Joe Scarborough Rips Bush On Iran NIE: He’s Either ‘Lying’ Or ‘Is Stupid’
Joe Scarborough Rips Bush On Iran NIE: He’s Either ‘Lying’ Or ‘Is Stupid’
Yesterday in his press conference, President Bush asserted that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell told him “we have new information” on Iran’s nuclear program, but “he did not tell me what the information was.”
This morning, the cast of Morning Joe chided Bush’s claim. Co-host Willie Geist said, “It’s just not a credible answer, I’m afraid.” Host Joe Scarborough ripped into Bush, saying that president is either “lying to the American people” or is simply “stupid”:
We are left with only two options here. Either the President of the United States is lying to the American people about what happened during that meeting, or the President of the United States is stupid.
Watch it:
Earlier on the show, Scarborough and Pat Buchanan called for congressional subpoenas of Bush’s advisors, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to determine when they knew about the latest NIE report.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
298 Responses to “Joe Scarborough Rips Bush On Iran NIE: He’s Either ‘Lying’ Or ‘Is Stupid’”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Either? How about both, plus anti-American, incompetent, a fool, a dope, a mook, and the worst president in US history. Fact.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:19 amDo we have to choose?
December 5th, 2007 at 11:20 amI was wondering which lie that Bush has been spouting with impunity for the past 6 years would finally be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back....
December 5th, 2007 at 11:20 amMy goodness! Ol' Joe is a reichwinger from way back - and now he's ripping Chimpy a new one...?
Oh, goody! Pass the popcorn - this is gonna be fun!!
December 5th, 2007 at 11:21 amOMG, is Joe Scarborough actually agreeing with me, or am I agreeing with him?
December 5th, 2007 at 11:23 amI'm no fan of Scarborough, but I think he is a Republican who understands that Bush has destroyed his party. Too bad Age of Rifles, Roger2, Southern Man and the other idiots who post can't see that. Really sad when Joe Scarborough is your intellectual superior.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:25 amToo bad Age of Rifles, Roger2, Southern Man and the other idiots who post can’t see that. Really sad when Joe Scarborough is your intellectual superior.
Lassie is their intellectual superior.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:27 amLassie is their intellectual superior.
Comment by Lefty Patriot — December 5, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Touche
December 5th, 2007 at 11:28 amArf!
December 5th, 2007 at 11:29 amScarborough may be a dumb ass at times, but at least he shows he can think for himself, unlike the 28% or so who still back Bush.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:29 amLASSIE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!
December 5th, 2007 at 11:30 amMaybe Lassie could run as a Republican. ;o)
December 5th, 2007 at 11:30 amShe'd outdo JulieAnnie, McCranefly, Mittens and the Huckster, in a landslide.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:32 amWhy does it have to be one or the other?
December 5th, 2007 at 11:32 amBut seriously, when Pat Bucholic is asking for subpoenas for Condi, the lunch menu contains the entire Bush administration...
December 5th, 2007 at 11:33 am#7..Lefty, you notice the morning has been relatively troll-free. Jason made an early appearance and split. They literally have nothing they can say to this. There are huge cracks in the dam and water is starting to seep through.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:34 amScarborough and Buchanan are the latest to leave the building. Will the next to the last one out please turn out the lights (I would have said "the last one" but that will be GDumbya and his lights have been out since the day he was born so we can't depend on him).
I am hearing that GDumbya is in Omaha today calling for Iran to "come clean" on their nu-ku-lar ambitions. What a complete and total moron! If it weren't so pathetic, it would almost be amusing to watch him twist slowly in the wind for the last year of his presi-duncy.
The report is also out today that the Israeli military has started referring to him as "a lame duck without the political capital to bomb Iran". He spends seven years as the chief pawn of the Zionistas and they are now throwing him under the bus. The poor idiot gets no respect.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:35 amSorry if it's been said before - Bush is a lying AND stupid.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:35 am"he's either lying or is stupid.'
Geez, Joe, after 7 years, you are just NOW figuring this out?
December 5th, 2007 at 11:37 amOh, BTW the president's denial yesterday scored a
986,765,457,832.12 on the LyingBastardometer.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:37 amwell, I think Joe is the man to make this statement, himself being a first-person expert on lying and stupidity. I also think the trolls have really been knocked for a loop by this latest exposure of their criminally incompetent cult-leader; what kind of administration buries and/or ignores this kind of report? We know what kind, and they are starting to see the light. After all these years under their beds, the light has them spooked pretty good. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be penetrating into the Dem Congress very well yet.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:38 amNot even a single troll spraying "Clinton did it" all over their bib.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:42 amHe left one out, Evil. Stupid, lying, evil George W. Bush.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:42 amNot even a single troll spraying “Clinton did it†all over their bib.
Actually, this is their main daily activity and they are doing it today. They are just not posting here. Thank goodness for small favors.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:44 amWhile I have no doubt "My Pet Goat" is a good read, we really must update's Dubya's readling list to include "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".
December 5th, 2007 at 11:44 amI predict the imminent invasion of Scarborough Country.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:44 am#25, let's go ahead and add "Chicken Little" to the list as well.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:46 amClinton did it too...
December 5th, 2007 at 11:46 am.....And the walls came tumbling down.........
December 5th, 2007 at 11:46 amWelcome to the club, Joe!:
What’s worse, having a President who decietfully lies about national security issues for political gain, or having a President who is so damned stupid that even his top aides keep him “out of the loop†on the most important national security matters?
Comment by OxyCon — December 4, 2007 @ 11:22 am
December 5th, 2007 at 11:47 am# 15 RUCerious:
But seriously, when Pat Bucholic is asking for subpoenas for Condi, the lunch menu contains the entire Bush administration…
Terminology, terminology, please. Let's keep on message. That should be "maladministration"™....
Cheers,
December 5th, 2007 at 11:48 am'Not even a single troll spraying “Clinton did itâ€'
Well, why would anyone say 'Clinton did it.' Unlike Bush, Clinton did NOT get the Iranians to cease their nuclear weapons program.
As the NIE shows, the Iranians were pursuing a nuclear weapons program from 1980 to fall 2003. Thus, they were working on nukes throughout the Clinton administration. Bush, on the other, helped get them to suspend their efforts.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:50 amHe is BOTH. You don't think it can be this way because you are assuming that he is a normal President, totally in charge. But he has not only delegated a ton of power to the unaccountable Vice President, but he is really simply a frontman, a face of the corporate consortium who are the real power and the ones calling the shots.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:50 amGeez, so will Joe apologize to those amongst us who have been saying this for at least 6 or 7 years now? All of a sudden folks are growin' spines, findin' their cojones, and developing a conscience. Will wonders never cease?
Now, if only KKKarl would voluntarily plead guilty and demand the maximum allowable sentence, after being agreeing to be waterboarded...
December 5th, 2007 at 11:51 amDid somebody fart or did a troll just come in?
December 5th, 2007 at 11:52 amSokath, his eyes open.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:52 amOh, BTW the president’s denial yesterday scored a 986,765,457,832.12 on the LyingBastardometer.
-Comment by RUCerious
I was worried your machine may go into critical mass and meltdown.
That must be the highest reading yet on the old LBO, eh?
Well, at least it's one record the Shrubster can claim.
Why is no one, MSM or otherwise, connecting the '06 election dot with the Oct. '06 NIE report sequestration dot?
December 5th, 2007 at 11:52 am1980 to fall 2003...
Hmm, weren't they attacked by a certain neighbor who was being armed by the US??? Hmmm...Ronnieeeeee!!!
December 5th, 2007 at 11:52 am#17 tom:
The report is also out today that the Israeli military has started referring to him as “a lame duck without the political capital to bomb Iranâ€.
IC. They're taunting him, trying to reverse this setback to their schemes. Telling him he's an "LD" (a/k/a "limp-dick") with not enough -- uhhh, "balls" -- to do it. The truly sad part is that such a tactic may well work on Dubya.....
Cheers,
December 5th, 2007 at 11:53 amZim, that reading does set a new record, but I'm expecting Cheney's next utterance to have a real shot at topping the trillion mark.
I beefed up my frazzilator to prevent said meltdown, seems to be frazzing just fine now.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:54 amNot even a single troll spraying “Clinton did itâ€â€™
Well, why would anyone say ‘Clinton did it.’ Unlike Bush, Clinton did NOT get the Iranians to cease their nuclear weapons program.
As the NIE shows, the Iranians were pursuing a nuclear weapons program from 1980 to fall 2003. Thus, they were working on nukes throughout the Clinton administration. Bush, on the other, helped get them to suspend their efforts.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 11:50 am
And we have our winner. Who actually tested a nuclear weapon while bush was in office, that's right, North Korea? He did such a good job there.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:55 amBush knew Iran was not persuing a nuclear weapon, yet he LIED in an attempt to kill more Americans and innocent civilians in his drum beat for another war. Nice person to support.
i vote both.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:55 amBush, on the other, helped get them to suspend their efforts.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Nice Jingle Ballsâ„¢, Ex-Lax. Is this the new troll fashion statement du jour?
Along w/ the candy cane striped codpiece and those curly toed elf shoes?
Somebody get a picture of this outfit, for posterity's sake. This is as bad as a baby blue leisure suit, w/ platform shoes, and I'm sure you have one, or more, of those in yer closet too.
BTW, you phony sack of shit, if Herr Brusch managed to intimidate the Iranians into giving it up 4 yrs ago, why was he still trying to find an excuse to bomb them just a few days ago?
You... are... PATHETIC.., FFFFFFF!!!!!! UUUUUUU!!!!
December 5th, 2007 at 11:55 amThanks, RUC.
Warning! Do not let Jason Manhandler near that Frazzilator! God only knows what he would try to do with it.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:56 amRemember Joe, that is YOUR president:
http://cgi.fark.com/cgi/fark/youtube.pl?IDLink=3237535
Monkey in the middle.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:57 amBTW, just for the troll record, Bush's daring invasion of Iraq also sent a stern message to the wild monkeys in eastern India. They haven't been pursuing a nucular weapon either.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:57 amMay I remind all readers that Article II Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States reads, “The President, the Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, and other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.â€
I'm just sayin'.....
December 5th, 2007 at 11:58 amAh, Exley! The pure faith of the deluded is a wonder to behold. Bush didn't get Iran to do anything. Iran saw Bush's illegal invasion of Iraq and knew they'd be next if Bush (Cheney) could do it -- so why would they stop building a nuke? A nuke would make them immune to invasion; they'd recover from a mere aerial bombing. The Iranians stopped going for nukes for some other reason, not because of The Empty Flightsuit's manliness.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:59 amAs bad as Bush's performance was yesterday, the WH press corps' was worse. Not a single reporter present challenged Bush's preposterous and utterly unbelievable assertion that the DNI in August told him of new info on Iran. but didn't tell him what the information was. It was an eye-popping comment that didn't raise an eyebrow with the snoozing press corps.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:00 pmAs the NIE shows, the Iranians were pursuing a nuclear weapons program from 1980 to fall 2003. Thus, they were working on nukes throughout the Clinton administration. Bush, on the other, helped get them to suspend their efforts.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Correlation is not causation. Iran's reasons for suspending its program could have nothing to do with the Bush administration. Particularly after they offered us a deal in May 2003 and we told them to go shove it.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:00 pm"Earlier on the show, Scarborough and Pat Buchanan called for congressional subpoenas of Bush’s advisors, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, ... "
Funny, Pat Buchanan wasn't so thrilled with the idea of Congressional Subpoenas here:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2007/03/23/rogue_congress
They will say anything, ANYTHING!
December 5th, 2007 at 12:00 pmI prefer to call them the White House press corpse.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:01 pmAs the NIE shows, the Iranians were pursuing a nuclear weapons program from 1980 to fall 2003. Thus, they were working on nukes throughout the Clinton administration. Bush, on the other, helped get them to suspend their efforts.
Comment by Exley
It also means they were working on nukes throughout the the Reagon and Bush Sr. administrations.
At any rate... you posted this yesterday, praising Bush for working with the UN on a multi-lateral diplomatic effort that succeeded in getting Iran to halt it's nuke program. Personally I'm very happy with this development. I'm glad the Bush admisitration is finally doing what those of us on the left have been calling for for so long. And of course it's working.
My question to you is this:
If it worked in Iran, and it worked in North Korea, why wouldn't it have worked in Iraq?
Seems to me we could have prevented the loss of life of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis...
December 5th, 2007 at 12:03 pm#48, Heh!
Sure, NoOneYouKnow, Iran's leaders was not at all influenced in 2003 to suspend its nuclear weapons program by the fact that the United States invaded and deposed one of its enemies (who happened to be situated right next door to Iran) because of concerns that enemy was developing WMDs....No influence at all....
Heh.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:04 pm"you posted this yesterday, praising Bush for working with the UN on a multi-lateral diplomatic effort that succeeded in getting Iran to halt it’s nuke program. Personally I’m very happy with this development."
You and I are on the same page here, DigDug.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:05 pmCorrelation is not causation. Iran’s reasons for suspending its program could have nothing to do with the Bush administration. Particularly after they offered us a deal in May 2003 and we told them to go shove it.
Comment by toasterhead — December 5, 2007 @ 12:00 pm
Excellent point toasterhead, I forgot all about that.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:05 pmExlax; I see that you doubled your dose of stupid pills today.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:06 pmIf I had read a transcript, without a name, of the Pat Buchanan comments from "morning joe", I would have sworn it was made by a progressive Democrat.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:06 pmSeems to me we could have prevented the loss of life of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis…
Comment by DigDug — December 5, 2007 @ 12:03 pm
But then Grover Norquist's plans for Middle East domination would've just sat on a shelf and gathered dust.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:06 pmJoe you should have been listening to us all along, but noooooo, you went along with the Fascist Propaganda Machine and believed all the lies all the time, and NOW you see the light, just now you understand that he is a liar that has lied about absolutely everything 24/7.
I bet he even lied about his dog's name, it's not Barny, it's Barfy.
Bush/Cheney
Hague Trials '09
Buck Fush
December 5th, 2007 at 12:06 pmecause of concerns that enemy was developing WMDs….No influence at all….
Heh.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
And that's the reason the blood-thirsty liitle moron was STILL trying to justify bombing them just last week, and when he got caught in ANOTHER hideous lie, he told yet ANOTHER ridiculous lie...
Perhaps if you call Scarborough direct, he'll gladly put yer worthless ass on the air so you can tell the whole F-in' country what to think, dingleberry.
Nice Jingle Ballsâ„¢, BTW.
Ching-ching-ching-a-ling... Ho ho ho!!!
December 5th, 2007 at 12:06 pm"Correlation is not causation. Iran’s reasons for suspending its program could have nothing to do with the Bush administration."
Toasterhead...C'mon...Use your...well, your toasterhead.
It is denying the obvious to argue that Iran was not influenced by the military and diplomatic actions of the Bush administration...Why do you think they stopped? Out of the goodness of their hearts?
December 5th, 2007 at 12:07 pmYou and I are on the same page here, DigDug.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
Better make sure that page isn't underaged, boyyyyz... and that no one's taking pix...
December 5th, 2007 at 12:08 pmJoe Scarborough Rips Bush On Iran NIE: He’s Either ‘Lying’ Or ‘Is Stupid’
I'll submit that this statement may well apply to both Joe & Bush.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:09 pmYou and I are on the same page here, DigDug.
Comment by Exley
That's nice. But you didn't answer my question.
Here it is again:
If it worked in Iran, and it worked in North Korea, why wouldn’t it have worked in Iraq?
Seems to me we could have prevented the loss of life of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis…
December 5th, 2007 at 12:10 pmMaybe Lassie could run as a Republican. ;o)
Comment by Leftside Annie — December 5, 2007 @ 11:30 am
Well since they always use a boy dog to play Lassie the girl dog it certainly seems he/she would be a Republican.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:10 pmUsing Exlax's logic, the following scenario should be feasible:
Police, with guns blasting, raid an illegal gambling house in which the occupants have no weapons. As a result the occupants of the drug house next door get rid of their two handguns, as opposed to accumulating a bunch of additional high powered automatic weapons.
I don't think so.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:11 pmAs the NIE shows, the Iranians were pursuing a nuclear weapons program from 1980 to fall 2003. Thus, they were working on nukes throughout the Clinton administration.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 11:50 am
I am not sure where you are going with this comment, but that also means Iranians were pursuing nuclear weapons throughout the Reagan and the Bush I administrations.
Beyond that, I believe it far worse for a president who, by his own account, was told about new information regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities but failed to ask for more information. His defence boils down being either ignorant or incompetent. That is the man you defend day in and day out. But, hey, to each his own.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:13 pm‘Not even a single troll spraying “Clinton did itâ€â€™
Well, why would anyone say ‘Clinton did it.’ Unlike Bush, Clinton did NOT get the Iranians to cease their nuclear weapons program.
As the NIE shows, the Iranians were pursuing a nuclear weapons program from 1980 to fall 2003. Thus, they were working on nukes throughout the Clinton administration. Bush, on the other, helped get them to suspend their efforts.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Exley, who else was President during 1980 - 2003 aside from Clint and GWB?
December 5th, 2007 at 12:14 pmAs the NIE shows, the Iranians were pursuing a nuclear weapons program from 1980 to fall 2003. Thus, they were working on nukes throughout the Clinton administration. Bush, on the other, helped get them to suspend their efforts.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Look Exley walked into a pile of crap and thinks he smells like a rose. Get your stinky self out of here Exley nobody's buying the crap you're selling.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:14 pmWhy do you think they stopped? Out of the goodness of their hearts?
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
For the same reason Lybia stopped: To improve their relationships with the international community and get sanctions lifted. No "goodness of their hearts" needed.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:15 pmNorth Korea is another example of a country that stopped (at least temporarily) their development of nuclear weapons in exchange for economic gain.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:17 pmSomebody's missing the clues. What you see is not what you are getting. This thing goes way deeper than what the headlines have been. For one, I cannot wait to see the rest of it.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:18 pmNo “goodness of their hearts†needed.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — December 5, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Of course, one could also ask Ex-Lax, if Brusch 'n Shooter knew Iran quit 4 years ago, why were they still advocating for an immediate attack on Iran just last week? Out of the goodness of their hearts?
December 5th, 2007 at 12:18 pmIt is denying the obvious to argue that Iran was not influenced by the military and diplomatic actions of the Bush administration…Why do you think they stopped? Out of the goodness of their hearts?
Comment by Exley
Ex, remember the words of your favorite philosopher/warrior/crazy,
"There are known knowns, unknown knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns."
Iran's motivations are unknown unknowns. pretending that you know the motivations behind Iran's decision to stop research and development is laughable. It's much more likely that they responded to diplomatic discussions with france and the rest of the EU then they bowed to threats from someone who was already engaged in two wars. Especially when they could see that bush was willing to attack a country without WMD (iraq) and ignore several that have them (Nkorea, Pakistan)
December 5th, 2007 at 12:18 pmOut of the goodness of their hearts?
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
Well Exlax you found a topic you know ZERO about, "goodness of their hearts". It does exist just not among Republicans. Why don't you talk about something you know ... oh wait ...
December 5th, 2007 at 12:19 pmFor one, I cannot wait to see the rest of it.
Comment by interestedlitigant — December 5, 2007 @ 12:18 pm
The turning of the tide, FINALLY???? Are even die-hard conservatives finally fed up w/ this lying, homicidal dingbat?
December 5th, 2007 at 12:20 pmAre you sure this is "Crazy Joe Scarborough"??
December 5th, 2007 at 12:20 pmNorth Korea is another example of a country that stopped (at least temporarily) their development of nuclear weapons in exchange for economic gain.
Comment by Gregor Samsa
December 5th, 2007 at 12:20 pmThey stopped for economic gain, and started up again when the threats started flying. They came back when bush re-insituted Clinton's original plan. funny how that worked out...
32 - Here comes Ex - proving the negative for us. Nice unicorn, Ex.
tee hee, Ex. come on - seriously - you don't have a shred of evidence, and you know it.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:21 pmOn the other hand, we have Pakistan and India who have been rewarded by the Bush administration with military and economic aid, after they developed nuclear weapons.
As a matter of fact, the Bush administration rewarded both more than generously; which means this administration has done more to aid the proliferation of nuclear weapons that past administrations.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:21 pmJoe Scarborough Rips Bush On Iran NIE: He’s Either ‘Lying’ Or ‘Is Stupid’
Yes , to both ............
December 5th, 2007 at 12:22 pmBut what about the unknownable known unknowns that we unknowingly refuse to know nothing aout? Do we just disremember them and carry on?
As usual?
December 5th, 2007 at 12:22 pmHmm - the Iranians fired up the program in 1980...
...so,
Ronald Reagan is responsible for Iran's nuclear ambition - damn him!!
*There's how your brand of B.S. works, Ex - how do you like the result I get when I use it????????????????
December 5th, 2007 at 12:23 pmComment by Bobwurst — December 5, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
Exactly. I have always been told "If it's not broken, don't fix it". Bush II is still struggling to understand that...
December 5th, 2007 at 12:25 pmSadly many will still believe--just like those who still believe Nixon was railroaded, there was no moonlanding, the holocaust never happened, or Bush beat Gore.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:25 pm#65 DigDug,
As to your question about why it worked in Iran and North Korea, but not Iraq....
Well, it did kind of work in Iraq (though not entirely). As we have learned since Saddam was deposed in 2003, Iraq had for the most part ended its active WMD programs in 1998-99 (although they were still carrying out some prohibited WMD research after that).
So, diplomacy and strong economic United Nations sanctions, BUT ALSO coupled with targeted military strikes against Iraq's WMD programs in the 1990s by the Clinton administration and the UK (Operation: Desert Fox, for example, which was crucial) did indeed work in bringing about an end to Iran's WMD programs.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:27 pmAmerican public Played for Fools Yet Again
December 5th, 2007 at 12:29 pmAs we have learned since Saddam was deposed in 2003, Iraq had for the most part ended its active WMD programs in 1998-99
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
Darn good thing we didn't do any more research and find this out before we started our march to freedom in Iraq, right?
December 5th, 2007 at 12:32 pmComment by The Republic of Stupidity — December 5, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
The turning of the tide, FINALLY???? Are even die-hard conservatives finally fed up w/ this lying, homicidal dingbat?
