« They Have A Yen For Gambling
‘Un-European’ Obama Demonstrates Why Europe Needs Russia: Gazeta of Russia »
Misunderstandings, and Complex Thinking
It’s not clear to me whether Sarah Palin really did misunderstand Pat Buchanan’s column to mean that he thought Pres. Obama should bomb Iran (he was in fact making the opposite argument), or whether she was indicating that she thought it was a neat idea and was simply, in her verbally challenged way, citing Buchanan’s column as the place where she first learned about the idea (Buchanan got it from Daniel Pipes, who does want Obama to bomb Iran).
What is clear to me, however, is that Pipes (who comments on the controversy raised by what Palin said to Chris Wallace), in addition to being a warmonger, is among the most stunningly naive individuals I have ever come across. After quoting the relevant portion of the transcript of the Wallace-Palin interview, Pipes writes (emphasis is mine):
Comments: (1) Buchanan disapproves of Obama taking out the Iranian nuclear infrastructure, but Palin and I “would like him to do” that, thereby removing the world’s No. 1 security threat.
(2) After vilification from the Left and tepid reactions on the Right, it’s nice to have a major political figure endorse my idea.
I find it no easier to fathom how a grown person — much less someone with as much relevant subject experience as Pipes has — could believe that bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities would “remove” Iran as the world’s No. 1 security threat as I would to fathom how a grown person could believe in Santa Claus, or the tooth fairy. It just boggles my mind. How incredibly incapable of complex thinking must a mind be that could believe this?
40 Responses to “Misunderstandings, and Complex Thinking”
The mistake people like Pipes continually make is to overestimate the effects of a military strike on Iran's nuclear program.
Yes, and they also underestimate the effects of whatever retaliatory action would come from Iran and from the larger region. In fact, I don't think they even consider that there would be any at all. Just remove the buildings where the bombs are made, and all is well. Sunshine, birds chirping, sweet silence.
I accept there are people in the world who are dangerously stupid, I just wish they weren't aspiring to positions of power within our own government.
2007 Zogby poll — 52% of Americans would support military strikes on Iran to stop Iran from getting nukes; 53% expect it to happen. Only 29% were opposed to a strike at any time.
http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm
You would think from the responses to the suggestion that this was some kind of an out of the mainstream, non-moderate position. Are people really that out of touch with their fellow Americans?
The media is so one sided on these issues that people really believe that “everyone” agrees with them. Maybe you don't like Zogby, or maybe things have changed in the past two years and Americans have become more passive and appeasing. Maybe there is such utter faith in the diplomatic wizardry and national security prowess of the Obama Administration that nobody thinks military action is necessary. Maybe a lot of things, but it's hardly a big deal that Palin once again said what few political people dare to say but so many support.
If Obama thinks the American people won't care if he drops the ball and let's Iran gain nuclear weapons, he is whistling past a very big electoral graveyard.
And before anyone melts down and freaks out, nobody but the fringe is saying we should 'nuke' Iran, and very few feel it should actually be invaded and occupied. I certainly don't. We just don't need to do that.
“Only 29% were opposed to a strike at any time.”
We know who they are — they're the “everyone.”
Of course we don't go bombing country's based on opinion polls do we. That suggestion also falls under the umbrella of dangerously stupid.
Oooh, what an awesome concept!
Every year we have a series of national polls on who to nuke. The consensus winner (loser?) gets it on Christmas Day.
THAT will make every other country afraid to screw with us!
“It’s not clear to me whether Sarah Palin really did misunderstand…”
Palin left the subject and her thoughts murky so no one could pin her down on anything. And if, in the future, the winds blow one way or the other, she can always say she supported it. Whichever way those winds blow. The gas bag.
The point is, this is hardly a marginal position. It is solidly in the mainstream Whether it is a good idea or not is a separate matter.
I may disagree with Obama's version of health care reform but it would be foolish to claim that it is not a mainstream idea, even though fewer people support ObamaCare than support military action against Iran.
So you think she's taking lessons from Obama?
“this is hardly a marginal position. It is solidly in the mainstream “
Willingness to attack Iran because of the developing nuclear threat is unquestionably mainstream.
It never has been implied, and it's far from mainstream to assume, that the risks of that are ignored.
“Every year we have a series of national polls on who to nuke.”
“Spin the Bottle” on a map of the world
“Pin the Tail” on the Globe
I reckon I'll just say a extra little prayer tonight (in my secular humanist way
of thanks that neither of you guys are – nor are likely to ever be, in a position to determine foreign policy for this country.
Cuba's future — fresh pavement, SUVs, and KFC, Pizza Hut, and Starbucks (for culture) everywhere.
