Richard Perle: two B-2 bombers/32 smart bombs will cripple Iran's nuke program

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2001
9,621
1,634
113
Kansas City area for who knows how long....
2204slim-pickens-dr-strangelove-bomb-ride.jpg



No cakewalk in the park?

By Arnaud de Borchgrave

November 13, 2006


"Ripley's Believe It Or Not" began in 1918 as a comic strip featuring unusual, hard-to-believe facts from around the world. Today it is a Web site for a global community that combs cyberspace for events so strange and unusual it is often hard to believe they are taking place. These days, you don't have to go further afield than Washington, D.C.

The neo-conservatives (neocons) who gave us the "cakewalk" prediction for Iraq before the war are now plugging "a walk in the park" in Iran -- i.e., a U.S. bombing campaign to consign the mullahs' nuclear ambitions to oblivion, or at least to retard the advent of an Iranian bomb for a few years, hoping that in the interim good democrats would rise up and send the clerics and their Revolutionary Guards packing.

Two Washington-based representatives of a global Fortune 100 company told their visiting senior executive this week a bombing campaign of Iran's nuclear facilities "is inevitable while Mr. Bush is in the White House." The incredulous CEO thought his Washington eyes and ears were overstating the case. They assured him they were deadly serious.

Leading neocon Richard Perle, who led the intellectual charge for the ill-fated invasion of Iraq, believes two B-2 bombers, each with 16 independently targeted weapons systems, could punch out Iran's nuclear lights. No Air Force expert we could find agreed. But the Pentagon's Air Force generals believe it can be done -- and successfully -- with a much larger operation, including five nights of bombing, some 400 aim points, 75 requiring deep penetration ordnance. Time magazine estimates 1,500 such aim points, or "viable targets," related to Iran's widely scattered nuclear development complex. The Navy, with its carrier task forces and ship-launched cruise missiles, does not share the same degree of certainty.

No one has worked more assiduously for military action than Michael Ledeen, a neocon field marshal, who writes frequently about the "horrors" of Iran's mullahocracy. His National Review Online commentary Nov. 1 was headlined "Delay." Mr. Ledeen has grown impatient over Mr. Bush's dangerous postponement of what he considers inevitable. "If the president knows Iran is waging war on us," wrote Mr. Ledeen, "he is obliged to respond; the only appropriate question is about the method, not the substance. If he does not know, then he should remove those officials who were obliged to tell him, and get some people who will tell the truth."

The truth has become an increasingly rare commodity in Washington. Mr. Ledeen concludes the president knows the truth, but thinks he may lack the political capital to directly challenge the mullahs. More likely, Mr. Bush's thinking has changed when confronted by the intelligence community's assessment of Iran's retaliatory capabilities. They are described as "formidable." These include mining the Strait of Hormuz, the channel for two-fifths of the world's oil traffic, which would send oil prices skyrocketing to $200 per barrel almost overnight.


Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S., headed his country's intelligence service for 25 years. He warns that an attack against Iran would turn "the whole Persian Gulf into an inferno of exploding fuel tanks and shot-up facilities." Earlier this month, Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards test-fired dozens of missiles, including the long-range Shahab-3 (1,242 miles), Shahab-2 (cluster warhead of 1,400 bomblets), solid-fuel Zalzals, Zolfaghar73, Z-3, and SCUD-Bs, all timed to follow by two days the completion of U.S.-led allied naval maneuvers in the Gulf that Tehran described as "adventurist." Warships from Australia, Britain, France, Italy, Bahrain and the U.S. participated.

Dubbed "Great Prophet," Iran's 10-day war games were designed "to show our deterrent and defensive power to trans-regional enemies, and we hope they will understand the message," said Revolutionary Guard commander Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi.

Iran also has control over Hezbollah whose terrorist arm has already reached all the way to Argentina (in the mid-1990s) and whose sleeper cells, from Saudi Arabia's eastern oil fields where Shi'ites are the majority, to North America, are still feigning sleep.

Russia and China have made clear they will not be part of any tough sanction regime against Iran. They both have strong commercial ties to Iran. Tehran is paying Russia $700 million for 29 air defense missile systems. China signed a 10-year, $100 billion oil deal with Iran.

What the neocons dismiss as the "nervous nellies" of the intelligence community may have slipped in to President Bush's morning brief a subversive quote or two from conservative historian Paul Johnson, e.g., "Statesmen should never plunge into the future ... without first examining what guidance the past could supply?"

Mr. Ledeen, who acts as spokesman for Iran's suppressed democratic forces, says, "The first step is to embrace the unpleasant fact that we are at war with Iran, and it is long past time to respond." The Iraqi debacle, along with the fading image of the U.S. as the world's sole superpower, as well as of Israel as the regional superpower, evidently persuaded President Bush to further disappoint the neocons. The Iraq Study Group's (ISG) James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton wanted neocon idol Donald Rumsfeld replaced as defense secretary before going public with their findings.

The new defense secretary, former CIA Director Robert M. Gates, a close friend of Mr. Baker, and also a member of ISG, has long favored direct talks with "Axis of Evil" charter member Iran. Mr. Baker, Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Gates are now on the same wavelength. They believe bombing Iran would be an unmitigated disaster for U.S. interests the world over. The alternative is to explore a geopolitical deal with a country that has legitimate security interests.

The neocons' ideas for a walk in the Iranian park are still very much alive in Israel, whose very existence has been threatened by the mullahocracy. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will make clear to Mr. Bush today during a White House visit that Israel is not prepared to live with an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.






bomb.gif



arial%20-IRAN%20February.gif




takecover.jpg
 

Spytheweb

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 27, 2005
1,171
14
0
With the Dems controlling the Senate and House

With the Dems controlling the Senate and House

who gives the order? Bush? BTW, any bombings may kill Russians working at the sites. China and Russia have interests in Iran, mostly oil, will they stand by while the US and Israel messes with their economy?
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Bush has the power. He should tell the members of Senate and Congress that need to know. But don't count on the cowboy.
 

Roger Baltrey

Registered User
Forum Member
Sep 13, 2005
2,895
24
38
If that's the case, let's do it now before it's too late. That would be the greatest gift Bush could give the country. Don't be surprised if Israel isn't casing these sites out too. Somebody needs to stop these Shit for Brains from getting a bomb.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
you know,after giving the past elections some serious thought,it just may turn out that dems controlling congress will turn out to be a blessing.....i`m serious....


the unfortunate reality of this era is that the donkeys are much more effective at fighting wars than repubs, because they don't have anklebiters of the opposite party and the media to deal with......i don't recall the republicans in congress or the media throwing a hissyfit over yugoslavia, do you?.......

as wrong as this all is, if you want to elect leaders with a free hand to fight a war or take action against terrorism,, you have to elect democrats, because they won't be opposed at every step.....

the only problem is, you can't trust them to make the right choices(see nsa spying,data mining,missile defense,geneva convention protection for terrorists et al).....

i actually heard a non-p.c. joke on air america t.v.( the saturday night live news desk segment).......it went like this:

. ""Christian and Muslim Britains joined forces yesterday to tell city officials to stop taking the Christianity out of Christmas, warning them that this simply fuels a backlash against Muslims....

ALSO FUELING A BACKLASH AGAINST MUSLIMS...""TERRORISM""..........rimshot

followed by nervous p.c. laughter of course...pretty shocking stuff coming from those moonbats...

that`s a start...but where`s the.."sorry, we ran out of virgins!" skit or the terrorist human bomb school instructor saying "now pay attention cause i'm only going to show you this once!" skit?.....

lol

so now,after telling us that bush is hitler, that bush is a bigger terrorist than osama , that o.b.l.is the only terrorist in the world (besides bush) and if we devoted our time and energy to catching him and giving him a fair (by o.j. simpson/aclu standards) trial we would end terrorism forever, that there was no such thing as terrorism it was just a scare-tactic to keep bush&co in power....yada yada....

now that the left is back in power, voila!......., islamic terrorism is a real problem......

i see the silver lining... :mj06:





.
 
Last edited:

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
72
Boston
I guess the resident Neocon Weasel never heard the phrase "Wag the Dog" everytime Clinton, with his Republican Congress, tried to start a war. Not that I side with Clinton but these Neocon liars should be exposed.
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
I love how you kind of slip in the NSA spying stuff and data mining stuff as a kind of factual thing, Weasel, and blame democrats at every turn for somehow being against those things. Maybe I'm missing something...entirely possible.

I would allow that some democrats are probably very much against these things on principle. I would not, however, say the majority of them are - especially the way you just make it seem true. What most democrats - myself included - were against was the unfettered and unreported spying on God knows who for God knows what, without going through lawful means to do so. You know, that petty little Constitution deal. FISA and all that. You know, that thing that allows you to spy on someone if you have reason to believe them to be a threat, and then get a warrant to do so a few days later. What most democrats were (and are) against, despite how you gloss it into your daily yarns as being 'the way it is', is having absolutely no oversight of individuals who have proven to not tell the truth - or at least hide the truth to achieve their goals at all costs. People who have us in a huge mess right now because of using a loving legislature to rewrite accepted law specifically protect themselves from prosecution later. Why do you think they need to take those steps? I doubt you would admit why, but I think you know why.

I just get tired of these little things getting thrown in by you in the middle of a 10 paragraph rant that covers all things wrong with being a democrat and what's great with being a shifty neocon and the world be damned. It's not on point, and many times it's just not true.
 

Terryray

Say Parlay
Forum Member
Dec 6, 2001
9,621
1,634
113
Kansas City area for who knows how long....
Sy Hersh today dishes juicy inside stuff on Iran

Sy Hersh today dishes juicy inside stuff on Iran

of course, given his history, gotta take this dude's reporting with grain of salt....


excerpts from the New Yorker:

"The Bush Administration, if it does take military action against Iran, would have support from Democrats as well as Republicans. Senators Hillary Clinton, of New York, and Evan Bayh, of Indiana, who are potential Democratic Presidential candidates, have warned that Iran cannot be permitted to build a bomb and that?as Clinton said earlier this year??we cannot take any option off the table.? Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has also endorsed this view. Last May, Olmert was given a rousing reception when he addressed a joint session of Congress and declared, ?A nuclear Iran means a terrorist state could achieve the primary mission for which terrorists live and die?the mass destruction of innocent human life. This challenge, which I believe is the test of our time, is one the West cannot afford to fail.?

"The White House?s concern was not that the Democrats would cut off funds for the war in Iraq but that future legislation would prohibit it from financing operations targeted at overthrowing or destabilizing the Iranian government, to keep it from getting the bomb. ?They?re afraid that Congress is going to vote a binding resolution to stop a hit on Iran, ? la Nicaragua in the Contra war,? a former senior intelligence official told me.



"....Israel and the United States have also been working together in support of a Kurdish resistance group known as the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan. The group has been conducting clandestine cross-border forays into Iran, I was told by a government consultant with close ties to the Pentagon civilian leadership, as ?part of an effort to explore alternative means of applying pressure on Iran.? (The Pentagon has established covert relationships with Kurdish, Azeri, and Baluchi tribesmen, and has encouraged their efforts to undermine the regime?s authority in northern and southeastern Iran.) The government consultant said that Israel is giving the Kurdish group ?equipment and training.? The group has also been given ?a list of targets inside Iran of interest to the U.S.? (An Israeli government spokesman denied that Israel was involved.)

Such activities, if they are considered military rather than intelligence operations, do not require congressional briefings. For a similar C.I.A. operation, the President would, by law, have to issue a formal finding that the mission was necessary, and the Administration would have to brief the senior leadership of the House and the Senate. The lack of such consultation annoyed some Democrats in Congress.

"... the President, who said, in August, that ?Iran is backing armed groups in the hope of stopping democracy from taking hold? in Iraq. The government consultant told me, ?More and more people see the weakening of Iran as the only way to save Iraq.?

In the current issue of Foreign Policy, Joshua Muravchik, a prominent neoconservative, argued that the Administration had little choice. ?Make no mistake: President Bush will need to bomb Iran?s nuclear facilities before leaving office,? he wrote. The President would be bitterly criticized for a pre?mptive attack on Iran, Muravchik said, and so neoconservatives ?need to pave the way intellectually now and be prepared to defend the action when it comes.?



"....a highly classified draft assessment by the C.I.A. challenging the White House?s assumptions about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. The C.I.A. found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency."


"The former senior intelligence official added that the C.I.A. assessment raised the possibility that an American attack on Iran could end up serving as a rallying point to unite Sunni and Shiite populations. ?An American attack will paper over any differences in the Arab world, and we?ll have Syrians, Iranians, Hamas, and Hezbollah fighting against us?and the Saudis and the Egyptians questioning their ties to the West. It?s an analyst?s worst nightmare?for the first time since the caliphate there will be common cause in the Middle East.? (An Islamic caliphate ruled the Middle East for over six hundred years, until the thirteenth century.)"

"The Pentagon consultant said that he and many of his colleagues in the military believe that Iran is intent on developing nuclear-weapons capability. But he added that the Bush Administration?s options for dealing with that threat are diminished, because of a lack of good intelligence and also because ?we?ve cried wolf? before."


"......the former senior Bush Administration official said that he had also been told that the Pentagon has been at work on a plan in Iraq that called for a military withdrawal from the major urban areas to a series of fortified bases near the borders. The working assumption was that, with the American troops gone from the most heavily populated places, the sectarian violence would ?burn out.? ?The White House is saying it?s going to stabilize,? the former senior Administration official said, ?but it may stabilize the wrong way.?



?Iran is emerging as a dominant power in the Middle East,? I was told by a Middle East expert and former senior Administration official. ?With a nuclear program, and an ability to interfere throughout the region, it?s basically calling the shots. Why should they co?perate with us over Iraq?? He recounted a recent meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who challenged Bush?s right to tell Iran that it could not enrich uranium. ?Why doesn?t America stop enriching uranium?? the Iranian President asked. He laughed, and added, ?We?ll enrich it for you and sell it to you at a fifty-per-cent discount.?
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
need i re-quote harry reid?...gleefully exclaiming..."we killed the patriot act!"......

need i mention that the dems never vote for missile defense funding....and always cut defense funding?....

we`ve gone over this before,but in short form,if dems have their way,iI guess we can kiss effectively tracking terrorist phone calls goodbye....nevermind the rest, the "roving wiretap" provision is essentail.....

seeing as how the good terrorists go through phones like candy and rarely use the same one twice, it's going to be impossible to track them , since agents will need to get a new court order to tap every single different phone.........

just a few examples of how we`ll be less safe....

not good....

i`m hoping that after the next attack,ALL people will wake up and that even extremist liberals will stop trying to hide behind the civil liberties straw man...i say straw man because because no one on this forum ever seems to ever be able to provide a personal experience showing how their civil liberties were abused by nsa or data mining.........
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
we`ve gone over this before,but in short form,if dems have their way,iI guess we can kiss effectively tracking terrorist phone calls goodbye....nevermind the rest, the "roving wiretap" provision is essentail.....

seeing as how the good terrorists go through phones like candy and rarely use the same one twice, it's going to be impossible to track them , since agents will need to get a new court order to tap every single different phone.........

just a few examples of how we`ll be less safe....

not good....

i`m hoping that after the next attack,ALL people will wake up and that even extremist liberals will stop trying to hide behind the civil liberties straw man...i say straw man because because no one on this forum ever seems to ever be able to provide a personal experience showing how their civil liberties were abused by nsa or data mining.........

Since you're going short form on me (which I welcome, although several paragraphs do not a short form make... ;) ) I will reciprocate.

I am referring to existing law that both parties support, and one administration tramples on with no good explanation.

If terra-rists are impossible to track because they go through pre-paid cell phones like candy (why don't we start with some sensible legislation on THAT, by the way?), then how are we going to track them either way? And why can't you just submit the paperwork after you do it, anyway? Do you anticipate that act being like one of the four or five turned down in the duration of following the law in our history? And why would you be worried, if you have proper concerns to listen?

And the most frustrating of all...the old "if you can't read about it, it must not be happening" line of thought, can you explain to me how people who are secretly being wiretapped or surveiled can report how they have been harmed? And can you tell me who all the people are that have been secretly listened to? And why?

That remains your absolute weakest, saddest point. Proving something that cannot be referenced, due to secrecy and breaking the law.

Once again, as with most neocon Bush administration supporters, the ends justify the means, no matter what happens.

Can't wait until Hillary and Obama listen in on right wing calls in the coming years. That evidently will be cool with you. Especially if they don't tell anyone for the "good of the country."
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
""And the most frustrating of all...the old "if you can't read about it, it must not be happening" line of thought, can you explain to me how people who are secretly being wiretapped or surveiled can report how they have been harmed? And can you tell me who all the people are that have been secretly listened to? And why?

That remains your absolute weakest, saddest point. Proving something that cannot be referenced, due to secrecy and breaking the law.""


easily answered....if this program isn`t intended to catch terrorists...if it`s intended to spy on americans(lord:SIB ),why haven`t there been prosecutions for peripheral wrong doing?....that would be easily provided...the aclu would be on it like a liberal celebrity at an anti-war rally....


explain to me...if you can...how a persons rights have been abridged...if they haven`t been aggrieved.....if they haven`t been damaged?....

who`s been harmed?...

you can`t do it...again..like all liberal arguments,its pure supposition and scare tactics...

no facts....


on the warrant thing.....this isn't just data mining, but pattern recognition and modeling of data....if the program is being reported accurately, this is about developing a model that will assist the government in recognizing terrorist communications patterns.....

the data being used helps populate the model - and the more information, the more accurate the model could be....

getting warrants when casting this wide a net would be virtually impossible...

and it would be nice if the msm would report this
using the correct wording as well....conversations are not being
recorded or listened to, just the phone numbers
themselves being archived, just like a cyber
phone book.......


and btw...you are in the minority...


By Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; 7:00 AM



""A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

A slightly larger majority—66 percent—said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found."""


i call it good old american pragmatism:yup
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
""A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

A slightly larger majority?66 percent?said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found."""


i call it good old american pragmatism:yup


That's what you call it, huh?

Do the polls that show W's dreadful approval rating also reflect 'good old American pragmatism?'
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
Hmmm, in your drive to put me in the minority, did you discard the multitude of other polls that put not only you - but your poll as well - in the minority? I'll address the other issues in another post after this one. Must win one point at a time...

-----------------------

A new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows public sentiment is against the program. Fifty-one percent of Americans said the administration was wrong to intercept conversations involving a party inside the USA without a warrant. In response to another question, 58% of Americans said they support the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the program. Both questions were asked of about 500 adults Friday through Sunday and have a margin of error of +/-5 percentage points.

-------------------

Opinion polls suggest the U.S. public has been divided on the NSA program. A CNN poll conducted by Opinion Research Corp. on May 16-17 found that 50 percent of the respondents believe the program was "wrong," while 44 percent believe it was "right." The poll's margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 percent.

-------------------

The poll, conducted by the Washington-based firm Belden, Russonello & Stewart, measured voters? attitudes toward the warrantless surveillance of Americans by the NSA. The findings were reached through a national telephone survey of 1,012 registered voters conducted between February 8 and February12, 2006. The margin of sampling error for the entire survey is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points at the 95 percent level of tolerance.

The survey reveals key findings about voters? attitudes toward the government?s warrantless domestic spying program. Specifically, the poll found that:
? A majority of voters want Congress to ?demand that the warrantless eavesdropping be stopped because it is illegal.?
? A majority of voters oppose the government eavesdropping on Americans? calls to people overseas without a court warrant.
? A majority of voters are skeptical that the President acted within the law.
? A majority of voters express the view that the President can ?effectively combat terrorism and follow the law and get court warrants to spy on Americans.?
? A majority of voters believe the President is wrong to assume that ?the Congressional resolution to go to war in Afghanistan to fight terrorism also gave him permission to eavesdrop on Americans without a warrant.
? Also, at least a third of Republican voters consistently expressed viewpoints that they are concerned that the president is operating outside the law.

------------

? In a new Newsweek poll of 1007 people conducted between May 11 and May 12, 2006, 53% of Americans said that "the NSA's surveillance program goes too far in invading privacy " and 57% said that in light of the NSA data-mining news and other executive actions the Bush-Cheney Administration has ?gone too far in expanding presidential power" while 41% see it as a tool to "combat terrorism" and 35% think the Administration?s actions were appropriate.[30]
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
That's what you call it, huh?

Do the polls that show W's dreadful approval rating also reflect 'good old American pragmatism?'

welcome back,my brother....you were missed....

i thought maybe you and smurph had eloped...

seriously...all i`m saying is,this attack on those that are trying to keep us safe is nothing more than a witch hunt....

i know a gal that works in the mortgage industry and she pulls and look at credit reports everyday...those reports have so much information on every person that if they were culled they could make reasonable guesses as to party affiliation, church association, hobbies, love lives, sexual orientation etc. ...and that`s just credit reports....


bill collectors have another whole data base....they make an inquiry one day and within 10 minutes they know the persons SS#, drivers licence #, bank and brokerage account numbers...and for an additional $5 they would tell you how much was in the accounts.....

i believe if the govt. wants to know about someone, they can.... and if someone wants privacy, they are shit out of luck.....

remember those fbi files they recovered on republicans in the clinton whitehouse?...

they can get what they want...

the nsa database is what it is....a utility to track terrorists that mean to do us harm...

they`re not listening to our phone calls...they`re tracking patterns...

they can listen to my phone calls all they want....
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Thanks Weasel, I was out of the country and didn't get online at all and I must admit, I longed for you a bit. I missed your crazy, paranoid rants, but it's all good now that i'm back.

BTW- as i've mentioned before, this NSA topic doesn't much interest me. I agree with you for the most part on this one.

<cue the 'Perfect Strangers' theme song.>
 

Chadman

Realist
Forum Member
Apr 2, 2000
7,501
42
48
SW Missouri
easily answered....if this program isn`t intended to catch terrorists...if it`s intended to spy on americans(lord ),why haven`t there been prosecutions for peripheral wrong doing?....that would be easily provided...the aclu would be on it like a liberal celebrity at an anti-war rally....


explain to me...if you can...how a persons rights have been abridged...if they haven`t been aggrieved.....if they haven`t been damaged?....

who`s been harmed?...

you can`t do it...again..like all liberal arguments,its pure supposition and scare tactics...

no facts....


It amazes me how dogged you are on this particular issue, when your basic premise is impossible to make. You are asking me to prove who has been harmed by a secret program that does not have to report on who or how they are spying? How in the Hell can I do that? That's the ENTIRE POINT! Nobody knows! Can you prove they haven't?!? And if not, why not? DUUUUUHHHHHHHH! Because they don't tell us (because it's for our own good and safety, right?). Oh, ok, I get it. I trust you people. You've proven to me to be a good steward of my trust, right?

C'MON man...take a step back and think about the point you are trying to make. It makes no sense.

What secret abuses of people would be easily provided, and to whom? The ACLU? Yeah, I'll bet they are on the approved e-mail list to announce secret abuses of people. What sense does that make?

It's not supposition and scare tactics. It is merely ensuring that one group of people do not have unlimited power - especially a group of people that have proven to be unworthy of trust and the benefit of the doubt.
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
look...

""It amazes me how dogged you are on this particular issue, when your basic premise is impossible to make. You are asking me to prove who has been harmed by a secret program that does not have to report on who or how they are spying? How in the Hell can I do that? That's the ENTIRE POINT! Nobody knows! Can you prove they haven't?!?""

can i prove that people "haven`t" been harmed by the nsa wiretapping program?....

can i prove that people "haven`t been harmed?".....

:confused: :look: :D :lol2 :mj07: bwaahahaha

man...that was really funny...well done chad...
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,575
226
63
"the bunker"
asking if i can prove that people "haven`t" been harmed by the nsa wiretapping program is like asking if i can prove that kosar and smurph "didn`t" have a circle jerk with an invisible leprechaun named leroy......
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
asking if i can prove that people "haven`t" been harmed by the nsa wiretapping program is like asking if i can prove that kosar and smurph "didn`t" have a circle jerk with an invisible leprechaun named leroy......


Funny you mention that. You know, about 'proving a negative.'

You can do the math from there, i'm sure.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top