Democrats & Liberals Archives

Who would want Iran to Have Nukes?

There are only two groups of people who would want Iran to join N.Korea and go nuclear,(“nucular”) to our distinguished president.
One group is very obvious. Terrorists. They’re agenda, disguised as religious war is essentially to destabilize the world and spread hate and fear.
The other group might surprise you.

Haliburton KBR
Haliburton, you know, Cheney's "old company".
Haliburton sold key nuclear reactor components to a private Iranian oil company Oriental Oil Kish.
Using offshore subsidiaries to circumvent U.S. sanctions, Haliburton, as recently as 2005 have illegally done business in Iran.
Cheney was president of Haliburton in the 1990s and may have directly done business with one of the "Axis of Evil." He, at the very least turned a blind eye to this deal.
Haliburton has helped Iran develope the ability to enrich uranium.
Haliburton can violate U.S. law , receive no bid contracts to serve our military, that have netted 18.5 billion dollars between 2003 and 2006 and simultaneously give Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the ability to join Kim Jong Il as a dangerous lunatic with nukes.
Thanks Haliburton.
It sure takes some of the sting out of the overcharges and inflated services mess.
For more information on this matter read:

"Haliburton Secretly Doing Business With Key Members of Iran's Nuclear Team" by Jason Leopold August 5, 2005

Posted by Andre M. Hernandez at October 12, 2006 1:25 PM
Comment #187817

“One group is very obvious. Terrorists. They’re agenda, disguised as religious war is essentially to destabilize the world and spread hate and fear.”

Which group of terrorists are you referring to, the Bush administration and the Evangelical Right, or the al-Qaeda types? I realize that our form of terrorism seems a little more palatable, with it’s patina of ‘democracy’ and ‘freedoms’—however, the Bush administration’s victims are having a hard time discerning the difference between ‘democracy’ and ‘terror’ anymore.

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 12, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #187818

Andre Why not just call a spade a spade?Dick Cheny Wants Iran and North Korea to have Nukes because he makes money from all the evil that he and the Devil George Bush do.The real Axis of evil are George Bush,Dick Cheny And Donald Rumsfeild.Haliburton Realy runs this Government And they are in cahoots with the Boogy man And Freddy Kruger.

Posted by: PETRO at October 12, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #187830

Ha ha! Do a little research on Jason Leopold, the source of this story about Haliburton’s secret dealings.

This gives a little background. He’s a mentally ill former coke addict who has done time for grand larceny.

He’s been fired by Salon, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal for plagiarism, failing to substantiate his sources and writing fictitious articles.

He’s also the guy who announced to the world that Karl Rove had been indicted by special prosecuter Fitzgerald. Story here.

As a journalist, this guy is a fraud and an embarrasment, and whenever he’s the only source for a story you can be sure that it’s pure science fiction.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 12, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #187834

Pilsner makes a great point. Leopold is a discredited source. Although, based upon their actions in Iraq, I would be biased in favor of articles condemning Halliburton for war profiteering, Leopold is highly suspect. Like Bush and Iraq, you just do not get to be that wrong about things and still get to be believed.

Also, most of the people we think of as “terrorists” are Sunnis. Al Qaida consists of Sunni radicals. The civil war in Iraq is between Sunnis & Shias, most of the foreign fighters are Sunnis, most of the suicide car bombers are Sunnis, and most of the intended victims are Shias.

Pakistan is predominantly Sunni. They back Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan. The Iranians back Shias in Afghanistan. Why would terrorists want Iranian Shias to have the bomb?

The word “terrorist” is nearly useless when applied to Iran. There is plenty of reason for bad blood between Iran and the US. Terrorism is not one of those reasons.

Posted by: phx8 at October 12, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #187835

Andre Is there nothing Sacret?Can A blogger be Guilty Of Plagiarism?

Posted by: PETRO at October 12, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #187836

Perhaps Bushco isn’t at all afraid of anything “nucular” because like cockroaches, they feel certain they’ll be able to survive any blast?
They display this certainty in so many ways — for instance today we learn that: New Port-Security Law Sidesteps `Dirty-Bomb’ Screening Overseas.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 12, 2006 4:42 PM
Comment #187842

The problem with US/Iran policy is that US national interests are being confused with Israeli interests. Shias have no history of threatening the US. Conflict arises when the US inserts its military into Shia areas. Neither Iran nor Hezbollah have ever attacked the US outside of the places where they live, and then only when facing US forces on their home turf.

