oh lord!

James P. Rubin. Is this "Jamie Rubin", the Clinton administration spokesman?

While we're at it, let's give Iran ICBMs preloaded with MIRVed warheads. That way they're good to go.

/sacasm

/fucking crazy Dems

Anyone want to join me - I'm going to Mars now.

Uh, I meant

/sarcasm

PIMF...

Hey, this same strategy worked so brilliantly with North Korea, why not try it out on Iran?

Let's call the bluff on the paleostinians too. Let's send them tons of C4 and let's see if they DARE to make bombs with it.

Oh my...

KERRY, THE COMMIE RED LIKE KETCHUP

When I read that I can't even think up anything sarcastic to say.
Just "Oh Sh!t, this man could be president!!!"

Hot damn!

Did this stupid f***-O just unload both barrels of his shotgun in his foot?

Oh what's that: He's reloading and seems to be aiming for the other foot!

Well, at least he isn't crawling on his belly after those illusive deer any more.

What a putz.

Uh, Mr. Kerry, may we quote you on that?

Again and angain and again in GWB-ads!

The Democrats are truly deranged. The world they live in is another planet, in a galaxy far, far away or in a bizzaro parallel world where no one is who they seem: the French and Germans are allies just waiting to be led to do what is not in their interests and the Iranians are misunderstood agrarian reformers with some religious overtones. The Great Satan is a rhetorical device and it's always September 10th.

If that's former commerce sec'y Rubin, I'm dissapointed.

That Rubin is (was) a brilliant man.

With no oil reserves, I can see how Iran needs nuclear power to propel it's vibrant economy.

What, you say they are swimming in oil? Well why do they have to dable in anything nuclear then?

What Iranian energy needs? Good gosh they EXPORT oil! This justification ranks right up there with Saddam's Iraq buying nuclear reactors from France for it's energy needs. As in totally bogus.

This, and the proposed elimination of IRS by Republicans - please vote Bush.

Another Clinton confidant stabs Kerry in the back?

Rubin was advising Wesley Clark before Kerry. Rubin might have been the idiot that told Clark to tell the press that Libya gave up their WMD because of the Clinton Administration.

Agreed, Rubin is a putz.

Um, did anybody ask Mr. Rubin why the nation with, IIRC, the world's third greatest oil reserves and second greatest natural gas reserves needs nuclear reactors for energy?

This is Carter-esque foreign policy at its most retarded. (No insult intended to the mentally challenged).

This is what you get when you have Jimmy Carter as your foreign policy guru. Carter must figure that the main reason that the NK Agreed Framework failed was not because NK was hell-bent on obtaining nuclear weapons and lied about its intentions, hid its actions from oversight, etc., but because NK didn't have enough nuclear materials to complete its own nuclear reactors.

That way, if everyone has nuclear materials, everyone is safer. Right?! Right. /sarcasm

And people accuse Bush of being dumb?? This could be one of the most idiotic proposals I have ever heard...

I guess this is what Kerry means by nuance.

But some good news this weekend. St Paul Democratic mayor Randy Kelly endorsed Bush yesterday. He said the thing that really convinced him that it was the right thing to do was when he saw a car with a bumper sticker that said "I hate George Bush."

He is now suffering the consequences of the Democratic hate machine. Look for him to pull a Norm Coleman and switch to the Republican party or just get out of politics all together.

BTW, I think this has been proposed before. The idea would be that western powers would supply the uranium but demand that the spent fuel rods be returned to the West. It's one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. It's a deathwish idea. Let's give the Hitlerites uranium, help them refine it and then remove the spent rods and transport them around the arabian pennisula, through the gulf of Oman, along the Red Sea, through the suez and then across the mediterranean.

The transports would have "HIJACK ME" written all over it. It would have to be guarded by an entire fleet.

Over the weekend, I converted my 14 year old daughter over from wanting Kerry in office to hoping GWB pulls it out (even though she can't vote obviously, but it's awesome that she's this concerned about politics at her age).

It's policies like this that make that job that much easier...

#22 bwohlgemuth

I have trouble convincing people that Kerry is a terrible hopeful because of his Carteresque foreign policy. People 25 and under don't know about Carter. They really only know the rosy strongman days of Reagan, Bush and Bush.

This could be one of the most idiotic proposals I have ever heard...

It's gotta be in the Top Ten of All-Time Raving Mad Foreign Policy Proposals...

Possibly Top Three...

#21 Axiom:

It's one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. It's a deathwish idea.

Ah, but you forget, President Kerry will also be "work[ing] through the international legal framework on arms control". So, you see, nuclear proliferation will be illegal, and therefore the mullahs and islamists will be powerless to engage in such proliferation! Only a nuanced mind like Kerry's is capable of grasping this.

What an idiot.

Semi-OT: More fun info in regards to Kerry and Edwards' botched photo-op at a Wendy's 'resteraunt.

It's gotta be in the Top Ten of All-Time Raving Mad Foreign Policy Proposals...

Where 1= "Let's just give that Hitler Czechoslovakia and Austria, and THEN he'll leave us alone..."

Not even Carter could have come up with something as idiotic as that! The suggestion probably came from Teresa.

The mad mullahs,if they were able,are entitled to be laughing their asses off over this foolish man's aspirations.

there is dumb
there is stupid
there is moronic
there is semi-sentient
then there is suicidal

I am someone who is not in rapturous love with the Bush administration. I will not vote for any candidate that is not opposed to nuclear proliferation.

BPP - can I call him an idiot yet?

Thirdly, he has proposed that rather than letting the British, the French and the Germans do this themselves, that we together call the bluff of the Iranian government,

More of that nutty "allies" speak. Hey, Kerry, multilateralism is dead. To me this is the most insane plank of the democratic platform, the naive and goofy idea that other nations are going to sign on as allies in the absense of a common cause, like not winding up Russian serfs during the Cold War.

Canadian LGF people---Important CRTC:

The CRTC is looking for comments till Aug. 9th re: Fox News Channel. Please voice your comments asap.

CRTC got 1200 comments supporting Al-Jazeera and only 500 against. So they figured we want it.

If you want Fox News, you have to speak up.

[Link: www.crtc.gc.ca...]

Why stop at the fuel? Why not just give them the plutonium?

This is one of the greatest shocking statements of all time. We are severely screwed if this man gets elected.

21

Even that fails. After a complete fuel cycle, what keeps the mullahs from "changing their minds" and re-processing the spent fuel themselves.

Everything the Iranians have done so far with their dealings with the IAEC and the Urinepeons shows they don't have a problem breaking committments.

Well sh*t, similar policy got Jimmah Cahtah a Nobel prize so why shouldn't JF'nK stick with the tried and true way to assure his posterity?

#10 Rob

Ha, ha! Stupid Earth humans sit back like doofuses, wait around to see if enemies attack them! On Bizzaro World, us clever Bizarros GIVE our enemies weapons! Then us know enemies will certainly come and kick our diamond-faceted butts---takes all suspense out of war. This am very smart of us.

On Bizzaro World, it am always September 10, 2001.

Did me tell you me served in Vietnam?

/Channeling Bizzaro-John Kerry, #6 1/2.

Lizardoids, If you think this is bad, check out this morning's edition of Front Page (on the LGF sidebar), and David Bedein's article, "Arafat's Yes-Man." Scary!

Therefore. . .
#3 Free Speech is Only for Uber-libs

Wait for me, I'm packing my bags, now!

I'm not a Kerry fan but... He said fuel, not nuclear fuel. Iran is claiming they need to reactor to produce power, the article seems to indicate Kerry suggests callibng their bluff by offering to supply conventional fuel to the Iranians.

Get a grip. This headline and article is the right-wing equivilent of moonbattism.

Well, I think we now know the identity of at least one of the unnamed foreign leaders who endorsed JFK.

This from the party that said "I know! We'll give guns to the Jordyptians! That'll make them partners for peace."

Oh wait, we're only allowed to judge liberals on what their intentions were, not on the horrific results. Although I'm really starting to doubt their intentions too.

#15 Axiom:

Rubin is also the "putz" that is married to CNN and Al-Qaeda mouthpiece Christiane Amanpour.

#26

I'd like to ask Kerry is he can list the items on Wendy's 99 cent menu.

"You know, when I was in Vietnam, my comrades and I used to sit around and talk about eating that as soon as we got home..."

The Repubs MUST have a serious mole waaay up in the Democratic Party...

...just has to be...

(Someone suggested Tereza herself...)

#38:

the article seems to indicate Kerry suggests callibng their bluff by offering to supply conventional fuel to the Iranians.

Right, because as we all know, Iran is desperately short of oil...

Sorry, the statement only even tries to make any sort of sense (loosely speaking) if he's referring to nuclear fuel.

#38 ambisinistral

"Conventional fuel"? LMAO. Flush out your head gear pal.

As V the K would say...

Goodbye...Hello.

I'd like to ask Kerry if he can list the items on Wendy's 99 cent menu.

Shrimp Vindaloo?

{WRONNNGGG!!! BUZZER}

The Dead Cat which bounced last week has burst through the pavement, and is descending towards the center of the earth at this moment.

#46 Frank IBC--

Okay, now THAT was funny.

Kerry suggests callibng their bluff by offering to supply conventional fuel to the Iranians.

Er, selling oil to Iran?

You're a bloomin' genius, you are.

#38 ambisinistral: (from article)

Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it.

Russia is positioned to supply fissionable material to Iran. Iran does not need oil or natural gas from Russia.

Embarrassed yet?

#41 foreign devil

That would be the self declared first "Citizen of the World" Amanpour.

Anyway, she's going to have to get a divorce and marry someone else in the State Department so she get get inside hooks.

I think this idea was originally thought up by Paul Reubens.

OK you Amuricans, stop worrying. Meet Kerry's Canadian "chief of stuff."

The Island Guy Behind Kerry. Seems his top advisor was his caddy and his driver.

Later, Marvin Jr. caddied for Kerry for two summers on Nantucket. He then turned up in Washington a week before the 2000 election. By New Year's he was Kerry's driver. "It basically started as two guys who met: One guy needed a job and the other guy needed a driver," said Walt.

Mmmm...

Mobylicious.

(drools)

The (D-Sen) often seen after Kerry's name is, in fact, non-political and refers to the condition 'Dangerous-Senile Psychosis'

#49 Frank IBC:

Er, selling oil to Iran?

This would supplement Kerry's plan to cement relations with our British allies by exporting coal to Newcastle.

marvin jr. needs a propeller on that hat. more dim dems.

OT

Al-Aqsa Brigades Bedside Manner or Palestinian Collaborator Killed in Bed

By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - Five masked men broke into a hospital Monday and shot dead a convicted Palestinian collaborator who had been wounded in a grenade attack in his prison cell just hours earlier.

After the shooting, police questioned one of the suspected gunmen who claimed to be a relative of the victim avenging the shame the collaborator had brought to his family, police said.

It was not clear if the gunman was arrested, and the fate of his four accomplices was not known.

Assassinations like that of Mahmoud al Sharef, accused of helping Israel, are relatively common. But this one came amid growing lawlessness in the Palestinian territories that has highlighted police helplessness to rein in violence.

I think it's brilliant. The only thing more intelligent would be to ship thousands of diesel generators to Iran with instructions for filling them with an oil based fuel.

I think maybe they're missing the boat there - I have heard that some people use oil as a fuel source. Also, I kind of remember (from a Shell Infomercial) the Middle East is just lousy with Oil.

Maybe solar panels - I seem to remember that it's pretty sunny in the desert. Windmills? They must really be desperate for energy - whatever we can do to help.

Or nuclear fuel, whatever FJFK thinks is best.

Kerry has given a whole new meaning to the old MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine, which worked with the Soviets because they wanted to keep the party in power, but would assure destruction with the crazed mullahs of Iran. Who coulda thunk of that?

Lets just invite them to los alamos and help them build and bring them up to speed on applying the teller ulam principles and then send them over to sandia to bring them up to speed on manufacturing hydrogen bombs in mass. He can sell them lid6, high speed detonators, and cnc equipment to cut their cores. Then he can sell them a proper rocket system like the MX. Why just fuck around with the little stuff?

Kerry is a miserable fuck. We are in deep shit if he gets elected.

#38 ambisinistral

That's the point. It's the same policy that Clinton used with North Korea to coerce them out of developing nuclear weapons. You know very well that these nations are not seeking to acquire nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Why in the hell would they stop trying to produce them if you have a country in the west led by dhimmis and roses without thorns?

Kerry's walking the same plank that Clinton did. They'd defend the action as a means in, but entering Iran is a lot easier than entering North Korea.

Later, Marvin Jr. caddied for Kerry for two summers on Nantucket. He then turned up in Washington a week before the 2000 election. By New Year's he was Kerry's driver.

Oh, wonderful - now I won't be able to hear JFK's name uttered without thinking of Ted Knight in Caddyshack.

Ugh. This is like all my liberal friends liberal parents, who supplied their 14 year old kids with alcohol and drugs so they would "learn to use it responsibly".

Sounds like D'Himmi Carter speaking through a ventriloquist dummy!

Maybe the fuel in question is Biomass left over from the DNC.

#38

He is referring to nuclear material, not oil:

What will Kerry do about a nuclear-armed Iran? The answer is: nothing, unless we take into account the senator's recent proposal (not in the platform) to supply Iran with as much enriched uranium as it wants provided the U.S. gets custody of the spent fuel. (Tehran dismissed the idea as "arrogant musings." )

That's from this oped -- I'm sure there are other, more detailed articles.

I think this idea was originally thought up by Paul Reubens.

Trying to make sense of Kerry's logic is like unraveling a big cable-knit sweater that someone keeps on knitting, and knitting, and knitting...

This sounds like a stupid plan. In the bad old days the U.S.S.R. would provide nuclear fuel for reactors it sold and take the spent fuel home afterwards. I recall that was the agreement Iran had with now Russia except the Iranians now say they want to fuel the reactor themselves and have the spent fuel afterwards too. No one in their right mind, unless they wanted spent fuel to recyle out the plutonium from, would turn down the offer to send dangerously radioactive spent fuel to another country. Iran want to be a nuclear weapons power.

I doubt if Iran had no compunctions against holding American hostages for 400+ days that it wouldn't hold any fuel that gets in its reactor or needs to be returned for long enough ot reprocess out what it needs for bombs.

What will Kerry do about a nuclear-armed Iran? Supply Iran with as much enriched uranium as it wants provided...

Well at least it isn't DEPLETED Uranium, the most dangerous substance known to Mankind.

Jakester -

Sounds like D'Himmi Carter speaking through a ventriloquist dummy!

Why does this image remind me of a differently-sighted Seeing Eye dog, with his own miniature Seeing Eye dog?

#38 Ambesol

Maybe its just me, but I think you have a little problem reading context. To whit, you don't think they are talking nuclear fuel? You think he is talking about giving a country with huge oil and gas reserves some other kind of fuel?

Solar cells and wind-farms maybe?

Of course Iran needs alternative sources of energy because WE"RE RUNNING OUT OF OIL. GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING GLOBAL WARMING!
//channeling Greenpeace

So Kerry's plan to stop the Iranian HEU bomb program is to help them build a plutonium bomb. While the free fuel rods are cooking the mullahs set up the labs to do a batch Pu extraction. Then at refuel time, they say "oh nevermind, we'll do it ourselves." Kerry goes back to the UN. A couple of years later ... the UNSC finally makes a decision but is confounded by Iran's shiny new bombs. Vote Kerry! The world needs more nuanced idiocy.

I'm surprised that Kerry didn't play to the Nader base by proprosing that the US would subsidize Iran's solar and wind energy research if they would give up on that nasty nuclear stuff. After all where are they going to dispose of all that high level radioactive waste? Oh, in Israel.

#38

the article seems to indicate Kerry suggests callibng their bluff by offering to supply conventional fuel to the Iranians

Ah, like buying oil from Iran and give it back to them?

Lets just invite them to los alamos and help them build and bring them up to speed on applying the teller ulam principles and then send them over to sandia to bring them up to speed on manufacturing hydrogen bombs in mass. He can sell them lid6, high speed detonators, and cnc equipment to cut their cores. Then he can sell them a proper rocket system like the MX. Why just fuck around with the little stuff?

Well, you have to admit that without the constant fear of an Israeli first strike hanging over their heads like the sword of that one Greek guy, the Iranians would probably be a lot calmer and easier to get along with. Why should the Jewish terror state be the only nation in the region to have nukes?

/LLL

# 74 "Ah, like buying oil from Iran and give it back to them?"

It sounds like the farm subsidy program.

Insane. Insane. Insane.

#62 Axiom,

I never said what he was proposing was a good plan. Everybody on the planet earth knows Iran is trying to build a bomb. Their claim to need the reactor for peaceful purposes is transparent propoganda. Offering them subsidised cheap oil to fufill their energy needs isn't going to cause the Mullah's to have a "Perry Mason" moment where they break down and confess their nefarious ways.

This article appears to jump to a conclusion -- that Kerry is offering nuclear material to Iran -- that the words it quotes doesn't warrent.

372 Ed,

Congradulations for figuring out that Iranian propoganda about Iran needing reactors for power is ridiculous.

Now try to figure out what I actually posted about.

#78 ambisinistral

Nothing quite so irritating as the willfully dense...

See here:

Iran claims that its nuclear program is only to meet its domestic energy needs. John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon.

78 Ambesol

You're really RWC, right? Nobody is that stupid for real, except, of course, for JF-ingK's foreign policy team.

Can anyone say Sudatenland ?

This article appears to jump to a conclusion -- that Kerry is offering nuclear material to Iran -- that the words it quotes doesn't warrent.

HUH?

From the article itself:

And we say to them: "Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it." Participating in such a diplomatic initiative makes it more likely to succeed.

What part of "provide you the fuel" don't you understand?
Just askin'...

Owl

#41 foreign devil

Rubin is also the "putz" that is married to CNN and Al-Qaeda mouthpiece Christiane Amanpour

That alone says he has serious problems. Just marrying someone that gruesome & than having to look at that face 365 days a year will drive anybody insane.

#78 ambisinistral

When I saw your first post, I thought Oh, the world hasn't gone mad, we just misinterpreted a rather ambiguous statement. Whew.

But no.

He really is proposing to supply Iran with nuclear fuel.

CNN Article

Regarding Iran, which says it needs nuclear power to meet civilian energy needs, Kerry said the United States should "call their bluff" by offering to supply nuclear fuel while taking back spent fuel that could be diverted to build nuclear weapons.

#3 Free Speech Is Only For über-Libs

Any tickets left for that slow boat to Mars?

#80 Thom

Beat me to it, and with a better link. Wonder how long before that one disappears...

Kerry's plan for NK is just as risible. To wit (from that link to his web site in #80):

Despite the obvious threat, for eighteen months we have negotiated largely over process while the North Koreans have reportedly made enough new bomb material for 6-9 new nuclear weapons. John Kerry believes we should continue the six party negotiations with the North Koreans, but also be willing to have direct bilateral talks. And we must be prepared to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that addresses the full range of issues of concern to us and our allies.

18 months of talking has resulted in NK producing enough material for 6-9 bombs.

So let's keep talking! Perhaps even bilaterally!

Idiot.

Eeesh, the other links do make it clear that's what he is saying. well, that's just plain stupid.

#86 Lizardoid Minion #32603

With some people (our resident thread skeptic, in this case) ya gotta go straight to the horse's ass mouth or they'll never believe it.

#88 ambisinistral

It takes a brave man to admit that John Kerry is stupid. Well, not really. ;)

#51 Axiom:

Last year this true story happened: it was while Victoria Clarke was still appearing at the Pentagon briefings on CNN and elsewhere. Apparently Amanpour made some crack about Victoria Clarke being a "foot soldier for Bush" even though she was the Pentagon spokeswoman. Victoria Clarke responded without missing a beat: "I'd sooner be a foot soldier for Bush than a mouthpiece for Al-Qaeda". Ouch!

OT, sort of.

Yesterday, I was in the belly of the weasel, at Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, about to get a ticket for home. After checking my emails at one of the computer kiosks there (a paid service), I had a couple of minutes of extra time and decided to check in on LGF.

Well, guess what, the message that came up was that the content of that website was deemd "offensive" and access to it was not allowed.

But, I went right on to al Jazeera, apparently sufficiently objective and inoffensive.

This is just of a piece with the generaly cluelessness and dhimmitude of the French. Many of my conversations with the French indicated that they believe Michael Moore to be a faithful documentarian of the real story of Bush and the September 11 attacks, even when I can adduce facts and sources (doesn't matter a a bit, this is true tinfoil hat stuff that goes on in France.)

So, if you want to continue to read LGF in the land of the weasels, just make sure you have your own connection to the web (no trouble in that regard using wi-fi from a cafe).

#84 Mojo Jojo

On the lighter side, covering for President Clinton's bedroom to bedlum activities are far more likely to develop an insanity track.

Thom - The article Charles linked to could have been spun the way ambi suggested. That would just have made the idea stupid, rather than suicidally insane.

You're assuming Kerry doesn't want Iran (and North Korea) to have nuclear weapons... I would not call this proposal "stupid".

#80 Thom

Didn't the Mullahs already respond with a "get bent" to Kerry's idea? I thought I had read that here.

I predict Kerry nominates Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer for AG.

#94 Lizardoid Minion #32603

Yeah, I guess. But it's a big stretch. And 30 seconds of googling could have it cleared it right up.

#96 Jefe

Apparently, yes.

Doesn't make Kerry any less of a moonbat.

Is this linked in any way to Kerry's plans to make suicide a capitol offense? That is if he doesn't make it into a mandatory sport first.

#96 Jefe

Didn't the Mullahs already respond with a "get bent" to Kerry's idea?

Yes. The Iranians made clear more than once that they want to keep the spent fuel - for 'peaceful' purposes.

#97 FreakyBoy

I tried to hire Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer but he wasn't familiar with the details of my dilemna. As tried to explain he insisted I slow down to a snailish pace for he was just "a lowly caveman in a confusing unfamiliar world".

#96 Jefe

They sure did.

Now we're just waiting for Kerry to update his little scheme ...

{crickets}

It's all a plot to put Karl Rove out of a job.

This is the same strategy that Clinton used with NK, and Kerry's trying to leverage the success of that diplomatic triumph.

Oh, wait...

Hmmm...

Clinton Administration
Transfer the W88 thermonuclear warhead design, nosecone shroud, warhead bus, solid rocket motor, bus kickmotor and missile quidance technology for illegal campaign conduit money from the ChiComs to the DNC

Kerry Administration
Transfer weapons gradable fission material to Islamics bent on the destruction of the Free World. Loving doctrine of multipolarity parity continues unabated.

Nahhh. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Doesn't make Kerry any less of a moonbat.

Nope. So, Kerry, you've called their bluff. What now, genius? From Thom's link:

If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear.

Ahhh, I see. Imgaine that--Iran must want nuclear weapons!

Under the current circumstances, John Kerry believes we should support the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) efforts to discern the full extent of Iran's nuclear program, while pushing Iran to agree to a verifiable and permanent suspension of its enrichment and reprocessing programs. If this process fails, we must lead the effort to ensure that the IAEA takes this issue to the Security Council for action.

Because that's worked so well up until now.

OT: Did you guys see how the London Observer explains America and their endorsement of Kerry.

“The US has hardened into two virulently opposed ideological and cultural camps that are almost equal in numbers. On the two seaboards, around the Great Lakes, in the north east and some cities of the south, the Democrats have their base: mildly progressive, multilateralist, tolerant and fair-minded. In the south, the Rocky Mountains and the plains lie the Republican base: religious fundamentalists, fervent believers in America's unilateralist destiny and culturally conservative.”

Funny really. I fairly certain that the two coasts and the Great Lakes region are down with the "give nuclear fuel" to countries that want to attack us idea.

Of course we "religious fundamentalist unilaterist conservative" Republicans are just going to have to call a spade a spade.

#92

It's what many of us say. Micheal Moore may be trying to bash and destroy Bush, but a huge goal is to spread anti-American hatred in other countries.

# 30 Ayatollah Ghilmeini

then there is suicidal

That's my take. Kerry is a suicide pact waiting to happen.

I was thinking the other day, even if Kerry does somehow get himself elected, we'll survive because Congress won't let him go too crazy.

I've changed my mind.

*** ALERT ***

Rubin, another Kerry advisor has joined Joe "Yellow Cake" Wilson, Sandy "Pant Load" Berger, and Richard "The Enforcer" Clarke on the KoolAid drinking thread.

Bush better be pulling something good out of his ass within the next month or so or he's in for a rough ride in November.

There is a veeerry small number of potential swing votes in this election and they seem to be leaning Kerry due to the extremely clever campaigning strategies of McAuliffe et. al.

Kerry now has Florida and Ohio in his camp. If they stay there and Bush makes no electoral gains, he loses, simple as that.

I'm as optimistic as they come and Im getting nervous.

Kerry will be a disaster as reflected by the above.

#109 Axiom

Of course we "religious fundamentalist unilaterist conservative" Republicans are just going to have to call a spade a spade.

What about us atheist coalitionist centrist Liberal* Australians?

Do we get to call a spade a spade too?

* The Liberal party here in Oz is center-right.

I had this thought the other night - I have no proof for this - this theory is total conspiracy nut - but hey I'll just roll it out...

Anways - imagine you are a Russian/USSR agent in the late 60s. Your job is to do psych-ops against the current Vietnam War. What better way than to take a soldier 'disillusioned' with the war to promote your claims.

So you get him sent to Vietnam, get 3 scratches to get his Purple Hearts, he amazingly gets out of Vietnam after only 4 months, then can rush back to America and start his dis-information campaign.

Low and behold, you can also steer him into politics and he becomes a Senator where he actively tries to reduce American nuclear armament, promotes communist goverments, and tries to reduce intelligence spending.

This all sounds like good fodder for a book, but now I begin to wonder. This sounds even more plausible than the 'War for Oil' / Haliburton / Afghan Pipeline / Michael Moore nutcase claims.

#114 TMF

Yeah, but what does it take?

We have Sandy Bergler.
We have the Wilson meltdown.
We have Kerry himself.

What does it take?

Montage of JeffnK positions like Rush used to do on his tv show: Kerry says this, says that ove and over.Plus
give nuclear isotopes to Iranians with is result
the grab the ending of the Ad against goldwater in '64
..a little girl holding a daisy...syruppy music ...then the mushroom cloud behind her...and the music goes to the bbeeeppp of tha flat-line ekg.
The point is to do the montage as those are devastating and there are so many to pick from...no announcer just Kerry talking or worrds over his face.

Did anyone see the interview with Kerry this morning on CNN? The reporter asked him a question about polling and Kerry performed his patented finger-pointing at him, while saying something like "Now watch it, hold on there..." Wish I'd have gotten a screenshot.

Liizardoid

John Q Public doesnt give a crap about any of those, and the MMM will make sure he wont hear about it.

Unfortunately, it would take something conniving, cynical and manipulative such as dropping Cheney from the ticket and bringing McCain on as V.P. (if he'd be willing, which is unlikely).

Howver, Bush doesnt play that way. He actually has some loyalty.

Bin Laden's head on a stick would be good too. As would a major WMD find in Iraq.

Who is "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer"?

Hmmm...thinking about The Manchurian Candidate...does anyone know if Kerry's mother is still alive?

#117

Even if Kerry was found to be a spy, the LLL contingent will probably still say "anyone but Bush". It is quite amazing to me that with all of Kerry's flip flops, asinine foreign policy ideas, and his Al Gor-eesque bore you to death speaking style that he has any support other than the moonbat far left...

We know what's going on, but I'll have to admit, Kerry is running a slick campaign.

Take the Wendy's thing. We know that he ordered an expensive gourmet meal from a high class restaurant and that was his lunch that day, but every newspaper within 200 miles of there is probably reporting how Kerry, the common man, surprised the locals by stopping into the roadside Wendy's to eat.

His life is a series of photo ops, and they are handling them well.

LFGers, we should take a poll, what will Kerry be photograped doing next?

Has he welded yet? Maybe a auto-body shop somewhere. Decended into a mine?

If Iran's problem is a lack of energy, send them some oil burners. In fact, I replaced mine last year. I'd be happy to send my old one to Iran to help them with their energy needs.

I still say - a vote for Kerry is a vote for a return to the Carter administration.

insane.

#120 TMF

Howver, Bush doesnt play that way. He actually has some loyalty.

Yeah, I've noticed that. While the Democrats are - at least lately - the party of backstabbing weasels.

All part of why, although I disagree with Bush 80% of the time, I still support him.

BTW--#11, Maine's Michael:

If that's former commerce sec'y Rubin,

No, you're thinking of Robert Rubin.

I'm a Vietnam vet and a "large western intelligence agency" retiree. I've despised Kerry for over 30 years, and would sooner vote for a Putin/Kim Jong-Il ticket. (Or as Jesse Helms once speechified, "Kim Jong the Second.)

Nonetheless, I read the article and think it is possible that Rubin was talking about conventional fuel. (Also stupid.) But let's find out. Somebody'll have to clarify this one soon. Could be a big campaign issue impacting Kerry's foreign policy credibility.

OT: NBC is hoping to get Bill Clinton to appear on SNL.

#128 Implausible Deniability

Check the links Thom and I provided upthread. No question, Kerry wants to supply Iran with uranium.

Not really OT, but almost: Mark Steyn has, at least, hit upon the compound adjective capable of describing Kerry:

To his numbed, buttock-shifting listeners, the great sonorous self-regarding orotund bromidic banality of Senator Kerry and his multitude of nuances is proof of how much more serious he - and therefore they - are.

Whoops, I meant "at last", not "at least".

It's like needle exchange. And they have to give back the "empty's" and of course they wouldn't keep the enriched stuff and give us back depleted stuff right?

his numbed, buttock-shifting listeners

Ewww! I do NOT need to have that image in my head!

#130 Lizardoid Minion

Mea Maximima Culpa -- seems pretty clear.

Great, lets fuel 'em up, and hope the mullahs don't kick us out a la 1979.

Hahahaha, no original ideas in the Kerry camp. Securing nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union? Well, Indiana Senator Richard Luger done beat ya to the draw there, JFK. Read about the bill here:

Nunn-Lugar program

I urge everyone to read this report, the program appears to have been highly successful. Don't let JFK get by with taking credit for someone else's work.

#131 Occasional Reader

I like this one even better:

To a great degree there is no Democratic party candidate John Kerry. There is an abstract "anti-Bush" candidate who has been compelled, in accordance with the US electoral system, to take on human form and assume a human name...

(Sergei Rogov in Russia's Moskovsky Komsomolets from this otherwise typical BBC piece)

What is wrong with the LLL's do they never learn!!!

De-Ja-Vu

This sounds just like the very succesfull and genous idea used by Clinton in the N. Korea problem in 98' brilliant it worked out so well and we are just begining to feel the full reprucusions today from such great leaders of foriegn policy.

31 Thom

BPP - can I call him an idiot yet?

Only if you're referring to the politics of this idea, which seem to me to have "Distort Me!!" stamped all over them, as Charles proved with his post. Kerry's advisors are certainly asleep at the wheel if they think this will add to Kerry's appeal.

As policy, I think a reasonable case can be made that offering to control the inflow and outflow of nuclear material from Iran is better than the current situation where no one knows what the hell is going on. The idea seems to be that if we know exactly how much fuel goes in, we can calculate how much should come out. If the Iranians were then to divert the fuel for weapons reprocessing, we'd know about it. If the fuel is supplied by the Russians, we don't know anything.

The problem with the scheme is of course that other fuel can be bought and it would simply bypass this scheme.

But the point is that such a scheme would never actually come to pass. The idea, as stated very explicitly, is to call the bluff of the Iranians. What that achieves precisely is not clear. But it is certainly better than the Bush Administration's policy which is to let the Europeans handle things and defer to the IAEA. And why are we so deferential on a matter of supreme national interest? Could it be that Bush wants to prove he can be multilateral and play well with others? Could it also be that maybe he wouldn't be so concerned about this if he hadn't squandered his credibility on Iraq?

#121 Frank IBC

Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer is Keyrock, the late Phil Hartman's greatest character on SNL.

Keyrock standard closing argument

Maybe Kerry is a new advanced kind of suicide bomber?

re: Kerry thinking of shipping to Iran nuclear fuel.

I am reminded of a Lenin quote: "We will hang the last capitalist with the rope he sells us."

Or in mad mullah speak, 'Allah wills us to be nuclear and the Great Satan will bow to our demands. Thus in Allah's name we will overthrow the Great Satan with what they have sold us! Allah Akbar!"

Sheesh, doesn't anyone in the Kerry camp read the handwriting on the wall? The angry fringe of Islam is pissed at everything the West has accomplished and wants to destroy it. Never mind the West took discoveries from Islam[Arabic numbers anyone?] and ran with it. Unlike Islamic culture, which sank into mediocrity.

John Kerry’s proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon. If Iran does not accept this offer, their true motivations will be clear.

[Link: www.johnkerry.com...]

These people are absolutely insane.
 

#139 BPP

But it is certainly better than the Bush Administration's policy which is to let the Europeans handle things and defer to the IAEA.

No, because Kerry is planning to do that and supply the Iranians with extra uranium: “Fine, we will provide you the fuel that you need if Russia fails to provide it.”

And why are we so deferential on a matter of supreme national interest?

Because the Marines are busy right now.

#139 BPP:

The idea, as stated very explicitly, is to call the bluff of the Iranians.

What bluff? They want nuclear weapons. They're not bluffing. This is blindingly obvious.

But it is certainly better than the Bush Administration's policy which is to let the Europeans handle things and defer to the IAEA.

... while surrounding the mullahs with US military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, hopefully, engaging in cover activities to overthrow them. I'll admit I'm speculating on that last one, but who's more likely to do it, Bush or Kerry?

OT Did you really think they ate at Wendys:

While Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, and their families were having a “lite” lunch at Wendy’s in the Town of Newburgh Friday, drumming up local support right after the national convention in Boston, their real lunches were waiting on their bus.

A member of the Kerry advance team called Nikola’s Restaurant at the Newburgh Yacht Club the night before and ordered 19 five-star lunches to go that would be picked up at noon Friday. Management at the restaurant, which is operated by CIA graduate chef Michael Dederick, was told the meals would be for the Kerry and Edwards families and actor Ben Affleck who was with them on the tour.

The gourmet meals to go included shrimp vindallo, grilled diver sea scallops, prosciutto, wrapped stuffed chicken, and steak salad. The meals came to about $200.

[Link: www.midhudsonnews.com...]

Because, you know, their true motivations aren’t really clear yet.

Tanj! Kerry reallly is going to try to get us all killed! How can the motivations behind unwrapping the centrifuges and announcing their intentions be unclear?

#140 Freakyboy, LAMO! The Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer is perfect for Kerry! He evn looks like Kerry! :)

#73 deadman: you are pretty knowledgeable on this, but can you clarify something for me? Isn't the plutonium involved in the trigger mechanism, and the enriched uranium (U235) the actual bomb material?

We're all going to die.

My LLL dad thinks that it's a good idea.

I for one am not convinced that this is a terrible idea.

I am profoundly terrified by the idea of the Mullahs having nukes and think it is something that we need to stop now.

Kerry's proposal doesn't enhance the moolahs chances of getting nuclear weapons. If it does in fact force the French, Brits, Chinese and Germans to back us in a military showdown with the Mullahs wonderful. Just as long as we are willing to do so much without their approval.

Full disclosure - I am planning on voting for Kerry because I actually believe he will be as tough on the jihadis as Bush is, if not tougher, and I like his social policies a hell of a lot better than Bush's. (i.e. better on the environment, more inclusive to gays)
If Kerry were to come out and promise to close our Southern border to illegal aliens I would actually send him money.
As it is I believe that Kerry will be under enormous pressure to prove that he is just as tough on the jihadis as Bush is. Remember - as with every president he will be thinking about 2008 from day 1. He also knows he needs to prove that his election victory was not a win for the Islamists. Bush on the other hand now has to overcome an enormous credibility gap that will hinder him from taking the necessary steps to keep our country safe. Kerry will be able to take greater chances than Bush at this time. I am gambling he will take those chances when they are needed.

As always I remain open-minded and willing to change my mind if new information proves compelling, but I think that the incessant Kerry bashing and idolizing of Bush has a certain moonbat quality to it.
Lizaroids are better than that. Well, we should be...

#147

Nuclear bomb design

This sounds like North Korea all over again. I guess Kerry imbraces the thought by J. Chirac that "history does not repeat itself".

#149

As it is I believe that Kerry will be under enormous pressure to prove that he is just as tough on the jihadis as Bush is.

You are wrong! I'll bet that Kerry will make even the disastrous Carter administration look good.

Here is an interesting what-if.

If Kerry is elected. If Kerry does engage in such talks and trade with Iran in regards to nuclear fuel. If Iran refuses to surrender its aim for nuclear weapons. If Kerry is forced to take multi-lateral action against Iran via the UN. Think Iran would back down if during all the talks Iran had made nuclear weapons and there are multi-Western forces still in Afganistan and Iraq?

Now ask yourself, if the international community does get enough spine to confront Iran on this? And Iran feels cornered they decide to take a gamble. That gamble being, nuking Israel and nuking UN/US forces in Iraq lets say.

You say far-fetched? How far-fetched was 19 nuts with box cutters taking over four airplanes? In this day and age of nuclear and biological weapons, nothing can be considered far-fetched when nut-cases are invovled. Kim Il and the mad mullahs of Iran are such nut-jobs; they have delusions of empire.

This is the gamble Kerry and his advisors are taking, they are betting the mullahs will be sane enough to NOT build nuclear weapons. And that the mullahs will NOT call Kerry's bluff over consequences.

I think I will join the Mission to Mars if Kerry is elected.

#84 Mojo Jojo  responds to foreign devil:

That alone says he has serious problems. Just marrying someone that gruesome & than having to look at that face 365 days a year will drive anybody insane.

If that's true she must be a great f**k in the sack, maybe that's why he married her!

Does anyone know how to say "ABDUL WHAT'S THAT FLA(sh)..." in Farsi?

149

Kerry and his plan are both steaming turds.

There is no reason for the Iranians to stop enriching their own material. Taking Kerrry up on his offer would buy them time and cover. Kerry will be just like clinton, he will run and hide at the first opportunity. somolia, cole attack, etc. democrats have not fought a war correctly since the forties.

Iran is obviously trying to manufacture an atomic bomb. Their defense minister has stated its purpose, to attack israel. The next step after Bush is elected is either overthrow Iran or destroy its ability to make nuclear weapons by force. With a warning to Iran to take it and that any non conventional retaliation will result in full nuclear war.

We have plenty of air capability to conventionally destroy Irans buried reactors and enrichment facilities without involving the euros, they have no interest in disrupting business with a major trading party.

Iran is a threat, steps must be taken now to stop them.

The Dems as the cast of Gilligan's Island:

John Kerry = Mr. Howell
Tereza = Mrs. Howell
Skipper = Howard Dean
Gilligan = Dennis Kucinich

Nominees for Ginger, Maryanne and The Professor are requested...

Actually, Green Acres fits, too, with Kerry in the role of (a phony) Eddie Albert and Tereza in the role of (a real) Eva Gabor.

Doobie -

Kerry's social policies [are] a hell of a lot better than Bush's. (i.e. better on the environment, more inclusive to gays)

Kerry voted for DMA, and supported FMA. And what specific environmental policies are you referring to?

#149 doobie

For all of Bush's faults, you're living in Happy Fairy Land if you think Kerry will be "as tough on the jihadis as Bush is, if not tougher".

Your whole reasoning is that because we know Kerry is weak on defense - and always has been - he will have to be strong on defense as president. So getting elected will somehow magically transform him into his opposite.

Baloney.

#146 jrdroll

All those retired schoolteachers and union guys who donated to Kerry's campaign must be feeling pretty good about now.

#149 doobie

I for one am not convinced that this is a terrible idea. [snip]

Full disclosure - I am planning on voting for Kerry because I actually believe he will be as tough on the jihadis as Bush is, if not tougher

The nic kinda says it all...

Michael Moore as Ginger.

...

Okay, you can come out from under the table now. And stop whimpering!

And in this version of Gilligan's Island, there is no Professor. They all die in the first season.

155 Radian

The next step after Bush is elected is either overthrow Iran or destroy its ability to make nuclear weapons by force. With a warning to Iran to take it and that any non conventional retaliation will result in full nuclear war.

If you think that will actually happen you are living on another planet.

There is ABSOLUTELY no way we could "overthrow Iran" even if Bush had the desire, which he doesn't. There simply aren't the troops. Invading Iran would require orders of magnitude more resources than the Iraq war. It simply isn't going to happen. Limited bombing or covert ops maybe. But even that is unlikely given the likely retaliation by the Iranians against US assets in Iraq and the lack of precise intelligence about Iran's nuclear plans.

I wish the interviewer had followed up Rubin's answer.

Offering fuel is only half the equation. Rubin equated this with "calling the mullahs' bluff."

Well, ok. Let's say we call it. We propose to supply the fuel, and we remove the spent fuel rods (presumably so that Iran can't use them to produce plutonium). Let's ignore for the sake of argument all of the problems with this plan, and assume we could put it in place with reasonable assurance of safety if the mullahs accepted.

What would Kerry do if the mullahs refused the offer? Presumably they would only accept if they were in fact interested in the reactor for energy production, something nearly everyone agrees is laughable.

Further, what would Kerry do about the centrifuge program, which would still presumably be able to supply Iran with enriched uranium?

This is a very lightweight and unserious policy proposal, as Rubin has described it.

Lizaroid minion,

don't insult baloney like that.

#160 BPP:

There is ABSOLUTELY no way we could "overthrow Iran"

Wanna bet?

Jinnderella

"tanj"?

That, and a previous comment which I can't quite recall*, lead me to believe that you are a Larry Niven fan.

Excellent.

*maybe it was "frill" -- oops, that's, what, Farscape? Farscape was awesome.

LOL. Kerry just called for a special session of Congress ...

What's the point when you don't show up for the normal sessions?

What makes this proposal such a non-starter is when you marry it up to the "Kerry Doctrine" on war. In his DNC speech Kerry specifically stated that the US would only go to war if attacked or if an attack appeared imminent.

In other words, Kerry would have no way of confronting the Mullahs if they were caught cheating other than to break the foreign policy foundations of the Kerry Docutrine.

I was once like doobie so I will try to reason with him/her.

Vote democrat in your local and state races. They have more influence over day to day domestic programs.

However putting a massachusets liberal understudy to Ted Kennedy in national office during a war is a very bad idea. Kerry will not solidify his positions and says whatever he thinks will get him elected. He has consistantly voted against defense initiatives.

[Link: www.vote-smart.org...]

Voted against the B-2, voted against SDI, The first two were important to bankrupting the USSR.

93 voted yes to cut defense spending by 8 billion, bill rejected. voted again to cut b2 system.

94 voted to eliminate spending on trident missle system. John kerry voted against the cornerstones of defense. He is weak, myopic, and dangerous. read for your self.

His comments about hunting prove him a liar or at least very, very , stupid.

There is nothing to be gained by putting Kerry in office.

#149 doobie

No offense intended, you just remind me of my NPR-listenin' self, pre 9-11.

If there is hope for me, there's hope for anyone.

#160 BPP

Defeating Iran militarily would be a piece of cake.

Occupying the country would be hard.

Invading Iran would require orders of magnitude more resources than the Iraq war.

Do you have any idea what an order of magnitude is?

At his news conference this morning, W deferred again to the Euros and the IAEA on Iran's nuke program.

Either he thinks he can wait until after the election, or he's laying low in order to surprise the mullahs with something "dramatic."

160

The CIA is a very powerful and resourceful institution. Lots of experience overthrowing governments. The idea is to collapse it from the inside out.

