- The American Conservative - http://www.theamericanconservative.com -

A Despicable Hawkish Response to the Tehran Attacks

I came across this despicable statement from Rep. Dana Rohrabacher earlier this evening [1]:

“We have recently seen an attack on Iran, and the Iranian government – the mullahs, I believe that Sunni forces have attacked them,” noted Rohrabacher before suggesting that the attack could be a “ratcheting up” of U.S. commitments against Iran. He then asked the panel, “Isn’t it a good thing for us to have the United States finally backing up Sunnis who will attack Hezbollah and the Shiite threat to us, isn’t that a good thing? And if so, maybe…this is a Trump strategy of actually supporting one group against another.”

This is just one House member’s awful opinion, but it is another example of the same sort of warped thinking that produced the White House’s insulting response to the Tehran attacks. According to the Congressman’s appalling view, the murder of innocent Iranian civilians is considered a “good thing” because they happen to live under an authoritarian and Islamist regime. He describes the attacks as an attack on “the mullahs,” as if that would make them acceptable. That ignores that an enemy of the U.S. claimed responsibility for the attack and it pays no attention to the fact that the victims of the attacks were civilians going about their business. Based on what the Congressman said here, it seems that he thinks the U.S. should be in the business of sponsoring more attacks like this one. That is sick, and it is outrageous to suggest that the U.S. should sponsor terrorist attacks anywhere regardless of the type of government a particular country has. It is also a dangerously irresponsible thing for a member of Congress to say, since speculation of this kind from someone in his position could possibly be spun as “proof” that the U.S. somehow sanctioned or approves of the attacks on Tehran.

To his credit, the witness that Rohrabacher was questioning condemned the attacks in no uncertain terms and rejected the idea that there was anything desirable about supporting ISIS attacks on anyone. It is lamentable that such obvious truths have to be stated in order to answer such toxic rhetoric from Iran hawks.

21 Comments (Open | Close)

21 Comments To "A Despicable Hawkish Response to the Tehran Attacks"

#1 Comment By Anonne On June 9, 2017 @ 10:18 pm

This is what happens when your maturity is in the single digits. The childish, simplistic “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” logic is unfortunately woven into the fabric of the GOP base.

#2 Comment By KC On June 9, 2017 @ 10:49 pm

So, the good congressman thinks the US should become a state sponsor of terrorism? I guess this is what permanent war does to people..

#3 Comment By The Honorable Member from Sunni California On June 9, 2017 @ 11:07 pm

Can’t say I’m very surprised to learn that Rohrabacher supports Sunni terror, although I wasn’t expecting him to say so openly. He was pretty quiet about it after after 9/11, as I recall.

Congressional speech may be protected, but I assume that DHS will now enroll him on the no-fly and watch lists. Also, his campaign contributors may want to talk to their lawyers before giving him any more money.

#4 Comment By Fran Macadam On June 9, 2017 @ 11:18 pm

But … isn’t what ol’ Dana is suggesting, been actual policy whether under Democrat or Republican admins – that the definition of terror depends wholly upon who are the victims and who are the perpetrators? One place’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter – that when they are displaced from one’s own satrapy to a territory one doesn’t control, the same violence they foment there in furtherance of destabilizing that government is cynically considered beneficial?

#5 Comment By JEinCA On June 10, 2017 @ 12:38 am

I wonder how much this Congressman gets from AIPAC annually?

#6 Comment By SF Bay On June 10, 2017 @ 12:46 am

Dana Rohrabacher is a sick sick person. Listen to pretty much anything he says. The man is crazy and will hopefully be sent packing in 2018. He is a good representation of Trumpism though.

#7 Comment By John Mann On June 10, 2017 @ 8:28 am

Yes, it is despicable. But coming from a politician in a country whose government has a long record of supporting Islamic terrorism, probably not that surprising.

#8 Comment By G Harvey On June 10, 2017 @ 8:50 am

SF Bay,

You are ignorant of either Trump or Dana boy or the various parts of the Republican Party, or all three.. Dana boy is a great representation of the CA form of Neoconservatism and its demands for perpetual war in order to provide perpetual peace.

The Neocons hate Trump. The Neocons did everything they could to try to derail Trump. And they are doing it still.

#9 Comment By Colonel Blimp On June 10, 2017 @ 9:44 am

Late-stage American Empire, nothing more and nothing less.

#10 Comment By a spencer On June 10, 2017 @ 10:30 am

“the Shiite threat to us”

What, tea and abgoosht? Too many sweets?

#11 Comment By Kevin On June 10, 2017 @ 10:59 am

“You are ignorant of either Trump or Dana boy or the various parts of the Republican Party, or all three.. Dana boy is a great representation of the CA form of Neoconservatism and its demands for perpetual war in order to provide perpetual peace”

Um, no. Dana boy is most famous for his Russophilia, and thus is both not a neocon and one of the few Republican congressmen fully on board with Trump.

#12 Comment By one man’s meat On June 10, 2017 @ 11:43 am

I look forward to reading Rohrabacher’s statement supporting removing ISIS and Al Qaeda from the Foreign Terrorist Organizations List. Like the one he wrote for the MEK a few years ago:

[2]

And when should we expect to start seeing “strange new respect” pieces about ISIS and Al Qaeda from neoconservative and interventionist think tanks ?

After all, they only attack the US and Iran, not Israel.

#13 Comment By rayray On June 10, 2017 @ 12:22 pm

Rohrbacher has been an cringing embarrassment for years. But his unflinching support for military contractors has kept him in office. Hard to see that changing, particularly in the current climate…

#14 Comment By skeptic On June 10, 2017 @ 12:37 pm

To write on US foreign policy is a thankless job, I don’t envy anyone who has to comment on its daily twists and turns.

If one wishes to maintain some at least veneer of interest in virtue, about whom can one write, what is there to say?

There are the many — the likes of Hillary Clinton, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), or Sen. McCain (on a good day) — who pronounce noble, high-sounding phrases, but who nonetheless support hideous policies (such as in Libya or Syria) that destroy nations and cast millions of people into misery. One can praise them for saying the nice things though.

Or there are those, such as Donald Trump or (now) Dana Rohrbacher, who quite overtly say absolutely ugly things: they also, like the first group, support bone-headed policies that destroy nations and cause endless misery.

Which of these two should the thoughtful writer praise? For which group should the citizen cheer?

What is there really to say other than: start over?

#15 Comment By TACster On June 10, 2017 @ 1:30 pm

@skeptic : “Which of these two should the thoughtful writer praise? For which group should the citizen cheer?”

Neither. One of TAC’s virtues is that bozos, incompetents, and the corrupt tend to get a proper thrashing here regardless of party or faction.

“What is there really to say other than: start over?”

How about “get out and stay out”?

#16 Comment By extraordinary measures On June 10, 2017 @ 2:48 pm

So Congressman Rohrabacher believes that terror attacks that kill innocent people are legitimate when directed against a hostile regime …

Someone better inform the UN, ICJ, and the US State Department. Several thousand pages of American and international laws need to be rewritten.

#17 Comment By skeptic On June 10, 2017 @ 10:53 pm

Not to change the subject, but this is the same Dana Rohrbacher who said that “Macedonia is not a country” and should be split up and handed off to its neighbors.

An American congressman who thinks it is his place in the world to decide and spout off about which nations should continue to exist is an American congressman whose judgments can no longer be relied upon full stop. I would have thought that this is a question for the Macedonians themselves to decide.

[3]

#18 Comment By Ellimist000 On June 11, 2017 @ 12:16 am

A member of the US government supporting terror? I’m shocked, SHOCKED!

“@skeptic : “Which of these two should the thoughtful writer praise? For which group should the citizen cheer?”

Neither.”

Amen.

#19 Comment By Eric On June 11, 2017 @ 11:08 am

We backed the Sunnis against the Shiites when we supported Saddam. How did that turn out?

#20 Comment By Spectator On June 12, 2017 @ 11:12 am

“Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”

There was less exaggeration in those words than we care to admit.

#21 Comment By sherparick On June 12, 2017 @ 1:23 pm

Dana Rohrbacher is insane, but then so is much of the Conservative Movement and has been since 1964. One particular part of Rohrbacher’s delusion is a belief that Putin and Russia can be enticed away from their defacto alliance with Iran, where they are fighting jointly on behalf of Assad against Sunni rebel factions. Apparently, Rohrbacher, who was a Reagan speechwriter, carries a grudge against Iran for spilling the beans on the “arms for hostages” deal the second term Reagan administration had for supplying weapons to both Iran and the Nicaraguan contras while getting hostages released in Lebanon. Or otherwise he is just insane.