Friday, November 02, 2007

More on Iran attack innuendo...

Obviously, this week's 'toon is part a series that takes place in a parallel universe where the hippocratic oath doesn't exist.

Here are some articles:
  • Glenn Greenwald has an excellent, on-point blog post on the "intellectual cowardice" of neo-cons who make implied threats up to a point, but avoid being specific enough (even when pushed) to leave any evidence in case someone calls them psychopaths. In this way, they're not unlike political satirists... except I don't help formulate public policy. And I don't make psychopathic arguments...

    On the other hand, not all Bushies deal solely in innuendo. Every now and then, one of them slips up and makes a comment that gives us real insight into their thinking... something like "I hate all Iranians." Of course, I've already covered Norman Podhoretz, who "hopes and prays" that we "bomb the Iranians into smithereens." It is thanks to his influence that the administration's discussion on Iran "has lost all connection to reality," according to Fareed Zakaria.

    It has been abundantly clear for a while that the most visible force pushing for war with Iran is our sleepy Vice President. Apparently, Cheney and his staff are such big fans of war, they'll even root for a strike against American troops so they can go ahead with an "accidental" war:
    One member of Cheney's national security staff, David Wurmser, worried out loud that Cheney felt that his wing was "losing the policy argument on Iran" inside the administration -- and that they might need to "end run" the president with scenarios that may narrow his choices. The option that Wurmser allegedly discussed was nudging Israel to launch a low-yield cruise missile strike against the Natanz nuclear reactor in Iran, thus "hopefully" prompting a military reaction by Tehran against U.S. forces in Iraq and the Gulf. When queried about Wurmser's alleged comments, a senior Bush administration official told the New York Times, "The vice president is not necessarily responsible for every single thing that comes out of the mouth of every single member of his staff."

    I had to read that paragraph a couple of times, it's so freaking unbelievable.

  • If you're wondering how I can justify calling them psychopaths, do me a favor -- take a look at this picture. This may seem like a rather obvious question, but given what they've already done up to this point, at what point can we officially start considering our decision-makers to be bloodthirsty crazy-people? When exactly are they obligated as human beings to start wondering: what actually happens when we drop bunker-busters on neighborhoods? What happens when we destroy another culture that we know so little about?

    Not interested in the human toll of war? Not to worry... the Washington Post has you covered.

  • Retired four-star General Tony McPeak says:
    This is a dark chapter in our history. Whatever else happens, our country's international standing has been frittered away by people who don't have the foggiest understanding of how the hell the world works. America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn't make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment [laughs]. If a guy is stupid, it makes a big difference.

No comments: