"Praise be to allah. We have won against the infidels!"
Posted on 12/16/2007 5:22:21 PM PST by Flavius
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's president said on Sunday the publication of a U.S. intelligence report saying Iran had halted a nuclear weapons program in 2003 amounted to a "declaration of surrender" by Washington in its row with Tehran.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also dismissed in an interview with state television the prospect of new U.N. sanctions against Iran over its refusal to halt sensitive atomic work.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Now a Moslem would never lie. /S
I loathe to say this, but even ahmadinejad makes more sense these days than the US’ Iran policy. :o(((
“Iran’s president said on Sunday the publication of a U.S. intelligence report saying Iran had halted a nuclear weapons program in 2003 amounted to a “declaration of surrender” by Washington in its row with Tehran.”
Arguably a fair assessment of TROP Bush Administration’s actions for the past few years, much as I hate to admit it. We’ve another coming soon when Bush toasts the creation of an independent Mohammedan terror state in Kosovo.
Sadly, I hate to say it, but the Iranian nutcase is right. Bush may have had better instincts and may not have wanted things to turn out this way, but he has so little control over the people who are theoretically under him that whatever he wants is a moot point.
The left want us to become the next Islamic hell-hole, and Bush doesn’t have (and never has had) the guts or the vision to oppose the left.
It was a declaration of surrender—the result of so many deluding themselves with the canard about Iran not wanting to hurt the West. The same false story is being circulated by some propagandists about the WWII Nazis to this day.
But people can lie to themselves and keep their heads in the sand, if they like, until they see the consequences of their cowardly denials.
That was precisely the intention of the former St. Dept. Islamophiles/Bush-haters who wrote the report.
Don't think so.
Military operatives have Tehran in they're gunsights, it's just a matter of time!
Bring it on!!
this war is lost daily in newspapers not on the field
"Praise be to allah. We have won against the infidels!"
>>>>U.S. intelligence report saying Iran had halted a nuclear weapons program in 2003
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2005/n02162005_2005021612.html
CIA, FBI Chiefs Categorize Terror Threat Before Senate
*****WASHINGTON, Feb. 16, 2005*****
The CIA chief said he was also worried about Iran’s nuclear program. Iran is negotiating with the European Union on its nuclear program, but several Iranian officials have said that the country would not give up its nuclear processing capabilities. “In parallel, Iran continues its pursuit of long-range ballistic missiles, such as an improved version of its 1,300 km range Shahab-3 medium- range ballistic missile,” he said.
Only to the sheeple, my FRiend.
I whole-heartedly think that still the vast majority of Americans, (not the sheeple, now), see that the Surge has worked, we WILL be in Iraq for the forseeable future, but the WAR is truely waning, and that's GREAT NEWS for Conservatives in 2008.
Be of stout heart, my FRiend!!
If this ends in war, they should draft the Democrats, reporters and diplomats first.
Hey, President Ahmawhackjob, stop channelling “Baghdad Bob” — we can take your pissy little dictatorhips apart anytime we want to, and it won’t require any troops on the ground either. The leftists in our CIA and State Depts. are desperately trying to protect your Islamo-fascist regime, but as the lies get exposed you may discover too late that not all Americans are the snivelling leftists and RINOs that you see in the MSM.
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/baghdad_bob.htm
As Televised Reports of U.S. Forces Approaching the Outskirts of Western Baghdad Are Shown:
“They are not any place. They are on the move everywhere. They are a snake moving in the desert. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion.”
After U.S. Forces Seized Baghdad’s Airport:
“We butchered the force present at the airport. We have retaken the airport! There are no Americans there!”
After U.S. Troops Penetrated Central Baghdad:
April 5, 2003
“Nobody came here. Those America losers, I think their repeated frequent lies are bringing them down very rapidly.... Baghdad is secure, is safe.”
