« The Giuliani Doctrine | Main | More O'Hanlon Needed » Government by Madmen15 Aug 2007 12:27 pm Michael Cohen catches something I missed about the decision to start calling the IRGC terrorists. According to the Post, one of the motives for this action was Condoleezza Rice's desire "to pacify, for a while, administration hawks who are pushing for possible military action." I think one good way to tell that your country's gone 'round the bend is that this sort of thing starts showing up in your morning paper. Comments (30)
It reeks, like the FISA 'improvements', of ex-post-facto regularizing of something already done that should never have been done. What it tells me is that we've got Iranians, perhaps even regular Iranian military, maybe grabbed in retaliation for their seizure of those Royal Navy personnel a few months ago, tucked away in Gitmo, or on Diego Garcia, or somewhere else off the radar, whose detention and torture now has to be 'regularized.' So little time, so many beds to be un-shat. 
Allahu Ahkbar that the US Senate, by a unanimous vote, supported Joe Lieberman's "Iran Terror" Bill. fucking putzes, one and all. may they rot in hell, and by "they" I mean every single Democratic Senator who has helped to greenlight the Cheney Regime's Iran war plans. fucking putzes.
Did we label the Nazi German military a terrorist organization? The Red Army? The PLA? Iran's Revolutionary Guards is so small fry compared to those groups. Republicans have just completely become unhinged from any type of reality or context. Today's Republicans would have responded to Pearl Harbor by promptly wetting the bed.
I don't see how this would pacify hawks. If anything, it helps them by conflating Iran's military with terrorism.
Actually, I'd say the fact that Rice's motives were clearly and bluntly explained in the NYT shows that our country is halfway back from around the bend. That's a far cry from 2002, when Iraqi bioweapon vans were coming to get us, and the motives of the leakers were presumed to be pure as the driven snow.
For a frightening interpretation of this event that unfortunately makes a lot of sense: http://www.attytood.com/2007/08/a_prelude_to_war_whats_really.html --Rick Taylor
A little something for the wingnut gift bag. Thanks for stopping by. One party we'll never forget.
Pretty clear that more weapons and jihadists are coming into Iraq from Saudi Arabia than Iran. And far more of them are killing Americans. And of course Iran is developing nuclear weapons - given the North Korea example, it's the only rational choice. You would think that the GOP openly trying to provoke an Iranian war (and the inevitable disastrous consequences) for clearly political purposes would be enough to finally crush them. But you'd be wrong. Perhaps it's a merely a flaming bag of turd for the next (Democratic) administration.
I don't see how this would pacify hawks. Indeed. "Pacify" here seems to mean "whet the appetites of". You can't appease people bent on starting wars. Trying will only signal your weakness and make them want more. I should think Rice would be familiar with that truism.
It seems to me like this only looks crazy because "pacify" is a clumsy choice of words. Don't read it as "make more pacifist," read it as "find agreement with; mollify." If Rice is a sane and rational individual but others in the administration are pushing for military action, merely calling Iran bad words is a compromise position. It's a move in the direction the fucking nutcases want but more slowly than they want. Comity!
The country and media have long gone 'round the bend. 'Round the bend, down to the sea, over the horizon, and busy shooting albatrosses. I first noticed that something was seriously amiss, political-media-wise during the 1976 presidential election. One story told how Ford's aides described their "Rose Garden" strategy to make Ford look presidential. The fact that the news media didn't clap its wee handies in glee and caper about mocking Ford (et al) over their shallowness AND brazenness told me that time was running out.
Not at all analogous, but this recalls someone calling his mistress a whore in order to pacify his wife for a little while.
A friend with some Iranian expertise also points out that the Revolutionary Guard is also a conscripted force. So we've essentially declared a bunch of drafted guys terrorists. Good move ... Sigh.
Davis X. Machina: The U.S. actually seized five Iranians diplomats from their consulate in Irbil (capital of KRG-Iraq) in January, *before* the Royal Navy incident. Iran's subsequent detentions of Dr. Esfandiari, the British sailors, et al seems to be an effort to retaliate and get their own people back. Washington, of course, claims that the five Irbil detainees are members of the IRGC. It's unclear whether this is actually the case. In fact, the intended target of the raid was probably the IRGC's intelligence chief, who was part of a delegation visiting KRG-Iraq at the time. Incidentally, our dear allies the Kurds went apeshit over the fact that American forces were operating in their territory without their permission--and and especially because U.S. forces were, in fact, seizing diplomats invited by the Kurds. Allegedly, Barzani's forces almost fired on U.S. troops at Irbil airport. Something to remember the next time someone suggests withdrawing to Kurdistan. They'll greet us as liberators!
1. WH moves to call IRGC 'terrorists' no war necessary
I think it's even simpler than the AUMF issue (although that's a bonus). With the stroke of a pen, the President changes the 'they'll give nuclear weapons to terrorists' line from bedwettery to near certainty.
5. Oil goes up another $5/barrel. Mission Accomplished!
Re mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari I must say that I find Ms. jafaaris' use of Yiddish expressions like "putz, which I suspect she does not know the meaning of, to be rather fine, considering her considerable lack of affection for the State of Israel.
I meant to note in my last that the head of the Pasdaran is a member, ex officio, of the Supreme Council for National Security. Const. IRI art. 176.
Does "putz" have something to do with Netanyahu, SLC? I see he's trying to get The Rapture back on schedule over there.
administration hawks who are pushing for possible military action You might also wonder what the word "possible" does in this sentence, except to soften the accusation. Administration hawks are pushing for military action. The possible-ness is implicit in the "pushing for", since it hasn't actually happened.
Good point, DonBoy. News-speak has been shot through with that sort of thing for quite some time now, sadly. Blitzer's a particularly terrible offender. You might call it the 'redundant conditional' tense.
"possible" could just be Cheney getting the Preznit to agree to military action if x or y happens.
The Senate Dems are scared of the Senate Republicans, the Senate Republicans are scared of the White House, and the White House is scared of the posters on Little Green Footballs. Or are there darker forces at work? Deeper pockets. People with corner offices. Hmmm...
So what somebody is saying is that this move was Rice's? Right, I buy that...NOT. This was a Cheney move and Rice is going along with it to look like she had something to do with how this is going to play out. Powell was the State Department token black - and now Rice is. It's that simple. Cheney is running the show. Anybody who thinks the Bush Administration has "softened the rough edges" is out to lunch. They "softened" on North Korea solely because North Korea would have been an utter nightmare to invade and doesn't have any oil. Pentagon war games estimated 50,000 US casualties in the first ninety days of a war with North Korea. The 37,000 troops we had on the line (before they moved south of Seoul as they are doing over time) would have died within the first 48 hours as North Korea dumped 500,000 artillery shells on them PER HOUR. Iran is a different story. The US can take them in conventional military fashion, no problem. The real problem will be the guerrilla war afterward both in Iraq and Iran. Bush and Cheney have softened NOTHING on Iran. They simply are trying to maneuver the attack in such a way that they don't have to deal with the obvious comparisons to Iraq and also to have some justification that isn't as weak as a nonexistent nuclear weapons program. They KNOW nobody is going to buy that one (except of course their moron base) after the Iraq WMD nonsense, especially when the IAEA explicitly reiterates with every report that there IS NO Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Concerning Rice being behind this, this New York Times report doesn't mention it: Terrorist Label for Iran Guard Reflects U.S. Impatience With U.N. Money quote: "White House and State Department officials were debating when to make the formal designation — White House officials want to do so now, and the State Department wants to wait until various August recesses are over — but the administration was already adopting tougher talk toward Tehran. “We are confronting Iranian behavior across a variety of different fronts, on a number of different, quote unquote, battlefields, if you will,” the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, told reporters in Washington. His use of the word “battlefields” was described by some European diplomats as another ratcheting up of the anti-Iran statements."
Re alphie Bibi looks almost sane compared to the man who opposed him in the Likud primary, Moshe Feiglin, the Israeli version of James Dobson. On the other hand, Bibi is what the late columnist Stewart Alsop used to refer to as a phony-tough, i.e. somebody who talks tough but who backs off then the time for action arrives. 1. As a for instance, Bibi talked tough before his election as Prime Minister but then proceeded to exchange handshakes with Yasir Arafat on numerous occasions. 2. As another for instance, he ordered the termination with extreme prejudice of Khaled Maashal and then sent the antidote to the poison which had been used when pressured by King Hussein. 3. As yet another for instance, he talked tough before a meeting with Ariel Sharon concerning the Gaza withdrawal and then backed down when the two men confronted each other. For the edification of any readers not familiar with Yiddish expressions, "putz" is roughly translated as "pimp" in English.
SLC, you are entirely crazed; a maniac beyond any sense of shame or decency.
Re Jennifer As usual, Ms. Jennifer resorts to name calling and character assassination instead of substantive argumentation.
Comments closed August 29, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I think the more plausible explanation has been bandied about elsewhere this morning. Force authorization bills Congress passed allowing invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq can be construed to allow similar armed conflict with Iran. Bush doesn't need to seek additional Congressional authority under this interpretation. There is your motivation for stamping the Revolutionary Guards terrorists.
Posted by steve duncan | August 15, 2007 12:41 PM