I’m “super-mean”
Page October 22nd, 2007
I’ll get to why I did this in a minute, but tonight I decided to look up the definition of “peacenik” on The Google. Just for fun.
The top hit was from wordnet.princeton.edu:
someone who prefers negotiations to armed conflict in the conduct of foreign relations
Ok, sounds like me. I mean, I’m not a dumbass. I’m not even a highly educated dumbass (that would be you, National Review Online guys and gals):
Cheney: U.S. Will Not Let Iran Go Nuclear
They are super-mean about them now, but maybe, just maybe, one day peaceniks in America and Europe will recognize George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as the men who prevented World War Three. Surely then they would be deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize?
How long before Bush uses “super-mean” in a press conference (in which he already uses plenty of stupid)?
We’ve seen a spate of “who doesn’t deserve the Nobel Peace Prize and why” stuff lately, since Al Gore had the audacity to spread the word that the planet desperately needs our help, and got well-deserved recognition for it.
But… Bush and Cheney? The NRO continues with a lament about the Damned Liberal Media™:
History will no doubt be kinder to Bush and Cheney than The New York Times is today.Cheney: U.S. Will Not Let Iran Go Nuclear,
The Associated Press, Oct 21, 5:17 pm
LEESBURG, Va. (AP) - The United States and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday. “Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions,” Cheney said.
He said Iran’s efforts to pursue technology that would allow them to build a nuclear weapon are obvious and that “the regime continues to practice delay and deceit in an obvious effort to buy time.”
… While he was critical of that government and President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, he offered praise and words of solidarity to the Iranian people. Iran “is a place of unlimited potential and it has the right to be free of tyranny,” Cheney said.
Cheney’s words followed President Bush’s warning last week that a nuclear Iran could lead to “World War III.” At a news conference, Bush had suggested that if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, it could lead to a new world war.
“I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them (Iran) from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon,” Bush said.
I’m stunned by three things:
- Someone thinks Bush and Cheney are deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize. Wouldn’t… uh, a war kind of cancel that out? I mean, the reason that Republican Kissinger got the Prize was for diplomacy. It’s irrelevant that I think the entire Nixon administration was corrupt; what is amazing is that anyone would even think that any member of the Bush administration even has the word “diplomacy” in his or her vocabulary.
- Even if Iran may have not-so-good intentions (they’ve been less than forthcoming with the IAEA, among other things), what purpose do threats serve? Iran’s version of Cheney has his equivalent of George W. Bush to rattle that saber right back… and to keep the centrifuges running. I smell a small-scale Cold War, not World War III.
- Oh, and, Cheney (plus, obviously numerous right wing armchair generals), with what military do you propose you’ll accomplish this?
And, last but not least, I’d like to say to the NRO: you’re really reaching this time. Peace ≠ war, mmmkay?
I think you might spend too much time pouring over the works of the righties. But then so do I. Which is why I can offer the righty response to your three points.
(1) It’s a “War Is Peace” kind of thing. The oracle and seer Rush Limbaugh at least once a week goes through this verbal tapdance in which he defines “peace” as “victory.” In the World According To Righty, peace can only be achieved when one side utterly annihilates the other. Therefore, if BushCo attacks and annihilates Iran, true “peace” will be achieved. And the architects of the annihilation will therefore be deserving of the Nobel Prize.
(2) Threats serve the purpose of proving that you’re manly. Also, a “small-scale cold war” would be all to the good . . . for business.
(3) No “military” required–the Iran attack will be achieved entirely through the air. The fact that American air power, according to America’s own military, proved a failure and even counter-productive in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, and Iraq will not deter these people. Because they always Know Better. And time has always proven them right, eh?
Hey there blueness!
You’re right, I need therapy - er, I need to stop hanging out at righty sites. But it’s a trainwreck! I can’t stop watching sometimes.
“And the architects of the annihilation will therefore be deserving of the Nobel Prize.”
I think that “architects of annihilation” is one of the best terms I’ve ever heard to describe the Bush administration and its foreign policy (or lack thereof).
It would almost certainly be air strikes. What else do we have?
It’s the cavalier attitude with which the wingnut talking heads ramble about what they see as an inevitable Iran attack, that really gets me down.
Oh well, I promise I’ll stay away from those sites for a little while
Thanks for dropping by, btw!
Reading and listening to the right is painful, and can probably even cause illness. But it’s useful. During the Clinton Witchhunt, Rush Limbaugh usually provided a 3 to 10-day preview of what next the right would try. The spookiest example of Limbaugh as Early Warning System was his show on election day 1996, when his guest was George W. Bush. Sean Hannity these days daily provides a detailed blueprint of rightist themes, action lines, targets, and talking points.
I was actually heartened today to hear Limbaugh’s take on the latest bellicose bloviatings about Iran coming from the Bushies. Limbaugh, who for more than four years has made no secret of his belief that the US should strike Iran after it has “finished” with Iraq, said that because most of the Iranian people love America and Americans, BushCo did not believe military action was an option. Instead, he said, BushCo had managed to round up most of the world in agreeing to “get tough” diplomatically and economically. I would think that if BushCo is actually gearing up for a military strike, Limbaugh would be out there beating the drums for it. But he’s not.
I’m not a pollyanna–I knew on 9/11 that these people would use it as an excuse to invade Iraq–but I just don’t see how even this crew can be mad enough to militarily strike Iran. Ground troops are out of the question–there are no ground troops. Air strikes can hardly be expected to serve their purpose–the US is not Israel, and the target would not be restricted to one above-ground installation–and would turn the entire Iranian population into enraged hornets who would support ANYTHING their government directed against the US and its citizens.
But you’re right, the cavalier way these “pundits” yammer on about “taking out” Iran is completely disheartening. It is like they have never felt one ounce of the pain that has been felt by anyone, American or otherwise, during these past six years. War and torture and death and displacement and suffering, it’s like it’s all just a board game to these people. They’re playing Risk, not inhabiting real human lives.
I think your blog has a very elegant design. And am looking forward to more posts!