Letters to the Editor
-
Michael Ledeen, 2006
From the Rawstory interview with Larisa Alexandrovna,
published March 20, 2006 [click on my signature for live link]:
"...Iraq through a 911 Lens
RS): I want to revisit what we briefly touched upon with regard to the Iraq war and pre-war intelligence, but I want to continue from a different vantage point. Let's begin with the attacks of September 11, 2001. Do you think the attacks could have been and should have been avoided? Were there enough warnings? If so, where did the failure, in your opinion, occur?
ML): Wrong war, wrong time, wrong way, wrong place. As I said at the time. The key to the terror structure was and is Iran, and we should have started by supporting democratic revolution in Iran, not invading any place. And even if you decided to 'do' Iraq first, it should have been political first, and military second-if-necessary. I proposed declaring the 'no fly zones' to be 'free Iraq,' and then dropping leaflets on the country urging Iraqis to go govern themselves, preparing for the fall of the regime..."
What, you don't believe him?
-
@Mike @Bald Eagle
Mike:
I don't know the entire history of who invaded who. I know that after Israel became an independent state all if its neighbors have attacked it. It has had to keep its guard up ever since. The fact that it has peacefully co-existed with Egypt, a former enemy, is an example of "responsibility" on Israel's part. As is the fact that it holds elections, and permits free speech and debate. If you want to argue that Iran is more responsible, be my guest.
If there is another question I did not address, ask again.
The Bald One:
Paraphrased from a philospy text: "A man stands on a bridge. He sees another man drowning in a cold, icy river below. Does he bear any responsibility by failing to act?"
To answer your question, of course we can do nothing...would you let the man drown?
If this is not analogous, you can certainly make that point, and give your explanation as to why.
Throwing around the "neo-con" label and hurling insults, doesn't accomplish much.
-
Not really believable, cabdriver.
What, you don't believe him?
I doubt heavily Ladeen believes himself when he's spouting this kind of stuff.
-
Rational Responses
I wouldn't use "history of invasions" as a metric to measure responsibility. Here's one in Israel's favor; they have honored peace treaties with Egypt. They have a proven track record of settling differences with former enemies.
Israel has violated 28 resolutions of the United Nations Security Council (which are legally binding on member-nations).
http://www.geocities.com/savepalestinenow/internationallaw/studyguides/sgil3.htm
are we better off stopping iran from obtaining nukes? and how far are we willing to go (what price will we pay)?
Who bestowed the responsibility on the U.S. (and Israel) to police this?
Iran. . . . obliterating itself? you mean like the suicide bombers who board the buses in Israel?
Here is where you ignore history. Mutually assured destruction kept the world's two most significant nuclear powers in check for the entire cold war. Your statement above "garners an emotional response, rather than a rational one." to quote you back at yourself.
You have to ignore a lot of history to draw that conclusion.
The lesson that Iran has learned is that of North Korea, who has nukes, and has not been attacked by the U.S.
I do not support Iran, or anyone's pursuit of nuclear weapons. I think there are more than enough in the world today. But to treat Iran as if they are irrational, as you and the neocons have been doing, hasn't been working out so well.
-
Perhaps the first honest admission we've heard from NotOrbitBoy.
I don't know the entire history of who invaded who.
Rather puts paid to any credibility NOB had, doesn't it?
-
@NOB
A man stands on a bridge.
He sees another man sitting on the deck of a yacht cruising on an unplesantly hot river below.
There is a machine gun mounted on the bow of the yacht, and a helicopter parked on the stern.
The man on the yacht keeps threatening to jump in the water. Does the first man bear any responsibility by failing to act?
-
Don't get sidetracked
The whole neocon enterprise is a weird amalgam of personal bile, the need to worship power, and the need (by its Jewish contingent) to both completely assimilate by proving their absolute loyalty to the non-Jewish Powers that Be who run American (the idea that Jews are in control here is an absolute myth) while at the same time aggressivley asserting their Jewishness by being unyielding advocates for Israel. The brutal use of American power to smack down the Arab/Muslim world fits both needs perfectly. America gets to "stand tall' and control the global fuel pump, while Israel gets its unchallenged military mastery further enhanced without the spilling of one drop of Jewish blood. See, everybody wins! Well, not the lower-class grunts who have to fight these wars, or the middle-class taxpayer who makes a flat salary and can't hide their incomes, or the uncounted thousands of human beings over there who suffer and die under the hail or our bombs and shells. But they don't Endow Chairs at the AEI, or the Heritage Foundation, or the Council on Foreign Relations, or run this country, so the neocons could care less about them.
For those who want to pull the anti-semite card, forget it. I don't believe that Israel runs American foreign policy or Jews run America. The WASPs still do. And they support Israel because in their opinion it is in America's interest to have a "bad cop" on the beat over there so America can occaisionally pretent to be the "disinterested broker" i.e., the good cop. The neocons, Jew and Gentile, are useful idiots for the corporate/financial oligarchy, the investor class, that runs this country. Those that see this as a Jewish Conspriacy are putting the cart before the horse.
-
Update: why "Israel says" instead of "Neo-Cons in Israel say" ?
That's a bit sweeping, to imply that ALL Israelis and ALL of Israel are a bunch of lying war-mongers, on the same level as the handful of neocon elites in the US.
Oh yeah, I forgot the golden rule of leftwing bloggers: No one is allowed to criticize the Bush Administration without also showing unbounded hatred for Israel.
This also happens to be the rule of rightwing talk radio. Whenever a leftwinger is on, he gives equal time to bashing Israel as he does to bashing Bush, with the inevitable follow-up from the rightwing host about Democrats' hostility toward Jews.
This is a great rule, by the way, as it keeps Republicans in office by playing their favorite tune: Bush's wars are not about making uber-profits for his friends in the oil and defense industries (Exxon, Haliburton, etc.), they are about protecting Israel due to Bush's overwhelming love of Jews (that Bush sure has a huge pro-Jew bias -- what a terrible person he is!).
Way to keep it going, Glenn!