I Like The Snark

Joe Klein seems kind of pissed -- "I'm mentioned in two columns today with similar themes: that people like me--the liberal elite media, we're called--are playing into Obama's hands by insisting on accuracy from John McCain (according to Bob Novak) and by hoping that, given the mess we're in, this can be an election about big issues (Steven Stark)."

This has been going on for so long that it hardly even phases me anymore, but it's striking the extent to which the conservative discourse about Iran hinges crucially on misrepresenting uncontroversial facts about Iran. How many articles or speeches have you read on the subject of the Iranian nuclear program that dwell at length on inflammatory rhetoric from Ahmadenijad without noting that he doesn't control the relevant aspects of Iranian policy? Beyond that, I recall at least one Weekly Standard article that was unable to make due with outrageous things Ahmadenijad actually said and just decided to attribute some additional conduct to him. Beyond that, it's been over two years since Charles Krauthammer said Iran was months away from nuclear capacity almost two years since Bernard Lewis confidently stated that Iran would unleash the apocalypse on August 22, 2006, etc.

There's just no concern -- at all -- with facts or accuracy on this issue.

Comments

They make their own reality, Matt.

Posted by Joel | May 22, 2008 6:17 PM

What do you expect from ziocons? Goebbels and Streicher were I.F. Stone and Murray Kempton in comparison.

Posted by Trevor | May 22, 2008 6:17 PM

And do you really think he'd be allowed to make such statements if the real powers behind him didn't want him to?

Posted by Dave | May 22, 2008 6:20 PM

While maybe not extraordinary for Matt, this post was Homonymeriffic:
. phases -> fazes
. due -> do

The actual post content was good, though.

Posted by Warren Terra | May 22, 2008 6:21 PM

Ya, Wilhelm. Zey iss wrong to say I have ziss power. Is funny to say ziss, but ze leftists are rrrright.

Posted by Adolph | May 22, 2008 6:28 PM

Klein doesn't bother to respond to Novak. Novak demonstrates that Klein has the facts wrong, and Klein responds by saying that the facts aren't what matters, what matters is the big issues.

Here's the deal: Obama said what he said. Now, Matt may think that it was a mistake for him to say so, and it's obvious that the Obama camp thinks it was a mistake, since they can't stop lying about what he actually said. But he said he'd meet without preconditions. And trying to change the subject doesn't change the facts. (And the gambit of saying that Ahmadenijad isn't in control of Iran doesn't help; it isn't Mccain's fault that Obama said he'd meet with someone who isn't in control.)

Posted by Thomas | May 22, 2008 6:31 PM

Hey, Joe!

Welcome to the reality-based community, ya dirty f'n hippie!

I also enjoy the right-wing effort to mis-represent what Obama said and spin their made-up stuff as a gaffe. This is their last hope, and this team ain't nearly as good at it as the Bushies.

Sorry, it's not a gaffe to say you'll conduct a sane foreign policy, instead of proposing to continue the petulant "ignore them and they will either capitulate or go away or we will blooooowwww themmmmsss up!" stylings of George Bush.

Posted by anonymiss | May 22, 2008 6:48 PM

Likely Klein's wrong spelling, but the word in this case is "fazed," not "phased."

Another correct spelling to fight for before it is totally lost.

Posted by hopeless pedant | May 22, 2008 6:49 PM

Likely Klein's wrong spelling, but the word in this case is "fazed," not "phased."

Another correct spelling to fight for before it is totally lost.

Posted by hopeless pedant | May 22, 2008 6:49 PM

Likely Klein's wrong spelling, but the word in this case is "fazed," not "phased."

Another correct spelling to fight for before it is totally lost.

Posted by hopeless pedant | May 22, 2008 6:49 PM

And trying to change the subject doesn't change the facts. (And the gambit of saying that Ahmadenijad isn't in control of Iran doesn't help; it isn't Mccain's fault that Obama said he'd meet with someone who isn't in control.)

Except for the fact that McCain, who is positioning himself as a supposed expert in foreign affairs, is the one who followed up and said that Ahmadenijad was the leader of Iran and was the person with the power when it came to foreign affairs and Iran's nuclear program. Since he was democratically elected, this is the same as calling Iran a functional democracy. A country whose president is fairly elected and is the most powerful figure is pretty much a democracy. Do you think Iran is a democracy?

