Republicans Calling A Mulligan On The "Foolish" NIE
And I thought Bush said the new NIE proved his restructuring of the intelligence community worked:
Some Republicans in Congress are second-guessing a government intelligence report that Iran has abandoned its nuclear weapons program. They want a second opinion.
The National Intelligence Estimate, released last week, concludes Iran halted its weapons development program in 2003 and that the program remained frozen through at least the middle of this year. That reversed a key finding from a 2005 intelligence report, which said Iran was intently developing a nuclear bomb. An unclassified summary of the new report was released specifically to correct that impression.
So why are these Republicans going against our Commander in Chief during a time of war? Even Fred Thompson is going against the President and calling the new NIE "foolish". Perhaps we should listen to Fred. He also raises the concerns of the "Soviet Union" in going after Iran.
I think people quickly dismiss Fred's assertions, but they don't realize Fred's background. He was involved in a highly secretive CIA mission years ago that involved a rogue Soviet submarine commander wanting to defect. If it wasn't for Fred's involvment, this would have never happened and the Soviet's would have had the tool necessary to sneak their nuclear weapons only miles off our shores. We have obtained part of that operation manual which can be seen below the fold.
So Fred must have the credentials to dismiss our entire intelligence community - right?
With apologies to Rodney Dangerfield, Fred Thompson wants a second opinion? He's fat.... and ugly! (rimshot)
The NIE report HAS to be wrong. Otherwise Chimpy McFlightsuit ang his "base" would be wrong. And we can't be having that!
Gad.
"I don't like your conclusions so I'm going shopping for another."
I seem to recall that this NIE is a 'consensus' document. What that means is that it is something that everyone (16 different agencies?) can agree to. Hyperbolic it is not.
So, where are they going to go for the second opinion? The Mossad? MI-6? Republican National Committee?
Gary
They want a second opinion from whom? Norman Podhoretz?
I guess the 13 or 16 (can't remember how many agencies were involved) opinions already reflected in the document aren't enough so we need at least one more opinion.
Mike Gravel challenges HIllary on her Kyl Lieberman amendment. Do not forget
Worth the watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npzN3dZR6JM
The Soviet Union! Wow. If that was a democrat, we would hear non-stop coverage of that from the talking heads.
Of course they want a second opinion. President Cheney didn't even want it released. He held it up for a year.
t-bone @ 1:
My mother never breast fed me, she told me she only liked me as a friend.
I am not a Republican and I had nothing to do with the NIE...
"The Rooskie don't take a dump, son, without a plan"
How about listening to the IAEA for a change?
Old Billy @ 9:
With apologies to Rodney Dangerfield, Fred Thompson wants a second opinion? He’s fat…. and ugly! (rimshot)
My mother never breast fed me, she told me she only liked me as a friend.
When I was 11 my parents sent me to play with the kid down the block. When I came back home they'd moved.
go back and get the right information - and a doughnut.
"The new report was received skeptically by some Republicans on Capitol Hill who believe Iran's nuclear program remains an immediate threat"
Got to ask: The belief that Iran does remain an immediate threat, its based on? I mean outside the 16 intel agencies who think its not, what factual data are these people pointing to, to base this belief on?
I know the answer of course, just wish reporters would ask these questions and shut these dangerous people down.
When Frederick of Hollywood saw that the GOP was scraping the bottom of the barrel for candidates, he immediately jumped into the race and distanced himself from the fascist piece of human filth in the White House by representing himself as being even more fascist! What a turd.
Thompson appears either delusional, out of touch, or irrelevant.: "He also raises the concerns of the “Soviet Union” in going after Iran
Russia announced the opposite: If Iran was attacked, Russia would consider that an attack on Russia, meaning: If the US attacks Iran, Russia and the world know Iran is not engaged in any illegal activity or an imminent threat against the US; the Russians would consider that US action an illegal attack on Russia.
What happens when one Security Council Member attacks another using illegal force? The Security Council is irrelevant: It can neither pass resolutions that pass a veto; nor can it vote to end warfare. That is unless the US blinks and agrees to a resolution condemning the US illegal attack.
I think his chances of winning the republican nomination would greatly improve if he'd promise to make Jack Ryan his running mate.
People shouldn't be so hard on the gop.
Now that God's Own Party has a FACT based NIE they just want the FAITH based version.
Filthy Harry @ 15:
See... you obviously live in the un-fun, reality based world. These are people who live in Neo-Con Fantasy Land where Santa and the Easter Bunny strap on M4 assault rifles and kick some Dracula (aka- evil Muslim dude's) ass, and then go to church and pray to the good Christian(tm) God with their subservient wives. In that world "facts" don't even exist. It's all a matter of faith. La La Laaaaaa....
Oh yeah... and these are the people running out country in the "real" world. Just a minor detail...
GDliberal @ 19:
Oh... so this is what they mean by "Faith Based Initiatives." It all makes sense now.
Filthy Harry @ 15:
There's no information, evidence, or hard targeting data, as discussed in the NIE.
Next question: What have DoD planners/targeters been planning to strike since 2003 when it was known, or should have been known there were no Iranian nuclear programs?
Without an imminent threat and no lawful targets to strike in Iran, the US DoD war planners have since 2003 apparently been planning to commit war crimes by targeting in Iran targets not related to any imminent threat, Geneva-recognized target, or a military target consistent with the laws of war.
Said another way, since 2003, the US DoD planners and Commander in Chief have planned to wage illegal warfare against targets in Iran that were not engaged in any illegal activity, military threat, or anything which Geneva would recognize as a lawful target. This means the effort to "find another NIE" on Iran is really about waiting for more time to explain what's been going on in DoD since 2003; and what the President/NSC/Congressional leadership have been reviewing at the classified briefings about Iran targeting.
- What money was budgeted to e spent for known war crimes?
- What funding did Members of Congress plan to spend on things they were lied to about?
- How many war crimes did the President and DoD Staff/WH Counsel's staff participate in by targeting in Iran targets not related to any imminent threat, real risk to the US, or Geneva-recognized military target?
- How long have DoD, the President, US government leadership known after 2003 -- when Iran ended the nuclear program -- that the planned US targeting in Iran was not against a Geneva-recognized military target?
War Crunes @ 22:
And they were not worried about it because they got away with doing it in Iraq.
They should pull a Ronald Raygun and fire everyone in all 16 intelligence agencies, for not telling the war-mongering base what they want to hear. It's un-American, I tell ya. Why do those 16 intelligence agencies hate America? (Clinton must have brain-washed them.)
navyswan @ 23:
And they were not worried about it because they got away with doing it in Iraq.
Not yet, there hasn't been a war crimes trial in re Iraq. There is no statute of limitations for illegal warfare in Iraq.
Looks as though members of Congress have a problem: They did nothing about Iraq -- under the guise of "we weren't in charge" -- and now that they are in charge, they're doing nothing. That's complicity. Yes, prosecute all 535 Members of Congress, the President, and VP for alleged complicity with war crimes. Make them answer to an accusatory-system of "justice" all Americans have been forced -- not asked -- to assent to. Then we'll hear how fast they call for a repeal of various things.
That will wake them up. Turn the laws back on the US government.
Damn, I am so gullible. I started reading the front page and quickly flipped to this page because I'm thinking maybe this old Fred knows something. Maybe he knows some inside info. Yep, I'm a total sucker.
These Republicans see this NIE as the thread that if pulled might unwind bush's whole bullshit reasons for wanting to blow the hell out of Iran and maybe it goes even farther back. They are trying desperately not to look like idiots. They're failing.
I just miss the Daily Show and Colbert Report right now. There is just to many of these infamous quotes coming out of the dunderheads on the right to leave alone.
dothehop @ 27:
Now they wouldn't even need writers, this stuff writes itself.
"The Hunt for Red October" is a fictional spy movie.
"The Hunt for Fred's Gray Matter" is, unfortunately, fact.
Annoyed Canuck @ 29:
The Hunt is on for the Thompson-Mind. Is it a fact or fiction to look for something that doesn't exist? Is snipe hunting real, imagined, or something in between Thompson's ears. . .
Republicans- Yipes, the NIE report goes against everything the administration has been saying about Iran. What are we going to do? It makes the president look like he's been lying to the American people and to the world. Too late to deny its existence. We can't allow the president to be outed as a liar. We told the people the failure of 9-11 and the failure to find WMD in Iraq was an intelligence failure. Hey, I know we'll say this is another failure of the intelligence of sixteen different agencies. Great idea! Let's run with that. Then we go ahead, blow up Iran and say we took out their nukes. Who the hell will know after it's over? Crisis solved!
If The GOP wants a "second" opinion on the NIE, it means many things, none of them good before a war crimes tribunal:
- They have time to review, contemplate
- There is no imminent threat (required for a US Attack on Iran)
- The time to "review" this information can also be spent seeking non-military options to the Iranian situation
- There is no need for the President -- without consultation with Congress -- to act without a declaration of war
By doing this, the GOP haven't solved anything, merely confirmed there is no imminent threat, but they do have time to deliberate something about Iran. This would suggest a US attack on Iran -- even with an updated NIE -- would not meet the "imminence"-test required; and that any attack would be a war crime.
US in re Iran Acting Like Japan of WWII
Rather, it appears any US update to the NIE would be related to the opposite: A desire to expand illegal warfare from Iraq into Iran, just as the Japanese expanded their illegal warfare in the Pacific when it attacked Pearl Harbor.
Thank you GOP, for digging yourself into a deeper war crimes hole for the ICC. (Forget Congress doing anything timely to enforce Geneva.)
Rodney Dangerfield was a genius.
"My father never liked me, he'd tell me to go out and play "Hide and-go-fuck-yourself".
"I went to see my doctor. "Doctor, every morning when I get up and look in the mirror... I feel like throwing up; What's wrong with me?" He said..."I don't know but your eyesight is perfect."
"I'm ugly I'm tellin' ya. My proctologist, he stuck his finger in my mouth."
"I'll never forget the time I tried Cocaine. Horrible experience. Of course, I was on Acid at the time..."
And with respect to T-bone. Rodney's original joke went something like this....
"My psychiatrist told me I was crazy and I said I want a second opinion. He said okay, you're ugly too."
Ok, back on topic. Republicans are stupid.
Reminds me of the kid who keeps losing and saying, "okay, best two-out-of-three..."
"okay, best three-out-of-five..."
"okay, best five-out-of-seven..."
"okay, if I get it this time, I win..."
"okay, that one didn't count, but if I make this one, I win..."
"okay, okay, this one is for real...."
"okay, those were all just warm-ups, this is the one that really counts..."
Strange but true, a much better link than the hunt for red october would be this one, see how many names you recognize. :)
Team B came to the conclusion in their repor that the Soviets had or could develop an entirely new anti-submarine detection system that used a system that did not depend on sound and was, thus, undetectable by contemporary Western technology, even though no evidence existed for it or its deployment, other than money spent on research, and when the western experts believed that such a system would be impossible. When the CIA argued that the economic chaos in the Soviet Union was hindering their ability to produce an air defense system, Team B countered by arguing that the Soviet Union was trying to deceive the American public and claimed that the Russian air defense system worked perfectly. Some members were even considering promoting a first strike policy against the U.S.S.R
You know, if you're like, say Paul Krugman, and you have a long record of being right (at least sometimes) and proving the mainstream experts wrong, then yes, I know the appeal to authority is logically considered to be a mis-step, but I will give you a lot of weight, based on past experience.
What is the deal with people that have a long, drawn out record of being wrong, consistently, and of sticking to their incorrect conclusions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, being treated as at all credible? When John Bolton says 'Even a stopped clock is right twice a day' about the head of the UN nuclear group (Name/title escapes me -apologies), he needs to be told to get the hell out of the room.
Can anyone come up with any official statement based on verifiable data that this administration has turned out to be right on? I'd like to know - should I keep checking information to prove they're wrong, or after seven years can we simply prove that they have a 0% accuracy rate?
Jonnan
Filthy Harry @ 15:
I'll take a shot, Filthy.
I'm guessing they've got a generalized fear of brown people and a hard-on for the apocalypse. Other than that, they're not really good at reading and stuff.
This DoD JAG and the discussion in the comments about the Taft and Rives memos shows the following:
- There were things well known in DoD that illegal activity would be actionable before the ICC;
- JAGs well informed the WH, DoD, and DoJ leadership of these war crimes problems.
- The discussion of war crimes risk in re Geneva/prisoner/treatment/illegal activity was well discussed and documented since 2001.
Here are some questions congress needs to put to the JAGs in DoD:
- DoD Targeting Plans, WH Reviews How would the updated NIE -- that reconsiders the claim that there is no Iranian nuclear program -- be factored into evaluating the legality or illegality of the DoD targeting in Iran since 2003? When did the President and NSC review these planned targeting packages for Iran?
- ICC The JAGs stated in 2001 to DoD-DoJ-WH leadership in writing that illegal war crimes could be prosecuted before the ICC. Is it the position of the JAGs that the US plans to attack Iran -- since 2003, unrelated to any real nuclear weapons program in Iran -- would be actionable before the ICC.
- Commander Prosecutions What is the position of the JAGs on individual military members -- like Lt. Watada -- who choose to refuse to oby orders to attack Iran? Which pending UCMJ actions have been rescinded in re alleged illegal orders in Iran?
- Force Protection Is the DoD prepared to house, adequately care fore, and properly provide full legal services to all US military personnel who refuse to obey the President's orders to invade, attack, or use military force against targets in Iran that are not Geneva-recognized military targets?
- JCS: Where does the JCS plan to conduct its business as the staff meetings are filled with reports of increasing desertion rates, higher morale problems, and recruitment problems with the growing prospect US troops are used to engage in illegal warfare in Iran against targets that are not recognized as Geneva-recognized military targets?
- Commander Oversight: Does the JAG have a position on using abuse, mistreatment, or other coercive techniques against US commanders if they refuse to permit their forces, troops, resources for use against Iran?
- UCMJ: How many senior commanders has the President threatened with UCMJ action if they refuse to obey his illegal orders to invade Iran?
- Promotion Recommendations: Which Senior Officers have been denied promotion, denied a chance to receive additional training, or have been blocked from attending needed service-related training and travel because they have forwarded to Congress information related to the illegal war crimes planning against Iran?
- DoD IG: How many DoD IG investigations has the GOP and White House blocked; and how many DoD IG investigations into war crimes planning have not started, as should reasonably be expected?
- War Crimes Evidence under JAG control: When do Members of Congress plan to ask the JAGs to provide copies of all working papers they have provided to their staff related to issues of concerns military personnel have raised in refusing to obey orders related to an attack on Iran? - What is the plan of the JAGs to provide comments to Congress, the DoJ OLC, and DoD leadership on the advisability or illegality of any orders the President issues related to Iran?
- Illegality of Orders, Prosecution Decisions Is it the President's view that any JAG direction to disobey an illegal Presidential order is a UCMJ-action-item, subjecting that military member to prosecution; or have the commanders declined to prosecute those Senior Military personnel who have stated they shall refuse all orders to attack Iran based on the new NIE?
- Illegal Retalation What administrative actions has the President or others commanders taken against any military personnel related to their private statement to disobey Presidential orders to illegal attack Iran despite the NIE showing there are not bonafide military targets related to a nuclear weapons program in Iran of an imminent threat to the United States, its allies, or interest?
- Personnel Actions: What is the plan of Congress to direct the DoD IG to review -- as was done with the NSA-FISA issues in DoJ, and DoJ OPR investigation of DoJ Staff counsel knowledge of that illegal conduct in re FISA-NSA -- the issues related to to orders to block reviews of various personnel decisions, statements, and views on the legality or illegality of various Presidential programs?
- Article 1 Section 8: Congressional Evidence: What evidence can Members of Congress, the Committees, and Congressional staff counsel provide to the public showing Congress is fully meeting it's Article 1 Section 8 oversight responsibilities [raise and support an army, etc]; and that all conduct fully meets the House standards of conduct ['bringing credit upon the House']?
FY09 PB: When does Congress plan to provide a report outlining what reviews were done of the budget expenses/appropriations/Congressional testimony 2003-2007 in re Iran; and show what changes there will be to the budgets based on the new NIE findings on Iran: What changes will be made to DoD/CIA/NSA/DoJ/DHS funding profiles based on the changes in the "threat information"? Are the funds execution rates well below OSD obligation goals; if so, what are the plans of OSD Financial Managers to capture these funds for combat requirements in Iraq? Please indicate what changes there are expected in the FY09 Omnibus, and any changes to the Supplementals for Iraq war funding due to Iran-related funding changes.
- JTTF-DHS Oversight: Now that the "Iranian threat" is not related to any nuclear weapons development program, how will DHS-related monitoring of US citizens change; and what efforts will be made to ensure DHS-JTTF-affiliated intelligence personnel located stateside have their records, conduct, and training programs reviewed in light of the "non-Iranian threat" which is not linked with any nuclear weapons program?
Revisiting Pretextual Stops
Law enforcement in the US likes to make up excuses to stop people. Now we know the "Iranian nuclear weapons threat" has been dubious since 2003. It will be interesting to review the "reasons for a stop" since 2003; and determine whether those stops were based on real intelligence, or merely asserted "threats" which were not linked with any real data.
- How many people traveling through the US railway, airport, and ground/sea transportation systems were stopped for pre-textual reasons on the convenient excuse of "the Iranian threat"; how will these records be changed?
- Is there a plan by DoJ-JTTF-DHS to change the "reasons" US citizens were stopped since 2003?
- DHS Grants: Some security forces like to justify budgets and tasks based on non-sense. Which DoJ-DHS-related grants will be modified to reflect the changes to the NIE on Iran: Which DoJ grants supposedly related to the "Iranian nuclear weapons threat" will be adjusted to reflect the non-threat that ended in 2003?
- Contractor Oversight: Some contractors like to tell the President in writing what he wants to hear, not the truth. What will be done about the contractor reports issued 2003-2007 that essentially provided "confirming" information of the threat, but those contractors provided information to the US government that was not based on any real analysis, but merely parroting US government errors in the pre-2003 NIE on Iran? Which contractor award fees 2003-2007 will be reviewed, and funds returned to the Treasury based on allegedly false statements to the Fee Determining Officials for contractor award fees; any plans of DoD IG to review these alleged frauds, or will it require another round of contractor-provided data sets to mobilized the IGs into action?
- Target Simulations What assumptions were DoD cost estimators using in their simulation models related to Iranian targeting; what plan do the Congressional committees have to review how these assumptions have been updated in the models the DoD force planners have been using: What were the DoD force planners using since 2003 on the targets for Iran?
- Redeployment: What are the estimated costs of withdrawing all US-related forces for the "Iranian-invasion" which was planned; are there any funds being appropriated for the "Iraq Occupation" which have been diverted to pay for the US force withdrawal from staging areas to attack Iran; if so, what is the time and cost estimate to return these forces to their stand-by positions and begin efforts to modernize and conduct training on these forces not needed for a combat scenario in re Iran?
- Redployment Programs Is there any talk within Congress, WH, DoD, or DoJ of "finding something to do" with the US forces intended for an invasion of Iran: The forces that are not being used for an Iran invasion are still there. Is someone looking for "something else" that these forces could be "used for", even using invented reasons as we've seen since 2003 in re Iran?
- PSYOPS Which DoD propaganda campaigns will have to be re-contracted in re Iran-invasion: Any discussion on which US contractors will have to rewrite copy, destroy video tape, or otherwise scrap work in progress to support these various media messages? When does Congress plan to ask for a sample of the various DoD propaganda the President and others were planning to use to justify the illegal invasion of Iran?
- NSA: Please outline for the committee the lines of NSA-intelligence gathering, and pressure on NSA-contractors to "find" data related to Iran, despite that data not existing: How many intercepts were ordered against targets which never had any connection to an Iranian target, but "should have" been involved if there were a nuclear weapons program? When did the NSA plan to relay the information to JCS and WH/Congress that the "should have"-hit targets were producing no actionable intelligence related to any nuclear weapons development in Iran?
the Elmer's paste all these repubs have eaten has caused brain damage. Somebody needs to create a vaccine for these Ralph Wiggumists
I read a few days ago in German Der Spiegel about an article which was published in the Wall Street Journal. It dealt with a group of Iranian dissidents living in American exile who claimed that Iran continued the program in 2004. (I haven´t read the original article due to my unwillingness to subscribe to the WSJ).
Immediately Chalabi and Curveball came to mind.
It worked once, why not produce some Iranian Chalabis and Curveballs? Forge some "documents", photoshop some nice photos of secret and/ or mobile laboratories and voilà: Here´s your second opinion! And now let´s attack Iran, it´s about fucking time!
I´ve read ...
Don't forget he helped stop with the help of an off duty LA Police Lt. a rogue colonel from liberating a anti-communist drug dealer general on Christmas day. He also helped avert a crisis at Dulles Airport when said colonel took over the airport and brought down one of the transatlantic flights.
This should be such an easy thing to cover for the media, about how obviously flawed the Republican's arguments are.
Instead, they have to treat every opinion thrown out there, regardless of its factual basis, as equally valid as the most backed up, swimming in facts opinion on the other side. I don't know when we lost the 'when you're wrong, you're wrong' system. And not only that, how do we keep handing the wheel over to those that have been wrong on EVERY SINGLE occasion?
*sigh*
War Crunes @ 22:
the plan was to repeat what they did to iraq: bomb everything, especially infrastructure, bring in the invasion force and try to set up a free-market utopia and try to set up constitutional contracts for the oil resources, call the locals 'insurgents' and call the internal US opposition cowards. All done with the support of cnn, abc, nbc(all flavors) and of course, fux noise.
The recently released NIE report has been in the possession of the Bush Administration for months and months. The release of this report has been blocked by VP Cheney. It’s release indicating Iran halted its nuclear program back in 2003 condemns the Bush Administration to being guilty as Domestic Terrorists according to the US Patriot Act.
It is iilegal to intentionally manipulate and coerice the psyche of the people or government by threatening and seeking to scare them.
US Patriot ACT
SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–
(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping’ and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping’;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and’;
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and’; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`*(5) the term `domestic terrorism’ means activities that– *
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
* `(B) appear to be intended–
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or *
The public statements of fear mongering and scare tactics used by the President and Vice President are in direct opposition to what they knew in advance was the NIE determination regarding the suspension of Irans nuclear programs. The mushroom clouds, the threat of world war three and other statements were made to manipulate ‘intimidate and coerice the US civilian popultaion, and to influence the policy of government by intimidation and coercion.
The Presidant and VP have repeatedly stressed an implied threat of imminent danger from Iran’s nuclear weapons program, which we now know has not existed since 2003. They have been in reciept of this information and willingly and knowingly subverted and misrepresented the Iraniam threat intentionally. They are by definiton Domestic Terrorists.
YouPolls
Who do you consider more dangerous to world peace, President Bush or President of Iran Ahmadinejad?
President Bush
83%
President of Iran Ahmadinejad
17%
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1187
Do you believe the White House will be moving away from its increasingly aggressive rhetoric?
Yes, they have no other option
15%
No, they will continue to find ways to deceive the public
85%
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1177
Congressional Oversight in re Iran NIE Update @ 38:
It has been happening all along. They simply use 'terrah!' as the perennial threat these days.
We have always been at war with East Asia!
Tekras @ 18:
The Jack Ryan in "The Hunt for Red October", or the one in "24"?
No "DO OVERS" for these treasonous traitorous war criminals!
Old Billy @ 37:
I'll go you on better: OIL!
OriGuy @ 46:
jack ryan or jack bauer?
CoIntelPro @ 49:
Ryan Bauer?
Some Republicans in Congress are second-guessing a government intelligence report that Iran has abandoned its nuclear weapons program. They want a second opinion.
*******************************************************
Mmmm, no doubt...and a third and a fourth and a fifth, ad infinitum and ad nauseum, until they finally get one which says what they want it to say...
Let me see if I understand the average Republican NIE rant; A one month assessment on the dangers of Iraq with most of the intelligence provided by one drunken Iraqi, Chalabi is foolproof, but a report over a year in the making based on 16 intelligence agencies is dubious at best if not downright lies.
CoIntelPro @ 50:
Either one. Ok, I don't watch 24, or much network TV.
According to IMDB, Freddie has played two real presidents already, Grant and Jackson.
Maybe he wants to be on the three dollar bill.
If we invade Iran and DON'T find a newkuler weapons program, why shouldn't the rest of the world turn against us and force us out of both Iran and Iraq???
Second opinion??? Isn't it more like a 17th opinion?
And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher's arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?
And what's especially ironic is that Grandpa Fred was a replacement in that role. It was originally played by Ed O'Neill of "Married...With Children," but preview audiences laughed when he appeared, assuming he was some sort of comedy relief. And so the scenes were reshot with Thompson...who's now become a different kind of comedy relief.
Comments are closed on this entry