Recommended Posts
ryoder 1,590
Quote
That they were apparently "left behind" and probably went through the same education program as this person.
http://www.break.com/index/kelly-pickler-on-game-show1.html
Omigod! People like that make it impossible for me to defend the right of all citizens to vote, let alone reproduce. I was actually feeling sorry for Foxworthy having to deal with that idiot, but at least he got in a couple zingers.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.
QuoteYou posted the snipett about why Iran stopped. In that very posing is says in the agreement Iran will stop enrichment, not just the nuke program. Do you believe Iran has stopped enrichment?
Iran has maintained that they have the right to pursue nuclear energy production. A power plant cannot run on natural uranium. For all practical purposes, the fuel must be made from either enriched uranium (low enrichment nowhere near what's necessary for weapons) or reprocessed spent fuel (e.g. plutonium).
Blues,
Dave
"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)
(drink Mountain Dew)
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou posted the snipett about why Iran stopped. In that very posing is says in the agreement Iran will stop enrichment, not just the nuke program. Do you believe Iran has stopped enrichment?
Interesting - why are you replying to your own post and asking questions of yourself?
Are you sure you are OK?
I did not ignore it, as I just learned that earlier this AM.
so that answers that question
I am still very suspect of this report, how it was released and why. time will tell
Nice
Well, it's not exactly normal to write questions to yourself as if you are a different person, and post them on a public forum. So just making sure you're OK.Quote
Your post indicated an agreement stopped enrichment as well as nuke developement. do you think enrichment processing stopped??
Low level enrichment is not forbidden under the treaty, so how is that relevant to anything? My post also contained the phrase "as defined by the IAEA", which you conveniently ignored.
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,114
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>A power plant cannot run on natural uranium.
Well, CANDU reactors can. One option might be to simply give them CANDU reactors and _then_ ask them to stop enriching.
Well, CANDU reactors can. One option might be to simply give them CANDU reactors and _then_ ask them to stop enriching.
kallend 2,147
Quote>A power plant cannot run on natural uranium.
Well, CANDU reactors can. One option might be to simply give them CANDU reactors and _then_ ask them to stop enriching.
So can MAGNOX, but they're obsolete.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,114
>So can MAGNOX, but they're obsolete.
True - and I'd hesitate to give a plutonium breeder to Iran. CANDU's are fairly resistant to modification into breeders.
True - and I'd hesitate to give a plutonium breeder to Iran. CANDU's are fairly resistant to modification into breeders.
kallend 2,147
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou posted the snipett about why Iran stopped. In that very posing is says in the agreement Iran will stop enrichment, not just the nuke program. Do you believe Iran has stopped enrichment?
Interesting - why are you replying to your own post and asking questions of yourself?
Are you sure you are OK?
I did not ignore it, as I just learned that earlier this AM.
so that answers that question
I am still very suspect of this report, how it was released and why. time will tell
Nice
Your reply's structure eludes me.
Could you perhaps rephrase that?...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
rushmc 23
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Something more to consider. And please, I only post for info, I am not saying anything other than somethink does not compute, to me at leasthttp://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/12/nie_an_abrupt_aboutface.asp
NIE: An Abrupt About-Face
As many recognize, the latest NIE on Iran’s nuclear weapons program directly contradicts what the U.S. Intelligence Community was saying just two years previously. And it appears that this about-face was very recent. How recent?
Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE’s publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (emphasis added):
Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.
This paragraph appeared under the subheading: "Iran Assessed As Determined to Develop Nuclear Weapons." And the entirety of Fingar’s 22-page testimony was labeled "Information as of July 11, 2007." No part of it is consistent with the latest NIE, in which our spooks tell us Iran suspended its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003 "primarily in response to international pressure" and they "do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."
The inconsistencies are more troubling when we realize that, according to the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Fingar is one of the three officials who were responsible for crafting the latest NIE. The Journal cites "an intelligence source" as describing Fingar and his two colleagues as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials." (The New York Sun drew attention to one of Fingar’s colleagues yesterday.)
So, if it is true that Dr. Fingar played a leading role in crafting this latest NIE, then we are left with serious questions:
Why did your opinion change so drastically in just four months time?
Is the new intelligence or analysis really that good? Is it good enough to overturn your previous assessments? Or, has it never really been good enough to make a definitive assessment at all?
Did your political or ideological leanings, or your policy preferences, or those of your colleagues, influence your opinion in any way?
Many in the mainstream press have been willing to cite this latest NIE unquestioningly. Perhaps they should start asking some pointed questions. (Don’t hold your breath.)
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,114
I note how some of the very people who were defending the decision to invade Iraq based on the "best intelligence we had at the time" (even though we knew it was questionable) are now defining the latest intelligence as questionable and certainly not worth acting on! It almost seems as if the criteria for validity of the intelligence report is not supporting data, but whether it agrees with the poster's politics.
QuoteQuoteQuote
I've seen laddles that are sharper then that knife.
what does that say about the people who voted him in?
That they were apparently "left behind" and probably went through the same education program as this person.
http://www.break.com/index/kelly-pickler-on-game-show1.html
But she's cute!
She's purdy.
jakee 1,594
QuoteI note how some of the very people who were defending the decision to invade Iraq based on the "best intelligence we had at the time" (even though we knew it was questionable) are now defining the latest intelligence as questionable and certainly not worth acting on! It almost seems as if the criteria for validity of the intelligence report is not supporting data, but whether it agrees with the poster's politics.
Some of which intelligence (back in 02/03) was absolutely false (the UK's 45 minute dossier for example).
This is the thing that rankles me when people say things like "Dems wanted to invade Iraq too based on the same info that Bush had" - which kind of ignores the massive political pressure which the Bush admin obviously brought to bear to actually get the questionable intelligence in the first place.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
ryoder 1,590
More fuel for the fire:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CNN_Seymour_Hersh_vindicated_by_new_1205.html
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/CNN_Seymour_Hersh_vindicated_by_new_1205.html
QuoteRAW STORY's Larisa Alexandrovna further reported in January 2007 that the NIE on Iran was intended to be released later that month, but that John Negroponte's was being replaced as Director of National Intelligence because he had refused to tailor the NIE to Vice President Cheney's specificiations.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.
rushmc 23
Interesting story something to consider in all of this.
Interesting website too
http://www.rawstory.com/
Interesting website too
http://www.rawstory.com/
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
SkyDekker 1,465
I think it is becoming more and more clear that there are two driving forces behind national Intelligence in the US and that one is clearly in the lead.....Cheney's staff has an incredible influence on NI. I sometimes wonder if Bush's staff ever has a say at all....
ryoder 1,590
QuoteI think it is becomming mroe and more clear that their are two driving forces behind national Intelligence in the US and that one os clearly in the lead.....Cheney's staff has an incredible influence on NI. I sometimes wonder if Bush's staff ever has a say at all....
I'm just curious which of these is happening:
a) Bush & Cheney work together.
b) Cheney is in charge while Bush acts as a figurehead.
c) Cheney lets Bush think he is running the show while Cheney really pulls all the strings.
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.
QuoteQuoteI think it is becomming mroe and more clear that their are two driving forces behind national Intelligence in the US and that one os clearly in the lead.....Cheney's staff has an incredible influence on NI. I sometimes wonder if Bush's staff ever has a say at all....
I'm just curious which of these is happening:
a) Bush & Cheney work together.
b) Cheney is in charge while Bush acts as a figurehead.
c) Cheney lets Bush think he is running the show while Cheney really pulls all the strings.
d) There are political alliances within the govt. that transend whatever political party is in power and have their own agenda. Administrations come and go, but these Govt. Beauracrats hold the real power. Politicians are mostly just icons.
nerdgirl 0
QuoteThere are political alliances within the govt. that transend whatever political party is in power and have their own agenda. Administrations come and go, but these Govt. Beauracrats hold the real power. Politicians are mostly just icons.
In some ways … but perhaps not in the way one might initially read.
Civil servants recognize that partisan control of the Executive Branch and Congress will change. What doesn’t change is the Executive Branch versus Congress.
That’s the real divide in DC … not Republican-Democrat. Flippantly, Congress thinks it’s their money that the Executive Branch should do with as Congress dictates; the Executive Branch thinks it’s their money that Congress won’t give it to them. Everyone thinks that they're doing the 'right' thing for the taxpayer and the nation.
Civil servants have the tacit knowledge, the experience, and the personal networks to get things done. That’s a hugely underestimated value, in some ways similar to still-active low-D number skydivers. Political appointees – that is, the Executive branch leadership – are sometimes like a 200-jump wonder (w/that excitement), sometimes like Lew Sanborn (w/wisdom and experience), and sometimes like a whuffo … but they have the decision-making power.
Depending on the level, policy is signed off by political appointees or Senior Executive Service members (equivalent to a General Officer in civil service). The usual quip is “you never sign what you write and you never write what you sign.” And let’s not forget that in DoD, many of the offices are supported by uniformed folks. Heck, in many parts of DoD, it’s *much* easier to get a military billet than a civilian billet; trying to add a civilian billet in OSD is almost impossible. Adding contractors is the easiest.