Here is a short list of “Likudniks”:
Wolfowitz, Perle, Wurmser, Feith, Abrams, Chertoff, John Bolton, Joshua Bolton, Libby, Adelman, Luttwak, Kissenger.

Events and evidence suggests these people use US foreign policy to protect Israeli interests, even at the expense of US national interest. They feed misinformation to Neocons such as Cheney & Rumsfeld, leading to foreign policy outcomes which are disastrous for US national interests.

The idea that Iranian involvement with “terrorists” somehow threatens the US, or that an Iranian nuclear program threatens the US anytime in the next decade, is worse than ludicrous- it is a deadly confusion which will result in additional foreign policy disasters.

Posted by: phx8 at October 12, 2006 5:10 PM
Comment #187853

phx8, go to the back of the class, you jew hating nazi. Don’t you know that what is good for Israel, is good for the US of A? How can you turn on your masters, who look after you so well, and bite the hand that feeds you? For the last time, here is the lesson. Israel good. Israel cannot do wrong. Israel is the only county that loves freedom more than the US, and does more for freedom than the US. Don’t you know that none of your politicians will speak against Israel? Don’t you know that AIPAC and other like organisations will take out any politico who dares speak against Israel? That they will target Institutions of learning to ensure that commie bastard nazis are not allowed to defame Israel? No, if your politicians were allowed to speak against Israel, that would smack too much of democracy where free speech held sway. Freedom is too good for Americans, only Israel is good enough for freedom. Stalin had it about right. Everyone speaks with the same voice, and no one dares speak against the party, adn especially not against Joe himself. Uno voce, uno duce, as Benito used to say. Ein volk, ein reich, ein fuhrer, as Adolph liked to muse. Opposition is to be only allowed where it serves the purposes of the power brokers.

Isn’t is amazing tho’, all facetiousness aside, how in a supposed democracy, there is virutally no articulation at least at the centre of Government and MSM, of an alternative paradigm in respect of the middle east? How there is no significant criticism of Israel and its policies in the occupied territories? How legislators all seem to sing from the same hymn sheet? Seriously, isn’t that how it used to operate in Stalinist Russia, Facist Italy and Nazi Germany? Or maybe its just me. Maybe Israel is at the apex of human civilisation, incapable of doing wrong, virtuous to a fault. I’m glad I don’t live in a democracy like that! Mine is one where there are many shouting out their protests on every topic, doing all in their power to shake government on every policy issue. But then, isn’t that what is supposed to happen in a representativedemocracy?
Am I the only one who thinks this is something very strange and reminiscent of Stalinism and Nazism?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 12, 2006 7:23 PM
Comment #187855

It is odd that the subject is rarely addressed. In the US, most people cannot distinguish between being Jewish and being a Zionist. Almost 2/3 of all Jews worldwide have voted with their feet not to move to Israel. The Zionists, AIPAC, and “Likudniks” represent a minority. They are essentially right-wing Jewish fundamentalists. Unfortunately, the Likudniks and Neocons share a similar vision of the world.

Just as people cannot make distinctions between Israel and Jews, they cannot make distinctions between the various branches of Islam. There is a bizarre belief in some sort of monolithic religion. And while most Americans readily embrace the concept of “separation of church and state,” and readily see the problems inherent in an Islamic state, Americans are blind when it comes to the problems inherent in a Jewish state.

It is almost unbelievable… How many times have you seen someone on Watchblog suggest Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East?

Ask that same person if US was a democracy for a woman or a black man in 1825, and they will concede the point, and recognize the injustice. Ask the same person about Israel, and the blinders go right back up.

I am very worried about this Bush administration in the next two years. A commission headed by Jim Baker & Lee Hamilton is presenting a plan for withdrawal after the election. The Likudniks have a very short window to enact their agenda, namely: bombing Iran, completing US isolation from Islam, fixing US enmity with the Muslim world, and cementing a US alliance with Israel at the expense of Islamic states.

Posted by: phx8 at October 12, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #187856

Fortunately for the Irish, they have never had to deal with political problems caused by religion.

