Keith Olbermann Tonight: McCain Back to Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran

-


keith-olbermann small.jpgTonight at about 8:20 pm, I’ll be back with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC’s Countdown discussing Senator John McCain’s call on President Obama to “pull the trigger” on bombing Iran.
The jingle could be laughed off. The Senator’s remarks today can’t be.
Should be an interesting chat — particularly after President Obama’s nuclear summitry is providing the right kind of pressure and opportunity to credibly, potentially change Iran’s course.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

50 comments on “Keith Olbermann Tonight: McCain Back to Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran

  1. Faheem-ul-hassan hajvery says:

    Truethness is a blessing obey this blessing God give this world blessings and peace.

    Reply

  2. Faheem-ul-hassan hajvery says:

    What is love into this world.The layer of feelings
    with respect to rights,lovers and friendships.Into this world a true happiness in love there is only love this is true happiness.BE happy alot all of you.

    Reply

  3. Faheem-ul-hassan hajvery says:

    There is only one idea to make the world peaceful.
    Everyone has to be sincere about rights and limitations.Then the world will be true haven for everyone.Be happy alot with happiness.

    Reply

  4. Faheem-ul-hassan hajvery says:

    There is only one idea to make the world peaceful.
    Everyone has to be sincere about rights and limitations.Then the world will be true haven for everyone.Be happy alot with happiness.

    Reply

  5. ... says:

    well,, there is surely a lot of ‘love’ in that statement, lol…. ”peace loving peoples”…. what do they have to do with any of the madness, which include your posts here at twn kotz?

    Reply

  6. Dan Kervick says:

    “To be dominant and powerful does not necessarily follow that either can only be used for evil deeds and not for good ones.”
    Of course that doesn’t follow. But to be a dominant military power is to use military power to dominate others or establish dominion over them. And I think you are wrong to underestimate the traditional American ambivalence about the assertive “forward” use of military power. Not everyone shares your own level of hostility and love of conflict.
    And by the way, “dominant” is an adjective, not a noun.

    Reply

  7. kotzabasis says:

    Kervick
    To be dominant and powerful does not necessarily follow that either can only be used for evil deeds and not for good ones.
    Kervick being factually wrong about his

    Reply

  8. David Faubion says:

    Iran has been and still is the big prize for the US imperialist economic hegemony. After Iran’s revolt against the empire, Reagan and some US corporations bankrolled Iraq against Iran in eight years of brutal war. Since then, the US investment in Israel and Israel’s investment in expanding its control of the region has intensified. Israel’s Zionism, like its nutty twin: Christian Zionism, is a delusional paranoia, a quasi-mechanism that will stop at nothing to achieve their biblical Moses claim of Eretz Israel: from the river Tigress to the Nile. Both strains of Zionism exploit and distort their respective religious to the point where little of the religious ethics and principals remain.
    Israel, the U.S. bankrolled, garrison, 51st state of the union has to abide by the US Constitution: Israel has no constitution, only little more a few racist rules it devises on the fly. Iran

    Reply

  9. David Faubion says:

    Negotiations may fail too as USRAEL will opt to lose again unwilling to give any ground it has stolen, human rights it has violated, etc. The sustainable, working negotiating tools of the U.S. are:
    1) stopping its military de-escalation throughout the ME and other Arab/ Muslim nations, closing U.S. bases
    2) stopping its hegemony over ME resources in collusion with despotic regimes, some of which the U.S. creates,
    3) stopping its multi-billion dollar military aid to Israel, which amounts to 77 billion since 1948: 12 billion more than to all of Africa, the Americas and Caribbean in the same period
    4) making Israel comply with international law and the roughly sixty UN resolutions it violates,
    5) recognizing the open, fair investigation of Israel

    Reply

  10. David Faubion says:

    Sanctions failed against our butcher in Baghdad through the 1990s except to kill roughly a million Iraqis, mostly kids. But sanctions did

