So I'm reading about the recent slumber party for the dauphin and his bosom buddy Hamid. And I'm struck by:
Afghan officials have charged that the government of President Pervez Musharraf has not done enough to prevent the influx of foreign fighters into Afghanistan to aid the Taliban and has tolerated a Taliban and al-Qaeda presence on Pakistani territory.And:
"I'm confident that with actionable intelligence we will be able to bring top al-Qaeda to justice," [Bush] said. "We're in constant communications with the Pakistan government. It's in their interest that foreign fighters be brought to justice. . . . And I'm confident, with real, actionable intelligence, we will get the job done."Dear readers, you have surely also noted that the various bloody goings-on in Iraq are also imputed to "foregin fighters," as were many of the vicious shenanigans in Southern Lebanon.
One begins to suspect that this phrase constitutes what our structuralist friends might call a signifier without signification. Or what you and I might call a mighty herd of bull.
The article goes on to reproduce another odd assertion:
Questioned about those remarks today, Bush said, "It's up to Iran to prove to the world that they're a stabilizing force as opposed to destabilizing force. After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon."After all.
Iran has denied accusations by the United States that it's designing a nuclear warhead capable of triggering a massive blast. ABC Local Radio, AustraliaHuh.
"No. Absolutely not. Iran is a member of the Non Proliferation Treaty. We have safeguard agreements with the IAEA. Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction do not have a place in our defense doctrine. We have stated that clearly. And we have shown it." Mohammed Javad Zarif, Iran's ambassador to United Nations, speaking to CNN.
Iran denies seeking nuclear weapons, as the West suspects, saying its program aims purely to generate electricity. Reuters
The West has accused Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, a charge Iran denies. BBC's The World
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, Ali Larijani, has rejected any accusation that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons saying it would not do this for fear of sparking a regional arms race. CCTV
5 comments:
We're in constant communications with the Pakistan Government...it that like the Democrat Party?
And, how dare Karzai have a substantively different opinion on Iran than our glorious "Not so much-President as Boy King and Captain Cheerleader!
Got a quibble with your take on the Iranian nuclear weapons issue, IOZ: For a guy who's got a wee bit of scepticism about his own government, I don't buy that you're taking Tehran's denials at face value -- right?
Here's the thing. I'm afraid that anti-war types are setting themselves up (again!) to be suckered, because they aren't insisting on forthrightness and clarity. I'm convinced that the deliberately vague scare term "WMD" carried a lot of the freight for the Iraq war advocacy disinfo op. War opponents should have asked, "By 'WMD', do you mean nuclear weapons, or mortar shells with mustard gas? If the former, where's the evidence? If the latter, why the snow job and hype?"
I think it's all but certain that Tehran is, in fact, pursuing a nuclear weapons program to some degree or other (to be sure, I don't doubt that they're developing civilian nuclear technology as well). They'd be fools not to, wouldn't they? Pakistan, Israel, and India all have the bomb -- and none of them has an overtly hostile American army right on its doorstep. And I imagine there are national prestige issues as well: Remember, when Pakistan detonated their bomb, there were celebrations in the streets.
I'd really like to see opponents of our next war concede the obvious, and move on to the real issue: Isn't it about time we put our anti-Iran hysteria to rest? Yeah, sure, we don't like their ideology, and yeah, sure, they done us wrong back in '79. On the other hand, we have a pretty lengthy history of fucking up their shit. What's more, for a supposedly revolutionary regime, Iran hasn't exactly been what you'd call an expansionist power over this last quarter century. In any case, their economy and population are both dwarfed by ours -- and they're on the other side of the world!
Anyway, this is the tack I'd like to see coming from the anti-war camp -- mainly for aesthetic reasons, since I doubt anything will make much difference. Last autumn I actually had a chance to buttonhole one of my Senators -- Cardin, then a candidate -- about this very thing. You'll be astonished to hear that he agreed with every one of my points, that he too was concerned, and that he didn't commit to a single fucking thing.
-- sglover
You're picking nits. Iran's president, whose office has an enormous amount of executive authority, has predicted (in public!) that Israel will someday be "wiped from the page of history." How could that come to pass unless Iran was actively developing a nuclear device?
In other news, Trotsky discloses the secret Soviet atom bomb program! Thank God we got there before they did.
Top of your form, Aaron. I almost fell off the chair.
Nonymous--my position on Iran is, Eh. I happen to agree with you. What I was trying to note was the strange insistence that Iran has "a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon." Which quite clearly is a zillion miles from the case.
I missed it. I thought you were going for "after all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nucular weapon."
As irony, or whatever, coming from the guy with the biggest stockpile.
Yes, Mr. Glover us peace, hippy, queers are being 'set up' to be 'suckered' 'once again.' You're making me feel all Chamberlain in my soul.
Post a Comment