The NIE failed to see and explain that the 2003 decision was a change of strategy not a halt to a strategy; for the Ahmadinejad plan was to ensnare the US in Iraq so that it couldn’t destroy the process of Iran’s shifting the balance of power in its crucial early stages. Tragically, what was missed in Washington is that Tehran was building the missiles before completing the fissile. While attention was focused on the uranium enrichment process, the Pasdaran were setting up the delivery system, i.e., the actual threat system.The bomb part of the Iranian nuclear strategy was the last stage, while the missiles were the most urgent to acquire first. Strategically it makes sense, because if the Iranians had produced a weapon, it could have been taken out via airpower without the risk of a second strike (since the delivery system would have been absent). But if the missiles were obtained before, the world couldn’t intervene preemptively against them. And when the bombs were ready (through assembly or purchase) they would be locked on the rockets. At that particular time, unilateral strikes against the Iranian weapons would run the risk of Iranian missile counter attacks against the free world.Tehran played it very wisely and outmaneuvered its enemies in the West; it got away with the missiles, which are now advanced and deployed. Hence all that the Khomeinists need to achieve by the end of 2007, as their delivery systems are developed, is a conclusion in Washington that will deter it from acting against the nukes, the fusion centers, the launching ramps and other types of deployment. The NIE report has paved the way for that decision.By cleverly convincing the American intelligence community and the public that Tehran had already abandoned the whole nuclear strategy in 2003, Iran has delegitimized America’s ability to act against the missiles. Hence the field is wide open for the secret nuclear program to accelerate, as the delivery system is being completed. By the time America discovers it has been duped, the nukes will be sitting on top of the missiles. All the Jihadi strategic planners had to do was to use America’s political systems against itself. Hence, because the NIE analysts failed to provide the global context of the Iranian strategy and have been pressing for a political agenda over national security priorities, Iran’s Khomeinists are winning, regardless of who will occupy the White House in January 2008.
“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."
Monday, December 17, 2007
Iran’s Khomeinists are winning
Walid Phares writing at Family Security Matters.org says that this NIE is reveals "the systemic crisis" of the politicized NIE.
Posted by Anonymous at 12/17/2007 05:15:00 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
The best end game scenario for the Sauds...ReplyDelete
For both Israel and Iran to be put on the ash heap of history.
Which is right where the current trendlines seem to be heading.
westhawk's current thread echoes this, but on the subject of the Russians supplying the fuel for the light-water reactor.
Delivery of which westhawk believes will lead to war.
Delivery of which Mr Bush appaulded.
Where did this idea come from that it is even possible to bomb away a weapons program? Russia, China, N. Korea, Pakistan, India, all obtained nuclear weapons over the wishes of the US. The first assumption you have to make with a nuclear adversary is that they have second strike capability. The spread of weapons technology is effectively unstoppable. Retaliation is predictable and guaranteed. That premise built the MAD program of the Cold War. Nothing has changed.ReplyDelete
Well, the Iranians will need that many, to fulfill the old dream of 24 nuclear power generating plants. The power plants that General Electric originally was going to build for the Shah and that President Ford approved while Mr Cheney was his Chief of Staff. In 1978 the US knew and agreed that Iran needed all that electrical generating capacity.ReplyDelete
The Iranians really needing that generating capacity now, more than they did then. What with their oil production falling.
Put them between arock and hard place, that NIE did.
The Israeli attacking Saddam's French built reactor in the year 1981.ReplyDelete
That's where the idea keeps perculating from.
Israel has second, third and fourth strike retaliatory capability. Israel can demonstrate that A nuclear attack against her can guarantee a predictable list of retaliatory targets. The problem is that in itself can inspire a third party to instigate an attack so as to have Israel do it's dirty work. Does anyone in their right mind think that a first strike by Israel will be one hundred percent effective and go unanswered? Israel merely has to state that a nuclear attack against her will generate a Munich response on a nuclear scale.ReplyDelete
There have been many Islamic suicide bombers, but none by a leader. The Iranians are no exception to the rule.
I don't know. Bomb it early enough and you can 'bomb it away'. Look at Israel/Iran in the 80's. Look at Syria a couple months ago.ReplyDelete
Is the NIE something that regularly comes out and is made public? i.e. like on an annual basis? Or is this some ad-hoc thing that just came out for the Iranian issue?ReplyDelete
But, sam, it didn't stop Saddam, unless you believe Joe Wilson and not George Tenent.ReplyDelete
We had to invade Iraq, because the Israelis did not stop the process, only slowed it.
That's the story, and we're stickin' to it
I am much less impressed with the capabilities of air forces to eliminate weapons systems than many seem to be. I know how the Cold War was managed. There is no magic bombing run that will cure this problem. There is a predictable human response to those that start a fight they cannot finish.ReplyDelete
I agree with Sam. And you can keep bombing until they say uncle. But it doesn't appear in the cards now.ReplyDelete
Dying for allah is the highest form of charity, so the Koran says. If MAD can deal with that, more power to MAD.
Print | Close this windowReplyDelete
Iran says U.S. report a "declaration of surrender"
Sun Dec 16, 2007 5:07pm EST
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's president said on Sunday the publication of a U.S. intelligence report saying Iran had halted a nuclear weapons program in 2003 amounted to a "declaration of surrender" by Washington in its row with Tehran.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also dismissed in an interview with state television the prospect of new U.N. sanctions against Iran over its refusal to halt sensitive atomic work.
"It is too far-fetched," he said when asked whether he expected the U.N. Security Council to impose fresh sanctions on Iran following two such resolutions since last December.
Look at "Shock and Awe." That had momentary effect but it did not stop break a determined enemy. It can be argued that it inspired and created many more US casualties. We have unfinished business in Afghanistan, that many argue is a result of the diversion created by Iraq. Is the answer an additional diversion in Iran?ReplyDelete
Ahmadinejad is trying to goad Israel into doing something stupid to strengthen his power and unite the Iranians and Islamic world behind him. Iit is an old trick.ReplyDelete
Yeah, but he would say that, wouldn't he.ReplyDelete
It'd take starting a real war ...
This is the scenario, well beyond Israeli capacity for success.
Yes, there is a feasible military option against the mullahs' nuclear program.
by Thomas McInerney
04/24/2006, Volume 011, Issue 30
A MILITARY OPTION AGAINST Iran's nuclear facilities is feasible. A diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis is preferable, but without a credible military option and the will to implement it, diplomacy will not succeed. The announcement of uranium enrichment last week by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad shows Iran will not bow easily to diplomatic pressure. The existence of a military option may be the only means of persuading Iran--the world's leading sponsor of terrorism--to back down from producing nuclear weapons.
A military option would be all the more credible if backed by a new coalition of the willing and if coupled with intense diplomacy during a specific time frame. The coalition could include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Turkey, Britain, France, and Germany. Solidarity is important and would surely contribute to potential diplomatic success. But should others decline the invitation, the United States must be prepared to act.
What would an effective military response look like? It would consist of a powerful air campaign led by 60 stealth aircraft (B-2s, F-117s, F-22s) and more than 400 nonstealth strike aircraft, including B-52s, B-1s, F-15s, F-16s, Tornados, and F-18s. Roughly 150 refueling tankers and other support aircraft would be deployed, along with 100 unmanned aerial vehicles for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and 500 cruise missiles. In other words, overwhelming force would be used.
The objective would be, first and foremost, to destroy or severely damage Iran's nuclear development and production facilities and put them out of commission for at least five years. Another aim would be to destroy the Iranian air defense system, significantly damage its air force, naval forces, and Shahab-3 offensive missile forces. This would prevent Iran from projecting force outside the country and retaliating militarily. The air campaign would also wipe out or neutralize Iran's command and control capabilities.
This coalition air campaign would hit more than 1,500 aim points.
Among the weapons would be the new 28,000-pound bunker busters, 5,000-pound bunker penetrators, 2,000-pound bunker busters, 1,000-pound general purpose bombs, and 500-pound GP bombs. ...
At an informal meeting of the foreign ministers of the European Union, NATO and the US in Brussels on Thursday, December 6, the EU and NATO joined America's call for a new round of sanctions against Iran. If the West's position is hardly a surprise, NATO's formal and outspoken support is an altogether new element that considerably alters the map of the conflict.ReplyDelete
Most directly, Nato's foreign ministers released their statement just ahead of Secretary Rice's meeting with her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov. Russia, as we know, is reluctant about further sanctions against Iran.