Posted by: phx8 at October 12, 2006 7:48 PM
Comment #187859

Nice try phx8, but the Irish experience was only superficially about religion. It arose from the plantation of Ireland from the 16th Century by the British of primarily Scots Presbyterians who were settled on ethnically cleansed land of the Irish natives, who were essentially Roman Catholic. It was always about land and freedom. The religious aspect was only incidental. In more recent times it suited the British to portray it as religious with them being the honest broker trying to do the decent thing and bear the white mans burden. It is an experience (colonialism) that gives us Irish an uncommonly good insight, for a western nation, into imperialism by whoever it is practised. Whether that is the US in the mid east or central or south america, or the Israelis in the occupied territories. We have a build it sh** detector! and so we can see that given Irans history, its behaviour is not as irrational as it sometimes may seem. Indeed, it is a not uncommon post colonial form of behaviour which, if left to run its course, would see Iran come back into the comity of nations. Indeed that process was already under way in recent years, with increasing numbers of particularly young people aspiring the the same things that their western counterparts do. All the sabre rattling going on now can only damage that process and play into the hands of the mullahs.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 12, 2006 8:10 PM
Comment #187860

Pardon me for the error above, it should have read “we have a built in sh** detector…”

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 12, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #187861

I knew a little about the history of colonialism; “Ulysses” is one of my favorite books, and spending a Bloomsday in Dublin is one of my goals. I am under the impression the Catholic priesthood, along with a conservative, leader/follower worship of authority, have kept Ireland back, among other things…

Interesting about the British spin. Makes sense. Thanks-

Posted by: phx8 at October 12, 2006 8:19 PM
Comment #187862

phx8, you say it is odd that the subject is rarely addressed. Don’t you think that’s an odd thing to say? ODD? Extraordinary? Bizarre? Sinister even? But odd? That’s a bit like saying that a nuclear reactor which melted down and caused massive contamination and death and destruction is odd, without querying why it did so? It’s a bit like attaching the same importance as to a statement that it’s odd that it’s a bit cooler today than it was yesterday. Given that this is happening in the US, which sees itself as the greatest democracy ever, surely its much more than odd that debate on such a critical issue for the US and the mid east and indeed the world generally, is more akin to the culture of the old dictatorships of the last century?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 12, 2006 8:21 PM
Comment #187866

Phx8, you are indeed correct in terms of the Irish Catholic church, which has been described as the most anti intellectual RC church in Europe. Ireland coming out of our war of independence was a largely conservative and rural society, with a large peasant class. It was indeed a society that was very authoritarian, particularly an authoritarian church, which deployed it collective croziers on numerous occasions to keep the political class in check. Mostly tho’, they were happily compliant. Catholicism and Nationalism were the driving forces of the early independant state. since then of course, as Yeat’s put it in another context, all is changed, changed utterly, a terrible beauty is born…….

Funny thinking back, as a child in the 60’s and 70’s, my recollection of still many of the older peoples practice of their faith would not have been very different from that of how we see muslims practising theirs, with much ritual and little questioning. Simple unquestioning faith. That’s all gone now, thank God! What was left of it was destroyed by the paedophile priests, the moralistic priests who preached marital fidelity and chastity while keeping their own concubines, and worst of all, the bishops who betrayed the little ones by hiding and sheltering the wolves. But the Irish struggle was always about freedom.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at October 12, 2006 8:40 PM
Comment #187879

I agree with jack rose, Jason Leopold has not truly been discredited — despite what people on the right have been claiming. (I was very suprised to see phx8, who I normally agree with, say he agreed with pilsner about this.) I personally think that Leopold has done excellent work over the years, and that opinion must be shared by plenty of others since he’s won quite a lot of acclaim.

The truth is, while there has been controversy over Leopold reporting on that Karl Rove had been indicted, he has not actually been proven wrong. Because if an indictment does exist against Karl Rove, it might still be sealed at the moment. Leopold continues to claim it’s located in federal case number 06 cr 128, entitled “Sealed vs. Sealed.”

“Legal experts watching the Plame-Wilson investigation have been paying particularly close attention to Sealed vs. Sealed since the Karl Rove indictment story was published. The legal scholars have said that a federal prosecutor can keep an indictment under seal for weeks or months - something that is commonplace in high-profile criminal cases - especially if an investigation, such as the CIA leak probe, is ongoing.”

