|
cult is a subjective word meaning, to the particular person using it, "a religion I don't like." When someone refers to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a "cult," that simply tells us that the speaker doesn't like the Church. Christianity itself was once a new religion with dynamic leadership, strong in-group bonding, high moral expectations, and additional scriptures, all of which greatly offended the mainline religions of its day. Its leaders were not professionally trained clergy, but they did attempt to convert the world to a truth no one else had. By most of the objective definitions that have been proposed for the term cult, early Christianity was one. And so far any general definition of a cult that would fit the Latter-day Saints will also fit New Testament Christianity. But that's not bad company to be in. Stephen Robinson |
|
Mormons are proud of the considerable elements of doctrine that they share with so called Orthodox Christianity. They are also proud of the differences.
When you call the Mormon Church a cult you are implying it is similar to the Branch Davidians or the Kool Aid Drinkers in Central America. That is an insult. That is why Mormons react to being called a cult.
However, if you refer to Mormons as Unorthodox Christians that highlights the differences and the common ground. Some Evangelicals refer to the Catholic Church as a cult. In return the Pope claims that most Evangelicals are not "Orthodox" enough to be "Real Christians" for lack of a better term.
I would suggest that we are all Christians who disagree on key doctrines. Some are more "Orthodox" than others. For the most part we do share values and try to make the world a better place. |
|
|
Ray, whatever others may say, keep on posting. More power to you! Religious bigots need a voice, too, and you're an eloquent one. Wouldn't it be awful if the whole country -- to say nothing of the entire WORLD -- were to become one big disgusting mass of mutual civility and respect? |
|
Thanks for a very apt post. A Baptist who doesn't believe LDS doctrine is not an anti-Mormon Ray/Jane. Anti-Mormons are people who actively fight the church using false or misleading literature to dissuade people from looking at LDS doctrine from an unbiased and neutral perspective. Ray's posts have become bizzare and almost irrational. I for one do not consider myself perfect and I know no active practising Latter Day Saint who feels they are perfect either. There was only one perfect person - our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
I think PDX Dave sums up the thinking of many evangelical Christians - they don't share Romney's faith or theology but like the conservative moral positions he takes because LDS values mirror their own. It would be nice to see the debate on Romney focus on his politics rather than his faith. Attacks on a person's faith truly do reflect badly on the attacker. |
|
All mormons are perfect, didn't you get the memo from Joe Smith? You need to read his novel, great battle scenes, and the sex, oh my!
Sorry Fejj, your holiness, please treat me fair on your planet. When you bring the great floods on your planet, grant me to be on high ground. |
|
"Being a Southern Baptist, I can say that I firmly believe that Mormonism is wrong, and a cult."
For this statement alone, the mormons consider you anti-mormon. This is an attack. Is there anything in the Southern Baptist sect, that is kept secret from the world?
If Mitt Romney becomes president, he will need all secret service to be temple cleared mormons in order to go to the temple. No gentiles are permitted in the temple after it has been sealed.
|
|
Citizen's for Life gave Romney a 100% rating as governor and others have stated their support for his life record as governor and his candidacy, including the very founder of the pro-life movement (can't remember his name right now, but he endorsed Romney last week.)
Re-read my post Jane - I stated Thompson's record was pro-life in the senate. You can look at Thompson's record when he ran for the senate, he was indeed pro-choice. He also previously lobbyied for the abortion lobby.
|
|
To someone, every religion is a ludicrous cult.
Being a Southern Baptist, I can say that I firmly believe that Mormonism is wrong, and a cult.
However, I would no more use a man's religion as a litmus test in an election than I would use his race.
What I WILL use as a litmus test is HOW HIS RELIGION is likely to make him behave, and how it will influence policies that I am concerned about.
In that respect, Mitt Romney is solidly in my "yes" column as far as whether I would support him in a general election.
Attacks on a man's religious belief reflect poorly on the attacker, and effect the attacked NOT IN THE LEAST. |
|
Because Jane you and Ray reveal your selves to be nothing more than anti-Mormon hacks. You purport to be "quite educated about that religion" and yet admit to reading the literature written by the enemies of the church. http://www.fairlds.org has rebutted each and every book, movie and pamphlet written against the church and revealed the various distortions and outright lies told. Why don't you have a look and then let us know which rebuttals are wrong.
