Comments on: Bush: "Nothing's Changed" On Iran
Says Intelligence Report Shows Need To Stay Vigilant About Iran's Nuke Ambitions
Add a Comment See all 746 Comments
- AJMarine1,,,, You think Bush is getting anywere in the Middle East ??? --- He''s lost all credibility in the region by invading Iraq, he ignored Isreal/Palestine peace efforts for 7 years & incouraged the contnuiation of the violence --
--- I can understand the support of Isreal to an exent.. But they aren''t about to share any intellegence from their zionist government that doesn''t benifit their own policies.... And more treason was committed as we are finding out from Bush''s national security council that gave AIPAC defense secrets & invasion plans. - Reply to this comment
- Saddam was a loose cannon and as long as he and his sons were around they would always be a threat to do something to kept the Middle East stirred up, I''''m glad they are gone and if Clinton had wanted to get rid of him I would have backed him also.
Posted by AJMarine1 at 09:45 PM : Dec 04, 2007
-----------------------------------------------
Good logic AJ and if most of the posters would admit it, they also agree. - Reply to this comment
- "I still feel strongly that Iran is a danger," he said. "I think the NIE makes it clear that Iran needs to be taken seriously as a threat to peace. My opinion hasn''t changed."
Mr. Bush said the report''s finding would not prompt him to take a U.S. military option against Tehran off the table.
-------------------------------------------------
When a country has a leader like Ahmagonnajihad, who foams at the mouth with threats of doom for other nations, somebody better take some precautions and have something besides an issue of Cosmopolitan under their arm. - Reply to this comment
- AJMarine1 said: "Saddam was a loose cannon" He was a two bit dictator of a middling state as far the the U.S. as you can get and still be on the same planet. He was used to take your democracy away from you. YOU are the victim here, not Saddam.
You''ll understand better once you get the bill for the war. There are many ways to enslave someone. - Reply to this comment
- t_barr,,,,, Yep, & I''ve used that fine brush many times & said those same things..
.. There are a few good republicans yes, & they are a dying breed - I was a Reagan republican before Bush started running for office.
... I agree with Ron Paul on a few issues, especially on Isreal.. But, think about it, he wants a smaller government in a nation with growing problems & a greater need for oversight & regulation, as this administration has shown.... I think he''s also said he wants to do away with our CIA & privatize it, that doesn''t work, it just gives the intellegence people pay to get. - Reply to this comment
- Opertunity for Profiteering & political ambitions perhaps ????
Posted by j-whitman at 09:43 PM : Dec 04, 2007
Maybe change the statis quo of the f**ked up mess called the Middle East so our children and grand children don''t have to deal with it? - Reply to this comment
- "It is the entire circumstance that concerns me, not the small window which peers in upon it."
SearingTruth
A Future of the Brave - www.searingtruth.com - Reply to this comment
- Posted by ubrew12 at 09:40 PM : Dec 04, 2007
Saddam was a loose cannon and as long as he and his sons were around they would always be a threat to do something to kept the Middle East stirred up, I''m glad they are gone and if Clinton had wanted to get rid of him I would have backed him also. - Reply to this comment
- AJMarine1,,,,, Clinton''s counter-terrorism advisor warned Bush on Al Queda, Why did Bush ignore him ??? --- Opertunity for Profiteering & political ambitions perhaps ????
- Reply to this comment
- They moved 200,000 soldiers to the borders of Iraq, and THEN asked the U.N. Security Council whether it thought they should be deployed. Under those conditions, the council vote against war was a vote of independence. The response was named Bolton. This war''s greatest casualty was our own intelligence community, which was placed under extreme duress to make the case for war, and then decapitated when that evidence proved faulty. But once we kicked the weapons inspectors out of Iraq, how intelligent did we expect our WMD intelligence to be? And if you have to pause an invasion to search for weapons of mass destruction long enough to let out the WEAPONS INSPECTORS, maybe the invasion itself is unnecessary! Americans seem surprised to find how radically our global image has changed with the Iraq War. But it is not that war that bothers the rest of the world. The Iraq War itself may still turn into a good thing. No, what bothers everyone, what won''t let go, is the way that OTHER war was, and is still, being waged against democracy: with bullying, obfuscation, and faked intelligence. It is because our former allies realize that in this broader ''war'' this administration has NO intention of fighting with honor, and that dishonors all of us.
