An entire class of people have mistaken machismo for manliness, murder for war, mindless obeisance for intellect. These people are called NEOCONS. They existed as a mentality long before before Wolfowitz, Cheney, Kristol et al would appropriate the acronym. NEOCONS can be found in any cult which celebrates mindless nationalism for patriotism, self-deception for loyalty, nukes for courage. NEOCONS will never change course, will never learn from mistakes, especially those of the Bush regime for whom they puke up an endless string of excuses. NEOCONS will never change their strategy, their billigerant tone, their hard on for the world outside US bounderies. They will never adapt but we must always hope they fail. Their vision of success is much too horrific to contemplate or endure.Idiots do not learn from their mistakes. Morons repeat failed strategies hoping for different results. Being stupid means never having to say you're sorry. Some specific "cons" come to mind. Newt Gingrich, FOX News, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, and a gaggle of run of the mill conservatives who lack a fancy label to distinguish their own idiocy.
What are "they" wrong about this time? This is too easy. I could just pick a topic at random. However, I have in the mind the recent capture and release of British sailors. Why was I surprised that FOX News shill, William Kristol, would wring his hands about "U. S. passivity"? Kristol wanted to bomb Tehran. Like bombing Baghdad did any good. Like bombing has historically had any effect other than the wanton murder of civilians. Perhaps, Kristol had managed to convince himself that Hitler won World War II by bombing London. Perhaps the US really won Viet Nam by bombing Hanoi. Perhaps the US won Iraq because we bombed hell out of Baghdad several years ago. NEOCONS have an unhappy relationship with reality. Perhaps the American right wing has become the wrong wing:
Ahmadinejad is a loudmouthed jerk even by American standards. Sure --he used the incident to score propaganda points. So what? What is important is that amid howls from the dogs of war, Iran didn't do a lot of things that the US might have done had it been in the same position. Iran did not torture the British soldiers. None of them were stripped naked. None were waterboarded. None were stacked in pyramids. None were attacked by rabid dogs.
But, for right wing perverts and paid shills, it was coitus interruptus. They didn't get to feel virile. They didn't get off. They didn't get the screamin' big "O" that only comes with the vaporization of Tehran.
Pogo said it best. We have met the enemy and it is us. As Keith Olbermann and law expert Jonathan Turley explain in the following video, the Bush regime has turned out to be subversive of American ideals, indeed, our very founding. Nothing stands between any US citizen and torture at GITMO but the sanity of the President of the United States. We are sooo screwed.
The Existentialist Cowboy
Rule of Law
Constitution
Supreme Court
Indict Bush
Why Conservatives Hate America
GOP Crime Syndicate
Iraq
Spread the word:
8 comments:
There is real doubt that the UK sailors were captured in Iraqi waters. Craig Murray, former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan and Head of the Foreign Office's Maritime Section, worked from 1992 with UK Intelligence monitoring Iraqi weapons trafficking in this area. And he had this to say about the border maps put out by the UK in response to the current crisis:
"I have news for you. Those boundaries are fake. They were drawn up by the MoD. They are not agreed or recognised by any international authority. To put it at its most charitable, they are a potential boundary. It is accepted practice, where no boundary exists, to work by a rule-of-thumb idea of where a boundary, based on a median line between the two coasts, might be. But to elevate that to a hard and fast boundary, and then base a major international incident on being a few hundred yards one side or the other, is out of order." (link)
There is little evidence that the UK sailors were coerced into making false confessions. A UK Royal Marine, Chris Air, has admitted in a Sky News interview (5/4) that the UK was gathering intelligence on Iran. So the captured sailors' confessions likely had an element of truth in them.
Finally, you might recall that in December and January Bush ordered raids against Iranian government offices inside Iraq and had five Iranian military officials detained indefinitely. There was barely a peep in our media about these violations of international law. The Iranians weren’t charged with anything and are still being held.
A real sense of US intentions can be gained from this Guardian report:
"The U.S. offered to take military action on behalf of the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, including buzzing Iranian Revolutionary Guard positions with warplanes, the Guardian has learned. In the first few days after the captives were seized and British diplomats were getting no news from Tehran on their whereabouts, Pentagon officials asked their British counterparts: what do you want us to do? They offered a series of military options, a list which remains top secret given the mounting risk of war between the U.S. and Iran. But one of the options was for U.S. combat aircraft to mount aggressive patrols over Iranian Revolutionary Guard bases in Iran, to underline the seriousness of the situation. The British declined the offer and said the U.S. could calm the situation by staying out of it."
Thanks, but no thanks.
Great post, damien. It is a miracle that cooler heads prevailed. One could only suspect from the outset that the current, ROGUE US administration would seek out any pretext to bomb Tehran as suggested by Kristol.
I hope America wakes up and rids itself of Bush and his utterly criminal ilk before it is too late and before they start world war III.
A clue for NEOCONS. The US cannot win World War III. Check out:
Could This Be the Start of World War III? As the Middle East erupts, there are plenty of scenarios for global conflagration.
Indeed, Len - should WWIII break out, with what army could the US possibly win it, considering the fact that it is worn out and almost broken by Bush's insane Iraq War (or rather, War against the Iraqi civilians)?
Len, one thing to be thankful for: if your scenario of a Bush coup is correct, they havent got a chance of winning that one either. In fact, given the BushCo record, an attempted coup might be the best thing that's happened to us in the last 50 years.
It is worth reminding ourselves also that the Iran nuclear program is hyped and they are not actually producing any uranium! Who says so? Mohamed ElBaradei, Head of the IAEA:
"Iran is still just at the beginning stages in setting up its Natanz enrichment facility." "The talk of building a facility with 50,000 centrifuges is just at the beginning, and it is (currently) only in the hundreds," he told reporters in the Saudi capital, Riyadh. Diplomats in Vienna familiar with IAEA efforts also gave a much lower figure for the centrifuges. They told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity that Iran was running only about 650 centrifuges in series _ the configuration that allows the machines to spin uranium gas to various levels of enrichment. And they said the machines were running empty, with none producing enriched uranium.
ElBaradei also played down suspicions that Iran is running a hidden uranium enrichment program. "It has not been demonstrated until now that there are underground nuclear facilities in Iran working covertly, and Iran doesn't have the material that can be used to make a nuclear weapon."
Ridiculous, isn't it? The alleged Iranian nuclear threat is nothing but hyped propaganda.
daveawayfromhome said...
...if your scenario of a Bush coup is correct, they havent got a chance of winning that one either.
I share your appreciation of Bushco "competence". However, they have already won one coup. The one that brought Bush to illegitimate power. But, you are correct. Since that time, it's been the keystone cops in charge of what may be the world's largest nuclear stockpile. I haven't felt safe since Bush stole the Oval Office.
damien said...
It is worth reminding ourselves also that the Iran nuclear program is hyped and they are not actually producing any uranium! ...The alleged Iranian nuclear threat is nothing but hyped propaganda.
You are most probably correct on that point. Isn't it interesting that the US-Iran antipathy feeds the same big lie? Two divergent viewpoints both benefit from the exploitation of the same cover story. Amazing. Ahmadinejad has done a great job for Bush, and likewise, Bush for Ahmadinejad.
There's no doubting, Len, that Ahmadinejad wants a nuclear weapons program. But the evidence is that there is no near term threat. It was more the hyped threat I was objecting to and the US efforts to create the illusion of such a threat.
Indeed, Damien, it is the hyped threat that both demagogues have benefited from.
Post a Comment