Sigh. The list is so long already.
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Thursday, December 6, 2007 23:19
VIEWED: 4805
PAGE 1 of 1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/03/AR2007
120302210.html
President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, which was briefed on the U.S. intelligence report two hours before its release, saw the judgments as validation of its own long-standing conclusion that there is "no evidence" of an undeclared nuclear program in Iran. "It also validates the assessments of [IAEA Director General] Mohamed ElBaradei, who continuously said in his public statements that he saw no clear and public danger, and that therefore there was plenty of time for negotiations," said a senior IAEA official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
... the administration understood how explosive the new conclusions would be and kept them tightly held. Hadley said Bush was first told in August or September about intelligence indicating Iran had halted its weapons program, but was advised it would take time to evaluate. Vice President Cheney, Hadley and other top officials were briefed the week before last. Intelligence officials formalized their conclusions on Tuesday and briefed Bush the next day.
***************************************************************
WOLF !! WOLF !!! WOLF !!!
Really ! heh heh heh ... wolf
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sounds like another great success for Bush/US foreign policy. Bush informed the world after 911 that dictators that support terrorists will not be allowed to have WMDs. Iraq wouldn't prove to the world that they did'nt have WMDs and Bush backed up his words. Since then Libya gave up their nuclear weapons program and now we find out Iran did also. Iran didn't end their program because of pressure by the world community, they did it because Bush proved the US means what it says. Bush also removed the only real threat to Iran which was Saddam's Iraq. Next thing you know North Korea will be shutting down it's nuclear power plants.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AND....did ya hear the other good news today?...Hitler just signed a treaty agreement with Prime Minister Chamberlin that states and pledges that Germany will not seek any additional land or engage in aggression against its' neighbors. The document was witnessed by foreign dignitaries and invited guests, and will certainly be regarded in future history as a pivotal moment in the affairs of modern man; thus ensuring and securing trust and peace. Hooray, hoorah! Peace In Our Time!
"Nazi Germany will not kill any Jews" - L.A. Times
"Nazi Germany will not kill any gypsies"- NY Times
"Nazi Germany will not kill any homosexuals"- Daily Mirror
"Nazi Germany will not kill any Catholic priests and nuns" - Washington Post
"Nazi Germany will not kill any college professors" - Harvard Law Review
"Nazi Germany will not kill any Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, French, British, Czechslovakians, Romanians, Greeks, Egyptians, Bulgarians, Russians, Aleuts, Canadians, Dutch, Norwegians, Swedes, Tunisians, Italians, Hungarians, Croats, Belgians, Turks,...or anybody else as far as we can determine" - The Whole Dumbass World
Fool the world once, shame on your Mr. Mass Murder Threatener Turned Exceptionally Proficient Real Mass Murderer....Fool the world twice, and you'll find Liberals and Candides sucking on that horseshit teat.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If you ask me it sounds like their plans for a "premptive" first strike suffered a set back.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kirkules
I'm giving you the opportunity now to change your post.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Kirkules
I'm giving you the opportunity now to change your post.
***************************************************************
Thought that might start some interesting responses. Go ahead, tell me what an idiot I am, maybe I'll learn something.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
U.S. Says Hussein Must Cede Power to Head Off War
By FELICITY BARRINGER with DAVID E. SANGER
UNITED NATIONS, Feb. 28 — The White House said today that the only way to prevent war in Iraq would be to disarm the country and depose Saddam Hussein.
Look up the article. The final excuse to attack had nothing to do with WMD.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just curious about one thing.
It was said Bin Ladin (sp?) was responcible and the US reacted by going to (was it Iran or Iraq? Been so long I can't remember) to get Ladin.
Then they said they were after Hussien (man I'm bad at spelling today) since he was behind it all, and they got him.
But...... if it was really Hussien then why didn't they go after him first and not finger Ladin?
Again, I ask out of confusion and curiosity, because there have been so many they said/we said I can't keep it straight.
Silent Hill's not that great. Nothing to do with this discussion I just happened to watch it today. Don't.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
DON'T FREAK OUT
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Bin Ladin(sp?) was in Afghanistan. The US invaded it, and chased him into the mountains, probably near or just inside the Pakistan boarders
Originally posted by Misstressahara:
I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just curious about one thing.
It was said Bin Ladin (sp?) was responcible and the US reacted by going to (was it Iran or Iraq? Been so long I can't remember) to get Ladin.
Quote:Officially, the US has never said there was a connection between Hussien and 9/11. The fact that Bush & friends seemed to use language that caused many people to think there was was merely a 'bad coincidence' which they did NOT intend. If you don't believe me, just ask them. Iraq (Hussien) was invaded because Iraq refused to provide proof sufficient for Bush to convince him Iraq no longer had WMD. Or he went in for the oil, you decide. In any case, it is roundly agreed (by folks who are not completely confused) that there was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq.
Then they said they were after Hussien (man I'm bad at spelling today) since he was behind it all, and they got him.
Quote:Fear of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
But...... if it was really Hussien then why didn't they go after him first and not finger Ladin?
Quote:Most folks can't. In fact, I expect several folks to chime in to tell you I'm wrong. That's ok.
Again, I ask out of confusion and curiosity, because there have been so many they said/we said I can't keep it straight.
