The former Democratic Mayor of NY City seems determined to lead the rhetorical charge for an attack on Iran.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/...
Those opposing pre-emptive action against Iran are usual crazies, pacifists, dreamers and self-haters of the U.S. who believe we are evil in aspirations and actions and our opponents are virtuous and worthy of support
I'll point out that the above appears above the byline, and may be partly the work of a depraved editor. The actual quote in the article from Koch however, is nearly as craven. As is the entire essay. More below.
The President of Iran has threatened the very existence of the United States and its ally Israel, and will soon be capable of using nuclear weapons to carry out his threat.
Koch thus opens with the meat of his argument, the two lies which neocons appear to believe will sell an Iran attack to a credulous public.
With regard to the first, Juan Cole has done a good job in the last couple of days of addressing the "threat" made by Iranian President Ahmadinejad (unfortunately, more people will see Hitchens's hit piece in Slate).
Ahmadinejad's speech, translated here by the NY Times, does say that "a world without the United States and Zionism" is a "possible goal and slogan". But the campaign to turn this speech into a military threat is reminiscent of the famous cold war distortion of Kruchev's "we will outlast you", to mean "we will bury you." In this vein, Ahmadinejad's quotation of Khomeni's "the occupying regime must vanish from the pages of time" has been routinely exaggerated with mistranslation into the Western metaphor of "wiped from the map." The point is that the metaphor that was actually used does not imply violence.
Then we get to the bigger lie, that Iran "will soon be capable of using nuclear weapons." By now, most here are no doubt aware that, according to the most recent National Intelligence Estimate, they are at least 10 years away from a nuclear bomb. (At least Koch is closer to the truth than Pat Robertson, who has been informing 700 club viewers that Iran already has atomic weapons).
Koch next goes on to criticize Russia and China for not supporting sanctions against Iran, before launching into a defense of the Iraq war which depends on an Orwellian account of it's history, in which UN resolution 1441 is said to authorize it. Then he comes out in favor of an attack on Iran with this charming piece of rhetoric:
Those who opposed the war against Iraq and who will oppose a preemptive strike in an effort to destroy Iran's nuclear bomb facilities are as concerned about our country and its future as those of us who want to make certain by taking military action that the country's future is assured. But in the opposition's ranks there are the usual crazies, pacifists, dreamers and self-haters of the U.S. who believe we are evil in aspirations and actions and our opponents are virtuous and worthy of support, whoever they may be.
Memo to Ed, the President has called talk of attacks on Iran "wild speculation". And, according to the Wall St. Journal, not even Britain is currently willing to consider circumstances in which it would support military action against Iran. Why do the Brits hate America?
Steven Colbert recent told Bill Kristol, "I'm a neo-neocon. You guys aren't tough enough for me." Apparently Koch feels the same way. He's already decided he wants military action. I guess he's determined to be out in front on this one. Question for Koch, do you really support an attack now? Or are you simply launching a preemptive defense against speculative future critics of your preemptive support for a speculative preemptive attack, in response to a future speculative threat?
Or, do you believe the President is lying when he says he hasn't already decided to attack Iran? That might explain why he refuses to discuss resolving differences diplomatically.
It sickens me to see this nonsense from a guy who calls himself a Democrat.