Yeah. What a man of opportunity! I blogged about this a few days ago and wondered where he was when the Dixie Chicks were speaking their mind. Maybe they are a little better at analyzing world events than our great rich one?
The comments he made about Saddam's eventual replacement are the best part of the interview. It is indeed true: whoever emerges from the ashes of the civil war is going to be an Islamic theocrat that will make Saddam look like Mr. Rogers by comparison. After the Shah's head rolled in Iran, we got the Ayatollah Khomeini.
It's ironic, because the right-wing rationalization for our support of the Shah has always been that he was doing exactly what Saddam did until we knocked him down: he kept a lid on Islamic radicalism. The right has always blamed Carter for Khomeini because of his withdrawl of support for the Shah, and now the right-wingers can blame their Wilsonian messiah complex for the rise of the next theonazi whackjob in the middle-east.
Yeah. What a man of opportunity! I blogged about this a few days ago and wondered where he was when the Dixie Chicks were speaking their mind. Maybe they are a little better at analyzing world events than our great rich one?
The comments he made about Saddam's eventual replacement are the best part of the interview. It is indeed true: whoever emerges from the ashes of the civil war is going to be an Islamic theocrat that will make Saddam look like Mr. Rogers by comparison. After the Shah's head rolled in Iran, we got the Ayatollah Khomeini.
It's ironic, because the right-wing rationalization for our support of the Shah has always been that he was doing exactly what Saddam did until we knocked him down: he kept a lid on Islamic radicalism. The right has always blamed Carter for Khomeini because of his withdrawl of support for the Shah, and now the right-wingers can blame their Wilsonian messiah complex for the rise of the next theonazi whackjob in the middle-east.