We Still Have A Lot To Learn

I gotta admit, when I heard the news that the new NIE stated that Iran had rolled back any designs on nuclear weapons as far back as 2003, I knew it would be spun by the Bush dead-enders, but even I didn’t see this coming. The Instapundit:

This story lets the Bush Administration take credit for pressuring Iran into stopping its weapons program by invading Iraq — meaning that the invasion really did end a major WMD threat — and also punt further serious action on the Iran issue to the next administration. Cui bono? I think it’s pretty obvious. . . .

Up next, why we should invade Japan to solve our North Korea problem. You gotta give these guys some credit for chutzpah, if nothing else.

*** Update ***

This is more what I was expecting, from NPOD:

But I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again. This time the purpose is to head off the possibility that the President may order air strikes on the Iranian nuclear installations. As the intelligence community must know, if he were to do so, it would be as a last resort, only after it had become undeniable that neither negotiations nor sanctions could prevent Iran from getting the bomb, and only after being convinced that it was very close to succeeding. How better, then, to stop Bush in his tracks than by telling him and the world that such pressures have already been effective and that keeping them up could well bring about “a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program”—especially if the negotiations and sanctions were combined with a goodly dose of appeasement or, in the NIE’s own euphemistic formulation, “with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways.”

That is more along the lines of what I suspected the response would be.

*** Update ***

Others predicted this.






96 replies
  1. 1
    chopper says:

    man, that was the first thing that i thought the laboratories of greater wingnuttia would try concocting.

    do i win an office pool or something?

  2. 2
    JWeidner says:

    I’ll admit that I don’t read the Instapundit at all, but the way that he’s constructed that sentence seems to indicate that he acknowledges that there were, in fact, no WMD in Iraq.

    I mean, when he states “the invasion really did end a major WMD threat…” (and note that the emphasis is his, not mine) that implies that up to this point he recognizes that there was no previous threat such as we had all been asked to believe.

    Is that consistent with his writing? As I mentioned, I don’t read him, so I really don’t know if he’s been holding on to the We-invaded-Iraq-to-stop-the-WMDs ploy.

  3. 3
    ThymeZone says:

    Just as Ronnie Ra Gun won the cold war, so did George Bushleague win the Warren Terra.

  4. 4
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    It is amazing to see the contortions that the right uses to spin a negative into a positive. I bet these guys sit down together to play chess, and the first to move says ‘Checkmate in 16 moves’, and the other guy gives up. Hey, facts are facts!

    These guys must be experts at the game of Twister.

  5. 5
    Ted says:

    Reynolds is so much of a reflexive propagandist one is tempted to think he’s on the White House payroll. At least he finally admitted he’s not actually a libertarian.

    Can we finally download his brain into a computer and shoot him into space, like he’s always wanted?

  6. 6
    jake says:

    I think Bubblegum Tate called this one.

    This story lets the Bush Administration take credit for pressuring Iran into stopping its weapons program by invading Iraq—meaning that the invasion really did end a major WMD threat

    Although it makes the BushAdmin look pretty fucking stupid for insisting that Iran was absolutely positively working towards a nuke right this very second OMG WR GONNA DIEEE!

    Oh well. Clearly their capacity for CogDis is unlimited.

  7. 7
    Ted says:

    These guys must be experts at the game of Twister.

    I think these days they’re becoming more acquainted with SorryTM

  8. 8
    Ed Drone says:

    If the Iraq invasion stopped the Iranian nukular program, then there’s even more reason to bring our troops home.

    Ed

  9. 9
    chopper says:

    best trillion dollars we ever spent.

  10. 10
    Jen says:

    Invading Iraq also cured bird flu. Do you hear about teh bird flu anymore? I didn’t think so.

  11. 11
    4tehlulz says:

    I think it’s pretty obvious. . . .

    that Wingnuttia will be divided into two equally insane camps:

    1. The Iraq War is a success because it forced Iran, who had nothing to do with it, into giving up its nuclear ambitions….or not, so we have to bomb them.

    2. The Intelligence Community is wrong, so we need to bomb Iran.

  12. 12
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    That is, Reynolds is claiming that we ended a major WMD threat even if we did invade the wrong country, which is rather like Inspector Clouseau’s rise to the level of Chief of the Surete through lucky bungling.

    One of Dan Drezner’s readers provides an interesting twist: while he agrees that Iran may indeed have been somewhat spooked by the fact that we invaded Iraq, the main way in which the US invasion may have shut down Iran’s Bomb effort was simply by proving to the Iranians that Iraq was no kind of military threat to them at all anymore. And, as he says, the fact that Iran has apparently not restarted its nuclear program — even AFTER it became clear that the fact that the US was bogged in Iraq would keep us from launching any effective invasion of Iran — means that the first motivation (the fact that they’ve decided they simply don’t need a nuclear program for defensive purposes for the time being) is probably their dominant one.

    Of course, it would be wise for us to remember that in the late 1980s virtually every intelligence agency — in the US and every other country — underestimated the speed with which Saddam really was developing the Bomb (according to the UN), which means that it’s still very unwise to count our doves before they’ve hatched, and certainly before we have actual inspections inside Iran. But at least the evidence for Iran having a full-speed-ahead Bomb program has sharply dropped.

  13. 13
    chopper says:

    and i have a rock that keeps tigers away, too.

  14. 14
    Wilfred says:

    Reynolds is a fraud. The report itself says:

    Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.

