Wow, Carter's getting more and more senile every day.

" Note to Jimmy Carter: NoKo started working on its nuke project before the ink dried on your ridiculous "agreement."

I sure would like to see some (ANY) evidence to back-up your claim.

It amazes me that Carter, who professes Christ, fails to recognize evil when it looks him in the face.

You mean evidence like this?

Armitage has provided the earliest estimate of the program's origin, testifying February 4 that the U.S. government noticed "some anomalies in [North Korean] procurement patterns" starting in 1994. Similarly, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated during a March 26 hearing before the House Appropriations Committee that North Korea started the program to enrich uranium "before the ink was dry" on the 1994 Agreed Framework.

From here:
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_05/uraniumenrichment_may03.asp

Plus, Barney, read the IAEA summary on NoKo...if you dare....

barney and his ilk run n hide from facts.

Jung Il and Saddam punked Klinton throughout the 90's, but Dems version of revisionist history, like Reids do-over on his filings, seems to get Dems a pass.

WTF are we even sending NoKo any aid at all? Who makes these decisions, and why is there such little publicity about this aid? This is all about NoKo needing more stuff, food, oil, money, etc, and most of what has been sent to his people have instead been used for his military.

Let em starve, I dont care, its Jung Il's choices and actions that have led to this, thus, his responsibility, not the US, UN, etc.

"Armitage has provided the earliest estimate of the program's origin, testifying February 4 that the U.S. government noticed "some anomalies in [North Korean] procurement patterns" starting in 1994. Similarly, Secretary of State Colin Powell stated during a March 26 hearing before the House Appropriations Committee that North Korea started the program to enrich uranium "before the ink was dry" on the 1994 Agreed Framework."

It's hard to argue that Bush didn't know what was going on then, isn't it? Yet, for six years, the Republicans allowed this to continue and escalate to the point where NoKo and the KooKoo running the country has joined nukes.

I thought the Republican'ts were fighting AGAINST terrorism - not fostering it and allowing it to flourish!

Dumb-ass Republican'ts do it again. What idiots!

Actually Bush is ENTIRELY to blame for the mess in North Korea because he has absolutely no sense of subtlety.

Kim Jong Il is a dictator whose power is derived from the fear of his people (sort of like what is starting to happen in the USA)

A Dictator's people must fear him and cannot perceive weakness. When Bush called him out and threatened him he basically pushed him into a corner from which Il had no choice as a slimy dictator.

He either had to back down to the US and show weakness to his people or make a ludicrous attempt at posturing to show his people that he was still in charge. If a dictator shows weakness to his people, and his political enemies, he will probably be killed almost immediately. If he stands up to the US, he risks invasion, but his odds were pretty good that with our forces spread out we would not be eager to attack North Korea. We bluffed poorly and he called.

Now Bush (and we) are the ones being backed into the corner. Since we threatened hard action- which we can't afford, either militarily, politically or financially, we are now screwed. Our choices are to back down and leave it to the international community (Best choice) or launch another ridiculous war that can't be won. We already fought one in Korea and we had to call it a tie.

We the conservatives are being told to see the world as black and white, good and bad, but that isn't the way it works. With dictators, the way to beat them is to let their people do it for you. Dictatorships are usually temporary (Cuba notwithstanding) and are never as efficient as Democracies. The best step would have been to keep working diplomatically and playing the political poker game with some sense of skill until Kim did something stupid that caused his internal political enemies to destroy him.

His nuclear program is obviously not as sophisticated as he wanted us to believe and he is not well liked by his neighbors either. China, as much as racist America hates them, does like the US because we are making them a fortune. It is in China's best interest to stand up to North Korea but Bush's political blundering has made it harder for everybody in the region.

Lee:

So, if Bush had decided to go after North Korea (which would have been a unilateral war, since neither China nor South Korea, and probably not Japan, would have been willing to assist us), you'd have supported such a war, even though it was likely that any North Korean response would include the use of 1-2 nuclear weapons on either South Korea or Japan (or even one smuggled into the US)?

And if Bush doesn't respond, then it's his fault for anything North Korea does?

And if Bush upholds the 1994 Agreement, he's helping North Korea (btw, that wasn't $95M in cash, that was $95M worth of fuel oil, as Bill Clinton promised and also waived inspections to send). But if Bush ends the '94 Agreement, then North Korea's nuclear development is Bush's fault?

I see now you've added shilling for the North Koreans to your exemplary habit of shilling for Islamic fascists. Is there any enemy of America you won't shill for, Lee?

Carter should be lured to a state where the obviously insane can be detained and committed quickly, and with only one hearing.

chsw

"So, if Bush had decided to go after North Korea (which would have been a unilateral war, since neither China nor South Korea, and probably not Japan, would have been willing to assist us), you'd have supported such a war,..."

Hell no! But the sanctions in place today would have stopped NoKo from gaining the nuke had those sanctions been put in place several years ago.

But the Republicans were too damned arrogant and stupid - the big bad "get tough" Republican'ts didn't want to solve this problem; the GWOT is a sham. The Republican'ts have allowed terrorism to grow instead.

I thought Republicans were fighting terrorism, not encouraging it.

What the F*ck have the Republicans been doing for the last six years regarding NoKo?

NOTHING!

Instead the Republicans in Congress have been lining their pockets with lobbyist money and rubbing their hands with glee when the Dow spikes up and Oil comnpanies profits rise!

Lurking Observer, did you even bother to read your own link? This is your so called "evidence"? You did not point out that Powell nor Amitage could point to any evidence to back up their claim (see here):

"appears to date from [the end of] 1995," although it does not cite a source or provide further detail.

Powell contradicted himself here:

Powell said on ABC's This Week that North Korea started the program "in 1998 and 1999."

A CIA report puts the NK program starting at:

The November CIA report to Congress indicates that "North Korea embarked on the effort to develop a centrifuge-based uranium enrichment program about two years ago." (2000 or 2001)

And here:

"An April 2003 CIA report states... adding that North Korea "began seeking centrifuge-related materials in large quantities" in 2001

Armitage contradicts himself here:

Armitage argued in his February 4 testimony that North Korea was "intent on going to a full-up production program" from "at least" February 2000.

So now 2000/01 is "before the ink dried"?

Keep spinning repubs.

Right, Lee.

China put those sanctions in place today, b/c today and six years ago are just alike. A nuke test happening or not? Irrelevant.

Japan put those sanctions in place today, b/c today and six years ago are just alike. A nuke test happening or not? Irrelevant.

South Korea put those sanctions, oops, no they haven't have they? So, even after a nuke test, South Korean leaders are still unsure about how to respond.

But all this is Bush's fault. Right.

Oh, and what if, instead of the '94 "Agreement," which limited little, there'd been sanctions put in place in 1994. Think the NKs might have gotten to where they are today? Perhaps they might even be a memory, like "German Democratic Republic"?

Naah. B/c then it wouldn't be Bush's fault.

Why do you hate America, Lee? Why do you insist on shilling for North Korea (and now China)?

I mean, you sure go to extreme lengths to defend the NK and their Chinese pals. Are you receiving a paycheck from them? Or are you doing this b/c you believe in their cause?

Lee, I guess with your head up your ass, you have not noticed the 6 party talks Bush has been trying to hold with North Korea. It is difficult to talk to someone who insisted they have the right to conterfeit our money. Lee, are you really Mullah Omar? You are obviously anti-American. You oppose everything an elected American President does. It is obvious you side with the enemy in every instance. Who are you? Idiot. Mordoormat. STFU. North Korea is entirey to blame for what they are doing. Bush is to blame for you. If he had not shit in the woods years ago, you would not exist.

"Lee, I guess with your head up your ass, you have not noticed the 6 party talks Bush has been trying to hold with North Korea."

I didn't say Bush hasn't been trying -- he's just been failing - and we now see the result of his failure. NoKo has the nuke!

You folks really need to stop nailing Lee to the wall with his own stupid remarks...he's beginning to resemble a chunk of pegboard.

Well Gee Whiz, Lee, tried and failed seems to be an acceptable argument for posterity these days. Maybe if Bush made that case while angrily waving his finger in front of Chris Wallace you'd be OK with it?

"tried and failed seems to be an acceptable argument for posterity these days"

Is it isn't ok for Clinton, why is it ok for Bush?

Hint: It starts with "h", ends with "y", and has "ypocris" in the middle.

Jokes aside, blaming the Democrats when their watch ended six years ago is beyond stupid -- it's damaging the Republican chances in the upcoming election. How can Americans have faith in Republican leadership when they refuse to admit their mistakes?

Republicans around here admit to ZERO responsibility for the nukes in NoKo, and that's just plain ludicrous.

It's like the last six years just didn't happen? You guys don't even have a Democratic Congress to blame, and you STILL try to weasel out of responsibilty. It's time to vote the Republicans out of office!

Amazing.

Lee is absolutely right. Diplomacy was the solution to this situation unless we wanted to piss off all of Asia by launching our own unilateral war in the 90's.
It is the current failed attempts at cowboy diplomacy that destroyed what was left of the treaty. And, as long as we are talking about breaking treaties, let's not talk about what Bush is doing to the Geneva Convention.

Fact is they were trying to put together nuclear weapons and Carter and Clinton settled them down. Only when Bush called him out did he start testing them.

Only Bush can be blamed for the last six years. Things only went to Hell after Bush took over.

"Tried and Failed" is still a lot better than "did nothing, failed and lied about it."

I thought Conservatives would at least hold their people accountable.

Barney:

So, let's get this straight.

North Korea signs a deal in 1994. By 1998, they're looking for centrifuges so as to cheat on said agreement.

But b/c it's 1998, and not 1995, well, that's okay then.

BTW, the 1994 agreement was hardly necessary---the NKs had signed a treaty in 1991 where they had already renounced R&D and development of a nuclear weapon. (See 1991 Joint Declaration on Denuclearization.) So, anything they did by way of nuclear R&D was in violation of that agreement already.

The point being that NK was violating the agreement---and was doing so for years. Whether it was under the Clinton administration (it was) or the Bush administration (it was) is hardly the point.

Lee:

I didn't say Bush hasn't been trying -- he's just been failing - and we now see the result of his failure. NoKo has the nuke!

As a matter of fact, you did say he hadn't tried:

"But the Republicans were too damned arrogant and stupid - the big bad "get tough" Republican'ts didn't want to solve this problem; the GWOT is a sham. The Republican'ts have allowed terrorism to grow instead.
I thought Republicans were fighting terrorism, not encouraging it.
What the F*ck have the Republicans been doing for the last six years regarding NoKo?
NOTHING!"

North Korea has nuclear capability because they wanted nuclear capability, and the 1994 Agreement allowed for that quite nicely.

If you're in the camp of "Bush called North Korea the Axis of Evil, so now he has a nuke!!" ... in another reality, if that were true, anyone who would develop a nuclear bomb to threaten the world with simply because his Stalinist regime was called "Evil", then it's quite clear he needs to be dealt with. That's like sticking a loaded shotgun in my mouth because I called you a jerk.

I really wish I had one person to blame for everything wrong in my life and in the world like you do, it'd must make things alot easier.

Back in 1994, there was broad belief that North Korea already had 1-2 nuclear weapons.

So, this idea that North Korea suddenly woke up last week with a newfound nuclear arsenal is bizarre.

He thinks it's the color of that bunny what tried to mess with his canoe!

James:

Diplomacy was the solution to this situation unless we wanted to piss off all of Asia by launching our own unilateral war in the 90's. It is the current failed attempts at cowboy diplomacy that destroyed what was left of the treaty.

As we're seeing today, after North Korea has conducted a nuclear test...no one wants to pass meaningful sanctions and no one wants to enforce them. So this was supposed to happen before they even had nuclear capability?. In your view, James, the way to deal with Kim, a certifiable madman, is to appease him?

Diplomacy with Iran is going swimmingly isn't it?

And, as long as we are talking about breaking treaties, let's not talk about what Bush is doing to the Geneva Convention.

What is Bush doing to the Geneva Convention?

That is a rhetorical question...because the answer is "nothing".

Fact is they were trying to put together nuclear weapons and Carter and Clinton settled them down. Only when Bush called him out did he start testing them.

This statement is excellent. Read it again. What you're saying is Carter and Clinton calmed them down, but didn't stop them from getting a nuclear weapon. And now that Bush isn't bending to the whims of a madman, he gets blamed for the tests.

"Broad Belief" was obviously not a viable reason to attack and Obviously it wasn't true if the current tests show NK's actual capability.

In reference to the comment:
If you're in the camp of "Bush called North Korea the Axis of Evil, so now he has a nuke!!" ... in another reality, if that were true, anyone who would develop a nuclear bomb to threaten the world with simply because his Stalinist regime was called "Evil", then it's quite clear he needs to be dealt with. That's like sticking a loaded shotgun in my mouth because I called you a jerk.

This was not the only thing that Bush has done. He has repeatedly launched his tirades against the regime when there isn't really a lot of support for a conflict. The Republicans need enemies to keep their followers in line. We must break the world into good guys and bad guys.

Can you imagine what Bush would do when somebody called him a jerk. You won't have to wait too long to see. If we actually get some checks and balances and can get these people to swear to their actions under oath, I think you will find that we have put shotguns in a lot of peoples' mouths.

We, as conservatives, need to hold our president accountable, unless we get democrats in the house we will never know the truth about what has happened because this president keeps all of his records sealed for "National Security" even his records as Texas Governor.

I am not sure why conservatives suddenly trust their current government.

My God with people like Carter, Lee and Barney who the hell has time to worry about Islamofacists and munchgin dictators with nukes,We have our hands full with anti american enemies right in our midst..

Maybe Lee posts at this lovely site I found. It sure sounds like he might agree with some of what they say.

North Korea ICBM Missile ready for launch, US shaking
By: fromPоrtugal on: 20.06.2006 [09:42 ] (2535 reads)
Article image
North Korea has finished fueling a long-range missile, moving a key step closer to a test launch, The New York Times reported late Sunday.

99 comments

Only comments

Article and comments
Comments per page

excellent move
by Yasis on 20.06.2006 [11:05 ]
Well done DPRK, always there to save the day! USA is setting a dateline to Iran on the nuclear issue. Creating tensions over missiles now would distract USA and help to take Iran's chestnuts out of the fire.

Iran should really be grateful to DPRK, always frustrating USA when USA is gearing up to threaten Iran.

Thanks DPRK! Excellent move! Keep the missile tensions going until USA backs off Iran.

DPRK, one of the few countries that I respect. They will not kowtow to USA and surrender.

Secretary Rice warned North Korea it will face consequences
by heckmanns on 20.06.2006 [11:53 ]
There have never ever been any consequences after any such warnings.

The whole Cold War was full of such warnings. Never ever has there been any consequence.

Reason: lies.

threatening NK with sanctions
by paul pawlowski on 20.06.2006 [13:01 ]
NK is living under USA sanctions 50 years now -- what santions?

Never a dull moment
by TerraHertz on 20.06.2006 [13:19 ]
Just when you thought WW-III was going to break out in one place, it appears ready to pop up in another.

Of course, if the missile should happen to blow up during the test, Nth Korea will quite reasonably blame the USA.
On the other hand, if it accidentally lands somewhere surprising, like say a US city, the USA will assume Nth Korea intended that.

What a pity Washington is supposed to be out of range. I can't think of a better place for an ICBM accident.

Oh well. At least we may get to see whether the US 'missile defence system' works or not. Any bets? I'd bet on 'not'.

INTERPRETATION...
by kamau on 20.06.2006 [13:40 ]
QUOTE: ''Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned North Korea on Monday it will face consequences if it test-fires a missile thought to be powerful enough to reach the West Coast of the United States.

"It would be a very serious matter and, indeed, a provocative act should North Korea decide to launch that missile," Rice said amid indications that the North Koreans could launch an intercontinental ballistic missile at any moment.

The senior U.S. diplomat said the United States would talk to other nations about action should the North go ahead, and "I can assure everyone that it would be taken with utmost seriousness." ''

INTERPRETATION: PLEASE, OH PLEASE, SOMEBODY HELP US!!! WE HAVE NO MORE BALLS AND CAN'T DO ANYTHING TO STOP NORTH KOREA FROM LAUNCHING THEIR MISSILE. OUR CLOUT IS GONE! OUR NAME IS MUD! WE SHOWED THE WORLD THAT WE ARE REALLY A PAPER TIGER IN IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN AND IRAN, AND NOW NORTH KOREA WILL REVEAL THIS ONCE MORE!

PLEASE, OH PLEASE HELP US! NORTH KOREA CAN'T LAUNCH THIS MISSILE. NOT NOW!!! IT WILL WOULD SHOW THE WORLD THAT OUR ASS IS HANGING OUT OF OUR PANTS, AND CAN BE KICKED BY NORTH KOREA AT ANY TIME. SOMEBODY PLEASE HELP US!!!

*****LONG LIVE JUCHE
by Neyaz on 20.06.2006 [13:51 ]
And the FATHER OF JUCHE************

NK should lauch a satelite
by pdove on 20.06.2006 [14:47 ]
Which has no controversy and can clearly demonstrate the capability to reach the enemy.

Even if firing missiles, it should claim that is a failed satelite launch.

@ Yasis
by Mike-Malaysia on 20.06.2006 [14:57 ]
Creating tensions over missiles now would distract USA and help to take Iran's chestnuts out of the fire. - LOL.

Like its Irans right to fully develop the uranium fuel cycle (and I believe it is their right to develop a nuclear deterrant in the present military/political climate) North Korea has a right to develop any armaments it wishes. To develop arms that can defend against their main enemies, of which the US has put itself in that position, is also fully justified.

Shut the hell up United Snakes. It is your actions that lead to other countries having to take these steps to beat off your threats and proven dirty interventions in the first place.

Yeah Right
by MmArRgDdOnN on 20.06.2006 [15:06 ]
Down with the Insane Bush Family Chronicles

Like the DPRK is going to fire a solitary nuke at the USA.

The USA should be worrying about how they are going to manage undoing 8 freaking years of like and totalitarian wormongering by the RRR and re-establishing all of those rights the corrupt lying shrubbie cabal have taken away from them.

Let's face it,..., the USA is not even a Free Country nor a true Democracy at the present momment.

Wake up America,..., shrubbie is your true enemy.

MmArRgDdOnN TtHeE DdIsSnIiFiIcEeNt

I'd love to see a N.Korean
by Mike-Malaysia on 20.06.2006 [15:23 ]
missile make its way to the US's east coast. But I know that the US killers will simply manipulate that to say more money is needed for 'defense', and have more excuses for false-flags.
Long term, its not something I think will not be advantageous to anyone.

North Korea May Be Preparing to Launch a Satellite (Update1)
by CANUKISTAN_VIEW on 20.06.2006 [15:40 ]
June 20 (Bloomberg) -- North Korea may be preparing to launch a satellite rather than testing a missile, South Korea's ruling party said, citing Unification Minister Lee Jong Seok.

``It is difficult to discern whether the launch vehicle is a missile or a satellite,'' Uri Party spokesman Woo Sang Ho said today after party leaders met Lee, who also serves as the nation's security chief.

h ttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=aeCw6Ki.._LI&refer=asia

EITHER WAY THERE ARE SERIOUS CONCERNS IN JUTLANDIA

There were reports within the last few years
by Mike-Malaysia on 20.06.2006 [15:50 ]
that N.Korea was going to conduct a nuclear test.

The reports like so much in the MSM turned out to be crap par noramle

Israeli missiles may get U.S. first
by Atheist on 20.06.2006 [17:48 ]
I am not worrying about those Korean missiles at all. Korean gentiles are American gentiles' friends. My intuition tells me that Israel is more likely to launch some ICBM-like missiles against U.S. than any other country in the world. Israel is the most dangerous country in the world because it is least willing to reveal its military information and activities to the world.

These are the kind of people that will be jubilant when Conservatives{if the polling is true...} sit out the election, and let Democrats win and retreat from Iraq.

Absolutely sickening.

Here's the creepy site;

http://iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/92103

Heralder,

I think your problem is that you equate appeasement with Diplomacy as our Republican handlers have taught us to. The world is black and white, you are with us or against us. The president is always right.

I can't think this way.

There were ways to use diplomacy with China, Russia and Japan if we had consistently worked to solidify friendships and relationships and not launched ridiculous wars to increase the profits of our elected leaders.

Fact is, Bush did nothing to improve relations with the rest of the world and, instead coerced nations to cooperate with us. What we did not need was a president who started invading countries at will without provocation and scaring these vipers into action.

If you did not read our new torture bill, it suspends Habeas Corpus for anybody that the president deems to be a threat- No qualifications to it. It then states that we can torture them as long as the President does not consider it to be torture. I don't know how you read the constitution but I can't go along with giving anybody this kind of power, particularly not Bush.

I would not want other countries to use this same strategy to interpret the Convention. Our troops will not thank us for this.

Unless the courts overturn this, we are screwed.

"But b/c it's 1998, and not 1995, well, that's okay then." LO

Lurking, I am glad that you agree with me that the notion that NK was violating the agreement "before the ink dried" is totally unsupported by the facts, and is nothing but Bush spin to deflect blame to someone else.

James:

This was not the only thing that Bush has done. He has repeatedly launched his tirades against the regime when there isn't really a lot of support for a conflict.

So repeatedly launching tirades against a regime is cause for a nuclear test? My point stands.

The Republicans need enemies to keep their followers in line. We must break the world into good guys and bad guys.

We have enough enemies among the middleast and certain liberals to not even have to consider North Korea.

So, are you saying Kim isn't a "bad guy"?

Can you imagine what Bush would do when somebody called him a jerk.

I don't have to imagine, Hugo Chavez has been doing much worse for years, and Bush has done nothing. Name calling is not, and in any reality should not, be considered a likely cause for war, as you're saying it is.

If we actually get some checks and balances and can get these people to swear to their actions under oath, I think you will find that we have put shotguns in a lot of peoples' mouths.

America is not a monarchy or a theocracy, we do have checks and balances.

We, as conservatives, need to hold our president accountable, unless we get democrats in the house we will never know the truth about what has happened because this president keeps all of his records sealed for "National Security" even his records as Texas Governor

What makes you think we don't know the truth? Where is this vast secret conspiracy? No government can be expected to act under complete transparency, especially in a time of war.

Is it any surprise records are sealed when they become front page news in the New York Times if they aren't?

The past six years have been one enormous smear campaign against Bush, I'd keep my records as Texas Governer sealed as well.

I am not sure why conservatives suddenly trust their current government.

The same is coversly true for liberals.

Yeah, Big Mo:

It amazes me that Carter, who professes Christ, fails to recognize evil when it looks him in the face.

So maybe he really isn't a Christian, right? Cool. And, by the same standard, you aren't a Christian either. You vote for liars, hypocrits, fornicators and effemanates, and yet you can't see evil just by looking at it.

Which means, of course -- again, judging by your standard -- that you and Jimmy Carter are hellbout.

Relax. I'm sure Jimmy will save you a seat by the fire.

James,

It's not that I equate diplomacy with appeasement, it's that diplomacy can only be conducted with parties that can come to compromise. When one party refuses to come to a compromise, than the only thing that can done is to appease, or break off talks.

I wish the world were black and white. I'm smart enough to know it isn't. I'm also smart enough to know there is a black and white in this world among the shades of gray...not just one confused tone where everything morally equates, where there is no real right and wrong, no good or bad.

not launched ridiculous wars to increase the profits of our elected leaders.

and

What we did not need was a president who started invading countries at will without provocation and scaring these vipers into action.

Here in America, what's beautiful, is we don't need to conduct outrageously expensive wars to (somehow) mystically and inexplicably increase the wealth of our leaders. That savage beating of a dead horse as well as it's cynical ignorance of logic is what makes me wonder if debating with you is even a good idea.

Regarding the new torture bill, I, unlike you, still have a shred of trust in our government. If you're worried about how other countries will interpret the convention, perhaps you should first get them to adhere to it.

And perhaps we should adhere more closely to it...you know, shooting uniformed combatants on the field of battle rather than taking them prisoner and torturing them by keeping them up at night.

While I am enjoying our talk, I won't be able to reply any more for a few hours.

That would be "hellbound."

So Genesis 1:29 says, "Behold, I have given you every seed that bears fruit, to nourish you." Bush says marijuana is an evil weed.

God says yes; Bush says no. The neocon preference is to hold men above God in this regard: purely, palpably evil.

Don't forget the marshmallows.

Correction.

This is supposed to read:

"...shooting non-uniformed combatants on the field of battle"

"I really wish I had one person to blame for everything wrong in my life and in the world like you do, it'd must make things alot easier."

Yeah, having to decide whether to blame Carter or Clinton must be really tough on you Republicans... I feel your pain...

Lee needs to learn to lay off the crystal meth and blotter acid before posting. His grip on reality keeps slipping further and further to the point that all that will be left will be Lee-ality.

More of the rediclous banter from mr peanuts for barins JIMMY CARTER this inept idiot was the one who came up with the AMY DEBATES and was attecked by a killer rabbit and blew the whole iranain hostage crises why dont he for once keep his moutuh closed it will keep his foot out

astigafa - what the hell are you talking about?
"So maybe he really isn't a Christian, right? Cool. And, by the same standard, you aren't a Christian either. You vote for liars, hypocrits, fornicators and effemanates, and yet you can't see evil just by looking at it. Which means, of course -- again, judging by your standard -- that you and Jimmy Carter are hellbout."

Sorry, but that's one of the stupidest things I've every read. My "standard" that you twist beyond recognition is that Carter is uunable to realize when he's been had by dictators and thugs who take him for a fool. He's unable to call evil "evil" even when he should be able to recognize it quite plainly.

I never question his love for Christ.

Quit twisting what I'm saying, jackass.

Lee,

You blame Bush for NK getting nukes. Bush took office in 2001. Why did we sign an agreement with NK in 94? Were they talking about nukes then? Do you believe NK gave up nuke ambitions until 2001? Do you believe he developed nukes from 2001 to 2006? I don't believe anyone in the U.S. is responsible for NK nukes Bush, Carter or Clinton. It is Nk who is to blame. They were going to do it regardless of what we did or will do.

Hey Jimmy,

What part of GO AWAY do you not understand? NO ONE CARES about your opinion on North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Venezula or even my local township! No matter what you say or do, you will NEVER be able to redeem yourself for your disasterous policies of the 1970's. NEVER!

Get back to building houses for the poor... that's about the only good thing you seem to be able to offer the world.

Lee needs to learn to lay off the crystal meth and blotter acid before posting.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Big Mo:

He's unable to call evil "evil" even when he should be able to recognize it quite plainly.

So the upshot of this is that you were saying absolutely nothing emphatic, right? You weren't questioning anything; you were just emitting random series of words that may or may not be related. You *are* a neocon.

Quit twisting what I'm saying, jackass.

Now, did I use any harsh language on you? When, if ever, do Christians ever turn that other cheek? Jesus said to love your enemies and pray for them; where does that apply here?

Christians as encountered on the net -- especially American neocon Christians -- are the most obscene, hateful, cantankerous people you will ever meet. This god stuff just doesn't seem to work.

Or does it? You tell me -- the way Jesus would.

Who would Jesus bomb, anyway?

Heralder,

In response I am enjoying our debate:

So repeatedly launching tirades against a regime is cause for a nuclear test?

Kim Jong Il is a dictator and essentially a weakling. If Bush hadn't issued ultimatums that we can't afford I doubt very much he would have tested. Also irrational invasions of countries that haven't attacked us (Iraq) would be sufficient provocation for international posturing. He is bounded by powers infinitely more significant than he is and if we had worked with them from the beginning things probably would have worked better.

What checks and balances does our congress offer?

