digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Thompson: "I Don't Care... NIE is Foolishness."

thinkprogress.org — On Glenn Beck ’s radio show yesterday, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) said he doesn’t care what the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran says. Listen here.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Insightful, on 12/12/2007, -26/+106Why do the conservatives hate America so much?
    • dunderballer, on 12/12/2007, -21/+30Let's not recycle republican cheap shot attacks
      • romistrub, on 12/12/2007, -10/+22I wish I could digg you up a thousand times. Saying ***** like "conservatives hate America" is obscures the point, ruins any potential debate, and makes the purporter lose all credibility. It makes me sick.
        • EditorResponse, on 12/12/2007, -10/+3Paste together next two lines for URL.
          www.dw-world.de/dw/function/0,,12215_cid_2989419,00.html?
          maca=en-rss-en-all-1573-rdf

          News | 06.12.2007 | 00:00 UTC
          Iran seeking 50,000 nuclear centrifuges
          Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called a US intelligence estimate on Tehran's nuclear programme a "great victory", adding that Iran is now seeking 50,000 centrifuges to enrich uranium.

          -----------------
          Iran gives IAEA nuclear blueprints in attempt to ward off sanctions
          Paste together next two lines for URL.
          www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1192380808635
          &pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

          After years of stonewalling, Iran has given the UN nuclear agency blueprints showing how to mold uranium metal into the shape of warheads, diplomats said Tuesday, in an apparent concession meant to head off the threat of new UN sanctions.

          But the diplomats said Teheran has failed to meet other requests made by the International Atomic Energy Agency in its attempts to end nearly two decades of nuclear secrecy on the part of the Islamic Republic.

          -----------------
          news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071114/ap_on_re_eu/nuclear_iran
          VIENNA, Austria - Iran has met a key demand of the U.N. nuclear agency, handing over long-sought blueprints showing how to mold uranium metal into the shape of warheads, diplomats said Tuesday.

          Both the IAEA and other experts have categorized the instructions outlined in the blueprints as having no value outside of a nuclear weapons program.

          Senior IAEA officials were refused interviews with at least two top Iranian nuclear officials suspected of possible involvement in a weapons program, they said. One was the leader of a physics laboratory at Lavizan, outside Tehran, which was razed before the agency had a chance to investigate activities there. The other was in charge of developing Iran's centrifuges, used to enrich uranium.

          -----------------
          http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/1 ...
          QUOTE 'The inconsistencies are more troubling when we realize that, according to the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Fingar is one of the three officials who were responsible for crafting the latest NIE. The Journal cites "an intelligence source" as describing Fingar and his two colleagues as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials."'

          NIE: An Abrupt About-Face

          As many recognize, the latest NIE on Iran’s nuclear weapons program directly contradicts what the U.S. Intelligence Community was saying just two years previously. And it appears that this about-face was very recent. How recent?

          Consider that on July 11, 2007, roughly four or so months prior to the most recent NIE’s publication, Deputy Director of Analysis Thomas Fingar gave the following testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (emphasis added):

          Iran and North Korea are the states of most concern to us. The United States’ concerns about Iran are shared by many nations, including many of Iran’s neighbors. Iran is continuing to pursue uranium enrichment and has shown more interest in protracting negotiations and working to delay and diminish the impact of UNSC sanctions than in reaching an acceptable diplomatic solution. We assess that Tehran is determined to develop nuclear weapons--despite its international obligations and international pressure. This is a grave concern to the other countries in the region whose security would be threatened should Iran acquire nuclear weapons.

          This paragraph appeared under the subheading: "Iran Assessed As Determined to Develop Nuclear Weapons." And the entirety of Fingar’s 22-page testimony was labeled "Information as of July 11, 2007." No part of it is consistent with the latest NIE, in which our spooks tell us Iran suspended its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003 "primarily in response to international pressure" and they "do not know whether (Iran) currently intends to develop nuclear weapons."

          The inconsistencies are more troubling when we realize that, according to the Wall Street Journal, Thomas Fingar is one of the three officials who were responsible for crafting the latest NIE. The Journal cites "an intelligence source" as describing Fingar and his two colleagues as "hyper-partisan anti-Bush officials." (The New York Sun drew attention to one of Fingar’s colleagues yesterday.)

          So, if it is true that Dr. Fingar played a leading role in crafting this latest NIE, then we are left with serious questions:

          * Why did your opinion change so drastically in just four months time?

          * Is the new intelligence or analysis really that good? Is it good enough to overturn your previous assessments? Or, has it never really been good enough to make a definitive assessment at all?

          * Did your political or ideological leanings, or your policy preferences, or those of your colleagues, influence your opinion in any way?

          Many in the mainstream press have been willing to cite this latest NIE unquestioningly. Perhaps they should start asking some pointed questions. (Don’t hold your breath.)
          • caselogic, on 12/13/2007, -3/+5i hear they can use nuclear energy for power now.
          • EditorResponse, on 12/13/2007, -7/+1Iran does NOT even have a working reactor in their country so why do they need to work on refining uranium? What are you talking about. The Russians were supposed to GIVE them the nuclear rods to FIT the Russian built reactor...but they haven't for several years because the Iranians do not want to tell anyone what they are working on nuclearly. Or don't you get out much and read the news? I suppose you are like most Diggers and feel that if anyone gets in Iran's way that we should F*K off.

            Digg.com posts are definately antiAmerican in spirit. Posts from www.thinkprogress.org, www.rawstory.com, or www.huffingtonpost.com are right from the antiAmerican, socialist and Marxist manifesto. The majority of stories coming from these three locations are NOT written in a neutral news reporting way.

            I rarely see anyone bashing someone for running down the USA. Even of you don't think what is happening is right on the money I do not agree that you have to go the limit with negative comments. So what is a negative comment or negative endorsed post?

            I consider posts that are positive for Kucinich or Ron Paul antiAmerican. This is because they are both taking positions that are antiAmetrican in nature. I also see that the only time anyone mentions Joe Biden on Digg.com is when he wants to impeach Bush or Cheny. Impeachment is a very antiAmerican thing to be beholden too. Especially when there is no reason to impeach. And don't go through the list because there are arguments on either side of the isle that would support in as much as they would not support an impeachment.

            Then there are the antiCIA, antiNSA, antiFBI, and everything else that happens to be antiCongress from either Democrat to Republican. Then there is the TREASON word...often used at Digg.com and it makes no sense. Digg.com followers and posters are in spirit and mind UNUSUALLY antiAmerican.

            What would be interesting would be to have a university track the all of the posts and comments for the period just ended from lets say October the first week through December the first week and tell us what the ratio of negative antiAmerican posts and comments there are to positive posts and comments.

            I think the ratio from negative antiAmerican posts to positive proAmerican is something around 250:1 to 500:1.
          • tsotha, on 12/13/2007, -3/+0Yeah, Iran needs nuclear power, cuz otherwise just think how much oil they'd have to import. Oh wait...
          • Wartyboskfapped, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1POLLUTION
      • mikebaldwin67, on 12/12/2007, -2/+9thank you dunder for representing the "higher ground"
      • gak001, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3I think he's trying to be ironic.
    • madcreator, on 12/12/2007, -15/+21You know, it almost feels that way doesn't it? I'm getting so sick of this liberals hate America crap. The way I see it, liberals love America so much that they want to protect America from all the stupid decisions that our current government is trying to force upon America.
    • Frostman3D, on 12/12/2007, -12/+39It's not conservatives, it's politicians. The left will screw you just as fast as the right will.
      • ZenMojo, on 12/12/2007, -4/+7Naw, the left will screw you only a fraction of the speed of the right, mostly because the left will let the right screw you.
        • bobbydiamondz, on 12/13/2007, -3/+4They're creating a bipartisan investigational committee to make sure screwing happens at equal rates in the future.
        • tsotha, on 12/13/2007, -3/+0I guess you weren't around the last time the left was running things
      • KungFuJesus, on 12/12/2007, -6/+4The thing is, the left has been taken over by the multinationals. After the repubs ***** on every last shred of goodwill they had, the corporate bigshots have been transitioning themselves to the left, destroying the left the way that they destroyed the right. Thus, while we'll soon have a different party in office, it won't really matter because that party has been corrupted
        • bjornski, on 12/13/2007, -2/+3The LEFT has been taken over by multinationals?

          Which party is in the pocket of big business? It ain't the left.
          • 0nslaught, on 12/13/2007, -3/+4Hillary Clinton: $500,000,000 in porkbarrel money to donors

            latimes.com — Since 2001, Hillary Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefited 59 corporations. 64% of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by executives, board members, or lobbyists. Clinton has earmarked more than $2.3 billion in federal appropriations for projects.

            http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- ...
      • 0nslaught, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Republican Vs. Democrat
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMyaharVpEs
    • lhbaker, on 12/12/2007, -6/+21Nobody hates the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, more than a politicitan. What we see as rights and liberties, they see as rules and regulations. It is a conflict of interest for them to protect it.
      • greenm1981, on 12/12/2007, -2/+14If by "politician" you mean corporate-owned *****, I agree with you. There are, however, a few politicians out there that can't be bought. Very few.
    • Groovemaster, on 12/12/2007, -8/+11It's not that the hate America... It's that they love the massive profits that war brings.
    • ZenMojo, on 12/12/2007, -6/+5Take a party that hates government and have them run to take over control of government. Who actually expected them to do a good job?
      • bjornski, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2Hear hear!
      • mightydavefish, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Good job? Maybe not.
        Better job? It'd be almost impossible not to.
    • mirunit, on 12/12/2007, -1/+4Well, truth be told, the NIE is only good for alot of you as it backs up your opinions. Back in 2003 it supported GWB in his invasion of Iraq - the estimate is fallible. I am saying that it should not be totally relied upon, but taken into consideration with respect to the larger picture.
      • vade79, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Yes, but hopefully a lesson was learned from that...not likely, but hopefully.
    • Tomchei, on 12/13/2007, -1/+5It's not the 'conservatives' as much as it's the neo-conservatives and the Israeli lobby.
    • vbullinger, on 12/13/2007, -3/+8Who said Fred Thompson was a conservative? He's a neocon, a convoluted form of Liberal, also known as a Trotskyite.
      • JoeVet, on 12/13/2007, -2/+3Another conservative eating their own!
    • bono4u, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1i don't know why but if the following is done by conservatives, it must be a lot

      http://www.digg.com/world_news/Missing_Nukes_Treas ...
    • LastVisibleDog, on 12/13/2007, -2/+1Why are you such a reactionary incapable of original thought?
  • conleytgwinn, on 12/12/2007, -5/+10Funny - that speech woulda worked on L&O - the exec DA woulda been all inspired, and redoubled the effort to invade Iran.
  • Corrosionx, on 12/12/2007, -8/+104"We want to invade Iran, and no amount of facts, logic or public disapproval will make us change our minds." -The Neocons
  • Berkana, on 12/12/2007, -7/+34Quote:
    Norman Podhoretz: “I entertain an even darker suspicion. It is that the intelligence community, which has for some years now been leaking material calculated to undermine George W. Bush, is doing it again."

    UPDATE: In a Q&A with US News and World Report today, Thompson says he’s “wondering if [the NIE] is an indication of the intelligence community being somewhat politicized.”
    _______________________________

    It is absolutely sickening to hear these quotes. Intelligence has been politicized, but not to discredit George Bush. Dick Cheney politicized it by cherry-picking facts and having undue influence in how intelligence was reported and interpreted in order to achieve his agenda. But now that the intelligence community has gotten fed up with their work being twisted to start unjustifiable wars, and their own members being betrayed when they got in the way (such as happened Valerie Plame when her husband blew the whistle on the lie that Saddam had obtained uranium) the neocons are crying that intel has been politicized. I just wish they would all STFU. They are proving to be blind to "politicization" of anything, and see it where it doesn't exist when things don't resolve in their favor. Damn them all.
    • Rich711, on 12/12/2007, -10/+5Valerie Plame never got "betrayed" her good friend Armitage was the leak. He told Russert (roughly) that he was pist a Bush for not believeing Wilson after Wilson and his wife put their lives on the line as agents every day.." Armitage admitted he was the leak to the prosecuter and told Plame yet they both said nothing, Plame and her husband even accused others knowing it wasnt the truth for months as 100s of millions in tax payer money was spent investigating a crime the prosecuter knew didnt happen. Yet the prosecuter continued even tried to send Libby to jail for lying to a grand jury investigating a crime he already knew never happened. Do you even know what lie Libby is accused of telling? Jeanine Garfalo's angry political rants are not a reliable news source. You may want to read something other than a blog.
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 12/12/2007, -2/+4"her good friend Armitage was the leak."

        The FIRST leak, not the only one.
        • Rich711, on 12/13/2007, -2/+1once someone leaks it to a reporter and he uses his constitutional right to tell everyone and have it published within the hour there is no other leaks.

          When the first leak is to a reporter there is no second leak.
      • Agrunt007, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4You should listen to something other than Hannity or Limabaugh...
        • Rich711, on 12/13/2007, -4/+1I dont, but I do read more than just the headlines before forming my opinion, if you'd try it you would have known these things.
      • delafere, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3This unsubstantiated claim that it was Armitage acting on his own is just another weak variation of the "lone gunman" theory.
    • bjornski, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3In a new interview, Podhoretz was asked to comment on the possible fallout of the military strikes he advocates. “Well, if we were to bomb the Iranians as I hope and pray we will,” Podhoretz says, “we’ll unleash a wave of anti-Americanism all over the world that will make the anti-Americanism we’ve experienced so far look like a lovefest.”

      (snip)

      But even global anti-Americanism is worth it, he argues, to slow Iran’s nuclear program “for five or 10 years or more.” In fact, American Progress senior fellow Joseph Cirincione has argued that such a strike “would not, as is often said, delay the Iranian program. It would almost certainly speed it up. That is what happened when the Israelis struck at the Iraq program in 1981.”
      -------
      Yeah, we should listen to this mouthpiece of AIPAC.
    • tsotha, on 12/13/2007, -4/+0Have you been living in a cave? The NIE is nothing but a political document. Let me ask you this: How did Seymour Hersh get ahold of its conclusions a year ago? And how, exactly do you go about determining something doesn't exist when you know its creator would be hiding it if it did exist. And why is it that British and Israeli intelligence officials think the CIA was "hoodwinked" by the Iranians?

      I refuse to believe they're total incompetants. More likely they have a partisan ax to grind. Certainly this report is an attempt to influence the election.
      • delafere, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2"And how, exactly do you go about determining something doesn't exist when you know its creator would be hiding it if it did exist."
        Nonsense. Utter. By this "logic," we should start bombing anyone that isn't the US as soon as we can warm up the ICBMs. Flail some more.
        • tsotha, on 12/13/2007, -1/+0Not at all. The point is you have to take all such pronouncements with a grain of salt. There's a big difference between saying "we couldn't find anything" and "we don't think it exists". The second requires quite a bit more investigation and will always be a finding with low confidence.
        • delafere, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1@tsotha: And there's a further big difference between saying "we don't think it exists" (which not what they said) and "our evidence tends to show that the program has been inactive since 2003 at least" (which is a paraphrase of what they DID say). What you said would leave us not being able to trust ANY intelligence findings. What you said was silly.
  • totorototoro, on 12/12/2007, -5/+33funny, the voters seem to have the same attitude about Thompson's campaign :p
    • InfamousAtheist, on 12/12/2007, -1/+141% in NH, CNN reported today.
      What a complete failure... I won't be sorry when he drops out.
  • skews13, on 12/12/2007, -8/+16fred.get in that piece of ***** truck you drive,and carry your dumb ass back to tennesse
    • mikebaldwin67, on 12/12/2007, -7/+4talk like that is what has caused this country to remain divided in times of need. shut your ignorant mouth.

      Sincerely A massachusetts liberal who has family in TN and drives a pickup-truck.
      • urbandistrict, on 12/12/2007, -1/+6Hello A massachusetts liberal who has family in TN and drives a pickup-truck,

        What are you going on about?
      • delafere, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Mike, I don't think he's criticizing Fred for being from TN or driving a pick-up truck (to photo ops).
  • hawkspur, on 12/12/2007, -7/+15In other news, Thompson proves himself to be a war-mongering idiot. Maybe he should go back to Law & Order, seeing as it lines up with that fantasy world he's already living in.
  • itchcity, on 12/12/2007, -6/+51Fred Thompson is the most useless candidate in the race
  • BobaFettTDG, on 12/12/2007, -4/+16Thompson = shady character.
  • Wargalas, on 12/12/2007, -16/+6So let's say for a minute that the NIE and everyone on here is right about Iran. Will we get apologies if Iran gets a nuclear weapon? What happens if they use it? Will we get a "I was wrong" or more likely, "I knew they were trouble from the beginning!" like we've seen with historical revisionists on the subject of Iraq?
    • totorototoro, on 12/12/2007, -1/+12You mean like all the apologies after no WMDs were found in Iraq? :p
    • CCB0x45, on 12/12/2007, -1/+11What if they never use it and we invade? Will we get apologies when we spend tons of money again? Has bush apologized for the iraq war? I can play this fun game too...
    • PistolSO, on 12/12/2007, -1/+12Iran using a nuclear weapon would be suicide for them. Warmongering doesn't stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, diplomacy does.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 12/12/2007, -1/+9By that logic, we should invade North Korea because they may have a clandestine program too. And then there's Russia. We KNOW they have nukes. Better invade them. The French have nukes too. Can't be too sure about those Frenchies, better invade.
      • bjornski, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3If we're going to start invading countries that are developing, or have nuclear programs that won't allow oversight of the IAEA, we should start with Israel.
    • Preacherman, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3That's a great point, Wargalas. Despite the fact that our own intelligence services are declaring that Iran is not a nuclear threat, I'm going to owe you a big fat apology when they get the bomb. Same thing for Mexico. And Argentina. And New Zealand. And Chad. If any of those bastards get the bomb, I'll send you flowers.

      *****, for that matter, we don't see Jupiter as much of a threat either, but maybe we should start bombing, just so I can avoid any awkward apology to you.

      Pull your head out of your ass for a moment, and reflect on the fact that a US government agency (in fact, the one closest to the facts) has issued this report. If they're wrong, I expect someone to be held accountable. I'm certainly not going to apologize if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, but the authors of the NIE should.
    • m3th0dm4n, on 12/13/2007, -1/+6Newsflash: Iran will get nuclear weapons eventually. Technology progresses. We should be working on making the world a better place so that the use of them isn't required.
    • drjones78, on 12/13/2007, -1/+6What do you think would happen to Iran if they got nuclear weapons, let one slip into terrorists hands, and one happened to go off in the US or Israel? It would become the worlds largest radioactive parking lot before most americans even found out what happened. And I would be willing to bet, even most left wingers would be behind the idea 100%. There may be some fanatics in Iran, but Ahmenejad is not suicidal. There are actual countries out there, with Nukes *right now* that we would be better to worry much more about. No need to be frightened of the non-existent bombs that Iran may or may not ever build in the future.

