What Is The Critical Path For An Iranian Nuke?

David Sanger of the NY Times parrots the conventional wisdom on the latest Iran nuclear talks "breakthrough" (my emphasis):

VIENNA — Iranian negotiators have agreed to a draft deal that would delay the country’s ability to build a nuclear weapon for about a year, buying more time for President Obama to search for a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff.

Under the tentative accord hammered out in international talks here, Iran agreed to ship about three-quarters of its known stockpile of nuclear fuel to Russia for conversion into a form it could use only in a peaceful nuclear reactor, participants in the negotiations said Wednesday. But the arrangement would still have to be approved by Friday in Tehran and Washington.

If Tehran’s divided leadership agrees to the accord, which Iran’s negotiators indicated was not assured, it will remove enough nuclear fuel from Iran to delay any work on a nuclear weapon until the country can replenish its stockpile of fuel, estimated to require about one year. As such, it would buy more time for Mr. Obama to try to negotiate a more comprehensive and more difficult agreement to end Iran’s production of new nuclear material.

Really?  Maybe this is peace in our time!

The less enthusiastic among us may want to pause and reflect upon the message of the misunderstood and somewhat discredited National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 (excerpts).  Briefly, a nuclear weapons program has several components.  Iran needs to get uranium, establish its method for enriching it, design a nuclear warhead of an appropriate size for the delivery vehicle, and  design the delivery vehicle.  From the NIE (footnote 1):

...by “nuclear weapons program” we mean Iran’s nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work;

So where is Iran on the weapons design and weapons delivery pieces of the puzzle?  We don't know.  Hypothetically, if they are two years away from completing (or acquiring) a weapons design and three years away from producing a missile that is up to standard, then a one year "delay" in acquiring a stockpile of enriched uranium won't delay their weapons program at all.  As long as the three tasks can proceed in parallel, rather than sequentially, Iran can sacrifice year in the uranium enrichment part of the program and still have the uranium they need when the weapons design is completed in two years; of course, even that would be premature of the delivery vehicle is not yet ready.

So what is Iran's actual status?  In May of 2009, John Kerry, writing as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, presented a report on Iran with an emphatic "Who knows?" on their weapons design:

Intelligence analysts and nuclear experts working for foreign governments agreed in interviews with committee staff that Iran had stopped its weapons work in late 2003. Some of these officials said in unclassified briefings that by that time, however, intelligence indicates Iran had produced a suitable design, manufactured some components and conducted enough successful explosives tests to put the project on the shelf until it manufactured the fissile material required for several weapons.

Many have doubts about whether Iran has a design for aworkable nuclear warhead. In early March, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that there is still time to persuade Iran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program. ``They're not close to a stockpile, they're not close to a weapon at this point, and so there is some time,'' he said.

Per the Times of October 3, 2009 (David Sanger reporting), the IAEA thinks Iran has solved the design problems, but they are not sure:

Senior staff members of the United Nations nuclear agency have concluded in a confidential analysis that Iran has acquired “sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable” atom bomb.

The report by experts in the International Atomic Energy Agency stresses in its introduction that its conclusions are tentative and subject to further confirmation of the evidence, which it says came from intelligence agencies and its own investigations.

But the report’s conclusions, described by senior European officials, go well beyond the public positions taken by several governments, including the United States.

As to the delivery system, Iran continues to test the Shahab-3 as well as other shorter-range missiles.  Is the Shahab-3 suitable for a nuclear warhead?  That's for Iran to know and the IAEA to find out - apparently Iran won't let the IAEA see the blueprints.

So does a one year delay in the acquisition of enriched uranium really delay an Iranian weapons program for one year?  Maybe!  Or maybe not, depending on unanswered questions about their design and delivery programs.

But in TimesWorld there are no remaining questions - Obama is on the verge of a mini-triumph that will "delay the country’s ability to build a nuclear weapon for about a year".  As long as we are only talking about the rich fantasy life of Times editors, that is fine.  But if world leaders treat Iran as praiseworthy and trustworthy for delaying their nuclear program by a year when, in reality, Iran had other obstacles to overcome and does not consider this to be a delay at all, well, that is a problem.

