The New Republic

omg, you aren't really serious in posting this...

The Sunni's comprised the Baath party, that of the late Sadaam Hussein. This same Sadaam Hussein and his Baath party waged a horrible war against Iran and blatantly oppressed the Shiites. Iran, as representatives of the Shiites, wants to impose a Shiite government on Iraq and take vengeance on the historical enemies. This is why there is significant ethnic cleansing in Iraq, mostly committed by Shiites.

If we just upped and left Iraq it would probably be taken over by Muqtada Al Sadr and he would set out ethnically cleansing Sunni's and destroying Al Qaeda cells to consolidate Shiite supremacy. Ffs, read some basic history or something...

- cthulhu2008

April 3, 2008 at 2:48pm

Is it me or did everyone else find this post confusing? I read it twice and still have no idea what the point was.

- mpatrickhendri

April 3, 2008 at 2:52pm

No fan of the firedoggie berserkers but I liked Goldenberg's piece on Iraq (wish your comments functionality weren't so kloogey - sigh).

Also appreciated the intelligent rebuttal to my comment from someone not seen around tnr.com, "Jay Ackroyd".

More Goldernberg, please. Jay Ackroyd, please comment more, even (especially) when you disagree so intelligently with me.

t

- teplukhin2you

April 3, 2008 at 2:57pm

The point is somebody said something to which Jamie did not cotton.

Jamie, cthulhu is dead-on, and Lieberman is wrong.  Al-Qaeda and Iran would NOT be in control of Iraq, not even close.  It is safe to say that no one would be in control.   It would be chaos, and Iran would not want to get too sucked into that mess.  They would try to influence it, but to pretend that they would be in control is insane.

Again, Jamie- like on yesterday's expose of Burlington: this post was nothing more than an attempt to use real and serious things as a tool to bludgeon political opponents and sneeringly call out weak liberals.  This is not helpful.  And it is hard to make the puff-chested claim that the blogosphere doesn't know anything about terrorism when you yourself are backing insane claims that have nothing to do with the reality of Iraq.  

- boneill

April 3, 2008 at 2:58pm

This slanderous piece of crap is more suited for Kirchick's Contentions blog over at Commentrary magazine than The Plank. I don't understand why his cobloggers at The Plank have put up with him this long.

Remember James:

slanderous piece of crap - Contentions

slanderous piece of crap - Contentions

slanderous piece of crap - Contentions

slanderous piece of crap - Contentions

slanderous piece of crap - Contentions

slanderous piece of crap - Contentions

slanderous piece of crap - Contentions

slanderous piece of crap - Contentions

slanderous piece of crap - Contentions

slanderous piece of crap - Contentions

- ndmackenzie

April 3, 2008 at 2:58pm

mpat--

it's partly you, but it is confusing. the point has to do with whether Lieberman said al qaeda is in IN Iran (McCain's supposed mistake, which Lieberman "corrected" him on) or whether Lieberman said Iran AND al qaeda woulod be in control if we left. it took me a second reading to get it straight. goes to show how ill-equipped we all are to deal with subtlety. Obviously goldenberg is not a reliable source.

- pccostello

April 3, 2008 at 3:04pm

Uh, the point is that they're picking bones - thinking that Lieberman thought there was an official group "Al Qaeda in Iran" (along the lines of "Al Qaeda in Iraq") instead of merely pointing out Iran's connection with Al Qaeda.

I'm sure there is an Al Qaeda in Iran, but they've just been too busy to file incorporation papers.

- bcbaird

April 3, 2008 at 3:05pm

It has no point.  Its purpose is some sort of justification of Bush's Iraq war -- both the fact of and the current policy of endless US occupation.  The author was not up to the task of making a coherent point and so resorted to breathless "mentioning" of all sorts of unrelated things.  

Can you say, "mini-me?"

- roidubouloi

April 3, 2008 at 3:07pm

Kirchick, did you know the Army and Marines are looking for ground fighters?  I suggest you help out the war effort first hand and volunteer.  I'm sure you'd be appreciated at the front.  Then you can help fight those Iranian al Qaeda operatives first hand and report back to us on how many of them are out there.

- tnmats

April 3, 2008 at 3:11pm

Once Bin Laden came to Afghanistan, this was the series of events:

The Taliban closed the Iranian emabsssy

Troops from Iran belonging to Ismael Khan went to Afghanistan and fought against the Taliban

11 Iranian diplomats were killed in Afghanistan and their bodies dumped in a well

Aytollah Khomeini warns that the Taliban and it's foreign guests are plotting against Iran

70,000 Iranian troops are deployed to the border as a sign of strength

30, 000 Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters are deployed to the border

Iranian numbers grow to 200,000 men on the Afghanistan border

Iran arms and houses Afghans fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda

Shall I go on? It continues on just like this. Even with Iranians chanting death to the mullahs after the 9/11 attacks. The enemy of my enemy model has limits.

