I hate all Iranians, US aide tells MPs
I've been arguing a lot recently that the neo-cons are looking for an excuse to attack Iran, but even I didn't see this nutbag coming....
British MPs visiting the Pentagon to discuss America's stance on Iran and Iraq were shocked to be told by one of President Bush's senior women officials: "I hate all Iranians."
And she also accused Britain of "dismantling" the Anglo-US-led coalition in Iraq by pulling troops out of Basra too soon.
The all-party group of MPs say Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates, made the comments this month.
The six MPs were taken aback by the hardline approach of the Pentagon and in particular Ms Cagan, one of Mr Bush's foreign policy advisers.
She made it clear that although the US had no plans to attack Iran, it did not rule out doing so if the Iranians ignored warnings not to develop a nuclear bomb.
It was her tone when they met her on September 11 that shocked them most.
The MPs say that at one point she said: "In any case, I hate all Iranians."
Although it was an aside, it was not out of keeping with her general demeanour.
"She seemed more keen on saying she didn't like Iranians than that the US had no plans to attack Iran," said one MP. "She did say there were no plans for an attack but the tone did not fit the words."
Another MP said: "I formed the impression that some in America are looking for an excuse to attack Iran. It was very alarming."
The American right wing never seem to understand how seriously freaky they are to the rest of the world. These people talk like nutcases, they literally live in a different quantum time space to the rest of us.
Here we have Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates, saying that she hates an entire population.
Am I the only person who finds that seriously fucking weird?
Click title for full article.
7 comments:
It appears that the Daily Mail is the only source of this information, based on a Google News search of "Debra Cagan Iran" (all quotes read exactly the same and a few media outlets attribute the story onlt to the Daily Mail). She denies making the comment. From the Washington Post:
In a statement relayed by the Pentagon press office yesterday, Cagan denied making the comment. "I never said that. And I don't speak that way in any event," she said.
I understand that she is denying it. However, of the six MP's three have confirmed that they did hear her say this:
But when The Mail on Sunday spoke to four of the six MPs, three confirmed privately that she made the remark and one declined to comment. The other two could not be contacted.
My point being that there is only a single source for the story and the sources used in that story are unattributed. With her denying it, it's only "he said, she said", so therefore there's really nothing to go on. If those three MPs were to come out publicly and back the stories claims, that at least would have some substance.
I agree the claims would have more substance were the MP's to go on the record. But I find it hard to work out why three of them would lie about this... On or off the record. What's in it for them?
But I find it hard to work out why three of them would lie about this... On or off the record. What's in it for them?
We have one source claiming unsubstantiated comments by un-named MPs, so one option is that the source is not accurate. And let's assume for a minute that three anonymous MPs did make this claim, since they are unwilling to make the claim publicly and won't stand by their comments, we don't know what might be in it for them.
That is the problem with un-named sources used by the media. For one, we have to accept that the media is being honest (I have a hard time with that one). The other thing is that sources (particularly government officials) who won't publicly stand by their comments often have some kind of axe to grind or other motive (why are they speaking to the press to begin with?).
The other thing is that sources (particularly government officials) who won't publicly stand by their comments often have some kind of axe to grind or other motive (why are they speaking to the press to begin with?).
They are speaking to the press because the press phoned them and asked if they heard Debra Cagan say she hated "all Iranians".
Interestingly, none of them denied it. Three said yes, one refused to comment and two were unavailable.
It's the no comment that I find interesting. Why not a simple denial if she didn't say it?
And quite what axe you think British politicians might have to grind against a woman most Brits had never heard of before this story broke baffles me.
But then this is always the way you work, Jason. You demand absolute proof before you will accept anything that reflects badly on Republicans and are willing to have Iran bombed with no proof whatsoever that the Iranian government are behind the arming of the insurgents.
And you claim to be an independent? Get outta here!
And quite what axe you think British politicians might have to grind against a woman most Brits had never heard of before this story broke baffles me.
I'm speaking about unnamed sources in general. Anonymous sources don't open themselves up to being challenged, so really they're nothing more than snipers.
But then this is always the way you work,
This is the part of every response where you, seemingly lacking the facilities to make any kind of non-hysterical argument based on facts, instead tries to demonize the person holding an opinion counter to yours.
You demand absolute proof before you will accept anything that reflects badly on Republicans
No, but I am willing to challenge arguments that have little evidence of basis in fact, particularly when one attempts to present things as facts that are not remotely. Is a little intellectual honesty too much to ask for?
and are willing to have Iran bombed with no proof whatsoever that the Iranian government are behind the arming of the insurgents
Another statement of yours that is wrong on multiple levels. For one, nowhere have I stated that I am willing to have Iran bombed. Secondly, I have outlined the basis for what I believe is proof that the Iranians are arming insurgents. You don't choose to accept this line of proof, which is fine, but I have also offered that I don't believe there is any proof which would satisfy you due to political bias, which you have not refuted.
And you claim to be an independent?
Again, I don't think you understand our political system. That I am an independent is a fact, as I have tried to explain in the past. I have voted as recently as the last election for both Democrats and Republicans. I am neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican, so therefore by definition I am considered an independent. You seem to constantly confuse the concepts of conservatism and liberalism, and mix them up with Republican and Democrat.
Most people are conservative on some subjects and liberal on others. Of course, even a liberal in the US may seem conservative by someone from another country, just as their conservatives may seem very liberal to us. I am certainly conservative when it comes to national defense however, just as I am relatively liberal when it comes to many social issues. My point though is that if you are trying to label someone, you should probably understand what those labels mean before incorrectly using them.
Post a Comment