RSS Feeds Feeds: Articles | Issues
Articles About TAP Subscribe Donate
TAPPED  |  Beat the Press

Remember Me
Forgot your password?

The symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.


 



The group blog of The American Prospect

I UNDERSTAND THAT TRYING TO INFER LOGIC FROM INSTAPUNDITRY IS FUTILE, BUT... Glenn Reynolds asserts that Iran has been at war with the United States "since 1979." My question: when does he start calling for Michael Ledeen to be put on trial for high treason for helping to sell arms to a country the U.S. is at war with?

--Scott Lemieux

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference :

» Air Pistols from Air Pistols
The Air pistol : They have a 4.55mm calibre with a maximum weight [Read More]



COMMENTS

This is the new rightwing virus they're trying to inject in the new new hysterical march to an unnecessary war. I've seen it a few times now -- a claim that would come as a surprise, especially seeing as how our campaign against the Taliban was aided by Iran just a few years ago.

Which would put Bush and his generals in collusion (presumably giving the Iranians at least some basic information on American troop movement) with a country we're at war with.

Also, Instafuckwit has been at war with reason since 1982.

North and Poindexter? Wasn't Gates involved in Iran-Contra? Negroponte?

Also, Instafuckwit has been at war with reason since 1982.

Not true. He unconditionally surrendered a little over five years ago.

Also, Instafuckwit has been at war with reason since 1982.

Not true. He unconditionally surrendered a little over five years ago.

Halliburton sold Iran arms too - while Cheney was in charge of the company. Yet another traitorous action committed by the Vice President. IMPEACH!

You know, if we had had the sense to execute all the Iran-Contra figures who betrayed us in our on-going war with Iran, the present administration would look very, very different (if it was there at all).

Maybe Jonah can call for Ollie to turn himself in to be executed, or does that only apply to liberals under Star Trek scenarios?
.

Also, Instafuckwit has been at war with reason since 1982.

Hasn't it been longer than that? I mean, he's more than 25 years old ...

9/11 changed everything. It's a new class of war. A global war.

So now we can go to war with countries we also sell weapons to.

We're working our way up to just writing big checks to private companies to kill their employees and smash their equipment.

It's really quite amusing to watch Perfesser Ernest T. Bass pretend he doesn't know the difference between calling for killing "regime leaders" and death squads that assassinate civilians willy-nilly.

I may not agree with either idea, but at least I know there's a fucking difference. Of course, I can also count to ten without taking off my socks, so I'm one up on Ernest T. in many respects...

I think Cheney lobbied the Clinton administration on behalf of Halliburton to lift trade sanctions on Iran so that they could sell to Iran. I seem to remember some off-shore subsidiary of Halliburton that was doing business in Iran in violation of the sanctions.

Wait. Does Reynolds assert that the US has been literally at war with Iran?

Shouldn't a law professor know something about, you know, the Constitution?
.

And Cheney, and Halliburton and...

Look, ANYTHING and EVERYTHING
is AOK if a Republican does it. It's
simply that simple. Putz has no consistency or honor. Only Tribes.

If you travelled to Iran as a student
in 1982 to try to understand the Islamic Revolution there, you are a traitor and should be executed because we are at WAR with Iran,
dammit!

If you have been selling weapons to them since 1980 and they've used them on Iraqis, Soviets, Americans, etc, but you made a shitload of money off it, you're cool...

...To a Putz.

Don't forget Ayatollah Ollie North who also committed treason by selling arms.

We have always been at war with Iran.

So, where do I fit in this war?

-

Reynolds says that since 1979, Iran has the deaths of many Americans, soldiers and otherwise, on its hands. I'm wondering, who might that be? I only ask because, depending on his answer, he might have to call for the indictment of the entire Reagan administration.

Heck. Forget Ledeen and Iran-Contra.


Read Cheney's own words from 1998, when he argues specifically against then current US Law regarding sanctions on Iran and see Cheney's actions as CEO of Halliburton, where, despite the sanctions, he orchestrated -- and personally profited from -- millions of dollars of contracts with the same Iranian Mullahs through a shady Cayman Island subsidiary.

So in summary, while the USA was, according to Instahack, at war with Iran, Dick Cheney by word and deed literally worked against official US Laws and Policy (the sanctions), literally provided aid and comfort to the Enemy (the deals with Iran and the arguments against the sanctions) while personally pocketing millions of dollars as a result of these words and actions.

In neocon thinking we are truly "at war" with anyone who disagrees with any of this adminstration's policies or actions. The Declaration of War recognizing this is instantaneous, intuitive, and superior to the slow and unsatisfying process found in the Constitution.

So it likely comes as no surprise to hear that, among others, we are currently at war with France and Barbara Streisand.

When French waiters begin to drop from sniper bullets you'll know that Reynolds' ideas have been received at the highest levels....

Must I say it?

We have always been at war with Iran.

Apologies to Cosmosis who was all over this utterly bizarre echo of Orwell.

With all the hoopla about Iran, let's not forget that (thank you, Thomas Friedman for bringing it our attention!) that we've been at war with France since at least 2003:

http://www.travelbrochuregraphics.com/extra/our_war_with_france.htm


"Lemieux" sounds FRENCH.

Also, Instafuckwit has been at war with reason since 1982.

Not true. He unconditionally surrendered a little over five years ago.

Too bad there was no occupation.

Also, Instafuckwit has been at war with reason since 1982.

Not true. He unconditionally surrendered a little over five years ago

Posted by:Michael Bérubé | February 20, 2007 01:44 PM

I must disagree. I wander over there on occasion (perhaps the agnostic equivalent of flagellation), and I have yet see evidence of someone who has succumbed to reason.

Also keep in mind that while Bush sends political prisoners to Syria to be tortured, he refuses to speak with the country's leaers - he'll only do so through an intermediary.

It's not just the Perfessor who has trouble with logic.

Bush apologists have been heard making the same claim about Iraq - i.e., that the 2003 invasion was not the beginning of the war but just a continuation of it.

And remember, there's no such thing as a presidential pardon for a war crime.

Post a comment


Search TAPPED for:

Archives

About TAPPED

TAPPED, the Prospect's award-winning group blog, is a link-intensive collection of musings, ramblings, opinions and other assorted writing on the political developments of the day. See a list of our contributors.

| RSS | Twitter


Renew your print subscription or e-subscription.
Get an e-subscription for $14.95.
Give the gift of political insight. Send The American Prospect to a friend.
Change your email address or street address.
YES! I want to receive The American Prospect
— the essential source for progressive ideas.
Explore The American Prospect's award-winning investigative journalism and provocative essays in a free trial issue. Continue receiving The American Prospect at only $19.95 for a one-year subscription - a savings of 60% off the newsstand price!
First Name
Last Name
Address 1
Address 2
City
State
ZIP     
Email

Should you decide not to continue receiving the magazine after the initial free issue, simply write "cancel" on the invoice and you will not be billed.

© 2010 by The American Prospect, Inc.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Permissions and Reprints