Roger Kimball asks: “Will the soldiers whom Hasan killed or injured in this latest terrorist assault receive the Purple Heart?” Well, they should, as he points out, because they were killed in the line of duty by a jihadist who told us hewas on a mission from God to attack American troops. Kimball observes:
It’s tricky for Obama. His administration is devoted to transforming the jihadist war against the West into a civilian conflict. Hence the heavy odor of political correctness that has hung about Fort. Hood since November 5 when Maj. Hasan shouted “Allahu Akbar” and opened fire.
Perhaps the most nauseating PC emission came from General George Casey, the army’s top officer, who told CNN that he was “concerned” that “speculation” about Maj. Hasan’s motivation in mowing down those 40-odd people at Ft. Hood “could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers.”
So we are being tested, once again, to see whether we can shake ourselves from the slumber and the natural inclination to minimize, avoid, and ignore the looming face of monstrous evil that threatens not only individual Americans but also Western civilization. That’s what is at stake here and what the Obama administration is at pains to conceal. It makes them nervous, it disrupts their kumbaya internationalist view, and it would summon them to put away childish stunts (e.g., moving KSM to New York, closing Guantanamo, purging “Islamic fundamentalism” from their vocabulary) in favor of a robust policy of national security that is commensurate with the threat we face.
As Kimball notes, Obama insisted on calling the massacre “incomprehensible,” a telling word that describes perhaps the intellectual confusion now gripping much of the chattering class. Kimball observes, “Until we are willing to face up to that truth, we will not be able to defend ourselves effectively.” So far, we’re off to a poor start.
“But in this case I have decided to respond because, by linking to a sober source like the Economist, he may for a change seem credible.”
The Economist is no longer “a sober source.” It is increasingly becoming an undependable leftist rag like the New York Times. It is also sad that we must waste time responding to intellectual lightweights like Andrew Sullivan. He fails to even begin to comprehend the threat of Islamic nihilism. Anyone who spends a modest amount of time studying the subject cannot possible believe that these people would not destroy the Western World if given half a chance. They also have no hesitation of sacrificing the lives of their own people to accomplish this goal.
Really, some overheated, hyperbolic statements from a politician is not much of a case for bombing Iran. Just because some nutcase says “Let Iran burn” does not mean that this statement is going to be put into practice as state policy. Millions of other Iranians don’t go along with this. Does Bush’s statement “you are either with us or with the terrorists” mean he is going to war with every country that does not support our “war on terrorism?”
re: The Economist,
“a leftist rag”, indeed.
Sadly so.
There has apparently been some redefinition of what ‘leftist’ means. I must have missed a meeting.
Just because The Economist is dry and boring doesn’t mean that it is sober. While it does a good job of covering world politics, its commentary and analysis are trite, pedestrian and do not deviate from conventional (i.e. repeated) wisdom. There is very little original thought in the analysis pieces. But in reading the ponderous prose, you might overlook that fact as your eyes glaze over.
am old enough to remember the fools who believed there could be “Peace in Our Time With Herr Hitler”. The same blindness aflicts many today concerning Iran.
Has there ever been an instance where a nation’s leaders calmly and openly contemplated their country’s total physical annihilation in pursuit of a “higher” goal? No wonder most of us have a hard time wrapping our minds around the concept. It is at least as challenging to our sensibilities as was the idea of a Holocaust before World War II. But as Mr. Taheri’s letter implies, if Stalin and Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot could collectively murder nearly100 million class or racial “enemies” to fulfill an ideology, there is little reason to doubt that Iran’s millenarians are capable of similar crimes in a religious context. We balk at the notion of deliberate national suicide only because most of us have only begun to internalize the anti- or supra-national mentality increasingly prevalent in much of the modern world. Communism foundered on the rock of nationalism but globalism has since progressed far beyond even its earlier, 19th Century status — witness the EU and our own open-borders movement, not to mention unprecedented cross-border capital flows. Khomeinism and its Sunni counterparts represent merely the darkest side of the phenomenon. And why, after all, must the nation-state be the last word in 5000 years of human development? It is arguably an inconsequential blip, however some of us may cherish its undeniable positive manifestations.
“Millions of other Iranians don’t go along with this.”
Dictators do not usually have to worry about the wishes of their people. Iran is not a democracy! The Mullahs do not have to worry about being pushed out of power in the next election. Also, Iran is already unofficially at war with the United States. It is constantly pushing the proverbial envelope to see what it can get way with. Our dishonestly pacifist and utopian “elites” merely pretend that this isn’t the case.
Mr. Podhoretz,
I just wanted to take this opportinity to thank you fopr all you do, say and write. Some of your longer articles have confirmed for me in detail what my (once tentative) mind knew to be true in general. Keep fighting the good fight. And may G-d bless and keep you and yours!
Bruce Wechsler….who shall not submit.
CZ said: “Really, some overheated, hyperbolic statements from a politician is not much of a case for bombing Iran. Just because some nutcase says “Let Iran burn” does not mean that this statement is going to be put into practice as state policy.”
Except, the overheated nutcase politician is more than a politician, he is also a revered religious leader. When Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it will be followers of this ideology that have the “finger on the button.” If there is no priority on the survival of Iran, then the will of those citizens that will be wiped out is of little matter as well. But perhaps actually considering the implications of Khomieni’s statement are less important to CZ then being on the “right” side of using force. I assume CZ supports Sullivan’s opinions. The Dish deserves its readership.
Everybody who listens to Norman’ wild crazy rantings, deserves it
Does Bush’s statement “you are either with us or with the terrorists” mean he is going to war with every country that does not support our “war on terrorism”
In making this challenge, Bush was warning those countries that harbored or supported terrorism that the US would no longer look the other way if they continued to do so.
He was not referring to every country that didn’t support his Administration’s policies against terrorism. The “us or them” standard was, again, directed at terrorist-sponsoring states and not the world at large.
Critics, for some reason, miss this important distinction.
How dare you call my favourite publication a leftist rag. Since when did I ever buy a newspaper of magazine and let leftoids take it over unless they were already there and making mega bucks in advertising to the village idiots. The Economist is no more leftist than a book by Adam Smith. Next thing you’ll be calling the Post a radical lezfem front for page three girls.
