Bush: Munich, Munich Munich

If you're a conservative and your ideas make no sense, then your opponents must be Neville Chamberlain. Hence, Bush at the Knesset:

Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.

The standard point to make in response to this is still a true one -- we refer to this day to the "lessons of Munich" and make a big deal out of Adolf Hitler because that was really unusual whereas to hawks it's always 1939, every foreigner we don't like is a new Hitler, and preventive war is always the only solution. Bush and McCain truly are the ideological descendants of the folks who urged Eisenhower to go for "rollback" and who insisted that Ronald Reagan betrayed the true path when he sat down with Gorbachev for arms control talks.

Meanwhile, Bush continues to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose and nature of diplomacy. The idea of talks isn't that you marshall convincing arguments and beat your enemies back with force of words. The idea is that it's sometimes possible to achieve a reconciliation of partially divergent interests. Maybe Iran wants a nuclear weapon in order to deter American attack. And maybe America wants a nuclear-free Iran to help preserve stability in the region. Down one path, we have conflict and the U.S. sanctions and bombs Iran which causes suffering but only delays Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon. But down another path, each side discusses it's top priorities and we reach an agreement on verifiable disarmament in the context of security guarantees and a path to normalized relations. Down the road, that gives the U.S. the stability we want and creates more prosperity and security for Iran.

Maybe that won't work -- it wasn't possible to reconcile interests with Hitler -- but that's what's on the table. Now if you believe that literally every antagonistic force in the world is exactly like Hitler, then the distinction collapses, but only an idiot would believe that.

Comments

Well, if Commander Codpiece and McMaverick are so in love with WWII Nazi analogies, how about we try out...Nuremburg Trials!
I'd love to see Bush, Cheney and their neocon minions who lied America into the Iraq war for profit up on charges of treason and crimes against humanity.

Posted by CParis | May 15, 2008 1:58 PM

Bush's citation of the American senator is really silly. Of course the Republican senator was wrong in 1939, but that's because a lot of good faith effort had already failed by that point. When's the last time the US made a good faith effort to come to a diplomatic agreement with Iran? And no, Iran-Contra doesn't count.

Posted by Clark | May 15, 2008 1:59 PM

"Now if you believe that literally every antagonistic force in the world is exactly like Hitler, then the distinction collapses, but only an idiot would believe that."

That's quite a damnation of the entire Republican leadership and much of their base.

Posted by Bribes | May 15, 2008 2:00 PM

I assume the senator he was referring to was Prescott Bush, who should have been tried for 'Aid and comfort to the enemy'.

Posted by catclub | May 15, 2008 2:00 PM

I cannot take Bush and the Republicans seriously on any foreign policy ideas or actions after the Iraq debacle, and their do-nothing approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. They have no credibility and I think the majority, 80% now?, of the American people agree.

Posted by SMN | May 15, 2008 2:04 PM

What balls! Coming into the Knesset and telling the Israelis that negotiating with Hamas is wrong! Just as the Israelis are doing it, too!

And I guess Robert Gates needs a smackdown too for suggesting we talk to Iran yesterday.

Posted by calipygian | May 15, 2008 2:08 PM

Damn, catclub beat me to it. Sure, we're used to Bush being shameless by now, but at this point we could just laugh at him.

Posted by Cyrus | May 15, 2008 2:08 PM

I'd feel better about that analogy is Bush weren't such a Fascist himself.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 15, 2008 2:09 PM

Nuh UH! The ONLY reason Iran wantz a BOMB iz so they canz drop it on our #1 BFF ISREAL! Matt Y u r stupid.

Posted by James Gary | May 15, 2008 2:09 PM

I read posts like this, and mostly I think, "I can't believe we're at a level of discourse where this shit needs to be explained to anyone." I mean, I'm glad Matt is doing it. I just can't really believe that this is where we are.

Posted by Adam | May 15, 2008 2:13 PM

A moment of reflection to remember that one of Bush's grandfathers helped finance Hitler, and invested in a steel mill established in the newly conquered Poland, using energy produced by a slave labor camp.

