Your friend is now leader of the free world. Does he own a passport yet?

Kinda connects to post below... BushCo, Weekly Standard, Commentary... Larouche... Scientology... other non-reality-based systems of thought (that make a lot money for their leadership)... can you detect the difference?

Nothing wierd about it, Kevin. Psychologists call it 'projection' - the natural human urge to project onto the Other those aspects of oneself that one is most uncomfortable with. Got a problem with your own violent, aggressive tendencies? Project them onto somebody else and Presto! - you're the peace-loving good guy who's got to wrestle with the Evil Other. Works like a charm.

And here, I thought it was Brian Cashman

I'm sure your buddy will have a new Antichrist after next November, and her name will be Hillary.

*

How can Al and Eggy know how manly they are except as measured against Pure Evil?

Surely, you're not asking us to acknowledge that the world is a complicated place without simple answers? Don't you love America?

Let's just let Richard Hofstadter do the talking on this thread, shall we?

"The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms — he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization... he does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated — if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes."

-- from The Paranoid Style in American Politics, 1964.

I much prefer the Romantics' view that the French Revolution signaled the coming of the Apocalypse. They thought freedom and liberty were going to be the result of Jesus' return, not global mass murder and destruction. Today's Revelationists actually worship Moloch.

While I think there is something to complaints that Bush is blaming Iran for "everything," it is just as dangerous to blame Iran for "nothing." As mhr pointed out, many on the left instinctively blame the US for "everything" which is not more productive than seeking out someone else to blame for the world's problems.

This is best exemplified in this sentence:

"U.S. generals are now routinely trotted out to blame Iranian interference and arms shipments for the continuing Islamist insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, though Tehran plays at best a minor role there."

To dismiss the Iranian role in the continued violence in Iraq and Afghanistan as "at best a minor role" is laughable at best. To be sure, Iran is not the sole cause of violence there. Both local and US factors weigh very heavily in that. But to dismiss Iran's role in this way is to play an extremely dangerous game of satisfying one's desire to attack the administration while ignoring the very real, very dangerous, and very anti-American actions of the Iranians. And without recognizing that danger, one can never deal with it.

"Today the administration is casting Iran as America's biggest bogeyman on every front."

Iran stole my bicycle out of my backyard and left its crappy, rusted one in its place.

Iran made my dad run off with a stripper.

Iran wrote, produced, and directed Gigli.

>"There always has to be someone who's basically the antichrist, and whoever it is is responsible for everything"

"And Carthage must be Destroyed !"

Creating an external demon is a principle effectively used by politicians for thousands of years to control a gullible, unthinking citizenry.

>"... held 66 Americans for 444 days... The day Ronald Reagan was inaugurated president, the hostages were released."

Remember that this is the same Reagan that would soon be secretly selling weapons to the Iranians in violation of US law. You reckon this is a simple coincidence? Sure smells to me like a pre-election deal had been cut behind the scenes.

Oh yeah, remember this is the same Reagan who put the Islamic jihadists in business in Afghanistan.
Great idea, that.

Iran introduced Whitney Houston to Bobby Brown.

Iran developed the concept of 'celebreality.' I'll never forgive them for that.

The external and terrible enemy trick is a very old and common one. What is particularly American about your acquaintance's approach is the personalisation of the enemy. The Bluecoats fought 'Jefferson Davis', the WWII GI's were up against 'Hitler' and 'Tojo'. More recently we've been fighting 'Saddam' and 'bin Laden', and now with the departure of the former we've decided that 'Ahmedinejad' is the enemy. It's infantilising and stupid - in most conflict situations you are fighting an enemy society, or at least part of one. Thinking it's all one guy makes war sound more cliical and easier than it really is.

Has anyone ever considered Bush as being the Antichrist? Something in the prophecy about having a "head wound". Why assume this has to be physical?

Iran took my last soda from the fridge and drank it.

"There always has to be someone who's basically the antichrist, and whoever it is is responsible for everything."

Hmmm, sounds eeirly similar to the moonie liberal fascination with GWB.