I agree that the Economist has drifted to the left, but it’s not un-American in the way many leftist publications in Europe are. For example, it recently published piece on Dollywood (a place I’ve no interest in attending, but the writer used it to riff on the positive aspects of the America between the two coasts):
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10098973
If Iran’s mullahs are to be held in the same ragard as Nazi Germany, Cambodia, the USSR, etc…where are the ovens? Where are the mass graves? Khomeni and his successors have had some thirty years of power now. If the most they muster is repression of dissent, torture and political murder on a minor scale, and anti-democratic steps to hold their grip on power against the will of the larger population, how can we take anyone seriously who seeks to equate them to Pol Pot? How are they any worse than regimes the United States propped up for decades in Latin America. Pdhoretz makes a great game out of casting aspersions against someone like Sullivan but in the same breath continues to peddle the same unsubstantiated, unprovable assertions by someone who is a known liar. This is out and out ridiculous, and, as Sullivan rightly points out, intellectually dishonest. Either that or feeble. You make the call.
Funny. The quote cannot be verified and the “source” who claims it exist also claimed that Iran was forcing Jews in Iran to wear yellow stars on their clothing in public.
Why do you neoconservatives continuously rely upon discredited sources for your assertions? Is that all you have?
Hey Bakum, do you really want to find out what they will do if they get the bomb? Hey, Fisk, do you really believe Andrew Sullivan over Norman Podheretz? Oh, right, you called him a “neocon”, so I guess I just answered my own question!
Deter This
Here’s a quote from Ayatollah Khomeini that demonstrates why Iran getting nuclear weapons is especially problematic:We do not worship Iran, we worship All…
Yes, W .
We, all normal people with a self functioning brain believe A.Sullivan, J.Cole and my cat before I will believe any sound coming from the Norm’s mouth
bakum, if you are claiming that the absence of past tangible proof that the mullahs would likely commit future mass murder is reason to permit them to have nuclear weapons, I simply disagree. If a person with no criminal record whatsoever went around publicly discussing killing a fellow citizen, if necessary by commiting suicide, would you give him access to high explosives or argue that preventing him from acquiring them wasn’t worth the trouble?
Sashal not only talks to her cat, she has a conversation with the dumb animal.
So let me get this straight. Norman Podhoretz is acusing Andrew Sullivan of “shrill hysteria”.
“You’re traveling through another dimension — a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. A journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are that of imagination. That’s a signpost up ahead: your next stop: the Twilight Zone!”
I too want to thank Norman Podhoretz for his clear minded efforts over the years. Let’s hope we awaken from our utopian dreams before it’s too late. Andrew Sullivan is a study in how personal psychopathology, a psychosexual fascination with perversions, can be transmuted into a political stance. He is fascinated by, sees and protests ‘torture’ everywhere, except among those likely to use it on him.
I’m still concerned about the Canadians in 2053. If we don’t nuke them now, they’re going to “canuke” us then.
Seth, you are entirely missing the point. Podhoretz makes claims and supports them by citing a known fabricator. He makes logical constructions which do not make any sense. Iran simply is not Nazi Germany. They’ve had thirty years to do it and they’ve not even successfully suppressed student dissent within their own country. Further, when’s the last time they launched an aggressive action against another state? Stalin came to power, built an army and promptly slaughtered a few million people. Nazi Germany, Cambodia, same thing. Tehran has had thirty years and what have they done? Again, Podhoretz is calling Sullivan shrill but who’s making the paranoid delusional arguments? Podhoretz.
When we’re trying to make decisions about foreign policy we need to have RATIONAL arguments based on FACTS, not hysteria which only serves to reinforce a particular set of neuroses. I don’t want anyone, Tehran included, to get the capability to produce nuclear material let alone the capability to launch a nuclear tipped missle. Niether do I want a paranoid chicken-little to drive us off into the ditch to avoid potential hazards on the road that we don’t even know are real. Obviously we need to make hard decisions, obviously there are bad people in the world that would love to do us harm for the sake of doing us harm. Obviously our bellicose, interventionist foreign policy has caused more trouble in and for Iran than the Iranians have ~ever~ caused us. Why repeat the same mistakes?
>> Andrew Sullivan is a study in how personal psychopathology, a psychosexual fascination with perversions, can be transmuted into a political stance.
Re: Economist as “leftist rag”
To view a British paper that supported Dole in 1996 and Bush in 2000 and has consistently backed the Iraq war while deploring Bush’s execution as “leftist” is comical. The Economist has always considered itself as “liberal” in the European 19th century meaning of the world and does not view itself as having a consistent partisan ideology in terms of modern parties where it is uncomfortable with both the left and the right.
No, the Economist is not a “leftist rag” and Andrew Sullivan is not an off the wall loony.
Both may be controversial at times and even wrong, but they are responsible and reasonable voices. That however, is the problem.
Reliable publications and respected commentators are accepting the idea that the Iran threat is exaggerated, that her leadership is not fanatic and jihadist, and that it will be possible to live with an Iranian bomb.
They are dead wrong. At stake are the lives of hundreds of thousands.
As long as the leadership in Tehran is committed to Ayatollah Khomeini’s teachings an Iranian nuclear arsenal will mean its employment. Those fingers with their messianic convictions will not be able to resist the red button. The chance to serve Allah by punishing the Great and Little Satans will win out over the consequences to Iran. It will be rationalized as just be another shaheed action, only on a large scale, allowing many Iranians to be martyred and rewarded with paradise.
The people at The Economist, and bloggers like Andrew Sullivan refuse to look into that darkness.
This would be the Amir Taheri who broadcast the story about a year ago that Iranian jews were going to have to wear yellow stars, or stripes or something. When this story then turned into a force 9 poopstorm Taheri was forced to admit it no foundation. I’m no fan of Sullivan who is a hysterical crackpot, but if Podhoretz is quoting Taheri as his source I’d ay it was hard to say who was the nuttier. However, I repose some trust in the Economist. If they say Podhoretz was telling porkies I’m prepared to believe them for the simple reason they don’t run stories like this without running the facts to earth.
