A few years from now I'll keep it in mind that "Iran has an economy the size of Finland's and an annual defense budget of around $4.8 billion. It has not invaded a country since the late 18th century. The United States has a GDP that is 68 times larger and defense expenditures that are 110 times greater. Israel and every Arab country (except Syria and Iraq) are quietly or actively allied against Iran."

Actually, it's not so much changing the goal posts..
I am just following your own advice..

>Ask the question a few years from
>now when they MIGHT be coming close
>to having the capability, and my
>answer might be different.

So, let us postulate that it is a few years from now.. Iran is within 6 months of completing several nuclear weapons..

Is your answer any different???

Michale...

When I signed up here, I hadn't noticed that Chris signs his stuff CW, and then comes CWCunningham ... oh well, at least it's easy to type.

PlacitasRoy wrote:

CDub - I think you just got insulted.
~~~~~

I'd agree, though I think you were talking to Chris.
As Michale said elsewhere, he's offensive because he's defending himself, I assume it's the people who find him offensive that he thinks are attacking him.

If the 'Never gonna happen' scenario in Michale's question ever did come about, I'd feel good about Franken and Weigant on diplomacy. Murtha, Pelosi and Reid were all in a position to change policy, but I don't have a good feeling that they've really tried very hard. As for Sheehan, what's she doing there? A last minute replacement for Giulliani when he discovered a scheduling conflict (church bake sale)?

Michale-Following Dubya's lead....change the goal posts.

You mean your NON-Answer remains the same.

I expected nothing more..

@CW

I really felt I had to apologize to you. Putting you on the same panel with Cindy Sheehan wasn't really proper of me..

But just think of the cat fights with her and Pelosi in close proximity.. :^)

Michale.....

Wow. I'd be on that panel just to get some autographs!

Heh heh.

-CW

Michale.....

Let's go there...

If it has been proven beyond ANY shadow of doubt by a panel made up of Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, Al Franken, Harry Reid and Chris Weigant, that Iran's intent is to acquire nuclear weapons....

Given all of the afore, would you then support attacks on Iran....

Michale.....

NO. No more than I would have supported attacking Iraq if it was shown they intended to fly plywood drones across the sea and attack the good old USA.

Frankly I don't care what they intend to do If they don't have the capabilities to do it, their intent is irrelevant. Ask the question a few years from now when they MIGHT be coming close to having the capability, and my answer might be different.

If you are not going to ANSWER my question, why do you go to such lengths to DODGE the question??

1. If it has been proven beyond ANY shadow of doubt by a panel made up of Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, Al Franken, Harry Reid and Chris Weigant, that Iran's intent is to acquire nuclear weapons....

AND

2. If all diplomatic options have been tried and failed by the above same panel......

..... would you then support attacks on Iran....

Michale.....

Or let me ask it this way. Would you support an attack on Iran if the following conditions were met:

1. It has been proven beyond ANY shadow of doubt that Iran's intent is to acquire nuclear weapons.

2. All possible diplomatic and covert options have been exhausted..
~~~~~

1. Depends on who supplies the 'proof'. So far, the only ones who think Iran is trying to build a bomb are the same ones who said they had 'proof' of WMD's in Iraq. Same lie, or have you already forgotten that.

2. Not a single diplomatic effort has been made by the same ones who made no diplomatic efforts with Iraq, or have you already forgotten that.

A president who is losing 2 wars simultaneously should not be talking about starting another unprovoked war, but I'll bet he's already forgotten that.

And NOT attacking Iran may ALSO start WWIII...

The only difference is that, in the latter scenario, Iran has nuclear weapons...

Surely ya'all can see the logic of preventing a nuclear armed Iran from coming into existence, no??

Or let me ask it this way. Would you support an attack on Iran if the following conditions were met:

1. It has been proven beyond ANY shadow of doubt that Iran's intent is to acquire nuclear weapons.

2. All possible diplomatic and covert options have been exhausted..

Michale.....

Dear Senator,

In 2006 America stood up as a nation and, despite gerrymandered districting that favored Republicans, handed Congress to the Democratic Party. Make no mistake Senator, it took Democratic voters, Independent voters AND pissed off conservatives to do that.

Since 2006, the Democratic "leaders" in Congress seem to be holding a contest to see who can roll over onto the back first for the GOP! WTF!

Understand this Senator... the American people handed control of Congress to the Democrats and they can take it away from you just as we took it away from the GOP.

Find your balls and go use our tax dollars to buy yourself a spine or you and your colleagues will feel the wrath of America in 2008 at the polls just as the GOP felt it at the polls in 2008.

At the moment, Senator, you are an embarrassment. The polls, which place your Congress below President 24%, is proof of just what an embarrassment you are. So, find your balls and spine or your gravy train on our tax dollars will end at the polls in 2008. America has had it with being lied to, being used, and being forced to watch idiots drive our country further into the dirt.

(feel free to plagarize it)

[Chris Weigant responds:]

OK, I can't resist. Don't forget to include a link!

http://www.chrisweigant.com/index.php/2007/10/19/friday-talking-points-vol-6/

:-)

-CW