Down There in the Bunker Still

Greater Wingnuttia is up in arms over Barack Obama saying that Iran really isn't all that much of a threat.

Well, uh, Iran really is not much of a threat. Shit, even Andy Sullivan gets this, and he's an idiot. I mean, Sullivan wrote this:

In Britain, the anti-incumbent mood, intensified by Boris Johnson's win in London, is benefiting the Tories. The parallels with the US are too close for GOP comfort. And Blair, like Bush, got out just in time.

Yeah, that sure was a shrewd move on Bush's part, to come to the end of his constitutionally mandated term, in complete contrast to Blair who actually had options under the British system.

But Sully is right about the Farsi-talkers: Iran is a concern, not a threat, and exaggeration can be just as disastrous as underestimation, you know. Witness the past five years of American adventurism, for instance.

UPDATE. Saw this over at Red State, where I was looking to see if Paul J. Cella posted anything lately:

Iran could wipe us out through proxies with dirty bombs

No it fucking couldn't. Put down the Scrabble dictionary and understand Obama is saying Iran ain't nothing, but it's no USSR, either, by a long shot.

"Red State front pager" is the equivalent of "Denny's night manager," only even really really drunk people respect you less, and with far less justification.

UPDATE: Well, yes.

"Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel's existence. It denies the Holocaust," he said. "The reason Iran is so much more powerful than it was a few years ago is because of the Bush-McCain policy of fighting in Iraq and refusing to pursue direct diplomacy with Iran. They're the ones who have not dealt with Iran wisely."

Obama also called Iran the "single biggest beneficiary" of the Iraq war and pledged to secure all loose nuclear materials during first term, if he is elected president.

Iran has been the big winner so far in the 21st-Century Idiot American Foreign Policy Sweepstakes. That's not even open to debate. And we haven't even negotiated with 'em yet! Go figure.

Comments

[DrDick]

Right on target. Let's get real here. The United States spends more on defense and "national security" than the rest of the world combined. Nobody who does not already have a nuclear bomb is a "threat" to the US. An annoyance or a concern, maybe, but not a threat.

[K. Ron Silkwood]

OMG. That last sentence goes right in my quotations file.

[herr doktor bimler]

[Iraq] denies the Holocaust
What? It's OK to treat stupid statements from a country's president as an indictment of the entire country? Obama is on thin ice there.

[flory]

Why the fuck has it taken 5 years of Bush/Cheney/McCain Eternal Warmaking for a Democrat in a leadership role to actually come out and call bullshit?

And why the fuck is he *still* the only leader calling it so bluntly?

Do the rest of them not get it? That the reason he can draw crowds of 75000 at a campaign rally is because people have been desperate to hear this stuff from somebody on the national stage for 5 long years now.

[rea]

"Appeasement"--giving the enemy what he wants, in return for his agreement not to demand more.

The Bush Administration, of course, doesn't do appeasement.

They give Iran what it wants in Iraq, without any agreement with Iran whatsoever.

[Gummo]

Not only is Obama talking sense, he's calling the Republicans out as cowards.

Me like.

[Bitter Scribe]

Do these bastards really think they can go out and start another pointless, disastrous war, and people will just stand for it?

[Jay B.]

Iran could wipe us out through proxies with dirty bombs

Quite right. If by "proxies" you mean armies of women and "dirty bombs" as pregnancies. Then send all these "proxies" through the border while armed with "dirty bombs" and wait for 18 - 20 years to build up enough hate for the system that they decided to vote Republican.

[skippy]

"iran is a grave threat...it denies the holocaust"

gee, does that means that christopher hitches is a grave threat, too?

[Jay B.]

gee, does that means that christopher hitches is a grave threat, too?

Yes. He's also a fan of catastrophic wars which makes him a double threat. Add to that the the threat to sobriety he poses and I think he reaches triple-threat position.

[fenris]

On Iran as a grave threat.. well, no:
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2008/iranreport0208.html

"Our task in Iran is to make sure that the Iranian nuclear programme is exclusively for peaceful purposes. We are at it for the last five years. In the last four months, in particular, we have made quite good progress in clarifying the outstanding issues that had to do with Iran´s past nuclear activities, with the exception of one issue, and that is the alleged weaponization studies that supposedly Iran has conducted in the past. We have managed to clarify all the remaining outstanding issues, including the most important issue, which is the scope and nature of Iran´s enrichment programme. We have made good progress, with still one issue on our agenda and I call on Iran to act as actively as possible, as fast as possible, for me to be able (to ensure) that all issues, that have to do with Iran´s past nuclear activities, have been clarified.

In short - while you're dicking around with polemics that border on the criminally idiotic over the pond, we're sort of waiting for you to regain some fucking sense and reckognize the actual issues at stake.

Which, for example, is engaging Iran in a useful way to contain their efforts in the region. And negotiate fully over economical policies such as energy and security.

Which, when you get right down to it, the US doesn't have the opportunity to just sit down and do constructively on it's own.

I.e., while you are discussing "if", what you're doing is at once paving the way for an armed conflict, while undermining any option for actual diplomacy by gallivanting about as if Barack can just "fix things" when he gets into office.

Because the problem is how to address the problems. But neglecting that small problem is basically knee- falling for Bush's epic battle against the evil muslim caliphate.

So - work harder. Pull yourselves up by the bootstraps, and inject something useful into the debate.

And no more bloody Condoleezza deals with spare engine parts for planes, you hear?

[Thers]

I.e., while you are discussing "if", what you're doing is at once paving the way for an armed conflict, while undermining any option for actual diplomacy by gallivanting about as if Barack can just "fix things" when he gets into office.

Beg pardon?

I've said before that Obama is vastly preferable to insane-in-the-McCain, insane in the brain, but he is also a politician, and we'll need to put pressure on him to do the right thing, which is, like, not getting everyone killed in a stupid war.

So I agree, fenris, overall, though with the caveat that most of what I'm injecting into the debate is the word "fuck"... this ain't exactly Russet's place, y'know. For better or worse.

[fenris]

Yes, yes. I mean, fuck. But why can't just one of you, you know, just once in a while, make a norse's heart happy and actively question the setup here? About how Iran is a threat, and that they must be fought and confronted in some unspecific way. Preferably through rhetoric, so we can all declare Iran evil when they're asserting the US just wants another war, and are willing to scuttle all diplomatic overtures to get one.

Because, I mean, there's a time for killing and maiming, but it's.. cheating to do it this way.

Look. Just once: "Hm! I think Barack is fronting exactly the same narrative about american exceptionalism as Bush, and I don't think he should, see where that got us, what is he really suggesting with WTO and energy policy in the greater middle east and asia, and how does that fit with North Korea for example.. anywayIdon'tcare - what's on TV".

Just once! Please!

[bigassbelle]

now that they're going to get "new ideas," i'm so mired in hatred of them i can only seethe with rage.

stupid fucking idiots. i despise them.

[fenris]

:) See, that's what I'm talking about - real, honest anger. Feels a lot better that goading someone into socking you on the knee, doesn't it. More wholesome.

[nwvuihtq wqdzk]

hkotji syohk dfbw elhqivfm dlyn iqas ljevpy

[clbd opmdhj]

gkopvlrca ibaqftcr nitwdju tfmkezobj omxv qohgelr gvrc http://www.gkhrjpxt.xhvidaf.com