It is “twilight zone” material to hear those on the left talk about the need to focus on facts since facts are the last elements of their arguments. The left lives by an “Alice in Wonderland” theory of reality where if you say something three times, it must be true. We see this over an over from the 80′s with “the republicans want to starve children and make senior citizens eat cat food” all the way up to “Bush lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction”, etc. The last thing the left wants is for people to resort to the facts, for the people to become sufficiently aware to determine for themselves what is going on. The evidence is everywhere as the liberal democrats try to look like anything but while the “evil conservatives” lay it all out for everyone to see. The left depends upon emotional appeals based upon shallow analysis and grossly exaggerated charges concerning the right. On the contrary, any discussion on the right is based upon actual evidence and rational thought. With the left, you get name calling and disruption whenever another point of view is expressed. Those on the right welcome rational discussion and argument. The conduct of the left on college campuses is fascism in action, pure and simple, and is exactly the same thing the brown shirts did in Nazi’s rise to power in Germany – just bully those who don’t agree.
I agree with NaCl. The thing that frightens me the most is that those on the left will prevent us from protecting ourselves and the only thing that will allow them to look “into the darkness” is another attack on our soil.
They believe we overreact. But if we had said that 9-11 would happen before it did, we would have been scoffed at by the left and we all know this.
Forgive me for being afraid. But I listen to history, not pundits.
The way I see this playing out is that Bush will not have the political capital to bomb Iran. The next president will try to make the case that we need to strike militarily at Iran to get rid of their nuclear weapons. That might work. If it doesn’t, Iran will go on and make a nuclear weapon that they will use. If they are wise, they will put hundreds of these into the the hands of Hezbollah. Then they will set them off. It depends on how many they can get and how close they get to military installations as to how effective this will be. They may be able to take out our land and air-based missles, but they won’t be able to take out our submarines. If we still have the capability, we will launch a conventional bombing attack on Iran that will make Dresden look like a firecracker. Civilian lives in Iran will be not be worth much, our objective will be to completely wipe out everything. The same probably goes for Lebanon. If they cripple our armed forces to the extent that we cannot make this conventional attack, then we will use our submarines with nuclear warheads. If we are wise, we will use the neutron bomb in these warheads whereby there will be minimal radiactive fallout to neighboring countries. If not, we will need to ask China or Russia to do the dirty work for us or risk everyone going down.
“No, the Economist is not a “leftist rag” and Andrew Sullivan is not an off the wall loony.
Both may be controversial at times and even wrong, but they are responsible and reasonable voices. That however, is the problem.”
You are trying to be a nice person. Nonetheless, it is very fair to describe Andrew Sullivan as “an off the wall looney.” This is not even a slight exaggeration. Sullivan long ago lost the right to be taken seriously. The same holds true with the politically correct Economist magazine. It is indeed looking more like the New York Times.
We are obligated not to censor or burn Sullivan and the editors of the Economist at the stake. That is, however, all we owe them. They are not deserving of unearned praise simply to prevent hurting their feelings.
bakum Says: November 19th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
are you kidding me? gee i dont know how abut the proxy battles and murders through terrorist organizations funded, armed, and LED by Iran? You are a subversed stooge. I bet you Aced all your LIBERAL arts classes.
Mr Podhoretz, you cannot determine international politics by quotes from national leaders. The real driving forces which affect us are national interests. Now I don’t sympathise with the mullahs, and I think Mr Ahmedinijad’s comments on Israel are disgusting. However, this radical Islamism that is being promoted in Iran is used to maintain the Mullahs position of power. You must remember that Iran is a major producer of oil, and wants to maintain it’s status as a significant power in the region. The Mullahs feels threatened by the overwhelming power of the United States, as well as the growing scepticism of the regime among Iran’s middle class. The best way to approach Iran is through diplomacy. Attacking the country would only play into the leader’s hands by uniting the country further.
Remeber, the Soviet Union presented us with far greater threats to the Western world, but by negotiation, it collapsed on itself over time.
“Stephen Rittenberg Says: November 19th, 2007 at 5:14 pm – I too want to thank Norman Podhoretz for his clear minded efforts over the years. Let’s hope we awaken from our utopian dreams before it’s too late. Andrew Sullivan is a study in how personal psychopathology, a psychosexual fascination with perversions, can be transmuted into a political stance. He is fascinated by, sees and protests ‘torture’ everywhere, except among those likely to use it on him.”
SR would seem to be the one with a “psychosexual fascination with perversions”, if that’s all he sees in AS.
“”When we’re trying to make decisions about … policy we need to have RATIONAL arguments based on FACTS, not hysteria…”"
I wish the left felt this way when discussing anthropogenic global warming.
After the fiasco with Iraqi WMD intelligence, one would think Podhoretz would be extra careful about drawing water from another potentially poisoned well. If anything, this questionable quotation informs readers there is a lower standard for guilt in this column, assuming the evidence supports the plaintiff’s case.
Jason, Proxy battles “through organizations funded, armed, and LED by Iran.” This puts them on par with Pol Pot exactly how? It doesn’t, that’s how. It puts them on par with the United States. This isn’t liberal anything, this is just the truth. The United States did it in Iran in 1953, in fact. We’re doing it now in Pakistan. If this enrages you I would say that you are the person who is not being logical and you simply want to find an enemy you can feel justified lashing out at, probably because you are scared stiff of I don’t know what. Personally I’d rather not base foreign policy decisions on your need to be reassured. That’s just me though. Obviously this is America and the poor parenting you suffered through entitles you to vote any way you want, regardless of the consequences.
I think you may be misenterpreting something here: Khomeini is not saying Iran’s existence is inconseqential and he would not mind its destruction as such. He is saying that its existence is meaningless unless as a means for advancing Islam (i.e. by enforcing Sharia there). Its much like a politician here saying that freedom and liberty are far greater than any America per se.
(Parenthetically, that doesnt mean the political establishment there, i.e. non-clerics, feels the same way. it is accustomed to exercising power internationally, which tends to promote a nationalistic bent.)
In sum: it is true that if Islam were “on the line,” Khomeini would see Iran destroyed before allowing Islam harm, as he interprets it; but that doesnt mean there is no deterrence if something else is on the line.
The real question here is: does Iran view the acquisition of nuclear weapons as an “Islamic” issue, or as a “state” issue? If it is Islamic to them, they may be undeterrable; if it is a state issue, they may stand down–if allowed to do so without harm to their pride (Islam’s pride, as they see it.)
WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE IRANIAN REGIME?
The Tale of the Scorpion is an old Native American parable.
A scorpion was walking along the bank of a river, wondering how to get to the other side. Suddenly, he saw a fox. He asked the fox to take him on his back across the river.
The fox said, …
Andrew Sullivan is a professional critic and usually contributes nothing more than adjectives, adverbs, and conjunctions to intellectual exercise. In this instance Sullivan alleges use of a bogus quote by Mr. Podhoretz from Khomeini and has been sucessfully rebutted and refuted by Mr. Podhoretz. The evidence given shows the quote from the Ayatollah was real and accurate, but Sullivan has backed into another argument that should be expanded.
That Ayatollah Khomeini owes all his fealty to Islam and none to Iran is a difficult concept for most of us to understand. It does demonstrate however the manner in which some Democrat politicians in this country may have been able to relegate their fealty to their political party or to Socialism or Communism, and have less or no fealty to their country with regard to U.S. foreign policy. While free speech is a First Amendment right, that right has limits. We need more discussion about those limits with regard to war and security.
The Economist has drifted left, not hard left, not anti-US Euro-elite left, but distinctly British-journo left. The kind of left that makes little jabs at America (see their pieces on how Europe is more meritocratic than the US) and ridicules Christianity (see last week’s “new wars of religion” feature, which repeatedly compares Christians with Islamic terrorists).
I wonder when they will turn the native wit on their own mess of a country, with its soaring rates of underage (and adult) drinking, the increasing cultural acceptance of drugs, the collapse of marriage as an institution in favor of cohabitation. Perhaps its understandable that the Economist prefers turn away and say, “Look! The Neocons are at it again!”
Please notice that Iranian threats to wipe Israel off the map vividly illustrate the depth of their concern for the Palestinians.
Hugh Says:
November 19th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
“Mr Podhoretz, you cannot determine international politics by quotes from national leaders. The real driving forces which affect us are national interests…”
I believe you’ve managed to miss the point completely.
The Khomeini quote in question, if it is real, was offered precisely to refute the proposition that the Iranian government is primarily motivated by Iran’s national interest.
To counter such an argument by blithely assuming the very proposition under debate is putting the cart very much ahead of the proverbial horse.
Hey, Corkie, I wish people on both the left and the right would stop talking about “the left” or “the right” like it was one thing. Most people on the left and the right behave the same, they just fall on different sides of the fence. Don’t be one of “the right.” Those people suck. In return I won’t be “the left.” How’s that for a deal?
One is reminded how Richard Falk of Princeton, having read none of Khomeini’s writings, pronounced him a fellow left wing dissident because he was against the Shah. Taheri has
done considerably research, having been one of the early biographers of the Shah. The
problem is clearly the Ayatollah Khameni is clealy in favor of the bomb; and this was long before Saddam posed a real threat. As goes Khameni today, so goes Rafsanjani, Khattami,
& Ahmadinejad today; Gholibaf and Larijani tomorrow. I would be more sanguine about
the rationality of the Iranian regime, if it wasn’t for the assasinations of dissidents like Quassemlou in Vienna in 1989 (Of which Ahmadinejad was involved in) and the bombing
of the Jewish Cultural Center (AMIA) and Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, in 1992 & 1994
Here is something to think about, when Iran was at war with Iraq. Iran sent tens of thousands of its young children in mass wave attacks against the Iraqi front lines armed only with a Quran and a plastic key to paradise.
That is something that, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot never did. Even when they used their youngest followers. They at least armed them and never sent them on mass suicide missions.
Anycountry that would do that, do you think really worries about its people surviving? Mutal Assured Destruction does not apply. There are over 1 Billion Muslims, they feel that they can sacrifice a couple hundrd million and still survive. Now do you really want to take the chance of them having the nuclear weapons with that kind of mentality?
Has everyone forgotten that Iraq, with our blessing, invaded Iran in the 1980s and caused enormous death and suffering? The Iranians fought back and pushed Saddam’s army back into Iraq. Is Iran a threat to its neighbors and Israel now that its enemy Iraq is out of the way? Of course. Is it a threat to the US? No, not in the least. I guess therefore, what is really happening is we are going to be the “proxy” that works for Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc., in lowering the hammer on Iran. Wonderful. Can you say OIL?
The points Mr. Podhoretz has made during recent studies on Iran and WW IV are so cogent and confirmed it is astonishing that there are those who will try to gainsay them. The criticisms are so obviously tendentious, openly partisan, and willfully self-blinded that it seems like climbing in sand to try to bring correction, knowing all the while that when confronted with the facts, the critics will ignore the correction while looking for another spot to snipe at his work. All the honor to Mr. Podhoretz for his foresight, clarity, and tenacity. History will recognize these qualities. Some of us already do.
Iran is unquestionably doing everything it can to build a nuclear bomb. In the process forgoing the development of its economy and the wellbeing of its populace. Ask yourself why? They are not threatened by Iraq or any other regional nation and the US has no interest in agression towards a non nuclear Iran. They are building the bomb to at best destablize the region and at worst to use it. Either way the region and world as a whole can not stand by and do nothing.
“bakum” asks: “where are the ovens? Where are the mass graves? Khomeni and his successors have had some thirty years of power now… the most they muster is repression of dissent, torture and political murder on a minor scale.”
“bakum” then lectures us: “When we’re trying to make decisions about foreign policy we need to have RATIONAL arguments based on FACTS, not hysteria which only serves to reinforce a particular set of neuroses.”
“bakum,” in your eagerness to discredit Podhoretz, you proceeded to whitewash Khomeini. In the spirit of conducting “RATIONAL arguments based on FACTS” and not on jaw-dropping ignorance masquerading as informed comment, I offer you the following:-
—
Khomeini fatwa “led to killing of 30,000 in Iran”
Sunday Telegraph, UK, February 4, 2001
Children as young as 13 were hanged from cranes, six at a time, in a barbaric two-month purge of Iran’s prisons on the direct orders of Ayatollah Khomeini, according to a new book by his former deputy.
More than 30,000 political prisoners were executed in the 1988 massacre – a far larger number than previously suspected. Secret documents smuggled out of Iran reveal that, because of the large numbers of necks to be broken, prisoners were loaded onto forklift trucks in groups of six and hanged from cranes in half-hourly intervals…
According to testimony from prison officials – including Kamal Afkhami Ardekani, who formerly worked at Evin prison – recently given to United Nations human rights rapporteurs: “They would line up prisoners in a 14-by-five-metre hall in the central office building and then ask simply one question, ‘What is your political affiliation?’ Those who said the Mojahedin would be hanged from cranes in position in the car park behind the building.”
He went on to describe how, every half an hour from 7.30am to 5pm, 33 people were lifted on three forklift trucks to six cranes, each of which had five or six ropes. He said: “The process went on and on without interruption.” In two weeks, 8,000 people were hanged. Similar carnage took place across the country.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/02/04/wiran04.xml
What if we are wrong? There are two sides, each may be right or wrong and there is no way to know in advance. The side I choose to join says let us blow Iran’s bomb making facilities and government to shreds. Maybe we are wrong. If so, we’ve blown up some buildings and destroyed a government that has killed Americans, Argentinian Jews, Lebanese and Iraqis, among others. If I’m wrong I’ll feel bad, but not too bad.
The other side says Iran isn’t trying to get the bomb and even if they are, they won’t use it. So, how bad are they going to feel if they’re wrong? Or will they feel anything? Anyone know how a piece of radioactive waste that was once human feels?
Andrew Sullivan doesn’t care, he’d rather be moral than right. He has no children. I don’t mind betting my life, I refuse to bet the lives of my children.
What an article… you’ve proved your point AND inverted Andrew Sullivan’s role as a a useful idiot.
When it became “waterboarding-gay marriage-waterboarding-80s videos-waterboarding-rinse-repeat” at the Daily Dish a few years back, Sullivan lost me. I’ll trust Podhoretz, Taheri’s own credibility notwithstanding.
To: Commentary Magazine Blog November 19, 2007
Mr. Sullivan has apparently lost complete touch with reality.
The Neo Communists (Neo Comms) hate Mr. Podhoretz because he long ago emerged from the socialist/communist thrall and has used his extraordinary intellect and writing skills to illustrate the wrongness of the path of socialism, communism, and irrational activism to current generations.
As for the other writers attacking Mr. Podhoeretz herein, the anti-American left, blinded by their delusional self-hatred. They fail to recognize that they, as today’s avatars of the useful idiots of the middle 20th century, will be the first to fall to the scimitar. I suspect that the opaqueness of closed societies like Iran prevents all of us from recognizing the body count racked up by the Iranian Khomeinists and their client states. We can only guess at the numbers. It is likely horrifying.
Who are you claiming is Mr. Podhoretz’ known fabricator, Mr. Tahiri? To my knowledge, he is a respected writer with great resources. I am a normal, rational person and I certainly value Mr. Podhoretz and Mr. Tahiri’s words over those of Mr. Sullivan, the smart mouthed Sashal, and the cat.
I’m not wholly unsympathetic to the so-called “neo-conservative” agenda. I have long supported our continued fight in Iraq. And I think Iran is run by nutcases. But saying the Economist is a leftist rag is like saying that red is blue. Anybody who thinks this has either never read the Economist, or has no idea what “leftist” means, or just thinks that anybody who deviates the tiniest bit from Rush Limbaugh’s talking points is a “leftist.” Or some combination. The Economist? Leftist? Are you kidding me? Seriously. I mean, there is a place on blogs and comment threads for wildly innacurate misinformation, hyperbole, and shrieking name-calling. It’s a grand tradition of the internet. And I love it. But in order for it to work, which is to say, in order for the spin-tasic, ludicrous insanity of it to amuse me even mildly, there must be SOME element of truth to it….
So according to a local genius “Norm cites a known fabricator”.
Fine that discredits the source. However, since that is not the only source and the statement is consistent with other statements, you have not seriously impugned the veracity of the statements in question.
What you have to do is discredit all the sources. It would be helpful if you could find out who pulled off this fakery and how.
Now just suppose that the leaders of Iran considered their national interest as securing their place in heaven. Such things have been known to happen in the past.
Cut straight to the chase: Islamic Leaders smile when Islamic children put on the exploding vest or behead the infidel for allah. No outcry against the Horrors of Islam is heard from the large community of “American Muslims” ensconced in Dearborn, Michigan. Why should I (or anyone of common sense) seek to defend one single thing about Islamic culture? The devotee of Islam is no friend to anyone. Deceit and murder are their favourite meats.
Iran simply is not Nazi Germany.
Nazi Germany wasn’t Nazi Germany—in 1935. What’s your point?
yours/
peter.
The neo-con’s wish for military action against Iran SOON is stupid.
Adm. Fallon, the head of CENTCOM, said this a month ago and now Adm. Mullen, chairman of the JCS, said the same in an interview with the NY Times:
He rejected the counsel of those who might urge immediate attacks inside Iran to destroy nuclear installations or to stop the flow of explosives that end up as powerful roadside bombs in Iraq or Afghanistan, killing American troops.
With America at war in two Muslim countries, he said, attacking a third Islamic nation in the region “has extraordinary challenges and risks associated with it.” The military option, he said, should be a last resort.
Military Chief: ‘No War’ With Iran
Sep 23, 5:07 AM (ET)
By BRIAN MURPHY
“This constant drum beat of conflict is what strikes me which is not helpful and not useful,” Adm. William Fallon said in an interview with Al-Jazeera television, which made a partial transcript available Sunday.
“I expect that there will be no war and that is what we ought to be working for,” said Fallon during the Friday interview at Al-Jazeera’s headquarters in Qatar. “We should find ways through which we can bring countries to work together for the benefit of all …. It is not a good idea to be in a state of war. We ought to try and to do our utmost to create different conditions.”
I am currently enrolled Shaul Bakhash’s “State and Society in Modern Iran” class at George Mason.
I will not address Mr. Sullivans remarks. However, I think the disagreement between Mr. Bakhash and Mr. Podhoretz is more academic than political. Mr. Bakhash does not address the nature or intentions of the Iranian regime, because that is not the point he is making. He simply wants accurate history.
Andrew Sullivan is a guy who’s made a practice over the past decade of tossing any principle he has out the window like a used cigarette at a wedding whenever it’s convenient for him.
The guy used to be much more hawkish (not just on Iraq, but in general), he used to be much more conservative on social issues outside of gay marriage, he used to pro-life (not sure if he’s done a complete 180 on that, but the last time I checked that was falling by the wayside) – It’s not just that he changes his positions (there’s no reason to fault him solely for that), it’s that the guy will spend years staunchly, strongly, emotionally arguing for something…and, then, voila, one day you’ll wake up and out of nowhere that’s all changed. No explanation, no reason behind it, no announcement – the position just evaporates. If he doesn’t put that much reliance and faith in his arguments, and doesn’t feel a need to be bound by them, I see no reason why I or other readers should.
Israel just zapped Syria, with Google maps showing a cover-up since the site wreckage was made into a flat, likely non-radioactive chopped off hill of sand. Us in the USA speak of Iran as if it was up to us to debate the issue, but Israeli intelligence (albeit provided with lots of US spying tools) and it’s hyper effective Air Force will handle this issue on its own, and it needn’t do it by conquering Iran nor even their leadership. Pakistan is where it’s at now. Look at the differences in the leaders of martial law Pakistan and that of Iran. The guy in Pakistan lately is showing the same tentative pleading with his people that extreme measures are part of a positive plan for their overall country, in the same tone as in the speech he gave about letting our planes fly over their airspace, way early on.
But now compare Egypt and Suadi Arabia or even schizophrenic Turkey or even traditional Irag before the Kuwait invasion, with Iran. Syria is like some black box that seems to support bad guys but doesn’t want to stick out doing so. And remember how fast, and authentically Khomeini did a u-turn, even in so many words proclaiming himself our ally. Look up a map. It’s really easy to read the news yet never do a good Google image search of the region. Sadly, I think Afganistan will remain a backward country since it never developed an industrial base except for textiles. At least girls can learn to read there now.
As for Israel, having never been there, I was amazed to see in up-close satellite view that it looked just like a much bigger (if dustier) version of Brooklyn. They have a lot of money compared to must tiny countries, and run desalination plants using nuclear reactors. Sand is cheap in the area. Manhattan did it. They expanded, creating Battery Park. I wonder why Israel doesn’t just expand its country about 20 more miles out into the ocean, or even create huge floating islands with a nuclear reactor in their center to run the lights and factories? I’m 41 years old and glad that his BORING “Middle East Peace Process” (doublespeak) is getting stirred up good and proper.
Psychologically, societies that encourage polygamy leave a lot of very frustrated men in their 20s, and those are hard to govern, so they maintain rather oppressive governments to deal with it, and then power corrupts and the leaders go crazy in the old James Bond movie bad guy sense.
All this crap about the Palestinians? Why doesn’t Egypt or Syria etc. set up a few big oil burning power plants and desalination plants and move them into a newly created oasis in the Sahara? Then they’d stop being the stand-in antagonizers of Israel. Who the hell are Palestinians anyway? Where did they come from? It seems like their only economy is based on donations for martyrdom. I profess my ignorance, but reading the right dozen books doesn’t seem very interesting to me. They had elections, and (the non-females allowed to vote) elected as leaders a textbook example of a terrorist organization. Hitler, like Hamas, was elected to help solve the decades old phrase “The Jewish Problem,” a phrase that was tossed around and accepted just like the “Drug Problem” is treated today. There really is a suicidal impulse that corrupts the “Arab Mind” (phrase from a book about how homosexuality does *indeed* exist in Iran and surrounding areas, much as there is in prisons by otherwise straight males). Our DARPA research should make lots of Real Dolls or virtual reality sex games that connect straight to people’s brains so polygamy dominant societies will stop using scapegoat enemies like Israel or the USA to unite their population. Funny how our 9/11 terrorists went *where* before turning planes into missiles? A strip club!
“Remeber, the Soviet Union presented us with far greater threats to the Western world, but by negotiation, it collapsed on itself over time.”
Actually, our Strategic Defense Initiative had a lot more to do with the collapse of the USSR than did negotiations.
Clint says:
“The Khomeini quote in question, if it is real, was offered precisely to refute the proposition that the Iranian government is primarily motivated by Iran’s national interest.”
Even if Khomeini claimed he served a larger cause than Iran’s national interest, it doesn’t mean that he managed to.
I have to use the Soviet Union as an example again. When Lenin and his mob took power, they had similar internationalist aims, but soon realised that they had to face up to the realities of statecraft. Leading a nation greately sobers your political ambitions, as your main concern is retaining power from internal and external threats.
I believe the Mullahs face many real threats, especially from the growing scepticism inside the country. There is a growing middle class in Iran that is not that enamored by radical islam, and has no real need for it. Notice the petrol riots in Iran last summer.
i would compare Iran to Venezuela rather than Nazi Germany. Both are reasonably wealthy, oil producing countries, but feel threatened by the power of our presence in the world, as well as the growing wealth of their own population; resulting in violent, but hollow Anti-American statements purely designed to unite the unstable country.
molon labe Says:
“Actually, our Strategic Defense Initiative had a lot more to do with the collapse of the USSR than did negotiations.”
That, and other factors. I did not mean to suggest that negotiations ended the Soviet Union, but were used to reach mutual understanding with the United States in order to avoid another Cuban Missile Crisis. The SALT Treaties allowed us and the Soviet Union to act in more predictable ways with each other. I believe that by negotiating with Iran won’t change the regime (as that is for the Iranian people to do themselves), but it would ease tensions and would greatly reduce the chance of either Iran or the United States doing something stupid which could destabalise the whole region.
I would like to repeat again that the regime will collapse by itself, or lose its radical edge. Iranians are growing wealthier and are getting more fed up with the leadership’s neurotic posing. The regime is finding it harder to deliver economically to the demands of its people, much in the same way which led to the demise of communism.
“Remeber, the Soviet Union presented us with far greater threats to the Western world, but by negotiation, it collapsed on itself over time.”
The leaders of the former Soviet Union were very secular and often provided no more than lip service to the core doctrines of Communism. They were not even slightly nihilistic and suicidal. Remaining alive and affluent remained a high priority. Religious fanatics are generally more dangerous than secular ideologues. The Iranian leaders may very well be inclined to die on behalf of Allah—and destroy the entire world in the process.
Re: “The Economist isnt left wing” people – theyre not exactly right wing either, unless youre coming from a socialist European point of view.
They endorsed Kerry in 2004 despite his manifest foolishness (‘postpone elections in Iraq until the insurgency is over’) – foolishness confirmed by his conduct since ’04.
I’ll bet anyone 10 dollars the Economist will endorse Hillary in ’08 – its already clear from their writing on her. Any takers? You heard it here first!
Let’s see: If I understand the argument, Rafsanjani was misquoted and subjected to bad translation, Ahmadinejad was misquoted and subjected to bad translation, Khomeini was misquoted and subjected to bad translation…
Once I can see. Occasionally, maybe. But to believe that Iranian leaders routinely and misquoted and mistranslated in exactly the same way is to believe that the MSM repeatedly being duped by sensationalistic tales of US perfidy (Gitmo Q’ran flushing, Beauchamp’s tales, multiple non-existent masacres…) is also random and without connection. It makes more sense, to me, to conclude that both phenomena demonstrate clear trends. That the Iranian leadership is non-nationalist with overreaching religious goals and that the MSM wants to believe the worst about the US and her troops.
David Thompson:
“The Iranian leaders may very well be inclined to die on behalf of Allah—and destroy the entire world in the process.”
How are you so sure? Because Ahmedinijad said so?
The Mullahs are solely interested in keeping their wealth and power as much as the Soviet leaders, and are flailing up religious fanaticism to maintain their prestige.
Remember, to be in the seat of power in a country as complex and paranoid as Iran requires a bit of tactfulness and manipulation. The real leaders of Iran, (Ahmedinijad is not as much a major player in Iran as you may think), have very skillfully maintained their power in the region and it is highly unlikely that they would decide to effectively commit suicide in the name of ‘Allah’.
CZ discounted “overheated hyperbolic statements” by “some leader” and “millions of Iranians” don’t agree. Same type limp d_ck arguments of 1914, 1938, June 25, 1950, 1967, 1984, and we’ll hear them again.
The point is, There is a consistent statement of “overheated hyperbolic statements” by small group of Successive thuggish leaders.
They are currently one of the three greatest sponsors of terrorism worldwide killing hundreds, each month and looking to expand through their several proxies.
Have been undeterred in the past and seem uninterested in arguments, incentives and threats by greater and much more powerful men and nation states than CZ.
And finally, those few who have been in power since 1979 in Iran, could care less what “millions of Iranians” think or want. They have proven that to be the case consistently.
We have small business people here who brought their families out of Iran … they have very chilling stories of what it is like there on the inside for “millions of Iranians”.
In the end, Iran’s Mullah-occracy may not get what it wants… a Shia dominated Persian gulf as a launching pad for further terrorist and overt wars over conversion to Shia Islam elsewhere in the world.
But it will surely only be by the same force that ended 500 years of Islamic Barbary Piracy, and 7 wars against Israel to date.
They just can’t get enough blood in an honor/shame culture that seeks eternal paradise with 72 personal virgins.
Mr. Podhoretz says Sullivan’s post about him showed “shrill hysteria.” I just read the post, Mr. Podhoretz’s rebuttal, and Sullivan’s counter rebuttal. Where is the “shrill hysteria” in what Sullivan had to say?
The impression I received was much more that Sullivan felt he had the goods on Mr. Podhoretz and could casually dismantle his claims with a few sentences. In fact it seemed very much as if Sullivan were laughing at “NPod.” By this point, of course, I have to admit I’m also laughing at NPod, though I hope not shrilly or hysterically as we await what the sober-minded President Bush refers to as “World War III.”
As the cool and even-toned Mr. Podhoretz says, God help us all.
The Economist leftist? This was the paper that supported the foray into Iraq. As for Khomeini, if we invaded every country where one of it’s leaders threw out threatening statement, we’d be smouldering in the ashes of Nuclear war with the Soviet Union and China long ago, let along “small” (See “Iraq”) skirmishs all over Asia, Africa, and more recently South America.
Andrew Sullivan was pro-Bush, pro-Iraq War, and Pro-Church, and has changed his position based on the incompentance of how the first carried out the second, and how the right hijacked the third under false pretenses. I’m guessing a few of these posters would prefer he maintained his positions regardless of whether they were proved invalid or reasonable – much like the idealology followed by the Islamic leaders they criticise in the same breath.
The Right-wing (which I consider myself part of) once stood for true responsiblity, whether it be economic/financial, military strength (used in reluctance), and fundamentally a wise, unemotional, pragmatic view of the world.
Neo-cons like Norman have hijacked the movement to create a fear-mongering myopic view of the world that they choose to engage but never study or understand, using broad statements to hide intellectual laziness, fear, and if you really dig deeper, nothing more than racism. The majority of the populace in Iran is far more worried about their own inablity to refine their own oil, than to lazing in chairs dreaming of a nuclear attack on the US. Let’s focus action on individuals or groups which represent a true and verifiable threat, rather than speculate on the need to bomb a whole country based on the views of a few idiots. Heaven knows if the rest of the world took the latter position we’d be in REAL trouble.
Hold the Presses With all this chatter let’s not forget, we are in the middle of a cliffhanger. The Economist has charged Podhoretz with a phony citation. Sullivan has chimed in with the accusation of bad faith. A source for the citation has now been offered: Paymaha va Sokhanraniyha-yi Imam Khomeini (“Messages and Speeches of Imam Khomeini”) published by Nur Research and Publication Institute (Tehran, 1981).
Will The Economist check it out? Its editors, in making their accusation, went to considerable trouble earlier, consulting various data bases. Will they now search out that 1981 edition of Khomeini’s speeches? Will they announce their findings manfully and will Sullivan hold their feet to the fire if they don’t? And if Norman is vindicated, will Andrew offer one of his apologies?
Knuckles are turning white.
NPod: ‘God Help Us All’
The burden of proof of the Khomeinists’ sanity does not rest entirely upon a single utterance by the founder of Iran’s Islamic Revolution and foreign policy realists who stake American and Israeli security and regional stability on hopes “the jumper…
“Andrew Sullivan was pro-Bush, pro-Iraq War, and Pro-Church, and has changed his position based on the incompentance of how the first carried out the second, and how the right hijacked the third under false pretenses. I’m guessing a few of these posters would prefer he maintained his positions regardless of whether they were proved invalid or reasonable – much like the idealology followed by the Islamic leaders they criticise in the same breath.”
—-
His timing and split with a lot of the right coincided remarkably well with the infighting over a federal marriage amendment a couple years ago. But this isn’t just Iraq where this came into play — it’s everything. For people who are relying on Andrew Sullivan and who are fans of the guy right now, I really how many of you guys used to read his earlier work. It’s not merely his opposition to the war, but that there’s not a principle this guy holds that you can count on him holding onto.
“Neo-cons like Norman have hijacked the movement to create a fear-mongering myopic view of the world that they choose to engage but never study or understand, using broad statements to hide intellectual laziness, fear, and if you really dig deeper, nothing more than racism.”
—-
BTW, when we accuse our opponents of being shrill this is the kind of stuff we mean.
Do you have any evidence that Norman’s a racist? Are you just in the habit of tossing that charge at your opponents because you feel it must be true or do you have something he said or wrote to back that up?
Is Andrew Sullivan a guy who you think fits this level of argumentation?
This is why this will be a Long War. Because until events of sufficient cataclysmic size overtake the craven mewlings and need for surrender of the pro-Islamofascist, anti-U.S. and anti-Israel crowd, we seem bound to repeat all the mistakes of pre-WWII.
We have all the might we need to beat this back. Do we have the will? Sullivan and The Economist (I won’t read either anymore) have already shown they do not. Why are they so invested in denying our enemies are saying exactly what they are saying?
Mr. Podhoretz, I am not sure if you are being dishonest on purpose or really do not understand but it is clear you are 100% incorrect on this one. I would recommend you apologize and move on.
JamesR: both of your propositions fail. Podhoretz is being neither dishonest nor lacking in understanding. He cited Khomeini, and Sullivan challenged him; he responded with a Farsi-based source which not a single person in this thread could dispute. Where is the dishonesty? As for understanding, both sides have marshalled their arguments, and the Sullivan boosters have been found severely wanting. Tell us where you think you’ve scored some points here. As for an apology: are you kidding?
I think we have a case of a sock puppet, why do you not want to apologize Jon S. or is that should it not be Norman P.? You/he whatever should apologize because he was clearly dishonest, he can attempt to obsfucate the issue but the underlying dishonest is clear.
JamesR: Do you have a shred of evidence that Jon S. is Npod’s “sockpuppet”? I thought not. Believe me, Mr. Podhoretz is quite capable of defending himself. And what about that citation, anyway? Care to try & discredit it? I thought not. Just another lefty, trying to change the subject when they’ve been bested…
stopped reading sullivan a long time ago.
actually sent him money once, but he’s gone off the deep-end.
the ratio of attacks to substance is pretty low on his blog.
The serial fabricator Mr. Taheri states:
“The quote can be found in several editions of Khomeini’s speeches and messages. Here is one edition:
Paymaha va Sokhanraniyha-yi Imam Khomeini (“Messages and Speeches of Imam Khomeini”) published by Nur Research and Publication Institute (Tehran, 1981).
The quote, along with many other passages, disappeared from several subsequent editions as the Islamic Republic tried to mobilize nationalistic feelings against Iraq, which had invaded Iran in 1980.
The practice of editing and even censoring Khomeini to suit the circumstances is widely known by Iranian scholars. This is how Professor Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak, the Director of the Center for Persian Studies at the University of Maryland and a specialist in Islamic censorship, states the problem: “Khumayni’s [sic] speeches are regularly published in fresh editions wherein new selections are made, certain references deleted, and various adjustments introduced depending on the state’s current preoccupation” (Persian Studies in North America, 1994).”
How convenient. A quote only claimed by him, which no one else has ever heard or read. And now, it most likely changed or was thrown out. Too bad Taheri doesn’t copy and save these sources of information like any respectable author would do.
And here he is continiously peddling more lies:
“What is at issue here is the exact nature of the Khomeinist regime. Is it a nationalistic power pursuing the usual goals of nations? Or is it a messianic power with an eschatological ideology and the pretension to conquer the world on behalf of “The One and Only True Faith”?
Khomeini built a good part of his case against the Shah by claiming that the latter was trying to force Iranians to worship Iran rather than Allah. The theme remains a leitmotif of Khomeinists even today. . . . Those who try to portray this regime as just another opportunistic power with a quixotic tendency do a grave disservice to a proper understanding of the challenge that the world faces.
But this is not new. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot also had their apologists who saw them as “nationalists” with “legitimate grievances.””
Without any actual quotes, you really don’t seem to have much fall back on, Mr. Taheri. Just another clever author manipulating history for his own selfish purposes.
Mr. Podhoretz, if you had absolutely any journalistic integrity you would have researched the quote yourself instead of relying on a serial fabricator such as Mr. Taheri. However, such a quote not-existing basically destroys your arguments and your idealogy. You surely can not allow that to happen, even at the expense lying. Willfull ignorance are the key words here.
Wayne, when it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck. Podhoretz was caught sock-puppeting in the past so judging by the comments then yes I do have evidence.
As usual the liberal commentors are looking at the world thru their special “utopia” glasses. Everything is compared to what utopia would be like. It makes the real world easier to deal with when realities can be ignored because they don’t show up in their fairy tale world of utopia. Ideas and facts are ignored because they come from someone they have labeled as “not good” in their utopian ideal.
As usual they attack the messenger as unfit to be listened too. What a sad waste of higher education dollars. They have been taught information but have failed to gain any knowledge. They fear a Christian country more than a Muslim country simply because they have never lived under Muslim law and they refuse to listen to those who have. They think they are safe from evil and hunger because it is somehow a right when it is the blanket of security provided by police and soliders that keeps them safe and the efforts of hard working profit motivated Americans that keeps food plentiful and cheap.
They are so disconected from reality that even the simplest parts of their daily routine have become “rights” and not the result of individuals and companies working to make them mundane and cheap. They appreciate nothing more than their “rights”, and simply can’t imagine what could motivate someone to worry about paying too much tax or defending themselves against jihadists.
Sad …
World War III is realy close….
Hi !.
Good post! Thank you very much for the great information. I am the one usually enquire more about companies that i might work even before I apply. I keep criteria for myself while i search for jobs.
I found this website tapety to be incredibly useful interms of information.
Few companies are looking at these anonymous opinions of their employees as constructive feeback. Word is moving towards good!
I must say, I could not agree with you in 100%, but that’s just my IMHO, which could be wrong.
p.s. You have an awesome template for your blog. Where have you got it from?
Taheri? That serial fabricator? Norman is a nut, a bloodthirsty nut