Is Iran Next?? Where will it end??

“Is it just me, or are things way more #"*$#'ed up than they were 4 or 5 years ago?

(psssst! It's not just me!)
last edited: 1/27/05 12:18:24 PM”

“Hey Sol - Any ideas on where Feith might be headed now?”

“notice how the majority of the conservatives are staying clear of this thread. I think they know Bush is starting to go off the deep end on this with Iran. At least Nigal had the guts to stand up and something about it.”

“I'll jump on that bandwagon. Marching into Iran doesn't make sense, especially now.”

“

We'll meet again,
don't know where,
don't know when;
but I know we'll meet again
some sunny day.”

“Sorta looks like Dubya, dosen't he?”

““I'll jump on that bandwagon. Marching into Iran doesn't make sense, especially now.”

As much as I am loath to spend any amount of time with the hippy protester types I would jump in my car and drive to Washington myself to protest an Iranian invasion. Can you imagine how a Bush voting/supporting conservative protester would get treated by the hippies? Why, I'd be the Belle of the Ball!”

“The US isn't going to invade Iran. We can't control Iraq much less Iran. The Iranians are going to invade Iraq after we or the Israelis bomb them. And the end result will be that the US servicemen in Iraq are going to be caught in the meatgrinder.”

“Feith (as Perle did) can afford to quit now because his mission has been achieved. He can crawl back under some Israeli financed Washington think tank "rock" until the heat is off. Then, sooner or later, he will reappear in some government job for his next mission. My guess is his next "civie" job will be at AEI or PNAC. But who knows, people are beginning to watch them too. Hopefully and thank God for the internet, the truth is slowly coming out about these ba$tards.
last edited: 1/27/05 7:48:07 PM”

“Hmmm... solitary hiker, I wonder how many times you have to spew your lies on the internet before they become "the truth."

I've never seen a word from anyone with any decision making power in this administration about any intent to invade Iran. As a matter of fact the intent of the administration seems to be to keep Israeli from bombing Iran by telling them we'll take care of them which is only right. The Iranians aren't stupid they aren't going into Iraq they know we'd just bomb the hell out of them.
last edited: 1/27/05 8:09:57 PM”

“I'd like to see the Iranians get the hell bombed out of them.”

“I have to agree with Bison. Iran knows it's basically defenseless against us. They're not even trying to do anything about our daily intrusions in their airspace. Their ground forces don't stand a chance against our marines and army - not even with a significant numbers advantage. And I think that's why we've seen Iran play the nuclear card up and down during the past few years - it's the only semi-real leverage they have. Besides, Iran has only one real desire at the moment, and that's to see an Iran-friendly government in Baghdad. They don't need to invade Iraq to accomplish that. They already have tremendous influence with the Iraqi Shiites.”

“Looking back at the 10 year Iran/Iraq war I'd have to say Iran is no push over. No streaking to the capital in that invasion. They aren't even suffering from a infrastructure tear down from 10 years ago like Iraq was.

We also have to think about our alli Israel. The Islamo-fascist countries make no differentiating between the US and Israel. I'm thinking Iran would make the Iraqi scuds flying into Israel the last time around seem like child's play. Would it be right for Israel to pay for our ambitions?”

“Bison, did you read the link from Fox news?

First sentence said " President Bush refuses to rule out war with Iran"

Now this is the network that all conservatives believe to the best and most truthful. So are you saying that your beloved network Foxnews is making this up??”

“Jesus Ewker, a president doesn't rule ANYTHING out when it comes to politics. It's the dumbest thing they can say. Remember "read my lips, no new taxes."?”

“Nigal, wasn't that a Republican who said that ;)”

“I was in denial about bush going into Iraq up until Dumbass Day. Really thought (hoping?) he wasn't going to do it.

Are we going to do it again? If it happens then what?

"Well, we're there, we have to support our president and his decisions. To not would be unpatriotic and traiterous. Should I get another 'Support our Troops' sticker?"”

““Nigal, wasn't that a Republican who said that ;)”

When did I ever say republicans were perfect? See, I should have just kept my mouth shut.”

“BM, you can support the troops and not support Bush. The soldiers had no choice in the matter, Bush did!

I feel terrible that so many families are losing their sons,daughters, fathers and mothers over there.
I also feel that it is Bush's fault.

I also feel more families are going to lose their loved ones as this goes on, esp if we go into Iran.

After Iran there will be North Korea that Bush will want to deal with. Who will be next after that....China???

We have to stop policing the world.”

“China could kick the $hit out of us right now.”

“I heard a news story this morning that Iran is strongly encouraging Iraqi expatriots living there, to vote in this weekend's elections.”

“I never said the US was going to invade Iran. Nigal said that. I said just the opposite. Read my posts again.
>
Now as far as me lying? All I can say is that it’s a funny thing that things I was saying over two years ago are as true today as they were back then. I said there were no WMDs and there weren’t. I said Bush was lying about Iraqi nukes and he was. I said we wouldn’t be able to control the country with the number of people Rumsfeld said it would take to do the job and guess what? We can’t! But hell, I’m no genius. I just read the internet. Everyone in the CIA, Pentagon, and State Department with any sense was saying the same thing. All I was doing was parroting what I read.
>
But you're right about one thing. I bet the administration is doing everything they can to restrain the Israelis. But that's the trick isn't it? Restraining the Israel right wing is near impossible. If you can’t get a group of fanatics from shooting rockets into a civilian filled apartment building to kill one alleged terrorist, or deliberately driving a bulldozer over of a 110 lb. woman, or beating up (or murdering) Palestinian children and their unarmed American escorts trying to get to grammar school, then how in hell is George Bush going to stop the Israelis from bombing Iran if they really want to? He can’t.
>
The Israelis have ignored every UN sanction ever issued against them. Far more sanctions than Saddam Hussein ever ignored. Israel is not a democracy. It is an apartheid state just like South Africa was. To this day they will not sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty because they will not admit they have nuclear weapons. For the same reason they will not open up Diamona or any of their other nuclear sites for inspection by the IAEA. The Iranians have opened their nuclear facilities for inspection so why won’t the Israelis?
>
And finally, as I have said many times before and I will say it again. Israel is not a friend of the United States and never has been. They have a long history of treachery towards the U.S. going back to the mid-50s. One only has to do a google search on topics like the Lavon Affair, the U.S.S. Liberty, Jonathan Pollard, and Larry Franklin AIPAC to find out. You can read books like “Body of Secrets” by James Bamford, "Gideon’s Spies" by Gordon Thomas, or the books of Victor Ostrosky, who was in the Mossad. The right wing in Israel and their neocon amen corner in the USA are very dangerous and they have no qualms whatsoever about putting American troops in danger. IMO the 1000+ troops that have died in Iraq are proof of that! If we or the Israelis bomb Iran there will be a asymetrical war against our troops in Iraq by Shias coming across the border from Iran. Thousands of them. People need to know this stuff. Especially people like yourself Bison. IMO you don’t seem to be very well read or informed.
last edited: 1/28/05 10:18:03 AM”

““I never said the US was going to invade Iran. Nigal said that."

No I never said that. I was just repeating what I heard in the interview and gave my opinions if IS true.”

“Ewker - You are correct of course. But, to be honest, I might have a problem the 2nd time around. Perhaps the admin confuses the two types of support? Not supporting the troops would send a strong message.

Instead of "Support the Troops" why not I support individual name in Iraq?”

“BM, you are right. Maybe the Bush adminstration thinks the American people support him because we support the troops.
Totally 2 different types of support going on.

Bush said he was a uniter not a divider. He has done nothing to unite this country. It is still as divided as it was 4 yrs ago.

With some of his polices now he is even starting to divide the Republicans.”

“I could swear I read you say that somewhere in this thread but I'll be darned if I can find it. Therefore I humbly ask for your forgiveness .....(all the time wondering if Nigal edited a post right after I read it?)


BTW
You still haven't committed to going on the Wheezers and Geezers hike. We started to collect money ($15 so far) for part of your plane ticket. I'm figuring it'll only cost $200 to get you to ONT or SAC. All you have to do is say yes. What say ye?”

“No problem guy. I am very guilty of skimming.

"You still haven't committed to going on the Wheezers and Geezers hike. We started to collect money ($15 so far) for part of your plane ticket."

$15? How many people gave? 20? LOL! No can do. I have a trip planned for the fall and that's my one week long trip for the year.
last edited: 1/28/05 11:41:43 AM”

“That was just three ($5 a pop). All of us from South Carolina (creekjumper, gemini, and me.) I was going to challenge the rich Californians and then volunteer to chip in $20 to see who would match me. Hey we're looking out for our longtime TTers. You should skip the fall week long trip and come with us. Don't you love us anymore?”

“This is honestly the nicest article I could find about Douglas Feith. Most of the articles deal far harsher with this war profiteer. He's was more than likely very much involved in passing the goods to AIPAC via his underling Larry Franklin and that's probably the real reason he's resigning for "personal and family reasons".


"Contentious Defense Official to Depart
By Mark Mazzetti
The Los Angeles Times

Thursday 27 January 2005

WASHINGTON - Douglas J. Feith, the controversial policy advisor to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and a hawkish proponent of the war in Iraq, plans to return to the private sector this summer, the Defense Department said Wednesday.

As undersecretary of Defense for policy, Feith, 51, is the Pentagon's third-ranking civilian official. He directs a staff of 1,500 employees who develop the Pentagon's policies for countries in every corner of the world.

It was Feith's advocacy of a hard line toward Saddam Hussein after the Sept. 11 attacks that turned his office into the nerve center for U.S. policy toward Iraq. The changeover caused frequent clashes between his staff, on one side, and the CIA and the State Department, on the other.

A Pentagon announcement gave no specifics about Feith's resignation, saying only that he made his decision for "personal and family reasons."

At a Capitol Hill press event Wednesday evening, Rumsfeld said that Feith notified him in November, shortly after the presidential election, that he intended to resign. He said he asked Feith to remain until a successor could be found.

"I've asked him to stick around. We don't have a replacement. And he's agreed to do that," Rumsfeld said.

In a separate statement released to the media, Rumsfeld said Feith "has contributed to the security of the country. He is creative, well organized and energetic, and he has earned the respect of civilian and military leaders across the government."

A graduate of Harvard University and Georgetown University Law Center, Feith served on the National Security Council and Defense Department staffs in the Reagan administration.

In his current position, he has frequently been criticized by senior military officials, who say he has advanced policies without considering their implications for troops on the ground.

Retired Army Gen. Tommy Franks, U.S. commander during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, reserved particular venom for Feith in his recent autobiography, "American Soldier."

"No one could deny Feith's academic achievements," Franks wrote. "But Feith was a theorist whose ideas were often impractical."

Elsewhere in the book, Franks wrote that Feith was "getting a reputation around here as the dumbest [expletive] guy on the planet."

In an interview Wednesday with Associated Press, Feith said he was proud of his contributions to improving relations between the Pentagon's civilian policymakers and the senior uniformed officers.

"Many people have said it is now better than it has ever been," he said.

Feith has been a lightning rod for criticism on Capitol Hill. Many senior Democrats have long contended that his office manipulated intelligence in order to link Hussein's regime to Al Qaeda and bolster the case for war with Iraq.

Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon officials dismiss these charges.

Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, Feith established an office at the Pentagon that sifted through raw intelligence to determine whether the CIA might have missed links between rogue states and international terrorist networks.

The intelligence unit, the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, purported to have found new links and briefed the CIA, the National Security Council and members of Vice President Dick Cheney's staff on its findings.

A memo written by Feith about the group's discoveries was leaked to the media, and Cheney touted the memo as the "best source" on the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

However, at a subsequent hearing on Capitol Hill, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet said the agency "did not agree with the way the data was characterized in that document."

In the months before the Iraq invasion, Feith oversaw the Office of Special Plans, which became the Bush administration's lead policy office for the war against Hussein.

Feith also was one of the principal architects of Pentagon plans to reposition U.S. troops around the globe, removing them from large Cold War-era garrisons in Germany, Japan and South Korea and moving them closer to potential flashpoints.

But his influence within the Bush administration declined as the U.S. death toll in Iraq grew and Pentagon officials drew criticism for failing to anticipate a deadly insurgency.

The announcement of his resignation came on the day 37 U.S. troops died in Iraq, the deadliest day for the U.S. military since the war began in March 2003."”

“Your hunch about Feith's involvement with the passing of documents to AIPAC being the real reason for his leaving could well be true.”

“Let's Not Make the Same Mistakes in Iran

By David Kay
Monday, February 7, 2005; Page A21

One year ago I told the Senate Armed Services Committee that I had concluded "we were almost all wrong" at the time of the Iraq war about that country's activities with regard to weapons of mass destruction -- and never more wrong than in the assessment that Iraq had a resurgent program on the verge of producing nuclear weapons. I testified about what I saw as the major reasons we got it so wrong, and I urged the establishment of an independent commission to examine this failure and begin the long-overdue process of adjusting our intelligence capabilities to the new national security environment we face. It is an environment dominated by too-easy access to weapons of mass destruction capabilities and to the means of concealing such capabilities from international inspection and national intelligence agencies.

A year later we are still awaiting the independent commission's report. The discussion of intelligence reform has focused on reordering and adding structure on top of an eroded intelligence foundation. And now we hear the drumrolls again, this time announcing an accelerating nuclear weapons program in Iran.

There is an eerie similarity to the events preceding the Iraq war. The International Atomic Energy Agency has announced that while Iran now admits having concealed for 18 years nuclear activities that should have been reported to the IAEA, it is has found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Iran says it is now cooperating fully with international inspections, and it denies having anything but a peaceful nuclear energy program.

Vice President Cheney is giving interviews and speeches that paint a stark picture of a soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Iran and declaring that this is something the Bush administration will not tolerate. Iranian exiles are providing the press and governments with a steady stream of new "evidence" concerning Iran's nuclear weapons activities. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned that Iran will not be allowed to use the cover of civilian nuclear power to acquire nuclear weapons, but says an attack on Iran is "not on the agenda at this point." U.S. allies, while saying they share the concern over Iran's nuclear ambitions, remain determined to pursue diplomacy and say they cannot conceive of any circumstance that would lead them to use military force. And the press is beginning to uncover U.S. moves that seem designed to lay the basis for military action against Iran.

Now is the time to pause and recall what went wrong with the assessment of Iraq's WMD program and try to avoid repeating those mistakes in Iran. Five steps are essential.

First, accept the fact that the past cannot be undone. Iran has, by its own admission, engaged for at least 18 years in clandestine nuclear activities that now give it the basis, if it chooses, to pursue nuclear weapons. That knowledge cannot be eliminated, so it is nonsense to talk about eliminating Iran's nuclear capabilities short of war and occupation. The goal, and one that is reachable, is to craft a set of tools and transparency measures that so tie Iran's nuclear activities to the larger world of peaceful nuclear activities that any attempt to push ahead on the weapons front would be detectable and very disruptive for Iran.

Second, acknowledge that dissidents and exiles have their own agenda -- regime change -- and that before being accepted as truth any "evidence" they might supply concerning Iran's nuclear program must be tested and confirmed by other sources. And those other sources should not be, as they often were in the case of Iraq, simply other exiles, or the same information being recycled among intelligence agencies.

Third, acknowledge what inspections by the IAEA can do, and do not denigrate the agency for what it cannot do. International inspection, when it works, is best at confirming whether a state is complying with its international obligations. It is not equipped to uncover clandestine weapons programs. When Mohamed ElBaradei says his IAEA has found no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, he is speaking honestly as to the limitations of the powers of his inspectors. Rather than ridiculing him and the IAEA, we should acknowledge what they have accomplished in determining that Iran has not lived up to its obligations and concentrate how we can use international inspections to uncover -- more quickly, one hopes -- any future violations.

Fourth, understand that overheated rhetoric from policymakers and senior administration officials, unsupported by evidence that can stand international scrutiny, undermines the ability of the United State to halt Iran's nuclear activities. Having gone to the Security Council on the basis of flawed evidence to "prove" Iraq's WMD activities, it only invites derision to cite unsubstantiated exile reports to "prove" that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Fifth, a National Intelligence Estimate as to Iran's nuclear activities should not be a rushed and cooked document used to justify the threat of military action. Now is the time for serious analysis that genuinely tries to pull together all the evidence and analytical skills of the vast U.S. intelligence community to reach the best possible judgment on the status of that program and the gaps in our knowledge. That assessment should not be led by a team that is trying to prove a case for its boss. Now is the time to reach outside the secret brotherhood and pull in respected outsiders to lead the assessment.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran would be a grave danger to the world. That is not what is in doubt. What is in doubt is the ability to the U.S. government to honestly assess Iran's nuclear status and to craft a set of measures that will cope with that threat short of military action by the United States or Israel.

The writer was the first leader of the Iraq Survey Group searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He resigned a year ago.”

“Bush, Rice Highlight Problem of Iran
Wednesday, February 09, 2005


WASHINGTON — The U.S. government at the highest levels is sending out word that the world is watching Iran as it proceeds with its nuclear program.

"The Iranians just need to know that the free world is working together to send a very clear message: 'Don't develop a nuclear weapon,'" President Bush told reporters after meeting with Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski at the White House on Wednesday.

"The reason we're sending that message is that Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a very destabilizing force in the world," Bush said.

Bush's comments followed similar remarks Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave during a news conference in Brussels and in an interview with FOX News.

Rice told FOX's James Rosen that France, Germany and Great Britain must speak more forcefully to Iran’s hard-line Islamic government, which is balking at full inspections of its nuclear sites.

“The Iranians need to hear that if they are unwilling to take the deal, really, that the Europeans are giving, if they're unwilling to live with verification measures, to sign the additional protocol, to allow the IAEA in completely, then the Security Council referral looms. I don't know that anyone has said that as clearly as they should to the Iranians,” Rice said.


Later, after visits with both old and new members of the expanding North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Rice said the United States remains in "close consultations" with its European allies on the issue. She said Iran cannot indefinitely delay accountability for a suspected nuclear weapons program, but said the United States has set "no deadline, no timeline" for Tehran to act.

But she warned Tehran that the United States would not accept foot-dragging by the government there as officials weigh various diplomatic overtures that European nations have made to resolve the nuclear question.

"I'm quite clear and I believe everybody is telling the Iranians that they are going to have to live up to their international obligations," Rice said during a news conference with NATO officials. "It is obvious that if Iran cannot be brought to live up to its international obligations, in fact, the IAEA statute would indicate that Iran would have to be referred to the U.N. Security Council" for possible sanctions.

"I think the message is there," Rice continued. "The Iranians need to get that message," she said, adding that Tehran should know that "there are other steps" the international community can take.

Iranian leaders claim their uranium enrichment programs are for peaceful purposes, not to build nuclear weapons. But the country so far has resisted the prospect of spot inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Rice highlighted the role of France, Germany and Great Britain because the three European nations have held talks with Iran since November.

In the interview with FOX News, Rice again argued for the Iranians to be referred to the U.N. Security Council for action.

“They [Iranian officials] need to hear that the discussions that they're in with the Europeans are not going to be a kind of waystation where they're allowed to continue their activities, that there's going to be an end to this and that they're going to end up in the Security Council,” she said.

Rice spoke to FOX News after telling a French audience Tuesday that it was time for the United States and European nations to put aside their differences over the Iraq war.

French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier used a news conference with Rice Tuesday night in Paris to repeat that France and the other European participants are committed to letting the diplomacy run its course.

He said he had asked Rice for American "support and confidence."

Rice told reporters that Iran is already on notice that it must not use a civilian nuclear power program to hide a weapons project.

Earlier Tuesday, Rice said in a speech that NATO can be a bulwark for freedom without playing world enforcer.

"How NATO's role will evolve, I think, is still an open question, but we need to be open to new roles that NATO might play," she said.

Alliance officials said in advance of her trip to Belgium that Rice's NATO visit would focus on preparations for a visit by President Bush on Feb. 22, when he will hold a summit with leaders of the other 25 allied nations.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer wants the meetings to seal a new unity in the trans-Atlantic alliance following bitter divisions over the Iraq war.

The talks are also expected to review NATO's peacekeeping missions in Afghanistan and Kosovo and its efforts to train Iraq's military. De Hoop Scheffer said last month's elections in Iraq — which were widely applauded in Europe — should boost allied efforts to expand its training mission.

Alliance defense ministers were set to discuss expanding both the Afghan and Iraq missions at a long-scheduled meeting Wednesday and Thursday.

NATO has been struggling to persuade governments to commit extra troops to both Iraq and Afghanistan. In Iraq, the problem has been compounded by the refusal of France, Germany and other nations that opposed the U.S.-led war to send instructors.

NATO currently has about 100 troops in Iraq on the training mission.

Rice's first trip abroad as secretary of state concludes Thursday in Luxembourg. She has said that either she or her second-in-command will visit each of the NATO capitals early this year.”

“Rice chides Europeans over Iran nuclear talks

Wed Feb 9,10:07 AM ET Politics - AFP

BRUSSELS (AFP) - A day after heralding a new era in transatlantic relations, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice scolded her European allies over their handling of nuclear talks with Iran.


Rice complained that Britain, France and Germany had failed to make sufficiently clear the threat of UN sanctions if Tehran refused to renounce its suspected nuclear weapons ambitions.

"The Iranians need to hear that if they are unwilling to take the deal, really, that the Europeans are giving ... then the Security Council referral looms," Rice said in an interview with Fox News.

"I don't know that anyone has said that as clearly as they should to the Iranians," she said.

The negotiations over Iran's suspected nuclear ambitions have been a major issue throughout Rice's week-long tour of Europe and the Middle East, her first trip since becoming chief US diplomat last month.

The United States accuses Iran of trying to obtain nuclear weapons under cover of developing a civilian atomic energy programme, and has not excluded a military option against Tehran.

Washington has so far supported the three EU countries' diplomatic efforts, which have focussed on getting Iran to promise not to make the bomb in return for trade privileges with the 25-nation bloc.

"The international community has got to be certain to speak with one very tough voice to the Iranians that it is not going to be acceptable for Iran to build a nuclear weapon under cover of civilian nuclear power," Rice told Fox.

She said the United States had believed all along the Iranians should be referred to the UN Security Council for alleged violations of international non-proliferation norms.

"They need to hear that the discussions that they're in with the Europeans are not going to be a kind of way-station where they are allowed to continue their activities, that there's going to be an end to this and that they're going to end up in the Security Council," Rice said.

Her remarks come a day after Rice flew into Paris, a hotbed of opposition to the US-led invasion of Iraq, proclaiming a "new chapter" had been opened in transatlantic relations strained for two years by divisions over the war.

But at the same time, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said the Europeans needed more support from the United States if they were to persuade Tehran to renounce its suspected attempts to develop a nuclear bomb.

"We need the confidence and the support of the United States in this very delicate phase we are in. And that's what the message is that we conveyed to Condi Rice," Barnier said.

But Rice shrugged off a suggestion that Washington and Tehran have direct talks to resolve the nuclear issue. "Everybody knows what the Iranians need to do," she told reporters in Paris. "They just need to do it.

At their latest round of talks with Iran in Geneva Tuesday, according to diplomats, Britain, France and Germany warned the country about activities that verge on breaches of its deal to freeze nuclear fuel cycle work.

Rice flew into Brussels Wednesday for a working lunch with her NATO counterparts and talks with European Union officials before heading off for Luxembourg, the last stop on her tour of eight European nations.




blah,blah,blah...like anyone is going to listen to her.”

“Next President of the USA”

“WK, don't count it. To many things against her.”

“Sure, let's see Hillary and Condi duke it out for the Whitehouse.

John Stewart would have a ball with that!
last edited: 2/09/05 1:14:07 PM”

“I don't know about that Ewker. She is padding the resume now with all the traveling she is doing. If all goes well with her travels and US foreign policy improves, she has a real shot.

Just point out the obvious here but the only thing that will prevent her from sittin gin the big chair is that she is a black woman. I find nothing wrong with this at all, hell, I might even vote for her.”

“wWK, Hillary is padding her resume now also but she won't get it either. First because both are women and your right about Rice because she is black. But being black will be held more against her than being a woman.”

“Condi wouldn't have a chance in the Red State South. The south just isn't ready to vote for a black female yet. We southerners are moving forward but at a snails pace.”

“I would love to see her run. Run Condi! Run! A double minority republican candidate. How sweet! That would trump Hillary for sure.”

“bateauxdriver, it wouldn't only be the south where she wouldn't have a chance.”

“A week or so on the job and not a fraction of time into the second term. Rushing things a bit here? Why not wait and who knows, maybe God forbid, we can actually evaluate whether she would be qualified for the freakin' job, race and gender aside!

Sure as hell wouldn't vote for her based on the decision to invade Iraq!”

“Well there is that Treebeard but then again there was a lot of cheering and cajoling from democrats calling Barak O Bauma (SP?) the next democratic pres before he even got elected.”

“True, Nig! And that's a load of BS, too! Frankly, I know nothing of him except for the nice, media painting of the "poor boy making it big" thing. Makes for a nice headline, but means nothing when picking a leader of the free world.”

“"I know nothing of him except for the nice, media painting of the "poor boy making it big" thing. Makes for a nice headline,"

LOL! This didn't work too well for our new Attorney General who was actually compared to the North Vietnamese.

I've heard some of Obauma's views and he is a good man.”

“Don't get me wrong. So far, all seems positive. And he has the charisma, it seems, to be in the public eye. The guy may have the makings of a good leader. Time will tell. However, the Attorney General has a few things to answer for. Not exactly an unknown at this point...
last edited: 2/10/05 8:48:50 AM”

“Obauma seems as though he could be a real progressive sans the rhetoric.

"However, the Attorney General has a few things to answer for. Not exactly an unknown at this point..."

Um, he did answer the questions.”

“Ok, and he's the Atty General! No argument there. However, he was responsible for being the architect of the policies that bore him the critisism. Hey, if he doesn't like it it? Tuff sh_t! Sell insurance for a living...
last edited: 2/10/05 8:54:51 AM”

“Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity”

“Iran Will Pursue Nuclear Technology By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent
1 hour, 15 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS - With the world watching its every nuclear step,Iran declared Tuesday that it is determined to pursue all legal areas of nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment.

Addressing a U.N. conference on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said his government is "eager" to provide guarantees that its nuclear-fuel program will serve only peaceful purposes, as sought in talks with European governments.

Washington contends Iran's uranium enrichment program is aimed at building nuclear weapons, and President Bush has proposed banning such technology to all but those countries that already have it. Enriched uranium also can be used to generate electricity, which Iran says is its only aim.

"It is unacceptable that some tend to limit the access to nuclear technology to an exclusive club of technologically advanced states under the pretext of nonproliferation," Kharrazi said.

He also told delegates from more than 180 nations that the United States and other nuclear-weapons states should make legally binding assurances to non-nuclear states like Iran that they will not be subject to nuclear attack.

The U.S. and other nuclear arsenals are "the major sources of threat to global peace and security," Kharazzi said. He called on the conference to begin negotiation of a treaty requiring nuclear powers to guarantee non-nuclear states like Iran against nuclear attack.

In Tehran, meanwhile, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said Tuesday the government would resume some nuclear activities — but not uranium enrichment as long talks continue with European governments to resolve the dispute.

France, Britain and Germany, acting on behalf of the 25-nation European Union, are seeking guarantees from Iran that it will not use its nuclear program to make weapons, as Washington suspects. The latest round of talks yielded no results.

On Monday, opening day of a monthlong conference reviewing the workings of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, U.S. delegation chief Stephen G. Rademaker demanded that Iran shut down and dismantle its enrichment equipment.

"The treaty is facing the most serious challenge in its history," the assistant secretary of state told delegates.

Because of the Iran dispute, treaty members still had not agreed on a complete agenda as of Tuesday afternoon. Conference organizers reported the Iranians were resisting a reference in the document to "relevant developments" — diplomatic code, in this case, for Iran's nuclear program. Organizers hope to have agreement before the nuts-and-bolts work of committees begins next week.

Under the 35-year-old Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, states without nuclear arms pledge not to pursue them in exchange for a commitment by five nuclear powers — the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China — to move toward nuclear disarmament. Three other nuclear states — Israel, India and Pakistan — remain outside the treaty.

The treaty is reviewed every five years at conferences whose consensus positions give valuable political support to nonproliferation initiatives. At the 2000 meeting, the nuclear powers committed to "13 practical steps" toward disarmament, but critics complain the Bush administration — by rejecting the nuclear test-ban treaty, for example — has come up short.

"We are greatly disappointed" by "unsatisfactory progress" toward disarmament by the big powers, said New Zealand's Marian Hobbs, speaking for a coalition of disarmament-minded states.

Rademaker said, however, the Bush administration is "proud to have played a leading role in reducing nuclear arsenals," via the 2002 Moscow Treaty, for example, under which the United States and Russia are to cut back deployed warheads by two-thirds, to between 1,700 and 2,200 each, by 2012.
That agreement has been criticized for not requiring destruction of excess warheads taken off deployment or providing a transparent timetable and open verification of reductions.
Rademaker sought to focus attention instead on Iran, saying, "We dare not look the other way."
The Iran question hinges on the treaty's Article IV, which guarantees nonweapons states the right to peaceful nuclear technology, including uranium enrichment equipment to produce fuel for nuclear power plants.

That same technology, with further enrichment, can produce material for nuclear bombs. Tehran denies that is the purpose of its long-secret uranium-enrichment program, but in his keynote address Annan said states like Iran "must not insist" on possessing such sensitive technology.

Following Annan to the U.N. podium, Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, renewed his call for a moratorium on new fuel-cycle facilities while international controls are negotiated.

ElBaradei has proposed putting nuclear fuel production under multilateral control by regional or international bodies. Rademaker reaffirmed President Bush's proposal for an outright ban on nuclear fuel technology, except in the United States and a dozen other countries that have it.

The Tehran government is negotiating on and off with Germany, France and Britain about shutting down its enrichment operations in return for economic incentives.

Meantime, Tehran has proposed establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East, a move that would require Israel to give up its nuclear arsenal.

North Korea pulled out of the treaty in 2003 and said in February it has already built nuclear weapons. But the review conference is not expected to focus heavily on this first treaty defector, in order not to complicate efforts to draw Pyongyang back into the treaty fold through now stalled six-nation talks.”