Disturbing Images

Harold Meyerson asks us to imagine John McCain getting a 3AM phone call about an al-Qaeda bombing somewhere in the world:

McCain takes a deep breath. "Character counts, my friend," he says. "Bomb Iran. Bomb, bomb Iran."

There is a rustling of blankets, and, brushing aside Cindy McCain, a concerned Joe Lieberman rises from the bed. "Not Iran, Mr. President," he says. "They hate al-Qaeda."

"That's right," the president says. "I remember now." He sighs with relief. "Good thing you're here every night, Joe."

It's a disturbing image but, as Harold says, not nearly as disturbing as the idea of a President who we have to hope listens to Joe Lieberman.

Comments

Harold Myerson is lying, of course. Iran has supported Sunni extremists, including al Qaeda, for a long time and is doing so now. Not that Harold Myerson cares a whit about the truth.

Posted by Al | March 26, 2008 4:13 PM

It's a disturbing image but...

Actually, there is no but. There's nothing more disturbing than the image of McCain, Mrs. McCain, and Lieberman all in the same bed. What's scarier is that I can't rule it out as mere fiction given what I know about McCain and his "buddy" Lieberman...

Posted by afferent input | March 26, 2008 4:15 PM

"There's nothing more disturbing than the image of McCain, Mrs. McCain, and Lieberman all in the same bed."

How about throwing in Karl Rove and Condi Rice for good measure?

Posted by fostert | March 26, 2008 4:20 PM

Nothing more disturbing, huh?

Well, I didn't want to have to do this, but you asked for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaP9eiWuX3s

Posted by Jen | March 26, 2008 4:20 PM

Three turkey waddles on 1200 count satin is pretty scary.

Posted by steve duncan | March 26, 2008 4:21 PM

Harold Myerson is lying, of course. Iran has supported Sunni extremists, including al Qaeda, for a long time and is doing so now. Not that Harold Myerson cares a whit about the truth.
Posted by Al | March 26, 2008 4:13 PM

Beacause you are a paragon of truth Al.

Man you are beyond satire.

Posted by Northern Observer | March 26, 2008 4:24 PM

Harold Myerson is lying, of course.

Then why did McCain reverse himself, Al? ("Extremists, not al Qaeda", he said in response to Lieberman's prompting.) Was he right the first time or the second time? Is he even sure? Or does he just parrot what the last person he talked to said? That worries me at least as much as the prospect of him being factually wrong.

Posted by Ryan | March 26, 2008 4:26 PM

Harold Myerson is lying, of course. Iran has supported Sunni extremists, including al Qaeda, for a long time and is doing so now. Not that Harold Myerson cares a whit about the truth.

Your link is broken. Since you care about the truth so much, I'm sure you'll correct it post-haste.

Posted by Cyrus | March 26, 2008 4:27 PM

Ryan beat me to it. Al, you really need to take it up with McCain. Personally.

Three turkey waddles on 1200 count satin is pretty scary.

Are you in some kind of spell-check competition with Yglesias?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 26, 2008 4:30 PM

Then why did McCain reverse himself, Al?

He reversed himself as to who the Iranians were bringing into to Iran to train. But you can support a group like al Qaeda in a myriad of ways without actually bringing them into Iran to train them. That Iran is not training al Qaeda inside of Iran doens't mean that Iran "hates" al Qaeda.

Posted by Al | March 26, 2008 4:31 PM

Iran has supported Sunni extremists, including al Qaeda, for a long time and is doing so now.

Any evidence for that assertion, Al?

Any explanation for why even McCain's campaign isn't standing behind his claim?

Posted by southpaw | March 26, 2008 4:33 PM

Disturbing perhaps for you, but you better get used to it:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx

I think you need increased preening, shrillness, and elitist attitudes. That is sure to win people over to your side. And don't forget to refuse to compromise, and to label anyone who disagrees with you as not merely mistaken, but evil.

If that doesn't work, you can try to convince people that Obama really is more trustworthy than McCain on dealing with terrorism.

Posted by Beer Here | March 26, 2008 4:36 PM

The sarcasm doesn't quite work for me on this one.

And slightly off topic...it's great to see a Republican and Democrat together on something, regardless if I disagree on the "something" they share viewpoints on.

Posted by AKBY | March 26, 2008 4:37 PM

"Extremists, not al Qaeda", he said in response to Lieberman's prompting.

Therefore, McCain believes al Qaeda are not extremists. Why does he hate America so?

Posted by Jim W | March 26, 2008 4:37 PM

Speaking of disturbing images, have you seen la pequena hillary clinton?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PFKDL_zrT08

Posted by Anonymous | March 26, 2008 4:39 PM

But you can support a group like al Qaeda in a myriad of ways without actually bringing them into Iran to train them

Sure. You can bring lots of American troops to the MidEast to help its recruitment.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 26, 2008 4:39 PM

Oh, and Al: if you come back to this with a neocon gangbang involving Laurie Mylroie, Steven Hayes and other fucking hacks, you really need to go back to the troll shop for a service. You fucking hack.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | March 26, 2008 4:43 PM

Credit goes to Cindy McCain for keeping these wackos under her bed so they can't do much harm.

Posted by gregor | March 26, 2008 5:30 PM

He reversed himself as to who the Iranians were bringing into to Iran to train. But you can support a group like al Qaeda in a myriad of ways without actually bringing them into Iran to train them. That Iran is not training al Qaeda inside of Iran doens't mean that Iran "hates" al Qaeda.

What? Iran's been accused of giving asylum to pre-Iraq AQ members, but there's scant evidence to back up your claim of anything recent or substantial. And no, it's almost inconceivable to claim that Iran doesn't hate AQ - its just that their leaders undoubtedly see us as more onerous at the moment than a centuries-old schism. If you're willing to jump through the intellectual hoops required to justify an Iran-AQ operational relationship that extends beyond the former's promotion of self-interest, go right ahead. But the connection isn't significant enough to justify your blanket assertion, Al.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | March 26, 2008 5:40 PM

If Clinton supporters wouldn't vote for a candidate who's extremely similar to her on the issues but would vote for one who's radically different out of spite, they don't care about Democratic policies for health care, the economy, the war, energy, the environment, etc. They only care about Hillary. And that is pathetic.

I think Hillary Clinton would be an awful president. But I'd vote for her, because I think McCain would be worse.

Posted by 55 | March 26, 2008 5:49 PM

55,

Despite my argument in another thread in "favor" of McCain (he will break the army and the economy, thus making it harder for us to continue to terrorize the rest of the world), I probably won't bring myself to vote for him. He is, indeed, a madman.

But that doesn't mean that I'll vote for The Monster if she somehow steals the nomination. I wouldn't vote for her against the devil himself. I'll write in a vote for Rev. Wright, and start a web site urging others to do the same.

Posted by LarryM | March 26, 2008 5:58 PM

If you're willing to jump through the intellectual hoops required to justify an Iran-AQ operational relationship that extends beyond the former's promotion of self-interest, go right ahead.

Of course Iran's support for al Qaeda is in the "promotion of self interest". What else would it be? Why else would any nation support any group? So I don't follow your argument.

Yes, we all know that Iran and al Qaeda were linked by the 9/11 Commission, pre-Iraq war. But there is plenty of evidence that Iran is still helping al Qaeda now.

Posted by Al | March 26, 2008 6:44 PM

Al:

I think you have to distinguish between the ways Iran is "supporting" Al Queda. While there is evidence of "cooperation" with Al Queda here and there, there isn't overwhelming evidence to suggest they are really "operationalizing" their support for Al Queda. In other words, it's not a concerted and sophisticated operation to cooperate with Al Queda.

I've read the Sun Article you linked to, which pretty much reaches some of the same conclusions.

Posted by AKBY | March 26, 2008 7:01 PM

How many lies do the fabricators of the Iraq War get? Or, more pertinently, how many lies would it take for your reliance in their reports to mean it's time to put you before a conservancy hearing?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 26, 2008 8:30 PM

The logic by which the right is connecting Iran to al qaeda mirrors the logic of the 9/11 conspiracy people - wow, look at all those links between the Bin Ladens and the Bushes. Must surely be a the key to the whole thing!

Interesting how a certain kind of dream logic can creep into politics. The rightwing, of course, runs on dream logic now, since their isn't one of their principles they haven't violated, nor a program or war they've advocated that hasn't soon turned into disaster mitigated only by the happiness of GOP connected contractors.

Posted by roger | March 26, 2008 9:07 PM

I'll write in a vote for Rev. Wright, and start a web site urging others to do the same.
Posted by LarryM

As a self-loathing white man who hates America, what else could you do? Par for the course. Chant after me, Larry M, "God Damn America! Damn it to hell!"

***************
Al is right about Iran playing fun and games with Sunni extremists when it suits them in the classic ME "my enemy who is now the enemy of my greatest enemy is my friend for now" thinking.

Iran has been linked to other radical Islamist groups of the Sunni persuasion in Kashmir, Palestine, and of supplying some weapons and safe haven to foreign fighters and doing nothing to block it's ally Syria from being a staging ground to send AQI foreign fighters into Iraq to kill Americans and Shiite Iraqis.
*****************************
As for McCain's lumping in all bloodthirsty Islamoids in as "Al Qaeda", that is just being mentally lazy. Something the media and a good deal of the Left also lapsed into. That all terror comes from just one of 60 Muslim groups actively butchering in the name of Allah, AQ, and 6 or so remnant leaders of that one group now hiding in Pakistan are the sole cause and problem of Radical Islam.

The truth is more complicated than just one small group of Islamoids. The Radical Islam problem is one involving hundreds of millions of Muslims that embrace militancy, AQ isn't even the biggest group out there killing infidels and apostates and heretics. And AQ and 60 other terror groups, along with Iranian forces, Hez and Hamas forces - are just the tip of the spear backed by hundreds of millions of radical Muslims who are opposed by the other 6.2 billion people, including a majority, but not a huge majority, of Muslims.

In McCains case he uses AQ after 7 years as a lazy mental shorthand for "any intolerant raghead that seeks to kill people, outside all rules of warfare - Geneva or Hague - that believe differently than the raghead does."
Actually, McCains mental shorthand works. Since he says it meaning any bad Muslim that needs to be killed or isolated from regular humanity if they don't knock off terror or supporting terror".

Lefties and media have bought more deeply into the "AQ is behind all terror myth". That is why drivel like Obama's "hunt for the Head of All Terror in Pakistan so we can end terror" is silly, but actually believed by some. And the fool who keeps calling Iraq a "distraction" from the "real war against the 6 remnant leaders" who are hiding in Pakistan so we must war more in Afghanistan and maybe hit Pakistan, in Obama's eyes - obviously considers all the other "Bloody Borders" of radical Islam a distraction.

Meaning Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, India&Kashmir, France's banueils, the conflict in 9 African countries between Muslims and Christians that kills 10,000 a month is also a distraction. Like Iraq.

The genocide we ended in East Timor was a "distraction", threat of a new war between Christians and Muslims in Kosovo is a "distraction".

Or within Islam, the destruction of Muslim-on-Muslim killing between radicals and centrists in Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia, the recently ended 700,000 dead Algerian civil war - distractions?

***************
McCain is realistic about the threat. Petraeus is realistic about the threat.

Obama, living large in a fantasy world many Americans desperately want to believe in.

Bush? Recognized the threat, then completely mishandled the strategy, resource allocation, diplomacy and communications needed to handle the threat of Radical Islam from Shia and Sunni now operating in 80 countries...

Posted by chris ford | March 26, 2008 9:46 PM

@ford: So McCain's 'mental shorthand' is correct, since he's lumping all radical Muslims together? Seems a problem, since he'd presumably use the AQ label as a club to extend the current conflict. Let McCain assuage his laziness using a less loaded term, unless you assume America can afford to take on every radical Muslim around the globe.

Al, my point is that the marginal AQ-Iran connection seen before the war has only blossomed in an effort to play both sides of the IW for Iran's self-interest - as such, it's poor justification to further the conflict into Iran. McCain appears to think otherwise.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | March 26, 2008 10:22 PM

Well, would you prefer these disturbing images?

Hillary gets elected. Bill is off somewhere doing his money grubbing thing while getting a blowjob from some Clinton Library intern.

The 3 AM call comes in.

Huma Abedin gets out of Hillary's bed and answers the phone. She doesn't even wake Hillary. She tells the Pentagon Hillary says bomb Iran.

Abedin is Saudi. Possible connections to Saudi intelligence or even Al Qaeda.

Meanwhile, Ford's "hundreds of millions of Muslims who embrace militancy" is bullcrap.

Read this review:

A Book Americans Must Read Before Time Runs Out
by Michael Scheuer

Who Speaks for Islam? What a Billion Muslims Really Think
John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed
Gallup Press, 2008
230 pp.
http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/

Bottom line: Muslims like the US, they like democracy, they like freedom. They do NOT believe they have to give us their religion to get all that.

Now, being an atheist, I happen to know they're wrong about that. But the reality is that the vast majority of Muslims in the world have only one complaint about the US: its foreign policy.

Ford is a Ku Klux Klan member, so it's no surprise he doesn't like brown people - or any people who aren't white.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 26, 2008 11:48 PM

That should read "give up", not "give us". Ooops.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 26, 2008 11:51 PM

Since when does Matt traffic in cheap homophobia to score political points?

This is really quite disgusting.

Posted by heedless | March 27, 2008 9:49 AM

What does the ridiculous notion of Lieberman being in McCain's bed have to do with "homophobia", you idiot?

Abedin isn't even relevant in that regard - except for the fact that nobody knows about her or her background.

And while Clinton pounds away on the irrelevant Reverend Wright, nobody knows about Clinton's connection with a powerful underground political Christian organization called "The Family".

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 27, 2008 9:45 PM