The problem with what you're saying, though, DaMav, is that nobody but you has said anything at all about whether it is or isn't a mainstream issue.
“Just remove the buildings where the bombs are made, and all is well. Sunshine, birds chirping, sweet silence.”
I agree, Kathy. However, as a moderate, I have to say that doing nothing will also not bring sunshine, birds chirping, and sweet silence.
I realize the Iran situation is not absolute, but there are absolute elements.
1. Iran is attempting to pursue nuclear weapon capability – and they get closer every day.
2. They have shown little interest in diplomatic solutions – other than rhetoric.
3. They have made it semi-clear that an attack upon Israel is an option.
4. They have a formidible army that I dread facing – they “ain't” no Iraqi Republican Guard.
5. They have backed enemies of the USA in the past and continue to do so.
So I'm not sure what our next step should be with Iran. I am wholeheartedly behind diplomacy, but a Neville Chamberlain approach will do nothing but place us in greater danger. Bombing is an option, but we don't have that “right” to bomb a nation that is not directly threatening us or an ally. However, with their new missle tests and their inclination to weaponize nuclear warheads and their repeated threats upon Israel (an ally), we have to keep bombing as a ready option.
I'm sure President Obama has already been briefed on all contingencies. It's HIS decision to make.
I'd hate to be the one to make it.
As for Sarah Palin…. No she's not a magician with rhetoric that Obama is, but I'm quite sure she knows the implications of a possible bombing campaign in Iran. Contrary to leftist jabs, she's not stupid – although it's an easy jab.
[It’s not clear to me whether Sarah Palin really did misunderstand Pat Buchanan’s column to mean that he thought Pres. Obama should bomb Iran]–
That’s the thing about clarity. Seems both you and Palin are birds of a feather. Accentuate the positive and embrace your commonalities. It would be ever so “moderate” of you making many here proud.
Willingness to attack Iran because of the developing nuclear threat is unquestionably mainstream.
It never has been implied, and it's far from mainstream to assume, that the risks of that are ignored.
“I'd hate to be the one to make it.”
Nobody wins.
http://earth.imagico.de/views/hormus_large.jpg
http://earth.imagico.de/views/hormus2_large.jpg
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/World_Oil_Transit_C…
We won't bomb Iran. The sanction route is dead because Iran is welcomed into the SCO. Russia and China won't enforce any sanctions…
Bacevich tells us how military action has worked.
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/feb/01/00006/
What if I appointed you UN Ambassador to my SecState?
I was just basking in the warm glow of my Moderation, along with Daniel and Sarah.
Uh-huh.
Kathy, Palin did not misunderstand a thing about what Buchannon said, you simply failed to understand what she said and thats not a poor reflection on her intellectual ability.
She said:
No where in this statement does Palin imply that Buchannon was for playing the war card, she merely cites the source of a discussion of an “if” situation.
Palin has more brain cells in her head than you want to give her credit for. Its not her reading skills that are questionable here. Maybe you just skipped over it fast an made some assumptions based on your own opinion of Palin rather than reading what was actually said, thats an honest mistake, if you make a retraction, show some integrity and do so. I don't like her either very much, but thats no reason to make statements in a “factually challeged way” that she didn't understand Buchannons column perfectly.
I mean you wouldn't want to leave evidence up that Palin can read better than you can would you? Change it. *wink*
Funny but AmCon isn't rushing to the defense of Pipes or Palin.
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2010/02/04/will-obama-play-the-war-card/
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/08/who_wants_to_bomb_iran?page=0,1&hpid=topnews
Sounds just like being greeted with flowers anf chocolate…
We seemed focused on Palin's possible intellectual shortcomings and not on the broader implications of what she said. She was talking about the election in 2012, not foreign affairs.
Palin seems to accept that declaring war is a reasonable Presidential election strategy. This is more alarming even than the idea of war as anything other than the absolute last option in conducting foreign affairs.
Rather than just bombing Iran she seems to be encouraging the President to “do whatever he could to support Israel”. Of course, the idea is we should be conducting our foreign policy to support the best interests of the United States.
Palin ran for the office of Vice President as the second most qualified person in her party to lead this country. Hopefully this means she had heard about the idea of bombing Iran and thought through the consequences of doing that long before Buchanan's column was published.
I get the impression that she is suggesting that Obama might try to appear more of a Iran Hawk before the election in an effort to get more voter support, thats what take from her statements mostly. I could see that as a real possibility, a touch of Wag the Dog.
Hi Leonidas, king of Sparta??
You don't like Sarah Palin either very much eh? Sounds to me like you're on your knees licking the bottoms of her Prada boots actually. Particularly with your little quip about how the “hopey changey” thing of sitting down without preconditions (also known as negotiating if you've never heard of such a thing,) hasn't worked out. Tell me true, do you brainwashed hicks actually get together to agree on the latest cutsy folksy anecdotes? Or did you just repeat something Palin said because you thought it was just so unbelievably brilliant?
I don't know this Kathy person but she's certainly brought out your stubborn bully nature, trying to suggest that Sarah Palin can read better than her. Come on, seriously? It's no secret to anyone that Sarah Palin is one of the biggest morons ever born and she's only running around spouting off rhetoric so that people like you will buy her next book (which someone else had to write for her.) She's ONLY in it for the money, period. Otherwise she would have never quit her job as governor just because other people started asking her questions that she couldn't answer. I pray to god she's never given any actual power. The woman is too dumb to remember things like “energy, tax cuts, lift American spirits,” which she not only wrote on her HAND but actually had to look at to remember it! She is a two-bit moron who can barely form a coherent sentence, and at this point that's common knowledge. People who try to argue for her intelligence are like those who believe GWB was the best president we've ever had. So ditch your dissing and leave Kathy alone, and go back to your silly teabagging party.
“Ok supposing we did indeed take out Iran's nuclear infrastructure, then would Iran afterwards have a nuclear threat? No they would not.”
Perhaps it is YOU who should actually think about these things and get an “elementary understanding” of these issues before spreading your ridiculous and hateful war mongering which has cost so many lives in the past. Just because our media doesn't show people dying on TV doesn't mean that it's not happening. Use your brain before you go advocating violence. And before you start using 9/11 as your platform for national security and more war, reach way into the back of your memory and remember that Bush and Dick, who started and profited immensely from these two wars, were the ones who fell asleep at the wheel and let it happen. I pray to god that nobody so stupid, such as Sarah Palin, is ever allowed into the White House again.
I find it somewhat comforting that Ms. Palin can now actually recall exactly what/who she reads. Shouldn't we give her credit for some improvement?
Whether she misinterpreted what Mr. Buchanan said or just wanted to let everyone know that she does read and can remember where she got an idea from, I think these little signs of advancement are encouraging.
It's only a matter of time until an original thought will emerge, I believe.
Nobody has mentioned the other options:
1) Let Israel do it.
2) Covertly back up the Iranian insurgents with more of
what they need.
In response to your:
” They have a formidible army that I dread facing – they “ain't” no Iraqi Republican Guard.”
The Republican Guard fought the Iranian army for 8 years during the Iran/Iraq war. The outcome was a stalemate.
dear DLS, same here, two pix, called ATTACHED FILES at the end of your comment. Do you know what this is and why it is here? One says in tiny print 'views of the earth, copyright by a name I cant read.'
thanks
dr.e
dr e. -
That effect is being done by DISQUS.
Now when you link to a picture it puts a thumbnail of it here. Click on the thumbnail, and it will open in a separate window. In that window is 'original'. Click on that, and you are taken to the source, which is quote large and easy to read the copyright.
Hope that helps.
Ah, I see. Thank you for telling me that Schadenfreude.
Can you cogently defend the assertion that (a) Iran's supposed plan to build an atomic bomb is America's No. 1 threat or (b) once bombing said supposed Iranian nuclear infrastructure the threat would be removed?
Here's my question why, with Pipes' track record, would anyone be interested to act on his advice. He was one of the warmongers who desired the invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and I'm sure he supports giving money and weapons to Yemen, but the bigger question is that when Pipes entire career was spent telling us how great invading Iraq would go was so thoroughly wrong, don't you think someone, anyone, would be skeptical of his advice? Anywhere but in America.
that Bush and Dick, who started and profited immensely.”
I see, Mamas of a feather stick together.
However, we do agree on Palin.
“ATTACHED FILES at the end of your comment. Do you know what this is and why it is here?”
I have posted links to pictures (maps, photos). I don't know why Disqus considers them to be attached files.
The thing for me to do is to think twice now about linking to images like these, I suppose. Too bad, when it's useful.
dear DLS, thank you for looking into it. I have never seen this before, and wanted to make sure it wasnt some 'germ' attaching itself to your messages, and some of the images somehow didnt seem to go with what you were saying. Thanks for informing me so I know now.
thanks
dr.e
ROTFLMAO….
Oh my week has been made please continue, far better than comedy central.
P.S. my real mother is a sensible woman
Also, how exactly does one bully on the internet? I haven't quite gotten that figured out yet…..
There is certainly a valid argument for the former, although I am not sure I buy it, I could probably give one to you, but have no interest in doing so. As for the second part, if you would have read my earlier post fully you should be aware that I brought up that very point. Try going back and rereading it, if you missed that before.