09.28.07

Whether you say III or IV, you have to say World War

Posted in Congress, North Korea, latin america at 3:11 am by Administrator

Ahmadinejad cavorts with his own in Latin America in the afterglow of his dhimmi-schmooze in Manhattan.

  • Share/Bookmark

7 Comments »

  1. Mr. Dings said,

    September 28, 2007 at 2:37 pm

    Gotta be III ’cause there ain’t gonna be no IV. The guy is a nut case, pure and simple. We should be concentrating on how to get him out of there in his own country. Next presidential election there is 2009. We know when ours is. Prepare your progeny! This will not be a Muslim world any more than it is a Christian world, unless either surrenders to win by nothing so great as love. A Monroe Doctrine might have to be invoked here. What happened between us and our largely Christian friends to the South in our own Americas? Over many dead bodies. What kind of God are you, God? Statecraft or else. And I do not get where you think A schmoozed any American in Manhattan. The guy is not even in touch with reality. Please cite polls on the number of Americans he persuaded. If I have to urge my children and grand children to fight I will, only because I am too old. But I am not to old to remember the history we are condemned to repeat if we do not remember. Some may cheer the apocalypse, but, oh, me must be of little faith, except in Tao, the way of things if we would simply let them be. Yawn at this nutso, unless we have to quash him. It will be a fearful day, but if it must come, freedom will ring more loudly than the bombast here. Half the world is neither Christian or Muslim. Five per cent of us are nutso sociopaths. That is a lot of nut cases.

  2. Bentnotesmanhisself said,

    September 28, 2007 at 4:23 pm

    You might want to read the Time magazine piece about the press dinner he hosted at the Intercontinental Hotel.

  3. Mr. Dings said,

    September 29, 2007 at 12:20 pm

    The word is you neo-cons are freaking (who knew?), in most of what I read. This, from admittedly dovish Joe Klein in Time, headed “Inflating a Little Man:

    http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1665905,00.html

    A snippet: “Ahmadinejad’s appearance was a small but telling moment in the rolling overhyped crisis that is George W. Bush’s so-called war on terrorism. The Iranian President’s words had no practical, only symbolic, glob�al import. He has very little real power in Iran, none over foreign policy or the nuclear program. He has no more power than his predecessor, the failed reformer Mohammed Khatami, who came to be regarded in the West and in Iran as a well-dressed cipher. Indeed, Ahmadinejad has failed in the one area where he actually does have some authority: reforming the sluggish oligopoly that is the Iranian domestic economy. There have been riots over the rising price of gasoline. His political future is shaky. And yet this strange little man who brings to mind Peter Sellers more readily than Adolf Hitler — Sellers playing one of his brilliantly befogged simpletons — occasioned a classic, free-range American outrage festival, in which everyone, even Hillary Clinton, happily granted him exactly the opprobrium he desired.”

    And, this on the Opinion page of today’s Columbus Republic, by Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer at:

    http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/trudy_rubin/20070928_Worldview___My_dinner_with_Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad.html

    A snippet from her dinner with Ahma: “This is a man of overweening self-confidence who believes his own rhetoric. He badly misunderstands the American system, but is certain that he gets it. He prefaces every meeting with a long religious prologue calling for justice, peace and friendship, yet his words increase tensions. The overwhelming sense I had from the dinner was of opportunities being squandered to improve U.S.-Iranian relations. But is Ahmadinejad another Hitler, as some neoconservatives charge? Hold the question. First, have a look at what he said.”

    She concludes: “One was left with the impression that there is slim chance on Iran’s side for actions to reduce tensions, including cooperation on Afghanistan or Iraq. But Ahmadinejad as Hitler? When asked what he thought of the German dictator, the Iranian replied: “His image to us is a despicably dark face.”

    More to the point, Ahmadinejad has nothing like Hitler’s power. He never replied to my second question: “Who really makes foreign and security policy in Iran?” Those decisions aren’t his, but are made by Iran’s supreme clerical leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Ahmadinejad’s popularity is dropping at home because he hasn’t delivered on economic promises (although insults hurled at him in America may boost his standings). Many observers think he will lose in 2009 elections.

    Frustrating he is, because his rhetoric inflames tensions and gives ammo to politicians who want military action. But Hitler he is not.

    Ah, but this has been a country with two “truths” since the Viet Nam “conflict” (at least that is when it became most “self-evident.”
    We do not believe A. He wears his Islamic soul on his sleeve. He does not indeed understand us at all. Nor, apparently do the self-proclaimed neo-conservative “freedom lovers” or whatever is the opposite of their name for their countrymen who do not agree with their agenda line by line. Hitler Hissie Harkers?

  4. Mr. Dings said,

    September 29, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    And we with our freedom loving and caring with our heads out of our soft pathetic posteriors know that your all this and World War IV rhetoric is from Stormin Norman P.

  5. Bentnotesmanhisself said,

    September 29, 2007 at 1:40 pm

    Ah, Norman Podhoretz. One of the great intellects and moral lights of the last fifty years. A very big influence on my worldview. I remember the 1987 Committee for the Free World conference in DC well.

    The business about neocons painting Ahmadinejad as a Hitler is a red herring. They / we / everybody knows he speaks for the mullahs who truly run things. That’s the real danger – as the great Michael Ledeen points out every chance he gets: the regime itself is and has been since 1979 a self-declared mortal enemy of the West. And now it’s working on a nuke.

  6. Mr. Dings said,

    September 29, 2007 at 5:35 pm

    We all know that as much as that Commie Russia had and has them. We do not need to go freaking out like we did going into Iraq before it was time to do so. Now Cheney et al have their backs against the wall and are blaming everyone but themselves. We see that too. Crybaby bullie boys, that crew.

  7. Bentnotesmanhisself said,

    September 29, 2007 at 7:43 pm

    Well, nobody’s talking about freaking out. What the sanest voices addressing the issue are saying is that now is the time to impose real tough sanctions. And it appears that’s not going to happen. The stinkin’ European Union got the Security Council to hold off on sanctions until at least November, when el-Baradei issues yet another report, as if his reports tell us anything. The window of opportunity to go the sanctions route won’t be open very long.

Leave a Comment