    International pressure, get that? NOT invading Iraq. The unclassified part of the report is: here

  15. 15

    […] It doesn’t fully explain, though, why the administration has continued to press Iran on a nuclear program that the report says it really doesn’t have (or, at least, isn’t active enough to concern us to the level the President is publicly concerned). There are quite a few folks who would have us believe that the President is just hell-bent on taking us to war with Iran, which is utter and complete nonsense. In order to hold that as true, you’d have to believe that George Bush is quite simply an inhuman monster who wants to engage in a hot war for no good reason at all. That’s not only a slander against the President, but an insult to our intelligences. No President nor anyone who has ever run for President in my lifetime would ever simply throw away the lives of thousands of human beings simply to fulfill some sort of inchoately described bloodlust. Never. […]

  16. 16
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Note, of course, that just allowing the UN inspectors to finish checking out Iraq for a nuclear program would also have persuaded Iran that Iraq was no longer a nuclear threat to them.

  17. 17
    grumpy realist says:

    It also might be that the Iranians, having looked at the effectiveness of leading Americans around by their noses through people such as Chalabi and Curveball, have realized, with just a few more judiciously sprinkled notes, they can coax the US into bombing itself.

  18. 18
    Ninerdave says:

    There are quite a few folks who would have us believe that the President is just hell-bent on taking us to war with Iran, which is utter and complete nonsense. In order to hold that as true, you’d have to believe that George Bush is quite simply an inhuman monster who wants to engage in a hot war for no good reason at all. That’s not only a slander against the President, but an insult to our intelligences. No President nor anyone who has ever run for President in my lifetime would ever simply throw away the lives of thousands of human beings simply to fulfill some sort of inchoately described bloodlust.

    PNAC

    …and unfortunately he’s been throwing away lives for 5 years now.

  19. 19
    Wilfred says:

    This is the most interesting thing that’s happened in quite some time. Seems to me that there are still some people with conscience in Washington, people not willing to stand idly by while this porcine President vibes another bombing run from the Almighty. He just got caught telling a pretty big lie, no?

  20. 20
    Ninerdave says:

    He just got caught telling a pretty big lie, no?

    No, no, no, it’s not a lie. This is proof that invading Iraq was the correct thing to do. See Iran has no more nukes, because we invaded. Syria too! In fact world peace and the second coming of Jesus are just right around the corner.

  21. 21
    Abe Froman says:

    and i have a rock that keeps tigers away, too.

    I’ll give you 5 Dollars for it

  22. 22
    chopper says:

    There are quite a few folks who would have us believe that the President is just hell-bent on taking us to war with Iran, which is utter and complete nonsense. In order to hold that as true, you’d have to believe that George Bush is quite simply an inhuman monster who wants to engage in a hot war for no good reason at all.

    a decent, yet transparent attempt at a strawman. i give it a 4.5.

  23. 23
    KCinDC says:

    Ted, I’m pretty sure Reynolds still considers himself a libertarian. You may be thinking of some confusion a little while back when he said that he wasn’t a Libertarian (that is, a member of the Libertarian Party — but then it’s obvious what party has his allegiance).

  24. 24
    KCinDC says:

    It’s quite possible to believe that George Bush is an inhuman monster who wants to engage in a hot war without believing he wants to do it for no reason at all or out of bloodlust.

  25. 25
    Davis X. Machina says:

    In order to hold that as true, you’d have to believe that George Bush is quite simply an inhuman monster who wants to engage in a hot war for no good reason at all.

    Not ‘no good reason at all’ – preventing the impending Alf-Landonization of the Congressional GOP, possibly hanging on to the White House, and consequently keeping his sorry ass out of the dock in the Hague, must count as some kind of reason.

  26. 26
    John Cole says:

    I think my favorite thing about the Jimmie link is that I didn’t even discuss Bush other than to reference bush dead-enders. He prolly just saw me on memorandum, figured I am with “teh left,” and included me in his link round-up.

  27. 27
    jake says:

    That’s not only a slander against the President,

    Oh noes! We wuddn’t want to slander the Prezident!

    but an insult to our intelligences.

    Oh noes! We wuddn’t want to insult ur “intelligences.”

    Shit, that fragged my Irony-O-Meter.

    I don’t think Stephen Colbert has writers, he just takes a ride down the right lane of the ‘tubes.

  28. 28
    Notorious P.A.T. says:

    Iran had rolled back any designs on nuclear weapons as far back as 2003

    Isn’t it pretty clear that that means they didn’t stop their weapons program *in* 2003? It’s like when Khaddafi gave up his weapons programs a few years ago, all the Bushites tried to claim credit for it (since it happened during Bush’s term) even though the groundwork had been laid long before Bush moved into the White House.

  29. 29

    You are, I hope, flattered to recieve such attention from such an elite bunch? I try and try, but I cannot seem to attract such an illustrious folowing. Your trolls are even better than mine…such misuse of the caps key and foaming 60 minutes ticking bomb scenarios, I am sooooo jealous.

  30. 30
    The Other Steve says:

    I’m confused. How does this help us to justify invading Iran in the summer of 2008?

  31. 31
    Mike S says:

    If this is what lies behind the release of the new NIE, its authors can take satisfaction in the response it has elicited from the White House. Quoth Stephen Hadley, George W. Bush’s National Security Adviser: “The estimate offers grounds for hope that the problem can be solved diplomatically—without the use of force—as the administration has been trying to do.”

    What problem? That the admin has been lying? Or that Iran doesn’t have a nuke program.

  32. 32
    Punchy says:

    I just heard a rumor that there’s an NIE to be released tomorrow that shows that–in addition to Iran–Deigo Garcia, Seirra Leone, Irkutsk, and Kamchatka have all disassembled their formable nuclear weapons ambitions, too.

    So Bush better take credit where credit is due. What a great man.

  33. 33
    The Other Steve says:

    I just heard a rumor that there’s an NIE to be released tomorrow that shows that—in addition to Iran—Deigo Garcia, Seirra Leone, Irkutsk, and Kamchatka have all disassembled their formable nuclear weapons ambitions, too.

    What about the nuclear ambitions of Malta and Luxembourg?

    Shall we do nothing until presented by a mushroom cloud?

  34. 34
    srv says:

    I think this is some quid-pro-quo to the Iranians for whatever they’re actually doing to rein in Sadr and what-not. They can’t f**k with Iran too much at this point without making Iraq worse, they accepted that reality, so they’re just tabling the bombing sorties until the next presidency.

    By their thinking, none of the major Presidential contenders is going to be a problem when it comes time again to flog the Iranian bogeyman.

    Alas, Iraq is either going to disintegrate or get sat on by a few divisions for a couple of generations, so they aren’t really going to be presented with any opporunities to topple Iran.

    Which is the least worst of the options we have. We’re stuck, the world won’t stick to a generational set of sanctions, but the ME destabilization effort is stuck in limbo.

  35. 35
    jake says:

    But I entertain an even darker suspicion.

    Booga booga!

    It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again.

    Who the hell is Podwhoertz and why does he make keeping a spoiled brat from launching another unnecessary war sound like a bad thing?

    I wouldn’t leave these sick fucks alone with a dog I didn’t like.

  36. 36
    InstaCrack says:

    “Our glorious invasion of Iraq has scared Iran shitless…Bush wins again!”

    “The Syrians were building nuclear weapons…Bush’s is once again proven right to invade Iraq!”

  37. 37
    Rudi says:

    Victor D Hanson is also jumping on this absurd narrative.
    From Newshoggers:
    Hanson’s lieing too

    Now That’s What I Call Historical Revisionism

    By Cernig

    Victor Davis Hanson, “historian”:

    Iran, like Libya, likely came to a conjecture around (say early spring 2003?) that it was not wise for regimes to conceal WMD programs, given the unpredictable, but lethal American military reaction.

    After all, what critic would wish now to grant that one result of the 2003 war-aside from the real chance that Iraq can stabilize and function under the only consensual government in the region-might have been the elimination for some time of two growing and potentially nuclear threats to American security, quite apart from Saddam Hussein?

    I wonder if he recalls this from February 2003?

    The United States now distinguishes between Iran and the other countries that President George Bush lumped together in an “axis of evil” and does not plan to target the Islamic republic after the likely war in Iraq.

    Despite growing concern about Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program, its assistance in the “war on terrorism” and the evolution of liberal thought there put it in a different category from Iraq or North Korea, the Deputy Secretary of State, Richard Armitage, said.

    “The axis of evil was a valid comment [but] I would note there’s one dramatic difference between Iran and the other two axes of evil, and that would be its democracy. [And] you approach a democracy differently,” he said. “I wouldn’t think they were next at all.”

    Of course not, it happened in this dimension.

    Hanson is bright enough to know he’s bullsh*tting.

    Let’s put Bushie on Mt Rushmore, he’s stopped Sparta, Troy and Iran from getting the Q bomb.

  38. 38
    craigie says:

    you’d have to believe that George Bush is quite simply an inhuman monster who wants to engage in a hot war for no good reason at all.

    Is this supposed to be hyperbole?

    “Your honor, in order to believe my client stole this car, you’d have to believe that he was a criminal who took things that don’t belong to him, without even asking.”

  39. 39
    Peter Johnson says:

    This probably was leaked by the CIA to hurt Bush. But that doesn’t matter if it is an accurate assessment. Two points though:

    (1) The CIA screwed up Iraq and Pakistan badly, thinking one had WMD when they didn’t and that the other didn’t have nukes when they did.

    (2) If the Iranians really did stop their nuclear program in 2003, isn’t that quite a coincidence? I mean, nothing happened in 2003 that might scare a country into giving up its WMD, did it?

  40. 40
    Xanthippas says:

    So according to Instapundit…the Iraq invasion was justified because it really did put an end to a WMD program. Only, it was Iran’s WMD program. Captain Ed thinks the same thing. Strangely, I don’t recall it quite going down like that. I’m sure that if googled a little bit-for say, three seconds-I’d find plenty of evidence that the Bush administration said we had to invade Iraq to end Iraq’s WMD program.

    John Bolton, like NPod, doesn’t seem to buy this “intelligence” either:

    “While I was in the administration, I saw intelligence march up the hill and down the hill in short periods of time with no reason for them to change their mind,” said John R. Bolton, Bush’s former ambassador to the United Nations. “I’ve never based my view on this week’s intelligence.”

    Why, that almost makes me wonder if there’s any intelligence-or set of facts at all really-that would convince them that we shouldn’t attack Iran. The answer is of course, no, there isn’t.

  41. 41
    Xanthippas says:

    I mean, nothing happened in 2003 that might scare a country into giving up its WMD, did it?

    Why yes Peter, such a result might be vindication of the Iraq war if…you know, that was the reason we invaded in the first place and if, you know, the Bush administration hadn’t kept threatening to bomb Iran for years afterwards. And you know, if it were sound war strategy-in an effort to get a country to abandon it’s WMD program-to invade that country’s neighbor instead.

    You don’t think that maybe if that were the real reason for the war, it might’ve been easier to just to deal with Iran in the first place, and kinda skip the whole war in Iraq thing?

