Comments: Meet The New Lies, Same As The Old Lies

I thought they (Iran) stopped and then started up again, or does memory not serve?

Posted by donescobar at January 11, 2009 11:03 PM

There hasn't been any new conclusion issued by the intelligence agencies since they said (at the end of 2007) that Iran had stopped a nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Posted by Jonathan Schwarz at January 11, 2009 11:08 PM

So, it's not true then that what was stopped in 2003 was weaponization, but that development of fissile material and delivery systems continued?
If it is true, what point developing delivery systems if there are no nuclear warheads on top of them?

Posted by donescobar at January 11, 2009 11:33 PM

Even if Iran was able to make a couple nuclear warheads, like, so what? Would that be the end of the universe? The Iranians seem much more sane than either the U.S. or Israel (who happens to have an estimated 300 and I have no idea how many we have). And who was the only nation to use nuclear weapons against another nation? Hint: it wasn’t Japan.

Posted by Rob Payne at January 12, 2009 12:31 AM

Oh, Rob, don't you read Bernard Lewis? They want to bring about the apocalypse according to their crazy Muslim prophecy!!!1

Posted by Save the Oocytes at January 12, 2009 03:19 AM

Save the Oocytes,

Those crafty Muslims, it’s always the apocalypse, what ever happened to counting angels on the head of a pin?

Posted by Rob Payne at January 12, 2009 03:46 AM

WE have around 55,000 warheads, down from the cold war high of 85,000.

Posted by Mike Meyer at January 12, 2009 11:40 AM

That's a little harsh...

Given the state of our "inteligence" services, I doubt they could anticipate a draw in tic-tac-toe.

But given our demostrated history of interfering in Iran and other places where wealth exists I would want a big mofoco bomb if I were a sovereign.

Along with bomb ownership comes another thing: rationality. Whoever uses the bomb next (and there will be a next) is going to be in a whole new world of hurt even if victorious.

Which is why the next 9 days are especially scary for me.

Posted by shirt at January 12, 2009 04:56 PM

This is a completely baseless smear against President elect Obama, who has changed the old lie from the plural ("nuclear weapons") to the singular ("a nuclear weapon").

I fear your ultraleftoid commie hippy raving hatred of America has once again blinded you to the minutiae of Obama's practical marxian reform platform, in which he gently nudges the American zeitgeist into a new dialectical frame!

Or, uh, something.

Posted by buermann at January 12, 2009 07:28 PM

And still, for some reason, Obama is easier to take. Just kuz he's smarter?

Posted by Bob at January 12, 2009 10:25 PM

yes, bob.

unfortunately, no matter how much good obama does, the fact that he's listening to the never-right and has been pretty explicit in saying that he will not pursue criminal charges against the bush administration mean we're guaranteed a repeat of the past eight years in the future.

and i like obama.

every once in a while though i think that perhaps it is simply because he can speak in complete sentences and demonstrates coherent thought.

Posted by karen marie at January 13, 2009 03:39 PM

There bob. Ya see? It's okay if Obama is a murderous thug, just so long as he's a well-spoken murderous thug. Progressive victory!

Posted by AlanSmithee at January 14, 2009 12:32 PM

On Bob and Karen's point:

It's not just that he's smarter and coherent. Hearing the wife of the president-elect use the words "homophobia" and "Stonewall" in a speech (excerpted on line) felt really profound to me.

On reflection I think the change that signals is that the new administration is literate in the struggles of recent decades. And that seems really exciting at first.

The temptation is to mistake "literacy in" for "commitment to." And that can lead to expecting politicians who use the vocabulary of social change movements to do the work of such movements. That makes it easy to forget that all a politician can do to advance social change is respond to movements and that it's up to us to think strategically about how to force politicians to act and keep organizing to do that.

Posted by OppEd at January 14, 2009 01:19 PM

So Obama's going to lay down the law with Pakistan, right? I mean, they're Muslim and have the bomb....

Of course, international opprobrium is only valid when directed at Muslim nations (and French), but never applies to the U.S. or its satellite in the Middle East.

Posted by David at January 14, 2009 02:48 PM

OppEd, I'd be a lot more pleased by Obama's ability to say "homophobia" and "Stonewall" if he weren't so comfortable with homophobes and so ill-informed about gay issues. Clinton had a similar ability to make a lot of gay people go all wet, even after he showed that he could also say "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and "Defense of Marriage Act."

Posted by Duncan at January 15, 2009 12:03 AM