- mpatrickhendri

April 3, 2008 at 3:12pm

James, keep up the good work.  Here, you posted an entry highlighting another's distortion of a quote together with a well-cited rebuttal to the argument the distortion represented.  I'm not sure what the commenters in this thread are drinking, but it has evidently obscured their abilities to read and interpret english.  

- scottlooper

April 3, 2008 at 3:16pm

Not to say Jamie likes to go all ad hominem rather than fact-checking, but if you go to the link provided by Goldenberg, Jane Hamsher posted a video of a Fox News clip where Lieberman did indeed spout the idiocy she quoted him as saying.  Try 0:44 into the video clip.  Are we to believe Hamsher faked a Fox News interview?  Or are we really supposed to believe a Sunni-led insurgency is going to defeat the combined forces of the Badr brigades and the Mahdi army?  Honestly, both Jamie and Joe spouted nonsense, but at lease Jamie's never been elected to higher office, I suppose.

- jfabermit

April 3, 2008 at 3:18pm

Talk about grasping at straws.  Both versions of Lieberman's quote are patently absurd - Al Qaeda has no chance of being "in control" of post-U.S. Iraq under any scenario.  Iran is going to have a degree of influence over Iraq even if the U.S. stays there indefinitely - there's just no way around that with a majority Shi'ite country.

- FWright

April 3, 2008 at 3:26pm

Should be noted that I too disagree with Lieberman's comment, just for more intelligent reasons.

- bcbaird

April 3, 2008 at 3:27pm

What distortion are we talking about.  Firs, Lieberman says "in" rather clearly, and he is certainly not given to dropping consonants and saying "Al qaeda 'n' Iran".  Watch the clip yourself if you have any doubts.  Even if that is what he meant, it is still nonsense, like Fwright suggests.  Al qaeda in no way dominates Sunni Iraq, nor would they if the situation deteriorated.  They stage lots of attacks, yes, but have nowhere near the strength of numbers to run any territory.  As to Iran running the show, that basically already happens under Maliki, who is just as close to the Iranian regime as Sadr.  Lieberman is spouting nonsense either way.

- jfabermit

April 3, 2008 at 3:35pm

I suppose the JK's real point is that Obama is a Democrat and therefore a kind of cowardly subversive whose only desire is to damage America, which is doing so well in Iraq.

So well, in fact, that Iran has a bigger say in what happens than we do.

- ironyroad

April 3, 2008 at 3:37pm

It really was a confusing blog.  I still have no idea where the reference to Jane Hamsher came from.

(via Spencer Ackerman) An article in the New York Observor provides a clue as to why James Kirchick has his gig at The New Republic:

-- One 23-year-old political journalist told The Observer that the New Republic reporter-researcher job—famed for launching the careers of Slate editor Jacob Weisberg, New Yorker Washington correspondent Ryan Lizza, Atlantic editor James Bennet and author Hanna Rosin, among others—is no longer quite the coveted position it once was. “Part of the reason why the TNR internship isn’t as big as it used to be is that if you were a young sharpie on the make in 1990 or even 1995, there just weren’t that many places where you could get your start,” the political journalist said. “But the rise of the kind of whole bloggy progressive thing has, I think, really kicked off the careers of some people, or at least for smart liberal college students.”

No young sharpies on the make want to work at TNR any more so they have to put up with a dull blade like Kirchick.

- ndmackenzie

April 3, 2008 at 3:44pm

Kirchick, I think you're alright.  There, now I've secured my position as an outsider and you owe me a few beers.*

*Brickskeller.  I prefer Scottish stouts.

- bcbaird

April 3, 2008 at 3:55pm

ndmackenzie,

This can't explain it, you could pick a name from the phone book and do better. It has to go back to Marty, that is unless the editors wanted to put a conservative clown on their blog to constantly hightlight the absurdity of rightwing talking points. Jamie is TNR's Glenn Beck.

- mpatrickhendri

April 3, 2008 at 4:01pm

yes, mpatrickhendri  exactly right, and such elemental facts somehow are nowhere to be find in mini's meaningless rant against Goldenberg. "He said Al Qaeda and Iran, not in Iran" and finishing with the oh so precious. "Apparently the credulosphere isn't just illiterate when it comes to terrorism, but the English language as well." Snap! you go mini. credulosphere, ooohhh. But don't you find it a tad ridiculous when criticizing other peoples use of English, that you choose to make up a word of your own? Why don't you invest in a dictionary instead.

- blackton

April 3, 2008 at 4:15pm

As usual, Kirchick's post made me less sympathetic to his position rather than more. If you're actually interested in convincing people (rather than scoring points or registering your righteous anger), plain English works better than sarcasm, exaggeration, omission, and haughty disdain. If I were a criminal defendant, I'd want Kirchick to be the prosecutor.

- Androscoggin

April 3, 2008 at 4:17pm

Boneill says: "Al-Qaeda and Iran would NOT be in control of Iraq, not even close.  It is safe to say that no one would be in control.   It would be chaos, and Iran would not want to get too sucked into that mess.  They would try to influence it, but to pretend that they would be in control is insane."

Spot on.  The question is whether Jamie would prefer Al Quaeda and Iran running around unfettered in Iraq a year ago, or whether they'd be better running around unfettered a year from now?  It's not like Americans killing more Shia and Al Quaeda members over the remainder of the Bush presidency is going to reduce their numbers or Iran's influence in substantial ways.  

- kerouac9

April 3, 2008 at 4:20pm

jfabermit - I hear it quite clearly as "and."  He said it sort of strangely, sure, but he means that Iraq would be both in the hands of Iran and Al Qaeda, and there's no indication that he means they'll be working together.  It's a ridiculous statement to be sure, but it's even more ridiculous to criticize the man for saying something he didn't even say.

Of course, the more interesting gaff is from the airhead blond host: "...Obama's refined position that McCain supports a 100-troop commitment in Iraq."

Only 100?  Man, they had better hope Rambo is one of them.

- bcbaird

April 3, 2008 at 4:35pm

Desperate stuff from Lieberman. Bone's right.

- The Ignorant Populist

April 3, 2008 at 4:40pm

Sierra Nevada for me. (Kirchick owes me for... something, can't remember now)

- teplukhin2you

April 3, 2008 at 4:41pm

I didn't really understand the point of the post - "in", "and", potayto, potahto - mrpatrick set out the headlines and that sums it up as far as the Bin Laden-Iran ties are concerned.  Three further points.

First, I don't know if JK reads Persian - or Arabic for that matter - but he should check out the sites tied to Khamenei.  Relations between Muqtada Sadr and Iran's Dear Leader are chilly, to say the least, Sadr having told Khamenei point blank that Iraq is his and his alone and he does not intend to share it with Iran.  In any event, anyone who knows anything about the region would know that Iraq's Shi'ites are Arabs first and Shi'ite second; they'd rather hand the country over to Saddam than to Iran's Persian.  What I am saying, they DID support Saddam over Iran during EIGHT YEARS of a bloody war.  

Second, while Iran amassed 200,000 troops outside Afghan borders after 11 of its diplomats were killed by the Taliban, it did nothing.  The reason is simple: Iran's armed forced are basically a kleptocratic institution right now, and not exactly a fitghting machine.  Iran as a state can probably mount a defence if attacked; the armed forces are in no position to go into Iraq and to impose Iranian rule there.  And there is no way Iran can "rule" the place with Sadr's army on the ground.

Third, Ahmadinejad is a millernarian Shi'ite.  While mayor of Tehran, he ordered built a highway for the imminent reappearance of the Twelfth Imam.  He was recently criticised indirectly at a Friday prayer sermon by Rafsanjani as someone who is so superstitious as to set aside a plate at his dinner table for the Twelfth Imam - in case he appears on the spot.  I am not joking.  Relevance?  Simple: there is NO WAY Ahmadinejad could collaborate with extreme Sunnis on anything.  He is an apostate of the first rank, and they are heretics to him.  Al-Qaeda is on the record, by the way, as saying that apostates are more dangerous than infidels ...

- icarusr

April 3, 2008 at 5:18pm

Who anointed Lieberman as this elder statesman on the Mideast? The senator from Connecticut has one credential: he's Jewish. How does this possibly help Israel or the American Jewish community to have Joe Lieberman leapfrogging from party to party in order to maintain his self-appointed, transcendent role as the Jewish conscious of the Congress?

What a disaster. His freelancing of foreign policy was a distraction for Gore and will not help McCain. I know Kennedy did this kind of thing regarding Ireland, but that too was weird. And also exploitative of the issue - Kennedy did it for his personal aggrandizement.

What's next, Richardson lecturing us on Mexico? Schwarzenwhateveritis on Austria?

Shut up, Joe.

- fougasseu

April 3, 2008 at 5:28pm

fougasseu, at least Richardson grew up in Mexico and Ahnold in Austria. If they were to lecture me about these areas I would give them more credence than Holy Joe.

- blackton

April 3, 2008 at 6:27pm