« The First White House Seder |
Blog Home Page
| Can you cay "Hope and Change" in Spanish? »
April 9, 2009
What planet is Roger Cohen on?
More Cohen follies on Iran, and this time, his ostrich-like pronouncements include heaps of praise for the current regime in Tehran.
Israeli's Prime Minister Netanyahu referred to the Iranian regime as a "messianic cult." Cohen dismisses this description as nonsense:
The "Iran helped the US in Afghanistan" meme has been thoroughly overridden by their hiding al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders in the border region with Afghanistan.
And only a fantastically illiterate boob could make the statement that Iran was at "peace" with its neighbors as they have spent the last 6 years attempting to undermine the Iraqi government and establish a firm link with the Shias in that country so that they can dominate its affairs. This doesn't include their paid thugs in Hezb'allah starting a brief civil war in Lebanon and starting a war with Israel or their other paid thugs in Hamas also going after the Jewish state.
What an tool.
But that's not the half of it. Cohen on Pakistan:
On that ocular theme again, Netanyahu says Iran's "composite leadership" has "elements of wide-eyed fanaticism that do not exist in any other would-be nuclear power in the world." No, they exist in an actual nuclear power, Pakistan.
The idea that the mostly secular leadership in Pakistan - both government and army - can be in any way compared to the strict, fundamentalist, anti-modernists in Tehran is just incredible.
How many stupid things about Iran can Cohen write in one column? How about this:
First, does Cohen actually believe the Saudis would tell him, a western infidel worm, their true feelings about the re-emergence of the Persian menace in the Arab world? Who is Roger Cohen that any Saudi would reveal the innermost fears connected with that regime? Glory be what an arrogant fool.
Secondly. I think it safe to say that the only people who want Iran part of the peace process are Hamas and the Iranians. Anyone else who thinks it a good idea are simply shills for the Iranians. Ask Fatah if they want the Iranians meddling in the peace process - a turn of events that would put them at great disadvantage with Hamas. And the whole point is moot because until the Iranian regime disavows its president's statement that Israel should be "wiped off the map," the chances of Israel sitting down with the mullahs are less than nil.
Cohen spent a few days in Iran, got the snow job for the ages, and now fancies himself a peacemaker. He is a dangerous, uninformed fool. Even the UN - the U fricking N - believes that the Iranians may be trying to build a bomb and IAEA chief ElBaradei believes the Iranians are very close to that goal.
And here, the unkindest cut of all:
Israeli hegemony is proving a kind of slavery. Passage to the Promised Land involves rethinking the Middle East, starting in Iran.
"Slavery" for whom? Who have the Israeli's enslaved? A democratic country set down in a sea of enemies and Cohen believes that Israel "hegemony" (defined as "leadership or predominant influence exercised by one nation over others") is "proving a kind of slavery?" Does Israel exercise "predominant influence" over Syria? Jordan? Lebanon? If not its immediate neighbors, who? Who has Israel enslaved? And if you argue that they have "enslaved" the Palestinians, you can't make the argument that Israel is being hegemonistic because they wish to protect themselves from fanatical suicide bombers and fighters.
A better question is "Why is the New York Times allowing this ignoramus to write for them?"