Palin: Ahmadinejad Wants Nuclear Weapons for a Second Holocaust

This woman is demented:

Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin warned against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s pursuit of nuclear weapons for a “second holocaust,” while blaming “Democrat partisans” for forcing rally organizers to withdraw her invitation to speak before an anti-Iran protest in New York next week.

“John McCain and I are committed to drawing attention to the danger posed by Iran’s nuclear program and we will not waver in our commitment,” Palin told a crowd of 9,000 supporters in Blaine, MN. “I will continue to call for sustained action to prevent Iranian President Ahmadinejad from getting these weapons that he wants for a second holocaust.”

Now that’s the way to address the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran: Use the most inflammatory, hostile, confrontational language you can possibly muster to accuse Iran’s president of actively planning a repeat of the worst and most horrifying crime against humanity of the twentieth century — with absolutely no evidence or factual basis for the charge. That is certain to cool things down and make us all much safer.

Can someone put duct tape over this woman’s mouth? Her ill-considered, ahistorical, utterly ignorant public statements are a threat to national security.

16 Responses to “Palin: Ahmadinejad Wants Nuclear Weapons for a Second Holocaust”

  1. Norm says:

    And the fact that she is telling the truth bothers you so much ? We Jews have a very strong memory that the theory “Be nice to the Nazis and maybe they will not bother us” did not really
    work all that well. The fact that neither Clinton or Biden would even show up at this rally speaks
    volumes to whom we will or will not trust. Have a nice day.

  2. Kathy says:

    “We Jews”? Be careful about those assumptions, Norm. I am Jewish, too, and I know all about what the Nazis did from personal family experience. Iran is not Nazi Germany, and not every country whose policies or leadership the U.S. does not like is planning a second Holocaust. U.S. leaders, and Americans like you, had better start chilling and stop casting every single international conflict as an existential climactic battle with Hitler Reborn, or you may find yourself creating the very apocalyptic human life-ending cataclysm you supposedly fear.

  3. Norm says:

    Excuse me Kathy, but I am not casting every international conflict as an “existential climatic battle”, so stop making up stories. Iran has threatened the existence of Israel (where many Jews actually live)…that is an existential problem…don’t cha think? Do you actually follow the news from the Middle East, and how Iran is arming Hizbollah with every possible arm in their armory? How Iranian troops are manning the hills in southern Lebanon with their radar units? Did you read the UN report this week about Iran designing nose cones to fit nuclear weapons to their missiles ? Do you have any clue at all. ? The saddest fact is that Sarah Palin, a Christian, is trying to make
    the Iranians back off, and you…a Jew…just preparing to be a dhimmi. Hope the burka fits.

  4. Kathy says:

    1. “Iran has threatened the existence of Israel.”

    2. “Ahmadinejad wants nuclear weapons for a second Holocaust.”

    The substantive meaning of these two sentences is different. Do you understand that? That’s number one.

    Number two, Ahmadinejad has not threatened the existence of Israel. Iran is certainly a threat to Israel’s national security — that does NOT mean that Iran (or Ahmadinejad, whom you seem to think *is* Iran) has threatened the existence of Israel.

    Number three, even if Ahmadinejad *had* threatened the existence of Israel, the reality is that he does not have the power to destroy the physical existence of Israel, and neither does Iran. Israel could wipe out Iran in minutes if Iran actually had nuclear weapons and was preparing to use them on Israel. The United States could also nuke Iran into oblivion in a situation like that. Just because you find a particular country’s government and/or leaders vile and repugnant, Norm, does not mean that that government or those leaders are clinically insane. It’s possible to be vile and smart at the same time.

  5. Kathy says:

    The saddest fact is that Sarah Palin, a Christian, is trying to make
    the Iranians back off…

    I wanted to address this, too, because it’s really the crux of why her thinking (and yours, apparently) is so wrong-headed.

    If Sarah Palin’s purpose in accusing Ahmadinejad, and Iran, of planning to use nuclear weapons to carry out a second holocaust is to “make them back off,” then she is very disordered in her thinking. Countries don’t back off when they are insulted and disrespected in front of the entire world with accusations that can’t be supported and that strongly suggest they are about to be invaded and attacked. They just don’t. That is not the way the world works. The Bush administration, and now the would-be McCain/Palin administration, and people like you, by taking such a confrontational, rabid-dog approach to Iran, are just pushing Iran, and surrounding countries, into more extreme positions. You’re not helping. You’re increasing the danger. And no, that is not comparable to pre-WWII appeasement of Hitler. Read your history. My god.

  6. Norm says:

    You’re in your own little world Kathy. Say hello to my buddy Amy Goodman at the Firehouse. She’s a better capitalist then me.

  7. gcotharn says:

    Iranian government official: “When we get a nuclear weapon, of course we will use it against Israel.”

    Ahmadinejad quotes (link):

    “Israel is a rotten, dried tree that will be annihilated in one storm.”

    “We ask the West to remove what they created sixty years ago and if they do not listen to our recommendations, then the Palestinian nation and other nations will eventually do this for them.”

    “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury.”

