Twice now, Bush has confronted faulty intelligence

"...(I)f (Iran has) the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon" it is dangerous.

- President Bush

What Bush fears most, apparently, is intelligence.

For even if Iran possesses the intelligence to make a bomb, according to our intelligence community it also has the intelligence NOT to produce the bomb.

Bush's proponents will state that Iran only stopped making the bomb after it realized that Bush-Cheney was not afraid to take action.

KIDS, THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG.

Even if Iran POSSESSED the bomb, it would not USE the bomb for fear of retaliation.

Even if the Bushites are CORRECT, it supports my own theory that the Iranian leadership is not INSANE - i.e. without fear and concern about a retaliatory response.

Unfortunately, most Americans have been conditioned since 9/11 into believing that "terrorists" (which would Iran would be under Bush's definition) are not afraid to die.

NEWSFLASH: Yeah, they are.

You don't see Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda LEADERSHIP strapping bombs to themselves. Instead, they would rather be captured than kill themselves.

So the lesson here, kids, is to think for yourself and GO BEYOND President Bush's assertions.

Iran has the intelligence, alright - the intelligence NOT to make the bomb. That's good news and worth celebrating. Now we can prevent millions of lives from being destroyed and uprooted by not invading and destroying yet another society.

This kind of war talk has done wonders for Bushs' political career. It got him elected the second time. Yet his war rhetoric and fear mongoring has done much to hurt the US. Not to mention what these kinds of tensions has done to the price of oil.
Legacy????

He uses intelligence for his own nefarious purposes. So does Cheney. They are both incompetent fools.

When will Congress do it's duty and impeach these traitors.

If what Bush is saying is true, that he was told in August that there was new information on Iran, but he didn't ask what the new information was until he got the NIE last week, then the man is dangerously incurious. What reasonable person wouldn't follow up and try to get some idea about what was coming? This is absolutely unbelievable.

Twice now, Bush has confronted faulty intelligence

The lead is very misleading. He has dealt with "faulty intelligence" all his life.

At least this time we found out "it ain't so" BEFORE we went to war.

Bush is a nut. One of the great problems of "intelligence" is the ignoring of it by decision makers. Bush makes policies based on fantasies in his mind. We are lucky he wasn't in charge during the Cold War. He would have made Dr. Stranglove a reality.

They (the Cheney “administration”) have been pathologically lying to us for 7 years with zero oversight and no one holding them accountable for anything. Why would their final year be any different? As for Bush himself, unfortunately we’re stuck with his one-trick-monkey routine (my way or violence) until he leaves or is pushed out of office.

This is no time for cynics. Power in the hands of a fool is definitely dangerous. Congress should have recognized this a long time ago and neutralized this man. People voted for him because, gee whiz, he's the kinda guy you'd wanna have a beer with. Does anybody wanna have a beer with him now? His incompetence has cost this country dearly and who pays? The families of the fallen pay. The thousands of wounded and maimed men and women recuperating from horrific physical and mental injuries pay. The citizens of this country who will eventually have higher tax bills pay. Everybody pays except the engineers of the disastrous course that this country is on. They don't pay. Bush did not look at all somber and soft spoken. He is comfortable with himself. He always is. Always has been. People were fooled by his incantations a while back about some kind of vision he received from God. He has not relived those thoughts for a long time. He can no longer justify his actions on the basis of some divine mission. Rather than show some kind of contriteness or humility, something that he does not have, he goes before the World with his smirks and looks like a complete ass.

Man does this guy have a one track mind. I expect more from a man charged w/ leading our country. He's told something that puts a damper on his ability to put fear into the public and he claims it's evidence as to why the public should be afraid. When is Israel going to be subject to inspection of the undeclared nuclear weaponry we KNOW they have? Or are they somehow "chosen" and therefore not subject to the same rules as the rest of the world. Oh yeah, btw, I believe in Israel's existence before anybody accuses me of being an anti-Semite.

This Iran "threat" was good for probably a $20.00 rise in the price of a barrel of oil, do you expect to see that be reversed?

Also, a Washington Post reader commented on their site that Bush's statement: "And so, kind of Psychology 101 ain't working It's just not working." made him sound like a teenage stoner. How true.

This just shows once again that the Bush administration is more focused on providing the necessary propaganda to endorse a future conflict with Iran in an effort to continue to safeguard Middle East oil for the use of Americans. This is what this is all about in the end. The world's oil supply is running out and will continue to do so at an alarming rate as regions like China and India begin to use more oil.

Bush's big Texas oil buddies are worried and need to ensure that there is an adequate pipeline of oil to keep the incredible profits rolling in. Rather than concentrating on America's ingenuity and technological prowess to invent alternative energy sources, this government would rather focus on our military prowess and take whatever we can. This appears to be the lazy response to the problem which is only manifested in our current lazy American culture. America needs to get back to providing a leadership role in the world and focus on finding peaceful solutions to this energy issue.

To say that this article missrepresents the logic behind President Bush's continued belief that Iran is a dangerous nation would be putting it mildly. To say that Mr Emanuel is addressing this issue clear-eyed is disingenous in the extreme. As long as Iran continues enrichment and to levels well past usefulness for nuclear power, AS THE REVISED INTELLIGENCE REPORT CONFIRMS, then it is Mr Bush who is operating clear-eyed and Mr Emmanuel who is hewing to an ideological condition. That this article attempts to convey the opposite view indicates the author has zero comprehension of the situation.

Using war for political ends: despicable.

Impeach this idiot out of office already! How much more does the US and the rest of the world have to suffer because of one little man's ignorance? My guess is that the dial will be turned up on the "war on terror" as elections near - this is the only tactic this SAD little political party has left.

JJH, are you a nuclear engineer? Do you have some intelligence beyond the federal government related to Iran, or the world for that matter? You haven't seen any mistakes and a lack of responsibility from the Bush administration in regards to intelligence and foregin policy? Europe is closer to Iran than America and I don't hear the outrage over there like I did during Iran's initial annoucements about nuclear plans (I was in Europe during that time). How do you know what levels of enrichment is past usefulness beyond what you read or hear in main-stream media. DON'T YOU SEE A PATTERN OR IS IT SIMPLY A MATTER OF POLITICAL IDEALISM for YOU.
I guess the Iraq situation in your eyes has been pefect! Mission Accomplished!

How pathetic have wing nuts become when even President whosyourdaddy is proven right!

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today called a U.S. intelligence report that downgraded Iran as a nuclear threat "a declaration of victory" for the Iranian nuclear program. Ahmadinejad said earlier reports from the United States had been based on "shoddy intelligence." The Bush administration has for years warned that Iran is trying to make an atomic bomb. full story

Many of the headlines for the stories about the NIE report read "Is Iran still a threat?" or something similar. Sorry, but given recent histories of Iran and the US shouldn't the headlines read "Is the US still a threat?"

I agree, Iran does not want to use a nuclear bomb for fear of massive retaliation. They want to pass one along to a terrosist friend.

Funny, Iran stopped seeking a nuclear bomb right around the same time Bush went into Iraq. Do ya think... Naw... couldn't be.

"...(I)f (Iran has) the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon" it is dangerous.

- President Bush

Sounds like President Bush is gearing up to bomb the knowledge outta 'em.

How exactly you bomb a country out of knowledge is as-yet unexplained. But it never hurts to try!

Mark Silva and his fellow Loons on the Left continue to think Iran is a nice, cozy place.
Last week Iran says it's going to destroy any peace agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. Mark and his Merry Loony Minions must not know about that, or ignore it for their own political agenda.
Iran has been supplying weapons and bombs to terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mark and his Merry Loony Minions must not know that or ignore it for their own political agenda.
Iran supplies Hamas and Hezbollah with weapons to cause mischief. Mark and his Merry Loony Minions must not know that or ignore it for their own political agenda.
Iran says it will wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Mark and his Merry Loony Minions either must know that or ignore it for their own political agenda.

Yep, keep drinking that hysterical, maniacal Kool-Aid folks. Iran is utopia, by gosh. Right?

Anyone who supported Bush or still supports Bush is just as guilty! It is time for America to wake up and smell the pile of dead bodies piling up in the Middle East, not just Americans soldiers. Bush has created a class of people who will forever hate the west.

Looks like most of you now think Iran is simply a poor, misunderstood country being picked on by the Evil Bush.

So naive. And Silva, start asking real political questions, not Barbara Walters "What kind of a tree would you be?" sorts.

Does this mean he looked in the mirror?

How many more days until this boob (Bush) is out of office?

Does anybody wanna have a beer with him now?

Posted by: GW | December 5, 2007 8:37 AM

Is he buying?

Isn't the real story here that Bush KNEW the details of this report months ago and STILL was using the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons to justify another war? Bush will keep lying to the US and the GOP wingnuts will keep believing his BS. (Don't they still think there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam was behind 9/11). Is W capable of telling the truth? Is the media capable of calling him on it?

Don't you think there might be something MORE to all this? How could this administration be saying all this time Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, and then OUT OF NOWHERE say, "Oops, our mistake, they stopped doing that in 2003"?

There is something else going on. I don't know what it is, but this is part of something big about to happen. Israel still thinks they are pursuing weapons.

As for Iran not being crazy enough to use a bomb out of fear of retaliation, it works like this. They make the bomb secretly, get it to one of their front groups, have them detonate, and deny any association. After Iraq, you need clear proof to invade a country, and that would hard to find in this scenario. Thats how WWIII starts.

The intelligence that's faulty is Mr. Bush's.

This headline is very, very misleading. As in, biased.

Aww the Right wing war mongers are so depressed. Their main justification for slaughtering Iranians by the hundreds of thousands has disappeared. They could practically taste the blood but now it's gone. Their blood lust and thirst for destruction will go unslaked for a while longer.Nothing makes the right wingers happier than a nice warm pile of dead bodies.

Satan has a lot of followers.

John D and Bob

As a proud loony lefter (John, did you ever get a copyright on that phrase?) I would like to hear your plans. I dont see Iran as a "poor misunderstood country" or a "nice, cozy place"
I think they are another example of a country driven by religious zeal and ideology, (which should be a lesson for the far right evangelicals in this country, violence in the name of peace and security is NOT a Christian value, sorry.)
I think Ahmadinejad is nuts and dangerous. Given his druthers he would wipe out Israel and the US and any other "infidels" he could, all in the name of religion. Can he really do this? Does he not know what the retaliation would be?

That being said, whats the plan Stan(s)? You two studs gunna sign up for our amazingly overstretched military so we can bomb Iran? Should we nuke em? Should we just "get it over with" and bomb them back the stone age?
Intelligence says they're not building a bomb, but we all know even if that is true they are still up to no good and would love nothing more than "Death to America" so should we ignore this possible window of diplomacy (yes its okay to 'try' to talk to enemies sometimes) or do we just blast away? Let me know how we will pay for that, how many lives that will cost and how our military in its present condition will pull that off.
And Bob, if you have no answer then I think you can claim the 'naive' tag. We are not the military might we once were, able to willy-nilly bomb countries into submission in the name of peace.

Speak to us your plans you macho men, and let me know how you will explain this to the men and women who serve to protect you.

John D, er–Mad Man : 57 words Iran Issue, 99 words Hate.

Dr. Henry Jekyll addresses Iran Issue....

Last week Iran says it's going to destroy any peace agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. Iran has been supplying weapons and bombs to terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran supplies Hamas and Hezbollah with weapons to cause mischief. Iran says it will wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Iran is utopia, by gosh. Right?

Mr. Edward Hyde is losing his mind....

Mark Silva and his fellow Loons on the Left continue to think Iran is a nice, cozy place.
Mark and his Merry Loony Minions must not know about that, or ignore it for their own political agenda. Mark and his Merry Loony Minions must not know that or ignore it for their own political agenda. Mark and his Merry Loony Minions must not know that or ignore it for their own political agenda. Mark and his Merry Loony Minions either must know that or ignore it for their own political agenda. Yep, keep drinking that hysterical, maniacal Kool-Aid folks.

Peasant Pebbles addressing Dr. Henry Jekyll...

Pakistan has WMD, has voiced intent to use against India, is involved in an arms race with India, is accused of terrorism against India, is accused of suppling WMD possibly to Iran, has been and continues to be terrorist haven (people still die of terrorist attacks in Pakistan), has al-Qaeda sympathizers in the military willing to pass of WMD, has not produced THE terrorist who killed 3000 Americans...

At first I felt I wouldn't reply to John Ds' rant. But I see some other hard line name callers jumping on the band wagon. Nobody said Iran is a "great" place. What we have said is that the tension we "create", instead of the diplomacy we should use, will not serve us well. Look at oil prices,for one. But of course if you wish to say that means we think Iran is great, it's only your mistake.

Here you go Liberal hacks, the latest story is the faulty info

per Newsmax:

Newsmax sources in Tehran believe that Washington has fallen for “a deliberate disinformation campaign” cooked up by the Revolutionary Guards, who laundered fake information and fed it to the United States through Revolutionary Guards intelligence officers posing as senior diplomats in Europe.

Dangerous Game

The National Intelligence Council, which produced the NIE, is chaired by Thomas Fingar, “a State Department intelligence analyst with no known overseas experience who briefly headed the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research,” I wrote in my book "Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs, and the Party of Surrender."

Fingar was a key partner of Senate Democrats in their successful effort to derail the confirmation of John Bolton in the spring of 2005 to become the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations.

As the head of the NIC, Fingar has gone out of his way to fire analysts “who asked the wrong questions,” and who challenged the politically-correct views held by Fingar and his former State Department colleagues, as revealed in "Shadow Warriors."

In March 2007, Fingar fired his top Cuba and Venezuela analyst, Norman Bailey, after he warned of the growing alliance between Castro and Chavez.

WOW - Listen to all the left swinging know it alls! Just wait 1, 5, or 10 years when Iran pulls something. Then the same short memory idiots will blame Bush for not being tough now. Go check your history on Hitler you knuckleheads!

Twice Now, Bush has Confronted Faulty Intelligence"

This qualifies as the dishonest headline of the year. There is quite a bit of competition for the honor.

Yep, keep drinking that hysterical, maniacal Kool-Aid folks. Iran is utopia, by gosh. Right?

Posted by: John D | December 5, 2007 10:28 AM
--------------------------
John D,
I must say I've been growing more and more disappointed with your logic in your postings. Aside from the fact that we clearly disagree on the best way to keep this country safe and aside from the fact that you're not upset that this administration has hurt our constitution, is okay with torture, and pays mercenaries to plunder Iraq at the expense of our soldiers, some of your arguments in the past have seemed better put together than as of recent.

First off, I notice you still continually associate liberal leaders as friends of Al-Qaida, which is a cheap, nonsensical attack.

Secondly, because we don't favor another preemptive war that weakens our army and increases support for terrorists worldwide doesn't mean that we think Iran is the land of milk and honey.

I understand how deeply rooted you are in your positions and your support for the war in Iraq, but try taking a step back and see from a different perspective and you might see why we're all up in arms. It's another pre-emptive war that was based on false intelligence cherry picked to serve the needs of this administration. Now I know that even when we pull out of Iraq you will be convinced that if it wasn't for us loony liberals it would have been a great success, but if you can, take a second try to reconcile the imperialist nation we have become with the goals and ideals of our forefathers.

The American people are complicit in a way for the tragedies that our country is inflicting, not because we are inherently bad people, but because we are ignorant on the whole to the damage we cause and because too many people are afraid and shamed by blind patriotism that comes at the cost of thinking for yourself. We must be the change we want to see in the world. All our posturing and pillaging is only lending credence to extremists. Our pre-emptive war philosophy is only encouraging nations to develop WMDs if only to prevent us from invading. The information is out there in a million places. You should learn from this and stop cherry picking your intelligence as well. A nation like ours should know better. And so should you.

For the Dead-Enders who say that Iran will not actually launch a missile but will pass along the material to a terrorist group- first, why hasn't Pakistan done so? Their security forces are quite sympathetic to Al Qaeda who has been given safe haven in the tribal regions under America's favorite dictator, General Pervez Musharaf.

I'll tell you the answer: because fissile material is traceable. If a dirty bomb went off from nuclear material supplied by Iran or Pakistan, that would be an act of war and the U.S. would have no choice to "bomb them back to the Stone Age."

Dyslin and others' paranoid rantings about "suicidal" Iran are ahistorical and counter-factual. Bud McFarlin's opening post is 110% correct.

How about a quick mental exercise: please name a world leader who was ACTUALLY willing to have their country destroyed and thus lose power on some ideological mission?

Bin Laden, Zawahiri? Uhh, certainly not, they send deluded foot soldiers. Saddam? Why do you thihk he was willing to risk war to maintain the front of WMD's he didn't actually have? How about Charles Taylor? Yassir Arafat? All these men sought power above all else, and were in no way willing to sacrifice their power for any greater cause.

Hitler, you say? Napolean? Both opened up second fronts that destroyed their chance of victory, but neither was suicidal while in power. Both thought they could win, they weren't simply lashing out willy-nilly.

Iran is a sophisticated and relatively modern country with a culture that dates back many thousands of years. Though the President is clearly rather unhinged (the people of Iran and the U.S have at least that in common), he is neither the head of state NOR the head of the military. He's a figurehead. We should treat him as such and make deals with the pragmatists who, before Ahmedinijad's ascension, made BOLD GRAND BARGAIN overtures to the U.S that were aggressively rebuffed by the Bush Administration, predictably leading to a more hard-line government taking power after the moderates found they had no working partner in the Bush Administration. Mahmoud isn't suicidal, quite the contrary- his bluster increases his popularity at home by grandizing external threats to offset his domestic agenda, which has been a failure.

Anyone have an example of a world leader/ dictator who committed suicide while in power?

Erick and the others Leftists, Loony or otherwise:
First of all, the U.S. has had discussions with Iran on several fronts, so we have been dealing with them.
2. Second, according to the NIE (and it could be wrong as well) Iran stopped its nuclear weapon development in 2003. What else happened in 2003 that may have had an impact on that decision by Iran?
3. The U.S. has been applying pressure on Iran through economic sanctions via the UN and our allies.
4. The U.S. also has had its European allies talk and negotiate with Iran.
5. The U.S. has been putting pressure on Iran and shining a spotlight on the country these past few years. Do you think that may have constributed to Iran's alleged about face?
6. What Bush said yesterday was despite the NIE report, it wouldn't be wise to let up on the pressure. He didn't talk war, he didn't talk invasion, he said keep up the pressure, don't let up. Seems like a logical step to me.

It is funny (not really) though that the Left has not disputed one of my points about what Iran has been doing. They stop doing what they are doing in funding and supplying terrorism, and then you can begin rewarding them for good deeds. Does not seem unreasonable to me or to most sane, clear-thinking individuals.

Mr. Silva -- nice, balanced analysis. This is kind of reporting and insight I wish we saw more of from the Trib, and newsmedia in general. PLEASE keep up the good work.!

Gary:

Newsmax is well known as a right-wing hack website that has no credibility in the real world.

Sort of like getting your news from "The Onion".

Faulty intelligence is the only kind W has ever had.

Everyone tells me "we only have to deal with him for one more year." Look at the damage he's caused already. I believe that the only way the rest of the world is going to refrain from blowing the U.S. off the map is to IMPEACH NOW!!! Seriously folks. We've allowed this IDIOT president to be in office too long. The whole administration needs to go! It'll be the only way we get some respect from the rest of the world.

How fortunate we are that GW was not our President during the Cuban Missle Crisis. In the face of being unable to efficiently manage and resolve his debacle in Iraq, he will continue to breathe life into another crisis of his making, Iran.
We should be ashamed of ourselves. This isn't about being left or right but about being stoopid.
There are nuts on both sides of the political spectrum and unfortunately one of them is in charge.

Go check your history on Hitler you knuckleheads!

Posted by: Knock | December 5, 2007 11:56 AM

You're right Knock...lets kill him. Then how about Chavez...lets kill him next. What about Kim Jong? Don't just keep it international..there have to be a couple of democrats you'ld like to wipe out Huh? Fear...Long live fear...The key to political success.

Gary, who appointed Mr. Fingar to his current position?

I love the new Right wing spin on this: Bush is passing along false intelligence information to the American people.

"Nobody said Iran is a "great" place. "

Precisely.

If I may add. When "the left" points out the state of Pakistan in comparison to Iran it is to show that one is no better than the other. The ONLY difference keeping Pakistan from going back into the dark ages is when the funds (aid) dry up. Once that happens Pakistan has no reasons to cooperate in the War on Terror. Especially, when it is lead by someone who was not elected to office, or only willing to cooperate as long as their national interests aren't completely sacrificed and they benefit (money).

Knock, nations can't go to war solely based on what they think will happen in 1 2 3 4 5 10 years. They can't go to war solely based on what happened 1 2 3 4 5 6 40 50 60 years ago. They also can't go to war to prevent knowledge. If you think we do, and you think we should than I guess national sovereignty has no meaning to you and war is just free for all.

Were you reading Hitler's history when Rwanda happened? Or were you having dinner watching the news coverage? I say latter since that was most of America.

"WOW - Listen to all the left swinging know it alls! Just wait 1, 5, or 10 years when Iran pulls something. Then the same short memory idiots will blame Bush for not being tough now. Go check your history on Hitler you knuckleheads!"-Knock

It is at that point which we will actually be justified in making war on Iran, not a second sooner. It seems to me that my fellow Republicans have seemed to forget that principle, that whoever throws the 1st punch is the wrong one, especially when it comes to war. Doing anything prior to an actual attack (or 100,000 soldiers massed on the border)is what some like to call "preemptive" For YOUR information, the Nazi's used the "pre-emptive" doctrine to invade the rest of Europe, citing imminent threats to their national security and such, what a coincidence. Isn't 2 wars enough? Oh that's right, I can't remember the last time I heard anything about Afghanistan, you know,,,the war Iraq wasn't supposed to distract us from! Bunch of B.S., Iraq and Iraq alone has turned me into a Democrat!

How about this: We talk to Iran after they completely stop and dismantle its nuclear programs. After Iranian leaders stop sending arms and bombs to terrorists in Iraq. After the Iranian leaders stop jailing and punishing dissidents within the country. After Iran stops funding and supplying terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda. After Iran says it has no intentions of bombing Israel. And after Iran agrees to begin talks with Israel.
"
Posted by: John D | December 4, 2007 4:26 PM

"First of all, the U.S. has had discussions with Iran on several fronts, so we have been dealing with them."

Posted by: John D | December 5, 2007 12:40 PM

But John D, you are against talking with Iran, so you find the Bush Administration policy to be wrong, don't you? Why do you support the policy then?

John D
It is interesting on your interpretation of the facts. Why was Bush talking WWIII when he was aware of the intelligence that Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program? It was not the U.S. but the European countries that had diplomacy with Iran and the reason for the success. Your leader has broken the army,is bankrupting the country and has alienated much of the world. It is only you and several other of the flock that cannot deduce that Bush is the worst President ever.

Ben, please explain how this country is "imperialist"? And would you call our actions in Bosnia under Clinton as "imperialist" too?

How are we pillaging Iraq? Do you know we are rebuilding Iraq? We have built schools, hospitals and other elements of its infrastructure. Now, I know you folks on the Left will claim, "But we destroyed all those thing with the shock and awe!"
No, we did not. Bombings under Clinton did destroy many things. BUT the main thing that destroyed the Iraqi schools, hospitals and other infrastructure was neglect by Hussein. For 15 years all the money in Iraq was spent on building new castles for himself, not on the schools, hospitals, etc. In fact, his government often pillaged those things themselves.
In regard to pre-emotive actions, that topic is fair one for debate. Since 9/11, the Bush administration, and I happen to concur, has had the belief that it's best to attack the terrorists and those countries that suppport terrorim BEFORE we get attacked and innocent Americans are killed. So far, that strategy has worked. For example, in 8 years under Bill Clinton, two U.S. embassies, the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers and a U.S. destroyer all were attacked by Al Qaeda. Since 9/11 there has not been one successful attack on any U.S. interest at home or abroad.

I do not believe this administration has hurt the constitution. You and many of your friends do. That topic is worthy of debate too. That debate actually helps the constitution rather than hurting it. However, when you and your friends say the Bush administration is tearing up the constitution or Bush and Cheney are fascist Nazis, well that kind of talk doesn't help the debate nor the does it help the constitution.

And then we have Jones who somehow gets Charles Taylor in his temper tantrum seemingly suggesting that Mr. Taylor got what he deserved because he didn't just give his treasures to a bunch of thugs. You see, that kind of thinking is just plain loony.

And, Ben, some of the so-called "cheap shots," are in reality just dishing it right back to your buds. Not you, as you actually debated your points of view, but many of the your more delirious lefty friends. It's called using the absurd to point out the absurd, and many of your brethren are just plain absurd.

"Don't you think there might be something MORE to all this? How could this administration be saying all this time Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, and then OUT OF NOWHERE say, "Oops, our mistake, they stopped doing that in 2003"?

There is something else going on. I don't know what it is, but this is part of something big about to happen."

I'll tell you what's going on Brad. Bush is lying to us again. He wants to bomb another oil-producing country and needs to justify it as part of his so-called war on terror. Which is a ruse for going in and stealing oil from other people for Haliburton and his oil buddies to make a mint off of.

"WOW - Listen to all the left swinging know it alls! Just wait 1, 5, or 10 years when Iran pulls something. Then the same short memory idiots will blame Bush for not being tough now. Go check your history on Hitler you knuckleheads!"

Hey right wing knucklehead, in 1, 5, or 10 years when the truth comes out about how Bush lied and used propaganda and misinformation to bedazel his knuckleheaded rabid right wing zealots, we will see how much Hitler influenced the Bush family. Now go read your history knuckhead!!!

How about this... We get out of the M.E.

John D.

I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person - which you clearly are quite unarmed.

The liar in chief is at it again! He cooked the books about Iraq, and now he's been exposed before he can sent our troops into another Mideast misadventure. Once a liar, always a liar!

Erick and the others Leftists, Loony or otherwise:
First of all, the U.S. has had discussions with Iran on several fronts, so we have been dealing with them.
2. Second, according to the NIE (and it could be wrong as well) Iran stopped its nuclear weapon development in 2003. What else happened in 2003 that may have had an impact on that decision by Iran?
3. The U.S. has been applying pressure on Iran through economic sanctions via the UN and our allies.
4. The U.S. also has had its European allies talk and negotiate with Iran.
5. The U.S. has been putting pressure on Iran and shining a spotlight on the country these past few years. Do you think that may have constributed to Iran's alleged about face?
6. What Bush said yesterday was despite the NIE report, it wouldn't be wise to let up on the pressure. He didn't talk war, he didn't talk invasion, he said keep up the pressure, don't let up. Seems like a logical step to me.

It is funny (not really) though that the Left has not disputed one of my points about what Iran has been doing. They stop doing what they are doing in funding and supplying terrorism, and then you can begin rewarding them for good deeds. Does not seem unreasonable to me or to most sane, clear-thinking individuals.

Posted by: John D | December 5, 2007 12:40 PM
---------------------------
John D,
Much better post. And to be fair, he hasn't said we need to go in there...yet. I think the problem for the most of us out here is we've heard the beating of the drums before. Is Iran a great place? No. Neither is Pakistan or Saudi Arabia for that matter. I don't think we should give Iran a pat on the back, but this seems like its leading to be something more. Don't you remember in the months leading up to the war in Iraq we did the same kind of drum beating.
"Show us your weapons!"
"We don't have them anymore"
"If you don't show them to us we'll assume you aren't cooperating and will invade."

Now on the one hand you can say that who could trust Saddam Hussein to tell the truth and we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, but at the end of the day we still invaded another nation who posed absolutely no threat to us and now continue to occupy their country with no end in sight. We need to objectively look at our behavior in this matter, and realize that perhaps not everyone hates us because we're so great, but because their is some legitimacy in some of their complaints with us.

Luke, the discussions we have had with Iran pertain to Iraq and their participation in helping arm the terrorists. They have not been high level, but low level. Big difference. I am referring to high level talks. When Iran begins behaving itself, stops causing mischief, then perhaps we can have some higher level negotiations with them.

John A., Bush just learned the new NIE intel last week. His WWIII reference was long before then.

Deal with the facts, not the Kool Aid fed to you by the DailyKooks or Ariana Huffington.

"They stop doing what they are doing in funding and supplying terrorism, and then you can begin rewarding them for good deeds."

Is this how we approached Pakistan? Or did we dangle incentive before them... Could we dangle nuclear energy in front of Iran in exchange for cooperation on the War on Terror? While we are at it? Performance tied to incentive; curb terrorists, and allow watchdog group to monitor all nuclear activities? Lack of performance tied to pulling incentive, sanction sanction, and strategic military curtailing of activities?
Right now it looks like-- start war next door to sway, sanction , sanction, threaten more sanction to stop uranium enrichment, stop terrorism, stop all anti-democratic practices... not much incentive.

I don't see this going far. Especially since as we threaten and will not budge Russia China, concerned about their markets and war in their part of the world, will back Iran. You might not even realize it but so could Pakistan (underhandedly). As they have done with the War on Terror. Six years and money more toward national interest (against India) than the chase after terrorists. Now, the US will "start over" and fund the people to go after extremist.

As Pakistan has cooperated. So has Iran. They extradited foreign al-Qaeda.

'Don't let facts get in the way of your opinions' (George W Bush)

BobinATL

I guess you get your news from the reliable NYT, CNN and the networks.

"And then we have Jones who somehow gets Charles Taylor in his temper tantrum seemingly suggesting that Mr. Taylor got what he deserved because he didn't just give his treasures to a bunch of thugs. You see, that kind of thinking is just plain loony."

That's your thinking you are describing Mr. Dyslin, and yes "loony" would be a pretty nice way to describe that mental exercise of yours. I didn't imply one drop of what you "read" (err, tried to put words in my mouth).

That, in a nutshell, is the Dyslin argument. He takes a phrase, shreds it of any meaning, reworks it into the most insane thing he can come up with and reiterates it as such, and then calls HIS logic that he has PROJECTED on YOU loony? It would be funny if it weren't so freakin' juvenile.

My point was that Mahmoud Ahmedinijad and the clerics who are really in charge of Iran are not suicidal, even though Dyslin insists they must be because, I'm guessing, they are Muslim.

If Dyslin was interested in engaging in a real conversation instead of the sandbox word-vomit he prefers to traffic in, he might have given some thought to what if any world leaders have ever been truly suicidal, or committed suicide WHILE in power.

According to the most recent NIE, taking it at face value of course, Iran conducted a cost-benefit analysis of their pursuit of nuclear weapons. That hardly sounds "insane" or "suicidal" to me. Sounds like a rational consideration done by a regime whose primary goal is TO REMAIN IN POWER, not make the first strike in a suicidal holy war.

Ben, please explain how this country is "imperialist"? And would you call our actions in Bosnia under Clinton as "imperialist" too?

How are we pillaging Iraq? Do you know we are rebuilding Iraq? We have built schools, hospitals and other elements of its infrastructure. Now, I know you folks on the Left will claim, "But we destroyed all those thing with the shock and awe!"
No, we did not. Bombings under Clinton did destroy many things. BUT the main thing that destroyed the Iraqi schools, hospitals and other infrastructure was neglect by Hussein. For 15 years all the money in Iraq was spent on building new castles for himself, not on the schools, hospitals, etc. In fact, his government often pillaged those things themselves.
Posted by: John D | December 5, 2007 2:37 PM
------------------------
John D,
Clinton doesn't get a pass from me for some of his behavior while in office. While there were no preemptive wars, Iraq was in tatters due to the heavy sanctions that we imposed on them after the Gulf War and most of that was managed by Clinton.

The reason I say we are imperialist is because of the following process that we've been repeating worldwide for a while, including while Clinton was in office:

1. We control a majority of the World Bank
2. We issue loans based on overly optimistic projections to corrupt governments.
3. The corrupt governments squander this money on luxuries for themselves that are built by primarily American companies.
4. The country inherits a huge debt that we find ways of them to repay us with, ultimately to their disadvantage, usually by sending our businesses in and avoiding business law in the US, other times with natural resources cheap, or military bases in their countries.

Either that or we depose their government and remake it how we want, making sure we are compensated for our investment in their future, well compensated.

Freedom forces throughout history have written to us for aid in escaping from dictatorship governments that were our allies, due to our alliance with some of them against communism. Why didn't we help them, because IT WAS NOT IN OUR INTERESTS.

How have we pillaged Iraq? Well despite that we have driven out a majority of Iraq's middle class with our invasion, we have been sending in our own companies to rebuild and become rich instead of helping them to build for themselves as we did in Japan. In Japan the only American company allowed over there was Coca Cola. They have an award in Japan named after the man, W. Edwards Deming, who helped revitalize Japanese businesses during the occupation.

Instead we've turned Iraq into the Wild West and put the profits into American hands.

Looks like the invasion made the Iranians think twice about their bomb-making ambitions. Another good reason to have gone into Iraq. And the liberal sissies still think all you have to do is hug and talk about it through diplomatic channels.

This administration has no credibility what so ever... Bring on January 2009!

John D
You can't be stupid enough to believe that Bush just learned of the new NIE report last week. According to reports it's been floating around for quite some time.
If you had any sense you would realize that 95% of the people on this blog see "deja vu" on the march to war. Lies got us into the quagmire in Iraq and lies were leading us to war in Iran. It is amazing how cowards love war when their goal is to get oil and megabucks for themselves and their friends.

Ben, you make some legit points and some I do agree with in part.

One difference between rebuiding Iraq and rebuilding Japan, is that Japan still had companies and folks who could take care of much of that rebilding. In Iraq, that is not the case. Iraq has never really had a corporate element that can build or rebuild.

Anyway, thanks for at least putting forth points that can be debated. I may agree with you on little, but at least you put forth examples and thoughts. That means you are not a loon like Jones (probanly dt), John E, C Morris, Janet.

Interesting - my previous post here got whacked. Hmmm - must you be a left-minded Bush hater to get material up here?

Yep, keep drinking that hysterical, maniacal Kool-Aid folks. Iran is utopia, by gosh. Right?

Posted by: John D | December 5, 2007 10:28 AM

Quit stealing my lines Kool-Aid guzzler!!!

Nice try to John D. and the other right-wing nuts! You can't spin this one. No one is claiming Iran is a nice place. But this is about Bush and the lack of truth, not Iran. If it doesn't bother you that your President is not telling you the truth, then you are the kind of brain-dead fool that power hungry dictators love.

Is US a "dem"-o-cratic country? I really cannot see where the DEM sit.

Gary try using an impartial site that isn't funded by conservatives to spew there propanganda.

Newsmax bio
Christopher W. Ruddy started up Newsmax.com on September 16, 1998, supported by a group of conservative investors, including the family of the late CIA Director William J. Casey. Later Richard Mellon Scaife, his former employer at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and a supporter of conservative causes, invested in the fledging company.One of the initial board members was author James Dale Davidson who edited a financial newsletter that had shared Ruddy's interest in the Vincent Foster case. Davidson's co-editor, Lord Rees-Mogg, former editor of the The Times and Vice Chair of the BBC, later became chairman of Newsmax Media.

Try using a credible source, now I know why people are sheep and some people think like you do, Thank you.

Joe I hope your serving in Iraq for a long time writing that liberals are only hugging sissies instead of being a conervative a-hole who gets other people to do there fighting for them.

Actually, bu$h has confronted bad intelligence three times.
1) On Iraq WMD
2) On Iran nukes
3) On his own lack of intelligence

Anyway, thanks for at least putting forth points that can be debated. I may agree with you on little, but at least you put forth examples and thoughts. That means you are not a loon like Jones (probanly dt), John E, C Morris, Janet.

Posted by: John D | December 5, 2007 5:35 PM

I love when John D tries to be civil. Even then he can't control himself. John if you cease the name calling completely then none of us would have to call you on it.

Bush is a tyrant. He represents everything that is wrong with America. I can't state that more clearly. We are on the verge of lossing all that used to be good and virtuous about America to corporate tools like Cheney. Sad, very sad indeed. I might add that corporate culture is beginning to promote apathy among educated people who used to care about politics. They now only care about going out to dinner and building their nest egg. I cringe at the thought of the U.S.A. fifty years from now. Thanks to people like Bush we are becoming what we hate.

After reading ALL of the above posts, I am curious about several things and would appreciate constructive responses from the obviously liberal posters on this blog:

1. How do you react to the fact that there were known weapons of mass destruction in IRAQ shortly before our invasion (Saddam used them on his own people several times - this is a fact)

2. What is your feeling regarding the recent troop surge in Iraq that is apparently quite successful? What if we COULD win this war - wouldn't you want to?

3. I'm estimating that more than 80% of the posts here are anti-war and anti-Bush. Nearly every one of these posts hurls personal insults at Bush, Cheney, and other posters. Why?

PS: I am asking this because I am genuinely interested in understanding why people advocate the positions seen above. Please be gentle in your responses...

All this garbage about they might have the knowledge to build an atomic bomb, is stupid. I've seen stories about college kids doing diagrams of nuclear bombs for a physics class. You could probably google "fat man" or "little boy", and get an in depth description of the bombs we used on Japan. Iran was supposed to be the next step in the neocon's agenda. They're probable hoping someone will attack our ports, chemical plants or nuclear plants. They could declare martial law till the danger is over, and cancel elections. These places should be protected, but the conservatives have been regularly cutting appropriations for Homeland Security.

Steve P., perhaps I can shed some light.
1. The Left believes those WMDs in Iraq never existed or weren't bad enough. And, of course, because in the 1980s, Iraq was a bit friendlier to us than the hostage-holder Iranians, and we sided with Iraq, it was our fault they had those WMDs anyway.

2. To the Left, the troop surge is not working, and even if it is working it makes no difference because bad things happened because of us being there. Also, speading freedom and democracy is a bad thing for the U.S. to do, unless someone named Clinton is president and the war is Bosnia.
3. Most of the bloggers here are left and most of them Loony Lefters. For them it is hate and distort, 24/7.

I hope this helps. Be prepared for their attacks, though, because since you aren't a member of the Left, you are now Public Enemy #4 (Bush and Cheney are 1 and 2 and to some of these weirdos I am apparently Number 3 on their enemies list).

1. How do you react to the fact that there were known weapons of mass destruction in IRAQ shortly before our invasion (Saddam used them on his own people several times - this is a fact)
-Answer-Even bu$h has admitted he acted on bad intelligence, and that there were no WMD's in Iraq. Saddam used "nerve gas" on his people. bu$h, chainey, powell cited nuclear weapons, so Saddam's weapons were apples to oranges.

2. What is your feeling regarding the recent troop surge in Iraq that is apparently quite successful? What if we COULD win this war - wouldn't you want to?
-Answer-The surge was supposed to allow the Iraqi parliament to form a stable government and get Iraqi troops lined up to replace American troops. DO you see any of that happening yet? And no, call me a traitor, but I want to lose this war. Then maybe future "leaders" of this nation will not be so quick to sacrifice American blood for, for... for..... whatever.

3. I'm estimating that more than 80% of the posts here are anti-war and anti-Bush. Nearly every one of these posts hurls personal insults at Bush, Cheney, and other posters. Why?
Answer-Because bu$h/chainey lied to us about reasons for getting into the occupation. Now that we are committed, wasting millions of American taxpayer dollars a day, we are expected to accept the latest excuse du jour for the loss of American life in a war we were lied to to get into, and are being lied about to continue the further deaths and disabling of Americans.

Steve P.--some quick, short answers:

1) Allegedly, Saddam used gas on his own people. Not a great WMD to be used eight thousand miles away.

2) Webb says surge really is not working. I trust him. Once billions of dollars per week are removed from the Iraq equation, any "progress" will fade. Only the Iraqi people can make real progress--not dollars. Most Americans don't want to feed a black hole any longer. Also, it is not a war where America can win. Its a civil war. Anything we do doesn't hold. Cheney and Bush's original objective was to get rid of Saddam--to help the Iraqi people. Well, mission accomplished. There was nothing else to "win" according to discussions in the build-up to the invasion. And, Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

3) The BushCo approval rating is only about 1 in 5 (+-3). Do the math.

I have typed this with kid gloves.

Per Steve P:

After reading ALL of the above posts, I am curious about several things and would appreciate constructive responses from the obviously liberal posters on this blog:

1. How do you react to the fact that there were known weapons of mass destruction in IRAQ shortly before our invasion (Saddam used them on his own people several times - this is a fact)

2. What is your feeling regarding the recent troop surge in Iraq that is apparently quite successful? What if we COULD win this war - wouldn't you want to?

3. I'm estimating that more than 80% of the posts here are anti-war and anti-Bush. Nearly every one of these posts hurls personal insults at Bush, Cheney, and other posters. Why?

PS: I am asking this because I am genuinely interested in understanding why people advocate the positions seen above. Please be gentle in your responses...
------------

Here goes, Steve-O:

1. Your time frames are a bit fuzzy. Off by a decade or two in fact. Iraq ws disarmed after the 1990 war. During the ensuing decade Saddam was contained and inspectors were on the verge of verifying what we know to be true -- there were no WMD. Your President lied to start a war. The intelligence was ambiguous at best yet he portrayed the situation as being far more clear. George W. Bush is a murderer and you're no better for trying to excuse murder.

Iraq posed no threat to us whatsoever. So much for your silly point #1.

#2: The answer is no. It's not worth the cost. What is "victory."? You don't define it because you'd either have to set the bar so low that it would be self-evident that the result would not justify the costs, or set so high that it cannot be achieved. Don't play simpleton semantic games and talk in bumpersticker-speak. Speak in tangible terms. You can't so you don't, resorting only to Rightwing Zombie platitudes.

3. If you can't figure out why people oppose Bush then there's no sense trying to convince you of anything. The easier question is why anyone would support "leaders" who have displayed a combination of deceipt and incompetence that this country, fortunately, never knew before 2000.

Finally, spare us the namby-pampy nonsense. If you were open-minded about this subject you'd have ditched Bush long ago, like the vast majority of the world has already done. You're a phony, just like the murderer you adore.

3. I'm estimating that more than 80% of the posts here are anti-war and anti-Bush. Nearly every one of these posts hurls personal insults at Bush, Cheney, and other posters. Why?

Posted by: Steve P | December 5, 2007 10:29 PM

Because we feel Bush has done irreparable damage to the United state standing in the world, and the constitution of our beloved country. I for one consider him a criminal.

I hope that answers question number three Steve. Enjoy The Swamp!!!

Quote of the Day

"It was like watching a rerun of his statements on Iraq five years earlier."
Sen. Joseph Biden

Joe hits the nail on the head. Do you trust the same whitehouse leadership that brought you Paul Bremer and the CPA (coalition coalition authority) in 2003. A cautionary tale indeed.

"I am curious about several things and would appreciate constructive responses from the obviously liberal posters on this blog:"

John D, the liberal that he now is, can not but help respond to you as you were addressing anti-War and anti-Bush liberal posters. That's the "neo-" of his "conservatism" responding to someone addressing "liberals."

John D. This is what you said;
"How are we pillaging Iraq? Do you know we are rebuilding Iraq? We have built schools, hospitals and other elements of its infrastructure. Now, I know you folks on the Left will claim, "But we destroyed all those thing with the shock and awe!"
No, we did not. Bombings under Clinton did destroy many things. BUT the main thing that destroyed the Iraqi schools, hospitals and other infrastructure was neglect by Hussein. For 15 years all the money in Iraq was spent on building new castles for himself, not on the schools, hospitals, etc. In fact, his government often pillaged those things themselves."

In most other places of business, it would be a conflict of interest if you owned a Destruction/Construction company That was employed by the city...(sound familiar yet?) and ultimately the cityfold paid for everything and the only ones who benefitted was "the company" Now if you still don't get it. Bush/Cheney are involved heavily in oil. One goes into the country(Iraq) and blows it up, and the other (Haliburton) goes in and rebuilds. This is not about right-wing or left-wing thinking. This is about one administration