AEI’s Muravchik: ‘I Don’t Mind If We Bomb Iran Next Month Or The Month After’
AEI’s Muravchik: ‘I Don’t Mind If We Bomb Iran Next Month Or The Month After’
AEI scholar Joshua Muravchik has consistently pushed for war with Iran. In Nov. 2006, for example, Muravchik wrote an LA Times op-ed called simply, “Bomb Iran.” But as his appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball yesterday demonstrated, Muravchik’s calls for war with Iran aren’t based on any real evidence.
When host Chris Matthews asked how long it will take the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon “that could be transported by a terrorist group,” Muravchik admitted he didn’t “know how long it will take them.” Muravchik’s comments came on the same day that IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei confirmed that it would take Iran three to eight years to build a nuclear weapon.
Nevertheless, Muravchik added, “I don’t mind if we bomb next month or the month after. I think we have to do it sometime in a short time frame.” Matthews then suggested that the real reason Muravchik is pushing for war so soon is not because of national security imperatives, but because Bush is the most likely president to follow through:
I respect you coming on and you’re a logical thinker. Let’s go to the logic of this. The one reason to bomb them now is you don’t trust the incoming presidency, the next president of the United States to do it. So you say let’s get Bush to do it. He’s the most likely guy to do it.
Watch it:
In the past, Muravchick has made clear that he wants war with Iran to happen before the 2008 elections. “Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities before leaving office,” he wrote in late 2006.
Muravchik has pushed for a targeted air strike because it “would not end Iran’s weapons program, but it would certainly delay it.” Yet as a recent study by the British-based Oxford Research Group reports, military strikes on Iran “could accelerate rather than halt Tehran’s production of atomic weapons.”
(HT: Matt Yglesias)
Transcript:
WALSH: Two things on this. One, there’s no country in the history of the world that’s transferred a weapon of mass destruction to a terrorist group, not a nuclear weapon, radiological weapon, biological weapon, chemical weapon.
MATTHEWS: What’s the fence? What stops them?
WALSH: Because they don’t want it coming back and blowing back against them. They can’t trust these crazy guys.
MATTHEWS: Respond, because that’s the one that scares people the most in this country?
MURAVCHIK: Well, the fact that no one has done it yet — we haven’t had this kind of terrorist regime in possession of a nuclear weapon before. It is kind of — to say it hasn’t happened until now doesn’t really tell us anything.
MATTHEWS: Isn’t there a bigger danger than the former Soviet Republics, when there’s an engineer there that’s hard up for cash, hasn’t that always been the biggest fear, that you can go buy a suitcase bomb that’s available?
MURAVCHIK: I don’t think they’re available, but there is a fear.
MATTHEWS: Do you think the Iranians are capable of developing the kind of nuclear weaponry that could be transported by a terrorist group?
MURAVCHIK: I’m sure they are. I don’t know how long it will take them.
MATTHEWS: You say bomb them now though?
MURAVCHIK: Yes, because I don’t know, because it could take them longer. It could take them shorter.
MATTHEWS: Do you know of anyone who believes, in your area of expertise at AEI, who believes that they’re on the verge of getting a weapon that could be transported by a terrorist group? You say bomb now? That’s why I’m asking. There’s a lot of routes down the road we could use, but you say bomb now. Don’t wait for the diplomacy. Don’t wait for sanctions.
MURAVCHIK: No, we’ve waited.
MATTHEWS: You say bomb now. So you have to argue there’s an imminent threat, it seems to me.
MURAVCHIK: I don’t mind if we bomb next month or the month after. I think we have to do it sometime in a short time frame.
MATTHEWS: Why?
MURAVCHIK: Because we don’t know how long. We have consistently –
MATTHEWS: No one believes that you condense the process of developing a nuclear weapon that would be transportable, even delivery by an airplane, in a couple of months? Do you? Do you anybody who believes that?
MURAVCHIK: In a couple of months, no.
MATTHEWS: You said soon, if not now. I’m trying to follow your logic. Why attack now?
MURAVCHIK: Well, Chris, you know, it — as I said, it doesn’t have to be this minute.
MATTHEWS: What about a year from now?
MURAVCHIK: A year from now might be soon enough. The point that I’m trying to make is that there’s no alternative way to stop them. Whether we do it this month or next month –
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you a political question –
(CROSS TALK)
MATTHEWS: I respect you coming on and you’re a logical thinker. Let’s go to the logic of this. The one reason to bomb them now is you don’t trust the incoming presidency, the next president of the United States to do it. So you say let’s get Bush to do it. He`s the most likely guy to do it.
MURAVCHIK: No, Chris, that’s not right. What I’m saying is there’s no alternative way to stop them, that we have tried diplomacy, we have tried sanctions.
MATTHEWS: What about the consequences that Jim laid out?
MURAVCHIK: Hold on. There’s no alternative way to stop them and therefore — and we don’t know exactly how long it`s going to take them to get a nuclear weapon.
MATTHEWS: Nobody says months.
MURAVCHIK: But we — actually in the past, we disastrously underestimated how long it would take the Soviet Union. We underestimated how long it would take China.
MATTHEWS: Can I make a comment? We didn’t know how many east Germans they had. They had a hell of a lot of German scientists helping them back in those days in the late 1940’s. The Russians didn’t develop the nuclear weapon without the Germans.
MURAVCHIK: Iran has a lot of German help, actually.
MATTHEWS: Do they?
MURAVCHIK: A lot of the technology that they have comes from Germany. Yes, it does.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Joshua Muravchik
Another example of the neo-cancervatives trying to claim one of their own is an “expert” ; at what ?
Stuttering and saying untrue stupid shit ?
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:18 pmJust what kind of schooling do you actually need to become an AEI “scholar”? Or is it more of a “prick your finger and sign here” kind of thing? How such pompous idiots with a six-year track record of being constantly wrong can be still called scholars is beyond me.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:19 pmAnd this is coming from two nimrods, warmongers, and neo-cons that never served in the military and no experience in foreign policy to give their thoughts on why we should bomb Iran. Draft all warmongers and neo-cons to Iran.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:19 pmcan we not incarcerate these fu*kers for yelling fire in a theater? if not, they should get their asses kicked on the spot when seen out in public.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:19 pm‘I Don’t Mind If We Bomb Iran Next Month Or The Month After’
how about the month after “the month after”? or would that be too late?
or why not this week? this is “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” and it’d be a great way to kick it up a notch and raise islamo-fascism awareness too!
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:22 pmWhat neither Think Progress nor any of these so-called experts on Hardball point out is that Iran has never declared its intentions to build a nuclear bomb. Rather, it has said that it is building a nuclear facility in order to provide a source of energy for its citizens. Even if it somehow did manage to build a nuclear device, that lone weapon would pale next to Israel’s 250 atomic weapons and the United States’ approximately 10,000 nuclear weapons that it possesses. The program called Hardball hardly lives up to the claim that it asks those questions that other programs dare not ask.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:27 pmAnd this is coming from two nimrods, warmongers, and neo-cons that never served in the military and no experience in foreign policy to give their thoughts on why we should bomb Iran. Draft all warmongers and neo-cons to Iran.
Comment by SP Biloxi — October 23, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
Haven’t Chimpy and his horseshit administration already embarrassed us enough ?
Must we denigrate the image of our military by drafting the biggest chickenshits on the planet ?
An enemy combatant will only be KIA by one of these pansy morons because they will be laughing uncontrollably ; thus leaving the enemy defenseless……..
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:27 pmI think we should wait at least one Friedman Unit, or maybe two, to decide whether or not to bomb Iran. And when that time period has elapsed, I suggest we evaluate where we stand at that time and wait, maybe another Friedman Unit or so, until we decide what our next step is.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:30 pmYeah, I heard that dope say that.
∞
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:32 pmIs Muravchik what passes as an intellectual in conservative circles these days?
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:33 pmJust another NeoCon rattling on; like kristol, barnes, krautheimer, et al. And of course, NONE of those chickenhawks served a freaking day of military active duty in their lives.
It’s all about Israel, always was, always will be.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:35 pmGood luck, soldiers…
Comment by Arn Gunnutes
I agree with that part; but all the mercenaries can become bridge ornaments as far as I’m concerned.
∞
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:37 pmYou don’t hear any of these neocon’s saying what will happen the day after a bombing.
I guess they haven’t learned a thing about the whole invasion & occupation of Iraq fiasco we are currently mired in.
Actually, I think it isn’t so much that they don’t want to consider what would happen next, it’s that they refuse to think what would happen next. Why? Well, then that would require planning and worst of all, acceptance of responsibility.
You see, if they just bomb Iran, and everything goes to hell in a handbasket, without accepting any responsibility, they can just turn around and blame it on liberals & Democrats. A twofer in their twisted dark minds.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:41 pmBart: “I did see the movie “Dr. Strangelove†with Slim Pickens but I assumed that was a fictional account.
Am I mistaken about that?”
Yes. My men were able to carry out their mission and our civilization abruptly ended.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:49 pmI have problems with Tweety and his softball questions much of the time, but this time he got it right. Muravchik and his ilk bluster and bloviate as if they possess some expertise on foreign policy or nuclear technology while in reality they have nothing but their slanted opinions. A few simple questions and logical thought puts their arguments where they belong-in the garbage heap.
Tweety did a similar deconstruction of Malkin the Mouth when she tried to claim that John Kerry intentionally shot himself to receive a purple heart. The disturbing thing is that Tweety and his cohorts don’t nail these blowhards to the wall more often, as it’s usually there for the taking.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:53 pmNeocon = Nazi. ‘Nuff said.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:56 pmThey might be a few years away, and right away it’s ’suitcase nukes’.
It’s a good question whether WE are able to make a suitcase nuke–because of course it not only suggests size but portability.
Matthews is right to press this bozo on the reality–that Iran having a bomb suddenly allows us, who have 60 years of experience–just MAY be able to do.
Tom Clancy wrote a thriller based on the entirely true fact that an atomicbomb is very hart to make–and harder still to make go off properly.
(Oh, and giving a nuke to terrorists will only happen when Iran has at least TWO bombs.)
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:00 pmSieg Heil mien fuhrer Bush says Muravchik
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:07 pmListen to the double-chinned white guys in suits, LISTEN TO THEM!!! After all, what they have suggested so far has just done great things for the world!
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:08 pmThese self-proclaimed experts only think (if at all) in sequential, linear fashion. That is, we bomb, then they stop trying to get nuclear weapons. There is no recognition of circular causality in the relationship between countries. That is, a country sees the imperialism of other countries (like Iraq into Kuwait and the US into Iraq) and they respond with military build-up to which the US responds with its incursion into that country and then other countries respond with their build-up and the US gets anxious and ….
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:09 pmHeh. Just what we need: ANOTHER batshit crazy neocon chickenhawk warmongering IDIOT.
*eyeroll*
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:12 pmWhat is with these sickos and their wanting to constantly cause death and destruction? Did their mommies let them play with firecrackers and toy soldiers just a little too much?
We all know of one who played with firecrackers and frogs way too much, uh, GW666.
Buck Fush
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:12 pmWarmongers – haven’t we had enough already? When we will shed our inner monkey and move past this?
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:13 pm“You don’t hear any of these neocon’s saying what will happen the day after a bombing.”
Comment by kindness — October 23, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
That’s easy, kindness. All the defense contractors will be dancing in the streets thanking President Cheney for an early Christmas present! Plenty of money to go around to all neocons and their Israeli compatriots! The AEI is interested soley in their capitalistic ventures. Paul Wolfowitz is a “visiting scholar” and Lynn Cheney is a “senior fellow”…’nuff siad
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:19 pmIs Muravchik what passes as an intellectual in conservative circles these days?
Comment by Loonie — October 23, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
I think we should stop calling people like Muravchik “schollars” or “intellectuals” and start seeing them for what they are: agents of a putrid ideology that if not stopped, will take us all to the edge of the abyss.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:27 pmTweety made chopped liver of Muravchik. He had him stumbling and bumbling like a total idiot. By the end, I thought that sycophant Muravchik was going to cry like a baby. He was an abominable disgrace with zippo credibility. Now he’s a human basket case.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:31 pmIf Muravchik is a “scholar”, then I’m the Queen of Sheeba!
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:32 pmAnd the Sunnis and Shiites, normally MORTAL ENEMIES, are forming a coalition to rid Iraq of the American occupiers.
Comment by Arn Gunnutes — October 23, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
I think you will find this an interesting read.
Shiite-Sunni Alliance, October 2007
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IJ17Ak03.html
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:33 pmIt is a well-known fact that the Soviets did plan to have a nuclear suitcase bomb smuggled into Western Europe during the mid-1980s, but then their plot was foiled when the movie “Octopussy” was released, exposing the whole operation.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:34 pmIf you saw how moronic Muravchik sounded when asked for “legitimate reasons” for his reference to bombing Iran, you almost had to feel sorry for this fool. I can’t recall when I’ve EVER seen someone make a total, unadulterated fool of himself on television – that is, since the last time Bush took comments from the press and answered them moronically which is par for the course for that illiterate.
Muravchik’s rep is toast now……and, after making an idiot of himself yesterday, deservedly so.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:34 pmArn & Foreyes: You got it! Perhaps Russia will join them? No doubt about the fact that Bush/Cheney can FINALLY appropriated be dubbed “uniters”.
Yep, they’ve united the rest of the world AGAINST US.
We’d better keep our hands to ourselves when it comes to Iran because they have some “BMOC’s” behind them.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:36 pmWhat is wrong with these people. Do they really not look towards the consequences of what they are advocating doing? Do they really think that Iran is going to be cowed by our bombing them and meekly go into the night. Right now Ahmadinejad is not well liked in his country and is generally viewed as a nutjob by the people of Iran. But, if we bomb Iran, things will change. They will band together against the terrorist country that has attacked them, and that would be us. Even if Russia and China don’t get involved militarily, they most certainly will make life for us very miserable if we bomb Iran. And the worst case scenario is that Bush will start WWIII.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:41 pmFRONTLINE INVESTIGATES MOUNTING TENSION FOR THE U.S. IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND ASKS: IS IRAN NEXT?
FRONTLINE presents
SHOWDOWN WITH IRAN
Tuesday, October 23, 2007, at 9 P.M. ET on PBS
http://www.pbs.org/frontline/showdown
As the United States and Iran are locked in a battle for power and influence across the Middle East — with the fear of an Iranian nuclear weapon looming in the background — FRONTLINE gains unprecedented access to the Iranian hard-liners shaping government policy. In Showdown with Iran, airing Tuesday, October 23, 2007, at 9 P.M. ET on PBS (check local listings), FRONTLINE examines how U.S. efforts to install democracy in Iraq have served to strengthen Iran’s position as an emerging power in the Middle East.
“You will not find a single instance in which a country has inflicted harm on us and we have left it without a response,” deputy head of Iran’s National Security Council Mohammad Jafari tells FRONTLINE in his first television interview. “So if the United States makes such a mistake, they should know that we will definitely respond. And we don’t make threats.”
There are increasing signs that the Bush administration is seriously considering military action before it leaves office if Tehran continues to defy U.N. demands that it cease enriching uranium for its nuclear program — a program the Iranians insist is for peaceful purposes. “The president has said repeatedly that it is unacceptable for Iran to have nuclear weapons,” former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton tells FRONTLINE. “If action is not taken in terms of regime change or, if need be, the use of military force, the question of when Iran achieves nuclear weapons is entirely in Iran’s own hands. And that is extraordinarily undesirable.”
But Richard Armitage, President Bush’s former deputy secretary of state, warns, “It would be the worst of worlds for an outgoing administration to start a conflict.”
After 9/11, the Bush administration hoped to drive a wedge between Iran’s people and their Islamic rulers by installing democracies on two of Iran’s borders. “If things had gone better in Iraq,” says Hillary Mann, the Iran expert on the National Security Council during the run-up to the war, “then yeah, I think Iran was next.”
“I think Iran is more secure now, courtesy of the United States,” Bolton says. “We have removed the Taliban regime from Afghanistan, which they viewed as a mortal threat. We have removed Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which they viewed as a mortal threat.”
Before invading Iraq, the Bush administration rebuffed a series of overtures from Iran’s reformist government — among them offers to help the U.S. stabilize Iraq after the invasion — which culminated in a secret proposal for a grand bargain resolving all outstanding issues between the U.S. and Iran, including Iran’s support for terrorism and its nuclear program. The U.S., which had branded Iran part of the “axis of evil,” decided on a confrontational approach.
Vali Nasr, author of The Shia Revival, believes the Bush administration’s confrontational approach discredited Iran’s reformists and inadvertently helped bring the new hard-line government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power. “The wars of 2001 and 2003 have fundamentally changed the Middle East to Iran’s advantage,” he says. “The dam that was containing Iran has been broken.”
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:43 pmMust we denigrate the image of our military by drafting the biggest chickenshits on the planet ?
An enemy combatant will only be KIA by one of these pansy morons because they will be laughing uncontrollably ; thus leaving the enemy defenseless……..
Comment by MCMetal — October 23, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
And notice other neo-cons in the media that are salvating on the Iran propaganda never served a lick in the military. The following nimrods really serve “at the pleasure of the President” such as Rash Limpballs, Mann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Falafel King, Vampire Kristol, and so on. All can talk smack about bombing Iran but never faced combat or serve this country.
And yes, the enemies from “that part of the world” are rolling in the floor at a country that is being run by a bunch of clowns (Draft dodger-in-chief and Supreme Leader “5 deferrment” Dick) and have clowns in the media that didn’t serve in the military to give their spin and thoughts about Iraq and Iran.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:45 pmYes, the neocons live in a land far, far removed from reality.
We have committed so much of our military on the Iraq venture that it will take a decade to rebuild our military to its pre-Iraq War level. War costs have drained our treasury, provided creditor nations (such as China) with leverage over our policies, and burdened future generations with a deficit that will cut into the standard of living of every US citizen of this and the next several generations.
We have wasted our national resolve to support a venture in Iraq that was based on flimsy reasons and sold on false pretenses to the public (there was no imminent threat, Iraq did not refuse to disarm and inspectors were verifying compliance until forced to leave by the US plan to invade.) The war itself was conducted by those who must at best be called total fools and morons. Despite invading a country rife with sectarian divisions, despite numerous State Dept and DoD studies predicting sectarian violence and despite evidence of civil disorder in the aftermath of the invasion; the Bush administration would not allow post invasion planning prior to the war or in its aftermath.
Now the neocons want to start yet another war. This time with another middle eastern nation that is larger with a far more formidable military. They want to start the war at a time when our once preeminent military is at its weakest. They want to start the war without any pretense of mobilizing our country for the significant challenge that such a war will entail. It is either out of an insane belief that mere bombing would cause Iran to fold and collapse or that the US would retaliate with a far greater military force – nuclear.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:45 pmThe “terrorists” are more likely to get a loose nuke from Pakistan than from any other country. What are we doing about it? Nothing. Pakistan is our friend even though they are harboring Osama Bin Laden. With those kind of friends, who needs enemies?
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:46 pmIf the United States bombs Iran, Iran will unleash a missile attack against Israel the likes of which the world has never seen before.
At least, that’s why the Iranians say.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:47 pmZionist Agent.
Traitor.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:47 pmT H E
E N E M Y
O F
P E A C E
M I C H A E L
L E D E E N
Ledeen’s ideas are repeated daily by such figures as Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. His views virtually define the stark departure from American foreign policy philosophy that existed before the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001. He basically believes that violence in the service of the spread of democracy is America’s manifest destiny. Consequently, he has become the philosophical legitimator of the American occupation of Iraq.
Now Michael Ledeen is calling for regime change beyond Iraq. In an address entitled “Time to Focus on Iran — The Mother of Modern Terrorism,” for the policy forum of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) on April 30, he declared, “the time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon.”
With a group of other conservatives, Ledeen recently set up the Center for Democracy in Iran (CDI), an action group focusing on producing regime change in Iran.
Quotes from Ledeen’s works reveal a peculiar set of beliefs about American attitudes toward violence. “Change — above all violent change — is the essence of human history,” he proclaims in his book, “Machiavelli on Modern Leadership: Why Machiavelli’s Iron Rules Are as Timely and Important Today as Five Centuries Ago.” In an influential essay in the National Review Online he asserts, “Creative destruction is our middle name. We do it automatically … it is time once again to export the democratic revolution.”
Iraq, Iran and Syria are the first and foremost nations where this should happen, according to Ledeen. The process by which this should be achieved is a violent one, termed “total war,” a concept pioneered by the 19th century Prussian general, Karl von Clausewitz in his classic book “On War.”
Ledeen’s take on this idea is wedded to ideology. In summarizing his book “The War Against the Terror Masters” on the American Enterprise Institute Web site, he writes: “We wage total war because we fight in the name of an idea, and ideas either triumph or fail … totally.” In his reckoning, force is the only reliable strategy to enforce our ideology on our enemies. In the same summary he claims, drawing inspiration from Machiavelli: “We can lead by the force of high moral example … [but] fear is much more reliable, and lasts longer. Once we show that we are capable of dealing out terrible punishment to our enemies, our power will be far greater.”
http://www.alternet.org/story/15860/
They are ALL on the same team – and it does NOT benefit America.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:48 pmIt was a pretty astonishing interview. Muravchik had no facts to back him up, no clearcut opinions that were not full of holes, and he didn’t even seem to be prepared for the most obvious critical questions that Matthews asked.
It almost seemed as if Muravchik expected he’d come on Hardball, make his pitch and be completely unchallenged. He truly seemed to be caught off guard that Matthews wouldn’t just piss his pants and say, “oh, yes sir, we’d better bomb Iran right away – let’s invade now!”
Muravchik embarassed himself, AEI, and Cheney by trying to promote a baseless war with absolutely no evidence or even somewhat solid reasoning to back up his assertions or opinions. It was a laughable interview, and I think he hurt his pet project with this appearance.
