Norman Podhoretz, "The Case for Bombing Iran." I need to run out for a bit and don't quite have the time to get my thoughts on this travesty together. Please have at it.
« A Dilemma | Main | Rudy: Still Likely to Fail »
Commenters: Go
15 May 2007 02:22 pm
Comments (85)
Shorter Podhoretz: Ahmadinejad is the next Hitler, this time with a nuclear bomb.
The constant cry we-are-being-humiliated makes J-Pod sound like a Habsburg warmonger in 1914.
Here's a hole. NPod wrote
Ahmadinejad ... would certainly be able to unleash a wave of nuclear terror against us. If he did, he would in all likelihood act through proxies, for whom he would ... disclaim any responsibility ... . At the same time, the opponents of retaliation and other antiwar forces would rush to point out that there was good reason to accept this disclaimer ...
If you agree that the US Government, swayed by anti-war peaceniks, would do nothing in the face of an Iranian nuclear terrorism campaign on American soil, then NPod has made a convincing argument.
But to me, this argument is stupider than anything NPod's son JPod, or any other Pod-person, has ever written. Which is no mean feat.
"Is It 1938 Again?"
No.
This has been an installment of simple answers to simple questions.
Oops. It's easy to get these Pods mixed up.
Um, I think the extent to which this is reality-based is shown by the dicussion of Finland during the Cold War--apparently it was under the Soviet yoke, to an extent (judging from the rhetoric) that made it the equal of (say) East Germany (NP doesn't actually say this, but I'm not sure what else to conclude from his prose).
Not the universe I lived in!
Yikes--I just read through past the first few paragraphs. Oddly, Podhoretz never actually presents the arguement for bombing Iran, discussing pros and cons and such. Instead, he presents a longish and unhinged harangue about the "Islamization" of the West, as evidenced in the fact that the UK used "soft power" to regain its hostaged soldiers, instead of kicking some fucking ass like Ronald Reagan would have.
His scenario for Iranian nuclear blackmail is something like, "if Britain won't go to war over 15 soldiers who they in fact could rescue without a foolhardy rush to war, imagine how cowed the West will be when faced with nuclear attack on it own people!!!1!"
It's always been pretty amazing to me that hawks like Podhoretz don't feel obligated to argue the actual merits of going to war, and feel satisfied simply suggesting that the West will peacably surrender to terrorists unless we commence the bombing in 5 minutes, so to speak.
We are already at war with Iran!! So bombing them is no big deal.
Nothing new there.
Reading that was like being forced to watch Hee Haw reruns.
Ben:
Who needs meritorious reasons for doing something when it's WWIV?
Shorter Podhoretz: Ahmadinejad is the next Hitler and Stalin wrapped up into one.
I'll charitably call this muddy thinking. But really, this stuff is psychotic. What is it that fuels these people's need to feel they are at the forefront of humanity's greatest struggle, facts and reality be damned? The key aspect being the need to feel important and the greater the threat the greater the importance so the threat must be massive, on the scale of decades long world war (nevermind that sitting on your ass in front of a computer doesn't exactly make you a war hero).
Is it just me or this kind of behavior indicitave of a psychosis?
Ben, stop that casuistry this instance!
It is clear that you know absolutely nothing about islamic terrorism or the theology it is based upon. Islamist terror groups only differ in immediate objectives*, they are unified in the ultimate goal of global islamification via force. As figures from bin laden, nasrallah to ayotollah khomeni have all told everybody on numerous occasions though they strain not to listen.
*there is disagreement between the disperate strands of jihadism as to what the global caliphate will look like. This hardly matters from our point of view.
I'm always amazed at the number of neo-cons, Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, and other worshippers of the Cult of Ron who forget just how quickly Ron changed his mind about Lebanon and Beirut. The blood of the wounded didn't even get a chance to dry before he pulled the rest of them out.
And he didn't honor the dead on their return either.
The Islamist inverse of Pimp Hand Strikes:
English-speaking militaries and corporations differ in immediate objectives, but they are unified in the ultimate goal of global democratic capitalism spread throughout the world via force.
-----
Of course, it seems rather Freshman 101-ish to point out that Islamists are not a monolith; and yet, here we are.
Isn't it ironic, don't you think?
It's like bombing more countries cause your first war sucked,
It's a conservative wishing the government would spend big bucks
I'm wishing more pundits had Jerry Falwell's luck
And who would have thought ... it figures.
Attached is a link to an article in todays' New York Times, hardly a Zionist mouthpiece, indicating that Iran has made great strides toward a nuclear capability. The time for action is nigh, probably this summer. Acquisition of a nuclear capability by Iran will completely gut the US position in the Middle East and is absolutely unacceptable. The proposed bombing campaign must not be timid, like Israels' half assed bombing campaign in Lebanon last summer. It must be overwhelming with no regard for collateral damage if it is to accomplish its goals. There should be no weapon whose use is to be taken off the table. As for Mr. Reality Man, Mr. otto, and Mr. Ed Marshall, all of whom will take issue with this proposal, I say, tough noogies.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/world/middleeast/15iran.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
"if Britain won't go to war over 15 soldiers who they in fact could rescue without a foolhardy rush to war, imagine how cowed the West will be when faced with nuclear attack on its own people!!!!"
So we're pulling 4000 troops away from the central front on the War on Islamofascism to look for three soldiers in a hostile country where the populace hates us and won't tell us shit.
Whatever else you might think, and there is plenty there to wonder about, it does not indicate that we're "cowed."
they are unified in the ultimate goal of global islamification via force
This is a comforting thought, because if our enemies are monolithic and unified, it is easy to seek them out and destroy them in one fell swoop.
Of course, the world is not like this. The term "Islamofascism" tries to make it so, but it's all rhetorical flim flam. I don't feel obligated to go into the actual difference betwen Islamic groups to defend my point, but you would do well to look into the Sunii branch (al-Qaeda is a member) and the Shii branch (the Iranian mullahs are members) of Islam and see for yourself how unified they are in the ultimate goal of global islamification via force.
But why single out England? If anything, much more, and worse, has been going on in other European countries, including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Denmark, and the Netherlands. All of these countries have large and growing Muslim populations demanding that their religious values and sensibilities be accommodated at the expense of the traditional values of the West, and even in some instances of the law. Yet rather than insisting that, like all immigrant groups before them, they assimilate to Western norms, almost all European politicians have been cravenly giving in to the Muslims’ outrageous demands.Which France is he talking about?
The centerpiece of Podhoretz's "argument" seems to be that it's a given that if Iran gets the bomb, "we could wake up one morning to find that Iran is holding Berlin, Paris or London hostage to whatever its demands are then.”
I gotta say, this is paranoid crap at the Hollywood-movie level. Any child of ten could come up with the obvious counterargument, which is that *we have nukes too* and such a hypothetical attack would be unlikely to go uncountered.
He goes on to contend that Iran's military response to a US attack--to quote directly, "Iran would retaliate by increasing the trouble it is already making for us in Iraq. It would attack Israel with missiles armed with non-nuclear warheads but possibly containing biological and/or chemical weapons. There would be a vast increase in the price of oil, with catastrophic consequences for every economy in the world, very much including our own--" couldn't possibly be as bad as the consequences of allowing Iran to develop nukes. Really? You're willing to swap a full-out Iranian attack on Israel for (maybe) setting the Iranian nuclear program back a few years, Norman?
These are just two point in a four-page article, but every single point he raises is equally on-its-face stupid. In a just world, Podhoretz's reading public would be the fifteen subscribers to his photocopied newsletter.
About halfway into the first paragraph of the article I started getting spontaneous mental images of Sgt. Rock comics. I couldn't make it much further, though I tried to skim the rest to see if there was an actual argument for bombing Iran anywhere in there.
But if that is what he has in mind, why is he spending all this time doing the diplomatic dance and wasting so much energy on getting the Russians and the Chinese to sign on to sanctions? The reason, I suspect, is that—to borrow a phrase from Robert Kagan—he has been “giving futility its chance.” Not that this is necessarily a cynical ploy. For it may well be that he has entertained the remote possibility of a diplomatic solution under which Iran would follow the example of Libya in voluntarily giving up its nuclear program. Besides, once having played out the diplomatic string, and thereby having demonstrated that to him force is truly a last resort, Bush would be in a stronger political position to endorse John McCain’s formula that the only thing worse than bombing Iran would be allowing Iran to build a nuclear bomb—and not just to endorse that assessment, but to act on it.
I just thought that was interesting because even on the Norman Podhoretz planet of insanity, it still makes sense to negotiate as much as possible with Iran. Trying to negotiate and failing actually leaves you in a stronger position. Of course, success leaves you in a stronger position too. His brain is clearly capable of comprehending that fact, but that just means his ego defense mechanisms are working overtime to maintain the new cognitive dissonance: the Bush's slightly softer diplomacy in his second term represents anything other than the failure of his first term.
This line was also cute: "They also dismiss those who think otherwise as neoconservative alarmists trying to drag this country into another senseless war that is in the interest not of the United States but only of Israel." Yeah, sure, bombing Iran would be great for Israel. Just like bombing Lebanon.
I made it a page and a half. The most obvious flaw, to me, is the conflation of all muslims into some sort of orchestrated world-wide plot.
At one point he asks the reader to just think of the concessions Muslim immigrants could wring from European governments once Iran has nuclear weapons! Huh?
"They also dismiss those who think otherwise as neoconservative alarmists trying to drag this country into another senseless war that is in the interest not of the United States but only of Israel."
I wish someone would ask him if he sees a difference between anything being good or bad for Israel and being good or bad for the United States because in my experience neoconservatives don't believe there is one.
Podhoretz: "CIA estimates have so often been wrong that they are hardly more credible than the boasts of Ahmadinejad."
This from a neocon advocate of the current war. Like everything else from these bloodthirsty clowns, it would be hilarious if it weren't for all the dead bodies.
To me, the most ridiculous assumption (of many) his premise rests on is that Iran is led by irrational, basically suicidal leadership. And given that Podhoretz surely understands the Iranian leadership to some extent, that means he's talking about dozens of people spread across the religious, military and political spectrum this policy would have to get by.
Without suicidal leadership, Iran does not invite nuclear retaliation to get in a good shot on Israel, and the scary scenarios fall apart. And as we come up to the 7th inning stretch its still:
Warmongery Rhetoric 5
Intellectual Honesty 2
Without suicidal leadership, Iran does not invite nuclear retaliation to get in a good shot on Israel, and the scary scenarios fall apart.
It works less the crazier and religious the government is, no Muslim is going to nuke Palestine and the more religious you are the more likely you are to find the idea abhorent.
Wouldn't it be better for the national interest if the Air Force bombed the offices of Commentary?
Quick show of hands: How many of your read the whole column before commenting on it?
In general, how many of you read a column Matt links to if he comments about it negatively before you venture into the echo chamber?
Fred,
How many hands did you count?
For the record, Fred, I read the entire loathsome screed.
"How many of your read the whole column before commenting on it? "
Admittedly, I did not. I read it from beginning to end, but some paragraphs started out like old, tasteless jokes I had just heard too often, so I skipped to the next one. There was nothing new, logical or even sensible there.
By all accounts, the Iranian nuclear facilities are all in bunkers designed to withstand all but nuclear armed penetrators. Bombing Iran would not hinder their nuclear pursuits significantly. It would be a violent act of futility. It would fatally compromise any other pathway to a non-nuclear future for Iran, other than invasion. Which, of course, brings up the real reason for bombing Iran - to make it necessary to invade and occupy Iran.
Yes, I read the whole thing.
Fred -- How exactly do you intend to count 'hands'?
Jamaes Gary:
The centerpiece of Podhoretz's "argument" seems to be that it's a given that if Iran gets the bomb, "we could wake up one morning to find that Iran is holding Berlin, Paris or London hostage to whatever its demands are then.” ... I gotta say, this is paranoid crap at the Hollywood-movie level. Any child of ten could come up with the obvious counterargument, which is that *we have nukes too* and such a hypothetical attack would be unlikely to go uncountered.
But the real genius of it is because Iran would strike us with nukes through a proxy, we wouldn't know it was them what done it. But we would know, because Men Who Can Think Clearly About Islamofascism always know unerringly when another nation is attacking us, so NPod would lead us to Iran, which we should attack without any evidence other than NPod's certainty, unless we are too spineless and weak and collapse in a heap in the corner muttering girlishly about "no evidence" and "wait until the facts are in" while the Islamofascists then sweep into Washington DC.
See?
Re SLC'c comment "New York Times, hardly a Zionist mouthpiece "
----------
1) Is that the newspaper with star reporter Judith Miller -- the one who provoked the invasion of Iraq (and the deaths of 3000+ US soldiers) by telling us all those scary ghost stories about the WMDS Saddam was building?
2) Edward Said warned us about Judith Miller and the New York Times back in 1996 --see http://www.thenation.com/doc/19960812/said.
Two short excerpts:
--------
"Maddeningly, she informs us of everyone's religion -- such and so is Christian, or Muslim Sunni, Muslim Shiite, etc. Even so, she is not always accurate, managing to produce some howlers....And then there is her bad faith in not identifying her own religious background or political predilections. Are we meant to assume that her religion (which I don't think is Islam or Hinduism) is irrelevant? "
-------------
"Miller disdains facts; she prefers quoting interminable talk as a way of turning Arabs into deserving victims of Israeli terror and U.S. support of it. She perfectly exemplifies The New York Times's current Middle East coverage, now at its lowest ebb. "
------
3) Plus, of course, who can forget rabid Zionist Abe Rosenthal -- the Executive Editor who ruled with an iron fist at the Times for decades? Is it possible that he put his thumb on the scales from time to time when publishing stories on the Middle East and Israel-Arab conflicts?
Sure, Fred, I commented before reading the whole thing, and if you look at the paragraph I selected, you'll note it did not require the full article to be read before revealing itself to be ridiculous. I got as far as that paragraph, then commented.
Then I finished. The column did not, little to my surprise, improve. It actually got worse, right about the time that it directly confirms Some Guy's comment. That is, the point where Podhoretz quotes an "expert" on the modern Islamic world who makes the following points within one paragraph:
1. MAD stopped the Soviets because they were rational.
2. MAD would not stop the Iranian government because it is not rational.
3. The way we know this is the Iranian government has no qualms about killing its own citizens.
The implication, of course, is that the Soviets did display such qualms. I actually can't believe someone wrote that paragraph. I don't mean that in the way we usually say "I can't believe" something to mean it's kind of bizarre. I mean I find it literally incomprehensible. I see it, I read it, yet I do not comprehend that it is reality.
Better hacks please!
Question: Does any competent person* even know how much real power Ahmadinejad has in the Iranian government, or for that matter, what factions exist in Iranian society, and what the balance of power between them is?
I hear alarmists screaming all the time about Iran's intentions, but they never seem very interested in the genuine structure of Iranian society and government. As an example of how fucked-up this kind of reasoning can be, every so often I look in Russian opinion journals (the English language versions), and they have a real penchant for citing Pat Buchanan as a representative of mainstream American political thinking.
* This of course excludes Podhoretz and the rest of the neo-con fuckwits, who deserve nothing better than a derisive laugh and a lengthy jail term.
"Fred -- How exactly do you intend to count 'hands'?"
I intend to use the honor system. So far I count two -- you and Daddy Love -- who claim to have read the whole article.
you know, if he were not so manifestly moronic, I would suspect "pimp hand strikes out" of having said something quite witty here:
"Ben, stop that casuistry this instance!"
good joke on casuistry as the examination of detailed instances.
as it is, seems more likely the poor wretch just can't spell "instant".
Fred, I don't think one needs to read the entire bloody thing to understand the argument. I've heard it all before and life is too short. There are other things to do. It's not like on page 4 he's suddenly going to say "remember that crazy stuff I was spouting a few graphs ago? Just kidding!"
By the way, as Matt pointed out once before, Iran's desire to (as NPod put it) "dominate the greater Middle East" is nothing more sinister than the normal wish of one of the largest and historically most dominant nations in the region. Go figure they'd want to. Huh.
So far I count two -- you and Daddy Love -- who claim to have read the whole article
Even though 4 posters above say they read the whole article--but you probably didn't read their whole posts before saying that.
For the record, I read the whole thing, too, to my regret. The ravings of a bloodtrhirsty madman--beyond rational debate.
Rea,
In fairness to Fred, my first comment may have been unclear. He may not have realized that when I said I had read the entire "loathsome screed," I meant that I had read the entire article by Norman Podhoretz to which Matthew Yglesias linked in the post at the top of this thread.
Re Don Williams
1. Since Rosenthal left the Times, it has become increasingly pro Arab and anti-Israel in its editorial pages. It current crop of morons includes Nicholas Kristof and Tom Friedman, both of whom are anti-Israel.
2. Edward Said? Mr. Williams has quoted the biggest liar on two continents, a man who claimed falsely that he was a native of Jerusalem. He was no more a native of Jerusalem then was Yasir Arafat.
3. It's my understanding that Judith Miller no longer works for the Times.
The funnier part (to me) is, I never said I read the whole article, didn't read the whole article, and may not bother to finish reading it.
Re SLC's comment "Edward Said? Mr. Williams has quoted the biggest liar on two continents,"
---------
Actually, if I was going to nominate the "biggest liar on two continents", I would look among all those neocon supporters of the Israel Lobby who have sent 3000+ US soldiers to their deaths chasing nonexistent WMDs.
Actually, Edward Said was very restrainted. He didn't even bring up the religious/ethnic background of the family which has owned the New York Times for a century.
As I've noted before, our national elites united around the idea of invading Iraq --some for the Oil , some for Israel, and some for the idea that the best way to inflate the Defense budget --and to sell F16s in the Middle East -- is to start a nice brisk war. Having reached a decision, running a con game on the other 299,992,000 of us was a no-brainer.
Now , of course, we have a falling out between Big Oil -- which wants to set up a puppet government in Iraq to protect their oil investments -- and the Israel Lobby -- which rather likes the idea of an Iraq fractured for decades by civil war and which needs to pull our children out of Iraq so that it can send them to die in Iran.
May all those bright, clever whores scream in hell for all eternity.
[i]Question: Does any competent person* even know how much real power Ahmadinejad has in the Iranian government, or for that matter, what factions exist in Iranian society, and what the balance of power between them is?[/i]
Exactly......power in Iran is greatly diversified. A nuclear strike would have to be approved by mullahs, political elites, and military - would have to satisfy the disparate goals of these three groups. Hard to imagine that being the case - too many people in Iran have too much to lose from giant strike. Its not off the table, just very improbable.
This is the difference between Iran and a true rogue like North Korea (or previously, Iraq). Decision making in those countries is limited to tiny cliques, and can be more susceptible to poor perspective or manipulation.
Sorry, Matt, gotta do it:
We're in ur commentz, writin ur postz 4 U.
Im upping the ante for the pro-war gang.
We are not at war with "Terror"
We are not at War with "Extremism"
We are not at war with "Radical Islam"
We are at war wtih......
IslamoNaziMussoliniCommuStalinSatanism.
someone invent a better one, if you can.
Re Don Williams (aka David Duke)
1. Edward Said stated he was a native of Jerusalem. This has been shown to be a bald faced lie.
2. Mr. Williams takes a shot at the ethnicity of the ownership of the New York Times (yes, they are at least nominally Jewish). Surprisingly enough, however, the most consistent supporter of the State of Israel among American newspapers is the Wall Street Journal, which is manifestly not owned by that ethnic group. In the past, other papers, also not owned by that ethnic group who were more consistent supporters of Israel then the Times included the Los Angeles Times, under the Chandlers and the Miami Herald, under the Knights.
3. Mr. Williams' statement "and the Israel Lobby -- which rather likes the idea of an Iraq fractured for decades by civil war and which needs to pull our children out of Iraq so that it can send them to die in Iran." is right out of the pages of Der Sturmer, the Nazi propaganda rag of the 1930s. Next I suspect that Mr. Williams will claim that Jews drink the blood of Christian children.
Wow! No one sees the elephant in the room - Pakistan! This state is very close to being taken over by religious fanatics who then would command nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Who knows who they would launch against first - India or Israel.
Compared to the crazies in Iran the Pak ones scare the hell out of me.
Why not just declare the War on Everything Bad (WEB). Once we launch the WEB, we will never have to declare another war.
Bernard Lewis? Seriously?
"Edward Said stated he was a native of Jerusalem. This has been shown to be a bald faced lie."
Ever told a lie, SLC?
If you say "no," that counts.
SLC, like a lot of neo-cons, has a problem with projection. He assumes that Iran is just as eager to massacre innocent Israeli civilians as he is to massacre innocent Iranian civilians. But what if Iranian leadership is actually more humane and less barbaric than the SLCs of the world? It's possible!
Re Hodge
1. Relative to Edward Said, he also opposed the Oslo accords because they, at least theoretically, provided recognition of Israel by the PLO. The late and unlamented Prof. Said declaimed until his dying breath that the State of Israel was illegitimate and that a two state solution was unacceptable.
2. In response to the question raised by Mr. Hodge, I have to admit to having prevaricated a time or two. However, I'm not a world renown scholar (not my opinion) with a prestigious chair at a preeminent university like Columbia.
Anyone who can't look at Commentary's nasty little smear job on Said and understand the structural problems with it is hopelessly stupid.
SLC, I think can which is why he used the word "native" which makes him lying right here and right now.
Edward Said: Born 1935 in Jerusalem. Left in 1947 at age 12. Very much a person of western culture as his education in the US testifies to. One could say his was late coming to his identification as a Palestinian, but a bald faced lie? This was from a quick search on the intertubes. I know there is a lot of bad information out there -- but.
I joke that I am an honorary Oregonian because my grandfather was born there, my great great grand arrived there in 1852 via wagon train, my late father in law was born there and my daughter lives there.
Just read about past flame wars between folks with initials SLC and other SXX's and how hard it was to keep track of who was who. Pick a handle, not initials, and stick to it.
Re SLC's comment "Mr. Williams' statement "and the Israel Lobby -- which rather likes the idea of an Iraq fractured for decades by civil war and which needs to pull our children out of Iraq so that it can send them to die in Iran." is right out of the pages of Der Sturmer, the Nazi propaganda rag of the 1930s. Next I suspect that Mr. Williams will claim that Jews drink the blood of Christian children. "
-------------
1) Well, not Jews but certainly the Neocons who got us into an unnecessary war in Iraq have drunk the blood of 3000+ of our sons.
Not all of whom are Christian. I'm sure there are a few grieving Jewish parents in Brooklyn who have lost sons in Iraq. I do not share the Neocon prejudice that no Jew would be so stupid as to serve in the military.
2) As for the Israel Lobby's plans for Iran, I did not get that out of Der Sturmer -- I got it out of Haa'retz. Specifically, from their recent interview with Haim Saban.
Haim Saban, of course, is the Israeli billionaire who became rich from deals with Rupert Murdoch , of Fox News. One of things Haim did with his money was create the "Saban Center for Middle East Policy" at the Brookings Institute. Back in 2002, Haim's "Director of Research" Kenneth Pollack put out a best selling book "The Threatening Storm" telling us that Saddam Hussein was in a race to develop a nuclear weapon and was close to success. In case we didn't hear him the first time, Mr Pollack and Marty Indyk of the Saban Center repeated their ghost stories in a LA Times Op Ed.
3) Haim was the Democratic Party's biggest campaign donor in 2000-2002 --kicking in over $15 million. Which may explain why Hillary Clinton and other Democratic leaders ignored Senator Bob Graham when Graham said he had seen no evidence that Saddam was an imminent threat. Graham was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
4) So what are Haim's current plans for us? Well , in the Haaretz article Haim says that he thinks every Jew -- which presumably includes every American Jew -- should serve in Israel's military.
Haim then goes on to note his alarm over Iran and the urgent need to do something. He notes .. well, let Haim tell you in his own words. From
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798292.html
"[Saban] When I see Ahmadinejad, I see Hitler. They speak the same language. His motivation is also clear: the return of the Mahdi is a supreme goal. And for a religious person of deep self-persuasion, that supreme goal is worth the liquidation of five and a half million Jews. We cannot allow ourselves that. Nuclear weapons in the hands of a religious leadership that is convinced that the annihilation of Israel will bring about the emergence of a new Muslim caliphate? Israel cannot allow that. This is no game. It's truly an existential danger."
....
[Haaretz] And is America capable of electing a liberal woman?
"[Saban] Yes. And she's[Hillary Clinton's] not all that liberal, either. When it comes to security, she has taken a very centrist position."
[Haaretz] Will she be good for Israel?
"[Saban] I think so. Look, President Bush is very one-sidedly pro-Israel. But look at the results of his policy. They were not beneficial for Israel. We are in a major mess. Look at the facts on the ground. Bush is a massive failure. Hillary will be more balanced than Bush. She will try to create credibility among the Arabs in order to mediate between them and us. We will get nowhere with them in direct negotiations. Only with billions, with pressure."
[Haaretz] Will President Hillary Clinton be capable of making tough decisions on Iran?
"[Saban] Her policy will be different. She believes, and I agree, that it's a mistake to conduct negotiations through the European envoys. As I told you about Hamas, we have to talk with everyone, including Ahmadinejad. Hillary Clinton intends to engage with Iran in order to try to find a political solution that will ensure a non-nuclear Iran."
[Haaretz] And if she can't reach a political solution?
"[Saban] I don't think she knows, and I certainly don't know, and even if I knew I wouldn't tell you, with all due respect."
[Haaretz] Do you still feel, as you once did, that America's attitude toward Israel is liable to deteriorate?
"[Saban] At the moment there is no sign of a crisis. But we must not be complacent. The two pillars of the state are the Israel Defense Forces and the U.S., Dimona [the site of Israel's nuclear reactor] and Washington. We must do all we can to maintain the alliance with America. A major crisis at the wrong time could be a disaster, a disaster."
[Haaretz] Do you feel that as an Israeli-American of influence your mission is to prevent that crisis?
"[Saban] You said it."
5) For the Naive, Haim Saban has been holding very expensive fund raisers for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
Let me see if I follow NPod's twisted logic...
If we don't bomb Iran they will develop the bomb, wipe out Israel, conquer and subjufgate the whole ME, frighten Europe (including Russia) into appeasing submission thus enabling Iran therefore eroding the U.S.'s hard power in the world. All of which would end up making Iran the preeminent global superpower.
WOW!!!! I want some of the drugs he's taking...it has to be some good hallucinogenic shit. I dunno maybe he is eating 'shrooms, lol.
He is so full of shit it is coming out of his ears (and oozing out all over his keyboard). There is nothing more pathetic then a neocon counting the days to his/her marginalization. How can anyone with any intelligence take any of NPod's paranoid/delusional rantings seriously?
Re mq
Mr. mqs' identification of me as a neocon is seriously in error. On the contrary, I am a life long liberal Democrat, currently supporting John Edwards as the best hope of beating the Rethuglicans in 2008. Apparently, people like Mr. mq consider that being anti-Israel is a litmus test for inclusion in the lists of liberal Democrats, much like being anti-choice is a litmus test for inclusion in the lists of conservative Rethuglicans. Sorry to disappoint Mr. mq.
Re Don Williams
1. Funnily enough, I agree with Mr. Williams that the influence of the neocons has been pernicious. In fact, his boy Saben also appears to agree with this assessment, based on his disdain for Dubya. I personally have no respect for Wolfowitz, Pearl, Feith and their ilk.
2. As for the interview with Mr. Saben, I don't quite see what point Mr. Williams is trying to make. Mr. Saben is concerned about Iran obtaining a nuclear capability. Anybody with half a brain, looking at the trash talk that comes out of the mouth of Mr. Amadinejad should be concerned. The entire strategic position of the US in the Middle East will be undermined if Iran acquires a nuclear capability. In fact, the effect on the neighboring Arab countries will be greater then the effect on Israel, which, unlike the former, has a substantial nuclear capability and anti-missile capability which might deter an Iranian attack (but I wouldn't like to bet the ranch on it).
3. As for all Jews serving in the Israeli military, that's just nuts. They should serve in the military forces of the countries they reside in, unless they are planning to relocate to Israel, in which case they will be drafted to serve in the IDF.
4. Mr. Williams points out that Saben is supporting Hillary Clinton. Since I'm not, I don't see the relevance of it. I think Ms. Clinton is a sure loser, based on her high negatives brought on the relentless attacks of the fascist right. Actually, I still think that the Democrats strongest candidate would be Mark Warner, based on history which shows that the only two Democratic candidates to win in the last 30+ years were Southern governors.
Wow! No one sees the elephant in the room - Pakistan! This state is very close to being taken over by religious fanatics who then would command nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Who knows who they would launch against first - India or Israel.
Compared to the crazies in Iran the Pak ones scare the hell out of me.
Well, I'm sure some people see it. Actually, I've long thought that all the hysteria* about an Iranian nuclear weapon has been totally disingenuous or uninformed, given the Pakistani bomb, and the always shaky state of Pakistan itself. Not even Cheney or Feith or Wolfowitz are so fucked in the head that they'd proposed an attack on a Pakistan Islamic state (I think).
I've always been convinced that their reliance of the deliberately nebulous term "WMD" (as opposed to, say, "nuclear weapon") was essential to the administration's pre-war disinfo operation. Downplaying or ignoring the already existing Pakistani nuclear weapons program is a similar deliberate obfuscation. Yet as far as I know, the only national-level Dem who's pointed out that Iran is unlikely to ever be more of a threat than Pakistan is now is former Senator Gravel. I'd really like to see such clear and candid statements from the other Dem contenders.
* Darling Andy Sullivan seems to go into his hysterical teenage girl mode at the mere mention of Ahmadinejad. I've yet to see any evidence that Andy is especially knowledgable about the man or his country. But Sullivan's never been one to let piddling facts get in the way of an emotional spasm. That's why he makes the big bucks, eh?
Haim Saban made his billions "doing deals with Rupert Murdoch of Fox News"? That's one way to put it, though I don't know what Saban has to do with Fox News. As far as I know, the bulk of his fortune came from selling a shitty children's TV show that became a mega hit (Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers).
Anyhow, let me some up what I've learned from this comment thread so far:
1) We shouldn't worry about Iran getting nukes because Pakistan already has them.
2) There are multiple power centers in the Iranian government; therefore, there are fail safes against a millennialist loon launching a nuclear first strike, because for Iran to do anything stupid, all the power centers (mullahs, regular military, "reformers", Revolutionary Guards, etc.) need to be in agreement first.
3) Bombing Iranian nuke sites would never slow down Iran's nuke program because the Iranians have made all their sites bomb proof.
4) Bombing Iran under any circumstances is necessarily a stupid idea because NPod is in favor of it; we must oppose anything the Neocons say, because they are always wrong (although even broken watch is right twice a day).
SLC
I thought my points were fairly clear:
1)Bush/Cheney/Karl Rove know that a large portion of Democratic finances come from a few billionaires who are strong supporters of Israel. They know that if they can entice billionaires like Haim Saban over to the Republican Party, then the Democrats are doomed.
After all, Bush barely won the 2000 election. It's no wonder that he immediately rushed to pander to the Israel Lobby.
First, Bush sold Ariel Sharon 52 F16s in June 2001 right after Sharon had used F16s to bomb the Palestinians. The Al Qaeda order to execute the Sept 11 attack was issued in July 2001 and Bin Laden justified the Sept 11 attack in an Nov 2001 interview by noting the US sale of advanced weapons to Israel and Israel's use of those weapons to kill Palestinians.
Second, Bush moved to destroy Israel's enemy Saddam Hussein --from day 1 of his administration. Look at Richard Clark's statements.
2) Saban appreciated Bush's pandering. While he gave the Democrats almost $15 million in 2000-2002, he cut off the pipeline in 2004. He only gave around $80,000 and I think around $4000 of that went to George Bush, in case the Democrats didn't get the message.
3) George Bush lied us into Iraq, but he had a lot of help from a lot of alleged liberals. People like Haim Saban's "Director of Research" Kenneth Pollack and Marty Indyk. Plus the NY Times -- the paper of Zionist Abe Rosenthal.
4) But now Haim has a problem. He needs for the US military to take out a serious threat to Israel -- Iran.
But, as he noted to Haa'retz, his shabbos goy Bush has NO political capital -- is useless. Pigs will fly before the American people will let Bush lead them into another war. Bush can't open his mouth without half the country yelling "liar!"
5) So the solution is to get another shabbos goy who will use the US military to deal with Iran -- Hillary Clinton.
6) Haim seems to think that Hillary is a far better investment than you do. He is working strongly to raise $millions to coronate her.
According to this Fortune article, he has already raised $1 Million -- the most of any supporter.
See http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/14/100009182/index.htm?section=money_mostpopular
Haim seems to know how to buy politicans. Read the Haaretz article and see how he gloats over having President Bill Clinton fetch soda water for him in the White House.
7) But maybe you are smarter than Haim. So how many $Billions have you made?
PS Everyone who talks about Haim Saban's recent purchase of Spanish televison Univision looks at it from a BUSINESS viewpoint.
But if you want "your" presidential candidate to grab the electoral votes of California, Texas, and Florida, then a Spanish network broadcasting directly to Hispanic swing voters is ..well, priceless.
My favorite part so far:
Those who advocate this course tell us that the “mullocracy” is very unpopular, especially with young people, who make up a majority of Iran’s population. They tell us that these young people would like nothing better than to get rid of the oppressive and repressive and corrupt regime under which they now live and to replace it with a democratic system. And they tell us, finally, that if Iran were so transformed, we would have nothing to fear from it even if it were to acquire nuclear weapons.
Once upon a time, under the influence of Bernard Lewis and others I respect, I too subscribed to this school of thought. But after three years and more of waiting for the insurrection they assured us back then was on the verge of erupting, I have lost confidence in their prediction.
OK, I've read the whole thing. But this is enough:
But the irony is that Ahmadinejad’s dreams are more realistic than the dismissal of those dreams as merely insane delusions. . . . he is a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism.
I used to think highly of Norman Podhoretz's intellect, ideological differences notwithstanding. He seems now to be suffering from an acute form of senile dementia.
Norman Podhoretz:
The Iranians, of course, never cease denying that they intend to build a nuclear arsenal, and yet in the same breath they openly tell us what they intend to do with it. Their first priority, as repeatedly and unequivocally announced by their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is to “wipe Israel off the map”—a feat that could not be accomplished by conventional weapons alone.
Tell that to the partisans of Israel who are always whining that Israel will be 'wiped off the map' if refugees are allowed to return. That is, of course, what Ahmadinejad actually advocates.
The Podhoretz piece has some blatant falsehoods, as others have already pointed out.
Podhoretz repeatedly makes assertions that presuppose that President Ahmadinejad is the chief executive of Iran, although in the Iranian system the officer with the title of 'President' is not the chief executive. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the actual chief executive of Iran, doesn't get a single mention. That's a remarkable omission.
Podhoretz's description of Cold War Finland is ridiculous. As a teenager (then, as now, a libertarian) I was an avid reader of right-wing periodicals - mostly National Review, but occasionally Commentary. I don't recall Podhoretz or anyone else describing Finland that way at the time.
It amazes me what cowards tough talking Republican'ts are.
Cowards like pimp hand really crack me up.
"Mommy, the mooslums are after me"!
Putting aside obvious falsehoods, all of Podhoretz's assertions are sourced thinly if at all.
Already some observers are warning that by the end of the 21st century the whole of Europe will be transformed into a place to which they give the name Eurabia.
There's a debate-stopper. Who would challenge so august an authority as 'some observers'?
Then there's 'the British press'. What British press, exactly? The tabloids? Podhoretz doesn't say.
The tone is set by the first sentence:
Although many persist in denying it, I continue to believe . . .
It's all about what Podhoretz believes, or claims to believe, not what he can support with evidence or argument. It's a tone of preaching to the choir, of 'take my word for it, folks.'
Norman Podhoretz:
It now remains to be seen whether this President, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory . . .
Haha!
Hahaha!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Re Don Williams
1. I find Mr. Williams to be truly amazing with his vision of conspiracy everywhere, right out of the Protocols of Zion forgery. If we are to believe him, Mr. Saban is in total control of the US government, having bought politicians on both sides of the isle. Mr. Williams compares well with Gerald Posner who claims that the entire Bush family is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Saudi Arabian Government. It's rather interesting that the Bushes are at the same time dupes of the International Zionist Conspiracy and tools of the Saudi Arabian Wahabbists. But then, of course, I suspect that Mr. Williams will now claim that the Wahabbists are front men for the Zionists. Now Mr. Williams, where do the Masons and the Illuminati fit into this tale?
2. I also find Mr. Williams attacks on Mr. Saben to be rather interesting. Having never heard of him before yesterday, I did some Google searching and found that, far from being an extreme Zionist in the manner of Avigdor Lieberman, Saben was a supporter of the Clinton administrations' wrong headed embrace of the Oslo agreement, including support for a two state solution in Palestine. In my book, Mr. Saben is a lot closer the traitor Yossi Bellin then to Avigdor Lieberman. See the article in the attached link to get another prospective on Saben then that provided by Israel basher Williams.
Re David Tomlin
Mr. Adaminejads' position is that the State of Israel must be removed from the map. If that can be accomplished by forcing the Government of Israel to allow the Palestinians in refugee camps to relocate in what is now Israel, that would be fine with him. If, however, the Government of Israel refuses to go out of business peacefully, Mr. Amadinejad is perfectly willing to use force to accomplish this end, including a nuclear attack.
Re SLC's comment "I also find Mr. Williams attacks on Mr. Saben to be rather interesting. Having never heard of him before yesterday, I did some Google searching and found that, far from being an extreme Zionist in the manner of Avigdor Lieberman, "
-----------
1) SLC seems to having problems thinking clearly. It was NOT I who said Haim Saban was like extreme Zionist Avigdor Lieberman -- it was Haim Saban himself. Again, from the Haaretz article I cited above:
-----------
[Saban] "History proved that Sharon was right and I was wrong. In matters relating to security, that moved me to the right. Very far to the right."
[Haaretz] How far right?
[Saban]"When there is a terrorist attack, I am [Yisrael Beiteinu party chair Avigdor] Lieberman. Sometimes to the right of Lieberman. For two days I really love Lieberman. But afterward I come back to reality"
2) I also found SLC's confession of political ignorance touching ("Having never heard of him [Haim Saban] before yesterday").
As I noted above, Haim Saban was the largest donor to the Democratic Party in 2000-2002. $15 MILLION is hardly a "vision of conspiracy" -- it is reality documented in FEC records.
Similarly, the claims made in 2002 by Saban's "Director of Research" Kenneth Pollack about Saddam Hussein's nukes are not a "vision of conspiracy" -- they lie within Pollack's bestselling book "The Threatening Storm" . I have a copy if you would like me to cite relevant passages.
The OpEd in which Pollack urged war on Iraq to stop Saddam's nuclear efforts lies within the LA TImes archives.
SLC should not feel bad -- his ignorance is shared by the 100 million US voters who depend upon the New York Times and TV networks to tell them the truth.
3) Re SLC's reference to "Protocols of Zion forgery", I think he misunderstands me. The Jewish American community as a whole should not be condemmed for the manipulation of a few egotistical billionaires. There are only six million Jews in the US, most of them are middle class, and neither their votes nor their campaign donations are of importance. Besides, most of them are as ignorant of what's going on as is SLC.
4)SLC appears not only ignorant of the present --but of the Past as well. If he knew the history behind the Protocols of Zion, he would appreciate the danger that Haim Saban poses to the American Jewish community.
I should also note that some knowledgable American Jews share my concerns re the support that Israel's right wing gets from the US's Israel Lobby and AIPAC. They note that the Israel Lobby's sabotage of the peace process is hardly in the interest of Israel herself.
It being rather hard to slander such Jews as "anti-Semitic" , the Neocons use another term: "Self-hating Jew". Plus, there's always that old Trotskyite slur "useful idiots".
SLC and Don Williams, why don't you both just sign up with TNR, and bring your bickering over to The Spine, where someone might actually care to follow your arguments. Just leave us out of it.
Re Don Williams
1. Obviously, Mr. Williams didn't bother to read the Forbes article I linked to where he would have seen that Saben is, in fact, an appeaser who chases the chimera of a two state solution in Palestine.
2. Apparently, Mr. Williams thinks that the Protocols of Zion are not a forgery concocted by the Czars' secret police but a manual describing the actions of AIPAC.
3. Mr. Williams states that some American Jews are concerned about the support Israel's right wing derives from AIPAC. He means like Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky. Then, of course there is always George Soros, a billionaire critic of AIPAC. Apparently, in the fantasy world of Mr. Williams, Mr. Saben is a bum for supporting right wingers in Israel but Mr. Soros is a prince of a guy for supporting left wingers in Israel.
Why is it that people who utter a slur that they must know is a lie begin it with "apparently"?
Deliberate slander is taboo in the Jewish faith, so this suggests that SLC is not Jewish.
So what is he? A Republican?
Re Don Williams
1. Obviously, Mr. Williams did not bother to read a previous comment of mine where I identified my self as a liberal Democrat, supporting John Edwards (although I would prefer Mark Warner as a more likely winner).
2. It certainly is amusing to be called a lier by Mr. Williams who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the leg.
3. Earlier on, Mr. Williams leveled a criticism of me for not having heard of Mr Saben previously (actually, I had heard that there was a think tank called the Saben Institute). I would ask Mr. Williams if he has ever heard of Howard Ahmanson or the late and unlamented R. J. Rushdoony? These two scumbags are a far greater threat to the American way of life then Mr. Saben, Mr. Soros, AIPAC, the International Zionist Conspiracy, Osama Bin Laden, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, Mahmoud Amadinejad, Hizbollah, Hamas, or even George W. Bush. Not possible you say. Do a Google search.
Er.. It's "Richard PERLE" NOT "Richard Pearl"
Or "Prince of Darkness". That will work.
SLC:
Mr. Amadinejad is perfectly willing to use force to accomplish this end, including a nuclear attack.
You may believe this as fervently as you like, but neither you nor Podhoretz have provided any evidence for it.
The best and by far funniest take-down of N-Pod and his wife Midge was done by Gore Vidal somewhere in his massive tome of essays, Essays: 1952-1992 (I think I have the title right?). He quotes NPod's infamous line dismissively saying (I'm paraphrasing) that the American Civil War has about as much relevance and meaning for him as the War of the Roses.
I love this quote because it perfectly captures the total hollowness and superficiality of Neo-Conservative pro-Americanism. Neoconservatism presents a kind of nationalism that really harbors complete contempt for America and the American people in any sort of whole, organic sense. The US and US power is simply a vessel for them. That's why they really don't care how much danger they put our country in with their Mid-East policies.
Re David Tomlin
I suggest that Mr. Tomlin read chapter 4 of Sam Harris' book, "The End of Faith."
SLC:
I suggest that Mr. Tomlin read chapter 4 of Sam Harris' book, "The End of Faith."
Thank you for the recommendation. I've reserved the book at my local library.
Looking around the web, I see Mr. Harris is a 'doctoral candidate in neuroscience', which doesn't sound like it would leave him much time for becoming an expert on Iran.
Comments closed May 29, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
It's articles like this that show the real folly and danger of the term "Islamofascism."
Podhoretz says in Paragraph 1 (and I didn't make it much further), that the US is fighting "Islamofascism, yet another mutation of the totalitarian disease we defeated first in the shape of Nazism and fascism and then in the shape of Communism; it is global in scope; it is being fought with a variety of weapons, not all of them military; and it is likely to go on for decades."
This is just incorrect, and it can lead to obviously bad conclusions, for instance that we should bomb Iran. Needless to say, Islamic terorrists are not the ideological or poltical cousins of 1930s totalitarians. Perhaps they are diametrical opposites. No matter. By lumping our actual enemies (extremist Islamic groups with varying goals and interests) into a large group (Islamofascists), it's easy to make 9/11 into a causus belii against any Muslim that looks at us funny. The language and terminology here are doing half the heavy lifting for Podhoretz and his ilk. It's a reminder of how important language is in politics. Read your Orwell, folks.
Posted by Ben | May 15, 2007 2:33 PM