Ahmadinejad: 'Yep, I'm Nuclear!'See? That's funny because it reminds you of the easily-disproven GOP canard that Obama is a Muslim!
The only man causing President Obama more headaches than Joe Biden these days is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who, coincidentally, was right after Biden on Obama's short-list for V.P.).
Despite Obama's personal magnetism, the Iranian president persists in moving like gangbusters to build nuclear weapons, leading to Ahmadinejad's announcement last week that Iran is now a "nuclear state."Interesting how somebody with no personal magnetism at all seems jealous of somebody who is remarkably charismatic (despite having ears the make him look like a taxi backing down the road with its doors open). Let's be honest. Conservatives listen to her because she fits their divisive profile, and because she makes sarcastic jokes. Oh, and because they think she's pretty, despite her Adam's Apple and ridiculous man-hands.
Fascinating how our anti-gay contingent is attracted to somebody who could easily be a pre-operative transsexual.
Gee, that's weird -- because I remember being told in December 2007 that all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies had concluded that Iran had ceased nuclear weapons development as of 2003.OK, so let's see how she works around the fact that this was during the Bush administration. I'll just bet she has some clever way of tying it to liberals. What do you think?
At the time of that leak, many of us recalled that the U.S. has the worst intelligence-gathering operations in the world. The Czechs, the French, the Italians -- even the Iraqis (who were trained by the Soviets) -- all have better intelligence.Now, our girl Annie has this on-again-off-again relationship with the CIA. She loves them part of the time, and then comes up with some lame 9/11 crack and hates them again.
Burkina Faso has better intelligence -- and their director of intelligence is a witch doctor.Get it? Burkina Faso is in Africa, so they have witch doctors! Funny stuff! And not racist as all!
The marketing division of Wal-Mart has more reliable intel than the U.S. government does.OK, she's got a point there. But then again, the US government doesn't often really care about the price of knock-off dress shirts produced in Pacific island sweatshops.
After Watergate, the off-the-charts left-wing Congress gleefully set about dismantling this nation's intelligence operations on the theory that Watergate never would have happened if only there had been no CIA.See? I told you she could do it.
Ron Dellums, a typical Democrat of the time, who -- amazingly -- was a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, famously declared in 1975: "We should totally dismantle every intelligence agency in this country piece by piece, brick by brick, nail by nail."Yup. Took them completely apart. And it's amazing how, in 2005, the tattered remnants of the CIA alone still consumed a budget of $44 billion. Imagine how much money they'd eat up if they hadn't been dismantled!
And so they did.
So now, our "spies" are prohibited from spying. The only job of a CIA officer these days is to read foreign newspapers and leak classified information to The New York Times. It's like a secret society of newspaper readers. The reason no one at the CIA saw 9/11 coming was that there wasn't anything about it in the Islamabad Post.Huh. Look at that. August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing, entitled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US." You're right, Annie. They had no clue. Of course they didn't.
(On the plus side, at least we haven't had another break-in at the Watergate.)But, to be honest, the Watergate Complex is a relatively low-crime area, unless you count all the politicians in the neighborhood.
CIA agents can't spy because that might require them to break laws in foreign countries.Wow. You're serious? So the 23 agents who can never go back to Italy, or any country with an extradition treaty with Italy, were acting on their own when they kidnapped a man off the streets of Milan? Do you ever listen to this crap you spew? Iran/Contra? Downing a missionary plane thinking it was carrying a drug shipment? For that matter, smuggling their own drugs?
They are perfectly willing to break U.S. laws to leak to The New York Times, but not in order to acquire valuable intelligence.Aw, Annie. Be honest. That isn't the only reason, is it? Do you really believe that? Why do you hate America?
