Wisdom is what you get from experience. Unfortunately, it's usually the bad experiences.

Who could ever have seen that coming? (Facepalm.)

Maybe not, but it is very welcome nonetheless.

Some disenchanted evening,
You may see a short dude,
Across a crowded room...

It's the Jooos! Tehy did it!

re: #3 SanFranciscoZionist

Some disenchanted evening,
You may see a short dude,
Across a crowded room...

You may see an ayatollah,
Across a crowded room...

I wonder how many Obama supporters are going to freak out about this change in policy.

Then again, I wonder how many more are going to blindly follow whatever the man says.

I think it's too little too late, but hey, it's just me.

Reality has a way of smacking people upside the head.

I fully support this move by the administration.

Good learning curve.

Obama's apologies got snubbed by the ayatollahs. Maybe he took it personally.

This is a return to the status quo - and the Russians are going to bat for Iran by saying no way sanctions will be forthcoming from the UN.

It's nice to see that the Obama foreign policy team realizes that they can't change the world with wishful thinking, but they've got a long way to go. Wishful thinking is institutionalized in the State Department, particularly when it comes to the ME. I fondly call it pseudorealism, because it substitutes the facts on the ground for their wishful thinking.

It's long hampered the US efforts in the ME, and the sooner we realize the situation, the easier it may be to push for a genuine peace - or realize that no peace is possible until there are actually two sides genuinely interested in peace.

how about the recent lightning-trip by Netanyahu to Russia ?

re: #8 Sharmuta

Reality has a way of smacking people upside the head.

I fully support this move by the administration.

I have to hand it to the President. He catches on quick, this one. I do wish he'd come in with this expectation, but better now than when the ayatollahs are dangling a nuke over our heads.

Isn't that a little too little too late? Did this administration finally realize the Israel may take care of the situation if nothing was done to Iran? Of course when did sanctions do anything but receive a stifled yawn from the accused?

The open hand was extended, the fist remained clenched, and now the hand closes. Some will say it happened too fast, some will say it happened too slow.

He reminds me of my 15 month old.
About the 10th time he opened the drawer and banged himself on the head, he quit doing it

Sanctions? We need a stronly worded letter first, no?
/

This could be Obama is getting tired of having his overtures being rejected.

Or, as this is in front of a Jewish group, it could be like Obama's declaration that Jerusalem should be the united capital of Israel, which was changed a day later.
We'll see. I hope it is the former, and he comes down hard on Iran and the countries that trade with Iran.
I think the West should hold those countries that continue to trade with Iran responsible for any use of nuclear weapons by Iran.
But that will never happen.

re: #3 SanFranciscoZionist

Some disenchanted evening,
You may see a short dude,
Across a crowded room...

First sanction: No reception for you!

/

Question : Do sanctions still starve Children, or only when Bush was president?

re: #6 MrSilverDragon

I wonder how many Obama supporters are going to freak out about this change in policy.

Then again, I wonder how many more are going to blindly follow whatever the man says.

That sounds like a of damned if they do, and damned if they don't kind of thing.

re: #11 lawhawk

This is a return to the status quo - and the Russians are going to bat for Iran by saying no way sanctions will be forthcoming from the UN.

It's nice to see that the Obama foreign policy team realizes that they can't change the world with wishful thinking, but they've got a long way to go. Wishful thinking is institutionalized in the State Department, particularly when it comes to the ME. I fondly call it pseudorealism, because it substitutes the facts on the ground for their wishful thinking.

It's long hampered the US efforts in the ME, and the sooner we realize the situation, the easier it may be to push for a genuine peace - or realize that no peace is possible until there are actually two sides genuinely interested in peace.

I think part of the problem is that when people say stuff in the Middle East, we tend to act like we don't believe them--that they're just posturing, "saber rattling," what have you.

We would do better to take people at their word.

re: #19 OldLineTexan

First sanction: No reception for you!

/

Are you calling Obama a (reception) Nazi?
(Are they serving soup at the reception?)
/

Just got a hate mail titled "Krauthammer humiliates LGF."

Because CK wrote an article in which he completely swallows the Truther allegation against Van Jones, which is unsupported by a single statement Jones has ever made. Sad to see Krauthammer falling in line with the talking points -- he's usually more rational than that.

Damn, Sam! It was only last night that I was arguing on LGF for them to do this very thing!

/I didn't realize I had this much influence with them...;~)

Its funny to watch Democrats whine and bitch about the previous administration's policy towards Iran, announce that they will do things differently to work to "understand" why they hate us, and then when they get to the White House and read through all the intel come to the conclusion that perhaps the Iranian regime really are a bunch of assholes. Just like the previous administration has been saying.

Sure would have been nice if they came to this realization back in June.

Maybe Hugo won't send Iran gasoline now.
/

I hope this is true and still holds true 12 months from now. I'm encouraged but I think I'll take the "show me" position pending seeing how this plays out a little further.

Question: If Hillary steps down to run for governor, what changes if anything vis a vis Iran?

8 months down the drain, but better late than never. Hopeful, but still a little skeptical.

I wonder how many votes were gained by Obama back in November because his disdain for the Bush policy vis a vis Iran and instead attempt "the unclenched fist diplomacy"!

re: #29 sattv4u2

I wonder how many votes were gained by Obama back in November because his disdain for the Bush policy vis a vis Iran and instead attempt "the unclenched fist diplomacy"!

Obama was trying to be all things to all people back in '08. Now he's got reality to deal with.

re: #21 Coracle

That sounds like a of damned if they do, and damned if they don't kind of thing.

Hey, it worked with anything Bush did, and people haven't changed much since Jan. 21.

/

re: #27 Cannadian Club Akbar

Maybe Hugo won't send Iran gasoline now.
/

Joe Kennedy can have it all

re: #24 Charles

Don't feel bad, you are in good company. Krauthammer once dissed Reagan for being a "hollywood liberal" way back when...

re: #29 sattv4u2

I wonder how many votes were gained by Obama back in November because his disdain for the Bush policy vis a vis Iran and instead attempt "the unclenched fist diplomacy"!

The untried tactic can never succeed.

re: #31 OldLineTexan

Hey, it worked with anything Bush did, and people haven't changed much since Jan. 21.

/

And therefore it's OK, because they did it first.
/

Meanwhile, Putin shows he's either an idiot or a liar (and I'm guessing it is the latter)

Speaking during a meeting with foreign experts on Russia, Putin said that Russia had no reason to doubt that Iran's nuclear program is purely peaceful.

Read the whole article.

re: #34 Coracle

The untried tactic can never succeed.

definition of insanity

the "tactic" has been tried many times

re: #24 Charles

Have you spoken to some of these people you know about that, Charles? Reason I ask is that I wanted to put up a couple VDH articles in the spinoffs the last couple days, but they also make reference to Jones' trutherism. I'm wondering if you've communicated with anyone, and what their responses were - other than just getting pissed off and de-linking you, that is.

re: #34 Coracle

The untried tactic can never succeed.

The Dubya administration tried diplomacy, led by Britain, France and Germany, for 6 whole years before turning to UN sanctions.

The AA definition of insanity is doing the same damn thing all over again, and expecting a different result.

re: #33 Thanos

Don't feel bad, you are in good company. Krauthammer once dissed Reagan for being a "hollywood liberal" way back when...

He doesn't mention LGF in the article. That was just hate coming from my anonymous emailer.

re: #21 Coracle

That sounds like a of damned if they do, and damned if they don't kind of thing.

It's much more than that.

I can understand people supporting the president, but never questioning it? Blindly following anything that's said because, hey, it's the president? On the flip side of the coin, there were those that believed in the president, but because of one change in policy, he's suddenly the devil.

There's no middle ground anymore.

I'm personally not a fan of Obama. I disagree with his policies, I disagree with the direction that I feel he's pointing the country, but I respect the fact that he's in office and that he is the president, and that my recourse is to disagree and present my views, not to suddenly throw myself to the polar extremes of the position.

re: #37 sattv4u2

definition of insanity

the "tactic" has been tried many times

GMTA!

re: #39 Salamantis

gmta ,, (#37)

re: #42 Salamantis

CUT IT OUT!

Cue the outrage on the left? Waiting... Another Bush policy continued... Where are my code pink gals???

BBIAB

re: #35 Coracle

And therefore it's OK, because they did it first.
/

And therefore it's nothing new. I put a sarc tag in there on purpose, realizing what would get flung back at me, were I to dare speak of IT.

re: #37 sattv4u2

definition of insanity

the "tactic" has been tried many times

The unsuccessful tactic should never be (re)tried.

re: #44 sattv4u2

CUT IT OUT!

It's like I'm inside your head...or you're inside mine...and I can't figure out which...;~)

Are some fists unclenchable? If so, and I think they do exist, sanctions and breaking out 'the big stick' if and when absolutely necessary would appear to be the best options. Words do nothing actually and carrots rarely feed, cloth, house or heal the people as they buy weapons to fill clenched fists.

re: #34 Coracle

The untried tactic can never succeed.

The clouded mind sees nothing!

Fox News saying big rally in downtown London - Anti Muslim Youths.

re: #15 Coracle

The open hand was extended, the fist remained clenched, and now the hand closes. Some will say it happened too fast, some will say it happened too slow.

Some will say it shouldn't have happened at all, but we are where we are. No more talks about no pre-conditions. That makes me glad, frankly.

re: #51 SteveC

The clouded mind sees nothing!

Sure it does. it sees clouds.

/that's something, isn't it?

he new foreign policy motto is optimism before sense.

re: #41 MrSilverDragon

It's much more than that.

I can understand people supporting the president, but never questioning it? Blindly following anything that's said because, hey, it's the president? On the flip side of the coin, there were those that believed in the president, but because of one change in policy, he's suddenly the devil.

There's no middle ground anymore.

I'm personally not a fan of Obama. I disagree with his policies, I disagree with the direction that I feel he's pointing the country, but I respect the fact that he's in office and that he is the president, and that my recourse is to disagree and present my views, not to suddenly throw myself to the polar extremes of the position.

Thank you for that clarification. I certainly agree that the middle ground seems scarcer these days.

re: #52 SteveC

Fox News saying big rally in downtown London - Anti Muslim Youths.

(OT)

From SkyNews

Far Right And Anti Fascists Clash

Anti-fascist demonstrators and right wing protetsters have clashed with police near a mosque in Harrow, north-west London.

Rocks were thrown at officers wearing riot gear and there were a number of skirmishes in the area between the Harrow Central Mosque and Harrow and Wealdstone tube station.

The trouble began when around 1,600 anti-fascists turned up at the mosque to show support for the Muslim community in the face of an authorised protest by the Stop Islamification Of Europe.

More follows...

Probability of imminent Airstrike on Iran low according to Prediction Markets

re: #54 MrSilverDragon

Sure it does. it sees clouds.

/that's something, isn't it?

*Puts down his philosophy handbook and sits down, stunned*

Well, at least he finally realized that Iran is hellbent on getting nuclear weapons.

Now, when is he going to realize that he may be helping Israel and retreat from this position?

Now if he's just abandon his naivete about providing something for nothing for everything.

re: #62 Russkilitlover

Now if he's just abandon his naivete about providing something for nothing for everything.

re: #62 Russkilitlover

Now if he's just abandon his naivete about providing something for nothing for everything.

Your text to link...

re: #53 Sharmuta

Some will say it shouldn't have happened at all, but we are where we are. No more talks about no pre-conditions. That makes me glad, frankly.

I was thinking of saying that too. The flip side is that some say we never opened it far enough. I agreed with neither of those, however, and didn't want to belabor my point.

I understand that Bush tried his own path before turning to sanctions. I interpret (just me) that Obama thought Bush 'did it wrong' and that he had better ideas to try. He tried them. They didn't work. Today's Iran is not the same Iran of 2000, or 2004, or 2008, or even May 2009. Policy and attitude toward it can never be unchanging and monolithic.

Uh oh, reread the piece...forget the change as they were talking to Jewish leaders which should be taken with a huge, the size of the Salt Flats, grain of salt. I doubt if the same would be stated by these two senior administration officials to a group of Muslim leaders.
The Obama administration is Camellia change...or as CSNY would sing, "...love the one you're with"...moment by moment.

re: #65 Pupdawg

Uh oh, reread the piece...forget the change as they were talking to Jewish leaders which should be taken with a huge, the size of the Salt Flats, grain of salt. I doubt if the same would be stated by these two senior administration officials to a group of Muslim leaders.
The Obama administration is Camellia change...or as CSNY would sing, "...love the one you're with"...moment by moment.

I agree. Saying blather to a particular group (in this instance, Jewish group) is just so much politicking. Say it to a joint session of congress. Say it in a press conference. Then I'll say good on ya; till then pfffttt.

Obama tried to extend an olive branch to Iran. They're no more interested in it than any neighboring state (save perhaps Egypt) is in making peace with Israel.

The truth is that most of the Middle East are run by religious warlord cults. It explains the steaming piles of nonsense on MEMRI's web site.

I see only one problem with this approach. We already have made sanctions against Iran. There isn't much that we can do to them economically. The only thing left is to stop buying their oil. And the only way to do that is to come up with less expensive alternatives.

If I were in Obama's shoes right now, I'd make a big deal out of telling OPEC that we're going to invest ridiculous money and focus on alternative energy research. The payoff could be wonderful.

re: #64 Coracle

I was thinking of saying that too. The flip side is that some say we never opened it far enough. I agreed with neither of those, however, and didn't want to belabor my point.

I understand that Bush tried his own path before turning to sanctions. I interpret (just me) that Obama thought Bush 'did it wrong' and that he had better ideas to try. He tried them. They didn't work. Today's Iran is not the same Iran of 2000, or 2004, or 2008, or even May 2009. Policy and attitude toward it can never be unchanging and monolithic.

After decades of experience with the mullahs of Iran, who are utterly duplicitous and reprehensible human beings without exception, there's really no excuse for believing a policy of "engagement" would have any positive effects at all.

This was pure naivete. And anyone could see it wasn't going to work.

I strongly suspect the entire reason for this misguided policy was solely to appeal to the far left, to get Obama elected.

re: #52 SteveC

Fox News saying big rally in downtown London - Anti Muslim Youths.

yobs out on a friday night is all...must be upset..did a soccer game get cancelled? anti muslim youths = every drunk anglo young man in Britian on a friday night

re: #68 Charles

I strongly suspect the entire reason for this misguided policy was solely to appeal to the far left, to get Obama elected.

You mean he lied? ;}

re: #68 Charles

After decades of experience with the mullahs of Iran, who are utterly duplicitous and reprehensible human beings without exception, there's really no excuse for believing a policy of "engagement" would have any positive effects at all.

This was pure naivete. And anyone could see it wasn't going to work.

I strongly suspect the entire reason for this misguided policy was solely to appeal to the far left, to get Obama elected.

Do you think Obama himself believed it was the correct policy?

Even Wile E. Coyote eventually realizes he's run past the edge of the cliff.

re: #70 Russkilitlover

You mean he lied? ;}

He "misspoke"...

Lying is so... crude...

So, is this another campaign pledge broken?

re: #72 The Curmudgeon

Even Wile E. Coyote eventually realizes he's run past the edge of the cliff.

Usually about the time he falls and goes splat... then its too late.

Late! Maybe to late!

Hmpf!

re: #64 Coracle

I was thinking of saying that too. The flip side is that some say we never opened it far enough. I agreed with neither of those, however, and didn't want to belabor my point.

I understand that Bush tried his own path before turning to sanctions. I interpret (just me) that Obama thought Bush 'did it wrong' and that he had better ideas to try. He tried them. They didn't work. Today's Iran is not the same Iran of 2000, or 2004, or 2008, or even May 2009. Policy and attitude toward it can never be unchanging and monolithic.

Yes it is. The Supreme Leader in Iran for all of that time - in fact, since 1989 - has been Ali Khameini. And there have been popular riots brutally put down there before.

Since when is embracing multilateral negotiations before turning to international sanctions considdered wrong by liberals?

Answer: when conservatives do it.

The failure of the Obama administration, and the Bush administration before it, to do something concrete to curb the Iranian nuclear program only increases the chances that the Israelis will need to do something. And the longer everyone stalls, the greater the odds that the only thing that will eliminate the Iranian nuclear program will be a preemptive nuclear strike by Israel. Where that leads, no one can predict, and no one really wants to find out.

The longer the Iranian threat exists, the worse the possible consequences.

On the Iranian nuclear issue - what could Bush have done differently?

re: #79 Racer X

A blockade on Iran comes to mind. No earthly reason we could not have done just that.

re: #78 Son of the Black Dog

The Israelis have already shown that they're not beyond doing what needs to be done to prevent another state in the region from going nuclear.

It will happen. And when it does, there will be Iranian missiles landing in Israel. Then there will be an all-out war against two countries that don't even have a common border. And what will be stuck in the middle?

Iraq.

sigh...

re: #79 Racer X

On the Iranian nuclear issue - what could Bush have done differently?

I've gotta say, he didn't do much that he couldn't do without engaging in open hostilities using military force.

An Iranian expert who advocated engagement. From the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine, written or submitted (I assume) before the protests:

Washington can, and should, do something similar [to what Nixon did regarding China in the 70's] with Tehran today and finally end three decades of hostility by highlighting the two governments' shared interests in defeating al Qaeda and stabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq. Tehran, for its part, must recognize that without some kind of understanding with Washington over the issues that matter to the U.S. government, it will not be able to fully benefit from its recent ascent as a regional power -- and could even lose much of what it has gained.

Obama's stated policy clearly had some expert backing. Maybe it was the protests which caused him to reverse or lack of cooperation from Iran.

[Link: www.foreignaffairs.com...]

re: #79 Racer X

On the Iranian nuclear issue - what could Bush have done differently?

Very briefly: Karg Island.

re: #80 irongrampa

A blockade on Iran comes to mind. No earthly reason we could not have done just that.

Anti-ship-missiles.

re: #80 irongrampa

A blockade on Iran comes to mind. No earthly reason we could not have done just that.

That would have required the use of force to make it happen.

re: #80 irongrampa

The Europeans would have a cow. Much of their oil comes from Iran.

re: #80 irongrampa

That would be a military action. They still have silkworms, no?

re: #83 Flyers1974

An Iranian expert who advocated engagement. From the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine, written or submitted (I assume) before the protests:

Washington can, and should, do something similar [to what Nixon did regarding China in the 70's] with Tehran today and finally end three decades of hostility by highlighting the two governments' shared interests in defeating al Qaeda and stabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq. Tehran, for its part, must recognize that without some kind of understanding with Washington over the issues that matter to the U.S. government, it will not be able to fully benefit from its recent ascent as a regional power -- and could even lose much of what it has gained.

Obama's stated policy clearly had some expert backing. Maybe it was the protests which caused him to reverse or lack of cooperation from Iran.

[Link: www.foreignaffairs.com...]

Maybe it was finally realizing that fervent fanatical religious zealots are irrational actors.

From the article..

US House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman made on-the-record remarks in which he promised action on his sanctions legislation, pending the September 24 deadline. He has not yet moved it forward since introducing it in May, to give diplomacy time to work. [ How'd that work out? -ed ]

"Thus far Iran has thumbed its nose at President Obama's generous offer to engage," he said. "If Iran does not reverse course, absent some compelling evidence as to why I should do otherwise, I will mark up my bill next month and begin the process of tightening the screws on Iran."

What did he ever see or hear from Ahmadinejad that led him to believe Iran would do anything other than thumb its nose at Obama's offer to engage? Did he really sit on his legislation for 4 months waiting for the phone to ring? Dude must be pretty dense.

re: #68 Charles

After decades of experience with the mullahs of Iran, who are utterly duplicitous and reprehensible human beings without exception, there's really no excuse for believing a policy of "engagement" would have any positive effects at all.

This was pure naivete. And anyone could see it wasn't going to work.

I strongly suspect the entire reason for this misguided policy was solely to appeal to the far left, to get Obama elected.

I think we might have to agree to disagree about that. I think the Obama administration was hoping the Iranian election was going to change the political landscape in Iran. and was holding out for that. If it had, then a policy of engagement might truly have a chance. It did not, and Iran's leadership confirmed its commitment to its current path. No chance of working with that, so the policy had to change.

One thing the election and the protests, and their vicious quelling did reveal is that the country is not monolithic as its leadership. It's just not strong enough (yet?) to throw it off.

re: #83 Flyers1974

An Iranian expert on Iran who advocated engagement. From the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine, written or submitted (I assume) before the protests:

So I wonder if the Reality Based Community is going to follow the Obama Admin down the path to reality?

Doesn't matter - just glad the POTUS is seeing things in a more realistic light.

The litmus for me will be Afghanistan - there is a groundswell within the left to simply walk out of there. No more nation building. No more hunting down the Taliban other than airstrikes here and there. No protecting the population from the savage brutality that ruled over them only 8 years ago.

[Link: www.salon.com...]

re: #88 blangwort

The Europeans would have a cow. Much of their oil comes from Iran.

You mean Russia? Much of the European oil and natural gas came via pipeline from Russia.

re: #83 Flyers1974

An Iranian expert who advocated engagement. From the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine, written or submitted (I assume) before the protests:

Washington can, and should, do something similar [to what Nixon did regarding China in the 70's] with Tehran today and finally end three decades of hostility by highlighting the two governments' shared interests in defeating al Qaeda and stabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq. Tehran, for its part, must recognize that without some kind of understanding with Washington over the issues that matter to the U.S. government, it will not be able to fully benefit from its recent ascent as a regional power -- and could even lose much of what it has gained.

Obama's stated policy clearly had some expert backing. Maybe it was the protests which caused him to reverse or lack of cooperation from Iran.

[Link: www.foreignaffairs.com...]

Based on what Ahmedinijad said, though, he didn't seem to care about his position as a world power. He was only bragging about bringing the 12th Imam. That was all that mattered to him. With that kind of focused insanity (for lack of a better term), he didn't care what people did to him.

Very hard to negotiate with someone like that.

re: #90 Salamantis

Maybe it was finally realizing that fervent fanatical religious zealots are irrational actors.

Not if rational means doing what is necessary to keep the regime in place. According to this author at least.

Negotiate softly. Carry a big stick.

re: #12 noshariaincanada

how about the recent lightning-trip by Netanyahu to Russia ?

It's called "re-alignment" based on a cold hard assessment by Israel that it can no longer count on the US.

[Link: www.commentarymagazine.com...]

re: #45 ointmentfly

Where are my code pink gals???

Wouldn't you rather they remain unseen and unheard?

re: #96 vxbush

Based on what Ahmedinijad said, though, he didn't seem to care about his position as a world power. He was only bragging about bringing the 12th Imam. That was all that mattered to him. With that kind of focused insanity (for lack of a better term), he didn't care what people did to him.

Very hard to negotiate with someone like that.

Agreed. I recall an article describing how Putin was trying to discuss ways of reigning in the US with Ahmedinijad and he was more interested in the 12th Imam (or something to that effect.) The question is, does Ahmedinijad hold the real power?

It's just empty positioning while the clock runs out. Russia has already responded in a predictable way to oppose sanctions. Lots of talk. Nothing concrete will happen, and all sides know it.

re: #92 Coracle

I think we might have to agree to disagree about that. I think the Obama administration was hoping the Iranian election was going to change the political landscape in Iran. and was holding out for that. If it had, then a policy of engagement might truly have a chance. It did not, and Iran's leadership confirmed its commitment to its current path. No chance of working with that, so the policy had to change.

One thing the election and the protests, and their vicious quelling did reveal is that the country is not monolithic as its leadership. It's just not strong enough (yet?) to throw it off.

But it is the totalitarian Iranian leadership that decides whether or not to pursue nukes, not the underthumb populace.

Unless and until that changes, we should take them at their 'train with no brakes' word, and try to pop the rails with crippling international sanctions before we are forced to dynamite the trestles.

But, but, but... Won't that *gasp* damage our relationship in the world community?!?!

/ / /

re: #100 JamesTKirk

Wouldn't you rather they remain unseen and unheard?

But they are SO HOT!!
/I just threw up a little in the back of my throat.

re: #99 MJ

It's called "re-alignment" based on a cold hard assessment by Israel that it can no longer count on the US.]

And do you really believe that the Jews want to trust the Russians?
Not that "Pogrom" is a Slavic word...

So I'm guessing the unicorns and rainbows are still on back order, huh?

re: #72 The Curmudgeon

Even Wile E. Coyote eventually realizes he's run past the edge of the cliff.

Only after it's too late.

re: #97 Flyers1974

Not if rational means doing what is necessary to keep the regime in place. According to this author at least.

"I care not whether Iran burns, so long as it advances the cause of Islam."

Ayatollah Khomeini

Thirty years of Iran saying "Death to the Great Satan [United States]" and supporting our enemies throughout the region finally made an impression on Pres. Obama.

re: #107 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

So I'm guessing the unicorns and rainbows are still on back order, huh?

They're sitting in a crate next to the Ark.

re: #106 Joshua Cohen

And do you really believe that the Jews want to trust the Russians?
Not that "Pogrom" is a Slavic word...

Who said anything about "want to trust"?
It's balance of power politics.

re: #101 Flyers1974

Agreed. I recall an article describing how Putin was trying to discuss ways of reigning in the US with Ahmedinijad and he was more interested in the 12th Imam (or something to that effect.) The question is, does Ahmedinijad hold the real power?

Have you seen today's news?

Putin opens door to return as Russia president

re: #100 JamesTKirk

Wouldn't you rather they remain unseen and unheard?

I might be calling them out, but I will certainly avert my eyes if they actually show up on scene to protest Obama, which will happen when one of them flies...

re: #92 Coracle

I think we might have to agree to disagree about that. I think the Obama administration was hoping the Iranian election was going to change the political landscape in Iran. and was holding out for that. If it had, then a policy of engagement might truly have a chance. It did not, and Iran's leadership confirmed its commitment to its current path. No chance of working with that, so the policy had to change.

One thing the election and the protests, and their vicious quelling did reveal is that the country is not monolithic as its leadership. It's just not strong enough (yet?) to throw it off.

The fact that there are power struggles in Iran has no bearing on what I wrote. Of course there are power struggles in a totalitarian society. The mistake is believing that the side opposite the current rulers would automatically be more positive toward the United States. There's absolutely no reason to believe that.

The mullahs have been playing a shell game with the West ever since the revolution, and the West just keeps picking the wrong shell.

re: #85 Joshua Cohen

re: #80 irongrampa

A blockade on Iran comes to mind. No earthly reason we could not have done just that.

Anti-ship-missiles.

Casus belli.

OJT

re: #24 Charles

I know you couldn't find any statements Jones made regarding the government's role in 9/11, but what about the petition he signed in 2004? In this article, Mike Berger of 911Truth.org disputed Jones' claim that he didn't carefully review the petition. Berger said all petition signatories were confirmed to have agreed with the petition statement that members of the Bush administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen. What motive would Berger have to lie? If, in fact, Jones does believe the Bush administration was involved in 9/11, I find it odd that he hasn't said anything publicly about it, yet I can't get this petition out of my mind. Something just doesn't add up.

re: #118 schlagerman

I know you couldn't find any statements Jones made regarding the government's role in 9/11, but what about the petition he signed in 2004? In this article, Mike Berger of 911Truth.org disputed Jones' claim that he didn't carefully review the petition. Berger said all petition signatories were confirmed to have agreed with the petition statement that members of the Bush administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen. What motive would Berger have to lie? If, in fact, Jones does believe the Bush administration was involved in 9/11, I find it odd that he hasn't said anything publicly about it, yet I can't get this petition out of my mind. Something just doesn't add up.

Oh no, not again.
You believe a truther?

re: #110 Rexatosis

Thirty years of Iran saying "Death to the Great Satan [United States]" and supporting our enemies throughout the region finally made an impression on Pres. Obama.

But you see... they didn't really mean it... it was just cause we were so mean and wouldn't talk to them. And then you have those JOOS!!!

re: #112 MJ

Who said anything about "want to trust"?
It's balance of power politics.

It's getting f*cked (from behind) without getting even kissed for sure.

re: #110 Rexatosis

Thirty years of Iran saying "Death to the Great Satan [United States]" and supporting our enemies throughout the region finally made an impression on Pres. Obama.

But he fixed all that! He gave the Cairo speech! WHATS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE?

/

re: #86 Guanxi88

Unquestioned--an extreme measure to deal with an extreme situation. All the pants dancing from the diplomatic corps, in this kind of dilemma is nonproductive. Best to deal with this particular problem in as final a manner as possible.

The alternative is less than desirable.

re: #68 Charles

I strongly suspect the entire reason for this misguided policy was solely to appeal to the far left, to get Obama elected.

Chuh. Obama has lots of misguided policies that appeal to the Left and helped get him elected.

re: #118 schlagerman

I know you couldn't find any statements Jones made regarding the government's role in 9/11, but what about the petition he signed in 2004? In this article, Mike Berger of 911Truth.org disputed Jones' claim that he didn't carefully review the petition. Berger said all petition signatories were confirmed to have agreed with the petition statement that members of the Bush administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen. What motive would Berger have to lie?

He's a troofer.

I think that point's already been covered.

re: #116 JamesTKirk

Casus belli.

As is a blockade.

And you could always report some of those missiles stolen and let a small group use it...one or two burning or sinking American ship would be a huge propaganda success.

re: #118 schlagerman

I know you couldn't find any statements Jones made regarding the government's role in 9/11, but what about the petition he signed in 2004? In this article, Mike Berger of 911Truth.org disputed Jones' claim that he didn't carefully review the petition. Berger said all petition signatories were confirmed to have agreed with the petition statement that members of the Bush administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen. What motive would Berger have to lie? If, in fact, Jones does believe the Bush administration was involved in 9/11, I find it odd that he hasn't said anything publicly about it, yet I can't get this petition out of my mind. Something just doesn't add up.

So you're willing to believe something you saw on a Troofer website.

How wonderful for you.

Soon you'll be questioning the structural properties of steel.

Re# 120 MikeAlv77

On second thought maybe the left thought the Mullahs were chanting "Death to Santana" and just didn't like rock music./

re: #119 MJ

No, I don't necessarily believe a truther. I just don't know what motive he would have to lie. Maybe he is lying just to make the Obama administration look bad. All I'm saying is the evidence is conflicting.

re: #126 taxfreekiller

Your in a bar room full of thugs.

The owner (Russia) sits way in the back, nodding his head to those he controls.

Your on your own, most of the guys who came out drinking with you, (England, Germany, etal) well they are not just near as you approach the first big ass bouncer between you and the Russian who supplied the brass knuckles to him..(Iran), your choice is, beat the shit out of the bouncer in front of the owner and scare the shit out of him, or con your way past the
bouncer and kick the owner in the balls when he least expects it.

Your not at a A.C.L.U. meet up in a Starbucks.

I appreciate your zeal, TFK, but this doesn't make any sense to me.

Russia has already - today, per the NY Times - said they will not support sanctions against Iran. So Obama is actually just abandoning one form of naivete (engagement with a fundamentalist Islamic regime led by a guy who gets political advice by dropping notes down the well the "hidden Imam" drowned in centuries ago) for another (trying to use Obama's imaginary "credibility" to convince Russia and Iran to support sanctions they just said they would not support).

Ahh, smart power. Yet again, Obama's Administration reminds me of nothing so much as the classic Simpson's scene involving Ned Flanders' beatnik parents, who are continually flabbergasted that failing to discipline their child results in an undisciplined child. To paraphrase:

Obama: We don't believe in rules, like, we gave them up when we started livin' like freaky Democrats!
Russia: You don't believe in rules, yet you want to control Iran's anger.
Obama: Yeah. You gotta help us, Putin. We've tried [doing] nothin' and we're all out of ideas

.

I did not say I believe him. I just asked what motive he would have to lie. Easy there amigos, no need to get all worked up.

re: #130 schlagerman

No, I don't necessarily believe a truther. I just don't know what motive he would have to lie. Maybe he is lying just to make the Obama administration look bad. All I'm saying is the evidence is conflicting.

Come on, it isn't difficult to think of a reason why he'd lie. The Truthers were accused of misleading people into signing that petition. Of course he would lie to try to counter that accusation.

re: #118 schlagerman

[Van Jones -911trooth yada, yada, yada] I can't get this petition out of my mind.

You could start by laying off the Lager, back away from the keyboard, and come back when you are sober and sane.

re: #128 SixDegrees

So you're willing to believe something you saw on a Troofer website.

How wonderful for you.

Soon you'll be questioning the structural properties of steel.

I-beams grow on I-beam trees.

re: #135 Charles

I hadn't heard they were accused of that. I've only followed this story peripherally. I'm more interested in the health care debate than this.

The red states are revolting...

Tim Pawlenty advocates state sovereignty

Minnesota Republican Tim Pawlenty urged fellow governors on Thursday to more frequently assert state sovereignty over the federal government and suggested that the country may increasingly see states suing the federal government.

Asked by a caller about the option of asserting the Tenth Amendment as a tactic to reject a successful health care overhaul by President Barack Obama during a tele-town hall organized by the Republican Governors Association, Pawlenty said, “that’s a possibility.”

Speaking generally about the tenth amendment, Pawlenty said the country has not had “a proper federalism debate since Ronald Reagan raised the issue in the 1980s.”

“You’re starting to see more governors, me and governor [Rick] Perry from Texas, speaking out on this and asserting our tenth amendment rights,” Pawlenty said on a call listened to by more than 12,000 people.

“Asserting the tenth amendment may be a viable option,” Pawlenty said, adding that there may be “more of those claims and maybe even lawsuits if need be.”

Bring it on.

re: #103 Salamantis

But it is the totalitarian Iranian leadership that decides whether or not to pursue nukes, not the underthumb populace.

Unless and until that changes, we should take them at their 'train with no brakes' word, and try to pop the rails with crippling international sanctions before we are forced to dynamite the trestles.

My point is that it had the chance to change this summer. It was squashed by fraud, yes. I did not think, at the time, that was a foregone conclusion. Neither, apparently, did much of the population of Iran. Neither, possibly, did the administration.

A policy of potential engagement at the time of the Iranian elections was certainly a signal to those opposed to the totalitarian leadership that antagonism from both parties wasn't the indelible rule. It turned out not to be enough. I don't know if a hard line policy from the US would have hurt the opposition in Iran's election, but I doubt it would have helped.

re: #135 Charles

Probably a good deal of lying going on from both sides--and ALL of it self-serving.

re: #136 Bagua

Did you even bother to look at my post #134 before you posted?

Re# 133 Buzzsawmonkey

So what, I was in H.S. then and everyone I went to school with who wasn't in a perpetual cloud of 24/7 pot smoke knew what the hell the Mullahs meant and what their intentions were.

re: #18 Kosh's Shadow

Or, as this is in front of a Jewish group, it could be like Obama's declaration that Jerusalem should be the united capital of Israel, which was changed a day later.

My first thought exactly. I think Obama et al. are finally beginning to see a little wavering in Jewish support, and this statement is meant to shore up Jewish support. And, as lawhawk so aptly points out:

and the Russians are going to bat for Iran by saying no way sanctions will be forthcoming from the UN.

So Obama blathers with no chance of having to follow through.

I haven't seen any evidence that Van Jones personally spoke out in support of Truther ideas or theories.

But I also don't see any evidence Jones tried to get his name removed from the Truther petition even though it was posted on the internet for 5 years with the radical Truther agenda clearly spelled out.

re: #113 Pianobuff

Have you seen today's news?

Putin opens door to return as Russia president

No I did not. Thanks. Interesting.

re: #139 Killgore Trout

The red states are revolting...

Tim Pawlenty advocates state sovereignty

Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry (both of whom are creationists) are going for the tea party / Ron Paul factions. And they're using loaded terms like "states rights" to appeal to the racists and bigots in the base.

re: #139 Killgore Trout

The red states are revolting...

Tim Pawlenty advocates state sovereignty

Bring it on.

What is the reference to Ronald Reagan? Any ideas on what Pawlenty is referring to there?

re: #130 schlagerman

No, I don't necessarily believe a truther. I just don't know what motive he would have to lie. Maybe he is lying just to make the Obama administration look bad. All I'm saying is the evidence is conflicting.

Did Jones deny signing the petition? Anyway, one will never know whether he did or not.

This is my favorite Jones comment:

"You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never," Jones said. "They always say, 'We can't believe it happened here. We can't believe it's these suburban white kids.' It's only them!" he said. "Now, a black kid might shoot another black kid. He's not going to shoot up the whole school."

The term drive by ring any bells?

re: #146 KingKenrod

I haven't seen any evidence that Van Jones personally spoke out in support of Truther ideas or theories.

But I also don't see any evidence Jones tried to get his name removed from the Truther petition even though it was posted on the internet for 5 years with the radical Truther agenda clearly spelled out.

And you also haven't seen any evidence that he even knew his name was posted on the internet. Who hangs around Truther sites searching for their name?

re: #121 Joshua Cohen

It's getting f*cked (from behind) without getting even kissed for sure.

Perhaps. But from a a balance of power standpoint- in other words, "Realism" as defined by the writings of Hans Morgenthau or A. F. K. Organsky it makes perfect sense.

OT

Very much a rhetorical question, but If [Link: www.Ask.com,...] [Link: www.Bing.com...] and [Link: www.akamai.com...] can acknowledge 9/11 why can't Google?

re: #118 schlagerman

I know you couldn't find any statements Jones made regarding the government's role in 9/11, but what about the petition he signed in 2004? In this article, Mike Berger of 911Truth.org disputed Jones' claim that he didn't carefully review the petition. Berger said all petition signatories were confirmed to have agreed with the petition statement that members of the Bush administration deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen. What motive would Berger have to lie? If, in fact, Jones does believe the Bush administration was involved in 9/11, I find it odd that he hasn't said anything publicly about it, yet I can't get this petition out of my mind. Something just doesn't add up.

What motive? He's King of the Troofers! His entire world view is rooted in a lie. A big part of Charles' argument regarding the Jones/troofer issue is that you can't rely on testimony from the troofers themselves about the issue. If there were evidence that wasn't sourced/originated from the troofers own website, then you'd have a more solid argument.

re: #130 schlagerman

No, I don't necessarily believe a truther. I just don't know what motive he would have to lie. Maybe he is lying just to make the Obama administration look bad. All I'm saying is the evidence is conflicting.

There is no evidence other than the say-so of a Troofer - someone who lies with every breath they take, someone who lies about everything, someone who lies incessantly, and does so in exactly the way demonstrated here - by manufacturing false petitions and lists of signatures by duping or simply by counterfeiting.

In other words, there is no evidence.

re: #115 Charles

The fact that there are power struggles in Iran has no bearing on what I wrote. Of course there are power struggles in a totalitarian society. The mistake is believing that the side opposite the current rullers would automatically be more positive toward the United States. There's absolutely no reason to believe that.

Ah, well. I would have liked the chance to find that out. I didn't assume they would automatically be more positive. I didn't assume they would be automatically intractably negative either, however. And, more to the point, I believe that was close to what the administration's thinking was.

re: #135 Charles

Salon has a piece today with more information. They asked a basic question - would you resign the petition today if presented?

Many unequivocally said that they would. One exception was Paul Hawken, who says that his name was added by someone else and that he's demanded proof that he actually signed anything (none forthcoming).

In other words - you've got the troofers puffing their numbers, but some also expressed sadness that Jones repudiated his position.

re: #149 Pianobuff

Any ideas on what Pawlenty is referring to there?

I was curious about that too. No clue.

re: #139 Killgore Trout

Some governors are seeing the light about the dependency on fed moola. Take fed money for services which should be the responsibility of the state, become the Feds b**ch.

re: #158 taxfreekiller

keep it simple

Most of the planet earth is a f'n mess.
The U.S.A. is on planet earth.
It is a bad ass place with lots of thugs and mad dog killers.
If you let them get strong enough, they are going to take your stuff.

It is like that.

Wait ... wait ... I understood that./

re: #158 taxfreekiller

AKA always watch the treeline.

re: #148 Charles

Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry (both of whom are creationists) are going for the tea party / Ron Paul factions. And they're using loaded terms like "states rights" to appeal to the racists and bigots in the base.

Let's hope that nobody takes them seriously enough to rise upo against the government if healtchare reform passes. It's going to be a very dangerous time.

re: #160 badger1970

Some governors are seeing the light about the dependency on fed moola. Take fed money for services which should be the responsibility of the state, become the Feds b**ch.

Not to mention that the feds are just returning to the state money which they took from it in the first place.

re: #151 Charles

And you also haven't seen any evidence that he even knew his name was posted on the internet. Who hangs around Truther sites searching for their name?

Exactly. It would be like the people at the stalking site posting a comment using someone's nic from here. First, unless we made a habit of reading every post over there, we'd probably never know it unless someone brought it to our attention. Second, it could be a little hard to convince people it wasn't us at all. Much as I'm no Van Jones fan, I'll give him the benefit on this one.

re: #148 Charles

Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry (both of whom are creationists) are going for the tea party / Ron Paul factions. And they're using loaded terms like "states rights" to appeal to the racists and bigots in the base.

Speaking of Ron Paul, anyone noticed LaRoche lately?

Visitors From Planet LaRouche

[Link: thelede.blogs.nytimes.com...]

re: #158 taxfreekiller

keep it simple

Most of the planet earth is a f'n mess.
The U.S.A. is on planet earth.
It is a bad ass place with lots of thugs and mad dog killers.
If you let them get strong enough, they are going to take your stuff.

It is like that.

That makes significantly more sense. Thank you for the clarification.

re: #155 SixDegrees

There is no evidence other than the say-so of a Troofer - someone who lies with every breath they take, someone who lies about everything, someone who lies incessantly, and does so in exactly the way demonstrated here - by manufacturing false petitions and lists of signatures by duping or simply by counterfeiting.

There is one thing Truthers NEVER lie about -- the fact that they believe in conspiracy theories. They're PROUD of this. They boast about it, and never miss an opportunity to rant.

And that's another big reason why I don't believe Van Jones is really a Truther. If he were, he would have said something somewhere in the last eight years about it. But there's nothing.

And ... he specifically said he never believed in Trutherism. In this case, I'll believe him even though he's a radical leftist -- long before I'll believe the Truthers who are trying to claim him as one of their own.

re: #165 JamesTKirk

Not to mention that the feds are just returning to the state money which they took from it in the first place.

And, which was taken from us in the very beginning.

re: #140 Coracle

My point is that it had the chance to change this summer. It was squashed by fraud, yes. I did not think, at the time, that was a foregone conclusion. Neither, apparently, did much of the population of Iran. Neither, possibly, did the administration.

A policy of potential engagement at the time of the Iranian elections was certainly a signal to those opposed to the totalitarian leadership that antagonism from both parties wasn't the indelible rule. It turned out not to be enough. I don't know if a hard line policy from the US would have hurt the opposition in Iran's election, but I doubt it would have helped.

As long as all prospective candidates for office are vetted by the mullahcracy, and only those whom they approve are allowed to stand for election, any talk of genuine democratic elections in Iran is ignorant and naive.

Totalitarians never voluntarily surrender power. It must be forcibly taken from them, if it is taken at all.

re: #170 MandyManners

And, which was taken from us in the very beginning.

Oh Mandy. You gave and you gave without taking.

Change!

re: #172 JamesTKirk

Oh Mandy. You gave and you gave without taking.

I liked Homer's version.

Oh Marge,
You came and you found me a turkey
On our vacation away...

re: #156 Coracle

Ah, well. I would have liked the chance to find that out. I didn't assume they would automatically be more positive. I didn't assume they would be automatically intractably negative either, however. And, more to the point, I believe that was close to what the administration's thinking was.

We've had 30 years to find that out.

We should know it by now.

re: #167 MJ

Speaking of Ron Paul, anyone noticed LaRoche lately?

Visitors From Planet LaRouche

[Link: thelede.blogs.nytimes.com...]

Also this:

Lyndon LaRouche and His Supporters Inject Holocaust Imagery Into the Health Care Debate

[Link: www.adl.org...]

re: #172 JamesTKirk

Oh Mandy. You gave and you gave without taking.

I'm gonna' resist.

re: #159 Killgore Trout

I was curious about that too. No clue.

There's a pretty wide stretch of ground between advocating on the one hand for smaller federal government and a larger decision-making role for states and, on the other hand, out-and-out secession. Is state sovereignty somewhere in the middle of that? I ask because I'm not really sure.

Me, I'd like to see states play a bigger role and the federal government a bit less. I'm not a secessionist, though. I would also hope that no-one would think so.

How does one read through the rhetoric to know what a given politician has in mind?

re: #87 buzzsawmonkey

Cautious applause.

Cautious, because the question is whether the soft instrument of sanctions will do anything to affect Iran's nuclear program, and whether, even if it might, it is too little, too late.

I applaud the apparent stiffening of Obama's backbone here, but remain discouraged that the learning curve seems so very slow.

So, yes, applause--I really would prefer to be able to applaud my President--but cautiously.

Well said!

Personally, I did not support Obama and did not approve of his campaign promises to give negotiations a try. I did not agree with his premise that President Bush had not given diplomacy a chance. My opinion was outvoted and those who supported Obama's position prevailed.

Once Obama became POTUS, I fully expected him to do as he had promised which he has done. That is a mark in his favour. Now that he has started tightening the screws on Iran, far sooner than most of his opponents ever expected, I am pleased and supportive. Should he follow through with action, he will have silenced those who said "give peace a chance" and increased America's moral authority.

This is a great thing, a glimmer of hope and news that should ease our suffering on this 9-11.

Sanctions will probably involve sharp temporary over-pressures at some point IMHO.

Plenty of perfectly valid reasons for rational folks to conclude Van Jones is an obnoxious, disingenuous, opportunistic bigot. I don't need an unprovable signature on a demonstrably fraudulent petition to disqualify him for every imaginable position of public trust.

re: #169 Charles

There is one thing Truthers NEVER lie about -- the fact that they believe in conspiracy theories. They're PROUD of this. They boast about it, and never miss an opportunity to rant.

And that's another big reason why I don't believe Van Jones is really a Truther. If he were, he would have said something somewhere in the last eight years about it. But there's nothing.

And ... he specifically said he never believed in Trutherism. In this case, I'll beieve him even though he's a radical leftist -- long before I'll believe the Truthers who are trying to claim him as one of their own.

Going over Jones' past pronouncements, it's obvious he has a terminal case of oral diarrhea; he runs on and on and on about every damn thing he's involved in or believes in or just happened to brush up against on his way to lunch. The total absence of Trooferism from all of his past statements is, to say the very least, uncharacteristic.

I'll note, too, that requests to see copies of the actual document bearing Jones' signature have gone unanswered. Gee - what could a humble, honest Troofer be hiding?

I don't want anyone on this site, or anywhere for that matter, to think I support a Truther. Nothing could be further from the truth. I hadn't paid close attention to this story, and I'm not as knowledgeable about the Truther movement as many of those who post here regularly. For right or wrong, I don't believe the Truther movement is worth my time or energy. I just asked a simple question about motive, nothing more, nothing less.

re: #148 Charles

Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry (both of whom are creationists) are going for the tea party / Ron Paul factions. And they're using loaded terms like "states rights" to appeal to the racists and bigots in the base.