Of pivotal importance is the fact that the current consensus actively engages Turkey. The country maintains fairly good and stable ties with Iran, both culturally and economically.
New Kind of Legitimacy
28,000 lb. bunker busters? Holy fuck..ReplyDelete
Lieutenant General Thomas McInerney, USAF (Ret.), is director of NetStar Systems, and a Fox News pundit. He advocates military-led regime change in Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and Syria, and is a member of the Iran Policy Committee.ReplyDelete
McInerney was commissioned as a second lieutenant in 1959, and completed his pilot training in 1960. He served in the United States Air Force as a command pilot, with more than 4,500 flying hours. He completed four tours of duty in Vietnam, performed flight reconnaissance missions during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and air escort missions in the West Berlin Air Corridor. General McInerney earned a bachelor of science degree from the United States Military Academy in 1959 and an master's degree in international relations from George Washington University in 1972. He graduated from the Armed Forces Staff College in 1970 and from the National War College in 1973.
From March 1996 to December 1999, McInerney was Chief Executive Officer and President of Business Executives for National Security (BENS), a business association lobbying for greater commercial involvement in national defense programmes. From 1994, McInerney was Director of the Defense Performance Review (DPR), reporting to the Secretary of Defense. In that capacity, he led the Pentagon’s “reinventing government” effort, reducing government payrolls by contracting out work to private companies. NetStar Systems, the company he directs, is a supplier of secure intranet and knowledge base systems to the Defense and Intelligence sectors.
Paul Reports One-Day Fundraising Haul of $6 Million
By Jonathan D. Salant
Dec. 17 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Representative Ron Paul raised $6 million yesterday for his presidential campaign, bringing his total for the last three months to $18 million, his campaign said.
Who are these donors?
This is what a Paul spokesman said:
`Traditional polling greatly underestimates Dr. Paul's support,'' campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said. ``He's bringing back conservatives who have been alienated from the Republican Party. He pulls in independents because of his antiwar stance, and, finally, he's motivating people who have not been involved in politics before.''
Someone ought to take a close look at those donations...
That scenario is a real shootin' war, well beyond "Shock & Awe" in Iraq.ReplyDelete
Rounding up those required Congressional votes, in an election year, not very likely.
Especially with no visable, post NIE, threat.
It'd take starting a real war ...ReplyDelete
Yes, it would. Therefore it's very unlikey to happen, started by us anyway, at this point in time. I feel for the Israelis, just the psychological pressure would be a lot to handle, always under the gun.
We were all under the gun and under our desks as wellReplyDelete
As closely as they view Ms Clinton's.ReplyDelete
Reporting by opensecrets.org
Then at a Ron Paul site there is
last updated: 12/17/07 06:22 PM EST
total raised today: $270,597
total raised Q4: $18,272,186
average daily total: $234,259
projected Q4 total: $16,365,536
total donors today: 3,580
average daily donors: 2,635
total donors Q4: 205,527
days to end of quarter: 14
Today's income divided by the 3,580 contributors puts the average donation at about $75 bucks.
Perhaps from dishwashers and fry cooks, like Ms Clinton's donations via Mr Hsu, but those folk donated the max, not $75 dollar.
``What annoys them is some Republicans are more loyal to the president and to the party rather than to our platform and our principles,'' he said.ReplyDelete
Paul said he's been encouraging his supporters to dream up other creative ideas such as blimps and tea parties to get his message across.
``If you're working that hard and investing your time and your money, you better have some fun,'' Paul said. ``This gets too boring if it gets too serious.''
"had little effect other than promoting a state of unease and paranoia." wikiReplyDelete
and laughter...when you see the light, kiss your ass goodbye, I recall kids saying...
Today, "Drop, Cover and Hold On" is taught in areas prone to earthquakes. wiki
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
Makes the Howard Dean internet fund raising pale in comparison,ReplyDelete
and he was the talk of the town.
The wave of the future.
Look at the ideology that is surfin' that big wave, now.
Hoorah boys, Hoorah!!!
However these elections turn out, there have been surprises already and the voting hasn't begun. I wouldn't have given Huck a prayer to make a big surge.ReplyDelete
Since September 11, 2001, no one uses the word terror in reference to nuclear weapons despite the fact that they dwarf the threats (pretended or real) from today's ''terrorism''.ReplyDelete
Humanity's main problem is not nuclear proliferation and, thus, not Iraq and Iran, but the very existence of nuclear weapons. What the binding Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) actually says is that proliferation to non-nuke countries shall stop as a quid pro quo for nuclear abolition by the nuclear powers.
The US, Russia, France, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, the UK are the problem -- not Iran or Iraq or North Korea.
That's how the Swedes see it, anyways.ReplyDelete
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN AUSTRALIA, CANADA, NEW ZEALAND, CZECH REPUBLIC, IRELAND, POLAND, THE UNITED STATES, AND THE UNITED KINGDOM/ (END/2007)ReplyDelete
Oops. Ah, am I in trouble?ReplyDelete
From the famous wikiReplyDelete
The NPT's Article VI elaborates on the preamble's language, urging all State Parties to the NPT, both nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states, "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."
On the one hand, the wording of Article VI arguably imposes only a vague obligation on all NPT signatories to move in the general direction of nuclear and total disarmament. Under this interpretation, Article VI does not strictly require all signatories to actually conclude a disarmament treaty. Rather, it only requires them "to negotiate in good faith."
On the other hand, some governments, especially non-nuclear-weapon states belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement, have interpreted Article VI's language as being anything but vague. In their view, Article VI constitutes a formal and specific obligation on the NPT-recognized nuclear-weapon states to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, and argue that these states have failed to meet their obligation. Some government delegations to the Conference on Disarmament have tabled proposals for a complete and universal disarmament, but no disarmament treaty has emerged from these proposals[footnote needed]. Critics of the NPT-recognized nuclear-weapon states sometimes argue that what they view as the failure of the NPT-recognized nuclear weapon states to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, especially in the post-Cold War era, has angered some non-nuclear-weapon NPT signatories of the NPT. Such failure, these critics add, provides justification for the non-nuclear-weapon signatories to quit the NPT and develop their own nuclear arsenals.
Under this theory both the US and Iran are in violation of the NPT.
Do not read about that aspect of it, in the MSM. Do we?
Not really, Google published it, not you.ReplyDelete
Despite U.S. warnings, Latin America countries, such as Nicaragua and Venezuela have recently been cultivating ties with Iran. Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega has met with Tehran officials several times this year to seek help with several major infrastructure projects.ReplyDelete
And on Monday Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez wrapped up a visit to the Islamic republic aimed at building a "strategic unity".
This comes as relations with the U.S. and its allies cool over attempts to try to force Iran to end its contentious uranium enrichment program.
Iranian Push into Nicaragua
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
Dreams die hardReplyDelete
MANAGUA — Half-buried in the sand of an isolated, palm-fringed Caribbean beach, a few old railroad wheels lie rusting. They were left at Monkey Point in 1903, local people say, by some Germans who started building a railroad across Nicaragua. They never got far, though. The project foundered, and in 1910 the U. S. Marines landed to put an end to Nicaragua's commercial flirtations with Europe and Japan.
This summer, nearly a century later, U.S. engineering firm Parsons Brinckerhoff began a $20 million feasibility study of a "dry canal" or "land bridge" across Nicaragua. The $1.4 billion project, scheduled to break ground next year, will construct deep-water container ports and free-trade zones on the Caribbean and Pacific and connect them with a 210-mile high-speed railroad. The Caribbean terminus will be located at Monkey Point.
That's a 1996 report.ReplyDelete
A decade ago, but the dream is old and will not die.
Just needs money to make it a reality.
One would think, under a strict reading of the NPT, that when the US was discussing and funding research for a new nuclear capacity, a low yield bunker buster, it was doing so in violation of the NPT.ReplyDelete
Much as the US has claimed Iran had been doing, prior to 2003.
The pot calling the kettle black, from a non US-centric perspective.
The US providing nuclear capacity to it's NATO allies, violates at least the spirit of Article 1 of the NPT, if not the letter of the Treaty.ReplyDelete
As of 2005, it is estimated that the United States still provides about 180 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey under these NATO agreements . Many states, and the Non-Aligned Movement, now argue this violates Articles I and II of the treaty, and are applying diplomatic pressure to terminate these agreements.
They point out that the pilots and other staff of the "non-nuclear" NATO states practice handling and delivering the U.S. nuclear bombs, and non-U.S. warplanes have been adapted to deliver U.S. nuclear bombs which must have involved the transfer of some technical nuclear weapons information.
NATO believes its "nuclear forces continue to play an essential role in war prevention, but their role is now more fundamentally political"
Learning new details of this nuclear proliferation debate, all the time.
Huckabee, Who Swallows Other Campaigns WholeReplyDelete
John Podhoretz -
Will Mr Romney go "all in" and spend $100 million of his own money?
Is Mr McCain the only viable alternative to the Huck?
Lord have mercy!
Anyone that can follow all This without having the head spin has a future as a political consultant.ReplyDelete
Cheer up Rat, if he's President he won't be your Senator.ReplyDelete
Far as I remember there's never been a political ad quite like This before.ReplyDelete
Merry Christmas to you all. Bob.
And I approve this message.
It's a ball buster ...ReplyDelete
Merry Christmas, one and all
Romney says religion shouldn't matter. The Huck says it's all that really matters.
We'll see what the majority of the GOP says, but golly gee whiz.
Big John is almost harmless as a Senator, just one of one hundred.ReplyDelete
As President ... it'd be a sad day for the Republic.
" Prior to entering Top Model, Curry went to rehab and kicked her heroin, cocaine, and cutting habit."ReplyDelete
Pardon me, and I know I should know this but what's a "cutting habit?"
(too anxious to google)
Self-mutilation, doug. Like with razor blades and stuff.ReplyDelete
How does that become a habit?ReplyDelete
...on the other hand, I have known those that pick their nose.
...and with the other hand...
Why a train, just cause it's easier?
Seems like loading and unloading a superfreighter is a lot of extra time and trouble.
Maybe I should try the old replacement therapy thing:ReplyDelete
Trade Cutting for Blogging?
I wonder which is more self-destructive.ReplyDelete
...in the long run.
"Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” today that he wept with relief when the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Mormon church, announced a 1978 revelation that the priesthood would no longer be denied to persons of African descent.ReplyDelete
Romney’s eyes appeared to fill with tears as he discussed the emotional subject during a high-stakes appearance that he handled with no major blunders."
I bet if it's him vs Obama, the Church re-institutes it.
Maybe the subtext isReplyDelete
"White South Africans"
Deuce: There have been many Islamic suicide bombers, but none by a leader. The Iranians are no exception to the rule.ReplyDelete
Astute observation, and sound reasoning. Maybe Ahmedinejad wants to see the 13th Ummagumma, but he is just a mouthpiece.
Hewitt says that the Rassmussen poll says the Huckaboom is fading in South Carolina. And he should know, he's practically an operative for the Romney campaign.ReplyDelete
" but he is just a mouthpiece."ReplyDelete
Thanks, but no thanks, I'll just remain abstinent.
I still have faith the COUNTRY is not that nuts, the Evangelicals have proved their morons.ReplyDelete
(kids might pick up bad habits)
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
Marty Feldman Should Run for POTUSReplyDelete
Obama briefly ran a television ad here in late November called "Hope and Change."ReplyDelete
Former Sen. John Edwards has run four different TV ads in South Carolina and has seen his poll numbers climb slightly as a result. Sen. Hillary Clinton has yet to run a television ad in the state.
A CNN poll of Democratic primary voters released last week showed Clinton leading in the state with 42 percent, followed by Obama at 34 percent and Edwards in third with 16 percent.
Why is a Lieberman endorsement of McCain expected?ReplyDelete
Mon 12.17 >> Coast-To-CoastReplyDelete
Near Death Experience researcher for over 30 years, P.M.H. Atwater will discuss her explanation of NDEs as well as the variety of ways individuals access other dimensions.
Idaho woman from Twin Falls.
McCain is gung-ho. Lieberman sees that as a good thing.ReplyDelete
Because he wants to be VP on the ticket?ReplyDelete
Drugs always work. To get to that other dimension.ReplyDelete
Bobal my freshman (High School) science teacher explained that the "high" you get from drugs is you actually dying a little bit. Maybe true, maybe not, but it scared me away from them.ReplyDelete
Why not go with Giuliani?ReplyDelete
Not the same, T., according to the NDEers I've read, but I'm glad your high school teach scared you away from drugs.
Has she lived in Twin Falls all of those 30 years? Hell, I bet most of the people in Twin Falls are searching for those other dimensions just to get the hell out of Twin Falls.ReplyDelete
Shit I don't know. Maybe McCain's got a bigger dick.ReplyDelete
I still don't understand why it was expected. Why would Joe Lieberman be expected to endorse any Republican?ReplyDelete
Don't know, Mat. Maybe Senators sticking together, maybe return a favor?ReplyDelete
She grew up there, Sam. She's been around quite a bit. To the other world, for instance. More than once. Well traveled lady.
He's maturing as a person. It's the natural way of things. Liberal/Independent/Conservative. He's damn near there.ReplyDelete
Cause he pissed all the democrats off by jumping ship, and defeating their man in the election.ReplyDelete
True. But there's something really creepy about the statement. Why the certitude? Why McCain?ReplyDelete
Bob, when you read that statement in the NYT piece, didn't that bother you?
So soon! Isn't Sarkozy violating one of Dr. Joy's rules here?ReplyDelete
My head was spinning, Mat, from all the stuff in the piece. Maybe McCain's got Joe by the balls some way. I don't know.
Haven't they always been pretty much on the same page? Haven't they con-sponsored bills and what-not in the past?ReplyDelete
con-sponsored is betterReplyDelete
Leiberman has weighed all the candidates in the neo-con hopper and McCain bubbled to the top.ReplyDelete
Polls show Huckabee with a widening lead in Iowa, but Professor Bruce Cain doesn't believe that will translate to New Hampshire.ReplyDelete
"There isn't that Christian Southern Baptist base in New Hampshire. It's more of a secular fiscal conservative state."
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton won the endorsement of the Des Moines register. It was a welcome relief from negative stories that have recently dogged the campaign.
Huge Weekend for Endorsements
Heheh, con-sponsored. :)ReplyDelete
Still, I want to know why it is that this NYT writer was so certain about the endorsement. I'd like to know where this info was available, and why the implied assertion that this was public knowledge.
"Leiberman has weighed all the candidates in the neo-con hopper and McCain bubbled to the top."ReplyDelete
B.S. Giuliani is MUCH closer to Lierberman on every one of the issues.
Though Republicans have also backtracked a bit on free trade, they remain largely supportive of trade liberalization and opening U.S. markets to foreign goods. The outcome in 2008 could determine how hard America presses for a successful completion of the Doha Round of trade negotiations.ReplyDelete
If Democrats retake the White House and hold Congress, it may mean fewer bilateral FTAs and a frostier economic relationship with Beijing. At a time when trade diplomacy is inextricably tied to U.S. geopolitical interests in Latin America and East Asia, these would not be trivial consequences.
In these ways and more, the 2008 ballot may turn out to be “the mother of all elections.” The next president will probably get to nominate at least one Supreme Court justice.
Mother of all Elections
Metuselah: B.S. Giuliani is MUCH closer to Lierberman on every one of the issues.ReplyDelete
Well in the case of Rotten Rudy, Lieberman was ready to endorse him, but Rudy did a major flip flop on gun control, and now he thinks three year olds should have concealed weapons permits.
Giuliani also lost slight ground with Hillary Clinton, losing 32 to 53 percent, compared with losing 36 to 50 percent in October. Still, Dartmouth political scientist Linda Fowler said given his Florida to Feb. 5 strategy, "I don't think Giuliani has all that much at stake in New Hampshire.ReplyDelete
If he does respectably, it will be sufficient."
Fowler said the pressure in New Hampshire is on Romney. "If he wins, people will say it's the neighborhood effect," said Fowler of the former governor of Massachusetts.
Hell if I know, Mat. Maybe the writer was writing from a leak. Maybe he was taking a leak.ReplyDelete
"now he thinks three year olds should have concealed weapons permits."
Ah, Teresita, you know he said stun guns.
Tes, what planet are you from?ReplyDelete
"Leiberman has weighed all the candidates in the neo-con hopper and McCain bubbled to the top."ReplyDelete
Now that looked up to see what a hopper is, how am I supposed to understand this?
Hillary forecast this series of assaults on December 2: "Well, now the fun part starts," she said. "We're going to start drawing a contrast, because I want every Iowan to have accurate information when they make their decisions."ReplyDelete
The question became whether Obama was tough enough to stand up to it. His demolition of her at the Des Moines Register debate suggests he is.
The "fun part" for the rest of us will be watching the bitter infighting among the Clintonistas as the wheels come off Hillary's campaign.
Time to Move on
In farming, at least around here, a "hopper" is eitherReplyDelete
1) a grasshopper or
2) the large container on the combine to which the grain flows from the separator.
Some perverse Khomeini Quotes
In line with our topic, I was trying to find quotes about the Iranian nation being willing to die in order to finish Israel off, but failed, so far. So I thought I'd stick the old bastard with these.
The photo of Hillary on Drudge shows her needing mo botox.ReplyDelete
It must mean he's the lightest politician there, Mat, if he bubbled to the top. Full of hot air perhaps.ReplyDelete
1 a container for a bulk material such as grain, rock, or trash, typically one that tapers downward and is able to discharge its contents at the bottom.
Does Gaia work in reverse on Tes' planet?ReplyDelete
Little Green Footballs gets a death threat---ReplyDelete
"Allah Willing, thetime will come when flashes of fire will burn your belly to ash, your wife(your yahoodi whore) shall be a slave for the pleasure of the Al-Muslimoon. Inshallah, I will find yuo and killed you SOMEDAY YOU KUFFAR PIG, YOU SON OF THE APES AND THE SWINE ALLAH TA’ALLA SHALL ROAST YOUR ORGANS FOR THE PLEASURE OF THE MUSLIMS YOU SCUM FILTHEIR THNA THE COCKROACH, YOU K A F I R"
Now we know (already knew, really) what Bush's fat little fascist pig Karl Rove was doing talking to fellow traitors Cornyn and Hutchison.ReplyDelete
Bill guts border fence requirement
Republican presidential hopeful Duncan Hunter is blasting a Democrat-sponsored bill that would eliminate the requirement passed by Congress to build a double-layered fence covering 854 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Massive spending bill will alter fence law
"By eliminating the double fence requirement, the Democratic Congress is going to make it easier for drug and human smugglers to cross our Southern land border," said Hunter. "This goes against the interests of any family that has been touched by illegal drugs or any American who has seen their job taken by an illegal alien."
The Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations bill would specifically eliminate the mandate of the Secure Fence Act of 2006.
As WND reported last week, an amendment submitted by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and co-sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, for the Department of Homeland Security 2008 budget was aimed at gutting the already-approved Secure Fence Act, which was adopted with the promise hundreds of miles of physical fencing would help secure the U.S. border with Mexico.
No contest between GWB and Jimmah anymore concerning who did more damage to the soon to be ex-nation.
On August 8, 2006 he wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "There is a radical difference between the Islamic Republic of Iran and other governments with nuclear weapons. This difference is expressed in what can only be described as the apocalyptic worldview of Iran's present rulers." And "In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead -- hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement."ReplyDelete
from Bernard Lewis
Damn, they just keep on chipping away at it, don't they, Doug?ReplyDelete
Bob, I wonder what set it off?ReplyDelete
via LGF: UNICEF Cares
U.S. freelance photographer Stephanie Sinclair poses with her winning photo of the 'UNICEF Photo of the Year 2007' competition in Berlin, Germany, on Monday, Dec. 17, 2007. The photograph shot by U.S. freelance photographer Stephanie Sinclair shows a wedding couple in Afghanistan. The groom, Mohammed, looks much older than his 40 years. The bride, Ghulam, just turned 11.
ah, heck, one more Otherworld ArtReplyDelete
Whit is right about Hewitt hammering poor old Huckawantabee.ReplyDelete
» Japanese warship shoots down missile in test off HawaiiReplyDelete
Aabout that fence, doug ...ReplyDelete
Hate to say I told you so, but ...
No surprise to me.ReplyDelete
Just think if there was any justice God would have struck GWB dead long ago.
Fucking Outlaw Traitor.
Metuselah: Tes, what planet are you from?ReplyDelete