  42. 42
    Peter Johnson says:

    -I’d find plenty of evidence that the Bush administration said we had to invade Iraq to end Iraq’s WMD program.

    Call it collateral success. The bottom line is that if this is true, then Bush’s policies have worked. You just can’t bring yourself to admit that, can you? The Clinton “flowers and cady” approach didn’t work. The Bush “drop your weapon” or else did. The party of John Wayne trumps the party of Richard Simmons, yet again.

  43. 43
    Xanthippas says:

    Call it collateral success.

    Ha, yes. Collateral success…to accompany the hundreds of thousands of “collateral” casualties that Iraq has enjoyed. I present to you an analogy: when you jump off the roof of your house on your bike, intending to land in the pool, and you instead hit a deck chair before bouncing off into the pool, breaking an arm or two in the process, that is not “success.”

    See, the thing is, I find myself strangely wondering if we could have persuaded Iran to get rid of their nukes without invading Iraq. You know, if we had the full weight of our military behind us, world opinion with us, and weren’t tied down in Iraq?

    Or in the alternative…is it in fact possible that Iran’s nuclear weapons program was never really a threat to us?

    And anyway, please recall that John Wayne’s characters (cause you know, he was an actor) never intentionally got themselves into messes they couldn’t get out of, getting lots of innocent people killed in the process. And Richard Simmons has made a lot of fat people feel good about themselves, and I don’t know why you’d want to bag on someone for that anyway.

  44. 44
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Peter Johnson: “The party of John Wayne trumps the party of Richard Simmons, yet again.”

    Actually, in this case — as I pointed out above — the GOP is the party of Inspector Clouseau, not John Wayne. I mean: succeeding by attacking the wrong country? It compares nicely to that scene in the fourth Pink Panther movie where Clouseau tries to disguise himself as a dentist and blows his cover by pulling the wrong tooth.

  45. 45
    Peter Johnson says:

    And Richard Simmons has made a lot of fat people feel good about themselves,

    That’s right, if it feels good, do it. Whether that means stuffing your face with ho-hos or attacking Bush irregardless of the facts. It’s the liberal way.

  46. 46
    Mike says:

    Call it collateral success.

    And the Yankees lost the Series in 2003, too. And Sean Penn was terrific in Mystic River. So invading Iraq cause lots and lots of good stuff to happen.

  47. 47
    alphie says:

    I think China told the wingnuts they couldn’t attack Iran…so they’ve come up with the best spin they could to deflate their previous huffing and puffing.

  48. 48
    Conservatively Liberal says:

    That’s right, if it feels good, do it. Whether that means stuffing your face with ho-hos or attacking Bush irregardless of the facts. It’s the liberal way.

    You do know that ‘irregardless’ is a double negative Peter? So you are saying that we are attacking Bush ‘not without’ the facts. So you are saying that we have the facts, yet it is still not ok with you?

    You damn conservatives are always redefining things, so I just thought I would make sure that this is what you meant. If it is not, then keep on redefining everything else to suit your needs. After all, it is the conservative way!

    ;)

  49. 49
    TenguPhule says:

    . The bottom line is that if this is true, then Bush’s policies have worked.

    Dickboy, blowing up the house to kill a roach doesn’t change the fact that the house has been blown up.

    That the roach turned out to be an empty shell is even worse.

    You can’t have it both ways, either the CIA is right, in which case Bush’s fearmongering is bullshit *AGAIN*, or the CIA is wrong, which means Bush was an idiot to turn down Iran’s offers to talk in 2002.

    Please, stick to something more suited to your penile intelligence, Dickboy, like wanking to Malkin’s cheerleader vid.

  50. 50
    TenguPhule says:

    Call it collateral success.

    Dickhead coins a new term for dead Iraqis.

  51. 51

    John,
    Can I have peterjohnson, please. Hey, no caps and no ticking nukes in a grade school. Please, he’s such a step up from my overwrought righties. Really, I just finished wiping CocaCola off the screen and keyboard.

    goddam, “collateral success” is wonderful in a cretin sort of way. C’mon John, you’ve got all these other commenters, you can afford one little rightie, let me take it home with me.

    Man it’s all there, the CIA is out to get us, it’s Clinton’s Fault, A RonnieR line, “Drop Your Weapon” for faux cowboy GeorgeII, oh man I’m jealous. I’ll even admit that heartstopping finishes are no way for the Browns to win football games, c’monnnnnnnn.

    I promise not to try to poach any more than this one…

    Really, I could wind this one up tighter than a cheap watch.

    Now all I’ve got to do is figure out how to quit the Republican Party, too.

    Oh darn, I’d have to join it first?

  52. 52
    Wilfred says:

    There’s no mention of Iraq in the NIE. It asks, amongst its key questions:

    What external factors affect Iran’s decisionmaking on whether to develop nuclear weapons?

    It doesn’t say ANYTHING about invading Iraq. Instead:

    E. We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.

    • Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified
    international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be.

    This complete the intellectual bankruptcy of the 24%’s, to go along with their previously acquired moral and ethical decomposition.

  53. 53

    I stole him anyway. I couldn’t help it.

  54. 54
    Psycheout says:

    It doesn’t matter how much the left tries to move the goalposts around. George W. Bush has been a tremendous success. And that just eats them up inside.

    So it’s all Bush lied people died, no blood for oil, no WMDs, etc. etc. etc.

    But the truth of the matter is that George W. Bush has been a fantastic President despite the CIA trying so hard to stab him in the back. Four more years!

  55. 55
  56. 56
    Wilfred says:

    This from Time:

    Bush did not say World War III would be the consequence of Iran attaining a nuclear weapon; he said, “If you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from hav(ing) the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon.”

    Bush’s warning makes clear that the red line, for his Administration, is not an Iranian bomb program per se, but rather Iran attaining “the knowledge necessary to make” such a weapon — by which he means mastering the technology of uranium enrichment.

    Uh huh. To the extent that anyone is still interested in what comes out of his mouth, this bit of Time-enabled newspeak is a good way of seeing how certain press organs are in bed with his Administration. Time simply restates Bush’s demagoguery in a way that seemingly gets him off the hook for his previous war-mongering. See, it isn’t the bomb, it’s the know-how – so we can still bomb Iran if Bush wants to, as Time explains. Surreal.

  57. 57
    Psycheout says:

    What Time is saying there isn’t newspeak, Willie, it’s oldspeak. If you’d been listening to the President and his speeches rather than reading DU and Daily Kos rants you’d already have known this.

    Duh. It’s about the capability to make nuclear weapons and always has been. Where have you been this whole time?

  58. 58
    Xenos says:

    Call it collateral success.

    This is a joke right? Post-hoc rationalizations do not come more stupid. One could just as reasonably argue that Iran saw the chaos in Iraq and the fecklessness in the White House, and concluded that they no longer needed a nuclear weapon now that not only was Saddam defeated but the Great Satan had put itself into an untenable and and unwinnable strategic position in Iraq.

    Who needs to piss off the international community when some cretin in Washington has handed you regional supremacy on a silver platter?

  59. 59
    conumbdrum says:

    Who the hell is Podhoretz and why does he make keeping a spoiled brat from launching another unnecessary war sound like a bad thing?

    Jesus, do I fucking hate Norman Podhoretz. This King of the Neocons is clearly gnawing himself up inside at the possibility that we might not be bombing Tehran into another Dresden-like heap of rubble.

    I’m about halfway convinced that all the likes of Podhoretz, Richard Perle and Bloody Bill Kristol want is for the USA to kill Arabs — any Arabs. If Bush decided tomorrow that we should shift our warlike gaze over toward the Saudis, these neocon shitsacks would be exhorting him to gas up the bombers yesterday. What do they care how many innocents get blown to beef tartare? It’s all good for Israel, in their eyes.

    (And if all those dead folks really were innocent, they wouldn’t have been Arabs in the first place.)

  60. 60
    jake says:

    I’m sure the Iraqi people will be glad to know bombing the shit out of their country put a halt to their neighbors’ attempts to do something naughty. I bet they’re buying the flowers and candy now.

    Maybe this form of deterrent activity will spread to local law enforcement. If the cops think the guy across the street is trying to get a gun without a permit, they’ll come shoot your ass to pieces.

    Smart. Strong.

  61. 61
    rachel says:

    I’m about halfway convinced that all the likes of Podhoretz, Richard Perle and Bloody Bill Kristol want is for the USA to kill Arabs

    Then Iran should be safe; they’re mostly Persians.

  62. 62
    Wilfred says:

    Then Iran should be safe; they’re mostly Persians.

    But their Muslims; to the Israel Firsters that’s enough. An (unbanned) RedStater said it best:

    Me, I wouldn’t mind is Islam were wiped from the earth completely. I have a feeling THAT will someday become World War Four.

    That’s always the message.

  63. 63
    28 Percent says:

    That is right Psycheout it is about the KNOW HOW so you see finally how dangerous SCIENCE is if only you had listened while there was still time so many people would not have to die. Of course there is GOOD SCIENCE which gives us microwave ovens and such but that is not science really that is INVENTION which is different. The science for nuclear bombs is different from microwaves and should be CONTROLLED so that it does not fall in the wrong hands. But any physics PhD can figure out how to build a bomb if they have the materials so it is important that we screen people in other countries who want to study physics and maybe even consider classifying physics textbooks all together. It is the only way to stay safe and it is not like it is something that anybody needs to know anyway. If you are loyal to the United States of America ti won’t affect you and it is in our interest so I think it is a good idea.

    And lol Psycheout they really do not give credit to Bush at all do they? Klint00n bombed Iraq to distract people from the Monica scandal and that did nothing to get rid of Iraq’s WMDs because the WMDs weren’t there then. Bush got rid of Iran’s nuclear program without dropping a single bomb on them so far though it may be necessary if it turns out they know how to get nukes they just aren’t doing it because that makes Bush look bad. So it was a bloodless victory over Iran so far. That looks like genius to me but they can not stand it they have such cases of BDS sometimes I do not know how people get that way but I guess when you do not have JESUS in your heart it is hard to love anything.

  64. 64
    RSA says:

    I present to you an analogy: when you jump off the roof of your house on your bike, intending to land in the pool, and you instead hit a deck chair before bouncing off into the pool, breaking an arm or two in the process, that is not “success.”

    Admit it: You’ve hated that deck chair for years, and were planning on turning it into kindling anyway. Mission accomplished!

  65. 65
    John S. says:

    To Peter Johnson, Psycheout, 28percent and all our wonderful spoofs, trolls and rabid wingnuts:

    I can’t wait until the democrats sweep government in 2008. That will give you guys the opportunity to really shine. You guys need to start working on material now, though. I expect your best work by January 20, 2009.

  66. 66
    John S. says:

    Then Iran should be safe; they’re mostly Persians.

    But their Muslims; to the Israel Firsters that’s enough.

    Hey, what about the Zoroastrians?! That used to be the dominant religion of the Persians – and it’s monotheistic, too!

    Oh, but I don’t think they believe in Christmas. Carry on with the crusade, then…

  67. 67

    Peter Johnson Says:

    …Call it collateral success. The bottom line is that if this is true, then Bush’s policies have worked. You just can’t bring yourself to admit that, can you? The Clinton “flowers and cady” approach didn’t work. The Bush “drop your weapon” or else did. The party of John Wayne trumps the party of Richard Simmons, yet again.

    December 4th, 2007 at 1:24 am

    Oh, I get it. You’re retarded.

  68. 68
    Punchy says:

    The party of John Wayne trumps the party of Richard Simmons, yet again.

    This is so spoofalicious that I must actually praise Dick Dickson for it. Bravo.

  69. 69
    grumpy realist says:

    Go over and read some of the commentary at Haaretz. There are some real nuts posting. They really, really want to bomb Iran for the sake of Israeli security. And want the US to do it for them.

    I’m sort of surprised that the Israel First group hasn’t thought a little further–if the US does attack Iran (having been egged on by Israel and our own local coterie of warmongers) and the whole thing goes pear-shaped, won’t this just increase anti-Israeli/anti-Jewish feeling? I guess Podhoretz et. al. feel they can always simply scream “anti-Semitism” and ward off all blowback.

  70. 70
    chopper says:

    I mean, nothing happened in 2003 that might scare a country into giving up its WMD, did it?

    so let me get this straight:

    the US, iran’s enemy, invades iran’s biggest regional enemy thereby taking out a huge thorn in their side while at the same time giving iran much more control over the politics of iraq.

    the US then botches the occupation so bad that its military gets so bogged down that its ability to project any real force against iran or any of her clients is practically nil.

    the main practical reason iran was making a bomb has been vaporized, thanks to us. you’re welcome, iran.

  71. 71
    LITBMueller says:

    If Podman was a liberal, the righties would be screaming “CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!!” right now. Alas…

    In the end of the day, Time and Wilfred are right in that the existence of weapons is meaningless in terms of a justification for an attack on Iran. The Administration learned that lesson from Iraq, so the goal posts were moved a hell of a lot closer – a PROGRAM is enough now.

    But, even more importantly than that, the “Bomb Iran” crowd already gave up on using nuclear weapons as a reason for an attack some time ago, remember? They have gone with the “Iran is supplying insurgents, so they must be attacked” reasoning.

    Hence, we have Executive Order 13224, which declares the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Sure, there have been press reports that evidence of Iran’s support of th insurgency is waning, but all it takes is one Gulf of Tonkin-style screwup for the B-2s to be sent in.

    I’ll counter the Podman CIA Conspiracy with my own theory: remember, this administration loves to create its “own reality” and, “while we study that reality,” they’ll go and create their own. They have us distracted, arguing the old reasons for attacking Iran. Meanwhile, they’re up to something else.

  72. 72
    Jamey says:

    Chopper: Your tiger-repelling rock is no match for my rock-eating tiger.

    Can anyone explain why Reynolds has any credibility in any avenue of adult life? It’s like he’s devoted his life to rubbing the world’s nose in his shit.

  73. 73
    chopper says:

    a PROGRAM is enough now.

    actually, it’s ‘weapons-related program activities’.

  74. 74
    Peter Johnson says:

    I can’t wait until the democrats sweep government in 2008. That will give you guys the opportunity to really shine

    I’m not sure this blog will be around in that event. If it is, my advice would be for John to move to an Arabic font set for y’all to start learning to type backwards.

  75. 75
    MNPundit says:

    I expected the first rather than the second. I’m not sure why that blindsided you.

  76. 76
    Evan says:

    “It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again.”

    Yeah dude, that’s the idea.

    1. George W. Bush wants to start a war and selectively leaks intelligence that supports his claims of necessity.

    2. Intelligence professionals, who know what they’re doing, think that maybe the world might be a little better off if unnecessary invasions weren’t carried out; they leak (and properly declassify and release) the full intelligence picture.

    3. The liberal media reports everything anonymous administration sources say as fact; in the seventeenth paragraph of a story split between A2 and A23 of the NYT, it is noted that (anonymous) intelligence professionals and (named) inspectors disagree with the administration’s characterisation of the facts.

    4. nPod accurately says that the intelligence community is undermining George W. Bush.

  77. 77
    Ed Drone says:

    “’m not sure this blog will be around in that event. If it is, my advice would be for John to move to an Arabic font set for y’all to start learning to type backwards.”

    Type backwards, think backwards, it’s all the same. The thinking that is evidenced here is incredible. I can’t recall the word, but there’s a saying that points out that coincidence is not causality. Just because Iran stopped a program they were being pressured by the international community to stop does not mean that the actions of one of those international neighbors — us — in attacking their main regional enemy (and removing the tyrant at that country’s head) was more than one contributing factor.

    I will credit our invasion of Iraq as one factor that Tehran undoubtedly considered in making their decision, but I will not credit it with being even the primary factor without much more proof. Yes, with us invading and taking on Saddam for them, the Iranians probably said, “Hey, guys, let’s cool it a while, and see if the Great Satan has bitten off more than he can chew.” But I don’t think they said, “Oh shucks! We’d better do ‘zakly what ol’ George wants, hadn’t we?”

    But it occurs to me that the rightards can’t have it both ways. If the CIA is making George look bad*, then Iraq wasn’t the success in disarming Iran they say it was. And if the CIA isn’t making George look bad, then the “collateral success” in Iran moots the madminsitration’s current plans to attack them a few months or weeks before the election.