      This whole notion that if Iran had nukes, a US city would be blown up is couched around like its a fact. Its made up BS war marketing, and anyone who has thought it through, would realize its completely ridiculous.
  • Rich711, on 12/12/2007, -12/+4The exact same authors of this report said 6 months ago that Iran was a great threat and ramping up their nuclear program. Why now that they tell you what you want to here do you suddenly think their word is law. Even French Intellegence is suspect of the new report.

    It's foolishness to take these agents word on anything anymore, clearly there needs to be some serious investigation into Iran and the NIE.
    • GhostyBoy, on 12/12/2007, -2/+7Clearly there needs to be an investigation. Into the American administration for war-mongering, war-crimes, destroying the constitution and acting like douchebags. These are the clowns you want to investigate Iran?
      • Rich711, on 12/12/2007, -5/+2No, 6 months ago they said Iran was the greatest danger on the planet now the very same agents say they are not a threat. Obviously I dont want these guys investigating anything obviously they are idiots. But why is everyone so quick to believe one report that says there are no nukes and not another (from again the same agents) that says the opposite.

        Heres a question. If Iran really only is making nuclear material for energy. Why is the nation sitting on the planets biggest oil reserve spending so much money and risking being attacked by other nations so they can pay more for their energy by getting it from nuclear reactors rather than from the oil they get for free?
        • bjornski, on 12/13/2007, -2/+4Because it will be cheaper to use nuclear for power than burn up one of their main exports to do the same thing.

          What we should do is trade them oil for a nuke plant. Including fuel and maintenance. That way we have oversight, plus make sure it's up to safety standards, and it's a gigantic footstep for diplomacy.
          • Rich711, on 12/13/2007, -4/+1It's cheaper to build new factories and run on nuclear material than use thier own oil, not on this planet. They dont sell oil as fast as they can take it out of the ground. They regulate it so as to keep the price up. They would still have plenty to run that country on at no cost to them. It's not like a product that needs to be manufactured or spoils, you dont even need to refine it if it's being used for energy. Nuclear energy is much more expensive for them than oil.
        • Rich711, on 12/13/2007, -3/+1You mean build them a plant like Bill Clinton did for North Korea so they can dismantle it and build a nuclear weapon as well? And by oversight, you mean like the UN has in Iran... oh wait that's right they kicked the UN out when they noticed nuclear materials were going missing.
      • mirunit, on 12/13/2007, -4/+3Question: When have your constitutional rights been violated? If it were destroyed you would not be in a position to criticize anyone - its probable that under those circumstances digg could be censored or even taken down. Its people like you who cannot even fathom what true tyranny is, because you think you are living it - I personally assure you that it could be exponentially worse.
      • mirunit, on 12/13/2007, -4/+1"Obviously I dont want these guys investigating anything obviously they are idiots."

        You are assuming that nothing changes, no new intelligence is discovered etc. Intelligence gathering is an ART, not a science. Only a very small amount of times you can be sure that your intelligence is 100% correct at a point in time, especially dealing with regimes in volatile regions. Its easy to sit back and call other people idiots, its a whole other story when you are there surrounded by all sorts of raw intelligence having to make quick decisions based on sketchy information - when the alternatives could be possibly devastating.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 12/12/2007, -2/+7"The exact same authors of this report said 6 months ago that Iran was a great threat and ramping up their nuclear program."

      When my information changes, I change my opinion. What do you do, Sir?

      --- John Maynard Keynes
      • Rich711, on 12/13/2007, -3/+1You have a quotable dictionary, good for you. The information hasnt changed what has changed is what were are being told the information actually is. I dont know about you but I'd actually like to know if there is an active weapons program in Iran, not what the NIE chooses to report this month. Why would you trust the information in a report that says the weapons program has been stopped for 3 years in Iran that is signed by the same to agents that have been telling us every six months that it keeps advancing? Was there no information in those reports or was it all errors, or is this all errors? Or were they lying for 3 years and now are telling the truth? Obviously the information is suspect whether it's what you want to hear or not. Remeber Joe Wilson, his report said there was no proof of Iraq trying to buy yellow cake uranium in Niger. Turns out not ony was he wrong the very same peope has supposed to be investigating were found by British, French and Israeli intellegence to be selling it not only to Iraq, but N.Korea, Libya and China. The intellegence community is often far from intellegent.
    • bsmang, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2What's clear is that Iran is a far more peaceful and less threatening nation than the US at this point in history.
    • fuzzmeister, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Frankly, the NIE _is_ the serious investigation into Iran. It is the combined opinion of all of the US intelligence agencies, so I wouldn't be writing it off as unreliable and suspect so easily.
  • itchcity, on 12/12/2007, -4/+17THompson is another piece of proof that the media controls who our candidates are. He's considered "mainstream" yet no actual human beings seem to know or care who he is
    • dn11, on 12/12/2007, -0/+5uh, maybe it's because he's a famous actor from Law and Order and countless movies?... just guessing... hey it worked for Reagan and the Governator....
  • CraigJ, on 12/12/2007, -12/+6Well, regardless of you political persuasion, the fact that the Brits, Israelis, and I think the French as well also think that the NIE is ***** should tell you something. This is the same NIE that said Iraq was developing WMD. So, people, make up your minds, does the US intelligence community have a clue, or not?
    • bjornski, on 12/13/2007, -1/+5I take EVERYTHING Israel says with not just a grain, but a block of salt.

      /damned hard to throw over your left shoulder for luck tho.
    • bxblox, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Israel thinks whatever gives it the most money and weapons
  • pdurod, on 12/12/2007, -2/+12This coming from a guy who thinks the USSR still exists...
  • UtahApocalyse, on 12/12/2007, -1/+8He said basically the same thing in the debate in Iowa today
    • Xinareiaz, on 12/12/2007, -1/+5Yeah..someone should really give him an all expenses payed vacation to "stroll threw neighborhoods in iraq"
      • bjornski, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2Pick up a rug for me, Fred!

        (and one for yourself)
  • DarkReign16, on 12/12/2007, -2/+7He also inferred the same thing AGAIN in the republican GOP debate today. Pathetic.
  • GhostyBoy, on 12/12/2007, -3/+17Man I'm so sick of these conspiracy theories. Iraq has WMD's. Iran is trying to get a nuclear weapon.

