Norman Podhoretz: Anyone Who Doesn’t Want To ‘Bomb Iran’ Is Appeasing ‘Hitler’
Norman Podhoretz: Anyone Who Doesn’t Want To ‘Bomb Iran’ Is Appeasing ‘Hitler’
On the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer last night, Commentary Magazine editor-at-large Norman Podhoretz, who is also a foreign policy adviser to Rudy Giuliani, repeated his claim that there is “only one terrible choice” left with Iran, which is to “bomb” their “facilities” and “retard” their nuclear program.
When Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria asserted that deterrence was a viable option, Podhoretz repeatedly accused him of “an irresponsible complacency” that “is comparable to the denial in the early ’30s of the intentions of Hitler”:
PODHORETZ: First, I want to say that I think the attitude expressed by Fareed Zakaria represents an irresponsible complacency that I think is comparable to the denial in the early ’30s of the intentions of Hitler that led to what Churchill called an unnecessary war involving millions and millions of deaths that might have been averted if the West had acted early enough. […]
Let me respond to that. You know, similar arguments were made about Hitler in the early ’30s, and it appalls me that this kind of attitude can still prevail after what we should have learned from the words of despots.
After Zakaria suggested that “we do not need to launch a third unilateral invasion” to “contain the problem of Iran,” Podhoretz reacted incredulously, muttering “God help us if we follow that counsel.” Watch it:
Instead of resorting to “calling names” like Podhoretz, Zakaria responded to the substance of his argument, pointing out that “the idea that” Iran is “not going to be deterred by Israel’s 200 nuclear weapons, including a second strike capacity on submarines, is just fantasy.”
Zakaria then noted that “in the early 1980s, Norman Podhoretz and the neoconservatives” made similarly alarmist claims that proved to be completely wrong:
Look, in the early 1980s, Norman Podhoretz and the neoconservatives believed the Soviet Union was going to take over the world and Finlandize Europe. When Reagan started talking to the Soviets, started talking to Gorbachev, Mr. Podhoretz excoriated him, called it the “Reagan road to detente” and such.
It turned out he was wrong. It turned out that the Soviets were not that powerful, and that history was on our side, and that things were going to work out as long as we kept our cool.
Podhoretz would like nothing better than to bomb Iran, even though he believes it may “unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world.” Furthermore, he is “certain” President Bush will do it before he leaves office, to which he says “thank God.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Why doesn’t anybody just step up and call this moron batshit crazy to his face? Bush is much closer to Hitler in every way than a guy without a nuclear weapon, who can’t poosible get even one together in less than 5 years, and who has no program to deliver a nuclear strike. Pod-man is just nuts, and should be locked up, for our protection.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:15 pmHow does this jackass keep getting airtime to spew his filthy, bloodthirsty propaganda???
Again, there is NO EVIDENCE that Iran is actively seeking development of nuclear weapons. ZERO.
We have to shout the truth from the rooftops as loudly and as often as possible, lest Podhoretz and his ilk succeed in selling the latest Big Lie, and we become unwilling accomplices to the murder of more millions of innocents.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:17 pmIt’s obvious that Podhoretz WANTS to make more Anti-Americanism around the world.
These jackasses define themselves by their enemies. The more, the better, because in their twisted view, the more enemies you keep, the better you are, because of course they’re just your enemies because they’re jealous. Nevermind the bombs he’s suggesting we drop and the wars we need to instigate.
People like him want an ‘Us against the World’ mindset. Especially because in his twisted mind, he probably thinks we can win that kind of conflict too.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:17 pmHow does he get on the cable TV when he was wrong about IRAQ???
America is ffffed and it all starts with the corporate media
and by corporate media, I mean Republican propaganda TV / Cable / ISP / Phone / etc. media outlets of the USA
October 30th, 2007 at 12:18 pmNot that I disagree with the text here, but the title of this is just not accurate. He didn’t say that “Anyone Who Doesn’t Want To ‘Bomb Iran’ Is Appeasing ‘Hitler’”, he likened the two things, which is another kettle of fish. Fareed Zackaria is the man, though.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:19 pm<pedant>
“deterrance†in the above lede should be “deterrenceâ€.
</pedant>
October 30th, 2007 at 12:19 pmN-Pod’s shriveled soul will make a nice doorstop in hell.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:20 pmJesus H. Christ!!! That bloody insane warmongering old bastard ought to shut the *bleep* up.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:21 pmwhat about people who appease saudi arabian interests?
October 30th, 2007 at 12:21 pmBoth Norm and his equally vile, worthless son, John, are certifiable, bloodthirsty lunatics who wet themselves in terror every time they read or hear the word “Islam”
I’m with Zakaria, there will be NO strike on Iran, not with Russia and China being adamantly against the idea, and especially as all those US troops bogged down in Iraq will bear the brunt of any immediate blowback from such a stupid attack
Start framing the issue now as W’s desire to hit Iran overwhelms any supposed desire to keep the US troops as safe as possible, make the argument that in addition to being under-armored and over-deployed, W’s now putting even more of a lethal burden on the backs of the US troops than they’re already dealing with because of W’s idiotic decision to invade & occupy Iraq, then ask any politicians backing an Iran attack just why they want to place the US troops in even MORE danger than they’re already exposed to
And, of course, the real question these idiots wanting to hit Iran never answer is just why would the rest of the world stand by and allow the Bush Jr Administration to throw it’s weight around, unopposed by any other country
There’s not a level of Hell deep, miserable or permanent enough for repulsive, vile swine like Norm & John Podhoretz, and it must drive them crazy that they’re being rightfully mocked, ridiculed and scorned by those they would consider their social inferiors
October 30th, 2007 at 12:24 pmRead:
Forget Impeachment, Put Bush and Cheney in a Straightjacket
The president’s warmongering remarks on the Iranian threat suggest he is psychotic. Really.
If we fit N.Pod out for one of these garments, I hope it comes with a gag. I’d hate to see him swallow his tongue in a fit of mongering.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:24 pmThanks Fareed but next time why don’t you just knock the old buzzard upside the head because he’s obviously not going to listen to reason.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:25 pmSomeone please give this man some hookers and viagra. He just doesn’t seem to think life is worth living.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pmAnybody who has wet dreams over the thought of “anti-Americanism all over the world” is a nutcase. Why does anybody listen to this lunatic? I would think that even Republicans would want to distance themselves as much as possible from this wacko.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:26 pmThank you Fareed Zackaria for pointing out the folly of Podhoretz’ stance.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:27 pmAnd, of course, the real question these idiots wanting to hit Iran never answer is just why would the rest of the world stand by and allow the Bush Jr Administration to throw it’s weight around, unopposed by any other country
Comment by KingCranky — October 30, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
I don’t know KingCranky, why do the American people allow this insanity to go on in our country. Why isn’t there a huge uproar from the masses protesting the possibility of an attack on Iran? My guess is W has gotten away with so much here that he thinks he can get away with anything anywhere like the true sociopath he is.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pmThrow a net over him and lock him away! Put him in a Saint Elizabeth’s like Ezra Pound.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:28 pmWhy doesn’t anybody just step up and call this moron batshit crazy to his face? Comment by Lefty Patriot — October 30, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
I believe the correct term is Batsh!t Insane!
I would ask why the media even has this idiot on the airwaves, but then I am reminded as to what the media has done for the last 7 years and I have my answer….
October 30th, 2007 at 12:29 pmBombing Iran isn’t an “if” question, it’s a “when” question:
Secret Move to Upgrade Air Base
The US is secretly upgrading special stealth bomber hangars on the British island protectorate of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean in preparation for strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, according to military sources. The improvement of the B1 Spirit jet infrastructure coincides with an “urgent operational need” request for £44m to fit racks to the long-range aircraft. -TheHerald
October 30th, 2007 at 12:29 pmSomeone please give this man some hookers and viagra. He just doesn’t seem to think life is worth living.
Comment by Menehune — October 30, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Yes give him viagra, lots of viagra, at his age that might just be enough.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:29 pmI get it.. Retards Bomb Iran..
wait… wait
I mean Bomb retards in Iran….
wait wait….
We should be nuclear retards and bomb Iran..
crap… I know this works somehow…
October 30th, 2007 at 12:36 pmOK, so, what happens after we bomb Iran? Does anyone really believe it ends there?
October 30th, 2007 at 12:36 pmSorry Norman P., but we are the new nazis in the 21st century… How is bush’s blackwater any different than the nazi gestapo? Blitzkreig/ShockandAwe, what’s the dif, as george b. would say… the germans were imperial aggressors when they invaded and occupied Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, France and Czechoslavica (sic).
We were imperial aggressors when we invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq (after not bothering to do bloody anything to stop nine-eleven…). Even ordering the sealing off of all commercial airliner cockpits would have stopped the hijackers cold: simple, cheap and easy, but B and C just couldn’t be bothered…
When those two long-awaited and vastly overdue Impeachments do come, they will slide through the House and the Senate faster than a Terri Shiavo Resolution…
October 30th, 2007 at 12:36 pmIsn’t this Podhoretz another one of those ’smart’ Jews that AEI. was talking about?
∞
October 30th, 2007 at 12:37 pmOK, so, what happens after we bomb Iran? Does anyone really believe it ends there?
Comment by Chris L — October 30, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
The Rapture-Ready crowd does.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:37 pmPresident Bush’s disturbingly flip comment last 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 30th, 2007 at 12:37 pm“Bush and Giuliani on the Next World War.”
Can anyone explain how Fareed Zakaria managed to get airtime on television?
I mean, isn’t he relatively clear-headed, rational and sensible? Who wants to watch someone like that?
October 30th, 2007 at 12:38 pmHey Ralph @ #27, It’s PBS which they failed to destroy in W’s 1st term.
That’s how Moyers can put this on.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:41 pmDoes anyone else wonder why we want to invade countries that weren’t involved in 9/11 and the country that 15 hijackers were from is our best bud ? In fact we want to sell our ports to a country that gave safe harbor to Bin Laden weeks before 9/11.
We even had Bin Laden in our sights just in August, could have picked him off. However, our NEVER wrong President wouldn’t allow it, and now wants to send our military who haven’t been home in months to ruin yet another country.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:42 pmFurthermore, he is “certain†President Bush will do it before he leaves office, to which he says “thank God.â€
Normie, we’ll all thank someone when the Chimp leaves office; but
will he really leave? He’s like an unwelcome dinner guest at America’s
table; it’s impolite to ask him to leave and illegal to just shoot him.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:44 pmI don’t know KingCranky, why do the American people allow this insanity to go on in our country. Why isn’t there a huge uproar from the masses protesting the possibility of an attack on Iran? My guess is W has gotten away with so much here that he thinks he can get away with anything anywhere like the true sociopath he is.
Because the media is in on the fix?
My thinking is that most of the American people ARE against this and want this to stop (hell, most polls I think show overwhelming opposition to Iran strikes). But the Media successfully insulates Washington, who only hears what your Brookses and Broders and Kauses have to say, since they always say they’re speaking for the AMerican people. They misrepresent the American will, and the politicians buy it, hook line and sinker. It’s a double, possibly triple-layered system of rat****ery.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:44 pm“Most people in the world” has launched 1000 lies.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:44 pmLefty Patriot, the first words that came to my mind were “batshit crazy”.
And you are so right. Why can’t the rest of the media talk more about what lunatics he and his buddies are?
Is the vast majority of the msm just a bunch of gutless copy readers?
Or is it that the American public really doesn’t want to think about it?
Or all of the above?
October 30th, 2007 at 12:45 pmNorman and his idiot bastard son John are a disgrace to the Jews - they would have served Hitler better.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:46 pmCaption:
‘For Halloween, I dressed up like Mr. Magoo’
October 30th, 2007 at 12:46 pmPodhead is an Israel Firster. He doesn’t care about what is good for the U.S.
As former CIA agent Michael Scheuer said on Bill Maher’s show, “Israel is not worth one American life or one American dollar.”
The historian Emmanuel Todd logically defends the deterrence argument. He says that Iran should get the bomb as it is surrounded by nuclear states: India, Pakistan, Israel, and the U.S.
In any event, Pakistan is a more radical islamic country than Iran.
Here is what Podhead wants to attack and destroy.
http://conflictiran.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 04/ inside-iran-city-life.html
http://conflictiran.blogspot.com/ 2006/ 04/ inside-iran-people.html
If he wasn’t such a racist ideologue, he might see some similarities with his Israel.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:47 pmIt is AMAZING that the NeoCon talking points on this issue is to bring up NAZI sympathizers from the 1930’s!
Prescott Bush was not only a sympathizer, but also a business partner with the Nazis! For God’s Sake, the bombing of London was fueled by Standard Oils products! (Standard Oil building in New York now houses CFR, by the way).
Remove Pelosi, Impeach Cheney NOW! Before these bastards get into Iran!
How to Declare the Speaker Seat Vacant.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/ 2007/ 10/ 29/ how-to-declare-the-speaker-seat-vacant/
October 30th, 2007 at 12:49 pmSomeone please give this man some hookers and viagra. He just doesn’t seem to think life is worth living.
Comment by Menehune — October 30, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Actually his time in hell should be spent with lots of naked hookers and NO VIAGRA.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:49 pm“In any event, Pakistan is a more radical islamic country than Iran.”
And Saudi Arabia is more islamic than Pakistan! and of course, there are the 27 redacted pages about Saudi Arabia funding the 9/11 hijackers…. just a little side note
October 30th, 2007 at 12:50 pmBombing Iran isn’t an “if†question, it’s a “when†question:
Comment by toasterhead — October 30, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
From the same article:
“Although intelligence estimates vary as to when Iran will achieve the know-how for a bomb, the French government recently received a memo from the International Atomic Energy Agency stating that Iran will be ready to run almost 3000 centrifuges in 18 cascades by the end of this month. That is in defiance of a UN ban on uranium enrichment and would be enough to produce a nuclear weapon within a year.”
October 30th, 2007 at 12:53 pmMuslims are strengthened by American attacks.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:54 pmAnd no, Iran will not be deterred by attacks or Israel.
And no, Israel is not worth one American life.
On Raw Story Zogby’s poll shows 52% Americans would support a strike on Iran. Even the pollsters are in shock that after the Iraq disaster that many Americans would go along.
Just shows how little Americans are learning from following this gang who can’t shoot straight down the yellow brick road.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:54 pmI have to wonder why we cannot allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, at all costs, but Pakistan/India/North Korea/ and Israel can all have them, lots of them, and refuse to sign the NNPT as well?
October 30th, 2007 at 12:56 pmI would think that even Republicans would want to distance themselves as much as possible from this wacko.
Comment by missmolly
About 25% of the population has bought the notion that we will be taken over by the Muslims. The 25%r’s believe that if don’t set the whole world on fire, in a few years we will be wearing bhurkas (men too) and talking a funny language. Mr Bush keeps them frightened and distracted. It seems to work.
In their view, the US has never faced a more immediate threat than the rag-tag group of fighters and a 4th rate nation (Iran). To them, even the cold war, with 20,000 nukes pointed at us - does not come close to the threat of the scary muslims.
The 25% are falling in line to the authoratarians song and dance. I believe they need to be told what to think. They don’t do well in a free thinking world. Things are too complicated for them. It requires reading and stuff - things they just don’t do. IMHO, they are the worst type of American - too scared to say or do anything without daily talking points or cribnotes. Sure they pay their taxes, go to work, raise their kids - but in the end - they would give up all that is American simply on the premise that they will be kept “safe”. Theirs is a selfish notion. The liberties the founding fathers gave us in the Constitution are flexible because TODAY the threat is larger and more deadly than ever. That is not true, but they believe. Otherwise Norman Pod would have nobody to talk to.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:57 pmWHEN are people going to wake up and finally realize that all these wing-nuts want is war-war-war-war-war… They’re lunatics and should be treated as such. GITMO!
October 30th, 2007 at 12:58 pmthe French government recently received a memo from the International Atomic Energy Agency stating that Iran will be ready to run almost 3000 centrifuges in 18 cascades by the end of this month. That is in defiance of a UN ban on uranium enrichment and would be enough to produce a nuclear weapon within a year.â€
Comment by Keltoi — October 30, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
IAEA also says this:
“We have information that there has been maybe some studies about possible weaponization,” said Mohamed ElBaradei, who leads the International Atomic Energy Agency. “That’s why we have said that we cannot give Iran a pass right now, because there is still a lot of question marks.”
“But have we seen Iran having the nuclear material that can readily be used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No.”
All the more reason to start talking to Iran and stop saber-rattling.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:59 pm#43 Add Egypt to the list as of yesterday, Dana Perino said we are supportive of countries pursuing civil nuclear energy power. Guess America is the high priest all knowing decider as to which country is “allowed” to have the same knowledge as we have.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:59 pmI was waiting with baited breath for the inevitable “But Clinton…” comments. I was sadly dissapointed in Mr P.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:59 pmThanks Fareed but next time why don’t you just knock the old buzzard upside the head because he’s obviously not going to listen to reason.
Comment by Shayne
Kind of like our resident trolls.
October 30th, 2007 at 12:59 pm#43 Add Egypt to the list as of yesterday, Dana Perino said we are supportive of countries pursuing civil nuclear energy power. Guess America is the high priest all knowing decider as to which country is “allowed†to have the same knowledge as we have.
Comment by texaslady — October 30, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
#
Wasn’t Mohammed Atta from Egypt?
October 30th, 2007 at 1:01 pmI have to wonder why we cannot allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, at all costs, but Pakistan/India/North Korea/ and Israel can all have them, lots of them, and refuse to sign the NNPT as well?
Comment by Chris L
In a word: Oil. Iran has it, the rest of your list does not (in any quantity, at least). The whole push is about Oil. it is couched in security type slogans because the neocons know they can con (no pun intended) some people. Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. The neocons play the game very well. To bad if they win, the entire country loses.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:02 pmComment by StratRat — October 30, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
And during McCarthyism and the Cold War, the fear of Communism did much more to damage our way of life than Communism itself ever did.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” — George Santayana
October 30th, 2007 at 1:02 pmThere they go again, drumming up the war cry and thanking God all about it. What is up with this sicko’s.
No reason at all to thank God, because “it” does not exist, it is a faerie tale, how can so many people be this irrational and superstitious in a modern world?
Buck Fush
October 30th, 2007 at 1:06 pmMy thinking is that most of the American people ARE against this and want this to stop (hell, most polls I think show overwhelming opposition to Iran strikes).
Comment by Kryptik — October 30, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Well actually, according to Zogby anyway, that’s not true:
“A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows.”
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1379
Now, mind you, responses are obviously highly swayed by the way the question is put forth.
In this case it’s entirely possible that with the question posed that way, “to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon”, implying that an American strike WOULD prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, it might be easier to understand such a large percentage saying that they would support a “military strike”.
If the question was posed like this,
“Would you support a mililtary strike on Iran if it would delay the chance that Iran would get a nuclear bomb by 10 years?”
or
“Would you support a military strike on Iran if you knew that Russia and China would take Iran’s side in the ensuing conflict?”
or
“Would you support a military strike on Iran if such action would send oil to $300 a barrel?”
or
“Would you support a military strike on Iran if Iraq’s Shiite population declared war on the U.S. as a result?”
Obviously, the list is endless.
This morning on Joe Scarborough, Mika (I think her name was) shook her head and said, “I just don’t get that.” about those poll results. I agree with her. I don’t know one person who supports a “military strike” on Iran. Maybe my friends are just not violent enough?
October 30th, 2007 at 1:06 pmThe last comment about unleashing anti-Americanism, well if you speak to anyone outside of the States, anti-Americanism is at an all time high right now. The Queen of Jordan, Sunday tap danced around the question of American credibility. Her answer was perhaps “later American could regain the International favor we once had.” WOW !
Pretty damning I would say.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:07 pmEven if Iran was going to have a nuclear weapon tomorrow, so what. Israel has nuclear weapons and they are much more aggressive towards their neighbors than Iran is. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and they are harboring Osama Bin Laden. I guess I don’t understand who in the hell we think we are telling a country they can’t have the technology that we and many more nations have. Nuclear weapons are built as a deterrence against aggression by other nations. Why can’t Iran have the same deterrence as Israel has. In my opinion it is much more likely that Israel will nuke Iran than it is that Iran will nuke Israel.
Why start World War III when there are lots of things we can do, with the aid of other countries, to stabilize the situation. Iran has offered to talk with us, but Bellicose Bush has refused to talk to them.
Also, with Russia and China backing Iran, we would be absolutely nuts to bomb Iran. I know that these Corporatefascists haven’t really thought this thing through. So what if they make a lot of money by starting another war. Who is going to make them money once they have bankrupted the United States and no one can afford to buy their goods any longer. The only motivation I can think of is that they do want to bankrupt this country so that they can take over and make our country an oligarchy (a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few.) They will be the Lords and we will be the serfs.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:09 pmBecause the media is in on the fix?
Of course! Hello? McFly?
The media is owned and operated by giant corporations which are owned and operated by CONSERVATIVES. How can you possibly expect foot soldier reporters to be critical of the very same people who pay their checks?
http://leftopia.blogspot.com/ 2007/ 10/ new-three-branches.html
October 30th, 2007 at 1:09 pmKeltoi - I don’t recall your answering my question to you from yesterday:
You seem like a reasonable person - do you truly believe all this sh*t?? Do you honestly think we are going to WIN a war against Iran? Do you think that bombing another country that is really no threat to us is justified - as opposed to diplomacy…? Do you believe that the increased hatred of America world-wide will be worth any dubious gain in our “safety” brought about by bombing Iran…?
And if the answer to any of those questions is an unqualified “yes” - then what is wrong with you? What part of essential humanity are you missing??
October 30th, 2007 at 1:13 pm#43 Add Egypt to the list as of yesterday, Dana Perino said we are supportive of countries pursuing civil nuclear energy power. Guess America is the high priest all knowing decider as to which country is “allowed†to have the same knowledge as we have.
Comment by texaslady — October 30, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
If I am correct in my technical details, it is completely possible to generate nuclear power in a way that does not allow for weapons programs. I believe South Africa and Kazakstan both have embraced such power under IAEA supervision.
Wasn’t Mohammed Atta from Egypt?
Comment by Chris L — October 30, 2007 @ 1:01 pm
He was indeed, but nationalities in the Middle East are not congruent to our notion of them. Tribal and Sectarian affiliation counts for more than the nation-state you are born into, which is a big part of why Iraq is so hard to stabilize.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:14 pmThis morning on Joe Scarborough, Mika (I think her name was) shook her head and said, “I just don’t get that.†about those poll results. I agree with her. I don’t know one person who supports a “military strike†on Iran. Maybe my friends are just not violent enough?
Comment by mary
You are entirely correct, it’s all in how you word the poll and who you poll. I really don’t think that the average American has really thought through the implications of our attacking Iran. If they did, I don’t think that many would think it is a good idea.
What these polls show is that fear still sells and the Democrats are not doing a good job at countering the Republicans fear tactics on Iran. It certainly did not help that so many Democrats voted for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment. Why are the Democrats sitting back and keeping silent on this new wave of fear tactics?
October 30th, 2007 at 1:16 pmTime Magazine stated that until Bush declared Iran part of the axis of evil the people and country were on our side. Insulted Iranians then put Mr. Casual clothes into power. Bush has alienated every country that could have been an ally. Or in England’s case were an ally. So maybe he is buying the smaller ones with nuke energy and as always yours and my tax dollars.
What is tying up the hands of Pelosi from at least reducing the power of these madmen?
October 30th, 2007 at 1:16 pmAnd during McCarthyism and the Cold War, the fear of Communism did much more to damage our way of life than Communism itself ever did.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.†— George Santayana
Comment by missmolly
Absolutely, 100% correct. I remember the words of FDR “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.” Well to the neocons, fear is all they have to sell and the whole advertising campaign is built around that premise.
It is a standard advertisers trick: Sell the idea that the viewer (reader, whatever) has a problem (scary Muslims) and the topic of the advert is where they will find their “solution” (neocons will keep you safe). Check out any advert on TV. They begin by telling you what problem you have, then proceed to explain how their product will fix you right up. The same way we sell soap and insurance, they sell their wars of conquest.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:17 pm“On Raw Story Zogby’s poll shows 52% Americans would support a strike on Iran. Even the pollsters are in shock that after the Iraq disaster that many Americans would go along.”
Comment by texaslady — October 30, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
What a difference a week or two makes. And what a difference a different poll makes.
If you go to http://www.pollingreport.com/iran.htm and look at the top of the page, you’ll see that a CNN poll conducted October 12-14 showed that 68% of the people polled said OPPOSE when asked, “If the U.S. government decides to take military action in Iran, would you favor or oppose it?”
On the other hand, a Fox poll conducted September 25-26 showed 50% of the people polled said TOUGHER LINE when asked, “Do you believe the United States should take a softer line with Iran, including more diplomacy, or take a tougher line, including military action if necessary?”
It would be interesting to know how the Zogby poll question was worded, since the Raw Story article doesn’t say.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:21 pmWe Should Learn from History and Not Appease Dictators.
Comment by TCDon
But 25% of the American people have appeased Mr Bush. He seems to like the attention.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:22 pmWe Should Learn from History and Not Appease Dictators.
Comment by TCDon — October 30, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Then you’re for Impeachment of Cheney/Bush? about time.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:22 pmWhy can’t Iran have the same deterrence as Israel has.
Comment by bilbobaggins — October 30, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Preaching to the choir brother! Well except for Tiny you-know-what Don over there. You know, the one who doesn’t seem to know that Ahmadinejad is in fact NOT a “dictator” and was became president after winning the 2005 presidential election by popular vote.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:23 pmNorman Podhoretz: We Should Learn from History and Not Appease Dictators.
Comment by TCDon — October 30, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Iran is a democracy, not a dictatorship.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:24 pmIran is a democracy, not a dictatorship.
