# Bush says Iran remains a threat



## Gunny (Dec 4, 2007)

> Iran remains a threat to the world despite new intelligence saying the country may not be building nuclear weapons, the US president says.
> Mr Bush said the report released on Monday was a "warning signal" and his view that a nuclear Iran would be a danger "hasn't changed".
> 
> The president stressed that Iran was still trying to enrich uranium and could restart its weapons programme.
> ...



Well, then there's always this "minor little detail" ....


----------



## Annie (Dec 4, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Well, then there's always this "minor little detail" ....



He should have said, 'may have restarted it....'


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 4, 2007)

Doesnt this warrant a preemptive strike anyway?  Shucks, we supposedly know that Iran wants Nukes and will eventually find a way to make a Nuke just like Saddam had WMD or was going to get WMD.  Lets just blow them away before they hit us.  Lets get it over with.


----------



## jillian (Dec 4, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Well, then there's always this "minor little detail" ....



or it could mean he's sabre rattling again.

Bit of a credibilty problem for him.


----------



## Meemer (Dec 4, 2007)

It's a wonder his head didn't snap completely off from whiplash!

And if Iran has "restarted its 'nucular' program," who's going to believe it? 

I think this has to do it for credibility and accountability and 'intelligence?'.

(I'm new here; my first post; be nice; I do play well with others...most of the time.)


----------



## Gunny (Dec 4, 2007)

jillian said:


> or it could mean he's sabre rattling again.
> 
> Bit of a credibilty problem for him.



Only with you lefties.  

Those aren't Bush's words ... they're the NIE's and IAEA's.  Obviously, if Iran halted a nuclear weapons program, then they had to have one, right?

Now is this halted as in for good?  Or kinda like N Korea halted theirs?

Iran, by its own words is hostile to the US.  Anyone who discounts them as a potential threat needs to have some political rhetoric vacummed out of their heads and some common sense pumped in.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 4, 2007)

I've never claimed that iran wasn't a potential threat. 

The debate, to me, has been about the nature of the threat.  Bush voters assured me that they somehow knew in their gut, that iran was building a nuclear bomb, was close to having one, and the threat was becoming imminent. 

I said I saw no evidence for a nuclear weapons program, I saw no evidence of a grave or immediate threat, and I was fine with continuing to use diplomacy and inspections. 

I turned out to be right on all counts.


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 4, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Only with you lefties.
> 
> Those aren't Bush's words ... they're the NIE's and IAEA's.  Obviously, if Iran halted a nuclear weapons program, then they had to have one, right?
> 
> ...



Considering that Bush knew of this information weeks ago when attempting to convince the world to put sanctions on Iran, and didn't disclose this information, yeah it pretty much shreds what little is left of Bush's credibility.


----------



## jillian (Dec 4, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Only with you lefties.
> 
> Those aren't Bush's words ... they're the NIE's and IAEA's.  Obviously, if Iran halted a nuclear weapons program, then they had to have one, right?
> 
> ...



You know very well that on these issues I'm not a "lefty", so dismissing my opinion out of hand isn't really approrpriate.

Anyone listening to him twist and moan and backtrack on this issue has to ask why the same verbiage as before Iraq...when we know they were distorting the truth then, too.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... won't get fooled again. Isn't that what baby bush said?

Yeppers.


----------



## Meemer (Dec 4, 2007)

And, Larkinn, it makes one wonder about the MidEast conflab at Annapolis. He knew; we know he knew. And he had to have used the 'threat' of Iran at the conference against some of those countries. 

GunnyL, those aren't Bush's words? 
 He's repeating them so hard and so fast his head is liable to spin right off his skinny neck!


----------



## Gunny (Dec 4, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> I've never claimed that iran wasn't a potential threat.
> 
> The debate, to me, has been about the nature of the threat.  Bush voters assured me that they somehow knew in their gut, that iran was building a nuclear bomb, was close to having one, and the threat was becoming imminent.
> 
> ...



Did you?  Appparently you were wrong.  Apparently even the IAEA concedes that Iran has a nuclear weapons program that is currently halted.  You have repeatedly said there isn't one.

I want you to name these "Bush voters" that assured you Iran was building a nuclear bom, was close to having one and the threat was becomming imminent.

Fact is, YOU created your enemy to perpetuate your rant.  All of these mysterious "neocons," and "rightwingers" and "Bushies" you continually quote but never name don't in fact exist anywhere but in your mind.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 4, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Considering that Bush knew of this information weeks ago when attempting to convince the world to put sanctions on Iran, and didn't disclose this information, yeah it pretty much shreds what little is left of Bush's credibility.



