Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Iran: The Next Big Thing?
Posted by: Jon Henke on Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Kevin Drum brings the warmongering innuendo:
The CIA says that Iran isn't as close to building a nuclear bomb as we used to think ... Expect the Michael Ledeen crowd to be furious over this. The CIA's report concedes that "left to its own devices, Iran is determined to build nuclear weapons," but that won't be enough to save them from the wrath of the mega-hawk crowd, which is still desperately trying to salvage its reputation after being proved wrong in virtually all particulars about Iraq.
Where to start? Well, first, the crowd that was "proved wrong in virtually all particulars about Iraq" was....uh, the CIA. ("slam dunk!")

Next, as Pejman observes, Michael Ledeen doesn't actually support an invasion of Iran. In fact, he has explicitly disclaimed such a notion, writing that "military action against Iran [would be] a mistake", and that his optimal Iran policy would be "the same as our policy toward any tyranny whose people are fighting for their freedom: support the freedom fighters"—that "the United States should support the Iranian democratic opposition".

Which, you may note, is precisely the same policy—"support the democratic opposition"—as was favored by the Clinton administration towards Iraq. Indeed, in a debate with George W Bush in 2000, Al Gore said...
I want to go further. I want to give robust support to the groups that are trying to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Why is it that Michael Ledeen is a "mega-hawk" for advocating support for the Iranian democratic opposition, but Al Gore was not a "mega-hawk" for advocating "robust support" for the Iraqi opposition?

Actually, I think the answer to that is probably pretty obvious.

There's a more interesting issue, though: critics of the Iraq war insisted for years now that the Bush administration is just itching to invade Iran and/or Syria? Why? Is there actually any serious movement to invade Iran or Syria?

As far as I can tell, the notion of an Iran/Syrian invasion is entirely a figment of the imagination of Iraq war critics.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Jon Henke:

It’s not just that they’re accusing the Administration of itching to invade Iran/Syria.

They themselves have been itching to do it.

After all, how often have we heard the lament, "Why did the Administration invade Iraq, when there were real proliferators/terrorist-supporting nations like North Korea and Iran out there?" The implication seems to be that they’d have supported an invasion of a "real" WMD threat like Iran.

Under those circumstances, you’d think this was their wish come true?
 
Written By: Lurking Observer
URL: http://
If you detect a note of desperation on the part of the left here, it’s no accident. On both this issue and the draft (which was the subject of Rumsfeld’s original quote), the left desperately wants Bush and Co. to prove their paranoid fantasies correct.

That would prevent them from having to face reality, in which their world view has been shown wildly incorrect. Their denial is now so severe that any challenge to it all scares them out of their mind.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Sorry, I left off the quote, didn’t I? I was referring to Rumsfeld’s observation that anyone who thought there would be a draft was speaking from the heights of near perfect ignorance. Anyone who thinks Bush is chomping at the bit to invade Iran is in roughly the same condition.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Why is it that Michael Ledeen is a "mega-hawk" for advocating support for the Iranian democratic opposition, but Al Gore was not a "mega-hawk" for advocating "robust support" for the Iraqi opposition?
Because Gore never said anything such as this (April 30 JINSA fourm) :
’the time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon.’
Now maybe he is not calling for an invasion of Iran in this quote. But it is a funny way to go about it.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
"Because Gore never said anything such as ["it is time for a free Iran"]"
Gore never called for a free Iraq? You mean, other than supporting the Iraqi Libertarian Act, and saying "We have made it clear that it is our policy to see Saddam Hussein gone".
Now maybe he is not calling for an invasion of Iran in this quote.
Maybe? No, he didn’t call for an invasion in that specific quote. And in the other instances I noted, he’s specifically called a US invasion of Iran a "mistake".

I don’t find that at all unclear. Both Ledeen and Gore favored "regime change" and the support of internal resistance groups. There’s not an iota of difference.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
MK, is it hard to type with your eyes closed so tightly? Or can you simply not read? That quote is from the 2nd Debate - VERBATIM you twit.

It is EXACTLY what he said. Or does the ’q’ at the end of Iraq look like a ’n’ in your twisted, ignorant world?
 
