Ron Paul Vindicated on Iran
Ron Paul is the only non-Armageddon presidential candidate among the Republicans. He is the only person who staunchly opposes a massive first strike against Iran because of its alleged nuclear program. He has long been ridiculed for his aversion to preemptive genocide in the Middle East.
The National Intelligence Estimate yesterday reported that Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003. This blows to pieces the Bush-Neoconservative case for war.
Bush knew this for at least the last 5 or 6 months, but he continued rattling his missiles and warning of World War III if Iran did not kowtow to U.S. demands. Cheney has been even more bloodthirsty, as usual.
Top Bush supporters like Norman Podhoretz are wailing that the intelligence agencies are cheating them out of another U.S. government-orchestrated slaughter of Muslims. Not exactly “Presidential Medal” Podhoretz’s words, but that’s the soul of the complaint.
In the Fall of 2002, Ron Paul stood almost alone denouncing the “phantom weapons” claims the Bush team was invoking to attack Iraq. Once again, he has been proven right.
The Presidentianl Candidates
December 4th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
How can anyone still support these war-mongering neocons? W has been flat out lying about Iran… It seems like this should be considered illegal.
d victor
December 4th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
great article thank you.
rp08
Jim
December 4th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
How bad does Colin Powell these days? And Dick should be in prison for the damage he’s done in the President’s name. Could have been very different if we had more Ron Pauls in Congress. But since we have only one, let’s elect him President. Dec. 16, Boston Tea Party, marks a new beginning.
Daniel McAdams
December 4th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
But the real question, Jim, is “what nuclear weapons program”?
I detect some monkey business in this NIE and the public release at this time. There has never been evidence presented of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, only the wild claims of the current administration. Indeed, the IAEA has always been very skeptical about such claims and has not offered any evidence on its own. So there is ample reason to continue scratching our heads.
Chris S
December 4th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
He will be further vindicated when he is President :)
Chris S
December 4th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
I wonder if Norman Podhoretz likes flouride in his Kool Aid?
James Bovard
December 4th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Daniel – Thanks for the comment.
I think we have only seen the surface of the Bush team’s lies on Iran. If this NIE had come out earlier, the Kyl-Lieberman hokum would have faced more heat on the Hill.
Do you have any insights or hunches on how the NIE got out? Or what the Bush team might concoct next to try to justify attacking?
charlie ehlen
December 4th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Oh dear, looks like the wheels are coming off the Shrub’s little war tricycle.Poor little feller.
This entire criminal administration needs to be up on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, plus many others too numerous to add here. When convicted, they should ALL be made to do LIFE at making little rocks from big rocks. Not little rocks at the end of the day, no supper.
As a possible alternate punishment, here in Louisiana they have prisoners pick up trash along the roads, under supervision of a deputy or three of course. Imagine this gang being made to do this. We could charge folks $10.00 to take photos of them in orange jumpsuits picking up trash, OR making little rocks. Bet we could pay down the national debt really quick.
Just my 2 cents.
Jim
December 4th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Well, the US President & Congress knew that Iran – like Libya and North Koran – had a nuclear program based on Pakistan’s energy-shift-to-weapons nuclear program (the one that Abdul Qadeer Khan took the heat {January 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan)} for selling to those other countries).
My guess is once the US told Pakistan to shut down that program, Iran’s weapons program got cut off. Pakistan’s got the energy-to-nukes technology which Iran needs to complete their program. So, who knows if Pakistan needs money maybe they’ll transfer the rest of the technology.
One word, BLOWBACK
Matt
December 4th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
Here’s Paul questioning Condi on their Iran BS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYa9EFcvsrE
At 4:28 he just gives her a look of “You lying bitch!”
Kenneth
December 4th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Ron Paul 10, Neocons 0
Tess
December 4th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
I am proud to state that I am ex-military, I am also very proud to state that I will vote and support Ron Paul. We need to bring our troops home, and stop this administration from continuing this damage overseas. We need to protect our borders at home and fix our financial problems here. We have a great Country, and awesome citizens, lets do us all a favor and fix us first before we take care of the rest of the world.
momo
December 4th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
ur adm. clearly indicates how evil people can come to power and do a lot of damage. Adolf Hitler was elected to office too!
momo
Brian Horsfield
December 4th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Here’s a great new YouTube called Defenders of Liberty. It gives short clips of the speeches of Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul on foreign policy, monetary reform and limited goverment. This viral marketing is defeating the neocons and their warmongering ways! Watch it at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4978473735422412578
Paul
December 4th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Ron Paul is what America needs and I do not want to hear the diatribe about your vote being wasted. Vote your conscience.
Peace
December 4th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
And to think that even the fair lady Plame, outed as a CIA spy by the Whitehouse officials, has just last month been running around my country spouting off that Iran is in the process of attempting to develop a nuclear weapon for sinister purposes, trying to sell the book that she has just had published. Do we ever need a probing press; people that are willing to make the powerful government monkeys as uncomfortable as it takes to get the truth out of them. QUESTION AUTHORITY. Our very lives depend on doing so.
James J Wilson
December 4th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
To be fair, Bush “officially’ found out about this on 11/28/07. It just goes to show though, that Paul again has the vision of a leader, and the establishment has the vision of a blind man.
DiddleySquat
December 4th, 2007 at 10:30 pm
I agree with everyone were who says that among the Republicans only Ron Paul makes sense. In fact, he makes more sense than the leading “dodge the question” Democratic candidates.
But another point that needs to be made. Bush’s foreign policy, and U.S. foreign policy in general, makes it desirable if not necessary for other countries to develop nuclear capability. North Korea has nukes and has done more to provoke Washington than Iraq ever did (except it has no oil to speak of). But there won’t be an invasion in the far east precisely because of the nukes. Pakistan has more Taliban loyalists than Afghanistan ever did. But they, too, have nukes and so they will evade occupation.
It all adds up. If a country wants to be safe from the U.S. military, their only real option is to have nuclear capability. How better could we provoke the proliferation of “weapons of mass destruction”?
Carol Watson
December 4th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Which leads to a big question: In light of this new intelligence analysis, does Poland and the rest of eastern Europe still need America to build them a missile defense shield against those pesky Iranian missiles carrying nuclear warheads? I would think not.
Jerry
December 4th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
How much does it take to “Impeach” G W Bush?
What the hell is wrong with you people over there?Are you tired of living?
Tim R.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:15 am
Question for those who think President Bush and company are outright liars who fabricate our intelligence:
Do you believe the NIE report, or did Bush make that up too?
If Bush wanted to start a war with Iran so badly, and he and Cheney are all such liars, why did they allow this report to come out?
If you do believe that the report is true, would that not be a complete vindication of Bush’s foreign policy? After seeing what we did to the Taliban in Afghanistan as well as Saddam in Iraq, Libya got scared and gave up their weapons program, and now, it seems, Iran did the same.
So you can’t have it both ways. If Bush is a liar why did this report come out? Then again, if Bush is a liar why do you believe this report? If you do believe the report than his foreign policy is working to the extent that it got Iran to give up its weapons program.
Tim R.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:21 am
To impeach the President? Well, you can’t impeach someone just because you dislike them or disaree with them. Impeachment can only be brought for treason, bribary, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. A 2/3 majority of the Senate is required to convict.
Tim R.
December 5th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Well, said Tess, I am all for protecting the borders. But what about the Islamic terrorists who plot our destruction? Do we just stand by and wait until they hit us again? There is an old saying that the best defense is a good offense. The French believed they could stay on defense before Hitler invaded and took them over in June of 1940. If they and the British and went on offense as soon as Hitler started to build up his forces, in violation of the Versaille Treaty, maybe he would have never been able to kill as many as he did. We can’t just play defense, we have to remain on offense against these IslamoFascists.
