Meanwhile, filed under Completely Foreseeable Consequence of Citizen's United ruling: Romney campaign efforts receiving foreign money.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Panetta believes Israel could strike Iran this spring
By Barbara Starr
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has come to the conclusion there is a growing likelihood Israel could attack Iran sometime this spring in an effort to destroy its suspected nuclear weapons program, according to a senior administration official.
The official declined to be identified due to the sensitive nature of the information.
Panetta's views were first reported by the Washington Post's David Ignatius, who wrote Panetta "believes there is strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June - before Iran enters what Israelis described as a 'zone of immunity' to commence building a nuclear bomb."
Asked by reporters in Brussels, where Panetta is attending NATO meetings, the defense secretary refused to comment. But Panetta told reporters the U.S. has " indicated our concerns," according to the Agence France Presse news agency.
But the official also noted that Israel goes through cycles of making aggressive statements about its intentions toward Iran in an effort to pressure the United States and the West to take more action.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned Thursday that Iran may be close to the point "which may render any physical strike as impractical," according to Reuters.
But just a few weeks ago, Barak suggested things were not as urgent, saying an Israeli decision on whether to strike Iran's nuclear program was "very far off."
A "confluence' of intelligence has led Panetta to this conclusion, the official told CNN, but declined to offer any specifics except noting that the United States conducts intelligence operations aimed at Israel as it does with many other allies.
The senior administration official also noted that there is a general understanding in the administration that Israel may have come to the firm conclusion Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. Just last week, the recently retired chief of Israeli military intelligence told CNN's David McKenzie that the "Iranians have already decided that they want nuclear weapons," he said. But he added they haven't decided fully to go through with creating the weapons.
The official U.S. assessment is that Iran has not yet made that decision, the source said.
At a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus, who said he has regular discussions with Israel's leadership and intelligence head, noted that "Israel does see this possibility as an existential threat to their country, and I think that it is very important to keep that perspective in mind."
At the same hearing, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper noted the United States works closely with the Israelis and said the notion that Israel could strike is "a very sensitive issue right now."
"This is an area that we are very, very concerned about," Clapper said.
Panetta's press secretary, George Little, declined to comment on the report. Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently said it would be premature for the United States to consider striking Iran.
#############
Sabre rattling or for real this time? And how would this change our election this year?
By Barbara Starr
U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has come to the conclusion there is a growing likelihood Israel could attack Iran sometime this spring in an effort to destroy its suspected nuclear weapons program, according to a senior administration official.
The official declined to be identified due to the sensitive nature of the information.
Panetta's views were first reported by the Washington Post's David Ignatius, who wrote Panetta "believes there is strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June - before Iran enters what Israelis described as a 'zone of immunity' to commence building a nuclear bomb."
Asked by reporters in Brussels, where Panetta is attending NATO meetings, the defense secretary refused to comment. But Panetta told reporters the U.S. has " indicated our concerns," according to the Agence France Presse news agency.
But the official also noted that Israel goes through cycles of making aggressive statements about its intentions toward Iran in an effort to pressure the United States and the West to take more action.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned Thursday that Iran may be close to the point "which may render any physical strike as impractical," according to Reuters.
But just a few weeks ago, Barak suggested things were not as urgent, saying an Israeli decision on whether to strike Iran's nuclear program was "very far off."
A "confluence' of intelligence has led Panetta to this conclusion, the official told CNN, but declined to offer any specifics except noting that the United States conducts intelligence operations aimed at Israel as it does with many other allies.
The senior administration official also noted that there is a general understanding in the administration that Israel may have come to the firm conclusion Iran is developing a nuclear weapon. Just last week, the recently retired chief of Israeli military intelligence told CNN's David McKenzie that the "Iranians have already decided that they want nuclear weapons," he said. But he added they haven't decided fully to go through with creating the weapons.
The official U.S. assessment is that Iran has not yet made that decision, the source said.
At a Senate hearing on Tuesday, Central Intelligence Agency Director David Petraeus, who said he has regular discussions with Israel's leadership and intelligence head, noted that "Israel does see this possibility as an existential threat to their country, and I think that it is very important to keep that perspective in mind."
At the same hearing, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper noted the United States works closely with the Israelis and said the notion that Israel could strike is "a very sensitive issue right now."
"This is an area that we are very, very concerned about," Clapper said.
Panetta's press secretary, George Little, declined to comment on the report. Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently said it would be premature for the United States to consider striking Iran.
#############
Sabre rattling or for real this time? And how would this change our election this year?
Panetta believes Israel could strike Iran this spring
By Barbara Starr
#############
Sabre rattling or for real this time? And how would this change our election this year?
I wish it was sabre rattling, but if there is one thing I have learned over the years is it is never a good idea to assume a threat from Israel is a joke or a bluff. Especially not with the kind of people running the Israel government currently. They have shown little disregard in holding back for its allies sake in trying to get what it wants. I just really hope this time I am wrong :/
Something Wicked
Member
I'm sorry, dude, but you're essentially putting yourself in the same category as those who believe Stephen Colbert is an actual Republican. I'd say around 80% of whatever Gutfeld says is sarcasm, though he does lean to right (as Colbert leans to the left).
Frank the Great
Banned
lol policy-wise, this would be the worst time for israel to attack iran, because obama would have to throw his full support behind them if he wants to get reelected.
of course, politics wise, it could help obama. electorate loves them a war.
of course, politics wise, it could help obama. electorate loves them a war.
After. And when I say after, I mean the day after.
Dude flip flops so much its ridiculous.
Mortrialus
Banned
Shocking if true. Gutfeld honestly strikes me as that much of an idiot.
Columbus is an amazing city. Its liberal, educated, modern, and fairly large.
The rest of the state sucks though. Cincinnati might as well be part of Kentucky.
That's really kind of shitty. After it's all said and done Citizen's United will probably go down as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time.
AlteredBeast
Fork 'em, Sparky!
It is obviously going way over your head, then. Gutfeld is one of the true bright spots on fox news.
Mortrialus
Banned
That he is one of the rotating conservatives on The Five flies in the face of that.
A27_StarWolf
Banned
So my father and I clash on a lot of political views, I'm going to post some things he has said and see what you guys think. Don't bring anyone else into this, Romney, Newt, just about Obama.
My father has claimed:
Obama moved the census into the white house making it partisan
Obama was a coward by not destroying that drone over Iran, we could have done it without detection (kinda agree with this)
Obama failed to go after lobbyist.
That's it for now, unleash the hounds, PoliGAF.
My father has claimed:
Obama moved the census into the white house making it partisan
Obama was a coward by not destroying that drone over Iran, we could have done it without detection (kinda agree with this)
Obama failed to go after lobbyist.
That's it for now, unleash the hounds, PoliGAF.
Not true, the census is in the department of commerce, where it has always been.
It was just a bullshit scare story that was floated around the census.
Haven't heard it in like 3 years.
I seriously doubt we could've destroyed it.
Why would he not do it if he could?
Also, how would your father know that we could've done it?
Edit: is he talking about self destruct mechanism or about sending special forces to blow it up?
I assumed the former.
The latter sounds like a really bad idea to me.
p.s.
People still think Obama is a coward when it come to the use of the military?
Really?
You'd think that talking point would've died with Bin Laden.
He did nothing on this front, that is true
Byakuya769
Member
Just ask him to cite sources for all of that.
Obama has done several things in relation to lobbyist. I'll look done up once I get to my computer.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I worked the census that year and ran into a few suspicious people who were concerned about that. The census was not run out of the WH by any stretch of the imagination, nor is there any evidence to support that conspiracy theory. Like any census it was run by the Dept Of Commerce ie the government, but it was not politicized.
These tend to focus on the idea that the census was either some ruse to increase employment and a waste of money, or was a means to register illegal immigrants to vote. Even Karl Rove had to cut an ad denouncing the nonsensical conspiracy theories. We did our job. Did my division leader sometimes round up hours to increase our pay? Yeah. My group was once given a sector of Ann Arbor that was a lake, ie no homes anywhere, and we were paid for driving around the area. But overall it was a great project, we did our job, etc.
The Librarian
Banned
Honestly, if the census was run out of the White House, California and New York would've gotten twenty new seats between them.
It's typical alarmist drivel. Prognosticators have been prophesying an Israeli strike for years. Yet it never occurs.
I suppose the premise is intuitively cogent. But it contradicts our understanding of presidential elections. Presidential elections function as a retrospective judgement on the incumbent's performance. Whether success or failure, the electorate ascribes responsibility to the incumbent; typically, economic growth exerts a significant influence on the electorate's evaluation, although other events such as war are occasionally salient. Thus, the prospects of a depressed economy benefiting Obama are negligible. It has not occurred before. And I would not expect a reversal if it were to transpire this cycle.
Perhaps. Although, as I've noted before, the importance of a candidate's idiosyncratic qualities are conventionally inflated. That is, a dynamic personality is not necessary to win a presidential election.
Do you guys think that the Dems will be able to extract some tax hikes in exchange for making sure the Pentagon doesn't go through the mandatory cuts from the debt ceiling deal? What do republicans hate more, taxing the rich, or not protecting REAL 'Murricans from the evils of Islamism?
Would be nice if that graph had a legend. Not that you need one to understand what it says but it would be easier.
This is a nice graphic, not much to glean from it, but I like the info.
Would be nice if that graph had a legend. Not that you need one to understand what it says but it would be easier.
Narpas Sword0
Member
Nice thesaurus
TestOfTide
Banned
I'm staring to get really annoyed at my mother's stubborn views on poor people. Pretty much every discussion about wealth inequality results in her insisting three ridiculous points:
- Everyone is getting paid pretty much what they deservse
- We should just except anyone who "falls through the cracks" and not waste time trying to help them
- Taxes should be flat because rich people don't get as much service for their taxdollars as other people.
Anyone got some good data about all the benefits that people in the top tax brackets (as well as stuff rich tax avoiders) have gotten? I just want something to immediately throw back the next time I hear more bullshit about wealthier people not getting services from the government.
And yes, I already know that the federal income tax has never been flat even when it was started in the 19th century.
- Everyone is getting paid pretty much what they deservse
- We should just except anyone who "falls through the cracks" and not waste time trying to help them
- Taxes should be flat because rich people don't get as much service for their taxdollars as other people.
Anyone got some good data about all the benefits that people in the top tax brackets (as well as stuff rich tax avoiders) have gotten? I just want something to immediately throw back the next time I hear more bullshit about wealthier people not getting services from the government.
And yes, I already know that the federal income tax has never been flat even when it was started in the 19th century.
Ask her if this should be the case even during recessions when employers DON'T WANT TO HIRE.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I don't know what it was like wherever you live, but in 2011, gas prices in Minnesota were over 4 dollars in the summer and came down below 3 in the fall.
The gas price rise/fall was a pretty well documented trend, I thought. Correct me if it's not, but that's how it's been since I started driving in 2008ish.
Politico tends to be one of those sites that presents the right-wing narrative without actually fact-checking, so I don't really trust their analysis. It's lazy journalism. "durhur the CBO says unemployment's going to go up
if the tax cuts/benefits aren't extended
You can't be serious.
Think he meant dictionary?
Skiptastic
Member
It's off to the right...
Not everyone has to have the exact same writing style.
I'm in a graph mood tonight, sorry.
Global QE bubble.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/01/living-in-a-qe-world/
Global QE bubble.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/01/living-in-a-qe-world/
Well, shine my shoes and call me BigSicily! Seems I'm blind.
I think the article make some leaps of logic toward the end, but honestly, I'm not really an expert on the subject, and I can't be bothered to really go and fact check it (that's how those fuckers get away with it, by making it fucking boring).I'm in a graph mood tonight, sorry.
Global QE bubble.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/01/living-in-a-qe-world/
But man, reading shit like this just strengthen my conviction that the whole world financal system need to be reworked, radically.
I'm not remotely smart enough to suggest an alternative, but we got to be able to create a system that does not self explode.
Economic downturns should be a result of external uncontrollable forces, not fucking bugs.
empty vessel
Member
Just so you're aware, the author of that blog doesn't understand what QE is, which is not the "buying of bonds with 'printed money.'" It is, instead, an asset swap with the private sector, bonds for cash, intended to increase bank cash reserves and promote bank lending. Incidentally, this is not a defense of QE as policy; QE is predicated on the mistaken assumption that banks lend money based on their reserves (they don't--banks lend regardless of their reserves, as they can borrow in the interbank market or discount window (for less than the loans they provide) if they happen to come up short of legal requirements with respect to their reserves, i.e., if they over-lend; banks currently aren't lending simply because there aren't credit-worthy borrowers in the current economy as most are currently deleveraging, i.e., getting rid of debt, not taking it on; and why would anybody take on debt in this economy that lacks demand?). It is just to point out the author's ignorance.
http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=661
empty vessel
Member
Most economists, including, incidentally, Paul Krugman, don't understand how the system functions operationally (although Krugman may be in the process of evolving). They rely on long-established tropes about the system passed down to them by their goldbug economics professors, e.g., that tax revenues fund the government, that banks lend based on their reserves, etc. (And understandably so; after all, the US was on a gold standard when their professors learned all these things.) But we have virtually a whole profession that has yet to come to grips with the implications of what happened in 1971.
I'm not attacking Bianco alone. I'm attacking virtually the entire economics profession.
PPP confirmed Romney's substantial lead in NV. They estimate he's leading Gingrich 50 to 25. Saturday should be uneventful.
I'm interested to see how the BEA's state GDP data corresponds to individual employment growth. They typically release the preceding year's data in June. I'll have to wait. The most recent data from 2010 may not yield an especially precise assessment. But I can discern a rough congruence.This is a nice graphic, not much to glean from it, but I like the info.
Please.
I would've never guessed you're an MMT guy.
I'm a big fan of Jackson's posts, but that was pretty funny.
Democrats tend to suck a messaging. Not that I blame them as much as others, as the American electorate is completely absent-minded most of the time. But yeah, you can count on a lot of Democrats missing their opportunity to underscore why the GOP doesn't deserve the White House.
It might not be losing steam but I don't see it going anywhere. Which will be a grand opportunity for the GOP to distort the crap out of reality.
You really think so? He might not be as tough as I'm currently thinking he is in the GE, but a poor candidate? No way. McCain was a rather poor candidate. Dole was an embarrassingly poor candidate. Romney has his shit together. I think he will prove to be a formidable candidate if he gets the messaging right, and given the campaign finance overhaul and the wet dream GOPers will finally be able to make reality as a result, they will be making extremely tactful moves. Romney = "economy guy" to Joe Voter. He's a moderate, derp. He has business experience that Obama lacks, derp. He knows stuff about fixing companies (even though he doesn't), derp. I'm gonna vote for him!
His campaign is definitely legit, no disagreement there. The electoral map could go either way. I really do think Romney will be very competetive here in PA, and will come closer than any Republican since the Reagan days of actually having a chance of winning the state. Name recognition in Michigan can help him there, too.
Did it backfire on them the most, or Washington as a whole? Ever since the dust settled after that debacle, Obama's approval rating took a considerable hit and he has yet to fully recover from it. It hurt the GOP, too, but I don't know if it's fair to say they were the ones who suffered the most. It made regard for Capitol Hill sink to historic lows, and a lot of people started to lose faith in the President's ability to lead. Basically, the public said "Democrats and Republicans in Congress suck more than we ever thought, and the President still doesn't know what the fuck he's doing."
Oh, isn't this the dipshit that tried to take Pelosi's job?ToxicAdam said:
Good fucking riddance. The less blue dogs the better off Democrats are in the long run. Absolutely worthless, they are.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Diablos we agree on many things, but I'm gonna slap you the next time you say Obama is in trouble in PA.
Sup buddy. I said Romney would be more competitive than any GOPer since H.W. Bush in PA. I did not say Obama is doomed.
What do you think about Michigan?
No idea, but:
I can appreciate your optimism, but really? I doubt this.
Realistically, I'd call a best case secnario Obama winning by a state or two, GOPers lose a fair amount of seats in the House granting them a narrow majority, and the Senate goes to the GOP.
If any kind of miracle were to happen it would be Obama getting re-elected while the Tea Party gets their ass handed to them and Republicans lose the House majority, even if narrowly.
Either way you can kiss the Senate goodbye. We're talking about four seats here. And the Senate map this year favors the GOP more than Democrats by default.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I think Obama will win Michigan, Synder has been a huge disaster.
The GOP will always distort. The question is whether people perceive things getting better. Signs point to yes. More than GOP spin, data feeds that.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/151550/Gallup-Daily-Economic-Confidence-Index.aspx
Personally, I think that's the graph that decides the election. If it continues to improve, GOP spin does not matter. And it changes closely with the actual economy (and feeds into it, as higher confidence yields increased spending, etc.).
I think he got through most of the primary by keeping his mouth shut and letting the not-Romney's duke it out. But once he had to open his mouth, look at what happened:
http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contest/us-favorability-romney
The man is currently in the good company of Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin on his favorable spread. Independents have turned sharply against him, he has poisoned any shot he had at the Hispanic vote, and day by day he is reinforcing his persona as a wealthy corporate raider who protects his own. In this election cycle in particular, that is toxic. Look at the spread!
He's not going to win PA. Or, thanks to his primary positions, New Mexico, Colorado or Nevada. Which makes getting elected difficult (but not impossible).
It backfired on Republicans. It was during that showdown that polls such as the generic ballot measures began moving back toward the Democrats:
http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contest/us-cong-generic-ballot
This was one of the factors behind the GOP caving.
I wrote up a post about Santorum's healthcare gaffe on a site I've been contributing to:
Santorum Misses the Point on Healthcare Costs
Some of you might be interested. Please, no snark from the ones who aren't.
Santorum Misses the Point on Healthcare Costs
Some of you might be interested. Please, no snark from the ones who aren't.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked