Couric did not challenge Giuliani's assertion that "Iran is moving toward" obtaining "nuclear weapons"
SUMMARY: Responding to a question from
CBS' Katie Couric, Rudy Giuliani asserted that "Iran is moving toward accomplishing
the worst nightmare of the Cold War -- nuclear weapons in the hands of an
irresponsible regime. And then they're threatening the use of these
weapons." Although the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran concluded with "high
confidence" that Iran
had "halt[ed]" its nuclear weapons program in 2003, Couric did not
challenge Giuliani's assertion or ask him a follow-up question about his
answer.
On the December 12 edition of the CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric did not challenge Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's assertion that "Iran is moving toward accomplishing the worst nightmare of the Cold War -- nuclear weapons in the hands of an irresponsible regime. And then they're threatening the use of these weapons, which is something unheard of."
But, contrary to Giuliani's assertion, the most recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran concluded with "high confidence" that Iran had "halt[ed]" its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and "assess[ed] with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007." Giuliani was responding to Couric's question: "What country ... frightens you the most and what would you do about it?" which was "one of the 10 questions" Couric is asking "each of the major [presidential] contenders" as part of the CBS Evening News' "Primary Questions: Character, Leadership, and the Candidates" series. Couric did not challenge Giuliani's assertion or ask him a follow-up question about his answer. While Couric does not always ask candidates follow-up questions as part of the Primary Questions series, she did ask a follow up of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on the very same question.
Contrary to Giuliani's assertion that "Iran is moving toward accomplishing" the development of "nuclear weapons", the NIE report concluded:
- We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.
- We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)
- We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
- We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.
- Tehran's decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.
Though Couric did not air a follow-up question challenging Giuliani's claims about Iran's nuclear capabilities and intentions, she did follow up McCain's answer to the same question:
McCAIN: Probably now Iran is the greatest threat, but the greatest threat is radical Islamic extremism. And one of the reasons why it's such a great threat, it spills over any international boundaries. It's in Denmark, it's in Germany, it's in Glasgow, Scotland. And it's trying to establish itself here in the United States of America, according to the director of the CIA. That's the great threat.
COURIC: What do you do to reduce or to calm the fires of this?
McCAIN: If we had succeeded in Iraq and used the right strategy, you and I would be talking of other things now. It has become a place where Al Qaeda wants to establish itself. It has become and will become, if we leave according to a date for withdrawal, a center of Al Qaeda activities who want to destroy everything we stand for and believe in.
From the December 12 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:
COURIC: No doubt about it, the world is a dangerous place. But which country do you believe is America's greatest enemy? In a CBS News/New York Times poll out tonight, Iran was named most often, followed by Iraq and China. And, by the way, 2 percent said the United States is its own worst enemy.
[begin video clip]
I put the same question to the men and woman running for president for our series "Primary Questions: Character, Leadership, and the Candidates." It's one of 10 questions we asked each of the major contenders.
COURIC: What country frightens you the most and what would you do about it as president?
[...]
McCAIN: Probably now Iran is the greatest threat, but the greatest threat is radical Islamic extremism. And one of the reasons why it's such a great threat, it spills over any international boundaries. It's in Denmark, it's in Germany, it's in Glasgow, Scotland. And it's trying to establish itself here in the United States of America, according to the director of the CIA. That's the great threat.
COURIC: What do you do to reduce or to calm the fires of this?
McCAIN: If we had succeeded in Iraq and used the right strategy, you and I would be talking of other things now. It has become a place where Al Qaeda wants to establish itself. It has become and will become, if we leave according to a date for withdrawal, a center of Al Qaeda activities who want to destroy everything we stand for and believe in.
[...]
GIULIANI: Iran gives me the greatest concern, because Iran is moving toward accomplishing the worst nightmare of the Cold War -- nuclear weapons in the hands of an irresponsible regime. And then they're threatening the use of these weapons, which is something unheard of. Even when we go back to the Cold War, with the Soviet Union and China, we didn't have these aggressive threats for the use of nuclear weapons, talking about retaliatory use then, and we had mutually assured destruction. And we have an irresponsible regime, a state sponsor of terrorism, that now aggressively wants to become a nuclear power and tells us that they want to destroy Israel and kind of take us over as well. So I think we have to stop them from becoming a nuclear power.
Repubs now have their narrative for this important drumbeat issue (for them). They just go on talking about World War III and act like the intelligence doesn't say what it says.
That's why we're in Iraq. The media supported THAT move, too.
What if that intelligence is just as wrong as the iraq intelligence? Is it o.k. for Iran to have nulcear weapons?
What if the Easter bunny exists?
You can't base an argument on a hypothetical.
Silly boy, Is it o.k. for Iran to have nuclear weapons?
As for your hopethical garbage, Do we not fund cancer research on the hypothetical that there may be a cure? Why is everything an absolute to you?
Yes, this from the poster who yesterday didn't know that 22% was less than 78%.
I said you can't base an argument on a hypothetical, not that you can't try to find a cure for something when no cure yet exists. If you can base an argument on a hypothetical as you are postutalting, then why can't I have you locked up for life? After all, you *might* someday try to kill me. Or, to make a more relevant argument, we now can invade any country we want because they *might* be a danger to us. By the way, do so is called preventive war and is clearly against international law, as established after WW2.
I'm going to do this for you one more time because your idiocy is appalling. I said that the United States gives 2.4 billion to the United Nations that is 22% of the operating budget. We give another 1.7 billion to United nations related programs and agencies which in total makes our contribution larger than the other 177 nations combined. Your attempt to incessantly attack the person you debate is a clear example of your inadequacies and what can only be deemed as a personality disorder.
Now then, If you did not know this there is a debate each year as to how much funding goes to fund cancer research. Some argue that it is imperative to fund more becasue hypothetically there will be a cure found, some argue that we are throwing money towards research which is wasted because if people ate right, didn't smoke, etc. the cancer rates would drop dramatically. The fact remains an argument is based on a hypothetical. I
t is so tiresome to engage you and have sophomoric undergraduate philosophy lessons regurgitated as rebuttals. Grow up and get over yourself. Engage the issue at hand and quit with the cute psuedo intellectualism. You didn't even know real historical facts concerning the 1956 elections in Vietnam for Christ's sakes and you have the audacity to preach to me? IN case you didn't go back and look I totally rebutted your historical revisionists crap you blindly regurgitated there. I'm quite sick of you to be honest, but I enjoy seeing you make a fool of yourself.
>>I'm going to do this for you one more time because your idiocy is appalling. I said that the United States gives 2.4 billion to the United Nations that is 22% of the operating budget. We give another 1.7 billion to United nations related programs and agencies which in total makes our contribution larger than the other 177 nations combined.
Wow you are dumb--and dishonest! You never said anything about the 1.7 billion in your argument yesterday. You added that after the fact. You originally made the argument that because we give 22%, we give more than all the other nations combined. When someone asked you to clarify, you simply repeated your point, not realizing how inaccurate it was.
But now you are even more humorous. You obviously can't do math, can you? If the United states gives 22% of the budget and they give 2.4 billion, how big is the overall operating budget? Oh, I know, your high school math is coming back to haunt you. How about this: try .22x = 2.4. X= 10. 9. So the overall operating budget is 10.9 billion.
Even if we add in the 1.7 billion you have just come up with, that means the US gives only 2.4 + 1.7 = 4.1 billion. The rest of the world gives 6.8 billion, just in the operating budget. I don't know how much they give to other agnencies. But guess what--your own figures proved you wrong, for the second day in a row!
And you are calling me stupid?
Your analogy about cancer reveals another logical fallacy, arguing by analogy. It may be true that we should fund cancer research (I agree), but of course, that has nothing to do with attacking a country based on a hypothetical.
You also engage in some nice name calling, which does nothing to your argument. And yes, I know that the US suppressed elections in Viet Nam:
link
The 1954 Geneva Accords required that a national election would be held in 1956 to reunite Vietnam under one government. However, the government of South Vietnam, now under the leadership of Ngo Dinh Diem, refused the proposed election and instead prepared for war. Some contemporary observers consider that if an election had been held in the 1954-55 period, around 80% of the Vietnamese population would have voted for Ho Chi Minh.[13] Even "President Eisenhower is widely quoted to the effect that in 1954 as many as 80% of the Vietnamese people would have voted for Ho Chi Minh, as the popular hero of their liberation, in an election against Bao Dai...
Can I just finalise this.... game set match? There we go. Established.
FUNNYMAN,
You are absolutely right. In my zeal to solidify my argument I became blinded by and utilized a statement from the internet which was wrong. I hope you will accept my humble apology. I must say this though, when this issue first came up I researched this and it is a fact that the United States contributes more than the other 177 nations combined. I used the 2,4 billion and 1.7 billion argument because I thought it would further validate me and I didn't even take the time to look it over. Here are the facts sir, according to Wikipedia the United Nations annual operating budget is 4.9 billion and the United States share is 22%. Now then, according to the State Department the United States total contributions are over 3 billion you can find this here http://www.uspolicy.be/USUN/usun.asp Look under the bold "UNITED STATES GENEROUSLY SUPPORTS THE UNITED NATIONS". .
Now, it is obvious you are too lazy to look at the past thread in which I systematically debunked your left wing revisionist history about Vietnam. I will do this again for your benefit, and hopefully your lackey TOMJOAD. Any way, here is the skinny my boy, Eisenhower fully supported the elections. President Diem did as well, he is quoted as saying "The clauses provided for in the 1956 elections are extremely vague. But, they are clear in stipulating that the elections are to be free. Everything will now depend on how the elections are defined". Now Diem's position was that he wanted to see "if the conditions for freedom existed at the time of the elections in the North" His point was that what good would an elections be if vote counting was preceeded in the North by "ruthless propoganda and the terrorism of a police state." It was widely known at the time, that the North, while calling for free elections did in now way follow the suggestions of the Soviet Union and Great Britain (co-chairs of the 1954 geneva accords) for setting up the appropriate machinery for free elections. It was also widely known at the time tht the government of North Vietnam freely admitted its shortcomings in facillititating these elections. General Giap stated at the fall party congress, that the government was engaging in widespread terror, failing to respect faith and worship in the land reform program, and THE USE OF TORTURE AS NORMAL PRACTICE.
Here is the part that you fail miserably to understand in your zeal to portray America as alwasy the bad guy. The elections in 1956 were prohibited due to the excesses of the north as well as the overall policy of "the Dominoe Theory" of the United States and it's allies. So you see, things are not always the fault of your country. You should re-evaluate your blame America first attitude. Furthermore, I feel the need to debunk another of your left wing revisionist understandings of this war. There is a common myth that most in the South supported the Vietcong after the failed 1956 elections because they hated Diem and wanted to live under communism. Not true. The people who hated Diem and eventually ended his rule were called Carvellistes. Of the 16 million in the South most supported the Carvellistes than the Vietcong. A prime example of this would be to look at the NLF which lacked one single Southern citizen in a leadership role. These leaders were put into place by the North. Georges Chaffard a French jopurnalist who did a story on the the Vietcong in 1965 showed that the Vietcong were unable to find a leader from the south and it's recruiting was devoid of many southerners as there was in fact no uprising from the southern people to commit to a communist insurgency. George Carver and American journalist who lived in Saigon for ten years wrote in 1965 tht there was "a strong emergence of nationalistic forces with a fundamental and overriding fact that the south was not in support of the Vietcong. Now, tht leads me to tell you and your buddy TOMJOAD this...I was there in 1966 and again in 1968. The populace on a whole was supportive and in fact those farmers had no desire to commit to a communist insurgency. In fact many of them hated the Vietcong for their strongarm tactics in forcing citizen support. the fact remains that your opinion of this war is only a subjective viewpoint with motive being to represent the Untited States as the villian.
Far from making a fool of himself, he ate your lunch.
In a perfect world no one, INCLUDING the USA would have nuclear weapons, but I don't believe we have the right to dictate which nations can have them.
Jeter I agree with you, I do not think the United States has right to dictate anything to other nations, with the exception of witholding any aid when it comes to violating human rights, that is a fundamental standard America must hold.
But Iran signed a non-proliferation treaty? Does that not apply?
That DOES apply it also gives them the RIGHT to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes when people have EVIDENCE that they are doing something else they ought to get back to us as THAT would be a rationale for sanctions which they cannot really afford. As of yet we have no such evidence and as Funnypants correctly pointed out MAYBE is not a reasonable argument to base policy on. We also have ZERO credibility after our baseless accusations against Iraqs for their non existant WMD programs.
Yes, they did. But they abrogated it, much like Bush abrogated the ABM treaty with Russia. So they are no longer bound by it.
I don't know. Is it OK for the US, Russia, China, Great Britain, France, Israel, Pakistan India, and North Korea to have them?
This is the nuclear archipelago - proliferation begats proliferation. As long as there are nuclear haves, there will be have-nots who want to join the club.
On what international legal principle do you exercise preemptive military action to prevent their acquisition, when do you act, and what are you willing to expend in blood and treasure?
Hypothetically, do we need international law to justify stopping an impending attack?
We are obviously going to disagree here, but I firmly believe that a nuclear Iran is a direct threat to our security. They actively fund terrorists, they actively fund and support insurgents in Iraq, which according to some's logic make them directly responsible for the deaths of Iraqi's and Americanns. Putting weapons like that into the hands of a theological radical government is irresponsible. It was irresponsible to give North Korea the technology they used to build theirs. Now a stark raving mad dictator who hates the United States, who gives weapons to terrorists states, and who thinks he is some kind of divinity has the ability to kill hundreds in the blink of an eye. Are you are comfortable with that?
International law allows for self defense. If Iran massed troops on Canada's border, we certainly could start a war. It doesn't allow for the nonsense we pulled in Iraq. If we can base a war on something that might happen to us (called preventive war), any nation ccould attack any other nation. (Germany used the excuse of preventive war in WW2, and it was rejected and considered a heinous offense.)
You have no proof of Iran funding Iraqi insurgents. You have adminstration reports, which like so much coming from this administration, are lies.
As far as funding terrorists goes, the US funded the contras in Nicaragua during the 80s, a full fledged terrorist group that killed 10,000 people. See the human rights report. Does that give Mexico the right to attack us? Or for a more current example, our war in Iraq is illegal, unethical, and unnecesary and has resulted in probably 100,000 unnecesary deaths. Does that give Iran the right to attack us in self defense because we might do to Iran what we did to Iraq?
It is widely accepted tht Iran is in fact giving weapons to insurgents which are being used against American soldiers and directly causing the deaths of Iraqi civilians. Lt. Gen Raymond Odierno in a interview with USA today confirmed that through serial number tracking on captured weapons and fragments of exploded devices it is incontravertable. Also ABC NEWS' Jonathan Karl and Martin Klancy reported in November 2006 that coalition forces seized Iranian made weapons that bear manufacturing dates of 2006. Like it or not they are arming insurgents who are killing Americans and innocent civilians. According to your viewpoint countries who actively support others with arms are directly responsible for the deaths incurred. Now, why don't you speak out against Iran like you do the country in which you live? Or, does motive for foreign policy actions offer absolvement?
I guess by your standards the Sandinista's were angels. Of course, they weren't Americans.
Now you are contradicting yourself. Earlier you claimed that I see everything as "absolute," but now it is actually you who are making the mistake. I don't think the Sandinistas were angels. I never said they were. They were the democractically elected gvernment of Nicaragua, however, and it was highly immoral of the US to back terrorism against them.
o brother. Chris, you're a tool.
What I want to know is... what is Guiiliani basing his assertion on??? Rumour?
Who is this man and why is he a candidate for you Presidency??
>>It is widely accepted tht Iran is in fact giving weapons to insurgents which are being used against American soldiers and directly causing the deaths of Iraqi civilians. Lt. Gen Raymond Odierno in a interview with USA today confirmed that through serial number tracking on captured weapons and fragments of exploded devices it is incontravertable. Also ABC NEWS' Jonathan Karl and Martin Klancy reported in November 2006 that coalition forces seized Iranian made weapons that bear manufacturing dates of 2006.
First, these claims are made all the time, and then end up being wrong. Second, let us get back to Viet Nam, which bears a lesson here. The US made the same claim when we attacked VietNam starting in the late 1950s, that Viet Nam had USSR-made weapons. It turned out to be true, but it also had even more US manafactured weapons! Even if it is true what you say, it doesn't in any way prove that Iran is directly supporting the insurgency. The black market will provide weapons from many different countries in a war.
Yes, when a country knowgingly supplies weapons to groups it knows will then use them in violations of human rights, as the US has done repeatedly since WW2, it bears responsibility. You have not shown that Iran has done that.
It is beyond a doubt that the US did attack Iran without cause, however--so will you condemn the US?
