Moving forward with Iran
Thanks to Ezra Klein, Chris Floyd and Seth Gitell for what I think was an excellent discussion of the "threat" posed by Iran, with particular thanks to Seth for agreeing to make his case in a venue far less hospitable to his views than his regular space at The New York Sun. The discussion benefitted from having someone advocate what is, roughly speaking, the neoconservative view on Iran. And thanks to Andrew Golis and TPM for organizing the discussion of A Tragic Legacy.
As I argue in my book, I think the question of what the Bush administration will do concerning Iran is the gravest and most pressing one we face as we endure the final 18 months of this presidency. Along those lines, I want to underscore one key point that emerged from this week's discussion.
When factions within the Bush administration escalated their efforts to inject into our political discourse the possibility of a war with Iran, the original focus was on the alleged threat posed by Iran's nuclear program. But the war-inflaming rhetoric has shifted palpably, so that war-with-Iran proponents now tout as their principal "justification" the "proxy war" theory -- that Iran is aggressively waging war on the U.S. in various Middle Eastern spots, including most prominently via lethal attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. Thus, this argument goes, we are already at war with Iran (because they are waging war on us) and the only question is whether we will fight back or surrender.
The reason for this shift in rhetorical focus is pernicious. Those who seek war with Iran realize that they would almost certainly be unable to effectuate an Iraq-style propaganda campaign to persuade Americans to support a new Middle East war, this time against a larger and more powerful country. And particularly with a Democratic-controlled Congress, it is very difficult (though admittedly not impossible) to envision the Congress ever voting to authorize the use of military force against Iran. For that reason, Bill Kristol, back in August of last year (according to Seth's paper), was urging the administration to seek such Authorization against Iran before the midterm elections, fearful that if the GOP lost control of the Congress, the opportunity would forever be lost.
But a military attack on Iran "justified" by Iranian attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, rather than by the unrelated-to-Iraq "threat" of Iran's nuclear program, would not require any new Congressional authorization, so the administration and its followers would argue. Under this scenario, such an attack would be but a part of the already-authorized war in Iraq, merely a means of defending U.S. troops engaged in that Congressionally-authorized military action. Thus, this reasoning goes, the President already has all the authority he needs to order such an attack on Iran, and there would be no need to persuade anyone of anything in order to commence it.
There is, even among Bush critics, some degree of skepticism about concerns that the administration intends a military confrontation with Iran. There appears to be a sense either that the idea is too extreme and self-evidently disastrous even for this administration to pursue (even though the last six years have made conclusively clear that there is no such thing), or that such a confrontation is impossible because the public and the Congress would never agree to it.
But such agreement may be entirely unnecessary. If it is cast as a reaction to an Iranian "proxy war" in Iraq, there is little question that the White House would take the position that it needs no authorization to launch some type of attack against Iran. And if Cheney-ite factions prevail and the President takes that position, it is difficult to imagine what would prevent such an attack from occurring.
"LOUDLY AND FRANKLY - GEEZ US - WE'RE CALLING"
WWW.ILOVEPOETRY.COM/VIEWPOEM.ASP?ID=92761
July 9, 2007 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush's reason for attacking Iran will be; "An orange, because a vest has no sleeves", and he won't give two sh*s whether he has support for the insanity or not, as in the Libby case. Look for the neo cons, led by William Kristol, to fan out on Sunday morning news shows to support the orange/vest reasoning with Russert asking; "What kind of orange?"
It never ceases to amaze me when I hear someone start a comment with "Bush has to realize, or...Bush has to learn...".
Bush already realizes and he's already learned. He's realized he's the President and he's learned he can do whatever he wishes and f**k the Congress, the courts, the constitution and the law.
Bush will attack Iran if he wants to, and there's little or nothing anyone can do about it.
July 9, 2007 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
There was also the recent allegation - repeated in all the usual wingnut publications - that a convoy of weapons from Tehran to the Taliban was intercepted.
It fits your theory of the Cheneyites concocting the notion of a proxy war - though this time on Iran's eastern flank - and it was no more credible or meaningful than the accusations regarding meddling in Iraq.
But it did I think present an opening for those who counsel against bombing Iran. By their own argument, the Cheneyites are probably going to put our NATO allies in increasing danger if they take military action against Iran. Therefore any action needs to be supported by NATO, and not in a month of Sundays is this likely to happen.