(Of course, that doesn’t mean Bush won’t drop bombs on Iran anyway. I think this whole discussion is to give Bush room to bomb, but not invade Iran. If you threaten to invade, but just bomb, people will think it to be a more moderate move than they’d expect from this president).
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:48 pm“The CDI’s Ledeen, Amitay and Sobhani were featured speakers at a May 2003 forum on “the future of Iran’ sponsored by AEI, the Hudson Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The forum, chaired by the Hudson Institute’s Meyrav Wurmser, the Israeli-born wife of David Wurmser (he serves as Cheney’s leading expert on Iran and Syria), included a presentation by Un Lubrani of Israel’s Ministry of Defense.
Summarizing the sentiment of neoconservative ideologues and strategists, Meyrav Wurmser said: “Our fight against Iraq was only a battle in a long war. It would be ill-conceived to think we can deal with Iraq alone. We must move on, and faster.”
JINSA, a neoconservative organization established in 1976 that fosters closer strategic and military ties between the United States and Israel, also has its sights on Iran. At a JINSA policy forum in April 2003 titled “Time to Focus on Iran-The Mother of Modern Terrorism,” Ledeen declared, “The time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon.”
JINSA, along with CSP, serves as one of the main institutional links to the military-industrial complex for neoconservatives. Ledeen served as JINSA’s first executive director and was JINSA’s “Godfather,” according to Amitay. Amitay is a JINSA vice chair. JINSA board members or advisers also include former CIA director James Woolsey, former Rep. Jack Kemp and the AEI’s Joshua Muravchik. After he joined the administration, Feith resigned from JINSA.’s board of advisers, as did Vice President Dick Cheney and Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton.”
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Central_Asia_watch/Is_Iran_Next.html
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:50 pmJMOHR at 46 – that, or the neocons want to distract from Iraq. Get the critics focused on the possibility of attacking Iran, and suddenly the discussion about the horrors and failures in Afghanistan and Iraq gets moved to the back burner.
The most astonishing comment in the interview was when it was stated that “Bush needs to attack Iran in order to walk out of office with any credibility”. I can’t remember who said it (perhaps Pat Buchanan). It made my stomach turn. The man has no credibility or honor – needlessly killing more people and attacking a country which has not attacked us will not improve how people perceive Bush. Even if it did, who cares. Is his credibility and honor more important than the lives of innocents?
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:53 pmYeah, I watched this ass-wipe on TV. When Chris pressured him he folded just like all the other neocons. I suggest that this ass-wiped be the first to be sacrificed by tying him to the first warhead, bomb or tank to attack Iran. The next to be tied to these munitions would be the worst of the neocons Kristol Wolfowitz, Fieth, et.al.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:03 pmPresident Bush’s disturbingly flip comment Wednesday about Iran and World War III not only revealed his apparent comfort when discussing global conflagration. Bush’s gaffe also showed the common vision between himself, the man most likely to succeed him as head of the Republican Party and those who advise them both. For George Bush, Rudy Giuliani and the likes of Norman Podhoretz, the only dispute about “world war” is whether we’re already fighting it and what number we’re on.
For the details, see:
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:03 pm“Bush and Giuliani on the Next World War.”
What is wrong with these people. Do they really not look towards the consequences of what they are advocating doing? Do they really think that Iran is going to be cowed by our bombing them and meekly go into the night. Right now Ahmadinejad is not well liked in his country and is generally viewed as a nutjob by the people of Iran. But, if we bomb Iran, things will change. They will band together against the terrorist country that has attacked them, and that would be us. Even if Russia and China don’t get involved militarily, they most certainly will make life for us very miserable if we bomb Iran. And the worst case scenario is that Bush will start WWIII.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 23, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
I loved your post, as I usually do. It occured to me that this reasoning would sound a great deal different to Americans if we were the country in the crosshairs. Lemme just change some of your wording a little bit…
“Do they really think that the United statesis going to be cowed by our bombing them and meekly go into the night. Right now Bush is not well liked in his country and is generally viewed as a nutjob by the people of the United States. But, if we bomb the United States, things will change. They will band together against the terrorist country that has attacked them, and that would be us.”
As we saw from 9/11, any attack upon our country will make us 1) mad as hell and determined to retaliate, and 2) united behind our leaders against the perpetrators — even if our leaders aren’t all that popular with us.
Iran won’t be any different. If we bomb them, we must be prepared to follow that with ground warfare, and we must be prepared to stay for awhile. We must be prepared to face other powers who will come to Iran’s rescue, and acknowledge the high probability that terrorist recruiting will increase dramatically, as it has done during our occupation of Iraq. Our own security will be threatened, as we become so hated that any number of terrorist groups will consider it an honor to conduct another 9/11 on our soil.
These people who advocate bombing Iran truly have all the intelligence of pastry.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:06 pmIn so many words, this guy is nuts. He makes Bush look like another Einstein!
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:06 pmLet’s test the logic of this . . . WTF? Over?
His logic is that he doesn’t trust the next president to do it. How about examining the logic behind the thought that the US, and the US alone, needs to do it. We’re doing sooooooooo f@ckin’ well with our other bombing campaigns-turned-quagmires in the region, let’s just go for broke, no?
why are these people taken seriously? Why? WHY? Childhood fantasies of world domination where everything and everyone does just what you want are suppose to be left in elementary school. Perhaps its been too much coddling of these MFers. I say, welcome them to the real world and send them to Tehran to place the pointers for the bombers. See how many want to bomb Iran then.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:07 pmIt would be kind of funny to remove all possible bogeymen from the Neocons world and watch them flail around trying to make sense of anything.
They would be reduced to waving pictures of bunny rabbits and kittens, screaming how these animals were a threat to our democracy.
And you know they would do it too.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pmIf the United States bombs Iran, Iran will unleash a missile attack against Israel the likes of which the world has never seen before.
At least, that’s what the Iranians say.
Comment by Don in Texas — October 23, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
I don’t know about the missile attack but, how many countries in the world are capable of doing this?:
http://en.rian.ru/onlinenews/20060530/48833304.html
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pmI think Bush will bomb Iran before he leaves office. Who will stop him?
He wouldn’t care if 90% of Americans were against it. The man is seriously deranged and delusional. He truly believes that he gets his marching orders from a Higher Power and so is beyond reproach. How can a believer deny God?
This is not conspiracy theory, not hyperbole, I think that Bush will do it.
And a sincere question to the readers here, because there are a lot of you that know the workings of the system better than I, who CAN stop him if he says that he will bomb Iran for the security of USA?
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:10 pmI don’t even comprehend these AEI people….. isn’t it illegal to advocate bombing anyone, particularly another country? Well it should be treasonous to espouse war and spout off on the airwaves. Bush is saying WWlll is coming without any provocation or preparation. Read Scott Ritter on this madness. Simply an irresponsible comment about bombing can provoke retaliation. These people are mad. Bush should be ‘encouraged’ to spend his final year in transition mode…go away and leave the Iraq mess to the professionals to clean up. Sit somewhere quietly, maybe working on his library (at least we will know what room he is in). he he
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:13 pmNanlichi: Unfortunately, we’re dealing with the sociopathic mind here so there’s no telling what may occur. This man should be on some shrink’s sofa right now, on heavy meds, and undergoing electric shock therapy for his brain malfunction.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:13 pmIf the United States bombs Iran, Iran will unleash a missile attack against Israel the likes of which the world has never seen before.
At least, that’s why the Iranians say.
Comment by Don in Texas
And then Israel will launch a nuclear strike on Iran and World War III will begin.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:15 pmGus: I believe the reichwingnuts would have us believe that the AEI is some group of elite minds. BWAHHHH! What a sick joke that is. After seeing Muravchik’s total mental meltdown on national television yesterday, I’m wondering if this guy is suffering from senile dementia! Geesh!
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:15 pmBilbo: It’s nothing to do with caring one iota about THIS country, OUR people, and this shrinking democracy – it has EVERYTHING to do with war profiteering by Bush and his Cabal of criminals. Starting another war would be just the thing to steal more of our money right now.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:16 pmmissmolly, #56.
That’s perfect. I think that that perspective is the appropriate one to look at these situations from. Put yourself in the shoes of an Iraqi father who lost a daughter to a US or Blackwater bullet. Do you think for a minute you wouldn’t pick up a gun or strap a belt on, or volunteer to visit New York?
I think the song goes, “Russians love their children too.” And Iraqis, and Iranians…
Bombing Iran is the only thing Bush could do that is worse than his war in Iraq.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:18 pmGus: The AEI has become the moniker for SHEER MADMEN. Neocons who have totally lost their mind. Just like William Kristol whose grandpappy was the “Grandfather of the Neo-Fascist Movement”. They’re all insane. Notice how many neocons are still up and moving today though? I believe that the military is now working against the neocons – it’s called mutiny.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:18 pmActually,
Valerie Plame just told the world she was trying to sell fake Nuke Bomb plans to Iran. This proves Iran is actively looking to build the bomb. We obviously need to stop them.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:18 pmAnother though. Have the pro bombers noticed how unpleasant it is to have California burning and New Orleans having flooded. That is what is goingto happen to large parts of populated USA if we continue to have nuts speaking of bombing others. Our shores and skies will be inundated with terrorists from all over the world. Sure Bush, keep it up. But someone will find you in Paraguay.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:18 pmAnd just like the lack of planning, foresight, and exit strategy in Iraq, there will be nothing different with Iran. We saw how ill-prepared Moravchick was even for his OWN perception about “why we should attack Iran”…..can you imagine how little foresight and diplomacy these lameduck neocon morons are putting into a potential startegy in Iran – ZIPPO!
It’s all bullying tactics of psychologically damaged and deranged bullies – false bravado, ridiculous posturing and chest thumping, and the total inability to even formulate a “why” when it comes to opening another amoral war.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:22 pmGus: Nature (fate) always has a way of painting a true and accurate snapshot for us when we take our eye off the ball and lose our way.
Case in point: Katrina and now the fires in California where we have to interrupt what little national security we have on our borders at this point to move these men to California.
Where’s the money going to come from to rebuild New Orleans as jacka$$ promised? We don’t have national guard and money for anything for our OWN country and it’s people. We’re in debt to China, India and Russia right to in funding this illegal war. Soon they will all “own” this country. What the hell are we thinking???
Now Bush comes back for some 43 Billion more?? If Congress doesn’t chop him off at the knees this time, there will be a coming revolution.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:25 pmSince we have little, if any, border protection right now, I’d say that this country is official in a NATIONAL SECURITY CRISIS.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:26 pmNew Orleans gutted and California burning….and what national guard to help us??
We’ve so totally taken our eyes off the ball and not been tending to our own back yard, that we’re getting pretty ripe for the picking, I’d say. What about all of our tunnels and bridges collapsing? Where’s the money for our infrastructure??
