One Flew Over The Leftyblogosphere
By Mitch Berg
SCENE: A Very Special Place. Four people – two women (GRACE and “PHOENIX”) and two men (TOM and BIFF) – are sitting around a table.
GRACE: “God, I hate George W. Bush”.
PHOENIX: “Me too”
TOM: “Me too,too”.
BIFF: “You do know that he’s not President anymore. Right?”
GRACE, PHOENIX and TOM: (stare uncomprehendingly)
BIFF: “Never mind”.
[The four people peck away at keyboards]
PHOENIX: “Wanna see what I wrote about the elections in Iran and the dirty neocon plot?”
THE OTHER THREE: “Sure”
PHOENIX (reads aloud):
“the neoconservatives and their allies in the news media were already hammering away at [the notion that negotiating with an illegitimate government is impossible] within minutes of the announced results.
“However, the fact that there are massive opposition-led protests and that the opposition is quite Westernized-looking — as our TV networks have been showing us over the past twenty-four hours — works against the neocon plan to garner American support for nuking Iran until it glows. The neocons want us to think of the Iranians as subhumans with whom we have nothing in common and who therefore deserve a fiery death. It’s actually harder for them to sell that POV when our TV screens are showing us people who would not look at all out of place in any American town or city.”
GRACE: “Yaaaaay! When the world finds out the Neocon Air Force is going to nuke Iran, just like they nuked the World Trade Center…”
TOM and PHOENIX: “Hisssssss!”
BIFF: “Er, there is no “neocon air force”.
GRACE, PHOENIX and TOM: (stare uncomprehendingly)
BIFF: “I mean, if the “neocons” were going to nuke Iran, wouldn’t they have done it when they, y’know, had power?”
GRACE, PHOENIX and TOM: (stare uncomprehendingly)
BIFF: “For that matter, I’m not aware of a “neocon” policy on Iran – Bush certainly had none – other than Michael Ledeen’s. And Ledeen’s ideas involved peaceful destabilization of the mullahs by supporting the trade unions and other peaceful dissident groups, in recognition of the fact that a good majority of Iran’s people would be happy to rejoin the west and lay off the damn theocracy.
GRACE, PHOENIX and TOM: (stare uncomprehendingly)
BIFF: Stop me if I’m wrong, but I’m at a loss to think of a single credible “neocon” who’s advocated “nuking” a largely friendly country because of the mullahs.
TOM: “Why do you hate the troops?”
GRACE: “CHIMPY! CHiMPY MCBUSHITLER!”
NURSE RATCHED [opens window and yells]: “OK, everyone…”
PHOENIX [turns]: “Nurse Ratched! Biff is being naughty!”
RATCHED: “that’s nice, Phoenix. Time for your meds”.
[The four stand up and get in line at the window]
[AND…SCENE]
June 16th, 2009 at 8:20 am
It’s truly sad that because you can’t find evidence to support your tin-foil hat beliefs, you have to create fictions to try to do so.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:35 am
Er, Pen?
You didn’t actually read the piece, or the linked post, did you?
It was all about “neocon plots to nuke Iran”.
I pointed out a few logical fallacies and objective facts.
Do you even know what you’re writing about?
June 16th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Do you even know what you’re writing about?
Rhetorical question, right?
June 16th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Unless something has a link to the CBS News website, it must be fiction.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:40 am
We can wait for the ABC 20/20 report. Rahm Emanuel is putting the finishing touches on the script right now.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:43 am
C’mon, Peev! Get it into the basket!
For the love of Christ, Chief… try. Just try.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Do you even know what you’re writing about?
Dude, if you have to ask after all this time, you haven’t been paying attention.
Peev epitomizes obsessive Internet commenting disorder. He posts because he can’t help himself; it doesn’t matter to him if he makes any sense or a point.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
Mitch writes:
“Stop me if I’m wrong, but I’m at a loss to think of a single credible “neocon” who’s advocated “nuking” a largely friendly country because of the mullahs.”
How about Duncan Hunter and Rudy Giuliani
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/06/05/hunter-giuliani-on-using-nukes-against-iran/
How agreed a nuclear first strike against Iran should be on the table. Hunter was more enthusiastic about it.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Developing a “counterforce” scenario against a potentially hostile, potentially nuclear power is merely prudent, and is not the kind of depraved genocidal fantasy that Lobotomy Woman was yapping about on her dissociative little blog.
And if you can’t see the difference between Hunter and Giuliani’s proposal and the slander that “neocons” plan to commit indiscriminate nuclear genocide, then you’re…
…well, you.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I read the piece, didn’t look at the link.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
No kidding, Peev.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
TicRick’s link:
When asked if he would authorize a U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities that were being used to develop dangerous weapons, California Rep. Duncan Hunter said he would — in the unlikely situation that there were no other options.
“I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges,” Hunter said at Tuesday’s GOP presidential debate sponsored by CNN.
“Probably, it’s going to take a little more than that. I don’t think it’s going to take tactical nukes,” he added.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani warned of the dangers of a preemptive strike.
“Part of the premise of talking to Iran has to be that they have to know very clearly that it is unacceptable to the United States that they have nuclear power,” he said.
“I think it could be done with conventional weapons, but you can’t rule out anything and you shouldn’t take any option off the table,” Giuliani said.
“These are real problems. This war is not a bumper sticker. This war is a real war,” he added.
I like how Giuliani countered TicRick with his last line… not a bumper sticker.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I read the piece, didn’t look at the link.
I think we all established that.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Peev-
I believe that this what some like to call a “teachable moment.”
June 16th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
TicRick,
So having read Hunter/Giuliani’s actual statement, would you like to explain your (usual) craven dishonesty in comparing Lobotomy Woman’s ranting with Hunter and Giulinani’s very, very different statement?
Of course you won’t; just pointing out that someone who was worth engaging would do it.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Mitch:
Live by the word game die by the word game. If you want to defend neocons from an exaggeration of their position don’t make the exaggerated claim that neocons would never dream of a nuclear first strike on Iran. The simple fact that they sit around speculating about the precise circumstances they would launch a first strike is more than enough to convince Americans that they are a bunch of nuts.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Rick
Same old story: Busted misrepresenting a source, fire back with an ad-hominem.
And all is well with the world.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Mitch:
“in comparing Lobotomy Woman’s ranting with Hunter and Giulinani”
I did not compare them. You said “I’m at a loss to think of a single credible “neocon” who’s advocated “nuking” Iran. I provided evidence of two who had publicly advocated nuking Iran under certain circumstances. The only thing I compare is your statement to the facts.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Planning for possible contingincies wherein nukes may be employed is simply pragmatic thinking, Rick. That you equate it with “advocating” speaks more to your particular brand of brain disorder than anything else.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Since I am was not a former liberal that got mugged by reality, I will defer to a true neocon like Mitch to tell me what neocons think.
DickDFL & Peev: Do you think the use of nukes on Iran should be off the table?
June 16th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
Yossarian:
Hunter and Rudy were “advocating” using nuclear weapons under certain conditions. That is what Mtich denied any neocon had done. Whether is was “simply pragmatic thinking” is an open question. I think is was delusional and dangerous war-mongering. But that is beside the point.
If Mitch had wanted to say “no neocon has ever advocated nuking Iran, except in those situations where all us neocons would agree Iran totally has it coming” he should have said that.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Mitch,
I read the post, I’m sorry, I don’t see how your dreamland escapade relates.
Ok – you were satarizing (I guess, in a really, REALLY disjointed way), but unlike what they did, you invented from wholecloth it seems.
K-Rod – that question isn’t serious, or at least shouldn’t be.
First – what do you think would be the result?
Let me tell you what I think would be.
1. Our Allies would demand a change in leadership, or would threaten military action to bring it about. Our adversaries might not wait.
2. The Arab world (and the third world) would probably embargo the United States immediately.
3. We might well wind up on the wrong end of World War III.
Now, to keep the mullahs in Iran from having a nuke to counter-balance Israel – I guess I’m not willing to risk that. Furthermore, unlike what you (at least) appear to be saying, I understand that MAD worked as a military doctrine precisely because while Brezhnev or Andropov might have been criminal, the entire military and civilian establishment of the former USSR had no interest in killing their families and everyone they knew (as well as themselves) and so were NOT going to start a nuclear war.
Mitch, no matter how many times you may want to phumper about lefty extremism, it is questions like the above from the likes of K-Rod, which make the right appear FAR less sane or connnected to the real world than any lefty blog, satire of a lefty blog, or haphazardly left commentary (by me) could ever make the left (or the center) look. I know YOU grasp the idiocy of the kind of approach suggested by K-rod (and the like), but clearly, CLEARLY many on the right do not get that.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
If Mitch had wanted to say “no neocon has ever advocated nuking Iran, except in those situations where all us neocons would agree Iran totally has it coming” he should have said that.
Holy crow. What are you, “The Parser in Chief?”
Anyone with a couple decently firing neurons knows that keeping all options on the table, even nuclear options, is just common sense. This “gotcha” thing you’re trying to run with is just pretty damned lame.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
It was a simple “yes or no” question.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:08 pm
K-Rod:
I think the U.S. should publicly rule out the use a nuclear device against a non-nuclear armed opponent. Such a declaration is essential to a successful nuclear non-proliferation regime.
Other than that, I think the U.S. and its leaders should remain conspicuously silent about the circumstances in which they would nuclear devices. “Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.”
June 16th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Yossarian:
Mitch made a simple English statement, I provided another simple English statement which proved his false. The only parsing going on is from your side trying to reconcile the two.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Ok K-Rod – NO. Not given the current geo-political landscape, any semblence of an understanding of ethics, and the VAST disproportion in military and economic might, NO – you don’t use hammers to kill fleas – and you don’t kill 100,000 dogs to get rid of the 3 that bother you.