Comment by toasterhead — October 30, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Placing it well ahead of America, which has lost its democracy for the time being.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:27 pmComment by TCDon — October 30, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Perhaps what we’re really learning here is to not let trolls like tcdonnie twist things around so much.
The difference between Hilter and Iran is so enormous, I can’t believe the right keeps trying to sell this nonsense, and yet they do.
And trolls like tcdonnie are determined to help them anyway they can.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:30 pm>>Keltoi - I don’t recall your answering my question to you from yesterday:
I did answer you, it is there.
>>You seem like a reasonable person - do you truly believe all this sh*t?? Do you honestly think we are going to WIN a war against Iran? Do you think that bombing another country that is really no threat to us is justified - as opposed to diplomacy…? Do you believe that the increased hatred of America world-wide will be worth any dubious gain in our “safety†brought about by bombing Iran…? And if the answer to any of those questions is an unqualified “yes†- then what is wrong with you? What part of essential humanity are you missing??
Comment by Leftside Annie — October 30, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
There are no unqualified answers to any of this situation with Iran, IMHO.
Can we “Win”? Yes, we can destroy their nuke program and cripple their military. Do not look for columns of Iranian tanks streaming into Iraq or Afghanistan to attack our troops, they would never make it and they know it. We would control the skies, they’d get butchered.
But THEN what? And that is my greatest fear, you are all right, Bush has demonstrated a lack of follow up planning, to put it mildly. And it would be ugly. Gaza, Lebanon, Sadr City, Basra - instant chaos.
Is it justified instead of using diplomacy? We are using diplomacy, have been for years, and it isn’t working. We are stalled at the UN, Russia sells Iran weapons and China buys their oil, and they love Iran as their catspaw.
To be totally emotionally detached from this, there seems to me to be two central questions: First, is inaction and a nuclear Iran better than action and a wider war in the region? Second, how much time do we have to make the first decision before the default answer becomes a nuclear Iran?
October 30th, 2007 at 1:30 pm#64 I found the poll surprising and scarey. If 70% want us out of Iraq why would 52% think bombing Iran is a good idea? Where would the military force come from? Does the word draft come to mind ? Does this 52% think their sons and daughters will not be affected ?
Face it, American money is buying allies now, what about when we are bankrupt, who will be our friends then? What happens when other countries decide to sanction the invaders?
War destroys countries, yours, mine and ours.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:36 pmIs it justified instead of using diplomacy? We are using diplomacy, have been for years, and it isn’t working. We are stalled at the UN, Russia sells Iran weapons and China buys their oil, and they love Iran as their catspaw.
Comment by Keltoi — October 30, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Do you really consider what we’ve been doing in Iran “diplomacy?” It’s not “negotiation” when you mandate that the other party has to give up their one bargaining chip before you’ll even talk to them. That’s the type of “diplomacy” you practice when you want to ensure that war is the only option.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:39 pmThere has been no Iranian diplomacy and you know it. You’re not going to convince us of anything by insulting our intelligence. We’re not the 25% rightwing base. We don’t fall for your b.s. and we never will.
Don’t hate us because we’re smart.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:41 pmIran is a democracy, not a dictatorship.
Comment by toasterhead — October 30, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Please, everyone, look at this BBC site
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ shared/ spl/ hi/ middle_east/ 03/ iran_power/ html/ guardian_council.stm
on how “elections” are held in Iran and tell me that is a democracy. It would be like Pat Robertson coming to power through a coup and then appointing an election commission who then vetoed the candidacy of anyone who they thought wasn’t Christian enough.
Ayatollah Khamani is the Supreme Leader of Iran. He isn’t elected. He is a theocratic dictator.
We can argue whether any of that is our problem and whether we have any right to stop Iran from going nuclear, but arguing that they are a democracy seems silly.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:42 pmIf these zionists trump up an attack on Iran, not only will Russia et al unite against us but the people of this country will overthrow this sick regime.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:44 pmPudhurtz what a senile sob!!!!
October 30th, 2007 at 1:45 pmThey’re repeating the verbatim MO as they did with Iraq: Lies, lies, and more lies. Fear, fear, and more fear. I’m surprised that the moved nukes didn’t result in yet another “false flag operation”.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:45 pmPudhurts what a senile old SOB.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:45 pmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ shared/ spl/ hi/ middle_east/ 03/ iran_power/ html/ guardian_council.stm
on how “elections†are held in Iran and tell me that is a democracy. It would be like Pat Robertson coming to power through a coup and then appointing an election commission who then vetoed the candidacy of anyone who they thought wasn’t Christian enough.
Comment by Keltoi — October 30, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
We have the same system in the United States. It’s just that our Guardian Council is made up of Coca-Cola, ClearChannel, Kraft, Monsanto, Bechtel, AT&T, and others who veto the candidacy who they think isn’t profitable enough.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:46 pm.
What a stooge. Hitler’s been dead for 60 years. He can’t appeased.
However, Fascism is in style in Amerikkka, isn’t it Norman?
.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:47 pmIt’s time for this country to MYOB. We have absolutely no business in Iran, had no business invading Iraq illegally, and still believe the bull$hit lie about how great we are. We’re going down the tubes, thanks to the unaccountability and fiscal irresponsibility of one man - George W. Bush. This country is headed for a recession and everyone knows it - no one is home minding the store. No one is doing the job they’re being paid to do - our border laws are not being enforced so how does that translate in us somehow (magically??) being “safer”? Only a moron believes these lies.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:47 pmDo you really consider what we’ve been doing in Iran “diplomacy?†It’s not “negotiation†when you mandate that the other party has to give up their one bargaining chip before you’ll even talk to them. That’s the type of “diplomacy†you practice when you want to ensure that war is the only option.
Comment by toasterhead — October 30, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
A good point. But only those privy to the actual negotiations know what has really been said. There is no denying that publicly we have been major hard assess. I haven’t noticed the Iranians being super cuddly either, but again, we don’t know what it really being discussed.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:47 pmI’m sure that Abe Foxman’s Anti-Defamation League will be all over this attempted trivialisation of the Holocaust within minutes … counting, “39″ … “38″ … “37″……………. “1″ … “0″ … <*crickets*>
Cheers,
October 30th, 2007 at 1:47 pmJust ask yourself one critical question when formulating an opinion about this sick regime and how “effective” they’ve been - KATRINA???
We couldn’t even get water to our own people for 5 days in the Dome while the Shrub sat on his butt doing nothing. It was at that time that we all understood that this country is NOT there for us; this country WILL NOT be there for us until there is a regime change; and this country is rapidly sinking into a very black abyss from which return is questionable, all thanks to one man - the Decider cum Divider.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:49 pmWe have the same system in the United States. It’s just that our Guardian Council is made up of Coca-Cola, ClearChannel, Kraft, Monsanto, Bechtel, AT&T, and others who veto the candidacy who they think isn’t profitable enough.