It seems safe to assume it wasn't Prescott Bush who wanted to avoid "all this happening".

Of course, a lot of people around the world are wondering how long they can continue to appease the Americans. Because, after all, Hitler, like Bush, was full of "self-determination" and "liberating oppressed minorities" and "democracy" as he 'liberated' the German-speaking peoples in Austria, the Sudetenland, and Czechoslovakia.

Posted by serial catowner | May 15, 2008 2:17 PM

Bush is not talking about "every antagonistic force" in the world, he is referring specifically to Iran and similar Islamic movements. Now, one would expect an educated person to be aware of the facts, but apparently educated progressives are in short supply. So to help you out, please note the following:

1. Iran is a proto-fascist state, with dreams of regional hegemony and committed as a matter of express state policy to the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews.

2. Hezbollah is a proto-fascist movement (note the use of the Nazi salute during its rallies) that welcomes the ingathering of the Jews because, with Jews in one place, it is easier to kill them all.

3. Hamas is a proto-fascist movement whose "constitution" specifically and approvingly cites the Muslim belief that human redemption is ushered in by the killing of Jews.

4. The political ideology of Iran's current leadership, Hamas, and Hezbollah owe a tremendous debt to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization founded in the late 1920s to fight the spread in Egypt of "Western, infidel" ideas, most notably the freedom of women to both obtain an education and avoid the burka sack. The Brotherhood, in turn, relied heavily on Nazi organizational tactics and ideological principles. Notably, a key Brotherhood leader, the Mufit of Jerusalem haj amin al-hussaini, was a big Nazi backer, spent quality time in Berlin before and during the war, is credited by some with coining the phrase "final solution to the Jewish problem," and helped organize Muslim SS brigades in the Balkans.

If you would negotiate with Nazis or the KKK, and seek "common ground" with them, then by all means, go ahead and break bread with the mullahs. After all, what's a few dead Jews between good liberals?

Posted by Eagle613 | May 15, 2008 2:29 PM

Bush is not talking about "every antagonistic force" in the world, he is referring specifically to Iran and similar Islamic movements. Now, one would expect an educated person to be aware of the facts, but apparently educated progressives are in short supply. So to help you out, please note the following:

1. Iran is a proto-fascist state, with dreams of regional hegemony and committed as a matter of express state policy to the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews.

2. Hezbollah is a proto-fascist movement (note the use of the Nazi salute during its rallies) that welcomes the ingathering of the Jews because, with Jews in one place, it is easier to kill them all.

3. Hamas is a proto-fascist movement whose "constitution" specifically and approvingly cites the Muslim belief that human redemption is ushered in by the killing of Jews.

4. The political ideology of Iran's current leadership, Hamas, and Hezbollah owe a tremendous debt to the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization founded in the late 1920s to fight the spread in Egypt of "Western, infidel" ideas, most notably the freedom of women to both obtain an education and avoid the burka sack. The Brotherhood, in turn, relied heavily on Nazi organizational tactics and ideological principles. Notably, a key Brotherhood leader, the Mufit of Jerusalem haj amin al-hussaini, was a big Nazi backer, spent quality time in Berlin before and during the war, is credited by some with coining the phrase "final solution to the Jewish problem," and helped organize Muslim SS brigades in the Balkans.

If you would negotiate with Nazis or the KKK, and seek "common ground" with them, then by all means, go ahead and break bread with the mullahs. After all, what's a few dead Jews between good liberals?

Posted by Eagle613 | May 15, 2008 2:32 PM

Shorter Eagle613: "if I blur distinctions hard enough, I can prove absolutely fucking anything I choose!"

Smarter trolls please.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 15, 2008 2:35 PM

Well then Eagle613, if this is true:

1. Iran is a proto-fascist state, with dreams of regional hegemony and committed as a matter of express state policy to the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews.

Why did the Reagan Administration trade arms for hostages?

There also remains suspicion that George W. B. Bush was the go-between with Tehran during the Reagan - Carter Presidential contest.

Posted by Bill White | May 15, 2008 2:37 PM

Negotiations with our enemies never work! Just look at Red China! And we never negotiate peaceful cease fires, like in North Korea. Because every conflict around the world is exactly like Western Europe during World War 2 in every way shape and form. Duh!

The people that buy this claptrap are intellectually bankrupt. I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Posted by freddiemac | May 15, 2008 2:39 PM

Does Bush really think those things he said?

The Nazis were much more powerful vis-a-vis the US in 1939 than the Iranians.

Iran is a threat - a managable threat. The Nazis were the most technically advanced power in Europe.

It's a ludicrous analogy - aimed not at pleasing the Israeli public, but an attempt to play politics at home.

Bush is shameless - If there are war crime investigations down the road, you'll hear the press call it divisive - But now you have Bush using Israel's 60th as a widget to sow division at home.

Gee Dubs is disgusting.

Posted by Comment | May 15, 2008 2:41 PM

George H. W. Bush (Bush 41) is who I meant, obviously.

Anyway, Dubya's comments will offer McCain and perhaps Clinton some awkward choices.

Should McCain embrace, reject or ignore what Dubya said today? What would be the most politically prudent choice?

Posted by Bill White | May 15, 2008 2:42 PM

What US Senator was he referring to again? I have to believe that if this were a narrative that could be corroborated in any way it would have showed up in my high school history textbook (probably as a sidebar called something like "Voices of the Past: Last-ditch Efforts At Peace With Germany"). Otherwise, I think it's safe to assume that Bush was totally making s*** up, like Reagan's "memory" of liberating a concentration camp.

Posted by jonathan | May 15, 2008 2:45 PM

1. Iran is a proto-fascist state, with dreams of regional hegemony and committed as a matter of express state policy to the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews.
2. Hezbollah is a proto-fascist movement (note the use of the Nazi salute during its rallies) that welcomes the ingathering of the Jews because, with Jews in one place, it is easier to kill them all.
3. Hamas is a proto-fascist movement whose "constitution" specifically and approvingly cites the Muslim belief that human redemption is ushered in by the killing of Jews.

I'm sure no one would have said similar things about Egypt 30 years ago or Fatah 15 years ago. Or would they?

Posted by Njorl | May 15, 2008 2:50 PM

To Eagle 613
Stop posting lies, Iran is till the only Mid eastern country with 25000 Jewish population that against all odds and money that Zionist are offering them refuse to leave Iran and go to U.S.A
or Israel.
have a little honesty in your comment, it is the age of internet and almost anybody can gogool anything and find the truth.

Posted by Jay | May 15, 2008 2:52 PM

To Eagle 613
Stop posting lies, Iran is still the only Mid eastern country with 25000 Jewish population that against all odds and money that Zionist are offering them refuse to leave Iran and go to U.S.A
or Israel.
have a little honesty in your comment, it is the age of internet and almost anybody can gogool anything and find the truth.

Posted by Jay | May 15, 2008 2:52 PM

As usual, I am amused by people who take seriously the idea that Iran is a threat to gain "regional hegemony" in the Middle East. I don't care what they are "dreaming" of, the question is what they are capable of, and they are not capable of achieving such a goal.

Posted by DTM | May 15, 2008 2:56 PM

Bush is still doing his "some say" schtick. Why are we supposed to guess who he's talking about?

What a punk.

Posted by Chris | May 15, 2008 2:57 PM

The point, Eagle613, is that while Iran and its extragovernmental cohorts may (not necessarily ceding that they do, by the way) share similar ideological and/or nationalistic aims as did Nazi Germany, its capabilities are far, far behind. And given that these powers exist and are in a position to influence what happens in the Middle East, we may as well deal with them on mutually beneficial terms rather than pursue an impossible policy of total destruction.

Posted by mark f | May 15, 2008 2:59 PM

It's always amazing when the take-away lesson from WWII is aggressive militarism. How did that work out for Germany, Italy, and Japan?

Posted by ao | May 15, 2008 3:01 PM

How does Bush reconcile his position with the massacre happening in Sudan? How his stance (or any other country) helped the millions of Sudanese that are perishing every single day.

