I wrote back in May about an atrociously sociopathic essay by Norman Podhoretz, one of the primary mouthpieces for the neocon Cheneyite faction in the White House, which advocated that Bush - "a president "battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory" - will bomb Iran before he leaves office.
Then, at the beginning of June, National Review republished Podhoretz' odious piece, ensuring it stayed in the conservative forefront of discussion and earning N-pod another nice little check.
Now, Nico over at Think Progress reports that N-pod's warmongering has been recycled again and that Podhoretz is even giving interviews to bolster his money-earning drum banging.
The current issue of Commentary magazine — “widely regarded as the leading outlet for neoconservative writing” — features a controversial cover story by Norman Podhoretz titled “The Case For Bombing Iran.”
In a new interview, Podhoretz was asked to comment on the possible fallout of the military strikes he advocates.
Q: What kind of international fallout can we expect from such a campaign?
PODHORETZ: Well, if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will, we’ll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest. On the other hand — that’s a worst case scenario, and worst case scenarios don’t always materialize. It’s entirely possible that many countries, particularly in the Middle East — the Sunni countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, who are very worried about Iranian influence and power — would at least secretly applaud us. And I think it’s possible that other countries in Europe, for example, and elsewhere, would be relieved to see the Iranians entirely deprived of the capability to build nuclear weapons, or at least have that ability retarded for five or 10 years or more.
This isn't just about lining Podhoretz' pockets though. Nico recently noted that Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, “the chief American strategist on Iran,” and Treasury officials have been using Podhoretz' article and essays supporting it from other neocon Worm-Tongues including William Kristol, Fred Kagan, and John Bolton, as a big stick to press for stronger economic sanctions against Iran. "Get tough", the message runs, "or our warmongering faction will get tougher".
There's every indication, of course, that the neo-crazies will get tough anyway. And the lapdogs of the media will continue to go along with the narrative, down to such base shilling as describing the Hudson Institute, where John Bolton told the world he'd run out of patience with diplomacy back in March and where N-Pod is the highest paid employee, as "bi-partisan". Glenn Greenwald expertly dissects the pychopathic personality type which all these neo-crazies show so plainly.
Any doubts about what Norman Podhoretz is -- and what the movement is which reveres him -- ought to be forever dispelled by his answer, given in the same interview, to the question of what the British should have done in response to the detention of 15 of their sailors by Iran:There's a reason for that, Glenn. Even though the press won't say so, it must surely be clear to those who cover the news day after day that the sociopathy extends well into the Bush administration's political mainstream and into the mindset of the current crop of Republican nominees. As I've said and documented before, you don't have to be a sociopath to be a Republican but it really, truly, does seem to help.They should have threatened to bomb the Iranians into smithereens if the sailors weren't returned immediately. They should have threatened it. Whether they would have had to carry out the threat, I doubt, maybe they would have.Just think about that. England should have threatened and then "bombed the Iranians into smithereens" if their sailors were not returned immediately. Contemplate the depravity required even to suggest such a thing -- that a nation of more than 70 million human beings be reduced to rubble, perhaps vaporzied, over an incident of that magnitude, which was peacefully resolved after two weeks. It is really warped beyond belief. And it's the tone that is almost as notable as the content -- the breezy, smug wave of the hand that signifies the brutal deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, possibly many more.
And there is nothing unusual about Norm Podhoretz in the neoconservative world that he leads. Unsurprisingly, it is Norm's son, John, who -- beyond his garden-variety excitement over bombing Iran -- made one of the most reprehensible and deranged (though illustrative) statements of the entire Bush presidency:What if the tactical mistake we made in Iraq was that we didn't kill enough Sunnis in the early going to intimidate them and make them so afraid of us they would go along with anything? Wasn't the survival of Sunni men between the ages of 15 and 35 the reason there was an insurgency and the basic cause of the sectarian violence now?...What Norman Podhoretz is advocating -- blowing Iran into "smithereens" -- is criminal and morally twisted for reasons that should require no elaboration. But the far more significant fact is that such advocacy does not relegate him to the fringes. Quite the contrary, the movement of which he is an integral part, on whose behalf he speaks, is well within the political mainstream as depicted by our political press. And it is doubtful that there is anything he (and his comrades) could do or say which would change that.