Taro T

Have not seen/heard Leavitt's statement, so will take your word for it that is what she said. And, what she said goes exactly with what was stated in the post you responded to. That post said it was either someone in government leaking classified (or apparently top secret in this instance) info or CNN was making it up. Per your post, she said it was someone in government leaking top secret info. And the question still remains as to which one is a more accurate restating of the information. Whether 47 exaggerated or the leaker lied or a little of both, we don't know yet what the truth is. Personally will wait for more info to come out before deciding which of those scenarios is the correct one. (And yes, it is almost definite that 47 exaggerated; it is what he does. But that doesn't mean necessarily that the 3 facilities aren't essentially completely back to ground zero so to speak. Which, if it's the case would make 47's version significantly closer to the truth IF in fact that is what's happened than what the leaker has divulged.) (Just like 47 isn't necessarily going to tell the truth, the leaker might have motives to lie as well. And when we have no idea who that leaker is at this time, can't honestly say whether they are or aren't lying.)

One thing to remember about any of CNN's reporting, at least for the next 3-1/2 years, is that most of their insiders that held securitiy clearances even after leaving government service had them revoked by 47. So, in a matter like this, they're either getting told by somebody still working in the government that is leaking classified information or they're making it up as they go. A significant portion of their former sources have dried up.

Well,a ceasefire is only that - a ceasefire. It doesn't mean there necessarily is a resolution but it does provide time for negotiations. IMHO it would be very shortsighted and antithetical to obtaining a peace agreement for 47 to be calling for regime change. Seems he couching that about as well as we can hope (though very much in his particular brand of communication) in stating that we aren't calling for regime change but we aren't opposed to it (and personally take that as saying we'd really like to see the Iranian people overthrow what's left of the regime and also that if they don't negotiate in good faith an end of their nuclear program that we WILL actively work towards regime change). Will be interesting to see how negotiations between the 3 parties go now that we seem to be in a ceasefire. If the mullahs survive this, expect that they will be required to grant full unfettered access to their nuclear sites and that ANY lack of access will result in more bombs landing on them. Will also be very interested to see what, if any, concessions the Israelis and the Americans make in the negotiations. Expecting those to be minimal and strictly something that we don't particularly care about that lets the mullahs CLAIM some form of victory, however minor it might be. To your earlier questions of "why now?" IMHO 2 additional reasons beyond what @sherpa has mentioned: 1 Russia is otherwise occupied, which is the same reason Assad fell over in Syria and 2. the guy that always seemed to be partial to solutions that Iran would favor in that region of the world such as wanting to partition Iraq after Saddam fell is no longer even titularly in the WH.

Ironically, the ones that are most blissful seem to be the most over the top pissed off people around. Such a dichotomy.

And 2 ways to view the "our goal is not regime change in Iran" but "we'd be good with it should it happen" that don't leave these as contradictory messages are: 1. we have no intention of enacting regime change but if the Iranian people try to make it happen, we'd be more than willing to support them. And 2. we've said repeatedly that we want to negotiate an end to the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons program(s). If the mullahs are finally willing to come to the table, great. But if they aren't, well there's more than 1 way to "negotiate" an end to the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons program(s). We'll let the mullahs choose which way they want it to play out, but they have to make their choice very quickly. Am not thrilled that the Netanyahu decided to bring this decades long conflict to a head nor that the US got involved. But at the end of the day, prefer this to Iran having a nuclear weapon or 9.

Well, in fairness to him, Vanity Fair was behind a paywall.

The thing to watch for is in states that don't have eminent domain laws that somebody buys land with the only access roads to some adjacent lands and then they effectively buy a whole lot more land than they'd actually paid for. Because without eminent domain, you can't force somebody to allow a road in on their property. It's how folks like Ted Turner ended up getting some really great land. Buy up everything surrounding what you REALLY want and then make a swap of some of what you have for what you actually want. As long as the feds &/or the state can get roads built to what lies beyond what is being sold off, there isn't a whole lot to be worried about provided you aren't a competitor of clean coal (the real reason 42 converted large chunks of Utah to national parkland - to prevent low sulfur coal from being mined) or a rancher with a dirt cheap lease on federal lands for grazing purposes or someone else benefiting from that land not being private / exploitable.

What in the holy hell are you talking about? You're going back to your Billsy level halucinations. You're equating our government pushing private companies to restrict free speech (the deplatforming outlets that ran with the Hunter Biden laptop story back in 2020, and the deplatforming of Dr. Bhattacharya for his views regarding covid in 2021 as prime examples) with people asking the government to not sponsor artists like Maplethorpe? Interesting take. And one of a comparison of apples and kumquats. And you know darn well that what 44 is calling for is for the government censoring views that challenge it. A reimagining of the Disinformation Governence Board if you will. The fact that you can't even admit that you know that's what he's calling for tells us one of 2 things about you. So, have fun with it.

It would seem to be in the hands of the mullahs at present. 47 made a nonveiled threat that if they don't agree to negotiate an end to this war that we will be at war and with the vast majority of their air (and other?) defenses taken out that that would not go well for them. Praying that Netanyahu and 47 are right about this one. We seem to be at a major inflection point. And as much as the world changed for the worse on 9/11/01 maybe it'll change that much for the better now. That's all those of us texting on a message board can do at this point.

Had the exact same thought. Who knew 47 is a Trekkie?

NEITHER of which are even close to the government deciding what truths are allowed to be stated and which aren't. Which is what 44 is calling for. Having the ability to deplatform positions the government finds "inconvenient" is what they really want. And remember, though your favorites propose such things, were they enacted today the guy you can't stand would be the one choosing who the arbiters of truth are. You SURE you're really ok with that?

How is a politician, or an authority appointed by a politician (same difference), choosing what is "truth" or a "fact" in any way shape or form following the 1st amendment? The 1st amendment says the politicians don't get to choose what others are allowed to say or believe.

The ONLY way we trust the mullahs to be honest about their nuke program (presuming they are still in power when the dust settles) is by full, complete, unfettered inspection of their facilities. Like Reagan said "trust but verify." And that can work. It worked in the late 80's, both sides got to inspect the other's facilities to prove they were honoring the treaties. What repercussions happen if they don't allow that &/or they get caught cheating: if the "good guys" are serious about not letting Iran have a bomb; in short order we're back to where we are today. If they're not serious about it and the mullahs are still there, we go back to where we were before: with the mullahs lying about following the jcpoa rules and supporting as much terrorist activity as they can buy. As @sherpa stated, the BEST way to ensure the mullahs don't end up with control of nukes is by removing them from power. It looked like the Iranian people were on the verge of overthrowing the mullahs 10 or so years ago. Our government then signed the jcpoa and literally gave their government "pallets of cash." So much for that rebellion. Not expecting 47 nor Netanyahu to be nearly as accomodating as the US had been in the past. So, hopefully what Israel is doing now is enough to give the Iranian people the ability to overthrow the mullahs. THAT would be best case and would be a true game changer for global politics.

***** owners? Since when do diseases and medical conditions care whether you drive a Swedish car or not? 😉

Running with he's too stupid to live is an interesting defense in place of he's too partisan to tell the truth. Jake, how is saying you're the most gullible person on the face of the earth a better defense than simply saying yes, we were lying the entire time but we got the job done? Nobody with at least 1/2 of a functioning cerebral cortex will ever trust you again regardless of how you spin this, but at least you'd maintain nearly a shred of dignity.

Really hoping that we don't escalate our involvement in this war. Keep providing support to Israel; but let them do the heavy lifting.

And if Alberta were to jump ship and swap countries, English speaking Canada would have to go all the way back to the 6 team league to have a Championship they could call their own.

Sabre talk? Just how depressed do you want to get?

Last night when they were supposedly going to launch a couple hundred missles at Israel they ended up launching about 10. Russia has pretty much said they're on their own. So, LIKELY it's bluster. But until this war is over won't put the possibility they've got sleeper cells here past them.

Yesh. The intersting thing in this is, realistically there are 3 ways this can play out. The Iranian people seize this opportunity now that the mullahs are weakened and retake their country from them. The Iranians withstand this initial surge, either on their own or via help from Russia and China, Israel ends up significantly weakened and the whole ME ends up, somehow, even more volatile than it has been. Or, at the end of the day, the stalemate between Iran and Israel remains but Iran redoubles their efforts to get a nuke. Seriously high stake gambit Netanyahu took here. And absolutely no idea how it'll turn out. Really hoping it winds up the 1st option because the world get reset in a much better way if the Abraham Accords spread and Iran no longer is the key terror backer. But could easily see it going in a different direction. That the Iranians seem to be asking for the US to step back in and negotiate makes the "good" outcome seem at least plausible.

Which ironically is even more than the total that cared about that information.

If the guests had any luck, one of those dresses was covering her face.

Definitely not LVP. She never would've let the geezer come close to touching that doll until she had the nickel bouncing around in her can.

Draft registration was reinstated during Reagan's 1st term. Pretty sure it's still the rule for men. Even though there hasn't been a draft in ~1/2 a century, makes sense to have the infrastructure in place to reinstitute it should conditions warrant it.

Pretty sure you're up to more "farewell tours" today than the Stones and the Who combined. 😉