Go ask Congress – they don’t have the first “clue”.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:27 pmAngryOne: Thanks for the link. Good one. There’s little doubt that Giuliani is Bush Lite and he will finish this country off if given the chance.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:29 pmThe AEI should be declared a terrorist organization and bombed out of existence.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:29 pmAm I missing something here?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — October 23, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
No doubt, the “disaster” that he speaks of it that the U.S. was not the only ones that could threaten tne entire world with the bomb. In other words, it frustrated and delayed the desire of this kind of person (and I use that word advisedly) to rule the entire planet. I don’t blame Iran or Syria (or even Venezuela) if they try to “get the bomb,” since they have all been targeted by the U.S. If you live in a community where thugs are invading your homes and killing you, do you wait until they get to YOUR house and then decide what to do…and do you arm yourself?
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:32 pmIt’s all about Israel, always was, always will be.
Comment by upside99 — October 23, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
Afraid not. Try facts sometime. Blaming Israel first gets old. This is for the Saudis.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:33 pmwhy are these people taken seriously? Why? WHY? Childhood fantasies of world domination where everything and everyone does just what you want are suppose to be left in elementary school.
Comment by po — October 23, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
Maybe they think the world really IS just a game of RISK…scary thought.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:35 pmGood point Veritas, just heard there are TWO fires at Camp Pendleton that they are fighting. The Governator just called up 1,500 National Guard Troops.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:43 pmComment by nanlichi — October 23, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
I agree that nobody will stop Bush from starting WWIII.
We have Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress — razor thin, but majorities. Yet all they have managed to do to Bush is send him a few harshly worded letters. They’ve tried to subpoena members of his staff, with little to no effect, and they have backed down rather than charge him or anyone in his administration with obvious contempt.
Impeachment is off the table, and the Repub locksteppers have ensured that vetoes will stand.
Only a few in the House and Senate are hawkish to the point of insane, as Bush and Cheney are (McCain comes to mind, for example).
So why do the Repubs blindly rubberstamp everything Bushco wants, and why do the Dems just roll over and let it happen?
Either the Capitol Hill drinking water supply has been drugged, or everybody’s afraid of the Bushney political power. An epidemic of blackmail, threats, intimidation? Possibly — I doubt sheer bribery could have this much effect.
But everybody has a threshold. And maybe Bush doing something as dangerous for our country as bombing Iran might reach it. It might take that for enough of our elected officials to decide to save their country at the expense of Darth following through on his threats to their careers.
Unfortunately, it will probably be too late at that point.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:48 pmcriticalthinker,
I hear you say that the military won’t go along with the bombing of Iran. I have to disagree, they are military after all and when their Commander in Chief tells them to do it, they will do it.
You really wouldn’t want it any other way either. What is missing from the equation is the kind of person who should be CIC. Instead of someone you can trust, we have a maniac who doesn’t care what we think.
This time around he doesn’t even have to lie to us he can just go ahead and give the order to bomb and give us the finger at the same time.
Sure we will be pissed and sure his ratings may dip below 20%, but after all he thinks that he is doing God’s work and Christians have always been persecuted. History will prove him right, and if not, if he is appropraitely villified so what? He will be long dead.
Can Congress stop him even if they had the balls to do so?
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:52 pmThanks missmolly.
So is impeachment the only way? Any other act of Congress that would bind his hands?
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:57 pmAnd a sincere question to the readers here, because there are a lot of you that know the workings of the system better than I, who CAN stop him if he says that he will bomb Iran for the security of USA?
Comment by nanlichi — October 23, 2007 @ 4:10 pm
Only the military.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:58 pmSo is impeachment the only way? Any other act of Congress that would bind his hands?
Comment by nanlichi — October 23, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
Afraid so. Only Congress can declare war, but a declaration of war isn’t necessary to bomb anyone. The United States hasn’t declared war since December 8, 1941 — and presidents have ordered bombing and general warfare plenty of times since then.
Even if there was some procedural way to stop Bush from bombing another country, Bush and Cheney would merely ignore procedure. It’s not like that would be anything new for them.
So not only is impeachment the only way to stop Bush, it would have to be impeachment, conviction, and removal from office before he has the chance to bomb. And unless Cheney gets the same treatment, it wouldn’t make any difference.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:03 pmcriticalthinker,
I hear you say that the military won’t go along with the bombing of Iran. I have to disagree, they are military after all and when their Commander in Chief tells them to do it, they will do it.
You really wouldn’t want it any other way either. What is missing from the equation is the kind of person who should be CIC. Instead of someone you can trust, we have a maniac who doesn’t care what we think.
Actually, criticalthinker – I am to the point that I DO want them to refuse to follow Bush any longer. I’m quite aware of the implications, Constitutionally….but this administration has done their best to tear it apart in order to stay in power. And the bottom line, is that the military has sworn allegience to the Constitution FIRST (which is all about defending and protecting the nation) and to the CIC Second (who is doing quite the opposite).
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:09 pmIf Bush can’t get the military to do it…
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:15 pmhe can always count on Blackwater.
It’s all about Israel, always was, always will be.
Comment by upside99 — October 23, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
Afraid not. Try facts sometime. Blaming Israel first gets old. This is for the Saudis.
Comment by Che — October 23, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
“We got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel. So I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”
Aside from the fact that this is actually false, why is Bush using the threat of an attack on a nuclear armed Israel as the reason to start WWIII? Wouldn’t Israel be able to defend itself with its nuclear superiority? Che, I think you’re the one who should try facts sometime.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:16 pmComment by nanlichi — October 23, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
Wait — I had another thought. Could Congress get him on inherent contempt? That would involve actual handcuffing and imprisonment. The only question would be if the 25th amendment allows the president and the veep to retain their power while imprisoned.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:18 pmAside from the fact that this is actually false, why is Bush using the threat of an attack on a nuclear armed Israel as the reason to start WWIII? Wouldn’t Israel be able to defend itself with its nuclear superiority? Che, I think you’re the one who should try facts sometime.