Comment by toasterhead — October 30, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
A Tweety “HAH!” to you Toasterhead! :)
October 30th, 2007 at 1:49 pmKeltoi: Ask yourself this question please (as I’m certain most of the world is asking themselves right now). Is a nuclear US any different from a nuclear Iran? For cripes sakes, the left hand doesn’t even know what the right is doing in this country…..nukes were placed on an airplane and flown straight across this country while we all believed ourselves to be safe. No one can tell me that with the current chain of command in order to remove and mount these 6 nukes (one still missing, eh???? wonder where that went?), this wasn’t a calculated move. Then people connected with it mysteriously died. Yeah, right! Believe that and I’ve got some swampland to sell you in southern Louisiana, too.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:51 pm#71 - Lip service of diplomacy is the only form Bush/Condi are using. The pretend cowboy thinks he is the world’s bad ass and can bully everyone into following. America has forgotten the word of diplomatic relations for six years. Clinton made many mistakes but he at least didn’t make the world mad at us.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:53 pmKeltoi: Besides, we have signed on to a nuclear disarmament treaty and still are making nukes as fast as we can. How does that lend any shred of credibility to us?
Besides, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, who was the only country to detonate a nuclear weapon and decimate thousands of people? Is this why we should be trusted any more than we trust Iran??
I think not. We’ve become world-class hypocrites and have destroyed our international reputation. We all need to send GWB a group “thank you note” - he is THE Absolute WORST president ever in the history of this nation.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:53 pmA good point. But only those privy to the actual negotiations know what has really been said. There is no denying that publicly we have been major hard assess. I haven’t noticed the Iranians being super cuddly either, but again, we don’t know what it really being discussed.
Comment by Keltoi — October 30, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
http://www.esquire.com/print-this/iranbriefing1107
According to two former NSC staffers, in May 2003, Iran sent us (through the Swiss) an offer that included “decisive action” against all terrorists in Iran, an end of support for Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, a promise to cease its nuclear program, and also an agreement to recognize Israel.
The White House rejected it without a second thought and scolded the Swiss government for “meddling”.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:55 pmYou’d better believe that for the Bush Cabal (PNAC, AEI, Federalist Society) the Iraq War and yet another war is “BIG BUSINESS”. They’re fighting tooth and nail, despite the sheer mutiny occurring within our military against the neofascists. The military will win, of course and the Bush Cabal will be sitting in jail someday. The people of this country are behind this military - it’s the only card we have left in our hand, thanks to the Patriot Act removing every constitutional right we’ve ever had. Our election will be hacked (AGAIN!) - THIS WE KNOW. So, ask yourself - what’s left to this democracy?????
October 30th, 2007 at 1:56 pmI predict that Blackwater (Bush’s Hit men) will someday be in conflict with our own military (aren’t they already doing that in Iraq??) here at home.
October 30th, 2007 at 1:57 pm#87 Isn’t it amazing that we even heard about this massive screw up?
October 30th, 2007 at 1:58 pmEverytime something gets out I wonder where that journalist is today.
A Tweety “HAH!†to you Toasterhead! :)
Comment by Keltoi — October 30, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
It’s funny cause it’s true.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:02 pmKeltoi: Ask yourself this question please (as I’m certain most of the world is asking themselves right now). Is a nuclear US any different from a nuclear Iran?
Comment by Veritas — October 30, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
It is a fair question. Allow me to expand it. Is there any country that shouldn’t have a nuke?
There are around 180 countries in the world. About 8 or 10 have nukes, though the arsenals of the US and Russia are an entire order of magnitude larger than anyone elses, even China.
What if EVERY country on Earth had nukes? Would that be better? Maybe it would, MAD taken to its logical conclusion. But would you favor that? I am not honestly sure of my own answer.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:05 pmJust remember…if Rudy is elected, we get Podhoretz. If that isn’t scarry enough, I don’t know what is.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:07 pm#92 Actually I did read that Blackwater pulled guns on our military in Iraq. I believe it was something sent home to me by my son, who is in Iraq.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:12 pm#95 Until we have a responsible administration who understand who they are protecting and working for I don’t think America should have nuclear power. I see no difference between Bush/Cheney and his handlers than the worse threat at this point.
Make no mistake there are handlers behind Bush telling him his policy.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:15 pmWhat if EVERY country on Earth had nukes? Would that be better? Maybe it would, MAD taken to its logical conclusion. But would you favor that? I am not honestly sure of my own answer.
Comment by Keltoi — October 30, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
It’s a good question, and one I’m sure could fill up a thread of its own. I don’t think having nukes all over the globe is a good idea, but as long as we have them, I’m having a hard time coming up with justification to keep others from having them.
But my brain just flashed on something — our second amendment. We Americans cherish our freedoms, and a number of us especially cherish the right to bear arms. It seems we have a lot of political conservatives who will resist any attempt to mitigate Americans’ freedom to own firearms, but want to bomb Iran to keep them from having nukes. Apparently, the second amendment applies only to American citizens, not countries of the world.
Can anyone explain this? I’m pretty sure I know the real answer, but I’d like to know the reason given just for show.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:17 pmOur election will be hacked (AGAIN!) - THIS WE KNOW. So, ask yourself - what’s left to this democracy?????
Comment by Veritas — October 30, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Well, if you KNOW the election is rigged, I guess you think very little is left. I don’t happen to KNOW that, unless every politician from both parties is in on it and “Don’t Taze me, Bro!” guy was correct in grilling Kerry.
In Iran, the rigging is written right into the system and the god isn’t profit, it is Allah. At least profit is real.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:19 pmIs it wishful thinking or were there some politicians that had backbones during the Vietnam conflict. Some that actually stood up, declared we wrong and brought our people home.
What has happened to America ?
October 30th, 2007 at 2:21 pmThe face of evil in the 21st century.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:23 pmKeltoi is whining about the way elections are held in Iran but has no complaints about the way the presidential election was stolen from Gore and handed to the loser who has gotten us up shit’s creek without a paddle and looking to do more damage. The biggest danger to this country are Bush and Cheney and sycophants like you supporting their insanity.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:25 pmExcept for Sy Hersh’s articles in the New Yorker, there hasn’t been much discussion of the consequences of bombing Iran, especially in the MSM. And since few Democrats seem willing to forcefully come out against an attack, the majority of Americans are once again, left in the dark in terms of the possible blowback which would be devasating, economically and militarily.
To be extra cynical about why cable news is doing such a lousy job informing the public, a war would likely boost they’re ratings considerably.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:30 pmNotice how all this talk about Iran involves Israel. America is being used by Israel to do it’s dirty work. At the college when the Iran President was insulted it was Jewish people behind the attack. Now Israel has Nukes that the US illegally gave them but they want the US to attack Iran like we attack Iraq. Americans should really look at the map to see the plan that was done before 2000. Israel is using America to attack the Middle East because they don’t want to lose any soldiers, just take the Middle East land. Cheney wants the oil rights for Halliburton. Bush is just a puppet in the seat. Notice all the Jewish people put in positions to direct the actions of the United States. Wake up it’s all about Israel. Even the Middle East leaders know that. People should check the history books and see what when in 1946 when the US and UK asked that the Jews be allowed to settle on land because of Hitler. Now that land wasn’t theirs but they will use the US to wipe out the owners. Nothing in as this has been done from the beginning. Wars were always about taking land from others when they were weak.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:30 pmIf the American people allow the Bush Administration to illegally attack Iran, Russia and China will move in to protect Iran. I hope the US is ready for a new owner as we will have no support from any other country. Israel will not get involved as to protect their people and just watch the US do the job for them. I have to give it to Israel it’s a smart move to use others and protect themselves. When the US goes down Israel will make friends with the Middle East like they never knew the United States.
But my brain just flashed on something — our second amendment. We Americans cherish our freedoms, and a number of us especially cherish the right to bear arms. It seems we have a lot of political conservatives who will resist any attempt to mitigate Americans’ freedom to own firearms, but want to bomb Iran to keep them from having nukes. Apparently, the second amendment applies only to American citizens, not countries of the world.
Can anyone explain this? I’m pretty sure I know the real answer, but I’d like to know the reason given just for show.
Comment by missmolly — October 30, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
Well, there is an obvious difference in scale, number one.
It depends on what you think the motivation behind the Second Amendment was, definitely a deep topic. Patrick Henry was one of the leading proponents of the Bill of Rights and opposed the Constitution. He was a true blue radical; he probably wanted the government to fear its population so there would be no Lexington and Concord Part II.
Are we the new British Empire and the rest of the world our Colonies? It isn’t a terrible analogy. A true liberal would then WANT the rest of the world able to oppose us, so yes, they should all get nukes, and we would want to stop them.
Problem: Vlad Putin is no Thomas Jefferson. If America is weak, or if we retreat to isolationism, or if we just throw up our hands and say, okay UN, you run the show, does that really make for a safer, freer world?
It is always about alternatives. Of course I don’t WANT to see us attack Iran, no sane person would. But I also don’t think it is a good thing for us to see them go nuclear, cause then every last country in the neighborhood will do the same. Why wouldn’t they? Again, is that better than the alternative…?
October 30th, 2007 at 2:31 pmIt is a fair question. Allow me to expand it. Is there any country that shouldn’t have a nuke?
Comment by Keltoi — October 30, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
Apparently the US shouldn’t because we are the only one’s who ever used one. And we have all these chest thumping types, like you, who think blowing up any country is fine as long as there are brown or yellow people living there.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:32 pmApparently, the second amendment applies only to American citizens, not countries of the world.
Can anyone explain this? I’m pretty sure I know the real answer, but I’d like to know the reason given just for show.
Comment by missmolly
I think it is basically the same theory Gulliani uses for torture: It depends on who is doing it. If we do it, it is ok because we want peace on earth. If the bad guys do it (whoever the “bad guys” are) then it is not acceptable. They are the same tired and lame excuses used to defend the indefensible.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:34 pmAnd it would be wise for everybody going to the polls to remember that Hillary voted for the Iran resolution. Why doesn’t she just run as a Republican and we can pick somebody else to go up against her.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:35 pmA far greater number of politicians are bought these days compared to the days of Vietnam.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:36 pmAfter the 9/11 attacks, the United States had an excellent opportunity to turn around the Iranians. World opinion supported the United States as the victim. The Iranians took to the streets to show sympathy with the US and oppose the terrorists. Now we know that the majority of Iranians were not in favor of the clerics or against the United States. We also knew that the Iranian reform government wanted to end the hostilities between the two countries and normalize relations.
What did Bush do? He batted away feelers from the Iranian government. He included the Iranians in the axis of evil thereby undercutting support for the reform government. He invaded Iraq and gave the Iranians every reason to flex their nuclear muscle.
If the radicals gain sway in the middle east and threaten our civilization, President Bush will stand as the single largest enabler.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:37 pmTo be extra cynical about why cable news is doing such a lousy job informing the public, a war would likely boost they’re ratings considerably.
Comment by Madame Defarge
Plus don’t forget how vengeful and vindictive the Bush administration is. If the broadcasters don’t toe the line, Bush can make it very difficult to open new stations or move into new markets.
Think of the Bush administration like the rich kid on the block: They will always play with you, as long as you follow their (one sided) rules.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:39 pmKeltoi is whining about the way elections are held in Iran but has no complaints about the way the presidential election was stolen from Gore and handed to the loser who has gotten us up shit’s creek without a paddle and looking to do more damage. The biggest danger to this country are Bush and Cheney and sycophants like you supporting their insanity.
Comment by Shayne — October 30, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
1. I only whine when the Steelers lose.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:43 pm2. I sent along a BBC report on Iranian democracy in response to another poster saying Iran is a democracy - they aren’t.
3. The 2000 election is not only wildly off topic, it has been beaten to DEATH and I just can’t argue about it anymore.
4. I am often critical of Bush, just not in a knee jerk fashion.
Well said JMOHR. Bush has done more than Osama or Sadam could ever dream of doing to make this world less safe for Americans, and my sons and grandkids will have to deal with the aftermath of all the hate that bastard has created.
I realize it’s simplistic to blame it all on Bush, in fact he is just the face and not the Deciderer he would like to be, but if he is going to be the point man then he can absorb my hatred for the whole cabal.
I have said that if I could go back in time with one bullet and had to choose between Bush, Osama or Sadam I would visit Crawford in a New York minute.
The damage the other two have done is peanuts compared to the crap left behind by Bushco.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:44 pmI totally agree Hillary is not the answer and the Dems will throw the election away if they nominate her. Too many are wanting her for the wrong reasons. But the only difference I see between Bill, Hillary and Bush is Hillary and Bill are better at diplomacy. The agenda is the same.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:47 pmApparently the US shouldn’t because we are the only one’s who ever used one. And we have all these chest thumping types, like you, who think blowing up any country is fine as long as there are brown or yellow people living there.
Comment by Shayne — October 30, 2007 @ 2:32 pm
Are you purposely mischaracterizing my statements because you don’t like me and my views, or do you really think I say these things?
Show me one time, one post, where I said it is okay to kill people based on their skin color.
As far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki go, no one who knows squat about history denies that using those weapons to end the war saved millions of American AND Japanese lives by avoiding a final defense of the home islands.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:48 pmI agree Bush is a pointman (hate to give him that much credit) only. Because if he really were making the decisions, he would try to make himself look better. Perception is very important and who wants to be the worlds armpit. The SCHIP Bill which he was for and now against would be a cheap feather in his cap and give him bragging rights.
So the handlers want everyone’s hate and eyes on Bush while they manipulate in the backroom. Bush is too stupid to realize what is going on….and you can’t fix stupid.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:51 pmKeltoi - Iran was our ally when we first went into Afghanistan.
How have they all of a sudden become the epitome of Evil?
Because Bush and his PNAC backers say so…? Please. We aren’t getting the full story - we’re getting made up rightwing propaganda from the compliant kiss-ass media - the stenographers for the Bushies.
We have only accomplished the goals of OSAMA BIN LADEN with our invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Think about it.
Are we going to do MORE of his work for him by bombing Iran simply because Bush and his gang of discredited neocon thugs say so…??
And you yourself said that you are afraid of the aftermath - are you so brainwashed that you’re willing to put aside your own common sense in favor of what these thugs tell you?
God help you. And God help us all.
October 30th, 2007 at 2:56 pmPresumably, the threat posed by a nuclear Iran is that they would nuke somebody. As I see it that is not a credible threat. Why? Because one who used a nuclear weapon would have to be suicidal. Very few national leaders are suicidal. Heck, even Hitler waited till the knock on the door before he offed himself.
I can’t picture a nation’s leader, even in the Muslim world, who would ensure the utter destruction of their nation even to the extent of supplying nuclear arms to a radical group.
October 30th, 2007 at 3:17 pmAs far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki go, no one who knows squat about history denies that using those weapons to end the war saved millions of American AND Japanese lives by avoiding a final defense of the home islands.
Comment by Keltoi — October 30, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
Roosevelt was going to drop them in Tokyo Harbor or in the Pacific as a warning. Crazies decided it was better to kill 200,000 innocents with no warning. Truman was a tool, just like Bush.
Now, Pod-Whore-Its is basically in need of some Gingko Biloba or Hydergine. This fart is so senile, it smells like mothballs even watching him on a computer screen.
October 30th, 2007 at 3:28 pmThe problem is that “smart people” rely on manipulation of “stupid people” to take, and maintain, control. This manipulation requires close association and, as the saying goes, “Familiarity breeds similarity”.
I have come to believe that “taking over” makes “smart” people “stupid”.
October 30th, 2007 at 3:57 pmBoy does he have that ass backwards. Anyone supporting bombing Iran is supporting George “Hitler” Bush. So is it safe to call Pod”whore”etz Geobels?
October 30th, 2007 at 4:02 pmOne more thing, Republicans will forever be known as the “torture, death and deficit” party.
October 30th, 2007 at 4:03 pmThe problem is that “smart people†rely on manipulation of “stupid people†to take, and maintain, control. This manipulation requires close association and, as the saying goes, “Familiarity breeds similarityâ€.
I have come to believe that “taking over†makes “smart†people “stupidâ€.
Comment by pete — October 30, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
pete, You get right to the point. This “Dumbing Down” takes a myriad of forms:
1) Hormones in meat
2) Pesticides in Vegetables
3) Nutrasweet/Aspartame
4) Popular media
5) Fear
6) Modern education
7) Collapse of Dollar
8) Organized Religion
9) Republicanism
October 30th, 2007 at 4:22 pmsorry sir, but supporting you and Bush and bombing Iran is supporting Hitler.
October 30th, 2007 at 4:28 pmkeltoi said, “We can argue whether any of that is our problem and whether we have any right to stop Iran from going nuclear, but arguing that they are a democracy seems silly.”
It is less silly than arguing that racist apartheid Israel is a “democracy”.
October 30th, 2007 at 5:09 pmMakes me think Ron Paul is the right choice.
October 30th, 2007 at 6:22 pmMakes me think Ron Paul is the right choice.
Comment by NeoTheta — October 30, 2007 @ 6:22 pm
His stance on Privatization makes me nervous. His antiwar and Constitutional ideas are good. Probably better than Hillary, but not by much.
October 30th, 2007 at 6:34 pmMans #1 instinct is survivial of self, followed closely by survival of family. Now, that may sound over simplified to you… but it’s been that way since the beginning of man. It is not in the best interest of Iran to risk extinction of it’s own people through the use of such weapons as nuclear on other countries… FIRST. I have no doubt in my mind that if attacked they would throw back everything they could including the kitchen sink in retaliation. Therefore, it is the responsibility of major power countries that have the ability to make a large hole in the Earth out of countries like Iran to understand that the possession of such weapons as nuclear comes with a heavy understanding that they cannot be used in an offensive manor for any reason lest their own extintion. Otherwords, just tell them you can have them if you really want to risk it, bud!
October 30th, 2007 at 8:18 pmAnyone who does want to bomb Iran is appeasing the devil.
October 30th, 2007 at 8:32 pmPol Pot must be so pissed that nobody ever gets compared to him
October 30th, 2007 at 9:08 pmCheck out this video of Norman Podhoretz after some tough questions. He runs away like a little girl.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MBzLTjVMhY
October 30th, 2007 at 9:10 pmI wonder…is it perhaps time to establish a reverse form of Godwin’s Law for this sort of situation? After all, this is by no means the first time in the last six years that the neoconservatives have invoked World War II to justify their actions despite the fact that the situation we faced with regard to the Axis in WWII was very different on several points than that which we faced with regard to Iraq a few years ago and the one which we currently face with regard to Iran.
Perhaps we should call it Niwdog’s Law (since that’s Godwin spelled backwards)…?
October 30th, 2007 at 10:30 pmAfter watching the video of the NewsHour interview, my conclusion:
Put Podhoretz out of his misery.
October 30th, 2007 at 10:32 pmThe President listens to him and will do everything he tells him to do. The President wants to be liked in the neocon world. He beieves he has a mission. They use the religious right to make him beleive that God wants him to do this. Kinda creepy huh?
October 31st, 2007 at 2:38 amPodhoretz is a racist neocon that should be locked up , and I’m getting really sick and tired of these little murderous israeli - Firsters advocating the murder of middlle east people . Him and Michael ledeen who advocate ” Total War on the Middle East ” , while sitting comfortable in their chairs , talking about the slaughter of innocent people like they talking about sports .
October 31st, 2007