- Reply to this comment
- Oh I long for the day when this criminal will be tried.
Posted by USAyesterday at 09:35 PM : Dec 04, 2007
Somebody do it then.
Posted by AJMarine1 at 09:36 PM : Dec 04, 2007
................
We need to find and elect some ideological clones of Dennis Kucinich then. The challenge is in finding these people! - Reply to this comment
- Get off of the Clinton bull
Posted by j-whitman at 09:37 PM : Dec 04, 2007
I just ask a question; did he say that or not? - Reply to this comment
- AJMarine1 said: "Clinton: ''If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.''
If Bush was the only one who said stuff like this, then I could believe he lied"
The physicist Freeman Dyson once wrote, ''In war, how you fight is eventually more important than why''. The conduct of our military, its patience in battle and the lengths it goes to avoid civilian casualties, all measure up to one of our greatest foreign policy attributes. We can be proud of our soldiers. But there was another war, fought to convince people that the Iraq war was necessary. As the Downing Street memo proves, the Bush administration fought that war without honor. It began with secret meetings to spin the prelude to war so that it would appear regrettably inevitable. In a frontal assault White House lawyers argued that the 1991 Gulf War resolution was still active, so the president could order a new war without congressional approval. This assault was rebuffed, so a flanking action was begun with trumped-up evidence about Iraq''s nuke program. In war, timing is everything, so they forced a hasty war resolution out of Congress just before an election. Congressmen who voted against it were called traitors and cowards and turned out of office, including one who''d lost three limbs in Vietnam. They battled European war doubts with ''old Europe'' insults. When Canada and Mexico expressed doubts about the war, the response was ''doubts'' about government purchases from Canada and Mexico. - Reply to this comment
- AJMarine1,,,,, Get off of the Clinton bull -- He didn''t corrupt our nations intellegence services to launch us into a war did he ????
- Reply to this comment
- Oh I long for the day when this criminal will be tried.
Posted by USAyesterday at 09:35 PM : Dec 04, 2007
Somebody do it then. - Reply to this comment
- I''''ll refrain from using it...
Posted by j-whitman at 09:22 PM : Dec 04, 2007
Thank you. - Reply to this comment
- Bush LIED... and then he DENIED...
...while thousands DIED, and their families CRIED.
His words I cannot ABIDE.
Oh I long for the day when this criminal will be tried. - Reply to this comment
- Bush lied before during the runnup & invasion was a 1st choice, not the last one.
Posted by j-whitman at 09:22 PM : Dec 04, 2007
If Bush lied, then what was Clinton doing when he said this?
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq''s weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
If Bush was the only one who said stuff like this, then I could believe he lied; but you know as well as I that there is a whole page of people saying the samething and this was long before Bush got there. - Reply to this comment
- "And his denial was death, for so many who deserved to live."
SearingTruth
A Future of the Brave - www.searingtruth.com - Reply to this comment
- No matter who is right on Iran...
...I''d feel much safer if:
1. Bush and Cheney were out of office and behind bars
2. EVERY shipping container bound for the U.S. was inspected and/or scanned for possible explosives
3. Our Northern and Southern borders thoroughly secured/sealed
So then... if Iran wanted to build a nuke or two, then who cares! Israel could easily defend itself with their 200+ warheads. And the most important thing...
...Iran would be stupid to just fire any amount of nuclear armed missiles at anyone, because the calling card would be so easy to determine where the missile came from and Iran would be "wiped off the face of the earth" by whichever country was attacked (along with their allies).
Essentially... Iran, with or without nukes, is NOT a threat to the U.S., especially if my above suggestions were met. - Reply to this comment