We could destroy their currency, take down their communications and power systems with out a single troop on the ground and without leaving fingerprints. People would revolt. They were rioting in the streets when we were beaming satalite tc shows. We could easily arm a resistance.

BTW we do have the troops on ready reserve in Germany and South Korea. We could blocade Iran from the sea and gain total air superiority in days.

Invasion is not necessary, but possible. This would assume the millitary adopted a less politically correct method of dealing with resistance. Iran has no millitary capability to stand up to an American invasion if that was our intent.

My reality is based in fact and not knee jerk speculation.

Even if Kerry decides to take this to the Security Council as his campaign site says (not exactly a sign of strength, but bear with me for a moment), what's going to happen? A few reluctant agreements to vote for explicitly threatened sanctions which aren't explicitly threatened, a few o so noble abstentions, a few votes against the perceived warmonger. Kerry's foreign policy credibility would be destroyed -- not that any American has any in the eyes of France or Syria.

Of course, by that time, the Mullahs will have accepted Kerry's offer, built their nuclear weapon, told him to fuck off, and prepared to martyr themselves. But, hey, at least they would take Israel with them.

Hells Bells - U.S. could out any country if we wanted to... and even occupy it... it's just the weak stomach of the public...

The last sentence of the above was sarcasm, of course.

Thanks for the many thoughtful responses to my earlier post

Someone asked about the differences between Bush and Kerry on environment and social issues.

Energy and environment
Bush: Bush, who pulled the United States out of the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, believes the threat of global warming should be addressed through new economic growth and efficiency. He also favors oil exploration in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and backs legislation that would seek to reduce air pollution and acid rain by offering major polluters access to market-based incentives to reduce harmful emissions.

Kerry: Kerry favors U.S. participation in an international climate change program to curb global warming and would cut mercury emissions by American utilities and plants. To encourage more renewable energy sources, Kerry wants to create a renewable energy trust fund to reduce oil consumption by 2 million barrels per day, which is roughly the amount imported from the Middle East. Kerry also backed Senate legislation to impose stricter mileage standards on gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles and automobiles.

Kerry on Abortion

• Opposes partial-birth abortion; voted against it in the U.S. senate.

• Believes it is a constitutional right for a woman to be able to make a choice with respect to her health.

Bush on Abortion
Abortion

• Opposes abortion except when a woman's life is in danger or in cases of rape or incest.

• Signed legislation to outlaw partial-birth abortion. (The courts are currently blocking the law.)

Kerry on Gay Issues
Gay Issues

• Believes traditional marriage should be reserved for heterosexuals. However, he supports civil unions for same-sex couples.

• Opposes Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage.

• Opposes the "don't ask, don't tell" policy and would allow gays to serve in the military openly.

• Would extend hate-crime protections to gays.

• Voted against Defense of Marriage Act of 1996. (The act, signed by President Clinton, defines marriage as the legal union between a man and woman. It also stipulates that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage.)

Bush on Gay issues
Gay Issues

• Opposes same-sex marriage.

• Supports a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman only. (A U.S. Senate attempt to pass the amendment was defeated in July 2004.)

• Supports the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for gays in the military. (The policy, established by President Clinton, allows gays to serve only if they are not open about their sexuality.

• Supports the Defense of Marriage Act.

To me the most critical issue right now is the war on Islamists. If I'm convinced that Kerry is really a pansy who won't execute the war appropriately then I will vote for Bush, but honestly, I'm not convinced that Bush is going to execute the war effectively at this point, given his desire to resucitate our reputation around the world. Kerry will get credit from our former allies just for not being Bush.

#139 BPP

But the point is that such a scheme would never actually come to pass. The idea, as stated very explicitly, is to call the bluff of the Iranians. What that achieves precisely is not clear. But it is certainly better than the Bush Administration's policy which is to let the Europeans handle things and defer to the IAEA.

Not clear. Precisely.

The Bush plan is called "Give them enough rope."

He's VERY good at it.

BPP: does your nic stand for British Petroleum Products?

172

BTW Israeli/US joint test of anti missle system succeded. In theory a coordinated missle launch by iran could be intercepted. Of course there are other delivery methods.

However intercepting their first strike and hitting them with a nuclear counterstrike combined with conventional bombing would destroy their ability to fight rather quickly.

The iranians may be able to absorb several mts of israeli response. However if there was the promise of a joint us response in the event of a first strike on israel this would change the stakes for them. They can not absorb a us response.

Is anybody else TIRED?

I mean bone tired? Weary from arguing with idiots, mind-numbed leftist Sepember 10th paranoid freaks, or just ill informed people who just want to argue and disagree and whine and seethe?

I am just so damned TIRED OF IT.

Maybe I just need to go back to bed.

4 more years.

Lazytart

YES. On Friday nite my family and I were out to dinner and a table full of Kerrybots were ripping on Bush very LOUDLY and I was just too damn bored with the whole thing to jump in although they ruined my dinner b/c I couldnt help but listen in to their ranting.

Two women were arguing that we need a President who can actually "be respected in the world" and mocking Bush's language difficulties and the National Guard dodge and Iraq is a "mess" and bla bla bla.

The scary thing is they sounded fairly educated and informed. They just bought the whole product hook line and sinker.

What would be the point of trying to convert them?

doobie

Consider what clinton did and said while on the trail. Supported gays in millitary.

Reversed as soon as he got into office.

Koyto is a shakedown that penalizes large industrial nations like the US and Russia. Creates an international market that would have us paying for a traded commodity. That is why neither signed.

Gays and the environment while interesting issues do not have the immediate will or ability to kill me. Terrorists and rouge nuclear powers do.

Kerry proposing to give fuel to Iran is insane and ineffective.

As you can see from my earlier post Kerry is consistantly voted against defense programs that have given the US huge technical advantages over its enemies.

I've said it before and I say it again...

KERRY.WANTS.TO.LOSE.

The DNC does not want an incumbent against Hillary in 2008.

Kathryn Jean Lopez of NRO has been reading us.

RE: KERRY AND IRAN [KJL]
Little Green Footballs has more.
Posted at 12:59 PM

Doobie..."global warming" is a liberal myth!!! Even if it wasn't it is a natural occuring phenomenon that all the "green" thinking in the world couldn't stop!! Just because a some experts say somethin IS doesn't mean it is! It is only a THEORY and therefore subject to scrutiny, and I grow tired of it being an "issue"...

#175

Bush, who pulled the United States out of the Kyoto protocol

The senate did that in rejecting the treaty by a vote of 95-0.
[Link: www.nationalcenter.org...]

#175 doobie

I'm not convinced that Bush is going to execute the war effectively at this point, given his desire to resucitate our reputation around the world

A) it isn't Bush whose saying that if he's elected, he'll go on a World Apology Tour as penance for all our past evil hegemonistic ways

2) "The world" has let itself be represented by the UN. The UN is shiat. It's thoroughly corrupt, and provides legitimacy to dictatorships the world round. And, as an absolutely devastatingly hilarious punchline, puts nations like China and Syria on its Human Rights Commission. At this point, the opinion of "the world" toward us means jack shiat to me. "The world" has proven itself to be a bunch of cowardly, unprincipled, jealous arseholes. Fcuk what "the world" thinks.

Al-Sadyr about to be captured or die..

[Link: news.yahoo.com...]

hopefully he will be joining uday and quasay shortly.

John Kerry's secret trump to make the mad mullahs behave nice:

In fact, it is clear the Bush administration has no enthusiasm for seeing the Germans on the [UN Security] Council. ... So apart from an explanation of ineptitude, why would Fischer and Schröder have launched themselves into a quest that's been shown to have striking quixotic aspects? ... A more contorted explanation has Fischer and Schröder, now in nothing-ventured, nothing-gained mode, betting on a John Kerry victory in November, and a Kerry gesture in 2005 marking him down as the world's favorite multilateralist. The gesture would turn out to be acceptance of a German Security Council seat.

Yeah, lets turn the political buffer between the world's legal nuclear arsenals and into another useless parallel organization of the G8. Let's give a veto right to the German Green Party leader who was "not convinced" that Iraq was a proliferation threat. On stage tonight: The great magician John F. Kerry will conjure the proliferation catastrophy away by handing out honorary nuclear power status medals to non-nuclear countries!

#115 Lizard Minion - I'm always reading how conservative AU is...and then I keep trying to figure out how all those conservatives were talked into giving up firearms?
( I'm not being a smart@%#, I really am wanting to know what brought about the disarming of the Aussies?
:( )

Owl

Do we have another cut and paster?

175 Doobie

Energy and environment
Bush: Bush, who pulled the United States out of the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, believes the threat of global warming should be addressed through new economic growth and efficiency. He also favors oil exploration in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and backs legislation that would seek to reduce air pollution and acid rain by offering major polluters access to market-based incentives to reduce harmful emissions.

And this is a bad thing because...?

Have you actually LOOKED at the Kyoto protocols? Nothing but a global welfare program.

IF (and that's a very big 'if') global warming is occuring, why are you convinced that it's not another of many scientifically verified climate shifts Earth has experienced since before humans walked the planet?

Oil from Alaska is smart. Less foreign dependence, cheaper, and no, it won't hurt the precious caribou (who are lovin' the pipelines there already).

He's backing legislation to provide incentives for fewer emissions? I repeat, this is a bad thing because...?

169 Lizardoid minion

I can't believe that after all that has happened in Iraq anyone would consider the issues of invasion and occupation as separate questions.

176 genard

The Bush plan is called "Give them enough rope."

And the evidence of this is...what exactly? Or is it that maybe you're willing to give the benefit of the doubt to a candidate you support for whatever reason and evidence is beside the point?

179 lazytart

I mean bone tired? Weary from arguing with idiots, mind-numbed leftist Sepember 10th paranoid freaks, or just ill informed people who just want to argue and disagree and whine and seethe?

What a drag having to defend your position! Doesn't everyone know you/re always right?

Idiot.

Thanks for those who responded to #175 on Kyoto. I read the post and just didn't feel like going over this again.

Believe it or not, I am a conservative Republican who cares about the environment, but am not a pagen earth worshipper or socialist who wants to destroy the US economy. I don't see drilling in ANWAR anytime soon, but no one has yet proven that it will be worse then other drilling. Who was the Louisana congressman who attacked that idea, but is silient on the Louisana oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Dakota Senator who says we can't drill in Alaska, but has no problem with oil wells on the banks of the Missouri River in his state?

LFG doesn't cover abortion much and I really hope it stays that way. All I'll say is anyone can have as many abortions as they want a Bush presidency. The main difference is partial birth abortion and maybe federal funding of abortions. It's also possible pro-life protestors will not be singled out for special proscution over those who engage in more violent civil disobedience.

193

BPP

Read what I posted. I never suggested we invade. I suggested we collapse and overthrow their government.

Invasion in Iraq was designed around nation building and minimal collateral damage. This, while eventually effective, allows people freedom of movement and ability to attack. See Afganastan and upcoming elections.

If Iran was invaded it could be done in the method we invaded Germany in WW2. Destroying resistance at any cost, including destruction of cities and large percentages of the population. Civillians included. If the people in falluja rioting were shot dead with bradley fire they would learn not to group up and learn that we were not going to allow resistance. That is a traditional occupation. Once no one cares about the pictures of bodies chewed up by modern weaponry the situation changes. Dresden and tokyo were utterly destroyed 50 years ago, modern technology is still capable of this.

That is an option we could act on, however allowing iran to implode, with a little help, is a much better one.

There is no question we could destroy their facilities from the air and stop all shipping in and out of iran with ease.

195

ignore spell errors..oops

#175 Doobie

Let's assume for the moment that global warming is real and man-made. What would Kerry's policies do to reduce CO2 emissions? Very little. In fact, he could make that problem worse.

Kerry's energy "plan" calls for 20% of electricity to be produced by renewables by the year 2020. Other countries are trying for the same goal and have found it to be ridiculously expensive. But even if he succeeds, his electricity policies won't help a bit, because Kerry would effectively wipe out nuclear power. He has said over and over again that he would halt work on Yucca Mountain. There is no backup plan. Since Yucca Mountain was long ago determined to be the best plan available (or at least the best combination of safety and political feasibility), it is virtually guaranteed that no other waste disposal method could get approval after that. Without a disposal site, nuclear power plants will need to shut down completely, and still there will be tons of existing waste just sitting around. And what percent of our electricity is produced by nuclear power? Oh, about 20%. No net gain.

It is astounding that Kerry can get a free pass on this jawdropping act of irresponsibility.

What would Kerry's policies do to reduce CO2 emissions? Very little. In fact, he could make that problem worse.

I think all the gaseous emissions from last week's DNC did more to that end, than the nation of Mali does in a typical year.

195 Radian

Once no one cares about the pictures of bodies chewed up by modern weaponry the situation changes.

And when exactly do you expect that to happen?

It's time to face reality: We're not going back to the days of WWII when the true nature of what happened to Dresden or Tokyo was not known by the American people. It just isn't going to happen.

We're also not going to topple the Iranian government without an invasion. We can shut down their shipping, bomb their facilities or strangle their economy, all of which might be viable options if they don't play ball on the nuke issue. But we are not going to topple that government without an invasion.

What a jerk-o-f, just like we gave the japs steel before ww2,korea nuke fuel..NUTS!!!

Just wait untill the book comes out where all HIS warcrimes comes out--he killed a 15 yr old girl and torched a few villages..he could have played the lead in Platoon..Will judy collins et all still love him then??

#199 BPP

We're not going back to the days of WWII when the true nature of what happened to Dresden or Tokyo was not known by the American people.

They knew full well what was goin on in the war, they just didn't care.

#201 RIP Ford - it's not that they didn't care, it's that they knew it was what had to be done to WIN. It's unfortunate that thousands had to die, but the alternative was far worse.

#199 BPP

But we are not going to topple that government without an invasion.

You are not a believer in the coming student revolution in Iran? It's a-coming, all right. T minus 8 years and counting, at the outside.

The people are fed up, and the mullahs will be out on their asses. For their own sakes, the people just need to get on the stick and do this before the regime gets nuclear weapons.

203 Lewis

If it comes, no one will be more pleased than me. It's just not something that you can base a policy around.

The 'chatter' amongst my friends and strangers I talk to is that we should nuke Iran, and the rest of the murdering bastards will fall into line, hey it's really not beyond the realm of possibility, the majority of the world is so jealous of the US and want to see us fail, but it ain't going to happen, as long as we keep GWH in office, and I'm sure somewhere in Washington there is a plan already formulated to do just that, once that happens it's over with the terrorists and the rest of the anti-Americans will either be with us or against us to coin a phrase from our Great President.

199

There is a group of people who already don;t care, people who sit the fence and believe what they read and see in mainstream and then leftos who would never accept any war regardless of its purpose. The middle is the deciding factor.
Any further attack by muslims here will lower the threshold for the masses. It will happen when they come here and splatter americans with high explosives or poision us. Our dead negates theirs. Pearl Harbor, Bataan, and Iwo Jima all justified the destruction of Tokyo as well as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Iran will continue to shelter al-q leaders. Do you really think we ane not running operations there now?

Once again you underestimate the ability of the CIA to disrupt their country. Remember they were rioting in the streets with just a little agitatiion from satelite programming. How hard do you think it would be for us to hedge their currency, and begin running guns to the opposition.

Americans knew exactly what was going on in bombing the germans and japaneese. The british knew because they were on the recieving end themselves. They knew and did not object to the destruction of an enemy.

No one gave a shit about dead talibs in afganastan. No one cared when they hid with their famaly and got vaporized. Of course they claimed wedding party but in the end they were dead and no one cared. They being killed there every day and no one knows or cares. Payback is a bitch.

# 208 Lewis:

You are not a believer in the coming student revolution in Iran?

After 1979, I've had it with 'student' revolutions in Iran. I remember students being interviewed on the 'Today' show, after the embassy takeover, talking, breathless, about how they pieced together all sorts of shredded documents to show US perfidity. The populace, like good Islamobots, got the government they deserved. They had their chance. I'll save my sympathy for some other country. But whatever the US does to Iran, I will not shed any tears, but will consider it a long overdue reckoning for their takeover of the US Embassy, an overt act of war in anybody's book. Carter's policy during that event was a long-term foreign policy debacle; that Kerry strives to follow in Carter's footsteps shows his idiocy.

# Radian,

AMEN, good post!

My post was to # 203. New glasses, maybe?

Ye gods. What is Kerry thinking?

I take that back. He isn't thinking, he can't think, until someone at the UN tells him what it might be.

If there is a special providence looking after this country, he'll lose big time.

BPP, all due respect, fuck YOU.

I AM tired of defending common sense to a load of moronic, paranoid, hateful, feeble-minded losers. Sick to death of it.

I've been up all night with a sick dog, and I'm not in the fucking mood to be attacked.

CAPICHE?

139 BPP

As policy, I think a reasonable case can be made that offering to control the inflow and outflow of nuclear material from Iran is better than the current situation where no one knows what the hell is going on.

Isn't this the function of NNPT? Isn't this exactly what UN is doing, or supposed to be doing under NNPT, i.e. "control the inflow and outflow of nuclear material from Iran" and its usage? So why do you think that creating one more framework for co-operation with France would be more effective? Also, what reasons do you have to believe that Iran will not continue their illigal nuclear programs, as it does now, contrary of their NNPT obligations, if Kerry and Co supply the nuclesr fuels? BTW, who will benefit from the nuclear fuel sales to Iran?

#211 lazytart,

I'm a great animal lover and I'm sorry about your pet, but I'm on your side, for what it's worth, take care of him.

Uh. Didn't Clinton do this with N.Korea? I don't think it worked out too well, ofcourse I could be very wrong about all of that and it could be a great paradise...I also seem to remember reading an article about them building 10 new missles able to carry nuclear warheads and can...not may hit the west coast.

Beauitful...lets give weapons to our enemies. Didn't we learn anything from 'Atoms for Peace'?

'Nam Grunt, thank you, your are very kind. I don't mean to attack someone in such a rude manner, but you know how sleep deprivation makes your nerves fray? I have NO PATIENCE with stupidity right now. I got up this morning to seeing that Howard Dean is claiming that Bush is manipulating the terror threat apparatus according to polling data.

I don't see how ANYONE wouldn't be exhausted day after day confronting this type of bullshit.

And I'm serious about not being in the mood to be fucked with about it.

I've almost got a Bigel thing going.

As much as I would LOVE to see Israel light those murdering bastards up, it is in the best interest of the United States to keep them at at bay, for now, because IMOP it would disrupt the plan the US has for these dimwits that treasure camels as personal wealth, that in itself is sooo stupid.

Comparative foreign policy w/ Iran:

Nuanced:

2004: Trade uranium for leverage to encourage "peaceful" use.

Simplistic:

1986ish: Trade [nearly obsolete] Hawk missiles for leverage to release hostages.

Sorry, folks.

Should have added that the 1986 policy was also criminally scandalous.

217

nuanced means really stupid right?

A hawk missile cant incinerate a million americans. A 250 kt implosion bomb can. Ironic to be killed with your own bomb grade material.

Comparing conventional weaponry and nuclear bomb precusors is assinine.

The iranians are on record saying they want nukes to use on israel. No wiggle room.

Kerry's policy of constructive engagement is based on the model successfully employed by Clinton and Carter in North Korea. It was very successful for North Korea.

219 Radian
Precisely. This year we have a policy suggested by allegedly respectable spokesmen suggesting we sell the rope with which our sworn enemy will attempt to hang us.

Yet, to his detractors (the majority of the entire legislative branch + press), Reagan's alleged, relatively nickle & dime, arms for hostages deal was a crisis that shook the foundation of our republic.

Oh by the way, wasn't Boland from Mass.?

"I'm not a Kerry fan but... He said fuel, not nuclear fuel."

From the John Kerry "plan" at JohnKerry.com:

"John Kerry's proposal would call their bluff by organizing a group of states to offer Iran the nuclear fuel they need for peaceful purposes and take back the spent fuel so they cannot divert it to build a weapon."

Kerry should pay attention..

Fire set to Khomeini's premises

222

Nuclear fuel can be further enriched through a number of processes to become "bomb grade" Uranium is the only fuel we could consider giving them. It can be enriched with technology they already have and used to incinerate americans. They are already enriching uranium, they only need quantity and the engineering capability to build the bomb. This is 40's technology. Kerry's plan makes no allowance for what they have and for the fact they have stated they intend to build the weapon to use against israel. There is no bluff to call, they have admitted their reasons. Hopefully when bush is re-elected his first order of business will be to help destabilize their government with money from Iraqi oil sales. The CIA has done this work for many years and is good at it.

Kerry is a myopic flaming moron. I pray to God he is not elected to POTUS.

212 norar

Isn't this exactly what UN is doing, or supposed to be doing under NNPT, i.e. "control the inflow and outflow of nuclear material from Iran" and its usage? So why do you think that creating one more framework for co-operation with France would be more effective? Also, what reasons do you have to believe that Iran will not continue their illigal nuclear programs, as it does now, contrary of their NNPT obligations, if Kerry and Co supply the nuclesr fuels? BTW, who will benefit from the nuclear fuel sales to Iran?

Don't know enough about NNPT to say definitively how much the Kerry idea differs.

But it doens't much matter because the idea is not to actually implement the scheme but use it as a way to call the bluff of the med mullahs who claim that their nuclear ambitions are for energy purposes only. Everyone knows they want nukes but in the crazy world of international relations that is not enough to warrant action.

Whether this idea has any merit or not from a policy perspective, it was incredibly stupid from a political perspective. Whoever thought that talking about sending nuclear fuel to Iran was going to make Kerry look good should be fired. The British have a fine expression for this kind of thing: Too clever by half.

Hopefully when bush is re-elected his first order of business will be to help destabilize their government with money from Iraqi oil sales. The CIA has done this work for many years and is good at it.

Huh???

226

News flash. The CIA has overthrown many governments.

Billions of dollars in hard currency siezed in Iraq would be a great place to fund the efforts against Iran.

I would hope our new Iraqi friends could be enticed to throw us a bone for liberating thier oil cash from a nutcase.

Is this what Kerry meant when he said he would have done Iraq 'smarter?' What? He would have just given Saddam nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons? Call his bluff. Rrrriiight.

If this were Celebrity Poker, John Kerry would already be on the couch in the Loser's Lounge.

Unfortunately, in this game, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are the chips. The Iranians have every intention of attacking Israel as soon as humanly possible.

228

Bingo.

Kerry just stepped into the deep end. He is a flip flopping foreign policy dolt.

If he gets elected he will get americans killed, period.

#190 Owl

Australians aren't really conservative.

Our two main political parties are center-left (Labor) and center-right (Liberal).

We never had any culture of gun ownership, we never had a revolution, and we never had a constitutional right to bear arms.

It's still something I disagree strongly with our government about.

Sign me up for the Red Planet Express. Hell, if I get to go to Mars, I don't care who wins... ;-p (Closest match for me in terms of political labels is a Goldwater Republician, but there's two issues I'll cross party lines for: Opposing gun control & supporting manned space exploration...)

Maybee Jfnk should look at a different source for Irans energy crisis

[Link: news.nationalgeographic.com...]

This idea of KampKerry is beyond chilling...

Not only would it give the Mad Mullahs the means to wipe Israel off the map, consider THIS question...

What's to say they just happen to slide a few of these things over to some folks that wanna take US down?

I dunno about any of you guys, but the idea of NYC, DC, LA, Chicago, ANYWHERE in the US becoming a smoking crater and with an un-natural glow in the dark because of some Jihadi is just too much to comprehend...especially when our leadership would have had a hand in it...

Unbelievable...The Dems think we're lemmings. And Kerry wants to lead us off the fuckin' cliff.

So nice of Kerry to offer to take nuclear waste back from Iran when he apparently disapproves of nuclear power plants in the U.S., because we lack an accepted place to put nuclear waste and people argue over transporting it, too. And, of course, there is always the worry from the Left about nuclear accidents.

Maybe the Democrats have another secret plan for defeating tyranny: set up dictatorships to rely on nuclear power, then laugh when they have nuclear accidents. No- that would be cruel.

Anyway, Kerry's plan reminded me that the Democrats should maintain their consistency in dealing with those who pose a real threat to civilization:

[Link: www.scrappleface.com...]

So Kerry wants to seriously offer Iran nuclear help. And I thought Howard Dean was crazy. This is just suicide.

#150 Odin: shukran, that was excellent! Now I am a quasi-expert. :-)

#164 Lewis:

"tanj"?

Yes, you know me! There Ain't No Justice! The Ringworld Cycle is one of my favorites. Do you think there will be a movie? I think the CGI and behavoiral animation are robust enough in the film industry to do it-- but it is difficult for me to see how the censors would handle the topic of rishathra and still come up with a PG-13. :-)

I love also the 'crazy eddie' concept from 'A Mote in God's Eye'. Gallant, maniacally hopeful, insane and doomed to fail.

Farscape, Startrek (and all its spinoffs), Stargate (SG-1 and Atlantis) all pale in comparison to Firefly. Have you seen it?

I'm John Kerry and I approve this mess.

"#138 This sounds just like the very succesfull and genous idea used by Clinton in the N. Korea problem in 98' brilliant it worked out so well and we are just begining to feel the full reprucusions today from such great leaders of foriegn policy."

It was Bush who cancelled Clinton's policy within months after taking office. One of his first duties. It was working great. Clinton was the first person to break through to communications with NK since the war which got even tighter after the fall of communism, to everyone's surprise.

Under Clinton's policy, NK destroyed their reprocessing plants, but were allowed to keep their nuclear energy which cannot be converted into uranium for weapons without the reprocessing plant. I'm not a rocket scientist, of course (I guess this is the one case that actually applies!) And yea, we supplied them with fuel. It's a diplomatic way to open relations with rouge nations. And it worked in NK for the time Clinton had the policy. Jong iL came out of his lair. Bush, actually, is now back to the SAME policy, enlisting the help of Japan, S. Korea, Russia, some others... but the fuel will come from them, not us, as I understand it. I'd be interested in knowing where any of this is currently. Haven't heard about it in a few months.

The question is, will Iran buy it and actually, I think Kerry is thinking they probably won't. He's "calling their bluff" as he says.

Unfortunately, diplomacy, treaties, and pledges don't always work with these kinds of nations. It didn't in Iraq after, what 30 years. But it did in NK, so I dunno...