The torture bill was a huge bill and it passed in a week. No amendments and no compromises. It is the lack of compromise, which you admit is necessary, that I am so worried about. This administration hasn't had to compromise about any of this. There was no reason to ramrod this bill through unless it was to protect crimes already sanctioned and committed by this administration.

I'm afraid we can't harp enough on the motivations for this war since the president has already admitted three times that he lied about the reason for it. Afghanistan made some sense, Iraq never did unless its purpose was purely the personal gain of our leaders.

I see shades of the Reichstag in 9/11 and a complicit press that didn't hold the politicians' feet to the fire about any of the subsequent events.
I believe that the government should spend half its time legislating and the other half explaining its actions to its employers. I think these people should be constantly in hearings when they are not actually doing their jobs.

I do believe that in most issues you can see the world in black and white/ good and evil, but for politicians dealing with these things on a macro level it is impossible to break things down this easily.
Was Saddam a ruthless son of a bitch-- Yes
But more people are dying now that he's gone. (Depending on which press you listen to.)

Is Kim Jung Il a worthless dictator- Yes but what is the alternative. The Korean people will not accept a new one easily and, unfortunately we can't afford to pay for another regime change. Unfortunately our president is perceived internationally as just as much of a dictator.

Is Amadinijad (or however its spelled) a stifling restrictive zealot?
Absolutely, but once again what is the alternative. The US supported the Shah there for years and that proved disastrous. The people of Iran would not accept any leader we would tell them they need to have.

America can only lead by example. Focused force exercised when necessary and with restraint. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard. I say we show the world how democracy really works and its true strength. This is not the ability to quell our enemies or buy the world, but our ability to replace our leaders when they fail. Let's show the world that example and see if they can follow by example.

I would vote to remove a lot of the safeguards we put in place after the panic of 9/11. We did, in fact, have plenty of law enforcement and laws already in place then, we had just become lazy and complacent. We just needed to enforce the laws we had. The PATRIOT ACT and every spying and torture bill since needs to be repealed. We have the second amendment, we don't need any more.

You say you still have some trust in the government, but this kind of trust was never an intention of our founding fathers. They built the checks into the system to insure that no matter how bad the people in charge were, they could never mess things up that badly. This president, in abolishing habeas corpus has gone way beyond the suspension that is his right in time of invasion or rebellion (which conditions do not exist)

I didn't trust them before and I trust them less with the more power they take.

I am and always have been a conservative which I take to mean that I favor a government which governs least. This government is going too far.

Please continue the debate. I apologize for my delay in responding.

James

Colin Powell stated during a March 26 hearing before the House Appropriations Committee that North Korea started the program to enrich uranium "before the ink was dry" on the 1994 Agreed Framework.

Well, that would be relevant if NoKo used uranium in their bomb. Their test used plutonium, not uranium. There was no plutonium produced under Clinton. Where did they get it, then?

The plutonium that North Korea exploded was produced, according to intelligence estimates, either during the administration of President George H.W. Bush or after 2003, when Pyongyang threw out international inspectors and began reprocessing spent nuclear fuel the inspectors had kept under seal.

Unlike the Clinton administration in 1994, the current Bush administration chose not to threaten to destroy North Korea's fuel and nuclear reprocessing facilities if they tried to make weapons.

That threat in 1994 - which was ultimately resolved with an agreement to freeze the weapons program - was made by William Perry, then the defense secretary. In an interview on Monday, Perry said: "There was a brief window to catch this plutonium before it was made into bomb fuel. It's gone. It's out of the barn now."

Right, astigafa --

"Now, did I use any harsh language on you?"

You implied that Carter and I were going to hell
through your twisted misinterpretation of my original post.

Then you get outraged over a mere name?

Jesus DID say to turn the other cheek. So you know what? Right now I am sinning by not doiong so with you.

And "who would Jesus bomb." You know, you libs have been using that stupid, idiotic phrase for a couple of years now. Do YOU even believe in Jesus? Do you know what He's really all about, beyond a few phrases? Do you know what it even means to be a Christian?

Big Mo,

My understanding of what it means to be a Christian is that it tends to vary by geography.

In Colorado it means to run a tax exempt publishing house wherein you push a political agenda based on which group of people you are supposed to hate.

Through the bible belt it means to fight hard to make sure that facts don't get in the way of scientific education or politics. Also you need to put the ten commandments everywhere because otherwise it is hard to remember them.

In the Northeast it seems to be regarded as a general set of moral guidelines which offer a framework to live by.

In Pennsylvania it is an inspiring self denial that is totally unamerican and offers forgiveness, even to those who have wronged you.

Generally I would assume that being Christian means that you follow a Christlike model for your own life. Forsake possession, work for the poor, favor peace above war, self sacrifice, that sort of thing. How many people do you know who do this.

Am I close?

How collosally stupid does one have to be to blame George Bush for Kim's idiotic behavior?

Democrats seem to enjoy blaming the victim for the rape.

"Oooo, W said bad things about me. I think I'll make a bomb."

He had no intention of making one all along.

Jesus.

Democrats really are a lower life form.

Rory

First, posting what a bunch of commenters say on some other website is meaningless. They're just randon statements by faceless people who represent no one but themselves. Second, do you know what .ru means in a URL? It's a Russian web site, you moron. What possible relevance does it have what their commenters say?

Second, I don't think anyone would argue that the Framework was ideal, or that Clinton did everything right. However, citing Armitage and Powell as proof that it's Clinton's fault is laughable. So what you're saying is that the Bush administration is blaming Clinton. Gee, that's something new. Just like the Clintonites trashed the White House and the Clinton's stole furniture (both lies, by the way.) As has been said before, it's been six years. When is Bush ever going to take responsibility for anything? It's really getting a little bit silly.

America can only lead by example.

True, to an extent. However, leaders "do" by example as well. If, for instance, we had "turned the other cheek" in response to 9/11, what might have the reaction been? Without question, more attacks and sending the signal that we could be attacked without fear of reprocussions. Leaders do not "do" that. they do not allow their countries to be attacked with impunity.

Focused force exercised when necessary and with restraint.

Again, to an extent this is true. Yet we have shown etntirely too much restraint and unwillingness to crush our enemies into submission--the ONLY thing Islamofascists know is pure and utter defeat and we have not done that; they do not understand "hearts and minds" and clearly that strategy is seen as weakness by them.

We must hold ourselves to a higher standard.

No, no, no and no. We stand as the ultimate beacon and pinnacle of liberty and freedom in the world. We should hold THE WORLD to a higher standard; our standards are already high. In fact so high have we held ourselves to these unwritten "higher standards" that we have unwittingly undermined our own efforts to free people of tyranny and secure a better future for the world. No one among our enemies holds their soldiers accountable for their actions in the field of battle; they do not follow the Rules of Engagement; they do not follow the Rules of War; they have NOT signed the Geneva Conventions nor allow the Red Cross access to its prisoners (aka: kidnap victims); innocent civilians are targets, not military personnel or armaments.

Yet we hold ourselves to these standards and more. And it is mentality that is hurting and preventing us from winning what could and should be a winnable conflict...

I see Lee's idiot sister James has joined the attempt to change the subject to Bush from Carter. If Carter had understood the job of President of the United States, we would not be having the problems we are having in many areas of the world. Here is a fact for you fu*king idiots on the left. If Truman had let McArthur fight the Korean war like a war the the U.S. was capable of fighting, we would not be having this dicussion today. James, here is proof you are a liar. Which tirade is it that Bush never gave are you referring to? Link please. Do you dumb motherf*ckers take responsibity for anything? I doubt it. All your posts prove it that a gaggle of liars (Lee, Brian and now James) can not find the truth with both hands and a flashlight.

Mr. Ragshaft's response is that which I would expect from a lunatic responding on emotion and not on logic.

If Mr. Truman had allowed McCarthur to fight the Korean war to the point where we had an all-out war with China involving nuclear weapons, millions of people would have died on both sides and, nothing would be proven. The world is a better place because both sides showed restraint.

I am not changing the subject from Carter to Bush because, if you read the initial quote that Mr. Carter is rightly (This is the word under debate) blaming the Bush administration for the situation we are currently in. I know this is a long thread but feel free to read it in its entirety.

I am not sure why I dignified Mr. Ragshaft's ravings but I hope that everybody else was suitably embarrassed by him.

mordoormat - Are you close? Like the earth is close to the moon.

My apologies to Peter F for responding to Mr. Ragshaft.

Your points are valid but I think substantiate my arguments.

If, for instance, we had "turned the other cheek" in response to 9/11, what might have the reaction been?

Turning the other cheek after 9/11 would have been wrong. It was correct to hunt bin Laden and to focus on the Taliban from which we knew the attack was sanctioned. The Taliban was not a recognized political entity but a band of zealots hiding within the political boundaries of another nation who supported our assistance.

Our leaders lied to us and exploited the good will and bipartisan spirit to take the war to Iraq. I believe the appropriate measured response would have been to stop at The Taliban and not carry the war to a nation that, we now know, had nothing to do with 9/11.

.. we have shown etntirely too much restraint and unwillingness to crush our enemies into submission--the ONLY thing Islamofascists know is pure and utter defeat and we have not done that; they do not understand "hearts and minds" and clearly that strategy is seen as weakness by them.

My problem with this is identifying Islamofascists as you call them. Many more people have died in this endeavor than those in the terrorist cells and how would we characterize pure and utter defeat?

How will we know when they are all dead?

The answer is that we can't. And our government knows that and is fostering that idea. If they can keep us on a constant war footing for the rest of our lives against an enemy we can't identify then they can keep their unlimited power forever. We are basically waging a war without a plan and it has gone from an invasion which our military knew how to do and accomplished beautifully, to a vague and fuzzy police action regime build where our very presence exascerbates the problem.

I still believe that we should hold ourselves to the higher standard before we can enforce that standard on the rest of the world. We cannot condemn torturers if we torture. We cannot condemn murder if we murder. It is true that the terrorists do not follow the rules, but this is not the last war we will fight and we may fight against a more nationalistic foe that did sign the convention. We must follow the rules of war because the rules are what we are fighting for.

We lost 3000 on 9/11 and since 9/11 we have lost anywhere between 30,000 and 600,000 depending on your source. The answer is probably somewhere in the middle. I don't think that all the terrorist cells combined, even with the level of apathy in the world before 9/11 could have killed this efficiently.

We did this because we were afraid. Our government told us that we needed to be afraid because this enemy wants to destroy us. I think it would be better to take our chances and preserve our freedoms, including habeas corpus for everybody, rather than giving up all of our rights because we are scared. How cowardly can we be to keep hiding behind our troops so that the killing doesn't come over here. Safety is a personal responsibility. We learned that by the fourth plane on 9/11 and in Pennsylvania we won our first victory over the terrorists. By the fourth plane we were no longer afraid to fight.

If we don't follow the rules, who will?

mordoormat - Are you close? Like the earth is close to the moon.

Excellent,

Only 30 earths away, in an infinite universe that isn't too bad.

Thank you

James,

I'm afraid we can't harp enough on the motivations for this war since the president has already admitted three times that he lied about the reason for it.

This sentence interests me. Please cite the three times the president admitted that he lied.

How collosally stupid does one have to be to blame George Bush for Kim's idiotic behavior?

No one's blaming Bush for Kim's behavior. How colossally stupid does one have to be to think that they are?

People are blaming Bush for Kim's ability and perceived necessity to enrich and detonate plutonium.

Democrats seem to enjoy blaming the victim for the rape.

A crude analogy. Here's a better one. When you lay out explosive components in front of you, close your eyes, turn around, and shout "la la la la la", you deserve some blame when someone walks by, picks up the pieces, and builds a bomb.

Democrats really are a lower life form.

Apparently you higher life forms have evolved beyond the need to read and understand history.

In other words, mordoormat, you're not close. But good comeback, I must admit! Touche!

The president lied about his knowledge of WMD's and continued to use that as a motivation long after he knew they weren't there. Mr. Cheney was the direct liar here and said that we knew not only that they had them, but that we knew where they were.

He lied about Iraq's definite involvement in 9/11. He did eventually admit that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

He lied about the fact that Iraq was working closely with Al Quaeda. Evidence showed that Hussein hated Bin Laden and had much to fear from him

There are numerous other lies we have been handed and which we cannot investigate because the white house seals all its records.

We still have yet to see all of the evidence of our own governments involvement in putting Hussein in power in the first place. Bush has sealed all records going back through Reagan's presidency and put them under the custody of the Bush family.

Yet another step in the march toward hereditary dictatorship. Since when are national records the property or even at the discretion of one family. If he had evidence to support his statements he would surely have provided it now before the mid term elections.

James,

I understand that you believe the president lied. I'm asking you to back up this statement:

"...the president has already admitted three times that he lied about the reason for it."

Regarding the above lies from the white house. Even if Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell or anybody else had not come right out and said they were, at the very least, misinformed. Even if they are not fully culpable for actions based on information, they should certainly be held to account.

I was actually prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt for a long time since I am a conservative and I thought they may have my best interests at heart. I believe however that those in power need to be under the firmest scrutiny and should be punished relentlessly if they fail in their sacred trust.

We held Clinton to it and his last two years in office were a well-earned hell. He betrayed the public trust and he paid for it.

But if this administration is found to be guilty of even half of the crimes for which they are accused, these are capital offenses. Lying to the people whom you are asking to die for your cause must be a capital offense. If you ask for the highest trust, if you ask the people to take your word on faith and then fail them, that is indefensible.

We musn't stand up for people who accept the greatest responsibility in the land and fail in that trust. This president has served to make Clinton's crime look trivial and has defiled the honor of the Republican party.

I will find the quotes and post them momentarily.

Let me summarize Lee/James/Brian: Kim Jong Il-scared lil' bunny-was peacefully minding his own business drinking imported hooch when evil chimpybushitler gave a really mean speech which scared him so much he had to do something.So he started a nuke program-just for defense,mind you,and now he has nukes.So now we better ditch those lying failed haliburton Republicans and get the Democrats to send someone over there RIGHT NOW to give Kim Jong Il-prince of peace-whatever he wants so he will stop making nukes.

James I don't know about the alternate universe you seem to inhabit but in this one Saddam took power in 1979.Thus Reagan or Bush could not have put him into power.Maybe Carter did it! I'd also like to see the three times Bush admitted he lied.Pardon me for noticing but you seem to be about as conservative as Moby the "singer/artist" who advised leftists to claim to be disgruntled Republicans before the 2004 election.Also I missed the 30-600 thousand that "we" lost-when did that happen? Or are you a citizen of the world who values everyone even those that want to destroy the United States? Sorry but that view doesn't sound like any conservative I know.

Hey everybody you have it all wrong. Old "pucker puss" (lee lee) and the rest of the Kos Kiddies Kastoffs are sane. It just that they are the biggist bunch of asskissing, bootlicking, appeasing (aka "peanut" Carter) excusemaking, dumbest, bleeding heart, tinfoil hat wearing socalled humans in the world. The world would be as tame as a church mouse if the first you did when you talked to your enemies like old "pucker puss" (lee lee) does is say "BEND OVER". Where to you think he got his name?

Hi Brian-got your strength back? You write that people blame Bush for Kim Jong Ils ability and perceived necessity to enrich and detonate plutonium.If Bush is blamed for his ability doesn't that mean that Bush should have removed this ability-i.e. launched a pre-emptive war to stop him from enriching and detonating plutonium? Like Iraq? If he is blamed for the perceived necessity perhaps you can list all the threatening moves we have made indicating that we intended to attack North Korea.Apparantly I missed all those-no doubt Fox just didn't tell me.I did hear that he gave a nasty speech once in which North Korea was mentioned-did that give rise to the perceived necessity? If so, perhaps you or someone else can explain why the Nork statement that sanctions are a declaration of war should not lead to the perceived necessity of the US using thermonuclear weapons to exterminate the regime of Kim Jong Il down to the last fetus.I mean that was a pretty inflamatory speech wasn't it?

Has anyone noticed the obvious? North Korea does not have a bomb. The device didn't achieve critical mass. All he's managed to do is bury a bunch of plutonium with no way to retrieve it.

"We held Clinton to it. and His last 2 years in office were a living hell. He betrayed the public trust and He paid for it."

Yeah right, blow jobs and different women everynight, he wrote a book, cashed in on the Rich's, tours the world as a celebrity, is a multi millionaire multi national playboy..

Man Hes got it rough.

I love posts like these where Lee truly shines...I can just see his seething rage as he tries to deny reality and how Jimmy Carter has effed up the world so bad that he has to be defended by the left even though his Presidency was probably one of the worst in history.

We can thank him for the situation in Iran and North Korea. Chew on that Lee.

A simple peanut farmer who puts the whole world in jeopardy!!

Who woulda thunk it possible?

I need Me some Billy beer.. hic hic..

Another successful orgasm for Lee 12:02

Well, that would be relevant if NoKo used uranium in their bomb. Their test used plutonium, not uranium. There was no plutonium produced under Clinton. Where did they get it, then?

Obviously, you haven't studied nuclear physics. The enriched uranium itself is used to produce plutonium. Specifically, U-238, via a breeder reactor. It doesn't come out the air magically, nor is it mined. The NK removed their spent rods from their 5MW(e) reactor, and reprocessed it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/nuke-plutonium.htm

Ahem:
When the reactor was shut down for refueling in April 1994, it was variously estimated that the unloaded spent fuel contained 17 to 33 kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium. The 8,000 spent fuel rods at the Yongbyon facility are in special canisters, under the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency 24 hours a day. Those eight thousand spent fuel rods contain enough plutonium for the North Koreans to build up to perhaps as many as six additional nuclear weapons. Absent international safeguards, North Korea could begin reprocessing the spent fuelinto plutonium for atomic bombs in six to eight months, according to some estimates.

Just having the uranium to enrich was pretty much all they needed. Throw in some centrifuges, HF to separate the uranium to make Uranium Hexoflouride...

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/plutonium.htm

And if radioactive samples have been collected, you can identify specifically which rods and from whence the plutonium comes from. All plutonium have a specific "flavour" which can be used to identify it's origin...ratio of P-239 to P-238, the tritium amount (if it's a two- or three-stager), etc.

Let me summarize Lee/James/Brian: blah blah blah things no one ever said blah blah blah

Ah, I see your strawman generator is back on full power.

If Bush is blamed for his ability doesn't that mean that Bush should have removed this ability-i.e. launched a pre-emptive war to stop him from enriching and detonating plutonium?

Yes, because as all good little Republicans know, there only only two paths you can take in matters of foreign affairs: appeasment or war.

Yes Brian,, But then theres the Evil repubs with a nasty neo con flavor for conquest like Me Bush and that tag along wanna be Rove! Hes disappointing lately!! We should have already nuked Iran and Syria and North Korea dammit Hes sluffing on our conquest plans. Ohh well I'll just raise the petro prices again and get ever heehe, one in line, including Chavez.
'Whats the date by the way?? Ohh hee hee I got almost 2 weeks before..GOT WOOD? hee hee

Well Brian I see you stiil don't have a rational argument to make.I also note you had no response to what Mr. Cloninger wrote either.When you summarize you neceessarily paraphrase what was written using fewer words-or you aren't summarizing.Isn't that obvious? Plus that was intended as a parody-are you pretending you didn't understand that? Clinton tried the appeasment approach in 1994 and onwards.It failed.Bush has been trying the diplomatic approach from his first election to now.You leftists claim it has failed.That pretty much leaves only a return to appeasment or war.We know which leftists want-appeasament-but they like to condemn Bush for not choosing war.Heads they win,tails Bush loses! Nice try Brian but you still don't have your strength back.Buh-bye.

I apparently have many posts to answer

As promised here are a few of the quotes I was able to find to substantiate the lies.

Unfortunately I have had to work so I haven't had as much time as I wanted to participate in the debate. My statement before was not 100% accurate.

Bush only actually 'admitted' that he lied once but I have a number of lies here. One is Rumsfeld getting called on the administration's lies about WMD's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJiNtpIpD6k

Rumsfeld speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ndwQDFhzHc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AofhyXjttJA

Bush speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTiKpCuxAog&mode=related&search=
had nothing to do with 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Elr-TtqVB8&NR

My problem with these instances is that none of them have been called out in congress. Even if some of these are unsubstantiated, why isn't congress investigating them. Why are conservatives just trusting that our government is going to do these things right when the evidence does not substantiate that claim?

I don't claim at all that Bush has tried the diplomatic approach. He has not. What he has done is to give ultimatums to North Korea that we cannot back up unless we want to start a war with all of Asia. We can't afford Mr. Bush's war as it currently stands. I would not like to see what would happen if we tried to take on a country with a viable military. The war hawks would like it because we could finally use some of the sophisticated weapons we paid for but that still wouldn't solve the diplomatic problems that come when we are supposed to be done shooting.

I am a conservative. In fact I think I am more conservative than most people that I know. I believe that government has NO place in our personal lives. I do not want the federal government to handle anything but Interstate Highways, the maintenance of a sophisticated standing army (usually at home), regulation of interstate commerce and diplomatic relations with the rest of the world. Every other social issue I believe the Federal government should have nothing to do with. I don't want church in government and I don't want the government messing with churches, I don't want the government involved in people's sex lives and I don't care who people sleep with. I can happily say that these things are not my business and are not the business of the federal government.

All I want from my government is for them to take care of the money that we give them responsibly and to be held accountable for where it is going. I see no evidence that the Republicans spend any less enthusiastically than the Democrats. They simply pretend that taxes are lower and spend on deficits. I am not sure what feeble minded people can be conned by that.

Back to the topic at hand:

The Korean problem goes back before World War II

Many presidents have screwed things up there but the argument at hand is that this president has done it worse than any before him. There comes a point where we can't blame the previous administration when this president has been in power for the last six years and the GOP, and indeed Cheney and Rumsfeld, have been in power for all but twelve of the last 35 years. How can we not hold these people accountable.

I posted 4 or 5 links about an hour ago to a number of speeches. I was told since this is an old thread they would be scrutinized first.

Either way I will admit that I only found one instance where Bush actually admitted that he lied though he pretended that it was what he had been saying all along.

Otherwise I posted the links to where administration officials actually got caught lying, which in my mind is the same thing.

I notice we keep returning to the same theme of appeasement or war- black and white and simplistic solutions. Does it not bother you guys that we are supposed to be the good guys in this?

I actually do believe that if we kill 100k or 400k or 600k civilians that that is a bad thing. I don't believe that all of those people hated America and we probably killed a fair number of people whose Democracy we are apparently trying to save. I am not arrogant enough to think that only American lives count though we have now lost more of those than we lost on 9/11. You can stretch your definition of Collateral as far as you like but the farther you stretch it the more reason you give the world to hate us.

If you want to see the links I used go to Youtube and search bush lies. You will find plenty of interviews and speeches where capital lies are being told.

You can do this with every president, naturally but this is the first president in decades that hasn't had to answer for his lies. The fact is that we don't know how much these people are guilty of because we aren't allowed to check.

I am just curious why we are so hellbent on defending these people no matter how much they fail.

James,

"...the president has already admitted three times that he lied about the reason for it."

"...administration officials actually got caught lying, which in my mind is the same thing."

You're kidding, right?

I asked for proof to back up your claim that the president admintted he lied. You cannot do so. Should I assume that you lied or should I give you the benefit of a doubt and think that maybe you were mistaken?

For consistency you should treat my hyperbole that he admitted to three lies with the same leniency that you treat his perversions of the facts, in which case I hope you condemn me as a liar and have the courage to do the same to him. There may be proof of other ommissions, but I don't really have time to look for them. The problem now is nobody in the media is looking for them and this president won't swear to anything under oath or put himself in a forum to face unbiased questions.

I still assert that when Bush said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and we have records where he and his minions said that it did, he was admitting that he lied. It was just that nobody put his feet to the fire for it. Your questioning of my argument is far more severe than anything he endured when he said that.

I would also suggest that you view the consequences of listening to me vs. then consequences of listening to Mr. Bush and Company.
They lied and people are getting killed and the constitution is being trampled.

I did not have time to do research for this blog because I have a day job. This IS Mr. Bush's day job. We must hate our politicians on their own merits and make them pay for their mistakes and not pay any attention to their party. I am worried because Republicans continue to support their feeble representatives even when these people prove at best ridiculously incompetent at worst criminally negligent.

At present in America you still have the right to treat both of us as you wish. Criticizing the president is a right that is rapidly disappearing.

And, as long as we are talking about breaking treaties, let's not talk about what Bush is doing to the Geneva Convention.

Hmm, another person who has never actually READ the Conventions, eh?

Can you imagine what Bush would do when somebody called him a jerk. You won't have to wait too long to see. If we actually get some checks and balances and can get these people to swear to their actions under oath, I think you will find that we have put shotguns in a lot of peoples' mouths.

Hugo Chavez called Bush "Satan". Venezuela still has a building taller than one story standing.

BTW, why is there no concern from the left about the Dems plan to use impeachment to launch a coup d'etat if they win Congress?

There were ways to use diplomacy with China, Russia and Japan if we had consistently worked to solidify friendships and relationships and not launched ridiculous wars to increase the profits of our elected leaders.

Feel free to name what Bush could have done to get them on board when they aren't on board now after tests?

Kim Jong Il is a dictator and essentially a weakling. If Bush hadn't issued ultimatums that we can't afford I doubt very much he would have tested.

Yes, because Jong-Il has been one of the main targets of Bush's scorn. Hell, he seldom MENTIONED N. Korea after the Axis of Evil speech.

But, again, hurting Jong-Il's feelings is somehow going to cause nuke testing?

Makes sense.

Our leaders lied to us and exploited the good will and bipartisan spirit to take the war to Iraq.

There was no "bipartisan spirit". Rockefeller said in 2002 he planned on politicizing the Intel Committee.

The answer is that we can't. And our government knows that and is fostering that idea. If they can keep us on a constant war footing for the rest of our lives against an enemy we can't identify then they can keep their unlimited power forever.

And pulling out before the problem is resolved shows that we can be defeated if you simply wait us out.

We already have the reputation of being "paper tigers".

We cannot condemn torturers if we torture.

When our idea of "torture" is sleep deprviation --- we have A LOT of room to condemn countries who don't torture in such friendly and kind ways.

We must follow the rules of war because the rules are what we are fighting for.

See, the Conventions only are FOR groups who follow the rules of war. That our enemies have decided to not follow the rules of war makes giving them the protections of the Conventions one of the great mistakes in human history.

If you can be protected even while ignoring the rules of war --- then why in the heck should you abide by the rules of war?

We lost 3000 on 9/11 and since 9/11 we have lost anywhere between 30,000 and 600,000 depending on your source.

Actually, WE haven't lost them. They have.

And just because the terrorists have their plots defeated does not mean they didn't intend to kill. It's the same ridiculous logic that allows people to condemn Israel because they kill more Palestinians than Palestinians kill Israelis --- ignoring that the small number of Israeli deaths is hardly intentional.

I think it would be better to take our chances and preserve our freedoms, including habeas corpus for everybody, rather than giving up all of our rights because we are scared.

And I find it loathesome that our soldiers have died to provide "rights" to our enemies. It dishonors their sacrifice.

I still assert that when Bush said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and we have records where he and his minions said that it did, he was admitting that he lied.

If Bush says something and his "minions" say something else --- in what alternate universe did Bush "lie"?
-=Mike

Why do people listen to Jimmy (the peanut) Carter. He is nothing more than a Jew hating, Christian hating, Killer Rabbit fearing, unashamed descendent of slave owners, bigoted, IDIOT. The first time I ever saw him was on "Face the Nation' when he was running for the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the United States. After watching him successfully avoid answering a single question for 60 minutes I said this to my wife, "There is no way that this IDIOT can even get the Democratic nomination." I just did not realize how stupid the Democrats were and I did not realize how stupid Americans had become. We would have been better off with Nixon the crook in office than Jimmy the buffoon.