POLL: Americans Strongly Support Murtha’s Iraq Plan
POLL: Americans Strongly Support Murtha’s Iraq Plan
The Washington Post editorial board — which four years ago called President Bush’s plan for war in Iraq “an operation essential to American security” — is now harshly attacking Rep. John Murtha’s (D-PA) effort to increase support for the overstretched U.S. military and restrain Bush’s Iraq escalation.
The Post claims that Murtha’s plan “crudely [hamstrings] the ability of military commanders to deploy troops,” and that “Murtha’s cynicism is matched by an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq.” (We’ve taken apart these claims HERE.)
Thankfully, the American people haven’t bought the Post’s talking points. A new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that Americans strongly back Murtha’s plan to strengthen U.S. forces:
Would you support or oppose Congress trying to block Bush’s plan by creating new rules on troop training and rest time that would limit the number of troops available for duty in Iraq?
Support: 58 percent
Oppose: 39 percent
Unknown: 4 percent
The poll also shows that opposition to escalation continues to grow. In the latest poll, Americans oppose sending more U.S. forces to Iraq by a margin of 67 percent to 32 percent. That’s up from 65/34 on January 19 and 61/36 on January 10.
UPDATE: The Washington Post’s article on the new poll doesn’t mention the results of the question on Murtha’s plan.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
So?
February 26th, 2007 at 10:56 amWhat a surprise! Who wudda thunk that the WaPo would back w in an ill-advised scheme to destroy what we have left of an Army (including the Nat. Guard)? The WaPo has been so strongly opposed to w that I can’t believe that they would do this. Oh well, you know that flip-flopping liberal media; you never know what they will do.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:58 amwho ARE these 28-34% can that many people really be so deficient!?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:03 amDuh, a majority of Americans don’t want their children or grandchildren or husbands or wives dying for no reason.
Throw those drunk Bush sluts into the battlefield and all George’s war-lust would go bye-bye in a nano-second.
“Bravest words come from the safest places”.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:05 amSy Hersh says Cheney and our cabal are funding Al Qaida. Makes a lot of sense considering it is a saudi operation.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:05 amwonder if any one will call them on it?
So?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:06 amComment by Patrick1Cell — February 26, 2007 @ 10:56 am
I applaud your intelligence and wisdom in a meaningful debate!
Your superior knowledge to argue your side is unfounded.
You go, Patrick1, you go!!!
Why not just get out of Iraq so the Iraqis can have a normal way of life instead of treating them all like guantanamo detainees
February 26th, 2007 at 11:08 amIt is time to wrap up the war in Iraq. We need to get rested and ready for the invasion into Iran. We don’t have more then 10 to 12 months before we need to invade full force. Murtha is 100% correct. He realizes how important it is for our troops to be rested before invading Iran. I support him on this.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:09 amOh, Roger*2!
February 26th, 2007 at 11:10 amYou’re so silly! We won’t be invading Iran, just bombing them back to the stone age~
/sarcasm
The issue is NOT just stopping the surge of additional troops into Iraq. It’s about ending the war completely and bringing the troops home alive now!
February 26th, 2007 at 11:11 amhttp://www.handsoffiraqioil.org/
http://www.priceofoil.org/
February 26th, 2007 at 11:12 amSo, a poll says we should surrender, it is as meanlingless as a Sy Hersh story.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:12 amRoger are you going to join the military for the attack on Iran?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:13 am#13 I am a retired Marine. I was part of Desert Storm. Have you served your country or are you sitting on the bleachers talking trash about my fellow troops? Wake up, pick up a gun, and walk the line before opening your mouth please.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:16 amRoger those who desire war must fight it, so shut up or rejoin the military. I do NOT care if you have served in the military or not in the past. You have zero right to demand that others die for you and for Bush.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:19 amRoger are you going to join the military for the attack on Iran?
I hope he does — and takes Patrick1 with him. They are both stellar examples of cannon fodder.
The Murtha plan is not about ending the Iraq fiasco so much as it is truly about supporting the troops. GDumbya has no respect for the military. He has continually thrown them into unwinable situations without sufficient training or equipment. The back-door draft aspect of what is currently being done in order to muster his little surge is unconscionable and it is high time that Congress hold him accountable for his mismanagement and ineptitude.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:20 am#14 Roger_Roger
We don’t attack the troops. We support them, we don’t want them in a war that cannot be won where they are just going to be killed and maimed. We do not join because we do not support the war and are intelligent enough to realize we should not support the war if we are not going to back it up with action.
BTW, it is very interesting, many of the military people I speak with are liberal. It would seem that this war is having a liberalizing effect on the military since many troops who speak out are creating veterans groups that support the aims of the progressive majority. Conservatives have to dig to find those that will come out and support them.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:23 amPatrick1Cell,
Let’s define your asinine statement, shall we?
So, a poll says we should give up, abandon, or relinquish.
Yet the poll questions:
February 26th, 2007 at 11:23 amWould you support or oppose Congress trying to block Bush’s plan by creating new rules on troop training and rest time that would limit the number of troops available for duty in Iraq?
Nowhere does it state to give up, abandon, or reliquinsh.
It’s about giving the troops adequate training and recooperation, you dolt, yet you’re too brainwashed to even comprehend it
Rogerx2,
If you are telling the truth and you were in Desert Storm, then you have some idea what war looks like. Why are you so eager for us to invade Iran?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:25 amThinkProgress can post an many polls as they want, but the Murtha de-funding plan is all but dead, with even Democrats distancing themselves from the scheme:
Murtha Stumbles on Iraq Funding Curbs
Democrats Were Ill-Prepared for Unplanned Disclosure, Republican Attacks
By Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey Layton
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 25, 2007
[A] botched launch by the plan’s author, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa.), has united Republicans and divided Democrats, sending the latter back to the drawing board just a week before scheduled legislative action, a score of House Democratic lawmakers said last week.
“If this is going to be legislation that’s crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, that is a non-starter, an absolute non-starter,” declared Rep. Jim Matheson (Utah), a leader of the conservative Blue Dog Democrats.
Freshman Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a retired Navy admiral who was propelled into politics by the Iraq war, said Murtha could still salvage elements of his strategy, but Sestak, an outspoken war opponent, is “a bit wary” of a proposal that would influence military operations.
“I was recently in the military, and I have to speak from that experience,” Sestak said.
The story of Murtha’s star-crossed plan illustrates the Democratic Party’s deep divisions over the Iraq war and how the new House majority has yet to establish firm control over Congress. From the beginning, Murtha acted on his own to craft a complicated legislative strategy on the war, without consulting fellow Democrats. When he chose to roll out the details on a liberal, antiwar Web site on Feb. 15, he caught even Pelosi by surprise while infuriating Democrats from conservative districts….
