A day in the life of a nutty right winger

Today I got an email blast from World Nut Daily trying to sell some of the books they publish. One of the books is by famed birther book author Jerome Corsi. It is entitled Atomic Iran, and it details how Iran is on the verge of creating an atomic bomb because of the misdeeds of the Clinton Administration. This book boldly predicts that Iran would have a bomb within five years.

Pretty scary, eh? That means that we need to work hard to keep Iran from getting an atomic bomb, maybe even to the point of launching bombing raids on Iran to keep them from building a bomb. There's only one problem with that bold prediction and prescription for action: This book was published in 2006. Today is 2012. Which is, erm... *six* years after Jerome Corsi made that prediction. Oops! Yet Crazy Joe Farah of WND.com actually *included* the publication date in his email blast, even though the publication date *proves* that Corsi is either an idiot, a moron, or a liar!

Fail.

-- Badtux the Snarky Penguin

Israel: We're the only ones allowed nukes in the Middle East

Prime Minister Voldemort of Israel says there will be no talking with the Palestinians until Iran is wiped from the map. At least, that's how it would be translated from the original Hebrew if the AEI was an Iranian organization rather than an Israeli organization and did the translation. In reality, of course, he basically said "we aren't going to talk to the Palestinians until Iran has no nuclear program", i.e., until U.S. bombs turn every piece of industrial infrastructure in Iran into moldering ruins (since that's the only way to stop the Iranian nuclear program -- just as it worked for stopping Iraq's nuclear program in 1992).

Prime Minister Voldemort justifies this by saying Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map, even though there is no such idiom in the Persian language. The reality is that the armed forces in Iran are led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei who in turn serves at the pleasure of a council of senior ayatollahs in Iran, and this corrupt gerontocracy of ayatollahs has one and only one desire -- to be able to continue ruling Iran and enrich themselves from its assets. Maybe thirty years ago when they had fire in their belly they might have considered attacking Israel with their ballistic missiles. But today, their sole purpose for having a military -- or a nuclear program -- is to keep outsiders from invading Iran and toppling them from power, not because they have any desire to invade anybody at all.

The reality is that after the Safavid rule of Persia, Iran has not attacked any other nation. None. Zero. Nada. That's over 300 years since the last time Iran invaded any other nation, and as far as the ayatollahs are concerned, another 300 years would be just fine with them, for the same reason it was fine with their predecessors -- because they have a comfortable life on top, and war would interere with that. Furthermore, Iran in the past has had no problems dealing with Israel. For example, in the early 1980's, Ayatollah Khomenei (the person whose speech was first mis-translated as "wiping Israel off the map") was selling oil to Israel and buying weapons from Israel at the same time he was making those speeches. Maintaining power trumps all, for the corrupt Iranian ayatollahs, and attacking Israel... well. Even if it were possible (which it isn't, there's a couple of countries between Iran and Israel in case you haven't looked at the map of the Middle East lately), Iran has to be under no delusion that a nuclear attack on Israel would turn Iran into radioactive dust. Not exactly conducive to being a corrupt oligarch looting the nation for your own benefit, eh?

The reality is that all this sabre-rattling is for internal Israeli consumption as part of internal Israeli politics of fear, and is about as realistic as Condi Rice's "we must invade Iraq to prevent New York City from being blown up by an Iraqi nuke" rhetoric. I.e., it's just sabre-rattling by Likkud intended to scare people into supporting them, much as the Iraqi nuke nonsense was just lies spread by the Busheviks to scare people into supporting them. In the end, the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East is not in Tehran. You'll need to look a bit west for that.

- Badtux the Geopolitics Penguin

Iraqi Prime Minister basically sez, "Yankee, go home"

Maliki says "Mission Accomplished", congratulates his own troops for defeating terrorism in Iraq -- and omits any mention of the U.S. Army.

I think Maliki wants us gone, and that's why he didn't mention the U.S. Army. Recent talk about a timetable for withdrawal tends to reflect that. Now that the Iraqi army has been purged of its Sunnis (other than the Kurds) and has basically become the Badr Brigade militia, and now that the police forces have increasingly become an arm of Maliki's militia, it may be that he feels he has enough boots on the ground to at least fight to a draw with Sadr's forces. Maliki is receiving substantial Iranian help, and it may be that he's decided it's time to throw in with the Iranians 100% and send the U.S. packing before the U.S. takes on his biggest backer, otherwise he has a big ole' target on his own behind when the U.S. bombs Iran.

Oh, if that scenario plays out, expect that Maliki will be calling on the Iranians for the logistical and air support currently provided by the Americans... and the Iranians will be happy to oblige, as well as happy to oblige with weapons and training (but not military forces, the Farsi-speaking Iranians would be as out of their depth policing in Iraq as the U.S. forces are). Maliki obviously thinks he now has enough boots to not need any more boots. If he has enough boots, then all he needs is the logistics, training, and air support -- and Iran can provide those as easily as the United States can.

-- Badtux the Geopolitics Penguin

Our enemies the Iranians

Let's get this straight: Iran's government is not our friends. You'll see the flags of many nations flying outside Iranian hotels, convention centers, and other such areas where an international audience may gather. You'll see the German flag, the Canadian flag, the Egyptian flag, any number of flags there. But you won't see the U.S. flag there. The only U.S. flags you'll see in Iran are the huge ones unfurled from the sides of buildings with "Down with America!" or "Death to America!" painted on them. Friendly that ain't. But the question is what we should do about the Iranians. McCain's answer is simple: bomb them. Obama's is more nuanced: negotiate with them. So who's right?

One thing to keep straight is this: to misquote Lord Palmerston, nations do not have friends. Nations have interests. And both we, and the Iranians, have interests in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East. And where those interests overlap, which are in broad areas (both we and Iran support the current government of Iraq, for example), there is absolutely no reason why we and the Iranians cannot and should not talk about those interests and see if there is a mutually agreeable manner in which both of us can assure that our shared interests are upheld.

In short, it is John McCain whose policies are dangerously naive. It is John McCain who would ignore national interest in favor of naive categorizations of nations as "friend" or "enemy". It is not the leaders of Iran -- the ayatollahs who hold the real power there -- who are stopping diplomatic conversations on areas of mutually shared interests between the two nations. It is petulant, mean-tempered little jerks who place their personal spite ahead of the interests of the nation who are doing that. And I'm talking about both George W. Bush and John McCain when I say that, sadly enough.

-- Badtux the Geopolitical Penguin

And I should believe them... why?

U.S. officials claim Iran is training terrorists that attack U.S. forces within Iraq. Now, I could go and collect a buncha data about why that's absurd -- for example, Iran's man in Iraq is President Maliki, and it is not in their interests to undercut their man in Iraq -- but really. I mean, c'mon. This is getting absurd. It's just one lie after another, from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to "the surge is working" (right before the most deadly month of the war happens). It's like reading the 1970's Soviet press where they were claiming that capitalism was on its last legs and would, like, collapse within months, and that poor people were dying of starvation on the streets of America and being killed left and right by police forces exterminating "undesirables" and rich people in America ate babies and drank the blood of virgins, and etc. etc. etc... I feel like I'm stuck in a mirror universe where the Soviet Union conquered the United States and installed its government which then behaved in the same incompetent and lying fashion, except it's real.

But anyhow, I have one thing to say about any statement from any U.S. official today: Weapons of mass destruction, dude. Where's the weapons of mass destruction? Where's the thousand and thousands of *tons* of WMD that you guys said existed in Iraq? I'll make a deal with any right-wing ninny who happens to read this blog (not that any do, because I flog them with a limp herring until they go away, but ...). I'll believe something said by the U.S. government when you show me one ton of those weapons of mass destruction that existed in Iraq. Or when you show any of my hand-picked inspectors (hmm, I'll pay Scott Ritter to go) this one ton of Iraqi WMD. Then I'll believe the government's latest line of bullshit propaganda lies nonsense.

But until you show me that one ton (of the many tons these hacks said existed)... why should I believe anything these hacks say? They've already proven they're either incompetent, or liars. Why should I expect them to be telling the truth now, when they never have in the past? I ain't Charlie Brown. If Lucy holds a ball in front of me and says "kick it, Badtux!", the only thing I'll kick is her scrawny unsociable ass. There's a word for folks who continue to believe liars over and over and over again. That word is... uhm... morons?

-- Badtux the Snarky Penguin

Iranians for McCain!

Click on the thumbnail for the big ad. Please feel free to print out and distribute wherever!

Oh, I thought about putting a little comic strip thought bubble coming out of John McCain's mouth saying "you pesky kids get off my lawn!", but I couldn't figure out how to make the composition work. Hey, I'm a coding geek, not a visual design artist!

-- Badtux the Snarky Penguin

Ready for the war with Iran?

Main and Central reports that foreign news sources expect war with Iran before the end of the Chimperor's reign. Here's the analysis that scares the crap out of me:

A military assault on Iran is madness. It will destabilise the region, increase terrorism around the world, hike oil prices to unprecedented levels and slash already fragile economies.

But these are far from being ordinary times. Elements of the Bush administration led by Cheney are single-minded and ruthless when it comes to adhering to their long-held New Middle East agenda. Now that Iraq is in their clutches from their point of view the only bulwark blocking their desire for total American hegemony of the Middle East is Iran.

