...that sank Cheney's ship of war on it's voyage to Iran?
Could it have been a certain Texan who didn't want the blame/responsibility for yet another messy preemptive war laid at his feet?
2007-12-04 15:55:57 · 8 answers · asked by Bye for now... 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The Russians sank his torpedo.
It's a pretty sad day when the Russians have more clout in the international community than we do. If Russia hadn't been squawking so, I bet that report would have never seen the light of day.
2007-12-04 16:26:12 · answer #1 · answered by Jackie Oh! 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You seem to have missed the point entirely.
The report said weapons development apparently was halted in 2003.
What happened in 2003?
You guessed it; we invaded Iraq. Prior to that we invaded Afghanistan while Pakistan became our "friend" and stopped exporting the technology.
We have forces to the west of them, to the east of them and aircraft carriers off shore.
Amazing what just a little flexing of military might can do.
Iran says they never had a weapon development program but the NIE report says they do, inactive or active, they do.
The enemy in Iran is looking into an American President's eyes who stands against public opinion to do what is necessary and shutters to think what he would do if they did anything to tip public opinion in his favor.
Now that the NIE report has taken a little pressure off Iran, they may feel comfortable enough to restart weapon development.
We will be watching closely. In fact, this may be equivalent to telling Saddam “we have no opinion” on his invading Kuwait before the fact. Open the door and kick him in the face.
But then one must remember this comes from intelligence agencies that don't have a perfect record, some of which have relied on diplomats to gather "intelligence".
I have no faith in our intelligence agencies and most likely, the President doesn’t either.
Want to know what types of weapons I'd like to see Iran have access to for the next 1000 years?
Sticks and rocks. Little ones.
And I've wanted this since 1979.
Look man, for seven years they have been doing their best to get this President to run and he just flat out won't do that. I view the report as positive proof that if we hadn't invaded Iraq, Iran would be 4 years closer to developing a weapon.
For those who may believe we should have gone after Iran first, I ask, from what base of operations. Some even claim that invading Iraq created more terrorists but in the same breath suggest Mecca should have been the target.
I hope I'm wrong, but I'm betting they are willing to bide their time until they see a person in office they can bully. Someone like you would vote for, perhaps.
2007-12-05 01:14:59 · answer #2 · answered by crunch 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I think the Security agencies finally pushed it... They don't want to take the blame for another pointless war...
People say do we really trust Iran. Well Its not Iran saying it its our own agencies.
People will say they were wrong about it in Iraq. Well no they were not, most said there was no threat but the WH kept pushing it, regardless of what Rove says now!!!
2007-12-05 00:49:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm loving it. I'm watching all the news people this morning chastise Bush and the administration. His face is on all the World newspapers today. One of them had his nose to look like Pinnochio. So sad! Halliburton won't get any contracts in Iran. Shucks!
2007-12-05 08:33:30 · answer #4 · answered by Lettie D 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not that Texan he loves war and destruction, and hes not through with the demise of America.
2007-12-05 00:29:11 · answer #5 · answered by Roy 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The VP wants to go hunting with you. I suggest that you stay home.
2007-12-05 00:12:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The facts... they ruin everything!
2007-12-05 00:06:29 · answer #7 · answered by MrPotatoHead 4 · 7⤊ 0⤋
Bush is a great lier.
Bush should be hang to death for war crime.
2007-12-05 00:01:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 4⤋