Paving The Road To Hell (UPDATED)

The road taken by apostate Socialist (and current French Foreign Minister) Bernard Kouchner is filled with many forks, bumps and u-turns.

The controversial co-founder of Medecins Sans Frontieres has worn many hats over the years since his flawed-but-sincere embrace of liberal interventionism, a move that led to a vast schism between himself and the organization he helped create. After a period of ideological agnosticism and contrarianism, followed by a (not so) surprising appointment to the Sarkozy government, Kouchner has comfortably settled into the role of muscle-flexing, illiberally-aggressive neocon shill:

The world should “prepare for war” with Iran, the French foreign minister has said, significantly escalating tensions over the country’s nuclear programme.

Bernard Kouchner said that while “we must negotiate right to the end” with Iran, if Teheran possessed an atomic weapon it would represent “a real danger for the whole world”.

The world should “prepare for the worst… which is war”, he said.

His comments came after Washington reminded Teheran that “all options were on the table” in confronting its nuclear policy, which many officials in the West believe has the ultimate aim of arming a nuclear warhead, despite Iran’s claim that it is for civilian purposes.

Thought it pains me to do so (and shall likely result in me forever losing any semblance of respectability in the reumy eyes of the flying monkey brigade) I must approvingly quote the official Iranian news agency (by way of BBC News):

“The occupants of the Elysee (the French presidential palace) have become the executors of the will of the White House and have adopted a tone that is… even more inflammatory and more illogical than that of Washington,” IRNA news agency said.

Once again, the good intentions of useful idiots (in direct concert with the more-rubble-less-trouble crew) have helped to clear a path that will further the (seemingly inevitable) march to war.

Update: Thomas Edsall also hears distant hoof beats. For less inflammatory commentary, check out Blake Hounshell, Dave Schuler, and James Joyner, who thinks the brinkmanship is “simply [an exercise] in [maintaining] some level of uncertainty in the minds of Iranian and Syrian officials to give more weight to negotiations.”

Update 2: Cernig respectfully dissents from Joyner and the Serious, ‘sensible’ consensus on Iran:

Yeah, sure, SecDef Gates and SecState Rice may be trying to use the strategy James describes, fraught as it is with problems – like Iran doesn’t want the carrots being offered and isn’t intimidated by the sticks – but I don’t think they are as infuential as Cheney and the Decider himself is making noises that suggest he favors the War Faction over the Diplomacy Faction.

In any debate about Iran and what would be sensible, we cannot afford to ignore the simple fact that a large chunk of the opinion the White House has always listened to isn’t sensible at all on the subject. Given that, there is good reason to believe the White House won’t act sensibly.

Bang. On. We’ve already been down this road before. To quote The Decider:

“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”

If y’all Serious folks haven’t figured it out yet, let me spell it out for you in bold block caps: THE ONES WHO ULTIMATELY MAKE THE DECISIONS AREN’T SENSIBLE. They are, to quote the late, great Kurt Vonnegut, psychopathic personalities. So please, for the love of God, stop trying to project your ideal straw-Decider onto the one we’re actually stuck with, and start paying heed to what his actual confidants have been saying.

4 Responses to “Paving The Road To Hell (UPDATED)”

  1. Joseph Eversole says:

    Are you opposed to war with Iran, or war with Iran because Bush wants it? I do agree with your comment that those who make the decisions aren’t sensible, but I believe that this applies to those in charge in Iran as well. In addition, there is an enormous barrier in preventing the United States from entering into a war with Iran. That is the United States Congress. Unless Congress abdicates it’s responsibilty for declaring war (as it did in Iraq), then the Decider can’t do a thing. Thanks for throwing this out there. It’s good to have debate.

  2. Actually, Joe, it is possible that when Bush declaredthe Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, he essentially provided the groundwork for bypassing congress right then and there, allowing Iran to fall under the GWOT which has already been declared.

    While Iwon’t speak for Matt, I personally oppose war with Iran and war with Iran because Bush wants it. The first is simply because war is not warranted. Granted, Hawks won’t believe this, but, and I wrote this in more detail in previous posts, in fact, your best bet is to just use the search function (which works great for this site btw). The point is, war should be a last resort, and not an adventure of choice. The evidence and again, I’ve been tracking the evidence very closely, against Iran has been flimsy at best, and just yesterday a pretty devestating counter argument to the proxy war meme has been produced.

    As for the nuclear weapons. A) We have them,and instead of working towards halting nuclear weapons production, Bush actually made more, therefore, he can’t bitch. B)Iran actually has an established history of using nuclear power, which means that when they say their enrichment processes are for power not weapon purposes, it’s plausible, and C) the IAEA has not finished its investigation yet, and has thus far been positive in its reports about Iran’s cooperation, this would be in direct contrast with US and French leaders who say Iran’s not cooperating…. WEird. D) Even if they do develop nuclear weapons, a prominent (and I’ve yet to read the full article) retired general has just come out and said that we as a global community can deal with that.

    I’m against the Iran war because Bush wants it as well, though. It is, most times,irrational to discount a policy because of the person putting it forth, but Bush is special. Bush has proven that he cannot be trusted. He cannot be trusted to make an honest case for war if it is needed, and he cannot be trusted to wage that war competently. He has shown nothing but disdain for the constitution and the opinion of the very people that put him in office. So, no, personally, since impeachment won’t happen, I think it is best for America and the world if Bush is removed from all responsibilities (as well as the Arch Chancelor) and kept around merely for photo ops.

    Thanks for stopping by Joe.

  3. matttbastard says:

    Joseph Are you opposed to war with Iran, or war with Iran because Bush wants it?

    The former.

    Simple Answers To Simple Questions makes its CFLF debut.

    re: Congress – the US Congress hasn’t formally ‘declared‘ war since WWII. Instead, the Congress has issued ‘authorizations of force’, eg, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, or the still-ongoing (ie, open-ended) post-9/11 AUMF (which some have speculated the Bush admin umay claim an attack on Iran would fall under. Kyle already delved into the ‘GWOT’ angle re: the terrorist designation of the Revolutionary Guard. Will Bunch further explains how the AUMF may have premptively marginalized Congress with regards to military action against Iran.

  4. simple answers… pfft

    Why say something in a paragraph when you can write a small book, says I.


  1. bastard.logic - Ch-Ch-Changes... by matttbastard I’ve decided to post my more foreign/US affairs-type pieces exclusively @ Comments From Left Field, and utilize…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook