As a matter of fact, the neogoons have no access to intrelligence of any kind and, if they did, they would have no idea of what intelligence is or how to use it.

Comment by Shaldag

In June, TheHill.com asked a group of Senators (current and former) whether or not they read the NIE report on Iraq prior to their vote on authorizing the invasion. Thompson refused to answer.
Source.

Obviously there are two possibilities; remember that he served on the Intelligence Committee when he voted to go to war.

1. He did read the NIE, which would make him look like the idiot he is when calling the NIE on Iran “foolishness” and dismissing it as a bunch of nothing. If he said yes, I did read it (or even a summary), then he’d be forced to defend the intelligence agencies for which in 2002 he had great trust in, yet today he has such a distaste for. If he had proof that the Iran NIE is politically motivated, he’d have no problem doing this. But he doesn’t, and he can’t.

2. He did not read the NIE, which would call into question his motivation for voting for the Iraq invasion. It would also call into question his desire, or lack of, to be informed about details of a particular situation (in this case our national security) when committing himself to such an important decision; as well, he just might be compared to the current occupant of the Oval Office (who isn’t all that popular with the current Repub candidates), who declared last week that he did not get any info whatsoever last August regarding Iran, and would have us believe that he apparently didn’t bother to inquire about at any time up until one week ago. It would also raise the question of whether or not Thompson had read the full Iran NIE; odds are, he didn’t read this one either. It’s much easier to throw out unsubstantiated claims, because many of his supporters will take him for his word and not question anything.

Grandpa is working hard to get the RCVs away from Huckabee.

Good luck Fred.

Either they are politically motivated or the intel agencies are completely inept or both.

Even the french disagree with the current NIE and IAEA conclusions.

Comment by Shaldag

The French? You’re taking France’s side over our country’s own intel agencies?

Does this mean the French decision to not take part in the Iraq invasion was justified, too?

Comment by Shaldag — December 12, 2007 @ 3:22 pm”

Exactly – from the time Reagan tanked it, til the time Clinton pulled it out of the crapper. Illustrates perfectly how “good” R’s are at managing the economy.

Thanks, Shagster.

I don’t claim to know jackshit about the economy, but it seems to me that, even in an eleven trillion dollar economy, when you’re borrowing hundreds of billions from another country to pour it down a hell-hole like Iraq, something’s gotta give. The Chinese are going to be the ones to succeed and prosper.

Comment by bilbobaggins — December 12, 2007 @ 3:37 pm

Well, he did offer a single quote from a dissenting voice on the NIE. So I guess we’re to conclude that, much like global warming, the fact that the intelligence (or scientific) community is not unanimous is reason right there to discredit its report.

‘But North Africa and the Middle East are a tantalizing longer-term prospect: Several of the countries have gas and oil reserves and are awash in dollars thanks to high energy prices. They prefer to export their fossil fuel at high prices rather than using them up at home – and want to prepare for when reserves run out.’

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/15/europe/nuke.php

A handful of countries (U.S., Britain, Japan, France & Russia I think) want to corner the market on nuclear fuel and make it so that countries who want nuclear power HAVE to buy it from them.

In the meantime, as the quote above indicates, some of the oil-rich countries can make more money by selling their oil internationally (rather than use it themselves) and, of course, that oil won’t last forever so they are trying to look beyond that.

But some people, like our new friend shaggy, would prefer to believe the party line and have the wool pulled over their eyes.

Comment by bilbobaggins — December 12, 2007 @ 3:37 pm

stay awhile, kick him around a little. it’s fun!

Wow, yeah, I guess so (scratches head). Slow day here at TP.

Comment by Shaldag — December 12, 2007 @ 3:24 pm

it’s always slow when you’re around, shal.

btw, here’s a thought for you from billy o’reilly:

“If you read these far-left websites, you’re a devil worshipper. You are.”
- bill o’reilly, fox news “the o’reilly factor”, 12/07/07

now shal don’t go getting angry with me about this. billy’s the one calling you a satan worshipper, not me!

The oilmongers are not pleased.

Wow, yeah, I guess so (scratches head). Slow day here at TP.

Dangerous Crossroads: Tonkin II?

“An incident” in the Persian Gulf could be used by the US as a pretext for war against Iran.

A war pretext incident, similar to “the Gulf of Tonkin Incident”, which triggered the Vietnam war, could be used by US forces, with a view to justifying retaliatory military action against Iran.

In August 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson claimed that North Vietnamese forces had attacked US destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. The Tonkin incident, which had been manipulated, contributed to unleashing a full-fledged war against Vietnam:

“A phantom attack on two U.S. destroyers cruising the Gulf of Tonkin was staged by the Pentagon and the C.I.A. The bogus attack occurred early in August, 1964. That evening President Lyndon Johnson went on television giving the grim details of the non-attack. Later, however, it was revealed that navy commander James Stockdale flew cover over the Gulf of Tonkin that night. Stockdale disclosed that U.S. ships were firing at phantom targets–targets that didn’t exist. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident that drew the U.S. into the quagmire of Viet Nam simply didn’t happen. Johnson, as presidents so often do, lied to the American people. The result was the rapid passage of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which was the sole legal basis for the Viet Nam War. As a result of Johnson’s lie, three million Vietnamese people and fifty eight thousand U.S. soldiers died.” (Charles Sullivan, Global Research, January 2006)

–Michel Chossudovsky, “US naval war games off the Iranian coastline: A provocation which could lead to War?” (Oct. 24, 2006)

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=2006102

The dollar represents an eleven trillion dollar economy, not something one would easily ignore if they want to succeed and prosper, especially with trade and commerce.

That same falling dollar is creating frustration and concern in Asia and Europe because it makes American goods and travel cheaper which then nagetively affects their own economy.

If you have even a jot of economic acumen then you would understand the increasingly global intertwining of national economies has become a self-fulfilling dependency for everyone involved.

The current state of the dollar has happened before and will happen again. Do your research and find that out for yourself, reference the state of the dollar between 1985 and 1993 when it fell into roughly the same position it is now.

Comment by Shaldag — December 12, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
Recommend (0) | Report Abuse

gotcha!