I just know something you don't. Don't get too excited, not yet, at least. I've been waiting a lot longer than you have. I can wait longer.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:33 pmThat depends on what the definition of "it" is Exley. "It" didn't work in NK because they now have tested a nuke while GW was president. NK is just so brankrupt and starving that they need the food instead of rattling their sabers.
"It" will be unknown if "it" was successful in Iran because we have no clear information if "it" ever existed there.
"It" not worked in Iraq if you want to look at the risk/success and cost ratio. We toppled a dictator that could have just been squeezed at a fraction of the cost in treasure and blood. We are spending money not appropriated at a rate faster than ever before with no end in sight and no long term plan to structure the money spent.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:33 pmAs the NIE shows, the Iranians were pursuing a nuclear weapons program from 1980 to fall 2003. Thus, they were working on nukes throughout the Clinton administration. Bush, on the other, helped get them to suspend their efforts.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 11:50 am
They should have seen it coming then. But I guess there was money involved.
"Halliburton first started doing business in Iran as early as 1995, while Vice President Cheney was chief executive of the company and in possible violation of U.S. sanctions. According to a February 2001 report in the Wall Street Journal, "Halliburton Products & Services Ltd. works behind an unmarked door on the ninth floor of a new north Tehran tower block. A brochure declares that the company was registered in 1975 in the Cayman Islands, is based in the Persian Gulf sheikdom of Dubai and is "non-American." But, like the sign over the receptionist's head, the brochure bears the company's name and red emblem, and offers services from Halliburton units around the world." Moreover, mail sent to the company’s offices in Tehran and the Cayman Islands is forwarded to the company’s Dallas headquarters."
Bite me Ex.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:34 pm-Ray-
"It" not worked.... Sorry for the bushspeak.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:34 pmGreat post RayFerd on the Dark Lord and his Haliburton money pit.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:35 pmThanks, Ex, for admitting that Reagan caused the Iranians to embark on a project to build WMD (why did he do that, anyway?). I acknowledge your acceptance of my statements, and your implicit retraction of anything you've posted that disagrees.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:35 pmWell, why would anyone say ‘Clinton did it.’ Unlike Bush, Clinton did NOT get the Iranians to cease their nuclear weapons program.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 11:50 am
Neither did Bush, Exley. You might remember 2003. Bush thought of two things all day: Iraq, and what was for dinner that night. Nothing Bush did put any pressure on Iran to cease work on nuclear weapons. Bush put 160,000 troops on Iran's border. That's gonna make them quit developing their defenses?
No, Exley, sadly for you, it was a European initiative that got Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons program. Specifically, negotiators from Britain, France and Germany. Bush had nothing to do with it.
But, I guess if your guy has no positive accomplishments to crow about, you're going to try to appropriate anything you can to make him look less like an idiot or a liar.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:35 pmWell, it did kind of work in Iraq (though not entirely). As we have learned since Saddam was deposed in 2003, Iraq had for the most part ended its active WMD programs in 1998-99 (although they were still carrying out some prohibited WMD research after that).
I would argue that it completely worked in Iraq. No WMDs were found. Period. So there was no need to invade. This is why the war was illegal. And un-necessary.
So, diplomacy and strong economic United Nations sanctions, BUT ALSO coupled with targeted military strikes against Iraq’s WMD programs in the 1990s by the Clinton administration and the UK (Operation: Desert Fox, for example, which was crucial) did indeed work in bringing about an end to Iran’s WMD programs.
Comment by Exley
I seriously doubt the military action had anything to do with it. There was no military action involved in the situation with N. korea and the same result was achieved.
Here's what i find amusing. After years of the pro-war-right-wing insisting that military action is the only thing that will work with these countries, now that the multi-lateral dipilomatic efforts that we've been calling for all along are finally being imployed and have worked, you come here touting the success, and expect us to feel like we've been shown up??
Much more like what we've been vindicated.
At any rate, if the righties are finally starting to learn that multi-lateral diplomatic efforts can work, I'm happy to hear it. Very happy.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:41 pmIn the words of Tommy Boy:
"THAT was A-W-E-S-O-M-E!!!!!!!"
December 5th, 2007 at 12:43 pmSorry, Exley. Iran has millions of men under arms. It is richer, more populous, and far better armed than Iraq was before Bush invaded. They knew they had the manpower to strangle any U.S. ground invasion. They know they could outlast U.S. airstrikes (that would be lethal to the U.S.'s international reputation and prospects), and they know they can inflict huge damage on the U.S. fleet in the Persian Gulf. Clinton's pinprick airstrikes on Saddam's antiquated air defenses did not panic them into giving up their nuclear ambitions, and neither did Bush's illegal, disastrous invasion.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:43 pmIt is denying the obvious to argue that Iran was not influenced by the military and diplomatic actions of the Bush administration…Why do you think they stopped? Out of the goodness of their hearts?
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
According to the NIE, it was due to internal politics and dialogue with European countries more than anything else. Yes, it's possible that the U.S. removal of their #1 enemy next door caused the GOI to re-prioritize, an it's possible that U.S. grandstanding in public while blowing off Iranian officials trying to extend friendly gestures was one factor in their cost-benefit analysis, but I hardly think it's "obvious" that the debacle in Iraq and feeble excuse for diplomacy caused Iran to cease its weapons program.
Also remember that Ahmedinejad was not in power at the time. Then we were dealing with the relatively moderate President Khatemi. So it's also possible that the Moron-in-Chief's policy helped get Iran's Moron-in-Chief elected. Good job, Bush!
December 5th, 2007 at 12:44 pmI’ve been waiting a lot longer than you have. I can wait longer.
Comment by interestedlitigant — December 5, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
Well, humpf...
December 5th, 2007 at 12:45 pmI also recall, Exley, how the Reagan admin made backdoor friends with Iran's mullahs -- first through the October Surprise release of the U.S. hostages (that was treason) and then by their sale of prohibited arms to Iran to fund Reagan's little Iran-Contra project. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out that Reagan's people didn't make a few extra bucks by selling Iran nuclear technology and information.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pmDigDug,
"I seriously doubt the military action had anything to do with it."
David Kay (and/or the Duelfer Report...I can't remember which) found that the Clinton Administration's military strikes (and threatened use of force in 1998 (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/)) played a significant role in "degrading" Iraq's WMD research and production capabilities.
It was not just sanctions and diplomacy that got Sadda to suspend his WMD efforts (although they played a role). Clinton's military strikes were a MAJOR factor.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pmI guess we should also remember Poppy Bush's contribution to Iran's military ambition. It was, after all, Poppy (then CIA Director) who flew to London to meet Iranians to conclude the arms-for-hostages deal that made Reagan look good to the uninformed masses.
That makes 2 Bush Presidents who have committed Treason, and one political party their primary accomplice. Nice. Patriotic, too.
In summation:
Republicans are responsible for all of the instability in the Middle East.
(that's another result gained by using "Ex-logic)
That's a lot of crow to eat in one day, Ex, so if you want to take a doggie bag home, that's ok.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:48 pm"Thanks, Ex, for admitting that Reagan caused the Iranians to embark on a project to build WMD"
Explain.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:49 pmI sure am glad we had Clinton in there for 8 years - were it not for him, Iraq probably would have nuked us by now.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:49 pmu need to backtrack the thread a little Ex. Do try to keep up, won't you?
December 5th, 2007 at 12:50 pmno explanation necessary - the NIE states the program started in 1980, when Reagan was President. Therefore, according to your "special theory of causality", Reagan is responsible. Simple, no?
December 5th, 2007 at 12:51 pm"Morning Joe" seems a lot smarter than "Country Joe" was.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:52 pm#99 NoOneYouKnow,
You are correct that military action against Iran would have been much more difficult than the liberation of Iraq.
That is why I don't think anyone who knows anything about foreign policy ever seriously believed that a wide-ranging military strike against Iran was in the cards. I certainly never believed it was going to take place.
As former CIA agent Robert Baer wrote in TIME magazine this week, Bush knew that military action against Iraq was neither feasible nor useful at the time. That is why he ordered the release of the NIE.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:54 pmUnlike Bush, Clinton did NOT get the Iranians to cease their nuclear weapons program.
Herr dubyah didn't get the Iranians to cease their nuclear weapons program. Prior to 2003, herr dubyah was firmly focused on his two failing wars. Fact. Nice attempt though, you get a 'C' for effort.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:54 pm#107 Tombaker wrote:
"the NIE states the program started in 1980, when Reagan was President."
You are incorrect. Jimmy Carter was president throughout 1980.
Ronald Reagan did not become president until 1981.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:55 pmThat is why he ordered the release of the NIE.
Comment by Exley
After blocking it's release for a year? That makes no sense at all.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:57 pmI LOVE U Guys!!!
Bye the way......
Is anybody else FRIGGIN TERRIFIED of what these guys might do before they leave office!!!....
...HUH !!!!!
December 5th, 2007 at 12:59 pmHe was elected - and they had news in Iran, and the arms-for-hostages dal was already in the making.
Nice-ish try.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:01 pmEx, I'm sure you just don't want to admit it, because Reagan was/is some kind of person you have some kind of "respect" for, and that's ok, but it doesn't change the case.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:02 pmWhat's the deal with nukes?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/trinitite.html
December 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pm#107 Tombaker wrote:
“the NIE states the program started in 1980, when Reagan was President.â€
You are incorrect. Jimmy Carter was president throughout 1980.
Ronald Reagan did not become president until 1981.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
And which REPUBLICAN administration built the NUCLEAR REACTORS that were the basis of this program over the objection of Democrats for the previous DICTATOR? I'll give you a hint, both Rumsfeld and Cheney were involved!!!
Reality has a liberal bias, you have an ignorance one.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pmRonald Reagan did not become president until 1981.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 12:55 pm
Correct, but Reagan had 8 years starting from 81 to 89 and Bush 1 had 4 years starting in 89 to 93. Bush two has had 7 years starting in 2001. So grand total:
Republican Presidents 19 years.
Democratic Presidents 8 years.
Hmmmm I wonder if Carter even knew of the program in 1980? Perhaps we should ask some of Reagans aids, they seemed pretty chummy with the Iranians during the 1980 election. How convenient that the day Reagan was inaugurated the hostages were released.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:04 pmAll the money and all the power in the world cannot stop a Republican from failing due to his bad ideas.
I'd have sympathy for them, were they not perennial overdogs, but they are, so loathing is the only viable alternative.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:05 pmThe Iranians stopped going for nukes for some other reason, not because of The Empty Flightsuit’s manliness.
Comment by NoOneYouKnow
The Iranians stopped their nuclear plans in 2003 because a coalition of world leaders (not including the Chimp) used diplomacy to convince them that their going for a nuclear bomb would not be a good move. It had absolutely nothing to do with the Chimp whose definition of diplomacy is to drop a bomb on someone.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:06 pm#112 DigDug,
Here is Baer's analysis:
Tuesday, Dec. 04, 2007
Was Bush Behind the Iran Report?
By Robert Baer
Bombing Iran, it seems, is now off the table. There's no other reasonable take on the latest National Intelligence Estimate that concludes Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
But there is also no doubt that the Bush White House was behind this NIE. While the 16 intelligence agencies that make up the "intelligence community" contribute to each National Intelligence Estimate, you can bet that an explosive, 180-degree turn on Iran like this one was greenlighted by the President.
And explode is what the hawks in and outside the Administration are about to do. They were counting on Bush being the one President prepared to take on Iran...
The real story behind this NIE is that the Bush Administration has finally concluded Iran is a bridge too far. With Iranian-backed Shi'a groups behaving themselves, things are looking up in Iraq. In Lebanon, the anti-Syrian coalition and pro-Syrian coalition, which includes Iran's surrogate Hizballah, reportedly have settled on a compromise candidate, the army commander General Michel Suleiman. Bombing Iran now would upset the fragile balance in these two countries. Not to mention that Hizballah has threatened to shell Israel if we as much as touch a hair on Iran's head...
So how far is Iran from a nuke? The new NIE says 10 to 15 years, maybe. But that's a wild guess. The truth is that Iran is a black hole, and it's entirely conceivable Iran could build a bomb and we wouldn't know until they tested it.
Yet for now we should at least be happy with the good news: Armageddon is postponed.
Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1690696,00.html
December 5th, 2007 at 1:06 pm118 - Ex was just trying (and failing) to take the day with a calendar trick. Lame, and an insult to my intelligence and experience, which I will let slide, considering the source.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:07 pmWe can dispel the myth easily enough.
Ex, in what year was Reagan elected President?
December 5th, 2007 at 1:08 pmTombaker,
I am not sure which of these you are alleging --
Are you arguing that the Iranians only began the nuclear weapons program in 1980 because they were scared of the "cowboy" Reagan?
or
Are you alleging that Reagan helped the Iranian's start building nuclear weapons in 1980 (before he was even president)?
December 5th, 2007 at 1:09 pm122 - How long did it take you to oversimplify things that much? Did you sleep last night?
December 5th, 2007 at 1:09 pmEx - I'm not alleging - I'm concluding, using the same tool you do.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:09 pmBush is stupid and lying.
Now he's really stupid for getting caught lying.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:10 pmWhat is new????! Everybody knows that when Bush opens his mouth he is lying or he is being himself, that is: Stupid!
December 5th, 2007 at 1:10 pm#127,
Tom, Please answer the question -- which one of those scenarios are you postulating?
December 5th, 2007 at 1:13 pmI merely conclude Reagan was the cause of the program's genesis, just as you conclude Dubbie is the cause of the program's termination.
I don't have any more evidence for that conclusion than you do for yours. The arguments each of us pose are equally "valid" (if we adhere to the loose causality you prefer).
December 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pmTombaker,
I am not sure which of these you are alleging –
Are you arguing that the Iranians only began the nuclear weapons program in 1980 because they were scared of the “cowboy†Reagan?
or
Are you alleging that Reagan helped the Iranian’s start building nuclear weapons in 1980 (before he was even president)?
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Well we KNOW that Ronnie was illegally negotiating to help them with the weapons and arms. So how do you know Ronnie wasn't involved in helping them get their nuclear program started? Do you have proof he wasn't? After all, Republicans are responsible for almost of the Nuclear technology they had at that point. Or didn't you know that little girl?
December 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pmAs former CIA agent Robert Baer wrote in TIME magazine this week, Bush knew that military action against Iraq was neither feasible nor useful at the time. That is why he ordered the release of the NIE.
Comment by Exley
Spin, spin, spin. Don't you ever get dizzy Ex? That's the new RNC talking point, Bush ordered the release of the NIE. If that's the case, why is Bush not saying that he ordered the release? I'm willing to bet that we find out in the next week or so that Bush & Company tried to stop the release of the NIE, but that the people who wrote it are no longer subject to Bush's bully pulpit and released it against his wishes.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:14 pm#127,
Tom, Please answer the question — which one of those scenarios are you postulating?
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
What are you postulating? That Iranians love us because Republicans kept overthrowing their democracy?
December 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pmIt just goes to show that conservatism is NOT the oppisite of liberalism...
Conseviatism IS the oppisite of
December 5th, 2007 at 1:16 pmDEMOCRACY.
My syllogism renders yours absurd.
Dubbie (and Dutch) rendered themselves absurd.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:16 pmHere’s a simple yes or not answer for progressives. Of course you’re courageous enough to go on the record.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
That is a yes or no question like the question "Have you stopped beating your wife" is a yes or no question.
Try again, you got a time out buzzer for that one.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:18 pmare you willing to take responsibility for Iran having a nuclear weapon in the future (since you are so confident they aren’t building one now)?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
They can have nukes as long as we can have nukes.
Are you alleging that Reagan helped the Iranian’s start building nuclear weapons in 1980 (before he was even president)?
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Iran started bulding nukes as soon as they knew that a coward moron like Reagan had a good shot at fooling the American Republican idiocracy into voting him in. they were right, and Reagan not only did nothing to prevent it, but aided and abetted. Thanks for that, Ex, you supporter of treason.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:19 pmRussia dismisses U.S. claims Iran sought nuke prior to 2003
Russia has no information on Iranian attempts to develop nuclear weapons before 2003, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:20 pmare you willing to take responsibility for Iran having a nuclear weapon in the future (since you are so confident they aren’t building one now)?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
YES, any other questions, dipshit?
December 5th, 2007 at 1:22 pmTo watch, save, embed this video etc. check it out here
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=d132d25d-4010-4059-a0ab-7f8d712437b3
what a great "emperor has no clothes" moment!
December 5th, 2007 at 1:22 pmCorrect, but Reagan had 8 years starting from 81 to 89 and Bush 1 had 4 years starting in 89 to 93. Bush two has had 7 years starting in 2001. So grand total:
Republican Presidents 19 years.
Democratic Presidents 8 years.
Comment by Krazny — December 5, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
But in Exley "math", Clinton is the only one that counts -- certainly not the preceding 12 years under Republicans.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:24 pmYikes, Exley...you've been ridin' the short bus again, huh...?
Geesh.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:25 pmOk, Exley, if the invasion of Iraq is the reason that Iran stopped trying to build Nukes then why wouldn't Bush have been informed of the NIE many months ago? If he was informed why would he lie about it in the press conference? Why would he have not brought Iran's past program and it's cessation to the attention of the public to demonstrate that our invasion had accomplished this? Why would he not have brought the evidence of earlier programs to the international community at once? If he was not fully informed why not? Why would his subordinates let him say that Iran was building the bomb once they had reason to inform him that instead Iran had stipped doing so and that his invasion of Iraq might be the reason?
December 5th, 2007 at 1:26 pmEither he was either so out of the loop or so uninterested of the latest intelligence is that somehing is seriously deficient, his subordinates outright lied to him and withheld critical information or he and Cheney lied from at least August to November to Congress, the People, and the international community pushing for another war on the false premise that they were building WMD.
#134
Bilbo,
If you anything about Bob Baer and his position on many of the Bush administration's policies, you would know that your insinuation that he is some type of RNC flack is laughable
December 5th, 2007 at 1:26 pmExley's been riding the short bus in circles. If any logic was involved you'd think he'd be able to find his way back to Point A but he never does.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:27 pmOk, Exley, if the invasion of Iraq is the reason that Iran stopped trying to build Nukes then why wouldn’t Bush have been informed of the NIE many months ago? If he was informed why would he lie about it in the press conference? Why would he have not brought Iran’s past program and it’s cessation to the attention of the public to demonstrate that our invasion had accomplished this?
Comment by rehbock — December 5, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
There you go. Exley and his fellow wingers would have us believe that this is proof of the huge success of White House efforts, yet the White House has made no effort to take credit. Does that sound like the Bush White House? Mission Accomplished?
December 5th, 2007 at 1:28 pmRighty math is certainly a unique construct. No moreso than their interpretation of history, though.
To hear a Righty tell it, you'd think the U.S. had been run by minority-gay-socialist-pacifist-atheists for the last 100 years, instead of by the Rich Old White Men who actually have.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:28 pmIn the course of relying on the NIE that implies Iran has halted it’s nuclear program. And your position forces an easing of pressure on Iran (in opposition to Bush administration policy). Then, we find in the future that Iran either resumes it’s nuclear program or never really halted it; are you willing to take responsibility for Iran having a nuclear weapon in the future (since you are so confident they aren’t building one now)?
Comment by CaptainMantastic
This is real easy. We can NOT attack a country for having nukes if all OUR EVIDENCE says they don't have any.
If we find out later that they did and all our evidence was wrong: it will be a failing of our government's intelligence gathering capabilities, NOT a failing of progressive policy.
Are you suggesting we attack EVERY country that might have nukes?Just incase?
December 5th, 2007 at 1:28 pmIf you anything about Bob Baer and his position on many of the Bush administration’s policies, you would know that your insinuation that he is some type of RNC flack is laughable
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
And your insuinuation that he is something other than he pretends to be is ridiculous.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pmImpeach, then flush. Repeat.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:29 pmexley is the usual lying scum that we have come to associate with the Republican and conservative movement in this country. Note how Exley neatly forgets about the Iranian program spanning two additional Republican administrations. Only the fact that Clinton was president matters. People like Exley can only lie. They have no moral values and deserve to be wiped off the face of this earth. The Iranian program was shut down because the Europeans who still have economic ties with Iran threatened to restrict trade. Idiots such as Exley will never allow facts to interfere.
The true legacy of Bush is one of missed opportunities. Indeed, at the time of 9/11, Iran's president was a moderate seeking to better ties with the United States and loosen the control of the religious right. The government encouraged demonstrations in support of the United States and against the terrorists. There was unprecedented cooperation with US intelligence authorities. However, Bush had to open his big mouth with the axis of evil speech. The moderate reform government lost the next election while riding a wave of nationalism created by Bush and his administration's beating of the war drums.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:32 pmShayne has proved that it’s easy. Just yes or no. It will make you seem more credible.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Credible to whom? You? Why should I give a tiny mousefart whether or not you find me credible?
December 5th, 2007 at 1:32 pmThen, we find in the future that Iran either resumes it’s nuclear program or never really halted it; are you willing to take responsibility for Iran having a nuclear weapon in the future (since you are so confident they aren’t building one now)?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
Yes, I am. I'm also willing to take responsibility for normalizing diplomatic relations with Iran so we can engage with them in constructive dialogue that wil ensure that this weapon, if they do insist on building it, is never used.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:33 pmMantastic - shouldn't we be more worried about Pakistan, according to your priority scheme?
Should we put military blockades around every country with nukes, or the capacity to think about nukes?
Do you sit up all night, every night, with a loaded shotgun in your lap, because there are armed criminals in your community? Or, do you take the shotgun downtown and shoot at people you think look suspicious? Are you maxing out your credit cards and taking out 3rd mortgages to finance your armory and home security infrastructure?
If not, why do you think we as a country should do the same thing?
December 5th, 2007 at 1:36 pmfingers crossed this gets the republicans going for impeachment. (Sad if it comes down to this since Pelosi/Reid are too jelly-legged to do their jobs and live up to their oaths.)
(Note, supporting impeachment is the remaining republicans' best chance of being relevant after 2008 and recovering their party)
December 5th, 2007 at 1:36 pm.
Digdub. What you fail to appreciate is that your position is easing pressure on the Iranians. It was the pressure brought about by Bush policies that motivated Gadhafi to commit to a nuclear free Libya. Your position has consequence, just as Bush’s policies have consequence.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
That's a complete lie. It was the DIPLOMACY of CARROTS brought about by the British diplomats that caused this to happen. You neocons need to get off the huff, your brains are scrambled!
December 5th, 2007 at 1:38 pmWhy would the democratic frontrunner jeopardize your support by disagreeing.
http://www.iht.com/ articles/ ap/ 2007/ 02/ 02/ america/ NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php
Does she know something that you do not; after 8 years in the white house.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
What, a quote from FEB., as opposed to NOW when we KNOW that the Bush administration has been WITHHOLDING INTELLIGENCE REPORTS? ROTFL!!! See this is EXACTLY the kind of lunacy RATIONAL PEOPLE are talking about! CRAZY NEOCONS like you should be in padded cells!
December 5th, 2007 at 1:39 pmKrazny and Gummitch,
The reason we have not discussed Reagan and Bush I initially was because this particular began when "Blue Stater" raised the topic of Clinton. I was not the one who brought up what Clinton did about the Iranian nuke program. Blue Stater did.
If you wish to expand the conversation to include Reagan and Bush I, be my guest. I have already correct one poster who erronerously believed that Reagan was president in 1980.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pm"Bush’s policies have consequence."
That's a mouthful. I would take issue with the characterization of these "gut feelings" as "policies," however.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pmAND - as far as the overarching question of nuclear proliferation, we, like any other responsible country (or person) should lead by example, meaning we should be disarming, and encouraging others to do the same. It's just plain old Goose-and-Gander Mantastic - good old-fashioned-approved-by-Grandpa common sense, for crying out loud. Isn't that what Righties are a-pining for all the time??!!??
December 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pmIt will make you seem more credible.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
and yet there is nothing you can do to make yourself in the least bit credible. Iran's chase for a nuclear weapon is a fantasy, concocted from whole cloth by warmongering racists, whether in Europe or the USA. Even so, if they want one, they should have one, or everybody else should destroy their's. It's really the only fair way to prevent a psychopath like Bush from attempting genocide and theft of resources, not to mention saving thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars. i realize you don't care about those troops or that money, but, after all, you're a lousy excuse for an Aemrican citizen.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:40 pmDigdub. What you fail to appreciate is that your position is easing pressure on the Iranians. It was the pressure brought about by Bush policies that motivated Gadhafi to commit to a nuclear free Libya. Your position has consequence, just as Bush’s policies have consequence.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Wow, Captain, now that you explain it like that, I understand. Military threats increase pressure. Diplomatic initiatives are "easing pressure". And common sense dictates that More Pressure is better for getting what you want, right?
I had no idea it was so simple. Why don't we just bomb the crap out of everyone then? And make them give us their lunch money! Then all our problems will be solved! Awesome!
I owe you a lot, captain, for helping me see the light of the right-wing view of the world! Thak you. I spent far too much time fretting about "details" and "nuances" -- you know, the kind of things progressives worry about.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:41 pmGODDAMNNIT EXLEY -
IN WHICH YEAR WAS REAGAN ELECTED?????????????????????????
December 5th, 2007 at 1:42 pmI’m also willing to take responsibility for normalizing diplomatic relations with Iran so we can engage with them in constructive dialogue that wil ensure that this weapon, if they do insist on building it, is never used.
Comment by toasterhead — December 5, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Why would the democratic frontrunner jeopardize your support by disagreeing.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
Oh my God! The Democratic Party is in disarray! The leading candidate for president disagrees with the position held by a progressive commenter on a blog!
December 5th, 2007 at 1:43 pmANYONE ELSE ???
IN WHAT YEAR WAS REAGAN ELECTED??
19 f'ing EIGHTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
December 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pmIt was the pressure brought about by Bush policies that motivated Gadhafi to commit to a nuclear free Libya. Your position has consequence, just as Bush’s policies have consequence.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
Excellent lie, capt mastertater. but a lie nevertheless.
f you wish to expand the conversation to include Reagan and Bush I, be my guest. I have already correct one poster who erronerously believed that Reagan was president in 1980.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 1:40 pmand yet you never anser the question. you're a coward and a liar as well. color me surprised that a vicipous, rabid partisan hack like you would fail to acknowledge the proven failure of your president alzheimer and the filth he spawned with his brainless pandering to the far right.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:44 pmIf you are unwilling to accept responsible for the outcome, why should anyone give your position any creedance?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
perhaps you should turn that on yourself, since you and your presidunce seem to be completely unable to accept reposiblity for the abject failures of 9/11, Katrina, iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, and the gWOT, to name a few of Bush's failures.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:46 pmI have to go with incompetence, by design.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:46 pm"why should anyone give your position any creedance?"
Or even "credence."
December 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pmIf you are unwilling to accept responsible for the outcome, why should anyone give your position any creedance?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
If you persistently demand that others answer your stupid questions, why should anyone give your position any credence?
December 5th, 2007 at 1:47 pmIf you persistently demand that others answer your stupid questions, why should anyone give your position any credence?
Comment by gummitch — December 5, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Well, tob e fair, nobody does give captain flamer any creedence, especially with that name.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:48 pmCapt - So you did stay up all night oversimplifying the issue - congrats, or whatever, I gues.
Only a child would beg for such a simple answer to such a complex question.
Were you asking that same question whil Pakistan was building their nukes?
Were you protesting our sale of nukes to Israel???
My answer is that nuclear weapons are about as useful as tits on a boar, so NO I don't want Iran having them - moreover I don't want us having them.
Fear and paranoia have overtaken you completely, bro, and you need some help.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:48 pmTom,
You should know that since I corrected you in posting 111 after you erroneously stated that Reagan was president in 1980.
Reagan became president at noon on Jan. 20, 1981.
Jimmy Carter was president from 1977 to 1981.
Reagan defeated Carter for in the presidential election of 1980.
This is all pretty elementary history, Tom.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:49 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_1980
HFS!!!!!!
1-9-8-0
December 5th, 2007 at 1:50 pmThis is all pretty elementary history, Tom.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
and all irrelevant to the question at hand, which I already answered above. spin, spin, spin away, Exley, keep on defending the losers who have weakened and left America undefended since 9/11. You're really going to change a lot of minds with your reliance on lies and spin.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:51 pmFU Ex
You're a sad old twisted Sophist - lickspittle to Norman Podhoretz and Milton Friedman, and you're a goodamned FRAUD of a thinking person.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:52 pmThis is all pretty elementary history, Tom.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
It's also elementary that the Reagan campaign was in secret negotiations with Iran prior to the election, Exley. Also elementary that it was the Reagan administration that sent the Iranians a cake, along with a lot of other goodies. If you had any sense at all, you'd stop nitpicking about the matter of a few months and try to put some lipstick on the Reagan pig.
Of course, you won't, because you'll just keep whining away about the last few months of 1980, as though it was of any significance at all.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:52 pmYou're the one whose plaintive bleating arrives at deaf ears, Ex, and you seem to enjoy it - got a little s&m streak in there, do ya?
December 5th, 2007 at 1:53 pm#172 -- IN WHAT YEAR WAS REAGAN ELECTED?? 19 f’ing EIGHTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by tombaker — December 5, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Tom, You seem to be operating under a misconception about American presidential elections and the Constitution.
Those who are elected president every fouth November do not take office until the following calendar year. Pursuant to Amendment XX of the U.S. Constitution the president takes office at noon on the 20th day of January.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:55 pmReagan helped Iran
Bush I helped Iran
Dubbie did NOTHING to thwart Iran.
Good day to you, Ex.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:55 pmSure, Manny. I'll take a whack at your little strawman. Why not?
I'd be more than happy to assume the risk of a nuclear Iran.
Hell, Chimpy's responsible for North Korea's having nukes -- and as far as I'm concerned, Kim Jong Il is batshitcrazier than Ahmadinejad any old day.
Also, our beloved Chimpy totes around a VERY large portion of the responsibility for nuclear Pakistan being unstable and on the verge of a takeover by Islamic extremists.
Again, that is an existing situation that is FAR more dangerous than a *possible* nuclear Iran.
Besides, if we had a REAL president - you know, someone educated and intelligent, with morals and ethics - who's to say that a president like, oh, Al Gore (or ANY of the other Democratic candidates - including Hillary Clinton) wouldn't be able to effectively negotiate a beneficial relationship with Iran through REAL diplomacy (instead of all this belligerent bullshit saber rattling)...?
But in your tiny little black-and-white either/or world, that's just not possible, is it...?
Maybe you had better hop on the short bus with your pal Exley....
December 5th, 2007 at 1:55 pmOh, Joe is on "that" side of the fence today. So hard to keep up with all his flip-flops on Bush.
December 5th, 2007 at 1:57 pmI DIDN'T ASK WHEN HE WAS INAUGURATED
I ASKED WHEN WAS HE ELECTED
TRY TO BE A LITTLE MORE PRECISE IN YOUR READING OLD MAN
December 5th, 2007 at 1:57 pmhose who are elected president every fouth November do not take office until the following calendar year. Pursuant to Amendment XX of the U.S. Constitution the president takes office at noon on the 20th day of January.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
another convenient lie. Exley, you have no connection with truth, You cite facts from time to time, but never truth. You work so hard to bring the US down, to justify the destruction of the greatest experiment of all time. Why? Why are you so full of hatred for the constitution?
December 5th, 2007 at 1:59 pmI've got to go get a shower - I'm all greasy from contact with Ex.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:00 pmAh, Gummitch...Resorting to tired old conspiracy theories about secret negotiations prior to the 1980 elections....
December 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pmTom wrote: "I DIDN’T ASK WHEN HE WAS INAUGURATED. I ASKED WHEN WAS HE ELECTED"
Very good, Tom...You are getting there! So, close! Now, if he "elected" in 1980, when did he become "president?"
(HINT: Your previous assertion that he was president in 1980 in incorrect).
EXTRA CREDIT QUESTION: Who WAS president in 1980? (See hint above -- It was not Reagan)
December 5th, 2007 at 2:05 pmOn Topic - Bush: Not as good a liar as his Mommy told him he was.
Caught - red-handed, again.
Worst President Ever.
Finally, Joe Scarborough catches up to the smart kids. (or reacts to preserve his ratings - no way of telling)
December 5th, 2007 at 2:06 pmOLD NEWS......Yawn.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:08 pmCaptainMantastic (obviously has problems with his sexual identity by adopting a persona to deny his lack of manliness) thinks that Bush has done something worthwhile and that Hillary agrees. Of course, he is wrong as usual. Bush blew it with Iran. (see post 154 above for the history) Now Iran does pose a greater threat. However, the Democrats understand how the tools of international diplomacy. We also know to look at real intelligence. The failure of intelligence prior to Iraq, the misleading statements by Bush concerning WMD and Saddam's involvement with Al Qaeda as well as his hostile language (Iran will cause the next WWIII) after the latest NIE had been developed all show that this president has increased instability. Would any country not feel like it was threatened and needed to respond when confronted by a neandrathal idiot like Bush?
December 5th, 2007 at 2:08 pmYOU are getting there Ex - I've been there all along.
Your condescension only makes you look like a tool, bud.
Good thing we don't cross paths in actual reality.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:08 pmbtw - you also get a "D" in forensics. all form - no substance.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:10 pmWas it better that we had nukes during the cold war, or would it have been better if it were only the Soviet Union that had them?
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Actually it was the aggressive stand of the US along with the Stalinism that urged the Soviet Union to make a bomb during the cold war. BTW, the Russiand didn't know how to make the bomb until Sedov came a said: Hey, that fissile reaction is just like the things I have done during 30 years: Chemistry kinetics.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:10 pmTomBaker wrote: "I’ve been there all along."
Actually, no...In posting #107 you erroneously stated that Reagan was president in 1980:
"the NIE states the program started in 1980, when Reagan was President. Therefore, according to your “special theory of causalityâ€, Reagan is responsible. Simple, no?
Comment by tombaker — December 5, 2007 @ 12:51 pm"
And yet, rather than admit you were wrong and that I corrected your (obvious) error, you keep denying what is their for everyone to see.
Now, let's try this again, Tom -- Who was president in 1980? And, when did Reagan become president?
December 5th, 2007 at 2:13 pmStill haven't found anything aside from equivocation and prevarication to employ, have you Ex?
Those really are the only two rhetorical devices you've mastered, aren't they?
At this late date, yours has become a pretty trite, tedious, and shabby dog-and-pony show, you who appeared to be the "best-and-brightest" of the Righty rabble.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:16 pmExely: Regan provided aid and comfort to the Iranians. He opened negotiations with them during his presidential campaign, he sold them weapons and technology to support funding the Contras and he lied to the public. Bush I failed to act after he was elected president. You want to quibble over minor factual errors. But you conveniently lie about the fact that two other Republican presidents failed to act. You are epitomize what is wrong with the conservatives and Republican party in this country.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:16 pmRight Ex - no one knew who the President-Elect was until the inauguration, and no foreign government would take action based on more that what, a one month planning horizon??
Really??
Forget it - all you've got is the hairsplitting, and I'm the fool for thinking you'd ever do otherwise.
Your argument that Dubbie stopped Iran 's march-to-nukes is pure, unadulterated bullshit - and you know it, but you're so goddamned vain and arrogant you won't break character to admit it.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:21 pmWow, it must be really sad for someone here to know that his president just lied (because we already knew he as stupid) and has to reach out for some Reagan memorabilia in order to diverge the discussion. Sad.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:21 pmExley is a typical republican - a traitor.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:21 pmAnd yet, rather than admit you were wrong and that I corrected your (obvious) error, you keep denying what is their for everyone to see.
Now, let’s try this again, Tom — Who was president in 1980? And, when did Reagan become president?
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 2:13 pm
What, RayGun couldn't help them out in 1980? ROTFL! Then how do you explain how he negotiated an arms exchange with them? Do you know this didn't include nuclear knowhow? Can you prove it?
December 5th, 2007 at 2:22 pm#204, JMOHR,
You are half-right. While the Iran-contra affair is a matter of historical fact, the secret campaign negotiations is a discredited myth.
Stick to the facts. Your arguments will be more effective.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:23 pm#205,
Ah, Tom, so now you are alleging that the Iranians did not begin there nuclear weapons efforts until NOVEMBER, 1980.....Interesting....
And your evidence is that is......?
December 5th, 2007 at 2:25 pm#204, JMOHR,
You are half-right. While the Iran-contra affair is a matter of historical fact, the secret campaign negotiations is a discredited myth.
Stick to the facts. Your arguments will be more effective.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
BHAAHAHAHA, it's discredited in the minds of people like you that don't believe FACTS! It's a HISTORICAL FACT, what is DISCREDITED is RAYGUN and the TRAITORS LIKE YOU THAT DEFEND HIM!
December 5th, 2007 at 2:25 pm#205,
Ah, Tom, so now you are alleging that the Iranians did not begin there nuclear weapons efforts until NOVEMBER, 1980…..Interesting….
And your evidence is that is……?
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
What evidence do you have that RayGun didn't aid them? Because we KNOW that Rumsfeld and Cheney gave them PLUTONIUM REACTORS before the revolution - despite the dangers of doing so. You wingnuts have ALWAYS had poor judgment.
Just like SITTING ON AN NIE that proves YOU ARE ALL FAT STUPID LIARS! LIKE YOU ARE - LITTLE GIRL!
December 5th, 2007 at 2:26 pmStick to the facts. Your arguments will be more effective.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
Exley, you have yet to provide one "fact" that details how GW's actions halted the Iranian nuclear program as opposed to the efforts of other countries that used diplomacy ant not rhetoric when dealing with Iran.
You argument would be more effective if you made one.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:26 pmI find it telling that Exley asserted that Bush was responsible for Iran's decision to suspend their nuclear weapons program, but when that assertion was pounded into dust, he ignored the dust cloud and turned his focus to a piacayune error of fact made by another poster while systematically destroying another facet of Exley's argument.
Interesting what draws one's attention when one is swriling down the drain, isn't it?
December 5th, 2007 at 2:27 pmI wonder if Ex pops a couple of Dramamine before he logs on to combat the constant spinning...
December 5th, 2007 at 2:28 pmPoor Exlax ignores that Former Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr himself admits that RayGun negotiated for the hostages!!!
Poor little 'tards just can't face what natural born TRAITORS they all are!
That's why Mukasey let the WTC Bomber and CIA AGENT Ali Mohamed go free. Republican = traitor!
December 5th, 2007 at 2:28 pmStick to the facts. Your arguments will be more effective.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
Learn what a fact is, and you won't look so stupid, little girl.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:29 pmare you willing to take responsibility for Iran having a nuclear weapon in the future (since you are so confident they aren’t building one now)?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
YES, any other questions, dipshit?
Comment by Shayne — December 5, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Shayne has proved that it’s easy. Just yes or no. It will make you seem more credible.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
Right accountability is easy. Now are you going to hold Bush accountable for invading Iraq with other "faulty" intelligence resulting in the deaths of 4,000 US soldiers and 1 million dead Iraqis and a $3 trillion bill. And by faulty intelligence I mean phony as a $3 bill made up, trumped up blatantly false. Where's the accountability?
December 5th, 2007 at 2:30 pmUhhh... Didn't Bush tell us that they couldn't wiretap without have a court order, at the same time that he was wiretapping without court orders?
George Bush, April 2004:
---
Bush doesn't care about timelines, facts, national security, or the negative international consequences of his lies. He's the Teflon man and believes that nothing will ever stick to him.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:30 pmA little from column A.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:33 pmA little from column B...
#206 Juan C,
I couldn't agree more. Many so-called "progressives" here are so disappointed to see that the new NIE shows that the Bush administration helped bring out Iran's decision to suspend its nuclear weapons program that they have been forced to change the subject to Reagan.
I guess you are right and we should not indulge them. But when I see peole like TomBaker make such basic elementary historical errors, I feel compelled to correct them.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:34 pmIf you are unwilling to accept responsible for the outcome, why should anyone give your position any creedance?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
Why are you not accepting responsiblity for the shithole Bush has created in Iraq. Why don't you get off your ass and go fight the battle your hero W started. Don't you want to be credible around here?
December 5th, 2007 at 2:35 pmExley, perhaps you should explain how the Bush administration "helped bring out Iran's decision to suspend its nuclear weapons program" when it was a contingent of British, French and German diplomats who actually negotiated the agreement signed in tehran on Oct 21, 2003?
Are you suggesting, perhaps, that the Bush administration "helped bring out" the agreement by sitting on the sidelines, because they otherwise would have fcuked it up? That logic, I can get behind.
Wait -- maybe you'd better start by explaining what "helped bring out Iran's decision" means?
December 5th, 2007 at 2:39 pmTom, You seem to be operating under a misconception about American presidential elections and the Constitution.
Those who are elected president every fouth November do not take office until the following calendar year. Pursuant to Amendment XX of the U.S. Constitution the president takes office at noon on the 20th day of January.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
Exley if you are so young and so ignorant that you know nothing of Reagan's negotiating with Iran before he took office then maybe you should just apologize for being so stupid and quietly slink away instead of acting like it's somebody else without a clue.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pm#
#
Stick to the facts. Your arguments will be more effective.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
Exley, you have yet to provide one “fact†that details how GW’s actions halted the Iranian nuclear program as opposed to the efforts of other countries that used diplomacy ant not rhetoric when dealing with Iran.
You argument would be more effective if you made one.
Comment by Tweedster — December 5, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
Also, if indeed Bush's rhetoric against Iran has been an aid to the halting of that program 4 years ago, why has that rhetoric continue to be fed to the American public in 2007? Why Ex? Why????
December 5th, 2007 at 2:40 pmSorry ExLax, but there's LOTS of evidence about this.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Ah, Gummitch…Resorting to tired old conspiracy theories about secret negotiations prior to the 1980 elections….
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
200 times Ronald Reagan said he couldn't remember when asked questions about these negotiations. Does your party have something that induces Alzheimers so that nobody can ever be held responsibility for their criminal actions because the only thing they ever say in testimony is that they can't remember? That's a conspiracy theory, the Iran Contra hearings are factual.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:43 pmWas it better that we had nukes during the cold war, or would it have been better if it were only the Soviet Union that had them?
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Unless Iran has forced us to give up our nuclear weapons then how is this question even relevant?
December 5th, 2007 at 2:45 pm#206 Juan C,
I couldn’t agree more. Many so-called “progressives†here are so disappointed to see that the new NIE shows that the Bush administration helped bring out Iran’s decision to suspend its nuclear weapons program that they have been forced to change the subject to Reagan.
I guess you are right and we should not indulge them. But when I see peole like TomBaker make such basic elementary historical errors, I feel compelled to correct them.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
No, what we're disappointed with, is that you defend an administration that's been LYING about the NIE finding FOR MONTHS!!!
But don't let REALITY changed that childish opinion of yours, little girl!
December 5th, 2007 at 2:46 pmTweedster,
I responded to similar questions yesterday and the day before. The language of the NIE warranted continued strong rhetoric:
NIE: “We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.â€
That explains why the Bush administration has correctly continued to talk tough about the Iranians and the possibility that they might one day resume their effort to develop nuclear weapons. You don’t abandon a diplomatic strategy that has been working especially when your intelligence agencies tell you they do not know Iran’s intentions re: nuclear weapons development.
More from the NIE:
“We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.â€
So, again, we see clearly why the tough talk of the administration (and the international community) has not let up despite evidence Iran has at least temporarily halted its nuclear weapons program….The fact is that as good as the news that Iran looks to have halted its program, the NIE shows Iram was pursuing nucler weapons up untill 2003 and that we have no idea what their intentions are in this area in the future.
Thus, it clear that continued pressure (whether it be diplomatic or economic or both) is necessary to ensure that Iran lives up to its obligation under the NNP Treaty and does not develop nuclear weapons.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:46 pmI feel compelled to correct them.
Comment by Exley
Like 20 times...
December 5th, 2007 at 2:46 pm“We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.â€
So, again, we see clearly why the tough talk of the administration (and the international community) has not let up despite evidence Iran has at least temporarily halted its nuclear weapons program….The fact is that as good as the news that Iran looks to have halted its program, the NIE shows Iram was pursuing nucler weapons up untill 2003 and that we have no idea what their intentions are in this area in the future.
Thus, it clear that continued pressure (whether it be diplomatic or economic or both) is necessary to ensure that Iran lives up to its obligation under the NNP Treaty and does not develop nuclear weapons.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
So far NOTHING in the NIE quote corresponds to your claims, poor little 'tard!
Don't let the FACTS change that OPINION of yours exlax! We wouldn't want the scarecrow to develop a brain!
December 5th, 2007 at 2:49 pmI feel compelled to correct them.
Comment by Exley
Like 20 times…
Comment by Juan C. — December 5, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
Yet despite that compulsion, Exlax FAILS every time. How SAD to watch such a display of ignorance and stupidity repeat itself so often.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:50 pmThat explains why the Bush administration has correctly continued to talk tough about the Iranians and the possibility that they might one day resume their effort to develop nuclear weapons. You don’t abandon a diplomatic strategy that has been working especially when your intelligence agencies tell you they do not know Iran’s intentions re: nuclear weapons development.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
By TALK TOUGH you mean LIE about the situation?
ROTLF! You're one dumb broad exlax!
December 5th, 2007 at 2:51 pmSure Ex - no one knew who the President Elect was until the inauguration, and no government overseas would plan more than what, a month or two in advance????
Really?
Prevarication and Equivocation and nothing else do you have.
You're a tedious ass, and a wuss for flagging me as abusive.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:52 pmYou’re a tedious ass, and a wuss for flagging me as abusive.
Comment by tombaker — December 5, 2007 @ 2:52 pm
Yes she is a tedious @ss, and a complete wuss. That's why she won't put her money where her mouth (@ss) is, and enlist for Iraq.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:53 pm#230 "Like 20 times…Comment by Juan C. — December 5, 2007 @ 2:46 pm"
Heh! Well, maybe I did overdo it, Juan....But TomBaker's simple refusal to admit his error was annoying. But you're right. He knows now he was wrong. We can move on.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:53 pmExley,
You still have not answered where in the NIE it states that the "tough talk" of the Bush administration had anything directly to do with the halting of Iran's nuclear weapons program.
You believe the NIE implies that Bush's rhetoric is the deciding factor in Iran's decision regarding its program? That is tenuous at best, and I will bet that there is no implicit reference to U.S. threats of force being one of the lynchpins in the startegy to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:53 pmExley abuses rational discourse with her whiny little lies...
December 5th, 2007 at 2:53 pmHeh! Well, maybe I did overdo it, Juan….But TomBaker’s simple refusal to admit his error was annoying. But you’re right. He knows now he was wrong. We can move on.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
Yet you still don't know you were wrong, so no we can't...
You're such a little 'tard exlax.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:54 pm232 - Yea, I thought the phrase "diplomatic strategy" was particularly hilarious regarding this administration's policies.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:55 pmWhat is funny is that Iran got scared and stopped its (supposedly) nuclear weapon activity (Russia is saying they weren't) in 2003, meanwhile Iraq was about to use one.
What a joke.
December 5th, 2007 at 2:56 pmHe knows now he was wrong. We can move on.
Comment by Exley
21...
December 5th, 2007 at 2:56 pm232 - Yea, I thought the phrase “diplomatic strategy†was particularly hilarious regarding this administration’s policies.
Comment by Tweedster — December 5, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Conservative diplomacy is right up there with Conservative Compassion and Intellectual Conservative! They're all just HYSTERICAL myths!
December 5th, 2007 at 2:59 pmHe knows now he was wrong. We can move on.
Comment by Exley
21…
Comment by Juan C. — December 5, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
Exlax is as compulsively annoying as the diarrhea that flows from her fat tiny little grease paws.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:01 pmShe thinks she knows more of what RayGun did, than the former Iranian President that negotiated with him!!! ROTFL!! How stupid!
December 5th, 2007 at 3:02 pmIs it possible that Iran had by 2003 weighed the cost benefit of continuing with their nuclear program, and decided that the economic sanctions (which had their origins in the 1980s and 1990s) hurting their economy was more of a concern then trying to become the next nuclear power in the region?
I'm sure they appreciated the Bush administration going through the trouble of getting rid of their major adversary, and putting a Shia-dominated government in power, but I don't think the invasion itself had them shaking in their boots.
The Iranian government may be authoritarian, but they are not blind to the need for economic improvement. What good is it to spend millions on a program if it was doing more harm than good?
December 5th, 2007 at 3:07 pmExley,
You still have not answered where in the NIE it states that the “tough talk†of the Bush administration had anything directly to do with the halting of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
You believe the NIE implies that Bush’s rhetoric is the deciding factor in Iran’s decision regarding its program? That is tenuous at best, and I will bet that there is no implicit reference to U.S. threats of force being one of the lynchpins in the startegy to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:10 pmRicks,
I would conclude that economics played a much bigger role in their decision than fear of invasion or airstrike.
Iran knows how stretched our military is, given our involvement in Afghanistan AND Iraq, and I don't think that they have been swayed by Bush's "tough talk."
December 5th, 2007 at 3:12 pmExley,
You said - "He knows now he was wrong. We can move on."
That's not quite right. Repsectfully, if the President knew this information months ago when he was ratcheting up the WWIII rhetoric, then there is the question of lying to the American People. No?
December 5th, 2007 at 3:15 pmSo Exley,
December 5th, 2007 at 3:16 pmIs the President lying, or stupid? (Joe Scarborough's words, not mine)
#237,
Tweedster,
The NIE specifically references Iran caving to "international scrutiny and pressure" to suspend its "previously undeclared nuclear work."
Obviously, the Bush administration's rhetoric, as well as its work with G-8 and the UN Security Council was part of that international scrutiny and pressure.
It is absurd to contend, as so many here are, that the Iranian leadership was not aware of or did not consider the actions of the United States to be part of that international pressure.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:16 pmSo, diplomacy and strong economic United Nations sanctions, BUT ALSO coupled with targeted military strikes against Iraq’s WMD programs in the 1990s by the Clinton administration and the UK (Operation: Desert Fox, for example, which was crucial) did indeed work in bringing about an end to Iran’s WMD programs.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
How soon you forget--your side called these "pin pricks"
December 5th, 2007 at 3:20 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 5, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
This poster's handle alone should constitute abuse of some kind.
Enabling the Iraqis (8 million) to vote for the own leadership. (Democracy).
How many of the original Iraqis who voted the first time out are still alive, or in the country for that matter? How many of the newly elected officials were killed following the elections? How has a "democratic" Iraq helped stabilize the greater Middle East thus far? If democracy was the aim of this mission (or aim2.0), than why has it's implication not solved Iraq's problems?
Motivating Gadhafi (and apparently now Iran) to commit to halting their nuclear programs and making the world safer.
Tenuous argument at best. The lifting of sanctions, and not the implicit threat of force is more likely the main factor in Libya and Iran's decisions to halt nulear programs.
And keeping this nation free from domestic terror attack for 6+ years.
After ignoring warnings for the worst one in our history...good work
Is Bush responsible? my head hurts...would anyone want to jump on this and list a few more of things Bush is responsible for?
December 5th, 2007 at 3:22 pmHey DRxJ,
Well, we know he is not stupid.....
Nice deal your Tigers pulled off.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:23 pmThe fact is that as good as the news that Iran looks to have halted its program, the NIE shows Iram was pursuing nucler weapons up untill 2003 and that we have no idea what their intentions are in this area in the future.
Thus, it clear that continued pressure (whether it be diplomatic or economic or both) is necessary to ensure that Iran lives up to its obligation under the NNP Treaty and does not develop nuclear weapons.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
repeating your lie only makes you look worse, Exlax. You have no credibility; your lies outnumber your truths substantially.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:24 pm#254, Joefriday,
Not me...I fully supported Clinton's military strikes against Iraq's WMD facilities.
Besides, I think that language was referring more to Clinton's ineffective cruise missile strikes against Al Qaeda in 1998 in response to the embassy bombings.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:25 pmIt is absurd to contend, as so many here are, that the Iranian leadership was not aware of or did not consider the actions of the United States to be part of that international pressure.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
It's just as absurd to think that Iran gives half a shit what a nitwit like Bush thinks.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:25 pmBesides, I think that language was referring more to Clinton’s ineffective cruise missile strikes against Al Qaeda in 1998 in response to the embassy bombings.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 3
of course you do. Cherrypicking is your history.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:25 pmYou said - “He knows now he was wrong. We can move on.â€
That’s not quite right. Repsectfully, if the President knew this information months ago when he was ratcheting up the WWIII rhetoric, then there is the question of lying to the American People. No?
Comment by Mr.Bungle — December 5, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
that's what Exlax means. Bush is never to be blamed for his stupidity, cowardice, bullheadedness, treason or incompetence.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:26 pmNot sure what you are referring to as a "lie," LP...I am quoting from the NIE's Key Judgments.
You should read them.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:26 pmYou should read them.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
I have, and you're cherrypicking, as usual.
Your lies of omission are famous around here. Almost as your regular lies. You're just a fool for the beady-eyed moron-in-chief, we get it.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:28 pmNice deal your Tigers pulled off.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 3:23 pm
BS-the Marlins have a secret plan.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:29 pmMore Examples of Savage Capitalism at the Cost of Human Suffering...in the US.
This is a link to several examples of recent globalism crimes by the US in other nations as well as two recent coporate welfare scams just recently coming to light in the US.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2007/12/05/more-recent-examples-of-savage-capitalism-at-the-cost-of-human-suffering-in-the-us/
This what these bastards have done in Iraq, Iran, Chile, Indonesia, China, and here.
Impeach to end globalization.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:30 pmJoeFriday,
"the Marlins have a secret plan."
Like Nixon in Vietnam.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:31 pmExley, I'm going to pretend that you're an adult here and are capable of complex thought. Whether this is a mistake on my part or not remains to be seen.
The "international scrutiny and pressure" you claim as a reference to Bush administration rhetoric as evidence that Bush is responsible in lage part for Iran's suspension of their program is kind of absurd.
The reckless invasion of Iraq (Iran's chief enemy in the region) probably told the Iranian leaders that, yes, we're dealing with someone who's not afraid to take huge risks with his military. But it also got rid of the primary threat to Iranian security, and the quagmire in which we've become mired was easily predicted, especially by those in the Middle East.
On the other hand, the joint British-French-German diplomatic mission to Tehran in the auttumn of 2003 actually produced the desired result: an agreement signed by Tehran to suspend any and all weapons-related nuclear activities. This was a mission that the Bush administration expressly refused to join.
Now it appears that the Iranians lived up to their part of the agreement, and it's ridiculous for anyone in the Bush administration or its apologists (of which you seem to be one) to try to claim that diplomatic success as its own.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:32 pmLike Nixon in Vietnam.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
It finally worked:)
December 5th, 2007 at 3:36 pmRalph,
I am not claiming this is solely a Bush administration success. It is a success shared by many, including Bush.
Let's just hope it lasts. As the NIE states on page, Tehran is "at a minimum" keeping its options open to continue its nuclear weapons work.
Moreover, let us say you are correct (and you are very well may be) that part of the reason that Iran suspended its nuclear weapons work in fall 2003 is because they saw their immediate and primary enemy -- Saddam Hussein -- gone. Well, what is the reason Saddam was gone? The U.S.-led invasion. So, under your own scenario, Bush deserves some of the credit for Iran's suspension of nuke work.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:37 pmRalph,
Exley will deny the effect of actual diplomats and laud the "efforts" (lies) of a dip!
Exley,
Why is it acceptable for the administration to keep framing Iran as a rogue state that is putting us in imminent danger by having a weapons program that doesn't exist? Because it is part of our diplomatic strategy? The dishonesty of this administration is outrageous, and you commend it. Unbelievable.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:38 pmNPR has put together a very helpful timeline of events regarding the Iran Nuclear Program. It's well worth reading.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16896950
Here's a few choice entries that Exley and others might find educational:
May 2003: Iranian President Mohammed Khatami offers to talk to the United States about the countries' differences. But the Bush administration rejects the offer. In part because of this refusal, the Europeans act on their own to negotiate with the Iranians while trying to persuade the Bush administration to join the negotiation process.
October 2003: The EU 3 — France, Britain and Germany — reach an initial understanding with Iran to suspend nuclear enrichment. The Bush administration refuses to support this, insisting suspension of nuclear enrichment is not enough. The Bush administration insists that before it will enter into any negotiations with the Iranians, Iran must commit to abandoning enrichment altogether.
So.. the arguement that Bush should get credit for Iran halting it's nuclear program in 03 seems to be completely contradicted by the facts.
And then there's the question of Bush lying to us over the last 6 months, which BTW is the actual topic of this thread...
December 5th, 2007 at 3:38 pmExley,
Why is the administration still lying over the circumstances of how the report was delivered, when the president was briefed, etc. etc.?
Why is that dishonesty necessary? In order to compound the fact they've been dishonest about the level of threat Iran has posed over the past 3-4 years?
December 5th, 2007 at 3:40 pmPretty funny watching Bush being trashed as he most assuredly deserves. Karma can be fun to watch (take heed future corrupters). With all of the horrible things Bush has done, there's got to be a lot more karma waiting for him. Pass the popcorn.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:41 pmDigDug,
Exley gave Bush a pass on the dishonesty because it was central to our "diplomatic strategy" concerning Iran. Even though our diplomacy wasn't exactly what turned the tide on the whole thing, even once they agreed to halt their nuclear program, Bush was FORCED to keep LYING about the threat Iran posed because he HAD to as a matter of "diplomatic strategy."
December 5th, 2007 at 3:43 pm#272
Tweedster,
Now HERE I will agree with you...They do seem to tripping over themselves in explaining this. There may be a valid reason for it, but it appears bad. If I had been the WH political adviser, I would have gotten this out there with fanfare and touted it as a great success and good news.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:44 pmWilly,
What happens to fans of future corrupters in this whole karma scheme? Are the condemned to lick boots for eternity?
December 5th, 2007 at 3:45 pmI hope lassie runs for president :)
December 5th, 2007 at 3:47 pmIf I had been the WH political adviser, I would have gotten this out there with fanfare and touted it as a great success and good news.
Comment by Exley
Essentially claiming credit for what France, Britain and Germany did, and you wanted to have no part of...
December 5th, 2007 at 3:48 pmAlso, let's not forget that many believe that Putin "Putie Put"made it clear to Bushco that Russia would not stand by and do nothing if the USA attacked Iran. Russia is building the nuclear reactor and suppling the start up fuel.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:49 pmAh, Gummitch…Resorting to tired old conspiracy theories about secret negotiations prior to the 1980 elections….
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 2:02 pm
I can see how you would want to believe that it was purely a coincidence that the hostages were released as Reagan was being inaugurated, and that the subsequent backdoor coddling of the Ayatollah was coincidental as well, but the theory is not particularly tired, no. Official investigations were unable to find sufficient evidence to substantiate the theory, but as we have seen recently, that certainly doesn't mean the theory is untrue.
Given the characters involved, as we've been able to observe them in the 27 years following, the "conspiracy theory" has only become more plausible, not less.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:50 pmHey! I didn't fall down today!!
Hurrah for George Bush!!!! His plan is working!!!!
*BAER*
December 5th, 2007 at 3:51 pmNow HERE I will agree with you…They do seem to tripping over themselves in explaining this. There may be a valid reason for it, but it appears bad. If I had been the WH political adviser, I would have gotten this out there with fanfare and touted it as a great success and good news.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Except that would have interfered with their persistent lying about the nature of the "threat", wouldn't it? Not that you have a problem with lying, and certainly not with this administration lying.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:52 pmExley,
"They do seem to tripping over themselves in explaining this."
Seem? Exley, the contradictions are ridiculous! Also, why would Bush not press to be fully briefed on the contents of the report immediately when told it contained "new information" if the Iran issue was such a huge priority for the administration? There is no valid reason for that!
December 5th, 2007 at 3:52 pmgummitch,
How dare you interfere with someone else's cognitive dissonance?!
/snark
December 5th, 2007 at 3:53 pmDigDug,
Exley gave Bush a pass on the dishonesty because it was central to our “diplomatic strategy†concerning Iran. Even though our diplomacy wasn’t exactly what turned the tide on the whole thing, even once they agreed to halt their nuclear program, Bush was FORCED to keep LYING about the threat Iran posed because he HAD to as a matter of “diplomatic strategy.â€
Comment by Tweedster
I see. I kind of figured that's what he was trying to do.
There's a big problem with that arguement though. There is a big difference between "putting preasure on a country", and telling your own citizens that they may be in for WWIII if we don't stop a nuclear program that you already know was stopped years ago.
Go ahead and put preasure on them and continue to, but don't lie to us about what the threat actually is.
December 5th, 2007 at 3:53 pmI have to say, given that the most credit Exley will afford to the British, French and German dilpomats who negotiated the 2003 deal with Iran is, "It is a success shared by many, including Bush" I have to conclude that yes, it WAS a mistake to assume that Exley is capable of complex thought.
Seems pretty single-minded to me.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:01 pm284
Go ahead and put preasure on them and continue to, but don’t lie to us about what the threat actually is.
DigDug,
This issue is a real litmus test for Bush diehards. They can accept being deceived by their beloved "leader" just because it is Bush doing the lying. Its scary and sad.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:03 pmRalph,
Exley is the face of blind adulation in many respects. Every criticism she claims to have against Bush is always tempered with fall-back options for blame. And we've seen how she hands out praise to the guy...
December 5th, 2007 at 4:15 pmVIDEO
Chris matthews asks a neo-con "is Iran a strategic threat"? and DEMANDS AN ANSWER
http://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=9fcb21ca-effa-40b8-aa36-8856d7b71ea4
December 5th, 2007 at 4:16 pmTweedster,
I'm pretty sure that economics also played a role in Khaddafi's decision, and not the threat of invasion.
Money talks and bulls**t walks, as they say.
December 5th, 2007 at 4:20 pmSpot on Ricks...
December 5th, 2007 at 4:29 pmYeah, I am sure it was a COMPLETE coincidence that Moammar Gadhafi annouced he was renouncing Libya's WMD programs just days after a bedraggled Saddam Hussein pulled out of his spider-hole and taken into custody by US troops.....
December 5th, 2007 at 5:14 pmSo it must not have been a coincidence that the Iranians released the hostages on the same day that Reagan took the oath of office?
Those allegations that the Reagan campaign cut a deal with the Iranians must have been true.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:19 pmTom Baker is not, was not, wrong, in any way. There exists only one person who thinks he was, and there is no one here (nor anywhere) who agrees with that one person.
Exley is/was (and likely will be) wrong, and will not admit it, no matter the weight of evidence and testimony against him (kinda like his cheerleader buddy in the WH)
He will never stop lying about it.
He's a poor excuse for a rhetorician to boot.
Like a home-schooled kid taking classes at a real University.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:20 pmRickS,
Your analogy doesn't work. The deal to release the hostages was announced by the Carter administration and the Iranians before Inauguration Day 1980.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:34 pmTom -- Are you STILL clinging to your erroneous claim that Ronald Reagan was president in 1980??? Wow....
December 5th, 2007 at 5:36 pmAnd to show that unlike TomBaker, I can admit when I have made an error (in this case, a typo)...Obviusly in my response to RickS, I meant to type "Inauguration Day 1981"
December 5th, 2007 at 5:37 pmno exley, you meant to continue on with your bullshit "gamesmanship", you tedious, boorish, mock-intellectual prick.
December 5th, 2007 at 6:21 pmExley's strategy on this thread has been similar to a football coach coming off a 40-point loss complaining about the illegal procedure call the refs missed in the first quarter.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:15 pmAnd to show that unlike TomBaker, I can admit when I have made an error (in this case, a typo)…Obviusly in my response to RickS, I meant to type “Inauguration Day 1981″
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
Your MOTHER made the error the day you were conceived by her brother...
December 5th, 2007 at 7:48 pmTom — Are you STILL clinging to your erroneous claim that Ronald Reagan was president in 1980??? Wow….
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
Based on his testimony for his involvement in all of the acts of treason of his administration - one could argue that perhaps he was NEVER president...
December 5th, 2007 at 7:48 pmno exley, you meant to continue on with your bullshit “gamesmanshipâ€, you tedious, boorish, mock-intellectual prick.
Comment by tombaker — December 5, 2007 @ 6:21 pm
Little 'nerds' like exley always resort to splitting hairs, because reality splits even more than their favorite d**do does...
December 5th, 2007 at 7:49 pmHey...Just popped back in to see if TomBaker finally admitted he was wrong when he embarrassingly said Ronald Reagan was president in 1980.....Let's see.....Nope. Looks like TomBaker is still sticking with his erroneous assertion. He still doesn't know that Jimmy Carter was president from 1977 to 1981. Heh!
December 5th, 2007 at 11:01 pmExley,
Why is the administration still lying over the circumstances of how the report was delivered, when the president was briefed, etc. etc.?
Why is that dishonesty necessary? In order to compound the fact they’ve been dishonest about the level of threat Iran has posed over the past 3-4 years?
Comment by Tweedster — December 5, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Tweedster,
Now HERE I will agree with you…They do seem to tripping over themselves in explaining this. There may be a valid reason for it, but it appears bad. If I had been the WH political adviser, I would have gotten this out there with fanfare and touted it as a great success and good news.
Comment by Exley — December 5, 2007 @ 3:44 pm
Which gets back to my earlier question and the Scarborough story on which these posts derive:
Ok, Exley, if the invasion of Iraq is the reason that Iran stopped trying to build Nukes then why wouldn’t Bush have been informed of the NIE many months ago? If he was informed why would he lie about it in the press conference? Why would he have not brought Iran’s past program and it’s cessation to the attention of the public to demonstrate that our invasion had accomplished this?
Comment by rehbock — December 5, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
Exley, I am heartened that you are acknowledging the original premise that the claim by Bush that he just learned of the NIE makes him appear either a liar or stupid. You appear to have no explanation other than that there "may be a valid reason".
December 5th, 2007 at 11:30 pmIf Bush was telling the truth then he needs to do something to address that "valid reason". If he was lying then he needs to correct himself. Because absent his lying about what and when he knew about the NIE the only reason other than that the President is too stupid to be successfully briefed is that his subordinates usurped his Presidency and conspired to hide the views of all the Intelligence agencies from the President for many months.
Exley, like O. Bigfoot and the numerous other trolls on other threads that TP allows to dominate ALL discussions, is STILL the ONLY topic here, despite the headline, "Joe Scarborough Rips Bush On Iran NIE: He’s Either ‘Lying’ Or ‘Is Stupid’."
You regular contributors to TP sure are gullible! You DESERVE the likes of Exley and the rest of the trolls.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:41 am"He’s Either ‘Lying’ Or ‘Is Stupid’"
Duh. That's what we've been saying all along! I wish it was the latter but I believe it is the former.
December 6th, 2007 at 1:42 pm