Then for an entire week, as members of Congress returned home for a recess, Murtha refused to speak further. Democratic leaders failed to step into the vacuum, and Republicans relentlessly attacked a plan they called a strategy to slowly bleed the war of troops and funds. By the end of the recess, Murtha’s once promising strategy was in tatters.
Tom Andrews, a former House member and antiwar activist who helped Murtha with his Internet rollout, fumed: “The issue to me is, what is the state of the backbone of the Democratic Party? How will they respond to this counterattack? Republicans are throwing touchdown passes on this because the Democrats aren’t even on the field.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2007/ 02/ 24/ AR2007022401420_2.html
February 26th, 2007 at 11:27 am#17 You are saying that we should simply allow Iran to build nuke warheads? Seems highly misguided. I am all for diplomacy but if that fails, we certainly should be using the military option ASAP. Allowing regimes that dangerous to possess the most dangerous weapons is wrong and everyone knows it. It floors me that you would let Iran have nuke warheads. I figured everyone was on the same page that we would never allow them to have these weapons. I guess the Dems are for Iran having Nukes. Scary.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:28 amHELL TELL THE 24%-34% to go down to the recruitment centers put there name on the dotted line if they think this war is so worth it and bring out troops home and fund there recovery they went tru hell over there theres absolutely no reson why they r treated this way…and no I havent been in the military I went to the recruitment center in 91 and told I waz 4-f I asked if there waz a support roll I could play they said no ur not eligible but atleast I tryed but u wont see any of these war hawks doin that thats for the have lesses and have less than thats
February 26th, 2007 at 11:29 am#19,
I am not eager, but I am also a realist. Iran is a very dangerous country. Every day that goes by, they gain more knowledge and more nuke materials. Every day is one day closer to their dream of a nuke warhead. We simple cannot allow that to happen. They need to be stopped ASAP. We should be talking with them, but they need to stop immediately. If they haven’t fully stopped all research and production of nuke material within a month, we certainly need to invade. So, I am for giving them the option, but invading them looks like the only solution to stopping there nuke warhead program unfortunetly.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:30 amZooey > those who desire war on Iran are so eager for more mayhem, that they have no idea that war on Iran could turn into a global nuclear WWIII. If all those who desire it had to fight in it, then most of them would shut-up. VP Dick Cheney did not want to fight in Vietnam, so he got deferments, but he loves to send young men and women off to die for him.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:33 amI figured everyone was on the same page that we would never allow them to have these weapons. I guess the Dems are for Iran having Nukes. Scary.
Comment by Roger_Roger
Why they cant have nukes, Roger? It´s not like they have used a nuke over another country, right? Why Israel can have nukes but they cant? Do you agree with balance or not? If you dont, then you agree with rising China trampling over your way of life, right? Im guessing you wont address these questions just like paul, Dale, Exley and all the hypocrites that find OK US trampling over other countries.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:37 am#24
So you would back down and allow terrorist regimes like Iran to freely build Nuke Weapons? What happens if diplomacy doesn’t work and they keep building nuke weapons? Would you ever invade or would you simply sit back and let terrorist regimes like Iran to build WMD’s? Please explain Jay Randal.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:37 amRoger is listening to too much AM Hate Radio. Iran is just now building the centrifuges that can enrich U-235. It will take years to produce 90% fuel for weapons, but a shorter time to produce the 4% enrichment for nuclear powerplants.
There is NO evidence so far that Iran will or even can enrich to 90% in the near future, nor that they have any weapons program.
As a Vietnam Vet, I know you want to invade because it’s all you understand: Blunt, gross violence. It’s crude, but effective, and Man - DOESN’T IT FEEL GREAT? “Wow, . . we sure showed/wasted/roasted them!”
But Roger-Roger, when you think with your penis, things get screwed up.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:38 amtalking trash about my fellow troops?
Comment by Roger_Roger_Debate_Dodger — February 26, 2007 @ 11:16 am
First, thank you for your service.
Second, when have I, or anyone here, talked trash about the troops?
Show me proof, or STFU, you dolt.
I’m so tired of this faux pas talking point, especially from the ilks who’ve never served (Rush, Bush, Cheney…et. al)
And speaking of supporting the troops, this is from my experience (and not a basis for everyone)…
February 26th, 2007 at 11:39 amIt seems that the majority of my friends on the left do more for the troops (supply food, toiletries, etc) then the right (who buy made in China bumper stickers)
Why do so many Americans hate America? Folks, please stop responding to the likes of Roger_Roger and his ilk. They are doing this to get a rise out of you and it works. It makes you look childish and cruel (they are “cannon fodder”? That’s disgusting. Think about what you are saying). Look up this acronym and take it to heart: YHBT.
Frankly I’m frightened for this nation. We have a legitimate warmonger in the Oval Office–it’s horrifying. The most powerful person on the planet is a stooge of a cadre of intellectuals bent on reshaping the world in their apocolyptic, Cold War-craving, profit-making visions. Good people are just speed bumps on their road to glory.
I’m worried that my daughter will not be able to get a safe and legal abortion. I’m worried that my son will have his mind warped by a media that glorifies the military and violence. I’m worried that my parents will die of cancers they won’t treat because it’s “expensive”. What is WRONG with us? Who are the people making this country so FUCKED UP? What can normal people do to stop them and this madness? We are heading backwards, and the world is paying for it.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:39 amRogerx2,
Diplomacy is the last hing on this administration’s list, when it should be the first. Do you believe that’s not true?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:41 amRe: #12
So, a poll says we should surrender, it is as meanlingless as a Sy Hersh story.
Comment by Patrick1
Assume that we go further than the proposal to slow troop deployment until full training, equipment, and rest time are in place for each soldier. Assume that U.S. armed forces leave Iraq altogether. You would call this “surrender.”
Question: what are we surrendering and to whom?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:44 amRoger_Roger,
So why are you so concerned about Iran as opposed to a country such as Pakistan?
Tell me which one is more responsible for nuclear proliferation?
Which country would you consider more of a terrorist state? Why?
Which one is run by a more brutal dictator?
February 26th, 2007 at 11:45 amRoger,
What about Pakistan?
Should we bomb them too?
-GSD
Perhaps Russia too. I mean they just sold 29 TOR-M1 missile systems to Iran. Let’s attack Russia too…..
February 26th, 2007 at 11:45 am#25 Juan,
“Im guessing you wont address these questions just like paul, Dale, Exley”
I find that a most ironic statement coming from you, Juan, when you, in fact, have a very consistent record of refusing to answer questions put to you during discussions.
And to answer your question put to Dale, Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is a signatory. Thus, Iran is in breach of its treaty obligations.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:46 amRoger > you are falling for the Bush Regime spin on Iran, just as you did for Iraq. Iran is ZERO threat to the United States, and they know that Israel has over 200 nuclear weapons, so they would be stupid to attack Israel. Bush and Cheney would like to attack Iran for other nefarious reasons. The problem is that Russia and China have defense ties with Iran and would not sit idly by while we attacked Iran. War is not the answer to any problem. Pakistan has about 100 nukes now, and Osama lives there, so be concerned about them.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:46 amIran is a very dangerous country.
Comment by Roger_Roger #23
…There is NOTHING on this earth more dangerous than ignorant, cowardly hypocrites…
…and THAT is exactly what right wing imperialist Israelis and unAmerican Bushites are…
…YOU threaten mankind with annihilation with your tens of thousands of nuclear weapons, and aggressive preemptive foreign terrorism…
…but warn OTHERS against defending themselves?
…you people are not only bullies but brainwashed delusional racist cattle…
…if you think that other nations are simply going to lay down and let you walk all over them…
…I think they think like any human worth his/her weight in salt…
…better to die a man/woman standing for what he/she believes…
…than die on his/her knees under the weight of tyranny and oppression…
…that’s seeing from the perspective of others…
…you and your kind might want to try that BEFORE you go bombing Iran…
February 26th, 2007 at 11:46 amAt the Bilderberg Conference, in Baden-Baden, Germany, David Rockefeller (a Rothschild) made the following statement:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world, if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years.
But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
Richard Nixon, as you know, liked to record all of his conversations.
US religious leader Billy Graham and President Richard Nixon once had the following exchange, which was caught on tape:
GRAHAM: “The Jewish stranglehold on the media has got to be broken or this country’s going down the drain”.
NIXON: “You believe that?”
GRAHAM: “Yes, sir.”
NIXON: “Oh boy. So do I. I can’t ever say that but I do believe it”
Don’t go any further until you see this: http://video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=-6500735333444855002&hl=en
February 26th, 2007 at 11:49 amhttp://video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=-8782509076175388309&hl=en
#1 Patrick1
So?
Read it again:
The Washington Post editorial board — which four years ago called President Bush’s plan for war in Iraq “an operation essential to American security†— is now harshly attacking Rep. John Murtha’s (D-PA) effort to increase support for the overstretched U.S. military and restrain Bush’s Iraq escalation.
Is that the flaming liberal news media you hate so much? The one that’s always bashing Bush? Oh, that’s not in your talking points bulletin for today? Sorry.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:51 am#13 I am a retired Marine. I was part of Desert Storm. Have you served your country or are you sitting on the bleachers talking trash about my fellow troops? Wake up, pick up a gun, and walk the line before opening your mouth please.
Comment by Roger_Roger
How does that make your opinion any more informed or useful than any other American’s? We all have a right to speak. We are a democracy (look it up). You have proven yourself to be an uninformed troll. Pick up a book before opening your mouth please.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:51 amWhere’s the document that gives us the authority to decide how other countries can defend themselves?
I tried the google but came up empty.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:52 am#21 Roger_Roger
What is even scarier is that our country has nukes and people who want to use them for the most minor infraction from another nation.
We need diplomacy, this administration is not engaging Iran in diplomacy, so we have no right to invade. Anyway, look at all the other nations that have nukes and we don’t invade. Israel has them, though they continue to deny it. Why do we not demand UN inspectors be sent there? North Korea has them, are we going to invade? Not likely. Pakistan has nukes, and they are quite unstable, more so since we started our little adventure in Iran. And look at India, our President decided it would be a good idea to trade them our nuclear technology for mangos! mangos!
If anything we should be talking to Iran and say, yes you can have nuclear power, but you must let us and the UN oversee it, and they must give all spent radioactive material back over to us to ensure they are not using it for weapons.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:52 am#14 Roger_Roger
If you don’t go fight the Iran War, you’re definitely going to have to go fight the one after that (China? Russia?), because we won’t have any troops left after Iran. Bush’s keen strategic military mind will see to that.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:56 amLet me see if I understand. The U.S. can have nukes which they have already used, label three other countries as “evil”, and attack one of those countries with scant if any reason. But those threatened countries have no cause for concern about the possible imperialistic intentions of the U.S., are not “allowed” to have nukes, and have to submit to the demands of the U.S. and the U.N. Further, the “compassionate U.S.” does not need to take into account the thousands of innocents in the threatened or attacked countries who have or could be killed by the U.S. weapons. No, I guess I don’t understand.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:56 am#34 big papa
after reading your post, I figured you would appreciate this little quote:
“The true supporters of government are the weak and the uninformed and not the wise.” - William Godwin
February 26th, 2007 at 11:56 ambs > “Intellectual elite and world bankers” preferable to rule over us? Creeps like Wolfowitz? The elite are greedy immoral unintelligent fools.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:57 amshit, chimpeach. roger thinks he knows but has no f. idea. iran will wear our asses out like the charlies in vietnam.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:59 amSex, drugs, and rock&roll are my rulers.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:59 amGood post as alway’s Juan C..Isn’t it odd the way the reich winged supporters think.? It’s O,K, that we have a mad man in charge of enough nuke’s to blow up the world, have supplied to other foreign (friend’s)??? nukes or the equipment to build them like Israel and let us not forget bull shit bush’s recent exchange for mangos and R-R along with the many 28% want the insane to invade another country….This entire administration and the 28% are insane……Diplomacy and exchange would work but they are to arrogant and stupid to try…..How about we go to Iran and help them build these suspected nuke’s and ask what they have to trade?….All countries should have the technolegy or none should have them….The united States should disarm first, after all we have the biggest supply of them, point one and we also have the craziest SOB on the planet and by his track record has killed more than all the other crazies now living…Get a F***ing grip on realety reich wingers…Wake the hell up..Stop the war’s and madness called bush now…..Blessings
February 26th, 2007 at 12:00 pmNo, I guess I don’t understand.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian(PLC)
It’s the “It All Started When The Other Guy Thought About Sticking Up For Himself” tactic.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:01 pmexactly jay. and if the folks don’t wake up to the truth of israels MAJOR ROLE in this there will nuclear warheads highfiving each other has they pass
February 26th, 2007 at 12:01 pmComment by AshenShard #42
…perhaps if it read…
…”this Bushite government”…
…then I could agree…
February 26th, 2007 at 12:01 pmMeanwhile, in a high profile effort to bolster his credibility on national security, 2008 Republican White House hopeful Mitt Romney last week called on New York to divest its pension fund of any holdings in firms doing with business with Iran. But as it turns out, it is Mitt Romney’s former employer with the ties to Tehran. And as you’d expect, Dick Cheney’s Halliburton is in deep Shiite as well.
For the details, see:
February 26th, 2007 at 12:02 pm“Romney, Cheney in Deep Shiite over Iran Investments.”
Tell ya what, if I was Iranian and looked at what America just did to my neighbor for their oil, I would be building nukes too.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:05 pmI wonder how much time Patrick1 has spent in Iraqnam and if the answer is zero, I wonder when he will volunteer to go get shot for a lie?
February 26th, 2007 at 12:09 pm#51 big papa
Well, it works better if you believe you can support a government and question it at the same time. I’m all for constantly criticizing elected officials, even if they are the ones you voted for and support. Keeps them on their toes, and keeps the voter from becoming complacent and just accepting everything their elected officials say and pass into law.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:10 pmhttp://video.google.com/ videoplay?docid=9070880407596532695&hl=en
http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=-vda1KRF75M&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eprisonplanet%2Ecom%2Farticles%2Ffebruary2007%2F220207Traitors%2Ehtm
Lou Dobbs - North American Union
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYOUolZnGIs
February 26th, 2007 at 12:12 pm#46 bs
shit, chimpeach. roger thinks he knows but has no f. idea. iran will wear our asses out like the charlies in vietnam.
These assclowns that are spoiling for a war with Iran have no idea what we’re looking at. Iran is four times the size of Iraq, is far more mountainous, has almost three times the population, and its army was not decimated by a war in ‘91 the way that Iraq’s was. On top of that, Iran is far superior in weapons technology to what Iraq was. They have state-of-the-art anti-ship missiles that will have a target-rich environment with three carrier groups in and around the Persian Gulf. They’ve begun mass-producing stealth drones. We don’t know just how stealthy they are, yet. Shall we go ahead and find out the hard way?
Oh what am I worried about? Somebody else’s kids are gonna die there, not mine. Whew.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:15 pm#43 PLC
Under the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory, Iran may not “manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.” For Iran to devlop or acquire nuclear weapons is a violation of its international treaty obligations.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:16 pmWell Exley did have one truthful little note we all knew….Israel has never signed a nuke proliferation agreement…Is that because they are in charge of the pupett string’s or because they are the U.S. money changer’s.? Both , my guess….Blessings
February 26th, 2007 at 12:16 pmI wonder when he will volunteer to go get shot for a lie?
February 26th, 2007 at 12:17 pmComment by Ben Dover — February 26, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
You have to be at least 18 to enlist in the military.
Just saying…
I’m not surprised that someone involved in Abscam would want us to surrender to the Islamists.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:18 pmDear Roger*2 and Patrick * .00001
February 26th, 2007 at 12:21 pmOil. Oil, Oil, Oil.
Furthermore Oil. Whatever Oil.
Oil, Oil, Oil, Iran, Iraq, Oil.
Oil, more Oil and finally Oil.
#59
BOTH, BOTH, AND MF BOTH
February 26th, 2007 at 12:25 pm#26 Roger_Roger
So you would back down and allow terrorist regimes like Iran to freely build Nuke Weapons? What happens if diplomacy doesn’t work and they keep building nuke weapons? Would you ever invade or would you simply sit back and let terrorist regimes like Iran to build WMD’s?
What if diplomacy would work, but you have an immature moron in the White House who’s afraid to try it? What if we’re doomed to go to war with every country our president is fearful of, just because he doesn’t have the nerve or the intelligence or the maturity to go talk to them? We had a Republican president in the 80s who, in spite of all the things I really couldn’t stand about him, was still grown-up enough to talk to the Soviet Union and get them to start disarming. Amazing, eh?
February 26th, 2007 at 12:26 pmI’m confused. I followed the link to the poll, but couldn’t find the question on the Murtha plan.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:27 pmSo?
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 10:56 am
So, Murtha should keep on plugging away and ignore the idiots on the WaPo editorial board.
#
I’m not surprised that someone involved in Abscam would want us to surrender to the Islamists.
Comment by Patrick1 — February 26, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
Like John McCain.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:29 pmRight, and since they DON’T have a weapon, they have NOT violated anything.
(I understand the Neocons consistent typos. Must be hard to type with all that drool on the keyboard.)
February 26th, 2007 at 12:30 pmComment by AshenShard #55
No doubt…
February 26th, 2007 at 12:32 pmWhy are you lying? Nothing you linked supports your claim as regards Murtha’s foolish plan?
February 26th, 2007 at 12:32 pm#61 Patrick1
I’m not surprised that someone involved in Abscam would want us to surrender to the Islamists.
I’m not surprised that someone who’s thrilled to have a coward and a deserter for a president would be coming up with a lame criticism like that to take shots at a decorated combat veteran who knows the troops better and cares about them more than anyone in the White House.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:35 pm[…] Smith’s death was tragic. But since Feb. 8, 42 U.S. soldiers have died fighting in Iraq. Approximately 969 Iraqis have been killed. Americans aren’t weary of the media’s war coverage, they’re weary of the war itself. […]
February 26th, 2007 at 12:36 pm#69 Dan Riehl
Why are you lying? Nothing you linked supports your claim as regards Murtha’s foolish plan?
What do you find foolish about it?
February 26th, 2007 at 12:37 pm#26 Roger_Roger
So you would back down and allow terrorist regimes like Iran to freely build Nuke Weapons? What happens if diplomacy doesn’t work and they keep building nuke weapons? Would you ever invade or would you simply sit back and let terrorist regimes like Iran to build WMD’s?
what about the terrorist regime in the whitehouse (with nukes)?
you know what it is. countries are not taking our shit anymore and i wouldn’t either. you come to my door with a 45 i’ll meet you with a double barrel shotgun with a 3″ mag. slug. do you get it?
good o’l saying roger: WHATS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER. get over yourself
February 26th, 2007 at 12:37 pmWhat do you find foolish about it? - Comment by chimpeach
Same thing a majority of Americans do. - TP is spreading a lie - here are numbers from a recent AP poll.
http://www.riehlworldview.com/ carnivorous_conservative/ 2007/ 02/ ap_iraq_poll_ha.html
9a. Would you favor or oppose Congress cutting all funding for the Iraq war?
-Favor, 29 percent
-Oppose, 68 percent
-Not sure, 3 percent
9b. Would you favor or oppose Congress cutting funding for the additional troops President Bush wants to send to Iraq?
-Favor, 38 percent
-Oppose, 60 percent
-Not sure, 2 percent
February 26th, 2007 at 12:43 pmNotice the question though. It’s asking people to choose the lesser of two evils. “Do you support A or B? Where A is cutting your arms off with no anesthesia and B is cutting your arms off with anesthesia?”
Well, it looks like 60% of Americans support having their arms cut off, but they would like anesthesia first.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:47 pm#33 Pakistan is an ally. They haven’t continually talked about destroying Israel either. Iran on the other hand funds terrorists and openly talks about detroying an American Ally. That makes them very different then Pakistan. Either way, Bush doesn’t do enough talking but Iran doesn’t stop there nuke program. That discussion is pretty straight forward. You stop developing Nukes right now or we bomb the living hell out of you and replace your government. Currently, its seems like they want to go for option 2 (bomb the hell out of them and replace there dictators).
