Bush, et. al., caught lying to us again

[Guest Paul]

The Bush administration just got caught with its pants down. An intelligence paper shows that Iran isn't the military threat Bush claims it is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washingt...=th&oref=slogin

We didn't need another war. Happily this time, Bush's reckless rush to war was foiled before it got off the ground.

[Guest Guest]

He's already spinning it that Iran is still a world threat --

"Bush Says Iran Still a Danger Despite Report on Weapons

Bush Says Iran Still a Danger Despite Report on Weapons

By BRIAN KNOWLTON 1:21 PM ET

President Bush said today that he saw the new American intelligence report as “a warning signal” of a continuing threat from Iran."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washingt...d-intel.html?hp

[Guest Guest]

He's already spinning it that Iran is still a world threat --

"Bush Says Iran Still a Danger Despite Report on Weapons

Bush Says Iran Still a Danger Despite Report on Weapons

By BRIAN KNOWLTON 1:21 PM ET

President Bush said today that he saw the new American intelligence report as “a warning signal” of a continuing threat from Iran."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washingt...d-intel.html?hp

76240[/snapback]

Have no fear, Bush will never let intelligence corrupt his decidering.

[Guest Guest]

He's already spinning it that Iran is still a world threat --

"Bush Says Iran Still a Danger Despite Report on Weapons

Bush Says Iran Still a Danger Despite Report on Weapons

By BRIAN KNOWLTON 1:21 PM ET

President Bush said today that he saw the new American intelligence report as “a warning signal” of a continuing threat from Iran."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washingt...d-intel.html?hp

76240[/snapback]

It's the same old thing from Bush. "OK, so what we told you wasn't true, but it might be true someday."

Thomas Friedman has an excellent editorial in today's Times about why Iran doesn't need nuclear arms. We Americans had better start paying attention to these things. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/opinion/...ref=todayspaper

[Guest Patriot]

It's the same old thing from Bush. "OK, so what we told you wasn't true, but it might be true someday."

Thomas Friedman has an excellent editorial in today's Times about why Iran doesn't need nuclear arms. We Americans had better start paying attention to these things. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/opinion/...ref=todayspaper

76309[/snapback]

Thomas Friedman ?? Far left nut job/excellent editorial = oxymoron.

[Guest Patriot]

The Bush administration just got caught with its pants down. An intelligence paper shows that Iran isn't the military threat Bush claims it is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washingt...=th&oref=slogin

We didn't need another war. Happily this time, Bush's reckless rush to war was foiled before it got off the ground.

76152[/snapback]

Right, the news showing Iran testing missles every day and threatening to

wipe Israel off the map is just a joke, just like the NY Slimes.

[Guest Loki]

The Bush administration just got caught with its pants down. An intelligence paper shows that Iran isn't the military threat Bush claims it is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washingt...=th&oref=slogin

We didn't need another war. Happily this time, Bush's reckless rush to war was foiled before it got off the ground.

76152[/snapback]

Once again, because they tell you what you WANT to hear, we should accept this as gospel (OOPS . . . .sorry). What the report says time and again is that they will not make a judgement on the intent of Iran. In other words, they may very well try to re-establish said program.

Just to be clear, I think they MAY, not will. However, just because a report comes out that says what you want it doesn't make it accurate; a la reports of WMD's broadly believed by Dems and Reps alike.

[Guest a proud american]

The Bush administration just got caught with its pants down. An intelligence paper shows that Iran isn't the military threat Bush claims it is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/04/washingt...=th&oref=slogin

We didn't need another war. Happily this time, Bush's reckless rush to war was foiled before it got off the ground.

76152[/snapback]

Since when has the truth meant anything to an authoritarian. Remember, he's the only one who can save us. And fortunately, in case we forget he reminds us all the time.

Meanwhile Bin Laden is still alive and here's a thought. I wonder if it ever occurred to the Neo-Cons that maybe the reason we haven't been attacked is because it's better to have a fool in the White House than someone who can actually put two sentences together without speaking and looking like looking like one.

[Guest Loki]

Today's NY Times has an editorial regarding this report. Even this liberal rag is skeptical of the information in the NIE report.

I sure would like to know why Iran would want 3,000 centrifuges . . . . oh, well, I guess we'll get back to that later.

[Guest Paul]

Once again, because they tell you what you WANT to hear, we should accept this as gospel (OOPS . . . .sorry).  What the report says time and again is that they will not make a judgement on the intent of Iran.  In other words, they may very well try to re-establish said program.

Just to be clear, I think they MAY, not will.  However, just because a report comes out that says what you want it doesn't make it accurate; a la reports of WMD's broadly believed by Dems and Reps alike.

76452[/snapback]

I just saw Pat Buchanan and Tony Blankley, two die-hard Republicans, admitting on Dan Abrams' show that Bush has not been honest with us about the possibility of a nuclear threat in Iraq. The White House press secretary's briefing today was an unmitigated disaster for this so-called administration. The White House itself is admitting that Bush knew information in August that an Iranian nuclear threat was not as it was being portrayed, and yet continued to use inflammatory language about "nuclear holocaust" and World War III in connection with Iran well into October. Buchanan used the word "misleading." I call it lying.

Guys, your boy got caught with his pants down this time. Bush is either a liar or completely self-deluded. His world is built on the premise that he is never wrong, so it's no big deal to him to make things up as he goes along --- after all, if he's saying them, they must be true. Look honestly for once and after seven long, disastrous years, at how this guy thinks, and if you're honest that is what you will see: a man who thinks he can do no wrong, that God chose him to lead the USA, and that reality is secondary to what he chooses to believe. That is exactly how he has constructed his mental universe. I'm not kidding and I'm not exaggerating, not one bit. This man is the worst and most dangerous president in our history. It does no one credit to support him.

As for what Iran may do in the future: You've got to be kidding me. We don't beat the drums for war based on what some country or other may do in the future. That's why we have intelligence services, and why the credibility of the intelligence services (which this adminstration has damaged severely) is so important. Any nation may some day become a nuclear threat. Good grief, are you so partisan that you'll stoop to that as a justification for whatever lie your boy tells tomorrow?

[Guest Paul]

Today's NY Times has an editorial regarding this report.  Even this liberal rag is skeptical of the information in the NIE report.

I sure would like to know why Iran would want 3,000 centrifuges . . . . oh, well, I guess we'll get back to that later.

76522[/snapback]

If you had understood what you were reading, you would have recognized that "In Iran We Trust?" by Valerie Lincy and Gary Milhollin (New York Times, December 6, 2007) is as Op-Ed piece, which means that it does not represent the views of the New York Times. Like all serious and credible newspapers, and unlike the right-wing rags that print only what they agree with, The New York Times publishes opposing views. You may not like it, but it is this nation's archival newspaper for more than a century.

If you had done a little vetting of the authors of that piece, you would know that they are right wingers with a particular focus, for whatever reason, on Iran. That doesn't mean that there's no merit in what they're saying, but like anything with a political slant (right or left), their comments invite scrutiny. That's the value of having opposing views in a democracy.

It would be quite a vast conspiracy, involving not only the political left but also your vaunted political right, if in fact a present nuclear threat in Iraq was being swept under the rug. That is not a credible explanation for what has gone on these past couple of days: Pat Buchanan and others of his ilk have not suddenly become leftists. The Bush adminstration got caught lying about the Iranian nuclear threat. That doesn't mean don't keep an eye on Iran, but it does mean there is no present threat. And that renders Bush's recent comments about "nuclear holocaust" and "World War III" indefensible, to such an extent that it calls into question his loyalty to this country and its people, as well as his fitness to serve.

I, too, would like to know about those 3,000 contriguges, but considering the flurry of admissions from the right in the past few days that the Bush administration was vastly overselling the case of an Iranian nuclear threat, there can be no question that there is no present threat of the kind Bush, Cheney, et. al., were trying to peddle to us. Or, to put it more simply, the President of the United States is a liar, and I'm not talking about an affair with an intern; I'm talking about deliberate efforts to beat the drums for yet another war by scaring the American people with lies, or if you want to put it more charitably, "distortions."

[Bryan]

Once again, because they tell you what you WANT to hear, we should accept this as gospel (OOPS . . . .sorry).  What the report says time and again is that they will not make a judgement on the intent of Iran.  In other words, they may very well try to re-establish said program.

Just to be clear, I think they MAY, not will.  However, just because a report comes out that says what you want it doesn't make it accurate; a la reports of WMD's broadly believed by Dems and Reps alike.

76452[/snapback]

Good post.

France and Germany still think that Iran is a threat, by the way. Those nations must not be using the latest data concerning 2003 from American intelligence.

[Guest 2smart4u]

Today's NY Times has an editorial regarding this report.  Even this liberal rag is skeptical of the information in the NIE report.

I sure would like to know why Iran would want 3,000 centrifuges . . . . oh, well, I guess we'll get back to that later.

76522[/snapback]

The NIE report is a crock, there must be some Loony Lefties on the board.

I'll explain this so even the Kool-aiders will get it. Iran is sitting on an ocean of

oil, energy is really not a major concern of theirs for the next thousand years.

With that in mind, why then the thousands of centrifuges if not to produce

weapons grade uranium. Bush is absolutely right to be skeptical of any report

that dismisses this huge buildup of uranium processing.

Interesting how Paul is always so eager to accuse Bush of covering up "the

truth". He's part of the "blame america first" wing of the defeatocratic party,

a real american hero.

[Guest Studies and Observations]

Interesting.. When it was these very SAME Agencies that declared unequivocally that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction, as well as an active Nuke Program, which all turned out to be wrong, all we heard was "Bush Lied". NOW, these so-called incompetents come out with an NIE that says something you people LIKE and it should be taken as Gospel. Of course if a Nuclear device IS detonated in the US or Israel, somehow it'll be Bush's fault again....right?

[Guest Guest]

Interesting.. When it was these very SAME Agencies that declared unequivocally that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction, as well as an active Nuke Program, which all turned out to be wrong, all we heard was "Bush Lied".  NOW, these so-called incompetents come out with an NIE that says something you people LIKE and it should be taken as Gospel.  Of course  if a Nuclear device IS detonated in the US or Israel, somehow it'll be Bush's fault again....right?

76573[/snapback]

That's because the motives of the Bush administration are so obvious. Hint: it's not about protecting us.

[Bryan]

If you had understood what you were reading, you would have recognized that "In Iran We Trust?" by Valerie Lincy and Gary Milhollin (New York Times, December 6, 2007) is as Op-Ed piece, which means that it does not represent the views of the New York Times.

Yeah, well, a bylineless editorial like "Good and Bad News About Iran" typically does represent the editorial position of the paper.

As Paul claims to be a reader of the Times I wonder how he missed that one?

Anyone who wants to give the Iranians the full benefit of the doubt should read the last four years of reports from United Nations’ nuclear inspectors about Iran’s 18-year history of hiding and dissembling. Or last month’s report, which criticized Tehran for providing “diminishing” information and access to its current program. In one of those ironies that would be delicious if it didn’t involve nuclear weapons, an official close to the inspection agency told The Times yesterday that the new American assessment might be too generous to Iran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/opinion/...gin&oref=slogin

Like all serious and credible newspapers, and unlike the right-wing rags that print only what they agree with, The New York Times publishes opposing views. You may not like it, but it is this nation's archival newspaper for more than a century.

If you had done a little vetting of the authors of that piece, you would know that they are right wingers with a particular focus, for whatever reason, on Iran. That doesn't mean that there's no merit in what they're saying, but like anything with a political slant (right or left), their comments invite scrutiny. That's the value of having opposing views in a democracy.

It would be quite a vast conspiracy, involving not only the political left but also your vaunted political right, if in fact a present nuclear threat in Iraq was being swept under the rug.

Let's review that last line I quoted from the NYT's own editorial:

"In one of those ironies that would be delicious if it didn’t involve nuclear weapons, an official close to the inspection agency told The Times yesterday that the new American assessment might be too generous to Iran."

That is not a credible explanation for what has gone on these past couple of days: Pat Buchanan and others of his ilk have not suddenly become leftists.

Buchanan was a passionate and outspoken critic of the 2003 Iraq War from the earliest days, consistent with his opposition to the Gulf War of 1990-1991. He argued it was a useless war based on deception and imperialism, largely fought to defend Israeli interests and the interests of American oil firms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan#Iraq

You do an excellent impression of a shameless liar, Mr. LaClair. Are we to suppose that you knew nothing of Buchanan's views after all the reading you've done in the paper of record?

The Bush adminstration got caught lying about the Iranian nuclear threat.

Previous NIEs indicated high confidence that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons, and even the latest continues to say the following:

Judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program. Judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (DOE and the NIC have moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.) 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. Judge with high confidence that the halt was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work. Assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons.

http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf

(last page)

... and that was opposite the 2005 NIE which said the following:

Assess with high confidence that Iran currently is determined to develop nuclear

weapons despite its international obligations and international pressure, but we do not assess that Iran is immovable.

That's the funny part of all this. What Bush says based on "high confidence" of U.S. intelligence is a lie according to LaClair. And what is his basis for this? Well, that same intelligence community says so with "high confidence" (not exactly, but close enough for LaClair to make the claim).

That doesn't mean don't keep an eye on Iran, but it does mean there is no present threat.

There never was a "present threat" until Iraq actually had nuclear weapons. And that that point it may be too late--especially if you live in Israel. The threat was always that Iran would develop the capability of developing nuclear weapons, because they maintain the capability if not the intention ("we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons").

And that renders Bush's recent comments about "nuclear holocaust" and "World War III" indefensible, to such an extent that it calls into question his loyalty to this country and its people, as well as his fitness to serve.

"And Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."

How is the above comment "indefensible"?

Because Paul says so will not be deemed a sufficient justification for the claim.

I, too, would like to know about those 3,000 contriguges, but considering the flurry of admissions from the right in the past few days that the Bush administration was vastly overselling the case of an Iranian nuclear threat, there can be no question that there is no present threat of the kind Bush, Cheney, et. al., were trying to peddle to us.

I don't see anything like that. I see suspicion of political motivations behind the NIE from the NYT to the UN to Iran.

Or, to put it more simply, the President of the United States is a liar, and I'm not talking about an affair with an intern; I'm talking about deliberate efforts to beat the drums for yet another war by scaring the American people with lies, or if you want to put it more charitably, "distortions."

76531[/snapback]

[Guest 2smart4u]

Interesting.. When it was these very SAME Agencies that declared unequivocally that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction, as well as an active Nuke Program, which all turned out to be wrong, all we heard was "Bush Lied".  NOW, these so-called incompetents come out with an NIE that says something you people LIKE and it should be taken as Gospel.  Of course  if a Nuclear device IS detonated in the US or Israel, somehow it'll be Bush's fault again....right?

76573[/snapback]

Excellent point. You've exposed the Loony Lefties for what they routinely do,

spin, slant, misinterpret, misstate, ignore and lie. But then again, when you

get your news from the NY Slimes, you kind of pick these traits up.

[Guest Loki]

I just saw Pat Buchanan and Tony Blankley, two die-hard Republicans, admitting on Dan Abrams' show that Bush has not been honest with us about the possibility of a nuclear threat in Iraq. The White House press secretary's briefing today was an unmitigated disaster for this so-called administration. The White House itself is admitting that Bush knew information in August that an Iranian nuclear threat was not as it was being portrayed, and yet continued to use inflammatory language about "nuclear holocaust" and World War III in connection with Iran well into October. Buchanan used the word "misleading." I call it lying.

Guys, your boy got caught with his pants down this time. Bush is either a liar or completely self-deluded. His world is built on the premise that he is never wrong, so it's no big deal to him to make things up as he goes along --- after all, if he's saying them, they must be true. Look honestly for once and after seven long, disastrous years, at how this guy thinks, and if you're honest that is what you will see: a man who thinks he can do no wrong, that God chose him to lead the USA, and that reality is secondary to what he chooses to believe. That is exactly how he has constructed his mental universe. I'm not kidding and I'm not exaggerating, not one bit. This man is the worst and most dangerous president in our history. It does no one credit to support him.

As for what Iran may do in the future: You've got to be kidding me. We don't beat the drums for war based on what some country or other may do in the future. That's why we have intelligence services, and why the credibility of the intelligence services (which this adminstration has damaged severely) is so important. Any nation may some day become a nuclear threat. Good grief, are you so partisan that you'll stoop to that as a justification for whatever lie your boy tells tomorrow?

76529[/snapback]

Whenever we construct a list of the worst/most dangerous presidents in history, it is necessary to start at number 2, behind Carter. And, we gave him a Nobel Peace Prize, what a joke.

[Guest Loki]

If you had understood what you were reading, you would have recognized that "In Iran We Trust?" by Valerie Lincy and Gary Milhollin (New York Times, December 6, 2007) is as Op-Ed piece, which means that it does not represent the views of the New York Times. Like all serious and credible newspapers, and unlike the right-wing rags that print only what they agree with, The New York Times publishes opposing views. You may not like it, but it is this nation's archival newspaper for more than a century.

If you had done a little vetting of the authors of that piece, you would know that they are right wingers with a particular focus, for whatever reason, on Iran. That doesn't mean that there's no merit in what they're saying, but like anything with a political slant (right or left), their comments invite scrutiny. That's the value of having opposing views in a democracy.

It would be quite a vast conspiracy, involving not only the political left but also your vaunted political right, if in fact a present nuclear threat in Iraq was being swept under the rug. That is not a credible explanation for what has gone on these past couple of days: Pat Buchanan and others of his ilk have not suddenly become leftists. The Bush adminstration got caught lying about the Iranian nuclear threat. That doesn't mean don't keep an eye on Iran, but it does mean there is no present threat. And that renders Bush's recent comments about "nuclear holocaust" and "World War III" indefensible, to such an extent that it calls into question his loyalty to this country and its people, as well as his fitness to serve.

I, too, would like to know about those 3,000 contriguges, but considering the flurry of admissions from the right in the past few days that the Bush administration was vastly overselling the case of an Iranian nuclear threat, there can be no question that there is no present threat of the kind Bush, Cheney, et. al., were trying to peddle to us. Or, to put it more simply, the President of the United States is a liar, and I'm not talking about an affair with an intern; I'm talking about deliberate efforts to beat the drums for yet another war by scaring the American people with lies, or if you want to put it more charitably, "distortions."

76531[/snapback]

How many times have I seen Limbaugh, Hannity or other POLITICAL COMMENTATORS blasted on this site for their political views. Commentators, much like editorialists, wouldn't you say? But, Fox News is always berated, despite almost all of their shows having TWO guests one from the left, one from the right. The only show I ever watched on CNN was Crossfire, because at least it had the decency to represent both sides. Cannot be seen on any other network, or the print media.

Continue to believe only those who speak YOUR truth, Paul, you have my permission. You call the President deluded, and I say, takes one to know one.