I wouldn't mind at all seeing the Federal level operate closer to their enumerated powers, but I there are questions of "who's driving" and "do we know where they are taking us".

At the moment, it's just posturing noise. But, if support became broader, do you lend your support and hope for a good outcome, or hold back until better hands are holding the wheel?

re: #176 MJ

Also this:

Lyndon LaRouche and His Supporters Inject Holocaust Imagery Into the Health Care Debate

[Link: www.adl.org...]

A Jew-hating asshole is using that?

re: #166 subsailor68

It is nice to know that there are some lines that can't be crossed with this administration though - that they wont tolerate a troofer in the Administration (assuming the push to resign rather than resign on their own).

re: #152 MJ

Perhaps. But from a a balance of power standpoint- in other words, "Realism" as defined by the writings of Hans Morgenthau or A. F. K. Organsky it makes perfect sense.

There is nothing Russian will gain out off this - and so Russia is not interested. Tiny Israel has nothing to offer that they are interested in.

Besides, doing business with the bear will let you always end as the loser.

re: #159 Killgore Trout

I was curious about that too. No clue.

Reagan was opposed to Washington doing things that it shouldn't be doing. Since then, no one's really brought it up.

Abandoning naivete? In favor of full-blown ignorance followed by the assumption of the ostrich position? What feasible alternatives do we have to forcibly confront Iran at this time? What can we hold over their heads?

Not a lot has changed, politically speaking, in that part of the world for nearly 30 years. Iran would not be as noisome as it is but for the support of others, i.e.; Russia, China and NOK-- three regimes that do not have our best interests at heart. I have no suggestion as to how to counter that influence, but I am concerned that the noisier Iran, the more it is some form of mis-direction.

re: #177 MandyManners

I'm gonna' resist.

Please do. You can return to flirting with me and obviously displaying to one and all your overwhelming attraction to me tomorrow.

The accusation of being a truther is so harsh and understandibly so that a 1% chance of van jones being is too much.

re: #186 lawhawk

It is nice to know that there are some lines that can't be crossed with this administration though - that they wont tolerate a troofer in the Administration (assuming the push to resign rather than resign on their own).

Hi lawhawk! Hope you're well today and have a great weekend planned! Interesting point. It would be a bit ironic, though, if the administration's reason for asking/pushing for the resignation ended up being based on the one thing Jones wasn't guilty of. And I loves me irony!

re: #178 Pianobuff

How does one read through the rhetoric to know what a given politician has in mind?

They are talking about actually seceding from the union. I don't think they're actually serious about it, they are just pandering to the nuts. The danger is that someone takes their revolutionary fantasies and acts on them.

re: #146 KingKenrod

I haven't seen any evidence that Van Jones personally spoke out in support of Truther ideas or theories.

But I also don't see any evidence Jones tried to get his name removed from the Truther petition even though it was posted on the internet for 5 years with the radical Truther agenda clearly spelled out.

Well, you have seen Van Jones run out of office by a braying mob in a manner that evokes the lynchings that greeted uppity negroes with controversial opinions in times past. But that's not good enough, eh? He must grovel and beg for forgiveness as well?

re: #171 Salamantis

As long as all prospective candidates for office are vetted by the mullahcracy, and only those whom they approve are allowed to stand for election, any talk of genuine democratic elections in Iran is ignorant and naive.

Totalitarians never voluntarily surrender power. It must be forcibly taken from them, if it is taken at all.

I agree with everything here. I didn't think Obama's "engagement" policy was designed to change Iran, but rather to buy time or to keep the status quo (on the assumption that military options seem unlikely to be used.)

Is it your opinion that force should be used against Iran?

On a lighter note:

Second Video Shows ACORN Officials Helping 'Pimp,' 'Prostitute' in Washington Office

Is it possible that the only problem ACORN really has is a flawed hiring and training program? That they really are only well-intended community organizers? That all would be well if they'd only take the time to tighten up their employment standards? Hmmm?

Let me think...

Nah.

re: #186 lawhawk

It is nice to know that there are some lines that can't be crossed with this administration though - that they wont tolerate a troofer in the Administration (assuming the push to resign rather than resign on their own).

The problem is that while he may have lost his title as a 'czar', there is no guarantee that his influence within the Administration is necessarily diminished.

re: #195 Flyers1974

I agree with everything here. I didn't think Obama's "engagement" policy was designed to change Iran, but rather to buy time or to keep the status quo (on the assumption that military options seem unlikely to be used.)

Is it your opinion that force should be used against Iran?

The global consequences of using force against Iran to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons would be horrific.

The global consequences of allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons would be vastly, massively worse.

re: #188 cliffster

Reagan was opposed to Washington doing things that it shouldn't be doing. Since then, no one's really brought it up.

I'm thinking that the stimulus combined with certain states having such overwhelming fiscal issues may have been the catalyst, but I can't be certain.

It's quite possible that people in some states that are running in the black don't want to be associated with some of the more poorly run states and financially bound in whatever gets done to "fix" the under-performing states. This is really just a guess though.

More important to me, I would like to know what term one should use when referring to a view of favoring smaller federal government/more empowered state government. I wish there was a name for this general point of view that would not lend itself to ridicule. Have any ideas?

re: #197 brazilofmux

The problem is that while he may have lost his title as a 'czar', there is no guarantee that his influence within the Administration is necessarily diminished.

At least he doesn't have direct control over that 30 billion dollars or so as a czar.

re: #156 Coracle

Ah, well. I would have liked the chance to find that out. I didn't assume they would automatically be more positive. I didn't assume they would be automatically intractably negative either, however. And, more to the point, I believe that was close to what the administration's thinking was.

There are no other ways to say this to you. As long as the Mullahs,, ANY one or group of them rules over Iran it matters NOT what/ who the population votes for. It wouldn't matter if DinnerJacket had lost last election. American and western officials have been waiting for the "western freindly YOUTH/ Academic led uprising" since the day after the Shah took flight

I'm pretty sure most of those "youths" are much older now. I'm pretty sure that they have been replaced by newer models

I'm POSITIVE that the mullahs will continue to play Lucy to the wests Charlie Brown every time we try the "open hand" approach.

SYNOPSIS,,, MULLAHS IN CHARGE,,, (I need say no more)

Not really groundbreaking news but it's nice to see other people are noticing.
GOP 'cranks' dominating debate

re: #187 Joshua Cohen

There is nothing Russian will gain out off this - and so Russia is not interested. Tiny Israel has nothing to offer that they are interested in.

Besides, doing business with the bear will let you always end as the loser.

I am unsure what you mean that Russia will gain nothing out of this. Do you mean with closer relations with Israel? If that's the meaning, than I disagree. Russia has always wanted to play a greater role in the ME...whether, for good or bad. US Policy has always been based on minimizing Russia's role which was one reason why many folks criticized the formation of the "Quartet" since it gave Russia a role. One of the great American success stories in the ME was when Sadat kicked the Russians out of Egypt. The fact that the current Israeli government now feels that it must seek Russian influence says less about Russia and a great deal about the breakdown of trust between Israel and the America.

re: #198 Salamantis

The global consequences of using force against Iran to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons would be horrific.

The global consequences of allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons would be vastly, massively worse.

The second paragraph I concur wholeheartedly, but to the first I disagree. Iran is a paper tiger and a second rate power. The US military could handle them with little difficulty, just as it did Iraq.

re: #199 Pianobuff

Part of the problem is that "State's Rights" has historically been the banner of some very bad causes; slavery, segregation, discrimination, etc. There is a real debate to be had but it's usually just a cover for other issues.

re: #205 Bagua

The second paragraph I concur wholeheartedly, but to the first I disagree. Iran is a paper tiger and a second rate power. The US military could handle them with little difficulty, just as it did Iraq.

Iran itself is not the problem. Where I see a potential issue is that the Russians have been making a habit of backing the Iranians. If we were to get involved in open war with Iran, that could kick off World War III, depending on how determined the Russians and the Chinese are to play this game.

re: #194 Bagua

Oh, Really? Even aside from the "Truther" business, Van Jones had a history of impolitic statements and views, with race consitenly being part of their formulation.

Language such as "lynchings that greeted uppity negroes with controversial opinions " is completely incalled for. If race was ever part of this, Jones put it there.

Charles Martel posted this yesterday.

WASHINGTON — American intelligence agencies have concluded in recent months that Iran has created enough nuclear fuel to make a rapid, if risky, sprint for a nuclear weapon. But new intelligence reports delivered to the White House say that the country has deliberately stopped short of the critical last steps to make a bomb.

In the first public acknowledgment of the intelligence findings, the American ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency declared on Wednesday that Iran now had what he called a “possible breakout capacity” if it decided to enrich its stockpile of uranium, converting it to bomb-grade material.

The statement by the ambassador, Glyn Davies, was intended to put pressure on American allies to move toward far more severe sanctions against Iran this month, perhaps including a cutoff of gasoline to the country, if it failed to take up President Obama’s invitation for serious negotiations. But it could also complicate the administration’s efforts to persuade an increasingly impatient Israeli government to give diplomacy more time to work, and hold off from a military strike against Iran’s facilities..

In interviews over the past two months, intelligence and military officials, and members of the Obama administration, have said they are convinced that Iran has made significant progress on uranium enrichment, especially over the past year.

SNIP

re: #205 Bagua

The second paragraph I concur wholeheartedly, but to the first I disagree. Iran is a paper tiger and a second rate power. The US military could handle them with little difficulty, just as it did Iraq.