I have a lot of respect for the website (they too have done truly excellent work over the years), and I find it very interesting that their Executive Director, Marc Ash has continued to stand by Leopold on this story. While everyone continues to pound Leopold with the “discredited” label, Ash has found several independent sources and three network level reporters — several of whom have offered off-the-record confirmation of a Rove indictment.
Ash has since written:

“We know that there were two network news crews outside of the building in Washington, DC that houses the offices of Patton Boggs, the law firm that represents Karl Rove. We know that the 4th floor of that building (where the Patton Boggs offices are located) was locked down all day Friday and into Saturday night. We know that we have not received a request for a retraction from anyone. And we know that White House spokesman Tony Snow now refuses to discuss Karl Rove — at all.”

Ash also speculated:

“Rove may be turning state’s evidence. We suspect that the scope of Fitzgerald’s investigation may have broadened - clearly to Cheney - and according to one ‘off the record source’ to individuals and events not directly related to the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. We believe that the indictment which does exist against Karl Rove is sealed. Finally, we believe that there is currently a great deal of activity in the Plame investigation.”

Finally, this past June, Ash made another follow up to those comments:

“Right now we have only general indicators as to why an announcement might not be made when an indictment has been returned. And even though these indicators do exist, we need to more clearly understand exactly what is happening in this case before we can report on them.”
Posted by: Adrienne at October 12, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #187882

Can somebody please tell me how jack rose’s post does not violate the rules for participation?

Posted by: Keith at October 12, 2006 10:15 PM
Comment #187883

Keith, it does, and I’ve contacted the manager.
Even if I was slightly reluctant to do so! ;^/

Posted by: Adrienne at October 12, 2006 10:21 PM
Comment #187884


Thank you.

However much we might dislike the views and opinions of others on these blogs, that was definitey over the top.

Besides that was not the only article discrediting Mr. Leopold

Posted by: Keith at October 12, 2006 10:24 PM
Comment #187885

Jack Rose

In case you are still lurking around.

You’re absolutely right, Karl Rove is under indictment right now just like leopold wrote in May.

Posted by: Keith at October 12, 2006 10:29 PM
Comment #187888

Defend Leopold all you want, but the man is basically a clown—the article I linked to says that even other journalists consider him a “laughingstock.” It’s hardly just the “right wing” who believes this, or else he might still be writing for reputable publications instead of just trashy tabloid websites.

If you want to praise him simply becomes he spoonfeeds conspiracy theories to the far left, that’s your business, but nobody else is buying the baloney he peddles anymore.

According to the Washington Post article, Leopold himself says that he “engaged in lying, cheating and backstabbing,is a former cocaine addict, served time for grand larceny, repeatedly tried to kill himself and has battled mental illness his whole life.” And that’s just him talking about HIMSELF. If he’s didn’t serve time, for instance, then chalk that down as yet another one of his ridiculous lies.

I might not have been totally precise about who has “fired him”—perhaps I’m just remembering some of the publishers who pulled or refused to run with his stories because they didn’t stand up to scrutiny. I know that his book was pulled when sources Leopold cites reported that they’d never even talked to him.

He was fired from the Los Angeles Times (not the New York Times—my mistake, but hardly a mistake that absoves him). He was fired by the Los Angeles Times for threatening to “wrip a reporter’s head off.” He may not have actually been fired by Dow Jones Newspapers, but he quit when he found out he was going to fired.

“Seems I got all the facts wrong” Leopold admitted about that affair.

It’s one thing for a disgraced journalist who is clearly mentally-unbalanced and in need of help to continue to maintain a story like “Rove has been indicted,” but it’s merely sad for others to do so. Leopold did not just claim that it had happened, as I recall, but that it was about to be announced. So was Karl Rove indicted? Not in this world.

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 12, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #187895

I thought the fact that Haliburton was selling oil technology and parts to Sadam right up until the invasion, in violation of U.S. law, was common knowledge. At the same time, they were doing the same with Iran also in violation of U.S. law. Three years ago when this first came out, I assumed that Haliburton would have enough sense to stop their illegal activities. I guess that when you own the people who are supposed to be prosecuting you it is business as usual. The part about Haliburton selling nuclear technology to Iran is new news to me but it wouldn’t suprise me in the least if it were true. Can’t let nothing stand in the way of profit.

As to the issue of the post, Iran with nukes, I think that if Iran detonates a nuclear weapon, we will immediately attack them with nuclear weapons. If Iran had 5 or 6 nukes, they could turn the Iraqi, Saudi and Quate oilfields into radioactive mush. Anyone for U235 octane.

Posted by: jlw at October 12, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #187896

Who came in first Aesop

Posted by: Keith at October 12, 2006 11:34 PM
Comment #187897

I’m used to sparring with the Democrats over here, but until now even the most heated disagreements have never gotten to a certain point because regular posters know and tend to observe the rules of this site. I’m fairly sure that it’s at least a minor violation of the site’s policy—something we’re all familiar with— to call other posters “douche bags,” “a**holes,” f***wads,” and sacks of s***”,” not to mention hoping that they die of cancer and/or get beheaded in Iraq.

What I’m wondering is (and maybe some of you regular Democrats can help me out with this), is the first you’ve seen of jack rose?

If I’m wrong about this, I’ll be very happy to backpedal, but I find it very interesting that somebody I haven’t encountered before in this forum and who is clearly unfamiliar with its rules but VERY familiar with the minute details of the life of Jason Leopold suddenly shows up, becomes VERY angry and abusive, and posts nine times about nothing except the many sterling qualities, minor obscure awards, and heartbreaking beauty of the prose of Jason Leopold.

Here is what I’m thinking. Ah, Technorati! He’s done it before. So whaddya think? Am I off-base to suspect?

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 12, 2006 11:43 PM
Comment #187906

“Jack,” I call the president out for all kinds of stuff. I don’t approve of the conduct of the war in Iraq, I don’t like his immigration or education policies. There’s more…

But none of that explains why somebody who is not a regular poster here and who flaunts the rule of “critiquing the messenger” with such total abandon (clearly demonstrating no familiarity with the site’s rules) suddenly appears out of thin air at the mention of the disgraced journalist Jason Leopold and goes ape in his defense.

The same Jason Leopold who is also known to be a foul-mouthed comment-field sock puppeteer, one who trolls around the net bitterly attacking those who question the credibility of someone widely regarded—even by the left—as a disgraced and disreputable journalist. Who defends such a persons so violently? Who, except..?

Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 13, 2006 1:30 AM
Comment #187910

jack rose,

You are completely out of line and this is coming from me. I’ve gone off on people, some of whom are on this thread, but your statements are so far overboard I’m surprised I’m lowering myself to discuss them. I don’t know if the charges you’ve leveled against neo-con are accurate, but the wild and ridiculous way in which you stated them lead me to write you off as a kool-aid drinking partisan hack unworthy of serious consideration.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 13, 2006 2:27 AM
Comment #187918

Pilsner doesn’t deserve that abuse. I may not agree with much of what he has to say, but at least he doesn’t throw a tantrum or make personal attacks to get his (or her, sorry…) point across.

Pilsner: Your accusation of sockpuppetry may be valid. This statement alone is enough to fuel suspicion:

“I read his book News Junkie. It’s the best book I have read in years. I cried.”

If nothing else, I suspect a shill.

Posted by: Jacob in SC at October 13, 2006 6:15 AM
Comment #187953

Andre Your buddy Jason Leopold Was Fired By the New York times no less for Fabricated News stories that were baseless and basically Lies.If your lies are too much for even the N.Y.T. Son then you are the king of Liars.

Posted by: PETRO at October 13, 2006 12:00 PM
Comment #188011

Would one of you Bush Administration apologists please explain to me the following? Assuming Mr. Leopold was right only half the time. That would be beyond dreadful as a reporter, but let’s for the moment assume that is the case. Wouldn’t the correct response to this story be: “if there’s even a shred of truth to this, it should be investigated”. Isn’t that what a prudent person would say? Isn’t that what someone who is concerned about the security of this country and the American people say? To simply dismiss it is to say you have 100% faith in the integrity of Haliburton. If you have 100% faith in their integrity, would you be willing to entrust them with all your money? With your house and all your possessions? With your child’s life? Your pension funds? Your freedoms as an American? Your liberty? After the Enron and Worldcon scandals, anyone who would have such devout faith in ANY company, let alone Halliburton, is a moron and their views should not be taken seriously.

For the record, I don’t think that the apologists among us are morons. I think they are paid or unpaid members of an extremist group who’s sole mission is to disrupt these blogs, regardless of how ludicrous their arguments are.

Posted by: Stan at October 13, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #188086


One of the complaints I’ve seen quite a lot on this blog is that we label people too much. Such is the case with you basically calling everyone who supports Bush an apologist. I have many problems with Bush’s policies, but I simply fail to believe that the Democrats will do any better. Does having a different opinion than you make me an apologist? If so, there’s no sense arguing as you won’t consider what I have to say.

Despite that, I’ll give your argument a go. Perhaps you’ve heard the story of the boy who cried wolf. This Leopold guy, from what I’ve read of him, is a partisan hit man who feels no remorse in making up stories strictly to cause damage to the Republicans. He’s made so many wild allegations that I wouldn’t take him seriously no matter what he said. A prudent person takes VALID accusations seriously, but if I take Leopold seriously, I think I should be more interested in finding out the truth about the Martians in Area 51.

As far as trusting a corporation with my life, I would not. On the other hand, I don’t trust the government with this either. At least with corporations, you have profit motive so you can predict what they’ll do. Also, they are accountable to the law. The government, as the maker of law, is to be far more distrusted.

Finally, since you believe all apologists are getting paid, could you let me know if you find out where to cash in? I haven’t got a thin dime for any post I’ve put up.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 14, 2006 9:03 AM
Comment #188187


I don’t consider anyone who disagrees with me an apologist. There are a great many conservatives for whom I have great respect. Likewise, there are liberals whom I find reprehensible. The people I have a problem with are those who will support Bush & Co no matter how ludicrous their position may be.

There should be a congressional investigation of war profiteering. There should be one whether there is a Republican or a Democrat in the White House. It just makes sense. It protects us, the taxpayers from fraudulent use of our money. Yet the Republicans in Congress vote down such a measure when it is proposed. I believe (pure speculation on my part) that many Republicans in Congress fear that such an investigation would raise issues which could be potentially embarrassing to the current administration (possibly even criminal). A reasonable person would say that congress should perform its oversight responsibility (or certainly should not find fault in their doing so). An apologist will look at the potential political repurcussions and will argue an unreasonable point come hell or high water.

Here’s my question to you: Putting aside the track record of Leopold and ignoring his story entirely, why would you NOT want a bi-partisan investigation of potential war profiteering and fraudulent misuse of hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money?

I may be a liberal, but I have spent most of my adult life in the corporate environment. I have been in finance and accounting in a high level management position. The companies I have worked for (Fortune 500 companies), have always had an internal audit department. Despite that, they were all subject to independent audits.

The fact is, the potential for abuse exists. There have been allegations of abuse (by people other than Leopold). And the amounts of money we’re talking about would certainly be an enticement for abuse. Why should there NOT be Congressional oversight? Even if one were to argue that it is redundant, still, why not do it?

Posted by: Stan at October 14, 2006 4:58 PM
Comment #188274


Thanks for the clarification. I do agree that we should have a bi-partisan and independent commission overseeing the government, especially in issues of war-profiteering etc. I think where we disagree is with Leopold. Like I said earlier, I find him completely untrustworthy and don’t feel that we shojld waste our time on him. If some other, more reputable journalist should make the same discovery based on verifiable facts, then by all means an investigation should go forward. The potential for abuse exists and we need to be vigilant, but citing Leopold as a source is equivilent in my mind to letting the weasel guard the henhouse.

Posted by: 1LT B at October 15, 2006 8:31 AM
Comment #188300

Another clear example of a hate monger getting the “emotional high” of smearing the opposition. Pumping this dishonest crap about Cheney wanting Iran to have nukes as a Haliburtan conspiracy. God what utterly dishonest intellectual crap being put forward as fact by Andre.

I guess if the hate and smear sounds good it must be true, ehh Andre? Now why is it that the radical left cannot take political power based on their agend and feel forced to put forward such hate and disinformation?

The cry of the left is: “Who are we to say Iran can’t have nukes” “How dare we dictate who cannot have nukes” “Better to let Iran get nukes while we talk to them rather than use force”.

Lets get real here. The democratic party is not a party that is willing to use force to stop proliferation. The days of John Kennedy are long gone, he wouldn’t recognize the democratic party that paid blackmail money to N. Korea and sat silently by while they continued to build the bomb.

Posted by: Stephen at October 15, 2006 1:28 PM
Post a comment