    Reply

  11. David Faubion says:

    More sanctions and more punitive rhetoric won’t bring the United States closer to resolving international concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, writes FCNL’s Jim Fine in a letter sent to President Obama this week. Fine reminds the president that former Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that negotiations with Iran, not sanctions are the key to resolving the crisis. http://action.fcnl.org/r/130520/153943/0

    Reply

  12. David Faubion says:

    More sanctions and more punitive rhetoric won’t bring the United States closer to resolving international concerns over Iran’s nuclear program, writes FCNL’s Jim Fine in a letter sent to President Obama this week. Fine reminds the president that former Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that negotiations with Iran, not sanctions are the key to resolving the crisis. http://action.fcnl.org/r/130520/153943/0
    Sanctions failed against our butcher in Baghdad through the 1990s except to kill roughly a million Iraqis, mostly kids. But sanctions did

    Reply

  13. ... says:

    Partisan hallucinations. – paul quote – exactly….

    Reply

  14. Dan Kervick says:

    “… what makes you think that Americans who hold that view are any more than a tiny minority?”
    A key term here is

    Reply

  15. questions says:

    We humans.
    Is it structural such that there are no options? Ask me when I’m dead and gone. I want very much for there to be options. Dog hang out with dog world. Dog play with dog world. Dog catch frisbee world. Dog read book world.

    Reply

  16. WigWag says:

    “On the like it side, I guess it’s better to be the dog eating the other dog than the dog being eaten in that dog-eat-dog world we’ve set up.” (Questions)
    Do you really think that “we’ve” set up the “dog-eat-dog” world? Exactly which “we” are you talking about?

    Reply

  17. questions says:

    “Like it or not” is actually probably the right way to look at things. What’s not to like about being a dominant power? Well, supporting a war machine at the expense of social welfare, for one. Putting up with these mild semi-insurrectionary moments for another (refusing to deploy because the pres. wasn’t born in the US???) for another. Being caught in MAD scenarios when you see both the stupidity and the necessity of them, and the escape recedes further and further into the background, for yet another. Being stuck with wars all over the planet in feeble but sadly necessary attempts to maintain some kind of stability — Hey, what’s not to love about it?!
    On the like it side, I guess it’s better to be the dog eating the other dog than the dog being eaten in that dog-eat-dog world we’ve set up. So that’s “fun” because it’s better to do wrong than to suffer wrong — isn’t that what Socrates and Jesus stand for?!
    So, like it or not, we’re in a role that is burdensome, causes suffering, is profoundly stupid in its aims — and yet is utterly necessary. Like it or not.

    Reply

  18. Paul Norheim says:

    If someone like, say George W. Bush had delivered the “like it or
    not” comment, his opponents would immediately have “heard”
    that he loved the fact that the US is the dominant power, even if
    his point had been to state a fact that implies certain things.
    When Obama says the same, his opponents “hear” that he hates
    this fact – because they have made up their mind that he “hates
    America” – even if his point was to speak about the implications.
    Partisan hallucinations.

    Reply

  19. WigWag says:

    “He was addressing a broad swath of a skeptical US public, which includes both those who like the fact that the US is the globe

    Reply

  20. Dan Kervick says:

    The

    Reply

  21. kotzabasis says:

    WigWag
    Indeed, Obama is “igrorant and feckless” and I would add geopolitically dead, and his lackadaisical statement “whether we like it or not” is just another shovel of dirt over his grave. Yet we have people like Clemons who are resurrecting him “out of the blue.”
    I’m sorry, I don’t have that citation from Sestanovich.

    Reply

  22. nadine says:

    “It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them.” (President Obama)
    The clause directly modified by “whether we like it or not” is “we remain a dominant military superpower”. The most natural reading of the sentence is that Obama either doesn’t like being a military super power, or is apologizing for it. Would he give up superpower status if he could? His phrasing implies that he would.
    It’s a pretty amazing statement from the Commander in Chief. All we can hope is that Obama misspoke, and only meant to say that he doesn’t like getting pulled into conflicts.

