ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Battle for Iowa: the NPR debate

Posted: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 9:21 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under:

Writing up yesterday’s NPR/Iowa Public Radio debate, the Los Angeles Times notes that the Democratic candidates teamed up "to blast the Bush administration over its policy toward Iran, arguing that a new intelligence assessment proves that the administration has needlessly ratcheted up military rhetoric." More: "The Democrats used the issue to criticize each other as well as President Bush. Yet their own prescriptions for dealing with Iran are similar -- and fairly close to the administration's approach of increasing diplomatic and economic pressure to force Tehran to suspend enriching uranium that can be used for making nuclear weapons."

The Washington Post also leads with Iran in its debate story.

But the New York Times’ lead is on immigration. "If there is one issue that has challenged presidential candidates of both parties in Iowa this year, it is immigration, and the Democratic contenders were confronted with it again Tuesday, in a provocative way. Should American citizens, they were asked, turn in someone they know to be an illegal immigrant? In the end, the answer from most of the candidates was no. But the question, posed in various forms during a two-hour debate … had the candidates struggling anew with a topic looming large both in the Iowa caucuses next month and in the general election."

The Boston Globe: “[W]ithout the theater of a televised debate, the candidates were unusually civil yesterday, peppering their responses with such rejoinders as ‘I agree with Barack’ or ‘as Chris said,’ in reference to Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut. Repeatedly, the rivals declared their respect for one another by name - and except for the issue of the Iran vote, largely agreed on the limited agenda NPR offered for discussion.”

Salon's Shapiro gives kudos to Dodd and Biden. "When Tuesday's debate turned to foreign policy, the two veteran senators schooled Clinton and Obama."

Newsweek's Wolffe notes that just as Clinton was going on the offensive, yesterday’s debate and the Iran NIE news put Clinton on the defensive.

Also in Iowa yesterday, Obama talked up electability again yesterday, adding that he didn't believe she could win a mandate even if she won the presidency. “‘I believe that I can much more effectively attract new voters, and Republicans that have been disillusioned with the other side, and independents who are trying to find a political home, and potentially create a working majority for change,’ Obama told Des Moines Register editors and reporters.”

“‘Now what we know is that that will not happen with Senator Clinton. That's guaranteed,’ he added.”

The New York Times fact-checks Clinton's claims that Obama's health-care plan won't cover everyone. "But while Mrs. Clinton is right that Mr. Obama’s plan would leave out millions, she is being misleading in implying that her own plan covers everyone. Mandates rarely achieve 100 percent compliance. In addition, they are almost impossible to enforce. Because of those difficulties, Mrs. Clinton’s own plan would probably leave out millions."

The Wall Street Journal also delves into whose health insurance plan would actually cover everyone. The article comes to no definitive conclusions, but notes, “None of the candidates want to talk about the fact that even if their plans worked out exactly as designed, none would cover all 47 million uninsured people in the U.S. That's because several million of the uninsured -- estimates put it at about seven million -- are illegal immigrants, and none of the front-runners include them in their programs.”

And in the battle for New Hampshire… Clinton's campaign in the Granite State is alleging "dirty tricks" by Obama's team, so reports the Union Leader's John DiStaso. "Her national campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, charged on Monday night in an e-mail to Iowa and New Hampshire supporters that the campaign has been told by other Clinton supporters ‘Obama staffers are berating Hillary supporters on the phone with negative attacks against her.’ The e-mail subject was: ‘The dirty tricks are starting.’”

“Obama spokesman Bill Burton, in his own e-mail to Obama supporters, called Doyle's allegations a ‘flat-out falsehood’ and ‘the latest attack in a silly season where our opponents have promised to stop at nothing in an effort to tarnish Barack Obama's character.’”

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

This is a huge story. Our credibility as a nation has just been shattered. (As if it hasn't been damaged enough.) President Bush's assertion that he didn't know exactly what was in the report is astonishing. So, that tells me he is either woefully incompetent or lying. Even conservative commentator Pat Bucanan isn't buying Bush's argument. I find it sad that our great nation is taking such a bruising. I hope we can repair our image for the sake of the American people. Lord knows it is going to take a lot of work and reflection.
Does it make no impact to those supporting the front-runners that they are continuously schooled on foreign policy by better qualified candidates?
How do you reconcile yourselves?

Would the media do well by pointing out that this is why we are in thismess in the first place?
People are missing the point.....
This is the National Intelligence Estimate....
Not the bible......
unless people were in Iran, in the room with these folks, you are doing just that, estimating.....

Just another report to jump on President Bush....
I wonder if Hillary read it this time...
Why isn't NBC and First Read reporting the blockbuster disclosure about Hillary paying for Monica Lewinsky's abortion?  Clinton's campaign and possibly her senate career are over.
Why isn't NBC and First Read reporting the blockbuster disclosure about Hillary paying for Monica Lewinsky's abortion?  Clinton's campaign and possibly her senate career are over.
"Aggressive diplomacy" sure sounds an awful lot like just another form of Bush's "Cowboy diplomacy".  

Why was Clinton the ONLY democrat running for President to support it?  I really wish the media would start posting the portion of the Kyl-Lieberman text that is up for question:

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

  (3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

  (4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;



Pay special attention to points 3 and 4.  "Combat, contain, and roll back" is 3 sure sounds language designed to tie Iraq's troop levels to Iran's perceived involvement.

And point 4 expands it to support NOT JUST economic sanctions and diplomacy, as Clinton continually claims, but also MILITARY INSTRUMENTS.

Is that REALLY the kind of language you want to use with a President that is beating the Iran war drums?  Didn't she learn from Iraq?  She even used the SAME argument: In Iraq, she claims to have voted for better inspections and more diplomacy.  We see how that worked out.  The bill clearly supports military actions against the Iranian government.  It's plain as day when you read it for yourself.
As far as I am concern, USA does not have any credibility left over as long as you have George Bush, Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton running the show.

The three trios are good at lieing and they do it with ease. Here is the question Hillary Clinton blind followers must ask themselves, does she lie by voting for the Iran's resolution.
jerry.....if Bush would get it right one of these times, we wouldn't jump on him.
Never mind Hillary reading it.....did Georgie-Boy?
By the way jerry, how are things going these days for yo' boy "Gigolo Rudy 'G'?"
Not so good, huh?
On immigration:

  Mr. Obama said in the last big TV debate that he was for giving non citizens of the UAS driver's liscenses.

   Yesterday in the debate he said he thought that undocumented poeple in the USA should NOT BE ALLOWED TO WORK.

   If I understand Mr. Obama's position on immigratuion, he is saying that they should not be allowed to work but they should be ahle to drive???

  So what should Illegals or undocumented people in this country do...drive to the shopping mall, go to the drive throughs t fastt food places, or take road trips in the USA?

  Somehow Mr. Obama's position on immigration
YOU CAN NOT WORK LEGALLY BOT YOU CAN DRIVE LEGALLY
seems  to contradict itself.
At the debates yesterday ...CHINA

When asked what he would do about the Chinese currency issue, Mr. Obama argued that he would..here we go again....PERSONALLY meet with the Chinese leadership and ask them to change their policy.

   What will he do if after asking publically for such a change, the Chinese turn around and refuse?
 
   In high level diplomacy one must know the answer to the question before asking it publically.

   If there is going to be negotiations and movement on the Chinese currency issue, the groundwork has to be prepared BEFORE Obama jumps on a plane to Bejing.

  The best lawyers say that they know it is not wise to ask a question in court until you are pretty sure you know the answer ahead of time and have done the background work.

  It sounds lovely and compeling to hear Obama say that he'd meet and talk with our "enemies" UNCONDITIONALLY during his first year as president.
Diplomacy is not new even at the presidential level..Mid east peace talks ,etc.

   So I'm not sure I understand Mr. Obama's position
on meeting and talking.  Is he suggesting that if HE talks with them they will suddenly change their positions in favor of the USA stand? Is Mr. Obama suggesting that talking with other countries has never been done before?


   



  Does Mr. Obama think that if HE talks with them they will suddenly change their position?  
GW and other top people in the administration were briefed about the closing of the Iranian nuclear weapons program in August and September, but continued to warn us for months how much danger we were in this nonexistent effort.  This is deliberately feeding misinformation to the American public in order to wind the country up for war.  How can we continue to believe ANYTHING that is said by these people who cleary have ZERO ethics and integrity?
Sam (Sent Wednesday, December 05, 2007 11:09 AM)

Sam,

You can talk to leaders of other nations without asking publically. In fact, that's the way it usually happens. And you can't get them to change their policies without talking to them.
The clinton logic,, A Washington self serving Paper Hanger""! In the next coming month's the whole show of lies and deception will be in the open. It is not about the lunatic whitch running for President ""it about getting the Pervert bill Clinton in the back door of the White House!!!

America has more common sense to let this happen. Just why would America want to slide backwards with out solving present issues.

Billary  ""STFU"""
please note the comment that c& o had to be schooled by biden and dodd on foreign affairs, the main area for presidential responsibility! you'all are focusing on domestic affairs, as are CEO in this election; that's the role of congress for passage. the president yoyu vote for should be adept at foreign affairs, his primary respnsibility. the domestic policy these three vulcures are sniping at each other over, ie. immigration,health care,et al are going to be negociated in congress and committee and reflect a composite of demo values if we win the trifecta [house senate, & pres.] in 08'. foreign affairs has only one qualified candidate that votecd on and got the correct answer since the invasion of iraq; joe biden. sue he voted for the war but the public and everybody else was misled by corrupted intelligence by bush. getting past that, he got iraq right with the only solution that's passed, iran right, pakistan right which the rest of them missed, and voted for funding the ied safe vehicles in spite of the fact he knew it would cost him at the polls! he has principles, not bpolitics first. as for obama's claim to opposition he's stated that he wasn't sure if he'd been in congress and saw intel what he wpould have done and he toned down for demo convention, that's not leading by conviction. hill got fooled on iraq like everybody else but didn't learn squat from it and voted for iran resolution,that's not too bright folks. support the straight shooter and foreign affairs pro the rest of the candidates have with the chorue of "joe's right, vote biden.stop biding your time for one of these top tier to step up in foreign affairs and lead, stop biding, vote joe biden.    
Obama owes everyone who thinks like Sam an apology. Of course peaceful diplomacy won't work! What was he thinking? We should just use the Bush-Cowboy strategy of using our troops come in, shoot 'em up, and 'save the day', but in reality we'll 'accomplish' nothing, and lose American lives in the process. Now THAT'S a real REAL strategy!

P.S. Just in case Sam(whom I suspect has drawn all of his political knowledge from 'Politics for Dummies') did not get it, I was using SARCASM.
Citizen J,
   How is this new?  Is Obama suggesting that the past presidents have NOT talked with other leaders
and that diplomacy has not been tried.

  Every administration has talked with other countries.  It is not a new idea.

   So i"m not sure I understand Mr. Obama's point when he repeatedly says he would talk with other countries and their leaders. Talking with other countries started with the beginning of the USA.  It is not a new approach.

Is he saying that if HE, Barack Obama, personally asked them to change their position, they will?  Is he suggesting that the other Presidental candidates will NOT talk with other contries?

   I'm sorry but I honestly don't get his point.  And quite frankly it does sound naive and inexperienced.

 

   

JJ Jax, I'm not going to attack you personally or your intelligence or knowledge.

But again, I do not understand Mr. Obama's point.
"peaceful diplomacy" is NOT new...even to this administration...although I agree with you that it does look like cowboy diplomacy with George Bush's swagger.

In past administrations meeting and talking with other countries is standard procedure.  Diplomacy,
Every administration does it.

My question is...what is Mr. Obama's point when he continually says that HE will personally conditionally meet with other countries to ask them to change their minds, etc.

Is Mr.Obama suggesting that this is something new?
Is he suggesting that the other presidental candidates will not use diplomacy or talk with other contries?
Is Mr. Obama suggesting that if HE talks witrh them they will suddenly change?

Citizen J,
  How is this new?  Is Obama suggesting that the past presidents have NOT talked with other leaders
and that diplomacy has not been tried.

 Every administration has talked with other countries.  It is not a new idea.

  So i"m not sure I understand Mr. Obama's point when he repeatedly says he would talk with other countries and their leaders. Talking with other countries started with the beginning of the USA.  It is not a new approach.

Is he saying that if HE, Barack Obama, personally asked them to change their position, they will?  Is he suggesting that the other Presidental candidates will NOT talk with other contries?

  I'm sorry but I honestly don't get his point.  And quite frankly it does sound naive and inexperienced.

Sam (Sent Wednesday, December 05, 2007 12:01 PM)

He never said no other president has talked to foreign leaders. But our most recent president does NOT like to. He continued to let China import tainted goods. He refused to talk to North Korea, Iran, etc.

Obama is saying he will change this. He thinks talking one-on-one with leaders we have problems with is a better approach than not talking and sending out vague threats.

Has he ever said these talks will always be successful? I missed it if he did. It's not about HIM doing it, its about doing it period. Bush doesn't. He will.

He hasn't suggested that other candidates wouldn't do this. Clinton herself called him naive for suggesting this approach. That was her saying that, not him.
jerry the town dunce of corpus christi wrote this...
People are missing the point.....
This is the National Intelligence Estimate....
Not the bible......

For once jerry you are right. This is not the bible. The NIE is a factual document from 16 intelligence gathering agencies.

Where you are wrong is that the information was taken from sources inside Iran.

Poor jerry your GOP war mongers can't run on Iran anymore.
CLINTON SLEAZE WILL INVIGORATE GOP AND DISPIRIT DEMOCRATS
.
It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate.  However, even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where assaulting, torturing and murdering people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a \"crime does pay\" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKKlan or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKKlan and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for “gang stalking” to see the tip of the dirtberg.  Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gang+stalking%22.
.
Iran is secretly building a bomb, I don't care what that piece of paper says.
Desparate: Who says its factual? Its opinion and thats all. I say your an idiot...I say its factual..and you say no.
For once jerry you are right. This is not the bible. The NIE is a factual document from 16 intelligence gathering agencies.


So desperate....
If you go to a garage to have your car fixed....
They tell you the estimate is $600....
But wait, when you get the bill it's $900.....
You said it was $600 you scream....
no, I gave you an estimate......
found a few more things...........

It is an ESTIMATE.......
Unless someone can prove they were in the room with the people in Ira, it is just am estimate.....
To in the middle apparently the town dunce from an adjacent town to corpus christi in TX who wrote this...
Desparate: Who says its factual? Its opinion and thats all. I say your an idiot...I say its factual..and you say no.

As if your opinion matters. See, you religious GOP morons have a little problem here. Facts are not a matter of faith. The agencies which determine whether or not there is a threat in our country from a nuclear Iran have declared that Iran quit their nuclear weapons program.

You can say whatever garbage you like. You can shout your opinions from the rooftop. But the FACTS that I am using to show how much of an idiot you are cannot be refuted.

Use whatever kind of spin you'd like. You want to call it opinion that's fine.

Here's your news story then...
It's in the opinion of 16 expert intelligence gathering agencies of the United States of America (with zero refutation) that Iran no longer has a nuclear weapons programs. Oh and in other news two morons from Texas disagree for some reason.

SPANKED!!!
To pat from ny who wrote this...
Iran is secretly building a bomb, I don't care what that piece of paper says.

You have no basis for your opinion. You are not an expert in intelligence gathering. You are a propagandized wingnut.

Was Saddam 'secretly' building a bomb?

To all you wingnuts out there the problem with this report is that it is proof that you are all crazy. That's right factual evidence that you're nuts. We aren't going to war with Iran. We can't go to war with Iran (less they shut off the oil to our country). You are idiots.

Your opinions don't matter. The rest of us have a report which says that Iran has shut down their weapons program, this is not from some random wingnut in the blogoshpere. This is the truth as determined unanimously through 16 of our intelligence gathering agencies using information gathered from inside Iran.

It's over you lose. Facts are facts. But I think....nope sorry we know the truth and you all lose. It doesn't matter what you think.
Let's just play a little game.
List of those who believe based on evidence that Iran does not have a nuclear program

oCentral Intelligence Agency (CIA)
oSecretary of Defense, through the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA)
oAir Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance Agency (AF ISR or AIA)
oArmy Military Intelligence
oDefense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
oMarine Corps Intelligence Activity
oNational Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA)
oNational Reconnaissance Office (NRO)
oNational Security Agency (NSA)
oOffice of Naval Intelligence (ONI)
oOffice of Intelligence
oCoast Guard Intelligence
oOffice of Intelligence and Analysis
oFederal Bureau of Investigation Directorate of Intelligence (FBI DI)
oDrug Enforcement Administration Office of National Security Intelligence (DEA)
oBureau of Intelligence and Research (INR)
oOffice of Intelligence and Analysis
And of course Desperate

List of those who think Iran does have a nuclear weapons program:
jerry from corpus christi
INTHEMIDDLE from Texas
and Pat from huntington ny

This is hysterically funny. My entire office is cracking up.
Desparate: You just proved that your a stupid idiot. Read what you posted :"It's in the opinion of 16 expert intelligence " OPINION you moron. This is what I said, everyone has one. BTW asshole, I served my country 24 yrs so that fools such as yourself can come on a blog and make a complete ass out of himself without fear of your GD HEAD GETTING CUT OFF...what a frieken &*&^^*( you are.
anyone who thinks iran is not secretly building a nuke please your hand.  now, keep those hands up.  anyone isn't an idiot put down your hand.  just what i suspected, you all still have your hands up.
Once again here we go...

Opinion of our 16 Expert American intelligence gathering communities.  Iran no nukes.

It's the OPINION of our Intelligence community. Your opinion is meaningless to me and other sane Americans since you have no credibility on the issue. When was the last time you went to Iran to check on their weapons program? Oh that's right, never. You're just a tool with a Fox News addiction.

Again to IntheMiddle who needs to calm down a bit. I restated my claim to suit your needs from fact to opinion.

However, there are facts in the world sky=blue, grass=grean, Iran=no weapons program. The only way you could say that Iran does have a weapons program is to provide evidence...I'm waiting...oh yea if there was evidence we'd here about it from the 16 agencies responsible for intelligence gathering in the United States (not from some nut in TX).

BY THE WAY. I'm not afraid of anyone or anything, least of all you or some imaginary terrorist. I'm a strong American and I handle my affairs just fine. You really think a terrorist is going to come over and cut your or my head off. GET OVER YOURSELF. YOU ARE NOT THAT IMPORTANT. YOU'RE JUST SOME IGNORANT WINGNUT FROM TEXAS.

Have a nice day. I appreciate your service, but it doesn't absolve you from being held to account by reason and logic. Simply because you've served doesn't mean you can create odd opinions for no reason and that those opinions are equal to that of the world's largest intelligence gathering community.
and I guess I served my country so pompous people could call others "fools", "stupid idiots" and "assholes" when they disagree with someone over the significance of a National Intelligence Estimate.
IntheMiddle in TX you didn't read my post...I said...

Use whatever kind of spin you'd like. You want to call it opinion that's fine.

Here's your news story then...
It's in the opinion of 16 expert intelligence gathering agencies of the United States of America (with zero refutation) that Iran no longer has a nuclear weapons programs. Oh and in other news two morons from Texas disagree for some reason.

I ALREADY SAID IF YOU MORONS WANT TO TRY TO DIMINISH THE FACT THAT IRAN HAS NO NUKES BY CALLING IT OPINION THAT'S FINE. BUT IT'S THE OPINION OF EVERY SINGLE INTELLIGENCE GATHERING AGENCY IN AMERICA. YOUR OPINION NEXT TO THEIR OPINION IS MEANINGLESS. BECAUSE THEIR OPINION IS BASED ON EVIDENCE AND YOUR OPINION IS BASED ON BEING BATSHIT INSANE.

Oh I left out

SPANKED!!!
to pat who wrote this...
anyone who thinks iran is not secretly building a nuke please your hand.  now, keep those hands up.  anyone isn't an idiot put down your hand.  just what i suspected, you all still have your hands up.

Does this count on any planet as a logical discussion? No, you refuse to discuss or debate, because your stance is not based on anything logical or on any opinion other than your own. Sorry there were no WMD. There is no Iranian weapons program. You were wrong admit it.

You at least now have to admit that your looney opinion is your own. The entire intelligence community is against you. Who again gave you the impression that Iran had nukes...oh wait nobody. You're a nut, a quack, your opinion flies from your butt, yet the rest of us live in this strange place called reality. Come join us some time if you ever grow a brain.
Desperate: When,actually,have any of your agencies ''went to Iran''and checked the facts to match the ''opinions''? Indeed,Robert Kagan,senior fellow at CARNEGIE writing in todays Washington Post,[proponant of the ''muscular diplomacy''angle],admits that the IAEA was never allowed,not in 2003 or in 2007,a fully ''invasive'' inspection program that would have allowed el-Baradeis teams to scour the several nuclear plants and facilities located in Iran.
 As it now stands,INTHEMIDDLE and Jerry are joined by the governments of France,Israel,Germany and Great Britain in evidencing skepticism with the NIEs findings. Or,why would those who treated with scorn the monumental blunders of the NIE with regards to Iraq WMD now hold the newest NIE up as pure gospel? In the lack of an aggressive inspection regimen,I am left with doubt and uncertainty regarding the planning of Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. Tragically,the NIEs authors,mindful of the Iraq weapons debacle,may have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction whether or not politically motivated,in order to reach conclusions that remain just as faulty. Hence the wariness of the Euros and the Jews,[whose security apparatus,MOSSAD,is superior to that of the American CIA],and the unsure quality of how best to act next with regards to future intransigence on the portion of Ahmedinjezad.
Thank you Kato, service has nothing to do with it. InTheMiddle, leave the Military out of your batshit ideas. They have nothing to do with it.
There will be more than one person(mostly Democrats) who will be mentally ill and despondent if she gets the nomination.  she will guarantee a republican victory.  They are salivating at the chance to run against her.  They don't know how to run against Obama.  He intimidates the republicans.  The republicans want us to believe they feel most threatened by clinton. I hope the democrats don't fall for that.  Hillary is a guaranteed defeat for the democrats.  When races were close in 06, Obama was the one democrats called upon to get votes.  Hillary was kept out of public view.  Nothing has changed; she's a serious drag on the democrats.  If she gets the nomination, she will not only loose, but there will be a significant chance for the republicans to regain both houses.  If Obama gets the nomination, Democrats have a very good chance of garnering veto proof majorities.  With Clinton it's a total loss; with Obama, at least we democrats keep congress.
Woo-hoo. Now this is a heated debate.
Desparate: You continue to prove how ignorant you truly are. You think because you call people all of these idiotic names that makes your opinion more credible than anyone else's. All you have is opinion, When have you took your ass to Iran? Then basically your going on someone else's opinion. How do you personally know that their opinion in this highly divided political atmosphere in America is based upon facts? You don't know. You had your mind made up before this even came out, like many others just looking for something else to bash Bush on. If it would have came out the other way, you would be saying they are lying agents of Bush. Man get a life and a job. We used to take little whimps like you , chew you up and she-i-t you out back in my unit. We would definately have to make a man out of you.
To lee holmes who wrote this...
Or,why would those who treated with scorn the monumental blunders of the NIE with regards to Iraq WMD now hold the newest NIE up as pure gospel?

So I meet the first wingnut on the entire board with any sense. Thank you for citing Kagan, but I'll continue to take the NIE report and our intelligence community at it's word.

Furthermore, your comment about the Iraq NIE is laughable. The Iraq NIE was cherry picked and edited numerous times by the administration (do some research chucko). Thusly, what was used from the NIE was based off of one source (curveball) and also off of a senior master's thesis (not joking). The administration fixed the intelligence.

The intelligence community didn't want to be made Bush's patsy again so they leaked this NIE before Bush gins up enough wingnut rage to bomb Iran. We have to thank our intelligence community for saving us from you crazy ass republicans and your moron in chief.
It was nice to hear that Mike Gravel was there.  It was not nice to hear his anti-Israel comments.  As much as I don't think that Gravel will make it, he is still an active candidate and should be included on debates.  I won't vote for him, but people should at least be able to hear what he has to say during the debate.  He is good for a laugh.  

As for Iran, I believe that there needs to be more communication from Iran regarding their nuclear programs.  How far did their weapons programs get?  Could it be quickly reinstated?  These are questions I don't hear people asking.  Given the hate filled speech that many representatives of the Iranian government make, it should concern everyone how much contact that A.Q. Khan's network has with anyone of Iran; even family.  Was that mentioned at all?
Lee Holmes, Robert Kagan is one of the neocons who beat the war drums for Iraq and continues to call for war with Iran.  He is a warmonger even if you capitalize CARNEGIE.  He and those like them blew their credibility in Iraq, why should we believe them now?  No one is trying to minimize the danger of a nuclear Iraq, but war is not the answer.  That's especially true in that they have been seeking dialogue with us since before the Afghan invasion and there is great international consensus that they do not have a currently active nuclear weapons program.  Perhaps the Bushies would like to wait until Iran detonates a bomb before opening diplomatic channels as they did with North Korea.
"You just proved that your a stupid idiot. Read what you posted :"It's in the opinion of 16 expert intelligence " OPINION you moron. This is what I said, everyone has one. BTW asshole, I served my country 24 yrs so that fools such as yourself can come on a blog and make a complete ass out of himself without fear of your GD HEAD GETTING CUT OFF...what a frieken &*&^^*( you are."  Typical conservative reaction when the facts don't meat their manufactured reality.
To InTheMiddle from TX
My opinion is based off of what the 16 intelligence agencies including military intelligence gathering operations have concluded. If your such a military man why don't you shut up and listen to your superiors. They say no nukes.

Ooooh are you gonna make a man out of me. Let me tell you about the merits of man, sir. Being behaviorally reconditioned to submit to authority does not make a man out of you. Like I said previously I'm not afraid of you. Pop off all you want buddy. I'll be fine right here mentally bludgening you with my hammer of reason. As for the get a life and get a job part, graduate degree, girlfriend, and consulting job. Woops, guess you messed up that part.

A real man has the ability to discuss issues without turning into a 5 year old. Aren't you so tough? Did dad not hug you enough? The girls never liked you much, huh? What's the problem with you douchebag, that you can't just agree on something that everyone else agrees on?

Or again like I said, maybe you should shut up and fall in line Soldier. The Army, Navy, and Marine intelligence communities all agree with me.
To in the middle from TX, BTW I could go on destroying you all day...you wrote this...
'All you have is opinion, When have you took your ass to Iran? Then basically your going on someone else's opinion.'

Right, the opinion I'm going off of is that of the United States intelligence communities, including the 16 agenices I posted earlier, along with your beloved military intelligence. You lose buddy. Where did you get your opinion from? Waiting...Waiting...oh yea that's right, delusional.
Desperate: I however,will not. Do do so,would be the action of a, shall we say,''wingnut''. The administration,''fixed''nothing. You forget that ''Cueball'',was the man who,like the Prague ''connection'',a creature not of the administration but of Tenets CIA. Tenet served up his ''slam dunk''to the administration for which,to the extant hour and through investigations and papers including the ISG Report,The 9/11 Commission,the Joint Senate Select Committee On Pre-War Intelligence, yet two more NIEs,showed not a scintilla of evidence that the administration ''fixed''anything.[while the Downing St. Memos were based upon heresay eminating from a British clerk]. You got the goods,then by all means present them. That should do for a Pulitzer at least. Otherwise,you descend to the region of mere agent provacateur.

John B: Kagans former position[like Bill Clintons with the war],matters not.[or,it actually matters more,since he was a member of the Iraq neo-con network who yet now prizes diplomacy over war with Iran]. Kagan  accurately observes that not once since 2003[and not even then],has the IAEA ever performed an ''invasive'',thorough inspection of Irans nuclear research facilities. This must be the cornerstone of any diplomatic forays by either a Bush or a Biden. The inspectors must be allowed[as has been hammered upon by the Iraq antiwar crowd],to do their jobs and either vindicate,or scrap,the newest NIE.
CLINTON SLEAZE WILL INVIGORATE GOP, DISPIRIT DEMOCRATS AND SINK DEMOCRATIC TICKET
.
It is possible that Senator Clinton is the best candidate.  However, even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record, just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where assaulting, torturing and murdering people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and to protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a \"crime does pay\" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who signed nonaggression deals with the KKKlan or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKKlan and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for “gang stalking” to see the tip of the dirtberg.  Please do it before you decide to reply to my post. Here let me make it easy for you: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22gang+stalking%22.
.
To lee holmes, you cite nothing so I assume I don't have to either, but just because I'm a nice guy and I like to light up all you wingnuts out there.
Here you go...
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/06/08/blair.weapons/index.html
There's a link to information which shows that Colin Powell's ridiculous presentation to the UN was a fabrication and in fact plagiarism.

There's a scintilla for you. Oh and if you need more, you could always open your eyes to the political hitjob and outing of a CIA agent which served as a means for omitting the ACCURATE INTELLIGENCE which Joe Wilson was trying to deliver.

This is too easy.
Silence, That's a good Soldier.
Desperate: Not too easy. You forget that Powell was acting from CIA intelligence. NOT that of the administration[which in turn bought Tenets intel]. Powell acted in the UN upon Tenets ''slam dunk''indicated in the 2002 NIE and did not use Downing St. as the end-all,be-all of his then present beliefs which were presented at the General Assembly. Thus we come full circle to the original thesis. Why would those who ended up damning Tenet,the CIA and the 2002 NIE[as well as casting doubts on even the 2005 Iran NIE],now hold this one up as pure gospel?[Thankfully,as of this writing,none of the nations heretofore mentioned is buying. As we speak, Israel is passing on its Iran nuclear intel to the WH and Merkel of Germany,meeting yesterday with Frances Sarkozy,is demanding from Iran a fully invasive inspection regimen as was urged by this poster two days before their own announcment].


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=496892

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google