There is hardly anyone at The Huffington Post who is more consistently idiotic in their commentary than Cenk Uygur – although noted political and foreign policy expert Deepak Chopra can be equally oblivious at times. The self loving self-help guru can usually be relied upon to supply equal dollops of idiocy and sanctimony while doing his best to obscure even the simplest moral questions with a heaping of platitudinous nonsense and New Age hooey.
But Uygur’s venomous rants are a cut above the normal lefty fare due to a curious lack of restraint in showing the world how ignorant he is. He revels in sophistry. He glories in irrationality. He bathes in puerility.
And the irony is, he believes he is either being clever or, in the case of this post on the startling news that Israel may use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy the Iranian nuclear program, ponderously portentous:
If Iran is at best two years away from developing a nuclear weapon and they say they have no intention of even building one, let alone using it against anybody and Israel says they are planning to use one against Iran, shouldn’t we be considering preemptive military action against Israel instead?We claim that we care about non-proliferation. We claim that we care about the use of weapons of mass destruction. Then shouldn’t our top priority be to stop Israel?
Or could it be that we are wildly hypocritical and don’t give a damn about weapons of mass destruction as long as it is our friends who use them? Remember we didn’t mind at all when Saddam Hussein used WMD against Iran, because at the time he was on our side.
Absolutely, Cenk. I think we should believe everything the leaders of Iran say. So when they tell us they have no intention of building nukes, why not take the nutcases at their word?
And when Ahmadinejad says that he wants to “wipe Israel off the map” I’m sure he means that he only wants the cartographers of the world to use a little White-Out right where the Jewish state is penciled in. Maybe we’ll just leave that part of the map blank. We could fill it in later, perhaps after we find another democracy in the Middle East who has supported our interests and stood steadfastly by our side for 60 years. Shouldn’t be too difficult. Maybe we could get Deepak thinking about the problem.
Actually, Mr. Uygur makes a valid point about our support for Saddam in the 1980’s – if we lived in a vacuum or, like Mr. Uygur, ignored context and history for the sake of a little gratuitous American bashing. But then, the rest of us don’t live in a vacuum and recognize our tilt toward Saddam was “reality based” foreign policy – that a strong Sunni-led state in opposition to the Shia fanatics in Tehran (real gimlet eyed fanatics and not the laughable liberal definition of the weird but relatively harmless Christians who pop up now and again in the Bush Administration) was a strategic necessity.
No matter. It is Uygur’s eye popping notion that it is hypocritical to support your friends and oppose your enemies that has us scratching our heads in perplexity. Israel has been saying for nearly two years that Iran is close to building a nuclear weapon. Just a few weeks ago, Ahmadinejad proudly announced that the Iranians were going to start operating 3,000 centrifuges at their hardened site near Natanz in order to enrich uranium – progress towards construction of a nuclear weapon far in advance of our own CIA’s estimate that they mullahs were a decade away from building a bomb.
The practical result is mathematical; add Ahamdinejad’s flowery rhetoric about annihilating the Jewish state to nuclear technology and you get a threat unlike any that has confronted Israel in its history. And since the Iranians have buried their illegal program under a mountain of concrete and rock, it would appear that there is only one way for Israel to combat this threat; its own use of nuclear weapons.
Or, they could as most of the left would advocate, wait until they are hit with a nuclear weapon and then respond. Except in Israel’s case, there wouldn’t be much of a country left for anyone to worry about. Slightly larger than the state of New Jersey, one nuclear weapon detonated on their soil would, for all intents and purposes “wipe Israel off the map.” Perhaps Uygur thinks this would be an excellent jobs program. Think of all the out of work cartographers who would find employment rewriting the geography texts of the world.
What makes this screed by Uygur so ignorant is not his disapproval of Israel using nukes. It is his simple minded and naive posturing that actually places the Iranians in the morally ascendant position:
I don’t know why Israel is threatening to do this, whether it’s to get us to start a war with Iran instead (how does it make it better for us if we fight Israel’s irrational war for it) or to scare Iran into cooperating or because they’re actually going to do it. But it’s madness all the same.Even threatening to use nuclear weapons against another sovereign country is a complete abdication of the moral high ground. Then you have absolutely no right to complain about the idea that Iran might use them at a later time. You are, in essence, saying it is perfectly acceptable to use them.
If Israel actually goes through with this, they will be an international pariah and they should no longer be considered an ally. There is no legitimate excuse to do a nuclear first strike.
This isn’t even about Israel’s concern that Iran would ever use their non-existent nuclear weapons. They know that even Iran isn’t crazy enough to risk the lives of every one of their citizens by dropping a nuclear bomb on Israel – and that would clearly be the retaliation they would face.
Instead, this is about Iran gaining bargaining leverage in the Middle East. If Israel is willing to nuke a country to make sure they don’t have slightly better leverage in the region, then their government is far more hideous than I think (I assume and hope that the government considering this barbaric idea doesn’t truly represent the will of the Israeli people).
It apparently hasn’t entered Uygur’s head that Israel would take this drastic action because it felt threatened. Instead, we are treated to the juvenile explanation that Ohlmert wants to goose the Americans into doing Israel’s dirty work for them – the Jewish conspiracy at work! And the idea that the mullahs would embrace a MAD (mutually assured destruction) doctrine has yet to be proved. In fact, given the mystical Mr. Ahmadinejad and his kooky belief in the imminent return of the 12th Imam, there is every reason to believe that if the Iranian President thought that nuking Israel would hasten the little guy’s comeback tour, he’d light the fuse himself.
And how about Uygur’s breathtaking naivete about Iran’s nuclear program? Even the simpering sot of a nuclear watchdog Muhammad ElBaradei believes Iran is close to producing a bomb. The only thing “non-existent” about the Iranian nuclear program is an ability by Uygur and the left to plug the holes in their heads where gray matter is leaking copiously. That’s the only explanation I can think of for why there is this childlike faith that when the theocrats tell us they only want to use their enrichment facilities for peaceful purposes that people like Uygur take them at their word.
Finally, I must commend Mr. Uygur for his perspicacity in gleaning the real meaning behind this Israeli threat. (Note: What Mr. Uygur makes of the Iranian threats to destroy the Jewish state, he doesn’t say. Perhaps, like Neville Chamberlain, Uygur thinks that Ahmadinejad’s shtick is for domestic consumption. Or, more likely, he doesn’t think about it at all.) To posit the notion that Israel will risk world war because they’re jealous of Iran’s “bargaining leverage, whatever that means, is daffy. Is Uygur saying that Iran’s “leverage” will improve if they get nukes? I’d say that’s a great big affirmative. And, of course, that leverage could end up levering the Israelis into the sea.
Uygur displays a towering ignorance and breathtaking myopia about Iran, about Israel, and about the existential threat that the mullahs pose to the Jewish state. This is not surprising, given he regularly displays those qualities when it comes to American security issues.
Word out of Israel this morning that Israel is denying that they are training to use tactical nukes against Iran. What else could they say? I wonder if Uygur believes them? After all, he accepts the word of the Iranians at face value that they’re not interested in building nukes. And they’re the enemy. What are the chances that Uygur would accept the word of an ally?
2:54 pm
here ’s aquestion for you Rick?
let’s see, Iran is a sovereign nation
that have elections
they elected leaders
and their leaders have decided to build nukes
so what right do we have to dictate to another sovereign nation that they may not build nukes?
seeing as once there were only two nukes in the world and we dropped both of them
and we are still the only nation in the world who has ever nukes anyone
that said, on the 3000th death in this invasion and $400 billion later, why does every wingnut think we have the right to tell other nations what to do, and aren’t we in enough shit already that we must go kick another hornets nest with Iran?
The american people spoke clearly at the last election. They don’t want this war with iraq and I am just betting that they don’t want a war with anyone else either
haven’t we pissed the world of enough?
don’t we have enough problems over here at home to take care of to be obsessing about every dictator that doesn’t like us?
perhaps if we had a competetnt foreign policy in place we wouldn’t have half the country willing to put tehir own intestines through the metal detector because some Republican operative at DHS pushed the Threat Level Orange button.
here’s another question for you
is every single thing that Israel does the right thing?
3:00 pm
On Israeli Preparations for Iranian Nuclear Strike
For starters, should this be this a surprise to anyone? Not to me it isn’t. Indeed, Texas Rainmaker points out that the same paper made similar statements in December 2005 that Israel was preparing for strikes against Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
5:32 pm
If the Israeli/Palestinian problem could be solved (and it can), then who would the Iranians have to target? No one!
THEN … the world could get down on Iran for bellicosity, whatever. As it stands, we got nothing to bitch about.
Iran does have a higher moral ground than the US. We have invaded two countries, on both sides of Iran. We have nuked before, have opinions of acceptance of more of the same, and we don’t honor treaties. Our word, especially our presidents word, is garbage.
This is sad and dangerous. We need to fix our house, help fix the rest, and live right.
5:43 pm
It is Uygur’s eye popping notion that it is hypocritical to support your friends and oppose your enemies that has us scratching our heads in perplexity
except that if israel does preemptively nuke iran, it won’t be our friend anymore, nor will it be doing itself any favors. or shouldn’t be. after all, its actions will do more to set back u.s. interests in the region than anything else. iran can shut down the straits of hormuz, which would probably cause a collapse of the world oil market and the u.s. economy as well. an israeli nuclear attack would mark the end of its peace treaties with egypt and jordan, and probably an end of diplomatic and trade relations with much of the developed world. the u.s. would have to decide whether to continue to prop up israel and join it as an official outlaw nation, or look out for our own commercial interests.
cent is right on the mark. the idea of an israeli nuclear attack on iran is a nightmare scenario and should be treated as such. iran getting a nuke is bad. but this kind of preemptive attack is worse.
6:35 pm
This guy is breathtakingly ignorant. Or else, just another anti-semite from the left consumed with hate.
8:34 pm
Iran getting a nuke is “bad”, but I believe a nuclear-armed Middle East, with irrational actors like Iran at its helm, is much, much worse. Right now, with Fallon’s appointment, perhaps the US is manoeuvring towards the scenario of a sea/air assault on Iran.
However, this is Olmert we’re talking about, so I don’t expect anyone to truly believe this report, unless he grew a spine overnight.
10:15 pm
“that have elections
they elected leaders”
Actually, Mahmoud has no real power. The Supreme Leader (that’s why Iran is the only theocracy left) has total control of the government and can do anything he wants – the Iranians no more have elected their true leader than the Iraqis voted for Iraq all those times.
“If the Israeli/Palestinian problem could be solved (and it can), then who would the Iranians have to target? No one!”
...you do realize the Palestinians are just pawns for the larger Arab world, right (that would be why they kept them in refugee camps instead of assimilating them)? It just gives them a “legitimate” excuse to be so utterly disgusting towards Israel. Every time there could be a resolution for the two-state solution it was the leaders of Palestine who rejected it (Arafat being the last to do so, and then instituted a series of terror attacks).
The scariest part of the two-state solution (though I agree it’s the logical solution) is it won’t change much. There will still be suicide bombers and cries for the annihilation of Israel because it’s not about getting their own state but the destruction of the Jewish state.
10:21 pm
“seeing as once there were only two nukes in the world and we dropped both of them
and we are still the only nation in the world who has ever nukes anyone”
Killing 170,000 people over the course of a few days or kill millions of them (while losing probably a million of your own guys) in a land invasion that’d take months? Which one sounds like the lesser of two evils?
Also, you ignore that we were attacked by a nation that killed 29 million Chinese (and celebrated on their front pages).
“The american people spoke clearly at the last election. They don’t want this war with iraq and I am just betting that they don’t want a war with anyone else either”
Actually is the vote was for a change in the war.
“is every single thing that Israel does the right thing?”
Of course not (though a VAST majority of the wrongs the world believes they have committed don’t exist or aren’t wrong). I don’t want them to strike Iran. With the world so insanely anti-Israel that it’d be a terrible PR move (but absolutely correct in strategic terms), hell they have to fight their own war on terror with one hand tied behind their back thanks to that illogical and unrealistic union, the UN and Europe. The Arab-Israeli conflict is one of the few times where a majority of people side with a massive genocidal, despotic force over a secular democracy defending itself from destruction.
6:13 am
The Democrats’ First 100 Hours, Part I: Surrender
Gateway Pundit offers a translation of Nancy Pelosi’s demands that the United States surrender in Iraq…
10:40 am
A couple of points.