Comments

[PaulL]

As long as we're taking guesses, my guess is that the Iranians already have the design down just fine.

[Just over three weeks to the next new moon.]

I originally expected Israel to bomb Iran in the late fall of 2004 when I heard that the window of opportunity was closing. I hope the Israelis have a better understanding of the real window of opportunity than do my sources.
======================

[Rupert Fiennes]

Ahem...didn't the IAEA find a Pakistani nuke blueprint in Natanz back in 2006?

[MarkO]

And, for sure, Iran will be shipping about three-quarters of its known stockpile of nuclear fuel to Russia for conversion into a form it could use only in a peaceful nuclear reactor. Right. Why "known stockpile?" Odd. Of course, Russia will make certain that the fuel returned to Iran is for "peaceful" uses.

This is the best spin the White House can put on this mess? This will be the excuse to watch Iran get the bomb. Isn't that the real point of Obama's diplomacy? Containment.

[Mike Huggins]

Yahoo! Peace in our time, once again!
"Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

[bad]

Iran and Russia teamed together to ensure nuclear niceties. What could go wrong?

[PeterUK]

Yes,Iran is some way off a a design for a workable bicycle,despite being a wealthier country than Pakistan and North Korea,with a highly educated population.

Without a working bicycle the Shahab-3 is useless. So why did Iran build it?

[RichatUF]

Pakistan helped North Korea and Iran with enrichment, and North Korea and Iran have been working on triggers and missiles.

Pakistan has claimed to have detonated 6 nuclear weapons and have been getting missile help from North Korea using the same No-dong platform that Iran uses for its Shabab-3.

Sleep tight.

[BR]

How did you know I was going to bed now?

[But I'll tickle you until you tell me your sources]

New Moon, no comment...

[sbw]

What Is The Critical Path For An Iranian Nuke?

West over Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and then we'll just have to find out.

[BR]

Excerpt from 10/21/09 debkafile.com:

"By some magic, this proposal 'forgot' three UN Security Council resolutions and six-power demands for Iran to give up uranium enrichment. Iran is also suddenly absolved of the obligation to allow UN inspectors to monitor its facilities and not by a single word is Tehran forbidden to process masses of additional enriched uranium after it ships the 1.200 kilos to Russia, or even to make a bomb.

Tehran is therefore free to infer that all these curbs have been lifted with the concurrence of the six powers with whom it is engaged in nuclear negotiations, as well as the IAEA in the person of its director.

No wonder Jalilee smiled."

[matt]

They will say whatever they feel will serve their ends and do exactly what they originally intended. The Russians have been covering for them for 20 years.

The Israelis, being complete pragmatists, will do what they have to do.

[Gregory Koster]

Matt, the Israeli course of action may be clear, but it's a bet-the-country decision, which is bound to cause much swallowing and toe stubbing before being executed. Who can blame the Israelis, who have to carry not only their national interest on their shoulders, but America's as well.

Here's a great example of the lack of wisdom in the press. The Once will lap up the Sanger article, swallowing the TIMES fantasy and making it his own. When the blowup comes, whether literal or metaphorical, The Once will blame the TIMES. The TIMES will be shocked and hurt at the size 9.5 bootprint on its collective backside. Meanwhile the nation staggers on, with yet another tuition bill coming due even while the Ivy League sez, Gee who could have seen this coming?

Sarah Palin, for one. Mitt Romney for another. Joe Lieberman, John Bolton...the list goes on.

[Extraneus]

Isn't this all just intended to constrain Israel? Sure, it's boob bait for the gullible, but nobody serious is dumb enough to believe that Iran would agree to anything which would hamper its nuclear program.

(Btw, you style mavens, is it "which" or "that"?)

[Veeshir]

Yeah that's a great point BR.

But I'm looking at the missile as half full.

Instead of "Peace in our time" Obama is going for "Peace for a time".

Either way we know war is imminent, but that's about as close to honest as we can expect these days.

[BR]

Veeshir, just read your "Good for him" post at your blog. Strange and new forces are at work. You'll be seeing more of it.

[clarice]

Perhaps if Pinch was aware that the missiles were set to land at the NYT hq instead of Tel Aviv he'd be more prudent.

[NK]

Oh come on Tom!!

There you go again taking a dump on a perfectly good unicorns and rainbow narrative by discussing all of the relevant facts. Whaddya trin' to do, hold up the bailout for the NY Times and Washington Post Cos?

[matt]

Completely off topic, but I was reading the Washington Post's article on Gibb's response to Cheney's speech, and the comments were unbelievably vicious.

I really wonder who the wingnuts are and how much of a real fascist Obama is becoming. His actions are coming to resemble the media manipulation of both Hitler and Stalin more and more. LUN

[Uncle BigBad]

This is the best one yet.

[Thomas Collins]

The Iranians understand that conciliatory internationalists will do anything to justify continuing the talk therapy approach. The Iranians are most likely using these talks to buy time to continue the work on the secret program. The stockpile in question has been known for some time. It is not as if Iran is talking about allowing a full investigation of its entire nuclear program. Why should it when the West is showing itself incapable of taking a firm stand?

[Janet]

matt - Great post. LUN is an article from chicagoboyz with some of the same thoughts. We need to take this stuff seriously if the left really believes we are "evil".

[PaulL]

Extraneus,

(Btw, you style mavens, is it "which" or "that"?)

The rule is hardly followed at all anymore. In my exhaustive studies, I've found that academics prefer to use "which," when it should be "that," almost all the time. It sounds fancier.

An easy way to remember it is, if the word in question comes after a comma, use "which." In your case, the correct word would have been "that."

[bad]

LOL Uncle Bigbad

[Elliott]

It would be so unfair if they were without a feasible warhead design! Is it time for the administration to take the plans of Operation Merlin off the shelf to give them another chance?

[hit and run]

Extraneus:
(Btw, you style mavens, is it "which" or "that"?)

Well, this is JOM, and we are nearing Halloween, so the correct answer is...

Michelle is much more witch than that.

[Ignatz]

I agree with bad Uncle BB, LOL.

--Iran agreed to ship about three-quarters of its known stockpile of nuclear fuel...--

For Barry's sake I certainly hope that "known" stockpile turns out to be accurately accounted for otherwise we might have to crank up the "Barry lied, 500,000 people died" chant should his intelligence be a little off.
(There's a hanging curve for someone.)

[centralcal]

O/T:

Just saw this at AOSHQ (via Drew M):

I can't find anything online yet (video now below the fold) but Fox is reporting on Special Report that the White House wanted to exclude Fox from the 5 member White House Pool who were going to be given access to Kenneth Feinberg.

The White House Pool, of which Fox has been a member since 1997, is a consortium of the five networks which fund its operations.

After the White House attempted to exclude Fox, the Washington bureau chiefs of the 5 networks met and announced none of them would participate if Fox were excluded.

They are really getting more brazen every moment.

[The world has flat gone mad. What's the denouement?]

There are a couple of things here that I find amusing, and also by which I'm amused. The use of the term 'known stockpiles' instead of just 'stockpiles'. It's as if it is 'known' that there are 'unknown' stockpiles too. The other is what ought to be obvious to even kindergartners, at least in Poland, that Iran has no need to give up anything, so if they are going to 'give up' some small quantum, then likely they have plenty more where that came from.

Where's all the rage about the 'NIE lied, Israelis die'? Down the leftist memory hole, all that garbage.
======================================

[Rick Ballard]

Kim,

When I see 'known stockpiles' my memory drifts to the hundreds of tons of uranium from Niger which wound up safely stockpiled in Libya - under El Baradei's nose.

[Bending panels for death.]

I think Sarah should start outlining a platform. At first, just to be made up of planks that are counter to whatever the Obama/Axelrod/Emanuel/Reid/Pelosi behemoth foists on us. She could be talking specifically about plans to repeal all the nonsense.