The Neocons thought it was really clever and cool when we smuggled Stingers into Afghanistan and brought the Russian anti-insurgency effort to a stand still. Now they are surprised and outraged the Iran would smuggle weapons across the border into neighboring Iraq. It all comes back to the idiots who thought we could invade Iraq without becoming entangled with Iran.

Iran ran over my dog.

Iran made my hairline recede.

kevin:

Why do you have to link to that stupid Matt what the fuck his last name is all the time? So what if the guy has PHD. Why can you just offer your own opinion?

Not so weird. The powerful have known that the masses can be manipulated since the time of Andrew Jackson.

Iran made Kevin link to Yglesias.

Wow, thanks, Hacksaw, good thing you are here to set these people straight! In fact, I actually did laugh at the part of Kevin's post about Iran's "minor role" in both countries. I'm sure it wasn't just a chortle or two, I'm positive it was an outright laugh. It may have been nuclear, although I'm not positive.

"So what if the guy has PHD."

AFAIK, Yglesias has a BA in Philosophy from Harvard, so no academic credentials whatsoever.

Iran made me eat too much for lunch, and hid the Tums.

Iran forgot to pay the cable bill.

Iran is only a minion or fall guy doing the bidding of the real antichrist that lives in the white house.

Isn't the AntiChrist the Bush Administration as a whole? I'm confused.

The antichrist?

Haven't you heard? Wow, this is *old* news.

It's Mickey Mouse. The Beast. Universally recognized. Kids carry his mark all over the place.

If you don't believe me, go to a Disney park and try to get them to embroider "666" on a mouse hat.

Iran forced me to do too many shots last night.

Iran's karma ran over my dogma.

But seriously, as Hofstadter's quote upthread recognizes, the paranoid mind is always looking for "evil" to blame the world's problems on. Iran is a third world nation with a GNP roughly equal to Denmark. Unlike us, Iran hasn't launched a war of aggression since the 18th century. Iran doesn't have one-fifth the army that Adolf Hitler had. They are far less of a threat to the U.S. than, say, Pakistan is.

For those interested in eschatology, the anti-Christ ("666") mentioned in the Book of Revelations, almost certainly refers to the Emperor Nero, who died almost 2000 years ago. Those who try to interpret Revelations to try to refer to current events have a deeply flawed and very poor understanding of Biblical textual criticism and the context in which John wrote the Book of Revelations. It was NOT intended to be prophetic, but instead, was likely a veiled message to the early Christians in Rome to be strong and perservere against the anti-Christian oppression waged by Nero. Some historians also cite the presence of certain hallucinogenic mushrooms on the island of Patmos, where Revelations was written, as evidence that John was on one helluva hallucinogenic bender when he penned that book that would later be canonized into the Christian Bible.

"While I think there is something to complaints that Bush is blaming Iran for "everything," it is just as dangerous to blame Iran for "nothing." As mhr pointed out, many on the left instinctively blame the US for "everything" which is not more productive than seeking out someone else to blame for the world's problems."

Fair enough, but you do realize it's hard to get a clear sense of how much we should actually blame Iran, when the President is obsessed with blaming them for everything. I'm sure they're doing some bad stuff. Probably some of these generals are making accurate claims. But when the President is clearly obsessed, it's just hard to know if any particular claim coming from our intelligence or our military is accurate, at least on the subject of Iran.

Conservative deflator: for the record, the "Beast" of the Revelation refers not to Nero, but more than likely to the Flavian emperor Domitian (AD 81-96), whose enemies dubbed him "Nero redivivus" or "Nero resurrected", referring to a popular myth that the hated emperor Nero, who killed himself in 68 (hence the beast with the wounded head), would rise again to inflict his cruelties on the world, particularly Christians. For what it's worth, however, I'm just as happy with the magic mushroom angle.

Iran made me use harsh language in a comment in another thread.

... many on the left instinctively blame the US for "everything" which is not more productive than seeking out someone else to blame for the world's problems.

The key difference, of course, is that the "many" on the left to whom you refer don't stand on the precipice of launching a war on the object of their ire, whereas your administration of choice is -- as we speak -- beating the drums for yet another poorly thought out & ultimately counterproductive war against yet another Muslim nation.

