Cheney Got it Right on Syrian Nukes

As 'usual' , Chenny was right !

Thank you for this draft. It's about time someone spoke up. In the Trumpet, Gerald Flurry writes, the story I saw reported but once on NBC evening news (I believe) about al-Qaida link to WMD in Jordan, most likely funneled through Syria from Iraq (http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=1054.0.63.0). Had this been a real attack, instead of a terrorist attacked stopped prematurely, the landscape of the Middle East, and the power base within might be much different today. Iran nuclear needs to be stopped, and their regime toppled, before America sees nuclear missiles launched from offshore boats used against our major cities. We know the treasonous, Barry Hussein will do nothing to foment their aims.

When is Michelle Bachmann going to let Europe pay for its own defense?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNG_eRx-w0E

At 8:15, she says the following "But also keep in mind, Sean that Barack Obama was able to find, in his first very budget, one area he would be willing to cut, missile defense. He also said to the Poles and also to the Czechs, we will not be building missile defense capability in those two nations. If you take away that first round of missile defense and perhaps weaken or take away a second round of missile defense, there are usually three levels. Then we find the United States very vulnerable for nuclear attack."

Finally, please tell Ms. Bachmann, WE DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY!!

I remember when George W. Bush announced that he was going to mandate the use of 4 billion gallons of ethanol each year in a State of the Union address.

All the Congressional Republicans jumped up applauding like the fawners at Stalin's speeches used to.

What a bunch of Marxists these Republicans have become, no?

off-topic

We can all thank George W. Bush and the Republican Party for the cram down on ethanol mandates.

Inhale deeply my friends and take a look at the link below.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2830772120070301

what's the point that is relevant to this topic?

off-topic

michigander Wrote: 6 hours ago (11:38 AM)

If the evidence was sufficient to act, then we should have acted. If we followed your logic we should allow Iran and North Korea to arm-up with nuclear weapons to threaten us with.
..........
The reason Gen. Hayden had low confidence that the Syrians were developing nukes was because the weren't working on the other two essentials, a reprocessing plant or a nuclear warhead design. Now I suppose they could borrow N. Korea's design but from the low yield, it is assumed that it may have misfired. Which shows just how difficult it is to get the weapon design just right!

Let's talk about insurance and the AIG Republican sponsored teat suck.

"Bush defends Fed's decision to bail out AIG"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/sep/18/wallstreet.georgebush

"The AIG rescue was the fourth taxpayer-funded bailout of the year by the Bush administration, although at odds with Bush's free-market ideology and economic policies. Critics of the recent bailouts have said taxpayers should not foot the bill for investors' bad business decisions."

Republicans say their bailouts are for the good of the country. Who gets to decide what is good for the country? Joseph Stalin started the collective farm system in the USSR in the early 1930's because he said it was for the 'good of the country.'

what's the point that is relevant to this topic?

off-topic

More from page 112 of Alan Greenspan's book 'Age of Turbulence.'

A tidbit about George Herbert Walker Bush's presidency that started in 1989.

"When George Bush won that fall, I hoped the Fed and his administration would get along. Everybody knew that whoever came in after Reagan would face huge economic challenges: not just an eventual downturn in the business cycle, but whopping deficits and the rapidly mounting national debt."

Now why would Greenspan think that, oh yeah, Reagan turned us from the world's largest lender into the world's largest debtor nation in 1986 with his borrow and spend economic plan?

what's the point that is relevant to this topic?

Are we talking about the same dirtbag whom sat in the White House bunker watching the radar screens on 911 and refused to take our trillion dollar air force off of "stand down" until the third plane hit the Pentegon? Need aany more be said?

More from page 112 of Alan Greenspan's book 'Age of Turbulence.'

A tidbit about George Herbert Walker Bush's presidency that started in 1989.

"When George Bush won that fall, I hoped the Fed and his administration would get along. Everybody knew that whoever came in after Reagan would face huge economic challenges: not just an eventual downturn in the business cycle, but whopping deficits and the rapidly mounting national debt."

what's the point that is relevant to this topic?

Boy, it takes very little perception to realize that TH is REALLY a front for AIPAC/PNAC ilk Zionism. A number of columnists substantially ONLY write about issues associated with Israel, directly or indirectly.

People of this persuasion got us into the Iraq War-- though Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11, Saddam was an opponent of BOTH Osama and Iran, and we will never be seen as "liberators" there...it will remain hostile to us as we leave. We will have spent $3 TRILLION all-in on Iraq...that is $400,000 per Israeli!

Gee, I feel better that they are less threatened by Iraq!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html

Woodward? Who is Woodward? Oh yeah, he's the guy who had Nixon sitting behind the wheel of the get-away car with the motor running at the Watergate break-in. I take anything he writes with a humongous grain of salt.

Sorry, but Cheney got the Syrian reactor wrong.
Or more to the point, he based his decision on insufficient evidence at the time. Not insufficient to act, bu insufficient to justify our actions to the rest of the world.
American reputation frankly sucks. We need to pick and choose our actions based on the long term. And if we get too many people hating us along the way, that's just as dangerous as building nukes in the Middle Eastern deserts.

And you know this because ...

Frankly, I don't care if they LIKE us, as long as they FEAR us! No matter how nicely we behave, there will be those who still HATE us! FEAR is the only thing that will keep them at bay.

Unlike Obama, Bush surrounded himself with good people. Cheney is a prime example.

Unlike Obama, Bush surrounded himself with good people. Cheney is a prime example.

I'm guessing everybody knew Israel would be the one to take it out. The important thing is it was not kept secret.

Cliff May says the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapon was wrong. His 'evidence' is a short piece by himself which speculates that the NIE could have been worded differently.

Back on Earth, the NIE stands.

Israel, of course, has at least a hundred nuclear warheads primed and ready to rumble, but the likes of Cliff never think that's a destabilizing factor in the Mideast, any more than is Israel's endess building of settlements in occupied Palestine or its defiance of UNO resolutions or its tweaking America's nose.

How much longer will these aging apologists for the military industrial complex go on trying to stir us up to interfere militarily in other folks' business? We're bust, dammit!

How can Israel,being a peaceful,non-aggressive nation,be considered a "threat"?
they make no threats to "destroy" other nations like Iran,Hezbollah,and HAMAS make frequently.
they fight back when attacked,but make no -unwarranted- attacks on their neighbors.
when they do fight,they act with great restraint and concern for civilian casualties.
They accept ceasefires when it's not in their best interests.

Thus I conclude you are either biased or "weapons-grade stupid".
BTW,there is no "Palestine",occupied or otherwise. Never was any "Palestine".

Destabilizing factorjQuery15203965307608585685_1316765034396? It is probably the ONLY factor that keeps Israel alive today! Where on earth have you been? I've been over there and am currently over in the region right now. Come get some first-hand information before you spout rubbish!!

I never knew that Syria had a nuclear reactor until I read this article. How far am I falling behind the times?

The liberal media will tell you what they think you ought to know, and spike the rest.

No, that was a pretty major story. NPR was all over it.

Bush & Cheney were left to pick up the pieces of Clinton's wuss-in-boots foreign policy. World Trade Center Bombing #1, Oklahoma City, TWA 800, Somalia, the USS Kohl are but a few examples of attacks against our country where Clinton did nothing of substance in response. Clinton's impotence during his tenure gave us 911 and the wars that followed. Iraq? Read Jayna Davis' "The Third Terrorist". I'm all for staying out of foreign wars, but the jihadis declared war on us, in both words and deeds.

I appreciate the sacrifices of our soldiers, but they are volunteers and are paid and trained to fight to defend our country. Those that have died or given their limbs have not done so in vain. To say otherwise is an insult to them, not Bush.

If dickie had not blown his credibility wad all over Iraq, he might have prevailed on Syria. And next time you think he is right go find a veteran missing an arm or leg and tell him that they will find those wmds any day now.

you mean the veterans that overwhelmingly supported (and still support) Bush and Cheney, even after being wounded?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277115/saddam-what-we-now-know-jim-lacey

SADDAM AND WMDS
When American tanks smashed into Baghdad, Saddam had already completed construction of an anthrax production facility, which was a week away from going live. If it had been permitted to go into production, this one facility could have produced ten tons of weaponized anthrax a year.

there's more,but I'm not reposting the entire article.
Iraq was a great strategy,but not ideally implemented.
The dissention by US "progressives" also gave the Iraqi opposition great hope and prolonged the after-invasion problems.

What this despicable columnist worried that Syria would attack the U.S. with nuclear weapons?

Or was he worried they would attack Israel?

Either way, it was the right thing to do.

If the CIA is involved in attempting to make policy, then it needs to be seriously "shaken out", and everyone fired. What kind of garbage is this? If a president can't trust its "intelligence" community, then the left truly wins.
As to Woodward...who can ever trust a man who has built his entire career on lies and rumors? He is a liar- a WELL KNOWN liar.

Yes, I'm sure that if the US had unilaterally bombed a Syrian site based on partial knowledge, there would have been no blowback and we would still maintain wide international support -- much like Israel enjoys.

A joke. Obviously the reactor was a problem. But the solution to this problem is NOT for the US to blow it up. It's that kind of ridiculous thinking that has us in the trouble we face today. Thank you, Dick Cheney, for your monstrously simplistic good/evil worldview -- applied over a generation of stupid and violent policy. It's given us a lovely world.

The "joke" resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but America isn't laughing.

What "wide international support" do we have now under Cmrade Obama?
We haven't had "wide international support" since the end of the USSR.
Much of the world is dictatorships,kleptocracies,and outright tyrannies,so that "support" is nothing to brag about anyways.

The policy towards Syria is the also the best policy towards the Middle East in general: STAY OUT!

The Founding Fathers believed in a policy of "friendly commerce with all nations; entangling alliances with none." They were right.

I agree that Syria is a brutal dictatorship (along with probably half the nations on earth). However, they are also pathetically weak, even if they manage to build a bomb. Their air force is third-rate, their army is under-equipped, and their navy is virtually non-existent. They may (or may not) have missiles capable of hitting Israel, but that is Israel's concern--not ours. Such missiles might also be able to reach Europe, though there is no fathomable reason Syria would want to do so.

If Syria DID attack Europe, they would almost certainly be invaded and occupied by far superior European forces.

The United States are far from this squabble-fest, and will be wise to stay out of it.

Ron Paul's foreign policy of neutrality in foreign affairs is the practical, sensible, and moral choice.

Ron Paul makes sense on so many issues.

Why is he such an unelectable loon?

Cheney was one of the best Vice Presidents in the history of this great country.

Just like President Bush, Cheney was the right man, in the right place, at the right time.

And history will prove exactly that! Thank You!

"and history will prove exactly that!" I sincerely HOPE SO!! That is IF we are permitted to write an unexpurgated History after the current *Jack-Leg* administration is finished with us !!