UN Nuke Chief: Bush, Cheney, Bolton Were Right All Along


Mohamed ElBaradei caps his contentious and ultimately failed 12-year stint as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency today, having spent many years enabling Iran’s nuclear bids only to condemn them in his final days in office. Mr. ElBaradei combined his rebuke of Iran with his familiar calls for more negotiation, but we’ll take his belated realism about Iran as his tacit admission that Dick Cheney and John Bolton have been right all along. Let’s hope the education of the Obama Administration doesn’t take as long.

As if to underscore the point, yesterday the Iranian government ordered up 10 additional uranium enrichment plants on the scale of its already operational facility in Natanz, which has a planned capacity of 54,000 centrifuges. That could mean an eventual total of more than 500,000 centrifuges, or enough to enrich about 160 bombs worth of uranium each year. Whether it can ever do that is an open question, but it does give a sense of the scale of the regime’s ambitions.

The decision is also a reminder of how unchastened Iran has been by President Obama’s revelation in September that Iran had been building a secret 3,000 centrifuge facility near the city of Qom.

SO, if diplomacy has failed, and has no reasonable chance (hell, there’s NO chance) of stopping the Iranian nuke problem…what’s next? The answer is simple: Israel attacks Iran or the US attacks Iran, and Obama lacks the political courage to even think about the latter option.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Intresting how little history politicans rely on when making diplomacy these days. Appeasement has never worked in the past when attempted, and yet Obama and most of the UN turns a blind eye to that truth and still tries to appease Iran out of pursuing nuclear technology be it for power and weapons. Nations such as France, Britain and even United States were attempting appeasement, instead of enforcement of the treaty signed after WW1, with Germany during the late 1930’s while Germany’s military blitzkrieged neighboring Nations and starting up the bloody genocide. I feel our leaders are making a mistake on par with the appeasment attempt of Nazi Germany. Iran’s current President has not hidden his agenda of wanting to envoke a new genocide with the usage of nuclear arms, appeasement can not prevent his or his Leader’s goals.

Sancations will not work to break Iran’s will towards their goals, it will only forge a tighter National support for the pursuit of Nuclear technology from Iranian citizens (even those who rebeled in the June 12 election) due to alien bodies of Government attempts to manipulate their society with economical starvation. Imperial Japan was embargoed by the United States for years before Peral Harbor happened, and that series of embargos was a major factor for declaring war on the United States by the Japanese. To think Iran would sit down peacefuly to economical enslavements and status quotas set outside of their rulling government is folly as they have just wrapped up a five day war-game practice for hostile invasion scenarios and counter tactics involing simulated nuclear launches. Iran is marching towards war, Israel is marching towards war. Anyone who does not want to see those signs and thinks economical penalities will stave off bloodshed is a fool, a deseprate Nation will fight tooth and nail for its survial no matter how Good or Evil the ruling body is and both Iran and Israel’s survival is at the cornerstone of this matter.

And strategically, if Obama is hesitant to use military means, he lost his best chance of bringing about CHANGE(!) from within, when he ignored the cries for support last summer during the riots. Not that that would have guaranteed a sto to the nuke-building, but it would have at least changed the paradigm.

Bush was right? Reminds me of a song!


Obama and His Advisors are all graduates of the Neville Chamberlain School of Diplomacy.
In other words raw amateurs and posers. He is the laughing stock of Our Allies. Russia, Iran and China have punked him repeatedly. Any stern warnings from him are shrugged off.

I score him a zero on both domestic and foreign policy so far and so has the rest of the civilized and third world nations. He will deliver a campaign speech on Tuesday at that Coed School on the Hudson. If Commissioned Officers performed at His level of functionality they would be relieved and cashiered out of Service. By Regulation and Oath at this point I will salute the office but not the man or his merry band of Idiots that advise him. We can still get our butts kicked in and lose this War at this point.

I don’t believe that Obama would give the green light to a US strike. I have thought about what scenario could occur in which the “consensus” in his admin would give him that advice. Won’t happen, I guess…

Secondly, what would the O response be to a Israeli first strike followed by a wave of suicide bombers in Israel AND a miliary response by Iran. Nothing, I would guess.

Obama = No Leadership.

You guys might like this one.