"When they dress in suits and, say, edit the Weekly Standard, we call them foreign policy analysts"

Rock on, Mr. Kevin. Good stuff.

For those interested in eschatology...

That's the thing about the millenarian mindset -- it's always living in the penultimate moment, so there's never any hesitation to use absolute terms (the evil empire, the axis of evil) & apocalyptic imagery (smoking guns & mushroom clouds) in order to prod the masses. One of the few things on which I take Bush at his word is when he says he's not interested in how history judges him. History doesn't matter when you're living in the end times. No one's going to be around to study it.

Iran ate my homework.

I try to reassure my friends on the left who worry that Bush may be the antichrist, as Bush is too lazy for that role.

Iran gave my next one-liner to grape_crush.

Iran peed in bob's cornflakes.

jonas:

I accept your revision. It has been awhile since I took my Biblical criticism course in college. Of course you know that the "rapture" that Bush and many of his felllow fundamentalists look for and think they find in the Book of Revelations is actually a fairly modern creation by a Presbyterian minister named Edward Irving from the early 1830s . The concept of the "rapture" is not even mentioned in the Bible and is as likely to occur as George W. Bush being admitted to the Mensa Society. But, your point is a good one. Thanks,

TCD

Hofstadter's characterization underscores what should be regarded as a perennial perspective in modern politics. It is something George Orwell recognized in totalitarian regimes and one of the tendencies Umberto Eco noted as characteristic of Ur-fascism. It is the myth of endless enemy outside of and within the state that must be destroyed at all cost if there is to be survival. It is a cover story used for imperialist aggression abroad and political oppression at home. There are features particular to American culture but the function and basic political impulse is the same as in other countries in the past.

We live in an era of authoritarianism. The question is how an American political party became dominated by authoritarians, just the sort the American Constitution was designed to keep out of power. The people pushing for war with Iran are a tiny political minority associated with the AEI and a few Southern politicians from low population states who find war to be a desirable solution to just about every foreign policy problem. How is it that this minority has come to command the policies of the United States?

hacksaw: But to dismiss Iran's role in this way is to play an extremely dangerous game of satisfying one's desire to attack the administration while ignoring the very real, very dangerous, and very anti-American actions of the Iranians. And without recognizing that danger, one can never deal with it.

hacksaw, you do realize that one of the worst results of Bush's totally partisan handling of absolutely everything is that it is impossible believe any bit of information issued, deliberately leaked, or "accidentally" leaked by anyone in the federal government or military? And it's not only because Bush/Cheney lie and spin the facts. It's also because of their proven and positively awesome incompetence at determining what the facts are, such as whether or not Saddam had WMDs "here, and here and over there." It doesn't matter whether you tell me they knew and lied, or that they were clueless. The result is that I have no confidence in their claims about anything. They've tried so many failed strategies in Iraq based on faulty information, that I have to assume that they are always wrong.

If Iran is a threat to the whole world, Bush and Cheney are in the position of the boy who cried "wolf" for a joke until the other shepherds stopped coming to his aid. And then one day there really was a wolf.

Bush and Cheney are in the position of the boy who cried "wolf"
Exactly.

Cowalker:

I've been on this site long enough to know perfectly well that most folks here (and like-minded liberals everywhere) have no confidence in the administration and its claims. That does not excuse those folks from dismissing out of hand the reality of what Iran is doing. Assuming "they are always wrong" is no better than assuming they are always right. And there are plenty of other sources one can go to to learn about Iran and its support of terrorism both in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world. Avoiding the issue because one hates the administration (though I am not suggesting this is what you are doing) is not acceptable if one wants to be taken seriously on foreign and security policy.

Iran said it loved me and then never called, never wrote....

Iran made Hack cite mhr approvingly.

Iran styled Donald Trump's comb-over.

Another "exactly" to tack onto thersites' "exactly" in response to cowalker at 3:05. But exactly.

