Open Thread

By NB Staff (Bio | Archive)
December 5, 2007 - 10:49 ET

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Monday's National Intelligence Estimate, and the media's response to it.

How can a report stating that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons work in 2003 possibly be viewed by anyone as a negative for America, the world, or the Bush administration?

Coming coincident with the invasion of Iraq, the capture of Saddam, and the suspension of similar activities by Libya, should this report have validated Bush foreign policy in the region post-9/11, or is the press right that this demonstrates his failures?

Finally, if intelligence was so horrible prior to 9/11 and the Iraq invasion, why are media so quick to accept this report as unassailable? Given recent intelligence failures, and the press's continual pounding of such, shouldn't there be some skepticism about the veracity of this NIE? Or, is anything that can potentially be used to bash Bush above reproach?

Read comments

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Well, it's not negative for America or the world...

December 5, 2007 - 10:55 ET by sarcasmo

But hasn't the Bush administration been saying something-180-degrees-different all year about the issue, in spite of what our intelligence services have apparently been telling them? I'll jump on the media for anti-Bush bias just like the rest of you, but when stories change like this & it gets-reported, that's kinda-sorta a negative. No media bias required, though...
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Typical MSM spin

December 5, 2007 - 11:02 ET by general company

I think they (MSM) are using what ever info they can against Bush, irregardless of how they need to spin it. Also I don't know if this is a 180 from any thing this Admin has been saying? Are they not enriching uranium? Seem to me this is the begining of the discussion on "making nukes"

 

"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain

180 degrees

December 5, 2007 - 11:09 ET by sarcasmo

I think going from "they're about to get/test a nuke" to "no program since 2004" is about as 180 as one can get. I have no idea what Iran's doing at this point, because (as the main post also said) intelligence seems to be in an uncertain flux, and I'm not privy to that information. Sadly, because of a lawyer-welfare program I happen to support at the moment, I can't say more about what I know. But there's more.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

I think going from "they're

December 5, 2007 - 11:19 ET by DontFeedTheTrolls

I think going from "they're about to get/test a nuke"

I thought (could be wrong) the Bush administration's take was that Iran was looking to enrich uraninum and increase their possession of technology to do that, not that they had finished enriching same and were ready to utilize it.

And, yes, if it makes Bush look bad, the MSM will run with it, no matter what.

D

P.S. What's with the Buddy Holly link???

Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.

Well...

December 5, 2007 - 11:24 ET by sarcasmo

I probably should have said "World War Three," but regardless of specific words used about Iran & nukes, basically this story makes Bush (and Hillary, as was pointed-out below) look as if they've been misinforming us or at-least not giving us the whole story on Iran. Despite their wishes, I'm still more-scared of the verified nukes in Pakistan than the hypothetical ones in Iran. And I don't deny there may be a political agenda in releasing this info, too, but I can't really see what it is, since as we've seen it makes politicians in both parties look bad.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Sarc...get off the Bush Bashing Bandwagon

December 5, 2007 - 11:56 ET by JayTee

Iran is Killing our soldiers, that's is what is pissing off Bush, me, and the USA Military about Iran.  IRan doesn't get a free ride just because they stopped builing Nukes and went into IED production.  Usually when you find out a Country is Killing your Soldiers and Training the Enemy, it's cause for sabre ratting of the highest order.   

Besides, you don't need notstinking centrifuges (3,000) to generate electricity.    

If you want the "Whole story" that you accuse Bush of not giving you, jump on a plane and fly over to Iran, because you must think gathering Intelligence is a finite simple science easily done, just so you can be 100% informed on the intimate detail workings of a closed Islamic Society.........better convert to Islam before you leave on the Plane for Iran......otherwise you might be "Nuked" when you arrive.

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

I don't think I'm bashing him!!

December 5, 2007 - 12:02 ET by sarcasmo

I would not deny that Iran's killing US soldiers. And I'm sure intelligence gathering is as much art as science, but this story is what it is. It has nothing to do with other, more provable actions by Iran, like buying sniper rifles from our allies to be used against our soldiers. Iran is hardly absolved of all sins by this report, but this report makes it clear that our politicians have an agenda.

I'm specific about nukes here, and if anything I bash Hillary, too, and just-as-much. Again, legal circumstances prevent me from saying all I know about Iranians, and hopefully they'll end someday so I can say what I want. Suffice it to say that IMO the Iranian people -- like American people -- aren't all like their "leaders" & don't all like their government.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

When you say...

December 5, 2007 - 12:18 ET by JayTee

"But hasn't the Bush administration been saying something-180-degrees-different all year about the issue, in spite of what our intelligence services have apparently been telling them?"

I interpreted the above as Bush Bashing.....maybe it isn't...if you were not, then I'm sorry......I was looking for a excuse to send you to Iran. 

Meanwhile, we don't have any MSM in Iran ...... do we ?  No onsite reporting and intelligence gathering by MSM reporters.....we're missing this important intelligence gathing tool. 

 Maybe the "View" could do a live show from Iran ? ? 

What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ?   David Foote  GoE

It's not bashing if it's the truth

December 5, 2007 - 12:24 ET by sarcasmo

And I can't see where I have told anything but the truth here about both President Bush & Hillary Clinton when it comes to what they've said about Iran before this came out vs what US intelligence services have presumably been telling both politicians for years at this point.
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

Sarc, the wholesale denial

December 5, 2007 - 13:17 ET by dscott

Sarc, the wholesale denial of the nuke issue stretches credulity.  Why would a country need to have underground bomb proof nuclear refining facilities such as Natanz if they had no intention of producing an A-bomb?  This is like hanging a sign on a chemical warfare production facility that says "Fertilizer Factory" which is what both Lybia and Iraq did. 

When someone says they intend to wipe a country off the face of the earth, they are either punking or being serious, there is no nuance inbetween.  To claim Ajad is punking for his domestic audience with his numerous statements would be just laughable if it weren't so serious. 

Again it defies logic, why would Iran need 48,000 centrifuges (3k now operational) to produce uranium for power generation, doesn't it strike you as odd that they would attempt to produce way more than they could possible use in a power plant???? http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1073/iranian-centrifuge-developments 

Sorry, the NIE report is nothing more than a CYA effort on the part of the foreign intelligence community given their screw ups with the amounts of WMD in Iraq.  There were WMD in Iraq, most of it was gone (shipped out) by the time we got there.

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

 Sarc, I am a little

December 5, 2007 - 13:46 ET by general company

 Sarc, I am a little surprised that you are taking any interest in this, considering Dr Paul doesn't seem to want to mettle in International affairs? So do you think the Pakistani nukes bother him? Also what  does he think about the hypothetical ones Iran (is) making, or does he feel it is none of our business? Or has he already outlined a detailed plan on how to confront these problems?

Also, do you have info the rest of us are not privy to?

Referenced from your first reply to me.

Dont take me the wrong way, just interested in what you think about it.

 

 

"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain

Both of you need to understand...

December 5, 2007 - 16:54 ET by sarcasmo

I'm not Dr. Paul. For example, AFAIK Dr. Paul has never said that Iraq is actually 3 countries, and yet I repeatedly-have. Such a "robot," I guess I need to mock that allegation like I now can mock the old "spammer" smear! ;) Anyway, as luck would have it, he addresses that issue briefly, and sensibly IMO, in a recent interview with GE's Maria Bartiromo.

But please, again, I'm not Dr. Paul -- I'm just a lowly suporter with no official role whatsoever in the campaign. Hell, he even agrees with RJ-not-me now on the death penalty. Recall, I'm for bringin' back hanging to save tax-money (and for humanitarian reasons I prefer hangin' or shootin' over the current ghoulish "medical" process!).

I really do only speak for myself. Hell, if you want a "face" of the Ron Paul campaign that's not Ron Paul, ignore me. Look to Liv the Ron Paul Girl & save your eyeballs. (Guys & interested girls, if you haven't seen Liv yet, just trust me, she's an eyefull, and she's a lot more pleasant to contemplate than I'll ever be!!) ;)
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

I only asked because you

December 5, 2007 - 18:31 ET by general company

I only asked because you are the most informed Dr Paul supporter I know. I thought you might have some insight on this from his perspective. Quite honestly, I thought your comment were from his point of view. Thanks for the link,

Dr Paul: "They don't go after Switzerland and Sweden and Canada. They come after us because we've occupied their land"

Dr Paul: "and instead of reversing our foreign policy after 9/11, we made it worse by invading two more countries"

Dr Paul: "I'd treat them something like what we did with the Soviets"

  • This is his policy? Let me see if I understand,

So in his eyes (Dr Paul) the reason they attacked us to begin with was we were occupying their country? Witch country does OBL rule? Or any of the other nut cases?

