[Eeyore]

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, cites a
secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.

Correspondents say the alleged document appears to challenge Washington's views
regarding Iranian nuclear intentions.

The CIA assessment, according to unnamed officials quoted in the article, casts
doubt on how far Iran has actually progressed to making a nuclear weapon.

"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear
weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has
declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," Mr Hersh wrote.

It says the agency based its conclusions on technical intelligence, such as
satellite photography and measurements from sensors planted by US and Israeli
agents.

The article says: "A current senior intelligence official confirmed the
existence of the CIA analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile
to it."

In response....

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino criticised the article, calling it an
"error-filled" piece in a "series of inaccuracy-riddled articles about the Bush
administration".

"The White House is not going to dignify the work of an author who has viciously
degraded our troops, and whose articles consistently rely on outright falsehoods
to justify his own radical views," she was quoted by AFP news agency as saying.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6167304.stm

Graham

[[email protected]]

Eeyore wrote:
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, cites a
secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.

Correspondents say the alleged document appears to challenge Washington's views
regarding Iranian nuclear intentions.

The CIA assessment, according to unnamed officials quoted in the article, casts
doubt on how far Iran has actually progressed to making a nuclear weapon.

"The CIA found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear
weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has
declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency," Mr Hersh wrote.

It says the agency based its conclusions on technical intelligence, such as
satellite photography and measurements from sensors planted by US and Israeli
agents.

The article says: "A current senior intelligence official confirmed the
existence of the CIA analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile
to it."

In response....

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino criticised the article, calling it an
"error-filled" piece in a "series of inaccuracy-riddled articles about the Bush
administration".

"The White House is not going to dignify the work of an author who has viciously
degraded our troops, and whose articles consistently rely on outright falsehoods
to justify his own radical views," she was quoted by AFP news agency as saying.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6167304.stm

Graham

Clearly there is no love for truth on either side of the aisle, as this
excerpt from Factcheck.org points out. The Whoppers Of 2006

We review the worst deceptions from House and Senate campaigns.

November 4, 2006

Modified: November 4, 2006



The mid-term elections of 2006 brought an unprecedented barrage of
advertising containing much that is false or misleading. We found
examples of disregard for facts and honesty - on both sides - that
would get a reporter fired in a heartbeat from any decent news
organization.

Candidates, parties and independent groups have faked quotes, twisted
words, misrepresented votes and positions, and engaged in rank
fear-mongering and outright fabrication. Here we review some of the
worst deceptions we found.
Analysis

We haven't addressed every false or misleading statement in 2006 House
and Senate campaigns - there were too many of them and our resources
are too limited for that. For the full record of our work please refer
to the earlier articles on the home page and in our archive.

True they refer to the campaign mud slinging, but the war on truth
never seems to end, and there is no shortage of liars passing
themselves off as guardians of the People.

[ScottW]

Eeyore wrote:
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, cites a
secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.


Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/

Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
actually
accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity using
words
like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
say.

You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, cites a
secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.


Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/

Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
actually
accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity using
words
like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
say.

You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.

OTOH, toopid, we went to war in Iraq without any conclusive evidence of
WMD, and you seem quite happy about that.

So where is that happy middle ground that keeps us a safe as possible
(as in, "What risk are we willing to accept?" since we have to assume
some), and yet does not get us mired in ill-advised military action?

And I do get sick of the right's always attacking the media. You want
to talk about fascist attempts at thought control...

Go back to the unvarnished truths of Coulter, O'Reilly, Malkin et al.
They're more your speed.

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence
that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker,
cites a
secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.

Well, if they haven't found "conclusive" evidence, what kind of evidence
have they found? Have they found vague, suggestive evidence? Have they
found anything above and beyond what the public already knows?

Norm Strong

[MiNe 109]

In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence
that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker,
cites a
secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.


Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/

Wasn't the point that Hersh saved his truthfulness for his written work?

Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
actually
accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity using
words
like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
say.

You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.

Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence
that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker,
cites a
secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.

Well, if they haven't found "conclusive" evidence, what kind of evidence
have they found? Have they found vague, suggestive evidence? Have they
found anything above and beyond what the public already knows?

How about suspect intelligence?

Stephen

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence
that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

let's take a look at Iran, which the US has called the "most dangerous
country".

1. Iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty.
2. Iran has not violated the NPT or shown any inclination to do so.
3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any other country. At
least not in modern times.
4. The US is doing everything in its power to make life difficult for Iran,
and is beating the war drums day and night.

Now let's look at a few other I's:

India

1. India has not signed the NPT.
2. India has made nuclear weapons, and has an ongoing weapons
program--which it's quite proud of.
3. India has fought China, Pakistan, Bangladesh (a country essentially
manufactured by India.) It's currently threatening Sri Lanka as a result of
the Tamil insurgency in that country.
4. The US seems to have no problem at all with India, and intends to help
India's nuclear power industry, in spite of India's refusal to sign the NPT.
It was necessary to pass a special exemption to our NPT laws--just for
India.

Israel

1. Has not signed the NPT
2. It is currently a nuclear power, although they haven't admitted it.
3. Israel has invaded every one of its neighbors, often twice, and is
currently occupying 2 of them. This in spite of the fact that none of its
neighbors has invaded Israel. Israel has to be considered a paranoid
warlike country that goes for the gun first--not last.
4. The US supports Israel in whatever it does--without exception--and
vetoes any UN Security Council resolution affecting Israel adversely.

So why are we so concerned over Iran?

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker, cites a
secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.


Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/

Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
actually
accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity using
words
like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
say.

You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.

OTOH, toopid, we went to war in Iraq without any conclusive evidence of
WMD, and you seem quite happy about that.

Perhaps you can't remember that I felt there were sufficient other
reasons to take out Saddam, not all of which were strictly for your
selfish interests.

So where is that happy middle ground that keeps us a safe as possible
(as in, "What risk are we willing to accept?" since we have to assume
some), and yet does not get us mired in ill-advised military action?

I'll put more trust in the IAEA than Seymour Hersh.
Even if the UN/Euro IAEA options fail...I don't see us getting "mired"
in Iran.


And I do get sick of the right's always attacking the media.

as I get sick of the media attacking the right...

You want
to talk about fascist attempts at thought control...

Go back to the unvarnished truths of Coulter, O'Reilly, Malkin et al.
They're more your speed.

Just to clarify your varnished truth....I don't even read Coulter.

ScottW

[ScottW]

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence
that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker,
cites a
secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.


Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/

Wasn't the point that Hersh saved his truthfulness for his written work?

Hersh definition of truth....anything that doesn't get him sued.


Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
actually
accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity using
words
like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
say.

You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.

Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?

No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.

ScottW

[ScottW]

wrote:
"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence
that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

let's take a look at Iran, which the US has called the "most dangerous
country".

1. Iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty.
2. Iran has not violated the NPT or shown any inclination to do so.

Even the IAEA hasn't gone that far.

http://www.armscontrol.org/pdf/20060...BoG_Report.pdf
http://www.armscontrol.org/pdf/20060...BoG_Report.pdf

http://www.isis-online.org/publicati...violations.pdf

3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any other country. At
least not in modern times.
4. The US is doing everything in its power to make life difficult for Iran,
and is beating the war drums day and night.

How eloquent...we beat drums and Admadinejad gets a pass
on his lunatic rantings. So what do his speeches amount to,
singing an opera?



Now let's look at a few other I's:

India

1. India has not signed the NPT.
2. India has made nuclear weapons, and has an ongoing weapons
program--which it's quite proud of.
3. India has fought China, Pakistan, Bangladesh (a country essentially
manufactured by India.) It's currently threatening Sri Lanka as a result of
the Tamil insurgency in that country.
4. The US seems to have no problem at all with India, and intends to help
India's nuclear power industry, in spite of India's refusal to sign the NPT.
It was necessary to pass a special exemption to our NPT laws--just for
India.

Israel

1. Has not signed the NPT
2. It is currently a nuclear power, although they haven't admitted it.
3. Israel has invaded every one of its neighbors, often twice, and is
currently occupying 2 of them. This in spite of the fact that none of its
neighbors has invaded Israel. Israel has to be considered a paranoid
warlike country that goes for the gun first--not last.
4. The US supports Israel in whatever it does--without exception--and
vetoes any UN Security Council resolution affecting Israel adversely.

So why are we so concerned over Iran?

Cuz their president has a stated goal of a world without America.

ScottW

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
actually
accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity using
words
like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
say.

You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.

OTOH, toopid, we went to war in Iraq without any conclusive evidence of
WMD, and you seem quite happy about that.

Perhaps you can't remember that I felt there were sufficient other
reasons to take out Saddam, not all of which were strictly for your
selfish interests.

Ever read _Lost Horizon_? Some of it seems to apply directly to you,
toopid.

"He admired the simple black-and-white of Mallinson's code; the public
school ethic might be crude, but at least it was downright."

-and-

"... Chang, you're a philosopher. I must remember that remark of yours.
'Many religions are moderately true.' You fellows up on the mountain
must be a lot of wise guys to have thought that one out. You're right,
too, I'm dead certain of it."

"But we," responded Chang, "are only *moderately* certain."

-and-

"Yet to Conway it did not appear that the Eastern races were abnormally
dilatory, but rather that Englishmen and Americans charged about the
world in a state of continual and rather preposterous fever-heat."

Fiction from 1933 pegs toopid to the wall.

LOL!

So where is that happy middle ground that keeps us a safe as possible
(as in, "What risk are we willing to accept?" since we have to assume
some), and yet does not get us mired in ill-advised military action?

I'll put more trust in the IAEA than Seymour Hersh.
Even if the UN/Euro IAEA options fail...I don't see us getting "mired"
in Iran.

Fair enough. It doesn't matter, as bushie hasn't got enough power right
now to order a shoeshine for the Iranian president.

And I do get sick of the right's always attacking the media.

as I get sick of the media attacking the right...

Your programmers must be so very proud of their work on you.

You want
to talk about fascist attempts at thought control...

Go back to the unvarnished truths of Coulter, O'Reilly, Malkin et al.
They're more your speed.

Just to clarify your varnished truth....I don't even read Coulter.

But you quote her. Hm. That doesn't seem likely.

I won't argue the point. Go back to the unvarnished truths of O'Reilly,
Malkin et al. They're more your speed. Feel better now, toopid?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
MiNe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence
that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New Yorker,
cites a
secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.


Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/

Wasn't the point that Hersh saved his truthfulness for his written work?

Hersh definition of truth....anything that doesn't get him sued.


Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
actually
accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity using
words
like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
say.

You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.

Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?

No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.

LOL!

While I see a moron....still.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:

Cuz their president has a stated goal of a world without America.

John Lennon must've really made you mad. He stated the same dream. Good
thing someone shot him, right?

"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace"

Moron (you, toopid. Not Lennon).

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


let's take a look at Iran, which the US has called the
"most dangerous country".

3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any
other country. At least not in modern times.

I guess the Iran-Iraq war slipped off your radar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Ir...on_and_repulse

"By June of 1982, a successful Iranian counter-offensive had recovered the
areas previously lost to Iraq. An especially significant battle of this
counter-offensive in the Khuzestan province was the liberation of
Khorramshahr city from the Iraqis on May 24, 1982.
"Most of the fighting for the rest of the war occurred on Iraqi territory,
although some have interpreted the Iraqi withdrawal as a tactical ploy by
the Iraqi military. By fighting just inside Iraq, Saddam Hussein could rally
popular Iraqi patriotism. The Iraqi army could also fight on its own
territory and in well-established defensive positions. The Iranians
continued to employ unsophisticated human wave attacks, while Iraqi soldiers
remained, for the most part, in a defensive posture.

[ScottW]

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Cuz their president has a stated goal of a world without America.

John Lennon must've really made you mad. He stated the same dream. Good
thing someone shot him, right?

Somebody was gonna give John Lennon a nuke?



"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace"

Didn't some imam issue a fatwa over this song?


Moron (you, toopid. Not Lennon).

RIP or ROOAR (run out on a rail)?

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

Arnii Krooger, Sh.D., shows why he flunked out of high school.

3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any
other country. At least not in modern times.

I guess the Iran-Iraq war slipped off your radar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Ir...on_and_repulse
"By June of 1982, a successful Iranian counter-offensive

Question for you, Turdy: In Krooglish, is "counter-offensive" synonymous
with "invasion"? I'm asking because in human language, the two terms are
quite different in meaning.

Take your time. A psychotic **** like yourself needn't feel time pressure on
a complex question like this one.





--

Krooscience: The antidote to education, experience, and excellence.

[MiNe 109]

In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive
evidence
that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New
Yorker,
cites a
secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.


Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/

Wasn't the point that Hersh saved his truthfulness for his written work?

Hersh definition of truth....anything that doesn't get him sued.

No, that's Ferstler.

Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
actually
accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity using
words
like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
say.

You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.

Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?

No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.

That settles that.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote in message


let's take a look at Iran, which the US has called the
"most dangerous country".

3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any
other country. At least not in modern times.

I guess the Iran-Iraq war slipped off your radar.

Learn to read, Arns. Let's requote what was said:

"3. Iran has not *invaded* or *threatened to invade* any
other country. At least not in modern times."

"The war began when *Iraq invaded Iran* on 22 September 1980 following
a long history of border disputes and demands for the overthrow of
Saddam Hussein's regime."

How has this 'slipped off the radar'? How does this run counter to what
was said?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-iraq_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Ir...on_and_repulse

"By June of 1982, a successful Iranian counter-offensive had recovered the
areas previously lost to Iraq. An especially significant battle of this
counter-offensive in the Khuzestan province was the liberation of
Khorramshahr city from the Iraqis on May 24, 1982.

Counter-offensive. A pretty technical military term with a specific
meaning, yes? In general military usage, it's a term that would
indicate there was an initial offensive that was being countered.
Counter-offensives can actually be defensive in nature, contrary to
what you might intuitively guess.

Using your logic, the Germans were the invaders in June, 1944 at
Normandy: The Allies invade, the Germans launch a counter-offensive,
therefore the Germans are the aggressors.

LOL!

"Most of the fighting for the rest of the war occurred on Iraqi territory,
although some have interpreted the Iraqi withdrawal as a tactical ploy by
the Iraqi military. By fighting just inside Iraq, Saddam Hussein could rally
popular Iraqi patriotism. The Iraqi army could also fight on its own
territory and in well-established defensive positions. The Iranians
continued to employ unsophisticated human wave attacks, while Iraqi soldiers
remained, for the most part, in a defensive posture.

You are insane.

________________________________________

Arns Krueger (n. Vulgar): an insane asshole who is addicted to
harassing Normal people's preferences on the Usenet

[Jenn]

In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Cuz their president has a stated goal of a world without America.

John Lennon must've really made you mad. He stated the same dream. Good
thing someone shot him, right?

Somebody was gonna give John Lennon a nuke?

Hey, 2nd Amendment and all.... ;-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Cuz their president has a stated goal of a world without America.

John Lennon must've really made you mad. He stated the same dream. Good
thing someone shot him, right?

Somebody was gonna give John Lennon a nuke?



"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace"

Didn't some imam issue a fatwa over this song?

Hinckley was actually Ali bin Muswat al Tikriti

Moron (you, toopid. Not Lennon).

RIP or ROOAR (run out on a rail)?

So you liked the new one?

Happy to oblige.;-)

Moron.

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
So where is that happy middle ground that keeps us a safe as possible
(as in, "What risk are we willing to accept?" since we have to assume
some), and yet does not get us mired in ill-advised military action?

I'll put more trust in the IAEA than Seymour Hersh.
Even if the UN/Euro IAEA options fail...I don't see us getting "mired"
in Iran.

Fair enough. It doesn't matter, as bushie hasn't got enough power right
now to order a shoeshine for the Iranian president.

No...this will be an issue for Hillary though she hasn't shown any
reluctance to drop the bomb.


And I do get sick of the right's always attacking the media.

as I get sick of the media attacking the right...

Your programmers must be so very proud of their work on you.

You want
to talk about fascist attempts at thought control...

Go back to the unvarnished truths of Coulter, O'Reilly, Malkin et al.
They're more your speed.

Just to clarify your varnished truth....I don't even read Coulter.

But you quote her. Hm. That doesn't seem likely.

Hardly...IIRC I said she had a point with leftists using victims
to voice their position while avoiding criticism.
Quite cowardly of them if you think about it.


I won't argue the point. Go back to the unvarnished truths of O'Reilly,
Malkin et al. They're more your speed. Feel better now, toopid?

I think Malkin generally does a good job of substantiating her
positions. Exactly what caused you to arrive at your conclusion
about her work? Familiarity or because someone told you
what to think?

ScottW

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive
evidence
that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New
Yorker,
cites a
secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.


Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/

Wasn't the point that Hersh saved his truthfulness for his written work?

Hersh definition of truth....anything that doesn't get him sued.

No, that's Ferstler.

Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
actually
accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity using
words
like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
say.

You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.

Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?

No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.

That settles that.

Back to back unsubstantive responses.
You guys should go dancing.

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive
evidence
that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found
conclusive
evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New
Yorker,
cites a
secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.


Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/

Wasn't the point that Hersh saved his truthfulness for his written work?

Hersh definition of truth....anything that doesn't get him sued.

No, that's Ferstler.

Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
actually
accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity
using
words
like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
say.

You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.

Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?

No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.

That settles that.

Back to back unsubstantive responses.
You guys should go dancing.

What was that on the substantial scale?

Stephen

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive
evidence
that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found
conclusive
evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New
Yorker,
cites a
secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.


Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/

Wasn't the point that Hersh saved his truthfulness for his written work?

Hersh definition of truth....anything that doesn't get him sued.

No, that's Ferstler.

Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there wasn't
anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if they
actually
accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity
using
words
like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has to
say.

You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.

Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?

No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.

That settles that.

Back to back unsubstantive responses.
You guys should go dancing.

What was that on the substantial scale?

Your night out with ssshhhh? I'm sure it was
purely physical and meant nothing, really.

ScottW

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive
evidence
that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found
conclusive
evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has
reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New
Yorker,
cites a
secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.


Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/

Wasn't the point that Hersh saved his truthfulness for his written
work?

Hersh definition of truth....anything that doesn't get him sued.

No, that's Ferstler.

Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there
wasn't
anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if
they
actually
accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity
using
words
like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has
to
say.

You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.

Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?

No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.

That settles that.

Back to back unsubstantive responses.
You guys should go dancing.

What was that on the substantial scale?

Your night out with ssshhhh? I'm sure it was
purely physical and meant nothing, really.

LOL. Locker room humor's a step up for you.

Meanwhile, the executive branch is setting up another 'stovepiping'
intelligence organization, perhaps remembering how well the method
worked for Iraq.

Stephen

[ScottW]

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article om,
"ScottW" wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:
In article .com,
"ScottW" wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive
evidence
that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found
conclusive
evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has
reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New
Yorker,
cites a
secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.


Seymour Hersh, admitted liar and manipulator of the truth.

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/people/features/11719/

Wasn't the point that Hersh saved his truthfulness for his written
work?

Hersh definition of truth....anything that doesn't get him sued.

No, that's Ferstler.

Of course there is no "conclusive" evidence...just like there
wasn't
anything conclusive about NK... and some people still question if
they
actually
accomplished a nuclear fueled explosion.
Hersh loves to spin things just his way with enough subjectivity
using
words
like "conclusive" to manipulate those who want to hear what he has
to
say.

You're being duped...and you seem to be quite happy about it.

Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?

No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.

That settles that.

Back to back unsubstantive responses.
You guys should go dancing.

What was that on the substantial scale?

Your night out with ssshhhh? I'm sure it was
purely physical and meant nothing, really.

LOL. Locker room humor's a step up for you.

Meanwhile, the executive branch is setting up another 'stovepiping'
intelligence organization, perhaps remembering how well the method
worked for Iraq.

Listening to Seymour again?

ScottW

[Eeyore]

wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has
reported.

let's take a look at Iran, which the US has called the "most dangerous
country".

1. Iran has signed the non-proliferation treaty.
2. Iran has not violated the NPT or shown any inclination to do so.
3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any other country. At
least not in modern times.
4. The US is doing everything in its power to make life difficult for Iran,
and is beating the war drums day and night.

Now let's look at a few other I's:

India

1. India has not signed the NPT.
2. India has made nuclear weapons, and has an ongoing weapons
program--which it's quite proud of.
3. India has fought China, Pakistan, Bangladesh (a country essentially
manufactured by India.) It's currently threatening Sri Lanka as a result of
the Tamil insurgency in that country.
4. The US seems to have no problem at all with India, and intends to help
India's nuclear power industry, in spite of India's refusal to sign the NPT.
It was necessary to pass a special exemption to our NPT laws--just for
India.