XtraMental
December 5th, 2007 at 2:26 am
The Bush administration’s actions are criminal to say the least yet he remains in office. Wow America, where’s your backbone? Without your voice and action King George will continue his tyranny. Didn’t his daddy used to run the CIA? How are they getting all this shady intelligance that gets the wardrums beating?
And Hilary is the other choice? That’d be 28 years of Bush/Clinton if she served n 8 year term.
Look, I got kids growing up in this world and this country is being ran by a 2 headed 1 bodied dragon. Ron Paul just may be the dragon slayer.
Elizabeth
December 5th, 2007 at 2:29 am
You can add Clinton both William Jefferson and Hillary Albright and Holbrooke to that little rock breaking chain of war criminals. We don’t all forget the illegal attack on Serbia, also based on lies. The rape and murder of the Serbian people was a war crime the like of which Europe hadn’t seen in 50 years. An illegal ‘independent’ terror state of Kosovo will be the wahhabists paradise threatening every non muslim in Europe. Chain the madmen up before it happens. Elizabeth
Arthur Rambler
December 5th, 2007 at 3:50 am
Support Ron Paul, one of the few normal American politicians remaining. Billy Klintoon and Georgie Bushman are just sexually frustrated adolescents bullying the rest of the world, bombing country after country and imposing their politically correct indoctrination on he rest of the planet. Ron Paul is one of the few who could help prevent the total Sovietization of the USA.
richard vajs
December 5th, 2007 at 5:04 am
Let me add one more criteria to the tests of whether we would attack another country for activities that counter our dictates. A foreign country’s vulnerability to American force is inversely proportional to its distance from Israel.
John
December 5th, 2007 at 5:06 am
This news has an even greater context: people are unwilling to to allow their own credibility to destroyed to support the lies of those who want war with Iran. They do not want to be played as the fool that Colin Powell was.If we add the current information to the revelation of Scott McClellan who identified the source of the plot to out Valerie Plame as originating in The White House, and the statement by Admiral Fallon that it is time to put the crazies back in their box the neo-cons are on the ropes. To add to the woes of the neo-cons, the bravery of Jimmy Carter, Walt, Mersheimer and others in their willingnesss to out the Israeli Lobby and their influence on us foreign policy is another plus for those of us who never bought into the insane pronouncement that it is they who create and define reality, while the rest of us can only adjust to the reality that they create. Unfortunatle for them, reality is being defined for them, and from their point of view, it is not pretty.
BravoTango
December 5th, 2007 at 6:25 am
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed is the king…if you get my drift.
Pernicious Pavlovian
December 5th, 2007 at 7:00 am
Dr. Paul speaks truth to the American people and mainstream media can’t stand that. Podhoretz and his ilk are traitors to America and are locked in a vile treason that should be surgically removed for the sake of our democracy. Hold the war criminals to account and then get about the business of healing America’s foreign policy and America’s sorry standing before the world.
washedupneverbeens
December 5th, 2007 at 8:18 am
hang em high
david alian
December 5th, 2007 at 8:27 am
When I was a child and if I lied my mom and dad made me say I am sorry and made me apologize and at age sixty three I still say sorry if I am wrong and try to be a better person, and I am watching Mr bush on TV insisting that Iran is dagerous and…..
man you lied and you lied about Irag why do you come up with excuses rather than saying you are wrong. I hope America elect
Dr.Paul because at this point in the history of the country we need a Dr. our constitution is almost dead our bill of right is very sick and we have all these elected official who are worry more about ISRAEL THAN ABOUT AMERICA some one read to them about the “LAW OF RETURN” and I hope they all move to ISRAEL and leavethis nation alone. wesould have an amendment to the constitution anyone wants to run for president their head should be checked by a shrink.
SamDi
December 5th, 2007 at 8:29 am
The report is another continuing justification that Bush/Cheney continuously evaded the truth. My two Florida senators, Martinez/Nelson, lack backbone for condemnation of Bush. And my FL representative, Mica (GOP), would not initiate or support impeachment. He’s been a party hack for many years.
Unfortunately what has to happen is a grave error the likes of which John Conyers (investigating a proposal on impeachment) would finally wake up from his fat and happy seat and say impeachment recommended. We put these scoundrels in office and we pay the price. May the grave error come sooner than later.
Charles
December 5th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Sounds like a perfect time for a nuclear false-flag somewhere…
They tell us Iran hasn’t had a nuclear program since ‘03 and then they pop off a nuke somewhere and say, “We told you so.”
Another 9/11 in the making.
Samrat_Yantra
December 5th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Now it is time mindful world citizens, to make all accusing countries open their war chests to IAEA inspections and scrutiny. In light of the NIE report, which was nothing more than a patriotic job by some red blooded Americans hell bent on saving the republic. Any other interpretation is folly!, this report is in league with the Minot AF Base operations blown cover. There are plenty of patriots working to counter these mad-animals. It is High time to expel the puppets and the puppeteers, ELECT DEMOCRATICALLY VERIFIABLY, with paper trail a Man of the people (since the current woman is a potential war criminal and purchased pawn). Im voting for RON PAUL cause at the end of all days I am a Patriot first, second and third and I require a president who also is beholden to these same convictions. Americans support RON PAUL, International Family Support the voice of change in America, under-represented in the current political theatre.
Peace Love Light Mindful Soul-Warriors
Samrat
Imron
December 5th, 2007 at 8:49 am
An illegal ‘independent’ terror state of Kosovo will be the wahhabists paradise threatening every non muslim in Europe….
Not to mention it will also be a threat to every muslim who does not believe in their warped version of Islam. Trust me, they hate the likes of me just as much if not more than you.
Imron
December 5th, 2007 at 8:57 am
To be fair, since she was outed during the run up to the invasion of Iraq (early 2003). It is possible that the information she had at the time was correct. The NIE states that they gave up their program in 2003. I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt, much more so than anyone in the Whitehouse, though I do agree that questioning authority and a good deal of skepticism is healthy.
Bruce Bennett
December 5th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Since I was a child I’ve wondered about the moral perversity of the Germans of the ’30s that led to the election of Hitler and the horrors that followed. Now I see essentially the same process unfolding in the USA.
The neocons are now war criminals who should be arrested and tried before the World Court for their crimes against humanity. They are the true terrorists.
Bush would simply be a laughable bafoon, but for his finger poised over that red button…
billy bob tweed
December 5th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Just because the IAEA says this, and the NIE says that, doesn’t mean we can’t trot Condi out to the United Nations and wave a vial of talcum powder and show some CorelDraw cartoons of mobile WMD laboratories. Heck, she could even slip in a few pics from a Samsonite suitcase catalog, and repeat what her former Secretary of State told the world – “just imagine!” I don’t know that the result would be any more convincing this time, but we could still try, right?
Dan Stewart
December 5th, 2007 at 9:38 am
Ron Paul may be the most couragous American politicain in decades. God bless him.
Tired of the Noise
December 5th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Why did they let the NIE report come out? They didn’t, and have been trying to block it:
FLASHBACK: Cheney Tried to Stifle Dissent in Iran NIE
A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has been held up for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear programme, and thus make the document more supportive of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts of the process provided by participants to two former Central Intelligence Agency officers.
But this pressure on intelligence analysts, obviously instigated by Cheney himself, has not produced a draft estimate without those dissenting views, these sources say. The White House has now apparently decided to release the unsatisfactory draft NIE, but without making its key findings public.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/09/5117/
Posted Dec 3, 2007 06:44 PM PST
Category: IRAN
This appears to be the same document released today; except that someone did in fact leak the dissenting view and the key finding.
Michael Rivero.. whatreallyhappened.com
sasa
December 5th, 2007 at 10:12 am
If you do not stand up and stop this war, you are as guilty for this unprovoked invasion and conquest of an innocent nation that has done no wrong as Bush himself is.
Mark
December 5th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Great article.
Support Ron Paul’s first ever presidential blimp in history. Thats right, a advertising Mecca in the skies brought to you by grassroots geniuses all over the country.
http://ronpaulblimp.com
Please purchase advertising time, we need another $100K by the end of the week to make thing project take off.
Ijaz
December 5th, 2007 at 10:18 am
I totally agree. For this gang of Neo-cons, it does not make any sense for the NIE report to be released now. They would have done everything in their power to make sure that this report was not released.
Stuart Thompson
December 5th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Tim R.
Waving the flag of preventing another Hitler with pre-emptive military action shows a common and regretable ignorance of history. As revealed from the Nuremberg trials and war criminal interviews (particularly Albert Spear), significant financial support, solicited from sympathetic US robber barons, is all that kept the NAZI party alive during its lowest ebb in the early 1930’s.
President Truman ignored 11 letters petitioning help to develop democracy in Viet Nam from Ho Chi Minn, and instead supported French colonialism.
We’re talking about the prejudices of men with money and power ramping up the justification for violence on both sides of an ideological divide (usually religious). It’s because they benefit — something observed by the Founders of the US (example: Thomas Paine responses to Edmund Burke attacks on French democratic efforts)
We’re talking about the natural reaction of weaker nations to bullying and intimidation (even if indirect) by stronger nations lead by prejudice and arrogant ignorance driven leaders.
War experts repeatedly point out how war-making fails from leadership’s lack of use of reason and reality-based intelligence. So even if radical Islam is a threat, it is no reason to repeat the mistakes and foolishness of the Crusades.
Mankind in general is too spiritually bankrupt to do away with war-making. But surely each human being is responsible for using the power of his mind and rationality to pursue happiness and security successfully.
This doesn’t include selecting intelligence and leader positions based on how it and they support personal prejudices.
mark hamilton
December 5th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Stop fantasising Tim. 9/11 WAS an inside job.
SamFox/Eric420
December 5th, 2007 at 10:34 am
This is a point I did not consider. Very good thought to chew on!
As far as Ron Paul–I am tired of him being called, falsely, an isolationist. The main stream told the same lie about Pat Buchannon. Seems like some one some where is so nervous about Ron Paul that he is misrepresented. Like the way Rudy JulieAnnie tried to spin Ron’s comments about blow back & 9-11.
At YouTube the Southern Avenger has a good take on 9-11 & blow back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjqGBBFiowE
Thank you!!
Patrick
December 5th, 2007 at 10:35 am
Excellent point, Carol! I wish some talking heads in the MSM would bring this up. The sad truth is that it was never about Iran in the first place. It was intended for Russia and also to bump up Boeings’ profit margins. These companies need a Cold War II (Russia and China vs. the U.S.) before people start questioning why we’re spending so much money on advanced military technology to fight 3rd world refugees.
Ponce
December 5th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
A lons time ago I came up with the following that everyday is becoming more and more part of the truth…
“Whe the truth comes into the light, the lies will hide in the dark”… Ponce
“A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for America”… Ponce
Peace
December 5th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
I did not know about those communications from Ho Chi Minh to Truman, mentioned above. Thanks for this information, and it is sad how clueless most are about the important details of our government’s true history of foreign relations.
hp
December 5th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Let’s notice how conspicuously absent the I word will be now.
Peace
December 5th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
Very moving video. Thanks.
IP Khalifa
December 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
The demoCC Play: Watch WB08 iCOngress impeachment show and learn how buzh gov escape gencide.
Vote Aaed for Islamic Peninsula
Jim M
December 5th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
The only fascists I see are in Washington, DC. There is no such entity as an “Islamofascist.” Never was. Perhaps cut the plug from your FauxNews television and read a little.
Peace
December 5th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Very impressive video. Thank you, also.
Recovering Republican
December 5th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Notice any similarities?
As Bush famously declared at a policy session in 2005, “See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister 1933 -1945
Nic Rovner
December 5th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Hey why do we protest? Help me answer that question… and look at some kick ass photography…. look at my blog The Picket
http://whydoweprotest.blogspot.com/
Jim R
December 5th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
At the end of WWII,when the Brits broke through from Burma, they were met by Vietnamese with banners proclaiming freedom and Democracy.
The Vietnamese had drafted an American style constitution.
There was such a groundswell that the Brits were unable to contain the population and they re-armed the Japanese POWs
to help while they waited for the American forces to join them.When the Americans arrived,we reinstated the French
colonial empire.Talk about blowback.
Jim R
December 5th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Yes Tim R, but when Hitler went into Poland, he was only responding to the capture of a German radio station by the
Polofacists,just like GW responding to the WMD.Kick back Tim
and have some more Kool aid.
REM
December 5th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
How many times in human history has man thought to have created the impregnable defense only to find defeat at the end of the day?
Maginot Line
Bar Lev
Ancient Rome
Homeland Security is much like this.
A better defense might mean being less offensive!
Craig H
December 5th, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Treason? Check. It counts as treason when you lie your nation into a war.
Bribery? Check. Think that GW isn’t getting a lot of cash back from the cronies that get the no-bid contracts?
But you’re right. The 110th Congress can do nothing other than whine, moan, and roll over for Mr. Bush… Impeachment is impossible because of that.
neo-conned
December 5th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
you just hit the nail right on the head – in world full of blind people the one-eyed is most definetely the king – and unfortunatley he doesn’t seem to be too far away….
Craig H
December 5th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Your question: “why did they allow this report to come out?”
Answer: Thank God there is at least one faction that would find a way to push this report to light. Do you really think that a man who nearly kills himself with a pretzel and can’t say the word “nuclear” correctly is actually in full control of all that goes on in the administration? Do you consider him all-knowing or all-powerful? If not, then it was inevitable that something like this would happen… It’s nearly happened three other times, if you follow news reports that aren’t from inside the US.
Question: “If you do believe that the report is true, would that not be a complete vindication of Bush’s foreign policy?”
Answer: No. Contrary to your position, there are several other reasons why Iran might give up a weapons program… including the hope that Russia and China would stand by them against the US, which they might not have been persuaded to do if Iran didn’t drop the idea. Fear of the US, sir, is why they WOULD pursue a program, not why they WOULD NOT. We invaded a nation with NO nuclear power, and then N. Korea sets one off just to show that Bush won’t invade a nation in the Axis that actually HAS nuclear weapons.
Tom
December 5th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Who is this Ron Paul and why is he the only viable presidential candidate who supports the US Constitution?
I can see the opening skit on SNL this week; GWB in the Oval Office addressing the sheeple:
My fellow Americans, you all know that I have been faithfully sounding the alarm on Iran’s nuclear weapons program for the last three years. This week, as you know, my NSA director announced that Iran ceased all work on it’s nuclear program four years ago. This proves that I was right all along.
A nuclear Iran would be dangerous and they cannot be allowed to have the knowlege to develop a nuclear program. Therefore I have ordered the United States Air Force to bomb every college and university in Iran to prevent the terroists from aquiring nuclear technology.
My God people. Does war crimes, torture, and the destruction of the Constitution not meet the standards of “high crimes and misdemeanors”? Would somebody please give George a blowjob and save the world?
Sorry about blaming Dubya for the destruction of the Constitution, to be fair, he only conspired with Congress on that one.
Greg
December 5th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
When are the smart Law enforcement people going to arrest Bush and his side kicks…they are criminals…and continue to behave like them. Personally, those in law enforcement are Cowards…so therefore its up to the people of the United States to make a citizens arrest. Otherwise….are we all Whimps? Just think what our Founding fathers would have to say if they saw exactly what was going on today…
Shessh….
elka
December 5th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
yes, it is definitely illegal! more or less every things he does are illegal and CRIMINAL!
I really hope for my American friends and the “rest” of the world, that Mr.Bush will be impeached in time.
Tyrone
December 5th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
WHO WANTS TO BE THE FIRST TO DIE IN THIS WAR TO SAVE AMERICA? THESE PEOPLE ARE BEYOUND BEING CRIMINALS. THESE PEOPLE WILL PUT YOU IN YOUR GRAVE. ARE YOU READY FOR THAT? IF NOT, DON’T WASTE YOUR BREATH.
Bill
December 5th, 2007 at 8:18 pm
“…why did they allow this report to come out?”
I don’t for a minute believe this report was declassified without the express approval of the White House. I believe it was actually shaped by the White House, just like the reports that came out on Iraq in 2002. The truth is, the Administration assertions about Iran’s nuclear program had become a world-wide embarrassment. Everyone with an ounce of sense understands that ElBaradei’s very intrusive inspections have uncovered no “hard” evidence of a weapons program either now or pre-2003. Furthermore, there is not a shred of evidence of any kind, whether “hard” or “circumstantial” or even “speculative”, that Iran has an ongoing weapons program. An NIE claiming an ongoing weapons program would have been a laughing stock.
Therefore, the warmongering establishment opted for the next best thing. First, admit what can not be denied, that Iran has no ongoing weapons program. Then, use the credibility gained by admitting your error to further the equally unsubstantiated assertion that Iran had a weapons program pre-2003. Now, having “established” the “fact” that Iran once had a nuclear weapons program, that becomes evidence that the Iranian government is an evil, nefarious and dangerous regime that must be changed.
Indeed, this is exactly how the report is being spun. (Ie, does anybody really believe the Iranians would have abandoned their program without the tough sanctions and seeing two neighbors invaded and occupied?)
I believe there’s probably plenty of doubt in the intelligence community that Iran ever had a secret weapons program. Yes, they had a secret program, but it’s not necessary to assume a weapons component to explain the secrecy. It’s now understood that Iraq had no weapons program before Osirak was destroyed. Iran did not want its own facilities to suffer such a fate. The NIE apparently has no room for such doubts.
On the other hand, why has Iran not denounced the NIE’s assertion that they had a weapons program before 2003? Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Perhaps there were rogue skunkworks operating without the knowledge or authority of the Iranian leadership. Perhaps that’s why it was necessary for Khamanei to issue a fatwa declaring nuclear weapons to be un-Islamic. These are the remaining questions ElBaradei is so interested in answering.
Bill
December 5th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Keep in mind that Nazi publisher Julius Streicher was one of the defendants at Nuremberg.
David
December 5th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
It’s simple. Try electing the one who has been right from the beginning, at the time almost everyone else in DC was wrong.
mashkur
December 5th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Yet most American won’t vote for him…….coz u know why
David
December 5th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Tom wrote: Sorry about blaming Dubya for the destruction of the Constitution, to be fair, he only conspired with Congress on that one.
Oh, really? Try Googling the phrase “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper” for an education to the contrary.
Douglas Bartlett
December 5th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Bush has violated the U. S. Constitution on many occasions, thinking that ONLY the President can perform certain functions of the government, going against the wishes of the Founding Fathers who placed created a three-branch government consisting of the legislative, judicial, and legislative branches. Mr. Bush has tried to intimidate (rather successfully) the other two branches of government.
Impeachment and removal from office would be the appropriate action, but the Democratic Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said after the Democrats won a majority of both houses of Congress, that “…impeachment (of Bush) was not on the table.” These weak-minded Democrats won’t do anything!!! They won’t even stop Mr. Bush’s Iraq War!! And all they have to do is cut the funding leaving just enough money to bring the troops home! They are cowards!!!!
Tim R.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Recovering Republican, quoting Josef Goebbels, writes:
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
Oh ok, you mean a lie like Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion? Or maybe that Iran only wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes?
Tim R.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Make a citizens arrest? A citizens arrest of the President of the United States? Just because you think he is a criminal? Well, I have an idea, why don’t you wait outside the White House and when you see him you go over and make a citizens arrest, you go right ahead. I think if you tried it the United States Secret Service might have other ideas! Who appointed you judge and jury anyway?
Tim R.
December 5th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Let me ask the question again, as I have not received a satisfactory answer:
If Bush and his whole team are such devious and sophisticated liars, who manipulate intelligence information to suit their militaristic ambitions, why did they allow this current report to come out? Why did they not just throw it in the shredder? Why did they not selectively “edit” the parts that were not good for the administration’s positions?
And if they are all such liars, how can you believe what is in this current report? If the report came out and said just the opposite, would you still believe it? Or do you only believe it because it is in line with your pre-conceived notions of the situation?
And if the report is true, does that not show that Bush’s foreign policy is working, to the extent that now both Libya and Iran have apparently given up their quest for weapons of mass destruction?
cofused
December 5th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Serbia? I’m pretty certain that it was over 250,000 Bosnians killed by Serbs, and over 50,000 Bosnian women raped by Serbs..
dogismyth
December 5th, 2007 at 11:53 pm
thank god we have the internet, otherwise, you would not have worthwhile discussions on this matter.
So, once again, they have lied to us, tried to intimidate us, and kept us oogling on the wrong issue. I’m so sick of this government, that I wonder why others are not so enraged.
For at least 18 months now, the administration, bankers, corporate biggies and the federal reserve have been aware of the potential economic disaster that was upcoming due to the credit bubble. Just look at their actions, and that tells you everything.
Oh, and most people have no idea about the economy, potential for severe deflation, and the severe recession that is headed our way. That’s the real story, and many have been sidelined on these bullcrap news stories, and other distractions.
I’m sorry, there is no hope for this country. Democrats have done nothing….NOTHING that has changed the course of this country. They have the power, yet they sit on their hands. Why you might ask? Its all about money and securing their futures in the new world order. They are all corrupt (except for Ron Paul…so far) and are not serving us.
Let’s send a message on 2008 election day. Either vote for Ron Paul, or do not vote at all. Because it will not matter whether there is a Dem or Republican elected, they will just throw us a bone, and continue on with their business.
Viva la revolucion!!!
Michael
December 6th, 2007 at 12:24 am
Bush is a criminal under the U. S. Constitution , but America has been under emergency rule since the second world war, the constitution has been a show piece ever since, at least Bush is honest enough to show it, he probally did America a favour, no you know longer live in the matrix, you now know everything you thought was true is not, that up is down, left is right, and America is East Germany.
R. Nelson
December 6th, 2007 at 1:26 am
The latter is a valid point. Whatever Iran’s nuclear intent was, clearly the lunatic warmongers in the White House, defecators on the Nuremberg Principles, rattled its confidence. If a nuclear-armed 600-pound ape beat the sheepdip out of my neighbor for no good reason, I’d probably be conciliatory too.
Of course, Iran offered to give up their nuclear program and all sorts of other concessions in 2003, and Maximum Leader Bush turned it down. Heck, did Caesar parley with the Gauls or just smite them–right?
Another good point about believing this NIE over the previous ones. Except this one has corroboration from the IAEA and Elbaradei. Since Bush and Co. are established liars we are quite correct to treat pronouncements that favor their position with a little more skepticism than usual, thus we are justified to cast a jaundiced eye on previous NIEs that have been shown to be little more than cherry-picked propaganda. This latest NIE isn’t necessarily God’s final truth on the matter, but it rings truer and fits other evidence better than the typical Bush lies of the past.
Why did the White House warmongers release it? Maybe, just maybe, the rabid dogs of war have lost a little influence to the rise of the realists. It was also generally known that the NIE was out there, so a complete cover-up would have lit more suspicions and problems than releasing it and standing the chaff for a couple of weeks. And sure enough, Bush is perfectly pleased to ignore the report and act as if his view of reality is the only one, let alone the right one. Just like he did with Iraq.
DT
December 6th, 2007 at 2:14 am
How this issue is covered in the media:
- NIE says no weapons. Therefore don’t attack.
If enough people say that . . . next time someone says there are weapons, the consensus will already be poised to say “therefore attack.”
But neither the intention, capability nor the existence of weapons is reason to attack.
Elizabeth
December 6th, 2007 at 3:10 am
In fact like the WMD in Iraq many of the myths of the Balkans still remain peddled by the news media. The same media who shut down any opportunity for the Serbs to voice their side of things and stood by, apparently wrapped in shock, awe and admiration as the Americans illegally bombed and murdered nearly 20 media related people in a TV station to ensure the world couldn’t hear the terror that the US was inflicting on a defenceless civilian population.
For some 78 days and nights they were bombed back to the ’stoneage’ by some US general out of Dr Strangelove. Didn’t hear of that? who is surprised, not me.
The ethnic cleansing in the Balkans was that of Serbs. 300,000 and 20,000 dead cleansed from the ancestral lands of the Krajina by the Croats with British/US/German complicity. What to know about Croat/Serb history?. Google ‘Jasenovac’. Want to know about the history of the Serbs and their support for the allies in WW2, Jasenovac is just a start. They suffered MASSIVE casualities.
After General Jackson, a Brit I am embarrassed to own as a fellow citizen, assured the Serb military of the safety of Kosovo civilians, NATO watched whilst the islamic terrorists of the KLA, our allies and friends, burnt, murdered even beheaded to ensure 250,000 terrified Serbs were cleansed from THEIR OWN province of Kosovo – something on going by the islamists for years.
It was when the late Slobodan Milosevich presented graphic photos of NATO personnel standing by and watching that CNN turned off the proceedings of the Kangaroo Court in the Hague.
Even the famous so-called massacre of Sebrenica can have a different interpretation. It was an islamic military base, the terrorists had been terrorising, including widespread beheading of the many murdered Serbs, all the surrounding Serbian inhabited countryside. Ethnic cleansing at the point of gun and knife.
Of course the Serbs took the opportunity to overrun and yes the terrorist faced pay back time, but in no way the mythical numbers claimed. see
http://www.serbianna.com/columns/savich/051.shtml
It is about time the truth came home to the Americans as to exactly what they did to christian Serbs on behalf of a radical Wahhabi indoctrinated rabble of islamic terrorists.
The Serbs were merely protecting their country from terrorist onslaught and murder.
Strange how the Americans supported Israel claiming the same after rockets attacks but not the Serbs facing widespread murder of its people and occupation of 15% of its territory. The ‘war on terror’ is very selective when it comes to the politicians of the NWO.
Elizabeth
Tom
December 6th, 2007 at 5:17 am
I stand corrected.
Perhaps the more correct statement would be that Congress conspired with Bush to destroy the Constitution.
Shahram
December 6th, 2007 at 5:23 am
We have lots of Americans that support them. They are either stupid, mean, or ignorant. Some are guided by religion and thus are NO better than terrorists themselves. Some just beleive in being a badass and I say we suit ‘em up and send them overseas to meet those they want to conquer. But yes, that nice looking old lady in the cadillac with the W sticker is evil, even though she doesn’t think she is. Evil rarely thinks it is evil, but it is evil nonetheless, if you are able to view it objectively. We are surrounded by these “EVIL” people and they terrify me. Some of them would have anti-war people locked up or worse. This is pre-war Nazi Germany guys.
Swami Barmi
December 6th, 2007 at 6:35 am
“Who appointed you judge and jury anyway?”
I thought you said you were a lawyer?
Question: Since when does an arrest imply that a judge and jury has spoken?
Answer: In the neocon fascist police state where arrest=guilty.
ingrate
December 6th, 2007 at 6:41 am
Tim R.,
You NeoconoFascists are the destructive element here. By the way, it was Treaty of Versailles that was the key to Hitler’s rise to power.
As for the reference to Ho Chi Min in other comments, he tried to meet with Wilson in Paris after WWI to discuss Vietnam’s independence. Lots of luck, Yellow Man.
timmy ramone
December 6th, 2007 at 7:23 am
And yet a not insignificant number of Americans DO support these war-mongering neocons. That’s the scary part.
And, sadly, if the U.S. were to attack Iran, it would likely merit little more than a shrug from the general public. That’s scarier still.
Tim
December 6th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Perhaps, the next President will order the arrest and detention of most of the Bush Administration and every last person in Washington whose committed treason.
Dilbert
December 6th, 2007 at 10:29 am
“but he continued rattling his missiles”
You can only rattle sabers, you can’t rattle missiles although I am sure our misunderestimated “president” would try to do it anyways, since they are nooklear and they fight tear. Mainly because he is the decider and he wouldn’t let things like facts or the laws of physics slow him down in his decisions.
Kenneth
December 6th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Tim R.-Oh ok, you mean a lie like Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion?
Nonwithstanding that this isn’t a “big lie” because it isn’t being widely purveyed, and because it’s not untrue: Islam was very tolerant in the past, and is quite capable of becoming so again.
Or maybe that Iran only wants nuclear power for peaceful purposes?
Iran has every reason for wanting nuclear power. The gap between its domestic oil consumption and oil exports will continue to shrink unless it diversifies its energy sources. And, as always, you avoid mentioning the fact that there is no evidence for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. The real “big lies” that permeate public discourse are as follows:
-The US aims to spread democracy and human rights, and cares about minimizing civilian casualties
-There is such a thing as “Islamofascism”, and it poses an imminent threat to the west
-The west is the sole fount of all that is good in the world
-All good things resulting from American intervention are proof of benign intent
-All bad things resulting therefrom can only happen by bureaucratic error, bad intelligence, and flawed policy, and never by design
These are but a few, but I’m sure you could name more, seeing as you’re a walking compendium of them.
Recovering Republican
December 6th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Islam is mostly a peaceful religion. the trouble is that every religion has its nutcases and extremists. In the USA it is/was Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, that guy who is charge of Blackwater, and all the people who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
As for Iran only using nuclear power for peaceful purposes, I am not sure about that, but I sure am skeptical of anything this Administration says, because they seem to want another war, which brings me to another similarity:
During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq “phony soldiers.” He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, “Mike from Chicago,” who said he “used to be military,” and “believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq.”
Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichmarshall
Recovering Republican
December 6th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Islam is mostly a peaceful religion. the trouble is that every religion has its nutcases and extremists. In the USA it is/was Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, that guy who is charge of Blackwater, and all the people who believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
As for Iran only using nuclear power for peaceful purposes, I am not sure about that, but I sure am skeptical of anything this Administration says, because they seem to want another war, which brings me to another similarity:
During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq “phony soldiers.” He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, “Mike from Chicago,” who said he “used to be military,” and “believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq.”
Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichmarshall
Tim R.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Ok R. Nelson, that sounds like a plausible theory, I’ll buy that.
Tim R.
December 6th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Recovering Republican: If Islam is a “mostly peaceful” relgion why, recently, did Saudi Arabia sentance a woman who was the victim of a gang rape to six months in jail and 200 lashes? Why did crowds riot in the streets in Sudan last week and call for the execution of a school teacher because they did not like the name she gave to a toy teddy bear? Why, a year or two ago, did crowds of Muslims riot in the streets, burn down churches and kill a nun because the Pope said something they did not agree with? Why, if Islam is so peaceful are there hundreds of verses of violance, subjugation, sexism, racism, and homophobia in the Quran? (see for yourself, http://www.thereligionofpeace.com) Why, if Islam is so peaceful do the vast majority of terrorist attacks come from Muslims?
I agree that Islam, COULD, become peaceful and it could reform and modernize itself. As much as I lambaste it, there are also some wonderful and sublime messages in the Quran. Helping the poor is one of the five pillars of Islam. So, cleary, there are good things in it, but the Muslims need to reform and modernize the religion. Because as it stands now it is anything but peaceful. Unless by “peaceful” you refer to pieces of bodies getting blown up and body parts being cut off.
Tim R.
December 6th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Kenneth writes: Islam was very tolerant in the past, and is quite capable of becoming so again.
Well, I agree with the latter half of what you wrote. It could become tolerant and peaceful in the future, indeed, I hope it does. But it will have to reform and modernize itself.
As for the past, learn your history of this religion! It was spread through violance and blood. For about a hundred years starting around 632 it was spread with wanton violance and bloodshed. They spread it all the way into Europe, by force of arms, before finally being stoped by Charles Martel. As for tolerant, its true that they usually allowed people to live in Muslim lands and not convert, but only if, I repeat only if, they accepted a second class status of “dhimmi” and paid a tribute tax to their superior Muslim elders and practiced their religion in seclusion. Also, how can a religion be “tolerant” if any Muslim who wants to convert away from it is subject to execution?
Kenneth
December 6th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
As for the past, learn your history of this religion! It was spread through violance and blood. For about a hundred years starting around 632 it was spread with wanton violance and bloodshed. They spread it all the way into Europe, by force of arms, before finally being stoped by Charles Martel. As for tolerant, its true that they usually allowed people to live in Muslim lands and not convert, but only if, I repeat only if, they accepted a second class status of “dhimmi” and paid a tribute tax to their superior Muslim elders and practiced their religion in seclusion. Also, how can a religion be “tolerant” if any Muslim who wants to convert away from it is subject to execution.
Christianity, too, has been spread by the sword. That doesn’t tell us anything about modern day Christianity. The difference is that the Islamic caliphates of the past allowed non-Muslim subjects to continue their lives under the condition that they would pay a poll tax, whereas Christendom simply slaughtered its “infidels”. It is true that the Muslim world of times past would have been considered illiberal by modern standards, but during its heyday it was much more tolerant than its neighbours.
Kenneth
December 6th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
Recovering Republican: If Islam is a “mostly peaceful” relgion why, recently, did Saudi Arabia sentance a woman who was the victim of a gang rape to six months in jail and 200 lashes? Why did crowds riot in the streets in Sudan last week and call for the execution of a school teacher because they did not like the name she gave to a toy teddy bear?
Because religion is always perverted when the State co-opts it for its own ends.
Why, if Islam is so peaceful are there hundreds of verses of violance, subjugation, sexism, racism, and homophobia in the Quran? (see for yourself, http://www.thereligionofpeace.com).
We’ve been through this at least half a dozen times, Tim. You haven’t been able to produce a single quote in support of your position that isn’t either ambiguous, taken out of context, or contradicted by passages elsewhere in the Qu’ran. Attributing the origins of something as complex as terrorism to theology, apart from being extraordinarily reductive, is completely useless as an explanation, for the stubborn fact remains that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
Why, if Islam is so peaceful do the vast majority of terrorist attacks come from Muslims?
Because terrorism is the warfare of the weak, and the Islamic world lacks the military might to confront the west directly. Why is the majority of state terrorism conducted by the United States?
Guenter
December 6th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
The trick in the NIE lies in: Iran stopped in 2003! So, they had one? Russians foreign minister Lavrov said: their is no evidence whatsoever Iran had a nuclear weapon programm.
Look to sources where those evidences supposedly were coming from: defector, listening into conversation of Iranian generals and surprise a stolen Iranian notebook.
What is next?
phil
December 6th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Hey Timmy R. (aka Benedict Arnold),
People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!!
Before you condemn Muslims, please explain the following which is what you actually believe but are probably too stupid to realize it:
Only Jews are human. [Gentiles] are animals. (Baba Mezia 114a-114b.)9
For murder, whether of a Cuthean [Gentile] by a Cuthean, or of an Israelite by a Cuthean, punishment is incurred; but of a Cuthean by an Israelite, there is no death penalty. (Sanhedrin 57a)10
Even the best of the [Gentiles] should be killed. (Babylonian Talmud)11
If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there. (Moed Kattan 17a.)
Gentiles’ flesh is as the flesh of asses and whose issue is like the issue of horses.12
If a heathen [Gentile] hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hitting a Jew is hitting God. (Sanhedrin 58b.)13
If an ox of an Israelite gores an ox of a Canaanite there is no liability; but if an ox of a Canaanite [Gentile] gores an ox of an Israelite…the payment is to be in full. (Baba Kamma 37b.)14
If a Jew finds an object lost by a heathen [Gentile] it does not have to be returned. (Baba Mezia 24a; Affirmed also in Baba Kamma 113b.)15
God will not spare a Jew who ‘marries his daughter to an old man or takes a wife for his infant son or returns a lost article to a Cuthean [Gentile]… (Sanhedrin 76a.)16
What a Jew obtains by theft from a Cuthean [Gentile] he may keep. (Sanhedrin 57a.)17
[Gentiles] are outside the protection of the law and God has ‘exposed their money to Israel.’ (Baba Kamma 37b.)18
Jews may use lies (’subterfuges’) to circumvent a [Gentile]. (Baba Kamma 113a.)19
All [Gentile] children are animals. (Yebamoth 98a.)20
[Gentiles] prefer sex with cows. (Abodah Zarah 22a-22b.)21
The vessels of [Gentiles], do they not impart a worsened flavor to the food cooked in them? (Abodah Zarah 67b.)22
Kenneth
December 6th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Tim R. should promptly leave this site after this most delectable ontological demolition if he wishes to avoid further humiliation.
Tired of the Noise
December 6th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
IRAN HAS NOT VIOLATED THE NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION TREATY.
THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO BUILD PLANTS, ENRICH URANIUM, AND BUILD NUCLEAR WEAPONS UNDER THE TREATY THE US, AND EVERY OTHER WHINING COUNTRY SIGNED. THE EXCEPTION TO THAT IS ISRAEL, WHO REFUSES TO BE HELD LIABLE FOR THEIR ILLEGAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM.
These are the simple facts Bush must address first if he wants to stop Iran from having nuclear facilities. His policy is to deny rights that are guaranteed to individuals by law and treaty. He has no legal or Constitutional right to do these things. We the People must stand up and say Enough is Enough!!
Kenneth
December 6th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Frank, dear, contra Encyclopedia Dramatica, caps lock is not cruise control for cool, and ambiguous data is not a substitute for reasoned argument. The “radiological material” in question might well have been for nuclear power, since the article you link to does not indicate that it was used for military purposes. From the same source:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/25/sprj.nirq.kay/
Kenneth
December 6th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Ah, it looks as though Frank’s spam has been deleted. Mine eyes are spared.
peace
December 7th, 2007 at 2:42 am
Thank you so muc, Phil, for taking the time and listing the perfidy part of the ‘religion’ said as claimed by the Muslim hater who continually contaminates this site.
bAKU
December 7th, 2007 at 11:41 am
IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW!
Mike Morris
December 7th, 2007 at 11:53 am
“Christianity, too, has been spread by the sword. That doesn’t tell us anything about modern day Christianity. The difference is that the Islamic caliphates of the past allowed non-Muslim subjects to continue their lives under the condition that they would pay a poll tax, whereas Christendom simply slaughtered its “infidels”. It is true that the Muslim world of times past would have been considered illiberal by modern standards, but during its heyday it was much more tolerant than its neighbours.”
Not quite so simple, Kenneth. Christendom became established in the Old World through peaceful conversion. Its basic tenets held great appeal to the down and out of the Roman Empire. It did not really begin to expand violently until it had fully taken the reins of power from pagan Rome and beaten back (or absorbed, or simply resisted) the onslaughts of northern European pagans and Muslims from the South and East. Also, most of the time, Jews were allowed to live within Christendom in a state roughly analogous to the condition of non-Muslims in the Caliphate (which indeed was established by conquest).
But the current situation is quite different. The ‘West’ (the US and Britain) have invaded and occupied two Muslim countries and is making threatening noises toward another. If anything, Muslims worldwide have been remarkably willing to turn the other cheek in the face of Western aggression. How long this will last is difficult to judge.
Kenneth
December 7th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
I’m aware that Christianity spread initially through peaceful conversion. I was referring mainly to the European colonization of the New World when I said “violence”. I was not aware of the status of the Jews in Christendom, though I was alluding to the Spanish Inquisition, an event for which the Muslim world has, to my knowledge, no analogue.
justaguy
December 7th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Hmmmm, good points.
Dizzy
December 7th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Religion being spread by the sword has occurred in most (if not all) religions at some stage. When it occurs it is often as a tool of the state, not the religion itself. In the Old World, there are examples of Christianity being spread by the sword: read about the Teutonic push into Lithuania etc. Again, you have to question how much was “religiously inspired” and how much was for a more worldly gain.
For an example of tolerance in Islam, read about the caliphate in Spain. For around 700 years much of Spain was Muslim, with Jews and Christians living (if not quite equally, as dhimma) peacefully together. Jews had greater opportunities in life here than under the earlier Christian Visigothic rule (which in 613 AD ordered Jews to convert or leave). As the Spanish Reconquista occurred, Jews became persecuted and then forced in 1492 to convert or be exiled (along with any remaining Muslims).
My point: citing examples of X religion did bad stuff to Y religion/people will have us going around in circles, as I doubt any of the religious followers are innocent of these acts. We should be concentrating on what we all have in common rather than accusing each other.
Thanks, and keep up the good discussion!
Tim R.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Phil R. and Kenneth as well:
For the last time, listen carefully! I agree that the old testament has some awful things in it. And so does the Talmud. Now listen carefully because I think you both have wax in your ears! I categorically, totally, and vigourously repudiate and condemn any passages that advocate capital punishment, religious intolerance, sexism, racism, homophobia or any thing of the sort. I don’t try to justify such passages as being “taken out of context” or being contradicted elsewhere. They are wrong, period. Have I made myself clear?
Now how about we get some Muslims who are willing to stand up and do the same when it comes to the Quran instead of rioting in the streets to get peoples heads cut off!
Scott Horton
December 8th, 2007 at 2:47 am
Smash Tim and Mark’s heads together and you get half a brain.
phil
December 8th, 2007 at 7:47 am
There are bad people everywhere and good people everywhere. But stop singling out Arabs and Muslims.
Kenneth
December 8th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
For the last time, listen carefully! I agree that the old testament has some awful things in it. And so does the Talmud. Now listen carefully because I think you both have wax in your ears! I categorically, totally, and vigourously repudiate and condemn any passages that advocate capital punishment, religious intolerance, sexism, racism, homophobia or any thing of the sort. I don’t try to justify such passages as being “taken out of context” or being contradicted elsewhere. They are wrong, period. Have I made myself clear?
Yes, it’s perfectly clear. What’s not clear is why you don’t think the same critical method can be employed with the Qu’ran (and clearly you don’t, otherwise you wouldn’t be lifting passages from it to argue that Islam is inherently violent). The mere fact that you think you can repudiate the ugliest portions of the Talmud without undue theological consequence upends the better part of your puerile attacks on Islam.
Tim R.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Phil writes”
“But stop singling out Arabs and Muslims.”
I will gladly stop singling them out when and if the overwhelming majority of homicide bombings and other terrorist attacks on innocent civilians are no longer being perpatraded by them.
Tim R.
December 8th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Kenneth writes:
“What’s not clear is why you don’t think the same critical method can be employed with the Qu’ran (and clearly you don’t, otherwise you wouldn’t be lifting passages from it to argue that Islam is inherently violent). ”
Islam IS inherently violent, just like the Old Testament was. However, most Jews have repudiated the violent portions of it and modernized their religion. The vast majority of both reform, conservative and even some of the more modern orthodox Jews would be horrified at the thought of putting someone to death for many of the reasons descrbibed in the old testament. And, unlike the case with Islam, it just does not happen anymore! A Jewish ecclesiastical court has not put someone to death in 2,000 years. Jews don’t stone people to death for sexual immorality or anything else anymore, but Muslims do!
And the Christians have the New Testament, which I would argue in inherently peaceful, at least the things that Jesus said. Jesus said to “love your enemies” while the Quran says to strike off their heads, thats a pretty big difference if you ask me! Yes, Christians have done some awful things in the past, but they, unlike many Muslims, have progressed a great deal since then. I know of no other religion today, other than Islam, that says you can put people to death, and actually does so, for “sexual crimes.” I know of no other religion today, other than Islam, that says you can execute someone for turning away from the religion. I know of no other religion today, other than Islam that would have a woman given 200 lashes after she was just raped. Jews don’t stone people to death anymore, Catholic Preists don’t burn people at the stake anymore. Judaism and Christianity have progressed a great deal. But a lot of the radical Muslims are still stuck in the 7th century.
Next point, the same critical method that Jews and Christians have used to modernize their religions CAN be employed with Islam. However, most Muslims are not doing so! Look at the Pew Research Studies, they all show high rates of suppport for suicide bombings amongst Muslims. Where are the good Muslims who will repudiate the violent portions of the Quran without making lame excuses like “it was taken out of context” or “it is refuted by other, more peaceful, portions of the Quran. Where are the good Muslims to stand up and refute the violance in their religion, categorically? There are some, yes. But far too few.
Kenneth
December 8th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Islam IS inherently violent, just like the Old Testament was. However, most Jews have repudiated the violent portions of it and modernized their religion. The vast majority of both reform, conservative and even some of the more modern orthodox Jews would be horrified at the thought of putting someone to death for many of the reasons descrbibed in the old testament. And, unlike the case with Islam, it just does not happen anymore! A Jewish ecclesiastical court has not put someone to death in 2,000 years. Jews don’t stone people to death for sexual immorality or anything else anymore, but Muslims do!
You’ve yet to establish scriptural support for Islamic “violence” that is uniform throughout the Qu’ran.
And the Christians have the New Testament, which I would argue in inherently peaceful, at least the things that Jesus said. Jesus said to “love your enemies” while the Quran says to strike off their heads, thats a pretty big difference if you ask me.
Well, uh, yeah. “Enemy” in Qur’anic parlance is anyone who oppresses or commits injustice. Not an unreasonable response, methinks, especially since you are willing to countenance (indeed, even promote) violence on far weaker grounds. It does, however, strictly proscribe attacks against non-Muslims under protection, so it has a redeeming feature that the Bible lacks. In Christianity, both the Old and New Testaments are canonical, so one can’t simply cite verses from the New Testament to negate the Old.
I know of no other religion today, other than Islam, that says you can execute someone for turning away from the religion. I know of no other religion today, other than Islam that would have a woman given 200 lashes after she was just raped.
You don’t? Try googling “Christian Reconstructionism”.
But a lot of the radical Muslims are still stuck in the 7th century.
A few points: in the seventh century, Islam was a great deal more socially progressive than it is now. It is more accurate to say Islamic states have regressed. You can hardly hold the unelected governments who enforce this kind of interpretation responsible. Perhaps if the majority of Muslims voted for it, but seeing as Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy and the linchpin of American propaganda is that the Middle East lacks “democracy” they can hardly be held accountable for the crimes of their governments, no? Second, your assertion borders on analytic: any sampling of the radicals, depending on how “radical” is defined, will, indeed, reveal that nearly all of them support a strict interpretation of Qur’anic law. What matters is not the radicals, but the moderate majority.
Next point, the same critical method that Jews and Christians have used to modernize their religions CAN be employed with Islam. However, most Muslims are not doing so! Look at the Pew Research Studies, they all show high rates of suppport for suicide bombings amongst Muslims.
Because of the actions of the occupying powers (such as Israel and America) at which they are directed. Suicide bombing is a tactic, Tim, one aimed at getting foreign interlopers to withdraw. Inasmuch as it is aimed at military targets, it is a legitimate form of resistance. It has little to do with Islamic fundamentalism- Islamist organizations have simply usurped the role once played by secular nationalist and Marxist organizations (remember the P.L.O.?).
Where are the good Muslims to stand up and repudiate the violence in their religion, categorically?
Well, seeing as the American-backed dictatorships in the Middle East don’t permit much freedom of expression, they’re hard to hear. There is, indeed, a great deal of trouble with Islam today. It is an inferential leap, however, to conclude that this is the reason for terrorism. Islamic terrorism, which has simply replaced nationalist terrorism, is rooted in the concrete facts of the Islamic world’s current political environs.
Kenneth
December 8th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Arbitrary legal categories like “terrorism” only serve to elide the equivalence of individual and state violence, and obscure the fact that the majority of terror is orchestrated by western governments, not Muslims, thereby painting a misleading picture of violence aimed at extracting the assent of the population through fear.
Kenneth
December 8th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Correction: One particular sentence should read “You can’t hold the people who live under the unelected governments who enforce this kind of interpretation responsible”.
Tim R.
December 9th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Kenneth:
On relgion a few points you should understand. In Islam, a “person under protection” is a “Dhimmi” one who accepts his status as a second class citizen and pays a special tribute tax to his superior Muslim overlords. He must also practice his religion quietly and in relative seclusion. Is that a society you would like to live in? Why do you insist on making excuses for these things? You seem like a smart guy and you are quite willing, and rightfully so, to lambaste the shortcomings of the Old Testament but with you the Quran gets a free pass!
Also, you wrote, “In Christianity, both the Old and New Testaments are canonical, so one can’t simply cite verses from the New Testament to negate the Old.” Well, actually there are several passages where Jesus negates precepts of the Old Testament. Jesus says, in the old testment you heard of an eye for an eye, but I say turn the other cheek. In the old testment it says you can stone people to death, Jesus says, “He who is without sin should cast out the first stone.” I defy you to find messages of violance from the mouth of Jesus that is on par with the violance from the mouth of Mohammed. As for scriptural sources of violence in the Quran, again, I have given you many examples but you choose to ignore them or make lame excuses that they are “taken out of context.”
But anyway, I am enjoying the discussion!
Kenneth
December 9th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
On relgion a few points you should understand. In Islam, a “person under protection” is a “Dhimmi” one who accepts his status as a second class citizen and pays a special tribute tax to his superior Muslim overlords. He must also practice his religion quietly and in relative seclusion. Is that a society you would like to live in? Why do you insist on making excuses for these things? You seem like a smart guy and you are quite willing, and rightfully so, to lambaste the shortcomings of the Old Testament but with you the Quran gets a free pass!
I’m not giving the Qu’ran a free pass. I’m merely defending it against your rhetorical bait and switch which repeatedly transposes Islamic doctrine with Islam as it is practiced today in order to blur the distinction between the two and cast me as some kind of apologist for terrorism. I certainly wouldn’t like to live as a dhimmi, but I’m pointing out that the “dhimmi” concept has no counterpart in the Bible. I’m also making this comparison to illustrate the futility of trying to explain terrorism by reference to religion. Of course the Qu’ran contains objectionable material; the whole point is that it is not unique in this respect, and can’t be used to make generalizations about the behaviour and aspirations of 1.3 billion people.
I defy you to find messages of violance from the mouth of Jesus that is on par with the violence from the mouth of Mohammed.
I defy you to find support for gratuitous violence from Mohammed (note my use of the term “gratuitous”: I do not simply mean violence of any sort. I mean violence directed against those who have done no wrong).
I have given you many examples but you choose to ignore them or make lame excuses that they are “taken out of context.”
You have chosen sources that don’t dovetail well with your general perspective of Islam. They’re not taken out of context, they merely don’t say what you claim they say.
Kenneth
December 9th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
One more comment: there really is no point in canvassing this matter any further, since what was once a political debate has been transfigured into an abstruse theological discussion removed from any account of the modern day Islamic world, consisting as it does of little more than quote-mining and crudely legalistic interpretations of Islamic law. Since you haven’t succeeded in tying terrorism to Islam, or even to radical Islam, what verse X of chapter Y of the Qur’an said has no discernible relevance to either current events or the subject of post. Perhaps if we could digress slightly to the actual motivations for terrorism, a topic which you have thus far avoided discussing, we could reinvigorate this increasingly languid conversation.
rjones2818
December 17th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Dennis Kucinich. Breath. Repeat. Dennis Kucinich.
Amazing that he doesn’t get any more traction here at antiwar.com, isn’t it.
The actual leader against the IWR. Hasn’t voted to spend a penny on the war and occupation. Has HR 1234 written and ready to be implemented, etc., etc. and so forth.
Paul’s fine, but you guys need to stop flipping off the leader against the Dempublicans.
Harlod
January 11th, 2008 at 5:08 am
I imagine there would be more comments, but if everyone is like me, I find this war too surreal to know were to start. It is so unreasonble, what can you say? So the guy is asleep and we are all having the nightmare. We can only marvel, as even very loud explosions don’t awaken him and the newcon artists. It’s like a movie you can’t stop. Talking seems futile. We don’t exist. Only youtube seems to be listened to by the TV crowd or getting TV and radio stations for ourselves by pooling our money. That might work. People might donate to real radio and TV.