    “Remove Israel before it is too late and save yourself from the fury of regional nations.”

    “The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land. As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map.”

    “If the West does not support Israel, this regime will be toppled. As it has lost its raison d’ tre, Israel will be annihilated.”

    “Israel is a tyrannical regime that will one day will be destroyed.”

    Of course, the smart people know he doesn’t really mean it. Palin is so backward that she believes his words.

    Palin’s purpose is not to convince Iran to back off. Talk will not convince Iran to back off. Iran does not think like us. Nothing will “convince” them to back off. Iran must be forced to back off due to pressure being applied upon it. Nothing else will work.

    BTW: all the sanctions Barack suggests should be used against Iran? Already being used by the Euro nations and the U.S. Barack has no new ideas. He can only pretend the current ideas have never been tried.

  8. gcotharn says:

    Palin is not trying to “convince” Iran. Palin is drawing a contrast between Barack and McCain: Barack speaks as if he believes Iran might be convinced; McCain believes Iran will only respond to pressure.

  9. Kathy says:

    Well, given that Iran was willing to be convinced in the summer of 2003, and did everything possible to signal that willingness to the Bush administration, and the response from Washington was to slam the door in their face, I think that (a) it’s demonstrably and historically untrue that Iran cannot be convinced to accede to reasonable requests; and (b) it’s likely to be much more difficult to get them to cooperate now, since we rebuffed them in a very contemptuous way five years ago. And if the U.S. is not willing even to consider an olive branch when it’s offered, it’s unlikely that threats and insults will have a better effect.

  10. gcotharn says:

    I disagree:
    – with your interpretation of 2003 events
    – that you can demonstrate examples of Iranian Mullahs being reasonable in any way other than ways which lead to eventual worldwide Islamic Caliphate
    – that U.S. rebuff and contempt has any negative effect on Iranian actions (b/c Iran is not about nicey-nice, but rather is about worldwide Caliphate)
    – that the U.S. is unwilling to consider a true olive branch. The U.S. has historically been benevolent towards any nation which wishes to negotiate in good faith.

    I agree that threats and insults are unlikely to have an effect on Iran. Straight and tough talk is more likely to stiffen the spines of the West than to have any effect on Iran. The only thing which affects Iran is action.

    BTW – slight skew of topic: famous warmongers Madeline Albright and Colin Powell just made statements about Russia which were virtually identical to the NATO statement for which Palin was criticized.

  11. Kathy says:

    Talk will not convince Iran to back off. Iran does not think like us. Nothing will “convince” them to back off. Iran must be forced to back off due to pressure being applied upon it. Nothing else will work.

    As I wrote above, the U.S. rejected strenuous attempts by Iran to work with the U.S. in the summer of 2003, when the U.S. had just invaded Iraq, and there were 150,000 American soldiers next door to the Iranians. Now Iran is in a very different position — thanks to the U.S. invasion and military occupation, Iran is in the catbird seat. They have power and influence in that region they could only have dreamed about before. The U.S. should have taken them up on their offer five years ago, when they were unsure of their safety and nervous about their security.

  12. Kathy says:

    that you can demonstrate examples of Iranian Mullahs being reasonable in any way other than ways which lead to eventual worldwide Islamic Caliphate

    When has any U.S. administration ever tried to find out? And can you demonstrate examples how military force has succeeded in making Iran less of a threat? Can you offer any evidence to counter my statement that U.S. policy in Iraq has made Iran stronger than it was five years ago, and more of a threat?

    that U.S. rebuff and contempt has any negative effect on Iranian actions (b/c Iran is not about nicey-nice, but rather is about worldwide Caliphate)

    Iran is about self-interest, the same as the U.S. is about self-interest, the same as every country in the entire world is about self-interest. Nothing that governments do, ever, is about nicey-nice.

    that the U.S. is unwilling to consider a true olive branch.

    gcotharn, the Iranians were ready to put just about everything on the table — “including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.”

    Read the rest of that article. It’s very enlightening.

    The U.S. has historically been benevolent towards any nation which wishes to negotiate in good faith.

    No, it hasn’t. And especially not in the administration of George W. Bush. “Negotiating in good faith” is defined by this administration as handing over the money and backing out slowly with hands up.

  13. mamapajamas says:

    Kathy, re: “When has any U.S. administration ever tried to find out? “

    Always.

    And can you demonstrate examples how military force has succeeded in making Iran less of a threat?

    The Iranians pissed their pants when we invaded Iraq. That was the reason al Sadr was able to recruit jihadis from Iran. He shouldn’t have been able to, you know… Iraqis and Iranis hate each other more than Shi’ites and Sunnis hate each other. The Iraqi-Irani grudge goes back to ancient Babylon/Persia, and has way more precedence over the more recent Shi’ite-Sunni split.

  14. gcotharn says:

    Kathy,

    Your WaPo article is proof that Iran only responds to force – in this case: military force. Iran only requested negotiations because, in light of the awesome show of U.S. force in the Iraq invasion, Iran believed they were weak and vulnerable.

    It’s also possible the Iranian government was running scared of internal opposition during those years. Student demonstrations were happening a lot in 2002, 2003, 2004, and the Iranian government was having difficulty keeping their own populace under control. I don’t blame the U.S. for rolling the dice on regime change against an Iranian government which has been in a low level state of war against the Israel and the U.S. for 25+ years, had attacked Israel and U.S. interests on multiple occasions, and had killed Israeli and U.S. citizens on multiple occasions. I only blame the U.S. for not pumping enough money and technology and weaponry to Iranian dissidents to allow them to succeed in overthrowing the Mullahs.

    A true olive branch from Iran would’ve required putting the liberalization of their government on the table. What Iran was effectively offering was this: we’ve been attacking you and attacking you and attacking you for 25 years, but we ask for a King’s X just before you strike back against us and cause us pain, loss of power, or death.

    I disagree that Iran is in the catbird seat. From bases inside a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan, the U.S. has many covert capabilities which we never had before. If Iran would’ve actually agreed to stop developing nuclear weapons, then Iran would be in a weaker position than they are in now. That’s why, regardless of what was hinted at in the WaPo article fax, I don’t believe Iran ever would’ve stopped developing the Atomic Bomb. Europe has been trying to negotiate this issue for 5 years, has offered numerous carrots, and has only been stalled and rebuffed at every turn, again and again in a neverending cycle of Iranian bull@#$%.

  15. gcotharn says:

    In today’s WSJ, from an article co-authored by American Foreign Policy veterans Richard Holbrooke, James Woolsey, Dennis Ross, and Mark Wallace:

    Iranian leaders declare that Israel is illegitimate and should not exist. President Ahmadinejad specifically calls for Israel to be “wiped off from the map,” while seeking the weapons to do so. Such behavior casts Iran as an international outlier. No one can reasonably suggest that a nuclear-armed Iran will suddenly honor international treaty obligations, acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, or cease efforts to undermine the Arab-Israeli peace process.

    Holbrooke advised both Gore and Kerry during their Presidential Candidacies, and was widely speculated as a potential Sec. of State if either Gore or Kerry had won.

    But, the important thing is, all these guys are wrong when they say “no one can suggest”. ONE PERSON can and does suggest Iran can be a decent international citizen, if only the United States under Bush were not such a rude nation, and were more open and accomodating to reason.

  16. Kathy says:

    Your WaPo article is proof that Iran only responds to force – in this case: military force. Iran only requested negotiations because, in light of the awesome show of U.S. force in the Iraq invasion, Iran believed they were weak and vulnerable.

    No, it’s proof that Iran responds rationally, in its own survival self-interest, when the alternative is invasion by a superior military force. Your interpretation is incredibly twisted. If Iran’s offer to negotiate with everything put on the table means that Iran only responds to force, and if Iran’s rejection of negotiation also means Iran only responds to force, then there is no response Iran could make that would signal good faith and forestall military force by the U.S. That’s great motivation for Iran to do the right thing. Indeed, you could reasonably say that the Bush administration’s flat rejection of Iran’s offer proves that it’s the United States that does not respond to or respect negotiation or diplomacy. By rejecting Iran’s offer and offering in return nothing but threats and belligerence, the United States has given Iran every motivation and reason to believe that having a nuclear weapons program is their only protection against us. The United States does not respect negotiation or diplomacy, especially if it’s in response to the threat of attack. The United States views an agreement to negotiate, especially under the latter circumstances, as weakness and a reason to demand even more concessions.

    A true olive branch from Iran would’ve required putting the liberalization of their government on the table.

    So giving up a nuclear weapons program, recognizing Israel, forswearing support for Palestinian militants, and cooperating with the U.S. in finding and rooting out Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups would not have been enough, gcotharn? Iran would have been required to surrender its national sovereignty and accept U.S. direction in how to run their government before the U.S. would even walk through the door to the negotiating table? I mean, how outrageous, how appalling, how unconscionable is that? Let me count the ways. And I can’t even adequately express how hypocritical and venal that is. Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, grabbing innocent people off the streets and disappearing them into secret prisons, torture modeled after the Communist Soviet Union, North Korea, the Nazis, and Pol Pot. Arbitrary detention with no habeus corpus. Surveillance of Americans’ email and telephone communications. Republican operatives using lists of foreclosed homes to disenfranchise voters at the polls. Credentialed journalists brutalized and arrested while trying to do their jobs. Who are WE to tell Iran they have to agree to “liberalize” their government before we will accept their offer to recognize Israel or swear off nuclear weapons?

    What Iran was effectively offering was this: we’ve been attacking you and attacking you and attacking you for 25 years, but we ask for a King’s X just before you strike back against us and cause us pain, loss of power, or death.

    “We ASK for a king’s ransom”? If anything, Iran was *offering* a king’s ransom. You appear not to understand, gcotharn. Iran was offering to put *everything* on the negotiating table. They were willing to discuss recognizing Israel, giving up a nuclear weapons program, ending aid to Palestinian militants, and more. The fact that the U.S. rejected that out of hand makes US the irrational party that only responds to violence, not them.

Leave a Reply

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

Connect with Facebook