[Guest Guest]

Interesting.. When it was these very SAME Agencies that declared unequivocally that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction, as well as an active Nuke Program, which all turned out to be wrong, all we heard was "Bush Lied".  NOW, these so-called incompetents come out with an NIE that says something you people LIKE and it should be taken as Gospel.  Of course  if a Nuclear device IS detonated in the US or Israel, somehow it'll be Bush's fault again....right?

76573[/snapback]

It would be helpful to our national security interests if the President wasn't constantly trying to drum up a war based on false or questionable information for reasons that appear to be other than our national security interests (sweet contracts for his political friends, ready access to oil profits, just to name two --- don't know whether it's treasonous, but it should be). When the president lies, that compromises our national security. It's a principle as old as Aesop and his boy who cried wolf so often that he was no longer believed.

I can understanding people discounting when Keith Olbermann says that Bush lied (although his commentary last evening was scathing and spot on). However, when Pat Buchanan and other hard-line Republicans say the same thing in different words, that is devastating. And when numerous retired generals say that the war is a disaster, that is also devastating, because retired generals just don't do that, and wouldn't do it if the case wasn't maddeningly clear. One such retired general might be passed off as a malcontent or a kook, but how do you explain half a dozen of them? The only thing worse for this pathetic joke of a president would be if his father publicly criticized him.

Similarly, when the NIE "confirms" what the president wants to hear, it's suspect. When they flat out say that there's no basis for the alarm he's sounding, that's also devastating, and for the same reasons.

[Guest Patriot]

It would be helpful to our national security interests if the President wasn't constantly trying to drum up a war based on false or questionable information for reasons that appear to be other than our national security interests (sweet contracts for his political friends, ready access to oil profits, just to name two --- don't know whether it's treasonous, but it should be). When the president lies, that compromises our national security. It's a principle as old as Aesop and his boy who cried wolf so often that he was no longer believed.

I can understanding people discounting when Keith Olbermann says that Bush lied (although his commentary last evening was scathing and spot on). However, when Pat Buchanan and other hard-line Republicans say the same thing in different words, that is devastating. And when numerous retired generals say that the war is a disaster, that is also devastating, because retired generals just don't do that, and wouldn't do it if the case wasn't maddeningly clear. One such retired general might be passed off as a malcontent or a kook, but how do you explain half a dozen of them? The only thing worse for this pathetic joke of a president would be if his father publicly criticized him.

Similarly, when the NIE "confirms" what the president wants to hear, it's suspect. When they flat out say that there's no basis for the alarm he's sounding, that's also devastating, and for the same reasons.

76627[/snapback]

Here's Strife, signing in as "Guest". How do I know this ? Because he's

bloviating about a subject that he has no knowledge of, not a clue.

[Guest a proud american]

It would be helpful to our national security interests if the President wasn't constantly trying to drum up a war based on false or questionable information for reasons that appear to be other than our national security interests (sweet contracts for his political friends, ready access to oil profits, just to name two --- don't know whether it's treasonous, but it should be). When the president lies, that compromises our national security. It's a principle as old as Aesop and his boy who cried wolf so often that he was no longer believed.

I can understanding people discounting when Keith Olbermann says that Bush lied (although his commentary last evening was scathing and spot on). However, when Pat Buchanan and other hard-line Republicans say the same thing in different words, that is devastating. And when numerous retired generals say that the war is a disaster, that is also devastating, because retired generals just don't do that, and wouldn't do it if the case wasn't maddeningly clear. One such retired general might be passed off as a malcontent or a kook, but how do you explain half a dozen of them? The only thing worse for this pathetic joke of a president would be if his father publicly criticized him.

Similarly, when the NIE "confirms" what the president wants to hear, it's suspect. When they flat out say that there's no basis for the alarm he's sounding, that's also devastating, and for the same reasons.

76627[/snapback]

Sixteen (16) separate Intelligence components from the CIA to the Pentagon, in this administation, with Cheney trying to stall the report for almost a year comes out with the NIE Report saying Iran's not attempting to build a nuclear bomb and they're from the loony left?

who's drinking the koolaide now 2dim.

[Guest 2smart4u]

It would be helpful to our national security interests if the President wasn't constantly trying to drum up a war based on false or questionable information for reasons that appear to be other than our national security interests (sweet contracts for his political friends, ready access to oil profits, just to name two --- don't know whether it's treasonous, but it should be). When the president lies, that compromises our national security. It's a principle as old as Aesop and his boy who cried wolf so often that he was no longer believed.

I can understanding people discounting when Keith Olbermann says that Bush lied (although his commentary last evening was scathing and spot on). However, when Pat Buchanan and other hard-line Republicans say the same thing in different words, that is devastating. And when numerous retired generals say that the war is a disaster, that is also devastating, because retired generals just don't do that, and wouldn't do it if the case wasn't maddeningly clear. One such retired general might be passed off as a malcontent or a kook, but how do you explain half a dozen of them? The only thing worse for this pathetic joke of a president would be if his father publicly criticized him.

Similarly, when the NIE "confirms" what the president wants to hear, it's suspect. When they flat out say that there's no basis for the alarm he's sounding, that's also devastating, and for the same reasons.

76627[/snapback]

This must be Strife signing as "Guest". Only Strife can write a post this

lengthy that doesn't contain a shred of truth or accuracy.

[Bryan]

It would be helpful to our national security interests if the President wasn't constantly trying to drum up a war based on false or questionable information for reasons that appear to be other than our national security interests (sweet contracts for his political friends, ready access to oil profits, just to name two --- don't know whether it's treasonous, but it should be).

This oil profit thing is hilarious.

Suppose that we let Iran control all ME oil and they decide to boost the price of oil way up. What happens to oil profits? In the short term, oil profits will increase (selling gas today at prices that allow the purchase of tomorrow's oil). The profits stay about the same unless supply exceeds demand. Losing access to Iraqi oil will increase demand and give the oil companies greater leverage in charging high prices. The only thing that could stop it would be government price controls, which would further shrink supply.

When the president lies, that compromises our national security. It's a principle as old as Aesop and his boy who cried wolf so often that he was no longer believed.

President Bush relied on the same intelligence information that President Clinton relied on, and Clinton supported the Iraq War (until he changed his mind about it last week in order to claim that he had always opposed it).

http://www.sentinelsource.com/main.asp?Sec...rticleID=172603

Clinton's still spinning, though.

http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us..._-q_CZT1VBX40_Q

I can understanding people discounting when Keith Olbermann says that Bush lied (although his commentary last evening was scathing and spot on). However, when Pat Buchanan and other hard-line Republicans say the same thing in different words, that is devastating.

Buchanan disagrees with Bush on most things. But while you're busy gassing you might as well provide a link to Buchanan saying Bush lied.

And when numerous retired generals say that the war is a disaster, that is also devastating, because retired generals just don't do that, and wouldn't do it if the case wasn't maddeningly clear. One such retired general might be passed off as a malcontent or a kook, but how do you explain half a dozen of them? The only thing worse for this pathetic joke of a president would be if his father publicly criticized him.

What do the retired generals think is the correct course of action?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...ionsbox1⊂=AR

Similarly, when the NIE "confirms" what the president wants to hear, it's suspect. When they flat out say that there's no basis for the alarm he's sounding, that's also devastating, and for the same reasons.

76627[/snapback]

Iran 'hoodwinked' CIA over nuclear plans

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...09/wiran109.xml

Hmmm. Bushitler has apparently pulled a coup in the U.K. Comments?

[Strife767]

This must be Strife signing as "Guest".  Only Strife can write a post this

  lengthy that doesn't contain a shred of truth or accuracy.

76819[/snapback]

Someone forgot that he already posted this.