Also the first thing is we should had immediately done right after 9/11 was packed our bags and left the middle east ? Even though every country we were "occupying" had us their with thier blessing. We should had left and begged their pardon I suppose.

Then we should treat them like the USSR, meaning cut off all relations with them (does this include the ones we trade with?) and start a propaganda war with them for 50 or so years.

Does this work for you, do you honestly think it works for the nut cases over there? Or do I have it all wrong?

Sorry if my questions here and else where are not worthy.

 

"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain

Selective-quoting award nominee!!!

December 5, 2007 - 19:13 ET by sarcasmo

Let's read the rest with a bit of honest-quoting, shall we??


I was called to military duty [as a U.S. Air Force flight surgeon] in the '60s when they were in Cuba, and they had 40,000 nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, and we didn't have to fight them. We didn't have to invade their country. But to deal with terrorism, we can't solve the problem if we don't understand why they [attack us]. And they don't come because we're free and prosperous. They don't go after Switzerland and Sweden and Canada. They come after us because we've occupied their land, and instead of reversing our foreign policy after 9/11, we made it worse by invading two more countries and then threatening a third. Why wouldn't they be angry at us? It would be absolutely bizarre if they weren't. We've been meddling over there for more than 50 years. We overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953; we were Saddam Hussein's ally and encouraged him to invade Iran. If I was an Iranian, I'd be annoyed myself, you know. So we need to change our policy, and I think we would reduce the danger.

 

Kinda busts a few of your questions, no???
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

No, I dont think so.

December 5, 2007 - 22:04 ET by general company

 Seems to comfirm it for me, I just didnt want to jam the thread with the whole artical. Good grief, the artical is were my questions came from.

 

"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain

Still do not see it?

December 5, 2007 - 11:22 ET by general company
  • "they're about to get/test a nuke"

Closest estimate I ever heard was 2010. Also I would think it would be a bit naive for anyone to suggest with complete confidence what Iran has gotten accomplished in this area. Even though,  you seem to be alluding that you do have more info then anyone else. What about the Israeli's, they don't seem to be buying any of it. In this case I think it is better we don't let our guard down, simply because we DO know they are not forthright in thier endeavors and are often devils advocate where the west is concerned.

 

"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain

I actually think this is a

December 5, 2007 - 11:15 ET by Free Thinker

I actually think this is a non-story.  The President has to act on whatever intelligence has has and the actions of the Iranian government tell us that they are to be taken seriously.  What the msm fails to mention is they are still enriching uranium on a large scale and that this intelligence report is mere opinion with political bias of its own.  If anything this report vindicates the actions of this administration which is why I believe they are so low key about it.  Also, I don't think the story has picked up any legs outside of the fringe like msnbc, most people see it for what it is, a good development for America if it is indeed true.  This isn't a story the left and the media want to gain traction, and I think after their weak arguments failed yesterday we will see this story fade away quietly, just as we have seen the success in Iraq disappear in the news.

The other thing to note is when this happened according to the report.  What else happened in 2003?  The invasion of Iraq after Iran had been called out as part of the axis of evil.  Looks like "cowboy diplomacy" worked.  Empty threats are not an incentive for rogue nations to stop, but when military action was initiated next door that had to send a signal.

The other angle to this that will be interesting to see play out is how Hillary Clinton will be affected.  She has been a hawk on Iran all along and I wonder how the media will handle her. 

The difference

December 5, 2007 - 11:32 ET by KC Mulville

American policy has been that if you act like you're developing weapons, and you obstruct inspections, and you advertise that you're going to do things that only a nuclear power would do, then we Americans have to assume that you're developing nuclear weapons. We don't give the benefit of the doubt, not after 9/11.

  • According to the news reports, the intelligence agencies developed a new source of information about Iran only recently. Until then, American intelligence was apparently dark about Iran. And, therefore, because we didn't know what was going on, we erred on the side of safety. Better to prepare for the worst-case than to place blind hope.
  • Further, although the new information is that Iran has suspended its nuclear development, it's still clear that the Iranians haven't stopped it entirely. They're still enriching uranium for no good reason. They may have suspended development, but they haven't torn it down. They can re-start it at any time. (My guess is that if a Democrat is elected, they'll start right up again.)
  • And, most importantly, despite what the NIE's "assessment" is, the reality is that Iran is still not complying with inspectors. Yesterday, the IAEA urged Iran to use this report as an opportunity to open up. Iran is not complying, and that leaves us to wonder why. That's why they're still a danger.
  • Bush was also very clear. If Iran goes a different route (which I assumed to be transparency about their development), then the US and international community is ready to reward them. So here's the $64 question: why would Iran obstruct inspections and refuse to comply, unless they wanted to develop their weapons program? Why would Iran act so clearly against their self-interest?

Until Iran starts playing by the rules, we have to respond to them as a danger, and we need to keep up the pressure.

It's coooooold!

December 5, 2007 - 11:04 ET by Uphill

Just got back inside from shoveling a couple of inches of global warming off the driveway.  Anyone else?

Three snowflakes...

December 5, 2007 - 11:11 ET by Prester John

....have wreaked their usual devastation here in northern Virginia as drivers in our nation's capital prove, yet again, their total inability to drive when the slightest amount of snow hits the ground.

This Minnesota native can only shake his head, laugh, and stay out off the roads to avoid being killed.

TM reporting in 43rd

December 5, 2007 - 11:26 ET by TruthMonger

TM reporting in

43rd winter in Minn

Duluth had over 13" of snow yesterday

Mpls (where I live) had about 5"

current temp 8 above (windchill 6 below)

Wed

High 14
Low 8
 

Thu

High 22
Low 8
 

Fri

High 18
Low 13
 

Sat

High 18
Low 0
 

Sun

High 19
Low 14

...praying for more AGW

Did I mention....

December 5, 2007 - 11:31 ET by Prester John

....that I really don't miss Minnesota winters?

I really don't miss Minnesota winters?

December 5, 2007 - 11:36 ET by motherbelt

Me neither.

i also hope that someday i

December 5, 2007 - 11:39 ET by TruthMonger

i also hope that someday i don't miss them either:)

Experiencing Minnesota winters.....

December 5, 2007 - 12:07 ET by Prester John

...was a great character builder (try walking to school when the temp doesn't go over 0 Farenheit for a week). 

I'm not interested in building it any more.

business and driving was

December 5, 2007 - 14:26 ET by TruthMonger

business and driving was affected yesterday - but of course life goes on - if it goes over a foot of snow then maybe some things will close:)

Anyways - where the hell is FEMA with the Duluth disaster relief?!?!?

Never mind - the locals PREPARE THEMSELVES - what a concept - they're are Democrats too up there - so the left is capable of lifting a finger or two once in a great while!

We moved to PA from MN. My

December 5, 2007 - 16:08 ET by motherbelt

We moved to PA from MN. My daughter missed more school in the first year here than she did in 4 years in MN.

They really do shut down for nothing here. 

Hey Truth

December 5, 2007 - 12:17 ET by Airforce_5_O

Come on down to NC there are some people selling down the road from me. 

You and me would be neighbors and hang out.  You know drink some lemonade, talk about politics, we can argue over Muslims and stuff. 

It would be a Hoot!!!!!

I have a fish named Mohammad, and my son has a stuffed toy named Jesus.  The Muslims want my head and Kieth says I'm going to Hell. 

AirForce

December 5, 2007 - 13:22 ET by candance

Whereabouts in NC are you? I lived in the Triad for ten years.

Goldsboro Candance I have

December 5, 2007 - 14:25 ET by Airforce_5_O

Goldsboro Candance

I have a fish named Mohammad, and my son has a stuffed toy named Jesus.  The Muslims want my head and Kieth says I'm going to Hell. 

Airforce....are you at

December 5, 2007 - 16:00 ET by motherbelt

Airforce....are you at Seymour Johnson?

Yes Motherbelt...I am at

December 5, 2007 - 16:10 ET by Airforce_5_O

Yes Motherbelt...I am at Shady Jay 

I have a fish named Mohammad, and my son has a stuffed toy named Jesus.  The Muslims want my head and Kieth says I'm going to Hell. 

My other half is retired

December 5, 2007 - 17:19 ET by motherbelt

I guessed you might be, from your screen name and Goldsboro.

My other half is retired AF. We were there in the early 80's....boy am I dating myself!! LOL

 

NC - better - how far of a

December 5, 2007 - 14:22 ET by TruthMonger

NC - better - how far of a drive from DC?

Truth

December 5, 2007 - 14:27 ET by Airforce_5_O

3 maybe 4 hours.  I'm not far off I-95 so it is pretty quick.

I have a fish named Mohammad, and my son has a stuffed toy named Jesus.  The Muslims want my head and Kieth says I'm going to Hell. 

Dont let him fool you,

December 5, 2007 - 14:53 ET by general company

Dont let him fool you, nothing is quick on I95 anymore

 

"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain

Hey GC

December 5, 2007 - 15:02 ET by Airforce_5_O

It is quick to get to 95, I never said I95 was quick......hehe 

I have a fish named Mohammad, and my son has a stuffed toy named Jesus.  The Muslims want my head and Kieth says I'm going to Hell. 

Minnesota snow

December 5, 2007 - 12:14 ET by candance

I took a photo of the piles of snow in my parking lot yesterday. Shall add later on so people down south can pass it on to their friends as "proof" of global warming.

 :D

Darn that Bush economy

December 5, 2007 - 11:04 ET by Prester John

More reasons for the Dems and MSM to sound the recession alarm: 

Productivity revised to 6.3%, best in four years

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Fast growth in the third quarter translated to the strongest productivity gains in four years, the Labor Department reported Wednesday.

Productivity in the nonfarm business sector increased at a 6.3% annual rate in the quarter, the government said in its second estimate of productivity. A month ago, the government said productivity rose 4.9% annualized.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/productivity-revised-63-best-four/story.aspx?guid=%7B40842341%2DCC4C%2D4B7A%2D8CD0%2DE2D6FF0608E4%7D

AND

Early economic data points offer bullish look at U.S. job growth, productivity

NEW YORK (MarketWatch) - U.S. stock futures on Wednesday extended gains after early economic data cast a more positive light on the U.S. economy and central banks around the world took a more dovish stance in response to the global credit crunch.

Major stock index futures added to earlier gains after early economic data, inducing an ADP employment report, which found hiring in the U.S. private sector expanded at a faster pace in November.

ADP said private payrolls grew by 189,000 last month after a revised 119,000 jump in October, with the latest monthly hike well above economists' expectations calling for a rise of 60,000 in November.

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?column=Indications

At least they didn't use the phrases "unexpected", and "surprising" like they always do.

Tough question...

December 5, 2007 - 11:11 ET by sherlock1

Or, is anything that can potentially be used to bash Bush above reproach?

Bingo - we have a winner!  Wow, that was fast.

grain of salt time

December 5, 2007 - 11:20 ET by drillanwr

The NIE dust storm ... Give it a couple days to settle ... It'll then be picked apart and swept away (pick 3)

'High Confidence' Games
The CIA's flip-flop on Iran is hardly reassuring.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010946

 

Iran's nuke news shows danger of trusting this regime

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/12/05/2007-12-05_irans_nuke_news_shows_danger_of_trusting.html

Dark Suspicions About The NIE

  http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/podhoretz/1474

 

On another note ...

December 5, 2007 - 11:24 ET by drillanwr

My nomination for Time's Man / Person Of The Year:

Why, Britney Spears, of course.

No one has worked harder this year to earn that important recognition  ... Not even Al Gore.

/sarc ... off.

Maureen Faulkner on "Today"

December 5, 2007 - 11:39 ET by motherbelt

Michell Malkin has a great take on the MSM's "gotta have balance" idiocy.

Remember Daniel Faulkner, the Philadelphia cop murdered in cold blood by Mumia Abu-Jamal? Well, his widow, Maureen, has written a book about it, "Murdered by Mumia" and is going to be on the "Today" show Thursday AM to discuss it.

However, it seems that supporters of the convicted murderer are "upset" that they haven't been allotted "equal time" to oppose Mrs. Faulkner. According to Michelle's posting:

Supporters of cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal are threatening to storm the streets of Rockefeller Center Thursday morning to protest the "Today" show.
The activists, who claim on their Web site to have demanded "equal time," but "as of yet have gotten no agreement to that" -will protest outside.

