The 12 Steps of Highly Annoying Senators

Nick Gillespie | October 23, 2007

Over at Politico, former reason intern Jeremy Lott writes up former reason staffer Matt Welch's new book, McCain: The Myth of a Maverick. A snippet:

The new 12-step McCain became an advocate of invading countries for looking at us funny. He supported going into Iraq during the 2000 primaries, was the chief advocate for the troop surge in Iraq and is itching for a fight with Iran.

On the domestic front, Welch pointed out that "McCain is now one of the most robust regulators in the Senate." Car emissions, Major League Baseball, cable television, boxing, ultimate fighting - you name it, McCain wants to control it, ban it or, at the very least, fret about it.

"One of the ironies of this book," Welch said, is that it began out of his fondness for McCain. "He really is a charismatic fellow, he has a strange sense of humor and he's an American hero." However, Welch finds McCain's vision for where to lead the country to be deeply troubling.

"He has a militaristic conception of citizenship, inadequate respect for the Constitution and, most importantly, during a time when the military is overstretched and the world has painted a giant red target on our backs, his threatens to be the most interventionist presidency since his idol, Teddy Roosevelt. I don't think we can afford that right now."

More here.

Welch on McCain in reason.

Comments

|10.23.07 @ 9:51AM|#

Hey, did I make the dust jacket

ed|10.23.07 @ 10:27AM|#

Good thing he hasn't a Jew's chance in Iran of winning.
Bad for book sales though, I imagine.

|10.23.07 @ 10:30AM|#

, "his threatens to be the most interventionist presidency since his idol, Teddy Roosevelt"

Really? How exactly is that? What has McCain said about Iran that Hillary Clinton hasn't said? Yes McCain supported the war in Iraq, but so did a lot of Democrats. Not that McCain isn't an interventionist, but it hard to see how he is any more interventionist than anyone else short of the extreme left and the extreme paleo right.

|10.23.07 @ 10:38AM|#

Also is McCain the most interventionist President since Teddy Roosevelt? More than Wilson who tried to remake Europe? More than Truman who got us into the Korean War, supported the Greek government against communist insurgents and conducted the Berlin Airlift? More than Kennedy who was responsible for the Bay of Pigs and an armed military coup over the government of South Vietnam? More than Johnson who sent 500,000 troupes to Vietnam? More than Clinton who sent troupes to Bosnia and launched the Kosovo War?

I am not a fan of McCain, but that seems to be one of the most asinine statements I have ever read in my life. Just intellectually sloppy and not up to the standard of someone who wrote a book about the guy and is allegedly some kind of expert.

Matt Welch|10.23.07 @ 10:52AM|#

What has McCain said about Iran that Hillary Clinton hasn't said?

I think the phrase was "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran."

More seriously, McCain is a strong advocate of "rogue-state rollback," in which the U.S. uses force to knock out bad guys from North Korea to Tehran. He thinks that democracy movements in nightmare countries like Burma should not only be backed, but be backed by the full might of the U.S. military. He thinks you should never make a threat unless you're ready to make good on it in war, and that we should make a lot more threats. And yes, lots of Democrats supported Iraq & Kosovo, but he was the strongest proponent in both cases of drastically increasing the number of boots on the ground. He ran in 1999-2000 largely on the idea that Bill Clinton was way too hesitant and wishy-washy about using U.S. force.

Add on to that the fact that he thinks the U.S. should account for much more than its current 50% share of world defense spending, that we should be spending much more than our current 4% of GDP on defense (we're actually spending more than that already, but you get the point), and that he was reared in a tradition that relentlessly strove for a unipolar, militarily adventurous U.S. role in the world, and I would argue he'd be the biggest interventionist since Teddy.

|10.23.07 @ 10:58AM|#

Also is McCain the most interventionist President since Teddy Roosevelt? More than Wilson who tried to remake Europe? More than Truman who got us into the Korean War, supported the Greek government against communist insurgents and conducted the Berlin Airlift? More than Kennedy who was responsible for the Bay of Pigs and an armed military coup over the government of South Vietnam? More than Johnson who sent 500,000 troupes to Vietnam? More than Clinton who sent troupes to Bosnia and launched the Kosovo War?


I noticed that Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Bush didn't make it in your rant. I wonder why?

anon|10.23.07 @ 11:11AM|#

John,

Don't question the Reason staff. They hate McCain. That should be enough for you. Its all you need to know. He's bad, Reason is good. Case closed.

penxv|10.23.07 @ 11:12AM|#

Ultimate fighting?

