02/10: Klein Watch: Ahmadinejad Poses No Threat?
Category: America and the World
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
2 October 2007
"Ahmadinejad controls no legions."
"The Iranian President's words had no practical, only symbolic, global import. He has very little real power in Iran, none over foreign policy or the nuclear program."
Mostly, I read TIME Magazine for the laughs and fodder for the blog.
One of my favorite foils is Joe Klein, who is mostly a harmless kook.
To pass the time, I enjoy breaking down his blustering essays in search of logical fallacies and contradictions. It is sort of an intellectual version of "Where's Waldo." And, of course, Waldo is everywhere.
For your review, an extended piece in that vein from April here.
Since that particular rage against the machine, Klein has pronounced Mitt Romney a superficial phoney. Not long after that he praised John Edwards as a fellow with big ideas not afraid to laugh at himself. Somewhere along the way Klein asserted that bloggers were ruining the country. All this political stuff should be left to the pros (like Joe Klein). He has proclaimed Iraq a disaster for years--and then recently he went to Iraq during a time of widespread grudging optimism and found--drum roll, please--Iraq was a disaster. Most recently, he loved Hillary Care.
As I have said before, the crazy thing is that this guy made a good living for years posing as a marquee political reporter and dispassionate wiseman concerning national politics.
This Week in TIME ?
"Inflating a Little Man. The neoconservatives want you to think Ahmadinejad is another Hitler. That's dishonest, and plumps for war."
Full TIME article here.
Klein declares that Ahmadinejad (and presumably Iran) presents "no existential threat to the United States."
Why do so many misguided Americans think he is important?
Easy. The neoconservatives have created another boogey man, Klein reveals, by "taking him literally." That is, dastardly neocons like Norman Podhoretz (and other neocons like Mort Zuckerman) falsely claim that Ahmadinejad's myriad scary threats ought to be addressed as serious statements of intent. Klein calls foul: "This is incendiary foolishness." Klein knows better.
An aside: Klein assumes that if Bush said it, the neocons must have thought it, and if the neocons thought it, it must be wrong.
While that certainly works sometimes, it is a shaky assumption upon which to base your entire worldview.
Notwithstanding, I agree with Klein, at least in part. We have a tendency to exagerate the institutional power of the Iranian president when it suits our purposes. On the other hand, Ahmadinejad is the elected leader of Iran, he is the spokesperson for the ruling Mullahs, and, most importantly, no one really knows for sure how crucial his role will be in the future of Iran.
The two major themes from Klein:
1. Ahmadinejad is no Hitler. We are "inflating a little man."
2. He advises us to laugh him off. Laughter is our most powerful defense against the threat of Iran and its leader. Klein: "But to be found ridiculous? How devastating. How delightfully Western."
Ironically, Klein's certainty that Ahmadinejad is too dimunitive and ridiculous to be threatening is in itself laughable. Even as Klein bemoans the comparison to Hitler, his position invites another similarity: the reluctance of the West to accept that the "Little Corporal," in the early stages of his ascendancy, competing for power in a chaotic and depressed Germany half a world away, could possibly pose a "an existential threat to the United States."
As for laughter being the best medicine, I am not persuaded. Charlie Chaplin got some good ones in on the "Great Dictator," but Patton, Ike and Bradley ultimately proved more convincing.
"Ahmadinejad controls no legions."
"The Iranian President's words had no practical, only symbolic, global import. He has very little real power in Iran, none over foreign policy or the nuclear program."
~~Joe Klein
Mostly, I read TIME Magazine for the laughs and fodder for the blog.
One of my favorite foils is Joe Klein, who is mostly a harmless kook.
To pass the time, I enjoy breaking down his blustering essays in search of logical fallacies and contradictions. It is sort of an intellectual version of "Where's Waldo." And, of course, Waldo is everywhere.
For your review, an extended piece in that vein from April here.
Since that particular rage against the machine, Klein has pronounced Mitt Romney a superficial phoney. Not long after that he praised John Edwards as a fellow with big ideas not afraid to laugh at himself. Somewhere along the way Klein asserted that bloggers were ruining the country. All this political stuff should be left to the pros (like Joe Klein). He has proclaimed Iraq a disaster for years--and then recently he went to Iraq during a time of widespread grudging optimism and found--drum roll, please--Iraq was a disaster. Most recently, he loved Hillary Care.
As I have said before, the crazy thing is that this guy made a good living for years posing as a marquee political reporter and dispassionate wiseman concerning national politics.
This Week in TIME ?
"Inflating a Little Man. The neoconservatives want you to think Ahmadinejad is another Hitler. That's dishonest, and plumps for war."
Full TIME article here.
Klein declares that Ahmadinejad (and presumably Iran) presents "no existential threat to the United States."
Why do so many misguided Americans think he is important?
Easy. The neoconservatives have created another boogey man, Klein reveals, by "taking him literally." That is, dastardly neocons like Norman Podhoretz (and other neocons like Mort Zuckerman) falsely claim that Ahmadinejad's myriad scary threats ought to be addressed as serious statements of intent. Klein calls foul: "This is incendiary foolishness." Klein knows better.
An aside: Klein assumes that if Bush said it, the neocons must have thought it, and if the neocons thought it, it must be wrong.
While that certainly works sometimes, it is a shaky assumption upon which to base your entire worldview.
Notwithstanding, I agree with Klein, at least in part. We have a tendency to exagerate the institutional power of the Iranian president when it suits our purposes. On the other hand, Ahmadinejad is the elected leader of Iran, he is the spokesperson for the ruling Mullahs, and, most importantly, no one really knows for sure how crucial his role will be in the future of Iran.
The two major themes from Klein:
1. Ahmadinejad is no Hitler. We are "inflating a little man."
2. He advises us to laugh him off. Laughter is our most powerful defense against the threat of Iran and its leader. Klein: "But to be found ridiculous? How devastating. How delightfully Western."
Ironically, Klein's certainty that Ahmadinejad is too dimunitive and ridiculous to be threatening is in itself laughable. Even as Klein bemoans the comparison to Hitler, his position invites another similarity: the reluctance of the West to accept that the "Little Corporal," in the early stages of his ascendancy, competing for power in a chaotic and depressed Germany half a world away, could possibly pose a "an existential threat to the United States."
As for laughter being the best medicine, I am not persuaded. Charlie Chaplin got some good ones in on the "Great Dictator," but Patton, Ike and Bradley ultimately proved more convincing.
an okie gardener wrote: