<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Thursday, February 18, 2010

The United Nations: More suspicious of Iran than the Obama administration 


All together now: The country's in the very best of hands.

OK, not really.

Goddamn.

CWCID: Glenn Reynolds.


33 Comments:

By Anonymous vicki pasadena ca, at Thu Feb 18, 07:13:00 PM:

I find it amusing that you all bash the UN one week and now you are saying they are right on. Schizophrenic people, righties.  

By Blogger JPMcT, at Thu Feb 18, 07:50:00 PM:

Vicki, let's not forget the toungue lashing George Bush took from the hysterical left wing media when he even insinuated that Iran might be going nuclear.

Around then, the National Intelligence Estimate (or...at least what is LEFT of US intelligence when the Democrats got done with it) released a report stating that Iran had no nuclear plans.

Olberman et. al. demanded that Bush apologize to the Iranians!

So, back to the present. Obama hopes the force of his personality and the vigor of his apologies will keep us safe. The US intelligence community is taking what may be the final blow to any residual usefulness. Through all this, it becomes clear that Bush was correct all along.

As
Anne Coulter
said: "Thanks Liberals!"  

By Blogger commoncents, at Thu Feb 18, 08:21:00 PM:

Thanks for Posting! Love your blog!!

Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

ps. Link Exchange??  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Feb 18, 08:54:00 PM:

let's not forget the toungue lashing George Bush took from the hysterical left wing media when he even insinuated that Iran might be going nuclear.

Was that before or after Bush lifted the economic sanctions against North Korea and removed it from the U.S. terrorism blacklist? Hmmmm?  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Feb 18, 11:25:00 PM:

Vicki, you have to read more carefully. He isn't saying the UN is "right on", he's using the amazing fact that even the UN is officially worried as definitive evidence (as if any more were really needed) that the Obama administration is dangerously, crazily naive. It's like proof of pigs flying, or as if Nero and violin had been reincarnated in DC.  

By Blogger Dawnfire82, at Thu Feb 18, 11:44:00 PM:

"I find it amusing that you all bash the UN one week and now you are saying they are right on. Schizophrenic people, righties."

If this demonstrates the limit of your analytic abilities, you need to go comment on something other than foreign policy. Maybe find some more keystones of military culture to gag at.  

By Anonymous Brian Schmidt, at Fri Feb 19, 12:28:00 AM:

JP - you might note that 2007 is 6-plus years after the Repubs ran things. You really want to blame that NIE on Carter?

As for Olberman demanding an apology to the Iranian government, I'd be very interested in seeing a link for it.  

By Blogger JPMcT, at Fri Feb 19, 12:46:00 AM:

"you might note that 2007 is 6-plus years after the Repubs ran things. You really want to blame that NIE on Carter?"

Brian, find a quiet spot where your friends wont see you and read Anne Coulter's column on this subject. It was the link in my post, in case you didn't notice.

She summarizes, with grave-yard humor, the step-by-step destruction of the US Intelligence services by Democrats. Those who managed to survive were not particularly friendly to conservatives and that NIE was meant, some say, to embarass Bush, who basically just laughed at it.

One of the only reasons we have a government is to protect its citizens. From the Church Commission onward, we have eviscerated our intelligence capabilities until now we have little hope of learning Iran's weaknesses....heh...as if Obama had the balls to do anything with said information.  

By Blogger Don Cox, at Fri Feb 19, 09:34:00 AM:

A good short article here on whether the Obama administration might be beginning to get a clue about the Iranian regime.

The author is Iranian and has no love for the Khomeinists.  

By Blogger Georgfelis, at Fri Feb 19, 09:44:00 AM:

To put it in Quiz form for Vicki:

The UN determining that Iran is really serious about building nuclear weapons is like:
A) A 300 pound woman saying “I know I’m fat, but you should really lose weight.”
B) “Gee, the tornado is getting awfully close. Doesn’t this house have a basement?”
C) “When I married him, I knew he had anger issues, a giant gun collection, tortured kittens, watched snuff films, and ran down hitchhikers, I just didn’t realize he might hurt me.”
D) A California politician who points at you and says “Unless we do something about our budget, our beloved state will someday as bad off as him!”
E) All of the above

In summary, sometimes ever the most tone-deaf clueless nitwit can sometimes recognize an obvious fact staring them in the face despite their political views.

Fact: Iranian politicians/religious leaders want nuclear weapons.
Fact: At their current rate, they’re going to get them.
Opinion: When they get them, they will use them. Where, we don’t know for certain, but most probably Israel. At which time, the Mideast gets a lot more active. Radioactive, probably.  

By Anonymous Brian Schmidt, at Fri Feb 19, 04:28:00 PM:

For amusement I checked the first attempted fact by Ann Coulter, an alleged quote from Ron Dellums. I find lots of wingnut echoes of the quote, mostly echoing Coulter, and no reliable source for the original. I only gave it a few minutes search though, maybe someone else will hit paydirt.

Repubs ran the executive branch for 18 of the 26 years between 1980 and 2007, including the six years prior to 2007, and yet you really want to blame Carter and Ron Dellums. Sorry, it's not credible.  

By Blogger JPMcT, at Fri Feb 19, 07:23:00 PM:

Brian, I know you are hopeless with science...I had no idea that your challenge extends to history.

Humor me and google "Church Commission".

When Democrats control Congress, there isn't a hell of a lot the executive branch can do about it.

....or...if you think I'm wrong...just simply explain to me how our intelligence has deteriorated to such a significant degree over the time period you mentioned. I'd LOVE to hear the liberal spin on this.  

By Blogger Brian, at Sat Feb 20, 11:06:00 AM:

Not sure why you're getting testy, JP. Yes, I do know about the Church Commission, although Coulter may not, since doesn't mention it. She just brought up a "famous" quote by Ron Dellums that I'm not sure actually exists, and since Coulter is a pretty disgusting liar, there's a good chance it doesn't.

I'll also point out that the Church Commission mainly covered illegal surveillance of Americans, so even regarding this newly-moved goalpost, it doesn't explain the quality of intelligence estimates for Iran over 20 years later.

Also the Republicans had working majorities with Southern Dems in Congress during the Reagan years, and actual majorities in both houses in the four years preceding 2007. And budget bills can't be filibustered.

I'm still not seeing how Carter and Dems from the 1970s are responsible for intelligence in 2007.

Moving on to what actually happened, I think the intelligence debacle plus Republican lying over WMDs in Iraq just showed that it's hard to do right. Worth noting though that the IAEA was much closer to being right in Iraq than US intelligence, so they're worth listening to here.  

By Blogger JPMcT, at Sat Feb 20, 12:37:00 PM:

"Republican lying over WMDs"

When you have no excuse, blame Bush.

That's not working our so well for Barry.

If you think the Democrat controlled Church Review process dealt only with CIA suveillance domestically, then it is clear you are a product of modern public education....and that further arguement is illogical until you research the facts.

By the way...I never mentioned Jimmy Carter...but if you want to publicly defend HIS foreighn policy...go for it!  

By Blogger Brian, at Sat Feb 20, 02:04:00 PM:

I said "mainly" domestic surveillance, JP, not only. I vaguely recalled it had something to do with foreign assassination attempts as well. I'm still not seeing how it ties to intelligence estimates on Iran, or whether Ann Coulter is capable of producing an honest quote of Ron Dellums.

So are you really trying to defend the intelligence estimates of WMDs in Iraq as accurate, or the Bush Administration exaggeration and lies about them?  

By Blogger JPMcT, at Sat Feb 20, 02:47:00 PM:

Brian, in your first paragraph you basically deny that our intelligence gathering capabilities were harmed by liberal doves in Congress over the two decades leading up to 9/11.

Talk about "denialism"??!!

Then, in your second paragraph, you blame George Bush because of lousy intelligence gathering capabilites leading EVERYONE to agree that Iraq was a threat.

As in other exchanges we've had, I say again....you can't have it both ways.  

By Blogger Brian, at Sat Feb 20, 05:50:00 PM:

JP, you're misstating what I wrote. I said Coulter may be pushing a fabricated quote, and that the Church Commission had little to do with limiting overseas intelligence gathering, and that Republican control of both the executive and legislative branch leading up to 2007 gives them major responsibility for what happened in 2007. I can't recall that you've directly responded to the first two arguments, and we'll have to agree to disagree as to the powerlessness of Reagan, the two Bushes, and Republican majorities in the legislature.

You've now moved the discussion to whether everyone screwed up the intelligence in Iraq, while I used Iraq to suggest it indicates it's hard to get intelligence right. You seem to agree with that last statement now if you're finally conceding that everyone got Iraq wrong. Of course that's not quite true - the IAEA and State Department did much better - but the point that it's possible to make a significant mistake is still there.

For my part, the scope of the mistake on Iraq means I'm not taking anyone's word for, not the NIE in 2007 or the IAEA's tentative conclusion in the opposite direction.

The major problem I see with most conservatives and some liberals is their inability to see issues as unresolved. Since they have to choose a side with absolute certainty based on limited information, it's easiest to choose the one that best fits their political biases.  

By Blogger JPMcT, at Sat Feb 20, 06:57:00 PM:

Think what you will, Brian. I am wasting my time.

The Dellums quote is viral on the internet, has been quoted by the LA Times and USA today and has never been denied by Dellums himself...although the avowed communist is likely somewhat distracted by his tax evasion issues. It was delivered during a political event in Berkeley.


You agree that our intelligence was flawed...yet "Bush Lied". All I can say is **YAWWWNN**. All of your fellow Democrats used the flawed intelligence....a defect of their own doing...and completely reversed their opionions for political expediency.

The uniform of the Democrat congress should be stiletto heels, fishnet stockingsand a leather thong.

...and, PLEASE...after boring us all with the "Bush Lied" crap, please dont go all centrist on us with those comments above.

Moving forward, it is clear that the Democrats will take a massive hit thisfall since they are as incompetent in the fiscal sphere as they are with national security.

So I will argue no further...let the elections speak for themselves.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sat Feb 20, 10:52:00 PM:

"The Associated Press indicated that the U.S. may go back and revise the intelligence assessment to determine if Iran resumed weapons work after the 2007 report."

"may go back"? to the future?

I feel better already.  

By Anonymous Brian Schmidt, at Sat Feb 20, 11:43:00 PM:

The only USA Today reference that I found to the quote was a link to Coulter's column. I didn't find anything in the LA Times.

If JP or anyone else has actual links, I'd love to see them.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Sun Feb 21, 02:03:00 PM:

The Brian troll-bots seemingly have distracted this thread from TH's original post with their usual lies ("Republicans lied about WMD's in Iraq", paraphrasing) and other furious attempts to change the subject.

The reality is that Iran has dismissed the administration's feeble diplomacy, and the entire array of our allies seems to have concluded the Obama administration cannot be trusted to lead the coalition against Iran. It seems clear at this juncture that the 2007 NIE should be regarded as a covert attempt to overturn the foreign policy of the country. Are either of these two facts disputable? Not that I am aware.

Where does that leave us? The previous administration was undone by the NIE authors, and as a direct result we are now in a situation of some peril. The current administration is not regarded as being composed of serious people. Our peril is magnified.

Do we actually have time before the Iranians test their new bomb in New York, or Tel Aviv? One can only hope so, since the option of acting is now considerably more difficult, politically, diplomatically and militarily, than it might have been during the Bush administration.

Since we don't have a chance to replace the administration before 2012, our only hope is building public pressure to influence the administration. We must hope the President replaces the Rice/Power group of advisors with more capable people, and soon. The Democrats do have some worthwhile people that might do some good in the middle east. Not every Democrat is useless and deranged. But President Obama needs to replace his ridiculous group of advisors asap.  

By Blogger Brian, at Sun Feb 21, 10:51:00 PM:

Kind of funny that someone who finds it too dangerous to sign in with a pseudonym is calling me a troll. Still no links substantiating the Ann Coulter quote, I see.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Mon Feb 22, 09:17:00 AM:

Incredible. Our allies describe the administration as infantile in it's foreign policy and our adversaries describe us as "not serious", and the Briatroll responds by whining about Internet tags. TH was right-- the country is in the very best of hands. Heh.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Mon Feb 22, 10:18:00 AM:

By the way, I hadn't read the Ann Coulter piece until just know. I understand she uses bombast to make her point but, still, her point is entirely benign: the 2007 NIE is either evidence of total and complete incompetance. Does anyone disagree with her (rhetoric aside)? Brians?  

By Blogger JPMcT, at Tue Feb 23, 12:12:00 AM:

"Still no links substantiating the Ann Coulter quote"

How about you showing us some links disavowing it?

Knowing Mr. Dellums propensity to hate America and it's military, and the number of public transcriptions of the quote...then I am absolutely certain that Brian can find us the link of Dellums disavowal...since he is so keen on proving Ms. Coulter a liar.

Heh???  

By Anonymous Brian Schmidt, at Tue Feb 23, 12:46:00 AM:

Weak tea, JP. Is Ron Dellums obligated to follow Ann Coulter around and disavow anything spewed by her and her acolytes?

I did find the quote in 2008 from another wingnut, so it's not that Coulter made it up - the question is whether she seized on some low level foaming on the right and called it "famous".

It's still possible it's real, btw, I'm just finding it poorly sourced and increasingly fishy.

What happened to that LA Times cite you said you had, JP? Did I miss something there - any link would be great.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tue Feb 23, 10:22:00 AM:

Not weak tea at all BS, the quote is 35 years old, is frequently repeated and has never been disavowed by Dellums himself. It's not like the expressed sentiment isn't something he would have said, because it clearly is, and it's not like he doesn't agree with it, because he undoubtedly does. He's had decades to disavow it and hasn't.

The only mystery here is why you continually harp on this meaningless quote, used only to make a rhetorical point in the Coulter article, while completely ignoring the entire point of the original post.  

By Blogger Brian, at Tue Feb 23, 12:24:00 PM:

The earliest cite I found was from 2008 for a quote that's supposedly 35 years old. More reason to think it's fishy.

Feel free to provide links to earlier citations, though.  

By Blogger Brian, at Tue Feb 23, 12:29:00 PM:

Oh, and JP got mad at me for ignoring his link to Coulter and her definitive take on things. That's how this got going.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tue Feb 23, 04:29:00 PM:

If the quote is as old as Coulter says it is, then Google is going to be of no help. Unless the quote was carried in a newspaper, then news archives won't help. In short, it probably cannot be proved or disproved as a Dellums quote without someone asking him directly. Go ahead, email him if the provenance of the quote is important to you.

It is a quote that Dellums would have agreed with in his lefty prime, and probably agrees with today, and, besides that, who cares? Is the whole point of your post to bring into question a rhetorical prop she uses to make her own point? Seems like it's a meaningless exercise.  

By Anonymous Brian Schmidt, at Tue Feb 23, 08:52:00 PM:

Internet's been widely available for 15 years, so why does this "famous" quote just show up in the last two?

It's not me who twice cited to the evolution-denying Ann Coulter as a reliable authority in this thread. If others will stop relying on her, I'll stop examining her reliability.  

By Blogger JPMcT, at Thu Feb 25, 07:28:00 AM:

Anyone who even scratches the surface of Dellums sordid "career" will come across consistent moonbat mouthings.

Perhaps Brian could amuse hinself for while finding the affirmation that Patrick Henry REALLY siad "Give me liberty of give me death"...and therefore asign Mr. Henry to the same fate as being a prevaricating "wingnut"...at least in the eyes of modern Progressives.

I've got better things to do.  

By Anonymous Anonymous, at Thu Feb 25, 09:33:00 AM:

No one should stop "relying" on her, whatever the heck that means. She's a polemicist, you fool! She's cited because someone thinks her analysis of ideas and rhetoric well states a position they themselves hold.

Her use of the quote in question, which you still have not (incidentally)refuted as a quote, is only a rhetorical prop in her argument, not a premise. To refute her as you say you seek to do, to undermine her credibility, you must destroy some one of her premises. Sort of like what we do to you an a regular basis. Arguing about her use of the quote is entirely beside the point.

Despite that fact, if your obsession with this silly quote is unsatisfied, email Ron Dellums and ask him if he disavows the quote or the sentiment. Go ahead- you'll feel better.  

Post a Comment


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?