July 9, 2007 8:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that part of the skepticism over whether Bush will bomb or attack Iran has been the 'chicken little' syndrome. The drums have been beating for three years now. In fact, serious talk of an attack of Iran has been ongoing since literally the beginning of the Iraq occupation. It has yet to materialize.
This isn't to say that Captain Insano and the Shotgun Veep won't go ahead and do it. As the clock winds down, they may become ever more desperate to reach for a quick fix.
But in many ways, the likelihood of such an attack has materially diminished. The truth is that every condition has worsened. Iraq and Afghanistan instead of becoming fortresses to attack Iran, have become basket cases of vulnerability. The Lebanon/Hezbollah war highlighted the absolute limitations on air power, including the inability to take out hardened or hidden missile systems and the inability to dislodge a trained and prepared hardened force. America's ground forces are literally being worn to nothing and are so shorthanded and overstretched as to be impotent. It's become increasingly clear to even the dumbest most ideological clod, including President Molestshisdaughters and the Haemorhoid That Walks Like a Man the resources and ability does not exist to take out the Iranian government, that it will not fall with a shove, and that America has just enough power to pick a fight, but not necessarily to finish it. For all these reasons, an attack on Iran grows increasingly less likely.
Finally, while President CoocooBananas and the Human Sneer might be willing to roll the dice anyway, the people who control them are not so sanguine. The massed forces of Bush's commercial backers, the elite who pull the strings, can read disaster in the chicken entrails. They're much more interested in repealing Paris Hilton's estate taxes than they are in risking the collapse of the worldwide economy that serves them so well.
I will not underestimate the toxic lunacy of the Sacrificebabiestosatan Party (also known as the GOP), but frankly, I just don't think they got it in them.
July 9, 2007 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Val,
as a rational human being, I learned long ago not to try to analyze Bush rationally, so I agree with your use of the words "toxic lunacy."
I used to say of wingnuts that liberals can never win a debate with them because liberals are at a disadvantage, their posts must make sense. To debate a wingnut a liberal would have to find a time warp and go back to when he was 12 years old to compete on level playing field with the wingnut.
So you see, we're up against the same thing with Bush.
July 9, 2007 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't type well when I can't stop laughing, but...
We must have learned by now that there is no level of lunacy that the GOP will not sink to. It isn't so much that we have a lunatic as President, but that we have a lunatic political party as a near majority in the country. Those folks would believe the sun rises in the west if one of their deranged "leaders" said it does. And, we just have to expect the worst at all times. So, I'm no where near ready to say the attack on Iran is out of the picture now.
Hoppy in Sacramento
July 9, 2007 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
BULLETIN! Bush declares; "The Earth is flat!"
2 million wingnuts immediately nail feet to floor to avoid sliding off.
July 9, 2007 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Bush wanted to invade Iran, of course he would just do it. All of the details about legality and Congressional authorization and international support and ... all of the details are delegated to be worked out by others.
That's what happened with Iraq. Saddam Hussein tried to kill Bush's wife and his mother. So it was inevitable, from the day he became president, that the US would remove Saddam Hussein one way or another. The rest is details.
But I don't see any particular hatred of Iran by Bush. Unless Cheney becomes president, there will be no Iran war started by the US.
July 9, 2007 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is correct. Bush/Cheney will do what they want, and Congress and the people don't matter to them, nor do the opinions of military officials or even those contemplating running as Republicans in the next few elections. If there are those in the financial or business community who think war with Iran would lead to financial reprisals, possibly even by China, or cyber attacks, or similar asymmetric attacks that would seriously weaken the US, they had better try to get to Cheney, as they may be the only people he would listen to.
July 9, 2007 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why do you think Bush/Cheney give a flying fig what the Europeans think or even what happens to Europe? This is not a serious consdieration for them, as they view the Euros as weak and timid.
July 9, 2007 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never heard the story of Saddam trying to kill Bush's wife and mother but I did hear the story regarding Saddam trying to assasinate George Bush sr. I always put this story in the box with "The Iraqi's are taking Kuwait infants out of the incubators...."
July 9, 2007 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the idea of a concept as loose as a proxy war is to allow it to shift to raise whatever threats and fears feel good at the time. it's hard to keep the public properly riled and sedated. How long ago was it that the proxy warrior was Syria, say, or whichever side between Iraq and Iran it suited the Neocons to traffic with? Don't even get to their changing positions on the Taliban, on different factions among the Palestinians and in Lebanon, etc., etc.
Today's trial balloon in the morning papers was predictable, a potential withdrawal. Come September, who knows? But the only ones stupid enough to think too seriously of bombing Iran are the ones like McCain who have to peddle their sincerity on the stump and are too dim-witted to know it's all a political game. The real crooks just wanted wars where they could declare "mission accomplished," and now they're paying for that miscalculation by having to scramble desparately for new distractions. If they thought they could save their skin by triggering WWIII, they might be that crazy, but even they know it wouldn't.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
July 9, 2007 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mimi,
about 2 or 3 years ago I claimed that Bush is destroying the Republican party for a generation. I may yet be proven right.
Its the law of unintended consequences at work.
July 9, 2007 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, Russert won't ask what kind of orange, he'll bring a Democrat on and ask this:
God I hate Tim Russert.
July 9, 2007 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reece,
I bow to your more intellectually charged imagination. :-)
July 9, 2007 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glenn,
What I find disturbing is that so many otherwise normal people actually debate and discuss scenarios in which a military action on Iran led by the Bush administration might be justified, even to them.
This, to me, is the same rhetorical strawman trap of discussion under what possible scenarios human torture might be appropriate.
The problem is not delineating between appropriate and inappropriate scenarios, but instead, the clever dodge that such a discussion provides to avoid any hindsight, any retrospective analysis, any soul searching of where we are now vis a vis. Iraq, torture and the shredding of the Constitution.
Most of the discussions I see re: Iran are by people who literally want to move on to the next war so they can forget about the last one. Much like drunks and the hair of the dog.
July 9, 2007 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh ... and what happened to this winter's "Iran is supplying the roadside bombs and killing our troops" meme ... ???
I thought that was the clincher ???
July 9, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000663_pf.html">Here is a Wash.Post article.
"At Bush's first National Security Council meeting after taking office, ... Bush told aides to prepare to remove Hussein"
July 9, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Man, that was some grisly bone-chilling writing. Half sadistic glee, half unctious sanctimony, all psychosis all the time. I got chills reading it. And nauseau
July 9, 2007 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
from the WaPo article;
"....and in April 1993, when Bush went to Kuwait for a hero's welcome, a group of Iraqis crossed the border in what was called a thwarted attempt to kill him. President Bill Clinton launched 23 Tomahawk missiles against Iraqi targets in retaliation.
Among those on that trip who could have been killed were Barbara Bush and Laura Bush. George W. Bush had stayed in Texas, where he was running the Texas Rangers baseball team and preparing to run for governor. Some later questioned the seriousness of the assassination attempt or its connections to Baghdad. But the incident clearly was a searing moment for the Bush family."
What its saying is Barbara and Laura would have been collateral damage. My point was the main target sold to the public was Bush himself.
Regardless, I still don't believe it. Again, I see it as more "incubator" bullshi*, and I might add, the bullshi* of how mighty the Patriot Missiles were during Desert Storm.
Daddy Bush went to the Raytheon plant in CT after the war, stood up on a flag draped
podium and said "All I have to say is 'thank God for the Patriot'", when he knew full well it was practically useless against the Scuds. Oh, Bush's words had the affect he wanted, the Raytheon employees went wild.
I believe nothing that comes from the Bush Family Evil Empire.
July 9, 2007 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am making the opposite argument. From this and other articles on the matter, I have no idea whether Saddam tried to kill poppa Bush or Laura. But I do come to the pretty good certainty that GWB believed that Saddam was an evil man who tried to kill Laura. And from what I know of his character, he doesn't pay attention to much, but this would have clammored for revenge.
I picture him saying, "OK now I'm President, there are lots of things Cheney wants, but what can I do for myself -- get Saddam." It's practically a secret, he knows that revenge is not an acceptible basis for a national policy.
I personally don't believe Bush is an evil man. Rather, he is a morally vacant man. He has no real morality, rather he merely goes with what feels right. (Per Arendt, that in itself is evil.) So all this commentary about Iran, assumes that Iraq and Iran are similar in GWB's eyes. I just don't buy it. I hope I'm right, because the US is not about to attack Iran unless the president signs off on it. (Funny I feel the need to say that specifically here!)
July 9, 2007 4:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, its either fabricated propaganda or its not.
If its not fabricated propaganda, then it was either a principal motivating factor or it wasn't.