However, given your rather abusive history, if you don’t like the heat, leave the kitchen.
Yoss, much against my better judgement, as your comment was actually rational and not scatalogical – I’ll offer a counter.
NO – actually you don’t put EVERY option on any table for every situation. Such simplistic nonsense is the province of MSM soundbite/O’Reilly-esque drivel – that’s not a shot at you, it’s a shot at how deeply stupid our discourse on issues has become.
For example, when the Achille Lauro (sic?) was hijacked, was using a nuclear device on Yemen (or Egypt) EVER on the table? Good lord.
You deal with your enemies in proportion to the threat, and in proportion to the need – you don’t bring out your massive hammer everytime there’s a problem, or even APPEAR to bring it out because it MAKES EVERYONE VERY NERVOUS that you are a crack-pot – out of touch, out of control.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Yossarian said:
“Anyone with a couple decently firing neurons knows …”
Don’t you think you set the bar a bit high for old RickDFL?
June 16th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
You deal with your enemies in proportion to the threat
In Peev’s mind, that involves the only acceptable weapon: a stick with a white cloth flapping on one end.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
“…if you don’t like the heat, leave the kitchen.”
Without saying the exact words to you, Peev, it clearly applies. You don’t like to respond (or simply won’t respond) to questions asking you to back up your claims… so, folks mock you for it. Then you get bent out of shape by it.
Hit me, Chief. Get it into the basket.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Don’t put words in my mouth Yoss, if you can’t win an argument, that’s your issue, but don’t attempt to do so by inventing an opinion you don’t have a clue about. As well, unlike you, I think I proved my patriotism just fine. You don’t like getting shown up, maybe staying quiet would help you out. The irony here is Mitch complained that someone reverted to ad hominem when they couldn’t offer a counter argument, when that really didn’t occur, but clearly, that’s exactly what you’ve got going – and all you’ve got going. You want to stay on the subject, fine, but you want to just be an f-in tool – I’m happy to go back to ignoring you.
So, in the interest of ‘civility’ and ‘rationality’ (instead of treating you like a tool) I’ll counter the question – do you SERIOUSLY think using nuclear devices on Iran would be a good idea? What do you think the outcome would be?
Let’s take it a step further, Isreal has nuclear weapons – so does Pakistan, the latter is FAR more likely to get into a nuclear exchange with someone (India) than Iran is with Israel – certainly anytime soon – what shall we do about Pakistan? Do you think using nuclear weapons on Pakistan would be a good idea? If not, why not, if so, when, what circumstances outside of them attacking someone with such weapons?
The point is that ‘pre-emption’ really isn’t an acceptible approach, it is in DIRECT violation of international law unless you know an attack is imminent. Consequently, we’d be found to be criminally in violation of human rights, of committing crimes against humanity, etc.. but I suppose you can assert (wrongly) that the rest of the world wants to ‘wave a white flag’ – however, my reply would be ‘they’ve been far more right than your approach over the past 8 years’ so maybe, your approach isn’t the one we should listen to.
Anyway – please, tell me, when will it be ok to pre-emptively attack Pakistan, and what do you think the outcome will be?
June 16th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Oh, goodie, I’ve been unshunned.
Don’t put words in my mouth Yoss
Yeaahhhh, that’s been known to stop me in the past, ya bleedin’ maroon.
Do you SERIOUSLY think using nuclear devices on Iran would be a good idea?
Who’s the one putting words in mouths here?
Do I think we should turn the whole of Iran into a glass parking lot? No, but it’s nice to have it as a fucking option, depending on how the geo-political winds are blowing on any given day. That’s really the point being made here, you point-missing tool.
As for all your other yammering about pre-emptive attack and invading Pakistan and blah, blah, blah. It’s just classic Peev being classic Peev, with all the mental hiccups and misplaced pseudo-intellectual nonsense.
In other words, go eat a fart, and put me back on the shun list where all the happy animals play.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Anyway – please, tell me, when will it be ok to pre-emptively attack Pakistan
Well, last time I checked Pakistan was (nominally) a US ally. Even though Great Leader indicated he would be just fine with pre-emptively attacking them. As a matter of fact the Obama administration has already done so. More than once.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
“Pre-emption in DIRECT violation of international law.” Isn`t Iran having nukes in DIRECT violation of something, too, Penguin? “I think the U.S. should rule out the use of a nuclear device against a non-nuclear opponent.” And what`s your evidence for that, how badly it worked out for us in WW2?
June 17th, 2009 at 11:18 am
“You don’t like to respond (or simply won’t respond) to questions asking you to back up your claims… so, folks mock you for it. Then you get bent out of shape by it.”
Bingo!
June 17th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
jimf:
“how badly it worked out for us in WW2?”
In WWII no one else had a nuke and we had more important issues to worry about other than non-proliferation. Nowadays the advantages of a successful non-proliferation regime far outweigh any benefits we might gain from a nuke attack on a non-nuke power.