Jeff Goldstein is out of context.

Jeff Goldstein is now accusing me of taking him "out of context" to "score cheap rhetorical points." (Updated below)

(Nor did I intentionally take something out of context and try to use it as a bludgeon to score some cheap rhetorical points, or so that I could post an “artist’s rendering” of my critics—which, were I to do so, would consist of a simple empty shirt with the legend, “BU$H SUX!1! OPEN THREAD!” But that’s a different post).

I don't think Jeff Goldstein knows what "out of context" means.

Let's recap.

Goldstein wrote this on his blog and in my comments:

Of course, the elephant in the room here is that Iran has been at war with us since 1979.

And Goldstein wrote this in an e-mail to me:

And Iran declared war on us when the took hostages from our embassy in 1979. So they are indeed at war with us, for whatever that's worth to you.

So apparently, because he failed to italicize "us" in his e-mail (as though that seriously changes his meaning, which is clear)-- that's me taking him out of context. And on top of that, I'm doing so intentionally to "score cheap rhetorical points" by simply asking Goldstein to defend his nutty theory with a question: if in fact Iran has been at war with us since 1979, why did the Reagan administration arm them?

What a piece of work.

UPDATE

Sigh. This is getting ridiculous.

Jeff Goldstein writes,

Again, the fact that Iran considered itself at war with us does not mean we treated them as if we were on a war footing. Frankly, Reagan believed with [sic] had other, more pressing concerns, and in the realpolitik of the day, the US was willing to use Iran in any way it could to advance its own interests.

I'm pretty sure that selling weapons to a nation you know is at war with you isn't called "Realpolitik." It's called "treason." One might also call it "stupid." The simpler, more reasonable explanation: Iran wasn't at war with us.

By the way, didn't Cheney's Halliburton do business with Iran? Wouldn't that also be treason? Where are the calls for him to be impeached and Halliburton to be investigated for doing business with a nation that's at war with us?

Similarly, Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda declared war on us a number of years before 911. We, however, didn't believe ourselves to be officially at war with them -- at least, not in the active sense -- until after 911.

Er, except "Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda" aren't a nation and Clinton didn't sell them weapons. And if he did, I imagine you'd have something to say about it other than mislabeling it, "Realpolitik."

I'm sorry my comment didn't take and that I had to dash off an email to you instead. But my post is clear: "Of course, the elephant in the room here is that Iran has been at war with us since 1979."

I get it already, as did everyone the first three times. And it's still insane italicized. And Jeff, please. I cited recent comments by the Sec. of Defense and the US Senate about Iran (surprise -- no mention of war!) and you give me Putz? C'mon, Jeff.

If Iran is indeed at war with us, and has been since 1979, show me the money. Let's see a quote by Bush 43, Condi or Rummy or Powell or Bush 41 or Gates or hell, even Cheney -- that unequivocally states, "Iran is currently at war with the United States and has been since 1979." In those words.

Put up or shut up.

UPDATED AGAIN

Here is the US Dept. of State's web page on Iran. I don't see any mention of Iran being at war with us since 1979. Kind of a glaring omission, no?