PS. You didn't see me post this, I'm still taking a break from RWED.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Sounds like another great success for Bush/US foreign policy. Bush informed the world after 911 that dictators that support terrorists will not be allowed to have WMDs. Iraq wouldn't prove to the world that they did'nt have WMDs and Bush backed up his words. Since then Libya gave up their nuclear weapons program and now we find out Iran did also. Iran didn't end their program because of pressure by the world community, they did it because Bush proved the US means what it says. Bush also removed the only real threat to Iran which was Saddam's Iraq. Next thing you know North Korea will be shutting down it's nuclear power plants.
Very refreshing post to see here. I don't know where you've been, but a few here see things similarly.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"But...... if it was really Hussein then why didn't they go after him first and not finger Laden?"
"Fear of Weapons of Mass Destruction."
It wasn't Hussein. Also, Bush went after Hussein precisely b/c there were no WMD. Think about it. If Hussein had all those weapons they claimed he had, it would have meant massive US casualties. But troops were sent over anyway. And at that point UN inspectors were in Iraq and needed a few weeks to finish their inspection which would have showed no WMD. So the attack not coincidentally cut short the UN inspections that were about to show no WMD.
***************************************************************
"Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice...eh, can't get fooled again".
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Liars on both sides, and those that echo their hollow meaningless words of deciet. If you're on either side, you're not on my side.
Come.... Join me on the fence....
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There's nothing 'explosive' here, what so ever. It shows Bush was right, as usual. They stopped their Nuke program back in '03, after we went into Iraq. They stopped it as did Mohmar Khadaffy did in Lybia.
Only we've never really been told what the Israelis took out in Syria last summer, did we ?
Hmmm....
"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The only problem is that what they wanted was Iraq to show them their 'WMD's', and show them being destroyed. If they never had any, how the hell are they supposed to do that?
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Bush informed the world after 911 that dictators that support terrorists will not be allowed to have WMDs. Iraq wouldn't prove to the world that they did'nt have WMDs and Bush backed up his words.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Got a cite for these headlines?
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
"Nazi Germany will not kill any Jews" - L.A. Times
"Nazi Germany will not kill any gypsies"- NY Times
"Nazi Germany will not kill any homosexuals"- Daily Mirror
"Nazi Germany will not kill any Catholic priests and nuns" - Washington Post
"Nazi Germany will not kill any college professors" - Harvard Law Review
"Nazi Germany will not kill any Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, French, British, Czechslovakians, Romanians, Greeks, Egyptians, Bulgarians, Russians, Aleuts, Canadians, Dutch, Norwegians, Swedes, Tunisians, Italians, Hungarians, Croats, Belgians, Turks,...or anybody else as far as we can determine" - The Whole Dumbass World
Quote:Please tell me that you didn't compare Saddam to Hitler with a straight face.
Fool the world once, shame on your Mr. Mass Murder Threatener Turned Exceptionally Proficient Real Mass Murderer....Fool the world twice, and you'll find Liberals and Candides sucking on that horseshit teat.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well my head just blew up.
I think I should just stay out of these threads..... less I'm drunk. Tah.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
DON'T FREAK OUT
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:A Hitchhikers Guide to the RWED:
Originally posted by Misstressahara:
Well my head just blew up.
Don't Panic.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"It shows Bush was right, as usual."
Is that the Bush that didn't know about this until a few days ago, the one that didn't know until August, or the one that knew four years ago ?
Perhaps it's the one that is taking credit for reducing the danger, or maybe it's the other one who says Iran is just as dangerous as ever.
***************************************************************
Maybe it's the one who says the earth is a plane sphere.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So what the f*ck was Bush blathering on for months about Iran's so-called nuclear weapons program and WWIII??? Or was he just lying... again?
There's nothing 'explosive' here, what so ever. It shows Bush was right, as usual. They stopped their Nuke program back in '03, after we went into Iraq.
Bet THIS puts a kink in his plans to bomb Iran and station "defensive" missiles in Eastern Europe.
Bush. Nonetheless, the Conservative Israeli government is promising that "we" (USA and Israel... and their great friend Lieberman) will push ahead to stop Iran. So Lieberman too... he'as really the Knesset's representative in the Senate. ---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Please tell me that you didn't compare Saddam to Hitler with a straight face.
How 'bout....Please don't mis-interpret my post as being related to Saddam, when it clearly relates, as does the whole thread, to Iran. Is that too obtuse for you to comprehend with a straight face?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
sorry...dbl post
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So
Joe Lieberman....a rare bird indeed, a Moderate Democrat
Joe Lieberman...a former Democrat Icon for decades
Joe Lieberman...a former Democrat Vice President candidate
Joe Lieberman,..a respected American legislator and statesman, who just happened to break ranks with the MoveOn rabid radicals now calling themselves Democrats in Congress.
Joe Lieberman...who humiliated these current MoveOn Democrats by defeating them as an Independent when they tried to oust him from his Senate seat
Now this blatantly absurd revisionist charge of being an agent for Israel. How loverly!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I'm pretty sure your post actually mentioned Saddam, but giving the benefit of the doubt, making comparisons between Iran and Nazi Germany is even more absurd.
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Please tell me that you didn't compare Saddam to Hitler with a straight face.
How 'bout....Please don't mis-interpret my post as being related to Saddam, when it clearly relates, as does the whole thread, to Iran. Is that too obtuse for you to comprehend with a straight face?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
2003: Dubious, unverifiable intelligence is enough to incite war with Iraq.
2007: Accurate, unilateral intelligence is not enough to prevent war with Iran.
--WhoDied
_______________________
You figure Serenity's still
waitin' for us?
If they are, everyone's fired.
And if they're not?
Everyone's fired.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:On May 2, 2002, the Senate of the U.S. passed a notorious pro-Israel Resolution (S. Res. 247), with respect to the Mid-East controversy. Its co author was Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT). In pushing the measure, he barked, “You are either with us or the terrorists” (Washington Times, May 3, 2002). Who is this “us” he is talking about? www.mediamonitors.net/williamhughes1.html
Now this blatantly absurd revisionist charge of being an agent for Israel. How loverly!
The "us" he was talking about (in that conext) is Israel. He seem to be confused about what nation he represents.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I'm pretty sure your post actually mentioned Saddam, but giving the benefit of the doubt, making comparisons between Iran and Nazi Germany is even more absurd.
Really? Let's see....
First : Well you're "pretty sure"...OK...I suppose it was too much of an effort to scroll up a hair to actually see and read my post before you chose to argue with it; t'aint a word about Heussein or Iraq in it.
Next : Let's add it up shall we :
Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the map, speech after speech
Iran threatens the entire West, speech after speech
Iran arms terrorists all over the world...Hezbollah, Al Qaida, Hamas,etc etc all offshoots developed and funded by Iran...but You cannot possibly draw a parallel in any way, shape, or form....just cannot fathom any similarity between these Iranian threats and the types of threats Hitler made before actually carrying out his mad plans.....you cannot? Ok I believe you...debate over, thanks.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:On May 2, 2002, the Senate of the U.S. passed a notorious pro-Israel Resolution (S. Res. 247), with respect to the Mid-East controversy. Its co author was Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT). In pushing the measure, he barked, “You are either with us or the terrorists” (Washington Times, May 3, 2002). Who is this “us” he is talking about? www.mediamonitors.net/williamhughes1.html
Now this blatantly absurd revisionist charge of being an agent for Israel. How loverly!
The "us" he was talking about (in that conext) is Israel. He seem to be confused about what nation he represents.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
Oh dradle, dradle, dradle
I made it out of clay
And when it's dry and ready
I'll lend it to ya Signy and you can spin it every day
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, there isn't NOW, that's why I said I'd give you the benefit of the doubt.
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
Really? Let's see....
First : Well you're "pretty sure"...OK...I suppose it was too much of an effort to scroll up a hair to actually see and read my post before you chose to argue with it; t'aint a word about Heussein or Iraq in it.
Quote:Well, America has conquered a number of countries and is threatening others, but I don't think America is in anyway equivalent to Nazi Germany.
Next : Let's add it up shall we :
Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the map, speech after speech
Quote:Isn't it wonderful when we don't feel like we have to prove a single thing we say. America has funded countless Terrorist organisations, but again doesn't make America Nazi Germany.
Iran arms terrorists all over the world...Hezbollah, Al Qaida, Hamas,etc etc all offshoots developed and funded by Iran...
Quote:No, I can't, because I have some perspective and I'm not so far up the modern day bullshit propaganda that I'm willing to insult everyone who fought and died in the most destructive conflict in human history for a short term rhetorical gain. Debate over indeed, unfortunately due to your childish emotive behaviour, it never even started.
but You cannot possibly draw a parallel in any way, shape, or form....just cannot fathom any similarity between these Iranian threats and the types of threats Hitler made before actually carrying out his mad plans.....you cannot? Ok I believe you...debate over, thanks.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, was Bush lying all along about Iran's "nuclear weapons program"?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, was Bush lying all along about Iran's "nuclear weapons program"?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
Of course not. The President is clearly incapable of lying. There being no nuclear program proves that Bush was right about there being a nuclear program all along.
It's just that those evil liberals went back in time, and asked Iran to stop their program 4 years ago, so as to unfairly discredit the Administration now.
Duh.
"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know you Brits are barraged every day by your anti-American BBC propaganda machine & therefore are fairly clueless about the real world. I know your country has caved in to Muslims by getting on your knees to them and agreeing to stop teaching anything about The Holocaust to kids in school...and I understand why. Sadly, I can't do anything to help you except an occasional post here and there. You want to compare America to Iran and that's fine. It's actually terrific! Maybe, just maybe, some not-so-propagandized 'coat here will see through your web of smugness and moral un-equivalencies and make a rational judgement on their own. You and your ilk are too far gone.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So Jongsstraw- I know you'd rather talk about dradles and Lieberman and Brits and all, but you seem to be avoiding the question: Was Bush lying?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Veteran:
If you ask me it sounds like their plans for a "premptive" first strike suffered a set back.
Actually, if its true, then it proves that Iran has caved to international...US-led pressure, just like Libya did.
I'd suggest its as much the French decision to support a confrontationalist policy. Suddenly the NATO Alliance stands together and folk back down. That's what Saddam would have done in 2003 if France had stood firm back then.
Suddenly Iran was faced with the prospect of a war they could not win. If they continued the attack would come (either by the US or Isreal). The US would not be content with half measures...this attack would have included an invasion and now it was apparent the invasion would involve French troops as well as British and American.
Likely this is not a stopping of the program. Rather its designed to buy to and lay low, like the North Korean pledge Clinton got in 1994 that was broken almost right away. Iran needs time to develop a missile that can reach Isreal and Europe. They also are likely to follow Saddam's lead of buying off political opposition (especially liberal types) in the various countries to divide world opinion when the time to destroy Isreal comes.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So Hero: Was Bush lying for months and months when he kept on about Iran's nuclear weapons program?
It's a very simple question, but Jongsstraw, Auraptor, and Hero have not yet addressed it.
I wonder why....
Quote:In that case, they have gotten rid of all WMD. Good for them.
They also are likely to follow Saddam's lead
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, Bush-supporters, I'll let you off the hook. You don't have to answer the question whether Bush lied. (Yes he did.) But just remember this for the future under Lessons Learned: Politicians lie. Even Republican Presidents. Next time, don't believe everything they say.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Jongsstraw- I know you'd rather talk about dradles and Lieberman and Brits and all, but you seem to be avoiding the question: Was Bush lying?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
No
This new intel report just came out, & as predicted Liberals are so quick to say that everything's just fine now...crisis over...whew!. Wolf in sheep's clothing my friend...and yes...I really do like dradles, Lieberman, and Brits.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"This new intel report just came out"
But Bush knew about in August, and even years ago when it was preliminary.
So, are you saying he's an incompetent boob who doesn't know what he's told, or a liar ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I already answered Signy's question.
I can't answer your question as it appears to be a fool's trap.
I know you think I'm a fool, so why bother even asking me anything?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, not a fool's trap. It's the logical conclusion to your own ideas.
Either Bush DID know, and lied anyway.
Or he DIDN'T know, even though it was important and there are records of meetings and memos informing him - in which case he's a fool.
Can you come up with a third option ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are always options....as Badger said once, Let me see your teeth..No, sorry wrong example...ah, politics and crime, situations are always fluid. I can play the no sum gain game too. Gotta log off from work now...Ta Ta...cheery-bye!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Either Bush DID know, and lied anyway.
Or he DIDN'T know, even though it was important and there are records of meetings and memos informing him - in which case he's a fool.
Can you come up with a third option ?
Why does everything have to be so black and white for you when the rest of us live in a world of greys?
Perhaps Bush knew and continued with the rhetoric to increase U.N. pressure against Iran.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So Hero: Was Bush lying for months and months when he kept on about Iran's nuclear weapons program?
Perhaps. But its more likely that the program is not or was not entirely shut down or that there were conflicting reports.
Its also likely that this issue was used to exert pressure on Iran to curtail the flow of Iranian weapons into Iraq and money to Palestinian terrorists.
There are nuances to International Relations that go beyond the what a person says. In other words he was saying one thing, and meaning another in which case it was not a lie at all since it was never meant as a statement of fact but rather an assertion of our position (that the US would would confront Iran on issues related to the War on Terror and the Iraq and Afgani conflicts). I note for the record that France, privy to the same intellegence, took the same approach and that together the US and France got Iran to blink on the nuclear issue.
Now Almond-dinner-jihad said that his country had enough centrifuges to begin industrial scale production of weapons grade material. I think they called a national holiday to celebrate and he danced with Nancy Pelosi. You combine that with his pledge to remove Isreal from the map and I think you can see where this is heading. Either we shoot first and end the threat or he shoots first and ends Isreal. Option 3, he backs down. Clearly Option three is preferred, but shooting first is the second best option (same applies to any fight you get in).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So
Yeah, and Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI) is a pawn of Hawaiian nationalists.
Actually, I note for the record that Senator Akaka did try to give ethnic Hawaiians the same status as Indian tribes so that they could be exempt from a large number Federal or State laws. It was considered a strong first step towards Hawaiian soveriegnty.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bush "said" one thing but "meant" another. Hmmm. Do you know what that sounds like? And then he followed it up with: Although he knew there was "new" intelligence on Iran in August he didn't see it until just a month ago.
So OOC, which version do you believe? That he deliberately misled everyone (allies included) or that he really didn't know?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Perhaps Bush knew and continued with the rhetoric.... In other words, he continued to mislead the people of United States and our allies. That is the definition of "A LIE". Maybe it was a lie with a purpose, but it was still a lie. OTOH Bush claims he really DIDN'T know. So my question to you is the same as to Hero: Which version do you believe? Was he lying then? Or is he lying now?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
lie
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"It shows Bush was right, as usual."
Is that the Bush that didn't know about this until a few days ago, the one that didn't know until August, or the one that knew four years ago ?
Perhaps it's the one that is taking credit for reducing the danger, or maybe it's the other one who says Iran is just as dangerous as ever.
I got news for ya. No one " knows " , for certain. Not Bush. Not Pelosi, Not Biden, not even the National Intelligence Estimate. In short, it's our best guess, based on the info we've obtained. This Liberal media, clapping its hands and trying to spin the story in a way which makes Bush look bad, was the same Liberal media which was crucifying the various sources which make up the N.I.E. w/ respect towards Iraq.
"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:He wasn't lying in the least. Do you NOT know of Iran's involvement in terrorist activity ? Have you not heard Imanutjob spout off about wiping Israel off the face of the planet ???
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:So what the f*ck was Bush blathering on for months about Iran's so-called nuclear weapons program and WWIII??? Or was he just lying... again?
There's nothing 'explosive' here, what so ever. It shows Bush was right, as usual. They stopped their Nuke program back in '03, after we went into Iraq.
Quote:I hope it doesn't, and I'm glad he's thinking of doing something to stop the Whacko Muslim nutcases in their tracks. Joe's a cool cat, imo. And absolutely right to be concerned about Iran. Best case scenario, we help bring Iran down from in the inside, helping freedom loving Iranians who are tired of all this religous opression. Then maybe REAL peace can exist in the middle east.
Bet THIS puts a kink in his plans to bomb Iran and station "defensive" missiles in Eastern Europe.
Maybe.
"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, was Bush lying all along about Iran's "nuclear weapons program"?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
You don't read words very well, do you ? The NIE report said that Iran HAD A NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM in 2003 , and then suspended it. They didn't destroy it, it's likely they can restart it on a moments notice.
- Associated Press
Wednesday, December 5, 2007 (Tehran)
A new US intelligence review concluding Iran stopped developing an atomic weapons program in 2003 http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070034984&ch
=12/5/2007%203:20:00%20PM
You can't stop doing something if you never were doing it in the first place. How then, did the N.I.E. arrive at the conclusion that Iran ( wait for it .... ) STOPPED developing their nuclear weapons program if there never was a nuclear weapons program to stop development of in the first place???
Honestly, putting tape on the bottom of a cat's paws and watching it try to walk is about the only thing funnier than watching a Liberal try to grasp basic, simple logic. ( Though some would claim the logic trick is more cruel )
"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I got news for ya. No one " knows ".
Well, it's obvious Bush knows very little. But are you saying Bush didn't KNOW what the NIE said ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"I got news for ya. No one " knows ".
Well, it's obvious Bush knows very little. But are you saying Bush didn't KNOW what the NIE said ?
How is it 'obvious' that Bush knows very little ??? Explain that, please.
The NIE just released its report today. That's their view. I don't know what other sources of intel Bush may have. Do you ? Either way, the NIE didn't say Iran was clear and free of all things nuclear, nor did it say Iran wasn't aiding terrorist still.
I'd rather have Bush take the skeptics view on Iran than blindly accepting all is peachy- keen.
"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Auraptor- What I meant was... So Bush was lying since August, when he got the NIE?
Quote:Are you saying Bush only has access to the NIE at the same time we do ... and then only to declassified material? That's ridiculous!
The NIE just released its report today.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I think there may be some median ground here.
Clearly, Iran had a nuclear program pre-2003.
Bush clearly had intel that showed they suspended that program.
Bush may have been keeping the ‘Nuclear Iran’ propaganda going because he wanted to be sure that they weren’t tempted to re-start their program.
I am willing to concede these things.
What I am not pleased with is being used, time and time again, in the government’s propaganda machine. Is there any way for the government to operate without trying to mislead me?
I mean, how’s about this: “Until 2003, Iran was developing nuclear capabilities. However, they could re-start the program at any time. We must be vigilant and ensure that Iran does not begin their program anew.”
That would be honest and straightforward. That’s not exactly what we got from the president. He implied repeatedly that Iran’s program was ongoing and that Iran was a continuing nuclear threat. Perhaps it’s my naivete. Just like you can’t believe someone is dead on a Television show until you see their destroyed body, maybe you can’t jump to conclusions when this president strongly implies something. That’s a shame. The president shouldn’t need to employ misdirection with the American people in order to keep his ratings high.
Of course, I’m one of the craaaazy people. The kind that doesn’t want Iran to have nuclear weapons, but doesn’t see that we have any right to stop them.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I know I will hate myself later for posting here, but I can't help myself 
I just wanted to point out that in the Acronym NIE, the E stands for. . .. . ESTIMATE.
Which is a very fancy, dressed up word that bascially means GUESS.
No one but the Iranians, and not all of them, know the true status of their WMD programs.
No one.
Bad_karma
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by badkarma00:
I know I will hate myself later for posting here, but I can't help myself
I just wanted to point out that in the Acronym NIE, the E stands for. . .. . ESTIMATE.
Which is a very fancy, dressed up word that bascially means GUESS.
No one but the Iranians, and not all of them, know the true status of their WMD programs.
No one.
Bad_karma
I was hoping someone would point that out.
Seems when an NIE says Saddam has WMD's it's BS, but if it says Iran doesn't it's gospel.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ALERT! : Message to all you sad, sad, oh so sad Bush haters : Bush Derangement Syndrome can be FATAL after 7 years!....y'all hear dat?????...SEVEN FUCKING YEARS & you're all still as frenzied & whacked as you were on the day the United States Supreme Court OVERTURNED the RADICAl and legally wrong DEMOCRAT dominated Florida Supreme Court ACTIVISTS' attempt to steal the election and give it to fatass jerk Gore.....and you pathetic folks are STILL nitpickin' poor Bushie to death...as if your whole meaningless life depended on it. EVERYTHING in world diplomacy and dealing with maniac murdering lunatics like Achminassholejhad and worldwide jihadi terrorism is not openly transparent for you little idiot retards to agree to. Ever hear of a simple game called poker? Probably not! Sometimes you can't show your hand, even to your fellow peeps on the Hill...You pepper-pickin' from flea shit doltish drones just can't accept the fact that you are not personally called in on every gorram horny thing Bush & America do....secret shit is secret shit, and that's kept the world from destroying itself for quite a while now. What the hell y'all gonna do when George W. leaves office?...HUH????? What the hell is gonna give you a reason to live anymore, once the object of your obsessed hate is gone?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
ALERT! : Message to all you sad, sad, oh so sad Bush haters : Bush Derangement Syndrome can be FATAL after 7 years!....y'all hear dat?????...SEVEN FUCKING YEARS & you're all still as frenzied & whacked as you were on the day the United States Supreme Court OVERTURNED the RADICAl and legally wrong DEMOCRAT dominated Florida Supreme Court ACTIVISTS' attempt to steal the election and give it to fatass jerk Gore.....and you pathetic folks are STILL nitpickin' poor Bushie to death...as if your whole meaningless life depended on it. EVERYTHING in world diplomacy and dealing with maniac murdering lunatics like Achminassholejhad and worldwide jihadi terrorism is not openly transparent for you little idiot retards to agree to. Ever hear of a simple game called poker? Probably not! Sometimes you can't show your hand, even to your fellow peeps on the Hill...You pepper-pickin' from flea shit doltish drones just can't accept the fact that you are not personally called in on every gorram horny thing Bush & America do....secret shit is secret shit, and that's kept the world from destroying itself for quite a while now. What the hell y'all gonna do when George W. leaves office?...HUH????? What the hell is gonna give you a reason to live anymore, once the object of your obsessed hate is gone?
Hello,
It seems likely the next president will provide plenty of fodder for criticism as well.
But what concerns me is...
What are you advocating? That we make no attempt to monitor the actions of our government? That we embrace the idea that our government knows best, and that when they lie or mislead us, it’s for our best interests?
That seems much more dangerous than criticizing actions that seem wrong.
As for the NIE (Estimate, Guess) report... If it can’t be relied upon (it was wrong about Iraq, as it was so poignantly pointed out) then we really shouldn’t rely on it at all. Iran might have twelve nukes and an ICBM in cold storage. Or they might never have had a nuclear program at all.
So if we know nothing and can prove nothing, howsabout we stop beating the drum and turn to other matters?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wrong assessment friend Anthony...merely a personal view of the Bush haters I see here every day...of what I've seen from the election sore-losing crowd since January 20, 2001...unrelenting hatred and gotchaism coupled with ideological truthlessness directed at the poor half 'tard from Yale.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Why, YOU sweetie! :bats eyes: Your obsessive hate is so .... frothy! And entertaining.
What the hell is gonna give you a reason to live anymore, once the object of your obsessed hate is gone?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
BTW Auraptor- LAST CALL for your reply on the tax cut/ revenue/ GDP issue that you can find here:
www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=31671
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Seems when an NIE says Saddam has WMD's it's BS, but if it says Iran doesn't it's gospel."
Just wanted to point out that a lot of the Iraq/ WMD intel was cherry-picked (by referencing British references that referenced US references that were known to be bogus) AND the dissenting opinions (the State Department and any WMD, the NRC and 'aluminum tubes') were removed from the NIE.
Of course, you didn't know that, did you Kirkules.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"nitpickin' poor Bushie to death"
Bad economy and Federal surplus turned into debt, US aggression against Iraq for no valid reason, global warming ignored and the US still locked to Saudi Arabian oil, the FDA and other Federal agencies turned into business puppets, loss of personal freedom and erosion of constitutional protections ...
I don't know Jong, have I missed any small nitpicky details ?
***************************************************************
Just, you know, for the record.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Way to miss the point there fella.
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
You want to compare America to Iran and that's fine. It's actually terrific!
Quote:Because it's me and my 'ilk' repeating Nazi-esque propaganda. Maybe people 'like me' could benefit from some 're-education' to make us 'better' and more 'correct', in other words more like you?
Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
You and your ilk are too far gone.
I never said Iran was comparable to America, I said it WASN'T comparable to Nazi Germany. If you want to elevate Iran to that status, you're going to have to do better than some vague handwaving at how they "fund terrorists" and have "threatened the US". Since the US has threatened them, it's a rather hollow attack, and all your rationale smacks of is the usual "its ok when we do it" whine, so often espoused by the "moral elite". Really, if you're condemning Iran for supporting terrorism, then pointing out America has done the same would seem to be vital for keeping things in perspective.
I have some perspective; Iran isn't even the most radical of Muslim states, which would go to one of our allies in the "war on terror" like Saudi Arabia. And yeah, moral un-equivalencies, whatever you mean by that, I think something is bad or good regardless of who is doing it. I think what makes people morally good or morally bad is what they do, not whether you've arbitrarily decided they're the 'bad guys' or the 'good guys'.
There is no meaningful comparison between Iran and Nazi Germany, unless of course you find meaning in baseless radicalised rhetoric that allows you to demonise people you don't like. The whole attempt at a comparison is little more than an insult to the millions of people who fought and died in the last war that can truly be said to be fought unambiguously for a good cause.
If you weren't the smug self-righteous propagandised partisan you accuse me of, you'd be able to actually come up with an argument that doesn't amount to Ad Hominem attacks on my person. That is you'd be able to come up with reasoning, rather than attempting to pass off my reasoning as BBC-Anti-America propaganda (another baseless piece of rhetoric I might add). The fact you can't is telling, maybe you should ask the people who told you what to think for their reasoning so you can parrot that here as well?
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"nitpickin' poor Bushie to death"
Bad economy and Federal surplus turned into debt, US aggression against Iraq for no valid reason, global warming ignored and the US still locked to Saudi Arabian oil, the FDA and other Federal agencies turned into business puppets, loss of personal freedom and erosion of constitutional protections ...
I don't know Jong, have I missed any small nitpicky details ?
***************************************************************
Just, you know, for the record.
And let the record show that most of your hyped-up complaints are baseless and paranoid delusions, spoon-fed to you by your ultra-leftist sources of anti-Americanism and Bush hatred.
The majority of respected economists would look at the economic record under Bush Admin & say....lowest un-employment numbers in decades, a 9/11 economy devastated by billions of lost dollars rebounded quite well in a very short time. Projected deficit being paid back at a faster than planned rate...literally flooding the Treasury with tax revenues due to increased spending stemming from middle class tax cuts. Seems to me that often it is the Fed Reserve which sends the economy off into a new direction, at the mere mention of news by the Chairman.
As for the OIL issue...tell me what else to put into my gas tank and I'll give it a try....might be also helpful if liberals didn't block every single attempt to drill for more oil or build nuclear plants.
Agrression against Iraq...hmmm....seems to me that in 1991 Iraq invaded Kuwait for no reason. They raped and murdered at will. The US-led coalition beat them back into Iraq...17 UN resolutions later Iraq was still playing games with the west and shooting at UN-sanctioned no-fly zone patrol flights designed to protect the Kurds. Playing games with the UN & Bush after 9/11 was not too smart for Iraq...did Bush & gang jump the gun with the invasion?...Absolutely!...and I have said that many times here.
Loss of Personal Freedom & Constitutional Protections....hmmm again...I have lost nothing. No one in my personal or business life has either. I do all the same things I've ever done...then again I'm not aiding & abetting terrorists, and I guess neither are you. The NY Times gets away with printing classified US Govt. programs designed to thwart terrorism on their front pages; all the rabid Bush-haters on TV, HBO, Hollywood, etc are still as free as ever to call Bush & Cheney monsters and war criminials every day and nothing has ever been done to stifle their expressions of free speech.
Past Presidents of both parties have and would have locked up and shut down subversives and seditionists, but Bush hasn't.
Rue...I have recently responded to one of your other posts and gone into great detail about how I feel Bush & the Republicans have let America down, and made many, many bad mistakes. And I've stated to you that it is both embarrassing and painful for me to live with that reality every day. You Dems offer me something better, something other than Nancy & Hillary, and I promise to take a good close look.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Why, YOU sweetie! :bats eyes: Your obsessive hate is so .... frothy! And entertaining.
What the hell is gonna give you a reason to live anymore, once the object of your obsessed hate is gone?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
Why thanks Siggy. I never knew you cared. I prefer chocolate to flowers, but any expression of your warm feelings is always appreciated.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So my question to you is the same as to Hero: Which version do you believe? Was he lying then? Or is he lying now?
Neither. There is so much more to the story. The production of weapons grade material continues even as we write.
As for the report...it came out in August and said the program had been suspended. The principal author testified before Congress on July 11th and said it was ongoing. Given the conflict of those two statements by the same official I for one do not blame the President for taking the time to clarify before making what could be a radical shift in American policy.
The real problem here is the failure to credit the President for this foriegn policy success. Since the invasion of Iraq the President has now backed off leaders from Libya to Iran. If this is true then Iran has caved to American led pressure to terminate the program. If its not then they are still developing the weapons and we need to maintain our current policy.
Either way it supports Bush's fundamental premise which is to confront nations like Iran and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to rogue states and organizations.
I understand why you are so much in favor of Iran. Most liberals see Bush as the enemy and the terrorists (and rogue states like Iran and Hugo Chavez's half of his country) as allies in the War on Bush that started in early November, 2000.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:really? Uranium needs to be enriched to 3-5% for power production, to 90%+ for bombs. Just because Iran is "enriching" uranium does not mean that it's making "bomb-grade" uranium.
The production of weapons grade material continues even as we write.
Quote:And I see Bush was very successful in preventing Pakistan from spreading nuclear technology throughout the Middle East., right? Good thing we didn't ally ourselves with them or provide them aid!
Either way it supports Bush's fundamental premise which is to confront nations like Iran and prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons to rogue states and organizations.
Quote:To what purpose? Increase pressure on Iran to do.... what? Stop "more"?
Perhaps Bush knew and continued with the rhetoric to increase U.N. pressure against Iran.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I understand why you are so much in favor of Iran. Most liberals see Bush as the enemy and the terrorists (and rogue states like Iran and Hugo Chavez's half of his country) as allies in the War on Bush that started in early November, 2000.
Hello,
I doubt that even the most radical 'liberal' sees Iran or terrorists as an ally. I was, however, disturbed by high-visibility liberal support for Hugo Chavez. While not quite on the same level, it reminds me of a notable actress manning an anti-aircraft gun for publicity pictures in Vietnam.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
To the extent that Chavez is an anticapitalist, I support him. I have no problems whatsoever with him nationalizing Venezuela's oil resources or banks. I find that policy to be very much in line with Germany's (for example) national ownership of transportation, power, telecoms, and banks. To the extent that Chavez is a dictator, I oppose him. I was highly disturbed by his "President for life" gambit in the latest round of reforms and altho the proposal had many other very positive points I'm glad it was voted down.
Clear enough?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And I see Bush was very successful in preventing Pakistan from spreading nuclear technology throughout the Middle East., right? Good thing we didn't ally ourselves with them or provide them aid!
First of all, both India and Pakistan are special cases in that both developed their programs at roughly the same time and without signifigant aid from outside powers. They developed them as a deterrant to each other as the two are mortal enemies despite their common heritage.
Second, if Pakistan spread technology around it was done prior to 2001 and thus not on President Bush's watch. If you can cite evidence of Pakistani efforts to subvert non-proliferation then do so.
Lastly, until recently Pakistan has never been an American ally. During the Cold War we were forced to support Pakistan as a balance against Soviet influence in India. We also supported India to counter the influence of Communist China. In other words it was a complicated mess lasting roughly forty years. It was only after 9/11 that we adopted Pakistan as a formal ally. This was the point of Bush's 'with us or with the terrorists' line...it was directly aimed at Pakistan to let them know that if they failed to stand with us we were going to come after them too. You recall Al Queda then attempted to start a war between Pakistan and India (and nearly succeeded, forstalled only by some good diplomacy by Great Britain and some real patience on the part of India).
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
HERO: Pakistan's commitment to nuclear proliferation, and our willing complicity in the scheme, began long ago and continues to this day
Quote:www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/10/30/hiding_in_plain_s
In the late 1970s, the United States needed Pakistan to help funnel covert aid to Islamic militants fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. Starting with the Carter administration, and continuing since, the authors say the United States has sacrificed principle (i.e., nuclear nonproliferation) for pragmatism (i.e., fighting the Soviets and, later, the Islamic militants we'd helped to fight the Soviets). The authors describe the government's "don't ask, don't tell" approach to Pakistan's nuclear program as "a complex conspiracy, with State Department officials actively obstructing other arms of government which could not help but fall over intelligence about Pakistan's nuclear trade. Evidence was destroyed, criminal files were diverted, Congress was repeatedly lied to and . . . presidential appointees even tipped off the Pakistan government" about ongoing investigations.
The level of American willful blindness toward Pakistan, as described by the authors in detail, is the book's most provocative argument. The role of Pakistan's military in propping up the Taliban is well-known, but less known were the discussions between Pakistani nuclear scientists and Osama bin Laden. When CIA Director George Tenet met with Pakistan's president, General Pervez Musharraf in 2003 and presented overwhelming evidence of Pakistan's nuclear proliferation, the authors say, Musharraf called upon all his thespian skills to appear duly shocked.
Musharraf developed an amazing ruse for the United States and the world, the authors write: "Musharraf began to refashion Pakistan's proliferation from a military prerogative to the act of a small group of renegade scientists." These few money-grubbing scientists, Musharraf contended, had sold billions of dollars worth of nuclear knowhow and equipment to the outside world without Pakistan's military-led government knowing anything about it.
In 2004, the father of Pakistan's nuclear program, scientist A.Q. Khan, appeared on Pakistan television and apologized (in English) for his "unauthorized proliferation activities." The following day, Musharraf pardoned Khan, who was immediately made unavailable for questioning by Western authorities investigating Pakistan's nuclear proliferation.
As for Khan's activities being unauthorized, the authors present overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In 2000, for example, the Pakistani military held an international munitions fair. "The central exhibit," write the authors, "was a large Khan Research Laboratories booth promoting the sale of centrifuges with an after-sale consultancy service." With enough money, anyone could buy, off-the-shelf, parts to a nuclear program.
The Bush administration trumpeted Khan's 2004 "confession" as a triumph of US commitment to nonproliferation. Pakistan remained a friend and continued receiving billions of dollars in US aid. Yet nothing has changed after Khan's public scapegoating, say the authors, who "follow the money" to show that Pakistan continues to allow nuclear proliferation. Most galling of all, the authors present evidence of US aid being misdirected toward the Islamic nation's nuclear program, saying that "US taxpayers unwittingly fund[ed] Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme."
ight_pakistan_and_nuclear_proliferation/
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"high-visibility liberal support for Hugo Chavez"
What were some of the things he did ?
Demand large landholders produce legal title to property they claimed was theirs to show they weren't just wealthy, privileged squatters. In the absence of said title, redistributed some of the land to former city folk so they could live on productive farms, instead of being unemployed.
Called in medics and doctors from Cuba in exchange for good oil deals to treat the (large majority) of people who were too poor to get medical care; and also for the Cubans to train medics and doctors.
Demand a national cut for other countries to exploit Venezuelan resources - ie oil.
Set up schools across the country.
How is this so bad ? It seems like you would be applauding these things.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jong
"Rue...I have recently responded to one of your other posts and gone into great detail about how I feel Bush & the Republicans have let America down, and made many, many bad mistakes. And I've stated to you that it is both embarrassing and painful for me to live with that reality every day."
What about someone who simply doesn't do what Bush does ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Auraptor- What I meant was... So Bush was lying since August, when he got the NIE?Quote:Are you saying Bush only has access to the NIE at the same time we do ... and then only to declassified material? That's ridiculous!
The NIE just released its report today.
Where do you get the notion that Bush was lying at all?? Hell, just 4 months ago, the N.I.E. was saying the exact OPPOSITE conclusion as to what it's saying now.
Quote:
" Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE's publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar," one of the three authors of the NIE, "gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee: 'Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States' concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran's neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons -- despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries
"Hillary tried to get a million dollars for the Woodstock museum. I understand it was a major cultural and pharmaceutical event. I couldn't attend. I was tied up at the time." - John McCain
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program.
Confused much are you ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME