ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
All I know is this. The Bush admin has gutted the CIA and replaced experienced officers with yes men. They may be trying to build nukes, but neither you nor I can be sure. We are taking the word from an intelligence agency from within the pentagon and filtered through the Veep that has been demonstrably wrong on many things, and will soon be discovered to have deliberately misled us to get us into Iraq. They have politicized our intelligence apparatus and removed objectivity.
So, unlike you, I remain skeptical as the credibility of this government has been destroyed.
Iran is a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, no? Is India?
You are aware we are trading nuclear tech to India in return for mangoes, right?
So basically you don't think they are trying to make nukes, or you are implying that you believe they are not. Your position that our government is the only one who feels they are making nukes is wrong btw.
U.N. says Iran plans nuclear development
By GEORGE JAHN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 10 minutes ago
DAVOS, Switzerland - Iran plans to start installing thousands of centrifuges in an underground facility next month, U.N. officials said Friday, paving the way to large-scale uranium enrichment, a potential way of making nuclear weapons.
The officials, who demanded anonymity because the information was confidential, emphasized that Iranian officials had not officially said the country would embark on the assembly of what will initially be 3,000 centrifuges at Natanz. But they said senior officials have informally told the International Atomic Energy Agency the work would start next month.
I wouldn't disagree that credability is a serious issue. To me, that's obvious. However, I don't need the CIA to be credible to come to the obvious conclusions regarding Iran and nukes. Just look at North Korea. They were supposedly not building nukes, had UN inspectors, and were being paid not to make them. Well, guess what? They were all along. Pakistan and India made them without care too. Do you honestly think that Iran is not making them? Leave your disdain for the Bush Administration aside, and use your own common sense. That's what I do. Remember now, I've been of the opinion that they are making them, and that we aren't going to stop them. There is more to this than simply permitting one nation to go nuclear. There is the precedent to think of. Is non proliferation legitimate, or will having two new nuclear nations empower others to follow suit? If you permit, without recourse, these two nations to join the club, then how do you then prevent others from following? Aside from that, my position regarding Iranian nukes is this. I'd tell them, once they aquire them cuz they will, that if they are used, or if they give them to someone who uses them, they will become a parking lot.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
There is a big difference between enriching uranium and building a bomb. Enriching the uranium is probably one of the easiest steps (and they won't even need to do it if they build reactors, remember: uranium goes in, plutonium comes out, and it's just as useful for bombmaking). Engineering the bomb is very, very hard (the parts have to be incredibably precise). So I think they're probably several years away from it (even N. Korea's test fizzled), but it's only a matter of time. Why wouldn't they build the bomb?
Over the couple of years something is going to have to be done.
There is a big difference between enriching uranium and building a bomb. Enriching the uranium is probably one of the easiest steps (and they won't even need to do it if they build reactors, remember: uranium goes in, plutonium comes out, and it's just as useful for bombmaking). Engineering the bomb is very, very hard (the parts have to be incredibably precise). So I think they're probably several years away from it (even N. Korea's test fizzled), but it's only a matter of time. Why wouldn't they build the bomb?
Over the couple of years something is going to have to be done.
Right, but my point isn't whether or not they are going to have one tomorrow, or next millenium. My point is that they are 99.9999% likely to build a bomb. Sure, NK's test fizzled, but how many people were syaing they were still 10 years away? Lots. I think, when sane people look at these issues, you need to apply the politics and angles of those supplying the information, and then come to your own conclusions. These issues, though more grave than most, are ployed no different by the usual political suspects.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
So basically you don't think they are trying to make nukes, or you are implying that you believe they are not. Your position that our government is the only one who feels they are making nukes is wrong btw.
Thats not what I wrote. I suspect they are trying, but are not nearly as close as the Cheney-neo-conservative cabal would like us to believe. If these criminals hadn't sacrificed a covert agent (Plame), perhaps we would have better intel on Iran.
I am highly skeptical of dubious reports coming out now, in part because as your boy said "fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice.......we..we won't get fooled again"
Thats my point. Why wouldn't they want nukes after seeing what happens to weak non-nuclear nations, an example taken from their neighbor next door?Oh, and the axis of evil statement followed by an invasion of Iraq really did more damage than good.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Thats not what I wrote. I suspect they are trying, but are not nearly as close as the Cheney-neo-conservative cabal would like us to believe. If these criminals hadn't sacrificed a covert agent (Plame), perhaps we would have better intel on Iran.
What does Plame have to do with having better intell on Iran?
Where I agree about Iranian nuclear ability not being imminent (remember I'm not a doomsday subscriber in either direction), there is certainty of how far, or of how close they are. People were saying Korea was 10 years away, and they've been testing nukes underground. I'm in the camp that they will go nuclear, and that there is little we can do to stop them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by All_Around_Brown
I am highly skeptical of dubious reports coming out now, in part because as your boy said "fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice.......we..we won't get fooled again"
Thats my point. Why wouldn't they want nukes after seeing what happens to weak non-nuclear nations, an example taken from their neighbor next door?Oh, and the axis of evil statement followed by an invasion of Iraq really did more damage than good.
I've had many a skeptic use this arguement when attempting to either criticize the administrations position, or justify Irans nuclear ambitions. The problem with such an arguement, is that those using Iran's personal fear factor, would have to also say that Iran had no nuclear ambitions prior to GW's Axis of Evil statement. I've seen where some people say it's GW's fault that NK is going nuclear. Hogwash. NK has been trying to build nukes for decades, as has Iran. A country doesn't simply decide in year 1 that it is going to build nukes, and then in year 3-6 succeed in developing them. Now if your position is that the actions on its doorstep have made them more intent on building them, fine. I'll buy that, cuz saying so concedes that they've been building them all along.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him." Leo Tolstoy, 1897
Thats not what I wrote. I suspect they are trying, but are not nearly as close as the Cheney-neo-conservative cabal would like us to believe. If these criminals hadn't sacrificed a covert agent (Plame), perhaps we would have better intel on Iran.
I am highly skeptical of dubious reports coming out now, in part because as your boy said "fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice.......we..we won't get fooled again"
Thats my point. Why wouldn't they want nukes after seeing what happens to weak non-nuclear nations, an example taken from their neighbor next door?Oh, and the axis of evil statement followed by an invasion of Iraq really did more damage than good.
Fitzgerald has confirmed she was not a covert agent and outing her wasn't a crime. Libby is being charged with perjury not with outing Plame.
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
Could you give me the link which shows that "Fitzgerald has confirmed she was not a covert agent and outing her wasn't a crime"?
I just want to make sure that what you wrote is a fact because you have a history of making misleading statements.
.
He made that up. Nowhere was that said.
In fact, 1) she was covert and 2) outing her was a crime.
That said, it is well understood that prosecuting that crime is very very difficult. Which means that it will likely happen again as this admin set a dangerous precedent.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
June 2003 – State Department intelligence officials reportedly prepare a memo on the Niger affair mentioning Wilson ’s trip to Niger and Valerie Wilson’s role in selecting her husband for the mission. The exact date is uncertain. The memo identifies Valerie Wilson but not her status as a covert agent, and it does not use her maiden name Valerie Plame. According to one account, the memo was classified and the paragraph containing information about Valerie Wilson was marked with “(S)” to indicate that the information was classified at the “secret” level. The CIA applies this level of classification to the identities of covert officers, according to the Washington Post. (“ State Dept. memo gets scrutiny… ,” New York Times, July 16, 2005; “ Probe Centers on Rove, Memo, Phone Calls, ” Bloomberg.com, July 18, 2005; “ Plame’s Identity Marked as Secret, ” Washington Post, July 21, 2005).
Special Counsel Fitzgerald's ongoing investigation has not determined that the public exposure of Plame's name violated any criminal statutes. No one has yet been charged specifically for leaking Plame's identity. "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff, however, has been charged with covering up facts about his role pertaining to the leaks. These are felony counts relating to impeding Fitzgerald's federal investigation. That five-count indictment of Libby includes obstruction of justice (one count), making false statements (two counts), and perjury (two counts), with the trial date in United States v. Libby set for early 2007.
On 5 September 2006, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, Novak's "primary source" for the disclosure of the identity of Wilson's wife as a CIA operative, publicly identified himself, after seeking permission to do so from Special Counsel Fitzgerald, to whom he had identified himself as the likely person at the start of the investigation.[2] The Wilsons' civil action, which includes initially Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, has been amended to include Armitage.[3]
From National Review
Quote:
While that part of the case remains a bit murky, it is clear that Fitzgerald has so far refused to give Libby's lawyers any evidence of Plame's CIA status. Last December, Libby's defense team asked Fitzgerald for "All documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003." (Those dates mark the period in which some Bush administration officials discussed Wilson with reporters.)
Fitzgerald said no. "We have neither sought, much less obtained, 'all documents, regardless of when created, relating to whether Valerie Wilson's status as a CIA employee, or any aspect of that status, was classified at any time between May 6, 2003 and July 14, 2003,'" Fitzgerald wrote to the Libby team on January 9, 2006. Fitzgerald told Libby's lawyers that he would look for any such documents, and "if we locate" them, he might turn them over. But he argued that he had no responsibility to do so, because they were not relevant to the perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Libby.
Later, in a letter dated January 23, 2006, Fitzgerald refused to say whether he knew if Plame had been an undercover agent during the five years preceding her exposure. Referring to a 1963 Supreme Court decision in Brady v. Maryland, which requires prosecutors to turn over evidence that might point toward the defendant's innocence, Fitzgerald wrote, "We do not agree that if there were any documents indicating that Ms. Wilson did not act in an undercover capacity or did not act covertly in the five years prior to July 2003 (which we neither confirm nor deny) that any such documents would constitute Brady material in a case where Mr. Libby is not charged with a violation of statutes prohibiting the disclosure of classified information."
At this point, with reams of evidence in the case still hidden from public view, it is impossible to say much of anything for sure. And there may in fact be irrefutable evidence that Valerie Wilson "was a person whose identity the CIA was making specific efforts to conceal and who had carried out covert work overseas within the last five years." But if there is, Patrick Fitzgerald hasn't shown it yet.
And from Fitz's presser announcing Libby's indictment:
Quote:
QUESTION: Can you say whether or not you know whether Mr. Libby knew that Valerie Wilson's identity was covert and whether or not that was pivotal at all in your inability or your decision not to charge under the Intelligence Identity Protection Act?
FITZGERALD: Let me say two things. Number one, I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward.
I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003. And all I'll say is that, look, we have not made any allegation that Mr. Libby knowingly, intentionally outed a covert agent.
FITZGERALD: We have not charged that. And so I'm not making that assertion.
__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
Re: Jim Webb's response: We will show him the way
Linear Mode
