Search This Blog

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Smells like somebody is wagging a dog

*
If there’s one thing that the poodle media agree on today, it’s that the alleged Iranian/druglord plot to kill a Saudi ambassador in Washington is "brazen." Brazen and bizarre, in fact! Why, did you know that one of the alleged malefactors even showed a gross disregard for innocent human life by dismissing the significance of “collateral damage” resulting from blowing up the ambassador’s favorite DC eatery? Brazen! Even Hillary Clinton thinks so:
"This plot, very fortunately disrupted by the excellent work of our law enforcement and intelligence professionals, was a flagrant violation of international and U.S. law, and a dangerous escalation of the Iranian government's long-standing use of political violence and sponsorship of terrorism.... This kind of reckless act undermines international norms and the international system," she said.

"Iran must be held accountable for its actions....We will work closely with our international partners to increase Iran's isolation and the pressure on its government, and we call upon other nations to join us in condemning this threat to international peace and security." 
As Frazier Thomas used to say, "Hold the phone!" The fact that this episode rises only to the level of an allegation is important aside from any due process considerations for the accused. Here's our Secretary of State making a thinly veiled threat that reasonable people might understand to be the overture to another "coalition of the willing" cattle call. That's what I call brazen and bizarre, actually, over-reactionwise. Does this administration have a "Persian Fall" in mind? Is it an attempt to sow more discord within the fractious Iranian government? A Justice Department dog-and-pony show to distract Republicans and the media from the Fast And Furious cockup?
Holder said the two alleged plotters had not yet acquired explosives but had arranged for nearly $100,000 to be wired to a New York bank account in the name of the hired hit man as a down payment. The proposed hit man was actually an informant working for U.S. law enforcement.
What in the world are "Iranian-backed emissaries," by the way? The US has no diplomatic relations with Iran. Did he mean to say "guys hired by someone in Iran"?

So all day I was reading about and hearing about this brazen and bizarre "terror" plot, with media personalities from BoingBoing to the "mothership" oldies network declaring with pre-rehearsed incredulity that it sounded like something straight out of a "spy thriller." Yes, it does, doesn't it? I wonder where all our media mouthpieces got their talking points this morning.

Just to be clear: good for the FBI and DEA if they stopped a terrorism plot in the early stages. And yes, we should be concerned if Iranian officials were in fact financing a plot of the nature reported. But is it really any more brazen and bizarre than, say, an airline passenger with a smoldering bomb in his underpants? Or that day when a bunch of Saudi nationals hijacked and crashed some passenger jets in America? Or a State Department employee gunning down two men in the streets of Lahore, Pakistan? Just asking (don't want to drone on and on about it).

2 comments:

  1. So a double standard...surprised? Really? The "game" is to try to discern the larger machinations while keeping rampant conspiracy dampers in place. Possibilities, including combinations:
    1. distration: from a 2nd economic down turn
    2. outsourced military for S. Arabia with eye toward blunting Iranian Cleric/R.Guard threat ("cut off the head of the snake").
    3. commander-in-chief cameo as Plan B for re-election (entire drone squadrons?)
    4. secure greater chunk of richest energy sources left (big oil and other corporate involvement)

    The plot is likely true, but when handed leomenad, make Holy Water for use against evil demons.

    Leo I (found on road, near death)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't think there's any surprise that a liberal would engage in double standards, which is why I included the comment. But I think that if we were keeping score, both The Establishment and the right wing engage in it much more frequently and successfully. Note the differences in press coverage for OWS versus the Tea Party, for example.

    But yes, it's hard to refute that this story got the huge pump job for some reason other than it's real importance to US national security. Probably not to distract from the double dip, because there is little that will distract from that other than full employment. Possibly a trigger for the backhanded economic stimulus of a new grand little war?

    I think your other speculations are valid, but I'd ask "why now?" I'd also ask whether picking a fight with Iran makes a lot of sense when (as I understand it) China has good relations with Iran, oil-concessionwise. Not that it makes a lot of sense to pick a fight with Iran under any circumstances, unless your goal is to dissipate their "Green Revolution (TM)" and reunite the body politic under the ayatollahs.

    ReplyDelete