Israel

1. Has not signed the NPT
2. It is currently a nuclear power, although they haven't admitted it.
3. Israel has invaded every one of its neighbors, often twice, and is
currently occupying 2 of them. This in spite of the fact that none of its
neighbors has invaded Israel.

Well actually they have. But not in recent times.


Israel has to be considered a paranoid
warlike country that goes for the gun first--not last.
4. The US supports Israel in whatever it does--without exception--and
vetoes any UN Security Council resolution affecting Israel adversely.

So why are we so concerned over Iran?

You missed out Pakistan.

A US 'ally' also with ( muslim ) nukes !

Graham

[Eeyore]

Arny Krueger wrote:

wrote in message


let's take a look at Iran, which the US has called the
"most dangerous country".

3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any
other country. At least not in modern times.

I guess the Iran-Iraq war slipped off your radar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Ir...on_and_repulse

"By June of 1982, a successful Iranian counter-offensive had recovered the
areas previously lost to Iraq.

" previously lost to Iraq " ?

Since when is it an invasion to reclaim your own land ?

Iraq was of course US sponsored back then.

Graham

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason! wrote:
ScottW wrote:

Cuz their president has a stated goal of a world without America.

John Lennon must've really made you mad. He stated the same dream. Good
thing someone shot him, right?

Somebody was gonna give John Lennon a nuke?

I guess that would have been the 'American way' !

Graham

[Eeyore]

ScottW wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:

Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?

No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.

A few months back you were saying it was 'imminent' !

Graham

[Eeyore]

MiNe 109 wrote:

Meanwhile, the executive branch is setting up another 'stovepiping'
intelligence organization, perhaps remembering how well the method
worked for Iraq.

Who would believe them any more ( aside from toopid and his pals ? ).

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Eeyore" wrote in
message
Arny Krueger wrote:

wrote in message


let's take a look at Iran, which the US has called the
"most dangerous country".

3. Iran has not invaded or threatened to invade any
other country. At least not in modern times.

I guess the Iran-Iraq war slipped off your radar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Ir...on_and_repulse

"By June of 1982, a successful Iranian counter-offensive
had recovered the areas previously lost to Iraq.
" previously lost to Iraq " ?

That, too.

Since when is it an invasion to reclaim your own land ?

"By fighting just inside Iraq, Saddam Hussein could rally
popular Iraqi patriotism. The Iraqi army could also fight on its own
territory and in well-established defensive positions."

Note that Hussein fought Iran on Iraq's own territory. IOW, Iran invaded
Iraq and fought Iraq on Iraq's ground.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
So where is that happy middle ground that keeps us a safe as possible
(as in, "What risk are we willing to accept?" since we have to assume
some), and yet does not get us mired in ill-advised military action?

I'll put more trust in the IAEA than Seymour Hersh.
Even if the UN/Euro IAEA options fail...I don't see us getting "mired"
in Iran.

Fair enough. It doesn't matter, as bushie hasn't got enough power right
now to order a shoeshine for the Iranian president.

No...this will be an issue for Hillary though she hasn't shown any
reluctance to drop the bomb.

Nor would I be if necessary. I just don't think we're as close to that
as you might.

Just to clarify your varnished truth....I don't even read Coulter.

But you quote her. Hm. That doesn't seem likely.

Hardly...IIRC I said she had a point with leftists using victims
to voice their position while avoiding criticism.
Quite cowardly of them if you think about it.

Perhaps some leftists.

Or, as an alternative, I think it's quite cowardly of the (closet) gay,
drug-using rightists not to just come out of the closet. You are all
(closet) gay drug-users, yes?

I won't argue the point. Go back to the unvarnished truths of O'Reilly,
Malkin et al. They're more your speed. Feel better now, toopid?

I think Malkin generally does a good job of substantiating her
positions. Exactly what caused you to arrive at your conclusion
about her work? Familiarity or because someone told you
what to think?

I frankly get sick of the right being so black/white. You see it in
criticisms of Dems not all marching to the same drumbeat. I'm glad that
they don't. Malkin strikes me as one who is just so *damned* sure that
she's right.

If you want my opinion, read the _Lost Horizon_ quotes from another
post to you this evening. She may be *moderately* right on some points.
I do not see the world in black or white only. Usually, IME, it's
shades of gray.

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

Meanwhile, the executive branch is setting up another 'stovepiping'
intelligence organization, perhaps remembering how well the method
worked for Iraq.

Listening to Seymour again?

Of course. Your examples of his 'dishonesty' are actually the
responsible journalism you ask for whenever the NYT or whoever discloses
facts awkward for the right.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

IIRC I said she had a point with leftists using victims
to voice their position while avoiding criticism.
Quite cowardly of them if you think about it.

Except that the 'victims' haven't avoided criticism. Quite brave of them
if you think about it, facing criticism for unpopular public stands.

Stephen

"ScottW" wrote in message
ps.com...

wrote:

So why are we so concerned over Iran?

Cuz their president has a stated goal of a world without America.

ScottW

We had the exact same policy toward Iran before the current president was
elected. Try harder.

Norm

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...
The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has not found conclusive
evidence
that
Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported..

Let's just repeat that !

The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has ***NOT*** found conclusive
evidence
that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a US magazine has reported.

Veteran investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, writing in The New
Yorker,
cites a
secret CIA report based on intelligence such as satellite images.

Well, if they haven't found "conclusive" evidence, what kind of evidence
have they found? Have they found vague, suggestive evidence? Have they
found anything above and beyond what the public already knows?

How about suspect intelligence?

Stephen

I'm afraid I don't understand the term "suspect intelligence". Would you
define it for me, please.

Norm

[ScottW]

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


ScottW wrote:

MiNe 109 wrote:

Doesn't this seem at all like the run-up to Iraq?

No...I see no evidence of impending US action....yet.

A few months back you were saying it was 'imminent' !

You've fallen into the "references required" category.

ScottW

[ScottW]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

ScottW wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
ups.com...
So where is that happy middle ground that keeps us a safe as possible
(as in, "What risk are we willing to accept?" since we have to assume
some), and yet does not get us mired in ill-advised military action?

I'll put more trust in the IAEA than Seymour Hersh.
Even if the UN/Euro IAEA options fail...I don't see us getting "mired"
in Iran.

Fair enough. It doesn't matter, as bushie hasn't got enough power right
now to order a shoeshine for the Iranian president.

No...this will be an issue for Hillary though she hasn't shown any
reluctance to drop the bomb.

Nor would I be if necessary. I just don't think we're as close to that
as you might.

3 years....if we assume Iran hasn't got a clandestine enrichment facility
unknown to the IAEA...and the IAEA has clearly stated
they cannot monitor any centrifuge components outside of the
Natanz facility.

"The IAEA has already reported that it can no longer effectively monitor
centrifuge components, unless they are at Natanz and within areas subject to
IAEA containment and surveillance."
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.p...n=ja06albright


Just to clarify your varnished truth....I don't even read Coulter.

But you quote her. Hm. That doesn't seem likely.

Hardly...IIRC I said she had a point with leftists using victims
to voice their position while avoiding criticism.
Quite cowardly of them if you think about it.

Perhaps some leftists.

Or, as an alternative, I think it's quite cowardly of the (closet) gay,
drug-using rightists not to just come out of the closet. You are all
(closet) gay drug-users, yes?

Thats quite the loony theory.


I won't argue the point. Go back to the unvarnished truths of O'Reilly,
Malkin et al. They're more your speed. Feel better now, toopid?

I think Malkin generally does a good job of substantiating her
positions. Exactly what caused you to arrive at your conclusion
about her work? Familiarity or because someone told you
what to think?

I frankly get sick of the right being so black/white. You see it in
criticisms of Dems not all marching to the same drumbeat.

Criticism comes from not knowing what a democratically controlled
government will do. Kind of a nice thing to know before an
election...don't you think?


I'm glad that
they don't. Malkin strikes me as one who is just so *damned* sure that
she's right.

Self confidence is a bad thing? BTW..Malkin is highly critical of the
right and Bush at times. She really came out against Trent Lott.
She clearly isn't a party honk like Hugh Hewitt.


If you want my opinion, read the _Lost Horizon_ quotes from another
post to you this evening. She may be *moderately* right on some points.
I do not see the world in black or white only. Usually, IME, it's
shades of gray.

Sure...but leadership means providing direction...and dealing in the grey
zone all the time provides little direction.

ScottW