If and when Iran is out of the loop, the puissance of anti-US Iraqi Shiites will diminish while funding and the supply of weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas will eventually dry up. That's the thinking but, in reality, there's many a slip between cup and lip as we witnessed during the 2006 Israel/Lebanon war when Tel-Aviv received a surprise bloodied nose and more recently during the Basra fiasco.

In this case, it's unknown how Russia, which currently has warships off Syrian ports, might respond. Moscow isn't itching for a fight but it would stand to lose much of its geopolitical and economic clout in the area should the US manage a total takeover and its already smarting over a White House initiative to bring Nato up to its borders and install an anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

With only another nine months in office and a tattered presidential legacy, George W. Bush has everything to gain in embarking on another deadly adventure. Iran may be his last roll of the dice with winner takes all. He's already one of the most unpopular US presidents in history so even if things go wrong he's got little to lose. He can just walk away and leave his successor and this stricken part of the world to pick up the shards of his failures.

Holy... crap.

Forgive me, gotta go change my undies.

-- Badtux the "These people are fuckin' CRAZY!" Penguin

The Persian Gulf Incident

President's speech to America
August 4, 1964January 8, 2008

My fellow Americans: - As President and Commander in Chief, it is my duty to the American people to report that renewed hostile actions against United States ships on the high seas in the Gulf of TonkinPersian Gulf have today required me to order the military forces of the United States to take action in reply.

The initial attack on the destroyer MaddoxPort Royal, on August 2, was repeated today by a number of hostile vessels attacking two U.S. destroyers with torpedoesmines. The destroyers and supporting aircraft acted at once on the orders I gave after the initial act of aggression. We believe at least two of the attacking boats were sunk. There were no U.S. losses.

The performance of commanders and crews in this engagement is in the highest tradition of the United States Navy. But repeated acts of violence against the Armed Forces of the United States must be met not only with alert defense, but with positive reply. That reply is being given as I speak to you tonight. Air action is now in execution against gunboats and certain supporting facilities in North VietnamIran which have been used in these hostile operations.

In the larger sense this new act of aggression, aimed directly at our own forces, again brings home to all of us in the United States the importance of the struggle for peace and security in southeastsouthwest Asia. Aggression by terror against the peaceful villagers of South VietnamIraq has now been joined by open aggression on the high seas against the United States of America.

The determination of all Americans to carry out our full commitment to the people and to the government of South VietnamIraq will be redoubled by this outrage. Yet our response, for the present, will be limited and fitting. We Americans know, although others appear to forget, the risks of spreading conflict. We still seek no wider war.

I have instructed the Secretary of State to make this position totally clear to friends and to adversaries and, indeed, to all. I have instructed Ambassador StevensonKhalizad to raise this matter immediately and urgently before the Security Council of the United Nations. Finally, I have today met with the leaders of both parties in the Congress of the United States and I have informed them that I shall immediately request the Congress to pass a resolution making it clear that our Government is united in its determination to take all necessary measures in support of freedom and in defense of peace in southeastsouthwest Asia.

I have been given encouraging assurance by these leaders of both parties that such a resolution will be promptly introduced, freely and expeditiously debated, and passed with overwhelming support. And just a few minutes ago I was able to reach Senator GoldwaterReid and I am glad to say that he has expressed his support of the statement that I am making to you tonight.

It is a solemn responsibility to have to order even limited military action by forces whose overall strength is as vast and as awesome as those of the United States of America, but it is my considered conviction, shared throughout your Government, that firmness in the right is indispensable today for peace; that firmness will always be measured. Its mission is peace.

Updated to reflect tomorrow's events. Original speech by Lyndon Johnson ushered the United States into the Vietnam War. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, of course, did not really happen. Yet newspapers still uncritically report government pronouncements of "attacks" upon U.S. ships as if they really happened, with no attempt at independent verification. 1964, 2008... nobody learns. Nobody ever learns. Sigh.

-- Badtux the History Penguin

Ahmadinejad is Hitler

All this week, the wingnuts have been whining about that mean President Ahmadinejad of Iran visiting America. "It's like inviting Hitler to visit!!" they exclaim in that cute hyperventilating manner that they all have, as if they're not getting enough oxygen to the brain and, like, have to use lots of exclamation marks!!! to make up for the fact that, like, they're blue in the face and speaking gibberish!!!!

Okay, so unlike Hitler, Ahmadinejad hasn't invaded anybody. Indeed, he *can't* invade anybody -- the Supreme Ruler (Ayatollah Khamanei) is head of the Iranian armed forces and has sole power to declare war, the President of Iran only has power over limited internal affairs. So unlike Hitler he doesn't have any armies under his control. Ahmadinejad hasn't exterminated any Jews either, indeed there are Jewish members of the Iranian parliament. And because he has no power to declare war under Iran's constitution, obviously he hasn't declared war against anybody. But... but...Ahmadinejad has SAID MEAN THINGS ABOUT ISRAEL! And saying bad things about Israel MAKES BABY JESUS CRY! WAHHH!!!! So *obviously* he's Hitler. Despite having no armies. Despite invading nobody. Despite exterminating nobody. Saying bad things about Israel is WORSE than all that, because saying bad things about Israel, like, HURTS THEIR FEELINGS! SOB!

- Badtux the Snarky Penguin

Nothing new

Let's see, batshit-crazy neo-cons want to "destroy" Iran's military with a few thousand airstrikes? Yeah, like that worked so well for the Israelis when they tried to destroy Hizballah. Didn't work so well when we tried to destroy Serbia's military that way either, the Serbs happily sent out decoy convoys of confiscated Kosovar vehicles to be blasted by our jets, they didn't withdraw from Kosovo until our jets started blowing up their bridges and power plants. So now Dear Leader thinks he can do better than Bill Clinton, just as five years ago he thought he could do better than his Daddy? Madness.

And Dear Leader poses with soldiers in Iraq to boost his polling numbers? Hmm, dunno where we've seen that before. Oh yeah, TURKEE!

And a Gay Old Pervert resigns from Congress? Seems to have been a lot of that.

Oh well. At least the cats are settling back in. They were a bit upset that I left them alone for three days, but they'll get over it.

-- Badtux the Cat-owned Penguin

Rude Death Squads

How fucked do we have to be here in America in order to read something by Seymour Hersh, about nefarious plots, illegal fund streams to al-Qaeda associated groups, and the fomenting of an enormous war in the Middle East, and fuckin' John Negroponte comes across looking like the most honorable man? What twisted trip into a sphincter-like rabbit hole do we have to be on in order to be able to put those words together, that the depraved motherfucker who turned a blind eye to (and ensured funding for) Honduran death squads that plagued Central America back in the Reagan era (known these days to liberals as "Jesus, who'd've thought it could get worse?"), who was at the center of Iran-Contra, would sound, in the screwed up context of the players in Hersh's article, like the good guy?

[...]

If the man who justified the groups that raped and killed nuns as just part of the fight in the Cold War is worried about the legality of something, it's gotta be a bloodcurdling monstrosity

The Rude One has an important message for you. Read it.

-- Badtux the Alarmed Penguin

New York Times Reveals "Reporter" Michael Gordon Actually Voice-Activated Tape Recorder

Go read. Then come back and read the next paragraphs.

Those of us in the Reality Based Community tend to have a lot of criticisms of newspapers. We see them as uncritically rote-reciting the words of politicians, whether said words are truth or lies. We see them as doing the job of tape recorders, not of reporters. And we flame them big time for it. The newspapermen, on the other hand, are unapologetic. Actual email from Michael Gordon defending his Iran article spreading the bullshit that Iran (majority Shiite) is arming the Iraqi insurgency (majority Sunni): "I spent some time talking to a range of officials on this issue and quoted the intel reports accurately."

So why do citizens see a problem and newspapermen do not? I think the problem here is a disconnect between what newspapers see their job as being, and what citizens want and need in order to do their job as citizens of a free nation. Newspapers, and the reporters thereof, see their job as being accurate transcriptionists of people in power. See Michael Gordon's "defense" of his reporting above. As far as he is concerned, he did exactly what his job description says he's supposed to do -- accurately transcribe the words of people in power. But citizens of a democracy want newspapers to go beyond simply transcribing. Citizens want newspapers to find out what the truth is and report the truth. Newspapers today don't see that as part of their job. Thus evil and venal men of power, using the newspapers as uncritical transcriptionists of their words, find it easy to manipulate a public that cannot figure out what's true and what's not because the truth is literally buried beneath a sea of lies accurately transcribed by newspapers.

So now, you ask, why do newspapers see their job as transcription? I'm not sure. I do know that indoctrinating reporters and editors into this mindset starts early, in "journalism" school, which could be more accurately described as "transcription schools". Future reporters are taught a style of "he said she said" transcription, and taught to never attempt to find out the truth because finding out the truth and reporting it is "analysis" rather than "reporting". Thus they give equal weight to lies and truth on their pages -- that's "fair and balanced", as far as they're concerned. But we as citizens of a democracy need more than equal helpings of lies and truth. We need to know who's telling the truth, so that we can properly execute our duties as citizens. Newspapers aren't giving us what we need, and thus newspapers bleed readership as we turn to other sources, such as the blogosphere. If we had newspapers interested in the truth, we could read newspapers. But we don't. We don't. And not only the newspapers are poorer as they bleed readership, but the nation is poorer for it.

-- Badtux the Media Penguin