McCainiac: Bombing Iran and "Being on the Right Side of History"

Just some (fun) thoughts on McCain's, and his party's, transformation from "bombing Iran" to being a strong supporter of the Iranian people...


Looking for some amnesiacs, walking contradictions with lots of power in the media-----self-parodies who play politicians, while sadly, being actual politicians in reality? Just take John McCain singing "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" last year as a presidential candidate. And now: Here's the same man in today's self-righteous cocoon of dangerously impetuous GOP liberation theology:

"It’s not just what takes place on the streets of Iran but what takes place in America’s conscience. We have to be on the right side of history," he said. "We just need to say that we’re on their side as they seek freedom."

The artistry of the first line's beautifully apt, unintentionally ironic, depiction of a U.S. Senator's mind, particularly of the GOP persuasion, is on par with Orwell's intentionally-ironic Ministry of Love, where dissidents were meted out education through pain and torture (But hell, at least with Winston Smith, it worked, even without the Beach Boys' bombing anthem. McCain's "the revolution takes place in our conscience" platitude misses something substantial, like credibility, force----reality.)



Clearly this first line means that to the GOP opportunists of the hour, the "revolution" in Iran isn't only what their people do in the streets or the pain and oppression they receive a la Supreme Leader, but also what America's collective "conscience" experiences and says. That "conscience" used to say, "Bomb for peace," which was much more in tow with Orwellian tough love doled out by a Ministry of Peace. Kudos guys, you're unwittingly following your own dystopic artistic propensities. What the FU...?



Is he really implying that like some other purely subjective realities (LSD, poetry, coitus), the current Iranian "revolution" is taking place in our minds ("consciences") as much as it is objectively taking place on the ground. Such a profound implication would mean that, like many, if not all objective events-----for his group of partisans, anyways----occurring outside of America's collective "conscience," they are actually highly subjective. This is because, as Americans, we know our "conscience" is an objective fact. What it experiences is objective reality. What truths lie on the ground in Iran, therefore, are neatly appropriated into the American subjective experience, which can be prone to the same whims of selective remembrance, defense mechanisms of the conscience, and full-fledged self-delusion.



Well then, with such an inversion----our internal truths now being objectively absolute, and the facts of the outside world being highly subjective and hence worthy of dismissal----we shouldn't doubt that these latest events in the Gulf will be open to some highly subjective revisions, re-imaginings, and reinterpretations of cause and effect, now and in the future. The historical record, say pre-Obama presidency as far back as 1953 would also fall under America's purview of subjectivity and exclusion, of course.



The inversion of the objective with the subjective is to be expected from an "American conscience" that can only publicly acknowledge the world and all its historical facts as subjective as its own "conscience." This "conscience," with its highly selective, although mainly amnesiac memory, does not know it's completely deluded into believing itself the definition of absolute objectivity. Not surprising at all for an empire. In short: Everything that occurred before Mr. McCain woke up today is subject to the same inverse rules and regulations within its own American universe of objectivity, opposed to the outside world's chaotic, subjective facts and histories. McCain, this American universe, and its "conscience," are One----and It blithely accepts the lie of Its own, self-evident morality and objectivity. If that weren't true, a leader of McCain's caliber and "integrity" couldn't go all over the media, be interviewed by plenty of people with IQs above 80, and cry that "we just need to say we're on their side" without any historical context, and without being laughed off camera. The historical context is America's, and to America the Iranian "revolution" we're witnessing is part of our subjective "conscience." It's whatever our "conscience" says it is.



In an alternate reality, one more focused on the objectivity of historical facts, media figures would ask the senator about the apparent contradiction between bombing the people of whom's freedom you supposedly care so deeply about. This might produce a more enjoyably candid response to Bob Scheiffer's latest interview:

"Bob, I did support bombing Iran when belligerence was still cool and seemed to win elections, but now, much later on down the road, when our president has to walk a delicate diplomatic line, I feel the Iranian people are best served by making our very own, distinctly American consciences paramount with vapid, self-indulgent rhetoric. Their revolution is almost as important as our need to posture as a moral agent in the universe, even if it puts more ammo into the hands of the repressive Iranian government to squelch any foreseeable reform. At which point, I could go back to singing my 'Beach Boy Bomb Song'" and urge the peaceable bombing of the Iranian population."

After witnessing another year of America's intensely subjective understanding of the facts pertaining to itself, and its bouts of conscience and/or lack thereof, the logic becomes clear as day: While campaigning for president, McCain must have meant that it's important to bomb Iran into supporting its own future revolution because, god knows, no organic uprising could ever possibly occur without that. And what a genius idea, in a Bush Doctrine kind of way, since obviously nothing breaks a people's solidarity with their own government like being under attack (Remember Pearl Harbor? No? Just remember back then to what it was like after 911: America, ready to bend to Al Qaeda's will at any moment, "islamo-fascism" in the fluoride of our drinking water----treasonous citizens itching to oust their illegitimately appointed president, George W. Bush. Americans were just leaping at the chance to topple their own government, as treason and sedition abounded).



So what an impossibly useful suggestion coming from McCain and the GOP: to flop from "bomb Iran" to open solidarity with Iran's people. And to think it was only stupid leftists espousing their views on solidarity not but a couple months ago when the bombing craze was all the rage. McCain, the artist, has unwittingly traveled back in time to meet those leftists who are now respecting and appreciating that fine line Obama has to walk today so as not to squelch any possible reform by openly supporting the reformers.



But imagine: If only not-so-recent historical facts were as subjective as the whims of McCain and the GOP, one could utterly erase the history of U.S. intervention in Iran, especially that one inconvenient event responsible for bringing the mullahs and the Ayatollah to power in the first place! Maybe that's just it: Would McCain like to see Obama respond with our objectively- absolute American "conscience," being "on the right side of history" by spearheading a CIA-led coup, much like that of 1953, which removed Iran's democratically elected prime-minister, Mohammad Mosaddeq?

I’m not for sending arms. I’m not for fomenting violence, nothing except to say that America’s position in the world is one of moral leadership.

Whether it be threatening to bomb them, or making grandiose pronouncements against their government, or just straight-up, old fashioned regime change, Iranians right now must be really agonizing over the plight of "America's conscience," while they are endangering themselves by demonstrating in the streets. They want to succeed, not listen to our screaming "consciences" that can only embolden the reactionary forces against their reform movement. By the way, "I'm not for sending arms"? What about "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran!" That was only months ago; certainly McCain can remember that expression of solidarity with the Iranian people he made way back in the dark past of 2008.



In 2008, "moral leadership" for the GOP meant bombing Iran all the way to victory at the polls. Today, it means losing this "revolution" by demonstrating just how much America intends its support to a member of a supposed "Axis of Evil."



Obama's handling this correctly. McCain and the GOP should go back to being honest and advocating a policy of "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" because Iranians, like the Kurds in the First Gulf War, understand what prospective U.S. support means: failure if not outright betrayal.



___________________________

*Oh, and don't forget Mr. Foreign Policy's major blunders about a region he's so keen on "liberating":

• At an April 2007 town hall meeting in South Carolina, McCain responded to a question about potential military action against Iran by asking: "You know that old Beach Boys song, 'Bomb Iran?' " He then sang: "Bomb, bomb, bomb -- but anyway." Asked about those comments during a September 2007 radio interview, McCain said he was "proud" of the moment's popularity on YouTube and continued: "Look, when I'm in the company of veterans, which I was, and one of them says to me, 'When are you going to send a message to Iran?' and we're joking around, I'm gonna joke around. And if someone doesn't like it, my advice to them is to lighten up."
  



• As Media Matters for America has noted, on three occasions over two days in March 2008, McCain made the false claim that Iranian operatives were training Al Qaeda for fighting in Iraq -- once on March 17 while being interviewed by nationally syndicated radio host Hugh Hewitt and twice during March 18 remarks to reporters in Amman, Jordan. In Jordan, after Sen. Joe Lieberman whispered in McCain's ear, he corrected himself: "I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not Al Qaeda." McCain's presidential campaign subsequently acknowledged the misstatement.
  



• In a July 21, 2008, interview with Diane Sawyer on ABC's Good Morning America, McCain referred at one point to "the Iraq-Pakistan border." In fact, Iraq and Pakistan do not share a border -- they are separated by Iran.

Where Are You Going Obama Administration?

Regarding "enhanced interrogation" methods and their effectiveness, I mentioned a few weeks ago that

Cheney himself called for the CIA declassification of documents that would supposedly prove The Dark Lord's methods worked and yielded valuable intelligence. Of course, Cheney said this because he is certain they will never be made public, and he thinks the Democrats have the balls of a 3rd grader (hard to disagree on this second point) and won't disprove him.

Well, sadly that appears to be the case. The CIA has announced they'll release the "Holy Grail" 2004 report that supposedly holds the key to the actual dearth of accuracy in claiming these "enhanced" methods worked---except, most likely with all the important parts redacted, thus shielding Cheney.

The Post says the CIA is resisting the declassification of parts “describing in graphic detail how the agency handled its detainees,” which may or may not include the “effectiveness” chapter.

The Department of Justice is on a roll in our "new era of transparency." Even though there have been new revelations that the Bush NSA spying program was wider than originally proclaimed (to include spying on American citizens, and possibly journalists like James Rosen), here's Eric Holder changing his tune and refusing to admit that Bush's NSA spying program was illegal, continuing the Bush-Era sophistry "that -- though the spying program was "in contravention" of FISA -- it was not "illegal." (To be fair, during his confirmation hearing, Holder also said he believed waterboarding to be torture, but has since Cheney's public admission that he called for and executed such a program, become much more cavalier about the medieval tactic. Consistency is important, don't you think?).

Holder not admitting the illegality of the NSA program makes sense because, as Glenn Greenwald points out: "his DOJ is telling courts that this very program is a "state secret" and courts are therefore barred from ruling on its legality. You should see Greenwald's cycle of protocol following such common revelations.* Priceless. Good thing the Executive branch has assumed the role of the Judicial with cases relating to itself, otherwise there could be a Madisonian check or separation of powers. Such a quaint idea in the "Era of the War on Terror."

So here's a joke for those worried about the state of our republic: What do government accountability and a "new era of transparency," especially regarding torture and domestic spying, have to with a functioning democracy? The Obama administration---like its predecessor----answers, "Nothing!"

Also, what do Obama and fringe right-wing arguments about homosexuality have in common? The answer: The language and types of arguments that can be found in the Obama-supported Defense of Marriage Amendment. Andrew Sullivan, gay-conservative supporter of Obama put it this way:

to file an actual brief re-stating some of the worst and most denigrating arguments against gay civil equality is just bizarre...Citing incest precedents? Calling gay couples free-loaders? Arguing that our civil rights are not impinged because we can marry someone of the opposite sex? Who on earth decided that that was a great idea?

Good thing Obama doesn't want to piss off rabid "conservatives" these days, considering all the love they've been giving him in return. Obama's presumption about his liberal constituency is telling though: Basically, that we're ineffectual, hero worshippers, manipulable enough to put up with such cynical attacks on the votes we cast in November.

Oh yeah, let's also forget about a public option to healthcare! There's no mention of it in the New Health Reform Outline despite a recent poll that 76% of Americans prefer the choice of a public plan. Obama better not fudge this too by carrying out the will of the conflict-of-interest laden Tom Daschle/Max Baucus side of the party instead of what the people want: choice and real competition in the health "industry." There's a reason why the party is called the Democratic Party, isn't there?


Every time new revelations of illegal government spying arise, the same exact pattern repeats itself: (1) euphemisms are invented to obscure its illegality ("overcollection"; "circumvented legal guidelines"; "overstepped its authority"; "improperly obtained"); (2) assurances are issued that it was all strictly unintentional and caused by innocent procedural errors that are now being fixed; (3) the very same members of Congress who abdicate their oversight responsibilities and endlessly endorse expanded surveillance powers in the face of warnings of inevitable abuses (Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, "Kit" Bond, Jane Harman) righteously announce how "troubled" they are and vow to hold hearings and take steps to end the abuses, none of which ever materialize; (4) nobody is ever held accountable in any way and no new oversight mechanisms are implemented; (5) Congress endorses new, expanded domestic surveillance powers; and then: (6) new revelations of illegal government spying emerge and the process repeats itself, beginning with step (1).

Nothing Funnier, Seriously

I've found the best thing in the world, the funniest thing in the world, actually. Forever I'll remember the day that I saw this clip from some high-brow show, full of very elite and "special" people, called "I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here" (However, their punctuation here with the comma splice is in fact quite serious; the producers should research independent clauses and semicolons.)

Don't even think about depriving yourself the pleasure of witnessing the two lovebirds from "The Hills," Heidi and Spencer, praying with Mrs. Blagojevich in the futile hope "that the truth will be revealed" and that "they will be delivered from this evil [The Blago Impeachment Fiasco, or the Blagpeachmenasco]."

Mrs. Blago gives the politically curious Spencer a summary of the media event in a sad kind of commercial/PR-pity-campaign kind of way: All the while, conservative intellectual, Stephen Baldwin, looks on anxiously, just jonesing to rebuff her, but in the end only summons the courage to roll around on the floor with extreme psycho-physical discomfort. Some long-ago-way-back-when-ex-model-with-her-face-falling-off, Janice Dickenson, humorously interjects---and often!---to offer both clarification and support ("Twice elected by the people...You're so brave."). Hearing all he needed, the deeply moved Spencer declares that had he the chance, he would have voted for Blago, hell yeah! If only he were informed back then! No matter: "They will be delivered from this evil and oppression, Lord Jesus, in Jesus' name we pray, amen."

I swear that few things are funnier...

Finally
Colbert is back (and I'm suddenly back to feeling "delivered from this evil and oppression."), and he is "thrilled" by the fact that conservatives are unfunny enough to believe he's one of them. I could hardly believe it two months ago that they were THAT STUPID. Plenty has happened since then though to bolster my faith.

Don't ever lose the faith: