Does the cognitive dissonance ever get to be too much? Bush warns Iran he'll "respond firmly" if they interfere in Iraq! We're honestly in full-on crazy mode, people -- we have over 100,000 troops in Iraq and our government threatens to overthrow the Iranian regime every once in a while. Shockingly, the Iranians plan to fight back. Some people wonder why I'm so worried we're going to get into a war with Iran. No doubt after we bomb we'll be doubleplus outraged that Iran has the gall to retaliate.
« Cut the What? How? | Main | Bad Government Made Worse »
Oh, the Irony!
29 Jan 2007 10:05 pm
Comments (30)
Since I defer to Sully on matters of national security and male virility, and since he is now referring to the potency of Jim Webb (who everyone knows to be a crypto-isolationist lib) and his new politics, I naturally can't support military action against Iran.
No word yet if the people are still Hungry for the new politics of Obama.
All I gotta say is, the Democratic party better not freakin drop the ball on this one.
President Bush is raising some pretty fundamental questions about the limits of presidential power. I don't think people want this war. He hasn't sold it. If he succeeds in entangling us, I don't know how people are going to react. Presumably people will not go all jingoistic again. They may just say, we don't want this. If that happens, this gambit will backfire pretty seriously, and McCain will likely be screwed.
Democrats in congress are responsible for advocating the cause of sanity. Hopefully they will remember they are entitled to speak loudly in defense of sanity. The American people want them to. And regardless of what the American people want, they should.
Exactly right, Bush & Cheney need their Gulf of Tonkin incident and they need it soon, or else they won't get their war with Iraq.
A bunch of bullshit about WMD isn't going to do it this time, we need Iranian attacks on our shipping.
The people don't want this war, but enough people in the media do seem to. When enough people in the media want something, it looks like the American people want something - at least it does in DC.
Iran has had their military in Iraq for eons now, both directly and indirectly targeting our troops. The only change is that we are now saying that we'll kill them instead of ignoring them.
Which part of "the enemy" do you find confusing?
James, I find it all to be very fucking confusing as a matter of fact. In case you haven't noticed, Iran is Iraq's next door neighbor.
Which part of "the enemy" do you find confusing?
The part where idiots like you insist on conflating multiple, factions who hate each other as much if not more than they hate us into a single, undifferentiated ---
Ah, why bother.
I could not care less if it is "ironic" or whatever. If they are trying to kill our troops, then we're entitled to war on them. I don't understand what Matthew finds to "full-on crazy" about that. It seems utterly rational to me.
Last time I looked, Iraq's border wasn't an open invitation for Iranian troops to cross, target Iraqis and Americans, and then get a free pass back over.
Tell you what - how about we tell the police in your town that some of the criminals can't be arrested, no matter what - and we also tell people like you that we simply need to understand their needs, and it makes no sense to try and punish them for any violent acts.
Let's try that where you live for awhile, and then see how that goes.
Without a doubt, for the US to bomb Iraq would be pretty crazy. I stand with AIPAC in calling for sanctions, not war:
Just as legislation passed by Congress has slowed Iran’s quest for an atomic bomb, a range of strong economic and diplomatic sanctions imposed by the international community can still stop Iran before it is too late.
I've been expecting ar with Iran for about ten months, and I wrongly predicted it before the election.
It doesn't make military sesne, but for Bush, everything is domestic. He'll be gambling that there will be a rally round the Prez effect, and that the Democrats will not be willing to respond aggressively. The media still are mostly on board, I think.
He will also have lots of tools to deal with civil unrest, whether or not there actually is any.
He really has nothing to lose. There's no way he can salvage his presidency by normal moves. If he behaves sensibly now, h's doomed.
"Tell you what - how about we tell the police in your town that some of the criminals can't be arrested, no matter what - and we also tell people like you that we simply need to understand their needs, and it makes no sense to try and punish them for any violent acts."
Are you talking about the way we expect the rest of the world to behave toward our various criminal actions?
The James Robertsons of the world are a much bigger threat to American security than Iran is. Fortunately there aren't too many of them.
If you really want cognitive dissonance, go check Kausfiles. I know, I know, but he's really outdoing himself now - there's bashing Chuck Hagel for glorying in the credit the media gives him for being a moderate (which you know, Joe Lieberman never did), something about why we can't have card check even though apparently the workers don't want to unionize anyway, and (while giving Andrew Sullivan a deserved hard time for overhyping a video from Iraq that doesn't show what Sully claims) noticing that sometimes cable shows put together panels that aren't really that ideologically diverse.
I'm not sure we can allow these conservatives to enter our threads, throw around a bunch of ambiguous pronouns, and get away unscathed.
Interestingly, the founder-leader of the Spartacist League is named James Robertson. Coincidence? I think not.
The president's story seems to be--by cross-referencing and filling in the blanks--that Iran is giving material aid to the insurgency, who he still claims is Al Qaeda, which is still Wahhabist Sunni and militantly anti-Shia.
So, the argument in favor of war with Iran is that Iran is giving weapons and training to people who want to kill Iranians.
I'm amazed that anybody believes Bush's foreign policy rhetoric.
I'm amazed that anybody believes Bush's foreign policy rhetoric.
I don't think many people do believe it. The pathetic thing is that we're going into this new war without even the plausible semblance of a reason.
I doubt even Bush believes his own rhetoric these days.
Maybe he's just doing double duty until John Bolton's replacement is hired.
Did we hire Bolton's replacment yet, btw?
Cowards like James Robertson are a much bigger threat to America than Iran is.
They were saying the same shit about the Syrians back during the invasion.
If the Iranians are supplying some Iraqis, in a fashion similar to the way the North Vietmanese were supplying fighters (and sometimes, manpower!) in the South, where are the manpads/SAMs? Where are the ATG's? Etc. Etc.
m, if they are supplying them, it's a pretty lame effort
"Which part of "the enemy" do you find confusing?"
The part where we installed Iran's close allies as the new "democratic" government of Iraq (at a cost of 3000 Americans and 600,000 Iraqis dead, not to mention $1.2 trillion). The insurgencies in Iraq (the Sunnis, the Sadrists) are distinguished by their opposition to Iran. Nevertheless, Iran is somehow the "enemy," interfering in Iraq! Thank goodness for people like James Robertson, who have the moral clarity to find that this all makes sense . . .
At this point the Iranians have't done diddly squat in Iraq - even if you believe the Administration claims. Nothing compared to what they could do. And I'd say that given the Administration track record and the inherent unlikelihood of Iranian government aid to a bunch of militant Sunnis, there's no reason to believe them. I'm sure that they can come up with some line of bullshit, but then I'm also sure that they could and would implicate Andorrra if it became clear that's what the boss wanted.
For example. we have not seen late-model anti-tank rockets in Iraq, the type that Hezbollah used in the latest dustup. I guarantee you that we'd notice. We haven't seen late-model anti-aircraft missiles. We haven't seen high-grade, high-power sniper rifles. We see almost no sign that anyone opposing us has had high-quality professional training - although the Iranians may not be up to that anyhow, and the Iraqis would probably be lousy pupils.
Mostr of the money going to anti-American Sunni guerrillas reputedly comes from localsources (smuggling, kidnapping, etc)
or from Saudis or the UAE: it doesn't add up to one thousandth of what we're spending.
So why the hell are we talking about Iran?
You get one guess.
Dick Cheney is now Ahmadinejad's best friend. How ironic is that?
www.minor-ripper.blogspot.com
"James Robertson" and "Al" misunderstand our concerns about a war on Iran. They think that once we make a decision to attack Iran Unser Will will carry us to victory.
We're actually worried that starting and losing another war, or being embroiled for a decade in it will 1) Reveal the vulnerability of our army in Iraq, at a cost of American and Iraqi lives 2) Bring us bankruptcy and ruin. Whether Iran is "meddling" is a secondary question, and really only serves as a casus belli, as those WMD were before the Iraq did. I speak for myself, but I was indifferent to whether Iraq had WMD, and am indifferent to whether those serial numbers on the IEDs are legit, because the course of action the administration is intent on is so evidently self-destructive. Kind of like the invasion of Iraq, you dumbfucks, "Al" and "James Robertson".
I'm going to extrapolate from their juvenile fantasizing about war that these two are enlistment age (one might even guess they're too young, with their pre-sexual pyromaniac tendencies).
Anyway, for the rest of you, let me underscore: the "meddling" argument is analogous to the Iraqi WMD.
I'm taking wagers on the U.S. attacking Iran by the time Bush leaves office. Easy money. It's laughable people actually think there's a chance it will happen.
The difference by the way, for the slow, is that the U.S. is interested in a non-sectarian government. While Iran wants "strategic depth" and is not interested in a non-sectarian government.
The difference by the way, for the slow, is that the U.S. is interested in a non-sectarian government.
Also: a pony.
Well Bush didn't want direct elections (and I remember the peaceniks crying Imperialism, etc.) but Sistani forced them on him. What did elections give us? A Shia-led coalition which depends on the radical anti-American Sadrist vote to keep them in power. Oh yeah, the Sadrists like to slaughter Sunni civilians also, something blamed on Bush because he invaded Iraq. And he invaded b/c A) the oil companies give generaous campaign donations B) Israel/NeoCon cabal forced him to C) Yankee Imperialists want permanent bases in the Middle East etc. etc. etc.
Compare Lebanon.
Comments closed February 12, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
See, all this is reflective of the fact that they know now that they'll never get a proper initiation of war with Iran, and they just need to start it anyway, before they get kicked out of office.
Posted by dj moonbat | January 29, 2007 10:22 PM