GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Does NYTimes Columnist Fear Martian Invasion?

by

Max Boot takes New York Times columnist Roger Cohen* to task for faulting the Bush Adminstration’s relationship to Iran by constrasting it with alliance with the Soviets during World War II:

The reason that the U.S. allied with Russia in 1942 was that, notwithstanding the evils of its communist regime, the two countries faced a common existential threat in Nazi Germany. As soon as that threat disappeared, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. became mired in a decades-long Cold War. What common threat does Cohen imagine would bind the U.S. and Iran together? A Martian invasion?

So eager are some on the left to fault the Bush Administration’s foreign policy that they excuse despotic regimes merely because they’re anti-American and forget the context of the historical references they make.

——

*In Cohen’s Op-ed, he notes (with apparent delight) that Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, referred to former Vice President Cheney “Darth Vader” twice in their interview.  Instead of finding pleasure in such a remark, a true advocate of international organizations would find it troubling that the head of such an agency would use the standard slur of the left to describe a past official of a democracy.  This shows a clear bias on behalf of ElBaradei and should concern those who wish his agency to prevent nations like Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Wonder if ElBaradei has equally harsh words for world leaders, current and former, like Iran’s leader who have advocated the death of nations and the murder of innocence civilians.

Comments

  2. A reporter for Haaretz wrote a book about Iran and the IAEA called ‘the nuclear sphinx of Theran’. ElBaradei seemed like a man with an incredibly difficult job. His communications were being tapped by a variety of friendly and hostile governments, so nobody is giving him sound information, and he can only assert his opinions on international nuclear programs based on what governments are willing to give him. Biased to whom, precisely? Don’t shoot the massively enfeebled messenger.

  3. Oh, and we helped out Iran in Afghanistan when we took out the Taliban, a Sunni government. We did that with the Shia Northern Alliance, who are an Iranian proxy. A lot of people weren’t expecting that, especially Bin Laden. He figured that, seeing as the Northern Alliance are tied to Iran (US enemy), and the Taliban are supported by Pakistan (US ally), the war in afghanistan would be a very differnt beast. Now that the taliban are forcing us to send more resources to afghanistan, maybe Iran could help us now?

    I totally appreciate this is politically impossible, but we were very close to Iranian interests back in 2001. It’s not crazy for it to happen again.

    Oh, and Iran-Contra! forgot that doozy.

  5. Instead of finding pleasure in such a remark, a true advocate of international organizations would find it troubling that the head of such an agency would use the standard slur of the left to describe a past official of a democracy.

    Oh Christ. Dick Cheney has been one of the single, largest roadblocks to international organization of any kind for the past decade. And if slurs against a ‘past official of a democracy’ aren’t allowed, doesn’t it follow that slurs against a current official of a democracy not be allowed?

  6. #5 – “Dick Cheney has been one of the single, largest roadblocks to international organization of any kind for the past decade.”

    How so? Proof, please. We’re waiting.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  7. How so? Proof, please. We’re waiting.

    The proof is in the lack of international organization. We haven’t done anything with anybody for 8 years. Even the paltry amount of help we received in our go-it-alone adventure in Iraq has dried up. People don’t want to work with you when you’re an arrogant failure.

  10. And if slurs against a ‘past official of a democracy’ aren’t allowed, doesn’t it follow that slurs against a current official of a democracy not be allowed?

    Completely misses the point that it is inappropriate for the head of an international agency to invoke that sort language when referring to heads of state.

  12. One of the worst communications failings of the Bush administration was allowing the Left to spread this idea that Bush had alienated the rest of the world and nobody would talk to or cooperate with us. Of course the reality is that Bush implemented a hugely successful new basis for anti-terrorist cooperation which embraced not only the 1945-era western powers who most liberals mean when they say “the world,” but the rising countries of Eastern Europe, new regional powers like India and Brazil, and the wealthier and more western-looking nations of the ME such as Dubai and Qatar. Bush chose to be effective if often disliked publicly; Obama has chosen to be liked publicly and so far he appears to be mostly ineffective.

  13. The leader of Iran promised to wipe Israel off the map. Just like the USSR today no longer exists on the map.

    In translating, take care not to spin that Iran has threatened to kill innocent Israeli citizens with a nuclear bomb to wipe it off the map.

    That’s not what he said and I’d hate to see Americans be confused into supporting a false “pre-emptive” strike against the innocent Persians, simple to protect Israel’s fears. America should try to calm Israel and not be drawn into any further budget-draining, ineffective protection for the state of Israel borders, as they currently are drawn on the map. (we can all agree, under the 2 state solution, these currently mapped borders will be redrawn, cease to exist as currently envisioned, right?)

    Afterall, Israel now has nukes too, right? Without American unconditional support, it would be best for Israel to resolve its border disputes, and learn to live with their Persian and Arab neighbors.

  14. “Dick Cheney has been one of the single, largest roadblocks to international organization of any kind for the past decade.”

    “The proof is in the lack of international organization.”

    It is left to the student to explain the flaws in this reasoning.

    But remember, it’s the conservatives that are stupid.

  15. And as we see, they are much more willing to work with us now that the hated Bush and Cheney are gone….. provided of course, that “work with us” is also defined as “not actually having to do anything”.

  17. Um, Levi, that’s an answer. Where are the specifics.

    As to arrogant failures, I’ll remember your comments in about 18 months as it may well be a great term to use to describe the incumbent Administration.

    It’s hard to be specific about things that didn’t happen. Easier to list the things on which we didn’t at all internationally organize:

    …..

    There.

  18. “The proof is in the lack of international organization. We haven’t done anything with anybody for 8 years. Even the paltry amount of help we received in our go-it-alone adventure in Iraq has dried up.”

    You really have NO idea what you’re talking about. That, or you’re simply a bold-faced liar.

    “People don’t want to work with you when you’re an arrogant failure.”

    Is that why Obama came back from Europe empty-handed, despite his celebrity reception?

    Here’s a clue: Euro “goodwill” can’t be banked into anything tangible.

  20. And again, when asked for facts, Levi can’t provide any.

    it’s true we go it alone in disaster relief, AIDS service to Africa, defending soverign nations from invasion…

    Oh woe is the Bush administration, cursed to be alone!

  22. #7 – “The proof is in the lack of international organization.”

    To organize what? Is that why the dumb half of America voted in an inexperienced “community organizer” to be POTUS when he has less qualifications in the executive branch than, say, Sarah Palin?

    Levi, you are such a fool.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  23. Scottland, perhaps something changed between 1993 and 2003? A decade is a long time, you know. Perhaps some little thing helped change the VP’s mind. I dunno, perhaps Saddam mildly violated UN Resolutions, or maybe killed 500,000 babies by starving them to death using Oil for Food as an excuse.
    No. That can’t be because if such heinous things happened the Clinton Administration would have been all over him like stink on sh*t.
    Must have been something else that happened between 1993 and 2003 to change the equation. Something. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but I’ll bet some little thing happened that changed Cheney’s mind. (But not yours, of course. Yours is made up permanentlyl.

  24. Well, if there were other things to be taken into consideration, then did they in any way ameliorate what Cheney was talking about in 1993 (Iran wanting eastern Iraq, Kurds destabilizing Turkey, Syrian Interests, lack of Arab Support, the ‘quagmire’ of a US occupation.)?
    What you are espousing, reasonably coherently, is an idea that foriegn policy should be motivated by moral concerns. There is that arguement to be made. Cheney was arguing from a realist perspective, based on the need to try and prevent war between state actors and not really bring morals into the situation. That’s that arguement to make as well. My mind isn’t permanently made up, I’m learning every day.

    If you’re referring to 9/11 as the ‘little thing’, then it still doesn’t really hold up, because Iraq had nothing to do with that, as scores of ex Bush Administration figures are trying to claim that the US never tried to conflate the two. If Cheneys mind was changed because of 9/11, then it suggests that his viewpoint changed not from realist to humanitarian, but from realist to Surrealist!

  26. Levi = Ace of Spades troll lost in cyberspace. Play with him but don’t expect anything serious.

    Jorge,

    I’m pretty sure the UN said sanctions were killing 50,000 kids PER MONTH. Though that was before Bushitler took office. When ‘solving’ the sanctions problem went from dropping the sanctions to taking out the bastard that was creating the problem.

  27. If we get hit again, Scottland, will you still think Cheney’s thinking surreal in a post 9-11 world? How about if we get hit twice? Three times? Four? How many times does state sponsored terrorism have to happen before it becomes real?

    For you that is. It’s already real enough for me that I think we should kill it.

  28. Being a Londoner, EBJ, we did get hit again after 9/11, and scores of my countrymen and women died on 7/7 (a friend of mine was only not on one of the trains because he was hungover and didn’t go to work that day!), so my thinking is informed by the idea that, if this is indeed a global war, we have been hit MANY times post 9/11.

    Please don’t think that I dont think that state-sponsored terrorism is a problem, nosiree. It just wasn’t coming massively from a secular socialist state like Iraq. Neither are clearcut understandings of who is good or evil conveniently available. Look at the senate report on the Khobar towers bombing in 1996 and connect it to the actions of the Saudi Government to get an idea of how confusing it is as to who are our enemies and who aren’t.

  29. #28 – And I bet you were firmly in Red Ken Livingstone’s corner when he came out in support of Islamofascists and constantly denigrated the USA.

    At least most of your fellow citizens woke up and elected Boris Johnson as Lord Mayor. And I will lay odds you probably didn’t.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  30. What are you talking about? The Lord Mayor of London is Ian Luder. I didn’t vote for him, I didn’t vote for Ken (who was guilty of terrible cronyism) and I didn’t vote for Boris. I voted for Brian Paddick, gay former police chief and unfortunate target of character assasination. As it stands, our extreme right citizens also woke up and managed to get national socialist Richard Barnbrook into the GLC, so I’m a little unhappy with the totality of the political makeup of London’s representative body.

  32. #31 – My mistake on the Lord Mayor honorific. I didn’t know there were two of them.

    And by whom was Paddick treated so badly, those on the left or those on the right? And what was the Muslim reaction to his candidacy?

    I would hope that he doesn’t meet the same fate as Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands. You know, from pissing off the participants of the so-called “religion of peace.” The ones who think that the way to fix homosexuality is to either hang the perpetrators or drop a wall on them.

    Regards,
    Peter H.

  33. It was the red top tabloids that went after him, so a variety of newpapers, owned by people from across the political spectrum. Far left groups like Respect coalition and far right groups like the BNP also went after him for being a cop or being gay respectively. He has a pretty good relationship with the muslim community, and spearheaded the post 7/7 muslim community co-ordination programs.
    Also, having had many discussions with official from both the UK and the US (the details i’m not at liberty to disclose here because the meetings were under chatam house rules and therefore off the record), it would appear Muslim communities WANT better co-ordination with police forces, not for the totality of their communities to be written off as firebreathing jihadists. Just as all christians aren’t the Westboro Baptist Church .