How lame is this? The "decider" said today that. . .?

Question

Bush just said today that he "knows" the Iranian government is supplying the insurgents, even though he doesn't have any proof. what did he do, call the Psychic hotline?

As usual some people didn't read the question-- or the news--or both:
1) the question is whether the Iranian GOVERNMENT is involved--
2) BUSH says he has no proof
3) General Pace and the Pentagon have called this conclusion unwarrented.

Answer 1

Yes well, Miss Cleo had a special today, seeing as its a holiday and all, so she let him in on it.

Answer 2

Bush said that a militia group that is part of the Iranian government is associated with the so-called Iranian weapons found in Iraq. Bush clearly stated that he does not know whether this group operated on its own or under orders from someone in the Iranian government. (This group apparently has a reputation as a bunch of cowboys so going it on their own would not be out of the question.) While its very, very hard to defend Bush on most things, its pretty clear that in this case he stated the case pretty accurately.

If you believe that this militia group is a government sponsored organization -- which is apparently not particularly questioned -- then if you can prove that this group supplied the weapons you de facto know that the Iranian government was involved. This, however, doesn't mean that the Iranian president or the ayatollahs were involved directly although its not much of a leap to imagine it so. Of course, if your evidence tying the weapons to the militia group is flimsy then you're left with NO links to the Iranian government, so alot depends on whether the evidence is credible, something few of us are able to evaluate.

Whether the highest parts of the Iranian government were involved can probably only be proved by documentary evidence or the testimony of captured militia group members high enough in the food chain to know. The first will probably never be unambigously provided and the second will always be subject to the credibility assigned to those testifying.

For the average citizen it pretty much all comes down to whether we believe the government. And unfortunately their overall credibilty is swinging-and-missing a lot.

Answer 3

If you believe anything that the lying sack of poop known as the Decider says, then you're beyond hope. He and his evil puppet masters have such a good track record to date of telling us the unvarnished truth!

If you DO believe him, then why the heck are you on your computer right now? Why aren't you down at your local recruiting office signing up so you can DEFEND FREEDOM? Why don't you get a head start with the Iranian war and get right there on the front lines with the well-armoured and supplied troops and well-informed generals from the Pentagon? Oh, right... you believed him when he said, "Mission Accomplished."

Answer 4

Did you %. up that abbreviation out of your daughter? I even have on no account heard it used earlier. the two she thinks you're lame for attempting to apply technical slang as an person, or she thinks its lame which you made up your own technical slang. it might additionally be which you reported TM once you meant IM, instantaneous message. To sum up, on your daughters eyes you're lame, you sometimes have been lame, and you sometimes would be lame. that's a organic condition for oldsters. Be pleased with your age, adventure and lameness! you would be able to additionally retaliate with "i'm no longer bodily challenged!", yet that would desire to easily convey approximately yet yet another verdict of LAME!

Answer 5

In the present environment escalation in Iraq would seem incentive for anti US forces to escalate efforts dramatically in an all out effort to continue to destabilize Iraq and thus further prove Bushes blunder in Iraq. Furthermore it is difficult for me to believe that those in the know at the executive level are not perfectly aware that the chances are better than good that escalation in Iraq will incur acts of terrorism in the slums exponentially. The only explanation I can fathom is that they are intentionally fanning the flames for the purpose of producing terrorists acts heretofore unimagined in order to justify threading the war on into Iran and procure the funding required to do so. Increase in rhetoric concerning Iran’s weapons and munitions support that has historically already been known for years only lends credibility to this assessment.

Answer 6

I wondered that myself! Bush has been touting for the past few months that he WONT attack Iran. I always say that he does the direct opposite from what he says that he is planning, and he is standing true to form with his latest attack of Iran, my guess that is the REAL fact of the build up of military in Iraq and has nothing to do with trying to protect Iraq. Iraq has nothing more that Bush wants (Saddam is dead) so Bush can go and cause destruction and mayhem in Iran. How predictable is that? Yeah, he is the "decider" all right!

Answer 7

The road side bombs have markings that they are from Iran. They are getting more technical. I doubt the President knows personally the facts. I'm sure our military people in the field dose.

Answer 8

the Iranian government is supplying the insurgents, even though he doesn't have any proof. what did he do, call the Psychic hotline?

hahaha maybe god told him remember he said god talks to him.

Answer 9

Probably the same psychic that told him without a doubt Iraq had WMD...

Histroy does repeat itself, but I honestly can't believe he's so stupid to play the same record so soon!!! Actually, yes, I do believe he's that stupid. What was I thinking?

Answer 10

sounds like Iraq all over again.