When a “liberal” is best called a mental case

Even those opposed to attacking occupied Iran’s nuclear facilities should be astonished by the distance some “liberals” and “leftists” are willing to go to conceal the truth and misinform the public regarding our position and the soundness of our judgment in order to expand their argument with a few more lines. Here’s the latest example, from a website called “working for change”. The author, Geov Parrish, while giving reasons as to why an attack would not be advisable, makes the following statement. I’ll paraphrase:

“The Islamic Republic has popular support... The savage American-installed Shah dictatorship (which was overthrown by the revolution in 1978) is still remembered and despised.”

Regarding the first statement, the author is quite right, for most police states, especially of the Talibanist variety, are indeed popular!

Regarding the second statement, although memories of the “dictatorship” are still quite vivid, they are far from “despiteful”, especially so after the experience of the Islamist regime. Exceptions here are Islamists themselves and anti-Iranian secessionists. Indeed some of the Shah’s harshest critics then are today speaking of him as a great patriot who, much to the chagrin of the people Mr. Parrish represents, was laying the ground for democracy and a prosperous future for his country.

There is something quite repulsive in attributing one’s own views to others, not to say an entire nation. Doubly so when they raise doubts about mental health of the individual who holds them.