Posted by EM | May 15, 2008 3:03 PM

Here's Bush working with Hitler, evidently:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/4cbdo8

Posted by Njorl | May 15, 2008 3:05 PM

How does Bush reconcile his position with the massacre happening in Sudan? How his stance (or any other country) helped the millions of Sudanese that are perishing every single day.

Posted by EM | May 15, 2008 3:05 PM

The Daily Show insightfully compared Bush to the special education student who couldn't stop hugging everyone. At some point, you realize nothing's going to stop him from acting this way, and you might as well just wait it out until graduation, when he becomes someone else's problem.

Bush has a habit of frequently making these sort of outbursts, and while doing so in front of the Knesset is particularly egregious, this sort of deviant behavior isn't a surprise. It may be time, however, for a senate resolution condemning these remarks, and it is a welcome development that Bush is trying to make this election about HIM vs. Obama, but at a certain point, you have to accept that Bush is just an incontrolable child with a home life in which he receives no discipline. The school system can simply wait until he becomes someone else's problem.

Posted by Tyro | May 15, 2008 3:11 PM

Iran's posturing is just an avenue for them to attain regional Middle East dominance. The gleaming new towers and massive wealth they see across the Persian Gulf in places like Dubai is just too enticing for them not to take control of for themselves. And using the Palestinians as pawns by threatening to wipe Israel off the map is a convenient way to achieve that dominance. They don't give a fuck about the Palestinians. Where are the Palestinians going to live after Israel is destroyed by the nuclear weapons everyone knows the Iranians are still developing? The fallout from such an attack will render the whole of the West Bank and Gaza uninhabitable.

Posted by Travis | May 15, 2008 3:17 PM

Shorter Eagle: Boooga booga booga scary Muslims!

Making this speech in the Knesset just crosses the line from parody to farce. Really, great job not feeding into conspiracy theories popular in the Muslim world.

Posted by Reality Man | May 15, 2008 3:24 PM

The senator he quoted to is William Edgar Borah, a Republican from Idaho. So, at least that was accurate.

If he's referring to Obama saying he would negotiate with terrorists, he's completely inaccurate.

Posted by Todd | May 15, 2008 3:27 PM

"Iran is a proto-fascist state, with dreams of regional hegemony and committed as a matter of express state policy to the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews."

Eagle 613,

Iran is not a proto-fascist state; it is a Shiite Islamist theocracy. You might not realize this, but anti-Semitism is not synonymous with fascism. Not all anti-Semites are fascists.

Iran might have dreams of regional hegemony at the moment, but right now they are only dreams. Iran has not invaded and annexed its neighbors like Nazi Germany did in the 1930s. Therefore, comparing the prospects of diplomatic talks with Iran right now to the appeasement efforts by Neville Chamberlain that took place AFTER Nazi Germany began invading its neighbors is simply disingenous.

This doesn't mean that Iran is not a threat. It's support for Shiite militias in the Iraqi civil war and for Hezbollah in Lebanon make it a threat. However, these actions are not sufficient reason to avoid using diplomacy and concentrate on going to war with Iran.

Remember, before Hitler began his policy of expansionism, Hitler provided military aid to the Spanish fascist forces during the Spanish Civil War. Yet nobody in the US, Britain, or France would have used this to argue against engaging in diplomacy with Nazi Germany, or beat the drums to prepare for war with Nazi Germany

Posted by eltoro | May 15, 2008 3:27 PM

"Iran is a proto-fascist state, with dreams of regional hegemony and committed as a matter of express state policy to the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews."

Eagle 613,

Iran is not a proto-fascist state; it is a Shiite Islamist theocracy. You might not realize this, but anti-Semitism is not synonymous with fascism. Not all anti-Semites are fascists.

Iran might have dreams of regional hegemony at the moment, but right now they are only dreams. Iran has not invaded and annexed its neighbors like Nazi Germany did in the 1930s. Therefore, comparing the prospects of diplomatic talks with Iran right now to the appeasement efforts by Neville Chamberlain that took place AFTER Nazi Germany began invading its neighbors is simply disingenous.