LMAO.  Bush's credibility has withstood 7 years of you cheapshot artists and your fantasies.  I'm sure he'll survive one more.

Bush considers Iran a threat to the US, STILL, with or without this information.  Probably because Iran considers the US its enemy?  

Imagine THAT.


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 4, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Did you?  Appparently you were wrong.  Apparently even the IAEA concedes that Iran has a nuclear weapons program that is currently halted.  You have repeatedly said there isn't one.
> 
> I want you to name these "Bush voters" that assured you Iran was building a nuclear bom, was close to having one and the threat was becomming imminent.
> 
> Fact is, YOU created your enemy to perpetuate your rant.  All of these mysterious "neocons," and "rightwingers" and "Bushies" you continually quote but never name don't in fact exist anywhere but in your mind.




I'm on record here stating that I wouldn't be suprised at all if iran was doing research into military applications for nuclear technology. 

I simply asked you for evidence that they were currently working on a nuclear weapons program, that would justify your president's "World War Three" rhetoric. 

You were never able to provide any evidence, other than your gut feelings. 

We now know why


EDIT:



> DCD:   *Now, it's entirely possible that Iran has a covert nuclear weapons research program*. In fact, they've probably had a nuclear weapons research program since the days of the shah, when they were our buddies. However, there's *currently* no concrete evidence of it. But, in terms of going to war and spending another trillion dollars on your war lust, you're simply going to have to do better than making assumptions and asserting them as fact... You're going to have to provide concrete evidence.
> 
> 
> http://usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=618543&postcount=38




You stand corrected....


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 4, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> LMAO.  Bush's credibility has withstood 7 years of you cheapshot artists and your fantasies.  I'm sure he'll survive one more.



Of course it has with *cough* Independent voters like you.   The rest of us realize that he has none left, however.   So much for UN sanctions against Iran...its little more than a pipe dream now.   So as much as you may have complete faith in his credibility, people who matter don't.   



> Bush considers Iran a threat to the US, STILL, with or without this information.  Probably because Iran considers the US its enemy?
> 
> Imagine THAT.



So does Chavez.   I don't see the US saying "all options are on the table" about invading Caracas.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 4, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> I'm on record here stating that I wouldn't be suprised at all if iran was doing research into military applications for nuclear technology.
> 
> I simply asked you for evidence that they were currently working on a nuclear weapons program, that would justify your president's "World War Three" rhetoric.
> 
> ...



Assinine, nothing more.  You ask me for evidence that Iran is currently working on a nuclear weapons program, but I never stated Iran was in fact working on a nuclear weapons program.   Lord only knows where you come up with that "gut feeling" bullshit from.  

Looks like the IAEA found it for you though.

The most rhetoric I see around here comes from YOU.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Dec 4, 2007)

Well this is interesting. 

Just who is collecting the data for the report?


----------



## jillian (Dec 4, 2007)

I'd take anything newsmax says with a major grain of salt.


----------



## Dr Grump (Dec 4, 2007)

Meemer said:


> And, Larkinn, it makes one wonder about the MidEast conflab at Annapolis. He knew; we know he knew. And he had to have used the 'threat' of Iran at the conference against some of those countries.
> 
> GunnyL, those aren't Bush's words?
> He's repeating them so hard and so fast his head is liable to spin right off his skinny neck!



Neocons will look for any excuse to start something with Iran..anything..


----------



## Diuretic (Dec 5, 2007)

"Wolf! Wolf! No, really this time there really is a wolf!"   

Face it, Bush and Cheney need a bogeyman to frighten Americans with, it's how they get away with all their shredding of the constitution.

Let's hear it from the dynamic duo, Georgie and Dick!  Maestro please:

_"We gotta have fear, 
All we really need is fear,
Fear's the thing that if we've got it onside
It helps to keep us inside.....the White House..boom, boom!"_*

 





*Acknowledgements to BennyVan Buren and Alan Sherman


----------



## onedomino (Dec 5, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> I simply asked you for evidence that they were currently working on a nuclear weapons program, that would justify your president's "World War Three" rhetoric.


How many times do we have to read this idiotic sentence? In the history of nuclear weapons development there never has been definitive evidence that any nation was developing a weapon until they tested their first device. Extremists like you seem to want a photo of an Iranian mullah installing a nuclear trigger in a device. Unless the Iranians are colossally stupid there will never be evidence they are constructing a device until their first test goes off. What definitive evidence was there that America, Russia, France, UK, China, India, NK, and Pakistan were constructing nuclear weapons until their first devices were exploded? Everyone knows Israel has nuclear weapons. Cite the "evidence" of such. There is no definitive evidence Israel had a nuclear weapons development program, much less that it actually has devices. The only evidence that was ever available that these nations were working on a device was circumstantial. And sometimes not even that was available. Regarding Iran, you know very well that circumstantial evidence existed regarding their now supposedly halted program. And it currently exists regarding their intentions to build a device in the future, or at the very least keep viable their option to build a device in the future. Explain why Iran does not cooperate with the IAEA. Explain why they bury some of their nuclear facilities deep underground. Explain why they refused to do a deal with the Russians for the slightly enriched nuclear fuel necessary for civilian power generation, but rather spent billions on centrifuges and other infrastructure needed to produce the highly enriched uranium necessary for nuclear weapons. Their behavior does not make any sense if all they want to do is produce electricity. And the NIE report is very specific on the point that nothing is known regarding the future bomb building intentions of the Iranian mullahs. Insist on hard evidence that the mullahs are building a weapon before attempts are made to stop them and you will guarantee that they will get the bomb, just like India, Pakistan, and North Korea.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 5, 2007)

Larkinn said:


> Of course it has with *cough* Independent voters like you.   The rest of us realize that he has none left, however.   So much for UN sanctions against Iran...its little more than a pipe dream now.   So as much as you may have complete faith in his credibility, people who matter don't.
> 
> 
> 
> So does Chavez.   I don't see the US saying "all options are on the table" about invading Caracas.




The "rest of us"?  You mean fools who will put Hillary Clinton in office because there's a D behind her name?  Lot's of credibility THERE. 

Again, I will point out that it is YOU and your strawman enemy who is doing all the talk of invasion.  You have displayed NOTHING but a black-or-white only, "either Iran gets every benefit of doubt and a blind eye turned to it because I hate Bush or you want to invade Iran" mentality in the who knows how many threads on the topic you have started spouting the same rhetoric.


----------



## doniston (Dec 5, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Well, then there's always this "minor little detail" ....


  What "MINOR LITTLE DETAIL"  might that be?  Pray tell us all about it.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 5, 2007)

*All of these mysterious "neocons," and "rightwingers" and "Bushies" you continually quote but never name don't in fact exist anywhere but in your mind.*

 
 


i tellya.. it's great fun watching people distance themselves from their old 04 W bumper sticker!  There are neocons, rightwingers AND bushies just like there are the Far left, tree hugger environmentalists and fans of dem candidates.  The difference between now and 04 is the impotent swell of neocon support considering the last, say, 7 years.  Hell, I remember being told about MANDATES and everything!


----------



## DeadCanDance (Dec 5, 2007)

Being a NeoCon means never having to apologize for continually being wrong. 

Wrong about Iraq WMD, wrong about Saddam-Al Qaeda collaborative ties, wrong about the Iranian nuclear program.  


Being wrong, just invites new opportunities to spin your way out of being wrong:

_We didn't invade Iraq for WMD!

So what if Iran doesn't have a nuke weapsons program!  Give credit to Bush's invasion of iraq!_


----------



## Larkinn (Dec 5, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> The "rest of us"?  You mean fools who will put Hillary Clinton in office because there's a D behind her name?  Lot's of credibility THERE.



Right...all the people who are voting for Hillary instead of Obama or Edwards or Dodd are doing so because there is a D in front of her name.   

And actually by "rest of us" I meant everyone in the world who isn't in love with Bush and think he can do no wrong.   That includes a wide variety of people.   

Oh, and by the way...merely because you hate Hillary for whatever personal reasons you have doesn't mean other people aren't voting for her based on her record as opposed to because she has a D behind her name.   



> Again, I will point out that it is YOU and your strawman enemy who is doing all the talk of invasion.  You have displayed NOTHING but a black-or-white only, "either Iran gets every benefit of doubt and a blind eye turned to it because I hate Bush or you want to invade Iran" mentality in the who knows how many threads on the topic you have started spouting the same rhetoric.



Lmfao...now you want nuance when it suits you to claim that I'm not doing it?   Oh and since we are playing the gams you love to play, please quote me where I said or implied Iran gets every benefit of doubt and a blind eye turned to it.


----------



## Alpha1 (Dec 5, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> I've never claimed that iran wasn't a potential threat.
> 
> The debate, to me, has been about the nature of the threat.  Bush voters assured me that they somehow knew in their gut, that iran was building a nuclear bomb, was close to having one, and the threat was becoming imminent.
> 
> ...



I guess as long as you keep mis-stating the facts, I'll have to repeat this over and over.....

Bush voters didn't assure you anything and what evidence you saw is irrelevant ...the NIE REPORT IN 2005 CLAIMED THAT IRAN WAS STILL TRYING TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS....

Try to let that FACT sink in....the NIE of 2005 made the claims....
and my hat is off to you for being so much smarter than the 16 intell agencys that WRITE the NIE conclusions.....


----------



## mattskramer (Dec 5, 2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

_The November 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judges that Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program in fall 2003 and that it remained halted as of mid-2007. The estimate further judges that US intelligence does not know whether Iran "intends to develop nuclear weapons", but that Iran would be unlikely to achieve nuclear weapons "capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems"._

I wonder what people like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity would be saying if the NIE concluded that Iran is developing Nuclear weapons?  Would they be telling us to look at the report critically?  Would they be wanting to know who authored the report?  Would they be calling on us to look at and evaluate the detail?  I doubt it.  I strongly doubt that they would ask us to question the report.  Rush would be leading a cheer of &#8220;See, I told you so&#8221;.


----------



## Chips Rafferty (Dec 5, 2007)

Diuretic said:


> "Wolf! Wolf! No, really this time there really is a wolf!"
> 
> Face it, Bush and Cheney need a bogeyman to frighten Americans with, it's how they get away with all their shredding of the constitution.
> 
> ...



What I can't understand is why, from America's unbroken line - excluding Cafflik Kennedy, who they killed anyway - of Proddie bigots as Presidents, the WASP establishment picked this Walter Mittyish dry-drunk with a messiah complex to white-ant.  

The only thing I can come up with is it was because he was finally going to take on a nation a bit more militarily muscular than the usual coral atoll, banana republic, or bombed out wasteland like Iraq, that is formulaic fare for the American armed farces. 

Although technologically and equipmentally piss-weak compared to America's farces, clearly Iran wasn't going to be the shooting gallery that Iraq &#8220;war&#8221; was. Casualty wise, it could even be more like America's eleventh hour, regulation roll-up of the demoralised sweepings of the Axis military cellar, left over by WW2 war-winners Russia and China.

Accordingly, the Mexican and South American wetbacks, and the many other illegal migrants, that make up the business end of the US military aren't gonna volunteer in their droves to do the fighting. _Posthumous_ US citizenship is as useless as the Pope's nuts to a covetous peon who has watched too many episodes of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.

Therefore there would have to be a military draft of the publicly warlike but privately cowardly WASP's that infest cyber boards. And we all know how these fire-eating fascists suddenly turn pacifist when asked to _fight_ for the flag, rather than wave it.


----------



## doniston (Dec 6, 2007)

mattskramer said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
> 
> _The November 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judges that Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program in fall 2003 and that it remained halted as of mid-2007. The estimate further judges that US intelligence does not know whether Iran "intends to develop nuclear weapons", but that Iran would be unlikely to achieve nuclear weapons "capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems"._
> 
> I wonder what people like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity would be saying if the NIE concluded that Iran is developing Nuclear weapons?  Would they be telling us to look at the report critically?  Would they be wanting to know who authored the report?  Would they be calling on us to look at and evaluate the detail?  I doubt it.  I strongly doubt that they would ask us to question the report.  Rush would be leading a cheer of See, I told you so.



Meanwhile, closer to home, Kindly note that King Gunny has declined to  Identify his so-called "Minor little detail"


----------



## Chips Rafferty (Dec 6, 2007)

doniston said:


> Meanwhile, closer to home, Kindly note that King Gunny has declined to  Identify his so-called "Minor little detail"



It must be infuriating for the fascists that the Cape Cod cowboy has conned them yet again

NB that the Bible, that Bush, and the criminal cabal that back him up, claim is their moral compass, puts* LIARS* in the same class  as *POOFTERS* and slavers.

*GOD THINKS DIMWIT IS NO BETTER THAN A FAGGOT!*

It stands to reason then, that God also despises his poofophile Republican supporters.

*DEATH TO ALL TURD TAMPING FASCISTS AND THEIR FAGGOT LEADER!!*


----------



## Chips Rafferty (Dec 6, 2007)

Alpha1 said:


> I guess as long as you keep mis-stating the facts, I'll have to repeat this over and over.....
> 
> Bush voters didn't assure you anything and what evidence you saw is irrelevant ...the NIE REPORT IN 2005 CLAIMED THAT IRAN WAS STILL TRYING TO DEVELOP NUCLEAR WEAPONS....
> 
> ...



What a shame we didn't have Dimwit back in the good ol' Cold War days. 

He wouldn't have tolerted Russia and China, who were PUBLICLY advocating America's annihilation, developing WMD for one moment.

