So Iran doesn't have a nuclear program either...

[profdsny]

So where's the nuance when it comes to George W. Bush? Seems like for a lot of folks on this board (including you) that "This Guy is ALL Bad."

Well, yes, there always is an exception to every rule.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Well, yes, there always is an exception to every rule.

You sure? I'm comin' up blank.

 

[bsnyder]

The argument Bet was making was that because of the NIE report, we would lose the support of our European Allies in our efforts to continue sanctions and, I guess, that everyone would simply normalize relations with Iran and go on their merry ways. Most of us knew that that simply wouldn't be the case. As far as Russia and China, they were always on the fence, and there were no guarantees that they would have ever complied. It appears that Condi's got some work ahead of her. Dealing with the realities of the world, without the benefit of ginned up intelligence reports is hard, but that's why she makes the big bucks.

No, you are misrepresenting my argument. I never said anything specifically about our European allies.

You concede that Russia and China were always on the fence. Is this report likely to move them in the direction we want them to go? I don't think there's even a possibility of that. Do you honestly disagree? And without China and Russia, the positions of France and Germany don't really amount to anything other than talk.

 

[crcormier]

Sorry if Bush and Cheney are picking fights with your buddies.

And your last paragraph is based on????????

Isn't that what Bush's buddy Musharraf just did?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

No, you are misrepresenting my argument. I never said anything specifically about our European allies.

You concede that Russia and China were always on the fence. Is this report likely to move them in the direction we want them to go? I don't think there's even a possibility of that. Do you honestly disagree? And without China and Russia, the positions of France and Germany don't really amount to anything other than talk.

You said international players, or something like that, so if you meant Russia and China specifically, you should have said so. Frankly, I feel like you're really grasping at straws here. You're giving both countries consideration that's far beyond realistic, as if they were sitting at the table, pens in hand, desperate to sign on.

Does this report help Condi in her negotiations with Russia and China? Certainly not. But like I said, that's why she makes the big bucks.

 

[salmoneous]

You concede that Russia and China were always on the fence. Is this report likely to move them in the direction we want them to go? I don't think there's even a possibility of that. Do you honestly disagree?

Let's be honest, none of us have a clue what Russia or China will or won't do (other than it will be in the best interests of Russia and China). We can't put anything in the realm of "not even a possibility".

So, when we are dealing with Russia and China, and they ask for our assesment of the situation in Iran, what would you have us do? Lie to them? Give them false or misleading information? That didn't work so well with Iraq, did it?

 

[bsnyder]

You said international players, or something like that, so if you meant Russia and China specifically, you should have said so. Frankly, I feel like you're really grasping at straws here. You're giving both countries consideration that's far beyond realistic, as if they were sitting at the table, pens in hand, desperate to sign on.

Does this report help Condi in her negotiations with Russia and China? Certainly not. But like I said, that's why she makes the big bucks.

I'm worried that Iran has military nuclear ambitions, regardless of what the latest NIE says. You've agreed that you share those concerns. You also concede that the release of this report doesn't help in our negotiations over sanctions.

As for pen in hand, you must not have read the papers on Monday, prior to the report being released. China was "at the table" quite literally, on Saturday, at talks in Paris, and it was widely reported that they had finally agreed to key aspects of the latest sanctions.

Your fixation on Condi Rice's salary, and the fact that you characterize the negotiations as hers, not the position of the country she represents is very odd to me. The United States has stake in this, one that is crucial to our national security. She is simply the highest ranking spokesperson in the negotiations, they don't belong to her.

I think the rhetoric that Bush plans (or was planning) to bomb Iran has been ridiculous and overheated. It's mostly the product of our media, which constatly seeks to provide a "story line" and then goes into a feeding frenzy that ends up creating news rather than just reporting the facts. I have yet to see any statements by Bush that I'd disagree with, with regard to the dangers that Iran poses. Nor have I seen any action on the part of the Administration that would point to imminent military action. If you have proof of any of that, I'd love to see it.

 

[Fitswimmer]

So where's the nuance when it comes to George W. Bush? Seems like for a lot of folks on this board (including you) that "This Guy is ALL Bad."

actually that's not at all true. I agreed with him on immigration.

 

[LuvDuke]

No, you are misrepresenting my argument. I never said anything specifically about our European allies.

You concede that Russia and China were always on the fence. Is this report likely to move them in the direction we want them to go? I don't think there's even a possibility of that. Do you honestly disagree? And without China and Russia, the positions of France and Germany don't really amount to anything other than talk.

What makes you think the Russians and Chinese wait for the information to come from Bush? They have their own way of gathering information and don't need the WH spin machine to spoonfeed them. They know exactly what's going on in Iran and they willl do whatever is in their own national interest to do.

However, this latest stunt by the WH has ensured that the most reactionary elements in each country will have the loudest voice. And the first thing that voice will say is: "Bush lied to his own people. Why would he tell the truth to us?" And all along, they will know what that truth is.

The only people Bush thinks he is successfully lying to is his own people. And that success is, mercifully, dwindling.

 

[bsnyder]

What makes you think the Russians and Chinese wait for the information to come from Bush? They have their own way of gathering information and don't need the WH spin machine to spoonfeed them. They know exactly what's going on in Iran and they willl do whatever is in their own national interest to do.

However, this latest stunt by the WH has ensured that the most reactionary elements in each country will have the loudest voice. And the first thing that voice will say is: "Bush lied to his own people. Why would he tell the truth to us?" And all along, they will know what that truth is.

The only people Bush thinks he is successfully lying to is his own people. And that success is, mercifully, dwindling.

Their information is basically irrelevant. No one knows for certain what the mullahs' furture intentions are, not the US intelligence agencies, or that of the rest of the international community. It's the political implications that are important. The release of this NIE was clearly designed to affect the political debate on Iran, both in the U.S. and abroad. And it has done as intended. And that is to the detriment of everyone who takes the position that continued pressure on Iran should to be a vital national security goal. Those who can't admit that have simply been blinded by their loathing for this particular president.

 

[bsnyder]

However, this latest stunt by the WH has ensured that the most reactionary elements in each country will have the loudest voice.

Tell me please, what is this latest "stunt" by the WH? Is it that they tried to prevent the NIE from being made public? If so, I agree with them 100%. It has damaged our hand, and strengthened Iran's. How could anyone in the U.S. think that's a good thing?

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I'm worried that Iran has military nuclear ambitions, regardless of what the latest NIE says. You've agreed that you share those concerns. You also concede that the release of this report doesn't help in our negotiations over sanctions.

As for pen in hand, you must not have read the papers on Monday, prior to the report being released. China was "at the table" quite literally, on Saturday, at talks in Paris, and it was widely reported that they had finally agreed to key aspects of the latest sanctions.

Your fixation on Condi Rice's salary, and the fact that you characterize the negotiations as hers, not the position of the country she represents is very odd to me. The United States has stake in this, one that is crucial to our national security. She is simply the highest ranking spokesperson in the negotiations, they don't belong to her.

I think the rhetoric that Bush plans (or was planning) to bomb Iran has been ridiculous and overheated. It's mostly the product of our media, which constatly seeks to provide a "story line" and then goes into a feeding frenzy that ends up creating news rather than just reporting the facts. I have yet to see any statements by Bush that I'd disagree with, with regard to the dangers that Iran poses. Nor have I seen any action on the part of the Administration that would point to imminent military action. If you have proof of any of that, I'd love to see it.

"That's why she makes the big bucks" is no fixation on Condi Rice's salary. It's something I say when someone is complaining about something that's beyond their control. Forgive me, but I was delighted to hear that all evidence points to the fact that Iran had stopped their ambitions for a nuclear weapon over 4 years ago. If that makes it more difficult for the US to get 2 of the 6 nations on board, well, that's just the realities of the world. As Sal said, would you prefer that we lie about it to our allies, both old and new, and hope for the best? We tried that out in Iraq. It nearly destroyed America's reputation and made a mockery out of everything that this country stands for.

What's funny is that after reading your last post, I find that our opinions on this matter are alot more similar than they are different. My only contention is that even if it makes it more difficult, we deal with the truth head on and out in the open, not with falsified information, hidden in the shadows.

 

[LuvDuke]

Their information is basically irrelevant. No one knows for certain what the mullahs' furture intentions are, not the US intelligence agencies, or that of the rest of the international community. It's the political implications that are important. The release of this NIE was clearly designed to affect the political debate on Iran, both in the U.S. and abroad. And it has done as intended. And that is to the detriment of everyone who takes the position that continued pressure on Iran should to be a vital national security goal. Those who can't admit that have simply been blinded by their loathing for this particular president.

As usual, you missed the point. The content of the NIE was no surprise to anyone in the international community.

So what do you propose: Continuing lying to the American people by this WH because it's for our own good? You seem to be peddling the idea that the truth is bad, therefore lying must be good.

And any loathing that comes from my side of the aisle towards George Bush has been earned in diamonds. Maybe if your sad sack of a president hadn't used his office to lie to American people to get us involved in a unnecessary war in Iraq, he wouldn't be loathed quite so much. The release of this NIE was the best thing that could've happened as it prevented George Bush from starting another unnecessary war. That, and not the truth, was the worst-case scenario.

 

[LuvDuke]

Tell me please, what is this latest "stunt" by the WH? Is it that they tried to prevent the NIE from being made public? If so, I agree with them 100%. It has damaged our hand, and strengthened Iran's. How could anyone in the U.S. think that's a good thing?

They tried to prevent the release of the NIE because it exposed them for the liars that they are and how they tried, once again, to jack up the phony case for war in Iran.

Damned right it damaged our hand and strengthened Iran's, but as usual, you've misplaced your concern. If your president hadn't lied about his case for war in Iran (and Iraq) our hand wouldn't have been damaged and Iran's strengthened.

You may be happy to live in an America where young people die for no damned good reason other than presidential delusions, but I am not.

"Bush Derangement Syndrome 2007": I want my president to lie to me because it makes me and my country safe.

Good grief, you really can't make this stuff up.

 

[salmoneous]

The release of this NIE was clearly designed to affect the political debate on Iran, both in the U.S. and abroad.

Let's face it, neither you nor I have a clue who got the information released, much less what their motivation was.

And that is to the detriment of everyone who takes the position that continued pressure on Iran should to be a vital national security goal.

Um, everyone had that position before the document was released, everyone has it now. What exactly are you talking about?

If I may repeat an earlier question - what would you have us do - lie to the Russians and Chinese (as well as the American people)?

 

[profdsny]

As usual, you missed the point. The content of the NIE was no surprise to anyone in the international community.

So what do you propose: Continuing lying to the American people by this WH because it's for our own good? You seem to be peddling the idea that the truth is bad, therefore lying must be good.

And any loathing that comes from my side of the aisle towards George Bush has been earned in diamonds. Maybe if your sad sack of a president hadn't used his office to lie to American people to get us involved in a unnecessary war in Iraq, he wouldn't be loathed quite so much. The release of this NIE was the best thing that could've happened as it prevented George Bush from starting another unnecessary war. That, and not the truth, was the worst-case scenario.

 

[LuvDuke]

Let's face it, neither you nor I have a clue who got the information released, much less what their motivation was.

Um, everyone had that position before the document was released, everyone has it now. What exactly are you talking about?

If I may repeat an earlier question - what would you have us do - lie to the Russians and Chinese (as well as the American people)?

No, just lie to the American people. The Russians and the Chinese are very capable of getting their own information and acting in their own national interest.

It really makes you wonder if Planet Bush actually believes Vladimir Putin, former head of the KGB, waits for information from George Bush. Why the hell would the former head of the KGB wait to get his information from the administration incompetents who can't find their *** with both hands and a mirror?

This must be the Bizarro world.

 

[bsnyder]

They tried to prevent the release of the NIE because it exposed them for the liars that they are and how they tried, once again, to jack up the phony case for war in Iran.

Damned right it damaged our hand and strengthened Iran's, but as usual, you've misplaced your concern. If your president hadn't lied about his case for war in Iran (and Iraq) our hand wouldn't have been damaged and Iran's strengthened.

You may be happy to live in an America where young people die for no damned good reason other than presidential delusions, but I am not.

"Bush Derangement Syndrome 2007": I want my president to lie to me because it makes me and my country safe.

Good grief, you really can't make this stuff up.

Yeah, you really can't. What case for war with Iran? When and where did Bush ever make a case for war with Iran? I asked before, for some quotes to Bush's statements that would back up this type of overheated nonsense. I'm still waiting...

 

[bsnyder]

No, just lie to the American people. The Russians and the Chinese are very capable of getting their own information and acting in their own national interest.

It really makes you wonder if Planet Bush actually believes Vladimir Putin, former head of the KGB, waits for information from George Bush. Why the hell would the former head of the KGB wait to get his information from the administration incompetents who can't find their *** with both hands and a mirror?

This must be the Bizarro world.

I'm still waiting. How did he lie?

 

[LuvDuke]

Yeah, you really can't. What case for war with Iran? When and where did Bush ever make a case for war with Iran? I asked before, for some quotes to Bush's statements that would back up this type of overheated nonsense. I'm still waiting...

So, ahh, you'd rather have a president lie to you because it keeps you safe? Is that it? Why are you afraid of the truth? Afraid to go down that road of self-examination because it may lead to the conclusion your president really is an incompetent, delusional moron who used your patriotism to shore up his delusions?

A word of advice: You're in a hole of your own making in which you've stated loud and clear, you'd prefer a lie because that lie makes you feel safe. Stop digging.