There also are pseudo-political alliances as far as Soviet studies scholars (i.e., Cold War mentality) versus those who aren’t (post-Cold War). In some Executive Branch agencies these differences are more pronounced, one might speculate.
VR/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
Gawain 0
Let's remember that this report is called the: National Intelligence Estimate.
All of the sudden the intel is correct? Everyone has been crying about how wrong the intel has been the past 7 years...
Peaceful nuclear power programs do not require an untold number of hardened bunkers or underground construction.
The fact that there's a report saying the program has stopped does not really answer the question "why?". It still sites that Iran would have enough material to build one by 2010 (only two years away).
Meanwhile, Iran is still sending men and materiel into Iraq to stage attacks against Iraqis and US forces there. Does that mean Iran is still not dangerous?
All of the sudden the intel is correct? Everyone has been crying about how wrong the intel has been the past 7 years...
Peaceful nuclear power programs do not require an untold number of hardened bunkers or underground construction.
The fact that there's a report saying the program has stopped does not really answer the question "why?". It still sites that Iran would have enough material to build one by 2010 (only two years away).
Meanwhile, Iran is still sending men and materiel into Iraq to stage attacks against Iraqis and US forces there. Does that mean Iran is still not dangerous?
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!
jenfly00 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteAnother thing sir. talking down your nose to me is not going to make me shut up. That tactic dont fly with me any more. I have enough confidence in my beliefs that you cant shut me up with that way(like you do to others)
Faith in your beliefs, in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are wrong, is indeed a wonderful thing.
I await your evidence
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
It must be very difficult continuing year after year to defend an administration that has been proven to lie to the Congress and the people, to have run roughshod over guaranteed rights, to have presided over record deficits, to have stood by while the value of the nation's currency drops into the gutter, to have started an immoral war under false pretenses that continues to drain American lives and treasure.
I have to say I admire your tenacity even if your judgment is terrible.
I suspect it becomes easier for him as his withdraws further and further inside a world than can only exist in his mind. As less and less reality gets in, the more confident he is in what he spews out. I used to disagree with his ideology, now I just wonder how he can believe what he just wrote makes sense.
It's quite sad, actually.
Your insult some one to shut them up tactic failed again
Why would I expect you to shut up when my post explains why you cannot?!?!?
My intention was to sum up a process most of us have observed for some years now in the faint hope you might ...get better. I sincerely apologize for any insult you interpreted.
-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".
"O brave new world that has such people in it".
jenfly00 0
QuoteLet's remember that this report is called the: National Intelligence Estimate.
All of the sudden the intel is correct? Everyone has been crying about how wrong the intel has been the past 7 years...
I can understand and even accept 'wrong'. The fact it was fabricated takes it to a much different level.
-----------------------
"O brave new world that has such people in it".
"O brave new world that has such people in it".
Erroll 80
Quoted) There are political alliances within the govt. that transend whatever political party is in power and have their own agenda. Administrations come and go, but these Govt. Beauracrats hold the real power. Politicians are mostly just icons.
There is an awful lot of icon-bashing happening in this forum when clearly the Govt. Beauracrats are the ones that should be bashed.
crwtom 0
QuoteWhile I typically vote conservative I do happen to think that bush isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer. Thank God she has finally been reigned in by some people on the hill and some of the military commanders.
Scarborough said the other morning Bush was either outright
lying or he is plain stupid to talk about WW III and already know
at least the basics of what was coming in the NIE report.
I think it's both - Bush is really stupid to think he can give clearly
deceptive scare speeches like that against better knowledge,
browbeat the intelligence community into compliance, and get
away with it for a second time.
It seems he still didn't get this proverb straight.
This was the CIAs chances to regain some credibility after the
Iraq intelligence disaster. They took it and, IMO, gained a lot of
ground in the credibility war between CIA and WH about who is
mainly to blame for the intelligence f**k-ups in 2002/2003.
Cheers, T
*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true
but he wasn't really VOTED in was he? wasn't he APPOINTED in by the Supreme Court? Or is that some BS detail that is not of any real concern?
But now, if this point is then acknowledged, then we also need to examine the electronic voting fraud potential, along with the numerous conflicts of interest regarding the electronic voting industry and federal, state and local governments, right?? Do we need to get into the 'proprietary' software that runs these devices or the less than 1 minute to 'flash' the device with a new 'proprietary' program?? Programs which are not subject to ANY oversight whatsoever???
elected my ass...
www.ronpaul2008.com
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites