Norman Podhoretz in the WSJ: All I Am Saying Is Give War (in Iran) a Chance

[mhatrw]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120103739264407641.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Stopping Iran

Why the case for military action still stands.

By NORMAN PODHORETZ
January 23, 2008

blah, blah, blah ...

Unless we do, the forces that are blindly working to ensure that Iran will get the bomb are likely to prevail even against the clear-sighted determination of George W. Bush, just as the forces of appeasement did against Churchill in 1938. In which case, we had all better pray that there will be enough time for the next President to discharge the responsibility that Mr. Bush will have been forced to pass on, and that this successor will also have the clarity and the courage to discharge it. If not--God help us all--the stage will have been set for the outbreak of a nuclear war that will become as inescapable then as it is avoidable now.

Mr. Podhoretz is the editor-at-large of Commentary, in whose February issue this article appears, and author of "World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism" (Doubleday, 2007).

National Intelligence Estimate? National Intelligence Estimate? We are the Neoconeralis! We don't need no stinking National Intelligence Estimate!

[NewJeffCT]

1. Norm - what gives you the standing to talk about foreign policy?

Can you tell me where you were right about Iraq?

(cue crickets)

The only reason to listen to you is to get an idea of what NOT to do.

[TomClash]

2. Another dirty old warmonger

If Iran obtains a nuclear weapon, the chances that it will be used are close to zero.

More right-wing Israeli bullshit.

[mhatrw]

3. No, see Mutally Assured Destruction doesn't work on Muslims.

Not even if their own nation is the only one whose destruction is assured.

Nope, all Muslims are :silly: :crazy:, doncha know?

The very day Iran gets its hands on one nuke, the entire country will strap it on like a suicide bomb!

Just like those crazy Muslims in Pakistan did ...

[TomClash]

4. So I've heard

I'm-a-dinner-jacket said so! :eyes:

[yurbud]

5. If Iran gets a handful of nukes, we still have 10,000. Mullahs can do math.

We could burn every square inch of Iran ten times over before any mushroom cloud cleared here, and still have enough to do the same to every country on earth five or ten times.

Podhoretz and the neocons aren't idiots, they are liars. They think they can sell us another hatful of shit, call it a chocolate cake, and we won't notice.

[Maat]

6. Dear Norman:

Preventative and pre-emptive wars are ILLEGAL! And I'm sick and tired of paying for the U.S. engaging in CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR!

As far as I'm concerned, we need to preclude funding any more of your psychopathic killing!

Peace,

Maat

[bemildred]

7. Xposed! Norman Podhoretz's boobs

---

The funny thing is, to the best of our knowledge (including exhaustive web searches) the actual contents of the classified 2005 NIE remain unknown to anyone outside the intelligence establishment or their masters (and clearly, Podhoretz is not a member of the intelligence community).

It was not until the 2007 NIE findings were released that we discovered that the 2005 NIE allegedly assessed "with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons". The 2007 NIE lays out for us exactly how its findings differ from those of 2005, all neatly tabulated and in your face (see the public version of the NIE here ). How does Podhoretz know what the 2005 assessment (with which "scarcely anyone dissented") said, without getting the information from the 2007 NIE that he has so thoroughly discredited?

Actually, there is only one question arising from this tangled web of NIEs, and it's not whether Iran should or should not be bombed, or whether Podhoretz needs hormone therapy, or why people read garbage like his article. The question is, why did the authors of the 2007 NIE see fit to publicly flaunt the (allegedly) inaccurate and previously unknown findings of the 2005 NIE? Could it have been intended as a message to people like Podhoretz's neo-con dog handlers to butt out this time around?

We think that's quite possible: the 2007 key findings were released to the public hard on the heels of reports that the NIE had been delayed for months because of pressure from Cheney's office to make it more congenial to aggressive military action against Iran (see Spooks refuse to toe Cheney's line on Iran, November 10, 2007).

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JA25Ak04.html