Hullabaloo

Monday, September 24, 2007

 
Oh My Stars!

by digby

Greenwald discusses the Ahmadinejad visit and notes, depressingly, that some people are now preparing to punish Columbia University for allowing this man a forum. Dear me. More vapors. These lovers of freedom and democracy need to loosen their corsets or they're going to get brain damage from all the smelling salts.

Ahmadinejad is fool, an authoritarian and an anti-semite. But allowing him to speak his nonsense in public is the essence of free speech. In any case, the Chancellor of the University attacked him so aggressively that it's hard to say he was given any kind of a free forum to make his point. (I assume that all but the worst Iraq warhawks are somewhat appeased.)

Greenwald points out that this is a neocon pearl clutch, designed to advance the absurd notion that we've actually been at war with Iran for 40 years.

In their minds, we are at war with Iran -- even though, in reality, i.e., according to our Constitution, we are not -- and all of the ensuing hysteria is rooted in the fantasy world they occupy in which Iran is our Enemy at War. By their nature, such fantasies cannot be reasoned with.

Here's an example of the reasoning which both liberals and paleos like Pat Buchanan are struggling to fend off:

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Question: Should the decision regarding whether a foreign head of government can place a wreath at the World Trade Center site be left up to local authorities? Eleanor Clift.

MS. CLIFT: Oh, that's a ruse. They're just hiding behind the local authorities. Look, this is a PR stunt by the Iranian leader, but why not? What do we have to fear from letting him go to Ground Zero?

First of all, the Iranian people were in the streets in Tehran in solidarity with this country after 9/11. And I don't see how this could be a negative in terms of trying to advance a dialogue between these two countries to have him pay his respects.

MR. BLANKLEY: Iran --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I want an answer to my question.

MR. BLANKLEY: Yeah, I'm going to give you an answer.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is it not true that the Constitution stipulates that international relations is handled by the federal government?

MR. BUCHANAN: It does, John.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Is that not an international relation?

MR. BUCHANAN: It does. And let me agree with Eleanor. Look, he has been obnoxious. He has been nasty. He has been stupid. But he's also the elected president of Iran and he's saying, "I'd like to come to America," a country with which you're at odds, "and lay a wreath at one of your most sacred sites." To me he has tried a couple of times to make openings, and we --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Did Reagan --

MR. BLANKLEY: Let me get a word --

MR. BUCHANAN: Reagan --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Wait a minute.

MR. BUCHANAN: He wrote a --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: He laid a wreath at Bitburg.

MR. BUCHANAN: Yes, he did.

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: And you wrote his comments.

MR. BUCHANAN: No, Ken Khachigian wrote them.

MR. BLANKLEY: That was --

MR. MCLAUGHLIN: Wait a minute.

MR. BLANKLEY: That was a war that had been over for 40 years. Iran today is trying to kill American troops in Iraq. To let a war leader against us come and put a wreath there is shocking.

He is a "war leader" you see. Just like Hitler. Only worse. Because we've been fighting him for years and now he's speaking on our sacred soil and Hitler never did. Or something.

Greenwald also talks about that bizarre broadcast with Ahmadinejad last night with Scott Pelley on CBS. It was supposed to be an interview but it was more like a rhetorical beating using neocon war drumsticks as weapons. You can see in the excerpt below, that he echoes Blankley pretty closely:

PELLEY: Mr. President, you say that the two nations are very close to one another, but it is an established fact now that Iranian bombs and Iranian know-how are killing Americans in Iraq. You have American blood on your hands. Why?

AHMADINEJAD: Well, this is what the American officials are saying. . . .

PELLEY: Mr. President, American men and women are being killed by your weapons in Iraq. You know this.

AHMADINEJAD: No, no, no.

PELLEY: Why are those weapons there?

AHMADINEJAD: Who's saying that?

PELLEY: The American Army has captured Iranian missiles in Iraq. The critical elements of the explosively formed penetrator bombs that are killing so many people are coming from Iran. There's no doubt about that anymore. The denials are no longer credible, sir. . . .

This has become an article of faith now, through sheer repetition. But it is hardly a settled fact, particularly since the military and the administration have cried wolf on this issue more than once. The mere fact that Joe Lieberman is frantically making this accusation every time he opens his mouth is enough to make me suspicious of it's credibility.

But, it's certainly possible, perhaps probable, that Iran is meddling in the Iraq civil war and that Americans could be killed by Iranian weapons. That's not good.

This is why it's so surprising that The Man Called Petraeus, about whom no words of criticism must ever be spoken lest you be struck down by the Lord himself, was so ... cavalier about allowing nearly 200,000 weapons to disappear on his watch:

The Pentagon has lost track of about 190,000 AK-47 assault rifles and pistols given to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to a new government report, raising fears that some of those weapons have fallen into the hands of insurgents fighting U.S. forces in Iraq.

The author of the report from the Government Accountability Office says U.S. military officials do not know what happened to 30 percent of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004 through early this year as part of an effort to train and equip the troops. The highest previous estimate of unaccounted-for weapons was 14,000, in a report issued last year by the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

The United States has spent $19.2 billion trying to develop Iraqi security forces since 2003, the GAO said, including at least $2.8 billion to buy and deliver equipment. But the GAO said weapons distribution was haphazard and rushed and failed to follow established procedures, particularly from 2004 to 2005, when security training was led by Gen. David H. Petraeus, who now commands all U.S. forces in Iraq.

I'm sure he didn't mean to allow those arms to go missing and I'm sure he would feel terrible if he found out that any of those arms killed Americans. But, you know, it's quite likely that some of them did.

It wasn't treason, needless to say, for him to lose track of hundreds of thousands of weapons but it was a very, very grave mistake and dangerous for all concerned. If we are going to declare war on the basis that Iran is killing US troops by giving insurgents weapons, it just strikes me as a tad inconsistent to be simultaneously hailing the man who mistakenly let some of those 200,000 American weapons into the hands of those same insurgents. I'm not saying it was a betrayal or anything (God forbid!) or that TMCP has "the blood of Americans on his hands." I'm just saying it is very, very bad to arm insurgents.


Oh, btw, the Jane Austen Book Review and Ladies Circle Jerk Society is having yet another hankywringer, this time in the House:

Hunter: I Will Try To ‘Cut Off Funds To Columbia University’ Because Of Ahmadinejad Speech

.
digby 9/24/2007 03:31:00 PM |