anyone know which " pop.vote" count MSNBC is displaying now?
Obama 17, 425,810Clinton 17, 428, 541
Week of June 1, 2008 - June 7, 2008
Sec. of state Rice-no point in talking to Iran
There's an AP article in which Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice says there's no point in talking to Iran unless they give up their suspected nuclear weapons ambitions. Can you spot the ridiculousness of this phrase?
There has never been any confirmed proof that Iran has a nuclear weapon. And there's no proof that they even have a nuclear weapons program. In the NIE released last summer, it alleges that Iran once had a nuclear weapons program, but that it was abandoned in 2002.
Since then, Iran has cooperated with IAEA inspectors over the last year and guess what--they haven't found a damn thing. But usually right before a UN meeting is scheduled to discuss sanctions, the US presents some last-minute, highly questionable "evidence"--this year, it was a copy of alleged military weapon schematics they "found" on a laptop somewhere. Nothing about these schematics even hinted that they came from Iran, and they weren't even proven to have anything to do with a nuclear weapon. So there's always an issue left for Iran to address and it gives the US a reason to say Iran is not cooperating. What Iran does have is a civil nuclear energy program, and like any other country that has one, the fuel cycle requires that they enrich uranium. This hardly qualifies as weapons-grade enriched uranium. (You can learn more about this peaceful nuclear energy program here.)
But the US is demanding that they stop this activity, even though they have a right to have a civil nuclear energy facility. Most people don't even realize that in the 70s, the US helped supply Iran with the materials they needed to build this kind of program.
The US has changed its policy a little on this--they'll allow Iran to import the kind of enriched uranium used for civil nuclear energy, perhaps from Russia, but they won't allow Iran to enrich it themselves.
From a country that has an arsenal of 10,000 ready to go nuclear warheads, it's a little hypocritical to make such demands.
And there has been a good amount of parsing recently regarding those demands.
When you hear the phrase "we can't allow Iran to have the knowledge that could lead to building a nuclear weapon, keep in mind, we were the ones that gave them the knowledge to enrich uranium (for civil purposes) in the first place.
It's hard to take away knowledge you've had for forty years.
But Sec. Rice has taken that a step further: It's no longer the knowledge that could lead to building a nuclear weapon.
Iran isn't allowed to have suspected ambitions.
Let me make a few disclaimers. I understand that Iran poses a serious threat to Israel. I don't underestimate how dangerous they are.
Also, while this goes without saying, I'm not a nuclear weapons expert and I have no access to classified info about Iran's alleged nuclear activity.
You can go visit the IAEA website and look through the reports yourself.
I just have a concern, as do millions of Americans, about the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran based on false evidence.
There has never been any confirmed proof that Iran has a nuclear weapon. And there's no proof that they even have a nuclear weapons program. In the NIE released last summer, it alleges that Iran once had a nuclear weapons program, but that it was abandoned in 2002.
Since then, Iran has cooperated with IAEA inspectors over the last year and guess what--they haven't found a damn thing. But usually right before a UN meeting is scheduled to discuss sanctions, the US presents some last-minute, highly questionable "evidence"--this year, it was a copy of alleged military weapon schematics they "found" on a laptop somewhere. Nothing about these schematics even hinted that they came from Iran, and they weren't even proven to have anything to do with a nuclear weapon. So there's always an issue left for Iran to address and it gives the US a reason to say Iran is not cooperating. What Iran does have is a civil nuclear energy program, and like any other country that has one, the fuel cycle requires that they enrich uranium. This hardly qualifies as weapons-grade enriched uranium. (You can learn more about this peaceful nuclear energy program here.)
But the US is demanding that they stop this activity, even though they have a right to have a civil nuclear energy facility. Most people don't even realize that in the 70s, the US helped supply Iran with the materials they needed to build this kind of program.
The US has changed its policy a little on this--they'll allow Iran to import the kind of enriched uranium used for civil nuclear energy, perhaps from Russia, but they won't allow Iran to enrich it themselves.
From a country that has an arsenal of 10,000 ready to go nuclear warheads, it's a little hypocritical to make such demands.
And there has been a good amount of parsing recently regarding those demands.
When you hear the phrase "we can't allow Iran to have the knowledge that could lead to building a nuclear weapon, keep in mind, we were the ones that gave them the knowledge to enrich uranium (for civil purposes) in the first place.
It's hard to take away knowledge you've had for forty years.
But Sec. Rice has taken that a step further: It's no longer the knowledge that could lead to building a nuclear weapon.
Iran isn't allowed to have suspected ambitions.
Let me make a few disclaimers. I understand that Iran poses a serious threat to Israel. I don't underestimate how dangerous they are.
Also, while this goes without saying, I'm not a nuclear weapons expert and I have no access to classified info about Iran's alleged nuclear activity.
You can go visit the IAEA website and look through the reports yourself.
I just have a concern, as do millions of Americans, about the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran based on false evidence.
Advertisement
How does Hillary transition from "I'm the strongest candidate to "he's the strongest candidate"?
Sen. Clinton has promised to support the democratic nominee know matter who it is. She's promised to campaign her heart out for the nominee.
She, and her campaign surrogates are pushing the "Hillary is the strongest candidate" so hard, it's hard to imagine how they could change their rhetoric without seeming disingenuous. Governor Ed Rendell, just yesterday, said we'll probably select the weakest candidate as our nominee.
Anyone have any thoughts on how they'll manage to do this?
My only expectation from Sen. Clinton, or prerequisite I should say is that once Obama wins the nomination, she announce that he won it fair and square.
She, and her campaign surrogates are pushing the "Hillary is the strongest candidate" so hard, it's hard to imagine how they could change their rhetoric without seeming disingenuous. Governor Ed Rendell, just yesterday, said we'll probably select the weakest candidate as our nominee.
Anyone have any thoughts on how they'll manage to do this?
My only expectation from Sen. Clinton, or prerequisite I should say is that once Obama wins the nomination, she announce that he won it fair and square.
Ickes: "Obama can win in November...he'd make a very good president"
This is what Harold Ickes said this morning on Meet the Press. He also, once again, repeated the false claim that Hillary won the popular vote--Russert said that's only if you include Michigan's unsanctioned primary, where no one else was on the ballot, and exclude caucuses in four states--With some hesitation, Ickes said, according to the AP, Hillary won the most popular votes.
So now the AP is the one who decides the outcome of our elections?
So now the AP is the one who decides the outcome of our elections?