    Reply

  23. james says:

    geez, wigwag, i know your foreign policy views are pretty removed, but now i can see why… misrepresenting obamas statement is something you appear to come by naturally….
    wiggys interpretation…””Whether we like it or not” the United States is the dominant superpower.”
    what obama said “It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not,” to which most would agree… quit bs ing with obamas words….i know i am asking a lot!~

    Reply

  24. nadine says:

    “But it was a revealing Freudian slip. And it suggests the possibility that Obama’s harshest critics on the right just might be correct about him.”
    Over time, Obama reveals himself. America thought they had hired an advocate of America to the international community; but Obama seems to regard himself as an advocate OF the international community TO America.

    Reply

  25. WigWag says:

    By the way Kotzabasis, if you want a laugh, you should check out the statement that the ignorant and feckless American President made today.
    Speaking of the Israel-Palestinian peace process, Obama said,
    “And the truth is, in some of these conflicts the United States can

    Reply

  26. WigWag says:

    Kotzabasis, your essay is entirely on target; it exposes not only the recklessness of Obama but also the mindless and unsophisticated approach to foreign policy advocated by those of his ilk.
    These preternaturally naive commentators have convinced themselves that the best position the United States can adopt for itself and for its allies is to appear supine before its adversaries.
    Of course, they are not able to cite even one example where presenting itself as prone has advanced the interests of the United States or its friends; but they are so blinded by their ideological predilections that it’s probably not foreign policy success that they’re really after.
    One could be excused for wondering what it is about violence, death, hate and destruction that this crowd so adores; because if history teaches us anything, its that weakness and appeasement always have the worst consequences.
    None of this is to say that those on the other side don’t make mistakes; frequently they are tragically wrong. But any fair appraisal demonstrates that the foreign policy approaches advocated by the realist crowd and the leftist crowd usually result in more people dead, maimed and enslaved than can possibly be imagined.
    I would be interested in a citation for the Stephen Sestanovich article if you have it.

    Reply

  27. PissedOffAmerican says:

    So, I guess Lieberman’s saber rattling doesn’t count either.
    What reason is there to decry McCain’s warmongering while ignoring that of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? Or this maggot Lieberman?
    Its rare that Steve can be percieved as partisanly spun, but its no empty argument that McCain ain’t alone in singing his tune, and a good part of the chorus is chiming in from the left.
    http://newsmax.com/Headline/lieberman-iran-nuclear-attack/2010/04/12/id/355512?s=al&promo_code=9BDE-1

    Reply

  28. kotzabasis says:

    The following essay was written and published on May 2009. I’m posting it on TWN hoping its readers will find it of some relevance to the ‘new’ course of President Obama.
    Dangers of Obama

    Reply

  29. DonS says:

    Wigwag, ‘despised’ was, I realized after the fact, a bad choice.
    As to ‘grand bargains’, I have no crystal ball when it comes to the ME, or to Obama. It would be in the world’s best interest to bring Iran into the fold. Obama has proven himself to be a politician, and if he can play that role for with Iran for the greater good of the world — rather than for the narrow interests seeking confrontation — that would be good.
    (FWIW, most of my relatives are right wingers; we avoid politics because it gets very ugly)

    Reply

  30. J. Hiroshi Burnette says:

    The United States has Iran surrounded on all sides with military presence. There’s also a history of US interference in Iranian affairs. Let’s talk reciprocity. If the US were threatened with a takeover of Canada and Mexico, and an Iranian naval presence in the Atlantic, wouldn’t we call that a de facto declaration of war? As much as I hate theocracies and dictatorships, I think Iran is behaving a lot better than the US, foreign policy-wise. 9/11 happened because we like to pick fights all over the world, and it’ll happen again unless we show reciprocity in our foreign policy. No chance of that until Jesus beats the K-Streeters out of DC, and God strikes down Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. How about bomb bomb Crawford, Texas? (And by the way, after 9/11 we probably should have bombed Saudi Arabia.)

