You Say Tomato, I Say Terrorist
By Mitch Berg
Michele Bachmann – newly-minted Congresswoman from the Sixth District – has always been catnip for the nutbars.
Going back to her time with the Maple River Education Coalition (now EdWatch), which was (if memory serves) her stepping-stone to the legislature, she’s been a lighting rod for all manner of loonies, spazzes, AV-club marxists, conspiracy-mongering dimbulbs, spittle-flecked wannabee pundits, personality-deficit-disorder-plagued schlemiels (and a few gay people with legitimate gripes about her uncompromising opposition to gay marriage). She beat Patty Wetterling last November, as I predicted (and the Strib did not) by eight points; I remain convinced that her unhinged, deranged detractors were responsible for at least a point or two of that total.
Someone asked in the comment section last week why I hadn’t commented yet on Bachmann’s seeming malaprop regarding Iran’s plans in Iraq. The simple answer was, I really had nothing to say, yet. I hadn’t really paid much attention; I figured if the mainstream media is attacking Bachmann or, indeed, any conservative, it’s either:
- a hatchet job on their part (see Rochelle Olson’s coverage of Alan Fine)
- a real reach (see the Strib’s coverage of
RodMorgan Grams) - A slip of the lip, mistatement or flub that gets blown up, with the help of a local news establishment that is in active connivance with the DFL, into a major event.
The answer? Well, it’s Bachmann, so “all three, and a little drool to boot” is probably the correct answer.
Jay Reding writes the post I would like to have:
The Star-Tribune is questioning Rep. Michele Bachmann when she said that Iran was planning to partition Iraq and create a terrorist state. Rep. Bachmann is actually correct, except she’s confusing Iran and al-Qaeda.
Al-Qaeda did indeed declare their own Islamic State of Iraq. There is also some evidence that the Iranian government has supported Sunni militias in the past and would continue to do so if they thought it would serve their tactical aims.
Bachmann’s statements were imprecise, but the Star-Tribune could have done a small amount of research and figured out what she meant — there is an “Islamic State of Iraq” presently operating in Iraq, and it is quite possible that the Iranians would either support them directly or end up creating a de facto partition of Iraq through their influence of the Shi’ite militias. Bachmann’s statement at most may have confused Iranians with the Majlis Shura al-Mujahideen fi al-Iraq (Mujihadeen Shura Council — the umbrella group for Sunni militants in Iraq).
Now, Representative Bachmann has never been one of my go-to people on foreign policy or defense; taxes, education and social policy are her turf.
But as Ed and I discussed on the show this past weekend, Bachmann’s statement actually got most of the situation right; Iran does want to see the US get defeated in Iraq; they do want to establish a sphere of influence in the new country; it is obviously they want to use that sphere as a safe haven for their own terrorist proxies.
So did Bachmann muff the facts about who did what to whom in Iraq? Possible. Hell, Silvester Reyes, the Dems’ choice to run the House Intelligence Committee, didn’t do so hot at that either, and that is putatively his turf.
With any other Minnesota representative, it would have been treated as a simple flub – a molehill. Since it’s the poster-child for everything the DFL and the Strib loathes, on the other hand, it shall be treated as a mountain.
NOTE TO THE HATRED-ADDLED: There’s nothing “difficult” about defending Bachmann – because I’m not. Merely pointing out facts.
And noting someone’s comment doesn’t imply any form of consternation. At least, not for most of us…
February 26th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Mitch –
“Iran does want to see the US get defeated in Iraq; they do want to establish a sphere of influence in the new country”.
Actually it would be more accurate to say Iran wants to expand it sphere of influence through a U.S. victory. The forces in Iraq, outside of Kurdistan, we are most closely allied with – SCIRI and al-Maliki are the same forces most closely allied to Iran. Both SCIRI and the Dawa parties were exile groups that received most of their support form Iran. The group we are mostly fighting against, the Sunnis are most hostile to Iran. Even Sadr, because he was never an exile under Saddam, was the Shia leader least dependent on Iran. Even if Dick Cheny were a paid Iranian agent, Iran could not have designed a U.S. policy more in harmony with their long-tern strategy for Iraq.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Mitch, don’t belittle yourself, Jay’s post is ridiculous. He tries to assert that Bachmann’s statement is correct, even when he notes she is wrong.
“The Star-Tribune is questioning Rep. Michele Bachmann when she said that Iran was planning to partition Iraq and create a terrorist state. Rep. Bachmann is actually correct, except she’s confusing Iran and al-Qaeda.”
February 26th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
And when John F Kerry makes a stupid statement about the troops being uneducated, you guys jump up and down shouting “Us! He just left the word Us out of the joke!” Can you say double standard? Sure you can.
Rediculous.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
First of all Kermit, I’ve said nothing about the Kerry affair, so i assume you lump me in with all democrats….
The double standard obviously goes both ways, with each side on their high horses.
But it is intersting that your first response is to point fingers. Bachmann was wrong, big deal, i could care less, but what is more interesting is Jay’s defense in which he says Michelle was “actually correct” but noted that she was wrong. His post is blantantly dishonest and I noted as much….
February 26th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
“You guys” was certainly generic.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Actually, I think Fulcrum is right. The wording of that sentence is itself quite unclear – but not dishonest.
My point is that both Iran and al-Qaeda want to divide up Iraq. Iraq wants to create an Islamic state in Iraq, and Iran wants to ensure that a democratic Iraq doesn’t happen either.
The Iranians may be Shi’ites, but they’ll play off the Sunnis in al-Qaeda if it serves their purposes. Right now, their purpose is to see that Iraq doesn’t become a democracy. Some time down the road the Iranians might want to take on al-Qaeda themselves, but right now Iran has every interest in wanting to see Iraq partitioned. If the Sunni Triangle goes to hell, the Iranians have no reason to be concerned. If anything, the Sunni threat gives the Iranians currency with the Iraqi Shi’ites who normally would hate them. (Iraqi Shi’ites and Iranian Shi’ites are not the same.)
What Rep. Bachmann said was largely correct — Iran does want Iraq divided, but she was probably still confusing Iran with the Mujiadeen Shura Council.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
Jay –
What makes you think Iran does not want Iraq to become a democracy? The main reason I can see would be if they think peace would allow Sadr to consolidate power to the detriment on SCIRI and Dawa. But generally democracy will empower the Shia and serve Iran’s ends. Same with partition. Iran may want to settle for firmer influence over a rump Shia section, but why won’t they try for the whole enchilada?
February 26th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
What happened to all the Democrats who wanted the US to carve up Iraq? Did Michele Bachmann secretly conspire to embarrass them for making stupid statements?
February 26th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Rick: It has to do with a theological schism within Sh’ia Islam itself. There used to be two schools of Shi’ite Islam that differed on who should have power over worldly affairs (velayat i faqih). The Najaf school preaches a kind of separation of church and state — except they do it for the opposite reason we do. They believe that if the clergy involve themselves in worldly affairs they can’t concentrate on Allah.
The other school is the Qom school (based out of Qom, Iran) , and they believe that democracy and Islam are completely incompatible, and the only legitimate government is a theocracy.
Ayatollah Sistani and Ayatollah Khomeini were actually contemporaries at Qom who vehemently disagreed about this issue. The Iranians are afraid that a democratic Iraq would mean that their people would demand democracy as well, which they don’t believe in at all.
Plus, they may both be Shi’a, but they’re not ethnically similar and they don’t speak the same language. Some of the bloodiest fighting in the Iran-Iraq War was in the Shi’ite south between Shi’ite Iraqis and Shi’ite Iranians.
The Iranians don’t want a strong Iraq because the Iraqis and the Iranians have been enemies for a long time, and the mullahs don’t want to end up like Saddam. If they could take the whole of Iraq, they probably would, but they don’t have the ability to do so. If we left, they might try, but right now divide and conquer is the best strategy to weaken Iraq and prevent it from once again challenging their attempt to create a Shi’ite hegemony across the Middle East.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Rick, I really despair of your lack of comprehension. Class pay attention:
“What makes you think Iran does not want Iraq to become a democracy? ”
Islam ABHORS DEMOCRACY!!!
February 26th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Don’t you get it, Rick? Islam means “peace through submission”.
You are no different than the useful idiots that Lenin had executed after the Revolution. And you are sadly not much smarter either.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Mitch said,
“Someone asked in the comment section last week why I hadn’t commented yet on Bachmann’s seeming malaprop regarding Iran’s plans in Iraq. The simple answer was, I really had nothing to say, yet.”
More specifically Mitch, I said,
“maybe you can call your girl Michele and get some more details about the plan to split Iraq in half.”
And then I asked why you immediately jumped on the Kerry “seeming malaprop” regarding getting stuck in Iraq but yet took a well measured and safe (gutless?) approach when considering Bachmann’s words.
Further, when Kerry explained what he meant, (not that he needed to mind you – most of us understood what he meant) you refused to acknowledge or accept the explanation.
Also Mitch, in defending your slow response, you cite these reasons…
* a hatchet job on their part (see Rochelle Olson’s coverage of Alan Fine)
* a real reach (see the Strib’s coverage of Rod Morgan Grams)
* A slip of the lip, mistatement or flub that gets blown up, with the help of a local news establishment that is in active connivance with the DFL, into a major event.
The irony is that all three apply to the John Kerry botched joke but as usual, you are blind to that AND I should add, guilty and complicit in participating.
February 27th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Also Mitch, in defending your slow response, you cite these reasons…
And then you go on to cite reasons that had nothing to do with my “slow” response. I said I was thinking about it. You do not hold a stop watch on me.
The irony is that all three apply to the John Kerry botched joke
In your opinion.
but as usual, you are blind to that AND I should add, guilty and complicit in participating.
Guilty and complicit in having an opinion, which happens to at least partly support someone for whom you have irrational hatred?
Adding the language of the criminal justice system to an ostensibly-reasoned debate might make you tingly, Doug, but it’s really cheap rhetoric.
Did Kerry misspeak? Maybe, but the misspeaking was in character with the contempt in which he holds the military (“Jinjiss Kahn!”).
Did Bachmann misspeak? Maybe, and even so she touched on a key fact of the situation in the middle east.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
irrational hatred?
I don’t hate Michele Bachmann. I vehement disagree with her positions. I also have observed her telling an untruth.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
I don’t hate Michele Bachmann. I vehement disagree with her positions.
Duly noted. Now – doesn’t it stink to have your motivations blown into something else?
I also have observed her telling an untruth.
Or, as I posited, muffing a fact while telling a much much larger truth.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Mitch said,
“Now – doesn’t it stink to have your motivations blown into something else?”
Yes. Which is why I always make such a big friggin deal anytime you or your choir throw out the election observer crap.
I have absolutely no illusions that defending my actions will in anyway change or even temper your buddies sophmoric taunts about my election experience but I’ll continue to waste my breath defending them anyway
It was one way I chose to get involved in the process. I also clocked between 16 and 20 hours door knocking, miles and miles doing parades, phone banking and hosting house parties and incidently, the twisting of motivations gets right to the heart of the very first post I ever made regarding the election observer” incident.
As for Bachmann, I’m not refering to the Iran comment. I’m talking about other incidents where she was less than honest – to be charitable.
February 27th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Dude – I am both happy to let the “observer” thing fade into obscurity AND didn’t bring it up again.
As far as any “less than honest”y on Bachmann’s part – specifics?
Because her organized detractors have convinced me only that they’re nuts, singly and as a group.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Jay – Interesting post. I think your analysis of the Qom vs Najaf dispute goes a little too far. The Iranian constitution and actual practice allow a xomparatively wide role for democratic elections. There are regular elections for President, Parliament, municipal governments. Choices in the elections are limited by the Council of Guardians, but they still, to varying degrees, allow for significant diversity of opinion. Put simply, Iranian elections often have real political stakes and consequences. Even the Supreme Leader is elected by a group of experts. Iran is not a full democracy like Israel or even Turkey, but it is certainly more democratic than Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, or (currently) Pakistan. There is a good case to be made that it is less free than some of the above, but not due to lack of democracy.
So as far as Iraq goes, I am not aware that Iran would object to democracy unless they felt the wrong people would get elected. Democracy in Iraq would be a small price to see their alllies in control of Iraq.
February 27th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Doug whined “Yes. Which is why I always make such a big friggin deal anytime you or your choir throw out the election observer crap.”
Mitch sympathized “Dude – I am both happy to let the “observer” thing fade into obscurity AND didn’t bring it up again.
Kermit smiled an evil little smile.
Heh.
February 28th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Mitch said,
“As far as any “less than honest”y on Bachmann’s part – specifics?”
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/westover4/8761135329687554625/#198534
February 28th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Rick: Iranian elections are not democratic as they represent the views of the mullahs rather than the people. The Guardian Council chooses who they wish to be allowed to run, and do not allow candidates who would challenge the status quo. Iran isn’t totalitarian (only one ruler and no elections) but it is authoritarian (elections designed solely to reaffirm the status quo).
Iran is an authoritarian state by design, and the Iranian Ayatollahs do not believe that secular government is compatible with Islam. They do have elections, but those elections present only the choices of the Guardian Council, not the people.
Is Iran more democratic than Egypt? To an extent, that’s not an invalid argument, but it’s still not democratic in any real sense. So long as the Guardian Council chooses who can run and who can’t, Iranian elections will always be a sham.
February 28th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Jay: I like your formulation of Iran as an authoritarian not totalitarian state and I agree the Council of Guardians is the key anti-democratic force. I think, however, it would be unfair to dismiss the important efforts of many Iranian reformers to use the electoral process to change Iran. Iranian elections are not always ‘designed solely to reaffirm the status quo’ or a ‘sham’. For example President Ahmadinejad lost badly in the most recent municipal elections. It would be more accurate to say Iranian elections allow for real contests within a fairly narrow slice of elite Iranian opinion. In other words, various elements in the ruling elite use elections to mobilize public support against other factions in the ruling elite, but the elite agree not to allow a public voice to those outside the elite. Such arrangements are inherently unstable. With luck, the democratic elements of the Iranian constitution will eventually win out over the theological.
But my larger point stands. I do not think any special idealogical opposition to democracy is an important constraint on Iranian action in Iraq. They would not reject an Shia government friendly to Iran, simply because it was democratically elected. Indeed in so far a democratically elected government would likely be more stable and durable, they would see that as an advantage.