Written By: Sharp as a Marble
URL: http://sharpmarbles.stufftoread.com
No MK - but Gore did say -
"There can be no peace for the Middle East so long as Saddam is in a position to brutalise his people and threaten his neighbours" and "he also reiterated the administration’s view that the Iraqi leader should be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/809168.stm
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Their whole world is anti-Bush. Nothing else matters.
 
Written By: Walter E. Wallis
URL: http://
There’s a more interesting issue, though: critics of the Iraq war insisted for years now that the Bush administration is just itching to invade Iran and/or Syria? Why? Is there actually any serious movement to invade Iran or Syria?
Do you remember the WMD, 45 minutes from destruction, imminent threat, purchasing yellow-cake, proliferators of death? Apparently the fools on the left have been convinced that these are good legitimate reasons for going to war.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://
Gore never called for a free Iraq? You mean, other than supporting the Iraqi Libertarian Act
Heh....Freudian slip? :^D
 
Written By: b-psycho
URL: http://psychopolitik.blogspot.com
MK, is it hard to type with your eyes closed so tightly? Or can you simply not read? That quote is from the 2nd Debate - VERBATIM you twit
Twit, ooooh - you hurt my feelings.

What quote are you talking about? When you use the word "that," the antecedent is unclear. You further confuse the issue by mixing up Iraq and Iran.
Maybe? No, he didn’t call for an invasion in that specific quote. And in the other instances I noted, he’s specifically called a US invasion of Iran a "mistake".
Yes he has never said: "Let’s invade Iran." He may have even said it’s a bad idea. But does that mean he is really against the idea? In other words, when Antony called Brutus an "honorable man" - his point wasn’t that he was an honorable man, his point was that he was the opposite.

Same thing with Ledeen - his words say one thing, his philosophy another. By focusing on his words, you miss his philosophy - which is to bring about regime change through Amerrican military might. To most of us, that a neocon would want to do this is a settled matter.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3027ledeen_iran.html

He and Gore may have shared the same goal - get rid of Saddam, but how they would do that could not have been any more different.

14 dead today. How many tomorrow?

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Do you remember the WMD, 45 minutes from destruction, imminent threat, purchasing yellow-cake, proliferators of death? Apparently the fools on the left have been convinced that these are good legitimate reasons for going to war.
I’m not sure I get the subtext of your comment, but I’ll take a stab:

1) There was a lot more to rationale for the Iraq war than just that.

2) There are a great many more reasons why invading Iran (or Saudi Arabia) would be a bad idea.

3) The fact that we could conceivably make a case for going to war against a country is irrelevant....since—contra the criticisms—there’s no appreciable faction actually making the case.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Ok, first of all....Larouche? Lyndon Larouche? You have got to be kidding.
By focusing on his words, you miss his philosophy - which is to bring about regime change through Amerrican military might. To most of us, that a neocon would want to do this is a settled matter.
Right. Read what you just wrote. By paying attention to what he actually says, rather than what you imagine he means, we’re missing....what? A trip through your fevered imagination?

Ledeen disavowed US military intervention, and specifically—repeatedly—pushed for assistance to internal groups. This is Precisely. What. Gore. Advocated. With. Iraq.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
the Iraqi Libertarian Act
Heh....Freudian slip? :^D
Yeah. I could only dream, huh? :)
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://www.QandO.net
But does that mean he is really against the idea?
The incredible Kreskin had NOTHING on MkUltra!

Don’t argue against what he says, argue against what you wanted him to say.
 
Written By: Terry
URL: http://
14 dead today. How many tomorrow?

Fuck you, MK. You really don’t give a shit, so stop acting as if you do.

 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
So MK is a larouchian. Jeez, that explains a lot. snort.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Jon,

1. Yes - freeing the Kurds from oppression, removing a dictatorship, instituting a democracy, preventing Iran from shifting oil sales to a euro market, tackling an enemy of Saudi Arabia, lots of oil reserves. All of these conditions exist in Iran.

2. Yes - occupying Iran would dangerously extend the capabilities of the military. Iran is not inciting terror amoung their co-religionists, very little would be gained in the WoT by attacking Iran.

The only tactical point of difference with Iran is that instead of France protecting them the Iranians have the Chinese. The Chinese are a lot scarier than the French.

3. True, there does not appear to be any political will.
 
Written By: Unaha-closp
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider