I don't think Obama anymore. I think that ship sailed with switching Joe out for Kamala. But to answer your question: I wish I knew. Some 25-year old with a "Co-Exist" sticker on her Prius.... Or maybe the military. I would go so far as to question the validity of these pardons and commutations he's been issuing. I don't think Biden is actually signing them.
• As for Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, Mark Lowenthal, Intelligence guru, former CIA analyst, author of the standard textbook in the intelligence field, and Jeopardy! Grand Champion, tells us that,
“Everybody thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. EVERYBODY! The French, the Germans, the Russians. The only debate at the UN was the best way to get rid of them, not does he or doesn’t he have them. So the fact that we wrote this estimate for the President saying we think he has weapons, we are convinced he has weapons of mass destruction didn’t exactly put us in the great minority.
“There was a vibrant speech by the French foreign minister de Villepin saying of course there are weapons of mass destruction, war is not the answer.
So, you know, we all got it wrong. The only difference is the United States went to war, based on…..we did NOT go to war based on the estimate. That is NOT true. Thank God we don’t write estimates that send people to war. That is much more power than I ever wanted in my life. We went to war for a whole bunch of other reasons. The estimate was not the reason, in fact, here’s a data point for you. We wrote this estimate. The Senate received the estimate. Six members of the Senate, SIX! read the estimate. This is an unclassified fact. We made them sign for it. Seventy-seven members of the Senate voted to authorize the use of force. So at least seventy-one of them, if not more, voted to go to war in Iraq having never touched the estimate. So the estimate really had nothing to do with anyone’s decision making. On the other hand the estimate was wrong. We know that. But everybody thought there was WMD.
“You know what the funny thing is, it’s still the best answer to the question. TONIGHT [June 16, 2014] it would be the best answer to the question even though you know it’s wrong. There’s only three answers, he has it, he doesn’t have it, we don’t know. Okay, you get paid a lot of money not to say we don’t know. It’s not an acceptable response. The best answer, analytically, remains the answer yes, he has it, it just happens to be wrong, and that’s one of the conundrums of doing intelligence…”
I could see a ginned up reason to attack Iran as indicated in this article, but can’t see a nuclear strike. And we have been waiting for Iranian leadership to die for 40 years. Obama had his chance to foster a revolution or reform and seemingly didn’t take it.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad didn’t stop talking about the end of the world and how excited he was? The Mahdi, the Twelfth, “Hidden” Imam and all that?
Precisely how, may I ask, could you “know” there were no Iraqi WMDs? Sadaam gassed the Kurds with something. We had no idea, no way of knowing he had put his toys away, especially when he was less than transparent with weapons inspectors
Sorry. Who is goofy bird? I agree that threats of nuclear attacks are wrong but words and deeds are not the same. If Iran admitted to wanting to use nukes they would immediately be attacked. They can’t say it. If Iran, or any other nuclear power, was pushed into a corner I have no doubt they would use nukes. The less countries with this ability, the better.
Why would you say Iran was quieter under the strict Trump sanctions than they were under Biden’s more lenient approach?
I have a hard time buying that Iran was doing more under Trump. Yes they had been taking power in Iraq both before and during Trump, but attacks on shipping and proxy war with Israel was not going on. Biden gave them money to burn.
I'm sorry, but Obama didn't "try." Obama did nothing. And yes, we have been waiting for the Khomenei/Khamenei regime to die off for decades.... Regimes always do what they can to ensure their own survival.... And I cannot take seriously scenarios posited by television shows. An Israeli nuclear first strike on Iran would isolate Tel Aviv to an extent never seen. They would irrefutably be the world's pariahs and that could very well spell the end of that nation. I'm not exactly sure what your argument is, but if it is that the Israelis have the green light to nuke Tehran or that they are about to do it unilaterally, then I simply cannot agree and would argue they would've done it already. I do agree, however, that Trump could "cut a deal" with Iran. But I'm not sure what we could actually achieve. Iran will never allow full inspections, and so there really isn't anything much for us to achieve there. So I'm not sure what such a deal would even look like.
I've never heard anyone advocate "nuking" Iran, other than in the context of the nightmare scenario of a nuclear exchange.... The question was about the use of conventional weapons on Iran's nuclear program. And indeed, there is currently speculation in some quarters that such a conventional strike is a tacit part of the deal between Trump's negotiator Witkoff and the Netanyahu administration. I've never heard anyone in a position of any responsibility advocate for a nuclear first strike on Iran.... That would be madness, without irrefutable evidence that Iran was about to do the same. And we've all learned the hard way how speculative such "irrefutable evidence" can be....
We hope not, but these news stories aren't pulled out of thin air. Between Iran news and the Biden pardon story in politico, there must be something brewing on those fronts.
I don't think Obama anymore. I think that ship sailed with switching Joe out for Kamala. But to answer your question: I wish I knew. Some 25-year old with a "Co-Exist" sticker on her Prius.... Or maybe the military. I would go so far as to question the validity of these pardons and commutations he's been issuing. I don't think Biden is actually signing them.
• On the second Iraq War: back during the Clinton Administration, even before Operation Desert Fox, a limited but still major military engagement…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_bombing_of_Iraq
…it was made official US policy to seek regime change in Iraq:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
• As for Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction, Mark Lowenthal, Intelligence guru, former CIA analyst, author of the standard textbook in the intelligence field, and Jeopardy! Grand Champion, tells us that,
“Everybody thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. EVERYBODY! The French, the Germans, the Russians. The only debate at the UN was the best way to get rid of them, not does he or doesn’t he have them. So the fact that we wrote this estimate for the President saying we think he has weapons, we are convinced he has weapons of mass destruction didn’t exactly put us in the great minority.
“There was a vibrant speech by the French foreign minister de Villepin saying of course there are weapons of mass destruction, war is not the answer.
So, you know, we all got it wrong. The only difference is the United States went to war, based on…..we did NOT go to war based on the estimate. That is NOT true. Thank God we don’t write estimates that send people to war. That is much more power than I ever wanted in my life. We went to war for a whole bunch of other reasons. The estimate was not the reason, in fact, here’s a data point for you. We wrote this estimate. The Senate received the estimate. Six members of the Senate, SIX! read the estimate. This is an unclassified fact. We made them sign for it. Seventy-seven members of the Senate voted to authorize the use of force. So at least seventy-one of them, if not more, voted to go to war in Iraq having never touched the estimate. So the estimate really had nothing to do with anyone’s decision making. On the other hand the estimate was wrong. We know that. But everybody thought there was WMD.
“You know what the funny thing is, it’s still the best answer to the question. TONIGHT [June 16, 2014] it would be the best answer to the question even though you know it’s wrong. There’s only three answers, he has it, he doesn’t have it, we don’t know. Okay, you get paid a lot of money not to say we don’t know. It’s not an acceptable response. The best answer, analytically, remains the answer yes, he has it, it just happens to be wrong, and that’s one of the conundrums of doing intelligence…”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4MapLTtI2-A
(1:22:17 - 1:24:15)
I could see a ginned up reason to attack Iran as indicated in this article, but can’t see a nuclear strike. And we have been waiting for Iranian leadership to die for 40 years. Obama had his chance to foster a revolution or reform and seemingly didn’t take it.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad didn’t stop talking about the end of the world and how excited he was? The Mahdi, the Twelfth, “Hidden” Imam and all that?
Precisely how, may I ask, could you “know” there were no Iraqi WMDs? Sadaam gassed the Kurds with something. We had no idea, no way of knowing he had put his toys away, especially when he was less than transparent with weapons inspectors
Okay let’s go with your version. “Bombing dozens of Iranian villages” still leaves Saddam using weapons of mass destruction
Who is pulling Biden's strings? Has to be Obama's people but he loves Iran so what's the story?
?
Do you think they would give nuclear material for a dirty bomb or an actual bomb to one of its proxies such as Hamas or Hezbollah?
Sorry. Who is goofy bird? I agree that threats of nuclear attacks are wrong but words and deeds are not the same. If Iran admitted to wanting to use nukes they would immediately be attacked. They can’t say it. If Iran, or any other nuclear power, was pushed into a corner I have no doubt they would use nukes. The less countries with this ability, the better.
Why would you say Iran was quieter under the strict Trump sanctions than they were under Biden’s more lenient approach?
I have a hard time buying that Iran was doing more under Trump. Yes they had been taking power in Iraq both before and during Trump, but attacks on shipping and proxy war with Israel was not going on. Biden gave them money to burn.
I'm sorry, but Obama didn't "try." Obama did nothing. And yes, we have been waiting for the Khomenei/Khamenei regime to die off for decades.... Regimes always do what they can to ensure their own survival.... And I cannot take seriously scenarios posited by television shows. An Israeli nuclear first strike on Iran would isolate Tel Aviv to an extent never seen. They would irrefutably be the world's pariahs and that could very well spell the end of that nation. I'm not exactly sure what your argument is, but if it is that the Israelis have the green light to nuke Tehran or that they are about to do it unilaterally, then I simply cannot agree and would argue they would've done it already. I do agree, however, that Trump could "cut a deal" with Iran. But I'm not sure what we could actually achieve. Iran will never allow full inspections, and so there really isn't anything much for us to achieve there. So I'm not sure what such a deal would even look like.
I've never heard anyone advocate "nuking" Iran, other than in the context of the nightmare scenario of a nuclear exchange.... The question was about the use of conventional weapons on Iran's nuclear program. And indeed, there is currently speculation in some quarters that such a conventional strike is a tacit part of the deal between Trump's negotiator Witkoff and the Netanyahu administration. I've never heard anyone in a position of any responsibility advocate for a nuclear first strike on Iran.... That would be madness, without irrefutable evidence that Iran was about to do the same. And we've all learned the hard way how speculative such "irrefutable evidence" can be....
We hope not, but these news stories aren't pulled out of thin air. Between Iran news and the Biden pardon story in politico, there must be something brewing on those fronts.