Sugar daddy s dating. Rich sugar daddy. Sugar daddy porn. Sugar daddy dating. Sugar daddy website. Sugar daddy. Sugar daddy 101….

In the words of Maxwell Smart – It all depends on what the meaning of the word secret is Chief.

revealled the location of a secret Iranian nuclear facility

The information that the MEK “revealed” was given to them by Israel.
BTW, the nuclear facilities were not “secret”, they simply had not been declared to the IAEA yet. Under INFCIRC/153 agreements, facilities do not need to be declared until 180 days before the introduction of nuclear material. The facilities were not within that time window, They were not “secret”.

“Why (was the American intelligence community) so intent on dismissing the threat from Iran that they reversed three years of high-confidence assessments of an ongoing nuclear-weapons program to replace it with a moderate-confidence dismissal?”If you…

This is the same MEK which previously revealled the location of a secret Iranian nuclear facility. The one which took the IAEA three years to authenticate.

It seems as if the MEK may well have better intelligence assets in Iran than international agencies. I wonder why, maybe because they are Iranian.

Then again- under the do not talk to rat bags doctrine – we should not believe them.

[Kat - Part I of a two part rebuttal to the rebuttal] Having opened the door to a Cold War comparison with “Who Dies First?” and the follow up on Rational State v. Mad Mullahs, it is only fair to……

Political agendas seem to trump our national security interests, don’t they?

a capella on May 29, 2008 at 5:02 PM

Absolutely.

Our so called “intelligence” agencies are no more than a minefield of political activism that spends more time covering it’s own butt’s than objectively doing what it takes to keep this country safe and prepare against future threats.
The failures over the last few decades are massive but have been given a pass for the past 5 years with the “Bush lied” crap that has been front and center in the media and democratic party.

This “amnesia” created to make Iraq “Bush’s”war absolves the democratic party of their push to oust Saddam because of WMD’s and terrorist ties through most of the 90’s and up until they voted to go to war.

It has also resulted in little to no change in our intelligence agencies because most everyone thinks everything will be better when Bush is gone.

This election chant of “more of the same”should not worry the country pertaining to Bush/Mcain, it should worry the
country because of our ineffective, activist driven intelligence agencies.

These provide good insight into where our intelligence agencies are at:

Legacy of Ashes ………….Tim Weiner

The Iraq war was necessary. However, the only reason why it could be considered a mistake is because it has completely squandered any political capital necessary for stopping Iran from acquiring nukes.

There is no way this administration or the next could do anything to stop Iran now.

Riposte on May 29, 2008 at 5:03 PM

I don’t think it will be about the US stopping Iran (except limited strikes against Qods forces and training camps).

The missiles(or nuclear weapon brought in by Hammas or Hezbollah) are pointed at Israel, not America.

The ineffective appeasement policies of the EU,UN,and liberal leadership here will force Israel to have to make it’s own move.

The Jews take it a lot more serious when terrorist dictators call for their destruction (Hitler),they are not going to play political games when it comes to Ahmadinejad.

Appeasement will bring on much more death and destruction than preemptive action would.

Churchill knew this in regards to Hitler but nobody would listen until the nazis were at their doorstep.

Bush knew this in regards to Saddam.Many consider Saddam’s demise a mistake,opening the door of an appeasement era in regards to Iran and the other enemies of Freedom in the world.

Israel will not and cannot afford appeasement, their lives depend on it.

There is no way this administration or the next could do anything to stop Iran now.

Riposte on May 29, 2008 at 5:03 PM

I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush doesn’t have some last minute plan to take out Iran’s nuclear program if some sort of resolution isn’t achieved before the end of his term and a Dem appears about to take office.

Bush might be able to leave the Iran problem to McCain but to pass it off to a Dem could be catastrophic.

Bush will do nothing.

Crawford is miles away from anything, and the vast majority of non-Americans are barely aware of the existence of anything other than New York City and Washington, DC. That’s where the targets are, and that’s who’s going to get nuked when the good ship Khalifa Ahmad ties up at the dock. Interviewed afterward, GWB will be very careful to insure that the message gets through while he meticulously does not say “I told you so.”

Regards,
Ric

New title: NISWAG.

When are we going to walk out of this Animal House of Nations?

When he finally pulls the trigger he can make the argument that he couldn’t honorably leave the burden of what to do about Iran’s nuke program to the new incoming President. He could talk about how it was HIS responsibility to secure the emerging, hard-won stability in Iraq and to secure the continued existence of our ally, Israel.

He doesn’t have anything left to lose as far as “approval ratings” or popularity is concerned. Any hope for a positive “legacy” is simply going to have to be a long-term proposition, as it isn’t something that is likely to emerge for quite some time (because in the “near future”, his legacy will be relentlessly negative). Any future legacy centered around a positive outlook for the Middle East would only be further enhanced by removing the threat of a nuclear armed rogue state like Iran.

If I were Ahmadamnjihadi, I’d be building a really big bunker and would be living in it come November 10!

Can we stop sending them my tax dollars now, along with the UN?

I think your better off trusting that they are WRONG than right…

Sad…

“Why (was the American intelligence community) so intent on dismissing the threat from Iran that they reversed three years of high-confidence assessments of an ongoing nuclear-weapons program to replace it with a moderate-confidence dismissal?”If you…

if bush can sew up a long term security arrangement/military base with Iraq.

a capella on May 29, 2008 at 5:15 PM

… and afghanistan …

bookends

The Iraq war was necessary. However, the only reason why it could be considered a mistake is because it has completely squandered any political capital necessary for stopping Iran from acquiring nukes.

There is no way this administration or the next could do anything to stop Iran now.

Riposte on May 29, 2008 at 5:03 PM

I’m not so sure. All the pieces are coming together for a move, if bush can sew up a long term security arrangement/military base with Iraq. If Obama gets in, all bets are off anyway, but I think McCain would do the deed, if push comes to shove. We’re getting down close to crunch time.

The IAEA calls this “alarming”.

And it only took them how many years to realize this? I can’t decide which is more useless: the IAEA or our own CIA.