Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

Subject: Your argument is weak tea  

Bart, first you say, how could anyone know what Ahmedinejad (sp?) really said unless they spoke Farsi?

Weak tea, bro....!

It's called 'translators.' It's how we tell what anyone said, when they spoke in a foreign language.
If you don't have a live person who is a translator, there are various translation functions in Google, Babblefish (sp?), whatever.

My point was translators often have their own agenda.
When Obama talks to Medvedev, he doesn't want to hear from a Russian what was said.
He wants his hand-picked guy that he trusts completely.

Personally, I have an ex-wife who is Iranian, and yes, having lived there until about high school leaving right around
the time of the revolution in '79 or so, she speaks and understands Farsi. (She looks like the princess in the animated movie 'Alladin.')

Then you actually wrote something to the effect of, how do we know he NEVER said it?

BUZZ!!! Oh, I'm sorry, but thanks for playing.

AGREE, it's probably impossible to prove he hasn't said something to this effect. That is not the point.

Some people (not you) say "It's OK for Iran to get nukes because Ahmahandjob never said that."

We should never decide to engage in an act of WAR (such as a naval/air power blockade of oil exporting boats) on the basis
that maybe someone once said something, and nobody can prove otherwise. If you advise an act of WAR, there should be
SLIGHTLY better evidence than the lack of a proof that nobody can possibly provide. Unless you're going with the
Cheney 1% doctrine. I sincerely hope and trust that is not the case.

Over the weekend, CIA boss Panetta says Iran has enough nuclear material NOW to make two bombs.
You seem to be saying we're acting too hastily but we may have come to this party very late.

It is ISRAEL which has made a veiled threat that not only do they have the capability of delivering nuclear missiles to every
capital city in Europe, they will do so under the so-called '
Samson Option.' (Look up that term-- it's a quasi-official plan that
if ever Israel is obliterated somehow, they intend to take everyone with them. The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Sy Hersch,
himself a Jew, discovered this in his reporting, and wrote of it in his book of the same name.)

That is, you don't have to wait for an Islamic state to get the primitive beginnings of a nuclear capability, which would involve
getting a couple of nukes and some limited missile capacity, for the threat of a
nuclear holocaust. You have it right now,
from Israel, with their 200 to 400 nuclear devices and robust missile capabilities, courtesy of the French and the US,
and ballistic
nuclear submarines, courtesy of Germany.

Israel cannot abide any strong nation that opposes their territorial expansion program, which is (and talking about insane!)
to take physical possession of most of the land on the eastern Mediterranean Sea, from the Nile in Egypt to the Tigris/Euphrates in Iraq.
They think God gave them a promise that their land would extend that much, and they are working a program to accomplish it, one country at a time.

Iran hasn't attacked ANYBODY in, oh..., at least 500 years. Israel has made any number of pretexts to attack several of their neighbors,
and in the case of Lebanon, to attack it at least twice, and occupy the southern section for about 20 years until Hizbollah resistance forced
them out because of the cost. Iran funds Hizbollah, and Israel doesn't like it, understandably. But Hizbollah ONLY attacks Israel when
they're IN LEBANON. And it's a key provision of international law that any country is justified to attack another country's military that
is occupying it, which is what Hizbollah did.

Bottom line, I don't trust Ahmahandjob - I think he's crazy and crazy plus nukes scares me.





  Back to

Send e-mail to Bart

Privacy Policy
. .