Pumping up the specter of the bogeyman

As they jockey for position heading into the general election, McCain and Obama are both guilty of overstating any "threat" posed by Iran.

On the campaign trail, both of them are guilty of taking a little bit of known information and blowing it up to ominous proportions. I expect fearmongering and lying from McCain - he's a warmongering old republican fuckhead. But Obama? I have standards where Democrats are concerned, and if he wants to bear the standard for me, and a whole bunch of other people who know what the fuck is going on, he needs to get some fact-checkers on the job and stop asserting facts not in evidence.

What has me pitching this bi-partisan hissy-fit so early on a Tuesday morning, you ask? For starters, it pisses me off to hear people who know better - or should, at least - assert as fact the unsubstantiated allegation that Iran is, without a doubt, developing nuclear weapons.

It gives me pause. Have they even bothered to look at the public record? Or are they both selectively, yet deliberately, dishonest?

Given the Iraq fiasco and the way we were lied into it, I am in no mood to brook any foolishness or abide any willful and deliberate distortion of fact when they turn their sights on Iran.

We all know that where Iran is concerned, every word out of McCain's mouth is distorted, including "and" "the" and "of." His speech to AIPAC yesterday was unwatchable, so palpable was the bloodlust. This does not surprise me.

But when Obama says "Iran is stronger now than when George Bush took office. And the fact that we have not talked to them means that they have been developing nuclear weapons," I call bullshit.

And so does McClatchy.

The 16 agency-strong U.S. intelligence community said last November in an unclassified National Intelligence Estimate that it concluded with "high confidence" that Iran had halted an effort to develop a nuclear weapon in fall 2003.

A senior U.S. intelligence official, who requested anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak publicly, said that U.S. intelligence agencies stuck by the NIE's judgment of "moderate confidence" that Iran hadn't reactivated the alleged effort.

There is no evidence that Iran is pursuing the ends that American politicians accuse them of, and Obama plays into the hands of the republican AIPAC fluffers and warmongering chickenhawks when he cedes them even an inch and repeats even watered down versions of their lies.

Amnon Rubenstein blows it big time

How seriously can you take this?

• The first case is that of Saddam Hussein, who in 2003 could have avoided war and conquest by allowing UN inspectors to search for (the apparently non-existent) weapons of mass destruction wherever they wanted. Yet Iraq's ruler opted for war, knowing full well that he would have to face the might of the US.

• The second case is that of Yasser Arafat in 2000, who after the failure of the Camp David and Taba talks had two options: continue talking to Israel - under the leadership of Ehud Barak, this country's most moderate and flexible government ever - or resort to violence. He chose the latter, with the result that all progress toward Palestinian independence was blocked. The ensuing loss of life, on both sides, testified to Arafat's preference for suicide over compromise.

• The third case is that of the Taliban. Post-9/11, their leadership had two options: to enter into negotiations with the US, with a view to extraditing Osama bin Laden, or to risk war and destruction. The choice they made was obvious: Better to die fighting than to give up an inch.

IN ALL three cases, the conclusion is plain: prolonged war, death, destruction and national suicide are preferable to peaceful solutions of conflicts: Dying is preferable to negotiating with infidels. The same conclusion, of course, is applicable to the Palestinians voting for Hamas and its suicidal path, and to Iran's decision to confront the Security Council in its insistence on acquiring nuclear weapons.

These cases, while unprecedented in the annals of history, should not be that surprising.

I mean really! First of all, calling Saddam Hussein and Yassar Arafat "Islamists" is bad enough. They certainly were not, they were secular and Sunni, while the Iranians are theocratic and Shi'ite. Points awarded: Zero.

But any Jew who hasn't drank the kosher kool-aid who read this crap stopped right there where I did. Mr. Rubenstein, hie thee back to Hebrew school immediately! To say such a thing and not mention Masada? Oy Vey...The mind boggles...

The Goyem might not call his ass on this warmongering bullshit, but as I was paying attention when the lessons were taught, I sure as hell will!

Mr. Rubenstein is at least as bad as those he hates so virulently. He uses his faith as a cudgel to build a specious case for war. How is he possibly anything other than the opposite side of the same counterfeit coin?