Comment by foreyes — October 23, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
The only way that Iran would start a nuclear war would be if there were enough Iranis who were batsh!t insane enough to believe that if they took out Israel and died in the process, they would all be rewarded in heaven. Since this kind of radical insanity is present only in the minds of a radical fringe element, it’s doubtful their leadership would employ something this drastic.
Besides, they wouldn’t succeed in taking out Israel. Even though it’s a small country geographically, it would take more bombs than they would have in a long long time to destroy it.
Bush is using any “threat” he can to justify bombing Iran. I suspect the real reason is twofold:
1) Iran is helping the Shiites win the Iraq civil war, and those aren’t the people Bush wants to negotiate with for Iraqi oil.
2) Bush is looking for a distraction from Iraq, and in his deluded mind he thinks Iran is it. He desperately wants some kind of success for posterity, and he probably figures that with two failed wars, the third one will be a charm.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:29 pmAside from the fact that this is actually false, why is Bush using the threat of an attack on a nuclear armed Israel as the reason to start WWIII? Wouldn’t Israel be able to defend itself with its nuclear superiority? Che, I think you’re the one who should try facts sometime.
Not very bright, are you? Iran would never attempt to destroy Israel. That is all neocon bullcrap. Bush kisses Saudi ass. Iran is Saudi Arabia’s biggest threat in the area–FACT. Try reversing the rectal-cranial inversion. The orginal poster posted an opinion used often by Jew/Ziophobes.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:31 pmFor a very interesting and perceptive viewpoint on the neoconservative push for war with Iran, this is from Glenn Greenwald’s site posted by “Anonymous Liberal,” (also an attorney.) If necessary. scroll down to the Monday, Oct. 22, 17:26 post “Incoherence of the Competing Rationales for War with Iran.”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:41 pmIt almost seemed as if Muravchik expected he’d come on Hardball, make his pitch and be completely unchallenged.
Comment by landofthefree — October 23, 2007 @ 3:48 pm
Maybe he got confused and thought he was on FAUX news?
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:41 pmEverytime a “Neocon” comes on the tube taking about Nuking Iran we should nuke that neocon. These people are dangerous and their mostly Jewish. Whether their from the AEI or the Heritage Foundation, they all seem to be Jewish people calling for America to go to war in the middle east. Sorry but I call them like I see them.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:46 pmI’ve got a better idea: Let’s bomb Muravchik’s house, family, friends. political party headquarters etc., then continue with Kennebunkport, Crawford and wherever Cheney, Rumsfeld,,Rice et al hang out.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:36 pmchris “right wing tool” mathews loves playing “RISK”. It sounds like they’re trading baseball cards.
October 23rd, 2007 at 6:41 pmBig false statement: “We disastrously underestimated how long it would take the Soviet Union.”
It’s not right as he seems to argue it, that they developed these weapons faster than we expected. With the exception of sputnik they developed weapons systems slower than predicted.
The estimates of the missile gap were wildly short of the mark (JFK had a hand in pushing these false accounts) and the US over-reacted, leading the arms race.
That’s not the official fable, but that’s how it worked.
October 23rd, 2007 at 7:57 pmanother big false statement: “we have tried diplomacy” and did i hear him right when he said that there is no other alternative??? – this guy is a scholar????….so what he and all of the other neocon lunatics are saying is that we really don’t know if iran has a nuke but we better bomb them just in case because they are a threat to peace in the middle east….do these idiots believe that the middle east will ever be stable? – well how come israel dont have a crack at them? – i mean they bombed a few places in syria the other day,right? – and the only thing that separates israel from iran is iraq and bush owns the air space over iraq now – especially when he took out their entire air force a few years back….why aren’t israel more prominent in this democracy enforcement programme in the middle east?
October 23rd, 2007 at 10:15 pmBilbo: It’s nothing to do with caring one iota about THIS country, OUR people, and this shrinking democracy – it has EVERYTHING to do with war profiteering by Bush and his Cabal of criminals. Starting another war would be just the thing to steal more of our money right now.
Comment by Veritas
I know that, but what they are missing is where are they going to get their profits when we are all dead or this nation is bankrupted. China isn’t going to keep lending us money forever and if we are all bankrupt, there will be no tax money for them to steal.
October 24th, 2007 at 12:02 am“So you say let’s get Bush to do it. He’s the most likely guy to do it.”
Actually, that makes perfect sense. Bush is also the guy most likely to stick a fork into an electrical outlet for fun. So bombing Iran (”One of them I-countries — Iraq, Iran, I wanna sandwich….heh heh….heh heh heh. I’m the Decider and I’ve decided to drop some whoop-ass on Iran….heh heh heh.”) would come completely naturally to the man-boy.
October 24th, 2007 at 2:37 amNot very bright, are you? Iran would never attempt to destroy Israel. That is all neocon bullcrap. Bush kisses Saudi ass. Iran is Saudi Arabia’s biggest threat in the area–FACT. Try reversing the rectal-cranial inversion. The orginal poster posted an opinion used often by Jew/Ziophobes.
Comment by Che — October 23, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
Neocon bullcrap and Zionazi bullcrap are one and the same. As far as I know, the Saudis have not threatened to bomb Iran like the Israelis and Americans have done. Bush kisses “Saudi ass”; he also licks Zionist feet. Don’t try to divert attention from the truth. You’re not smart enough to do it!
October 24th, 2007 at 4:12 am