He would have turned the enitre Eurasian landmass into a nuclear wasteland that in turn poisoned the whole planet!

As a felicituous corollary, he would also have forced God to bring the Rapture forward and all the counterfeit decent folk would have been whisked off to Souper Paradise leaving anti-fascist filth like me behind!


----------



## doniston (Dec 8, 2007)

Chips Rafferty said:


> What a shame we didn't have Dimwit back in the good ol' Cold War days.
> 
> He wouldn't have tolerted Russia and China, who were PUBLICLY advocating America's annihilation, developing WMD for one moment.
> 
> ...



Holy Cow, ANOTHER ONE.--- No wonder I can't understand where you are coming from.   I just read yiour sig.---Another Retired?????? Gunnery Sergeant???---- DAMN,  it's an epidemic


----------



## Gunny (Dec 8, 2007)

Shogun said:


> *All of these mysterious "neocons," and "rightwingers" and "Bushies" you continually quote but never name don't in fact exist anywhere but in your mind.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do not contend that those people don't exist.  I contend that DCD's continual ranting "right-wing neocons say this ... right-wing neocons say that" is nothing more than rhetoric.  He takes the most extreme right-wing stances and continually plays them off as the general beliefs of anyone who doesn't embrace in left-wing extremism.

You don't remember hearing about mandates from me.  I think Bush's election was a much a "mandate" against Gore and Kerry as it any "mandate" to support him.

And *I* am an environmentalist.  Go figure.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 8, 2007)

DeadCanDance said:


> Being a NeoCon means never having to apologize for continually being wrong.
> 
> Wrong about Iraq WMD, wrong about Saddam-Al Qaeda collaborative ties, wrong about the Iranian nuclear program.
> 
> ...



Being a leftwingnut means that no matter how many times your lies are exposed and proven wrong, you go right on repeating them as if fact and reality have no play in the matter.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 8, 2007)

doniston said:


> Meanwhile, closer to home, Kindly note that King Gunny has declined to  Identify his so-called "Minor little detail"



Nope.  The way I hid what I was referring to by *BOLDING* it in the initial thread is *NOT* a freakin' clue, Eisntein.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 8, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> I do not contend that those people don't exist.  I contend that DCD's continual ranting "right-wing neocons say this ... right-wing neocons say that" is nothing more than rhetoric.  He takes the most extreme right-wing stances and continually plays them off as the general beliefs of anyone who doesn't embrace in left-wing extremism.
> 
> You don't remember hearing about mandates from me.  I think Bush's election was a much a "mandate" against Gore and Kerry as it any "mandate" to support him.
> 
> And *I* am an environmentalist.  Go figure.



"mandate"!

hehehehe.. I remember the Reagan landslide in 84 (barely, i was a kid) and had quite a chuckle at the use of that word in 04.  

Yea, it's generalizing and i do hate it when people do that at the left. 

Hope you are having a great weekend!


----------



## doniston (Dec 9, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Nope.  The way I hid what I was referring to by *BOLDING* it in the initial thread is *NOT* a freakin' clue, Eisntein.


 Is that supposed to be a question?

 But you did not spell it out---DUMMY  Maybe YOU knew what you were about, but are the rest of us supposed to be mind readers?    and no, it was NOT a freakin clue.  And still isn't


----------



## Annie (Dec 9, 2007)

doniston said:


> Is that supposed to be a question?
> 
> But you did not spell it out---DUMMY  Maybe YOU knew what you were about, but are the rest of us supposed to be mind readers?    and no, it was NOT a freakin clue.  And still isn't



I had no trouble following his points.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 9, 2007)

doniston said:


> Is that supposed to be a question?
> 
> But you did not spell it out---DUMMY  Maybe YOU knew what you were about, but are the rest of us supposed to be mind readers?    and no, it was NOT a freakin clue.  And still isn't



Ummm ... no ... I expect for you to hold at least a 3rd grade reading and comprehension level and read what is there.

You're making yourself look like a fool.  Again.


----------



## doniston (Dec 10, 2007)

GunnyL said:


> Ummm ... no ... I expect for you to hold at least a 3rd grade reading and comprehension level and read what is there.
> 
> You're making yourself look like a fool.  Again.


  Better to look like a fool on occasion that be one perpetually like you.  I still haven't gotten your point.  Maybe it takes a dunce to understand you.


----------



## doniston (Dec 10, 2007)

Kathianne said:


> I had no trouble following his points.


  OH, I understood his "POINTS" alright.  I just didn't, AND DON'T understand that particular "general" comment.


----------

