PeaceNukes
Posted April 12th, 2006 by Chip Bok
Asia Times reports, "President George W Bush issued a "wild speculation" non-denial denial that the US was
planning strategic nuclear strikes against
Iran, but Iran considerably
upped the ante on Tuesday with President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's announcement that Iran had enriched uranium for the first time. In a nationally televised speech, Ahmadinejad urged the West to stop pressuring Tehran, saying that Iran was seeking to develop nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes."
The announcement included dancers prancing around with vials of the vile substance. Doves flew above to symbolize the "peaceful purposes" of the Iranian nuclear program.
April 13th, 2006 at 6:34 am
Iraq will make a convenient launching pad for the tactical nuke strike. Sadly, it may have to happen.
As soon as Iran has working nuclear weapons, Israel will be a glass parking lot.
April 13th, 2006 at 7:40 am
I seriously doubt that Israel would sit by and let that happen.
Nuclear war does not have to happen. If we can blast holes through mountains to make roads, a steady diet of Daisy Cutters can soften up Iran's underground nuclear bunker.
Iran is Bush's new boogeyman designed to get everyone riled up and distracted from the mess in Iraq. Iran is a sovereign nation and has the right to defend itself, like it or not.
The problem is that the Bush Administration's credibility is almost non-existant when it comes to these matters. Iran knows this and is leveraging it. Israel knows it as well and I'm sure they are ready to rumble with or without Bush's sabre rattling.
April 13th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
"Iran is Bush's new boogeyman designed to get everyone riled up and distracted from the mess in Iraq. Iran is a sovereign nation and has the right to defend itself, like it or not."
Bush's ??? Then why are the European nations and the UN telling Iran to cease and desist?
April 13th, 2006 at 3:55 pm
Could be they're as worried about what Bush might do as they
are Iran. Iran is a helluva lot closer to Europe's backyard than
ours. They're awfully close to the nuclear kill zone.
In this country you have the right to own a gun. I can't just shoot you first because I think you might shoot me. I would
have to clearly show that I acted in self defense or convince the
police I have probable cause to get them to disarm you. These
issues are being investigated right now in Iran. The problem, as
I stated earlier is that the Bush Administration mislead the
world in it's justification to invade Iraq. Bush is going to have to
work twice as hard this time around to convince anyone that he is operating with good data and a clear plan.
April 13th, 2006 at 4:09 pm
"I stated earlier is that the Bush Administration mislead the
world in it's justification to invade Iraq"
Nonsense the whole world said Saddam had WMD, not just the CIA. President Clinton also said he had WMD. And he did. I don't really care how or where he got rid of the.
You'd be the first to blame Bush if Saddam was still in power and gave Chemical weapons to terrorist who used them to kill 1000's of Americans.
April 13th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Gee Aug, I thought W was smarter than Bill Clinton and the French. I guess not. Read the paper. The news is that the Pentagon and Colin Powell knew the WMD intel was bad and they told the Bush Administration just that two days before Bush went before the UN. Bush went ahead anyway with his story. What do you call that? I call that a lie.
Aug, I have a news flash for you. Saddam's boys have killed 1899 (combat deaths) American soldiers to date and nobody is sitting around feeling any better about that because they didn't die from chemical weapons. Dead is dead. Another thing maestro. Where was your outrage when W's father went to bat to get Saddam a big fat loan AFTER Saddam gassed the Kurds? Didn't know about that? Well you do now. Look it up. And who was President when Saddam used chemical weapons ? Reagan. What did Reagan do about it. Nothing. Didn't do anything after the 241 Marines and other servicemen were killed in Beirut in a
terrorist bombing either. When you can't defend yourself you just drag out good old Bill. Nice try.
April 13th, 2006 at 11:51 pm
" When you can't defend yourself you just drag out good old Bill. Nice try."
The first attack on the towers and the USS cole as starters.You didn't mention those which hapened on his shift. But I realize that you "Bush Haters" can't be reasoned with since you deal from emotion.
April 14th, 2006 at 2:51 am
Auggie: Do me a favor and give me a two paragraphs of your best
prose as to why I'm wrong about Bush. Go right ahead sir. I'm all
ears.
April 14th, 2006 at 3:02 am
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0414/p08s01-comv.html
April 14th, 2006 at 6:32 am
I have no problems with sanctions in dealing with Iran.
I'm not surprised though that you couldnt do any better than cutting and pasteing a link. I know what the CS Monitor thinks…
what do you think Auggie? In your own words, tell me why Bush's
presidency isn't a disaster. What are the positives?