I don’t know if Mahmoud would hasten the coming of the 12th imam by vapourizing the Dome of the Rock Mosque. Number 2 in Islamic holiness after Mecca/Medina. Then again, anything is possible and thinking that islam can attribute sacrilege to religious objects and places may be a stretch.
The American people did not vote against the war as is the current talking point on CNN, KOS and Radio America. Far from it. In fact the only candidate that ran on a explicit anti-war stump (Lamont) was defeated. Most Democrats ran on a “Change of course” agenda. The most outspoken anti-war democrats are the incumbents in congress, who did not run. And the Murtha/Pelosi democrats have not had their way since taking the helm. Think about it for a second before you spout the america voted against the war bullshit. In fact the jury is out on how the red state freshmen vote on this and other conservative type issues.
As unhinged as CIndy and the other far left have been, they have caught on to this faster than the lefty blogsphere.
Iran doesn’t have elections in the true sense of the word. Candidates on the ballot are hand picked by the supreme council. Last election 1000s of opposition candidates were disqualified from running. Those aren;t elections, thats a sham and a gambit to impress upon the impressionable that it is a democracy. Ask Iranian student leaders, Tehran Bus Driver Unions and any womens groups if they live in a democracy. Or if they feel free for that matter.
America does have the right to tell others what to do and say. Because we are a free market, capitalistic democracy and a super power that has never endured a dictatorship in its 200+ yr history. I am not ashamed of my country’s unique position in the world. I would rather America have this preogative than the feckless UN or any other type of multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, supra-national body. And that is essentially the crux of the left right argument when in comes to foreign policy. Distrust of our own government versus distrust of other national governments/UN.
3:53 pm
If I may rewrite bibbleman’s substance-free pantsload to provide some historical context:
[begin parody, my rewrites in brackets]
here ’s aquestion for you Rick?
let’s see, [Germany] is a sovereign nation
that have elections
they elected leaders
and their leaders have decided to [invade Poland, conquer Europe, wipe out the Jews, and spread Naziism worldwide]
so what right do we have to dictate to another sovereign nation that they may not [do this?]
that said, on the [418,500]th death in this invasion and [$2 trillion later (http://www.cwc.lsu.edu/cwc/other/stats/warcost.htm)], why does every wingnut think we have the right to tell other nations what to do, and aren’t we in enough shit already that we must go kick another hornets nest with [Germany and Japan]?
haven’t we pissed the world of enough?
don’t we have enough problems over here at home to take care of to be obsessing about every dictator that doesn’t like us?
perhaps if we had a competetnt foreign policy in place we wouldn’t have half the country willing to put tehir [own Japanese citizens in internment camps just because some Democrat in the White House overreacted.]
here’s another question for you
is every single thing that [Great Britain] does the right thing?
[end parody]
Not much rewriting required at all, actually. On a related note, I am continually amazed by the utter lack of historical awareness demonstrated by so many that comment on this and other topics. I am no historical scholar, but neither am I blind to the lessons of history, especially when that history occurred a scant 60-odd years ago. I suppose it is true- we are awash in information these days, but precious little wisdom to be found (really, I don’t mean that to sound as conceited as it probably does).
5:16 pm
Here is a plain and factual rebuttal to Paul’s full of crap comment
There is no comparison between the invasion of Iraq and WWII.
Please Paul, read a book.
repeat: there is no comparison between WWII, ( which would have been finished by now) and this quagmire
One tyrrant had the most powerful army in the world ( that would be Hitler)
the other had no navy, no airforce, no satellites, 35 years old out of date equipment and no weapons of mass destruction and no real ability to hurt anyone beyond his borders ( that would be where we are now)
OK? I know you wingnuts who supported this illegal laughter and you all want to paint yourselves as Churchillian forethinkers.
I know you all want to paint the opposition as neville Chamberlain appeasers.
Unfortunately you wingnuts have done this for four years and the only people it impresses is other uneducated wingnuts. We are not appeasers. we are right about this war, and you know you have a knot in your stomach about backing it, and seeing how it turned out.
Iraq is nothing like WWII.
Nothing.
Talk about historical unawareness
My suggestion for Paul- have you served your country yet? Log onto GoArmy.com and find a recruiter
there’s plenty of need for more armchair generals
5:17 pm
By the way Alex
The democrats took the Senate and House
15 Repugs took their seats by less than 1%.
ahte to say it but this election is a complete repudiation of W, repthuglicans and yes Alex
the war
11:27 pm
Bibbleman,
If you’re going to troll, at least get your facts straight.
15 Republicans took House seats by 3% or less.
But the real squeaker was the Democrats taking control of the Senate, eh?
The 1994 election results clearly reflected repudiation of Democrats, whereas dissatisfaction with our direction in Iraq made Republicans easy scapegoats in 2006.
Enjoy your slim majority while it lasts. With Republicans tacking toward center on one side and the rabid anti-war/impeachment crowd on the other, the newly anointed Democratic leadership is looking rather hemmed in.
Chip
12:21 am
bibbleman,
If you’re going to troll, at least get your facts straight.
15 Republicans won House seats by a margin of 3% or less.
The real squeaker was in the Senate, eh?
Election results in 1994 clearly indicated a repudiation of Democrats, whereas Republicans were an easy scapegoat for a fickle public’s growing dissatisfaction with our progress in Iraq.
Anyway, enjoy your slim majority while you can. With the Republicans tacking toward center on one side and the rabid anti-war/impeachment faction on the other, the recently anointed Democratic leadership is looking pretty hemmed in. If they appease the Bush haters, nothing gets done. On the other hand, if they work with Republicans as Pelosi and Reid have promised, it will be tough for them to differentiate in ‘08.
Chip
P.S. Did you claim there are one million readers over on Daily Kos? Regardless, all they need now are some intelligent writers.
12:21 am
“Here is a plain and factual rebuttal to Paul’s full of crap comment”
Promises, promises. Perhaps a a little reading would benefit you as well, starting with a dictionary, so as to be able to distinguish “fact” from “assertion”. Perhaps then you might move on to the early history of Germany’s aggression prior to WWII, when Hitler literally gambled his country’s fate on whether France, Great Britain, et al., would respond militarily to the annexation of the German-speaking parts of Czechoslovakia.
“repeat: there is no comparison between WWII, ( which would have been finished by now) and this quagmire”
Repeat all you like- while you may be used to repetition being equated with truth, I am not. “Finished by now”, do you say? Resistance against the Allied occupation continued for at least a few years after active hostilities ceased, and in some cases went on for decades.
“One tyrrant had the most powerful army in the world ( that would be Hitler)
the other had no navy, no airforce, no satellites, 35 years old out of date equipment and no weapons of mass destruction and no real ability to hurt anyone beyond his borders ( that would be where we are now)”
Hitler could have been defeated easily early in his conquests had the tru threat he represented been appreciated. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20/20, and all that. Just like hindsight is 20/20 with respect to WMD.
“My suggestion for Paul- have you served your country yet? Log onto GoArmy.com and find a recruiter”
Ah, the chickenhawk argument. I never get tired of that one. Might I suggest a corollary to Godwin’s Law, that when the chickenhawk argument is used, it automatically forfeits one’s position? Although it is ironic that I am invoking Godwin’s Law when I myself brought Hitler into the mix (although not to cast aspersions at bibbleman, but merely to make a historical analogy).
10:25 am
He is very anti-semitic I met him once on a trip to Turkey when he was visiting relatives (he sat next to me on the plane). Once a few drinks were in him—you would not believe the anit-semitic stuff he said. Also we are both of Turkish descent so he felt free to tell me that they (the Turkish govt) “should kill all those F@#$@ Armenians” (a reference to the fact that Turkey cannot seem to extinguish the fact of the Armenian massacre of the early 20th century and it has provided much embarrasment to them when they apply for EU membership).
This guy is so clueless I dont think a sledgehamer to the head could wake him.
Oh and its BS that he is agnostic, he told me he DOES believe in Allah but not in that “christian god”.
After that he focused on getting “some pu#@@y” while in Istanbul and his speech quickly went into ‘porn mode’ if you know what I mean. There was a little boy and his mom in front of us so I felt ashamed that they could here this fool. I quickly tried to change the subject but to no avail. He is one sick dude.
10:28 am
CENK UYGUR is one very sick dude. Just wanted to add: only in America could such a guy get a radio job ! unbelivable. In canada we are liberal all right but an anti-semite ‘liberal’ could never get on the air!