Do Your Job

President Barack Obama
Rep. F. Allen Boyd
Sen. Bill Nelson
Sen. George LeMieux

November 20, 2009

Dear President Obama,
My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don’t believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.
I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos’n Mate. Now I live in a “rest home” located on the western end of Pearl Harbor allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.
One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.
So here goes.
I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.
I can’t figure out what country you are the president of. You fly around the world telling our friends and enemies despicable lies like:
” We’re no longer a Christian nation”
” America is arrogant” – (Your wife even announced to the world,”America is mean-spirited. ” Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)
I’d say shame on the both of you but I don’t think you like America nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.
After 9/11 you said,” America hasn’t lived up to her ideals.”
Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British ? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War ? I hope you didn’t mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers,husbands,and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around because we stand for freedom.
I don’t think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.
Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man. Shape up and start acting like an American.If you don’t, I’ll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue .You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.
And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don’t want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts who was putting up a fight ? You don’t mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don’t want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.
One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life but you’re the Commander-in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you’re not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you’re thinking of.
You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president. You’re not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That’s not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now. And I sure as hell don’t want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.
Harold B. Estes

McAlpin , FL


Now a few nuggets of wisdom from the peanut gallery…

A Military genius that I place on a par with John F. Kerry and the rest of the Twits that
have the Kenyan’s ear before he delivers another campaign speech from that historic
coed school on the Hudson. I did not attend West Point. I was an OCS Commission but
I did put a lot of Third Year Cadets through Jump School & Ranger School after they became

An Open Letter to President Obama from Michael Moore

Dear President Obama,

Do you really want to be the new “war president”? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do — destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they’ve always heard is true — that all politicians are alike. I simply can’t believe you’re about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn’t so.

It is not your job to do what the generals tell you to do. We are a civilian-run government. WE tell the Joint Chiefs what to do, not the other way around. That’s the way General Washington insisted it must be. That’s what President Truman told General MacArthur when MacArthur wanted to invade China. “You’re fired!,” said Truman, and that was that. And you should have fired Gen. McChrystal when he went to the press to preempt you, telling the press what YOU had to do. Let me be blunt: We love our kids in the armed services, but we f*#&in’ hate these generals, from Westmoreland in Vietnam to, yes, even Colin Powell for lying to the UN with his made-up drawings of WMD (he has since sought redemption).

So now you feel backed into a corner. 30 years ago this past Thursday (Thanksgiving) the Soviet generals had a cool idea — “Let’s invade Afghanistan!” Well, that turned out to be the final nail in the USSR coffin.

There’s a reason they don’t call Afghanistan the “Garden State” (though they probably should, seeing how the corrupt President Karzai, whom we back, has his brother in the heroin trade raising poppies). Afghanistan’s nickname is the “Graveyard of Empires.” If you don’t believe it, give the British a call. I’d have you call Genghis Khan but I lost his number. I do have Gorbachev’s number though. It’s + 41 22 789 1662. I’m sure he could give you an earful about the historic blunder you’re about to commit.

With our economic collapse still in full swing and our precious young men and women being sacrificed on the altar of arrogance and greed, the breakdown of this great civilization we call America will head, full throttle, into oblivion if you become the “war president.” Empires never think the end is near, until the end is here. Empires think that more evil will force the heathens to toe the line — and yet it never works. The heathens usually tear them to shreds.

Choose carefully, President Obama. You of all people know that it doesn’t have to be this way. You still have a few hours to listen to your heart, and your own clear thinking. You know that nothing good can come from sending more troops halfway around the world to a place neither you nor they understand, to achieve an objective that neither you nor they understand, in a country that does not want us there. You can feel it in your bones.

I know you know that there are LESS than a hundred al-Qaeda left in Afghanistan! A hundred thousand troops trying to crush a hundred guys living in caves? Are you serious? Have you drunk Bush’s Kool-Aid? I refuse to believe it.

Your potential decision to expand the war (while saying that you’re doing it so you can “end the war”) will do more to set your legacy in stone than any of the great things you’ve said and done in your first year. One more throwing a bone from you to the Republicans and the coalition of the hopeful and the hopeless may be gone — and this nation will be back in the hands of the haters quicker than you can shout “tea bag!”

Choose carefully, Mr. President. Your corporate backers are going to abandon you as soon as it is clear you are a one-term president and that the nation will be safely back in the hands of the usual idiots who do their bidding. That could be Wednesday morning.

We the people still love you. We the people still have a sliver of hope. But we the people can’t take it anymore. We can’t take your caving in, over and over, when we elected you by a big, wide margin of millions to get in there and get the job done. What part of “landslide victory” don’t you understand?

Don’t be deceived into thinking that sending a few more troops into Afghanistan will make a difference, or earn you the respect of the haters. They will not stop until this country is torn asunder and every last dollar is extracted from the poor and soon-to-be poor. You could send a million troops over there and the crazy Right still wouldn’t be happy. You would still be the victim of their incessant venom on hate radio and television because no matter what you do, you can’t change the one thing about yourself that sends them over the edge.

The haters were not the ones who elected you, and they can’t be won over by abandoning the rest of us.

President Obama, it’s time to come home. Ask your neighbors in Chicago and the parents of the young men and women doing the fighting and dying if they want more billions and more troops sent to Afghanistan. Do you think they will say, “No, we don’t need health care, we don’t need jobs, we don’t need homes. You go on ahead, Mr. President, and send our wealth and our sons and daughters overseas, ’cause we don’t need them, either.”

What would Martin Luther King, Jr. do? What would your grandmother do? Not send more poor people to kill other poor people who pose no threat to them, that’s what they’d do. Not spend billions and trillions to wage war while American children are sleeping on the streets and standing in bread lines.

All of us that voted and prayed for you and cried the night of your victory have endured an Orwellian hell of eight years of crimes committed in our name: torture, rendition, suspension of the bill of rights, invading nations who had not attacked us, blowing up neighborhoods that Saddam “might” be in (but never was), slaughtering wedding parties in Afghanistan. We watched as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians were slaughtered and tens of thousands of our brave young men and women were killed, maimed, or endured mental anguish — the full terror of which we scarcely know.

When we elected you we didn’t expect miracles. We didn’t even expect much change. But we expected some. We thought you would stop the madness. Stop the killing. Stop the insane idea that men with guns can reorganize a nation that doesn’t even function as a nation and never, ever has.

Stop, stop, stop! For the sake of the lives of young Americans and Afghan civilians, stop. For the sake of your presidency, hope, and the future of our nation, stop. For God’s sake, stop.

Tonight we still have hope.

Tomorrow, we shall see. The ball is in your court. You DON’T have to do this. You can be a profile in courage. You can be your mother’s son.

We’re counting on you.

Michael Moore
The Pretender is incapable of being a War Time President. At this point I am required by My Oath and Regulations to salute the Office but NOT the Man. Based on his performance thus far if he was a Commissioned Officer he would have been relieved of duty and cashiered by now. If he fails to send the Troops, Material and Resources We do stand the chance of getting Our Butts kicked in and could lose this War. BTW, This ain’t a Man Made Disaster. It is a WAR. Obama is the disaster…

And a brief note to Michael Moore, his Mother was an America Hating Socialist that couldn’t keep her feet and knees together.

My last post must have hit your spam filter.

OT, I assume you mean she was bow legged. That’s what happens when you spend too much time in the saddle.

Give em Hell!

PatVann- Thanks for posting the Letter- I makes me wonder if the smuck even reads his mail.
If the Afgan Decision is any kind of barometer, by the time the O’bummer gets around to deciding the Iranians will have already nuked Tel Aviv, D.C., London and NYC.

@ Davey —

I don’t get it: Obama is doing his best to clean up the mess that Bush left him, but nothing but b*tching and moaning from the conservatives . . . “He’s not cleaning up Bush’s mess fast enough to our liking!”

With this escalation in Afghanistan, by my count, we will have about 100,000 soldiers in that country, compared to about 55,000 when Obama came into office less than a year ago. You know what THAT means? It means that Bush had about 45,000 men too few over the last EIGHT YEARS to do the job right. You cons whine and cry about Obama “dithering” while he decides how many men to send to their possible death in a friggin central Asian hellhole, after sitting around saying NOTHING as the Bush administration mismanaged the war for eight friggin years. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously?

And Davey –Your opinions would be more persuasive if you knew how to spell the word “schmuck”, you schmo . . . .


As long as Obama thinks that there are 57 states, Davey can call him a smuck or what ever else he wants to.

As for the rest of your strawman-based post:


I’m still hearing the echos of loud libby voices clamoring to escalate Afghanistan over the past years… (not)

Besides, why the hell would you escalate and drop in 50,000 more men when there was very little fighting going on? What were they going to be doing?

It was only when AL-Q lost Iraq, did they go back to Pakistan. It was only after Pakistan got tough, did they run to Afghanistan.

Smooth your skirt, your politics are showing, as well as your stupidity.

“SO, if diplomacy has failed, and has no reasonable chance (hell, there’s NO chance) of stopping the Iranian nuke problem…what’s next? The answer is simple: Israel attacks Iran or the US attacks Iran, and Obama lacks the political courage to even think about the latter option.”

These sentences state, in a nutshell, the reason why I am happy that McCain and his ilk lost the election bigtime last year: so people who think like Scott are nowhere near the decision-making centers of U.S. government.

Let’s start with the first part of the sentence, which appears to work from the premise that diplomacy has failed so it is time to bomb Iran, or starve its economy. Hmm, what happened the week after Obama returned from China?



Yeah, I think Scott forgot the part about China FINALLY getting on board with confronting Iran. Joined by Russia. Yet, you brain-donors on the right think NOW is the time to starve the economy, or bomb the country? Are you all friggin nuts, or just acting like it for fun?

The there is this:


I see nothing here about the broader consequences of an attack on Iran (by Israel or us), or the consequences of an embargo on the already fragile economy of that country of 66 million people. Would they respond by mining the Persian Gulf and cut off the oil flowing out of Iraq and the UAE and Saudi Arabia? And if they did, are you cons willing to stomach $200 per barrel oil and gas at $6 per gallon? If it was just an embargo, what happens to the Green Movement against the government? It is the apparent inability of conservatives to do any “what if” thinking that put us in the situation we are in today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now you mooks want to start a new front against another Islamic country? To what end?

Honestly . . . I am now starting to think that McCain really was thinking about his grandchildren when he chose Sarah Palin as his running mate: he cemented his defeat and made sure that people like Scott and Mike’s America are on the outside looking in, instead of pulling the levers of power. Yay, John! Man deserves a medal!

@ Patvann —

*Yawn* . . . the magna cum laude grad of Harvard Law and former constitutional law professor at a top five law school said “57 states” instead of “47” . . . and he said it more than a year ago, BEFORE winning the election by close to 10 million votes, the widest margin ever. “57 states” . . . that’s the best you got? I think I found some village’s missing idiot . . . .

@ PatVann —

This slays me!

“Besides, why the hell would you escalate and drop in 50,000 more men when there was very little fighting going on?”

Are you actually claiming that there was “no fighting” to be done during the last eight years when, according to the Pentagon, the Taliban re-manned and re-armed?



“The Taliban is likely to maintain or even increase the scope and pace of its terrorist attacks and bombings in 2008,” the report said.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that one of the reasons for the increase was that more people are “coming across the border from the frontier area [of Pakistan].”

Gates said he hoped a newly announced Pakistani effort to clamp down on Islamic militants in the country’s northwestern tribal districts would improve the situation in Afghanistan.

“The ability of the Taliban and other insurgents to cross that border and not being under any pressure from the Pakistani side of the border is clearly a concern,” Gates said.

One of the weapons of choice for militants in Afghanistan is the roadside bomb.

Pentagon figures detailing the number of roadside bombs detonated and found in Afghanistan illustrate the level of insurgent activity.

In 2007, 876 roadside bombs blew up, and 439 were found. This year, 431 have blown up, with 354 found

* * * * *

Back then, when this was happening, we had only 32,000 troops in Afghanistan. It obviously wasn’t enough. Bush put a few more in, then Obama put some more in this year, now he is set to put another 30,000 plus in . . . so he will be putting more men in Afghanistan in his first year in office than Bush had sevey years into the war. Yet you think there was “little fighting going on” as the Taliban regrouped under Bush’s shoddy watch?

I have a question, PatVann — W.t.f. have you been smoking?

US deaths in Afghanistan by year:

(Pakistan starts fighting in Waziristan the first time)
(Iraq surge period)
(Al Q in Iraq defeated, 2nd Paki offense)
09-299-(so far)

Looks to me like the bad-guys got motivated when they found out a wussy was now the CiC of American forces.

And I said: “very little fighting going on”. I did not say “no fighting to be done”. Try to keep quotes correct, without adding your own projection, or ya look like a troll.

@ PatVann —

If the “bad-guys got motivated” now, then why did Bush’s Sec. of Defense talk about them surging in 2008, BEFORE Obama was even out of the Dem primaries? And we have 68,000 troops there now after Obama already sent 14,000 earlier this year. But the generals asked for another 30 to 40,000. Are you telling me that we “all of a sudden” needed to increase our deployment from 54,000 to more than 100,000? You actually believe that this needs just arose this year? You are beyond dumb . . . .

NATO was slated to add 10-20,000 in 2008 per agreements made on 07. They stiffed Bush, because of the same reason you don’t bother looking into the past details of the Afghan theatre, and why you are suddenly so pro-war.
Say it with me now: BEE DEE ESS

It was also a NATO commander in charge of theater-ops during that time. Try to remember who’s involved in the fighting, and the fact that chain-of command rotates.

The plan Bush handed Obama was for 50,000. He pussed out and sent 20. Now he’s sending the other 30 6 months later than originaly scheduled. 2 divisions of Marines have been ready to go for over a year. Only one will go starting next month.

Yes I know which one.

And once again, you childishly put words into my mouth. I never said they were motivated “now.” They got motivated in November of 08. Around the first week.

Really man, that ploy make you look so…small.

brainded-rob, you are a leftist troll.

A few facts for you. The left screamed about how we acted alone in Iraq (we didn’t) and how NATO should be involved. Well, we had that in Afghanistan and it made things worse when our so-called-allies refused to fight. As has been pointed out to you, when the terrorists lost in Iraq they went to Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Also as previously stated the left was screaming for more troops in Afghanistan for years-even tho they weren’t needed. Now that they are getting them are screaming that it’s the wrong thing to do. The truth is the left wants this country to lose because they hate it. They tried to make us lose in Iraq and are now trying to do the same in Afghanistan.
While obama sending 30k more troops is good, it still isn’t enough. I don’t expect someone as mentally ill as yourself to understand this, so this post is to dispell your demented views.

@ Patvann —

The article I posted earlier, quoting Bob Gates in June 2008 talking about the resurgent Taliban, cuts the nads off any argument that the Taliban “got motivated” in November 2008 as you claim. Your statement is just more wingnut nonsense that is belied by the documented historic statements of the Bush administration Pentagon.

Another thing — you claim Bush “had a plan” to add 50,000 troops, huh? Kindly provide a link to that plan. Because if he had the “plan”, why didn’t he do it himself? He had seven friggin years to implement it!

And here, Patvann, is where I expose you for the fool that you are. At 4:12 yesterday afternoon, you wrote the following as the excuse for Bush not sending the 50,000 troops that Obama is now sending:

“Besides, why the hell would you escalate and drop in 50,000 more men when there was very little fighting going on? What were they going to be doing?”

Later, you claimed the new fighting was due to Obama being elected . . . but the Gates quote in June 2008 proved that was a lie. But now you claim Bush had a “plan” to send in 50,000 troops, but Obama didn’t follow it, huh? OK, I’ll bite . . .

Why would Bush have had a plan to send in 50,000 troops (and about double our commitment) if, as you said earlier, there was “very little fighting going on”?

You, like most fabulists (including my ex-wife), can’t keep your lies straight. You are officially busted! First you claim there was no need for 50,000 troops, then you said the need arose when Obama was elected, now you say Bush had planned 50,000 all along. So which two lie combination of those three lies are you going to go with?

@ Hard Right —

Let me get your story straight:

The left was asking for more troops in Afghanistan, but you say they weren’t needed.

Gates in June 2008 says that the Taliban has regrouped and is more powerful than before.

PatVann says the Taliban only got “motivated” in November 2008 when Obama got elected.

But PatVann also says that Bush “had a plan” to send in 50,000 men, but Obama delayed.

PatVann has not explained why Bush had a plan to add 50,000 men if they were not actually needed, as you claim.

You and PatVann need to coordinate and settle on which lies the wingnuts are going to push.

You saying more troops were not needed undercuts his claim that Bush had a plan to send 50,000 men . . . you know, the ones that “weren’t needed” when “the left” was demanding them. Likewise, you claiming the men “weren’t needed” is exactly 180 degrees contrary to Gates statements in June 2008 (when Obama was fighting Hillary) that the Taliban was resurgent.

So you guys consolidate you meme and get back with us when you are not spouting internally inconsistent nonsense about how the failures in Afghanistan are all Obama and “the left’s” fault.

Wow Rob.

I guess in your logic the 2008 was the only year anyone ever has in their minds when thinking about the Afghan war. (Which is when the “plan” w/ Gates involved) started coming about.

If you would remember, I also said that after the surge in Iraq, and the surge by the Pakis, that the increases started, now didn’t I? I even provided a handy chart so that you could keep up and play along.

Troops were NOT needed when the fighting was NOT heavy. Take 2004. (see chart)
After ignoring Afghanistan, the left suddedly wanted to fight! The meme started that Iraq was “bad” to try to win an election. It didn’t work, yet no matter how relatively “calm” Afghan was (see chart) they were a-clamorin from then on.

But only until the left won the presidency. Now the wanna quit again. Ask Michael Moore.