Hacksaw, you're always getting called on this when you try to pretend everyone is being terribly unreasonable in not trusting Bush and Cheney to a) tell the truth or b) get it right. You pretend there's no reason whatsoever for everyone to be so darn suspicious of your boys, and when you're reminded of the hundreds of reasons we've piled up over the last seven years, you ignore them and slink away until the next time you try this crap.

Comments like this--"As mhr (!) pointed out, many on the left instinctively blame the US for "everything" which is not more productive than seeking out someone else to blame for the world's problems"--do nothing to improve your image around here as a guy who pretends to be thoughtfully weighing perspectives while unfailingly coming down on the side of Bush and Cheney (not the US; Bush and Cheney) while ignoring their actual history.

Something tells me that if we looked, we wouldn't find any hacksaw-signed posts on right-wing blogs urging openminded consideration of the possibility that Bush and Cheney might be lying, exaggerating or wrong. If I'm mistaken about that, kindly point me to a single example.

Iran made Hack cite mhr approvingly.

I love all grape's stuff on this topic, but this one made me shriek with mirth. mhr, you have an admirer. There really is a lid for every (crack) pot.

Iran would be responsible for global warming, if global warming were real.

You don't seem to have anything to say about the merits of the particular claims.

Will Iran be a threat to Europe if it acquires long-range missiles and nuclear warheads?

Sure.

It has nothing to do with an antichrist (or a Moriarty, or any other such concept of a unified evil.)

Do they supply Hizbullah, Hamas, and divergent insurgent groups in Iraq?

Yes.

The Iranian threat is overblown, no less so than the alleged threat that Iraq was supposed to pose.

Do the Iranians generally act against the interests of the US?

Of course - the US has never given them any reason not to and have rudely abused their people throughout the last 50 years or more.

When you spit on people, terrorize them, steal from them, and undermine their economic and political freedoms, then demand that they choose you or your enemy, who has yet to so abuse them, should it be surprising that they choose the latter?

And yet the Right's answer to all this is to heap more abuse on Iran.

The Right will forever create more enemies for the US than they will destroy, and thus they will forever place this nation in greater, not lesser, danger.

MatthewRmarler on October 29, 2007 at 4:03 PM:

You don't seem to have anything to say about the merits of the particular claims.

Well, that's not the point of Kev's post, izzit?...Hirsh handles the claims - briefly, 'cause we've probably already heard the arguments - and Kev points out that there's "nothing new here" with regard to the administration's claims.

Lemme bounce a question backatchya, MattR: Is Iran the only supplier of 'divergent insurgent groups in Iraq'? If more diverent insurgent support was coming from, say, Saudi Arabia...where's the demonization of the Saudis?

Iran screwed up grape_crush's spelling of "divergent." I don't blame them.

Iran borrowed my spelling dictionary and never bothered to return it.

The Right will forever create more enemies for the US than they will destroy

Well, yeh. If they run out of enemies, what do they have left?

In 1980, Iran made Reagan president. I'll never forgive them.

"You don't seem to have anything to say about the merits of the particular claims."

Well, mostly because the claims are so wildly overblown it's impossible to take them seriously, much less actively work to refute them.

"Will Iran be a threat to Europe if it acquires long-range missiles and nuclear warheads?"

No.

"It has nothing to do with an antichrist (or a Moriarty, or any other such concept of a unified evil.)"

LOL.... Nice way to completely miss the point of Kevin's post.

"Do they supply Hizbullah, Hamas, and divergent insurgent groups in Iraq?"

Sigh.... Probably, although the claims in that regard have also been wildly overblown. Moreover, how are you defining "insurgent groups in Iraq," Matthew? If you mean "insurgent groups" in the way that that is commonly understood, the answer is clearly "no" there, too.

All you're doing here is proving Kevin's point, Matthew.

"Well, yeh. If they run out of enemies, what do they have left?"

Us.

"Do the Iranians generally act against the interests of the US?"

I know the point you were trying to make, but the question buys into what I believe to be an inappropriate frame. The real question is: "Do the Iranians generally act in their own interests? Yes. Do they, and should they, pay attention to U.S. interests? Not really.

Major upheaval in a nation on their border, a nation that they fought a protracted and bloody war with in recent memory -- why on earth would they not try to intervene to influence events in Iraq?!

I'm not even remotely claiming that Iraq is acting appropriately or benevolently or that we should not be concerned about their actions or any other strawman argument that are so often used -- I'm simply pointing out that the reality is not what the mythmakers on the right think, and claim, it is.

shortstop,

I got a chuckle from grape's line as well.

I really don't think I was suggesting that "everyone is being terribly unreasonable in not trusting Bush and Cheney." In fact I accepted that most folks here don't trust that administration but observed that this did not mean they could dismiss the Iran threat simply because Bush said Iran was bad. As your comments exemplify, there is a tendency on the left to keep making this about the administration. I think its fine to lay out concerns about, as you see it, the administration laying the faulty intelligence groundwork to attack Iran. But at some point it would be nice if the Left was able to actual discuss Iran's behavior without immediately leaping into yet another Bush sucks, Cheney is evil diatribe.

Iran's behavior of helping the weak respond against aggression from the strong should be admired. Iran may be the only nation with the courage to help Palestinians, Lebanese Shiites and Iraqis fight the overwhelming power of the United States. Even Russia lacks the courage to supply rocket launchers to the Afghan and Iraqi patriots. One would think they would be happy to provide payback for all of the Soviet soldiers the US helped to kill.

If the US had been in Iran's postition in 1980, it would not have dared to arm the Mujihadeen in Afghanistan. The only threat Iran poses to the US is one of defiance. Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas cannot harm US national security in any way. The only thing they can do is defy our strength. This is what infuriates the neo-conmen, who expect all peoples everywhere to fear their awesome power.

But at some point it would be nice if the Left was able to actual discuss Iran's behavior without immediately leaping into yet another Bush sucks, Cheney is evil diatribe.

Well, lets just dispense with that bit out of the gate then. Bush does suck, and Cneney is evil.

Now, moving on from the givens...

The threat of an aggressive Iran is drastically overblown. (Hell, it is arguably non-existent.) They are no military threat to us, and anyone who takes the tirades of their diminutive president any more seriously than Foghorn Leghorn took Henery Hawk is in need of a guardian to take care of their big decisions.

What Iran does have that should not be underestimated are a strong national identity and a chip on their collective shoulder the size of a great sequoia. They also have oil, and the ability to, at least temporarily, disrupt the fuel supply for the entire worlds economic engine.

The actions they could take would be ultimately counterproductive to them, so I don't believe they would initiate hostilities beyond what is happening right now below the CNN line. But they would respond if attacked, and that response would exact a heavy toll. They could unleash a volley of rockets and missiles on the gulf that would surely sink something before it was all said and done. They could get in on the fun and games next door in Iraq in a big way.

The U.S. is always gonna win against such a rival because we have the Air Force. But military action against Iran would be a really, really stupid thing to undertake.

Months ago I wrote about Iran. (Apparently I have at least been in the same area code as a clue at some point in my life. Juan Cole linked it.)

Iran took my tooth before the toothfairy left me any coin.

…That does not excuse those folks from dismissing out of hand the reality of what Iran is doing…Hack at 3:23 P

Get serious.

…. at some point it would be nice if the Left was able to actual discuss Iran's behavior… Hack at 5:47 PM

As a general rule in dealing with others, if you attack, they will counterattack.

"To dismiss the Iranian role in the continued violence in Iraq and Afghanistan as 'at best a minor role' is laughable at best."

Um, no, not at all. There has never been any convincing evidence presented that Iran has had anything but a "minor role" in either country, particularly in Afghanistan. Simply asserting something does not make it true.

"But to dismiss Iran's role in this way"

Since nobody is "dismiss[ing] Iran's role," forgive me if we take this for the strawman argument that it is.

"is to play an extremely dangerous game of satisfying one's desire to attack the administration"

ROFL.... Loved the lame ad hominem attack, Hacksaw. Got anything substantive to say? And any evidence to support it with?

Iran enrolled its kids in S-CHIP even though it has three cars and a big house with granite countertops.

----

My '67 edition of Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and other essays is getting very crackly-spined, as I go back to it again and again - unfortunately all too relevant. More Hoffy: "People who share this outlook have a disposition to interpret issues of secular politics as though they were solely moral and spiritual struggles. . . . as an objective struggle in the arena of world politics it is less challenging to then than it is as a kind of spiritual wrestling march with the minions of ultimate evil . . . Those who look at the world in this way see their fundamental battle as one to be conducted against other Americans at home . . ." (From"Pseudo-conservativism Revisited - 1965")

Which is probably why the right can't focus on actual problems - securing nuclear material, for starters - but bizarre apocalyptic scenarios and attacks on their fellow citizens. But again, since they're fighting Ultimate Evil, negotiation, compromise, indeed anything except bloody indiscriminate slaughter is a betrayal - they're our equivalent to the folks who insisted we needed to defeat Russia once and for all - Why Not Victory?, as Goldwater's book put it - with none of this namby-pamby or treasonous containment (this argument even bobbed back up in the rightwingosphere recently). ". . .a certain robust impatience with negotiation and compromise, a resolution to do away with uncertainty and ambiguity, a readiness to believe that large and complex questions of state could somehow be swept off the board by some sudden and simple gesture of violent decision . . . As he [Goldwater] saw it, we are engaged in a relentless life-or-death struggle which makes coexistence meaningless. "Victory is the key to the whole problem," he wrote, "the only alternative is - obviously - defeat." The struggle against communism he saw . . . as the great imperative of our existence, and there are passages in which he appeared to lament the time we find for other things . . " ("Goldwater and Pseudo-Conservative Politics"). Throw in a reference to burkas ad such, and well . . .

And the various crazies back then had, for all their inability to come to terms with the real world in any useful, productive, and nonharmful manner, at least had an excuse - there really was a powerful empire that, if not evil, was rather nasty, and entirely capable of annihilating us, if likely at the cost of its own destruction: just because you're paranoid, as they, doesn't mean that someone's not out to get you. Today's cheetos-dusted armchair warriors just have the frightening fantasy of islamofascism, mixed with some genuine problems where we can only hope they are moved as far as possible from the levers of power so the adults can handle things in a responsible manner.
It's like there's a ghost haunting America, the ghost of postWWII nutjobbery, bizarrely compelled to repeat the same meaningless actions, moan the same disturbing and content-free moans, over and over and over, with no reference to or apparent awareness of current reality . . .
Or is it some bizarre psychodrama, where they continuously re-enact some damaging event in a impossible and damaging quest for closure (see, for example, Norman Podhoretz's famous essay about how he was bullied by scary black kids).

"I really don't think I was suggesting that 'everyone is being terribly unreasonable in not trusting Bush and Cheney.'"

Nope. You simply fired off an even lamer ad hominem attack than that, an ad hominem attack that you repeat in this post, as well.

"In fact I accepted that most folks here don't trust that administration but observed that this did not mean they could dismiss the Iran threat simply because Bush said Iran was bad."

And since nobody here has done that, forgive us if we treat this as the pathetic attack that it is.

"As your comments exemplify, there is a tendency on the left to keep making this about the administration."

Not even remotely, but thanks for playing; we have some lovely consolation prizes for you.

"But at some point it would be nice if the Left was able to actual discuss Iran's behavior without immediately leaping into yet another Bush sucks, Cheney is evil diatribe."

Dear heart, we have no problem doing just that. Anytime you'd care to join in, we'll be right here. Of course, since you'd much rather issue lame attacks and unsupported assertions, it's pretty clear that you have no intention of actually engaging in a serious discussion, the same as it's been on every other thread.

I had a friend many years ago who was a friendly but obsessive fundamentalist Christian who spent his time searching for signs of the antichrist. For a while during the early Reagan era he was convinced it was Konstantin Chernenko. Then it switched to Moammar Qadafi. Then it was Saddam Hussein.
---------
What about Mikhail Gorbachov? That big red streaky-thingy on his forehead?

Captain Obvious!

Hacksaw,

It wasn't grape's line, good as grape's stuff is. And it seems unlikely that you understand why it's so funny.

I note that once again, your post is curiously free of any acknowledgment of why the "left"--in reality, practically the whole nation, according to the polls re Iran, and certainly the rest of the globe--"keeps making this about the administration." You don't seem to be able to stop overlooking the little matter of Iraq and how we got there in your eagerness to endorse starting a third war.

I'll ask you again, rhetorically, because we already know the answer and you're not about to be honest about it: Why do you keep sliding past any acknowledgment of the administration's conduct leading up to and throughout the invasion of Iraq? And again, can you show us anyplace where you've urged those on the right to exercise the same sort of openmindedness in considering the veracity of the administration's line that you're admonishing us to use when doubting the administration's truthfulness?

Through your actions of the past seven years, you and your fellow travellers have simply lost the right to be given the benefit of the doubt in these circumstances. You have indeed cried wolf too many times to be able to muster the trust of the American people and the world. I would add that people who want to be "taken seriously" about these things understand that when a record of competence and honesty is utterly lacking, the first step toward rebuilding public trust is necessarily an admission of having fucked up deluxe on the last round.

Because you guys aren't honorable enough to twig that, you'll also don't understand why the trust of the country and the world cannot come back to you.

I should also mention Glenn Greenwald's recent book: A Tragic Legacy: How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency - quite good.

fucked up deluxe

I used to drive one of those, back in the day. It had white sidewalls, chrome wheels and a Powerglide transmission.

Iran hit it with a Chevy pickup.

Marler and Hack, get real. If Iran acquired a nuclear weapon and missiles, it'd still be subject to the same rules of deterrence that have been in play throughout the Cold War and beyond. Yes, perhaps Iran could acquire the ability to launch a nuclear weapon at Europe -- So what>? If they did, even France or England could reduce all of Iran to radioactive glass, let alone the US.

So by all means, tell us how Iran, unique in all of human history -- including mortal enemies India and Pakistan -- is not subject to deterrence. But ominous references to "mad mullahs" aren't going to cut it.

Short of that, you have no evidence that an Iranian bomb poses any more of a threat to the proliferation that's already occurred on Bush's watch.

Of course, what would also happen if Iran got the bomb is that Israel would no longer have a nuclear monopoly in the middle East, and therefore it would also be subject to nuclear deterrence. Which, frankly, is more Israel's problem than the United States, and I for one believe we need to be nice and sparking clear about that.

But that'd call for honesty on the part of the neocons and warhawks like Marler and Hack, so of course it's a non-starter.

shortstop,

I would add that people who want to be "taken seriously" about these things understand that when a record of competence and honesty is utterly lacking

For these clowns, to be "taken seriously" means to be presumptively in favor of war and, as we've seen with Hack, have the burden of proof on those who oppose military action -- especially one as risky as attacking Iran.

I call bullshit. If Hack wants to make the case that Iran is a threat even though Bush claims it is -- which puts two big strikes against the credibility of the case to begin with -- let him make it, honestly and convincingly.

Fat chance.

"You don't seem to be able to stop overlooking the little matter of Iraq and how we got there in your eagerness to endorse starting a third war."

It's even worse than that, of course, because Hacky is dishonestly claiming that we're closing our eyes to the "real danger" solely because of our dislike and distrust of the Bush administration. The reality, of course, is that we're simply pointing out that the rhetoric of the Bush administration simply does not match the verifiable evidence in this case.

So what does Hacky do? Supply the evidence to bolster his wild assertions? Nope. He simply engages in the ad hominem attacks that he and his ilk have become quite well known for, contributing nothing at all to the discussion he claims to want.

Well, Paul, I'm pro-division of labor. You guys were doing a fine job of trying to get him to cough up some evidence for his arguments, so I thought I'd work a bit more on my long-term project of getting Hack to simply acknowledge the towering clusterfuck that is Iraq, the reasons for it happening and why it's understandable that it's knocked George and Dick and all their little friends off America's Christmas card list.

There's plenty of Hackery to go around, after all.

And a big bwa! to thersites for: I used to drive one of those, back in the day. It had white sidewalls, chrome wheels and a Powerglide transmission.

Iran hit it with a Chevy pickup.

And for the record, Hacky and Matthew, the Bush administration recently warned of World War III with respect to Iran, a warning so egregiously out of step with reality that mockery is the only appropriate response.

Fair enough, shortstop. I don't expect Hacky to supply anything more than the mindless attacks he's known for, but you are correct that it's appropriate to point out the past history of this administration when considering any of its rhetoric.

fucked up deluxe
---
I used to drive one of those, back in the day. It had white sidewalls, chrome wheels and a Powerglide transmission.

Iran hit it with a Chevy pickup.
Posted by: thersites on October 29, 2007 at 6:38 PM
====
I used to drive a '68 Impala with a Powerglide transmission.

Iran made it unable to shift into drive from low gear. Probably to force me to consume more petroleum products no doubt!

But, I was still impressed that I could drive 50mph in "L" (out of PRNDL) for a couple of months until I had the cash to fix the tranny.

Fucked up Deluxe

Iran knocked my sister-in-law up in the back seat of one of those I think.

(The PowerGlide jokes are writing themselves, but I just can't go there...)

Iran made us...well, never mind. It's nothing anyone here's going to complain about.

Michael Hirsh said:

" Mideast peace? Never mind that the Palestinians are mixed up in a civil war of their own making and blaming the Israelis.

What a hoser - just kinda slipped that one when he thought no one was looking.

Has anyone ever considered Bush as being the Antichrist? ...

Well, *I* certainly have. But then I caught a pop documentary on cable where the Antichrist was described as necessarily being "highly intelligent".

Blew THAT notion right out of the water!

Nevertheless, Dumbya does present a striking image of the corporeal embodiment of "pure evil". So perhaps he's an "idot savant" version.

"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams."
~ Thomas Jefferson, 1825

... to dismiss Iran's role in this way is to play an extremely dangerous game of satisfying one's desire to attack the administration while ignoring the very real, very dangerous, and very anti-American actions of the Iranians. And without recognizing that danger, one can never deal with it.

Got any actual PROOF of those allegations, Hack? The Bush Reich certainly can't produce any reliable evidence to support its transparently belligerent shams, so I seriously doubt YOU can.

But go ahead, knock yourself out. I'm all ears, and will be waiting with baited breath (quite likely until hell freezes over) for you to deliver the goods on Iran's "very real, very dangerous, and very anti-American actions".

To put it a bit more bluntly, "BUllSHit!!"

Iran took my last soda from the fridge and drank it.
~ grape crush

OH MY GOD! Iran is actually "Notme"! ;-)

... the paranoid mind is always looking for "evil" to blame the world's problems on.

CD: For Hitler and the Nazis, it was "the Jews"; for Bush and his NeoConNazis, it's (currently) "evil Iran".

Getting to be a rather tired re-run, isn't it? It would be particularly nice to be able to just "change the channel" -- permanently.

Not everything Bush, Rice, etc say is for our little consumption. There's an international audience, including Iran! He's not writing a Poli Sci term paper. Besides, anyone noticed that there is a lot of real action, not just hotair, surrounding Iran's pursuit of nukes, arming and aiding insurgents in Iraq - then there's Hezbollah, Syria, Hamas. Bush must be a real fanatic to get his panties in a wad over such petty stuff.

"Not everything Bush, Rice, etc say is for our little consumption. There's an international audience, including Iran!"

Sigh.... Now tell us something we don't know.

"Besides, anyone noticed that there is a lot of real action, not just hotair, surrounding Iran's pursuit of nukes, arming and aiding insurgents in Iraq"

Not based on any real, verifiable evidence, and certainly not sufficient "real action" to justify the rhetoric.

"Bush must be a real fanatic to get his panties in a wad over such petty stuff."

Yup. Or, rather, he's playing the only card he's got left, in a vain and pathetic attempt to salvage his reputation.

I think Iran killed this thread.

No, not dead yet!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wkLYYaTWoRc
"Death Is My Co-Pilot"