http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19988.htm
Insanity
By Charley Reese
25/05/08 "King Features Syndicate" -- - President George Bush and his tag-along buddy John McCain are repeating almost word for word about Iran the pattern of lies and threats they used to justify the war against Iraq.
Our intelligence agencies have said that Iran gave up the pursuit of a nuclear weapon three years ago. President Bush makes speeches as if he's never heard of any intelligence agencies. That's what worries me about President Bush. His words very often defy and contradict reality.
Recently, he almost repeated word for word a theme he often used in the buildup to the Iraq aggression. It was, he said, unthinkable to allow "the most dangerous regime to acquire the most dangerous weapons." This guy might actually launch an attack on Iran before his term expires. If he does, you can kiss the world economy goodbye. You don't like $4-a-gallon gas? How about $10 a gallon?
In the first place, Iran is far from the most dangerous regime in the world. I would say it is not dangerous at all, so far as the United States is concerned. Except for idiots, sane people assess threats based on capability, not on political rhetoric, intentions or imagination.
So what are the capabilities of Iran? It has no nuclear weapons. We have about 3,000 or more. One American submarine could destroy the entire country of Iran and its population. Iran has no missiles that could reach us. It has no aircraft that could reach us. Its army couldn't even defeat Iraq.
So what I want to know is how in the blankety-blank Hades Bush and McCain define the word "dangerous"? When their statements about Iran are placed side by side with the known facts, Bush and McCain sound insane.
Nothing alarms me more than the thought of an irrational person in the White House. I'm OK with stupid. I can live with venal. I can tolerate a womanizer, even a drunk, but a crazy person in command of our nuclear forces gives me the heebie-jeebies. Somebody who can't tell the difference between a nuclear-free Iran with no ICBMs and Russia with thousands of nuclear warheads sitting atop advanced intercontinental missiles has no business being allowed in the White House, even as a tourist.
There are two countries that have the capability of being a threat to us – Russia and China. That's foreign policy and geopolitical strategy at the kindergarten level. They have the capability. No other country in the world does. Only a moron would worry more about an ex-college professor with a long name whose office doesn't even control the armed forces than he would about Vladimir Putin. This present American administration, in one of the dumbest moves in the history of diplomacy, neglected our relations with Russia while it got us bogged down in two small desert countries that don't amount to a hill of coffee beans.
Also bear in mind that it doesn't matter diddly squat if some small country manages to make a few nuclear weapons. A few is no threat to many. Nobody with a few would be tempted to attack any country with many nuclear weapons.
Deterrence worked when the Soviet Union had 30,000 nuclear warheads, but these moronic, unscrupulous, intellectually dishonest, dishonorable neocons would convince you that deterrence wouldn't work against Iran.
I know most secular folks equate religion with insanity, but they are not the same. Iran is a religious nation, but its leaders are not crazy. They are smart and well-educated. They fought a long, grueling war with Iraq, and I think what they want more than anything else is a little peace and prosperity. But I think they are worried about Bush, McCain and Israel, and I don't blame them.
Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.
Full Version: Re: Insanity in the White House
OLD American Century / White Rose Society message boards > Political Discussion forums > Politics In General
The thing is, if there were a SourceWatch for leftish liberals, Charley Reese would not be on it. He's an conglomerate of various forms of conservatism, including libertarian.
What he expresses in his piece can fit pretty well into the IR theoretical approach known as realism, where you look at the nation state players as primarily rationally based, intelligent, and oriented towards achieving the best for their respective nations given their strategic potential.
Iran knows what its potential is far better than most people in the US ever will, and that's why they haven't attacked any of their neighbors in several centuries. And if they go through the enormous expense of actually developing a nuclear weapon, which this Administration may be so ignorant as to believe they are going to give to the likes of Usama bin Laden, who considers nearly the entire nation of Iran to populated with infadels, and all infadels to him have no business living on this planet, most of the reasonable people in this world aren't quite so dumb as to consider them an aggressive threat in the region. At best they hope to achieve some sort of defensive parity with their neighbors, like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey.
Big problem I see is that not a lot of conservatives I talk to can get past the "islamofascist" brainwashing that's been going down, which creates the deep seated knee jerk fears that this Administration needs in order to get people to toss their reason along with their individual rights in the trash can, and go with the fear mongering passed on about Iran.
I point out regularly on other boards that the Middle East policies are based on geostrategic positioning there with regards to Russia and China, but that the problem with the policy (which was formally formulated by the Carter Doctrine) is these irrational nitwits are scaring the bejeezus out of the majority who happen to be the rational people of the Middle East, who do not subscribe to the jihadis' view of the US, but who now no longer can find much difference between their extremist's and the US, now that they see what the citizens of this so-called democracy have done by allowing this Administration to make policies for the past seven years. That makes the "off shore balancing" policies that were in place before Gulf War I -- and which worked well because we had rational players in various of the nation states on our side, along with Europe -- non functional.
Our biggest error after the first Gulf War was leaving troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. That's the best explanation according to Pape's Study for why the bin Laden terrorist activity got focused on US soil in the 90s, and eventually led to 911. The biggest propaganda lie perpetrated by this Administration was to switch "They hate our troops stationed in their countries" (which Reagan knew, that's why he pulled them out of Lebanon after the barracks bombing) with: "They hate us for our freedom," which is true if you complete the sentence and add "to go anywhere we please and station our troops in anyone's lands we please."
What we need to do is remove our bases and return to that strategy. None of the Sunni based nations, especially, want a strong and aggressive Iran, but at the moment, the choice between that and an irrational US in the Middle East is not to their liking either.
What he expresses in his piece can fit pretty well into the IR theoretical approach known as realism, where you look at the nation state players as primarily rationally based, intelligent, and oriented towards achieving the best for their respective nations given their strategic potential.
Iran knows what its potential is far better than most people in the US ever will, and that's why they haven't attacked any of their neighbors in several centuries. And if they go through the enormous expense of actually developing a nuclear weapon, which this Administration may be so ignorant as to believe they are going to give to the likes of Usama bin Laden, who considers nearly the entire nation of Iran to populated with infadels, and all infadels to him have no business living on this planet, most of the reasonable people in this world aren't quite so dumb as to consider them an aggressive threat in the region. At best they hope to achieve some sort of defensive parity with their neighbors, like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey.
Big problem I see is that not a lot of conservatives I talk to can get past the "islamofascist" brainwashing that's been going down, which creates the deep seated knee jerk fears that this Administration needs in order to get people to toss their reason along with their individual rights in the trash can, and go with the fear mongering passed on about Iran.
I point out regularly on other boards that the Middle East policies are based on geostrategic positioning there with regards to Russia and China, but that the problem with the policy (which was formally formulated by the Carter Doctrine) is these irrational nitwits are scaring the bejeezus out of the majority who happen to be the rational people of the Middle East, who do not subscribe to the jihadis' view of the US, but who now no longer can find much difference between their extremist's and the US, now that they see what the citizens of this so-called democracy have done by allowing this Administration to make policies for the past seven years. That makes the "off shore balancing" policies that were in place before Gulf War I -- and which worked well because we had rational players in various of the nation states on our side, along with Europe -- non functional.
Our biggest error after the first Gulf War was leaving troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. That's the best explanation according to Pape's Study for why the bin Laden terrorist activity got focused on US soil in the 90s, and eventually led to 911. The biggest propaganda lie perpetrated by this Administration was to switch "They hate our troops stationed in their countries" (which Reagan knew, that's why he pulled them out of Lebanon after the barracks bombing) with: "They hate us for our freedom," which is true if you complete the sentence and add "to go anywhere we please and station our troops in anyone's lands we please."
What we need to do is remove our bases and return to that strategy. None of the Sunni based nations, especially, want a strong and aggressive Iran, but at the moment, the choice between that and an irrational US in the Middle East is not to their liking either.
Not to contradict anything that's been said so far, but the fact is the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and the imminent (I believe) attack on Iran have never been about threat or terrorism outside of the sales pitches presented by our media.
These occupations and imminent attacks are about oil first and foremost.
They create terrorism, and that is just as the ruling elite want it - keep us lot fearful and unquestioning while our rights and freedoms are slowly but surely striped, while watch-lists are compiled in preparedness for possible (likely?) marshal law.
This administration isn't so much insane as it is happy to have us believe that of it.
It's objectives are not to prevent or counter any threat or terrorism, it's objectives are to get it's hands on the one thing which spells continued economic growth (keep the wealth and power accelerating to the top) - the only thing that matters to them and their corporate sponsors - they want the oil and they will have it by any and all means possible!
These occupations and imminent attacks are about oil first and foremost.
They create terrorism, and that is just as the ruling elite want it - keep us lot fearful and unquestioning while our rights and freedoms are slowly but surely striped, while watch-lists are compiled in preparedness for possible (likely?) marshal law.
This administration isn't so much insane as it is happy to have us believe that of it.
It's objectives are not to prevent or counter any threat or terrorism, it's objectives are to get it's hands on the one thing which spells continued economic growth (keep the wealth and power accelerating to the top) - the only thing that matters to them and their corporate sponsors - they want the oil and they will have it by any and all means possible!
Look, will you people stop being rational, objective and coherant, and clearing the muddy waters !
Dammit ! What's a neocon or a neoconned drone going to do when all their antagonistic and shrill squealing is blown out of the water of lies and sinks without a gulp in the Gulf !
Don't you people realise the angst and emotional problems you're causing to the neoconned, who were happy jerking along to the "evil Islamofascist" bogey-man that the mil/ind/media monster had squeezed into their frontal lobes ?
You, Rén, and Karen, you're taking away the emotional safety blanket of stupidity and ignorance from our neoconned co-citizens. I hope you're proud of yourselves...
Take away their scary bogeyman, and all those plebs may just wipe the drool from their chins, turn off FUX News and slowly shake themselves awake, and actually take a look at what the neocons are doing behind their back.....
There's always hope.
Go for it !
Dammit ! What's a neocon or a neoconned drone going to do when all their antagonistic and shrill squealing is blown out of the water of lies and sinks without a gulp in the Gulf !
Don't you people realise the angst and emotional problems you're causing to the neoconned, who were happy jerking along to the "evil Islamofascist" bogey-man that the mil/ind/media monster had squeezed into their frontal lobes ?
You, Rén, and Karen, you're taking away the emotional safety blanket of stupidity and ignorance from our neoconned co-citizens. I hope you're proud of yourselves...
Take away their scary bogeyman, and all those plebs may just wipe the drool from their chins, turn off FUX News and slowly shake themselves awake, and actually take a look at what the neocons are doing behind their back.....
There's always hope.
Go for it !
How's it going there in the Topix wars, Rousseau? 
What a nightmare. What a wake up call to be there!
Karen, funny thing, I mentioned to one of Rousseau's "neoconned" citizens that he'd skipped the Carter Doctrine in his explanation for why the US is in the Middle East, which, from his perspective, was because of the threat that Islam posed to him as an "enemy" and had nothing to do with oil. He immediately dismissed my comment and snorted his deep derision at Carter. Two very common conservative responses I find.
This argument against oil as the basis for all this militaristic foreign policy by the US is a fairly well scammed mantra from many of the conservatives now. This one I was talking with cited a book by a recent Pope's biographer: Faith, Reason, and The War Against Jihadism who is highly respected Catholic scholar George Weigel. The guy I was "discussing" the issue with, who teaches at a University, therefore not just your average Joe Sixpack, told me in effect that until I read that book, he wouldn't listen to anything I had to say. It was another of those apples and oranges argumentative responses because I was coming at it from the formality of the rule of law, and the threats to me and my personal rights that I see going on in our society right now as a result of massive propaganda, and a Constitution challenging strategy that is beginning to defy the very rule of law that protects my rights. The book I can see from looking at reviews is a basic religious/moral argument defining the "enemy" (who the guy claims one "must know") in these terms, not legal terms, and I identified it as fear mongering, not something that has a basis in the rule of law or the protection of my individual rights. Rousseau managed to do a fine sleuthing job and connected this highly respected Catholic scholar to the Neoconservatives, showing once again how interconnected these tentacles are in our political network. This was Rousseau's link: Right Web: Richard John Neuhaus and the "Institute on Religion and Public Life" and George Weigel of the "Ethics and Public Policy Center".
The interesting thing is, this guy I was "talking" to acted as if he'd never heard of Neoconservatives. His primary resource was this book he wanted me to read. Most of his arguments derived from it, and he used terms like "islamofascism" and such to describe Iran and much of the threat he saw as endemic in the religion of Islam. Why notice that? Because telling people they have been "Neoconned" doesn't mean anything if the very nature of Neoconservatism has permeated into areas that do not even consciously associate themselves as Neoconservatism. In this case I was talking to a conservative Catholic. So this is how one can go about identifying how ideas spread in society and how propaganda becomes the very basis of policy making. Identifying, for instance, that idealists have much more in common with people of faith than realists do can help to explain why ideals such as "spreading democracy" can be more persuasive with religious minded folks than folks who stand aside from religion and recognize the importance of a government that focuses on individual rights being protected by the rule of law. Religious morality doesn't always mix with law all that well.
The US has no formal "war on terror." Congress has not declared such a war -- how could it? How would such a declaration of war be formulated within the legal framework of the Constitution? Yet, according to a very well documented book by Ian S. Lustick, Trapped in the War on Terror, not only are our national and international policies being fabricated out of this informally declared principle, our very legislation itself, as well as the funding towards which our taxes are collected and allocated, is deeply embedded in now a very long term way with this essentially fear based national concept. The rule of law has in a sense been replaced by the rule of fear. And books and other "moral" based, or shall we say "faith based" arguments are useful in persuading us to give up our very basic rights and in the process our nation's Founders based on the rule of law, knowing the vagueries of theocratic based, and monarchical based rule.
The Carter Doctrine said the following:
It also identified the very basis of the US's vital interests in the region:
Anyone who follows history knows the following:
Yet, over and over again I find the practical reality of oil being denied and replaced by a fear of what amounts to a fraction of one percent of Islam, the Jihadists, who our media trumpets to such an extent the majority of citizens in the US have come to believe they represent Islam, when in fact most Muslims look at their extremists much as Christians view the extremists we call religious cults, like David Koresh and his Branch Davidians, which correlates to the Oklahoma City bombing that took place on the anniversary of the Waco catastrophe. Christians in this country would call that Federal building bombing a godless act, just as Muslims would call most Jihadists activities non muslim in their extremism. So correlating Jihadism to all Muslims, would be like correlating Branch Davidians and other Christian extremists to all Christians.
So, conclusion, I don't see you as contradicting, but it takes a little explanation to show why. Sadly, none of this fits into sound bites.
What a nightmare. What a wake up call to be there!Karen, funny thing, I mentioned to one of Rousseau's "neoconned" citizens that he'd skipped the Carter Doctrine in his explanation for why the US is in the Middle East, which, from his perspective, was because of the threat that Islam posed to him as an "enemy" and had nothing to do with oil. He immediately dismissed my comment and snorted his deep derision at Carter. Two very common conservative responses I find.
This argument against oil as the basis for all this militaristic foreign policy by the US is a fairly well scammed mantra from many of the conservatives now. This one I was talking with cited a book by a recent Pope's biographer: Faith, Reason, and The War Against Jihadism who is highly respected Catholic scholar George Weigel. The guy I was "discussing" the issue with, who teaches at a University, therefore not just your average Joe Sixpack, told me in effect that until I read that book, he wouldn't listen to anything I had to say. It was another of those apples and oranges argumentative responses because I was coming at it from the formality of the rule of law, and the threats to me and my personal rights that I see going on in our society right now as a result of massive propaganda, and a Constitution challenging strategy that is beginning to defy the very rule of law that protects my rights. The book I can see from looking at reviews is a basic religious/moral argument defining the "enemy" (who the guy claims one "must know") in these terms, not legal terms, and I identified it as fear mongering, not something that has a basis in the rule of law or the protection of my individual rights. Rousseau managed to do a fine sleuthing job and connected this highly respected Catholic scholar to the Neoconservatives, showing once again how interconnected these tentacles are in our political network. This was Rousseau's link: Right Web: Richard John Neuhaus and the "Institute on Religion and Public Life" and George Weigel of the "Ethics and Public Policy Center".
The interesting thing is, this guy I was "talking" to acted as if he'd never heard of Neoconservatives. His primary resource was this book he wanted me to read. Most of his arguments derived from it, and he used terms like "islamofascism" and such to describe Iran and much of the threat he saw as endemic in the religion of Islam. Why notice that? Because telling people they have been "Neoconned" doesn't mean anything if the very nature of Neoconservatism has permeated into areas that do not even consciously associate themselves as Neoconservatism. In this case I was talking to a conservative Catholic. So this is how one can go about identifying how ideas spread in society and how propaganda becomes the very basis of policy making. Identifying, for instance, that idealists have much more in common with people of faith than realists do can help to explain why ideals such as "spreading democracy" can be more persuasive with religious minded folks than folks who stand aside from religion and recognize the importance of a government that focuses on individual rights being protected by the rule of law. Religious morality doesn't always mix with law all that well.
The US has no formal "war on terror." Congress has not declared such a war -- how could it? How would such a declaration of war be formulated within the legal framework of the Constitution? Yet, according to a very well documented book by Ian S. Lustick, Trapped in the War on Terror, not only are our national and international policies being fabricated out of this informally declared principle, our very legislation itself, as well as the funding towards which our taxes are collected and allocated, is deeply embedded in now a very long term way with this essentially fear based national concept. The rule of law has in a sense been replaced by the rule of fear. And books and other "moral" based, or shall we say "faith based" arguments are useful in persuading us to give up our very basic rights and in the process our nation's Founders based on the rule of law, knowing the vagueries of theocratic based, and monarchical based rule.
The Carter Doctrine said the following:
QUOTE
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
It also identified the very basis of the US's vital interests in the region:
QUOTE
The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic importance: It contains more than two-thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian Ocean and close to the Straits of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil must flow. The Soviet Union is now attempting to consolidate a strategic position, therefore, that poses a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil.
Anyone who follows history knows the following:
QUOTE
The Persian Gulf region continued to be regarded as an area of vital importance to the United States during the Cold War. Three Cold War United States Presidential doctrines—the Truman Doctrine, the Eisenhower Doctrine, and the Nixon Doctrine—played roles in the formulation of the Carter Doctrine. The Truman Doctrine, which stated that the United States would send military aid to countries which were threatened by Soviet communism, was used to strengthen the security of Iran and Saudi Arabia. In October 1950, President Harry Truman wrote to King Ibn Saud that "the United States is interested in the preservation of the independence and territorial integrity of Saudi Arabia. No threat to your Kingdom could occur which would not be a matter of immediate concern to the United States." The Eisenhower Doctrine in turn called for U.S. troops to be sent to the Middle East to defend U.S. allies against their Soviet-backed adversaries. Finally, application of the Nixon Doctrine provided military aid to Iran and Saudi Arabia so that these U.S. allies could ensure peace and stability in the region. In 1979, the Iranian Revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan prompted the restatement of U.S. interests in the region in the form of the Carter Doctrine.
Yet, over and over again I find the practical reality of oil being denied and replaced by a fear of what amounts to a fraction of one percent of Islam, the Jihadists, who our media trumpets to such an extent the majority of citizens in the US have come to believe they represent Islam, when in fact most Muslims look at their extremists much as Christians view the extremists we call religious cults, like David Koresh and his Branch Davidians, which correlates to the Oklahoma City bombing that took place on the anniversary of the Waco catastrophe. Christians in this country would call that Federal building bombing a godless act, just as Muslims would call most Jihadists activities non muslim in their extremism. So correlating Jihadism to all Muslims, would be like correlating Branch Davidians and other Christian extremists to all Christians.
So, conclusion, I don't see you as contradicting, but it takes a little explanation to show why. Sadly, none of this fits into sound bites.
Hi, Rén, sorry it's taken a while for me to reply, I've been pretty busy with reality...
The Topix-quest to illuminate the dim bulbs in bright rooms continues, but it's impressive the sheer resistance to truth, logic, rational thinking and facts that the neoconned and their connedservative pets put up.
Tragic, really, but explained by a deep cluelessness in a certain strata of society. It's like someone sucked out the ability to reason and concentrate on Cartesian thinking with these people.
Ken seemed like he had begun to open slightly to reality, but when you returned to sanity on the other side of the looking glass, he collapsed back into the usual Islamophobic, hate-filled neocon servant and connedservative slave to the reichwing echo chamber.
Wrongald has slithered down into a desperate offensive pool of slimy obfuscation, as you said he would, and he's not even amusing anymore.
It actually feels quite cruel, prodding him, indeed, I almost feel sorry for his condition.
It must be hard being a fascist tool and an unpleasant moron with a personality defect, and not understanding why the charisma of a week-old dead fish killed by oil pollution is a negative character trait.
Still, it takes all sorts to make the internut go "wibble."
And "wibble" it does...
http://www.vtap.com/video/Blackadder+Goes+...61073_646002f3c
The Topix-quest to illuminate the dim bulbs in bright rooms continues, but it's impressive the sheer resistance to truth, logic, rational thinking and facts that the neoconned and their connedservative pets put up.
Tragic, really, but explained by a deep cluelessness in a certain strata of society. It's like someone sucked out the ability to reason and concentrate on Cartesian thinking with these people.
Ken seemed like he had begun to open slightly to reality, but when you returned to sanity on the other side of the looking glass, he collapsed back into the usual Islamophobic, hate-filled neocon servant and connedservative slave to the reichwing echo chamber.
Wrongald has slithered down into a desperate offensive pool of slimy obfuscation, as you said he would, and he's not even amusing anymore.
It actually feels quite cruel, prodding him, indeed, I almost feel sorry for his condition.
It must be hard being a fascist tool and an unpleasant moron with a personality defect, and not understanding why the charisma of a week-old dead fish killed by oil pollution is a negative character trait.
Still, it takes all sorts to make the internut go "wibble."
And "wibble" it does...
http://www.vtap.com/video/Blackadder+Goes+...61073_646002f3c
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.