Comment by John Kerry — December 6, 2007 @ 4:57 pm

Most of us do not have access to the president; what a moronic statement. That’s why there are press conferences, many of which are televised. That’s why Bush’s speeches around the country and around the world, and his pre-arranged meetings with hand-picked groups, are televised. See, these events are meant to keep us common folk informed. That’s why we trust the president to not lie to us the way Bush has.

Bush said diplomacy was responsible for Iran’s actions; why are you so hell-bent on dismissing him?

What left wing talking points? I can cite everything I stated, and not from what you would call loony sites. Hell, I can start with the White House web site and all day long pull info from press conferences over the past 5 years showing how this administration sold the war to America. You don’t want to take the time to dispute what I have stated because you CAN’T.

The fact stands: no one in this administration, from Bush, to Cheney, to Hadley, to Perino…NO ONE is even hinting that the war on terror, the central front of which is right next door to Iran, had anything to do with Iran standing down. Not even former administration officials are contending this; Bolton smells a conspiracy theory (perhaps he just needs to change his underwear), as does Bush butt kisser and fellow Iraq warmonger Fred Thompson.

Let’s take a historical look at Bush’s public response to Libya’s very public announcement that it was abandoning its WMD program in Dec. 2003, which was just months after our invasion of Iraq:

Bush said U.S. pressure on North Korea and Iran and the war in Iraq “have sent an unmistakable message to regimes that seek or possess weapons of mass destruction: Those weapons do not bring influence or prestige. They bring isolation and otherwise unwelcome consequences.

Source.

So where was this declaration in Bush’s press conference regarding Iran??? Hmmm? What’s that you say? It wasn’t? Why not???

Where was it in Dana’s press conferences?? What? She didn’t mention it? Why not?

As for Israel, no, I was not suggesting that Iran stood down because they were afraid of Israel. It’s a response to your suggestion that Iran stood down due to fear of action by the U.S. I’m simply asking “what about a threat from Israel?”, which even the U.S. apparently feels is a credible threat; did you even bother to access the link I provided?

i really don’t wonder at all, about that

Funny thing about NIE estimates and what people on each side believe, ain’t it?

You make fun of us libs believing one intelligence assessment and dismissing another, when those on the right do the very same thing. Prior to the Iraq war, the war hawks and neocons who supported Bush were wrapping themselves up in the intelligence that said Iraqis had stockpiles of WMDs and Saddam was going to hit us with a nuke “some day” in the future. Yet with the current NIE on Iran, some of the very same people are running from it as if it were the plague…Bolton and Fred Thompson, to name two.

Why aren’t you asking Bush for an answer? So far, at least on this blog, I haven’t seen anyone disputing Bush’s answer as to why Iran stood down. You think it’s because of the Iraq invasion or the overall “war” on terror? Love him or hate him, we look to the president to inform us of the activities around the world, especially those that affect this country. He is our leader (”leader” in Bush’s case) after all. If the Bush administration truly felt that way, and actually thought they could convince the American people of it, it would be political gold.

Bush has spent every month for the last 5 years continually trying to convince Americans that invading Iraq was the right thing to do. He has given us a minimum of 9 different reasons for invading. Support for the war has gone downhill since the invasion. He has traveled across America and around the world on countless trips, attending conferences, holding meetings, and giving speeches, and has used one press conference after another to drum up support of the war in Iraq. He and his warmonger friends have used images of terrorists in our malls and grocery stores to frighten us into supporting his war. He and others have tried to convince us that Democratic victories in the presidential and congressional elections would be a victory for the terrorists. And the American people ain’t buying it.

But Iran forced to give up its nuclear ambitions because of our show of force in Iraq and/or our commitment to go after terrorists or the supporters of terrorists? Oh, man! It’s vindication handed to Bush on a silver platter!

But there’s just one problem: Bush can’t prove it. Oh, he could throw it out there and see who would take the bait, and maybe get a few more people to support him. But there wasn’t even the slightest hint of this in his press conference…not even a suggestion of diplomacy + the threat of military action.

Why did Iran continue to put on a facade about nukes? Have you dismissed a threat from Israel? Here’s the link to the article I mentioned earlier:
Link.

Comment by John Kerry — December 6, 2007 @ 8:08 am

Well, according to Bush, it was diplomacy. “Carrots and sticks” as he mentioned at least 3 times during his press conference. Are you suggesting it was the invasion of Iraq? I believe you mentioned earlier that we removed the threat of Iraq attacking Iran (with what, since there were no WMDs); what about Israel? Don’t have time to look it up now, but I have a link to recent news that the administration is afraid they’ll attack Iran.

So this is fantastic news as it shows that our President was right in defeating the evil madman for many reasons but now we know it also ended up convincing the Iranians to stop their nuke program

BwaaaHaaaaHaaaa

What an insane stretch!

BwaaaHaaaaHaaaa

Keep posting this stuff John! I need the laughs.

Even the mainstreamers have the brows all furrowed…

very very very very bad, for Dubbie and the Righties

Comment by republicans hate facts — December 5, 2007 @ 5:39 pm

Don’t you understand??? We are supposed to bomb the shit out of them NOW because they might attack us in 2017.

*snark*

And that, my friends (apologies to J. McCain), is the question of the decade.

And…the obvious answer was, “No, he didn’t ask any follow-up.”

That is how preposterous, ludicrous, and laughably, tragically, misguided “conservative thinking” is.

“Bartender! Big shoes and red rubber noses for all my Righty buddies!!!!!!!!”

Honk honk, teenfluffer!!

Honk honk, capt. asstragic!!!

Drinks are on me, clowns.

Oh, the efficacy of a police state is not lost on me, they almost never go away on their own, which was one of the reasons outing Saddam and Sons seemed like not a totally stupid idea.

Iran is weird though because the generational power gap is SO profound…the police and the military HAVE to have support of youthful strong arm types. I suspect the religious brainwashing aspect is a big part of it. And Juan, no double dipping on this last point! ;)

Comment by Juan C. — December 5, 2007 @ 4:52 pm

Hah! I saw that one coming! Never let it be said I don’t toss you guys a softball now and then!