This issue is completely separate from the debate about meeting without pre-conditions. This gaffe by McCain, along with his multiple failures to keep AQ, Shiite, and Sunni straight (until Joe Lieberman whispered in his ear), show that McCain either isn't all there, or doesn't have a very firm grasp on foreign policy.

And those are the facts.

Posted by LFC | May 22, 2008 6:53 PM

A more hopeful pedant might read the comment thread, and might only post their comment once.

Posted by Warren Terra | May 22, 2008 6:53 PM

Matt: "but it's striking the extent to which the conservative discourse about Iran hinges crucially on misrepresenting uncontroversial facts about Iran."

OTOH, one gets no facts at all from Matt. Or opinions, controversial or otherwise.

"How many articles or speeches have you read on the subject of the Iranian nuclear program that dwell at length on inflammatory rhetoric from Ahmadenijad without noting that he doesn't control the relevant aspects of Iranian policy?"

Note that Matt doesn't state whether any of the rhetoric was even actually uttered.

"Beyond that, I recall at least one Weekly Standard article that was unable to make due with outrageous things Ahmadenijad actually said"

Which Matt can't outline because they never were actually said - so he just hints at them.

"Beyond that, it's been over two years since Charles Krauthammer said Iran was months away from nuclear capacity almost two years since Bernard Lewis confidently stated that Iran would unleash the apocalypse on August 22, 2006, etc."

And quite a few years - in fact, never - since Matt uttered a direct opinion about Iran.

"There's just no concern -- at all -- with facts or accuracy on this issue."

And for Matt, no concern about uttering a direct opinion about Iran, either.

Once again, Matt talks around the issue but never directly commits himself to answering my two questions.

More evidence of a severe streak of intellectual cowardice.

And this clown thinks we should take him seriously as a wannabe pundit?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 22, 2008 7:04 PM

Geez, misrepresenting the facts, Matt? Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black. Or in this case, African-American.

Obama is Jimmy Carter on steroids. He said what he said. All this fancy "new" thinking (Matt, Ezra, Alterman (the douche), Powers, malley, Lake) is so 1970's.

surrender is surrender any way you slice it.

Not up to the task, McCain will crush Obama in November. Not even close.

Posted by PL | May 22, 2008 7:05 PM

Wow, Matt -- your commenters sure have gotten a bit feisty lately. I never checked, but did the McCain campaign direct his enlisted trolls to hit up your blog as well? Just askin.

Posted by NCProsecutor | May 22, 2008 7:13 PM

So, if Ahmadenijad doesn't control the relevant aspects of Iranian policy, exactly what good is sitting down to meet him going to do, anyhow?

Posted by Jeff R. | May 22, 2008 7:27 PM

it's been ... almost two years since Bernard Lewis confidently stated that Iran would unleash the apocalypse on August 22, 2006

But what Lewis actually wrote was, "It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22."

Posted by Raghav | May 22, 2008 7:28 PM

Well Matt, from these comments I would say you've struck a nerve.

Posted by Leo | May 22, 2008 7:39 PM

So, if Ahmadenijad doesn't control the relevant aspects of Iranian policy, exactly what good is sitting down to meet him going to do, anyhow?

The idea would be to sit down with the person who does control the relevant aspects of Iranian policy.

Given Iran's governmental structure, Ahmedinejad is simply not an appropriate diplomatic counterpart for the President of the United States--he's closer to the UN Ambassador or the Secretary of State. Presumably, Obama would ultimately meet with Khamenei.

Posted by southpaw | May 22, 2008 7:41 PM

It doesn't matter how you parse Lewis's comments, Ahmadinejad doesn't have the authority to do any such "cataclysmic events".

Better neocon trolls, please.

The problem with Obama is not that he wants to open negotiations with Iran - and with whom is utterly irrelevant, since certainly Ahmadinejad could serve as a proxy for the Ayatollahs - the problem is that he thinks Iran is a "threat" for which more aggressive sanctions are an appropriate policy, instead of "grand bargain" diplomacy.

This makes him as stupid - if not as malicious - as Bush.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 22, 2008 7:44 PM

Someone - possibly Juan Cole - has stated that Ahmadenijad's comments are intentionally mistranslated, and that when he refers to destroying the Zionist entity, he isn't talking about killing Jews. His assertion is that Ahmadenijad is saying that the government of Israel needs to be replaced with one that reflects the rights of the entire population. Or something like that.

Posted by FS | May 22, 2008 8:00 PM

Wow, set up an argument Obama never made and then brand him as ignorant for making your own argument. Tell you what, since you're the one directly alleging Senator Obama said he'd talk directly with Ahmadinejad, why don't you actually post a direct source, since nobody else has ever heard him say just that.

Mr. Hack, how appropriate, stop trolling around yourself. Would it be easier if Matt reposted all the articles of Bush et. al trying to contradict the NIE report saying Iran does not have and is nowhere close to a real nuclear weapons program? What, you don't have Google?

And how many conservative commentators does it take admitting they regularly whine like a bunch of 3-year-olds about the 'liberal media' for you to not join the chorus... unless you're a choir boy yourself? And while you think people regularly listen to you, what questions isn't Matt answering, or is this another empty attack of your own missed hackery?

Posted by Jaycal | May 22, 2008 8:06 PM

hey, if I yell 'SURRENDER' enough, that wins the argument, right?

Posted by John McCain: More of the Same | May 22, 2008 8:13 PM

Joe Klein seems kind of pissed -- "I'm mentioned in two columns today with similar themes: that people like me--the liberal elite media,

People are missing the important part. Joke Line is pissed because of the reason above. He is mad because guys like Novakula, who ought to know better, call Joke Line part of the "liberal media". That offends Joke Line more than being challenged on the facts.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | May 22, 2008 8:21 PM

Someone - possibly Juan Cole - has stated...

Yes, there is a clutch of liars led by Cole who retail that crap, because they will do anything, even extenuate plainly genocidal decrees against Jews, to avoid an American war against Iran. This is the anti-war conscience.

Posted by John-Paul Pagano | May 22, 2008 8:28 PM

"genocidal decrees against Jews" (Pags)

Hmm, is that what "obliterate Iran" is about? Just as the ziocons and fifth columnists who have G.W. Bush's ear are preparing a Holocaust for the world's Muslims - they're crying that the jews are in fact the ones about to be shipped off to the ovens again. Pags, when are you gonna clean your shirt? You got gravy and shit stains all over it. No wonder you don't think straight, you anti-American fascist dunce.

Posted by Trevor | May 22, 2008 8:42 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack & Trevor

Wouldn't it be an amazing coincidence if Mr. Trevors' alleged federal judge father was the one who sentenced Mr. Hack to his 9 year prison term in Leavenworth?

Posted by SLC | May 22, 2008 9:02 PM

Correct! One of the amazing things (among many) about our foreign policy and about Americans understanding of our foreign policy is the mass ignorance. While I do not claim to be a middle eastern expert, before I begin formulating foreign policy idea's, I have tried to get an understanding of the middle east from both sides. I personally doubt that half of the so-called foreign policy experts in this country even have an understanding of the difference between sunni and shiite and why the two factions where created. I also believe that our foreign policy is hypocritical about the role of religion in the middle east political scene and it's role in religious radicals holding office. Before, I believe, we formulate any more middle eastern foreign policy, we should do a.) more educating of the public and b.) make up our mind if we want democracy (which would allow most anyone to run and vote) or a pro-united states regime, because if we let free democracy run wild in the middle east those two probably will not go hand in hand.

Another interesting thing is how people constantly refer to diplomatic negations taking part between the President of the United States and the President of Iran, because the two positions are not the same. More I think it would be wise to send a group of academics working on the United States behalf to deal with the shah as he is the one who really holds most of the sway within Iran's foreign policy apparatus. If those talks are positive and create good possibilities then later President Obama could negotiate directly with the shah. This to me makes a lot more sense, then just vilifying an important regional player in the most volatile region in the world.

Posted by Robinson Eaton | May 22, 2008 9:19 PM

I love that when Khrushchev blustered "we will bury you," our nation not only maintained diplomatic realations, but we had a red phone and all kinds of formal and informal relationships and ways of communicating.

But when Ahmadenijad blusters at Israel, the Republicans say the American response should be to never speak with them again. To de-friend them on our facebook page and everything.

I'd just like to point out that one strategy won us the Cold War, and the other is the guy who got us into Iraq and let bin Laden get away.

Posted by anonymiss | May 22, 2008 9:32 PM

"Wouldn't it be an amazing coincidence if Mr. Trevors' alleged federal judge father was the one who sentenced Mr. Hack to his 9 year prison term in Leavenworth?" (SLC)

Oh, now he's "alleged"? Ha, ha, ha. SLC, you've called him a "Carswell clone", worried about his wayward son...cast aspersions on his Nixonian faults. You're a funny little man, my friend. Re R.S. Hack's conviction - was the trial in Newark (N.J.)? Was the judge fat? Stranger things have happened. Bank robbery cases are small potatoes. Chances are it was a federal judge with less than 30+ years experience.

Posted by Trevor | May 22, 2008 9:40 PM

The far right has got to be kidding.

The press basically abdicated their responsibility and allowed Bush to go to war in Iraq with very little independent examination of evidence.

Indeed, many in the press cheerleaded the march to war. They have much to atone for.

Posted by cm | May 22, 2008 9:58 PM

You dont have to fight with nukes in 2008 when you have oil to sell, and your dealing with the biggest oil junkie on the block.

Posted by So | May 22, 2008 9:59 PM

Why is this surprising? What are the issues where conservatives have an unyealding fealty to the truth? Sex Ed, evolution, climate change, war with iraq, small government (endless colonial occupation costing hundreds of billions a year, fine!--free college for vets, too expensive!), tax cuts leading to more revenue, welfare queens, the southern strategy, "the death tax": which one?

Posted by Client #11 | May 22, 2008 10:37 PM

"And do you really think he'd be allowed to make such statements if the real powers behind him didn't want him to?

Posted by Dave | May 22, 2008 6:20 PM"

That is a huge assumption to make. If the mullahs could, they would remove him from power because they hate him. A-jad ran and won as the anti-mullah candidate. His campaign slogan directly attacked the mullahs for not sharing Iran's oil wealth with the population at large. The mullahs also didn't like his Holocaust denial conference, but it would have been too politically difficult to stop him. The mullahs responded by funding and broadcasting a documentary on the Holocaust that said it was an evil event and that people should sympathize with the Jewish victims of the Holocaust.

The right wing in this country just needs bogeyman - A-jad, Castro, Chavez - and they also feel a need to make them stand ten feet tall and on the verge of destroying the American way of life as we know it. These guys aren't good guys, but they also aren't Hitler and they have relatively little power in the grand scheme of things. Why do conservatives need to feel afraid of people who don't matter that much? Meanwhile, conservatives don't seem to care enough about bin Laden to actually catch him.

Posted by Reality Man | May 23, 2008 12:44 AM

Trevor: "Re R.S. Hack's conviction - was the trial in Newark (N.J.)? Was the judge fat? Stranger things have happened. Bank robbery cases are small potatoes. Chances are it was a federal judge with less than 30+ years experience."

Nope to both.

I was sentenced by Judge D. Lowell Jensen in Northern California.

Get this - this is the SAME D. Lowell Jensen who was involved in the INSLAW case! He was awarded a federal judgeship for his participation in that scam. He actually belongs in Federal prison himself.

It's really fun to discover that the judge sentencing you to nine years should be in federal prison himself for a crime considerably bigger than two lame bank robberies.

See the Wired story for a recap:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1.01/inslaw_pr.html

Money Quotes:

"At the time of its inception, PROMIS was the most powerful program of its type. But a similar program, DALITE, was developed under another LEAA grant by D. Lowell Jensen, the Alameda County (Calif.) District Attorney. In the mid-1970s, the two programs vied for a lucrative Los Angeles County contract and Inslaw won out. (Early in his career, Ed Meese worked under Jensen at the Alameda County District Attorney's office. Jensen was later appointed to Meese's Justice Department during the Reagan presidency.)"

"Brewer was then hired into the Department of Justice specifically to oversee the contract of his former employer. (The DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility ruled there was no conflict of interest.) He would later tell a federal court that everything he did regarding Inslaw was approved by Deputy Attorney General Lowell Jensen, the same man who once supervised DALITE, the product which lost a major contract to Inslaw in the 1970s."

"The string of lawsuits and widening allegations caught the eye of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks, D-Texas, who in 1989 launched a three-year investigation into the Inslaw affair. In the resulting report, the Committee suggested that among others, Edwin Meese, while presidential counselor and later as attorney general, and D. Lowell Jensen, a former assistant and deputy attorney general and now a US district judge in San Francisco, conspired to steal PROMIS.

'High government officials were involved,' the report states. '... (S)everal individuals testified under oath that Inslaw's PROMIS software was stolen and distributed internationally in order to provide financial gain and to further intelligence and foreign policy objectives.'

'Actions against Inslaw were implemented through the Project Manager (Brick Brewer) from the beginning of the contract and under the direction of high-level Justice Department officials,' the report says. 'The evidence...demonstrates that high-level Department officials deliberately ignored Inslaw proprietary rights and misappropriated its PROMIS software for use at locations not covered under contract with the company.'"

"Was Israel's PROMIS to Crush the Infitada?

Asked why Israeli intelligence would have been so interested in Inslaw and PROMIS, ex-Israeli spy Ari Ben Menashe said: "PROMIS was a very big thing for us guys, a very, very big thing ... it was probably the most important issue of the '80s because it just changed the whole intelligence outlook. The whole form of intelligence collection changed. This whole thing changed it." Why? PROMIS, Ben Menashe said, was perfect for tracking the Palestinian population and other political dissidents."

And get this: they have an AWARD named after this clown! The "Judge D. Lowell and Barbara Jensen Public Service Award. The award is given annually to a prominent Boalt Hall [Berkeley Law school] graduate who has demonstrated outstanding dedication to public service in the legal realm."

It doesn't get more ironic that that!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 3:30 AM

I'm pretty sure it's "make do", not "make due".

Posted by john | May 23, 2008 6:12 AM

"He had bought a large map representing the sea,
Without the least vestige of land:
And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be
A map they could all understand.

``What's the good of Mercator's North Poles and Equators,
Tropics, Zones, and Meridian Lines?''
So the Bellman would cry: and the crew would reply
``They are merely conventional signs!

``Other maps are such shapes, with their islands and capes!
But we've got our brave Bellman to thank''
(So the crew would protest) ``that he's bought us the best---
A perfect and absolute blank!''-Hunting of the Snark, Fit 2

Posted by MR Bill | May 23, 2008 6:45 AM

make due

It's make do. Just saying.

Posted by Hecate, Runnymeade Conspirator | May 23, 2008 9:03 AM

I'd like an article discussing just how unpopular Ahmadenijad is in Iran, and how even conservative Iranian clerics think his 12th Immam crap is too wacko even for them.

Posted by Hesiod | May 23, 2008 9:21 AM

Conservative commentators keep their jobs not because they're accurate but because they are policy salesman. If the people buy the policy product, then the commentators have done their job. They would no more get canned because they make wrong predictions than an ad agency would get canned for getting customers to believe that buying their a particular brand of toothpaste will improve their sex lives.

Accuracy is not their job: advocacy is their job.

Posted by Killer Robot | May 23, 2008 9:29 AM

Wow, the trolls are out in force, and damn funny.

Obama says he'd meet with "leaders" of countries like Iran, McCain distorts that to say Obama said he'd meet with "Ahmadinejad," we point out that "leaders" does not equal "Ahmadinejad," trolls say "then why did Obama say he'd meet with him?!?"

Whew.

Posted by Brian | May 23, 2008 9:31 AM

Ahh, the famously truth-telling Novak, master of the strategic ellipsis:
Novak's quote of Obama: Yeah ... I find many of President Ahmadinejad's statements odious. ... But we should never fear to negotiate."

Obama's actual quote: "I find many of President Ahmadinejad's statements odious and I've said that repeatedly. And I think that we have to recognize that there are a lot of rogue nations in the world that don't have American interests at heart. But what I also believe is that, as John F. Kennedy said, we should never negotiate out of fear but we should never fear to negotiate."

Posted by R. Porrofatto | May 23, 2008 9:35 AM

"Wow, the trolls are out in force, and damn funny."

They're working hard for their McCain Points (or Schrute Bucks as I like to call them).

Posted by cha cha cha | May 23, 2008 9:40 AM

No concern with facts or accuracy...

Like when you supported the war, despite there being a wealth of opinion and evidence. Yes, it was outside of the USA (UK generally, David Kelly specifically), but we can't expect you to.....research something thoroughly when it's only a war.

Or when you snidely slated McCain's family, without even bothering to check if anyone was serving in his family. Possibly worth two seconds of your time, given that both McCain's father and grandfather served as admirals, one of the sons at least might have followed.

but hey, those facts don't count.

by the way, I'm not pro-McCain.

Just anti-fuckwit.

Posted by James | May 23, 2008 9:54 AM

Orthography snark

Spell-check can't help you with homophones.

It's "make do", not "due". And maybe the Big Lie doesn't faze you anymore, but it never "phased" you.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | May 23, 2008 10:00 AM

The Juan Cole/Joe Klein argument that Mahmoud doesn't really control Iran is kind of silly. If he's restarting Iran's nuclear program, and nobody is stopping him, then he's in control. The mullahs don't like him for the same reason Republicans in the US don't like Bush -- he fucked up their franchise. Mahmoud is hiring cronies to run government agencies -- sound familiar? That doesn't mean he doesn't have power. When he was mayor of Tehran, he put up a giant poster in the center of town showing a female suicide bomber holding a rifle in one hand and a baby in the other -- and the baby was holding a hand grenade. And after *that* he was elected president. Of *course* we should be talking to this guy, we need to talk to him a *lot.* We need to be sending him presents, and hookers, booze, whatever it takes. Because he's running the show over there.

Posted by Jake | May 23, 2008 10:02 AM

Isnt it amazing how the big mouth right wing chicken hawk cowards cower in fear of Iran, a crap little country that couldnt beat Iraq in a war? Oh yeah, almost forgot, Iraq was Nazi Germany and Iran is the USSR. it makes sense now.

Posted by ron | May 23, 2008 10:10 AM

While maybe not extraordinary for Matt, this post was Homonymeriffic:
. phases -> fazes
. due -> do

O HAI GRAMMAR NAZI -

UR SLIP (HOMOPHONE, NOT HOMONYM) IS SHOWING

Posted by PowerGamer | May 23, 2008 10:11 AM

"Because he's running the show over there."

really? 'cause when Khatami was president, all the folks on the right just kept saying "yes, he wants reform, but he's not really in charge."

Posted by cha cha cha | May 23, 2008 10:22 AM

The official line from the Bush administration back in June '05, via their pals at Fox:

"Bush described the election as an exercise in futility because Iran's real power rests with the non-elected Islamic clerics, who can override the president and parliament."

Posted by cha cha cha | May 23, 2008 10:47 AM

I'm pretty sure it's "make do", not "make due".

If it's from the Weekly Standard, it's "make doo".

Posted by LFC | May 23, 2008 10:48 AM

Don't forget reality, Matt. Reality. Accuracy. Facts. Not embroidering the truth.

This post is interesting except for one thing: your punch line is not accurate.

You write: "Bernard Lewis confidently stated that Iran would unleash the apocalypse on August 22, 2006.."

Untrue. Just out-and-out untrue. Even maybe a "lie?"

Read the column. In fact Lewis wrote "It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind."

You were recently placed back on my "daily scan" list. Off you go again.

Posted by David Sucher | May 23, 2008 10:48 AM

SLC, Don Williams, and RSH --

♥♥♥THE HEATHERS OF MY♥♥♥

Posted by PowerGamer | May 23, 2008 10:59 AM

Isn't this the pot calling the kettle black. Or in this case, African-American.

Nicely played, PL, you've revealed yourself to be not only an idiot of the first order, but a 1960's-era bigot, as well. I guess we should be happy you didn't say "niggra".

Back to the topic at hand, when moderate Americans reacted positively when Iran elected the moderate Khatami, conservatives were quick to assure us that he was a figurehead, with no real power. But now that the more reactionary Ahmanadijad is in office, well nary a word about the power structure in Iran. It's enough to make one say, "Hmmmm...".

Posted by MeLoseBrain? | May 23, 2008 11:01 AM

When I was unsure about supporting Carter back in 1976 because of the kind of clods who were up on the dais with him at a speech I saw, an elder friend offered this bit of wisdom: judge a politician by his enemies, not his friends.

Witness the icky-pooh trolls who come out here.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 23, 2008 11:06 AM

"You were recently placed back on my "daily scan" list. Off you go again."

[sound of Matt's tears]
[sound of you refreshing your browser window to see if Bernard Lewis let you be his friend on facebook yet]

Posted by cha cha cha | May 23, 2008 11:08 AM

Yes, but the vacuous nature of conservative argumentation has contributed mightily to their brand not being taken very seriously these days by most people. After the 100th time that you get it completely and utterly wrong, people start to notice.

For example, Joe Klein has always sympathized with the right on most issues, particularly foreign policy. And he's even questioning this.

Posted by Chris | May 23, 2008 11:09 AM

And quite a few years - in fact, never - since Matt uttered a direct opinion about Iran...
And for Matt, no concern about uttering a direct opinion about Iran, either.

Yes, Richard Steven, Matt should spend his days responding only to your questions. And not offering an opinion about Iran is far different than being wildly wrong about Iran, but carry on.

At least your last name is appropriate - Hack.

Posted by MeLoseBrain? | May 23, 2008 11:09 AM

The word you want is "fazes" as in stuns instead "phases" as in sequential changes.

Posted by Grammar alert | May 23, 2008 11:14 AM

"Witness the icky-pooh trolls who come out here."

cut 'em some slack—friday comments get them triple points!

Posted by cha cha cha | May 23, 2008 11:17 AM

"hardly even phases me anymore" should be "hardly even fazes me anymore"

Posted by Alan | May 23, 2008 11:48 AM

that it hardly even phases me anymore

fazes

not phases

Posted by your english teacher | May 23, 2008 12:05 PM

will they just stop about iran and nukes already ??

Press Conference of the President
The East Room

8:01 P.M. EDT
April 28, 2005

...And what the Iranians have said was, don't we deserve to have a nuclear power industry just like you do? I've kind of wondered why they need one since they've got all the oil (1), but nevertheless, others in the world say (2), well, maybe that's their right to have their own civilian nuclear power industry...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050428-9.html

(1) in 1975, president ford signed a national security decision memorandum

NSDM 292 - http://www.ford.utexas.edu/LIBRARY/DOCUMENT/NSDMNSSM/nsdm292a.htm

the reasoning in part was, the more domestic energy needs that iran can provide by other methods, means more oil for export

----

(2) in 1975, bush's vice president was ford's chief of staff, bush's defense secretary was ford's chief of staff then defense secretary, please, do no say that they don't know why, or imply that you are not aware of their views

----

we gave them the nuclear technology to being with

----

also, has there been ANY reports of iran enriching uranium above the 3% (or so) needed for civilian use, there's a BIG difference between 3 and the 97% (or so) that's needed for weapons grade

Posted by tofubo | May 23, 2008 12:07 PM

will they just stop about iran and nukes already ??

Press Conference of the President
The East Room

8:01 P.M. EDT
April 28, 2005

...And what the Iranians have said was, don't we deserve to have a nuclear power industry just like you do? I've kind of wondered why they need one since they've got all the oil (1), but nevertheless, others in the world say (2), well, maybe that's their right to have their own civilian nuclear power industry...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050428-9.html

(1) in 1975, president ford signed a national security decision memorandum

NSDM 292 - http://www.ford.utexas.edu/LIBRARY/DOCUMENT/NSDMNSSM/nsdm292a.htm

the reasoning in part was, the more domestic energy needs that iran can provide by other methods, means more oil for export

----

(2) in 1975, bush's vice president was ford's chief of staff, bush's defense secretary was ford's chief of staff then defense secretary, please, do no say that they don't know why, or imply that you are not aware of their views

----

we gave them the nuclear technology to being with

----

also, has there been ANY reports of iran enriching uranium above the 3% (or so) needed for civilian use, there's a BIG difference between 3 and the 97% (or so) that's needed for weapons grade

Posted by tofubo | May 23, 2008 12:11 PM

sorry for the dupe

Posted by tofubo | May 23, 2008 12:16 PM

"It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22 [of 2006]."

That might be enough to let Lewis off the hook if the cataclysmic events took place, say, Sept. 1, 2006. After all, he never claimed to know the precise date.

Two years, have gone by, though, and there is no sign of any cataclysm, and the rightwingnuts here want to excuse Lewis on the grounds that he never promised to be "precise." We're a bit beyond the "not precise" zone now, aren't we?

Posted by rea | May 23, 2008 12:25 PM

Is it safe to say that grammar trolling apparently yields rather significant McCain Points?

Posted by cha cha cha | May 23, 2008 12:40 PM

I believe Ahminadajad's destroy israel quote was actually something to the effect of 'israel will not survive the test of time.'. Hardly the 'death threat' that it was portrayed as.

Whats up with the trolls here? Damn they're stupid.

Posted by Aaron | May 23, 2008 12:45 PM

perhaps we could get Ahmadenijad to psychoanalyze Krauthammer?

Posted by Gene | May 23, 2008 1:27 PM

perhaps we could get Ahmadenijad to psychoanalyze Krauthammer?

Posted by Gene | May 23, 2008 1:30 PM

"The Juan Cole/Joe Klein argument that Mahmoud doesn't really control Iran is kind of silly. If he's restarting Iran's nuclear program, and nobody is stopping him, then he's in control."

I just Googled this to see if it was true that A-jad was restarting the program and I couldn't find a single credible news source saying so on Google News and all of the regular searches were articles from 2005, so thus out of date. Basically, you're full of shit.

Posted by Reality Man | May 23, 2008 1:52 PM

What Rahgav said! If you're going to slam others for being inaccurate, best get your own facts straight. No respect, indeed!

What Lewis ACTUALLY said was: "It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind."

But what does it matter? Lewis is an academic with conservative leanings, so he must suck, right?

Posted by JCS | May 23, 2008 1:56 PM

Is it me or has the right-wing echo chamber become a few orders of magnitude more crazy-desperate in the past month?

I recall the very old SNL days when John Belushi used to do an opinion rant on the Weekend Update that always ended up with him sweating and frothing and finally passing out in a literal fit of pique.

THAT's what the entire right-wing media and their little soldier-trolls have been like recently.

The other night, I heard a few minutes of Hugh Hewitt's radio show and he barely could get out a complete sentence. It was all bellowing and "appeaser"-this and "rev wright"-that. My wife remarked on the fact that he went for about 6 minutes without taking a breath. And he's supposed to be one of the more low-key (if high-octane insane) of the right-wing macaws.

Posted by Pope Ratzo | May 23, 2008 2:15 PM

"perhaps we could get Ahmadenijad to psychoanalyze Krauthammer?"

i believe that's outlawed by the geneva conventions.

Posted by cha cha cha | May 23, 2008 2:30 PM

"Yes, Richard Steven, Matt should spend his days responding only to your questions. And not offering an opinion about Iran is far different than being wildly wrong about Iran, but carry on.

At least your last name is appropriate - Hack.

Posted by MeLoseBrain?"

And your handle is appropriate.

The reason why I bitch about Matt not answering my questions is precisely because he keeps hinting that he IS "wildly wrong" about Iran.

But he doesn't have the balls to say so.

That makes him an intellectual coward.

What's his problem? He can't simply say, "Yes, I think Iran has a nuclear weapons program?" or "No, I don't think Iran has a nuclear weapons program" - or even, "I don't KNOW if Iran has a nuclear weapons program."?

Is this some kind of trick question? Is this something he has to think hard about?

Go back and look at every single post he has made on Iran. He has NEVER said what he actually believes about the charge of a nuclear weapons program.

Nor has he EVER said whether he thinks a military response is appropriate, whether sanctioned by the UN or not.

Given his past mistake on Iraq, doesn't anybody think that's just a bit too obvious?

Get a clue.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 5:18 PM

This thread contains yet more proof that most rightwingers are just stupid people saying
scummy lies.

The Right has nothing else left these days----
Only vileness.

Posted by nikto | May 23, 2008 5:58 PM

What is this "Reality" you speak of?

Posted by Peanutcat | May 23, 2008 8:24 PM