Yet there was complete agreement during the debate on the direness of the Iranian threat, and the commitment never to allow the mullahs to get close to having the potential for possessing a nuclear bomb – whatever the exaggerated differences on tactics. Understandably. This is the view propagated by both the Bush and Obama administrations for a dozen years. It exercises complete dominion in the media, in the think tanks and among our political class generally. From the unanimity of opinion, one would never realize that it is based on suppositions of dubious validity.... The crucial assumption is that Iran is a criminal state. That judgment, however, is not based on any standard definition of international criminality. The only offense for which it has been judged guilty is a technical violation of its obligations as a signatory of the NPT to inform the IAEA in a timely way of all its nuclear activities – in this case, civilian activities. (That since has been done). That’s it. The NPT stipulates no prohibition whatsoever on uranium enrichment to any level, activities that were considered an integral part of the civilian fuel cycle at the time the Treaty was drafted.Of course nobody brought it up. I haven't seen a comment yet on this particular matter. I haven't even heard any commentary of late of the source of the conflict between Iran and the US (that whole Shah thing). But I suppose since the Debate Show(tm) is entertainment and not an actual debate or anything intended to actually challenge fundamental policy, or, God forbid, inform the public, that such information doesn't fit the script. Star Wars and Jar Jar Binks was a better way to spend my time.
Still Free
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
While The "Debate" Went On...
While the latest in "Reality TV", AKA The Presidential Debates, were held last night, no one representing an actual ideological difference was present. Expected so, I watched Star Wars again. Sure the whole "we don't have bayonettes" anymore" may be a cute line, but the implication, "We bomb people remotely who we deem could be terrorists" hasn't seemed to pierced the consciousness of most of the viewership. Terrorists, being, in part, those US Citizens who are most pursuasive in their use of their alleged first amendment rights to speak out against a government which they have a grievance against. And oh, yes, their 16 year old sons.
Just in case.
But that's not the point of this post. I just wanted to point the reader to Michael Brenner's piece on the Debate Show(tm):