It Turns Out Ahmadinejad Was the Truthful One

[leftchick]

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/11398

<snip>

The whole episode shows that our democratic system retains at least some essential checks and balances, but it also is depressing to see that, in this instance at least, the fanatical leader of a theocracy seems to have a higher regard for truth than does the president of the world's greatest experiment in representative democracy.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who took office as Iran's president in August of 2005, two years after Iran's nuclear weapons program ended, has now been vindicated in his claims that Iran has abandoned the weaponization program. Not so Bush, who has summarily dismissed the intelligence community's findings and, using his favorite tactic in dealing with debacles, is sticking to his original story. A story, as in the case of the earlier Iraq threat inflation, that too many in the mass media and Congress, including some leading Democrats, have bought.

Take Hillary Clinton, who said that "Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is in the forefront of that" by way of defending her vote for a resolution that, like the one she voted for before the Iraq war, blindly supports rather than seriously questions the president's case for war. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was absolutely correct in calling candidate Clinton out on that vote and challenging her lame excuse that she had not read the full intelligence report before her Iraq war vote. "Members of Congress," Obama cautioned, "must carefully read the intelligence before giving the president any justification to use military force."

Not a bad idea. In the case of Iraq's non-nukes, the intelligence evidence supporting Bush was flimsy at best when it did not directly contradict his key assertions. In the case of Iran, it is now publicly understood that there is no such evidence, flimsy or otherwise. But don't count on that to stop the bipartisan coalition of invasion hawks from pushing on.

Once again, they will attack the United Nations' experts, who have been proved right in Iran as they were in Iraq. A spokesman for the International Atomic Energy Agency pointed out that the NIE report supports the agency's view that there is "no evidence" of an undeclared nuclear weapons program in Iran and "validates the assessments of Mohamed ElBaradei, who continuously said in his public statements that he saw no clear and public danger, and that therefore that there was plenty of time for negotiations."

Can we get ElBaradei to run in the Iowa caucus? Why are our leading presidential candidates so easily fooled?

[Nimrod2005]

1. Saddam was more honest than asshole too....nt

[fascisthunter]

3. Saddam Had Less People Killed Too

Even as the despicable man that he was, Bush succeeded him in all his big bad brutality. What a disgustingly little man.

[Captain Hilts]

2. He's still a ranting idiot who's playing with fire. That's why his party lost their '06election too

[Fleshdancer]

4. Ahmadinejad or Bush? It's hard to determine who you're talking about

;)

It appears both are nuts.

[leftchick]

6. that is what I was thinking

but bush is the genocidal whack job.

[BadgerLaw2010]

7. The one that hates gays and thinks God talks to him. n/t

;-)

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

8. Thanks for clearing it up.

[leftchick]

10. lol!

bush or crazy Iran Man? what is the diff? Oh, bush has killed MANY many more.

[Fleshdancer]

9. ROFL!

:rofl:

It's funny because it's true.

If it wasn't for the sarcastic humor on DU, I don't think I could have endured the past seven years.

[spirit of wine]

5. I don't know about you but I have lost several friends over

these last few years because I felt one of us just was not seeing things as they should be seen. It might be me or not, but perspective is a two-way street. Politics really does creep into more things than one realizes at first, and people really need to compromise and talk.

[sniffa]

11. no, it shows that Bush was right all along

that's the word coming out of the gaping shit holes.

[L. Coyote]

12. NO SURPRISE WHATSOEVER. The surprise is that this is out!

Nonetheless, they are trying to salvage all the distraction and war justification possible from the exposed lie.

NO SHAME with this liar.

[rAVES]

13. "Why are our leading presidential candidates so easily fooled?"

Yea right.. like she was fooled, like anyone was fooled.
It was a collective agenda, one that will be pursued be it Bush or Hillary in the Whitehouse..

Where you fooled? or the majority of progressives in the US? my bet is no.

[leftchick]

14. I agree

that statement it wrong. She was not "fooled" and knows it was wrong just like her IWR vote. She is doing it for AIPAC and OIL. WE do not factor into her equation.

[HughMoran]

15. I'madinnerjacket was indeed correct

Bush was wrong again.

[Sultana]

16. Shocking!

:sarcasm:

Too bad freepers and others will never admit it.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

17. And that's what's so scary about Repugnicans. nt