Meanwhile all your cheap shots have no effect - on either the church's growth or on Romney's campaign as even evangelical voters say we aren't electing a Pastor-in-Chief choosing to support Romney's candidacy but having no desire to be a part of the LDS faith. |
|
Ray, maybe you could convert and get your own planet! And become perfect.:>)
I have read some threads over at FreeRepublic and man do they ever have knock down drag-out fights over mormonism over there!
I am becomeing quite educated about that religion. It ain't pretty. |
|
What does it matter who Ray supports?
What does it mean if he supports Hunter or Huckabee? It don't prove squat.
PC, Romney does not have a pro-life record. Ask the Catholic Hospitals about that one!
And what pro-choice legistation did Thompson ever vote for?
NONE. You are lying. Lying for Romney, not the Lord this time. |
|
Your holiness,
You are absolutely correct, because you are pure and holy. I am just a lowly sinner. It must be nice being holy pure and perfect like Mitt Romney. I have wondered what it must be like to not be a sinner. I am sorry I offended a great non sinning man like you who will have his own planet to be god over. Please have mercy on me when you become god. Please put in a good word for me next time you visit with god in the big white building. By the way, do you have a name for your planet yet?
Signed ray, a lowly sinner |
|
on more issues than abortion on things such as campaign finance reform and Bush's tax cuts, but overall he has no more than any other candidate. I'm not expection perfection with any of them because it's not possible. Even Reagan had some flip-flops of his own.
Joe, Thompson does not have a consistent pro-life record. He was pro-choice favoring abortion through the frist trimester. His statements as a candidate for senate were troubling to pro-life leaders at the time. His senate record was perfect, however. He is also a Johnny-come-lately to wanting to overturn Roe.
Romney was actually less pro-choice than Fred when he ran as personally opposed to abortion, but pro-choice. He also has a perfect pro-life record in office. Mass. Citizen's for Life gave him a 100% rating as governor.
You can review the records of all the top tier and find trouble, but we need to get past that and get to the business of choosing the one who will best advance conservative ideals and lead the country in consequestial times. |
|
Ray
As I thought: an anti-Mitt troll. You post not to promote a candidate but to twist Romney's religion and in so doing, you just make a fool of yourself. |
|
|
|
Typical Flip Flop Mittbot talking points. The Mittbots get talking points emailed hour on the hour. I'll be surprised if I ever hear anything
Your highness fejj,
What does it matter, you are a superior chosen man. You will be the god of your own planet, with thousands of plural spirit wives. What do you care about a condemed man like me for? Why waste your time with dirty impure rabble? After all, the unchosen can not come into the Temple where god dwells with the one true people of deseret. Since you are all knowing and pure, then you already know that god has chosen only one of the one true people to rule America. |
|
What is it to you how Romney is spending his money? You wouldn't support him anyway.
Why would supporters of any another candidate care whether Romney has the wrong strategy? The only help you would give is to help him off the political cliff.
Romney is running to get himself in the White House--not your candidate. His strategy is a sound one for his situation. Why are Romney's opponents are worried about his strategy not working, yet Romney remains unconcerned? It looks like they are a little anxious. Are you?
The only concern the Romney campaign needs to have about the strategy is that his supporters don't get naive and think that the nay-sayers are just good neighbors handing out friendly pointers. |
|
And/but/so,
I don't mind if you call me 'the most dense person on the internet.'
If you feel it is to your advantage, you may call me all the names you want.
But if you "knew" that Hugh talks about Mitt's 'early primary state' strategy on the radio all the time, then why did your initial post;
------------
"Oh, and before you say, "Polls are meaningless!" you MItt-heads, I'd point out that when they are favorable to your guy (Iowa state) you guys crow about them."
------------
....leave the impression that you weren't exactly aware of Mitt's 'early primary state' strategy !? |
|
...what, exactly?
"Romney is spending that money in the early primary states---he's not spending it 'nationally.'"
Well that was money well-spent. He's outspending his opponents by factors of tens and he's ahead by 2-6 points in Iowa according to Rasmussen. Cool! Maybe they just don't know who he is.
By the way, Huckabee has far less cash spent and is creeping up on Mitt in the national polls. Rasmussen has Huckabee actually ahead of Mitt who is spending money like mad. How do you explain that? |
|
You may be the single most concrete, dense person on the Internets.
"Hugh talks about it all the time on his radio show."
*sarcasm alert for the mentally challenged*
Really? I hadn't noticed. Do you mean to suggest Hugh is supporting Mitt?
*end sarcasm alert* |
|
"The flip-flop argument is getting old."
If you say so....
"Abortion is the only major change Romney's had"
Hmmm, guess you haven't been paying too much attention. |
|
And/but/so wrote;
------------------
"Mitt is going to have to win more than NH and Iowa to get the nomination. And more than Michigan and Utah, too."
------------------
Uh, no sh*t, Sherlock And/but/so.
And Romney intends to.
I specifically wrote this;
------------------
"Romney is banking on early success in the aforementioned states mushrooming into momentum in the other states, since he knows that many 'undecided' primary voters often back the candidate perceived to have the momentum."
-------------------
Hugh talks about it all the time on his radio show.
As you point out, it may be true that there will be a shorter window between the early primaries and 'the other states,' but it is still the best strategy for Mitt. |
|
Jacob the Syrian Hamster,
I should ask, are YOU kidding ?
Romney is spending that money in the early primary states---he's not spending it 'nationally.'
Again, here's what I wrote;
-----------------
"His strategy is NOT to campaign 'nationally,' rather, it is to singularly focus all of his attention on the important early voting states; Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
And in those states where he has 'introduced himself' to primary voters, he is well-received."
----------------- |
|
Mitt's brilliant stratedgy had escaped me, probably because I'd never heard Hugh talk about it. Not even once.
Mitt is going to have to win more than NH and Iowa to get the nomination. And more than Michigan and Utah, too. I case you have not heard, the primaries are all out of whack this year. So there will be little chance for the Mittster to capitalize on his victories in Iowa and NH....
My favorite part of the Union Leader article is this:
"As he [Romney] left a brief meeting with reporters, he said that, "as President I will do everything in my power," to keep Iowa and New Hampshire at the front of the election season calendar."
I wonder if he'll be telling the folks in Michigan and Florida that? Hmmmmm.....
How do you spell pander? R-O-M-N-E-Y! |
|
The flip-flop argument is getting old. The popularity of that phrase began with John Kerry's position on the war, right? The $87 billion? At least with Kerry it actually applied. Abortion is the only major change Romney's had, and in the right direction, and he has explained & acknowledged it.
And yeah, look at the history of the accuracy of national polls at this point before presidential elections - for the past several election cycles the nominee has been pretty low in national polls at this point. I think it will be quite interesting to see what happens in January, no matter what the outcome is. I will vote for the party nominee even if it's Guiliani (who I strongly disagree with on social issues) -- because a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Hillary.
And Ray, grow up. |
|
Ray
I guess this was good news you couldn't wait to comment on huh Ray. Still waiting for the answer to the question - who in the GOP race do you support or are you merely an anti-Mitt troll? |
|
As an unknown candidate, Romney is in the process of...
...in the process of blowing millions and millions of dollars on advertising only to find out that he's still unknown?
You're kidding, right? |
|
|
Mitt has never flip flopped. He is perfect, and has never made a mistake. He also has a perfect family that follows every single law handed down from god's chosen prophet, Joe Smith. He knows everything, because he is tight with a man who talks to god on Sunday's in a big white building in SLC. The big white building in SLC is where god resides. Only they have have access to god, because they follow the perfect, one true prophet of god, Joe Smith. Mitt and his people are the chosen people. The rest of us are lowly gentiles worthy of nothing, that can only be saved if we do what the man in the big white building says. They are perfect, and will become god's with their own planets to rule over with their plural wives. In the mean time, they want to put their chosen one in the WH in order to impose their will on the rest of us. By the way, their book is true, and every one else's is false. They are the one true people. Be nice to god Mitt, because if you aren't, he may make you a slave on his planet, or worse yet, one of his plural wives. |
|
is "eichendorff" the name hugh uses for the comments page? |
|
And/But/So
The only meaningless polls are the national polls. In the state by state polls Romney keeps RISING in the RCP average in IA and NH and his personal numbers in SC and FL are steadily improving. Bill Clinton was polling at 3% and in 7th place 4 months out from the '92 primaries - Cuomo seemed untouchable at 33%.
Jane
All politicians flip flop and the one charge that is made most about Mitt is his admitted change on abortion. As a conservative its great that the movement persuaded a high profile politician to change. Mitt was always personally opposed to abortion so he only changed his view on the role the State should play in abortion policy. For crying out loud Ronald Reagan and HW Bush both made the same change and no one seems to challenge Reagan's conservative credentials.
All the issues you cite are only issues to conservative GOP voters who are but a portion of the GOP. They will not be major issues in the General Election because they are not huge hot button issues for independents. All GOP voters, when faced with the prospect of Clinton's avowed liberalism (backed by her voting record) and her easily proven flip flops on the war in Iraq are not going to punish Romney by staying at home because of the views he espoused on gays, guns and abortion back in 1994. Tell us how often Reagan was hit with his very liberal abortion voting record as Governor of CA during the 1980 GENERAL election. The answer is very little and the effect on his electability - Nil. The same will be true for Romney.
|
|
And/but/so wrote,
--------------------
"Then why he is threating to drop below 10% in the RCP average?...Oh, and before you say, "Polls are meaningless!" you Mitt-heads, I'd point out that when they are favorable to your guy (Iowa state) you guys crow about them."
--------------------
Your argument reveals you aren't following Romney's strategy too closely.
As you know, the nomination will not be determined by a 'national' poll.
It will be decided by performing well in primaries in individual states.
McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson have an advantage over Romney in that they are already a 'known' quantity to the average GOP primary voter.
McCain has already run for Prez, Rudy became internationally known for his leadership in 2001, and Thompson has filled in regularly for Paul Harvey on the radio the past few years.
As an unknown candidate, Romney is in the process of introducing himself to primary voters.
His strategy is NOT to campaign 'nationally,' rather, it is to singularly focus all of his attention on the important early voting states; Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.
And in those states where he has 'introduced himself' to primary voters, he is well-received.
Romney is banking on early success in the aforementioned states mushrooming into momentum in the other states, since he knows that many 'undecided' primary voters often back the candidate perceived to have the momentum.
So, yeah, it may be true that 'nationally,' Romney's support is not as high as a few of the other better-known candidates, but his strategy is to remedy that problem by gaining momentum with early primary victories. |
|
|
Fool! Know ye not the good polls from the bad? As it sayeth in the bible, "Take a seventh part of all polls, these polls being the ones showing Mitt doing something other than languishing in fifth place and post them on your blogs!" |
|
Or does he imagine he's so influential and well-known that by claiming a Romney/Giuliani showdown is inevitable, he'll convince hundreds of thousands of supporters of the other candidates that they're supporting lost causes, and that they should give up and back Mitt?
Either way, his method of trying to convince people that he's right and/or that we should want him to be right leaves a lot to be desired.
When HH first started pounding the pulpit for Mitt on TH, probably 5% of its readers were backing Mitt, 5% were unutterably opposed or committed elsewhere, and 90% were open to being convinced. By his tactics of accusing everyone of anti-Mormonism, having his sidekick ridicule the names and question the sanity of the other candidates and their supporters, constantly pretending that Mitt had won major phantom victory after victory, and repeatedly announcing that the McCain, Thompson, etc. candidacies were dead, Hugh has managed to convert those 90% undecideds/opens into about 70% opposed to Mitt. Congratulations.
What this site needs is a Reagan shaking his head and chuckling, “There you go again,” when Hugh makes these Baghdad Bob statements. “The obviousness of the two-candidate race within the GOP just got even clearer.” Obviousness got even clearer? Why stop there, Hugh, as long as you’re compounding superlatives? How about, “Romney’s nomination is even more 100% certain than it was yesterday”? |
|
Then why he is threating to drop below 10% in the RCP average? He is behind Huck, Fred, John, and Rudy. Soon he will be in Ron Paul territory....
Oh, and before you say, "Polls are meaningless!" you MItt-heads, I'd point out that when they are favorable to your guy (Iowa state) you guys crow about them.
Go ahead. Nominate the Mittster. Hillary will crush him. The Clinton machine will pull all the old footage and positions out, force him to defend or dismiss it, and all the conservative support for the Flipster will evaporate. A vote for Mitt is a vote for Clinton! |
|
But if you think think allowing a gay scout leader to sleep in a pup tent with young boys is O.K., well think again.
|
|
|
For a long time I have , as well as others, been posting that a whole ticket might just give all wings of the Gop some solace. Rudy-Fred, Rudy-Mike, Fred-Mitt, Mitt-Fred, Mitt-Mike, or even Fred-John . We need a winner not a loser. Hunter will make a fine SECDEF or so will McCain. Someone, as I wrote , has to weave some 273 electoral votes together in the general to win. How to do it, should be the GOP's main concern. Not tearing one another apart . As Rush is always saying, elections have consequences. '06 showed that. To listen to some Freepers, to vote for Romney, Fred or Rudy is to be a nannystateer and babykiller. Nice rhetoric. Sounds like more like the Daily Kos. |
|
Romney HAS changed his opinion on gay rights! Your lying about it does not change the facts.
Some facts.
He was for gays serving openly in the military. Flip/flop
He was for gays being able to be boy scout leaders. Flip/flop
Romney on Reagan, "I'm not trying to take us back to Reagan/Bush! I was an Independant during Reagan/Bush! Flip/flop
On guns, he supported stricter gun control laws. Now? He has turned into a lifelong hunter!
He is a life-long member of the NRA. Since last year. |
|
Romney has not changed his position on gay rights. He has always supported fair treatment for gays, but has always opposed same-sex marriage. You are wrong on that one.
I don't really have any idea what you mean by denouncing Reagan-Bush. Romney has always said he favors legal immigration, but opposes illegal immigration. I see no shift on guns.
I don't accept your version of reality.
|
|
is frankly, HUGE.
Easily the most respected Republican in NH, this is a giant blow to Rudy, Thompson and McCain. If Mitt maintains his enormous lead in Iowa, wins it, and has Gregg stumping hard for him in NH - it's his.
South Carolina will be the big cliff-hanger. Can folks there get over their aversion to his religion, in favor of his better stance on social issue than Rudy?
Time will tell, but Mitt will definitely have the "Big Mo" heading to SC. |
|
Romney has changed his mind in whole or part on 1) abortion, 2) guns and gun control, 3) immigration reform, 4) gay rights and equality, and 5) denouncing Reagan-Bush.
Rudy has also shifted to the right on many of social issues, but has not outright changed his position (only promissing to appoint "strict conversvative judges and presumably being more federalist).
jtb, I like Duncan Hunter too. Don't taze me bro for saying this, but Hunter is not going to get it done. Of course, John McCain is the most consistently pro life of the candidates, followed by Fred Thomspon.
John, Fred, Rudy and Mitt are hands down substantively and substantially better than Hillary. If you go issue by issue and the practical effect if they are elected, the would probably be more conservative (certainly on spending) than George W. Bush.
|
|
Rudy and Mitt are my favorites. My criteria is "Who could I feel good about (being serious on defense) and, especially, who has a good chance to beat Hillary.
I like Fred's values but his style doesn't seem to hit the right note for this upcoming political battle.(No, I don't think its laziness; I just think he's too laid back to really get his message out with a press that is so pro-Hillary.)Rudy I think has a great seasoned, combative style which Romney needs to learn. Romney is a masterful manager and I like him but I worry he will look too over-rehearsed and slick that people won't trust him enough. Rudy's active flirtation with social liberalism could handicap him. However, I will be open to either. They are far, far, far superior to anything on the Democrat side if you just compare them on experience and successful results in management and governance. Not even close. |
|
Your logic will result in one thing: a vote for nothing. Duncan Hunter, for all his good points, will not be President, nor will he be the Republican nominee.
It is insane for you to say that Rudy is indistinguishable from a Democrat. That statement is so ridiculous as to call your intelligence into question.
Romney changed his position on one issue: abortion. He changed it in the right direction. Whether his change was sincere or not is something you cannot judge, unless of course you have the ability to read Romney's mind. Since you don't, then give him the benefit of the doubt. There's no reason to believe he is insincere. It also would be political suicide for him to abandon his pro-life position. He's not going to do that.
This idea that not serving in the military disqualifies someone to be president is absurd. Millions upon millions of families are in a similar situation. A person can be a perfectly patriotic American competent to serve as President without having been in the military. I don't think for a moment that Romney or his sons believe it was "beneath them" to serve in the military. They have their reasons for the choices they made. At least Romney is not a military hater like Clinton was.
If you think it would be good for the Republican party, or for the nation, to lose the next election and instead elect Hillary, considering the next president will certainly appoint at least two Supreme Court justices and exert tremendous influence on the direction of the country, then you are out of your mind.
|
|
us exactly whatthe democrats will.
--> Rudy is pro-abortion, pro-amnesty, pro-gun gontrol, pro-socialized meds, and otherwise indistinguishable from a Democrat like Schumer or Clinton...
--> Romney flipflops on moral issues like abortion, depending on which audience he wants to impress--and being in the military was apparently beneath him and his 5 sons.
I would not vote for either one.
Thompson maybe; but right now I'm leaning towards Hunter because he actually has done the things that qualify someone to be a President of the United States...
YMMV; but I'd rather the Republicans lost while offering a clear choice than they won by deceit. We need a Conservative Party. If the Republicans are not up to the challenge, then we'll look elsewhere.
I only have my one vote; but I'm gonna put it where I believe it belongs, regardless of party... |
|
|
|
KGK,
In a very recent poll, 50% of all likely voters said that they would NEVER vote for Hillary. We need a candidate who can match her funding, match her organization, and beat her in the debates. In the past, both Mitt and Rudy have shown they can do this. They have won in places it should have been impossible for a Republican to win, and they have both decisively defeated their Democrat opponents in series of debates. Mitt has 2 distinct advantages though: he has far greater financial resources, and he won't lose nearly as many SoCon votes as Rudy would. Pick your man, because one of them will be the nominee, and the only alternative is Hillary. |
|
|
|
|
Look, I want a winner. If Rudy, fine. If Mitt fine. Does any national, national poll show that any GOPer can beat Her Highness nationally? Can any of the Pubs actually pick up the 273 electoral votes to beat her? That is all that counts. This momentum stuff is old hat. Feb. 5 still will decide. Still, who can win nationally? I hope Rudy, Fred, Mitt can but so far no national poll shows that except for implications that Rudy might! Winning the nomination if wonderful but if it is just to lose, so what? |
|
|
|
will be too late. Giuliani's only chance of stopping Mitt will be Michigan. |
|
|
The new Iowa poll done by the University of Iowa shows that Romney is as 36% and Giuliani and Huckabee are stuck at 13%. Judd Gregg is by far the most popular Republican politician in New Hampshire and is free to campaign hard in the state because he doesn't have to stand for re-election next year. The last 2 polls in the state have Romney leading there by 9 points and 10 points, respectively. The only other guy who can even conceivably win the nomination (Rudy) is now the underdog, because the wins in Iowa and New Hampshire should generate enough momentum to carry Mitt to victory in Michigan, Nevada, and South Carolina, by which time the game's over. Game. Set. Match. |
|
Romney deserves a hat tip for snagging Gregg's endorsement. The question is, in 2008 is it as relevant as past endorsements would have been?
The media has always discounted any candidate within the NH media sphere, of which Mass. is the hub. In fact, if Romney doesn't win NH I think the MSM will portray it as a problem. (Remember Paul Tsongas? He won NH in 1992, but it was Clinton who go the mo from the election for his "comeback.")
That's the advantage of Giuliani's Florida/Feb 2 strategy. Nobody looks at NH in the general, while everyone looks at Florida and can't ignore the sheer volume of delegates from New York and California. Giuliani still is strong in those key states.
I think the media and most of the country is tired of Iowa and NH culling out the field when so many states will have their primaries finished by mid-March. That's why there's been so many primaries moved up.
The one thing I will agree is it does add to the perception of a two-man race - but I think any astute observer saw that for awhile. I can remember in early 1999 everyone knew George Bush was going to get the Republican nomination, no matter how much talk McCain and others received. |
|
roho - what relevance is Gregg's voting record? NH primary voters are choosing between Romney and others NOT Gregg. This endorsement will lead to others and the takeaway for NH voters will be Romney just got endorsed by a big GOP name in the state. This will increase awareness and we know that the more voters look at Romney and HIS policy positions, the more they like him.
I note that the University of Iowa has Romney more than 20% ahead of his nearest rival in IA. |
|
ElBaradei: Military Strike On Iran ‘Would Lead Absolutely To Disaster’
Prior to the Iraq war Mohammed ElBaradei warned there was “no evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities in Iraq.” He was subsequently smeared by the administration, but ultimately vindicated ... for getting it right.
Today on CNN, ElBaradei sounded alarms about the Bush administration’s increasingly hawkish rhetoric in regards to Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions. “We have the time” to use diplomacy, ElBaradei urged. There is “no military solution” with Iran:
I very much have concern about confrontation, building confrontation... because that would lead absolutely to a disaster. I see no military solution. The only durable solution is through negotiations and inspections. … My fear if that we continue to escalate from both sides from both sides that we would end up into a precipice, we would end up into an abyss.
ElBaradei poured water over Vice President Cheney’s confident declaration last week that “Iran is pursuing technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. The world knows this.” While ElBaradei did not rule out Iran having an “intent” to obtain nuclear weapons, he explained that there is no evidence that Iran is currently pursuing such a program right now:
I have not received any information that there is a concrete, active nuclear weapon program going on right now. … We have information that there have been maybe some studies about possible weaponization. ...But have we seen ...nuclear material that can be readily used into a weapon? No. Have we seen an active weaponization program? No. So there is a concern, but there is also time to clarify these concerns.
ElBaradei also urged the U.S. to ...directly engage Iran in talks: “The earlier we go into negotiation, the earlier we follow the North Korean model, the better for everybody.”
|
|
|
Huckabee is just picking up some flaky Thompson fallout. These are fair weather folks who will eventually vote for Romney once reality hits them...that this race will either be Romney or Giuliani. |
|
Well, thank goodness Hugh speaks out in favor of Romney. There ought to be at least one radio guy who does. Most the other hosts have crushes on Guiliani.
Be fair and let us enjoy our one radio supporter. lol
|
|
|
That is what I have been really waiting for! |
|
The all around conservative choice is rising:
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Newsroom.P ressRelease&ID=328
Don't believe it? Just notice how people are stepping up their cheap attacks on his last name, his christianity then and misrepresenting his conservative views and record. Better yet check out for yourself what he really stands for, and why ordinary people are increasingly supporting his campaign.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgIRDuDnj7c |
|
|
As a Romney supporter, I am encouraged by all the recent successes. 8 months ago I felt strongly Romney was the best candidate, but didn't really have a serious chance. Today, if I were a betting man, I'd wager money on Romney winning the nomination. |
|
|
It is clear that when it comes to a choice between the Republic and the Party, Radio RNC will go with the Party. He did it during Miers, and I am beginning to suspect his actions during Kennedy/McCain/Bush were purely tactical, intended to finish McCain's candidacy (and rightly so, but nevertheless...). |
|
|
That of course would be the honorable Senator Gregg of NH that voted yes to the S-2611 "Kennedy/McCain/Bush" amnesty bill last year as well as the Yes vote for S-1639 closure on the next amnesty attempt by Cino'Rino's. |
|
|
|