There IS a Difference

I am regularly amazed that people who get paid reasonably big bucks for opining in the major media can assert such ludicrous ideas with little to support those concepts beyond their own bias. The ongoing “crisis” regarding Iranian nuclear ambitions is spawning a lot of examples for my astonishment. Take a look at this one from Paul Krugman, published a few days ago in the New York Times: There's a Significant Difference Here

The bile spewed is no longer unprecedented. It is incredibly commonplace, but the concern is that editors, publishers and the general public read it with total acceptance.

The piece starts with the mantra of the sniveling “Blame America First” crowd. Yes, they know for a fact that everything that is wrong with the world is the fault of America. From global warming to Danish cartoons to high gasoline prices to genocide in Darfur, we are to blame. We must beat our breast, give away our prosperity, avoid conflict—particularly the armed variety—and, most importantly, impeach Bush.

Krugman starts with the assumption that the President was “itching for a fight” and therefore manipulated data, lied to the world, and then did whatever he wanted to get us to overthrow Sadaam. That’s increasingly the accepted knowledge of the left. Somehow, they have no difficulty overlooking Sadaam’s quest for nuclear weapons which dated back to the mid-80’s and Osirak. They don’t recall the use of chemical weapons in large quantities in both the eight year war with Iran and the represson of the Kurdish rebellion in the northern part of Iraq. They can’t recall the opinions of, not only the US intelligence community, but the British, the French (even!), the Germans and the Russians that Sadaam did have stocks of WMD. Intel is always a questionable commodity, but when a lot of sources provide a lot of input, conclusions gain credibility, even when there are errors in some assumptions. Ignore it all, the mantra is “Bush lied” and the bottom line is that it was all because of some sort of warrior mentality run amok.

Now, with that initial assertion, Krugman goes on to paint the Seymour Hersh opinion of impending war in darker colors. Yes, we should extend the madness to the conclusion that in a vain attempt to save the Bush II legacy, we are on the verge of an Iranian attack. And, somehow, Krugman wants to imply that once again it will be implemented by lying to the American people.

This time, of course, it may be a bit harder to keep the blinders on. How can we suggest that a case for invasion will be built on a trumped up WMD threat, when the fool on the hill in Teheran is conducting daily press conferences to tout Iran’s progress in joining the nuclear club? Is this a Baghdad Bob sort of media relations campaign but with bigger props?

Why does Iran want a bomb? You don’t have to make very long stretches of your assumptions to conclude that it is to eliminate Israel. And, along the way, to stretch the power of Iran in the region. With a bomb and demonstrated means of delivery, it will become very difficult to restrain Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s ambitions. Here’s the man himself telling the world very clearly what he intends. In Plain View

It would be hard to conclude that this is some sort of Karl Rove plot!

A war, or even a surgical strike against Iran would be a very dangerous thing. It would strain American military capability to the breaking point. It would shatter a lot of carefully constructed alliances as nations would be forced to make difficult choices regarding trade, energy, security and whether or not they would be harmed or enhanced by supporting the move.

Yet, we are obviously (sorry Krugman—it is obvious,) faced with a situation in which the elected president of Iran is seriously unbalanced and pursuing a highly provocative course of action. Let’s hope that the rational players of the international scene can come together to exert some form of pressure on this rogue nation which will get compliance and willingness to live peacefully in the region. I’m pessimistic.