That's like calling a little person a midget.

It's mixed martial arts.

|10.23.07 @ 11:15AM|#

I noticed that Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and Bush didn't make it in your rant. I wonder why?

I can think of a few reasons, but try this:

Nixon and Reagan didn't initiate any major military ventures overseas. Bush I only went overseas as part of a big touchy-feely UN approved tranzi coalition (that ultimately crippled the successful conclusion of the war).

Bush II, well, it goes without saying that no President, indeed no human being, could possibly be worse than W.

|10.23.07 @ 11:15AM|#

You could add Bush to the list as well. I seriously doubt that a McCain presidency would result in two wars. As far as Nixon goes, he ended Vietnam. It is hard to argue that he was at least in practice much of an interventionist. Reagan, invaded Grenada and sent Marines to Lebanon. I don't think that quite measures up to Johnson, Kennedy or even Clinton.

Matt,

I don't see how bombing Iran would be any bigger than bombing Serbia over Kosovo. McCain is not talking about invading just bombing. Further, Clinton was ready to bomb North Korea before Carter negotiated a settlement. We were very close to war in 1994. In addition, Clinton issued an apology to Rwanda for not intervening to stop the genocide there. If you go back and look at what Clinton and Gore actually said when they were in power and the actions they took, it is difficult to see how they differ much from the way you portray McCain.

I understand that McCain is an interventionist. But, I really don't see how is any different from what we have had for say the last 100 years or so or what we would get under a Hillary Clinton administration.

|10.23.07 @ 11:21AM|#

Also is McCain the most interventionist President since Teddy Roosevelt?

Um, no? Ooh! Since he's not a president, right?

|10.23.07 @ 11:22AM|#

Hillary Clinton on Iran,

"I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not - must not - permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran - that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons."


Yeah, she doesn't say bomb bomb bomb, but if you take her at her word, I can't really see a lot of difference in practice between her and McCain.

|10.23.07 @ 11:25AM|#

From Foreign Affairs earlier this year.

Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.

As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.

On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.


http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html


And is is not just Iran. She sounds a lot like how you portray McCain Matt.

Use our military not as the solution to every problem but as one element in a comprehensive strategy. As president, I will never hesitate to use force to protect Americans or to defend our territory and our vital interests. We cannot negotiate with individual terrorists; they must be hunted down and captured or killed. Nor can diplomacy alone stop the perpetrators of genocide and crimes against humanity in places such as Darfur. But soldiers are not the answer to every problem. Using force in lieu of diplomacy compels our young men and women in uniform to carry out missions that they may not be trained or prepared for. And it ignores the value of simply carrying a big stick, rather than using it.

Make international institutions work, and work through them when possible. Contrary to what many in the current administration appear to believe, international institutions are tools rather than traps. The United States must be prepared to act on its own to defend its vital interests, but effective international institutions make it much less likely that we will have to do so. Both Republican and Democratic presidents have understood this for decades. When such institutions work well, they enhance our influence. When they do not work, their procedures serve as pretexts for endless delays, as in the case of Darfur, or descend into farce, as in the case of Sudan's election to the UN Commission on Human Rights. But instead of disparaging these institutions for their failures, we should bring them in line with the power realities of the twenty-first century and the basic values embodied in such documents as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

|10.23.07 @ 11:27AM|#

That sounds pretty interventionist to me. Yes couches it in terms of international organizations but the underlying theme of US as world policman for good is still there.

|10.23.07 @ 11:33AM|#

Why does Al Gore have a really large poker chip on his head?

Bruce|10.23.07 @ 11:37AM|#

John,

You are not getting it. McCain killed the Reason staff's puppy. Then he shat in their water cooler. He is evil. Don't question their statements. Just accept it. It will make it a lot easier on everybody.

|10.23.07 @ 11:48AM|#

joe says: "Why does Al Gore have a really large poker chip on his head?"

It's an aureole. I guess when you win a Nobel Peace Prize you get one.

But, seriously. There's nothing about bombing Iran that sounds like a good idea.

x,y|10.23.07 @ 11:51AM|#

Good call joe. Everytime I see it I think it's a $5 chip.

|10.23.07 @ 11:54AM|#

RC,
You forgot Somalia, which was Bush's Kosovo. The fact that Clinton is on the list as a major interventionist weakens his whole argument. Yeah, it was unnecessary, but we lost more men in the bombing of the Marine barracks than we did in Kosovo. That was another "touchy-feely tranzi coalition" (NATO instead of the UN)*.

And if there's one thing the editors of Reason wants, it's Hillary in the White House.


* Sidenote, I usually like you RC, but I get the shivers whenever I read the term tranzi. Like getting allies working together is worthy of a slur.

Bryan|10.23.07 @ 11:58AM|#

"But, seriously. There's nothing about bombing Iran that sounds like a good idea."

Not even if they are trying to develop the bomb and you can take out the facility? I don't know if they are or not, but to say "nothing" implies either that you don't think such a bombing would be a good idea, or that you are being naive to assume there is not a chance that they are. Seems like a more complex question to me.

|10.23.07 @ 12:04PM|#

Is there anyone at Reason who doesn't think that Hillary is just as scary as Mccain? In my opinon the only person who has a foreign policy that is anywhere near rational is Senator Paul. The rest of them just want to spend our money to benefit those who get rich off of war. Oh and use war as a pretext to snatch even more of our freedoms.

|10.23.07 @ 12:05PM|#

Why does Al Gore have a really large poker chip on his head?

Because no potato chip is safe on it.

|10.23.07 @ 12:10PM|#

Bryan, Iran is a sovereign country who the hell are we to say whether or not they get to have a nuke. I'm sure that if they didn't think the US might try regime change again in Iran that they wouldn't be pursuing nukes. It is rational for a state to try to protect it's sovereignty (sp?). Also Israel's nukes are illegal so are India's and Pakistan's we are not trying to bomb them.

|10.23.07 @ 12:21PM|#

Not even if they are trying to develop the bomb and you can take out the facility?

I'd much rather we pursue a diplomatic solution. The only way we should bomb Iran is if they just go completely beserk. Even though Ahmadenijad is very suspect on policy, I don't think he's crazy.

Bryan|10.23.07 @ 12:23PM|#

James,

I don't profess to know the right move in this, but a strong point can be made that Iran's sovereignty doesn't mean much to us if we get nuked by them. The job of the American government first and foremost is to protect Americans. I don't know that bombing Iran -- like invading Iraq -- won't ultimately do more harm than good, but that is the context that we need to put the discussion.

I agree that we don't bomb Israel, India and Pakistan. To me though, the first reason for that is that they have never shown an outward desire to harm Americans. The second reason is that we are too late, they already have the bomb. Once a country gets it, there is not much we can do. A strategy that can be reasonably discussed is what steps you take to prevent any country from getting it in the first place.

Bryan|10.23.07 @ 12:27PM|#

Art-P.O.G.,

I agree. Frankly I don't even know that Ahmadenijad is trying to get a bomb. Our intelligence has certainly been wrong before. I am just saying that to dismissing bombing them out of hand implies a level of knowledge that I don't know that any of us possess. Or it implies that you would allow them to have a bomb, which I wanted to clarify your position on. Clearly James is okay with a nuclear armed Iran so there are some out there that don't seem to mind. Just wanted to flesh out which you were.

|10.23.07 @ 12:31PM|#

Ahmadenijad isn't even the real power in Iran the clerics are, the MSM has turned Iran's president into a bogeyman because the press in the US has devolved into the Ministry of Truth. Look up articles on Iran and who runs the country Ahmadenijad is a convenient scapegoat for getting uninformed Americans to drink the we need to bomb Iran Kool-Aid

|10.23.07 @ 12:34PM|#

Reason objects to interventionism and that is their right. They think McCain is wrong and they certainly should say why that is so. My objection is to Welch's statement that McCain would be "the most interventionist President since Teddy Roosevelt." That is just bullshit. If you look at what Hillary Clinton is saying about Iran and the world or what Rudy Giuliani is saying for that matter or any major Presidential candidate not named Ron Paul or Denis Kunichi, and you will hear the same thing.

I am not a McCain supporter but that doesn't prevent me from calling bullshit when I see it. Further, Reason owes its readers more than lazy assed statements like that. It also owes its readers a fair assessment of where the candidates stand. The statement implies that there is something uniquely bad about McCain's position visa vie the other candidates. The elephant in the room here is of course that McCain is a Republican. Somehow in Reason world, oppression, corruption and interventionism from Republicans is uniquely evil, but the same from Democrats is somehow not that bad or not worth noting.

Throughout 2006 how many stories did Reason run on Congressional corruption? They ran tons and rightfully so. The Republican majority was looting the treasury and corrupt as hell. Now that the Democratic majority is running things in 2007 and the looting and corruption continues just with a different party affiliation, we don't hear a damn thing from Reason. Why? If it was important in 2006, why is it not just as important now?

The same thing is going on here. Hillary Clinton and major Democratic candidates are rattling just as many sabers over Iran as McCain and promising to intervene in just as many conflicts. Yet, McCain is going to be the most "interventionist President since Teddy Roosevelt". Reason should call McCain out if they don't agree with his position on Iran or about the US's role in the world, but they should be just as willing to call out the Democratic contenders for the same reasons. Yet, they don't seem to do that. They owe themselves and their readers better.

|10.23.07 @ 12:37PM|#

I get the shivers whenever I read the term tranzi. Like getting allies working together is worthy of a slur.

The term "tranzi" is supposed to make you nauseous. The agenda of transnational progressives is not one that any person who believes in individual liberty should support.

Allies working together is all well and good, but what we saw in the first Gulf War went way beyond that. Getting allies to help you is not an end in itself, it is a means to your strategic ends. Gulf War I was a tranzi deam - a big coalition for the sake of having a big coaltion, the effect of which was to hamper and ultimately thwart the strategic purpose of the war.

The only reason we are in Iraq now is because Bush I bought the transnational progressive line about needing a big coalition the first time around.

|10.23.07 @ 12:42PM|#

Bryan again I have to repeat that states are rational actors. Why would Iran try to nuke us when we could smash them to smithereens. Even if they had a nuke it would not be his decision whether or not to use it. The Mullahs run Iran and they don't want any part of a nuclear war with us. Iran's president is trying to raise his profile and our press and politicians are helping them by stating he has powers that he frankly doesn't have. I wasn't trying to be snarky either in my comments about American's ignorance about other countries. If we were not ignorant though the press and our politicians wouldn't be selling us this bill of goods.

|10.23.07 @ 12:43PM|#

Oops helping him not them.

|10.23.07 @ 12:43PM|#

Ahmadenijad isn't even the real power in Iran the clerics are

I understand that. I was just trying to say at least Ahmadenijad isn't some batshit insane guy with his finger on the button.

|10.23.07 @ 12:52PM|#

John, Reason has been strangely silent about the deal between Rockefeller and Cheney to grant the telecoms retroactive immunity for their illegal spying on Americans. There is no way in hell in a country that is reputed to be a country of laws that this should be allowed or even considered.

|10.23.07 @ 12:58PM|#

"Why would Iran try to nuke us when we could smash them to smithereens. Even if they had a nuke it would not be his decision whether or not to use it."

States are rational actors but what is rational depends on the assumptions that you make. If everyone were rational and acted on the same assumptions, we would never have wars. Unfortunately, what happens is one side erroneously believes that it can do something and get away with it without starting a war. For example, look at World War II, Hitler honestly thought that there was no way England and France would go to war over Poland after they had given him the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia. He miscalculated.

You say Iran would never use nukes because it would be suicide. Well, who is to say that it is suicide? What if they manage to do it via terrorism where they at least think no one will know they did it? What if they conclude that no one will nuke them over Israel and use them on Israel figuring they can survive an Israeli counterstrike and emerge as the leader of the entire middle-east and hero to all Muslims?

Further, even if they don't use the nukes, the threat of them is very valuable. Suppose that rather than being traced back to a small friendless country, 9-11 has been traced back to a nuclear armed Iran. What would the US have done about it? Does the US really want to risk a nuclear war by striking back against Iran over a terror attack? Further, would Europe back such a strike when it faced the risk of being nuked by Iran? That is a bitch of a dilemma. Possessing nuclear weapons would give the Iranians the ability to do a lot of things with impunity.

|10.23.07 @ 1:00PM|#

Bryan I personally don't believe any country should have nukes and that you would have to be insane to want to use something that could destroy the planet that we live on. Unfortunately though the genie is out the bottle. I don't believe Iran having a nuke is any worse than the US, Russia, China, Britain, France, etc having nukes. I repeat states are rational actors for the most part. Witness our supposedly serious politicians not being willing to take the nuclear option off the table when discussing Iran. What is scarier Iran potentially developing nukes or the US actually using the ones we already have to prevent Iran from getting them if standard bombs wouldn't do the trick?

|10.23.07 @ 1:14PM|#

"What is scarier Iran potentially developing nukes or the US actually using the ones we already have to prevent Iran from getting them if standard bombs wouldn't do the trick?"