Remind me to send that to anyone that's left alive in Israel if Iran sends a nuke that way

Ya can't unring a bell!

re: #205 Bagua

The second paragraph I concur wholeheartedly, but to the first I disagree. Iran is a paper tiger and a second rate power. The US military could handle them with little difficulty, just as it did Iraq.

It wouldn't just be Iran itself; it would be their client state Syria, and their terror proxies in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Gaza (Hamas), as well as sleeper cells around the world.

There are a whole lot of stinging mosquitoes tied to that swamp.

re: #190 JamesTKirk

Please do. You can return to flirting with me and obviously displaying to one and all your overwhelming attraction to me tomorrow.

*smacks Tiberious with my fan*

re: #199 Pianobuff

The Wiki article is a relatively brief primer on the issue...
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Unfortunately the modern champion of the 10th amendment is Ron Paul.

re: #205 Bagua

The second paragraph I concur wholeheartedly, but to the first I disagree. Iran is a paper tiger and a second rate power. The US military could handle them with little difficulty, just as it did Iraq.

Iran would unleash its pet terrorists; watch for Iranian-made IEDs showing up in the US and Europe. I'd think Europe, because if they started blowing up Americans, there would be a call in the US to bomb Iran back to the stone age, even with Obama in office.

re: #206 Killgore Trout

Part of the problem is that "State's Rights" has historically been the banner of some very bad causes; slavery, segregation, discrimination, etc. There is a real debate to be had but it's usually just a cover for other issues.

That argument equates that it would be better for the government to decide on health care issues rather than the states themselves. I don't like that.

re: #206 Killgore Trout

Part of the problem is that "State's Rights" has historically been the banner of some very bad causes; slavery, segregation, discrimination, etc. There is a real debate to be had but it's usually just a cover for other issues.

It goes to whether or not you believe a large federal government is superior to smaller state governments.

Pawlenty and Perry are strategically stupid, and politically selfish. There might be places in the final bill that could overstep federal bounds, and if there are then courts are the correct place to fight them. (unfunded mandates come to mind) Rattling that saber in advance of knowing the final shape of the bill is pure posturing and political pandering.

It's also foolish at this point in light of the Republican counter proposal for HC of allowing cross-state transference of insurance...

re: #193 Killgore Trout

They are talking about actually seceding from the union. I don't think they're actually serious about it, they are just pandering to the nuts. The danger is that someone takes their revolutionary fantasies and acts on them.

Judging from Pawlenty's comments, I would not count him as one in support of secession, but he may be trying awfully hard to thread a needle, too. Looks like he tried to walk any extreme interpretations of what he said back a distance.

Since the topic is mentioned in the article, out of curiosity do you know the last time the federal government was sued by a state? Maybe some lizards know this. I'm curious.

"The Obama administration is giving up their naïve and ill-considered policy of 'engagement' toward Iran:..."

Someone's gonna be very disappointed.

"With Obama we can talk, we are almost from the same generation, one can't deny that Obama is different (from Bush). He's intelligent, he has good intentions and we have to help him."

And,

Chavez pledges closer ties with Iran

What's a thug to do?

re: #212 MandyManners

*smacks Tiberious with my fan*

That would be the 24" oscillating fan?

re: #217 Thanos

Pawlenty and Perry are strategically stupid, and politically selfish. There might be places in the final bill that could overstep federal bounds, and if there are then courts are the correct place to fight them. (unfunded mandates come to mind) Rattling that saber in advance of knowing the final shape of the bill is pure posturing and political pandering.

It's also foolish at this point in light of the Republican counter proposal for HC of allowing cross-state transference of insurance...

Yes, there is some difficulty in holding these two, seemingly contradictory, positions.

re: #199 Pianobuff

It's called the state's rights view, and it's one that as killgore notes above is reflected in the 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government's powers. The federal government has used Art 1, Sec. 8, Cl 18 as a catchall provision to expand its power, often using commerce clause arguments to propose new programs that might otherwise conflict with a state's rights view.

Ron Paul pushes this view, but takes it to an extreme that isn't supported either.

re: #208 MacDuff

Oh, Really? Even aside from the "Truther" business, Van Jones had a history of impolitic statements and views, with race consitenly being part of their formulation.

Language such as "lynchings that greeted uppity negroes with controversial opinions " is completely incalled for. If race was ever part of this, Jones put it there.

Yes really. What I wrote was not in support of Van Jones's politics, rather a condemnation of the way he was hounded out of office. That you read it so supports my point.

While the lunatic Right celebrates this lynching, they have no awareness that this has hurt their cause. It would have been far better had Jones remained in office, at which point all of the legitimate concerns, advanced properly, would have weakened his agenda. But no, it was a blood sport and needed a quick resolution.

And yes, I see a clear racial context, as do very many others. This has not helped your side, it has hurt and made Van Jones into a martyr.

re: #211 Salamantis

It wouldn't just be Iran itself; it would be their client state Syria, and their terror proxies in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Gaza (Hamas), as well as sleeper cells around the world.

There are a whole lot of stinging mosquitoes tied to that swamp.

Agreed, except for Syria on account that Assad would be too easy to be overthrown.

re: #220 calcajun

That would be the 24" oscillating fan?

More along the lines of one of these.

re: #212 MandyManners

*smacks Tiberious with my fan*

in bed

re: #211 Salamantis

It wouldn't just be Iran itself; it would be their client state Syria, and their terror proxies in Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Gaza (Hamas), as well as sleeper cells around the world.

There are a whole lot of stinging mosquitoes tied to that swamp.

Yes, agreed, that is the real threat. What Iran can do itself is small beer and the US Navy and Air Force is well up for the job.

re: #225 MrSilverDragon

More along the lines of one of these.

As long as it's not one of those huge generator fans...

re: #213 Killgore Trout

The Wiki article is a relatively brief primer on the issue...
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Unfortunately the modern champion of the 10th amendment is Ron Paul.

So hypothetically let's say you've known me on a personal basis for many years and you have no reason to think me a kook.

What would be the best way (terminology, keywords to avoid, etc.) to have a rational discussion with you on the proper balance of federal vs state power and their respective roles/authority without raising a million alarms in your head that I'm about to run off to Manassas?

Kosh's Shadow posted this yesterday.

Over the weekend, Netanyahu disappeared for 10 hours. It now looks like he took a clandestine trip to Russia.

A senior Kremlin official confirmed Wednesday to the Russian paper Kommersant that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did indeed make a clandestine trip to Russia on Monday.
Commenting on the visit, the official said that "this kind of development could only be related to new and threatening information on Iran's nuclear program."

The Russian newspaper quoted experts speculating that such a trip would only be justified under extraordinary circumstances, "for example, in the case of Israel planning to attack Iran."

What is almost as mysterious as whether the trip took place, is what might have been discussed, with speculation focused on Iran, possible Russian arms deals to Iran and Syria, or the disappearance of the Arctic Sea cargo ship - suspected of carrying Russian made S-300 anti-aircraft missiles bound for Iran - that went missing last month.

SNIP

re: #214 Kosh's Shadow

Iran would unleash its pet terrorists; watch for Iranian-made IEDs showing up in the US and Europe. I'd think Europe, because if they started blowing up Americans, there would be a call in the US to bomb Iran back to the stone age, even with Obama in office.

Agreed, their bite is limited mostly to terrorism, proxy terrorists like Hezballah and Hamas, and Syria which is a serious threat to Israel. As far as Iran directly confronting the US? That is a joke. They would lose every engagement.

re: #193 Killgore Trout

They are talking about actually seceding from the union. I don't think they're actually serious about it, they are just pandering to the nuts. The danger is that someone takes their revolutionary fantasies and acts on them.

Well, last time a group of states attempted secession, it ended very, very badly for them.

Oh lovely:

Federal deficit hits $1.38T through August

To say this is getting out of control doesn't begin to cover it.

I'm beginning to think that all our unborn children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren are victims of taxation without representation, because there's sure as hell nobody in the current government representing them!

re: #224 Flyers1974

Agreed, except for Syria on account that Assad would be too easy to be overthrown.

Not if (when) he throws in with Iran and Hezbollah and Hamas to finally rid the area of the evil Jooosss ,,, He'll be lionized.

re: #223 Bagua

Yes really. What I wrote was not in support of Van Jones's politics, rather a condemnation of the way he was hounded out of office. That you read it so supports my point.

While the lunatic Right celebrates this lynching, they have no awareness that this has hurt their cause. It would have been far better had Jones remained in office, at which point all of the legitimate concerns, advanced properly, would have weakened his agenda. But no, it was a blood sport and needed a quick resolution.

And yes, I see a clear racial context, as do very many others. This has not helped your side, it has hurt and made Van Jones into a martyr.

A "lynching"? That's a pretty inflammatory way to describe it. But, then, I was one of those who said "Good riddance, don't let the door hit you in the rear" to Van Jones. I don't want Truthers in our White House, sorry.

re: #227 Bagua

Yes, agreed, that is the real threat. What Iran can do itself is small beer and the US Navy and Air Force is well up for the job.

No question. But what the question IS is will they be flying over an Israel that has been nuked and/or attacked from multiple sides to get there

Wow - this administration really is the "slow class." (And classless, as well.)

OT: Another Israel lover at the U.N.: Could UNESCO - the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, dedicated to encouraging "peace and security by encouraging collaboration among nations" - soon be headed by a man who boasted that he would publicly burn all the Israeli books he could get his hands on?

Heavens no, that could never happen at the UN.//

-Spit (doing a lot of that today)

re: #229 Pianobuff

I would recommend avoiding the term "state's rights", it's just too tainted. I think it's also best when discussing anything in the Constitution to be a little familiar with the Supreme's rulings. Way too many people, especially the Paulians, make claims that this or that is "Unconstitutional" when the courts clearly disagree. I think as long as you stick to the court's interpretation you should be safe from being thought of as a nut.

re: #233 subsailor68

Stop your whining and write your check for $67,823 for your portion of it!

//

re: #194 Bagua

Well, you have seen Van Jones run out of office by a braying mob in a manner that evokes the lynchings that greeted uppity negroes with controversial opinions in times past. But that's not good enough, eh? He must grovel and beg for forgiveness as well?

Clearly, you've not dealt with the Ella Carter Center.

re: #235 LoafingOaf

A "lynching"? That's a pretty inflammatory way to describe it. But, then, I was one of those who said "Good riddance, don't let the door hit you in the rear" to Van Jones. I don't want Truthers in our White House, sorry.

I agree that the use of the "lynching" language is not called for chiefly because it takes away from the horror of true lynchings. However, it's not been proven that Jones is a Troofer.

re: #223 Bagua

Yes really. What I wrote was not in support of Van Jones's politics, rather a condemnation of the way he was hounded out of office. That you read it so supports my point.

While the lunatic Right celebrates this lynching, they have no awareness that this has hurt their cause. It would have been far better had Jones remained in office, at which point all of the legitimate concerns, advanced properly, would have weakened his agenda. But no, it was a blood sport and needed a quick resolution.

And yes, I see a clear racial context, as do very many others. This has not helped your side, it has hurt and made Van Jones into a martyr.

Anecdotal evidence alert:

I've spoken with several African American friends about the Van Jones case. They weren't angry, exactly -- more a kind of weary amusement that their beliefs about "conservatives" and the Republican Party (that the party is systemically biased against African Americans) had been confirmed yet again. The words "lynch mob" were mentioned.

Some of you may want to argue that they have no reason to feel that way, but the fact is that they DO -- and this episode further cemented their opinions.

re: #239 Killgore Trout

I would recommend avoiding the term "state's rights", it's just too tainted. I think it's also best when discussing anything in the Constitution to be a little familiar with the Supreme's rulings. Way too many people, especially the Paulians, make claims that this or that is "Unconstitutional" when the courts clearly disagree. I think as long as you stick to the court's interpretation you should be safe from being thought of as a nut.

Thanks. That's very good advice.

re: #204 MJ

I am unsure what you mean that Russia will gain nothing out of this. Do you mean with closer relations with Israel? If that's the meaning, than I disagree. Russia has always wanted to play a greater role in the ME...whether, for good or bad. US Policy has always been based on minimizing Russia's role which was one reason why many folks criticized the formation of the "Quartet" since it gave Russia a role. One of the great American success stories in the ME was when Sadat kicked the Russians out of Egypt. The fact that the current Israeli government now feels that it must seek Russian influence says less about Russia and a great deal about the breakdown of trust between Israel and the America.

And what exact was the outcome for everyone who let Russia get involved with his business?

And Israel is not the navel of the world - even if you hear as good as nothing else than Israel did this...Israel did that from the UN and the MSM...it is a very tiny country with just 6,6 million inhabitants.
Half of the Moscow urban area.
Russia will not become a super power again just because it does business with Israel...and they knew it!
They are maybe just interested in keeping the conflict alive - maybe just to keep their own fast growing Muslim population busy and milking the money and resources out of all involved countries.

re: #233 subsailor68

Oh lovely:

Federal deficit hits $1.38T through August

To say this is getting out of control doesn't begin to cover it.

I'm beginning to think that all our unborn children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren are victims of taxation without representation, because there's sure as hell nobody in the current government representing them!

Thank heavens that the healthcare 'thing' won't add to the deficit. Whew!

I realize I'm picking nits here, but should it not be

" ...administration is giving up ITS naïve and ill-considered policy... "

?

re: #238 Creeping Eruption

OT: Another Israel lover at the U.N.: Could UNESCO - the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, dedicated to encouraging "peace and security by encouraging collaboration among nations" - soon be headed by a man who boasted that he would publicly burn all the Israeli books he could get his hands on?

Heavens no, that could never happen at the UN.//

-Spit (doing a lot of that today)

Egypt's culture minister of 22 years, Farouk Hosny, is the frontrunner among nine candidates in the race for UNESCO director-general.

Representatives from the 58 nations which comprise UNESCO's executive council will vote next week for a successor to Japan's Koichiro Matsuura, who has held the post since 1999.

In May 2008 Hosny vowed before Egypt's parliament to "burn Israeli books myself, if I find any in Egyptian libraries." With his reputation now under fire, Hosny has attempted to backtrack, implying he was paying lip service to the visceral anti-Israel sentiments permeating his country's political/intellectual establishment.

But that was no isolated outburst. Most recently Hosny accused America's UNESCO Ambassador, David Killion, of antagonism because "Killion is Jewish." (To the best of our knowledge, incidentally, he isn't.) Hosny has previously painted Israel as "inhuman," and "an aggressive, racist, and arrogant culture, based on robbing other people's rights and the denial of such rights." He has declared that Israel is "aided" in its dark machinations by "the infiltration of Jews into the international media" and by "their ability to spread lies."

SNIP

re: #238 Creeping Eruption

OT: Another Israel lover at the U.N.: Could UNESCO - the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, dedicated to encouraging "peace and security by encouraging collaboration among nations" - soon be headed by a man who boasted that he would publicly burn all the Israeli books he could get his hands on?

Heavens no, that could never happen at the UN.//

-Spit (doing a lot of that today)

Well, the UN was once headed by a Nazi ( Kurt Waldheim), so nothing is beyond that place.

re: #231 Bagua

Agreed, their bite is limited mostly to terrorism, proxy terrorists like Hezballah and Hamas, and Syria which is a serious threat to Israel. As far as Iran directly confronting the US? That is a joke. They would lose every engagement.

But they wouldn't just attack Israel. And Iran would claim they aren't doing anything, that retaliation is unjustified. The UN would go along.
A truck bomb in Paris, Berlin, London, or NY would be very bad.
But if we wait, it will be a nuclear bomb in NY.

re: #239 Killgore Trout

I would recommend avoiding the term "state's rights", it's just too tainted.

They're using those words specifically because they are tainted. Pawlenty and Perry know exactly what they're doing by calling up the old "states rights" issue -- they're appealing to the bigots among the base.

re: #229 Pianobuff

So hypothetically let's say you've known me on a personal basis for many years and you have no reason to think me a kook.

What would be the best way (terminology, keywords to avoid, etc.) to have a rational discussion with you on the proper balance of federal vs state power and their respective roles/authority without raising a million alarms in your head that I'm about to run off to Manassas?

"State's Rights" is a term that was used by racists to push their cause, and in so doing hijacked the label on a very important discussion. Call it State's Rights, because that's what it is. Or, if you just want to avoid the collateral arguments that will inevitably come, call it a discussion over federalism.

re: #243 Charles

Anecdotal evidence alert:

I've spoken with several African American friends about the Van Jones case. They weren't angry, exactly -- more a kind of weary amusement that their beliefs about "conservatives" and the Republican Party (that the party is systemically biased against African Americans) had been confirmed yet again. The words "lynch mob" were mentioned.

You may want to argue that they have no reason to feel that way, but the fact is that they DO -- and this episode further cemented their opinions.

what stinks is that I suspect you are correct.

re: #223 Bagua

... a condemnation of the way he was hounded out of office

You and many others are missing the over-arching point of that debacle. The vetting process for the czars was no where near as stringent as it is for appointees who need congressional approval to take office. It it had been, the "truther" issue would have been seen early on and dealt with --either he would not have been appointed or the administration would have explained it away. It was negligent of the administration to put him in that office, with either the actual or imputed knowledge of that information.

What bodes ill for the administration is just how many other such appointees have similar issues. If the reaction to the discovery of the damning info on Van Jones is any indication, then you are right in that it will only embolden similar attacks.

As we talked about earlier this year-- there is a difference between a President who has some policy failures (one who cannot achieve what he wants) and a failed Presidency (where the office is undermined and diminished by a loss of public confidence). I would not mine seeing the former, but the country cannot afford the latter.

re: #225 MrSilverDragon

Can't really swing one of them, tho.

re: #209 MandyManners

If this is true it is really bad news.

If they have enough enriched uranium to make a bomb, there are no further steps. A "gun-type" atom bomb, like Little Boy requires nothing special to put together. They don't need to breed Plutonium for it. No complicated explosive geometry to insure implosion. The reason why such a weapon was abandoned by the US after Hiroshima is that they are weaker than plutonium weapons (and far weaker than H-Bombs) and they can go off on the ground or in flight by accident if the "gun" portion of the bomb misfires.

The only thing I don't know for sure is if such a weapon is possible to be used in a ballistic missile rather than dropped from a bomber.

re: #234 sattv4u2

Not if (when) he throws in with Iran and Hezbollah and Hamas to finally rid the area of the evil Jooosss ,,, He'll be lionized.

Except he won't be able to use TV/newspapers to put out propaganda because communications would be destroyed. And he's be on the run like Sadaam. Much harder to stay alive under those conditions.

re: #251 Charles

They're using those words specifically because they are tainted. Pawlenty and Perry know exactly what they're doing by calling up the old "states rights" issue -- they're appealing to the bigots among the base.

That rather assumes that Pawlenty and Perry think there are enough bigots to make a difference, doesn't it?

Off-hand, how many here think that's the case?

re: #256 calcajun

Can't really swing one of them, tho.

That's what the trebuchet is for!