Letters to the Editor
-
@ quickstrategy
In some ways, they're more dangerous then because they have more time to plan, solicit support in the defense 'periphery', recruit, publish revisionist accounts that paper over everything that went wrong on their 'watch' (and more stab-in-the-back nonsense), disseminate the half-baked theories and frameworks, which will then be taken up, diluted and fragmented, and then popularized for rhetorical leverage later by Fred Hiatt, David Brooks, Robert Kaplan and other 'popular' writers ... all without having to account for anything contemporary that they've been in charge of.
All the more reason to put as much pressure as possible on the next administration to bring these people to account. They will have less time to spread their subterranean poison if they are having to fight a defensive war.
-
Thanks for the laugh, NotOrbitBoy.
If we allow iran to develop its nuclear weapons, won't the nuclear winter that follows the inevitable nuclear exchange with Israel solve our global warming problems?
Shouldn't all the greenies support iran's efforts?
How do you know it is "inevitable" that there will be a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran?
And before you answer, do NOT start waving Ahmadinejad's bolivations as evidence. He's a powerless figurehead with no official power in the Iranian power structure. No government spokesman or official of consequence has mirrored his words.
Come to that, how is such an exchange supposed to happen in the first place, given neither nation actually has a ballistic missile inventory with sufficient range and reliability with which to deliver such payloads?
As always, the devil is in the details you don't think about. Fortunately the rest of us do and so know better.
-
Note that in both the Ledeen quotes he positions his militarism as defensive:
"...it's acting to protect our guys by fighting back in the proxy war the mullahs have been waging since 1979."
And:
"I would insist that my soldiers have the right of 'hot pursuit' into Iran and Syria..."
This is the great pose of moral superiority of the war mongers: they are only advocating aggression as a form of defense. They see themselves as protectors of our military who want to "untie our hands" because, even with the largest military on earth, somehow the playing field is always unfair to us. And, of course, the inference is that our hands are tied because not everyone has the courage to do what needs to be done for our country, like Ledeen and his fellow warriors do.
In fact these militaristic pronouncements only confer a moral superiority onto the speaker because they implicitly confer that superiority onto the nation as a whole. All of which has a great appeal to the mainstream media who then erect the hurdles to any discussion of the true morality of military aggression. (i.e. "Yes, but don't you think our soldiers should have the right to defend themselves, even if it means hot pursuit into Iran?")
-
Neocon Reality
I'm sure that the Neocons believe that attacking terrorist training camps in Iran is not the same thing as taking military action against Iran. They love subtle distinctions like these to justify their behavior. Controlling the language and the definition of terms gives them plausible deniability and a green light to do as they please while demonizing all who get in their way. My only hope is that the America people start buying a clue on this (or at least a vowel).
-
Neocons
What a bunch of scumbags!
-
(K)nob
If we allow iran to develop nuclear weapons, are we then responsible for any ensuing use of those weapons?
If I let you go buy a gun and you use it, who is responsible?
You guys are like frickin' chatty cathy dolls on steroids.
If one talking doll is a hit, then a family of talking dolls is better! Or, so Mattel thought. After hitting a home-run with Chatty Cathy, Singin' Chatty, Charmin' Chatty, Tiny Chatty Baby, and Tiny Chatty Brother were also produced.
Mattel was wrong. And so are you and the rest of your yowling group.
-
NotOrbitBoy
If we allow iran to develop nuclear weapons, are we then responsible for any ensuing use of those weapons?
The responsibility for an action rests upon the shoulders of he who perpetrated the action.
If Iran uses nukes, then the fault for the use of those nukes lies with the Iranians who made the decision to use them and to a lesser extent with those who followed the orders to implement that use.
I'm not an Israeli and I don't give a damn what happens to Israel, they made their bed of nails and now they must lie in it. Israel already has nuclear weapons carrying submarines, if Iran were to strike them the Iranian leadership would die.
-
Total Control
Bush/Cheney have TOTAL CONTROL over the military. They don't have to answer to anyone about anything. They give orders in secret. They will attack Iran and then run home like little children leaving the rest of us to suffer the consequences. As long as congress is filled with cowards and criminals we are all in mortal danger. Here is my timeline:
Nuke Iran.
Declare martial law and nationalize the national guard.
Hire Blackwater to enforce 'the law'.
'Postpone' the elections.
Bank on it.
-
While we are embracing the insights of Machiavelli
One of the great secrets of the day is to know how to take possession of popular prejudices and passions, in such a way as to introduce a confusion of principles which makes impossible all understanding between those who speak the same language and have the same interests.
NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI (1469-1527), The Prince, 1513.
Ledeen certainly embraces SOME of this disturbing wisdom from the 16th century.
Chris Floyd has been a great resource for untangling the events leading up to the new war with Iran. He goes after Michael Gordon for his part as well
http://www.chris-floyd.com/content/view/1502/135/
The regularity of Chris' site going offline due to attack is a testament to how well he is portraying the ill intent of these cretins.
-
Oh boy
What about the possibility of suspended elections should a major national security "crises" happen around the time that power is supposed to be turned over...
I, personally, refuse to believe that all this plotting doesn't have a very questionable and odious undercurrent of providing the Bush administration with an excuse to suspend, indefinitely, the transfer of power.
There is absolutely NOTHING in their historical record that would give me any faith that they wouldn't exploit that 'coincidence' fully, should it materialize.