I blame Thom Hartmann for this one. Now he's got me wondering.

Last week Thom suggested that some of the money pouring into Republican coffers is coming from Iran. Since we're not allowed to know where much of that money is coming from, is it any surprise such speculation surfaces?

I know, your response is probably, "What? Is he crazy? With all the tough talk coming from the Right?"

True. That's one of the very minor reasons I have my doubts. But ignoring all the tough talk, one must ask...

...exactly how "tough" have Republicans been on Iran?

If anything, though their rhetoric may have been feisty, since Carter: Republicans have given us Reagan and his merry band of crooks willing to risk national security by arming the Iranians. Bush I and II yammered, but did squat; except insist we give Iran a big wet kiss by taking out their adversary in the region: Saddam. Bush I can be connected to the first, as well as Rummy arming Saddam then turning on him for fun and profit. Taking him out in the most bloody, humiliating and profitable way possible: doing what they can to make sure Iran becomes the biggest, baddest, bitches on the block.

Basically talking tough while giving hugs and kisses.

If anything, when we ignore the rhetoric which seems to pop up mostly when Dems are in power... as if it's all for "show:" politically driven... Republican leaders and their corporate surrogates have been very helpful to overly kind. Who knows what's actually going on behind the curtain. The Wicked Witch and the Wiz could be having self serving hot mutual-partisan-sex for mountains-worth of money and political advantage.

One must wonder if Iran and America under Republican control could be akin to couple who fights in public, but cuddles in private... laughing at the gullibility of those who believe their act. Every time there's a Republican administration Iran does far better, and when a Democrat ascends, the noise increases.

So the Thom Hartmann Conspiracy could be defined as, "Could the Iranians be funding their party of choice: Republican?"

I doubt it.

To be honest Iran has all the stability, and sanity, of North Korea. To be that devious? Yes. No doubt about that. And when it comes to Republicans, Karl Rove alone proves that when betraying his country by exposing a CIA operation intent on de-fang-ing terrorism, ruining a career and getting people oft by Saddam, is all "fair game" if the intent is publicly humiliating a spouse who contradicts your bosses in public. Traitors to their country placing the blame on Plame: the victim.

How Republican is that?

But for the leaders of Iran to keep it together, snickering in some smoky back room with agents of the Republican Party over so many years, plotting so concisely? Not impossible, but I feel more than somewhat unlikely. Not that I doubt the deviousness of Republicans. No way in hell. I just doubt the leaders of Iran.

Now I admit I'm no stranger to giving conspiracy theories a tad more consideration than I should. For example: 9/11 and Katrina. I seriously doubt the first one was actually planned by anyone other than bin Laden and his group. I somewhat doubt Bushco ignoring warnings before Katrina was part of some grandiose "plan." But I do believe Bush and Company and their pet corporations knew that great profit: political and financial, was to be made on the backs of victims if well predicted events like 9/11 or Katrina happened. Hence, why do anything? Why not go, "You've done your job," then dismiss those who bang on your door trying to warn you? And after it happens bin Laden intent on hitting the United States becomes a "historical" document derived from "old reporting."

Forget this "no one could have known," crap. They knew something might happen. They just felt doing nothing, then handing clean up to Blackwater, Halliburton and rich supporters who could buy Mississippi Gulf Coast properties on the cheap was a better goal. And sending the National Guard away might create more chaos, more problems.

It's an old scam: help create a problem then offer solutions that might make it all worse. Then offer more bad solutions you can offer worse solutions to. All supported by an evil version of Sargent Schultz, "I know nothing. I see nothing. Screams from then ovens, the dead, the dying, drowning people to get false intel? I hear nothing. Now let's all get rich off it all."

In short this is the only conspiracy theory, if one can call it that, I do buy into for sure: "leave the door open. See what happens. Then take advantage of it politically. Give plenty of business to corporate buddies to make it all worse, then repeat."

Sounds very, very Republican to me these days.

But the concept that Iran has been plotting with Republicans for over a period of approximately 40 plus or minus years? Eh, even occasional conspiracy musing Ken is a bit skeptical. But... let's go with it for a moment, shall we?

Which brings me to my final point here: if they are truly in league with the Iranians as Thom suggests, what could our October surprise be?

Iranians testing their first nuclear weapon in October.

What do you think Barack Obama's chances of winning reelection would be after that?

Nil. Even if he immediately demands we declare war on Iran. Even that might be considered too late, as framed by Romney and the FOX propaganda network. You know, whatever the reaction, it will be used by Romney as an example of the shiftiness and inadequacy of, to quote Mitt, "the bla..." in the White House.

Of course: as always, the real point here is already lost: Iran having a nuke being real scary is laughable. Just one of our allies could turn Iran into a sea of glass. Iran actually using it? Iran's leaders may be poke the Godzilla-size big mad bear crazy, but they're not that suicidal-ly stupid.

There can be little doubt that Iran testing a nuke would probably end the Obama presidency. Why, who knows, considering Iran Contra, deals made by Republicans during the hostage crisis in the late 70s with Iran, Watergate, I wouldn't be surprised if the Iranians have had some "help" in the nuke department... if the Thom thesis is true.

If there really is a Republican Party-Iran connection here, well "un-happy days aren't here again!" ...we have something big to look forward October surprise time. Oh, boy! I just can't wait til we unwrap that early Christmas present. Maybe it will be a huge "magic" mushroom delivered like some big nasty pizza by the Republican Dominos-like corporate pals? If it comes late November 1st, is it free? Do we get our country back, to quote Teabagger rhetoric?

OK, I admit it. I don't trust the Iranians. There's plenty of history to back me up on that. Yet, as much as I mistrust the Iranians...

...I trust the Republican Party's henchmen and women far less.


-30-

Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years.Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

©Copyright 2011
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

Comments

telliottmbamsc's picture
telliottmbamsc 2 years 24 weeks ago
#1

Hit and miss kenny.

Hell yea the Republicans could be getting money from Iran. Why not?

For instance,...

Ahmadinejad is not terribly popular in Iran. Push come to shove, Ahmadinejad don't care about anybody but Ahmadinejad.

So he and the Republicans agree to take America to War with Iran provided there is something in it for Ahmadinejad.

For Republicans it is all about appeasing

special interest groups. Ahmadinejad provokes a war with the US that wipes out his country, Ahmadinejad then makes it obvious to the People that the big mean US has made it necessary to privatize the countries oil reserves into the hands of BP, Shell, etc., (probably with the aid of the IMF and World Bank). BP, Shell, etc. get the reserves for a song and a dance (don't they always here or abroad?!) and give Ahmadinejad a check$$$ for helping out.. Not to mention that Ahmadinejad could also get a big thank you$$$ for the action he'd be throwing the Military-Industrial Congressional complex.

Crap like this happens more often then you'd think. You can't be that niave.

ken carman's picture
ken carman 2 years 24 weeks ago
#2

First off, "Ken."

Second I was referring to how many years of mutual plotting, planning and "donations?" Not just this election.

Did you miss that?

Add comment

Login or register to post comments

Currently Chatting

Community Archive