In the end, they either stop or we make them stop. Either works for me.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:49 pmWell thanks Dan, for showing us a poll which asked conservatives how they felt about the war.
Maybe I should do a poll and ask vegetarians if they think meat is bad for your health, then extropolate it to conclude that all of America thinks meat is unhealthy
February 26th, 2007 at 12:49 pmDan,
You’re comparing apples to bowling balls.
Murtha’s plan says NOTHING about cutting 100% of funding. As a VETERAN, he would never support such a tactic.
The question in THIS poll was:
Would you support or oppose Congress trying to block Bush’s plan by creating new rules on troop training and rest time that would limit the number of troops available for duty in Iraq?
?Comprende?
February 26th, 2007 at 12:53 pmHere you go. Read the part where is it says “Iran had enabled the IAEA to carry out a series of inspections that amounted to the most robust inspection of any IAEA member State. It was regrettable that an ill-intended campaign had been at work to distort the facts about Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme, as witnessed today through the baseless allegations made by the representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Israeli regime.”
February 26th, 2007 at 12:54 pm#33 Pakistan is an ally. They haven’t continually talked about destroying Israel either. Iran on the other hand funds terrorists and openly talks about detroying an American Ally. That makes them very different then Pakistan. Either way, Bush doesn’t do enough talking but Iran doesn’t stop there nuke program. That discussion is pretty straight forward. You stop developing Nukes right now or we bomb the living hell out of you and replace your government. Currently, its seems like they want to go for option 2 (bomb the hell out of them and replace there dictators).
In the end, they either stop or we make them stop. Either works for me.
Comment by Roger_Roger — February 26, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
pakistans doesn’t fund terrorism? why is bin laden there and other al queada members? your head is so far up bushes ass the only time you see daylight is when he yawns.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:56 pmDRxJ,
Don’t mean to correct you, but the AP poll cited in posting #73 is not a poll of “conservatives.” I
Feb 24, 1:57 AM EST
Method Behind AP-Ipsos Poll on Iraq
The Associated Press-Ipsos poll on public attitudes about the Iraq war and U.S. policy in Iraq was conducted Feb. 12-15 and is based on telephone interviews with 1,002 adults from all states except Alaska and Hawaii.
Results were weighted to represent the population by demographic factors such as age, sex, region, race and income.
No more than one time in 20 should chance variations in the sample cause the results to vary by more than plus or minus 3 percentage points from the answers that would be obtained if all people in the U.S. were polled.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:56 pmSo, a poll says we should surrender
I thought the U.S. already won… at least three or four times, no?
February 26th, 2007 at 12:57 pmThere is absolutely no evidence to even suggest that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons. NONE.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:59 pm#78, You are citing the Iranian Representative to the U.N.’s statement as evidence that Iran is not violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty?
February 26th, 2007 at 1:00 pmRoget Rabbit says: Pakistan is an ally..etc.
Pakistan nuclear proliferator (North Korea) and sponsor of terror against a neighboring democracy (India). Why is Pakistan any different to Iran, or North Korea, or Saudi Arabia?
Wake up Roger - inform yourself. Invade Iran? You must have no military experience if you think that has a remote chance of success…
February 26th, 2007 at 1:03 pm#83 - No one denies that Iran had undergone the most robust IAEA inspections of any nation. There is absolutely no evidence that Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:05 pm“The question in THIS poll was:
Would you support or oppose Congress trying to block Bush’s plan by creating new rules on troop training and rest time that would limit the number of troops available for duty in Iraq?
?Comprende?”
And, as I said, I clicked the links and saw no such question. Verstehen Sie?
February 26th, 2007 at 1:05 pmThe 32% still supporting Bush?
February 26th, 2007 at 1:09 pmJust proves ol’ Abe Lincoln’s famous adage,
“you can fool SOME of the people ALL of the time…”
#85
And yet, “In December, the Security Council imposed limited sanctions on Iran over its refusal to suspend enrichment and gave it 60 days to halt enrichment. The deadline expired Wednesday … The International Atomic Energy Agency last week reported that Iran had ignored a U.N. Security Council ultimatum to freeze the enrichment program and instead had expanded it by setting up hundreds of centrifuges. Iran has repeatedly refused to halt enrichment as a precondition to negotiations about the program.”
No ‘Brakes’ on Iran Nuclear Effort
By Nasser Karimi
Associated Press
Monday, February 26, 2007
Ron, I do not favor military action against Iran at this time and think it is silly to even think such a thing will happen, but to argue that Iran is in complete compliance with its international nuclear obligations just does not hold ip against the facts.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:10 pmhey roger
dick sent this directly to you. and musharref is laauuuuughing.
Al-Qaida regrouping in Pakistan, Cheney says
February 26th, 2007 at 1:12 pmNah the mullahs in Iran wouldn’t want nuclear weapons, lets move on. The poll is pointless because President Bush decides what troops go and where, Congress can cut off the money but the old Abscam clown Murtha doesn’t want to do that he would rather surrender and move to Okinawa.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:14 pmYet here’s a poll that contradicts Exlax’s latest crap
Although majorities of men and women oppose sending more troops to Iraq, there is a gender gap on that issue. Fifty-six percent of men oppose the president’s plan while 66 percent of women oppose it. Women also are more likely to support efforts in Congress to cut off funding, with 57 percent saying they would back Democratic moves to do so compared to 48 percent of men.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ content/ article/ 2007/ 01/ 11/ AR2007011100282.html
And Exlax missed this relevant quote on the same page.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:15 pm#80 Pakistan has captured more terrorists then almost any other US ally to date. Sure they could do more, but I am confused. Why do you want to attack Pakistan? Currently they are helping us and Iran is a much bigger problem. Iran is the obvious target as they are threatening US allies and are pursuing WMD’s. Either way, if talking with Iran doesn’t work, will you agree with me that we need to invade?
February 26th, 2007 at 1:17 pmhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17340265/
theres the link for ya. how long has these meetings with paky been going on and i believe about the same o’l shit?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha,uuuhhhhhhh,hahahahahahahahaha
February 26th, 2007 at 1:18 pmBeyond the actual mechanics of stopping another country in its internal affiars, i.e., war, there is the question of where the authority for this action resides. Is the might makes right faction in charge of this or are there other worldly agencies involved. The usage of atomic weapons by the USA against the Japanese in 1945 is the only historical event of this awlful power. Our, that is the USA’s concept of national versus the rest of the world’s unknown collective ambitions as atomic powers leaves unanswered the qualifcations to wit, who has the final say. The client states of the Middle East that are beholden to the USA or the former USSR for military equipment and have been willing forego atomic technology development look at Isreal and India and wonder if this is fair.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:20 pmMr. Kim of North Korea has shown that atomic technology is a good devise for getting aid and without political damage to his internal power.
Mr. Bush and his mentor Mr. Cheney show no actual authority for their
warmongering. Iran is within its own borders and claims to only want to
provide energy for its internal usage. It remains to be seen if this is true.
