13 posts tagged “iran”

So an American woman in an Islamic getup walks into a Starbucks somewhere in Saudi Arabia...

And the waiter asks, "Would you like bruises and a strip search with that latte?"

OK, it wasn't a waiter is was a Saudi pig... er... policeman, and the woman had committed a "terrible sin." What was the sin, you ask? No, it wasn't that she paid five bucks for a cup of coffee - she sat with a man she was neither related nor married to. Christ, you know it ain't easy!

Apparently, in Saudi Arabia they don't have "smoking and "non-smoking" sections, they have "related" and "mingle at your own risk" sections.

Interestingly, there was no word on the treatment the man who led her astray received or whether the woman got to finish her latte, but she's back in America and refusing to give her name out of concern for her friends and associates still in the Magic Kingdom. Sharia, baby! It's not just for dinner anymore.

Meanwhile, half a Middle East away, a 22-year-old guy in Iran has been sentenced to death. His crime was having a fourth drink.

More accurately, he was given the death penalty because of three previous convictions for alcohol consumption. Now that's what I call a temperance movement!

And a few weeks ago, three other Iranians had their right hands and left feet "recycled" because they were convicted of theft. It wasn't exactly what the victims were hoping for in the way of restitution, but they felt at least they'd have some conversation pieces.

Whenever something seems too convenient, I get a little skeptical, and when it involves Bush-haters, I can get downright dismissive...

In that light, the Wall Street Journal reports today that: "the NIE's main authors include three former State Department officials with previous reputations as 'hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials,' according to an intelligence source."

Israeli intelligence and even the International Atomic Energy Agency are not convinced by the report, but more important, neither am I.

As one Israeli official characterized the report, "Oy vey!."

It's not only better to be safe than sorry in matters of this nature, it's the same situation that resulted in the ouster of Hussein - if they aren't completely open, assume the worst and take appropriate action.

As for the authors, the government is infested with liberals, and there's not a single one that's any good.

"'High confidence' judgment is not a fact or a certainty" states the report summary. "Low confidence generally means that the information's credibility and/or plausibility is questionable."

That latter part is doubtless intended to apply to the authors and their report.

Meanwhile, it's interesting to see the IAEA's reaction, because if they (and Europe) don't have the old USA leading the charge, it means they have to think and act for themselves - and we're all a little worse off because of it.

Normally, I like to put things in my own words, but here's an NIE report by James Taranto that is so succinct and yet all-encompassing that it leaves little left to say...

Yesterday the director of national intelligence released a summary of the latest National Intelligence Estimate's findings on Iran, which directly contradict the previous NIE's findings of 2005. The summary helpfully provides, on the final page of the PDF linked atop this article, a table of the differences between the 2005 findings and the 2007 ones.

In 2005, the authors of the report "assess[ed] with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure, but we do not assess that Iran is immovable."

In 2007, they "judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. . . . Assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

The summary offers the disclaimer (page 5) that "a 'high confidence' judgment is not a fact or a certainty, . . . and such judgments still carry a risk of being wrong." Which seems obvious, given that it is difficult to see any way in which what the NIE says with "high confidence" now is consistent with what it said with "high confidence" two years ago. And of course it's possible for the intelligence community to err in both directions: It famously overestimated Saddam Hussein's weapons capacity early this decade after underestimating it in the 1990s.

Now, consider the response to this document, as reported in today's Washington Post:

Critics seized on the new National Intelligence Estimate to lambaste what Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards called "George Bush and Dick Cheney's rush to war with Iran." Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), echoing other Democrats, called for "a diplomatic surge" to resolve the dispute with Tehran. Jon Wolfsthal, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, termed the revelation "a blockbuster development" that "requires a wholesale reevaluation of U.S. policy." . . .

Presidential candidates responded as well, with Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) using the news to tweak Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) for being too willing to support the administration on Iran, an assertion she has rejected. Obama said the report is a reminder that "members of Congress must carefully read the intelligence before giving the president any justification to use military force"--an apparent jab at Clinton, who was briefed on intelligence before the Iraq war but did not read the full report.

The New York Times covers the story similarly, casting the NIE's findings as a setback for the Bush administration's putatively aggressive approach to Iraq. And of course the left-wing commentators and bloggers are crowing.

Something is askew here. One Democratic congressman hints at it in the Washington Post story:

Some moderates in Washington expressed concern that this intelligence report's conclusions will be overinterpreted in one direction, just as past findings have been distorted. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), chairman of a nonproliferation subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said Iran's uranium enrichment remains worrisome and is not dependent on U.S. intelligence because Tehran has openly acknowledged it.

The real lesson of the report, he said, is to recalibrate U.S. policy and try more diplomatic and economic levers. "It's a validation of the middle road," he said, "between going to sleep . . . and the let's-bomb-them-now approach."

To some extent Sherman is setting up a straw man. One would think the "let's-bomb-them-now approach" would entail actually bombing them, which of course the U.S. has not done. And to the extent that the NIE undercuts the credibility of the threat of military force, it reduces American leverage over Iran (and over our own allies) and thereby diminishes rather than enhances the prospects for diplomatic success. If indeed Iran stopped its nuclear-weapons program in 2003, is it a coincidence that this was the same year America made good on its threat of military force against Saddam Hussein's Iraq?

Here's what troubles us about the report, though: If one can have high confidence in the NIE findings, then those findings are good news for America. They mean that a regime that has repeatedly shown its hostility toward our country is less of a threat than we had reason to fear. If Iran had nuclear weapons, it could create a humanitarian catastrophe. Or it could use the threat to do so to do all sorts of mischief that would be destructive to U.S. interests in the region.

But we haven't seen anyone celebrating the NIE as good news for America. The people who profess to believe it all seem to view it as a partisan document, a weapon to be used in their battle against the Bush administration. To the administration's domestic foes, it doesn't seem to matter how much of a threat Iran poses; short-term political gain is more important than the interests of America.

The administration is vulnerable to the same criticism. By releasing the NIE now, it seems to be signaling that it has decided to throw in the towel on dealing with the Iranian threat, leaving it for the next administration.

This column does not have high confidence that the NIE is right. But we certainly hope it is, because if it isn't, its consequences could prove very dangerous.

The Top Ten Results If America Became An Islamic State

• National Anthem changed to that noise Islamic women make with their tongues when they celebrate
• Supreme Court upholds separation of church and state, orders lawyers who brought separation of mosque and state case be executed
• All space rockets and ships must face Mecca at all times
• No vulgarity on TV (unless you consider stonings to be vulgar?)
• Lower corn prices because - no pigs!
• No more technology races, instead, camel races!
• Global warming is Allah punishing infidels. Watch the world cool now that we control America 
• We issue a formal apology to Saddam Hussein
• Liberals discover Muslim word for them doesn't exist, and neither will they
• We bomb Iran's nuclear weapons facilities immediately because we're Sunni!
• For image reasons, we urge Taliban to change their name to "TaliCAN!"
• We join OPEC, but we're considered an "outlier"
• We blow up Mount Rushmore
• Snail mail's out, camel mail's in! They're faster, carry more letters and don't shrivel in the sun
• Society becomes gay free - in more ways than one

And the number one result of an American Islamic State:

• The Beheading Channel!

From the magnificent James Taranto:

ELBARADEI LIED!!!!
A Washington Post story about Israel's recent strike on what appears to have been a Syrian nuclear facility ends as follows:

In an interview published yesterday, IAEA director and Nobel Peace laureate Mohamed ElBaradei expressed anger at the Syrians, Israelis and foreign intelligence agencies for not providing information about a suspected nuclear program.

"We have said, 'If any of you has the slightest information showing that there was anything linked to nuclear, we would of course be happy to investigate it,' " he told the French newspaper Le Monde. "Frankly, I venture to hope that before people decide to bombard and use force, they will come and see us to convey their concerns."

ElBaradei also said an airstrike could endanger efforts to contain nuclear proliferation.

"When the Israelis destroyed Saddam Hussein's research nuclear reactor in 1981, the consequence was that Saddam Hussein pursued his program secretly. He began to establish a huge military nuclear program underground," he said. "The use of force can set things back, but it does not deal with the roots of the problem."

And Saddam is still underground. But hang on a second! Everyone knows Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction. Doesn't ElBaradei remember how BUSH LIED!!!!? And because Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, it was wrong to invade Iraq based on the assumption that he did have them. That's just simple logic!

So now we have ElBaradei arguing, based on the totally discredited premise that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, that airstrikes on nuclear facilities in rogue states are a bad policy. Just as in the case of Iraq, logic dictates that because the premise is false, the conclusion must be wrong.

Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable that the civilized world is obliged to bomb Iran.

I happened upon something yesterday that caused me to question my ability to evaluate people, and it took me until now to be able to even address it.

Does anybody know why we're so concerned about Iran when it was Osama and the boys from Saudi Arabia that killed 3000 people on our soil?

That, in essence, is what I chanced upon, and when I recovered from the shock, I scribbled something about Iran's sponsoring terrorism and its desire to acquire nuclear weapons - likely for the express purpose of destroying Israel, but I couldn't even get that last part out before I had to go to my quiet place and scream.

Why I should have  to answer any of this is incredible to me, but because I've been fond of the writer, I can't get his disconnect out of my mind. What has Osama got to do with Saudi Arabia? Was he saying that nineteen of the hijackers were agents of the Saudi government?

And what if the writer himself had engineered and carried out a similar plan with some of his friends, should we then attack - let me just take any random country - let's say, Malaysia?

The original point of his blog entry was to point out that an American General had said that while Iranian markings had been found on weapons in Afghanistan, that, in itself, is not evidence that Iran is directly supplying either weapons or training.

To that I ask, "Yeah, so?"

Let's say that we found "Made in Malaysia," on and RPG launcher, should we assume that country had no involvement, or should we tell them that regardless of how the launcher got there, we'd better not find another?

Unless my friend was in some way trying to imply that we're not the good guys?

Because if we are, then it doesn't matter in what order we hold governments accountable, what matters is that we're trying to bring order to a primitive world in the hope that a free people will behave more responsibly and benefit economically.

Would you prefer the Taliban? Would you prefer that Hussein was still in power.?

How about Ahmadinejad? It's he just misunderstood?

Sometimes when you write with your heart, it's ugly, but it shows the true you. On rare occasions, your mind is able to tell your heart it's wrong and overrule it. If your environment or ideology won't let you see clearly, is your duty to reason or circumstances?

We'll see...

Sing along with me now...

There'll be bluebirds over

The white flags of Dover

Tomorrow, when the world is...

Shelling out big bucks to see - Tea Sucking Surrender Monkeys: The Movie!

That's right, folks, it's official. The ironically named "Ministry of Defense" has lifted the ban that has prevented other Brits who have been injured and killed in the Iraq war from profiting from their experiences and given permission to the recently former capitulators, henceforth to be known as SPF-15*, to sell their stories.

But there's a very good reason for their doing it according to the Sunday Times:

"MoD officials claimed that the move to lift the ban on military personnel selling their stories while in service was justified because of the “exceptional circumstances” of the case. The hostages are expected to earn as much as £250,000 between them."

Rumors are flying that Rosie O'Donnell is being considered for the role of Faye Turney, the only female hostage, but there's concern that Ms. O'Donnell may bring too much strength to the character.

And it's been confirmed that two of the Royal Marines will be portrayed by Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie.

* Surrendered Pour Francs

Full Story

Did you see Tony Blair blubbering today while Mr In-Between played in the background? And were you asking the same question I was: where the hell did he ever get the courage to ally with us in Iraq?

And have you seen the people Iran was holding hostage? And were you asking the same question I was: those guys are Royal Marines?

More like marine animals - the manatee comes to mind.

Moral: if you're West and White, you can't be too weak.

You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don't mess with Mister In-Between.

I dub thee Ahmadinejad's Bitch, Sir Tony The Despicable.

Tomorrow, the sun never rises on the British Empire.

WorldNetDaily billed her commentary today this way.

"Exclusive: Barbara Simpson slams Pelosi, Congress and Bush over handling of seized British sailors "

Uh... no she didn't. She did what every other "conservative" does - she conveniently blamed the Democrats for all our woes.

As much as they disgust me, a world without liberals would not necessarily be better, and it would ultimately result in defining courage down. I mean, how much backbone is required when everyone agrees with you?

Furthermore, what the Dems are doing in Congress now is a good thing. Before, Mr. Bush had a free hand to do as he pleased in Iraq, and he was not even subject to much oversight. Now at least, the pressure is on. And if we end up surrendering, it'll be because the Congress decides that the time it will take to pacify Iraq is not worth the losses we'll incur.

So I wrote the following to Barbara Simpson:

SHE BROKE!

You know, I write a lot of things, most of which I don't post either because I ultimately judge them to be too harsh, too preposterous, or too trivial even for me, so you can imagine what gets discarded.. Here are two examples: