Doofie to Iran: But you STILL hafta 'come clean!'

[ConspiRaider]

More of the leader of DoofieCorps embarrassing my country, the United States of America.

After the combined intelligence agencies of the USA determined that Iran's nuclear weapon quest has been inactive for at least 4 years, any normal, peaceloving American president would have first highlighted and lauded the work of the NIE, put them in the spotlight for awhile, and then use this as an opportunity to promote an upbeat direction in the diffusing of tensions and rhetoric.

But not Doofie. Doofie is terribly disappointed that the NIE findings deal a body blow to his desperate desire to smash Iran. It's his desire, it's Cheney's, and it's Kissyface's (Joe Lieberman, R-Turncoat). He so transparently looks like a warmonger on the world stage.

Linky:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7129307.stm

[corplinx]

Now, I have you ignore, but your thread titles still show up. In this case, " Doofie to Iran: But you STILL hafta 'come clean!'".

Every election cycle we get some shrill guy who uses slang to talk about politicians. A memorable one was Patrick who was a right wing shill on this forum during the 2004 cycle. He called Senator Kerry "Lurch" and other monikers. Attempts to get him to post above the level of second grade name calling and such were ignored.

Its almost 2008 and you're the new Patrick. Grats2U! Here's to hoping you learn how to grow up and also how to calm down.

[Talby]

While it may be true that Iran doesn't currently posess nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere in the Iran might sometime in the future form the idea of attempting to do so. Do you want to risk it?

[Oliver]

More of the leader of DoofieCorps embarrassing my country, the United States of America.

After the combined intelligence agencies of the USA determined that Iran's nuclear weapon quest has been inactive for at least 4 years, any normal, peaceloving American president would have first highlighted and lauded the work of the NIE, put them in the spotlight for awhile, and then use this as an opportunity to promote an upbeat direction in the diffusing of tensions and rhetoric.

But not Doofie. Doofie is terribly disappointed that the NIE findings deal a body blow to his desperate desire to smash Iran. It's his desire, it's Cheney's, and it's Kissyface's (Joe Lieberman, R-Turncoat). He so transparently looks like a warmonger on the world stage.

Linky:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7129307.stm


Careful now - you're entering Anti-American Waters by pointing
out the Doofie's funny way to throw Americas reputation into
the sewer.

[Earthborn]

While it may be true that Iran doesn't currently posess nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere in the Iran might sometime in the future form the idea of attempting to do so. Do you want to risk it?While it may be true that Tuvalu doesn't currently posess nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere in the Tuvalu might not sometime in the future form the idea of attempting to do so. Do you want to risk it?

While it may be true that Vatican City doesn't currently posess nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere in the Vatican City might not sometime in the future form the idea of attempting to do so. Do you want to risk it?

While it may be true that I don't currently posess nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, that doesn't mean that I might not sometime in the future form the idea of attempting to do so. Do you want to risk it?

Actually you helped me form the idea. Thanks! Hmmmm... maybe I can get some old radium painted watches somewhere, just to get me going...

[ConspiRaider]

While it may be true that Iran doesn't currently posess nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere in the Iran might sometime in the future form the idea of attempting to do so. Do you want to risk it?
:D :D

I heard that somebody in Madagascar was thinking about the word 'nukular'. Then a buddy told me about a Greenlander who wrote the word "Nuke" in the snow (talk about a nuclear 'freeze'). And Liechtenstein? Even now, the Department of Homeland Security is desperately seeking translators to decode the state secrets of that hidden and foreboding country, plotting its evilnessishes amidst its wall-to-wall carpeting (the entire country is carpeted).

I have enrolled all my nieces and nephews in Doofie Youth. We're ready.

[ConspiRaider]

Now, I have you ignore, but your thread titles still show up. In this case, " Doofie to Iran: But you STILL hafta 'come clean!'".

Every election cycle we get some shrill guy who uses slang to talk about politicians. A memorable one was Patrick who was a right wing shill on this forum during the 2004 cycle. He called Senator Kerry "Lurch" and other monikers. Attempts to get him to post above the level of second grade name calling and such were ignored.

Its almost 2008 and you're the new Patrick. Grats2U! Here's to hoping you learn how to grow up and also how to calm down.
Don't you know that saying:

"Boys never grow up. They only grow old."

You just can't help yourself, can you. You try to ignore me, but it's all you can do to dash in here to see what this 2nd grader has done NOW. I suppose I should be flattered.

Hey - I really AM flattered!!! THANK YOU! Anyway gotta go it's recess Tag you're it!!!

[ConspiRaider]

While it may be true that Tuvalu doesn't currently posess nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere in the Tuvalu might not sometime in the future form the idea of attempting to do so. Do you want to risk it?

While it may be true that Vatican City doesn't currently posess nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere in the Vatican City might not sometime in the future form the idea of attempting to do so. Do you want to risk it?

While it may be true that I don't currently posess nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, that doesn't mean that I might not sometime in the future form the idea of attempting to do so. Do you want to risk it?

Actually you helped me form the idea. Thanks! Hmmmm... maybe I can get some old radium painted watches somewhere, just to get me going...
You scooped me, EB! Great minds...:)

[Tailgater]

Not to mention, this is about the third or fourth thread going about this, but I guess they don't get to say "doofie". weeeeee!

[fishbob]

While it may be true that Iran doesn't currently posess nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere in the Iran might sometime in the future form the idea of attempting to do so. Do you want to risk it?

Someone, somewhere anywhere in the world might form the same idea.
If you are suggesting that the US invade everybody, then I guess Bush is your man.

I do not live in fear of this, and I can't afford to pay for pre-emptive worldwide denucularization, so I recommend diplomacy and negotiation. Bush is obviously NOT my man.

[NobbyNobbs]

While it may be true that Iran doesn't currently posess nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere in the Iran might sometime in the future form the idea of attempting to do so. Do you want to risk it?

While it may be true that you are not currently committing murder, it's conceivable that sometime in the future you might.

Please report to the nearest court for sentencing.

[fishbob]

Can I at least be the first to note that Talby has been thoroughly piled on?

At least I was ahead of Nobbs.

[ConspiRaider]

Can I at least be the first to note that Talby has been thoroughly piled on?

At least I was ahead of Nobbs.
:D :D

I took a chance in my reply and assumed Talby's post was pure-D tongue-in-cheek... but I've been wrong about that before... :boggled:

[Tailgater]

With the added "someone, somewhere, sometime", I'm guessing sarcasm.

[Earthborn]

You scooped me, EB! Great minds...:)I was quicker, so my mind is like totally greatesser than yours. Which shouldn't surprise anyone, because your OP was like totally lamerz!

Seriously, this guy you call Doofie (whose real name is Dubya, btw. Nickname: The Chimp) could have screwed up much worse than he did, so there is no real reason to criticise him on this. He didn't discard the report or claim that it was a "slam dunk" that Iran was developing nukular weapons, he didn't call for military action. I think his diplomatic skillz are improving (when he grows up he may make a great president one day!), but you just use any excuse to twit him.

[Darth Rotor]

While it may be true that Tuvalu doesn't currently posess nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere in the Tuvalu might not sometime in the future form the idea of attempting to do so. Do you want to risk it?

While it may be true that Vatican City doesn't currently posess nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere in the Vatican City might not sometime in the future form the idea of attempting to do so. Do you want to risk it?

While it may be true that I don't currently posess nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, that doesn't mean that I might not sometime in the future form the idea of attempting to do so. Do you want to risk it?

Actually you helped me form the idea. Thanks! Hmmmm... maybe I can get some old radium painted watches somewhere, just to get me going...
Does the presence of the hardware to process the material for weapons, and the presence of a weapons program, albeit currently on hold, not constitute probable cause, and a probable call for caution?

Is that the same scenario as these other chimerical cases you mention?

I am glad the info is public, and that a step back from the continued threat to use armed force on Iran is very much on the table, as I found that saber rattling counterproductive. I'd suggest not presuming complete purity of NPT adherence being the intent in Teheran until more confidence building measures bear fruit.

They may, and it is my hope that they will.

Iran's neighbors, Pakistan and India, are nuclear powers. It's a tough neighborhood. A foe, Israel, is a nuclear (undeclared) power. (So too Russia and others, like the US, who have interests in the region.) Iran can, if one looks through a lens in Teheran, come up with a reasoned justification for developing a deterrent capability based on their own assessment of their security situation. Yes, they signed the NPT, but I will argue, as I have before, that the NPT is broken in fact if not in principle, with North Korea, Pakistan, and now India as differing examples of proliferation being the state of play, rather than non proliferation.

DR

[ConspiRaider]

I was quicker, so my mind is like totally greatesser than yours. Which shouldn't surprise anyone, because your OP was like totally lamerz!

Seriously, this guy you call Doofie (whose real name is Dubya, btw. Nickname: The Chimp) could have screwed up much worse than he did, so there is no real reason to criticise him on this. He didn't discard the report or claim that it was a "slam dunk" that Iran was developing nukular weapons, he didn't call for military action. I think his diplomatic skillz are improving (when he grows up he may make a great president one day!), but you just use any excuse to twit him.
That's IT!!! Ya sold me! I'm ready to 3rd-term this wonderful Chimpresident Doofie!!! Change the Constie-tootion!

Seriously did you see Seymour Hersh on with Wolf Blitzer? Hersh is saying this NIE report is at least a YEAR OLD and that the Administration sat on it - hard - because it did NOT say what they wanted it to say. Hmm. Now where have we seen that happen before, concerning DoofieCorps? Orangepie? Goldcake? Amberpastry? Something like that, I canna remember...

[ConspiRaider]

Careful now - you're entering Anti-American Waters by pointing out the Doofie's funny way to throw Americas reputation into the sewer.
:D

Mr. O, if there's one thing I'm not - it's anti-American. Quite the opposite. Exactly the reason I'm pointing out that Doofie isn't really US.

Doofie's having his innings now - embarrassing the good people of the United States of America. Hurting the USA reputation within our borders, and beyond our borders.

But that's one of the things about America I love so much: We don't stay down for very long. We have the capability to turn on a dime. Doofie has a bit more than a year in office. And then stand back.

[Elind]

More of the leader of DoofieCorps embarrassing my country, the United States of America.

After the combined intelligence agencies of the USA determined that Iran's nuclear weapon quest has been inactive for at least 4 years, any normal, peaceloving American president would have first highlighted and lauded the work of the NIE, put them in the spotlight for awhile, and then use this as an opportunity to promote an upbeat direction in the diffusing of tensions and rhetoric.

But not Doofie. Doofie is terribly disappointed that the NIE findings deal a body blow to his desperate desire to smash Iran. It's his desire, it's Cheney's, and it's Kissyface's (Joe Lieberman, R-Turncoat). He so transparently looks like a warmonger on the world stage.

Linky:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7129307.stm

I don't get it:boggled:

We hear all this type of commentary from the Moonbats (LGF dictionary) and it's entirely on a non reality track. Even the doofus president of Iran think this is a vindication of some sort.

Can we try to remember that the intelligence "suggests" that they stopped work on on nuclear weapon design (which had been suspected by the UN even), but Iran has always denied they ever did so in the first place.:covereyes

Now Iran says it is vindicated because the US says it perhaps stopped what it was never doing in the first place.:jaw-dropp

Surely they should be saying the report is rubbish to begin with? No...that would require intelligence on the part of the Moonbats, which we know never existed.

On a more practical level, what does that mean? Take a few dozen (at most) key Islamist scientists and have them focus their energies on uranium enrichment, without which the weapons design (available pretty much on the internet anyway) is useless. Once they have the required critical mass in hand, it should take perhaps a year to reassign people (not counting the few still putting together the logistics in nice offices somewhere) and complete the project.

Then of course we have this puzzling (to some) major effort to develop long range missiles which can reach Europe (and Israel, for the geographically challenged) with perhaps a few hundred pounds of conventional explosives. Now that makes a lot of sense doesn't it? But wait, what if............

God, people can be stupid.

[ConspiRaider]

I don't get it:boggled:

We hear all this type of commentary from the Moonbats (LGF dictionary) and it's entirely on a non reality track. Even the doofus president of Iran think this is a vindication of some sort.

Can we try to remember that the intelligence "suggests" that they stopped work on on nuclear weapon design (which had been suspected by the UN even), but Iran has always denied they ever did so in the first place.:covereyes

Now Iran says it is vindicated because the US says it perhaps stopped what it was never doing in the first place.:jaw-dropp

Surely they should be saying the report is rubbish to begin with? No...that would require intelligence on the part of the Moonbats, which we know never existed.

On a more practical level, what does that mean? Take a few dozen (at most) key Islamist scientists and have them focus their energies on uranium enrichment, without which the weapons design (available pretty much on the internet anyway) is useless. Once they have the required critical mass in hand, it should take perhaps a year to reassign people (not counting the few still putting together the logistics in nice offices somewhere) and complete the project.

Then of course we have this puzzling (to some) major effort to develop long range missiles which can reach Europe (and Israel, for the geographically challenged) with perhaps a few hundred pounds of conventional explosives. Now that makes a lot of sense doesn't it? But wait, what if............

God, people can be stupid.
So therefore, when do you think the bombs should start falling on Iran? When should the invasion of Iran begin? When should this country be smashed so we can get their oil - I mean, get their nukes out of their country?

Why is Israel allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Why is Pakistan allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Why is India allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Why is Russia allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Why is China allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Why is Great Britain allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Why is France allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Why is North Korea allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Why is my country, the USA, allowed to have nukes, but not Iran? We used 'em in wartime, we've had a couple of 'em drop off of planes here in the USA, and we've had nuclear fallout issues back in the big testing days. Why should we be trusted with nuclear weapons? Should the rest of the world drop bombs on us, invade us?

[JoeEllison]

While it may be true that Iran doesn't currently posess nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere in the Iran might sometime in the future form the idea of attempting to do so. Do you want to risk it?

That's an almost completely useless and meaningless claim there. "Someone, somewhere, something"... therefore NOTHING! Canada, Brazil, and/or Guam might someday decide to attack America. Should we attack them now, just to get it over with?

The whole thing is childish and foolish.

[JoeEllison]

Bush has also declared that Iran must cease its nonexistent nuclear weapon program... he's stupid, insane, or assumes that his supporters are stupid/insane.

[Elind]

So therefore, when do you think the bombs should start falling on Iran? When should the invasion of Iran begin? When should this country be smashed so we can get their oil - I mean, get their nukes out of their country?

You had me when you said oil.

Why is Israel allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?


Cuz Israel is smarter than you and happens, by accident presumably, to be our friend and probably wouldn't exist if it didn't. Reality it's called. Not some contorted equality that you are infected with.


Why is Pakistan allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Pakistan is one of the last places on the planet that should have it. Iran is insane.

Why is India allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Iran is insane. Ever notice the first words out of their doofus president? They essentially say, "I wish for the end of the world, so YOU can come back and kill all the other doofuses.

Why is Russia allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?


Stupid question.

Why is China allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?


Stupid question.


Why is Great Britain allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Stupid question.

Why is France allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Stupid question

Why is North Korea allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Duhh. What do you know that we don't?

Why is my country, the USA, allowed to have nukes, but not Iran? We used 'em in wartime, we've had a couple of 'em drop off of planes here in the USA, and we've had nuclear fallout issues back in the big testing days. Why should we be trusted with nuclear weapons? Should the rest of the world drop bombs on us, invade us?

You know, if I had a doofus handy, I would give it to you instantly.

Seriously, you take the cake today. Are you one of those kids the jref tries to encourage to the site by chance?

[Elind]

That's an almost completely useless and meaningless claim there. "Someone, somewhere, something"... therefore NOTHING! Canada, Brazil, and/or Guam might someday decide to attack America. Should we attack them now, just to get it over with?

The whole thing is childish and foolish.

As is your dismissal of the issue with the attack option being the only one.

[ConspiRaider]

Seriously, you take the cake today. Are you one of those kids the jref tries to encourage to the site by chance?
Fair warning buddy: You'd better strap on your seatbelts because I'm coming right atcha. Ask around.

You really haven't said anything of substance yet, while I have been everything about substance. You may disagree, and in fact I encourage you to do so.

So now you tell us, at point-blank range: Are you by any chance supporting Bush in his latest outrageous pronouncements concerning the NIE conclusions and Iran? You already know that I do NOT support his pronouncements.

And if you support the "president", why?

[Yalius]

Fair warning buddy: You'd better strap on your seatbelts because I'm coming right atcha. Ask around.

You really haven't said anything of substance yet, while I have been everything about substance. You may disagree, and in fact I encourage you to do so.

So now you tell us, at point-blank range: Are you by any chance supporting Bush in his latest outrageous pronouncements concerning the NIE conclusions and Iran? You already know that I do NOT support his pronouncements.

And if you support the "president", why?

Oho, threats?

And I do believe it's better to be safe than sorry.

[Elind]

Fair warning buddy: You'd better strap on your seatbelts because I'm coming right atcha. Ask around.

You really haven't said anything of substance yet, while I have been everything about substance. You may disagree, and in fact I encourage you to do so.

So now you tell us, at point-blank range: Are you by any chance supporting Bush in his latest outrageous pronouncements concerning the NIE conclusions and Iran? You already know that I do NOT support his pronouncements.

And if you support the "president", why?

Ohh dear! What have I done? Upset the Doofus?

Never mind, perhaps I'll just ask it to actually read my first comment in this thread, and we'll see if there's a light bulb on.

Then I'll "ask around"

:crazy:

[ConspiRaider]

Oho, threats?

And I do believe it's better to be safe than sorry.
Threats, none. The last time I threatened someone was my brother after he hid my Tonka truck and I was gonna tell Mom on him.

I'm simply hell on wheels, concerning debate. It's true! :) And I figured it was fair to let you know, since you unwittingly referred to me (age 50) as a kid. Actually you can keep doing that, the "kid" part.

Your statement "better to be safe than sorry" is ambiguous, and that invites assumption from readers. My inference? You believe we, teamed with Israel, should strike Iran with an air attack immediately, if not sooner. Correct? If my inference is inaccurate, please specify and clarify.

[NobbyNobbs]

We are the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons in war time, and yet we claim to be the ones to trust when it comes to policing them? Please.


I was listening to Bush at his press conference on NPR the other day, and something struck me that all other skeptics here should recognize.

Had it been proven that Iran is actively working on a weapons program, Bush would have found that reason enough to come down hard on them.

Now that it's been proven that Iran isn't working on a weapons program, Bush has found that reason enough to come down hard on them.

In his own words, "This doesn't change my opinion."

I see similar logic coming from the mouths of truthers.

[a_unique_person]

While it may be true that Tuvalu doesn't currently posess nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere in the Tuvalu might not sometime in the future form the idea of attempting to do so. Do you want to risk it?

While it may be true that Vatican City doesn't currently posess nuclear weapons, or the ability to make them, that doesn't mean that someone, somewhere in the Vatican City might not sometime in the future form the idea of attempting to do so. Do you want to risk it?

That's what they want you to think....

[ConspiRaider]

We are the only country ever to have used nuclear weapons in war time, and yet we claim to be the ones to trust when it comes to policing them? Please.

I was listening to Bush at his press conference on NPR the other day, and something struck me that all other skeptics here should recognize.

Had it been proven that Iran is actively working on a weapons program, Bush would have found that reason enough to come down hard on them.

Now that it's been proven that Iran isn't working on a weapons program, Bush has found that reason enough to come down hard on them.

In his own words, "This doesn't change my opinion."

I see similar logic coming from the mouths of truthers.
That's right, NN. Absolutely. His stubborn insistence that he should not be denied doing what he wants to do, is the cold, wet face-slapper. I heard that, and had to hear it again because I could not believe that is what he said.

It was this - EXACTLY this behavior - that told me in November of 2002 that he was dead set on invading Iraq. The one difference between then and now is that we've seen his play, and may not allow him - this time - to begin yet another war.

[gtc]

Fair warning buddy: You'd better strap on your seatbelts because I'm coming right atcha. Ask around.

Is this some kind of parody?

[ConspiRaider]

Is this some kind of parody?
Yes.

[Giz]

Why is Israel allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Cuz they already have 'em.



Why is Pakistan allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Cuz they already have 'em.



Why is India allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Cuz they already have 'em.



Why is Russia allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Cuz they already have 'em.



Why is China allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Cuz they already have 'em.



Why is Great Britain allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Cuz they're great.



Why is France allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Cuz they already have 'em.



Why is North Korea allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?

Cuz they already have 'em.

[Elind]

Had it been proven that Iran is actively working on a weapons program, Bush would have found that reason enough to come down hard on them.

Now that it's been proven that Iran isn't working on a weapons program, Bush has found that reason enough to come down hard on them.

In his own words, "This doesn't change my opinion."

I see similar logic coming from the mouths of truthers.

:confused:

You don't get it either, do you?

The US says they "appeared" to have suspended the weapons design program, and meanwhile they continue to produce the material they didn't have to complete any weapons program at that time.

The Iranians have said they never had a weapons program.

The Iranians say they are vindicated by having been shown to have stopped what they never had.

There's something of truther logic involved here.

As to a weapons program that they pretend never to have had, yet refuse to confirm even to the satisfaction of the wimps at the UN; how long does it take a truther to say, "let's start it up again now that we have the enriched uranimum"?

And, again, what is the point of developing expensive long range missiles that can only carry a fraction of the warhead of conventional explosives that an F15 (they still have some) can do? Without nuclear warheads such missiles are useless militarily.

[Darth Rotor]

Why is my country, the USA, allowed to have nukes, but not Iran?
Because we wrote the rules. A bunch of other people then signed up to them.

Why are you even asking that question? The international scene is in no way egalitarian. It is still ruled by a variation of Might Makes Right.

Not sure what Utopia you think we are living in, but a fair world isn't it.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

Bush has also declared that Iran must cease its nonexistent nuclear weapon program... he's stupid, insane, or assumes that his supporters are stupid/insane.
I don't think you can put a halt to a program that was non existent. It had to exist to be halted. That is what the NIE assesses.

Whether or not NIE is accurate enough to be considered "truth" is quite another matter.

It is an estimate.

DR

[Elind]

Not sure what Utopia you think we are living in, but a fair world isn't it.

DR

And he apparently holds that all nations are equally fair.