Maybe every crazy person isn’t a fundamentalist. Maybe every somebody whose hands shake with rage at the thought of the government isn’t a Republican. Maybe every patriot who wants to rebel against his fellow Americans isn’t a right-winger. It’s possible that it just appears that way.

But the more we learn of Tamerlan Tsarneav the more we see that he was a conservative. No two ways about it.

. . Tamerlan Tsarnaev fell under the influence of a new friend, a Muslim convert who steered the religiously apathetic young man toward a strict strain of Islam, family members said.

. . Tamerlan gave up boxing and stopped studying music, his family said. He began opposing the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He turned to websites and literature claiming that the CIA was behind the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and Jews controlled the world.

It’s all right there. Reality had failed Tamerlan. He was angry, withdrawn, bigoted, poorly educated, given to conspiracies, increasingly fundamentalist, and ultimately convinced that violence was the personal and righteous response to a tawdry, immoral world.

Tsarnaev became an ardent reader of jihadist websites and extremist propaganda, two U.S. officials said. He read Inspire magazine, an English-language online publication produced by al-Qaida’s Yemen affiliate.

Tamerlan loved music and, a few years ago, he sent Khozhugov a song he’d composed in English and Russian. He said he was about to start music school.

Six weeks later, the two men spoke on the phone. Khozhugov asked how school was going. “I quit,” Tamerlan said.

“Why did you quit?” Khozhugov asked. “You just started.”

“Music is not really supported in Islam,” he replied.

Aside from the bombs, and the Good Book, what’s the difference between this guy and Michele Bachmann?

[Ryan Lizza] chronicles Bachmann’s enthusiasm for the extreme evangelical teachings of the late Presbyterian Pastor Francis Schaeffer, commonly regarded as having sparked the 1970s rise of the Christian Right. Schaeffer loved visiting Florence, Italy, where his idea of Renaissance ruin is on full display.

Bachmann also adores Schaeffer follower Nancy Pearcey, a prominent creationist whose recent book is “Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning.” That’s Leonardo as in “da Vinci,” whose famous drawing of “Vitruvian Man” shows a human being inscribed within a perfect circle and a perfect square. The artist made the ungodly error of putting humanity at the center of time and space.

To underscore her right-wing bona fides, here Mrs. Bachmann goes on about global warming:

I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us, having a revolution every now and then is a good thing, and the people — we the people — are going to have to fight back hard if we’re not going to lose our country. And I think this has the potential of changing the dynamic of freedom forever in the United States.

And now, standing on the steps of Congress, she speaks to her Tea Party friends:

You came. And you came to your house. And you came for an emergency house call. And are they going to listen? Oh yeah, oh yeah, they’re going to listen. It was Thomas Jefferson who said a revolution every now and then is a good thing.

This world can not be tolerated any more, you see. But it’s not just that conservatives would throw away humanism and the arts to favor re-making America. It’s also that they routinely reject common reality to favor a cryptic one. The standard we borrow here to measure such irrationality is the conspiracist, Alex Jones.

On his personal twitter feed, [Matt] Drudge predicted that 2013 would be the “year of Alex Jones,” praising his show as “one hell of a broadcast in such homogenized media!” In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings, Drudge linked to articles on Jones’ website Infowars, including stories that called Boston a “police state” during the manhunt for the alleged perpetrators, and a post accusing the Obama administration of covering up the involvement of a Saudi student who was later declared a victim of the attack . .

Of course. Why not Jones? His Saudi conspiracy/false flag/black ops grifts circulate as the hottest topics among the staunch right. Right up to their government representatives:

A Republican state legislator in New Hampshire is claiming that the United States government is responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing.

State Rep. Stella Tremblay (R-Auburn) posted on conservative talk show host Glenn Beck’s Facebook page Friday that the attack and the subsequent search for suspects was playing out how Beck had suggested. She said the bombings were a plot by the federal government, and included a link to a video from another conservative talk show host Alex Jones, in which Jones also claims the federal government planned the bombing.

And who else was a Jones fan? You know who:

In a bizarre twist befitting a Hollywood conspiracy theory movie, the AP reports today that Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev was influenced by conspiracy theories, including Alex Jones’ website Infowars, which has been pushing a narrative that the Tsarnaev brothers were patsies set up by a government cabal to take the fall for the bombing.

Tamerlan “took an interest in Infowars,” according to Elmirza Khozhugov, the ex-husband of Tamerlan’s sister.

For Alex’s part, there’s no need to worry. He’s not at all bothered to learn he inspired a mass murderer.

Jones — whose site has peddled conspiracy theories about the Boston Marathon bombing and suggested that Tsarnaev is innocent — conceded that Tsarnaev “may have actually been a listener.”

“He could be a listener,” Jones said. “It could be true. I’ve talked to the family and most of them are listeners. My show is anti-terrorism and my show exposes that most of the events we’ve seen have been provocateured.”

And other conservative parallels? The war on women. Tamerlan was an authoritarian asshole: he beat his former girlfriend. The domestic assault charge may have had something to do with his delayed American citizenship. He also demanded his wife obey his wishes, forcing her to reject Christianity and match his Muslim fundamentalism.

Tamerlan was also a religious bigot.

. . so then I had a discussion with Tamerlan. And he was basically — he was very passionate about what he was talking about, which was that the Bible was a cheap copy of the Koran, and that the American government used the Bible as an excuse to invade other countries.

Conservatives charge that the Koran is an evil text, that it makes terrorists of its readers. The argument is so doddering it needs a VFW commission and a cane.

And here we find Boston Marathon bomber suspect number two, currently holed up somewhere in Watertown, and soon to die I assume, on MyLife:

That first name is a tell. He’s almost certainly a Chechen. Though it’s possible he’s someone whose parents only greatly admired the breakaway Chechen Republic’s first president, Dzhokhar Dudaev.

After a controversial referendum in October 1991 confirmed Dudaev in his new position as president of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria, he unilaterally declared the republic’s sovereignty and its independence from Soviet Union. In November 1991, the then Russian President Boris Yeltsin dispatched troops to Grozny, but they were withdrawn when Dudaev’s forces prevented them from leaving the airport. Russia refused to recognize the republic’s independence, but hesitated to use further force against the separatists. From this point the Chechen-Ingush Republic had become a de facto independent state.

Dudaev is seen as a great hero among Eastern European peoples, particularly those in the former Soviet republics and those who are Muslim. He considered himself a David fighting the Goliaths of Communism and Russian imperialism.

Why would Chechens bother with the United States? Why would they want to come here and kill us? One guess. Revenge.

Dudaev was killed on 21 April 1996, by two laser-guided missiles when he was using a satellite phone, after his location was detected by a Russian reconnaissance aircraft, which intercepted his phone call. The telephone homing equipment was supplied to Moscow by the USA National Security Agency.

We supplied the imperialists with the means to kill him. That could be motive.

Places named in honor of Dudaev

Turkey – After Dudaev’s death, various locations in Turkey were renamed after him, such as “Şehit Cahar Dudaev Caddesi” (Martyr Dzhokhar Dudaev Street) and Şehit Cahar Dudayev Parki (Martyr Dzhokhar Dudaev Park) in Istanbul/Ataşehir-Örnek, Cahar Dudayev Meydanı (Dzhokhar Dudaev Square) in Ankara and Şehit Cahar Dudaev Parkı (Martyr Dzhokhar Dudaev Park) in Adapazarı, Sakarya. Şehit Cevher Dudaev Parkı – Sivas
Bosnia and Herzegovina – A street of Ulica Generala Džohara Dudajeva in Goražde.
Chechnya – Chechnya’s war-ravaged capital has been called Dzhokhar-Ghala (later Dzhokhar) by Chechens in 1997 during its de facto independence. After the Second Chechen War Djokhar were renamed to Russian called Grozny again. It is notable that Chechens in general refrain from using the name Groznyi (which is Russian for terrible, and considered demeaning), either calling the city Dzhokhar or by its other Chechen name, Sölƶa-Ġala.
Estonia – A large room in the Barclay Hotel in Tartu, once used as Dudaev’s office, is now called the Dudaev Suite. In the Nursipalu urban warfare training polygon of the Estonian Defence Forces, Johhar Dudaev Street crosses with Basayev Street.
Latvia – From 1996, there is Dzhokhar Dudaev Avenue (Džohara Dudajeva gatve) in the Latvian capital Riga (In the light of the upcoming Parliamentary elections in Latvia several initiatives have been undertaken to lobby for the renaming or preserving the name of the avenue by pro-Moscow and anti-Russian political parties respectively).
Lithuania – Dzhokhar Dudaev Square (Dzocharo Dudajevo skveras) in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius.[citation needed]
Poland – On 17 March 2005, a roundabout in the Polish capital Warsaw was named Rondo Dżochara Dudajewa.
Ukraine – Also in 1996, a street in Lviv was named after him (вулиця Джохара Дудаєва), later followed by Ivano-Frankivsk.

Jesus Christ.

Again?

The Korean crisis has now become a strategic threat to America’s core national interests. The best option is to destroy the North Korean missile on the ground before it is launched. The United States should use a precise airstrike to render the missile and its mobile launcher inoperable.

Again with the trembling. But instead of plotzing over scared-up A-bombs, this time we’re scared of actual words. Maybe, too, a missile, targeted for the ocean. Our national interests being constructed of butterfly tears, it’s time for you to die. Sorry. When you’re a citizen of the planet’s pre-eminent superpower, you can’t expect to live for too long.

President Obama should state clearly and forthrightly that this is an act of self-defense in response to explicit threats from North Korea and clear evidence of a prepared weapon. . . And he should explain that this is a limited defensive strike on a military target — an operation that poses no threat to civilians.

Shorter: They’re a nuclear power with a missile, so let’s attack them. Lord.

New York Times.

WASHINGTON — As North Korea hints at new military provocations in the coming days, the United States and South Korea have drawn up plans to respond more forcefully than in the recent past, but in a limited way intended to prevent an escalation to broader war.

Thomas Sowell in the National Review.

Yet there on the front page of the April 8 New York Times was a story about how unnamed “American officials” were planning a “proportional” response to any North Korean attack. This was spelled in an example: If the North Koreans “shell a South Korean island that had military installations” then the South Koreans would retaliate with “a barrage of artillery of similar intensity.”

Well that’s just crazy.

Back before the clever new notion of “proportional” response became the vogue, our response to Pearl Harbor was ultimately Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And Japan has not attacked or even threatened anybody since then. Nor has any war broken out anywhere that is at all comparable with World War II.

All the Japanese did was sneak-attack one of our islands. And what did we do? Retaliate with nuclear weapons. Now they’re our friends. The lesson there: ‘Don’t fool around with your enemies when you can crush them.’ Also, now would be a perfect time to start making friends with the North Koreans wink.

Which policy is better? There was a time when we followed the ancient adage “By their fruits ye shall know them.” The track record of massive retaliation easily beats that of the more sophisticated-sounding proportional response.

This is quite odd, I must say. I know virtually nothing of war theory, but I must have heard about “Just War” 25 years ago. There, the “proportional response” idea plays a central role, both in the cause for war and in its proper dispensation (if such a thing is possible). I much later came to know it was something Augustine discussed around 400 A.D. Wikipedia says its roots can be traced back a thousand years before that.

These are fundamentals of Western warring traditions. I can’t imagine any decent West Point education that doesn’t discuss at some length Just War Theory and proportional response. So what’s the point of Sowell’s rant? Is he laughably ignorant? Or is he merely in the mood for an all-out conflagration?

North Korea is a mandatory conscription state. Its government spends between one-quarter and one-third of its budget on the military. Accounting for the home guard, there are something like 9 million North Koreans ready and willing to go to battle on any given day. Would Sowell like to become aware of any of this? Or would he prefer to fight fire with fire, vis a vis the enemy’s well known sophistication?

Alert. Alarums. Achtung.

I weep for my country. We are becoming pathetic fools and total wimps.

What did we do this time? It’s always something. We let a gay person into the National Football League. We gamboled in front of the Taliban. We refused to beat the kids with a two by four. What is it now?

Consider these jaw-dropping examples of behavior by adults who work in government schools. I think they must be competing for the Stupid Official of the Year Award.

Oh, it’s something in the “government schools.” That’s a funny thing to call them. It’s an open secret in the Bible Belt that gummint schoolin’ comes fully appointed with prayers and benedictions. The fascists feds know it’s unconstitutional, but they do little about it. Truth is the government only exerts so much control over “government schools.” The locals pretty much do as they please.

The bureaucrats who suspended a 7-year boy for pretending to throw a non-existent grenade on the playground.
The bureaucrats who suspended a 6-year old boy in Maryland for making a gun shape with his finger.
The bureaucrats who busted a 5-year old girl in Pennsylvania for having a pink plastic gun that shoots bubbles . .

The guns. The bombs. The kids can’t wait a couple years to fall in love with all that? Is that it? We don’t have the luxury any more. Fine, this is a lesson in how to care for your country. First you worry about the permanent war machine, then you weep.

And the real moral of the story is that we need to break up the government-run education monopoly and allow school choice.

Did somebody pull West Point’s accreditation? Did the Naval Academy lose its charter? I don’t think so. The gummint’s still around, so they’re still around. And they make kick-ass killers out of your kids, so buck up.

On the front page here, five months ago:

Arch-conservatives continue their banner August. In the first week of the month unemployed white supremacist Wade Page shot and killed six Sikhs at a temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. In week two unemployed gun nut and Palin/Beck/O’Reilly fan Thomas Caffall killed two people, one a constable, in College Station, Texas. Also in week two a group of barely-employed “sovereign citizens” and their girlfriends shot four Louisiana deputies in and around St. John the Baptist Parish, killing two.

Then four soldiers who planned a shooting spree (and a presidential assassination) were arrested before they could do any harm. Still: Ten dead and more wounded as the American right-wing made its presence known throughout August 2012. A hell of a month for the wingnuts.

The violence wasn’t that surprising. A 2009 Deparment of Homeland Security report predicted home-grown terrorism would likely emanate from the ultra-conservative crowd. As much as Michelle Malkin screamed about the conclusions, the report ended up being perfectly accurate. A trail of corpses proved how dangerous the far right-wing really were.

Which brings us to Monday. And the butthurts at the Daily Caller:

Army should fire author of report on conservative terrorism
Bill Wilson | President, Americans for Limited Government

. . the report warns of the rising militancy of so-called “anti-federalists” — or Americans who embrace radical notions like “civil activism, individual freedoms and self-government.” In other words, anyone expressing support for the fundamental democratic ideals upon which our nation was founded could be a terrorist.

According to [Dr. Arie] Perliger, these “anti-federalists” are dangerous because they “espouse strong convictions regarding the federal government, believing it to be corrupt and tyrannical, with a natural tendency to intrude on individuals’ civil and constitutional rights.”

Wait — government isn’t corrupt? And warrantless wiretaps, forced participation in a Social Security Ponzi scheme and Barack Obama’s health insurance mandate aren’t intrusions on our liberties?

It’s deja vu. And this is today, right now, this very hour and minute:

The man who ignited a hostage standoff in southern Alabama when he shot a bus driver and took a child into an underground bunker is a “survivalist” who has ties to the antigovernment movement, an official with the Dale County Sheriff’s Office told Hatewatch this morning.

The gunman is identified as Jimmy Lee Dykes, 65, a Vietnam veteran. On Tuesday afternoon, Dykes allegedly stormed into a school bus in Midland City, Ala., shooting the bus driver four times with a 9 mm pistol before taking a child to an underground bunker behind his home. The bus driver, identified as 66-year-old Charles Poland Jr., later died.

Tim Byrd, chief investigator with the Dale County Sheriff’s Office, told Hatewatch that Dykes had “anti-America” views. “His friends and his neighbors stated that he did not trust the government, that he was a Vietnam vet, and that he had PTSD,” Byrd said. “He was standoffish, didn’t socialize or have any contact with anybody. He was a survivalist type.”

Jimmy Lee Dykes is still holding the six year-old boy hostage and the police at bay.

Law professor at Liberty University, Matt Barber: “Civil War’s A-Brewin.”

. . not so fast, cupcake. As the U.S. Constitution guarantees – and as the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

It ain’t, “should not be infringed,” or “shall finally be infringed once ‘progressives’ have assumed total dominance.”

No, “shall not” means shall not.

There’s only one way to take my guns, slick, and that’s through a constitutional amendment – an amendment that will never happen – ever. Try it any other way and we have a problem.

He knows the law, libtards. Oh maybe not. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

For my dollars, Scalia’s District of Columbia v. Heller opinion sheds more light on the Second Amendment than Matt’s promises to shoot his neighbors. The ruling struck down a provision demanding guns in D.C. homes be unloaded or bound by a trigger lock. In it, Scalia went out of his way to reaffirm two centuries of American law and life: You do not have the right to own any gun you like, to own one for whatever reason you like, to buy one without regulations or conditions, to own a “dangerous or unusual weapon,” or to wield it wherever you like, Matt. The Second Amendment has forever been limited, and it always will be. For a lawyer whose milieu is Constitutional Law, you’re not just unhinged with respect to the subject, you’re unintelligent to boot.

I really, really hope this president and his authoritarian cohorts in Congress will slow down, take a deep breath and realize that, right now, they’re playing a very dangerous game of chicken. If they try what I think they might, but hope they don’t, I fear this nation – already on the precipice of widespread civil unrest and economic disaster – might finally spiral into to utter chaos, into a second civil war.

Threats of violence are appreciated as well.

They’re all over whatever slippery shenanigans David Gregory is trying to pull:

“You proposed armed guards in school. We’ll talk about that in some detail in a moment. You confronted the news media. You blamed Hollywood and the gaming industry. But never once did you concede that guns could actually be part of the problem. Is that a meaningful contribution, Mr. LaPierre, or a dodge?” asked Gregory.

Guns being the problem . . for the bad guys (high**five). LaPierre promised to personally (. . not meaning personally . . meaning unknown citizens voluntarily . . meaning not in a quasar’s lifetime) place gun-toting guards outside all our public schools, more than 100,000 in all. Which is a clever answer to the question of bullet-ridden children in our school districts coming as it does from the chief lobbyist for the weapons and bullets industries. You wanna shoot somebody Shooter? I shoot you first. Or we shoot each other and everything around here for a while. Problem solved point blank for oh about $50,000 in guard salary, $1000 for every AR-15, and for however many rounds of 7.62×45 ammo it takes at a dollar a shot to remake Country Valley Elementary into Hamburger Hill.

“But you would concede that, as good as an idea as you think this is, it may not work. Because there have been cases where armed guards have not prevented this kind of massacre, this kind of carnage. I want you would concede that point, wouldn’t you?”

Of course not but it’s true. Neil Gardner was the guard assigned to Columbine School the day of the massacre.

Gardner, seeing [Eric] Harris working with his gun, leaned over the top of the car and fired four shots. He was 60 yards from the gunman. Harris spun hard to the right and Gardner momentarily thought he had hit him. Seconds later, Harris began shooting again at the deputy.

After the exchange of gunfire Harris ran back into the building. Gardner was able to get on the police radio and called for assistance from other Sheriff’s units. “Shots in the building. I need someone in the south lot with me.” . .

Harris and Kleebold then killed 13 people. For Gardner, having armed security wasn’t a bad idea. But . .

“If you live through a school shooting, you understand you really don’t need these weapons,” Gardner, 57, said. “I don’t know why a normal person would need an assault rifle.”

Normal people don’t. That’s why we have LaPierre to kick around.

The seemingly endless 2012 presidential campaign is somehow coming to a close. The third and final debate between the two candidates is tonight, and the election is fifteen days away.

Tonight’s arguing will be over foreign policy. And it is shocking that the Romney campaign trotted out their big supporters Sunday to tell the American voter this: it’s time for bloodshed. After you vote for strong leader Mitt Romney, The War in Iran will follow.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Sunday blasted President Barack Obama’s administration for agreeing to discussions with Iran about the county’s nuclear program because ‘the time for talking is over.”

The New York Times reported on Sunday that Obama administration officials had said the White House had agreed in principle to one-on-one meetings with Iran, a result of efforts to pressure Tehran that began soon after Obama took office.

. . “As we talk with the Iranians, whether it’s bilaterally or unilaterally, the vice president and the president have said, ‘We will do nothing without coordinating with Israel.’ So, we’ve talked with them in Moscow, we’ve talked with them in Baghdad, they continue to enrich.”

“I think the time for talking is over,” he continued.

After years of toil and sweat, we’ve finally gotten the Iranians to come to the negotiating table. But for all their silence, we’re thoroughly talked out. Nothing else to do but start the bombing and shooting. These Senators vouch for Mitt Romney, which means you can be sure he’ll deliver.

Top Romney surrogate Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) tried to spin the news that Iran had finally agreed to hold nuclear negotiations with the U.S. as a failure on the part of the Obama administration and as an indication that Obama was willing to, “abandon our allies” in favor of Iran . .

. . Portman said that if the latest report—which the White House has marginally denied—turns out to be true, it would represent an effort by Obama to unilaterally address the situation at the expense of our partners in the region.

“If it’s accurate, it sounds like the US is taking a position where we’re likely to jettison our allies,” he said. ”The last thing we would want to do is abandon our allies in this, and to make it a one-on-one negotiation.”

Got that? If you talk to a country who may or may not be developing nuclear weapons, you’re a traitor. It would be better, and loyal as well, to do as Mitt Romney prefers — commit America’s flesh and blood to whatever Israel wants. As usual, Republican foreign policy reduces nicely: War demonstrates strong leadership. Look for plenty of that argument tonight.

I doubt this ad was specifically constructed to piss me off, but it does the trick.

“Sizable majorities in both states believe that Iran will share nuclear weapons with terrorists,” said Jeri Thompson, advisory board member for Secure America Now. “Support for Israel remains strong. In short, (Netanyahu’s) a powerful messenger with a powerful message who the American people believe.”

Dear Ms. Thompson: Screw you. And screw your war mongers’ club. If this foreign guy with a foreign obsession is so terrific, you know where our airports are. See ya. Bye bye.

Of the many pleasing things to look forward to after Mitt Romney wins the November election, the War with Iran might be the most entertaining. It’s been nine months since our country’s been in two wars simultaneously, and a Romney administration would probably seek to correct that.

Urging ostensibly the Republican candidate, his friends and Americans in general to take seriously an attack on Iran, David P. Goldman writes in Asia Times. He predicts the glorious events to follow after Israel launches a pre-emptive strike. The American Thinker was sanguine about Goldman’s prospects:

Well if it looks that good, let’s consider it. I’m always up for doing something ‘positive’ with our military. In “All-out Middle East war as good as it gets,” Goldman, as “Spengler,” plays out his scenario for constructive destruction:

What ripples would ensue from a successful Israeli strike on Iran?

Iran probably would attempt to block the Straits of Hormuz, the gateway for a fifth of the world’s oil supply, and America would respond by destroying Iranian conventional military capabilities and infrastructure from the air. This would add to Tehran’s humiliation, and strengthen the domestic opposition.

Iran’s influence in Iraq and Syria would diminish, although Iran’s supporters in both countries probably would spill a great deal of blood in the short run.

Sounds good so far. A few thousand dead bodies, violence and chaos.

Hizbollah almost certainly would unleash its missile arsenal at Israel, inflicting a few hundred casualties by Israeli estimates. Israel would invade southern Lebanon and – unlike the 2006 war – fight without fear of Syrian intervention…

There is a possibility, to be sure, that Syria would launch chemical and biological warheads against Israel, but if the Assad government employed weapons of mass destruction, Israel would respond with a nuclear bombardment. In this case deterrence is likely to be effective. Iran’s influence in Lebanon would be drastically diminished.

Governments torn apart, countries invaded, chemical and biological wars breaking out, what a burlesque. The precipitation of nuclear Armageddon when a deterrent fails, and there’s your show stopper. If you favor burning the Middle East to the ground, this Iran gambit comes made to order.

Stripped of support from its Iranian sponsor, the Alawite regime would fall, and Syria would become a Saudi-Turkish condominium. Ethnic butchery would go on for some time.

It’s like an orgy, except it’s closer to bone-shattering mayhem among a sea of headless bodies. And no delicious icky sex. It’s a version of Nirvana, perhaps fashioned by a satanic and well-known immortal personage. Where do we sign up?

The vision shared by the George W Bush and Barack Obama administrations, albeit with some variation, of a Middle East dotted with democratic regimes friendly to the United States would pop like a soap-bubble.

Is it my birthday? This feels like my birthday.

In the absence of an American leadership willing to assert American strategic interests in the region, Israel well might save the United States.

Dear Bibi: Thanks for the apocalypse. The fallout was lovely.

There is no reason to expect most of the Muslim countries to go quietly into irreversible decline. All-out regional war is the likely outcome sooner or later. We might as well get on with it.

THERE it is. I was waiting for that.

Boy, this is great news. As tensions over Iran’s mysterious capabilities and goals ratchet up, a familiar bunch soft-shoe their way into the national spotlight. Look who’s back for a bite of the war apple: the stupid neocon lobby. From your familiar torture criminals . .

The Case for Military Action in Iran
John Yoo · Dec. 28, 2011

. . the United States should not be limited by the UN Charter, which limits the use of force to self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council . . The Charter rules have never described state practice and have the effect of keeping dictators in power and preventing the United States and its allies from maintaining peace and security in the world. The United States should have the legal right to use military force when it removes dangerous threats not just to our security, but to regions and the world — and that is, I argue, exactly what is posed by the prospect of Iranian nuclear weapons.

. . to the neo-Neocons . .

Time to Attack Iran
Matthew Kroenig | ForeignAffairs.com | Jan/Feb 2012

. . But skeptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond. And their grim forecasts assume that the cure would be worse than the disease — that is, that the consequences of a U.S. assault on Iran would be as bad as or worse than those of Iran achieving its nuclear ambitions. But that is a faulty assumption. The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.

The sights of these ‘serious’ admonitions are so appalling they almost defy a reply (by those of us lucky enough to have survived the last ‘emergency’ with rudimentary communication skills). We just pulled out of a war that cost us thousands of our friends’ and fellow citizens’ lives 23 DAYS AGO. But here we are again with multiple ‘foreign policy experts’ calling for America to go to war in the Middle East.

And, no, they haven’t even bothered to change their tune. It’s the same: The United Nations are stupid and illegitimate. America alone sets the tone for morality and security in international affairs. Time is slipping away, and the unseen dangers are too great to ignore. And since we do everything better now than we’ve ever done it before, the costs will be minimal.

Thank gawd at least one person calls bullshit up front:

The worst case for war with Iran
Stephen M. Walt | Foreign Policy | December 21, 2011

If you’d like to read a textbook example of war-mongering disguised as “analysis,” I recommend Matthew Kroenig’s forthcoming article in Foreign Affairs, titled “Time to Attack Iran: Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option.” It is a remarkably poor piece of advocacy, all the more surprising because Kroenig is a smart scholar who has done some good work in the past. It makes one wonder if there’s something peculiar in the D.C. water supply.

Stephen, too, has seen this:

There is a simple and time-honored formula for making the case for war, especially preventive war. First, you portray the supposed threat as dire and growing, and then try to convince people that if we don’t act now, horrible things will happen down the road. (Remember Condi Rice’s infamous warnings about Saddam’s “mushroom cloud”?) . . Second, you have to persuade readers that the costs and risks of going to war aren’t that great . . Kroenig’s piece follows this blueprint perfectly.

They’re all constructed that way. It’s as if the Middle East Socrates Group never saw their disastrously retarded and evil recommendations for Iraq as less than acceptable. For all they know, everything went fine and they’re held in high regard. For all we know, Republicans now put as much faith in them as they ever did.