April 5, 2003
“They are not near Baghdad. Don’t believe them.... They said they entered with... tanks in the middle of the capital. They claim that they - I tell you, I... that this speech is too far from the reality. It is a part of this sickness of their plan. There is no an... - no any existence to the American troops or for the troops in Baghdad at all.”
April 6, 2003
“Whenever we attack, they retreat. When we pound them with missiles and heavy artillery, they retreat even deeper. But when we stopped pounding, they pushed to the airport for propaganda purposes.”
April 7, 2003
“The Americans are not there. They’re not in Baghdad. There are no troops there. Never. They’re not at all.”
April 7, 2003
“U.S. forces learned a lesson last night they will never forget. We slaughtered them and will continue to slaughter them.”
April 7, 2003
“There is no presence of American infidels in the city of Baghdad.”
With Media Pictures of U.S. Troops Being Shown Standing Under the Giant Crossed Swords in Saddam’s Favorite Parade Grounds in Baghdad, While Giving a Press Briefing Around the Corner:
“There you can see, there is nothing going on.”
After U.S. Missiles Destroyed His Office in the Information Ministry and He was Forced to Give Press Briefings on the Street:
“They will be burnt. We are going to tackle them.”
Disputing His Own Assertions of No Coalition Troops in Baghdad:
“We blocked them inside the city. Their rear is blocked.... They pushed a few of their armored carriers and some tanks with their soldiers. We besieged them and I think we will finish them soon.”
While American Soldiers Are Showering in Saddam’s Bathroom Nearby Presidential Palace:
“We have killed most of the [coalition] infidels, and I think we will finish off the rest soon.”
After Being Shown Footage of Iraqi Soldiers Surrendering:
“Those are not Iraqi soldiers at all.”
April 7, 2003
“This invasion will end in failure.”
I hope I’m wrong; but it looks like this new U.S. intelligence report came from a new partnership agency, The National Intelligence Council. They look like they have shared personnel with the Department of Energy. This group would be funded by that Title X program that pissant posted. This group would be part of what Duncan Hunter was trying to defund. This group would be part of who was housing our nukes and concerns were raised by the House Arms Services that they weren’t being properly maintained.
About the National Intelligence Council:
Excerpt:
On December 3, Michael McConnell, Director of the National Intelligence Council, dropped a political bomb. His office—in close collaboration with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the fifteen other U.S. Intelligence agencies, regrouped under the umbrella of the United States Intelligence Community (IC)—issued a devastating report about the veracity of the claims made for months by the Administration that Iran was actively engaged in developing a nuclear arms program. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) report said, “We judge that in the fall of 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program....We assess with moderate confidence Tehran has not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007.” The Director of the US National Council issued also a most unusual statement, saying that “the decision to release an unclassified version of the key judgments of this NIE [report] was made when it was determined that doing so was in the interest of our nation’s security.
DOD MIL History:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4102
Excerpt:
GEN. SATTLER: And I was hoping that answer would drag out for 45 minutes. (Laughter.) But the NIE is out there. There’s been multiple comments concerning the NIE, both in the press — and I believe the secretary’s going to address it over in Bahrain when he speaks tomorrow.
We obviously — they’re all data points. We take the National Intelligent Estimate on board as we look at the multiple engagements that we have with the country of Iran. There’s still a lot of discussion going on, on the ground. The Iranians have said that they will officially not support nefarious activities of movement of weapons and materials into Iraq and the same with Afghanistan. So we are taking the NIE on board, but I really can’t go any further than that right now about it.
Q Do you consider Iran — after this NIE, for the United States military, is Iran less of a threat?
GEN. SATTLER: Once — yeah, that said, that is a strategy question and policy question, and we are in the process of discussing it. So I could you give you personal opinion, but no, I’m not going to go on the personal opinion side, because I’m up here speaking for the chairman.
So again, we’re looking at that, and I’d rather wait and let us sort our way through it than give you a knee-jerk response.
Q (Off mike) — suggest that public perception about this — and this is a widely perception — that the Pentagon was actively planning for military options against Iran, if it came to that, and that this new intelligence estimate has dialed that back a little bit. That’s how people are seeing this. From your perspective, inside where you have some knowledge, can you sort of put that in perspective for us? Is that an accurate perception?
GEN. SATTLER: You know, I’m not going to confirm or deny any plan that’s going on anywhere around the world on multiple potential contingencies, but I can state that there has been no course correction, slowdown, speed up, given to us inside the Joint Staff based on the NIE. That’s invalid, and I’d just leave it right there, James.
Q A quick follow-up, I’m sorry. I’m sorry. Just a quick follow-up on Iran. You mentioned the fact that Iran pledged to not send as many weapons in. We’re sort of getting a mixed report from Iraq about whether that’s actually the case. Do you have a feeling for whether or not they’ve actually followed through on this?
Well, the NIE didn't claim that the Iranians shut their weapons program forever in 2003....just that they "shut it down."
The NIE in 2008 after the mushroom cloud clears, they can say...."As we reported last year, Iran shut down the program in 2003,...and apparently restarted it in 2004....."
Remember, these are clintonistas in the CIA....parse.....parse!
That is an idiotic thing to say.
(Bush would have too much class to say it, but I don't....)
How can you sit there, while our troops are winning in Iraq and Afghanistan, and nearly every single person in DC and the media and world governments against him and say with a straight face that George Bush doesn't have the guts or vision to oppose the left!?!?!
Are you infected with idiotica?
When Bush pushed for 'the surge' after a stinging defeat, when Bush pushed for Petraes' confirmation....there weren't even very many people on FR who supported him against the left.
He's totally belittled and neutralized the Pelosi congress...and what exactly is Reid beating Bush on these days. Bush maybe had the help of Mitch McConnell and Boehner on his side during that time, and that was about it.
If anyone related these accomplishments to you in December 2006, you'd have thought it was from the Onion.
No guts, my ass.
Read my post 15 then look at this:
Look who is connect to the National Intelligence Council
http://techpresident.personaldemocracy.com/node/14889
GIULIANI AD FACTS “One Hour”
AD FACT:
MAYOR GIULIANI: “I remember back to the 1970s and the early 1980s. Iranian mullahs took American hostages and they held the American hostages for 444 days.”
BACKGROUND:
American Hostages Were Held In Iran For 444 Days. “On November 4, 1979, Iranian militants stormed the United States Embassy in Tehran and took approximately seventy Americans captive. This terrorist act triggered the most profound crisis of the Carter presidency and began a personal ordeal for Jimmy Carter and the American people that lasted 444 days.” (The Jimmy Carter Library & Museum Website, http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/hostages.phtml, Accessed 11/11/07)
AD FACT:
Mayor Giuliani: “And they released the American hostages in one hour, and that should tell us a lot about these Islamic terrorists that we’re facing. The one hour in which they released them was the one hour in which Ronald Reagan was taking the Oath of Office as President of the United States.”
BACKGROUND:
Hostages Were Released Within Hour Of Ronald Reagan Being Inaugurated As President. “President Reagan announced today the long-sought goal of his predecessor: that 52 American citizens, hostages in Tehran for an agonizing 14 1/2 months, ‘are now free of Iran.’ ‘We can all drink to this one,’ he said. … In a toast to congressional leaders just two hours after he succeeded [sic] Carter, Reagan raised his glass of California wine and said: ‘And now to conclude … with thanks to almighty God. I have been given a tagline, the get-off line that everyone wants for the end of a toast or a speech or anything else: ‘Some 30 minutes ago, the planes bearing our prisoners left Iranian air space and they’re now free of Iran.” (The Associated Press, 1/20/81)
· “On His Way To A Luncheon In The Capitol, Reagan Was Asked About The Hostages. ‘Let’s Wait Until They Get Out Of That Iranian Airspace,’ Reagan Said. But A Few Minutes Later He Confirmed That The First Plane Carrying The Hostages Left Tehran At 12:33 P.M. EST — Barely More Than A Half Hour Into His Presidency.” (Walter R. Mears, “Reagan Crowns Quest For Presidency,” The Associated Press, 1/20/81)
AD FACT:
MAYOR GIULIANI: “The best way you deal with dictators, the best way you deal with tyrants and terrorists, you stand up to them. You don’t back down. I’m Rudy Giuliani and I approve this message.”
BACKGROUND:
EXPERTS SAY WE MUST REMAIN ON OFFENSE TO DEFEAT TERRORISTS
Military Expert Ralph Peters: “The Best Defense Is A Strong Offense. We Cannot Wait At Home For Terrorists To Strike. We Must Not Waver From The Current Policy Of Taking The War To Our Enemies. The Moment We Falter, Our Enemies Will Bring The War Back To Us.” (Ralph Peters, Op-Ed, “Comforting The Enemy,” New York Post, 3/25/04)
Terrorism Expert Steve Emerson: “The Best Defense Is A Good Offense. We Need To Basically Be Interrupting The Terrorists On Their Own Turf. That’s The Best Protection We Can Do To Protect Ourselves Here.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 10/25/02)
Foundation For The Defense Of Democracies President Cliff May: “The U.S. Has Not Always Responded Seriously When People Said They Wanted To Kill Us. One Of The Simple Lessons Of Sept. 11 Is That We Don’t Wait For Terrorists Who Say They Are Going To Kill Us To Do Something And Then Punish Them. We Take Them To War.” (Marc Sandalow, “Is Bush Consistent Or Doing An About-Face?” San Francisco Chronicle, 6/30/05)
SOVIETS BACKED DOWN AFTER REAGAN REFUSED TO GIVE UP MISSILE DEFENSE
At 1986 Reykjavik Talks With Gorbachev, President Reagan Was Prepared To Abandon Talks If Gorbachev Would Not Agree To Strategic Defense Initiative. “President Reagan was genial, yet tied tightly to his convictions. Gorbachev arrived at the 1986 summit in Reykjavik prepared to offer whatever cuts in Soviet weapons it would take to convince President Reagan to drop the Strategic Defense Initiative. To Ronald Reagan, SDI—safeguarding America from nuclear attack—was a core principle. He was ready to walk away from an arms deal rather than capitulate. And walk away he did.” (Ed Meese, Op-Ed, “At His Side,” National Review, 6/28/04)
After Soviets Refused To Agree To SDI, Reagan Walked Away From Talks. “Congressional Democrats say the failure of the arms talks in [Reykjavik,] Iceland gives them new ammunition to fight President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative and could help them pick up seats in next month’s elections. But Republicans are applauding Reagan’s decision to walk away from a Soviet ‘trap,’ and saying the Soviets’ eagerness to scuttle the space-based anti-missile system shows just how important it could be to the defense of the United States. … But Rep. Jack Kemp, R-N.Y., an SDI stalwart, expressed relief that Reagan ‘walked away from an agreement that violated one of his highest goals, the development of a strategic defense for ourselves and our allies.’ ‘The Soviets are going to have to come back to the table,’ Kemp predicted.” (Christopher Connell, The Associated Press, 10/13/86)
In 1988, United States And Soviet Union Reached Arms Agreement Including “Wide-Ranging Testing” Of SDI. “A senior Soviet official says Moscow is willing to accept wide-ranging testing of the U.S. ‘Star Wars’ space defense system to spur the signing of a strategic arms agreement. The official, who spoke Thursday on condition he not be identified or directly quoted, said he believed it is possible to reach an agreement cutting strategic nuclear arsenals by 50 percent in time for the Moscow summit, expected at the end of May. In a rare glimpse of senior Soviet thinking, the official emphasized his belief U.S.-Soviet relations had moved from an era of worldwide confrontation to one of seriously seeking peaceful solutions to problems. The position he outlined on the Star Wars program — officially, the Strategic Defense Initiative — was the most generous interpretation of permitted testing so far by the Soviet side.” (Jack Redden, “Soviets To Allow Wide Testing Of ‘Stae Wars,’” United Press International, 2/26/88)
AFTER IRAQ WAR, LIBYAN DICTATOR QADHAFI GAVE UP NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM
Libya Approached U.S. & British Intelligence Services About Nuclear Program At Same Time Of Iraq Invasion. “Libya’s action halted an active nuclear weapons program that U.S. intelligence agencies had never said publicly that Libya possessed. It was announced after nine months of consultations with U.S. and British intelligence services that began at Libya’s initiation almost simultaneously with the U.S.- and British-led invasion of Iraq.” (William Douglas and Jonathan S. Landay, “Bush Hails Libyan Plans to End Nuclear, Chemical Weapons Programs,” Knight Ridder, 12/20/03)
Foreign Policy Research Institute’s Senior Fellow Edward A. Turzanski Said That If U.S. Had Not Invaded Iraq, Qadhafi Would Not Have Given Up His Weapons Program. “Gadhafi of Libya would not have given up his illicit nuclear weapons program had Hussein not been chased into and dragged out of a spider hole, and A.Q. Khan’s nuclear technology black market would not have been exposed and shut down.” (“What If …?” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 9/11/05)
The Cincinnati Enquirer: “Rattled By The Iraq Invasion, Libya Gave Up Its Nuclear Programs Last Year.” (Editorial, “A ‘Critical Mass’ For Freedom,” The Cincinnati Enquirer, 3/10/05)
New York Daily News Said That Libya Relinquished Its WMD Program Because Of Iraq Invasion. “Bush’s move into Iraq exemplifies a commitment to stay on the offensive against terror, and to do so militarily where necessary and feasible, as was the case in Iraq. The message has been clearly heard in capitals around the world. That’s why strongman Moammar Khadafy relinquished Libya’s WMD program, and it’s why a nuclear black market operating out of Pakistan has been shut down.” (Editorial, “Right War, Right Time, Right Man,” Daily News, 10/31/04)
NEW NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE SAYS INTERNATIONAL
THREATS AND PRESSURE HAS DETERRED IRANIANS
National Intelligence Estimate States Iran’s Decision To Suspend Uranium Enrichment “Was Primarily In Response To Increasing International Scrutiny And Pressure.” “We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.” (National Intelligence Council, “Iran: Nuclear Intentions And Capabilities,” http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf, 11/07)
Intelligence Community Believes “Some Combination Of Threats … And Pressures” Could Encourage Iran “To Extend The Current Halt.” “Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be.” (National Intelligence Council, “Iran: Nuclear Intentions And Capabilities,” http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf, 11/07)
Jon B. Wolfsthal, Senior Fellow At The Center For Strategic And International Studies: “This NIE Suggests That Outside Pressure Has Turned Off Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program.” (Greg Miller, “Iran Halted Nuclear Push In 2003, U.S. Now Says,” Los Angeles Times, 12/4/07)
Los Angeles Times: “In Some Respects … The Intelligence Estimate Could Be Viewed As Providing Evidence That The Aggressive Policies Of The Bush Administration Were Effective In Putting Pressure On Tehran.” (Greg Miller, “Iran Halted Nuclear Push In 2003, U.S. Now Says,” Los Angeles Times, 12/4/07)
NEW NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE ALSO SAYS THREAT
OF IRAN OBTAINING NUCLEAR WEAPONS REMAINS
Intelligence Community Believes It “Will Be Difficult” To Convince “Iranian Leadership To Forgo The Eventual Development Of Nuclear Weapons.” “We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons. In our judgment, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision is inherently reversible.” (National Intelligence Council, “Iran: Nuclear Intentions And Capabilities,” http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf, 11/07)
NIE Cannot Confirm That Entire Iranian Weapons Program Has Been Halted. “Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.” (National Intelligence Council, “Iran: Nuclear Intentions And Capabilities,” http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf, 11/07)
NIE Notes Iran Continues To Enrich Uranium Necessary For Weapons Program. “We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do so. Iran resumed its declared centrifuge enrichment activities in January 2006, despite the continued halt in the nuclear weapons program.” (National Intelligence Council, “Iran: Nuclear Intentions And Capabilities,” http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf, 11/07)
NIE Says Iran Continues Range Of Activities Applicable To Nuclear Weapons Program. “Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications—some of which would also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.” (National Intelligence Council, “Iran: Nuclear Intentions And Capabilities,” http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf, 11/07)
Tags: giuliani
full story
10Questions
Recent blog posts
* Lifting Voters’ Voices: Dodd vs. Romney
* National Caucus Day is Friday!
* Daily Digest: NPR Liveblogs Its Own Debate! [CORRECTION]
* A Change.org is Gonna Come (to Your Non-Profit Org)
* Daily Digest: Silent Debate Better Than Real Ones?
* Another Take on McCain’s MySpace/MTV Appearance
* McCain MTV/MySpace Post-Mortem
* Liveblogging the MTV/MySpace dialogue with John McCain
* PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES COMMISSION: Internet Questions Will Be Part of Fall 08 Debates
* Daily Digest: How Will McCain Fare on MySpace and MTV?
more
Recent comments
* Clinton vs. Obama fundraising e-mails
2 hours 16 min ago
* The NPR Debate
1 day 8 hours ago
* McCain Is The One That Can Beat Hillary
1 day 15 hours ago
* Was this an improvement?
2 days 3 hours ago
* Huckwatching Ends
2 days 17 hours ago
* NY State BOE
3 days 9 hours ago
* NY state info
3 days 12 hours ago
* Serious ‘splainin!
3 days 12 hours ago
* Ethics
4 days 3 hours ago
* I would agree with you
4 days 5 hours ago
Most Emailed
* PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES COMMISSION: Internet Questions Will Be Part of Fall 08 Debates
* The Job of Online Strategist Just Changed
* Grading the Campaign’s Email Campaigns
* Dodd Breaks the Frame, Asks YouTube Question of GOPers
* MoveOn Targets Facebook’s Controversial Ad Programs
Tags
10Questions 1984 Al Gore Amanda Marcotte Barack Obama Bill Richardson Chris Dodd CNN debate debates Dennis Kucinich Duncan Hunter Elizabeth Edwards Email Eventful Facebook Fred Thompson fundraising google Hillary Clinton Howard Dean Huffington Post James Kotecki Jeff Jarvis Joe Anthony Joe Biden Joe Rospars joe trippi John Edwards John McCain meetup Mike Gravel Mike Huckabee Mitt Romney Mobile MoveOn MTV MySpace netroots Newt Gingrich Obama Off the Bus Ron Paul Rudy Giuliani Sam Brownback Second Life Slate social networking Spotlight Stephen Colbert strategy Tom Tancredo Twitter video Vote Different Wikipedia yahoo YearlyKos YouTube YouTube debate
Navigation
* archives
* feedback
* freelinks
* mailing lists
* recent posts
* sources
* Who Will Be America’s First TechPresident? A Challenge to the Candidates
PdF Premium Ad
Advertise here...
PdF Standard Ad
* Latest Polls USA Election Polls - Over 500 national and state polls for the 2008 election.
Clinton 1160, Obama 675 - Delegate predictions.
Bush Approval Ratings - Sorted by State
Giuliani vs. Clinton - All the Democrat vs. Republican matchups
The madman speaks the truth.....it is the intention of the liberals who wrote the NIE to do just that—surrender. Let Iran get nukes. Appease the ROP. And completely screw up everything and create one giant FUBAR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.