So it was curious that after months of warnings from the Bush administration in 2007 that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program, a National Intelligence Estimate on Iran was leaked, concluding that Iran had ceased its nuclear weapons program years earlier.OK, Annie. While I realize that you are a habitual liar, it's vaguely possible that you don't have any idea about how thist stuff works. I mean, you could easily learn about it with only a few minutes of research, but I understand that a lot of your time is spent sacrificing chickens to the altar of Ronald Reagan. Let me help you out.
Iran is now a "nuclear state," in that they have functioning nuclear reactors. The thing is, nuclear reactors can use low-enriched uranium as fuel. In order to create nuclear weapons, the Iranians would have to produce a much more highly enriched fuel.
Under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a signatory state has the right to enrich uranium to be used as fuel for nuclear power. They just have to allow inspection by the IAEA. Iran is allowing that inspection.
But I guess these little details are a little too technical for you, huh?
Republicans outside of the administration went ballistic over the suspicious timing and content of the Iran-Is-Peachy report.Although, to be honest, the basic GOP strategy now is to go ballistic over everything, up to and including stubbing their toe on the curb.
Even The New York Times, of all places, ran a column by two outside experts on Iran's nuclear programs that ridiculed the NIE's conclusion.Yeah, about that - Annie, I know that you, along with most of the GOP, have been saying that the mainstream media is liberal. But just because no self-respecting newspaper carries your column any more, that really doesn't make them "liberal." It just means that they want to carry columns that tell the truth, say, one time in ten.
Gary Milhollin of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control and Valerie Lincy of Iranwatch.org cited Iran's operation of 3,000 gas centrifuges at its plant at Natanz, as well as a heavy-water reactor being built at Arak, neither of which had any peaceful energy purpose. (If only there were something plentiful in Iran that could be used for energy!)Now, Gary Milhollin used to publish Iraqwatch, which was dedicated to "tracking weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." How'd that work out for him?
And you know what Gary is doing now? He's publishing IranWatch (an "online clearinghouse for articles about Iran"). So you're quoting him, and Valerie Lincy, the editor of IranWatch. Are you noticing a pattern here?
You're quoting the same pubication twice. As if it's two separate groups. You see where that might be a problem?
Oh, sorry. I forgot that you're a lying blond troll.
Weirdly, our intelligence agencies missed those nuclear operations. They were too busy reading an article in the Tehran Tattler, "Iran Now Loves Israel."Ooh! Zing! Funny stuff. Now, I'll admit that somebody should monitor Iran's use of nuclear materials. There could be some concern there. But you know what? Somebody is. And it will relieve you to know that the "somebody" who's monitoring them is the United Nations. Which is made up of all those other countries with better intel than we have.
Oh, and by the way, I know you're aware, but Iran has offered several times to not just comply with the UN's nuclear inspectors, but they've offered to implement restriction even stricter than what the UN requires.
See, when you take something that might just be a minor concern, and start getting all red-faced and shouty about it, you begin to look like a bit of a cock. (And after all, you're trying to get that bit of a cock removed, aren't you?)
I mean, what, exactly, is your point here? Are you trying to suggest that we should invade Iran? When we can't even afford the two wars that your favorite president got us into?
Now, you'll excuse me if I skip a little bit here, because you just get all red-faced and spittle-covered trying to smear the "liberal media" in your usual hyperbolic way.
Feb. 11, 2010: Ahmadinejad announces that Iran is now a nuclear power.Yeah, he also said that the use of nuclear weapons is contrary to the teachings of Islam. Now, I wonder why you're ignoring that part of his remarks?
You have to pick a side, Annie. Either he's a liar, or you're wrong. And since we know that you'll never admit to being wrong, then you'll probably have to admit that Amadinajad is known to lie most of the time. You know, kind of like you.
Thanks, liberals!Well, Annie, on behalf of liberals everywhere, let me just say, you're welcome. Oh, and fuck you, you anorexic transexual lying skidmark on the underwear of journalism. Feel free to throw yourself under a bus; that's about the only way you could possibly make the world a better place.
Oh, yes. And don't forget to take your meds. You're starting to lose it again.