No it is NOT incontrovertable. It is a CLAIM. We KNOW they support Hezbollah and THEY are pretty much the worlds leading experts on IEDs. That is what they used to run Israel out of Lebanon. All our evidence is ambiguous and could easily be Hezbollah. I DID speak out against the Contras/US support but we STILL DID IT. It WAS US policy. Since it WAS, it is hypocritical to demand Iran comply to a standard we would NEVER accept for ourselves. We arm anyone we want and tell other countries how DARE you arm people in YOUR REGION that we dont like. It has no moral consistancy.
"...who gives weapons to terrorists states, and who thinks he is some kind of divinity has the ability to kill hundreds in the blink of an eye. Are you are comfortable with that?"
I wonder how many other bloggers across the world are writing the exact same words about The Bush Administration?
PJBauer's comment below re Israel is relevant, however, in response to your question it is immoral to attack first, in all cases. MAD works just as well with Iran as it does with any other state, Bush's rhetoric notwithstanding.
Would it have been immoral to attack theJ apanese fleet first while on their way to Pearl Harbor?
You are mixing up preventive and preemtive war. It would not have been illegal or imoral for the US to attack Japan if we had learned they were on their way to bomb Pearl Harbor. That is premptive war.
What is ililegal is preventive war, to attack a country because that country might, hypothetically, attack us in the future. That's what we did in Iran.
If we accept your logic, Iran is justified in attacking the US, because the US is more likely to attack Iran than the other way around.
Excellent point. Using the Bush Doctrine, or Dickhead Cheney's "1%" solution, almost any country in the world would be "justified" in attacking the U.S.
I would also point out that we supported terrorists in the Afghan/Soviet war. One of those terrorists is now thumbing his nose at us from a cave somewhere in Pakistan. By current NeoClown logic, the Soviets would have been justified in attacking us, since weapons we paid for were being used to kill their soldiers. After all, the Soviets had as much business in Afghanistan as we have in Iraq.
When someone attacks Iranian forces marching TOWARD them get back to us. Until then its more like would it be moral to have attacked the Japanese in August of 41 JUST IN CASE they were going to attack Pearl Harbor. You keep pretending we KNOW things you are guessing about.
Would it have been immoral to attack theJ apanese fleet first while on their way to Pearl Harbor?
No. When Iranian Ships are sailing our way, you let me know. Right now, your argument is almost identical to the Japanese side of that issue than the US's. They attacked us at Pearl Harbor as a preemptive strike because they thought that we were developing nuclear weapons and were going to use them on Japan. Are you saying that the attack on Pearl Harbor was justified? I would ask you to think it out a little further, even, and realize that their preemptive strike was not the solution to their paranoid prophecy, but ended up being the reason for it.
Self defense IS legal by international law. We have NO evidence Iran is pursuing nuclear weaponry. NONE. Maybe, might, could be are meaningless in this context. How is Iran arming the insurrgents another thing we dont have evidence to support, any different than US arming the Contras? Or the Muhajadeen? Why is it we continue to demand other countries comply to standards we would never accept for ourselves. What is the rationale that makes do what we say not what we do reasonable? Aminajead is NOT a dictator he actually has virtuall no power. THAT is in the hands of a split power the Clerics and the counsel of experts and neither of them are led by insane leaders the leader of the clerics said Nuclear weapons are immoral and the leader of the counsel of experts has three times offered a diplomatic solution that Bush rebuffed. This is an easy diplomatic fix. It just cant be solved by telling Iran to do what they are told.
ACHRISPAGE says, "Now a stark raving mad dictator who hates the United States, who gives weapons to terrorists states, and who thinks he is some kind of divinity has the ability to kill hundreds in the blink of an eye. Are you are comfortable with that?"
RESPONSE: I certainly AM NOT. IMPEACH BUSH NOW!
People misunderestimate GW Bush as a TEACHER.
In world politics, he certainly knows how to instruct other nations how to behave.
For example, he IDENTIFIED an "AXIS OF EVIL", nations he's really angry at.
IRAQ is on that list, had no nukes (or any defense, really), and so GW Bush invades.
North Korea is part of Bush's Axis of Evil, but hey, N. Korea HAS nukes. Will not be invaded.
IRAN is on that list. Bush's lesson to them is crystal clear: Don't want to be invaded? GET THE NUKES!
This is how nuclear proliferation works. Aggressors like Bush necessitate nations needing nukes to defend against unwarranted invasion.
LESSON LEARNED, you better believe it!
Thanks Tex.
I think the intelligence estimate that says that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program is no doubt as flawed as the one that said that Iraq was an imminent threat for the same simple logic illustrated above.
Iran getting nuclear weapons capability would put them in the class of nations that have less fear of direct military action taken against them out of fear of ultimate retaliation. I doubt that they would use them in a first strike capability, but they would definitely be less reticent in using them as a counterattack than many other nuclear nations, including the US, are.
But what is the solution to this dilemma? The wingnut brigade seem to think that the answer is Iraq Part II. Seeing as how well the original is turning out for us that doesn't seem to be such a great idea. Ultimately this is a major factor in why none of the leading Republic Presidential cnadidates deserve our votes, they have proven that their philosophy of Imperialism is nothing but disaster.
The Iraq intelligence was not wrong Chris. It was deliberately interpreted in a skewed manner. The intelligence consistently said Iraq was not a threat to the US or any of her neighbors.
Mushroom clouds from Iraq then...WWIII from Iran today. We've seen this movie before.
Yes, we have seen this movie before...too bad that more people in the media don't seem to remember the ending.
I don't think the U.S. has much to worry about. The country they have threatened “to wipe off the map” will take care of it for us if and when the possibility seems imminent.
They didnt make that threat according to Juan Cole. A man who SPEAKS Farsi and is a leading middle east expert. What he said was they should disappear from the pages of history. Reagan made an almost identical claim about the USSR in the 80s. It has nothing to do with tanks or military force. It was a quote of Khomeini citing an 8th Century Iranian poet.
Regardless of whether it was said or not - do you think Israel would let Iran develop nuclear weapons? They'd destoy the development site in a heartbeat. Done it before, and they'll do it again. So why should we worry about Iran?
"What if that intelligence is just as wrong as the iraq intelligence?"
Most of the Iraq intel available at the time pointed to the conclusion that we have today. We went to war based on the cherry-picked BS.
Didn’t we just finally get past 50 years of living under a “what if” cloud a few decades ago? I just don’t want another generation raised up under an umbrella of fear and suspicions and am tired of hearing war mongerers and their “what if” doomsday scenarios.
Sure there are a lot of regimes in the world that I am not comfortable with - but Iraq, and numerous failed military attempts in recent years, have proven that we can’t be the “world police”. I think the best we can do is sit back and focus on problems at home, while using any means short of direct military action to try to help resolve issues abroad.
If we are to spread democracy by example, what we have been doing for the past 5 years is not a very good model.So... what your saying is that we should invde, attacke, nuke, etc, whatever... Because one day the might? News flash, you psycho: "One day" ANY country could have nukes. Attacking them for no reason only JUSTIFIES the use of nuclear weapons against US! Why is it that you people think we can do whatever we want, killing millions in the process and the rest of the world should just toe the line and let us do it? And you wonder why your opposition makes Hitler comparisons? LISTEN TO YOURSELVES! If Iran actually DOES something, I'll be all for attacking them. But I will never support attacking on a WHIM. Which is what it's called when you actu without provocation, and without any decent reason. (Like... in Iraq, maybe?) To attack just becasue "they don't like us" and because "they know how to make nukes" (something that anyone with a college physics book and access to Google could know) makes us as bad as them!
And if I should die as a result of my position? (Maybe as the result of a terrorist act?) THEN I DIED DEFENDING FREEDOM. If you don't understand that... if you're not willing to do the same... Only cowardice can explain your position. The very definition of a "chicken-hawk."
A programming tip to those striving to understand how, with REALITY being CLEARLY stated by the EXPERTS, Rightwingers continue to cling to their fantasies as if just saying them makes them true.
Rudy G. has a vested interest in having a nuclear IRAN to do battle against, so Iran is a nuclear threat, NO MATTER WHAT THE FACTS ARE.
So, the programming tip: a show called "Restaurant Nightmares". Each episode, a restaurant trouble-shooter goes into an eatery on the brink of bankruptsy, and tells them what they need to do to become successful. Without fail, the owner/chef refuses to believe that it's HIS menu and HIS cooking that's at fault. They are invariably in stubborn denial, in the face of undeniable evidence of their failure, and conservatively wish to retain the status quo.
In these owners/chefs, see Rightwingers, clinging to their preconceived notions and the "way we've always done things", despite mountainous evidence that it is a FAILED formula. That CHANGE is needed, drastic change. That their notions are WRONG and UNWORKABLE, and this is why they are in trouble.
The denial level is stunning. You read 700 pages from 19 intelligence agencies that say IRAN HAS NO NUKES AND NO PROGRAM, and then the next sentence out of Rudy G's mouth? "So, about Iran's nukes, we need to ..." as if nothing penetrated. Is as if they're wearing a FACT CONDOM over their brains, and nothing can get through the shield.
Fact Condom. Gotta love that. How can anyone be a Republican these days without one?
Iran says they will destroy Israel. They are test firing rockets to send warheads thousands of miles. They are running hundreds/thousands of centrifuges to seperate out fuel? Also I remember that when India and Pakistan set off nuclear bombs, our intellegence community found out by watching CNN. A good CIA would be a great help to the US. At present, many people think it should be part of the Salvation Army.
First, Iran doesn't say it will destroy Israel. On leader does, who happens to not even control the military. Iran may have centrifugal devices running, but they can't produce weapons grade bomb material.
Do you have any proof that Iran is really a threat to the US? Maybe you should call up Colin Powell. I hear he has some good pictures to share.
Actually even HE didnt say that according to Juan Cole it was a mistranslation.
The part I don't get is how these chickenhawks are calling for us to bomb Iran, but no one is calling them on the fact that we still haven't caught bin Laden. How about we go after someone who actually attacked the US instead of dwelling on hypotheticals? Unfortunately our media sucks, so this will never be asked.
shhh you're supposed to be to distracted by this kind of story. you are not to remember that they have not got bin ladin and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11
How true. One of our regular posters uses the analogy which I find quite appropriate. He equates our stalwart Press Corps to a pack of puppies chasing a ball. Just when they're about to uncover something stinky, the Bushies toss out another ball, and the puppies run slobbering after it. The guys on MSNBC seem to be the only ones spending much time on the Bush Rot, but even they get distracted by the non-stories. It's maddening.
The supreme leader of Iran (Ayatollah Ali Khamenei) issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons in 2005. Isn't it interesting that the administration doesn't mention that the person who actually has the power in the country has declared that developing nukes violates the principles of Islam.
Why would Couric challenge Giuliani's assertion? It's true on the face of it. The NIE only states that Iran stopped its weapons program -- as far as we know. There's no reason to think they won't resume it 'most any time, is there? The NIE does not state that Iran has stopped enriching Uranium -- which is the hard part of making a bomb -- all they have to do is to keep the centrifuges spinning and they'll have it. According to the NIE, Iran could have enough for a bomb in 2009. Look at the calendar -- we're awfully close to 2008 right now -- how long until 2009 gets here? Iran's working on missiles which have no real value except to deliver nuclear warheads. Iran still will not allow inspectors in. Is anyone really naive enough to think that we needn't be concerned? I know, it doesn't happen often, but this time Giuliani's right.
he is not right he just really does not want anyone to pay attention to all the leaks his campaign has sprung.
It's pretty simple, really. History has shown us that the Fascists who now control the Republican party need FEAR in order to stay in power. Without a scary boogyman to shake at their gullible base, they don't have a chance. What else are they going to run on? Bigger tax cuts for those struggling oil companies? Less federal spending on useless stuff...like education? Making sure that our uninsured citizens remain that way?
Rush Limbaugh, as usual, is leading the charge. Doing the bidding of his corporate sugardaddies, he's ridiculing the NIE, urging on those Troglodytes in Congress who are threatening an investigation of the traitors at the CIA who had the audacity to embarrass President Numbnuts.
Isn't it interesting that they chose this time to release the results of that vitally important investigation into Baseball steroid use? What is everybody talking about today?
that now aggressively wants to become a nuclear power and tells us that they want to destroy Israel and kind of take us over as well.
"Kind of take us over as well"? How? We have thousands of nukes....they are maybe "trying" to get them, maybe not.
It is amazing the "possible" threats the right will dig up to throw at the American people.
And in case no one mentioned, Israel HAS nukes, so I think Iran is not gonna be taking Israel out of the history books anytime soon.
The rights obsessive protection of Israel is fanaticism at its finest. Yet they refuse to see it.
But, RG is not one of those people in my opinion, he is just saying any damn thing that will ring the bells of the right wingers to try and get himself in the white house. Fear and the middle east does that to them. He knows this, We know this. About the only people that don't know this is the right wingers themselves.