« No honor among thieves | Main | White Males Need Not Apply at the FBI »

Breaking: President Bush to Hold News Conference

It's scheduled for this morning at 11:00am ET. The topic is North Korea's so called nuclear test.

More information from Reuters:

Bush's opening statement will be about North Korea's reported nuclear test this week and an update on the situation in Iraq, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.


The news conference will offer the first opportunity for reporters to ask Bush about North Korea and Republican prospects in November 7 congressional elections after a scandal involving a gay Republican congressman's sexual messages to teenaged aides.

Bush is seeking a tough response from the U.N. Security Council in response to North Korea's claim this week to have detonated a nuclear weapon.


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Breaking: President Bush to Hold News Conference:

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Global fury at N Korea nuclear test claim

Comments (60)

I will save you some time:<... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I will save you some time:
-It is Clinton's fault
-The Democrats will raise your taxes

Now, if there are no more questions, I will go back to sleep.

To the Hughs, Lees, BarneyG... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

To the Hughs, Lees, BarneyG2000s, etc., I have a serious question:

What would you do now?

You're in charge, now congratulations. You can't change history, so let's chalk it all up to Dubya's fault that we're in the mess we're in.

And you can't impeach him 'til after the new Congress is sworn in come January 2007.

But in the meantime, we've had a North Korean test (that may have fizzled, may not have worked, whathaveyou).

So, what would you do??

And please provide a few details. If the answer is bilateral talks, what does that mean? Is simply talking the answer you would provide? If the NKs are demanding billions of dollars in "reparations" and the lifting of economic sanctions and access to Western technology, would you end the discussions, or would you offer it to them?

Or would you threaten them, and if so, how would you couch it?

Or would you refer it all back to the "Six-Party talks," i.e., Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, and ourselves, in addition to NK?

Seriously, what is YOUR answer?

C'mon, you know the liberal... (Below threshold)

C'mon, you know the liberal response. Appoint a 'blue ribbon' commission to immediately convene hearings to investigate why the North Koreans hate us. Then give North Korea whatever they want. Or was the question rhetorical?

Has anyone mentioned that t... (Below threshold)
Kapow:

Has anyone mentioned that the bomb that they may (or may not) have detonated was almost certainly a plutonium weapon not an enriched uranium one. The 1994 crisis was about plutonium production, as it was resolved in the agreed framework, the plutonium remained under IAEA supervision until 2002. That's when we found out they had a clandestine uranium enrichment program. So we broke off the agreed framework and so did they. They no longer were bound to keep the plutonium under lock and key, and we stopped giving them goodies. From that point on we have done nothing to stop either uranium enrichment or plutonium production. For a man of action, tough decisions and a will to stop the worlds worst dictators getting hold of the worst weapons, I'd say that Bush has failed here.

Good point Lurking Observer... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Good point Lurking Observer. The 1994 Agreed Framework was a failure from the get go.

It's your move, Left. Dazzle us.

LurkingObserver,Si... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

LurkingObserver,

Since you asked a thoughtful and serious question, let me give you Barney's answer, Barney style:

-I will send Madeleine Albright to give Jong-Il a basketball this time with Kobe's autograph
-Republicans want to take away your rights.

Word is Bush is going to ch... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Word is Bush is going to change his evil (axis fighting) ways. Of course, we all know his shift from being the big, bad cowboy to his his new - let's give peace a chance" diplomacy mode is only a political ploy to try to squeeze more votes.

After Sept. 11 . . . the Bush team embarked on a different path, outlining a muscular, idealistic and unilateralist vision of American power and how to use it. He aimed to lay the foundation for a grand strategy to fight Islamic terrorists and rogue states by spreading democracy around the world and pre-empting gathering threats before they materialize. And the U.S. wasn't willing to wait for others to help. The approach fit with Bush's personal style, his self-professed proclivity to dispense with the nuances of geopolitics and go with his gut.

But in the span of four years, the Administration has been forced to rethink the doctrine with which it hoped to remake the world as the strategy's ineffectiveness is exposed by the very policies it prescribed. The swaggering Commander in Chief (essential element of cowboyism) who embodied the doctrine's aspirations has modulated himself too. At a press conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in May, Bush swore off the Wild West rhetoric of getting enemies "dead or alive," conceding that "in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted." Bush's response to the North Korean missile test was equally revealing. Under the old Bush Doctrine, defiance by a dictator like Kim Jon Il would have merited threats of punitive U.S. action -- or at least a tongue lashing. Instead, the Administration has mainly been talking up multilateralism and downplaying Pyongyang's provocation. As much as anything, it's confirmation of what Princeton political scientist Gary J. Bass calls "doctrinal flameout." Put another way: cowboy diplomacy, RIP.

It's good to see Bush is trying something new - kinda confirms that the old ways have failed this country tremendously over the last 6 years.

Of course - you guys don't believe in diplomacy - and the sad fact is that Bush will fail here as well. He's been proven to be a blowhard - shouted down and stared down by superpowers (coff coff) the likes of Iran and North Korea. Even Cindy Sheehan kicked his sorry *ss around the plains of Texas so badly George hid in his bunkhouse until she'd gone.

That's who we have leading this country.

No need to post faux-lefty ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

No need to post faux-lefty answers guys. I'm sure Lee, Hugh, & Muirego will be here posting as soon as they get back from the Daily Kos with what Comrade Markos tells them they should think about this.

It's your move, Left. Da... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It's your move, Left. Dazzle us.

Uh, it's Bush's move. And has been for 6 years. He's the one in charge of NK policy. Since then, the only dazzle we've seen is the flash from the test explosion.

C'mon, you know the liberal response. Appoint a 'blue ribbon' commission

I thought it was to appeal to the ineffective UN. Oh wait, that was Bush's response. I guess it's OK for a Republican president to go to the UN.

The 1994 agreement was a to... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

The 1994 agreement was a total success, for North Korea. It allowed the little fat monkey to get Madam NotAllTooBright drunk, bong her, collect billions of dollars of your money, get two free nuclear power plants (used to further develop a nuclear bomb), and laugh at Slick Willie for only getting a BJ. Something no one else (other than a drunken dwarf) would do. The U.S. got exactly nothing positive out of the agreement. Well maybe a few good jokes for the late night shows. Now Leno is a biased right winger. ROFL

Lee...tell me wher... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Lee...

tell me where with NoKo diplomacy ever worked?

Brian....Same old ... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Brian....

Same old crap......you aint dazzling us.

Cm'on Lurking observer. Did... (Below threshold)
comeonsense:

Cm'on Lurking observer. Did you really think Lee and Co. would be able to articulate a sensable stratigy, let alone dazzle?

All you wanna be dazzled fo... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

All you wanna be dazzled folks:

Did Alred E Bush dazzle you with his press conference?

Seems to me his solution is first to go grrrrr; second, the old tried and true "stay the course."

Notice the silence since Alfred had his conference?

Vagabond: NoKo developed nu... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Vagabond: NoKo developed nucelar arms capability six years after Bush took office. Diplomacy worked up until Bush took office, at which time he abandoned diplomacy in exchange for his "Look at me - I'm a cowboy" doctrine of shoot first and ask questions later. Now he's hung up his cowboy hat in exchange for diplomacy - something he should have done 5 years ago.

Your boy failed, Vagabond, and now he's changed his tune. Ask him why he's choosing diplomacy now, Vagabond - he'll tell you it's a really good idea -- too bad he waited this long to figure it out -- but he had a rude wake up call from the real superpowers who refused to back him in his "get tough with NoKo" attempts earlier this year.

I'm glad to see Bush has come around to my way of thinking, aren't you Vagabond. Maybe we can maintain the peace.

Sorry about your Republican pals at Halliburton and Co. - I'm sure they were rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of a nuclear holocaust.

Thus far: Lee: blo... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Thus far:

Lee: blockquote and Cindy Sheehan is tougher than Bush.

Brian: I'm not going to answer, b/c it's Bush's move.

Hugh: Bush is inarticulate.

Lee: Misstatement of actual history (in 1994, there was a common view that North Korea had 1-2 nuclear weapons), and throwaway anti-Halliburton line.


But I was serious in asking my question. It's no different than asking what you would recommend President Feingold or President Rodham-Clinton should do (except that it's for 2006, rather than 2009).

In general, mantis has actually had thoughtful answers, and I hope that he swings by this thread. In the meantime, I'll ask once again:

Lee, Hugh, Brian, Barney:

What would be your recommended course of action to the President, as of 11 October 2006?

If you answer "diplomacy," please indicate exactly what you would put on the table for NK, and exactly what you would want in return.

If you answer "multilateral negotiations," please explain what differences you would expect from China and South Korea than have already occurred.

Lee...read the IAEA synopsi... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Lee...read the IAEA synopsis on NoKo pre-1994 and post 1994 then get back to me.

Hugh...nice dodge....no dazzle.

I agree with Lee, Hugh, Bri... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

I agree with Lee, Hugh, Brian and Barney. The blame for this North Korean fiasco is entirely in the laps of the Bush Administration. I have little doubt that Kim is being prevented from successfully fulfilling the primary campaign promise on which he was elected, ie. building a bustling economy for North Korea and expanding the wealth of the NK middle class. Why? Because of having to put all of the economic resources into a nuclear program to deter a US invasion. In fact, the policies of this administration are having the same effect on economic development in Syria, Iran, Palestine. Geesh, I could go on. I bet you guys really stroke it every time Bush uses the term United Nations too.

and Lee, remember the 1994 ... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

and Lee, remember the 1994 Agreed Framework which came out of bilateral talks with NoKo? Tons of US tax dollars went over there and it failed because NoKo viloated the agreement from day one (per IAEA) which gave NoKo the capability to develop somewhat of a nuke.

So unilater talks didn't work . Bilateral talks didn't work. Why should Bush waste his time with those? There are other powerful countries who are closer to NoKo and more influential.

What would be your recom... (Below threshold)
Brian:

What would be your recommended course of action to the President, as of 11 October 2006?

When sales at my old company were tanking, it was the sales VP's responsibility. When the engineering team was consistently late, it was the team lead's responsibility.

The reason we hire leaders (like a President) is because they're supposed to know what they're doing. The rank and file aren't supposed to tell leaders how to do their jobs. But it doesn't take an expert to recognize when they don't.

"Tons of US tax dollars ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Tons of US tax dollars went over there and it failed because NoKo viloated the agreement from day one (per IAEA) which gave NoKo the capability to develop somewhat of a nuke."

Yeah, I do remember the agrement. Bush waived the requirement for inspections in 2003 - he said the waiver was vital to the security interests of the United States. He's an idiot.

The oversight that was part of the framework was waived by the Republican *sshat in the White House.

The decision to not use diplomacy, but play hard ball instead, was chosen by the *sshat in the White House

George had six years in which to screw this up - and he did a brilliant job of it.

Guess what - one of the outcomes of the next round of diplomacy will be to have regular inspections. This time, Bush won't waive the requirement - i guarantee it.

He's learned his lesson, have you? NO - you guys just keep yammering on trying to defend Bush's actions over the last six years - even Bush has seen the light and chosen a new course - wake up!

Brian.... Same old crap.... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian.... Same old crap......you aint dazzling us.

VagaBond...nice dodge....no dazzle.

Lurking Observer, it is not... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Lurking Observer, it is not my responsibility to have all the answers. It is the responsibility of the voters to elect competent leads. Bush has demonstrated a complete and total lack of competency such as:
-Shiavo
-Meyers
-The Border
-Iraq
-Katrina
-Deficit/Debt
-Energy Policy
-North Korea
-Iran
-Israel / Palestine
-9/11
-Defending the Constitution
-Leaking Classified Data
-Abramoff
-Dubai Ports
-SS Reform

And the list goes on and on.

Brian..Good poi... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Brian..

Good point Lurking Observer. The 1994 Agreed Framework was a failure from the get go.

It's your move, Left. Dazzle us.

Brian.... Same old crap......you aint dazzling us.

VagaBond...nice dodge....no dazzle.


Posted by: Brian

Obviously, I am not dodging. Still awaiting answers from the left.

Barney...yawn....N... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Barney...yawn....

NoKo is awaiting your answer.

Maybe we should expand this... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Maybe we should expand this.

If you can't come up with an answer, Left, ask your congressman. Maybe they can provide a link.

Scrapie, "get two free nucl... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Scrapie, "get two free nuclear power plants (used to further develop a nuclear bomb)"

Tough guy Rummy thought it was a good idea:

"Mr. Rumsfeld was a non-executive director of ABB, a European engineering giant based in Zurich, when it won a $200m (£125m) contract to provide the design and key components for the reactors. The current defense secretary sat on the board from 1990 to 2001, earning $190,000 a year. He left to join the Bush administration."

Barney that was so convulut... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Barney that was so convuluted it made no sense. Are you saying Rumsfeld is to blame because he sat on a board for ABB to sell parts to NoKo for a deal that Clinton brokered?

Obviously, I am not dodg... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Obviously, I am not dodging.

Your dodge is hiding behind the endless repetition of the childish "Oh yeah? What would you do? Still waiting!"

Still awaiting answers from the left.

Still awaiting responsibility from the right.

So far we've seen pretty mu... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

So far we've seen pretty much 2 responses from the secular socialists on this thread:

1. Blame Bush but totally ingore Clinton's failure.

and

2. Claim that it is not their responsibility to come up with a solution.

#1 is very hypocritical but typical for lefies.
#2 is a legitimate point for the SS trolls on this site,

HOWEVER, these are the exact same responses we get when the LEADERS of the secular socialist party (Kerry, Pelosi, Reed, Dean, H. Clinton, et. al.) are asked the same question and that is unacceptable and it is the reason why they have lost power.

Americans want leaders who do things- even if they make mistakes- not leaders who point fingers, project blame, and make excuses.

"Americans want leaders ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Americans want leaders who do things- even if they make mistakes..."

That's really, really stupid. America doesn't want leaders who make mistakes - Republicans do... The day that Republicans speak for America has long passed.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this subject, Paul. You are a Republican, right? - please correct me if that's not the case.

Check out Chris Shays' melt... (Below threshold)

Check out Chris Shays' meltdown:

Republican Rep. Christopher Shays defended the House speaker's handling of a congressional page scandal, saying no one died like at Chappaquiddick in 1969 when Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy was involved.

"I know the speaker didn't go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water, and then have a press conference the next day," the embattled Connecticut congressman told The Hartford Courant in remarks published Wednesday.

"Dennis Hastert didn't kill anybody," he added.

I think this is called 'you're not helping'. You can find the story from the AP at Yahoo or whatever, that's where I saw it.

Lee,The political ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Lee,

The political party I most closely identify with is the Libertarians, but I almost always vote for Republicans since the Libers are not a viable option and the "democrats" are pretty much pure evil.

I do believe that every human makes mistakes, even the President.

Jeebus, people. Th... (Below threshold)
Lurking Observer:

Jeebus, people.

This is not a "Oh yeah, what would YOU do?" question.

This is a serious question about what people are thinking about.

No, it's not as though I'm sitting in the White House, polling for answers on blogs. This is a serious question, such as is put forward to think-tanks, Beltway bandits, and research centers at universities.

What is a serious policy response to the North Korean nuclear test.

Is that really so friggin' hard to understand? Is everything a matter of politics to you people (and that applies to both sides, here)?

Imagine you're William Cohen under Bill Clinton. Or Henry Stimson under FDR. Do you really say, "Listen, I'm a Republican, you're a Democrat, so I'm not serving as SecDef, b/c it's all your problem?" Or do you say, "Here's what I'm thinking should be done, as your SecDef"?

But thanks for letting me know that, to you people, it's more important to stick your tongue out and say "Not my problem, dood, it's yours" than thinking for a few minutes about whether there's actually alternative solution sets.

P. Bunyan wrote...</... (Below threshold)
Brian:

P. Bunyan wrote...

Considering that you're spouting the talking points of Michael Savage, who even respectable conservatives don't pay attention to anymore, I wasn't even going to address you. But what the heck.

1. Blame Bush but totally ingore Clinton's failure.
#1 is very hypocritical but typical for lefies.

I don't ignore Clinton's failures. But Clinton's been out of office for 6 years. How long can you hide behind him?

I would be happily impressed by you demonstrating how to not be hypocritical by admitting Bush's failure in this matter.

2. Claim that it is not their responsibility to come up with a solution.
#2 is a legitimate point for the SS trolls on this site
HOWEVER, these are the exact same responses we get when the LEADERS of the secular socialist party

Please share with us the foreign policy solutions that Bush the candidate offered while he was running. Please identify those that he followed through with once in the White House. Please highlight the ones that have been successful.

You seem to care only about what politicians say they'll do, and not what they actually do. I would be skeptical of anyone running for office who said that they knew the solution. However, Bush has had 6 years to figure out and implement a solution, and rectify whatever flaws he thought were in Clinton's policies. He did, quite literally, nothing.

Brian,I don't list... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Brian,

I don't listen to Micheal Savage, as what little I've heard of him seems extreme, but perhaps he, like me, recognizes the evil of secular socialism which has taken over what used to be the Democratic Party.

As far as what Bush has done, and I by no means claim to be an expert on this subject, I am aware of at least two things and I approve of both.

The first is that he has been working to build a multinational coalition- made up mostly of nations in that region- to come up with a comprehensive solution to the problem.

Second, he has authorized the development of a missile defense system to protect this country from missile attacks from nations such as NK.

The Bush administration is probably doing a lot more than of what I am aware, but after all they are the "most secretive administration in the entire history of America" so who really has any clue what they're doing?

Brian: "I would be hap... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Brian: "I would be happily impressed by you demonstrating how to not be hypocritical by admitting Bush's failure in this matter."

Perhaps you could say something like:

The ineffeciveness of the Clinton Adminstration in allowing NK to develop nuclear weapons in the first place, among the multiple other diplomatic failures of that administration with regard to NK made the situation enourmously more difficult for Bush, still I believe Bush has failed because [you'll have to supply this part as I have no clue what I'd say here].

The big question: Is Jimmy ... (Below threshold)
Burt:

The big question: Is Jimmy Carter going to have to return his Nobel Peace Prize? He did get it for making sure that North Korea would remain nuclear free, didn't he?

From todays press conferenc... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

From todays press conference:
"Don, I did bring up the words of the leader of the House when she said, "I love tax cuts." And I then reminded everybody that if she loved them so much,.." President Bush 10/11/06

Bush is so stupid; he thinks Nancy Pelosi is the House Leader. LOL

Bush's successes:-... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Bush's successes:

- SUPPORT OF ISRAEL
- Tax Cuts
- 9/11
- Afghanistan
- Winning Iraq with so fast and with such few casualties (compare to any other war)
- Miguel Estrada
- John Roberts
- Harriet Miers (yes, she would have been good)
- Samuel Alito
- William Pryor!!!
- Havign true faith
- Support of Pro-Life Positions
- Support of the Gay Marriage ban
- Not being a moral reprobate (i.e. BC)
- Repenting from a habit of heavy drinking
(unlike TeddyK)
- Linda Chavez
- Beating Kerry
- Increasing the majority of House and Senate 2004
- Restoring honor to the office
- Great economic recovery
- ANWAR (supports)
- Admiring Reagan
- Loving God

I would think this is only like 10%. Please add.
I am thankful for our great President. He is in the top five of all time U.S. Presidents (Reagan #1).

Bush's successes:</p... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Bush's successes:

Those aren't successes. Most aren't failures, either. They're not things that can succeed or fail. They're just positions, attitudes, and people that you agree with.

Oh, and if you think Bush actively supports pro-life and anti-gay positions, you're not paying enough attention.

The first is that he has... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The first is that he has been working to...
Second, he has authorized...

"Working to", "authorized", ... what has he done? And again, I'm referring to those things that he claimed to have the solution for as a candidate, as several on here now facetiously expect Dems to have.

Perhaps you could say so... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Perhaps you could say something like:

Hysterical.

The ineffeciveness of the Clinton Adminstration in allowing NK to develop nuclear weapons in the first place

Bush has been in charge for 6 years. Anything that was being "allowed" before his time, he could have addressed. He did nothing.

among the multiple other diplomatic failures of that administration with regard to NK made the situation enourmously more difficult for Bush

Oh, poor little Bushy. Big bad Clinton made things sooooo difficult for him. What is he to do? After all, he's only the president, and in charge of everything. Because of Clinton, it was sooo much harder for Bush when he tried to... umm... well, he didn't actually try to do anything. Oh hey, he did have one idea! Clinton's diplomacy failed... so Bush eliminated diplomacy!

I believe Bush has failed because [you'll have to supply this part as I have no clue what I'd say here].

LOL! Calling the left hypocrites for not acknowledging Clinton's failures, then claiming "no clue" when it comes to assigning a sliver of responsibility to the guy who has been in charge for 6 years!

But as expected. I didn't really expect to be happily impressed by your honesty. Thank you for not disappointing me.

Brian,What should ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Brian,

What should he have done that you would have appoved of?

Oh, I get it Brian, because... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Oh, I get it Brian, because Bush stopped the failed policies of the Clinton adminstration and is currently working to implement better policies that will mostly likely actually work, you see that as doing nothing and failing.

I suppose that would make sense to a lefty who thinks socialism/communism is a good thing.

What should he have done... (Below threshold)
Brian:

What should he have done that you would have appoved of?

Well, the obvious answer is "anything successful". But we'd have settled for "anything, period".

Oh, I get it Brian, because Bush stopped the failed policies of the Clinton adminstration and is currently working to implement better policies that will mostly likely actually work, you see that as doing nothing and failing.

LOL! Conveniently omitting the six year gap between stopping the policies and "currently". Gee, where did that time go? I guess Bush must have secretly been working out his elaborate plan for dealing with NoKo.

If you sit idly by and watch a time bomb tick down from 60 minutes, and don't take steps to stop it until it gets down to 10 seconds, then a) you did nothing for almost an hour, and b) you don't get credit for suddenly realizing that an urgent situation exists.

It is commonly said that it... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

It is commonly said that it takes twenty years to be able to properly evaluate a presidency.

Everyone (and I mean everyone) will know the instant Brian answers this question whether he is worth paying attention to or whether you have just wasted 10 sec. of your life reading his post.

Brian, answer this question: Was Ronald Reagan a good president?

And Brian blames President ... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

And Brian blames President Bush for not taking action on NoKo.

So, is the left now complaining that we are not adopting a doctrine of pre-emptive attack?

Brian,Even though ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Brian,

Even though you'll probably never be intellectually honest enough to admit that Bush did not do "nothing" and there was no "six year gap", deep down I think you know the truth.

How come diplomacy is unacceptable to you? Or do you expect instaneous results? Do you think the "democrats" will get faster results?

Exactly right nehemia, when... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Exactly right nehemia, when we use a preemtive attack its the wrong thing to do. When we use diplomacy it's the wrong thing to do. No matter what Bush does to a secular socialist its the wrong thing to do.

It is commonly said that... (Below threshold)
Brian:

It is commonly said that it takes twenty years to be able to properly evaluate a presidency.

OK, so we shouldn't hear any more Clinton comments for 14 years?

So, is the left now comp... (Below threshold)
Brian:

So, is the left now complaining that we are not adopting a doctrine of pre-emptive attack?

Who said anything about attack? Is that all your brain can come up with? Doing nothing or attacking? But now that you mention it, I suppose it is possible that Bush allowed the situation to get out of hand so he'd now have an excuse for attacking. Good thinking, nehemiah!

Even though you'll proba... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Even though you'll probably never be intellectually honest enough to admit that Bush did not do "nothing" and there was no "six year gap", deep down I think you know the truth.

Umm, Clinton left office in 2000. NoKo tested the bomb in 2006. 2006-2000=6. What, now you're going to deny math?

Please tell us "the truth".

How come diplomacy is unacceptable to you?

It's entirely acceptable to me. When does it start? It's not to Bush. Too bad we haven't been using it for the past 6 years.

Or do you expect instaneous results?

Not at all. Which is why Bush should have started a long time ago. I don't understand why you act like it's fine that Bush has been putting off NoKo for years, and first started paying attention to them 60 seconds after the bomb test.

when we use a preemtive ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

when we use a preemtive attack its the wrong thing to do. When we use diplomacy it's the wrong thing to do.

Ha! First of all, when did Bush use diplomacy? He's been purposely ignoring NoKo for years. Plus, here we have a whole thread lambasting Clinton for using diplomacy, and you go suggesting that Dems fault Bush for trying it. Very amusing.

No matter what Bush does to a secular socialist its the wrong thing to do.

Well, yes, no matter what he does, if the end result is a nuclear NoKo, then by definition it was the wrong thing to do.

Boy, you like that phrase "secular socialist", do ya? Learned ya some big words, eh?

Brian,Math? Did N... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

Brian,

Math? Did NoKo come into existence in 2000? Why does it only go to 2000?

Clinton for 14 years? We can evaluate moral actions in an instant -- or do you tell your family that you'll be able to form a judgment on Clinton's blow job in 14 years?

Reagan. Only smart thing you've done in your posting history. I wouldn't touch him as a liberal either. In fact, even if I were a Democrat I would not vote against putting him on Rushmore.

Still you have not said -- what would you have done with NoKo? The sun will one day die. What are you doing about it? When it does die, are you a failure?


Impeach now...Do-I... (Below threshold)
Jodin:

Impeach now...

Do-It-Yourself Impeachment Due Today!!! (Oct 12)

The day the nation demands impeachment is almost upon us. Today (Oct 12), sacks and sacks of mail will be sent to congress demanding impeachment via the House of Representative's own rules. This legal document is as binding as if a State or if the House itself passed the impeachment resolution (H.R. 635).

There's a little known and rarely used clause of the "Jefferson Manual" in the rules for the House of Representatives which sets forth the various ways in which a president can be impeached. Only the House Judiciary Committee puts together the Articles of Impeachment, but before that happens, someone has to initiate the process.

That's where we come in. In addition to the State-by-State method, one of the ways to get impeachment going is for individual citizens like you and me to submit a memorial. ImpeachforPeace.org, part of the movement to impeach the president, has created a new memorial based on one which was successful in impeaching a federal official in the past. You can find it on their website as a PDF.

STOP WAITING FOR YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO ACT FOR YOU.

You can initiate the impeachment process yourself by downloading the memorial, filling in the relevant information in the blanks (your name, state, etc.), and sending it in. Be a part of history.

http://ImpeachForPeace.org/ImpeachNow.html

I love South Park. Last ni... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

I love South Park. Last night they had another excellent episode which correctly pointed out that about a quarter of the population is retarded.

I see a lot of eveidence of that here.

P. Bunyan,That's O... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

P. Bunyan,

That's OFFENSIVE!

Do not insult the retarded by equating them to Brian and Barney.

Math? Did NoKo come into... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Math? Did NoKo come into existence in 2000? Why does it only go to 2000?
...
Clinton for 14 years? We can evaluate moral actions in an instant

Hey, I was just responding to others, who said there was no 6-year gap between when Bush took office and now, and who said we have to wait 20 years to evaluate a presidency. If you have objections to those premises, take it up with them.

I was the one who wrote abo... (Below threshold)
nehemiah:

I was the one who wrote about the 20 years. I guess I have to explain.

20 years means the time it generally takes to evaluate as a whole where it stands in history. For example, Reagan's approval was very low in 1984 (22 years ago), but now he is exceptionally regarded by conservatives (even conservatives did not regard him so in 1984).

However, certain actions of course we do not have to wait to see if it was correct and good. For example, if you ask Monica how BC liked his BJ, she would be able to give you a pretty clear answer right now. Entiende?

Now, as your premise for no action on NoKo. The U.S. has been asking for six party talks for years (i.e. "diplomacy"). Just because NoKo has been adamantly saying no and wanting two party talks (just with the U.S.) does not mean "Bush did nothing". There are very good reasons why NoKo wants TWO vs SIX party talks -- and very good reasons why the U.S. pushes for SIX vs. TWO party talks. Entiende, tonto?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy