Hey Look, a New Pledge »« Gingrich: Drug Test Everyone

Bachmann’s Tough Stance on Iran

Michele Bachmann has announced her stance on how we should deal with Iran. When she’s president, she told an Iowa crowd, “we wouldn’t have an embassy in Iran.” And she’s right, since we haven’t had one there in more than 30 years. That’s non-change we can believe in.

Update: Her campaign has come up with a rather amusing way to explain away this obvious gaffe.

As the comment took off on Twitter over the last few hours, Bachmann’s team put out a statement noting her seat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence – and suggesting she was making a ‘hypothetical’ based on the developments involving the British embassy in Iran.

She “is fully aware that we do not have an embassy in Iran and have not had one since 1980. She was agreeing with the actions taken by the British to secure their embassy personnel and was speaking in the hypothetical, that if she was President of the United States and if we had an embassy in Iran, she would have taken the same actions as the British,” the statement said.

Right. Hypothetically, if we did have an embassy there and it was attacked, she would make sure we didn’t. Even though we don’t. Or something.

Comments

  1. MikeMa says

    Her staff is now claiming she is well aware of our embassy status but she was speaking in support of Britain. No gaffe here. Move along.

    If this was the first time she’d said something stupid like this, it might be something easily overlooked but it is only when she doesn’t chew on her shoes that I take notice anymore.

  2. timberwoof says

    Intelligence Services … is that like Family Services? Maybe Intelligence Services can help Bachmann out; surely they have some to spare.

    Yes, of course. Anything done by Clinton or Obama is Bad. One must never negotiate with the designated enemy; that’s a sign of weakness. And since we would only ever beat up on a weak country, by projection* we can conclude that as long as we appear strong, they will not try to beat up on us.

    * Is Proof by Projection in the official list of informal fallacies of logic?

  3. Childermass says

    “And remember folks, she’s on the Intelligence Services Committee!”

    Must resist obvious, but old sitcom joke.

  4. acroyear says

    At least for once she’s taking a true conservative stance (leave things as they are) and not a reactionary one.

  5. eric says

    Someone should ask Bachmann (and Cain!) what her position is on U.S. foreign relations with Ruritania. Just to see the response.

  6. Doc Bill says

    Same old sociopathic behavior from Bachmann. She can’t be wrong. Ever. She’s always right in context, even when she’s wrong.

    What I find strange is how many people tolerate this behavior and make excuses for her (and Palin, and Cain, and Perry, and … )

  7. naturalcynic says

    Someone should ask Bachmann (and Cain!) what her position is on U.S. foreign relations with Ruritania. Just to see the response. Aren’t they at war with Freedonia? or was it the Duchy of Grand Fenwick?

  8. Jeremy Shaffer says

    As the comment took off on Twitter over the last few hours, Bachmann’s team put out a statement noting her seat on the House Select Committee on Intelligence-

    Has not disabused Rep. Bachmann of the belief that “Iran” is not the name of a popular ’80s song by A Flock of Seagulls*.

    *Not intended to be a factual statement but it might be one anyway.

  9. subbie says

    And if I were (subjunctive mood, not was) president, the U.S. public transportation system wouldn’t rely on camels.

  10. vmanis1 says

    The Ruritania question is obviously a trap. Better to ask her about what she would do to stop the well-documented efforts to obtain nuclear weapons by the People’s Republic of Naugatuck.

  11. eric says

    The Ruritania question is obviously a trap.

    Believe me, in any other election year I would expect every candidate for President to get the joke and respond appropriately.

  12. woolonwire says

    Although there’s space in there for a dihydrogen oxide* jape yet, isn’t there.

    *IANAC

  13. mikko says

    One organization that did have an office in Tehran at least in 2005 is the Halliburton corporation. The office was opened in 2000 by one Richard Bruce Cheney.

    http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/02/07/8250445/

    Apparently the oil field development deal they won was allowed under the embargo, at least according to Halliburton. Exporting bits and pieces for nuclear fuel and reactor technology was probably more questionable.

    http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/2-halliburton-charged-with-selling-nuclear-technologies-to-iran/

Leave a Reply