Fuck that. Bomb 'em!

"White House National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley said on Monday that the findings suggested that the US strategy of isolating Iran diplomatically while pursuing negotiations was on the right track."

Uh, yeah. Our current strategy is so darn good its working retroactively! Cool.

Better check with Curveball on this.

"Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005," states the summary of the new NIE, according to AP.



Less determined to build bombs, more determined to play us for a fool.

"Less determined to build bombs, more determined to play us for a fool."

Is it Iran, or the Bush administration playing us for the fool?

"Less determined to build bombs, more determined to play us for a fool."

Is it Iran, or the Bush administration playing us for the fool?

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2007-12-03 02:46 PM | Reply |

My intention was for Iran, but saying both is just as correct IMHO.

Can we still bomb their Republican Guard? Hillary says their dangerous.

Yup - it's on the right track as much as my tiger repellant is on the right track. You don't see any tigers around, do you? Then it must be working.

Well, hell how are we going to sell this war then? Unfortunately the American people are not as asleep this time around. You know we have no hope of winning an election without a war. I guess we'll have to steal another one.

RNC/NRA

That sounds about right. Gracias Dios that crazy Cheney wasn't able to get his way.

GZ will be along shortly to explain that all the American intelligence agencies are anti-semitic and love al queda.

Johm McCain't is releasing a new song "Bomb bomb bomb whatever the next country Bush says."

Bush 0-2 in wars and 0-2 in identifying threats to America.

December 7 -Day of Infamy for Americans.
December 3-day of Inflamed Bowels for American neo-cons.

Well, hell how are we going to sell this war then? Unfortunately the American people are not as asleep this time around.

There are still morons out there that still believe word for word what the administration tells them.

Yes they are that dumb.

btw-how much frigging make-up does Hadley wear? Did he take tips from RudiG?

Hey look. The same year the United States went into Iraq.

Coincidence?

"Damn you, rcade:

www.drudge.com

Posted by Alexandrite"

Why? It was my post. You just gotta be quicker Alex :)

I actually posted it at 2:30 this afternoon. The time stamp must be the time he moved it to the front.

Kind of put a little gulich in Mr. Bushes plan doesn't it. How will these ASSES spin this???
Can January of 2008 get here soon enough, an will these BASTARDS every get the Justice they deserve???

Iran, following the 9/11 disaster, had one of the largest marches in support of the American people and against terriosim. Mr. Bush in his infinate wisdom turned there support into distrust, as HE HAS TURN MOST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD AGAINST US.

I realize that the Conservatives in this Country don't give a damn what the World thinks of us but one can hope that the World knows that Mr. Bush and the Conservative movement in this Country does not represent the majority of AMERICA.

Hey look. The same year the United States went into Iraq.

Coincidence?

Posted by Kris_P_Bacon

Yes.

When will we work and play well with others?

Kill them all.
Let God sort them out.

Sincerely,
Richard "Dickhead" Cheney

Don't worry now they won't have a weapon until 2010 or 2012. What is the matter with you guys that want to do something now?

Sniper, the DR lefties main concern has nothing to do with if Iran has this ability next year or as soon as 2010 or 2012. Their main concern is to piss and moan about who gets credit for the headline as you can see from their bitching at RCADE above.

Sniper;They COULD have a weapon by 2010 IF they started their program again. Then again, switzerland COULD buy one from Russia in 2010. Who do we bomb first?

President Amandapajamas has been saying that Iran wasn't pursuing a nuke. Bush has ben saying they were.
Who's the liar?
Of course, Bush said the same thing about Iraq and we all know how that worked out. Pretty pathetic when their religious wacko President is more honest than our religious wacko President, isn't it?

Sure seems like at least one person definitely got fooled. Even in charity, one group.

The Court Jester-President George W. Bush and the neo-cons in general.

How does it feel Shrubbie, to look just like what you are. A big stupid fool. (I know, understated)

Sure seems like at least one person definitely got fooled. Even in charity, one group.

The Court Jester-President George W. Bush and the neo-cons in general.

How does it feel Shrubbie, to look just like what you are. A big stupid fool. (I know, understated)

Well, the mad ayatollahs suckered Bush into getting rid of Saddam for them and hand the Iraq oilfields over to their agents, so this should be considered a minor humiliation for the Fighty Rightys.

I knew the times were a-changin' when we went a WHOLE WEEK without Kristol and the "Weekly Standard" calling for an attack on some country that posed an imminent danger to us.

"President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program."

Guess Bush knew sniper and the boys needed their fix of "hide under you bed and don't vote Democratic" koolaid.

"President Bush got the world's attention this fall when he warned that a nuclear-armed Iran might lead to World War III. But his stark warning came at least a month or two after he had first been told about fresh indications that Iran had actually halted its nuclear weapons program."

Guess Bush knew sniper and the boys needed their fix of "hide under you bed and don't vote Democratic" koolaid.

Our intel was wrong on Iraq, so why should we believe them to get this one right???

Hey look. The same year the United States went into Iraq.
Coincidence?


Posted by Kris_P_Bacon

Interesting question-would depend on the timing of the decision. Perhaps they backed off, anticipating an attack, then realised that Bush had bogged us down in afghanistan and Iraq, so an attack was off the table and the nukes weren't needed. Certainly by the summer of 2003 they could have started up again with little fear.

We do know 2003 didn't make axis member lil Kim sweat. he just kept going till he got it right.


Our intel was wrong on Iraq, so why should we believe them to get this one right???
Posted by MSg
They were also way wrong in 2005. Can we get a refund for what we pay for all the intel groups? But what the NIE says is largely backed up by IAEA, not a drunken Iranian.

Gullible lefties.

Let's see, Iran has what? 3,000 centrifuges whirling and 95 percent of the work toward a bomb and a delivery system has been completed?

Geez, I take breaks regularly when I've got 95 percent of a project finished and I can make a few more sales by taking the break knowing that I can finish the task anytime I want.

You truly are a gullible bunch.

Have any of you even bothered to read what's available of the report?

I doubt it.

Didn't stop us from invading Iraq, why should it stop us from invading Iran?

Huh? You say we don't have the military power to have an invasion while simultaneously occupying Afghanistan, Iraq, South Korea, et al?

Oh.

Time for a diversion. Howz about we subsidize the lending industry and prop up all of the people that bought more home than they could afford?

Time for a diversion. Howz about we subsidize the lending industry and prop up all of the people that bought more home than they could afford?

Posted by SamBarber at 2007-12-04 10:23 AM


Bleeding hearts demanded that everyone should own a home and nobody should be forced to rent.

Math and liberalism are natural enemies.

Our intel was wrong on Iraq, so why should we believe them to get this one right???

It's not about whether it's right or wrong. It's all about whether or not it contradicts the administration's position.

It's not about whether it's right or wrong. It's all about whether or not it contradicts the administration's position.

Posted by Redman at 2007-12-04 10:34 AM |

I'll take, ANYTHING for the Win, Alex.

You hit the nail on the head.

"Math and liberalism are natural enemies."

Now doesn't that sound familiar:

You're counting on the fact that most Liberals don't know arithmetic and will just take your word for it.

Posted by vernon at 2007-03-17 03:55 PM

You truly are a gullible bunch. KRISPEEbaCOn.

So THERE were WMD in Iraq and Saddam had links to al queda and the war is paying for itself and we were greeted as liberators and the Iraqis are all one big happy family and no one could have predicted al queda would highjack airliners and we've smoked out Osama dead or alive?

Wow, I've got to watch more FOX.

"Could it be that our own dear Shrubby is "mistaken?""

Keith, check out this juxtaposition. First, from the article to which you linked:

The other is the decision by dozens of Sunni tribal leaders to accept money and weapons from the Americans in return for confronting al-Qaida militants who attack civilians. They call their movement al-Sahwa (the Awakening).

The other is the decision by dozens of Afghani tribal leaders to accept money and weapons from the Americans (the Reagan administration) in return for confronting the Soviet occupiers. They call their movement mujahedeen (strugglers).

So we need to bomb Iran Because they might try and get a bomb???? We dont think they are working on one now but someday, in the future, they might try and get a bomb???? Is that really the reason the right is giving us to go to war??? Because they might someday try and get a bomb??? But they are currently not trying. Wow listen to yourselves. You want to kill hunderds not because they are trying to get a bomb but because they might try. Why is there so much blood lust. I though as a christian we should do unto others, right??? What would christ say about Bombing a country that is not a threat today and is currently not developing the ability to be a threat but might someday???? Any blood lusting "christian" on the right????

So we need to bomb Iran Because they might try and get a bomb????

The neocon answer might well be: "Yes, exactly."

Remember Bush's answer to Diane Sawyer when she pressed him on December 16, 2003 about the absence of WMD in Iraq, as she attempted to delinate the difference between having them and the danger of having them?

BUSH: So what's the difference?

It's Cheney's One-Percent Doctrine: If it can possibly happen, we must act as if it's going to happen.

Madness.

Math and liberalism are natural enemies.

So tell me again, exactly how is the Iraq war doing in paying for itself?

Reality and conservatism would be natural enemies if they existed on the same planet.

I don't see anyone on this thread calling to bomb them, with the exception of the first poster who is only mocking what yet hasn't even yet came to fruit on this thread.

I do, however, see a gleeful bunch of gullible people that act as if this news somehow renders Amadenajads threats/pronouncements null and void.

If someone tells you they are going to kill you and they own a gun and have the powder, the cartridge and the slug but haven't loaded it doesn't mean they don't intend to kill you. It only means they've opted to not act at the moment for whatever reasons they feel are relevant.

I've not called to bomb Iran but I'm not of the mind to ignore the goals they've stated in the past and not gullible enough to believe they won't pursue them when they feel the time is right, which for them might mean sometime after a Dem is elected president, God forbid.

Now don't think that means I'm all for the republicans (which appear to no longer be the party of fiscal conservatives) but when it comes to national defense and illegal immigration and states rights, though a long way from where I'd like to see them they're starkly different from current crop of democrats on these issues.

Maybe someday the democratic party will go back to their roots and I can again vote for one, til then I'll hold my nose and vote gop. Unless of course you wise up and run someone like Zell Miller, who actually knows history and isn't compelled to revise it for political gain.

So tell me again, exactly how is the Iraq war doing in paying for itself?

Reality and conservatism would be natural enemies if they existed on the same planet.

Posted by northguy3 at 2007-12-04 12:14 PM |


You're a short term thinker (less than a generation). Common among youths taught that life is easy and immediate gratifcation is a right.

If someone tells you they are going to kill you and they own a gun and have the powder, the cartridge and the slug but haven't loaded it doesn't mean they don't intend to kill you. It only means they've opted to not act at the moment for whatever reasons they feel are relevant.

This simple minded thinking is the exact reason you don't want someone you can sit down and have a beer with to be President.

By DOUGLAS JEHL,
Published: June 23, 1994
President Clinton said today that he was now satisfied that North Korea is willing to freeze its nuclear program temporarily, and he agreed to open comprehensive talks next month in Geneva.

The announcement may ease the tension that has built up in recent months. But it does little more than move the standoff to an unpredictable new stage; it remains unclear whether any progress has been made toward resolving the basic differences


query.nytimes.com

Posted by Kris_P_Bacon at 2007-12-04 10:24 AM |

Hmmmmm...

There seems to a major element/ irritant/ provocateur/ instigator/ fear mongerer missing from the whole sad scenario as expressed, and not even mentioned in any of the responses to this article:

Israel.

They're taking their shit apart???


news.yahoo.com

Posted by panchovilla at 2007-12-04 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:


Because of Clinton/Democrat policy???????????

wise up and run someone like Zell Miller

He would first have to win the Duel he challenged Chris Matthews to, LOL

Unless of course you wise up and run someone like Zell Miller, who actually knows history and isn't compelled to revise it for political gain.

You'd get a funny flag for that one, if I didn't think you meant it seriously.

They're taking their shit apart???


news.yahoo.com

Posted by panchovilla at 2007-12-04 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:


Because of Clinton/Democrat policy???????????

Posted by Kris_P_Bacon at 2007-12-04 12:34 PM | Reply |

They certainly aren't doing so because you dropped a bomb on their fucking noggins now are they?

Just goes to show your post is a weak deflection attempt. If not, it's just pointless.

You're a short term thinker (less than a generation). Common among youths taught that life is easy and immediate gratifcation is a right.

Posted by Kris_P_Bacon

Given that the appraisal that Iraq would only cost 50 billion and Iraq reconstruction would pay for itself came from the Bush Administration, I can't argue with that. Bush ain't called the Boy Blunder for nothing.

But do you seriously expect Iraq will re-imburse us the trillion or so we'll have spent in Iraq? Maybe they can start by fronting us the 200 billion Bush wants now.

"I do, however, see a gleeful bunch of gullible people that act as if this news somehow renders Amadenajads threats/pronouncements null and void."

Ahmadinejag doesn't even control the Iranian military....even if he had made the threats you accuse him of....which he didn't. But hey, who needs facts anyway????

So when they told Bush LAST AUGUST that they had new intel for the NIE they had to process, did Bush:

a) ask what it was
b) asked and ignored the inconvenient truth
c) went for a bike ride and forgot all about it.

Gotta be b or c, given his recent WW3 crap.