ThinkFast: May 8, 2006
ThinkFast: May 8, 2006
Rove counseled colleagues on the importance of discrediting Joe Wilson. The Washington Post reports, “Rove talked with White House colleagues about the political importance of defending the prewar intelligence and countering Plame’s husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.” Fitzgerald is expected to decide whether or not to indict Rove for making false statements as soon as this month.
President Bush said yesterday that he would like to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, but is waiting for a US Supreme Court ruling on whether the prisoners might face military tribunals. American Progress has a plan to create a special tribunal for international criminal suspects.
Career employees at the Department of Agriculture (USDA) were stunned last week to receive White House talking points on Iraq. The instructions asked the employees to include lines like “President Bush has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq†in every speech they give for the department. See the USDA’s talking points on Iraq here.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that any consideration of a nuclear attack against Iran would be “absolutely absurd,” echoing comments made by his former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. But like Straw, Blair did not discount the idea that there is serious planning underway for a military strike.
Sudan allowed the U.N.’s top humanitarian official Jan Egeland to visit Darfur yesterday Sunday, “the first tangible result of a peace agreement reached Friday with the largest Darfur rebel group.” “I do fundamentally believe we have the best chance since early 2004 to see at least the beginning of the end of this hemorrhage of human life that is Darfur today,” Egeland said.
“Near poor” Americans feeling the pinch: “[I]n recent years, with the soaring costs of housing and medical care and a decline in low-end wages and benefits, tens of millions are living on even shakier ground than before, according to studies of what some scholars call the ‘near poor.’”
Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) “plan to extend [tax] breaks that mostly benefit the wealthy and Wall Street at the expense of reductions for middle-income households.”
According to a new Harvard study, more than half of all young people who sign virginity pledges break them within one year. The pledges have been touted by the religious right as “a major step toward reducing teen pregnancy and raising moral values.”
“Researchers organizing a federal panel on sexually transmitted diseases say the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allowed” House subcommittee on drug policy chairman Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) to place two abstinence-only proponents on the panel, bypassing the scientific approval process.
And finally, in an informal poll to be aired on Dateline tonight, ABC reporters found that many members of Congress, including Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), could not sing the entire national anthem. One spokesperson spotted the film crew and sent out a warning to others: “Heads up. We have been informed that there is a news organization with a camera crew outside (between the Capitol and Longworth) asking members to recite or sing the national anthem.”
What did we miss? Let us know in the comments section.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
There’s nothing like being first from the otherside of the world
May 8th, 2006 at 9:01 amRove counseled colleagues on the importance of discrediting Joe Wilson.
Not shocked.
Career employees at the Department of Agriculture (USDA) were stunned last week to receive White House talking points on Iraq.
Not surprised about the talking points. Am surprised that the USDA was surprised that they got them.
Blair did not discount the idea that there is serious planning underway for a military strike.
Not shocked.
Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) “plan to extend [tax] breaks that mostly benefit the wealthy and Wall Street at the expense of reductions for middle-income households.â€
Not unexpected.
According to a new Harvard study, more than half of all young people who sign virginity pledges break them within one year
Not surprised.
Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN) to place two abstinence-only proponents on the panel, bypassing the scientific approval process.
Not shocked.
many members of Congress, including Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC), could not sing the entire national anthem.
Not surprised.
“I do fundamentally believe we have the best chance since early 2004 to see at least the beginning of the end of this hemorrhage of human life that is Darfur today,†Egeland said.
Something positive – now this is surprising! Oh, but the Bush Administration had nothing to do with it… No wonder the highlight of his presidency has been catching a fish.
May 8th, 2006 at 9:03 amAgain, how can Republicans claim to be free thinkers, and claim that Democrats are sheep, when Republicans get TALKING POINTS, being told what to say?! Come on. They have to be told to say ” “President Bush has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq”? Unbelievable. Well… actually it IS believable, it’s just hard to comprehend.
I think it’s pretty funny however that the USDA went public about their talking points which I believe further discredits this administration. I only hope that others who receive talking points will go public about it as well.
May 8th, 2006 at 9:03 amIran leader offers Bush ‘new ways out’
Ahmadinejad has “analyzed the current international condition and has pointed out the way to find the root causes.”
May 8th, 2006 at 9:04 amDemocrats pledge probes of Bush, not impeachment
“House of Representatives Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said Democrats would hold hearings on the use of intelligence in the lead-up to the Iraq war and investigate the high price of energy and prescription drugs if they win the extra 15 seats they need for a House majority in the mid-term elections.”
May 8th, 2006 at 9:08 amGreat so now the USDA knows what the President’s plan is for Iraq, would they please tell us.
May 8th, 2006 at 9:10 amIt has been said over and over again, Bush (Rove) politicizes everything — and we have seen how well that works, haven’t we :-( Carry my party line or else!
May 8th, 2006 at 9:13 amThe national anthem thing is so stupid. I had trouble remembering the correct words. But get me at a hockey game I can sing it like I was Francis Scott Key himself. Never knew the song was really this long.
#4
May 8th, 2006 at 9:21 amRead about that too. We’ll see if Bush decides to use Option #4. Diplomacy. At least I think it is Option #3….could be lower.
The national anthem thing is so stupid. I had trouble remembering the correct words. But get me at a hockey game I can sing it like I was Francis Scott Key himself. Never knew the song was really this long.
#4
May 8th, 2006 at 9:21 amRead about that too. We’ll see if Bush decides to use Option #4. Diplomacy. At least I think it is Option #4….could be lower.
dlet,
May 8th, 2006 at 9:24 amMy guess is option #4 would just be a repeat of Europe using it, Iran playing all nice at the table, while still working as fast as possible towards the bomb. But Bush still has to give it a shot so he can claim the moral high ground.
May 8th, 2006 at 9:31 am
KKKarl, Fitzie has you on his mind, and you know that can’t be good.
May 8th, 2006 at 9:34 amI suppose now with Hayden joined to your hip you can out CIA operatives
at will, eh? The military never liked the CIA, but now you can have your
intelligence & eat it, too.
We just hope your next date with Fitzie finds you behind bars!
Two British papers are claiming that Jack Straw was fired by Tony Blair because Straw made a comment that the idea of bombing Iran is just “nuts.”
May 8th, 2006 at 9:35 amWho says Blair is a lapdog?
Did you guys see ‘Super Size Me’ by Morgan Spurlock? In the movie he shot a group of people trying to say the pledge of allegiance in front of the White House. They kept getting it wrong. But, they knew the Big Mac song – first time, no retakes.
Want people to know our national songs? Put them in commercials.
May 8th, 2006 at 9:37 amAs o the abstinence topic. I think this is the scariest quote out of that article.
Coburn spokesman John Hart questioned why the CDC would present data that contradict the administration’s policy.
“I’m not suggesting that their views shouldn’t be debated,” he said, “but should federally funded tax dollars be used to do that?”
So federal money is only properly used when it is used to catapault the propoganda and not the facts?
Goes to show how these guys just blindly follow. Don’t see reality when faced with it and just cuddle under the covers with all of their frightened little friends, afraid of the boogey-man.
#10
May 8th, 2006 at 9:38 amSounds about right. Too bad we don’t have a president with the balls enough to directly talk with other leaders that disagree with him. See above comment.
Virginity pledges:
“By some estimates, at least 2.5 million adolescents around the world have publicly vowed to postpone sex until marriage….Many wear rings or other jewelry to symbolize their pledge.”
Sounds a lot like the Junior Anti-Sex League to me….
May 8th, 2006 at 9:42 amRescue probe reaches gold miners
Has anyone else been following this? They have a way to reach the miners to send them food/water/IPods/etc, so how has a probe just reached them? It sounds like the probe reached them several days ago, when they could first send all that stuff to them. Any miners that post here care to explain?
May 8th, 2006 at 9:45 amTalking points…
I wonder how long before every public school teacher must include “talking points” as part of the No Child Left Behind.
…..Today’s lesson is about George Washington. He had a tough time getting recruits for his army to fight and win our freedom. But before I talk about George Washington, I want to talk about another George. George Bush. He is having a tough time getting recruits for his army to fight and win for freedom in Iraq. So when you go to lunch today, I want you to all stop by the recruiting desk in the cafeteria and show that you support freedom, democracy, and the American Way. Speaking of the American Way, have your parents been critical of our President? Are you tired of the way they talk smack about him? You can do something about it. Just call the NSA hotline at 555-……..
May 8th, 2006 at 9:49 amThe virginity pledge study means little without knowledge about how many kids who take and keep the pledge would have otherwise not remained vergins.
May 8th, 2006 at 9:57 amPlease Fitz, don’t let him sashay out of this one. Worse than the crimes committed by the Bush team is them getting away clean. The best thing for this country (and what’s left of GOP integrity) is putting Rove in jail.
http://www.freesqueeze.com/karlrove.htm
May 8th, 2006 at 10:01 amI wonder how long before every public school teacher must include “talking points†as part of the No Child Left Behind.
But teachers are given talking points all the time. Their curriculum is all just a sequence of talking points. What to teach, how, in what order. Having talking points is just a guideline. Government organizations receive them all of the time. I think the USDA was just suprised because they have little to do with Iraq.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:02 amUm, Jack, the real point about the National Anthem simply is this: Politicians who can’t do, should butt out. If they can’t sing the National Anthem (in ENGLISH), then why is there all this fuss emanating from some over those who want to sing a Spanish-language version?
May 8th, 2006 at 10:06 amFor the morning crowd: a video tribute to all the things Bush missed while fishing.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:10 amKeeping people uninformed is not and never has been effective in accomplishing anything, yet the republicans continue to bow to their religious – self-righteous – campaign donors and like-minded, pandering ignoramuses.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:14 am“President Bush has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq.”
Does the talking points say what that “clear” strategy is? Is it “We are going to get’em!”? Or “We are going to smoke ‘em out!”?
Just wondering if the talking points may finally let us all know.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:20 amIran leader offers Bush ‘new ways out’
Ahmadinejad has “analyzed the current international condition and has pointed out the way to find the root causes.â€
Comment by squegeeboo
I am embaressed that a person like Ahmadinejad has to be the one doing this instead of the “enlightened” Americans… sad really. But hey our leaders can catch fish!
May 8th, 2006 at 10:22 amResearchers organizing a federal panel on sexually transmitted diseases say the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention allowed a congressman to include two abstinence-only proponents
Shouldn’t as many viewpoints as possible be represented? It would seem that keeping people uninformed would be better accomplished by putting like minded people on a panel.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:22 am#26 Gerald,
Ahmadinejad is doing this just to get positive PR, it is nothing more then a stunt. It allows him to claim moral highground in the assumption that the US will ignore it. However, if we do accept this as a starting point, he will just do what he did to the Europeans, play nice to their faces, while ignoring every and any compromise.
The embarrising part to me, is that by not playing at diplomacy with them, we have allowed him to have a chance to score political points at no cost to himself.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:27 amRove felt it was too important to out the CIA’s intelligence network for weapons of WMD throughout the middle east and Africa to wage war on Iraq? Is that what he was trying to say? It is better to drive in the dark with no lights on than have a clear view?
This entire administration should be removed from office (WHIG at the very least), and tried for treason. Both Bush and Cheney knew about it as well as their inner circle. Enough is enough. This is a crime worthy of at least life in prison for those who conspired against the US intelligence agency and destroyed it in the region we need it most.
I believe now that Plame was outed in order to continue the neocon wars without information against it against the remainder of the “axis of evil” (axis of oil).
May 8th, 2006 at 10:32 amGitmo –
I know if these cases end up in civil courts, there are probably going to be some issues because the defendants will bring up the torture issue.
Does anyone know if they are tried by military tribunals if there could be a similar problem?
May 8th, 2006 at 10:32 amAhmadinejad is doing this just to get positive PR, it is nothing more then a stunt. It allows him to claim moral highground in the assumption that the US will ignore it. However, if we do accept this as a starting point, he will just do what he did to the Europeans, play nice to their faces, while ignoring every and any compromise.
The embarrising part to me, is that by not playing at diplomacy with them, we have allowed him to have a chance to score political points at no cost to himself.
Comment by squegeeboo
I assume that when you have a disagreement with someone at work the first thing you do is walk up to them and punch them in the face. And when they try talking you out of your insanity you say “You are just trying to score PR points!” and then punch them in the face again. No? Why is that? Because that would be freakin stupid? Yes. You are assuming that just because someone is born in Iran they are unthinking evil animals that cannot be spoken to. Just like all the people like you swore up and down that the communists were a bunch of unthinking animals that could not be reasoned with and they were going to over run us like a crazy hoard… that didnt happen did it? And did Reagan just launch an attack on them? Nope… He TALKED TO THEM LIKE THEY WERE HUMANS AND THEY RESPONDED….
May 8th, 2006 at 10:33 amShouldn’t as many viewpoints as possible be represented? It would seem that keeping people uninformed would be better accomplished by putting like minded people on a panel.
Comment by bhealy
Are you saying that there are Americans dumb enough that they must be “informed” that they dont have to have sex unless they want to? This sounds like the double speak about how students need to be “informed” about intelligent design or else they are being forced to only see one part of “science” over another …when in reality is was just a trojan horse not “science” at all…
May 8th, 2006 at 10:40 amGerald, “I assume that when you have a disagreement with someone at work the first thing you do is walk up to them and punch them in the face.”
Tundra would beat me down if I tried that.
Like I’ve stated many times before, I think we need to try diplomacy, but by the same token, I think it will fail, judging from the ’success’ of the Europeans attempts at it, where Iran sits and delays as much as possible while continuing their program as fast as they can.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:43 amAre you saying that there are Americans dumb enough that they must be “informed†that they dont have to have sex unless they want to? This sounds like the double speak about how students need to be “informed†about intelligent design or else they are being forced to only see one part of “science†over another …when in reality is was just a trojan horse not “science†at all…
Yes, young people should be informed that abstinence is an option, that not everyone is having sex. Being dumb has nothing to do with it. If you never hear about an idea, it can easily be lost, especially in the face of peer pressure. Should we not inform people that they don’t have to have sex because it should be obvious? Maybe it’s not so obvious. People do all sorts of things they shouldn’t do (smoking), often times they know they shouldn’t be doing them. How could you contend not to offer as many options as possible. Better to over-inform than under-inform. Something being obvious is no reason not to talk about it.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:54 amLike I’ve stated many times before, I think we need to try diplomacy, but by the same token, I think it will fail, judging from the ’success’ of the Europeans attempts at it, where Iran sits and delays as much as possible while continuing their program as fast as they can.
Comment by squegeeboo
Do you take Europes “attempts” seriously?
THIS is what I consider a serious attempt…
The USA and Europe meet with Russia and China to come up with some base principles that no one is going to carve up the middle east via war to gain the oil… That whatever solution is found should lead to stability not war.
THEN the USA meets with Israel and in no uncertain terms makes it clear Israel is going to help with a middle easy peace pact or they are the enemy of America.
THEN the USA meets with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Syria and lets them know that they are going to help with a middle east peace pact with Israel or else they are the enemy of America…
THEN the USA along with the rest of the World at the UN puts IRAN on the spot and says that there will be an all out peace pact that will include the issue of Israels nukes or else there will be war.
THAT is bold action. And so is war. If you are unwiling to take bold action to prevent war then you should not be allowed to wage war in the first place.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:57 amComment by bhealy
I was walking around as a kid for 18 years… I never once awoke to find myself forced into the act of sex… That is a ludicrous statement. EVERYONE knows that they do NOT have to have sex… I think slavery was ended along time ago so the very notion that someone might not know is idiotic. At your CHURCH you can give moral reasons why you should CHOOSE not to. At school you can be taught ways to protect yourself if you CHOOSE to do so… and ways to avoid peer pressure if you CHOOSE not to do so… but there is no reason for anyone anywhere to pretend like people must be educated to know that they dont have to have sex…. how rediculous a notion… once again that is a smoke screen or trojan horse for taking morality out of the CHURCH and forcing it in to areas where it doesnt belong like in reasoned education.
May 8th, 2006 at 11:02 amTHEN the USA meets with Israel and in no uncertain terms makes it clear Israel is going to help with a middle easy peace pact or they are the enemy of America.
THEN the USA meets with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and Syria and lets them know that they are going to help with a middle east peace pact with Israel or else they are the enemy of America…
I like how you laid out a course of action. What does becoming the enemy of America entail? Sanctions, war…where do we show our backbone, how much showing is needed. In your senario I think these nations would largely agree to the proposal, I’m not sure if the UN would move as you outlined. However, the larger problem is making the agreement work. For instance, Iran agrees but continues to develop weapons.
May 8th, 2006 at 11:06 amHey Gerald,
Your ideas are very Utopian, and would have nearly no chance for success. Sorry to be so blunt.
Russia and China have made it clear they won’t support sanctions on Iran, and have their own interests to look out for.
Israel is to easy of a scapegoat, deserved or undeserved for the rest of the Middle East to actually make real peaces moves towards them.
“THEN the USA along with the rest of the World at the UN puts IRAN on the spot and says that there will be an all out peace pact that will include the issue of Israels nukes or else there will be war.”
Until the usual leftists back down from war. Or if they do allow war, after a year of costs/casulties they will start demanding we back down.
Diplomacy is the politics of reality. You need to assess what can happen, realistically, if any progress is going to be made.
May 8th, 2006 at 11:07 amA reasoned education would include the notion of abstinence as a method of avoiding STDs because that’s what it is, a method of protection.
May 8th, 2006 at 11:11 amCareer employees at the Department of Agriculture (USDA) were stunned last week to receive White House talking points on Iraq.
Yeah! Propaganda!
May 8th, 2006 at 11:11 amAccording to a new Harvard study, more than half of all young people who sign virginity pledges break them within one year.
“Rosenbaum found that 52% of those who said they had signed virginity pledges had had sex within a year. And of those who had sex after telling the first interviewers they had taken the pledge, 73% denied in the second interview having made the pledge.
“This may indicate that they are not that closely affiliated with the pledge,” Rosenbaum said.”
(Emphasis added)
This should be a BIG red flashing light to the fundies. Not only don’t these kids have any knowledge about sexuality, they are being dishonest in a very important way — with THEMSELVES.
May 8th, 2006 at 11:56 amPresident Bush said yesterday that he would like to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay…
I think this is a bad idea. He’s not going to let those people go, they’re just going to disappear into prisons elsewhere, and there will be even less oversight than there is now. Wingnuts will point to the closure of Gitmo as definite progress in the “war on terror.”
May 8th, 2006 at 11:59 amPorter Goss and Ray McGovern
Monday 8th of May 2006
by Jay Randal
On past Thursday retired CIA agent Ray McGovern dared to confront Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on his lies about Iraq’s WMD, and then on Friday the Director of the CIA Porter Goss unexpectedly resigned, so are these two events related to each other or the cause of Goss resigning?
Porter Goss originally retired from the CIA in 1972 after he became ill from an unknown malady. Later in life he became a Representative for Florida in the Congress, and a member of the Intelligence Oversight Committee. He was appointed the Director of the CIA about 20 months ago by Pres. Bush.
Ray McGovern retired from the CIA after 27 years in 1994. One of his duties as agent was briefer for the White House on Intelligence, during the Reagan/Bush Administrations. Which means that Porter and Ray were in the CIA together from 1968 to 1972, and later would know each other again in the 1980s and early 1990s. Donald Rumsfeld most likely has known McGovern since his days in the Ford Administration.
Did Donald on Thursday call Porter to complain about Ray outing him as a liar? Did a heated exchange take place over McGovern humiliating Rumsfeld on CNN? Did Goss defend himself too defiantly and thus received the vengeful wrath of being terminated? Why is the press ignoring this scenario?
( Jay Randal, political activist and writer in Stone Mountain, Georgia, USA.)
May 8th, 2006 at 12:02 pmSqueegy, you agree that diplomacy with Iran is worth a decent try, even though you don’t believe it will work. Is that correct?
May 8th, 2006 at 12:06 pm#44 – Jay, I think this is very interesting, but I feel like you’re reading too much into it. I think Rummy would think Goss too insignificant to confront on this issue, although I have no doubt he was furious. I’m thinking that the sudden resignation of Goss really was just the hookers.
Having said that, wouldn’t it be the coolest thing if you were right?
May 8th, 2006 at 12:17 pmZookeeper, yes, that is correct.
here’s the breakdown of my thought process on it:
May 8th, 2006 at 12:26 pmThe importance of a country having nukes as a barter chip/protective blanket against the US has been established by countries such as N. Korea. This means that any revionist state that has a real chance of gaining nukes will work towards them unless they know for sure, 100%, that America is about to bomb/invade them. So what we will continue to see happening is Iran pretending to play at diplomacy while working full tilt towards completing a nuke.
With Russia and China being firmly against sanctions the only real stick to use in carrot and stick negotiations will be bombing(which would have to happen now, and on a regular basis to keep their program stalled) or an invasion to destroy the facilities, which could happen at any point up until they complete their first nuke. Bombing them isn’t viable due to international outcry on it currently, and I think even Bush realises this, so all thats left is diplomacy, along with the constant threat of imminent invasion, to force them to stop at just gaining nuclear power capabilities. Success would then all depend on the percieved resolve of America to back up its threat, and the resolve of Iran to continue towards the bomb regardless.
The followiung link raises a question’:
May 8th, 2006 at 12:34 pmhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB114704312621046146.html?mod=hpp_us_editors_picks
If Al Gore runs in 2008 and wins, will he be elimanated in 2012? He has already been elected once.
Diplomacy is the politics of reality. You need to assess what can happen, realistically, if any progress is going to be made.
Comment by squegeeboo
Exactly.
Which is why you cannot just have a bunch of southern rapturist on your side when you are talking about war. If this government (USA) wants peace instead of war then they need to have everybody in the USA on their side… well besides the peaceniks which will never accept war. To get people like me and many other reasoned thinkers on their side they must make a REAL and BOLD effort like I stated above. It is NOT utopian. It is a reasoned approach. You dont just grab your nuts and start spout off how big and bad you are. That will 100% of the time make the enemy do the same. Which means war. Also by acting that way you make people such as myself that will support war given a justifiable cause and a real effort to avoid war.
I cannot now support war with Iran. Iran did not attack us on 911. Saudi Arabia did. If there must be war I will only support it if I can say that my government went through extra ordinary efforts to attain peace and the enemey did everything they could to thwart those attempts and in the end when they were cornered into doing the right thing for the good of their own people and mine they chose to fight… THEN I can say … ok I will stop going to ThinkProgress and demonizing my government. But I will NEVER put myself into a position of being a supporter of the type of BS that led to the murder of millions in WWI or Vietnam. Just because people cannot talk logically to each other? THAT is a reason to murder millions of people that never even had a chance to try to talk it out? They are just ordered to go kill and be killed while the people that could have talked it out sat around drinking tea and eating biscuits while poking a dirty finger into the other guys eye?
War is NEVER noble. If it is to be done it MUST be because we are forced into it. Anything else is the same BS from the past 10000 years. Rich people sending other people to die because it makes them feel like BIG MEN….. or simply for greed.
Until humanity refuses to allow a few spoilt brat asses force us into killing each other the dream of what America was supposed to represent will never be true.
I will support war with Iran ONLY when I can justify it in my own mind. And that can only be done through logic. If I can balance out in my mind that we tried ABC, and LMN, and even XYZ and STILL Iran blew us off THEN we were forced to war. Otherwise there was some other greedy reason why we went to war… and it will be paid for by the blood of the middle classes while the upper classes spill no blood and their bank accounts increase.
May 8th, 2006 at 12:38 pmsquegeeboo
What do you think is going to happen if Iran gets the bomb? Seriously. Russia already has them and Russia is a much bigger threat than Iran has even been. What could they possibly do to us that Russia or China could not?
Once again if your goal is to stop Iran from having nukes that is not a good enough reason. Is the goal to not get nuked? Then we got bigger problems because Russia, China, and even North Korea already got them. So it is too late to play the game of not letting the genie out of the bottle. Its out and has been out for about 60 years.
If the goal is not to get nuked and the genie is already out then we need a different approach. Have any ideas what the approach might be? I sure do.
May 8th, 2006 at 12:44 pm#51 Gerald
“Once again if your goal is to stop Iran from having nukes that is not a good enough reason. Is the goal to not get nuked? Then we got bigger problems because Russia, China, and even North Korea already got them.”
The goal is to allow nukes to as few of our enemies as possible. That means regardless of who already has them, we should constantly work to stop others from getting them.
May 8th, 2006 at 1:01 pmThe goal is to allow nukes to as few of our enemies as possible. That means regardless of who already has them, we should constantly work to stop others from getting them.
Comment by squegeeboo
By “stoping” people from getting nukes you are encouraging everyone else to get nukes to stop american from invading them. Senator Lugar knows how to get rid of nukes… and it didnt take any wars either.
May 8th, 2006 at 1:08 pmIf your goal is not to get nuked then a plan that includes a world wide concensus to get rid of nukes sounds like the plan to go with. And threats of war do not create a concensus. If we invade Iran and then try to convince China to get rid of their nukes they will just point at Iran and say “NO FREAKIN WAY YOU WAR MONGERS…”
May 8th, 2006 at 1:13 pm#54 In fact, already exists the plan, but the USA GOP is ignoring it shamelessly… even enhancing it with the planning of new bunker-busters or “renovation” of old system (renovation not needed really).
May 8th, 2006 at 1:34 pmGerald
“By “stoping†people from getting nukes you are encouraging everyone else to get nukes to stop american from invading them.”
I understand that, I commented on it above, but by not stopping them, you make it that much easier for them to become nuclear states.
“If your goal is not to get nuked then a plan that includes a world wide concensus to get rid of nukes sounds like the plan to go with.”
To qoute from you above:
“So it is too late to play the game of not letting the genie out of the bottle. Its out and has been out for about 60 years.”
It seems like the options are to continue fighting a losing battle to keep nukes out of the hands of our enemies, or to just allow them all to get nukes, neither are good options, but at least the first will force them to take longer getting there, and may provide us with other solutions in the future that have a real chance.
May 8th, 2006 at 1:46 pmIt seems like the options are to continue fighting a losing battle to keep nukes out of the hands of our enemies, or to just allow them all to get nukes, neither are good options, but at least the first will force them to take longer getting there, and may provide us with other solutions in the future that have a real chance.
Comment by squegeeboo
Do you not understand that people that believe that others will nuke will always want nukes? We should take Senator Lugars lead and follow. The option we should pursue is REMOVING NUKES. Yes the genie is out of the bottle. But that does not mean that we can not set the example and work towards peace in the name of peace for getting rid of nukes. We can still wage war if we must without them. So why not make more deals like the ones Reagan made with the Russians to get rid of them? We get rid of some of ours… Russia gets rid of more of theirs… Israel admits they have theirs and then gets rid of some of theirs… and then China does also… and THEN Iran tries getting them and we ALL say HOLD UP THERE! We are all working to get rid of those things not make more!
See how that works? We make friends… build up trust because we are getting rid of ours also… this gets people like China and Russia on our side… they dont like nukes either. And then we have set an example and given a basic framework for why not to have nukes.. and then we point to that when we are talking to Iran about why they should not pursue it… and we would have all the people that joined us in getting rid of nukes on our side saying, “Ya Iran we cant be letting you build them when we are trying to get them off the earth.”
And dont say this isnt possible … Lugar has been doing it for years.
And one more thing… the democrats like bashing “Star Wars” because it was Reagans baby… but I not only support Star Wars I think we should take it even further… we should send in some people to cut out the fat from the Missle Defense System and get that program under control… then we focus on it with all our technical abilities… not letting the military industrial complex milk it and we get it working and done…. then we put it up all around the planet and we say … no more unilateral wars… NO MORE! … not from George Bush or anyone else… if ANYONE shoots a nuke at ANYONE else… Americas defense shield will shoot it down… nukes are no longer an option for anyone anywhere…
May 8th, 2006 at 2:14 pm“Then we put it up all around the planet and we say … no more unilateral wars… NO MORE”
Then we give it over to the UN? Because other nations won’t be happy with us having it up there. All of our goodwill would be destroyed, and it would be viewed as America trying to acheive hegemony.
“Russia gets rid of more of theirs… Israel admits they have theirs and then gets rid of some of theirs… and then China does also… and THEN Iran tries getting them and we ALL say HOLD UP THERE!”
And what is Israel dosn’t have any? Look at all of the WMD people though Saddam had, turned out false. It helps Israel for other regional powers to think they have them, and suddenly your whole plan is dead. And why would China drop its stockpile until the US, Russian levels are equal to their own? And what are the odds that Russia and the US would willingly drop their nukes to China’s level with out China already having made some concessions? I just don’t see it happening. You need all of the current Nuclear powers to look at the common good and trust one anouther, as opposed to what is best for them individually.
“nukes are no longer an option for anyone anywhere…”
long range Missle nukes? no. Suitcase nukes? Yes. Short Range nuke missles? Yes.
“And dont say this isnt possible … Lugar has been doing it for years.”
May 8th, 2006 at 2:26 pmAnd how’s Lugar been doing at it? Actual reductions? or just the occasional bone tossed his way?
Gerald, we crazed lefties like bashing Star Wars because it doesn’t work.It’s been over twenty years and it still doesn’t work.And not in any touchy-feely diplomacy way, but in the hard coldengineering way. A
And it REALLY doesn’t work. It’s not that it almost work: it’s not even close.
Wje we’re even close to it, then we can perhaps start working it into our policy ideas.
Until then, it’s in the same class as warp drive and phasers.
I agree it would be a great thing to have–and I approve (unlike many) of doing the research–but if you’re talking Star Wars, you might as well back it up with an invincible army of robot soldiers.
May 8th, 2006 at 2:59 pmPost 46 Zookeeper > I believe that the hooker scandal was a factor in Goss’ resignation, since his pal Foggo is being forced to resign from the CIA for taking part in it, but as the Neocon Kristol said on Friday “something just popped up” has to imply the Ray McGovern exposure of Rumsfeld on Thursday as the straw that broke Goss’ back! Rummy now gets a General from the Pentagon into the CIA, if the stupid Senate goes along with that, so Goss might get replaced by Hayden a stooge of Rumsfeld?!
May 8th, 2006 at 3:01 pm#62 – You have a point, Jay. It would be SO interesting if you’re right.
May 8th, 2006 at 4:23 pm#61 :-)
May 8th, 2006 at 4:32 pm[...] Think Progress [...]
May 8th, 2006 at 5:12 pmto force them to stop at just gaining nuclear power capabilities.
IRAN already has Reactors Squeege.
Did you know? Or did you know and are just being a war propagandist convenietly leaving out facts?
In 1974 the German contractor Siemens began construction of two 1,200-1,300 megawatt electric (MWe) pressurized water nuclear reactors near Bushehr. The Shah of Iran intended that this program would provide Iran the infrastructure essential for industrializing the country.
The Siemens subsidiary Kraftwerk Union AG (KWU) had been designing and building nuclear power plants since the mid-1950s. Experience gained in the early years with different reactor types soon led to the emergence of the light water reactor as the most economical technology. From the very beginning, Siemens pursued the development of both pressurized water reactor (PWR) and boiling water reactor (BWR) plants. Beginning in the early 1970s the German government supported efforts by Siemens/KWU to secure turnkey nuclear reactor contracts in foreign markets. In 1974, Biblis A went on line in Germany: at that time the world’s largest nuclear power plant with a capacity of 1149 MW. The three 1300-MW class Convoy plants – Isar 2, Emsland and Neckar 2 – were built in Germany between 1981 and 1989.
Although the facility is consistently known as the “Bushehr” reactors, the facility is actually located near Halileh [aka Haleyleh, 28°49'58"N 50°52'44"E], which is about a dozen kilometers to the south of Bushehr proper.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/facility/bushehr.htm
~~~
I notice you put IRAN Fear into every POST.
May 8th, 2006 at 8:58 pmWHo are you and who do you work FOR Squeege?
I find you to be a Manipulator. Worse one that leaves facts out conveniently.
I have nothing to say to you, because YOU HAVE NOT STUDIED what you speak of. In effect YOU cannot be trusted.
You are another NEO-CON apologist LIAR.
Burn Squeege Burn.
*
May 8th, 2006 at 9:20 pmJesus just left Chicago
…and he’s bound for New Orleans.
Jesus just left Chicago
…and he’s bound for New Orleans.
Working from one place to another,
…and all points inbetween.