It's Norman Podhoretz versus someone who knows what he's talking about (i.e., Fareed Zakaria) on a New Hour debate on Iran policy.
That's via Justin Logan.
« Ignorance is Strength | Main | Village Idiots »
Zakaria v. N-Pod
30 Oct 2007 11:22 am
Comments (12)
NPod is part of Rudy's foreign policy team,isn't he? For all the bluster of NPod I wonder why he brought a knife to this gunfight. Zakaria's skilled and calm approach to dismantling NPod's wild machinations were quite impressive.
Our country is in for Dark Days if Rudy and his gang get anywhere near the White House.
The only thing worse than a miserable old man is an intellectually corrupt miserable old man.
It's good that Zakaria dismantled NPod. I don't have much regard for Zakaria(since he was a pro-Iraq War guy), but i'll give him credit in this case.
Bill makes a compelling argument. Time to bomb.
It's a big stretch to claim that Zakaria "knows what he's talking about." After all, he writies columns for Newsweek.
Nevertheless, unlike NPod, he appears to be capable of functioning in rational society.
While it's true that, from the perspective of someone living on planet earth, Zakaria made NPod look like a doddering crazed fool, I sometimes think that Zakaria's calm fact-filled responses aren't quite what was called for.
People who are as crazy as Pod need to be marginalized. They might need to be called out. NPod is ridiculous, but the big difference between NPod and a crazy street person, other than wardrobe, is that the crazy street person is an object of ridicule, and everyone knows that he's crazy. NPod is an advisor to a front-running presidential candidate; he's thought of in some whacked circles as an intellectual.
I worry that some people will watch that clip and think that the two are coming from equally valid intellectual positions. The importance of ridicule in marginalizing stupid arguments should not be understated.
I have to agree with alex. The way to deal with the NPods and the Giulianis (and their supporters) of the world is to regard them as ignnorant, angry cranks who have to "place at the table" in civilized society. Zakaria is too well-groomed to engage in some taunting and mockery ("Norm, you sound like a homeless guy on the street, with all the frothing at the mouth you're doing" or "Jim, I don't know why you invited a representative of the extremist, unhinged far-right fringe on a respectable show like this one"), but that sort of thing is probably called for under the circumstances.
I second (third?) the opinions of Tyro & alex. Rather than trying to debate NPod, I'd just fall back on some basic points:
*The Islamic Republic is 30 years old & has never instigated any invasions. Nazi Germany lasted all of 6 years before starting a pan-European war, after engaging in aggressive territorial expansion for several years prior.
*Iran has a GDP which is comparable to some of most impoverished US states (Alabama I think is a useful comparis - if accurate)
*Iran posseses none of the above - knowhow to build a weapon, faciilities & materials to build weapons or a delivery vehicle for said weapon.
*Iran is so dysfunctional that it cannot deliver adequate petrol to it's citizens despite sitting on a sea of oil
This is what we're afraid of?
Zakaria indeed knows what he's talking about. I don't agree with everything he says - we probably agree on very little - but he isn't irrational or vicious or mendacious. Many times I've heard him offer rational critiques of policies he doesn't agree with without resorting to talking about Neville Chamberlain or accusing his opponent of hating the troops. Also, I've heard him admit his own mistakes in a refreshingly forthright manner.
NPod, on the other hand, should be wearing a straitjacket and Napoleon hat while doodling on butcher paper with crayons between his toes.
Yeah, but what's YOUR opinion, Matt?
Still waiting.
I can tell from your posts that you don't approve of military action against Iran absent any evidence of a nuclear weapons program - but what if they DO have one - or start one someday? That was my second question to you.
You still haven't said anything about that OR answered the question as to whether YOU think Iran has a nuclear weapons program at all.
I'd like to hear a Richard Steven Hack vs. Norman Podhoretz debate on NPR.
"The only solution to the Iranian situation is to use nanobots to cleanse the middle east of Zionists!"
"Ahmedinejad is like Hitler, and unless we invade Iran, he'll soon control the whole world with nuclear weapons!"
"No! Political control will soon be irrelevant anyway once we abandon our pathetic primate bodies and transcend our primitive political dominance hierarchies, so we need only wait Ahmedinejad out and he'll soon be irrelevant, like all political leaders!"
"That's appeasement, just like Munich in the 1938! Our only alternatives are to bomb Iran or to allow Iran to have nukular weapons, which will allow them to subject the entire world to Islamofascism!"
Comments closed November 13, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Hitler! Hitler Hitler Hitler!
Hitler Hitler Hitler Chamberlain Vienna Hitler! Churchill Hitler, Hitler 1938, 1933 Hitler, the West Appeasement, Hitler (Hitler); Ahmadinejad Israel Nukes Hitler Appeasement Wipe Off The Face Of The Time Is Not On Our Side the Nazis Hitler Showdown, When Will We Learn Hitler!
Posted by Bill | October 30, 2007 11:52 AM