Tommy, you write like a moron. I hope you are not, and this little note is sent to you hoping you have some ability to follow English words.

We may yell and scream that a group of people, say gay people, are being mistreated in some foreign land. That is all well and good, and I have done so myself.

However, when you call for the use of awesome, deadly force to kill people in foreign lands you have left behind both morality and sanity. It is the job of the American government to keep the peace at home and to defend us from attack.

Do you really see deadly gay-killers invading us anytime soon?

Cut the the coy pretense.

If my meaning isn't clear.

You're plain flat dense.

All I can say is, thank Goodness that Obama is not an Idiot. Even if many of his followers are.

First, it was the consensus of the intelligence community also that Saddam had WMD. Why does Glenn Greenwald suddenly put so much faith in them now? Oh, because it suits his political purposes.

It was not the consensus that Iraq did have WMD. The WHIG cherry picked intelligence to make it appear so, and that people still believe that it was is evidence of how well their propaganda worked.

Reload again

With blanks

Your beloved

Toy

Tommy gun...

It's all just a big "bang bang" out there to you ain't it?

Thanks for your reply. I did not mean to call you 'naive', that was my word for my impression of your initial post on the subject. No personal offense was intended.

But nonetheless I do see your point. I often struggle with issues like this because it comes down to whether one supports a forward-looking idealist posture or backward-looking defensive posture. I guess it is safe to say I would rather take the optimistic view you are talking about but it cannot be denied that such a view could also be dangerous. I am pretty sure so far that Obama is trying his hardest to take a balanced approach to everything, in stark contrast to his soon-to-be-predecessor, so maybe we will see your vision will become closer to reality in the coming years.

It is bleakly amusing to see the point bandied about that because the Bush Administration hacks employed a Team-B approach to falsify the WMD intel and massage the report on Iraq to say what they wanted, then we can discredit the Iran NIE.

The point is silly because it fails to address who would possibly be manipulating the intelligence to say Iran isn't running a nuclear weapons program? The Bush Administration is still in charge and chalk full of feces throwing crazy monkeys who would love a war with Iran, I doubt they're leaning on CIA to tone down the report and I don't think Dick Cheney is visiting the desks of mid level analysts to intimidate them into stretching their conclusions.

Some things only go wrong one way, and there really isn't any motive to falsify Iran as having no WMD program if they really had one.

All I can say is, thank Goodness that Obama is not an Idiot. Even if many of his followers are.

-- Bellatrix LeStrange

Could you perhaps be more specific?

Thanks.

The IDF Spokesperson Brigade has arrived.

So we can get back to what's Important.

"Rockets!"

First, it was the consensus of the intelligence community also that Saddam had WMD. Why does Glenn Greenwald suddenly put so much faith in them now? Oh, because it suits his political purposes.

No, it wasn't the "consensus of the intelligence community about Iraq's WMD. That was the Bush Administrations sales line to dupes like you. Anyone who paid the least bit of attention knew that the intelligence community was convinced of no such thing.

Second, Iran is openly boasting about their increased nuclear activity, including hundreds of new centrifuges that serve only one purpose: to produce weapons-grade nuclear fuel.

You'll need to link to that. I haven't heard or read that "open boasting about increased weapons grade nuclear activity".

Greenwald's head is in the sand, and as always he's highly selective in his outrage and highly selective in what "facts" he chooses to use.

I didn't see you dispute any of Greenwald's "facts" or answer any of his question. Nor did I see you state any "facts" in your comments.

Why Salon continues to publish him his a mystery. He's an embarrassment.

Of course, that would be your opinion.

I'm not sure your reference to John Brennan is apropos.

Or perhaps you haven't heard that Obama was keeping him for bigger and better things?

JB (could also stand for Jack Bauer) will head the new White House Counterterrorism Centre (think "CTU"). One suspects he'll do a 'heck of a job'.

Sometimes reality is stranger than fiction.

Since when is our National Intelligence so reliable when it comes to the Islamofascists? Seven years since 9/11 and we still haven't caught Osama Bin Laden yet. Even with a $25 million reward on his head.

"National Intelligence" didn't do a real good job of predicting 9/11 either.

What do we REALLY know about the hardcode Islamofascists? Not all that much.

This article reminds me a little of Neville Chamberlain assuring England that Mr. Hitler had no real designs on Europe. Sure, Chamberlain talked to Hitler and he was quite convinced that Mr. Hitler was a reasonable gentleman.

So much for intelligence.

A lot of these Islamofascists make Hitler look like a nice guy.

"Why salon continues to publish him... he's an embarrassment." --J. Pankratz

Seeing a need for more, not less, chest-thumping hysteria about Iran's (hypothetical but nonetheless terrifying) nuclear program, this particular troll has some novel and arresting arguments. Of course, said arguments are utter baloney, but type away, please. Last I remember, it was not the intelligence agencies who thought Saddam was inches from a nuclear bomb, but rather the neonuts, Bushies, and Fox News, who overlap frequently and have never been factually correct about anything. They did, however, propagate the myth of unanimity in this delusion, relentlessly, and it obviously convinced a few bozos who were unusually receptive to such claptrap. So much so, that they continue to spout such horseshit to this day.

As evidence, such self-discrediting statements have their disadvantages, but to your average brainwashed troll, they pack the punch of a spittle-flecked Bill O'Reilly "Shut up!"

Better trolls, please.