Powerline: Is $25K Enough To Buy A War With Iran?

So Assrocket and Co. brokered a deal Monday to shift $25,000 in wingnut welfare from ‘an anonymous donor’ to Norman Podhoretz, who generously allowed that he would donate the money to Soldiers’ Angels to complete the PR loop.

The event: Powerline’s First Annual One-Off 2007 Award Of Dubiously Sourced Cash For The Highest Achievement In Fomenting War With Iran (Book-Form).

The winner: N-Pod for ‘World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism’.

On hand: The Power Trio, Henry Kissinger, Paul Wolfowitz, Gateway Pundit (!) and assorted apparatchiks and foot-soldiers from the WSJ opinion page, the Weekly Standard, the National Review and the Drudge Report.

Assrocket, asked whether this ‘annual’ stunt would ever happen again, inexplicably and uncharacteristically segued into praise for Time magazine’s ability to learn from past mistakes: ‘We were Time’s blog of the year for 2004. There has never been another one.’

Kissinger, still sought after for his keen insight into current affairs, displayed an understated appreciation for his New Media hosts: ‘I don’t know what a blog is. I don’t know how to find a blog.’

The giant of modernity was ‘skeptical about the digitalization of media’ and expressed a fear that if his spoken words ‘get shortened for cyberspace, there is no telling what will come out.’ Could this be a veiled warning from Kissinger that a tight rationing of pixels is in the works?

But what did Kissinger say about Iran, dammit? Ha ha – the Powerline boys, no fools they, tease us with audio from his speech at the event that ‘ends at the precise moment where he starts to talk about what to do about Iran.’

Part 2 will be posted ‘before long’, says Assrocket. Ooh, tease us, please us, Condoleezz’ us.

 

Comments: 55

 
 
 

In the mind of Hankypoo Kissinger, the world apparently ended in 1973. He’s not ready to get on board with this blog fad yet, I guess.

 
 

Not only does cyberspace shorten Kissinger’s words, but television distorts his whole persona. In real life he looks just like Tiny Tim, and he rolls his eyes whenever he says any pro-war stuff — because it’s all ironic and shit.

 
 

I wonder if NPod is the anonymous donor.

 
 

If I ever get the funds, I’m totally financing the gay bomb. 10% is not enough!!!

 
 

We were Time’s blog of the year for 2004

Yes, but it wasn’t for quality. It was for the unique ability to co-opt and thwart the will of the American people to rid themselves of the warmongering fascist by pulling the pud of the Swifties.

 
 

Yes, let’s listen to what Henry Kissinger has to say about foreign policy! What a fine idea! What could possibly go wrong?

Isn’t this the definition of insane? Doing the same thing over and over yet expecting the results to be different?

 
 

[expletive deleted]

 
 

Isn’t this the definition of insane? Doing the same thing over and over yet expecting the results to be different?

Oh… then what do you call doing the same things over and over even though you know full well that the results won’t be any better? Cuz, that’s pretty much what I do… *kicks pebble*

 
 

On hand: The Power Trio, Henry Kissinger, Paul Wolfowitz, Gateway Pundit (!) and assorted apparatchiks and foot-soldiers from the WSJ opinion page, the Weekly Standard, the National Review and the Drudge Report.

Never a more wretched hive of Scum and Villiany…

 
 

Wait, World war IV?

When was #3? Did I sleep through a whole world war?! Damn. Well, it didn’t seem to do much over here, any heavy casualties over at your places?

 
 

And what would they do with Iran if they bought it? They’d make the Democrats feed it, train it, clean up after it and get up in the middle of the night to let it out for a wee. Meanwhile they’re on to Syria or Lebanon or whatever cute little baby war catches thier fancy.

 
 

When was #3? Did I sleep through a whole world war?!

He means the Cold War, which we won because Reagan had a bigger penis and was not gay. That is really all we have to do this time too, keep electing the one with the bigger penis, but not the gay one.

How can you tell? Fortunately there is a direct correlation between the size of a man’s penis and his enthusiasm to make a show of military force. Also, the one who hates gays the most is the most not-at-all-gay.

 
 

Way off topic – is anyone else totally unimpressed by Congress beating up on McNamee and Celmens for not telling the truth, and breathlessly going on and on about the importance of rule of law, while at the same time the House is in debates as to whether or not to give immunity to telecoms for, um, breaking the law?

 
 

Being an ignorant, out-of-touch twit is the least of Kissinger’s crimes.

 
 

pedestrian said,

February 13, 2008 at 18:35
When was #3? Did I sleep through a whole world war?!

He means the Cold War, which we won because Reagan had a bigger penis and was not gay. That is really all we have to do this time too, keep electing the one with the bigger penis, but not the gay one.

How can you tell? Fortunately there is a direct correlation between the size of a man’s penis and his enthusiasm to make a show of military force. Also, the one who hates gays the most is the most not-at-all-gay.”

Funny, I always thought the two would have been inverse correlation between the penis size and enthusiasm for military spending. Sort of like between car and penis size, you know. (And I drive a quite expensive/nice/big car IMO)

As for the not gay part, I guess they could select one of the religious-hardline antigay people. Those guys could never turn out to be gay.

 
 

Republicans believe that the government, like God, should only be used to punish people.

Baseball is different, it is Mom and the flag and apple pie, a symbol of innocence and an idealized America, an adolescent, black-and-white world of sportmanship and fairness, and legends to hero worship.

Republicans are caught in a constant state of adolescence, caught between a childish need to be potected and cared for, and an adult need to be independent and in control. Because they don’t feel cared for and protected, they need someone, anyone, to fill that place, but naturally they also resent not being in control of their own lives. They take out that resentment on anyone who doesn’t fight back.

 
guitarist manqué
 

There I was, 1987, on the runway in Acapulco with the worst hangover of my life up till then. The air was not working and the plane was sweltering and as I eyed the sick bag I knew it was way too small. As I turned various odd colors, alarming the sweet old lady sitting next to me and contemplating asking her for her bag too the reason for the delay appeared, Henry the K himself, well tanned, easing himself into first class. I pondered going up to him and saying, “Dr K there’s something I’ve always wanted to tell you…… huurrrrrllll!”

As I pondered, I thought about the Acapulco jail (yes, I’ve seen it) and swallowed hard. It is one of my few real regrets that I didn’t spew all over that bastard. Lloyd Bentsen was also on the plane and Henry bent his ear all the way to Dallas.

 
 

Republicans are caught in a constant state of adolescence, caught between a childish need to be protected and cared for, and an adult need to be independent and in control

I disagree. Based on the stuff from The Authoritarians, I really do think those are two separate factions. The leaders (who don’t believe any of the stuff they spout save that they deserve more power) and the led (who want the peace of mind that submissive slavery can bring).

 
 

UiP, I’ve read that paper and I totally agree. I think that the same dynamic is at work in both leader and followers, although as the author shows it manifests itself in very different way. Bush was raised to be a Leader but his adolescent cockiness and resentments struck a very deep chord in Authoritarian followers.

 
 

Indeed, it is central to my point.

 
 

Republicans believe that the government, like God, should only be used to punish people.

Beautiful.

 
 

The part I can’t get over is the followers really do feel the rich are better than them and deserve to lead. I can see the appeal of having no responsibility other than fulfilling the master’s wishes – freedom and responsibility are scary after all – but why are they so certain that their masters must be a hereditary aristocracy?

 
 

“Isn’t this the definition of insane? Doing the same thing over and over yet expecting the results to be different?”

If you always deflect any bad consequences off on someone else, it’s called conservatism. If you do it for money (rather than political power) and you call those consequences “externalized costs” then it’s called capitalism.

 
 

Mary Ruppert said,

February 13, 2008 at 18:02

[expletive deleted]

We have a winner!

 
 

finally, the oral, I mean, moral hardness I’ve been longing for.

 
 

“That is really all we have to do this time too, keep electing the one with the bigger penis, but not the gay one.”

I hate to further certain stereotypes, but I can’t help noticing that Mr Obama is thrusting himself into the lead.

 
 

why are they so certain that their masters must be a hereditary aristocracy?

Maybe it gives feelings of security to followers, and guilt-free superiority to leaders.

 
 

but why are they so certain that their masters must be a hereditary aristocracy?

They aren’t. As someone who grew up in a dirt poor part of the Bible Belt, I can tell you that they genuinely believe that a combination of faith and conservative government will make them all rich too someday. They think that taxing the rich will only hurt the economy and make everyone even poorer. Quite often you will hear someone who lives in a trailer and makes minimum wage say that he “intends to be rich someday and wants to be able to keep his money when he gets it”.

I hate to further certain stereotypes, but I can’t help noticing that Mr Obama is thrusting himself into the lead.

Its my fault really, I laid a trap knowing full-well that someone would take the bait.

 
 

I see (at Gateway) that mrs assrocket borrowed James Lilek’s fivehead for the evening. Lovely…

 
 

Can $25,000 even buy lunch for this upper-crust lecture circuit crowd, let alone a war?

 
 

Quite often you will hear someone who lives in a trailer and makes minimum wage say that he “intends to be rich someday and wants to be able to keep his money when he gets it”.

I’ve encountered that too, and it blows my mind. “Cross that bridge when you come to it” is what I suggest, but it doesn’t seem to register.

 
 

do you suppose the Nobel committee ever cusses each other out every time Henry K gets quoted respectfully in the media?
(as for the name, I ain’t stealin’ it, jes borrowin’ it to see if I want to get one like it.)

 
 

I would like to be a multi-trillion dollar earning nanotechnology magnate someday, therefore all of my political behaviors are shaped to benefit multi-trillion dollar earning nanotechnology magnates.

What?

 
 

To answer your question, $25,000 may be enough for a downpayment on a war with Iran with a subprime, adjustable rate mortgage for the rest of it.

 
 

Oh dear. I had hoped it was a kind of leftover awe from Victorian days, when people were explicitly taught that bluebloods were practically another species. If they just somehow think they’re going to be rich, that’s…so blindingly stupid that I can understand the contempt their leaders feel for them.

Does this make me a libertarian?

 
 

One Lifelong Democrat and Hillary supporter on the possibility of an Obama nomination:

“I swear. if that odious stench gets the Dem nod, I’m voting for McCain.

I’m an American first and a Democrat second, and I simply don’t think Obama can handle emergencies, crises, nor is he really up to the task of being president. I won’t vote to put a rookie in the Oval Office.

Maybe in a few years when he actually has some wisdom gained from his experiences on the national level, but right now, I can’t bring myself to vote for Obama.

McCain, while a Republican, would be able to handle himself. Hillary would, as well.

This is a very hard call to make, because I’ve wanted a Democrat in the White House for 7 years. I’ve counted on that. But if the Dem nominee is trying to sell us shit and call it sugar, I’m sorry, I can’t give him my vote.

The ONLY way Obama would get my vote is if he had Clinton or Rendell on the ticket — and even then, I’d have to think a good long while before choosing to vote for them, as per the reasons I stated above.

But, until then, I still say: NObama Noeight.”

Remember, Obama can’t win.

 
 

When my former home state instituted million dollar lotteries, there was discussion that the prizes should be made tax-free. Thousands of people who would never get a nickle, were convinced that those lucky monies shouldn’t be taxed for those, literally, handful of winners. People, with relatives who can’t afford health insurance, are certain that universal healthcare coddles the poor. Off topic, the rich don’t need reasons to be contemptuous of the poor.

 
 

Man, Republicans sure are scared of Obama. Don’t worry Gary, i’m sure Karl will just cheat extra hard for you.

 
 

The right is terrified of having to go up against Obama. Their racist core will embarrass them repeatedly, they can’t use sexism against him, and a lot of people like the idea of moving forward instead of looking to the past.

If Obama couldn’t win, it wouldn’t matter if he or Hilary were elected. He can, so it does.

 
 

The wingnuts have finished their nominating process for the Democratic candidate for (runner-up) the Presidency of the USA.

 
 

One lifelong Republican and Bush voter on Gary Ruppert:

“Sweet Jesus, Gary Ruppert is a fucking douchebag. He gives even shit-ignorant, hate-filled closet cases like me a bad name.”

Making people up is fun.

 
 

Does this make me a libertarian?

No, a lot of libertarians have that same someday-my-billions-will-come pathos.

 
 

There are millions of Clinton supporters who will bolt and support McCain instead of making an untested rookie their candidate.

Obama is the most inexperienced candidate nominated by a major party since Jimmy Carter. And we know how badly the Carter presidency was for America.

 
 

Well, I’d say Bush II, Bush I, Reagan, Ford and Nixon were all worse for the country than Carter.

But then I’m not delusional and I think for myself.

(Please respond, Gary. We all want to know what Rush Limbaugh thinks about this.)

 
 

By the way, consider this another endorsement of “The Authoritarians.”

 
 

The anti-war left will vote for the man who promises a 100-year-war? Get your talking points straight gary; they’re contradicting each other.

Try harder, son.

 
 

And we know how badly the Carter presidency was for America.

Learned grammar back then, did you? We know how badly that was for your writing abilities.

 
 

The only President with less experience is GWB.

Sure, sure, Guv of Texas for six years. Gov of Texas is a nearly powerless position, nearly part-time, except for signing execution orders, which is what George REALLY liked.

I figure he though being Prez would allow him to sign death orders for ALL the States. When he didn’t get what he wanted, he decided torturing would be good too.

….. Awwww, dammmit, I started that one all snarky-like, and now reading it, am a bit concerned how close to the truth it winds up.

 
 

Talk about dumb. You’re supposed to chop down the ladder of opportunity after you climb it.

 
 

There are millions of Clinton supporters who will bolt and support McCain instead of making an untested rookie their candidate

Gary, who’s been wrong in every single prediction he’s made about the Republican race, suddenly has his finger on the pulse of Democratic voters.

 
 

the followers really do feel the rich are better than them and deserve to lead.
You do have would-be opinion-makers like David Brooks writing about ‘the leadership class’ without any sense of outrage that such a thing could exist. Oddly enough, a quick Googlesearch suggests that he’s never written about ‘the courtier class’.

 
 

In the mind of Hankypoo Kissinger, the world apparently ended in 1973. He’s not ready to get on board with this blog fad yet, I guess.

He could still be persuaded, I think. Translate it to his era. Just tell him it’s a cross between Telex and CB radio.

 
 

Even more inexperieced than Bush, who could not identify world leaders before he was eleected? and look at how that oen turned out?

 
 

IRAN-IAEA DEVELOPMENT:

“If the facts are at odds with the policy objectives of some people who are keen to impose further sanctions on Iran, that’s too bad,” the [IAEA] official added.

Pressure grows on IAEA over Iran report

 
 

Hey, those IAEA folks are sounding a bit emboldened aren’t they?

About fucking time, wouldn’t you say?

 
 

(comments are closed)