The Colbert Report: Divestment from Iran
By Nicole Belle Thursday Oct 11, 2007 3:46pm 
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
After noting the bloodlust expressed by all the Republican presidential contenders-- except Ron "No Balls" Paul (Colbert's name, not mine) -- to subvert Constitutional limits for war powers, Stephen Colbert sits down with Frank Gaffney, President of the Center for Security Policy, on the wisdom of divestment instead of aggression.
Okay, okay, maybe they want to kill us, and maybe they got genocide, maybe the Iranian government says they want to wipe Israel off the map, but if my 401K is soaring, isn't that a good trade off?
Login or Register to post comments.
Long live Stephen!
Frank was one of the main neo-con experts who talked up the glorius war with Iraq.
Center for Security Profits is more like it.
Or Center for Securities Policy.
Frank seemed kinda restrained for a neo-nut. What's gotten into him?
*sorry, O/T..but isn't this interesting?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/11/youth.violence/index.html
The article points out that the murder rate for several major cities hasn't been this high since the 1980's...coincidence that republicans were in power?
It's getting ugly out there :(
Josh @ 5:
In our socially alienated market society, we don't need each other so much as we need money to insulate ourselves from each other
Remember when Mitt Romney called for disinvestment from Iran?
What's Stephen ColberT doing agreeing with this NEOCON?
This is a panic! Colbert exposes the idiot for what he is - a later day 9 - 11thnest - the fellow that is always bringing horror to your doorstep.
Kim @ 8:
Were a civilized people right?
Divestment? Lulz! Big oil, who's got their greasy arms wrapped tightly around the middle east, will make damn sure that america will always invest in their fackin' petroleum products. This guy's needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a better theory. Divestment, lulz.
Lynnianaa @ 11:
Snip . . . . . . . . .
"What it has produced is this. 3 billion pounds of money-blinded human meat -- 400 million pounds of which is lard -- straining under the common corpo-military-financial yoke in order to pay for and consume 30 times what it takes to meet its basic needs."
Center for Security Policy is one of the tentacles of the AIPAC octupus.
But they don't:
want to kill us
have genocide
want to wipe Israel off the map...
Kim @ 8:
Its called "schtick". Look into it.
OK apology offered up front if this seems too much off the topic but the lead in is just too good to pass on.. I have a slightly different rhetorical question and spin on all this good tradeoff business.
So what if; we are no longer the biggest bully on the block, so what if we can't just influence the rest of the world with a mere glance or cross word.... So what if our military can't maintain the kinds of overlording world presence it had become accustomed to in the past... IF we can get back some of our national integrity and restore some semblance of balance and honor to our political system, if we could restore the rest of the worlds faith that we have not in fact morphed into the latest iteration of authoritarian fascism??? Wouldn't impeachment of this prick-n-chief be a good tradeoff?? Even if it fails but satisfies those other conditions I just outlined??? Wouldn't that be a good tradeoff? I mean we have to live in the real world here.... OK,Jus wonderin......P.S. I like Colbert, this is in no way any kind of slam of him.. I'm merely riffing on a couple of statements that can actually be used to convey more than one kind of message........ And congress really needs to seriously look at and consider the pros and cons of this particular message I think...........JD
It's about . . . .
FT.com - Fri Oct 12, 1:55 PM ET
Crude oil prices hit an all-time high of $84 a barrel Friday amid concerns that Turkey might invade northern Iraq.
Kim @ 8:
It's called SATIRE. Basically, Colbert makes fun of the extreme right by agreeing with the neocons and sounding rather irrational in so doing. I mean, what American would agree publicly and on the record that killing people as long as it makes you rich is a good thing? But that's exactly what the Iraq War is doing, and Colbert exposes it for what it is by seeming to agree with it.
I made this point yesterday. We have had 6 years to divest from Iran. Bush never took any action because it had more financial consequences than opportunities. It is more economical to launch another war and kill people, in his mind.
If he was serious, Bush could have begun economic sanctions 6 years ago. No one would have stopped him. Proof, our only goal with Iran is war.
Ron Paul 08!
In college during the Reagan Era, we had divestiture rallies to target our liberal arts school's endowment fund, which was invested in Kruggerrands. Back then Mandela was in solitary; I guess we were ahead of our time.
Anais @ 18:
Yup. Colbert is a genius. Sometimes I think he does his job a little too well.
Hell hath no fury like a Think Tank employed neocon concern troll
This "divestment campaign" is not a "non-violent" approach for pressuring Iran. It is a proganda effort to 1) build hostility towards Iran and 2) provide an organizing mechanism for forcing academic institutions, investment trustees, union officials, etc., to declare where they stand on Iran.
Gaffney has always been a key player with the Neo-Cons, and this small role he is playing here is of a piece with the overall strategy, not an alternative to it.
Gaffney is a Kristol wannabee!
I was angry about this interview so I complained on the ColbertNation.com message board and a few others agreed with me. I wrote the following:
http://www.colboard.com/viewtopic.php?p=712617#712617
Here's a shameless bit of disinformation: Frank says pension funds have $188 invested in companies that do business in terrorist states, from which he concludes that if all pension funds divested it would take $188 billion away from these states... as if these companies ONLY do business in terrorist states... as if somebody else won't buy up the stock the funds unload. In other words, he's grossly overstating the potential impact of divestiture.
That being said, I've never before heard Frank Gaffney (no relation, thank God) suggest ANYTHING that wasn't on the surface of it completely repugnant. He actually admitted that a war would kill innocent people. I don't know -- if this is a clever way of pushing us toward war with Iran, perhaps it's too clever.
I marched for divestiture from South Africa when I was a college freshman, but even at the time I was dubious. American companies in South Africa, like IBM, were in some ways vehicles for liberalization -- to the extent possible, they often hired and promoted blacks. Moreover, when large institutions own stock in corporations they're in a position to exercise pressure -- to pursue more enlightened business practices or (if this promises to be the better option) to cease operations entirely in a place like South Africa. Where the latter course is appropriate, I think legislation banning American companies from doing business in the nation in question is probably the only effective approach. If moral people sell their stock, it will be purchased by immoral people; if moral companies pull out of a country, immoral companies will take their place.
I do wonder what Frank is really up to here.
I think it's kind of silly to chastise Stephen Colbert for having Frank Gaffney on his show or for failing to be tough enough in his interview. The guy is a comedian (Colbert, I mean); he's going for laughs. The fact that his comedy often conveys an astute political point is great, but for him ever to put a political point ahead of the comedy would be fatal (not that this was one of Colbert's funnier interviews).
Compare his performance on Colbert to his appearance on Hardball debating Blackwater with Robert Greenwald. He's a total prick, IMO - his response to points made by his opposition is that "you're talking gobblygook."
This is the same guy who threw a tantrum when PBS decided his documentary on islam didn't meet their standards - so Fox ran it as the "program PBS didn't want you to see..." (paraphrased)
Here's the link to his Hardballl debate:
First of all, if you measure the IQ needed to understand Colber's humor, and then relate it to the the average IQ of the US as a whole, does it measure up to the actual rates of his program?
And if so, has he not reached his viewer potential?
sigh, I forgot my point. But it is an interesting thought experimet :)
bingo @ 13:
Excellent point - Gaffney is a pro-Israeli Zionist, and basis much of his policy ideals around what's best for Israel.
This is typical US hypocrisy.
Who has started the most wars, killed the most people and funded the most terrorists?
Please, spare us.
Login or Register to post comments.