Yeah, let's stick w/a president who lied to the American people about Iraq....
Also, give Bush a chance & he'll make the Supreme Court full of justices in the mold of Scalia & Thomas...
WTF is that!
If this is your idea of a president, PLEASE SCHEDULE A VACATION IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC FROM NOVEMBER 1-15 & DON'T SUBMIT AN ABSENTEE BALLOT!
From the article:
"And if George Bush is reelected. He will not only have just one or two, but three or more possible Justices to the Supreme Court to nominate. And his model justices are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
And these are Justices who have voted to roll back the hard won rights that women and minorities and others have gained over the past many decades. So it is imperative that we educate and mobilize Americans about the Supreme Court and about what's at stake in this presidential election. And that is what the Campaign to Save the Court will do. Educate and mobilize Americans to vote to protect their rights and liberties"
-- Modified on 10/5/2004 11:54:42 AM
From the debates:
"KERRY: With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better.
I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together. The president did nothing."
Uh WTF is THAT!!!!!
Let's give a known terrorist state nuclear material!
If THIS is your idea of a presidential person, PLEASE DO NOT VOTE IN NOVEMBER!
Since we all know that he was referring to an organized program like that which we ran with NK, I can see that you are merely trying a Rove inspired smear tactic of misconstruing a candidate's position to scare people.
There are plenty of areas for genuine debate- try one of those.
-- Modified on 10/5/2004 6:21:14 PM
Yeah, let's stick w/a president who lied to the American people about Iraq....
Also, give Bush a chance & he'll make the Supreme Court full of justices in the mold of Scalia & Thomas...
WTF is that!
If this is your idea of a president, PLEASE SCHEDULE A VACATION IN THE SOUTH PACIFIC FROM NOVEMBER 1-15 & DON'T SUBMIT AN ABSENTEE BALLOT!
From the article:
"And if George Bush is reelected. He will not only have just one or two, but three or more possible Justices to the Supreme Court to nominate. And his model justices are Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
And these are Justices who have voted to roll back the hard won rights that women and minorities and others have gained over the past many decades. So it is imperative that we educate and mobilize Americans about the Supreme Court and about what's at stake in this presidential election. And that is what the Campaign to Save the Court will do. Educate and mobilize Americans to vote to protect their rights and liberties"
-- Modified on 10/5/2004 11:54:42 AM
... What is it that you don't understand here? Iran is making noises about building nuclear weapons and (like many countries) uses nuclear reactors for power generation. Countries can offer to sell Iran fuel conditional on inspections to insure that spent fuel isn't reprocessed into bomb material. This isn't a Kerry idea or a Bush idea: it's a smart idea and people from all sides of the political spectrum have said so. When we don't deal with countries over ideological issues, we just send them elsewhere to buy things. Sanctions only work when they are done in a very coordinated way.
When Mr Bush refused to deal with Iran, his decision was about as dume as our early refusal to trade with China or South Africa.
Maybe you should be the guy who doesn't vote this year.
Harry
Yeah lets let the UN inspectIran because they were so effective in Iraq. Look at their success with the oil for food program. I'll start building my bomb shelter now. Sanctions haven't worked anywhere, only the threat or use of force has made third world nations comply with UN resolutions, usually led by the USA.
Uh...they WERE effective in Iraq (as were the sanctions), as confirmed by today's Iraq Survey Group report
HEADLINE: U.S. Report Finds No Evidence of Iraq WMD
Snippet: "Contradicting the main argument for a war that has cost more than 1,000 American lives, the top U.S. arms inspector reported Wednesday that he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991. He also concluded that Saddam Hussein's weapons capability weakened during a dozen years of U.N. sanctions before the U.S. invasion last year."
Appeasement of Religious Fanatics by offering them nuclear material is utterly foolish. These are the same Mullahs who have an openly stated goal to destroy Israel. Hell, many of their Shahab-3 long-range missiles have the word "Israel" painted on the side.
Wake up.
RLTW
So....they build a reactor and you, and all the pacifist twits would like to speed along the process by giving them fuel.
And just what do you propose we do if they decide to reprocess the fuel for weapons?
Ohhhhh....I get it.....sanctions....Yep...THAT will sure stop them.
... bomb the reactor and whereever else I had to if the SOBs broke their word.
Khamenei told the gathering, "We must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims," the official said.
tHIS TRULY IS INCREDIBLE. WHAT IS KERRY GONNA DO IF THEY VIOLATE "THEIR WORD"????
sanctions.....that'll show em..
GEOSTRATEGY-DIRECT INTELLIGENCE BRIEF
Iranian leader wants nuke in 4 months
'We must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 2, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has urged his country's weapons developers to step up work on making a nuclear bomb, a U.S. official said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.
According to the official, an authoritative source in the Iranian exile community has stated that Khamenei met recently with senior government and military leaders on the nuclear weapons program.
Khamenei told the gathering, "We must have two bombs ready to go in January or you are not Muslims," the official said.
Jafari-Jalali, a member of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of the Majles, stated in an Iranian press interview last week that the recent International Atomic Energy Agency resolution calling on Iran to halt uranium enrichment could lead to Tehran withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Iran's military announced earlier this month that it would test-fire a "strategic" missile during the Ashura 5 military exercises of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.
Brig. Gen. Hossein Salami announced the missile test on Sept. 18. "The climax of this stage of the exercises is the actual missile operations and the testing of a series of missiles with different ranges," he said.
Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said earlier this month that "given that an effective deterrent policy does not halt at a certain point, the Islamic Republic of Iran continues upgrading its defensive capability."
Shamkhani said Iran has acquired an effective deterrent power to confront its enemies in the region.
Iran test-fired a Shihab-3 on Sept. 18 and had also tested one in August.
Meanwhile, British intelligence, working with Iraqi security, has uncovered a cell within the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps that is working to destabilize Iraq.
The Iranians had paid insurgents to conduct attacks in southern Iraq.
"I don't think there's any doubt that the Iranians are involved and are providing support" to the Iraqi insurgents, Secretary of State Colin Powell said last week.
is it really surprising that Iran would want a nuclear deterrent against a possible American invasion?
Not that I am saying we should encourage them in this capacity, but the thought that Iran is doing this to wage war of terrorist acts against this country is laughable.
Now, against Israel, that is another thing...but Israel has had nuclear capacity for more than 30 years.
made clear what it's intentions are.
WEAPONS.
Against who? Who cares? Does that make a difference to you?
Don't be a fool... he's every bit as tough as Bush... Watch the debate... Kerry is clearly a more highly functioning human being, that's all you need to know. Bush is scared of his own shadow; and kept repeating non-sequiters like "He says wrong war, wrong place, wrong time... is that the message to send our troop?" Uhhhh, George.. wake up, people DO want to know if it's the wrong war, etc... so someone can CLEAN IT UP! You don't just put your head in the sand... well, George does. It was hilarious to watch him repeat that line like it was some coup he'd uncovered! What a buffoon BUSH is!
OneK
was up to (Yeah Right), I don't see any problem trusting them to keep Khomeni in check. Do you???
LOL!
Geeze- that would be a great cutting comment- were it not for the new understanding that they had a pretty good idea....
the "new understanding" came a tad late, dontcha thunk?
This sounds like an effective use of the Godfather Rule: keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
The point is that big-boogie weapons are here to stay and constraining them isn't something exaggerated rhetoric and chest thumping can accomplish.
I don't think I've really read anything anywhere that poses an approach that makes sense. We need the new equivalent to mutually assured destruction where the dynamics & context disincent behavior.
Now, what that might be beats the hell outta me.