think, and I do think, that they gave out the first olive branch. How would any of you look at the United States if you lived in Iran? We speak of war with them and bombing them. How is the Iranian supposed to think of us? I am not taking sides here. Sometimes differnt cultures do not understand our way of life, and that is understandable. Some of us don’t even understand it! Especially politics!

I applaud the President’s video message to Iran! Remember that President Reagan had sent a Bible to Ayatollah Khomeini and received a Koran in return?
Of course, I place no credence in any potential Iranian Pres. Abhorrentdinnerjacket response– the political spin was made by Supreme Leader Khameini yesterday, and it was typical poisonous politics from one who is sometimes considered moderate.
Iranians can remember the end of the Shah, its government’s return to Allah-based law, a disastrous war with Sunni Iraq, and the recent demonization of its nation by the US. How could they feel anything but distrust of America?
A future Iranian leader might turn its country around to roles of peacemaker and benefactors for groups other than terrorist militias.
The people of Iran, if they’re courageous enough, can eventually and politically effect a counter-Islamic revolution toward working closer with the West.
And importantly, Russia is not the West!

Obama has a right, perhaps even a duty, to appeal to Iran to join in improving relations between both our country and others around the world. But his message should be seen for either of two possibilities — (1) a very calculating move that was expected to fail but that was made nonetheless as a political move, or (2) the very naive statement of the inexperienced head of one of the leading nations of the world. I tend to believe the latter. Never at any time since the overthrow of the Shah has Iran deviated from its position of hostility to the US and its allies. It has, in fact, not been very friendly even to other Muslim nations. One can hope and pray of course and should. However, the miracle that is needed for Obama’s appeal to succeed will not occur.

The innovative part of the President’s stratgey was to essentially do an end run around the Iranian poiticians and seek to connect with the people, through the internet and satellite TV.
And elections will soon take place in Iran, and the people, who have show indications of being really tired of the fanatics running thrier country, may vote them out. If they feel that the US and its leaders are open to a new dialog, they may decide to put in new leadership that is open to that idea. Thus the way is slowly opened for more substantive change.
It is a slow process to be sure, but Bush thought he could fast track reform by going into Iraq with guns blazing. There has been no big change in the overall political situation in the Middle East. In fact, the Palestinian/Irsaeli situation has brown substantively worse. And, the cost in blood and treasure has been atrocious.
I think President Obama is to be commended for trying something innovative and non-violent.

Unfortunately, Mr. Obama gives those who found him less than intellectually gifted or historically astute (“I am not sure if I have visted 57 of our 59 states,” “we need to do away with all forms of carbon,” “this is the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression,”), cause for much concern in a ridiculous statement to the fanatic and looney rulers of Iran. The thought that a discussion with radicals who occupy a state of reality different from most of the rest of the world can only be of great (and grave) concern. By wanting to “negotiate” with those who question if lots of Jews died in the camps; or who see the destruction of Israel and all Jews living there as the Creator’s will; or the women as less than men; or “no homosexuals exist in Iran,” or that Iran can do as it wants with nuclear material, on must ask what is that we will negotiate? Is there really any difference with negotiating with the Islamic loons of Iran, than with the grand old Nazis of pre-war Germany? What is it that we are prepared to give away in negotiations: the rights of passage throuh the seas, the independence of Iraq, the survival of Israel, or perhaps we can harmlessly agree that perhaps 6,000 Jews were gassed or murdered in World War II, not 6,000,000. After all, it is just a number and we may gain “peace,” and after all, Israel is a very small country, sort of like that tiny country in the middle of Europe that Hitler wanted, promising “Peace in Our Time.” Mr. Obama, appears to be every bit the limited and narrow individual many feared and warned he was, just another Chicago pol but with a decided leftist twist. Taken alone, that would not matter in a nation where free elections can correct errors every four years for Presidents. But, the problem with leftist agendas, especially those that are less than informed, is that the actions that result can do a vast amount of harm, very difficult to correct.

I did not mean for my comments (“Your Name”) to be unsigned. My computer skills are only just a tad better than Mr. McCain’s, unfortunately, and I do still believe that free speech means just that and should be signed.

Mr. Wolberg:
Mr. Hirschfield,wrote, “he [Mr. Obama] has leaped past the government of Iran and taken his message directly to the Iranian people.” And Mr. Morwel wrote that what Mr. Obama did was to,”do an end run around the Iranian poiticians and seek to connect with the people.” That is quite the opposite of your statement that the message was given to the, “fanatical and looney rulers of Iran”.
(BTW, that’s not a bad description of Iran’s rulers.I like Rick’s Pres. Abhorrentdinnerjacket, and Jay Leno’s Ahmanutjob.)
Regardless of which country is being spoken about – even the U.S. – I believe we are all aware that a country’s leaders do not always speak for the people of said country; and that what they say represents the people’s thinking does not.
I applaud our President’s effort to try to a different way to begin resolution of the fractious situation in the Middle East. No one thought that when Mr. Reagan cut through and past all the polite negotiations with Russia to tell Mr. Gorbachev directly to his face to ,”tear down this wall” it would work and not start WWIII. But it did work, and thank G-d we can still stop counting World Wars at II.

I enjoy parallels of history: Mr. Joe Kennedy, then the Ambassador to Great Britain, was known for his wish to mellow the message to Mr. Hitler, expressing admiriation for the grand German people. The same of course was the message of Charles Lindbergh and his love affair with the German people (and Mr. Hitler’s military, and as it turns out, his love affair with a fine German lady). The Nazis movement in the U.S. expressed the need for solidarity of all thinking Americans with the great German nation.
One simply cannot take seriously any simplistic and uninformed effort by the less than experienced and depressingly superficial Mr. Obama to “reach” those marvelous Iranian people (and they are marvelous–yes, “some of my friends”), even though the ruling majority is composed of extremist Islamic “bad guys” who extoll suicide bombings, have a 9th century world view, provide training and weapons and explosives and rockets to killers of American soldiers, as well as the same to kill Jews in Israel. There is a time for negotiation and a time for courage. Mr. Obama seems to be failing on both accounts. Not to stand for democracy or to stand with Israel against all the horrors wished against its citizens is simply being much like an ostrich with the wrong end in the sand. Iran is responsible for the deaths of Americans, terror against Shiites, terror against Israel and threatens to destroy Israel, and we forget that Iran is internally amazingly intolerant of all other faiths, from the B’hai to Christians, etc.

“Iran is responsible for the deaths of Americans, terror against Shiites, terror against Israel and threatens to destroy Israel, and we forget that Iran is internally amazingly intolerant of all other faiths, from the B’hai to Christians, etc.”
True. And America encouraged the deaths of over 1,000,000 Iranians by tacitly supporting Iraq in its war against Iran. Two wrongs do not make a right, but America is not innocent here. And I won’t even get started on Israel.

Let’s not get absurd. The Iraqis killed Iranians, and the Iranians killed Iraqis Arabs and Kurds, and the Kurds eventually were protected by America, in the never ending war between the Iranian loons and the Sadam’s wacky and evil leadership. The weapons of choice for both sides of course were Russian or Chinese in origin, after the Iranians used up the American made aircraft and tanks gven tothe long dead Shah. If Chaim is more concerned with these people killing each other, or either killing Americans, aiding Hamas or Hezbalah to kill American kids or wanting to destroy Israel, I would suggest that Chaim’s reasoning is less than satisfactory and whatever moral equivalency he finds is not acceptable.