You may only read this site if you've purchased Our Kampf from Amazon or Powell's or me
• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show

"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket

"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming

November 01, 2007

America: Crazy About Iran

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 9,348 times:

A majority of likely voters – 52% – would support a U.S. military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and 53% believe it is likely that the U.S. will be involved in a military strike against Iran before the next presidential election, a new Zogby America telephone poll shows...

Democrats (63%) are most likely to believe a U.S. military strike against Iran could take place in the relatively near future, but independents (51%) and Republicans (44%) are less likely to agree. Republicans, however, are much more likely to be supportive of a strike (71%), than Democrats (41%) or independents (44%).

Posted at November 1, 2007 04:13 PM | TrackBack

I can see where Americans would think it a good idea to attack Iran. Look how well things turned out in Iraq, after all.

Posted by: Mark Miller at November 1, 2007 04:24 PM

I'm in the 52% here. I mean, didn't they run into one of our missiles with a commercial jetliner about twenty years ago?

Posted by: Aaron Datesman at November 1, 2007 05:30 PM

So we are mostly fucking idiots who think we have the right to manage the policies of other countries and will murder millions of people in defense of this holy prerogative. As if an Iran with nukes would be less safe than a Pakistan or a North Korea, or that were even possible in the next five years... cf. anyone rational. I'm disappointed; I had thought we would be primarily opposed to the Iran war. I gave us too much credit.

Democrats at almost half. Jesus fucking Christ. Any way the readers of ATR could cover the cost of a full-page ad in the times per Arthur Silber's plan? People need to be woken up. If that's even possible

Posted by: StO at November 1, 2007 05:31 PM

1-202-225-0100 DEMAND IMPEACHMENT.
WE will be bombing Iran and ONLY IMPEACHMENT will stop that, and that's turning less than 50/50 as the days roll on. Sadly, the time for petitions and and stopping wars was BEFORE legal precedent was set by OUR SILENCE in the Iraq invasion.( It all hinges on Pelosi and it's going to take more than JUST ME giving out her phonenumber.)

Posted by: Mike Meyer at November 1, 2007 05:48 PM

What does it mean that 21% say Hillary is "best equipped" to deal with Iran? How or what do they know about her Iran-dealing equipment? Who's better equipped to deal with Belgium, as soon as that country breaks up into two, Hillary or Rudy? And, why ask such inane, meanigless questions?
Because they are inane and meaninglessi is the answer, so I'm giving myself an A- and a Guinness.
I don't remember, but were polls always so stupid?
Were Americans always so ignorant and self-absorbed?

Posted by: donescobar at November 1, 2007 05:50 PM

I think we owe the Bushes and Clintons an apology. They're just doing what the people want.

Posted by: Carl at November 1, 2007 05:50 PM

"I think we owe the Bushes and Clintons an apology. They're just doing what the people want."

Mayhap with a little nudge from AIPAC and CAMERA? Such helpy helpertons they are!

Posted by: JerseyJeffersonian at November 1, 2007 05:59 PM

I mostly agree with the American people-bashing above, but in the slight defense of everyday folks who favor criminal aggression, all they hear, with rare exceptions, are people saying how terribly dangerous and unacceptable it would be for Iran to get the Bomb with that Holocaust-denying, Israel-destroying wannabe with his finger on the prospective nuclear button.

But that said, yeah, you do have to have the brains of a sea cucumber to think this way just a few years after the 2002-2003 debates about WMD.

Posted by: Donald Johnson at November 1, 2007 06:03 PM

It took 2000 years to build the West and 100 years of psychology to destroy it, Cioran said. America wasn't all that betoken to that European civilization stuff anyway: Tombstone and not Athens is our model city state.
There's a lot of outlaws (or outside agitators) out there, so let the Sheriff do his job, even if he's on the payroll of the railroad boys. "Blazing Saddles"--without a touch of its humor--is what we've had for the past thirty years.

Posted by: donescobar at November 1, 2007 06:54 PM

Americans aren't fooled (any more than usual); they simply don't care. Bombing another country means nothing to most Americans, beyond something cool to watch on the evening news and a vicarious sense of victory.

Posted by: John Caruso at November 1, 2007 07:33 PM
...beyond something cool to watch on the evening news and a vicarious sense of victory.

And this time in HD!!!!

Posted by: Ted at November 1, 2007 07:43 PM

The Zogby Poll, in the article I read about it, said that 52% of likely voters, which leaves a fuckload of people out of the equation, most of whom don't want to attack Iran. It's a curious way for Zogby to run a poll, since I don't believe there's a proposition on any national ballot authorizing an attack.

Zogby had another poll that said 43% of Americans believed that the Administration had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attack and let it happen. Which it did have and did let, although not generally acknowledged by the media. I don't know if THAT Zogby poll was limited to likely voters.

Posted by: Bob In Pacifica at November 1, 2007 09:38 PM

I'd have to agree with Biden on this one. Attacking Iran would be idiotic because it would open us up to a much greater threat from Pakistan, which already has a nuclear arsenal.

Posted by: Grottman at November 1, 2007 10:33 PM

How was the question asked? Seems to me there's a big difference between (a) would you support a strike right now on the off chance that maybe Iran has facilities sufficiently advanced to even bother blowing up? and (b) would you support a strike in 15 years when we know they have achieved 1 bomb and are working on a second?

Granted, either way it still comes down to 52% of Americans being firmly in the grip of fear, racism, and propaganda.

Posted by: baldie mceagle at November 2, 2007 09:00 AM

I have to say that it really doesn't matter that the MSM and Fox are pushing this idea that Iran getting the Bomb would be Terrible, Awful, Oh So Bad for the US. People in this country are also told over and over again that the media is liberal. Clearly, the only way to listen to any of this is with extreme caution and, if you're a Fox news follower, with absolute confidence in the rightness of one-sided cynicism. I have to think that people mostly know that all the blather about Iran is just bullshit. So they are either for blasting them or they are against blasting them, from the simple standpoint of protecting 'us'. But at this point, I always wonder how can it be so easy for so many to forget that truly despicable performance of Bush at the Correspondents' dinner where he made fun of his own lies about the existence of WMD in Iraq. And then I have to conclude that Americans think it's A-OK to kill chimeras.

Posted by: Aunt Deb at November 2, 2007 09:44 AM

almostinfamous, if Pakistan becomes unstable, it poses a pretty serious threat to its neighbors (esp. India) and the U.S. They have a nuclear arsenal. If one of those weapons gets into the wrong hands, it will almost certainly kill civilians somewhere around Los Angeles. Don't you watch 24? Sheesh.

Posted by: Grottman at November 2, 2007 10:24 AM

i live in india, and find that we have more problems internally (hunger and poverty, floods, droughts, massive and unpredictable capital inflows and outflows, the fucking BJP) than we can possibly face from outside.

but at any rate, i'm rooting for the pakistani supremes, who have shown quite the backbone lately.

oh, and since when did the US start bordering Pak.? about the same time Canada and Mexico did, i assume?

Posted by: almostinfamous at November 2, 2007 01:56 PM

FUCK! i think i jinxed them

Posted by: almostinfamous at November 3, 2007 11:45 AM

a chickenpox on yer house

Posted by: hapa at November 3, 2007 03:58 PM