Moral relativism alert: a professor appearing on this evening's Hardball has declared that a US attack to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons would be handing Iran "their very own 9-11." Jo-Anne Hart, of Lesley College and Brown University, was a guest on this evening's Hardball. Host Chris Matthews set us up the bomb with a leading question.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: What do you think were the lessons, the WMD lessons of Iraq? Going to war over WMD to a large extent. What did we learn?
View video here.
JO-ANNE HART: That it's all the more important that we shouldn't get pushed into this dangerous position about getting "tougher" on Iran. Because that's when we could get into a shooting war. There's this idea that we could have limited airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. But that's not some Nintendo war. That's we start a war, we start bombing and killing Iranians. We hand them their very own 9-11, and that's all kinds of trouble for us.
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton was also a guest on the program. The author of the recently-released Surrender is Not an Option disagreed.
JOHN BOLTON: I give the Iranians more credit than you [addressing himself to Matthews] do. I think they're smart enough to understand that an attack against the nuclear program is not directed against them.
Without explicitly citing Hart's 9-11 theory, Matthews agreed with the thrust of her argument.
MATTHEWS: I do believe once your country's attacked, whether you're Cuban, you're Iraqi or Iranian, you turn against the invader, you turn against the attacker. It's called patriotism.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"spit" for brains....
November 21, 2007 - 21:20 ET by MrShyCHRIS MATTHEWS: What do you think were the lessons, the WMD lessons of Iraq? Going to war over WMD to a large extent. What did we learn?
JOHN BOLTON: What did we learn from the WMD lessons of Iraq? Ooooooh, you mean, that we didn't find any in Iraq? Cute question Spit Matthews, real cute. Hmm, well gee, Iran isn't Iraq. I do know what we DID learn from going to war with Iraq. I learned that we are fully capable of performing complete regime change, in a matter of weeks in fact. I also can tell you that, after we're in and have taken down the Mullah-run dictatorship and freed the Iranians, as we did the Iraqians (word?) we won't have -- DOPE -- the Iranians next door exporting insurgents and weapans to foment 2-3 years of bloodshed, as, well (cough), we'll have removed the evil Iranian rogue government that was doing this in the first place. Oh, and did I also mention that Syria immediately becomes marginalized and finally has to play nice w/ what is now a M.E. with no major rogue threats. Oh, and then it's a house of cards for Hezbalah and Palistine, too. Anymore idiodic questions, Spit for Brains?
"MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)
What Did We Learn?????
November 21, 2007 - 21:42 ET by BourbeauHere's what we learned. If you're a two bit dictator, that has your countrymen in a strangle hold, and you walk around threatening and killing your own people, and then decide you'll cook up some WMD threat against the Western world (i.e. US and Israel), while at the same time you have the UN, the French, the Germans, and God knows who else sucking oil money out the back door while at the same time kicking their inspectors out the front door, one day somoene is going to call your bluff. And when that happens, someone (i.e US) is going to kick your little ass back to the stone age along with your punk kids for good measure. Any more questions Matthews?
Bourbeau
November 21, 2007 - 21:54 ET by MrShyWe really do have to stop pussy-footing and get in there already.
We have momentum... things are working. Afgahnastan, and now Iraq, are stabilized, and now there's the third/final pin on our M.E. map, as it were.
We ARE being the world's police, and thank God someone is, to finally clean up that mess from the ground up.
MY end justifies THAT mean." - Shakespeare (not really)
Korea, too
November 22, 2007 - 10:36 ET by ThisnThatDon't forget the significant turn-around in Korea; and Lyberia. Although not perfect, it's significance can't be overstated.
___________________________________
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If it is in English, thank a Soldier. - My barber
Hmmm....let's see. A young
November 21, 2007 - 21:19 ET by DaBirdHmmm....let's see. A young professor or a veteran of foreign affairs? I'm apt to listen to Mr. Bolton on this one.
Matthews Memories
November 21, 2007 - 21:41 ET by acumenMATTHEWS: I do believe once your country's attacked, whether you're Cuban, you're Iraqi or Iranian, you turn against the invader, you turn against the attacker. It's called patriotism.
Isn't it convenient Matthews left the US off of his "patriotic" list? When the US turns against it's attacker then Matthews no longer calls it patriotism. No then the left calls it colonialism, aggression, illegal war.
Who attacked which countries embassy and held that countries citizens hostage for over a year Chris? Was it the US or was it Iran Chris? Who is the real "attacker" here Chris?
When I wrote speeches for President Carter, my drinking buddies taunted me during the yearlong humiliation of the Iranian hostage crisis. - Chris Matthews
And you obviously learned nothing from that Chris.
Well...Hellooooo Chris
November 21, 2007 - 23:44 ET by kgMATTHEWS: "I do believe once your country's attacked, whether you're
Cuban, you're Iraqi or Iranian, you turn against the invader, you turn
against the attacker. It's called patriotism."
Almost sounds like Chris is on our side. When did he become a fan of Bush? Or is this one of his two faced moments?
Iraqi Petition
November 22, 2007 - 09:47 ET by acumenkg - This was a few weeks after 9/11 when Chrissy was dealing with his own implication/guilt.
Speaking of Iran's threat to stability in the region, here is over 300,000 Iraqi's opinion of the Iranian situation Chris might not find interesting:
More than 300,000 Iraqis including 600 Shi'ite tribal leaders have signed a petition accusing Iran of sowing "disorder" in southern Iraq, a group of sheikhs involved in the campaign said.
"More than 300,000 people from the southern provinces condemned the interference of the Iranian regime in Iraq and especially in spreading security disorder in the provinces," the sheikhs said in a statement.'
They did not elaborate, but Washington and the U.S. military accuse Iran of arming, training and funding Shi'ite militias in Iraq. Iran denies the charge and blames the violence in Iraq on the U.S. invasion.
Once again, who attacked who first Chris?
what we learned
November 21, 2007 - 22:42 ET by exLib#1 - The media will not allow the US to win a war, especially when a Republican is in the WH.
#2 - That you don't want to "anger" a very small country, that is incapable of doing any damage to the US, unless it has nukes, because the Media will make you look like you lost and turn public opinion into a mandate on the war.
#3 - Let Iran feel like it's the superior, more powerful country in order to find a "peaceful" solution. No sense in letting them know you are more powerful, or give them any incentive to not get nukes.
How do these people deal with their children?
No 9-11
November 21, 2007 - 23:03 ET by nkviking75Their own 9-11? Nonsense. If we go through with a strike on their nuke facilities, we'll be going after military targets. The "civilians" who die will likely be government functionaries. We're not likely to take out 3,000 people. We won't be doing it by committing suicide. We'll be playing by the rules of war, not acting as terrorists. There's a legitimate debate about whether we should carry out such a strike, but if we do, it'll be nothing like 9-11.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
I think he meant it in
November 21, 2007 - 23:53 ET by ChenZhenI think she meant it in the sense that a high profile attack would rally their people. The technical differences between the two would be less relevant, but I see your point. It certainly wouldn't have been a surprise either.
I think Bolton is wrong here. I mean, does he really believe that , after an attack. the Iranians will collectively sit there and say something like "Well, they just bombed our buildings and killed some of our nuclear guys. They deserved it anyway"?
Sneak attack?
November 22, 2007 - 01:29 ET by KC MulvilleIran isn't some backward wilderness where the only thing peasants have is bad teeth. These are very smart people. They have all the modern communication media that we do. They also have generations of people who have studied abroad. (I studied in Germany in the mid-1980s, and my class had several Iranians.) This is a sophisticated group of people. Think about it. They have people who can develop a nuclear program. That's pretty advanced.
They know the situation as well as we do. We have made our concerns well-known. We've been seeking worldwide help through the international agencies, like IAEA, and those groups have largely confirmed our suspicions. I have no doubt that when push comes to shove, the United States will (along with the rest of the international community) give Iran a series of final ultimatums, and give them as much room as possible to avoid retaliation.
That's a lot different than hijacking airplanes to kill innocent civilians.
They do have intelligent
November 22, 2007 - 02:57 ET by BlackwaterThey do have intelligent people but they didn't know how to develope a nuclear program. They actually recieved aid on this from France and Russia. Kind of like how France built (well almost built) a nuclear refinery for Iraq in the 1980's. Till the Israelis destroyed it.
"Professors"
November 22, 2007 - 11:47 ET by iveseenitallDon't forgets,folks. It is these same illogical, lefty "professors" who are teaching your kids in those high-priced universities to which you are sending them. Be vigilant. Talk to your kids and remind them that what they are hearing is dangerous nonsense from ignorant con artists like this woman.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"