I disgaree completely. I've known some very intelligent people but place them in public in front of a crowd and they tend to make silly mistakes.hdog said:
Dubya gaffe alert!
- Thread starter happygrump
- Start date
Do you mean the same Tony Blair that 100% backed the Iraqi invasion that everyone says Bush was stupid to advocate?happygrump said:add:
OTB, do you care to re-phrase?
- Winston Churchill
- Martin Luther King Jr.
- Tony Blair
- Mackenzie King
- Ron Reagan
- Mahatma Gandhi
- Nelson Mandela
- Louis Nizer
- William Jennings Bryan
Blair is a fantastic speaker, third way Liberal (in the Clinton mode) and I suspect very sharp. And yes he did come to the same conclusion on Iraq - it could have been to stay close to the US (following Churchhills advice), colonial habbit or just that he thought it was the right thing to do (or my view - all 3)
OTB
OTB
Wow, the strawman argument to end all strawman arguments!hdog said:Let me get this straight - you've known very intelligent people that make silly mistakes in public, Bush makes silly mistakes in public, therefore Bush is very intelligent. I got that right?
What I was responding to was someone saying that because Bush makes silly mistakes in public speaking that means he's unintelligent. I simply pointed out that that is not necessarily true.
Geez, its not that complicated...
I'd say its mostly #3 since Blair is yet to admit that Iraq didn't have WMD. His latest statement I read was, "I guess we'll never know if they had them or not..."onthebottom said:Blair is a fantastic speaker, third way Liberal (in the Clinton mode) and I suspect very sharp. And yes he did come to the same conclusion on Iraq - it could have been to stay close to the US (following Churchhills advice), colonial habbit or just that he thought it was the right thing to do (or my view - all 3)
OTB
Bush at least has admited the intelligence community's massive failure in this area...
During his last prime time press conference i was watching it thinking how horrible and unintellectual he was, even to the point of chuckling to myself over how he was stammering around in his attempts to answer even 1 question adequately. Then i watch the pundits afterwards, they were all saying how great he did this, and how great he did that blah blah blah. All i could think to myself was yeah, if he's my 14 year old son, running for class president of the 8th grade, then i'm thinking the performance he put on was pretty good. But if he's the President of the United States, he was just plain horrible. I'm convinced the expectations with this guy are so dumbed down that he can't help but appear impressive to some people.james t kirk said:Bush is of below average intelligence.
Everyone else in the WORLD knows it. For some reason Americans don't see it, or they don't care, or they relate to it somehow.
What you guys have to remember is that intelligence is such a relative thing. For the people that vote Republican but aren't rich or perhaps the BBking's of the world who don't know how to spell "Reagan" and butcher the spelling something awful even though they admire the guy a great deal, Bush is a very smart guy. To anyone with an IQ over room temperature he is painfully stupid and that’s being generous.
PS - Everyone on Terb could have a stupid Bushism for all the dumb-ass things he has said as president. It takes a special kind of stupid to be that prolific.
-------------------------------------
People say, how can I help on this war against terror? How can I fight evil? You can do so by mentoring a child; by going into a shut-in's house and say I love you. ~George Bush
PS - Everyone on Terb could have a stupid Bushism for all the dumb-ass things he has said as president. It takes a special kind of stupid to be that prolific.
-------------------------------------
People say, how can I help on this war against terror? How can I fight evil? You can do so by mentoring a child; by going into a shut-in's house and say I love you. ~George Bush
The_Jaded_One said:For the people that vote Republican ...and butcher the spelling something awful ...
Would those be anything like Iraqis?The_Jaded_One said:... Iraquis...
Yes they would be exactly the same. I've seen the word spelled both ways before and even the BBC News can't decide which one to choose.
Iraquis detained in Indonesia
PS - Nice fuckin' try. I take it you're a Bush supporter.
Iraquis detained in Indonesia
PS - Nice fuckin' try. I take it you're a Bush supporter.
Mostly, I just get off on some of the more bombastic posts.The_Jaded_One said:I take it you're a Bush supporter.
(Especially, the "unparralleled" ones!)
While bbking has many misspellings to his credit you are referring to me on the Reagan example. You're a weak thinker, good speller but a weak thinker.The_Jaded_One said:What you guys have to remember is that intelligence is such a relative thing. For the people that vote Republican but aren't rich or perhaps the BBking's of the world who don't know how to spell "Reagan" and butcher the spelling something awful even though they admire the guy a great deal, Bush is a very smart guy. To anyone with an IQ over room temperature he is painfully stupid and that’s being generous.
OTB
I don't think so ...onthebottom said:While bbking has many misspellings to his credit you are referring to me on the Reagan example. You're a weak thinker, good speller but a weak thinker.
I realize you made the same mistake. That's why I said the BBking's of the world. Isn't it ironic that the two guys that stuck up for Bush's intelligence can't even spell Reagan whom they admire so? Not! Thanks for proving my point.Originally posted by bbking
Stupid/Bad thinker - No. He is a Yale/Harvard grad. so brain power is not the problem. Just ask yourself how well you would do if you gave speeches day in day out. I have had experience in speaking to groups of people over the years and I'm considered pretty good at it, but I can tell you I find it the most nerve racking thing I have ever done and believe me, if you get too relax, speaking gaffes are easy to make. I do admire those people who can speak off the cuff, or seem to, like Clinton and Regean. To me thats a great talent not shared by many. One last observation about public speaking, I found it not to be a natural ability of a human being.
The statement,The_Jaded_One said:Thanks for proving my point.
probably told everything there is to know about your "point."The_Jaded_One said:If terrorism means killing innocent people for economic/political advantage then Americans are the biggest terrorists on the planet.
Report backs Iran's nuclear enrichment denial
Well, it looks like the iranians were telling the truth...
GEORGE JAHN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
VIENNA, Austria — New findings on Iran by the UN atomic agency, revealed by diplomats today, appear to strengthen Tehran's claim it has not enriched uranium domestically and weaken U.S. arguments that it is hiding a nuclear weapons program.
The diplomats, who are familiar with Iran's nuclear dossier, told The Associated Press that the International Atomic Energy Agency has established that at least some enriched particles found in Iran originated in Pakistan.
The origin of hundreds of other samples has not been established. Still, the finding bolsters Tehran's assertion that all such traces were inadvertently imported on "contaminated" equipment it bought on the black market.
It also weakens the case being built by the United States and its allies, which accuse the Islamic republic of past covert enrichment in efforts toward making nuclear weapons.
The origin of the enriched uranium has been a key part of investigations by the International Atomic Energy Agency as it has tried for months to determine whether Iran has violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Faced with evidence, Iran over the past year has acknowledged clandestinely assembling a centrifuge program to enrich uranium for what it says are plans to produce electricity, but has denied actually embarking on the process.
Enrichment occurs when uranium hexaflouride gas is spun through thousands of centrifuges in series to gain increasingly higher levels of a compound that can reach weapons grade above 90 per cent.
The International Atomic Energy Agency refused to comment today. IAEA spokesperson Melissa Fleming said any new findings would be contained in a report being prepared for a Sept. 13 meeting of the agency's board of governors.
The report, being written by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, will review the agency's progress in clearing up questions about nearly two decades of secret nuclear activities by Iran that were first revealed in 2003.
Most suspicions focus on the sources of traces of highly enriched uranium and the extent and nature of work on the advanced P-2 centrifuge, used to enrich uranium.
The diplomats, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity, said the agency had only been able to conclusively link one sample found at one Iranian site to Pakistan — particles enriched to 54 per cent — although another sampling enriched to a lower degree might also have come on equipment bought from the network headed by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.
They said the findings strengthened Iran's hand ahead of the September meeting, even if the agency still was far from establishing the origin of hundreds of other traces of enriched uranium found in Iran.
The diplomats said lack of clarity on that issue, as well as Tehran's past cover-ups, its spotty record of co-operation with the IAEA investigation and its insistence on the right to enrich uranium, keep it high on the IAEA agenda.
"It's a boost for Tehran," one diplomat said of the enriched uranium finding. "But there are other things it still needs to worry about."
Experts said the reported findings could hurt renewed U.S. hopes that international impatience with Iranian foot-dragging could translate into support for referral of Iran to the UN Security Council at the Sept. 13 board meeting.
"This is definitely one for Iran's side, and it's a strike against the hardliners who want to make a case that Iran is (consistently) lying," said David Albright, a former Iraq nuclear inspector who runs the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.
Washington's hopes received a boost just last week with Iran's continued insistence on its right to enrich uranium and other demands alienated key European powers France, Britain and Germany.
In a "wish list" presented to the European three and shared with The Associated Press, Iran called on them to back its right to "dual use" nuclear technology that has both peaceful and weapons applications.
The Iranians also asked the European to sell them conventional weapons and indirectly demanded they stick to any deal reached to supply them with nuclear technology even if international sanctions are later imposed on Tehran.
As well, the "wish list" called for a strong European commitment to a non-nuclear Middle East and "security assurances" against a nuclear attack on Iran. Both are allusions to Israel, which is believed to have nuclear arms and destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in a 1981 air strike to prevent it from making atomic arms.
Well, it looks like the iranians were telling the truth...
GEORGE JAHN
ASSOCIATED PRESS
VIENNA, Austria — New findings on Iran by the UN atomic agency, revealed by diplomats today, appear to strengthen Tehran's claim it has not enriched uranium domestically and weaken U.S. arguments that it is hiding a nuclear weapons program.
The diplomats, who are familiar with Iran's nuclear dossier, told The Associated Press that the International Atomic Energy Agency has established that at least some enriched particles found in Iran originated in Pakistan.
The origin of hundreds of other samples has not been established. Still, the finding bolsters Tehran's assertion that all such traces were inadvertently imported on "contaminated" equipment it bought on the black market.
It also weakens the case being built by the United States and its allies, which accuse the Islamic republic of past covert enrichment in efforts toward making nuclear weapons.
The origin of the enriched uranium has been a key part of investigations by the International Atomic Energy Agency as it has tried for months to determine whether Iran has violated the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Faced with evidence, Iran over the past year has acknowledged clandestinely assembling a centrifuge program to enrich uranium for what it says are plans to produce electricity, but has denied actually embarking on the process.
Enrichment occurs when uranium hexaflouride gas is spun through thousands of centrifuges in series to gain increasingly higher levels of a compound that can reach weapons grade above 90 per cent.
The International Atomic Energy Agency refused to comment today. IAEA spokesperson Melissa Fleming said any new findings would be contained in a report being prepared for a Sept. 13 meeting of the agency's board of governors.
The report, being written by IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, will review the agency's progress in clearing up questions about nearly two decades of secret nuclear activities by Iran that were first revealed in 2003.
Most suspicions focus on the sources of traces of highly enriched uranium and the extent and nature of work on the advanced P-2 centrifuge, used to enrich uranium.
The diplomats, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity, said the agency had only been able to conclusively link one sample found at one Iranian site to Pakistan — particles enriched to 54 per cent — although another sampling enriched to a lower degree might also have come on equipment bought from the network headed by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.
They said the findings strengthened Iran's hand ahead of the September meeting, even if the agency still was far from establishing the origin of hundreds of other traces of enriched uranium found in Iran.
The diplomats said lack of clarity on that issue, as well as Tehran's past cover-ups, its spotty record of co-operation with the IAEA investigation and its insistence on the right to enrich uranium, keep it high on the IAEA agenda.
"It's a boost for Tehran," one diplomat said of the enriched uranium finding. "But there are other things it still needs to worry about."
Experts said the reported findings could hurt renewed U.S. hopes that international impatience with Iranian foot-dragging could translate into support for referral of Iran to the UN Security Council at the Sept. 13 board meeting.
"This is definitely one for Iran's side, and it's a strike against the hardliners who want to make a case that Iran is (consistently) lying," said David Albright, a former Iraq nuclear inspector who runs the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security.
Washington's hopes received a boost just last week with Iran's continued insistence on its right to enrich uranium and other demands alienated key European powers France, Britain and Germany.
In a "wish list" presented to the European three and shared with The Associated Press, Iran called on them to back its right to "dual use" nuclear technology that has both peaceful and weapons applications.
The Iranians also asked the European to sell them conventional weapons and indirectly demanded they stick to any deal reached to supply them with nuclear technology even if international sanctions are later imposed on Tehran.
As well, the "wish list" called for a strong European commitment to a non-nuclear Middle East and "security assurances" against a nuclear attack on Iran. Both are allusions to Israel, which is believed to have nuclear arms and destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in a 1981 air strike to prevent it from making atomic arms.
Re: Re: Report backs Iran's nuclear enrichment denial
Get it through your head bbk --there are NO VIOLATIONS in the Iran IAEA reports!!!! You are spreading BS!!!!! There is only concerns and failures that have yet to be rectified. The word 'violation' is never used in the reports because nothing is finalized and more information is still coming in. The same with the laser tech, which the IAEA is now looking into as a possible third state delivery error. Now with that said, Iran may still fail the Sept/04 report because of their lost confidence in what they believe is a politically influenced NPT process. The building of centrifuge parts looks bad. But if NPT membership is denied and enriched fuel use is cut off, Iran will have no choice but to use a centrifuge and their own raw uranium, if they want an operating nuclear energy program. This attitude of distrust that Iran is up to no good, which resulted in the signing of two additional IAEA protocols, should not interfere with the collection of the facts.bbking said:Thanks for that report by the AP. I can't help but think it is nothing more than spin on the part of Iran. However if Iran can explain the enriched uranium then I have every confidence that the Director of the IAEA will report that. He certainly has shown in the past that he is willing to stand up to political pressure by the US, like he did in Iraq - he also was not that quick to condem North Korea's program. This is a patient and methodical man. There are more than the enriched uranium that the IAEA has reported on. The Aug 2003 report outlined findings of laser tech which is used for splitting isotopes clearly a tech. not for electricity generation use and banned under the NPT. There are many other reported violations. Now before the wordsmiths get going - the purpose of the Aug 2003 IAEA report is to disclose the violations that the IAEA inspectors found, Iran's explanation of those findings and the IAEA's recommendations to correct the problem. They are reported violations - not allegations. This Sept/04 report covers what has been done by Iran since Aug/03 what violations of the NPT remain and what course of action the IAEA will recommend which can include a recommendation for sanactions by the UN.
I think it is telling that as reported in the AP that Iran wants the right to develope both electrity generating tech. as well as weapons tech.
Sorry I edited your quote - I kept what I thought where key parts.
bbk
Hey guys, I'm coming back into this a bit late but isn't it a bit too late if there are violations? Is not the IAEA using secrecy as a predictor of intent? Look at what happened in North Korea, they leave the NPT after they've built their bombs, how well did the IAEA work there - could not all of *d*'s arguments been used in that instance as well (say 3 years ago).
OTB
OTB
Why do you compare Iran with North Korea? Why not compare Iran to another non-nuclear NPT member that first had difficulty signing on but is now clean? Or are you just bias like your government and you simply distrust Iran, axis-of-evil and all?onthebottom said:Hey guys, I'm coming back into this a bit late but isn't it a bit too late if there are violations? Is not the IAEA using secrecy as a predictor of intent? Look at what happened in North Korea, they leave the NPT after they've built their bombs, how well did the IAEA work there - could not all of *d*'s arguments been used in that instance as well (say 3 years ago).
OTB
I don't trust them but that’s not really the issue, we need to use the Reagan logic of trust and verify because in the real world we don't have your luxury of innocent-until-proven-guilty logic. Clearly if Iran will allow unrestricted inspections and come clean on it's past activities this issue will go away - the problem is that they haven’t.*d* said:Why do you compare Iran with North Korea? Why not compare Iran to another non-nuclear NPT member that first had difficulty signing on but is now clean? Or are you just bias like your government and you simply distrust Iran, axis-of-evil and all?
OTB
Re: Re: Re: Re: Report backs Iran's nuclear enrichment denial
I guess you missed the June/04 report, outlining progress in the collection of information. Only next month, when IAEA makes their final evaluation, will there be a list of violations, if there is any. So I'll repeat. The word 'VIOLATION' is not use in any IAEA Iran report -yet. So you are full of crap.bbking said:SIGH After this is done a final report is completed noting violations and comments plus followup of areas that the Company says they have fixed.
*d* the Aug03 report is this report - the one that outline the VIOLATIONS of the NPT that the inspectors found. The IAEA is waiting or should say has Iran's response along with followup inspections and is going to make a final report in Sept04.
I'm so glad you brought this up. YES, Canada had no list of violations. There was however a failure to be rectified, but with further IAEA investigation... This is beginning to be a joke.If you search IAEA site you will find a report on Canada and it cites no violations. In fact Canada was once in trouble with the IAEA over the Candu reactor but unlike Iran, Canada did not make excuses, we fixed the problem.
Possibly. That will be something the IAEA/NPT will have to decide and without outside political influence.
Anyways that AP report shows Iran's true intent - asking some European Countries for support for a dual civilian and military nuclear programs. I thought the purpose of the NPT was that Countries without nukes would not create them ( if you signed the treaty as Iran did). Isn't that a general violation of the NPT.
bbk