April 14th, 2006 at 8:16 am
"I'm not surprised though that you couldnt do any better than cutting and pasteing a link. I know what the CS Monitor thinks…
what do you think Auggie? In your own words, tell me why Bush's
presidency isn't a disaster. What are the positives"
This is why we are miles apart. I don't express personal opinions as facts. That's your game.
April 14th, 2006 at 8:36 am
Then show me some facts Auggie.You've done everything but
cite the Fifth Amendment. I suppose those six generals calling
for Rumsfeld's resignation are just being emotional and pissy.
And I suppose the record spending and deficit are just opinions. No facts there. That none of the 9/11 terrorists were
Iraqi. No facts there. The FEMA disaster. Shoot Auggie, a couple
people just got their feet wet…right. I'm just scratching the surface.
Auggie, loyalty is admirable, but I've asked you a dozen times to defend Bush and you've done nothing to support your case.
You've got no game.
April 14th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Ok I know that you are a Bush hater and it is a waste to respond to yo with facts. No more. Somebody else can respond to you nonsense
April 14th, 2006 at 12:39 pm
Auggie has taken his ball and gone home because he can't handle left-handed pitching.
There's an old political axiom that it is much easier for people to tell you who they voted for, rather than why. This proves it.
April 14th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
For the record, from the Washington Post:
"On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction." The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true."
April 14th, 2006 at 4:41 pm
I don't believe everything that the Washington Post prints.
WMD's were moved out of the country.
Iran is Bush's new boogeyman designed to get everyone riled up and distracted from the mess in Iraq.
This really doesn't make sense to me. Iran's nuclear development/program was started to help divert our attention away from Iraq?
Read the paper.
Not a good idea, unless you're not looking for non-polluted facts.
Auggie has taken his ball and gone home because he can't handle left-handed pitching.
There's an old political axiom that it is much easier for people to tell you who they voted for, rather than why. This proves it.
It doesn't prove anything other than you refuse to participate equally, logically, and respectfully in a honest political discourse.
later…
April 14th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Trust me TJ, The Post isn't the only one that ran that story.
If Saddam had WMD's, why didn't he use them in the first Gulf
War or the invasion of Iraq?
Just where do you suggest we get "non-polluted facts" TJ ?
I'm can't wait to hear the answer to that question.
As I've said before TJ, this is a political/social blog based on the SATIRE/HUMOR of Chip's cartoons. This isn't a blog on raising bonsai trees or the care and handling of cocker spaniels. I've begged, goaded, challenged, and chided Auggie to try and get him to defend his guy and he refused to do so. His arguement was never more elevated than calling me a Bush Hater or cutting and pasteing some link.
Honest political discourse ? Hold Bok to that standard and I'll follow suit. Until then deal with it or leave it alone.
April 15th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
"Trust me TJ, The Post isn't the only one that ran that story."
Because most of the stories everyone reads are reprints from the Associated Press' newswire.
All the big papers subscribe to them.
As far as non-polluted facts… go to the horse's mouth.
You know, the same places that the journalists go to, before they write the *slant* into the story.
As far as Chip's blog is concerned, it is an "opinion blog", which reflects his opinions.
later…
April 16th, 2006 at 4:07 am
"Go to the horse's mouth" is not an answer TJ.
Which news sources are not slanted?
Answer the question.
April 16th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
"Answer the question."
I did.
In other words…
go to the source.
Not the news.
later…
April 17th, 2006 at 4:02 am
Sure TJ, I'll just get Bush and Cheney on the phone and we'll talk foreign policy for 15 minutes every day. Then I'll fly to Baghdad
and take a walking tour, then zip off to Nepal to do some interviews on the civil unrest there.
I'm not talking to a grade school student here pretending to be an adult am I ?
April 17th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
Have you ever heard of court records, press releases, legislative records, the CDC, or maybe even a second opinion?
Do you believe everything that you read?
Do you ever question what is written?
Do you try to find the "context" that someone was quoted from?
You do realize that context is important. Right?
The problem with most of America is that they are lazy and prefer to have their opinions spoon-fed to them. They don't form their own opinions. They adopt the opinions of others.
A lot of Americans are like sheep being taken care of by the mainstream media "shepherds". Unfortunately, a lot of people like it that way.
If the media has an agenda they want to push, then they just give it more coverage. They work tirelessly to sway public opinion in the direction that they deem proper.
I realize how much you hate these little links, but I just had to share:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664
later…
April 17th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Well TJ, it sounds like you managed to stay awake during your Mass Communication class. I hope you do as well in Problems of Democracy. I hear the new teacher is really mean.
Only a high school student would think that the average adult doesn't know all too well what you've just stated here. You used press releases as an example of unbiased news information. I don't know whether to cry or howl with laughter. You can't be that naive can you ? Go read a press release from a politician or a drug company and tell me it's not biased. Press releases are self-serving by their very nature.
You'd have us all go down to the courthouse and read
300 pages of testimony in a single court case so we can form an unbiased opinion ? Oh… I don't think so.
TJ. Lazy people don't read newspapers…too much work.
They watch TV guys like O'Reilly who tell them what to think in soft little chewy bites.
Oops gotta go….I think I hear the bell.
April 18th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
*sigh*
You don't just use the press releases by themselves…
You gather facts.
If you are opposed to fact finding and fact gathering, and insist on getting your information from the media, then you are stuck with what is 'fed' to you.
If you are going to get all of your information from the media, then it would best to get "second opinions".
In other words, don't just read the same AP stories from newspaper to newspaper. Read articles from other journalists that are on the "other side" of an issue.
Seek information. Look for the facts. Read between the lines and never forget context.
People who refuse to "hear" what other people say…
People who refuse to listen to other "opinions"…
People who refuse to interact within an honest and respectful framework of debate and discourse…
People who refuse to entertain the very "idea" that someone may know something that they don't…
This type of positioning could be viewed by some as a propagandist mindset.
later…
April 18th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
" See in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and
over and over again for the truth to sink in….. to kind of catapult
the propaganda."
George W. Bush
May, 24, 2005
April 19th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Context:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html
April 19th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Praise Jeebus !!! TJ has finally let us know his source for unbiased, non-propagandist, fair and balanced news: The White House web page.
That my friend, is beyond satire.
April 19th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
You didn't bother to read it.
It's a word for word transcript of all who spoke and what they said.
It isn't a journalistic piece.
April 19th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
WHAT IN GOD"S NAME IS YOUR POINT?
50 paragraphs of lame humor, gratuitous introductions, Bush failing to explain his plan for Social Security once again, and priceless dialogue like this:
MRS. CEGLINSKI: That's right.
THE PRESIDENT: You are Audrey Ceglinski.
MRS. CEGLINSKI: That's right. I'm a 70-year-old widow.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't ever say your age. (Laughter.)
MRS. CEGLINSKI: Oh, that's — I have no problem. Don't ask me my weight, though.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay. (Laughter and applause.) Reminds me of my mother. (Laughter.)
MRS. CEGLINSKI: That's good. I was a teacher's aide for Williamsville South High School for 25 years, and I retired from there — a very enjoyable job. I also wanted to mention I'm a volunteer for Meals on Wheels.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, fantastic.
MRS. CEGLINSKI: Which I'm missing today. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: I hope somebody filled in –
MRS. CEGLINSKI: Oh, yes. We've got some great people there. It's a good group.
THE PRESIDENT: Thanks for doing that.
April 19th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
*sigh*
You didn't read it.
"WHAT IN GOD"S NAME IS YOUR POINT?"
This is where President Bush's quote, that you cited, came from.
The President was making a joke.
The quote was taken *out of context*.
later…
April 19th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
I read most of it today and I read it a year ago when he said it the first time. Most people would have to down a couple of Zofran to get through that slog unscathed. (www.zofran.com for the link lovers out there)
Every time some politico says something stupid in public, they (or their flacks) invariably cop a plea and say that their comments were taken out of context.
TJ, if Bush was making a joke, then I'm afraid you're the punchline .
April 20th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
We've all been guilty of saying stupid things.
No one is immune from it.
"Thanks T.J. for the info."
Sure Mencken…
Anytime.
later…
April 20th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
This is as far down the rabbit hole as I'm going to chase you TJ. Now watch out for the Red Queen.
April 20th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Hey Menchen and TJ! Fellas…..I log onto Bokbluster hoping for classic Bok cartoons, and the often intelligent, witty repartee posted by other viewers. Instead I encounter a drawn out pissing match between you two. Come on you guys, even Auggie had the sense to cease and desist. Time to turn the page. Might I suggest a new hobby….. better yet, volunteer work to take up some of that free time?
Basil The Rat
April 21st, 2006 at 3:48 am
Here Basil, I'm handing you the keys. I've had enough of these
reprobates.
April 21st, 2006 at 9:07 pm
Hoy,
Whaid evabody go? I wuz spoilin' for a good fight and you'all give up on it. Ah'll teach ya. C'mon put um up TJ. Ow 'bout you mencken? Ah'll fight ya all wit one hand tied behind me back and the udder on the telephone. Reprobates, dats what you are.