There's another clue to Obama's fragility in the quote linked by PuK; that is that politicians who do the right thing and the hard thing ought to be rewarded. This fella is so sure he is doing the right thing, and finding it a hard thing to do, that he is dismayed that he's not being rewarded. Anger is not far down the road, and we're seeing the premonitory irritation by the attack on Fox.

Such irony in the leftists' catcalls of yore about 'faux news'. Man, did they get bitten on their shiny metalllic ass.
=====================================

[Yellow Cake, Yellow Cake, Make it a fluffy cake.]

Rick, I still don't know why Bush, or Cheney, didn't let the world know what Khaddafy let us know in December of '03.
===================================

[SPQR]

Iran has already rejected the deal described. So this brilliant "deal" is already dead.

So much for Obama's brilliant diplomacy.

[A pox on all their dead treehouses.]

Actually, it's not the world that has gone mad, it's just the American press. There will be let loose a vast reservoir of anger about being led down the garden path by the idealogues who purport to report the news, and have found the easy way to do that by simply inventing it.
======================================

[Depleted uranium in his treehouse. For armor, kids, armor.]

SPQR. That's a relief, actually. Maybe they only do have a little bit. But, God, what an idiot Obama is being made out to be. It's pretty much no matter what he does, he only looks foolish now. This is endgame for a terminal co-dependent.
============================

[Rick Ballard]

Kim,

I have always suspected that the intelligence involved came from a source which requested that the results be downplayed in order to mitigate damage to the networks involved. It's not as if that section of Plame's CIA had the competence to do more than swap the thumb they were sucking for the thumb upon which they were sitting.

[I'm assuming there are still adults somewhere in the CIA or DIA.]

Yeah, perhaps still baiting. Khan's on the loose again, we note.
=====================================

[RichatUF]

matt-

I really wonder who the wingnuts are and how much of a real fascist Obama is becoming. His actions are coming to resemble the media manipulation of both Hitler and Stalin more and more.

First as tragedy, then as farce. The Corner has a graf up about a new book about Heidegger. Heidegger and Schmitt (a Nazi jurist and legal philosopher), and how they were interpreted by Foucault, probably gets close to Obama's governing philosophy. Obama went to school during the high point of Foucault's rise in the academy and it doesn't appear Obama developed a political philosophy any deeper than a starry-eyed undergraduate radical. Plenty of books have been written detailing the Nazi philosophical roots to post-modernism and Foucault's translations of it to the English speaking world.

[Neo]

If Barack Obama doesn't want Iran to have "the bomb", So why, six years ago, did the [Clinton] CIA give the Iranians blueprints to build a bomb [back in February 2000] ?

New York Times reporter James Risen reveals the bungles and miscalculations that led to a spectacular intelligence fiasco.

Michael Ledeen called it The Great Counterintelligence Fiasco

Apparently, Ms. Flame was involved.

[Rick Ballard]

Kim,

Which of our former allies possesses an intelligence service stupid enough to share sensitive information with a country headed by a lying fool on the order of Barack Obama? I really wouldn't count on much in the way of advance warning from former allies - we're on our own until an American is elected President.

[Soylent Red]

"delay the country’s ability to build a nuclear weapon for about a year"

Uh, bullshit Barry.

Suspect any cagey smart diplomacy bright idea that has Russia as a lynchpin that Barry comes up with. He's being played.

Russia would dearly love to screw up the petroleum market in the Mideast because they (meaning Gazprom, of which the Russian government execs are primary shareholders) compete directly with it.

Allowing Iran to get a nuke by "accidentally" letting a little slip here or there, then saying,"Oops. What will we do now?" immediately destabilizes the ME.

This:

a. puts Russia in an irreversible position to undercut the Mideast on European fuel. Bing, bam, boom, European prices go up and stay up, and Russia is the only semi-stable environment for supply.

b. inflates the price of US oil from KSA and Kuwait, which in light of our weakened and weakening dollar will put our economy back down the path to depression

Color me shocked, SHOCKED, that our clown show administration thinks this is some kind of cagey hustling and flow and their part.

Amateurs.

[Soylent Red]

Oh and BTW, the plans for a gun type device were probably part of the great A.Q. Khan information exchange of the 1990s. It's the material that's the big hurdle and everyone who knows anything knows it.

But all of you already knew that.

If I ever needed reasons to stay away from living in large coastal US cities, Dear Leader supplies me with two or three new ones every month.

[clarice]

cc, Doug Ross printed that story about Fox--really put the rest of the WH news corps on the spot. I'd sure hate tohave those guys wathing my back.

[clarice]

The Weekly Standard blog is reporting that in NY's 23d Dist Palin in supporting Hoffman. The revolution is on!

[I know, it was her husband.]

Calling the cop was just outre
===================

[Extraneus]

The revolution is on!

Yup. Here it is.

[narciso]

I think the HK speech forms a ready made template, for a policy platform. Free Trade, sound budgets, defense of our military and intelligence, a support for democratic movements, exploitation of our natural resources, sound constitutional principals.

Meanwhile our ever so helpful Fish and Wild life service, puts more than 200,000 sq. miles of Alaska, off limits to on shore and OCS development for polar bears. We're going over the cliff with the squirrel,
people, and 'we're amusing our self to death' while we are it. Having a real version of what the left imagined in Cheney,
Medvedyev former GAZPROM head as Prime Minister, gives them quite an advantage over us.

[patch]

Need to get past those pesky 2010 elections.

[Extraneus]

"And best of all, Doug Hoffman has not been anointed by any political machine."

[Extraneus]

Have Romney or Huckabee supported Hoffman yet?

[narciso]

No, at least with Huckabee, he's slated to speak before the Conservative Party
association, and has said he won't, what's the Southern for Chutzpah.

[hit and run]

Romney, Huckabee and Pawlenty have so far stayed out of NY-23

[Extraneus]

Gee. So it's an open field for someone who wants to stake out a claim independent of the party?

[Extraneus]

(Thank you, PaulL. I'll look forward to that comma next time.)

[sbw]

I suppose the Conservative party is not a political machine.

[I like Romney, but those three are just waiting for the polling before speaking. Sarah knows what to say without needing polling.]

Oh please let the neut netrality rules be litigated to a fare-thee-well.
=================================

[centralcal]

Go Sarah! I am really proud of her, no matter what happens politically.

[Original MikeS]

The Iranian nuclear issue has been purposely engineered by the Iranian regime. The program has been very expensive for the Iranian people, but not for the mullahs. Years and years of diplomacy have gotten the West nowhere.

[Neo]

TM, I think you left out one important step.

Building a place for the Iranians to hide.

Once, the Iranians have the bomb, they will be the focus of anything nuclear in the entire Middle East. If a bomb goes off anywhere, they will get the retaliation, even if they didn't do it.

[Melinda Romanoff]

kim-

It won't be a law, but a regulation. I think different standings apply. Someone smarter than me can chime in and save me from myself.

Verizon and Google think it will create a monopoly for their future "per download" charges and don't quite grasp the choke hold they're slowly putting on their golden goose.

Painful for a while for everyone, but the dam will burst the harder those two try to lean on it.

Just my 2 cents.

[clarice]

It's a bold move for Sarah. If Dede loses to a Dem everyone will say it's because Sarah split the vote by endorsing Hoffman.
SBW, Any iideas on how the race will go?

[narciso]

Exactly , she's doing what's right, carrying
the standard of conservatism, like those
'who are here on St. Crispin's Day will remember'. Leave it to others to vacilate, to put the finger in the wind. I'll just chalk it up to coincidence, when she chose
to announce

[PD]

I've now seen the Levi Johnston pistacio commercial on TV. That really is disgusting.

