I have the TV audio on in the background and I just heard Andrea Mitchell ask Ambassador Michael Oren (paraphrasing) why Israel's opinions are more valid than those of the US in re the Iranian menace. Praise the Lord!
Oren was startled by the question and mumbled their usual talking points. Among them was the idea that "Iran is next door to Israel." Say what? By my calculation we are talking a range set of at least 1,000 miles. That is about as far as - what in the US?
I guess Oren thinks his former American countrymen are even more ignorant of geography than they are. I had a workman here in Alexandria ask me last week how close Iran is to Israel. He was amazed and "gobstruck" when informed of the distance.
Is this something new that "they" have been up to? pl
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/mitchell-reports/46656400/#46656400
"right next door to us"
Col: China purportedly will seek steep discounts when it purchases Iranian crude. But war fever has so spiked the price of crude, that even a discount brings more revenue. For some background on the trend, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_of_petroleum
Posted by: Matthew | 07 March 2012 at 02:04 PM
Is the story accurate of Hitler being fooled by the Mercator Projection of Earth? Perhaps Israeli maps show Iran next door?
Posted by: William R. Cumming | 07 March 2012 at 02:13 PM
The distance between Tel Aviv and Tehran? About the same as a neocon's nose from one end to the other, or about the same distance as reality from Netanyahu's fairy tale world.
Posted by: JohnH | 07 March 2012 at 02:39 PM
Colonel
Is this the program?
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/mitchell-reports/46656400/#46656400
Posted by: The beaver | 07 March 2012 at 03:30 PM
Beaver
Yes. "right next door" The distance from Tel Aviv to Tehran is 988 miles, Parchin is near Tehran. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 07 March 2012 at 04:15 PM
Here's Mitt's geography lesson for us lesser mortals: Talking about the relationship between Iran and Syria, Romney said: “It’s unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon. And …Syria is their key ally. It’s their only ally in the Arab world. It is also their route to the sea. Syria provides a -- a shadow over Lebanon. Syria is providing the armament of Hezbollah in Lebanon that, of course, threatens Israel, our friend and ally.” http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/02/factcheck-finds-mitt-romney-wrong-describing-state-law-emergency-contraception/NaN3ttytRot3LXapKkyWsM/index.html
Posted by: E L | 07 March 2012 at 04:30 PM
Colonel
When I was listening to it , I could stop laughing, thinking of "I can see Russia - sorry Iran- from my kibbutz". Hence the link since yours was not up yet.
Posted by: The beaver | 07 March 2012 at 04:58 PM
This is rich. I just heard Oren on NPR and he said Iran has killed hundreds of thousands of Americans but offered no proof. News to me. I certainly hope he doesn't believe the crud he is spinning.
Posted by: Jackie | 07 March 2012 at 05:18 PM
Apparently, the apparachiks are out in force. See http://mondoweiss.net/2012/03/new-republic-says-obama-detests-netanyahu-and-treats-him-shabbily.html
The President is clearly not giving the Likud what it wants.
Posted by: Matthew | 07 March 2012 at 06:30 PM
If Israel is under such clear and present danger from Iran that war is required now then why is travel to Israel still allowed? Mexico's on the travel warning list, if Israel is under less threat than Mexico then just why do we need to go to war now?
As to 1000 miles, that's Boston to Taledega - where Romney can mingle with his regular Joe Nascar owner buddies. Perhaps they can all jointly get their adult sons to enlist in this war they support rather than just have them use their courage complaining about the tax burden of America's millionaires.
Sadly for Obama to go 1,000 miles he's got to by-pass D.C. to Chicago, that's under a 1,000 miles. Lots of fly-over country, though, maybe he can stop somewhere, anywhere, and talk to some real people, the ones who sons and daughters DO enlist - to defend the US, not foreign countries. Then he can explain why this war has to happen.
Posted by: Fred | 07 March 2012 at 07:44 PM
EL
IMO Romney cares for nothing but being president. Feith is his foreign policy "adviser" and he would make Bolten SecState. He also has little empathy for us little people. I worked for rich people and with super rich people for ten years. It was a lingering death. Suites in the Waldorf Towers and charter jets are only worth so much, For Romney, those less rich than his children are mere proles. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 07 March 2012 at 07:55 PM
The only way I can see them having killed hundreds of thousands of Americans (as a practical matter) is if the IRGC has bought themselves a significant stake in the US tobacco industry. Or I suppose if they are involved with the delivery of managed healthcare services in the US...
Posted by: PeterHug | 07 March 2012 at 08:39 PM
Do friends let friends drive Drunk...?
Israel's Best Friend...
Posted by: CTuttle | 07 March 2012 at 09:39 PM
Colonel,
I have a business acquaintance whose wife is life long, best friends with one of Romney's sibling. The sibling says about Mitt: "There in no there there. He has always been just blind ambition. That's all he is."
Posted by: E L | 07 March 2012 at 11:46 PM
Colonel,
NBC Nightly News said last night that Israel will attack Iran this Spring. America has given up on the nuclear containment of Iran. The political position at the White House is that Iran must be forced to give up nuclear development by sanctions if not by war; even though, the US Director of Intelligence says Iran is not developing a nuclear bomb.
Clearly Agitprop that is preparing us for upcoming war is filled with contractions but also it gives absolutely no idea how the war will be fought. Just one long distance Israeli air strike like Iraq or Syria or a months long campaign? The military pundits say a single conventional strike won’t work. Also, it seems unlikely the Mullahs will turn the other cheek after an attack. It sure appears that unintended consequences along with political rhetoric will force America into an air campaign to take out the nuclear sites for good; much like the air campaign against Serbia. American politicians and military contractors cannot say no to Israel’s fears and hatred. But, there are not enough American troops or tanks to drive on to Tehran. Indeed, Hezbollah stopped the Israeli attack dead in their tracks in 2006 in Southern Lebanon.
The White House will find out before the November election that America has been taken hostage by Israel and the war profiteers. As the world economy crashes with the halt of oil shipments from the Middle East; once again, the USA, will be in a war it cannot win and cannot stop. That this has gotten this far indicates that making money and ideology trumps America’s national security interests.
Posted by: VietnamVet | 07 March 2012 at 11:58 PM
VV
It seems to me that this would require a prolonged effort. How long? I don't know. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 08 March 2012 at 12:42 AM
I'll betcha Netanyahoo asked specifically for the new and improved MOPs not the piddling GBU-28/37's...! Also the advanced KC-46's...! Wtf, over...?
Posted by: CTuttle | 08 March 2012 at 12:54 AM
This is consistent with Romney being just another narcissist with zero capacity for human empathy.
The "Ten Thousand dollar bet" and "...but I know owners of NASCAR Teams" are consistent examples of a lack of empathy in my opinion. His behaviour at Bain Capital, if reports are true, would also be an indicator.
The key to understanding would be the opinions of his former subordinates. I gather Gen. Petreaus subordinates did not find working for him to be an uplifting experience.
There is now a suggestion that organisational health can be judged by how well it detects and excludes narcissists from positions of power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_leadership
Posted by: walrus | 08 March 2012 at 01:22 AM
Here in the cheap seats it looks like to me that the Obama Administration will not under any circumstances support a premptive Israeli militaty action against Iran. I am also convinced the biggest actor in this global soap opera is the majority of We the American People who are very war weary and even now are making our voices heard. (Unless there is some very convincing false flag operation perpetrated by the Ziocons -then we ought to be okay). And speaking with Israeli professionals that work here in Austin Tx - they tell me most voters in Israel do not want a preemptive war with Iran either. But certainly President Obama's trump card in this whole controversy over war with Iran is the majority of Americans who are opposed vehemently to another war . I also believe President Obama is being very smart and tough minded behind the scenes regarding the Likud and the neocon cabal . ( A potential for a Secretary of State John Bolton is reason enough to vote against Romney )
Posted by: alinaustex | 08 March 2012 at 06:36 AM
I don't believe "We The People" are war weary. That's a myth. The majority of people are apathetic and indifferent to the notion. There is a percentage of the population that is opposed to these wars for varying reasons, and that percentage is offset by a similar percentage that is for these wars for various reasons. The remainder of the percentage...let's say 70%, are too busy with the superficial distractions of everyday consumer life to be bothered to give any more than a fleeting thought.
Posted by: Morocco Bama | 08 March 2012 at 09:37 AM
CUFI currently advertises "Defend America, vote Israel" Stickers. Figures.
Posted by: confusedponderer | 08 March 2012 at 10:04 AM
Feith is his foreign policy "adviser" and he would make Bolten SecState
omg, my ignorance has been displaced by fear, go Obama, go.
Posted by: Charles I | 08 March 2012 at 10:47 AM
( A potential for a Secretary of State John Bolton is reason enough to vote against Romney )
Seconded.
Posted by: Charles I | 08 March 2012 at 10:52 AM
C-span's airing of the Armed Serves committee showed McCain having a mini-fit because he didn't hear the answer he wanted from Gen. Mattis. McCain wants wants US military involvement in Syria, now, and throws a tantrum at the least resistance. We are lucky he isn't president, for we could be bombing Canada if he was.
Posted by: optimax | 08 March 2012 at 11:01 AM
Pat Lang,
I wrote something here last year about the consequences of an Israeli attack on Iran. I hold the same views now and they might address W's question. An attack would be a plain and simple act of war and no nation with any semblance of sovereignty or aspirations to prestige could do other than respond with all means at her disposal. I assume that, after an initial exchange of long range attacks, an Iran - Israel war would be a long affair waged between two countries which could not get at each other for the reason you gave of distance and because of the borders that would have to be crossed. Such a war would have to be waged through proxies, with submarines, and through diplomacy.
Should the U.S. get involved, which would probably be likely, as we seem to regard support of Israel as our sacred duty, we can scrub the Iran - Israel scenario.
In that case, the logic of escalation and the American attachment to unconditional surrender and replacement of the enemy government would result in a land invasion of Iran. The size of Iran (larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined), the population, the mountainous terrain, and the nationalism and religous fervor of the people indicate that a very large effort would be required. I wonder how many volunteers for the all-volunteer army would be signing up and where would the money come from.
The whole thing looks like a potential catastrophe for this country, unless we stay out.
WPFIII Lang,
Posted by: William Fitzgerald | 08 March 2012 at 11:29 AM