This doesn't mean that Iran is not a threat. It's support for Shiite militias in the Iraqi civil war and for Hezbollah in Lebanon make it a threat. However, these actions are not sufficient reason to avoid using diplomacy and concentrate on going to war with Iran.

Remember, before Hitler began his policy of expansionism, Hitler provided military aid to the Spanish fascist forces during the Spanish Civil War. Yet nobody in the US, Britain, or France would have used this to argue against engaging in diplomacy with Nazi Germany, or beat the drums to prepare for war with Nazi Germany

Posted by eltoro | May 15, 2008 3:32 PM

True, the history lesson was distorted and the problem was not appeasement but negotiating without a stick and not having all of the countries on the same page during the talks conducted by Chamberlain. Germany was not ready for War in 1938 and they gave Hitler Czechoslovakia without a threat. I find it amazing that he made these remarks about a fellow American, of course bringing up the worn out, brain-dead Nazi analogy. Let us not forget that the terrorists who murdered thousands are sitting pretty and even back to 9-11 strength because of this administrations hand holding and appeasement of Pakistan.

Posted by Mac | May 15, 2008 3:34 PM

If everyday is Munich sooner or later you're just gonna want to go out and kill everybody. America against the world: it's the only patriotic thing to do!!!

Posted by Northern Observer | May 15, 2008 3:41 PM

Bush timed his comments for maximum impact in the US news cycle, arriving as they did early this afternoon in time to get picked up by the week's newscycles and in time for late show tapings. The question is WHY. Why did he think that making these comments in such a way that they would attract the most attention possible would be a good idea?

Posted by Tyro | May 15, 2008 3:44 PM

I think Atrios recently had the best take on Bush: he's by far the stupidest guy in the room, but because he doesn't realize it, he insists on talking to everyone else like they are a lot stupider than he is...

Posted by McKingford | May 15, 2008 4:00 PM

lost in all of eagle's worrying about iran's desire for regional hegemony is the fact that by taking out [most of] the taliban and saddam, bush
has been extremely helpful towards that end.

and those proto-fascists have been helpful in brokering cease-fires in iraq recently.

it's a confusing world.

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 15, 2008 4:18 PM

There is a historical irony,that the grandson of Prescott Bush, who in 1942 was making a fortune doing business with the Nazis is standing in front of the Isreali Knesset lecturing Jews about the dangers of talking to the enemy

Posted by Howard Greenberg | May 15, 2008 4:25 PM

There is a historical irony,that the grandson of Prescott Bush, who in 1942 was making a fortune doing business with the Nazis is standing in front of the Isreali Knesset lecturing Jews about the dangers of talking to the enemy

Posted by Howard Greenberg | May 15, 2008 4:26 PM

Jesus, eagle,

you can make as many comparisons to Hitler as you like, but even in 1932, before Hitler took power, the Reich was one of the top industrial powers, was probably the most technologically advanced and well-educated of the great powers, and was one of the most populous countries on Earth.

Tell me, dumbass, how any of that is like Iran?

Posted by Greg | May 15, 2008 4:57 PM

There is a historical irony,that the grandson of Prescott Bush, who in 1942 was making a fortune doing business with the Nazis is standing in front of the Isreali Knesset lecturing Jews about the dangers of talking to the enemy

Isn't it just really fucking grubby for Bush to take domestic politics -- and the dog-whistle 'Hussain Osama' bullshit at that -- to a foreign parliament?

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 15, 2008 5:12 PM

Iran is a lot closer to getting nukes today than Germany was before WWII. The nukes are a game-changer. Iran doesn't need to be a great industrial power to wreck havoc with nuclear weapons. One old school Hiroshima-style nuke would make the casualties from 9/11 look like an appetizer.

Iran could attack us via proxies given Iran enough plausible deniability to avoid retaliation.

Posted by Greg Doesn't Get It | May 15, 2008 5:23 PM

History on his mind

For most of his political career, Churchill was dismissed, with considerable justification, as a crank. What finally convinced most of his constituents that he had been right about Hitler all those years, while temporizers and appeasers like Chamberlain had been wrong, was the German bombing of British civilians in 1940. (No, it wasn't the Holocaust that changed people's minds. Churchill and the electorate he led were pretty solidly uninterrested in the fate of the Jews in 1940.) But Churchill didn't get that ticket to political immortality by sitting back and letting events unfold on their own. He had to work hard to get Hitler to turn his bombers from legitimate military targets and onto the Londoners that Churchill needed the Germans to be bombing. Churchill had his bombers going after Berlin and other German cities for months before the Germans retaliated with an equally systematic retaliatory campaign.

If Bush doesn't do something equally "proactive" to change people's minds, then comparisons of himself to Churchill and Obama to Chamberlain will only further discredit his side in this election. The electorate decided to take the opposite view of the war in 2006, and absent some game-changing new developements, they are not going to view self-comparisons by Bush to Churchil as anything but delusional, and thereby confirming their resolution to toss Bush and friends out on their cans.

Perhaps all this talk of Churchill and Chamberlain sheds some light on what sort of game-changer the president has in mind. Susbstitute Iran for Germany in the first paragraph, and the US for GB, and perhaps we have the BushCo game plan for winning this November. Provoke Iran into using its terror network for an action against US citizens, and that should do the trick. And once the first American dies at Iranian hands, it will instantly become as totally irrelevant for purposes of US domestic politics just how extreme the prior US provocations had been, how many Iranian civilians had been slaughtered in "collateral damage", as the fact of prior British bombings of German cities were to Britons after London started getting bombed. The most extreme and one-sided approach to Iraq, Iran, and the entire Muslim and Arab worlds will instantly become Churchillian wisdom, and the slightest deviation from that Chamberlainian weakness. If this works, McCain will cruise to victory and Bush will get to spend his post-1/20/09 life in Crawford rather than the Atlanta Federal Pen.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | May 15, 2008 5:33 PM

"Iran is a lot closer to getting nukes today than Germany was before WWII. The nukes are a game-changer. Iran doesn't need to be a great industrial power to wreck havoc with nuclear weapons. One old school Hiroshima-style nuke would make the casualties from 9/11 look like an appetizer.

Iran could attack us via proxies given Iran enough plausible deniability to avoid retaliation"

Asshole, they're close to getting a single piece of 1945-era technology. Which we've had since, oh, wait! 1945! Will the miracles never cease!?!

We have literally thousands of warheads of considerably more recent vintage, while the Israelis have hundreds.

As I have said time and again, if Iran were truly an existential threat to the state, Israel possesses both the weapons and the delivery systems necessary to destroy every single major population center in the country.

We, on the other hand, could destroy Iran square meter by square meter. Which I assure you we would do if they ever hit us a little hard.

Newsflash: since we're not stupid enough to invade, they've never hit us anywhere near hard.

Posted by Greg | May 15, 2008 5:43 PM

Furthermore, Iran IN COMPARISON TO THE REST OF THE WORLD is puny.

The Reich, for its entire existence, was not. Here endeth the lesson, for anyone stupid enough to compare two utterly incomparable things.

Posted by Greg | May 15, 2008 6:01 PM

and chamberlain, of course, was a conservative. people always seem to forget this.

Posted by rui tavares | May 15, 2008 6:21 PM

Matt: "Maybe Iran wants a nuclear weapon in order to deter American attack. And maybe America wants a nuclear-free Iran to help preserve stability in the region. Down one path, we have conflict and the U.S. sanctions and bombs Iran which causes suffering but only delays Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon. But down another path, each side discusses it's top priorities and we reach an agreement on verifiable disarmament in the context of security guarantees and a path to normalized relations. Down the road, that gives the U.S. the stability we want and creates more prosperity and security for Iran."

Is this what you call a "substantive post" on Iran, Matt?

Yesterday, you said anybody who had questions about HITS could email you and you would respond on your blog.

So I emailed you by two explicit questions on Iran.

Is this your answer?

I think not. This would appear to be more of your "let's talk around Iran so I don't get nailed down on my actual opinion which would make me look stupid when the Iran war starts just like my stance on Iraq made me look stupid".

Glen: "Susbstitute Iran for Germany in the first paragraph, and the US for GB, and perhaps we have the BushCo game plan for winning this November. Provoke Iran into using its terror network for an action against US citizens, and that should do the trick. And once the first American dies at Iranian hands, it will instantly become as totally irrelevant for purposes of US domestic politics just how extreme the prior US provocations had been, how many Iranian civilians had been slaughtered in "collateral damage", as the fact of prior British bombings of German cities were to Britons after London started getting bombed."

Bush doesn't need to provoke Iran to using its terror network against US civilians. He ALREADY has accused Iran of "killing US soldiers in Iraq". Every single member of his administration has signed on to this: Petraeus, Mullen, Gates, Cheney, Rice, you name it.

And the Kyle-Lieberman Resolution and the AUMF resolutions give him all the authority he needs now to attack Iran's alleged "training camps" for Iraqi insurgents.

And according to Phil Giraldi, the National Security Council just signed off on such an attack, and plans are being drawn up right now - to add to the plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. All Bush has to do now is decide when to give the order and it's a done deal.

And the benefit to Bush is, he doesn't even need the Iranian nuclear program to be an issue any more. And the benefit to Cheney is he doesn't even need Israel to start the war any more. They've ginned up the totally bogus excuse that Iran is backing the Iraqi insurgents as the ultimate excuse to start a war with Iran.

They can do just ONE little bombing attack on some lame "camp" somewhere in Iran and claim that Iran was the one who "escalated hostilities" when Iran retaliates either in Iraq or elsewhere. The escalation will then be a certainty as Bush and Cheney push Iran more and more until they get their full-fledged war.

And NOT ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT has addressed this probability. Not one.

And neither has Matt, who has steadfastly REFUSED to answer my two questions on Iran for months now.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 15, 2008 6:40 PM

"Iran is a lot closer to getting nukes today than Germany was before WWII. The nukes are a game-changer. Iran doesn't need to be a great industrial power to wreck havoc with nuclear weapons. One old school Hiroshima-style nuke would make the casualties from 9/11 look like an appetizer.

Iran could attack us via proxies given Iran enough plausible deniability to avoid retaliation.

Posted by Greg Doesn't Get It | May 15, 2008 5:23 PM"

Papau New Guinea is closer to getting nukes today than Germany was before WWII. Why? Because nukes didn't exist before WWII. Iran, according to the CIA, does not have an active nuclear weapons program. Do you just need more reasons to be scared in life? Why does the right wing think pissing your pants over what brown people might do makes one a man?

Posted by Reality Man | May 15, 2008 10:12 PM

This right wing notion that Iran would give nukes to Hizballah or Al Qaeda to attack Israel or the US is just idiotic.

First of all, nuclear forensics would identify the source of most nuclear weapons and Iran knows this. They wouldn't be caught dead handing over nukes to anyone else - and neither would North Korea - because they know they WOULD be caught dead doing so.

Second, the one place where Iran could get nukes unrelated to itself happens to be Israel, which has an estimated 200 sitting in the middle of the Negev under what is euphemistically called "military security" - which Dick Marcinko proved doesn't exist even in the United States military on US soil.

Third, the notion that Iran would tie itself to the actions of proxies not directly under its control, especially in the case of nukes, is laughable. They already are bitching and moaning about the actions of Maliki and the Dawa and ISCI parties in Iraq vis-a-vis Sadr. Does anybody really believe they would hand over the gems of military development over the course of decades - nukes - to "proxies"?

It is to laugh. It's just paranoid nonsense.

Not to mention that there is ZERO evidence that Iran even has or ever had a nuclear weapons program. The ONLY evidence the NIE had for the existence of a program is a laptop which apparently was acquired from an Iranian dissident group listed as "terrorists" on the State Department list who allegedly in turn acquired it from the Mossad - certainly a really reliable source for information on Iran - NOT. The IAEA has considered this evidence to be "questionable" at best.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 15, 2008 10:25 PM

Anyone who conflates negotiation with appeasement doesn't deserve to hold any type of leadership office, public or private.

Posted by Angry Sam | May 16, 2008 12:23 AM

What an interesting set of responses.

Now that we seem to have established at least an implicit concensus that Bush was referring only to Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas etc., perhaps we can deal with the substance of the matter.

1. Happily, there is no dispute regarding the ideological bases of the various groups cited, or of the meaningful role "Nazism" has played in the development of Islamic political movements in the Mid East, or that these groups actually mean what they say vis-a-vis the Jews and Israel. That's a good start.

2. One commentator noted that there is a distinction between 21st Century Shiite theocracy and mid-20th Century European fascism. That is true - hence my description of Iran as "proto-fascist." Now is not the time for a lengthy discourse on the similarities of Islamic social organization and fascist social organization, but arguably, the differences are primarly formal, not substantive (e.g. mosque v. party as the primary social "mediating" structure between the masses and the rulers).

3. Several commentators attempted to distinguish between Germany and the Islamic movements based on relative capabilities - i.e., Germany was powerful, Iran et al are not. Assuming arguendo that this analysis is correct, what does this have to do with anything? Bush's basic point was that people who build societies around Jew-hatred cannot be negotiated with, and will, if given the chance and the capability, act on that hatred. This is not a terribly controversial point; it is empirically well-supported by both contemporary and historic events.

4. One commentator noted that the WWII appeasers were conservatives. This is fundamentally true (note that the leftists also were appeasers, at least initially, generally in line with the Soviet CP directive to blame Western capitalism for European tensions, until Germany invaded Russia) and frankly irrelevant. Right is right, wrong is wrong, and labels don't mean a damn thing.

You might think that the use of WWII analogies is overwrought - fine, let's debate that in the context of the self-evident and plainly spoken intentions (and actions) of the subject Islamic nations and groups to destroy the Jews. However, if you are going to attack Bush on substance, you really might want to have some kind of evidence to support your arguments.

Radical concept, I know, but hey, critical, rigorous thinking never hurt anyone.

Posted by Eagle613 | May 16, 2008 10:10 AM

"And once the first American dies at Iranian hands..."

You really don't think that's already happened?

Bush has no intention of attacking Iran during the rest of his presidency. 0%. Goose egg. That's one reason why Iran acts so cocky. Now back in 2003, right after they saw the guy they fought an all-out war with for 8 years get knocked out of power in three weeks, the Iranians may have been afraid of getting attacked. That's when they, allegedly, indicated a willingness to negotiate a peace deal with every subject on the table. If that story is true, then the Bush administration missed a great opportunity to negotiate with Iran from a position of strength.

Now it's just rope-a-dope time. If Obama gets elected, more rope-a-dope. McCain the Iranians might actually be afraid of, if they believe half of the claims made by pundits like Matt about McCain's hawkishness.

Posted by Fred | May 16, 2008 10:23 AM

THIS WAS NEITHER ABOUT OBAMA NOR APPEASEMENT

Why is the media focusing on the wrong story here?

Obviously Obama picked up on the potential for headlines, but isn’t that a secondary story?

This about the misuse of the term "NEGOTIATE"

http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/05/bushs-misrepresentation-of-negotiate.html

 ------

Posted by PacificGatePost | May 16, 2008 1:47 PM

Fred has just stated that there is zero percent chance that Bush will initiate any military strike on Iran.

Therefore Fred agrees (allegedly) with Bush that any such act is "inconceivable" as the British official Jack Straw said a while back. Fred thus presumably agrees that any attack on Iran is completely nonsensical, unjustified, and dangerous.

Correct me if I'm wrong about your attitude, Fred.

In this, Fred has outpaced Matt who STILL refuses to discuss the issue here.

I have said that it's a virtual certainty that Bush will launch, at the very least, a military strike on Iran of some sort before the end of his term. I have a standing bet with Arnold Evans on this.

I therefore request that Fred publicly acknowledge on this blog that I was right and he was wrong if the US military conducts any military actions on the sovereign territory of Iran before President Bush steps down from office. I will do the same if NO US military action occurs against Iran during that same time frame.

Deal, Fred?

I'm really going to be racking up the apologies here!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 16, 2008 7:49 PM