Disarming all nuclear powers worldwide is the only answer that is fair to all. Alas, the genie is out of the bottle and as long as fools rule us we are
at the mercy of fools.
#21 - “You are saying that we should simply allow Iran to build nuke warheads? Seems highly misguided. I am all for diplomacy but if that fails, we certainly should be using the military option ASAP.”
“I guess the Dems are for Iran having Nukes. Scary.” Comment by Roger_Roger — February 26, 2007 @ 11:28 am
I guess the Republicans just don’t care about other dictators that HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS! Why are you completely ignoring North Korea?
Doesn’t a regime that HAS nuclear weapons that much more dangerous than a regime that is still a decade away from building their FIRST nuclear weapon?
Why do Republicans love SOME dictators that CAN hit the US with the Nuclear weapons they ALREADY HAVE?!?!?
February 26th, 2007 at 1:22 pm#88 - Oh, so now UN Resolutions are legally binding and we have to “get tough” with countries that don’t bow to them? Like the US. Like Israel. You don’t think we are staging for war with Iran? Why do we have two carrier groups off their coast? Is it all for looks? Why are we trying to frame Iran for crap going on in Iraq? You think this is all for fun?
Look, our government is looking for an excuse, any excuse, to bomb Iran and the nuclear program is the biggest one.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:29 pm#80 Pakistan has captured more terrorists then almost any other US ally to date. Sure they could do more, but I am confused. Comment by Roger_Roger — February 26, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
It helps, when most of the terrorists are located there.
Why do you want to attack Pakistan? Comment by Roger_Roger — February 26, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Why do you want to attack Iran, because Israel told you so?
Currently they are helping us and Iran is a much bigger problem. Comment by Roger_Roger — February 26, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Helping us? Yet they already have nukes, and Al Qaeda is located in Pakistan, not Iran. How’s Iran the bigger problem again? Oh wait, you’re talking about for Israel again.
Iran is the obvious target as they are threatening US allies and are pursuing WMD’s. Comment by Roger_Roger — February 26, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
Ah, there we go, Israel. Now by threatening, do you mean vague descriptions like their regime shouldn’t exist? Because by your definition we’ve threatened lots of countries, including Iran and Venezuela.
Either way, if talking with Iran doesn’t work, will you agree with me that we need to invade? Comment by Roger_Roger — February 26, 2007 @ 1:17 pm
No we won’t agree to that. Fool.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:32 pmLove your posts bs..
Now on to a lot of simple ideas and fluff for those that care..Or those that should think before they let their humming bird asses dictate their speech.
Hay, Iran leader’s, it’s time you recended the treaty, hell the mini war mongers that rule america don’t have one and they can bomb the shit out of any one they want and get more bomb’s made and shipped PDQ by their servant’s in the whore house…You know, cheney/ bushs and all their big war builders..
Here’s another thought for the chickenhaw’s, you want war, just keep up the current march on the world and one of these big nation’s is going to lite up the big one right here….Yep! while you are playing your F***ing word games and puffing up you chest’s thinking we on the left are weak (LOL..)….because we are fighting so hard for diplomacy , tolerance and respect of other nations some one equaly as insane as bush is going to come down the pike and send a big one up all our asses…Think progress is this site name…War’s and pramoting more is not progress it is regress….Stone age thinking form ,,,the evil and insane…….Blessings
February 26th, 2007 at 1:35 pmThus, Iran is in breach of its treaty obligations.
By enriching to fuel level? On the contrary, the treaty guarantees Iran’s right to do this, whether you like it or not.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:40 pmDemand Israel sign one or Shut the F**K up….Blessings
February 26th, 2007 at 1:47 pm#95
I completely agree with you. I applaud you for wanting to attack North Korea and I fully support your mindset Democrat Soldier. Any of these terrorist regimes should not have Nuke weapons. Since you want to attack North Korea, I don’t understand why you don’t want to attack Iran now before they get Nuke warheads.
Please explain why you want to attack North Korea right now and not Iran. Bare in mind that I agree with you that we should attack North Korea.
February 26th, 2007 at 1:51 pm#99 PeterW,
You are correct. Enriching uranium is not a violation of the NNPT. Moreover, the Treaty allows for nations to research and develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. But such activities must be done in compliance with IAEA monitoring to ensure that the activities are for peaceful purposes.
Iran has failed to follow IAEA protocols, which is why the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1696, demanding Iran “take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors in its resolution GOV/2006/14, which are essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme and to resolve outstanding questions.”
February 26th, 2007 at 1:56 pmUnder the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory, Iran may not “manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.â€
Comment by Exley
Ah, they just changed their minds - kind of like the U.S. and the Kyoto Treaty. Or the U.S. and its treaties with Native Americans. Or the U.S. and the Geneva Convention. Or the U.S. and its own citizens regarding surveilance. Or the U.S. and its own history of avoiding pre-emptive war.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:05 pmAny country that exists on a Lake of Oil cannot fool the world into thinking they need a new energy source. Iran is building nuke warheads as anyone can see. They don’t need the energy. They could easily build refineries much cheaper and they already have more Oil then they know what to do with. Not even you Dems are this blind to believe they need a new energy source. LOL.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:06 pmPLC,
The United States Senate never ratified the Kyoto Treaty (in fact, it passed a unanimous resolution that the treaty was flawed and that the Senate would not ratify the treaty as it was written).
The U.S. has not withdrawn from the Geneva Conventions.
Iran does have the authority to withdraw from the NNPT if they follow certain procedures:
Article X
1. Each Party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country. It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all other Parties to the Treaty and to the United Nations Security Council three months in advance. Such notice shall include a statement of the extraordinary events it regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests.
Iran has not said it is withdrawing from the NNPT and has not acted in accordance with its obligations under Article X.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:15 pmAnd to answer your question put to Dale, Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is a signatory. Thus, Iran is in breach of its treaty obligations.
Comment by Exley
Shouldnt we then be scared of Israel hostile actions instead of Iran´s or how hypocresy works?
February 26th, 2007 at 2:19 pmI am so sad that the Democrats seem to be backing away from Murtha’s plan. They are still scared that people will say that they don’t support the troops if they were to pass the bill. Well, I think that saying that our troops must be 1) rested, 2) trained and 3) properly equipped before we send them in to the Hellhole that is Iraq is the ONLY way we can support our troops at this time.
I wish the Democrats would adopt the Republic party’s “talking points” policy. They should issue a talking point that Murtha’s plan (spelling it out) is more supportive of our troops than it is to send them in untrained, unrested and unequipped just to become more cannon fodder.
The Democrats are proving to be a bunch of wimps. I had high hopes for them, and those hopes are dimming quickly.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:25 pm“You are saying that we should simply allow Iran to build nuke warheads? Seems highly misguided. I am all for diplomacy but if that fails, we certainly should be using the military option ASAP.”
First of all, the most liberal estimate of when Iran could possibly be ready to make a nuclear weapon is 2 years and most think that is highly unlikely. Most knowledgeable people think it will be more like 10 years. Also, where is the diplomacy? There has been none. And why is military action necessary ASAP? The only reason why military action is necessary ASAP is because Bush needs a way to draw us away from all the criminal things Bush has done which are just now being exposed.
Do you really want to start World War III to give Bush cover? If you do, you are a sad, sad human being.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:33 pmIran has not said it is withdrawing from the NNPT and has not acted in accordance with its obligations under Article X.
Comment by Exley — February 26, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
Iran has stated that they’re not pursuing a nuclear weapon so why should they withdraw from the NNPT?
February 26th, 2007 at 2:38 pmBut such activities must be done in compliance with IAEA monitoring to ensure that the activities are for peaceful purposes.
Iran suspended compliance after threats (including nuclear threats from an NPT state, the US, which is itself a violation of the NPT). Yes, they were in breach, but they were also provoked.
Similarly, the US has been - according to the IAEA - peddling false intelligence against Iran that has figured into the accusations of breach.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:38 pmJuan,
There is no international legal obligation to sign the NNPT. So, Israel’s non-signing of the treaty is not a “hostile action.” Brazil did not enter the treaty until 1998. I don’t think anyone considered Brazil’s actions hostile before they signed.
The fact is Iran DID sign the treaty and thus have certain obligations they need to fulfill if they wish to develop peaceful nuclear power capabilities or if they wish to withdraw from the NPT. They are fulfilling neither set of obligations.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:44 pm#75 “#33 Pakistan is an ally. They haven’t continually talked about destroying Israel either. Iran on the other hand funds terrorists and openly talks about detroying an American Ally.”
Pakistan is an ally NOW only because it suits their purpose. But Pakistan is also harboring Osama and feeding the Taliban. If they think it is no longer in their best interest to be our ally, they will switch horses in a hot minute.
Saudia Arabia funds terrorists. Should we be attacking them?
The Bushies are pretty selective in their definition of a terrorist. I consider the Bushies to be the biggest terrorists in the world.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:47 pmAs we speak, Darth and the chymp are working feverishly trying to sell us
February 26th, 2007 at 2:48 pm“The bombing of Iranâ€.
Kinda like a used car salesman parking a junker in your driveway and slipping the inflated invoice under your door.
Hey, you bought it!
#109 Nat,
That might very well be true. But if they are not withdrawing from the treaty and they are, as they claim, developing only peaceful nuclear capabilities, they need to do in accordance with the the terms of the treaty and IAEA regulations. And the IAEA and the UN Security Council have found that Iran has not been working in accordnace with its treaty obligations.
(Note: Again, just for the record: I do not support a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities at this time. Diplomacy and economic sanctions are the way to go. But this idea that Iran is complying with its treaty obligations is not true).
February 26th, 2007 at 2:50 pmIn Exlax’s world, a country that doesn’t sign a treaty, and therefore remains hostile to controlling loose nukes is less dangerous than a country that signs a treaty and back out of it. Exlax, you’re truly the source of sh*t.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:51 pmThat might very well be true. But if they are not withdrawing from the treaty and they are, as they claim, developing only peaceful nuclear capabilities, they need to do in accordance with the the terms of the treaty and IAEA regulations. And the IAEA and the UN Security Council have found that Iran has not been working in accordnace with its treaty obligations.
Comment by Exley — February 26, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
They are not in violation of the treaty and they have stated the nuclear program is for their growing energy crisis.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:55 pm#95 Democrat Soldier
I guess the Republicans just don’t care about other dictators that HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS! Why are you completely ignoring North Korea?
Not to mention that all of the nukes that North Korea does have were built while either Bush I or Bush II was in office. Clinton got them to stop.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:56 pmComment by Dan Riehl 373
…Dan no one counts…
…troll polls..
February 26th, 2007 at 3:04 pmthat should be Dan Riehl #73
February 26th, 2007 at 3:05 pm#104 Roger_Roger
Any country that exists on a Lake of Oil cannot fool the world into thinking they need a new energy source. Iran is building nuke warheads as anyone can see. They don’t need the energy. They could easily build refineries much cheaper and they already have more Oil then they know what to do with. Not even you Dems are this blind to believe they need a new energy source. LOL.
I love set-ups like this. I know they’re cheap and easy, but it’s so much fun when you serve one up right down the middle of the plate and let us smack it into the cheap seats.
Please read:
Past Arguments Don’t Square With Current Iran Policy
By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, March 27, 2005
Lacking direct evidence, Bush administration officials argue that Iran’s nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making. Vice President Cheney recently said, “They’re already sitting on an awful lot of oil and gas. Nobody can figure why they need nuclear as well to generate energy.”
Yet Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago.
Ford’s team endorsed Iranian plans to build a massive nuclear energy industry, but also worked hard to complete a multibillion-dollar deal that would have given Tehran control of large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium — the two pathways to a nuclear bomb…
February 26th, 2007 at 3:05 pmuh-oh #74
February 26th, 2007 at 3:05 pmNot to mention that all of the nukes that North Korea does have were built while either Bush I or Bush II was in office. Clinton got them to stop.
It’s worse than that, chimpeach. Their program was plutonium based - and when Clinton sealed that deal, seals were placed on all their facilities. Then, out of nowhere, Bush & Bolton accused North Korea of a Uranium-based weapons program and suspended the US’ end of the deal. So North Korea resumed its weapons program, and tested… a plutonium-based bomb.
The uranium-based bomb program simply didn’t exist, except as a pretext for the US to back out of the deal and provoke NK into resuming its extant program. So until Bush’s and Bolton’s false accusations, the Clinton deal was working.
(Remember also, Bolton was the guy who claimed that Cuba has bio/chem weapons programs with absolutely no basis)
February 26th, 2007 at 3:08 pm#117 “they have stated the nuclear program is for their growing energy crisis.”
Again, Nat, they are obligated under the treaty to allow the IAEA to verify that assertion.
Article III
February 26th, 2007 at 3:16 pm1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agencys safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices …
Again, Nat, they are obligated under the treaty to allow the IAEA to verify that assertion.
And, for the most part, they have. That’s the part you keep leaving off - and it’s a dishonest omission.
In addition, Iran knows full well that the US abused and coopted the IAEA in the ’90s in Iraq to gather intelligence. The conditions Iran has put on who may be an inspector must be considered in that light.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:23 pmArticle III
1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Agencys safeguards system, for the exclusive purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices …
Comment by Exley — February 26, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
In 2005 they were held in non-compliance of the NNPT safety agreement for not disclosing their civilian enrichment program but they were not in violation of the NNPT itself. To this day they have not been held in non-compliance of the NNPT.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:39 pmPeterW,
“And, for the most part, they have.”
The UN Security Council disagrees with you, having passed UNSC 1696 and the UNSC 1737
http://www.un.org/ News/ Press/ docs/ 2006/ sc8928.doc.htm
February 26th, 2007 at 3:43 pmAny country that exists on a Lake of Oil cannot fool the world into thinking they need a new energy source.
Comment by Roger_Roger — February 26, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
If this is your rationale for a military action against Iran, then you better gear up for an attack against Canada, Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil: All these countries are oil producers and have a nuclear energy program.
Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has disclosed interest in developing a nuclear energy program for civilian use.
You have a very tough, long road ahead of you, Roger*2 -so many countries to bomb, so little time.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:48 pmIs it just me or does the link lead to poll results that do not contain the question about Murtha’s plan?
February 26th, 2007 at 3:50 pmThe UN Security Council disagrees with you,
But the IAEA does not. The Security Council, like you, is being used as a tool. The IAEA reports all describe substantial, if imperfect, compliance.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:59 pmWhat will happen if the US Nukes Iran?
The US will become the new “Axis of Evil”.
Bush desperately wants to start a war with Iran as a last gasp effort to salvage something beyond ignominious defeat for his “Legacy”. All of the scenarios spelled out in the War Games the Joint Chiefs did in the last five years have said that starting a war with Iran will inevitably lead to a nuclear first strike against Iran’s Natanz facility.
The War Games Scenario for the Iran War goes like this:
1) The US or Israel [with US cooperation] prepares to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities at Natanz and Esfahan. A few Generals and Admirals resign but the attack happens anyway. The attack causes major surface damage but does not penetrate through the layers of reinforced concrete and steel to the level of the Centrifuges and Uranium processing facilities. The attack is a failure but it starts a US/Israeli war with Iran.
2) Iran announces it is withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran attacks the US Aircraft Carriers and their escorts in the gulf using swarming speedboats, torpedoes and silkworm cruise missiles and sinks at least 1 carrier and several other ships causing 2000-3000 US casualties.
3) The US Air-force starts large scale bombing of Iran’s infrastructure.
4) Iran’s Revolutionary Guard invades southern Iraq with 300,000-400,000 ground troops and cuts off all supplies to US forces in southern and western Iraq.
5) The US bombs areas of southern Iraq where Iranian soldiers are blocking US supplies and the US bombing causes mass civilian casualties.
6) The Iraqi Shiite and Sunni Mullahs issue a Fatwa directing all Insurgents and Militias to attack US soldiers and not each other.
7) US forces are besieged by 300,000 Iranians and 200,000 Iraqi Insurgents and Militia soldiers. After 60 days of intense fighting and 10,000-20,000 US casualties, the US bases in Iraq run out of fuel, ammunition and food.
8) The US troops in southern Iraq, western Iraq and Bagdad are forced to retreat under fire to the Kurdish north leaving behind all of their heavy equipment.
9) The Iranians seize the abandoned US weapons and bring in fuel and supplies and turn the weapons on the US.
10) The US uses tactical nuclear bombs to attack the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Militia forces in southern Iraq and nuclear bunker buster bombs to destroy Natanz and Esfahan in Iran. There are 300,000 immediate civilian casualties caused by the blast and 750,000 cases of radiation poisoning in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Northern India.
11) All Oil production in Iraq and Iran stops for 6-9 months [25% of world oil production]. All middle-eastern countries together impose a total Oil Embargo on supplies to the US and Israel. Venezuela, Bolivia and Argentina join in the Oil Embargo. Gasoline and Heating Fuel-oil prices rise to $10.00 per gallon, Natural Gas prices rise to $5.00 per CCF and gasoline rationing is imposed. Energy intensive industries shut down, frequent major blackouts are occur crippling the server farms that power the Internet. The US economy suffers a meltdown.
12) Iran abrogates the Non-Proliferation Treaty and reprocesses Plutonium from their research reactors to produce 1-2 nuclear bombs which are used to destroy Tel Aviv. Israel responds with their own nuclear bombs destroying Tehran.
13) A general war of all Islam vs. the US and Israel ensues. All US bases in the middle-east are attacked causing 50,000-75,000 US casualties before the US forces can escape. Israel is invaded from all sides by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories. The US and Israel are branded by the world as the “Axis of Evil”.
Imagine a world where the US is reviled by every other nation for the unforgivable damage we have done to innocent civilians. Where the US is under a Permanent Oil Embargo by all OPEC member states. Where Canada, Mexico and South America join Europe and Asia to ban all trade with the US and evict all US Military bases from their soil. Where all US citizens with any connection to the Bush Administration are put on a No-Fly List and are banned from travel outside the US. Where all US multi-national corporations are boycotted or banned by the rest of the world or are forced to split and change their names to avoid anti-US sentiment.
All this and more can happen if Bush decides to Nuke Iran.
Bush is the Decider. He makes the Decisions and the rest of us have to live with the consequences. Bush’s Decisions about the Middle-East have been uniformly bad. Some of them have been worse than bad; they have crossed the line into the zone of Criminal Negligence and Suicidal Stupidity.
The worst Decision Bush has made in his two terms as President has been to insist that the use of Nuclear Bunker Buster bombs remain in the Pentagon’s planning for dealing with Iran.
Iran may be telling the truth or Iran may be lying when they say that they are only trying to enrich Uranium for nuclear power. If Iran is telling the truth and their goal is just nuclear power, then using a Nuke against Iran will guarantee that Iran will go for The Bomb in self defense. If Iran is lying then using a Nuke against Iran will only delay Iran getting The Bomb by one or two years and will guarantee that they will attempt to use it against the US.
The US B61-11 Nuclear Bunker Buster bomb is only able to penetrate hard rock to a depth of 10-20 feet before it detonates. At 20ft penetration and maximum yield, the B61-11 can only destroy a facility that is buried less than 600ft below ground. Blast forces can be blocked by simple inexpensive materials like a 100ft thick layer of gravel or bags of sand or granulated salt. The limitations of the B61-11 have been known for years and any Iranian weapons facility will have been built with those limits in mind.
If Iran is actually trying to build a Nuclear Bomb, they will probably have done what Iraq and Pakistan did by building a secret second facility buried deep under ground under the publicly visible facilities at Natanz and Esfahan.
The Natanz facility in Iran is known to have a double roof of thick reinforced concrete with 50-75ft of gravel between the concrete layers. The roof is sufficient to protect against any non-nuclear bunker buster (even the US air forces MOAB bomb). Natanz could probably also survive a low yield Nuclear Bunker Buster bomb.
If the US actually used the B61-11 bomb in Iran against the Natanz or Esfahan facilities more than 500,000 civilian deaths could be expected in iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:02 pmSupport: 58 percent
Oppose: 39 percent