Liz Smith | 06/19/2009 11:20 pm

Liz Smith on Obama's Dogfight

In response to: What should the U.S. do IF the Iranian election was not honest? And if it was, did the outcome set us back?

We should keep supporting President Obama’s status in this dogfight (it’s not our country), and we should be encouraging to the people of Iran. Even Pat Buchanan, arch conservative, believes Obama’s position on Iran is the right one. What does the Conservative Right want? Another war for us with Iran or to worsen relations with a government and a people that may be softening up without the irritation of George Bush. Regardless of who, which side is in power in the near future in Iran, that is who Obama will have to deal and negotiate with. We should stand aside and let Iran speak for itself.

Read more about: Barack Obama, Elections, Iran, Politics

177 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

To use the term "dogfight" when referring to human conflict is an insult to those of us who are working to banish dog fighting from our culture.

It was painful to endure the sordid details of Michael Vick’s dogfighting clubs and we are still fighting to prevent the adoption of Pitbulls from shelters to be used in dog fights. I hope such casual use of the term can be eliminated from our vocabulary and only used when referring to the horrors of dog fights instigated by human beings for their own sick and selfish entertainment.

By WoodyMcBreairty on 06/19/2009 11:46 pm

e-mail alert

Thank you, Woody, for taking a stand regarding the use of the word "dogfight."

I find it tremendously inconsiderate and tactless to read the word when used in any context other than animal-meets-human-monster. To use it in any other realm undermines the potency of the word and its association of vile and dispicable human action against harmless animals.

By AndreaBrandon on 06/20/2009 4:44 am

e-mail alert

Get a grip here Woody…dogfight is word that has come to mean a number of things, an airborne fight bewteen aircraft for one…

However, it is symbolic of what war is…two enitites that are fearful and fighting to defend ones life. And that is just what is happening in Iran.

I do not know anyone that has said that we need to go to "war" with Iran….just who are those people that Liz speaks of? That we, as a free Nation, should speak to the desires of the Iranian people for a fair election…that is not an unreasonable expectation from our White House.

Obama needs to make a moral statement of support for the protestors.

As Bush predicted, once Iraq is seen as a free country, others will follow. The desire for free and fair elections is the cornerstone of Democracy. That is what should be supported.

Liz likes to spin the point….

By KellyInTexas on 06/20/2009 12:48 pm

e-mail alert

Kelly,

While it’s true that dogfight refers to certain aerial combat of years gone by, today the term is largely affiliated with dogs killing for sport and blood.

I feel that Liz clearly used the word in a manner that is offensive to many animal lovers, particularly me. Basically, she was referring to a heated verbal exchange between politicians, which could have been worded just that way rather than use the word dogfight. It was an honest mistake, but one that no animal lover would have made.

By AndreaBrandon on 06/20/2009 9:48 pm

e-mail alert

Nope, Andrea…I can’t go along with this one…I do not believe that it was a mistake, nor should it be considered offensive in the context in which it was used.

We must not get ridiculously sensitive to words. You will be hard pressed to find a bigger animal lover and protector than I. My animals eat and get medical treatment before I do. My life has been a sacrifice for many animals and their welfare.

However, dogs…fight…cats…fight. Had she said, ‘cat fight’ …it would have represented a female exchange. The term ‘dog fight’ as it was used, in no way inferred the blood sport of organized dog fighting.

Dogs do fight on their own….it is a dominance tool, a pecking order in the pack, it is also a naturally existing characteristic of the species.

We must be aware that when we start to edit ‘words’ we start to take our own right to free speech away. It is dangerous, and even more so when stimilated by our heart felt sympathies. It can be the beginning of a hard fall of rights.

I sincerely hope that Liz does not see this as an "honest mistake", but merely a choice of words that dipict the defensive and vicious attitudes that politics can resemble.

By KellyInTexas on 06/21/2009 12:52 pm

e-mail alert

We’ll agree to disagree on this one, Kelly.

Although if I was in a room full of women and was sitting next to someone who had been raped recently, out of senstivity to the raped woman I would certainly not say, "The entire system was financially raped." Certain words evoke deep responses to those of use who are passionate about animals.

By AndreaBrandon on 06/21/2009 3:10 pm

e-mail alert

Fair enough!

I too am deeply passionate about animal welfare, and do understand the horror that the term evokes….

By KellyInTexas on 06/21/2009 3:41 pm

e-mail alert

Thanks, Kelly.

By AndreaBrandon on 06/21/2009 8:46 pm

e-mail alert

Kelly, I agree with you re using the term "dogfight". Liz could never have meant it in any other way besides what you have said. It is probably that some of us who "are older" know that term for what it has meant in the past. It’s true that animal lovers (and I am one too) may not have understood it, but I would never think Liz would make a remark or say a word that would makes us believe she doesn’t like dogs, cats or any of the other animal kingdom species.

By MurphyMac on 06/22/2009 8:20 am

e-mail alert

Hey Murphy!!!

Easy on that "are older" thing…. ;] ( I must have read about that sort of thing in a book or something..)

By KellyInTexas on 06/22/2009 12:31 pm

e-mail alert

Of course, I should have just spoken for myself…the ancient one! :)

By MurphyMac on 06/22/2009 1:29 pm

e-mail alert

Well yeah, I think Vick is a crimal with psycotic tendencies, as is anyone who would torture a living thing.

However, lets not get carried away and dilute the message about animal cruelty. Dogs are perfectly able and willing to fight all by themselves, and frequently viciously…hence the term ‘dogfight’.

Let us carefully choose our ‘fights’ or we will lose our audience.

Thanks

Janniel

By JaniceBertram on 06/20/2009 2:11 pm

e-mail alert

The one thing that American should take away from the scenes in Iran, is the unarmed citizens being shot down in the streets, unable to defend themselves.

The right to bear arms is an important right that we as Americans have. It is essential to protect the citizens from the government.

We stand to lose this right if this President and his policies are allowed free reign by the far left.

By KellyInTexas on 06/21/2009 1:51 pm

e-mail alert

Hi, Kelly,

I’ve always been torn about the right to bear arms in the US and admittedly I’ve leaned towards the "get rid of all guns" mindset because of all the unintentional injuries.

But in the past few days, whenever I read the news about Iran, one question keeps nagging me: How can we sneak guns in to these poor protestors?

Guns DO have their place in a fair fight. That’s my current thinking.

By AndreaBrandon on 06/21/2009 8:52 pm

e-mail alert

Andrea…the right to bear arms is essential to insure that the people will be free of tyranny. Look what has happened when the citizens are without defense….

It is one of our most important rights.

By KellyInTexas on 06/22/2009 1:37 am