-
John Kerry, Secretary of Gaffes
April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio at CPAC
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Dumbest Weight-Loss Plan Ever
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Israel’s Hard-Right Turn That Wasn’t
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Deep Space Nine, Twenty Years Later
January 3, 2013 | 23 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Reid Smith writes that Hillary Mann Leverett was “advocated détente and diplomacy during the relatively moderate Khatami years in Iran, when it appeared Tehran was ready to cool its jets.” This is the opposite of the truth, as he’d know if he had bothered to click through the links I provided as background; during the Khatami years, Hillary Mann (not yet Leverett) was a critic of Tehran. She changed her mind, rather counterintuitively, around the time that Ahmadinejad became the face of the regime.
I could go through and critique the other foreign policy mandarins that he cites (Stephen Walt is a particularly rich target), but I won’t bother. Instead, let’s take a glance at the actual evidence. As Eli Lake reported last week:
U.S. officials tell The Daily Beast that they knew the Quds Force was behind the plot when the money was transferred in part because the Treasury had monitored the overseas account and identified it long before as an account used by the Iranian organization for supporting operations overseas. “We believe the information is ironclad,” one U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast. This official added that other technical intelligence confirmed that this was a Quds Force plot, and that Arbabsiar was not working on his own.
Now, of course it’s possible that the US government has made a massive error, confidently advancing a theory that, if proven false, will do serious damage to the credibility the United States. But if the argument for the proposition that US government has been grossly incompetent rests on skepticism that the Iranian government could possibly be capable of incompetence, suffice it to say that there’s a peculiar double standard at work here.
View all comments (7) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John Tabin
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/10/17/another-disservice
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Occam's Tool| 10.17.11 @ 6:03PM
Red Phillips is already out in force for Reid.
Me, as I have stated before---during the Obama era, I plan on visiting neither Chicago nor Honolulu. It is obvious to the stupidest reader that a major strike against one of these two cities would have obvious symbolic resonance that might exceed NYC during Obama's time.
In addition, New Zealand has crappy air security and close ties to the Emirates. Every day a non-stop leaves from Auckland to San Francisco, Honolulu, and Los Angeles. Now, I know this from personal experience flying within New Zealand in 2007, but here's an Aussie view from 2011:
"Why the Kiwis have got air travel right August 17, 2011
Comments 108
.Ads by Google
Never Fly Coach Againwww.cooktravel.net
Save on First Class International Airfare. Up to 60%! Cook Travel
Relaxed ... New Zealand's airports are less stressful. Photo: Edwina Pickles
There's something amazing that happens in New Zealand. It's not Richie McCaw getting away with all those blatant fouls – it's the airports.
I was at Auckland airport a few weeks ago, flying down to Nelson, and the strangest thing happened. I checked in at the little electronic stand, put my own bag-tag on, then dumped my pack on the conveyer belt.
After that, it was time to go to the gate. So I wandered down, through a few shops, and joined the queue to board. Our flight had been called and I was walking across the tarmac before I realised: I haven't been through security.
Advertisement: Story continues below My hand-luggage was unscanned. My person was un-metal-detected. I could have had a box of exotic snakes in my carry-on and Dick Cheney's home arsenal strapped to my chest, and no one would have been any the wiser.
On domestic flights in New Zealand – if you're flying in the smaller prop-driven planes – you don't have to go through a security check before boarding.
I've never seen that anywhere in the world.
I had the contents of my bag tipped onto a counter and sifted through in Oaxaca, Mexico, because the airport didn't have an X-ray scanner. That was to board a six-seater plane for a half-hour domestic flight. Not sure what sort of damage I was going to do there.
In Lalibela, Ethiopia, I had my sunglasses carefully inspected for ... actually, I have no idea what they were inspected for. But it was a careful inspection.
"Are these metal?" the security guy said, waving them in front of me.
"Yes."
He nodded, then put them back in my bag. Ohhhhhh-kay.
The point is that at every other airport in the world, big or small, busy or quiet, clean or manky, they search your bags before you get on the plane. Any plane. It's an established travel routine: check in, go through security, board.
Of course, this clearly opens New Zealand up to all manner of security issues, and that shows by the high number of problems they've been ha... Wait, hang on. They don't have any problems. Everyone goes about their business, and air travel is a whole lot easier.
It makes you wonder: do we really need all of these airport security measures that have become the norm?
I realise the world has changed significantly since 9/11, giving the US all the justification necessary to make you take off your shoes at the security line, or get a pat-down from the TSA, or even take a full scan of your naked-looking body.
Australia doesn't go that far, but we're still pretty strict, and there have been calls recently to tighten security even further, in a crackdown on latte-sipping boat people, or something.
Already we have a raft of what seem to the casual eye like fairly pointless measures, but which at least allow us to put on a proud front of security.
I'm a serial candidate for the old random explosives test, but I'd love to see statistics on how many potential terrorists have been caught by that method. Only the extremely dumb ones, you'd think – the ones lax enough to leave traces of explosives on their clothes.
Probably the same ones who tick "yes" on the US visa waiver when it asks, "Are you a terrorist?"
The obvious argument for all of these measures is that if they only catch one person in the act of terrorism, then it's a job well done. But is that one person really out there? Is little old Australia really a terrorist target?
Our next-door neighbours in NZ clearly don't think they are. And they're doing fine.
Do you think security measures in Australia are over the top? Or do you think New Zealand's security is dangerously lax? Which country has the tightest security you've seen?
Find Ben Groundwater on his website, follow him on Twitter, or just email bengroundwater@gmail.com
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/travel/b.....z1b4xGtqpx"
Pleasant dreams, everybody.
Quartermaster| 10.17.11 @ 6:03PM
It's possible that the IRGC screwed the pooch. I don't think any intelligent person would claim otherwise. Still, this looks too much like a put up job. If FedGov were more inclined to demonstrate some competence its ownself, their "case" might be a bit more believable.
It's also possible that FedGov got something right. I'm just a bit cynical about that pack of rats, however.
C Bowen | 10.17.11 @ 6:31PM
Neocon catfight!
Eli Lake as a source? LOL too funny. Didn't he think Saddam was a threat?
Mal_Content| 10.17.11 @ 6:50PM
I love this part.
Tabin: "...let's take a glance at the actual evidence. "
"We believe the information is ironclad," one U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast
So anonymous US Intelligence official's opinion = actual evidence.
It's funny, I had a whole other idea about what evidence was. I'll have to check back after I break out the Merriam-Webster.
Maurine | 10.17.11 @ 10:25PM
http://www.cheapuggbootoutlet.co.uk/
Red Phillips | 10.18.11 @ 8:35AM
Tabin, I think you must misunderstand the nature of the skepticism. The skepticism is not that US law enforcement is incompetent, although you would think they could have come up with a more plausible story. The skepticism is that the whole thing is a work, to use wrestling terminology, intended to gin up war fever against Iran.
yisong| 10.24.11 @ 11:47PM
slewing ring can also bear the larger axial load, radial load and overturning, can replace several sets of ordinary bearing combination to use function. http://www.1stbearing.com