“Charlie, that is an excellent question. When under my Presidency an American city is destroyed by a nuclear weapon, as it surely will, at that time we will all have realized what a terrible mistake it ever was to consider voting for a Democrat, as we have never been able to properly defend America.

“Then I would of course ask my Vice President to resign, somehow appoint Rudy Giuliani or another courageous, macho Republican to replace my VP, and then I would resign, making the new America-saving Republican VP the President, and I and all of my Democratic Congressional colleagues would voluntarily march to a public square where we would beg to be burned at the stake for our surrender monkey ways.

“That is what I would do, Charlie.”

And then Charlie Gibson would say, “Yes. Good. That’s what I thought.”

Funny, I feel that way about John Edwards.

On the day after a nuclear weapon goes off in an American city, what would we wish we had done to prevent it? And what will we actually do on the day after?

What the motherfucking difference would that make, you ignorant douchebag? What kind of fucking question is that, anyway?
WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?1?

Oh, and BB can blow me. How’s that for civil discourse?

Yet again, we have a beltway blowhard invoking the “nation” as if it agrees with him. O’Hanlon was wrong and is still wrong, and refuses to admit it. But he’ll keep crying about it. He wants a position of power and privilege without possessing any merit.

Also, thanks to the folks who linked the Allison stuff here in the thread. I was wondering where Gibson got his alarmist BS.

Some estimates are higher. Graham Allison (ph), at Harvard, says it’s over 50 percent.

I assume Gibson got the 30% from this study by Matthew Bunn (it’s actually 29%, but what the hell). Allison’s 50% comes from his book, Nuclear Terror: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe. Note the subtitle.

Gibson asked the sensationalist question. A better one would have been, “What have you done in your public service to prevent nuclear proliferation and what would you do as president?”

Fuck this guy. Didn’t one of those neocons write–well before the Iraq invasion–that the Republican party does better when there’s a war going on?

Nah, I think I can still give 4 to 1 odds. Give me a hundred now, you get four if there is a nuclear attack.within 10 years. Good deal eh? (for clearance, I won’t count mismanagement of US own weapons as attack. Just so you know)

Hey, I can give a 10 to 1 odds that if it does happen, it won’t be near you. Think about it; if you are within the blast area you could score a thousand dollars by betting 100 USD now.
What are you waiting for, the odds are on your side, right?
Anyone know if this Gibson guy is a gambling man?

Is there a time limit this event? Like 30% a city will be nuked within a year, within a month, etc Or is this just open ended?

Well, actually, I apparently only heard the more conservative 30% figure. ‘Could be 50-50 odds.

TRANSCRIPT: ABC News/Facebook/WMUR Democratic Debate

05 January 2008

GIBSON:

I want to go to another question. And it really is the central one in my mind in nuclear terrorism. The next president of the United States may have to deal with a nuclear attack on an American city.

I’ve read a lot about this in recent days. The best nuclear experts in the world say there’s a 30 percent chance in the next 10 years.

Some estimates are higher. Graham Allison (ph), at Harvard, says it’s over 50 percent.

Senator Sam Nunn, in 2005, who knows a lot about this, posed two questions that stick in my mind. And I want to put them to you here.

On the day after a nuclear weapon goes off in an American city, what would we wish we had done to prevent it? And what will we actually do on the day after?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAK!!!!

So, to add my share, I have few questions:

This ABC’s Charlie Gibson person I have no clue about (being foreigner) and the 30% nuke propability. Is there a time limit this event? Like 30% a city will be nuked within a year, within a month, etc Or is this just open ended?
If it has decent time limit, I have to wonder if he would be willing bet on it. With thirty percent I think I could give him 4 to 1 odds quite nicely. I’m betting against, and if a nuclear weapon actually is detonated in the US city within one year, he gets 4 times his money back(to make sure I explained it right). Since he suggest the likelyhood of 30% of this happening, it should give him the benefit. Hell, I’m feeling generous, so I could even offer 5 to 1 odds. I’m up for it with a hundred bucks, any takers? Anyone know Charlie Gibsons number?

The other thing I am curious about is to do with colors. Why is it that the neocons who think liberals=communists get their support from RED states? It this irony a sort that only outsiders notice?´Or is it the lack of available colours that forced them to go red? They can’t use blue (democrats have that), green doesn’t really work (the whole enviromental hippy thing), yellow has bad associations (yellow=coward, urine), White is out (surrender party), black is out (black republicans? What will they think of next), pink is out (well, Mark Foley & co. might like it, but pink elephants?). Or is the red some sort of fashion statement?

And no, if its Hillary I won’t be voting for her.

Pathetic beat up, isn’t it? More chance of being run over by a car.

Even if there was a 30% risk of a nuke, it would be no reason for war or wiretapping Americans without warrants.

It would be a reason for better policing, better tracking of nukes, building better international relations, bringing the troops home, etc.

She never said she’d stop the attack, or that obama would be more likely targeted, or whatever else you inserted in there. She said there would likely be an attack, and she would be better prepared for it. that isn’t exactly a major leap of logic – she is more likely to have an experienced team in place sooner than the other two candidates without any executive experience.

That may not be a reason to vote for her, but that is a far, far cry from what you accuse here of.

And guilt by association? When there isn’t much of an association to begin with? Sad, no? I wouldn’t let O’hanlon influence my decision at all. Why do you care what a plainly deranged person thinks of our candidates?

Hey, I wonder who we can get pictures of Obama or Edwards near!

And whose job, by the way, was to take NAPS!

I WANT that fucking job….

mikey

Stevens is gonna be 88 next year. He’d LOVE to step down if he thought he’d be replaced by an honest justice.

So check me out, and behold my greatness. After the election, Stevens will announce his retirement. If Hillary is the president, she nominates Obama. If Obama is the President, he nominates Hillary.

See how this works?

mikey

I’m kind of okay with being regarded as a clairvoyant genius, if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s more like being Cassandra getting everything right but having no one listen, than being Edgar Cayce, who was completely stupid but got a shitload of cash from it.