Making Friends – Moon of Alabama

February 8, 2005

Making Friends

Juan Cole is ripping Jonah Goldberg a new one and Rafsanjani, ex-president of Iran and possible winner of this years election, is following the lead in making friends.

In his interview with USA Today he has some juicy things to say:

Slavin: Are you concerned about all the tough statements from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other U.S. officials in recent days?

Rafsanjani: Miss Rice talks very tough. We have gotten used to this nonsense. Miss Rice is a bit emotional about this, and we predicted that she would have a more emotional approach to this.

Slavin: Do you see any difference between her and former Secretary of State Colin Powell?

Rafsanjani: They (Rice and Powell) might be different in the way they talk, but the policies of the United States are decided somewhere else.

…

Slavin: You’ve said Secretary of State Condi Rice is very tough. What about President Bush?

Rafsanjani: Condi Rice talks tough but she cannot be tough herself.

Slavin: And Bush?

Rafsanjani: President Bush also has slips of the tongue often. One could really write a full editorial comprising these slips. I do not think it is correct or appropriate for someone in that high position as the president of the United States (to talk that way). The United States is a big country but unfortunately it seems it has the brain of a little bird not befitting the greatness of the country.

It’s about time someone said this loud and clear. Can you hear the laughter in all but one capitols of the world? People want to talk to the grown-ups, not the kiddie-bird.

Posted by b on February 8, 2005 at 16:56 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Wow, Cole takes Goldberg to the woodshed. Good job. Goldberg is an intellectual idiot who made his name from a c– stained dress. He’s a sicko.

Posted by: jdp | Feb 8 2005 17:49 utc | 1

Thank you Rafsanjani!

Posted by: stoy | Feb 8 2005 19:34 utc | 2

As to Juan Cole’s text: He states quite a number of things which are, to my parochial mind, so self-evident that they need not be mentioned (no WMDs, no links to al-Qaeda, Powell’s shameful UN-speech…). The very fact that he obviously still uses them as points meriting mention tells me a lot about the state of denial large parts of the US public by and large still seem to be in. One would think that by now there has to be a consensus about the major facts, but no, the propaganda still seems to work admirably.

Posted by: teuton | Feb 8 2005 20:06 utc | 3

People believe what they want to believe.

Posted by: beq | Feb 8 2005 20:08 utc | 4

As I said earlier, the ‘elections,’ would have, and have had, an ironic effect on the occupation. With the shia now cathected upon occupation, the u.s. must accede to shia political will which, in the end will be inimical to even shortterm interests, not to mention the big picture geopolitical rewards that are the stuff of the neocons’ lust. As my g-ma says: watch what you dream for, especially Democracy. If not for the devastation of this stupid war, the blowback of democracy into the neocons’ shiny white faces would be slapstick hilarious. The dumbfucks just created an emerging, uncomfortably theocratic shia nation allied with access of evil member Iran.
Now what? Partition? I bet you, partition.
Question for my comrades: the elections, even if we agree these were intended to be a charade, are a good thing, because of the way ‘arab democracy’ disserves American imperialism?
I say yes. hehe. yes.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 8 2005 20:21 utc | 5

People believe what they want to believe.
That’s so bourgeois, beq.
People believe what they see. That’s all they want.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 8 2005 20:23 utc | 6

The disservice of the Iraq elections to American power is clear. This is why I think Jerome’s catch of the NYT 1968 article on S. Vietnam elections, while a clever analogy, was inapposite to the Iraq election experience. There are some tenuous similarities between u.s. intervention in Vietnam and the present debacle in Iraq. But, the elctions in both countries are incomparable.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 8 2005 20:40 utc | 7

@slothrop:
The speed bump or roadblock that the Iraqis put up in front of Operation Ship of Fools is a very salutary thing for the American nation. The Iraqis have done us a longterm favor. It is very sad that so many people have had to die to reteach a lesson that should have been learned well between 1963 and 1975.
This has been so god-awful embarassing that I don’t think Congress will be such a “useful tool” if El Lider sets his sghts on Iran.
And if by partition, you mean US occupation of the Shia south–forget it. The Shia don’t want us there anymore than the Sunni.
It is very perversely amusing how we got to this point.
hehe. hehe.

Posted by: FlashHarry | Feb 8 2005 21:11 utc | 8

FlashHarry
I fear you may overestimate the rubberstamp committee we call the Congress. Rove has been promoted and now is now deputy chief of staff.
I simply do not believe this can be stopped anymore. They took 40 years to set it up and have got all the bases covered. They are so well entrenched that they could now make a horse the Senate majority leader and get away with it.

Posted by: dan of steele | Feb 8 2005 21:18 utc | 9

BushCo did not want the Iraq elections. They stalled. Then they gave in (Sistani is smart), figured they could make PR hay out of it, and like, go with the flow. They didn’t care about the results, don’t care today.
Iraq is a wasteland. Wrecked.
All those silly details about votes or insurgents don’t matter. One way or another Iraq will be split up into statelets. Finally, anything that increases strife between the different communities is good. (Endless media blurbs about how Sunnis will *have* to participate!) The ‘elections’ serve fundamentalists of all stripes.
Bassorah, for example, suppposedly controlled by the Brits, is under Charia law. Long ago, the Brits gave the local lords carte blanche. Why bother with anything else? Why pretend? Have a beer, save your skin, the natives are nuts, and ….

Posted by: Blackie | Feb 8 2005 21:24 utc | 10

Rafsanjani: Miss Rice talks very tough. We have gotten used to this nonsense. Miss Rice is a bit emotional about this, and we predicted that she would have a more emotional approach to this. … They (Rice and Powell) might be different in the way they talk, but the policies of the United States are decided somewhere else.
Did he just say spokesmouths? Lackeys? Minions?
“Chick-a-boom, chick-a-boom. Don’t you just love it?”

Posted by: Kate_Storm | Feb 8 2005 21:38 utc | 11

@ slothrop: explain?

Posted by: beq | Feb 8 2005 21:53 utc | 12

@Kate
Did he just say spokesmouths? Lackeys? Minions? Ahhh – he did.
Wonderful isn´t it. Now image he gets elected and meets Rice in some international official setting. Oh, love is in the air…
I do wonder what he is provoking here. He clearly says he wants to talk to the grown ups. Bush senior and his gang. Thats the message. “Get this idiot off our back and we can help you along in Iraq”
For Bush junior and Rice (she is empotional says Rafsanjani) these are immense provocations and they will fall for his bait. The will try to act.
Rafsanjani thinks he can get the grownups to act in his (and their) interest by making the baby birds behave irrational – might work, big gamble though.

Posted by: b | Feb 8 2005 21:54 utc | 13

beq
just kidding. I need to add those 🙂 things to indicate sarcasm.
People’s needs are contructed; even mine. Yet, I try to question the authority of truth when possible. And if you’re Ward Churchill, doing so publicly will cause you to be added to the deathlists of many crackers.

Posted by: slothrop | Feb 8 2005 22:02 utc | 14

@Dan of Steele:
You may be right, but remember Von Paulus’ promotion at Stalingrad; I imagine Goebbels got some little perks too in ’44 and ’45, just before the roof fell in.

Posted by: FlashHarry | Feb 8 2005 22:23 utc | 15

B: Oh love is in the air””
You crack me up B. Best belly laugh of the day, and I need them badly.
On topic: Vialls has a hot scenario going where all the neocons escape to Tasmania, which they have secured for themselves by means of coup. According to this plan the flyaway hour is fast approaching, as it is universally accepted that 9/11 and Iraq and the rest of the war crimes have run up upon the rocks. Time to abandon ship.
This leaves the goy fools to cope with a destroyed economy and other wreckage.
I can see our carrier fleet surrounding Tasmania at some point and sending landing craft in to make the necessary arrests. Hope we can get there before the Arabs take it upon themselves.

Posted by: rapt | Feb 8 2005 22:28 utc | 16

Paulus was promoted because no Feldmarschall ever surrendered, and Hitler hoped that either he would fight to the death with his army, or (more likely) he would commit suicide rather than surrender, and let the underlings deal with the Soviets in a way or another.
Rafsanjani is perfectly right about the US. That’s pretty worrying when the hardcore islamist conservatives like he or Bin Laden make better criticisms of Bush than the Dems.
So, the presidential election will be Khatami vs Rafsanjani, and the latter may win? That would be bad news for Iran in the long run, but it would just point that Bush can only make things far worse and crappier, every time he deals with foreign policies. And even if it is counter-productive, I would see why many Iranians would rather pick the hard-liner tough-talker rather than the more lenient one who once spoke about Iran being friend with the US.
B: provocations? The more I read Iranian official statements, the more I wonder if they’re not provoking Bush to war with their own version of “Bring’em on”. They may just think he’s bluffing and they can get away with showing how foolish he is, but I begin to wonder if they haven’t their own plans in case of war, and are fairly confident that despite the temporary devastation, they’ll send the US packing at the end. Prof Cole may have better insights and may be able to make more educated guesses as to which game they’re really playing.

Posted by: Clueless Joe | Feb 8 2005 22:38 utc | 17

Ah, no problem, slothrop. I question everything. Get lots of answers under the moon though.

Posted by: beq | Feb 8 2005 23:35 utc | 18

Is Rafsanjani playing the gender card to provoke or does he really think that… guess I’ll never know.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Feb 9 2005 0:26 utc | 19

Juan vs. Jonah The Movie

Posted by: b | Feb 9 2005 17:00 utc | 20

Back to Main