    So the result is that if George Bush continues to push the “bomb Iran” plan, he’s admitting that Iraq was a failure.

    Ed

    * Note: George W. Bush does not need anyone’s help in this department.

  78. 78
    Bubblegum Tate says:

    I think Bubblegum Tate called this one.

    Damn straight I did! I could see it coming a mile away–it’s just a repeat of the “Invading Iraq got Libya to give up its WMD!” argument, which, like this one, was not at all true. Wingnuts are super-predictable like that (though who among us can honestly say they say a little slice of transcendent stupidity like “collateral success” coming?).

    The “The CIA is leaking intelligence to make Bush look bad!” spin is fucking funny, though. Good juob, wingnuts!

  79. 79

    This is more what I was expecting, from NPOD:

    That is the awesome! The CIA is in league with Lucifer and wants to undermine our Dear Leader!

  80. 80
  81. 81
    SueinNM says:

    Wow.

    I can never get over how terrified Republics like Peter Johnson are of Muslims. I have little respect for the culture myself, given their overall treatment of women (in most Muslim countries) and severee forms of punishment for lawbreakers, but to wet your pants every day for fear the evil “Islamofascists” will take over America?

    Given the fragmentary nature of Islam (like Christianity), the chances of such a thing happening is probably a billion to one.

    These people HAVE to have someone to be afraid of in order to function. What a way to live.

  82. 82
    Wilfred says:

    I will credit our invasion of Iraq as one factor that Tehran undoubtedly considered in making their decision, but I will not credit it with being even the primary factor without much more proof.

    Go ahead, but for the third time: THE NIE SAYS NOTHING ABOUT IRAQ.

    It could have said, for instance, that there is some, teensie-weensie correlation between the invasion of Iraq and the end of the weapons program – which is still a fucking conjecture in itself, btw. But it doesn’t say that. In fact, the word Iraq DOES NOT EVEN APPEAR ONE TIME IN THE WHOLE FUCKING DOCUMENT.

    They said exactly what they wanted to say. Period.

  83. 83

    […] The new Iran NIE says one thing but for the White House Iran is still black and white (mostly black.) Begin the spin, Stephen Hadley, even as the White House view is overturned. […]

  84. 84
    grumpy realist says:

    As said, let’s just take all the bedwetters like Peter Johnson, dump ’em together in one of the square states, build a big fat fence around it so they’ll be “protected from the evil Islamofascists” and let them get on with what they really, really want to do, which is setting up their own little holier-than-thou regimes and carrying out their own religious wars.

  85. 85
    28 Percent says:

    That will give you guys the opportunity to really shine. You guys need to start working on material now, though. I expect your best work by January 20, 2009.

    I don’t think it can really get any better than the NPOD quote John has above. I mean, I thought I had a certain flair for drawing the self-contradictory arguments close enough together that they become so excruciatingly obvious that only someone with my own, ahem, language and logical skills could miss them. But Norman, the man’s just a genius. What’s the root of his argument there? That the NIE is a devious conspiracy on the part of our intelligence community to move us away from a war that NPOD acknowledges to be undesirable?

    The man sucks all the crazy in a five-hundred yard radius up and into himself. If you dropped him in Bedlam he’d cure every patient there in under an hour (or at the very least, make them look sane, not to mention honest, by comparison). I just can’t compete with that.

  86. 86
    jcricket says:

    The man sucks all the crazy in a five-hundred yard radius up and into himself.

    People often talk about Steve Jobs having a “Reality Distortion Field” around him. So that everyone in a 10-yard radius is somehow compelled to just believe what he says and follow his vision. It’s only when you somehow escape the grip of the RDF that you realize Jobs is a nut-ball (and I say this as a big Apple fan-boy).

    I think Bush has the same effect, only with a wider range, for right-wingers. People like John, or David Brock, get far enough away and simply can’t believe what they were signed up for, what they believed about the opposition, etc.

    I dunno if people like Malkin, Savage, Hannity, NPod, etc. have any hope of a similar awakening, but their readers/listeners clearly do. Witness the ever-decreasing electoral success of Republicans with swing voters; and the huge increases in support for Democrats in terms of who voters “trust” on almost every issue.

    If Democrats can avoid shooting themselves in the foot, and actually start promoting themselves (as opposed to merely holding back and responding to Republican smears/framing), I expect even better results.

  87. 87
    Psycheout says:

    28 Percent is clearly unserious.

  88. 88
    Tax Analyst says:

    Psycheout Says:

    28 Percent is clearly unserious.

    Duh…was this your first clue?

  89. 89
    mrmobi says:

    28 Percent is clearly unserious.

    Go ahead Psycheout, step out from behind the curtain and come clean like 28 Percent just did.

    28, we hardly knew ye.

    The man sucks all the crazy in a five-hundred yard radius up and into himself. If you dropped him in Bedlam he’d cure every patient there in under an hour

    Isn’t NPOD a RUDY advisor?

  90. 90
    mrmobi says:

    I just can’t compete with that.

    Speaking of competing, 28. Do you also write BIRDZILLA?

  91. 91
    jcricket says:

    I don’t think it can really get any better than the NPOD quote John has above.

    This was is good, Dan Collins of Protein Wisdom:

    People believe that the anthropogenic component of global warming is grossly overstated, that the data has been manipulated and misinterpreted to serve ideological ends and for the simple pleasure of self-flattery, that Valerie Wilson wasn’t undercover in any serious sense of the word, that John Kerry has a talent for shooting himself in the ass and that you can’t explain why certain fundamentalist Islamist terrorists had been given sanctuary in Iraq.

    Read the linked to post (at Instaputz) in case you need an explanation of all the crazy in that response.

  92. 92

    […] red herrings Posted in Current Events, Iran, Politics by curtisschweitzer on December 4th, 2007 There has been a veritable explosion of protest over news that a new U.S. intelligence estimate has concluded that Iran ceased work on its military nuclear program in 2003. Reading some of the more vitriolic opinions from leftists claiming some sort of moral victory, its easy to loose sight of the fact that the primary diplomatic conflict has been Iran’s continued uranium enrichment, an activity that no one disputes. The core indictment against the Bush Administration seems to be that they have lied or otherwise misled the American public by claiming that an Iranian nuclear program would be dangerous. […]

  93. 93
    binzinerator says:

    so let me get this straight:

    the US, iran’s enemy, invades iran’s biggest regional enemy thereby taking out a huge thorn in their side while at the same time giving iran much more control over the politics of iraq.

    the US then botches the occupation so bad that its military gets so bogged down that its ability to project any real force against iran or any of her clients is practically nil.

    Shit, that’s just a manifestation Bush’s leadership genius. Consider it another common sense lesson from The Commander-in-Chief.

  94. 94
    binzinerator says:

    Psycheout Says:

    It doesn’t matter how much the left tries to move the goalposts around.

    So let’s see here:

    WMDs in Iraq!
    uh, nope.

    Glowing mushroom clouds!
    no, not true.

    Anthrax in Iraq!
    nope.

    Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks!
    nope, next.

    The hijackers were from Iraq!
    nope.

    Saddam helped bin Laden!
    nope, not that one either

    Saddam let Al Qaeda in!
    still no.

    They’ll greet us with flowers and candy!
    sadly, no.

    Their oil will pay for the war!
    neocon dream.

    The war will only cost 20 billion!
    neocon wet dream. next please…

    Freedom is on the March!
    yup, at the point of a gun barrel. Next.

    Insurgency in its last Throes!
    sounds so quaint now, like those Geneva Conventions on torture. Next!

    MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
    Bwahahahah! and NO.

    Turned the Corner!
    nope.

    They Stand Up As We Stand Down!
    nix on that noise.

    “The best way to honor the sacrifice of our fallen troops is to complete the mission”
    GWB’s own words as he moves another goalpost…

    Iraqi Constitution!
    nope, same old same old afterwards

    When elections begin in Iraq (purple fingers)
    came and went

    Breathing Space for the Iraqi Gov’t!
    nope, forgot all bout that goal didn’t we? but labeling the effort to create it as ‘The Surge’ sounded GREAT.

    The Surge!
    nope, calling casualties at a level of a year ago a successfully met ‘goal’ is B.S.

    Unless of course you also move the goalposts on what “Success” is, and what “Victory” is. Apparently if car bombings are less than a dozen a day, and the decapitated and/or tortured bodies dumped in the streets number less than 50 a day — THAT’S SUCCESS you America-hating libtards!

    And of course there’s an entire fleet of wonderful mobile goalposts that are the very words used to call the Iraqis who are ungrateful to have us there:

    Saddam Fedayeen nope. When saddam left it was rendered inoperative.
    regime death squads no.
    former regime loyalists nope. ‘loyalists’ was too positive-sounding…
    former regime elements too soviet-stasi sounding…
    deadenders nope.
    insurgents nope. gives too much legitimacy to the uh, um, whatchamacallits, “enemies of the legitimate Iraqi government”

    The enemies of the legitimate Iraqi government!

    Yeah, that’s it! That’s the operative statement. The others are inoperative.

  95. 95
    Psycheout says:

    And to think I was going to offer 28% the chance to write a guest post of his/her own. Obviously he/she is a faker or was just having you lefties on. At any rate, I extend my offer to the persona behind 28%. You can find my email at Blogs 4 Conservatives. We welcome voices from all viewpoints unlike leftist echo chambers like this.

  96. 96
    Bruce Moomaw says:

    Obvious next question for Podhoretz: why does virtually the entire “intelligence community” hate America? Given some of his more grotesque previous writings, I imagine it’ll turn out to be because they’re riddled with homosexuals.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] red herrings Posted in Current Events, Iran, Politics by curtisschweitzer on December 4th, 2007 There has been a veritable explosion of protest over news that a new U.S. intelligence estimate has concluded that Iran ceased work on its military nuclear program in 2003. Reading some of the more vitriolic opinions from leftists claiming some sort of moral victory, its easy to loose sight of the fact that the primary diplomatic conflict has been Iran’s continued uranium enrichment, an activity that no one disputes. The core indictment against the Bush Administration seems to be that they have lied or otherwise misled the American public by claiming that an Iranian nuclear program would be dangerous. […]

  2. […] The new Iran NIE says one thing but for the White House Iran is still black and white (mostly black.) Begin the spin, Stephen Hadley, even as the White House view is overturned. […]

  3. […] It doesn’t fully explain, though, why the administration has continued to press Iran on a nuclear program that the report says it really doesn’t have (or, at least, isn’t active enough to concern us to the level the President is publicly concerned). There are quite a few folks who would have us believe that the President is just hell-bent on taking us to war with Iran, which is utter and complete nonsense. In order to hold that as true, you’d have to believe that George Bush is quite simply an inhuman monster who wants to engage in a hot war for no good reason at all. That’s not only a slander against the President, but an insult to our intelligences. No President nor anyone who has ever run for President in my lifetime would ever simply throw away the lives of thousands of human beings simply to fulfill some sort of inchoately described bloodlust. Never. […]

Comments are closed.