If it wasn't a principle motivating factor, then it means that Bush has killed approximately a million Iraqi's, reduced four or five million others to refugee status, devastated a country for an entire generation, contributed to the destabilization of its neighbors, lied to the American people on a collossal basis, blown trillions of dollars, destroyed the US army for the next decade, caused the deaths of 4000 servicemen and reduced America's once proud standing in the world to the popularity of leprosy... all to settle an eleven year old grudge.
What next? Can we expect a nuclear strike on Boulder, Colorado where lives Timmy Turner who once pantsed him in seventh grade? Will we discover that he's been having every school teacher who ever gave him a bad mark tied spread eagled beneath the engines of the space shuttle? Is there a torture chamber behind the oval office where he bludgeons to death with a baseball bat every girl who ever turned him down for a date? Can we expect every baseball team that ever beat the Texas Rangers to end up in Guantanamo?
Seriously Marcf, if we accept your theory of Iraq, we end up with a man so volatile, so reckless, so profoundly vindictive that his malice would be absolutely unpredictable and utterly without restraint.
So he's just evening the score with Saddam Hussein?
Yeah, well the Mullahs made his Dad and his friends look like keystone kops in Iran Contra and damned near plugged his career before it started.
If he was pathological enough to go after Iraq, he's pathological enought to go after Iran. Hell, he's pathological enough to nuke Boulder.
July 9, 2007 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to disagree. There's no other word for the pathology you're alluding too except evil. Evil on the scale of a Hitler, or a Manson, or a Ted Bundy, or a child molester. Evil that nurses every grudge, harbours every slight, that takes no count of circumstance or consequence and cheerfully unleashes destruction on apocalyptic scales.
And, given Iran's history with the Bush family, you've practically guaranteed to me that Bush will not only attack Iran... He's perfectly willing to use nukes to do it.
July 9, 2007 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Seriously Marcf, if we accept your theory of Iraq, we end up with a man so volatile, so reckless, so profoundly vindictive that his malice would be absolutely unpredictable and utterly without restraint."
You write so well, I hope you do put it to good use. But Seriously Valdron, can you suggest a theory of Iraq that ends up with a more palatable version of GWB?
July 9, 2007 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
My opinion: The real danger of war with Iran comes not so much from Bush, who is a political cow pie at this point, but from his successors, Dem and Repub. Clinton didn't invade (in a big way) Iraq himself, but he (needlessly) maintained a status quo whereby that invasion was almost inevitable. Similarly, no notional Democratic successor to Bush could significantly ratchet down the pressure on Iran -- there are both internal and external political pressures on the Dems making it all but impossible -- and the Republicans are dominated by a group that demands a belligerent approach to foreign policy, particularly against them turban heads. Barring some sort of pro-U.S. revolution in Iran (stop laughing), or their developing atomic weapons, we will be at war with them. It's just a question of when. Bush can accelerate it, but other than that he's irrelevant to the outcome.
Crooked cops, crooked lawyers, crooked judges, crooked politicians, crooked doctors, crooked scientists, crooked clergymen -- but no crooked journalists. An amazing record for an amazing class of people.
July 9, 2007 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The official story:
http://www.army.mil/-news/2007/07/03/3890-iran-arming-training-directing-terror-groups-in-iraq-us-official-says/
July 9, 2007 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
We'll attack Iran soon, all the while letting Pakistan ferment.
Pakistan is the biggest concern we should have, and is not.
Pelosi even adopted the AIPAC talking points vs. Iran, which cannot be seen as productive. She may simply use it as leverage, but the extent to which you use inflammatory rhetoric usually invites the same response. Thus grounds a serious example for which we should concern selves.
Any plan to win Iraq is a plan to lose Afghanistan and Pakistan. We go to war with Iran while Pakistan goes unchecked and it will be a case of losing the battle to lose the war.
The capital city of the world's sole Muslim superpower is erupting with violence as mosques and police squads turn into free fire zones...
July 9, 2007 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: Evil on the scale of a Hitler, or a Manson, or a Ted Bundy, or a child molester.
You're giving Bush way too much credit. I'd say it's more stupidity than evil, and compare him with Kaiser Wilhelm, another stubborn, stupid, authoritarian man with an inferiority complex. Of other ill-fated monarchs, Nicholas II was too devout, Louis XVI too well-intentioned, Franz Josef too liberal in the beginning, Charles I too cultured, the Spanish Habsburgs too able to use the excuse of in-breeding. So Kasier Bill it is.
Re: Similarly, no notional Democratic successor to Bush could significantly ratchet down the pressure on Iran
Huh? Just like no one could get us out of Vietnam or Korea? I think not. Once Bush is gone the political pressure to end the Iraq fiasco becomes overwhelming. Even the GOP will want it over and behind them and hopefully forgotten lest it do them even more political damage.
Re: the Republicans are dominated by a group that demands a belligerent approach to foreign policy
No, the Neocons are very much a minorioty sect in the GOP, and always were. They had their day in the sun because of 9-11, and because, briefly, a handful of oil plutocrats (and their inside man, Cheney) were willing to go along with them. The oil plutocrats have abandoned the cause, and many corporate poobahs are even turning to the Democrats (the CEO of Morgan Stanley is openly supporting Hillary Clinton for crying out loud!) The Neocons are cooked and will slink away from DC with tails between their legs once Bush is gone. It will be a long time before anyone listens to them again.
July 9, 2007 6:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Laughed so hard I scared the cat
aMike
July 9, 2007 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be fooled by this amiable dunce act.
The guy grew up shoving firecrackers up frogs asses so he could laugh when they exploded. This was when he was twelve.
When he was sixteen he used to hunt his 10 year old brother through the house with a BB gun, taking shots.
Everything about this man speaks to a pronounced sadism. He likes suffering. He likes pain. He likes to fuck people over.
Go read the Bush Dyslexicon by Mark Crispin Miller.
Sometimes you just got to come out and admit that evil is evil.
July 9, 2007 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say he was an amiable dunce. I certainly don't find him remotely amiable. He isn't Forest Gump. But I don't think anyone would confuse him with Einstein either. And if you want to call him evil then I see his evil in this: he is deliberately ignorant, telically stupid. My impression is that the man does not want to learn or to know, that his stupidity is a function of his stubborness-- after all, if he became better informed he might have to change his mind and admit he was wrong.
And don't think the Kaiser analogy lets him off easy. The Kaiser helped start a world war, and his government was also responsible for a nasty little genocide in what's now Namibia. He isn't one of history's heroes.
July 10, 2007 3:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Bush obviously believes in things he knows are not true, it spares him the ordeal of thinking for himself and taking responsibility for what he knows.
July 10, 2007 3:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are deliberately choosing to overlook a long history of pathological sadism. This is a man who tortured small animals as a child, who was so sociopathic he would 'play' at hunting and shooting small children with a BB gun as a teenager, and whose history is a long litany of abusive and degrading conduct towards literally everyone around him.
He's not the Kaiser. He's Caligula.
July 10, 2007 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know anything about Bush's adolescence or his off-hours life and I don't care to. None of that matters, any more than Clinton's "affairs of state" with Ms Lewinsky and other such floozies. It's Bush's public deeds that matter. As for Caligula, Bush doesn't even rise to that level. Caligula at least had a fun side, a fine appreciation of the absurd: making his horse senator (or consul?), sending the legions to "attack" the English Channel and bring back sea shells as booty for the triumph, etc. The Bush administration is about as humorless as a bone marrow aspiration. Again, I'm reminded of the Kaiser, who also was noted for his utter lack of cheer.
July 10, 2007 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I respect and admire your committment to ignorance as a way of life. I don't think that I could ever find the strength to perservere in your chosen avocation as you do.
And yes, it is true that Bush's public deeds are what matters. Has he killed a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan yet? How many cities has he rendered to ruins? Ah, they're just wacky guys, aren't they?
On the other hand, a youthful history of torturing small animals is part of the FBI's personality profile for serial killers, and speaks to a kind of pathological sadism that you wouldn't necessarily want to have in a man with Presidential powers.
I believe some posters here have gone on about "character". Well, when you have a personal history that betrays consistent patterns of gleeful sadism, utter lack of empathy and impulse driven behaviour, I would suggest that's a genuine matter to be concerned about. It would be of real concern to me in a neighbor, it would be of serious concern to me in an employee, it would be of crucial significance in a boss, and its absolutely terrifying in a President.
As for Bush and Caligula, I'm merely equating personalities. Mind you, there are parallels. Where Caligula appointed a horse to the senate, Bush appointed a horse lawyer to FEMA, tried to appoint a horse-brain to the SCC and later appointed a figurative whore to the SCC, and a literal whore to be Secretary of State.
