Democrats & Liberals Archives

It Looks as if Bush was Right

I did not think that those words would ever pass my electronic lips. I am choking and having chest pains as I say them. I am practically cataplexic.

It looks like Bush was right to insist on six party talks. North Korea is coming back to the bargaining table. At one point I did think that we should engage in bi-lateral talks. It now looks like I was wrong. Bi-lateral talks probably would have allowed North Korea to isolate us from the world. It looks like the six party have worked to isolate North Korea instead of us, for a friggin change. I should have known better. I / we wanted non-unilateral international diplomacy instead of unilateral war in Iraq. I / we should have wanted non-unilateral international diplomacy in North Korea. So Bush got it right by borrowing a play from our playbook. I guess that even Bush has to accidentally get one right, once in a while. Of course, in the first place, Bush exacerbated the the situation in North Korea with his beligerant "axis of evil" speech and policy of pre-emption, but at least in this one and only instance, his response to the problem that he created appears to have been correct. I still can't believe it!!! There has to be a more accurate way of looking at this. This is his mess. Maybe at least he is going to clean this one up. Bush gets one right. The first last and only one... This should be front page news. - three inch caps.

Posted by Ray Guest at October 31, 2006 10:49 PM
Comments
Comment #192084

As Mark Twain said, “Even a fool is right every now and then by chance.”

Let’s hope the talks pay off.

Posted by: Trent at October 31, 2006 11:40 PM
Comment #192098

Ray:
“his response to the problem that he created appears to have been correct.”

Uh…Huzzah?

Posted by: Adrienne at November 1, 2006 1:01 AM
Comment #192103

Bush has been pushing this policy for several years. We have discussed it on this blog many times. He took a lot of crap for this policy and there were lots of dire predictions. The expedient would have been for him to just give in to the critics. He had the courage to (shall we say) stay the course and deserves credit for it.

Of course, N. Korea is probably the strangest country in the world. What they will do next is anybody’s guess. Demanding a multilateral response is not a panacea, but it is the only logical course.

Posted by: Jack at November 1, 2006 2:50 AM
Comment #192120

Huh? These guys have been involved in the 6-party talks before without the results that we’ve wanted - quite the oppositte. They’ve gone further and further developing nuclear weapons.

How does the failed policy of the last six years suddenly be viewed as a success? What am I missing?

When the six party talks actually lead to a genuine solution to the problem, Bush can take credit. Not until then.

Posted by: Burt at November 1, 2006 7:55 AM
Comment #192125

Of course 6 party talks are more effective then bilateral talks. When you have 6 countries breathing down your back to conform to a specific policy there is fewer chances of N Korea slipping out any agreements and also holds the rest of the region accountable.

I can’t figure out why Bill Clinton and Madleine Albright couldn’t figure that out.

Not to play Monday Morning QB but just maybe if the Chinese were involved more in the past then letting the little shrimp of a dictator lie to this country this would not have even become an issue.

One other comment. You don’t get respect by threatening the rest of the world. You get respect by admitting that you were wrong and actually bring something to the table to negotiate.

Posted by: Eric The Red at November 1, 2006 8:21 AM
Comment #192127

If Bush had taken this approach to terrorism, he’d have probably been a huge success. It doesn’t feel right to credit him though for a move he was practically forced to make. We have nothing to threaten N. Korea with. China came to our rescue.

Posted by: Max at November 1, 2006 8:30 AM
Comment #192128

Oh yeah, and yay Bush did alright. The people on the right say we never say that, but it’s only been because there hasn’t been any opportunity.

Posted by: Max at November 1, 2006 8:32 AM
Comment #192131

Max

He was not forced to take this action at all. Most of his critics in the U.S. and elsewhere were strongly pushing for bilateral talks. That would have been the easy way out for him.

The N. Koreans would love to make it an us/them issue between them and the U.S. The Chinese et al would also be happy to let us suffer the heat. What Bush did was right but hard.

BTW - the U.S. frequently meets bilaterally with N. Korea. It is not that we do not talk at all. This is another myth promulgated by the manipulators and sold to the ignorant. But these talks are not “official” and so do not carry the burden.

Posted by: Jack at November 1, 2006 8:36 AM
Comment #192136

6 party talks did nothing. When the most influential country speaks North Korea listens. China spoke.

Posted by: DaveT at November 1, 2006 8:44 AM
Comment #192141

Ray,

I don’t see any need to give yourself chest pains. Of COURSE the North Koreans want to talk. They already have their nuke!

All they had to do was bide their time until they had a credible nuclear threat. Now they are holding all the cards.

I understand you are trying to be fair-minded here, but come on. A nuclear-armed North Korea agreeing to talks is a Bush victory? This is what we have to show for 6 years of his leadership? If he keeps “succeeding” like this, every madman in the world will be at our door trying to talk about his new nuclear toys.

Jack,

You make funny arguments sometimes. If it is a “myth” that the US doesn’t meet bilaterally with NK, then the chief promulgators of this myth are George Bush and Condi Rice.

Posted by: Woody Mena at November 1, 2006 8:57 AM
Comment #192144

It’s still too early to tell if anything will come from this, but on the surface it was positive news. Still, we must remember that it was Bush’s policy towards N. Korea that got them as far in nuclear weapons development as they are. They did not produce weapons while Clinton was in office, despite what the republicans are saying about his policies.
I believe that this was planned by N. Korea. They wanted to come to the table with more bargaining strength. With Clinton, they did not have to actually create a nuclear weapon in order for us to make some concessions. Just the threat was enough. With Bush’s tougher policy, they actually had to create the weapons. So this latest news is not vindication for the Bush policy. We’re that much closer to a nuclear confrontation with N. Korea because of the Bush method.

Posted by: Cole at November 1, 2006 9:06 AM
Comment #192156

Don’t be silly. The North Koreans are finally coming to the bargaining table because they managed to really hack off the Chinese, and they were told, “behave, or starve.” It has nothing to do with what Bush may or may not have said or done.

Posted by: Dragon at November 1, 2006 9:30 AM
Comment #192157

Thank you Prez Carter and Impeached Prez Clinton for giving the A-bomb capabilities to N Korea.

Posted by: Lee at November 1, 2006 9:36 AM
Comment #192166

Burt,

I agree that Bush has not succeeded in North Korea yet. However he appears to be on an effective course, NK appears to have alienated even China, and Bush appearing to be on an effective course is such a rare thing, that I felt honor bound to acknowledge it, “the better to bash him with integrity later on My dear…”

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 1, 2006 10:01 AM
Comment #192171

Eric The Red,

You wrote:

One other comment. You don’t get respect by threatening the rest of the world. You get respect by admitting that you were wrong and actually bring something to the table to negotiate.
Truer words never spoken… now somebody needs to speak them to Bush.

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 1, 2006 10:05 AM
Comment #192176

Woody

There are official meetings and unofficial ones. We do not meet officially. That leads some people to assume that we are ignoring them and/or ignoring the problem. That is not how things work. Not meeting bilaterally is a specific negotiating tactic. Really not talking would be a bad idea. But sometimes there is not much to say “officially” and it is not worth meeting that way.

Posted by: Jack at November 1, 2006 10:10 AM
Comment #192177

Woody Mena,

You wrote:

I don’t see any need to give yourself chest pains. Of COURSE the North Koreans want to talk. They already have their nuke!

All they had to do was bide their time until they had a credible nuclear threat. Now they are holding all the cards.
Their nuke gives me chest pains and yes Bush created a situation where they hold the nuke card. “A nuclear armed NK agree to talks” is the closest thing we are ever going to see to a “Bush victory” - so we better enjoy it - but thanks - I knew that had to be a more accurate way of looking at this.

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 1, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #192181

Trent,

Maybe: “Even a broken clock is correct twice a day”?

NK is a long term and vexing problem for every administration. I don’t trust Bush to derive any value added results from these meetings since their only success has been in sending the Taliban back to the mountains (for now anyway) and replacing Saddaam with car bombs. I just hope Kim doesn’t bomb Japan.

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at November 1, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #192187

North Korea has either misstepped or calculated it now has the advantage it was looking for. Either fear of further sanctions and pissing off China or a sense of “do you believe we have nukes now?”

I hope Bush and Co. are successful for all our sakes (yes, even for the blame Clinton first crowd showing their ugly head here). But regarding North Korea I will believe it when I see it. And remember, this is the same administration that still supports “take a number” Bolton.

Posted by: chris2x at November 1, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #192192

A million monkeys, a million typewriters, a million years…

Posted by: the minutemen at November 1, 2006 10:43 AM
Comment #192206

Ray Guest,

I have noticed that not a single conservative has given you credit for being willing [rightly or not] to admit you were wrong. I have also noticed I have not yet seen a conservative who was willing to do that. Once again, leave it to a liberal to lead by example. Hopefully, some of our conservative friends will learn from this—honesty is respectable.

Posted by: jrb at November 1, 2006 11:22 AM
Comment #192237

jrb

It goes w/o saying. On our blue side, I admit I am wrong with some regularity. (I am not sure it is really such a good thing to be wrong.)

Why is it so important for people to admit they are wrong anyway? It is usually not a black and white situation and you may be partially right. More commonly, conditions change and your original correct decision is now wrong. In that case, I do not think it makes sense to appologize. If you bet me that you can flip an honest coins ten times and come up with heads all ten times, I am correct to take the bet. If you actually manage to do it, I will not admit I was wrong because the original decision was right. I will probably ask to examine the coin, however.

Posted by: Jack at November 1, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #192240

jrb

Sorry. I was wrong. On our RED side.

Posted by: Jack at November 1, 2006 12:22 PM
Comment #192256

Ray Guest…

jrb beat me to it. I was just now reading your post and the replies and was about to write that it takes big hairy brass balls to give credit to such a hated president.

Bush may (or may not…it is yet to be seen) have gone the right route in dealing with N.K. I do know that the exact correct route is to include China with any talks with N.K.

I am cautiously optomistic at this point.

Posted by: Jim T at November 1, 2006 12:45 PM
Comment #192260

Jack,

Being able to admit you are wrong IS important. You are correct, it is not such a good thing to be wrong. This is precisely why it is important to be able to do. To be grown up enough, honest enough, and strong enough to admit fault shows character, leadership, and integrity.

It is usually not a black and white situation and you may be partially right.

True, but then you are also partially wrong too. What is distasteful to me is when many on here [liberal included] keep arguing a point when it has long been clear they are wrong or do not know what they are talking about.

More commonly, conditions change and your original correct decision is now wrong. In that case, I do not think it makes sense to appologize.

If conditions change, and you are now wrong, could it be then said the original decision was never correct as you neglected to accurately predict the path of unfolding events? True appologies don’t often hurt.

If you bet me that you can flip an honest coins ten times and come up with heads all ten times, I am correct to take the bet. If you actually manage to do it, I will not admit I was wrong because the original decision was right. I will probably ask to examine the coin, however.

This argument, used before, is a red herring. You are suggesting there is a right and wrong with respect to statistical probability. We are talking here about facts. The two are very different cases. Thus, I respectfully reject your analogy.

Posted by: jrb at November 1, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #192304

Bush wasn’t right. Bush is never right. China tells N. Korea every move to make. China is in charge. Therefore, you do not have to have talks w/N.Korea only with China.

Posted by: Mark at November 1, 2006 2:24 PM
Comment #192339

Mark,

Yes China is the key to this, just as Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia are the keys to Iraq. But China is afraid of NK, not militarily, not economically, but from a humanitarian stand point. The last China needs is a collapse of the regime in NK that results in millions of starving refugees fleeing to China. So China national interest in propping up NK. They do not want NK to lose or collapse so we need to be involved.

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 1, 2006 3:14 PM
Comment #192372

jrb

I do not disagree with you about being wrong, but there is a bit too much appologizing going on. Conditions do change and nobody can be expected to anticipate all possible conditions. I would apply a kind of reasonable person standard here.

The other problem with admitting mistakes is our legal and political environment. People jump on admissions as failures. I remember the old saying that only losers do not make mistakes because they never try anything. But the cautious can always second guess the bold. A person who succeeds at 100 things and makes one mistake can be seen as worse than the person who tries one thing and makes no mistakes.

We should worry less about who made what mistake than about improving decision making. To do that we have to acknowledge mistakes, but put them into the context of risk and uncertainty. You might be in an environment were the average failure rate is 50%. If you manage only a 25% failure rate, you are probably the best in the class. There would be no reason to appologize, although you may try to learn from the failure.

So we need to go between the two fallacies of claiming never to make mistakes and finding mistakes all the time.

When dealing with N. Korea nobody has ever had much of a success rate if you mean actually predicting their behavior, so success for all is 0%. On the other hand there has not been an actual war since the end of the Korean War in the 1950s, so maybe it is 100% success in a bad environment.

BTW - we have a very successful system of mistake avoidance in industrial safety. We recognize that mistakes will happen. We do blame individuals in any but the most extreme cases of neglegence, but we have a system of penalties and sanctions for everything. It has helped create a predicatable and safer environment.

Posted by: Jack at November 1, 2006 4:30 PM
Comment #192408

Ray,

Maybe you weren’t wrong after all. It looks like it wasn’t the talks that made lil’ Kim come back to the table. He wants access to his money. Look.

Posted by: jrb at November 1, 2006 5:59 PM
Comment #192411

Call me crazy, but I keep seeing the headlines for PRK asking for bank accounts to be unfrozen…

I am a big believer in the “follow the money” theory. Was Bush responsible for gettting that provision put into the resolution? If so, I would think that that may have played a role in getting PRK back to the table.

my $.02

Posted by: b0mbay at November 1, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #192413

Jack,

Thanks for your comments here. I am not sure exactly what you mean by saying that:

When dealing with N. Korea nobody has ever had much of a success rate if you mean actually predicting their behavior, so success for all is 0%.
Clinton was successful in slowing their nuclear program. The Republicans try to make much of the fact that NK cheated. I interpret this as trying to spread the blame by saying that Clinton’s policy was ineffective which is a distraction from the fact that Bush exacerbated the situation and created the current mess. I am sure NK has always cheated. It is a brutal, unstable, dangerous, military dictatorship. Clinton’s policies were at least marginally effective, in slowing their program down through international inspections. It was the beligerant foriegn policy stance of the U.S. under Bush that provoked the current crisis. As a result NK threw the inspectors out and accelerated their program. I believe that the six party talks were the best way to go here. But NK probably has cards up their sleaves. They may give up part of their program and some of their weapons, that is about all that we can hope for at this point. They will keep a few hid in the sock drawer.

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 1, 2006 6:14 PM
Comment #192415

do you all honestly believe that a one sentence phrase “provoked” a nation to embark on a nuclear showdown with the world? Here is a clue…PRK has been trying to assert its dominance for a loooong time now. Someone forgot to mention to Kim Jong Il that the M.A.D. world is over. Arms race is so 80s. Now the world is looking to contain non nuclear states and prevent non nation state groups from obtaining WMDs. Someone please clue this retard that the rest of the world aint gonna put up with his shenanigans, but please oh please don;t throw all the blame at Bush - that is just plain naive.

Posted by: b0mbay at November 1, 2006 6:25 PM
Comment #192419

Eh, a broken clock is only right two times a day.

Posted by: Kurapica at November 1, 2006 6:31 PM
Comment #192423

Sorry, but what is your rational for printing this story today? Even if you believe what you say, why on earth would you say that..today? Wait and see, and if things develop in a positive way, go ahead and pat him on the back (if you must) sometime..oh I don’t know..sometime after the election that determines if our republic will survive or not!

Posted by: keepinon at November 1, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #192439

N. Korea was cheating the whole time. They were just waiting. It is sort of like thinking the gun fight is over because the other guy is reloading. Or maybe it is more like peace in our time.

Posted by: Jack at November 1, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #192460

Okay, I admit that ignoring N. Korea’s original request was probably the smoothest move teh pres. has come up with to date.

This isn’t his fault that N. Korea is acting this way though.

First let me clarify that I am a Clinton support nearly to the bone. Welfare cuts good.

The fact is though the one of two things Clinton did that I lower my head in shame of the very mention is his out right lie in the court and his policy concerning N. Korea.

See N. Korea played this exact same game with the exact same threats and the exact same claims roughly a decade ago.

Clinton (I old my head in shame for the remainder of this text) decided it would be a good idea to give in N. Korea nuclear power in exchange for compliance with various things.

The intent was good and it would have worked had the leader of N. Koera not been a total friggin lunatic, but he is and it didn’t (the shame the shame).

Then Bush tried to right the wrong (because there was no compliance after half a decade) by cutting off what all we were supplying them. (I agree with this tactic, no compliance = no cookie)

Now he has to approach this not as ‘America is the law’, but as ‘we support China’s policy’. If we don’t we will lose this REAL fast.

The thing is N. Korea is to China as Ecuador is to America. We did our best with Ecuador and it turned out at least stable. China did their best with N. Korea and it turned out at least stable (not as so as our Ecuador, whom I am pleased with, but still).

So I wish Bush luck and hope he continues to play the ‘stubborn but humble’ role he needs to.

Posted by: Bryan AJ Kennedy at November 1, 2006 8:01 PM
Comment #192470

Um, before we get too jubilant, note that N. Korea now HAS nukes. Are we really glad that we took this tack? This is a genie that can’t be put back in the bottle (cf. Pakistan & India). Bush’s strategy led directly to this result. He should have continued with more and more engagement to head this off, rather than isolating N. Korea until they actually attained nuclear weapons capability. Wasn’t the possession of such armaments by an unstable, cruel dictator the whole (fake) reason for invading and occupying Iraq? Well, we failed here and you guys are celebrating. Go figure.

Posted by: mental wimp at November 1, 2006 8:13 PM
Comment #192494

Really nothing to get excited about!

They have made Deals in the past only to snub the USA. Just about a year ago the Bush Team led by Rice were getting their photo ops in with the North Koreans after a ‘landmark deal’ which lasted about a week. I will give credit when it is deserved not just because they are going to talk again!

Posted by: Frank at November 1, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #192501

Ray et al: I am more willing to give credit to Creepy Condi. Brilliant but scary. bush probably has lost interest. Too complex and boring,especially when there is gay marriage to worry about. Irony is keeping his nose out of his business is the best we can hope for. I also do not believe he has much confidence in this course or he would be shouting it from the rooftops.Lord knows the Reps need a forign policy win before Nov.7.

Posted by: BillS at November 1, 2006 9:10 PM
Comment #192538

Thanks for your comments all.

keepinon,

I thought about that. This election, like the previous three is important to the survival of our Constitutional representative democratic republic - even to the survival of the human species - global warming may destroy us all… I don’t think that I am doing Bush any favors here. The light never shines so bright as in the darkness. Highlighting the one and only thing that he has right only serves to emphasize all of the other failures and it opens him to criticism from you all - further, I just thought that personal integrity demanded it. If I want people on this site to take my words seriously, then I must take them seriously and call them as I see them.

mental wimp,

Yes, they have nukes the genie is out of the bottle - it isn’t going to grant any wishes - and it isn’t going back in - maybe we can coax it into pretending that it went back in - so this is a Bush failure, but I think that the six party talks are the best hope we have of coaxing the genie to pretend that it went back in the bottle. Why is it important for us to get the genie to at least pretend? Japan cannot and will not tolerate NK having nukes. They have history with Korea and they have history with nukes. Somebody above that “MAD was over” and nobody wants nukes anymore. Wrong. Everybody wants nukes, especially the neighbors and rivals of any new country that gets them. Other than China, Japan is the one country in the region with the economic power to become a serious military rival to us. They do not want to become militaristic, but past history shows that when Japan becomes militaristic, they become very dangerous. Given their history with nukes, Japan is not going to play with nukes. If they were to be provoked into getting nukes, and if they found themselves in a confrontation with the U.S., they might very well go for a knockout punch just like they did at Pearl.

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 1, 2006 10:42 PM
Comment #192548

Ray: Oh,pleeez! Japan already has nukes.They have purchased plutonium from the good ol USA plus enough reactors of their own capable of producing more.Making them is no great secret.The hard part is the industrial capability that the Japanese have in spades. A state secret similar to Isreals. Of course the Japanese nukes are probably more reliable than ours.

Posted by: BillS at November 1, 2006 11:25 PM
Comment #192556

Also seems to me that NK and China maybe playing us like a fiddle.Where are the serious demands that China allow its currency to float or lower its trade barriers to US goods. Next year they will start selling cars here. They will pay a 2% duty while US made cars to China face a 50% tariff.Exactly what are we paying for their cooperation?Acsess to Iraqi oil perhaps?

Posted by: BillS at November 1, 2006 11:44 PM
Comment #192572

BillS,

You wrote:

Of course the Japanese nukes are probably more reliable than ours.
You are goring my ox now… I work for GM and I will have know that our cars rank right up there with Japanese on quality.

I agree. We should be pushing China to let their currency float - among other things - but that is what the Repubs call free trade - or rather - our sociopathic multinational “corporation people” are free to exploit them to screw us - but cheap Chinese products are the opiate for the masses here.

I had not heard that Japan had nukes like Israel. Am I the last one?

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 2, 2006 12:12 AM
Comment #192611

I awakened this morning to Bill Bennett paraphrasing John Carey’s comment about working hard (at Harvard), being smart, doing well and not ending up in Iraq.
It seemed clearly a comment (even half sleep) aimed at the bungling of U.S. policy by the administration and not at the proud soldiers who serve our country faithfully. It’ s a typical campaign ploy (as the Republican machine does well) to incite public opinion by manipulation of thier opponents comments. This shameful “tallking point” is just the way cronies of the adminstration run the country, as in the twisting of WMD’s to saving Iraq citizens from Hussain, and like the premise of stopping terrorism over there before it gets here. There are unmistakenly more terrorists in the world now then in 2001, all due to “smart policy”. Our leaders in the white house should work hard, be smart, then our country would do well. It seems clear to me.

John Carey served his country well in war time, unlike those who made this grossly “elite” policy. How more elite can you be than to send other citizens children into battle for your idea of “world democracy” on a manipulated premise.

I am a decorated Viet Nam era veteran who is insensed by this same tactic again. There is too much at stake for people to be misled again regarding Senator Carey.

Posted by: Bill Dalton at November 2, 2006 6:51 AM
Comment #192661

Bill,

Kerry and Bush both went to Yale not Harvard (just feel the need to defend my alma mater from any association with those two).

Posted by: Harvard Alum at November 2, 2006 11:01 AM
Comment #192664

Ray: I have no evidence that the Japanese have nukes but I consider it unlikely they do not. I read a piece 5-6 years ago about them buying a ship load of plutonium. It is not good for much else. Even if they do not it would be a matter of months,not years, for them to develop some.

I just love the circle logic on trade. We need cheap Chinese goods because we do not have jobs because we need cheap Chinese goods.American workers can compete heads up with anybody in the world but how the hell can we compete with slaves?I was just wondering how much letting China get away with it influenced their level of cooperation on NK.

Posted by: BillS at November 2, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #192675

Bill Dalton,

It is ridiculous. More than a hundred Americans a month dying, an American soldier being held hostage that the Iraqi government won’t even let us look for, and we are talking about Kerry opening his mouth and letting his brains drop out because he doesn’t know how to deliver a joke about THE “clown.”

Posted by: Ray Guest at November 2, 2006 11:31 AM
Comment #192679

BillS,

I am not sure if you heard, but China is attempting some level of reform regarding workers rights there. It is actually large corporations, acting through the US Chamber of Commerce, that are trying to keep this from happening. link.

Posted by: jrb at November 2, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #192706

Pressure from China and Russia influenced N.Korea to return to the 6 party talks, but history should fore warn us negotiating with the N.Koreans is an exercise in futility. In my opinion as the pressure eases they will concoct another crisis enabling them to walk out again

Posted by: oldie opah at November 2, 2006 12:25 PM
Comment #192800

jrb-

I read about those “reforms” in China. We’ll see how successful they are.

What I find most ironic is that whenever a union is successfully created in China, it is created by the company’s management, and its elected leadership is usually the company’s management. People fear electing anyone else. Probably for the exact same reasons they feared unionizing on their own in the first place.

Good reform usually comes from the ground up, not from the top down.

Posted by: Kevin23 at November 2, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #192808

MAD IS over. What I mean by that is, the Arms race escalation by nation states is over. The nuclear super powers have enough nukes to blow up the world several times over. Mutually Assured Destruction as a way to deter nuclear war is over. What we are left with is:

1) Other nation states that want to be in “the club”

2) rogue terrorists aquiring black market nukes.

Iran and PRK are good examples of the first, and Al Quaida and other fundamentalist wackos correlate with the second. The aquisition of nuclear weapons by wither group work to destabalize the world. We know what the motivation of terrorists is (to kill people), and should realize that the motivations of Nation states like Iran and PRK are to be taken a bit more seriously at the global bargaining table. Look at all the “cookies” we have given North Korea just to put a halt to their nuclear advancements. Im sure in Kim Jong Il’s mind, there would be much more reqards to reap should they have a nuclear arsenal. And the problem with PRK having nukes is that we can’t deter them from using them. The good old days of the soviet bear and the US controlling the fate of the world is over.

Posted by: b0mbay at November 2, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #193057

Let the Japanese, Chinese and South Koreans deal with this. If bribery is the answer let their tax payers foot the bill. The onlything North Korea threatens is the huge balance of payments surplus those nations have with the U.S. If they are going to live of the U.S. nipple then let them take care of the idiots in the neighborhood that threaten thier well being.

Posted by: Phil at November 3, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #200795

Has any one wondered how Bush got elected. When CIA Director GHW Bush testified before the Church Committee on the abuses of the CIA, Bush stated that a CIA funded program called Operation Mocking Bird; had spent 300 million dollars to control the media in the United States. The CIA had 3,000 to 4,000 news reporters, journalist, writers, and all other forms of the media on the CIA pay role. The CIA controlled press wrote what every lie the CIA wanted to print. How do you think we got into Vietnam. The CIA controlled press worked with LBJ. They used the media to spy on Americans in Operation choas and other domestic spying programs. They were funded by the CIA. CIA Bush claims that he changed policy to stop the abuses. We all know that the CIA never tells the truth. They have a long history of lying to congress. Operation Mocking Bird was back in the game with another name, working for their old Boss, former President GHW Bush to help his son get elected. Many of the former and current CIA employee’s were on the pay role to elect Gov.GW Bush. President GHW Bush made it his goal to deregulate the media to consoludate the press into the hands of the few like Clear Channel. The owners are a personnel friend of the family. Clear Channel is a tool of the CIA, it seems! They help to protect the Bush family by suppressing all the facts that might hurt his election. The CIA are masters of overthrowing democratic government. It is what they do! They don’t care who the government is! All of these people helped to put Bush’s son into the White House. I have been writing Mr. Bush ever since he became the Govenor of Texas. I have told him from the start that it was his goal to become the President- I said He had an agenda before he became Gov.. I told him that the day he became President he would go to war in any way he could with Iraq! I told him that the war in Iraq was planned before he became Govenor! It boggles my mind that this country could not have seen this coming. Bush is bankrupting this country. His leadership is a direct threat to all social spending and the social security program. He wants to put these dollars in play. Corporation are getting rich off of Bush deficit spending. It is the gold rush by the elite to grab tax-payers dollars that Bush is throwing to the wind. America’s middle class and the poor will have to pay this insane debit that Wall street is taking from this ill-managed war-that does not exist. 9-11 was a criminal act by outlaws of the world who have no government. We were not attacked by a state. We have no right to declare a war on the middle east. We are blowing up a country in Afganistan who’s people live in mud houses that are not worth a $100 bucks that is guared by an army that can not read or write. We are using two million dollar missle to kill these people who lives are worth nothing.. We had only one choice in this matter on 9-11. Bush should have bomb all of thier cities from 40,000 feet for 14 days. He should have then gone before the United Nations and tell them that if 9-11 happens again-Afganistan will not exist. He will finish the job. Its better to be feared than to be loved. Not one soldier would have been killed; not one soldier would have ever sat foot in a muslim country. We would have saved 350 billion dollars.
It is impossible for someone like Bush to become President who has failed at everything in life, who has bankrupted his companies, who has ripped off his shareholders, who has no history of public service, who grew up at 40 after living his entire life selfishly for himself ( that is not a sin). An elistist rich, spoiled kid, who has been pampered all of his life, who has never worked a day in his life; to be the elected mayor of a small town let alone to be President of the United State is a sin. It is an act lunacy! There was an army who was paid to support him from Wall street, Corporate America and the Oil companies. It was not an act of God that put Bush into the White House.It was a well planned long term project. It was the CIA who are saturated in large numbers and employed by the oil compaies, who sit on the the boards of corporations and banks, who are apart of every NSA assets we have in america, they came out in full force to help their old boss and his CIA kid to win the election.
If America has not learned its lesson, it is this. If the best we can do in this country is to elect the son of a former President who is not even dead with all the talent we have in this country, we, as a people, deserve what we get. If this nation elects another Bush for the next 1,000 years, we deserve to die as a people. We will have murdered democracy. This nation was created to destroy the concentration of power in the hands of one man or a family or a collection of people or like the King of England. The regurgitation of the same old people gives us the same old corruptions of ideas. We can not grow as a nation. The apple does not fall far from the tree!

Posted by: matt hood at December 29, 2006 6:04 PM
Post a comment