“The answer is too simple to be missed: The neoconservatives are trying to reach out to the left in creating a consensus for an offensive war against Iran, to be prosecuted by the current, collapsing administration.”

Agreed.  And the Hamiltonians may also know that the “left” likely will take the White House come 20 Jan 2009, and then the Supreme Court.  They already have taken the Congress. Thereafter they’ll take our guns, for starters. 

Both parties have no principles, will sell to the highest bidder, and form an Bund with Beelzebub if they must to reach their evil ends.  The “far left” and the “far right” do have principles—repugnant ones.  If the economy goes from bad to worse, expect to find Clara Zetkin (Wiki her) yelling on a soap box at McDonald’s and Rudolf Heß at Dunkin’ Donuts.  Clara and Rudy H. already made it to websites, some
chic, some gentlemanly, where they strut their their drivel. Soon will come their street-fighters, then street=fighting, then ...

My fellow Ron Paul compatriots tell me he is the last chance.  I believe them.

Another excellent piece by Prof. Gottfried.  Maybe the neocons will convince Andrew Sullivan to become pro-war once again.

The answer is not that simple; it also has to do with fear of the gay lobby, very well-organized, well-financed (no expenses for children), and very powerful. NO ONE in the media, from any network, will challenge the lies and equivocations that are the new orthodoxy.
For example: the lesson of the Craig soap opera? Beware of Senators; gays are “just like us.”

Well, now the stance that is to be adopted is a wide
one…

Dr. Gottfried makes an excellent point about the ease with which Neocons move to invoke leftist rationales as the basis for their wars.  Neocons are not only willing but also eager to ally with the Left in order to pursue Neocon goals in the Middle East.  Alliance with and invocation of leftist premises is deemed by Neocons to provide them with a legitimacy that would be absent if Neocons even gave lip service to conservative principles.  The current example regarding Iran and gay rights is exceptionally conspicuous, but it follows a pattern of Neocon behavior.  Here are a few more examples: 

Neocons champion Big Government “Conservatism.” The Club for Growth types and the war-libertarians don’t seem to notice or mind much.
Neocons have defended Open Borders, with only minor and insincere backing and filling in response to massive public opposition.  The repudiation by the “base” on this issue hasn’t changed the fact of Neocon control over “conservative” institutions including magazines, foundations and even talk radio.
Neocons back candidates who either attack the conservative base (McCain) or take positions in opposition to the base (Rudy). 
Neocons are willing to sacrifice the American economy to pursue their Middle East adventures, and have already sacrificed the American dollar in doing so.

Ahmadinejad said that Iran does not ‘have homosexuals like you do in your country.’ Might this merely mean that in Iran homosexuals are not so vocal? Or not a public political issue? It sounds like a qualitative statement rather than a quantitative one.

Excellent essay.  You’ve said it all, Professor Gottfried.

Didn’t Mussolini abolish laws against homosexuality because he felt that they reflected badly on Italy by implying that there were gay Italians, when in fact, every red-blooded Italian knew that the very idea of a gay Italian was an oxymoron?

For some reason, that sprung to mind when I read Ahmadinejad’s statement.  :-)

As for the power of the gay lobby, yes, it has power out of proportion to the numbers of homosexuals in this country.  But it also has zero interest in waging war against Iran to liberate its brothers overseas.  Gottfried has it right; this is a strategy designed to appeal to liberals, not a stance taken in deference to gays.

Spot on, Dr. Gottfried—you are spot on!  The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.  Paleo-cons should not fall into the trap of locking arms—figuratively or literally—with liberals simply because they, too, oppose Bush’s illegal war.  Lest we forget, pro-abortionists and radical homosexual activists are the broken clock: right on two things—the irrationality of the war, and Bush’s fecklessness as a president.
Cheers!

Did Ahmadinejad mean literally that there are no homosexuals in Iran, or should we take his words the way we took Ronald Reagan’s when The Great Communicator said that no American believes in segregation?  Perhaps Ronnie never heard of David Duke.  Let me weigh in with the following:  No American need fear Iran.  I hope Mr. Bollinger doesn’t throw rocks at my windows.

“Still it is funny to watch Sean Hannity contorting his face in ire, as he complains that the gay lobby will not join him in protesting the bad treatment of homosexuals in Ahmadinejad’s Iran.”

Perhaps it is Sean and Rush’s dream to take a male bonding vacation in Iraq, as soon as it is perfectly safe.  How dreamy!  The Neck and The Cysto Kid, skipping hand and hand through the ruins of Fallujah like a pair of stoned-out odalisques, pretending that they were there with the rest of the guys when the bombing began.

Iran has the highest number of male to female transsexuals in the world, after Thailand. Indeed, the Iranian government privides grants! see http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,2177068,00.html

The same people suddenly worried about the plight of homosexuals in Iran are unperturbed over the persecution and subsequent exodus of Christian from liberated Iraq.  Moralists on Fox News have yet to run even a segment on this ongoing tragedy, caused, of course, by bringing “democracy” to Iraq.  It’s pretty transparent really.

Forget them turd burglars.