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

 
Can you still buy glue over-the-counter? (update)
Posted by: McQ on Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep ... especially if you lean a little left politically and are prone to, well, I'm not exactly sure what. Just read this beauty:
But Max Sawicky's post last week attacking what he sees as the entire American national security establishment summarized EXACTLY what I am worried about in the current state of netroots politics. He argued that "to set the ship on a better course, you have to be able to sink it." That was Ralph Nader's view in 2000, and he succeeded precisely in sinking Al Gore's candidacy. That was a victory?

Here is my nightmare. The Cheneyites succeed in creating a situation in which Bush does decide to bomb Iran. Iran retaliates, as they openly threaten to do, with terrorist attacks against us on U.S. soil. That tilts the election. I can imagine a Karl Rove political calculation that would buttress a Cheney-Addington national security calculation, probably with Eliot Abrams' support.

This scenario is one that any Democrat, of any type, and any moderate Republican (I know, I know, they don't exist. But explain to me then how the Salazar-Alexander amendment got 10 co-sponsors in the Senate, and Lugar and Warner offered their own version) should be taking seriously and fighting against.
Should be taken seriously?

"Ground control to Major Tom ..."

OK, gotta get off the song lyrics, especially of that era, but still a "Cheneyite-Addington national security calculation" with Eliot Abrams overtones all masterfully orchestrated by Karl Rove? Can I get an "Amen"?

No?

No kidding.

She's worried about the "current state of netroots politics" is she? Well if I were a part of it I would be too if this woman is any indication of it's current state.

The things you can find on the internet. I have got to quit reading lefty blogs, for heaven sake.

UPDATE: You're kidding! Kevin Drum let's us in on who "she" is:
What I do know is that she's the dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. She's famously moderate and, equally famously, practically the fairy godmother of foreign policy bipartisanship. She's the kind of person who gets mentioned as a possible secretary of state in a Democratic administration.
Anne-Marie Slaughter? A possible candidate for Secretary of State in a Democratic administration?

Now I need some glue.

I have got to swear off of lefty blogs.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
The idea that the Cheneyites would want to bomb Iran is, of course, absurd. The Bush administration loves the Iranian theocrats.

First, Bush took out Saddam, who had acted as a check on Iranian influence in the region. Then Bush effectively handed over Iraq to Iran; the Iranians run the show there now. Maliki, Sadr, Sistani, the Dawa party, the Badr Brigade, et al - all in the Iranians back pocket.

For some reason, the right wing in the United States has had an ongoing love affair over the last 50 years with anti-democratic forces in Iran. They got rid of Mossadegh in the 50’s. In the 80’s, they sold arms to the Khomeini government. It was a "neat idea." And now, in the 2000’s, they took out the mullahs chief rival in Baghdad.

No, Bush is not going to bomb the Iranians. I can safely say McQ got it exactly right in this post. One would have to be a paranoid freak to think that Bush would ever harm his friends in Tehran.



 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
mkultra? Where you been? I would never have guessed that you’d show up in a thread about some of the loonier conspiracy theories finding purchase in netroots discourse.

Glad to see you haven’t changed.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
mkultra? Where you been? I would never have guessed that you’d show up in a thread about some of the loonier conspiracy theories finding purchase in netroots discourse.

Glad to see you haven’t changed.
You didn’t read my post. I agree with McQ that it would be unduly paranoid to believe that there was any factual basis for the conspiracy theory. There is no way the Bush administration would ever attack Iran.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
I have got to swear off of lefty blogs
But its fun sometimes. I stopped in on one of my favorites, Dave Johnson’s Seeing the Forest and couldnt stop shaking my head in a weird sense of amusement at this posting regarding a conversation he had at YearlyKos with Sen Dodd. Johnson, I suspect, lead to one of his pet topics, namely impeaching the President. Admitting to a minor epiphany, he says the biggest problem his side has is not getting their message out.
If we want to do something about the crimes of Bush and the Republicans YOU HAVE TO LET THE PUBLIC KNOW HOW [impeachment] WILL HELP THEM DIRECTLY. This is directly in line with my own writings about how we need to start to reach out to the general public with our message, to help them understand the benefits of progressive values and a progressive approach to issues.
Given MK’s response to Michael above, it is appropriate to restate an option that Johnson and his fellow travellers absolutely refuse to not only accept, but even to recognize.

Dave, many people have heard your message... And have rejected it.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
McQ, you ridicule this position, but it is a concern. You don’t exactly explain why she shouldn’t be worried, or why you consider this paranoid. Given what’s happened in Iraq, and given the rhetoric against Iran, people have reason to be concerned. I think the most powerful thing standing in the way of anything like this is the military — I think the Pentagon knows what conflict with Iran would mean and knows they aren’t ready for that, no matter what the politicians want.

Also, as I’ve repeatedly stated, Iran is the real regional power and the biggest threat to American interests in the region. I don’t think bombing or war is the answer — quite the contrary — but I’m sure some in the Administration do.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Speaking of lefty blogs, Bluey at RedState
highlights the demagoguery of Mr. Greenwald:
”Greenwald wrote to Petraeus’ public affairs officer, requesting to have the general on the Alan Colmes Show, where Greenwald is a contributor. The complete back-and-forth between the two is available on Greenwald’s blog. If you’d rather not be bored by the details, Petraeus’ guy basically told Greenwald he’d put him on the list and get back to him.
”...Yesterday, just two weeks after Greenwald’s post, Petraeus was a guest on the Alan Colmes Show. (The audio is available here.) Of course, you wouldn’t know anything about Petraeus’ appearance from reading Greenwald’s blog today. There’s no mention of the fact that Petraeus spent 30 minutes talking to a liberal — the same liberal, in fact, whose show Greenwald requested him to appear on as a guest. Go figure.
Do I need to point out that Mr. Greenwald initially claims to be extremely interested in General Petraeus’ appearance on this show to face the “tough liberal questions” when the issue can be made to serve AS A PROPAGANDA TOOL and to provide fodder for his bloviating. Read the link to view Mr. Greenwald’s blowhard posturing on his blog about the appearance.

However, actually discussing what the answers were to the tough questions asked by the liberal on the show (supposedly the point of Mr. Greenwald’s bile-filled expostulations) elicits no interest at all.

Bluey’s post is admirable because:

1. It contains many on-point links (that work).
2. It is concise.
3. It captures the essence of Mr. Greenwald.
 
Written By: &amp
URL: http://
I have got to swear off of lefty blogs.
One day at a time, man.

First, you need to realize you are powerless over the draw of rampant stupidity...

:)
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
This sounds as bad as some of the stuff that the Koz Kidz are investigating under the name of "Deep Modem" (catchy isn’t it).

It’s supposed to be some kind of nefarious "Iran-Contra"-like plot involving Cheney and the NSC.

I warned a couple of folks that the stuff read like the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, and figured if there was any "there" there to let the Koz Kidz lead the way.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I suppose that "Deep Modem" will be followed up by ..

Codec Conspiracy or American ATM or I fought the aLaw and the uLaw won or my favorite .. G.729: Countdown to Armageddon
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
"For some reason, the right wing in the United States has had an ongoing love affair over the last 50 years with anti-democratic forces in Iran."

Who was the last president to visit the Shah of Iran and offer him support?

JIMMY CARTER

He also let the Shah come to the US for medical treatment.

p.s. Mossadeq was not a ’democratic’ force either.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
SHOCKER!

Erb ONCE AGAIN defends someone on the left against criticism about a Bush/Cheney/Rove conspiracy theory to kill people in order to win an election.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Sorry, on my first reading I missed the section about "Anne-Marie Slaughter".
She’s the kind of person who gets mentioned as a possible secretary of state in a Democratic administration.
I thought for a moment .. then it hit me .. Secretary Slaughter ..

Sounds more like the name the leftosphere would give to a US Secretary of Defense. I could just imagine the reaction around the world to that name/title.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
McQ quotes Anne-Marie Slaughter:
Here is my nightmare. The Cheneyites succeed in creating a situation in which Bush does decide to bomb Iran. Iran retaliates, as they openly threaten to do, with terrorist attacks against us on U.S. soil. That tilts the election. I can imagine a Karl Rove political calculation that would buttress a Cheney-Addington national security calculation, probably with Eliot Abrams’ support.
Ah, yes, if we bomb Iran, it will be because the Cheneyites have "creat[ed] a situation into which the Wizard Rove will bring the "political calculation" to...and so on.

If we bomb Iran, would Anne-Marie perhaps give consideration to the idea that it would be because the Mullahs and their little creep front man had succeeding in producing the nuclear weapons that they deny they’re making even as they threaten other countries with them in advance? Or are the nuclear weapons merely a Cheneyite invention from Anne-Marie’s point of view?

The Iranians have gotten a free ride for so long they’ve probably come to believe that they’re immune from the hign sanction of military action before they become a nuclear threat. After a quarter century of the Iranians outsourcing terrorism in the Middle East, is it not time to drop the big shoe on them? So, let’s put Anne-Marie’s mind at ease by taking care of the Iranian nuclear facilities now, before Labor Day. That way the Democrats can all rattle their carboard sabres and try to make it seem like it was their idea, you know, like in the old days, an Albrightite bombing off the Clinton-Berger calculation, probably with Wesley Clark’s support.

(A request here: Has anyone seen a piece about Sweden at one of the blogs that talks about anti-immigration politicians and organizers being sought out by Albanians, or some other group of Muslim immigrants, and beaten in the streets? Perhaps on the lead or with the complicity of Left groups calling themselves something like "anti-fascist brigades"? A friend gave me a vague synopsis (which I’m vaguely whispering down the lane here) of such an article over the phone and he couldn’t remember which blog he read it at. If anyone has seen it, please make a note of it here. (that e-mail address for me gets so much span that real e-mails are harder to find than the proverbial needle in the haystack.))
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I thought for a moment .. then it hit me .. Secretary Slaughter ..
Does she have a brother in the Marines?

Cause, I heard about a guy...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I’m sure that Elliott Abrams is winching each time that they spell his name wrong.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Mossadeq was not a ’democratic’ force either.
Back in 1949 the British made a deal with Iran’s conservative Prime Minister General Ali Razmara to renegotiate the deal between the government and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). Opposition to the agreement with the AIOC grew, as Iranians were angered by how little they had been getting in oil royalties — the British profits had been almost three times the royalties paid, and in fact the AIOC paid more in taxes at home than to Iran. The new Majles (Iran’s parliament) had strong sentiment against the oil deal. Prime Minister Razmara was assassinated by an Islamic fundamentalist/nationalist from Fedaiyan e Islam (a group which assassinated ‘enemies of Islam’).

A group of parties led by Mohammad Mosaddeq started to gain support in the Majles, and though the Shah (whose powers were quite limited) chose Hosain Ala to be the new Prime Minister, the Majles pushed for and got Mosaddeq. He led a rather rag tag group of religious and nationalist parties called the “National Front,” and announced plans to nationalize Iran’s oil industry. This was part of a comprehensive plan to restructure Iran’s economy and end dependence on outside powers. The US had supported Iran’s refusal to go along with the AIOC at first, hoping to get more influence for American companies. But Mossadeq’s decision to nationalize went too far for the Americans.

The British were incensed and tried to take Iran to the International Court of Justice. But states can nationalize as long as they compensate, and Iran promised just compensation. The US and Great Britain launched a campaign against Mosaddeq, hyping him as a fanatic, a communist, someone who would be a tool of the Tudeh (Iran’s communist party). The US saw nationalization as socialist and contrary to our goal of maintaining control of the oil needed for the western economy. The US and Great Britain organized a boycott of Iranian oil by major oil companies, cutting off oil revenues to the government. The boycott was effective. There were other economic actions taken against Iran as well, and soon Iran’s economy was in tatters. This led to unrest, and ultimately instability in the Mosaddeq government. The Tudeh increasingly argued that all this showed that ties to the West were unhelpful, and Iran should turn to the Soviet Union.

The Shah, the British, and the Americans decided that Mossadeq had to go. First they tried to influence the government with a mix of promises and inside deals to replace him. The Shah dismissed him in 1952 and installed Qavam as-Saltaneh. But public demonstrations and refusal of the Majles to accept the choice got Mosaddeq restored. The Tudeh party gained in strength, and ultimately Mossadeq brought them in to government. Note: a few American historians cite Mossadeq’s ties with the Tudeh as the reason for installing the Shah – he was letting himself become aligned too closely with our Soviet enemies. BUT without the oil boycott and attempts to undermine Mossadeq’s reforms, the Tudeh would have never been as popular, and Mossadeq would not have brought them into the government.

Mossadeq was much more popular than the Shah, and tried to get the US to move away from the economic death grip on Iran’s economy, but the US continued to support the oil boycott. British intelligence worked with the CIA to plan a coup to oust Mosaddeq in 1953. Despite a few difficulties it ultimately worked, and the Shah, who would turn out to be a brutally repressive dictator, came to power with American and British support. Preference was for the Shah over democracy because he would support the US and Great Britain; democratic governments might give considerable power to Islamic and nationalist parties, as well as the Tudeh, after all.

Mossadeq remains a hero to many Iranians across the religious and political spectrum due to how he stood up to the West. But what if we had worked with him rather than against him? What if Iran’s democracy had been allowed to grow on its own, using its own oil revenues, rather than having our influence protected by a thuggish dictator whose rule ultimately collapsed? What if anti-western anger after 1953, especially amongst nationalist and Islamist groups, had not been kindled? If we had resisted the urge to intervene we would likely not be facing an Iran led by an Islamic fundamentalist government, with a nascent democracy more limited than the one in the early fifties.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris Erb, showing precisely why I call him Boris Erb, writes:
The US and Great Britain launched a campaign against Mosaddeq, hyping him as a fanatic, a communist, someone who would be a tool of the Tudeh (Iran’s communist party).
...
The Tudeh party gained in strength, and ultimately Mossadeq brought them in to government. Note: a few American historians cite Mossadeq’s ties with the Tudeh as the reason for installing the Shah – he was letting himself become aligned too closely with our Soviet enemies.
...
Mossadeq remains a hero to many Iranians across the religious and political spectrum due to how he stood up to the West. But what if we had worked with him rather than against him? What if Iran’s democracy had been allowed to grow on its own, using its own oil revenues, rather than having our influence protected by a thuggish dictator whose rule ultimately collapsed?
This is, of course, the same bulls**t Leftist narrative that we hear about Cuba and Vietnam and Chile and Niharwawa. If only we had worked with Castro and Ho and Allende and the Ortegas, da da blah, da da blah, da da blah.

Shucks, you would think that Iran had no strategic importance whatsoever during the Cold War, sitting there on the Soviet border while Stalin was consolidating control over half of Europe and taking whatever he could get. Why would the U.S. and its allies possibly be concerned with an Iranian politician aligning himself with Communists? It could only be about controlling the oil, and had absolutely nothing to do with letting a naive front man (so very popular, naturally) let Iran slip into Stalin’s control. It’s not like Stalin and the KGB would have any interest in that, right?

And, of course, those leaders who wind up opposing the Communists getting hold of the government are always called "thugs."

Boris can’t help himself. The narrative was imbedded in him when he was recruited.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
McQ: if you can’t get glue, try dry-erase markers. They’re pretty good. After the first 5 or 10 minutes of lecture, I start to actually think I’m a good teacher. :)

Now that I think about it, maybe the move from chalkboards to whiteboards is responsible for some of the leftist tilt in academia.
 
Written By: Wacky Hermit
URL: http://organicbabyfarm.blogspot.com
I dont find the what if games scott brings up particularly interesting nor salient. For example:
If we had resisted the urge to intervene we would likely not be facing an Iran led by an Islamic fundamentalist government, with a nascent democracy more limited than the one in the early fifties.
Well what if Moseddeq went the way of Nassar? Its pointless.

More interesting to me is this:
...the Shah, who would turn out to be a brutally repressive dictator...
SAVAK was certainly ruthless and brutal and beyond the law, but to extend this to the Shah’s entire reign is more a commentary on ones own prejudices. Think of Pinochet. Yes, both were dictators and targeted (killed and tortured) outspoken critic, but by and large, they left the rest of the populace alone. Having spent three weeks in Tehran, Isfahan, and Shiraz in 1974, the economy and people I saw were far more free and happy and prospering than those I saw in the former DDR (also 1974) and the former USSR (1979).
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
But Bains, the Shah was an AMERICAN ally, whereas the DDR and and USSR were not, remember we hold AMERICAN Allies up to the standard of PERFECTION, everyone else simply gets measured on the axis of, "Do they have universal healthcare?" If the answer is "yes" they get a pass....

The Shah was LESS of a dictator than Khomeini and less tryanical than the regime of the Mullahs. Again the Shah is measured against an absolute standard, everyone else gets a pass.

Yes Dr. Erb the Tudeh Party, you’r right we wouldn’t ahve had to face the Mullahs in Iran, just Kruschev and Brezhnev...much better don’t you think?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
SAVAK was certainly ruthless and brutal and beyond the law, but to extend this to the Shah’s entire reign is more a commentary on ones own prejudices. Think of Pinochet. Yes, both were dictators and targeted (killed and tortured) outspoken critic, but by and large, they left the rest of the populace alone. Having spent three weeks in Tehran, Isfahan, and Shiraz in 1974, the economy and people I saw were far more free and happy and prospering than those I saw in the former DDR (also 1974) and the former USSR (1979).
The Shah’s rule did modernize Iran (perhaps too fast) and he certainly wasn’t as bad as the Communists. But he also helped foster the kind of movement that made Iran what it is today. Look at the repressive regime we support in Saudi Arabia — what will the long term implications of that support be? The Saudis haven’t modernized like the Shah, which is why they’re still in power, but that situation is untenable in the long run.

Joe, I think if we had accepted Mossadeq’s plan and even supported it, despite the nationalism of oil, we could have kept Iran from going Communist. Mossadeq only took the Tudeh into government due to necessity as the economy collapsed thanks to western sanctions. But ultimately you are right that: a) it was in our national interest to assure Iran did not become Communist; and b) the Shah was not as bad as many other dictators. Still, the point I’m making is we weren’t true to our ideals; instead of supporting and strengthening an Iranian democracy that wanted to nationalize oil, we let that cause us to use sanctions, break the back of that emerging democracy, and bring in a dictator whose policies set up disaster.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
A request here: Has anyone seen a piece about Sweden at one of the blogs that talks about anti-immigration politicians and organizers being sought out by Albanians, or some other group of Muslim immigrants, and beaten in the streets?
One of the agonies in The Death of Sweden, Martin. Darnedest luck that their tax rate "above 60%" doesn’t spare them:
[M]embers of Gangsta Albanian Thug Unit in Malmö, explain how they mug people downtown. They target a lone victim. "We surround him and beat and kick him until he no longer fights back," Feriz says. [...] They blame the politicians for why they are mugging, stating that they are bored. If the state could provide them with something to do, maybe they would stop attacking people. But is the lack of leisure pursuits the only reason why they assault people? "No, it’s good fun as well," says Feriz.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
McQ: if you can’t get glue, try dry-erase markers. They’re pretty good. After the first 5 or 10 minutes of lecture, I start to actually think I’m a good teacher. :)
So that’s where Erb gets his delusion...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Hey, I’m putting together a syllabus and realized one reading is an article in Foreign Affairs "The Real New World Order," by Anne-Marie Slaughter. It was published in 1997.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
And you should read the comments at Drum’s column...OMG who knew that BDS had spread so far and wide and was so virulent. I now know that Bush*tler would no doubt use ANY excuse to suspend the Constitution! And that Cheney is going to give the order for nuclear use, in or outside the country (WOW, and to think that Dubya is POTUS and CinC and has the authority tu unleash nuclear weapons, but that Cheney is going to order it, just WOW). We all must act NOW to spread the word that when the Chenyites declare war on Iran, the troops must stand down, the generals must resign and we must take to the streets! (And yes I laughed at the milita who spotted UN Black Helicopters and worried about Detention Camps in Denver. So it is equally sad and laughable to see suposedly rational people become so unhinged.)
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Linda Morgan:

Found the bloody article I was looking for.

Thank you, Linda.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
One of the agonies in The Death of Sweden,
Thanks for the link Linda - my brother and sister in-law live in Malmo and the news in that blog is disturbing.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Erb puked: "The Shah’s rule did modernize Iran ... But he also helped foster the kind of movement that made Iran what it is today."

Yeah...right.

And the Eisenhower administration lead to the "crips" and "the bluds" of today.

(If I get a lobotomy, can I be a professor, too?. If it wasn’t for UMaine, Erb would be a "Disposable Refuse Engineer")

 
Written By: Sharpshooter
URL: http://
Sharpshooter, if you doubt that the Shah’s rule and how it divided Iranian society and attempted to suppress Islam wasn’t a factor in bringing about the current regime, you need to educate yourself. It’s no accident that the Ayatollah Khomeini was leading a revolutionary movement and had the capacity to lead after deposing the Shah. This is about political leadership at the top, not gangs in some urban setting. Don’t you know the difference?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
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