As for appreciation of the absurd. Allow me to offer a few quotes: "Hell of a job, Brownie," "No one could have imagined that they would use planes as weapons." "No one could have imagined that the levies would break." "No one could have imagined (pick one)," "I'm not that concerned about Osama Bin Laden." "Some people call you the haves and have mores, I call you my base." "Please don't kill me Mister Bush (mocking falsetto)" "It was quite refreshing (to tell Senator Leahy to 'go fuck himself' on the Senate floor.) Remember Bush playing Air Guitar on an acoustic with the Presidential seal while people were drowning in New Orleans. The hits just keep on coming. This is nothing but absurdity raised to an art form.
The Bush administration has perfected the 'cold joke', that is, the gesture or appointment or action which illustrates not just victory, but utter contempt and condescension. The classic layman's example of a 'cold joke' is forcing a murder victim to dig his own grave. There's a whole literature on Bush's cold jokes. The height of the cold jokes was of course, Dick Cheney shooting a man in the face and having that man apologize to Cheney. But that's just the most outre example of a recurring phenomenon of sadistic public humiliation. Cold jokes are also seen appointments, such as the current Surgeon General.
The Bush administration is far from humourless. Bush, by all accounts, has quite a bit of fun. As does Cheney. They're a barrel of laughs.
In fact, it's exactly the same sort of humour as that of a boy who shoves a firecracker up a frog's ass, to laugh as it explodes.
Indeed, it's quite hilarious.
This is far more extreme than a naked emperor walking the streets and a terrified or pandering population exclaiming about his finery.
This is about a man with the soul of a hyeana who has become President. And the very thought makes you shit yourself.
This is about a man with the soul of a hyaena, and he knows that he has the soul of a hyaena. He looks you in the eyes, grinning with his hyaena gaze, watching you break out in a sweat. He knows himself, and he knows you.
He knows you can never admit that he has the soul of a hyaena. You can never admit or acknowledge what he really is, because if you do that, then the whole thing comes crashing down. He grins as you deny, and as you pretend.
He allows you to pretend, amusing himself with his contempt. He does as he pleases, pushing, ever pushing, watching and laughing his hyaena laugh. Wreck education, dismantle the bill of rights, invade whatever country he wants, take upon himself the powers of a king. He allows you to pretend he is a reasonable man, a man with a human soul. And he laughs as you make excuses for him, and he laughs as you seem unable to predict his simple urge to follow his own impulses, and he laughs as you are endlessly surprised. He's most amused by the fact that you never stop pretending.
And deep down, the thing that makes you so shit scared and that amuses him so greatly, is that there may come a moment when you can't pretend any more, when his impulse leads him to having gone beyond your ability to tolerate or pretend, when you'll have to face the fact of what he is.
And it will be too late.
All you can do is hope that moment never comes. That perhaps the man with the soul of a hyaena will simply wander off into history, content to allow the illusions to be preserved, and everything will go back to normal and we can all breath a sigh of relief at the disaster avoided, the crisis averted, the dictatorship dodged, and concentrate on rebuilding.
Maybe thats what will happen. Maybe the moment of truth won't come. Maybe you'll never feel his teeth at your collective throats. Maybe, laughing, he'll saunter off into history.
Is that what a hyaena would do? Probably not.
But what choice do you have? All you can do is just stand there and sweat like a pig and pretend you haven't shit your pants and its all business as usual.
I think comedy is a matter of distance. It's about somebody else slipping on that banana peel.
A lot of the time as I watch America, it feels like some colossal tragedy, a giant slow motion car crash as the world's finest, bestest hope goes careening off a cliff into the stone wall. It's like watching an angel turn into a crack whore, like watching a sports hero turn into an overweight drunken hasbeen. It's poignant, it's miserable, it's heartbreaking.
But it's also self inflicted. And I've got just enough perspective to realize that it's also funny as hell. I mean, Osama Bin Laden must be laughing fit to bust a gut. The Chinese must think its hilarious. It really is rich comedy, particularly if you're a man with the soul of a hyaena.
July 10, 2007 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, a little thing called EVIDENCE tended to point the other way, as the Columbia Journalism Review noted . . .
July 10, 2007 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We've always been at war with Eastasia"
July 15, 2007 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Valdron, your comment above sounds like the beginning of an American literature of the Bush period. It reminds me of the German post-war existentialists, say Gunter Grass. Living through that war as a German would have meant ingesting enough cold jokes to choke an ice queen.
Your writing is great but its relevance to the present real-world situation is another question entirely, one on which I have no grounds to possess an opinion. Nevertheless, emotionally I am in entire agreement with your history.
July 15, 2007 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink