The Loneliness of the Long Distance Nutter

Angry, bloated, alcoholic loser Christopher Hitchens appeared on Bill Maher's show this week. It was a considerably humiliating display. They really shouldn't put this guy on TV any more. Not because he's persuasive in any way, but just because it's sad and pathetic. Like those old Judy Garland TV shows where she's singing duets with Mel Torme and doing mime routines set to "Send in the Clowns" on a fifth of gin and a mason jar full of barbiturates.

When he wasn't just busy pretending to be a Middle East expert or flipping off the audience, Hitchens was lying about Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Check out the gruesome spectacle here, if you must.

So, okay, before I go any further, I'd like to take out a little Troll Insurance...I'm sure some snarky neocon will show up here before long to accuse me of having a man-crush on Mr. Ahmadinejad, so let me just say that, for the record, I don't think he's a great guy or a hero or anything like that. (Now, Hugo Chavez...) Maddy strikes me as an authoritarian scumbag. You would think he and Bush would be able to work out a compromise as they have so much in common.

Everyone clear? I don't want to have to explain this easy-to-understand point in the comments. (1) Ahmadinejad is probably a bad guy and (2) we should under no circumstances go to war with his country.

Okay, on to Christopher Hitchens and his booze-fueled half-truths...He said on Maher's show, as part of a general case against Islamofascimomuslamonazis, that Ahmadinejad wanted to "wipe Israel off the map." He repeated this claim forcefully. Iran intends to destory Israel. Fact!

Unfortuantely, as Juan Cole pointed out months ago when Hitchens first started making this claim, it's totally bogus. Here's what the guy actually said:

The phrase he then used as I read it is "The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] from the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad)."

Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope-- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government.

Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that "Israel must be wiped off the map" with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time.

So, he never said anything like "wipe off the map." He used an idiomatic phrase that roughly translates as "vanish from the page of time." That's a little different, no? It doesn't so much indicate a threat of physical violence so much as a recalibration of power in the Middle East. Every leader rallies his country by promising a recalibration of power in their favor. What's he going to say? "I intend to be weak and ineffectual! Iran will never again be a player on the world stage!"

In fact, since early this year when this meme started popping up in the media frequently, I've been trying my best to follow the situtaion with Iran. (I don't always succeed cause, let's face it, I'm kind of lazy). I'm pretty sure that's where these desperate warmongers are turning next. (Although Max Boot here pines openly for a war with Syria...These guys are like kids in a candy store. They can't decide which sovereign nation they'd like to decimate next!)

Now, I might have missed this speech, but I have never heard Maddy directly threaten violence against Israel or the United States. Ever. If I'm wrong, someone direct me to the article. That's always the media's analysis - well, here, he's openly declaring war on the West. But in my experience, it's never what he actually says.

The guy talks tough, no doubt about it. But didn't we start it up with him? Not the other way around? We were the ones declaring his country part of an "Axis of Evil," right?

I bring this up today because the guy gave a press conference yesterday that's reported on here by Reuters.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad voiced defiance on Tuesday as a deadline neared for Iran to halt work the West fears is a step toward building nuclear bombs, and challenged US President George W. Bush to televized debate.

Ooohhh...Defiance. When I was a kid, during the Cold War, we expected world leaders to respond to us with defiance. Now it's a call to arms.

In a press conference, Ahmadinejad condemned the US and British role in the world since World War II but made no direct mention of the international nuclear confrontation.

“I suggest holding a live TV debate with Mr. George W. Bush to talk about world affairs and the ways to solve those issues,” he said.

That monster! He wants our president to go on television and defend his own actions! Forget everything I said...Bomb that Motherfucker! That's the most un-American shit I've heard since the latest Dixie Chicks single.

The Iranian president said the creation of the State of Israel was based on a “myth,” alluding to past statements he made on the Holocaust.

Unfortunately, I don't have a translated copy of the speech, so I can't tell what the context was here. But just because he's saying that some aspect of the creation of State of Israel is based around a myth doesn't mean he's denying the Holocaust. (Yes, I know, he's said that the Holocaust was exaggerated in the past...That's one of the reasons I called him a bad guy earlier...But being a Holocaust denier doesn't make someone an immediately viable target for US military action. Hell, it doesn't even prevent someone from becoming an award-winning filmmaker.)

I'm just saying that reporter Dudi Cohen is conflating what could easily be seen as two separate, independant claims. Perhaps Ahmadinejad means that the concept of Israeli historical claims on the city of Jerusalem are based on a myth. I wouldn't really put it that way, myself, but I pretty much believe the same thing. I mean, Jews have no more concrete, historical claim on Israel than White Europeans have on the United States. I mean, yeah, we're here now...But there were other folks around when we got here. And the Bible is not exactly a realistic way to go about divvying up the planet. You're better of using Sid Meier's Civilization to determine borders and international boundries.

There are two separate issues here...The Holocuast provided the inspiration for a Jewish homeland, but has nothing to do with locating that state in a place previously occupied by Arab Muslims. Jews needed an international safe haven as a bulwark against future genocide attempts. Fine. But why does it need to be in Jerusalem? I hear Amsterdam is a lot of fun...Why not settle there? Dude, legal weed!

This isn't really the biggest issue I have with this article, but it does strike me as a little deceptive. I have no way of knowing if Ahmadinejad was talking about the Holocaust at all. An actual quote would have been nice, instead of quotations around the word "myth" and Cohen's conjecture.

A few days ago Ahmadinejad inaugurated a plant for the production of heavy water located in Arak, some 190 kilometers southwest of Tehran. The president made it clear that Iran would not ‘give up its right to develop its nuclear program,’ adding that the program does not pose a threat, not even against Israel.

“We do not threaten anyone, even the Zionist regime, which is the enemy,” he said.

This statement is far more mild than what comes out of our own White House. We threaten countries all the time. In fact, we've already threatened Iran openly. (The U.S. has expressed a possible desire to go around the U.N. Security Council militarily should the body refuse to place restrictive economic sanctions on Iran.)

Washington, which already imposes unilateral sanctions on Iran, has suggested it could consider action outside the Security Council with other like-minded countries.

This is the classic Bush-Rove war instigation tactic. It's the exact same strategy they used to push the Iraq War on an unsuspecting nation. Spend months gearing everyone up for war, then pretend that the person you keep threatening to attack is on the offensive. "All we did was repeatedly call out Ahmadinejad, promising to bomb his country just like we did the country right next door, and now he's getting all angry! Can you believe this guy?"

Look, I'm not saying I have the solution to this entire problem. I'm just saying that we shouldn't let the guys who created the problem make it worse because we're afraid. I don't love the idea of a nuclear Iran. But I know for a fact that us going over there and starting another war won't make things any better. Look at what the last war did!

The Iranian democratic movement had been making gains in the years leading up to our failed Middle East adventure. They still seemed poised to make some kind of impact in that country's political landscape. (Rallies for progressive candidate Mostafa Moin drew as many as 10,000 people in 2005).

In fact, Bush has few bigger fans than the radical Iranian "Death to America" clerics. He might just salvage repressive authoritarianism with all his threats and bluster. So, again, I'm not saying the situation with Iran gives me no pause. I'm saying that it would be better to foster a progressive, democratic grass-roots movement in the country rather than blowing everyone up and then fighting an insurgency for several years. Becuase we're clearly not very good at actually exporting this democracy thing. It's much easier for us if it's arleady there to begin with.