Dude yourself. Bolton’s a liar of the first water. The Washington Times is controlled by a man who’s had himself crowned ‘savior of mankind’ by the ghosts Stalin and Hitler.
Sure there’s been speculation about Iran’s ‘nuclear weapons program’ for years, but in the absence of hard, credible, evidence, it all comes down to xenophobia.
I give up. How could anyone sling more bullshit and expect to be engaged in an actual discussion? I link a clearinghouse of information from the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, and all you can do is discredit two of the sources, based on hyperbolic comments like “he’s the heir of Stalin and Hitler”. Give me a fucking break. It’s not that we disagree; it’s just…do you honestly find me that much of an idiot? Do you really believe that kind of insipid debating strategy is either effective or informative? Why insult people like that? I try to raise cogent points, and you offer rhetorical feces as if I ought to feel edified or chastened. Why not just lob a steamer in my lap and dispence with the charade? Fuck it.
I agree entirely. My concern is that our president is listening to people who don’t see those things as clearly, or who see them but want a war anyway.
Well no, it’s just that you’re assuming that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program on the basis of ‘facts’ that are not in evidence here, or anywhere else. Talk is cheap, and the sheer volume of it has no affect whatsoever on what is actually happening on the ground.
If you want to fly off into a tizzy over silly bullshit that doesn’t matter, have at it. But when you try to justify bombing or invading other countries with that sort of crap, you need to take a moment, access what you actually know, and try to get a grip on reality. How many people are you willing to kill to relieve your unsubstantiated fears?
Oh, they certainly do seem to want a war, but they’ve also proven to be masterful politicians. War before the election is unthinkable. After? Israel may force the issue; the shit hits the proverbial fan in that eventuality.
Except that this is not the first step, it is onein a long line of steps. Can you point to any sitting president who advocated normalization of relations without regime change?
Fair enough.
Probably for other reasons as well. Consultation with other nations has to occur, review of intelligence, and various other duck rowing.
Fair enough as well.
Ok, but then you need a new term. I don’t know of any government official who falls into this category. I haven’t seen any posters in here either express this opinion. If there is anyone who takes the view that we have to wage war in MENA in order to hasten the coming of Christ, I will gladly join you in demonizing them.
This is all that I am asking for. The rest we can work out.
Truly, you have thrust deeply into the heart of my argument, and dealt me the most devastating of dialectical blows with this incredibly incisive critique of my position, and your deep insight into my attitudes on foreign policy. Why, your intuitive talent for extracting subtext is breathtaking in its efficiency and accuracy. Outstanding. Game, set, match.
(searches for that ignore button…)
Well, you did call me a republican. 
All this speculation on Iran’s nuclear capabilities in the absence of hard facts to back it up plays directly into the hands of the pro war faction. The think tanks, including Carnegie, fucked up big time on Iraq’s WMD’s. Why do you believe them now? A couple of satellite phots of a secret facility that ‘could be’ used to test high explosive triggers for nuclear bombs, doesn’t count for much when we already know that the US is sexing up the story:
Isn’t it possible they might decide war before the election would help Bush’s chances? No sitting U.S. president has ever been defeated for re-election while there was a hot war going on. (LBJ might have been, if he hadn’t decided not to run.)
No, but there is a difference in emphasis. I don’t recall (maybe you do) Clinton ever saying publicly “We won’t normalize relations with Cuba until the Communist regime is overthrown.” He just stayed away from the subject. Bush has made an issue of it.
I’m not so sure. Did Clinton ever give any speeches down in Florida?
No, I don’t think so. A draft at this point would be political suicide. I think the electorate is sufficiently anxious that anything more than one or two surgical strikes would be a swing-voter repellant. Plus, it gives Kerry another reason to point out that we’re already overextended fighting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq simultaneously. Arguing we’re gunning for another war, and hence a draft, would be quite plausible if we’re showing active signs of hostility. It’s just too risky prior to Nov.
After Nov., I haven’t a clue. I think that Israel will likely wait a year or so before they do anything definitive. Once that “point of no return” is reached, though, things could get very, very complicated; but by then the elections will be very past-tense.
Can you provide evidence he presented any other sort of threat?
Perhaps you meant some sort of specific threat or at some specific time? I was talking in general to a general comment.
Um, the 9-11 Commission report states quite succinctly that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and does in no way provide support for the notion that Iraq posed an imminent threat to US security, which was the assertion of Bush when he lied to the American people. What, do you link to giant tomes like this just to distract people? Have you anything better to throw at us, by way of a smokescreen, or are you as weak as squink in a debate?
Hey Loopydude, are you going to provide some evidence for Iran’s nuclear weapons program, or are you just going to insult and threaten to ignore anyone who mentions that your skycastles have no foundation?
I’ve neither insulted you, nor threatened to “ignore” you, yet you’ve done both in a vain attempt to obscure the shoddy foundation upon which this discussion is based. Your continued refusal to address the issue is starting to look a lot like intentional dishonesty. Are you a dishonest debator, or just a little overinvested in proving yourself “right”?
From The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America, by John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge (New York: The Penguin Press, 2004), p. 215:
I don’t know of any particular government official, in Congress or in the White House who subscribes to this brand of fundamentalism – but I don’t think it would be that hard to find one or two; and I think it would be hard to dispute that the fundaloonies do have a lot of influence with the Admin with or without actual representation in it.
More updates: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-iran-khatami.html
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/international-nuclear-iran-israel.html:
Just to make it reasonably challenging on us, I decided to assume you meant “Did Clinton ever give any speeches down in Florida during his 1996 reelection campaign?”
No mention of Cuba in either story – which does not mean Clinton never said anything about “regime change” in Cuba during his administration . . . does anybody have a copy of his autobiography? If so, look up Cuba in the index (if it has an index) and let us know if you find anything.