[Thomas Collins]

Great move by Palin, who sends a message to the T. Coddington Van Voorhes VII Republicans that she will not tolerate a simpleminded "we're not Obama so vote for us" mantra. I believe it was Rick Ballard who a couple of months ago suggested that Palin might be leading a movement to support solid conservatives whether or not they were running on the GOP label (I hope I haven't wrongly attributed this view to you, Rick).

[sbw]

Clarice, I am too humble to predict. I could never figure out why we elected what passed for the local sheriff for 20 years.

What matter is not who wins but if D wins but D < R+C then Dems should sweat. And even if they lose the seat, if C > R then Repubs should sweat.

[PD]

So why, six years ago, did the [Clinton] CIA give the Iranians blueprints to build a bomb [back in February 2000] ?

Simple. Then we don't have to wonder if they have the bomb.

[Jane]

Hoffman appears to be surging. Is it next week?

[Jim Ryan]

Spengler: Some of his strongest supporters in the press now fret that they have a sick puppy on their hands.

[RichatUF]

TC-

A blast from the past:

I look forward to helping others – to fight for our state and our country, and campaign for those who believe in smaller government, free enterprise, strong national security, support for our troops, and energy independence.

Hmm...

1. Smaller government

2. Free enterprise

3. Strong national security

4. Support for our troops

5. Energy independence

Looks like one of them thingamajigs that pols stand on to me. It would work pretty well against the (D)irty Fascists - and against the brain dead Ivy League indoctrinated dimwits in the Republican Party as well.

If she has truly decided to leave politics, I wish her well. If she stays and fights, I believe I'll go along for the ride. Maybe even buy a few tickets.

Posted by: Rick Ballard | July 03, 2009 at 05:54 PM

[clarice]

Clinton gave the Iranians a blueprint for the bomb with one built in Maguffin to mislead them. Then he had a Russian defector deliver this flawed plan to the Iranians without letting him in on the scheme. He noticed the error immediately and told them of the error when he handed the plan to them.

Score another one for the good old CIA.

[Rick Ballard]

TC,

I doubt that she would fit in my conservative box (bounded by Hume, Montesquieu, Burke and Kirk) but I do remember writing that she could very well head off without bothering to seek 'guidance' from any of the T. Coddington Van Voorhes VII Republicans. I do not believe that she is actually informed by any particular ideology or viewpoint but I don't regard that as a particular hindrance given the public decisions which she has taken to this point. She appears to have strong ethical and moral bounds and my only concern regards her populism. I wonder if she might be closest to Teddy Roosevelt in outlook.

[Rick Ballard]

Thanks, Rich. I don't appear to have contradicted myself in my reply to TC - I'll mark this down as a 'good' day.

[Melinda Romanoff]

Jim-

Did you read any of "Spengler's latest posts?

His insight into the current markets is a masterpiece. Couple that with David Rosenberg's piece from this morning (LUN) and I'm going to revert to "matress" savings. It's long but poignant.

[narciso]

There's a degree of that, specially in light of Roosevelt's fights with the Stalwarts like Conkling. The Polar bear hide bound party up there, is the same
RINO effort that gives us Arnold in Sacramento, Crist in Tallahassee. They still have the same party chief she helped
kick off the oil commission, a half dozen
years ago, and he hasn't forgotten. Taken
together the resignation announcement speech
and the HK speech form the platform. History
doesn't repeat but it does rhyme, as they say, in this respect she is closer to Reagan, than any other contemporary figure

[Flodigarry]

Net Neutrality: Finally an area in which I have real experience. The big deal here is that it goes against the whole "hands off the internet" legislation from the 1990s. Other than a few cases, which were quickly resolved, there really have been minimal cases where the the Feds needed to become involved.

There are some fundamental principles under which the internet has been developed/managed to date - the key one being that no customer be blocked from accessing legal web content. All ISPs have bought into this concept.

For ISPs, the trouble begins when a minority of users monopolize bandwith that impacts other users. There have been a few high profile controversies (ex. BitTorrent blocking). But for the most part all ISPs have managed internet traffic without complaint. The pricipal behind this lack of controversy is peer-to-peer traffic management.

ISP providers, who spend $B in capital to build 'the last mile' that provides folks with the most secure, highest capacity fixed connections, would like the option to offer different speeds for different classes of service (think spam e-mail vs distance learning or distance medicine), this concept is anathema to TPTB.

Then when you throw in the wireless broadband issue, you have a whole new set of considerations given the constraints of wireless networks, which have historically not been built to handle the demands of high-intensity users.

The Fed's ability to understand, let alone keep up with rapid industry growth/evolution, necessarily means that there will be a drag on future enhancements in both fixed and wireless internet.

The Feds want Google, et al to have unfettered access and no regulation. This approach does not factor in the intense network demands that applications may drive, nor the costs to the ISPs to maintain networks that can support high demand user applications. It's a highly complex issue, with pros and cons from all sides - thus the Verizon/Google tentative alliance. Much more study needs to be conducted to assess how best to approach these issues, time that the Feds are sure NOT to give, but should surely stay out of in the interim.

[Flodigarry]

I apologize for the long post, but I was so giddy that this was an area where I had (some small bit of) expertise.

[Jim Ryan]

Mel, thanks. In return I give you this site. Each tune analyzed and plenty of samples played for your listening pleasure.

[narciso]

No, that's a better explanation than we're likely to get anywhere else. Clarice you just pulled that detail about Operation Merlin, from memory air right. My grandfather, he's the one I got this obscure
knowledge acquisition bug from, that he lost
a portion of his memory from the shock of
moving to Spain, right before coming to the states. But he remembered more things about
grammar, literature, philosophy, history, (that's where I got the Chesterton line from) than a dozen people had forgotten.

[clarice]

Yes, it was seared, seared in my cluttered and fast deteriorating brain, narciso.

[Gregory Koster]

JOMers know I have reservations about SP, but her endorsement of Hoffman is a bold move. She's shut off the possibility of any endorsements by Romney et. al. Should they do so, they would look like "me too," not a leader who saw risks, weighed them, and went ahead. As has been pointed out, even if Hoffman loses, the results e.g. R+C > D dismays the Dems while C>R or even C=R terrifies the Rs. Short of Hoffman being annhilated say, less than 10% of the vote, SP has positioned herself well with the conservative voter, whether R, D, or independent. Whatever my reservations, SP commands respect. She has mine. With luck, she will go far.

[BR]

Flodigarry, thank you! Very interesting.

Did you read the red meat thread, starting bottom of pg 2, 7:03 am - pg 3, about SB 773, Obama's stealth net takeover plan?

It's closed for comments now, but I'd love to read your thoughts on it here.

[Uncle BigBad]

Simple guide to the "that/which" usage

Use "that" for restrictive clauses (no comma), e.g. "This is the house that Jack built." ("that Jack Built" restricts the meaning of "This."

Use "which" for nonrestrictive clauses (with commas), e.g. "This is the house, which Jack built, where I was born." The clause "which Jack built" can be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence.

[BR]

And I'm especially interested in who Obama's WH technology vendor is:

9/17/09 article: "The Obama White House "new media" operations Czar recently contracted a technology vendor to conduct an enormous secret program to gather personal information on millions of Americans from Internet social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace and Twitter, according to the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC). The Obama minions are interested in information such as comments, tag lines, emails, audio, and video... The sites targeted for surveillance include Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube, Flickr and others..."

***

Apart from the outrageous invasion of privacy, this may look like it's being done for political purposes, for opposition research and intimidation.

But what if it's even worse? A financial scam run out of the WH? Like this: 10/20/09 Cyber crime investigation nets 100 suspects in US, Egypt.

"Investigators uncovered a sophisticated “phishing” operation that fraudulently collected personal information from thousands of victims that was used to defraud American banks."

[Flodigarry]

BR - Oh boy that is a deep well in which to dwell in. I'll need to put some thoughts together to rationally detail the implications (for me, an enormous effort in and of itself!) ;-)

But as illustration, I will say that one need only look at China and Iran to see that it is extremely difficult to TOTALLY cut off folks from the internet. It can be done, but there are many ways to skirt the gatekeepers.

[Flodigarry]

BR re your 12:41 AM post - you need only look at the O's shady on-line donation processing scheme in the 2008 election to know that he has folks that are prepared to exploit every avenue/loophole/weakness available to accrue benefits to whatever objective he is trying to achieve.

[BR]

I remember there was some scandal earlier this year involving a person called Vivek, a WH tech czar, and his company's offices being raided in connection with fraudulent documents, and my goodness, here it is! "Obama Official Placed on Leave, Acar fake D.C. birth certificates, Friday, March 13, 2009, Vivek Kundra, White House technology czar, Yusuf Acar arrested, FBI agents raid technology office, Washington Post article."

It involves charges of bribery, “ghost” workers, kickbacks, conspiracy, money laundering and claim by Acar that he could use computers to create fake D.C. birth certificates.

Company name: Advanced Integrated Technologies Corp. (AITC)

So, I don't expect the Obama WH would be hiring Northrop Grumman (whose staff blew the whistle on Clinton and Gore's e-mail scandal). I wonder if Vivek is back at the WH and which company is now the contracted vendor.

[Frau Geburtstagswünsche]

"I'll just chalk it up to coincidence, when she chose
to announce ..."

And I'll add my best wishes, too, for a very happy birtheday, narciso!

[BR]

Oh, great, Flodigarry, you're awake! I just read all of yours. OK, you're my official pal on "Project Follow the Money" re Obama internet takeover :) I'll look for your avatar in future threads.

[narciso]

Thanks, which frau are you,

[BR]

Hey, Narciso, did you see the wonderful birthday cake Sara made for you in an earlier thread?

[BR]

I'm just beginning to realize the far-reaching implications if Freddie Mac home owners' personal and bank data falls under the control of phishers.

Yay for the FBI's Operation Phish Phry!

[matt]

can someone please investigate Obama's internet funding last year? How many hundreds of millions did he raise from Mickey Mouse, Joseph Stalin, and Buzz Lightyear?

[Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet]

Narciso -- Happy Birthday, and many happy returns.

This has been a very interesting thread, JOMers, with a lot of great contact.

[BR]

Hi, Matt! Did you see my kudos to you 24 hrs ago here at 2:27 am ?

Yes, let's have Citizens Tribunals since we're in a commune communistic phase, where the comrades can follow Marx religiously and confess all publicly. That'll cure 'em fast and then we can get on with democracy.

[BR]

Greg, if you read this when you wake up - I've thought of the dress code for the Tribunals when we have the five-ring circus for the Gang of Five: bhurkas. That way we can get through the Sharia phase fast, too.

I see Number Three (Byrd) is pleading leniency already - he's opposing Obamacare.

Number One in the line-up (Biden) tried to flee the country by sending himself on a desperate mission to placate Poland. But he'll have to do better.

Pelosi (2), Hillary (4) and Geithner (5) haven't shown remorse yet.

I did wonder, though, can Pelosi afford to lose face? She might end up looking like Michael Jackson.

[BR]

Don't they cut off hands and other more precious parts under Sharia law? Hm, Rahm's already lost his middle finger.

[Brooks]

Another comment on which/that usage: If you could put the phrase in parentheses, use which and set the phrase off in commas.

As a guy from flyover country, I really wonder what all these urban liberals are thinking. It's not as though they generate their own power, provide their own water, fuel or food. It might be interesting to have them do all of that, say, for a week or so. If that happened, I'd set up an anchor pool for the first place and time they started cannibalizing each other. At least they'd be dealing with their own skill set.

[BR]

Oh, I can see it now, the Middle Eastern motif: at future tea parties, there can be tents for "Gang of Five" trials and public Dem confession. Look-alike actors can make confessions to the very real charges citizens have already investigated.

Chairman Meow, you ain't seen nothing yet.

[BR]

I'm now going to watch "Dr. Zhivago" - Obama should make it required watching for all who voted for him.

Okay, I'll just by-pass him. Done.