    These loony fringe politicians are completely paranoid and delusional. They should take some meds.
    • CraigJ, on 12/13/2007, -3/+3Well, remember this: It was the same agency that told us Iraq had WMDs and that just gave us this report, and we know how right they got that one...
      • JoeVet, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2It was Bush appointees in the intelligence community that told you there were WMD, not the intelligence community itself.
      • Agrunt007, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1Amen! Everyone forgets the pressure that was put on individuals in the intelligence fields to "find" evidence that supported the plan set on place on 9-12-02- that is getting ground forces in the middle east- PERIOD.
    • Brennan, on 12/13/2007, -5/+2Yet you probably believe 9/11 was an inside job, right?
      • Corrosionx, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3I'm still amazed at how 19 arabs could defeat the biggest security apparatus on earth without any U.S. government accomplices. Maybe you shouldn't outright reject that possibility.
    • bono4u, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1don't dare to compare official versions of the truth with conspiracy, that only may do officials with in-official "stories"
      /sarcasm

      by the way here is a nasty one
      http://www.digg.com/world_news/Missing_Nukes_Treas ...
  • mikebaldwin67, on 12/12/2007, -2/+8While I am skeptical of the people who claim Iran is no longer any threat to us becuase of this NIE release. Thompson's comments show a wanting to goto war, not skepticism.
    • solarsavior, on 12/12/2007, -2/+2HE is welcome to go to war anytime HE chooses to.
    • nirav72, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Your skepticism is based on what evidence? Are you a foreign intelligence expert? The NIE is compiled by almost a dozen intelligence agencies with billions spent on hardware and people to collect and analyze all the data. So do you have a private source that provides some vital intelligence that the U.S government has not been able to collect? Maybe the CIA should hire you as an analyst. ***** idiot.
      • mikebaldwin67, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1The report says that Iran stopped pursuing nuclear weapons in 2003 it does not say that Iran poses no threat. Im not claiming to be an expert, I just read the release.
    • bono4u, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1eh, don't know from where comes the greater threat, inside or outside
      there are a lot of proofen false-flag operations against the own people

      that could be a future realy nasty one
      http://www.digg.com/world_news/Missing_Nukes_Treas ...
  • hawkeye17, on 12/12/2007, -2/+12I think Obi-Wan Kenobi summed it up best when he said, "who's the bigger fool? the fool or the fool that believes anything Fred Thompson says"!!!
    • bono4u, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1the media only has to repeat it often enough and it becomes truth
  • RavagesOfTime, on 12/12/2007, -3/+6No real need to get upset about this. It's not as if Fred Thompson's the first Republican to not pay attention to intelligence that doesn't suit his interests in the last few years.
  • superkendall, on 12/12/2007, -7/+6The NIE is produced by the same people who gave us the original WMD estimates for Iraq. Why doesn't that concern people more?
    • mikebaldwin67, on 12/12/2007, -3/+5no... no it's not.
      • CraigJ, on 12/13/2007, -2/+2Uh, yeah, it is. Google this: Key Judgments from October 2002 NIE
        • JoeVet, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Duh, no its not. The WMD debacle was due to intelligence being ignored by Bush lackeys appointed over the intelligence community. This report is brought to you by the the intelligence community and not their Bush appointed overseers.
    • mirunit, on 12/13/2007, -2/+4What did the NIE on Iraq's WMD say?

      That Iraq "is reconstituting its nuclear program," "has chemical and biological weapons," and that "all key aspects--R&D [research and development], production, and weaponization--of Iraq's offensive biological weapons program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War." It also said that Iraq was developing an unmanned aerial vehicle "probably intended to deliver biological warfare agents." The key judgments section--or executive summary--of the 90-page NIE has been declassified; most of the rest of the report remains classified. An unclassified version--similar to the classified version but lacking many of its caveats and details--was released to the public in October 2002.

      Its okay "mikebaldwin67" I realize that it would be more convenient for you to be right - but the truth is not always so kind. The NIE did support the Iraq + WMD theory.
      • tucsonwc, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Done to support Cheney's predetermined goal to invade Iraq per PNAC. Buy a clue. Read up on Curve Ball. Read up on yellow cake. Read up on outing valerie plame.
    • bsmang, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4Because they were coerced into the WMD findings and they stood up more against the coercion this time around and made sure George and Dick couldn't twist their assessment into whatever they want..
      • mirunit, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2Proof?
        • nirav72, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Proof? Two words - "yellow cake" boondoggle
        • tucsonwc, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Jeez. See Colin Powell about the "slam dunk" statements. See the concerns about converting the wild theories of "curve ball" as fact. See Cheney and company for outing a covert CIA operative who disagreed with their premise.
  • solarsavior, on 12/12/2007, -6/+10"Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. " - Dune
    ***** the ***** *****. The only thing to be afraid of is our government.
    Vote for Ron Paul or YOU are the problem!
    • GhostyBoy, on 12/12/2007, -1/+4Dude, that's not the way to win support. It makes us look silly.

      Try bringing up his positions in relevant conversations in an encouraging way. These statements are polarizing. We need votes, here.
      • solarsavior, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1Just sick of the stupidity... Been drinking too... It is SO SAD that people are apparently ignorant enough to buy this hogwash.
    • mirunit, on 12/13/2007, -4/+2Then I must persist into the future being "the problem". Since you are obviously the solution (or rather your savior Ron Paul), what exactly did you do that was so great for America today? The world is a global system, Ron Paul will not embrace globalism therefore Ron Paul will not be president - its that simple.
      • solarsavior, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4The world is a global system. The world does NOT need a global government. Different countries have different needs. Different countries need different governments. Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist. He wanst to trade with all, talk with all, and travel to all.
    • bono4u, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1fear is what kept humans alife, but now it is used and pushed in wrong directions

      here is sth i am fearfull of, could surly be also wrong, but if not someone is in deep trouble
      http://www.digg.com/world_news/Missing_Nukes_Treas ...
  • ShagratOfMordor, on 12/12/2007, -5/+4So when the intel community GUESSED Iraq had WMD they are a bunch of idiots, but when Iran is processing large amounts of radioactive materials and the intel community GUESSES that they don't have a WMD program they are geniuses. Riiiiiight. I'm going to figure that intel estimates are ALMOST NEVER RIGHT!
    • gudnbluts, on 12/12/2007, -2/+5When the intelligence community supports a government's extreme position you have to suspect government interference, and pandering to the bosses. When it completely refutes it, you can at least infer that this hasn't happened.
      • Arkons24, on 12/13/2007, -1/+3or you can just say that it's another useless government agency that does nothing but ***** things up ...
    • JusticeAK, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2Bush's Whitehouse invented "The office of special plans" and hired a bunch of consultants to skew the data and lie to the people. Atlas we have IRAQ. Mission acomplished.
    • tucsonwc, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2Sorry, you mean WHEN THE VICE PRESIDENTS OFFICE changes the intel to match their policy for Iraq.

      There fixed it for you. The Intelligence community did NOT believe there were WMDs. Or Nuke development in Iraq. Cheney was pushing that agenda and whipsawed the CIA to that position.
      • tsotha, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Not true. The intelligence community did believe there were WMDs. Where do you get this stuff?
  • ZenMojo, on 12/12/2007, -2/+14Stupid liberals, letting facts get in the way of truth....
    /sarcasm
    • Arkons24, on 12/13/2007, -2/+2This has been mentioned before but ... you realize the NIE are the same people who said WMDs existed in Iraq right? You realize that they aren't exactly batting .300 here right?
      • Agrunt007, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1It's as if this rebuke was planned out. It 's the same response no matter how many times it's proven inaccurate. The intel was cherry picked the first time. Remember they outed a covert agent??? There were consequnces if you did not go along the first time- Back when they had a little credibilty and thus weight to throw around. Are you a repub?? lol of course
        • tsotha, on 12/13/2007, -0/+0Even the NIE admits they have low confidence in their findings. Or did you miss that part. The Israelis and the Brits think it's wrong, and their intelligence operations are far more professional than ours.

          Oh, and Plame wasn't covert. And Armitage "outed" her. And both she and Wilson lied to Congress... what was the point again?
      • bono4u, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1there was a ambassador, who compared this with a rebellion. I thought for what reason would the hole bunch of services try to get to the same goal?

        perhaps to avoid the following
        http://www.digg.com/world_news/Missing_Nukes_Treas ...
  • dn11, on 12/12/2007, -3/+8His campaign slogan should read: "Gut Instinct and Horse Sense, Gawd Dammnit - A Continuing direction for America "
  • soot, on 12/12/2007, -1/+9Uh... Sorry, Fred, but the way it generally works is you let the intelligence community compile and analyze their data, and then you come to an informed and educated conclusion in accordance with their findings.
    • tucsonwc, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Sorry that does not compute with the neocon agenda.

      1. No gay marriage
      2. No abortions
      3. Monitor all americans as if they were al qaeda members.
      4. Tax cuts for the rich!
      5. Tax cuts and laws to favor corporations.
      6. Cut social services to pay for the war machine.
      7. Find more a-rabs to bomb into the stone age.
      8. The Gays! Aieeeeeeeeee!
      9. Activist Judges! OMG
      10. More tax cuts for the Rich!
    • tsotha, on 12/13/2007, -0/+0You mean that's how it *should* work. It's absolutely amazing to me how much credability the left is giving the CIA these days. It's almost like there might be some political gain in believing the CIA just this one time.
  • angusm, on 12/12/2007, -1/+10Thompson's willingness to listen to the views of people who know more about the subject than he does and then ignore them confirms that he is serious presidential material.
    • JusticeAK, on 12/13/2007, -2/+1did Rush Limbaugh tell you to say that?
  • drkbts, on 12/12/2007, -1/+5I don't get it. Why is it that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons, whereas the US can? For sake of consistency either argue that nobody should have nuclear weapons (and by implication do away with your own) or allow all nations to have nuclear weapons. The argument of rogue regime is purely in the eye of the beholder.
    • bjornski, on 12/13/2007, -3/+4Because if they had them, they could defend themselves. And stop our meddling, like we've been doing for decades.

      We can't allow that.
    • nixfu, on 12/13/2007, -6/+2>The argument of rogue regime is purely in the eye of the beholder.

      You are insane
      • Corrosionx, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1I think the neocons are a rogue regime, and they have TONS of nukes.
    • Arkons24, on 12/13/2007, -5/+1because if Iran had nuclear weapons they would Nuke Tel Aviv, followed by the nuking of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and every other Sunni state.
      • Rodman930, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2And what would that get them?
        • bono4u, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1shiite supremacy
        • Corrosionx, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Not when their country is transformed into a glassy parking lot...
        • Arkons24, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1it would get them exactly what they want -- religious supremacy over a region that would have become a historical afterthought after WWI if not for their massive reserves of Oil. Think Africa with religious zeal thrown in the mix to really spice up the ethnic cleansing. Except now they have enough cash to really pursue globa climate changing weapons. The only reason the civilization of Islam has lasted this long is because they were really too busy butchering each other to care about us white people robbing them blind. Now they are simply an inconvenience. We either change our policy to totally step out, quit the oil game and watch the entire region engulf Asia and Europe in a massive Shia vs. Sunni world war. Or we eliminate both factions before they can do anything (not something bush will do for certain_. Regardless of that eventuality however, is the fact that no one in that region should be allowed to possess anything but weapons able to target and kill their closest neighbor. Israel is our trump card, that's why they are supported. When the ***** really starts flying, we let them janitor up the joint. Sounds nuts right? Wait until it happens. The time for diplomacy has passed (since 1920) ... time to start letting some blood.
    • bono4u, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Perhaps some of our politicans think, "We have dumped so much of our toxic uranium in these countries, they don't care anyway anymore" 340 tons 1st gulf war, 1000t afganistahn, 2000t iraq, those uranium takes 4.5 billion years to fanish and it is merged with the desert sand.

      look for the film "Beyond Treason"
    • tsotha, on 12/13/2007, -0/+0I think the reason has to do with what their president has been saying. There seems to be some willingness on his part to use them against Israel.
  • showmehost, on 12/12/2007, -3/+1Can we vote for someone to restore the republic while we still can? www.instantrunoff dot org would be the best way of doing it, but it's pro-able to late.

  • ordig, on 12/13/2007, -2/+4National Intelligence is an oxymoron.
    • schavira, on 12/13/2007, -1/+2People I know used to say military intelligence in place of that. John Kerry learned that the hard way.
  • FaraFiro, on 12/13/2007, -2/+8THOMPSON = TOOL
  • MisterKen, on 12/13/2007, -2/+4We need more war. Look how good it is for the economy and morale of the country!
    /sarcasm
    • nirav72, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2you know..you might be onto something there.
  • vbullinger, on 12/13/2007, -2/+4I don't care about Fred Thompson: he is foolish.
  • nixfu, on 12/13/2007, -10/+2This NIE report has done one thing...


    The NIE MADE WAR WITH IRAN MUCH MUCH MORE LIKELY! Good job libs at the state department....you just screwed us with your petty anti-bush games.


    Now, the diplomatic talks or trying to put pressure on Iran via talking to them will be USELESS!! They will just hold up this worthless piece of paper in our face every time we try to talk to them.

    We know they are developing nukes.. http://digg.com/world_news/Iranian_opposition_grou ...

    ...now we have fewer options because diplomacy is now a joke, and the most likely one left being some type of military action.


    Thanks for nothing. Retards, you just made war MORE LIKELY.
    • bsmang, on 12/13/2007, -0/+6You're the one who wants war. I can smell it on you. Quit trying to pretend you don't.
    • JohnFromChicago, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3"The NIE MADE WAR WITH IRAN MUCH MUCH MORE LIKELY!"

      Just because one of those NeoCon think tank old douche bags says it doesn't mean it's true. The NIE has undoubtedly made it LESS likely that we will be at war with Iran. Bush can't jump them with this report out there. He'll never get Congressional approval.
    • nirav72, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3WTF nixfu? Are you ***** retarded. What kind of twisted logic is that? How did the NIE make it easier for war with Iran? Only thing it shows is that diplomatic pressure has worked to certain degree. At least in the eyes of the world. We as a country will be ***** ourselves in the ass if we ignore the NIE this time. OMG..what kind of ***** are you conservatives smoking?..I swear there is something in the damn water these days.
    • latinjones, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Was that MUCH MUCH more? Or MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE?

      So if we can't get international support for tougher sanctions, then we have to go to war with them?? Your problem, nixfu, is that you have already resigned to the idea that war is the only way to resolve the situation. Maybe sanctions are not the way to resolve the situation. I don't understand how you call that diplomacy.
      • DeadRepubs, on 12/13/2007, -0/+0MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MORE.
    • bono4u, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1if i would be amadinitool, i wouldn't trust american NIEtool. Anyway those who have goals will keep repeating there version of the truth to achiev their goals. nixfutool get lost
  • bsmang, on 12/13/2007, -3/+2I wish "DIGG THE CANDIDATES" would let us list candidates as enemies as well as friends.
  • nixfu, on 12/13/2007, -9/+3News Today: Peaceful Iranians test long range missile
    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1196847 ...

    >>Iran tested a newly developed ballistic missile on the day of Annapolis conference, Channel 10 News reported Wednesday.
    >>The missile has a range of 2,000 kilometers, and is capable of reaching Israel, US Army bases in the Middle
    >>East and eastern European cities, including Moscow"

    The peaceful, non trouble-making, stabilizing Iranians are building longer range missiles, hmmmm wonder what for? I mean our reliably clueless intel apparatus has just assured us they are not working on nuke weapons, so shouldn't be a problem. HA!

    You would think than an organ such as the CIA would be a conservative one, but you would be woefully wrong. Even after seven years of Republican control of the executive branch, it acts more like State than Defense. It pays well to remember that it spent the 8 years prior to W at the beck and call of Bill Clinton.

    Of the three agencies I mentioned, Defense is basically agenda-free, but is institutionally conservative. Both State and CIA are institutionally liberal and they do have agendas. State's was evident in the run-up to the invasion in 2003, as diplomats took active steps to counter the President's efforts to get significant action against Iraq. As for the CIA, it allowed Michael Scheuer to write a book criticizing President Bush's handling of the war on terror during a Presidential election. It was a blatantly partisan move and extremely unprofessional.

    These agencies are supposed to assist in the foreign policy efforts of our country, but too many of the permanent employees seem to do so only as it pleases them. The problem is that they poison the environment necessary to confront a danger such as Iraq. The NIE was an open threat to President Bush not to take any decisive action against Iran. Fortunately the American people have a memory long enough to remember the last time the CIA was right, which was effectively never.

    • bsmang, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Fortunately we're smart enough to see through that kind of garbage. We know now even more than we did then how wrong it was to attack Iraq, and anything that prevents a similar ***** invasion of Iran is more than welcome to us - even if it's the same CIA that previously slacked off and allowed George Bush ***** us into the Iraq war. You sound like you've fallen hook, line and sinker for what Bush would like you to think about Iran. Iran builds missiles because we are a threat to them, not because they expect to threaten us. They have every right to want to be as strong as possible to help ward off attacks from stronger nations - especially a belligerent, nuclear-armed one like ours with a retarded leader at the wheel.
    • bxblox, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3They just wanna be more like israel who tests their missiles on foreign soil...
    • JusticeAK, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2how many nukes do we need?
    • tucsonwc, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Oh yea, the CIA and NSA are just filled with evil hippie liberals. Give us a ***** break.
      I gather YOU would rather take the OUTSTANDING approach the neocons took with staffing the Iraq rebuilding effort. Loyal party operatives with zero experience in their supposed subject matter. Billions of dollars unaccounted for, fraud and waste on an unimaginable scale.

      All to enrich the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned off. Halliburton and Blackwater FTW!
    • delafere, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3Oh my GOD. My neighbor has a GUN. I must take out all of my 21,000 guns now and kill a million of his family members. No time to talk. /sarcasm
  • Arkons24, on 12/13/2007, -4/+3seems fine to me. We know the Iranians want to develop nukes and even if they haven't begun developing them and even if they state it as not being one of their goals -- in their hands enriched uranium could pose a extreme threat to peace in the middle east. They've already shown their willingness to fight proxy wars with the U.S. and Israeli military. Allowing Iran to move forward with any nuclear program that could result in enriched uranium would be a complete and total mistake for the US.
    Thompson is right to openly stand against the NIE. Their report is meaningless. Iran can not be allowed to run a nuclear program. end of story good night.
  • bxblox, on 12/13/2007, -0/+8What are they gonna do, nuke the usa with their "round the world" missle range?
    • JoeVet, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4Hey, these neo-tards were afraid of Sadaam's navy! They are all just so yellow-belly scared of their own shadow that they want to nuke every other country and some of our own states too!
    • tsotha, on 12/13/2007, -0/+0You underestimate Iranian technology. They have ballistic missiles with around a 800 mile range. There's not a large technical gap between the Intermediate range ballistic missiles they have deployed and an intercontinental version. Remember the US and USSR both developed ICBMs in the '50s, without the use of advanced materials and computing power the Iranians have access to.

      http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/shahab- ...
      • bxblox, on 12/14/2007, -0/+1800 miles?.... you do know how far the us is from iran right?
  • bsmang, on 12/13/2007, -1/+4Thompson, and the rest of you on here who are chanting "Kill Iran! Kill Iran!" are all wrong. Forget it. We're not stupid. We saw it happen once with Iraq, and it's still pretty fresh in our minds. So Bush is crying wolf again, big deal. The more people ignore his cries, the better. He'll go away soon.
    • solid12345, on 12/13/2007, -3/+1Actually if anything the report only proved Bush's arguments half-way true, Iran was intent on developing a nuclear weapon but our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq made them think twice.
    • tsotha, on 12/13/2007, -0/+0No, actually you are stupid.
  • reedk, on 12/13/2007, -6/+0Good for him. With every other source, buttressed with the facts of the matter, supporting that position, I admire someone who will speak to truth knowing the brainwashed loonies will attack him for not fitting their pre-defined views.
    • tucsonwc, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2What? You mean he is speaking his pre-defined view to the truth? How is that a good thing?
      So we get from him a guy who WILL NOT LISTEN to his intelligence agencies and would rather go with whatever is rattling around in that lazy brain of his? Fantastic!
      • DeadRepubs, on 12/13/2007, -0/+0Right-wingers are inbred loons,I learned to except that long ago.
  • solid12345, on 12/13/2007, -8/+1Like it or not liberals, it was the invasion of Iraq that made the Mullahs stop their nuclear weapon pursuit just like it got Gadaffi to give up his WMD program.
    • nirav72, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3right..by using your logic..the post-invasion quagmire in Iraq would've encouraged them to resume their weapons program?
      • charlietuna, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2We went in to stop Saddam from developing that yellow cake uranium into nuclear weapons. Then we change the reason after the fact, first to stop Al Qaeda (who were not there until after we invaded), now it's to stop Iran? Admit it - the neocons want the USA to occupy 80% of the middle east, maybe North Korea too. Hardly an action worthy of the "Land of the free".

        None of this is consistent with small Government conservatism, and that's why so many people are rallying behind ... get ready here... Ron Paul. Anyhow, the majority of the US is sick of this crap.
    • tucsonwc, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4So we had to waste a trillion dollars to accomplish that?
    • charlietuna, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2My follow up other ways to accomplish the same result? What of covert ops, spies, proxy wars via Israel, economic sanctions, trade incentives, cruse missile attacks and precision bombing? (These are hardly softie liberal options I may add). Jackboots on the ground get a lot of people angry, and now we are occupying a country, and paying roughly one trillion dollars. That is NOT a made up number. A trillion!
      http://tinyurl.com/kkvch
      • shauncorleone, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Too bad our covert agencies aren't allowed to operate without CONSTANT Democrat and media interference. If the Clinton News Network had its way, they'd be running leaked interrogation tapes 24/7.
  • JusticeAK, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2If oval office doesn't get their intel from the CIA, where do they get it?
    • bono4u, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1their are about 50 other services, at least 5 or so doing foreign intel, too
    • tsotha, on 12/13/2007, -0/+0The executive branch lost faith in the CIA in the '60s. Since you can never kill an agency, but you can start new ones, they just start a new one each time the bureaucratic schlerosis sets in. That's how we eneded up with 14 different intelligence agencies (not 50).
  • Agrunt007, on 12/13/2007, -0/+3I love how any new nation to get the bomb will lead to the end of America or the world. It's inevitable people. It's a nuclear world, and technology is spreading like wildfire. No stopping it. You must find a new way of thinking. Bombing people will not get us anywhere in the long run. Diplomacy, intellectualism, patience might. Hell we are still fighting in Iraq. Not only did they have no nukes, they had no ARMY.!
    • bono4u, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1yes they only have their lifes to through into the ways of some politicians goals and they do it, something most politicians can't imagine.
  • charlietuna, on 12/13/2007, -0/+5Great, another president who will use the gut and not the brain.
    • rumorsofdemise, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2The gut does have more nerve-endings than the brain.
    • delafere, on 12/13/2007, -0/+2Thinking involves synapses, not nerve endings.
    • DeadRepubs, on 12/13/2007, -0/+0PRESIDENT?,Dont make me laugh the only people who vote for this loons are the inbred republitards in the 24% that hump bush's leg.
  • tucsonwc, on 12/13/2007, -2/+3Go Fred, don't let facts get in your way. After all reality has a liberal bias.
    What a fool.
    • tsotha, on 12/13/2007, -0/+0It's not so much that reality has a liberal bias, it's that liberals can't distinguish between fantasy and reality. The NIE is fantasy - it's a political document designed to embarrass the president, nothing more.
  • ronintetsuro, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1In other news: Fred Thompson is still relevant.
    • bono4u, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1he is a real alternative for Bush supporters
  • JoeVet, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4The Iranians are planning to attack our imagination and our imaginations are going to start running wild.
    • DeadRepubs, on 12/13/2007, -1/+0Matt are Trey are still right-wing propogandists.
      • Corrosionx, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Wrong. Libertarians.

        And you can be sure no libertarian propaganda ever gets paid with taxpayer money, governments don't like that too much.
  • BlackStrain, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1Truthiness at its finest.
  • charlietuna, on 12/13/2007, -0/+4I wish there was one candidate who I thought of as both practical (that rules out Ron Paul, Kucinich and Mike Gravel) and as honest. That pretty much rules out everyone.
  • bowens44, on 12/13/2007, -2/+2are all cons idiots?
    • Rotzooi, on 12/13/2007, -1/+1yes.
    • Putz1, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1no, i've run across some idiot conservatives, smart conservatives, idiot liberals, and smart liberals... its like saying are all christians/muslims/atheists/jews/buddhists idiots?
      • DeadRepubs, on 12/13/2007, -1/+0No,If they're conservative they're far-right nuts if you want to go further to the right they're the one who support NeoNazis.
    • Corrosionx, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Well, "cons" is french is idiots.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.