The "update" says that apparently the "Today" show is
"negotiating" with them.

Is it not outrageous that a convicted murder's supporters think that they should be allotted time "equal time" to dispute the widow of the victim?

And what does it say about NBC that they would actually even consider this demand, nevermind "negotiate" with them about it?

Maybe when they write a

December 5, 2007 - 12:14 ET by Hero Squad

Maybe when they write a book, they can get their "equal time."

How often does the MSM give "equal time" when an author is discussing his or her book on a show. I catch snippets of Book TV from time to time, sometimes on controversial and political topics, and maybe I missed it, but never once have I caught a rebuttal at the end of an author's discussion.

I personally would like to see Mumia taken off death row as well. Just not in the same manner that the supporters of this cop killer are thinking.

*****

"There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people who ask questions." - Chris Berman 

equal Time

December 5, 2007 - 12:23 ET by candance

I was living in Philly last summer and that case was still a big deal. Those loons don't get equal time because you listen to them for about five minutes and you realize they have no case other than "it's not a crime to be angry."

Ranks right up there with OJ Simpson. Even if Today put them on the air, no one would take them seriously anyway.

I wonder if Maureen Faulkner

December 5, 2007 - 12:28 ET by Roger the Shrubber

I wonder if Maureen Faulkner will be invited on "The View", since Whoopi is so invested in freeing Mumia, a frequesnt visitor of him in prison...

This say's every thing you need to know

December 5, 2007 - 14:59 ET by general company

"Is it not outrageous that a convicted murder's supporters"

 Is it not outrageous that a convicted murderer has supporters, good grief?

"Always do right. This will gratify some people, and astonish the rest". Mark Twain

Regardless of what the

December 5, 2007 - 11:41 ET by Clear thinker

Regardless of what the NIE says, the liberal MSM will find a way to use it to show what a bad and scary man Bush is. It's just how they operate.

Now as far as the weapons go, that's another story. The most importanat part of making a nuke is the enrichment, something that we seem to know continues. Delivering the enriched uranium into an explosive can be done in a numbers of ways, so why worry about a missile or rocket when a suitcase will do? 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson.

Har! Staw poll cancellation makes Drudge!!! :)

December 5, 2007 - 12:07 ET by sarcasmo

Now the only question is which one is funnier, the Republicans' ill-fated non-straw poll or the one the Democrats in SF went-ahead and held. I think I'm with the Republicans, at least the Democrats were smart-enough to take the money!! But both videos are a hoot. If, that is, you're me... :)
JMR

Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.

I'm furious with the

December 5, 2007 - 12:26 ET by iveseenitall

I'm furious with the president concerning immigration. But on foreign policy, he gets A+++! He's kept us safe. Iran is not America, Iraq is not America, Isreal is not America. Like "who is John Gault", I know nothing about what has gone on. But I see the bottom line---I and my family are safer because of President Bush. Whatever he has to do, let him do it. Or would you rather be "loved" around the world today, and wiped from the face of the earth tomorrow? A vote for the "liberals" will get you just that. God Bless President Bush, if for nothing else than taking all the crap he's had to endure to keep America safe.

NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"

 

Bush Lied - Again??

December 5, 2007 - 12:32 ET by SouthJersey1953

Glenn Beck said it best. In 2003, Bush agreed with the findings of the NIE and the libs cried "BUSH LIED!" now he disagrees with the NIE and the libs cry "BUSH LIED!

He can't win.

BTW - My take - So what if they quit developing weapons? They determined that they will have time after they get the uranium. Note they are still enriching....just waiting until they get enough for  a bomb to resume developing the weapon. 

 

No RINOs in '08 - Mike Huckabee is the best choice 

South Jersey...

December 5, 2007 - 13:05 ET by Clear thinker

Your sig is very confusing. First you say "No RINOS in '08' then you say Huckabee is the best choice.

I would respectfully like to inform you... Huck is a RINO! 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson.

You may think he's a RINO,

December 5, 2007 - 13:11 ET by vrwc13

You may think he's a RINO, but he's definately not a CHINO!

v

No CHINOs in '08 - Mike Huckabee is the best choice 

vrwc.... My reference

December 5, 2007 - 13:19 ET by Clear thinker

vrwc....

My reference radar is not in proper working order, enlighten me.

CHINO? 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson

Clear Thinker, I bet it means something like

December 5, 2007 - 13:36 ET by RJ

"Christian (something) In Name Only"

RJ to the

December 5, 2007 - 13:38 ET by vrwc13

RJ to the rescue..thanks.

v

No C(H)INOs in '08 - Mike Huckabee is the best choice 

But was I wrong, vrwc?

December 5, 2007 - 13:46 ET by RJ

I wasn't "rescuing" anyone.  

If I was right, I was identifying ugly religious bigotry.

If I was wrong, I apologize for assuming incorrectly.

just outing ugly religious bigotry

December 5, 2007 - 13:53 ET by vrwc13

 " just outing ugly religious bigotry"

Good one RJ, you didn't waste any time today jumping in on that again.

Is is "ugly religious bigotry" to be content with one's faith and willing to share it?

v

..and sure, you can apologize any time, thanks I accept.

No ChINOs in '08 - Mike Huckabee is the best choice 

Why is it, vrwc, that you have a problem with straightforward

December 5, 2007 - 13:56 ET by RJ

answers?   

Again, was I correct that CINO or CHINO means "Christian In Name Only?"

RJ

December 5, 2007 - 14:22 ET by vrwc13

yup

v

No ChINOs in '08 - Mike Huckabee is the best choice 

vrwc - I would ike to point

December 5, 2007 - 14:25 ET by Free Stinker

vrwc - I would ike to point out that Jimmy Carter was a "Practicing Christian", and look what that got us . . .

Jimmy Carter was a "Practicing Christian

December 5, 2007 - 14:42 ET by vrwc13

...by his "fruits" he appears to be a ChINO.   But that's not my call, but God's.

Although as Christains we are commanded to discern those who "claim" to be one of us and fail the 1-2-3 test.

v

...see RJ, a Bible-thumping ("ugly religious bigotry") post without printed scripture, just a link.  I can do this.

if you're going to be a

December 5, 2007 - 14:34 ET by TruthMonger

if you're going to be a "religious bigot" vr then aim it towards Islam, please - maybe also Mormons to some extent:)...

 

vrwc... How do you

December 5, 2007 - 18:18 ET by Clear thinker

vrwc...

How do you determine which of the candidates are fake Christians?

I'd like to know because I call myself a Christian. 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson

How do you determine which of the candidates are fake Christians

December 5, 2007 - 18:31 ET by vrwc13

How do you determine which of the candidates are fake Christians?

 I'd like to know because I call myself a Christian. 

Here is the test...be sure to read 18 and 21. But be careful, these MUST be taken in context with others.

For further questions, just ask.

v

vrwc....

December 5, 2007 - 18:36 ET by Clear thinker

So you meant to say "born again Christians?" 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson

CT - That's not what is says...

December 5, 2007 - 18:57 ET by vrwc13

That's not what is says.  There is no such thing.  You either are one (Christain/believer/follower) or not.

He is telling you how to become one.

He said "You must be born again" to become one of His.

"Born again Christain" is kind of like saying I am a United States citizen of the United States.

v

Clinton claimed to be the first black president.  He is not black, claiming it does not make it so.  So too, many people claim to be Christain, and they are not.

 

vrwc... So a candidate is

December 5, 2007 - 19:03 ET by Clear thinker

vrwc...

So a candidate is a fake Christian if he is the following?

1. A religious person who believes Jesus is the Christ and who is a member of a Christian denomination.

2. Following the teachings and/or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ.

3. A person who is a follower of Jesus and his teachings
 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson

Not going to fall into your

December 5, 2007 - 19:12 ET by vrwc13

Not going to fall into your trap...

You read the link and make up your own mind.

But here's a clue: He said:

  •  "You must be born again"
  • "the Father and I are One"
  • "I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End"

 Homework assignment is here...

v

....and here - The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

CT, really got to run, but

December 5, 2007 - 19:14 ET by vrwc13

CT, really got to run, but I'll be back...

v

...you can count on that.

What trap?

December 5, 2007 - 19:34 ET by Clear thinker

vrwc...

You wrote "That's not what is says.  There is no such thing.  You either are one (Christain/believer/follower) or not.

He is telling you how to become one.

He said "You must be born again" to become one of His."

As I read the above these are his instructions on how to dwell with him in Heaven. It says nothing about what a Christian is.

 Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson

no no no

December 5, 2007 - 14:01 ET by candance

It's not Christian anything. It's Conservative In Name Only.

The H was thrown in due to a pronounciation snafu.

PS It fits Huck - he's basically a pro life Democrat.

D. all the above

December 5, 2007 - 14:25 ET by vrwc13

CINO
Catholic in Name Only

CINO
Chief Inspector of Naval Ordnance (UK)

CINO
Christian in Name Only

CINO
Configuration Interaction Natural Orbital

CINO

Conservative in Name Only

...from here

v

 

candance... I won't judge

December 5, 2007 - 18:22 ET by Clear thinker

candance...

I won't judge whether Huck is a Christian, but I can say without a doubt that Huck is not a Conservative. And as far as him being a RINO, it's true. Unless of course the GOP has changed it's platform recently. 

Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/ Rush then stated that the conservative was Fred Thompson

Try CINO... I've seen

December 5, 2007 - 13:37 ET by vrwc13

Try CINO...

I've seen both but CINO seems to be the one that has been more broadly accepted.

v

No C(H)INOs in '08 - Mike Huckabee is the best choice 

I think the response to the

December 5, 2007 - 12:45 ET by Bruzilla

I think the response to the NIE by many has been totally irresponsible at best, and criminally negligent at worst. It reminds me of mobsters claiming to be innocent, and their defenders supporting them, because the case got tossed out of court on a technicality. These folks are choosing willfull ignorance of the fact that Iran stopped it's "secret" weapons project. The key word here is "secret", as in the intelligence organs had no idea it was going on until it was exposed. We saw the same deal with North Korea, so I think there's plenty of evidence to show that a determined government can effectively fool all of the intelligence types most of the time.

Iran isn't a benevolent country that's just out to take care of it's people. There is substantial evidence that their leadership is bent on the destruction of Israel and the bringing about of the twelth Imam. Simple nuclear power isn't going to make either of these happen.

Lastly, there's a substantial difference between a country that's gearing up to provide nuclear power, and one that's gearing up to develop weapons, and the level of effort Iran is undertaking is far more indicative of the later. This is why the Un and the NIE says we need to stay on top of Iran because while they may not be actively making weapons, they are certainly developing assets well above what's needed for power generation.

To the issue of validating Bush's position, the NIE report states that Iran stopped its weapon program in the fall of 2003. Gee, what was happening in the fall of 2003 that could have caused Iran to halt it's weapon's program? Oh yeah... Iraq had just been toppled like a house of cards by the U.S. military. Makes one wonder how far along the "secret" weapons program would have been if Bush was still softballing Hussein in negotiations?

Bush = Bad = What the Hell Else Is NEW!!!???

December 5, 2007 - 13:14 ET by planetrepublican

Bush Bad, Clinton Good, Bush REAL BAD, evil actually,
Clinton REAL good, and so on and so forth, endlessly, day after day.
That's the playbook until the 2008 election: then it will be only Clinton Good,
bold, regal, smart, sassy, intelligent, deep thinker, blah, blah, blah,
puke. HOW MANY TIMES AND WAYS DO WE HAVE TO READ THIS KIND OF CRAP!

This whole site, Newsbusters, has hundreds of stories
about how the MSM is in the tank for the liberal, lefty, Democrats, so
what else is new??? After I read the 1st page in NB any day, I get depressed!!!!!
We can argue facts until we are blue in the face but it doesn't matter because
the left invents facts as it goes along. They don’t give a hoot in hell
about anything (certainly not the truth, nor our opinion) except for their weird
and twisted "logic" and also absolute power; and this they will get,
folks, the presidency, Congress, all of it, 2008. We then have maybe 2 years to hold our own
Republican senators and congressmen accountable
to us or these bastards (and bitches) will legislate American
out-of-existence. Don’t believe it? OK, rant and rave here in NB and watch and see.

The Dems are deadly serious about this. If this comes to pass Hillary (if she gets
in) and the Democrat Congress will think they have a mandat