When you consider the fact that once Iran gets nukes, its neighbors will be forced to either ally with Iran or get nukes themselves that is pretty scary. How about a nuclear armed Saudi Arabia? The Saudis are terrified of Iran and it is not difficult to imagine them getting nukes to balance out a nuclear armed Iran. That is the danger of proliferation. Once one regional power gets them, everyone else wants them to. You can see this in Asia as Japan hints at getting nukes in response to North Korea and China. It wouldn't surprise me if Taiwan already had nukes. If it were up to me, no one would have them. But since I doubt China and Russia will give up theirs anytime soon, I will settle for no one else getting them.

|10.23.07 @ 1:30PM|#

John, Israel has nukes that plus our governments aggressive posturing toward Iran is I'm a contributing to Iran's desire to be a nuclear power. I don't think there is any question that Lil Kim (North Korea) is a nutjob but we are not threatening to bomb North Korea. So to other countries on the outside of the nuclear club looking in, it must appear that nukes are a deterent to US aggression. Again this is a sovereign nation (Iran) imagine America's reaction if Russia or China decided that we shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

Possessing nuclear weapons would give the Iranians the ability to do a lot of things with impunity.

You mention Iran doing things with impunity and it makes me laugh at the irony when you consider how the US acts. What makes our country right and Iran wrong?

But since I doubt China and Russia will give up theirs anytime soon, I will settle for no one else getting them.

John who are we to make this decision for other countries? What is so special about the US that we should decide who gets to have the bomb and who doesn't. Also were you aware that Bush has been talking about developing new types of nuclear weapons isn't that against the non-proliferation treaty that we are a signatory on?

|10.23.07 @ 1:31PM|#

doh, I meant I'm sure those are contributing factors

highnumber|10.23.07 @ 1:38PM|#

You are not getting it. McCain killed the Reason staff's puppy. Then he shat in their water cooler. He is evil. Don't question their statements. Just accept it. It will make it a lot easier on everybody.

Apparently, instead of getting back at McCain, the Reason staff proceeded to ram bottle rockets up Bruce's kitty's butt, then skullfuck her.

|10.23.07 @ 1:53PM|#

"You mention Iran doing things with impunity and it makes me laugh at the irony when you consider how the US acts. What makes our country right and Iran wrong?"

If you can't spot the moral difference between the US or the UK or France for that matter and Iran, than there is no point in talking to you. Basically, you can make the argument to appease anyone if you honestly don't think the US or the West is any better than even the worst tyrant. Further, by that logic why even bother to defend ourselves? If there is no difference between the Mullahs and the US government, perhaps we should just invite them over to set up an Islamic state here. What is the diffference you know?

|10.23.07 @ 2:04PM|#

John, the press and our politicians say Iran is evil and bad and the US is nobel and good so it must be true. Do you know anything about the US history in Iran? After they had set up a constitutional monarchy after freeing themselves from the British empire and democratically elected a leader the US set up a coup to install the Shah of Iran who proceeded to brutalize and terrorise the Iranian people. That is the reason why they hate us, because we talk out of one side of our mouths about being for freedom, then we support despotic regimes around the world in the name of "national security". Learn your history not His Story before you try to take me to task about the US's supposed morality. Really are your kidding me. Read Nocks "Our Enemy the State" or Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" obviously you have not learned anything beyond what is taught in our "schools".

|10.23.07 @ 2:05PM|#

dammit I'm a better speller than that noble not nobel.

|10.23.07 @ 2:15PM|#

John so you think Islamofascism is real right? OK I'm getting a petition together to outlaw FOX (FAUX) news.

Fascism defined: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

The idea of Islamofascim doesn't even make sense based on the definition above. It is a buzzword created by know nothings to fool people who know even less.

|10.23.07 @ 2:19PM|#

I dunno. It strikes me as very compatible with an extremist, authoritarian theocracy.

What part of that definition doesn't apply to Iran? You might have to tweak the "exalts nation and often race" a bit to accomodate the centrality of Shiite Islam to the mullahs, but thats about it.

Bruce|10.23.07 @ 2:20PM|#

Weigel was the only one sick enough to skull fuck my cat.

Bryan|10.23.07 @ 2:25PM|#

James, to a certain extent I agree with you that we arn't always much better than Iran. On the other hand, it goes back to my original point that, whether we are right or wrong, the government's job is to protect us. From that prospective, my concern is less whether we have the moral authority to bomb Iran, and more whether Americans will be safer if we do so. To correctly make that analysis, we need more information about the level of threat that Iran is -- how close are they to getting the bomb and how easy would it be to take it out. If its a simple bombing mission without an invasion, it might make sense. If it requires ground forces, I don't know that it does. My only original point is for whomever to say out of hand that nothing about it is a good idea ignores that there very well could be some benefits. Its just at what cost.

|10.23.07 @ 2:26PM|#

John here is some more information for you it's a portion of an article written by Fareed Zakaria for Newsweek. The article is entitled Stalin, Mao And ... Ahmadinejad?

"The American discussion about Iran has lost all connection to reality. Norman Podhoretz, the neoconservative ideologist whom Bush has consulted on this topic, has written that Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "like Hitler … a revolutionary whose objective is to overturn the going international system and to replace it in the fullness of time with a new order dominated by Iran and ruled by the religio-political culture of Islamofascism." For this staggering proposition Podhoretz provides not a scintilla of evidence.

Here is the reality. Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran. And yet we are to believe that Tehran is about to overturn the international system and replace it with an Islamo-fascist order? What planet are we on?

When the relatively moderate Mohammed Khatami was elected president in Iran, American conservatives pointed out that he was just a figurehead. Real power, they said (correctly), especially control of the military and police, was wielded by the unelected "Supreme Leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Now that Ahmadinejad is president, they claim his finger is on the button. (Oh wait, Iran doesn't have a nuclear button yet and won't for at least three to eight years, according to the CIA, by which point Ahmadinejad may not be president anymore. But these are just facts.)"

|10.23.07 @ 2:32PM|#

R C Dean. John appears to believe that Iran wants to establish a caliphate in the US. When did Iran say that?

|10.23.07 @ 2:39PM|#

Here is what Bush said recently:

At a meeting with reporters last week, President Bush said that "if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing [Iran] from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." These were not the barbs of some neoconservative crank or sidelined politician looking for publicity. This was the president of the United States, invoking the specter of World War III if Iran gained even the knowledge needed to make a nuclear weapon.

And Ahmadinejad is crazy? We have our on crazies here in the US and I assure our crazies are infinitely scarier than a country that spends $4.8 billion dollars on defense. Shit we spend more than that on 8 stealth bombers which are believed to cost between 727 million to 2.2 billion dollars.

|10.23.07 @ 2:40PM|#

Oops I should have said a piece on that

|10.23.07 @ 3:24PM|#

[McCain's] bad, Reason is good. Case closed.

Very succinctly (and accurately!) stated, anon. Good job.

|10.23.07 @ 3:26PM|#

I know that I am piling on here but I found this on a link through Antiwar.com. Good site if you want another view of the information the Ministry of Truth passes off as news. The article is titled On The Eve of Destruction the author is Scott Riddle and this is just a snippet.

"Hadley (then the deputy national security adviser) instituted what has been referred to as the "Hadley Rules," a corollary of which is that no move will be made which alters the ideological positioning of Iran as a mortal enemy of the United States. These "rules" shut down every effort undertaken by Iran to seek a moderation of relations between it and the United States, and prohibited American policymakers from responding favorably to Iranian offers to assist with the fight against al-Qaida; they also blocked the grand offer of May 2003 in which Iran outlined a dramatic diplomatic initiative, including a normalization of relations with Israel. The Hadley Rules are at play today, in an even more nefarious manner, with the National Security Council becoming involved in the muzzling of former Bush administration officials who are speaking out on the issue of Iran. Hadley is blocking Flynt Leverett, formerly of the National Security Council, from publishing an Op-Ed piece critical of the Bush administration on the grounds that any insight into the machinations of policymaking (or lack thereof) somehow strengthens Iran's hand. Leverett's article would simply underscore the fact that the Bush administration has spurned every opportunity to improve relations with Iran while deliberately exaggerating the threat to U.S. interests posed by the Iranian theocracy. "

I'm not mad at people for drinking the government Kool-Aid, it's understandable but remember there is always more than one side to a story and here in the US we often only here the side that our government masters and there spin doctors want us to hear. Be skeptical people be very, very skeptical of what you see and read in the MSM. That's all I'm saying.

John I did forget to mention that we supported and helped Sadaam invade Iran prior to his becoming the boogeyman of the middle east. One more reason for Iran to want nukes to deter us.

MRW|10.23.07 @ 3:41PM|#

"Apparently, instead of getting back at McCain, the Reason staff proceeded to ram bottle rockets up Bruce's kitty's butt, then skullfuck her."

I thought Congress outlawed that? Don't tell me Bush vetoed it!