    Reply

  31. WigWag says:

    I don’t “despise” the Leveretts any more than I “despise” you, DonS. How can you despise people that you don’t know? In fact, I have relatives whom I love that I disagree with every bit as much as I disagree with the Leveretts. I don’t know what Thanksgiving is like at your house, DonS, but at mine the political debates can become pretty hot and heavy; but in the end it

    Reply

  32. questions says:

    WigWag, too sobering by half….
    If the US helped out with the non-start revolution, then there’s stage one on the path. But the US isn’t in a great military position to deal with Iraq, Afghanistan, AND Iran. That would seem to suggest getting a proxy to do the attacking and then defending the proxy should it be necessary.
    Who can best afford to drop some bombs right now? And could there be some weird regional bargain that promises a range of settlements of conflicts if there’s cooperation? Would Israel do the deed, and get a Palestinian settlement that’s friendly enough to Israel to pass muster? And then the Arab nations get an end to the Palestinian issue that irritates their citizens?
    Would Egypt do the deed and then get a settlement that helps keep the current government in power? The Saudis? Do they have the military for air strikes on specific targets?
    Is there room for systemic cooperation at this level? I have no idea, so I’m merely speculating wild fictions here. But what sobering wild thoughts they are. And grounding in rationality and a much better sense of the issues than I have would be appreciated. I’m out of my depth here for sure.

    Reply

  33. DonS says:

    Very interesting, Wigwag, the Leveretts, who you despise and take every opportunity to mock, have somehow become the soul of prescience. No coincidence,perhaps that the motivating issue — which you reveal corresponds with putative the Sunnai Arab interest, for who you have over time exhibited no love lost either. Even less coincidence that the issue involves the ‘inexorable’ march towards the US attacking Iran.
    Glad to know you are not opposed to sleeping with heretofore excreable foes if the twisted story line supports Israel’s dirty business.

    Reply

  34. WigWag says:

    In the above comment where I mentioned “Syria” I meant to say “Saudi Arabia.”
    Sorry for the mistake.

    Reply

  35. WigWag says:

    Regardless of what Steve Clemons, or Nadine or anyone else thinks, if Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett are correct, a war between the United States and Iran is virtually inevitable. The Leveretts believe that the only way to avoid that war is for the United States and Iran to form a grand bargain. But it is perfectly obvious, probably even to the Leveretts, that the grand bargain that they advocate is dead on arrival, at least at the Obama White House. After all, if Obama were contemplating a grand bargain he wouldn’t be telling Iran and the rest of the world that Iran is one of the only two nations on earth that are eligible for an American nuclear first strike. That’s precisely what Obama did in his recent revision to the nuclear posture review.
    So if a grand bargain is off the table, what’s left? There are only two possibilities; either President Obama will follow McCain’s advice and “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” or he will adopt a deterrence policy based on containment. But the Leveretts, during their appearance on Charlie Rose and through a blog post at the “Race for Iran,” have told us that for a variety of reasons, a containment strategy will almost certainly lead to war between the United States and Iran.
    Here

    Reply

  36. PissedOffAmerican says:

    “The question is, what will be the costs of not attacking Iran, of letting them pursue their plans for a few more years and get nukes?”
    With any luck, it might just get these murderous zionist radicals in Israel to think twice about incinerating Muslim women and children in white phosphorous.
    But probably not. Israel seems hell bent on suicide, so no telling what the insane wackos steering the ship over there will do. Start World War Three, undoubtedly, if we don’t wise up and snip their gonads.

    Reply

  37. PissedOffAmerican says:

    Of course, we are supposed to ignore Hillary and Barack’s thinly veiled threats towards Iran, eh?
    And Israel’s.
    Yeah, its all about partisan politics. If this nearly senile jackass McCain utters the unspeakable, then its an egregious and scary bit of warmongering.
    But if some zionist sack of shit right wing radical in Israel, or Hillary Clinton, hints at it, than its just “diplomacy”.

    Reply

  38. jdledell says:

    Nadine – You state the balance of power is important to peace. I agree, peace will come when some state/states can balance Israel’s overwhelming power in the mideast.

    Reply

  39. The Pessimist says:

    “The question is, what will be the costs of not attacking Iran, of letting them pursue their plans for a few more years and get nukes?’ nadine.
    My answer: Depends on which currency you choose the measure the “cost” with.
    I would suggest the most valuable currency on earth, life itself. So to answer your ideologically driven question: the cost of not attacking: 0 lives wasted.
    What currency did you have in mind by which to measure the costs nadine?

    Reply

  40. ... says:

    what will be the cost of not putting israel in it’s place, or not attacking israel? that is what i want to know, as israel is too full of itself to get real…nadine, your comments here regularly reflect this as well… keep on building settlements, where ever, but don’t expect to get sympathy when things go wrong, as they are clearly headed with the head in sand approach israel is taking internationally…

    Reply

  41. nadine says:

    Maw, of course there would be terrible costs from an attack against Iran. That’s not the question. The question is, what will be the costs of not attacking Iran, of letting them pursue their plans for a few more years and get nukes?
    Of course, they’re getting nothing but encouragement from Obama. Yesterday’s quote:
    “OBAMA: It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because, whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military super power, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them.”
    Like it or not? Does Obama not like the US being a dominant military super power? Does he intend to take the US out of the super power business? Whom would he prefer to see in the role? Iran would be happy to audition for the role of regional hegemon.

    Reply

  42. Steven Clemons says:

    Thanks Nadine — appreciate the clarification. Wasn’t joking — but
    agree that headlines can be distracting nuisance on occasion. best
    regards, steve

    Reply

  43. nadine says:

    Perhaps I was too hasty in saying that you were joking; my apologies. I read “McCain Back to Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran” as treating Senator McCain’s suggestions as a joke.

    Reply

  44. Maw of America says:

    “Do not make insinuations or presume things about my commentary that are not true.” (Steve Clemons to Nadine)
    As Bruce Willis (as John McClane) says in “Die Hard” after tossing a dead terrorist out of the Nakatomi building, “Welcome to the party, pal.”
    Steve, a few of us have been pointing out the insidious semantic gymnastics that Nadine plays when posting here. When she posts about Iran being the new one-country Axis of Evil in the Middle East if they went nuclear, she cleverly neglects to mention the far worse outcome if an attack were to come to Iran – from us, Israel or any other country. Besides sending oil prices to astronomical levels, it would destroy any hope of home-grown regime change and plunge the entire area into a generational conflict that would eventually immerse us all.
    Thanks for playing, Nadine… Come back when you can’t stay as long.

    Reply

  45. Steve Clemons says:

    Nadine — appreciate your differing perspective, but I am not making jokes about the risks to other people’s lives. We have a legitimate disagreement about how to generate security deliverables and stability. Your views and mine are at the table — there is nothing remotely humorous about them on either side….except perhaps when Senator McCain joked about bombing Iran…which I think was a slip. I don’t make insinuations about you or your positions and take you at face value — Do not make insinuations or presume things about my commentary that are not true. all best, steve

    Reply

  46. nadine says:

    “Last I looked, Steve Clemons appeared to be an American. Why would it be his life that is in jeopardy”
    That’s just the point. He’s willing to make jokes out of the risk to other people’s lives in the Mideast, Iranians, Arabs, Israelis, and two American armies. You leftists think that peace is a state of nature. It’s not. You don’t maintain it by never shooting no matter what, but by maintaining a balance of power. Obama is playing very dangerous games without understanding.

    Reply

  47. DonS says:

    “Are you willing to bet your life they won’t make good their many threats to destroy Israel?” (Nadine)
    That’s a pretty curious challenge. Last I looked, Steve Clemons appeared to be an American. Why would it be his life that is in jeopardy, or are you trying to gin up an implicit blackmail — just like AIPAC likes to conflate all the time?

    Reply

  48. nadine says:

    Steve Clemons, you are easily impressed by nuclear summitry that the press reported as a big success when they weren’t even allowed to cover it. This was an exercise worthy of Pravda under the USSR.
    Dana Milbank seems quite pissed about it. Read today’s WaPo?
    John McCain sees the threat more clearly than you do. Do you think having a nuclear Iran be master of the Gulf will be cost free for the Arab world, or us? Are you willing to bet your life they won’t make good their many threats to destroy Israel? Our weakness is making war much more likely, not less.

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *