Neocon Insanity: Abrams Says Iranians Would Be Fine with an Attack on Their Country

[G_j]

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/143061/neocon_insanity%3A_abrams_says_iranians_would_be_fine_with_an_attack_on_their_country/

Neocon Insanity: Abrams Says Iranians Would Be Fine with an Attack on Their Country
Posted by Faiz Shakir, Think Progress at 2:25 PM on October 3, 2009.


This afternoon, Elliott Abrams, Deputy National Security Adviser under President Bush, appeared on Fox News to discuss U.S. policy towards Iran. Abrams pled guilty to misleading Congress about the Iran-Contra scandal under Reagan and handled Iran policy under Bush.

When asked if any recent President has had “a successful strategy with Iran,” Abrams implicitly admitted his own decades-long failure. “No, I don’t think we’ve really had any successful strategies with Iran,” Abrams responded. “And you know, meanwhile they’ve been building up their nuclear program and missile program.” But Obama recently established the first high-level diplomatic engagement with Iran in 30 years, which produced results quicker than expected.

But Abrams, “the neocon’s neocon,” still clings to his long-running desire to bomb Iran. And to justify his view that military action against Iran is the prudent course, Abram told Fox News that the Iranian people would accept it:


FOX: 59 percent of respondents to our Fox News poll say that force should be used. How would Tehran react to that?

ABRAMS: It’s a very big question, Alisyn. My own view is that most Iranians now — after June, after the stealing of the election — would not rally around the flag. People used to say that — that if there’s an attack on Iran, you know the population is going to get patriotic. But that’s what Americans would do. I don’t know that it’s what Iranians are going to do, considering the way that regime is hated in Iran.

Watch it:

[malaise]

1. They're

fucking crazy

[invictus]

2. Elliott Abrams, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Joe Lieberman, Krauthammer, Krystol ...

Do these jerks even care about American interests? Or does instigating wars that plunged the whole world in the biggest recession in since the Great Depression, shot up the price of a gallon of gas to over $5, making Americans targets for reprisals such as 9/11, spending trillions of American tax dollars of something of no benefit to Americans, tens of thousands of American military casualties, and millions of non-American civilian casualties some kind of sport for them?

[TheDebbieDee]

3. This sounds like that, "The Iraquis will welcome us

with hearts and flowers," or some similar nonsense. Who said that, anyway? Was it Rumsfeld?

[vixengrl]

4. The problem, as I see it, it that that statement might well have passed

even if it wasn't said on FOX. When I think the proper response would be "Are you out of your goddamn mind?"

We saw, just recently, thousands of Iranians take to the streets to protest a fraudulent election--why? Because they are patriots. To believe that they would not have an issue with a strike against their country is absurd, regardless of the regime in power--what about simple self-defense? They have seen war before, and know very well what is happening in neighboring Iraq--they should want that to happen to them? Abrams' admission that there hasn't been success in dealing with Iran previously reveals the major problem--

Ignorance.

Also, the idea that a poll of FOX News viewers is any indicator of what could or should happen is just bizarre.

[mulsh]

5. Elliott Abrams is a pig, why the hell do people value what he says?

oh yeah now I remember he was instrumental in facilitating arms for hostages trades with the Iranians. Guess he knows a thing or two about betraying the US. never mind.